ON THE RECIPROCAL PRONOUNS,
AND
ON THE RECIPROCAL POWER OF THE
REFLECTIVE VERB.
READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
MARCH 22. 1844.
The present paper is upon the reciprocal pronouns, and upon certain
forms of the verb used in a reciprocal sense. It is considered
that these points of language have not been put forwards with that
prominence and care which their value in the solution of certain
problems in philology requires. Too often the terms Reciprocal and
Reflective have been made synonymous. How far this is true may be
determined by the fact that the middle verbs in the Icelandic language
have been called by so great a philologist as Rask _reciprocal_ instead
of _reflective_. This is equivalent to treating sentences like _we
strike ourselves_, and _we strike each other_, as identical. Yet the
language with which Rask was dealing (the Icelandic) was the one of all
others wherein the difference in question required to be accurately
drawn, and fully pointed out. (See Anvisning till Isländskan, pp. 281,
283.)
In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual
action there are in reality two assertions, viz. the assertion that
A _strikes_ (or _loves_) B, and the assertion that B _strikes_ (or
_loves_) A; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence,
if the expression exactly coincided with the fact signified, there
would always be two propositions. This, however, is not the habit of
language. Hence arises a more compendious form of expression, giving
origin to an ellipsis of a peculiar kind. Phrases like _Eteocles and
Polynices killed each other_ are elliptical for _Eteocles and Polynices
killed_--_each the other_. Here the second proposition expands and
explains the first, whilst the first supplies the verb to the second.
Each, however, is elliptic. The first is without the object, the second
without the verb. That the verb must be in the plural (or dual) number,
that one of the nouns must be in the nominative case, and that the
other must be objective, is self-evident from the structure of the
sentence; such being the conditions of the expression of the idea. An
aposiopesis takes place after a plural verb, and then there follows a
clause wherein the verb is supplied from what went before.
When words equivalent to _each other_ coalesce, and become compound;
it is evident that the composition is of a very peculiar kind. Less,
however, for these matters than for its value in elucidating the origin
of certain deponent verbs does the expression of reciprocal action
merit the notice of the philologist. In the latter part of the paper
it will appear that for one branch of languages, at least, there is
satisfactory evidence of a reflective form having become reciprocal,
and of a reciprocal form having become deponent; this latter word being
the term for those verbs whereof the meaning is active, and the form
passive.
Beginning with those methods of denoting mutual action where the
expression is the least explicit and unequivocal, it appears that in
certain languages the reciprocal character of the verb is implied
rather than expressed. _Each man looked at his brother_--or some
equivalent clause, is the general phraseology of the Semitic languages.
More explicit than this is the use of a single pronoun (personal,
possessive, or reflective) and of some adverb equivalent to the
words _mutually_, _interchangeably_, &c. This is the habit of the
Latin language,--_Eteocles et Polynices invicem se trucidaverunt_:
also of the French, although not invariably, e. g. _s'entr'aimer_,
_s'entredire_, _s'entrebattre_: also of the Mœso-Gothic--galeikái
sind barnam tháim vôpjandam seina _missô_ = ὅμοιοί εἰσι παιδίοις
τοῖς προσφωνούσιν ἀλλήλοις = loquentibus ad invicem.--Luc. vii. 32.
Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 322, and iii. 13. The Welsh expressions are
of this kind; the only difference being that the adverb coalesces
with the verb, as an inseparable particle, and so forms a compound.
These particles are _dym_, _cym_, or _cy_ and _ym_. The former is
compounded of _dy_, signifying _iteration_, and _ym_ denoting _mutual
action_; the latter is the Latin _cum_. Hence the reciprocal power of
these particles is secondary: e. g. _dymborthi_, to aid mutually;
_dymddadlu_, to dispute; _dymgaru_, to love one another; _dymgoddi_,
to vex one another; _dymgredu_, to trust one another, or confide;
_dymguraw_, to strike one another, or fight; _çyçwennys_, to desire
mutually; _cydadnabod_, to know one another; _cydaddawiad_, to promise
mutually; _cydwystlaw_, to pledge; _cydymadrawn_, to converse;
_cydymdaith_, to accompany; _ymadroddi_, to discourse; _ymaddaw_, to
promise; _ymavael_, to struggle; _ymdaeru_, to dispute, &c.
The form, which is at once current, full, and unequivocal, is the one
that occurs in our own, and in the generality of languages. Herein
there are two nouns (generally pronouns), and the construction is of
the kind exhibited above--ἀλλήλους, _each other_, _einander_, _l'un
l'autre_, &c.
