RISE OF WORD-FORMATION AND INFLECTION.
We have in former chapters dealt with, and frequently alluded to, the
fact that much which is new in derivation and inflection is due to
analogy. _Much_ is due to this, but not all; and we must now ask whence
originated these processes of derivation and flection, which cannot be
explained as due to analogy, _i.e._ those which, instead of being
moulded on a given pattern, have, on the contrary, served as the model
for others. It is clear that as soon as language arose, even in its most
primitive state, words must have been combined syntactically, in however
simple a manner. Groups of etymologically connected words, words derived
the one from the other by suffixes (as _long_, _length_; _king_,
_kingdom_) or by flection (as _book_, _books_; _go_, _goes_),--such
groups need not have existed at once, nay, must have arisen only
gradually, and in course of time. How did they arise? Theoretically,
three ways only seem possible.
Words formed independently for cognate ideas, might accidentally
resemble each other so closely as to group themselves also phonetically,
_i.e._ to be sounded more or less alike; or--what is essentially the
same, though not quite so improbable--words originally different and
expressing different ideas, might, in course of time, so develop in
meaning and sound as to become members of a group. A case somewhat of
this nature we studied in our word _bound_ (cf. page 194), which,
originally different in sound and form from the then existing past
participle of _to bind_, has come to resemble it so much in form, and
was used in such a sense as to cause all but students of language to
group these forms together.
A second way is a differentiation in sound, _i.e._ two forms may arise,
under the influence of accent or other causes, from the same word, which
two forms then come to be differentiated in meaning. We have in this
way, for instance, the two forms of the past tense of the verb _werden_
(to become) in German, _ward_ and _wurde_. These arose absolutely
independently of any difference in meaning; once having arisen, a custom
sprang up of using the one (_ward_) as aorist and the other (_wurde_) by
preference as imperfect tense.
That in the above examples, the form which later on became _bound_ is
not itself an original creation, or that, in German, the two forms of
the past tense were due largely to analogy, does not affect their value
as illustrative of our point. We readily understand that both these ways
were and are possible, but, at the same time, that in only very few
cases they have been followed.
Only one way of explaining the origin of flection
remains--‘composition.’
In order to explain how derivation and flection can have been derived
from composition, we will go somewhat deeply into the nature and
application of the latter. We shall then see how impossible it is to
draw a sharp line between syntactical co-ordination, composition,
derivation, and flection anywhere, and then--and only then--we shall
acquire an insight into the true nature of the subject of this chapter.
If we study the composition of words in the various Indo-European
languages, we soon learn to distinguish two different kinds. In one we
find the so-called crude forms (that is to say, those forms of the words
which, WITH THE CASE-ENDINGS, make up what we now consider the complete
word) combined with other crude forms, the last of which alone assumes
these case-endings. To illustrate this we must of course go back to
ancient languages, in which this crude form is clearly distinct from the
nominative or any other case. We have plenty of such compounds even now
in English and other modern languages; but, in consequence of the
wearing off of terminations, the most undoubted examples would
illustrate (_i.e._ throw light upon) nothing. In Sanscrit, for instance,
there are three plants which in the nominative singular would be called
_çaças_ (or _çaçaḥ_), _kuças (ḥ)_ or _kuçam_ (masc. or neut.), and
_palâçam_. It is the crude forms of these nouns (without their
nominative--_s_ and _m_) which are used in the compound
_çaça-kuça-palâçam_, which indicates a collection of the three. Again
_râjâ_ (with long _â_) is the nominative form of a stem _râjan_ (‘king’)
or _râja_ (with short _a_). In the compound _râja-purushas (h)_ we again
find the crude form, this time the shorter form of the base: _purushas_
means ‘man’ and the whole (= ‘king-man’) stands for _king’s man_. We
might illustrate this kind by such words as our _tragi-comic_,
_melodramatic_ (_melos_ = ‘song’).
In the other kind of compounds we find two or more fully inflected forms
combined in one group. This is the method of composition which survives
in our present linguistic consciousness, which sees compounds of the
second kind even in those which are historically connected with the
Indo-European type, illustrated in the former paragraph by
_râja-purushas_. The wearing off of well-nigh all case-endings has in
the present language almost completely obliterated the difference
between crude forms and nominatives of nouns and adjectives or the
infinitives of verbs. Hence, at present, the ordinary speaker realises
no difference between, e.g., _noon_ in _noon-tide_ and the word _noon_
in _It is noon_. Yet the compound _noon-tide_ belongs historically to
the former class, and _noon_ is there a ‘crude form,’ if we may still so
call it. In our following study of composition as at present employed in
the English language, we neglect the scientific origin, but base our
classification on appearance; in the present case, on present linguistic
consciousness. One of the fullest and best-known lists of compounds in
the English language is perhaps that given by Morris (Histor. Outlines,
p. 222). We shall largely draw upon it in the following study, though we
have, in our enumeration, rather considered the character of the
component parts than, as Mr. Morris does, that of the function of the
compound.
