Produced by Colin Bell, Keith Edkins and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they
are listed at the end of the text.
[=a] signifies "a with macron"; [)e] "e with breve"; and so forth.
* * * * *
A HAND-BOOK
OF
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE,
FOR THE USE OF
STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITIES AND
HIGHER CLASSES OF SCHOOLS.
BY
R. G. LATHAM, M.D., F.R.S.,
LATE PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.
NEW-YORK: D. APPLETON & COMPANY, 443 & 445 BROADWAY. M.DCCC.LXIV.
* * * * *
CONTENTS.
* * * * *
PART I.
GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
CHAPTER I.
GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--DATE.
SECTION PAGE
1. English language not British 1
2. Real origin German 1
3. Accredited immigrations and settlements 2
4, 5. Criticism 4, 5
CHAPTER II.
GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--THE GERMANIC AREA OF THE
PARTICULAR GERMANS WHO INTRODUCED IT.--EXTRACT FROM BEDA.
6, 7. Jutes, Angles, and Saxons 6
8, 9. Extract from Beda 6, 7
10-13. Criticism 8-11
14, 15. Angles 11, 12
16. Saxons of Beda 12, 13
17. Anglo-Saxon area 13
18, 19. The Frisians 13, 14
20. Anglo-Saxon area 14
CHAPTER III.
OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA, AND OF THE SO-CALLED OLD SAXON.
21-29. Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon 16, 17
CHAPTER IV.
AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND SCANDINAVIA.
30, 31. Gothic languages 18
32-34. Divisions of the Gothic stock 18
35. Moeso-Gothic 19
36. Old High German 19
37. Low German 19
38. Frisian and Dutch 19
39. Platt-Deutsch 20
40, 41. Comparison 21-23
CHAPTER V.
ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--GERMANIC ELEMENTS.--THE ANGLES.
42. Analysis 24
43-54. Angles--their relations 24-28
55, 56. The Frisians 29, 30
CHAPTER VI.
THE CELTIC STOCK OF LANGUAGES AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE ENGLISH.
57. Branches of the Celtic stock 31
58-60. Structure of Celtic tongues 31-33
61-63. The Picts 33-35
CHAPTER VII.
THE ANGLO-NORMAN, AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLASSICAL STOCK.
64. The classical languages 36
65-67. Latin branch 36-40
68, 69. Norman French 40, 41
PART II.
HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
CHAPTER I.
HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
70. Celtic elements 45
71. Latin of first period 46
72. Anglo-Saxon 47
73. Danish or Norse 47
74. Roman of second period 49
75. Anglo-Norman element 49
76. Indirect Scandinavian elements 50
77. Latin of third period 51
78. Latin of fourth period 51
79. Greek 52
80-82. Tables 53-55
83-90. Miscellaneous elements 55-60
91-94. Hybridism and new words 60-62
95. Historical and logical analysis 63
CHAPTER II.
THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
96. Ancient and modern tongues 64
97. Details 65-68
98. Stages of the English language 68
99. Semi-Saxon 69
100-103. _Old_ English, &c. 70-72
104. Present tendencies 73
PART III.
SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL NATURE AND CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
105. Spelling and speaking 77
106. Sounds and syllables 79
107. Vowels 79
108. Divisions 80
109. Sharp and flat sounds 80
110. Continuous and explosive 80
111. General statements 81
112. The sound of h 81
CHAPTER II.
SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
113. Certain foreign sounds 82
114. System of mutes 82
115. Lenes and aspirates 83
116. Fourfold character of mutes 84
117. Y and w 84
118, 119. Diphthongs 84
120. Compound sounds 85
121. Ng 85
122, 123. Broad, slender; long, short;
dependent, independent vowels 85, 86
124-126. System of sounds 86, 87
CHAPTER III.
OF CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
127. Sharp and flat mutes 88
128. Unstable combinations 89
129. Effect of y 89
130, 131. Double consonants rare 89
132. True aspirates rare 90
CHAPTER IV.
EUPHONY AND THE PERMUTATION OF LETTERS.
133. Euphony 92
134. Permutation 93
CHAPTER V.
ON THE FORMATION OF SYLLABLES.
135. Syllabification 95-97
CHAPTER VI.
ON QUANTITY.
136. Long and short sounds 98
137. Quantity of vowels--of syllables 98
138. Classical and English measurements 99
CHAPTER VII.
ON ACCENT.
139. Place of accents 101
140. Distinctive accents 101
141. Emphasis 102
CHAPTER VIII.
ORTHOGRAPHY.
142. Orthoepy 103
143-146. Principle of an alphabet 103-105
147. Violations of it 105
148. Rules 107
149-151. Details of English 107-109
152. Insufficiency 109
153. Inconsistency 109
154. Erroneousness 110
155. Redundancy 110
156. Unsteadiness 110
157. Other defects 111
158. Historical propriety 113
159. Conventional spelling 113
CHAPTER IX.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.
160-166. Phoenician, Greek, Roman stages 116-124
166-172. Anglo-Saxon alphabet 124-126
173. Anglo-Norman alphabet 126
174. Extract from _Ormulum_ 127
175. Order of alphabet 128
PART IV.
ETYMOLOGY.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY.
176-179. Meaning of term 131-133
CHAPTER II.
ON GENDER.
180. _Boy_ and _girl_ 134
181. _Man-servant_ and _maid-servant_ 134
182, 183. Forms like _genitrix_ 135
184. Forms like _domina_ 136
185-189. Genders in English 136, 137
190-192. _The sun in _his_ glory; the moon
in _her_ wane_ 138
193. Miscellaneous forms 139-142
CHAPTER III.
THE NUMBERS.
194-197. Numbers in English 143, 144
198. Rule 145
199. Remarks 145
200. Addition of -es 146
_Pence_, _alms_, &c. 147
_Mathematics_ 147
201. _Children_ 149
202. Form in -en 150
203. _Men_, _feet_, &c. 150
204. _Brethren_, &c. 150
205. _Houses_ 152
206. _Wives_, &c. 152
CHAPTER IV.
ON THE CASES.
207-211. Nature of cases 154-156
212. Accusatives 156
213. Datives 157
214. Genitives 157
215. Instrumental 158
_All the better_ 158, 159
216. Determination of cases 159
217. Analysis of cases 160
218. Form in -s 160
CHAPTER V.
THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
219, 220. _I_, _we_, _us_, &c. 162
221. _You_ 162
222. _Me_ 163
223-225. Cautions 163, 164
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS
ABSENCE IN ENGLISH.
226. How far found in English 165
CHAPTER VII.
THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, ETC.
227. _He_, _she_, _it_ 166
228. _She_ 166
229. _Her_, _him_, _his_, _its_, &c. 167
230. _Theirs_ 167
231. Table 168
232. _These_ 169
233. _Those_ 171
CHAPTER VIII.
THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS.
234. _Who_, _what_, &c. 173
235. _Same_, &c. 173
236. _Other_, _whether_ 177
CHAPTER IX.
ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER.
237-239. Idea expressed by -er 179-181
CHAPTER X.
THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.
240. Form in -s 182
241. _Elder_, &c. 183
242. _Rather_ 183
243, 244. Excess of expression 183
245-247. _Better_ 183-185
248. _Worse_ 185
249. _More_ 185
250. _Less_ 185
251-253. _Near_, &c. 186
254. Origin of superlative 186
CHAPTER XI.
THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE.
255, 256. _Former_ 188
257. _Nearest_ 188
258. _Next_ 188
259, 260. _Upmost_, &c. 189, 190
CHAPTER XII.
THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.
261. How far undeclined 191
CHAPTER XIII.
THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.
262-264. _Seven_, _nine_, _ten_ 192
265, 266. _Thirteen_, _thirty_ 193
CHAPTER XIV.
THE ARTICLES.
267. _A_, _an_, _the_ 194
CHAPTER XV.
DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS.
268-270. Diminutives 197-199
271. Augmentatives 200
272. Patronymics 200, 201
CHAPTER XVI.
GENTILE FORMS.
273. _Wales_ 202
CHAPTER XVII.
ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE
INFINITIVE MOOD.
274-281. The verb, how far a noun 203-206
CHAPTER XVIII.
ON DERIVED VERBS.
282. Divisions of verbs 207
282. Derivation 208, 209
CHAPTER XIX.
ON THE PERSONS.
283. Persons in English 210
284, 285. Historical view 211
286. Form in -t 212
287. _Thou spakest_, &c. 212
288. _We loves_ 213
CHAPTER XX.
ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS.
289. Numbers in English 214
290. _Ran_, _run_, &c. 215
CHAPTER XXI.
ON MOODS.
291-292. Moods in English 216
CHAPTER XXII.
ON TENSES IN GENERAL.
293. _Strike_, _struck_ 217
294-296. [Greek: Etupton], &c. 217, 218
297. Reduplication 219
298. _Weak_ or _strong_ 220
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE STRONG TENSES.
299. _Sing_, _sang_, _sung_ 221
300-303. Tables 222-225
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE WEAK TENSES.
304. _Stabbed_, &c. 226
305-307. Divisions 227, 228
309. _Bought_, _sought_ 228
309. Forms in -te and -ode 229
310-312. _Bred_, _beat_, &c. 230
313. _Leave_, _left_ 231
314. _Made_, _had_ 231
314. _Would_, _should_, _could_ 231
315. _Aught_ 231
316. _Durst_, _must_, &c. 232
317. _This will do_ 233
318. _Mind_ 234
319. _Yode_ 234
320. _Did_ 234
CHAPTER XXV.
ON CONJUGATION.
321, 322. Weak and strong conjugations natural
235-237
CHAPTER XXVI.
DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY.
323-325. Irregularity 238
326. Vital and obsolete processes 240
327. Processes of necessity, &c. 241
328. Ordinary processes 241
329. Positive 242
330. Normal 242
331. _Could_ 243
332. _Quoth_ 244
333. Real irregular verbs few 244
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE IMPERSONAL VERBS.
334, 335. _Me-seems_, _me-listeth_ 246
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.
336. Not irregular 247
337. _Was_ 247
338-341. _Be_ 248, 249
342. _An_ 249
343. _Worth_ 250
CHAPTER XXIX.
THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE.
344. Forms in -ing 251
345. Forms in -ung 252
CHAPTER XXX.
THE PAST PARTICIPLE.
346. Forms in -en 254
347, 348. _Drunken_ 254
349. _Forlorn_ 255
350. Forms in -ed 255
351. The prefix Y 256
CHAPTER XXXI.
COMPOSITION.
352-357. Nature of compounds 258-261
358-361. Accent 261-266
362. Obscure compounds 266
363-365. Exceptions 266, 267, 268
366. _Peacock_, _peahen_ 269
367. _Nightingale_ 269
368. Improper compounds 270
369. Decomposites 270
370. Combinations 270, 271
CHAPTER XXXII.
ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION.
371-373. Their nature 272-275
CHAPTER XXXIII.
ADVERBS.
374, 375. Their division 276
376-379. Adverbs of deflection 277
380. _Darkling_ 278
CHAPTER XXXIV.
ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE.
381-384. _Hither_, _thither_, &c 279
385. _Hence_, &c. 280
386. _Yonder_ 280
387. _Anon_ 281
CHAPTER XXXV.
ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN.
388, 389. Their origin 282
CHAPTER XXXVI.
PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS.
390. Prepositions 283
391. Conjunctions 283
392. _Yes_, _No_ 283
393. Particles 283
CHAPTER XXXVII.
ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS _mine_ AND _thine_.
394-407. Equivalent to _meus_ and _tuus_, rather than possessive
cases 284-290
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRÆTERITE.
408. Grimm's view 291
409, 410. Remarks of Dr. Trithen 291-293
PART V.
SYNTAX.
CHAPTER I.
ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.
411, 412. Syntax 294
413. Personification 294
414. Ellipsis 295
415. Pleonasm 295
416. Zeugma 295
417. _Pros to semainomenon_ 296
418. Apposition 296
419. Collectiveness 297
420. Reduction 297
421. Determination of part of speech 298
422-424. Convertibility 298, 299
425. _The Blacks of Africa_ 299
426. _None of your ifs_ 300
427. Convertible words numerous in English 300
CHAPTER II.
SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES.
428. _Rundell and Bridge's_ 301
429. _Right and left_ 301
CHAPTER III.
SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES.
430. Pleonasm 302
431. Collocation 302
432. Government 302
433. _More wise_, _wiser_ 303
434. _The _better_ of the two_ 304
435. Syntax of adjectives simple 304
CHAPTER IV.
SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS.
436. Pleonasm 305
437. _Father's_, not _father his_ 305
438. Pleonasm and ellipses allied 306
CHAPTER V.
THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
439. _Pronomen reverentiæ_ 307
440. _Dativus ethicus_ 307
441. Reflected pronoun 307
442. Reflected neuters 308
443. Equivocal reflective 308
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND THE PRONOUNS OF THE
THIRD PERSON.
444, 445. _His_ and _its_ 310, 311
CHAPTER VII.
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD _self_.
446, 447. _Myself_, _himself_, &c. 312, 313
CHAPTER VIII.
ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
448-451. _My_ and _mine_ 314-316
CHAPTER IX.
THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
452-456. Their concord 317, 318
457. Ellipsis 318
458. Equivocal antecedent 319
CHAPTER X.
ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN.
459, 460. Direct and oblique questions 320
CHAPTER XI.
THE RECIPROCAL PRONOUNS.
461, 462. Their construction 322, 323
CHAPTER XII.
THE INDETERMINATE PRONOUNS.
463-466. Use of _it_ 324, 325
467, 468. Use of _them_ 325
CHAPTER XX.
ON THE TENSES.
486. Present 342
486, 487. Preterite 342
CHAPTER XXI.
SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS.
488, 489. Their concord 344
CHAPTER XXII.
ON THE VOICES OF VERBS.
490. _Hight_ 345
CHAPTER XXIII.
ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS.
491. Their classification 346-348
492. _I have ridden_ 348
493. _I am to speak_ 351
494. _I am to blame_ 351
495. _I am beaten_ 351
CHAPTER XXIV.
OF ADVERBS.
496, 497. Their syntax simple 353
498. Termination -ly 354
499. _To walk and ride_ 354
500. _From whence_, &c. 354, 355
CHAPTER XXV.
ON PREPOSITIONS.
501. _Climb up a tree_ 356
502. _Part of the body_ 356
CHAPTER XXVI.
ON CONJUNCTIONS.
503, 504. Their nature 357-359
505. Their government 359
506-511. The subjunctive mood 359-364
512. Use of _that_ 364
513. Succession of tenses 364
514. Disjunctives 365
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE.
515. Its place 366
516. Its distribution 366
517. Two negatives 367
518. Questions of appeal 367
CHAPTER XXVIII.
ON THE CASE ABSOLUTE.
519. Its participial character 369
PART VI.
PROSODY.
520. Derivation of the word 371
521, 522. Importance of accent 371
523-526. Measures 372, 373
527. Metrical notation 374
528-535. Rhyme 374-377
536. Blank verse 377
537, 538. Last syllable indifferent 378
539, 540. Names of common English metres 379-384
PART VII.
DIALECTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
541. Saxons and Angles 385
542-544. Dialects not coincident 385, 386
545, 546. Traces of the Danes 386, 387
547 Mercian origin of the written English 387
NOTES 393
* * * * *
AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE STUDY OF
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
* * * * *
PART I.
GENERAL ETHNOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
* * * * *
CHAPTER I.
GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--DATE.
§ 1. The first point to be remembered in the history of the English
language, is that it was not the primitive and original tongue of any of
the British Islands, nor yet of any portion of them. Indeed, of the _whole_
of Great Britain it is not the language at the present moment. Welsh is
spoken in Wales, Manks in the Isle of Man, and Scotch Gaelic in the
Highlands of Scotland; besides which there is the Irish Gaelic in Ireland.
§ 2. The next point to be considered is the real origin and the real
affinities of the English language.
Its _real_ origin is on the continent of Europe, and its _real_ affinities
are with certain languages there spoken. To speak more specifically, the
native country of the English language is _Germany_; and the _Germanic_
languages are those that are the most closely connected with our own. In
Germany, languages and dialects allied to each other and allied to the
mother-tongue of the English have been spoken from times anterior to
history; and these, for most purposes of philology, may be considered as
the aboriginal languages and dialects of that country.
§ 3. _Accredited details of the different immigrations from Germany into
Britain._--Until lately the details of the different Germanic invasions of
England, both in respect to the particular tribes by which they were made,
and the order in which they succeeded each other, were received with but
little doubt, and as little criticism.
Respecting the tribes by which they were made, the current opinion was,
that they were chiefly, if not exclusively, those of the Jutes, the Saxons,
and the Angles.
The particular chieftains that headed each descent were also supposed to be
known, as well as the different localities upon which they descended.[1]
These were as follows:--
_First settlement of invaders from Germany._--The account of this gives us
A.D. 449 for the first permanent Germanic tribes settled in Britain.
Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet, was the spot where they landed; and the
particular name that these tribes gave themselves was that of _Jutes_.
Their leaders were Hengist and Horsa. Six years after their landing they
had established the kingdom of Kent; so that the county of Kent was the
first district where the original British was superseded by the
mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Germany.
_Second settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 477 invaders from
Northern Germany made the second permanent settlement in Britain. The coast
of Sussex was the spot whereon they landed. The particular name that these
tribes gave themselves was that of _Saxons_. Their leader was Ella. They
established the kingdom of the South Saxons (Sussex or Suð-Seaxe); so that
the county of Sussex was the second district where the original British was
superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from
Germany.
_Third settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 495 invaders from
Northern Germany made the third permanent settlement in Britain. The coast
of Hampshire was the spot whereon they landed. Like the invaders last
mentioned, these tribes were Saxons. Their leader was Cerdic. They
established the kingdom of the West Saxons (Wessex or West-Seaxe); so that
the county of Hants was the third district where the original British was
superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from
Germany.
_Fourth settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 530, certain Saxons
landed in Essex, so that the county of Essex [East-Seaxe] was the fourth
district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of
the present English, introduced from Northern Germany.
_Fifth settlement of invaders from Germany._--These were _Angles_ in
Norfolk and Suffolk. The precise date of this settlement is not known. The
fifth district where the original British was superseded by the
mother-tongue of the present English was the counties of Norfolk and
Suffolk; the particular dialect introduced being that of the _Angles_.
_Sixth settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 547 invaders from
Northern Germany made the sixth permanent settlement in Britain. The
southeastern counties of Scotland, between the rivers Tweed and Forth, were
the districts where they landed. They were of the tribe of the Angles, and
their leader was Ida. The south-eastern parts of Scotland constituted the
sixth district where the original British was superseded by the
mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Northern Germany,
§ 4. It would be satisfactory if these details rested upon contemporary
evidence. This, however, is far from being the case.
1. _The evidence to the details just given, is not historical, but
traditional._--a. Beda,[2] from whom it is chiefly taken, wrote nearly 300
years after the supposed event, i.e., the landing of Hengist and Horsa, in
A.D. 449.
b. The nearest approach to a contemporary author is Gildas,[3] and _he_
wrote full 100 years after it.
2. _The account of Hengist's and Horsa's landing, has elements which are
fictional rather than historical_--a. Thus "when we find Hengist and Horsa
approaching the coasts of Kent in three keels, and Ælli effecting a landing
in Sussex with the same number, we are reminded of the Gothic tradition
which carries a migration of Ostrogoths,[4] Visigoths, and Gepidæ, also in
three vessels, to the mouth of the Vistula."--Kemble, "Saxons in England."
b. The murder of the British chieftains by Hengist is told _totidem
verbis_, by Widukind[5] and others, of the Old Saxons in Thuringia.
c. Geoffry of Monmouth[6] relates also, how "Hengist obtained from the
Britons as much land as could be enclosed by an ox-hide; then, cutting the
hide into thongs, enclosed a much larger space than the granters intended,
on which he erected Thong Castle--a tale too familiar to need illustration,
and which runs throughout the mythus of many nations. Among the Old Saxons,
the tradition is in reality the same, though recorded with a slight variety
of detail. In their story, a lapfull of earth is purchased at a dear rate
from a Thuringian; the companions of the Saxon jeer him for his imprudent
bargain; but he sows the purchased earth upon a large space of ground,
which he claims, and, by the aid of his comrades, ultimately wrests it from
the Thuringians."--Kemble, "Saxons in England."
3. _There is direct evidence in favour of their having been German tribes
in England anterior to_ A.D. 447.--a. At the close of the Marcomannic
war,[7] Marcus Antoninus transplanted a number of Germans into Britain.
b. Alemannic auxiliaries served along with Roman legions under
Valentinian.[8]
c. _The Notitia utriusque Imperii_,[9] of which the latest date is half a
century earlier than the epoch of Hengist, mentions, as an officer of
state, the _Comes littoris Saxonici per Britannias_; his government
extending along the coast from Portsmouth to the Wash.
§ 5. _Inference._--As it is nearly certain, that 449 A.D. is _not_ the date
of the first introduction of German tribes into Britain, we must consider
that the displacement of the original British began at an _earlier_ period
than the one usually admitted, and, consequently, that it was more
_gradual_ than is usually supposed.
Perhaps, if we substitute the middle of the _fourth_, instead of the middle
of the _fifth_ century, as the epoch of the Germanic immigrations into
Britain, we shall not be far from the truth.
* * * * *
CHAPTER II.
GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--THE GERMANIC AREA OF THE
PARTICULAR GERMANS WHO INTRODUCED IT.--EXTRACT FROM BEDA.
§ 6. Out of the numerous tribes and nations of Germany, _three_ have been
more especially mentioned as the chief, if not the exclusive, sources of
the present English population of Great Britain. These are the _Jutes_, the
_Saxons_, and the _Angles_.
§ 7. Now, it is by no means certain that this was the case. On the
contrary, good reasons can be given for believing that the Angles and
Saxons were the same people, and that no such nation as the _Jutes_ ever
left Germany to settle in Great Britain.
§ 8. The chief authority for the division of the German invaders into the
three nations just mentioned is Beda; and the chief text is the following
extract from his "Ecclesiastical History." It requires particular
attention, and will form the basis of much criticism, and frequently be
referred to.
"Advenerunt autem de tribus Germaniæ populis fortioribus, id est Saxonibus,
Anglis, Jutis. De Jutarum origine sunt Cantuarii, et Victuarii, hoc est ea
gens quæ Vectam tenet insulam et ea quæ usque hodie in provincia
Occidentalium Saxonum Jutarum natio nominatur, posita contra ipsam insulam
Vectam. De Saxonibus, id est, ea regione quæ nunc Antiquorum Saxonum
cognominatur, venere Orientales Saxones, Meridiani Saxones, Occidui
Saxones. Porro de Anglis hoc est de illa patria quæ Angulus dicitur, et ab
illo tempore usque hodie manere desertus inter provincias Jutarum et
Saxonum perhibetur, Orientales Angli, Mediterranei Angli, Merci, tota
Northanhymbrorum progenies, id est illarum gentium quæ ad Boream Humbri
fluminis inhabitant, cæterique Anglorum populi sunt orti"--"Historia
Ecclesiastica," i. 15.
§ 9. This was written about A.D. 731, 131 years after the introduction of
Christianity, and nearly 300 after the supposed landing of Hengist and
Horsa in A.D. 449.
It is the first passage which contains the names of either the _Angles_ or
the _Jutes_. Gildas, who wrote more than 150 years earlier, mentions only
the _Saxons_--"ferocissimi illi nefandi nominis _Saxones_."
