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: 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 "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.

       *       *       *       *       *

In this e-text a-breve is represented by [)a], a-macron by [=a],
y-dotted-over by [.y], s-acute by ['s] etc. Page numbers enclosed by curly
braces (example: {25}) have been incorporated to facilitate the use of the
Table of Contents.

       *       *       *       *       *












       *       *       *       *       *

Printed by SAMUEL BENTLEY & Co.,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.

       *       *       *       *       *










  _Nov. 4, 1841_.

       *       *       *       *       *





       *       *       *       *       *

The first edition of the present work was laid before the public, with the
intention of representing in a form as systematic as the extent of the
subject would allow, those views concerning the structure and relations of
the English language, which amongst such scholars as had studied them with
the proper means and opportunities, were then generally received; and
which, so being received, might take their stand as established and
recognized facts. With the results of modern criticism, as applied to his
native tongue, it was conceived that an educated Englishman should be
familiar. To this extent the special details of the language were
exhibited; and to this extent the work was strictly a Grammar of the
English Language.

But besides this, it was well known that the current grammarians, and the
critical philologists, had long ceased to write alike upon the English, or
{vi} indeed upon any other, language. For this reason the sphere of the
work became enlarged; so that, on many occasions, general principles had to
be enounced, fresh terms to be defined, and old classifications to be
remodelled. This introduced extraneous elements of criticism, and points of
discussion which, in a more advanced stage of English philology, would have
been superfluous. It also introduced elements which had a tendency to
displace the account of some of the more special and proper details of the
language. There was not room for the exposition of general principles, for
the introduction of the necessary amount of preliminary considerations, and
for the _minutiæ_ of an extreme analysis. Nor is there room for all this at
present. A work that should, at one and the same time, prove its
principles, instead of assuming them, supply the full and necessary
preliminaries in the way of logic, phonetics, and ethnology, and, besides
this, give a history of every variety in the form of every word, although,
perhaps, a work that one man might write, would be a full and perfect
_Thesaurus_ of the English Language, and, would probably extend to many
volumes. For, in the English language, there are many first principles to
be established, and much historical knowledge to be applied. Besides which,
the particular points both of etymology and syntax are far more numerous
than is imagined. Scanty as is the amount of declension and conjugation in
current use, there are to be found in every department of our grammars,
{vii} numerous isolated words which exhibit the fragments of a fuller
inflection, and of a more highly developed etymology. This is well-known to
every scholar who has not only viewed our language as a derivative of the
Anglo-Saxon, and observed that there are similar relations between many
other languages (_e. g._ the Italian and Latin, the German and
Moeso-Gothic, &c.), but who has, also, generalized the phenomena of such
forms of relationship and derivation, and enabled himself to see in the
most uninflected languages of the nineteenth century, the fragments of a
fuller and more systematic inflection, altered by time, but altered in a
uniform and a general manner.

The point, however, upon which, in the prefaces both of the first edition
of the present work and of his English Grammar, the writer has most
urgently insisted is the _disciplinal_ character of grammatical studies in
general, combined with the fact, that the grammatical study of one's own
language is almost _exclusively_ disciplinal. It is undoubtedly true, that
in schools something that is called English Grammar is taught: and it is
taught pretty generally. It is taught so generally that, I believe, here
are only two classes of English boys and girls who escape it--those who are
taught nothing at all in any school whatever, and those who are sent so
early to the great classical schools (where nothing is taught but Latin and
Greek), as to escape altogether the English part of their scholastic
education. But {viii} what is it that is thus generally taught? not the
familiar practice of speaking English--that has been already attained by
the simple fact of the pupil having been born on English soil, and of
English parents. Not the scientific theory of the language--that is an
impossibility with the existing text-books. Neither, then, of these matters
is taught. Nevertheless labour is expended, and time is consumed. What is
taught? Something undoubtedly. The facts, that language is more or less
regular (_i. e._ capable of having its structure exhibited by rules); that
there is such a thing as grammar; and that certain expressions should be
avoided, are all matters worth knowing. And they are all taught even by the
worst method of teaching. But are these the proper objects of _systematic_
teaching? Is the importance of their acquisition equivalent to the time,
the trouble, and the displacement of more valuable subjects, which are
involved in their explanation? I think not. Gross vulgarity of language is
a fault to be prevented; but the proper prevention is to be got from
habit--not rules. The proprieties of the English language are to be
learned, like the proprieties of English manners, by conversation and
intercourse; and the proper school for both, is the best society in which
the learner is placed. If this be good, systematic teaching is superfluous;
if bad, insufficient. There _are_ undoubted points where a young person may
doubt as to the grammatical propriety of a certain expression. In this case
let him ask some one older, and more instructed. Grammar, {ix} as an _art_,
is, undoubtedly, _the art of speaking and writing correctly_--but then, as
an _art_, it is only required for _foreign_ languages. For our _own_ we
have the necessary practice and familiarity.

The claim of English grammar to form part and parcel of an English
education stands or falls with the value of the philological and historical
knowledge to which grammatical studies may serve as an introduction, and
with the value of scientific grammar as a _disciplinal_ study. I have no
fear of being supposed to undervalue its importance in this respect. Indeed
in assuming that it is very great, I also assume that wherever grammar is
studied as grammar, the language which the grammar so studied should
represent, must be the mother-tongue of the student; _whatever that
mother-tongue may be_--English for Englishmen, Welsh for Welshmen, French
for Frenchmen, German for Germans, &c. This study is the study of a theory;
and for this reason it should be complicated as little as possible by
points of practice. For this reason a man's mother-tongue is the best
medium for the elements of scientific philology, simply because it is the
one which he knows best in practice.

Now if, over and above the remarks upon the English language, and the
languages allied to it, there occur in the present volume, episodical
discussions of points connected with other languages, especially the Latin
and Greek, it is because a greater portion of the current ideas on
philological subjects {x} is taken from those languages than from our own.
Besides which, a second question still stands over. There is still the
question as to the relative disciplinal merits of the different
_non_-vernacular languages of the world. What is the next best vehicle for
philological philosophy to our mother-tongue, whatever that mother-tongue
maybe? Each Athenian who fought at Salamis considered his own contributions
to that great naval victory the greatest; and he considered them so because
they were _his own_. So it is with the language which we speak, and use,
and have learned as our own. Yet each same Athenian awarded the second
place of honour to Themistocles. The great classical languages of Greece
and Rome are in the position of Themistocles. They are the best when the
question of ourselves and our possessions is excluded. They are the best in
the eyes of an indifferent umpire. More than this; if we take into account
the studies of the learned world, they are second only to the particular
mother-tongue of the particular student, in the way of practical
familiarity. Without either affirming or denying that, on the simple scores
of etymological regularity, etymological variety, and syntactic logic, the
Sanskrit may be their equal, it must still be admitted that this last-named
language has no claims to a high value as a practical philological
discipline upon the grounds of its universality as a point of education;
nor will it have. Older than the Greek, it may (or may not) be; more
multiform than the Latin, it may (or may not) be: but equally rich in the
attractions {xi} of an unsurpassed literature, and equally influential as a
standard of imitation, it neither has been nor can be. We may admit all
that is stated by those who admire its epics, or elucidate its philosophy;
we may admire all this and much more besides, but we shall still miss the
great elements of oratory and history, that connect the ancient languages
of Greece and Italy with the thoughts, and feelings, and admiration of
recent Europe.

The same sort of reasoning applies to the Semitic languages. One element
they have, in their grammatical representation, which gives them a value in
philological philosophy, in the abstract, above all other languages--the
_generality_ of the expression of their structure. This is _symbolic_, and
its advantage is that it exhibits the naturally universal phenomena of
their construction in a universal language. Yet neither this nor their
historical value raises them to the level of the classical languages.

Now, what has just been written has been written with a view towards a
special inference, and as the preliminary to a practical deduction; and it
would not have been written but for some such ulterior application. If
these languages have so high a disciplinal value, how necessary it is that
the expression of their philological phenomena should be accurate,
scientific, and representative of their true growth and form? How essential
that their grammars should exhibit nothing that may hereafter be unlearned?
_Pace grammaticorum dixerim_, this is not the case. Bad {xii} as is Lindley
Murray in English, Busby and Lilly are worse in Greek and Latin. This is
the comparison of the men on the low rounds of the ladder. What do we find
as we ascend? Is the grammatical science of even men like Mathiæ and Zump
_much_ above that of Wallis? Does Buttmann's Greek give so little to be
unlearned as Grimm's German? By any one who has gone far in comparative
philology, the answer will be given in the negative.

This is not written in the spirit of a destructive criticism. If an opinion
as to the fact is stated without reserve, it is accompanied by an
explanation, and (partially, perhaps) by a justification. It is the
business of a Greek and Latin grammarian to teach Greek and Latin _cito,
tute, ac jucunde_,--_cito_, that is, between the years of twelve and
twenty-four; _tute_, that is, in a way that quantities may be read truly,
and hard passages translated accurately; _jucunde_, that is, as the taste
and memory of the pupil may determine. With this view the grammar must be
_artificial_. Granted. But then it should profess to be so. It should
profess to address the memory only, not the understanding. Above all it
should prefer to leave a point untaught, than to teach it in a way that
must be unlearned.

In 1840, so little had been done by Englishmen for the English language,
that in acknowledging my great obligations to foreign scholars, I was only
able to speak to what _might be done_ by my own countrymen. Since then,
however, there has been a good {xiii} beginning of what is likely to be
done well. My references to the works of Messrs. Kemble, Garnet, and Guest,
show that my authorities are _now_ as much English as German. And this is
likely to be the case. The details of the syntax, the illustrations drawn
from our provincial dialects, the minute history of individual words, and
the whole system of articulate sounds can, for the English, only be done
safely by an Englishman: or, to speak more generally, can, for any
language, only be dealt with properly by the grammarian whose mother-tongue
is that language. The _Deutsche Grammatik_ of Grimm is the work not of an
age nor of a century, but, like the great history of the Athenian, a
[Greek: ktêma eis aei]. It is the magazine from whence all draw their facts
and illustrations. Yet it is only the proper German portion that pretends
to be exhaustive. The Dutch and Scandinavians have each improved the
exhibition of their own respective languages. Monument as is the _Deutsche
Grammatik_ of learning, industry, comprehensiveness, and arrangement, it is
not a book that should be read to the exclusion of others: nor must it be
considered to exhibit the grammar of the Gothic languages, in a form
unsusceptible of improvement. Like all great works, it is more easily
improved than imitated. One is almost unwilling to recur to the old
comparison between Aristotle, who absorbed the labour of his predecessors,
and the Eastern sultans, who kill-off their younger brothers. But such is
the case with Grimm and his fore-runners in philology. Germany, that, in
{xiv} respect to the Reformation, is content to be told that Erasmus laid
the egg which Luther hatched, must also acknowledge that accurate and
systematic scholars of other countries prepared the way for the _Deutsche
Grammatik_,--Ten Kate in Holland; Dowbrowsky, a Slavonian; and Rask, a

Nor are there wanting older works in English that have a value in Gothic
philology. I should be sorry to speak as if, beyond the writers of what may
be called the modern school of philology, there was nothing for the English
grammarian both to read and study. The fragments of Ben Jonson's English
Grammar are worth the entireties of many later writers. The work of Wallis
is eminently logical and precise. The voice of a mere ruler of rules is a
sound to flee from; but the voice of a truly powerful understanding is a
thing to be heard on all matters. It is this which gives to Cobbett and
Priestley, to Horne Tooke as a subtle etymologist, and to Johnson as a
practical lexicographer, a value in literary history, which they never can
have in grammar. It converts unwholesome doctrines into a fertile
discipline of thought.

The method of the present work is mixed. It is partly historical, and
partly logical. The historical portions exhibit the way in which words and
inflections _have been_ used; the logical, the way in which they _ought to
be_ used. Now I cannot conceal from either my readers or myself the fact
that philological criticism at the present moment is of an essentially {xv}
historical character. It has been by working the historical method that all
the great results both in general and special scholarship have been arrived
at; and it is on historical investigation that the whole _induction_ of
modern philology rests. All beyond is _à priori_ argument; and, according
to many, _à priori_ argument out of place. Now, this gives to the questions
in philology, to questions concerning the phenomena of concord, government,
&c. a subordinate character. It does so, however, improperly. Logic is in
language what it is in reasoning,--a rule and standard. But in its
application to reasoning and to language there is this difference. Whilst
illogical reasoning, and illogical grammar are equally phenomena of the
human mind, even as physical disease is a phenomenon of the human body, the
illogical grammar can rectify itself by its mere continuance, propagation,
and repetition. In this respect the phenomena of language stand apart from
the other phenomena of either mind or organized matter. No amount of false
argument can make a fallacy other than a fallacy. No amount of frequency
can make physical disease other than a predisposing cause to physical
disorganization. The argument that halts in its logic, is not on a _par_
with the argument that is sound. Such also is the case with any bodily
organ. No prevalence of sickness can ever evolve health. Language, however,
as long as it preserves the same amount of intelligibility is always
language. Provided it serve as a medium, it does its proper work; {xvi} and
as long as it does this, it is, as far as its application is concerned,
faultless. Now there is a limit in logical regularity which language is
perpetually overstepping; just as there is a logical limit which the
reasoning of common life is perpetually overstepping, and just as there is
a physiological limit which the average health of men and women may depart
from. This limit is investigated by the historical method; which shows the
amount of latitude in which language may indulge and yet maintain its great
essential of intelligibility. Nay, more, it can show that it sometimes
transgresses the limit in so remarkable a manner, as to induce writers to
talk about the _corruption of a language_, or _the pathology of a
language_, with the application of many similar metaphors. Yet it is very
doubtful whether all languages, in all their stages, are not equally
intelligible, and, consequently, equally what they ought to be, viz.,
mediums of intercourse between man and man; whilst, in respect to their
growth, it is almost certain that so far from exhibiting signs of
dissolution, they are, on the contrary, like the Tithonus of mythology, the
Strulbrugs of Laputa, or, lastly, such monsters as Frankenstein, very
liable to the causes of death, but utterly unable to die. Hence, in
language, _whatever is, is right_; a fact which, taken by itself, gives
great value to the historical method of inquiry, and leaves little to the
_à priori_ considerations of logic.

But, on the other hand, there is a limit in logical regularity, which
language _never_ oversteps: and as {xvii} long as this is the case, the
study of the logical standard of what language is in its normal form must
go hand in hand with the study of the processes that deflect it. The
investigation of the irregularities of language--and be it remembered that
almost all change implies original irregularity--is analogous to the
investigation of fallacies in logic. It is the comparison between the rule
and the practice, with this difference, that in language the practice can
change the rule, which in logic is impossible. I am sure that these remarks
are necessary in order to anticipate objections that may be raised against
certain statements laid down in the syntax. I often write as if I took no
account of the historical evidence, in respect to particular uses of
particular words. I do so, not because I undervalue that department of
philology, but because it is out of place. To show that one or more
writers, generally correct, have used a particular expression is to show
that they speak, in a few instances, as the vulgar speak in many. To show
that the vulgar use one expression for another is to show that two ideas
are sufficiently allied to be expressed in the same manner: in other words,
the historical fact is accompanied by a logical explanation; and the
historical deviation is measured by a logical standard.

I am not desirous of sacrificing a truth to an antithesis, but so certain
is language to change from logical accuracy to logical licence, and, at the
same time, so certain is language, when so changed, to be {xviii} just as
intelligible as before, that I venture upon asserting that, not only
_whatever is, is right_, but also, that in many cases, _whatever was, was
wrong_. There is an antagonism, between logic and practice; and the
phenomena on both sides must be studied.

       *       *       *       *       *







  SECTION                                                          PAGE

  1. English not originally British                                   1
  2. Germanic in origin                                               2
  3-10. Accredited details of the different immigrations from Germany
  into Britain                                                      2-4
  10-12. Accredited relations of the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons to each
  other as Germans                                                    4
  13. Criticism of evidence                                           5
  Extract from Mr. Kemble                                             6
  14. Inference                                                       9



  15-20. The Jute immigration doubtful                            10-12
  22. Difficulties in identifying the Saxons                         13
  23. Difficulties in identifying the Angles                         13
  25-29. Populations with the greatest _à priori_ likelihood of having
  immigrated                                                     14, 15
  26.     Menapians                                                  15
  27.     Batavians                                                  15
  28.     Frisians                                                   15
  29.     Chauci                                                     15
  30.     Inference                                                  16
  31-34. Saxons and Nordalbingians                               16, 17
  35-50. Populations, whereof the continental relation help us in fixing
  the original country of the Angles and Saxons                   17-21
  36. Germans of the Middle Rhine                                    17
          Franks                                                     18
          Salians                                                    18
          Chamavi                                                    18
  37. Thuringians                                                    18
  38. Catti                                                          18
  39. Geographical conditions of the Saxon Area                      18
  40. Its _Eastern_ limit                                            19
  41-50. Slavonian frontier                                      20, 21
  41.        "     Polabi                                            20
  42.        "     Wagrians                                          20
  43.        "     Obotriti                                          20
  44.        "     Lini                                              20
  45.        "     Warnabi                                           21
  46.        "     Morizani                                          21
  47.        "     Doxani                                            21
  48.        "     Hevelli                                           21
  49.        "     Slavonians of Altmark                             21
  50.        "     Sorabians                                         21
  51. Saxon area                                                     21



  52, 53. Extent and frontier                                        23
  54-62. Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon                                23-25
  63. Old-Saxon _data_                                               25
  64. Specimen                                                       26



  65. _General_ affinities of the English language                   28
  67. The term _Gothic_                                              28
  69. _Scandinavian_ branch                                          28
  70. _Teutonic_ branch                                              31
  71. Moeso-Gothic                                                   31
  73. Origin of the Moeso-Goths                                      32
  76. Name not Germanic                                              33
  77. Old High German                                                35
  78. Low Germanic division                                          36
  79. Frisian                                                        36
  81. Old Frisian                                                    37
  82. Platt-Deutsch                                                  38
  83. Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic compound                             38
  84. Scandinavian article                                           40
  88. Scandinavian verb                                              44
  91. Declension in _-n_                                             45
  92. Difference between languages of the same division              46
  93. Weak and strong nouns                                          46
          Moeso-Gothic inflections                                   47
  94. Old Frisian and Anglo-Saxon                                    50
  98. The term _German_                                              56
  99. The term _Dutch_                                               57
  100. The term _Teutonic_                                           58
  101. The term _Anglo-Saxon_                                        59
  102. _Icelandic_, Old Norse                                        59



  106. The _Angles_                                                  62
  109. Extract from Tacitus                                          63
             "      Ptolemy                                          63
  110. Extracts connecting them with the inhabitants of the Cimbric
  Chersonesus                                                        64
  111. The district called Angle                                     65
  113. Inferences and remarks                                        65
  114. What were the _Langobardi_ with whom the Angles were connected
  by Tacitus?                                                        66
  115. What were the Suevi, &c.                                      66
  116. What were the Werini, &c.                                     67
  117. What were the Thuringians, &c.                                67
  121. Difficulties respecting the Angles                            68
  123-128. Patronymic forms, and the criticism based on them      68-72
  129-131. Probably German immigrants _not_ Anglo-Saxon          72, 73



  132. Cambrian Celtic                                               74
  133. Gaelic Celtic                                                 77
  136. Structure of Celtic tongues                                79-83
  138. The Celtic of Gaul                                            84
  139. The Pictish                                                   84



  140. The Classical languages                                       86
  141. Extension of the Roman language                               86
  142. The divisions                                                 87
          Specimen of the Romanese                                   88
          Specimen of the Wallachian                                 88
  143. French dialects                                               89
          Oath of Ludwig                                             90
  144. Norman-French                                                 91



  147. The term _Indo-European_                                      94
  148. Is the Celtic Indo-European?                                  95





  149. Celtic elements                                               97
  150. Latin of the First Period                                     98
  151. Anglo-Saxon                                                   98
  152. Danish or Norse                                               98
  153. Roman of the Second Period                                   100
  154. Anglo-Norman                                                 101
  155. Indirect Scandinavian                                        101
  156. Latin of the Third Period                                    101
  157. Greek elements                                               102
  158. Classical elements                                           102
  159. Latin words                                                  103
  160. Greek elements                                               104
  161, 162. Miscellaneous elements                                  105
  163, 164. Direct and ultimate origin of words                106, 107
  165. Distinction                                                  107
  166-168. Words of foreign simulating a vernacular origin      107-109
  169-171. Hybridism                                           109, 110
  172. Incompletion of radical                                      110
  173. Historical and logical analysis                              111



  174. Ancient and modern languages                                 112
  175. English and Anglo-Saxon compared                             113
  176. Semi-Saxon stage                                             117
  177-179. Old English stage                                   119, 122
  180. Middle English                                               122
  181. Present tendencies of the English                            123
  182. Speculative question                                         123



  183-188. Lowland Scotch                                       124-127
  189. Extracts                                                     127
  190. Points of difference with the English                        130



  191, 192. The Belgæ                                           132-135
  193. Caledonians, Iberians                                        135
  194. Supposed affinities of the Irish                             135
          Extract from Plautus                                      136
  195. Hypothesis of a Finnic race                                  139





  196. Preliminary remarks                                          141
  197. Vowels and consonants                                        143
  198. Divisions of articulate sounds                               143
  199. Explanation of terms                                         143
          _Sharp_ and _flat_                                        143
          _Continuous_ and _explosive_                              144
  200. General statements                                           144
  201. _H_ no articulation                                          144



  202. System of vowels                                             145
          _é_ fermé, ó _chiuso_, _ü_ German                         145
  203. System of mutes                                              145
          Lenes and aspirates                                       146
  204. Affinities of the liquids                                    147
  205. Diphthongs                                                   147
  206. Compound sibilants                                           148
  207. _Ng_                                                         148
  208-210. Further explanation of terms                         148-150
  211. System of vowels                                             150
  212. System of mutes                                              150
  213. Varieties                                                    150
  214. Connection in phonetics                                      151



  215. Unpronounceable combinations                                 152
  216. Unstable combinations                                        153
  217. Effect of _y_                                                153
  218, 219. Evolution of new sounds                            153, 154
  220. Value of a sufficient system of sounds                       154
  221. Double consonants rare                                       154
  222. Reduplications of consonants rare                            155
  223. True aspirates rare                                          155



  224. Euphonic change exhibited                                    157
  225. The _rationale_ of it                                        157
  226. The combinations _-mt_, _-nt_                                158
  227. The combination _-pth_                                       158
  228. Accommodation of vowels                                      158
  229. Permutation of letters                                       159
  230. Transition of letters                                        160



  231. Distribution of consonants between two syllables             161



  232. _Long_ and _short_                                           164
  233. How far coincident with _independent_ and _dependent_        164
  234. Length of vowels and length of syllables                     165



  235. Accent                                                       167
  236. How far accent always on the root                            168
  237. Verbal accent and logical accent                             168
  238. Effect of accent on orthography                              169
  239. Accent and quantity _not_ the same                           170



  240. Meaning of the word _orthoepy_                               172
  241. Classification of errors in pronunciation                    172
  242-244. Causes of erroneous enunciation                      172-175
  245. Appreciation of standards of orthoepy                        175
  246. Principles of critical orthoepy                              176



  247. Province of orthography                                      178
  248. Imperfections of alphabets                                   178
  249. Applications of alphabets                                    180
  250. Changes of sound, and original false spelling                181
  251. Theory of a perfect alphabet                                 181
  252. Sounds and letters in English                                182
  253. Certain conventional modes of spelling                       187
  254. The inconvenience of them                                    189
  255. Criticism upon the details of the English orthography    189-200



  256. Bearings of the question                                     200
  257. Phoenician Period                                            200
  258, 259. Greek Period                                        201-203
  260-262. Latin Period                                         203-205
  263. The Moeso-Gothic alphabet                                    205
  264. The Anglo-Saxon alphabet                                     205
  265. The Anglo-Norman Period                                      207
  266. Extract from the Ormulum                                     208
  267. The _Runes_                                                  209
  268. The order of the alphabet                                    210
  269. Parallel and equivalent orthographies                        213





  270. Meaning of the term etymology                                214



  271. Latin genders                                                217
  272. Words like _he-goat_                                         217
  273. Words like _genitrix_                                        217
  274. Words like _domina_                                          218
  275. Sex                                                          219
  276. True Genders in English                                      219
  277. Neuters in _-t_                                              220
  278. Personification                                              220
  279. True and apparent genders                                    221



  280, 281. Dual number                                             225
  282-284. Plural in _-s_                                       226-230
  285. The form in _child-r-en_                                     230
  286. The form in _-en_                                            232
  287. _Men_, _feet_, &c.                                           232
  288. _Brethren_, &c.                                              232



  289, 290. Meaning of word _case_                                  234
  291. Cases in English                                             237
  292, 293. Determination of cases                                  239
  294, 295. Analysis of cases                                       241
  296. Case in _-s_                                                 241



  297. True personal pronoun                                        243
  298. _We_ and _me_                                                244



  299. The Latin _se_, _sui_                                        247



  300. _He_, _she_, _it_, _this_, _that_, _the_                     249
  301. _These_                                                      251
  302. _Those_                                                      253



  303. _Who_, _what_, &c.                                           255
  304. Indo-European forms                                          255
  305. Miscellaneous observations                                   256



  306, 307. _Eith-er_, _ov-er_, _und-er_, _bett-er_            260, 261
  308. Illustration from the Laplandic                              261
  309. Idea of alternative                                          262



  310. Forms in _-tara_ and _-îyas_                                 263
  311. Change from _-s_ to _-r_                                     263
  312. Moeso-Gothic comparative                                     264
  313. Comparison of adverbs                                        264
  314. _Elder_                                                      265
  315. _Rather_                                                     265
  316. Excess of expression                                         266
  317. _Better_, &c.                                                266
  318. Sequence in logic                                            266
  319-325. _Worse_, &c.                                         267-270



  326. Different modes of expression                                271
  327. The termination _-st_                                        272



  328, 329. Their ethnological value                                273
            Variations in form                                      274
            10+2 and 10×2                                           275
  330. Limits to the inflection of the numeral                      276



  331. _First_                                                      277
  332. _Second_                                                     277
  333. _Third_, _fourth_, &c.                                       278
  334, 335. Ordinal and superlative forms                       278-280



  336. _A_, _the_, _no_                                             281



  337, 338. Diminutives                                             283
  339. Augmentatives                                                285
  340. Patronymics                                                  286



  341. _Wales_                                                      288



  342-344. Substantival character of verbs                          289
  345, 346. Declension of the infinitive                            290



  347. _Rise_, _raise_, &c.                                         292



  348-351. Persons in English                                   294-298
  352. Person in _-t_, _-art_, &c.                                  298
  353. Forms like _spakest_, _sungest_, &c.                         299
  354. Plurals in _-s_                                              299



  355. Personal signs of numbers                                    300
          _Run_, _ran_                                              301



  356. The infinitive mood                                          302
  357. The imperative mood                                          302
  358. The subjunctive mood                                         302



  359. General nature of tenses                                     303
  360. Latin preterites                                             304
  361. Moeso-Gothic perfects                                        304
          Reduplication                                             305
  362. Strong and weak verbs                                        305



  363. _Sang_, _sung_                                               307
  364-376. Classification of strong verbs                       308-316



  377. The weak inflection                                          317
  378. First division                                               318
  379. Second division                                              318
  380. Third division                                               319
  381. Preterites in _-ed_ and _-t_                                 319
  382. Preterites like _made_, _had_                            321-327
          _Would_, _should_                                         322
          _Aught_                                                   322
          _Durst_                                                   322
          _Must_                                                    323
          _Wist_                                                    324
          _Do_                                                      325
          _Mind_                                                    325
          _Yode_                                                    327



  383. So-called irregularities                                     328
  384. Principles of criticism                                      329
          Coincidence of form                                       329
          Coincidence of distribution                               329
          Coincidence of order                                      329
  385. Strong verbs once weak                                       332
  386. Division of verbs into _strong_ and _weak_ natural           333
  387. Obsolete forms                                               334
  388. Double forms                                                 334



  389. Difference between defectiveness and irregularity            335
          Vital and obsolete processes                              336
          Processes of necessity                                    337
          Ordinary processes                                        338
          Positive processes                                        338
          Processes of confusion                                    339
  390. _Could_                                                      339
  391. _Quoth_                                                      340



  392-394. _Meseems_, _methinks_, _me listeth_                      342



  395. The verb substantive defective                               344
  396. _Was_                                                        344
  397. _Be_                                                         344
  398, 399. Future power of _be_                                    345
  400. _Am_                                                         346
          _Worth_                                                   347



