By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: A Handbook of the English Language
Author: Latham, R. G. (Robert Gordon), 1812-1888
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "A Handbook of the English Language" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they
are listed at the end of the text.

This file is best viewed in an environment supporting the Greek-extended
range of characters.

       *       *       *       *       *







R. G. LATHAM, M.D., F.R.S.,



       *       *       *       *       *


       *       *       *       *       *





  SECTION                                       PAGE

  1. English language not British                  1
  2. Real origin German                            1
  3. Accredited immigrations and settlements       2
  4, 5. Criticism                               4, 5



  6, 7. Jutes, Angles, and Saxons                  6
  8, 9. Extract from Beda                       6, 7
  10-13. Criticism                              8-11
  14, 15. Angles                              11, 12
  16. Saxons of Beda                          12, 13
  17. Anglo-Saxon area                            13
  18, 19. The Frisians                        13, 14
  20. Anglo-Saxon area                            14



  21-29. Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon            16, 17



  30, 31. Gothic languages                        18
  32-34. Divisions of the Gothic stock            18
  35. Mœso-Gothic                                 19
  36. Old High German                             19
  37. Low German                                  19
  38. Frisian and Dutch                           19
  39. Platt-Deutsch                               20
  40, 41. Comparison                           21-23



  42. Analysis                                    24
  43-54. Angles--their relations               24-28
  55, 56. The Frisians                        29, 30



  57. Branches of the Celtic stock                31
  58-60. Structure of Celtic tongues           31-33
  61-63. The Picts                             33-35



  64. The classical languages                     36
  65-67. Latin branch                          36-40
  68, 69. Norman French                       40, 41





  70. Celtic elements                             45
  71. Latin of first period                       46
  72. Anglo-Saxon                                 47
  73. Danish or Norse                             47
  74. Roman of second period                      49
  75. Anglo-Norman element                        49
  76. Indirect Scandinavian elements              50
  77. Latin of third period                       51
  78. Latin of fourth period                      51
  79. Greek                                       52
  80-82. Tables                                53-55
  83-90. Miscellaneous elements                55-60
  91-94. Hybridism and new words               60-62
  95. Historical and logical analysis             63



  96. Ancient and modern tongues                  64
  97. Details                                  65-68
  98. Stages of the English language              68
  99. Semi-Saxon                                  69
  100-103. _Old_ English, &c.                  70-72
  104. Present tendencies                         73





  105. Spelling and speaking                      77
  106. Sounds and syllables                       79
  107. Vowels                                     79
  108. Divisions                                  80
  109. Sharp and flat sounds                      80
  110. Continuous and explosive                   80
  111. General statements                         81
  112. The sound of h                             81



  113. Certain foreign sounds                     82
  114. System of mutes                            82
  115. Lenes and aspirates                        83
  116. Fourfold character of mutes                84
  117. Y and w                                    84
  118, 119. Diphthongs                            84
  120. Compound sounds                            85
  121. Ng                                         85
  122, 123. Broad, slender; long, short;
       dependent, independent vowels          85, 86
  124-126. System of sounds                   86, 87



  127. Sharp and flat mutes                       88
  128. Unstable combinations                      89
  129. Effect of y                                89
  130, 131. Double consonants rare                89
  132. True aspirates rare                        90



  133. Euphony                                    92
  134. Permutation                                93



  135. Syllabification                         95-97



  136. Long and short sounds                      98
  137. Quantity of vowels--of syllables           98
  138. Classical and English measurements         99



  139. Place of accents                          101
  140. Distinctive accents                       101
  141. Emphasis                                  102



  142. Orthoepy                                  103
  143-146. Principle of an alphabet          103-105
  147. Violations of it                          105
  148. Rules                                     107
  149-151. Details of English                107-109
  152. Insufficiency                             109
  153. Inconsistency                             109
  154. Erroneousness                             110
  155. Redundancy                                110
  156. Unsteadiness                              110
  157. Other defects                             111
  158. Historical propriety                      113
  159. Conventional spelling                     113



  160-166. Phœnician, Greek, Roman stages    116-124
  166-172. Anglo-Saxon alphabet              124-126
  173. Anglo-Norman alphabet                     126
  174. Extract from _Ormulum_                    127
  175. Order of alphabet                         128





  176-179. Meaning of term                   131-133



  180. _Boy_ and _girl_                          134
  181. _Man-servant_ and _maid-servant_          134
  182, 183. Forms like _genitrix_                135
  184. Forms like _domina_                       136
  185-189. Genders in English               136, 137
  190-192. _The sun in _his_ glory; the moon
       in _her_ wane_                            138
  193. Miscellaneous forms                   139-142



  194-197. Numbers in English               143, 144
  198. Rule                                      145
  199. Remarks                                   145
  200. Addition of -es                           146
          _Pence_, _alms_, &c.                   147
          _Mathematics_                          147
  201. _Children_                                149
  202. Form in -en                               150
  203. _Men_, _feet_, &c.                        150
  204. _Brethren_, &c.                           150
  205. _Houses_                                  152
  206. _Wives_, &c.                              152



  207-211. Nature of cases                   154-156
  212. Accusatives                               156
  213. Datives                                   157
  214. Genitives                                 157
  215. Instrumental                              158
          _All the better_                  158, 159
  216. Determination of cases                    159
  217. Analysis of cases                         160
  218. Form in -s                                160



  219, 220. _I_, _we_, _us_, &c.                 162
  221. _You_                                     162
  222. _Me_                                      163
  223-225. Cautions                         163, 164



  226. How far found in English                  165



  227. _He_, _she_, _it_                         166
  228. _She_                                     166
  229. _Her_, _him_, _his_, _its_, &c.           167
  230. _Theirs_                                  167
  231. Table                                     168
  232. _These_                                   169
  233. _Those_                                   171



  234. _Who_, _what_, &c.                        173
  235. _Same_, &c.                               173
  236. _Other_, _whether_                        177



  237-239. Idea expressed by -er             179-181



  240. Form in -s                                182
  241. _Elder_, &c.                              183
  242. _Rather_                                  183
  243, 244. Excess of expression                 183
  245-247. _Better_                          183-185
  248. _Worse_                                   185
  249. _More_                                    185
  250. _Less_                                    185
  251-253. _Near_, &c.                           186
  254. Origin of superlative                     186



  255, 256. _Former_                             188
  257. _Nearest_                                 188
  258. _Next_                                    188
  259, 260. _Upmost_, &c.                   189, 190



  261. How far undeclined                        191



  262-264. _Seven_, _nine_, _ten_                192
  265, 266. _Thirteen_, _thirty_                 193



  267. _A_, _an_, _the_                          194



  268-270. Diminutives                       197-199
  271. Augmentatives                             200
  272. Patronymics                          200, 201



  273. _Wales_                                   202



  274-281. The verb, how far a noun          203-206



  282. Divisions of verbs                        207
  282. Derivation                           208, 209



  283. Persons in English                        210
  284, 285. Historical view                      211
  286. Form in -t                                212
  287. _Thou spakest_, &c.                       212
  288. _We loves_                                213



  289. Numbers in English                        214
  290. _Ran_, _run_, &c.                         215



  291-292. Moods in English                      216



  293. _Strike_, _struck_                        217
  294-296. Ἔτυπτον, &c.                     217, 218
  297. Reduplication                             219
  298. _Weak_ or _strong_                        220



  299. _Sing_, _sang_, _sung_                    221
  300-303. Tables                            222-225



  304. _Stabbed_, &c.                            226
  305-307. Divisions                        227, 228
  309. _Bought_, _sought_                        228
  309. Forms in -te and -ode                     229
  310-312. _Bred_, _beat_, &c.                   230
  313. _Leave_, _left_                           231
  314. _Made_, _had_                             231
  314. _Would_, _should_, _could_                231
  315. _Aught_                                   231
  316. _Durst_, _must_, &c.                      232
  317. _This will do_                            233
  318. _Mind_                                    234
  319. _Yode_                                    234
  320. _Did_                                     234



  321, 322. Weak and strong conjugations natural



  323-325. Irregularity                          238
  326. Vital and obsolete processes              240
  327. Processes of necessity, &c.               241
  328. Ordinary processes                        241
  329. Positive                                  242
  330. Normal                                    242
  331. _Could_                                   243
  332. _Quoth_                                   244
  333. Real irregular verbs few                  244



  334, 335. _Me-seems_, _me-listeth_             246



  336. Not irregular                             247
  337. _Was_                                     247
  338-341. _Be_                             248, 249
  342. _An_                                      249
  343. _Worth_                                   250



  344. Forms in -ing                             251
  345. Forms in -ung                             252



  346. Forms in -en                              254
  347, 348. _Drunken_                            254
  349. _Forlorn_                                 255
  350. Forms in -ed                              255
  351. The prefix Y                              256



  352-357. Nature of compounds               258-261
  358-361. Accent                            261-266
  362. Obscure compounds                         266
  363-365. Exceptions                  266, 267, 268
  366. _Peacock_, _peahen_                       269
  367. _Nightingale_                             269
  368. Improper compounds                        270
  369. Decomposites                              270
  370. Combinations                         270, 271



  371-373. Their nature                      272-275



  374, 375. Their division                       276
  376-379. Adverbs of deflection                 277
  380. _Darkling_                                278



  381-384. _Hither_, _thither_, &c               279
  385. _Hence_, &c.                              280
  386. _Yonder_                                  280
  387. _Anon_                                    281



  388, 389. Their origin                         282



  390. Prepositions                              283
  391. Conjunctions                              283
  392. _Yes_, _No_                               283
  393. Particles                                 283



  394-407. Equivalent to _meus_ and _tuus_, rather than possessive
           cases                             284-290



  408. Grimm's view                              291
  409, 410. Remarks of Dr. Trithen           291-293





  411, 412. Syntax                               294
  413. Personification                           294
  414. Ellipsis                                  295
  415. Pleonasm                                  295
  416. Zeugma                                    295
  417. _Pros to semainomenon_                    296
  418. Apposition                                296
  419. Collectiveness                            297
  420. Reduction                                 297
  421. Determination of part of speech           298
  422-424. Convertibility                   298, 299
  425. _The Blacks of Africa_                    299
  426. _None of your ifs_                        300
  427. Convertible words numerous in English     300



  428. _Rundell and Bridge's_                    301
  429. _Right and left_                          301



  430. Pleonasm                                  302
  431. Collocation                               302
  432. Government                                302
  433. _More wise_, _wiser_                      303
  434. _The _better_ of the two_                 304
  435. Syntax of adjectives simple               304



  436. Pleonasm                                  305
  437. _Father's_, not _father his_              305
  438. Pleonasm and ellipses allied              306



  439. _Pronomen reverentiæ_                     307
  440. _Dativus ethicus_                         307
  441. Reflected pronoun                         307
  442. Reflected neuters                         308
  443. Equivocal reflective                      308



  444, 445. _His_ and _its_                 310, 311



  446, 447. _Myself_, _himself_, &c.        312, 313



  448-451. _My_ and _mine_                   314-316



  452-456. Their concord                    317, 318
  457. Ellipsis                                  318
  458. Equivocal antecedent                      319



  459, 460. Direct and oblique questions         320



  461, 462. Their construction              322, 323



  463-466. Use of _it_                      324, 325
  467, 468. Use of _them_                        325



  486. Present                                   342
  486, 487. Preterite                            342



  488, 489. Their concord                        344



  490. _Hight_                                   345



  491. Their classification                  346-348
  492. _I have ridden_                           348
  493. _I am to speak_                           351
  494. _I am to blame_                           351
  495. _I am beaten_                             351



  496, 497. Their syntax simple                  353
  498. Termination -ly                           354
  499. _To walk and ride_                        354
  500. _From whence_, &c.                   354, 355



  501. _Climb up a tree_                         356
  502. _Part of the body_                        356



  503, 504. Their nature                     357-359
  505. Their government                          359
  506-511. The subjunctive mood              359-364
  512. Use of _that_                             364
  513. Succession of tenses                      364
  514. Disjunctives                              365



  515. Its place                                 366
  516. Its distribution                          366
  517. Two negatives                             367
  518. Questions of appeal                       367



  519. Its participial character                 369



  520. Derivation of the word                    371
  521, 522. Importance of accent                 371
  523-526. Measures                         372, 373
  527. Metrical notation                         374
  528-535. Rhyme                             374-377
  536. Blank verse                               377
  537, 538. Last syllable indifferent            378
  539, 540. Names of common English metres   379-384



  541. Saxons and Angles                         385
  542-544. Dialects not coincident          385, 386
  545, 546. Traces of the Danes             386, 387
  547 Mercian origin of the written English      387

  NOTES                                          393

       *       *       *       *       *




       *       *       *       *       *



       *       *       *       *       *



§ 1. The first point to be remembered in the history of the English
language, is that it was not the primitive and original tongue of any of
the British Islands, nor yet of any portion of them. Indeed, of the _whole_
of Great Britain it is not the language at the present moment. Welsh is
spoken in Wales, Manks in the Isle of Man, and Scotch Gaelic in the
Highlands of Scotland; besides which there is the Irish Gaelic in Ireland.

§ 2. The next point to be considered is the real origin and the real
affinities of the English language.

Its _real_ origin is on the continent of Europe, and its _real_ affinities
are with certain languages there spoken. To speak more specifically, the
native country of the English language is _Germany_; and the _Germanic_
languages are those that are the most closely connected with our own. In
Germany, languages and dialects allied to each other and allied to the
mother-tongue of the English have been spoken from times anterior to
history; and these, for most purposes of philology, may be considered as
the aboriginal languages and dialects of that country.

§ 3. _Accredited details of the different immigrations from Germany into
Britain._--Until lately the details of the different Germanic invasions of
England, both in respect to the particular tribes by which they were made,
and the order in which they succeeded each other, were received with but
little doubt, and as little criticism.

Respecting the tribes by which they were made, the current opinion was,
that they were chiefly, if not exclusively, those of the Jutes, the Saxons,
and the Angles.

The particular chieftains that headed each descent were also supposed to be
known, as well as the different localities upon which they descended.[1]
These were as follows:--

_First settlement of invaders from Germany._--The account of this gives us
A.D. 449 for the first permanent Germanic tribes settled in Britain.
Ebbsfleet, in the Isle of Thanet, was the spot where they landed; and the
particular name that these tribes gave themselves was that of _Jutes_.
Their leaders were Hengist and Horsa. Six years after their landing they
had established the kingdom of Kent; so that the county of Kent was the
first district where the original British was superseded by the
mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Germany.

_Second settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 477 invaders from
Northern Germany made the second permanent settlement in Britain. The coast
of Sussex was the spot whereon they landed. The particular name that these
tribes gave themselves was that of _Saxons_. Their leader was Ella. They
established the kingdom of the South Saxons (Sussex or Suð-Seaxe); so that
the county of Sussex was the second district where the original British was
superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from

_Third settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 495 invaders from
Northern Germany made the third permanent settlement in Britain. The coast
of Hampshire was the spot whereon they landed. Like the invaders last
mentioned, these tribes were Saxons. Their leader was Cerdic. They
established the kingdom of the West Saxons (Wessex or West-Seaxe); so that
the county of Hants was the third district where the original British was
superseded by the mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from

_Fourth settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 530, certain Saxons
landed in Essex, so that the county of Essex [East-Seaxe] was the fourth
district where the original British was superseded by the mother-tongue of
the present English, introduced from Northern Germany.

_Fifth settlement of invaders from Germany._--These were _Angles_ in
Norfolk and Suffolk. The precise date of this settlement is not known. The
fifth district where the original British was superseded by the
mother-tongue of the present English was the counties of Norfolk and
Suffolk; the particular dialect introduced being that of the _Angles_.

_Sixth settlement of invaders from Germany._--A.D. 547 invaders from
Northern Germany made the sixth permanent settlement in Britain. The
southeastern counties of Scotland, between the rivers Tweed and Forth, were
the districts where they landed. They were of the tribe of the Angles, and
their leader was Ida. The south-eastern parts of Scotland constituted the
sixth district where the original British was superseded by the
mother-tongue of the present English, introduced from Northern Germany,

§ 4. It would be satisfactory if these details rested upon contemporary
evidence. This, however, is far from being the case.

1. _The evidence to the details just given, is not historical, but
traditional._--a. Beda,[2] from whom it is chiefly taken, wrote nearly 300
years after the supposed event, i.e., the landing of Hengist and Horsa, in
A.D. 449.

b. The nearest approach to a contemporary author is Gildas,[3] and _he_
wrote full 100 years after it.

2. _The account of Hengist's and Horsa's landing, has elements which are
fictional rather than historical_--a. Thus "when we find Hengist and Horsa
approaching the coasts of Kent in three keels, and Ælli effecting a landing
in Sussex with the same number, we are reminded of the Gothic tradition
which carries a migration of Ostrogoths,[4] Visigoths, and Gepidæ, also in
three vessels, to the mouth of the Vistula."--Kemble, "Saxons in England."

b. The murder of the British chieftains by Hengist is told _totidem
verbis_, by Widukind[5] and others, of the Old Saxons in Thuringia.

c. Geoffry of Monmouth[6] relates also, how "Hengist obtained from the
Britons as much land as could be enclosed by an ox-hide; then, cutting the
hide into thongs, enclosed a much larger space than the granters intended,
on which he erected Thong Castle--a tale too familiar to need illustration,
and which runs throughout the mythus of many nations. Among the Old Saxons,
the tradition is in reality the same, though recorded with a slight variety
of detail. In their story, a lapfull of earth is purchased at a dear rate
from a Thuringian; the companions of the Saxon jeer him for his imprudent
bargain; but he sows the purchased earth upon a large space of ground,
which he claims, and, by the aid of his comrades, ultimately wrests it from
the Thuringians."--Kemble, "Saxons in England."

3. _There is direct evidence in favour of their having been German tribes
in England anterior to_ A.D. 447.--a. At the close of the Marcomannic
war,[7] Marcus Antoninus transplanted a number of Germans into Britain.

b. Alemannic auxiliaries served along with Roman legions under

c. _The Notitia utriusque Imperii_,[9] of which the latest date is half a
century earlier than the epoch of Hengist, mentions, as an officer of
state, the _Comes littoris Saxonici per Britannias_; his government
extending along the coast from Portsmouth to the Wash.

§ 5. _Inference._--As it is nearly certain, that 449 A.D. is _not_ the date
of the first introduction of German tribes into Britain, we must consider
that the displacement of the original British began at an _earlier_ period
than the one usually admitted, and, consequently, that it was more
_gradual_ than is usually supposed.

Perhaps, if we substitute the middle of the _fourth_, instead of the middle
of the _fifth_ century, as the epoch of the Germanic immigrations into
Britain, we shall not be far from the truth.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 6. Out of the numerous tribes and nations of Germany, _three_ have been
more especially mentioned as the chief, if not the exclusive, sources of
the present English population of Great Britain. These are the _Jutes_, the
_Saxons_, and the _Angles_.

§ 7. Now, it is by no means certain that this was the case. On the
contrary, good reasons can be given for believing that the Angles and
Saxons were the same people, and that no such nation as the _Jutes_ ever
left Germany to settle in Great Britain.

§ 8. The chief authority for the division of the German invaders into the
three nations just mentioned is Beda; and the chief text is the following
extract from his "Ecclesiastical History." It requires particular
attention, and will form the basis of much criticism, and frequently be
referred to.

"Advenerunt autem de tribus Germaniæ populis fortioribus, id est Saxonibus,
Anglis, Jutis. De Jutarum origine sunt Cantuarii, et Victuarii, hoc est ea
gens quæ Vectam tenet insulam et ea quæ usque hodie in provincia
Occidentalium Saxonum Jutarum natio nominatur, posita contra ipsam insulam
Vectam. De Saxonibus, id est, ea regione quæ nunc Antiquorum Saxonum
cognominatur, venere Orientales Saxones, Meridiani Saxones, Occidui
Saxones. Porro de Anglis hoc est de illa patria quæ Angulus dicitur, et ab
illo tempore usque hodie manere desertus inter provincias Jutarum et
Saxonum perhibetur, Orientales Angli, Mediterranei Angli, Merci, tota
Northanhymbrorum progenies, id est illarum gentium quæ ad Boream Humbri
fluminis inhabitant, cæterique Anglorum populi sunt orti"--"Historia
Ecclesiastica," i. 15.

§ 9. This was written about A.D. 731, 131 years after the introduction of
Christianity, and nearly 300 after the supposed landing of Hengist and
Horsa in A.D. 449.

It is the first passage which contains the names of either the _Angles_ or
the _Jutes_. Gildas, who wrote more than 150 years earlier, mentions only
the _Saxons_--"ferocissimi illi nefandi nominis _Saxones_."

It is, also, the passage which all subsequent writers have either
translated or adopted. Thus it re-appears in Alfred, and again in the Saxon

    "Of Jotum comon Cantware and Wihtware, þæt is seo mæiað þe nú eardaþ on
    Wiht, and þæt cynn on West-Sexum ðe man gyt hæt Iútnacyun. Of
    Eald-Seaxum comon Eást-Seaxan, and Suð-Seaxan and West-Seaxan. Of Angle
    comon (se á siððan stód westig betwix Iútum and Seaxum) Eást-Engle,
    Middel-Angle, Mearce, and ealle Norðymbra."

    From the Jutes came the inhabitants of Kent and of Wight, that is, the
    race that now dwells in Wight, and that tribe amongst the West-Saxons
    which is yet called the Jute tribe. From the Old-Saxons came the
    East-Saxons, and South-Saxons, and West-Saxons. From the Angles, land
    (which has since always stood waste betwixt the Jutes and Saxons) came
    the East-Angles, Middle-Angles, Mercians, and all the Northumbrians.

§ 10. A portion of these extracts will now be submitted to criticism; that
portion being the statement concerning the _Jutes_.

The words _usque hodie--Jutarum natio nominatur_ constitute contemporary
and unexceptionable evidence to the existence of a people with a name like
that of the _Jutes_ in the time of Beda--or A.D. 731.

The exact name is not so certain. The term _Jutnacyn_ from the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle is in favour of the notion that it began with the sounds of j and
u, in other words that it was _Jut_.

But the term _Geatum_, which we find in Alfred, favours the form in g
followed by ea.

Thirdly, the forms _Wihtware_, and _Wihttan_, suggest the likelihood of the
name being _Wiht_.

Lastly, there is a passage in Asserius[11] which gives us the form
_Gwith_--"Mater" (of Alfred the Great) "quoque ejusdem Osburgh nominabatur,
religiosa nimium fœmina, nobilis ingenio, nobilis et genere; quæ erat filia
Oslac famosi pincernæ Æthelwulf regis; qui Oslac Gothus erat natione, ortus
enim erat de Gothis et Jutis; de semine scilicet Stuf et Wihtgur, duorum
fratrum et etiam comitum, qui acceptâ potestate Vectis insulæ ab avunculo
suo Cerdic rege et Cynric filio suo, consobrino eorum, paucos Britones
ejusdem insulæ accolas, quos in eâ invenire potuerant, in loco qui dicitur,
_Gwithgaraburgh_ occiderunt, cæteri enim accolæ ejusdem insulæ ante sunt
occisi aut exules aufugerant."--Asserius, "De Gestis Alfredi Regis."

Now, _Gwith-gara-burgh_ means the _burg_ or _town of_ the _With-ware_;[12]
these being, undoubtedly, no Germans at all, but the native Britons of the
Isle of Wight (Vectis), whose designation in Latin would be _Vecticolæ_ or

This being the case, how can they be descended from German or Danish
_Jutes_? and how can we reconcile the statement of Beda with that of Asser?

§ 11. The answer to this will be given after another fact has been

Precisely the same confusion between the sounds of w, j, g, io, eæ, u, and
i, which occurs with the so-called _Jutes_ of the Isle of Wight, occurs
with the Jutlanders of the peninsula of Jutland. The common forms are
_Jutland_, _Jute_, _Jutones_, and _Jutenses_, but they are not the only
ones. In A.D. 952, we find "Dania cismarina quam _Vitland_ incolæ
appellant."--"Annales Saxonici."[13]

§ 12. Putting these facts together I adopt the evidence of Asser as to the
_Gwithware_ being British, and consider them as simple _Vecti-colæ_, or
inhabitants of the Isle of _Wight_. They are also the _Vectuarii_ of Beda,
the _Wihtware_ of the Saxon Chronicle, and the _Wihtsætan_ of Alfred.

The Jutes of Hampshire--i.e., the "Jutarum natio--posita contra ipsam
insulam Vectam," and the _Jutnacyn_, I consider to have been the same;
except that they had left the Isle of Wight to settle on the opposite
coast; probably flying before their German conquerors, in which case they
would be the _exules_ of Asser.

The statement of Beda, so opposed to that of Asser, I explain by supposing
that it arose out of an inaccurate inference drawn from the similarity of
the names of the Isle of Wight and the peninsula of Jutland, since we have
seen that in both cases, there was a similar confusion between the
syllables Jut- and Vit-. This is an error into which even a careful writer
might fall. That Beda had no authentic historical accounts of the conquest
of Britain, we know from his own statements in the Preface to his
Ecclesiastical History,[14] and that he partially tried to make up for the
want of them by inference is exceedingly likely. If so, what would be more
natural than for him to conclude that Jutes as well as Angles helped to
subdue the country. The fact itself was probable; besides which he saw at
one and the same time, in England _Vitæ_ (called also _Jutæ_), in immediate
contact with _Saxons_,[26] and on the continent _Jutæ_ (called also _Vitæ_)
in the neighborhood of Angles[27] and Saxons. Is it surprising that he
should connect them?

§ 13. If the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight were really _Jutes_ from
_Jutland_, it is strange that there should be no traces of the difference
which existed, then as now, between them and the proper Anglo-Saxons--a
difference which was neither inconsiderable nor of a fleeting nature.

The present Jutlanders are not Germans but Danes, and the Jutes of the time
of Beda were most probably the same. Those of the 11th century were
_certainly_ so, "Primi ad ostium Baltici Sinus in australi ripa versus nos
_Dani, quos Juthas appellant_, usque ad Sliam lacum habitant." Adamus
Bremensis,[15] "De Situ Daniæ" c. 221. Also, "Et prima pars Daniæ, quæ
Jutland dicitur, ad Egdoram[28] in Boream longitudine pretenditur ... in
eum angulum qui Windila dicitur, ubi Jutland finem habet," c. 208.

At the time of Beda they must, according to the received traditions, have
been nearly 300 years in possession of the Isle of Wight, a locality as
favourable for the preservation of their peculiar manners and customs as
any in Great Britain, and a locality wherein we have no evidence of their
ever having been disturbed. Nevertheless, neither trace nor shadow of a
trace, either in early or modern times, has ever been discovered of their
separate nationality and language; a fact which stands in remarkable
contrast with the very numerous traces which the Danes of the 9th and 10th
century left behind them as evidence of their occupancy.

§ 14. The words _England_ and _English_ are derived from the _Angles_ of
Beda. The words _Sussex_, _Essex_, _Middlesex_ and _Wessex_, from his
_Saxons_. No objection lies against this; indeed to deny that populations
called _Angle_ and _Saxon_ occupied _England_ and spoke the _Anglo-Saxon_
language would display an unnecessary and unhealthy scepticism. The real
question concerning these two words consists in the relation which the
populations to which they were applied bore to each other. And this
question is a difficult one. Did the Angles speak one language, whilst the
Saxons spoke another? or did they both speak dialects of the same tongue?
Were these dialects slightly or widely different? Can we find traces of the
difference in any of the present provincial dialects? Are the idioms of one
country of Angle, whilst those of another are of Saxon origin? Was the
Angle more like the Danish language, whilst the Saxon approached the Dutch?
None of these questions can be answered at present. They have, however,
been asked for the sake of exhibiting the nature of the subject.

§ 15. The extract from Beda requires further remarks.

_The Angles of Beda._--The statement of Beda respecting the Angles, like
his statement concerning the Jutes, reappears in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
and in Alfred.

Ethelweard[16] also adopts it:--"_Anglia vetus_ sita est inter Saxones et
Giotos, habens oppidum capitale quod sermone Saxonico _Sleswic_ nuncupatur,
secundum vero Danos _Hathaby_."

Nevertheless, it is exceptionable and unsatisfactory; and like the previous
one, in all probability, an incorrect inference founded upon the
misinterpretation of a name.

In the eighth century there _was_, and at the present moment there _is_, a
portion of the duchy of Sleswick called _Anglen_ or _the corner_. It is
really what its name denotes, a triangle of irregular shape, formed by the
Slie, the firth of Flensborg, and a line drawn from Flensborg to Sleswick.
It is just as Danish as the rest of the peninsula, and cannot be shown to
have been occupied by a Germanic population at all. Its area is less than
that of the county of Rutland, and by no means likely to have supplied such
a population as that of the Angles of England. The fact of its being a
desert at the time of Beda is credible; since it formed a sort of _March_
or _Debatable Ground_ between the Saxons and Slavonians of Holstein, and
the Danes of Jutland.

Now if we suppose that the real Angles of Germany were either so reduced in
numbers as to have become an obscure tribe, or so incorporated with other
populations as to have lost their independent existence, we can easily see
how the similarity of name, combined with the geographical contiguity of
Anglen to the Saxon frontier, might mislead even so good a writer as Beda,
into the notion that he had found the country of the _Angles_ in the
_Angulus_ (Anglen) of Sleswick.

The true _Angles_ were the descendants of the _Angli_ of Tacitus. Who these
were will be investigated in §§ 47-54.

§ 16. _The Saxons of Beda._--The Saxons of Beda reached from the country of
the Old Saxons[29] on the Lippe, in Westphalia, to that of the
Nordalbingian[30] Saxons between the Elbe and Eyder; and nearly, but not
quite, coincided with the present countries of Hanover, Oldenburg,
Westphalia, and part of Holstein. This we may call the _Saxon_, or (as
reasons will be given for considering that it nearly coincided with the
country of the Angles) the _Anglo-Saxon_ area.

§ 17. _River-system and sea-board of the Anglo-Saxon area._--As the
invasion of England took place by sea, we must expect to find in the
invaders a maritime population. This leads to the consideration of the
physical character of that part of Germany which they occupied. And here
comes a remarkable and unexpected fact. The line of coast between the Rhine
and Elbe, the line which in reasoning _a priori_, we should fix upon as the
most likely tract for the bold seamen who wrested so large an island as
Great Britain from its original occupants (changing it from _Britain_ to
_England_), to have proceeded from, is _not_ the country of the
Anglo-Saxons. On the contrary, it is the country of a similar but different
section of the Germanic population, a section which has not received the
attention from the English historian which it deserves. The country in
question is the area of--

§ 18. _The Frisians._--At the present moment the language of the Dutch
province of Friesland is materially different from that of the other parts
of the kingdom of Holland. In other words it is not Dutch. Neither is it
German--although, of course, it resembles both languages. On the other
hand, it is more like the English than any other language or dialect in
Germany is.

It is a language of considerable antiquity, and although at present it is
spoken by the country-people only, it possesses a considerable literature.
There is the _Middle_ Frisian of Gysbert Japicx,[17] and the _Old_ Frisian
of the Frisian Laws.[18] The older the specimen of the Frisian language
the more closely does it show its affinity to the English; hence the
earliest Frisian and the Anglo-Saxon are exceedingly alike. Nevertheless
they differ.

§ 19. The Frisian was once spoken over a far greater area than at present.
It was the original language of almost all Holland. It was the language of
East Friesland to a late period. It was, probably, the language of the
ancient Chauci. At the present time (besides Friesland) it survives in
Heligoland, in the islands between the Ems and Weser, in part of Sleswick,
and in a few localities in Oldenburg and Westphalia.

Hence it is probable that the original Frisian, extending to an uncertain
and irregular distance inland, lay between the Saxons and the sea, and
stretched from the Zuyder Zee to the Elbe; a fact which would leave to the
latter nation the lower Elbe and the Weser as their water-system: the
extent to which they were in direct contact with the ocean being less than
we are prepared to expect from their subsequent history.

On the other hand the _a priori_ probabilities of there being Frisians as
well as Anglo-Saxons amongst the conquerors of Great Britain are
considerable.--See §§ 55, 56.

§ 20. The Anglo-Saxon area coincided--

1. _Politically._--With the kingdom of Hanover, the duchy of Oldenburg, and
parts of Westphalia and Holstein.

2. _Physically._--With the basin of the Weser.

It was _certainly_ from the Anglo-Saxon, and _probably_ from a part of the
Frisian area that Great Britain was first invaded.

This is as much as it is safe to say at present. The preceding chapter
investigated the _date_ of the Germanic migration into Britain; the present
has determined the _area_ from which it went forth.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 21. The area occupied by the Saxons of Germany has been investigated; and
it now remains to ask, how far the language of the occupants was absolutely
identical throughout, or how far it fell into dialects or sub-dialects.

There were at least _two_ divisions of the Saxon; (1st) the Saxon of which
the extant specimens are of English origin, and (2nd), the Saxon of which
the extant specimens are of Continental origin. We will call these at
present the Saxon of England, and the Saxon of the Continent.

§ 22. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, there
is good reason for believing that the _first_ was spoken in the _northern_,
the _second_ in the _southern_ portion of the Saxon area, i.e., the one in
Hanover and the other in Westphalia, the probable boundaries between them
being the line of highlands between Osnaburg and Paderborn.

§ 23. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, there
is good reason for believing that, whilst the _former_ was the
mother-tongue of the Angles and the conquerors of England, the _latter_ was
that of the Cherusci of Arminius, the conquerors and the annihilators of
the legions of Varus.[19]

§ 24. Respecting the Saxon of England and the Saxon of the Continent, it is
a fact that, whilst we have a full literature in the former, we have but
fragmentary specimens of the latter--these being chiefly the following: (1)
the Heliand,[20] (2) Hildubrand and Hathubrant,[21] (3) the Carolinian

§ 25. The preceding points have been predicated respecting the difference
between the two ascertained Saxon dialects, for the sake of preparing the
reader for the names by which they are known.

         MAY BE CALLED                 MAY BE CALLED

  1. Continental Saxon.            Insular Saxon.
  2. German Saxon.                 English Saxon.
  3. Westphalian Saxon.            Hanoverian Saxon.
  4. South Saxon.                  North Saxon.
  5. Cheruscan Saxon.              Angle Saxon.
  6. Saxon of the Heliand.         Saxon of Beowulf.[23]

§ 26. The Saxon of England _is_ called Anglo-Saxon; a term against which no
exception can be raised.

§ 27. The Saxon of the Continent _used_ to be called _Dano_-Saxon, and _is_
called _Old_ Saxon.

§ 28. _Why called Dano-Saxon._--When the poem called _Heliand_ was first
discovered in an English library, the difference in language between it and
the common Anglo-Saxon composition was accounted for by the assumption of a
_Danish_ intermixture.

§ 29. _Why called _Old_ Saxon._ When the Continental origin of the
_Heliand_ was recognised, the language was called _Old_ Saxon, because it
represented the Saxon of the mother-country, the natives of which were
called _Old_ Saxons by the _Anglo_-Saxons themselves. Still the term is
exceptionable; as the Saxon of the Heliand is probably a _sister_-dialect
of the _Anglo_-Saxon, rather than the _Anglo_-Saxon itself in a Continental
locality. Exceptionable, however, as it is, it will be employed.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 30. Over and above those languages of Germany and Holland which were akin
to the dialects of the Anglo-Saxons, cognate languages were spoken in
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe isles, i.e., in

§ 31. The general collective designation for the Germanic tongues of
Germany and Holland, and for the Scandinavian languages of Denmark, Sweden,
Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe Isles, is taken from the name of those
German tribes who, during the decline of the Roman Empire, were best known
to the Romans as the _Goths_; the term _Gothic_ for the Scandinavian and
Germanic languages, collectively, being both current and convenient.

§ 32. Of this great _stock_ of languages the Scandinavian is one _branch_;
the Germanic, called also Teutonic, another.

§ 33. The Scandinavian branch of the Gothic stock comprehends, 1. The
dialects of Scandinavia Proper, i.e., of Norway and Sweden; 2. of the
Danish isles and Jutland; 3. of Iceland; 4. of the Feroe Isles.

§ 34. The Teutonic branch falls into three divisions:--

  1. The Mœso-Gothic.
  2. The High Germanic.
  3. The Low Germanic.

§ 35. It is in the Mœso-Gothic that the most ancient specimen of any Gothic
tongue has been preserved. It is also the Mœso-Gothic that was spoken by
the conquerors of ancient Rome; by the subjects of Hermanric, Alaric,
Theodoric, Euric, Athanaric, and Totila.

In the reign of Valens, when pressed by intestine wars, and by the
movements of the Huns, the Goths were assisted by that emperor, and settled
in the Roman province of Mœsia.

Furthermore, they were converted to Christianity; and the Bible was
translated into their language by their Bishop Ulphilas.

Fragments of this translation, chiefly from the Gospels, have come down to
the present time; and the Bible translation of the Arian Bishop Ulphilas,
in the language of the Goths of Mœsia, during the reign of Valens, exhibits
the earliest sample of any Gothic tongue.

§ 36. The Old High German, called also Francic[24] and Alemannic,[25] was
spoken in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, in Suabia, Bavaria, and

The Middle High German ranges from the thirteenth century to the

§ 37. The low Germanic division, to which the Anglo-Saxon belongs, is
currently said to comprise six languages, or rather four languages in
different stages.

  I. II.--The Anglo-Saxon and Modern English.
  III. The Old Saxon.
  IV. V.--The Old Frisian and Modern Dutch.
  VI.--The Platt-Deutsch, or Low German.

§ 38. _The Frisian and Dutch._--It is a current statement that the Old
Frisian bears the same relation to the Modern Dutch of Holland that the
Anglo-Saxon does to the English.

The truer view of the question is as follows:--

1. That a single language, spoken in two dialects, was originally common to
both Holland and Friesland.

2. That from the northern of these dialects we have the Modern Frisian of

3. From the southern, the Modern Dutch of Holland.

The reason of this refinement is as follows:--

The Modern Dutch has certain grammatical forms _older_ than those of the
old Frisian; e.g., the Dutch infinitives and the Dutch weak substantives,
in their oblique cases, end in -en; those of the Old Frisian in -a: the
form in -en being the older.

The true Frisian is spoken in few and isolated localities. There is--

1. The Frisian of the Dutch state called Friesland.

2. The Frisian of the parish of Saterland, in Westphalia.

3. The Frisian of Heligoland.

4. The North Frisian, spoken in a few villages of Sleswick. One of the
characters of the North Frisian is the possession of a dual number.

In respect to its stages, we have the Old Frisian of the Asega-bog, the
Middle Frisian of Gysbert Japicx,[31] and the Modern Frisian of the present
Frieslanders, Westphalians, and Heligolanders.

§ 39. _The Low German and Platt-Deutsch._--The words _Low-German_ are not
only lax in their application, but they are _equivocal_; since the term has
two meanings, a _general_ meaning when it signifies a division of the
Germanic languages, comprising English, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon, Old Saxon, and
Frisian, and a limited one when it means the particular dialects of the
Ems, the Weser, and the Elbe. To avoid this the dialects in question are
conveniently called by their continental name of _Platt-Deutsch_, just as
in England we say _Broad_ Scotch.

§ 40. The most characteristic difference between the Saxon and Icelandic
(indeed between the Teutonic and Scandinavian tongues) lies in the peculiar
position of the definite article in the latter. In Saxon, the article
corresponding with the modern word _the_, is _þæt_, _se_, _seó_, for the
neuter, masculine, and feminine genders respectively; and these words,
regularly declined, are _prefixed_ to the words with which they agree, just
as is the case with the English and with the majority of languages. In
Icelandic, however, the article instead of preceding, _follows_ its noun,
_with which it coalesces_, having previously suffered a change in form. The
Icelandic article corresponding to _þæt_, _se_, _seó_, is _hitt_, _hinn_,
_hin_: from this the h is ejected, so that, instead of the regular
inflection (a), we have the forms (b).


           _Neut._          _Masc._            _Fem._

  _Sing. Nom._ Hitt          Hinn               Hin.
        _Acc._ Hitt          Hinn               Hina.
        _Dat._ Hinu          Hinum              Hinni.
        _Gen._ Hins          Hins               Hinnar.
  _Plur. Nom._ Hin           Hinir              Hinar.
        _Acc._ Hin           Hina               Hinar.
        _Dat._ Hinum         Hinum              Hinum.
        _Gen._ Hinna         Hinna              Hinna.


  _Sing. Nom._ -it           -inn               -in.
        _Acc._ -it           -inn               -ina (-na).
        _Dat._ -nu           -num               -inni (-nni).
        _Gen._ -ins          -ins               -innar (-nnar).
  _Plur. Nom._ -in           -nir               -nar.
        _Acc._ -in           -na                -nar.
        _Dat._ -num          -num               -num.
        _Gen._ -nna          -nna               -nna.

Whence, as an affix, in composition,

               _Neut._    _Masc._    _Fem._

  _Sing. Nom._  Augat      Boginn     Túngan.
  _Acc._        Augat      Boginn     Túnguna.
  _Dat._        Auganu     Boganum    Túngunni.
  _Gen._        Augans     Bogans     Túngunnar.
  _Plur. Nom._  Augun      Bogarnir   Túngurnar.
  _Acc._        Augun      Bogana     Túngurnar.
  _Dat._        Augunum    Bogunum    Túngunum.
  _Gen._        Augnanna   Boganna    Túngnanna.

In the Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish this peculiarity in the position of
the definite article is preserved. Its origin, however, is concealed; and
an accidental identity with the indefinite article has led to false notions
respecting its nature. In the languages in point the i is changed into e,
so that what in Icelandic is it and in, is in Danish et and en. _En_,
however, as a separate word, is the numeral _one_, and also the indefinite
article _a_; whilst in the neuter gender it is _et_--en sol, _a sun_; et
bord, _a table_: solon, _the sun_; bordet, _the table_. From modern forms
like those just quoted, it has been imagined that the definite is merely
the indefinite article transposed. This it is not.

To apply an expression of Mr. Cobbet's, _en_ = _a_, and -en = _the_, are
_the same combination of letters, but not the same word_.

§ 41. Another characteristic of the Scandinavian language is the possession
of a _passive_ form, or a _passive_ voice, ending in -st:--_ek_, _þu_,
_hann brennist_ = _I am_, _thou art_, _he is burnt_; _ver brennumst_ = _we
are burnt_; _þér brennizt_ = _ye are burnt_; _þeir brennast_ = _they are
burnt_. Past tense, _ek_, _þu_, _hann brendist_; _ver brendumst_, _þér
brenduzt_, _þeir brendust_. Imperat.: _brenstu_ = _be thou burnt_.
Infinit.: _brennast_ = _to be burnt_.

In the modern Danish and Swedish, the passive is still preserved, but
without the final t. In the _older_ stages of Icelandic, on the other hand,
the termination was not -st but -sc; which -sc grew out of the reflective
pronoun _sik_. With these phenomena the Scandinavian languages give us the
evolution and development of a passive voice; wherein we have the following
series of changes:--1. the reflective pronoun coalesces with the verb,
whilst the sense changes from that of a reflective to that of a middle
verb; 2. the c changes to t, whilst the middle sense passes into a passive
one; 3. t is dropped from the end of the word, and the expression that was
once reflective then becomes strictly passive.

Now the Saxons have no passive voice at all. That they should have one
_originating_ like that of the Scandinavians was impossible, inasmuch as
they had no reflective pronoun, and, consequently, nothing to evolve it

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 42. The language of England has been formed out of three elements.

a. Elements referable to the original British population, and derived from
times anterior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

b. Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, or imported elements.

c. Elements introduced since the Anglo-Saxon conquest.

§ 43. Each of these requires a special analysis, but that of the second
will be taken first, and form the contents of the present chapter.

All that we have at present learned concerning the Germanic invaders of
England, is the geographical area which they originally occupied. How far,
however, it was simple Saxons who conquered England single-handed, or how
far the particular Saxon Germans were portions of a complex population,
requires further investigation. Were the Saxons one division of the German
population, whilst the Angles were another? or were the Angles a section of
the Saxons, so that the latter was a generic term including the former?
Again, although the Saxon invasion may be the one which has had the
greatest influence, and drawn the most attention, why may there not have
been separate and independent migrations, the effects and record of which
have, in the lapse of time, become fused with those of the more important

§ 44. _The Angles; who were they? and what was their relation to the
Saxons?_--The first answer to this question embodies a great fact in the
way of internal evidence, viz., that they were the people from whom
_England_ derives the name it bears = _Angle land_, i.e., _land of the
Angles_. Our language too is _English_, i.e., _Angle_. Whatever, then, they
may have been on the Continent, they were a leading section of the invaders
here. Why then has their position in our inquiries been hitherto so
subordinate to that of the Saxons? It is because their importance and
preponderance are not so manifest in Germany as we infer them to have been
in Britain. Nay more, their historical place amongst the nations of
Germany, is both insignificant and uncertain; indeed, it will be seen from
the sequel, that _in and of themselves_ we know next to nothing about them,
knowing them only in their _relations_, i.e., to ourselves and to the

§ 45. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name
to England, and, as such, the preponderating element in the eyes of the
present _English_, they were not so in the eyes of the original British;
who neither knew at the time of the Conquest, nor know now, of any other
name for their German enemies but _Saxon_. And _Saxon_ is the name by which
the present English are known to the Welsh, Armorican, and Gaelic Celts.

  Welsh          _Saxon_.
  Armorican      _Soson_.
  Gaelic         _Sassenach_.

§ 46. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name
to _England_, &c., they were quite as little Angles as Saxons in the eyes
of foreign cotemporary writers; since the expression _Saxoniæ transmarinæ_,
occurs as applied to England.

§ 47. _Who were the Angles?_--Although they are the section of the
immigration which gave the name to _England_, &c., the notices of them as
Germans in Germany, are extremely limited.

_Extract from Tacitus._--This merely connects them with certain other
tribes, and affirms the existence of certain religious ordinances common to

"Contra Langobardos paucitas nobilitat: plurimis ac valentissimis
nationibus cincti, non per obsequium sed prœliis et periclitando tuti sunt.
Reudigni deinde, et Aviones, et _Angli_, et Varini, et Eudoses, et
Suardones, et Nuithones, fluminibus aut silvis muniuntur: nec quidquam
notabile in singulis, nisi quod in commune Herthum, id est, Terram matrem
colunt, eamque intervenire rebus hominum, invehi populis, arbitrantur. Est
in insula Oceani Castum nemus, dicatumque in eo vehiculum, veste contectum,
attingere uni sacerdoti concessum. Is adesse penetrali deam intelligit,
vectamque bobus feminis multâ cum veneratione prosequitur. Læti tunc dies,
festa loca, quæcumque adventu hospitioque dignatur. Non bella ineunt, non
arma sumunt, clausum omne ferrum; pax et quies tunc tantùm nota, tunc
tantùm amata, donec idem sacerdos satiatam conversatione mortalium deam
templo reddat; mox vehiculum et vestes, et, si credere velis, numen ipsum
secreto lacu abluitur. Servi ministrant, quos statim idem lacus haurit.
Arcanus hinc terror, sanctaque ignorantia, quid sit id, quod tantùm
perituri vident."[32]

_Extract from Ptolemy._--This connects the Angles with the _Suevi_, and
_Langobardi_, and places them on the Middle Elbe.--Ἐντὸς καὶ μεσογείων
ἐθνῶν μέγιστα μέν ἐστι τό τε τῶν Σουήβων τῶν Ἀγγειλῶν, οἵ εἰσιν
ἀνατολικώτεροι τῶν Λαγγοβάρδων, ἀνατείνοντες πρὸς τὰς ἄρκτους μέχρι τῶν
μέσων τοῦ Ἄλβιος ποταμοῦ.

_Extract from Procopius._--For this see § 55.

_Heading of a law referred to the age of Charlemagne._--This connects them
with the Werini (Varni) and the Thuringians--"Incipit lex _Angliorum_ et
_Werinorum_ hoc est _Thuringorum_."

§ 48. These notices agree in giving the Angles a _German_ locality, and in
connecting them ethnologically, and philologically with the _Germans_ of
Germany. And such was, undoubtedly, the case. Nevertheless, it may be seen
from § 15 that a _Danish_ origin has been assigned to them.

The exact Germanic affinities of the Angles are, how ever, difficult to
ascertain, since the tribes with which they are classed are differently
classed. This we shall see by asking the following questions:--

§ 49. What were the _Langobardi_, with whom the Angles were connected by
Tacitus? The most important fact to be known concerning them is, that the
general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to either the
_High_-German, or Mœso-Gothic division, rather than to the _Low_.

§ 50. What were the _Suevi_, with whom the Angles were connected by
Tacitus? The most important fact to be known concerning them is, that the
general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to either the
_High_-German or Mœso-Gothic division rather than to the _Low_.

§ 51. What were the _Werini_, with whom the Angles were connected in the
_Leges Anglorum et Werinorum_? Without having any particular _data_ for
connecting the Werini (Varni, Οὐάρνοι) with either the High-German, or the
Mœso-Gothic divisions, there are certain facts in favour of their being

§ 52. What were the _Thuringians_, with whom the Angles are connected in
the _Leges Anglorum_? Germanic in locality, and most probably allied to the
Goths of Mœsia in language. If not, High-Germans.

§ 53. Of the Reudigni, Eudoses, Nuithones, Suardones, and Aviones, too
little is known in detail to make the details an inquiry of importance.

§ 54. The reader has now got a general view of the extent to which the
position of the Angles, as a German tribe, is complicated by conflicting
statements; statements which connect them with (probably) _High_-German
Thuringians, Suevi, and Langobardi, and with (probably) _Slavonic_ Werini,
or Varni; whereas in England, they are scarcely distinguishable from the
_Low_-German Saxons. In the present state of our knowledge, the only safe
fact seems to be, that of the common relation of both _Angles_ and Saxons
to the present _English_ of England.

This brings the two sections within a very close degree of affinity, and
makes it probable, that, just as at present, descendants of the Saxons are
English (_Angle_) in Britain, so, in the third and fourth centuries,
ancestors of the Angles were Saxons in Germany. Why, however, the one name
preponderated on the Continent, and the other in England is difficult to

§ 55. The Frisians have been mentioned as a Germanic population _likely_ to
have joined in the invasion of Britain; the _presumption_ in favor of their
having done so arising from their geographical position.

There is, however, something more than mere presumption upon this point.

Archbishop Usher, amongst the earlier historians, and Mr. Kemble amongst
those of the present day, as well as other intermediate investigators, have
drawn attention to certain important notices of them.

The main facts bearing upon this question are the following:--

1. Hengist, according to some traditions, was a Frisian hero.

2. Procopius wrote as follows:--Βριττίαν δὲ τὴν νῆσον ἔθνη τρία
πολυανθρωπότατα ἔχουσι, βασιλεύς τε εἶς αὐτῶν ἑκάστῳ ἐφέστηκεν, ὀνόματα δὲ
κεῖται τοῖς ἔθνεσι τούτοις Ἀγγίλοι τε καὶ Φρίσσονες καὶ οἱ τῂ νήσῳ ὁμώνυμοι
Βρίττωνες. Τοσαύτη δὲ ἡ τῶνδε τῶν ἐθνῶν πολυανθρωπία φαίνεται οὖσα ὥστε ἀνὰ
πᾶν ἔτος κατὰ πολλοὺς ἐνθένδε μετανιστάμενοι ξὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ παισὶν ἐς
Φράγγους χώρουσιν.--Procop. B. G. iv. 20.

3. In the Saxon Chronicle we find the following passage:--"That same year,
the armies from among the East-Anglians, and from among the
North-Humbrians, harassed the land of the West-Saxons chiefly, most of all
by their 'æscs,' which they had built many years before. Then king Alfred
commanded long ships to be built to oppose the æscs; they were full-nigh
twice as long as the others; some had sixty oars, and some had more; they
were both swifter and steadier, and also higher than the others. They were
shapen neither like the _Frisian_ nor the Danish, but so as it seemed to
him that they would be most efficient. Then some time in the same year,
there came six ships to Wight, and there did much harm, as well as in
Devon, and elsewhere along the sea coast. Then the king commanded nine of
the new ships to go thither, and they obstructed their passage from the
port towards the outer sea. Then went they with three of their ships out
against them; and three lay in the upper part of the port in the dry; the
men were gone from them ashore. Then took they two of the three ships at
the outer part of the port, and killed the men, and the other ship escaped;
in that also the men were killed except five; they got away because the
other ships were aground. They also were aground very disadvantageously,
three lay aground on that side of the deep on which the Danish ships were
aground, and all the rest upon the other side, so that no one of them could
get to the others. But when, the water had ebbed many furlongs from the
ships, then the Danish men went from their three ships to the other three
which were left by the tide on their side, and then they there fought
against them. There was slain Lucumon the king's reeve, and Wulfheard the
_Frisian_, and Æbbe the _Frisian_, and Æthelhere the _Frisian_, and
Æthelferth the king's 'geneat,' and of all the men, _Frisians_ and English,
seventy-two; and of the Danish men one hundred and twenty."

§ 56. I believe then, that, so far from the current accounts being
absolutely correct, in respect to the Germanic elements of the English
population, the _Jutes_, as mentioned by Beda, formed _no_ part of it,
whilst the _Frisians_, _not_ so mentioned, _were a real constituent
therein_; besides which, there may, very easily, have been other Germanic
tribes, though in smaller proportions.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 57. The languages of Great Britain at the invasion of Julius Cæsar were
of the Celtic stock.

Of the Celtic stock there are two branches.

1. The British or Cambrian branch, represented by the present Welsh, and
containing, besides, the Cornish of Cornwall (lately extinct), and the
Armorican of the French province of Brittany. It is almost certain that the
old British, the ancient language of Gaul, and the Pictish were of this

2. The Gaelic or Erse branch, represented by the present Irish Gaelic, and
containing, besides, the Gaelic of the Highlands of Scotland and the Manks
of the Isle of Man.

§ 58. Taken altogether the Celtic tongues form a very remarkable class. As
compared with those of the Gothic stock they are marked by the following

_The scantiness of the declension of Celtic nouns._--In Irish there is a
peculiar form for the dative plural, as _cos_ = _foot_, _cos-aibh_ = _to
feet_ (ped-ibus); and beyond this there is nothing else whatever in the way
of _case_, as found in the German, Latin, Greek, and other tongues. Even
the isolated form in question is not found in the Welsh and Breton. Hence
the Celtic tongues are pre-eminently uninflected in the way of

§ 59. The _agglutinate character of their verbal inflections_.--In Welsh
the pronouns for _we_, _ye_, and _they_, are _ni_, _chwyi_, and _hwynt_
_respectively_. In Welsh also the root = _love_ is _car_. As conjugated in
the plural number this is--

  car-wn = am-amus.
  car-ych = am-atis.
  car-ant = am-ant.

Now the -wn, -ych, and -ant, of the persons of the verbs are the personal
pronouns, so that the inflection is really a verb and a pronoun in a state
of _agglutination_; i.e., in a state where the original separate existence
of the two sorts of words is still manifest. This is probably the case with
languages in general. The Celtic, however, has the peculiarity of
exhibiting it in an unmistakable manner; showing, as it were, an inflection
in the process of formation, and (as such) exhibiting an early stage of

§ 60. _The system of initial mutations._--The Celtic, as has been seen, is
deficient in the ordinary means of expressing case. How does it make up for
this? Even thus. The noun changes its initial letter according to its
relation to the other words of the sentence. Of course this is subject to
rule. As, however, I am only writing for the sake of illustrating in a
general way the peculiarities of the Celtic tongues, the following table,
from Prichard's "Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations," is sufficient.

  Câr, _a kinsman_.

    1. _form_, Câr agos, _a near kinsman_.
    2.         Ei gâr, _his kinsman_.
    3.         Ei châr, _her kinsman_.
    4.         Vy nghâr, _my kinsman_.

  Tâd, _a father_.

    1. _form_, Tâd y plentyn, _the child's father_.
    2.         Ei dâd, _his father_.
    3.         Ei thâd, _her father_.
    4.         Vy nhâd, _my father_.

  Pen, _a head_.

    1. _form_, Pen gwr, _the head of a man_.
    2.         Ei ben, _his head_.
    3.         Ei phen, _her head_.
    4.         Vy mhen, _my head_.

  Gwas, _a servant_.

    1. _form_, Gwâs fydhlon, _a faithful servant_.
    2.         Ei wâs, _his servant_.
    3.         Vy ngwas, _my servant_.

  Duw, _a god_.

    1. _form_, Duw trugarog, _a merciful god_.
    2.         Ei dhuw, _his god_.
    3.         Vy nuw, _my god_.

  Bara, _bread_.

    1. _form_, Bara cann, _white bread_.
    2.         Ei vara, _his bread_.
    3.         Vy mara, _my bread_.

  Lhaw, _a hand_.

    1. _form_, Lhaw wenn, _a white hand_.
    2.         Ei law, _his hand_.

  Mam, _a mother_.

    1. _form_, Mam dirion, _a tender mother_.
    2.         Ei vam, _his mother_.

  Rhwyd, _a net_.

    1. _form_, Rhwyd lawn, _a full net_.
    2.         Ei rwyd, _his net_.

  From the Erse.

  Súil, _an eye_.

    1. _form_, Súil.
    2.         A húil, his eye.

  Sláinte, _health_.

    2. _form_, Do hláinte, _your health_.

§ 61. The Celtic tongues have lately received especial illustration from
the researches of Mr. Garnett. Amongst others, the two following points are
particularly investigated by him:--

1. The affinities of the ancient language of Gaul.

2. The affinities of the Pictish language or dialect.

§ 62. _The ancient language of Gaul Cambrian._--The evidence in favour of
the ancient language of Gaul being Cambrian rather than Gaelic, lies in the
following facts:--

The old Gallic glosses are more Welsh than Gaelic.

a. _Petorritum_ = _a four-wheeled carriage_, from the Welsh, _peder_ =
_four_, and _rhod_ = _a wheel_. The Gaelic for _four_ is _ceathair_, and
the Gaelic compound would have been different.

b. _Pempedula_, the _cinque-foil_, from the Welsh _pump_ = _five_, and
_dalen_ = _a leaf_. The Gaelic for _five_ is _cuig_, and the Gaelic
compound would have been different.

c. _Candetum_ = a measure of 100 feet, from the Welsh _cant_ = 100. The
Gaelic for _a hundred_ is _cead_, and the Gaelic compound would have been

d. _Epona_ = _the goddess of horses._ In the old Armorican the root _ep_ =
_horse_. The Gaelic for a horse is _each_.

e. The evidence from the names of geographical localities in Gaul, both
ancient and modern, goes the same way: _Nantuates_, _Nantouin_, _Nanteuil_,
are derived from the Welsh _nant_ = _a valley_, a word unknown in Gaelic.

f. The evidence of certain French provincial words, which are Welsh and
Armorican rather than Erse or Gaelic.

§ 63. _The Pictish most probably Cambrian._--The evidence in favour of the
Pictish being Cambrian rather than Gaelic lies in the following facts:

a. When St. Columbanus preached, whose mother-tongue was Irish Gaelic, he
used an interpreter. This shows the _difference_ between the Pict and
Gaelic. What follows shows the affinity between the Pict and Welsh.

b. A manuscript in the Colbertine library contains a list of Pictish kings
from the fifth century downwards. These names are more Welsh than Gaelic.
_Taran_ = _thunder_ in Welsh. _Uven_ is the Welsh _Owen_. The first
syllable in _Talorg_ ( = _forehead_) is the _tal_ in _Talhaiarn_ = _iron
forehead_, _Taliessin_ = _splendid forehead_, Welsh names. _Wrgust_ is
nearer to the Welsh _Gwrgust_ than to the Irish _Fergus_. Finally, _Drust_,
_Drostan_, _Wrad_, _Necton_, closely resemble the Welsh _Trwst_, _Trwstan_,
_Gwriad_, _Nwython_. _Cineod_ and _Domhnall_ (_Kenneth_ and _Donnell_) are
the only true Erse forms in the list.

c. The only Pictish common name extant is the well-known compound _pen
val_, which is, in the oldest MS. of Beda, _peann fahel_. This means _caput
valli_, and is the name for the eastern termination of the Vallum of
Antoninus. Herein _pen_ is unequivocally Welsh, meaning _head_. It is an
impossible form in Gaelic. _Fal_, on the other hand, is apparently Gaelic,
the Welsh for a _rampart_ being _gwall_. _Fal_, however, occurs in Welsh
also, and means _inclosure_.

The evidence just indicated is rendered nearly conclusive by an
interpolation, apparently of the twelfth century, of the Durham MS. of
Nennius, whereby it is stated that the spot in question was called in
Gaelic _Cenail_. Now Cenail is the modern name _Kinneil_, and it is also a
Gaelic translation of the Pict _pen val_, since _cean_ is the Gaelic for
_head_, and _fhail_ for _rampart_ or _wall_. If the older form were Gaelic,
the substitution, or translation, would have been superfluous.

d. The name of the _Ochil Hills_ in Perthshire is better explained from the
Pict _uchel_ = _high_, than from the Gaelic _uasal_.

e. Bryneich, the British form of the province Bernicia, is better explained
by the Welsh _bryn_ = _ridge_ (_hilly country_), than by any word in
Gaelic.--Garnett, in "Transactions of Philological Society."

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 64. The languages of Greece and Rome belong to one and the same stock.

The Greek and its dialects, both ancient and modern, constitute the Greek
of the Classical stock.

The Latin in all its dialects, the old Italian languages allied to it, and
the modern tongues derived from the Roman, constitute the Latin branch of
the Classical stock.

Now, although the Greek dialects are of only secondary importance in the
illustration of the history of the English language, the Latin elements
require a special consideration.

This is because the Norman French, introduced into England by the battle of
Hastings, is a language derived from the Roman, and consequently a language
of the Latin branch of the Classical stock.

§ 65. The Latin language overspread the greater part of the Roman empire.
It supplanted a multiplicity of aboriginal languages; just as the English
of North America _has_ supplanted the aboriginal tongues of the native
Indians, and just as the Russian _is_ supplanting those of Siberia and

Sometimes the war that the Romans carried on against the old inhabitants
was a war of extermination. In this case the original language was
superseded _at once_. In other cases their influence was introduced
gradually. In this case the influence of the original language was greater
and more permanent.

Just as in the United States the English came in contact with an American,
whilst in New Holland it comes in contact with an Australian language, so
was the Latin language of Rome engrafted, sometimes on a Celtic, sometimes
on a Gothic, and sometimes on some other stock. The nature of the original
language must always be borne in mind.

From Italy, its original seat, the Latin was extended in the following
chronological order:--

1. To the Spanish Peninsula; where it overlaid or was engrafted on
languages allied to the present Biscayan.

2. To Gaul, or France, where it overlaid or was engrafted on languages of
the Celtic stock.

3. To Dacia and Pannonia where it overlaid or was engrafted on a language
the stock whereof is undetermined, but which was, probably, Sarmatian. The
introduction of the Latin into Dacia and Pannonia took place in the time of

§ 66. From these different introductions of the Latin into different
countries we have the following modern languages--1st Italian, 2nd Spanish
and Portuguese, 3rd French, 4th Wallachian; to which must be added a 5th,
the Romanese of part of Switzerland.

_Specimen of the Romanese._

    _Luke_ xv. 11.

    11. Ün Hum veva dus Filgs:

    12. Ad ilg juveu da quels schet alg Bab, "Bab mi dai la Part de la
    Rauba c' aud' à mi:" ad el parchè or ad els la Rauba.

    13. A bucca bears Gis suenter, cur ilg Filg juven vet tut mess ansemel,
    scha tilà 'l navent en ünna Terra dalunsch: a lou sfiget el tut sia
    Rauba cun viver senza spargn.

    14. A cur el vet tut sfaig, scha vangit ei en quella Terra ün grond
    Fumaz: ad el antschavet a ver basengs.

    15. Ad el mà, à: sa plidè enn ün Burgeis da quella Terra; a quel ilg
    tarmatet or sin sês Beins a parchirar ils Porcs.

    16. Ad el grigiava dad amplanir sieu Venter cun las Criscas ch' ils
    Porcs malgiavan; mo nagin lgi deva.

    17. Mo el mà en sasez a schet: "Quonts Fumelgs da mieu Bab han budonza
    da Pann, a jou miei d' fom!"

    18. "Jou vi lavar si, ad ir tier mieu Bab, e vi gir a lgi: 'Bab, jou
    hai faig puccau ancunter ilg Tschiel ad avont tei;

    19. "'A sunt bucca pli vangonts da vangir numnaus tieu Filg; fai mei
    esser sco ün da tes Fumelgs.'"

_Specimen of the Wallachian._

    _Luke_ xv. 11.

    11. Un om evea doĭ fec orĭ.

    12. Shi a zis c'el maĭ tinr din eĭ tatluĭ su: tat, dmĭ partea c'e mi se
    kade de avucie: shi de a imprcit lor avuciea.

    13. Shi nu dup multe zile, adunint toate fec orul c el maĭ tinr, s'a
    dus intr 'o car departe, shi akolo a rsipit toat avuciea ca, viecuind
    intr dezmĭerdrĭ.

    14. Shi keltuind el toate, c'a fkut foamete mare intr' ac'ea car: shi
    el a inc'eput a se lipsi.

    15. Shi mergina c'a lipit de unul din lkuitoriĭ criĭ ac'eia: si 'l a
    trimis pre el la earinide sale c pask porc'iĭ.

    16. Shi doria c 'shĭ sature pinctec'ele sŭ de roshkobele c'e minka
    porc'iĭ! shi niminĭ nu ĭ da luĭ.

    17. Iar viind intru sine, a zis; kicĭ argacĭ aĭ tatluĭ mieŭ sint
    indestulacĭ de piĭne, iar eŭ pĭeiŭ de foame.

    18. Skula-m-vioŭ, shi m' voiŭ duc'e la tata mieŭ, shi vioŭ zic'e lui:

    19. Tat, greshit-am la c'er shi inaintea ta, shi nu mai sint vrednik a
    m kema fiul tŭ; fm ka pre unul din argaciĭ ti.