It is, also, the passage which all subsequent writers have either
translated or adopted. Thus it re-appears in Alfred, and again in the Saxon
Chronicle.[10]
"Of Jotum comon Cantware and Wihtware, þæt is seo mæiað þe nú eardaþ on
Wiht, and þæt cynn on West-Sexum ðe man gyt hæt Iútnacyun. Of
Eald-Seaxum comon Eást-Seaxan, and Suð-Seaxan and West-Seaxan. Of Angle
comon (se á siððan stód westig betwix Iútum and Seaxum) Eást-Engle,
Middel-Angle, Mearce, and ealle Norðymbra."
From the Jutes came the inhabitants of Kent and of Wight, that is, the
race that now dwells in Wight, and that tribe amongst the West-Saxons
which is yet called the Jute tribe. From the Old-Saxons came the
East-Saxons, and South-Saxons, and West-Saxons. From the Angles, land
(which has since always stood waste betwixt the Jutes and Saxons) came
the East-Angles, Middle-Angles, Mercians, and all the Northumbrians.
§ 10. A portion of these extracts will now be submitted to criticism; that
portion being the statement concerning the _Jutes_.
The words _usque hodie--Jutarum natio nominatur_ constitute contemporary
and unexceptionable evidence to the existence of a people with a name like
that of the _Jutes_ in the time of Beda--or A.D. 731.
The exact name is not so certain. The term _Jutnacyn_ from the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle is in favour of the notion that it began with the sounds of j and
u, in other words that it was _Jut_.
But the term _Geatum_, which we find in Alfred, favours the form in g
followed by ea.
Thirdly, the forms _Wihtware_, and _Wihttan_, suggest the likelihood of the
name being _Wiht_.
Lastly, there is a passage in Asserius[11] which gives us the form
_Gwith_--"Mater" (of Alfred the Great) "quoque ejusdem Osburgh nominabatur,
religiosa nimium foemina, nobilis ingenio, nobilis et genere; quæ erat
filia Oslac famosi pincernæ Æthelwulf regis; qui Oslac Gothus erat natione,
ortus enim erat de Gothis et Jutis; de semine scilicet Stuf et Wihtgur,
duorum fratrum et etiam comitum, qui acceptâ potestate Vectis insulæ ab
avunculo suo Cerdic rege et Cynric filio suo, consobrino eorum, paucos
Britones ejusdem insulæ accolas, quos in eâ invenire potuerant, in loco qui
dicitur, _Gwithgaraburgh_ occiderunt, cæteri enim accolæ ejusdem insulæ
ante sunt occisi aut exules aufugerant."--Asserius, "De Gestis Alfredi
Regis."
Now, _Gwith-gara-burgh_ means the _burg_ or _town of_ the _With-ware_;[12]
these being, undoubtedly, no Germans at all, but the native Britons of the
Isle of Wight (Vectis), whose designation in Latin would be _Vecticolæ_ or
_Vectienses_.
This being the case, how can they be descended from German or Danish
_Jutes_? and how can we reconcile the statement of Beda with that of Asser?
§ 11. The answer to this will be given after another fact has been
considered.
Precisely the same confusion between the sounds of w, j, g, io, eæ, u, and
i, which occurs with the so-called _Jutes_ of the Isle of Wight, occurs
with the Jutlanders of the peninsula of Jutland. The common forms are
_Jutland_, _Jute_, _Jutones_, and _Jutenses_, but they are not the only
ones. In A.D. 952, we find "Dania cismarina quam _Vitland_ incolæ
appellant."--"Annales Saxonici."[13]
§ 12. Putting these facts together I adopt the evidence of Asser as to the
_Gwithware_ being British, and consider them as simple _Vecti-colæ_, or
inhabitants of the Isle of _Wight_. They are also the _Vectuarii_ of Beda,
the _Wihtware_ of the Saxon Chronicle, and the _Wihtsætan_ of Alfred.
The Jutes of Hampshire--i.e., the "Jutarum natio--posita contra ipsam
insulam Vectam," and the _Jutnacyn_, I consider to have been the same;
except that they had left the Isle of Wight to settle on the opposite
coast; probably flying before their German conquerors, in which case they
would be the _exules_ of Asser.
The statement of Beda, so opposed to that of Asser, I explain by supposing
that it arose out of an inaccurate inference drawn from the similarity of
the names of the Isle of Wight and the peninsula of Jutland, since we have
seen that in both cases, there was a similar confusion between the
syllables Jut- and Vit-. This is an error into which even a careful writer
might fall. That Beda had no authentic historical accounts of the conquest
of Britain, we know from his own statements in the Preface to his
Ecclesiastical History,[14] and that he partially tried to make up for the
want of them by inference is exceedingly likely. If so, what would be more
natural than for him to conclude that Jutes as well as Angles helped to
subdue the country. The fact itself was probable; besides which he saw at
one and the same time, in England _Vitæ_ (called also _Jutæ_), in immediate
contact with _Saxons_,[26] and on the continent _Jutæ_ (called also _Vitæ_)
in the neighborhood of Angles[27] and Saxons. Is it surprising that he
should connect them?
§ 13. If the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight were really _Jutes_ from
_Jutland_, it is strange that there should be no traces of the difference
which existed, then as now, between them and the proper Anglo-Saxons--a
difference which was neither inconsiderable nor of a fleeting nature.
The present Jutlanders are not Germans but Danes, and the Jutes of the time
of Beda were most probably the same. Those of the 11th century were
_certainly_ so, "Primi ad ostium Baltici Sinus in australi ripa versus nos
_Dani, quos Juthas appellant_, usque ad Sliam lacum habitant." Adamus
Bremensis,[15] "De Situ Daniæ" c. 221. Also, "Et prima pars Daniæ, quæ
Jutland dicitur, ad Egdoram[28] in Boream longitudine pretenditur ... in
eum angulum qui Windila dicitur, ubi Jutland finem habet," c. 208.
At the time of Beda they must, according to the received traditions, have
been nearly 300 years in possession of the Isle of Wight, a locality as
favourable for the preservation of their peculiar manners and customs as
any in Great Britain, and a locality wherein we have no evidence of their
ever having been disturbed. Nevertheless, neither trace nor shadow of a
trace, either in early or modern times, has ever been discovered of their
separate nationality and language; a fact which stands in remarkable
contrast with the very numerous traces which the Danes of the 9th and 10th
century left behind them as evidence of their occupancy.
§ 14. The words _England_ and _English_ are derived from the _Angles_ of
Beda. The words _Sussex_, _Essex_, _Middlesex_ and _Wessex_, from his
_Saxons_. No objection lies against this; indeed to deny that populations
called _Angle_ and _Saxon_ occupied _England_ and spoke the _Anglo-Saxon_
language would display an unnecessary and unhealthy scepticism. The real
question concerning these two words consists in the relation which the
populations to which they were applied bore to each other. And this
question is a difficult one. Did the Angles speak one language, whilst the
Saxons spoke another? or did they both speak dialects of the same tongue?
Were these dialects slightly or widely different? Can we find traces of the
difference in any of the present provincial dialects? Are the idioms of one
country of Angle, whilst those of another are of Saxon origin? Was the
Angle more like the Danish language, whilst the Saxon approached the Dutch?
None of these questions can be answered at present. They have, however,
been asked for the sake of exhibiting the nature of the subject.
§ 15. The extract from Beda requires further remarks.
_The Angles of Beda._--The statement of Beda respecting the Angles, like
his statement concerning the Jutes, reappears in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
and in Alfred.
Ethelweard[16] also adopts it:--"_Anglia vetus_ sita est inter Saxones et
Giotos, habens oppidum capitale quod sermone Saxonico _Sleswic_ nuncupatur,
secundum vero Danos _Hathaby_."
Nevertheless, it is exceptionable and unsatisfactory; and like the previous
one, in all probability, an incorrect inference founded upon the
misinterpretation of a name.
In the eighth century there _was_, and at the present moment there _is_, a
portion of the duchy of Sleswick called _Anglen_ or _the corner_. It is
really what its name denotes, a triangle of irregular shape, formed by the
Slie, the firth of Flensborg, and a line drawn from Flensborg to Sleswick.
It is just as Danish as the rest of the peninsula, and cannot be shown to
have been occupied by a Germanic population at all. Its area is less than
that of the county of Rutland, and by no means likely to have supplied such
a population as that of the Angles of England. The fact of its being a
desert at the time of Beda is credible; since it formed a sort of _March_
or _Debatable Ground_ between the Saxons and Slavonians of Holstein, and
the Danes of Jutland.
Now if we suppose that the real Angles of Germany were either so reduced in
numbers as to have become an obscure tribe, or so incorporated with other
populations as to have lost their independent existence, we can easily see
how the similarity of name, combined with the geographical contiguity of
Anglen to the Saxon frontier, might mislead even so good a writer as Beda,
into the notion that he had found the country of the _Angles_ in the
_Angulus_ (Anglen) of Sleswick.
The true _Angles_ were the descendants of the _Angli_ of Tacitus. Who these
were will be investigated in §§ 47-54.
§ 16. _The Saxons of Beda._--The Saxons of Beda reached from the country of
the Old Saxons[29] on the Lippe, in Westphalia, to that of the
Nordalbingian[30] Saxons between the Elbe and Eyder; and nearly, but not
quite, coincided with the present countries of Hanover, Oldenburg,
Westphalia, and part of Holstein. This we may call the _Saxon_, or (as
reasons will be given for considering that it nearly coincided with the
country of the Angles) the _Anglo-Saxon_ area.
§ 17. _River-system and sea-board of the Anglo-Saxon area._--As the
invasion of England took place by sea, we must expect to find in the
invaders a maritime population. This leads to the consideration of the
physical character of that part of Germany which they occupied. And here
comes a remarkable and unexpected fact. The line of coast between the Rhine
and Elbe, the line which in reasoning _a priori_, we should fix upon as the
most likely tract for the bold seamen who wrested so large an island as
Great Britain from its original occupants (changing it from _Britain_ to
_England_), to have proceeded from, is _not_ the country of the
Anglo-Saxons. On the contrary, it is the country of a similar but different
section of the Germanic population, a section which has not received the
attention from the English historian which it deserves. The country in
question is the area of--
§ 18. _The Frisians._--At the present moment the language of the Dutch
province of Friesland is materially different from that of the other parts
of the kingdom of Holland. In other words it is not Dutch. Neither is it
German--although, of course, it resembles both languages. On the other
hand, it is more like the English than any other language or dialect in
Germany is.
It is a language of considerable antiquity, and although at present it is
spoken by the country-people only, it possesses a considerable literature.
There is the _Middle_ Frisian of Gysbert Japicx,[17] and the _Old_ Frisian
of the Frisian Laws.[18] The older the specimen of the Frisian language
the more closely does it show its affinity to the English; hence the
earliest Frisian and the Anglo-Saxon are exceedingly alike. Nevertheless
they differ.
§ 19. The Frisian was once spoken over a far greater area than at present.
It was the original language of almost all Holland. It was the language of
East Friesland to a late period. It was, probably, the language of the
ancient Chauci. At the present time (besides Friesland) it survives in
Heligoland, in the islands between the Ems and Weser, in part of Sleswick,
and in a few localities in Oldenburg and Westphalia.
Hence it is probable that the original Frisian, extending to an uncertain
and irregular distance inland, lay between the Saxons and the sea, and
stretched from the Zuyder Zee to the Elbe; a fact which would leave to the
latter nation the lower Elbe and the Weser as their water-system: the
extent to which they were in direct contact with the ocean being less than
we are prepared to expect from their subsequent history.
On the other hand the _a priori_ probabilities of there being Frisians as
well as Anglo-Saxons amongst the conquerors of Great Britain are
considerable.--See §§ 55, 56.
§ 20. The Anglo-Saxon area coincided--
1. _Politically._--With the kingdom of Hanover, the duchy of Oldenburg, and
parts of Westphalia and Holstein.
2. _Physically._--With the basin of the Weser.
It was _certainly_ from the Anglo-Saxon, and _probably_ from a part of the
Frisian area that Great Britain was first invaded.
This is as much as it is safe to say at present. The preceding chapter
investigated the _date_ of the Germanic migration into Britain; the present
has determined the _area_ from which it went forth.
* * * * *
CHAPTER III.
OF THE DIALECTS OF THE SAXON AREA, AND OF THE SO-CALLED OLD SAXON.
§ 21. The area occupied by the Saxons of Germany has been investigated; and
it now remains to ask, how far the language of the occupants was absolutely
identical throughout, or how far it fell into dialects or sub-dialects.
There were at least _two_ divisions of the Saxon; (1st) the Saxon of which
the extant specimens are of English origin, and (2nd), the Saxon of which
the extant specimens are of Continental origin. We will call these at
present the Saxon of England, and the Saxon of the Continent.
§ 22. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, there
is good reason for believing that the _first_ was spoken in the _northern_,
the _second_ in the _southern_ portion of the Saxon area, i.e., the one in
Hanover and the other in Westphalia, the probable boundaries between them
being the line of highlands between Osnaburg and Paderborn.
§ 23. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, there
is good reason for believing that, whilst the _former_ was the
mother-tongue of the Angles and the conquerors of England, the _latter_ was
that of the Cherusci of Arminius, the conquerors and the annihilators of
the legions of Varus.[19]
§ 24. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, it is
a fact that, whilst we have a full literature in the former, we have but
fragmentary specimens of the latter--these being chiefly the following: (1)
the Heliand,[20] (2) Hildubrand and Hathubrant,[21] (3) the Carolinian
Psalms.[22]
§ 25. The preceding points have been predicated respecting the difference
between the two ascertained Saxon dialects, for the sake of preparing the
reader for the names by which they are known.
THE SAXON OF THE CONTINENT THE SAXON OF ENGLAND
MAY BE CALLED MAY BE CALLED
1. Continental Saxon. Insular Saxon.
2. German Saxon. English Saxon.
3. Westphalian Saxon. Hanoverian Saxon.
4. South Saxon. North Saxon.
5. Cheruscan Saxon. Angle Saxon.
6. Saxon of the Heliand. Saxon of Beowulf.[23]
§ 26. The Saxon of England _is_ called Anglo-Saxon; a term against which no
exception can be raised.
§ 27. The Saxon of the Continent _used_ to be called _Dano_-Saxon, and _is_
called _Old_ Saxon.
§ 28. _Why called Dano-Saxon._--When the poem called _Heliand_ was first
discovered in an English library, the difference in language between it and
the common Anglo-Saxon composition was accounted for by the assumption of a
_Danish_ intermixture.
§ 29. _Why called _Old_ Saxon._ When the Continental origin of the
_Heliand_ was recognised, the language was called _Old_ Saxon, because it
represented the Saxon of the mother-country, the natives of which were
called _Old_ Saxons by the _Anglo_-Saxons themselves. Still the term is
exceptionable; as the Saxon of the Heliand is probably a _sister_-dialect
of the _Anglo_-Saxon, rather than the _Anglo_-Saxon itself in a Continental
locality. Exceptionable, however, as it is, it will be employed.
* * * * *
CHAPTER IV.
AFFINITIES OF THE ENGLISH WITH THE LANGUAGES OF GERMANY AND SCANDINAVIA.
§ 30. Over and above those languages of Germany and Holland which were akin
to the dialects of the Anglo-Saxons, cognate languages were spoken in
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe isles, i.e., in
Scandinavia.
§ 31. The general collective designation for the Germanic tongues of
Germany and Holland, and for the Scandinavian languages of Denmark, Sweden,
Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe Isles, is taken from the name of those
German tribes who, during the decline of the Roman Empire, were best known
to the Romans as the _Goths_; the term _Gothic_ for the Scandinavian and
Germanic languages, collectively, being both current and convenient.
§ 32. Of this great _stock_ of languages the Scandinavian is one _branch_;
the Germanic, called also Teutonic, another.
§ 33. The Scandinavian branch of the Gothic stock comprehends, 1. The
dialects of Scandinavia Proper, i.e., of Norway and Sweden; 2. of the
Danish isles and Jutland; 3. of Iceland; 4. of the Feroe Isles.
§ 34. The Teutonic branch falls into three divisions:--
1. The Moeso-Gothic.
2. The High Germanic.
3. The Low Germanic.
§ 35. It is in the Moeso-Gothic that the most ancient specimen of any
Gothic tongue has been preserved. It is also the Moeso-Gothic that was
spoken by the conquerors of ancient Rome; by the subjects of Hermanric,
Alaric, Theodoric, Euric, Athanaric, and Totila.
In the reign of Valens, when pressed by intestine wars, and by the
movements of the Huns, the Goths were assisted by that emperor, and settled
in the Roman province of Moesia.
Furthermore, they were converted to Christianity; and the Bible was
translated into their language by their Bishop Ulphilas.
Fragments of this translation, chiefly from the Gospels, have come down to
the present time; and the Bible translation of the Arian Bishop Ulphilas,
in the language of the Goths of Moesia, during the reign of Valens,
exhibits the earliest sample of any Gothic tongue.
§ 36. The Old High German, called also Francic[24] and Alemannic,[25] was
spoken in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, in Suabia, Bavaria, and
Franconia.
The Middle High German ranges from the thirteenth century to the
Reformation.
§ 37. The low Germanic division, to which the Anglo-Saxon belongs, is
currently said to comprise six languages, or rather four languages in
different stages.
I. II.--The Anglo-Saxon and Modern English.
III. The Old Saxon.
IV. V.--The Old Frisian and Modern Dutch.
VI.--The Platt-Deutsch, or Low German.
§ 38. _The Frisian and Dutch._--It is a current statement that the Old
Frisian bears the same relation to the Modern Dutch of Holland that the
Anglo-Saxon does to the English.
The truer view of the question is as follows:--
1. That a single language, spoken in two dialects, was originally common to
both Holland and Friesland.
2. That from the northern of these dialects we have the Modern Frisian of
Friesland.
3. From the southern, the Modern Dutch of Holland.
The reason of this refinement is as follows:--
The Modern Dutch has certain grammatical forms _older_ than those of the
old Frisian; e.g., the Dutch infinitives and the Dutch weak substantives,
in their oblique cases, end in -en; those of the Old Frisian in -a: the
form in -en being the older.
The true Frisian is spoken in few and isolated localities. There is--
1. The Frisian of the Dutch state called Friesland.
2. The Frisian of the parish of Saterland, in Westphalia.
3. The Frisian of Heligoland.
4. The North Frisian, spoken in a few villages of Sleswick. One of the
characters of the North Frisian is the possession of a dual number.
In respect to its stages, we have the Old Frisian of the Asega-bog, the
Middle Frisian of Gysbert Japicx,[31] and the Modern Frisian of the present
Frieslanders, Westphalians, and Heligolanders.
§ 39. _The Low German and Platt-Deutsch._--The words _Low-German_ are not
only lax in their application, but they are _equivocal_; since the term has
two meanings, a _general_ meaning when it signifies a division of the
Germanic languages, comprising English, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon, Old Saxon, and
Frisian, and a limited one when it means the particular dialects of the
Ems, the Weser, and the Elbe. To avoid this the dialects in question are
conveniently called by their continental name of _Platt-Deutsch_, just as
in England we say _Broad_ Scotch.
§ 40. The most characteristic difference between the Saxon and Icelandic
(indeed between the Teutonic and Scandinavian tongues) lies in the peculiar
position of the definite article in the latter. In Saxon, the article
corresponding with the modern word _the_, is _þæt_, _se_, _seó_, for the
neuter, masculine, and feminine genders respectively; and these words,
regularly declined, are _prefixed_ to the words with which they agree, just
as is the case with the English and with the majority of languages. In
Icelandic, however, the article instead of preceding, _follows_ its noun,
_with which it coalesces_, having previously suffered a change in form. The
Icelandic article corresponding to _þæt_, _se_, _seó_, is _hitt_, _hinn_,
_hin_: from this the h is ejected, so that, instead of the regular
inflection (a), we have the forms (b).
a.
_Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._
_Sing. Nom._ Hitt Hinn Hin.
_Acc._ Hitt Hinn Hina.
_Dat._ Hinu Hinum Hinni.
_Gen._ Hins Hins Hinnar.
_Plur. Nom._ Hin Hinir Hinar.
_Acc._ Hin Hina Hinar.
_Dat._ Hinum Hinum Hinum.
_Gen._ Hinna Hinna Hinna.
b.
_Sing. Nom._ -it -inn -in.
_Acc._ -it -inn -ina (-na).
_Dat._ -nu -num -inni (-nni).
_Gen._ -ins -ins -innar (-nnar).
_Plur. Nom._ -in -nir -nar.
_Acc._ -in -na -nar.
_Dat._ -num -num -num.
_Gen._ -nna -nna -nna.
Whence, as an affix, in composition,
_Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._
_Sing. Nom._ Augat Boginn Túngan.
_Acc._ Augat Boginn Túnguna.
_Dat._ Auganu Boganum Túngunni.
_Gen._ Augans Bogans Túngunnar.
_Plur. Nom._ Augun Bogarnir Túngurnar.
_Acc._ Augun Bogana Túngurnar.
_Dat._ Augunum Bogunum Túngunum.
_Gen._ Augnanna Boganna Túngnanna.
In the Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish this peculiarity in the position of
the definite article is preserved. Its origin, however, is concealed; and
an accidental identity with the indefinite article has led to false notions
respecting its nature. In the languages in point the i is changed into e,
so that what in Icelandic is it and in, is in Danish et and en. _En_,
however, as a separate word, is the numeral _one_, and also the indefinite
article _a_; whilst in the neuter gender it is _et_--en sol, _a sun_; et
bord, _a table_: solon, _the sun_; bordet, _the table_. From modern forms
like those just quoted, it has been imagined that the definite is merely
the indefinite article transposed. This it is not.
To apply an expression of Mr. Cobbet's, _en_ = _a_, and -en = _the_, are
_the same combination of letters, but not the same word_.
§ 41. Another characteristic of the Scandinavian language is the possession
of a _passive_ form, or a _passive_ voice, ending in -st:--_ek_, _þu_,
_hann brennist_ = _I am_, _thou art_, _he is burnt_; _ver brennumst_ = _we
are burnt_; _þér brennizt_ = _ye are burnt_; _þeir brennast_ = _they are
burnt_. Past tense, _ek_, _þu_, _hann brendist_; _ver brendumst_, _þér
brenduzt_, _þeir brendust_. Imperat.: _brenstu_ = _be thou burnt_.
Infinit.: _brennast_ = _to be burnt_.
In the modern Danish and Swedish, the passive is still preserved, but
without the final t. In the _older_ stages of Icelandic, on the other hand,
the termination was not -st but -sc; which -sc grew out of the reflective
pronoun _sik_. With these phenomena the Scandinavian languages give us the
evolution and development of a passive voice; wherein we have the following
series of changes:--1. the reflective pronoun coalesces with the verb,
whilst the sense changes from that of a reflective to that of a middle
verb; 2. the c changes to t, whilst the middle sense passes into a passive
one; 3. t is dropped from the end of the word, and the expression that was
once reflective then becomes strictly passive.
Now the Saxons have no passive voice at all. That they should have one
_originating_ like that of the Scandinavians was impossible, inasmuch as
they had no reflective pronoun, and, consequently, nothing to evolve it
from.
* * * * *
CHAPTER V.
ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.--GERMANIC ELEMENTS.--THE ANGLES.
§ 42. The language of England has been formed out of three elements.
a. Elements referable to the original British population, and derived from
times anterior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion.
b. Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, or imported elements.
c. Elements introduced since the Anglo-Saxon conquest.
§ 43. Each of these requires a special analysis, but that of the second
will be taken first, and form the contents of the present chapter.