  401. The form in _-ing_                                           348
  402. Substantival power of participle                             349
  403. Taylor's theory                                              349



  404-406. Similarity to the preterite                              351
  407. _Forlorn_, _frore_                                           352
  408. The form in _-ed_, _-d_, or _-t_                             352
  409. The _y-_ in _y-cleped_, &c.                                  353



  410-414. Definition of composition                            355-357
  415-417. Parity of accent                                         358
  418. Obscure compounds                                            361
  419. Exceptions                                                   362
  420. _Peacock_, _peahen_, &c.                                     364
  421. Third element in compound words                              365
  422. Improper compounds                                           365
  423. Decomposites                                                 365
  424. Combinations                                                 366



  425. Derivation                                                   367
  426. Classification of derived words                              368
  427. Words like _ábsent_ and _absént_, &c.                        369
  428. Words like _churl_, _tail_, &c.                              370
  429. Forms like _tip_ and _top_, &c.                              370
  430. Obscure derivatives                                          370



  431. Classification of adverbs                                    371
  432. Adverbs of deflection                                        372
  433. Words like _darkling_                                        373
  434. Words like _brightly_                                        374



  435-439. _Here_, _hither_, _hence_                                374
  440. _Yonder_                                                     375
          _Anon_                                                    375



  441. Origin of the words                                          377



  442. Prepositions                                                 378
  443. Conjunctions                                                 378
  444. _Yes_ and _no_                                               379
  445. Particles                                                    379



  446. Peculiarities of inflection of pronouns                      380
  447. Powers of the genitive case                                  381
  448. Ideas of possession and partition                            382
  449. Adjectival expressions                                       382
  450. Evolution of cases                                           383
  451. Idea of possession                                           383
  452. Idea of partition                                            383
  453. _A posteriori_ argument                                      384
  454-458. Analogy of _mei_ and [Greek: emou]                       384
  459. Etymological evidence                                        386
  460. Syntactic evidence                                           387
  461. Value of the evidence of certain constructions               387
  462, 463. Double adjectival form                                  388



  464. Forms like _salb-ôdêdum_                                     390
  465, 466. The Slavonic præterite                                  391





  467. The term _syntax_                                            392
  468. What is _not_ syntax                                         392
  469. What _is_ syntax                                             394
  470. Pure syntax                                                  395
  471, 472. Mixed syntax                                            395
  473. Figures of speech                                            395
  474. Personification                                              395
  475. Ellipsis                                                     395
  476. Pleonasm                                                     395
  477. Zeugma                                                       397
  478. [Greek: Pros to sêmainomenon]                                397
  479. Apposition                                                   398
  480. Collective nouns                                             398
  481, 482. Complex forms                                           399
  483. Convertibility                                               399
  484. Etymological convertibility                                  400
  485. Syntactic convertibility                                     400
  486. Adjectives used as substantives                              400
  487. Uninflected parts of speech used as such                     400
  488. Convertibility common in English                             401



  489. Convertibility                                               402
  490. Ellipsis                                                     403
  491. Proper names                                                 403



  492. Pleonasm                                                     404
  493. Collocation                                                  404
  494. Government                                                   404
  495. _More fruitful_, &c.                                         405
  496. _The better of the two_                                      405
  497. Syntax of adjectives simple                                  406



  498, 499. Syntax of pronouns important                            407
  500, 501. Pleonasm                                                407



  502. _Pronomen reverentiæ_                                        409
  503. _You_ and _ye_                                               409
  504. _Dativus ethicus_                                            409
  505. Reflected personal pronouns                                  410
  506. Reflective neuter verbs                                      410
  507. Equivocal reflectives                                        411



  508. True demonstrative pronoun                                   412
  509. _His mother_, _her father_                                   412
  510, 511. Use of _its_                                            412
  512. _Take them things away_                                      413
  513, 514. _Hic_ and _ille_, _this_ and _that_                     413



  515. Government, apposition, composition                          416
  516. _Her-self_, _itself_                                         416
  517. _Self_ and _one_                                             417
  518, 519. Inflection of _self_                                    418



  520, 521. _My_ and _mine_, &c.                                    419



  522-524. _That_, _which_, _what_                                  422
  525. _The man_ as _rides to market_                               423
  526, 527. Plural use of _whose_                                   423
  528, 529. Concord of relative and antecedent                      423
  530. Ellipsis of the relative                                     424
  531. Relative equivalent to demonstrative pronoun                 425
          Demonstrative equivalent to substantive                   425
  532. Omission of antecedent                                       426
  533. [Greek: Chrômai bibliois hois echô]                          426
  534. Relatives with complex antecedents                           427



  535. Direct and oblique interrogations                            428
  536-539. _Whom do they say that it is?_                       428-430



  540, 541. Structure of reciprocal expressions                     431



  542. _On dit_=_one says_                                          433
  543-546. _It_ and _there_                                         433
          _Es sind_                                                 434



  547. Repetition of article                                        435



  548. _The thousand-and-first_                                     436
  549. _The first two_ and _two first_                              436



  550. Transitive verbs                                             437
  551. Auxiliary verbs                                              438
  552. Verb substantive                                             438



  553-556. Concord of person                                        439
  557. Plural subjects with singular predicates                     443
         Singular subjects with plural predicates                   443



  558, 559. _Objective_ and _modal_ government                      444
  560. Appositional construction                                    445
  561. Verb and genitive case                                       448
  562. Verb and accusative case                                     448
  563. The partitive construction                                   448
  564. _I believe it to be him_                                     448
  565. [Greek: phêmi einai despotês]                                449
  566. _It is believed to be_                                       449



  567. _Dying-day_                                                  451
  568. _I am beaten_                                                451



  569. The infinitive mood                                          452
  570. Objective construction                                       452
  570. Gerundial construction                                       453
  571. Peculiarities of imperatives                                 454
  572. Syntax of subjunctives                                       454



  573. Present form habitual                                        455
  574. Præterite form aorist                                        455



  575, 576. _I, or he am (is) wrong_                                456



  577. The word _hight_                                             458



  578. Classification                                               459
  579. Time and tense                                               461
          Present                                                   461
          Aorist                                                    461
          Future                                                    461
          Imperfect                                                 462
          Perfect                                                   462
          Pluperfect                                                462
          Future present                                            462
          Future præterite                                          462
          Emphatic tenses                                           463
          Predictive future                                         463
          Promissive future                                         463
  580. _Historic_ present                                           463
  581. Use of perfect for present                                   464
  582, 583. Varieties of tense                                      465
          Continuance                                               465
          Habit                                                     466
  584. Inference of continuance                                     466
          Inference of contrast                                     467
  585. _Have_ with a participle                                     467
  586. _I am to speak_                                              469
  587. _I am to blame_                                              469
  588. _Shall_ and _will_                                           469
  589. Archdeacon Hare's theory                                     470
  590. Mr. De Morgan's theory                                       472
  591. _I am beaten_                                                474
  592, 593. Present use of _ought, &c._                             475



  594. The syntax of adverbs simple                                 477
  595. _Full_ for _fully, &c._                                      477
  596. The termination _-ly_                                        477
  597. _To sleep the sleep of the righteous_                        478
  598. From _whence, &c._                                           478



  599. All prepositions govern cases                                479
  600, 601. None, in English, govern genitives                      479
  602. Dative case after prepositions                               481
  603. From _to die_                                                481
  604. For _to go_                                                  481
  605. No prepositions in composition                               481



  606. Syntax of conjunctions                                       482
  607. Convertibility of conjunctions                               482
  608. Connexion of prepositions                                    483
  609, 610. Relatives and conjunctions                              484
  611. Government of mood                                           485
  612. Conditional propositions                                     486
  613. Variations of meaning                                        486
  614. _If_ and _since_                                             487
  615. Use of that                                                  487
  616. Succession of tenses                                         488
       Succession of moods                                          489
  617. Greek constructions                                          489
  618. _Be_ for _may be_                                            491
  619. Disjunctives                                                 491
  620-623. Either, neither                                          492



  624. Position of the negative                                     495
  625. Distribution of the negative                                 495
  626. Double negative                                              496
  627. Questions of appeal                                          496
  628. Extract from Sir Thomas More                                 496



  629. _He excepted, him excepted_

    .    .    .    .    .    .



  630-632. Metre                                                    499
  633. Classical metres measured by quantities                      500
  634. English metre measured by accents                            500
  635. Alliteration                                                 500
  636. Rhyme                                                        501
  637. Definition of Rhyme                                          503
  638. Measures                                                     503
  639. Dissyllabic and trisyllabic                                  503
  640. Dissyllabic measures                                         504
  641. Trisyllabic measures                                         504
  642. Measures different from feet                                 505
  643. Couplets, stanzas, &c.                                       506
  644, 645. Names of elementary metres                         507, 508
  646. Scansion                                                     509
  647. Symmetrical metres                                           509
  648. Unsymmetrical metres                                         510
  649. Measures of _one_ and of _four_ syllables                    510
  650. Contrast between English words and English metre             510
  651-653. The classical metres as read by Englishmen          511, 512
  654-657. Reasons against the classical nomenclature as applied to
        English metres                                          513-515
  658-661. The classical metres metrical to English readers--why
  662. Symmetrical metres                                           517
  663. Unsymmetrical metres                                         517
  664. Classical metres unsymmetrical                               518
  665-667. Conversion of English into classical metres         519, 520
  668, 669. Cæsura                                             520, 521
  670-672. English hexameters, &c.                              522-526
  673. Convertible metres                                           526
  674. Metrical and grammatical combinations                        527
  675. Rhythm                                                       528
  676, 677. Rhyme--its parts                                        529

    .    .    .    .    .    .



  678. Bearing of the investigation                                 531
  679. Structural and _ethnological_ views                          531
  680-682. Causes that effect change                                532
  683, 684. Preliminary notices                                     533
  685. Philological preliminaries                                   533
  686, 687. Present provincial dialects                         534-540
  688-691. Caution                                              540-544
  692-696. Districts north of the Humber                        545-552
  697. South Lancashire                                             552
  698. Shropshire, &c.                                              553
  699. East Derbyshire, &c.                                         553
  700. Norfolk and Suffolk                                          554
  701. Leicestershire, &c.                                          555
  702. Origin of the present written language                       555
  703. Dialects of the Lower Thames                                 556
  704. Kent--Frisian theory                                         557
  705. Sussex, &c.                                                  559
  706. Supposed East Anglian and Saxon frontier                     560
  707. Dialects of remaining counties                               560
  708. Objections                                                   561
  709. Dialect of Gower                                             561
  710. ---- the Barony of Forth                                     563
  711. Americanisms                                                 565
  712. Extract from a paper of Mr. Watts                            566
  713. Gypsy language, &c.                                          572
  714. _Talkee-talkee_                                              573
  715, 716. Varieties of the Anglo-Norman                           574
  717-719. Extracts from Mr. Kemble                             575-580

    PRAXIS                                                          581

       *       *       *       *       *





       *       *       *       *       *






§ 1. The first point to be remembered in the history of the English
Language, is that it was not the original language of any of the British
Islands altogether or 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, Scotch Gaelic in the Highlands of
Scotland, and Irish Gaelic in Ireland. Hence, the English that is now
spoken was once as foreign to our country as it is at present to the East
Indies; and it is no more our primitive vernacular tongue, than it is the
primitive vernacular tongue for North America, Jamaica, or Australia. Like
the English of Sydney, or the English of Pennsylvania, the English of Great
Britain spread itself at the expense of some earlier and more aboriginal
language, which it displaced and superseded. {2}

§ 2. The next point involves 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 known, as well
as the different localities upon which they descended. These were as

§ 4. _First settlement of invaders from Germany._--The account of this
gives us the year 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.

§ 5. _Second settlement of invaders from Germany._--In the year 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 {3} was Ella. They established the kingdom of the South Saxons
(Sussex); 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 Northern Germany.

§ 6. _Third settlement of invaders from Germany._--In the year 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); 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 Northern Germany.

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

§ 8. _Fifth settlement of invaders from Germany._--These were _Angles_ in
Norfolk and Suffolk. This settlement, of which the precise date is not
known, took place during the reign of Cerdic in Wessex. 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_.

§ 9. _Sixth settlement of invaders from Germany._--In the year 547 invaders
from Northern Germany made the sixth permanent settlement in Britain. The
south-eastern 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.

§ 10. It would be satisfactory if these details rested upon cotemporary
evidence; in which case the next question would {4} be that of the
relations of the immigrant tribes to each other _as Germans_, _i.e._ the
extent to which the Jute differed from (or agreed with) the Angle, or the
Saxon, and the relations of the Angle and the Saxon to each other. Did they
speak different languages?--different dialects of a common tongue!--or
dialects absolutely identical? Did they belong to the same or to different
confederations? Was one polity common to all? Were the civilizations

Questions like these being answered, and a certain amount of mutual
difference being ascertained, it would then stand over to inquire whether
any traces of this original difference were still to be found in the modern
English. Have any provincial dialects characteristics which are Jute rather
than Angle? or Angle rather than Saxon?

It is clear that the second of these questions is involved in the answer
given to the first.

§ 11. _The accredited relations of the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons to each
other as Germans._--These are as follows:--

1. That the geographical locality of the Jutes was the Peninsula of

2. That that of Angles, was the present Dutchy of Sleswick; so that they
were the southern neighbours of the Jutes.

3. That that of the Saxons was a small tract north of the Elbe, and some
distinct point--more or less extensive--between the Elbe and Rhine.

4. That, although there were, probably, dialectal differences between the
languages, the speech of all the three tribes was mutually intelligible.

§ 12. Assuming, then, the accuracy of our historical facts, the inference
is, that, without expecting to find any very prominent and characteristic
differences between the different inhabitants of England arising out of the
original differences between the Germanic immigrants, we are to look for
what few there are in the following quarters--

1. For the characteristic _differentiæ_ of the Jutes, in Kent, part of
Sussex, and the Isle of Wight.

2. For those of the Saxons in Sussex, Essex, Hants (Wessex), and Middlesex.

3. For those of the Angles in Norfolk, Suffolk, Yorkshire, Durham, and

Or, changing the expression:--

1. The _differentiæ_ of the people of Kent, part of Sussex, and the Isle of
Wight (if any), are to be explained by the _differentiæ_ of the original
Jute immigrants--

2. Those of the rest of Sussex, Wessex, Essex, and Middlesex, by those of
the Saxons--

3. Those of the people of Norfolk, &c., by those of the Angles.

Such is our reasoning, and such a sketch of our philological
researches--assuming that the opinions just exhibited, concerning the
dates, conductors, localities, and order, are absolute and unimpeachable
historical facts.

§ 13. _Criticism of the aforesaid details._--As a preliminary to this part
of the subject, the present writer takes occasion to state once for all,
that nearly the whole of the following criticism is not his own (except, of
course, so far as he adopts it--which he does), but Mr. Kemble's, and that
it forms the introduction to his valuable work on the Saxons in England.

1. _The evidence to the details just given, is not historical, but
traditional._--_a._ Bede, from whom it is chiefly taken, wrote more than
300 years after the supposed event, _i.e._, the landing of Hengist and
Horsa, in A.D. 449.

_b._ The nearest contemporary author is Gildas, and _he_ lived at least 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, Visigoths, and Gepidæ,
also in three vessels, to the mouths of the Vistula."

_b._ The murder of the British chieftains by Hengist is told _totidem
verbis_, by Widukind, and others of the Old Saxons in Thuringia.

_c._ Geoffry of Monmouth relates also, how "Hengist obtained from the
Britons as much land as could be enclosed {6} 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 lap-full 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."

3. _There is direct evidence in favour of there having been German tribes
in England anterior to_ A.D. 447.--_a._ At the close of the Marcomannic
war, Marcus Antoninus transplanted a number of Germans into Britain.--Dio
Cassius, lxxi. lxiii.

_b._ Alemannic auxiliaries served along with Roman legions under

_c._ The _Notitia utriusque imperii_, 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.

I conclude with the following extract:--"We are ignorant what _fasti_ or
even mode of reckoning the revolutions of seasons prevailed in England,
previous to the introduction of Christianity. We know not how any event
before the year 600 was recorded, or to what period the memory of man
extended. There may have been rare annals: there may have been poems: if
such there were they have perished, and have left no trace behind, unless
we are to attribute to them such scanty notices as the Saxon Chronicle adds
to Beda's account. From such sources, however, little could have been
gained of accurate information either as to the real internal state, the
domestic progress, or development of a people. The dry bare entries of the
Chronicles in historical periods may supply the means of judging what sort
of annals were likely to exist before the general introduction of the Roman
alphabet and parchment, while, in all probability, runes supplied the place
of letters, and {7} stones, or the _beech_-wood, from which their name is
derived, of _books_. Again, the traditions embodied in the epic, are
pre-eminently those of kings and princes; they are heroical, devoted to
celebrate the divine or half-divine founders of a race, the fortunes of
their warlike descendants, the manners and mode of life of military
adventurers, not the obscure progress, household peace, and orderly habits
of the humble husband-man. They are full of feasts and fighting, shining
arms and golden goblets: the gods mingle among men almost their equals,
share in the same pursuits, are animated by the same passions of love, and
jealousy, and hatred; or, blending the divine with the mortal nature,
become the founders of races, kingly, because derived from divinity itself.
But one race knows little of another, or its traditions, and cares as
little for them. Alliances or wars alone bring them in contact with one
another, and the terms of intercourse between the races will, for the most
part, determine the character under which foreign heroes shall be admitted
into the national epos, or whether they shall be admitted at all. All
history, then, which is founded in any degree upon epical tradition (and
national history is usually more or less so founded) must be to that extent
imperfect, if not inaccurate; only when corrected by the written references
of contemporaneous authors, can we assign any certainty to its records.

"Let us apply these observations to the early events of Saxon history: of
Kent, indeed, we have the vague and uncertain notices which I have
mentioned; even more vague and uncertain are those of Sussex and Wessex. Of
the former, we learn that in the year 477, Ælli, with three sons, Cymen,
Wlencing, and Cissa, landed in Sussex; that in the year 485 they defeated
the Welsh, and that in 491 they destroyed the population of Anderida. Not
another word is there about Sussex before the arrival of Augustine, except
a late assertion of the military pre-eminence of Ælli among the Saxon
chieftains. The events of Wessex are somewhat better detailed; we learn
that in 495 two nobles, Cerdic and Cyneríc, came to England, and landed at
_Cerdices-ora_, where, on the {8} same day, they fought a battle: that in
501 they were followed by a noble named Port, who, with his two sons, Bieda
and Mægla, made a forcible landing at Portsmouth: and that in 508, they
gained a great battle over a British king, whom they slew, together with
five thousand of his people. In 514 Stuff and Wihtgár, their nephews,
brought them a reinforcement of three ships; in 519, they again defeated
the Britons, and established the kingdom of Wessex. In 527, a new victory
is recorded; in 530, the Isle of Wight was subdued and given to Wihtgár;
and in 534, Cerdic died, and was succeeded by Cyneríc, who reigned
twenty-six years. In 544, Wihtgár died. A victory of Cyneríc, in 552 and
556, and Ceawlin's accession to the throne of Wessex are next recorded.
Wars of the West-Saxon kings are noted in 568, 571, 577, 584. From 590 to
595, a king of that race, named Ceól, is mentioned: in 591, we learn the
expulsion of Ceawlin from power; in 593, the deaths of Ceawlin, Cwichelm,
and Crida, are mentioned, and in 597, the year of Augustine's arrival, we
learn that Ceólwulf ascended the throne of Wessex.

"Meagre as these details are, they far exceed what is related of
Northumberland, Essex, or East-Anglia. In 547, we are told that Ida began
to reign in the first of these kingdoms, and that he was succeeded in 560,
by Ælli: that after a reign of _thirty_ years, he died in 588, and was
succeeded by Æþelríc, who again, in 593, was succeeded by Æþelfriþ. This is
all we learn of Northumbria; of Mercia, Essex, East-Anglia, and the
innumerable kingdoms that must have been comprised under these general
appellations, we hear not a single word.

"If this be all that we can now recover of events, a great number of which
must have fallen within the lives of those to whom Augustine preached, what
credit shall we give to the inconsistent accounts of earlier actions? How
shall we supply the almost total want of information respecting the first
settlements? What explanation have we to give of the alliance between
Jutes, Angles, and Saxon, which preceded the invasions of England? What
knowledge will these records {9} supply of the real number and quality of
the chieftains, the language and blood of the populations who gradually
spread themselves from the Atlantic to the Frith of Forth; of the remains
of Roman cultivation, or the amount of British power with which they had to
contend? of the vicissitudes of good and evil fortune which visited the
independent principalities before they were swallowed up in the kingdoms of
the heptarchy, or the extent of the influence which they retained after the
event! On all these several points we are left entirely in the dark; and
yet these are facts which it most imports us to know, if we would
comprehend the growth of a society which endured for at least 700 years in
England, and formed the foundation of that in which we live."--_The Saxons
in England._ Vol. I, pp. 28-32.

§ 14. _Inference._--As it is nearly certain, that the year 449 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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 15. By referring to §§ 3-12, it may be seen that out of the numerous
tribes and nations of Germany, _three_ in particular have been considered
as the chief, if not the exclusive, sources of the present English, viz.:
the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes.

To criticise the evidence which derives the _English_ in general from the
_Angles_, the particular inhabitants of _Sussex_, _Essex_, _Middlesex_ and
_Wessex_, from the _Saxons_, and the _Anglo-Saxon_ language from the
_Angle_ and _Saxon_ would be superfluous; whilst to doubt the truth of the
main facts which it attests would exhibit an unnecessary and unhealthy
scepticism. That the Angles and Saxons formed at least seven-tenths of the
Germanic invaders may be safely admitted. The _Jute_ element, however,
requires further notice.

§ 16. The _Jutes_.--Were any of the German immigrants _Jutes_? If so, what
were their relations to the other German tribes?

_a._ Were there Jutes in England? That there was a Jute element in England
is to be maintained, not upon the _tradition_ that one of the three ships
of Hengist and Horsa was manned by Jutes, but from the following extract
from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:--

  "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 Iútnacynn.
  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

  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.

Here the words _gyt hæt Iútnacynn_ constitute cotemporary evidence.

Still there is a flaw in it; since it is quite possible that the term
_Iútnacynn_ may have been no true denomination of a section of the Germans
of England, but only the synonym of a different word, _Wiht-sætan_. Alfred
writes--comon hi of þrym folcum þam strangestan Germaniæ; þæt of _Seaxum_,
and of _Angle_, and of _Geatum_. Of Geatum fruman sindon Cantware and
_Wiht-sætan_, þæt is seo þeód se Wiht þæt ealond on eardað--_they came of
three folk, the strongest of Germany; that of_ Saxons _and of_ Angles, _and
of_ Geats. _Of_ Geats _originally are_ the Kent people _and_ Wiht-set;
_that is the people which_ Wiht _the Island live on_.

This changes the reasoning, and leads us to the following facts.

_a._ The word in question is a compound=_Wight_=_the name of the isle_, +
_sætan_=_people_; as Somer-_set_, and Dor-_set_.

_b._ The peninsula _Jut_-land was also called _Vit_-land, or _With_-land.

_c._ The _wiht_- in _Wiht_-sætan is, undoubtedly, no such element as the
_vit_- in _Vit_-land=_Jut-land_; since it represents the older Celtic term,
known to us in the Romanized form _Vectis_.

Putting all this together, it becomes possible (nay probable) that the
whole doctrine of a _Jute_ element in the Anglo-Saxon migration may have
arisen out of the fact of there being a portion of the people of Southern
England neighbours of the Saxons, and bearing the name _Wiht_-sætan; a fact
which, taken along with the juxtaposition of the _Vit_-landers
(_Jut_-landers) and Saxons on the Continent, suggested to the writers of a
long later age the doctrine of a Jute migration.

§ 17. As this last objection impugns the evidence rather than the fact, the
following question finds place:-- {12}

What were the Jutes of Germany? At present they are the natives of Jutland,
and their language is Danish rather than German.

Neither is there reason to suppose that during the third and fourth
centuries it was otherwise.

§ 18. This last circumstance detracts from the likelihood of the _fact_;
since in no part of Kent, Sussex, Hants, nor even in the Isle of Wight--a
likely place for a language to remain unchanged--have any traces of the old
Jute been found.

§ 19. On the other hand the fact of Jutes, _even though Danes_, being
members of a Germanic confederation is not only probable, but such was
actually the case; at least for continental wars--_subactis, cum Saxonibus,
Euciis_ (Eutiis), _qui se nobis_ (_i.e._, the Franks), _propriâ voluntate
tradiderunt ... usque in Oceani littoribus dominio nostro
porrigitur_.--Theodebert to the Emperor Justinian.--

  "Quem _Geta_, Vasco tremunt, Danus, Eutheo,[1] Saxo, Britannus,
    Cum patre quos acie te domitasse patet."

Venantius Fortunatus ad Chilpericum regem.[2]

§ 20. _Inference._--Of the three following views--(1.) that the Jutes of
Jutland in the fourth and fifth centuries spoke Saxon; (2.) that they spoke
Danish at home, but lost their language after three or four centuries'
residence in England; and (3.) that a later historian was induced by the
similarity between the term _Wiht-sætan_, as applied to the _people of the
Isle of Wight_, and _Wit-land_, as applied to _Jutland_, combined with the
real probability of the fact supposed, to assume a Jute origin for the
Saxons of the parts in question, the third is, in the mind of the present
writer, the most probable.

§ 21. It has already been stated that concerning the Angles and Saxons, no
reasonable man will put the question which was put in respect to the Jutes,
_viz._, had they any real place among the Germanic invaders of England?
Respecting, however, their relations to each other, and their respective
geographical localities whilst occupants of Germany, anterior to {13} their
immigration into Britain, there is much that requires investigation. What
were the Saxons of Germany--what the Angles?

§ 22. _Difficulties respecting the identification of the Saxons._--There
are two senses of the word _Saxon_, one of which causes difficulty by being
too limited; the other by being too wide.

_a._ _The limited sense of the word Saxon._--This is what we get from
Ptolemy, the first author who names the Saxons, and who gives them a
limited locality at the mouth of the Elbe, bounded by the Sigulones, the
Sabalingi, the Kobandi, the Chali, the Phundusii, the Harudes, and other
tribes of the Cimbric Peninsula, of which the Saxons just occupied the
neck, and three small islands opposite--probably Fohr, Sylt, and Nordstand.

Now a sense of the word _Saxon_ thus limited, would restrict the joint
conquerors of Britain to the small area comprized between the Elbe and
Eyder, of which they do not seem even to have held the whole.

_b._ _The wide sense of the word Saxon._--The reader need scarcely be
reminded that the present kingdom of Saxony is as far inland as the
northern frontier of Bohemia. Laying this, however, out of the question, as
the effect of an extension subsequent to the invasion of Britain, we still
find Saxons in ancient Hanover, ancient Oldenburg, ancient Westphalia, and
(speaking roughly) over the greater part of the country drained by the
Weser, and of the area inclosed by the eastern feeders of the Lower Rhine,
the Elbe, and the range of the Hartz.

Now as it is not likely that the limited Saxon area of Ptolemy should have
supplied the whole of our Saxon population, so on the other hand, it is
certain, that of a considerable portion of the Saxon area in its _wider_
extent tribes other than the Saxons of England, were occupants.

§ 23. _Difficulties respecting the word Angle._--The reader is referred to
an extract from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in § 16, where it is stated,
that "from the Angles' land (which has since always stood waste betwixt the
Jutes and the {14} Saxons) came the East-Angles, Middle-Angles, Mercians,
and all the Northumbrians."

Thus to bring the great Angle population from an area no larger than the
county of Rutland, is an objection--but it is not the chief one.

The chief objection to the Angles of England being derived from the little
district of Anglen, in Sleswick, lies in the fact of there being mention of
_Angli_ in another part of Germany.

§ 24. This exposition of the elements of uncertainty will be followed by an
enumeration of--

1. Those portions of the Germanic populations, which from their
geographical position, are the likeliest, _à priori_, to have helped to
people England.

2. Those portions of the Germanic population, which although not supposed
to have contributed in any notable degree to the population of Britain, had
such continental relations to the Angles and Saxons, as to help in fixing
their localities.

These two scenes of facts, give us what may be called our preliminary
_apparatus criticus_.

§ 25. Between the northern limits of the Celtic populations of Gaul and the
southern boundary of the Scandinavians of Jutland, we find the area which
is most likely to have given origin to the Germans of England. This is best
considered under two heads.

