COMPOSITION.
§ 352. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and
indubitable specimens of composition--_day-star_, _vine-yard_, _sun-beam_,
_apple-tree_, _ship-load_, _silver-smith_, &c. The words _palpable_ and
_indubitable_ have been used, because in many cases, as will be seen
hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound
or not.
§ 353. Now, in each of the compounds quoted above, it may be seen that it
is the second word which is qualified, or defined, by the first, and that
it is not the first which is qualified, or defined, by the second. Of
_yards_, _beams_, _trees_, _loads_, _smiths_, there may be many sorts, and,
in order to determine what _particular_ sort of _yard_, _beam_, _tree_,
_load_, or _smith_, may be meant, the words _vine_, _sun_, _apple_, _ship_,
and _silver_, are prefixed. In compound words it is the _first_ term that
defines or particularises the _second_.
§ 354. That the idea given by the word _apple-tree_ is not referable to the
words _apple_ and _tree_, irrespective of the order in which they occur,
may be seen by reversing the position of them. The word _tree-apple_,
although not existing in the language, is as correct a word as
_thorn-apple_. In _tree-apple_, the particular sort of _apple_ meant is
denoted by the word _tree_, and if there were in our gardens various sorts
of plants called _apples_, of which some grew along the ground and others
upon trees, such a word as _tree-apple_ would be required in order to be
opposed to _earth-apple_, or _ground-apple_, or some word of the kind.
In the compound words _tree-apple_ and _apple-tree_, we have the same
elements differently arranged. However, as the word _tree-apple_ is not
current in the language, the class of compounds indicated by it may seem to
be merely imaginary. Nothing is farther from being the case. A _tree-rose_
is a _rose_ of a particular sort. The generality of _roses_ being on
_shrubs_, this grows on a _tree_. Its peculiarity consists in this fact,
and this particular character is expressed by the word _tree_ prefixed. A
_rose-tree_ is a _tree_ of a particular sort, distinguished from
_apple-trees_, and _trees_ in general (in other words, particularised or
defined), by the word _rose_ prefixed.
A _ground-nut_ is a _nut_ particularised by growing in the ground. A
_nut-ground_ is a _ground_ particularised by producing nuts.
A _finger-ring_, as distinguished from an _ear-ring_, and from _rings_ in
general (and so particularised), is a _ring_ for the _finger_. A
_ring-finger_, as distinguished from _fore-fingers_, and from _fingers_ in
general (and so particularised), is a _finger_ whereon _rings_ are worn.
§ 355. At times this rule seems to be violated. The words _spit-fire_ and
_dare-devil_ seem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the
case of a _spit-fire_, that what he (or she) _spits_ is _fire_; and that,
in the case of a _dare-devil_, what he (or she) _dares_ is the _devil_. In
this case the initial words _spit_ and _dare_ are particularised by the
final ones _fire_ and _devil_. The true idea, however, confirms the
original rule. A _spit-fire_ voids his fire by spitting. A _dare-devil_, in
meeting the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. A
_spit-fire_ is not one who spits fire, but one whose fire is _spit_. A
_dare-devil_ is not one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil
is even dared.
§ 356. Of the two elements of a compound word, which is the most important?
In one sense the latter, in another sense the former. The latter word is
the most _essential_; since the general idea of _trees_ must exist before
it can be defined or particularised; so becoming the idea which we have in
_apple-tree_, _rose-tree_, &c. The former word, however, is the most
_influential_. It is by this that the original idea is qualified. The
latter word is the staple original element: the former is the superadded
influencing element. Compared with each other, the former element is
active, the latter passive. Etymologically speaking, the former element, in
English compounds, is the most important.
§ 357. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the detail of the
composition of words; e.g., how nouns combine with nouns, as in _sun-beam_;
nouns with verbs, as in _dare-devil_, &c. It is thought however, sufficient
in the present work to be content with, 1. defining the meaning of the term
composition; 2. explaining the nature of some obscure compounds.
Composition is the joining together, _in language_, of _two different
words_, and _treating the combination as a single term_. Observe the words
in italics.
_In language._--A great number of our compounds, like the word
_merry-making_, are divided by the sign -, or the hyphen. It is very plain
that if all words _spelt_ with a hyphen were to be considered as compounds,
the formation of them would be not a matter of speech, or language, but one
of writing or spelling. This distinguishes compounds in language from mere
printers' compounds.
_Two._--For this, see § 369.
_Different._--In Old High German we find the form _sëlp-sëlpo_. Here there
is the junction of two words, but not the junction of two _different_ ones.
This distinguishes composition from gemination.