I. Nouns are compounded with Nouns--
1. Both in the same case; _i.e._ in apposition, the one explanatory of,
or defining the other (in which case one of the nouns has a function
almost, if not quite, identical with that of an adjective). Instances
are _spear-plant_, _noon-tide_, _church-yard_, _headman_, _oak-tree_,
_master-tailor_, _merchant-tailor_, _prince-regent_, _water-course_,
_watershed_, _head-waiter_, _plough-boy_, _bishopdom_ (found in Milton,
_dom_ = ‘jurisdiction’), _bishopric_ (_ric_ = A.S. _rîce_, ‘power,’
‘domain’), _bandog_ (= _band_ + _dog_), _barn_ (_bere_, i.e. _barley_ +
_ern_, i.e. ‘storehouse’), _bridegroom_ (_bride_ + _groom_ = _goom_ =
A.S. _guma_, ‘man’[191]), _bridal_ (_bride_ + _ale_ = ‘bride-feast’),
_cowslip_ (_cow_ + _slip_, A.S. _cu-slyppe_ = ‘cow dung’), _hussy_ (=
‘_house-wife_’--Skeat, Prin. Eng. Etymol., p. 422), _Lord-lieutenant_,
_earlmarshal_, _wer-wolf_ (‘man-wolf,’ A.S. _wer_ = ‘a man’), _world_
(_weoruld_, _wer_ = ‘man’ + _ældu_ = ‘age,’ ‘old age,’ ‘age of man’),
_yeoman_ (= ‘village-man’--see Skeat), _orchard_ (A.S. _orceard_,
_ortgeard_, metathesis = _wort-yard_ = ‘vegetable-garden’), _Lammas_ (=
_hláf-maesse_ = ‘loaf-mass,’ ‘day of offering,’ ‘first-fruits’),
_handi-work_ (_hand_ + _geweorc_ = ‘hand-work’), _mildew_ (= ‘honey
dew,’ _mil_ = ‘honey,’ A.S. _mele_), _penny-worth_.
2. Genitive + Nominative. _Doomsday_, _Thursday_, _Tuesday_ (day of
_Tiw_, the godhead), _kinsman_, _trades-union_, _calf’s-foot_
(calf’s-foot jelly), _lady day_ (_lady_ as a feminine had no _s_ in the
genitive), _daisy_ (‘day’s eye,’ A.S. _dæges 4 éage_), _Wednesday_
(‘Wodan’s day’), _shilling’s-worth_.
3. Noun + Verbal Noun (the former having the function of object to the
verb cognate with the latter). _Man-killer_, _blood-shedding_, _auger_
(i.e. ‘nauger,’ _a nauger_ having been divided as if = _an auger_; A.S.
_nafu-gár_, ‘nave (of a wheel)’ ‘-borer,’ ‘-piercer’), _groundsel_ (A.S.
_grunde_ + _swelge_ = ‘ground-swallower’ = ‘abundant weed;’ already in
the Saxon corrupted from _gunde-swilge_ = ‘poison-swallower,’ with
reference to healing effects),[192] _lady_ (_hláf-dige_,
‘loaf-kneader’), _soothsayer_ (= ‘truth-speaker’).
4. Two Nouns in other relations: _nightingale_ (A.S. _nihte-gale_ =
‘night-singer’), _nightmare_ (_mara_, ‘an incubus,’ by night).
II. Nouns are compounded with Adjectives.
1. Adjective and Substantive.
_a._ Nouns. _Nobleman_, _upperhand_, _good-day_, _sometime_,
_meanwhile_, _freeman_, _blackbird_, _long-measure, weet-william_,
_lucky-bag_, _midday_, _alderman_ (_ealdor-man_ = ‘elder-man’), _Gospel_
(_god-spell_ = ‘good-spell’ = ‘good tiding’), _holiday_ (= ‘holy day’),
_halibut_ (= ‘holy but’ = ‘holy plaice for eating on holy days’),
_hoar-frost_, _hoar-hound_ (the hoar or greyish _húna_, i.e. the plant
now called horehound), _hind-leg_, _neighbour_ (= ‘near-dweller’),
_midriff_ (_mid_ + _hrif_ = _belly_), _titmouse_ (small sparrow; _mouse_
here = A.S. _máse_, small bird, not the A.S. _mûs_ from which the common
word _mouse_).
_b._ Adjectives. _Barefoot_.
2. Substantive and Adjective.
_a._ Nouns. _Furlong_ (= ‘furrow long’ = ‘the length of a furrow’).
_b._ Adjectives. In many of these the noun has very much the functions
of an adverb. _Blood-red_, _snow-white_, _fire-proof_, _shameful_,
_beautiful_, _manly_ (i.e. ‘man-like’), _scot-free_ (free from paying
_scot_, i.e. a contribution).
3. Substantive and Participle.
_a. Earth-shaking_, _heart-rending_, _life-giving_, _blood-curdling_.
_b. Airfed_, _earthborn_, _moth-eaten_.[193]
4. Numeral + Substantive.
_Sennight_ (= ‘seven night’), _fortnight_ (‘fourteen night’),
_twi-light_ (= ‘double light’ = ‘doubtful light’).
III. Pronoun and Substantive. _Self-will_, _self-esteem_.
IV. 1. Substantive and Verb (or Verbal Stem).
Verbs. _Back-bite_, _blood-let_, _brow-beat_, _hoodwink_, _caterwaul_ (=
‘to wail like cats’).
2. Verb and Substantive.
Nouns. _Grindstone_, _bakehouse_, _wash-tub_, _pickpocket_, _brimstone_
(i.e. _brenstone_ = ‘burning stone’), _rearmouse_ (_hrére-mús_,
_hreran_, ‘to flutter’), _wormwood_ (A.S. _wermód_ = _weremód_,
_werian_, ‘to defend,’ _mód_ = ‘mood’ = ‘mind;’ ‘that which preserves
the mind’), _breakfast_, _spend-thrift_ (cf. _wast-thrift_--Middleton, A
Trick to Catche the Old One, II. i.).
V. Adjective + Adjective (or Adverb + Adjective; it is not always
possible to decide which).
1. _Old-English_, _Low-German_, _deaf-mute_, _thrice-miserable_.
2. Adjective (or Adverb) + Participle.
_a. Deep-musing_, _fresh-looking_, _ill-looking_.
_b. Dear-bought_, _full-fed_, _high-born_, _dead-beat_.
(In _well-bred_, _well-disposed_, etc., there is, of course, no doubt
that the first element is an adverb.)
