ON ISOLATION AND THE REACTION AGAINST IT.
The process of forming our modal and material groupings of ideas, and of
the terms which we use to express those ideas, is essentially a
subjective one, and is, as such, productive of results which would seem
at first sight to be incapable of scientific generalisation. Within the
limits, however, of any given linguistic community, the elements of
which such groups can be formed are identical, and--with all possible
divergence of width and depth of intellectual development in the members
of that community--there is a certain uniformity in the manner in which
each individual member employs that part of the common stock of ideas
and terms of which he is master. Hence it inevitably follows that the
groups which are formed will, IF THE AVERAGE be taken, prove about
equal, and we are thus justified in abstracting from the individual, and
in generalising concerning such grouping at any given period, in exactly
the same manner as we do in speaking of the language of a community or
of the pronunciation of a given word by a community. In this process, we
may for our purpose neglect individual peculiarities or deviations from
that abstract and always somewhat arbitrary norm.
And just as the language of any two periods of time shows that
differences arise which permeate the whole, so, if we compare the
groupings of which we can prove the existence in former times by the
influence they exerted on the preservation or destruction of different
forms in the language with those we can observe at present in our own
linguistic consciousness, or with those which were prevalent at any
other period of time, we notice (1) that what formerly was naturally
connected by every member of the linguistic community is no longer felt
to belong together, and (2) that what once formed part of different and
disconnected groups has been joined together.
It is the former of these two events which we have to discuss in this
chapter:[87] its chief causes are change in sound and change in, or
development of, signification. The effects of the latter in isolating
more or less completely some word or some particular use or combination
of any word from the group with which, owing to parallelism in meaning,
it was once connected, we have already illustrated in Chapter IV.
Sound-change has or may have similar effects, and even the influence of
analogy, which, as we have seen in Chapter V., is mainly effectual in
restoring or maintaining the union between the members of a group,
sometimes contributes to the opposite effect when any one particular
member happens, from whatever cause it may be, to be excluded from its
operation.
Thus, for instance, our present word _day_ is found in Anglo-Saxon as--
Nom. and Acc. Sing. _dæg_ Plur. _dagas_
Gen. ” _dæges_ ” _daga_
Dat. ” _dæge_ ” _dagum_,
where _æ_ was pronounced as the _a_ in _man_, _hat_, etc., and _a_ as
_a_ in _father_: _æ_ is therefore a ‘front-vowel,’ like the _a_ in
_fate_, _ee_ in _feet_, etc., while _a_ of _dagas_ was a ‘back-vowel,’
as are _o_ or _u_.
The phonetic development of final or medial _g_ differs according to the
vowel which preceded it. If this was a front-vowel the _g_ became _y_
(vowel),[88] if it was a back-vowel the _g_ became _w_. Thus, _e.g._,
A.S. _hnægan_, E. _neigh_; A.S. _wegan_, E. _weigh_; A.S. _hálig_, E.
_holy_: but A.S. _búgan_, E. _(to) bow_; A.S. _boga_, E. _bow_; A.S.
_ágan_, E. _to own_. Accordingly _dæg_, etc., in the singular became
_day_, whilst in the plural we find in M.E. _dawes_, etc. As soon,
however, as analogy had established the ‘regular’ _s_ plural to the
sing. _day_, plur. _days_, the verb _(to) dawn_, A.S., _dagian_ was
thereby isolated completely, and no speaker who is not more or less a
student of the history of English, connects the verb with the noun.
Another instance maybe found in the word _forlorn_.
To understand the history of this word we must know what is meant by
Verner’s law.
Among the first illustrations of the regular correspondence of the
several consonants in Latin and in the Teutonic languages are such pairs
as _mater_, _mother_; _pater_, _father_; _frater_, _brother_; _tres_,
_three_; _tu_, _thou_: in all of which a _th_ is found in English where
the Latin shows a _t_. This and other similar regular interchanges were
generalised by Grimm and formulated by him as a law, part of which
stated that if the same word was found in Latin, Greek, and Sanscrit, as
well as in Teutonic, a _k_, _t_, _p_, in the first three languages
appeared as _h_, _th_, _f_ in Low German, of which family English is a
representative.
