THE DIVISION OF THE PARTS OF SPEECH.
The division commonly adopted of the parts of speech in the
Indo-European language is convenient as a classification; but it must be
borne in mind that it is not logically accurate, nor is it exhaustive.
It is indeed impossible to divide words into sharply defined categories,
seeing that, however we may divide them, we shall find it difficult to
exclude some from each category which may fairly claim to be registered
under some other category or categories, basing their claim upon at
least certain uses.
The accepted grammatical categories have had their form determined
mainly by the consideration of three points: (1) by the meaning of each
word taken by itself; (2) by its function in the sentence; (3) by its
capacity for inflection, and the part it plays in word-formation.
As regards the meaning of the word, we may notice that the grammatical
categories of substantive, adjective, and verb correspond to the logical
categories of _substance_, _quality_, and _activity_, or, more properly,
_occurrence_. But here, at the outset, we find that the substantive is
not confined to the denotation of substance, as there are also
substantives denoting quality and occurrence as, ‘brightness,’ a ‘rise.’
There are also verbs which denote continuous states and qualities; as,
‘to remain,’ or the Latin ‘_cande_’ = ‘to be white.’ Pronouns and
numerals again have a right on the score of meaning to be separated as
classes from substantives and adjectives: but these, again, must be
separated from each other in their substantival as against adjectival
use (e.g. _each_ as against _each man_; _Six went and six stayed_ as
against _Six men, etc._; _this and that_ as against _this book and that
one_), which forbids us to simply co-ordinate the classes: substantive,
adjective, pronoun, numerals. And, on the other hand, it must follow
that, if pronouns and numerals are to be regarded as distinct species of
the noun class, the same separation must be extended to the adverb
class: since _badly_, _there_, _twice_, are related to each other just
as _bad_, _this_, _two_.
To come to the connecting words. The lines that define the class of the
conjunctions are quite arbitrary; _where_, for instance, is called an
adverb even in passages like this:[201] “_Where_, in former times, the
only remedy for misgovernment real or supposed was a change of dynasty,
the evil is now corrected at no greater cost than a ministerial crisis.”
_As_ and _while_, again, are called conjunctions. In the simple
sentence, the test usually applied to distinguish prepositions from
conjunctions is case-government. But it certainly is entirely illogical
to call words like _before_, _since_, _after_ prepositions when they
occur in simple sentences, and to call them conjunctions when they
connect sentences;--for this function is in both cases exactly the same;
cf. _before my interview with you_, and _before I saw you_.
If we wished to classify words according to their function in the
sentence, it might seem obvious to divide words (1) into those which can
_of themselves_ form a sentence, (2) into those which can serve _as
members_ of a sentence, and (3) those which can only _serve to connect_
such members.
In the first division we might, then, place the interjections, which,
when isolated, are really imperfect sentences. But these also occur as
members of a sentence, sometimes with and sometimes without a
preposition; as, _Woe to the land! Out on thee! Oh my!_
The finite verb in its original use better fulfils the idea of a perfect
sentence. But in its present use it appears--if we except the
imperative--as a mere predicate attached to a subject separately
denoted. And the so-called auxiliaries are mainly used as mere
connecting words.
Connecting words, again, such as conjunctions and prepositions, are, as
we have seen, derived from independent words by a displacement as to the
appreciation of the part which a word plays in a sentence (cf. Chap.
XVI., pp. 282 and 284.). Such words are _during_, _in regard to_,
_notwithstanding_. And there is this further reason why they cannot be
sharply distinguished from other kinds of words--that a word may be an
independent member of the particular sentence to which it belongs, and
yet at the same time serve to connect this with another sentence. If I
say, for instance, _The man who believes this is a fool_, the _who_ is
at once an independent member of the relative sentence and a connecting
word between the principal and subordinate sentence. This is universally
the case as regards the relative pronoun and relative adverb. It is true
also of the demonstrative when this refers to the preceding or following
sentence; as, _I saw a man_, _he told me_, etc. But even if this first
classification as to function could be consistently carried out, any
further attempt at subdivision leads us into fresh difficulties,
considering that the substantive, as opposed to the adjective and verb,
is the part of speech which serves as subject and object. We might,
indeed, be tempted to utilize this fact as the principle of our
subclassification. But we find in the first place that a substantive can
also be used attributively and predicatively, like an adjective (cf. _We
are men_, _We are manly_), and, on the other hand, other words may serve
as the subject in such sentences as _Well begun is half ended_; _Slow
and steady wins the race_; _Finished is finished_. An adjective, too,
may serve as object; as, _He takes good for bad_; _Write it down, black
on white_; _to make bad worse_.
