ON THE ENDINGS _a_, _en_, _er_, _es_, _et_, _el_.
We find that while there are many names of rivers which contain nothing
more than the simple root from which they are derived, as the Cam, the
Rhine, the Elbe, the Don, &c., there are others which contain the same
root with various endings, of which the principal are _a_, _en_, _er_,
_es_, _et_, _el_. Thus the Roth in Germany, contains a simple root; the
Roth(a), Roth(er), and Rodd(en) in England, and the Röt(el) in Germany,
contain the same with four different endings. The German Ise shows a
simple root, and the Germ. Is(ar), Is(en), Eng. Is(is), Dutch Yss(el),
Russ. Iss(et), shew the same with five different endings. So we have in
England the Tame, the Tam(ar), and the Tham(es), &c. The question
is--what is the value and meaning of these various additions?
With respect to the ending in _a_, found in some English rivers, there
is reason to think that it is a word signifying water--the Old Norse
_â_, Goth. _ahva_, Lat. _aqua_, &c. So that the _a_ in Rotha may be the
same as the _a_ in the Norwegian Beina and the Swedish Tornea--as the
_au_ in the Germ. Donau (Danube)--and as the _ava_ in the Moldava of
Austrian Poland.
Others of these endings have by different writers been supposed to be
also words signifying water. Thus Donaldson (_Varronianus_), takes the
ending _es_ to have that meaning. And Förstemann, though more
cautiously, makes the same suggestion for the termination _ar_ or _er_.
"I allow myself here the enquiry whether possibly the river-names which
contain an _ar_ as the concluding part of the word may not be compounded
with this unknown word for a river; to assume a simple suffix seems to
me in this case rather niggardly." So also the ending _en_ has been
supposed by some of our own Celtic scholars, as Armstrong and O'Brien,
to be the same as the Welsh _aven_, Gael. _amhainn_, water or river, an
opinion which has also, though to a more limited extent, received the
sanction of Pott.
There are various minor objections to the above theories which I forbear
to urge, because I think that the main argument against them is to be
found in the manner in which these endings run through the whole
European system of river-names. And it seems to me therefore more
reasonable to refer them to a general principle which pervades the
Indo-European languages, than to a particular word of a particular
language. The principle I refer to is that of phonetic accretion, and it
is that upon which the above word _aven_ or _amhainn_, is itself formed
from a simple root, by one of the very endings in question, that in
_en_. Instead then of explaining--as the followers of the above system
have done--the Saone (Sagonna) by the Celt. _sogh-an_, "sluggish river",
I prefer to point to the general principle upon which the root _sogh_
has the power, so to speak, of making itself into _soghan_ (_e.g._, in
Lat. _segn-is_.)
Not but that the principle contended for by the above writers may obtain
in some cases: the Garumna, ancient name of the Garonne, looks like one
of them, though even in this case I think that the latter may be the
proper form, and the former only a euphonism of the Latin poets: the
geographers, as Ptolemy, call it Garunna.
Then again the question arises whether, seeing that _en_ and _es_ in the
Celtic tongues, and _el_ in the Germanic, have the force of diminution,
this may not be the meaning in the names of rivers. Zeuss, (_Die
Deutschen_), suggests this in the case of the Havel and the Moselle; but
seeing that one of these rivers has a course of 180 and the other of 265
miles, I think they might rather be adduced to prove that these endings
are not diminutive. We may cite also the Yssel and the Albula (Tiber),
both large rivers, with this ending. While in Germany we have two
rivers close together, the great and little Arl, (anc. Arla, or
Arila)--here seems the very case for a diminutive, yet both rivers have
the same ending. Not but that there are instances of a diminutive in
river-names, but they seem of later formation. Thus there is no reason
to doubt that the French Loiret, which is a small river falling into the
large one, means "the little Loire." Etymology in this case is in
perfect accord with the facts.
Upon the whole, then, I am inclined to the opinion, which seems in the
main that of Förstemann, that, at least as the general rule, these
endings are simply phonetic, and that they have no meaning whatever. In
our own and the cognate languages, _en_ is the principal phonetic
particle--_e.g._, English bow, Germ. bog_en_--Germ. rabe, Eng.
rav_en_--Lat. virgo, Fr. vierge, Eng. virg_in_. But we have also traces
in English of a similar phonetic _er_, (_see Latham's Handbook of the
Eng. Language, p. 199_). The general reader will understand better what
is here intended by comparing our words maid and maid_en_. Between these
two words there is not the slightest shade of difference as regards
meaning--the ending _en_ is merely added for the sake of the sound, or,
in other words, it is phonetic. Just the same difference then that there
is between our words maid and maiden I take to be between the names of
our rivers Lid and Lidden. The ending in both cases serves, if I may use
the expression, to give a sort of finish to the word.
The question then arises--supposing these endings to be phonetic--were
they given in the first instance, or have they accrued in after times?
It is probable that both ways might obtain; indeed we have some evidence
to shew that the latter has sometimes been the case. Thus the Medina in
the Isle of Wight was once called the Mede, and the Shannon of Ireland
stands in Ptolemy as the Senus. On the other hand cases are more
frequent in which the ending has been dropped. Thus the Yare is called
by Ptolemy the Garrhuenus, _i.e._, the Garron or Yarron. And the Teme
appears in Anglo-Saxon charters as the Taméde or Teméde. Indeed the
Thames itself would almost seem, by having become a monosyllable, to
have taken the first step of a change which has been arrested for ever.
So in Germany the Bille, Ohm, Orre, and Bordau, appear in charters of
the 8th and 9th cent., as the Bilena, Amana, Oorana, and Bordine. And in
France the Isara and the Oscara have in modern times become respectively
the Oise and the Ousche; in both these two cases the ending _er_ has
been dropped; for Oise=_is_, not _isar_; and Ousche=_osc_, not _oscar_.
This latter principle is indeed only in accordance with the general
tendency of language towards what Max Müller terms "phonetic decay"--a
principle which seems less active in the rude than in the cultivated
stages of society. It would appear as if civilization sought to
compensate itself for the increased requirements of its expression, by
the simplification of its forms, and the rejection of its superfluous
sounds.
Upon the whole then I think that as the general rule these endings have
been given in the first instance, and that they have but rarely accrued
in after times. Such being the case, though in one point of view they
may be called phonetic, as adding nothing to the sense, yet in another
point of view they may be called formative, as being the particles by
means of which words are constructed out of simple roots. And of the
names in the following pages, a great part, in some language, or in some
dialect, are still living words. And those that are not, are formed
regularly upon the same principle, common to the Indo-European system.