All our sets of examples seem to illustrate and confirm this law. If,
however, we trace the English words back to older forms, we see that
this absolute regularity is disturbed. In Middle-English almost
invariably, and in Anglo-Saxon invariably, we find _fader_, _moder_,
_brother_, A.S. _fæder_, _módor_, _bróðor_, in perfect agreement with
O.S. _fadar_, _môdar_, _brothar_, and Goth. _fadar_, _brothar_ (cf. Mod.
Ger. _vater_, _mutter_, but _bruder_). It was Karl Verner who explained
this irregularity, and proved that it was connected with the place of
the accent in the Teutonic languages, not as we find it now, but as it
can be proved to have existed in those languages, where it corresponded
generally with the Greek accents, or more closely still with the accent
in Vedic Sanscrit. There we find that in the corresponding forms
_pitar_, _mâtar_, and _bhratar_, the accent or stress lay on the FIRST
syllable in _bhratar_, but on the LAST in _pitar_ and _mâtar_. Verner
proved by numerous examples that only where an ACCENTED vowel preceded
the _p_, _t_, _k_, Teutonic showed the corresponding _f_, _th_, _h_; but
that, on the other hand, where the preceding vowel was UNACCENTED,
instead of _f_ we found _b_, and _d_ instead of _th_, _g_ instead of
_h_. And also, instead of _s_, which was elsewhere found both in Latin
or Sanscrit as well as in Teutonic, _z_ was found, which _z_ further
changed into _r_ in Anglo-Saxon.
Thus--to give one more instance--the suffix _ian_, used to form
causatives in Teutonic, once bore the accent, which afterwards was
placed on the root-syllable. Accordingly, the causative of the verb
_rís-an_ (to rise) was once _rás-ian_,[89] which, with _z_, and, later
on, _r_, instead of _s_, changed into _rǽr-an_, Mod. Eng _to rear_.
The so-called Grammatical change in Anglo-Saxon (and other Teutonic
languages) now becomes clear:
The verb in past sing. plur. p. part.
_céosan_ (to choose) has _caés_ _curon_ _coren_
_sniðan_ (to cut; Scotch,
_sned_) has _snáð_ _snidon_ _sniden_
_téon_ (to drag) has _téah_ _tugon_ _togen_
and all this series of regular sound-change depends upon the fact that
in the past plural and in the past participle the accent fell ORIGINALLY
on the termination. Similarly, (_for_)
_léosan_,--_léas_,--_luron_,--_loren_, from which last form we have our
word _forlorn_, meaning, therefore, ‘completely lost.’ Already, however,
in Anglo-Saxon, in very many verbs all traces of this grammatical change
have disappeared, and the history of the strong conjugation in
Middle-English shows the gradual supersession of the consonants in the
past plural and past participle by those found in the present and past
singular. Hence those forms in which these older consonants remained
were more and more isolated from the groups with which they are
etymologically connected; and as little as in popular consciousness _to
rear_ is grouped with _to rise_, so little is the adjective _forlorn_
thought of as a member of the group _to lose_, _lost_, etc.
We have had already more than one occasion to point out that not only
words, but also syntactical combinations and phrases can and do form
matter groups. Nay, even the various meanings of a syntactical relation
are thus combined.
Such a relation, for instance, is that expressed by the genitive. Though
we employ--and formerly employed more generally than now--this case with
various meanings, all these meanings are more or less (rather less)
consciously felt as one, or at least are closely related--and they
continue to be so felt, _i.e._ the grouping remains a close one--as long
as these various usages remain general and what we may call living.
When, however, any one of these usages becomes obsolete, and the
relation indicated finds another form of expression in some other
syntactical arrangement, some few examples of the older mode of
expression, strengthened as they are by, _e.g._, very frequent
employment, remain, but cease to be felt as instances of that relation.