_a._ That of the proper _seaboard_, or the _coast_ from the Rhine to the

_b._ That of the _rivers_, _i.e._, the communications between the ocean and
the inland country.

This double division is _sufficient_, since it is not likely that Britain
was peopled by any tribes which were not either maritime, or the occupants
of a river.

On the other hand, it is _necessary_, since although the _à priori_ view is
in favour of the _coast_ having supplied the British immigration, the
chances of its having proceeded from the interior by the way of the large
rivers Rhine, Weser, and Elbe, must also be taken into consideration. {15}

The importance of this latter alternative, will soon be seen.

§ 26. _The Menapians._--Locality, from the country of the Morini on the
French side of the Straits of Dover, to the Scheldt. It is generally
considered that these were not Germans but Celts. The fact, however, is by
no means ascertained. If Germans, the Menapians were the tribes nearest to
Britain. Again, supposing that the present Flemings of Belgium are the
oldest inhabitants of the country, their origin is either wholly, or in
part, Menapian. Mentioned by Cæsar.

§ 27. _The Batavians._--Mentioned by Cæsar; locality, from the Maas to the
Zuyder Zee. Conterminous with the Menapians on the south, and with the
Frisians on the north. If the present Dutch of Holland be the inhabitants
of the country from the time of Cæsar downwards, their origin is Batavian.

§ 28. _The Frisians._--First known to the Romans during the campaign of
Drusus--"tributum _Frisiis_ transrhenano populo--Drusus jusserat
modicum;"[3] Tacitus, Ann. iv. 72. Extended, according to Ptolemy, as far
north as the Ems--[Greek: tên de parôkeanitin katechousin ... hoi
Phrissioi, mechri tou Amisiou potamou].

Now, as the dialect of the modern province of Friesland differs in many
important points from the Dutch of Holland and Flanders; and as there is
every reason to believe that the same, or greater difference, existed
between the old Frisians and the old Batavians, assuming each to have been
the mother-tongues of the present Frisian and Dutch respectively, we may
consider that in reaching the parts to the north of the Zuyder-Zee, we have
come to a second sub-division of the Germanic dialects; nevertheless, it is
not the division to which either the Angles or the Saxons belong, as may be
ascertained by the difference of dialect, or rather language.

§ 29. _The Chauci._--Connected with the Frisii.--Falling into two
divisions--the lesser (?) Chauci, from the Ems to the Weser; the greater
(?) Chauci from the Weser to the Elbe--[Greek: meta de toutous] (the
Frisians), {16} [Greek: Kauchoi hoi mikroi mechri tou Ouisourgios potamou,
eita Kauchoi hoi meizous, mechri tou Albios potamou.]

Tacitus describes the Chauci thus:--"Tam immensum terrarum spatium non
tenent tantum Chauci, sed et implent; populus inter Germanos nobilissimus."

The Frisians, as has been stated, represent a separate subdivision of the
German dialects, as opposed to the ancient Batavian, and the modern Dutch
and Flemish. Did the Chauci represent a third, or were they part of the
Frisian division?

The latter is the more likely, and that for the following reasons--Vestiges
of Frisian dialects are to be found on the Continent, in Oldenburgh, and
also in the island of Heligoland.

More important still is the North-Frisian dialect. _North of the Elbe_, in
the Dutchy of Sleswick, and from the Eyder to Tondern, we find a tract of
land called, by Saxo Grammaticus, _Frisia Minor_, and by other writers,
_Frisia Eydorensis_.

Now, as there are no grounds for considering these _North_ Frisians as
other than indigenous to the tract in question, we get an additional reason
for looking upon the intermediate line of coast as Frisian rather than
either Angle or Saxon--or, at least, such parts of it as are not expressly
stated to be otherwise.

§ 30. _Inference._--As the whole coast south of the Elbe seems to have been
occupied by tribes speaking either Frisian or Batavian dialects, and as
neither of these sub-divisions represents the language of the Angles and
Saxons, the original localities of those invaders must be sought for either
north of the Elbe, or inland, along the course of the rivers,

§ 31. _The Saxons and Nordalbingians._--North of the Elbe, and south of the
Eyder (as stated in § 22), we meet the Saxons of Ptolemy; but that in a
very circumscribed locality.

In the ninth century, the tribes of these parts are divided into three

_a._ The _Holtsati_=the people of Holstein. Here _holt_=_wood_, whilst
_sat_ is the _-set_ in Somer-_set_ and Dor-_set_. {17}

_b._ The _Thiedmarsi_=_the people of Ditmarsh_.

_c._ The _Stormarii_=_the people of Stormar_.

Besides the names of these three particular divisions the tribes between
the Elbe and Eyder were called by the _general_ name of
_Nordalbingii_=_i.e. people to the north of the Elbe_.

§ 32. _The people of Anglen_--North of the Nordalbingii; Anglen being the
name of a _district_ between the Schlie and Flensburg.

§ 33. _The Jutes._--In _Jut_-land, north of the Angles and the

§ 34. _The Saxons of Holstein, how large their area?_--There is no reason
for considering the Nordalbingian _Holtsati_, _Thiedmarsi_ and _Stormarii_
as other than Saxons; although the fact of the Northfrisians to the north,
and of the Frisians of Hanover to the south of them, is a slight
complication of the _primâ facie_ view.

Neither is it necessary to identify the two divisions, and to consider the
Saxons as Frisians, or the Frisians as Saxons, as is done by some authors.

It is only necessary to perceive the complication which the existence of
the Northfrisians introduces, and to recognise the improbability of _parts_
of the present dutchies of Holstein and Sleswick having constituted the
_whole_ of the Anglo-Saxon area.

In other words, we have to ascertain in what direction the Germanic
population represented by the Saxons at the mouth of the Elbe extended
itself--for some further extension there undoubtedly must have been.

§ 35. This brings us to the other series of preliminary facts, viz.: the
consideration of the more important tribes of the middle and lower courses
of the three great rivers, the Rhine, the Weser, and the Elbe.

§ 36. _The Germans of the Middle Rhine._--Of the Germans of the Lower and
Middle Rhine, it is only necessary to mention one--

_The Franks._--We shall see that, taking the two terms in their widest
sense, the _Franks_ and the _Saxons_ were in contact, a fact which makes it
necessary to notice at least some portion of the Frank area. {18}

_a._ _Salian Franks._--If the element _Sal-_ represent the _-sel_, in the
name of the Dutch river _Y-ssel_, the locality of the Salian Franks was
Overyssel and Guelderland, whilst their ethnological relations were most
probably with the Batavians.

_b._ _Chamavi._--In the Tabula Peutingeriana we find--Chamavi qui
_Elpranci_ (_leg. et Franci_). They were conterminous with the
Salii--[Greek: Hupedexamên men moiran tou Saliôn ethnous, Chamabous de
exêlasa].--Julian, Op. p. 280.--D.N.

The following extract is more important, as it shows that a Roman
communication _at least_ took place between the Rhine and Britain: [Greek:
Chamabôn gar mê bouleuomenôn, adunaton estin tên tês Bretannikês nêsou
sitopompian epi ta Rhômaika phrouria diapempesthai].--Eunap. in Except.
leg. ed., Bonn, p. 42.--D.N.

The name Chamavi is still preserved in that of the district of _Hameland_,
near Deventer.--D.N. and G.D.S.

The Bructeri, Sigambri, and Ripuarian Franks bring us to the Franks of the
Middle Rhine, a portion of the division which it is not necessary to

§ 37. _The Thuringians._--First mentioned in the beginning of the fourth
century. Locality, between the Hartz, the Werra a feeder of the Weser, and
the Sala a feeder of the Elbe. As early as the sixth century the
Thuringians and Saxons are conterminous, and members of the same
confederation against the Franks.--D.N.

§ 38. _The Catti._--Locality, the valley of the Fulda, forming part of the
Upper Weser. Conterminous with the Thuringi (from whom they were separated
by the river Werra) on the east, and the Franks on the west. The modern
form of the word _Catti_ is _Hesse_, and the principality of Hesse is their
old locality.--G.D.S.

§ 39._ Geographical conditions of the Saxon area._--_Southern and northern
limits._--The Saxons were in league with the Thuringians and Jutes against
the Franks.

By the Jutes they were limited on the north, by the Thuringians on the
south-east, and by the Franks on the south-west; the middle portion of the
southern frontier being formed by the Catti between the Franks and
Thuringians. {19}

This gives us a _southern_ and a _northern_ limit.

_Western limit._--This is formed by the Batavians and Frisians of the
sea-coast, _i.e._, by the Batavians of Holland, Guelderland, and Overyssel,
and, afterwards, by the Frisians of West and East Friesland, and of

Here, however, the breadth of the non-Saxon area is uncertain. Generally
speaking, it is broadest in the southern, and narrowest in the northern
portion. The Frisian line is narrower than the Batavian, whilst when we
reach the Elbe the Saxons appear on the sea-coast. Perhaps they do so on
the Weser as well.

§ 40. _Eastern limit._--_Preliminary remark._--Before the eastern limit of
the Saxons is investigated, it will be well to indicate the extent to which
it differs from the southern.

_a._ The Thuringians, Catti (or Hessians), and Franks, on the southern
boundary of the Saxon area were _Germans_. Hence the line of demarcation
between their language was no broad and definite line, like that between
the English and the Welsh, but rather one representing a difference of
dialect, like that between the Yorkshire and the Lowland Scotch. Hence,
too, we ought not only not to be surprised, if we find dialects
intermediate to the Frank and Saxon, the Saxon and Thuringian, &c., but we
must expect to find them.

_b._ The same is the case with the Batavian and Frisian frontier.--We
really find specimens of language which some writers call Saxon, and others
Dutch (Batavian).

The eastern frontier, however, will be like the frontier between England
and Wales, where the line of demarcation is broad and definite, where there
are no intermediate and transitional dialects, and where the two contiguous
languages belong to different philological classes.--_The languages to the
east of the Saxon area will be allied to the languages of Russia, Poland,
and Bohemia;_ i.e., _they will be not Germanic but Slavonic._

_Note._--The northern frontier of the Saxon area is intermediate in
character to the western and southern on one hand, and to the eastern on
the other; the Danish of the Cimbric Peninsula being--though not
German--Gothic. {20}

We begin at the northern portion of the Saxon area, _i.e._, the
south-eastern corner of the Cimbric Peninsula, and the parts about the Town
of Lubeck; where the Dutchies of Mecklenburg Schwerin and Holstein join.
The attention of the reader is particularly directed to the dates.

§ 41. _Slavonians of Holstein, Mecklenburg, and Lauenburg._--The
_Polabi_--From _po_=_on_, and _Labe_=_the Elbe_. Name Slavonic. Germanized
by the addition of the termination--_ing_, and so become _Po-lab-ing-i_;
just as in _Kent_ we find the _Kent-ing-s_. Conterminous with the
Nordalbingian _Stormarii_, from whom they are divided by the river _Bille_,
a small confluent of the Elbe. Capital Ratzeburg. First mentioned by
writers subsequent to the time of Charlemagne.--D.N.

§ 42. The _Wagrians_.--North of the Polabi, and within the Cimbric
Peninsula, divided from the Danes by the Eyder, from the Non-Danish
Nordalbingians by the Trave. Capital Oldenburg. The Isle of Femern was
Wagrian. Authorities--chiefly writers of and subsequent to the time of
Charlemagne. In one of these we learn that the town of _Haðum_ (Sleswick)
lies between the Angles, the Saxons, and the _Wends_.

Now, _Wend_ is the German designation of the _Slavonians_; so that there
must have been Slavonians in the Cimbric Peninsula at least as early as the
ninth century.--D.N.

§ 43. _Obotriti_, written also _Obotritæ_, _Abotriti_, _Abotridi_;
_Apodritæ_, _Abatareni_, _Apdrede_, _Afdrege_, and for the sake of
distinction from a people of the same name, _Nort-Obtrezi_, occupants of
the western part of Mecklenburg, and extended as far east as the Warnow, as
far south as Schwerin. Called by Adam of Bremen, _Reregi_. The Obotrites
were allies of the Franks against the Saxons, and after the defeat and
partial removal of the latter, were transplanted to some of their
localities.--"Saxones transtulit" (_i.e._, Charlemagne), "in Franciam et
pagos transalbianos Abodritis dedit."--Eginhart Ann. A.D. 804.--D.N.

§ 44. The _Lini_--Slavonians on the left bank of the Elbe, and the first
met with on that side of the river. Occupants of Danneburg, Luchow and
Wustrow, in Luneburg. By the {21} writers subsequent to the time of
Charlemagne the _Smeldengi_ (a German designation), and the _Bethenici_ are
mentioned along with the Lini (or Linones). Of this Slavonic a Paternoster
may be seen in the Mithridates representing the dialect of the
neighbourhood in Luchow in A.D. 1691. It is much mixed with the German.
About the middle of the last century this (Cis-Albian Slavonic) dialect
became extinct.--D.N.

§ 45. The _Warnabi_ or _Warnavi_.--Locality. Parts about Grabow, Valley of
the Elbe. This is the locality of the _Varini_ of Tacitus, the [Greek:
Ouirounoi] of Ptolemy, and the _Werini_ of later writers, a tribe connected
with the Angli, and generally considered as Germanic.--D.N.

§ 46. _Morizani._--The district round the Moritz Lake.--D.N.

§ 47. _Doxani._--Locality; the valley of the Dosse.--D.N.

§ 48. _Hevelli._--Locality; the valley of the Hevel. These are the
Slavonians of Brandenburg and Mittelmark.--D.N.

§ 49. _Slavonians of Altmark._--In Altmark, as in Lunenburg, though on the
German side of the Elbe we find the names of the places Slavonic, _e.g._,
Klotze, Wrepke, Solpke, Blatz, Regatz, Colbitz, &c.; so that Altmark, like
Lunenburg, was originally a _Cis_-Albian Slavonic locality.

§ 50. South of the Hevel we meet with the _Sorabian_, or _Sorb_ Slavonians,
the descendants of whom form at the present time part of the population of
Lusatia and Silesia. It is not, however, necessary to follow these further,
since the German frontier now begins to be Thuringian rather than Saxon.

§ 51. _Saxon area._--From the preceding investigations we determine the
area occupied by the Saxons of Germany to be nearly as follows:

_a._--_Ethnologically considered._--Tract bounded on the north by the North
Frisian Germans and Jute Danes of Sleswick; on the north and north-east by
the Slavonians of the Elbe, sometimes _Trans_-Albian like the Wagrians and
Obotrites; sometimes _Cis_-Albian, like the Linones and the Slaves of
Altmark; on the south by the Thuringians, Catti, and Franks; on the west by
the Franks, Batavians, and Frisians.

_b._ _Considered in relation to the ancient population that it {22}
comprised._--The country of the Saxons of Ptolemy; the Angli of Tacitus;
the Langobardi of Tacitus; the Angrivarii; the Dulgubini; the Ampsivarii
(?); the Bructeri Minores (?); the Fosi, and Cherusci; and probably part of
the Cauci. Of populations mentioned by the later writers (_i.e._ of those
between the seventh and eleventh centuries), the following belong to this
area--the Stormarii, Thietmarsi, Hotsati (=the Nordalbingii, or Nordleudi),
the Ostfali, (Osterluidi), Westfali, Angarii, and Eald-Seaxan (Old Saxons).

_c._ _Considered in relation to its modern population._--Here it coincides
most closely with the kingdom of Hanover, _plus_ parts of the Dutchies of
Holstein and Oldenburg, and parts of Altmark? Brunswick? and Westphalia,
and _minus_ the Frisian portion of East Friesland, and the Slavonic part of

d. _River system._--By extending the Saxons of Westphalia as far as Cleves
(which has been done by competent judges) we carry the western limit to the
neighbourhood of the Rhine. This, however, is as far as it can safely be
carried. In the respect to the Upper Ems, it was probably Saxon, the lower
part being Frisian. The Weser is pre-eminently the river of the Saxons,
with the water-system of which their area coincides more closely than with
any other physical division. The Elbe was much in the same relation to the
Germans and Slavonians, as the Rhine was to the Germans and the Gauls.
Roughly speaking, it is the frontier--the _Cis_-Albian Slaves (the Linones
and the Slavonians of Altmark) being quite as numerous as the
_Trans_-Albian Germans, (the people of Stormar, Ditmarsh, and Holstein).
The Eyder was perhaps equally Danish, Frisian, and Saxon.

_e._ _Mountains._--The watershed of the Weser on the one side, and of the
Ruhr and Lippe on the other, is the chief high land _contained_ within the
Saxon area, and is noticed as being the line most likely to form a
subdivision of the Saxon population, either in the way of dialect or
political relations--_in case such a subdivision exists_, a point which
will be considered in the next chapter.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 52. 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. In
doing this, it may as well be asked, First, what we expect, _à priori_;
Second, what we really find.

§ 53. To the Saxon area in Germany, there are five philological frontiers,
the Slavonic, the Frisian, the Batavian, the Frank, and the Thuringian, to
which may probably be added the Hessian; in each of which, except the
Slavonic, we may expect that the philological phenomenon of intermixture
and transition will occur. Thus--

_a._ The Saxon of Holstein may be expected to approach the Jute and

_b._ That of South Oldenburg and East Friesland, the Frisian and Batavian.

_c._ That of Westphalia, the Batavian and Frank.

_d_, e. That of the Hessian and Thuringian frontiers, the Hessian and

Finally, the Saxon of the centre of the area is expected to be the Saxon of
the most typical character.

§ 54. Such is what we expect. How far it was the fact is not known for want
of _data_. What is known, however, is as follows.--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. {24}

§ 55. 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.

§ 56. 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

§ 57. 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, (2) Hildubrand and Hathubrant, (3) the Carolinian Psalms.

§ 58. 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. Supposing the nomenclature to
be based upon any of the preceding facts, we might have the following


  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.[4]        Saxon of Beowulf.[4]

Of these names the last would be the best for strictly scientific purposes,
or for the purposes of investigation; since the fact upon which it is based
is the most undeniable.

Such is what the nomenclature might be, or, perhaps, ought to be. What it
is _is_ another question.


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

§ 60. The Saxon of the Continental _used to_ be called _Dano_-Saxon, and
_is_ called _Old_ Saxon.

§ 61. _Why called _Dano_-Saxon._--When the poem called _Heliand_ was first
discovered (and that 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.

§ 62. _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; the Saxon of the Heliand is most probably a _sister_-dialect
of the _Anglo_-Saxon, rather the _Anglo_-Saxon itself is a continental
locality. Exceptionable, however, as it is, it will be employed.

§ 63. The _data_ for the study of the Old Saxon are as follows:--

1. _Abrenuntiatio Diaboli, e Codice Vaticano._--Graff, Diutisca, ii. 191.

2. _Confessionis Formulæ, e Codice Essensi._--Lacomblet, Archiv, für
Geschichte des Niederrhins, 1, 4-9.

3. _Fragmentum de Festo omnium Sanctorum, e Codice Essensi._--Ibid.

4. _Rotulus redituum Essensis._--Ibid.

5. _The Frekkenhorst Roll._--Denkmäler von Dorow, 1, 2, 1.

6. _Glossæ Saxonicæ, e Codice Argentorat._--Diutisca, 192.

7. _T. Lipsii; Epist. cent. III. ad Belgas pertinentium, Ep._ 44.

8. _Hildebrand._--Heroic fragment, in alliterative metre.

9. _The Carolinian Psalms._--A translation of the Psalms, referred to the
time of Charlemagne; sometimes considered to be old Batavian.

10. _Heliand_, a Gospel Harmony in alliterative metre, and the chief _Old_
Saxon composition extant. {26}


§ 64. _Heliand_, pp. 12, 13. (_Schmeller's Edition._)

LUC. II. 8-13.

  Tho uuard managun cud,                 Then it was to many known,
  Obar thesa uuidon uuerold.             Over this wide world.
  Uuardos antfundun,                     The words they discovered,
  Thea thar ehuscalcos                   Those that there, as horse-grooms,
  Uta uuarun,                            Were without,
  Uueros an uuahtu,                      Men at watch,
  Uuiggeo gomean,                        Horses to tend,
  Fehas aftar felda:                     Cattle on the field--
  Gisahun finistri an tuue               They saw the darkness in two
  Telatan an lufte;                      Dissipated in the atmosphere,
  Endi quam lioht Godes,                 And came a light of God
  Uuanum thurh thui uuolcan;             --through the welkin;
  Endi thea uuardos thar                 And the words there
  Bifeng an them felda.                  Caught on the field.
  Sie uurdun an forhtun tho,             They were in fright then
  Thea man an ira moda;                  The men in their mood--
  Gisahun thar mahtigna                  They saw there mighty
  Godes Engil cuman;                     Angel of God come;
  The im tegegnes sprac.                 That to them face to face spake.
  Het that im thea uuardos--             It bade them these words--
  "Uuiht ne antdredin                    "Dread not a whit
  Ledes fon them liohta.                 Of mischief from the light.
  Ic scal eu quad he liobora thing,      I shall to you speak glad things,
  Suido uuarlico                         Very true;
  Uuilleon seggean,                      Say commands;
  Cudean craft mikil.                    Show great strength.
  Nu is Krist geboran,                   Now is Christ born,
  An thesero selbun naht,                In this self-same night;
  Salig barn Godes,                      The blessed child of God,
  An thera Davides burg,                 In David's city,
  Drohtin the godo.                      The Lord the good.
  That is mendislo                       That is exultation
  Manno cunneas,                         To the races of men,
  Allaro firiho fruma.                   Of all men the advancement.
  Thar gi ina fidan mugun,               There ye may find him
  An Bethlema burg,                      In the city of Bethlehem,
  Barno rikiost.                         The noblest of children--
  Hebbiath that te tecna,                Ye have as a token
  That ic eu gitellean mag,              That I tell ye
  Uuarun uuordun,                        True words,
  That he thar biuundan ligid,           That he there swathed lieth,
  That kind an enera cribbiun,           The child in a crib,
  Tho he si cuning obar al               Though he be King over all
  Erdun endi himiles,                    Earth and Heaven,
  Endi obar eldeo barn,                  And over the sons of men,
  Uueroldes uualdand."                   Of the world the Ruler."
  Reht so he tho that uuord gespracenun  Right as he that word spake,
  So uuard thar engilo te them           So was there of Angels to them,
  Unrim cuman,                           In a multitude, come
  Helag heriskepi,                       A holy host,
  Fon hebanuuanga,                       From the Heaven-plains,
  Fagar folc Godes,                      The fair folk of God,
  Endi filu sprakun,                     And much they spake
  Lofuuord manag,                        Praise-words many,
  Liudeo herron;                         _To_ the Lord of Hosts (people).
  Athobun tho helagna sang,              They raised the holy song,
  Tho sie eft te hebanuuanga             As they back to the Heaven-plains
  Uundun thurh thin uuolcan.             Wound through the welkin.
  Thea uuardos hordun,                   The words they heard,
  Huo thin engilo craft                  How the strength of the Angels
  Alomahtigna God,                       The Almighty God,
  Suido uuerdlico,                       Very worthily,
  Uuordun louodun.                       With words praised.
  "Diurida si nu," quadun sie,           "Love be there now," quoth they,
  "Drohtine selbun,                      "To the Lord himself
  An them hohoston                       On the highest
  Himilo rikea;                          Kingdom of Heaven,
  Endi fridu an erdu,                    And peace on earth
  Firiho barnum,                         To the children of men,
  Goduuilligun gumun,                    Goodwilled men
  Them the God antkennead,               Who know God,
  Thurh hluttran hugi."                  Through a pure mind."

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 65. The last chapter has limited the Anglo-Saxon area to the northern
part of the Saxon area in general. Further details, however, upon this
point, may stand over until the _general_ affinities of the English
language have been considered.

§ 66. Over and above those languages of Germany and Holland which were akin
to the dialects of the Angles and the Saxons, cognate languages were spoken
in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and the Feroe isles, _i.e._, in

§ 67. 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.

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

§ 69. 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. On the side
of Lapland the languages of this branch come in contact with the Laplandic
and Finlandic; whilst in Sleswick they are bounded by the Low German. {29}


_Icelandic_ (Fareyïnga-Saga--Ed. Mohnike).

    Ok nú er þat eitthvert sinn um sumarit, at Sigmundr mælti til þóris:
    "Hvat mun verða, þo at við farim í skóg þenna, er hèr er norðr frá
    garði?" þórir svarar: "á því er mèr eingi forvitni," segir hann. "Ekki
    er mèr svâ gefit," segir Sigmundr, "ok þángat skal ek fara." "þú munt
    ráða hljóta," segir þûrir, "en brjótum við þa boðorð fóstra míns." Nu
    fóru þeir, ok hafði Sigmundr viðaröxi eina i hendi sèr; koma i skóginn,
    ok í rjôðr eitt fagurt; ok er þeir hafa þar eigi leingi verit, þá heyra
    þeir björn mikinn harðla ok grimligan. þat var viðbjörn mikill, úlfgrár
    at lit. þeir hlaupa nu aptra á stiginn þan, er þeir hölðu þángat farit;
    stigrinn var mjór ok þraurigr, ok hleypr þórir fyrir, en Sigmundr
    síðar. Dýrit bleypr nú eptir þeim á stiginn, ok verðr því þraungr
    stigrinn, ok brotna eikrnar fyrir þvi. Sigmundr snyr þá skjótt út af
    stignum millum trjánna, ok biðr þar til er dyrit kemr jafn-fram honum.
    þa höggr hann jafnt meðal hlusta á d[^y]rinu með tveim höndum, svâ at
    exin sökkr. En d[^y]rit fellr áfram, ok er dautt.


    Nú vär so til ajna Ferina um Summari, at Sigmundur snakkaji so vi
    Towra: "Kvat man bagga, towat vìd färin uj henda Skowin, uj èr hèr
    noran-firi Gärin?" Towrur svärar, "Ikkji hävi e Hu at forvitnast ettir
    tuj," sìir han. "Ikkji eri e so sintur," sìir Sigmundur, "og häar skäl
    e fara." "Tù fert tå at råa," sìir Towrur, "men tå browtum vid Forbo
    Fostirfäjir mujns." Nù fowru tajr, og Sigmundur heji ajna öksi til
    Brennuvì uj Hondini; tajr koma in uj Skowin, og å ajt väkurt rudda Plos
    men ikkji häva tajr veri här lájngji, firin tajr hojra kvödtt Brak uj
    Skownun, og bråt ettir sujgja tajr ajna egvulia stowra Bjödn og
    gruiska. Tä vä ajn stowr Skowbjödn grågulmut å Litinun. Tair lejpa nù
    attir å Råsina, sum tajr höddu gingji ettir; Råsin vär mjåv og trong;
    Towrur lejpur undan, og Sigmundur attanå. Djowri leipur nù ettir tajmum
    å Råsini; og nù verur Råsin trong kjå tuj, so at Ajkjinar brotnavu frå
    tuj. Sigmundur snujur tå kvikliani útäf Råsini inimidlum Trjini, og
    bujar här til Djowri kjemur abajnt han. Tå höggur han bajnt uj
    Ojrnalystri å Djowrinum vi båvun Hondun, so at öxin sökkur in, og
    Djowri dettir bajnt framettir, og er standejt.


    Och nu var det engång on sommaren, som Sigmund sade till Thorer: "Hvad
    månde väl deraf warda, om vi åter gå ut i skogen, som ligger der norr
    on gården?" "Det är jag alldeles icke nyfiken att veta," svarade Thor.
    "Icke går det så med mig," sade Sigmund, "och ditret mäste jag." "Du
    kommer då att råda," sade Thor, "men dermed öfverträda vi vår {30}
    Fosterfaders bud." De gingo nu åstad, och Sigmund bade en vedyxa i
    handen; de kommo in i skogen, och strat derpå fingo de se en ganska
    stor och vildsinnt björn, en dråpelig skogsbjörn, varg-grå till färgen.
    De sprungo då tillbaka på samma stig som de hade kommit dit. Stigen var
    smal och trång; och Thorer sprang fråmst, men Sigmund efterst. Djuret
    lopp nu efter dem på stigen, och stigen blef trång för detsamma, så att
    träden sönderbrötos i dess lopp. Sigmund vände då kurtigt retaf från
    stigen, och ställde sig mellan träden, samt stod der, tills djuret kom
    fram midt för honom. Då fattade han yxan med begge händerna, och högg
    midt emellan öronen på djuret, så att yxan gick in, och djuret störtade
    framåt, och dog på stället.