_Words._--In _father-s_, _clear-er_, _four-th_, &c., there is the addition
of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There
is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition
from derivation.
_Treating the combination as a single term._--In determining between
derived words and compound words, there is an occasional perplexity; the
perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between a _compound
word_ and _two words_. In the eyes of one grammarian the term _mountain
height_ may be as truly a compound word as _sun-beam_. In the eyes of
another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just as
_Alpine height_ is two words; _mountain_ being dealt with as an adjective.
It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part.
§ 358. As a preliminary to a somewhat subtle distinction, the attention of
the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from
Churchill:--
"Then rést, my friénd, _and spáre_ thy précious bréath."
On each of the syllables _rést_, _friénd_, _spáre_, _préc-_, _bréath_,
there is an accent. Each of these syllables must be compared with the one
that precedes it; _rest_ with _then_, _friend_ with _my_, and so on
throughout the line. Compared with the word _and_, the word _spare_ is not
only accented, but the accent is conspicuous and prominent. There is so
little on _and_, so much on _spare_, that the disparity of accent is very
manifest.
Now, if in the place of _and_, there were some other word, a word not so
much accented as _spare_, but still more accented than _and_, this
disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be
said to be at _par_, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly
altered from Churchill, the real reading being
"Then rést, my friénd, _spare, spare_ thy précious bréath."
In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been
supposed. In the words _spare, spare_, the accents are nearly at _par_.
Such the difference between accent at par and disparity of accent.
Good illustrations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from
certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following:
_the lime house near the bridge north of the new port_. Compare the parity
of accent on the pairs of words _lime_ and _house_, _bridge_ and _north_,
_new_ and _port_, with the disparity of accent in the compound words
_Límehouse_, _Brídgenorth_, and _Néwport_. The separate words _beef steak_,
where the accent is nearly at _par_, compared with the compound word
_sweépstakes_, where there is a great disparity of accent, are further
illustrations of the same difference.
The difference between a compound word and a pair of words is further
illustrated by comparing such terms as the following:--_bláck bírd_,
meaning a _bird that is black_, with _bláckbird_ = the Latin _merula_;
_blúe béll_, meaning a _bell that is blue_, with _blúebell_, the flower.
Expressions like a _shárp edgéd instrument_, meaning _an instrument that is
sharp and has edges_, as opposed to _a shárp-edged instrument_, meaning _an
instrument with sharp edges_, further exemplify this difference.
Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that, in the English
language, _there is no composition unless there is either a change of form
or a change of accent_.
§ 359. The reader is now informed, that unless he has taken an exception to
either a statement or an inference, he has either seen beyond what has been
already laid down by the author, or else has read him with insufficient
attention. This may be shown by drawing a distinction between a compound
form and a compound idea.
In the words _a red house_, each word preserves its natural and original
meaning, and the statement suggested by the term is _that a house is red_.
By a parity of reasoning _a mad house_ should mean a _house that is mad_;
and provided that each word retain its _natural meaning_ and its _natural
accent_, such is the fact. Let a _house_ mean, as it often does, a
_family_. Then the phrase, _a mad house_, means that the _house_, _or
family_, _is mad_, just as a _red house_ means that the _house is red_.
Such, however, is not the current meaning of the word. Every one knows that
_a mad house_ means _a house for mad men_; in which case it is treated as a
compound word, and has a marked accent on the first syllable, just as
_Límehouse_ has. Now, compared with the word _red house_, meaning a house
of a _red colour_, and compared with the words _mad house_, meaning a
_deranged family_, the word _mádhouse_, in its common sense, expressed a
compound idea; as opposed to two ideas, or a double idea. The word _beef
steak_ is evidently a compound idea; but as there is no disparity of
accent, it is not a compound word. Its sense is compound. Its form is not
compound but double. This indicates the objection anticipated, which is
this: viz., that a definition, which would exclude such a word as _beef
steak_ from the list of compounds, is, for that very reason, exceptionable.
I answer to this, that the term in question is a compound idea, and not a
compound form; in other words, that it is a compound in logic, but not a
compound in etymology. Now etymology, taking cognisance of forms only, has
nothing to do with ideas, except so far as they influence forms.
Such is the commentary upon the words, _treating the combination as a
single term_; in other words, such the difference between a compound word
and two words. The rule, being repeated, stands (subject to exceptions
indicated above) thus:--_there is no true composition without either a
change of form or a change of accent_.
§ 360. As I wish to be clear upon this point, I shall illustrate the
statement by its application.
The term _trée-rose_ is often pronounced _trée róse_; that is, with the
accent at _par_. It is compound in the one case; it is a pair of words in
the other.