Thus, though the meaning of the genitives in _This is my father’s
house_, and in _God’s goodness_ is essentially different--the one
expressing an ownership of one person with regard to a material external
object, the other the relation between a being and an immaterial
inherent quality,--both are felt as one kind of relation; nay, the
superficial thinker has some difficulty in fully realising that they
express really TWO meanings. More easily felt is the difference between
the Latin and French ‘genitivus subjectivus’ and ‘genitivus objectivus:’
_amor patriæ_, _l’amour de la patrie_ (the love for our fatherland, _ob.
gen._), and _amor matris_, _l’amour de la mère_ (the love which our
mother feels for us, _sub. gen._). Yet, once more, even this difference
is not always realised by every one who uses both constructions. Another
use of the genitive once was to form adverbs. As long as any genitive
could be thus employed, we may be sure that the ordinary speaker will
have grouped, when thus using it, not only the particular form with
other cases of the same noun, etc., but also the genitives, as such,
with other genitives. When, however, other modes of forming the adverbs
prevailed, the old genitival adverbs which remained were no longer felt
as genitives, and became isolated and no longer productive as examples
for other formations. A remnant of this genitive survives in _needs_,
and perhaps in Shakespeare’s _Come a little nearer this ways_ (Merry
Wives, II. ii.; ed. Collier);[90] in _straightways_, and certainly in
M.E. _his thankes_, _here unthankes_ (libenter, ingratis), or A.S.
_heora ágnes ðances_ (eorum voluntate). It further survives in adverbs
derived from adjectives: _else_ (from an adj. pron. _el_) _unawares_,
_inwards_, _upwards_, etc.
Similarly the preposition _of_, which early began to serve as a
substitute for the genitive, has been employed in some adverbial and
other expressions. This usage, however, if it ever was really “alive,”
is now completely dead. We find _I must of force_ (Shakespeare, 1 Henry
IV., II. ii.) and _my custom always of the afternoon_ (Hamlet, I. v.);
and still can say _of an evening_; _all of a sudden_; but not, e.g., _of
a moment_. Nor should we now imitate Shakespeare’s _not be seen to wink
of all the day_ (Love’s Labour’s Lost, I. i. 43); _Did you not of late
days hear_ (Henry VIII., II. i. 147), though we still have _of late_,
_of old_.
Many other prepositions offer in their constructions illustrations of
isolation. Thus, _e.g._, the combination of any preposition with a noun
without an article was exceedingly common in the older language, and we
still possess a numerous collection of such combinations in almost daily
use. Thus we find _indeed_, _in fact_, _in truth_, _in reality_, _in
jest_, etc., a construction which perhaps may yet be considered a living
one when the noun is an abstraction. Adverbs of place, however, such as
_in bed_, _in church_, are no longer formed at will: no one would say
_in house_, _in room_.
So, again, we have _at home_, _at sea_, _at hand_, but not _at
house_,[91] _at water_, _at foot_. We can throw something _overboard_,
but not _over wall_ or _over river_. We can stand _on shore_, _on land_,
_on foot_, _on board_, but do not speak of standing _on bank_, _on
ship_. We can sit _at table_, not _at sideboard_. One may come _to
grief_, _to ruin_, but cannot omit _his_ or _her_ in _come to ...
death_. We can say _by night_, _by day_, _by this day week_, but not _by
spring_, _by winter_. Lastly: we travel _by land_, _by sea_, _by water_,
_by rail_; we send a packet _by parcel delivery_; we communicate _by
letter_, or _by word of mouth_, but should not ask for information by
saying, _Let me know by line_ (instead of _by a line_), _will you?_
In the isolation of the genitives, which we discussed above, and in all
similar syntactical isolations, it would perhaps be correct to
distinguish two phases of development, or--as they are not necessarily
chronologically separated--two sides of the same process. For while in
course of time, as we have seen, one of the SYNTACTICAL MEANINGS OF THE
GENITIVE CASE became isolated from the other relationships expressed by
that same case, we must, on the other hand, also remember that this
involved an isolation of certain formal or modal groups (in this case,
of --s forms) from their historical nominatives, which in most cases in
its turn caused, or was accompanied by, a more or less clearly marked
separation in development of meanings. When the genitive case was no
longer generally employed to form adverbs from nouns and adjectives,
words like _needs_, _straightways_, _else_, _upwards_, were no longer
felt as genitives, and we now feel that the adverb _needs_ is not in our
consciousness grouped with the noun _need_, in the same way as, for
instance, the nom. plur. _needs_ with the sing. _need_; nay, if we
carefully examine the meaning of the adverb, we find that its material
meaning no longer completely coincides with that of the noun.