All that we have at present learned concerning the Germanic invaders of
England, is the geographical area which they originally occupied. How far,
however, it was simple Saxons who conquered England single-handed, or how
far the particular Saxon Germans were portions of a complex population,
requires further investigation. Were the Saxons one division of the German
population, whilst the Angles were another? or were the Angles a section of
the Saxons, so that the latter was a generic term including the former?
Again, although the Saxon invasion may be the one which has had the
greatest influence, and drawn the most attention, why may there not have
been separate and independent migrations, the effects and record of which
have, in the lapse of time, become fused with those of the more important
divisions?
§ 44. _The Angles; who were they? and what was their relation to the
Saxons?_--The first answer to this question embodies a great fact in the
way of internal evidence, viz., that they were the people from whom
_England_ derives the name it bears = _Angle land_, i.e., _land of the
Angles_. Our language too is _English_, i.e., _Angle_. Whatever, then, they
may have been on the Continent, they were a leading section of the invaders
here. Why then has their position in our inquiries been hitherto so
subordinate to that of the Saxons? It is because their importance and
preponderance are not so manifest in Germany as we infer them to have been
in Britain. Nay more, their historical place amongst the nations of
Germany, is both insignificant and uncertain; indeed, it will be seen from
the sequel, that _in and of themselves_ we know next to nothing about them,
knowing them only in their _relations_, i.e., to ourselves and to the
Saxons.
§ 45. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name
to England, and, as such, the preponderating element in the eyes of the
present _English_, they were not so in the eyes of the original British;
who neither knew at the time of the Conquest, nor know now, of any other
name for their German enemies but _Saxon_. And _Saxon_ is the name by which
the present English are known to the Welsh, Armorican, and Gaelic Celts.
Welsh _Saxon_.
Armorican _Soson_.
Gaelic _Sassenach_.
§ 46. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name
to _England_, &c., they were quite as little Angles as Saxons in the eyes
of foreign cotemporary writers; since the expression _Saxoniæ transmarinæ_,
occurs as applied to England.
§ 47. _Who were the Angles?_--Although they are the section of the
immigration which gave the name to _England_, &c., the notices of them as
Germans in Germany, are extremely limited.
_Extract from Tacitus._--This merely connects them with certain other
tribes, and affirms the existence of certain religious ordinances common to
them:--
"Contra Langobardos paucitas nobilitat: plurimis ac valentissimis
nationibus cincti, non per obsequium sed proeliis et periclitando tuti
sunt. Reudigni deinde, et Aviones, et _Angli_, et Varini, et Eudoses, et
Suardones, et Nuithones, fluminibus aut silvis muniuntur: nec quidquam
notabile in singulis, nisi quod in commune Herthum, id est, Terram matrem
colunt, eamque intervenire rebus hominum, invehi populis, arbitrantur. Est
in insula Oceani Castum nemus, dicatumque in eo vehiculum, veste contectum,
attingere uni sacerdoti concessum. Is adesse penetrali deam intelligit,
vectamque bobus feminis multâ cum veneratione prosequitur. Læti tunc dies,
festa loca, quæcumque adventu hospitioque dignatur. Non bella ineunt, non
arma sumunt, clausum omne ferrum; pax et quies tunc tantùm nota, tunc
tantùm amata, donec idem sacerdos satiatam conversatione mortalium deam
templo reddat; mox vehiculum et vestes, et, si credere velis, numen ipsum
secreto lacu abluitur. Servi ministrant, quos statim idem lacus haurit.
Arcanus hinc terror, sanctaque ignorantia, quid sit id, quod tantùm
perituri vident."[32]
_Extract from Ptolemy._--This connects the Angles with the _Suevi_, and
_Langobardi_, and places them on the Middle Elbe.--[Greek: Entos kai
mesogeiôn ethnôn megista men esti to te tôn Souêbôn tôn Angeilôn, hoi eisin
anatolikôteroi tôn Langobardôn, anateinontes pros tas arktous mechri tôn
mesôn tou Albios potamou].
_Extract from Procopius._--For this see § 55.
_Heading of a law referred to the age of Charlemagne._--This connects them
with the Werini (Varni) and the Thuringians--"Incipit lex _Angliorum_ et
_Werinorum_ hoc est _Thuringorum_."
§ 48. These notices agree in giving the Angles a _German_ locality, and in
connecting them ethnologically, and philologically with the _Germans_ of
Germany. And such was, undoubtedly, the case. Nevertheless, it may be seen
from § 15 that a _Danish_ origin has been assigned to them.
The exact Germanic affinities of the Angles are, how ever, difficult to
ascertain, since the tribes with which they are classed are differently
classed. This we shall see by asking the following questions:--
§ 49. What were the _Langobardi_, with whom the Angles were connected by
Tacitus? The most important fact to be known concerning them is, that the
general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to either the
_High_-German, or Moeso-Gothic division, rather than to the _Low_.
§ 50. What were the _Suevi_, with whom the Angles were connected by
Tacitus? The most important fact to be known concerning them is, that the
general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to either the
_High_-German or Moeso-Gothic division rather than to the _Low_.
§ 51. What were the _Werini_, with whom the Angles were connected in the
_Leges Anglorum et Werinorum_? Without having any particular _data_ for
connecting the Werini (Varni, [Greek: Ouarnoi]) with either the
High-German, or the Moeso-Gothic divisions, there are certain facts in
favour of their being _Slavonic_.
§ 52. What were the _Thuringians_, with whom the Angles are connected in
the _Leges Anglorum_? Germanic in locality, and most probably allied to the
Goths of Moesia in language. If not, High-Germans.
§ 53. Of the Reudigni, Eudoses, Nuithones, Suardones, and Aviones, too
little is known in detail to make the details an inquiry of importance.
§ 54. The reader has now got a general view of the extent to which the
position of the Angles, as a German tribe, is complicated by conflicting
statements; statements which connect them with (probably) _High_-German
Thuringians, Suevi, and Langobardi, and with (probably) _Slavonic_ Werini,
or Varni; whereas in England, they are scarcely distinguishable from the
_Low_-German Saxons. In the present state of our knowledge, the only safe
fact seems to be, that of the common relation of both _Angles_ and Saxons
to the present _English_ of England.
This brings the two sections within a very close degree of affinity, and
makes it probable, that, just as at present, descendants of the Saxons are
English (_Angle_) in Britain, so, in the third and fourth centuries,
ancestors of the Angles were Saxons in Germany. Why, however, the one name
preponderated on the Continent, and the other in England is difficult to
ascertain.
§ 55. The Frisians have been mentioned as a Germanic population _likely_ to
have joined in the invasion of Britain; the _presumption_ in favor of their
having done so arising from their geographical position.
There is, however, something more than mere presumption upon this point.
Archbishop Usher, amongst the earlier historians, and Mr. Kemble amongst
those of the present day, as well as other intermediate investigators, have
drawn attention to certain important notices of them.
The main facts bearing upon this question are the following:--
1. Hengist, according to some traditions, was a Frisian hero.
2. Procopius wrote as follows:--[Greek: Brittian de tên nêson ethnê tria
poluanthrôpotata echousi, basileus te eis autôn hekastôi ephestêken,
onomata de keitai tois ethnesi toutois Angiloi te kai Phrissones kai hoi
têi nêsôi homônumoi Brittônes. Tosautê de hê tônde tôn ethnôn poluanthrôpia
phainetai ousa hôste ana pan etos kata pollous enthende metanistamenoi xun
gunaixi kai paisin es Phrangous chôrousin].--Procop. B. G. iv. 20.
3. In the Saxon Chronicle we find the following passage:--"That same year,
the armies from among the East-Anglians, and from among the
North-Humbrians, harassed the land of the West-Saxons chiefly, most of all
by their 'æscs,' which they had built many years before. Then king Alfred
commanded long ships to be built to oppose the æscs; they were full-nigh
twice as long as the others; some had sixty oars, and some had more; they
were both swifter and steadier, and also higher than the others. They were
shapen neither like the _Frisian_ nor the Danish, but so as it seemed to
him that they would be most efficient. Then some time in the same year,
there came six ships to Wight, and there did much harm, as well as in
Devon, and elsewhere along the sea coast. Then the king commanded nine of
the new ships to go thither, and they obstructed their passage from the
port towards the outer sea. Then went they with three of their ships out
against them; and three lay in the upper part of the port in the dry; the
men were gone from them ashore. Then took they two of the three ships at
the outer part of the port, and killed the men, and the other ship escaped;
in that also the men were killed except five; they got away because the
other ships were aground. They also were aground very disadvantageously,
three lay aground on that side of the deep on which the Danish ships were
aground, and all the rest upon the other side, so that no one of them could
get to the others. But when, the water had ebbed many furlongs from the
ships, then the Danish men went from their three ships to the other three
which were left by the tide on their side, and then they there fought
against them. There was slain Lucumon the king's reeve, and Wulfheard the
_Frisian_, and Æbbe the _Frisian_, and Æthelhere the _Frisian_, and
Æthelferth the king's 'geneat,' and of all the men, _Frisians_ and English,
seventy-two; and of the Danish men one hundred and twenty."
§ 56. I believe then, that, so far from the current accounts being
absolutely correct, in respect to the Germanic elements of the English
population, the _Jutes_, as mentioned by Beda, formed _no_ part of it,
whilst the _Frisians_, _not_ so mentioned, _were a real constituent
therein_; besides which, there may, very easily, have been other Germanic
tribes, though in smaller proportions.
* * * * *
CHAPTER VI.
THE CELTIC STOCK OF LANGUAGES, AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE ENGLISH.
§ 57. The languages of Great Britain at the invasion of Julius Cæsar were
of the Celtic stock.
Of the Celtic stock there are two branches.
1. The British or Cambrian branch, represented by the present Welsh, and
containing, besides, the Cornish of Cornwall (lately extinct), and the
Armorican of the French province of Brittany. It is almost certain that the
old British, the ancient language of Gaul, and the Pictish were of this
branch.
2. The Gaelic or Erse branch, represented by the present Irish Gaelic, and
containing, besides, the Gaelic of the Highlands of Scotland and the Manks
of the Isle of Man.
§ 58. Taken altogether the Celtic tongues form a very remarkable class. As
compared with those of the Gothic stock they are marked by the following
characteristics:--
_The scantiness of the declension of Celtic nouns._--In Irish there is a
peculiar form for the dative plural, as _cos_ = _foot_, _cos-aibh_ = _to
feet_ (ped-ibus); and beyond this there is nothing else whatever in the way
of _case_, as found in the German, Latin, Greek, and other tongues. Even
the isolated form in question is not found in the Welsh and Breton. Hence
the Celtic tongues are pre-eminently uninflected in the way of
_declension_.
§ 59. The _agglutinate character of their verbal inflections_.--In Welsh
the pronouns for _we_, _ye_, and _they_, are _ni_, _chwyi_, and _hwynt_
_respectively_. In Welsh also the root = _love_ is _car_. As conjugated in
the plural number this is--
car-wn = am-amus.
car-ych = am-atis.
car-ant = am-ant.
Now the -wn, -ych, and -ant, of the persons of the verbs are the personal
pronouns, so that the inflection is really a verb and a pronoun in a state
of _agglutination_; i.e., in a state where the original separate existence
of the two sorts of words is still manifest. This is probably the case with
languages in general. The Celtic, however, has the peculiarity of
exhibiting it in an unmistakable manner; showing, as it were, an inflection
in the process of formation, and (as such) exhibiting an early stage of
language.
§ 60. _The system of initial mutations._--The Celtic, as has been seen, is
deficient in the ordinary means of expressing case. How does it make up for
this? Even thus. The noun changes its initial letter according to its
relation to the other words of the sentence. Of course this is subject to
rule. As, however, I am only writing for the sake of illustrating in a
general way the peculiarities of the Celtic tongues, the following table,
from Prichard's "Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations," is sufficient.
Câr, _a kinsman_.
1. _form_, Câr agos, _a near kinsman_.
2. Ei gâr, _his kinsman_.
3. Ei châr, _her kinsman_.
4. Vy nghâr, _my kinsman_.
Tâd, _a father_.
1. _form_, Tâd y plentyn, _the child's father_.
2. Ei dâd, _his father_.
3. Ei thâd, _her father_.
4. Vy nhâd, _my father_.
Pen, _a head_.
1. _form_, Pen gwr, _the head of a man_.
2. Ei ben, _his head_.
3. Ei phen, _her head_.
4. Vy mhen, _my head_.
Gwas, _a servant_.
1. _form_, Gwâs fydhlon, _a faithful servant_.
2. Ei wâs, _his servant_.
3. Vy ngwas, _my servant_.
Duw, _a god_.
1. _form_, Duw trugarog, _a merciful god_.
2. Ei dhuw, _his god_.
3. Vy nuw, _my god_.
Bara, _bread_.
1. _form_, Bara cann, _white bread_.
2. Ei vara, _his bread_.
3. Vy mara, _my bread_.
Lhaw, _a hand_.
1. _form_, Lhaw wenn, _a white hand_.
2. Ei law, _his hand_.
Mam, _a mother_.
1. _form_, Mam dirion, _a tender mother_.
2. Ei vam, _his mother_.
Rhwyd, _a net_.
1. _form_, Rhwyd lawn, _a full net_.
2. Ei rwyd, _his net_.
From the Erse.
Súil, _an eye_.
1. _form_, Súil.
2. A húil, his eye.
Sláinte, _health_.
2. _form_, Do hláinte, _your health_.
§ 61. The Celtic tongues have lately received especial illustration from
the researches of Mr. Garnett. Amongst others, the two following points are
particularly investigated by him:--
1. The affinities of the ancient language of Gaul.
2. The affinities of the Pictish language or dialect.
§ 62. _The ancient language of Gaul Cambrian._--The evidence in favour of
the ancient language of Gaul being Cambrian rather than Gaelic, lies in the
following facts:--
The old Gallic glosses are more Welsh than Gaelic.
a. _Petorritum_ = _a four-wheeled carriage_, from the Welsh, _peder_ =
_four_, and _rhod_ = _a wheel_. The Gaelic for _four_ is _ceathair_, and
the Gaelic compound would have been different.
b. _Pempedula_, the _cinque-foil_, from the Welsh _pump_ = _five_, and
_dalen_ = _a leaf_. The Gaelic for _five_ is _cuig_, and the Gaelic
compound would have been different.
c. _Candetum_ = a measure of 100 feet, from the Welsh _cant_ = 100. The
Gaelic for _a hundred_ is _cead_, and the Gaelic compound would have been
different.
d. _Epona_ = _the goddess of horses._ In the old Armorican the root _ep_ =
_horse_. The Gaelic for a horse is _each_.
e. The evidence from the names of geographical localities in Gaul, both
ancient and modern, goes the same way: _Nantuates_, _Nantouin_, _Nanteuil_,
are derived from the Welsh _nant_ = _a valley_, a word unknown in Gaelic.
f. The evidence of certain French provincial words, which are Welsh and
Armorican rather than Erse or Gaelic.
§ 63. _The Pictish most probably Cambrian._--The evidence in favour of the
Pictish being Cambrian rather than Gaelic lies in the following facts:
a. When St. Columbanus preached, whose mother-tongue was Irish Gaelic, he
used an interpreter. This shows the _difference_ between the Pict and
Gaelic. What follows shows the affinity between the Pict and Welsh.
b. A manuscript in the Colbertine library contains a list of Pictish kings
from the fifth century downwards. These names are more Welsh than Gaelic.
_Taran_ = _thunder_ in Welsh. _Uven_ is the Welsh _Owen_. The first
syllable in _Talorg_ ( = _forehead_) is the _tal_ in _Talhaiarn_ = _iron
forehead_, _Taliessin_ = _splendid forehead_, Welsh names. _Wrgust_ is
nearer to the Welsh _Gwrgust_ than to the Irish _Fergus_. Finally, _Drust_,
_Drostan_, _Wrad_, _Necton_, closely resemble the Welsh _Trwst_, _Trwstan_,
_Gwriad_, _Nwython_. _Cineod_ and _Domhnall_ (_Kenneth_ and _Donnell_) are
the only true Erse forms in the list.
c. The only Pictish common name extant is the well-known compound _pen
val_, which is, in the oldest MS. of Beda, _peann fahel_. This means _caput
valli_, and is the name for the eastern termination of the Vallum of
Antoninus. Herein _pen_ is unequivocally Welsh, meaning _head_. It is an
impossible form in Gaelic. _Fal_, on the other hand, is apparently Gaelic,
the Welsh for a _rampart_ being _gwall_. _Fal_, however, occurs in Welsh
also, and means _inclosure_.
The evidence just indicated is rendered nearly conclusive by an
interpolation, apparently of the twelfth century, of the Durham MS. of
Nennius, whereby it is stated that the spot in question was called in
Gaelic _Cenail_. Now Cenail is the modern name _Kinneil_, and it is also a
Gaelic translation of the Pict _pen val_, since _cean_ is the Gaelic for
_head_, and _fhail_ for _rampart_ or _wall_. If the older form were Gaelic,
the substitution, or translation, would have been superfluous.
d. The name of the _Ochil Hills_ in Perthshire is better explained from the
Pict _uchel_ = _high_, than from the Gaelic _uasal_.
e. Bryneich, the British form of the province Bernicia, is better explained
by the Welsh _bryn_ = _ridge_ (_hilly country_), than by any word in
Gaelic.--Garnett, in "Transactions of Philological Society."
* * * * *
CHAPTER VII.
THE ANGLO-NORMAN, AND THE LANGUAGES OF THE CLASSICAL STOCK.
§ 64. The languages of Greece and Rome belong to one and the same stock.
The Greek and its dialects, both ancient and modern, constitute the Greek
of the Classical stock.
The Latin in all its dialects, the old Italian languages allied to it, and
the modern tongues derived from the Roman, constitute the Latin branch of
the Classical stock.
Now, although the Greek dialects are of only secondary importance in the
illustration of the history of the English language, the Latin elements
require a special consideration.
This is because the Norman French, introduced into England by the battle of
Hastings, is a language derived from the Roman, and consequently a language
of the Latin branch of the Classical stock.
§ 65. The Latin language overspread the greater part of the Roman empire.
It supplanted a multiplicity of aboriginal languages; just as the English
of North America _has_ supplanted the aboriginal tongues of the native
Indians, and just as the Russian _is_ supplanting those of Siberia and
Kamskatka.
Sometimes the war that the Romans carried on against the old inhabitants
was a war of extermination. In this case the original language was
superseded _at once_. In other cases their influence was introduced
gradually. In this case the influence of the original language was greater
and more permanent.
Just as in the United States the English came in contact with an American,
whilst in New Holland it comes in contact with an Australian language, so
was the Latin language of Rome engrafted, sometimes on a Celtic, sometimes
on a Gothic, and sometimes on some other stock. The nature of the original
language must always be borne in mind.
From Italy, its original seat, the Latin was extended in the following
chronological order:--
1. To the Spanish Peninsula; where it overlaid or was engrafted on
languages allied to the present Biscayan.
2. To Gaul, or France, where it overlaid or was engrafted on languages of
the Celtic stock.
3. To Dacia and Pannonia where it overlaid or was engrafted on a language
the stock whereof is undetermined, but which was, probably, Sarmatian. The
introduction of the Latin into Dacia and Pannonia took place in the time of
Trajan.
§ 66. From these different introductions of the Latin into different
countries we have the following modern languages--1st Italian, 2nd Spanish
and Portuguese, 3rd French, 4th Wallachian; to which must be added a 5th,
the Romanese of part of Switzerland.
_Specimen of the Romanese._
_Luke_ xv. 11.
11. Ün Hum veva dus Filgs:
12. Ad ilg juveu da quels schet alg Bab, "Bab mi dai la Part de la
Rauba c' aud' à mi:" ad el parchè or ad els la Rauba.
13. A bucca bears Gis suenter, cur ilg Filg juven vet tut mess ansemel,
scha tilà 'l navent en ünna Terra dalunsch: a lou sfiget el tut sia
Rauba cun viver senza spargn.
14. A cur el vet tut sfaig, scha vangit ei en quella Terra ün grond
Fumaz: ad el antschavet a ver basengs.
15. Ad el mà, à: sa plidè enn ün Burgeis da quella Terra; a quel ilg
tarmatet or sin sês Beins a parchirar ils Porcs.
16. Ad el grigiava dad amplanir sieu Venter cun las Criscas ch' ils
Porcs malgiavan; mo nagin lgi deva.
17. Mo el mà en sasez a schet: "Quonts Fumelgs da mieu Bab han budonza
da Pann, a jou miei d' fom!"
18. "Jou vi lavar si, ad ir tier mieu Bab, e vi gir a lgi: 'Bab, jou
hai faig puccau ancunter ilg Tschiel ad avont tei;
19. "'A sunt bucca pli vangonts da vangir numnaus tieu Filg; fai mei
esser sco ün da tes Fumelgs.'"
_Specimen of the Wallachian._
_Luke_ xv. 11.
11. Un om evea do[)i] fec or[)i].
12. Shi a zis c'el ma[)i] tinr din e[)i] tatlu[)i] su: tat, dm[)i]
partea c'e mi se kade de avucie: shi de a imprcit lor avuciea.
13. Shi nu dup multe zile, adunint toate fec orul c el ma[)i] tinr, s'a
dus intr 'o car departe, shi akolo a rsipit toat avuciea ca, viecuind
intr dezm[)i]erdr[)i].
14. Shi keltuind el toate, c'a fkut foamete mare intr' ac'ea car: shi
el a inc'eput a se lipsi.
15. Shi mergina c'a lipit de unul din lkuitori[)i] cri[)i] ac'eia: si
'l a trimis pre el la earinide sale c pask porc'i[)i].
16. Shi doria c 'sh[)i] sature pinctec'ele s[)u] de roshkobele c'e
minka porc'i[)i]! shi nimin[)i] nu [)i] da lu[)i].
17. Iar viind intru sine, a zis; kic[)i] argac[)i] a[)i] tatlu[)i]
mie[)u] sint indestulac[)i] de pi[)i]ne, iar e[)u] p[)i]ei[)u] de
foame.
18. Skula-m-vio[)u], shi m' voi[)u] duc'e la tata mie[)u], shi vio[)u]
zic'e lui:
19. Tat, greshit-am la c'er shi inaintea ta, shi nu mai sint vrednik a
m kema fiul t[)u]; fm ka pre unul din argaci[)i] ti.
§ 67. Such is the _general_ view of the languages derived from the Latin,
i.e., of the languages of the Latin branch of the Classical stock.
The French requires to be more minutely exhibited.
Between the provincial French of the north and the provincial French of the
south, there is a difference, at the present day, at least of dialect, and
perhaps of language. This is shown by the following specimens: the first
from the canton of Arras, on the confines of Flanders; the second from the
department of Var, in Provence. The date of each is A.D. 1807.
I.
_Luke_ xv. 11.
11. Ain homme avoüait deeux garchéons.
12. L'pus jone dit a sain père, "Main père, baillé m'cheu quî doüo me
'r v'nir ed vous bien," et lue père leu partit sain bien.
13. Ain n'sais yur, tro, quate, chéon jours après l'pus tiò d'cnés
déeux éféans ôyant r'cuéllé tout s'n' héritt'main, s'ot' ainvoye dains
nâin pahis gramain loüon, dú qu'il échilla tout s'n' argint ain fageant
l'braingand dains chés cabarets.
14. Abord qu'il o eu tout bu, tout mié et tout drélé, il o v'nu adonc
dains ch' pahis lo ainn' famaine cruüelle, et i c'mainchonait d'avoir
fon-ye d' pon-ye (i.e. faim de pain).
II.
THE SAME.
11. Un homé avié dous enfans.
12. Lou plus pichoun diguét a son päiré, "Moun päiré, dounas mi ce què
mi reven de vouastré ben;" lou pairé faguet lou partagé de tout ce que
poussédavo.