VI. Adjective and Verb. _White-wash._
VII. Adverb and Verb. _Cross-question_, _doff_ (do-off), _don_ (do-on).
Further compounds we meet are made up of--
VIII. Pronouns with Pronouns. _Somewhat._
IX. Adverbs with Adverbs. _Each_ (= _á_ (aye) + _gelic_ = like, A.S.
_aelc_).
X. Adverbs with Pronouns. _None_ (= _ne_ + _one_), _naught_ (= _ne_ +
_aught_).
XI. Adverbs with Prepositions. _Therefrom._
XII. Adverbs with Adverbs. _Henceforth_, _forthwith_.
XIII. Prepositions with their Case. _Downstairs_, _uphill_, _instead_.
XIV. Adverbs with Verbs. _Foretell_, _gainsay_, _withstand_, etc.
We also find more than two members formed into one; such as
_man-o’-war_, _will-o’-the-wisp_, _brother-in-law_, _nevertheless_,
_whatsoever_, etc. Sentences and phrases coalesce; as in _good-bye_ (=
‘God be with you’), the provincial _beleddy_ (= ‘By our lady,’ _i.e._
the Virgin Mary), _may-be_ (provincially in America written _mebbe_),
and, aided by metaphorical usage, _forget-me-not_, _kiss-me-quick_, etc.
The student should carefully go over these examples, and, in each of
them, attentively study the full force of the compound, and see what is
really expressed by the component part, and what implied by the mere
fact that they are thus joined.[194] If he is acquainted with any
foreign languages, he should also study all the various habits of these
languages as regards composition. He will then gain a clear insight into
the nature of the process, and see how impossible it is to fix a line of
demarcation between compounds and syntactical combinations. This is
further illustrated by the fact that much, which in one language is
looked upon as a compound, in another is kept asunder; nay, in the same
language one calls a compound what the other would count as two distinct
words. Thus a German writes _derselbe_ (= ‘the self,’ _i.e._ ‘the same’)
as one word, whereas an Englishman writes _the same_; an Englishman
writes _himself_ where the German has, in two words, _sich selbst_. Cf.
the Eng. _long-measure_ with the Ger. _langenmass_; the Fr. _malheureux_
(from _malum augurium_, ‘evil omen’) with the Eng. _ill-starred_, etc.
It is this uncertainty, this vacillation, to which we owe the compromise
of writing such combinations with a hyphen; e.g., _a good-for-nothing_.
Though even this usage is not fixed and invariable; for one author will
write, e.g., _head-dress_, another _headdress_, etc.
If there is no line of logical demarcation between compound and
syntactical groups, no more is there a phonetic one. Misled by the fact
that the words of a syntactical group are written asunder, and a
compound written as one word, we might think that the members of such a
compound were pronounced as though more intimately connected than those
of a syntactical group. But combinations like those of article and noun,
preposition and noun, are really pronounced as one continuous whole as
much as any compound. Nor is there an essential difference in the
accent, either in place or in force. Compare, for instance, _with him_
and _withstand_ or _withdraw_; the degree of strength (or perhaps rather
the absence) of emphasis on the first word in _Lord Randolph_, _Lord
Salisbury_, with that on the last ‘syllable’ in _landlord_; or, again,
the quantity of stress we give to the preposition in the expression _in
my opinion_ with that on the first syllable of _insertion_. If the
example of _Lord Randolph_ v. _landlord_ seemed to show that the PLACE
of the accent has some significance, we have but to read the sentences
_Not Lord Randolph but Lady R. Churchill_, or _Not the landlord but the
landlady spoke to the lodger_, to find the accents in exactly the
opposite relations and places. No special place of accent, then, is
characteristic of a compound. A very instructive example we have in the
compound _Newfoundland_. This is actually pronounced by various speakers
in three different ways: one says _Néwfoundland_, another
_Newfóundland_, and, again, another _Newfoundlánd_. What, then, makes
every one feel this word, in all three pronunciations, to be compound?
Nothing physiological, but simply and solely the psychological fact that
the meaning of the group _new-found-land_ has become specialised, and
no longer corresponds to what once would have been a perfectly
equivalent group, _land-newly-discovered_. Semasiological development
and isolation is the criterion of a compound. What degree of such
isolation is required cannot be stated in any hard and fast rule.
Such isolation can be effected in four different ways. (1) In the first
place, the whole group, as such, can develop its meaning in a manner, or
to a degree, not shared by the compound members. An example of this we
saw just now in _Newfoundland_. (2) Or, again, the component parts, as
separate words, may develop and change their meaning, without being
followed in that development by the same words as part of the group.
Thus, e.g., _with_ originally meant _against_. This meaning it still has
in _withstand_, whilst as a separate word it is not now used in that
meaning. (3) Thirdly, the compound parts may become obsolete as separate
words; as, for instance, _ric_ in ‘bishopric’ (cf. supra, p. 317). (4)
And lastly, the peculiar construction according to which the parts are
connected or combined may become obsolete, surviving only in the
formula, which thus becomes isolated. Thus, _e.g._, the genitive
singular of feminine nouns can no longer be formed without _s_; hence
_Lady-day_ is now felt as a compound word, whilst _ladies’-cloak_ or
_ladies’-house_ would not be so felt.
Though such isolation is necessary and may suffice to stamp a group as
compound, we must not conclude that every group, where such isolation in
one way or another has commenced, is _ipso facto_ looked upon as a
compound. Many considerations are here of importance, some of which will
be brought out in a further study of some examples in which we can
observe the commencement of the fusion.
The first step which a syntactical group takes on the road towards
complete isolation and consequent fusion into a compound, is commonly
the one we described under No. 1. in the former section. We must here
distinguish two cases, which, though perhaps not easily distinguished
_in words_, are yet clearly different.