The various meanings of the NOUN _need_ are _urgent want_, _poverty_,
_position of difficulty_, _distress_, _necessity_, _compulsion_; the
ADVERB answers only to the last two: _He must needs go_ could not be
used for _He must go on account of urgent want_, or _as a consequence of
poverty or distress_, but only for _He must go of necessity_,
_indispensably_, _inevitably_.
Such formal isolation, then, is almost always at the same time a
material one. Thus, we may say that the noun _tilth_ is not so
intimately connected with the group _I till_, _tilling_, _well tilled_,
etc., as, e.g., _writing_ is connected with _to write_, etc.; and this
because the suffix _-ing_ is a living and productive one, _i.e._ one
which still forms verbal nouns at our will, whenever the need arises,
and from whatever verb; whilst the suffix _th_ is no longer so used,
being at the present day comparatively rare in English (_health_,
_wealth_, _strength_, _length_, _breath_, _width_), and, indeed, more
often occurring as an adjectival than as a verbal suffix.
The closest groups are naturally always those consisting of the
different inflected forms of the same noun or verb, and the ties
connecting the members of such a group are undoubtedly stronger than
those between words of different functions, etymologically connected,
but whose mode of formation or derivation is not so vividly realised by
the ordinary speaker. This is so true, that the same form, when used as
present participle, must be said to be more closely connected with the
other parts of the verb than when used as an adjective; and this can be
proved by the fact that often such an adjective has undergone changes in
meaning in which the verb and even the present participle, as such, has
not participated. Thus, _e.g._, the present part. _living_, in ‘he is
living,’ whether we mean this for ‘he is alive’ or ‘he is dwelling in
...’ has the same usage as the verb _he lives_, and no more. This is,
however, no longer true of the ADJECTIVE _living_, in a phrase like ‘I
give you living water.’ To realise this we need but replace the
adjective by a relative clause, ‘which lives,’ when we at once feel that
we extend the use of the verb in an unusual way. Thus, again, the NOUN
_writing_, in ‘These are the writings of ...’ for ‘These are his
(perhaps printed) works,’ has an application which we could not give to
the verb _to write_.
This illustrates the fact that a development in meaning of a derivative
is not necessarily shared by or transferred to the primary word, whilst
any extension of usage of such parent-word is likely to spread to its
derivatives. The same is of course true of simple and compound words.
Hence the process of isolation of derivative from primary, or compound
from simple, generally originates in change of meaning in the former of
each of these groups. Thus, the noun _undertaker_ is isolated from the
verb _to undertake_ in consequence of a restriction of its meaning to
the person who makes it his profession to undertake the management,
etc., of funerals. So, again, though the noun _keeper_ = guardian,
watchman, protector, is applied to a certain gold ring, we could hardly
say that such a ring _keeps_ the others. A _beggar_, originally ‘one who
begs,’ is now one who ‘habitually begs and obtains his living by doing
so,’ while, if ever we do apply the term in the wider and older sense,
we often indicate--in writing at least--the closer connection with the
verb _to beg_ by using the termination _er_, the characteristic
termination of the nomen agentis _begger_. There is, in German, a very
interesting word which illustrates this fact to an extent which it
would be difficult to parallel completely in English. By the side of the
verb _reiten_, ‘to ride,’ a noun _ritter_ exists, of which the original
meaning was merely _a rider_. Like our word ‘beggar,’ this _ritter_ was
specialised in meaning, and applied to one who rides habitually and as a
profession, _i.e._ a warrior who fights on horseback. When these
warriors began to form a privileged body (an order to which many were
admitted who never, at least professionally, rode) the noun attained a
meaning to which no verb could correspond.