13. Paou do jours après, lou pichoun vendét tout se què soun päiré li
avié desamparat, et s'en anét díns un päis fourco luench, ounté
dissipét tout soun ben en debaucho.
14. Quand aguét tou arcaba, uno grosso famino arribet dins aqueou päis
et, leou, si veguét reduech à la derniero misèro.
Practically speaking, although in the central parts of France the northern
and southern dialects melt into each other, the Loire may be considered as
a line of demarcation between two languages; the term language being
employed because, in the Middle Ages, whatever may be their real
difference, their northern tongue and the southern tongue were dealt with
not as separate dialects, but as distinct languages--the southern being
called Provençal, the northern Norman-French.
Of these two languages (for so they will in the following pages be called,
for the sake of convenience) the southern, or Provençal, approaches the
dialects of Spain; the Valencian of Spain and the Catalonian of Spain being
Provençal rather than standard Spanish or Castilian.
The southern French is sometimes called the Langue d'Oc, and sometimes the
Limousin.
§ 68. The Norman-French, spoken from the Loire to the confines of Flanders,
and called also the Langue d'Oyl, differed from the Provençal in (amongst
others) the following circumstances.
1. It was of later origin; the southern parts of Gaul having been colonized
at an early period by the Romans.
2. It was in geographical contact, not with the allied languages of Spain,
but with the Gothic tongues of Germany and Holland.
§ 69. It is the Norman-French that most especially bears upon the history
of the English language.
_Specimen from the Anglo-Norman poem of Charlemagne._
Un jur fu Karléun al Seint-Denis muster,
Reout prise sa corune, en croiz seignat sun chef;
E ad ceinte sa espée: li pons fud d'or mer.
Dux i out e dermeines e baruns e chevalers.
Li emperères reguardet la reine sa muillers.
Ele fut ben corunée al plus bel e as meuz.
Il la prist par le poin desuz un oliver,
De sa pleine parole la prist à reisuner:
"Dame, véistes unkes hume nul de desuz ceil
Tant ben séist espée no la corone el chef!
Uncore cunquerrei-jo citez ot mun espeez."
Cele ne fud pas sage, folement respondeit:
"Emperere," dist-ele, trop vus poez preiser.
"Uncore en sa-jo un ki plus se fait léger,
Quant il porte corune entre ses chevalers;
Kaunt il met sur sa teste, plus belement lui set"
In the northern French we must recognise not only a Celtic and a Classical,
but also a Gothic element: since Clovis and Charlemagne were no Frenchmen,
but Germans. The Germanic element in French has still to be determined.
In the northern French of _Normandy_ there is a second Gothic element,
viz., a Scandinavian element. See § 76.
* * * * *
QUESTIONS.
1. What are the _present_ languages of Wales, the Isle of Man, the Scotch
Highlands, and Ireland?
2. What are the _present_ languages of Germany and Holland? How are they
related to the _present_ language of England? How to the original language
of England?
3. Enumerate the chief _supposed_ migrations from Germany to England,
giving (when possible) the _date_ of each, the particular German tribe by
which each was undertaken, and the parts of Great Britain where the
different landings were made. Why do I say _supposed_ migrations?
Criticise, in detail, the evidence by which they are supported, and state
the extent to which it is exceptionable. Who was Beda? What were the
sources of his information?
4. Give reasons for believing the existence of Germans in England anterior
to A.D. 447.
5. Who are the present Jutlanders of Jutland? Who the inhabitants of the
district called Anglen in Sleswick? What are the reasons for connecting
these with the Jutes and Angles of Beda? What those for denying such a
connection?
6. What is the meaning of the termination -uarii in _Cant-uarii_ and
_Vect-uarii_? What was the Anglo-Saxon translation of _Antiqui Saxones_,
_Occidentales Saxones_, _Orientates Saxones_, _Meridionales Saxones_? What
are the known variations in the form of the word _Vectis_, meaning the
_Isle of Wight_? What those of the root Jut- as the name of the inhabitants
of the peninsula of Jutland?
7. Translate _Cantware_, _Wihtware_, into Latin. How does Alfred translate
_Jutæ_? How does the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? What is the derivation of the
name _Carisbrook_, a town in the Isle of Wight?
8. Take exception to the opinions that _Jutes_, from _Jutland_, formed part
of the Germanic invasion of England; or, rather, take exceptions to the
evidence upon which that opinion is based.
9. From what part of Germany were the _Angles_ derived? What is Beda's?
what Ethelweard's statement concerning them? Who were the _Angli_ of
Tacitus?
10. What is the derivation of the word Mercia?
11. Give the localities of the Old Saxons, and the Northalbingians.
Investigate the area occupied by the Anglo-Saxons.
12. What is the present population of the Dutch province of Friesland? What
its language? What the dialects and stages of that language?
13. What was the language of the Asega-bog, the Heliand, Beowulf,
Hildubrand and Hathubrant, the Carolinian Psalms, the Gospels of Ulphilas,
and the poems of Gysbert Japicx?
14. Make a map of Ancient Germany and Scandinavia according to languages
and dialects of those two areas. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages
of the Gothic stock. Explain the meaning of the words _Gothic_, and
_Moeso-Gothic_, and _Platt-Deutsch_.
15. Analyze the Scandinavian forms _Solen_, _Bordet_, and _brennast_.
16. Exhibit the difference between the _logical_ and the _historical_
analysis of a language.
17. What are the Celtic names for the _English language_?
18. Enumerate the chief Germanic populations connected by ancient writers
with the _Angles_, stating the Ethnological relations of each, and noticing
the extent to which they coincide with those of the Angles.
19. What are the reasons for believing that there is a _Frisian_ element in
the population of England?
20. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages and dialects of the Celtic
stock. To which division did the Gallic of ancient Gaul, and the Pict
belong? Support the answer by reasons. What were the relations of the Picts
to the Gaelic inhabitants of Scotland? What to the Lowland Scotch? What to
the Belgæ?
21. Explain the following words--_petorritum_, _pempedula_, _candetum_,
_Epona_, _Nantuates_, _peann fahel_ and _Bernicia_. What inferences do you
draw from the derivation of them?
22. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages and dialects of the Classical
stock.
23. What is the bearing of the statements of Tacitus and other ancient
writers respecting the following Germanic populations upon the ethnological
relations of the Angles,--Aviones, Reudigni, Suevi, Langobardi, Frisii,
Varini?
24. What is meant by the following terms, Provençal, Langue d'Oc, Langue
d'Oyl, Limousin, and Norman-French?
25. What languages, besides the Celtic and Latin, enter into the
composition of the French?
* * * * *
PART II.
HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
* * * * *
CHAPTER I.
HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
§ 70. The Celtic elements of the present English fall into five classes.
1. Those that are of late introduction, and cannot be called original and
constituent parts of the language. Some of such are the words _flannel_,
_crowd_ (a fiddle), from the Cambrian; and _kerne_ (an Irish foot-soldier),
_galore_ (enough), _tartan_, _plaid_, &c., from the Gaelic branch.
2. Those that are originally common to both the Celtic and Gothic stocks.
Some of such are _brother_, _mother_, in Celtic _brathair_, _mathair_; the
numerals, &c.
3. Those that have come to us from the Celtic, but have come to us through
the medium of another language. Some of such are _druid_ and _bard_, whose
_immediate_ source is, not the Celtic but the Latin.
4. Celtic elements of the Anglo-Norman, introduced into England after the
Conquest, and occurring in that language as remains of the original Celtic
of Gaul.
5. Those that have been retained from the original Celtic of the island,
and which form genuine constituents of our language. These fall into three
subdivisions.
a. Proper names--generally of geographical localities; as _the Thames_,
_Kent_, &c.
b. Common names retained in the provincial dialects of England, but not
retained in the current language; as _gwethall_ = _household stuff_, and
_gwlanen_ = _flannel_ in Herefordshire.
c. Common names retained in the current language.--The following list is
Mr. Garnett's:--
_Welsh._ _English._
Basgawd _Basket_.
Berfa _Barrow_.
Botwm _Button_.
Bràn _Bran_.
Clwt _Clout_, _Rag_.
Crochan _Crockery_.
Crog _Crook_, _Hook_.
Cwch _Cock_, in _Cock-boat_.
Cwysed _Gusset_.
Cyl, Cyln _Kiln_ (_Kill_, provinc.).
Dantaeth _Dainty_.
Darn _Darn_.
Deentur _Tenter_, in _Tenterhook_.
Fflaim _Fleam_, _Cattle-lancet_.
Fflaw _Flaw_.
Ffynnell (air-hole) _Funnel_.
Gefyn (fetter) _Gyve_.
Greidell _Grid_ in _Gridiron_.
Grual _Gruel_.
Gwald (hem, border) _Welt_.
Gwiced (little door) _Wicket_.
Gwn _Gown_.
Gwyfr _Wire_.
Masg (stitch in netting) _Mesh_.
Mattog _Mattock_.
Mop _Mop_.
Rhail (fence) _Rail_.
Rhashg (slice) _Rasher_.
Rhuwch _Rug_.
Sawduriaw _Solder_.
Syth (glue) _Size_.
Tacl _Tackle_.
§ 71. _Latin of the first period._--Of the Latin introduced by Cæsar and
his successors, the few words remaining are those that relate to military
affairs; viz. _street_ (_strata_); -coln (as in _Lincoln_ = _Lindi
colonia_); -cest- (as in _Gloucester_ = _glevæ castra_) from _castra_. The
Latin words introduced between the time of Cæsar and Hengist may be called
the _Latin of the first period_, or the _Latin of the Celtic period_.
§ 72. _The Anglo-Saxon._--This is not noticed here, because, from being the
staple of the present language, it is more or less the subject of the book
throughout.
§ 73. _The Danish, or Norse._--The pirates that pillaged Britain, under the
name of Danes, were not exclusively the inhabitants of Denmark. Of the
three Scandinavian nations, the Swedes took the least share, the Norwegians
the greatest, in these invasions.
The language of the three nations was the same; the differences being
differences of dialect. It was that which is now spoken in Iceland, having
been once common to Scandinavia and Denmark.
The Danish that became incorporated with our language, under the reign of
Canute and his sons, may be called the _direct_ Danish element, in
contradistinction to the _indirect_ Danish of § 76.
The determination of the amount of Danish in English is difficult. It is
not difficult to prove a word _Scandinavian_; but, then, we must also show
that it is not German as well. A few years back the current opinion was
against the doctrine that there was much Danish in England. At present, the
tendency is rather the other way. The following facts are from Mr.
Garnett.--"Phil. Trans." vol. i.
1. The Saxon name of the present town of _Whitby_ in Yorkshire was
_Streoneshalch_. The present name _Whitby_, _Hvitby_, or _Whitetown_, is
Danish.
2. The Saxon name of the capital of Derbyshire was _Northweortheg_. The
present name is Danish.
3. The termination -by = _town_ is Norse.
4. On a monument in Aldburgh church, Holdernesse, in the East Riding of
Yorkshire, referred to the age of Edward the Confessor, is found the
following inscription:--
_Ulf_ het aræran cyrice _for hanum_ and for Gunthara saula.
"Ulf bid rear the church for him and for the soul of Gunthar."
Now, in this inscription, _Ulf_, in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon _Wulf_,
is a Norse form; whilst _hanum_ is a Norse dative, and by no means an
Anglo-Saxon one.--Old Norse _hanum_, Swedish _honom_.
5. The use of _at_ for _to_ as the sign of the infinitive mood is Norse,
not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, and
Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English, and
in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day.
6. The use of _sum_ for _as_; e.g.,--_swa sum_ we forgive oure detturs.
7. Isolated words in the northern dialects are Norse rather than Saxon.
_Provincial._ _Common Dialect._ _Norse._
Braid _Resemble_ Braas, _Swed._
Eldin _Firing_ Eld, _Dan._
Force _Waterfall_ Fors, _D. Swed._
Gar _Make_ Göra, _Swed._
Gill _Ravine_ Gil, _Iceland._
Greet _Weep_ Grata, _Iceland._
Ket _Carrion_ Kiöd--flesh, _Dan._
Lait _Seek_ Lede, _Dan._
Lathe _Barn_ Lade, _Dan._
Lile _Little_ Lille, _Dan._
§ 74. _Roman of the second period._--Of the Latin introduced under the
Christianised Saxon sovereigns, many words are extant. They relate chiefly
to ecclesiastical matters, just as the Latin of the Celtic period bore upon
military affairs. _Mynster_, a minster, _monasterium_; _portic_, a porch,
_porticus_; _cluster_, a cloister, _claustrum_; _munuc_, a monk,
_monachus_; _bisceop_, a bishop, _episcopus_; _arcebisceop_, archbishop,
_archiepiscopus_; _sanct_, a saint, _sanctus_; _profost_, a provost,
_propositus_; _pall_, a pall, _pallium_; _calic_, a chalice, _calix_;
_candel_, a candle, _candela_; _psalter_, a psalter, _psalterium_; _mæsse_,
a mass, _missa_; _pistel_, an epistle, _epistola_; _prædic-ian_, to preach,
_prædicare_; _prof-ian_, to prove, _probare_.
The following are the names of foreign plants and animals:--_camell_, a
camel, _camelus_; _ylp_, elephant, _elephas_; _ficbeam_, fig-tree, _ficus_;
_feferfuge_, feverfew, _febrifuga_; _peterselige_, parsley, _petroselinum_.
Others are the names of articles of foreign origin, as _pipor_, pepper,
_piper_; _purpur_, purple, _purpura_; _pumicstan_, pumicestone, _pumex_.
This is the Latin of the second, or Saxon period.
§ 75. _The Anglo-Norman element._--For practical purposes we may say that
the French or Anglo-Norman element appeared in our language after the
battle of Hastings, A.D. 1066.
Previous, however, to that period we find notices of intercourse between
the two countries.
1. The residence in England of Louis Outremer.
2. Ethelred II. married Emma, daughter of Richard Duke of Normandy, and the
two children were sent to Normandy for education.
3. Edward the Confessor is particularly stated to have encouraged French
manners and the French language in England.
4. Ingulphus of Croydon speaks of his own knowledge of French.
5. Harold passed some time in Normandy.
6. The French article _la_, in the term _la Drove_, occurs in a deed of
A.D. 975.
The chief Anglo-Norman elements of our language are the terms connected
with the feudal system, the terms relating to war and chivalry, and a great
portion of the law terms--_duke_, _count_, _baron_, _villain_, _service_,
_chivalry_, _warrant_, _esquire_, _challenge_, _domain_, &c.
§ 76. When we remember that the word _Norman_ means _man of the north_,
that it is a _Scandinavian_, and _not a French_ word, that it originated in
the invasions of the followers of Rollo and and other _Norwegians_, and
that just as part of England was overrun by Pagan buccaneers called
_Danes_, part of France was occupied by similar _Northmen_, we see the
likelihood of certain Norse words finding their way into the French
language, where they would be superadded to its original Celtic and Roman
elements.
The extent to which this is actually the case has only been partially
investigated. It is certain, however, that some French words are Norse or
Scandinavian. Such, for instance, are several _names of geographical
localities_ either near the sea, or the river Seine, in other words, within
that tract which was most especially occupied by the invaders. As is to be
expected from the genius of the French language, these words are
considerably altered in form. Thus,
NORSE. ENGLISH. FRENCH.
Toft Toft Tot.
Beck Beck Bec.
Flöt Fleet[33] Fleur, &c.
and in these shapes they appear in the Norman names _Yvetot_, _Caudebec_,
and _Harfleur_, &c.
Now any words thus introduced from the Norse of Scandinavia into the French
of Normandy, might, by the Norman Conquest of England, be carried further,
and so find their way into the English.
In such a case, they would constitute its _indirect_ Scandinavian element.
A list of these words has not been made; indeed the question requires far
more investigation than it has met with. The names, however, of the islands
_Guerns-ey_, _Jers-ey_, and _Aldern-ey_, are certainly of the kind in
question--since the -ey, meaning _island_, is the same as the -ey in
_Orkn-ey_, and is the Norse rather than the Saxon form.
§ 77. _Latin of the third period._--This means the Latin which was
introduced between the battle of Hastings and the revival of literature. It
chiefly originated in the cloister, in the universities, and, to a certain
extent, in the courts of law. It must be distinguished from the _indirect_
Latin introduced as part and parcel of the Anglo-Norman. It has yet to be
accurately analyzed.
§ 78. _Latin of the fourth period._--This means the Latin which has been
introduced between the revival of literature and the present time. It has
originated in the writings of learned men in general, and is distinguished
from that of the previous periods by:
1. Being less altered in form:
2. Preserving, with substantives, in many cases its original inflections;
_axis_, _axes_; _basis_, _bases_:
3. Relating to objects and ideas for which the increase of the range of
science in general has required a nomenclature.
§ 79. _Greek._--Words derived _directly_ from the Greek are in the same
predicament as the Latin of the third period--_phænomenon_, _phænomena_;
_criterion_, _criteria_, &c.; words which are only _indirectly_ of Greek
origin, being considered to belong to the language from which they were
immediately introduced into the English. Such are _deacon_, _priest_, &c.,
introduced through the Latin. Hence a word like _church_ proves no more in
regard to a Greek element in English, than the word _abbot_ proves in
respect to a Syrian one.
§ 80. The Latin of the fourth period and the Greek agree in retaining, in
many cases, original inflexions rather than adopting the English ones; in
other words, they agree in being but _imperfectly incorporated_. The
phænomenon of imperfect incorporation is reducible to the following
rules:--
1. That it has a direct ratio to the date of the introduction, i.e., the
more recent the word the more likely it is to retain its original
inflexion.
2. That it has a relation to the number of meanings belonging to the words:
thus, when a single word has two meanings, the original inflexion expresses
one, the English inflexion another--_genius_, _genii_, often (_spirits_),
_geniuses_ (_men of genius_).
3. That it occurs with substantives only, and that only in the expression
of number. Thus, although the plural of substantives like _axis_ and
_genius_ are Latin, the possessive cases are English. So also are the
degrees of comparison for adjectives, like _circular_, and the tenses, &c.
for verbs, like _perambulate_.
§ 81. The following is a list of the chief Latin substantives introduced
during the latter part of the fourth period; and preserving the _Latin_
plural forms--
FIRST CLASS.
_Words wherein the Latin plural is the same as the Latin singular._
(a) _Sing._ _Plur._ | (b) _Sing._ _Plur._
Apparatus apparat-us | Caries cari-es
Hiatus hiat-us | Congeries congeri-es
Impetus impet-us | Series seri-es
| Species speci-es
| Superficies superfici-es.
SECOND CLASS.
_Words wherein the Latin plural is formed from the Latin singular by
changing the last syllable._
(a).--_Where the singular termination -a is changed in the plural into
-æ_:--
_Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
Formul-a formul-æ | Nebul-a nebul-æ
Lamin-a lamin-æ | Scori-a scori-æ.
Larv-a larv-æ |
(b).--_Where the singular termination -us is changed in the plural into
-i_:--
_Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
Calcul-us calcul-i | Polyp-us polyp-i
Coloss-us coloss-i | Radi-us radi-i
Convolvul-us convolvul-i | Ranuncul-us ranuncul-i
Foc-us foc-i | Sarcophag-us sarcophag-i
Geni-us geni-i | Schirr-us schirrh-i
Mag-us mag-i | Stimul-us stimul-i
Nautil-us nautil-i | Tumul-us tumul-i.
Oesophag-us oesophag-i |
(c).--_Where the singular termination -um is changed in the plural into
-a_:--
_Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
Animalcul-um animalcul-a | Mausole-um mausole-a
Arcan-um arcan-a | Medi-um medi-a
Collyri-um collyri-a | Memorand-um memorand-a
Dat-um dat-a | Menstru-um menstru-a
Desiderat-um desiderat-a | Moment-um moment-a
Effluvi-um effluvi-a | Premi-um premi-a
Empori-um empori-a | Scholi-um scholi-a
Encomi-um encomi-a | Spectr-um spectr-a
Errat-um errat-a | Specul-um specul-a
Gymnasi-um gymnasi-a | Strat-um strat-a
Lixivi-um lixivi-a | Succedane-um succedane-a.
Lustr-um lustr-a |
(d).--_Where the singular termination -is is changed in the plural into
-es_:--
_Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._
Amanuens-is amanuens-es | Ellips-is ellips-es
Analys-is analys-es | Emphas-is emphas-es
Antithes-is antithes-es | Hypothes-is hypothes-es
Ax-is ax-es | Oas-is oas-es
Bas-is bas-es | Parenthes-is parenthes-es
Cris-is cris-es | Synthes-is synthes-es
Diæres-is diæres-es | Thes-is thes-es.
THIRD CLASS.
_Words wherein the plural is formed by inserting -e between the last two
sounds of the singular, so that the former number always contains a
syllable more than the latter:--_
_Sing._ _Plur._
Apex _sounded_ apec-s apices
Appendix -- appendic-s appendices
Calix -- calic-s calices
Cicatrix -- cicatric-s cicatrices
Helix -- helic-s helices
Index -- indec-s indices
Radix -- radic-s radices
Vertex -- vertec-s vertices
Vortex -- vortec-s vortices.
In all these words the c of the singular number is sounded as k; of the
plural, as s.
§ 82. The following is a list of the chief Greek substantives lately
introduced, and preserving the _Greek_ plural forms--
FIRST CLASS.
_Words where the singular termination -on is changed in the plural into
-a_:--
_Sing._ _Plur._ _Sing._ _Plur._
Apheli-on apheli-a Criteri-on criteri-a
Periheli-on periheli-a Ephemer-on ephemer-a
Automat-on automat-a Phænomen-on phænomen-a.
SECOND CLASS.
_Words where the plural is formed from the original root by adding either
-es or -a, but where the singular rejects the last letter of the original
root._
_Plurals in_ -es:--
_Original root._ _Plur._ _Sing._
Apsid- apsid-es apsis
Cantharid- cantharid-es cantharis
Chrysalid- chrysalid-es chrysalis
Ephemerid- ephemerid-es ephemeris
Tripod- tripod-es tripos.
_Plurals in_ -a:--
_Original root._ _Plur._ _Sing._
Dogmat- dogmat-a dogma
Lemmat- lemmat-a lemma
Miasmat- miasmat-a miasma.[34]
§ 83. _Miscellaneous elements._--Of miscellaneous elements we have two
sorts; those that are incorporated in our language, and are currently
understood (e.g., the Spanish word _sherry_, the Arabic word _alkali_, and
the Persian word _turban_), and those that, even amongst the educated, are
considered strangers. Of this latter kind (amongst many others) are the
oriental words _hummum_, _kaftan_, _gul_, &c.
Of the currently understood miscellaneous elements of the English language,
the most important are from the French; some of which agree with those of
the Latin of the fourth period, and the Greek, in preserving the _French_
plural forms--as _beau_, _beaux_, _billets-doux_.
_Italian._--Some words of Italian origin do the same; as _virtuoso_,
_virtuosi_.
_Hebrew._--The Hebrew words, _cherub_ and _seraph_ do the same; the form
_cherub-im_, and _seraph-im_ being not only plurals but Hebrew plurals.
Beyond the words derived from these five languages, none form their plural
other than after the English method, i.e., in -s, as _waltzes_, from the
_German_ word _waltz_.
§ 84. Hence we have a measure of the extent to which a language, which,
like the English, at one and the same time requires names for many objects,
comes in contact with the tongues of half the world, and has moreover, a
great power of incorporating foreign elements, derives fresh words from
varied sources; as may be seen from the following incomplete notice of the
languages which have, in different degrees, supplied it with new terms.
