GENERAL REMARKS ON WORDS, ETC.
In old English spelling, we frequently meet with _y_ initial,
where we now use _th_; as in ‘_ye_ manners and _ye_ customs,’ &c.
This error probably arose from the blundering of the copyists, who
mistook one letter for another. Down to the close of the reign of
Edward III., two characters of the Saxon alphabet were in common
use, which we have now rejected; tha (þ) (_th_ hard), and edh
(ð) (_th_ soft). The first of these, (þ), somewhat resembled a
_y_ in shape; and hence the mistake. This is, probably, the true
explanation of the case, as _y_ was, in all these instances, used
where we now have _th_.
Y initial, as indicating a participle or an intensive meaning, has
now become obsolete in English. But it lingered in the language
till the seventeenth century, as may be seen in Milton. ‘In heaven
_y_clept Euphrosyne.’ This is the _ge_ initial of the modern
German, as in ‘_ge_kannt,’ ‘_ge_brochen,’ &c. Our word ‘guess,’
is supposed to be connected with the German ‘gewiss;’ where the
initial _ge_ may be referred to the same source. In comparing
certain German with English words, we may see that this prefix (_g_
or _y_) has, in most cases, fallen off, though in some few words
it still retains its place. The German ‘_G_lück,’ is in English
‘luck,’ and the German ‘_g_leich’ has become with us ‘like.’
Again,’to _g_low’ was, in Saxon, ‘hlowian.’ We retain the _g_ in
‘gleam,’ and ‘glimpse,’ though we lose it in ‘light.’ The same
connection may be observed between the German ‘_g_ern,’ and the
English ‘_y_earn.’
Many are puzzled when to use _ei_ and when _ie_ in the spelling of
certain English words, when these combinations are pronounced as a
long _e_. The rule is, that when a sibilant (_c_ or _s_) precedes,
_ei_ is the right spelling; but that when any other consonant
comes before, _ie_ should be written. Thus, ‘_sei_ze, con_cei_ve,
_cei_ling, de_cei_t,’ &c., must have _ei_; whilst ‘be_lie_ve,
pr_ies_t, _chie_f, re_trie_ve,’ &c., must be spelled _ie_. The word
‘siege’ is an exception; we here adopt the French spelling.
It is generally well known that the prefixes _ante_ and _anti_
have, in English, each a distinct meaning. ‘Ant_e_’ is the Latin
preposition for ‘before.’ It is found in ‘ant_e_date’ (to date
before); ‘ant_e_chamber’ (a waiting-room _before_ another);
‘ant_e_cedent’ (going _before_), &c. ‘Anti’ is originally Greek,
and means ‘against.’ It is found in ‘ant_i_pathy’ (a feeling
_against_); ‘ant_i_dote’ (a medicine given _against_); i.e. as a
preventive. But there is one exception to this explanation; viz.
‘ant_i_cipate.’ ‘Anti,’ in this case, does not mean ‘against,’ but
beforehand. To ‘anticipate’ is to enjoy or suffer prospectively.
The Latin _i_ always becomes an _e_ in French; and vice versâ.
This is considered as an organic law of transformation. The
Latin mih_i_, tib_i_, sib_i_, _i_n, _i_nter, &c., are in
French m_e_, t_e_, s_e_, _e_n, _e_ntre. On the other hand, the
Latin ‘impl_ē_re,’ ‘fall_ĕ_re,’ ‘leg_ĕ_re,’ ‘quaer_ĕ_re,’ and
‘flor_ĕ_re,’ are in French, rempl_i_r, ‘faill_i_r,’ ‘l_i_re,’
‘quér_i_r,’ and ‘fleur_i_r.’ This may be seen in ‘antichambre,’
‘antidater,’ &c.; and the English has, in this one case,
‘anticipate,’ adopted the French form of spelling.
The difference in pronunciation between such words as ‘hōme,’ and
‘sŏme;’ ‘bōne’ and ‘dŏne;’ ‘alōne’ and ‘gŏne,’ depends on their
derivation. In these cases, the long ō corresponds with the modern
German ‘_ei_.’ The German ‘Heim’ is the English ‘hōme.’ ‘Bein’ is
in English bōne; ‘allein,’ ‘alōne,’ &c., whereas the closer sound
of _ŏ_ approaches to a closer sound of _a_ or _o_ in German. Hence,
the root _sam_ (as in _sam_meln), gives the English ‘sŏme.’ ‘Dŏne’
is from ‘gethăn,’ ‘cŏme,’ from ‘kŏmmen,’ &c. From the same cause,
the adverb ‘_so_’ in English has the same long sound as in German;
whereas ‘_tŏ_’ and ‘_dŏ_,’ being from ‘zu’ and ‘thun,’ have a
closer pronunciation.