§ 67. Such is the _general_ view of the languages derived from the Latin,
i.e., of the languages of the Latin branch of the Classical stock.

The French requires to be more minutely exhibited.

Between the provincial French of the north and the provincial French of the
south, there is a difference, at the present day, at least of dialect, and
perhaps of language. This is shown by the following specimens: the first
from the canton of Arras, on the confines of Flanders; the second from the
department of Var, in Provence. The date of each is A.D. 1807.


    _Luke_ xv. 11.

    11. Ain homme avoüait deeux garchéons.

    12. L'pus jone dit a sain père, "Main père, baillé m'cheu quî doüo me
    'r v'nir ed vous bien," et lue père leu partit sain bien.

    13. Ain n'sais yur, tro, quate, chéon jours après l'pus tiò d'cnés
    déeux éféans ôyant r'cuéllé tout s'n' héritt'main, s'ot' ainvoye dains
    nâin pahis gramain loüon, dú qu'il échilla tout s'n' argint ain fageant
    l'braingand dains chés cabarets.

    14. Abord qu'il o eu tout bu, tout mié et tout drélé, il o v'nu adonc
    dains ch' pahis lo ainn' famaine cruüelle, et i c'mainchonait d'avoir
    fon-ye d' pon-ye (i.e. faim de pain).



    11. Un homé avié dous enfans.

    12. Lou plus pichoun diguét a son päiré, "Moun päiré, dounas mi ce què
    mi reven de vouastré ben;" lou pairé faguet lou partagé de tout ce que

    13. Paou do jours après, lou pichoun vendét tout se què soun päiré li
    avié desamparat, et s'en anét díns un päis fourco luench, ounté
    dissipét tout soun ben en debaucho.

    14. Quand aguét tou arcaba, uno grosso famino arribet dins aqueou päis
    et, leou, si veguét reduech à la derniero misèro.

Practically speaking, although in the central parts of France the northern
and southern dialects melt into each other, the Loire may be considered as
a line of demarcation between two languages; the term language being
employed because, in the Middle Ages, whatever may be their real
difference, their northern tongue and the southern tongue were dealt with
not as separate dialects, but as distinct languages--the southern being
called Provençal, the northern Norman-French.

Of these two languages (for so they will in the following pages be called,
for the sake of convenience) the southern, or Provençal, approaches the
dialects of Spain; the Valencian of Spain and the Catalonian of Spain being
Provençal rather than standard Spanish or Castilian.

The southern French is sometimes called the Langue d'Oc, and sometimes the

§ 68. The Norman-French, spoken from the Loire to the confines of Flanders,
and called also the Langue d'Oyl, differed from the Provençal in (amongst
others) the following circumstances.

1. It was of later origin; the southern parts of Gaul having been colonized
at an early period by the Romans.

2. It was in geographical contact, not with the allied languages of Spain,
but with the Gothic tongues of Germany and Holland.

§ 69. It is the Norman-French that most especially bears upon the history
of the English language.

_Specimen from the Anglo-Norman poem of Charlemagne._

  Un jur fu Karléun al Seint-Denis muster,
  Reout prise sa corune, en croiz seignat sun chef;
  E ad ceinte sa espée: li pons fud d'or mer.
  Dux i out e dermeines e baruns e chevalers.
  Li emperères reguardet la reine sa muillers.
  Ele fut ben corunée al plus bel e as meuz.
  Il la prist par le poin desuz un oliver,
  De sa pleine parole la prist à reisuner:
 "Dame, véistes unkes hume nul de desuz ceil
  Tant ben séist espée no la corone el chef!
  Uncore cunquerrei-jo citez ot mun espeez."
  Cele ne fud pas sage, folement respondeit:
 "Emperere," dist-ele, trop vus poez preiser.
 "Uncore en sa-jo un ki plus se fait léger,
  Quant il porte corune entre ses chevalers;
  Kaunt il met sur sa teste, plus belement lui set"

In the northern French we must recognise not only a Celtic and a Classical,
but also a Gothic element: since Clovis and Charlemagne were no Frenchmen,
but Germans. The Germanic element in French has still to be determined.

In the northern French of _Normandy_ there is a second Gothic element,
viz., a Scandinavian element. See § 76.

       *       *       *       *       *


1. What are the _present_ languages of Wales, the Isle of Man, the Scotch
Highlands, and Ireland?

2. What are the _present_ languages of Germany and Holland? How are they
related to the _present_ language of England? How to the original language
of England?

3. Enumerate the chief _supposed_ migrations from Germany to England,
giving (when possible) the _date_ of each, the particular German tribe by
which each was undertaken, and the parts of Great Britain where the
different landings were made. Why do I say _supposed_ migrations?
Criticise, in detail, the evidence by which they are supported, and state
the extent to which it is exceptionable. Who was Beda? What were the
sources of his information?

4. Give reasons for believing the existence of Germans in England anterior
to A.D. 447.

5. Who are the present Jutlanders of Jutland? Who the inhabitants of the
district called Anglen in Sleswick? What are the reasons for connecting
these with the Jutes and Angles of Beda? What those for denying such a

6. What is the meaning of the termination -uarii in _Cant-uarii_ and
_Vect-uarii_? What was the Anglo-Saxon translation of _Antiqui Saxones_,
_Occidentales Saxones_, _Orientates Saxones_, _Meridionales Saxones_? What
are the known variations in the form of the word _Vectis_, meaning the
_Isle of Wight_? What those of the root Jut- as the name of the inhabitants
of the peninsula of Jutland?

7. Translate _Cantware_, _Wihtware_, into Latin. How does Alfred translate
_Jutæ_? How does the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? What is the derivation of the
name _Carisbrook_, a town in the Isle of Wight?

8. Take exception to the opinions that _Jutes_, from _Jutland_, formed part
of the Germanic invasion of England; or, rather, take exceptions to the
evidence upon which that opinion is based.

9. From what part of Germany were the _Angles_ derived? What is Beda's?
what Ethelweard's statement concerning them? Who were the _Angli_ of

10. What is the derivation of the word Mercia?

11. Give the localities of the Old Saxons, and the Northalbingians.
Investigate the area occupied by the Anglo-Saxons.

12. What is the present population of the Dutch province of Friesland? What
its language? What the dialects and stages of that language?

13. What was the language of the Asega-bog, the Heliand, Beowulf,
Hildubrand and Hathubrant, the Carolinian Psalms, the Gospels of Ulphilas,
and the poems of Gysbert Japicx?

14. Make a map of Ancient Germany and Scandinavia according to languages
and dialects of those two areas. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages
of the Gothic stock. Explain the meaning of the words _Gothic_, and
_Mœso-Gothic_, and _Platt-Deutsch_.

15. Analyze the Scandinavian forms _Solen_, _Bordet_, and _brennast_.

16. Exhibit the difference between the _logical_ and the _historical_
analysis of a language.

17. What are the Celtic names for the _English language_?

18. Enumerate the chief Germanic populations connected by ancient writers
with the _Angles_, stating the Ethnological relations of each, and noticing
the extent to which they coincide with those of the Angles.

19. What are the reasons for believing that there is a _Frisian_ element in
the population of England?

20. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages and dialects of the Celtic
stock. To which division did the Gallic of ancient Gaul, and the Pict
belong? Support the answer by reasons. What were the relations of the Picts
to the Gaelic inhabitants of Scotland? What to the Lowland Scotch? What to
the Belgæ?

21. Explain the following words--_petorritum_, _pempedula_, _candetum_,
_Epona_, _Nantuates_, _peann fahel_ and _Bernicia_. What inferences do you
draw from the derivation of them?

22. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the languages and dialects of the Classical

23. What is the bearing of the statements of Tacitus and other ancient
writers respecting the following Germanic populations upon the ethnological
relations of the Angles,--Aviones, Reudigni, Suevi, Langobardi, Frisii,

24. What is meant by the following terms, Provençal, Langue d'Oc, Langue
d'Oyl, Limousin, and Norman-French?

25. What languages, besides the Celtic and Latin, enter into the
composition of the French?

       *       *       *       *       *



       *       *       *       *       *



§ 70. The Celtic elements of the present English fall into five classes.

1. Those that are of late introduction, and cannot be called original and
constituent parts of the language. Some of such are the words _flannel_,
_crowd_ (a fiddle), from the Cambrian; and _kerne_ (an Irish foot-soldier),
_galore_ (enough), _tartan_, _plaid_, &c., from the Gaelic branch.

2. Those that are originally common to both the Celtic and Gothic stocks.
Some of such are _brother_, _mother_, in Celtic _brathair_, _mathair_; the
numerals, &c.

3. Those that have come to us from the Celtic, but have come to us through
the medium of another language. Some of such are _druid_ and _bard_, whose
_immediate_ source is, not the Celtic but the Latin.

4. Celtic elements of the Anglo-Norman, introduced into England after the
Conquest, and occurring in that language as remains of the original Celtic
of Gaul.

5. Those that have been retained from the original Celtic of the island,
and which form genuine constituents of our language. These fall into three

a. Proper names--generally of geographical localities; as _the Thames_,
_Kent_, &c.

b. Common names retained in the provincial dialects of England, but not
retained in the current language; as _gwethall_ = _household stuff_, and
_gwlanen_ = _flannel_ in Herefordshire.

c. Common names retained in the current language.--The following list is
Mr. Garnett's:--

  _Welsh._                      _English._

  Basgawd                       _Basket_.
  Berfa                         _Barrow_.
  Botwm                         _Button_.
  Bràn                          _Bran_.
  Clwt                          _Clout_, _Rag_.
  Crochan                       _Crockery_.
  Crog                          _Crook_, _Hook_.
  Cwch                          _Cock_, in _Cock-boat_.
  Cwysed                        _Gusset_.
  Cyl, Cyln                     _Kiln_ (_Kill_, provinc.).
  Dantaeth                      _Dainty_.
  Darn                          _Darn_.
  Deentur                       _Tenter_, in _Tenterhook_.
  Fflaim                        _Fleam_, _Cattle-lancet_.
  Fflaw                         _Flaw_.
  Ffynnell (air-hole)           _Funnel_.
  Gefyn (fetter)                _Gyve_.
  Greidell                      _Grid_ in _Gridiron_.
  Grual                         _Gruel_.
  Gwald (hem, border)           _Welt_.
  Gwiced (little door)          _Wicket_.
  Gwn                           _Gown_.
  Gwyfr                         _Wire_.
  Masg (stitch in netting)      _Mesh_.
  Mattog                        _Mattock_.
  Mop                           _Mop_.
  Rhail (fence)                 _Rail_.
  Rhashg (slice)                _Rasher_.
  Rhuwch                        _Rug_.
  Sawduriaw                     _Solder_.
  Syth (glue)                   _Size_.
  Tacl                          _Tackle_.

§ 71. _Latin of the first period._--Of the Latin introduced by Cæsar and
his successors, the few words remaining are those that relate to military
affairs; viz. _street_ (_strata_); -coln (as in _Lincoln_ = _Lindi
colonia_); -cest- (as in _Gloucester_ = _glevæ castra_) from _castra_. The
Latin words introduced between the time of Cæsar and Hengist may be called
the _Latin of the first period_, or the _Latin of the Celtic period_.

§ 72. _The Anglo-Saxon._--This is not noticed here, because, from being the
staple of the present language, it is more or less the subject of the book

§ 73. _The Danish, or Norse._--The pirates that pillaged Britain, under the
name of Danes, were not exclusively the inhabitants of Denmark. Of the
three Scandinavian nations, the Swedes took the least share, the Norwegians
the greatest, in these invasions.

The language of the three nations was the same; the differences being
differences of dialect. It was that which is now spoken in Iceland, having
been once common to Scandinavia and Denmark.

The Danish that became incorporated with our language, under the reign of
Canute and his sons, may be called the _direct_ Danish element, in
contradistinction to the _indirect_ Danish of § 76.

The determination of the amount of Danish in English is difficult. It is
not difficult to prove a word _Scandinavian_; but, then, we must also show
that it is not German as well. A few years back the current opinion was
against the doctrine that there was much Danish in England. At present, the
tendency is rather the other way. The following facts are from Mr.
Garnett.--"Phil. Trans." vol. i.

1. The Saxon name of the present town of _Whitby_ in Yorkshire was
_Streoneshalch_. The present name _Whitby_, _Hvitby_, or _Whitetown_, is

2. The Saxon name of the capital of Derbyshire was _Northweortheg_. The
present name is Danish.

3. The termination -by = _town_ is Norse.

4. On a monument in Aldburgh church, Holdernesse, in the East Riding of
Yorkshire, referred to the age of Edward the Confessor, is found the
following inscription:--

  _Ulf_ het aræran cyrice _for hanum_ and for Gunthara saula.
 "Ulf bid rear the church for him and for the soul of Gunthar."

Now, in this inscription, _Ulf_, in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon _Wulf_,
is a Norse form; whilst _hanum_ is a Norse dative, and by no means an
Anglo-Saxon one.--Old Norse _hanum_, Swedish _honom_.

5. The use of _at_ for _to_ as the sign of the infinitive mood is Norse,
not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish, and
Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English, and
in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day.

6. The use of _sum_ for _as_; e.g.,--_swa sum_ we forgive oure detturs.

7. Isolated words in the northern dialects are Norse rather than Saxon.

  _Provincial._      _Common Dialect._      _Norse._

    Braid               _Resemble_         Braas, _Swed._
    Eldin               _Firing_           Eld, _Dan._
    Force               _Waterfall_        Fors, _D. Swed._
    Gar                 _Make_             Göra, _Swed._
    Gill                _Ravine_           Gil, _Iceland._
    Greet               _Weep_             Grata, _Iceland._
    Ket                 _Carrion_          Kiöd--flesh, _Dan._
    Lait                _Seek_             Lede, _Dan._
    Lathe               _Barn_             Lade, _Dan._
    Lile                _Little_           Lille, _Dan._

§ 74. _Roman of the second period._--Of the Latin introduced under the
Christianised Saxon sovereigns, many words are extant. They relate chiefly
to ecclesiastical matters, just as the Latin of the Celtic period bore upon
military affairs. _Mynster_, a minster, _monasterium_; _portic_, a porch,
_porticus_; _cluster_, a cloister, _claustrum_; _munuc_, a monk,
_monachus_; _bisceop_, a bishop, _episcopus_; _arcebisceop_, archbishop,
_archiepiscopus_; _sanct_, a saint, _sanctus_; _profost_, a provost,
_propositus_; _pall_, a pall, _pallium_; _calic_, a chalice, _calix_;
_candel_, a candle, _candela_; _psalter_, a psalter, _psalterium_; _mæsse_,
a mass, _missa_; _pistel_, an epistle, _epistola_; _prædic-ian_, to preach,
_prædicare_; _prof-ian_, to prove, _probare_.

The following are the names of foreign plants and animals:--_camell_, a
camel, _camelus_; _ylp_, elephant, _elephas_; _ficbeam_, fig-tree, _ficus_;
_feferfuge_, feverfew, _febrifuga_; _peterselige_, parsley, _petroselinum_.

Others are the names of articles of foreign origin, as _pipor_, pepper,
_piper_; _purpur_, purple, _purpura_; _pumicstan_, pumicestone, _pumex_.

This is the Latin of the second, or Saxon period.

§ 75. _The Anglo-Norman element._--For practical purposes we may say that
the French or Anglo-Norman element appeared in our language after the
battle of Hastings, A.D. 1066.

Previous, however, to that period we find notices of intercourse between
the two countries.

1. The residence in England of Louis Outremer.

2. Ethelred II. married Emma, daughter of Richard Duke of Normandy, and the
two children were sent to Normandy for education.

3. Edward the Confessor is particularly stated to have encouraged French
manners and the French language in England.

4. Ingulphus of Croydon speaks of his own knowledge of French.

5. Harold passed some time in Normandy.

6. The French article _la_, in the term _la Drove_, occurs in a deed of
A.D. 975.

The chief Anglo-Norman elements of our language are the terms connected
with the feudal system, the terms relating to war and chivalry, and a great
portion of the law terms--_duke_, _count_, _baron_, _villain_, _service_,
_chivalry_, _warrant_, _esquire_, _challenge_, _domain_, &c.

§ 76. When we remember that the word _Norman_ means _man of the north_,
that it is a _Scandinavian_, and _not a French_ word, that it originated in
the invasions of the followers of Rollo and and other _Norwegians_, and
that just as part of England was overrun by Pagan buccaneers called
_Danes_, part of France was occupied by similar _Northmen_, we see the
likelihood of certain Norse words finding their way into the French
language, where they would be superadded to its original Celtic and Roman

The extent to which this is actually the case has only been partially
investigated. It is certain, however, that some French words are Norse or
Scandinavian. Such, for instance, are several _names of geographical
localities_ either near the sea, or the river Seine, in other words, within
that tract which was most especially occupied by the invaders. As is to be
expected from the genius of the French language, these words are
considerably altered in form. Thus,

  Toft         Toft          Tot.
  Beck         Beck          Bec.
  Flöt         Fleet[33]     Fleur, &c.

and in these shapes they appear in the Norman names _Yvetot_, _Caudebec_,
and _Harfleur_, &c.

Now any words thus introduced from the Norse of Scandinavia into the French
of Normandy, might, by the Norman Conquest of England, be carried further,
and so find their way into the English.

In such a case, they would constitute its _indirect_ Scandinavian element.

A list of these words has not been made; indeed the question requires far
more investigation than it has met with. The names, however, of the islands
_Guerns-ey_, _Jers-ey_, and _Aldern-ey_, are certainly of the kind in
question--since the -ey, meaning _island_, is the same as the -ey in
_Orkn-ey_, and is the Norse rather than the Saxon form.

§ 77. _Latin of the third period._--This means the Latin which was
introduced between the battle of Hastings and the revival of literature. It
chiefly originated in the cloister, in the universities, and, to a certain
extent, in the courts of law. It must be distinguished from the _indirect_
Latin introduced as part and parcel of the Anglo-Norman. It has yet to be
accurately analyzed.

§ 78. _Latin of the fourth period._--This means the Latin which has been
introduced between the revival of literature and the present time. It has
originated in the writings of learned men in general, and is distinguished
from that of the previous periods by:

1. Being less altered in form:

2. Preserving, with substantives, in many cases its original inflections;
_axis_, _axes_; _basis_, _bases_:

3. Relating to objects and ideas for which the increase of the range of
science in general has required a nomenclature.

§ 79. _Greek._--Words derived _directly_ from the Greek are in the same
predicament as the Latin of the third period--_phænomenon_, _phænomena_;
_criterion_, _criteria_, &c.; words which are only _indirectly_ of Greek
origin, being considered to belong to the language from which they were
immediately introduced into the English. Such are _deacon_, _priest_, &c.,
introduced through the Latin. Hence a word like _church_ proves no more in
regard to a Greek element in English, than the word _abbot_ proves in
respect to a Syrian one.

§ 80. The Latin of the fourth period and the Greek agree in retaining, in
many cases, original inflexions rather than adopting the English ones; in
other words, they agree in being but _imperfectly incorporated_. The
phænomenon of imperfect incorporation is reducible to the following

1. That it has a direct ratio to the date of the introduction, i.e., the
more recent the word the more likely it is to retain its original

2. That it has a relation to the number of meanings belonging to the words:
thus, when a single word has two meanings, the original inflexion expresses
one, the English inflexion another--_genius_, _genii_, often (_spirits_),
_geniuses_ (_men of genius_).

3. That it occurs with substantives only, and that only in the expression
of number. Thus, although the plural of substantives like _axis_ and
_genius_ are Latin, the possessive cases are English. So also are the
degrees of comparison for adjectives, like _circular_, and the tenses, &c.
for verbs, like _perambulate_.

§ 81. The following is a list of the chief Latin substantives introduced
during the latter part of the fourth period; and preserving the _Latin_
plural forms--


_Words wherein the Latin plural is the same as the Latin singular._

  (a) _Sing._      _Plur._      | (b) _Sing._      _Plur._
      Apparatus    apparat-us   |     Caries       cari-es
      Hiatus       hiat-us      |     Congeries    congeri-es
      Impetus      impet-us     |     Series       seri-es
                                |     Species      speci-es
                                |     Superficies  superfici-es.


_Words wherein the Latin plural is formed from the Latin singular by
changing the last syllable._

(a).--_Where the singular termination -a is changed in the plural into

  _Sing._       _Plur._       |  _Sing._       _Plur._
   Formul-a      formul-æ     |   Nebul-a       nebul-æ
   Lamin-a       lamin-æ      |   Scori-a       scori-æ.
   Larv-a        larv-æ       |

(b).--_Where the singular termination -us is changed in the plural into

  _Sing._            _Plur._        |  _Sing._            _Plur._
   Calcul-us          calcul-i      |   Polyp-us           polyp-i
   Coloss-us          coloss-i      |   Radi-us            radi-i
   Convolvul-us       convolvul-i   |   Ranuncul-us        ranuncul-i
   Foc-us             foc-i         |   Sarcophag-us       sarcophag-i
   Geni-us            geni-i        |   Schirr-us          schirrh-i
   Mag-us             mag-i         |   Stimul-us          stimul-i
   Nautil-us          nautil-i      |   Tumul-us           tumul-i.
   Œsophag-us         œsophag-i     |

(c).--_Where the singular termination -um is changed in the plural into

  _Sing._            _Plur._         |  _Sing._            _Plur._
   Animalcul-um       animalcul-a    |   Mausole-um         mausole-a
   Arcan-um           arcan-a        |   Medi-um            medi-a
   Collyri-um         collyri-a      |   Memorand-um        memorand-a
   Dat-um             dat-a          |   Menstru-um         menstru-a
   Desiderat-um       desiderat-a    |   Moment-um          moment-a
   Effluvi-um         effluvi-a      |   Premi-um           premi-a
   Empori-um          empori-a       |   Scholi-um          scholi-a
   Encomi-um          encomi-a       |   Spectr-um          spectr-a
   Errat-um           errat-a        |   Specul-um          specul-a
   Gymnasi-um         gymnasi-a      |   Strat-um           strat-a
   Lixivi-um          lixivi-a       |   Succedane-um       succedane-a.
   Lustr-um           lustr-a        |

(d).--_Where the singular termination -is is changed in the plural into

  _Sing._           _Plur._        |  _Sing._           _Plur._
   Amanuens-is       amanuens-es   |   Ellips-is         ellips-es
   Analys-is         analys-es     |   Emphas-is         emphas-es
   Antithes-is       antithes-es   |   Hypothes-is       hypothes-es
   Ax-is             ax-es         |   Oas-is            oas-es
   Bas-is            bas-es        |   Parenthes-is      parenthes-es
   Cris-is           cris-es       |   Synthes-is        synthes-es
   Diæres-is         diæres-es     |   Thes-is           thes-es.


_Words wherein the plural is formed by inserting -e between the last two
sounds of the singular, so that the former number always contains a
syllable more than the latter:--_

  _Sing._                                 _Plur._
   Apex      _sounded_      apec-s         apices
   Appendix     --          appendic-s     appendices
   Calix        --          calic-s        calices
   Cicatrix     --          cicatric-s     cicatrices
   Helix        --          helic-s        helices
   Index        --          indec-s        indices
   Radix        --          radic-s        radices
   Vertex       --          vertec-s       vertices
   Vortex       --          vortec-s       vortices.

In all these words the c of the singular number is sounded as k; of the
plural, as s.

§ 82. The following is a list of the chief Greek substantives lately
introduced, and preserving the _Greek_ plural forms--


_Words where the singular termination -on is changed in the plural into

  _Sing._           _Plur._         _Sing._           _Plur._
   Apheli-on         apheli-a        Criteri-on        criteri-a
   Periheli-on       periheli-a      Ephemer-on        ephemer-a
   Automat-on        automat-a       Phænomen-on       phænomen-a.


_Words where the plural is formed from the original root by adding either
-es or -a, but where the singular rejects the last letter of the original

_Plurals in_ -es:--

  _Original root._    _Plur._            _Sing._

   Apsid-              apsid-es           apsis
   Cantharid-          cantharid-es       cantharis
   Chrysalid-          chrysalid-es       chrysalis
   Ephemerid-          ephemerid-es       ephemeris
   Tripod-             tripod-es          tripos.

_Plurals in_ -a:--

  _Original root._    _Plur._         _Sing._

   Dogmat-             dogmat-a        dogma
   Lemmat-             lemmat-a        lemma
   Miasmat-            miasmat-a       miasma.[34]

§ 83. _Miscellaneous elements._--Of miscellaneous elements we have two
sorts; those that are incorporated in our language, and are currently
understood (e.g., the Spanish word _sherry_, the Arabic word _alkali_, and
the Persian word _turban_), and those that, even amongst the educated, are
considered strangers. Of this latter kind (amongst many others) are the
oriental words _hummum_, _kaftan_, _gul_, &c.

Of the currently understood miscellaneous elements of the English language,
the most important are from the French; some of which agree with those of
the Latin of the fourth period, and the Greek, in preserving the _French_
plural forms--as _beau_, _beaux_, _billets-doux_.

_Italian._--Some words of Italian origin do the same; as _virtuoso_,

_Hebrew._--The Hebrew words, _cherub_ and _seraph_ do the same; the form
_cherub-im_, and _seraph-im_ being not only plurals but Hebrew plurals.

Beyond the words derived from these five languages, none form their plural
other than after the English method, i.e., in -s, as _waltzes_, from the
_German_ word _waltz_.

§ 84. Hence we have a measure of the extent to which a language, which,
like the English, at one and the same time requires names for many objects,
comes in contact with the tongues of half the world, and has moreover, a
great power of incorporating foreign elements, derives fresh words from
varied sources; as may be seen from the following incomplete notice of the
languages which have, in different degrees, supplied it with new terms.

_Arabic._--Admiral, alchemist, alchemy, alcohol, alcove, alembic, algebra,
alkali, assassin.

_Persian._--Turban, caravan, dervise, &c.

_Turkish._--Coffee, bashaw, divan, scimitar, janisary, &c.

_Hindoo languages._--Calico, chintz, cowrie, curry, lac, muslin, toddy, &c.

_Chinese._--Tea, bohea, congou, hyson, soy, nankin &c.

_Malay._--Bantam (fowl), gamboge, rattan, sago, shaddock, &c.

_Polynesian._--Taboo, tattoo.

_Tungusian or some similar Siberian language._--Mammoth, the bones of which
are chiefly from the banks of the Lena.

_North American Indian._--Squaw, wigwam, pemmican.

_Peruvian._--Charki = prepared meat; whence _jerked_ beef.


§ 85. A distinction is drawn between the _direct_ and _indirect_, the
latter leading to the _ultimate origin_ of words.

Thus a word borrowed into the English from the French, might have been
borrowed into the French from the Latin, into the Latin from the Greek,
into the Greek from the Persian, &c., and so _ad infinitum_.

The investigation of this is a matter of literary curiosity rather than any
important branch of philology.

The ultimate known origin of many common words sometimes goes back to a
great date, and points to extinct languages--

_Ancient Nubian._--Barbarous.

_Ancient Egyptian._--Ammonia.

_Ancient Syrian._--Cyder.

_Ancient Lycian._--Pandar.

_Ancient Lydian._--Mæander.

_Ancient Persian._--Paradise.

§ 86. Again, a word from a given language may be introduced by more lines
than one; or it may be introduced twice over; once at an earlier, and again
at a later period. In such a case its form will, most probably, vary; and,
what is more, its meaning as well. Words of this sort may be called
_di-morphic_, their _dimorphism_ having originated in one of two reasons--a
difference of channel or a difference of date. Instances of the first are,
_syrup_, _sherbet_, and _shrub_, all originally from the _Arabic_, _srb_;
but introduced differently, viz., the first through the Latin, the second
through the Persian, and the third through the Hindoo. Instances of the
second are words like _minster_, introduced during the Anglo-Saxon, as
contrasted with _monastery_, introduced during the Anglo-Norman period. By
the proper application of these processes, we account for words so
different in present form, yet so identical in origin, as _priest_ and
_presbyter_, _episcopal_ and _bishop_, &c.

§ 87. _Distinction._--The history of the languages that have been spoken in
a particular country, is a different subject from the history of a
particular language. The history of the languages that have been spoken in
the United States of America, is the history of _Indian_ languages. The
history of the language of the United States is the history of a Germanic

§ 88. _Words of foreign simulating a vernacular origin._--These may occur
in any mixed language whatever; they occur, however, oftener in the English
than in any other.

Let a word be introduced from a foreign language--let it have some
resemblance in sound to a real English term: lastly, let the meanings of
the two words be not absolutely incompatible. We may then have a word of
foreign origin taking the appearance of an English one. Such, amongst
others, are _beef-eater_, from _bœuffetier_; _sparrow-grass_, _asparagus_;
_Shotover_, _Chateauvert_;[35] _Jerusalem_, _Girasole_;[36] _Spanish
beefeater_, _spina bifida_; _periwig_, _peruke_; _runagate_, _renegade_;
_lutestring_, _lustrino_;[37] _O yes_, _Oyez!_ _ancient_, _ensign_.[38]

_Dog-cheap_.--This has nothing to do with _dogs_. The first syllabic is
_god_ = _good_ transposed, and the second the _ch-p_ in _chapman_ ( =
_merchant_) _cheap_, and _Eastcheap_. In Sir J. Mandeville, we find
_god-kepe_ = _good bargain_.

_Sky-larking_.--Nothing to do with _larks_ of any sort; still less the
particular species, _alauda arvensis_. The word improperly spelt _l-a-r-k_,
and banished to the slang regions of the English language, is the
Anglo-Saxon _lác_ = _game_, or _sport_; wherein the a is sounded as in
_father_ (not as in _farther_). _Lek_ = _game_, in the present Scandinavian

_Zachary Macaulay_ = _Zumalacarregui_; _Billy Ruffian_ = _Bellerophon_;
_Sir Roger Dowlas_ = _Surajah Dowlah_, although so limited to the common
soldiers and sailors, who first used them, as to be exploded vulgarisms
rather than integral parts of the language, are examples of the same
tendency towards the irregular accommodation of misunderstood foreign

_Birdbolt_.--An incorrect name for the _gadus lota_, or _eel-pout_, and a
transformation of _barbote_.

_Whistle-fish_.--The same for _gadus mustela_, or _weasel-fish_.

_Liquorice_ = _glycyrrhiza_.

_Wormwood_ = _weremuth_, is an instance of a word from the same language,
in an antiquated shape, being equally transformed with a word of really
foreign origin.

§ 89. Sometimes the transformation of the _name_ has engendered a change in
the object to which it applies, or, at least, has evolved new ideas in
connection with it. How easy for a person who used the words _beef-eater_,
_sparrow-grass_, or _Jerusalem_, to believe that the officers designated by
the former either eat or used to eat more beef than any other people, that
the second word was the name for a _grass_ or herb of which _sparrows_ were
fond; and that _Jerusalem_ artichokes came from Palestine.

What has just been supposed has sometimes a real occurrence. To account for
the name of _Shotover-hill_, I have heard that Little John _shot over_ it.
Here the confusion, in order to set itself right, breeds a fiction. Again,
in chess, the piece now called the _queen_, was originally the _elephant_.
This was in Persian, _ferz_. In French it became _vierge_, which, in time,
came to be mistaken for a derivative, and _virgo_ = _the virgin_, _the
lady_, _the queen_.

§ 90. Sometimes, where the form of a word in respect to its _sound_ is not
affected, a false spirit of accommodation introduces an unetymological
_spelling_; as _frontispiece_, from _frontispecium_, _sovereign_, from
_sovrano_, _colleague_ from _collega_, _lanthorn_ (old orthography) from

The value of forms like these consists in their showing that language is
affected by false etymologies as well as by true ones.

       *       *       *       *       *

§ 91. In _lambkin_ and _lancet_, the final syllables (-kin and -et) have
the same power. They both express the idea of smallness or diminutiveness.
These words are but two out of a multitude, the one (_lamb_) being of
Saxon, the other (_lance_) of Norman origin. The same is the case with the
superadded syllables: -kin being Saxon; -et Norman. Now to add a Saxon
termination to a Norman word, or _vice versâ_, is to corrupt the English

This leads to some observation respecting the--

§ 92. _Introduction of new words and Hybridism._--Hybridism is a term
derived from _hybrid-a_, _a mongrel_; a Latin word _of Greek extraction_.

The terminations -ize (as in _criticize_), -ism (as in _criticism_), -ic
(as in _comic_)--these, amongst many others, are Greek terminations. To add
them to words not of Greek origin is to be guilty of hybridism. Hence,
_witticism_ is objectionable.

The terminations -ble (as in _penetrable_), -bility (as in
_penetrability_), -al (as in _parental_)--these, amongst many others, are
Latin terminations. To add them to words not of Latin origin is to be
guilty of hybridism.

Hybridism is the commonest fault that accompanies the introduction of new
words. The hybrid additions to the English language are most numerous in
works on science.

It must not, however, be concealed that several well established words are
hybrid; and that, even in the writings of the classical Roman authors,
there is hybridism between the Latin and the Greek.

Nevertheless, the etymological view of every word of foreign origin is, not
that it is put together in England, but that it is brought whole from the
language to which it is vernacular. Now no derived word can be brought
whole from a language unless, in that language, all its parts exist. The
word _penetrability_ is not derived from the English word _penetrable_, by
the addition of -ty. It is the Latin word _penetrabilitas_ imported.

_In derived words all the parts must belong to one and the same language_,
or, changing the expression, _every derived word must have a possible form
in the language from which it is taken_. Such is the rule against

§ 93. A true word sometimes takes the appearance of a hybrid without really
being so. The -icle, in _icicle_, is apparently the same as the -icle in
_radicle_. Now, as _ice_ is Gothic, and -icle classical, hybridism is
simulated. _Icicle_, however, is not a derivative but a compound; its parts
being _is_ and _gicel_, both Anglo-Saxon words.[39]

§ 94. _On incompletion of the radical._--Let there be in a given language a
series of roots ending in -t, as _sæmat_. Let a euphonic influence eject
the -t, as often as the word occurs in the nominative case. Let the
nominative case be erroneously considered to represent the root, or
radical, of the word. Let a derivative word be formed accordingly, i.e., on
the notion that the nominative form and the radical form coincide. Such a
derivative will exhibit only a part of the root; in other words, the
radical will be incomplete.

Now all this is what actually takes place in words like _hæmo-ptysis_
(_spitting of blood_), _sema-phore_ (_a sort of telegraph_). The Greek
imparisyllabics eject a part of the root in the nominative case; the
radical forms being _hæmat-_ and _sæmat-_, not _hæm-_and _sæm-_.

Incompletion of the radical is one of the commonest causes of words being
coined faultily. It must not, however, be concealed, that even in the
classical writers, we have in words like δίστομος examples of incompletion
of the radical.

       *       *       *       *       *

§ 95. The preceding chapters have paved the way for a distinction between
the _historical_ analysis of a language, and the _logical_ analysis of one.

Let the present language of England (for illustration's sake only) consist
of 40,000 words. Of these let 30,000 be Anglo-Saxon, 5,000 Anglo-Norman,
100 Celtic, 10 Latin of the first, 20 Latin of the second, and 30 Latin of
the third period, 50 Scandinavian, and the rest miscellaneous. In this case
the language is considered according to the historical origin of the words
that compose it, and the analysis is an historical analysis.

But it is very evident that the English, or any other language, is capable
of being contemplated in another view, and that the same number of words
may be very differently classified. Instead of arranging them according to
the languages whence they are derived, let them be disposed according to
the meanings that they convey. Let it be said, for instance, that out of
40,000 words, 10,000 are the names of natural objects, that 1000 denote
abstract ideas, that 1000 relate to warfare, 1000 to church matters, 500 to
points of chivalry, 1000 to agriculture, and so on through the whole. In
this case the analysis is not historical but logical; the words being
classed not according to their _origin_, but according to their _meaning_.

Now the logical and historical analyses of a language generally in some
degree coincide; that is, terms for a certain set of ideas come from
certain languages; just as in English a large proportion of our chemical
terms are Arabic, whilst a still larger one of our legal ones are

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 96. The relation of the present English to the Anglo-Saxon is that of a
_modern_ language to an _ancient_ one: the words _modern_ and _ancient_
being used in a defined and technical sense.

Let the word _smiðum_ illustrate this. _Smið-um_, the dative plural of
_smið_, is equivalent in meaning to the English _to smiths_; or to the
Latin _fabr-is_. _Smiðum_, however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a
substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two words
(i.e., a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letter s, in
_smiths_, shows that the word is plural. The -um, in _smiðum_, does this
and something more. It is the sign of the _dative case_ plural. The -um in
_smiðum_, is the part of a word. The preposition _to_ is a separate word
with an independent existence. _Smiðum_ is the radical syllable _smið_ +
the subordinate inflectional syllable -um, the sign of the dative case. The
combination _to smiths_ is the substantive _smiths_ + the preposition _to_,
equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in
form. As far, then, as the words just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon
differs from the English by expressing an idea by a certain _modification
of the form of the root_, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea
by _the addition of a preposition_; in other words, the Saxon _inflection_
is superseded by a _combination_ of words.

The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement.
1. _The earlier the stage of a given language the greater the amount of its
inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the
smaller the amount of them._ 2. _As languages become modern they substitute
prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses._ 3. _The amount of
inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of prepositions and
auxiliary verbs._ 4. _In the course of time languages drop their
inflections, and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means of
prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place._ 5. _Given two modes of
expression, the one inflectional_ (smiðum), _the other
circumlocutional_[40] (to smiths), _we can state that the first belongs to
an early, the second to a late, state of language._

The present chapter, then showing the relation of the English to the
Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the _general_ relation of a
modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are
the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; and so are the
French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin,
and the Romaic to the ancient Greek.

§ 97. Contrasted with the English, the Anglo-Saxon has (among others) the
following differences.


1. _Gender._--In Anglo-Saxon there were three genders, the masculine, the
feminine, and the neuter. With _adjectives_ each gender had its peculiar
declension. With _substantives_ also there were appropriate terminations,
though only to a certain degree.

2. The definite article varied with the gender of its substantive; _þæt
eage_, the eye; _se steorra_, the star; _seo tunge_, the tongue.

3. _Number._--The plural form in -en (as in _oxen_), rare in English, was
common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole
declension; e.g., _eágan_, eyes; _steorran_, stars; _tungan_, tongues.
Besides this, the Anglo-Saxons had forms in -u and -a as _ricu_, kingdoms;
_gifa_, gifts. The termination -s, current in the present English, was
confined to a single gender and to a single declension, as _endas_, ends;
_dagas_, days; _smiðas_, smiths.

4. _Case._--Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least
three; viz., the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and
adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words
an ablative or instrumental one. _Smið_, a smith; _smiðe_, to a smith;
_smiðes_, of a smith. Plural, _smiðas_, smiths; _smiðum_, to smiths;
_smiða_, of smiths: _he_, he; _hine_, him; _him_, to him; _his_, his; _se_,
the; _þa_, the; _þy_, with the; _þam_, to the; _þæs_, of the.

5. _Declension._--In _Anglo-Saxon_ it was necessary to determine the
declension of a substantive. There was the weak, or simple declension for
words ending in a vowel (as, _eage_, _steorra_, _tunga_), and the strong
declension for words ending in a consonant (_smið_, _spræc_, _leáf_). The
letters i and u were dealt with as semivowels, semi-vowels being dealt with
as consonants; so that words like _sunu_ and _gifu_ belonged to the same
declension as _smið_ and _sprǽc_.

6. _Definite and indefinite form of adjectives._--In Anglo-Saxon each
adjective had two forms, one _definite_ and one _indefinite_. There is
nothing of this kind in English. We say _a good sword_, and _the good
sword_ equally. In Anglo-Saxon, however, the first combination would be _se
gode sweord_, the second _án god sweord_, the definite form being
distinguished from the indefinite by the addition of a vowel.

7. _Pronouns personal._--The Anglo-Saxon language had for the first two
persons a _dual_ number; inflected as follows:

       _1st Person._                 _2nd Person._
  _Nom._  Wit    _We two_       _Nom._  Git    _Ye two_
  _Acc._  Unc    _Us two_       _Acc._  Ince   _You two_
  _Gen._  Uncer  _Of us two_    _Gen._  Incer  _Of you two._

Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative pronouns, as well
as the numerals _twa_ and _þreo_, had a fuller declension than they have at


8. _Mood._--The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with one
exception[41]) differs from the indicative only in the third person
singular, was in Anglo-Saxon considerably different from the indicative.

  _Indicative Mood._

  _Pres. Sing._ 1.  Lufige.    _Plur._ 1. }
                2.  Lufast.            2. } Lufiað.
                3.  Lufað.             3. }

  _Subjunctive Mood._

  _Pres. Sing._ 1. }           _Plur._ 1. }
                2. } Lufige            2. } Lufion.
                3. }                   3. }

The Saxon infinitive ended in -an (_lufian_), and besides this there was a
so-called gerundial form, _to lufigenne_.

Besides these there were considerable differences in respect to particular
words; but of these no notice is taken; the object being to indicate the
differences between the _ancient_ and _modern_ stages of a language in
respect to _grammatical structure_.

9. To bring about these changes a certain amount _of time_ is, of course,
necessary; a condition which suggests the difficult question as to the
_rate_ at which languages change. This is different for different
languages; but as the investigation belongs to _general_ philology rather
than to the particular history of the English language, it finds no place

§ 98. The extent, however, to which external causes may accelerate or
retard philological changes, is _not_ foreign to our subject; the influence
of the Norman Conquest, upon the previous Anglo-Saxon foundation, being a
problem of some difficulty.

At the first glance it seems to have been considerable, especially in the
way of simplifying the grammar. Yet the accuracy of this view is by no
means unequivocal. The reasons against it are as follows:

a. In Friesland no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Frisian, as
compared with the ancient, is nearly as simple in its grammatical
structure, as the English is when compared with the Anglo-Saxon.

b. In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, no such conquest took place. Yet the
modern Danish and Swedish, as compared with the Old Norse, are nearly as
simple in their grammatical structure, as the English is, when compared
with the Anglo-Saxon.

The question requires more investigation than it has met with.

An extract from Mr. Hallam's "History of Literature" closes the present
section, and introduces the next.

    "Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to
    determine the commencement of the English language; not so much, as in
    those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather
    from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual
    succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We
    should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally
    well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth
    centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth
    century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce
    why it should pass for a separate language, rather than a modification
    or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage,
    and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:--1. By
    contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography
    of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and
    consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the
    introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and
    ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think,
    can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and
    this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much
    of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pass for the
    latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's
    fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of
    our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which
    is to cover everything from A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1250."--Chapter i. 47.

§ 99. This shows that by the middle of the 12th century, the Anglo-Saxon of
the standard Anglo-Saxon authors, had undergone such a change as to induce
the scholars of the present ago to denominate it, not Saxon, but
Semi-Saxon. It had ceased to be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become

Some, amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon

1. The substitution of -an for -as, in the plural of substantives,
_munucan_ for _munucas_ (_monks_); and, conversely, the substitution of -s
for -n, as _steorres_ for _steorran_ (_stars_).

2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels, _þæt ylc_ for _þæt ylce_;
_sone_ for _sunu_; _name_ for _nama_; _dages_ for _dagas_.

3. The substitution of -n for -m in the dative case, _hwilon_ for _hwilum_.

4. The ejection of the -n of the infinitive mood, _cumme_ for _cuman_ (_to
come_), _nemne_ for _nemnen_ (_to name_).

5. The ejection of -en in the participle passive, _I-hote_ for _gehaten_
(_called_, _hight_).

6. The gerundial termination -enne, superseded by the infinitive
termination -en; as _to lufian_ for _to lufienne_, or _lufigenne_.

7. The substitution of -en for -að in the persons plural of verbs; _hi
clepen_ (_they call_) for _hi clypiað_, &c.

The preponderance (not the occasional occurrence) of forms like those above
constitute _Semi-Saxon_ in contradistinction to standard Saxon, classical
Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon proper.

§ 100. _Old English stage._--Further changes convert Semi-Saxon into Old
English. Some, amongst others, are the following:--

1. The ejection of the dative plural termination -um, and the substitution
of the preposition to and the plural sign -s; as _to smiths_ for _smiðum_.
Of the dative singular the -e is retained (_ende_, _worde_); but it is by
no means certain that, although recognized in writing, it was equally
recognized in pronunciation also.

2. The ejection of -es in the genitive singular whenever the preposition
_of_ came before it; _Godes love_ (_God's love_), but the _love of God_,
and not the _love of Godes_.

3. The syllable -es as a sign of the genitive case extended to all genders
and to all declensions; _heart's_ for _heortan_; _sun's_ for _sunnan_.

4. The same in respect to the plural number; _sterres_ for _steorran_;
_sons_ for _suna_.

5. The ejection of -na in the genitive plural; as _of tunges_ for

6. The use of the word _the_, as an article, instead of _se_, &c.

The _preponderance_ of the forms above (and not their mere occasional
occurrence) constitutes _Old English_ in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

§ 101. In the Old English the following forms predominate.

1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative pronoun, or definite article;
_þan_, _þenne_, _þære_, _þam_;--in contradistinction to the Middle English.

2. The presence of the dative singular in -e; _ende_, _smithe_.

3. The existence of a genitive plural in -r or -ra; _heora_, theirs;
_aller_, of all. This, with substantives and adjectives, is less common.

4. The substitution of _heo_ for _they_, of _heora_ for _their_, of _hem_
for _them_.

5. A more frequent use of _min_ and _thin_, for _my_ and _thy_;--in
contradistinction to both Middle and Modern English.

6. The use of _heo_ for _she_;--in contradistinction to Middle and Modern
English and Old Lowland _Scotch_.

7. The use of broader vowels; as in _iclepud_ or _iclepod_ (for _icleped_
or _yclept_); _geongost_, youngest; _ascode_, asked; _eldore_, elder.

8. The use of the strong preterits (_see_ the chapter on the tenses of
verbs), where in the present English the weak form is found--_wex_, _wop_,
_dalf_, for _waxed_, _wept_, _delved_.

9. The omission not only of the gerundial termination -enne, but also of
the infinitive sign -en after _to_; _to honte_, _to speke_;--in
contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

10. The substitution of -en for -eþ or -eð, in the first and second persons
plural of verbs; _we wollen_, we will: _heo schullen_, they should.

11. The comparative absence of the articles _se_ and _seo_.

12. The substitution of _ben_ and _beeth_, for _synd_ and _syndon_ = _we_,
_ye_, _they are_.

§ 102. Concerning the extent to which the Anglo-Norman was used, I retail
the following statements and quotations.

    1. "Letters even of a private nature were written in Latin till the
    beginning of the reign of Edward I., soon after 1270, when a sudden
    change brought in the use of French."--_Mr. Hallam, communicated by Mr.
    Stevenson_ (_Literature of Europe_, i. 52, _and note_).

    2. Conversation between the members of the Universities was ordered to
    be carried on either in Latin or French:--"_Si qua inter se proferant,
    colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur._"--_Statutes of Oriel
    College, Oxford._--_Hallam, ibid._ from Warton.

    3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town
    Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in
    Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."--_Ibid._

    4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into
    French."--_Ibid._ "_Pueri in scholis, contra morem cæterarum nationum,
    et Normannorum adventu, derelicto proprio vulgari, construere Gallice
    compelluntur. Item quod filii nobilium ab ipsis cunabulorum crepundiis
    ad Gallicum idioma informantur. Quibus profecto rurales homines
    assimulari volentes, ut per hoc spectabiliores videantur, Francigenari
    satagunt omni nisu._"--_Higden_ (_Ed. Gale_, p. 210).

§ 103. The reigns of Edward III., and Richard II., may be said to form a
transition from the _Old_ to the _Middle_; those of Mary and Elizabeth from
the _Middle_ to the _New_, _Recent_ or _Modern English_. No very definite
line of demarcation, however, can be drawn.

§ 104. The _present_ tendencies of the English may be determined by
observation: and as most of them will be noticed in the etymological part
of this volume, the few here indicated must be looked upon as illustrations

1. The distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood is likely to
pass away. We verify this by the very general tendency to say _if it is_,
and _if he speaks_, rather than _if it be_, and _if he speak_.

2. The distinction between the participle passive and the past tense is
likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to say _it is broke_,
and _he is smote_, for _it is broken_ and _he is smitten_.

3. Of the double forms, _sung_ and _sang_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c., one
only will be the permanent.

As stated above, these tendencies are but a few out of many, and have been
adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it.

       *       *       *       *       *


    1. Classify the Celtic elements of the English language.

    2. Enumerate the chief periods during which words from the Latin were
    introduced into English, and classify the Latin elements accordingly.

    3. What words were introduced _directly_ by the Danes, Scandinavians,
    or Norsemen? What _indirectly_? Through what language did these latter

    4. Give the dates of the Battle of Hastings, and of the reigns of Louis
    Outremer, Ethelred II, and Edward the Confessor. What was the amount of
    Norman-French elements in England anterior to the Conquest?

    5. Give the languages from whence the following words were introduced
    into the English--_flannel_, _jerked_ (as to _beef_), _hammock_,
    _apparatus_, _waltz_, _Seraph_, _plaid_, _street_, _muslin_.

    6. Distinguish between the _direct_, _indirect_, and _ultimate_ origin
    of introduced words. What words have we in English which are supposed
    to have _originated_ in the Ancient Ægyptian, the Syrian, and the
    languages of Asia Minor?

    7. Under what different forms do the following words appear in
    English--_monasterium_, πρεσβύτερος, ἐπίσκοπος. Account for these
    differences. _Syrup_, _shrub_, and _sherbet_, all originate from the
    same word. Explain the present difference.

    8. Give the _direct_ origin (i.e., the languages from which they were
    _immediately_ introduced) of--_Druid_, _epistle_, _chivalry_, _cyder_,
    _mæander_. Give the _indirect_ origin of the same.

    9. Investigate the process by which a word like _sparrow-grass_,
    apparently of _English_ origin, is, in reality, derived from the Latin
    word _asparagus_. Point out the incorrectness in the words
    _frontispiece_, _colleague_, and _lanthorn_.

    10. To what extent may _Norse_, and to what extent may _Celtic_ words,
    not found in the current language of English, be found in the
    provincial dialects?

    11. What were the original names of the towns _Whitby_ and _Derby_?
    From what language are the present names derived? Give the reason for
    your answer.

    12. Show the extent to which the _logical_ and _historical_ analyses
    coincide in respect to the words introduced from the Roman of the
    second period, the Arabic, the Anglo-Norman, and the Celtic of the
    current English.

    13. What are the plural forms of _criterion_, _axis_, _genius_,
    _index_, _dogma_? When is a word introduced from a foreign language
    _perfectly_, when _imperfectly_ incorporated with the language into
    which it is imported? Is the following expression correct--_the
    cherubim that singeth aloft_? If not, why?

    14. What is there exceptionable in the words _semaphore_ (meaning a
    sort of telegraph), and _witticism_. Give the etymologies of the words
    _icicle_, _radicle_, and _radical_.

    15. What are the singular forms of _cantharides_, _phænomena_, and

    16. What are the stages of the English language? How does the present
    differ from the older ones?

    17. Exhibit in detail the inflections of the Anglo-Saxon a) noun, and
    b) verb, which are not found in the present English. What is the import
    of the loss of inflections, and their replacement by separate words?
    What is the nature of such words in nouns? What in verbs?

    18. Contrast the syntax of the Anglo-Saxon with the Modern English
    adjective. What is the English for the Anglo-Saxon words _wit_, _unc_,

    19. Express, in general terms, the chief points wherein a modern
    language differs from an ancient one: or, rather, the points wherein
    the different stages of the same language differ.

    20. Investigate the influence of the Norman Conquest on the English.
    Explain the terms Semi-Saxon, Old English, and Middle English. Compare
    the stages of the English with those of the other Gothic tongues.

    21. Give the Modern English for the following forms and
    expressions--_munucas_, _steorran_, _to lufienne_. What are the
    Anglo-Saxon forms of _munucan_, _steorres_, _i-hotte_, _clepen_?
    Translate the Latin word _omnium_ (genitive plural of _omnis_) into
    _Old_ English. Translate the Greek ὁ, ἡ, τὸ into Anglo-Saxon, Old
    English, and Modern English.

    22. Investigate the extent to which the Anglo-Norman superseded the
    Anglo-Saxon subsequent to the Conquest. Is any further change in the
    grammatical structure of our language probable? If so, what do you
    consider will be the nature of it?

       *       *       *       *       *



       *       *       *       *       *



§ 105. To two points connected with the subject of the following chapter,
the attention of the reader is requested.

a. In the comparison of sounds the ear is liable to be misled by the eye.

The syllables ka and ga are similar syllables. The vowel is in each the
same, and the consonant is but slightly different. Hence the words ka and
ga are more allied to each other than the words ka and ba, ka and ta, &c.,
because the consonantal sounds of k and g are more allied than the
consonantal sounds of k and b, k and t.

Comparing the syllables ga and ka, we see the affinity between the sounds,
and we see it at the first glance. It lies on the surface, and strikes the
ear at once.

It is, however, very evident that ways might be devised or might arise from
accident, of concealing the likeness between the two sounds, or, at any
rate, of making it less palpable. One of such ways would be a faulty mode
of spelling. If instead of ga we wrote gha the following would be the
effect: the syllable would appear less simple than it really was; it would
look as if it consisted of three parts instead of two, and consequently its
affinity to ka would seem less than it really was. It is perfectly true
that a little consideration would tell us that, as long as the sound
remained the same, the relation of the two syllables remained the same
also; and that, if the contrary appeared to be the case, the ear was misled
by the eye. Still a little consideration would be required. Now in the
English language we have (amongst others) the following modes of spelling
that have a tendency to mislead;--

The sounds of ph and of f, in _Philip_ and _fillip_, differ to the eye, but
to the ear are identical. Here a difference is simulated.

The sounds of th in _thin_, and of th in _thine_, differ to the ear but to
the eye seem the same. Here a difference is concealed.

Furthermore. These last sounds appear to the eye to be double or compound.
This is not the case; they are simple single sounds, and not the sounds of
t followed by h, as the spelling leads us to imagine.

b. Besides improper modes of spelling, there is another way of concealing
the true nature of sounds. If I say that ka and ga are allied, the alliance
is manifest; since I compare the actual _sounds_. If I say _ka_ and _gee_
are allied, the alliance is concealed; since I compare, not the actual
sounds, but only the _names of the letters_ that express those sounds. Now
in the English language we have (amongst others) the following names of
letters that have a tendency to mislead:--

The sounds fa and va are allied. The names _eff_ and _vee_ conceal this

The sounds sa and za are allied. The names _ess_ and _zed_ conceal the

In comparing sounds it is advisable to have nothing to do either with
letters or names of letters. Compare the sounds themselves.

§ 106. In many cases it is sufficient, in comparing consonants, to compare
syllables that contain those consonants; e.g., in order to determine the
relations of p, b, f, v, we say pa, ba, fa, va; or for those of s and z, we
say sa, za. Here we compare _syllables_, each consonant being followed by a
vowel. At times this is insufficient. We are often obliged to isolate the
consonant from its vowel, and bring our organs to utter (or half utter) the
imperfect sounds of p', b', t', d'.

§ 107. Let any of the _vowels_ (for instance, the a in _father_) be
sounded. The lips, the tongue, and the parts within the throat remain in
the same position; and as long as these remain in the same position the
sound is that of the vowel under consideration. Let, however, a change take
place in the position of the organs of sound; let, for instance, the lips
be closed, or the tongue be applied to the front part of the mouth: in that
case the vowel sound is cut short. It undergoes a change. It terminates in
a sound that is different, according to the state of those organs whereof
the position has been changed. If, on the vowel in question, the lips be
closed, there then arises an imperfect sound of b or p. If on the other
hand, the tongue be applied to the front teeth, or to the forepart of the
palate, the sound is one (more or less imperfect) of t or d. This fact
illustrates the difference between the vowels and the consonants. It may be
verified by pronouncing the a in _fate_, ee in _feet_, oo in _book_, o in
_note_, &c.

It is a further condition in the formation of a vowel sound, that the
passage of the breath be uninterrupted. In the sound of the l' in _lo_
(isolated from its vowel) the sound is as continuous as it is with the a in
_fate_. Between, however, the consonant l and the vowel a there is this
difference: with a, the passage of the breath is uninterrupted; with l, the
tongue is applied to the palate, breaking or arresting the passage of the

§ 108. The primary division of our articulate sounds is into vowels and
consonants. The latter are again divided into liquids (l, m, n, r) and
mutes (p, b, f, v, t, d, k, g, s, z, &c.).

§ 109. _Sharp and flat._--Take the sounds of p, f, t, k, s. Isolate them
from their vowels, and pronounce them. The sound is the sound of a whisper.

Let b, v, d, g, z, be similarly treated. The sound is no whisper, but one
at the natural tone of our voice.

Now p, f, t, k, s (with some others that will be brought forward anon) are
_sharp_, whilst b, v, &c., are _flat_. Instead of _sharp_, some say _hard_,
and instead of _flat_, some say _soft_. The terms _sonant_ and _surd_ are,
in a scientific point of view, the least exceptionable. They have, however,
the disadvantage of being pedantic. The _tenues_ of the classics (as far as
they go) are sharp, the _mediæ_ flat.

§ 110. _Continuous and explosive._--Isolate the sounds of b, p, t, d, k, g.
Pronounce them. You have no power of prolonging the sounds, or of resting
upon them. They escape with the breath, and they escape at once.

It is not so with f, v, sh, zh. Here the breath is transmitted by degrees,
and the sound can be drawn out and prolonged for an indefinite space of
time. Now b, p, t, &c., are explosive, f, v, &c., continuous.

§ 111. Concerning the vowels, we may predicate a) that they are all
continuous, b) that they are all flat.

Concerning the liquids, we may predicate a) that they are all continuous,
b) that they are all flat.

Concerning the mutes, we may predicate a) that one half of them is flat,
and the other half sharp, and b) that some are continuous, and that others
are explosive.

§ 112.--The letter h is no _articulate_ sound, but only a breathing.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 113.--The attention of the reader is now directed to the following
_foreign_ vowel sounds.

1. The _é fermé_, of the French.--This is a sound allied to, but different
from, the a in _fate_, and the ee in _feet_. It is intermediate to the two.

2. The u of the French, ü of the Germans, y of the Danes.--This sound is
intermediate to the ee in _feet_, and the oo in _book_.

3. The _o chiuso_, of the Italians.--Intermediate to the o in _note_, and
the oo in _book_.

For these sounds we have the following sequences: a in _fate_, _é fermé_,
ee in _feet_, ü in _übel_ (German), oo in _book_, _o chiuso_, o in _note_.
And this is the true order of alliance among the vowels; a in _fate_, and o
in _note_, being the extremes; the other sounds being transitional or
intermediate. As the English orthography is at once singular and faulty, it
exhibits the relationship but imperfectly.

§ 114. _The system of the mutes._--Preliminary to the consideration of the
system of the mutes, let it be observed:--

    1. that the th in _thin_ is a simple single sound, different from the
    th in _thine_, and that it may be expressed by the sign þ.

    2. That the th in _thine_ is a simple single sound, different from the
    th in _thin_, and that it may be expressed by the sign ð.

    3. That the sh in _shine_ is a simple single sound, and that it may be
    expressed by the sign σ[42] (Greek σῖγμα).

    4. That the z in _azure_, _glazier_ (French j) is a simple single
    sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign ζ[42] (Greek ζῆτα).

    5. That in the Laplandic, and possibly in many other languages, there
    are two peculiar sounds, different from any in English, German, and
    French, &c., and that they may respectively be expressed by the sign κ
    and the sign γ[42] (Greek κάππα and γάμμα).

§ 115. With these preliminary notices we may exhibit the system of the
sixteen mutes; having previously determined the meaning of two fresh terms,
and bearing in mind what was said concerning the words _sharp_ and _flat_,
_continuous_ and _explosive_.

_Lene and aspirate._--From the sound of p in _pat_, the sound of f in _fat_
differs in a certain degree. This difference is not owing to a difference
in their sharpness or flatness. Each is sharp. Neither is it owing to a
difference in their continuity or explosiveness; although f is continuous,
whilst p is explosive. This we may ascertain by considering the position of
s. The sound of s is _continuous_; yet s, in respect to the difference
under consideration, is classed not with f the continuous sound but with p
the explosive one. This difference, which has yet to be properly
elucidated, is expressed by a particular term; and p is called _lene_, f is
called _aspirate_.

  As f is to p so is v to b.
  As v is to b so is þ to t.
  As þ is to t so is ð to d.
  As ð is to d so is κ to k.
  As κ is to k so is γ to g.
  As γ is to g so is σ to s.
  As σ is to s so is ζ to z.

Hence p, b, t, d, k, g, s, z, are _lene_; f, v, þ, ð, κ, γ, σ, ζ, are
_aspirate_. Also p, f, t, þ, k, κ, s, σ, are _sharp_, whilst b, v, d, ð, g,
γ, z, ζ, are _flat_; so that there is a double series of relationship
capable of being expressed as follows:--

     _Lene._       _Aspirate._  |     _Sharp._          _Flat._
  Sharp.  Flat.  Sharp.  Flat.  |  Lene.  Aspirate.  Lene.  Aspirate.
    p       b      f       v    |    p       f         b       v
    t       d      þ       ð    |    t       þ         d       ð
    k       g      κ       γ    |    k       κ         g       γ
    s       z      σ       ζ    |    s       σ         z       ζ

All the so-called aspirates are continuous; and, with the exception of s
and z, all the lenes are explosive.

§ 116. I believe that in the fact of each mute appearing in a four-fold
form (i.e., sharp, or flat, lene, or aspirate), lies the essential
character of the mutes as opposed to the liquids.

§ 117. Y and w.--These sounds, respectively intermediate to γ and i (the ee
in _feet_), and to v and u (oo in _book_), form a transition from the
vowels to the consonants.

§ 118. The French word _roi_, and the English words _oil_, _house_, are
specimens of a fresh class of articulations; viz., of _compound vowel_
sounds or diphthongs. The diphthong oi is the vowel o + the semivowel y.
The diphthongal sound in _roi_ is the vowel o + the semivowel w. In _roi_
the semivowel element precedes, in _oil_ it follows.

§ 119. The words quoted indicate the nature of the diphthongal system.

1. Diphthongs with the semivowel w, a) _preceding_, as in the French word
_roi_, b) _following_, as in the English word _new_.

2. Diphthongs with the semivowel y, a) _preceding_, as is common in the
languages of the Lithuanic and Slavonic stocks, b) _following_, as in the
word _oil_.

3. Triphthongs with a semivowel both _preceding_ and _following_.

The diphthongs in English are four; ow as in _house_, ew as in _new_, oi as
in _oil_, i as in _bite_, _fight_.

§ 120. _Chest_, _jest_.--Here we have _compound consonantal_ sounds. The ch
in _chest_ = t + sh; the j in _jest_ = d + zh. I believe that in these
combinations one or both the elements, viz., t and sh, d and zh, are
modified; but I am unable to state the exact nature of this modification.

§ 121. Ng.--The sound of the ng in _sing_, _king_, _throng_, when at the
end of a word, or of _singer_, _ringing_, &c., in the middle of a word, is
not the natural sound of the combination n and g, each letter retaining its
natural power and sound; but a simple single sound, for which the
combination ng is a conventional mode of expression.

§ 122. Compared with a in _fate_, and the o in _note_, a in _father_, and
the aw in _bawl_, are _broad_; the vowels of _note_ and _fate_ being

§ 123. In _fat_, the vowel is, according to common parlance, _short_; in
_fate_, it is _long_. Here we have the introduction of two fresh terms. For
the words _long_ and _short_, I substitute _independent_ and _dependent_.
If from the word _fate_ I separate the final consonantal sound, the
syllable fa remains. In this syllable the a has precisely the sound that it
had before. It remains unaltered. The removal of the consonant has in
nowise modified its sound or power. It is not so, however, with the vowel
in the word _fat_. If from this I remove the consonant following, and so
leave the a at the end of the syllable, instead of in the middle, I must do
one of two things: I must sound it either as the a in _fate_, or else as
the a in _father_. Its (so-called) short sound it cannot retain, unless it
be supported by a consonant following. For this reason it is _dependent_.
The same is the case with all the so-called short sounds, viz., the e in
_bed_, i in _fit_, u in _bull_, o in _not_, u in _but_.

§ 124. It is not every vowel that is susceptible of every modification. I
(ee) and u (oo) are incapable of becoming _broad_. The e in _bed_, although
both broad and slender, is incapable of becoming _independent_. For the u
in _but_, and for the ö of certain foreign languages, I have no
satisfactory systematic position.

                          § 125. _Vowel System._

        _Broad._                              _Slender._
     _Independent._    ||      _Independent._     |    _Dependent._
  a, in _father_       || a, in _fate_            | a, in _fat_.
                       || é in _fermé_,           | é, in _fermé_,
                       ||   _long_                |    _short_.
  e, in _meine_, Germ. ||                         | e, in _bed_.
                       || ee, in _feet_           | i, _pit_.
                       || ü, of the German,       | the same, _short_.
                       ||    _long_               |
                       || oo, in _book_           | ou, in _could_.
                       || o in _chiuso_           | the same, _short_.
  aw, in _bawl_        || o, in _note_            | o, in _not_.

From these the semivowels w and y make a transition to the consonants v and
the so-called aspirate of g, respectively.