_Arabic._--Admiral, alchemist, alchemy, alcohol, alcove, alembic, algebra,
alkali, assassin.
_Persian._--Turban, caravan, dervise, &c.
_Turkish._--Coffee, bashaw, divan, scimitar, janisary, &c.
_Hindoo languages._--Calico, chintz, cowrie, curry, lac, muslin, toddy, &c.
_Chinese._--Tea, bohea, congou, hyson, soy, nankin &c.
_Malay._--Bantam (fowl), gamboge, rattan, sago, shaddock, &c.
_Polynesian._--Taboo, tattoo.
_Tungusian or some similar Siberian language._--Mammoth, the bones of which
are chiefly from the banks of the Lena.
_North American Indian._--Squaw, wigwam, pemmican.
_Peruvian._--Charki = prepared meat; whence _jerked_ beef.
_Caribbean._--Hammock.
§ 85. A distinction is drawn between the _direct_ and _indirect_, the
latter leading to the _ultimate origin_ of words.
Thus a word borrowed into the English from the French, might have been
borrowed into the French from the Latin, into the Latin from the Greek,
into the Greek from the Persian, &c., and so _ad infinitum_.
The investigation of this is a matter of literary curiosity rather than any
important branch of philology.
The ultimate known origin of many common words sometimes goes back to a
great date, and points to extinct languages--
_Ancient Nubian._--Barbarous.
_Ancient Egyptian._--Ammonia.
_Ancient Syrian._--Cyder.
_Ancient Lycian._--Pandar.
_Ancient Lydian._--Mæander.
_Ancient Persian._--Paradise.
§ 86. Again, a word from a given language may be introduced by more lines
than one; or it may be introduced twice over; once at an earlier, and again
at a later period. In such a case its form will, most probably, vary; and,
what is more, its meaning as well. Words of this sort may be called
_di-morphic_, their _dimorphism_ having originated in one of two reasons--a
difference of channel or a difference of date. Instances of the first are,
_syrup_, _sherbet_, and _shrub_, all originally from the _Arabic_, _srb_;
but introduced differently, viz., the first through the Latin, the second
through the Persian, and the third through the Hindoo. Instances of the
second are words like _minster_, introduced during the Anglo-Saxon, as
contrasted with _monastery_, introduced during the Anglo-Norman period. By
the proper application of these processes, we account for words so
different in present form, yet so identical in origin, as _priest_ and
_presbyter_, _episcopal_ and _bishop_, &c.
§ 87. _Distinction._--The history of the languages that have been spoken in
a particular country, is a different subject from the history of a
particular language. The history of the languages that have been spoken in
the United States of America, is the history of _Indian_ languages. The
history of the language of the United States is the history of a Germanic
language.
§ 88. _Words of foreign simulating a vernacular origin._--These may occur
in any mixed language whatever; they occur, however, oftener in the English
than in any other.
Let a word be introduced from a foreign language--let it have some
resemblance in sound to a real English term: lastly, let the meanings of
the two words be not absolutely incompatible. We may then have a word of
foreign origin taking the appearance of an English one. Such, amongst
others, are _beef-eater_, from _boeuffetier_; _sparrow-grass_, _asparagus_;
_Shotover_, _Chateauvert_;[35] _Jerusalem_, _Girasole_;[36] _Spanish
beefeater_, _spina bifida_; _periwig_, _peruke_; _runagate_, _renegade_;
_lutestring_, _lustrino_;[37] _O yes_, _Oyez!_ _ancient_, _ensign_.[38]
_Dog-cheap_.--This has nothing to do with _dogs_. The first syllabic is
_god_ = _good_ transposed, and the second the _ch-p_ in _chapman_ ( =
_merchant_) _cheap_, and _Eastcheap_. In Sir J. Mandeville, we find
_god-kepe_ = _good bargain_.
_Sky-larking_.--Nothing to do with _larks_ of any sort; still less the
particular species, _alauda arvensis_. The word improperly spelt _l-a-r-k_,
and banished to the slang regions of the English language, is the
Anglo-Saxon _lác_ = _game_, or _sport_; wherein the a is sounded as in
_father_ (not as in _farther_). _Lek_ = _game_, in the present Scandinavian
languages.
_Zachary Macaulay_ = _Zumalacarregui_; _Billy Ruffian_ = _Bellerophon_;
_Sir Roger Dowlas_ = _Surajah Dowlah_, although so limited to the common
soldiers and sailors, who first used them, as to be exploded vulgarisms
rather than integral parts of the language, are examples of the same
tendency towards the irregular accommodation of misunderstood foreign
terms.
_Birdbolt_.--An incorrect name for the _gadus lota_, or _eel-pout_, and a
transformation of _barbote_.
_Whistle-fish_.--The same for _gadus mustela_, or _weasel-fish_.
_Liquorice_ = _glycyrrhiza_.
_Wormwood_ = _weremuth_, is an instance of a word from the same language,
in an antiquated shape, being equally transformed with a word of really
foreign origin.
§ 89. Sometimes the transformation of the _name_ has engendered a change in
the object to which it applies, or, at least, has evolved new ideas in
connection with it. How easy for a person who used the words _beef-eater_,
_sparrow-grass_, or _Jerusalem_, to believe that the officers designated by
the former either eat or used to eat more beef than any other people, that
the second word was the name for a _grass_ or herb of which _sparrows_ were
fond; and that _Jerusalem_ artichokes came from Palestine.
What has just been supposed has sometimes a real occurrence. To account for
the name of _Shotover-hill_, I have heard that Little John _shot over_ it.
Here the confusion, in order to set itself right, breeds a fiction. Again,
in chess, the piece now called the _queen_, was originally the _elephant_.
This was in Persian, _ferz_. In French it became _vierge_, which, in time,
came to be mistaken for a derivative, and _virgo_ = _the virgin_, _the
lady_, _the queen_.
§ 90. Sometimes, where the form of a word in respect to its _sound_ is not
affected, a false spirit of accommodation introduces an unetymological
_spelling_; as _frontispiece_, from _frontispecium_, _sovereign_, from
_sovrano_, _colleague_ from _collega_, _lanthorn_ (old orthography) from
_lanterna_.
The value of forms like these consists in their showing that language is
affected by false etymologies as well as by true ones.
* * * * *
§ 91. In _lambkin_ and _lancet_, the final syllables (-kin and -et) have
the same power. They both express the idea of smallness or diminutiveness.
These words are but two out of a multitude, the one (_lamb_) being of
Saxon, the other (_lance_) of Norman origin. The same is the case with the
superadded syllables: -kin being Saxon; -et Norman. Now to add a Saxon
termination to a Norman word, or _vice versâ_, is to corrupt the English
language.
This leads to some observation respecting the--
§ 92. _Introduction of new words and Hybridism._--Hybridism is a term
derived from _hybrid-a_, _a mongrel_; a Latin word _of Greek extraction_.
The terminations -ize (as in _criticize_), -ism (as in _criticism_), -ic
(as in _comic_)--these, amongst many others, are Greek terminations. To add
them to words not of Greek origin is to be guilty of hybridism. Hence,
_witticism_ is objectionable.
The terminations -ble (as in _penetrable_), -bility (as in
_penetrability_), -al (as in _parental_)--these, amongst many others, are
Latin terminations. To add them to words not of Latin origin is to be
guilty of hybridism.
Hybridism is the commonest fault that accompanies the introduction of new
words. The hybrid additions to the English language are most numerous in
works on science.
It must not, however, be concealed that several well established words are
hybrid; and that, even in the writings of the classical Roman authors,
there is hybridism between the Latin and the Greek.
Nevertheless, the etymological view of every word of foreign origin is, not
that it is put together in England, but that it is brought whole from the
language to which it is vernacular. Now no derived word can be brought
whole from a language unless, in that language, all its parts exist. The
word _penetrability_ is not derived from the English word _penetrable_, by
the addition of -ty. It is the Latin word _penetrabilitas_ imported.
_In derived words all the parts must belong to one and the same language_,
or, changing the expression, _every derived word must have a possible form
in the language from which it is taken_. Such is the rule against
hybridism.
§ 93. A true word sometimes takes the appearance of a hybrid without really
being so. The -icle, in _icicle_, is apparently the same as the -icle in
_radicle_. Now, as _ice_ is Gothic, and -icle classical, hybridism is
simulated. _Icicle_, however, is not a derivative but a compound; its parts
being _is_ and _gicel_, both Anglo-Saxon words.[39]
§ 94. _On incompletion of the radical._--Let there be in a given language a
series of roots ending in -t, as _sæmat_. Let a euphonic influence eject
the -t, as often as the word occurs in the nominative case. Let the
nominative case be erroneously considered to represent the root, or
radical, of the word. Let a derivative word be formed accordingly, i.e., on
the notion that the nominative form and the radical form coincide. Such a
derivative will exhibit only a part of the root; in other words, the
radical will be incomplete.
Now all this is what actually takes place in words like _hæmo-ptysis_
(_spitting of blood_), _sema-phore_ (_a sort of telegraph_). The Greek
imparisyllabics eject a part of the root in the nominative case; the
radical forms being _hæmat-_ and _sæmat-_, not _hæm-_and _sæm-_.
Incompletion of the radical is one of the commonest causes of words being
coined faultily. It must not, however, be concealed, that even in the
classical writers, we have in words like [Greek: distomos] examples of
incompletion of the radical.
* * * * *
§ 95. The preceding chapters have paved the way for a distinction between
the _historical_ analysis of a language, and the _logical_ analysis of one.
Let the present language of England (for illustration's sake only) consist
of 40,000 words. Of these let 30,000 be Anglo-Saxon, 5,000 Anglo-Norman,
100 Celtic, 10 Latin of the first, 20 Latin of the second, and 30 Latin of
the third period, 50 Scandinavian, and the rest miscellaneous. In this case
the language is considered according to the historical origin of the words
that compose it, and the analysis is an historical analysis.
But it is very evident that the English, or any other language, is capable
of being contemplated in another view, and that the same number of words
may be very differently classified. Instead of arranging them according to
the languages whence they are derived, let them be disposed according to
the meanings that they convey. Let it be said, for instance, that out of
40,000 words, 10,000 are the names of natural objects, that 1000 denote
abstract ideas, that 1000 relate to warfare, 1000 to church matters, 500 to
points of chivalry, 1000 to agriculture, and so on through the whole. In
this case the analysis is not historical but logical; the words being
classed not according to their _origin_, but according to their _meaning_.
Now the logical and historical analyses of a language generally in some
degree coincide; that is, terms for a certain set of ideas come from
certain languages; just as in English a large proportion of our chemical
terms are Arabic, whilst a still larger one of our legal ones are
Anglo-Norman.
* * * * *
CHAPTER II.
THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
§ 96. The relation of the present English to the Anglo-Saxon is that of a
_modern_ language to an _ancient_ one: the words _modern_ and _ancient_
being used in a defined and technical sense.
Let the word _smiðum_ illustrate this. _Smið-um_, the dative plural of
_smið_, is equivalent in meaning to the English _to smiths_; or to the
Latin _fabr-is_. _Smiðum_, however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a
substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two words
(i.e., a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letter s, in
_smiths_, shows that the word is plural. The -um, in _smiðum_, does this
and something more. It is the sign of the _dative case_ plural. The -um in
_smiðum_, is the part of a word. The preposition _to_ is a separate word
with an independent existence. _Smiðum_ is the radical syllable _smið_ +
the subordinate inflectional syllable -um, the sign of the dative case. The
combination _to smiths_ is the substantive _smiths_ + the preposition _to_,
equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in
form. As far, then, as the words just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon
differs from the English by expressing an idea by a certain _modification
of the form of the root_, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea
by _the addition of a preposition_; in other words, the Saxon _inflection_
is superseded by a _combination_ of words.
The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement.
1. _The earlier the stage of a given language the greater the amount of its
inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the
smaller the amount of them._ 2. _As languages become modern they substitute
prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses._ 3. _The amount of
inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of prepositions and
auxiliary verbs._ 4. _In the course of time languages drop their
inflections, and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means of
prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place._ 5. _Given two modes of
expression, the one inflectional_ (smiðum), _the other
circumlocutional_[40] (to smiths), _we can state that the first belongs to
an early, the second to a late, state of language._
The present chapter, then showing the relation of the English to the
Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the _general_ relation of a
modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are
the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; and so are the
French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin,
and the Romaic to the ancient Greek.
§ 97. Contrasted with the English, the Anglo-Saxon has (among others) the
following differences.
NOUNS.
1. _Gender._--In Anglo-Saxon there were three genders, the masculine, the
feminine, and the neuter. With _adjectives_ each gender had its peculiar
declension. With _substantives_ also there were appropriate terminations,
though only to a certain degree.
2. The definite article varied with the gender of its substantive; _þæt
eage_, the eye; _se steorra_, the star; _seo tunge_, the tongue.
3. _Number._--The plural form in -en (as in _oxen_), rare in English, was
common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole
declension; e.g., _eágan_, eyes; _steorran_, stars; _tungan_, tongues.
Besides this, the Anglo-Saxons had forms in -u and -a as _ricu_, kingdoms;
_gifa_, gifts. The termination -s, current in the present English, was
confined to a single gender and to a single declension, as _endas_, ends;
_dagas_, days; _smiðas_, smiths.
4. _Case._--Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least
three; viz., the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and
adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words
an ablative or instrumental one. _Smið_, a smith; _smiðe_, to a smith;
_smiðes_, of a smith. Plural, _smiðas_, smiths; _smiðum_, to smiths;
_smiða_, of smiths: _he_, he; _hine_, him; _him_, to him; _his_, his; _se_,
the; _þa_, the; _þy_, with the; _þam_, to the; _þæs_, of the.
5. _Declension._--In _Anglo-Saxon_ it was necessary to determine the
declension of a substantive. There was the weak, or simple declension for
words ending in a vowel (as, _eage_, _steorra_, _tunga_), and the strong
declension for words ending in a consonant (_smið_, _spræc_, _leáf_). The
letters i and u were dealt with as semivowels, semi-vowels being dealt with
as consonants; so that words like _sunu_ and _gifu_ belonged to the same
declension as _smið_ and _spræc_.
6. _Definite and indefinite form of adjectives._--In Anglo-Saxon each
adjective had two forms, one _definite_ and one _indefinite_. There is
nothing of this kind in English. We say _a good sword_, and _the good
sword_ equally. In Anglo-Saxon, however, the first combination would be _se
gode sweord_, the second _án god sweord_, the definite form being
distinguished from the indefinite by the addition of a vowel.
7. _Pronouns personal._--The Anglo-Saxon language had for the first two
persons a _dual_ number; inflected as follows:
_1st Person._ _2nd Person._
_Nom._ Wit _We two_ _Nom._ Git _Ye two_
_Acc._ Unc _Us two_ _Acc._ Ince _You two_
_Gen._ Uncer _Of us two_ _Gen._ Incer _Of you two._
Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative pronouns, as well
as the numerals _twa_ and _þreo_, had a fuller declension than they have at
present.
VERBS.
8. _Mood._--The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with one
exception[41]) differs from the indicative only in the third person
singular, was in Anglo-Saxon considerably different from the indicative.
_Indicative Mood._
_Pres. Sing._ 1. Lufige. _Plur._ 1. }
2. Lufast. 2. } Lufiað.
3. Lufað. 3. }
_Subjunctive Mood._
_Pres. Sing._ 1. } _Plur._ 1. }
2. } Lufige 2. } Lufion.
3. } 3. }
The Saxon infinitive ended in -an (_lufian_), and besides this there was a
so-called gerundial form, _to lufigenne_.
Besides these there were considerable differences in respect to particular
words; but of these no notice is taken; the object being to indicate the
differences between the _ancient_ and _modern_ stages of a language in
respect to _grammatical structure_.
9. To bring about these changes a certain amount _of time_ is, of course,
necessary; a condition which suggests the difficult question as to the
_rate_ at which languages change. This is different for different
languages; but as the investigation belongs to _general_ philology rather
than to the particular history of the English language, it finds no place
here.
§ 98. The extent, however, to which external causes may accelerate or
retard philological changes, is _not_ foreign to our subject; the influence
of the Norman Conquest, upon the previous Anglo-Saxon foundation, being a
problem of some difficulty.
At the first glance it seems to have been considerable, especially in the
way of simplifying the grammar. Yet the accuracy of this view is by no
means unequivocal. The reasons against it are as follows:
a. In Friesland no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Frisian, as
compared with the ancient, is nearly as simple in its grammatical
structure, as the English is when compared with the Anglo-Saxon.
b. In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, no such conquest took place. Yet the
modern Danish and Swedish, as compared with the Old Norse, are nearly as
simple in their grammatical structure, as the English is, when compared
with the Anglo-Saxon.
The question requires more investigation than it has met with.
An extract from Mr. Hallam's "History of Literature" closes the present
section, and introduces the next.
"Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to
determine the commencement of the English language; not so much, as in
those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather
from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual
succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We
should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally
well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth
centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth
century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce
why it should pass for a separate language, rather than a modification
or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage,
and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:--1. By
contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography
of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and
consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the
introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and
ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think,
can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and
this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much
of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pass for the
latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's
fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of
our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which
is to cover everything from A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1250."--Chapter i. 47.
§ 99. This shows that by the middle of the 12th century, the Anglo-Saxon of
the standard Anglo-Saxon authors, had undergone such a change as to induce
the scholars of the present ago to denominate it, not Saxon, but
Semi-Saxon. It had ceased to be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become
English.
Some, amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon
are,
1. The substitution of -an for -as, in the plural of substantives,
_munucan_ for _munucas_ (_monks_); and, conversely, the substitution of -s
for -n, as _steorres_ for _steorran_ (_stars_).
2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels, _þæt ylc_ for _þæt ylce_;
_sone_ for _sunu_; _name_ for _nama_; _dages_ for _dagas_.
3. The substitution of -n for -m in the dative case, _hwilon_ for _hwilum_.
4. The ejection of the -n of the infinitive mood, _cumme_ for _cuman_ (_to
come_), _nemne_ for _nemnen_ (_to name_).
5. The ejection of -en in the participle passive, _I-hote_ for _gehaten_
(_called_, _hight_).
6. The gerundial termination -enne, superseded by the infinitive
termination -en; as _to lufian_ for _to lufienne_, or _lufigenne_.
7. The substitution of -en for -að in the persons plural of verbs; _hi
clepen_ (_they call_) for _hi clypiað_, &c.
The preponderance (not the occasional occurrence) of forms like those above
constitute _Semi-Saxon_ in contradistinction to standard Saxon, classical
Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon proper.
§ 100. _Old English stage._--Further changes convert Semi-Saxon into Old
English. Some, amongst others, are the following:--
1. The ejection of the dative plural termination -um, and the substitution
of the preposition to and the plural sign -s; as _to smiths_ for _smiðum_.
Of the dative singular the -e is retained (_ende_, _worde_); but it is by
no means certain that, although recognized in writing, it was equally
recognized in pronunciation also.
2. The ejection of -es in the genitive singular whenever the preposition
_of_ came before it; _Godes love_ (_God's love_), but the _love of God_,
and not the _love of Godes_.
3. The syllable -es as a sign of the genitive case extended to all genders
and to all declensions; _heart's_ for _heortan_; _sun's_ for _sunnan_.
4. The same in respect to the plural number; _sterres_ for _steorran_;
_sons_ for _suna_.
5. The ejection of -na in the genitive plural; as _of tunges_ for
_tungena_.
6. The use of the word _the_, as an article, instead of _se_, &c.
The _preponderance_ of the forms above (and not their mere occasional
occurrence) constitutes _Old English_ in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
§ 101. In the Old English the following forms predominate.
1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative pronoun, or definite article;
_þan_, _þenne_, _þære_, _þam_;--in contradistinction to the Middle English.
2. The presence of the dative singular in -e; _ende_, _smithe_.
3. The existence of a genitive plural in -r or -ra; _heora_, theirs;
_aller_, of all. This, with substantives and adjectives, is less common.
4. The substitution of _heo_ for _they_, of _heora_ for _their_, of _hem_
for _them_.
5. A more frequent use of _min_ and _thin_, for _my_ and _thy_;--in
contradistinction to both Middle and Modern English.
6. The use of _heo_ for _she_;--in contradistinction to Middle and Modern
English and Old Lowland _Scotch_.
7. The use of broader vowels; as in _iclepud_ or _iclepod_ (for _icleped_
or _yclept_); _geongost_, youngest; _ascode_, asked; _eldore_, elder.
8. The use of the strong preterits (_see_ the chapter on the tenses of
verbs), where in the present English the weak form is found--_wex_, _wop_,
_dalf_, for _waxed_, _wept_, _delved_.
9. The omission not only of the gerundial termination -enne, but also of
the infinitive sign -en after _to_; _to honte_, _to speke_;--in
contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
10. The substitution of -en for -eþ or -eð, in the first and second persons
plural of verbs; _we wollen_, we will: _heo schullen_, they should.
11. The comparative absence of the articles _se_ and _seo_.
12. The substitution of _ben_ and _beeth_, for _synd_ and _syndon_ = _we_,
_ye_, _they are_.
§ 102. Concerning the extent to which the Anglo-Norman was used, I retail
the following statements and quotations.
1. "Letters even of a private nature were written in Latin till the
beginning of the reign of Edward I., soon after 1270, when a sudden
change brought in the use of French."--_Mr. Hallam, communicated by Mr.
Stevenson_ (_Literature of Europe_, i. 52, _and note_).
2. Conversation between the members of the Universities was ordered to
be carried on either in Latin or French:--"_Si qua inter se proferant,
colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur._"--_Statutes of Oriel
College, Oxford._--_Hallam, ibid._ from Warton.
3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town
Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in
Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."--_Ibid._
4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into
French."--_Ibid._ "_Pueri in scholis, contra morem cæterarum nationum,
et Normannorum adventu, derelicto proprio vulgari, construere Gallice
compelluntur. Item quod filii nobilium ab ipsis cunabulorum crepundiis
ad Gallicum idioma informantur. Quibus profecto rurales homines
assimulari volentes, ut per hoc spectabiliores videantur, Francigenari
satagunt omni nisu._"--_Higden_ (_Ed. Gale_, p. 210).
§ 103. The reigns of Edward III., and Richard II., may be said to form a
transition from the _Old_ to the _Middle_; those of Mary and Elizabeth from
the _Middle_ to the _New_, _Recent_ or _Modern English_. No very definite
line of demarcation, however, can be drawn.
§ 104. The _present_ tendencies of the English may be determined by
observation: and as most of them will be noticed in the etymological part
of this volume, the few here indicated must be looked upon as illustrations
only.
1. The distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood is likely to
pass away. We verify this by the very general tendency to say _if it is_,
and _if he speaks_, rather than _if it be_, and _if he speak_.
2. The distinction between the participle passive and the past tense is
likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to say _it is broke_,
and _he is smote_, for _it is broken_ and _he is smitten_.
3. Of the double forms, _sung_ and _sang_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c., one
only will be the permanent.
As stated above, these tendencies are but a few out of many, and have been
adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it.
* * * * *
QUESTIONS.
1. Classify the Celtic elements of the English language.
2. Enumerate the chief periods during which words from the Latin were
introduced into English, and classify the Latin elements accordingly.
3. What words were introduced _directly_ by the Danes, Scandinavians,
or Norsemen? What _indirectly_? Through what language did these latter
come?
4. Give the dates of the Battle of Hastings, and of the reigns of Louis
Outremer, Ethelred II, and Edward the Confessor. What was the amount of
Norman-French elements in England anterior to the Conquest?