It is natural to expect that as the genius of a people powerfully
influences the spelling of their common terms, the same cause
should operate in that of their proper names, both of persons and
places. With respect to names of places, there is now and then some
difficulty. The inhabitants of a town or country do not always give
it the name by which it is known to foreigners. An English tourist
who is a novice in continental travel, arrives at a town he has
been accustomed to call ‘_Aix_,’ or ‘Aix-la-Chapelle;’ and he is
not a little puzzled to hear it named ‘_Aachen_.’ It is doubtful
whether many English would recognise the German word; and yet it is
certainly the one used by the Prussians from time immemorial. There
are many other continental towns with whose names we English are,
in general, not familiar; for example, Lüttich (Liège), Regensburg
(Ratisbon), Bruxelles (Brussels), Kiobenhavn (Copenhagen),
Vliessingen (Flushing), Genf (Geneva), &c., &c.
That these differences should exist was but natural in bygone times
when there was so scanty a communication between one country and
another. But nowadays, when one touch of the telegraph ‘should make
the whole world akin,’ and when steamboats and railroads seem to be
literally annihilating both time and space, it is to be regretted
that some one standard form for the spelling of names of places
should not be agreed on, which all should adopt, and which would
be intelligible to the whole civilised world. There appears to be
some probability of the continental states adopting a standard
coin which shall have a universal currency. Why should they not
also determine on one standard form of spelling for the names of
all their towns and districts? The one change would not be more
difficult than the other.
One very striking peculiarity of the English language is the
extraordinary variety of senses in which many of our words,
especially those of Saxon origin, may be used. A curious instance
of this variety may be seen in the case of the verb ‘to get.’ For
example: ‘After I _got_ (received) your letter; I immediately _got_
(mounted) on horseback; and when I _got_ to (reached) Canterbury,
I _got_ (procured) a chaise, and proceeded to town. But, the rain
coming on, I _got_ (caught) such a severe cold, that I could
not _get_ rid of it for some days. When I _got_ home, I _got_
up-stairs, and _got_ to bed immediately; but the next morning
I found I could neither _get_ down stairs, _get_ my breakfast,
nor _get_ out of doors. I was afraid I should never _get_ over
this attack.’ It may be reasonably doubted whether any English
word of Latin or French origin has half so many and such various
significations.
‘_To put_’ is a verb of unsettled derivation; but it has an
endless variety of meanings: and is compounded with almost every
preposition in the language. Latham’s edition of _Johnson’s
Dictionary_ gives about seventy different senses of this one verb,
some of which are as follows: ‘A man _puts by_ money when he
saves it up; or he _puts away_ his wife when he divorces her. An
insurrection may be _put down_; or a man may _put down_ his name as
a subscriber. A tree _puts forth_ leaves, or a man _puts into_ a
lottery. He _puts off_ his clothes, or he _puts off_ a disagreeable
task; he _puts out_ his money at interest; or he _puts out_ the
light when he goes to bed; and he is terribly _put out_ when things
do not go well with him. He can _put together_ his thoughts; but he
cannot _put up_ with an insult. It is unpleasant to be _put upon_;
and sometimes very hard to _put_ things _to rights_.’
The French adverb très (very), is the Latin ‘trans’ (over, or
across.) The prefix ‘trans’ is of frequent use in English as in
‘transfer,’ ‘transfix,’ ‘transform,’ &c. We have adopted the
French ‘très’ in only one word; viz. ‘trespass.’ This signifies
either in a physical or moral sense, ‘to pass a boundary.’ It is
still used in English, chiefly as a term of law.
Some writers on language have objected to the order of words
generally adopted in certain colloquial expressions. They say that
in such phrases as ‘bred and born,’ ‘shoes and stockings,’ ‘coat
and waistcoat,’ &c., we put the cart before the horse. They would
have us say ‘born and bred,’ ‘stockings and shoes,’ &c. Their
argument is, that we should put these words in their _natural_
order, as to time--that as a man must be born before he is bred,
the proper order is ‘born and bred,’ and so on, in all other
cases of this sort. This, however, does not seem to be the right
view of the matter. In these expressions it should be remembered
that whatever comes first to our knowledge, or makes the deepest
impression on the mind, is naturally first uttered. True, a man
must be born before he is bred; but the idea conveyed in ‘bred’ is
first impressed on the mind, and therefore ‘bred and born’ is the
right order. Again, we see the shoes; we can but partially see the
stockings; and this is why the usual order is adopted.