§ 126. _System of Consonants._

  Liquids.                Mutes.                  Semivowels.

           ||      Lene.   |    Aspirate.      ||
           || Sharp. Flat. | Sharp.   Flat.    ||
           ||              |                   ||
    m      ||    p     v   |   f       v       ||     w
    n      ||    t     d   |   þ       ð       ||     .
    l      ||    k     g   |   κ       γ       ||     y
    r      ||    s     z   |   σ       ζ       ||     .

  n is doubled in _unnatural_, _innate_, _oneness_.
  l      --       _soulless_, _civil-list_, _palely_.
  k      --       _book-case_.
  t      --       _seaport-town_.

It must not, however, be concealed, that, in the mouths even of correct
speakers, one of the doubled sounds is often dropped.

§ 132. _True aspirates rare._--The criticism applied to words like
_pitted_, &c., applies also to words like _Philip_, _thin_, _thine_, &c.
There is therein no sound of h. How the so-called aspirates differ from
their corresponding lenes has not yet been determined. That it is _not_ by
the addition of h is evident. Ph and th are conventional modes of spelling
simple single sounds, which might better be expressed by simple single

In our own language the _true_ aspirates, like the true reduplications, are
found only in compound words; and there they are often slurred in the

  We find p and h in the words _haphazard_, _upholder_.
     --   b and h     --       _abhorrent_, _cub-hunting_.
     --   f and h     --       _knife-handle_, _off hand_.
     --   v and h     --       _stave-head_.
     --   d and h     --       _adhesive_, _childhood_.
     --   t and h     --       _nuthook_.
     --  th and h     --       _withhold_.
     --   k and h     --       _inkhorn_, _bakehouse_.
     --   g and h     --       _gig-horse_.
     --   s and h     --       _race-horse_, _falsehood_.
     --   z and h     --       _exhibit_, _exhort_.
     --   r and h     --       _perhaps_.
     --   l and h     --       _wellhead_, _foolhardy_.
     --   m and h     --       _Amherst_.
     --   n and h     --       _unhinge_, _inherent_, _unhappy_.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 133. 1. Let there be two syllables of which the one ends in m, and the
other begins with r, as we have in the syllables num- and -rus of the Latin
word _numerus_.

2. Let an ejection of the intervening letters bring these two syllables
into immediate contact, _numrus_. The m and r form an unstable combination.
To remedy this there is a tendency to insert an intervening sound.

In English, the form which the Latin word _numerus_ takes is _number_; in
Spanish, _nombre_. The b makes no part of the original word, but has been
inserted for the sake of _euphony_; or, to speak more properly, by a
euphonic process. The word euphony is derived from εὖ (_well_), and φώνη
(_fônæ_, a voice).

§ 134. In the words _give_ and _gave_ we have a change of tense expressed
by a change of vowel. In the words _price_ and _prize_ a change of meaning
is expressed by a change of consonant. In _clothe_ and _clad_ there is a
change both of a vowel and of a consonant. In the words _to use_ and _a
use_ there is a similar change, although it is not expressed by the
spelling. To the ear the verb _to use_ ends in z, although not to the eye.
All these are instances of the _permutation_ of letters.

               _Permutation of Vowels._

  a          to      ĕ,          as    _man_, _men_.
  a          to      oo,         as    _stand_, _stood_.
  a          to      u,          as    _dare_, _durst_.
  a          to      ē,          as    _was_, _were_.
  ea         to      o,          as    _speak_, _spoken_.
  ea = ĕ     to      ea = ē,     as    _breath_, _breathe_.
  ee         to      ĕ,          as    _deep_, _depth_.
  ea         to      o,          as    _bear_, _bore_.
  i          to      a,          as    _spin_, _span_.
  i          to      u,          as    _spin_, _spun_.
  ī = ei     to      o,          as    _smite_, _smote_.
  i = ei     to      ĭ,          as    _smite_, _smitten_.
  i          to      a,          as    _give_, _gave_.
  i = ei     to      a,          as    _rise_, _raise_.
  ĭ          to      e,          as    _sit_, _set_.
  ow         to      ew,         as    _blow_, _blew_.
  o          to      e,          as    _strong_, _strength_.
  oo         to      ee,         as    _tooth_, _teeth_.
  o          to      i,          as    _top_, _tip_.
  o          to      e,          as    _old_, _elder_; _tell_, _told_.
  ŏ          to      e,          as    _brother_, _brethren_.
  ō = oo     to      i,          as    _do_, _did_.
  o = oo     to      o = ŭ,      as    _do_, _done_.
  oo         to      o,          as    _choose_, _chose_.

   _Permutation of Consonants._

  f   to  v,  _life_, _live_; _calf_, _calves_.
  þ   to  ð,  _breath_, _to breathe_.
  þ   to  d,  _seethe_, _sod_; _clothe_, _clad_.
  d   to  t,  _build_, _built_.
  s   to  z,  _use_, _to use_.
  s   to  r,  _was_, _were_; _lose_, _forlorn_.

In _have_ and _had_ we have the _ejection_ of a sound; in _work_ and
_wrought_, the _transposition_ of one.

   _Permutation of Combinations._

  ie = i          to  ow,      as   _grind_, _ground_.
  ow              to  i = ei,  as   _mouse_, _mice_;
                                    _cow_, _kine_.
  ink             to  augh,    as   _drink_, _draught_.
  ing             to  ough,    as   _bring_, _brought_.
  y (formerly g), to  ough,    as   _buy_, _bought_.
  igh = ei        to  ough,    as   _fight_, _fought_.
  eek             to  ough,    as   _seek_, _sought_.

It must be noticed that the list above is far from being an exhaustive one.
The expression too of the changes undergone has been rendered difficult on
account of the imperfection of our orthography. The whole section has been
written in illustration of the meaning of the word _permutation_, rather
than for any specific object in grammar.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 135. In respect to the formation of syllables, I am aware of no more than
one point that requires any especial consideration.

In certain words, of more than one syllable, it is difficult to say to
which syllable an intervening consonant belongs. For instance, does the v
in _river_, and the e in _fever_, belong to the first or the second
syllable? Are the words to be divided thus, _ri-ver_, _fe-ver_? or thus,
_riv-er_, _feve-r_?

The solution of the question lies by no means on the surface.

In the first place, the case is capable of being viewed in two points of
view--an etymological and a phonetic one.

That the c and r in _become_, _berhymed_, &c., belong to the second
syllable, we determine at once by taking the words to pieces; whereby we
get the words _come_ and _rhymed_ in an isolated independent form. But this
fact, although it settles the point in etymology, leaves it as it was in
phonetics; since it in nowise follows, that, because the c in the _simple_
word _come_ is exclusively attached to the letter that succeeds, it is, in
the _compound_ word _become_, exclusively attached to it also.

To the following point of structure in the consonantal sounds the reader's
attention is particularly directed.

1. Let the vowel a (as in _fate_) be sounded.--2. Let it be followed by the
consonant p, so as to form the syllable _āp_. To form the sound of p, it
will be found that the lips close on the sound of a, and arrest it. Now, if
the lips be left to themselves they will not _remain_ closed on the sound,
but will open again; in a slight degree indeed, but in a degree sufficient
to cause a kind of vibration, or, at any rate, to allow an escape of the
remainder of the current of breath by which the sound was originally
formed. To re-open in a slight degree is the natural tendency of the lips
in the case exhibited above.

Now, by an effort, let this tendency to re-open be counteracted. Let the
remaining current of breath be cut short. We have, then, only this, viz.,
so much of the syllable _āp_ as can be formed by the _closure_ of the lips.
All that portion of it that is caused by their re-opening is deficient. The
resulting sound seems truncated, cut short, or incomplete. It is the sound
of p, _minus_ the remnant of breath. All of the sound p that is now left is
formed, not by the _escape_ of the breath, but by the _arrest_ of it.

The p in āp is a _final_ sound. With initial sounds the case is different.
Let the lips be _closed_, and let an attempt be made to form the syllable
pa by suddenly opening them. The sound appears incomplete; but its
incompleteness is at the _beginning_ of the sound, and not at the end of
it. In the natural course of things there would have been a current of
breath _preceding_, and this current would have given a vibration, now
wanting. All the sound that is formed here is formed, not by the _arrest_
of breath, but by the _escape_ of it.

I feel that this account of the mechanism of the apparently simple sound p,
labours under all the difficulties that attend the _description_ of a
sound; and for this reason I again request the reader to satisfy himself
either of its truth or of its inaccuracy, before he proceeds to the
conclusions that will be drawn from it.

The account, however, being recognized, we have in the sound of p, two

1. That formed by the current of air and the closure of the lips, as in ap.
This may be called the sound of breath _arrested_.

2. That formed by the current of air, and the opening of the lips, as in
pa. This may be called the sound of breath _escaping_.

Now what may be said of p may be said of all the other consonants, the
words _tongue_, _teeth_, &c., being used instead of _lips_, according to
the case.

Let the sound of breath _arrested_ be expressed by π, and that of breath
_escaping_ be expressed by ϖ, the two together form p (π + ϖ = p).

Thus ap (as quoted above) is p - ϖ, or π; whilst pa (sounded similarly) is
p - π, or ϖ.

In the formation of syllables, I consider that the sound of breath arrested
belongs to the first, and the sound of breath escaping to the second
syllable; that if each sound were expressed by a separate sign, the word
_happy_ would be divided thus, _haπ-ϖy_; and that such would be the case
with all consonants between two syllables. The _whole_ consonant belongs
neither to one syllable nor the other. Half of it belongs to each. The
reduplication of the p in _happy_, the t in _pitted_, &c., is a mere point
of spelling.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 136. The dependent vowels, as the a in _fat_, i in _fit_, u in _but_, o
in _not_, have the character of being uttered with rapidity, and they pass
quickly in the enunciation, the voice not resting on them. This rapidity of
utterance becomes more evident when we contrast with them the prolonged
sounds of the a in _fate_, ee in _feet_, oo in _book_, or o in _note_;
wherein the utterance is retarded, and wherein the voice rests, delays, or
is prolonged. The f and t of _fate_ are separated by a longer interval than
the f and t of _fat_; and the same is the case with _fit_, _feet_, &c.

Let the n and the t of _not_ be each as 1, the o also being as 1; then each
letter, consonant or vowel, shall constitute ⅓ of the whole word.

Let, however, the n and the t of _note_ be each as 1, the o being as 2.
Then, instead of each consonant constituting ⅓ of the whole word, it shall
constitute but ¼.

Upon the comparative extent to which the voice is prolonged, the division
of vowels and syllables into _long_ and _short_ has been established: the o
in _note_ being long, the o in _not_ being short. And the longness or
shortness of a vowel or syllable is said to be its _quantity_.

§ 137. Attention is directed to the word _vowel_. The longness or shortness
of a _vowel_ is one thing. The longness or shortness of a _syllable_
another. This difference is important in prosody; especially in comparing
the English with the classical metres.

The vowel in the syllable _see_ is long; and long it remains, whether it
stand as it is, or be followed by a consonant, as in _see-n_, or by a
vowel, as in _see-ing_.

The vowel in the word _sit_ is short. If followed by a vowel it becomes
unpronounceable, except as the ea in _seat_ or the i in _sight_. By a
consonant, however, it _may_ be followed. Such is the case in the word
quoted--_sit_. Followed by a _second_ consonant, it still retains its
shortness, e.g., _sits_. Whatever the comparative length of the
_syllables_, _see_ and _seen_, _sit_ and _sits_, may be, the length of
their respective _vowels_ is the same.

Now, if we determine the character of the syllable by the character of the
vowel, all syllables are short wherein there is a short vowel, and all are
long wherein there is a long one. Hence, measured by the quantity of the
vowel, the word _sits_ is short, and the syllable _see-_ in _seeing_ is

§ 138. But it is well known that this view is not the view commonly taken
of the syllables _see_ (in _seeing_) and _sits_. It is well known, that, in
the eyes of a classical scholar, the _see_ (in _seeing_) is short, and that
in the word _sits_ the i is long.

The classic differs from the Englishman thus,--_He measures his quantity,
not by the length of the vowel, but by the length of the syllable taken
altogether._ The perception of this distinction enables us to comprehend
the following statements.

a. That vowels long by nature may _appear_ to become short by position, and
_vice versâ_.

b. That, by a laxity of language, the _vowel_ may be said to have changed
its quantity, whilst it is the _syllable_ alone that has been altered.

c. That if one person measures his quantities by the vowels, and another by
the syllables, what is short to the one, shall be long to the other, and
_vice versâ_. The same is the case with nations.

d. That one of the most essential differences between the English and the
classical languages is that the quantities (as far as they go) of the first
are measured by the vowel, those of the latter by the syllable. To a Roman
the word _monument_ consists of two short syllables and one long one; to an
Englishman it contains three short syllables.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 139. In the word _tyrant_ there is an emphasis, or stress, upon the first
syllable. In the word _presume_ there is an emphasis, or stress, on the
second syllable. This emphasis, or stress, is called _accent_. The
circumstance of a syllable bearing an accent is sometimes expressed by a
mark (′); in which case the word is said to be accentuated, i.e., to have
the accent signified in writing.

Words accented on the last syllable--_Brigáde_, _preténce_, _harpoón_,
_reliéve_, _detér_, _assúme_, _besóught_, _beréft_, _befóre_, _abroád_,
_abóde_, _abstrúse_, _intermíx_, _superádd_, _cavaliér_.

Words accented on the last syllable but one--_An'chor_, _ar'gue_, _hásten_,
_fáther_, _fóxes_, _smíting_, _húsband_, _márket_, _vápour_, _bárefoot_,
_archángel_, _bespátter_, _disáble_, _terrífic_.

Words accented on the last syllable but two--_Reg'ular_, _an'tidote_,
_for'tify_, _suscéptible_, _incontrovértible_.

Words accented on the last syllable but three (rare)--_Réceptacle_,
_régulating_, _tálkativeness_, _ábsolutely_, _lúminary_, _inévitable_, &c.

§ 140. A great number of words are distinguished by the difference of
accent alone.

  An _áttribute_.                 To _attríbute_.
  The month _Aúgust_.             An _augúst_ person.
  A _com'pact_.                   _Compáct_ (close).
  To _con'jure_ (magically).      _Conjúre_ (enjoin).
  _Des'ert_, wilderness.          _Desért_, merit.
  _Inválid_, not valid.           _Invalíd_, a sickly person.
  _Mínute_, 60 seconds.           _Minúte_, small.
  _Súpine_, part of speech.       _Supíne_, careless, &c.

§ 141. In _týrant_ and _presúme_, we deal with single words; and in each
_word_ we determine which _syllable_ is accented. Contrasted with the sort
of accent that follows, this may be called a _verbal_ accent.

In the line,

  Better for _us_, perhaps, it might appear,
        (Pope's "Essay on Man," I. 169.)

the pronoun _us_ is strongly brought forward. An especial stress or
emphasis is laid upon it, denoting that _there are other beings to whom it
might not appear_, &c. This is collected from the context. Here there is a
_logical_ accent. "When one word in a sentence is distinguished by a
stress, as more important than the rest, we may say that it is
_emphatical_, or that an _emphasis_ is laid upon it. When one syllable in a
word is distinguished by a stress, and more audible than the rest, we say
that it is accented, or that an accent is put upon it. Accent, therefore,
is to syllables what emphasis is to sentences; it distinguishes one from
the crowd, and brings it forward to observation."--Nares' "Orthoepy," part
ii. chap. 1.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 142. _Orthoepy_, a word derived from the Greek _orthon_ (_upright_), and
_epos_ (_a word_), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy
determines words, and deals with a language as it is _spoken_;
_orthography_ determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a
language as it is _written_. This latter term is derived from the Greek
words _orthos_ (_upright_), and _graphé_, or _grafæ_ (_writing_).
Orthography is less essential to language than orthoepy; since all
languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are written. Orthography
presupposes orthoepy. Orthography addresses itself to the eye, orthoepy to
the ear. Orthoepy deals with the articulate sounds that constitute
syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by which such
articulate sounds are expressed in writing. A _letter_ is the sign of an
articulate (and, in the case of h, of an inarticulate) sound.

§ 143. A full and perfect system of orthography consists in two things:--1.
The possession of a sufficient and consistent alphabet. 2. The right
application of such an alphabet. This position may be illustrated more

§ 144. First, in respect to a sufficient and consistent alphabet--Let there
be in a certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the number of
forty, whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of them,
amount to no more than _thirty_. In this case the alphabet is insufficient.
It is not full enough: since ten of the simple single articulate sounds
have no corresponding signs whereby they may be expressed. In our own
language, the sounds (amongst others) of th in _thin_, and of th in
_thine_, are simple and single, whilst there is no sign equally simple and
single to spell them with.

§ 145. An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may
err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a given language two
simple single sounds, (for instance) the p in _pate_, and the f in _fate_.
Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a given sign,
for instance, פ (as is actually the case in Hebrew), stand for the p in
_pate_; and let a second sign be required for the f in _fate_. Concerning
the nature of this latter sign, two views may be taken. One framer of the
alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere modifications of each
other, may argue that no new sign (or letter) is at all necessary, but that
the sound of f in _fate_ may be expressed by a mere modification of the
sign (or letter) פ, and may be written thus פּ, or thus פ′ or פ`, &c.;
upon the principle that like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The
other framer of the alphabet, contemplating the difference between the two
sounds, rather than the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of
the sign פ, but a letter altogether new, such as f, or φ, &c., upon the
principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude should be
expressed by signs of a different degree of dissimilitude.

Hitherto the expression of the sounds in point is a matter of convenience
only. No question has been raised as to its consistency or inconsistency.
This begins under conditions like the following:--Let there be in the
language in point the sounds of the t in _tin_, and of the th in _thin_;
which (it may be remembered) are precisely in the same relation to each
other as the p in _pate_ and the f in _fate_. Let each of these sounds have
a sign or letter expressive of it. Upon the nature of these signs, or
letters, will depend the nature of the sign or letter required for the f in
_fate_. If the letter expressing the th in _thin_ be a mere modification of
the letter expressing the t in _tin_, then must the letter expressive of
the f in _fate_ be a mere modification of the letter expressing the p in
_pate_, and _vice versâ_. If this be not the case, the alphabet is

In the English alphabet we have (amongst others) the following
inconsistency:--The sound of the f in _fate_, in a certain relation to the
sound of the p in _pate_, is expressed by a totally distinct sign; whereas,
the sound of the th in _thin_ (similarly related to the t in _tin_) is
expressed by no new sign, but by a mere modification of t; viz., th.

§ 146. A third element in the faultiness of an alphabet is the fault of
erroneous representation. The best illustration of this we get from the
Hebrew alphabet, where the sounds of ת and ט, mere _varieties_ of each
other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar signs, whilst ת and תּ,
sounds _specifically_ distinct, are expressed by a mere modification of the
same sign, or letter.

§ 147. _The right application of an alphabet._--An alphabet may be both
sufficient and consistent, accurate in its representation of the alliances
between articulate sounds, and in no wise redundant; and yet, withal, it
may be so wrongly applied as to be defective. Of defect in the use or
application of the letters of an alphabet, the three main causes are the

a. _Unsteadiness in the power of letters._--Of this there are two kinds. In
the first, there is one sound with two (or more) ways of expressing it.
Such is the sound of the letter f in English. In words of Anglo-Saxon
origin it is spelt with a single simple sign, as in _fill_; whilst in Greek
words it is denoted by a combination, as in _Philip_. The reverse of this
takes place with the letter g; here a single sign has a double power; in
_gibbet_ it is sounded as j, and in _gibberish_ as g in _got_.

b. _The aim at secondary objects._--The natural aim of orthography, of
spelling, or of writing, is to express the _sounds_ of a language.
Syllables and words it takes as they meet the ear, it translates them by
appropriate signs, and so paints them, as it were, to the eye. That this is
the natural and primary object is self-evident; but beyond this natural and
primary object there is, with the orthographical systems of most languages,
a secondary one, viz., the attempt to combine with the representation of
the sound of a given word, the representation of its history and origin.

The sound of the c, in _city_, is the sound that we naturally spell with
the letter s, and if the expression of this sound was the _only_ object of
our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (_sity_). The
following facts, however, traverse this simple view of the matter. The word
is a derived word; it is transplanted into our own language from the Latin,
where it is spelt with a c (_civitas_); and to change this c into s
conceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason the c is
retained, although, as far as the mere expression of sounds (the primary
object in orthography) is concerned, the letter is a superfluity. In cases
like the one adduced the orthography is bent to a secondary end, and is
traversed by the etymology.

c. _Obsoleteness._--It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one
time may have been correct, may, by a change of pronunciation, become
incorrect; so that orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place
a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling.

§ 148. From the foregoing sections we arrive at the theory of a full and
perfect alphabet and orthography, of which a few (amongst many others) of
the chief conditions are as follow:--

1. That for every simple single sound, incapable of being represented by a
combination of letters, there be a simple single sign.

2. That sounds within a determined degree of likeness be represented by
signs within a determined degree of likeness; whilst sounds beyond a
certain degree of likeness be represented by distinct and different signs,
_and that uniformly_.

3. That no sound have more than one sign to express it.

4. That no sign express more than one sound.

5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words,
and not their histories.

6. That changes of speech be followed by corresponding changes of spelling.

With these principles in our mind we may measure the imperfections of our
own and of other alphabets.

§ 149. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate
sounds of the language. The vowels belonging to the English language are
the following _twelve_:--

   1. That of a  in _father_.  7. That of e  -- _bed_.
   2.   --    a  -- _fat_.     8.   --    i  -- _pit_.
   3.   --    a  -- _fate_.    9.   --    ee -- _feet_.
   4.   --    aw -- _bawl_.   10.   --    u  -- _bull_.
   5.   --    o  -- _not_.    11.   --    oo -- _fool_.
   6.   --    o  -- _note_.   12.   --    u  -- _duck_.

The diphthongal sounds are _four_.

  1. That of  ou    in    _house_.
  2.    --    ew    --    _new_.
  3.    --    oi    --    _oil_.
  4.    --    i     --    _bite_.

This last sound being most incorrectly expressed by the single letter i.

The consonantal sounds are, 1. the two semivowels; 2. the four liquids; 3.
fourteen out of the sixteen mutes; 4. ch in _chest_, and j in _jest_,
compound sibilants; 5. ng, as in _king_; 6. the aspirate h. In all,

  1.  w  as in  _wet_.     13. th as in  _thin_.
  2.  y   --    _yet_.     14. th  --    _thine_.
  3.  m   --    _man_.     15. g   --    _gun_.
  4.  n   --    _not_.     16. k   --    _kind_.
  5.  l   --    _let_.     17. s   --    _sin_.
  6.  r   --    _run_.     18. z   --    _zeal_.
  7.  p   --    _pate_.    19. sh  --    _shine_.
  8.  b   --    _ban_.     20. z   --    _azure, glazier_.
  9.  f   --    _fan_.     21. ch  --    _chest_.
  10. v   --    _van_.     22. j   --    _jest_.
  11. t   --    _tin_.     23. ng  --    _king_.
  12. d   --    _din_.     24. h   --    _hot_.

§ 150. Some writers would add to these the additional sound of the _é
fermé_ of the French; believing that the vowel in words like _their_ and
_vein_ has a different sound from the vowel in words like _there_ and
_vain_. For my own part I cannot detect such a difference either in my own
speech or that of my neighbours; although I am far from denying that in
certain _dialects_ of our language such may have been the case. The
following is an extract from the "Danish Grammar for Englishmen," by
Professor Rask, whose eye, in the matter in question, seems to have misled
his ear; "The _é fermé_, or _close é_, is very frequent in Danish, but
scarcely perceptible in English; unless in such words as _their_, _vein_,
_veil_, which appear to sound a little different from _there_, _vain_,

§ 151. The vowels being twelve, the diphthongs four, and the consonantal
sounds twenty-four, we have altogether as many as forty sounds, some being
so closely allied to each other as to be mere modifications, and others
being combinations rather than simple sounds; all, however, agreeing in
requiring to be expressed by letters or by combinations of letters, and to
be distinguished from each other. This enables us to appreciate--

§ 152. _The insufficiency of the English alphabet._--

a. _In respect to the vowels._--Notwithstanding the fact that the sounds of
the a in _father_, _fate_, and _fat_, and of the o and the aw in _note_,
_not_, and _bawl_, are modifications of a and o respectively, we have still
_six_ vowel sounds specifically distinct, for which (y being a consonant
rather than a vowel) we have but _five_ signs. The u in _duck_,
specifically distinct from the u in _bull_, has no specifically distinct
sign to represent it.

b. _In respect to the consonants_.--The th in _thin_, the th in _thine_,
the sh in _shine_, the z in _azure_, and the ng in _king_, five sounds
specifically distinct, and five sounds perfectly simple require
corresponding signs, which they have not.

§ 153. _Its inconsistency._--The f in _fan_, and the v in _van_, sounds in
a certain degree of relationship to p and b, are expressed by sounds as
unlike as f is unlike p, and as v is unlike b. The sound of the th in
_thin_, the th in _thine_, the sh in _shine_, similarly related to t, d,
and s, are expressed by signs as like t, d, and s, respectively, as th and

The compound sibilant sound of j in _jest_ is spelt with the single sign j,
whilst the compound sibilant sound in _chest_ is spelt with the combination

§ 154. _Erroneousness._--The sound of the ee in _feet_ is considered the
long (independent) sound of the e in _bed_; whereas it is the long
(independent) sound of the i in _pit_.

The i in _bite_ is considered as the long (independent) sound of the i in
_pit_; whereas it is a diphthongal sound.

The u in _duck_ is looked upon as a modification of the u in _bull_;
whereas it is a specifically distinct sound.

The ou in _house_ and the oi in _oil_ are looked upon as the compounds of o
and i and of o and u respectively; whereas the latter element of them is
not i and u, but y and w.

The th in _thin_ and the th in _thine_ are dealt with as one and the same
sound; whereas they are sounds specifically distinct.

The ch in _chest_ is dealt with as a modification of c (either with the
power of k or of s); whereas its elements are t and sh.

§ 155. _Redundancy._--As far as the representation of sounds is concerned
the letter c is superfluous. In words like _citizen_ it may be replaced by
s; in words like _cat_ by k. In ch, as in _chest_, it has no proper place.
In ch, as in _mechanical_, it may be replaced by k.

Q is superfluous, cw or kw being its equivalent.

X also is superfluous, ks, gz, or z, being equivalent to it.

The diphthongal forms æ and œ, as in _Æneas_ and _Crœsus_, except in the
way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.

§ 156. _Unsteadiness._--Here we have (amongst many other examples), 1. The
consonant c with the double power of s and k; 2. g with its sound in _gun_
and also with its sound in _gin_; 3. x with its sounds in _Alexander_,
_apoplexy_, _Xenophon_.

In the foregoing examples a single sign has a double power; in the words
_Philip_ and _filip_, &c.; a single sound has a double sign.

In respect to the degree wherein the English orthography is made
subservient to etymology, it is sufficient to repeat the statement that as
many as three letters c, æ, and œ are retained in the alphabet for
_etymological purposes only_.

§ 157. The defects noticed in the preceding sections are _absolute_
defects, and would exist, as they do at present, were there no language in
the world except the English. This is not the case with those that are now
about to be noticed; for them, indeed, the word _defect_ is somewhat too
strong a term. They may more properly be termed inconveniences.

Compared with the languages of the rest of the world the use of many
letters in the English alphabet is _singular_. The letter i (when long or
independent) is, with the exception of England, generally sounded as ee.
With Englishmen it has a diphthongal power. The inconvenience of this is
the necessity that it imposes upon us, in studying foreign languages, of
unlearning the sound which we give it in our own, and of learning the sound
which it bears in the language studied. So it is (amongst many others) with
the letter j. In English this has the sound of _dzh_, in French of zh, and
in German of y. From singularity in the use of letters arises inconvenience
in the study of foreign tongues.

In using j as dzh there is a second objection. It is not only inconvenient,
but it is theoretically incorrect. The letter j was originally a
modification of the vowel i. The Germans, who used it as the semivowel y,
have perverted it from its original power less than the English have done,
who sound it dzh.

With these views we may appreciate in the English alphabet and

_Its convenience or inconvenience in respect to learning foreign
tongues._--The sound given to the a in _fate_ is singular. Other nations
sound it as a in _father_.

The sound given to the e, long (or independent), is singular. Other nations
sound it either as a in _fate_, or as _é fermé_.

The sound given to the i in _bite_ is singular. Other nations sound it as
ee in _feet_.

The sound given to the oo in _fool_ is singular. Other nations sound it as
the o in _note_, or as the _ó chiuso_.

The sound given to the u in _duck_ is singular. Other nations sound it as
the u in _bull_.

The sound given to the ou in _house_ is singular. Other nations, more
correctly, represent it by au or aw.

The sound given to the w in _wet_ is somewhat singular, but is also correct
and convenient. With many nations it is not found at all, whilst with those
where it occurs it has the sound (there or thereabouts) of v.

The sound given to y is somewhat singular. In Danish it has a vowel power.
In German the semivowel sound is spelt with j.

The sound given to z is not the sound which it has in German and Italian,
but its power in English is convenient and correct.

The sound given to ch in _chest_ is singular. In other languages it has
generally a guttural sound; in French that of sh. The English usage is more
correct than the French, but less correct than the German.

The sound given to j (as said before) is singular.

§ 158. _The historical propriety or impropriety of certain letters._--The
use of i with a diphthongal power is not only singular and inconvenient,
but also _historically incorrect_. The Greek _iota_, from whence it
originates, has the sound of i and ee, as in _pit_ and _feet_.

The y, sounded as in _yet_, is historically incorrect. It grew out of the
Greek υ, a vowel, and no semivowel. The Danes still use it as such, that
is, with the power of the German ü.

The use of j for dzh is historically incorrect.

The use of c for k in words derived from the Greek as _mechanical_,
_ascetic_, &c., is historically incorrect. The form c is the representative
of γ and σ and not of the Greek _kappa_.

§ 159. _On certain conventional modes of spelling._--In the Greek language
the sounds of o in _not_ and of o in _note_ (although allied) are expressed
by the unlike signs (or letters) ο and ω, respectively. In most other
languages the difference between the sounds is considered too slight to
require for its expression signs so distinct and dissimilar. In some
languages the difference is neglected altogether. In many, however, it is
expressed, and that by some modification of the original letter.

Let the sign (ˉ) denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or
independent, whilst the sign (˘) indicates shortness, or dependence. In
such a case, instead of writing _not_ and _nωt_, like the Greeks, we may
write _nŏt_ and _nōt_, the sign serving for a fresh letter. Herein the
expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the natural use
of (ˉ) and (˘) is to express length or shortness, dependence or
independence. Now, supposing the broad sound of o to be already
represented, it is very evident that, of the other two sounds of o, the one
must be long (independent), and the other short (dependent); and as it is
only necessary to express one of these conditions, we may, if we choose,
use the sign (ˉ) alone; its presence denoting length, and its absence
shortness (independence or dependence).

As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of (ˉ)
we may, if we chose, substitute such a mark as (′) and write _nót_ = _nōt_
= _nωt_ = _nōte_; provided only that the sign (′) expresses no other
condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark (′), as a sign that
the vowel over which it is placed is long (independent), is common in many
languages. But is this use of (′) natural? For a reason that the reader has
anticipated, it is not natural, but conventional. Neither is it convenient.
It is used elsewhere not as the sign of _quantity_, but as the sign of
_accent_; consequently, being placed over a letter, and being interpreted
according to its natural meaning, it gives the idea, not that the syllable
is long, but that it is emphatic or accented. Its use as a sign of quantity
then, would be an orthographical expedient, or an inconvenient conventional
mode of spelling.

The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the modes of
expressing the quantity of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin
with these:--

The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllable (as in _feet_,
_cool_), is an orthographical expedient. It merely means that the syllable
is long (or independent).

The juxtaposition of two different vowels, where there is but one syllable
(as in _plain_, _moan_), is an orthographical expedient. It generally means
the same as the reduplication of a vowel, i.e., that the syllable is long

The addition of the e mute, as in _plane_, _whale_ (whatever may have been
its origin), is, at present, but an orthographical expedient. It denotes
the lengthening of the syllable.

The reduplication of the consonant after a vowel, as in _spotted_,
_torrent_, is in most cases but an orthographical expedient. It merely
denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent).

The use of ph for f in _Philip_, is an orthographical expedient, founded
upon etymological reasons.

The use of th for the simple sound of the first consonant in _thin_ and
_thine_, is an orthographical expedient. The combination must be dealt with
as a single letter.

_Caution._--The letters x and q are not orthographical expedients. They are
orthographical _compendiums_, x = ks, and q = kw.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 160. The preceding chapter has exhibited the theory of a full and perfect
alphabet; it has shown how far the English alphabet falls short of such a
standard; and, above all, it has exhibited some of the conventional modes
of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other
causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives a _history_ of our
alphabet, whereby many of its defects are _accounted for_. These defects,
it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the
rest of the world; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it
possesses them in a higher degree than any.

With few, if any exceptions, _all the modes of writing in the world
originate_, directly or indirectly, from the Phœnician.

At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phœnicia, and the
neighboring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of _twenty-two_
separate and distinct letters.

Now the chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary
articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only _twenty-two_ letters
will be insufficient.

Hence it may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic alphabet was
_insufficient_ for even the _Semitic_ languages.

§ 161. In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens
that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate
sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one
tongue to another, and be found to suit. When such is the case, alterations
are required. The extent to which these alterations are made at all, or (if
made) made on a right principle varies with different languages. Some
_adapt_ an introduced alphabet well: others badly.

Of the _twenty-two_ Phœnician letters the Greeks took but _twenty-one_. The
eighteenth letter, _tsadi_ צ was never imported into Europe.

Compared with the Semitic, the _Old_ Greek alphabet ran thus:--

       _Hebrew._    _Greek._

   1.        א        Α.
   2.        ב        Β.
   3.        ג        Γ.
   4.        ד        Δ.
   5.        ה        Ε.
   6.        ו        Digamma.
   7.        ז        Ζ.
   8.        ח        Η.
   9.        ט        Θ.
  10.        י        Ι.
  11.        כ        Κ.
  12.        ל        Λ.
  13.        מ        Μ.
  14.        נ        Ν.
  15.        ס        Σ?
  16.        ע        Ο.
  17.        פ        Π.
  18.        צ        --
                      A letter called
  19.        ק        koppa, afterwards
  20.        ר        Ρ.
  21.        ש        M afterwards Σ?
  22.        ת        Τ.

The _names_ of the letters were as follows:

      _Hebrew._        _Greek._

   1.  Aleph            Alpha.
   2.  Beth             Bæta.
   3.  Gimel            Gamma.
   4.  Daleth           Delta.
   5.  He               E, _psilon._
   6.  Vaw             _Digamma._
   7.  Zayn             Zæta.
   8.  Heth             Hæta.
   9.  Teth             Thæta.
  10.  Yod              Iôta.
  11.  Kaph             Kappa.
  12.  Lamed            Lambda.
  13.  Mem              Mu.
  14.  Nun              Nu.
  15.  Samech           Sigma?
  16.  Ayn              O.
  17.  Pe               Pi.
  18.  Tsadi            ----
  19.  Kof              Koppa, _Archaic_.
  20.  Resh             Rho.
  21.  Sin              San, _Doric_.
  22.  Tau              Tau.

The alphabet of Phœnicia and Palestine being adapted to the language of
Greece, the first change took place in the manner of writing. The
Phœnicians wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to right. Besides
this, the following principles were recognised;--

a. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case,
as seen above, with the eighteenth letter, _tsadi_.

b. Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent
in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8,
16, and probably with some others.

c. Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became
changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was
the case with 6 and 19.

d. For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign
or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This
principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signs φ, χ, υ, ω.

e. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older ones, but totally
new letters.

All this was correct in principle; and the consequence is, that the Greek
alphabet, although not originally meant to express a European tongue at
all, expresses the Greek language well.

§ 162. But it was not from the Greek that our own alphabet was immediately
derived; although ultimately it is referable to the same source as the
Greek, viz., the Phœnician.

It was the _Roman_ alphabet which served as the basis to the English.

And it is in the changes which the Phœnician alphabet underwent in being
accommodated to the Latin language that we must investigate the chief
peculiarities of the present alphabet and orthography of Great Britain and

Now respecting the Roman alphabet, we must remember that it was _not_ taken
_directly_ from the Phœnician; in this important point differing from the

Nor yet was it taken, _in the first instance_, from the Greek.

It had a _double_ origin.

The operation of the principles indicated in § 161 was a work of the time;
and hence the older and more unmodified Greek alphabet approached in
character its Phœnician prototype much more than the later, or modified. As
may be seen, by comparing the previous alphabets with the common alphabets
of the Greek Grammar, the letters 6 and 19 occur in the earlier, whilst
they are missing in the later, modes of writing. On the other hand, the
_old_ alphabet has no such signs as φ, χ, υ, ω, ψ, and ξ.

Such being the case, it is easy to imagine what would be the respective
conditions of two Italian languages which borrowed those alphabets, the one
from the earlier, the other from the later Greek. The former would contain
the equivalents to _vaw_ (6), and _kof_ (19); but be destitute of φ, χ,
&c.; whereas the latter would have φ, χ, &c., but be without either _vaw_
or _kof_.

Much the same would be the case with any single Italian language which took
as its basis the _earlier_, but adopted, during the course of time,
modifications from the _later_ Greek. It would exhibit within itself
characters common to the two stages.

This, or something very like it, was the case with Roman. For the first two
or three centuries the alphabet was Etruscan; Etruscan derived _directly_
from the Greek, and from the _old_ Greek.

Afterwards, however, the later Greek alphabet had its influence, and the
additional letters which it contained were more or less incorporated; and
that without effecting the ejection of any earlier ones.

§ 163. With these preliminaries we may investigate the details of the Roman
alphabet, when we shall find that many of them stand in remarkable contrast
with those of Greece and Phœnicia. At the same time where they differ with
them, they agree with the English.

  _Order._   _Roman._   _English._   _Greek._   _Hebrew._

     1.         A           A         Alpha      Aleph.
     2.         B           B         Bæta       Beth.
     3.         C           C         Gamma      Gimel.
     4.         D           D         Delta      Daleth.
     5.         E           E         Epsilon    He.
     6.         F           F        _Digamma_   Vaw.
     7.         G           G         --         --
     8.         H           H         Hæta       Heth.
     9.         I           I         Iôta       Iod.
    10.         J           J         Iôta       Iod.
    11.                     K         Kappa      Kaf.
    12.         L           L         Lamda      Lamed.
    13.         M           M         Mu         Mem.
    14.         N           N         Nu         Nun.
    15.         O           O         Omicron    Ayn.
    16.         P           P         Pi         Pe.
    17.         Q           Q        _Koppa_     Kof.
    18.         R           R         Rho        Resh.
    19.         S           S        _San_       Sin.
    20.         T           T         Tau        Tau.
    21.         U           U         Upsilon    --
    22.         V           V         Upsilon    --
    23.                     W         Upsilon    --
    24.         X           X         Xi         Samech.[43]
    25.         Y           Y         Upsilon    --
    26.         Z           Z         Zæta       Zain.

§ 164. The differences of this table are referable to one of the following
four heads:--a. Ejection. b. Addition. c. Change of power. d. Change of

a. _Ejection._--In the first instance, the Italians ejected as unnecessary,
letters 7,[44] 9, and 11: _zayn_ (_zæta_), _teth_ (_thæta_), and _kaf_
(_kappa_). Either the sounds which they expressed were wanting in their
language; or else they were expressed by some other letter. The former was
probably the case with 7 and 9, _zæta_ and _thæta_, the latter with 11,

b. _Addition._--Out of the Greek _iôta_, two; out of the Greek _upsilon_,
four modifications have been evolved; viz., i and j out of ι, and u, v, w,
y, out of υ.

c. _Change of power._--Letter 3, in Greek and Hebrew had the sound of the g
in _gun_; in Latin that of k. The reason for this lies in the structure of
the Etruscan language. In that tongue the _flat_ sounds were remarkably
deficient; indeed, it is probable, that that of g was wanting. Its _sharp_
equivalent, however, the sound of k, was by no means wanting; and the Greek
_gamma_ was used to denote it. This made the equivalent to k, the third
letter of the alphabet, as early as the time of the Etruscans.

But the _Romans_ had both sounds, the _flat_ as well as the _sharp_, g as
well as k. How did they express them? Up to the second Punic War they made
the rounded form of the Greek Γ, out of which the letter C has arisen, do
double work, and signify k and g equally, just as in the present English th
is sounded as the Greek θ,[45] and as dh;[46] in proof whereof we have in

Thus much concerning the power and places of the Latin c, as opposed to the
Greek γ. But this is not all. The use of _gamma_, with the power of k, made
_kappa_ superfluous, and accounts for its ejection in the _Etruscan_
alphabet; a fact already noticed.

Furthermore, an addition to the Etruscan alphabet was required by the
existence of the sound of g, in Latin, as soon as the inconvenience of
using c with a double power became manifest. What took place then? Even
this. The third letter was modified in form, or became a new letter, c
being altered into g; and the new letter took its place in the alphabet.

Where was this? As the _seventh_ letter between f (_digamma_) and h

Why? Because it was there where there was a vacancy, and where it replaced
the Greek _zæta_, or the Hebrew _zayn_, a letter which, _at that time_, was
not wanted in Latin.

d. _Change of order._--As far as the letters c and g are concerned, this
has been explained; and it has been shown that change of order and change
of power are sometimes very closely connected. All that now need be added
is, that those letters which were _last_ introduced from the Greek into the
Roman alphabet, were placed at the end.

This is why u, v, w, and y come after t--the last letter of the original
Phœnician, and also of the _older_ Greek.

This, too, is the reason for z coming last of all. It was restored for the
purpose of spelling Greek words. But as its original place had been filled
up by g, it was tacked on as an appendage, rather than incorporated as an

X in _power_, coincided with the Greek xi; in _place_, with the Greek
_khi_. Its _position_ seems to have determined its _form_, which is
certainly that of X rather than of Ξ. The full investigation of this is too
lengthy for the present work.

§ 165. It should be observed, that, in the Latin, the letters have no
longer any _names_ (like _beth_, _bæta_), except such as are derived from
their powers (_be_, _ce_).

§ 166. The principles which determined the form of the Roman alphabet were,
upon the whole, correct; and, hence, the Roman alphabet, although not
originally meant to express an Italian tongue at all, expressed the
language to which it was applied tolerably.

On the other hand, there were both omissions and alterations which have had
a detrimental effect upon the orthography of those other numerous tongues
to which Latin has supplied the alphabet. Thus--

a. It is a matter of regret, that the differences which the Greeks drew
between the so-called _long_ and _short_ e and o, was neglected by the
Latins; in other words, that ω was omitted entirely, and η changed in
power. Had this been the case, all the orthographical expedients by which
we have to express the difference between the o in _not_, and the o in
_note_, would have been prevented--_not_, _note_, _moat_--_bed_, _bead_,
_heel_, _glede_, &c.

b. It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessary _compendium_ as q =
cu, or cw, should have been retained from the old Greek alphabet; and,
still more so, that the equally superfluous x = cs, or ks, should have been

c. It is a matter of regret, that the Greek θ was not treated like the
Greek ζ. Neither were wanted at first; both afterwards. The manner,
however, of their subsequent introduction was different. _Zæta_ came in as
a simple single letter, significant of a simple single sound. _Thæta_, on
the contrary, although expressive of an equally simple sound, became th.
This was a combination rather than a letter; and the error which it
engendered was great.

It suggested the idea, that a simple sound was a compound one--which was

It further suggested the idea, that the sound of θ differed from that of τ,
by the addition of h--which was wrong also.

§ 167. The Greek language had a system of sounds different from the
Phœnician; and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.

The Roman language had a system of sounds different from the Greek and the
alphabet required modifying accordingly.

This leads us to certain questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon. Had _it_ a
system of sounds different from the Roman? If so, what modifications did
the alphabet require? Were such modifications effected? If so, how?
Sufficiently or insufficiently? The answers are unsatisfactory.

§ 168. The Anglo-Saxon had, even in its earliest stage, the following
sounds, for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs or letters--

1. The sound of the th in _thin_.

2. The sound of the th in _thine_.

It had certainly these: probably others.

§ 169. Expressive of these, two new signs were introduced, viz., þ = th in
_thin_, and ð = th in _thine_.

W, also evolved out of u, was either an original improvement of the
Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of
the allied languages of the Continent. Probably the latter was the case;
since we find the following passage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid's
"Krist:"--"Hujus enim linguæ barbaries, ut est inculca et
indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticæ artis, sic
etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut
congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto
quærit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali
sono manente."

This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet,
although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered
the purpose to which it was applied tolerably.

§ 170. Change, however, went on; and the orthography which suited the
earlier Anglo-Saxon would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not
suit the language which had become or was becoming, _English_; wherein the
sounds for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs increase. Thus
there is at present--

1. The sound of the sh in _shine_.

2. The sound of the z in _azure_.

How are these to be expressed? The rule has hitherto been to denote simple
single sounds, by simple single signs, and where such signs have no
existence already, to _originate new ones_.

To _combine existing letters_, rather than to coin a new one, has only been
done rarely. The Latin substitution of the combination th for the simple
single θ, was exceptionable. It was a precedent, however, which now begins
to be followed generally.

§ 171. It is this precedent which accounts for the absence of any letter in
English, expressive of either of the sounds in question.

§ 172. Furthermore, our alphabet has not only not increased in proportion
to our sound-system, but it has _decreased_. The Anglo-Saxon þ = the th in
_thin_, and ð = the th in _thine_, have become obsolete; and a difference
in pronunciation, which our ancestors expressed, _we_ overlook.

The same precedent is at the bottom of this; a fact which leads us to--

§ 173. _The Anglo-Norman alphabet._--The Anglo-Saxon language was _Gothic_;
the alphabet, _Roman_.

The Anglo-Norman language was _Roman_; the alphabet, _Roman_ also.

The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source; his writing from another.

The Anglo-Norman took both from the same.

In adapting a Latin alphabet to a Gothic language, the Anglo-Saxon allowed
himself more latitude than the Anglo-Norman. We have seen that the new
signs þ and ð were Anglo-Saxon.

Now the sounds which these letters represent did not occur in the
Norman-French, consequently the Norman-French alphabet neither had nor
needed to have signs to express them; until after the battle of Hastings,
_when it became the Anglo-Norman of England_.

_Then_, the case became altered. The English language influenced the Norman
orthography, and the Norman orthography the English language; and the
result was, that the simple single correct and distinctive signs of the
Anglo-Saxon alphabet, became replaced by the incorrect and indistinct
combination th.

This was a loss, both in the way of theoretical correctness and

Such is the general view of the additions, ejections, changes of power, and
changes of order in the English alphabet. The extent, however, to which an
alphabet is faulty, is no measure of the extent to which an orthography is
faulty; since an insufficient alphabet may, by consistency in its
application, be more useful than a full and perfect alphabet unsteadily

§ 174. One of our orthographical expedients, viz., the reduplication of the
consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding
vowel, is as old as the classical languages: _terra_, θάλασσα.
Nevertheless, the following extract from the "Ormulum" (written in the
thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have
met with.

  And whase wilenn shall þis boc,
    Efft oþerr siþe writenn,
  Himm bidde icc þatt hett write rihht,
    Swa sum þiss boc himm tæcheþþ;
  All þwerrt utt affterr þatt itt iss
    Oppo þiss firrste bisne,
  Wiþþ all swilc rime als her iss sett,
    Wiþþ alse fele wordess:
  And tatt he loke well þatt he
    _An boc-staff write twiggess_,[47]
  Eggwhær þær itt uppo þiss boc
    Iss writenn o þatt wise:
  Loke he well þatt hett write swa,
    Forr he ne magg noht elless,
  On Englissh writenn rihht te word,
    þatt wite he well to soþe.

§ 175. _The order of the alphabet._--In the history of our alphabet, we
have had the history of certain changes in the arrangement, as well as of
the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question
now presents itself: viz., Is there in the order of the letters any
_natural_ arrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession
of letters arbitrary and accidental? The following facts suggest an answer
in the affirmative.

The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:--

      _Name._    _Sound._

   1. _Aleph_     Either a vowel or a breathing.
   2. _Beth_      B.
   3. _Gimel_     G, as in _gun_.
   4. _Daleth_    D.
   5. _He_        Either a vowel or an aspirate.
   6. _Vaw_       V.
   7. _Zayn_      Z.
   8. _Kheth_     a variety of K.
   9. _Teth_      a variety of T.
  10. _Yod_       I.
  11. _Caph_      K.
  12. _Lamed_     L.
  13. _Mem_       M.
  14. _Nun_       N.
  15. _Samech_    a variety of S.
  16. _Ayn_       Either a vowel or ----?
  17. _Pe_        P.
  18. _Tsadi_     TS.
  19. _Kof_       a variety of K.
  20. _Resh_      R.
  21. _Sin_       S.
  22. _Tau_       T.

Let _beth_, _vaw_, and _pe_ (b, v, p) constitute a series called series P.
Let _gimel_, _kheth_, and _kof_ (g, kh, k') constitute a series called
series K. Let _daleth_, _teth_, and _tau_, (d, t', t) constitute a series
called series T. Let _aleph_, _he_, and _ayn_ constitute a series called
the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order.

  1. _Aleph_     of the vowel series.
  2. _Beth_      of series P.
  3. _Gimel_     of series K.
  4. _Daleth_    of series T.

Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel
series; that of series K follows; and in the last place, comes the letter
of series T. After this the order changes; _daleth_ being followed by _he_
of the vowel series.

  5. _He_        of the vowel series.
  6. _Vaw_       of series P.
  7. _Zayn_      ----
  8. _Kheth_     of series K.
  9. _Teth_      of series T.

In this second sequence the _relative_ positions of v, kh, and t', are the
same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series.
The sequence itself is broken by the letter _zayn_ but it is remarkable
that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel
and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but
fragmentary. Still, even now, _pe_, of series P, follows _ayn_; _tau_, of
series T, is farthest from it, and _kof_, of series K, is intermediate.

If this be the case, and, if the letters, so to say, _circulate_, the
alterations made in their order during the transfer of their alphabet from
Greece to Rome, have had the unsatisfactory effect of concealing an
interesting arrangement, and of converting a real, though somewhat complex
regularity, into apparent hazard and disorder.

       *       *       *       *       *


    1. Explain the terms _sharp_, _explosive_, _true aspirate_, _apparent
    aspirate_, _broad_, _dependent_.

    2. Exhibit the difference between the quantity of _syllables_ and the
    quantity of _vowels_.

    3. Accentuate the following words,--_attribute_ (_adjective_), _survey_
    (_verb_), _August_ (_the month_).

    4. Under what conditions is the _sound_ of consonants doubled?

    5. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the relations of the a) mutes, b) the
    vowels, underlining those which do not occur in English.

    6. What is the power of ph in _Philip_? what in _haphazard_? Illustrate
    the difference fully.

    7. Investigate the changes by which the words _picture_, _nature_,
    derived from the Latin _pictura_ and _natura_, are _sounded pictshur_
    and _natshur_.

    8. How do you sound the combination apd? Why?

    9. In what points is the English alphabet _insufficient_, _redundant_,
    and _inconsistent_?

    10. Why is z (_zæta_), which is the sixth letter in the Greek, the last
    in the English alphabet?

       *       *       *       *       *



       *       *       *       *       *



§ 176. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language
of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a
wide, and at times in a restricted sense.

If in the English language we take such a word as _fathers_, we are enabled
to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two
elements. By comparing it with the word _father_, we see that the s is
neither part nor parcel of the original word. Hence the word is capable of
being analysed; _father_ being the original primitive word, and s the
secondary superadded termination. From the word _father_, the word
_fathers_ is _derived_, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended.
What has been said of the word _fathers_ may also be said of _fatherly_,
_fatherlike_, _fatherless_, &c. Now, from the word _father_, all these
words (_fathers_, _fatherly_, _fatherlike_, and _fatherless_) differ in
form and in meaning. To become such a word as _fathers_, &c., the word
_father_ is _changed_. Of changes of this sort, it is the province of
etymology to take cognizance.

§ 177. Compared with the form _fathers_, the word _father_ is the older
form of the two. The word _father_ is a word current in this the nineteenth
century. The same word is found much earlier, under different forms, and in
different languages. Thus, in the Latin language, the form was _pater_; in
Greek, πατήρ. Now, with _father_ and _fathers_, the change takes place
within the same language, whilst the change that takes place between
_pater_ and _father_ takes place within different languages. Of changes of
this latter kind it is, also, the province of etymology to take cognizance.

§ 178. In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizance _of the
changes of the form of words_. However, as the etymology that compares the
forms _fathers_ and _father_ is different from the etymology that compares
_father_ and _pater_, we have, of etymology, two sorts: one dealing with
the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language
(_father_, _fathers_), the other dealing with the changes that words
undergo in passing from one language to another (_pater_, _father_).

The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of
the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to
orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the
etymology of the ensuing pages.

The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word,
_historical_ etymology, or _comparative_ etymology.

§ 179. It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in
one point, viz., in taking cognizance of the _changes of forms that words
undergo_. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, as _father_,
_fathers_, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time,
as _pater_, _father_, is a matter of indifference.

In the Latin _pater_, and in the English _father_, we have one of two
things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or two words
descended or derived from a common original source.

In _fathers_ we have a formation deduced from the radical word _father_.

With these preliminaries we may understand Dr. Johnson's explanation of the
word etymology.

"ETYMOLOGY, n. s. (_etymologia_, Lat.) ἔτυμος (_etymos_) _true, and_ λόγος
(_logos_) _a word_.

"1. _The descent or derivation of a word from its original; the deduction
of formations from the radical word; the analysis of compounds into

"2. _The part of grammar which delivers the inflections of nouns and

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 180. How far is there such a thing as _gender_ in the English language?
This depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word.

In the Latin language we have the words _taurus_ = _bull_, and _vacca_ =
_cow_. Here the natural distinction of _sex_ is expressed by _wholly_
different words. With this we have corresponding modes of expression in
English: e.g.,

  _Male._      _Female._     |   _Male._      _Female._
  Bachelor     Spinster.     |   Horse        Mare.
  Boar         Sow.          |   Ram          Ewe.
  Boy          Girl.         |   Son          Daughter.
  Brother      Sister.       |   Uncle        Aunt.
  Buck         Doe.          |   Father       Mother, &c.

The mode, however, of expressing different sexes by _wholly_ different
words is not a matter of _gender_. The words _boy_ and _girl_ bear no
_etymological_ relation to each other; neither being derived from the
other, nor in any way connected with it.

§ 181. Neither are words like _cock-sparrow_, _man-servant_, _he-goat_,
&c., as compared with _hen-sparrow_, _maid-servant_, _she-goat_, &c.,
specimens of _gender_. Here a difference of sex is indicated by the
addition of a fresh term, from which is formed a compound word.

§ 182. In the Latin words _genitrix_ = _a mother_, and _genitor_ = _a
father_, we have a nearer approach to _gender_. Here the difference of sex
is expressed by a difference of termination; the words _genitor_ and
_genitrix_ being in a true etymological relation, i.e., either derived from
each other, or from some common source. With this we have, in English
corresponding modes of expression: e.g.

  _Male._      _Female._      |    _Male._      _Female._
  Actor        Actress.       |    Lion         Lioness.
  Arbiter      Arbitress.     |    Peer         Peeress.
  Baron        Baroness.      |    Poet         Poetess.
  Benefactor   Benefactress.  |    Sorcerer     Sorceress.
  Count        Countess.      |    Songster     Songstress.
  Duke         Duchess.       |    Tiger        Tigress.

§ 183. This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to
gender rather than _gender_ itself; the difference from true grammatical
gender being as follows:--

Let the Latin words _genitor_ and _genitrix_ be declined:--

  _Sing. Nom._   Genitor           Genitrix.
        _Gen._   Genitor-is        Genitric-is.
        _Dat._   Genitor-i         Genitric-i.
        _Acc._   Genitor-em        Genitric-em.
        _Voc._   Genitor           Genitrix.
  _Plur. Nom._   Genitor-es        Genitric-es.
        _Gen._   Genitor-um        Genitric-um.
        _Dat._   Genitor-ibus      Genitric-ibus.
        _Acc._   Genitor-es        Genitric-es.
        _Voc._   Genitor-es        Genitric-es.

The syllables in italics are the signs of the cases and numbers. Now those
signs are the same in each word, the difference of meaning (or sex) not
affecting them.

§ 184. Contrast, however, with the words _genitor_ and _genitrix_ the words
_domina_ = _a mistress_, and _dominus_ = _a master_.

  _Sing. Nom._   Domin-a         Domin-us.
        _Gen._   Domin-æ         Domin-i.
        _Dat._   Domin-æ         Domin-o.
        _Acc._   Domin-am        Domin-um.
        _Voc._   Domin-a         Domin-e.
  _Plur. Nom._   Domin-æ         Domin-i.
        _Gen._   Domin-arum      Domin-orum.
        _Dat._   Domin-abus      Domin-is.
        _Acc._   Domin-as        Domin-os.
        _Voc._   Domin-æ         Domin-i.

Here the letters in italics, or the signs of the cases and numbers, are
different; the difference being brought about by the difference of gender.
Now it is very evident that, if _genitrix_ be a specimen of gender,
_domina_ is something more.

§ 185. It may be laid down as a sort of definition, that _there is no
gender where there is no affection of the declension_: consequently, that,
although we have, in English, words corresponding to _genitrix_ and
_genitor_, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding to
_dominus_ and _domina_.

§ 186. The second element in the notion of gender, although I will not
venture to call it an essential one, is the following:--In the words
_domina_ and _dominus_, _mistress_ and _master_, there is a _natural_
distinction of sex; the one being masculine, or male, the other feminine,
or female. In the words _sword_ and _lance_ there is _no natural_
distinction of sex. Notwithstanding this, the word _hasta_, in Latin, is as
much of the feminine gender as _domina_, whilst _gladius_ = _a sword_ is,
like _dominus_, a masculine noun. From this we see that, in languages
wherein there are true genders, a fictitious or conventional sex is
attributed even to inanimate objects; in other words, _sex_ is a natural
distinction, _gender_ a grammatical one.

§ 187. In § 185 it is written, that "although we have, in English, words
corresponding to _genitrix_ and _genitor_, we have no true genders until we
find _words corresponding to dominus_ and _domina_."--The sentence was
intentionally worded with caution. Words like _dominus_ and _domina_, that
is, words where the declension is affected by the sex, _are_ to be found
_even in English_.

The pronoun _him_, from the Anglo-Saxon and English _he_, as compared with
the pronoun _her_, from the Anglo-Saxon _heó_, is affected in its
declension by the difference of sex, and is a true, though fragmentary,
specimen of gender. The same is the case with the form _his_ as compared
with _her_.

The pronoun _it_ (originally _hit_), as compared with _he_, is a specimen
of gender.

The relative _what_, as compared with the masculine _who_, is a specimen of

The forms _it_ (for _hit_) and _he_ are as much genders as _hoc_ and _hic_,
and the forms _hoc_ and _hic_ are as much genders as _bonum_ and _bonus_.

§ 188. The formation of the neuter gender by the addition of -t, in words
like _wha-t_, _i-t_, and _tha-t_, occurs in other languages. The -t in
_tha-t_ is the -d in _istu-d_, Latin, and the -t in _ta-t_, Sanskrit.

§ 189. In the Mœso-Gothic and Scandinavian, the _adjectives_ form the
neuters in -t, in Old High German in -z (ts), and in Modem German in -s
(derived from -z)--Mœso-Gothic, _blind-ata_; Icel., _blind-t_; Old High
German, _plint-ez_, M. G. _blind-es_ = _cæc-um_.

_Caution._--_Which_, is _not_ the neuter of _who_.

§ 190. Just as there are in English fragments of a gender modifying the
declension, so are there, also, fragments of the second element of gender;
viz., the attribution of sex to objects naturally destitute of it. _The sun
in _his_ glory_, _the moon in _her_ wane_, are examples of this. A sailor
calls his ship _she_. A husbandman, according to Mr. Cobbett, does the same
with his _plough_ and working implements:--"In speaking of a _ship_ we say
_she_ and _her_. And you know that our country-folks in Hampshire call
almost every thing _he_ or _she_. It is curious to observe that country
labourers give the feminine appellation to those things only which are more
closely identified with themselves, and by the qualities or conditions of
which their own efforts, and their character as workmen, are affected. The
mower calls his _scythe_ a _she_, the ploughman calls his _plough_ a _she_;
but a prong, or a shovel, or a harrow, which passes promiscuously from hand
to hand, and which is appropriated to no particular labourer, is called a
_he_."--"English Grammar," Letter v.

§ 191. Now, although Mr. Cobbett's statements may account for a sailor
calling his ship _she_, they will not account for the custom of giving to
the sun a masculine, and to the moon a feminine, pronoun, as is done in the
expressions quoted in the last section; still less will it account for the
circumstance of the Germans reversing the gender, and making the _sun_
feminine, and the _moon_ masculine.

§ 192. Let there be a period in the history of a language wherein the _sun_
and _moon_ are dealt with, not as inanimate masses of matter, but as
animated divinities. Let there, in other words, be a time when dead things
are personified, and when there is a _mythology_. Let an object like the
_sun_ be deemed a _male_, and an object like the _moon_, a _female_, deity.
We may then understand the origin of certain genders.

The Germans say the _sun in _her_ glory_; the _moon in _his_ wane_. This
difference between the usage of the two languages, like so many others, is
explained by the influence of the classical languages upon the
English.--"_Mundilfori had two children; a son, Mâni (Moon), and a
daughter, Sôl (Sun)._"--Such is an extract out of an Icelandic mythological
work, viz., the prose Edda. In the classical languages, however, _Phœbus_
and _Sol_ are masculine, and _Luna_ and _Diana_ feminine. Hence it is that,
although in Anglo-Saxon and Old-Saxon the _sun_ is _feminine_, it is in
English _masculine_.

_Philosophy_, _charity_, &c., or the names of abstract qualities
personified, take a conventional sex, and are feminine from their being
feminine in Latin.

As in all these words there is no change of form, the consideration of them
is a point of rhetoric, rather than of etymology.

§ 193. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to miscellaneous remarks
upon the true and apparent genders of the English language.

1. With the false genders like _baron_, _baroness_, it is a general rule
that the feminine form is derived from the masculine, and not the masculine
from the feminine; as _peer_, _peeress_. The words _widower_, _gander_, and
_drake_ are exceptions. For the word _wizard_, from _witch_, see the
section on augmentative forms.

2. The termination -ess, in which so large a portion of our feminine
substantives terminate, is not of Saxon but of classical origin, being
derived from the termination -ix, _genitrix_.

3. The words _shepherdess_, _huntress_, and _hostess_ are faulty; the
radical part of the word being Germanic, and the secondary part classical:
indeed, in strict English Grammar, the termination -ess has no place at
all. It is a classic, not a Gothic, element.

4. The termination -inn, is current in German, as the equivalent to -ess,
and as a feminine affix (_freund_ = _a friend_; _freundinn_ = _a female
friend_). In English it occurs only in a fragmentary form;--e.g., in
_vixen_, a true feminine derivative from _fox_ = _füchsinn_, German.

_Bruin_ = _the bear_, may be either a female form, as in Old High German
_përo_ = _a he-bear_, _pirinn_ = _a she-bear_; or it may be the Norse form
_björn_ = _a bear_, male or female.

_Caution._--Words like _margravine_ and _landgravine_ prove nothing, being
scarcely naturalised.

5. The termination -str, as in _webster_, _songster_, and _baxter_, was
originally a feminine affix. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon,

  Sangere, _a male singer_    }           { Sangëstre, _a female singer_.
  Bäcere, _a male baker_      }   were    { Bacestre, _a female baker_.
  Fiðelere, _a male fiddler_  }  opposed  { Fiðelstre, _a female fiddler_.
  Vebbere, _a male weaver_    }    to     { Vëbbëstre, _a female weaver_.
  Rædere, _a male reader_     }           { Rædestre, _a female reader_.
  Seamere, _a male seamer_    }           { Seamestre, _a female seamer_.

The same is the case in the present Dutch of Holland: e.g., _spookster_ =
_a female fortune-teller_; _baxster_ = _a baking-woman_; _waschster_ = _a
washerwoman_. The word _spinster_ still retains its original feminine

6. The words _songstress_ and _seamstress_, besides being, as far as
concerns the intermixture of languages, in the predicament of
_shepherdess_, have, moreover, a double feminine termination; 1st. -str, of
Germanic, 2nd. -ess, of classical, origin.

7. In the word _heroine_ we have a Greek termination, just as -ix is a
Latin, and -inn a German one. It must not, however, be considered as
derived from _hero_, by any process of the English language, but be dealt
with as a separate importation from the Greek language.

8. The form _deaconness_ is not wholly unexceptionable; since the
termination -ess is of Latin, the root _deacon_ of Greek origin: this Greek
origin being rendered all the more conspicuous by the spelling, _deacon_
(from _diaconos_), as compared with the Latin _decanus_.