We have indeed seen that the use of prepositions to introduce
subordinate sentences is very common in English; as, _After he had
begotten Seth_, etc.
The division which can be most systematically carried out is that which
divides words according as they are inflected or not, and according to
their mode of flection. In this way three convenient divisions may be
made of nouns, verbs, and uninflected words. But even here the nominal
forms of the verb, such as the infinitive, _to love_ (_amare_, _lieben_)
and indeclinable substantives such as the Latin _cornu_ and the English
adjectives, resist the carrying out of the division. Pronouns, again,
are differently inflected from nouns, and they differ among themselves.
In other languages, the system of inflection of the substantive is
sometimes identical and sometimes not. It might be alleged that the
formation of degrees of comparison was a decisive mark of the adjective:
but even here we are met by the fact that some languages, like Sanscrit,
can compare nouns and even persons of the verb;[202] and others, like
Latin, can compare the substantive (cf. Plautus’ use of
_oculissimus_--Curc. I. ii. 28, etc.) _amicissimus_ = ‘(my) best
friend,’ etc. This usage is seen in the English word ‘top-_most_,’ which
is the substantive _top_ with a double superlative ending (see Mätzner,
vol. i., p. 270); the termination _most_ superseded the O.E. _m- est_,
which answered to the A.S. (_e_) _mest_, derived from a positive (_e_)
_ma_, which itself had a superlative signification (cf. _optumus_).
Again, the very meaning of some adjectives renders them incapable of
comparison; as, _wooden_, _golden_, etc.
It is, then, clear that the current division of the parts of speech, in
which all these three principles of classification are more or less
embodied, leads to so many cross divisions that it cannot be
consistently carried out. The parts of speech cannot be sharply and
neatly partitioned off into eight or nine categories. There are many
necessary transitions from one class into another; these result from the
general laws of change of meaning, and from analogical formations which
are characteristic of language in general. If we follow out these
transitions, we at the same time detect the reasons which originally
suggested the division of the parts of speech.
To consider, first, the division between substantive and adjective. The
formal division is based in the Indo-European languages on the capacity
of the adjective of inflections of gender and comparison. In individual
languages still further distinctions have arisen. Thus, for instance,
the adjective in the Teutonic and Slavonic languages admits of a
double, nay we may even say a triple, mode of inflection: cf. _gut_,
_guter_, _der gute_; in which declensions forms occur absolutely without
analogy in the substantives. In Modern High German, we have to note the
existence of the two declensions (the weak and the strong). On their
uses and that of the third or undeclined form of the adjective in the
predicate, the most elementary German grammar will give the student all
information. As for the forms of adjectival (and pronominal) declension
which are distinct from the noun declension, it is necessary to go back
to Anglo-Saxon, or, better still, to Gothic. It is, of course, not
necessary to master these languages thoroughly in order to simply
compare their systems of inflection. Seeing that in English the
adjectives have no flection, the test is no longer applicable to the
language in its present form; though the test of capacity for comparison
applies here still. But in spite of all differentiations of form, the
adjective may receive, at first ‘occasionally’ then ‘usually,’ the
function of a substantive: cf. _The rich and the poor_, _old and young_,
_my gallants_.[203] From this substantival adjective a pure substantive
may be derived by traditional use, especially if its form becomes in any
way isolated as against other forms of the adjective; as, _sir_ = Fr.
_sieur_, from _seniorem_ as against _senior_. The instinct of language
shows that it apprehends the adjective definitely as a substantive when
it connects it with an attributive adjective; as, _the powdered pert_
(Cowper, Task); _a respected noble_, etc.: or with a genitive; as, _the
blue of the sky_. In English the possessive pronoun is connected with
many words, such as _like_, _better_, etc.,[204] which, if felt as
adjectives, would demand other constructions. Cf. _He was your better,
sir_ (Sheridan Knowles, Hunchback, III. ii.); _To consult his superiors_
(Cooper, Spy, ch. i.): _He is my senior_.