Again: we never say ‘the sciences and arts;’ but always ‘the
arts and sciences.’ There is here, also, a very good reason for
the general practice. It must be remembered that the arts were
practised long before the sciences on which they are built were
discovered. Practice always precedes theory. Language was spoken
before grammars were written; music was played and sung before
the laws of harmony were understood; and therefore, it is but
reasonable that we should put the ‘arts before the sciences.’
It may seem strange that in addressing an audience, the English
always say ‘Ladies and Gentlemen!’ whereas in France we hear,
‘Messieurs et Mesdames,’ and in Germany, ‘Meine Herren und Damen.’
This order may have been adopted at a time when ladies had not
the influence in society which they now possess. We have not the
reputation for gallantry which our continental neighbours enjoy;
and yet, in this instance, we may perhaps set them a lesson of
politeness.
Connected with this subject may be mentioned that doubling of terms
which occurs in our Liturgy so frequently, that it may be regarded
as a characteristic of its style. The compilers of our Church
Service, probably in their anxiety to make the text intelligible
even to the commonest understanding, continually put two nouns or
two verbs together, the second generally explaining the first. In
these cases we shall find one of the terms of French, or Latin,
and the other of Saxon derivation. This seems to have been done
purposely, in order that, if any of the congregation, especially
the less educated, should not understand the one term, he should
catch the meaning of the other. In the early prayers of the
‘Morning Service,’ we have: ‘We _pray_ and _beseech_ thee.’ We also
find ‘We _acknowledge_ and _confess_,’ ‘_sins_ and _wickedness_;’
‘_goodness_ and _mercy_;’ ‘_dissemble_ nor _cloak_;’ ‘_assemble_
and _meet together_;’ ‘_requisite_ and _necessary_;’ ‘_erred_ and
_strayed_;’ ‘_pardoneth_ and _absolveth_,’ and many others.
Certain writers on the English language have strongly objected to
the lately-introduced practice of forming participial adjectives
from nouns; especially in the case of the two words ‘talented’
and ‘gifted.’ As well, say they, might we call a man ‘wisdomed,’
‘geniused,’ or ‘knowledged.’ Coleridge, arguing against the
admission of the word ‘talented’ into English, says: ‘only imagine
other participles so formed, and conceive a man being said to be
‘pennied,’ ‘shillinged,’ and ‘pounded!’ But though we do not yet
use these latter terms, Coleridge seems to have forgotten that we
very commonly speak of a ‘moneyed’ man; and there is very little
doubt that these adjectives have struck too deep root in the
language to be easily eradicated.
The word ‘_reliable_,’ a comparatively late introduction, is
another of those against which the purists have raised a loud
outcry. They argue that as we do not rely a man, but rely _on_ a
man, therefore the word, if used at all, should be ‘reli_on_able,’
and not ‘reliable.’ But here is one of the many cases in which
philosophy must give way to custom; and, in spite of the above
objection, this word is too firmly fixed in the language to
be easily driven out. The real difference between ‘reliable’
and ‘trustworthy’ is, that the former applies more property to
things, such as news, information, &c., and the latter to persons.
A ‘trustworthy’ messenger would probably bring us ‘reliable’
information. But, whatever concession we may make in the case of
‘reliable,’ we should resist, with all our might, the introduction
of ‘reliability.’
Certain laws of transformation are found to operate in the Romance
languages. One of these is, that Latin or Italian words beginning
with _f_ appear in Spanish with an _h_ initial. Thus ‘filius,’
‘figlio’ (a son), is, in Spanish, ‘hijo.’ By the same law the
Latin ‘femina’ (a woman) becomes, in Spanish ‘hembra,’ ‘formosus’
(beautiful) is ‘_h_ermoso,’ ‘Fabulari,’ Italian ‘favellare’ (to
talk) is, in Spanish, ‘hablar.’ ‘Faba’ (a bean) is, in Spanish,
‘haba.’ The Latin ‘Facere,’ Italian ‘fare’ (to do), becomes
‘_h_acer,’ filum (thread) is ‘hilo,’ and folium (a leaf) ‘hoja,’
&c.
The Spanish word ‘hidalgo’ (a nobleman) is a contraction of ‘hijo
d’algo’ (filius alicujus), literally ‘the son of somebody,’ i.e.,
of importance.