9. _Goose, gander_.--One peculiarity in this pair of words has already been
indicated. In the older forms of the word _goose_, such as χὴν, Greek;
_anser_, Latin; _gans_, German, as well as in the derived form _gander_, we
have the proofs that, originally, there belonged to the word the sound of
the letter n. In the forms ὀδοὺς, ὀδόντος, Greek; _dens_, _dentis_, Latin;
_zahn_, German; _tooth_, English, we find the analogy that accounts for the
ejection of the n, and the lengthening of the vowel preceding. With
respect, however, to the d in _gander_, it is not easy to say whether it is
inserted in one word or omitted in the other. Neither can we give the
precise power of the -er. The following forms occur in the different Gothic
dialects. _Gans_, fem.; _ganazzo_, masc., Old High German--_gôs_, f.;
_gandra_, m., Anglo-Saxon--_gâs_, Icelandic, f.; _gaas_, Danish, f.;
_gassi_, Icelandic, m.; _gasse_, Danish, m.--_ganser_, _ganserer_,
_gansart_, _gänserich_, _gander_, masculine forms in different New German

10. Observe, the form _gänserich_, has a masculine termination. The word
_täuberich_, in provincial New German, has the same form and the same
power. It denotes a _male dove_; _taube_, in German, signifying a _dove_.
In _gänserich_ and _täuberich_, we find preserved the termination -rich (or
_rik_), with a masculine power. Of this termination we have a remnant, in
English, preserved in the curious word _drake_. To _duck_ the word _drake_
has no etymological relation whatsoever. It is derived from a word with
which it has but one letter in common; viz., the Latin _anas_ = _a duck_.
Of this the root is anat-, as seen in the genitive case _anatis_. In Old
High German we find the form _anetrekho_ = _a drake_; in provincial New
High German there is _enterich_ and _äntrecht_, from whence come the
English and Low German form, _drake_.

11. _Peacock_, _peahen_.--In these compounds, it is not the word _pea_ that
is rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of _cock_ and _hen_, but
it is the words _cock_ and _hen_ that are modified by prefixing _pea_.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 194. In the Greek language the word _patær_ signifies a _father_,
denoting _one_, whilst _patere_ signifies _two fathers_, denoting a pair,
and thirdly, _pateres_ signifies _fathers_, speaking of any number beyond
two. The three words, _patær_, _patere_, and _pateres_, are said to be in
different numbers, the difference of meaning being expressed by a
difference of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks of
_one_ is the _singular_, the number that speaks of _two_ is the _dual_
(from the Latin word _duo_ = _two_), and the number that speaks of _more
than two_ is the _plural_.

All languages have numbers, but all languages have not them to the same
extent. The Hebrew has a dual, but it is restricted to nouns only. It has,
moreover, this peculiarity; it applies, for the most part, only to things
which are naturally double, as _the two eyes_, _the two hands_, &c. The
Latin has no dual number, except the _natural_ one in the words _ambo_ and

§ 195. The question presents itself,--to what extent have we numbers in
English? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a
plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual.

§ 196. Different from the question, _to what degree have we numbers?_ is
the question,--_over what extent of our language have we numbers?_ This
distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who
said _typtô_ = _I beat_, _typteton_ = _ye two beat_, _typtomen_ = _we
beat_, had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns; while the
Hebrew dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual
number is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew.

There is no dual in the _present_ English. It has been seen, however, that
in the Anglo-Saxon there _was_ a dual. But the Anglo-Saxon dual, being
restricted to the personal pronouns (_wit_ = _we two_; _git_ = _ye two_),
was not co-extensive with the Greek dual.

There is no dual in the present German. In the ancient German there _was_

In the present Danish and Swedish there is no dual. In the Old Norse and in
the present Icelandic a dual number is to be found.

From this we learn that the dual number is one of those inflections that
languages drop as they become modern.

§ 197. The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and
the plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins say
_bonus pater_ = _a good father_; _boni patres_ = _good fathers_. In the
Latin, the adjective _bonus_ changes its form with the change of number of
the substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive
that is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were
extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the
substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present
English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon
there were plural forms for the adjectives.

§ 198. Respecting the formation of the plural, the current rule is, that it
is formed from the singular by adding s, as _father_, _fathers_. This,
however, is by no means a true expression. The letter s added to the word
_father_, making it _fathers_, is s to the _eye_ only. To the _ear_ it is
z. The word sounds _fatherz_. If the s retained its sound the spelling
would be _fatherce_. In _stags_, _lads_, &c., the sound is _stagz_, _ladz_.
The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously,
though somewhat lengthily expressed, is as follows.--_The plural is formed
from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat
mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the
sharp lene sibilant (s):_ e.g. (the sound of the word being expressed),
_pea_, _peaz_; _tree_, _treez_; _day_, _dayz_; _hill_, _hillz_; _hen_,
_henz_; _gig_, _gigz_; _trap_, _traps_; _pit_, _pits_; _stack_, _stacks_.

§ 199. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are

a. In the case of words ending in b, v, d, the th in _thine_ = ð, or g, a
change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharp s affixed, was
_not a matter of choice but of necessity_; the combinations abs, avs, ads,
aðs, ags, being unpronounceable.

b. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second
(aps, afs, ats, aþs, aks), or the second to the first (abz, avz, adz, aðz,
agz), is determined by _the habit of the particular language_ in question;
and, with a few _apparent_ exceptions it is the rule of the English
language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not _vice

c. Such combinations as _peas_, _trees_, _hills_, _hens_, &c., (the s
preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written _peace_,
_treece_, _hillce_, _hence_), being pronounceable, the change from s to z,
in words so ending, is _not_ a matter determined by the necessity of the
case, but by the habit of the English language.

d. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in s, but in z, the
original addition was not z, but s. This we infer from three facts: 1. From
the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound of z being either rare or
non-existent in Anglo-Saxon; 3. from the sufficiency of the causes to bring
about the change.

It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals
are either mere points of orthography, or else capable of being explained
on very simple euphonic principles.

§ 200. _Boxes, churches, judges, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes_.--Here
there is the addition, not of the mere letter s, but of the syllable -es.
As s cannot be immediately added to s, the intervention of a vowel becomes
necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in -es really end
either in the sounds of s, or in the allied sounds of z, sh, or zh, may be
seen by analysis; since x = ks, ch = tsh, and j or ge = dzh, whilst ce, in
_prince_, is a mere point of orthography for s.

_Monarchs_, _heresiarchs_.--Here the ch equals not tsh, but k, so that
there is no need of being told that they do not follow the analogy of
_church_, &c.

_Cargoes_, _echoes_.--From _cargo_ and _echo_, with the addition of e; an
orthographical expedient for the sake of denoting the length of the vowel

_Beauty, beauties_; _key, keys_.--Like the word _cargoes_, &c., these forms
are points, not of etymology, but of orthography.

_Pence_.--The peculiarity of this word consists in having a _flat_ liquid
followed by the sharp sibilant s (spelt ce), contrary to the rule given
above. In the first place, it is a contracted form from _pennies_; in the
second place, its sense is collective rather than plural; in the third
place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it from _pens_,
sounded _penz_. That its sense is _collective_ rather than _plural_, we
learn from the word _sixpence_, which, compared with _sixpences_, is no
plural, but a singular form.

_Dice_.--In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason that _pence_ is
peculiar.--We find the sound of s after a vowel, where that of z is
expected. This distinguishes _dice_ for play, from _dies_ (_diz_) for
coining. _Dice_, perhaps, like _pence_, is collective rather than plural.

In _geese_, _lice_, and _mice_, we have, apparently, the same phenomenon as
in _dice_, viz., a sharp sibilant (s) where a _flat_ one (z) is expected.
The s, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural, but the last
letter of the original word.

_Alms_.--This is no true plural form. The s belongs to the original word,
Anglo-Saxon, _ælmesse_; Greek, ἐλεημοσύνη; just as the s in _goose_ does.
How far the word, although a true singular in its form, may have a
collective signification, and require its verb to be plural, is a point not
of etymology, but of syntax. The same is the case with the word _riches_,
from the French _richesse_. In _riches_ the last syllable being sounded as
ez, increases its liability to pass for a plural.

_News_, _means_, _pains_.--These, the reverse of _alms_ and _riches_, are
true plural forms. How far, in sense, they are singular is a point not of
etymology, but of syntax.

_Mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _politics_, _ethics_, _optics_,
_physics_.--The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting
these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in
point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each
is the name of some department of study, of some art, or of some science.
As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote, either
of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and
sciences of Greece be expressed in Greek, rather by a substantive and an
adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for instance, let it be
the habit of the language to say _the musical art_, rather than _music_.
Let the Greek for _art_ be a word in the feminine gender; e.g., τέχνη
(_tekhnæ_), so that the _musical art_ be ἡ μουσίκη τέχνη (_hæ mousikæ
tekhnæ_). Let, in the progress of language (as was actually the case in
Greece), the article and substantive be omitted, so that, for the _musical
art_, or for _music_, there stand only the feminine adjective, μουσίκη. Let
there be, upon a given art or science, a series of books, or treatises; the
Greek for _book_, or _treatise_, being a neuter substantive, βίβλιον
(_biblion_). Let the substantive meaning _treatise_ be, in the course of
language, omitted, so that whilst the science of physics is called φυσίκη
(_fysikæ_), physic, from ἡ φυσίκη τέχνη, a series of treatises (or even
chapters) upon the science shall be called φύσικα (_fysika_) or physics.
Now all this was what happened in Greece. The science was denoted by a
feminine adjective singular, as φυσίκη (_fysicæ_), and the treatises upon
it, by the neuter adjective plural, as φύσικα (_fysika_). The treatises of
Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive, that in the
middle ages a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two
sources, viz., from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the
books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as
_physic_, _logic_; in the second place a plural form, as _mathematics_,
_metaphysics_, _optics_.

In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs
to be, is a point of syntax.

§ 201. The plural form _children_ (_child-er-en_) requires particular

In the first place it is a double plural; the -en being the -en in _oxen_,
whilst the simpler form _child-er_ occurs in the old English, and in
certain provincial dialects.

Now, what is the -er in _child-er_?

In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than that in -r; as
_geisl-ar_ = _flashes_, _tung-ur_ = _tongues_, &c. Nevertheless, it is not
the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question.

Besides the word _childer_, we collect from the Old High German the
following forms in -r:--

  Hus-ir,        _Houses_,
  Chalp-ir,      _Calves_,
  Lemp-ir,       _Lambs_,
  Plet-ir,       _Blades of grass_,
  Eig-ir,        _Eggs_,

and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being _of the
neuter gender_.

Now, the theory respecting this form which is propounded by Grimm is as

1. The -r represents an earlier -s.

2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter
derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number.

3. In this form it appears in the Mœso-Gothic: _ag-is_ = _fear_ (whence
_ague_ = _shivering_), _hat-is_ = _hate_, _riqv-is_ = _smoke_ (_reek_). In
none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the
singular number.

To these doctrines, it should be added, that the reason why a singular
derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most
probably, in the _collective_ nature of the words in which it occurs:
_Husir_ = _a collection of houses_, _eiger_ = _a collection of eggs_,
_eggery_ or _eyry_. In words like _yeoman-r-y_ and _Jew-r-y_, the -r has,
probably, the same origin, and is _collective_.

In Wicliffe we find the form _lamb-r-en_, which is to _lamb_ as _children_
is to _child_.

§ 202. _The form in -en._--In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural
number is more common than -n: _tungan_, tongues; _steorran_, stars. Of
this termination we have evident remains in the words _oxen_, _hosen_,
_shoon_, _eyne_, words more or less antiquated. This, perhaps, is _no_ true
plural. In _welk-in_ = _the clouds_, the original singular form is lost.

§ 203. _Men_, _feet_, _teeth_, _mice_, _lice_, _geese_.--In these we have
some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a certainty,
true plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the
so-called _weak_ and _strong_ tenses of verbs; viz., one series of plurals
formed by a change of the vowel, and another by the addition of the
sibilant. The word _kye_, used in Scotland for _cows_, is of the same
class. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that
of the present English.

  _Sing._    _Plur._

  Freónd      Frýnd       _Friends_.
  Feónd       Fynd        _Foes_.
  Niht        Niht        _Nights_.
  Bóc         Béc         _Books_.
  Burh        Byrig       _Burghs_.
  Bróc        Bréc        _Breeches_.
  Turf        Týrf        _Turves_.

§ 204. _Brethren_.--Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the
vowel. 2. The addition of -en. Mr. Guest quotes the forms _brethre_ and
_brothre_ from the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural.

_Peasen_ = _pulse_.--As _children_ is a double form of one sort (r + en),
so is _peasen_ a double form of another (s + en); _pea_, _pea-s_,
_pea-s-en_. Wallis speaks to the _singular_ power of the form in
-s;--"Dicunt nonnulli _a pease_, pluraliter _peasen_; at melius,
singulariter _a pea_, pluraliter _pease_."--P. 77. He might have added,
that, theoretically, _pease_ was the proper singular form; as shown by the
Latin _pis-um_.

_Pullen_ = poultry.

    _Lussurioso._--What? three-and-twenty years in law!

    _Vendice._--I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all
    about _pullen_ and pigs.--"Revenger's Tragedy," iv. 1.

If this were a plural form, it would be a very anomalous one. The -en,
however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the -es in _rich-es_
(_richesse_.) The proper form is in -ain or -eyn.

                      A false theefe,
  That came like a false fox, my _pullain_ to kill and mischeefe.
                         "Gammer Gurton's Needle," v. 2.

_Chickens_.--A third variety of the double inflection (en + s), with the
additional peculiarity of the form _chicken_ being used, at present, almost
exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, probably,
the plural of _chick_. So Wallis considered it:--"At olim etiam per -en vel
-yn formabant pluralia; quorum pauca admodum adhuc retinemus. Ut, _an ox_,
_a chick_, pluralitur _oxen_, _chicken_ (sunt qui dicunt in singulari
_chicken_, et in plurali _chickens_)." _Chick_, _chick-en_, _chick-en-s_.

_Fern_.--According to Wallis the -n in _fer-n_ is the -en in _oxen_, in
other words a plural termination:--"A _fere_ (_filix_) pluraliter _fern_
(verum nunc plerumque _fern_ utroque numero dicitur, sed et in plurali
_ferns_); nam _fere_ et _feres_ prope obsoleta sunt." Subject to this view,
the word _fer-n-s_ would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word
_chicken-s_. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A
reason for believing the -n to be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon
form _fearn_, and the Old High German, _varam_.

_Women_.--Pronounced _wimmen_, as opposed to the singular form _woomman_.
Probably an instance of accommodation.

_Houses_.--Pronounced _houz-ez_. The same peculiarity in the case of s and
z, as occurs between f and v in words like _life_, _lives_, &c.

_Paths_, _youths_.--Pronounced _padhz_, _yoodhz_. The same peculiarity in
the case of þ and ð, as occurs between s and z in the words _house_,
_houses_. "Finita in f plerumque alleviantur in plurali numero,
substituendo v; ut _wife_, _wives_, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam in s
et th, quamvis retento charactere, in _house_, _cloth_, _path_."

§ 205. The words sounded _houz-ez_, _padh-z_, _yoodh-z_, taken along with
the extract from Wallis, lead us to an important class of words.--§ 199 b.

§ 206. Certain words ending in f, like _loaf_, _wife_, &c.

The regular plural of these would be _loafs_, _wifes_, pronounced _loafce_,
_wifce_, &c.

But this is not the case. The sound added to the final f is the sound of z,
not that of s.

And the plurals are sounded _loavz_, _wivz_ (_wivez_, _weivz_).

Furthermore, the sound of the final f is changed to that of v; in other
words, the _first_ of the two letters is accommodated to the second, in
violation to the rule of § 199 b.

Can this be explained? Perhaps it can. In the Swedish language the letter f
has the sound of v; so that _staf_ is sounded _stav_.

Again, in the allied languages the words in question end in the _flat_ (not
the _sharp_) mute,--_weib_, _laub_, _calb_, _halb_, _stab_, &c. = _wife_,
_leaf_, _calf_, _half_, _staff_.

This makes it probable that, originally, the f in _wife_, _loaf_, &c. was
sounded as v; so that the singular forms were _wive_, _loav_.

If so, the _plural is_ perfectly normal; it being the _singular_ form on
which the irregularity lies.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 207. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases,
depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the term _a
house of a father_, the idea expressed by the words _of a father_, is an
idea of relation between them and the word _house_. This idea is an idea of
property or possession. The relation between the words _father_ and _house_
may be called the _possessive_ relation. This relation, or connexion,
between the two words, is expressed by the preposition _of_.

In the term _a father's house_, the idea is, there or thereabouts, the
same; the relation or connexion between the two words being the same. The
expression, however, differs. In _a father's house_ the relation, or
connexion, is expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form,
_father_ becoming _father's_.

_He gave the house to a father_.--Here the words _father_ and _house_ stand
in another sort of relationship, the relationship being expressed by the
preposition _to_. The idea _to a father_ differs from the idea _of a
father_, in being expressed in one way only; viz., by the preposition.
There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done
with _father's_.

_The father taught the child_.--Here there is neither preposition nor
change of form. The connexion between the words _father_ and _child_ is
expressed by the arrangement only.

§ 208. Now if the relation alone between two words constitute a case, the
words _a child_, _to a father_, _of a father_, and _father's_, are all
equally cases; of which one may be called the accusative, another the
dative, a third the genitive, and so on.

Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not constitute a case.
Perhaps there is a necessity of either the addition of a preposition (as in
_of a father_), or of a change in form (as in _father's_). In this case
(although _child_ be not so) _father's_, _of a father_, and _to a father_,
are all equally cases.

Now it has long been remarked, that if the use of a preposition constitute
a case, there must be as many cases in a language as there are
prepositions, and that "_above a man_, _beneath a man_, _beyond a man_,
_round about a man_, _within a man_, _without a man_, shall be cases as
well as _of a man_, _to a man_, and _with a man_."

§ 209. For etymological purposes, therefore, it is necessary to limit the
meaning of the word case; and, as a sort of definition, it may be laid down
that _where there is no change of form there is no case_. With this remark,
the English language may be compared with the Latin.

                 _Latin._    _English._

  _Sing. Nom._   _Pater_     _a father._
        _Gen._   _Patris_    _a father's._
        _Dat._   _Patri_     _to a father._
        _Acc._   _Patrem_    _a father._
        _Abl._   _Patre_     _from a father._

Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in
English there are but _two_, there are (as far, at least, as the word
_pater_ and _father_ are concerned) three more cases in Latin than in

It does not, however, follow that because in the particular word _father_
we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more
than two.

§ 210. Neither does it follow, that because two words may have the _same
form_ they are necessarily in the _same case_; a remark which leads to the
distinction between _a real and an accidental identity of form_.

In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words _smið_,
_ende_, and _dæg_, were respectively, _smiðes_, _endes_, and _dæges_;
whilst the nominative plurals were, _smiðas_, _endas_, and _dægas_.

But when a change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in
each word was ejected, the result was, that the forms of the genitive
singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and
the same; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident.

This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative
plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England,
identical; the apostrophe in _father's_ being a mere matter of orthography.
However, there was _once_ a difference. This modifies the previous
statement, which may now stand thus:--_for a change of case there must be a
change of form existing or presumed_.

§ 211. _The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they
spread._--In the English language there is undoubtedly a _nominative_ case.
This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (_father_, _good_,
_he_) equally. It is found in both numbers.

§ 212. _Accusative._--Some call this the _objective_ case. The words _him_
and _them_ (whatever they may have been originally) are now (to a certain
extent) true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only.
_Thee, me, us_, and _you_ are, to a certain extent, true accusatives. These
are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2.
They are distinguished from the forms _I_, _my_, &c. 3. Their meaning is
accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no
sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only.

One word in the present English is probably a true accusative in the strict
sense of the term, viz., the word _twain_ = _two_. The -n in _twai-n_ is
the -n in _hine_ = _him_ and _hwone_ = _whom_. This we see from the
following inflection:--

                  _Neut._ _Masc._  _Fem._

  _N. and Acc._    Twá,   Twégen,  Twá.
                   \____  _____/
  _Abl. and Dat._     Twám,        Twǽm.
  _Gen._              Twegra,      Twega.

Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the
original character of _twégen_ being accusative. The -n is by no means
radical; besides which, it _is_ the sign of an accusative case, and is
_not_ the sign of a nominative.

§ 213. _Dative._--In the antiquated word _whilom_ (_at times_), we have a
remnant of the old dative in -m. The _sense_ of the word is abverbial; its
form, however, is that of a dative case.

§ 214. _Genitive._--Some call this the possessive case. It is found in
substantives and pronouns (_father's, his_), but not in adjectives. It is
formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant
(_father, fathers; buck, bucks_); or if the word end in -s, by that of -es
(_boxes_, _judges_, &c.) It is found in both numbers: _the men's hearts_;
_the children's bread_. In the plural number, however, it is rare; so rare,
indeed, that wherever the plural ends in s (as it almost always does),
there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words as
_fatherses_, _foxeses_, _princeses_, &c.

§ 215. _Instrumental._--The following extracts from Rask's "Anglo-Saxon
Grammar," teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of
the word spelt _t-h-e_, or of the so-called definite article--"The
demonstrative pronouns are _þæt, se, seó_ (_id, is, ea_), which are also
used for the article; and _þis, þes, þeós_ (_hoc, hic, hæc_). They are thus

           _Neut._  _Masc._  _Fem._      _Neut._  _Masc._  _Fem._

  _Sing N._  þæt      se      seó         þis      þes      þeós.
       _A._  þæt      þone    þá          þis      þisne    þás.
             \____  _____/                \_____  _____/
                  \/                            \/
     _Abl._       þý        þǽre               þise       þisse.
       _D._       þám       þǽre               þisum      þisse.
       _G._       þæs       þǽre               þises      þisse.
                  \_____  _____/               \_____  _____/
                        \/                           \/
  _Plur. N. and A._     þá                           þás.
      _Abl. and D._     þám                          þisum.
               _G._     þára.                        þissa.

"The indeclinable _þe_ is often used instead of _þæt, se, seó_, in all
cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times,
as an article. Hence the English article _the_.

"_þý_ seems justly to be received as a proper _ablativus instrumenti_, as
it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, _mid
þý áþe_ = _with that oath_ ("Inæ Leges," 53). And in the same place in the
dative, _on þǽm áþe_ = _in that oath_."--Pp. 56, 57.

Hence the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _þý_ is one
word; whilst the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _þe_,
another. The latter is the common article: the former the _the_ in
expressions like _all the more_, _all the better_ = _more by all that_,
_better by all that_, and the Latin phrases _eo majus_, _eo melius_.

That _why_ is in the same case with the instrumental _the_ ( = _þý_) may be
seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflexion of the interrogative

         _Neut._   _Masc._
  _N._    Hwæt      Hwá
  _A._    Hwæt      Hwone (hwæne).
          \_____  _____/
  _Abl._      _Hwi_
  _D._         Hwám (hwǽm)
  _G._         Hwæs.

Hence, then, in _the_ and _why_ we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply,

§ 216. _The determination of cases._--How do we determine cases? In other
words, why do we call _him_ and _them_ accusatives rather than datives or
genitives? By one of two means; viz., either by the _sense_ or the _form_.

Suppose that in the English language there were ten thousand dative cases
and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in
-m, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident that,
whatever might be the meaning of the words _him_ and _them_ their form
would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusatives, and the form
dative, we should doubt which test to take.

My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by the
_form_ of the word _alone_; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only
once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word
should be said to be in the dative case. Now the words _him_ and _them_ (to
which we may add _whom_) were once dative cases;[48] -m in Anglo-Saxon
being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the Anglo-Saxons their
sense coincided with their form. At present they are dative forms with an
accusative meaning. Still, as the word _give_ takes after it a dative case,
we have, even now, in the sentence, _give it him_, _give it them_, remnants
of the old dative sense. To say _give it to him_, _to them_, is unnecessary
and pedantic: neither do I object to the expression, _whom shall I give
it?_ If ever the _formal_ test become generally recognised and consistently
adhered to, _him_, _them_, and _whom_ will be called datives with a
latitude of meaning; and then the only true and unequivocal accusatives in
the English language will be the forms _you_, _thee_, _us_, _me_, and

§ 217. _Analysis of cases._--In the word _children's_ we are enabled to
separate the word into three parts. 1. The root _child_. 2. The plural
signs r and en. 3. The sign of the genitive case, s. In this case the word
is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give
the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the
case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the
analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought
always to be attempted.

§ 218. _The true nature of the genitive form in 's._--It is a common notion
that the genitive form _father's_ is contracted from _father his_. The
expression in our liturgy, _for Jesus Christ his sake_, which is merely a
pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea,
however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest
errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake
of contradiction to it.

1. The expression the _Queen's Majesty_ is not capable of being reduced to
the _Queen his Majesty_.

2. In the form _his_ itself, the s has precisely the power that it has in
_father's_, &c. Now _his_ cannot be said to arise out of _he_ + _his_.

3. In the Slavonic, Lithuanic, and classical tongues, the genitive ends in
s, just as it does in English; so that even if the words _father his_ would
account for the English word _father's_, it would not account for the
Sanskrit genitive _pad-as_, of a foot; the Zend _dughdhar-s_, of a
daughter; the Lithuanic _dugter-s_; the Greek ὀδόντ-ος; the Latin
_dent-is_, &c.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 219. _I_, _we_, _us_, _me_, _thou_, _ye_.--These constitute the true
personal pronouns. From _he_, _she_, and _it_, they differ in being
destitute of gender.

These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there
are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only.

§ 220. The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exceptionable. _I_
and _me_, _thou_ and _ye_, stand in no etymological relations to each
other. The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but
defective. _I_ has no _oblique_, and _me_ no nominative case. And so it is
with the rest.

§ 221. _You_.--As far as the practice of the present mode of speech is
concerned, the word _you_ is a _nominative_ form; since we say _you move_,
_you are moving_, _you were speaking_.

Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it
should not. The Anglo-Saxon form for _you_ was _eow_, for _ye_, _ge_.
Neither bears any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are
equally and indifferently nominative and accusative. Hence, it, perhaps, is
more logical to say that a certain form (_you_), is used _either_ as a
nominative or accusative, than to say that the accusative case is used
instead of a nominative. It is clear that _you_ can be used instead of _ye_
only so far as it is nominative in power.

_Ye_.--As far as the evidence of such expressions as _get on with ye_ is
concerned, the word _ye_ is an accusative form. The reasons why it should
or should not be treated as such are involved in the previous paragraph.

§ 222. _Me_.--carrying out the views just laid down, and admitting _you_ to
be a nominative, or _quasi_-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to
the word _me_, and call it also a secondary or equivocal nominative;
inasmuch as such phrases as _it is me_ = _it is I_ are common.

Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No
one says that _c'est moi_ is bad French, and that _c'est je_ is good.

§ 223. _Caution._--Observe, however, that the expression _it is me_ = _it
is I_ will not justify the use of _it is him_, _it is her_ = _it is he_ and
_it is she_. _Me_, _ye_, _you_, are what may be called _indifferent forms_,
i.e., nominative as much as accusative, and accusative as much as
nominative. _Him_ and _her_, on the other hand, are not indifferent. The -m
and -r are respectively the signs of cases other than the nominative.

§ 224. Again: the reasons which allow the form _you_ to be considered as a
nominative plural, on the strength of its being used for _ye_, will not
allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its
being used for _thou_.

§ 225. In phrases like _you are speaking_, &c., even when applied to a
single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, the courtesy
consists in treating _one_ person as _more than one_, and addressing him as
such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain
that, grammatically considered, _you_ = _thou_ is a plural, since the verb
with which it agrees is plural:--_you are speaking_, not _you art

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 226. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words,
there are no equivalents to the Latin forms _sui_, _sibi_, _se_.

Nor yet are there any equivalents to the forms _suus, sua, suum_: since
_his_ and _her_ are the equivalents to _ejus_ and _illius_, and are not
adjectives but genitive cases.

At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem
superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form as _se_,
there could be no such secondary form as _suus_.

Such, however, is not the case. _Suus_ might exist in the language, and yet
_se_ be absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued
whilst the original one had become extinct.

Such is really the case with the _Old_ Frisian. The reflective personal
form, the equivalent to _se_, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive
form, the equivalent to _suus_, is found. In the _Modern_ Frisian, however,
both forms are lost.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 227. The demonstrative pronouns are, 1. _He, it_. 2. _She_. 3. _This,
that_. 4. _The_.

_He_, _she_, and _it_, generally looked on as personal, are here treated as
demonstrative pronouns, for the following reasons.

1. The personal pronouns form an extremely natural class, if the pronouns
of the two first persons be taken by themselves. This is not the case if
they be taken along with _he_, _it_, and _she_.

2. The idea expressed by _he_, _it_, and _she_ is naturally that of
demonstrativeness. In the Latin language _is, ea, id_; _ille, illa, illud_;
_hic, hæc, hoc_, are demonstrative pronouns in sense, as well as in

3. The plural forms _they, them_, in the present English, are the plural
forms of the root of _that_, a true demonstrative pronoun; so that even if
_he_, _she_, and _it_ could be treated as personal pronouns, _they_ could

4. The word _she_ has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon _seó_. Now _seó_ was in
Anglo-Saxon the feminine form of the definite article; the definite article
itself being originally a demonstrative pronoun.

§ 228. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as

_She_.--The Anglo-Saxon form _heó_, being lost to the language, is replaced
by the feminine article _seó_.

§ 229. _Her_.--This is a case, not of the present _she_, but of the
Anglo-Saxon _heó_: so that _she_ may be said to be defective in the oblique
cases, and _her_ to be defective in the nominative.

_Him_.--A dative form, which has replaced the Anglo-Saxon _hine_. When used
as a dative, it was neuter as well as masculine.

_His_.--Originally neuter as well as masculine. Now as a neuter, replaced
by _its_--"et quidem ipsa vox _his_, ut et interrogativum _whose_, nihil
aliud sunt quam _hee's_, _who's_, ubi s omnino idem præstat quod in aliis
possessivis. Similiter autem _his_ pro _hee's_ eodem errore quo nonnunquam
_bin_ pro _been_; item _whose_ pro _who's_ eodem errore quo _done_, _gone_,
_knowne_, _growne_, &c., pro _doen_, _goen_, _knowen,_ vel _do'n_, _go'n_,
_know'n_, _grow'n_; utrobique contra analogiam linguæ; sed usu
defenditur."--Wallis, c.v.

_It_.--Changed from the Anglo-Saxon _hit_, by the ejection of h. The t is
no part of the original word, but a sign of the neuter gender, forming it
regularly from _he_. The same neuter sign is preserved in the Latin _id_
and _illud_.

_Its_.--In the course of time the nature of the neuter sign t, in _it_, the
form being found in but a few words, became misunderstood. Instead of being
looked on as an affix, it passed for part of the original word. Hence was
formed from _it_ the anomalous genitive _its_ superseding the Saxon _his_.
The same was the case with--

_Hers_.--The r is no part of the original word, but the sign of the dative
case. These formations are of value in the history of cases.

§ 230. _Theirs_.--In the same predicament with _hers_ and _its_; either the
case of an adjective, or a case formed from a case.

_Than_ or _then_, and _there_.--Although now adverbs, they were once
demonstrative pronouns, in a certain case and in a certain gender, viz.,
_than_ and _then_ masculine accusative and singular, _there_ feminine
dative and singular.

§ 231. An exhibition of the Anglo-Saxon declension is the best explanation
of the English. Be it observed, that the cases marked in italics are found
in the present language.


_Se, seó_ ( = _she_).

Of this word we meet two forms only, both of the singular number, and both
in the nominative case; viz., masc., _se_; fem. _seó_ ( = the). The neuter
gender and the other cases of the article were taken from the pronoun _þæt_
( = that).


  _þæt_ ( = that, the), and _þis_ ( = this).

                _Neut._   _Masc._   _Fem._    _Neut._  _Masc._  _Fem._

  _Sing. Nom._  _þæt_      --        --       _þis_     þes      þeós.
        _Acc._  _þæt_     _þone_     þâ        þis      þisne    þás.
        _Abl._  _þy_      _þy_      _þǽre._   _þise_    þise     þisse.
        _Dat._   þám       þám      _þǽre._    þisum    þisum    þisse.
        _Gen._   þæs       þæs      _þǽre._    þises    þises    þisse.
                 \__________  _________/       \_________  _________/
                            \/                           \/
  _Plur. Nom. Acc._      _þá._                         _þás._
        _Abl. Dat._      _þám._                         þisum.
        _Gen._           _þára._                        þissa.


  _Hit_ ( = it), (_he_ = he), _heó_ ( = she).

  _Sing. Nom._    _hit_      _he_         heó.
        _Acc._    _hit_       hine        hí.
        _Dat._    _him_      _him_       _hire._
        _Gen._    _his_      _his_       _hire._
                    \_________  __________/
  _Plur. Nom. Acc._           hi
        _Dat._                him  (heom).
        _Gen._                hira (heora).


_þe_ (the)--Undeclined, and used for all cases and genders.

§ 232. _These_.--Here observe--

1st. That the s is no inflection, but a radical part of the word, like the
s in _geese_.

2nd. That the Anglo-Saxon form is _þás_.

These facts create difficulties in respect to the word _these_. Mr. Guest's
view is, perhaps, the best; viz., that the plural element of the word is
the final -e, and that this -e is the old English and Anglo-Saxon adjective
plural; so that _thes-e_ is formed from _this_, as _gode_ ( = _boni_) is
from _god_ ( = _bonus_).

The nominative plural in the Old English adjective ended in -e; as,

        _Singular._            _Plural._
   _M._    _F._    _N._    _M._  _F._  _N._
  _God_,  _god_,  _god_,        _gode_.

In Old English MSS. this plural in -e is general. It occurs not only in
adjectives and pronouns as a regular inflection, but even as a plural of
the genitive _his_, that word being treated as a nominative singular; so
that _hise_ is formed from _his_, as _sui_ from _suus_, or as _eji_ might
have been formed from _ejus_; provided that in the Latin language this last
word had been mistaken for a nominative singular. The following examples
are Mr. Guest's.

    1. In these lay a gret multitude of _syke_ men, _blinde_, crokid, and
    _drye_.--_Wicliffe_, Jon. v.

  2. In all the orders foure is non that can
    So much of dalliance and faire language,
    He hadde ymade ful many a marriage--
    His tippet was ay farsed ful of knives,
    And pinnes for to given _faire_ wives.--_Chau._, Prol.

    3. And _al_ the cuntre of Judee wente out to him, and _alle_ men of
    Jerusalem.--_Wicliffe_, Mark i.

    4. He ghyueth lif to _alle_ men, and brething, and _alle_ thingis; and
    made of von _al_ kynde of men to inhabit on _al_ the face of the
    erthe.--_Wicliffe_, Dedis of Apostlis, xvii.

  5. That fadres sone which _alle_ thinges wrought;
    And _all_, that wrought is with a skilful thought,
    The Gost that from the fader gan procede,
    Hath souled hem.--_Chau._, The Second Nonnes Tale.

  6. And _alle_ we that ben in this aray
    And maken _all_ this lamentation,
    We losten _alle_ our husbondes at that toun.--_Chau._, The Knightes

    7. A _good_ man bryngeth forth _gode_ thingsis of _good_
    tresore.--_Wicliffe_, Matt. xii.

    8. So every _good_ tree maketh _gode_ fruytis, but an yvel tree maketh
    yvel fruytes. A _good_ tree may not mak yvel fruytis, neither an yvel
    tree may make _gode_ fruytis. Every tree that maketh not _good_ fruyt
    schal be cut down.--_Wicliffe_, Matt. vii.

    9. Men loveden more darknessis than light for her werkes weren _yvele_,
    for ech man that doeth _yvel_, hateth the light.--_Wicliffe_, John iii.

    10. And _othere_ seedis felden among thornes wexen up and strangliden
    hem, and _othere_ seedis felden into good lond and gaven fruyt, sum an
    hundred fold, _another_ sixty fold, an _other_ thritty fold,
    &c.--_Wicliffe_, Matt. xiii.

    11. Yet the while he spake to the puple lo _his_ mother and _hise_
    brethren stonden withoute forth.--_Wicliffe_, Mat. xii.

    12. And _hise_ disciplis camen and taken _his_ body.--_Wicliffe_,
    Matt., xiv.

  13. When _thise_ Bretons tuo were fled out of _this_ lond
      Ine toke his feaute of alle, &c.--_Rob Brunne_, p. 3.

    14. _This_ is thilk disciple that bereth witnessyng of _these_ thingis,
    and wroot them.--_Wicliffe_, John xxi.

    15. Seye to us in what powers thou doist _these_ thingis, and who is he
    that gaf to thee _this_ power.--_Wicliffe_, Luke xx.

§ 233. _Those_.--Perhaps the Anglo-Saxon _þá_ with s added. Perhaps the
_þás_ from _þis_ with its power altered. Rask, in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar,
writes "from _þis_ we find, in the plural, _þæs_ for _þás_. From which
afterwards, with a distinction in signification, _these_ and _those_." The
English form _they_ is illustrated by the Anglo-Saxon form _ðage_ = _þá_.
The whole doctrine of the forms in question has yet to assume a
satisfactory shape.

The present declension of the demonstrative pronouns is as follows:--


_She_.--Defective in the oblique cases.



                  _Masc._ _Neut._         _Fem._
  _Nom._           He      It (from _hit_) --
  _Acc._           Him     It              Her.
  _Dat._           Him     --              Her.
  _Gen._           His     --              Her.
  _Secondary Gen._ --      Its             Hers.

  No plural form.




                   _Neut._   _Masc._         _Fem._
  _Sing. Nom._      That      --              --
        _Acc._      That      Than, then[49]  --
        _Dat._      --        --              There.[49]
        _Instrumental_       _Thence._
      _Plur. Nom._            They.[50]
            _Acc._            Them.[50]
            _Gen._            Their.[50]
  _Secondary Gen._            Theirs.[50]


_Singular_, This. _Plural_, These.





       *       *       *       *       *



§ 234. In the relative and interrogative pronouns, _who_, _what_, _whom_,
_whose_, we have, expressed by a change of form, a neuter gender, _what_; a
dative case _whom_; and a genitive case, _whose_: the true power of the s
(viz., as the sign of a case) being obscured by the orthographical addition
of the e mute.

To these may be added, 1. the adverb _why_, originally the ablative form
_hvi_ (_quo modo?_ _quâ viâ?_). 2. The adverb _where_, a feminine dative,
like _there_. 3. _When_, a masculine accusative (in Anglo-Saxon _hwæne_),
and analogous to _then_.

The two sounds in the Danish words _hvi_, _hvad_, &c., and the two sounds
in the English, _what_, _when_ (Anglo-Saxon, _hwæt_, _hwæne_) account for
the forms _why_ and _how_. In the first the w alone, in the second the h
alone, is sounded. The Danish for _why_ is _hvi_, pronounced _vi_.

§ 235. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply
to a few of the remaining pronouns.

_Same_.--Wanting in Anglo-Saxon, where it was replaced by the word _ylca_,
_ylce_. Probably derived from the Norse.

_Self_.--In _myself_, _thyself_, _herself_, _ourselves_, _yourselves_, a
substantive (or with a substantival power), and preceded by a genitive
case. In _himself_ and _themselves_ an adjective (or with an adjectival
power), and preceded by an accusative case. _Itself_ is equivocal, since we
cannot say whether its elements are _it_ and _self_, or _its_ and _self_;
the s having been dropped in utterance. It is very evident that either the
form like _himself_, or the form like _thyself_, is exceptionable; in other
words, that the use of the word is inconsistent. As this inconsistency is
as old as the Anglo-Saxons, the history of the word gives us no
elucidation. In favour of the forms like _myself_ (_self_ being a
substantive), are the following facts:--

1. The plural word _selves_, a substantival, and not an adjectival form.

2. The Middle High German phrases _mîn lîp_, _dîn lîp_, _my body_, _thy
body_, equivalent in sense to _myself_, _thyself_.

3. The circumstance that if _self_ be dealt with as a substantive, such
phrases as _my own self_, _his own great self_, &c., can be used; whereby
the language is a gainer.

"Vox _self_, pluraliter _selves_, quamvis etiam pronomen a quibusdam
censeatur (quoniam ut plurimum per Latinum _ipse_ redditur), est tamen
plane nomen substantivum, cui quidem vix aliquod apud Latinos substantivum
respondet; proxime tamen accedet vox _persona_ vel _propria persona_ ut _my
self_, _thy self_, _our selves_, _your selves_, &c. (_ego ipse_, _tu ipse_,
_nos ipsi_, _vos ipsi_, &c.), ad verbum _mea persona_, _tua persona_, &c.
Fateor tamen _himself_, _itself_, _themselves_, vulgo dici pro _his-self_,
_its-self_, _theirselves_; at (interposito _own_) _his own self_, &c.,
_ipsius propria persona_, &c."--Wallis. c. vii.

4. The fact that many persons actually say _hisself_ and _theirselves_.

_Whit_.--As in the phrase _not a whit_. This enters in the compound
pronouns _aught_ and _naught_.

_One_.--As in the phrase _one does so and so_. From the French _on_.
Observe that this is from the Latin _homo_, in Old French _hom_, _om_. In
the Germanic tongues _man_ is used in the same sense: _man sagt_ = _one
says_ = _on dit_. _One_, like _self_ and _other_, is so far a substantive,
that it is inflected. Gen. sing, _one's own self_: plural, _my wife and
little ones are well_.

_Derived pronouns._--_Any_, in Anglo-Saxon, _ænig_. In Old High German we
have _einîc_ = _any_, and _einac_ = _single_. In Anglo-Saxon _ânega_ means
_single_. In Middle High German _einec_ is always single. In New High
German _einig_ means, 1. _a certain person_ (_quidam_), 2. _agreeing_;
_einzig_, meaning _single_. In Dutch _ênech_ has both meanings. This
indicates the word _án_, _one_, as the root of the word in question.

_Compound pronouns._--_Which_, as has been already stated more than once,
is most incorrectly called the neuter of _who_. Instead of being a neuter,
it is a compound word. The adjective _leiks_, _like_, is preserved in the
Mœso-Gothic words _galeiks_ and _missaleiks_. In Old High German the form
is _lih_, in Anglo-Saxon _lic_. Hence we have Mœso-Gothic _hvêleiks_; Old
High German, _huëlih_; Anglo-Saxon, _huilic_ and _hvilc_; Old Frisian,
_hwelik_; Danish, _hvilk-en_; German, _welch_; Scotch, _whilk_; English,
_which_. The same is the case with--

1. _Such_.--Mœso-Gothic, _svaleiks_; Old High German, _sôlîh_; Old Saxon,
_sulîc_; Anglo-Saxon, _svilc_; German, _solch_; English, _such_. Rask's
derivation of the Anglo-Saxon _swilc_ from _swa-ylc_, is exceptionable.

2. _Thilk_.--An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, as
_thick_, _thuck_, _theck_, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt, Ritson, and
Weber, from _së ylca_, is found in the following forms: Mœso-Gothic,
_þéleiks_; Norse, _þvilikr_.

3. _Ilk_.--Found in the Scotch, and always preceded by the article; _the
ilk_, or _that ilk_, meaning _the same_. In Anglo-Saxon this word is
_ycla_, preceded also by the article _se ylca_, _seó ylce_, _þæt ylce_. In
English, as seen above, the word is replaced by _same_. In no other Gothic
dialect does it occur. According to Grimm, this is no simple word, but a
compound one, of which some such word as _ei_ is the first, and _lîc_ the
second element.

_Aught_.--In Mœso-Gothic is found the particle, _aiv_, _ever_, but only in
negative propositions; _ni_ (_not_) preceding it. Its Old High German form
is _êo_, _io_; in Middle High German, _ie_; in New High German, _je_; in
Old Saxon, _io_; in Anglo-Saxon, â; in Norse, æ. Combined with this
particle the word _whit_ (_thing_) gives the following forms: Old High
German, _êowiht_; Anglo-Saxon, _âviht_; Old Frisian, _âwet_; English
_aught_. The word _naught_ is _aught_ preceded by the negative particle.

_Each_.--The particle _gi_ enters, like the particle in the composition of
pronouns. Old High German, _êogalîher_, every one; _êocalih_, all; Middle
High German, _iegelich_; New High German, _jeglich_; Anglo-Saxon, _ælc_;
English, _each_; the l being dropped, as in _which_ and _such_. _Ælc_, as
the original of the English _each_ and the Scotch _ilka_,[51] must by no
means be confounded with the word _ylce_, _the same_.

_Every_ in Old English, _everich_, _everech_, _everilk one_, is _ælc_,
preceded by the particle _ever_. (Grimm. D. G. iii. 54.)

_Either_.--Old High German, _êogahuëdar_; Middle High German, _iegewëder_;
Anglo-Saxon, _æghväðer_, _ægðer_; Old Frisian, _eider_.

_Neither_.--The same with the negative article prefixed. _Neither_ :
_either_ :: _naught_ : _aught_.

§ 236. _Other_, _whether_.--These words, although derived forms, being
simpler than some that have preceded, might fairly have been dealt with
before. They make, however, a transition from the present to the succeeding
chapter, and so find a place here.

A. _First_, it may be stated of them that the idea which they express is
not that of _one out of many_, but that of _one out of two_.

1. In Sanscrit there are two forms, a) _kataras_, the same word as
_whether_, meaning _which out of two_; b) _katamas, which out of many_. So
also _êkateras, one out of two_; _êkatamas, one out of many_. In Greek the
Ionic form κότερος (πότερος); in Latin, _uter_, _neuter_, _alter_; and in
Mœso-Gothic, _hvathar_, have the same form and the same meaning.

2. In the Scandinavian language the word _anden_, Dano-Saxon, _annar_,
Iceland. corresponds to the English word _second_, and not the German
_zweite_: e.g., _Karl den Anden, Charles the Second_. Now _anthar_ is the
older form of _other_.

B. _Secondly_, it may be stated of them, that the termination -er is the
same termination that we find in the comparative degree.

1. The idea expressed by the comparative degree is the comparison, not of
_many_ but of _two_ things; _this is better than that_.

2. In all the Indo-European languages where there are pronouns in -ter,
there is also a comparative degree in -ter. See next chapter.

3. As the Sanscrit form _kataras_ corresponds with the comparative degree,
where there is the comparison of _two things with each other_; so the word
_katamas_ is a superlative form; and in the superlative degree lies the
comparison of _many_ things with each other.

Hence _other_ and _whether_ (to which may be added _either_ and _neither_)
are pronouns with the comparative form.

_Other_ has the additional peculiarity of possessing the plural form
_others_. Hence, like _self_, it is, in the strictest sense, a substantival

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 237. Preparatory to the consideration of the degrees of comparison, it is
necessary to make some remarks upon a certain class of words, which, with
considerable differences of signification, all agree in one fact, viz., all
terminate in -er, or _t-er_.

1. Certain pronouns, as _ei-th-er_, _n-ei-th-er_, _whe-th-er_, or

2. Certain prepositions and adverbs, as _ov-er_, _und-er_, _af-t-er_.

3. Certain adjectives, with the form of the comparative, but the power of
the positive degree; as _upp-er_, _und-er_, _inn-er_, _out-er_, _hind-er_.

4. All adjectives of the comparative degree; as _wis-er_, _strong-er_,
_bett-er_, &c.

Now what is the idea common to all these words, expressed by the sign -er,
and connecting the four divisions into one class? It is not the mere idea
of comparison; although it is the comparative degree, to the expression of
which the affix in question is more particularly applied. Bopp, who has
best generalised the view of these forms, considers the fundamental idea to
be that of _duality_. In the comparative degree we have a relation between
one object and _some_ other object like it, or a relation between two
single elements of comparison: _A is wiser than B_. In the superlative
degree we have a relation between one object and _all_ others like it, or a
relation between one single and one complex element of comparison: _A is
wiser than B, C, D_, &c.

"As in comparatives a relation between _two_, and in superlatives a
relation between _many_, lies at the bottom, it is natural that their
suffixes should be transferred to other words, whose chief notion is
individualised through that of duality or plurality."--"Vergleichende
Grammatik," § 292, Eastwick's and Wilson's Translation.

The most important proofs of the view adduced by Bopp are,--

1. The Sanskrit form _kataras_ = _which of _two_ persons?_ is a comparative
form; whilst _katamas_ = _which of more than two persons?_ a superlative
form. Similarly, _êkataras_ = _one of two persons_; _êkatamas_ = _one of
more than two persons_.

2. The Greek forms, ἑκάτερος = _each_ (_or either_) _out of two persons_;
whilst ἕκαστος = _each or any out of more than two persons_.

§ 238. The more important of the specific modifications of the general idea
involved in the comparison of two objects are,--

1. Contrariety: as in _inner_, _outer_, _under_, _upper_, _over_. In Latin
the words for _right_ and _left_ end in -er,--_dexter_, _sinister_.

2. Choice in the way of an alternative; as _either_, _neither_, _whether_,

§ 239. _Either_, _neither_, _other_, _whether_.--It has just been stated
that the general fundamental idea common to all these forms is that of
_choice between one of two objects in the way of an alternative_. Thus far
the termination -er in _either_, &c., is the termination -er in the true
comparatives, _brav-er_, _wis-er_, &c. _Either_ and _neither_ are common
pronouns. _Other_, like _one_, is a pronoun capable of taking the plural
form of a substantive (_others_), and also that of the genitive case (_the
other's money, the other's bread_). _Whether_ is a pronoun in the almost
obsolete form _whether_ ( = _which_) _of the two do you prefer_, and a
conjunction in sentences like _whether will you do this or not_? The use of
the form _others_ is recent. "_They are taken out of the way as all
other._"--Job. "_And leave their riches for other._"--Psalms.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 240. There are four leading facts here,--

1. _The older form in -s._ In English we say old-er, bett-er, sweet-er; in
Old High German they similarly said, alt-iro, bets-iro, suats-iro; but in
Mœso-Gothic the forms were ald-iza, bat-iza, sut-iza.

2. _Adverbs_ are susceptible of comparison; e.g.--_Come as soon as you can,
but do not come sooner than is convenient_.

3. The Anglo-Saxon comparison of the adverbs is different from that of the
adjectives; there being one form in -re and -este, another in -or and -ost
respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives: as
_se scearp-re sweord_ = _the sharper sword_, and _se scearp-este sword_ =
_the sharpest sword_. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by
adverbs: as, _se sweord scyrð scearp-or_ = _the sword cuts sharper_, and
_se sweord scyrð scearp-ost_ = _the sword cuts sharpest_.

4. In the Anglo-Saxon, the following words exhibit a change of vowel.

  _Positive._  _Comparative._  _Superlative._

    Lang,        Lengre,         Lengest.       _Long._
    Strang,      Strengre,       Strengest.     _Strong._
    Geong,       Gyngre,         Gyngest.       _Young._
    Sceort,      Scyrtre,        Scyrtest.      _Short._
    Heáh,        Hyrre,          Hyhst.         _High._
    Eald,        Yldre,          Yldest.        _Old._

§ 241. Now the fourth of these facts explains the present forms _elder_ and
_eldest_, the comparatives and superlative of _old_, besides which there
are the regular forms _old-er_ and _old-est_; between which there is,
however, a difference in meaning--_elder_ being used as a substantive, and
having a plural form, _elders_.

§ 242. The abverbial forms in -or and -ost, as compared with the adjectival
in -re, and -este explain the form _rather_. This rhymes to _father_; the a
being full. Nevertheless, the positive form is _rather_ meaning _quick,
easy_ = the classical root ῥαδ- in ῥάδιος. What we do _quickly_ and
_willingly_ we do _preferably_. Now if the word _rather_ were an adjective,
the vowel of the comparative would be sounded as the a in _fate_, as it is,
however, it is abverbial, and as such is properly sounded as the a in

The difference between the action of the small vowel in -re, and of the
full in -or effects this difference, since o being a full vowel, it has the
effect of making the a full also.

§ 243. The old form in -s will be considered, after notice has been taken
of what may be called--

§ 244. _Excess of expression._--Of this two samples have already been
given: 1. in words like _songstress_; 2. in words like _children_. This may
be called _excess of expression_; the feminine gender, in words like
_songstress_, and the plural number, in words like _children_, being
expressed twice over. In the vulgarism _betterer_ for _better_, and in the
antiquated forms _worser_ for _worse_, and _lesser_ for _less_, we have, in
the case of the comparatives, as elsewhere, an excess of expression. In the
old High German we have the forms _betsërôro_, _mêrôro_, _êrërëra_ =
_better_, _more_, _ere_.

§ 245. _Better_.--Although in the superlative form _best_ there is a slight
variation from the strict form of that degree, the word _better_ is
perfectly regular. So far, then, from truth are the current statements that
the comparison of the words _good, better_, and _best_ is irregular. The
inflection is not irregular, but defective. As the statement that applies
to _good_, _better_, and _best_ applies to many words besides, it will be
well in this place, once for all, to exhibit it in full.

§ 246. _Difference between a sequence in logic and a sequence in
etymology._--The ideas or notions of _thou, thy, thee_, are ideas between
which there is a metaphysical or logical connexion. The train of such ideas
may be said to form a sequence, and such a sequence may be called a logical

The words _thou, thy, thee_, are words between which there is a _formal_ or
an _etymological_ connexion. A train of such words may be called a
sequence, and such a sequence may be called an etymological one.

In the case of _thou, thy, thee_, the etymological sequence tallies with
the _logical_ one.

The ideas of _I_, _my_, and _me_ are also in a logical sequence: but the
forms _I_, _my_, and _me_ are not altogether in an etymological one.

In the case of _I, my, me_, the etymological sequence does _not_ tally (or
tallies imperfectly) with the logical one.

This is only another way of saying that between the words _I_ and _me_
there is no connexion in etymology.

It is also only another way of saying, that, in the oblique cases, _I_,
and, in the nominative case, _me_, are _defective_.

Now the same is the case with _good, better_, _bad, worse_, &c. _Good_ and
_bad_ are defective in the comparative and superlative degrees; _better_
and _worse_ are defective in the positive; whilst between _good_ and
_better_, _bad_ and _worse_, there is a sequence in logic, but no sequence
in etymology.

§ 247. To return, however, to the word _better_; no absolute positive
degree is found in any of the allied languages, and in none of the allied
languages is there found any comparative form of _good_. Its root occurs in
the following adverbial forms: Mœso-Gothic, _bats_; Old High German,
_pats_; Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon, _bet_; Middle High German, _baz_; Middle
Dutch, _bat_, _bet_.

§ 248. _Worse_.--This word is one of two things.

1. It is a positive form with a comparative sense; in which case s is part
of the root.

2. It is a comparative degree from the positive form wor- (vair-, wir-,
vyr-), in which case s is the s of the Old Mœso-Gothic inflexion preserved
in this single word.

§ 249. _More_.--In Anglo-Saxon this is _mâ_; in the English of the reign of
Elizabeth it is _moe_; and in certain provincial dialects it is _mo_, at
the present time.

Notwithstanding this, i.e., the form being positive, the _power_ of the
word has always been comparative, and meant _more_ rather than _much_, or

§ 250. _Less_.--In Anglo-Saxon _læssa_ and _læs_. Here there is no
_unequivocal_ sign of the comparative degree; what, then, is the nature of
the word? Is it a positive form with a comparative power like _moe_? or is
it an old comparative in -s? This is undecided. What does it come from?
Grimm derives it from the Mœso-Gothic root _lasiv_ = _weak_. His doctrine
is doubtful. I cannot but believe that it comes from the same root as
_litt-le_; where the old Frisian form _litich_, shows that the -l is no
essential part of the word, and the Danish form _lille_ gets rid of the t.
Still the word is difficult; indeed it is unexplained.

§ 251. _Near_, _nearer_.--Anglo-Saxon, _neah_; comparative, _nearre_,
_near_, _nyr_; superlative, _nyhst_, _nehst_. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon
positive and superlative, the absence of the r. This shows that the English
positive _near_ is the Anglo-Saxon comparative _nearre_, and that in the
secondary comparative _nearer_, we have an _excess of expression_. It may
be, however, that the r in _near_ is a mere point of orthography, and that
it is not pronounced; since, in the English language the words _father_ and
_farther_ are, for the most part, pronounced alike.

§ 252. _Farther_.--Anglo-Saxon _feor, fyrre, fyrrest_. The th seems
euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the δ in ἀνδρὸς, from
ἀνὴρ = man.

_Further_.--Confounded with _farther_, although in reality from a different
word, _fore_. Old High German, _furdir_; New High German, _der vordere_;
Anglo-Saxon, _fyrðre_.

§ 253. _Former_.--A comparative formed from the superlative; _forma_ being
such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with

§ 254. In Mœso-Gothic _spêdists_ means _last_, and _spêdiza_ = _later_. Of
the word _spêdists_ two views may be taken. According to one it is the
positive degree with the addition of st; according to the other, it is the
comparative degree with the addition only of t. Now, Grimm and others lay
down as a rule, that the superlative is formed, not directly from the
positive, but indirectly through the comparative.

With the exception of _worse_ and _less_, all the English comparatives end
in -r: yet no superlative ends in -rt, the form being, not _wise, wiser,
wisert_, but _wise, wiser, wisest_. This fact, without invalidating the
notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the comparative forms
in s; since it is from these, before they have changed to r, that we must
suppose the superlatives to have been derived. The theory being admitted,
we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the
superlative degree. It was introduced _after_ the establishment of the
comparative, and _before_ the change of -s into -r.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 255. The Anglo-Saxon word for _first_ was _for-m-a_.

The root was _for_ = the Latin _præ_, the Greek προ, and being the same
combination which occurs in _fore_, _fore-m-ost_, &c.

The m was the Anglo-Saxon sign of the superlative degree.

It is the m in the Latin words _pri-m-us_, _inti-m-us_, _exti-m-us_,
_ulti-m-us_, &c.

It occurs even in the Gothic tongues; in other words, besides _for-m-a_.

In short, m is an old sign of the superlative degree; probably older than
the usual form, -st, discussed in § 254. This has some important

§ 256. _Former_.--This is a remarkable word: it is a comparative derived
from the Anglo-Saxon superlative, and its analysis is _for-m-er_, with
_excess of inflexion_.

§ 257. _Nea-r-est_.--Here the r is no part of the original root, as may be
seen in § 251. It has grown out of -ah pronounced as the a in _father_. The
true forms are positive, _neah_; comparative, _neah-er_; superlative,
_neah-est_. Such, to a certain extent, is really the case.

§ 258. _Next_.--The superlative of _nigh_, contracted from _nigh-est_. The
Anglo-Saxon forms were _neah_, _nyh-st_, _neh-st_, _nyh-ste_. In
Anglo-Saxon the letter h was pronounced strongly, and sounded like g or k.
This fact is still shown in the spelling; as nigh. In the word _next_ this
sound is preserved, slightly changed into that of k; _next_ = _nek-st_.

§ 259. _Upmost_, &c.--The common statement concerning words like _upmost_
is, that they are compound words, formed by the addition of the word
_most_: this, however, is more than doubtful.

The Anglo-Saxon language presents us with the following forms:--

   _Anglo-Saxon._         _English._

  Innema (inn-ema),     Inmost (in-m-ost).
  Ûtema (ût-ma),        Outmost (out-m-ost).
  Siðema (sið-ema),     Latest.
  Lætema (læt-ema),     Latest.
  Niðema (nið-ema),     Nethermost (neth-er-m-ost).
  Forma (for-ma),       Foremost (fore-m-ost).
  Æftema (aft-ema),     Aftermost (aft-er-m-ost).
  Ufema (uf-ema),       Upmost (up-m-ost).
  Hindema (hind-ema),   Hindmost (hind-m-ost).
  Midema (mid-ema),     Midmost (mid-m-ost).

Now the words in question show at once, that, as far as they are concerned,
the m that appears in the last syllable of each has nothing to do with the
word _most_.

From the words in question there was formed, in Anglo-Saxon, a regular
superlative form in the usual manner; viz., by the addition of -st; as
_æfte-m-est_, _fyr-m-est_, _læte-m-est_, _sið-m-est_, _yfe-m-est_,
_ute-m-est_, _inne-m-est_.

Hence, in the present English, the different parts of the syllable _most_
(in words like _upmost_) come from different quarters. The m is the m in
the Anglo-Saxon words _innema_, &c.; whilst the -st is the common sign of
the superlative. Hence, in separating such words as _midmost_ into its
component parts, we should write

  Mid-m-ost  _not_  mid-most.
  Ut-m-ost    --    ut-most.
  Up-m-ost    --    up-most.
  Fore-m-ost  --    fore-most.
  In-m-ost    --    in-most.
  Hind-m-ost  --    hind-most.
  Out-m-ost   --    out-most.

§ 260. In certain words, however, the syllable _m-ost_ is added to a word
already ending in -er; that is, already marked with the sign of the
comparative degree.

  Neth-er-m-ost.      Hind-er-m-ost.
  Utt-er-m-ost.       Out-er-m-ost.
  Upp-er-m-ost.       Inn-er-m-ost.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 261. Generally speaking, the greater part of the cardinal numbers are
undeclined. As far as _number_ goes, this is necessary.

_One_ is naturally and exclusively _singular_.

_Two_ is naturally _dual_.

The rest are naturally and exclusively _plural_.

As to the inflection of gender and case, there is no reason why all the
numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin _unus, una, unum_,
_unius_. It is a mere habit of our language that they are not so in

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 262. By referring to § 259, we see that -m was an early sign of the
superlative degree. This bears upon the numerals _seven_, _nine_, and

These are _cardinal_ numbers. Nevertheless, the present chapter is the
proper place for noticing them.

There is good reason for believing that the final -n is no part of the
original root. Thus,--

a. _Sev-en_ = the Latin _sept-em_, where the -m is equivalent to the -n.
But in the Greek ἑπτὰ, and the Scandinavian _syv_, and _sju_, neither -n
nor -m occur.

b. _Ni-ne_.--This same applies here. The Latin form is _nov-em_; but the
Greek and Norse are ἐννέα and _niu_.

c. _Ten_.--The older form is _ti-h-un_, in Latin _de-c-em_. The English -n
is the Latin -m. Nevertheless, in the Greek and Norse the forms are δέκα
and _tuo_.

§ 263. What explains this? The following hypothesis. Some of the best
German authorities believe, that the -m, expressive of the superlative
degree, was also used to denote the _ordinal character_ (_ordinality_) _of
the numerals_; so that the -m- in _deci-m-us_, was the -m- in _ulti-m-us_
and _exti-m-us_. This is the first step in the explanation.

§ 264. The next is, to suppose that certain _cardinal_ numerals have taken
and retained the _ordinal_ form; these being the--

  _Latin._    _English._                  _Greek._        _Norse._

  _Sept-em_,  _sev-en_, as opposed to the ἑπτα            _sjau_.
  _Nov-em_,   _ni-ne_      "       "      εννεα            _níu_.
  _Dec-em_,   _te-n_       "       "      δεκα             _tíu_.

I give no opinion as to the accuracy or erroneousness of this view.

§ 265. _Thir-teen_, &c., is _three_ with _ten_ added, or 3 + 10.

§ 266. _Thir-ty_, &c., is _three tens_ (_three decades_), or 3 × 10. In
Mœso-Gothic we find the -ty in the fuller form _tig_ = δέκ-ας in Greek.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 267. In the generality of grammars the definite article _the_, and the
indefinite article _an_, are the very first parts of speech that are
considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to
language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there
is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite
article. In the former language they say ἀνήρ τις = _a certain man_: in the
latter the words _filius patris_ mean equally _the son of the father_, _a
son of a father_, _a son of the father_, or _the son of a father_. In
Mœso-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the indefinite
article; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a different word
from what occurs in English. In these the Greek τις is expressed by the
Gothic root _sum_.

Now, since it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the
words _some man_, _a certain man_, and _a man_, are much the same, an
exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and Mœso-Gothic there
is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the argument, be
fairly said that the words _sum_ and τις are pronouns with a certain sense,
and that _a_ and _an_ are no more; consequently, that in Greek the
indefinite article is τις, in Mœso-Gothic _sum_, and in English _a_ or

A distinction, however, may be made. In the expression ἀνήρ τις (_anær
tis_) = _a certain man_, or _a man_, and in the expression _sum mann_, the
words _sum_ and τις preserve their natural and original meaning; whilst in
_a man_ and _an ox_ the words _a_ and _an_ are used in a secondary sense.
These words, as is currently known, are one and the same, the n, in the
form _a_, being ejected through a euphonic process. They are, moreover, the
same words with the numeral _one_; Anglo-Saxon, _án_; Scotch, _ane_. Now,
between the words _a man_ and _one man_, there is a difference in meaning;
the first expression being the most indefinite. Hence comes the difference
between the English and Mœso-Gothic expressions. In the one the word _sum_
has a natural, in the other, the word _an_ has a secondary power.

The same reasoning applies to the word _the_. Compared with _a man_, the
words _the man_ are very definite. Compared, however, with the words _that
man_, they are the contrary. Now, just as _an_ and _a_ have arisen out of
the numeral _one_, so has _the_ arisen out of the demonstrative pronoun
_þæt_, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in
Anglo-Saxon there was a form _þe_, undeclined, and common to all the cases
of all the numbers.

In no language in its oldest stage is there ever a word giving, in its
primary sense, the ideas of _a_ and _the_. As tongues become modern, some
noun with a _similar_ sense is used to express them. In the course of time
a change of form takes place, corresponding to the change of meaning; e.g.,
_one_ becomes _an_, and afterwards a. Then it is that articles become
looked upon as separate parts of speech, and are dealt with accordingly. No
invalidation of this statement is drawn from the Greek language. Although
the first page of the etymology gives us ὁ, ἡ, τὸ (_ho, hæ, to_), as the
definite articles, the corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that,
in the oldest stage of the language, ὁ (_ho_) = _the_, had the power of
οὗτος (_howtos_) = _this_.

The origin of the articles seems uniform. In German _ein_, in Danish _en_,
stand to _one_ in the same relation that _an_ does. The French _un_,
Italian and Spanish _uno_, are similarly related to _unus_ = _one_.

And as, in English, _the_, in German _der_, in Danish _den_, come from the
demonstrative pronouns, so, in the classical languages, are the French
_le_, the Italian _il_ and _lo_, and the Spanish _el_, derived from the
Latin demonstrative _ille_.