There are many adjectives in all languages which are completely
transformed, such as _sir_ (cf. supra); _priest_ (a shortened form of
what in French appears as _prêtre_, older form _prestre_ (cf. Dutch
_priester_), all from Greek _presbuteros_, ‘older,’ the comparative of
_presbus_, ‘old’); _fiend_, M.E. _fend_, A.S. _féond_, ‘an enemy,’
originally the present participle of the verb _féon_, ‘to hate;’
_friend_, M.E. _frend_, A.S. _freónd_, originally present participle of
_fréon_, ‘to love;’ etc.
The transformation of a substantive into an adjective is less familiar,
and perhaps more interesting. In the process, we disregard some parts of
the meaning of the substantive, excluding from that meaning first and
foremost the meaning of substance, so that only the qualities attaching
to the substance remain in view. This transformation virtually occurs as
an occasional use whenever a substantive is employed as predicate or
attribute: _a king’s cloak_ (for _a royal cloak_); _He is an ass_, etc.
A substantive in apposition approaches the nature of an adjective,
especially when it is used to denote a class; and, again, more
especially when the combination is abnormal and metaphorical: cf. _a
virgin fortress_; _a maiden over_; _boy-competitors_; _turkey-cock_,
_hen-sparrow_; _a house-maid_;[205] _music-vows_ (Hamlet, III. i.)
Sometimes an adverb which can strictly speaking be connected with an
adjective only, is joined to the substantive, and serves to mark its
adjectival nature. Thus we often hear such expressions as _He is ass
enough, idiot enough_; _More fool you_, etc.
In other cases, again, such as _twenty thousand troops were taken
prisoner_, the word _prisoner_ shows by its absence of inflection that
it is apprehended as an adjective.
It might be thought practicable to draw another distinction that would
hold good as between substantive and adjective. The adjective, it might
be alleged, denotes a simple quality, the substantive connotes a group
of qualities. In such a word as _blue_, we have the one broad idea of
one colour fairly defined and commonly understood within certain
definite limits. In the meaning of, e.g., _rose_, we embrace all the
qualities which go to make up our conception of _flower_ in general, and
the _special flower_ which we call _rose_ in particular. And no doubt
the definition may be considered in the main correct. But the
distinction cannot be consistently maintained throughout. For instance,
there are many adjectives which cannot be said to indicate really one
quality only. Such are most adjectives in _like_ or _ly_ (_warlike_,
_manly_, etc.); and, on the other hand, substantives are again and again
used so as to denote one quality and only one. The transition from the
denotation of a simple quality to that of a group of qualities is
effected by the use _in a special sense_ of a substantival adjective;
as, ‘the blacks,’ for ‘the negroes’ = ‘a radical,’ ‘a conservative.’
When once such usage has been started, there is no necessity for the
train of thought, which led the first employer to specialise the word,
to be present in the consciousness of other speakers. Directly the word
has come to be so specialised, and the train of thought which led to its
specialisation has been forgotten, the word stands isolated as an
independent substantive.
The converse process is not uncommon; in which, out of a group of
qualities, a single one is dwelt on and the rest are left out of
consideration: such are, for instance, the names of colours; as,
_lilac_, _rose_, _mulberry_, etc., used adjectivally. From this use the
adjectives with specialised meanings, derived from substantives, we may
gather that _adjectives_, i.e. _terms for simple qualities, arose out of
terms for groups of qualities_, i.e. _substantives_. The process must
have been from the very beginning that the speaker singled out one
notion from a group and dwelt on it, passing over the others bound up in
the group. In fact, the speaker must, at a very early stage, have used
words in a figurative sense. In such expressions as _That man is a
bear_, _That woman is a vixen_ (as, indeed, when we say _bearish_ or
_vixenish_), we are ascribing to him or her only some one particular
characteristic of the whole number of characteristics of the thing which
the substantive indicates when used in its usual sense. The distinction
between noun and verb might seem, at first sight, to be well marked both
by the diversity of forms which characterise these separate parts of
speech, and by the diversity of functions which they severally fulfil.