An example will best serve to explain it. We have already more than once
stated that in _Lady-day_ the grammatical isolation of the genitive
_lady_, as against the present genitive _lady’s_, serves to emphasise
the fusion of the two parts into one compound. But we must not forget
that this form of the genitive in this combination would not have been
preserved if, at the time when the word _lady_ by itself began to assume
the genitive _s_--or, rather, began to follow analogically other
genitives in _s_,--if, we say, the compound had not then already been
isolated to a sufficient degree to protect the first component part
against the influence which affected it when standing in other
combinations. The absence of the _s_ is therefore NOT the CAUSE of the
isolation of the group, or the fusion of its parts. We must seek for
that cause most likely in the fact that the genitive was, in this
combination, used in a sense which always was or had become unusual.
_Lady-day_, even when the form _lady_ was still felt as genitive, would
but mean ‘the day consecrated to the service of our Lady,’ or ‘the day
sacred to our Lady.’ Now this use of the genitive must always have been
an exceptional one. Never, for instance, could _a man’s book_ or _a
lady’s cloak_ have had a similar meaning. It was therefore at first not
so much the meaning of the component parts, as the MEANING EXPRESSED BY
THEIR SYNTACTICAL CO-ORDINATION, which stood apart and became isolated.
We see something of the same influence if we compare _St. John’s wood_
and _St. John’s Church_. In the second group, the latter of the
component parts has a meaning which suggests and helps to keep alive
the correct meaning of the genitive-relation expressed by the flection
of the former part. In _St. John’s wood_ this is not so. This compound
is therefore felt to be more intimately fused together than the other,
and, while every one who uses the expression _St. John’s Church_ thinks
of the Saint who bore the name of _John_, but few speakers will do so in
speaking of _St. John’s wood_. There is a very clear instance of this at
hand in the German _Hungersnot_, lit. = _hungersneed_, i.e. ‘_famine_’
(need, suffering _caused by_ hunger). Here the genitive with the word
_need_ has a very special sense, which, _e.g._, could not be expressed
by the otherwise equivalent construction with _of_. ‘The need of
hunger,’ if ever used in German, would be a very forced and uncommon way
of expressing the idea ‘famine,’ a way which only a poet could adopt
(_die Not des Hungers_). Here, then, again, it is not the sense of the
words, but the sense of their syntactical relation which stands
isolated.
On the other hand, if we consider forms like _upstairs_, _always_,
_altogether_, we shall find that it is not this relation, but the whole
meaning of the group as such, which has become isolated by development
or specialisation of meaning. _Upstairs_ has become equivalent to ‘on a
floor of the building higher than we are now;’ _always_ has been
extended so as to include the relation of time, etc. This development
has then generally given rise to what grammarians term ‘indeclinabilia,’
which sometimes, by secondary development have become capable of
flection. Thus the German preposition _zu_ (to, at), and the dative case
_frieden_ (peace), in a sentence like _Ich bin zufrieden_, gave rise to
the compound _zufrieden_ (lit. = ‘at peace’), ‘contented.’ When once the
prepositional phrase _at peace_ had developed into the adjective
_content_, the compound was declined like other adjectives: _ein
zufriedener mann_ = ‘a contented man;’ etc.
Again, when the groups _round-about_ and _go-between_ had become nouns,
they could be treated as such, and we find the plurals _round-abouts_
and _go-betweens_.
The more highly a language is inflected, the less liable will the parts
of a syntactical group be to fuse into one. It is much easier for a
combination like _Greenland_ or _Newfoundland_ to pass into a real
compound than for one like the German _(das) rote Meer_, ‘(the) Red
Sea,’ though the amount of isolation of meaning is the same in both.
Whether the group _Green_ + _land_ is nominative or dative or genitive,
no change in the form of _green_ occurs; in German, _das rote Meer_ is
nominative, _des roten Meeres_ is genitive, _dem roten Meer_ is dative.
Every time one of the two latter cases is used, the addition of the
flection _n_ reminds us of the independence of the two words _rot_ and
_Meer_.
Just as by means of suffixes, etc., we derive new words from others,
whether the latter are simple or compound forms (_love_, _love-able_;
_for-get_, _forget-able_; etc.), so we sometimes find whole syntactical
groups, which are not yet considered as having been fused into one
compound, used with similar suffixes. Instances are:
_good-for-nothingness_, _a stand-off-ishness_, _a devil-may-carish
face_; _That fellow is such a go-a-header_; _He is not get-at-able_,
etc., which no doubt scarcely belong to the literary language, but which
show that the linguistic feeling of the speaker must have already
apprehended these groups as unities; in other words, that the first step
on the road towards welding them into a compound has been taken. A
well-established instance appears in our ordinal numerals, such as
_one-and-twentieth_, _five-and-fortieth_, etc.
A similar commencement of fusion we can observe in copulative
combinations like _wind and weather_ or _town and country_, as soon as
the whole may be conceived as a single conception. In _wind and weather_
this is the case, the two terms being in this combination SYNONYMOUS,
describing the same object from different points of view. Other
instances of this we have in _bag and baggage_, _kith and kin_, _moil
and toil_, _safe and sound_, _first and foremost_, _house and home_,
_far and wide_.[195] In _town and country_, on the other hand, we have
two elements which, whilst CONTRASTING, supplement one another. Such
groups are _old and young_, _heaven and hell_, _gown and town_, _big and
small_, _rich and poor_, _hither and thither_, _to and fro_, _up and
down_, _in and out_. In a few, the same member is repeated; as, _out and
out_, _through and through_, _again and again_, _little by little_. A
careful consideration of the real meaning of such groups will show that,
strictly speaking, these form a subdivision of our second class.