    Og nu var det engang om Sommeren, at Sigmund sagde til Thorer: "Hvad
    mon der vel kan flyde af, om vi end gaae hen i den Skov, som ligger her
    nordenfor Gaarden?" "Det er jeg ikken nysgjerrig efter at vide,"
    svarede Thorer. "Ei gaar det mig saa," sagde Sigmund, "og derud maa
    jeg." "Du kommer da til at raade," sagde Thorer, "men da overtræde, vi
    vor Fosterfaders Bud." De gik nu, og Sigmund havde en Vedöxe i Haanden;
    de kom ind i Skoven, og strax derpaa saae de en meget stor og grum
    Björn, en drabelig Skovejörn, ulvegraa af Farve. De löb da tilbage ad
    den samme Sti, ad hvilken de vare komne derhen. Stien var smal og
    trang; og Thorer löb forrest, men Sigmund bagerst. Dyret löb nu efter
    dem paa Stien, og Stien blev trang for det, og Træerne brödes i dets.
    Löb Sigmund dreiede da nu hurtig ud af Stien, og stillede sig imellem
    Træerne, og stod der indtil Dyret kom frem lige for ham. Da fattede han
    öxen med begge Hænder, og hug lige imellem örerne paa Dyret, saa at
    öxen sank i, og Dyret styrtede fremad, og var dödt paa Stedet.


    And now is it a time about the summer, that Sigmund spake to Thorir:
    "What would become, even if we two go into the wood (shaw), which here
    is north from the house?" Thorir answers, "Thereto there is to me no
    curiosity," says he. "So is it not with me," says Sigmund, "and thither
    shall I go." "Thou mayst counsel," says Thorir, "but we two break the
    bidding-word of foster-father mine." Now go they, and Sigmund had a
    wood-axe in his hands; they come into the wood, and into a fair place;
    and as they had not been there long, they hear a bear, big, fierce, and
    grim. It was a wood-bear, big, wolf-grey in hue. They run (leap) now
    back (after) to the path, by which they had gone thither. The path was
    narrow and strait; and Thorir runs first, and Sigmund after. The beast
    runs now after them on the path, and the path becomes strait, and
    broken oaks before it. Sigmund turns then short out of the path among
    the trees, and bides there till the beast comes even with him. Then
    cuts he even in between {31} the ears of the beast with his two hands,
    so that the axe sinks, and the beast falls forward, and is dead.

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

1. The Moeso-Gothic.

2. The High Germanic.

3. The Low Germanic.

§ 71. It is in the Moeso-Gothic that the most ancient specimen of any
Gothic tongue has been preserved. It is also the Moeso-Gothic that was
spoken by the conquerors of ancient Rome; by the subjects of Hermanic,
Alaric, Theodoric, Genseric (?), Euric, Athanaric, and Totila.

This history of this language, and the meaning of the term by which it is
designated, is best explained by the following passages:--

_a._ A.D. 482. "Trocondo et Severino consulibus--Theodoricus cognomento
Valamer utramque Macedoniam, Thessaliamque depopulatus est, Larissam quoque
metropolim depredatus, Fausto solo consule (A.D. 485)--Idem Theodoricus rex
Gothorum Zenonis Augusti munificentia pene pacatus, magisterque præsentis
militiæ factus, consul quoque designatus, _creditam sibi Ripensis Daciæ
partem_ Moesiæque _inferioris, cum suis satellitibus pro tempore
tenuit_."--Marcellini Comitis Chronicon, D.N.

_b._ "Frederichus ad Theodoricum regem, qui tunc apud Novam Civitatem
provinciæ Moesiæ morabatur, profectus est."--Vita S. Severini, D.N.

_c._ "Zeno misit ad Civitatem Novam, in quâ erat Theodoricus dux Gothorum,
filius Valameris, et eum invitavit in solatium sibi adversus
Basiliscum."--Anon. Valesii, p. 663, D.N.

d. _Civitas Nova_ is Nicopolis on the Danube; and the nation thus spoken of
is the Gothic nation in the time of Zeno. At this time they are settled in
the Lower Moesia, or Bulgaria.

How they got here from the _northern_ side of the Danube we find in the
history of the reign of Valens. When pressed by intestine wars, and by the
movements of the Huns, they were assisted by that emperor, and settled in
the parts in question. {32}

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 Moesia, during the reign of Valens,
exhibits the earliest sample of any Gothic tongue.

§ 72. How Gothic tribes reached the Lower Danube is a point upon which
there is a variety of opinion. The following facts, however, may serve as
the basis of our reasoning.

A.D. 249-251--The Goths are found about equidistant from the Euxine Sea,
and the eastern portion of the range of Mount Hæmus, in the Lower Moesia,
and at Marcianopolis. Here they gain a great battle against the Romans, in
which the Emperor Decius is killed.

His successor, Gallus, purchases a peace.

Valerian defends himself against them.

During the reign of Gallienus they appear as _maritime_ warriors, and
ravage Asia Minor, Greece, and Illyria.

A.D. 269--Are conquered at Naissus, on the western boundary of Moesia
_Superior_ by Claudius.

A.D. 282--Are defeated by Carus.

A.D. 321--Ravage Moesia (Inferior?) and Thrace.

A.D. 336--Attacked by Constantine in Dacia--_north_ of the Danube.

A.D. 373--In the reign of Valens (as already stated), they were admitted to
settle within the limits of the empire.

§ 73. Now, although all this explains, how a Gothic language was spoken in
Bulgaria, and how remnants of it have been preserved until the nineteenth
century, the manner in which the tribe who spoke it reached Marcianopolis,
so as to conquer the Emperor Decius, in A.D. 249, is unexplained.

Concerning this there are three opinions--

_A._ _The Baltic doctrine._ According to this the Goths migrated from the
Baltic to the Mæotis, from the Mæotis to the Euxine, and from the Euxine to
the Danube, along which river they moved from _east to west_. {33}

_B._ _The Getic doctrine._--Here the Goths are made out to be the
aborigines of the Lower Danube, of Dacia, Moesia, and even Thrace; in which
case their movement was, also, from _east to west_.

_C._ _The German doctrine._--Here the migration is from west to east, along
the course of the Danube, from some part of south-eastern Germany, as its
starting-point, to Asia Minor as its extreme point, and to Bulgaria
(_Moesia Inferior_) as its point of settlement.

§ 74. Respecting the first of these views the most that can be said in its
favour is, that it is laid down by Jornandes, who wrote in the fifth
century, and founded his history upon the earlier writings of Ablavius and
Dexippus, Gothic historians, who, in their turn took their account from the
old legends of the Goths themselves--_in priscis eorum carminibus, pæne
historico ritu_. On the other hand, the evidence is, at best, traditional,
the fact improbable, and the likelihood of some such genealogy being
concocted after the relationship between the Goths of the Euxine, and
Germans of the Baltic had been ascertained exceedingly great.

§ 75. The second is supported by no less an authority than Grimm, in his
latest work, the History of the German Language;--and the fact of so
learned and comprehensive an investigator having admitted it, is, in the
mind of the present writer, the only circumstance in its favour. Over and
above the arguments that may be founded on a fact which will soon be
noticed, the chief reasons are deduced from a list of Dacian or Getic
plants in Dioscorides, which are considered to bear names significant in
the German. Whether or not, the details of this line of criticism will
satisfy the reader who refers to them, it is certain that they are not
likely to take a more cogent form than they take in the hands of the
_Deutsche Grammatik_.

§ 76. The third opinion is the likeliest; and if it were not for a single
difficulty would, probably, never have been demurred to. The fact in
question is the similarity between the words _Getæ_ and _Gothi_.

The fact that a tribe called G-O-T-H-I should, when they first peopled the
Moesogothic country, have hit upon the {34} country of a people with a name
so like their own as G-E-T-Æ, by mere accident, is strange. English or
American colonies might be sent to some thousand places before one would be
found with a name so like that of the mother-country as _Get_ is to _Got_.
The chances, therefore, are that the similarity of name is _not_
accidental, but that there is some historical, ethnological, or
geographical grounds to account for it. Grimm's view has been noticed. He
recognises the difficulty, and accounts for it by making the _Goths_
indigenous to the land of Getæ.

To a writer who (at one and the same time) finds difficulty in believing
that this similarity is accidental and is dissatisfied with Grimm's
reasoning, there seems to be no other alternative but to consider that the
Goths of the Lower Danube had no existence at all in Germany _under that
name_, that they left their country under a different[5] one, and that they
took the one by which they were known to the Romans (and through them to
us), on reaching the land of the _Getæ_--as, in England, the Saxons of
_Essex_ and _Wessex_ did _not_ (since they brought their name with them),
but as the East and West _Kent-ings_[6] did.

This doctrine, of course, falls to the ground directly it can be shown that
the Goths of Moesia were either called _Goths_ in Germany, or any where
else, anterior to their settlement in the _Geta_-land.

Be this, however, as it may, the first division of the Teutonic branch of
languages is the Moeso-Gothic of the Goths of the Lower Danube, in the
fourth century, as preserved in the translation of Ulphilas, and in other
less important fragments.


LUKE i. 46-56.

    Jah quaþ Mariam. Mikileid saivala meina Fan, jah svegneid ahma meins du
    Goþa nasjand meinamma. Unte insahu du hnaivenai þiujos seinaizos: {35}
    sai allis fram himma nu audagjand mik alla kunja. Unte gatavida mis
    mikilein sa mahteiga, jah veih namo is. Jah armahairtei is in aldins
    aldê þaim ogandam ina. Gatavida svinthein in arma seinamma; distahida
    mikilþuhtans gahugdai hairtins seinis; gadrausida mahteigans af stolam,
    jah ushauhida gahnaividans; gredigans gasôþida þiuþe, jah gabignandans
    insandida lausans; hleibida Israela þiumagu seinamma, gamundans
    armahairteins, sva sve rodida du attam unsaraim Abrahaima jah fraiv is
    und aiv.

§ 77. The Old High German, called also Francic and Alemannic, was spoken in
the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, in Suabia, Bavaria, and
Franconia. It is in the Old High German that the Krist of Otfrid, the
Psalms of Notker, the Canticle of Willeram, the Glosses of Kero, the Vita
Annonis, &c., are composed.


KRIST, i. 12. (Edit. Graff.)

  Tho uuarun thar in lante hirta haltente;
    Thes fehes datun uuarta uuidar fianta.
  Zi ín quam boto sconi, engil scinenti;
    Joh uuurtun sie inliuhte fon himilisgen liohte.
  Forahtun sie in tho gahun so sinan anasahun;
    Joh hintarquamun harto thes Gotes boten uuorto.
  Sprah ther Gotes boto sar. "Ih scal íú sagen uuuntar.
    Ju scal sin fon Gote heil; nales forahta nihein.
  Ih scal iu sagen imbot, gibot ther himilisgo Got;
    Ouh nist ther er gihorti so fronisg arunti.
  Thes uuirdit uuorolt sinu zi euuidon blidu,
    Joh al giscaft thiu in uuorolti thesa erdun ist ouh dretenti
  Niuuui boran habet thiz lant then himilisgon Heilant;
    The ist Druhtin Krist guater fon iungeru muater.
  In Bethleem thiue kuninga thie uuarun alle thanana,
    Fon in uuard ouh giboran iu sin muater magad sconu.
  Sagen ih íú, guate man, uuio ir nan sculut findan,
    Zeichen ouh gizami thuruh thaz seltsani.
  Zi theru burgi faret hinana, ir findet, so ih íú sageta,
    Kind niuuui boranaz in kripphun gilegitaz.
  Tho quam unz er zin tho sprah engilo heriscaf,
    Himilisgu menigi, sus alle singenti--
  In himilriches hohi si Gote guallichi;
    Si in erdu fridu ouh allen thie fol sin guates uuillen


_The Same, in English._

  Then there was in the land herdsmen feeding:
    Of their cattle they made watch against foes.
  To them came a messenger fair, an angel shining,
    And they became lit with heavenly light.
  They feared, suddenly as on him they looked;
    And followed much the words of God's messenger:
  Spake there God's messenger strait, "I shall to you say wonders.
    To you shall there be from God health; fear nothing at all.
  I shall to you say a message, the bidding of the heavenly God:
    Also there is none who has heard so glad an errand.
  Therefore becomes his world for ever blythe,
    And all creatures that in the world are treading this earth.
  Newly borne has this land the heavenly Savior,
    Who is the Lord Christ, good, from a young mother.
  In Bethleem, of the kings they were all thence--
    From them was also born his mother, a maid fair.
  I say to you, good men, how ye him shall find,
    A sign and token, through this wonder.
  To your burgh fare hence, ye find, so as I to you said,
    A child, new born, in a crib lying."
  Then came, while he to them spake, of angels an host,
    A heavenly retinue, thus all singing:
  "In the heavenly kingdom's highth be to God glory;
    Be on earth peace also to all who are full of God's will."

The Middle High German ranges from the thirteenth Century to the

§ 78. 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.

§ 79. _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:-- {37}

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 for 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.

§ 80. 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.

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

    _Asega-bog_, i. 3. p. 13, 14. (_Ed. Wiarda._)

    Thet is thiu thredde liodkest and thes Kynig Kerles ieft, theter allera
    monna ek ana sina eyna gode besitte umberavat. Hit ne se thet ma hine
    urwinne mith tele and mith rethe and mith riuchta thingate, sa hebbere
    alsam sin Asega dema and dele to lioda londriuchte. Ther ne hach nen
    Asega nenne dom to delande hit ne se thet hi to fara tha Keysere fon
    Rume esweren hebbe and thet hi fon da liodon ekeren se. Sa hoch hi
    thenne to demande and to delande tha fiande alsare friounde, thruch des
    ethes willa, ther hi to fara tha Keysere fon Rume esweren heth, tho
    demande and to delande widuon and weson, waluberon and alle werlosa
    liodon, like to helpande and sine threa knilinge. Alsa thi Asega nimth
    tha unriuchta mida and tha urlouada panninga, and ma hini urtinga mi
    mith twam sine juenethon an thes Kyninges bonne, sa ne hoch hi nenne
    dom mar to delande, truch thet thi Asega thi biteknath thene prestere,
    hwande hia send siande and hia skilun wesa agon there heliga
    Kerstenede, hia skilun helpa alle tham ther hiam seluon nauwet helpa ne


_The Same, in English._

    That is the third determination and concession of King Charles, that of
    all men each one possess his own goods (house?) unrobbed. It may not be
    that any man overcome him with charge (tales), and with summons (rede),
    and with legal action. So let him hold as his Asega (judge) dooms and
    deals according to the land-right of the people. There shall no Asega
    deal a doom unless it be that before the Cæsar of Rome he shall have
    sworn, and that he shall have been by the people chosen. He has then to
    doom and deal to foes as to friends, through the force (will) of the
    oath which he before the Cæsar of Rome has sworn, to doom and to deal
    to widows and orphans, to wayfarers and all defenceless people, to help
    them as his own kind in the third degree. If the Asega take an illegal
    reward, or pledged money, and a man convict him before two of his
    colleagues in the King's Court, he has no more to doom, since it is the
    Asega that betokens the priest, and they are seeing, and they should be
    the eyes of the Holy Christendom, they should help all those who may
    nought help themselves.

§ 82. _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 will
be henceforth called by their continental name of _Platt-Deutsch_; which
although foreign, is convenient.

§ 83. The points of likeness and difference between two languages belonging
to different branches of the same Gothic stock may be partially collected
from the following comparison between certain Icelandic, Norse or
Scandinavian, and certain Anglo-Saxon or Germanic inflections.

Declension of substantives ending with a _vowel_.

                  _Saxon._             _Icelandic._

                 _Neuter._               _Neuter._

  _Sing. Nom._    Eáge (_an eye_).        Auga (_an eye_).
        _Acc._    Eáge                    Auga.
        _Dat._    Eágan                   Auga.
        _Gen._    Eágan                   Auga.
  _Plur. Nom._    Eágan                   Augu.
        _Acc._    Eágan                   Augu.
        _Dat._    Eágan                   Augum.
        _Gen._    Eágan                   Augna.

                 _Masculine._            _Masculine._

  _Sing. Nom._    Nama (_a name_).        Bogi (_a bow_).
        _Acc._    Naman                   Boga.
        _Dat._    Naman                   Boga.
        _Gen._    Naman                   Boga.
  _Plur. Nom._    Naman                   Bogar.
        _Acc._    Naman                   Boga.
        _Dat._    Namum                   Bogum.
        _Gen._    Namena                  Boga.

                 _Feminine._             _Feminine._

  _Sing. Nom._    Tunge (_a tongue_).     Túnga (_a tongue_).
        _Acc._    Tungan                  Túngu.
        _Dat._    Tungan                  Túngu.
        _Gen._    Tungan                  Túngu.
  _Plur. Nom._    Tungan                  Túngur.
        _Acc._    Tungan                  Túngur.
        _Dat._    Tungum                  Túngum.
        _Gen._    Tungena                 Túngna.

Declension of Substantives ending with a _Consonant_.

                  _Saxon._             _Icelandic._

                 _Neuter._               _Neuter._

  _Sing. Nom._    Leáf (_a leaf_).        Skip (_a ship_).
        _Acc._    Leáf                    Skip.
        _Dat._    Leáfe                   Skipi.
        _Gen._    Leáfes                  Skips.
  _Plur. Nom._    Leáf                    Skip.
        _Acc._    Leáf                    Skip.
        _Dat._    Leáfum                  Skipum.
        _Gen._    Leáfa                   Skipa.

                 _Masculine._            _Masculine._

  _Sing. Nom._    Smið (_a smith_).       Konungr (_a king_).
        _Acc._    Smið                    Konung.
        _Dat._    Smiðe                   Konungi.
        _Gen._    Smiðes                  Konungs.
  _Plur. Nom._    Smiðas                  Konungar.
        _Acc._    Smiðas                  Konunga.
        _Dat._    Smiðum                  Konungum.
        _Gen._    Smiða                   Konunga.

                 _Feminine._             _Feminine._
  _Sing. Nom._    Spr['æ]c (_a speech_).  Brúðr (_a bride_).
        _Acc._    Spr['æ]ce               Brúi.
        _Dat._    Spr['æ]ce               Brúði.
        _Gen._    Spr['æ]ce               Brúðar.
  _Plur. Nom._    Spr['æ]ca               Brúðir.
        _Acc._    Spr['æ]ca               Brúðir.
        _Dat._    Spr['æ]cum              Brúðum.
        _Gen._    Spr['æ]ca               Brúða.

§ 84. The most characteristic difference between the Saxon and Icelandic
lies in the peculiar position of the definite article in the latter
language. 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_ (N.), _hinn_ (M.), _hin_ (F.): 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.

§ 85. 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_: Solen, _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

Reference will be made to this passage on more occasions than one, to show
how words originally distinct may, in the process of time, take the
appearance of being identical. To apply an expression of Mr. Cobbett's,
_en_=_a_, and _-en_=_the_, are _the same combination of letters, but not
the same word_. {42}


             _Saxon_.                         _Icelandic_.
             _Definite_.[7]                   _Definite_.[7]
             _Singular_.                      _Singular_.

         _Neut_.   _Masc_.   _Fem_.            _Neut_.  _Masc_.  _Fem_.

  _Nom_.  Góde      Góda      Góde.     _Nom_.  Haga     Hagi     Haga.
  _Acc_.  Góde      Gódan     Gódan.    _Acc_.  Haga     Haga     Högu.
  _Abl_.  Gódan     Gódan     Gódan.    _Abl_.  Haga     Haga     Högu.
  _Dat_.  Gódan     Gódan     Gódan.    _Dat_.  Haga     Haga     Högu.
  _Gen_.  Gódan     Gódan     Gódan.    _Gen_.  Haga     Haga     Högu.

                                         _Högu_ is the Plural form for all
  _Nom_.  Gódan     Gódan     Gódan.      the Cases and all the Genders.
  _Acc_.  Gódan     Gódan     Gódan.
  _Abl_.  Gódum     Gódum     Gódum.
  _Dat_.  Gódum     Gódum     Gódum.
  _Gen_.  Gódena    Gódena    Gódena.

             _Indefinite_.                      _Indefinite_.
             _Singular_.                        _Singular_.

         _Neut_.   _Masc_.   _Fem_.            _Neut_.  _Masc_.  _Fem_.

  _Nom_.  Gód       Gód       Gód.      _Nom_.  Hagt     Hagr     Hög.
  _Acc_.  Gód       Gódne     Góde.     _Acc_.  Hagt     Hagan    Hög.
  _Abl_.  Góde      Góde      Gódre.    _Abl_.  Högu     Högum    Hagri.
  _Dat_.  Gódum     Gódum     Gódre.    _Dat_.  Högu     Högum    Hagri.
  _Gen_.  Gódes     Gódes     Gódre.    _Gen_.  Hags     Hags     Hagrar.

              _Plural_.                        _Plural_.

  _Nom_.  Góde      Góde      Góde.     _Nom_.  Hög      Hagir    Hagar.
  _Acc_.  Góde      Góde      Góde.     _Acc_.  Hög      Haga     Hagar.
  _Abl_.  Gódum     Gódum     Gódum.    _Abl_.  Högum    Högum    Högum.
  _Dat_.  Gódum     Gódum     Gódum.    _Dat_.  Högum    Högum    Högum.
  _Gen_.  Gódra     Gódra     Gódra.    _Gen_.  Hagra    Hagra    Hagra.

§ 86. Observe in the Icelandic forms the absence of the termination _-an_.
Observe also the neuter termination _-t_, as _hagr_, _hagt_. Throughout the
modern forms of the Icelandic (_viz._ the Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian
languages) this termination is still preserved: e.g., _en god Hest_, a good
horse; _et godt Hjært_, a good heart; _en skön Pige_, a beautiful damsel;
_et skarpt Svoerd_, a sharp sword.


§ 87. Amongst the pronouns the following differences present themselves.
The Saxon forms are, for the pronoun of the second person, _þu_ (thou),
_git_ (ye _two_), _ge_ (ye); whilst in Icelandic they are _þu_, _þið_,
_per_, respectively. Again, in Saxon there is no reflective pronoun
corresponding with the Latin _se_. In Icelandic we have _sik_, _sér_,
_sin_, corresponding to the Latin _se_, _sibi_, _suus_. Besides this, the
word _sin_ is declined, so that like the Latin _suus_ it becomes

  _Sing. Nom._  Sitt      Sinn      Sín.
        _Acc._  Sitt      Sinn      Sína.
        _Dat._  Sínu      Sínum     Sinni.
        _Gen._  Sins      Sins      Sinnar.
  _Plur. Nom._  Sín       Sínir     Sínar.
        _Acc._  Sín       Sína      Sínar.
        _Dat._  Sínum     Sínum     Sínum.
        _Gen._  Sinna     Sinna     Sinna.

In Saxon there is of course no such an adjectival form. _There_ the
Possessives of the Third Person correspond not with the Latin _suus_,
_sua_, _suum_; but with the Latin _ejus_ and _eorum_. The English words
_his_ and _her_ are _genitive_ cases, not _adjectives_.

Further remarks upon the presence of the Reflective Pronoun _sik_ in
Icelandic, and its absence in Saxon, will appear in the sequel.


     _Saxon._            _Icelandic._
  1.   Án               Eitt, einn, ein.
  2.   Twá              Tvö, tveir.
  3.   Þreó             Þrju, þrir.
  4.   Feower           Fjögur, fjórir.
  5.   Fíf              Fimm.
  6.   Six              Sex.
  7.   Seofon           Sjö.
  8.   Eahta            Átta.
  9.   Nigon            Niu.
  10.  Tyn              Tiu.

Of the Icelandic verbs the infinitives end in _-a_; as _kalla_, to call;
_elska_, to love; whereas the Saxon termination is _-an_; as _lufian_, to
love; _wyrcan_, to work. {44}

§ 88. The persons are as follows:--

                       _Saxon._         _Icelandic._

  _Pres. Sing._        1. Bærne           Brenni.
                       2. Bærnst          Brennir.
                       3. Bærnð           Brennir.
        _Plur._        1. Bærnað          Brennum.
                       2. Bærnað          Brennið.
                       3. Bærnað          Brenna.

§ 89. The characteristic, however, of the Icelandic (indeed, of all the
Scandinavian languages) is the possession of a _passive_ form, or a
_passive_ voice, ending in _-st_:--_Ek_, _þu_, _hann brennist_=_I_, _thou_,
_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:--1st. the reflective pronoun coalesces
with the verb, whilst the sense changes from that of a reflective to that
of a middle verb; 2nd. the _c_ changes to _t_, whilst the middle sense
passes into a passive one; 3rd. _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. Having no
reflective pronoun, they had nothing to evolve it from.

                        _The Auxiliary Verb._

                  _Saxon._               _Icelandic._

                     _Indicative. Present._

  _Sing._       1. Eom (_I am_)            Em.
                2. Eart.                   Ert.
                3. Is.                     Er.
  _Plur._       1. Synd (Syndon)           Erum.
                2. Synd (Syndon)           Eruð.
                3. Synd (Syndon)           Eru.

                     _Indicative. Past._
  _Sing._       1. W['æ]s                  Var.
                2. W['æ]re                 Vart.
                3. W['æ]s                  Var.
  _Plur._       1. W['æ]ron                Vorum.
                2. W['æ]ron                Voru.
                3. W['æ]ron                Voru.

                     _Subjunctive. Present._
  _Sing._       1. Sý                      Sé.
                2. Sý                      Sér.
                3. Sý                      Sé.
  _Plur._       1. Sýn                     Séum.
                2. Sýn                     Seuð.
                3. Sýn                     Séu.

                     _Subjunctive.  Past._
  _Sing._       1. W['æ]re                 Væri.
                2. W['æ]re                 Værir.
                3. W['æ]re                 Væri.
  _Plur._       1. W['æ]ron                Værum.
                2. W['æ]ron                Væru.
                3. W['æ]ron                Væruð.

                   Wesan                   Vera.

                   Wesende                 Verandi.

§ 90. Recapitulating, we find that the characteristic differences of the
greatest importance between the Icelandic and Saxon are three in number:--

1st. The peculiar nature of the definite article.

2nd. The neuter form of the adjectives in _-t_.

3rd. The existence of a passive voice in _-sc_, _-st_, or _-s_.

§ 91. In the previous comparison the substantives were divided as
follows:--1st. into those ending with a vowel; 2ndly, into those ending
with a consonant. In respect to the substantives ending with a vowel
(_eáge_, _nama_, _tunge_), it may have been observed that their cases were
in A. S. almost {46} exclusively formed in _-n_, as _eágan_, _tungan_, &c.;
whilst words like _skip_ and _smið_ had, throughout their whole declension,
no case formed in _-n_; no case indeed wherein the sound of _-n_ entered.
This enables us (at least with the A. S.) to make a general assertion
concerning the substantives ending in a _vowel_ in contrast to those ending
in a _consonant_, viz. that they take an inflection in _-n_.

In Icelandic this inflection in _-n_ is concealed by the fact of _-an_
having been changed into _-a_. However, as this _-a_ represents _-an_, and
as fragments or rudiments of _-n_ are found in the genitive plurals of the
neuter and feminine genders (_augna_, _tungna_), we may make the same
general assertion in Icelandic that we make in A. S., _viz._ that
substantives ending in a vowel take an inflection in _-n_.

§ 92. The points of likeness and difference between two languages,
belonging to different _divisions_ of the same Germanic _branch_, may be
partially collected from the following comparison between certain
Moeso-Gothic and certain Anglo-Saxon inflections.

§ 93. It must, however, be premised, that, although the distinction between
nouns taking an inflection in _-n_, and nouns not so inflected, exists
equally in the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic, the form in which the
difference shows itself is different; and along with the indication of this
difference may be introduced the important terms _weak_ and _strong_, as
applied to the declension of nouns.

_Weak_ nouns end in a vowel; or, if in a consonant, in a consonant that has
become final from the loss of the vowel that originally followed it. They
also form a certain proportion of their oblique cases in _-n_, or an
equivalent to _-n_--Nom. _augô_, gen. _aug-in-s_.

_Strong_ nouns end in a consonant; or, if in a vowel, in one of the vowels
allied to the semivowels _y_ or _w_, and through them to the consonants.
They also form their oblique cases by the addition of a simple inflection,
without the insertion of _n_.

Furthermore, be it observed that _nouns_ in general are _weak_ and
_strong_, in other words, that adjectives are _weak_ or {47} _strong_, as
well as substantives. Between substantives and adjectives, however, there
is this difference:--

1. A substantive is _either_ weak or strong, _i.e._, it has one of the two
inflections, but not both. _Augô_=_an eye_, is weak under all
circumstances; _waurd_=_a word_, is strong under all circumstances.