But in English, we are at once met by the fact that we have numerous
verbs which are identical in form with nouns, and in many cases are
actually nouns employed as verbs; as, _to lord it_, _to walk_, _to dog_,
_to run_: while we constantly see the process going on before our eyes,
of the transference of a noun into the category of verbs; as, _to chair
a man_, _to table a motion_. How near they may approach in function may
be seen from sentences like _I looked at the show_, and _I had a look
at the show_. No doubt it maybe said that verbs have certain formal
characteristics, which distinguish the verb from the noun, such as
personal terminations, distinctions between voices, and forms to denote
mood and tense. But, in the first place, these forms have, to a great
extent, disappeared in English, with its other inflections; and, in the
second place, even in the most highly inflected languages we find verbs
defective in some of these characteristics, and thereby approaching in
form to nouns: cf. the Italian _bisogna andare_ (= ‘I need to go’) as
against _Che bisogna andare_ (‘What need to go?’). While, again in
nouns, forms occur defective in case and gender-signs; as, _cornu_,
‘horn;’ _genu_, ‘knee;’ etc. Further, in the Slavonic languages, we
actually find the verb in the past tense agreeing in gender with its
subject; as, _Tui jelala_, ‘Thou (feminine) didst wish,’ etc. Lastly,
the differentiation of the construction of the two parts of speech is
anything but sharply marked, as we may see in cases where a substantive
actually takes the case which would naturally be taken by the verb with
which it is connected: _Seeing her is to love her_; _Hearing him recite
that poem is enough to draw tears from the eyes_.
Even in highly inflected languages, like Latin and Greek, the personal
endings, commonly regarded as the special formal characteristic of the
verb, have no place in the participles and infinitives.
Again, such an expression as _Rex es_, ‘Thou art king,’ is identical in
meaning with _Regnas_, ‘Thou rulest;’ so that the verbal termination, as
such, need not serve to mark any distinction of meaning between the verb
and the adjective or substantive used predicatively.
If we say that it is of the essence of the verb to describe a mere
transient process limited by time, while the adjective or substantive
denotes a permanent quality, we must observe that the adjective may
describe a transient quality; as, _dirty_, _pale_: while verbs may be
used to describe states; as, _to glow_, cf. _candere_ = to be white.
The participle must be regarded as partaking of the nature of the verb
as well as of that of the adjective. The peculiarity of the participle,
as compared with the adjective, is that it enables us to express an
occurrence or event attributively; as, _They, looking, saw_. We must
look upon adjectives as the older formation of the two, and indeed we
must suppose that adjectives had been completely developed before
participles could take their rise at all.
The characteristic difference between the participle and the so-called
verbal adjective is that the participle, unlike the adjective, is
capable of denoting tense; as, τύψας (= ‘having struck’). The
participle, when standing as an attribute to a noun, partakes of the
construction of a noun (_i.e._ substantive or adjective); as, _Vir
captus est_ (‘The man is caught’). But it may depart from the character
of a noun by departing from such nominal construction, and striking out
a new path of its own.
Thus, in _He has taken her_, _He has slept_, we have a use of the
participle quite unlike the use of the adjective. No doubt it is true
that such a phrase as _He has taken her_ signified originally _He has or
holds her as one taken_; cf. _Cura intentos habebat Romanos_, (Liv.,
xxvi. 1), but we do not now apprehend the construction thus. In French,
the transition from the general adjectival into the special participial
construction is clearer: _J’ai vu les dames_, ‘I have seen the ladies;’
but _Je les ai vues_, ‘I have seen (fem. plur.) them,’ and _les dames
que j’ai vues_, ‘the ladies that I have seen (fem. plur).’ In Italian,
we say _Ho vedute_ (fem. plur.) _le donne_ = ‘I have seen the ladies,’
as well as _Ho veduto le donne_ (masc. or genderless sing.). In Spanish,
all inflection in the case of periphrases formed with ‘haber’ is
abolished; it is as correct to write _la carta que he escrito_ = ‘the
letter which I have written,’ as to say _He escrito una carta_ = ‘I have
written a letter.’ On the other hand, in periphrases made with _tener_
(_to hold_, used as auxiliary like to have), a later introduction into
the language, the inflection is always retained; in _tengo escrita una
carta_, = ‘I have written (fem.) a letter (fem.)’ it is as imperative to
observe the concord of gender as in _Las cartas que tengo escritas_ =
‘The letters which I have written.’