Again, some adverbs, especially such as emphasise our expressions, have
developed in meaning often much further than the primary adjective has
followed them. Thus _very_, as adverb a mere emphatic word, has, as
adjective, retained much more fully its original meaning of _true_: cf.
_this is very true_, _very false_, with, _a very giant_. It is the same
with the adverb _awfully_, now indeed common, but noted by Charles Lamb
as a Scotticism, and with the adjective _sore_, and the adverb _sorely_.
It is, however, not _always_ the derivative which, in its isolation,
assumes the modified signification. The primitive may change, and the
derivative remain stationary. Thus the English _shop_, as a place for
retail trade, has been displaced in America by _store_, while _shop_
comes to have the value of _work-shop_, _machine-shop_, etc. Yet the
derivative _shopping_, a much-used word in America, retains a
reminiscence of the older value of _shop_.
To return for a moment to the example which we gave from German: the
verb _reiten_ (pronounced with a vowel sound closely resembling that of
_i_ in _to ride_) and the noun _ritter_ (_i_ nearly like _i_ in _rid_,
or, more correctly, like _ee_ of _need_, but shortened), show a
gradation of vowel-sound, of the same nature and origin as that in such
pairs as _write_, _wrote_; _sing_, _sang_; _give_, _gave_. This change
in vowel-sound without doubt co-operated in effecting the isolation, and
so facilitated the change in meaning in the one form; a change in which
the other did not participate. Thus, speaking generally, phonetic
development, by creating numerous meaningless distinctions, loosens the
modal and material groups, and serves to forward isolation of meaning.
Thus, again, the special meaning which we now attach to the verb _to
rear_ would have been more likely to transfer itself to the primary verb
_to rise_, or--_vice versâ_--the meaning of the primary _to rise_ would
have almost certainly prevented the special development of _to rear_, if
the etymological connection had not been obscured by the phonetic
development which we formulate as Verner’s law, _i.e._ if the grouping
had not been loosened.
It is, moreover, clear that if, from whatever cause, an interchange of
certain sounds becomes less frequent in a language, those words which do
preserve that interchange become _ipso facto_ more strongly separated.
Thus, _e.g._, the _umlaut_, i.e. the change of _u_ (sounded as _oo_) to
_ü_ (sounded as _u_ in French, the Devonshire _u_; more like English
_ee_ than like English _u_), or of _a_ (_a_ as in _father_) to _ä_
(sound much like _a_ in _fate_, but without the _ee_ sound which in
English follows it), etc., is in German so common that in no case is its
presence or absence alone sufficient to effect the isolation of any form
from its related group. In English, this interchange has almost
completely disappeared, and the few traces of it which we preserve in
the plural formation (_foot_, _feet_; _tooth_, _teeth_; _mouse_, _mice_;
_man_, _men_, etc.) are only preserved as so-called ‘irregularities,’
and no longer form a model or pattern for other formations. Hence in
English, where, besides _umlaut_, we have difference in function (_e.g._
adjective and noun), the isolation has often been complete. Thus, no
ordinary speaker groups the adjective _foul_ with the noun _filth_; and
the connection, though still felt, between _long_ and _length_, _broad_
and _breadth_, is undoubtedly less clearly felt than between, e.g.,
_long_ and _longer_, or _broad_ and _to broaden_, _high_ and _height_:
similarly, the difference in vowel between _weal_ and _wealth_, _(to)
heal_ and _health_, has facilitated isolation of these forms.
If phonetic development were the only agent in the history of language,
we see that, shortly, an infinite variety of forms, absolutely
unconnected, or at best but loosely connected, would be the result. But
here, as always, we have action and counteraction.[92] This
counteracting influence is chiefly exerted by analogy, as we explained
in Chapter V. It is, however, not always analogy which brings about the
readjustment or unification.