In his "Outlines of Logic," the present writer has given reasons for
considering the word _no_ (as in _no man_) an article.

That _the_, in expressions like _all the more_, _all the better_, &c., is
no article, has already been shown.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 268. Compared with the words _lamb_, _man_, and _hill_, the words
_lambkin_, _mannikin_, and _hillock_ convey the idea of comparative
smallness or diminution. Now, as the word _hillock_ = _a little hill_
differs in _form_ from _hill_, we have in English a series of _diminutive_
forms, or _diminutives_.

The English diminutives may be arranged according to a variety of
principles. Amongst others:

1. _According to their form._--The word _hillock_ is derived from _hill_,
by the _addition_ of a _syllable_. The word _tip_ is derived from _top_, by
the _change_ of a _vowel_.

2. _According to their meaning._--In the word _hillock_ there is the simple
expression of comparative smallness in size. In the word _doggie_ for
_dog_, _lassie_ for _lass_, the addition of the -ie makes the word not so
much a diminutive as a term of tenderness or endearment. The idea of
smallness, accompanied, perhaps, with that of neatness, generally carries
with it the idea of approbation; hence, the word _clean_ in English, means,
in German, _little_ = _kleine_. The feeling of protection which is extended
to small objects engenders the notion of endearment.

§ 269. The Greek word μείωσις (_meiôsis_) means diminution; the Greek word
ὑποκόρισμα (_hypokorisma_) means an endearing expression. Hence we get
names for the two kinds of diminutives; viz., the term _meiotic_ for the
true diminutives, and the term _hypocoristic_ for the diminutives of

3. _According to their historical origin._--The syllable -ock, as in
_hillock_, is of Anglo-Saxon and Gothic origin. The -et, as in _lancet_, is
of French and classical origin.

4. _According as they affect proper names, or common names._--_Hawkin_,
_Perkin_, _Wilkin_, &c. In these words we have the diminutives of _Hal_,
_Peter_, _Will_, &c.

§ 270. The diminutive forms of Gothic origin are the first to be

1. _Those formed by a change of vowel._--_Tip_, from _top_. The relation of
the feminine to the masculine is allied to the ideas conveyed by many
diminutives. Hence in the word _kit_, from _cat_, it is doubtful whether
there be meant a female cat or a little cat. _Kid_ is a diminutive form of

2. _Those formed by the addition of a letter or letters._--Of the
diminutive characteristics thus formed the commonest, beginning from the
simpler forms, are

Ie.--Almost peculiar to the Lowland Scotch; as _daddie_, _lassie_,
_minnie_, _wifie_, _mousie_, _doggie_, _boatie_, &c.

Ock.--_Bullock_, _hillock_.

Kin.--_Lambkin_, _mannikin_, _ladikin_, &c. As is seen above, common in
proper names.

En.--_Chicken_, _kitten_, from _cock_, _cat_. The notion of diminution, if
indeed that be the notion originally conveyed, lies not in the -en, but in
the vowel. In the word _chicken_, from _cock_, observe the effect of the
small vowel on the c.

The consideration of words like _duckling_, and _gosling_, is purposely

The chief diminutive of classical origin is--

_Et_, as in _trumpet_, _lancet_, _pocket_; the word _pock_, as in
_meal-pock_ = _a meal-bag_, being found in the Scottish. From the French
-ette, as in _caissette_, _poulette_.

The forms -rel, as in _cockerel_, _pickerel_, and -let, as in _streamlet_,
require a separate consideration. The first has nothing to do with the
Italian forms _acquerella_ and _coserella_--themselves, perhaps, of Gothic,
rather than of classical origin.

In the Old High-German there are a multitude of diminutive forms in -el; as
_ouga_ = _an eye_, _ougili_ = _a little eye_; _lied_ = _a song_, _liedel_ =
_a little song_. This indicates the nature of words like _cockerel_.

Even in English the diminutive power of -el can be traced in the following

_Soare_ = a deer in its third year. _Sor-rel_--a deer in its second
year.--See "Love's Labour Lost," with the note.

_Tiercel_ = a small sort of hawk, one-third less (_tierce_) than the common

_Kantle_ = _small corner_, from _cant_ = _a corner_.--"Henry IV."

_Hurdle_; in Dutch _horde_; German, _hurde_. _Hording_, without the -l, is
used in an allied sense by builders in English.

In the words in point we must assume an earlier form, _cocker_ and _piker_,
to which the diminutive form -el is affixed. If this be true, we have, in
English, representatives of the diminutive form -el so common in the High
Germanic dialects. _Wolfer_ = _a wolf_, _hunker_ = _a haunch_, _flitcher_ =
_a flitch_, _teamer_ = _a team_, _fresher_ = _a frog_,--these are north
country forms of the present English.

The termination -let, as in _streamlet_, seems to be double, and to consist
of the Gothic diminutive -l, and the French diminutive -t.

§ 271. _Augmentatives._--Compared with _capello_ = _a hat_, the Italian
word _capellone_ = _a great hat_, is an augmentative. The augmentative
forms, pre-eminently common in the Italian language, often carry with them
a depreciating sense.

The termination -rd (in Old High German, -hart), as in _drunkard_,
_braggart_, _laggard_, _stinkard_, carries with it this idea of
depreciation. In _buzzard_, and _reynard_, the name of the fox, it is
simply augmentative. In _wizard_, from _witch_, it has the power of a
masculine form.

The termination -rd, taken from the Gothic, appears in the modern languages
of classical origin: French, _vieillard_; Spanish, _codardo_. From these we
get, at secondhand, the word _coward_.

The word _sweetheart_ is a derived word of this sort, rather than a
compound word; since in Old High German and Middle High German, we have the
corresponding form _liebhart_. Now the form for _heart_ is in German not
_hart_, but _herz_.

Words like _braggadocio_, _trombone_, _balloon_, being words of foreign
origin, prove nothing as to the further existence of augmentative forms in

§ 272.--_Patronymics._--In the Greek language the notion of _lineal
descent_, in other words, the relation of the son to the father, is
expressed by a particular termination; as Πηλεύς (_Peleus_), Πηλείδης
(_Peleidæs_), the son of Peleus. It is very evident that this mode of
expression is very different from either the English form _Johnson_ = _the
son of John_, or the Gaelic _MacDonald_ = _the son of Donald_. In these
last-named words, the words _son_ and _Mac_ mean the same thing; so that
_Johnson_ and _MacDonald_ are not _derived_ but _compound_ words. This
Greek way of expressing descent is peculiar, and the words wherein it
occurs are classed together by the peculiar name _patronymic_; from _patær_
= _a father_, and _onoma_ = _a name_.

Is there anything in English corresponding to the Greek patronymics?

Not in the _present_ English? There was, however, in the Anglo-Saxon.

In the Anglo-Saxon, the termination -ing is as truly patronymic as -ίδης in
Greek. In the Bible-translation the _son of Elisha_ is called _Elising_. In
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle occur such genealogies as the following:--_Ida
wæs Eopping_, _Eoppa Esing_, _Esa Inging_, _Inga Angenviting_, _Angenvit
Alocing_, _Aloc Beonocing_, _Beonoc Branding_, _Brand Bældæging_, _Bældæg
Vódening_, _Vóden Friðowulfing_, _Friðowulf Finning_, _Finn Godwulfing_,
_Godwulf Geating_ = Ida was the son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esa, Esa of Inga,
Inga of Angenvit, Angenvit of Aloc, Aloc of Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand
of Bældæg, Bældæg of Woden, Woden of Friðowulf, Friðowulf of Finn, Finn of
Godwulf, Godwulf of Geat.--In Greek, Ἴδα ἦν Ἐοππείδης, Ἔοππα Ἠσείδης, Ἤσα
Ἰγγείδης, Ἴγγα Ἀγγενφιτείδης, &c. In the plural number these forms denote
the _race of_; as _Scyldingas_ = _the Scyldings_, or the race of _Scyld_,
&c. Edgar Atheling means Edgar of the race of the nobles.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 273. The only word in the present English that requires explanation is
the name of the principality _Wales_.

1. The form is _plural_, however much the meaning may be _singular_; so
that the -s in _Wale-s_ is the -s in _fathers_, &c.

2. It has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon from _wealhas_ = _foreigners_, from
_wealh_ = _a foreigner_, the name by which the Welsh are spoken of by the
Germans of England, just as the Italians are called Welsh by the Germans of
Germany; and just as _wal-nuts_ = _foreign nuts_, or _nuces Galliæ_.
_Welsh_ = _weall-isc_ = _foreign_, and is a derived adjective.

3. The transfer of the name of the _people_ inhabiting a certain country to
the _country_ so inhabited, was one of the commonest processes in both
Anglo-Saxon and Old English.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 274. In order to understand clearly the use of the so-called infinitive
mood in English, it is necessary to bear in mind two facts, one a matter of
_logic_, the other a matter of _history_.

In the way of _logic_, the difference between a noun and a verb is less
marked than it is in the way of _grammar_.

Grammatically, the contrast is considerable. The inflection of nouns
expresses the ideas of sex as denoted by gender, and of relation in place
as denoted by cases. That of verbs rarely expresses sex, and never
relations in place. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun
ever does or can express; e.g., the relation of the agency to the
individual speaking, by means of _person_; the time in which acts take
place, by means of _tense_; and the conditions of their occurrence, by
means of _mood_.

The idea of _number_ is the only one that, on a superficial view, is common
to these two important parts of speech.

§ 275. Logically, however, the contrast is inconsiderable. A noun denotes
an object of which either the senses or the intellect can take cognizance,
and a verb does no more. _To move_ = _motion_, _to rise_ = _rising_, _to
err_ = _error_, _to forgive_ = _forgiveness_. The only difference between
the two parts of speech is this, that, whereas a noun may express any
object whatever, verbs can only express those objects which consist in an
action. And it is this superadded idea of action that superadds to the verb
the phenomena of tense, mood, person, and voice; in other words, the
phenomena of conjugation.

§ 276. A noun is a word capable of _declension_ only. A verb is a word
capable of declension and _conjugation_ also. The fact of verbs being
declined as well as conjugated must be remembered. _The participle has the
declension of a noun adjective, the infinitive mood the declension of a
noun substantive. Gerunds and supines, in languages where they occur, are
only names for certain cases of the verb._

§ 277. Although in all languages the verb is equally capable of declension,
it is not equally declined. The Greeks, for instance, used forms like

  τὸ φθονεῖν = _invidia_.
  τοῦ φθονεῖν = _invidiæ_.
  ἐν τῷ φθονεῖν = _in invidia_.

§ 278. Returning, however, to the illustration of the substantival
character of the so-called infinitive mood, we may easily see--

α. That the name of any action may be used without any mention of the
agent. Thus, we may speak of the simple fact of _walking_ or _moving_,
independently of any specification of the _walker_ or _mover_.

β. That, when actions are spoken of thus indefinitely, the idea of either
person or number has no place in the conception; from which it follows that
the so-called infinitive mood must be at once impersonal, and without the
distinction of singular, dual, and plural.

γ. That, nevertheless, the ideas of time and relation in space _have_ place
in the conception. We can think of a person being _in the act of striking a
blow_, of his _having been in the act of striking a blow_, or of his _being
about to be in the act of striking a blow_. We can also think of a person
being _in the act of doing a good action_, or of his being _from the act of
doing a good action_.

§ 279. This has been written to show that verbs of languages in general are
as naturally declinable as nouns. What follows will show that the verbs of
the Gothic languages in particular were actually declined, and that
fragments of this declension remain in the present English.

The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (or infinitive state)
consisted, in its fullest form, of three cases, a nominative (or
accusative), a dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because
its occurrence in the Gothic languages is the least constant.

In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in -an, with a single

  Lufian = _to love_ = _amare_.
  Bærnan = _to burn_ = _urere_.
  Syllan = _to give_ = _dare_.

In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in -nne, and was
preceded by the preposition _to_.

  To lufienne = _ad amandum_.
  To bærnenne = _ad urendum_.
  To syllanne = _ad dandum_.

The genitive, ending in -es, occurs only in Old High German and Modern High
German, _plâsannes_, _weinnenes_.

§ 280. With these preliminaries we can take a clear view of the English
infinitives. They exist under two forms, and are referable to a double

1. The _independent_ form.--This is used after the words _can_, _may_,
_shall_, _will_, and some others, as, _I can speak_, _I may go_, _I shall
come_, _I will move_. Here there is no preposition, and the origin of the
infinitive is from the form in -an.

2. The _prepositional_ form.--This is used after the majority of English
verbs, as, _I wish to speak_, _I mean to go_, _I intend to come_, _I
determine to move_. Here we have the preposition _to_ and the origin of the
infinitive is from the form -nne.

§ 281. Expressions like _to err_ = _error_, _to forgive_ = _forgiveness_,
in lines like

 "To err is human, to forgive divine,"

are very remarkable. They exhibit the phenomena of a nominative case having
grown not only out of a dative but out of a dative _plus_ its governing

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 282. Of the divisions of verbs into active and passive, transitive and
intransitive, unless there be an accompanying change of _form_, etymology
takes no cognisance. The forces of the auxiliary verbs, and the tenses to
which they are equivalent, are also points of syntax rather than of

Four classes, however, of _derived_ verbs, as opposed to _simple_,
especially deserve notice.

I. Those ending in -en; as _soften_, _whiten_, _strengthen_, &c. Here the
-en is a derivational affix; and not a representative of the Anglo-Saxon
infinitive form -an (as _lufian_, _bærnan_ = _to love_, _to burn_), and the
Old English -en (as _tellen_, _loven_).

II. Transitive verbs derived from intransitives by a change of the vowel of
the root.

  _Primitive Intransitive Form._ _Derived Transitive Form._

           Rise                           Raise.
           Lie                            Lay.
           Sit                            Set.
           Fall                           Fell.
           Drink                          Drench.

In Anglo-Saxon these words were more numerous than they are at present.

  _Intrans. Infinitive._     _Trans. Infinitive._

   Yrnan, _to run_            Ærnan, _to make to run_.
   Byrnan, _to burn_          Bærnan, _to make to burn_.
   Drincan, _to drink_        Drencan, _to drench_.
   Sincan, _to sink_          Sencan, _to make to sink_.
   Liegan, _to lie_           Lecgan, _to lay_.
   Sittan, _to sit_           Settan, _to set_.
   Drífan, _to drift_         Dræfan, _to drive_.
   Fëallan, _to fall_         Fyllan, _to fell_.
   Wëallan, _to boil_         Wyllan, _to make to boil_.
   Flëogan, _to fly_          A-fligan, _to put to flight_.
   Bëogan, _to bow_           Bígan, _to bend_.
   Faran, _to go_             Feran, _to convey_.
   Wacan, _to wake_           Weccan, _to waken_.

All these intransitives form their præterite by a change of vowel; as
_sink_, _sank_; all the transitives by the addition of d or t, as _sell_,

III. Verbs derived from nouns by a change of accent; as _to survéy_, from a

  _Nouns._         _Verbs._       |    _Nouns._         _Verbs._
   Ábsent           absént.       |     Éxtract          extráct.
   Ábstract         abstráct.     |     Férment          fermént.
   Áccent           accént.       |     Fréquent         frequént.
   Áffix            affíx.        |     Ímport           impórt.
   Aúgment          augmént.      |     Íncense          incénse.
   Cólleague        colléague.    |     Ínsult           insúlt.
   Cómpact          compáct.      |     Óbject           objéct.
   Cómpound         compóund.     |     Pérfume          perfúme.
   Cómpress         compréss.     |     Pérmit           permít.
   Cóncert          concért.      |     Préfix           prefíx.
   Cóncrete         concréte.     |     Prémise          premíse.
   Cónduct          condúct.      |     Présage          preságe.
   Cónfine          confíne.      |     Présent          presént.
   Cónflict         conflíct.     |     Próduce          prodúce.
   Cónserve         consérve.     |     Próject          projéct.
   Cónsort          consórt.      |     Prótest          protést.
   Cóntract         contráct.     |     Rébel            rebél.
   Cóntrast         contrást.     |     Récord           recórd.
   Cónverse         convérse.     |     Réfuse           refúse.
   Cónvert          convért.      |     Súbject          subjéct.
   Déscant          descánt.      |     Súrvey           survéy.
   Désert           desért.       |     Tórment          tormént.
   Dígest           digést.       |     Tránsfer         transfér.
   Éssay            essáy.        |     Tránsport        transpórt.

Walker attributes the change of accent to the influence of the participial
termination -ing. All words thus affected are of foreign origin.

IV. Verbs formed from nouns by changing a final _sharp_ consonant into its
corresponding _flat_ one; as,

  _The_ use            _to_ use,         _pronounced_ uze.
  _The_ breath         _to_ breathe          --       breadhe.
  _The_ cloth          _to_ clothe           --       clodhe.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 283. Compared with the Latin, the Greek, the Mœso-Gothic, and almost all
the ancient languages, there is, in English, in respect to the persons of
the verbs, but a very slight amount of inflection. This may be seen by
comparing the English word _call_ with the Latin _voco_.

    _Sing._    _Plur._    |      _Sing._    _Plur._
  1. Voc-o    Voc-amus.   |      Call        Call.
  2. Voc-as   Voc-atis.   |      Call-est    Call.
  3. Voc-at   Voc-ant.    |  [52]Call-eth    Call.

Here the Latins have different forms for each different person, whilst the
English have forms for two only; and even of these one (_callest_) is
becoming obsolete. With the forms voc-o, voc-amus, voc-atis, voc-ant, there
is, in the current English, nothing correspondent.

In the word _am_, as compared with _are_ and _art_, we find a sign of the
first person singular.

In the old forms _tellen_, _weren_, &c., we have a sign of the plural

§ 284. In the Modern English, the Old English, and the Anglo-Saxon, the
peculiarities of our personal inflections are very great. This may be seen
from the following tables of comparison:--

  _Present Tense, Indicative Mood._


               _1st person._    _2nd person._    _3rd person._

  _Singular._     Sôkja          Sôkeis          Sôkeiþ--_seek_.
  _Plural._       Sôkjam         Sôkeiþ          Sokjand.

  _Old High German._

  _Singular._     Prennu         Prennîs         Prennit--_burn_.
  _Plural._       Prennames      Prennat         Prennant.


  _Singular._     Kalla          Kallar          Kallar--_call_.
  _Plural._       Kôllum         Kalliþ          Kalla.

  _Old Saxon._

  _Singular._     Sôkju          Sôkîs           Sôkîd--_seek_.
  _Plural._       Sôkjad         Sôkjad          Sôkjad.


  _Singular._     Lufige         Lufast          Lufað.
  _Plural._       Lufiað         Lufiað          Lufiað.

  _Old English._

  _Singular._     Love           Lovest          Loveth.
  _Plural._       Loven          Loven           Loven.

  _Modern English._

  _Singular._     Love           Lovest          Loveth (or Loves).
  _Plural._       Love           Love            Love.

§ 285. Herein remark; 1. the Anglo-Saxon addition of t in the second person
singular; 2. the identity in form of the three persons of the plural
number; 3. the change of -að into -en in the Old English plural; 4. the
total absence of plural forms in the Modern English; 5. the change of the
th into s, in _loveth_ and _loves_. These are points bearing especially
upon the history of the English persons. The following points indicate a
more general question:

1. The full form _prennames_ in the newer Old High German, as compared with
_sôkjam_ in the _old_ Mœso-Gothic.

2. The appearance of the r in Icelandic.

3. The difference between the Old Saxon and the Anglo-Saxon in the second
person singular; the final t being absent in Old Saxon.

§ 286. _The person in -t._--The forms _art_, _wast_, _wert_, _shalt_,
_wilt_, or _ar-t_, _was-t_, _wer-t_, _shal-t_, _wil-t_, are remarkable.
Here the second person singular ends, not in -st, but in t. The reason for
this is to be sought in the Mœso-Gothic and the Icelandic.

In those languages the form of the person changes with the tense, and the
second singular of the præterite tense of one conjugation is, not -s, but
-t; as Mœso-Gothic, _svôr_ = _I swore_, _svôrt_ = _thou swarest_, _gráip_ =
_I griped_, _gráipt_ = _thou gripedst_; Icelandic, _brannt_ = _thou
burnest_, _gaft_ = _thou gavest_. In the same languages ten verbs are
conjugated like præterites. Of these, in each language, _skal_ is one.


  _Singular._   _Dual._     _Plural._

  1. Skal        Skulu       Skulum.
  2. Skalt       Skuluts     Skuluþ.
  3. Skall       Skuluts     Skulun.


  _Singular._   _Plural._

  1. Skall       Skulum.
  2. Skalt       Skuluð.
  3. Skal        Skulu.

§ 287. _Thou spakest_, _thou brakest_, _thou sungest_.[53]--

In these forms there is a slight though natural anomaly. They belong to the
class of verbs which form their præterite by changing the vowel of the
present; as _sing_, _sang_, &c. Now, all words of this sort in Anglo-Saxon
formed their second singular præterite, not in -st, but in -e; as _þú
funde_ = _thou foundest_, _þú sunge_ = _thou sungest_. The English
termination is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to
the præterites formed by changing the vowel. _Thou loved'st_ is Anglo-Saxon
as well as English, viz., _þú lufodest_.

§ 288. In the northern dialects of the Anglo-Saxon the -ð of plurals like
_lufiað_ = _we love_ becomes -s. In the Scottish this change was still more

  The Scottes come that to this day
  _Havys_ and Scotland haldyn ay.--Wintoun, 11, 9, 73.

James I. of England ends nearly all his plurals in -s.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 289. As compared with the present plural forms, _we love_, _ye love_,
_they love_, the Anglo-Saxons had the truly plural forms, _we lufiað_, _ge
lufiað_, _hi lufiað_. The Old English also had a true plural inflection _we
loven_, _ye loven_, _they loven_. The present English wants both the form
in -en, and the form in -að. In other words, the Anglo-Saxon and the Old
English have a plural _personal_ characteristic, whilst the Modern English
has nothing to correspond with it.

§ 290. In the forms _luf-iað_, and _lov-en_, the change from singular to
plural is made by adding a syllable; but there is no reason against the
inflection running thus--_I love_, _thou lovest_, _he loves_; _we lave_,
_ye lave_, _they lave_; in other words, there is no reason against the
_vowel_ of the root being changed, just as is the case with the form
_speak, spoke_; _fall, fell_.

Now, in Anglo-Saxon, with a great number of verbs such a plural inflection
not only actually takes place, but takes place most regularly. It takes
place, however, in the past tense only. And this is the case in all the
Gothic languages as well as in Anglo-Saxon. Amongst the rest, in--


  Skáin, _I shone_; skinum, _we shone_.
  Smáit, _I smote_; smitum, _we smote_.
  Káus, _I chose_; kusum, _we chose_.
  Láug, _I lied_; lugum, _we lied_.
  Gab, _I gave_; gêbum, _we gave_.
  At, _I ete_; étum, _we ete_.
  Stal, _I stole_; stélum, _we stole_.
  Qvam, _I came_; qyêmum, _we came_.


  Arn, _I ran_; urnon, _we run_.
  Ongan, _I began_; ongunnon, _we begun_.
  Span, _I span_; spunnon, _we spun_.
  Sang, _I sang_; sungon, _we sung_.
  Swang, _I swang_; swangon, _we swung_.
  Dranc, _I drank_; druncon, _we drunk_.
  Sanc, _I sank_; suncon, _we sunk_.
  Sprang, _I sprang_; sprungon, _we sprung_.
  Swam, _I swam_; swummon, _we swum_.
  Rang, _I rang_; rungon, _we rung_.

From these examples the reader has himself drawn his inference; viz. that
words like

  _Began_, _begun_.
  _Ran_, _run_.
  _Span_, _spun_.
  _Sang_, _sung_.
  _Swang_, _swung_.
  _Sprang_, _sprung_.
  _Sank_, _sunk_.
  _Swam_, _swum_.
  _Rang_, _rung_.
  _Bat_, _bit_.
  _Smote_, _smit_.
  _Drank_, _drunk_, &c.,

generally called double forms of the past tense, were originally _different
numbers of the same tense_, the forms in a, as _swam_, being singular, and
the forms in u, as _swum_, plural.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 291. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered.

Between the second plural imperative, and the second plural indicative,
_speak ye_, and _ye speak_, there is no difference of form.

Between the second singular imperative _speak_, and the second singular
indicative, _speakest_, there is a difference in form.

Still, as the imperative form _speak_ is distinguished from the indicative
form _speakest_ by the _negation_ of a character rather than by the
possession of one, it cannot be said that there is in English any
imperative mood.

§ 292. _If he speak_, as opposed to _if he speaks_, is characterized by a
negative sign only, and consequently is no true example of a subjunctive.
_Be_, as opposed to _am_, in the sentence _if it be so_, is a fresh word
used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a subjunctive.
It is a different word altogether, and is only the subjunctive of _am_, in
the way _puss_ is the vocative of _cat_.

The only true subjunctive inflection in the English language is that of
_were_ and _wert_, as opposed to the indicative forms _was_ and _wast_.

   _Indicative._     |             _Subjunctive._
    _Singular._      |     _Singular._          _Plural._
  1. I was.          |     If I were.           If we were.
  2. Thou wast.      |     If thou wert.        If ye were.
  3. He was.         |     If he were.          If they were.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 293. The nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to
the Greek; since in that language they are more numerous, and more strongly
marked than elsewhere.

_I strike_, _I struck_.--Of these words, the first implies an action taking
place at the time of speaking, the second marks an action that has already
taken place.

These two notions of present and of past time, being expressed by a change
of form, are true tenses. If there were no change of form, there would be
no change of tense. They are the only true tenses in our language. In _I
was beating_, _I have beaten_, _I had beaten_, and _I shall beat_, a
difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed by _a combination
of words_, and not _by a change of form_, no true tenses are constituted.

§ 294. In Greek the case is different. Τύπτω (typtô) = _I beat_; ἔτυπτον
(etypton) = _I was beating_; τύψω (typsô) = _I shall beat_; ἔτυψα (etypsa)
= _I beat_; τέτυφα (tetyfa) = _I have beaten_; ἐτετύφειν (etetyfein) = _I
had beaten_. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and
the same conjugation, six different tenses; whereas, in English, there are
but two. The forms τέτυφα and ἔτυψα are so strongly marked, that we
recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed by a
reduplication of the initial τ, and, consequently, may be called the
reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the form ἔτυψα an
ε is prefixed, and an σ is added. In the allied language of Italy the ε
disappears, whilst the σ (s) remains. Ἔτυψα is said to be an aorist tense.
_Scripsi_ is to _scribo_ as ἔτυψα is to τύπτω.

§ 295. Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two
tenses. Both forms exist. They are used, however, indiscriminately. The
aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect. The perfect
has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist. In the following pair of
quotations, _vixi_, the aorist form, is translated _I have lived_, while
_tetigit_, the perfect form, is translated _he touched_.

  _Vixi_, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi;
  Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibis imago.--_Æn._ iv.

  Ut primum alatis _tetigit_ magalia plantis.--_Æn._ iv.

§ 296. When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference of
meaning, it has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in
question. One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that,
although in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are
found, they are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word.
Wherever there is the perfect, the aorist is wanting, and _vice versâ_. The
two ideas _I have struck_ and _I struck_ are merged into the notion of past
time in general, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that
of the Greek perfect, and sometimes by that of the Greek aorist. On account
of this the grammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses to _five_;
forms like _cucurri_ and _vixi_ being dealt with as one and the same tense.
The true view is, that in _curro_ the aorist form is replaced by the
perfect, and in _vixi_ the perfect form is replaced by the aorist.

§ 297. In the _present_ English there is no undoubted perfect or
reduplicate form. The form _moved_ corresponds in meaning not with τέτυφα
and _momordi_, but with ἔτυψα and _vixi_. Its sense is that of ἔτυψα, and
not that of τέτυφα. The notion given by τέτυφα we express by the
circumlocution _I have beaten_. We have no such form as _bebeat_ or
_memove_. In the Mœso-Gothic, however, there was a true reduplicate form;
in other words, a perfect tense as well as an aorist. It is by the
possession of this form that the verbs of the first six conjugations are

  _Mœso-Gothic._             _Mœso-Gothic._
                  _English._                      _English._

  1st.   Falþa,      _I fold_    Fáifalþ,        _I have folded_,
                                                  or _I folded_.
         Halda,      _I feed_    Háihald,        _I have fed_,
                                                  or _I fed_.
         Haha,       _I hang_    Háihah,         _I have hanged_,
                                                  or _I hanged_.
  2nd.   Háita,      _I call_    Háiháit,        _I have called_,
                                                  or _I called_.
         Láika,      _I play_    Láiláik,        _I have played_,
                                                  or _I played_.
  3rd.   Hláupa,     _I run_     Hláiláup        _I have run_,
                                                  or _I ran_.
  4th.   Slêpa,      _I sleep_   Sáizlêp,        _I have slept_,
                                                  or _I slept_.
  5th.   Láia,       _I laugh_   Láilô,          _I have laughed_,
                                                  or _I laught_.
         Sáija,      _I sow_     Sáisô,          _I have sown_,
                                                  or _I sowed_.
  6th.   Grêta,      _I weep_    Gáigrôt,        _I have wept_,
                                                  or _I wept_.
         Téka,       _I touch_   Táitôk,         _I have touched_,
                                                  or _I touched_.

In Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an
aorist sense, and _vice versâ_.

In Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms.

In Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, the two forms are dealt with as a single
tense; _láilô_ being called the præterite of _láia_, and _svôr_ the
præterite of _svara_. The true view, however, is that in Mœso-Gothic, as in
Latin, there are two past tenses, each having a certain latitude of
meaning, and each, in certain words, replacing the other.

The reduplicate form, in other words, the perfect tense, is current in none
of the Gothic languages except the Mœso-Gothic. A trace of it is said to be
found in the Anglo-Saxon of the seventh century in the word _heht_, which
is considered to be _hê-ht_, the Mœso-Gothic _háiháit_, _vocavi_. _Did_
from _do_ is also considered to be a reduplicate form.

§ 298. In the English language the tense corresponding with the Greek
aorist and the Latin forms like _vixi_, is formed after two modes; 1, as in
_fell_, _sang_, and _took_, from _fall_, _sing_, and _take_, by changing
the vowel of the present: 2, as in _moved_ and _wept_, from _move_ and
_weep_, by the addition of -d or -t; the -d or -t not being found in the
original word, but being a fresh element added to it. In forms, on the
contrary, like _sang_ and _fell_, no addition being made, no new element
appears. The vowel, indeed, is changed, but nothing is added. Verbs, then,
of the first sort, may be said to form their præterites out of themselves;
whilst verbs of the second sort require something from without. To speak in
a metaphor, words like _sang_ and _fell_ are comparatively independent. Be
this as it may, the German grammarians call the tenses formed by a change
of vowel the _strong_ tenses, the _strong_ verbs, the _strong_ conjugation,
or the _strong_ order; and those formed by the addition of d or t, the
_weak_ tenses, the _weak_ verbs, the _weak_ conjugation, or the _weak_
order. _Bound_, _spoke_, _gave_, _lay_, &c., are _strong_; _moved_,
_favoured_, _instructed_, &c., are _weak_.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 299. The strong præterites are formed from the present by changing the
vowel, as _sing_, _sang_; _speak_, _spoke_.

In Anglo-Saxon, several præterites change, in their plural, the vowel of
their singular; as

  Ic sang, _I sang_.         |   We sungon, _we sung_.
  Þu sunge, _thou sungest_.  |   Ge sungon, _ye sung_.
  He sang, _he sang_.        |   Hi sungon, _they sung_.

The bearing of this fact upon the præterites has already been indicated. In
a great number of words we have a double form, as _ran_ and _run_, _sang_
and _sung_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c. One of these forms is derived from the
singular, and the other from the plural.

In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the
singular; indeed, it is often the plural;--e.g., Ic fand, _I found_, we
fundon, _we found_, are the Anglo-Saxon forms. Now the present word _found_
comes, not from the singular _fand_, but from the plural _fundon_; although
in the Lowland Scotch dialect and in the old writers, the _singular_ form

  Donald Caird finds orra things,
  Where Allan Gregor _fand_ the tings.--SCOTT.

§ 300. The verbs wherein the double form of the present præterite is thus
explained, fall into two classes.

1. In the first class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were á in the singular, and i
in the plural; as--

  _Sing._  |    _Plur._
  Sceán    |   Scinon (_we shone_).
  Arás     |   Arison (_we arose_).
  Smát     |   Smiton (_we smote_).

This accounts for--

  _Present._   _Præt. from Sing. form._     _Præt. from Plur. form._

  Rise                Rose                     [54]Ris.
  Smite               Smote                        Smit.
  Ride                Rode                     [54]Rid.
  Stride              Strode                       Strid.
  Slide           [54]Slode                        Slid.
  Chide           [54]Chode                        Chid.
  Drive               Drove                    [54]Driv.
  Thrive              Throve                       Thriv.
  Write               Wrote                        Writ.
  Slit            [54]Slat                         Slit.
  Bite            [54]Bat                          Bit.

2. In the second class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were a in the singular, and u
in the plural, as--

  _Sing._   |       _Plural._
  Band      |   Bundon (_we bound_).
  Fand      |   Fundon (_we found_).
  Grand     |   Grundon (_we ground_).
  Wand      |   Wundon (_we wound_).

This accounts for--

  _Present._   _Præt from Sing. form._   _Præt. from Pl. form._
      Swim               Swam                     Swum.
      Begin              Began                    Begun.
      Spin           [55]Span                     Spun.
      Win            [55]Wan                  [56]Won.
      Sing               Sang                     Sung.
      Swing          [55]Swang                    Swung.
      Spring             Sprang                   Sprung.
      Sting          [55]Stang                    Stung.
      Ring               Rang                     Rung.
      Wring          [55]Wrang                    Wrung.
      Fling              Flang                    Flung.
  [55]Hing               Hang                     Hung.
      String         [55]Strang                   Strung.
      Sink               Sank                     Sunk.
      Drink              Drank                    Drunk.
      Shrink             Shrank                   Shrunk.
      Stink          [55]Stank                    Stunk.
      Melt           [55]Molt                     --
      Help           [55]Holp                     --
      Delve          [55]Dolv                     --
      Stick          [55]Stack                    Stuck.
      Run                Ran                      Run.
      Burst              Brast                    Burst.
      Bind               Band                     Bound.
      Find           [55]Fand                     Found.

§ 301. The following double præterites are differently explained. The
primary one _often_ (but not _always_) is from the Anglo-Saxon
_participle_, the secondary from the Anglo-Saxon _præterite_.

  _Present._   _Primary Præterite._   _Secondary Præterite._
   Cleave              Clove           [55]Clave.
   Steal               Stole           [55]Stale.
   Speak               Spoke               Spake.
   Swear               Swore               Sware.
   Bear                Bore                Bare.
   Tear                Tore            [55]Tare.
   Wear                Wore            [55]Ware.
   Break               Broke               Brake.
   Get                 Got             [55]Gat.
   Tread               Trod                Trad.
   Bid                 Bade                Bid.
   Eat                 Ate                 Ete.

§ 302. The following verbs have only a single form for the præterite,--

  _Present._      _Præterite._   |   _Present._       _Præterite._
   Fall               Fell.      |    Forsake            Forsook.
   Befall             Befell.    |    Eat                Ate.
   Hold               Held.      |    Give               Gave.
   Draw               Drew.      |    Wake               Woke.
   Slay               Slew.      |    Grave              Grove.
   Fly                Flew.      |    Shape              Shope.
   Blow               Blew.      |    Strike             Struck.
   Crow               Crew.      |    Shine              Shone.
   Know               Knew.      |    Abide              Abode.
   Grow               Grew.      |    Strive             Strove.
   Throw              Threw.     |    Climb              Clomb.
   Let                Let.       |    Hide               Hid.
   Beat               Beat.      |    Dig                Dug.
   Come               Came.      |    Cling              Clung.
   Heave              Hove.      |    Swell              Swoll.
   Weave              Wove.      |    Grind              Ground.
   Freeze             Froze.     |    Wind               Wound.
   Shear              Shore.     |    Choose             Chose.
   ----               Quoth.     |    Stand              Stood.
   Seethe             Sod.       |    Lie                Lay.
   Shake              Shook.     |    See                Saw.
   Take               Took.      |

§ 303. An arrangement of the preceding verbs into classes, according to the
change of vowel, is by no means difficult, even in the present stage of the
English language. In the Anglo-Saxon, it was easier still. It is also
easier in the provincial dialects, than in the literary English. Thus, when

  _Break_ is pronounced _Breek_,
  _Bear_       --       _Beer_,
  _Tear_       --       _Teer_,
  _Swear_      --       _Sweer_,
  _Wear_       --       _Weer_,

as they actually are by many speakers, they come in the same class with,--

  _Speak_ pronounced _Speek_,
  _Cleave_   --      _Cleeve_,

and form their præterite by means of a similar change, i.e., by changing
the sound of the ee in _feet_ (spelt ea) into that of the a in _fate_;
viewed thus, the irregularity is less than it appears to be at first sight.

Again, _tread_ is pronounced _tredd_, but many provincial speakers say
_treed_, and so said the Anglo-Saxons, whose form was _ic trede_ = _I
tread_. Their præterite was _træd_. This again subtracts from the apparent

Instances of this kind may be multiplied; the whole question, however, of
the conjugation of the _strong verbs_ is best considered after the perusal
of the next chapter.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 304. The præterite tense of the weak verbs is formed by the addition of
-d or -t.

If necessary, the syllable -ed is substituted for -d.

The current statement that the syllable -ed, rather than the letter -d is
the sign of the præterite tense, is true only in regard to the written
language. In _stabbed_, _moved_, _bragged_, _whizzed_, _judged_, _filled_,
_slurred_, _slammed_, _shunned_, _barred_, _strewed_, the e is a point of
spelling only. In _language_, except in declamation, there is no second
vowel sound. The -d comes in immediate contact with the final letter of the
original word, and the number of syllables remains the same as it was
before. We say _stabd_, _môved_, _bragd_, &c.

§ 305. When, however, the original word ends in -d or -t, as _slight_ or
_brand_, then, and then only is there the real addition of the syllable
-ed; as in _slighted_, _branded_.

This is necessary, since the combinations _slightt_ and _brandd_ are

Whether the addition be -d or -t depends upon the flatness or sharpness of
the preceding letter.

After b, v, th (as in _clothe_), g, or z, the addition is -d. This is a
matter of necessity. We say _stabd_, _môvd_, _clôthd_, _braggd_, _whizzd_,
because _stabt_, _môvt_, _clotht_, _braggt_, _whizzt_, are unpronounceable.

After l, m, n, r, w, y, or a vowel, the addition is also -d. This is the
_habit_ of the English language. _Filt_, _slurt_, _strayt_, &c., are as
pronounceable as _filld_, _slurrd_, _strayd_, &c. It is the habit, however,
of the English language to prefer the latter forms.

All this, as the reader has probably observed, is merely the reasoning
concerning the s, in words like _father's_, &c., applied to another letter
and to another part of speech.

§ 306. The verbs of the weak conjugation fall into three classes.

I. In the first there is the simple addition of -d, -t, or -ed.

  Serve, served.          |    Dip, dipped (_dipt_).
  Cry, cried.             |    Slip, slipped (_slipt_).
  Betray, betrayed.       |    Step, stepped (_stept_).
  Expell, expelled.       |    Look, looked (_lookt_).
  Accuse, accused.        |    Pluck, plucked (_pluckt_).
  Instruct, instructed.   |    Toss, tossed (_tost_).
  Invite, invited.        |    Push, pushed (_pusht_).
  Waste, wasted.          |    Confess, confessed (_confest_).

To this class belong the greater part of the weak verbs and all verbs of
foreign origin.

§ 307. II. In the second class, besides the addition of -t or -d, the vowel
is _shortened_,

  _Present._           _Præterite._

   Creep                  Crept.
   Keep                   Kept.
   Sleep                  Slept.
   Sweep                  Swept.
   Weep                   Wept.
   Lose                   Lost.
   Mean               [57]Meant.

Here the final consonant is -t.

  _Present_           _Præterite_

   Flee                  Fled.
   Hear              [58]Heard.
   Shoe                  Shod.
   Say               [59]Said.

Here the final consonant is -d.

§ 308. III. In the second class the vowel of the present tense was
_shortened_ in the præterite. In the third class it is _changed_.

  Tell, told.
  Will, would.
  Sell, sold.
  Shall, should.

To this class belong the remarkable præterites of the verbs _seek_,
_beseech_, _catch_, _teach_, _bring_, _think_, and _buy_, viz., _sought_,
_besought_, _caught_, _taught_, _brought_, _thought_, and _bought_. In all
these, the final consonant is either g or k, or else a sound allied to
those mutes. When the tendency of these sounds to become h and y, as well
as to undergo farther changes, is remembered, the forms in point cease to
seem anomalous. In _wrought_, from _work_, there is a transposition. In
_laid_ and _said_ the present forms make a show of regularity which they
have not. The true original forms should be _legde_ and _sægde_, the
infinitives being _lecgan_, _secgan_. In these words the i represents the
semivowel y, into which the original g was changed. The Anglo-Saxon forms
of the other words are as follows:--

  Bycan, bóhte.
  Sêcan, sóhte.
  Bringan, bróhte.
  Þencan, þóhte.
  Wyrcan, wórhte.

§ 309. Out of the three classes into which the weak verbs in Anglo-Saxon
are divided, only one takes a vowel before the d or t. The other two add
the syllables -te or -de, to the last letter of the original word. The
vowel that, in one out of the three Anglo-Saxon classes, precedes d is o.
Thus we have _lufian_, _lufode_; _clypian_, _clypode_. In the other two
classes the forms are respectively _bærnan_, _bærnde_; and _tellan_,
_tealde_, no vowel being found. The _participle_, however, as stated above,
ended, not in -de or -te, but in -d or -t; and in two out of the three
classes it was preceded by a vowel; the vowel being e,--_gelufod_,
_bærned_, _geteald_. Now in those conjugations where no vowel preceded the
d of the præterite, and where the original word ended in -d or -t, a
difficulty, which has already been indicated, arose. To add the sign of the
præterite to a word like _eard-ian_ (_to dwell_) was an easy matter,
inasmuch as _eardian_ was a word belonging to the first class, and in the
first class the præterite was formed in -ode. Here the vowel o kept the two
d's from coming in contact. With words, however, like _métan_ and _sendan_,
this was not the case. Here no vowel intervened; so that the natural
præterite forms were _met-te_, _send-de_, combinations wherein one of the
letters ran every chance of being dropped in the pronunciation. Hence, with
the exception of the verbs in the first class, words ending in -d or -t in
the root admitted no additional d or t in the præterite. This difficulty,
existing in the present English as it existed in the Anglo-Saxon, modifies
the præterites of most words ending in -t or -d.

§ 310. In several words there is the actual addition of the syllable -ed;
in other words d is separated from the last letter of the original word by
the addition of a vowel; as _ended_, _instructed_, &c.

§ 311. In several words the final -d is changed into -t, as _bend_, _bent_;
_rend_, _rent_; _send_, _sent_; _gild_, _gilt_; _build_, _built_; _spend_,
_spent_, &c.

§ 312. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as _feed_, _fed_;
_bleed_, _bled_; _breed_, _bred_; _meet_, _met_; _speed_, _sped_; _rēad_,
_rĕad_, &c. Words of this last-named class cause occasional difficulty to
the grammarian. No addition is made to the root, and, in this circumstance,
they agree with the strong verbs. Moreover, there is a change of the vowel.
In this circumstance also they agree with the strong verbs. Hence with
forms like _fed_ and _led_ we are in doubt as to the conjugation. This
doubt we have three means of settling, as may be shown by the word _beat_.

a. _By the form of the participle._--The -en in _beaten_ shows that the
word _beat_ is strong.

b. _By the nature of the vowel._--The weak form of _to beat_ would be
_bet_, or _beăt_, after the analogy of _feed_ and _read_. By some persons
the word is pronounced _bet_, and with those who do so the word is weak.

c. _By a knowledge of the older forms._--The Anglo-Saxon form is _beáte_,
_beot_. There is no such a weak form as _beáte_, _bætte_. The præterite of
_sendan_ is _sende_ weak. There is in Anglo-Saxon no such form as _sand_,

In all this we see a series of expedients for distinguishing the præterite
form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which
the affix begins.

The change from a long vowel to a short one, as in _feed_, _fed_, &c., can
only take place where there is a long vowel to be changed.

Where the vowels are short, and, at the same time, the word ends in -d, the
-d of the present may become -t in the præterite. Such is the case with
_bend_, _bent_.

When there is no long vowel to shorten, and no -d to change into -t, the
two tenses, of necessity, remain alike; such is the case with _cut_,
_cost_, &c.

§ 313. The following verbs form their præterite in -t:--

  _Present._    _Præterite._

  Leave        [60]Lef_t_        not [61]Leav_ed_.
  Cleave           Clef_t_       --      Cleav_ed_.
  Bereave          Beref_t_      --      Bereav_ed_.
  Deal         [62]Deal_t_       --      Deal_ed_.
  Feel             Fel_t_        --      Feel_ed_.
  Dream        [60]Drem_t_       --      Dream_ed_.
  Learn        [60]Lern_t_       --      Learn_ed_.

§ 314. Certain _so-called_ irregularities may now be noticed.--_Made_,
_had_.--In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a
consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms are _macode_ and _hæfde_, respectively.
The words, however, in regard to the amount of change, are not upon a
_par_. The f in _hæfde_ was probably sounded as v. Now v is a letter
excessively liable to be ejected, which k is not. K, before it is ejected,
is generally changed into either g or y.

_Would_, _should_, _could_.--It must not be imagined that _could_ is in the
same predicament with these words. In _will_ and _shall_ the -l is part of
the original word. This is not the case with _can_. For the form _could_,
see § 331.

§ 315. _Aught_.--In Anglo-Saxon _áhte_, the præterite of the present form
_áh_, plural _ágon_.--As late as the time of Elizabeth we find _owe_ used
for _own_. The present form _own_ seems to have arisen from the plural
_ágon_. _Aught_ is the præterite of the Anglo-Saxon _áh_; _owed_ of the
English _owe_ = _debeo_; _owned_ of the English _own_ = _possideo_. The
word _own_, in the expression _to own to a thing_, has a totally different
origin. It comes from the Anglo-Saxon _an_ (plural, _unnon_) = _I give_, or
_grant_ = _concedo_.

§ 316. _Durst_.--The verb _dare_ is both transitive and intransitive. We
can say either _I dare do such a thing_, or _I dare (challenge) such a man
to do it_. This, in the present tense, is unequivocally correct. In the
past the double power of the word _dare_ is ambiguous; still it is, to my
mind at least, allowable. We can certainly say _I dared him to accept my
challenge_; and we can, perhaps, say _I dared venture on the expedition_.
In this last sentence, however, _durst_ is the preferable expression.

Now, although _dare_ is both transitive and intransitive, _durst_ is only
intransitive. It never agrees with the Latin word _provoco_; only with the
Latin word _audeo_. Moreover, the word _durst_ has both a present and a
past sense. The difficulty which it presents consists in the presence of
the -st, letters characteristic of the second person singular, but here
found in all the persons alike; as _I durst_, _they durst_, &c.

This has still to be satisfactorily accounted for.

_Must_.--A form common to all persons, numbers, and tenses. That neither
the -s nor the -t are part of the original root, is indicated by the
Scandinavian form _maae_ (Danish), pronounced _moh_; præterite _maatt_.

This form has still to be satisfactorily accounted for.

_Wist_.--In its present form a regular præterite from _wiss_ = _know_. The
difficulties of this word arise from the parallel forms _wit_ (as in _to
wit_), and _wot_ = _knew_. The following are the forms of this peculiar

In Mœso-Gothic, 1 sing. pres. ind. _váit_; 2. do., _váist_; 1 pl. _vitum_;
præterite 1 s. _vissa_; 2 _vissêss_; 1 pl. _vissêdum_. From the form
_váist_ we see that the second singular is formed after the manner of
_must_; that is, _váist_ stands instead of _váit-t_. From the form
_vissêdum_ we see that the præterite is not strong, but weak; therefore
that _vissa_ is euphonic for _vista_.

In Anglo-Saxon.--_Wât_, _wást_, _witon_, _wiste_, and _wisse_,
_wiston_.--Hence the double forms, _wiste_, and _wisse_, verify the
statement concerning the Mœso-Gothic _vissa_.

In Icelandic.--_Veit_, _veizt_, _vitum_, _vissi_. Danish _ved_, _vide_,
_vidste_. Observe the form _vidste_; since, in it, the d of the root (in
spelling, at least) is preserved. The t of the Anglo-Saxon _wiste_ is the
t, not of the root, but of the inflection.

In respect to the four forms in question, viz., _wit_, _wot_, _wiss_,
_wisst_, the first seems to be the root; the second a strong præterite
regularly formed, but used (like οἶδα in Greek) with a present sense; the
third a weak præterite, of which the -t has been ejected by a euphonic
process, used also with a present sense; the fourth is a second singular
from _wiss_ after the manner of _wert_ from _were_, a second singular from
_wit_ after the manner of _must_, a secondary præterite from _wiss_, or
finally, the form _wisse_, anterior to the operation of the euphonic
process that ejected the -t.

§ 317. In the phrase _this will do_ = _this will answer the purpose_, the
word _do_ is wholly different from the word _do_, meaning _to act_. In the
first case it is equivalent to the Latin _valere_; in the second to the
Latin _facere_. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection is _deáh_, _dugon_,
_dohte_, _dohtest_, &c. Of the second it is _dó_, _doð_, _dyde_, &c. I
doubt whether the præterite _did_, as equivalent to _valebat_ = _was good
for_, is correct. In the phrase _it did for him_ = _it finished him_,
either meaning may be allowed.

In the present Danish they write _duger_, but say _duer_: as _duger et
noget?_ = _Is it worth anything?_ pronounced _dooer deh note?_ This
accounts for the ejection of the g. The Anglo-Saxon form _deáh_ does the

§ 318. _Mind--mind and do so and so_.--In this sentence the word _mind_ is
wholly different from the noun _mind_. The Anglo-Saxon forms are _geman_,
_gemanst_, _gemunon_, without the -d; this letter occurring only in the
præterite tense (_gemunde_, _gemundon_), of which it is the sign. _Mind_
is, then, a præterite form with a present sense; whilst _minded_ (as in _he
minded his business_) is an instance of excess of inflection; in other
words, it is a præterite formed from a præterite.

§ 319. _Yode_.--The obsolete præterite of _go_, now replaced by _went_, the
præterite of _wend_. Regular, except that the initial g has become y.

§ 320. _Did_.--See § 317.

_Did_, from _do_ = _facio_, is a _strong_ verb. This we infer from the form
of its participle _done_.

If so the final -d is not the same as the -d in _moved_. What is it? There
are good grounds for believing that in the word _did_ we have a single
instance of the old _reduplicate præterite_. If so, it is the latter d
which is radical, and the former which is inflectional.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 321. Attention is directed to the following list of verbs. In the present
English they all form the præterite in -d or -t; in Anglo-Saxon, they all
formed it by a change of the vowel. In other words they are _weak verbs
that were once strong_.


          _English._                      _Anglo-Saxon._

  _Present._     _Præterite._    |   _Present._      _Præterite._
   Wreak           Wreaked.      |    Wrece           Wrǽc.
   Fret            Fretted.      |    Frete           Frǽt.
   Mete            Meted.        |    Mete            Mǽt.
   Shear           Sheared.      |    Scere           Scear.
   Braid           Braided.      |    Brede           Brǽd.
   Knead           Kneaded.      |    Cnede           Cnǽd.
   Dread           Dreaded.      |    Drǽde           Dred.
   Sleep           Slept.        |    Slápe           Slep.
   Fold            Folded.       |    Fealde          Feold.
   Wield           Wielded.      |    Wealde          Weold.
   Wax             Waxed.        |    Weaxe           Weox.
   Leap            Leapt.        |    Hleápe          Hleop.
   Sweep           Swept.        |    Swápe           Sweop.
   Weep            Wept.         |    Wepe            Weop.
   Sow             Sowed.        |    Sáwe            Seow.
   Bake            Baked.        |    Bace            Bók.
   Gnaw            Gnawed.       |    Gnage           Gnóh.
   Laugh           Laughed.      |    Hlihhe          Hlóh.
   Wade            Waded.        |    Wade            Wód.
   Lade            Laded.        |    Hlade           Hlód.
   Grave           Graved.       |    Grafe           Gróf.
   Shave           Shaved.       |    Scafe           Scóf.
   Step            Stepped.      |    Steppe          Stóp.
   Wash            Washed.       |    Wacse           Wócs.
   Bellow          Bellowed.     |    Belge           Bealh.
   Swallow         Swallowed.    |    Swelge          Swealh.
   Mourn           Mourned.      |    Murne           Mearn.
   Spurn           Spurned.      |    Spurne          Spearn.
   Carve           Carved.       |    Ceorfe          Cearf.
   Starve          Starved.      |    Steorfe         Stærf.
   Thresh          Threshed.     |    Þersce          Þærsc.
   Hew             Hewed.        |    Heawe           Heow.
   Flow            Flowed.       |    Flówe           Fleow.
   Row             Rowed.        |    Rówe            Reow.
   Creep           Crept.        |    Creópe          Creáp.
   Dive            Dived.        |    Deófe           Deáf.
   Shove           Shoved.       |    Scéofe          Sceáf.
   Chew            Chewed.       |    Ceówe           Ceáw.
   Brew            Brewed.       |    Breówe          Breáw.
   Lock            Locked.       |    Lûce            Leác.
   Suck            Sucked.       |    Sûce            Seác.
   Reek            Reeked.       |    Reóce           Reác.
   Smoke           Smoked.       |    Smeóce          Smeác.
   Bow             Bowed.        |    Beóge           Beáh.
   Lie             Lied.         |    Leóge           Leáh.
   Gripe           Griped.       |    Grípe           Gráp.
   Span            Spanned.      |    Spanne          Spén.
   Eke             Eked.         |    Eáce            Eóc.
   Fare            Fared.        |    Fare            Fôr.

§ 322. Respecting the _strong_ verb, the following general statements may
be made:

1. Many strong verbs become weak; whilst no weak verb ever becomes strong.

2. All the strong verbs are of Saxon origin. None are classical.

3. The greater number of them are strong throughout the Gothic tongues.

4. No new word is ever, upon its importation, inflected according to the
strong conjugation. It is always weak. As early as A.D. 1085, the French
word _adouber_ = _to dub_, was introduced into English. Its præterite was

5. All derived words are inflected weak. The intransitive forms _drink_ and
_lie_, are strong; the transitive forms _drench_ and _lay_, are weak.

This shows that the division of verbs into _weak_ and _strong_ is a truly
natural one.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 323. The distinction between irregularity and defectiveness has been
foreshadowed. It is now more urgently insisted on.

The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal
pronouns _I_ or _me_, the adjectives _good_, _better_, and _best_.

The view of these words was as follows; viz., that none of them were
_irregular_, but that they were all _defective_. _Me_ wanted the
nominative, _I_ the oblique cases. _Good_ was without a comparative,
_better_ and _best_ had no positive degree.

Now _me_ and _better_ may be said to make good the defectiveness of _I_ and
_good_; and _I_ and _good_ may be said to replace the forms wanting in _me_
and _better_. This gives us the principle of _compensation_. To introduce a
new term, _I_ and _me_, _good_ and _better_, may be said to be
_complementary_ to each other.

What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. _Go_ and _went_ are not
irregularities. _Go_ is defective in the past tense. _Went_ is without a
present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and
are complementary to each other.

The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first
instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion
of the regular and irregular verbs.

§ 324. The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular
verbs, is the meaning that we attach to the term.

It is very evident that it is in the power of the grammarian to raise the
number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the
definition of the word _irregular_; in other words, by framing an exclusive
rule. The current rule of the common grammarians is that the præterite is
formed _by the addition of_ -t, or -d, or -ed; a position sufficiently
exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of strong verbs,
but also words like _bent_ and _sent_, where -t exists, but where it does
not exist as _an addition_. The regular forms, it may be said, should be
_bended_ and _sended_.

Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might
be made more so. The regular forms might, by the _fiat_ of a rule, be
restricted to those in -d. In this case words like _wept_ and _burnt_ would
be added to the already numerous list of irregulars.

Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that
no word was regular, unless it ended in -ed.

§ 325. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and,
consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art
that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology
_reduces_ irregularity; and that by making the rules of grammar, not
exclusive, but general. _The quantum of irregularity is in the inverse
proportion to the generality of our rules._ In language itself there is no
irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the
processes that change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct
proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our
rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological

§ 326. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards the
definition of the word _irregular_.

_Vital and obsolete processes._--The word _moved_ is formed from _move_, by
the addition of -d. The addition of -d is the process by which the present
form is rendered præterite. The word _fell_ is formed from _fall_, by
changing a into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present
form is rendered præterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In
what respect do they differ?

For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the
language. Let a præterite tense of it be formed. This præterite would be
formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding -d. No _new_ verb ever
takes a strong præterite. The like takes place with nouns. No _new_
substantive would form its plural, like _oxen_ or _geese_, by adding -en,
or by changing the vowel. It would rather, like _fathers_ and _horses_, add
the lene sibilant.

Now, the processes that change _fall_, _ox_ and _goose_ into _fell_,
_oxen_, and _geese_, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in
its present stage, are _obsolete_ processes; whilst those that change
_move_ into _moved_, and _horse_ into _horses_, operating on the language
in its present stage, are _vital_ processes.

A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all
words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a
definition would make all the strong verbs irregular.

The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strong verbs being
reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as

§ 327. _Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit._--The
combinations -pd, -fd, -kd, -sd, and some others, are unpronounceable.
Hence words like _step_, _quaff_, _back_, _kiss_, &c., take after them the
sound of -t; _stept_, _quafft_, &c., being their præterites, instead of
_stepd_, _quaffd_. Here the change from -d to -t is a matter of necessity.
It is not so with words like _weep_, and _wept_, &c. Here the change of
vowel is not necessary. _Weept_ might have been said if the habit of the
language had permitted.

A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all
words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In
this case _stept_ (modified by a process of necessity), and _wept_
(modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular.

A less limited definition might account words regular as long as the
process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process
of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it
would class with the irregulars.

Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or
rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation.

§ 328. _Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes._--The
whole scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a
language takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the
cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few
forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with
them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words
than one. The forms _wept_, and _slept_, correspond with each other. They
are brought about by the same process: viz., by the shortening of the vowel
in _weep_ and _sleep_. The analogy of _weep_ is extended to _sleep_, and
_vice versâ_. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both
words. The alteration itself is the leading fact. The extent of its
influence is an instrument of classification. When processes affect a
considerable number of words, they may be called _ordinary_ processes; as
opposed to _extraordinary_ processes, which affect one or few words.

When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess
our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by
a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing

A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all
words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered

§ 329. _Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes._--The words
_wept_ and _slept_ are similarly affected. Each is changed from _weep_ and
_sleep_ respectively; and we know that the process which affects the one is
the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process.

Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word
_worse_ has been explained in the Chapter on the Comparative Degree. There
the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true
one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the
present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the
process is _ambiguous_.

A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all
words affected by ambiguous processes.

§ 330. _Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion._--Let a
certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly
affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected
even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the
change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical.

Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, only _appear_
to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false
one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a
process of confusion.

Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like _songstress_,
_theirs_, _minded_, where the words _songstr-_, _their-_, _mind-_, are
dealt with as roots, which they are not.

Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion--each,
or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The
practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient.

With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous
processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we
see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one.

§ 331. _Could_.--With all persons who pronounce the l this word is truly
irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form is _cuðe_. The l is inserted by a process
of confusion.

_Can_, _cunne_, _canst_, _cunnon_, _cunnan_, _cuðe_, _cuðon_, _cuð_--such
are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them account for the l. The
presence of the l makes the word _could_ irregular. No reference to the
allied languages accounts for it.

Notwithstanding this, the presence of the l is accounted for. In _would_
and _should_ the l has a proper place. It is part of the original words,
_will_ and _shall_. A false analogy looked upon _could_ in the same light.
Hence a true irregularity; _provided that the _L_ be pronounced_.

The L, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance with the
spelling. This reduces the word _could_ to an irregularity, not of
language, but only of orthography.

That the mere ejection of the -n in _can_, and that the mere lengthening of
the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the
processes that convert the Greek ὀδόντος (_odontos_) into ὀδούς (_odows_).

§ 332. The verb _quoth_ is truly defective. It is found in only one tense,
one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the
præterite tense. It has the further peculiarity of preceding its pronoun.
Instead of saying _he quoth_, we say _quoth he_. In Anglo-Saxon, however,
it was not defective. It was found in the other tenses, in the other
number, and in other moods. _Ic cweðe_, _þú cwyst_, _he cwyð_; _ic cwæð_,
_þú cwæðe_, _he cwæð_, _we cwædon_, _ge cwædon_, _hi cwædon_; imperative,
_cweð_; participle, _gecweden_. In the Scandinavian it is current in all
its forms. There, however, it means, not _to speak_ but to _sing_. As far
as its conjugation goes, it is strong. As far as its class goes, it follows
the form of _speak_, _spoke_. Like _speak_, its Anglo-Saxon form is in æ,
as _cwæð_. Like one of the forms of _speak_, its English form is in o, as
_quoth_, _spoke_.

§ 333. The principle that gives us the truest views of the structure of
language is that which considers no word irregular unless it be affected by
either an _ambiguous_ process, or by a _process of confusion_. The words
affected by _extraordinary processes_ form a provisional class, which a
future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be regular.
_Worse_ and _could_ are the fairest specimens of our irregulars. Yet even
_could_ is only an irregularity in the written language. The printer makes
it, and the printer can take it away. Hence the class, instead of filling
pages, is exceedingly limited.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 334. In _me-seems_, and _me-thinks_, the _me_ is dative rather than
accusative, and = _mihi_ and μοι rather than _me_ and με.

§ 335. In _me-listeth_, the _me_ is accusative rather than dative, and =
_me_ and με rather than _mihi_ and μοι.

For the explanation of this difference see _Syntax_, Chapter XXI.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 336. The verb substantive is generally dealt with as an _irregular_ verb.
This is inaccurate. The true notion is that the idea of _being_ or
_existing_ is expressed by four different verbs, each of which is defective
in some of its parts. The parts, however, that are wanting in one verb, are
made up by the inflections of one of the others. There is, for example, no
præterite of the verb _am_, and no present of the verb _was_. The absence,
however, of the present form of _was_ is made up by the word _am_, and the
absence of the præterite form of _am_ is made up by the word _was_.

§ 337. _Was_ is defective, except in the præterite tense, where it is found
both in the indicative and conjunctive.

     _Indicative._       |     _Conjunctive._
   _Sing._     _Plur._   |   _Sing._     _Plur._
  1. Was        Were.    | 1. Were        Were.
  2. Wast       Were.    | 2. Wert        Were.
  3. Was        Were.    | 3. Were        Were.

In the older stages of the Gothic languages the word had both a full
conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it had an infinitive, a
participle present, and a participle past. In Mœso-Gothic it was inflected
throughout with -s; as _visa_, _vas_, _vêsum_, _visans_. In that language
it has the power of the Latin _maneo_ = _to remain_. The r first appears in
the Old High German, _wisu_, _was_, _wârumés_, _wësaner_. In Norse the s
_entirely_ disappears, and the word is inflected with r throughout; _vera_,
_var_, _vorum_, &c.

§ 338. _Be_ is inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both
indicative and subjunctive. It is found also as an infinitive, _beón_; as a
gerund, _to beonne_; and as a participle, _beonde_; in the present English
its inflection is as follows:

         _Conjunctive._       |          _Imperative._
    _Sing._      _Plur._      |      _Sing._      _Plur._
      Be           Be.        |        --           --
      --           --         |        Be           Be
      Be           Be         |        --           --
  _Infin._ To be.         _Pres. P._ Being.      _Past. Part._ Been.

§ 339. The line in Milton beginning _If thou beest he_--(P. L. b. ii.),
leads to the notion that the antiquated form _beest_ is not indicative, but
conjunctive. Such, however, is not the case: _byst_ in Anglo-Saxon is
indicative, the conjunctive form being _beó_. _And every thing that pretty
bin_ (Cymbeline).--Here the word _bin_ is the conjunctive plural, in
Anglo-Saxon _beón_; so that the words _every thing_ are to be considered
equivalent to the plural form _all things_. The phrase in Latin would stand
thus, _quotquot pulchra sint_; in Greek, thus, ἁ ἂν κάλα ᾖ. The
_indicative_ plural is, in Anglo-Saxon, not _beón_, but _beóð_ and _beó_.

§ 340. In the "Deutsche Grammatik" it is stated that the Anglo-Saxon forms
_beô_, _bist_, _bið_, _beoð_, or _beó_, have not a present but a _future_
sense; that whilst _am_ means _I am_, _beó_ means _I shall be_; and that in
the older languages it is only where the form _am_ is not found that _be_
has the power of a present form. The same root occurs in the Slavonic and
Lithuanic tongues with the same power; as, _esmi_ = _I am_; _búsu_ = _I
shall be_, Lithuanic. _Esmu_ = _I am_; _buhshu_ = _I shall be_,
Livonic.--_Jesm_ = _I am_; _budu_ = _I shall be_, Slavonic.--_Gsem_ = _I
am_; _budu_ = _I shall be_, Bohemian. This, however, proves, not that there
is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense, but that the word _beó_ has a future
sense. There is no fresh tense where there is no fresh form.