Conversely: it is possible for the participle to gradually recur to a
purely nominal character. Bearing in mind our definition of the
participle, we may say that this recurrence has taken place as soon as
the present participle is used for the _lasting_ activity; as when we
talk about _a knowing man_: and as soon as the perfect participle comes
to be used to express the result of the activity; as, _a lost chance_.
The more such participle is employed in a specialised meaning--as, for
instance, metaphorically,--the more speedily and thoroughly will the
transformation become accomplished; as in such cases as _striking_,
_charming_, _elevated_, _drunken_, _agèd_, _learnèd_, _crabbèd_,
_doggèd_, etc. Nay, such words may even combine with another, after the
laws of verbal construction: as in the case of _high-flying_,
_well-wishing_, _flesh-eating_, _new-born_, _well-educated_.
The participle, again, like other adjectives, may become a substantive,
e.g. _the anointed_; and the substantival participle, like the
adjectival, may either denote a momentary activity (or, rather, an
activity limited as to time), _e.g._ the _patient_, _i.e._ the
_suffering one_, or a state, _e.g._ the _regent_ = the _ruling one_ =
the _ruler_. It may, indeed, entirely lose its verbal nature, as,
_friend_, _fiend_, i.e. the _loving one_, the _hating one_, etc.
The nomen agentis, resembling in this respect the participle, may denote
either a momentary or a lasting activity; as, _the doer_ = ‘he who
_does_;’ _the dancer_ (if = ‘he who is wont to dance,’ _e.g._, as his
profession). In the former application it remains closely connected with
the verb; and there is no reason, except custom, why it should not, like
the participle, take an object, just like the verb; in fact, that it
should not be correct to say _the teacher the boy_ for ‘he who teaches
the boy,’ just as it is possible to say _the school-teacher_. We
actually do find in Latin, _dator divitias_, ‘giver riches (acc. plur.)’
= ‘he who gives riches;’ _justa orator_ (Plautus, Amphyt., 34), ‘the
just things (acc. neut. plur.) orator or speaker’ = ‘he who speaks just
things.’
In Shakespeare, we find _and all is semblative a woman’s part_ (Twelfth
Night, I. iv.), where an adjective, _semblative_, is similarly construed
with a verbal force; the sentence being equivalent to ‘and all resembles
that which we might expect in a woman.’ On the other hand, the nomen
agentis, when denoting lasting activity, may separate more and more from
the verb, and thus finally lose its special character, as noun
indicating a ‘doer,’ e.g., _owner_, _actor_, _father_ (lit. ‘he who
feeds or who protects;’ from a root which means either _to nourish_ or
_to protect_).
The transition from verb to noun is again seen in nomina actionis, like
_transportation_, _liberation_. These may also approximate to the verbal
construction; as, _My transportation from England to Ireland_ (‘I was
transported from England to Ireland’); _pearl fishery_ (‘the fishing for
pearls’). Here, again, the notion of a lasting activity inherent in the
substantive tends to make the original idea of a nomen actionis grow
faint; and the connotation of a lasting condition sets in. And, again,
the more that metaphorical and other unusual or special usages attach to
the word, the more does such word become isolated as against its
original use, cf. _position_, _transportation_, _conviction_,
_goings-on_. It may, indeed, become so far isolated as to lose all
connection with the verb, as in _reckoning_, in the sense of an account;
cf. _addition_, in French, in the same meaning (cf. the French
expression for ‘Waiter! the bill, please,’ _Garçon! l’addition s’il vous
plaît!_)
The infinitive is really a case of the noun of action, and must
originally have been constructed in accordance with the usage in force
at the time for the syntactical combination of the corresponding verb
with other nouns. But, in order that it may be felt as a true
infinitive, its mode of construction must no longer be felt as it
originally must have been felt; it must, in fact, have become isolated
in its employment, and such isolation became then the basis of further
development. But the infinitive having thus developed, reverts in many
cases to the character of a noun: its want of inflection, however,
always has a tendency to prevent this; and, accordingly, the most common
cases in which it appears as a substantive are as subject or object. In
sentences like ‘not to have been dipped in Lethe’s Lake Could save the
son of Thetis from _to die_’ (Spenser, Faëry Queen); ‘Have is have’
(Shakespeare, King John, I. i.); ‘I list not prophecy’ (Winter’s Tale,
IV. i. 26); ‘I learn to ride,’ etc., it seems certain that the
infinitive is constructed after the analogy of a noun; but in such
constructions as _I let him speak_, _I hear him walk_, it is hardly
apprehended as so constructed by the instinct of language of the present
day.