The terms _mountain ash_ and _mountain height_ are generally (perhaps
always) pronounced with an equal accent on the syllables _mount-_ and
_ash_, _mount-_ and _height_, respectively. In this case the word
_mountain_ must be dealt with as an adjective, and the words considered as
two. The word _moúntain wave_ is often pronounced with a visible diminution
of accent on the last syllable. In this case there is a disparity of
accent, and the word is compound.
§ 361. The following quotation indicates a further cause of perplexity in
determining between compound words and two words:--
1.
A wet sheet and a blowing gale,
A breeze that follows fast;
That fills the white and swelling sail,
And bends the _gallant mast_.--ALLAN CUNNINGHAM.
2.
Britannia needs no bulwarks,
No towers along the steep;
Her march is o'er the _mountain-wave_,
Her home is on the deep.--THOMAS CAMPBELL.
To speak first of the term _gallant mast_. If _gallant_ mean _brave_, there
are _two words_. If the words be two, there is a stronger accent on _mast_.
If the accent on _mast_ be stronger, the rhyme with _fast_ is more
complete; in other words, the metre favours the notion of the words being
considered as _two_. _Gallant-mast_, however, is a compound word, with an
especial nautical meaning. In this case the accent is stronger on _gal-_
and weaker on -mast. This, however, is not the state of things that the
metre favours. The same applies to _mountain wave_. The same person who in
prose would throw a stronger accent on _mount-_ and a weaker one on _wave_
(so dealing with the word as a compound), might, in poetry, the words
_two_, by giving to the last syllable a parity of accent.
The following quotation from Ben Jonson may be read in two ways; and the
accent may vary with the reading:
1.
Lay thy bow of pearl apart,
And thy _silver shining_ quiver.
2.
Lay thy bow of pearl apart,
And thy _silver-shining_ quiver.--_Cynthia's Revels._
§ 362. _On certain words wherein the fact of their being compound is
obscured._--Composition is the addition of a word to a word, derivation is
the addition of certain letters or syllables to a word. In a compound form
each element has a separate and independent existence; in a derived form,
only one of the elements has such. Now it is very possible that in an older
stage of a language two words may exist, may be put together, and may so
form a compound, each word having, then, a separate and independent
existence. In a later stage of language, however, only one of these words
may have a separate and independent existence, the other having become
obsolete. In this case a compound word would take the appearance of a
derived one, since but one of its elements could be exhibited as a separate
and independent word. Such is the case with, amongst others, the word
_bishop-ric_. In the present language the word _ric_ has no separate and
independent existence. For all this, the word is a true compound, since, in
Anglo-Saxon, we have the noun _ríce_ as a separate, independent word,
signifying _kingdom_ or _domain_.
Again, without becoming obsolete, a word may alter its form. This is the
case with most of our adjectives in -ly. At present they appear derivative;
their termination -ly having no separate and independent existence. The
older language, however, shows that they are compounds; since -ly is
nothing else than -lic, Anglo-Saxon; -lih, Old High German; -leiks,
Moeso-Gothic; = _like_, or _similis_, and equally with it an independent
separate word.
§ 363. "Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that _there is no
true composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of
accent_."--Such is the statement made in § 358. The first class of
exceptions consists of those words where the natural tendency to disparity
of accent is traversed by some rule of euphony. For example, let two words
be put together, which at their point of contact form a combination of
sounds foreign to our habits of pronunciation. The rarity of the
combination will cause an effort in utterance. The effort in utterance will
cause an accent to be laid on the latter half of the compound. This will
equalize the accent, and abolish the disparity. The word _monkshood_, the
name of a flower (_aconitum napellus_), where, to my ear at least, there is
quite as much accent on the -hood as on the _monks-_, may serve in the way
of illustration. _Monks_ is one word, _hood_ another. When joined together,
the h- of the -hood is put in immediate apposition with the s of the
_monks-_. Hence the combination _monkshood_. At the letters s and h is the
point of contact. Now the sound of s followed immediately by the sound of h
is a true aspirate. But true aspirates are rare in the English language.
Being of rare occurrence, the pronunciation of them is a matter of
attention and effort; and this attention and effort create an accent which
otherwise would be absent. Hence words like _mónks-hóod_, _well-héad_, and
some others.
Real reduplications of consonants, as in _hóp-póle_, may have the same
parity of accent with the true aspirates: and for the same reasons. They
are rare combinations that require effort and attention.