We have already had occasion to point out that our word-division, though
undoubtedly based on real and sufficient grounds, is not consistently or
even commonly observed in SPEAKING. Our thoughts are, indeed, expressed
not in words but in _word-groups_; and letters, even though they stand
at the end or at the beginning of words, have often had a special
phonetic development, in cases where these words occurred in very
frequent or in very intimate connection with other words. The
differences so created have very commonly, though not by any means
universally, found expression in writing. As an instance of a
differentiation of which the written language takes no cognisance, we
may take the French indefinite article. Few are unaware that when _un_
stands before a consonant the _n_ is not pronounced, leaving in the
spoken word only a trace of its existence in the fact that the vowel is
nasalised. When _un_ comes before a vowel, on the other hand, the vowel
is much less strongly, if at all, nasalised, and the _n_ is clearly
pronounced. Thus (using the circumflex to indicate the nasal quality of
the vowel and _ö_ for the sound of _u_ in _un_), _un père_ = _ö̂ père_,
but _un ami_ = _ön ami_ or _ö̂n ami_. The corresponding difference which
exists in English is expressed in writing: _a father_, _an aunt_.
Just as the article is closely connected with the noun, so preposition
and noun, or preposition and verb, are very intimately connected in
pronunciation. Hence--though many, who have never carefully observed
either their own pronunciation or that of others, may dispute or deny
the assertion--in ORDINARY conversation, in the phrases, _in town_, _in
doors_, we employ the _n_ sound; but when the word _in_ stands before
_Paris_ and _Berlin_, we use an _m_ sound, just as we say _impossible_
by the side of _interest_. Similarly, we pronounce generally ‘in coming’
with _ng_ for _n_, just as we speak of a man’s _ingcome_. This
differentiation of the pronunciation of the preposition _in_ into three
forms--_in_, _im_, _ing_--is not, however, consistently expressed by us
in writing. The Greeks, on the other hand, who similarly differentiated
the terminal consonants of the prepositions in their spoken language,
but on a much larger scale (accustomed as they were to a far closer
correspondence between their spoken and their written language than the
Englishman observes), did actually, in many cases, write as they spoke:
κάδ δὲ,—κὰκ κεφαλὴν, κὰγ γόνυ—κὰπ πεδιόν, etc., instead of employing the
normal form of the preposition, κατά. So we find in inscriptions τὴμ
πόλιν, τὴγ γυναῖκα, τὸλ λογόν, ἐμ πόλει, etc.
The first step on the road towards unification is frequently that the
external reason which caused the difference in form, disappears or loses
force, and one form is found in connections where, historically or
phonetically speaking, the other is correct. We may instance this by the
common mistake of children when they say, e.g., _a apple_ instead of _an
apple_. In this case, however, the correct form is so very frequently
heard that the encroachment of _a_ on the domains of _an_ is not likely
to lead to permanent confusion. Where, however, circumstances are less
favourable to the preservation of the historically correct usage, it
happens that either form encroaches on the domain of the other, or else
it may result that the encroachment is reciprocal,--when, after a period
of confusion in which both forms are used indifferently, one becomes
obsolete and falls into oblivion, not without often leaving some
striking form or phrase to testify to what once existed. Thus, for
instance, our word _here_, Old High German _hier_, or _hêr_, was, in the
period of transition from Old to Middle High German, differentiated in
accordance with a phonetic law of that time, viz. that final _r_ was
dropped after a long vowel. If not final however, _r_ remained
untouched, and this whether it stood in the body of a word or within a
group of intimately connected words. Of the two forms _hie_ and _hier_,
the former, as the form employed when the word was used independently,
was in Middle High German often set before words beginning with a vowel;
and we find _hie inne_ (= here-in) or even, by contraction, _hinne_, for
_hier-inne_. On the other hand, it is probably owing to the frequency of
combinations similar and equivalent to our _here-in_, _here-upon_, etc.,
that the form _hier_ encroached successfully upon the domain of _hie_,
and finally supplanted it. _Hie_, however, remained, singularly enough,
in the one expression _hie und da_ (here and there), where the form
without _r_ is not and has never been, phonetically speaking, correct.