Languages which possess declined articles possess exceptional facilities
for thus approximating the infinitive to a noun, as the Greek τὸ φιλεῖν,
τοῦ φιλεῖν, etc. (= ‘the “to love”--of the _to-love_,’ etc.): cf. such
instances as the English _Have is have_ (Shakespeare, King John, I. i.);
_Mother, what does ‘marry’ mean?_ (Longfellow); _Him booteth not resist_
(Spenser, Faëry Queen, I. iii. 20.) And similarly the German _das
lieben_ (‘the “to-love”’); French _mon pouvoir_ (‘my “to-be-able”’). In
Latin, the same approximation is rendered possible by the demonstrative
pronouns; as, _totum hoc philosophari_ (Cicero), ‘all this
“to-philosophise;”’ _Inhibere illud tuum_ (ibid.), (‘that “to-prohibit”
of yours’). Modern High German and the Romance languages have gone so
far as to employ the infinitive as the equivalent to a noun pure and
simple, even in respect of inflection; as, _Meines sterbens_ (= ‘of my
“to-die”’); _Mein hier-bleiben_ (= ‘my “here-remain,”’ _i.e._, ‘my
remaining here’). In the Romance languages, the process is rendered
easier by the abolition of case-difference; cf. _mon savoir-faire_ (=
‘my “to know--to-do”’ = ‘my cleverness of management’). Old French and
Provençal actually invest the infinitive with the _s_ of the nominative
case--_Li plorers ne t’i vaut rien_: ‘The “to-weep” not to thee there
avails anything’ = ‘It avails thee nothing to weep’ (cf. Mätzner, iii.,
pp. 1-2).
It is possible for the verbal construction to be maintained in many
cases, even in spite of the use of the article. For instance, ὸ σκοπεῖν
τῖ πράγματα (lit. = ‘the “to-see” the matters.’).
The oldest adverbs seem to be mainly in their origin crystallised cases
of nouns (adjectival or substantival), in some cases of which they are
the result of the combination of a preposition with its case. Thus, in
English, we have the genitive suffix appearing in _else_ (formerly
_elles_, the genitive of a root _el_ or _al_, meaning ‘other’), _once_
(= ‘ones’), _twice needs_. _Much_ and _little_ were datives, _miclum_
and _lytlum_; cf. _whilom_ (= hwílum.)
Thus, in Latin, many adverbs are derived from the accusative--as,
_primum_, ‘first;’ _multum_, ‘much;’ _foras_, ‘abroad;’ _alias_, ‘at
another time;’ _facile_, ‘easily;’ _recens_, ‘freshly:’ from the
locative--as, _partim_, ‘partly;’ or the ablative, as _falso_,
‘falsely;’ _recta_, ‘by the right way;’ _sponte_, ‘voluntarily.’ The
following are instances of the combination of a preposition with its
regime: _amid_ (= _on-middum_), _withal_, _together_, _anon_; French,
_amont_, _aval_ (= prep. _a_ (‘at’) _mont_, ‘mountain,’ and _val_,
‘dale’ = _upwards_, and _downwards_).
This formation of adverbs leads us to suspect that the original method
of forming them will also probably have been from nouns; and that as
some of them may have proceeded from nouns before the development of
inflections, in such cases merely the stem form, pure and simple, was
employed to express adverbs. Thus such expressions as _to speak true_,
_to entreat evil_, will represent the oldest types of adverbs.
The adverb stands in close relationship to the adjective. It bears a
relation to the verb and to the adjective as well, analogous to that
borne by an attributive adjective to a substantive; thus _He stepped
lightly_ is analogous to _His steps were light_; and _That is absolutely
true_ to _The truth of that is absolute_. This analogy manifests itself,
among other instances, in this--that an adverb may, generally speaking,
be formed from any adjective at will.