Inflected languages like German afford a criterion not applicable to
English, as to the fusion of such combinations. We find there, for
instance, a group--_Habe und Gut_ (Etymol. = _have_, as a noun, for
‘property,’ _and good_ = ‘chattels’), for ‘all a man’s possessions.’ The
first of these nouns is feminine, and consequently ‘with all (his)
belongings’ would be ‘mit all_er_ Habe;’ _Gut_, on the other hand, is
neuter, and requires the form (dative after _mit_) ‘mit all_em_ Gut.’
Goethe has treated the group _Hab’ und Gut_ as a neuter noun, and
written ‘mit all_em_ mobilen Hab’ und Gut’ (‘with all movable
possessions’).
We have seen that groups like _one and twenty_, _five and forty_, etc.,
were really far advanced on the way of fusion, as was shown by the
formation of the corresponding ordinals. In the case of those which
begin with _one_, we have a further proof of this in the use of the
plural noun, _e.g._ ‘one and twenty _men_.’
It will be readily felt that in expressions like _a black and white
dog_, the group _black and white_ really is in a similar state of
fusion. We have but to separate the parts into two really independent
words by the insertion of a second indefinite article, to see at once
that ‘black and white’ is the description of _one_ quality of _one_
object, a compound word to express one (though not psychologically
simple) conception.
So, again, the group _one and all_ is sufficiently welded into one to
resist, _e.g._, the insertion of the preposition _of_ before its second
part. Thus we should say _It was for the good of one and all_ (i.e. for
the entire community) and not _of one and of all_.
We may assume that complete fusion between the parts of such copulative
groups would be more common if it were not checked by the connecting
particle _and_. In some of the most common of these the accent of _and_
has become so much depressed that the word becomes almost inaudible: cf.
_hare and hounds_, _half and half_, etc. In combinations where the
connecting particle has become unrecognisable in consequence of such
phonetic sinking, it no longer resists the fusion. Thus, _Jackanapes_
has become to all intents and purposes one word. It stands[196] with the
common preposition _on_, instead of _of_ (cf. the very frequent use of
this ‘on’ in Shakespeare and contemporaries), for _Jack-of-apes_, i.e.,
originally, ‘the man of the (_or_ with the) [performing] apes,’ just as
_Jack-a-lantern_ stands for ‘Jack of the (_or_ with the) lantern,’ etc.
Combinations without any such connecting link pass, of course, all the
more easily into compounds: cf. _Alsace-Lorraine_, as against such
combinations as _Naples_ and _Sicily_.
In the period of the Indo-European languages before inflections had
taken their rise, or when they were not yet indispensable, the fusion
into a ‘copulative compound’ (dvand-va) must have been simple and easy.
When a substantive has been _specialised_ in meaning by being combined
with an attributive, as _blackbird_, the combination may pass through
all the changes of signification described in Chapter IV. without the
uncombined substantive as such being affected. The result is commonly to
make the combination richer in contents than the simple combination of
the parts. Thus, by ‘a blackbird’ we understand the familiar songster to
which we give the name, and no longer understand such birds as rooks,
crows, etc., which _might_ have been classed under the name
‘blackbird.’[197] Further modifications may set in, which may cause the
epithet, strictly interpreted, to become wholly inapplicable. Thus, ‘a
butterfly’[198] is applied to a whole class of insects quite
irrespective of their colours. When we talk of the Middle Ages, we mean
a strictly defined period of time, though no such definition is involved
in the word _middle_. _Privy Councillor_ denotes a definite rank; and
the idea of privacy hardly enters into our heads as we pronounce the
word: cf. also such expressions as _the Holy Scriptures_; _the fine
Arts_; _cold blood_; _Black Monday_; _Passion Week_; _the High School_;
_the wise men from the East_. It must be observed that the substantival
determinants are only able to fuse with the word defined if they are
employed in an abstract sense. This restriction does not, however, apply
in the case of proper names.
A subdivision of this great class of words, thus _specialised_, is
formed by common place-names which have become proper nouns by the aid
of some determinant, itself possibly also unspecific. Such are _the Red
Sea_, _the Black Forest_, _Broadway_, _the Sublime Porte_, _the
Watergate_, _the Blue Mountains_, _High Town_, _Beechwood_,
_Broadmeadows_, _Coldstream_, _Troutbeck_, _Dog-island_. It is similar,
too, when an epithet attached as a distinguishing mark to a proper name
comes to be apprehended as an integral portion of the proper name--in
fact, as attaching to the individual; as, _Richard the Humpback_,
_Charles the Bald_, _William the Conqueror_, _Alexandra Land_, _the
Mackenzie River_, _Weston-super-mare_.
Compare also such compounds as _Oldham_, _Littleton_, _Hightown_,
_Lower-Austria_, _Great Britain_.
The metaphorical application of a word is generally rendered
intelligible by the context; especially and chiefly by the addition of a
determinant: cf. ‘the _head_ of the conspirators;’ ‘the _heart_ of the
enterprise;’ ‘the _life_ of the undertaking;’ ‘the _sting_ of death.’
Similarly, a determinant forming an element in a compound helps to
render the metaphorical application intelligible; indeed, we are able by
the aid of such a determinant to give to compounds a metaphorical sense,
which we could hardly venture upon for the undetermined word alone: so,
for instance, we give the name of _German-silver_ to a material which we
should not call merely _silver_; the name of _sea-horse_ to what we
would not call _a horse_: cf. further, _sea-cow_, _elder-wine_,
_ginger-beer_, etc.
There are some cases, again, in which the compound has a proper, as well
as a metaphorical meaning, and only as a compound acquires its
metaphorical use: such are _swallow-tail_, _negro-head_, _mothers’ joy_,
_cuckoo-spittle_, _woolly bear_, etc.