An excellent example of this differentiation is furnished by _one_,
_an_.
The best example of the process is furnished by the history of the
working of Verner’s law, and of the gradual disappearance of its
effects. We have before (pp. 172, 173) explained this law and quoted
instances of forms created in agreement with it, which have now been
replaced by others. To repeat this explanation here with other examples
would be superfluous; to give a full history, even confining ourselves
to an enumeration of all the various ways in which it has been operative
and the areas of its influence, would transcend the scope of this work.
To carefully note all instances of its occurrence and its neglect, and
to closely investigate the possible courses of the latter, is a task
which may most usefully challenge the attention of philologists. We will
illustrate the truth of this by a single example: (though even this we
cannot discuss exhaustively). The forms which we employ at present as
the past tense of the verb _to be_--sing. _was_ and plur. (with
grammatical change according to the law) _were_, belong to a root which
in old English and Anglo-Saxon furnished a complete verb: pres. _wese_,
past. _wæs_, p. part. _wesen_. Now we should naturally expect that in a
time when the grammatical change was still preserved in
_freóse_, _fréas_, _fruron_, _froren_, (to freeze) etc.
_ceóse_, _céas_, _curon_, _coren_, (to choose)
_seóðe_, _seáð_, _sudon_, _soden_, (to seethe, to boil)
we should also find that change here, and that accordingly the past
participle should be *_weren_. That such a form once existed is proved
by the past participle _forweorone_ (cf. Sievers, Anglo-Saxon Grammar, §
391). Everywhere, however, in Anglo-Saxon, in the past participle of
this verb and in that of all similarly conjugated, such as _lesan_,
_læs_, _lesen_; _genesan_, _genæs_, _genesen_, etc., the _s_ has once
more been fully established. The fact that _these_ past participles had
already so far proceeded on the road to unification, while the others as
yet remained isolated, may be explained in this way,--the latter, IN
ADDITION to the differentiation in accordance with Verner’s law, showed
a difference of vowel-sound, which in the case of others did not exist.
Hence the forms differentiated in two distinct ways were able to resist
the tendency towards unification long after those which differed only in
one respect had succumbed. In fact, of the former we still have such
remnants as _forlorn_, from _to lose_; _sodden_, from _to seethe_. We
may formulate the result which we have illustrated, thus: _The greater
the phonetic distance of two differentiated forms, the greater is the
power of resistance against unification and equalisation_.
But the ORDER in which we see the traces of the working of Verner’s law
disappear one after another, and the study of such few remnants as still
exist, brings out two other general truths concerning unification. We
may without hesitation affirm that, close as is the etymological
connection between the various tenses of the same verb, or, to speak
perhaps more correctly, that clearly as that connection is felt by the
speech-making community, it is still more strongly felt as between the
various forms of the same tense, or the various cases of the same noun.
Now, it is against the differentiation between the members of these most
intimate groups that unification first takes place. In the declension of
the noun, where nothing but the operation of Verner’s law had separated
the various cases, the re-assimilation first took place, and though we
can prove that, in this case also, the differences actually once
existed--in the historic periods of the Teutonic dialects almost all
traces thereof have been obliterated. In the past tenses of the verbs
they are still at first found, supported as the differentiation had been
by that other force--the gradation of vowels (the ‘ablaut’).[93] But
again: unification between the singular and plural of the past tense
took place first in cases where the vowels were alike in both, and next
in those where the vowels differed--and again, this occurred _before_
the unification of the past participle with the whole group. In
agreement with this same rule, that very difference of vowel-sound has
completely disappeared in all past singulars and plurals, even
where--as, _e.g._, in German generally--the past participle still
preserves the ‘ablaut.’
We can then lay it down as a second rule, _that the closer the
etymological connection is between differentiated forms, the sooner will
unification be effected_; whilst a consideration of such rare instances
as the preservation of the interchange of _s_ and _r_ in _I was_, _we
were_, which is clearly due to the very exceptional frequency with which
these forms must always have been used, and the consequent firmness with
which they are impressed on every speaker’s memory, exhibits a third
law, viz. _that the greater the intensity with which differentiated
forms are impressed upon the minds of the community, the greater will
prove their power of resistance against unification_.
