DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY.
§ 323. The distinction between irregularity and defectiveness has been
foreshadowed. It is now more urgently insisted on.
The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal
pronouns _I_ or _me_, the adjectives _good_, _better_, and _best_.
The view of these words was as follows; viz., that none of them were
_irregular_, but that they were all _defective_. _Me_ wanted the
nominative, _I_ the oblique cases. _Good_ was without a comparative,
_better_ and _best_ had no positive degree.
Now _me_ and _better_ may be said to make good the defectiveness of _I_ and
_good_; and _I_ and _good_ may be said to replace the forms wanting in _me_
and _better_. This gives us the principle of _compensation_. To introduce a
new term, _I_ and _me_, _good_ and _better_, may be said to be
_complementary_ to each other.
What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. _Go_ and _went_ are not
irregularities. _Go_ is defective in the past tense. _Went_ is without a
present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and
are complementary to each other.
The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first
instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion
of the regular and irregular verbs.
§ 324. The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular
verbs, is the meaning that we attach to the term.
It is very evident that it is in the power of the grammarian to raise the
number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the
definition of the word _irregular_; in other words, by framing an exclusive
rule. The current rule of the common grammarians is that the præterite is
formed _by the addition of_ -t, or -d, or -ed; a position sufficiently
exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of strong verbs,
but also words like _bent_ and _sent_, where -t exists, but where it does
not exist as _an addition_. The regular forms, it may be said, should be
_bended_ and _sended_.
Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might
be made more so. The regular forms might, by the _fiat_ of a rule, be
restricted to those in -d. In this case words like _wept_ and _burnt_ would
be added to the already numerous list of irregulars.
Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that
no word was regular, unless it ended in -ed.
§ 325. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and,
consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art
that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology
_reduces_ irregularity; and that by making the rules of grammar, not
exclusive, but general. _The quantum of irregularity is in the inverse
proportion to the generality of our rules._ In language itself there is no
irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the
processes that change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct
proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our
rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological
processes.
§ 326. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards the
definition of the word _irregular_.
_Vital and obsolete processes._--The word _moved_ is formed from _move_, by
the addition of -d. The addition of -d is the process by which the present
form is rendered præterite. The word _fell_ is formed from _fall_, by
changing a into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present
form is rendered præterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In
what respect do they differ?
For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the
language. Let a præterite tense of it be formed. This præterite would be
formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding -d. No _new_ verb ever
takes a strong præterite. The like takes place with nouns. No _new_
substantive would form its plural, like _oxen_ or _geese_, by adding -en,
or by changing the vowel. It would rather, like _fathers_ and _horses_, add
the lene sibilant.
Now, the processes that change _fall_, _ox_ and _goose_ into _fell_,
_oxen_, and _geese_, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in
its present stage, are _obsolete_ processes; whilst those that change
_move_ into _moved_, and _horse_ into _horses_, operating on the language
in its present stage, are _vital_ processes.
A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all
words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a
definition would make all the strong verbs irregular.
The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong verbs being
reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as
this.
§ 327. _Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit._--The
combinations -pd, -fd, -kd, -sd, and some others, are unpronounceable.
Hence words like _step_, _quaff_, _back_, _kiss_, &c., take after them the
sound of -t; _stept_, _quafft_, &c., being their præterites, instead of
_stepd_, _quaffd_. Here the change from -d to -t is a matter of necessity.
It is not so with words like _weep_, and _wept_, &c. Here the change of
vowel is not necessary. _Weept_ might have been said if the habit of the
language had permitted.
A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all
words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In
this case _stept_ (modified by a process of necessity), and _wept_
(modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular.
A less limited definition might account words regular as long as the
process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process
of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it
would class with the irregulars.
Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or
rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation.
§ 328. _Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes._--The
whole scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a
language takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the
cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few
forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with
them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words
than one. The forms _wept_, and _slept_, correspond with each other. They
are brought about by the same process: viz., by the shortening of the vowel
in _weep_ and _sleep_. The analogy of _weep_ is extended to _sleep_, and
_vice versâ_. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both
words. The alteration itself is the leading fact. The extent of its
influence is an instrument of classification. When processes affect a
considerable number of words, they may be called _ordinary_ processes; as
opposed to _extraordinary_ processes, which affect one or few words.
When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess
our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by
a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing
similar.
A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all
words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered
regular.
§ 329. _Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes._--The words
_wept_ and _slept_ are similarly affected. Each is changed from _weep_ and
_sleep_ respectively; and we know that the process which affects the one is
the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process.
Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word
_worse_ has been explained in the Chapter on the Comparative Degree. There
the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true
one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the
present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the
process is _ambiguous_.
A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all
words affected by ambiguous processes.
§ 330. _Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion._--Let a
certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly
affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected
even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the
change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical.
Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, only _appear_
to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false
one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a
process of confusion.
Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like _songstress_,
_theirs_, _minded_, where the words _songstr-_, _their-_, _mind-_, are
dealt with as roots, which they are not.
Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion--each,
or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The
practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient.
With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous
processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we
see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one.
§ 331. _Could_.--With all persons who pronounce the l this word is truly
irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form is _cuðe_. The l is inserted by a process
of confusion.
_Can_, _cunne_, _canst_, _cunnon_, _cunnan_, _cuðe_, _cuðon_, _cuð_--such
are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them account for the l. The
presence of the l makes the word _could_ irregular. No reference to the
allied languages accounts for it.
Notwithstanding this, the presence of the l is accounted for. In _would_
and _should_ the l has a proper place. It is part of the original words,
_will_ and _shall_. A false analogy looked upon _could_ in the same light.
Hence a true irregularity; _provided that the _L_ be pronounced_.
The L, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance with the
spelling. This reduces the word _could_ to an irregularity, not of
language, but only of orthography.
That the mere ejection of the -n in _can_, and that the mere lengthening of
the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the
processes that convert the Greek [Greek: odontos] (_odontos_) into [Greek:
odous] (_odows_).
§ 332. The verb _quoth_ is truly defective. It is found in only one tense,
one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the
præterite tense. It has the further peculiarity of preceding its pronoun.
Instead of saying _he quoth_, we say _quoth he_. In Anglo-Saxon, however,
it was not defective. It was found in the other tenses, in the other
number, and in other moods. _Ic cweðe_, _þú cwyst_, _he cwyð_; _ic cwæð_,
_þú cwæðe_, _he cwæð_, _we cwædon_, _ge cwædon_, _hi cwædon_; imperative,
_cweð_; participle, _gecweden_. In the Scandinavian it is current in all
its forms. There, however, it means, not _to speak_ but to _sing_. As far
as its conjugation goes, it is strong. As far as its class goes, it follows
the form of _speak_, _spoke_. Like _speak_, its Anglo-Saxon form is in æ,
as _cwæð_. Like one of the forms of _speak_, its English form is in o, as
_quoth_, _spoke_.
§ 333. The principle that gives us the truest views of the structure of
language is that which considers no word irregular unless it be affected by
either an _ambiguous_ process, or by a _process of confusion_. The words
affected by _extraordinary processes_ form a provisional class, which a
future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be regular.
_Worse_ and _could_ are the fairest specimens of our irregulars. Yet even
_could_ is only an irregularity in the written language. The printer makes
it, and the printer can take it away. Hence the class, instead of filling
pages, is exceedingly limited.
* * * * *