We have now to consider how syntactical and formal isolation contributes
to further the fusion of the determinant with the determinate. If we
compare two combinations such as _kinsman_ with _man-of-war_, or _man of
deeds_, we shall find that whilst the one has become an undoubted
composition, the others are still groups of more or less independent
parts. This is of course due to the fact that even now the word _man_ is
inflected, and that consequently the plurals, _men of war_ and _men of
deeds_, remind us of the fact that the first member of the group is an
independent word. Formerly, when the flection was far more elaborate,
this was, naturally, much more the case, and this alone would have
sufficed to establish the feeling that, in compounds, the genitive which
remained the same in all ‘cases’ of the compound had to precede. Of
course, as long as flection sufficiently indicated the cases, both
orders _could_ be used in any group, but as then only such groups in
which the genitive _did_ precede became ‘compounds,’ those compounds
became models, and the practice arose gradually and gradually became a
_rule_. Another force then came to exert its influence in the same
direction. In such genitival combinations it is, as a rule, the genitive
which has the accent. When, then, this genitive was placed first, the
whole group thereby resembled in accent the existing composites of the
oldest formation, and so was more easily considered in the same light as
these. The main cause must, however, be sought in a syntactical
isolation, _i.e._, in our examples, an isolation in the construction of
the article. As long as flectional terminations existed in their
entirety, the Teutonic languages could dispense with the article before
declined cases of nouns; in fact we may say the article did not exist,
the demonstrative pronoun not yet having been degraded into what it
became later on--a mere sign of case. Hence it was in old Teutonic
languages quite possible, and a frequent practice, to use the genitive
case of a noun alone without an article at all. We may be sure that this
has also been true for the other cases. Phonetic decay, however,
levelled the terminations of the other cases of a noun long before the
genitive; and accusative and dative had long been alike (or very nearly
so) at a time when in the masculine and neuter singular the genitive _s_
was still preserved: in fact, as we know, in English it is all that has
remained to us of the old flectional endings, with the exception of
those _s_’s, in the plural which are original and not due to analogy. In
that older stage of the language it was common to express an idea like
_the son of man_ by constructions just as in Ancient Greek, where the
genitive stood between the article and the noun, which were both, of
course, in the same case. Thus we find in Old High German, _ther_ (NOM.
SING. masc.) _mannes sun_ (= ‘the man’s son’[199]). In Anglo-Saxon,
_Heofona rice ys gelíc ðám hiredes ealdre_ (‘of heaven’s (the) Kingdom
is like the (DAT. sing.) household’s prince’). Gradually, however, the
use of a noun without the article, largely, no doubt, owing to the
levelling of all other cases, became more and more rare even in the
genitive. Such rare standing expressions as remained without article,
naturally assumed the appearance of compounds, and, especially in the
case where the article belonging to the second noun preceded the
genitive, the fusion was complete: _the_ + _kin’s_ + _man_ became _the_
+ _kinsman_.[200]
We have already pointed out how the adjective and the noun entered into
composition, and seen how, even in many combinations which we are not
yet accustomed to look upon as fused into one, derivatives show that
this fusion has at least partly been accomplished. Such are the many
forms in _ed_, like _black-eyed_, etc., which are derived from the
groups _black eye_, etc., and cannot be looked upon as compounds of
_black_ + _eyed_. We do not speak of an _eyed_ person, for one who has
eyes: cf. _left-handed_, _self-willed_, _one-handed_, etc.
In English, especially in Scottish dialects, many adverbs which commonly
follow the verb, are occasionally made to precede it; as, _to uplift_,
_to backslide_, etc. We may gather that in such forms no composition
strictly so called has as yet set in, from the fact that the order is
frequently transposed, as in _sliding back_, _to lift up_, etc. On the
other hand, the fact that the words are joined in writing shows that the
whole has begun to be apprehended as a unity.
In the case of most of these combinations we can trace the commencement
of an isolation, which proves that the linguistic sense is ceasing to
apprehend the elements as distinct. For instance, in English the old
prepositional adverbs cannot be used independently and freely to form
new combinations at will, but are confined to a definite group of
combinations. Thus we can say, _enfold_ and _entwine_: but not
_enthrow_, for _throw in_. We can talk of _onset_, and _onslaught_, but
not of _on-run_: of _overflow_, but not of _over-pour_. In many cases
this isolation has led to a special development of meaning, and the word
becomes still more definitely a compound; cf. such words as _inroad_,
_after-birth_, _offset_, _over-coat_. From the union of the verb with
the adverb, there arise nominal derivatives in which the sense is yet
more specialised, such as _offset_, _output_, _offal_, _under-writer_.
An adverb derived from an adjective sometimes fuses with the nominal
forms of the verb. The first impulse to this fusion is often given by
the metaphorical application of one part of the compound: cf.
_deep-feeling_, _far-reaching_, _high-flying_. The combination becomes
even closer when the first part retains a meaning which has become
unusual to it in general. For instance, in such a combination as
_ill-favoured_, _ill_ retains a trace of the time when it could be used
as synonymous with _bad_.
In German, the comparative and superlative forms are actually used,
showing the completeness of the fusion; as, _der tieffühlendste Geist_
(Goethe), (lit. = ‘deep-feelingest ghost,’ _i.e._ ‘spirit’).
There are a few combinations of verbal-forms with an object accusative,
which similarly occupy an intermediate position between the compound and
the syntactic group; such as _laughter-provoking_, _wrath-stirring_,
_fire-spitting_. No sharp line can be drawn between these instances of
spontaneous and natural fusion, and the analogical formations coined by
the poets; as _sea-encompassed_, _storm-tossed_, etc.
Again, and even in English, where the application of the inflected
comparative and superlative is of so very limited application, it is the
use of the comparative or superlative which affords a test as to the
degree of fusion. It is, of course, possible to analyse _most
laughter-provoking_, as _provoking much laughter_. But few would adopt
such an explanation in a sentence like _This is the most fire-spitting
speech I ever heard_.