5. Give the languages from whence the following words were introduced
into the English--_flannel_, _jerked_ (as to _beef_), _hammock_,
_apparatus_, _waltz_, _Seraph_, _plaid_, _street_, _muslin_.
6. Distinguish between the _direct_, _indirect_, and _ultimate_ origin
of introduced words. What words have we in English which are supposed
to have _originated_ in the Ancient Ægyptian, the Syrian, and the
languages of Asia Minor?
7. Under what different forms do the following words appear in
English--_monasterium_, [Greek: presbuteros], [Greek: episkopos].
Account for these differences. _Syrup_, _shrub_, and _sherbet_, all
originate from the same word. Explain the present difference.
8. Give the _direct_ origin (i.e., the languages from which they were
_immediately_ introduced) of--_Druid_, _epistle_, _chivalry_, _cyder_,
_mæander_. Give the _indirect_ origin of the same.
9. Investigate the process by which a word like _sparrow-grass_,
apparently of _English_ origin, is, in reality, derived from the Latin
word _asparagus_. Point out the incorrectness in the words
_frontispiece_, _colleague_, and _lanthorn_.
10. To what extent may _Norse_, and to what extent may _Celtic_ words,
not found in the current language of English, be found in the
provincial dialects?
11. What were the original names of the towns _Whitby_ and _Derby_?
From what language are the present names derived? Give the reason for
your answer.
12. Show the extent to which the _logical_ and _historical_ analyses
coincide in respect to the words introduced from the Roman of the
second period, the Arabic, the Anglo-Norman, and the Celtic of the
current English.
13. What are the plural forms of _criterion_, _axis_, _genius_,
_index_, _dogma_? When is a word introduced from a foreign language
_perfectly_, when _imperfectly_ incorporated with the language into
which it is imported? Is the following expression correct--_the
cherubim that singeth aloft_? If not, why?
14. What is there exceptionable in the words _semaphore_ (meaning a
sort of telegraph), and _witticism_. Give the etymologies of the words
_icicle_, _radicle_, and _radical_.
15. What are the singular forms of _cantharides_, _phænomena_, and
_data_?
16. What are the stages of the English language? How does the present
differ from the older ones?
17. Exhibit in detail the inflections of the Anglo-Saxon a) noun, and
b) verb, which are not found in the present English. What is the import
of the loss of inflections, and their replacement by separate words?
What is the nature of such words in nouns? What in verbs?
18. Contrast the syntax of the Anglo-Saxon with the Modern English
adjective. What is the English for the Anglo-Saxon words _wit_, _unc_,
_incer_?
19. Express, in general terms, the chief points wherein a modern
language differs from an ancient one: or, rather, the points wherein
the different stages of the same language differ.
20. Investigate the influence of the Norman Conquest on the English.
Explain the terms Semi-Saxon, Old English, and Middle English. Compare
the stages of the English with those of the other Gothic tongues.
21. Give the Modern English for the following forms and
expressions--_munucas_, _steorran_, _to lufienne_. What are the
Anglo-Saxon forms of _munucan_, _steorres_, _i-hotte_, _clepen_?
Translate the Latin word _omnium_ (genitive plural of _omnis_) into
_Old_ English. Translate the Greek [Greek: ho], [Greek: hê], [Greek:
to] into Anglo-Saxon, Old English, and Modern English.
22. Investigate the extent to which the Anglo-Norman superseded the
Anglo-Saxon subsequent to the Conquest. Is any further change in the
grammatical structure of our language probable? If so, what do you
consider will be the nature of it?
* * * * *
PART III.
SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING.
* * * * *
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL NATURE AND CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
§ 105. To two points connected with the subject of the following chapter,
the attention of the reader is requested.
a. In the comparison of sounds the ear is liable to be misled by the eye.
Thus--
The syllables ka and ga are similar syllables. The vowel is in each the
same, and the consonant is but slightly different. Hence the words ka and
ga are more allied to each other than the words ka and ba, ka and ta, &c.,
because the consonantal sounds of k and g are more allied than the
consonantal sounds of k and b, k and t.
Comparing the syllables ga and ka, we see the affinity between the sounds,
and we see it at the first glance. It lies on the surface, and strikes the
ear at once.
It is, however, very evident that ways might be devised or might arise from
accident, of concealing the likeness between the two sounds, or, at any
rate, of making it less palpable. One of such ways would be a faulty mode
of spelling. If instead of ga we wrote gha the following would be the
effect: the syllable would appear less simple than it really was; it would
look as if it consisted of three parts instead of two, and consequently its
affinity to ka would seem less than it really was. It is perfectly true
that a little consideration would tell us that, as long as the sound
remained the same, the relation of the two syllables remained the same
also; and that, if the contrary appeared to be the case, the ear was misled
by the eye. Still a little consideration would be required. Now in the
English language we have (amongst others) the following modes of spelling
that have a tendency to mislead;--
The sounds of ph and of f, in _Philip_ and _fillip_, differ to the eye, but
to the ear are identical. Here a difference is simulated.
The sounds of th in _thin_, and of th in _thine_, differ to the ear but to
the eye seem the same. Here a difference is concealed.
Furthermore. These last sounds appear to the eye to be double or compound.
This is not the case; they are simple single sounds, and not the sounds of
t followed by h, as the spelling leads us to imagine.
b. Besides improper modes of spelling, there is another way of concealing
the true nature of sounds. If I say that ka and ga are allied, the alliance
is manifest; since I compare the actual _sounds_. If I say _ka_ and _gee_
are allied, the alliance is concealed; since I compare, not the actual
sounds, but only the _names of the letters_ that express those sounds. Now
in the English language we have (amongst others) the following names of
letters that have a tendency to mislead:--
The sounds fa and va are allied. The names _eff_ and _vee_ conceal this
alliance.
The sounds sa and za are allied. The names _ess_ and _zed_ conceal the
alliance.
In comparing sounds it is advisable to have nothing to do either with
letters or names of letters. Compare the sounds themselves.
§ 106. In many cases it is sufficient, in comparing consonants, to compare
syllables that contain those consonants; e.g., in order to determine the
relations of p, b, f, v, we say pa, ba, fa, va; or for those of s and z, we
say sa, za. Here we compare _syllables_, each consonant being followed by a
vowel. At times this is insufficient. We are often obliged to isolate the
consonant from its vowel, and bring our organs to utter (or half utter) the
imperfect sounds of p', b', t', d'.
§ 107. Let any of the _vowels_ (for instance, the a in _father_) be
sounded. The lips, the tongue, and the parts within the throat remain in
the same position; and as long as these remain in the same position the
sound is that of the vowel under consideration. Let, however, a change take
place in the position of the organs of sound; let, for instance, the lips
be closed, or the tongue be applied to the front part of the mouth: in that
case the vowel sound is cut short. It undergoes a change. It terminates in
a sound that is different, according to the state of those organs whereof
the position has been changed. If, on the vowel in question, the lips be
closed, there then arises an imperfect sound of b or p. If on the other
hand, the tongue be applied to the front teeth, or to the forepart of the
palate, the sound is one (more or less imperfect) of t or d. This fact
illustrates the difference between the vowels and the consonants. It may be
verified by pronouncing the a in _fate_, ee in _feet_, oo in _book_, o in
_note_, &c.
It is a further condition in the formation of a vowel sound, that the
passage of the breath be uninterrupted. In the sound of the l' in _lo_
(isolated from its vowel) the sound is as continuous as it is with the a in
_fate_. Between, however, the consonant l and the vowel a there is this
difference: with a, the passage of the breath is uninterrupted; with l, the
tongue is applied to the palate, breaking or arresting the passage of the
breath.
§ 108. The primary division of our articulate sounds is into vowels and
consonants. The latter are again divided into liquids (l, m, n, r) and
mutes (p, b, f, v, t, d, k, g, s, z, &c.).
§ 109. _Sharp and flat._--Take the sounds of p, f, t, k, s. Isolate them
from their vowels, and pronounce them. The sound is the sound of a whisper.
Let b, v, d, g, z, be similarly treated. The sound is no whisper, but one
at the natural tone of our voice.
Now p, f, t, k, s (with some others that will be brought forward anon) are
_sharp_, whilst b, v, &c., are _flat_. Instead of _sharp_, some say _hard_,
and instead of _flat_, some say _soft_. The terms _sonant_ and _surd_ are,
in a scientific point of view, the least exceptionable. They have, however,
the disadvantage of being pedantic. The _tenues_ of the classics (as far as
they go) are sharp, the _mediæ_ flat.
§ 110. _Continuous and explosive._--Isolate the sounds of b, p, t, d, k, g.
Pronounce them. You have no power of prolonging the sounds, or of resting
upon them. They escape with the breath, and they escape at once.
It is not so with f, v, sh, zh. Here the breath is transmitted by degrees,
and the sound can be drawn out and prolonged for an indefinite space of
time. Now b, p, t, &c., are explosive, f, v, &c., continuous.
§ 111. Concerning the vowels, we may predicate a) that they are all
continuous, b) that they are all flat.
Concerning the liquids, we may predicate a) that they are all continuous,
b) that they are all flat.
Concerning the mutes, we may predicate a) that one half of them is flat,
and the other half sharp, and b) that some are continuous, and that others
are explosive.
§ 112.--The letter h is no _articulate_ sound, but only a breathing.
* * * * *
CHAPTER II.
SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
§ 113.--The attention of the reader is now directed to the following
_foreign_ vowel sounds.
1. The _é fermé_, of the French.--This is a sound allied to, but different
from, the a in _fate_, and the ee in _feet_. It is intermediate to the two.
2. The u of the French, ü of the Germans, y of the Danes.--This sound is
intermediate to the ee in _feet_, and the oo in _book_.
3. The _o chiuso_, of the Italians.--Intermediate to the o in _note_, and
the oo in _book_.
For these sounds we have the following sequences: a in _fate_, _é fermé_,
ee in _feet_, ü in _übel_ (German), oo in _book_, _o chiuso_, o in _note_.
And this is the true order of alliance among the vowels; a in _fate_, and o
in _note_, being the extremes; the other sounds being transitional or
intermediate. As the English orthography is at once singular and faulty, it
exhibits the relationship but imperfectly.
§ 114. _The system of the mutes._--Preliminary to the consideration of the
system of the mutes, let it be observed:--
1. that the th in _thin_ is a simple single sound, different from the
th in _thine_, and that it may be expressed by the sign þ.
2. That the th in _thine_ is a simple single sound, different from the
th in _thin_, and that it may be expressed by the sign ð.
3. That the sh in _shine_ is a simple single sound, and that it may be
expressed by the sign [sigma][42] (Greek [Greek: sigma]).
4. That the z in _azure_, _glazier_ (French j) is a simple single
sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign [zeta][42] (Greek
[Greek: zêta]).
5. That in the Laplandic, and possibly in many other languages, there
are two peculiar sounds, different from any in English, German, and
French, &c., and that they may respectively be expressed by the sign
[kappa] and the sign [gamma][42] (Greek [Greek: kappa] and [Greek:
gamma]).
§ 115. With these preliminary notices we may exhibit the system of the
sixteen mutes; having previously determined the meaning of two fresh terms,
and bearing in mind what was said concerning the words _sharp_ and _flat_,
_continuous_ and _explosive_.
_Lene and aspirate._--From the sound of p in _pat_, the sound of f in _fat_
differs in a certain degree. This difference is not owing to a difference
in their sharpness or flatness. Each is sharp. Neither is it owing to a
difference in their continuity or explosiveness; although f is continuous,
whilst p is explosive. This we may ascertain by considering the position of
s. The sound of s is _continuous_; yet s, in respect to the difference
under consideration, is classed not with f the continuous sound but with p
the explosive one. This difference, which has yet to be properly
elucidated, is expressed by a particular term; and p is called _lene_, f is
called _aspirate_.
As f is to p so is v to b.
As v is to b so is þ to t.
As þ is to t so is ð to d.
As ð is to d so is [kappa] to k.
As [kappa] is to k so is [gamma] to g.
As [gamma] is to g so is [sigma] to s.
As [sigma] is to s so is [zeta] to z.
Hence p, b, t, d, k, g, s, z, are _lene_; f, v, þ, ð, [kappa], [gamma],
[sigma], [zeta], are _aspirate_. Also p, f, t, þ, k, [kappa], s, [sigma],
are _sharp_, whilst b, v, d, ð, g, [gamma], z, [zeta], are _flat_; so that
there is a double series of relationship capable of being expressed as
follows:--
_Lene._ _Aspirate._ | _Sharp._ _Flat._
Sharp. Flat. Sharp. Flat. | Lene. Aspirate. Lene. Aspirate.
p b f v | p f b v
t d þ ð | t þ d ð
k g [kappa] [gamma] | k [kappa] g [gamma]
s z [sigma] [zeta] | s [sigma] z [zeta]
All the so-called aspirates are continuous; and, with the exception of s
and z, all the lenes are explosive.
§ 116. I believe that in the fact of each mute appearing in a four-fold
form (i.e., sharp, or flat, lene, or aspirate), lies the essential
character of the mutes as opposed to the liquids.
§ 117. Y and w.--These sounds, respectively intermediate to [gamma] and i
(the ee in _feet_), and to v and u (oo in _book_), form a transition from
the vowels to the consonants.
§ 118. The French word _roi_, and the English words _oil_, _house_, are
specimens of a fresh class of articulations; viz., of _compound vowel_
sounds or diphthongs. The diphthong oi is the vowel o + the semivowel y.
The diphthongal sound in _roi_ is the vowel o + the semivowel w. In _roi_
the semivowel element precedes, in _oil_ it follows.
§ 119. The words quoted indicate the nature of the diphthongal system.
1. Diphthongs with the semivowel w, a) _preceding_, as in the French word
_roi_, b) _following_, as in the English word _new_.
2. Diphthongs with the semivowel y, a) _preceding_, as is common in the
languages of the Lithuanic and Slavonic stocks, b) _following_, as in the
word _oil_.
3. Triphthongs with a semivowel both _preceding_ and _following_.
The diphthongs in English are four; ow as in _house_, ew as in _new_, oi as
in _oil_, i as in _bite_, _fight_.
§ 120. _Chest_, _jest_.--Here we have _compound consonantal_ sounds. The ch
in _chest_ = t + sh; the j in _jest_ = d + zh. I believe that in these
combinations one or both the elements, viz., t and sh, d and zh, are
modified; but I am unable to state the exact nature of this modification.
§ 121. Ng.--The sound of the ng in _sing_, _king_, _throng_, when at the
end of a word, or of _singer_, _ringing_, &c., in the middle of a word, is
not the natural sound of the combination n and g, each letter retaining its
natural power and sound; but a simple single sound, for which the
combination ng is a conventional mode of expression.
§ 122. Compared with a in _fate_, and the o in _note_, a in _father_, and
the aw in _bawl_, are _broad_; the vowels of _note_ and _fate_ being
_slender_.
§ 123. In _fat_, the vowel is, according to common parlance, _short_; in
_fate_, it is _long_. Here we have the introduction of two fresh terms. For
the words _long_ and _short_, I substitute _independent_ and _dependent_.
If from the word _fate_ I separate the final consonantal sound, the
syllable fa remains. In this syllable the a has precisely the sound that it
had before. It remains unaltered. The removal of the consonant has in
nowise modified its sound or power. It is not so, however, with the vowel
in the word _fat_. If from this I remove the consonant following, and so
leave the a at the end of the syllable, instead of in the middle, I must do
one of two things: I must sound it either as the a in _fate_, or else as
the a in _father_. Its (so-called) short sound it cannot retain, unless it
be supported by a consonant following. For this reason it is _dependent_.
The same is the case with all the so-called short sounds, viz., the e in
_bed_, i in _fit_, u in _bull_, o in _not_, u in _but_.
§ 124. It is not every vowel that is susceptible of every modification. I
(ee) and u (oo) are incapable of becoming _broad_. The e in _bed_, although
both broad and slender, is incapable of becoming _independent_. For the u
in _but_, and for the ö of certain foreign languages, I have no
satisfactory systematic position.
§ 125. _Vowel System._
_Broad._ _Slender._
_Independent._ || _Independent._ | _Dependent._
a, in _father_ || a, in _fate_ | a, in _fat_.
|| é in _fermé_, | é, in _fermé_,
|| _long_ | _short_.
e, in _meine_, Germ. || | e, in _bed_.
|| ee, in _feet_ | i, _pit_.
|| ü, of the German, | the same, _short_.
|| _long_ |
|| oo, in _book_ | ou, in _could_.
|| o in _chiuso_ | the same, _short_.
aw, in _bawl_ || o, in _note_ | o, in _not_.
From these the semivowels w and y make a transition to the consonants v and
the so-called aspirate of g, respectively.
§ 126. _System of Consonants._
Liquids. Mutes. Semivowels.
|| Lene. | Aspirate. ||
|| Sharp. Flat. | Sharp. Flat. ||
|| | ||
m || p v | f v || w
n || t d | þ ð || .
l || k g |[kappa] [gamma] || y
r || s z |[sigma] [zeta] || .
n is doubled in _unnatural_, _innate_, _oneness_.
l -- _soulless_, _civil-list_, _palely_.
k -- _book-case_.
t -- _seaport-town_.
It must not, however, be concealed, that, in the mouths even of correct
speakers, one of the doubled sounds is often dropped.
§ 132. _True aspirates rare._--The criticism applied to words like
_pitted_, &c., applies also to words like _Philip_, _thin_, _thine_, &c.
There is therein no sound of h. How the so-called aspirates differ from
their corresponding lenes has not yet been determined. That it is _not_ by
the addition of h is evident. Ph and th are conventional modes of spelling
simple single sounds, which might better be expressed by simple single
signs.
In our own language the _true_ aspirates, like the true reduplications, are
found only in compound words; and there they are often slurred in the
pronunciation.
We find p and h in the words _haphazard_, _upholder_.
-- b and h -- _abhorrent_, _cub-hunting_.
-- f and h -- _knife-handle_, _off hand_.
-- v and h -- _stave-head_.
-- d and h -- _adhesive_, _childhood_.
-- t and h -- _nuthook_.
-- th and h -- _withhold_.
-- k and h -- _inkhorn_, _bakehouse_.
-- g and h -- _gig-horse_.
-- s and h -- _race-horse_, _falsehood_.
-- z and h -- _exhibit_, _exhort_.
-- r and h -- _perhaps_.
-- l and h -- _wellhead_, _foolhardy_.
-- m and h -- _Amherst_.
-- n and h -- _unhinge_, _inherent_, _unhappy_.
* * * * *
CHAPTER IV.
EUPHONY AND THE PERMUTATION OF LETTERS.
§ 133. 1. Let there be two syllables of which the one ends in m, and the
other begins with r, as we have in the syllables num- and -rus of the Latin
word _numerus_.
2. Let an ejection of the intervening letters bring these two syllables
into immediate contact, _numrus_. The m and r form an unstable combination.
To remedy this there is a tendency to insert an intervening sound.
In English, the form which the Latin word _numerus_ takes is _number_; in
Spanish, _nombre_. The b makes no part of the original word, but has been
inserted for the sake of _euphony_; or, to speak more properly, by a
euphonic process. The word euphony is derived from [Greek: eu] (_well_),
and [Greek: phônê] (_fônæ_, a voice).
§ 134. In the words _give_ and _gave_ we have a change of tense expressed
by a change of vowel. In the words _price_ and _prize_ a change of meaning
is expressed by a change of consonant. In _clothe_ and _clad_ there is a
change both of a vowel and of a consonant. In the words _to use_ and _a
use_ there is a similar change, although it is not expressed by the
spelling. To the ear the verb _to use_ ends in z, although not to the eye.
All these are instances of the _permutation_ of letters.
_Permutation of Vowels._
a to [)e], as _man_, _men_.
a to oo, as _stand_, _stood_.
a to u, as _dare_, _durst_.
a to [=e], as _was_, _were_.
ea to o, as _speak_, _spoken_.
ea = [)e] to ea = [=e], as _breath_, _breathe_.
ee to [)e], as _deep_, _depth_.
ea to o, as _bear_, _bore_.
i to a, as _spin_, _span_.
i to u, as _spin_, _spun_.
[=i] = ei to o, as _smite_, _smote_.
i = ei to [)i], as _smite_, _smitten_.
i to a, as _give_, _gave_.
i = ei to a, as _rise_, _raise_.
[)i] to e, as _sit_, _set_.
ow to ew, as _blow_, _blew_.
o to e, as _strong_, _strength_.
oo to ee, as _tooth_, _teeth_.
o to i, as _top_, _tip_.
o to e, as _old_, _elder_; _tell_, _told_.
[)o] to e, as _brother_, _brethren_.
[=o] = oo to i, as _do_, _did_.
o = oo to o = [)u], as _do_, _done_.
oo to o, as _choose_, _chose_.
_Permutation of Consonants._
f to v, _life_, _live_; _calf_, _calves_.
þ to ð, _breath_, _to breathe_.
þ to d, _seethe_, _sod_; _clothe_, _clad_.
d to t, _build_, _built_.
s to z, _use_, _to use_.
s to r, _was_, _were_; _lose_, _forlorn_.
In _have_ and _had_ we have the _ejection_ of a sound; in _work_ and
_wrought_, the _transposition_ of one.
_Permutation of Combinations._
ie = i to ow, as _grind_, _ground_.
ow to i = ei, as _mouse_, _mice_;
_cow_, _kine_.
ink to augh, as _drink_, _draught_.
ing to ough, as _bring_, _brought_.
y (formerly g), to ough, as _buy_, _bought_.
igh = ei to ough, as _fight_, _fought_.
eek to ough, as _seek_, _sought_.
It must be noticed that the list above is far from being an exhaustive one.
The expression too of the changes undergone has been rendered difficult on
account of the imperfection of our orthography. The whole section has been
written in illustration of the meaning of the word _permutation_, rather
than for any specific object in grammar.
* * * * *
CHAPTER V.
ON THE FORMATION OF SYLLABLES.
§ 135. In respect to the formation of syllables, I am aware of no more than
one point that requires any especial consideration.
In certain words, of more than one syllable, it is difficult to say to
which syllable an intervening consonant belongs. For instance, does the v
in _river_, and the e in _fever_, belong to the first or the second
syllable? Are the words to be divided thus, _ri-ver_, _fe-ver_? or thus,
_riv-er_, _feve-r_?
The solution of the question lies by no means on the surface.
In the first place, the case is capable of being viewed in two points of
view--an etymological and a phonetic one.
That the c and r in _become_, _berhymed_, &c., belong to the second
syllable, we determine at once by taking the words to pieces; whereby we
get the words _come_ and _rhymed_ in an isolated independent form. But this
fact, although it settles the point in etymology, leaves it as it was in
phonetics; since it in nowise follows, that, because the c in the _simple_
word _come_ is exclusively attached to the letter that succeeds, it is, in
the _compound_ word _become_, exclusively attached to it also.
To the following point of structure in the consonantal sounds the reader's
attention is particularly directed.
1. Let the vowel a (as in _fate_) be sounded.--2. Let it be followed by the
consonant p, so as to form the syllable _[=a]p_. To form the sound of p, it
will be found that the lips close on the sound of a, and arrest it. Now, if
the lips be left to themselves they will not _remain_ closed on the sound,
but will open again; in a slight degree indeed, but in a degree sufficient
to cause a kind of vibration, or, at any rate, to allow an escape of the
remainder of the current of breath by which the sound was originally
formed. To re-open in a slight degree is the natural tendency of the lips
in the case exhibited above.