The following is a specimen of the future power of _beón_ in
Anglo-Saxon:--_"Hi ne _beóð_ na cílde, soðlice, on domesdæge, ac _beóð_ swa
micele menn swa swa hi migton beón gif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre
ylde."_--Ælfric's Homilies. "They _will not be_ children, forsooth, on
Domesday, but _will be_ as much (so muckle) men as they might be if they
were full grown (waxen) in customary age."

§ 341. Now, if we consider the word _beón_ like the word _weorðan_ (see §
343) to mean not so much _to be_ as to _become_, we get an element of the
idea of futurity. Things which are _becoming anything_ have yet something
further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the
idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power of _be_. In
English we often say _may_ for _shall_, and the same was done in

§ 342. _Am_.--Of this form it should be stated that the letter -m is no
part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it
is in _Greek_, and several other languages.

It should also be stated, that although the fact be obscured, and although
the changes be insufficiently accounted for, the forms _am_, _art_, _are_,
and _is_, are not, like _am_ and _was_, parts of different words, but forms
of one and the same word; in other terms, that, although between _am_ and
_be_ there is no etymological connexion, there is one between _am_ and
_is_. This we collect from the comparison of the Indo-European languages.

                      1.             2.            3.
  Sanskrit          _Asmi_         _Asi_         _Asti_.
  Zend              _Ahmi_         _Asi_         _Ashti_.
  Greek              Εἰμί           Εἴς           Ἐστί.
  Latin             _Sum_          _Es_          _Est_.
  Lithuanic         _Esmi_         _Essi_        _Esti_.
  Old Slavonic      _Yesmy_        _Yesi_        _Yesty_.
  Mœso-Gothic       _Im_           _Is_          _Ist_.
  Old Saxon          --        [63]_Is_          _Ist_.
  Anglo-Saxon       _Eom_          _Eart_        _Is_.
  Icelandic         _Em_           _Ert_         _Er_.
  English           _Am_           _Art_         _Is_.

§ 343. _Worth_.--In the following lines of Scott, the word _worth_ = _is_,
and is a fragment of the regular Anglo-Saxon verb _weorðan_ = _to be_, or
_to become_; German _werden_.

  Woe _worth_ the chase, woe _worth_ the day,
  That cost thy life, my gallant grey.--_Lady of the Lake._

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 344. The present participle, called also the active participle and the
participle in -ing, is formed from the original word by adding -ing; as,
_move_, _moving_. In the older languages the termination was more marked,
being -nd. Like the Latin participle in -ns, it was originally declined.
The Mœso-Gothic and Old High German forms are _habands_ and _hapêntér_ =
_having_, respectively. The -s in the one language, and the -êr in the
other, are the signs of the case and gender. In the Old Saxon and
Anglo-Saxon the forms are -and and -ande; as _bindand_, _bindande_ =
_binding_. In all the Norse languages, ancient and modern, the -d is
preserved. So it is in the Old Lowland Scotch, and in many of the modern
provincial dialects of England, where _strikand_, _goand_, is said for
_striking_, _going_. In Staffordshire, where the -ing is pronounced -ingg,
there is a fuller sound than that of the current English. In Old English
the form in -nd is predominant, in Middle English the use fluctuates, and
in New English the termination -ing is universal. In the Scotch of the
modern writers we find the form -in.

  The rising sun o'er Galston muirs
    Wi' glorious light was glintin';
  The hares were hirplin' down the furs,
    The lav'rocks they were chantin'.--BURNS' _Holy Fair_.

§ 345. It has often been remarked that the participle is used in many
languages as a substantive. This is true in Greek,

  Ὁ πράσσων = _the actor_, when a male.
  Ἡ πρασσοῦσα = _the actor_, when a female.
  Τὸ πράττου = _the active principle of a thing_.

But it is also stated, that, in the English language, the participle is
used as a substantive in a greater degree than elsewhere, and that it is
used in several cases and in both numbers, e.g.,

  _Rising_ early is healthy,
  There is health _in rising_ early.
  This is the advantage _of rising_ early.
  The _risings_ in the North, &c.

Some acute remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, in the Introduction to his edition of
Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," modify this view. According to these, the
-ing in words like _rising_ is not the -ing of the present participle;
neither has it originated in the Anglo-Saxon -end. It is rather the -ing in
words like _morning_; which is anything but a participle of the
non-existent verb _morn_, and which has originated in the Anglo-Saxon
substantival termination -ung. Upon this Rask writes as
follows:--"_Gitsung_, _gewilnung_ = _desire_; _swutelung_ =
_manifestation_; _clænsung_ = _a cleansing_; _sceawung_ = _view_,
_contemplation_; _eorð-beofung_ = _an earthquake_; _gesomnung_ = _an
assembly_. This termination is chiefly used in forming substantives from
verbs of the first class in -ian; as _hálgung_ = _consecration_, from
_hálgian_ = _to consecrate_. These verbs are all feminine."--"Anglo-Saxon
Grammar," p. 107.

Now, whatever may be the theory of the origin of the termination -ing in
old phrases like _rising early is healthy_, it cannot apply to expressions
of recent introduction. Here the direct origin in -ung is out of the

The view, then, that remains to be taken of the forms in question is this:

1. That the older forms in -ing are substantival in origin, and = the
Anglo-Saxon -ung.

2. That the latter ones are _irregularly_ participial, and have been formed
on a false analogy.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 346. A. _The participle in_ -EN.--In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was
declined like the adjectives. Like the adjectives, it is, in the present
English, undeclined.

In Anglo-Saxon it always ended in -en, as _sungen_, _funden_, _bunden_. In
English this -en is often wanting, as _found_, _bound_; the word _bounden_
being antiquated.

Words where the -en is wanting may be viewed in two lights; 1, they may be
looked upon as participles that have lost their termination; 2, they may be
considered as præterites with a participial sense.

§ 347. _Drank_, _drunk_, _drunken_.--With all words wherein the vowel of
the plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the
plural form. To say _I have drunk_, is to use an ambiguous expression;
since _drunk_ may be either a participle _minus_ its termination, or a
præterite with a participial sense. To say _I have drank_, is to use a
præterite for a participle. To say _I have drunken_, is to use an
unexceptional form.

In all words with a double form, as _spake_ and _spoke_, _brake_ and
_broke_, _clave_ and _clove_, the participle follows the form in o, as
_spoken_, _broken_, _cloven_. _Spaken_, _braken_, _claven_ are impossible
forms. There are degrees in laxity of language, and to say _the spear is
broke_ is better than to say _the spear is brake_.

§ 348. As a general rule, we find the participle in -en wherever the
præterite is strong; indeed, the participle in -en may be called the strong
participle, or the participle of the strong conjugation. Still the two
forms do not always coincide. In _mow_, _mowed_, _mown_, _sow_, _sowed_,
_sown_; and several other words, we find the participle strong, and the
præterite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is only
another way of saying that the præterite has a greater tendency to pass
from strong to weak than the participle.

§ 349. In the Latin language the change from s to r, and _vice versâ_, is
very common. We have the double forms _arbor_ and _arbos_, _honor_ and
_honos_, &c. Of this change we have a few specimens in English. The words
_rear_ and _raise_, as compared with each other, are examples. In
Anglo-Saxon a few words undergo a similar change in the plural number of
the strong præterites.

  Ceóse, _I choose_; ceâs, _I chose_; curon, _we chose_; gecoren, _chosen_.
  Forleóse, _I lose_; forleás, _I lost_; forluron, _we lost_; forloren,
  Hreose, _I rush_; hreás, _I rushed_; hruron, _we rushed_; gehroren,

This accounts for the participial form _forlorn_, or _lost_, in New High
German _verloren_. In Milton's lines,

                      ---- the piercing air
  Burns _frore_, and cold performs the effect of fire,
                          _Paradise Lost_, b. ii.,

we have a form from the Anglo-Saxon participle _gefroren_ = _frozen_.

§ 350. B. The _participle_ in -D, -T, or -ED.--In the Anglo-Saxon this
participle was declined like the adjective. Like the adjective, it is, in
the present English, undeclined.

In Anglo-Saxon it differed in form from the præterite, inasmuch as it ended
in -ed, or -t, whereas the præterite ended in -ode, -de, or -te: as,
_lufode_, _bærnde_, _dypte_, præterites; _gelufod_, _bærned_, _dypt_,

As the ejection of the e (in one case final in the other not) reduces words
like _bærned_ and _bærnde_ to the same form, it is easy to account for the
present identity of form between the weak præterites and the participles in
-d: e.g., _I moved_, _I have moved_, &c.

§ 351. _The prefix_ Y.--In the older writers, and in works written, like
Thomson's "Castle of Indolence," in imitation of them, we find prefixed to
the præterite participle the letter y-, as, _yclept_ = _called_: _yclad_ =
_clothed_: _ydrad_ = _dreaded_.

The following are the chief facts and the current opinion concerning this

1. It has grown out of the fuller forms ge-: Anglo-Saxon, ge-: Old Saxon,
gi-: Mœso-Gothic, ga-: Old High German, ka-, cha-, ga-, ki-, gi-.

2. It occurs in each and all of the Germanic languages of the Gothic stock.

3. It occurs, with a few fragmentary exceptions, in none of the
Scandinavian languages of the Gothic stock.

4. In Anglo-Saxon it occasionally indicates a difference of sense; as,
_hâten_ = _called_, _ge-hâten_ = _promised_; _boren_ = _borne_, _ge-boren_
= _born_.

5. It occurs in nouns as well as verbs.

6. Its power, in the case of nouns, is generally some idea of
_association_, or _collection_.--Mœso-Gothic, _sinþs_ = _a journey_,
_ga-sinþa_ = _a companion_; Old High German, _perc_ = _hill_; _ki-perki_
(_gebirge_) = _a range of hills_.

7. But it has also a _frequentative_ power; a frequentative power, which
is, in all probability, secondary to its collective power; since things
which recur frequently recur with a tendency to collection or association;
Middle High German, _ge-rassel_ = _rustling_; _ge-rumpel_ = _c-rumple_.

8. And it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality.

  _Anglo-Saxon._     _English._      _Anglo-Saxon._       _Latin._

    Feax             _Hair_          _Ge-feax_           _Comatus._
    Heorte           _Heart_         _Ge-heort_          _Cordatus._
    Stence           _Odour_         _Ge-stence_         _Odorus._

This power is also a collective, since every quality is associated with the
object that possesses it; _a sea with waves_ = _a wavy sea_.

9. Hence it is probable that the ga-, ki-, or gi-, Gothic, is the _cum_ of
Latin languages. Such, at least, is Grimm's view, as given in the "Deutsche
Grammatik," i. 1016.

Concerning this, it may be said that it is deficient in an essential point.
It does not show how the participle past is collective. Undoubtedly it may
be said that every such participle is in the condition of words like
_ge-feax_ and _ge-heort_; i.e., that they imply an association between the
object and the action or state. But this does not seem to be Grimm's view;
he rather suggests that the ge- may have been a prefix to verbs in general,
originally attached to all their forms, but finally abandoned everywhere
except in the case of the participle.

The theory of this prefix has yet to assume a satisfactory form.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 352. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and
indubitable specimens of composition--_day-star_, _vine-yard_, _sun-beam_,
_apple-tree_, _ship-load_, _silver-smith_, &c. The words _palpable_ and
_indubitable_ have been used, because in many cases, as will be seen
hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound
or not.

§ 353. Now, in each of the compounds quoted above, it may be seen that it
is the second word which is qualified, or defined, by the first, and that
it is not the first which is qualified, or defined, by the second. Of
_yards_, _beams_, _trees_, _loads_, _smiths_, there may be many sorts, and,
in order to determine what _particular_ sort of _yard_, _beam_, _tree_,
_load_, or _smith_, may be meant, the words _vine_, _sun_, _apple_, _ship_,
and _silver_, are prefixed. In compound words it is the _first_ term that
defines or particularises the _second_.

§ 354. That the idea given by the word _apple-tree_ is not referable to the
words _apple_ and _tree_, irrespective of the order in which they occur,
may be seen by reversing the position of them. The word _tree-apple_,
although not existing in the language, is as correct a word as
_thorn-apple_. In _tree-apple_, the particular sort of _apple_ meant is
denoted by the word _tree_, and if there were in our gardens various sorts
of plants called _apples_, of which some grew along the ground and others
upon trees, such a word as _tree-apple_ would be required in order to be
opposed to _earth-apple_, or _ground-apple_, or some word of the kind.

In the compound words _tree-apple_ and _apple-tree_, we have the same
elements differently arranged. However, as the word _tree-apple_ is not
current in the language, the class of compounds indicated by it may seem to
be merely imaginary. Nothing is farther from being the case. A _tree-rose_
is a _rose_ of a particular sort. The generality of _roses_ being on
_shrubs_, this grows on a _tree_. Its peculiarity consists in this fact,
and this particular character is expressed by the word _tree_ prefixed. A
_rose-tree_ is a _tree_ of a particular sort, distinguished from
_apple-trees_, and _trees_ in general (in other words, particularised or
defined), by the word _rose_ prefixed.

A _ground-nut_ is a _nut_ particularised by growing in the ground. A
_nut-ground_ is a _ground_ particularised by producing nuts.

A _finger-ring_, as distinguished from an _ear-ring_, and from _rings_ in
general (and so particularised), is a _ring_ for the _finger_. A
_ring-finger_, as distinguished from _fore-fingers_, and from _fingers_ in
general (and so particularised), is a _finger_ whereon _rings_ are worn.

§ 355. At times this rule seems to be violated. The words _spit-fire_ and
_dare-devil_ seem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the
case of a _spit-fire_, that what he (or she) _spits_ is _fire_; and that,
in the case of a _dare-devil_, what he (or she) _dares_ is the _devil_. In
this case the initial words _spit_ and _dare_ are particularised by the
final ones _fire_ and _devil_. The true idea, however, confirms the
original rule. A _spit-fire_ voids his fire by spitting. A _dare-devil_, in
meeting the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. A
_spit-fire_ is not one who spits fire, but one whose fire is _spit_. A
_dare-devil_ is not one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil
is even dared.

§ 356. Of the two elements of a compound word, which is the most important?
In one sense the latter, in another sense the former. The latter word is
the most _essential_; since the general idea of _trees_ must exist before
it can be defined or particularised; so becoming the idea which we have in
_apple-tree_, _rose-tree_, &c. The former word, however, is the most
_influential_. It is by this that the original idea is qualified. The
latter word is the staple original element: the former is the superadded
influencing element. Compared with each other, the former element is
active, the latter passive. Etymologically speaking, the former element, in
English compounds, is the most important.

§ 357. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the detail of the
composition of words; e.g., how nouns combine with nouns, as in _sun-beam_;
nouns with verbs, as in _dare-devil_, &c. It is thought however, sufficient
in the present work to be content with, 1. defining the meaning of the term
composition; 2. explaining the nature of some obscure compounds.

Composition is the joining together, _in language_, of _two different
words_, and _treating the combination as a single term_. Observe the words
in italics.

_In language._--A great number of our compounds, like the word
_merry-making_, are divided by the sign -, or the hyphen. It is very plain
that if all words _spelt_ with a hyphen were to be considered as compounds,
the formation of them would be not a matter of speech, or language, but one
of writing or spelling. This distinguishes compounds in language from mere
printers' compounds.

_Two._--For this, see § 369.

_Different._--In Old High German we find the form _sëlp-sëlpo_. Here there
is the junction of two words, but not the junction of two _different_ ones.
This distinguishes composition from gemination.

_Words._--In _father-s_, _clear-er_, _four-th_, &c., there is the addition
of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There
is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition
from derivation.

_Treating the combination as a single term._--In determining between
derived words and compound words, there is an occasional perplexity; the
perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between a _compound
word_ and _two words_. In the eyes of one grammarian the term _mountain
height_ may be as truly a compound word as _sun-beam_. In the eyes of
another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just as
_Alpine height_ is two words; _mountain_ being dealt with as an adjective.
It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part.

§ 358. As a preliminary to a somewhat subtle distinction, the attention of
the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from

 "Then rést, my friénd, _and spáre_ thy précious bréath."

On each of the syllables _rést_, _friénd_, _spáre_, _préc-_, _bréath_,
there is an accent. Each of these syllables must be compared with the one
that precedes it; _rest_ with _then_, _friend_ with _my_, and so on
throughout the line. Compared with the word _and_, the word _spare_ is not
only accented, but the accent is conspicuous and prominent. There is so
little on _and_, so much on _spare_, that the disparity of accent is very

Now, if in the place of _and_, there were some other word, a word not so
much accented as _spare_, but still more accented than _and_, this
disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be
said to be at _par_, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly
altered from Churchill, the real reading being

 "Then rést, my friénd, _spare, spare_ thy précious bréath."

In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been
supposed. In the words _spare, spare_, the accents are nearly at _par_.
Such the difference between accent at par and disparity of accent.

Good illustrations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from
certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following:
_the lime house near the bridge north of the new port_. Compare the parity
of accent on the pairs of words _lime_ and _house_, _bridge_ and _north_,
_new_ and _port_, with the disparity of accent in the compound words
_Límehouse_, _Brídgenorth_, and _Néwport_. The separate words _beef steak_,
where the accent is nearly at _par_, compared with the compound word
_sweépstakes_, where there is a great disparity of accent, are further
illustrations of the same difference.

The difference between a compound word and a pair of words is further
illustrated by comparing such terms as the following:--_bláck bírd_,
meaning a _bird that is black_, with _bláckbird_ = the Latin _merula_;
_blúe béll_, meaning a _bell that is blue_, with _blúebell_, the flower.
Expressions like a _shárp edgéd instrument_, meaning _an instrument that is
sharp and has edges_, as opposed to _a shárp-edged instrument_, meaning _an
instrument with sharp edges_, further exemplify this difference.

Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that, in the English
language, _there is no composition unless there is either a change of form
or a change of accent_.

§ 359. The reader is now informed, that unless he has taken an exception to
either a statement or an inference, he has either seen beyond what has been
already laid down by the author, or else has read him with insufficient
attention. This may be shown by drawing a distinction between a compound
form and a compound idea.

In the words _a red house_, each word preserves its natural and original
meaning, and the statement suggested by the term is _that a house is red_.
By a parity of reasoning _a mad house_ should mean a _house that is mad_;
and provided that each word retain its _natural meaning_ and its _natural
accent_, such is the fact. Let a _house_ mean, as it often does, a
_family_. Then the phrase, _a mad house_, means that the _house_, _or
family_, _is mad_, just as a _red house_ means that the _house is red_.
Such, however, is not the current meaning of the word. Every one knows that
_a mad house_ means _a house for mad men_; in which case it is treated as a
compound word, and has a marked accent on the first syllable, just as
_Límehouse_ has. Now, compared with the word _red house_, meaning a house
of a _red colour_, and compared with the words _mad house_, meaning a
_deranged family_, the word _mádhouse_, in its common sense, expressed a
compound idea; as opposed to two ideas, or a double idea. The word _beef
steak_ is evidently a compound idea; but as there is no disparity of
accent, it is not a compound word. Its sense is compound. Its form is not
compound but double. This indicates the objection anticipated, which is
this: viz., that a definition, which would exclude such a word as _beef
steak_ from the list of compounds, is, for that very reason, exceptionable.
I answer to this, that the term in question is a compound idea, and not a
compound form; in other words, that it is a compound in logic, but not a
compound in etymology. Now etymology, taking cognisance of forms only, has
nothing to do with ideas, except so far as they influence forms.

Such is the commentary upon the words, _treating the combination as a
single term_; in other words, such the difference between a compound word
and two words. The rule, being repeated, stands (subject to exceptions
indicated above) thus:--_there is no true composition without either a
change of form or a change of accent_.

§ 360. As I wish to be clear upon this point, I shall illustrate the
statement by its application.

The term _trée-rose_ is often pronounced _trée róse_; that is, with the
accent at _par_. It is compound in the one case; it is a pair of words in
the other.

The terms _mountain ash_ and _mountain height_ are generally (perhaps
always) pronounced with an equal accent on the syllables _mount-_ and
_ash_, _mount-_ and _height_, respectively. In this case the word
_mountain_ must be dealt with as an adjective, and the words considered as
two. The word _moúntain wave_ is often pronounced with a visible diminution
of accent on the last syllable. In this case there is a disparity of
accent, and the word is compound.

§ 361. The following quotation indicates a further cause of perplexity in
determining between compound words and two words:--


  A wet sheet and a blowing gale,
    A breeze that follows fast;
  That fills the white and swelling sail,
    And bends the _gallant mast_.--ALLAN CUNNINGHAM.


  Britannia needs no bulwarks,
    No towers along the steep;
  Her march is o'er the _mountain-wave_,
    Her home is on the deep.--THOMAS CAMPBELL.

To speak first of the term _gallant mast_. If _gallant_ mean _brave_, there
are _two words_. If the words be two, there is a stronger accent on _mast_.
If the accent on _mast_ be stronger, the rhyme with _fast_ is more
complete; in other words, the metre favours the notion of the words being
considered as _two_. _Gallant-mast_, however, is a compound word, with an
especial nautical meaning. In this case the accent is stronger on _gal-_
and weaker on -mast. This, however, is not the state of things that the
metre favours. The same applies to _mountain wave_. The same person who in
prose would throw a stronger accent on _mount-_ and a weaker one on _wave_
(so dealing with the word as a compound), might, in poetry, the words
_two_, by giving to the last syllable a parity of accent.

The following quotation from Ben Jonson may be read in two ways; and the
accent may vary with the reading:


  Lay thy bow of pearl apart,
  And thy _silver shining_ quiver.


  Lay thy bow of pearl apart,
  And thy _silver-shining_ quiver.--_Cynthia's Revels._

§ 362. _On certain words wherein the fact of their being compound is
obscured._--Composition is the addition of a word to a word, derivation is
the addition of certain letters or syllables to a word. In a compound form
each element has a separate and independent existence; in a derived form,
only one of the elements has such. Now it is very possible that in an older
stage of a language two words may exist, may be put together, and may so
form a compound, each word having, then, a separate and independent
existence. In a later stage of language, however, only one of these words
may have a separate and independent existence, the other having become
obsolete. In this case a compound word would take the appearance of a
derived one, since but one of its elements could be exhibited as a separate
and independent word. Such is the case with, amongst others, the word
_bishop-ric_. In the present language the word _ric_ has no separate and
independent existence. For all this, the word is a true compound, since, in
Anglo-Saxon, we have the noun _ríce_ as a separate, independent word,
signifying _kingdom_ or _domain_.

Again, without becoming obsolete, a word may alter its form. This is the
case with most of our adjectives in -ly. At present they appear derivative;
their termination -ly having no separate and independent existence. The
older language, however, shows that they are compounds; since -ly is
nothing else than -lic, Anglo-Saxon; -lih, Old High German; -leiks,
Mœso-Gothic; = _like_, or _similis_, and equally with it an independent
separate word.

§ 363. "Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that _there is no
true composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of
accent_."--Such is the statement made in § 358. The first class of
exceptions consists of those words where the natural tendency to disparity
of accent is traversed by some rule of euphony. For example, let two words
be put together, which at their point of contact form a combination of
sounds foreign to our habits of pronunciation. The rarity of the
combination will cause an effort in utterance. The effort in utterance will
cause an accent to be laid on the latter half of the compound. This will
equalize the accent, and abolish the disparity. The word _monkshood_, the
name of a flower (_aconitum napellus_), where, to my ear at least, there is
quite as much accent on the -hood as on the _monks-_, may serve in the way
of illustration. _Monks_ is one word, _hood_ another. When joined together,
the h- of the -hood is put in immediate apposition with the s of the
_monks-_. Hence the combination _monkshood_. At the letters s and h is the
point of contact. Now the sound of s followed immediately by the sound of h
is a true aspirate. But true aspirates are rare in the English language.
Being of rare occurrence, the pronunciation of them is a matter of
attention and effort; and this attention and effort create an accent which
otherwise would be absent. Hence words like _mónks-hóod_, _well-héad_, and
some others.

Real reduplications of consonants, as in _hóp-póle_, may have the same
parity of accent with the true aspirates: and for the same reasons. They
are rare combinations that require effort and attention.

§ 364. The second class of exceptions contains those words wherein between
the first element and the second there is so great a disparity, either in
the length of the vowel, or the length of the syllable _en masse_, as to
counteract the natural tendency of the first element to become accented.
One of the few specimens of this class (which after all may consist of
double words) is the term _upstánding_. Here it should be remembered, that
words like _hapházard_, _foolhárdy_, _uphólder_, and _withhóld_ come under
the first class of the exceptions.

§ 365. The third class of exceptions contains words like _perchánce_ and
_perháps_. In all respects but one these are double words, just as _by
chance_ is a double word. _Per_, however, differs from _by_ in having no
separate existence. This sort of words we owe to the multiplicity of
elements (classical and Gothic) in the English language.

§ 366. _Peacock_, _peahen_.--If these words be rendered masculine or
feminine by the addition of the elements -cock and -hen, the statements
made in the beginning of the present chapter are invalidated. Since, if the
word _pea-_ be particularized, qualified, or defined by the words -cock and
-hen, the _second_ term defines or particularises the _first_, which is
contrary to the rule of § 356. The truth, however, is, that the words -cock
and -hen are defined by the prefix _pea-_. Preparatory to the exhibition of
this, let us remember that the word _pea_ (although now found in
composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a
species of fowl, like _pheasant_, _partridge_, or any other appellation. It
is the Latin _pavo_, German _pfau_. Now if the word _peacock_ mean a _pea_
(_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is a male, then do _wood-cock_, _black-cock_, and
_bantam-cock_, mean _woods_, _blacks_, and _bantams_ that are male. Or if
the word _peahen_ mean a _pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is female, then do
_moorhen_ and _guineahen_ mean _moors_ and _guineas_ that are female.
Again, if a _peahen_ mean a _pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is female, then
does the compound _pheasant-hen_ mean the same as _hen-pheasant_; which is
not the case. The fact is that _peacock_ means a _cock that is a pea_
(_pfau_ or _pavo_); _peahen_ means a _hen that is a pea_ (_pfau_ or
_pavo_); and, finally, _peafowl_ means a _fowl that is a pea_ (_pfau_ or
_pavo_). In the same way _moorfowl_ means, not a _moor that is connected
with a fowl_, but a _fowl that is connected with a moor_.

§ 367. It must be clear that in every compound word there are, at least,
two parts; i.e., the whole or part of the original, and the whole or part
of the superadded word. In the most perfect forms of inflection, however,
there is a _third_ element, viz., a vowel, consonant, or syllable that
joins the first word with the second.

In the older forms of all the Gothic languages the presence of this third
element was the rule rather than the exception. In the present English it
exists in but few words.

a. The -a- in _black-a-moor_ is possibly such a connecting element.

b. The -in- in _night-in-gale_ is most probably such a connecting element.
Compare the German form _nacht-i-gale_, and remember the tendency of vowels
to take the sound of -ng before g.

§ 368. _Improper compounds._--The -s- in words like _Thur-s-day_,
_hunt-s-man_, may be one of two things.

a. It may be the sign of the genitive case, so that _Thursday_ = _Thoris
dies_. In this case the word is an _improper compound_, since it is like
the word _pater-familias_ in Latin, in a common state of syntactical

b. It may be a connecting sound, like the -i- in _nacht-i-gale_. Reasons
for this view occur in the following fact:--

In the modern German languages the genitive case of feminine nouns ends
otherwise than in -s. Nevertheless, the sound of -s- occurs in composition
equally, whether the noun it follows be masculine or feminine. This fact,
as far as it goes, makes it convenient to consider the sound in question as
a connective rather than a case. Probably, it is neither one nor the other
exactly, but the effect of a false analogy.

§ 369. _Decomposites._--"Composition is the joining together of _two_
words."--See § 357.

Words like _mid-ship-man_, _gentle-man-like_, &c., where the number of
verbal elements seems to amount to _three_, are no exception to this rule;
since _compound radicals_ like _midship_ and _gentleman_, are, for the
purposes of composition, single words. Compounds wherein one element is
compound are called _decomposites_.

§ 370. There are a number of words which are never found by themselves; or,
if so found, have never the same sense that they have in _combination_.
Mark the word _combination_. The terms in question are points of
_combination_, not of composition: since they form not the parts of words,
but the parts of phrases. Such are the expressions _time and tide_--_might
and main_--_rede me my riddle_--_pay your shot_--_rhyme and reason_, &c.
These words are evidently of the same class, though not of the same species
with _bishopric_, _colewort_, _spillikin_, _gossip_, _mainswearer_, &c.

These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words preserved in composition.
The former give us obsolete words preserved in combination.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 371. _Derivation_, like _etymology_, is a word used in a wide and in a
limited sense. In the wide sense of the term, every word, except it be in
the simple form of a root, is a derived word. In this sense the cases,
numbers, and genders of nouns, the persons, moods, and tenses of verbs, the
ordinal numbers, the diminutives, and even the compound words, are alike
matters of derivation. In the wide sense of the term the word _fathers_,
from _father_, is equally in a state of derivation with the word _strength_
from _strong_.

In the use of the word, even in its limited sense, there is considerable
laxity and uncertainty.

_Gender_, _number_, _case_.--These have been called the _accidents_ of the
noun, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation in its
stricter sense, or from derivation properly so called, and to class
together under the name of declension. Nouns are _declined_.

_Person_, _number_, _tense_, _voice_.--These have been called the
_accidents_ of a verb, and these it has been agreed to separate from
derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of
conjugation. Verbs are _conjugated_.

Conjugation and declension constitute inflection. Nouns and verbs, speaking
generally, are inflected.

Inflection, a part of derivation in its wider sense, is separated from
derivation properly so called, or from derivation in its limited sense.

The degrees of comparison, or certain derived forms of adjectives; the
ordinals, or certain derived forms of the numerals; the diminutives, &c.,
or certain derived forms of the substantive, have been separated from
derivation properly so called, and considered as parts of inflection. I am
not certain, however, that for so doing there is any better reason than
mere convenience.

Derivation proper, the subject of the present chapter, comprises all the
changes that words undergo, which are not referable to some of the
preceding heads. As such, it is, in its details, a wider field than even
composition. The details, however, are not entered into.

§ 372. Derivation proper may be divided according to a variety of
principles. Amongst others--

I. _According to the evidence._--In the evidence that a word is not simple,
but derived, there are at least two degrees.

a. That the word _strength_ is a derived word I collect to a certainty from
the word _strong_, an independent form, which I can separate from it. Of
the nature of the word _strength_ there is the clearest evidence, or
evidence of the first degree.

b. _Fowl_, _hail_, _nail_, _sail_, _tail_, _soul_; in Anglo-Saxon, _fugel_,
_hægel_, _nægel_, _segel_, _tægel_, _sawel_.--These words are by the best
grammarians considered as derivatives. Now, with these words I cannot do
what was done with the word _strength_, I cannot take from them the part
which I look upon as the derivational addition, and after that leave an
independent word. _Strength_ -th is a true word; _fowl_ or _fugel_ -l is no
true word. If I believe these latter words to be derivations at all, I do
it because I find in words like _harelle_, &c., the -l as a derivational
addition. Yet, as the fact of a word being sometimes used as a derivational
addition does not preclude it from being at other times a part of the root,
the evidence that the words in question are not simple, but derived, is not
cogent. In other words, it is evidence of the second degree.

II. _According to the effect._--The syllable -en in the word _whiten_
changes the noun _white_ into a verb. This is its effect. We may so
classify derivational forms as to arrange combinations like -en (whose
effect is to give the idea of the verb) in one order; whilst combinations
like -th (whose effect is, as in the word _strength_, to give the idea of
abstraction) form another order.

III. _According to the form._--Sometimes the derivational element is a
vowel (as the -ie in _doggie_), sometimes a consonant (as the -th in
_strength_), sometimes a vowel and consonant combined; in other words a
syllable (as the -en, in _whiten_), sometimes a change of vowel without any
addition (as the -i in _tip_, compared with _top_), sometimes a change of
consonant without any addition (as the z in _prize_, compared with
_price_). Sometimes it is a change of accent, like a _súrvey_, compared
with _to survéy_. To classify derivations in this manner, is to classify
them according to their form.

IV. _According to the historical origin of the derivational elements._

V. _According to the number of the derivational elements._--In _fisher_, as
compared with _fish_, there is but one derivational affix. In _fishery_, as
compared with _fish_, the number of derivational elements is two.

§ 373. In words like _bishopric_, and many others mentioned in the last
Chapter, we had compound words under the appearance of derived ones; in
words like _upmost_, and many others, we have derivation under the
appearance of composition.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 374. _Adverbs._--The adverbs are capable of being classified after a
variety of principles.

Firstly, they may be divided according to their meaning. In this case we
speak of the adverbs of _time_, _place_, _number_, _manner_.

§ 375. _Well_, _better_, _ill_, _worse_.--Here we have a class of adverbs
expressive of degree, or intensity. Adverbs of this kind are capable of
taking an inflection, viz., that of the comparative and superlative

_Now_, _then_, _here_, _there_.--In the idea expressed by these words there
are no degrees of intensity. Adverbs of this kind are incapable of taking
any inflection.

Adverbs differ from nouns and verbs in being susceptible of one sort of
inflection only, viz., that of degree.

§ 376. Secondly, adverbs may be divided according to their form and origin.

_Better_, _worse_.--Here the words are sometimes adverbs; sometimes
adjectives.--_This book is better than that_--here _better_ agrees with
_book_, and is, therefore, adjectival. _This looks better than that_--here
_better_ qualifies _looks_, and is therefore adverbial. Again; _to do a
thing with violence_ is equivalent _to do a thing violently_. This shows
how adverbs may arise out of cases. In words like the English _better_, the
Latin _vi_ = _violenter_, the Greek καλὸν = καλῶς, we have adjectives in
their degrees, and substantives in their cases, with adverbial powers. In
other words, nouns are deflected from their natural sense to an adverbial
one. Adverbs of this kind are adverbs of _deflection_.

_Brightly_, _bravely_.--Here an adjective is rendered adverbial by the
addition of the derivative syllable -ly. Adverbs like _brightly_, &c., may
be called adverbs of _derivation_.

_Now_.--This word has not satisfactorily been shown to have originated as
any other part of speech but as an adverb. Words of this sort are adverbs

§ 377. _When_, _now_, _well_, _worse_, _better_--here the adverbial
expression consists in a single word, and is _simple_. _To-day_,
_yesterday_, _not at all_, _somewhat_--here the adverbial expression
consists of a compound word, or a phrase. This indicates the division of
adverbs into _simple_ and _complex_.

§ 378. Adverbs of deflection may originally have been--

a. _Substantive_; as _needs_ in such expressions as _I needs must go_.

b. _Adjectives_; as the _sun shines bright_.

c. _Prepositions_; as _I go in_, _we go out_; though, it should be added,
that in this case we may as reasonably derive the preposition from the
adverb as the adverb from the preposition.

§ 379. Adjectives of deflection derived from substantives may originally
have been--

a. _Substantives in the _genitive_ case_; as _needs_.

b. _Substantives in the _dative_ case_; as _whil-om_, an antiquated word
meaning _at times_, and often improperly spelt _whilome_. In such an
expression as _wait a while_, the word still exists; and _while_ = _time_,
or rather _pause_; since, in Danish, _hvile_ = _rest_.

_El-se_ (for _ell-es_); _unawar-es_; _eftsoon-s_ are _adjectives_ in the
genitive case. _By rights_ is a word of the same sort; the -s being the
sign of the genitive singular like the -s in _father's_, and not of the
accusative plural like the -s in _fathers_.

_Once_ (_on-es_); _twice_ (_twi-es_); _thrice_ (_thri-es_) are _numerals_
in the genitive case.

§ 380. _Darkling_.--This is no participle of a verb _darkle_, but an adverb
of derivation, like _unwaringûn_ = _unawares_, Old High German; _stillinge_
= _secretly_, Middle High German; _blindlings_ = _blindly_, New High
German; _darnungo_ = _secretly_, Old Saxon; _nichtinge_ = _by night_,
Middle Dutch; _blindeling_ = _blindly_, New Dutch; _bæclinga_ =
_backwards_, _handlunga_ = _hand to hand_, Anglo-Saxon; and, finally,
_blindlins_, _backlins_, _darklins_, _middlins_, _scantlins_, _stridelins_,
_stowlins_, in Lowland Scotch.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 381. It is a common practice for languages to express by different
modifications of the same root the three following ideas:--

1. The idea of rest _in_ a place.

2. The idea of motion _towards_ a place.

3. The idea of motion _from_ a place.

This habit gives us three correlative adverbs--one of _position_, and two
of _direction_.

§ 382. It is also a common practice of language to depart from the original
expression of each particular idea, and to interchange the signs by which
they are expressed; so that a word originally expressive of simple position
or _rest in a place_ may be used instead of the word expressive of
direction, _or motion between two places_. Hence we say, _come here_, when
_come hither_ would be the more correct expression.

§ 383. The full amount of change in this respect may be seen from the
following table, illustrative of the forms _here_, _hither_, _hence_.

  _Mœso-Gothic_        þar, þaþ, þaþro,           _there, thither, thence_.
                       hêr, hiþ, hidrô,           _here, hither, hence_.
  _Old High            huâr, huara, huanana,      _where, whither, whence_.
   German_             dâr, dara, danana,         _there, thither, thence_.
                       hear, hêra, hinana,        _here, hither, hence_.
  _Old Saxon_          huar, huar, huanan,        _where, whither, whence_.
                       thar, thar, thanan,        _there, thither, thence_.
                       hêr, hër, hënan,           _here, hither, hence_.
  _Anglo-Saxon_        þar, þider, þonan,         _there, thither, thence_.
                       hvar, hvider, hvonan,      _where, whither, whence_.
                       hêr, hider, hënan,         _here, hither, hence_.
  _Old Norse_          þar, þaðra, þaðan,         _there, thither, thence_.
                       hvar, hvert, hvaðan,       _where, whither, whence_.
                       hêr, hëðra, hëðan,         _here, hither, hence_.
  _Middle High         dâ, dan, dannen,           _there, thither, thence_.
   German_             wâ, war, wannen,           _where, whither, whence_.
                       hie, hër, hennen,          _here, hither, hence_.
  _Modern High         da, dar, dannen,           _there, thither, thence_.
   German_             wo, wohin, wannen,         _where, whither, whence_.
                       hier, her, hinnen,         _here, hither, hence_.

§ 384. Local terminations of this kind, in general, were commoner in the
earlier stages of language than at present. The following are from the

  Innaþrô = _from within_.
  Utaþrô = _from without_.
  Iuþaþrô = _from above_.
  Fáirraþrô = _from afar_.
  Allaþrô = _from all quarters_.

§ 385. The -ce ( = es) in _hen-ce_, _when-ce_, _then-ce_, has yet to be
satisfactorily explained. The Old English is _whenn-es_, _thenn-es_. As
far, therefore, as the spelling is concerned, they are in the same
predicament with the word _once_, which is properly _on-es_, the genitive
of _one_. This origin is probable, but not certain.

§ 386. _Yonder_.--In the Mœso-Gothic we have the following forms: _jáinar_,
_jáina_, _jánþrô_ = _illic_, _illuc_, _illinc_. They do not, however, quite
explain the form _yon-d-er_. It is not clear whether the d = the -d in
_jâind_, or the þ in _jainþro_.

§ 387. _Anon_, is used by Shakspeare, in the sense of _presently_.--The
probable history of this word is as follows: the first syllable contains a
root akin to the root _yon_, signifying _distance in place_. The second is
a shortened form of the Old High German and Middle High German, -nt, a
termination expressive, 1, of removal in _space_; 2, of removal in _time_;
Old High German, _ënont_, _ënnont_; Middle High German, _ënentlig_,
_jenunt_ = _beyond_.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 388. The Anglo-Saxon adverbs are _whenne_ and _þenne_ = _when_, _then_.

The masculine accusative cases of the relative and demonstrative pronoun
are _hwæne_ (_hwone_) and _þæne_ (_þone_).

Notwithstanding the difference, the first form is a variety of the second;
so that the adverbs _when_ and _then_ are really pronominal in origin.

§ 389. As to the word _than_, the conjunction of comparison, it is another
form of _then_; the notions of _order_, _sequence_, and _comparison_ being

_This is good_; _then_ (or _next in order_) _that is good_, is an
expression sufficiently similar to _this is better than that_ to have given
rise to it; and in Scotch and certain provincial dialects we actually find
_than_ instead of _then_.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 390. _Prepositions._--Prepositions are wholly unsusceptible of

§ 391. _Conjunctions._--Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly
unsusceptible of inflection.

§ 392. _Yes_, _no_.--Although _not_ may be considered to be an adverb,
_nor_ a conjunction, and _none_ a noun, these two words, the direct
categorical affirmative, and the direct categorical negative, are referable
to none of the current parts of speech. Accurate grammar places them in a
class by themselves.

§ 393. _Particles._--The word particle is a collective term for all those
parts of speech that are _naturally_ unsusceptible of inflection;
comprising, 1, interjections; 2, direct categorical affirmatives; 3, direct
categorical negatives; 4, absolute conjunctions; 5, absolute prepositions;
6, adverbs unsusceptible of degrees of comparison; 7, inseparable prefixes.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 394. The inflection of pronouns has its natural peculiarities in
language. It has also its natural difficulties in philology. These occur
not in one language in particular, but in all generally.

The most common peculiarity in the grammar of pronouns is the fact of what
may be called their _convertibility_. Of this _convertibility_ the
following statements serve as illustration:--

1. _Of case._--In our own language the words _my_ and _thy_ although at
present possessives, were previously datives, and, earlier still,
accusatives. Again, the accusative _you_ replaces the nominative _ye_, and
_vice versâ_.

2. _Of number._--The words _thou_ and _thee_ are, except in the mouths of
Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, _ye_ and _you_, have replaced them.

3. _Of person._--The Greek language gives us examples of this in the
promiscuous use of νιν, μιν, σφε, and ἑαυτοῦ; whilst _sich_ and _sik_ are
used with a similar latitude in the Middle High German and Scandinavian.

4. _Of class._--The demonstrative pronouns become--

  a. Personal pronouns.
  b. Relative pronouns.
  c. Articles.

The reflective pronoun often becomes reciprocal.

§ 395. These statements are made for the sake of illustrating, not of
exhausting, the subject. It follows, however, as an inference from them,
that the classification of pronouns is complicated. Even if we knew the
original power and derivation of every form of every pronoun in a language,
it would be far from an easy matter to determine therefrom the paradigm
that they should take in grammar. To place a word according to its power in
a late stage of language might confuse the study of an early stage. To say
that because a word was once in a given class, it should always be so,
would be to deny that in the present English _they_, _these_, and _she_ are
personal pronouns at all.

The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a pronoun, its _present
power_ and its _original power_, are often conflicting.

§ 396. In the English language the point of most importance in this
department of grammar is the place of forms like _mine_ and _thine_; in
other words, of the forms in -n.

Now, if we take up the common grammars of the English language _as it is_,
we find, that, whilst _my_ and _thy_ are dealt with as genitive cases,
_mine_ and _thine_ are considered adjectives. In the _Anglo-Saxon_
grammars, however, _min_ and _þin_, the older forms of _mine_ and _thine_,
are treated as genitives or possessives.

§ 397. This gives us two views of the words _my_ and _thy_.

a. They may be genitives or possessives, which were originally datives or
accusatives; in which case they are deduced from the Anglo-Saxon _mec_ and

b. They may be the Anglo-Saxon _min_ and _þin_, _minus_ the final -n.

Each of these views has respectable supporters. The former is decidedly
preferred by the present writer.

§ 398. What, however, are _thine_ and _mine_? Are they adjectives like
_meus_, _tuus_, and _suus_, or cases like _mei_, _tui_, _sui_, in Latin,
and _hi-s_ in English?

It is no answer to say that sometimes they are one and sometimes the other.
They were not so originally. They did not begin with meaning two things at
once; on the contrary, they were either possessive cases, of which the
power became subsequently adjectival, or adjectives, of which the power
became subsequently possessive.

§ 399. In Anglo-Saxon and in Old Saxon there is but one form to express the
Latin _mei_ (or _tui_), on the one side, and _meus_, _mea_, _meum_ (or
_tuus_, &c.), on the other. In several other Gothic tongues, however, there
was the following difference of form:

  _Mœso-Gothic_         meina = _mei_ as opposed to meins = _meus_.
                        þeina = _tui_     --        þeins = _tuus_.
  _Old High German_     mîn = _mei_       --        mîner = _meus_.
                        dîn = _tui_       --        dîner = _tuus_.
  _Old Norse_           min = _mei_       --        minn = _meus_.
                        þin = _tui_       --        þinn = _tuus_.
  _Middle Dutch_        mîns = _mei_      --        mîn = _meus_.
                        dîns = _tui_      --        dîn = _tuus_.
  _Modern High German_  mein = _mei_      --        meiner = _meus_.
                        dein = _tui_      --        deiner = _tuus_.

In these differences of form lie the best reasons for the assumption of a
genitive case, as the origin of an adjectival form; and, undoubtedly, in
those languages where both forms occur, it is convenient to consider one as
a case and one as an adjective.

§ 400. But this is not the present question. In Anglo-Saxon there is but
one form, _min_ and _þin_ = _mei_ and _meus_, _tui_ and _tuus_,
indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective?

This involves two sorts of evidence.

§ 401. _Etymological evidence._--Assuming two _powers_ for the words _min_
and _þin_, one genitive, and one adjectival, which is the original one? Or,
going beyond the Anglo-Saxon, assuming that of two _forms_ like _meina_ and
_meins_, the one has been derived from the other, which is the primitive,
radical, primary, or original one?

Men, from whom it is generally unsafe to differ, consider that the
adjectival form is the derived one; and, as far as forms like _mîner_, as
opposed to _mîn_, are concerned, the evidence of the foregoing list is in
their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch? The genitive
_mîns_ is evidently the derivative of _mîn_.

The reason why the forms like _mîner_ seem derived is because they are
longer and more complex than the others. Nevertheless, it is by no means an
absolute rule in philology that the least compound form is the oldest. A
word may be adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts in the
way of omission, as well as by a change in the way of addition.

§ 402. As to the question whether it is most likely for an adjective to be
derived from a case, or a case from an adjective, it may be said, that
philology furnishes instances both ways. _Ours_ is a case derived, in
syntax at least, from an adjective. _Cujum_ (as in _cujum pecus_) and
_sestertium_ are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an
oblique one.

§ 403. _Syntactic evidence._--If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions
as _dœl min_ = _pars mei_, _hœlf þin_ = _dimidium tui_, we should have a
reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a true
genitive. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted.

§ 404. Again--as _min_ and _þin_ are declined like adjectives, even as
_meus_ and _tuus_ are so declined, we have means of ascertaining their
nature from the form they take in certain constructions; thus, _mi-nra_ =
_me-orum_, and _min-re_ = _me-æ_, are the genitive plural and the dative
singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for _of thy eyes_ should
be _eagena þinra_, and the Anglo-Saxon for _to my widow_, should be
_wuduwan minre_; just as in Latin, they would be _oculorum tuorum_, and
_viduæ meæ._

If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as _eagena þin_, or
_wuduwan min_, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the
construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words
_þin_ and _min_ must be construed as the Latin forms _tui_ and _mei_ would
be in _oculorum mei_, and _viduæ mei_; viz.: as genitive cases. Now,
whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions exist or not, they
have not yet been brought forward.

Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive.

§ 405. Why would they not be conclusive? Because _even of the adjective
there are uninflected forms_.

As early as the Mœso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of
this omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the _neuter
singular_ sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms,
_nim thata badi theinata_ = ᾆρόν σου τὸν κράββατον (Mark ii. 9), opposed to
_nim thata badi thein_, two verses afterwards. So also with _mein_ and
_meinata_. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with forms so
marked as those of the neuter (-ata). It has, perhaps, its origin in the
adverbial character of that gender.

_Old High German._--Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose
the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it--_thin dohter_, _sîn quenâ_,
_min dohter_, _sinaz lîb_. In a few cases, when the pronoun comes after,
even the _oblique_ cases drop the inflection.

_Middle High German._--_Preceding_ the noun, the nominative of all genders
is destitute of inflection; _sîn lîb_, _mîn ere_, _dîn lîb_, &c.
_Following_ the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; _ine herse sîn_. The
influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a place _after_
the substantive influences the omission of the inflection. This appears in
its _maximum_ in the Middle High German. In Mœso-Gothic we have _mein leik_
and _leik meinata_.

§ 406. Now by assuming the extension of the Middle High German omission of
the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words
in question in _all_ positions (i.e., both before and after their nouns),
we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as
already stated, no instances of them have been quoted.

To suppose _two_ adjectival forms, one inflected (_min_, _minre_, &c.), and
one uninflected, or common to all genders and both numbers (_min_), is to
suppose no more than is the case with the uninflected _þe_, as compared
with the inflected _þæt_.

§ 407. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of
_min_ or _þin_, the _necessary_ equivalents to _mei_ and _tui_, rather than
to _meus_ and _tuus_, must consist in the quotation from the Anglo-Saxon of
some text, wherein _min_ or _þin_ occurs with a feminine substantive, in an
_oblique_ case, the pronoun _preceding_ the noun. When this has been done,
it will be time enough to treat _mine_ and _thine_ as the equivalents to
_mei_ and _tui_, rather than as those to _meus_ and _tuus_.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 408. The remote origin of the weak præterite in -d or -t, has been
considered by Grimm. He maintains that it is the d in _d-d_, the
reduplicate præterite of _do_. In all the Gothic languages the termination
of the past tense is either -da, -ta, -de, -ði, -d, -t, or -ed, for the
singular, and -don, -ton, -tûmês, or -ðum, for the plural; in other words,
d, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the _plural_
præterite of the _Mœso-Gothic_, however, we have something more, viz., the
termination _-dêdum_; as _nas-idêdum_, _nas-idêduþ_, _nas-idedun_, from
_nas-ja_; _sôk-idêdum_, _sôk-idêduþ_, _sôk-idêdun_, from _sôk-ja_;
_salb-ôdedum_, _salb-ôdêduþ_, _salb-ôdêdun_, from _salbô_. Here there is a
second d. The same takes place with the dual form _salb-ôdêduts_, and with
the subjunctive forms, _salb-ôdêdjan_, _salb-ôdêduts_, _salb-ôdedi_,
_salb-ôdêdeits_, _salb-ôdêdeima_, _salb-ôdedeiþ_, _salb-ôdedina_. The
English phrase, _we did salve_, as compared with _salb-ôdedum_, is
confirmatory of this.

§ 409. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic præterite, in the
"Transactions of the Philological Society," induce me to prefer a different
doctrine, and to identify the -d in words like _moved_, &c., with the -t of
the passive participles of the Latin language; as found in mon-it-us,
voc-at-us, rap-t-us, and probably in Greek forms like τυφ-θ-είς.

1. The Slavonic præterite is commonly said to possess genders: in other
words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male,
and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female.

2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine or
feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the præterite is a participle. If,
instead of saying _ille amavit_, the Latins said _ille amatus_, whilst,
instead of saying _illa amavit_, they said _illa amata_, they would exactly
use the grammar of the Slavonians.

3. Hence, as one class of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact
of an active præterite being identical with a passive participle, and as
the participle and præterite in question are nearly identical, we have a
fair reason for believing that the d, in the English active præterite, is
the d of the participle, which in its turn, is the t of the Latin passive

§ 410. The following extract gives Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic
verb in his own words:--

    "A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish
    languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an
    active sense, for the purpose of expressing the præterite. This
    participle generally ends in l; and much uncertainty prevails both as
    to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been
    compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit,
    and the classical languages.

    "In the Old Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three
    methods of expressing the past tense: one of them consists in the union
    of the verb substantive with the participle; as,

      _Rek esm'_        _chital esmi'_
      _Rek esi'_        _chital esi'_
      _Rek est'_        _chital est'_.

    "In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb
    substantive placed before the participle:

      _Ya sam imao_     _mi' smo imali_
      _Ti si imao_      _vi' ste imali_
      _On ye imao_      _omi su imali_.

    "In the Polish it appears as a suffix:

      _Czytalem_        _czytalismy_
      _Czytales_        _czytaliscie_
      _Czytal_          _czytalie_.

    "And in the Servian it follows the participle:

      _Igrao sam_       _igrali smo_
      _Igrao si_        _igrali ste_
      _Igrao ye_        _igrali su_.

    "The ending -ao, of _igrao_ and _imao_, stands for the Russian _al_, as
    in some English dialects a' is used for _all_."

       *       *       *       *       *



       *       *       *       *       *



§ 411. The word _syntax_ is derived from the Greek _syn_ (_with_ or
_together_) and _taxis_ (_arrangement_). It relates to the arrangement, or
putting together, of words. Two or more words must be used before there can
be any application of syntax.

_There is to me a father._--Here we have a circumlocution equivalent to _I
have a father_. In the English language the circumlocution is unnatural. In
the Latin it is common. To determine this, is a matter of idiom rather than
of syntax.

§ 412. In the English, as in all other languages, it is convenient to
notice certain so-called figures of speech. They always furnish convenient
modes of expression, and sometimes, as in the case of the one immediately
about to be noticed, _account_ for facts.

§ 413. _Personification._--The ideas of apposition and collectiveness
account for the apparent violations of the concord of number. The idea of
personification applies to the concord of gender. A masculine or feminine
gender, characteristic of persons, may be substituted for the neuter
gender, characteristic of things. In this case the term is said to be

_The cities who aspired to liberty._--A personification of the idea
expressed by cities is here necessary to justify the expression.

_It_, the sign of the neuter gender, as applied to a male or female
_child_, is the reverse of the process.

§ 414. _Ellipsis_ (from the Greek _elleipein_ = _to fall short_), or a
_falling short_, occurs in sentences like _I sent to the bookseller's_.
Here the word _shop_ or _house_ is understood. Expressions like _to go on
all fours_, and _to eat of the fruit of the tree_, are reducible to

§ 415. _Pleonasm_ (from the Greek _pleoazein_ = _to be in excess_) occurs
in sentences like _the king, he reigns_. Here the word _he_ is

_My banks, they are furnished_,--_the most straitest sect_,--these are
pleonastic expressions. In _the king, he reigns_, the word _king_ is in the
same predicament as in _the king, God bless him_.

The double negative, allowed in Greek and Anglo-Saxon, but not admissible
in English, is pleonastic.

The verb _do_, in _I do speak_, is _not_ pleonastic. In respect to the
sense it adds intensity. In respect to the construction it is not in
apposition, but in the same predicament with verbs like _must_ and
_should_, as in _I must go_, &c.; i.e., it is a verb followed by an
infinitive. This we know from its power in those languages where the
infinitive has a characteristic sign; as, in German,

  Die Augen _thaten_ ihm winken.--GOETHE.

Besides this, _make_ is similarly used in Old English,--_But men make draw
the branch thereof, and beren him to be graffed at Babyloyne._--Sir J.

§ 416. _The figure zeugma._--_They wear a garment like that of the
Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves._--The verb, naturally
applying to _garment_ only, is here used to govern _language_. This is
called in Greek, _zeugma_ (junction).

§ 417. _My paternal home was made desolate, and he himself was
sacrificed._--The sense of this is plain; _he_ means _my father_. Yet no
such substantive as _father_ has gone before. It is supplied, however, from
the word _paternal_. The sense indicated by _paternal_ gives us a subject
to which he can refer. In other words, the word _he_ is understood,
according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed.
This figure in Greek is called _pros to semainomenon_ (_according to the
thing indicated_).

§ 418.--_Apposition,_--_Cæsar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain._---Here
the words _Roman emperor_ explain, or define, the word _Cæsar_; and the
sentence, filled up, might stand, _Cæsar, that is, the Roman emperor_, &c.
Again, the words _Roman emperor_ might be wholly ejected; or, if not
ejected, they might be thrown into a parenthesis. The practical bearing of
this fact is exhibited by changing the form of the sentence, and inserting
the conjunction _and_. In this case, instead of one person, two are spoken
of, and the verb _invades_ must be changed from the singular to the plural.

Now the words _Roman emperor_ are said to be in apposition to _Cæsar_. They
constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one.
They are, as it were, _laid alongside_ (_appositi_) of the word _Cæsar_.
Cases of doubtful number, wherein two substantives precede a verb, and
wherein it is uncertain whether the verb should be singular or plural, are
decided by determining whether the substantives be in apposition or the
contrary. No matter how many nouns there may be, as long as it can be shown
that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular number.

§ 419. _Collectiveness as opposed to plurality._--In sentences like _the
meeting _was_ large_, _the multitude _pursue_ pleasure_, _meeting_ and
_multitude_ are each collective nouns; that is, although they present the
idea of a single object, that object consists of a plurality of
individuals. Hence, _pursue_ is put in the plural number. To say, however,
_the meeting were large_ would sound improper. The number of the verb that
shall accompany a collective noun depends upon whether the idea of the
multiplicity of individuals, or that of the unity of the aggregate, shall

_Sand and salt and a mass of iron _is_ easier to bear than a man without
understanding._--Let _sand and salt and a mass of iron_ be dealt with as a
series of things the aggregate of which forms a mixture, and the expression
is allowable.

_The king and the lords and commons _forms_ an excellent frame of
government._--Here the expression is doubtful. Substitute _with_ for the
first _and_, and there is no doubt as to the propriety of the singular form

§ 420. _The reduction of complex forms to simple ones._--Take, for
instance, the current illustration, viz., _the-king-of-Saxony's
army_.--Here the assertion is, not that the army belongs to _Saxony_, but
that it belongs to the _king of Saxony_; which words must, for the sake of
taking a true view of the construction, be dealt with as a single word in
the possessive case. Here two cases are dealt with as one; and a complex
term is treated as a single word.

The same reason applies to phrases like _the two king Williams_. If we say
the _two kings William_, we must account for the phrase by apposition.

§ 421. _True notion of the part of speech in use._--In _he is gone_, the
word _gone_ must be considered as equivalent to _absent_; that is, as an
adjective. Otherwise the expression is as incorrect as the expression _she
is eloped_. Strong participles are adjectival oftener than weak ones: their
form being common to many adjectives.

_True notion of the original form._--In the phrase _I must speak_, the word
_speak_ is an infinitive. In the phrase _I am forced to speak_, the word
_speak_ is (in the present English) an infinitive also. In one case,
however, it is preceded by _to_; whilst in the other, the particle _to_ is
absent. The reason for this lies in the original difference of form.
_Speak_ - _to_ = the Anglo-Saxon _sprécan_, a simple infinitive; _to
speak_, or _speak_ + _to_ = the Anglo-Saxon _to sprécanne_, an infinitive
in the dative case.

§ 422. _Convertibility._--In the English language, the greater part of the
words may, as far as their form is concerned, be one part of speech as well
as another. Thus the combinations _s-a-n-th_, or _f-r-e-n-k_, if they
existed at all, might exist as either nouns or verbs, as either
substantives or adjectives, as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositions. This
is not the case in the Greek languages. There, if a word be a substantive,
it will probably end in -s; if an infinitive verb, in -ein, &c. The
bearings of this difference between languages like the English and
languages like the Greek will soon appear.

At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, originally one part of
speech (e.g., a noun), may become another (e.g., a verb). This may be
called the convertibility of words.

There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic convertibility;
and although, in some cases, the line of demarcation is not easily drawn
between them, the distinction is intelligible and convenient.

§ 423. _Etymological convertibility._--The words _then_ and _than_, now
adverbs or conjunctions, were once cases: in other words, they have been
converted from one part of speech to another. Or, they may even be said to
be cases, at the present moment; although only in an historical point of
view. For the practice of language, they are not only adverbs or
conjunctions, but they are adverbs or conjunctions exclusively.

§ 424. _Syntactic convertibility._--The combination _to err_, is at this
moment an infinitive verb. Nevertheless it can be used as the equivalent to
the substantive _error_.

_To err is human_ = _error is human_. Now this is an instance of syntactic
conversion. Of the two meanings, there is no doubt as to which is the
primary one; which primary meaning is part and parcel of the language at
this moment.

The infinitive, when used as a substantive, can be used in a singular form

_To err_ = _error_; but we have no such form as _to errs_ = _errors_. Nor
is it wanted. The infinitive, in a substantival sense, always conveys a
general statement, so that even when singular, it has a plural power; just
as _man is mortal_ = _men are mortal_.

§ 425. _The adjective used as a substantive._--Of these, we have examples
in expressions like the _blacks of Africa_--_the bitters and sweets of
life_--_all fours were put to the ground_. These are true instances of
conversion, and are proved to be so by the fact of their taking a plural

_Let the blind lead the blind_ is not an instance of conversion. The word
_blind_ in both instances remains an adjective, and is shown to remain so
by its being uninflected.

§ 426. _Uninflected parts of speech, used as substantive._--When King
Richard III. says, _none of your ifs_, he uses the word _if_ as a
substantive = _expressions of doubt_.

So in the expression _one long now_, the word _now_ = _present time_.

§ 427. The convertibility of words in English is very great; and it is so
because the structure of the language favours it. As few words have any
peculiar signs expressive of their being particular parts of speech,
interchange is easy, and conversion follows the logical association of
ideas unimpeded.

_The convertibility of words is in the inverse ratio to the amount of their

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 428. The phenomena of convertibility have been already explained.

The remaining points connected with the syntax of substantives, are chiefly
points of ellipsis.

_Ellipsis of substantives._--The historical view of phrases, like _Rundell
and Bridge's_, _St. Paul's_, &c., shows that this ellipsis is common to the
English and the other Gothic languages. Furthermore, it shows that it is
met with in languages not of the Gothic stock; and, finally, that the class
of words to which it applies, is, there or thereabouts, the same generally.

§ 429. The following phrases are referable to a different class of

1. _Right and left_--supply _hand_. This is, probably, a real ellipsis. The
words _right_ and _left_, have not yet become true substantives; inasmuch
as they have no plural forms. In this respect they stand in contrast with
_bitter_ and _sweet_; inasmuch as we can say _he has tasted both the
bitters and sweets of life_. Nevertheless, the expression can be refined

2. _All fours_. _To go on all fours._ No ellipsis. The word _fours_ is a
true substantive, as proved by its existence as a plural.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 430. _Pleonasm._--Pleonasm can take place with adjectives only in the
expression of the degrees of comparison. Over and above the etymological
signs of the comparative and superlative degrees, there may be used the
superlative words _more_ and _most_.

And this pleonasm really occurs--

  _The _more serener_ spirit_.
  _The _most straitest_ sect_.

These are instances of pleonasm in the strictest sense of the term.

§ 431. Collocation.--As a general rule, the adjective precedes the
substantive--_a good man_, not _a man good_.

When, however, the adjective is qualified by either the expression of its
degree, or accompanied by another adjective, it may follow the

  A man _just and good_.
  A woman _wise and fair_.
  A hero _devoted to his country_.
  A patriot _disinterested to a great degree_.

_Single simple_ adjectives thus placed after their substantive, belong to
the poetry of England, and especially to the ballad poetry--_sighs
profound_--_the leaves green_.

§ 432. _Government._--The only adjective that governs a case, is the word
_like_. In the expression, _this is like him_, &c., the original power of
the dative remains. This we infer--

1. From the fact that in most languages which have inflections to a
sufficient extent, the word meaning _like_ governs a dative case.

2. That if ever we use in English any preposition at all to express
similitude, it is the preposition _to_--_like to me_, _like to death_, &c.

Expressions like _full of meat_, _good for John_, are by no means instances
of the government of adjectives; the really governing words being the
prepositions _to_ and _for_ respectively.

§ 433. The positive degree preceded by the adjective _more_, is equivalent
to the comparative form--e.g., _more wise_ = _wiser_.

The reasons for employing one expression in preference to the other, depend
upon the nature of the particular word used.

When the word is at one and the same time of Anglo-Saxon origin and
monosyllabic, there is no doubt about the preference to be given to the
form in -er. Thus, _wis-er_ is preferable to _more wise_.

When, however, the word is compound, or trisyllabic, the combination with
the word _more_, is preferable.

  _more fruitful_        _fruitfuller_.
  _more villainous_      _villainouser_.

Between these two extremes there are several intermediate forms, wherein
the use of one rather than another will depend upon the taste of the
writer. The question, however, is a question of euphony, rather than of
aught else. It is also illustrated by the principle of not multiplying
secondary elements. In such a word as _fruit-full-er_, there are two
additions to the root. The same is the case with the superlative,

§ 434. In the Chapter on the Comparative Degree is indicated a refinement
upon the current notions as to the power of the comparative degree, and
reasons are given for believing that the fundamental notion expressed by
the comparative inflexion is the idea of comparison or contrast between
_two_ objects.

In this case, it is better in speaking of only two objects to use the
comparative degree rather than the superlative--even when we use the
definite article _the_. Thus--

    This is _the better_ of the two

is preferable to

    This is _the best_ of the two.

This principle is capable of an application more extensive than our habits
of speaking and writing will verify. Thus to go to other parts of speech,
we should logically say--

    Whether of the two,

rather than

    Which of the two.

    Either the father or the son,

but not

    Either the father, the son, or the daughter.

This statement may be refined on. It is chiefly made for the sake of giving
fresh prominence to the idea of duality, expressed by the terminations -er
and -ter.

§ 435. The absence of inflection simplifies the syntax of adjectives.
Violations of concord are impossible. We could not make an adjective
disagree with its substantive if we wished.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 436. _Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns._--In the following sentences
the words in italics are pleonastic:

  1. The king _he_ is just.
  2. I saw _her_, the queen.
  3. The _men_, they were there.
  4. The king, _his_ crown.

Of these forms, the first is more common than the second and third, and the
fourth more common than the first.

§ 437. The fourth has another element of importance. It has given rise to
the absurd notion that the genitive case in -'s (_father-'s_) is a
contraction from _his_ (_father his_).