§ 364. The second class of exceptions contains those words wherein between
the first element and the second there is so great a disparity, either in
the length of the vowel, or the length of the syllable _en masse_, as to
counteract the natural tendency of the first element to become accented.
One of the few specimens of this class (which after all may consist of
double words) is the term _upstánding_. Here it should be remembered, that
words like _hapházard_, _foolhárdy_, _uphólder_, and _withhóld_ come under
the first class of the exceptions.
§ 365. The third class of exceptions contains words like _perchánce_ and
_perháps_. In all respects but one these are double words, just as _by
chance_ is a double word. _Per_, however, differs from _by_ in having no
separate existence. This sort of words we owe to the multiplicity of
elements (classical and Gothic) in the English language.
§ 366. _Peacock_, _peahen_.--If these words be rendered masculine or
feminine by the addition of the elements -cock and -hen, the statements
made in the beginning of the present chapter are invalidated. Since, if the
word _pea-_ be particularized, qualified, or defined by the words -cock and
-hen, the _second_ term defines or particularises the _first_, which is
contrary to the rule of § 356. The truth, however, is, that the words -cock
and -hen are defined by the prefix _pea-_. Preparatory to the exhibition of
this, let us remember that the word _pea_ (although now found in
composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a
species of fowl, like _pheasant_, _partridge_, or any other appellation. It
is the Latin _pavo_, German _pfau_. Now if the word _peacock_ mean a _pea_
(_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is a male, then do _wood-cock_, _black-cock_, and
_bantam-cock_, mean _woods_, _blacks_, and _bantams_ that are male. Or if
the word _peahen_ mean a _pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is female, then do
_moorhen_ and _guineahen_ mean _moors_ and _guineas_ that are female.
Again, if a _peahen_ mean a _pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is female, then
does the compound _pheasant-hen_ mean the same as _hen-pheasant_; which is
not the case. The fact is that _peacock_ means a _cock that is a pea_
(_pfau_ or _pavo_); _peahen_ means a _hen that is a pea_ (_pfau_ or
_pavo_); and, finally, _peafowl_ means a _fowl that is a pea_ (_pfau_ or
_pavo_). In the same way _moorfowl_ means, not a _moor that is connected
with a fowl_, but a _fowl that is connected with a moor_.
§ 367. It must be clear that in every compound word there are, at least,
two parts; i.e., the whole or part of the original, and the whole or part
of the superadded word. In the most perfect forms of inflection, however,
there is a _third_ element, viz., a vowel, consonant, or syllable that
joins the first word with the second.
In the older forms of all the Gothic languages the presence of this third
element was the rule rather than the exception. In the present English it
exists in but few words.
a. The -a- in _black-a-moor_ is possibly such a connecting element.
b. The -in- in _night-in-gale_ is most probably such a connecting element.
Compare the German form _nacht-i-gale_, and remember the tendency of vowels
to take the sound of -ng before g.
§ 368. _Improper compounds._--The -s- in words like _Thur-s-day_,
_hunt-s-man_, may be one of two things.
a. It may be the sign of the genitive case, so that _Thursday_ = _Thoris
dies_. In this case the word is an _improper compound_, since it is like
the word _pater-familias_ in Latin, in a common state of syntactical
construction.
b. It may be a connecting sound, like the -i- in _nacht-i-gale_. Reasons
for this view occur in the following fact:--
In the modern German languages the genitive case of feminine nouns ends
otherwise than in -s. Nevertheless, the sound of -s- occurs in composition
equally, whether the noun it follows be masculine or feminine. This fact,
as far as it goes, makes it convenient to consider the sound in question as
a connective rather than a case. Probably, it is neither one nor the other
exactly, but the effect of a false analogy.
§ 369. _Decomposites._--"Composition is the joining together of _two_
words."--See § 357.
Words like _mid-ship-man_, _gentle-man-like_, &c., where the number of
verbal elements seems to amount to _three_, are no exception to this rule;
since _compound radicals_ like _midship_ and _gentleman_, are, for the
purposes of composition, single words. Compounds wherein one element is
compound are called _decomposites_.
§ 370. There are a number of words which are never found by themselves; or,
if so found, have never the same sense that they have in _combination_.
Mark the word _combination_. The terms in question are points of
_combination_, not of composition: since they form not the parts of words,
but the parts of phrases. Such are the expressions _time and tide_--_might
and main_--_rede me my riddle_--_pay your shot_--_rhyme and reason_, &c.
These words are evidently of the same class, though not of the same species
with _bishopric_, _colewort_, _spillikin_, _gossip_, _mainswearer_, &c.
These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words preserved in composition.
The former give us obsolete words preserved in combination.
* * * * *