It may also be observed that the combination _ct_ in Latin is found
in Italian _tt_ (or _t_), and in Spanish _ch_. This may be seen in
the following cases:--
Lat. Ital. Span.
Fa_ct_us fa_tt_o he_ch_o
San_ct_us san_t_o san_ch_o
Di_ct_us de_tt_o di_ch_o
Dire_ct_us diri_tt_o dere_ch_o
Again, _pl_ in Latin becomes _pi_ in Italian and _ll_ in Spanish,
as in the following:--
Lat. Ital. Span.
_Pl_anus _pi_ano _ll_ano
_Pl_enus _pi_eno _ll_eno
_Pl_uvia _pi_ova _ll_uvia
_Pl_anctus _pi_anto _ll_anto
Affinities also exist between certain letters of the alphabet; and
this relationship may be often seen in words transferred from one
language to another. For example, the labials, or lip-letters, are
frequently interchanged. Many English words beginning with an F are
derived from Latin (or French) words having a _P_ initial. This is
exemplified in the following list:--
Latin. French. German. English.
_P_ater _p_ère _V_ater _f_ather
_P_iscis _p_oisson _F_isch _f_ish
_P_es-pedis _p_ied _F_uss _f_oot
_P_aucus _p_eu -- _f_ew
_P_er _p_our _f_ür _f_or
_P_ellis _p_eau _F_ell _f_ell
_P_ullus _p_oule _V_ogel _f_owl
_P_ugnus _p_oignée _F_aust _f_ist, &c.
Another affinity may be observed between _G_ and _W_. Many French
words beginning with a _G_ guttural represent that letter in
English by a _W_. This may be seen in the following cases:--
French. English.
_g_ages _w_ages
_g_agner _w_in
_G_alles _W_ales
_g_arant _w_arrant
_g_are (be)_w_are
_g_arde _w_ard
_g_arenne _w_arren
_g_âter _w_aste
_G_aultier _W_alter
_g_aufre _w_afer
_g_uède _w_oad
_g_uèpe _w_asp
_g_uerdon (re)_w_ard
_g_uerre _w_ar
_g_uetter _w_ait
_g_ueule _w_ell
_g_uichet _w_icket
_G_uillaume _W_illiam
_g_uise (like)_w_ise
This connection between the _G_ and _W_ may be also seen at the end
of many English compared with German words.
German. English.
Sor_g_e sorro_w_
Fol_g_en follo_w_
mor_g_en morro_w_
bor_g_en borro_w_
bie_g_en bo_w_
heili_g_en hallo_w_
tra_g_en dra_w_
le_g_en la_w_, &c.
A relationship is also to be seen between _C_ guttural and _H_
aspirate. The _C_ hard initial in the Romance languages is
represented in the Teutonic by an _H_. For example:--
Latin. French. German. English.
_c_anis _c_hien _H_und _h_ound
_c_ollis _c_olline _H_ügel _h_ill
_c_entum _c_ent _h_undert _h_undred
_c_or _c_œur _H_erz _h_eart
_c_asa _c_hez _H_aus _h_ouse
_c_ornu _c_or _H_orn _h_orn
_c_annabis _c_hanvre _H_anf _h_emp
_c_arpo -- _H_erbst _h_arvest
_c_alx -- _H_iel _h_eel
_c_utis -- _H_aut _h_ide, &c.
This connection between _c_ (or _k_) and _h_ appears in other
cases. A primitive English word ending in a guttural (_g_ or _k_)
often produces derivatives in which the guttural is softened into
_tch_, as in:--
ma_k_e ma_tch_
wa_k_e wa_tch_
ba_k_e ba_tch_
fla_k_e fli_tch_
wrec_k_ wre_tch_
di_g_ di_tch_
stic_k_ sti_tch_
croo_k_ cru_tch_, &c.
Some of our English pronouns have this ending (_ch_), where it is a
contraction of the word ‘like.’ Thus:--
Scottish. Saxon. English.
who-like whilk hwlyc whi_ch_
all-like ilk ælc ea_ch_
so-like solch (Germ.) swylc su_ch_, &c.
Another phenomenon of a certain class of words is the use of
an initial _s_, to give them an intensive meaning. This may be
observed in the following cases:--
knap snap
lash slash
mash smash
plash splash
quash squash
deep steep
nip snip
rip strip
din stun
pike spike
lack slack
lain slain
lay slay
melt smelt
meet smite
reach stretch
well swell
wipe sweep
light slight
pout spout
hoot shout
rub scrub
tumble stumble
cut scud
A large class of English words beginning with _s_ followed by a
consonant are derived from French, where they are spelled with an
_e_ or _es_ initial; as:--
French. English.