Now, by an effort, let this tendency to re-open be counteracted. Let the
remaining current of breath be cut short. We have, then, only this, viz.,
so much of the syllable _[=a]p_ as can be formed by the _closure_ of the
lips. All that portion of it that is caused by their re-opening is
deficient. The resulting sound seems truncated, cut short, or incomplete.
It is the sound of p, _minus_ the remnant of breath. All of the sound p
that is now left is formed, not by the _escape_ of the breath, but by the
_arrest_ of it.
The p in [=a]p is a _final_ sound. With initial sounds the case is
different. Let the lips be _closed_, and let an attempt be made to form the
syllable pa by suddenly opening them. The sound appears incomplete; but its
incompleteness is at the _beginning_ of the sound, and not at the end of
it. In the natural course of things there would have been a current of
breath _preceding_, and this current would have given a vibration, now
wanting. All the sound that is formed here is formed, not by the _arrest_
of breath, but by the _escape_ of it.
I feel that this account of the mechanism of the apparently simple sound p,
labours under all the difficulties that attend the _description_ of a
sound; and for this reason I again request the reader to satisfy himself
either of its truth or of its inaccuracy, before he proceeds to the
conclusions that will be drawn from it.
The account, however, being recognized, we have in the sound of p, two
elements:--
1. That formed by the current of air and the closure of the lips, as in ap.
This may be called the sound of breath _arrested_.
2. That formed by the current of air, and the opening of the lips, as in
pa. This may be called the sound of breath _escaping_.
Now what may be said of p may be said of all the other consonants, the
words _tongue_, _teeth_, &c., being used instead of _lips_, according to
the case.
Let the sound of breath _arrested_ be expressed by [pi], and that of breath
_escaping_ be expressed by [varpi], the two together form p ([pi] + [varpi]
= p).
Thus ap (as quoted above) is p - [varpi], or [pi]; whilst pa (sounded
similarly) is p - [pi], or [varpi].
In the formation of syllables, I consider that the sound of breath arrested
belongs to the first, and the sound of breath escaping to the second
syllable; that if each sound were expressed by a separate sign, the word
_happy_ would be divided thus, _ha[pi]-[varpi]y_; and that such would be
the case with all consonants between two syllables. The _whole_ consonant
belongs neither to one syllable nor the other. Half of it belongs to each.
The reduplication of the p in _happy_, the t in _pitted_, &c., is a mere
point of spelling.
* * * * *
CHAPTER VI.
ON QUANTITY.
§ 136. The dependent vowels, as the a in _fat_, i in _fit_, u in _but_, o
in _not_, have the character of being uttered with rapidity, and they pass
quickly in the enunciation, the voice not resting on them. This rapidity of
utterance becomes more evident when we contrast with them the prolonged
sounds of the a in _fate_, ee in _feet_, oo in _book_, or o in _note_;
wherein the utterance is retarded, and wherein the voice rests, delays, or
is prolonged. The f and t of _fate_ are separated by a longer interval than
the f and t of _fat_; and the same is the case with _fit_, _feet_, &c.
Let the n and the t of _not_ be each as 1, the o also being as 1; then each
letter, consonant or vowel, shall constitute 1/3 of the whole word.
Let, however, the n and the t of _note_ be each as 1, the o being as 2.
Then, instead of each consonant constituting 1/3 of the whole word, it
shall constitute but ¼.
Upon the comparative extent to which the voice is prolonged, the division
of vowels and syllables into _long_ and _short_ has been established: the o
in _note_ being long, the o in _not_ being short. And the longness or
shortness of a vowel or syllable is said to be its _quantity_.
§ 137. Attention is directed to the word _vowel_. The longness or shortness
of a _vowel_ is one thing. The longness or shortness of a _syllable_
another. This difference is important in prosody; especially in comparing
the English with the classical metres.
The vowel in the syllable _see_ is long; and long it remains, whether it
stand as it is, or be followed by a consonant, as in _see-n_, or by a
vowel, as in _see-ing_.
The vowel in the word _sit_ is short. If followed by a vowel it becomes
unpronounceable, except as the ea in _seat_ or the i in _sight_. By a
consonant, however, it _may_ be followed. Such is the case in the word
quoted--_sit_. Followed by a _second_ consonant, it still retains its
shortness, e.g., _sits_. Whatever the comparative length of the
_syllables_, _see_ and _seen_, _sit_ and _sits_, may be, the length of
their respective _vowels_ is the same.
Now, if we determine the character of the syllable by the character of the
vowel, all syllables are short wherein there is a short vowel, and all are
long wherein there is a long one. Hence, measured by the quantity of the
vowel, the word _sits_ is short, and the syllable _see-_ in _seeing_ is
long.
§ 138. But it is well known that this view is not the view commonly taken
of the syllables _see_ (in _seeing_) and _sits_. It is well known, that, in
the eyes of a classical scholar, the _see_ (in _seeing_) is short, and that
in the word _sits_ the i is long.
The classic differs from the Englishman thus,--_He measures his quantity,
not by the length of the vowel, but by the length of the syllable taken
altogether._ The perception of this distinction enables us to comprehend
the following statements.
a. That vowels long by nature may _appear_ to become short by position, and
_vice versâ_.
b. That, by a laxity of language, the _vowel_ may be said to have changed
its quantity, whilst it is the _syllable_ alone that has been altered.
c. That if one person measures his quantities by the vowels, and another by
the syllables, what is short to the one, shall be long to the other, and
_vice versâ_. The same is the case with nations.
d. That one of the most essential differences between the English and the
classical languages is that the quantities (as far as they go) of the first
are measured by the vowel, those of the latter by the syllable. To a Roman
the word _monument_ consists of two short syllables and one long one; to an
Englishman it contains three short syllables.
* * * * *
CHAPTER VII.
ON ACCENT.
§ 139. In the word _tyrant_ there is an emphasis, or stress, upon the first
syllable. In the word _presume_ there is an emphasis, or stress, on the
second syllable. This emphasis, or stress, is called _accent_. The
circumstance of a syllable bearing an accent is sometimes expressed by a
mark ('); in which case the word is said to be accentuated, i.e., to have
the accent signified in writing.
Words accented on the last syllable--_Brigáde_, _preténce_, _harpoón_,
_reliéve_, _detér_, _assúme_, _besóught_, _beréft_, _befóre_, _abroád_,
_abóde_, _abstrúse_, _intermíx_, _superádd_, _cavaliér_.
Words accented on the last syllable but one--_An'chor_, _ar'gue_, _hásten_,
_fáther_, _fóxes_, _smíting_, _húsband_, _márket_, _vápour_, _bárefoot_,
_archángel_, _bespátter_, _disáble_, _terrífic_.
Words accented on the last syllable but two--_Reg'ular_, _an'tidote_,
_for'tify_, _suscéptible_, _incontrovértible_.
Words accented on the last syllable but three (rare)--_Réceptacle_,
_régulating_, _tálkativeness_, _ábsolutely_, _lúminary_, _inévitable_, &c.
§ 140. A great number of words are distinguished by the difference of
accent alone.
An _áttribute_. To _attríbute_.
The month _Aúgust_. An _augúst_ person.
A _com'pact_. _Compáct_ (close).
To _con'jure_ (magically). _Conjúre_ (enjoin).
_Des'ert_, wilderness. _Desért_, merit.
_Inválid_, not valid. _Invalíd_, a sickly person.
_Mínute_, 60 seconds. _Minúte_, small.
_Súpine_, part of speech. _Supíne_, careless, &c.
§ 141. In _týrant_ and _presúme_, we deal with single words; and in each
_word_ we determine which _syllable_ is accented. Contrasted with the sort
of accent that follows, this may be called a _verbal_ accent.
In the line,
Better for _us_, perhaps, it might appear,
(Pope's "Essay on Man," I. 169.)
the pronoun _us_ is strongly brought forward. An especial stress or
emphasis is laid upon it, denoting that _there are other beings to whom it
might not appear_, &c. This is collected from the context. Here there is a
_logical_ accent. "When one word in a sentence is distinguished by a
stress, as more important than the rest, we may say that it is
_emphatical_, or that an _emphasis_ is laid upon it. When one syllable in a
word is distinguished by a stress, and more audible than the rest, we say
that it is accented, or that an accent is put upon it. Accent, therefore,
is to syllables what emphasis is to sentences; it distinguishes one from
the crowd, and brings it forward to observation."--Nares' "Orthoepy," part
ii. chap. 1.
* * * * *
CHAPTER VIII.
ORTHOGRAPHY.
§ 142. _Orthoepy_, a word derived from the Greek _orthon_ (_upright_), and
_epos_ (_a word_), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy
determines words, and deals with a language as it is _spoken_;
_orthography_ determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a
language as it is _written_. This latter term is derived from the Greek
words _orthos_ (_upright_), and _graphé_, or _grafæ_ (_writing_).
Orthography is less essential to language than orthoepy; since all
languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are written. Orthography
presupposes orthoepy. Orthography addresses itself to the eye, orthoepy to
the ear. Orthoepy deals with the articulate sounds that constitute
syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by which such
articulate sounds are expressed in writing. A _letter_ is the sign of an
articulate (and, in the case of h, of an inarticulate) sound.
§ 143. A full and perfect system of orthography consists in two things:--1.
The possession of a sufficient and consistent alphabet. 2. The right
application of such an alphabet. This position may be illustrated more
fully.
§ 144. First, in respect to a sufficient and consistent alphabet--Let there
be in a certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the number of
forty, whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of them,
amount to no more than _thirty_. In this case the alphabet is insufficient.
It is not full enough: since ten of the simple single articulate sounds
have no corresponding signs whereby they may be expressed. In our own
language, the sounds (amongst others) of th in _thin_, and of th in
_thine_, are simple and single, whilst there is no sign equally simple and
single to spell them with.
§ 145. An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may
err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a given language two
simple single sounds, (for instance) the p in _pate_, and the f in _fate_.
Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a given sign,
for instance, [Hebrew: P] (as is actually the case in Hebrew), stand for
the p in _pate_; and let a second sign be required for the f in _fate_.
Concerning the nature of this latter sign, two views may be taken. One
framer of the alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere
modifications of each other, may argue that no new sign (or letter) is at
all necessary, but that the sound of f in _fate_ may be expressed by a mere
modification of the sign (or letter) [Hebrew: P], and may be written thus
[Hebrew: P·], or thus [Hebrew: P'] or [Hebrew: P`], &c.; upon the principle
that like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The other framer of the
alphabet, contemplating the difference between the two sounds, rather than
the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of the sign [Hebrew:
P], but a letter altogether new, such as f, or [Greek: ph], &c., upon the
principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude should be
expressed by signs of a different degree of dissimilitude.
Hitherto the expression of the sounds in point is a matter of convenience
only. No question has been raised as to its consistency or inconsistency.
This begins under conditions like the following:--Let there be in the
language in point the sounds of the t in _tin_, and of the th in _thin_;
which (it may be remembered) are precisely in the same relation to each
other as the p in _pate_ and the f in _fate_. Let each of these sounds have
a sign or letter expressive of it. Upon the nature of these signs, or
letters, will depend the nature of the sign or letter required for the f in
_fate_. If the letter expressing the th in _thin_ be a mere modification of
the letter expressing the t in _tin_, then must the letter expressive of
the f in _fate_ be a mere modification of the letter expressing the p in
_pate_, and _vice versâ_. If this be not the case, the alphabet is
inconsistent.
In the English alphabet we have (amongst others) the following
inconsistency:--The sound of the f in _fate_, in a certain relation to the
sound of the p in _pate_, is expressed by a totally distinct sign; whereas,
the sound of the th in _thin_ (similarly related to the t in _tin_) is
expressed by no new sign, but by a mere modification of t; viz., th.
§ 146. A third element in the faultiness of an alphabet is the fault of
erroneous representation. The best illustration of this we get from the
Hebrew alphabet, where the sounds of [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T`], mere
_varieties_ of each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar
signs, whilst [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T], sounds _specifically_ distinct,
are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter.
§ 147. _The right application of an alphabet._--An alphabet may be both
sufficient and consistent, accurate in its representation of the alliances
between articulate sounds, and in no wise redundant; and yet, withal, it
may be so wrongly applied as to be defective. Of defect in the use or
application of the letters of an alphabet, the three main causes are the
following:--
a. _Unsteadiness in the power of letters._--Of this there are two kinds. In
the first, there is one sound with two (or more) ways of expressing it.
Such is the sound of the letter f in English. In words of Anglo-Saxon
origin it is spelt with a single simple sign, as in _fill_; whilst in Greek
words it is denoted by a combination, as in _Philip_. The reverse of this
takes place with the letter g; here a single sign has a double power; in
_gibbet_ it is sounded as j, and in _gibberish_ as g in _got_.
b. _The aim at secondary objects._--The natural aim of orthography, of
spelling, or of writing, is to express the _sounds_ of a language.
Syllables and words it takes as they meet the ear, it translates them by
appropriate signs, and so paints them, as it were, to the eye. That this is
the natural and primary object is self-evident; but beyond this natural and
primary object there is, with the orthographical systems of most languages,
a secondary one, viz., the attempt to combine with the representation of
the sound of a given word, the representation of its history and origin.
The sound of the c, in _city_, is the sound that we naturally spell with
the letter s, and if the expression of this sound was the _only_ object of
our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (_sity_). The
following facts, however, traverse this simple view of the matter. The word
is a derived word; it is transplanted into our own language from the Latin,
where it is spelt with a c (_civitas_); and to change this c into s
conceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason the c is
retained, although, as far as the mere expression of sounds (the primary
object in orthography) is concerned, the letter is a superfluity. In cases
like the one adduced the orthography is bent to a secondary end, and is
traversed by the etymology.
c. _Obsoleteness._--It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one
time may have been correct, may, by a change of pronunciation, become
incorrect; so that orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place
a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling.
§ 148. From the foregoing sections we arrive at the theory of a full and
perfect alphabet and orthography, of which a few (amongst many others) of
the chief conditions are as follow:--
1. That for every simple single sound, incapable of being represented by a
combination of letters, there be a simple single sign.
2. That sounds within a determined degree of likeness be represented by
signs within a determined degree of likeness; whilst sounds beyond a
certain degree of likeness be represented by distinct and different signs,
_and that uniformly_.
3. That no sound have more than one sign to express it.
4. That no sign express more than one sound.
5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words,
and not their histories.
6. That changes of speech be followed by corresponding changes of spelling.
With these principles in our mind we may measure the imperfections of our
own and of other alphabets.
§ 149. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate
sounds of the language. The vowels belonging to the English language are
the following _twelve_:--
1. That of a in _father_. 7. That of e -- _bed_.
2. -- a -- _fat_. 8. -- i -- _pit_.
3. -- a -- _fate_. 9. -- ee -- _feet_.
4. -- aw -- _bawl_. 10. -- u -- _bull_.
5. -- o -- _not_. 11. -- oo -- _fool_.
6. -- o -- _note_. 12. -- u -- _duck_.
The diphthongal sounds are _four_.
1. That of ou in _house_.
2. -- ew -- _new_.
3. -- oi -- _oil_.
4. -- i -- _bite_.
This last sound being most incorrectly expressed by the single letter i.
The consonantal sounds are, 1. the two semivowels; 2. the four liquids; 3.
fourteen out of the sixteen mutes; 4. ch in _chest_, and j in _jest_,
compound sibilants; 5. ng, as in _king_; 6. the aspirate h. In all,
twenty-four.
1. w as in _wet_. 13. th as in _thin_.
2. y -- _yet_. 14. th -- _thine_.
3. m -- _man_. 15. g -- _gun_.
4. n -- _not_. 16. k -- _kind_.
5. l -- _let_. 17. s -- _sin_.
6. r -- _run_. 18. z -- _zeal_.
7. p -- _pate_. 19. sh -- _shine_.
8. b -- _ban_. 20. z -- _azure, glazier_.
9. f -- _fan_. 21. ch -- _chest_.
10. v -- _van_. 22. j -- _jest_.
11. t -- _tin_. 23. ng -- _king_.
12. d -- _din_. 24. h -- _hot_.
§ 150. Some writers would add to these the additional sound of the _é
fermé_ of the French; believing that the vowel in words like _their_ and
_vein_ has a different sound from the vowel in words like _there_ and
_vain_. For my own part I cannot detect such a difference either in my own
speech or that of my neighbours; although I am far from denying that in
certain _dialects_ of our language such may have been the case. The
following is an extract from the "Danish Grammar for Englishmen," by
Professor Rask, whose eye, in the matter in question, seems to have misled
his ear; "The _é fermé_, or _close é_, is very frequent in Danish, but
scarcely perceptible in English; unless in such words as _their_, _vein_,
_veil_, which appear to sound a little different from _there_, _vain_,
_vale_."
§ 151. The vowels being twelve, the diphthongs four, and the consonantal
sounds twenty-four, we have altogether as many as forty sounds, some being
so closely allied to each other as to be mere modifications, and others
being combinations rather than simple sounds; all, however, agreeing in
requiring to be expressed by letters or by combinations of letters, and to
be distinguished from each other. This enables us to appreciate--
§ 152. _The insufficiency of the English alphabet._--
a. _In respect to the vowels._--Notwithstanding the fact that the sounds of
the a in _father_, _fate_, and _fat_, and of the o and the aw in _note_,
_not_, and _bawl_, are modifications of a and o respectively, we have still
_six_ vowel sounds specifically distinct, for which (y being a consonant
rather than a vowel) we have but _five_ signs. The u in _duck_,
specifically distinct from the u in _bull_, has no specifically distinct
sign to represent it.
b. _In respect to the consonants_.--The th in _thin_, the th in _thine_,
the sh in _shine_, the z in _azure_, and the ng in _king_, five sounds
specifically distinct, and five sounds perfectly simple require
corresponding signs, which they have not.
§ 153. _Its inconsistency._--The f in _fan_, and the v in _van_, sounds in
a certain degree of relationship to p and b, are expressed by sounds as
unlike as f is unlike p, and as v is unlike b. The sound of the th in
_thin_, the th in _thine_, the sh in _shine_, similarly related to t, d,
and s, are expressed by signs as like t, d, and s, respectively, as th and
sh.
The compound sibilant sound of j in _jest_ is spelt with the single sign j,
whilst the compound sibilant sound in _chest_ is spelt with the combination
ch.
§ 154. _Erroneousness._--The sound of the ee in _feet_ is considered the
long (independent) sound of the e in _bed_; whereas it is the long
(independent) sound of the i in _pit_.
The i in _bite_ is considered as the long (independent) sound of the i in
_pit_; whereas it is a diphthongal sound.
The u in _duck_ is looked upon as a modification of the u in _bull_;
whereas it is a specifically distinct sound.
The ou in _house_ and the oi in _oil_ are looked upon as the compounds of o
and i and of o and u respectively; whereas the latter element of them is
not i and u, but y and w.
The th in _thin_ and the th in _thine_ are dealt with as one and the same
sound; whereas they are sounds specifically distinct.
The ch in _chest_ is dealt with as a modification of c (either with the
power of k or of s); whereas its elements are t and sh.
§ 155. _Redundancy._--As far as the representation of sounds is concerned
the letter c is superfluous. In words like _citizen_ it may be replaced by
s; in words like _cat_ by k. In ch, as in _chest_, it has no proper place.
In ch, as in _mechanical_, it may be replaced by k.
Q is superfluous, cw or kw being its equivalent.
X also is superfluous, ks, gz, or z, being equivalent to it.
The diphthongal forms æ and oe, as in _Æneas_ and _Croesus_, except in the
way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.
§ 156. _Unsteadiness._--Here we have (amongst many other examples), 1. The
consonant c with the double power of s and k; 2. g with its sound in _gun_
and also with its sound in _gin_; 3. x with its sounds in _Alexander_,
_apoplexy_, _Xenophon_.
In the foregoing examples a single sign has a double power; in the words
_Philip_ and _filip_, &c.; a single sound has a double sign.
In respect to the degree wherein the English orthography is made
subservient to etymology, it is sufficient to repeat the statement that as
many as three letters c, æ, and oe are retained in the alphabet for
_etymological purposes only_.
§ 157. The defects noticed in the preceding sections are _absolute_
defects, and would exist, as they do at present, were there no language in
the world except the English. This is not the case with those that are now
about to be noticed; for them, indeed, the word _defect_ is somewhat too
strong a term. They may more properly be termed inconveniences.
Compared with the languages of the rest of the world the use of many
letters in the English alphabet is _singular_. The letter i (when long or
independent) is, with the exception of England, generally sounded as ee.
With Englishmen it has a diphthongal power. The inconvenience of this is
the necessity that it imposes upon us, in studying foreign languages, of
unlearning the sound which we give it in our own, and of learning the sound
which it bears in the language studied. So it is (amongst many others) with
the letter j. In English this has the sound of _dzh_, in French of zh, and
in German of y. From singularity in the use of letters arises inconvenience
in the study of foreign tongues.
In using j as dzh there is a second objection. It is not only inconvenient,
but it is theoretically incorrect. The letter j was originally a
modification of the vowel i. The Germans, who used it as the semivowel y,
have perverted it from its original power less than the English have done,
who sound it dzh.
With these views we may appreciate in the English alphabet and
orthography--
_Its convenience or inconvenience in respect to learning foreign
tongues._--The sound given to the a in _fate_ is singular. Other nations
sound it as a in _father_.
The sound given to the e, long (or independent), is singular. Other nations
sound it either as a in _fate_, or as _é fermé_.
The sound given to the i in _bite_ is singular. Other nations sound it as
ee in _feet_.
The sound given to the oo in _fool_ is singular. Other nations sound it as
the o in _note_, or as the _ó chiuso_.
The sound given to the u in _duck_ is singular. Other nations sound it as
the u in _bull_.
The sound given to the ou in _house_ is singular. Other nations, more
correctly, represent it by au or aw.
The sound given to the w in _wet_ is somewhat singular, but is also correct
and convenient. With many nations it is not found at all, whilst with those
where it occurs it has the sound (there or thereabouts) of v.
The sound given to y is somewhat singular. In Danish it has a vowel power.
In German the semivowel sound is spelt with j.
The sound given to z is not the sound which it has in German and Italian,
but its power in English is convenient and correct.
The sound given to ch in _chest_ is singular. In other languages it has
generally a guttural sound; in French that of sh. The English usage is more
correct than the French, but less correct than the German.
The sound given to j (as said before) is singular.
§ 158. _The historical propriety or impropriety of certain letters._--The
use of i with a diphthongal power is not only singular and inconvenient,
but also _historically incorrect_. The Greek _iota_, from whence it
originates, has the sound of i and ee, as in _pit_ and _feet_.
The y, sounded as in _yet_, is historically incorrect. It grew out of the
Greek [upsilon], a vowel, and no semivowel. The Danes still use it as such,
that is, with the power of the German ü.
The use of j for dzh is historically incorrect.
The use of c for k in words derived from the Greek as _mechanical_,
_ascetic_, &c., is historically incorrect. The form c is the representative
of [gamma] and [sigma] and not of the Greek _kappa_.
§ 159. _On certain conventional modes of spelling._--In the Greek language
the sounds of o in _not_ and of o in _note_ (although allied) are expressed
by the unlike signs (or letters) [omicron] and [omega], respectively. In
most other languages the difference between the sounds is considered too
slight to require for its expression signs so distinct and dissimilar. In
some languages the difference is neglected altogether. In many, however, it
is expressed, and that by some modification of the original letter.
Let the sign (-) denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or
independent, whilst the sign (U) indicates shortness, or dependence. In
such a case, instead of writing _not_ and _n[omega]t_, like the Greeks, we
may write _n[)o]t_ and _n[=o]t_, the sign serving for a fresh letter.
Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the
natural use of (-) and (U) is to express length or shortness, dependence or
independence. Now, supposing the broad sound of o to be already
represented, it is very evident that, of the other two sounds of o, the one
must be long (independent), and the other short (dependent); and as it is
only necessary to express one of these conditions, we may, if we choose,
use the sign (-) alone; its presence denoting length, and its absence
shortness (independence or dependence).
As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of (-)
we may, if we chose, substitute such a mark as (') and write _nót_ =
_n[=o]t_ = _n[omega]t_ = _n[=o]te_; provided only that the sign (')
expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark
('), as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long
(independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (') natural?
For a reason that the reader has anticipated, it is not natural, but
conventional. Neither is it convenient. It is used elsewhere not as the
sign of _quantity_, but as the sign of _accent_; consequently, being placed
over a letter, and being interpreted according to its natural meaning, it
gives the idea, not that the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or
accented. Its use as a sign of quantity then, would be an orthographical
expedient, or an inconvenient conventional mode of spelling.
The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the modes of
expressing the quantity of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin
with these:--
The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllable (as in _feet_,
_cool_), is an orthographical expedient. It merely means that the syllable
is long (or independent).
The juxtaposition of two different vowels, where there is but one syllable
(as in _plain_, _moan_), is an orthographical expedient. It generally means
the same as the reduplication of a vowel, i.e., that the syllable is long
(independent).
The addition of the e mute, as in _plane_, _whale_ (whatever may have been
its origin), is, at present, but an orthographical expedient. It denotes
the lengthening of the syllable.
The reduplication of the consonant after a vowel, as in _spotted_,
_torrent_, is in most cases but an orthographical expedient. It merely
denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent).
The use of ph for f in _Philip_, is an orthographical expedient, founded
upon etymological reasons.
The use of th for the simple sound of the first consonant in _thin_ and
_thine_, is an orthographical expedient. The combination must be dealt with
as a single letter.
_Caution._--The letters x and q are not orthographical expedients. They are
orthographical _compendiums_, x = ks, and q = kw.
* * * * *
CHAPTER IX.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.
§ 160. The preceding chapter has exhibited the theory of a full and perfect
alphabet; it has shown how far the English alphabet falls short of such a
standard; and, above all, it has exhibited some of the conventional modes
of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other
causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives a _history_ of our
alphabet, whereby many of its defects are _accounted for_. These defects,
it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the
rest of the world; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it
possesses them in a higher degree than any.
With few, if any exceptions, _all the modes of writing in the world
originate_, directly or indirectly, from the Phoenician.
At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the
neighboring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of _twenty-two_
separate and distinct letters.
Now the chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary
articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only _twenty-two_ letters
will be insufficient.
Hence it may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic alphabet was
_insufficient_ for even the _Semitic_ languages.
§ 161. In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens
that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate
sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one
tongue to another, and be found to suit. When such is the case, alterations
are required. The extent to which these alterations are made at all, or (if
made) made on a right principle varies with different languages. Some
_adapt_ an introduced alphabet well: others badly.
Of the _twenty-two_ Phoenician letters the Greeks took but _twenty-one_.
The eighteenth letter, _tsadi_ [Hebrew: TS] was never imported into
Europe.
Compared with the Semitic, the _Old_ Greek alphabet ran thus:--
_Hebrew._ _Greek._
1. [Hebrew: '] [Alpha].
2. [Hebrew: B] [Beta].
3. [Hebrew: G] [Gamma].
4. [Hebrew: D] [Delta].
5. [Hebrew: H] [Epsilon].
6. [Hebrew: W] Digamma.
7. [Hebrew: Z] [Zeta].
8. [Hebrew: CH] [Eta].
9. [Hebrew: T`] [Theta].
10. [Hebrew: Y] [Iota].
11. [Hebrew: K] [Kappa].
12. [Hebrew: L] [Lambda].
13. [Hebrew: M] [Mu].
14. [Hebrew: N] [Nu].
15. [Hebrew: S] [Sigma]?
16. [Hebrew: `] [Omicron].
17. [Hebrew: P] [Pi].
18. [Hebrew: TS] --
A letter called
19. [Hebrew: Q] koppa, afterwards
ejected.
20. [Hebrew: R] [Rho].
21. [Hebrew: SH] M afterwards [Sigma]?
22. [Hebrew: T] [Tau].
The _names_ of the letters were as follows:
_Hebrew._ _Greek._
1. Aleph Alpha.
2. Beth Bæta.
3. Gimel Gamma.
4. Daleth Delta.
5. He E, _psilon._
6. Vaw _Digamma._
7. Zayn Zæta.
8. Heth Hæta.
9. Teth Thæta.
10. Yod Iôta.
11. Kaph Kappa.
12. Lamed Lambda.
13. Mem Mu.
14. Nun Nu.
15. Samech Sigma?
16. Ayn O.
17. Pe Pi.
18. Tsadi ----
19. Kof Koppa, _Archaic_.
20. Resh Rho.
21. Sin San, _Doric_.
22. Tau Tau.
The alphabet of Phoenicia and Palestine being adapted to the language of
Greece, the first change took place in the manner of writing. The
Phoenicians wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to right.
Besides this, the following principles were recognised;--
a. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case,
as seen above, with the eighteenth letter, _tsadi_.
b. Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent
in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8,
16, and probably with some others.
c. Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became
changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was
the case with 6 and 19.
d. For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign
or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This
principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signs [phi], [chi], [upsilon],
[omega].
e. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older ones, but totally
new letters.
All this was correct in principle; and the consequence is, that the Greek
alphabet, although not originally meant to express a European tongue at
all, expresses the Greek language well.
§ 162. But it was not from the Greek that our own alphabet was immediately
derived; although ultimately it is referable to the same source as the
Greek, viz., the Phoenician.
It was the _Roman_ alphabet which served as the basis to the English.
And it is in the changes which the Phoenician alphabet underwent in being
accommodated to the Latin language that we must investigate the chief
peculiarities of the present alphabet and orthography of Great Britain and
America.
Now respecting the Roman alphabet, we must remember that it was _not_ taken
_directly_ from the Phoenician; in this important point differing from the
Greek.
Nor yet was it taken, _in the first instance_, from the Greek.
It had a _double_ origin.
The operation of the principles indicated in § 161 was a work of the time;
and hence the older and more unmodified Greek alphabet approached in
character its Phoenician prototype much more than the later, or modified.
As may be seen, by comparing the previous alphabets with the common
alphabets of the Greek Grammar, the letters 6 and 19 occur in the earlier,
whilst they are missing in the later, modes of writing. On the other hand,
the _old_ alphabet has no such signs as [phi], [chi], [upsilon], [omega],
[psi], and [xi].
Such being the case, it is easy to imagine what would be the respective
conditions of two Italian languages which borrowed those alphabets, the one
from the earlier, the other from the later Greek. The former would contain
the equivalents to _vaw_ (6), and _kof_ (19); but be destitute of [phi],
[chi], &c.; whereas the latter would have [phi], [chi], &c., but be without
either _vaw_ or _kof_.
Much the same would be the case with any single Italian language which took
as its basis the _earlier_, but adopted, during the course of time,
modifications from the _later_ Greek. It would exhibit within itself
characters common to the two stages.
This, or something very like it, was the case with Roman. For the first two
or three centuries the alphabet was Etruscan; Etruscan derived _directly_
from the Greek, and from the _old_ Greek.
Afterwards, however, the later Greek alphabet had its influence, and the
additional letters which it contained were more or less incorporated; and
that without effecting the ejection of any earlier ones.
§ 163. With these preliminaries we may investigate the details of the Roman
alphabet, when we shall find that many of them stand in remarkable contrast
with those of Greece and Phoenicia. At the same time where they differ with
them, they agree with the English.
_Order._ _Roman._ _English._ _Greek._ _Hebrew._
1. A A Alpha Aleph.
2. B B Bæta Beth.
3. C C Gamma Gimel.
4. D D Delta Daleth.
5. E E Epsilon He.
6. F F _Digamma_ Vaw.
7. G G -- --
8. H H Hæta Heth.
9. I I Iôta Iod.
10. J J Iôta Iod.
11. K Kappa Kaf.
12. L L Lamda Lamed.
13. M M Mu Mem.
14. N N Nu Nun.
15. O O Omicron Ayn.
16. P P Pi Pe.
17. Q Q _Koppa_ Kof.
18. R R Rho Resh.
19. S S _San_ Sin.
20. T T Tau Tau.
21. U U Upsilon --
22. V V Upsilon --
23. W Upsilon --
24. X X Xi Samech.[43]
25. Y Y Upsilon --
26. Z Z Zæta Zain.
§ 164. The differences of this table are referable to one of the following
four heads:--a. Ejection. b. Addition. c. Change of power. d. Change of
order.
a. _Ejection._--In the first instance, the Italians ejected as unnecessary,
letters 7,[44] 9, and 11: _zayn_ (_zæta_), _teth_ (_thæta_), and _kaf_
(_kappa_). Either the sounds which they expressed were wanting in their
language; or else they were expressed by some other letter. The former was
probably the case with 7 and 9, _zæta_ and _thæta_, the latter with 11,
_kappa_.
b. _Addition._--Out of the Greek _iôta_, two; out of the Greek _upsilon_,
four modifications have been evolved; viz., i and j out of [iota], and u,
v, w, y, out of [upsilon].
c. _Change of power._--Letter 3, in Greek and Hebrew had the sound of the g
in _gun_; in Latin that of k. The reason for this lies in the structure of
the Etruscan language. In that tongue the _flat_ sounds were remarkably
deficient; indeed, it is probable, that that of g was wanting. Its _sharp_
equivalent, however, the sound of k, was by no means wanting; and the Greek
_gamma_ was used to denote it. This made the equivalent to k, the third
letter of the alphabet, as early as the time of the Etruscans.
But the _Romans_ had both sounds, the _flat_ as well as the _sharp_, g as
well as k. How did they express them? Up to the second Punic War they made
the rounded form of the Greek [Gamma], out of which the letter C has
arisen, do double work, and signify k and g equally, just as in the present
English th is sounded as the Greek [theta],[45] and as dh;[46] in proof
whereof we have in the Duillian column, MACESTRATOS = MAGISTRATOS, and
CARTHACINIENSES = CARTHAGINIENSES.
Thus much concerning the power and places of the Latin c, as opposed to the
Greek [gamma]. But this is not all. The use of _gamma_, with the power of
k, made _kappa_ superfluous, and accounts for its ejection in the
_Etruscan_ alphabet; a fact already noticed.
Furthermore, an addition to the Etruscan alphabet was required by the
existence of the sound of g, in Latin, as soon as the inconvenience of
using c with a double power became manifest. What took place then? Even
this. The third letter was modified in form, or became a new letter, c
being altered into g; and the new letter took its place in the alphabet.
Where was this? As the _seventh_ letter between f (_digamma_) and h
(_hæta_).
Why? Because it was there where there was a vacancy, and where it replaced
the Greek _zæta_, or the Hebrew _zayn_, a letter which, _at that time_, was
not wanted in Latin.
d. _Change of order._--As far as the letters c and g are concerned, this
has been explained; and it has been shown that change of order and change
of power are sometimes very closely connected. All that now need be added
is, that those letters which were _last_ introduced from the Greek into the
Roman alphabet, were placed at the end.
This is why u, v, w, and y come after t--the last letter of the original
Phoenician, and also of the _older_ Greek.
This, too, is the reason for z coming last of all. It was restored for the
purpose of spelling Greek words. But as its original place had been filled
up by g, it was tacked on as an appendage, rather than incorporated as an
element.
X in _power_, coincided with the Greek xi; in _place_, with the Greek
_khi_. Its _position_ seems to have determined its _form_, which is
certainly that of X rather than of [Xi]. The full investigation of this is
too lengthy for the present work.
§ 165. It should be observed, that, in the Latin, the letters have no
longer any _names_ (like _beth_, _bæta_), except such as are derived from
their powers (_be_, _ce_).
§ 166. The principles which determined the form of the Roman alphabet were,
upon the whole, correct; and, hence, the Roman alphabet, although not
originally meant to express an Italian tongue at all, expressed the
language to which it was applied tolerably.
On the other hand, there were both omissions and alterations which have had
a detrimental effect upon the orthography of those other numerous tongues
to which Latin has supplied the alphabet. Thus--
a. It is a matter of regret, that the differences which the Greeks drew
between the so-called _long_ and _short_ e and o, was neglected by the
Latins; in other words, that [omega] was omitted entirely, and [eta]
changed in power. Had this been the case, all the orthographical expedients
by which we have to express the difference between the o in _not_, and the
o in _note_, would have been prevented--_not_, _note_, _moat_--_bed_,
_bead_, _heel_, _glede_, &c.
b. It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessary _compendium_ as q =
cu, or cw, should have been retained from the old Greek alphabet; and,
still more so, that the equally superfluous x = cs, or ks, should have been
re-admitted.
c. It is a matter of regret, that the Greek [theta] was not treated like
the Greek [zeta]. Neither were wanted at first; both afterwards. The
manner, however, of their subsequent introduction was different. _Zæta_
came in as a simple single letter, significant of a simple single sound.
_Thæta_, on the contrary, although expressive of an equally simple sound,
became th. This was a combination rather than a letter; and the error which
it engendered was great.
It suggested the idea, that a simple sound was a compound one--which was
wrong.
It further suggested the idea, that the sound of [theta] differed from that
of [tau], by the addition of h--which was wrong also.
§ 167. The Greek language had a system of sounds different from the
Phoenician; and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.
The Roman language had a system of sounds different from the Greek and the
alphabet required modifying accordingly.
This leads us to certain questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon. Had _it_ a
system of sounds different from the Roman? If so, what modifications did
the alphabet require? Were such modifications effected? If so, how?
Sufficiently or insufficiently? The answers are unsatisfactory.
§ 168. The Anglo-Saxon had, even in its earliest stage, the following
sounds, for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs or letters--
1. The sound of the th in _thin_.
2. The sound of the th in _thine_.
It had certainly these: probably others.
§ 169. Expressive of these, two new signs were introduced, viz., þ = th in
_thin_, and ð = th in _thine_.
W, also evolved out of u, was either an original improvement of the
Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of
the allied languages of the Continent. Probably the latter was the case;
since we find the following passage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid's
"Krist:"--"Hujus enim linguæ barbaries, ut est inculca et
indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticæ artis, sic
etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut
congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto
quærit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali
sono manente."
This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet,
although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered
the purpose to which it was applied tolerably.
§ 170. Change, however, went on; and the orthography which suited the
earlier Anglo-Saxon would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not
suit the language which had become or was becoming, _English_; wherein the
sounds for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs increase. Thus
there is at present--
1. The sound of the sh in _shine_.
2. The sound of the z in _azure_.
How are these to be expressed? The rule has hitherto been to denote simple
single sounds, by simple single signs, and where such signs have no
existence already, to _originate new ones_.
To _combine existing letters_, rather than to coin a new one, has only been
done rarely. The Latin substitution of the combination th for the simple
single [theta], was exceptionable. It was a precedent, however, which now
begins to be followed generally.
§ 171. It is this precedent which accounts for the absence of any letter in
English, expressive of either of the sounds in question.
§ 172. Furthermore, our alphabet has not only not increased in proportion
to our sound-system, but it has _decreased_. The Anglo-Saxon þ = the th in
_thin_, and ð = the th in _thine_, have become obsolete; and a difference
in pronunciation, which our ancestors expressed, _we_ overlook.
The same precedent is at the bottom of this; a fact which leads us to--
§ 173. _The Anglo-Norman alphabet._--The Anglo-Saxon language was _Gothic_;
the alphabet, _Roman_.
The Anglo-Norman language was _Roman_; the alphabet, _Roman_ also.
The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source; his writing from another.
The Anglo-Norman took both from the same.
In adapting a Latin alphabet to a Gothic language, the Anglo-Saxon allowed
himself more latitude than the Anglo-Norman. We have seen that the new
signs þ and ð were Anglo-Saxon.
Now the sounds which these letters represent did not occur in the
Norman-French, consequently the Norman-French alphabet neither had nor
needed to have signs to express them; until after the battle of Hastings,
_when it became the Anglo-Norman of England_.
_Then_, the case became altered. The English language influenced the Norman
orthography, and the Norman orthography the English language; and the
result was, that the simple single correct and distinctive signs of the
Anglo-Saxon alphabet, became replaced by the incorrect and indistinct
combination th.
This was a loss, both in the way of theoretical correctness and
perspicuity.
Such is the general view of the additions, ejections, changes of power, and
changes of order in the English alphabet. The extent, however, to which an
alphabet is faulty, is no measure of the extent to which an orthography is
faulty; since an insufficient alphabet may, by consistency in its
application, be more useful than a full and perfect alphabet unsteadily
applied.
§ 174. One of our orthographical expedients, viz., the reduplication of the
consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding
vowel, is as old as the classical languages: _terra_, [Greek: thalassa].
Nevertheless, the following extract from the "Ormulum" (written in the
thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have
met with.
And whase wilenn shall þis boc,
Efft oþerr siþe writenn,
Himm bidde icc þatt hett write rihht,
Swa sum þiss boc himm tæcheþþ;
All þwerrt utt affterr þatt itt iss
Oppo þiss firrste bisne,
Wiþþ all swilc rime als her iss sett,
Wiþþ alse fele wordess:
And tatt he loke well þatt he
_An boc-staff write twiggess_,[47]
Eggwhær þær itt uppo þiss boc
Iss writenn o þatt wise:
Loke he well þatt hett write swa,
Forr he ne magg noht elless,
On Englissh writenn rihht te word,
þatt wite he well to soþe.
§ 175. _The order of the alphabet._--In the history of our alphabet, we
have had the history of certain changes in the arrangement, as well as of
the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question
now presents itself: viz., Is there in the order of the letters any
_natural_ arrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession
of letters arbitrary and accidental? The following facts suggest an answer
in the affirmative.
The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:--
_Name._ _Sound._
1. _Aleph_ Either a vowel or a breathing.
2. _Beth_ B.
3. _Gimel_ G, as in _gun_.
4. _Daleth_ D.
5. _He_ Either a vowel or an aspirate.
6. _Vaw_ V.
7. _Zayn_ Z.
8. _Kheth_ a variety of K.
9. _Teth_ a variety of T.
10. _Yod_ I.
11. _Caph_ K.
12. _Lamed_ L.
13. _Mem_ M.
14. _Nun_ N.
15. _Samech_ a variety of S.
16. _Ayn_ Either a vowel or ----?
17. _Pe_ P.
18. _Tsadi_ TS.
19. _Kof_ a variety of K.
20. _Resh_ R.
21. _Sin_ S.
22. _Tau_ T.
Let _beth_, _vaw_, and _pe_ (b, v, p) constitute a series called series P.
Let _gimel_, _kheth_, and _kof_ (g, kh, k') constitute a series called
series K. Let _daleth_, _teth_, and _tau_, (d, t', t) constitute a series
called series T. Let _aleph_, _he_, and _ayn_ constitute a series called
the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order.
1. _Aleph_ of the vowel series.
2. _Beth_ of series P.
3. _Gimel_ of series K.
4. _Daleth_ of series T.
Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel
series; that of series K follows; and in the last place, comes the letter
of series T. After this the order changes; _daleth_ being followed by _he_
of the vowel series.
5. _He_ of the vowel series.
6. _Vaw_ of series P.
7. _Zayn_ ----
8. _Kheth_ of series K.
9. _Teth_ of series T.
In this second sequence the _relative_ positions of v, kh, and t', are the
same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series.
The sequence itself is broken by the letter _zayn_ but it is remarkable
that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel
and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but
fragmentary. Still, even now, _pe_, of series P, follows _ayn_; _tau_, of
series T, is farthest from it, and _kof_, of series K, is intermediate.
If this be the case, and, if the letters, so to say, _circulate_, the
alterations made in their order during the transfer of their alphabet from
Greece to Rome, have had the unsatisfactory effect of concealing an
interesting arrangement, and of converting a real, though somewhat complex
regularity, into apparent hazard and disorder.
* * * * *
QUESTIONS.
1. Explain the terms _sharp_, _explosive_, _true aspirate_, _apparent
aspirate_, _broad_, _dependent_.
2. Exhibit the difference between the quantity of _syllables_ and the
quantity of _vowels_.
3. Accentuate the following words,--_attribute_ (_adjective_), _survey_
(_verb_), _August_ (_the month_).
4. Under what conditions is the _sound_ of consonants doubled?
5. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the relations of the a) mutes, b) the
vowels, underlining those which do not occur in English.
6. What is the power of ph in _Philip_? what in _haphazard_? Illustrate
the difference fully.
7. Investigate the changes by which the words _picture_, _nature_,
derived from the Latin _pictura_ and _natura_, are _sounded pictshur_
and _natshur_.
8. How do you sound the combination apd? Why?
9. In what points is the English alphabet _insufficient_, _redundant_,
and _inconsistent_?
10. Why is z (_zæta_), which is the sixth letter in the Greek, the last
in the English alphabet?
* * * * *
PART IV.
ETYMOLOGY.
* * * * *
CHAPTER I.
ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY.
§ 176. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language
of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a
wide, and at times in a restricted sense.
If in the English language we take such a word as _fathers_, we are enabled
to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two
elements. By comparing it with the word _father_, we see that the s is
neither part nor parcel of the original word. Hence the word is capable of
being analysed; _father_ being the original primitive word, and s the
secondary superadded termination. From the word _father_, the word
_fathers_ is _derived_, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended.
What has been said of the word _fathers_ may also be said of _fatherly_,
_fatherlike_, _fatherless_, &c. Now, from the word _father_, all these
words (_fathers_, _fatherly_, _fatherlike_, and _fatherless_) differ in
form and in meaning. To become such a word as _fathers_, &c., the word
_father_ is _changed_. Of changes of this sort, it is the province of
etymology to take cognizance.
§ 177. Compared with the form _fathers_, the word _father_ is the older
form of the two. The word _father_ is a word current in this the nineteenth
century. The same word is found much earlier, under different forms, and in
different languages. Thus, in the Latin language, the form was _pater_; in
Greek, [Greek: patêr]. Now, with _father_ and _fathers_, the change takes
place within the same language, whilst the change that takes place between
_pater_ and _father_ takes place within different languages. Of changes of
this latter kind it is, also, the province of etymology to take cognizance.
§ 178. In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizance _of the
changes of the form of words_. However, as the etymology that compares the
forms _fathers_ and _father_ is different from the etymology that compares
_father_ and _pater_, we have, of etymology, two sorts: one dealing with
the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language
(_father_, _fathers_), the other dealing with the changes that words
undergo in passing from one language to another (_pater_, _father_).
The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of
the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to
orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the
etymology of the ensuing pages.
The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word,
_historical_ etymology, or _comparative_ etymology.
§ 179. It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in
one point, viz., in taking cognizance of the _changes of forms that words
undergo_. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, as _father_,
_fathers_, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time,
as _pater_, _father_, is a matter of indifference.
In the Latin _pater_, and in the English _father_, we have one of two
things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or two words
descended or derived from a common original source.
In _fathers_ we have a formation deduced from the radical word _father_.
With these preliminaries we may understand Dr. Johnson's explanation of the
word etymology.
"ETYMOLOGY, n. s. (_etymologia_, Lat.) [Greek: etumos] (_etymos_) _true,
and_ [Greek: logos] (_logos_) _a word_.
"1. _The descent or derivation of a word from its original; the deduction
of formations from the radical word; the analysis of compounds into
primitives._
"2. _The part of grammar which delivers the inflections of nouns and
verbs."_
* * * * *