Besides this, there are many verbal combinations which must be
apprehended as compounds, from the fact that they represent a single
notion only; such as _with regard to_, _as soon as possible_,
_forasmuch as_, _seeing that_, _none the less_,--which must be
considered to stand on the same footing as _notwithstanding_,
_nevertheless_. This fusion is sometimes accompanied by a displacement
of the psychological conception as to the parts of the sentence, whereby
the natural mode of construction is altered, and the combination
performs a new function, and becomes practically a different part of
speech. For instance, we commonly hear _I as good as promised it to
them_, where ‘as good as’ is nearly equivalent to ‘almost,’ and is
construed like that adverb. We even meet with sentences like
_unclassified and prize-cattle_, where a member of a compound is placed
on the same footing as an independent word. Moreover, the first, or
determinant member of the compound may be followed by determinants, as
if it were itself independent; thus Milton can write _hopeless to
circumvent us_; _fearless to be overmatched_: as if it had been ‘without
hope to circumvent us;’ ‘having no fear to be overmatched.’ All this
shows over and over again how completely impossible it is to draw the
line between syntactical groups and compounds.
In this manner, then, syntactical isolation favours the fusion of a
group into a compound. In our discussion of the form _Jackanapes_, we
had already an instance how phonetic changes may have the same effect.
This we shall now investigate and illustrate rather more in detail.
Though it would be impossible to prove the fact historically, it seems
involved in the nature of the case that, for the most part, such
phonetic changes at first arose in EVERY case of such closer and more
intimate syntactical union; that they were re-adjusted and re-equalised
later on, and were only preserved in groupings which, as a consequence
of development of meaning, had become so far fused into one whole as to
be capable of resisting the re-adjusting tendencies.
The simplest of such general effects of syntactical grouping is that the
final consonant of a syllable is transferred in pronunciation to the
next syllable. Thus, for instance, _an apple_ is pronounced _a-napple_,
without any pause; _here_ + _on_ is pronounced _he_ + _ron_, etc. If,
then, as in French, this final consonant disappears from pronunciation,
save when thus made an initial, _i.e._ save before a word beginning with
a vowel, we may expect its presence to have an isolating effect, and
consequently to be sufficient to stamp the group as a compound. This,
however, is only the case if such a preservation is not sufficiently
frequent to be realised as a rule of pronunciation for all similar
cases. In French, _il peut_ = ‘he can,’ is pronounced without the _t_;
in _peut-être_ = ‘may be,’ ‘perhaps,’ the _t_ is heard. Yet this has not
isolated the form _peut_ with _t_ from the usual third person singular
present indicative without _t_, because this _t_ is preserved not in
_peut-être_ alone, or in a few such groups, but in _all_ cases where the
following word begins with a vowel; e.g., _il peut avoir_ = ‘he can
(may) have,’ pronounced with the _t_ likewise. If we suppose the French
language to discard at some time this _liaison_, as it is called, and
always to pronounce _peut_ without _t_ even before vowels, then, and not
till then, would the pronunciation _peut-être_ with _t_ stamp the
combination as a compound.
So, again, the well-known process of avoiding _hiatus_ by contraction or
elision, in the case of a word ending in a vowel preceding one that
begins with a vowel, has been sufficient to fuse two elements into one
compound in many cases (e.g., _about_ = a + be + ut (an); Lat.
_magnopere_ = _magno_ + _opere_; Gothic _sah_, ‘this’ = _sa_ + _uh_),
but has no such effect in the case of the French article, or of the
French preposition _de_, because the elision of the unaccented _e_ and
_a_ is there an almost invariable and still ‘living’ rule.
A third general effect of close syntactical combination is the
assimilation of a final and initial consonant. This, in present European
languages, is scarcely, if at all, noticed or expressed _in writing_. It
is, however, an exceedingly common occurrence in the _spoken_ language,
a fact of which every one can and ought to convince himself by a little
attention to his own and other’s NATURAL pronunciation. It is only in
cases where further reasons, in addition to this assimilation, such as,
_e.g._, isolation by development of meaning or other phonetic
development, have welded the group into a compound, or at least have
advanced it a considerable distance on the road towards complete fusion,
that the written language sometimes takes cognisance of the change, and,
by the very spelling, indicates the compound nature of the group. We say
‘sometimes’ takes cognisance; for while spelling in no living language
follows all the variations in pronunciation, no European tongue is
further from accurately representing the spoken--that is, the
real--language in its writing than English. Hence the instances even of
acknowledged compounds, in which the assimilation in sound is indicated
by the spelling, are comparatively rare. Such are _gossib_, for _god_ +
_sib_ = ‘sib, or related, in God;’ _leoman_, for _leof_ + _man_ = ‘dear
man;’ _quagmire_ = _quakemire_, i.e. ‘quaking mire.’ Instances where the
assimilation exists in pronunciation, but is _not_ represented in
writing, are plentiful: _cupboard_, pronounced _cub-board_ (or
_cubberd_); _blackguard_, pronounced _blagguard_, etc. In all these we
must, on the one hand, admit with respect to the recognition of the
group as compound, that, even if it has not promoted assimilation, it
has at least checked the tendency to restore the theoretically correct
pronunciation of the final consonant of the former member in each group.
On the other hand, however, it is as certain that the very facility thus
afforded to the working of the assimilating tendency has aided the
phonetic isolation of the group and promoted the fusion.
The most effective cause of phonetic isolation, however, lies of course
in the influence of accent. This has been sufficiently illustrated in
the course of the foregoing discussions.
In all these discussions we have mainly regarded the transition of a
syntactical group into a compound. Several of our examples, however,
well illustrate the fact that, just as the fusion between the two
members of some group may be insufficient to stamp the combination as a
compound, so, also, such a compound loses its character as such for the
consciousness of all but the student of language, when the fusion
proceeds too far. The compound then becomes, to all intents and
purposes, a simple word; it serves no more as model for analogical
compounds with the same members, and at the very most gives the
impression of having been ‘derived’ from its first member by a suffix.