Sometimes the two nouns remain separate, each preserving its
independent form. This is the case in most of the languages derived
from the Latin, in several of the Slavonic and Lithuanic dialects, and
in (amongst others) the Old Norse, the Swedish, and the Danish,--l'un
l'autre, French; uno otro, Span.; geden druheho, Bohemian; ieden
drugiego, Polish; wiens wienâ, Lith.; weens ohtru, Lettish; hvert annan
(masc.), hvert annat (neut.) Old Norse. See D. G. iii. 84.
Sometimes the two nouns coalesce, and form words to which it would be
a mere refinement to deny the name of compounds: this is the case with
the Greek--ἀλλήλων, ἀλλήλοις, ἀλλήλους.
Sometimes it is doubtful whether the phrase consist of a compound word
or a pair of words. This occurs where, from the want of inflection,
the form of the first word is the same in composition as it would have
been out of it. Such is the case with our own language: _each-other_,
_one-another_.
Throughout the mass of languages in general the details of the
expression in question coincide; both subject and object are almost
always expressed by pronouns, and these pronouns are much the same
throughout. _One_, or some word equivalent, generally denotes the
subject. _Other_, or some word equivalent, generally denotes the
object, _e. g._ they struck _one another_. The varieties of expression
may be collected from the following sketch:--
1. _a._ The subject is expressed by _one_, or some word equivalent,
in most of the languages derived from the Latin, in several of the
Slavonic dialects, in Lithuanic and Lettish, in Armenian, in German,
in English, and doubtlessly in many other languages--_l'un_ l'autre,
Fr.; _uno_ otro, Sp.; _ieden_ drugiego, Polish; _wiens_ wienâ, Lith.;
_weens_ ohtru, Lett.; _me_ mæants, Armenian; _einander_, Germ.; _one_
another, Engl.
_b._ By _each_, or some equivalent term, in English, Dutch, and the
Scandinavian languages--_each_ other, English; _elkander_, Dutch;
_hver_andre, Icelandic, Danish, Swedish.
_c._ By _this_, or some equivalent term, in Swedish and Danish
(_hin_anden); in Lithuanic (_kitts_ kittâ), and in Lettish (_zitts_
zittu).
_d._ By _other_, or some equivalent term, in Greek and Armenian;
ἁλλήλους, _ir_ærats.
_e._ By _man_, used in an indefinite sense and compounded with _lik_ in
Dutch, _malk_ander (mal-lik manlik).
_f._ By a term equivalent to _mate_ or _fellow_ in Laplandic--_gòim_
gòimeme.--Rask, 'Lappisk Sproglære,' p. 102. Stockfleth, 'Grammatik,'
p. 109.
2. _a._ In the expression of the object the current term is _other_ or
some equivalent word. Of this the use is even more constant than that
of _one_ expressive of the subject--l'un l'_autre_, French; uno _otro_,
Spanish; ἁλλήλους, Greek; geden _druheho_, Bohemian; ieden _drugiego_,
Polish; weens _ohtru_, Lettish; iræ_rats_, Armenian; ein_ander_,
German; each _other_, one an_other_, English.
_b._ In Lithuanic the term in use is _one_; as, wiens _wienâ_. The same
is the case for a second form in the Armenian mi_mœa_n.
_c._ In Laplandic it is denoted in the same as the subject; as gòim
_gòimeme_.
Undoubtedly there are other varieties of this general method of
expression. Upon those already exhibited a few remarks, however, may be
made.
1. In respect to languages like the French, Spanish, &c., where the
two nouns, instead of coalescing, remain separate, each retaining
its inflection, it is clear that they possess a greater amount of
perspicuity; inasmuch as (to say nothing of the distinction of gender)
the subject can be used in the singular number when the mutual action
of two persons (_i. e._ of _one_ upon _another_) is spoken of, and in
the plural when we signify that of more than two; e. g. _ils_ (_i.
e._ A and B) _se battaient_--_l'un l'autre_: but _ils_ (A, B, C and
D,) _se battaient_--_les uns les autres_. This degree of perspicuity
might be attained in English and other allied languages by reducing to
practice the difference between the words _each_ and _one_; in which
case we might say _A and B struck one another_, but _A, B and C struck_
each _other_. In the Scandinavian languages this distinction is real;
where _hin_anden is equivalent to _l'un l'autre_, French; _uno otro_,
Spanish: whilst _hver_andre expresses _les uns les autres_, French;
_unos otros_, Spanish. The same is the case in the Laplandic.--See
Rask's Lappisk Sproglære, p. 102.