The adjective differs formally from the adverb in this, that the
adjective, commonly speaking, admits of inflection, and hence of
agreement with the substantive. In English, where this test is absent,
it is difficult for the instinct of language to draw a sharp line
between the two, as in _to speak loud_, _to speak low_. It is difficult,
in English, to maintain that there is any real difference between the
use of _good_ in _good-natured_ and the same word in _he is good_; or
the use of _well_ in _he is well dressed_, and in _he is well_.
Again, many adverbs in different languages resemble adjectives in this,
that, when joined to another adverb, they take an adjectival inflection.
Thus, in French, it is correct to say ‘_toute_ pure,’ ‘_toutes_ pures’ =
‘entire, (fem. sing.) pure,’ ‘entire (fem. plur.) pure (fem. plur.);’
both = ‘entirely pure,’ ‘quite pure:’ in Italian, _tutta livida_ = ‘all
(fem. sing.) livid’ = ‘quite livid:’ in Spanish, _todos desnudos_ = ‘all
(masc. plur.) nude’ = ‘quite naked.’
There are many cases in which an attributive adjective is employed
convertibly with an adverb; cf. _Hispania postrema perdomita est_ =
‘Spain LAST (fem. sing.) was conquered,’ for ‘AT LAST’ (Livy, xxviii.
12); _Il arrive toujours le dernier_, ‘He always comes last;’ _Il est
mort content_ = ‘He died happy.’ Compare also these two usages--_De ces
deux sœurs la cadette est celle qui est le plus aimée_, ‘Of these two
sisters the younger is the one who is the (neut.) more loved (fem.
sing.);’ or _la plus aimée_, ‘the (fem.) more loved (fem.)’ (Acad.)[206]
Adjectives used in connection with nouns signifying the agent or the
action are used in a way hardly to be distinguished from an adverbial
use; as, _a good story_, _a good story-teller_, _an old bookseller_. In
English, owing to its lack of inflections, an ambiguity may arise in
such cases as the last cited; we might apply the word _old_ to the man
who sells the books, as well as to the books themselves. The common
custom in English is to shun ambiguity by the use of the hyphen; as, _an
old-book seller_. But English attempts likewise to remove the ambiguity
by maintaining the adverb for one case, after the analogy of the
construction with the verb--as, _an early riser_, _a timely arrival_,
etc.--though this distinction is not consistently carried out.
The resemblance of adjectives and adverbs produces uncertainty in the
meaning to be attached to certain adjectives; the adjective, when
attached to a noun, may be conceived of as referring either to the
person, or as referring to one of his qualities; thus, _a bad coachman_
may either mean ‘a wicked coachman,’ or ‘a coachman looked upon as bad
in the quality of his driving.’ In the latter case, the adjective is
used in the special sense acquired by the adverb; as, _he drives badly_.
It is natural, then, as the adjective and the adverb so generally exist
in pairs, that we should feel the need of possessing both parts of
speech for all cases. There are, however, many adverbs which are derived
from no adjective, and which thus have no adjective parallel to them. In
this case we are compelled to employ the adverb with the function of the
adjective, as in ‘He is _there_,’ ‘He is _up_,’ ‘The door is _to_,’
‘Heaven is _above_;’ in which cases the instinct of language apprehends
the construction as identical with that found in such phrases as _He is
active_, _The door is open_, etc. Again, in such sentences as _the
mountain yonder_, _the enemy there_, _the drive hither_, the adverb
marks its difference from the adjective by its position in the sentence.
But this rule is not consistently observed; there are cases in English
where the adverb is inserted between the article and its substantive;
as, _on the hither-side_, _the above discourse_, _the then monarch_, and
more extensively in the vulgar _that there mountain_, _this here book_,
where the adjectival adverbs are pleonastic.
Just as, _e.g._, in Latin, we find the adverb used in _sic sum_ (‘so I
am’), _Ego hunc esse aliter credidi_,[207] ‘I him to be otherwise
believed’ = ‘I thought he was a different kind of man;’ so we find in
English _While this scene was passing in the cabin of the man, one quite
otherwise_ (i.e. _different_) _was passing in the halls of the master_
(Mrs. Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, i. 43), in which, and other
similar constructions, the adverb again has all the functions of an
adjective.