écarlate scarlet
échafaud scaffold
échantillon scantling
écharfe scarf
espace space
étrange strange
escadron squadron
esclave slave
étage stage
état state
étendard standard
espèce species
espion spy
épinard spinach
épine spine
esprit spirit
écrivain scrivener
échorcher scorch
école school
éponge sponge
époux spouse
estomac stomach
étroit strait
According to some French philologists, when the _s_ in any of these
French words is pronounced, it is a sign that the word is of later
introduction.
It may be observed of the letter _h_ (initial) that it is never
mute in Germanic words, and that whenever it is mute in English,
the word is of French derivation.
Thus we have:--
French (mute).
Honneur _h_onour
Héritier _h_eir
Honnête _h_onest
Heure _h_our
Humeur _h_umour
German (aspirate).
hart _h_ard
Herz _h_eart
Heide _h_eath
Hitze _h_eat
Hoffnung _h_ope, &c.
The _h_ initial was prefixed to many Saxon words where it has now
disappeared from the English. This was chiefly before the liquids
_l_, _n_, and _r_.
Saxon. English.
_H_laf loaf
_H_laford lord
_H_rafn raven
_H_lædl ladle
_H_leopan leap
_H_lædan lead
_H_necca neck
_H_nægan neigh
_H_nut nut
_H_lud loud
_H_ring ring
_H_losian lose, &c.
The German _z_ initial often corresponds with the English _t_; as:--
German. English.
zahlen _t_ell
zahm _t_ame
Zahn _t_ooth
zehn _t_en
zerren _t_ear
Zinn _t_in
Zimmer _t_imber
Zeit _t_ide
zu _t_o
Zoll _t_oll
Zunge _t_ongue
Zug _t_ug
Zweig _t_wig
Zwilling _t_win
zwischen (be)_t_ween
zwölf _t_welve, &c.
The German _t_ initial corresponds with the English _d_; as:--
German. English.
_T_ag _d_ay
_T_ändeln _d_andle
_T_anz _d_ance
_T_aub _d_eaf
_T_aube _d_ove
_T_auch _d_uck
_T_eich _d_ough
_T_eufel _d_evil
_T_hal _d_ale
_T_hat _d_eed
_T_hau _d_ew
_T_heil _d_eal
_T_hier _d_eer
_T_hun _d_o, &c.
Some are puzzled when to spell the ending ‘ledge’ and when ‘lege.’
The following rule may be easily remembered:--Monosyllables and the
word ‘acknowle_d_ge’ are spelled with a _d_; therefore ‘le_d_ge,’
‘fle_d_ge,’ ‘ple_d_ge,’ ‘se_d_ge,’ ‘sle_d_ge,’ and ‘acknowle_d_ge’
retain that letter; whereas ‘sacrilege,’ ‘privilege,’ ‘allege,’ and
‘college’ must reject it.
Some years ago, there was a sharp controversy concerning the
spelling of the word--whether it should be ‘_rein_-deer’ or
‘_rain_-deer.’ The dictionaries differed, many even giving both
forms. It was found in Johnson ‘r_a_in-deer,’ which of course
settled the dispute. In spite of this decision, there is no doubt
that the word is generally spelled ‘rein-deer.’ The Saxon form was
‘hr_a_na-deor,’ i.e. ‘the running animal.’
Some lament that we have adopted the French form of the word
‘programme.’ They say that by analogy it ought to be written
‘program.’ We have ‘anagram,’ ‘diagram,’ ‘epigram,’ &c.; and why
not ‘program?’ But the former is now the established spelling; and,
till some daring innovator adopt the new form, and his example be
generally followed, we must be content to use the old one.
A few years ago, a new word was wanted to express ‘a message sent
by the telegraph;’ various forms were suggested, but at last the
word ‘telegram’ was adopted. This was another argument in favour of
‘program.’
The verb ‘to repair,’ in the sense of ‘to make better’ or ‘to
improve,’ is from the Latin ‘reparare,’ through the French
‘réparer;’ but when it means ‘to go back home’ it is from the Latin
‘repatriare,’ to return to your country.
The second syllable in ‘impair’ is in no way connected with the
above. ‘Impair’ is from the French ‘_empirer_,’ ‘to make worse.’