2. An analysis of such an expression as _they praise one another's_
(or _each other's_) _conduct_, will show the lax character of certain
forms in the Swedish. Of the two pronouns it is only the latter that
appears in an oblique case, and this necessarily; hence the Swedish
form _hvarsannars_ is illogical. It is precisely what _one's another's_
would be in English, or ἄλλων ἄλλων for ἁλλήλων in Greek. The same
applies to the M. H. G. _einen anderen_. D. G. iii. 83.
3. The term expressive of the object appears in three forms, viz.
preceded by the definite article (l'un _l_'autre), by the indefinite
article (one _an_other), and finally, standing alone (each other,
einander). Of these three forms the first is best suited for expressing
the reciprocal action of two persons (one out of two struck the other);
whilst the second or third is fittest for signifying the reciprocal
action of more than two (one out of many struck, and was struck by,
some other).
The third general method of expressing mutual or reciprocal action is
by the use of some particular form of the verb. In two, and probably
more, of the African languages (the Woloff and Bechuana) this takes
place. In the Turkish there is also a reciprocal form: as _sui-mek_,
to love; _baki-mek_, to look; _sui-sh-mek_, to love one another;
_baki-sh-mek_, to look at one another; _su-il-mek_, to be loved;
_sui-sh-il-mek_, to be loved mutually.--_David's Turkish Grammar._
The fourth form of expression gives the fact alluded to at the
beginning of the paper: viz. an instrument of criticism in
investigating the origin of certain deponent verbs. In all languages
there is a certain number of verbs denoting actions, reciprocal or
mutual to the agents. Such are the words _embrace_, _converse_, _strive
against_, _wrestle_, _fight_, _rival_, _meet_, and several more. There
are also other words where the existence of two parties is essential
to the idea conveyed, and where the notion, if not that of reciprocal
action, is akin to it; viz. _reproach_, _compromise_, _approach_, &c.
Now in certain languages (the Latin and Greek) some of these verbs have
a passive form; _i. e._ they are deponents,--_loquor_, _colloquor_,
_luctor_, _reluctor_, _amplector_, _suavior_, _osculor_, _suspicor_,
Latin: φιλοτιμέομαι, φιλοφρονέομαι, μάχομαι, διαλέγομαι, ἁλέομαι,
διαλύομαι, ἁμείβομαι &c., Greek. Hence arises the hypothesis, that it
is to their reciprocal power on the one hand, and to the connexion
between the passive, reflective and reciprocal forms on the other, that
these verbs owe their deponent character. The fact essential to the
probability of this hypothesis is the connexion between the reflective
forms and the reciprocal ones.
Now for one branch of languages this can be shown most satisfactorily.
In Icelandic the middle voice is formed from the active by the addition
of the reflective pronoun, _mik_, me, _sik_, him or self. Hence it is
known by the terminations _mc_ and _sc_, and by certain modifications
of these affixes, viz. _st_, _s_, _z_, _mz_, _ms_. In the oldest
stage of the language the reflective power of the middle voice, to
the exclusion of a passive sense, is most constant: _e. g. hann var
nafnadr_ = he had the name given him; _hann nefnist_ = he gave as his name,
or named himself. It was only when the origin of the middle form became
indistinct that its sense became either passive or deponent; as it
generally is in the modern tongues of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Now
in the modern Scandinavian languages we have, on the one hand, certain
deponent forms expressive of reciprocal action; whilst on the other
we have, even in the very earliest stages of the Old Norse, middle or
reflective forms used in a reciprocal sense. Of some of these, examples
will be given: but the proof of their sense being reciprocal will
not be equally conclusive in all. Some may perhaps be looked on as
deponents (_ættust_, _beriast_, _skiliast_, _mödast_); whilst others
may be explained away by the assumption of a passive construction
(_fundoz_ = they were found, not they found each other). Whatever may be
the case with the words taken from the middle and modern stages of the
language, this cannot be entertained in regard to the examples drawn
from the oldest Norse composition, the Edda of Sæmund. For this reason
the extracts from thence are marked _Edd. Sæm._, and of these (and
these alone) the writer has attempted to make the list exhaustive. The
translations in Latin and Danish are those of the different editors.