Prepositions and conjunctions as link-words or connecting elements took
their origin from independent words through a displacement of the
distribution. Prepositions were once adverbs, serving to denote more
closely the direction of the verbal action; as, ‘to go _in_,’ ‘to carry
_off_,’ ‘to throw _up_,’ ‘to fall _down_.’ They then became displaced,
_i.e._ detached from the verb, and came to belong to the noun,
furthering the disappearance of its case-endings and assuming their
office.
To stamp a word as ‘connecting word,’ this displacement must have become
customary and general. For, in their occasional usage, the most various
parts of speech may serve as connecting words. The functions of the
adverb, as such, have been sufficiently illustrated. It is thus only
where such adverbs are with a certain regularity, or preferably, used as
link-words, that they begin to be felt as prepositions or conjunctions.
But even then, notwithstanding such syntactical development, the word
can still be used independently in its former function, and it remains
impossible to definitely range it in any particular class. This only
becomes rational and feasible when the word has become obsolete in its
original usage.
We may accordingly define a preposition as a link-word which may be
followed by any substantive in some of its case-forms where this
combination is no longer syntactically parallel to that between noun or
verb and the word in its original independent sense. Accepting this
definition, we shall not explain _considering_, in such a sentence as
_considering everything he has done very well_, as a preposition,
because its construction is that of the verb _to consider_. When we come
to _instead of_ it is different. _Stead_, A.S. _stede_, meant ‘a place;’
and _in the stead of the man_ would have been a perfectly natural
construction, the genitive case showing the independence of the noun:
but whether the genitive is still felt as a genitive depends on the
question whether we think of _instead_ as a compound of the preposition
_in_ with the noun _stead_. As soon as we cease to feel it as such, we
do not think of the genitive as regularly depending on the preceding
substantive, and the preposition is created. No doubt the instance which
we have given proves that the instinct of language is vacillating; we
still find _in his stead_ looked upon as somewhat archaic indeed, but
still current English. In some cases the isolation has become looser,
and in others it has become absolute. The word _nigh_ (A.S. _neáh_, M.E.
_neigh_, as in ‘neighbour’) was originally an adverb, and identical in
meaning with the word _near_ (A.S. _néar_, the comparative degree of
_néah_). But we do not think of _nigh_ and _near_ as connected. The word
_till_ is still more peculiar. It is, properly speaking, a case of A.S.
_tíli_, a noun (cf. Germ. _Ziel_, Gothic _tils_) meaning ‘aim’ or
‘goal,’ whence the idea of _towards_ developed. _Off_ and _of_ are not
thought of as connected, and yet they are the same word. In this case
the relationship becomes obscured, owing to divergency in the
development of signification. In other cases the isolation of the word
is due to the disappearance of the old method of construction in which
it was used. Thus _since_, M.E. _sithens_, is from _síððen_ = A.S.
_síððan_, which is itself a construction for _síððan_, put for _síððam_,
‘after that.’ Here the _ðam_ is the dative case masculine of the
demonstrative pronoun used as a relative; it answers exactly to the
N.H.G. _seit dem_; cf. _ni ðanaseiðs_ (Ulphilas, Mark ii. 14) + ‘no
more.’ In the same way, the word _ere_ is a comparative form derived
from A.S. _ǽr_, ‘soon.’
The origin and rise of the conjunctions may, like that of the
prepositions, be followed historically. Many of them arise from adverbs
or pronouns in their function as connective words, as we have discussed
in the foregoing paragraphs. These words, then, are already
connecting-words ere they become established as conjunctions pure and
simple. All depends thus upon the linguistic consciousness of the
speaker, whether he will consider them as still pronoun or adverb, or as
real conjunction, and this consciousness, again, is largely dependent
upon the degree to which the word in question has been etymologically
obscured.
We have seen how the demonstrative _that_ has become a conjunction, and
can easily realise how to some extent in many others, such as _because_,
_in case_, etc., though no demonstrative word proper has entered into
their composition, the relation of the noun which forms their second
part to what follows is of a demonstrative kind.
Prepositions and conjunctions are more clearly distinguishable in such
languages, as, _e.g._, German, where the flection of noun and adjective,
or the absence of flection, shows whether the word is used as the one or
the other. In English, this test has disappeared. But even in highly
inflected tongues this test is not applicable in cases where a
preposition is used before an indeclinable word or combination of words.
And that such difference could not arise before the flection had arisen,
is self-evident.