2. An adjective is _both_ weak and strong. The Anglo-Saxon for _good_ is
sometimes _god_ (strong), sometimes _gode_ (weak). Which of the two forms
is used depends not on the word itself, but on the state of its

In this respect the following two rules are important:--

1. The definite sense is generally expressed by the weak form, as _se
blinde man_=_the blind man_.

2. The indefinite sense is generally expressed by the strong form, as _sum
blind man_=_a blind man_.

Hence, as far as adjectives are concerned, the words _definite_ and
_indefinite_ coincide with the words _weak_ and _strong_ respectively,
except that the former are terms based on the syntax, the latter terms
based on the etymology of the word to which they apply.

_Declension of Weak Substantives in Moeso-Gothic._


          _Singular._               _Plural._

  _Nom._     Áugô (_an eye_)         Áugôna.
  _Acc._     Áugô                    Áugôna.
  _Dat._     Áugin                   Áugam.
  _Gen._     Áugins                  Áugônê.


  _Nom._     Manna (_a man_)         Mannans.
  _Acc._     Mannan                  Mannans.
  _Dat._     Mannin                  Mannam.
  _Gen._     Mannins                 Mannanê.


  _Nom._     Tuggô (_a tongue_)      Tuggôns.
  _Acc._     Tuggôn                  Tuggôns.
  _Dat._     Tuggôn                  Tuggôm.
  _Gen._     Tuggôns                 Tuggônô.


_Declension of Strong Substantives in Moeso-Gothic._


          _Singular._               _Plural._

  _Nom._     Vaúrd (_a word_)        Vaúrda.
  _Acc._     Vaúrd                   Vaúrda.
  _Dat._     Vaúrda                  Vaúrdam.
  _Gen._     Vaúrdis                 Vaúrdê.


  _Nom._     Fisks (_a fish_)        Fiskôs.
  _Acc._     Fisk                    Fiskans.
  _Dat._     Fiska                   Fiskam.
  _Gen._     Fiskis                  Fiskê.


  _Nom._     Brûþs (_a bride_)       Brûþeis.
  _Acc._     Brûþ                    Brûþins.
  _Dat._     Brûþai                  Brûþim.
  _Gen._     Brûþais                 Brûþê.

These may be compared with the Saxon declensions; viz. _aúgô_ with _eáge_,
_manna_ with _nama_, _tuggô_ with _tunge_, _vaúrd_ with _leáf_, _fisks_
with _smið_, and _brûþs_ with _spræc_.

_Declension of Weak (or Definite) Adjectives in Moeso-Gothic._[8]


            _Neuter._        _Masculine._        _Feminine._

  _Nom._     Blindô           Blinda              Blindô.
  _Acc._     Blindô           Blindan             Blindôn.
  _Dat._     Blindin          Blindin             Blindôn.
  _Gen._     Blindins         Blindins            Blindôns.


  _Nom._     Blindôna         Blindans            Blindôns.
  _Acc._     Blindôna         Blindans            Blindôns.
  _Dat._     Blindam          Blindam             Blindôm.
  _Gen._     Blindônê         Blindanê            Blindônô.


_Declension of strong (or indefinite) adjectives in Moeso-Gothic._[9]


  _Nom._     Blindata         Blinds              Blinda.
  _Acc._     Blindata         Blindana            Blinda.
  _Dat._     Blindamma        Blindamma           Blindái.
  _Gen._     Blindis          Blindis             Blindáizôs.


  _Nom._     Blinda           Blindái             Blindôs.
  _Acc._     Blinda           Blindans            Blindôs.
  _Dat._     Blindáim         Blindáim            Blindáim.
  _Gen._     Blindáizê        Blindáizê           Blindáizô.

_Observe_--In the neuter form _blindata_ M. G. we have the sound of _t_, as
in Icelandic. This becomes _z_ (_ts_) in Old High German, and _s_ in modern

The conjugation of the M. G. is as follows. From the Anglo-Saxon it differs
most in its plural persons.

             _Indicative._                   _Subjunctive._

              M.G.      A.S.                  M.G.          A.S.

               _Present._                      _Present._

  _Sing._ 1. Sôk-ja     Lufie.    _Sing._ 1. Sôkjáu      }
          2. Sôk-eis    Lufast.           2. Sôkjáis     } Lufige.
          3. Sôk-eiþ    Lufað.            3. Sôkjái      }
  _Plur._ 1. Sôk-jam    Lufiað.   _Plur._ 1. Sôkjáima    }
          2. Sôk-eiþ    Lufiað.           2. Sôkjáiþ     } Lufion.
          3. Sôk-jand   Lufiað.           3. Sôkjáina    }

                 _Præt._                         _Præt._

  _Sing._ 1. Sôkida     Lufode.   _Sing._ 1. Sôkidêdjáu  }
          2. Sôkides    Lufodest.         2. Sôkidêdeis  } Lufode.
          3. Sôkida     Lufode.           3. Sôkidêdi    }
  _Plur._ 1. Sôkidêdum  Lufodon.  _Plur._ 1. Sôkidêdeima }
          2. Sôkidêduþ  Lufodon.          2. Sôkidêdeiþ  } Lufodon.
          3. Sôkidêdun  Lufodon.          3. Sôkidêdeina }

The conjugation of the auxiliary verb in Moeso-Gothic is as follows. It may
be compared with the A. S. § 89.


    _Indicative. Pres._          _Subjunctive. Pres._

     _Sing._       _Plur._        _Sing._      _Plur._
  1. Im (_I am_)  Sijum.        1. Sijáu        Sijáima.
  2. Is           Sijuþ.        2. Sijáis       Sijáiþ.
  3. Ist          Sind.         3. Sijái        Sijáina.

          _Præt._                       _Præt._

  1. Vas          Vêsum.        1. Vêsjáu       Vêseima.
  2. Vast         Vêsuþ.        2. Vêseis       Vêseiþ.
  3. Vas          Vêsun.        3. Vêsei        Vêseina.

         _Inf._ Visan and Sijan--(_to be_).

             _Part._ Visands--(_being_).

§ 94. The points of likeness or difference between two languages, each of
the Low Germanic division, may be partially collected from the following
comparison between certain Old Frisian and certain Anglo-Saxon inflections.

In the comparison the first point to be noticed is the _Transition of

    _á_ in Frisian corresponds to _eá_ in A. S.; as _dád_, _rád_, _lás_,
    _strám_, _bám_, _cáp_, _áre_, _háp_, Frisian; _deád_, _reád_, _leás_,
    _streám_, _beám_, _ceáp_, _eáre_, _heáp_, Saxon; _dead_, _red_,
    _loose_, _stream_, _tree_ (boom), _bargain_ (cheap, chapman), _ear_,
    _heap_, English.

    _é_ Frisian corresponds to ^a), the A. S. _á_; as _Eth_, _téken_,
    _hél_, _bréd_, Fris.; _áþ_, _tácen_, _hál_, _brád_, Saxon; _oath_,
    _token_, _hale_, _broad_, English;--^b), to A. S. _æ_; _hér_, _déde_,
    _bréda_, Frisian; _hær_, _dæd_, _brædan_, A. S.; _hair_, _deed_,
    _roast_, English.

    _e_ to _ea_ and _æ_ A. S.--Frisian _thet_, A. S. _þæt_, Engl. _that_,
    Fris. _gers_, A. S. _gærs_, Engl. _grass_.--Also to _eo_; _prestere_,
    Fr.; _preost_ A. S., _priest_ Engl.; _berch_ Fr., _beorh_ A. S.; _hill_
    (_berg_, as in _iceberg_) Engl.; _melok_ Fr., _meoloc_ A. S., _milk_

    _i_ to _eo_ A. S.--Fr. _irthe_, A. S. _eorðe_; Fris. _hirte_; A. S.
    _heorte_; Fris. _fir_ A. S. _feor_=in English _earth_, _heart_, _far_.

    _já_=_eo_ A. S.; as _bjada_, _beódan_, _bid_--_thet fjarde_, _feorðe_,
    _the fourth_--_sják_, _seóc_, _sick_.

    _ju_=_y_ or _eo_ A. S.; _rjucht_, _ryth_, _right_--_frjund_, _freond_,
    _friend_. {51}

    _Dsz_=A. S. _cg_; Fr. _sedza_, _lidzja_; A. S. _secgan_, _licgan_;
    Engl. _to say_, _to lie_.

    _Tz_, _ts_, _sz_, _sth_=A. S. _c_ or _ce_; as _szereke_, or _sthereke_,
    Frisian; _cyrice_ A. S., _church_ Engl.; _czetel_ Fr., _cytel_ A. S.,
    _kettle_ English.

    _ch_ Fr.=_h_ A. S., as _thjach_ Fr., _þeóh_ A. S., _thigh_
    Engl.--_berch_, _beórh_, _hill_ (berg)--_dochter_, _dohtor_,
    _daughter_, &c.

As a general statement we may say, that in the transition letters the
Frisian corresponds with the A. S. more closely than it does with any other
language. It must, moreover, be remarked, that, in such pairs of words as
_frjund_ and _freond_, the difference (as far at least as the _e_ and _j_
are concerned) is a mere difference of orthography. Such also is probably
the case with the words _déd_ and _dæd_, and many others.

The Anglo-Saxon inflection of ^a) Substantives ending in a vowel, ^b)
Substantives ending in a consonant, ^c) Adjectives with an indefinite ^d)
Adjectives with a definite sense, ^e) Verbs Active ^f) and verbs auxiliar,
may be seen in the comparison between the A. S. and the Icelandic. The
corresponding inflections in Frisian are as follows:--


                     _Substantives ending in a vowel._

                _Neuter._         _Masculine._         _Feminine._

  _Sing. Nom._   Áre (_an ear_)    Campa (_a champion_) Tunge (_a tongue_).
        _Acc._   Áre               Campa                Tunga.
        _Dat._   Ára               Campa                Tunga.
        _Gen._   Ára               Campa                Tunga.
  _Plur. Nom._   Ára               Campa                Tunga.
        _Acc._   Ára               Campa                Tunga.
        _Dat._   Áron              Campon               Tungon.
        _Gen._   Árona             Campona              Tungona.


                   _Substantives ending in a consonant._

                _Neuter._         _Feminine._

  _Sing. Nom._   Skip (_a ship_)   Hond (_a hand_).
        _Acc._   Skip              Hond.
        _Dat._   Skipe             Hond.
        _Gen._   Skipis            Honde.
  _Plur. Nom._   Skipu             Honda.
        _Acc._   Skipu             Honda.
        _Dat._   Skipum            Hondum (-on).
        _Gen._   Skipa             Honda.

With respect to the masculine substantives terminating in a consonant, it
must be observed that in A. S. there are two modes of declension; in one,
the plural ends in _-s_; in the other, in _-a_. The specimen in § 83
represents the first of these modes only. From this the Frisian is
essentially different. With the second it has a close alliance; _e.g._:--

                _Saxon._         _Frisian._

  _Sing. Nom._   Sunu (_a son_)    Sunu.
        _Acc._   Sunu              Sunu.
        _Dat._   Suna              Suna.
        _Gen._   Suna              Suna.
  _Plur. Nom._   Suna              Suna.
        _Acc._   Suna              Suna.
        _Dat._   Sunum             Sunum.
        _Gen._   Sunena           (Sunena).


  _Indefinite Declension of Adjectives._

                  _Neuter._       _Masculine._     _Feminine._
  _Sing. Nom._      Gód            Gód              Gód.
        _Acc._      Gód            Gódene           Góde.
        _Dat._      Góda (-um)     Góda (-um).      Gódere.
        _Gen._      Gódes          Gódes            Gódere.
  _Plur. Nom._      Góde           Góde             Góde.
        _Acc._      Góde           Góde             Góde.
        _Dat._      Gódum (-a)     Gódum (-a)       Gódum (-a).
        _Gen._      Gódera         Gódera           Gódera.



                  _Neuter._       _Masculine._     _Feminine._
  _Sing. Nom._      Góde           Góda             Góde.
        _Acc._      Góde           Góda             Góda.
        _Dat._      Góda           Góda             Góda.
        _Gen._      Góda           Góda             Góda.
  _Plur. Nom._      Góda           Góda             Góda.
        _Acc._      Góda           Góda             Góda.
        _Dat._      Góda (-on)     Góda (-on)       Góda (-on).
        _Gen._      Góda (-ona)    Góda (-ona)      Góda (-ona).


  _The Persons of the Present Tense._

  _Indicative Mood._

  _Sing._ 1. Berne       _I burn._
          2. Bernst      _Thou burnest._
          3. Bernth      _He burns._
  _Plur._ 1. Bernath     _We burn._
          2. Bernath     _Ye burn._
          3. Bernath     _They burn._

In the inflection of the verbs there is between the Frisian and A. S. this
important difference. In A. S. the infinite ends in _-an_ _macian_, to
make, _læran_, to learn, _bærnan_, to burn; whilst in Frisian it ends in
_-a_, as _maka_, _léra_, _berna_.


  _The Auxiliar Verb_ Wesa, _To Be_.


      _Present._              _Past._

  _Sing._ 1. Ik ben           1. Ik     }
          2.   ?              2. Thú    } Was.
          3. Hi is            3. Hi     }
  _Plur._ 1. Wi  }            1. Wi     }
          2. I   } Send       2. I      } Weron.
          3. Hja }            3. Hja    }


      _Present._              _Past._

  _Sing._ 1. 2. 3. Se         1. 2. 3. Wére.
  _Plur._ 1. 2. 3. Se         1. 2. 3. Wére.
  _Infin. Wesa._     _Pr. Part._ Wesande.    _Past Part._ E-wesen.

The Frisian numerals (to be compared with those of the Anglo-Saxons, p.
43), are as follows:--_Én_, _twá_, _thrjú_, {54} _fjúwer_, _fíf_, _sex_,
_sjúgun_, _achta_, _njugun_, _tian_, &c. Of these the first three take an
inflection, e.g., _En_, like _Gode_ and the adjectives, has both a definite
and an indefinite form, _en_, and _thet ene_; whilst _twa_ and _thrjú_ run
as follows:--_Nom._ and _Acc. Neut._ twa; _Masc._ twene; _Fem._ twa; _Dat._
twam; _Gen._ twira.--_Nom._ and _Acc. Neut._ thrju; _Masc._ thre; _Fem._
thrja; _Dat._ thrim; _Gen._ thrira.

In respect to the Pronouns, there is in the Old Frisian of Friesland no
dual number, as there is in Anglo-Saxon. On the other hand, however, the
Frisians (whilst they have no such form as _his_) possess, like the
Icelandic, the inflected adjectival pronoun _sin_, corresponding to the
Latin _suus_: whilst, like the Anglo-Saxons, and unlike the Icelanders,
they have nothing to correspond with the Latin _se_.

§ 95. In Frisian there is between the demonstrative pronoun used as an
article, and the same word used as a demonstrative in the limited sense of
the term, the following difference of declension:--


                   _Neuter._  _Masculine._  _Feminine._

  _Sing. Nom._    Thet              Thi               Thjú.
        _Acc._    Thet              Thene             Thá.
        _Dat._              Thá                       There.
        _Gen._              Thes                      There.
  _Plur. Nom._                            Thá.
        _Acc._                            Thá.
        _Dat. _                           Thá.
        _Gen._                            Théra.


_The Demonstrative in the limited sense of the word._

                   _Neuter._  _Masculine._  _Feminine._

  _Sing. Nom._    Thet             Thi                 Se.
        _Acc._    Thet             Thene               Se.
        _Dat._             Tham                        There.
        _Gen._             Thes                        There.
  _Plur. Nom._                           Se.
        _Acc._                           Se.
        _Dat._                           Thám.
        _Gen._                           Théra.

The Saxons draw no such a distinction. With them the article and
demonstrative is declined as follows:--

            _Neuter._    _Masculine._  _Feminine._

    _Sing.  Nom._  Þæt      Se         Seo.
           _Acc._  Þæt      Þone       Þá.
           _Dat._       Þam            Þ['æ]re.
           _Gen._       Þæs            Þ['æ]re.
    _Plur.  Nom._                Þá.
           _Acc._                Þá.
           _Dat._                Þám.
           _Gen._                Þára.

§ 96. _Specimen of Glossarial affinity._--Taken from Rask's Preface to his
Frisian Grammar:--

  _Frisian._    _Anglo Saxon._   _English._

  Áge           Eáge             _Eye_.
  Háved         Heáfod           _Head_.
  Kind          Cild             _Child_.
  Erva          Eafora           _Heir_.
  Drochten      Drihten          _Lord_.
  Nacht         Niht             _Night_.
  Réd           R['æ]d           _Council_ (_Rede_).
  Déde          D['æ]d           _Deed_.
  Nose          Nasu             _Nose_.
  Éin           Ágen             _Own_.
  Kápie         Ceapige          _I buy_ (_Chapman_).
  Dua           Don              _To do_.
  Slá           Sleán            _Slay_.
  Gunga         Gangan           _Go_ (_Gang_).

       *       *       *       *       *

§ 97. In this Chapter there has been, thus far, an attempt to do two things
at once. Firstly, to exhibit the _general_ likeness between stocks,
branches, &c.; and secondly, to show the _special_ affinities between
certain languages allied to our {56} own, and of the Gothic Stock. What
follows, consists of certain observations upon two or three points of

§ 98. _German._--The points to remember concerning this term are--

1. That it is no national name, but a name given by the Latins to the
natives of the country called Germania. The word _German_ is foreign to all
the Gothic languages.

2. That it was first applied to proper Germanic tribes in the time of
Julius Cæsar, and that it served to distinguish the Gothic Germans from the
Celtic Gauls.

3. That, anterior to the time of Cæsar, there is no proof of it being
applied as a distinctive designation to any of the tribes to whom it was
afterwards limited. The first tribe to whom it was applied, was (in the
opinion of the present writer) a Gallic tribe.

4. That since the time of Julius Cæsar, its application has been constant,
_i.e._, it has always meant Gothic tribes, or Gothic languages.

5. That sometimes it has been general to the whole nation--_Unde fit ut
tantæ populorum multitudines arctoo sub axe oriantur, ut non immerito
universa illa regio Tanai tenus usque ad occiduum, licet et propriis loca
ea singula nuncupentur nominibus, generali tamen vocabulo Germania
vocitetur ... Gothi, siquidem, Vandalique, Rugi, Heruli, atque Turcilingi,
necnon etiam aliæ feroces ac barbaræ nationes e Germania
prodierunt._--Paulus Diaconus.

6. That sometimes it has been peculiar and distinctive to certain prominent
portions of the nation--_equi frænis_ Germanicis, _sellis_ Saxonicis

7. That the general power of the word has been, with few exceptions,
limited to the Germans of Germany. We do not find either English or
Scandinavian writers calling their countrymen _Germani_.

8. That the two German tribes most generally meant, when the word _German_
is used in a limited sense, are the Franks and the Alemanni.

9. That by a similar latitude the words _Francic_ and {57} _Alemannic_ have
been occasionally used as synonymous with _Germanic_.

10. That the origin of the word _Germani_, in the Latin language, is a
point upon which there are two hypotheses.

_a._ That it is connected with the Latin word _Germani_=_brothers_, meaning
either tribes akin to one another, or tribes in a degree of _brotherly_
alliance with Rome.

_b._ That it grew out of some such German word as _Herman_, _Irmin_,
_Wehrmann_, or the _Herm-_ in _Hermunduri_, _Hermiones_, &c.

Neither of these views satisfies the present writer.

For all the facts concerning the word _Germani_, see the Introduction to
the third edition of the Deutsche Grammar.

§ 99. _Dutch._--For the purposes of Philology the meaning given to this
word is inconvenient. In England, it means the language of the people of

In Germany, Holland, and Scandinavia, it means the language of the people
of Germany in _general_; and this _general_ power of the word is retained
even with us in the expression High-Dutch, and Low-Dutch. In the present
work the term is avoided as much as possible. Nevertheless, wherever it
occurs it means the Dutch of Holland.

The origin of the word has been a subject of much investigation; the
question, however, may be considered to be settled by the remarks of Grimm,
D. G.--_Introduction to the third edition_.

1. It was originally no national name at all.

2. In the earliest passage where it occurs, the derivative form _þiudiskô_
corresponds with the Greek word [Greek: ethnikôs]--_The Moeso-Gothic
Translation of the New Testament_--_Galatians_, ii. 14.

3. The derivation of the word from the substantive _þiudu_=_a people_, _a
nation_, is undoubted.

4. So also is the derivation of the modern word _Dutch_, in all its varied
forms:--Old High-German, _Diutisc_; Anglo-Saxon, _Þeódisc_; Latin,
_Theodisca_, _Theudisca_, _Teutisca_; Italian, _Tedesco_; Danish, _Tyske_;
English, _Dutch_; the latter part of the word being the adjectival ending
_-isc_=_ish_. {58}

5. The original meaning being _of, or belonging to, the people_, or _of, or
belonging to, the nation_, secondary meanings grew out of it.

6. Of these the most remarkable are _a_) the power given to the word in
Ulphilas (_heathen_), illustrated by the similarly secondary power of the
Greek [Greek: ethnikos]; _b_) the meaning _vernacular_, _provincial_ or
_vulgar_ given to it as applied to language.

7. This latter power was probably given to it about the ninth century.

8. That it was not given much before, is inferred from negative evidence.
The word _theotisca_ is not found in the Latin writers of the sixth,
seventh, and eighth centuries, although there are plenty of passages where
it might well have been used had it existed. The terms really used are
either _patrius sermo_, _sermo barbaricus_, _sermo vulgaricus_, _lingua
rustica_; or else the names of particular tribes, as _lingua Anglorum_,

9. That it was current in the ninth century is evident from a variety of
quotations:--_Ut quilibet episcopus homilias aperte transferre studeat in
rusticam Romanam linguam, aut _þeotiscam_, quo tandem cuncti possint
intelligere quæ dicantur._--Synodus Turonensis. _Quod in lingua _Thiudisca_
scaftlegi, id est armorum depositio, vocatur._--Capit. Wormatiense. _De
collectis quas _Theudisca_ lingua heriszuph appellat._--Conventus
Silvacensis. _Si _barbara_, quam _Teutiscam_ dicunt, lingua
loqueretur._--Vita Adalhardi, &c.--D.G., i. p. 14, _Introduction_.

10. That its present national sense is wholly secondary and derivative, and
that originally it was no more the name of a people or a language than the
word _vulgate_ in the expression _the vulgate translation of the
Scriptures_ is the name of a people or a language.

§ 100. _Teutonic._--About the tenth century the Latin writers upon German
affairs began to use not only the words _Theotiscus_ and _Theotiscé_, but
also the words _Teutonicus_ and _Teutonicé_. Upon this, Grimm remarks that
the latter term sounded more learned; since _Teutonicus_ was a classical
word, an adjective derived from the Gentile name of the Teutones conquered
by Manus. Be it so. It then follows that the connexion between _Teutonicus_
and _Theotiscus_ is a mere accident, the origin {59} of the two words being
different. The worthlessness of all evidence concerning the Germanic origin
of the Teutonic tribes conquered by Marius, based upon the connexion
between the word _Teuton_ and Dutch, has been pointed out by the present
writer in the 17th number of the Philological Transactions.[10] All that is
proved is this, _viz._, that out of the confusion between the two words
arose a confusion between the two nations. These last may or may not have
been of the same race.

§ 101. _Anglo-Saxon_--In the ninth century the language of England was
_Angle_, or _English_. The _lingua Anglorum_ of Bede is translated by
Alfred _on englisce_. The term _Saxon_ was in use also at an early (perhaps
an equally early) date--_fures quos_ Saxonice _dicimus vergeld_ þeóvas. The
compound term _Anglo-Saxon_ is later.--Grimm, _Introduction to the third
edition of_ D.G., p. 2.

§ 102. _Icelandic, Old Norse._--Although _Icelandic_ is the usual name for
the mother-tongue of the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, the Norwegian
philologists generally prefer the term _Old Norse_.

In favour of this view is the fact that Norway was the mother-country,
Iceland the colony, and that much of what is called Old Icelandic was
composed in Norway.

Still the reason is insufficient; since the present term _Icelandic_ is
given to the language not because Iceland _was_ the country that
_produced_, but because it is the country that has _preserved_ it.

This leads to the argument in its most general form--should a language be
named from the colony, or from the mother-country? The Norwegians say from
the mother-country. Let us consider this.

Suppose that whilst the Latin of Virgil and Cicero in Italy had been
changing into the modern Italian, in some old Roman colony (say Sardinia)
it had remained either wholly {60} unaltered, or else, altered so little as
for the modern _Sardinian_--provided he could read at all--to be able to
read the authors of the Augustan age, just like those of the era of Charles
Albert; no other portion of the old Roman territory--not even Rome
itself--having any tongue more like to that of the Classical writers, than
the most antiquated dialect of the present Italian. Suppose, too, that the
term _Latin_ had become obsolete, would it be imperative upon us to call
the language of the Classics _Old Italian_, _Old Roman_, or at least _Old
Latin_, when no modern native of Rome, Latium, or Italy could read them?
Would it be wrong to call it _Sardinian_ when every Sarde _could_ read
them? I think not. _Mutatis mutandis_, this is the case with Iceland and

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 103. The population and, to a certain extent, the language of England,
have been formed of three elements, which in the most general way may be
expressed as follows:--

_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.

§ 104. Each of these requires a special analysis, but that of the second
will be taken first, and will 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 wholly or partially occupied,
and the tribes and nations with which they were conterminous whilst in
Germany. 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 divisions?

Questions like these require notice, and in a more advanced state of what
may be called _minute ethnographical_ {62} _philology_ will obtain more of
it than has hitherto been their share. At present our facts are few, and
our methods of investigation imperfect.

§ 105. In respect to this last, it is necessary to distinguish between the
opinions based on _external_, and the opinions based on _internal_
evidence. To the former class belong the testimonies of cotemporary
records, or (wanting these) of records based upon transmitted, but
cotemporary, evidence. To the latter belong the inferences drawn from
similarity of language, name, and other ethnological _data_. Of such, a
portion only will be considered in the present chapter; not that they have
no proper place in it, but because the minuter investigation of an
important section of these (_i.e._, the subject of the _English dialects_)
will be treated as a separate subject elsewhere.

§ 106. _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=_the 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 definitude and
preponderance are not so manifest in Germany as we infer (from the terms
_England_ and _English_) it to have been in Britain. Nay more, their
historical place amongst the nations of Germany, and within the German
area, is both insignificant and doubtful; 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
Saxons. The following, however, are the chief facts that form the
foundation for our inferences.

§ 107. 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 {63} name by
which the present English are known to the Welsh, Armorican, and Gaelic

  Welsh               _Saxon_.
  Armorican           _Soson_.
  Gaelic              _Sassenach_.

§ 108. 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
trans-marinæ_, occurs as applied to England.

§ 109. Although they are the section of the immigration which gave the name
to _England_, &c., the material notice of them as Germans of Germany, are
limited to the following facts.

_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 proeliis 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."[11]

_Extract from Ptolemy._--This connects the Angles with {64} the _Suevi_,
and _Langobardi_, and places them on the Middle Elbe.

[Greek: Entos kai mesogeiôn ethnôn megista men esti to, te tôn Souêbôn tôn
Angeilôn, hoi eisin anatolikôteroi tôn Langobardôn, anateinontes pros tas
arktous mechri tôn mesôn tou Albios potamou.]

_Extract from Procopius._--For this see § 129.

_Heading of a law referred to the age of Charlemagne._--This connects them
with the Werini (Varni), and the Thuringians--"Incipit lex _Angliorum_ et
_Verinorum_ (_Varni_); hoc est _Thuringorum_."--Zeuss, 495, and Grimm.

§ 110. These notices agree in giving the Angles a German locality, and in
connecting them ethnologically, and philologically with the Germans of
Germany. The notices that follow, traverse this view of the question, by
indicating a slightly different area, and Danish rather than German

_Extracts connecting them with the inhabitants of the Cimbric
Peninsula._--_a._ The quotation from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of § 16.

_b._ From Bede; "Porro de Anglis, hoc est illa patria, quæ _Angulus_
dicitur, et ab eo tempore usque hodie, manere desertus inter provincias
Jutarum et Saxonum perhibetur."--Angl. i. 15.

_c._ From Alfred, "And be wæstan eald Seaxum is Albe muða þære ea and
Frisland. And þanon west norð is þæt land, the man _Angle_, hæt and
Sillende, and summe dæl Dena."[12]--Oros. p. 20.