It is further evident that in cases where the differentiation of form
had been accompanied by one in meaning, the tendency towards unification
was counteracted, or rather can never have existed. Thus, the pair of
words _glass_ (etymologically = the shining substance) and _glare_ (to
shine) is separated once and for ever. We have seen the plur. _dawes_
re-united to sing. _day_; the verb _to dawn_ has not followed suit.
Though thus much is clear, and when once apprehended, almost
self-evident, we must acknowledge that much is as yet obscure and
unexplained. It is often already very difficult to find any reason why
in one case unification has taken place and not in another, which
apparently presented the same conditions: it is generally harder still
to find an answer to the question why in any given case one form has
prevailed over another, instead of the converse having happened.
Omniscience alone could answer all such questions: but here, again, a
few general observations may serve to explain some points, though, as we
have said, much as yet remains inexplicable. Thus, for example, when
unification replaces the confusion which followed differentiation,
members of the same formal or modal group (that is to say, for instance,
the same parts of speech) are likely to follow in the same direction.
Thus, _e.g._, in the original Teutonic, when the suffix _no_ was
preceded by a vowel, that vowel varied in the different (strong and
weak) cases of the declensions of nouns, adjectives, and participles,
according to fixed rules, between _u_ and _e_. This _u_ developed into
_o_ or _a_, and _e_ into _i_. Soon unification took place, in some cases
in one, in others in another direction, so that we find, for instance,
in Gothic a form like _ðiud_A_ns_ (king) by the side of _maurg_I_ns_
(morning), whilst now, the past participles (formed with this same
suffix) all have _ans_ throughout; such participles as became pure
adjectives or nouns have often _ins_, e.g. _gafulgins_ (adj. ‘secret’),
past participle, of _filhan_, ‘to hide,’ with _fulhans_ as past
participle, = hidden; _aigin_ (neuter, hence without _s_ in nom.) =
property, is past participle of _aigan_, ‘to have.’
Sometimes--as, for instance, in the singular and plural of past tense in
strong verbs--a differentiation coincides with difference in function,
though its origin was independent of any such functional divergence.
This, of course, strengthens the phonetic differentiation, and, if such
a coincidence affects simultaneously a formal group of large extent, and
thus becomes a model for analogical formations (Chap. V.), the
originally meaningless phonetic divergence may become indissolubly
associated with difference of function, and so become expressive of the
latter.
Thus, for instance, the words _tooth_, _foot_, and _man_ form their
plural _teeth_, _feet_, and _men_ by _umlaut_, and by _umlaut_ alone.
This modification of the vowel is, then, here expressive of plurality.
Originally, however, it was not so. In Anglo-Saxon the declension was--
Singular Nom. and Acc. _fót_ _tóð_ _mann_
Gen. _fótes_ _tóðes_ _mannes_
Dat. _fét_ _téð_ _menn_
Plur. Nom. and Acc. _fét_ _teð_ _menn_
_fóta_ _tóða_ _manna_
_fótum_ _tóðum_ _mannum_
When once the combined force of nominative, accusative, and genitive had
ousted the modified vowel from the dative singular, the whole singular
exhibited _ó_ (_a_) in contrast to the nominative and accusative plural
with _é_ (_e_). This caused the transference of the latter to the
genitive and dative plural also, and thus invested the modification
with a force originally quite foreign to it.
In English, no doubt owing to the mixed influence upon that language of
two very different grammatical systems (the Teutonic of Anglo-Saxon, and
the Romance of Norman-French), unification has proceeded to a far
greater length than in most other Teutonic dialects. In German, _e.g._,
the history of the _umlaut_ and the origin of plurals in _er_--of which
English has no trace but the provincialism _childer_, or the “correct”
form _children_--furnish examples of what we have said; and students of
German will find a careful investigation of that history both
interesting and instructive.