To instance this, we need only recall a few of our examples to the
reader’s mind--_bandog_, _auger_, _furlong_, etc., or (with the
suffixes) _bishopric_, _kingdom_, etc.
A careful study of these and similar examples will show that in the
first-class of compounds, no longer recognised as such, sometimes both
members have become obsolete, and in both classes almost always one.
We have now reached a point whence we can observe the conditions
necessary to give birth to a suffix, or, if the phrase be preferred,
necessary to degrade an independent word into a suffix.
We have seen a suffix originate in a noun which either (as in a case of
‘_-ric_’) became obsolete as an independent word, or whose connection
with the etymologically identical independent form ceased to be felt in
the linguistic consciousness of the community.
But such a fate may and does often befall a word without converting it
into an acknowledged suffix. It has befallen the noun _ðyrl_ (‘a hole’),
in _nostril_ (= _nose-thirl_), or the word _búr_ (‘a dweller’) in
_neighbour_ (‘a near-dweller’), and yet neither _-tril_ nor _-bour_ have
become recognised as suffixes in the English language.
What more, then, is required?
First of all, the first element must be etymologically perfectly clear;
cf. _kingdom_, _bishopric_ as against _nos-tril_, _gos-sip_.
Secondly, the second element must not occur in one or two combinations
only, but in a sufficiently large group of words, in all of which it
modifies the meaning of the first member in the same way; cf.
_nos-tril_, _gos-sip_, as against ‘king_dom_,’ ‘widow_hood_.’
This second condition can scarcely be fulfilled except in cases where--
Thirdly, the second element has originally, or in its combination with
the others, some such abstract and general meaning as _state_,
_condition_, _quality_, _action_, etc.
A few words on one of the best-known suffixes in English will make this
clear. Though the phrase would hardly stand in written or literary
language, we _might_ indicate a dealer in pianos as the _piano-man_,
i.e. ‘the man who has pianos.’ In the oldest stages of language, not
only could a single noun be thus used with an almost adjectival force,
but even a compound (or what was then still a syntactical co-ordination)
of two or more nouns, or of adjective and noun, could be thus employed.
Thus, _e.g._, in Sanscrit, a _much-rice-king_, would mean ‘a king who
possesses much rice,’ _i.e._ ‘is rich;’ and the group _man-shape_ (or
its equivalent) might have been used for _man-shape-having_. Such
compounds abound in Sanscrit, and could be formed at will. They were
called _Bahuvrîhi_ compounds. Now, without of course wishing to assert
that the very combination _man-ly_ is an original one, it is to such a
combination of a noun with the _noun_ which afterwards became _lic_ in
Anglo-Saxon that we owe the suffix _ly_. The phonetic differentiation
and the development of meaning from _shape-having_ to _appearance_ or
_quality-having_, isolated the member from its corresponding independent
form (which in German and Dutch still exists as _Leiche_ and _Lyk_ =
_body_ or _corpse_), and gave us _lic_ (later _ly_) as a suffix.
From all that we have said it must be clear that this process has gone
on neither in prehistoric nor in historic times only, but is one which
is repeated again and again, and consequently--seeing that prehistoric
times are of unknown, but certainly enormous length--we must be on our
guard against assuming that all these prototypes of Indo-Germanic
suffixes must necessarily have existed at one time as independent words
in the language, before the process which transformed them into suffixes
began to operate. We may, nay, we are almost compelled to assume that
there, too, they arose in succession, and that then as now, whenever
phonetic decay or other causes had affected a suffix to such an extent
as to take away the appearance of a derivative from what was once a
compound, the suffix was no longer felt as such; it ceased to serve for
new combinations, and another more weighty suffix took its function and
supplanted it in all but a few remaining cases.
The most superficial knowledge of any modern language, or of Latin
etymology, is sufficient to show that it is as impossible to draw a line
between suffix and flectional termination, as between syntactical group
and compound. Even a Frenchman, unless he has had the true historical
explanation pointed out to him, feels in a future tense like
_j’aimerai_, a verb-stem _aim_, and a termination _-erai_ indicative of
futurity, though, nowadays, there are but few students of French grammar
who ignore the fact that _aimerai_ is a compound of the infinitive
_aimer_ and the first person singular, present, indicative, _ai_ = (I)
_have_. Similarly, we may safely assume that few Romans felt in a
pluperfect _amaveram_ a perfect stem _amav_ and _eram_ the imperfect of
_sum_, much less in _amabo_ a present stem _ama_ and a suffix derived
from the same root as their perfect _fu-i_. It is certainly useless to
illustrate this further.
We may now conclude with three observations, the truth of which will be
apparent from what has gone before.
First. Even when an inflected form, by means of comparative study of all
its oldest forms and equivalents in cognate languages, has been brought
back to its prototype, and analysed into what are commonly considered to
be its component parts, we must remember that these parts cannot have
been fused into the integer which we now find made up of them, and yet
have retained their original form and original meaning. Just as
_kingdoms_ has certainly not arisen from _king_ + _dom_ + _s_, a Greek
optative _pherois_ is not a compound of _pher_ + _o_ + _i_ + _s_,
though, undoubtedly, each of these elements have their regular
representatives in other words of the same function, and most probably
had their prototypes in fuller forms, in a more independent state. We
have no means of knowing what these forms were, or what their original
function was when still independent.
Second. Many words which we now consider as “simple” may have been
compound or derivative. Our inability to further analyse does not prove
primitive unity.
Third. In the history of Indo-European flection we do wrong if we assume
the separate existence of a period of construction and one of decay.