Also, speaking of Other's voyage,[13] "He seglode to þæm porte þe man hæt
Hæþum; se stent betwuhs Winedum and Seaxum, and _Angle_, and hyrð in on
Dene ... and þa {65} twegen dagas ær he to Hædhum come, him wæs on þæt
steorbord Gothland and Sillende and iglanda fela. On þæm landum eardodon
Engle, ær hi hiðer on land comon."[14]--Oros. p. 23.

d. From Etherwerd, writing in the eleventh century--"_Anglia_ vetus sita
est inter Saxones et Giotos, habens oppidum capitale, quod sermone Saxonico
_Sleswic_ nuncupatur, secundum vero Danos _Hathaby_."[14]

§ 111. _The district called Angle._--The district of _Anglen_, so called
(where it is mentioned at all) at the present moment, is a part of the
Dutchy of Sleswick, which is literally an _Angle_; _i.e._, a triangle of
irregular shape, formed by the Schlie, the Flensborger Fiord, and a line
drawn from Flensborg to Sleswick; every geographical name in it being, at
present, Danish, whatever it may have been previously. Thus some villages
end in _bye_ (Danish=_town_) as Hus-_bye_, Herreds-_bye_, Ulse-_bye_, &c.;
some in _gaard_ (=_house_), as _Oegaard_; whilst the other Danish forms are
_skov_=_wood_ (_shaw_), _hofved_=_head_, _lund_=_grove_, &c. In short it
has nothing to distinguish it from the other parts of the peninsula.

§ 112. Add to these the Danish expression, that _Dan_ and _Angul_ were
brothers, as the exponent of a recognised relationship between the two
populations, and we have a view of the evidence in favour of the Danish

§ 113. _Inferences and remarks._--_a._ That whilst the root _Angl-_ in
Tacitus, Ptolemy, Procopius, and the Leges Anglorum, &c., is the name of a
_people_, the root _Angl-_ in the _Anglen_ of Sleswick, is the name of a
district; a fact which is further confirmed by the circumstance of there
being in at least one other part of Scandinavia, a district with a similar
name--"Hann átti bu a Halogolandi i _Aungli_."[14]--Heimskringla, iii. 454.

_b._ That the derivation of the _Angles_ of England from the _Anglen_ of
Sleswick is an inference of the same kind with the one respecting the Jutes
(see § 20), made by the same writers, probably on the same principle, and
most likely incorrectly.

_c._ That the Angles of England were the Angli of Tacitus, {66} Ptolemy,
Procopius, and the Leges Anglorum et Werinorum, whatever these were.

§ 114. What were the _Langobardi_, with whom the Angles were connected by
Tacitus? The most important facts to be known concerning them are, (1) that
the general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to the
_High_-German, or Moeso-Gothic division, rather than to the _Low_; (2) that
their original locality either reached or lay beyond the Elbe; a locality,
which, in the tenth century, was _Slavonic_, and which, in the opinion of
the present writer, we have no reason to consider to have been other than
Slavonic during the nine preceding ones.--That they were partially, at
least, on this side of the Elbe, we learn from the following:--"Receptæ
Cauchorum nationes, fracti Langobardi, gens etiam Germanis feritate
ferocior; denique usque ad flumen Albim ... Romanus cum signis perductus
exercitus."[15]--Velleius Paterc. ii. 106.

§ 115. What were the _Suevi_, with whom the Angles were connected by
Tacitus? The most important facts to be known concerning them are, (1) that
the general opinion is in favour of their having belonged to the
_High_-German or Moeso-Gothic, division, rather than to the _Low_; (2) that
their original locality either reached or lay beyond the Elbe; a locality,
which, in the tenth century, was _Slavonic_, and which, in the opinion of
the present writer, we have no reason to consider to have been other than
Slavonic during the nine preceding ones. In other words, what applies to
the Langobardi applies to the Suevi also.

What the Suevi were, the Semnones were also, "Vetustissimos se
nobilissimosque Suevorum Semnones memorant." Tac. Germ., 39. Speaking, too,
of their great extension, he says, _centum pagi ab iis habitantur_.[15]

Velleius states that there were Suevi on the west of the Middle Elbe,
Ptolemy, that there were Suevi to the east of it, _i.e._, as far as the
River Suebus (Oder?).--[Greek: Kai to tôn Souêbôn tôn Semnonôn, hoitines
diêkousi meta ton Albin apo tou eirêmenou merous] {67} (the middle Elbe)
[Greek: pros anatolas mechri tou Souêbou potamou].[16]

In the letter of Theodeberht to the Emperor Justinian, we find the
_North_-Suevians mentioned along with the Thuringians, as having been
conquered by the Franks; "Subactis Thuringis ... _Norsavorum_ gentis nobis
placata majestas colla subdidit."[16]

§ 116. 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, [Greek: Ouarnoi]) with either the
High-German, or the Moeso-Gothic divisions, there are in favour of their
being Slavonic in locality, the same facts as applied to the Suevi and
Langobardi, with the additional one, that the name probably exists at
present in the River _Warnow_, of Mecklenburg Schwerin, at the mouth of
which (Warnemunde) the town of Rostock stands.

§ 117. What were the _Thuringians_, with whom the Angles are connected in
the _Leges Anglorum_, &c.; Germanic in locality, and most probably allied
to the Goths of Moesia in language.

§ 118. Of the Reudigni, Eudoses, Nuithones, Suardones, and Aviones, too
little is known in detail to make the details an inquiry of importance.
Respecting them all, it may be said at once, that whatever may be the
Germanic affinities involved in their connection with the Suevi,
Langobardi, Angli, &c., they are traversed by the fact of their locality
being in the tenth century Slavonic.

§ 119. The last tribe which will be mentioned, is that of the _Angrarii_,
most probably another form of the _Angrivarii_ of Tacitus, the name of the
occupants of the valley of the Aller, the northern confluent of the Weser.

As this word is compound (-_varii_=_ware_=_inhabitants_), the root remains
_Angr-_, a word which only requires the _r_ to become _l_ in order to make
_Angl-_. As both the locality and the relation to the Saxons, make the
_Angrivarian_ locality one of the best we could assume for the _Angles_,
the only {68} difficulty lies in the change from _r_ to _l_. Unfortunately,
this, in the Saxon-German, is an unlikely one.

§ 120. The last fact connected with the Angles, will be found in a more
expanded form in the Chapter on the Dialects of the English Language. It
relates to the distribution over the conquered parts of Britain. Their
chief area was the Midland and Eastern counties, Norfolk, Suffolk,
Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Leicestershire, &c., rather than the parts
south of the Thames, which were Saxon, and those north of the Wash, where
Danish influences have been considerable.

§ 121. 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_ Varni,
Eudoses, Suardones, &c.; 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 _Angle_ and Saxon, 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

§ 122. By considering the Angles as Saxons under another name (or _vice
versâ_), and by treating the statement as to the existence of Jutes in
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight as wholly unhistorical, we get, as a
general expression for the Anglo-Germanic immigration, that it consisted of
the closely allied tribes of the North-Saxon area, an expression that
implies a general uniformity of population. Is there reason to think that
the uniformity was absolute?

§ 123. The following series of facts, when put together, will prepare us
for a fresh train of reasoning concerning the different geographical and
ethnological relations of the {69} immigrants into England, during their
previous habitation in Germany.

1. The termination _-as_ is, like the _-s_ in the modern English, the sign
of the plural number in Anglo-Saxon.

2. The termination _-ing_ denotes, _in the first instance_, a certain
number of individuals collected together, and united with each other as a
clan, tribe, family, household.

3. In doing this, it generally indicates a relationship of a _personal_ or
_political_ character. Thus two _Baningas_ might be connected with each
other, and (as such) indicated by the same term from any of the following
causes--relationship, subordination to the same chief, origin from the same
locality, &c.

4. Of these _personal_ connections, the one which is considered to be the
commonest is that of _descent_ from a common ancestor, so that the
termination _-ing_ in this case, is a real _patronymic_.

5. Such an ancestor need not be real; indeed, he rarely if ever is so. Like
the _eponymus_ of the classical writers, he is the hypothetical, or
mythological, progenitor of the clan, sept, or tribe, as the case may be;
_i.e._, as Æolus, Dorus, and Ion to the Æolians, Dorians, and Ionians.

Now, by admitting these facts without limitation, and by applying them
freely and boldly to the Germanic population of England, we arrive at the
following inferences.

1. That where we meet two (or more) households, families, tribes, clans, or
septs of the same name (that name ending in _-ing_), in different parts of
England, we may connect them with each other, either directly or
indirectly; directly when we look on the second as an offset from the
first; indirectly, when we derive both from some third source.

2. That when we find families, tribes, &c., of the same name, both in
Britain and in Germany, we may derive the English ones from the

Now neither of these views is hypothetical. On the contrary each is a real
fact. Thus in respect to divisions of the population, designated by names
ending in _-ing_, we have

1. In Essex, Somerset, and Sussex,--_Æstingas_.

2. In Kent, Dorset, Devonshire, and Lincoln,--_Alingas_. {70}

3. In Sussex, Berks, and Northamptonshire,--_Ardingas_.

4. In Devonshire, Gloucestershire, and Sussex,--_Arlingas_.

5. In Herts, Kent, Lincolnshire, and Salop,--_Baningas_.

6. In Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, and the Isle of

7. In Kent, Devonshire, Lincolnshire, Herefordshire, Salop, and

8. In Bedford, Durham, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk,
Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Salop, Sussex, and the Isle of
Wight,--_Billingas_, &c.--the list being taken from Mr. Kemble, vol. i. p.

§ 124. On the other hand, the following Anglo-Saxon names in _-ing_,
reappear in different parts of Germany, sometimes in definite geographical
localities, as the occupants of particular districts, sometimes as
mentioned in poems without further notice.

1. _Wælsingas_,--as the Volsungar of the Iceland, and the Wælsingen of the
German heroic legends.

2. _Herelingas_,--mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon poem known by the name of
the Traveller's Song, containing a long list of the Gothic tribes,
families, nations, &c.

3. _Brentingas._--Ibid.

4. _Scyldingas._--Ibid.

5. _Scylfingas._--Ibid.

6. _Ardingas._

7. _Baningas_, Traveller's Song, mentioned as the subjects of Becca.

8. _Helsingas._--Ibid.

9. _Myrgingas._--Ibid.

10. _Hundingas._--Ibid.

11. _Hocingas._--Ibid.

12. _Seringas._--Ibid.

13. _Dhyringas_=Thuringians. (?)

14. _Bleccingas._

15. _Gytingas._

16. _Scydingas._

17. _Dylingas._

§ 125. We will still, for argument's sake, and for the sake {71} of the
illustration of an ethnological method, take these names along with the
observations by which they were preceded, as if they were wholly
unexceptionable; and, having done this, ask how far each is known as
_German_. So doing, we must make two divisions:

_a._ Those which we have no reason to think other than Angle or Saxon.

_b._ Those which indicate elements of the migration other than Angle or

§ 126. _Patronymics which do not necessarily denote a non-Saxon
element._--Of these, the following are so little known, that they may pass
as Saxons, simply because we have no grounds for thinking them aught else;
the Brentings, Banings, Helsings, Serings, Ardings, Hundings, Blekings,
Herelings, Gytings, Scydings, Dylings. The Scyldings and Scefings, belong,
in a more positive way, to the Anglo-Saxon division; since their eponymi,
Scyld and Sceaf, form a portion of the Anglo-Saxon mythology.

§ 127. _Patronymics indicating a non-Saxon, rather than a Saxon
element._--_a._ The Wælsings--In the way of tradition and mythology, this
is a _Frank_ gentile name.

_b._ The Myrgings.--_Ditto._ This is the German form of the Merovingians.

_c._ The Hocings.--This is the German form of the Chauci, and, as such, a
Frisian gentile name.

d. The Dhyrings.--Perhaps Thuringians of Thuringia.

Thus, then, if we still assume that the method in question is
unexceptionable, we have, from the evidence of what may be called either
the _gentile forms_, or the _patronymics_ in _-ing_, reasons for believing
that Frank _Myrgings_, Frisian _Hocings_, and Thuringian _Dhyrings_, formed
part of the invasion--these, at least; possibly others besides.

And why should the reason be other than unexceptionable? Do we not in North
America, believe, that, _as a general rule_, the families with particular
names, coincide with the families so-called in England; that the names of
certain places, _sometimes_, at least, indicate a population originating in
places similarly designated here? that the Smiths and Johnstons {72} are
English in origin, and that O'Connors and O'Neils are Irish? We certainly
believe all this, and, in many cases, we believe it, on the ground of the
identity of name only.

§ 128. _Exceptions._--Still there are exceptions. Of these the most
important are as follows:--

1. The termination _-ing_ is sometimes added to an undoubtedly British
root, so as to have originated within the island, rather than to have been
brought from the continent, _e.g._, the _Kent-ings_=_the people of Kent_.
In such a case, the similarity to a German name, if it exist at all, exists
as an accident.

2. The same, or nearly the same, name may not only occur in different parts
of one and the same division of the Germanic areas, but in different ones,
_e.g._, the Dhyrings _may_ denote the Thuringians of Thuringia; but they
may also denote the people of a district, or town, in Belgium, designated
as _Dorringen_.[17]

Still as a method, the one in question should be understood; although it
has been too short a time before the learned world to have borne fruit.

N.B.--What applies to the coincidence of _gentile_ or _patronymic_ names on
the two sides of the water, applies also to dialects; _e.g._, if (say) the
Kentish differed from the other dialects of England, just in the same way,
and with the same peculiar words and forms, as (say) the Verden dialect
differed from the ones of Germany, we might fairly argue, that it was from
the district of Verden that the county of Kent is peopled. At present we
are writing simply for the sake of illustrating certain philological
methods. The question of dialect will be treated in Part VII.

§ 129. _German tribes where there is no direct evidence as to their having
made part of the population of England, but where the _à priori_
probabilities are strongly in their favour._ This applies to--_a._ The
Batavians. No direct evidence, but great _à priori_ probability.

_b._ _The Frisians._--Great _à priori_ probability, and {73} something
more; [Greek: Brittian de tên nêson ethnê tria poluanthrôpotata echousi,
basileus te heis autôn hekastôi ephestêken, onomata de keitai tois ethnesi
toutois Angiloi te kai Phrissones kai hoi têi nêsôi homônumoi Brittônes.
Tosautê de hê tônde tôn ethnôn poluanthrôpia phainetai ousa hôste ana pan
etos kata pollous enthende metanistamenoi xun gunaixi kai paisin es
Phrangous chôrousin].[18]--Procop. B. G. iv. 20.

§ 130. I believe, for my own part, there were portions in the early
Germanic population of Britain, which were not strictly either Angle or
Saxon (Anglo-Saxon); but I do this without thinking that it bore any great
ratio to the remainder, and without even guessing at what that ratio was,
or whereabouts its different component elements were located--the Frisians
and Batavians being the most probable. With this view, there may have been
Jutes as well; notwithstanding what has been said in §§ 16-20; since the
reasoning there is not so against a Jute element _in toto_, as against that
particular Jute element, in which Beda, Alfred, and the later writers
believed and believe.

§ 131. No exception against the existence of Batavian, Frisian, Frank, and
other elements not strictly Anglo-Saxon, is to be taken from the absence of
traces of such in the present language, and that for the following reason.
_Languages which differ in an older form may so far change according to a
common principle, as to become identical in a newer one._ _E.g._, the
Frisian infinitive in verbs ends in _-a_, (as _bærna_=_to burn_), the Saxon
in _-an_ (as _bærnan_=_to burn_). Here is a difference. Let, however, the
same change affect both languages; that change being the abandonment, on
both sides, of the infinitive termination altogether. What follows? even
that the two originally different forms _bærn-a_, and _bærn-an_, both come
out _bærn_ (_burn_); so that the result is the same, though the original
forms were different.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 132. 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.



_The Lord's Prayer in Cornish._

    _Old Cornish._

    An Taz, ny es yn nêf, bethens thy hannow ughelles, gwrênz doz thy gulas
    ker: bethens thy voth gwrâz yn oar kepare hag yn nêf: ro thyn ny hithow
    agan peb dyth bara; gava thyn ny ny agan cam, kepare ha gava ny neb es
    cam ma erbyn ny; nyn homfrek ny en antel, mez gwyth ny the worth drok:
    rag gans te yn an mighterneth, and creveder, hag an' worryans, byz a

    _Modern Cornish._

    Agan Taz, leb ez en nêv, benigas beth de hanno, gurra de gulasketh
    deaz, de voth beth gwrêz en' oar pokar en nêv; ro dony hithow agan pyb
    dyth bara; ha gava do ny agan cabmow, pokara ny gava an gy leb es cam
    mo war bidn ny; ha na dege ny en antail, brez gwitha ny dort droge; rag
    an mychteyrneth ew chee do honnen, ha an crêvder, ha an 'worryans, rag
    bisqueth ha bisqueth.


_Welsh_ (Cambrian).

_Luke_ XV. 11. 19.

_The Prodigal Son._

    11. Yr oedd gan ryw wr ddau fab:

    12. A 'r jeuangaf o honynt a ddwedoddwrth _ei_ dâdd, Fy nhâd, dyro i mi
    y rhan a ddigwydd o 'r da. Ac efe a ranodd iddynt _ei_ fywyd.

    13. Ac yn ôl ychydig ddyddiau y mâb jeuangaf a gasglodd y cwbl ynghyd,
    ac a gymmerth ei daith i wlâd bell; ac yno efe a wasgarodd ei dda, gan
    fyw yn affrallon.

    14. Ac wedi iddo dreulio 'r cwbl, y cododd newyn mawr trwy 'r wlâd
    honno; ac yntef a ddechreuodd fod mewn eisiau.

    15. Ac efe a aeth, ac a lynodd wrth un o ddinaswyr y wlâd honno; ac efe
    a 'i hanfonodd ef i 'w faefydd i borthi môch.

    16. Ac efe a chwennychai lenwi ei fol â 'r cibaua fwytai 'r môch; ac ni
    roddodd neb iddo.

    17. A phan ddaeth arto ei hur, efe addywedodd, Pa sawl gwâs cyflog o 'r
    eiddo fy nhâd sydd yn cael eu gwala a 'i gweddill o fara, a minnau yn
    marw o newyn!

    18. Mi a godaf, ac a âf at fy nhâd, ac a ddwyedaf wrtho, Fy nhâd,
    pechais yn erbyn y nef, ac o'th flaen dithau.

    19. Ac mwyach nid ydwyf deilwng i 'm galw yn fâb i ti: gwna si fel un
    o'th weision cyflog.

_Armorican of Bas-Bretagne_ (Cambrian).


    11. Eunn dén en doa daou vab.

    12. Hag ar iaouanka anézhô a lavaraz d'he dâd.--Va zâd, ro d'in al
    lôden zanvez a zigouéz d'in. Hag hén a rannaz hé zanvez gant ho.

    13. Hag eunn nébeûd dervésiou goudé, ar mâb iaounka, ô véza dastumet
    kémend en doa en em lékéaz enn hent évit mond étrézég eur vrô bell
    meûrbeá, hag énô é tispiñaz hé zanvez ô véva gant gadélez.

    14. Ha pa en doé dispiñet kémend en doa, é c'hoarvézaz eunn naounégez
    vrâz er vrô-ze, hag é teûaz, da ézommékaat.

    15. Kuîd éz éaz eta, hag en em lakaad a réaz é gópr gand eunn dén eûz
    ar vro. Hag hé man hen kasaz enn eunn ti d'ézhan war ar méaz, évit mesa
    ar môc'h.

    16. C'hoantéed en divije leûña he góf gand ar c'hlosou a zebré ar
    môc'h: ha dén na rôé d'ézhan.

    17. Hôgen ô veza distrôed d'ezhan hé unar, é lavaraz: a béd gôpraer zo
    é ti va zâd hag en deûz bara é leiz, ha mé a varv aman gand ann naoun!

    {76} 18. Sévet a rinn, hag éz inn étrézé va zad, hag é livirinn
    d'ezhan: Va zâd, pech 'ed em euz a eneb ann env hag enu da enep.

    19. N'ounn két talvoudek pello 'ch da véza galved da vâb: Va zigémer
    ével unar euz da c'hôpraerien.


_Irish Gaelic_ (Gaelic).


    11. Do bhádar diás mac ag duine áirighe:

    12. Agus a dubhairt an ti dob óige aca re _na_ athair, Athair, tabhair
    dhamh an chuid roitheas _misi_ dod mhaóin. Agus do roim seision a
    mhaoin eatorra.

    13. Agus tar éis bheagáin aimsire ag cruinniughadh a choda uile don
    mhac dob óige, do chúaidh sé air coigcrigh a dtalamh imchian, agus do
    dhiombail se ann sin a mhaóin lé na bheathaidh báoth-chaithfigh.

    14. Agus tar éis a choda uile do chaitheamh dho, deirigh gorta romhór
    ann sa tír sin; agus do thosaigh seision ar bheith a ríachdanus.

    15. Agus do imthigh sé roimhe agus do cheangal sé e féin do
    cháthruightheoir don tír sin; noch do chuir fá na dhúichte a mach é do
    bhúachuilleachd muc.

    16. Agus bá mhián leis a bholg do línoadh do na féithléoguibh do
    ithidís na muca: agus ní thugadh éunduine dhó íad.

    17. Agus an tan do chuimhnigh sé air féin, a dubhairt sé, Gá mhéd do
    luchd tuarasdail matharsa aga bhfúil iomarcdid aráin, agus misi ag dul
    a múghd lé gorta!

    18. Eíréochaidh mé agus rachaidh mé dionnsuighe mathair, agus deáruidh
    me ris; A athair! do pheacaid mé a naghaidh neimhe agusad

    19. Agus ní fiú mé feasda do mhacsa do ghairm dhoim: déana mé mar áon
    dod luchd thuarasduil.

_Scotch Gaelic_ (Gaelic).


    11. Bha aig duine àraidh dithis mhac:

    12. Agus thubhairt _mac_ a b'òige dhiubh r' _a athair_, Athair, thoir
    dhomhsa chuid-roim a thig _orm_, do _d_ mhaoin. Agus roinn e eatorra a

    13. Agus an déigh beagain do láithibh, chruinnich am mac a b'òige a
    chuid uile, agus ghabh e a thurus do dhùthaich fad air astar, agus an
    sin chaith e a mhaoin le beatha struidheasaich.

    14. Agus an uair achaith e a _chuid_ uile, dh' éirich gorta ro mhòr san
    tír sin; agus thoisich e ri bhi ann an uireasbhuidh.

    15. Agus chaidh e agus cheangail se e féin ri aon do shaor-dhaoinibh na
    dùcha sin: agus chuir ed' fhearan e, a bhiadhadh mhuc.

    {77} 16. Agus bu mhiann leis a bhrú a liònadh do na plaosgaibh a bha na
    mucan ag itheadh; oir cha d' thug neach air bith dha.

    17. Agus un uair a thainig e chuige féin, thubhairt e, Cia lìon do
    luchd tuarasdail m'atharsa aig am bheil aran gu leoir agus r' a
    sheach-nadh, 'nuair a ta mise a' bàsachadh le gorta!

    18. Eiridh me, agus théid omi dh' ionnsuidh m' athar, agus their mi ris
    athair, pheaeaich mi 'n aghaidh fhlaitheanais, agus a' d' là thairsa.

    19. Agus cha 'n fhiu mi tuilleadh gu 'n goirte do mhacsa dhiom: deon mi
    mar aon do d' luchd tuarasdail.

_Manks_ (Gaelic).


    11. Va daa vac ec dooinney dy row:

    12. As doort y fer saa rish e ayr; Ayr! cur dooys yh ayrn dy chooid ta
    my chour. As rheynn eh e chooid orroo.

    13. As laghyn ny lurg shen, hymsee yn mac saa ooilley cooidjagh as ghow
    eh jurnah gys cheer foddey, as ayns shen hug he jummal er e chooid
    liorish baghey rouanagh.

    14. As tra va ooilley baarit eihey, dirree genney vooar ayns y cheer
    shen; as ren eh toshiaght dy ve ayns feme.

    15. As hie eh as daill eh eh-hene rish cummaltagh jeh'n cheer shen; as
    hug eshyn eh magh gys ny magheryn echey dy ve son bochilley muickey.

    16. As by-vian lesh e volg y lhieeney lesh ny bleaystyn va ny muckyn dy
    ee: as cha row dooinney erbee hug eooney da.

    17. As tra v'eh er jeet huggey hene, dooyrt eh, Nagh nhimmey sharvaant
    failt t'ee my ayr ta nyn saie arran oe, as fooilliagh, as ta mish goll
    mow laecal beaghey!

    18. Trog-ym orrym, as hem roym gys my ayr, as jir-ym rish, Ayr! ta mee
    er n'yannoo peecah noi niau, as kiongoyrt rhyt's.

    19. As cha vel mee ny-sodjey feeu dy ve enmyssit dty vac: dell rhym myr
    rish fer jeh dty harvaantyr failt.

§ 133. 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 {78}
the Celtic tongues are preeminently uninflected in the way of _declension_.

§ 134.--2. _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 inflexion
in the process of formation, and (as such) exhibiting an early stage of

§ 135. _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_.

  Gwâs, _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.         Eivam, _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_.

§ 136. When we have seen that one of the great characteristics of the
Celtic tongues is to express inflection by initial changes, we may ask how
far the principle of such change is common to the two branches--British or
Gaelic; this and a few other details being quite sufficient to show the
affinity between them.

_Inflections formed by Changes of Initial Consonants._

The changes in Welsh, classified according to the relationship of the
sounds are--

1. From the sharp lenes to the corresponding flats; as _p_ to _b_, _t_ to
_d_, _c_ to _g_. The changes in Irish are the same.

2. From the flat lenes to their corresponding so-called aspirates; as _b_
to _v_, _d_ to _ð_. This is the change in Welsh. In Irish we have the same,
but only as far as _b_ is concerned; the aspirate of _d_ (_ð_) being
wanting in that language. In neither Welsh nor Irish occurs the true
aspirate of _g_. In neither Welsh nor Irish occurs the true aspirate of
_c_; which, being wanting, is replaced by the sound of the _ch_ in the
German _auch_, here spelt _ç_.

Now the Welsh grammarians deal with the changes from sharp to flat, and
from lene to aspirate, alike; since, in respect to the grammar of their
language, they are enabled to state that they take place under the same
circumstances. {80} Taken collectively they are called light: and words
wherein _p_ is changed to _b_, and those wherein _b_ is changed to _v_, are
equally said to assume the light sound. This the Welsh express in spelling,
and write _ben_ for _pen_, and _vraint_ for _braint_, &c. In Irish the
arrangement is different. When a so-called aspirate is substituted for a
lene, the word is said to take an aspiration, and _bheul_ is written
_beul_. If, however, the sharp be made flat, the original sound is said to
be eclipsed. In spelling, however, it is preserved; so that _teine_, with
the _t_ changed, is written _dteine_, and pronounced _deine_. With this
view we can now ask how far the change from _p_ to _b_, _t_ to _d_, _c_ to
_g_, _b_ to _v_, _c_ to _ç_, takes place in Irish and Welsh under similar

In _Welsh_--after all verbs, except those of the infinitive mood; as
_caravi gaer_ (for _caer_)=_I love a fort_.

In _Irish_--after all verbs, provided that the substantive be masculine; as
_ta me ag gearrad çrainn_=_I am cutting (at to cut) a tree_. Here _çrainn_
comes from _crainn_. This change in Irish extends only to the change from
lene to aspirate.

In _Welsh_--after the possessive pronouns _thy_, _thine_, _his_, _its_,
_mine_ (but not _my_); as _dy vâr_ (for _bâr_)=_thy wrath_; _ei vraint_
(from _braint_)=_his privilege_. _N. B._ Although the same word (_ei_)
means _her_, _his_, and _its_, it induces the light change only when it is
either masculine or neuter.

In _Irish_--after the possessive pronouns _my_, _thy_, and _his_. Here the
change is of the first sort only, or an aspiration; as _mo vàs_ (_bàs_)=_my
death_; _do ços_ (_cos_)=_thy foot_; _çeann_ (_ceann_)=_his head_. _N. B._
Although the same word (_a_) means _her_, _his_, and _its_, it induces the
aspirate only when it is either masculine or neuter.

In _Welsh_--the initials of adjectives become light when their substantive
is feminine.

In _Irish_--the initials of adjectives singular, aspirated in the oblique
cases only of the masculine, are aspirated throughout in the feminine.

In _Welsh_--after certain adverbs called formative, used like the English
words _to_, _as_, &c., in the formation of the degrees of nouns, and the
moods of verbs (in other words, {81} after certain particles), initial
sounds become light; as _rhy vyçan_ (_byçan_)=_very_ (_over_) _little_; _ni
çarav_ (_carav_)=_I do not love_.