To say nothing about the inapplicability of this rule to feminine genders,
and plural numbers, the whole history of the Indo-Germanic languages is
against it.

1. We cannot reduce _the queen's majesty_ to _the queen his majesty_.

2. We cannot reduce _the children's bread_ to _the children his bread_.

3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in -es, not in _his_.

4. The word _his_ itself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by
assuming it to be _he_ + _his_.

5. The -s in _father's_ is the -is in _patris_, and the -ος in πατέρος.

§ 438. The preceding examples illustrate an apparent paradox, viz., the
fact of pleonasm and ellipsis being closely allied. _The king he is just_,
dealt with as a _single_ sentence, is undoubtedly pleonastic. But it is not
necessary to be considered as a mere simple sentence. _The king_--may
represent a first sentence incomplete, whilst _he is just_ represents a
second sentence in full. What is pleonasm in a single sentence is ellipsis
in a double one.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 439. _Personal pronouns._--The use of the second person plural instead of
the second singular has been noticed already. This use of one number for
another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used is
conveniently called the _pronomen reverentiæ_.

§ 440. _Dativus ethicus._--In the phrase

  Rob me the exchequer,--_Henry IV._,

the _me_ is expletive, and is equivalent to _for me_. This expletive use of
the dative is conveniently called the _dativus ethicus_.

§ 441. _The reflected personal pronoun._--In the English language there is
no equivalent to the Latin _se_, the German _sich_, and the Scandinavian
_sik_, and _sig_.

It follows from this that the word _self_ is used to a greater extent than
would otherwise be the case.

_I strike me_ is awkward, but not ambiguous.

_Thou strikest thee_ is awkward, but not ambiguous.

_He strikes him_ is ambiguous; inasmuch as _him_ may mean either the
_person who strikes_ or some one else. In order to be clear we add the word
_self_ when the idea is reflective. _He strikes himself_ is, at once
idiomatic and unequivocal.

So it is with the plural persons.

_We strike us_ is awkward, but not ambiguous.

_Ye strike you_ is the same.

_They strike them_ is ambiguous.

This shows the value of a reflective pronoun for the third person.

As a general rule, therefore, whenever we use a verb reflectively we use
the word _self_ in combination with the personal pronoun.

Yet this was not always the case. The use of the simple personal pronoun
was current in Anglo-Saxon, and that, not only for the first two persons,
but for the third as well.

The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions, or imperative

  He sat _him_ down at a pillar's base.--BYRON.

  Sit thee down.

§ 442. _Reflective neuters._--In the phrase _I strike me_, the verb
_strike_ is transitive; in other words, the word _me_ expresses the object
of an action, and the meaning is different from the meaning of the simple
expression _I strike_.

In the phrase _I fear me_ (used by Lord Campbell in his lives of the
Chancellors), the verb _fear_ is intransitive or neuter; in other words,
the word _me_ (unless, indeed, _fear_ mean _terrify_), expresses no object
of any action at all; whilst the meaning is the same as in the simple
expression _I fear_.

Here the reflective pronoun appears out of place, i.e., after a neuter or
intransitive verb.

Such a use, however, is but the fragment of an extensive system of
reflective verbs thus formed, developed in different degrees in the
different Gothic languages; but in all more than in the English.

§ 443. _Equivocal reflectives._--The proper place of the reflective is
_after_ the verb.

The proper place of the governing pronoun is, in the indicative and
subjunctive moods, _before_ the verb.

Hence in expressions like the preceding there is no doubt as to the power
of the pronoun.

The imperative mood, however, sometimes presents a complication. Here the
governing person may follow the verb.

_Mount ye_ = either _be mounted_, or _mount yourselves_. In phrases like
this, and in phrases

  _Busk ye, busk ye_, my bonny, bonny bride,
      _Busk ye, busk ye_, my winsome marrow,

the construction is ambiguous. _Ye_ may either be a nominative case
governing the verb _busk_, or an accusative case governed by it.

This is an instance of what may be called the _equivocal reflective_.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 444. As _his_ and _her_ are genitive cases (and not adjectives), there is
no need of explaining such combinations as _his mother_, _her father_,
inasmuch as no concord of gender is expected. The expressions are
respectively equivalent to

  _mater ejus_, not _mater sua_;
  _pater ejus_, --  _pater suus_.

§ 445. It has been stated that _its_ is a secondary genitive, and it may be
added, that it is of late origin in the language. The Anglo-Saxon form was
_his_, the genitive of _he_ for the neuter and masculine equally. Hence,
when, in the old writers, we meet _his_, where we expect _its_, we must not
suppose that any personification takes place, but simply that the old
genitive common to the two genders is used in preference to the modern one
limited to the neuter, and irregularly formed.

The following instances are the latest specimens of its use:

    "The apoplexy is, as I take it, a kind of lethargy. I have read the
    cause of _his_ effects in Galen; _it_ is a kind of deafness."--_2 Henry
    IV._ i. 2.

    "If the salt have lost _his_ savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
    _It_ is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men
    cast _it_ out."--_Luke_ xiv. 35.

    "Some affirm that every plant has _his_ particular fly or caterpillar,
    which it breeds and feeds."--WALTON'S _Angler_.

    "This rule is not so general, but that _it_ admitteth of _his_

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 446. The undoubted constructions of the word _self_, in the present state
of the cultivated English, are threefold.

1. _Government._--In _my-self_, _thy-self_, _our-selves_, and
_your-selves_, the construction is that of a common substantive with an
adjective or genitive case. _My-self_ = _my individuality_, and is
similarly construed--_mea individualitas_ (or _persona_), or _mei
individualitas_ (or _persona_).

2. _Apposition._--In _him-self_ and _them-selves_, when accusative, the
construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun.
_Himself_ = _him_, _the individual_.

3. _Composition._--It is only, however, when _himself_ and _themselves_,
are in the _accusative_ case, that the construction is appositional. When
they are used as _nominatives_, it must be explained on another principle.
In phrases like

  _He himself_ was present
  _They themselves_ were present,

there is neither apposition nor government; _him_ and _them_, being neither
related to _my_ and _thy_, so as to be governed, nor yet to _he_ and
_they_, so as to form an apposition. In order to come under one of these
conditions, the phrases should be either _he his self_ (_they their
selves_), or else _he he self_ (_they they selves_). In this difficulty,
the only logical view that can be taken of the matter, is to consider the
words _himself_ and _themselves_, not as two words, but as a single word
compounded; and even then, the compound will be of an irregular kind;
inasmuch as the inflectional element -m is dealt with as part and parcel of
the root.

§ 447. _Her-self_.--The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of the
preceding constructions. Which, however it is, is uncertain; since _her_
may be either a so-called genitive, like _my_, or an accusative like _him_.

_Itself_--is also ambiguous. The s may represent the -s in _its_, as well
as the s- in _self_.

This inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxon stage of the English

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 448. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first contains
the forms like _my_ and _thy_, &c.; the second, those like _mine_ and
_thine_, &c.

_My_, _thy_, _his_ (as in _his book_), _her_, _its_ (as in _its book_),
_our_, _your_, _their_, are conveniently considered as the equivalents to
the Latin forms _mei_, _tui_, _ejus_, _nostrum_, _vestrum_, _eorum_.

_Mine_, _thine_, _his_ (as in _the book is his_), _hers_, _ours_, _yours_,
_theirs_ are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin forms
_meus_, _mea_, _meum_; _tuus_, _tua_, _tuum_; _suus_, _sua_, _suum_;
_noster_, _nostra_, _nostrum_; _vester_, _vestra_, _vestrum_.

§ 449. There is a difference between the construction of _my_ and _mine_.
We cannot say _this is mine hat_, and we cannot say _this hat is my_.
Nevertheless, this difference is not explained by any change of
construction from that of adjectives to that of cases. As far as the syntax
is concerned the construction of _my_ and _mine_ is equally that of an
adjective _agreeing_ with a substantive, and of a genitive (or possessive)
case _governed_ by a substantive.

Now a common genitive case can be used in two ways; either as part of a
term, or as a whole term (i.e., absolutely).--1. As part of a term--_this
is John's hat_. 2. As a whole term--_this hat is John's_.

And a common adjective can be used in two ways; either as part of a term,
or as a whole term (i.e. absolutely).--1. As part of a term--_these are
good hats_. 2. As a whole term--_these hats are good_.

Now whether we consider _my_, and the words like it, as adjectives or
cases, they possess only _one_ of the properties just illustrated, i.e.,
they can only be used as part of a term--_this is my hat_; not _this hat is

And whether we consider _mine_, and the words like it, as adjectives or
cases, they possess only _one_ of the properties just illustrated, i.e.,
they can only be used as whole terms, or absolutely--_this hat is mine_;
not _this is mine hat_.

For a full and perfect construction whether of an adjective or a genitive
case, the possessive pronouns present the phenomenon of being, singly,
incomplete, but, nevertheless, complementary to each other when taken in
their two forms.

§ 450. In the absolute construction of a genitive case, the term is formed
by the single word, only so far as the _expression_ is concerned. A
substantive is always _understood_ from what has preceded.--_This discovery
is Newton's_ = _this discovery is Newton's discovery_.

The same with adjectives.--_This weather is fine_ = _this weather is fine

And the same with absolute pronouns.--_This hat is mine_ = _this hat is my
hat_; and _this is a hat of mine_ = _this is a hat of my hats_.

§ 451. In respect to all matters of syntax considered exclusively, it is so
thoroughly a matter of indifference whether a word be an adjective or a
genitive case that Wallis considers the forms in -'s, like _father's_, not
as genitive cases but as adjectives. Looking to the logic of the question
alone he is right, and looking to the practical syntax of the question he
is right also. He is only wrong on the etymological side of the question.

    "Nomina substantiva apud nos nullum vel generum vel casuum discrimen
    sortiuntur."--p. 76.

    "Duo sunt adjectivorum genera, a substantivis immediate descendentia,
    quæ semper substantivis suis præponuntur. Primum quidem adjectivum
    possessivum libet appellare. Fit autem a quovis substantivo, sive
    singulari sive plurali, addito -s.--Ut _man's nature_, _the nature of
    man_, natura humana vel hominis; _men's nature_, natura humana vel
    hominum; _Virgil's poems_, _the poems of Virgil_, poemata Virgilii vel
    Virgiliana."--p. 89.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 452. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _gender_ as the
antecedent--_the man who_--_the woman who_--_the thing which_.

§ 453. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _number_ with the

§ 454. It is _not_ necessary for the relative to be in the same _case_ with
its antecedent.

  1. John, _who_ trusts me, comes here.
  2. John, _whom_ I trust, comes here.
  3. John, _whose_ confidence I possess, comes here.
  4. I trust John _who_ trusts me.

§ 455. The reason why the relative must agree with its antecedent in both
number and gender, whilst it need not agree with it in case, is found in
the following observations.

1. All sentences containing a relative contain two verbs--_John who_ (1)
_trusts me_ (2) _comes here_.

2. Two verbs express two actions--(1) _trust_ (2) _come_.

3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the person or thing
which does or suffers them is single--_John_.

4. _He_ (_she_ or _it_) is single _ex vi termini_. The relative expresses
the _identity_ between the subjects (or objects) of the two actions. Thus
_who_ = _John_, or is another name for John.

5. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same
gender. The _John_ who _trusts_ is necessarily of the same gender with the
_John_ who _comes_.

6. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same
number. The number of _Johns_ who _trust_, is the same as the number of
_Johns_ who _come_. Both these elements of concord are immutable.

7. But a third element of concord is not immutable. The person or thing
that is an agent in the one part of the sentence, may be the object of an
action in the other. The _John_ whom I _trust_ may _trust_ me also. Hence

  a. I trust John--_John_ the object.
  b. John trusts me--_John_ the agent.

§ 456. As the relative is only the antecedent in another form, it may
change its case according to the construction.

  1. I trust John--(2) _John_ trusts me.
  2. I trust John--(2) _He_ trusts me.
  3. I trust John--(2) _Who_ trusts me.
  4. John trusts me--(2) I trust _John_.
  5. John trusts me--(2) I trust _him_.
  6. John trusts me--(2) I trust _whom_.
  7. John trusts me--(2) _Whom_ I trust.
  8. John--(2) _Whom_ I trust trusts me.

§ 457. _The books I want are here_.--This is a specimen of a true ellipsis.
In all such phrases in _full_, there are _three_ essential elements.

1. The first proposition; as _the books are here_.

2. The second proposition; as _I want_.

3. The word which connects the two propositions, and without which, they
naturally make separate, independent, unconnected statements.

Now, although true and unequivocal ellipses are scarce, the preceding is
one of the most unequivocal kind--the word which connects the two
propositions being wanting.

§ 458. _When there are two words in a clause, each capable of being an
antecedent, the relative refers to the latter._

1. _Solomon the son of David that slew Goliah_.--This is unexceptionable.

2. _Solomon the son of David who built the temple_.--This is exceptionable.

Nevertheless, it is defensible, on the supposition that
_Solomon-the-son-of-David_ is a single many-worded name.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 459. Questions are of two sorts, direct and oblique.

_Direct._--Who is he?

_Oblique._--Who do you say that he is?

All difficulties about the cases of the interrogative pronoun may be
determined by framing an answer, and observing the case of the word with
which the interrogative coincides. Whatever be the case of this word will
also be the case of the interrogative.


      _Qu._ _Who_ is this?--_Ans._ _I._
      _Qu._ _Whose_ is this?--_Ans._ _His._
      _Qu._ _Whom_ do you seek?--_Ans._ _Him._


  _Qu._ _Who_ do you say that it is?--_Ans._ _He._
  _Qu._ _Whose_ do you say that it is?--_Ans._ _His._
  _Qu._ _Whom_ do you say that they seek?--_Ans._ _Him._

_Note._--The answer should always be made by means of a pronoun, as by so
doing we distinguish the accusative case from the nominative.

_Note._--And, if necessary, it should be made in full. Thus the full answer
to _whom do you say that they seek?_ is, _I say that they seek him._

§ 460. Nevertheless, such expressions as _whom do they say that it is?_ are
common, especially in oblique questions.

    "And he axed him and seide, _whom_ seien the people that I am?--Thei
    answereden and seiden, Jon Baptist--and he seide to hem, But _whom_
    seien ye that I am?"--WICLIF, _Luke_ ix.

    "Tell me in sadness _whom_ she is you love."--_Romeo and Juliet_, i, 1.

    "And as John fulfilled his course, he said, _whom_ think ye that I
    am?"--_Acts_ xiii. 25.

This confusion, however, is exceptionable.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 461. In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual
action there are in reality two assertions, viz., the assertion that A.
_strikes_ (or _loves_) B., and the assertion that B. _strikes_ (or _loves_)
A.; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence, if the expressions
exactly coincided with the fact signified, there would always be two
propositions. This, however, is not the habit of language. Hence arises a
more compendious form of expression, giving origin to an ellipsis of a
peculiar kind. Phrases like _Eteocles and Polynices killed each other_ are
elliptical, for _Eteocles and Polynices killed--each the other_. Here the
second proposition expands and explains the first, whilst the first
supplies the verb to the second. Each, however, is elliptic.

§ 462. This is the syntax. As to the power of the words _each_ and _one_ in
the expression (_each other_ and _one another_), I am not prepared to say
that in the common practice of the English language there is any
distinction between them. A distinction, however, if it existed, would give
strength to our language. Where two persons performed a reciprocal action
on another, the expression might be _one another_; as _Eteocles and
Polynices killed one another_. Where more than two persons were engaged on
each side of a reciprocal action, the expression might be _each other_; as,
_the ten champions praised each other_.

This amount of perspicuity is attained, by different processes, in the
French, Spanish, and Scandinavian languages.

1. French.--_Ils_ (i.e., A. and B.) _se battaient--l'un l'autre._ _Ils_ (A.
B. C.) _se battaient--les uns les autres._ In Spanish, _uno otro_ = _l'un
l'autre_, and _unos otros_ = _les uns les autres_.

2. Danish.--_Hin_ander = the French _l'un l'autre_; whilst _hverandre_ =
_les uns les autres_.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 463. Different nations have different methods of expressing indeterminate

Sometimes it is by the use of the passive voice. This is the common method
in Latin and Greek, and is also current in English--_dicitur_, λέγεται, _it
is said_.

Sometimes the verb is reflective--_si dice_ = _it says itself_, Italian.

Sometimes the plural pronoun of the third person is used. This also is an
English locution--_they say_ = _the world at large says_.

Finally, the use of some word = _man_ is a common indeterminate expression.

The word _man_ has an indeterminate sense in the Modern German; as _man
sagt_ = _they say_.

The word _man_ was also used indeterminately in the Old English, although
it is not so used in the Modern.

In the Old English, the form _man_ often lost the -n, and became
_me_.--"Deutsche Grammatik." This form is also extinct.

§ 464. The present indeterminate pronoun is _one_; as _one says_ = _they
say_ = _it is said_ = _man sagt_, German = _on dit_, French = _si dice_,

It has been stated, that the indeterminate pronoun _one_ has no
etymological connection with the numeral _one_; but that it is derived from
the French _on_ = _homme_ = _homo_ = _man_; and that it has replaced the
Old English _man_ or _me_.

§ 465. Two other pronouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the present
habit of the English language, one pronoun, and one adverb of pronominal
origin, are also used indeterminately, viz., _it_ and _there_.

§ 466. _It_ can be either the subject or the predicate of a sentence,--_it
is this_, _this is it_, _I am it_, _it is I_. When _it_ is the subject of a
proposition, the verb necessarily agrees with it, and can be of the
singular number only; no matter what be the number of the predicate--_it is
this_, _it is these_.

When _it_ is the predicate of a proposition, the number of the verb depends
upon the number of the subject. These points of universal syntax are
mentioned here for the sake of illustrating some anomalous forms.

§ 467. _There_ can only be the predicate of a subject. It differs from _it_
in this respect. It follows also that it must differ from _it_ in never
affecting the number of the verb. This is determined by the nature of the
subject--_there is this_, _there are these_.

When we say _there is these_, the analogy between the words _these_ and
_it_ misleads us; the expression being illogical.

Furthermore, although a predicate, _there_ always stands in the beginning
of propositions, i.e., in the place of the subject. This also misleads.

§ 468. Although _it_, when the subject, being itself singular, absolutely
requires that its verb should be singular also, there is a tendency to use
it incorrectly, and to treat it as a plural. Thus, in German, when the
predicate is plural, the verb joined to the singular form _es_ ( = _it_) is
plural--_es sind menschen_, literally translated = _it are men_; which,
though bad English, is good German.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 469. The rule of most practical importance about the articles is the rule
that determines when the article shall be repeated as often as there is a
fresh substantive, and when it shall not.

When two or more substantives following each other denote the same object,
the article precedes the first only. We say, _the secretary and treasurer_
(or, _a secretary and treasurer_), when the two offices are held by one

When two or more substantives following each other denote different
objects, the article is repeated, and precedes each. We say, _the_ (or _a_)
_secretary and the_ (or _a_) _treasurer_, when the two offices are held by
different persons.

This rule is much neglected.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 470. The numeral _one_ is naturally single. All the rest are naturally

Nevertheless such expressions--_one two_ ( = _one collection of two_), _two
threes_ ( = _two collections of three_) are legitimate. These are so,
because the sense of the word is changed. We may talk of several _ones_
just as we may talk of several _aces_; and of _one two_ just as of _one

Expressions like _the thousand-and-first_ are incorrect. They mean neither
one thing nor another: 1001st being expressed by _the thousand-and-first_,
and 1000th + 1st being expressed by _the thousandth and the first_.

Here it may be noticed that, although I never found it to do so, the word
_odd_ is capable of taking an ordinal form. The _thousand-and-odd-th_ is as
good an expression as the _thousand-and-eight-th_.

The construction of phrases like the _thousand-and-first_ is the same
construction as we find in the _king of Saxony's army_.

§ 471. It is by no means a matter of indifference whether we say the _two
first_ or the _first two_.

The captains of two different classes at school should be called the _two
first boys_. The first and second boys of the same class should be called
the _first two boys_. I believe that when this rule is attended to, more is
due to the printer than to the author: such, at least, is the case with

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 472. For the purposes of syntax it is necessary to divide verbs into the
five following divisions: transitive, intransitive, auxiliary, substantive,
and impersonal.

_Transitive verbs._--In transitive verbs the action is never a simple
action. It always affects some object or other,--_I move my limbs_; _I
strike my enemy_. The presence of a transitive verb implies also the
presence of a noun; which noun is the name of the object affected. A
transitive verb, unaccompanied by a noun, either expressed or understood,
is a contradiction in terms. The absence of the nouns, in and of itself,
makes it intransitive. _I move_ means, simply, _I am in a state of moving_.
_I strike_ means, simply, _I am in the act of striking_. Verbs like _move_
and _strike_ are naturally transitive.

_Intransitive verbs._--An act may take place, and yet no object be affected
by it. _To hunger_, _to thirst_, _to sleep_, _to wake_, are verbs that
indicate states of being, rather than actions affecting objects. Verbs like
_hunger_ and _sleep_ are naturally intransitive.

Many verbs, naturally transitive, may be used as intransitive,--e.g., _I
move_, _I strike_, &c.

Many verbs, naturally intransitive, may be used as transitives,--e.g., _I
walked the horse_ = _I made the horse walk_.

This variation in the use of one and the same verb is of much importance in
the question of the government of verbs.

A. Transitive verbs are naturally followed by some noun or other; and that
noun is _always_ the name of something affected by them _as an object_.

B. Intransitive verbs are not naturally followed by any noun at all; and
when they are so followed, the noun is _never_ the name of anything
affected by them _as an object_.

Nevertheless, intransitive verbs may be followed by nouns denoting the
manner, degree, or instrumentality of their action,--_I walk with my feet_
= _incedo pedibus_.

§ 473. _The auxiliary verbs_ will be noticed fully in Chapter XXIII.

§ 474. The verb _substantive_ has this peculiarity, viz., that for all
purposes of syntax it is no verb at all. _I speak_ may, logically, be
reduced to _I am speaking_; in which case it is only the _part_ of a verb.
Etymologically, indeed, the verb substantive is a verb; inasmuch as it is
inflected as such: but for the purposes of construction, it is a copula
only, i.e., it merely denotes the agreement or disagreement between the
subject and the predicate.

For the _impersonal_ verbs see Chapter XXI.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 475. The verb must agree with its subject in person, _I walk_, not _I
walks_: _he walks_, not _he walk_.

It must also agree with it in number,--_we walk_, not _we walks_: _he
walks_, not _he walk_.

Clear as these rules are, they require some expansion before they become
sufficient to solve all the doubtful points of English syntax connected
with the concord of the verb.

A. _It is I, your master, who command you_. Query? would _it is I, your
master, who commands you_, be correct? This is an example of a disputed
point of concord in respect to the person of the verb.

B. _The wages of sin is death_. Query? would _the wages of sin _are_ death_
be correct? This is an example of a disputed point of concord in respect to
the number of the verb.

§ 476. In respect to the concord of person the following rules will carry
us through a portion of the difficulties.

_Rule._--In sentences where there is but one proposition, when a noun and a
pronoun of different persons are in apposition, the verb agrees with the
first of them,--_I, your master, command you_ (not _commands_): _your
master, I, commands you_ (not _command_).

To understand the nature of the difficulty, it is necessary to remember
that subjects may be extremely complex as well as perfectly simple; and
that a complex subject may contain, at one and the same time, a noun
substantive and a pronoun,--_I, the keeper_; _he, the merchant_, &c.

Now all noun-substantives are naturally of the third person--_John speaks_,
_the men run_, _the commander gives orders_. Consequently the verb is of
the third person also.

But the pronoun with which such a noun-substantive may be placed in
apposition, may be a pronoun of either person, the first or second: _I_ or
_thou_--_I the commander_--_thou the commander_.--In this case the
construction requires consideration. With which does the verb agree? with
the substantive which requires a third person? or with the pronoun which
requires a first or second?

Undoubtedly the idea which comes first is the leading idea; and,
undoubtedly, the idea which explains, qualifies, or defines it, is the
subordinate idea: and, undoubtedly, it is the leading idea which determines
the construction of the verb. We may illustrate this from the analogy of a
similar construction in respect to number--_a man with a horse and a gig
meets me on the road_. Here the ideas are three; nevertheless the verb is
singular. No addition of subordinate elements interferes with the
construction that is determined by the leading idea. In the expression _I,
your master_, the ideas are two; viz., the idea expressed by _I_, and the
idea expressed by _master_. Nevertheless, as the one only explains or
defines the other, the construction is the same as if the idea were single.
_Your master, I_, is in the same condition. The general statement is made
concerning the _master_, and it is intended to say what _he_ does. The word
_I_ merely defines the expression by stating who the master is. Of the two
expressions the latter is the awkwardest. The construction, however, is the
same for both.

From the analysis of the structure of complex subjects of the kind in
question, combined with a rule concerning the position of the subject,
which will soon be laid down, I believe that, for all single propositions,
the foregoing rule is absolute.

_Rule._--In all single propositions the verb agrees in person with the noun
(whether substantive or pronoun) which comes first.

§ 477. But the expression _it is I your master, who command_ (or
_commands_) you, is not a single proposition. It is a sentence containing
two propositions.

  1. _It is I._
  2. _Who commands you._

Here the word _master_ is, so to say, undistributed. It may belong to
either clause of the sentence, i.e., the whole sentence may be divided into

  Either--_it is I your master_--
  Or--_your master who commands you_.

This is the first point to observe. The next is that the verb in the second
clause (_command_ or _commands_) is governed, not by either the personal
pronoun or the substantive, but by the relative, i.e., in the particular
case before us, not by either _I_ or _master_, but by _who_.

And this brings us to the following question--with which of the two
antecedents does the _relative_ agree? with _I_ or with _master_?

This may be answered by the two following rules;--

_Rule 1._--When the two antecedents are in the same proposition, the
relative agrees with the first. Thus--

  1. It is _I_ your _master_--
  2. Who _command_ you.

_Rule 2._--When the two antecedents are in different propositions, the
relative agrees with the second. Thus--

  1. It is _I_--
  2. Your _master_ who _commands_ you.

This, however, is not all. What determines whether the two antecedents
shall be in the same or in different propositions? I believe that the
following rules for what may be called _the distribution of the substantive
antecedent_ will bear criticism.

_Rule 1._ That when there is any natural connection between the substantive
antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to
the second clause. Thus, in the expression just quoted, the word _master_
is logically connected with the word _command_; and this fact makes the
expression, _It is I your master who commands you_ the better of the two.

_Rule 2._ That when there is no natural connection between the substantive
antecedent and the verb governed by the relative, the antecedent belongs to
the first clause. _It is I, John, who command_ (not _commands_) _you_.

To recapitulate, the train of reasoning has been as follows:--

1. The person of the second verb is the person of the relative.

2. The person of the relative is that of one of two antecedents.

3. Of such two antecedents the relative agrees with the one which stands in
the same proposition with itself.

4. Which position is determined by the connection or want of connection
between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative.

Respecting the person of the verb in the _first_ proposition of a complex
sentence there is no doubt. _I, your master, who commands you to make
haste, am_ (not _is_) _in a hurry._ Here, _I am in a hurry_ is the first
proposition; _who commands you to make haste_, the second.

It is not difficult to see why the construction of sentences consisting of
two propositions is open to an amount of latitude which is not admissible
in the construction of single propositions. As long as the different parts
of a complex idea are contained within the limits of a single proposition,
their subordinate character is easily discerned. When, however, they amount
to whole propositions, they take the appearance of being independent
members of the sentence.

§ 478. _The concord of number._--It is believed that the following three
rules will carry us through all difficulties of the kind just exhibited.

_Rule 1._ That the verb agrees with the subject, and with nothing but the
subject. The only way to justify such an expression as _the wages of sin is
death_, is to consider _death_ not as the subject, but as the predicate; in
other words, to consider the construction to be, _death is the wages of

_Rule 2._ That, except in the case of the word _there_, the word which
comes first is generally the subject.

_Rule 3._ That no number of connected singular nouns can govern a plural
verb, unless they be connected by a copulative conjunction. _The sun _and_
moon shine_,--_the sun _in conjunction with_ the moon shines_.

§ 479. _Plural subjects with singular predicates._--- The wages of sin
_are_ death.--Honest men _are_ the salt of the earth.

_Singular subjects with plural predicates._--These constructions are rarer
than the preceding: inasmuch as two or more persons (or things) are oftener
spoken of as being equivalent to one, than one person (or thing) is spoken
of as being equivalent to two or more.

          Sixpence _is_ twelve halfpennies.
          He _is_ all head and shoulders.
          Vulnera totus _erat_.
          Tu _es_ deliciæ meæ.
  Ἑκτορ, ἀτὰρ σύ μοι ἐσσὶ πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ,
  Ἠδὲ κασίγνητος, σὺ δέ μοι θαλερὸς παρακοίτης.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 480. The government of verbs is of two sorts, (1.) _objective_, and (2.)

It is objective where the noun which follows the verb is the name of some
object affected by the action of the verb,--as _he strikes me_; _he wounds
the enemy_.

It is modal when the noun which follows the verb is not the name of any
object affected by the verb, but the name of some object explaining the
manner in which the action of the verb takes place, the instrument with
which it is done, the end for which it is done, &c.

The government of all transitive verbs is necessarily objective. It may
also be modal,--_I strike the enemy with the sword_ = _ferio hostem

The government of all intransitive verbs can only be modal,--_I walk with
the stick_. When we say, _I walk the horse_, the word _walk_ has changed
its meaning, and signifies _make to walk_, and is, by the very fact of its
being followed by the name of an object, converted from an intransitive
into a transitive verb.

The modal construction may also be called the _adverbial construction_;
because the effect of the noun is akin to that of an adverb,--_I fight with
bravery_ = _I fight bravely_: _he walks a king_ = _he walks regally_. The
modal (or adverbial) construction, sometimes takes the appearance of the
objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by a
substantive, e.g., _to sleep the sleep of the righteous_. Here,
nevertheless, this is no proof of government. For a verb to be capable of
governing an objective case, it must be a verb signifying an action
affecting an object; which is not the case here. The sentence means, to
_sleep as the righteous sleep_, or _according to the sleep of the

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 481. The present participle, or the participle in -ing, must be
considered in respect to its relations with the substantive in -ing.
_Dying-day_ is, probably, no more a participle than _morning-walk_. In
respect to the syntax of such expressions as the forthcoming, I consider
that they are _either_ participles or substantives.

1. When substantives, they are in regimen, and govern a genitive
case--_What is the meaning of the lady's holding up her train?_ Here the
word _holding_ = _the act of holding_.--_Quid est significatio elevationis
pallæ de parte fœminæ._

2. When participles, they are in apposition or concord, and would, if
inflected, appear in the same case with the substantive, or pronoun,
preceding them--_What is the meaning of the lady holding up her train?_
Here the word _holding_ = _in the act of holding_, and answers to the Latin
_fœminæ elevantis_.--_Quid est significatio fœminæ elevantis pallam?_

§ 482. The past participle corresponds not with the Greek form τυπτόμενος,
but with the form τετυμμένος. _I am beaten_ is essentially a combination,
expressive not of present but of past time, just like the Latin _sum
verberatus_. Its Greek equivalent is not εἰμὶ τυπτόμενος = _I am a man in
the act of being beaten_, but εἰμὶ τετυμμένος = _I am a man who has been
beaten_. It is past in respect to the action, though present in respect to
the state brought about by the action. This essentially past element in the
so-called present expression, _I am beaten_, will be again referred to.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 483. The infinitive mood is a noun. The current rule that _when two verbs
come together the latter is placed in the infinitive mood_, means that one
verb can govern another only by converting it into a noun--_I begin to
move_ = _I begin the act of moving_. Verbs, _as verbs_, can only come
together in the way of apposition--_I irritate_, _I beat_, _I talk at him_,
_I call him names_, &c.

§ 484. The construction, however, of English infinitives is two fold. (1.)
Objective. (2.) Gerundial.

When one verb is followed by another without the preposition _to_, the
construction must be considered to have grown out of the objective case, or
from the form in -an.

Such is the case with the following words, and, probably, with others:

  I may go,     _not_ I may _to_ go.
  I might go,    --   I might _to_ go.
  I can move,    --   I can _to_ move.
  I could move,  --   I could _to_ move.
  I will speak,  --   I will _to_ speak.
  I would speak, --   I would _to_ speak.
  I shall wait,  --   I shall _to_ wait.
  I should wait, --   I should _to_ wait.
  Let me go,     --   Let me _to_ go.
  He let me go,  --   He let me _to_ go.
  I do speak,    --   I do _to_ speak.
  I did speak,   --   I did _to_ speak.
  I dare go,     --   I dare _to_ go.
  I durst go,    --   I durst _to_ go.

This, in the present English, is the rarer of the two constructions.

When a verb is followed by another, preceded by the preposition _to_, the
construction must be considered to have grown out of the so-called gerund,
i.e., the form in -nne, i.e., the dative case--_I begin to move_. This is
the case with the great majority of English verbs.

§ 485. _Imperatives_ have three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in
English, be used in the second person--_go thou on_, _get you gone_, &c.:
(2.) They take pronouns after, instead of before them: (3.) They often omit
the pronoun altogether.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 486. Notwithstanding its name, the present tense in English does not
express a strictly _present_ action. It rather expresses an habitual one.
_He speaks well_ = _he is a good speaker_. If a man means to say that he is
in the act of speaking, he says _I am speaking_.

It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive mood, a future
power--_I beat you_ ( = _I will beat you_) _if you don't leave off_.

§ 487. The English præterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect
but the Greek aorist. _I beat_ = ἔτυψα not τέτυφα. The true perfect is
expressed, in English, by the auxiliary _have_ + the past participle.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 488. _The concord of persons._--A difficulty that occurs frequently in
the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions like _ego et ille_
followed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that
verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree with
_ego_, or in the _third_ in order to agree with _ille_? For the sake of
laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classical grammarians
arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to their _dignity_,
making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the
most _worthy_. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the
second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said--

  _Ego_ et _Balbus_ _sustulimus_ manus.
  _Tu_ et _Balbus_ _sustulistis_ manus.

Now, in English, the plural form is the same for all three persons. Hence
we say _I and you are friends_, _you and I are friends_, _I and he are
friends_, &c., so that for the practice of language, the question as to the
relative dignity of the three persons is a matter of indifference.

Nevertheless, it _may_ occur even in English. Whenever two or more pronouns
of different persons, and of the _singular_ number, follow each other
_disjunctively_, the question of concord arises. _I or you_,--_you or
he_,--_he or I_. I believe that, in these cases, the rule is as follows:--

1. Whenever the words _either_ or _neither_ precede the pronouns, the verb
is in the third person. _Either you or I is in the wrong_; _neither you nor
I is in the wrong_.

2. Whenever the disjunctive is simple (i.e. unaccompanied with the word
_either_ or _neither_) the verb agrees with the _first_ of the two

  _I_ (or _he_) _am_ in the wrong.
  _He_ (or _I_) _is_ in the wrong.
  _Thou_ (or _he_) _art_ in the wrong.
  _He_ (or _thou_) _is_ in the wrong.

Now, provided that they are correct, it is clear that the English language
knows nothing about the relative degrees of dignity between these three
pronouns; since its habit is to make the verb agree with the one which is
placed first--whatever may be the person. I am strongly inclined to believe
that the same is the case in Latin; in which case (in the sentence _ego et
Balbus sustulimus manus_) _sustulimus_ agrees, in person, with _ego_, not
because the first person is the worthiest, but because it comes first in
the proposition,

§ 489. In the Chapter on the Impersonal Verbs, it is stated that the
construction of _me-thinks_ is peculiar.

This is because in Anglo-Saxon the word _þincan_ = _seem_. Hence
_me-thinks_ is φαίνεταί μοι, or _mihi videtur_, and _me_ is a _dative_
case, not an _accusative_.

The _þencan_ = _think_, was, in Anglo-Saxon, a different word.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 490. In English there is neither a passive nor a middle voice.

The following couplet from Dryden's "Mac Flecnoe" exhibits a construction
which requires explanation:--

  An ancient fabric, raised to inform the sight,
  There stood of yore, and Barbican _it hight_.

Here the word _hight_ = _was called_, and seems to present an instance of
the participle being used in a passive sense without the so-called verb
substantive. Yet it does no such thing. The word is no participle at all;
but a simple preterite. Certain verbs are _naturally_ either passive or
active, as one of two allied meanings may predominate. _To be called_ is
passive; so is, _to be beaten_. But, _to bear as a name_ is active; so is,
_to take a beating_. The word, _hight_, is of the same class of verbs with
the Latin _vapulo_; and it is the same as the Latin word,
_cluo_.--_Barbican cluit_ = _Barbican audivit_ = _Barbican it hight_.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 491. The auxiliary verbs, in English, play a most important part in the
syntax of the language. They may be classified upon a variety of
principles. The following, however, are all that need here be applied.

A. _Classification of auxiliaries according to their inflection or
non-inflectional powers._--Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may
either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus--_I am struck_ = the
Latin _ferior_, and the Greek τύπτομαι. These auxiliaries are in the same
relation to verbs that prepositions are to nouns. The inflectional
auxiliaries are,--

1. _Have_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense--_I have bitten_
= _mo-mordi_.

2. _Shall_; ditto. _I shall call_ = _voc-abo_.

3. _Will_; ditto. _I will call_ = _voc-abo_.

4. _May_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of mood. _I am come that I
may see_ = _venio ut vid-eam_.

5. _Be_; equivalent to an inflection in the way of voice. _To be beaten_ =
_verberari_, τύπτεσθαι.

6. _Am_, _art_, _is_, _are_; ditto. Also equivalent to an inflection in the
way of tense. _I am moving_ = _move-o_.

7. _Was_, _were_; ditto, ditto. _I was beaten_ = ἐ-τύφθην. _I was moving_ =

_Do_, _can_, _must_, and _let_, are non-inflectional auxiliaries.

B. _Classification of auxiliaries according to their non-auxiliary
significations._--The power of the word _have_ in the combination of _I
have a horse_ is clear enough. It means possession. The power of the same
word in the combination _I have been_ is not so clear; nevertheless it is a
power which has grown out of the idea of possession. This shows that the
power of a verb as an auxiliary may be a modification of its original
power; i.e., of the power it has in non-auxiliary constructions. Sometimes
the difference is very little: the word _let_, in _let us go_, has its
natural sense of permission unimpaired. Sometimes it is lost altogether.
_Can_ and _may_ exist only as auxiliaries.

1. Auxiliary derived from the idea of possession--_have_.

2. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of existence--_be_, _is_, _was_.

3. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon
circumstances external to the agent--_shall_. There are etymological
reasons for believing that _shall_ is no present tense, but a perfect.

4. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon
the volition of the agent--_will_. _Shall_ is simply predictive; _will_ is
predictive and promissive as well.

5. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances
external to the agent--_may_.

6. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances
internal to the agent--_can_. _May_ is simply permissive; _can_ is
potential. In respect to the idea of power residing in the agent being the
cause which determines a contingent action, _can_ is in the same relation
to _may_ as _will_ is to _shall_.

    "_May_ et _can_, cum eorum præteritis imperfectis, _might_ et _could_,
    potentiam innuunt: cum hoc tamen discrimine: _may_ et _might_ vel de
    jure vel saltem de rei possibilitate, dicuntur, at _can_ et _could_ de
    viribus agentis."--WALLIS, p. 107.

7. Auxiliary derived from the idea of sufferance--_let_.

8. Auxiliary derived from the idea of necessity--_must_.

    "_Must_ necessitatem innuit. Debeo, oportet, necesse est urere, _I must
    burn_. Aliquando sed rarius in præterito dicitur _must_ (quasi ex
    _must'd_ seu _must't_ contractum). Sic, si de præterito dicatur, _he
    must_ (seu _must't_) _be burnt_, oportebat uri seu necesse habuit ut
    ureretur."--WALLIS, 107.

9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action--_do_.

C. _Classification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their mode of
construction._--Auxiliary verbs combine with others in three ways.

1. _With participles._--a) With the present, or active, participle--_I am
speaking_: b) With the past, or passive, participle--_I am beaten_, _I have

2. _With infinitives._--a) With the objective infinitive--_I can speak_: b)
With the gerundial infinitive--_I have to speak_.

3. _With both infinitives and participles._--_I shall have done_, _I mean
to have done_.

D. _Auxiliary verbs may be classified according to their
effect._--Thus--_have_ makes the combination in which it appears equivalent
to a tense; _be_ to a passive form; _may_ to a sign of mood, &c.

This sketch of the different lights under which auxiliary verbs may be
viewed, has been written for the sake of illustrating, rather than
exhausting, the subject.

§ 492. The combination of the auxiliary, _have_, with the past participle
requires notice. It is, here, advisable to make the following

1. The combination with the participle of a _transitive verb._--_I have
ridden the horse_; _thou hast broken the sword_; _he has smitten the

2. The combination with the participle of an _intransitive_ verb,--_I have
waited_; _thou hast hungered_; _he has slept_.

3. The combination with the participle of the verb substantive, _I have
been_; _thou hast been_; _he has been_.

It is by examples of the first of these three divisions that the true
construction is to be shown.

For an object of any sort to be in the possession of a person, it must
previously have existed. If I possess a horse, that horse must have had a
previous existence.

Hence, in all expressions like _I have ridden a horse_, there are two
ideas, a past idea in the participle, and a present idea in the word
denoting possession.

For an object of any sort, affected in a particular manner, to be in the
possession of a person, it must previously have been affected in the manner
required. If I possess a horse that has been ridden, the riding must have
taken place before I mention the fact of the ridden horse being in my
possession; inasmuch as I speak of it as a thing already done,--the
participle, _ridden_, being in the past tense.

_I have ridden a horse_ = _I have a horse ridden_ = _I have a horse as a
ridden horse_, or (changing the gender and dealing with the word _horse_ as
a thing) _I have a horse as a ridden thing_.

In this case the syntax is of the usual sort. (1) _Have_ = _own_ = _habeo_
= _teneo_; (2) _horse_ is the accusative case _equum_; (3) _ridden_ is a
past participle agreeing either with _horse_, or _with a word in apposition
with it understood_.

Mark the words in italics. The word _ridden_ does not agree with _horse_,
since it is of the neuter gender. Neither if we said _I have ridden the
horses_, would it agree with _horses_; since it is of the singular number.

The true construction is arrived at by supplying the word _thing_. _I have
a horse as a ridden thing_ = _habeo equum equitatum_ (neuter). Here the
construction is the same as _triste lupus stabulis_.

_I have horses as a ridden thing_ = _habeo equos equitatum_ (singular,
neuter). Here the construction is--

 "Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres,
  Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllidos iræ."

or in Greek--

  Δεινὸν γυναιξὶν αἱ δι' ὠδίνων γοναί.

The classical writers supply instances of this use of _have_. _Compertum
habeo_, milites, verba viris virtutem non addere = _I have discovered_ = _I
am in possession of the discovery_. Quæ cum ita sint, satis de Cæsare hoc
_dictum habeo_.

The combination of _have_ with an intransitive verb is irreducible to the
idea of possession: indeed, it is illogical. In _I have waited_, we cannot
make the idea expressed by the word _waited_ the object of the verb _have_
or _possess_. The expression has become a part of language by means of the
extension of a false analogy. It is an instance of an illegitimate

The combination of _have_ with _been_ is more illogical still, and is a
stronger instance of the influence of an illegitimate imitation. In German
and Italian, where even _intransitive_ verbs are combined with the
equivalents to the English _have_ (_haben_, and _avere_), the verb
substantive is not so combined; on the contrary, the combinations are

  Italian; _io sono stato_ = _I am been_.
  German; _ich bin gewesen_ = _ditto_.

which is logical.

§ 493. _I am to speak_.--Three facts explain this idiom.

1. The idea of _direction towards an object_ conveyed by the dative case,
and by combinations equivalent to it.

2. The extent to which the ideas of necessity, obligation, or intention are
connected with the idea of _something that has to be done_, or _something
towards which some action has a tendency_.

3. The fact that expressions like the one in question historically
represent an original dative case, or its equivalent; since _to speak_
grows out of the Anglo-Saxon form _to sprecanne_, which, although called a
gerund, is really a dative case of the infinitive mood.

When Johnson thought that, in the phrase _he is to blame_, the word _blame_
was a noun, if he meant a noun in the way that _culpa_ is a noun, his view
was wrong. But if he meant a noun in the way that _culpare_, _ad
culpandum_, are nouns, it was right.

§ 494. _I am to blame_.--This idiom is one degree more complex than the
previous one; since _I am to blame_ = _I am to be blamed_. As early,
however, as the Anglo-Saxon period the gerunds were liable to be used in a
passive sense: _he is to lufigenne_ = not _he is to love_, but _he is to be

The principle of this confusion may be discovered by considering that _an
object to be blamed_, is _an object for some one to blame_, _an object to
be loved_ is _an object for some one to love_.

§ 495. _I am beaten_.--This is a present combination, and it is present on
the strength of the verb _am_, not on the strength of the participle
_beaten_, which is præterite.

The following table exhibits the _expedients_ on the part of the different
languages of the Gothic stock, since the loss of the proper passive form of
the Mœso-Gothic.

  _Language_               LATIN _datur_,         LATIN _datus est_.

  _Mœso-Gothic_            gibada,                ist, vas, varth gibans.
  _Old High German_        ist, wirdit kepan,     was, warth kepan.
  _Notker_                 wirt keben,            ist keben.
  _Middle High German_     wirt geben,            ist geben.
  _New High German_        wird gegeben,          ist gegeben worden.
  _Old Saxon_              is, wirtheth gebhan,   was, warth gebhan.
  _Middle Dutch_           es blïft ghegheven,    waert, blêf ghegeven.
  _New Dutch_              wordt gegeven,         es gegeven worden.
  _Old Frisian_            werth ejeven,          is ejeven.
  _Anglo-Saxon_            weorded gifen,         is gifen.
  _English_                is given,              has been given.
  _Old Norse_              er gefinn,             hefr verit gefinn.
  _Swedish_                gifves,                har varit gifven.
  _Danish_                 bliver, vorder given,  har varet given.
                                             "Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 19."

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 496. The syntax of the adverb is simpler than that of any other part of
speech, excepting, perhaps, that of the adjective.

Adverbs have no concord.

Neither have they any government. They _seem_, indeed, to have it, when
they are in the comparative or superlative degree; but it is merely
apparent. In _this is better than that_, the word _that_ is governed
neither by _better_ nor by _than_. It is not governed at all. It is a
nominative case; the subject of a separate proposition. _This is better
(i.e., more good) than that is good._ Even if we admit such an expression
as _he is stronger than me_ to be good English, there is no adverbial
government. _Than_, if it govern _me_ at all, governs it as a preposition.

The position of an adverb is, in respect to matters of syntax,
pre-eminently parenthetic; i.e., it may be omitted without injuring the
construction. _He is fighting--now; he was fighting--then; he
fights--bravely; I am almost--tired_, &c.

§ 497. By referring to the Chapter on the Adverbs, we shall find that the
neuter adjective is frequently converted into an adverb by deflection. As
any neuter adjective may be so deflected, we may justify such expressions
as _full_ (for _fully_) as _conspicuous_ (for _conspicuously_), and
_peculiar_ (for _peculiarly_) _bad grace_, &c. We are not, however, bound
to imitate everything that we can justify.

§ 498. The termination -ly was originally adjectival. At present it is a
derivational syllable by which we can convert an adjective into an adverb:
_brave, brave-ly_. When, however, the adjective ends in -ly already, the
formation is awkward. _I eat my daily bread_ is unexceptionable English; _I
eat my bread daily_ is exceptionable. One of two things must here take
place: the two syllables ly are packed into one (the full expression being
_dai-li-ly_), or else the construction is that of a neuter adjective

Adverbs are convertible. _The then men_ = οἱ νῦν βρότοι, &c. This will be
seen more clearly in the Chapter on Conjunctions.

§ 499. It has been remarked that in expressions like _he sleeps the sleep
of the righteous_, the construction is adverbial. So it is in expressions
like _he walked a mile, it weighs a pound_. The ideas expressed by _mile_
and _pound_ are not the names of anything that serves as either object or
instrument to the verb. They only denote the _manner_ of the action, and
define the meaning of the verb.

§ 500. _From whence_, _from thence_.--This is an expression which, if it
have not taken root in our language, is likely to do so. It is an instance
of excess of expression in the way of syntax; the -ce denoting direction
_from_ a place, and the preposition doing the same. It is not so important
to determine what this construction _is_, as to suggest what it is _not_.
It is _not_ an instance of an adverb governed by a preposition. If the two
words be dealt with as logically separate, _whence_ (or _thence_) must be a
noun = _which place_ (or _that place_); just as _from then till now_ =
_from that time to this_. But if (which is the better view) the two words
be dealt with as one (i.e., as an improper compound) the preposition _from_
has lost its natural power, and become the element of an adverb.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 501. All prepositions govern an oblique case. If a word ceases to do
this, it ceases to be a preposition. In the first of the two following
sentences the word _up_ is a preposition, in the second an adverb.

  1. _I climbed up the tree._
  2. _I climbed up._

All prepositions in English, precede the noun which they govern. _I climbed
up the tree_, never _I climbed the tree up_. This is a matter not of
government, but of collocation. It is the case in most languages; and, from
the frequency of its occurrence, the term _pre-position_ (or _pre-fix_) has
originated. Nevertheless, it is by no means a philological necessity. In
many languages the prepositions are_ post-positive_, following their noun.

§ 502. No preposition, in the present English, governs a genitive case.
This remark is made, because expressions like the _part of the body = pars
corporis,--a piece of the bread = portio panis_, make it appear as if the
preposition _of_ did so. The true expression is, that the preposition _of_
followed by an objective case is equivalent in many instances, to the
genitive case of the classical languages.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 503. A conjunction is a part of speech which connects
_propositions_,--_the day is bright_, is one proposition. _The sun shines_,
is another. _The day is bright_ because _the sun shines_ is a pair of
propositions connected by the conjunction, _because_.

From this it follows, that whenever there is a conjunction, there are two
subjects, two copulas, and two predicates: i.e., two propositions in all
their parts.

But this may be expressed compendiously. _The sun shines, and the moon
shines_ may be expressed by the _sun and moon shine_.

Nevertheless, however compendious may be the expression, there are always
two propositions wherever there is one conjunction. A part of speech that
merely combines two words is a preposition,--_the sun along with the moon

It is highly important to remember that conjunctions connect propositions.

It is also highly important to remember that many double propositions may
be expressed so compendiously as to look like one. When this takes place,
and any question arises as to the construction, they must be exhibited in
their fully expanded form, i.e., the second subject, the second predicate,
and the second copula must be supplied. This can always be done from the
first proposition,--_he likes you better than me_ = _he likes you better
than he likes me_. The compendious expression of the second proposition is
the first point of note in the syntax of conjunctions.

§ 504. The second point in the syntax of conjunctions is the fact of their
great convertibility. Most conjunctions have been developed out of some
other part of speech.

The conjunction of comparison, _than_, is derived from the adverb of time,
_then_: which is derived from the accusative singular of the demonstrative

The conjunction, _that_, is derived also from a demonstrative pronoun.

The conjunction, _therefore_, is a demonstrative pronoun + a preposition.

The conjunction, _because_, is a substantive governed by a preposition.

One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, may be a conjunction
or preposition, as the case may be.

_All fled but John_.--If this mean _all fled_ except _John_, the word _but_
is a preposition, the word _John_ is an accusative case, and the
proposition is single. If instead of _John_, we had a personal pronoun, we
should say _all fled but_ him.

_All fled but John_.--If this mean _all fled but John did not fly_, the
word _but_ is a conjunction, the word _John_ is a nominative case, and the
propositions are two in number. If, instead of _John_, we had a personal
pronoun, we should say, _all fled but_ he.

From the fact of the great convertibility of conjunctions it is often
necessary to determine whether a word be a conjunction or not. _If it be a
conjunction, it cannot govern a case. If it govern a case it is no
conjunction but a preposition._ A conjunction cannot govern a case, for the
following reasons,--the word that follows it _must_ be the subject of the
second proposition, and as such, a nominative case.

§ 505. The third point to determine in the syntax of conjunctions is the
certainty or uncertainty in the mind of the speaker as to the facts
expressed by the propositions which they serve to connect.

1. Each proposition may contain a certain, definite, absolute fact--_the
day is clear_ because _the sun shines_. Here there is neither doubt nor
contingency of either the _day being clear_, or of the _sun shining_.

Of two propositions one may be the condition of the other--_the day will be
clear_ if _the sun shine_. Here, although it is certain that _if the sun
shine the day will be clear_, there is no certainty of _the sun shining_.
Of the two propositions one only embodies a certain fact, and that is
certain only conditionally.

Now an action, wherein there enters any notion of uncertainty, or
indefinitude, and is at the same time connected with another action, is
expressed, not by the indicative mood, but by the subjunctive. _If the sun_
shine (not _shines_) _the day will be clear._

Simple uncertainty will not constitute a subjunctive construction,--_I am_,
perhaps, _in the wrong_.

Neither will simple connection.--_I am wrong_, because _you are right_.

But, the two combined constitute the construction in question,--_if I _be_
wrong, you are right_.

Now, a conjunction that connects two certain propositions may be said to
govern an indicative mood.

And a conjunction that connects an uncertain proposition with a certain
one, may be said to govern a subjunctive mood.

_The government of mood is the only form of government of which
conjunctions are capable._

§ 506. Previous to the question of the government of conjunctions in the
way of mood, it is necessary to notice certain points of agreement between
them and the relative pronouns; inasmuch as, in many cases, the relative
pronoun exerts the same government, in the way of determining the mood of
the verb, as the conjunction.

Between the relative pronouns and conjunctions in general there is this
point of connection,--both join propositions. Wherever there is a relative,
there is a second proposition. So there is wherever there is a conjunction.

Between certain relative pronouns and those particular conjunctions that
govern a subjunctive mood there is also a point of connection. Both suggest
an element of uncertainty or indefinitude. This the relative pronouns do,
through the logical elements common to them and to the interrogatives:
these latter essentially suggesting the idea of doubt. Wherever the person,
or thing, connected with an action, and expressed by a relative is
indefinite, there is room for the use of a subjunctive mood. Thus--"he that
troubled you shall bear his judgment, _whosoever_ he _be_."

§ 507. By considering the nature of such words as _when_, their origin as
relatives on the one hand, and their conjunctional character on the other
hand, we are prepared for finding a relative element in words like _till_,
_until_, _before_, _as long as_, &c. These can all be expanded into
expressions like _until the time when_, _during the time when_, &c. Hence,
in an expression like _seek out his wickedness till thou_ find (not
_findest_) _none_, the principle of the construction is nearly the same as
in _he that troubled you_, &c., or _vice versâ_.[64]

§ 508. In most conditional expressions the subjunctive mood should follow
the conjunction. All the following expressions are conditional.

  1. _Except_ I _be_ by Silvia in the night,
    There is no music in the nightingale.--SHAKSPEARE.

    2. Let us go and sacrifice to the Lord our God, _lest_ he _fall_ upon
    us with pestilence.--_Old Testament._

  3. ----Revenge back on itself recoils.
    Let it. I reck not, _so_ it _light_ well aimed.--J. MILTON.

  4. _If_ this _be_ the case.

    5. _Although_ my house _be_ not so with God.--_Old Testament._

    6. He shall not eat of the holy thing _unless_ he _wash_ his flesh with
    water.--_Old Testament._

Expressions like _except_ and _unless_ are equally conditional with words
like _if_ and _provided that_, since they are equivalent to _if--not_.

Expressions like _though_ and _although_ are peculiar. They join
propositions, of which the one is a _primâ facie_ reason against the
existence of the other: and this is the conditional element. In the
sentence, _if the children be so badly brought-up, they are not to be
trusted_, the _bad bringing-up_ is the reason for their being _unfit to be
trusted_; and, as far as the expression is concerned, _is admitted to be
so_. The only uncertainty lies in the question as to the degree of the
badness of the education. The inference from it is unequivocal.

But if, instead of saying _if_, we say _although_, and omit the word _not_,
so that the sentence run _although the children be so badly brought-up they
are to be trusted_, we do two things: we indicate the general relation of
cause and effect that exists between _bad bringing-up_ and _unfitness for
being trusted_, but we also, at the same time, take an exception to it in
the particular instance before us. These remarks have been made for the
sake of showing the extent to which words like _though_, &c., are

It must be remembered, however, that conjunctions, like the ones lately
quoted, do not govern subjunctive moods because they are conditional, but
because, in the particular condition which they accompany, there is an
element of uncertainty.

§ 509. This introduces a fresh question. Conditional conjunctions are of
two sorts:--

1. Those which express a condition as an actual fact, and one admitted as
such by the speaker.

2. Those which express a condition as a possible fact, and one which the
speaker either does not admit, or admits only in a qualified manner.

Since _the children_ are _so badly brought-up_, &c.--This is an instance of
the first construction. The speaker admits as an actual fact the _bad
bringing-up of the children_.

If _the children_ be _so badly brought-up_, &c.--This is an instance of the
second construction. The speaker admits as a possible (perhaps, as a
probable) fact the _bad bringing-up of the children_: but he does not adopt
it as an indubitable one.

§ 510. Now, if every conjunction had a fixed unvariable meaning, there
would be no difficulty in determining whether a condition was absolute, and
beyond doubt, or possible, and liable to doubt. But such is not the case.

_Although_ may precede a proposition which is admitted as well as one which
is doubted.

  a. Although _the children_ are, &c.
  b. Although _the children_ be, &c.

_If_, too, may precede propositions wherein there is no doubt whatever
implied: in other words it may be used instead of _since_.

In some languages this interchange goes farther than in others; in the
Greek, for instance, such is the case with εἰ, to a very great extent

Hence we must look to the meaning of the sentence in general, rather than
to the particular conjunction used.

It is a philological fact that _if_ may stand instead of _since_.

It is also a philological fact that when it does so it should be followed
by the indicative mood.

This is written in the way of illustration. What applies to _if_ applies to
other conjunctions as well.

§ 511. As a point of practice, the following method of determining the
amount of doubt expressed in a conditional proposition is useful:--

Insert, immediately after the conjunction, one of the two following
phrases,--(1.) _as is the case_; (2.) _as may or may not be the case_. By
ascertaining which of these two supplements expresses the meaning of the
speaker, we ascertain the mood of the verb which follows.

When the first formula is the one required, there is no element of doubt,
and the verb should be in the indicative mood. _If_ (_as is the case_), _he
_is_ gone, I must follow him_.

When the second formula is the one required, there _is_ an element of
doubt, and the verb should be in the subjunctive mood. _If_ (_as may or may
not be the case_) _he _be_ gone, I must follow him_.

§ 512. The use of the word _that_ in expressions like _I eat that I may
live_, &c., is a modification of the subjunctive construction, that is
conveniently called _potential_. It denotes that one act is done for the
sake of supplying the _power_ or opportunity for the performance of

The most important point connected with the powers of _that_ is the
so-called _succession of tenses_.

§ 513. _The succession of tenses._--Whenever the conjunction _that_
expresses intention, and consequently connects two verbs, the second of
which takes place _after_ the first, the verbs in question must be in the
same tense.

  I _do_ this _that_ I _may_ gain by it
  I _did_ this _that_ I _might_ gain by it.

In the Greek language this is expressed by a difference of mood; the
subjunctive being the construction equivalent to _may_, the optative to
_might_. The Latin idiom coincides with the English.

A little consideration will show that this rule is absolute. For a man _to
be doing_ one action (in present time) in order that some other action may
_follow_ it (in past time) is to reverse the order of cause and effect. To
do anything in A.D. 1851, that something may result from it in 1850 is a
contradiction; and so it is to say _I _do_ this_ that _I _might_ gain by

The reasons against the converse construction are nearly, if not equally
cogent. To have done anything at any _previous_ time in order that a
_present_ effect may follow, is, _ipso facto_, to convert a past act into a
present one, or, to speak in the language of the grammarian, to convert an
aorist into a perfect. To say _I _did_ this_ that _I may gain by it_, is to
make, by the very effect of the expression, either _may_ equivalent to
_might_, or _did_ equivalent to _have done_.

  _I _did_ this_ that _I _might_ gain_.
  _I _have done_ this_ that _I _may_ gain_.

§ 514. _Disjunctives._--Disjunctives (_or_, _nor_) are of two sorts, real
and nominal.

_A king or queen always rules in England_. Here the disjunction is real;
_king_ or _queen_ being different names for different objects. In all
_real_ disjunctions the inference is, that if one out of two (or more)
individuals (or classes) do not perform a certain action, the other does.

_A sovereign or supreme ruler always rules in England_. Here the
disjunction is nominal; _sovereign_ and _supreme governor_ being different
names for the same object. In all nominal disjunctives the inference is,
that if an agent (or agents) do not perform a certain action under one
name, he does (or they do) it under another.

Nominal disjunctives are called by Harris _sub_disjunctives.

In the English language there is no separate word to distinguish the
nominal from the real disjunctive. In Latin, _vel_ is considered by Harris
to be disjunctive, _sive_ subdisjunctive. As a periphrasis, the combination
_in other words_ is subdisjunctive.

Both nominal and real disjunctives agree in this,--whatever may be the
number of nouns which they connect, the construction of the verb is the
same as if there were but one--Henry, _or_ John, _or_ Thomas, _walks_ (not
_walk_); the sun, _or_ solar luminary, _shines_ (not _shine_). The
disjunctive _isolates_ the subject, however much it may be placed in
juxtaposition with other nouns.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 515. When the verb is in the infinitive mood, the negative precedes
it.--_Not to advance is to retreat_.

When the verb is not in the infinitive mood, the negative follows it.--_He
advanced not_. _I cannot_.

This rule is absolute. It only _seems_ to precede the verb in such
expressions as _I do not advance_, _I cannot advance_, _I have not
advanced_, &c. However, the words _do_, _can_, and _have_, are no
infinitives; and it consequently follows them. The word _advance_ is an
infinitive, and it consequently precedes it. Wallis's rule makes an
equivalent statement, although differently. "Adverbium negandi _not_ (non)
verbo postponitur (nempe auxiliari primo si adsit; aut si non adsit
auxiliare, verbo principali): aliis tamen orationis partibus præfigi
solet."--P. 113.

That the negative is rarely used, except with an auxiliary, in other words,
that the presence of a negative converts a simple form like _it burneth
not_ into the circumlocution it _does not burn_, is a fact in the practice
of the English language. The syntax is the same in either expression.

§ 516. What may be called the _distribution_ of the negative is pretty
regular in English. Thus, when the word _not_ comes between an indicative,
imperative, or subjunctive mood and an infinitive verb, it almost always is
taken with the word which it _follows_--_I can not eat_ may mean either _I
can--not eat_ (i.e., _I can abstain_), or _I can not--eat_ (i.e., _I am
unable to eat_); but, as stated above, it _almost_ always has the latter

But not _always_. In Byron's "Deformed Transformed" we find the following

  Clay! not dead but soulless,
    Though no mortal man would choose thee,
  An immortal no less
    Deigns _not to refuse_ thee.

Here _not to refuse_ = _to accept;_ and is probably a Grecism. _To not
refuse_ would, perhaps, be better.

The next expression is still more foreign to the English idiom:--

  For _not_ to have been dipped in Lethe's lake
  _Could save_ the son of Thetis from to die.

Here _not_ is to be taken with _could_.

§ 517. In the present English, two negatives make an affirmative. _I have
not not seen him_ = _I have seen him_. In Greek this was not the case. _Duæ
aut plures negativæ apud Græcos vehementius negant_ is a well known rule.
The Anglo-Saxon idiom differed from the English and coincided with the
Greek. The French negative is only apparently double; words like _point_,
_pas_, mean not _not_, but _at all_. _Je ne parle pas_ = _I not speak at
all_, not _I not speak no_.

§ 518. _Questions of appeal._--All questions imply want of information;
want of information may then imply doubt; doubt, perplexity; and perplexity
the absence of an alternative. In this way, what are called, by Mr.
Arnold,[65] _questions of appeal_, are, practically speaking, negatives.
_What should I do?_ when asked in extreme perplexity, means that nothing
can well be done. In the following passage we have the presence of a
question instead of a negative:--

  Or hear'st thou (_cluis_, Lat.) rather pure ethereal stream,
  Whose fountain who (_no one_) shall tell?--_Paradise Lost._

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 519. Broadly speaking, all adverbial constructions are absolute. The
term, however, is conveniently limited to a particular combination of the
noun, verb, and participle. When two actions are connected with each other,
either by the fact of their simultaneous occurrence, or as cause and
effect, they may be expressed within the limits of a single proposition, by
expressing the one by means of a verb, and the other by means of a noun and
participle agreeing with each other. _The door being open, the horse was

Considering the nature of the connection between the two actions, we find
good grounds for expecting _à priori_ that the participle will be in the
instrumental case, when such exists in the language: and when not, in some
case allied to it, i.e., the ablative or dative.

In Latin the ablative is the case that is used absolutely. _Sole orto,
claruit dies._

In Anglo-Saxon the absolute case was the dative. This is logical.

In the present English, however, the nominative is the absolute case. _He
made the best proverbs, him alone excepted_, is an expression of
Tillotson's. We should now write _he alone excepted_. The present mode of
expression is only to be justified by considering the nominative form to be
a dative one, just as in the expression _you are here_, the word _you_,
although an accusative, is considered as a nominative. A real nominative
absolute is as illogical as a real accusative case governing a verb.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 520. The word _Prosody_ is derived from a Greek word (_prosodia_)
signifying _accent_. It is used by Latin and English grammarians in a wider
sense, and includes not only the doctrines of accent and quantity, but also
the laws of metre and versification.