In _Irish_--the same, in respect to the change from lene to aspirate; _ro
veag_=_very little_; _ni vualim_ (_bualim_)=_I do not beat_; _do
vuaileas_=_I struck_, &c.

In _Welsh_--initials are light after all prepositions except _in_ and

In _Irish_--the prepositions either eclipse the noun that they govern or
else aspirate it. A Welsh grammarian would say that it made them light.

In _Welsh_--initials of feminines become light after the Articles.

In _Irish_--masculines are aspirated in the genitive and dative singular;
feminines in the nominative and dative. _N.B._ The difference here is less
than it appears to be. The masculine dative is changed, not as a masculine,
but by the effect of the particle _do_, the sign of the dative; the
genitive, perhaps, is changed _ob differentiam_. This being the fact, the
nominative is the only case that is changed _as such_. Now this is done
with the feminines only. The inflection explains this.

       _Masc._                      _Fem._

  _Nom._ an crann=_the tree_.   _Nom._ an ços=_the foot_.
  _Gen._ an çrainn.             _Gen._ an cos.
  _Dat._ don çrann.             _Dat._ don ços.
  _Acc._ an crainn.             _Acc._ an cos.

Such the changes from sharp to flat, and from lene to aspirate. The second
order of changes is remarkable, _viz._ from the mutes to their
corresponding liquids, and, in the case of series _k_, to _ng_. This, in
Welsh, is as follows:--

     _Sharp._         _Flat._

  _p_ to [19]_m=h_.   _b_ to _m_.
  _t_ to [19]_n=h_.   _d_ to _n_.
  _k_ to _ng=h_.      _g_ to _ng_.

_e.g._, _nheyrnas_ for _teyrnas_, _ngherð_ for _cerð_, _nuw_ for _duw_, &c.


In Irish the combinations _m_ + _h_, _n_ + _h_, _ng_ + _h_ are wanting:
_t_, however, under certain conditions, becomes _h_, as _mo high_
(_tigh_)=_my house_. With the unaspirated liquids the change, however,
coincides with that of the Welsh--_ar maile_ (spelt _mbaile_)=_our town_;
_ar nia_ (spelt _ndia_)=_our God_; _ar ngearran_=_our complaint_. These
words come respectively from _baile_, _dia_, _gearran_. To show that this
change takes place in Irish and Welsh under similar circumstances is more
than can be expected; since _ð_ being wanting in Irish, leaves _d_ to be
changed into _n_.

_Inflections formed by changes in the middle of words_.

_Plurals from Singulars_.

          _Welsh._                          _Irish._

       _Singular._       _Plural._         _Singular._     _Plural._

  Aber    = _a conflux_;   ebyr.       Ball  = _a spot_;     baill.
  Barð    = _a bard_;      beirð.      Cnoc  = _a hill_;     cnoic.
  Bràn    = _a crow_;      brain.      Poll  = _a pit_;      poil.
  Fon     = _a staff_;     fyn         Fonn  = _a tune_;     foinn.
  Maen    = _a stone_;     mein.       Crann = _a tree_;     crainn.
  Gûr     = _a man_;       gûyr.       Fear  = _a man_;      fir.
            &c.                             &c.

_Inflections formed by addition._

_Plural forms._--When not expressed by a change of vowel, _-d_ (or an
allied sound) both in Welsh and Irish has a plural power; as _merç_,
_merçed_; _hyð_, _hyðoð_; _teyrn_, _teyrneð_=_girls_, _stags_, _kings_;
Welsh:--_gealaç_, _gealaçad_; _sgolog_, _sgolagad_; _uiseog_,
_uiseogad_=_moons_, _farmers_, _larks_; Irish. In each language there are
plural forms in _-d_.

Also in _-n_, as _dyn_=_a person_, _dynion_=_persons_. In Irish there is
the form _cu_=_a greyhound_; Plural _cuin_. It may be doubted, however,
whether _-n_ is not ejected in the singular rather than added in the

Also in _-au_, Welsh (as _pén-au_=_heads_), and in _-a_, Irish (as

In each language there is, in respect to both case and {83} gender, an
equal paucity of inflections. The Irish, however, preserves the
Indo-European dative plural in _b_; as _ços-aiv_=ped-_ibus_.

The ordinals in Welsh are expressed by _-ved_; as _saiþ_=_seven_,
_seiþved_=_seventh_. The ordinals in Irish are expressed by _-vad_, as
_seaçt_=_seven_, _seaçt-vad_=_seventh_ (spelt _seachmhadh_).

The terminations _-n_ and _-g_ are diminutive in Welsh; as
_dyn-yn_=_mannikin_, _oen-ig_=_lambkin_. They have the same power in Irish;
as _cnoc-an_=_a hillock_; _duil-eog_=_a leaflet_. In Irish, currently
spoken, there is no inflection for the comparative degrees;--there is,
however, an obsolete form in _-d_, as _glass_, _glaiside_=_green_,
_greener_. In Welsh the true comparative ends in _ç_, as _main_=_slender_,
_mainaç_=_more slender_. A form, however, exists in _-ed_, meaning
equality, and so implying comparison, _viz._, _mein-ed_=_so slender_.

As expressive of an agent, the termination _-r_ is common to both
languages. Welsh, _mor-ûr_=_a seaman_; _telynaur_=_a harpist_; Irish,
_sealg-aire_=_a hunter_; _figead-oir_=_a weaver_.

As expressive of "abounding in," the termination _-c_ (or _-g_) is common
in both languages. Welsh, _boliûag_=_abounding in belly_;
_toirteaç_=_abounding in fruit_. In each language a sound of series _t_, is
equivalent to the English _-ly_. Welsh, _mab-aið_=_boy-like_. Irish,

Of the personal terminations it may be said, that those of both the Irish
and Welsh are those of the other European tongues, and that they coincide
and differ in the same way with those of the Gothic stock: the form in _m_
being the one more constant. For the theory of the personal terminations,
the reader is referred to the Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, by Dr.

The present notices being indicative of grammatical affinities only, the
glossarial points of likeness between the Welsh and Irish are omitted.

§ 137. The Celtic tongues have lately received especial illustration from
the researches of Mr. Garnett. Amongst other, the two following points are
particularly investigated by him:-- {84}

1. The affinities of the ancient language of Gaul.

2. The affinities of the Pictish language or dialect.

§ 138. _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,
_peaer_=_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.

_g._ An inscription on an ancient Celtic tablet found at Paris, A.D. 1711,
and representing a bull and three birds (cranes), is TARWOS TRI GARANOS.
Now, for the first two names, the Gaelic affords as good an explanation as
the Welsh; the third, however, is best explained by the Welsh.

  _Bull_  = _tarw_, Welsh; _tarbh_, Gaelic.
  _Three_ = _tri_, Welsh; _tre_, Gaelic.
  _Crane_ = _garan_, Welsh; _corr_, Gaelic.

§ 139. _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. Columba preached, whose mother-tongue was Irish Gaelic, he
used an interpreter--_Adamnanus apud {85} Colgarum_, 1, 11, c.32. This is a
point of external evidence, and shows the _difference_ between the Pict and
Gaelic. What follows are points of internal evidence, and show 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 not only more
Celtic than Gothic, but 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 Bede _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_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 140. 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
or Hellenic branch 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 or Ausonian
branch of the Classical stock.

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

The French element appeared in our language as a result of the battle of
Hastings (A.D. 1066), _perhaps, in a slight degree, at a somewhat earlier

§ 141. Previous to the notice of the immediate relations of the
Norman-French, or, as it was called after its introduction into England,
Anglo-Norman, its position in respect to the other languages derived from
the Latin may be exhibited.

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. {87}

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 (_i.e._, languages of the Iberic
stock), mixed in a degree (scarcely determinable) with Celtic

2. To Gaul, or France, where it overlaid or was engrafted on languages of
the Celtic stock. This took place, at least for the more extreme parts of
Gaul, in the time of Julius Cæsar; for the more contiguous parts, in the
earlier ages of the Republic.

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

From (1stly,) the original Latin of Italy, and from the imported Latin, of
(2ndly,) the Spanish Peninsula, (3rdly,) Gaul, (4thly,) Dacia and Pannonia,
we have (amongst others) the following modern languages--1st Italian, 2nd
Spanish and Portuguese, 3rd French, 4th Wallachian. How far these languages
differ from each other is currently known. _One_ essential cause of this
difference is the difference of the original language upon which the Latin
was engrafted.

§ 142. I am not doing too much for the sake of system if I classify the
languages, of which the Italian, French, &c., are the representatives, as
the languages of Germany were classified, _viz._, into divisions.

I. The Spanish and Portuguese are sufficiently like the Italian to be
arranged in a single division. This may conveniently be called the
Hesperian division.

II. The second division is the Transalpine. This comprises the languages of
Gaul, _viz._, the Modern French, the {88} Anglo-Norman, and the Provençal.
It also includes a language not yet mentioned, the Romanese (_Rumonsch_),
or the language of the Grisons, or Graubünten, of Switzerland.

_Specimen of the Romanese_.

    _Luke_ XV. 11.

    11. Ün Hum veva dus Filgs:

    12. Ad ilg juven 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.'"

III. The third division is the Dacian, Pannonian, or Wallachian, containing
the present languages of Wallachia and Moldavia.

In the _Jahrbücher der Literatur_, June, 1829, specimens are given of two
of its dialects: 1, the Daco-Wallachian, north of the Danube; 2, the
Macedono-Wallachian, south of the Danube. The present specimen varies from
both. It is taken from the New Testament, printed at Smyrna, 1838. The
Dacian division is marked by placing the article after the noun, as
_homul_=_the man_=_homo ille_.

    _Luke_ XV. 11.

    11. Un om avea do[)i] fec´or[)i].

    12. Shi a zis c´el ma[)i] tinr din e[)i] tatlu[)i] su: tat, dm[)i]
    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 ma[)i] tinr, s'a
    dus intr 'o car departe, shi akolo a rsipit toat avuciea ca, viecuind
    intr dezm[)i]erdr[)i].

    {89} 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 lkuitori[)i] cri[)i] ac´eia: si
    'l a trimis pre el la carinide sale c pask porc´i[)i].

    16. Shi doria c 'sh[)i] sature pinctec´ele s[)u] de roshkobele c´e
    minka porc´i[)i]; shi nimin[)i] nu [)i] da lu[)i].

    17. Iar viind intru sine, a zis: kic[)i] argac[)i] a[)i] tatlu[)i]
    mie[)u] sint indestulac[)i] de pi[)i]ne, iar e[)u] p[)i]ei[)u] de

    18. Skula-m-vio[)u], shi m' voi[)u] duc´e la tata mic[)u], shi vio[)u]
    zic´e lui:

    19. Tat, greshit-am la c´er shi inaintea ta, shi nu mai sint vrednik a
    m kema fiul t[)u]; fm ka pre unul din argaci[)i] t[)i].

§ 143. 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 languages of the Transalpine division require 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'chou qui doüo me
    'r'v'nir ed vous bien," et leu père leu partit sain bien.

    13. Ain n'sais yur, tro, quate, chéon jours après l'pus tiò d'cnés
    déeux éféans oyant r'cuéllé tout s'n' héritt'main, s'ot' ainvoye dains
    nâin pahis gramain loüon, dû 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'mainchouait 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
    {90} mi reven de vouastré ben;" lou päiré faguet lou partagé de tout ce
    que poussédavo.

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

    14. Quand aguét ton aecaba, 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 each into the 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, the 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

It is in the Southern French (Provençal, Langue d'Oc, or Limousin) that we
have the following specimen, _viz_., the Oath of Ludwig, sworn A.D. 842.

_The Oath of the King._

    Pro Deo amur et pro Xristian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di
    en avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist
    meon fradre Karlo, et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit
    son fradra salvar dist, in o quid il mi altresi fazet: et ab Ludher nul
    plaid nunquam prindrai qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno

_The Oath of the People._

    Si Loduuigs sagrament, que son fradre Karlo jurat, conservat; et
    Karlus, meos sendra, de suo part non lo stanit; si io returnar non
    l'int pois, ne io, ne neuls cui eo returnar int pois, in nulla ajudha
    contra Lodhuwig num li iver.

_The same in Modern French._

    Pour de Dieu l'amour et pour du Chrêtien peuple et le notre commun
    salut, de ce jour en avant, en quant que Dieu savoir et pouvoir me
    donne {91} assurément sauverai moi ce mon frère Charles, et en aide, et
    en chacune chose, ainsi comme homme par droit son frère sauver doit, en
    cela que lui à moi pareillement fera: et avec Lothaire nul traité ne
    onques prendrai qui, à mon vouloir, à ce mien frère Charles en dommage

       *       *       *       *       *

    Si Louis le serment, qu'à son frère Charles il jure, conserve; Charles,
    mon seigneur, de sa part ne le maintient; si je détourner ne l'en puis,
    ni moi, ne nul que je détourner en puis, en nulle aide contre Louis ne
    lui irai.

§ 144. 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.

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

The proportion of the original Celtic in the present languages of France
has still to be determined. It may, however, be safely asserted, that at a
certain epoch between the first and fifth centuries, the language of Gaul
was more Roman and less Celtic than that of Britain.


_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 demeines 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 humc nul de desuz ceil
  Tant ben séist espée ne 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 on 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; their language being _High_-Germanic. The High-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. By this the proper northern French
underwent a further modification.

Until the time of the Scandinavians or Northmen, the present province of
Normandy was called Neustria. A generation before the Norman Conquest, a
Norwegian captain, named in his own country _Rolf_, and in France _Rollo_,
or _Rou_, settled upon the coast of Normandy. What Hengist and the Germans
are supposed to have been in Britain, Rollo and his Scandinavians were in
France. The province took from them its name of Normandy. The _Norwegian_
element in the Norman-French has yet to be determined. Respecting it,
however, the following statements may, even in the present state of the
question, be made:--

1. That a Norse dialect was spoken in Normandy at Bayeux, some time after
the battle of Hastings.

2. That William the Conqueror understood the Norse language.

3. That the names Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney are as truly Norse names
as Orkney and Shetland.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 145. In each of the three preceding chapters a separate stock of
languages has been considered; and it has been shown, in some degree, how
far languages of the same stock differ from, or agree with, each other.

Furthermore, in each stock there has been some particular language that
especially illustrates the English.

In the Gothic stock there has been the Anglo-Saxon; in the Celtic the
Welsh; and in the Classical the Anglo-Norman.

Nevertheless, the importance of the languages of these three divisions is
by no means equal. The Gothic tongues supply the basis of our
investigations. The Celtic afford a few remnants of that language which the
Anglo-Saxon superseded. The Anglo-Norman language exhibits certain
superadded elements.

§ 146. Over and above the Gothic, Celtic, and Classical languages, there
are others that illustrate the English; and some of our commonest
grammatical inflections can be but half understood unless we go beyond the
groups already enumerated.

The Gothic, Celtic (?),[20] and Classical stocks are but subordinate
divisions of a wider class. Each has a sufficient amount of mutual
affinities to be illustrative of each other, and each is contained, along
with two other groups of equal value, under a higher denomination in

What is the nature of that affinity which connects languages so different
as the Gothic, Celtic (?), and Classical stocks? or what is the amount of
likeness between, _e.g._, the {94} German and Portuguese, the Greek and
Islandic, the Latin and Swedish, the Anglo-Saxon and Italian? And what
other languages are so connected?

What other philological groups are connected with each other, and with the
languages already noticed, by the same affinities which connect the Gothic,
Celtic (?), and Classical stocks? Whatever these languages may be, it is
nearly certain that they will be necessary, on some point or other, for the
full illustration of the English.

As both these questions are points of general, rather than of English,
philology, and as a partial answer may be got to the first from attention
to the degree in which the body of the present work exhibits illustrations
drawn from widely different languages, the following statements are
considered sufficient.

§ 147. The philological denomination of the class which contains the
Gothic, Celtic (?), and Classical divisions, and, along with the languages
contained therein, all others similarly allied, is _Indo-European_; so that
the Gothic, Celtic (?), Classical and certain other languages are

All Indo-European languages illustrate each other.

The other divisions of the great Indo-European group of languages are as

1. The Iranian stock of languages.--This contains the proper Persian
languages of Persia (Iran) in all their stages, the Kurd language, and all
the languages of Asia (whatever they may be) derived from the Zend or

2. The Sarmatian stock of languages.--This contains the languages of
Russia, Poland, Bohemia, and of the Slavonian tribes in general. It
contains also the Lithuanic languages, _i.e._, the Lithuanic of Lithuania,
the old Prussian of Prussia (now extinct), and the Lettish or Livonic of
Courland and Livonia.

3, 4, 5. The Classical, Gothic, and Celtic (?) stocks complete the
catalogue of languages undoubtedly Indo-European, and at the same time they
explain the import of the term. Indo-European is the name of a class which
embraces the majority of the languages of _Europe_, and is extended over
{95} Asia as far as _India._ Until the Celtic was shown by Dr. Prichard to
have certain affinities with the Latin, Greek, Slavonic, Lithuanic, Gothic,
Sanskrit, and Zend, as those tongues had with each other, the class in
question was called Indo-_Germanic_; since, up to that time, the Germanic
languages had formed its western limit.

       *       *       *       *       *

§ 148. _Meaning of the note of interrogation (?) after the word
Celtic._--In a paper read before the Ethnological Society, February 28th,
1849, and published in the Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine, the present
writer has given reasons for considering the claims of the Celtic to be
Indo-European as somewhat doubtful; at the same time he admits, and highly
values, all the facts in favour of its being so, which are to be found in
Prichard's Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations.

He believes, however, that the Celtic can only be brought in the same group
with the Gothic, Slavonic, &c., by _extending_ the value of the class.

"To draw an illustration from the common ties of relationship, as between
man and man, it is clear that a family may be enlarged in two ways.

"_a._ A brother, or a cousin, may be discovered, of which the existence was
previously unknown. Herein the family is enlarged, or increased, by the
_real_ addition of a new member, in a recognised degree of relationship.

"_b._ A degree of relationship previously unrecognised may be recognised,
_i.e._, a family wherein it was previously considered that a
second-cousinship was as much as could be admitted within its pale, may
incorporate third, fourth, or fifth cousins. Here the family is enlarged,
or increased, by a _verbal_ extension of the term.

"Now it is believed that the distinction between increase by the way of
real addition, and increase by the way of verbal extension, has not been
sufficiently attended to. Yet, that it should be more closely attended to,
is evident; since, in mistaking a verbal increase for a real one, the whole
end and aim of classification is overlooked. The publication of Dr.
Prichard's Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, in 1831, {96} supplied
philologists with the most definite addition that has perhaps, yet been
made to ethnographical philology.

"Ever since then the Celtic has been considered to be Indo-European. Indeed
its position in the same group with the Iranian, Classical,
Slavono-Lithuanic, and Gothic tongues, supplied the reason for substituting
the term Indo-_European_ for the previous one Indo-_Germanic_.

"On the other hand, it seems necessary to admit that _languages are allied
just in proportion as they were separated from the mother-tongue in the
same stage of its development_.

"If so, the Celtic became detached anterior _to the evolution of the
declension of nouns_, whereas the Gothic, Slavonic, Classical and Iranian
languages all separated _subsequent to that stage_."[21]

This, along with other reasons indicated elsewhere,[22] induces the present
writer to admit an affinity between the Celtic and the other so-called
Indo-European tongues, but to deny that it is the same affinity which
connects the Iranian, Classical, Gothic and Slavonic groups.

       *       *       *       *       *







§ 149. 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. Such are (amongst others) the words
_flannel_, _crowd_ (a fiddle), from the Cambrian; and _kerne_ (an Irish
foot-soldier), _galore_ (enough), _tartan_, _plaid_, &c., from the Gaelic

2. Those that are common to both the Celtic and Gothic stocks, and are
Indo-European rather than either Welsh, or Gaelic, or Saxon. Such (amongst
others) 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. 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. {98}

_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                   _Crock_, _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_.
  Rhasg (slice)             _Rasher_.
  Rhuwch                    _Rug_.
  Sawduriaw                 _Solder_.
  Syth (glue)               _Size_.
  Tacl                      _Tackle_.

§ 150. _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_.

§ 151. _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

§ 152. _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 {99} in these invasions. Not that the Swedes were less
piratical, but that they robbed elsewhere,--in Russia, for instance, and in

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. Whether this was aboriginal in
_Denmark_, is uncertain. In _Scandinavia_ it was imported; the tongue that
it supplanted having been, in all probability, the mother-tongue of the
present Laplandic.

The Danish that became incorporated with our language, under the reign of
Canute and his sons, may be called the direct Danish (Norse or
Scandinavian) element, in contradistinction to the indirect Danish of §§
144, 155.

The determination of the amount of Danish in English is difficult. It is
not difficult to prove a word _Scandinavian_. We must also show that it is
not German. 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.

1. The Saxon name of the present town of _Whitby_ in Yorkshire was
_Streoneshalch_. The present name _Whitby_, _Hvitby_, or _White-town_, 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 {100} 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_          Bråas, _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_.

§ 153. _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_, pumice-stone, _pumex_.

The above-given list is from Guest's English Rhythms (B. iii. c. 3). It
constitutes that portion of the elements of our language which may be
called the Latin of the second, or Saxon period.

§ 154. _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.--See Ranouard, _Journal des Savans_, 1830.

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.

§ 155. The Norwegian, Danish, Norse, or Scandinavian element of the
Anglo-Norman (as in the proper names _Guernsey_, _Jersey_, _Alderney_, and
perhaps others) constitutes the _indirect_ Scandinavian element of the

§ 156. _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 with the monks, 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. {102}

_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, in the case of 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.

§ 157. _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; thus 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.

§ 158. The Latin of the fourth period and the Greek agree in retaining, in
many cases, the Latin or Greek inflexions rather than adopting the English
ones; in other words, they agree in being but _imperfectly incorporated_.
The phænomenon of imperfect incorporation (an important one) is reducible
to the following rules:--

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 {103} adjectives like _circular_, and the
tenses, &c. for verbs, like perambulate.

§ 159. 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_         |     Schirrh_us_     schirrh_i_
       Mag_us_         mag_i_          |     Stimul_us_      stimul_i_
       Nautil_us_      nautil_i_       |     Tumul_us_       tumul_i_.
       Oesophag_us_    oesophag_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_   succedanea.
       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_      apic_es_
  Appendix      --       appendic-_s_  appendic_es_
  Calix         --       calic-_s_     calic_es_
  Cicatrix      --       cicatric-_s_  cicatric_es_
  Helix         --       helic-_s_     helic_es_
  Index         --       indec-_s_     indic_es_
  Radix         --       radic-_s_     radic_es_
  Vertex        --       vertec-_s_    vertic_es_
  Vortex        --       vortec-_s_    vortic_es_.

In all these words the _c_ of the singular number is sounded as _k_, of the
plural as _s_.

§ 160. 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._

  Apheli_on_     apheli_a_
  Periheli_on_   periheli_a_
  Automat_on_    automat_a_
  Criteri_on_    criteri_a_
  Ephemer_on_    ephemer_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 root._

_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[23]

§ 161. _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 plurals
other than after the English method, _i.e._, in _-s_: as _waltzes_, from
the German word _waltz_.

§ 162. 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, {106} and has, moreover, a great power of
incorporating foreign elements, derives fresh words from varied sources,
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, from a paper of Mr. Crawford, read at the British
Association, 1849.

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

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

_Hindu languages._--Calico, chintz, cowrie, curry, lac, muslin, toddy,

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

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

_Polynesian._--Taboo, tattoo.--_Ditto._

_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.


_Ancient Carian._--Mausoleum.

§ 163. In § 157 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 Syrian._--Pandar.
  _Ancient Lydian._--Mæander.
  _Ancient Persian._--Paradise.

§ 164. 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 _di-morphism_, 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 in 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.

§ 165. _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 languages of the United States is the history of the
Germanic language.

§ 166. _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 one: 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 _boeuffetier_; _sparrow-grass_, _asparagus_;
_Shotover_, _Chateau vert_;[24] _Jerusalem_, _Girasole_;[25] _Spanish {108}
beefeater_, _Spina befida_; _periwig_, _peruke_; _runagate_, _renegade_;
_lutestring_, _lustrino_;[26] _O yes_, _Oyez!_ _ancient_, _ensign_.[27]

_Dog-cheap._--This has nothing to do with _dogs_. The first syllable is
_god_=_good_ transposed, and the second the _ch-p_ in _chapman_
(=_merchant_) _cheap_, and _East-cheap_. 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 Dowlass_=_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 _weazel-cod_.


_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.

§ 167. 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 other people (or at
least had an allowance of that viand); 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 is sometimes a real {109} occurrence. To
account for the name _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_.

§ 168. 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_[28] from _frontispecium_, _sover_eig_n_, from
_sovrano_, _colle_a_gue_ from _collega_, _lant_h_orn_ (old orthography)
from _lanterna_.

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

       *       *       *       *       *

§ 169. 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_ is Saxon; _-et_ Norman. Now
to add a Saxon termination to a Norman word, or _vice versâ_, is to corrupt
the English language.

This leads to some observations respecting--

§ 170. _Introduction of new words_--_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 of other than of Greek origin is to be guilty of

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 of other than 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.

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

§ 171. 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.

§ 172. _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-_. {111}

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 [Greek: distomos]) examples of
incompletion of the radical.

       *       *       *       *       *

§ 173. 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 (or, if the process be reversed, the
synthesis) 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 (or, if the process be reversed, the synthesis) is
not historical but logical; the words being classed not according to their
origin, but according to their meaning.

Now the logical and historical analysis of a language generally in some
degree coincides, as may be seen by noticing the kind of words introduced
from the Anglo-Norman, the Latin of the fourth period, and the Arabic.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 174. 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. _Smiðum_, the dative plural of
_smið_, is equivalent in meaning to the English _to smiths_, or to the
Latin _fabris_. _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_, _plus_ the subordinate inflectional syllable _-um_, the sign of the
dative case. _To smiths_ is the substantive _smiths_, _plus_ the
preposition _to_, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but
different from it in form. As far, then, as the word just quoted is
concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English thus. It expresses a
given idea by a modification of the form of the root, whereas the modern
English denotes the same idea by the addition of a preposition. The Saxon
inflection is superseded by a combination of words.

The part that is played by the preposition with nouns, is played by the
auxiliaries (_have_, _be_, &c.) with verbs.

The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement.
(1.) _The earlier the stage of a given {113} 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 inflection 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
_(to smiths)_, we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second
to a late, stage 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; so also the Modern
High German to the Moeso-Gothic; so the Modern Dutch of Holland to the Old
Frisian; so, moreover, amongst the languages of a different stock, are the
French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin,
and the Romaic to the Ancient Greek.

§ 175. Contrasted with the English, but contrasted with it only in those
points where the ancient tongue is compared with the modern one, the
Anglo-Saxon has the following differences.


_Of Gender._--In Anglo-Saxon there are three genders, the masculine, the
feminine, and the neuter. With _adjectives_ each gender has its peculiar
declension; with _substantives_ there are also appropriate terminations,
but only to a certain degree; _e.g._, of words ending in _-a_ (_nama_, a
name; _cuma_, a guest), it may be stated that they are always masculine; of
words in _-u_ (_sunu_, a son; _gifu_, a gift), that they are never neuter;
in other words, that they are either mas. or fem.

The definite article varies with the gender of its substantive; _þæt eage_,
the eye; _se steorra_, the star; _seo tunge_, the tongue. {114}

_Of 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.

_Of 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.

Of the dative in _-um_, the word _whilom_ (_at times_, _at whiles_) is a
still extant and an almost isolated specimen.

_Of Declension._--In _Anglo-Saxon_ it is necessary to determine the
termination of a substantive. There is the weak, or simple declension for
words ending in a vowel (as _eage_, _steorra_, _tunga_), and the strong, or
complex declension for words ending in a consonant (_smið_, _spræc_,
_leáf_). The letters _i_ and _u_ are dealt with as semivowels, semivowels
being dealt with as consonants; so that words like _sunu_ and _gifu_ belong
to the same declension as _smið_ and _spr['æ]c_.

That the form of adjectives varies with their definitude or indefinitude,
has been seen from § 93: definite adjectives following the inflection of
the simple; indefinite ones that of the complex declension.

The detail of the Anglo-Saxon declension may be collected from §§ 83-89.