§ 521. Observe the accents in the following lines:--

  Then fáre thee wéll, mine ówn dear lóve,
    The wórld hath nów for ús
  No greáter griéf, no paín abóve
    The paín of párting thús.--MOORE.

Here the syllables accented are the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th,
16th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, 24th, 26th, 28th; that is, every other

  At the clóse of the dáy, when the hámlet is stíll,
    And the mórtals the sweéts of forgétfulness próve,
  And when nóught but the tórrent is heárd on the híll,
    And there's nóught but the níghtingale's sóng in the gróve.--BEATTIE.

Here the syllables accented are the 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st,
24th, 27th, 30th, 33rd, 36th, 39th, 42nd, 45th, 48th; that is, every third

§ 522. _Metre is a general term for the recurrence within certain intervals
of syllables similarly affected._ The syllables that have just been
numbered are similarly affected, being similarly accented. Accent is not
the only quality of a syllable, which by returning at regular intervals can
constitute metre. It is the one, however, upon which English metre depends.
English metre essentially consists in the regular recurrence of syllables
similarly _accented_.

  _Abbot._--And whý not líve and áct with óther mén?

  _Manfred._--Becaúse my náture wás avérse from lífe;
  And yét not crúel, fór I woúld not máke,
  But fínd a désolátion:--líke the wínd,
  The réd-hot breáth of thé most lóne simoóm,
  Which dwélls but ín the désert, ánd sweeps o'ér
  The bárren sánds which beár no shrúbs to blást,
  And révels ó'er their wíld and árid wáves,
  And seéketh nót so thát it ís not soúght,
  But béing mét is deádly: súch hath beén
  The páth of mý exístence.--BYRON.

§ 523. _Measures._--For every accented syllable in the following line,
write the letter a, and for every unaccented one, the letter x, so that a
may stand for an accent, x for the absence of one--

  The wáy was lóng, the wínd was cóld.--SCOTT.

or expressed symbolically

  x a x a x a x a,

where x coincides with _the_, a with _way_, &c.

§ 524. Determine the length of the line in question.--It is plain that this
may be done in two ways. We may either measure by the syllables, and say
that the line consists of eight syllables; or by the accents, and say that
it consists of four accents. In this latter case we take the accented
syllable with its corresponding unaccented one, and, grouping the two
together, deal with the pair at once. Now, a group of syllables thus taken
together is called a _measure_. In the line in question _the way_ (x a) is
one measure, _was long_ (x a) another, and so on throughout; the line
itself consisting of four measures.

§ 525. _Trisyllabic measures._--The number of measures consisting of two
syllables, or dissyllabic measures, is necessarily limited to two,
expressed a x and x a respectively. But beyond these there are in the
English language measures of three syllables, or trisyllabic measures. The
number of these is necessarily limited to three.

The first of these is exhibited in the word _mérrily_ (a x x).

  Mérrily, mérrily sháll I live nów,
  Únder the blóssom that hángs on the boúgh.--SHAKSPEARE.

The second is exhibited by the word _disáble_ (x a x).

    But vaínly thou wárrest,
      For thís is alóne in
    Thy pówer to decláre,
    That ín the dim fórest
      Thou heárd'st a low moáning,
  And sáw'st a bright lády surpássingly faír.--COLERIDGE.

§ 526. The third is exhibited by the word _cavaliér_ (x x a).

  There's a beaúty for éver unfádingly bríght,
  Like the lóng ruddy lápse of a súmmer-day's níght.--MOORE.

When grouped together according to certain rules, measures form lines and
verses; and lines and verses, regularly arranged, constitute couplets,
triplets, and stanzas, &c.

§ 527. The expression of measures, lines, &c., by such symbols as a x, x a,
&c., is _metrical notation_.

§ 528. _Rhyme._--We can have English verse without _rhyme_. We cannot have
English verse without _accent_. Hence accent is an _essential_; rhyme an
_accessory_ to metre.

§ 529. _Analysis of a pair of rhyming syllables._--Let the syllables _told_
and _bold_ be taken to pieces, and let the separate parts of each be
compared. Viewed in reference to metre, they consist of three parts or
elements: 1. the vowel (o); 2. the part _preceding_ the vowel (t and b
respectively); 3. the parts _following_ the vowel (ld). Now the vowel (o)
and the parts following the vowel (ld) are alike in both words (_old_); but
the part preceding the vowel is different in the different words (_told_,
_bold_). This difference between the parts preceding the vowels is
essential; since, if it were not for this, the two words would be
identical, or rather there would be but one word altogether. This is the
case with _I_ and _eye_. Sound for sound (although different in spelling)
the two words are identical, and, consequently, the rhyme is faulty.

Again--compared with the words _bold_ and _told_, the words _teeth_ and
_breeze_ have two of the elements necessary to constitute a rhyme. The
vowels are alike (ee), whilst the parts preceding the vowels are different
(br and t); and, as far as these two matters are concerned, the rhyme is a
good one, _tee_ and _bree_. Notwithstanding this, there is anything rather
than a rhyme; since the parts following the vowel (th and ze) instead of
agreeing, differ. _Breathe_ and _beneath_ are in the same predicament,
because the th is not sounded alike in the two words.

Again--the words _feel_ and _mill_ constitute only a false and imperfect
rhyme. Sound for sound, the letters f and m (the parts preceding the vowel)
are different. This is as it should be. Also, sound for sound, l and ll
(the parts following the vowel) are identical; and this is as it should be
also: but ee and i (the vowels) are different, and this difference spoils
the rhyme. _None_ and _own_ are in the same predicament; since one o is
sounded as o in _note_, and the other as the u in _but_.

From what has gone before we get the notion of true and perfect rhymes as
opposed to false and imperfect ones. For two (or more) words to rhyme to
each other, it is necessary

  a. That the vowel be the same in both.
  b. That the parts following the vowel be the same.
  c. That the parts preceding the vowel be different.

Beyond this it is necessary that the syllables, to form a full and perfect
rhyme, should be accented syllables. _Sky_ and _lie_ form good rhymes, but
_sky_ and merri_ly_ bad ones, and _merrily_ and _silly_ worse. Lines like
the second and fourth of the following stanza are slightly exceptionable on
this score: indeed, many readers sacrifice the accent in the word _mérrily_
to the rhyme, and pronounce it _merrilý_.

  The wítch she héld the haír in her hánd,
    The réd flame blázed hígh;
  And roúnd aboút the cáldron stoút,
    They dánced right mérri_lý_.--KIRKE WHITE.

§ 530. In matters of rhyme the letter h counts as nothing. _High_ and _I_,
_hair_ and _air_, are imperfect rhymes, because h (being no articulate
sound) counts as nothing, and so the parts before the vowel i and a are not
different (as they ought to be) but identical.

  Whose generous children narrow'd not their hearts
  With commerce, giv'n alone to arms and arts.--BYRON.

§ 531. Words where the letters coincide, but the sounds differ, are only
rhymes to the eye. _Breathe_ and _beneath_ are both in this predicament; so
also are _cease_ and _ease_ (_eaze_).

  In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease,
  Sprang the rank weed, and thrived with large increase.--POPE.

§ 532. If the sounds coincide, the difference of the letters is

  Bold in the practice of mistaken rules,
  Prescribe, apply, and call their masters fools.
  They talk of principles, but notions prize,
  And all to one loved folly sacrifice.--POPE.

§ 533. _Single rhymes._--An accented syllable standing by itself, and
coming under the conditions given above, constitutes a single rhyme.

 'Tis hard to say if greater want of _skill_
  Appear in writing or in judging _ill_;
  But of the two, less dangerous is the of_fence_
  To tire the patience than mislead the _sense_.
  Some few in that, but thousands err in _this_;
  Ten censure wrong, for one that writes a_miss_.--POPE.

§ 534. _Double rhymes._--An accented syllable followed by an unaccented
one, and coming under the conditions given above, constitutes a double

  The meeting points the sacred hair dis_sever_
  From her fair head for ever and for _ever_.--POPE.

  Prove and explain a thing till all men _doubt it_,
  And write about it, Goddess, and _about it_.--POPE.

§ 535. An accented syllable followed by two unaccented ones, and coming
under the conditions given above, constitutes a treble rhyme.

  Beware that its fatal a_scéndancy_
    Do not tempt thee to mope and repine;
  With a humble and hopeful de_péndency_
    Still await the good pleasure divine.
  Success in a higher be_átitude_,
    Is the end of what's under the Pole;
  A philosopher takes it with _grátitude_,
    And believes it the best on the whole.--BYRON.

§ 536. Metres where there is no rhyme are called blank metres.

  Of man's first disobedience and the fruit
  Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
  Brought death into the world and all our woe,
  With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
  Restore us, and regain the blissful seat,
  Sing, Heavenly Muse!--MILTON.

  The quality of mercy is not strained.
  It droppeth as the gentle dew from heaven
  Upon the place beneath; it is twice bless'd,
  It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes
 'Tis mightiest of the mighty, it becomes
  The throned monarch better than his crown.
  His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
  The attribute of awe and majesty,
  Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings:
  But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
  It is enthroned in the hearts of kings:
  It is an attribute to God himself;
  And earthly power doth then show likest God's,
  When mercy seasons justice.--SHAKSPEARE.

§ 537. _The last measure in a line or verse is indifferent as to its
length._--By referring to the section upon single rhymes, we shall find
that the number of syllables is just double the number of accents; that is,
to each accented there is one unaccented syllable, and no more. Hence, with
five accents, there are to each line ten syllables. This is not the case
with all verses. Some rhymes are double, and the last accented syllable has
two unaccented ones to follow it. Hence, with five accents there are to
each line eleven syllables. Now it is in the last measure that this
supernumerary unaccented syllable appears; and it is a general rule, that,
in the last measure of any verse, supernumerary unaccented syllables can be
admitted without destroying the original character of the measure.

§ 538. See the verses in the section on double rhymes. Here the original
character of the measure is x a throughout, until we get to the words
_disséver_ and _for éver_, and afterwards to _men doúbt it_, and _aboút
it_. At the first view it seems proper to say that in these last-mentioned
cases x a is converted into x a x. A different view, however, is the more
correct one. _Disséver_ and _for éver_, are rather x a with a syllable
over. This extra syllable may be expressed by the sign _plus_ ( + ), so
that the words in point may be expressed by x a +, rather than by x a x. It
is very clear that a measure whereof the last syllable is accented (that
is, measures like x a, _presúme_, or x x a, _cavalíer_), can only vary from
their original character on the side of excess; that is, they can only be
altered by the addition of fresh syllables. To subtract a syllable from
such feet is impossible; since it is only the last syllable that is capable
of being subtracted. If that last syllable, however, be the accented
syllable of the measure, the whole measure is annihilated. Nothing remains
but the unaccented syllable preceding; and this, as no measure can subsist
without an accent, must be counted as a supernumerary part of the preceding

§ 539. With the measures a x, a x x, x a x, the case is different. Here
there is room for syllable or syllables to be subtracted.

  Queén and húntress, cháste and faír,
    Nów the sún is laíd to sléep,
  Seated ín thy sílver chaír,
    Státe in wónted spléndour keép.
  Hésperús invókes thy líght,
    Góddess, éxquisítely bríght.--BEN JONSON.

In all these lines the last measure is deficient in a syllable, yet the
deficiency is allowable, because each measure is the last one of the line.
The formula for expressing _faír_, _sléep_, _chaír_, &c. is not a, but
rather a x followed by the _minus_ sign (-), or a x-.

A little consideration will show that amongst the English measures, x a and
x x a naturally form single, a x and x a x double, and a x x treble rhymes.

§ 540. The chief metres in English are of the formula x a. It is only a few
that are known by fixed names. These are as follows:--

1. _Gay's stanza._--Lines of three measures, x a, with alternate rhymes.
The odd (i.e. the 1st and 3rd) rhymes double.

 'Twas when the seas were roaring
    With hollow blasts of wind,
  A damsel lay deploring,
    All on a rock reclined.

2. _Common octosyllabics._--Four measures, x a, with rhyme, and (unless the
rhymes be double) eight syllables (_octo syllabæ_).--Butler's Hudibras,
Scott's poems, The Giaour, and other poems of Lord Byron.

3. _Elegiac octosyllabics_.--Same as the last, except that the rhymes are
regularly alternate, and the verses arranged in stanzas.

  And on her lover's arm she leant,
    And round her waist she felt it fold,
  And far across the hills they went,
    In that new world which now is old:
  Across the hills and far away,
    Beyond their utmost purple rim,
  And deep into the dying day
    The happy princess follow'd him.--TENNYSON.

4. _Octosyllabic triplets._--Three rhymes in succession. Generally arranged
as stanzas.

  I blest them, and they wander'd on;
  I spoke, but answer came there none;
  The dull and bitter voice was gone.--TENNYSON.

5. _Blank verse._--Five measures, x a, without rhyme, Paradise Lost,
Young's Night Thoughts, Cowper's Task.

6. _Heroic couplets._--Five measures, x a, with pairs of rhymes. Chaucer,
Denham, Dryden, Waller, Pope, Goldsmith, Cowper, Byron, Moore, Shelley, &c.
This is the common metre for narrative, didactic, and descriptive poetry.

7. _Heroic triplets._--Five measures, x a. Three rhymes in succession.
Arranged in stanzas. This metre is sometimes interposed among heroic

8. _Elegiacs._--Five measures, x a; with regularly alternate rhymes, and
arranged in stanzas.

  The curfew tolls the knell of parting day,
    The lowing herds wind slowly o'er the lea,
  The ploughman homewards plods his weary way,
    And leaves the world to darkness and to me.--GRAY.

9. _Rhymes royal._--Seven lines of heroics, with the last two rhymes in
succession, and the first five recurring at intervals.

  This Troilus, in gift of curtesie,
    With hauk on hond, and with a huge rout
  Of knightes, rode, and did her company,
    Passing all through the valley far about;
    And further would have ridden out of doubt.
  Full faine and woe was him to gone so sone;
  But turn he must, and it was eke to doen.--CHAUCER.

This metre was common with the writers of the earlier part of Queen
Elizabeth's reign. It admits of varieties according to the distribution of
the first five rhymes.

10. _Ottava rima._--A metre with an Italian name, and borrowed from Italy,
where it is used generally for narrative poetry. The Morgante Maggiore of
Pulci, the Orlando Innamorato of Bojardo, the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto,
the Gierusalemme Liberata of Tasso, are all written in this metre. Besides
this, the two chief epics of Spain and Portugal respectively (the Auraucana
and the Lusiados) are thus composed. Hence it is a form of poetry which is
Continental rather than English, and naturalized rather than indigenous.
The stanza consists of eight lines of heroics, the six first rhyming
alternately, the last two in succession.

  Arrived there, a prodigious noise he hears,
    Which suddenly along the forest spread;
  Whereat from out his quiver he prepares
    An arrow for his bow, and lifts his head;
  And, lo! a monstrous herd of swine appears,
    And onward rushes with tempestuous tread,
  And to the fountain's brink precisely pours,
  So that the giant's join'd by all the boars.
        _Morgante Maggiore_ (LD. BYRON'S _Translation_.)

11. _Terza rima._--Like the last, borrowed both in name and nature from the
Italian, and scarcely yet naturalized in England.

  The Spirit of the fervent days of old,
    When words were things that came to pass, and Thought
    Flash'd o'er the future, bidding men behold
  Their children's children's doom already brought
    Forth from the abyss of Time which is to be,
    The chaos of events where lie half-wrought
  Shapes that must undergo mortality:
    What the great seers of Israel wore within,
    That Spirit was on them and is on me:
  And if, Cassandra-like, amidst the din
    Of conflicts, none will hear, or hearing heed
    This voice from out the wilderness, the sin
  Be theirs, and my own feelings be my meed,
    The only guerdon I have ever known.

12. _Alexandrines._--Six measures, x a, generally (perhaps always) with
rhyme. The name is said to be taken from the fact that early romances upon
the deeds of Alexander of Macedon, of great popularity, were written in
this metre. One of the longest poems in the English language is in the
Alexandrines, viz. Drayton's Poly-olbion, quoted above.

13. _Spenserian stanza._--A stanza consisting of nine lines, the first
eight heroics, the last an Alexandrine.

    It hath been through all ages ever seen,
      That with the prize of arms and chivalrie
    The prize of beauty still hath joined been,
      And that for reason's special privitie;
    For either doth on other much rely.
      For he meseems most fit the fair to serve
    That can her best defend from villanie;
      And she most fit his service doth deserve,
  That fairest is, and from her faith will never swerve.--SPENSER.

Childe Harold and other important poems are composed in the Spenserian

14. _Service metre._--Couplets of seven measures, x a. This is the common
metre of the Psalm versions. It is also called common measure, or long
measure. In this metre there is always a pause after the fourth measure,
and many grammarians consider that with that pause the line ends. According
to this view, the service metre does not consist of two long lines with
seven measures each; but of four short ones, with four and three measures
each alternately. The Psalm versions are printed so as to exhibit this
pause or break.

  The Lord descended from above, | and bow'd the heavens most high,
  And underneath his feet He cast | the darkness of the sky.
  On Cherubs and on Seraphim | full royally He rode,
  And on the wings of mighty winds | came flying all abroad.
                                     STERNHOLD AND HOPKINS.

In this matter the following distinction is convenient. When the last
syllable of the fourth measure (i.e. the eighth syllable in the line) in
the one verse _rhymes_ with the corresponding syllable in the other, the
long verse should be looked upon as broken up into two short ones; in other
words, the couplets should be dealt with as a stanza. Where there is no
rhyme except at the seventh measure, the verse should remain undivided.

  Turn, gentle hermit of the glen, | and guide thy lonely way
  To where yon taper cheers the vale | with hospitable ray--

constitute a single couplet of two lines, the number of rhymes being two.

  Turn, gentle hermit of the dale,
    And guide thy lonely way
  To where yon taper cheers the vale
    With hospitable ray--(GOLDSMITH)

constitute a stanza of four lines, the number of rhymes being four.

15. _Ballad stanza._--Service metre broken up in the way just indicated.
Goldsmith's Edwin and Angelina, &c.

16. _Poulterer's measure._--Alexandrines and service metre alternately.
Found in the poetry of Henry the Eighth's time.

       *       *       *       *       *



§ 541. Certain parts of England are named as if their population were
preeminently _Saxon_ rather than _Angle_; viz., Wes-sex ( = West _Saxons_),
Es-sex ( = East _Saxons_), Sus-sex ( = South _Saxons_), and Middle-sex, ( =
Middle _Saxons_).

Others are named as if their population were preeminently _Angle_ rather
than _Saxon_; thus, the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk once constituted
the kingdom of the East Angles, and even at the present moment, are often
spoken of as _East Anglia_.

§ 542. It is safe to say that the dialects of the English language do _not_
coincide with the distribution of these terms. That parts of the Angle
differ from parts of the Saxon districts in respect to the character of
their provincialisms is true; but it is by no means evident that they
differ on that account.

Thus, that the dialect of Hampshire, which was part of Wes-sex, should
differ from that of Norfolk, which was part of East _Anglia_, is but
natural. There is a great space of country between them--a fact sufficient
to account for their respective characteristics, without assuming an
original difference of population. Between the _Saxons_ of Es-sex and the
_Anglians_ of Suffolk, no one has professed to find any notable difference.

Hence, no division of the English dialects into those of _Saxon_ or those
of _Angle_ origin, has been successful.

Neither have any peculiarities in the dialect of Kent, or the Isle of
Wight, verified the notion of the population for those parts having been
originally _Jute_.

Nor yet has any portion of England been shown by the evidence of its
dialects, to have been _Frisian_.

§ 543. Yet the solution of such problems is one of the great objects of the
study of provincial modes of speech.

§ 544. That _Jute_ characteristics will be sought in vain is the inference
from §§ 7-13.

That differential points between the _Angles_ and _Saxons_ will be sought
in vain is also probable.

On the other hand, differential points between the _Frisians_ and _Angles_
are likely to be discovered.

§ 545. The traces of the Danes, or Northmen, are distinct; the following
forms of local names being _primâ facie_ evidence (at least) of Danish or
Norse occupancy.

a. The combination Sk-, rather than the sound of Sh-, in such names as
Skip-ton, rather than Ship-ton.

b. The combination Ca-, rather than Ch-, in such names as Carl-ton rather
than Charl-ton.

c. The termination -by ( = _town_, _habitation_, _occupancy_,) rather than
-ton, as Ash-by, Demble-by, Spills-by, Grims-by, &c.

d. The form _Kirk_ rather than _Church_.

e. The form _Orm_ rather than _Worm_, as in _Orms-head_.

In _Orms-kirk_ and _Kir-by_ we have a combination of Danish

§ 546. In respect to their distribution, the Danish forms are--

At their _maximum_ on the sea-coast of Lincolnshire; i.e., in the parts
about Spills-by.

Common, but less frequent, in Yorkshire, the Northern counties of England,
the South-eastern parts of Scotland, Lancashire, (_Ormskirk_, _Horn-by_),
and parts of South Wales (_Orms-head_, _Ten-by_).

In Orkney, and the northern parts of Scotland, the Norse had originally the
same influence that the Anglo-Saxon had in the south.--See the chapter of
the Lowland Scotch.

This explains the peculiar distribution of the Norse forms. Rare, or
non-existent, in central and southern England, they appear on the opposite
sides of the island, and on its northern extremity; showing that the stream
of the Norse population went _round the island rather than across it_.

§ 547. Next to the search after traces of the original differences in the
speech of the Continental invaders of Great Britain, the question as to the
origin of the _written_ language of England is the most important.

Mr. Guest has given good reasons for believing it to have arisen out of a
Mercian, rather than a West-Saxon dialect--although of the _Anglo-Saxon_
the West-Saxon was the most cultivated form.

This is confirmed by the present state of the Mercian dialects.

The country about Huntingdon and Stamford is, in the mind of the present
writer, that part of England where provincial peculiarities are at the
_minimum_. This may be explained in various ways, of which none is
preferable to the doctrine, that the dialect for those parts represents the
dialect out of which the literary language of England became developed.

Such are the chief problems connected with the study of the provincial
dialects of England; the exhibition of the methods applicable to their
investigation not being considered necessary in a work like the present.


    That _Saxon_ was the _British_ name of the Germanic invaders of Great
    Britain is certain.--See § 45.

    The reasons which induce me to consider it as _exclusively_ British,
    i.e., as foreign to the Angles, are as follows,--

    a. No clear distinction has ever been drawn between, e.g., an _Angle_
    of Suffolk, and a _Saxon_ of Essex.

    b. The Romans who knew, for some parts at least, every inch of the land
    occupied by the Saxons of Germany, as long as there is reason for
    believing that they took their names from German sources, never use the
    word. It is strange to Cæsar, Strabo, Pliny, and Tacitus. Ptolemy is
    the first who uses it.

    c. Ecbert, who is said to have attached the name of _Engl_and, or Land
    of _Angles_, to South Britain, was, himself, no _Angle_, but a

       *       *       *       *       *


    PART IV.

    1. What is Johnson's explanation of the word _Etymology_? Into what
    varieties does the study fall? What is the difference between
    _Etymology_ and _Syntax_?

    2. How far are the following words instances of gender--_boy_,
    _he-goat_, _actress_, _which_? Analyze the forms _what_, _her_, _its_,
    _vixen_, _spinster_, _gander_, _drake_.

    3. How far is there a dual number in the Gothic tongues? What is the
    rule for forming such a plural as _stags_ from _stag_? What are the
    peculiarities in _monarchs_, _cargoes_, _keys_, _pence_, _geese_,
    _children_, _women_, _houses_, _paths_, _leaves_? Of what number are
    the words _alms_, _physics_, _news_, _riches_?

    4. To what extent have we in English a dative, an accusative, and
    instrumental case? Disprove the doctrine that the genitive in -s (_the
    father's son_) is formed out of the combination _father his_.

    5. Decline _me_, _thee_, and _ye_.

    6. How far is there a true reflective pronoun in English?

    7. What were the original powers and forms of _she_, _her_, _it_? What
    case is _him_? What is the power and origin of _the_ in such
    expressions as _all the more_? Decline _he_ in Anglo-Saxon. Investigate
    the forms _these_ and _those_, _whose_, _what_, _whom_, _which_,
    _myself_, _himself_, _herself_, _such_, _every_.

    8. What is the power (real or supposed) of the -er in _over_, and in

    9. What words in the present English are explained by the following
    forms--_sutiza_ in Mœso-Gothic, and _scearpor_, _neah_, _yldre_, in
    Anglo-Saxon? Explain the forms, _better_, _worse_, _more_, _less_.

    10. Analyze the words _former_, _next_, _upmost_, _thirty_,
    _streamlet_, _sweetheart_, _duckling_.

    11. Translate _Ida wæs Eopping_. Analyze the word _Wales_.

    12. Exhibit the extent to which the noun partakes of the character of
    the verb, and _vice versâ_. What were the Anglo-Saxon forms of, _I can
    call_, _I begin to call_?

    13. Investigate the forms, _drench_, _raise_, _use_ (the verb),

    14. _Thou speakest_. What is the peculiarity of the form? _We loven_,
    _we love_, account for this.

    15. _Thou rannest_ = (_tu cucurristi_). Is this an unexceptionable
    form? if not, why?

    16. What are the _moods_ in English? What the _tenses_? How far is the
    division of verbs into weak and strong tenses natural? Account for the
    double forms _swam_ and _swum_. Enumerate the other verbs in the same
    class. Explain the forms _taught_, _wrought_, _ought_, _did_, (from
    _do_ = _facio_), _did_ (from _do_ = _valeo_), _minded_.

    17. Define the term _irregular_, so as to raise the number of irregular
    verbs, in English, to more than a hundred. Define the same term, so as
    to reduce them to none. Explain the form _could_.

    18. What is the construction of _meseems_ and _methinks_? Illustrate
    the _future_ power of be. _Werden_ in German means _become_--in what
    form does the word appear in English?

    19. _To err is human_,--_the rising_ in the North. Explain these
    constructions. Account for the second -r in _forlorn_; and for the y in

    20. Explain the difference between _composite_ and _de-composite_
    words, _true_ and _improper compounds_. Analyze the word _nightingale_.

    21. How far are adverbs inflected? Distinguish between a _preposition_
    and a _conjunction_.

    22. Explain the forms _there_, _thence_, _yonder_, and _anon_.

    23. What part of speech is _mine_?

    24. What is the probable origin of the -d in such preterites as

    PART V.

    1. Explain the terms _Syntax_, _Ellipsis_, _Pleonasm_, _Zeugma_, _Pros
    to semainomenon_, _Apposition_, and _Convertibility_, giving
    illustrations of each.

    2. What is the government of adjectives?

    3. What is the construction in--

      a. Rob _me_ the Exchequer.--SHAKSPEARE.
      b. Mount _ye_ on horseback.
      c. _His_ mother.
      d. If the salt have lost _his_ savour.
      e. Myself _is_ weak.
      f. This is _mine_.

    4. What are the concords between the relative and antecedent? How far
    is, _whom_ do they say that I am, an exceptionable expression?

    5. _Eteocles and Polynices killed each other._ What is the construction
    here? _Ils se battaient, l'un l'autre_--_Ils se battaient, les uns les
    autres._ Translate these two sentences into English. _My wife and
    little ones are well._ What is the origin of the word _ones_ here? _It
    _was_ those who spoke_. _These _was_ those who spoke_. Why is one of
    those expressions correct, and the other incorrect?

    6. What is the difference between--

      _The_ secretary and treasurer,
      _The_ secretary and _the_ treasurer?

    What is that between--

      The first two--
      The two first?

    7. What is the construction of--

      He sleeps the sleep of the righteous?

    8. Whether do you say--It is I your master who command you, or It is I
    your master who commands you!

    9. Barbican it _hight_. Translate this into Latin.

    10. Explain in full the following constructions--

      a. I have ridden a horse.
      b. I am to blame.
      c. I am beaten.
      d. A part of the body.
      e. All fled but John.

    11. What is meant by the _Succession of Tenses_? Show the logical
    necessity of it.

    12. Or _hear'st_ thou rather pure ethereal stream,
        Whose fountain _who can_ tell?--MILTON.

    Give the meaning of this passage, and explain the figure of speech
    exhibited in the words in Italics.

    13. The _door_ being open the steed was stolen.--In what case is

    PART VI.

    1. The way was long, the wind was cold. Express the metre of this

    2. Define _rhyme_.

    3. Give instances of _Service metre_, _Blank heroics_, _Alexandrines_.


    1. How far do the present dialects of England coincide with the parts,
    that took their names from the _Angles_ and the _Saxons_ respectively.

    2. What traces of Danish or Norse occupancy do we find in local names?

       *       *       *       *       *


       *       *       *       *       *

[1] The immediate authority for these descents, dates, and localities is
Sharon Turner. They are nearly the same as those which are noticed in Mr.
Kemble's _Saxons in England_. In the former writer, however, they are given
as historical facts; in the latter they are subjected to criticism, and
considered as exceptionable.

[2] It is from Beda that the current opinions as to the details of the
Anglo-Saxon invasion are taken; especially the threefold division into
Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. These migrations were so large and numerous that
the original country of the Angles was left a desert. The distribution of
the three divisions over the different parts of England was also Beda's.

The work of this important writer--the great luminary of early England--is
the _Historia Ecclesiastica_, a title which prepares us for a great
preponderance of the ecclesiastical over the secular history.

Now Beda's date was the middle of the eighth century.

And his locality was the monastery of Wearmouth, in the county of Durham.

Both of these facts must be borne in mind when we consider the value of his
authority, i.e., his means of knowing, as determined by the conditions of
time and place.

Christianity was introduced among the Anglo-Saxons of Kent A.D. 597. For
the times between them and A.D. 740, we have in Mr. Kemble's _Codex
Diplomaticus_ eighty-five charters, all in Latin, and most of them of
uncertain authenticity. They are chiefly grants of different kings of Kent,
Wessex, the Hwiccas, Mercia, and Northumberland, a few being of Bishops.

[3] Gildas was a _British_ ecclesiastic, as Beda was an _English_ one. His
locality was North Wales: his time earlier than Beda's by perhaps one
hundred years.

He states that he was born the year of the _pugna Badonica_, currently
called the _Battle of Bath_.

Now a chronological table called _Annales Cambrenses_, places that event
within one hundred years of the supposed landing of Hengist.

But there is no reason for believing this to be a cotemporary entry. Hence,
all that can be safely said of Gildas is that he was about as far removed
from the seat of the Germanic invasions, in locality, as Beda, whilst in
point of time he was nearer.

As a writer he is far inferior, being pre-eminently verbose, vague, and

_Gildas_, as far as he states facts at all, gives the _British_ account of
the conquest.

No other documents have come down to our time.

Beda's own authorities--as we learn from his introduction--were certain of
the most learned bishops and abbots of his cotemporaries, of whom he sought
special information as to the antiquities of their own establishments. Of
cotemporary writers, in the way of authority, there is no mention.

For the times between the "accredited date of Hengist and Horsa's landing
(A.D. 449) and A.D. 597 (a period of about one hundred and fifty years) the
only authorities are a few quotations from Solinus, Gildas, and a Legendary
Life of St. Germanus."--_Saxons in Engl._ i. 27.

[4] This account is from Jornandes, who is generally considered as the
chief repertory of the traditions respecting the Gothic populations. He
lived about A.D. 530. The Gepidæ were said to be the _laggards_ of the
migration, and the vessel which carried them to have been left behind: and
as _gepanta_ in their language meant _slow_, their name is taken therefrom.

[5] Widukind was a monk of Corvey in Flanders, who wrote the
Ecclesiastical History of his monastery.

[6] Geoffry of Monmouth, like Gildas, is a _British_ authority. His date
was the reign of Henry II. The _Welsh_ traditions form the staple of
Geoffry's work, for which it is the great repertory.

[7] The _date_ of this was the reign of Marcus Antoninus. Its _place_, the
Danubian provinces of Rhætia, and Pannonia. It was carried on by the
Germans of the _frontier_ or _march_--from whence the name--in alliance
with the Jazyges, who were undoubtedly Slavonic, and the Quadi, who were
probably so. Its details are obscure--the chief authority being Dio

[8] The reign of Valentinian was from A.D. 365 to A.D. 375.

[9] The date of this has been variously placed in A.D. 438, and between
A.D. 395 and A.D. 407. Either is earlier than A.D. 449.

[10] The Saxon Chronicle consists of a series of entries from the earliest
times to the reign of King Stephen, each under its year: the year of the
Anglo-Saxon invasion being the usual one, i.e., A.D. 449. The value of such
a work depends upon the extent to which the chronological entries are
cotemporaneous with the events noticed. Where this is the case, the
statement is of the highest historical value; where, however, it is merely
taken from some earlier authority, or from a tradition, it loses the
character of a _register_, and becomes merely a series of dates--correct or
incorrect as the case may be. Where the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle really begins
to be a cotemporaneous register is uncertain--all that is certain being
that it _is_ so for the _latest_, and is _not_ so for _earliest_ entries.
The notices in question come under the former class. The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle had been edited by the Master of Trinity College, Oxford (Dr.
Ingram), and analyzed by Miss Gurney.

[11] Asserius was a learned Welsh ecclesiastic who was invited by King
Alfred into Wessex, and employed by that king as one of his associates and
assistants in civilizing and instructing his subjects. Several works are
mentioned as having been written by Asserius, but the only one extant is
his history of King Alfred, which is a chronicle of various events between
the year of Alfred's birth, A.D. 849, to A.D. 889.

Asserius is supposed to have died Bishop of Sherborne, A.D. 910.

[12] The compounds of the Anglo-Saxon word _ware_ = _occupants_,
_inhabitants_, are too numerous to leave any doubt as to this, and several
other, derivations. _Cant-ware_ = _Cant-icolæ_ = _people of Kent_:
_Hwic-ware_ = _Hviccas_ = _the people_ of parts of Worcestershire,[67]
Glostershire, and (to judge from the name) of _War-wick_shire also.

[13] The Annales Saxonici, or Saxon Chronicles, embrace the history of
Britain, between the landing of Cæsar and the accession of Henry II. They
are evidently the work of various and successive writers, who were Saxon
ecclesiastics. But nothing certain can be affirmed of the authors of their
respective portions.--See Note 10.

[14] See Note 2.

[15] Adam of Bremen was a Minor Canon of the Cathedral of Bremen, about
the years 1067-1077. He travelled in Denmark, and was in great favour with
King Sweyn of that country. He wrote an Ecclesiastical History of the
spread of Christianity in the North, to which he appended a description of
the geography, population, and archæology of Denmark and the neighbouring

[16] Ethelward was an Anglo-Saxon nobleman, who wrote a chronicle of
events from the creation of the world to the death of King Edgar, A.D. 875.

[17] The following is a specimen of the Frisian of Gysbert Japicx, in
metre. It is part of a rustic song, supposed to be sung by a peasant on his
return from a wedding feast. Date about A.D. 1650.

 "Swíet, ja swíet, is't oer 'e míete,
 'T boáskiere fóar é jonge lie,
  Kreftich swíet is't, sizz ik jiette,
  As it giet mei alders ríe.
  Mai óars tiget 'et to 'n pléach,
  As ik óan myn geafeunt seach."

Translation of the same from Bosworth's _Anglo-Saxon Dictionary_, p.

 "Sweet, yes, sweet is over (_beyond_) measure,
  The marrying for the young lede (_people_);
  Most sweet is it, I say yet (_once more_),
  When (_as_) it goes with the rede (_counsel_) of the elders.
  But otherwise it tends to a plague,
  As I saw on (_by the example of_) my village fellow."

[18] Of the early constitution of states of East Friesland, we have a
remarkable illustration in the old Frisian Laws. These are in the native
Frisian tongue, and, except that they represent republican rather than
monarchical institutions, are similar in form, in spirit, to the Saxon.

[19] The great blow against the sovereignty of Rome, and the one which
probably prevented Germany from becoming a Roman province, was struck by
the Cheruscan Arminius against Quintilius Varus, in the reign of Augustus.
The date of the organized insurrection of Arminius was A.D. 9; the place,
the neighbourhood of Herford, or Engern, in Westphalia. Drawn into an
inpracticable part of the country, the troops of Varus were suddenly
attacked and cut to pieces--consisting of more than three legions. "Never
was victory more decisive, never was the liberation of an oppressed people
more instantaneous and complete. Throughout Germany the Roman garrisons
were assailed and cut off; and, within a few weeks after Varus had fallen,
the German soil was freed from the foot of an invader.

"Had Arminius been supine or unsuccessful, our Germanic ancestors would
have been enslaved or exterminated in their original seats along the Eyder
and the Elbe. This island would never have borne the name of England, and
we, this great English nation, whose race and language are now overrunning
the earth, from one end of it to the other, would have been utterly cut off
from existence."[68]

[20] _Heliand_ is the gerund from _helian_ = _heal_, and means _the
Healer_ or _Saviour_. It is the name of an old Saxon poem, in alliterative
metre, of the tenth or eleventh century, in the dialect supposed to have
belonged to the parts about Essen, Cleves, and Munster in Westphalia. It is
a sort of Gospel Harmony, or Life of Christ, taken from the Gospels. It has
been edited by Schmeller.

[21] Hildubrand and Hathubrant, father and son, are two legendary heroes
belonging to that cycle of German fiction of which Theodoric of Verona is
the centre. A fragment containing an account of their hostile meeting,
being mutually unknown, in alliterative metre, represents the _fictional_
poetry of the old Saxons in the same way (though not to the same extent)
that the Heliand represents their sacred poetry. The "Hildubrand and
Hathubrant" have been edited by Grimm.

[22] In a language which for a long time was considered to be the Dutch of
Holland in its oldest known form, there is an imperfect translation of the
Psalms; referred by the best writers on the subject to the reign of
Charlemagne, and thence called the Carolinian Psalms. The best text of this
is to be found in a Dutch periodical, the _Taalkundig Magazijn_.

[23] _Beowulf_ is by far the most considerable poem, not only in
Anglo-Saxon, but in any old Gothic tongue. It has been admirably edited and
translated by Mr. Kemble. The subject is the account of Beowulf, an Angle
hero--Angle but not English, as the scene of the poem is on the Continent.
In its present form it shows traces of the revision of some Christian
writer: the basis, however, of its subject, and the manners it describes,
are essentially Pagan. The most remarkable feature in the poem is the fact
that no allusion is made to England--so that, _Anglo_-Saxon as the work
is--it belongs to the Anglo-Saxons of Germany before they became English.

[24] A Gospel Harmony translated from the one of Tatian, exists in a
dialect too little purely High German, to pass absolutely as such, yet less
_Low_ German than the Dutch of Holland. This belongs to the _Middle_ Rhine,
and is called _Frank_.

[25] The Alemannic is the German of the _Upper_ Rhine; the dialect out of
which the Bavarian and Swiss grew. Its chief specimens occur in--

  a. _The Glosses of Kero_--
  b. _The Psalms_ by a monk named _Notker_.
  c. A life of _Anno_ of Cologne.
  d. The Song of Solomon, by Willeram.
  e. _Musrpilli_, an alliterative poem.
  f. _Krist_, a life of Christ, by Otford, and others less important.

Most of these (along with Tatian), are to be found in Schilter's

(Original footnotes)

[26] In Hampshire.

[27] In Northern Germany.

[28] The Eyder.

[29] See §§ 21-29.

[30] Saxons _North of the Elbe_ (_Albis_).

[31] See Notes 17 and 18.

[32] De Mor. Germ. 40.

[33] Meaning _ditch_

[34] This list is taken from Smart's valuable and logical English Grammar.

[35] As in _Shotover Hill_, near Oxford.

[36] As in _Jerusalem artichoke_.

[37] A sort of silk.

[38] _Ancient Cassio_--"Othello."


  Be she constant, be she fickle,
  Be she flame, or be she _ickle_.--SIR C. SEDLEY.

[40] Or _periphrastic_.

[41] That of the verb substantive, _if I were_, subjunctive, as opposed to
_I was_, indicative.

[42] This by no means implies that such was the power of σ, ζ, γ, κ, in
Greek. They are merely convenient symbols.

[43] As a _name_, _Sigma = Samech_.

[44] Of the Hebrew and Greek tables.

[45] In _thin_.

[46] In _thine_.

[47] Write one letter twice.

[48] This explains the words, "Whatever they may have been originally," and
"to a certain extent," in § 212.

[49] Used as adverbs.

[50] Used as the plurals of _he_, _she_, and _it_.

[51] Different from _ilk_.

[52] Or _call-s_.

[53] _Thou sangest_, _thou drankest_, &c.--For a reason given in the
sequel, these forms are less exceptionable than _sungest_, _drunkest_, &c.

[54] The forms marked thus * are either obsolete or provincial.

[55] Obsolete.

[56] Sounded _wun_.

[57] Pronounced _ment_.

[58] Pronounced _herd_.

[59] Pronounced _sed_.

[60] So pronounced.

[61] Pronounced _leevd_, _cleevd_, _bereevd_, _deeld_, _feeld_, _dreemd_,

[62] Pronounced _delt_.

[63] Found rarely; _bist_ being the current form.--"Deutsche Grammatik," i.

[64] Notwithstanding the extent to which a relative may take the appearance
of a conjunction, there is always one unequivocal method of deciding its
true nature. The relative is always a _part_ of the second proposition. A
conjunction is _no part_ of either.

[65] "Latin Prose Composition," p. 123.

[66] This is worked out more fully in the "Germany of Tacitus, with
Ethnological Notes," by the present author.

[67] Preserved in the name of the town Wick-war.

[68] "The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World," by Professor Creasy.

       *       *       *       *       *

Elements of Moral Philosophy:



12mo. 480 pages. Price $1 50.

This work is an original and thorough examination of the fundamental laws
of Moral Science, and of their relations to Christianity and to practical
life. It has already taken a firm stand among our highest works of
literature and science. From the numerous commendations of it by our most
learned and competent men, we have room for only the following brief

    _From the _REV. THOMAS H. SKINNER, D.D._, of the Union Theol. Sem.,

    "It is a work of uncommon merit, on a subject very difficult to be
    treated well. His analysis is complete. He has shunned no question
    which his purpose required him to answer, and he has met no adversary
    which he has not overcome."

    _From _REV. L. P. HICKOK_, Vice-President of Union College._

    "I deem the book well adapted to the ends proposed in the preface. The
    style is clear, the thoughts perspicuous. I think it calculated to do
    good, to promote the truth, to diffuse light and impart instruction to
    the community, in a department of study of the deepest interest to

    _From _REV. JAMES WALKER, D.D._, President of Harvard University._

    "Having carefully examined the more critical parts, to which my
    attention has been especially directed, I am free to express my
    conviction of the great clearness, discrimination, and accuracy of the
    work, and of its admirable adaptation to its object."

    _From _REV. RAY PALMER, D.D._, of Albany._

    "I have examined this work with great pleasure, and do not hesitate to
    say that in my judgment it is greatly superior to any treatise I have
    seen, in all the essential requisites of a good text-book."

    _From _PROF. ROUSSEAU D. HITCHCOCK, D.D._, of Union Theol. Sem., N.Y._

    "The task of mediating between science and the popular mind, is one
    that requires a peculiar gift of perspicuity, both in thought and
    style; and this, I think, the author possesses in an eminent degree. I
    am pleased with its comprehensiveness, its plainness, and its fidelity
    to the Christian stand-point."

    _From _PROF. HENRY B. SMITH, D.D._, of the Union Theol. Sem., N.Y._

    "It commends itself by its clear arrangement of the topics, its
    perspicuity of language, and its constant practical bearings. I am
    particularly pleased with its views of conscience. Its frequent and
    pertinent illustrations, and the Scriptural character of its
    explanations of the particular duties, will make the work both
    attractive and valuable as a text-book, in imparting instruction upon
    this vital part of philosophy."

    _From _W. D. WILSON, D.D._, Professor of Intellectual and Moral
    Philosophy in Hobart Free College._

    "I have examined the work with care, and have adopted it as a text-book
    in the study of Moral Science. I consider it not only sound in
    doctrine, but clear and systematic in method, and withal pervaded with
    a prevailing healthy tone of sentiment, which cannot fail to leave
    behind, in addition to the truths it inculcates, an impression in favor
    of those truths. I esteem this one of the greatest merits of the book.
    In this respect it has no equal, so far as I know; and I do not
    hesitate to speak of it as being preferable to any other work yet
    published, for use in all institutions where Moral Philosophy forms a
    department in the course of instruction."

       *       *       *       *       *

A History of Philosophy:




12mo. 365 pages. Price $1 50.

This translation is designed to supply a want long felt by both teachers
and students in our American colleges. We have valuable histories of
Philosophy in English, but no _manual_ on this subject so clear, concise,
and comprehensive as the one now presented. Schwegler's work bears the
marks of great learning, and is evidently written by one who has not only
studied the original sources for such a history, but has thought out for
himself the systems of which he treats. He has thus seized upon the real
germ of each system, and traced its process of development with great
clearness and accuracy. The whole history of speculation, from Thales to
the present time, is presented in its consecutive order. This rich and
important field of study, hitherto so greatly neglected, will, it is hoped,
receive a new impulse among American students through Mr. Seelye's
translation. It is a book, moreover, invaluable for reference, and should
be in the possession of every public and private library.

    _From _L. P. HICKOK_, Vice-President of Union College._

    "I have had opportunity to hear a large part of Rev. Mr. Seelye's
    translation of Schwegler's History of Philosophy read from manuscript,
    and I do not hesitate to say that it is a faithful, clear, and
    remarkably precise English rendering of this invaluable Epitome of the
    History of Philosophy. It is exceedingly desirable that it should be
    given to American students of philosophy in the English language, and I
    have no expectation of its more favorable and successful accomplishment
    than in this present attempt. I should immediately introduce it as as a
    text-book in the graduate's department under my own instruction, if it
    be favorably published, and cannot doubt that other teachers will
    rejoice to avail themselves of the like assistance from it."

    _From _HENRY B. SMITH_, Professor of Christian Theology, Union
    Theological Seminary, N.Y._

    "It will well reward diligent study, and is one of the best works for a
    text-book in our colleges upon this neglected branch of scientific

    _From _N. PORTER_, Professor of Intellectual Philosophy in Yale

    "It is the only book translated from the German which professes to give
    an account of the recent German systems which seems adapted to give any
    intelligible information on the subject to a novice."

    _From _GEO. P. FISHER_, Professor of Divinity in Yale College._

    "It is really the best Epitome of the History of Philosophy now
    accessible to the English student."

    _From _JOSEPH HAVEN_, Professor of Mental Philosophy in Amherst

    "As a manual and brief summary of the whole range of speculative
    inquiry, I know of no work which strikes me more favorably."

       *       *       *       *       *

A Digest of English Grammar.


12mo. 219 pages. Price 60 cents.

This work is designed as a text-book for the use of schools and academies;
it is the result of long experience of an eminently successful teacher, and
will be found to possess many peculiar advantages.

The work is both synthetical and analytical, and its principles are
strictly practical; the different subjects are carefully separated and
methodically arranged, so that all difficulty as to what belongs to
Etymology, Syntax, and Analysis, is entirely removed, and the latter, which
is very properly placed in the first part of Syntax, is rendered quite as
simple and easy of comprehension as the most plain portion of grammar.

One subject is taken up at a time, and, when fully explained, models of
Analysis are given, and examples for practice follow.

The principles of the work are sound; the definitions are direct, short,
and accurate.

The rules, though ample, are few, plain, and concise; and the language
throughout the work is simple, clear, and expressive.

The method of treating the Elementary Sounds, is that which is now highly

The principles of Derivation, and of Orthographic Analysis, are brought
within the comprehension of the youngest learner.

    _From Forty-four Teachers of Public Schools, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania._

    "The undersigned have examined Covell's Digest of English Grammar, and
    are of opinion that in the justness of its general views, the
    excellence of its style, the brevity, accuracy, and perspicuity of its
    definitions and rules, the numerous examples and illustrations, the
    adaptation of its synthetical exercises, the simplicity of its method
    of analysis, and in the plan of its arrangement, this work surpasses
    any other Grammar now before the public; and that in all respects it is
    most admirably adapted to the use of schools and academies."

    _From _JOHN M. WOLCOTT, A.M._, Principal and Superintendent of Ninth
    Ward School, Pittsburg, Pa._

    "Covell's Digest of English Grammar not only evinces the most unceasing
    labor, the most extensive research, the most unrelaxing effort, and the
    most devoted self-sacrificing study of its author, but it is the most
    complete, the most perfect, and, to me, the most satisfactory
    exposition of English Grammar that has come to my notice. It appears to
    me that every youth aspiring to become master of the English language,
    from the rudimental principles to the full, round, beautiful,
    faultless, perfect period, will make this volume his '_vade mecum_.'"

       *       *       *       *       *

Natural Philosophy:



12mo. 450 pages. Price $1 25.

This book, which is illustrated in the most liberal manner, is equally
adapted for use with or without apparatus. It is distinguished

    1. For its remarkable clearness.

    2. For its fullness of illustration.

    3. For its original method of dealing with difficulties.

    4. For its correction of numerous errors heretofore unfortunately
    stereotyped in School Philosophies.

    5. For its explanation of scientific principles as they appear in
    every-day life.

    6. For its practical application of these principles in questions
    presented for the pupil's solution.

    7. For a signal perspicuity of arrangement. One thing being presented
    at a time and everything in its proper place, the whole is impressed
    without difficulty on the mind.

    8. For the interest with which it invests the subject. From the outset,
    the student is fascinated and filled with a desire to fathom the
    wonders of the material world.

    9. For the embodiment of all recent discoveries in the various
    departments of philosophy. Instead of relying on the obsolete
    authorities that have furnished the matter for many of our popular
    school Philosophies, the author has made it his business to acquaint
    himself with the present state of science, and thus produced such a
    work as is demanded by the progressive spirit of the age.

All who have examined this book commend it in the highest terms.

    "Mr. QUACKENBOS has long been favorably known as a teacher and also a
    writer of educational books. This elementary work on Natural Philosophy
    strikes us as being one of his most useful and happy efforts."--_N. Y.
    Courier and Enquirer._

    "A very complete system. We have been particularly struck with the
    conciseness and intelligible character of the definitions and
    explanations."--_N. Y. Observer._

    "It is much the most complete and instructive school-book on Natural
    Philosophy that we have ever seen."--_Christian Union, Louisville, Ky._

    "Every reasonable requirement is met in this new work."--_Gazette,
    Pittsburg, Pa._

    "The whole arrangement is decidedly superior to anything of the kind
    that ever fell under our inspection."--_Post, Hartford, Conn._

    "It places the principles and rules of philosophy within the reach of
    the young student in a most attractive form."--_Evening Transcript,

       *       *       *       *       *


       *       *       *       *       *



Webster's Dictionaries,



  WEBSTER'S POCKET DICTIONARY, Diamond, 32mo. Prices 50 cts. and 84 cts.
  WEBSTER'S PRIMARY SCHOOL DICTIONARY, 304 pp., 16mo. Price 50 cts.
  WEBSTER'S COMMON SCHOOL DICTIONARY, 320 pp., 12mo. Price 75 cts.
  WEBSTER'S HIGH SCHOOL DICTIONARY, 350 pp., 12mo. Price $1 00.
  WEBSTER'S ACADEMIC DICTIONARY, 472 pp., cap 4to. Price $1 50.
      Price $1 75.

    The publishers have now the pleasure of presenting the abridgments of
    Webster's American Dictionary in a carefully revised, greatly improved,
    and, as nearly as possible, perfected form. The series is rendered
    complete, and made to include a book just suited to every purpose for
    which an abridgment of the complete work can be desired, by the
    introduction of two new books, viz.: The Common School Dictionary,
    Intermediate between the Primary School and the High School; and the
    Counting-House and Family Dictionary, a much more full and
    comprehensive abridgment than we have before offered. The other books
    in the series have also been most carefully revised, and the new
    abridgments prepared, by and under the direction of Prof. C. E.
    Goodrich and Mr. Wm. G. Webster, with assistance from other most
    competent sources, no pains having been spared to remove any, however
    slight, grounds for reasonable objection which may have existed to the
    books in the old form, and to render them as nearly perfect as
    possible, and yet more worthy the high position they occupy as the


    proved to be such by a sale many times greater than that of all other
    dictionaries published in America combined, and acknowledged such by
    our Courts of Justice, as well as the people at large.

    The old stereotype plates having been much worn by the immense numbers
    of books printed from them, the occasion has been embraced to make the
    very thorough revision and improvement now completed. All the books in
    the series are now printed, therefore, on


    and are uniform in Definitions, Orthography, Orthoepy, &c.

    It is deemed unnecessary to enlarge upon the claims of these well-known
    standard works. _Literally thousands_ of testimonials to their
    superiority to all others are in the hands of the publishers, from the
    most eminent educational and literary men in all parts of the country.
    From year to year their sale is steadily and rapidly increasing. It is
    believed that the mere _increase_ in the sale of these abridgments the
    present year, will be greater than the entire combined sale of all
    other American Dictionaries.



       *       *       *       *       *

Class-Book of Physiology.



12mo. 324 pages. Price $1 25.


Professor Comings' thorough acquaintance with every department of
Physiology, and his long experience as a teacher of that science, qualify
him in an eminent degree for preparing an accurate and useful text-book on
the subject. He has lost no opportunity of introducing practical
instructions in the principles of hygiene, thus not only making the pupil
acquainted with the wondrous workmanship of his own frame, but showing him
how to preserve it in a sound and healthy state. Avoiding technical terms,
as far as possible, he has brought the subject fully within the
comprehension of the young, and has clothed it with unusual interest, by
judicious references to the comparative physiology of the inferior animals.
Pictorial illustrations have been freely introduced, wherever it was
thought they could aid or interest the student.

Physiology cannot but be considered, by every intelligent and reflecting
mind, an exceedingly interesting and necessary study. It makes us
acquainted with the structure and uses of the organs of life, and the laws
by which we may keep them active and vigorous for the longest period. The
publishers would respectfully urge its importance on such teachers as have
not heretofore made it a regular branch in their institutions; and would
solicit, at the hands of all, an impartial examination of what is
pronounced by good judges, "the best elementary text-book" on the science.

    _From _M. Y. BROWN_, Principal of Webster School, New Haven._

    "I have used Comings' Class-Book of Physiology for nearly two school
    terms in the First Department of my school. I am happy to say that I
    regard it the _best text-book_ on this important branch with which I
    have any acquaintance. The subjects are systematically arranged; the
    principles, facts, and illustrations are clearly and fully represented
    to the pupil. I find that his introduction of Comparative Anatomy and
    Physics, tends greatly to increase the interest of the pupil in this
    _most important_ and necessary study. I therefore can cheerfully
    recommend this admirable work to my fellow-teachers as one of rare
    excellence, and hope it may take the rank it deserves as a text-book
    upon this subject."

    _From _ABRAHAM POWELSON, JR._, Teacher, Brooklyn, New York._

    "After a very careful examination of the Class-Book of Physiology, by
    Comings, I can freely say that I consider it a performance of superior
    excellence. It embodies a fund of information surpassing in importance
    and variety that of any other work of the kind which has come under my

       *       *       *       *       *

"Get the Best."

       *       *       *       *       *

Webster's Quarto Dictionary.




    I possess many Dictionaries, and of most of the learned and cultivated
    languages, ancient and modern; but I never feel that I am entirely
    armed and equipped in this respect, without Dr. Webster at command.


    _From_ RUFUS CHOATE.

    Messrs. G. &. C. Merriam:--Gentlemen, I have just had the honor of
    receiving the noble volume in which you and the great lexicographer,
    and the accomplished reviser, unite your labors to "bid the language
    live." I accept it with the highest pride and pleasure, and beg to
    adopt in its utmost strength and extent, the testimonial of Daniel


    _From_ JOHN C. SPENCER.

    Unquestionably the very best Dictionary of our language extant. Its
    great accuracy in the definition and derivation of words, gives it an
    authority that no other work on the subject possesses. It is constantly
    cited and relied on in our Courts of Justice, in our legislative
    bodies, and in public discussions, as entirely conclusive.



    Webster's great Dictionary may be regarded as bearing the same relation
    to the English language which Newton's "_Principia_" does to the
    sublime science of Natural Philosophy.


    _From _PRESIDENT HOPKINS_, Williams College_.

    There is no American scholar who does not feel proud of the labors of
    Dr. Webster as the pioneer of lexicography on this continent, and who
    will not readily admit the great and distinctive merits of his


    _From_ JOHN G. WHITTIER.

    The best and safest guide of the students of our language.



    Of the book itself I hear but one opinion from all around me, and do
    but echo the universal voice in expressing my approval of its great
    worth, and my belief that it has rendered any further research, or even
    improvement in our time, unnecessary in its department of instruction.


       *       *       *       *       *


       *       *       *       *       *

    The Publishers invite particular attention to the following
    school-books, by G. P. QUACKENBOS, A. M. They have stood the test of
    criticism, and have become acknowledged standards on the subjects of
    which they respectively treat. The secret of their success is their
    perfect adaptation in style, language, and development of the subject,
    to the pupil's comprehension. It is this that wins for them a general
    introduction, and makes them special favorites with both teacher and

       *       *       *       *       *

    Earliest Discoveries to the Present Time: embracing a full account of
    the Aborigines, Biographical Notices of Distinguished Men, and numerous
    Maps, Plans of Battle-Fields, and Pictorial Illustrations. 12mo. 460
    pages. Price $1 25.

In elegance of style, accuracy, clearness, interest of narrative, richness
of illustration, and adaptation to public and private schools of every
grade, this History is pronounced by all who have examined it, far in
advance of every similar work heretofore published.

"I shall at once introduce it as the best work of the kind on this
important branch of education."--_J. D. H. Corwine, Principal Kentucky
Liberal Institute._

"It is a most delightful volume, and, were I teaching a dozen classes in
United States History, I would use no other book but yours."--_Rev. Charles
Reynolds, Rector of Trinity Church, Columbus, Ohio._

       *       *       *       *       *

    beginners in Grammar and Composition. 12mo. 182 pages. Price 63 cts.

       *       *       *       *       *

    pages. Price $1 25. A Series of Practical Lessons on the Origin,
    History, and Peculiarities of the English Language, Punctuation, Taste,
    the Pleasures of the Imagination, Figures, Style and its essential
    Properties, Criticism, and the various departments of Prose and
    Poetical Composition.

       *       *       *       *       *

    which unfolds the Laws of the Material World, treats of the various
    branches of Physics, exhibits the Application of their Principles in
    every day life and embraces the most recent Discoveries in each. 12mo.
    450 pages. Price $1 25.

       *       *       *       *       *

Confident as to the result of an impartial examination of the above works,
the Publishers will mail a copy of either of them, post-paid, to any
teacher or school officer remitting one-half of its price.

       *       *       *       *       *


Composition and Rhetoric.



12mo. 450 pages. Price $1 25.

This work is an eminently clear and practical text-book, and embraces a
variety of important subjects, which have a common connection, and mutually
illustrate each other; but which the pupil has heretofore been obliged to
leave unlearned, or to search for among a number of different volumes.
Claiming to give a comprehensive and practical view of our language in all
its relations, this "Advanced Course" views it as a whole, no less than
with reference to the individual words composing it; shows how it compares
with other tongues; points out its beauties; indicates how they may best be
made available; and, in a word, teaches the student the most philosophical
method of digesting his thoughts, as well as the most effective mode of
expressing them.

It teaches Rhetoric not merely theoretically, like the old textbooks, but
_practically_, illustrating every point with exercises to be prepared by
the student, which at once test his familiarity with the principles laid
down, and impress them on his mind so vividly that they can never be

Hon. A. CONSTANTINE BARRY, State Superintendent of the Common Schools of
Wisconsin, in a Report to the Legislature of that State, uses the following
strong language in relation to QUACKENBOS'S works on Composition:

    "It would be difficult to point out in these admirable books any thing
    that we would desire to have altered; they meet our wants in every
    respect, making no unreasonable draft on the time or patience of the
    teacher, and leaving him no excuse for neglecting to make composition a
    regular study, even with his younger classes. It is unnecessary to
    compare these books with others on the subject, for THERE ARE NONE THAT
    APPROACH THEM in clearness, comprehensiveness, excellence of
    arrangement, and above all, in direct practical bearing. Affording an
    insight into the mechanism of language, they will hardly fail to impart
    facility and grace of expression, and to inspire a love for the
    beauties of literature."

    _From _PROF. JOHN N. PRATT_, of the University of Alabama._

    "I have been using QUACKENBOS on Composition and Rhetoric in the
    instruction of my classes in the University, and I am persuaded of its
    GREAT EXCELLENCE. The First Lessons in Composition, by the same author,
    I regard as very useful for beginners. Of these two books, I can speak
    with the greatest confidence, and I do MOST HEARTILY RECOMMEND THEM to

       *       *       *       *       *

Illustrated School History




12mo. 473 pages. Price $1 25.

    The Author has aimed to be _simple_, that youth of lower as well as
    advanced classes may understand him; _clear_, that no indistinct or
    erroneous impressions may be conveyed; _accurate_ in the recital of
    facts; and _interesting_ as regards both matter and style. Avoiding
    fragmentary statements, he has gone into detail sufficiently to show
    events in their connections, convinced that a fairer idea of them is
    thus imparted, and that facts otherwise dry may in this way be made
    attractive and indelibly impressed on the mind. He has tried throughout
    to be fair and national. He has neither introduced offensive allusions,
    nor invidiously attempted to bias the minds of the young on
    controverted questions connected with politics or religion.

    The pronunciation of all difficult and foreign names is given in
    brackets; and appropriate illustrations have been liberally provided.
    Maps are as useful in history as in geography, and plans are often
    essential to the lucid delineation of military movements. Both are here
    presented wherever it was thought they would be of service.

    In elegance of style, accuracy clearness, interest of narrative,
    richness of illustration, and adaptation to the school-room, this
    History is pronounced far in advance of every similar work heretofore

    _From _PROF. H. D. LATHROP_, Gambier, Ohio._

    It seems to me admirably adapted to the purpose intended. The style is
    simple and attractive, the narrative accurate and sufficiently minute,
    the illustrations appropriate and elegant, and the typographical
    execution all that could be desired.

    _From _J. D. H. CORWINE_, Principal Kentucky Liberal Institute._

    I shall at once introduce it as _the best-work of the kind_ on this
    important branch of education.

    _From _REV. JOSEPH SHACKELFORD_, Principal Institute, Moulton, Ala._

    I think it superior to many that I have examined as a school-book. I
    have been using Wilson's, but I think this is a much better book for

    _From _REV. CHARLES REYNOLDS_, Rector of Trinity Church, Columbus,

    It is a most delightful volume, and were I teaching a dozen classes in
    United States History, I would use no other book but yours.

       *       *       *       *       *

Corrections made to printed original.

Contents 83--90. "Miscellaneous elements": 'Miscellaneons' in original.

Contents 366. "Peacock, peahen": 'peahern' in original.

Contents 416. "Zeugma": 'Leugma' in original.

§ 29. "rather than the Anglo-Saxon itself": 'than' missing in original.

§ 40. Sing. Gen. "Túngunnar": 'Túngunnor' in original (this doesn't match
the previous table, also checked in Cleasby & Vigfusson's Icelandic-English

§ 74. "They relate chiefly": 'The relate' in original.

§ 87. "The history of the language of the United States is the history of a
Germanic language.": 'languages of the United States' in original, but the
sense seems to need the singular, viz. American English.

§ 87. "gadus lota, or eel-pout": 'ell-pout' in original.

§ 100. 1. "Of the dative singular the e is retained": 'sing-gular' in
original across line break.

§ 135. "or thus, riv-er, feve-r": 'fe-ver' in original (cannot be right as
it is being contrasted to the previous 'fe-ver').

§ 136. "Let, however, the n and the t of note": 'not' in original but is
being contrasted to the 'not' in the previous sentence.

§ 155. "it may be replaced by k": 'is may be ...' in original.

§ 159. "The letters x and q": 'The letter ...' in original.

§ 161. (Table of names) "17. Pe ... Pi": '17. Pi ... Phi' in original, but
compare the preceding table and § 175.

§ 163. 16. (Hebrew) "Pe": 'Phi' in original, but compare § 175.

"§ 176." '§ 175' in original.

§ 199 c. "as if written peace": 'as is ...' in original.

§ 222. "it is me = it is I": 'it is me it = is I' in original.

§ 235. Compound pronouns. 3. "some such word as ei": 'some such wore ...'
in original.

"§ 259." '§ 250' in original.

§ 267. "the words lambkin, ...": 'the works ...' in original.

§ 272. "the termination -ing": 'terminations ...' in original.

§ 290. Anglo-Saxon. "Swang ... swungon": 'Swang ... swangon' in original.

§ 308. "Þencan, þóhte.": 'Þeecan, þóhte.' in original.

§ 316. "the Latin word audeo": 'auedo' in original.

§ 322. 4. "As early as A.D. 1085": 'nearly' in original.

§ 324. "The current rule of the common grammarians is ...": 'is' missing in

§ 354. "by the word rose prefixed.": 'the word tree' in original.

§ 383. "The full amount of change in this respect": 'repect' in original.

§ 397. a. "Anglo-Saxon mec and þec": 'mec and pec' in original.

§ 408. "sôk-idêdun, from sôk-ja": 'sôk-iddêun' in original.

§ 418. "the words Roman emperor": 'word' in original.

§ 421. "the word speak is an infinitive": 'in an infinitive' in original.

§ 433. "villainouser": 'villanouser' in original.

§ 455. "4.": '3.' in original.

§ 508. 2. "lest he fall upon us with pestilence.": 'us' missing in original
(KJV Exod. v. 3.)

§ 540. 5. "Blank verse.--Five measures": 'Pive measures' in original.

§ 540. 8. "leaves the world to darkness and to me": 'leaves the word ...'
in original.

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "A Handbook of the English Language" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.