The Anglo-Saxon inflection of the participles present is remarkable. With
the exception of the form for the genitive plural definite (which, instead
of _-ena_, is _-ra_,) they follow the declension of the adjectives. From
the masculine substantives formed from them, and denoting the agent, they
may be distinguished by a difference of inflection. {115}

           _Participle._          _Substantive._

  Wegferende=_Wayfaring_.       Wegferend=_Wayfarer_.

  _Sing. Nom._ Wegferende         Wegferend.
        _Acc._ Wegferendne        Wegferend.
        _Abl._ Wegferende         Wegferende.
        _Dat._ Wegferendum        Wegferende.
        _Gen._ Wegferendes        Wegferendes.
  _Plur. Nom._ Wegferende         Wegferendas.
        _Dat._ Wegferendum        Wegferendum.
        _Gen._ Wegferendra        Wegferenda.

_Pronouns Personal._--Of the pronominal inflection in Saxon, the character
may be gathered from the chapter upon pronouns. At present, it may be
stated that, like the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic, the Anglo-Saxon
language possessed for the first two persons a _dual_ number; inflected as

        _1st Person._             _2nd Person._

  _Nom._ Wit    _We two._     _Nom._ Git   _Ye two._
  _Acc._ Unc    _Us two._     _Acc._ Inc   _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


_Mood._--The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with the
exception of the conjugation of the verb substantive) differs from the
indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon inflected
as follows:

                  _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_. {116}

_Tense._--In regard to tense, the Anglo-Saxon coincided with the English.
The present language has two tenses, the present and the past; the Saxon
had no more. This past tense the modern English forms either by addition
(_love_, _loved_), or by change (_fall_, _fell_). So did the Anglo-Saxons.

_Number and Person._--In the present English the termination -_eth_
(_moveth_) is antiquated. In Anglo-Saxon it was the only form recognized.
In English the plural number (indicative as well as subjunctive) has no
distinguishing inflection. It was not so in Anglo-Saxon. There, although
the _persons_ were identical in form, the _numbers_ were distinguished by
the termination -_að_ for the indicative, and -_n_ for the subjunctive.
(_See above._) For certain forms in the second conjugation, see the remarks
on the forms _drunk_ and _drank_, in Part IV.

Such are the chief points in the declension of nouns and the conjugation of
verbs that give a difference of character between the ancient Anglo-Saxon
and the modern English: and it has already been stated that the difference
between the New and the Old German, the Dutch and the Frisian, the Italian,
&c., and the Latin, the Romaic and the Greek, &c., are precisely similar.

How far two languages pass with equal rapidity from their ancient to their
modern, from their inflected to their uninflected state (in other words,
how far all languages alter at the same rate), is a question that will be
noticed elsewhere. At present, it is sufficient to say, that (just as we
should expect _à priori_) languages do _not_ alter at the same rate.

Akin to the last question is a second one: viz.: how far the rate of change
in a given language can be accelerated by external circumstances. This
second question bears immediately upon the history of the English language.
The grammar of the current idiom compared with the grammar of the
Anglo-Saxon is simplified. How far was this simplification of the grammar
promoted by the Norman Conquest. The current views exaggerate the influence
of the Norman Conquest and of French connexions. The remark of Mr. Price in
his Preface to Warton, acceded to by Mr. Hallam in his Introduction to the
Literature of Europe, is, that every one of the {117} other Low Germanic
languages (affected by nothing corresponding to the Norman Conquest)
displays the same simplification of grammar as the Anglo-Saxon (affected by
the Norman Conquest) displays. Confirmatory of this remark, it may be
added, that compared with the Icelandic, the Danish and Swedish do the
same. Derogatory to it is the comparatively complex grammar of the _new_
German, compared, not only with the Old High German, but with the
Moeso-Gothic. An extract from Mr. Hallam shall close the present section
and introduce 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.

§ 176. At a given period, then, the Anglo-Saxon of the standard, and (if
the expression may be used) classical authors, such as Cædmon, Alfred,
Ælfric, &c., had undergone such a change as to induce the scholars of the
present age to denominate it, not Saxon, but _Semi_-Saxon. It had ceased to
be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become English. In certain parts of the
kingdom, where the mode of speech {118} changed more rapidly than
elsewhere, the Semi-Saxon stage of our language came earlier. It was, as it
were, precipitated.

The History of King Leir and his Daughters is found in two forms. Between
these there is a difference either of dialect or of date, and possibly of
both. Each, however, is Semi-Saxon. The extracts are made from Thorpe's
Analecta Anglo-Saxonica, p. 143.

  Bladud hafde ene sune,           Bladud hadde one sone,
  Leir was ihaten;                 Leir was ihote,
  Efter his fader daie,            After his fader he held þis lond,
  He heold þis drihlice lond,      In his owene hond,
  Somed an his live,               Ilaste his lif-dages,
  Sixti winter.                    Sixti winter.
  He makade ane riche burh,        He makede on riche borh,
  Þurh radfulle his crafte,        Þorh wisemenne reade,
  And he heo lette nemnen,         And hine lette nemni,
  Efter him seolvan;               After him seolve;
  Kaer-Leir hehte þe burh.         Kair-Leir hehte þe borh.
  Leof heo wes þan kinge,          Leof he was þan kinge;
  Þa we, an ure leod-quide,        Þe we, on ure speche,
  Leir-chestre clepiad,            Leþ-chestre cleopieþ,
  Geare a þan holde dawon.         In þan eolde daiye.

The Grave, a poetical fragment, the latter part of the Saxon Chronicle, a
Homily for St. Edmund's Day (given in the Analecta), and above all the
printed extracts of the poem of Layamon, are the more accessible specimens
of the Semi-Saxon. The Ormulum, although in many points English rather than
Saxon, retains the dual number of the Anglo-Saxon pronouns. However, lest
too much stress be laid upon this circumstance, the epistolary character of
the Ormulum must be borne in mind.

It is very evident that if, even in the present day, there were spoken in
some remote district the language of Alfred and Ælfric, such a mode of
speech would be called, not Modern English, but Anglo-Saxon. This teaches
us that the stage of language is to be measured, not by its date, but by
its structure. Hence, Saxon ends and Semi-Saxon begins, not at a given
year, A.D., but at that time {119} (whenever it be) when certain
grammatical inflections disappear, and certain characters of a more
advanced stage are introduced.

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). The use of -_s_, as the
sign of the plural, without respect to gender, or declension, may be one of
those changes that the Norman Conquest forwarded; -_s_ being the sign of
the plural in Anglo-Norman.

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

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.

§ 177. _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 recognized in pronunciation also.

2. The ejection of -_es_ in the genitive singular whenever the {120}
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

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 occasional occurrence)
constitutes old English in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

The following extract from Henry's history (vol. viii. append. iv.) is the
proclamation of Henry III. to the people of Huntingdonshire, A.D. 1258. It
currently passes for the earliest specimen of English.

    "Henry, thurg Godes fultome, King on Engleneloande, lhoaurd on Yrloand,
    Duke on Normand, on Acquitain, Eorl on Anjou, send I greting, to alle
    hise holde, ilærde & ilewerde on Huntingdonschiere.

    "That witen ge well alle, thæt we willen & unnen (grant) thæt ure
    rædesmen alle other, the moare del of heom, thæt beoth ichosen thurg us
    and thurg thæt loandes-folk on ure Kuneriche, habbith idon, and
    schullen don, in the worthnes of God, and ure threowthe, for the freme
    of the loande, thurg the besigte of than toforen iseide rædesmen, beo
    stedfæst and ilestinde in alle thinge abutan ænde, and we heaten alle
    ure treowe, in the treowthe thæt heo us ogen, thet heo stede-feslliche
    healden & weren to healden & to swerien the isetnesses thet beon makede
    and beo to makien, thurg than toforen iseide rædesmen, other thurg the
    moare del of heom alswo, also hit is before iseide. And thet æheother
    helpe thet for to done bitham ilche other, aganes alle men in alle thet
    heo ogt for to done, and to foangen. And noan ne of mine loande, ne of
    egetewhere, thurg this besigte, muge beon ilet other iwersed on
    oniewise. And gif oni ether onie cumen her ongenes, we willen & heaten,
    thæt alle ure treowe heom healden deadlichistan. And for thæt we willen
    thæt this beo stædfast and lestinde, we senden gew this writ open,
    iseined with ure seel, to halden amanges gew ine hord. Witnes us-selven
    æt Lundæn, thæne egetetenthe day on the monthe of Octobr, in the two
    and fowertigthe geare of ure crunning."

§ 178. The songs amongst the political verses printed by the Camden
Society, the romance of Havelok the Dane, {121} William and the Werwolf,
the Gestes of Alisaundre, King Horn, Ipomedon, and the King of Tars; and,
amongst the longer works, Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle, and the poems
of Robert of Bourn (Brunn), are (amongst others) Old English. Broadly
speaking, the _Old_ English may be said to begin with the reign of Henry
III., and to end with that of Edward III.

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_;--_ditto_.

3. The existence of a genitive plural in _-r_ or _-ra_; _heora_, theirs;
_aller_, of all;--_ditto_. This with substantives and adjectives is less

4. The substitution of _heo_ for _they_, of _heora_ for _their_, of _hem_
for _them_;--in contradistinction to the later stages of English, and in
contradistinction to old Lowland _Scotch_. (See Chapter III.)

5. A more frequent use of _min_ and _thin_, for _my_ and _thy_;--in
contradistinction to 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 _iclep_u_d_ or _iclep_o_d_ (for
_iclep_e_d_ or _ycl_e_pt_); _geong_o_st_, 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

11. The comparative absence of the articles _se_ and _seo_;--_ditto_. {122}

12. The substitution of _ben_ and _beeth_, for _synd_ and _syndon_=_we_,
_ye_, _they are_;--in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

§ 179. The degree to which the Anglo-Saxon was actually influenced by the
Anglo-Norman has been noticed. The degree wherein the two languages came in
contact is, plainly, another consideration. The first is the question, How
far one of two languages influenced the other? The second asks, How far one
of two languages had the opportunity of influencing the other? 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).

That there was French in England before the battle of Hastings appears on
the authority of Camden:--

    "Herein is a notable argument of our ancestors' steadfastness in
    esteeming and retaining their own tongue. For, as _before the
    Conquest_, they misliked nothing more in King Edward the Confessor,
    than that he was Frenchified, and accounted the desire of a foreign
    language then to be a foretoken of the bringing in of foreign powers,
    which indeed happened."--_Remains_, p. 30.

§ 180. In Chaucer and Mandeville, and perhaps in all the writers of the
reign of Edward III., we have a transition {123} from the Old to the Middle
English. The last characteristic of a grammar different from that of the
present English, is the plural form in _-en_; _we tellen_, _ye tellen_,
_they tellen_. As this disappears, which it does in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth (Spenser has it continually), the Middle English may be said to
pass into the New or Modern English.

§ 181. 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_, for _if it be_, and _if he speak_.

2. The distinction (as far as it goes) 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

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

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

§ 182. What the present language of England would have been had the Norman
Conquest never taken place, the analogy of Holland, Denmark, and of many
other countries enables us to determine. It would have been much as it is
at present. What it would have been had the _Saxon_ conquest never taken
place, is a question wherein there is far more speculation. Of France, of
Italy, of Wallachia, and of the Spanish Peninsula, the analogies all point
the same way. They indicate that the original Celtic would have been
superseded by the Latin of the conquerors, and consequently that our
language in its later stages would have been neither British nor Gaelic,
but Roman. Upon these analogies, however, we may refine. Italy, was from
the beginning, Roman; the Spanish Peninsula was invaded full early; no
ocean divided Gaul from Rome; and the war against the ancestors of the
Wallachians was a war of extermination.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 183. The term _Lowland_ is used to distinguish the Scotch of the
South-east from the Scotch of the Highlands. The former is English in its
immediate affinities, and Germanic in origin; the latter is nearly the same
language with the Gaelic of Ireland, and is, consequently, Celtic.

The question as to whether the Lowland Scotch is a dialect of the English,
or a separate and independent language, is a verbal rather than a real one.

Reasons for considering the Scotch and English as _dialects_ of one and the
same language lie in the fact of their being (except in the case of the
more extreme forms of each) mutually intelligible.

Reasons for calling one a dialect of the other depend upon causes other
than philological, _e.g._, political preponderance, literary development,
and the like.

Reasons for treating the Scotch as a separate substantive language lie in
the extent to which it has the qualities of a regular cultivated tongue,
and a separate substantive literature--partially separate and substantive
at the present time, wholly separate and substantive in the times anterior
to the union of the crowns, and in the hands of Wyntoun, Blind Harry,
Dunbar, and Lindsay.

§ 184. Reasons for making the _philological_ distinction between the
English and Scotch dialects exactly coincide with the geographical and
political boundaries between the two kingdoms are not so easily given. It
is not likely that the Tweed and Solway should divide modes of speech so
accurately as they divide laws and customs; that broad and trenchant lines
of demarcation should separate the Scotch {125} from the English exactly
along the line of the Border; and that there should be no Scotch elements
in Northumberland, and no Northumbrian ones in Scotland. Neither is such
the case. Hence, in speaking of the Lowland Scotch, it means the language
in its typical rather than in its transitional forms; indeed, it means the
_literary_ Lowland Scotch which, under the first five Stuarts, was as truly
an independent language as compared with the English, as Swedish is to
Danish, Portuguese to Spanish, or _vice versâ_.

§ 185. This limitation leaves us fully sufficient room for the notice of
the question as to its _origin_; a notice all the more necessary from the
fact of its having created controversy.

What is the _primâ facie_ view of the relations between the English of
England, and the mutually intelligible language (Scotch or English, as we
choose to call it) of Scotland? One of three:--

1. That it originated in England, and spread in the way of extension and
diffusion northwards, and so reached Scotland.

2. That it originated in Scotland, and spread in the way of extension and
diffusion southwards, and so reached England.

3. That it was introduced in each country from a common source.

In any of these cases it is Angle, or Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon, even as
English is Angle, or Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon.

§ 186. A view, however, different from these, and one disconnecting the
Lowland Scotch from the English and Anglo-Saxon equally, is what may be
called the _Pict_ doctrine. Herein it is maintained that the Lowland
_Scotch is derived from the Pict, and that the Picts were of Gothic_
origin. The reasoning upon these matters is to be found in the Dissertation
upon the Origin of the Scottish Language prefixed to Jamieson's
Etymological Dictionary: two extracts from which explain the view which the
author undertakes to combat:--

_a._ "It is an opinion which, after many others, has been pretty generally
received, and, perhaps, almost taken for granted, that the language spoken
in the Lowlands of {126} Scotland is merely a corrupt dialect of the
English, or at least of the Anglo-Saxon."

_b._ "It has generally been supposed that the Saxon language was introduced
into Scotland in the reign of Malcolm Canmore by his good queen and her
retinue; or partly by means of the intercourse which prevailed between the
inhabitants of Scotland and those of Cumberland, Northumberland,
Westmoreland, and Durham, which were held by the Kings of Scotland as fiefs
of the crown of England. An English writer, not less distinguished for his
amiable disposition and candour than for the cultivation of his mind, has
objected to this hypothesis with great force of argument."

§ 187. Now, as against any such notion as that involved in the preceding
extracts, the reasoning of the learned author of the Scottish Dictionary
may, perhaps, be valid. No such view, however, is held, at the present
moment, by any competent judge; and it is doubtful whether, in the extreme
way in which it is put forward by the opponent of it, it was ever
maintained at all.

Be this, however, as it may, the theory which is opposed to it rests upon
the following positions--

1. That the Lowland Scotch were Picts.

2. That the Picts were Goths.

In favour of this latter view the chief reasons are--

1. That what the Belgæ were the Picts were also.

2. That the Belgæ were Germanic.


1. That the natives of the Orkneys were Picts.

2. That they were also Scandinavian.

So that the Picts were Scandinavian Goths.

From whence it follows that--assuming what is true concerning the Orkneys
is true concerning the Lowland Scotch--the Lowland Scotch was Pict,
Scandinavian, Gothic, and (as such) more or less Belgic.

For the non-Gothic character of the Picts see the researches of Mr.
Garnett, as given in § 139, as well as a paper--believed to be from the
same author--in the Quarterly Review for 1834. {127}

For the position of the Belgæ, see Chapter IV.

§ 188. That what is true concerning the Orkneys (viz. that they were
Scandinavian) is _not_ true for the south and eastern parts of Scotland, is
to be collected from the peculiar distribution of the Scottish Gaelic;
which indicates a distinction between the Scandinavian of the north of
Scotland and the Scandinavian of the east of England. The Lowland Scotch
recedes as we go northward. Notwithstanding this, it is _not_ the extreme
north that is most Gaelic. In Caithness the geographical names are Norse.
_Sutherland_, the most northern county of Scotland, takes its name from
being _south_; that is, of Norway. The Orkneys and Shetland are in name,
manners, and language, Norse or Scandinavian. The Hebrides are Gaelic mixed
with Scandinavian. The Isle of Man is the same. The word _Sodor_ (in Sodor
and Man) is Norse, with the same meaning as it has in _Sutherland_. All
this indicates a more preponderating, and an earlier infusion of Norse
along the coast of Scotland, than that which took place under the Danes
upon the coasts of England, in the days of Alfred and under the reign of
Canute. The first may, moreover, have this additional peculiarity, _viz._
of being Norwegian rather than Danish. Hence I infer that the Scandinavians
settled in the northern parts of Scotland at an early period, but that it
was a late period when they ravaged the southern ones; so that, though the
language of Orkney may be Norse, that of the Lothians may be Saxon.

To verify these views we want not a general dictionary of the Scottish
language taken altogether, but a series of local glossaries, or at any rate
a vocabulary, 1st, of the northern; 2ndly, of the southern Scottish.

Between the English and Lowland Scotch we must account for the likeness as
well as the difference. The Scandinavian theory accounts for the difference

§ 189. Of the following specimens of the Lowland Scotch, the first is from
The Bruce, a poem written by Barbour, Archdeacon of Aberdeen, between the
years 1360 and 1375; the second from Wyntoun; the third from Blind Harry's
poem, Wallace, 1460; and the fourth from Gawin Douglas's translation of the
Æneid, A.D. 1513. {128}

      _The Bruce_, iv. 871--892.

  And as he raid in to the nycht,
  So saw he, with the monys lycht,
  Schynnyng off scheldys gret plenté;
  And had wondre quhat it mycht be.
  With that all hale thai gaiff a cry,
  And he, that hard sa suddainly
  Sic noyis, sumdele affrayit was.
  Bot in schort time he till him tais
  His spyrites full hardely;
  For his gentill hart, and worthy,
  Assurit hym in to that nede.
  Then with the spuris he strak the sted,
  And ruschyt in amaing them all.
  The feyrst he met he gert him fall;
  And syne his suord he swapyt out,
  And roucht about him mony rout,
  And slew sexsum weill sone and ma:
  Then wndre him his horss thai sla:
  And he fell; but he smertty rass,
  And strykand rowm about him mass:
  And slew off thaim a quantité.
  But woundyt wondre sar was he.

  _Wyntoun's Chronicle_, I. xiii. 1--22.

  Blessyde Bretayn Beelde sulde be
  Of all þe Ilys in þe Se,
  Quhare Flowrys are fele on Feldys fayre
  Hale of hewe, haylsum of ayre.
  Of all corne þare is copy gret,
  Pese and A'tys, Bere and Qwhet:
  Báth froyt on Tre, and fysche in flwde;
  And tyl all Catale pasture gwde.
  Solynus Sayis, in Brettany
  Sum steddys growys sá habowndanly
  Of Gyrs, þat sum tym (but) þair Fe
  Frá fwlth of Mete refrenyht be,
  Ðair fwde sall turne þam to peryle,
  To rot, or bryst, or dey sum quhyle.
  Ðare wylde in Wode has welth at wille;
  Ðare hyrdys hydys Holme and Hille:
  Ðare Bwyis bowys all for Byrtht,
  Báthe Merle and Ma[:w]esys mellys for myrtht:
  Ðare huntyng is at all kyne Dere,
  And rycht gud hawlkyn on Bÿwer;
  Of Fysche þaire is habowndance;
  And nedfulle thyng to Mannys substance.

      _Wallace_, xi. 230-262.

  A lord off court, quhen he approchyt thar,
  Wnwisytly sperd, withoutyn prouision;
  "Wallace, dar ye go fecht on our lioun?"
  And he said; "Ya, so the Kyng suffyr me;
  Or on your selff, gyff ye ocht bettyr be."
  Quhat will ye mar? this thing amittyt was,
  That Wallace suld on to the lioun pas.
  The King thaim chargyt to bring him gud harnas:
  Then he said; "Nay, God scheild me fra sic cass.
  I wald tak weid, suld I fecht with a man;
  But (for) a dog, that nocht off armes can,
  I will haiff nayn, bot synglar as I ga."
  A gret manteill about his hand can ta,
  And his gud suerd; with him he tuk na mar;
  Abandounly in barrace entryt thar.
  Gret chenys was wrocht in the yet with a gyn,
  And pulld it to quhen Wallace was tharin.
  The wod lyoun, on Wallace quhar he stud,
  Rampand he braid, for he desyryt blud;
  With his rude pollis in the mantill rocht sa.
  Aukwart the bak than Wallace can him ta,
  With his gud suerd, that was off burnest steill,
  His body in twa it thruschyt euirilkdeill.
  Syn to the King he raykyt in gret ire,
  And said on lowd; "Was this all your desyr,
  To wayr a Scot thus lychtly in to wayn?
  Is thar mar doggis at ye wald yeit haiff slayne?
  Go, bryng thaim furth, sen I mon doggis qwell,
  To do byddyng, quhill that with thee duell.
  It gaynd full weill I graithit me to Scotland;
  For grettar deidis thair men has apon hand,
  Than with a dog in battaill to escheiff--
  At you in France for euir I tak my leiff."


      _Gawin Douglas_, Æn. ii.

  As Laocon that was Neptunus priest,
  And chosin by cavil vnto that ilk office,
  Ane fare grete bull offerit in sacrifice,
  Solempnithe before the haly altere,
  Throw the still sey from Tenedos in fere,
  Lo twa gret lowpit edderis with mony thraw
  First throw the flude towart the land can draw.
  (My sprete abhorris this matter to declare)
  Aboue the wattir thare hals stude euirmare,
  With bludy creistis outwith the wallis hie,
  The remanent swam always vnder the se,
  With grisly bodyis lynkit mony fald,
  The salt fame stouris from the fard they hald,
  Unto the ground thay glade with glowand ene,
  Stuffit full of venom, fire and felloun tene,
  With tounges quhissling in thar mouthis red,
  Thay lik the twynkilland stangis in thar hed.
  We fled away al bludles for effere.
  Bot with ane braide to Laocon in fere
  Thay stert attanis, and his twa sonnys zyng
  First athir serpent lappit like ane ring,
  And with thare cruel bit, and stangis fell,
  Of tender membris tuke mony sory morsel;
  Syne thay the preist invadit baith twane,
  Quhilk wyth his wappins did his besy pane
  His childer for to helpen and reskew.
  Bot thay about him lowpit in wympillis threw,
  And twis circulit his myddel round about,
  And twys faldit thare sprutillit skynnis but dout,
  About his hals, baith neck and hed they schent.
  As he ettis thare hankis to haue rent,
  And with his handis thaym away haue draw,
  His hede bendis and garlandis all war blaw
  Full of vennum and rank poysoun attanis,
  Quhilk infekkis the flesche, blude, and banys.

§ 190. In the way of orthography, the most characteristic difference
between the English and Scotch is the use, on the part of the latter, of
_qu_ for _wh_; as _quhen_, _quhare_, _quhat_, for _when_, _where_, _what_.
The substitution of _sch_ for _sh_ (as _scho_ for _she_), and of _z_ for
the Old English _[gh]_ (as _zour_ for _[gh]eowr_, _your_), is as much
northern English as Scotch. {131}

In pronunciation, the substitution of _d_ for _ð_ (if not a point of
spelling), as in _fader_ for _father_; of _a_ for _o_, as _báith_ for
_both_; of _s_ for _sh_, as _sall_ for _shall_; and the use of the guttural
sound of _ch_, as in _loch_, _nocht_, are the same.

The ejection of the _n_ before _t_, or an allied sound, and the lengthening
of the preceding vowel, by way of compensation, as in _begouth_ for
_beginneth_, seems truly Scotch. It is the same change that in Greek turns
the radical syllable [Greek: odont] into [Greek: odous].

The formation of the plural of verbs in _-s_, rather than in _-th_ (the
Anglo-Saxon form), is Northern English as well as Scotch:--Scotch,
_slepys_, _lovys_; Northern English, _slepis_, _lovis_; Old English,
_slepen_, _loven_; Anglo-Saxon _slepiað_, _lufiað_.

The formation of the plural number of the genitive case by the addition of
the syllable _-is_ (_blastis_, _birdis_, _bloomis_), instead of the letter
_-s_ (_blasts_, _birds_, _blooms_), carries with it a metrical advantage,
inasmuch as it gives a greater number of double rhymes.

The same may be said of the participial forms, _affrayit_, _assurit_, for
_affrayd_, _assured_.

Concerning the comparative rate of change in the two languages no general
assertion can be made. In the Scotch words _sterand_, _slepand_, &c., for
_steering_, _sleeping_, the form is antiquated, and Anglo-Saxon rather than
English. It is not so, however, with the words _thai_ (_they_), _thaim_
(_them_), _thair_ (_their_), compared with the contemporary words in
English, _heo_, _hem_, _heora_. In these it is the Scottish that is least,
and the English that is most Anglo-Saxon.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 191. The languages mentioned in the present chapter claim their place on
one ground only,--_they have been the subject of controversy_. The notice
of them will be brief. The current texts upon which the controversies have
turned will be quoted; whilst the opinion of the present writer is left to
be collected from the title of the chapter.

_The Belgæ._--By some these are considered a Germanic rather than a Celtic
tribe; the view being supported by the following extracts from
Cæsar:--"_Gallia est omnis divisa in tres partes; quarum unam incolunt
Belgæ, aliam Aquitani, tertiam, qui ipsorum lingua Celtæ, nostra Galli,
appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt.
Gallos--a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit._"--B. G. i. "_Belgæ ab
extremis Galliæ finibus oriuntur._"--B. G. ii. "_Quum ab his quæreret, quæ
civitates, quantæque in armis essent, et quid in bello possent, sic
reperiebat: plerosque Belgas esse ortos a Germanis, Rhenumque antiquitùs
transductos, propter loci fertilitatem ibi consedisse; Gallosque, qui ea
loca incolerent, expulisse; solosque esse qui patrum nostrorum memoria,
omni Gallia vexata Teutones Cimbrosque intra fines suos ingredi
prohibuerunt._"--B. G. ii. 4. "_Britanniæ pars interior ab iis incolitur
quos natos in insulâ ipsâ memoriâ proditum dicunt: maritima pars ab iis,
qui prædæ ac belli inferendi causa ex Belgio transierant._"--B. G. v. 12.

§ 192. The possibly Germanic origin of the Belgæ, and the Belgic element of
the British population, are matters which bear upon the question indicated
in § 10, or that of the Germanic influences anterior to A.D. 449. {133}

They have a still more important bearing, the historian over and above
identifying the Belgæ with the Germans, affirms _that what applies to the
Belgæ applies to the Picts_ also.

Now this is one of the arguments in favour of the doctrine exhibited (and
objected to) in pp. 124-127, and the extent of questions upon which it
bears, may be collected from the following quotation:--"A variety of other
considerations might be mentioned, which, although they do not singly
amount to proof, yet merit attention, as viewed in connexion with what has
been already stated.

"As so great a part of the eastern coast of what is now called England was
so early peopled by the Belgæ, it is hardly conceivable that neither so
enterprising a people, nor any of their kindred tribes, should ever think
of extending their descents a little farther eastward. For that the Belgæ
and the inhabitants of the countries bordering on the Baltic, had a common
origin, there seems to be little reason to doubt. The Dutch assert that
their progenitors were Scandinavians, who, about a century before the
common era, left Jutland and the neighbouring territories, in quest of new
habitations.[29] The Saxons must be viewed as a branch from the same stock;
for they also proceeded from modern Jutland and its vicinity. Now, there is
nothing repugnant to reason in supposing that some of these tribes should
pass over directly to the coast of Scotland opposite to them, even before
the Christian era. For Mr. Whitaker admits that the Saxons, whom he
strangely makes a Gaulic people, in the second century applied themselves
to navigation, and soon became formidable to the Romans.[30] Before they
could become formidable to so powerful a people, they must have been at
least so well acquainted with navigation as to account it no great
enterprise to cross from the shores of the Baltic over to Scotland,
especially if they took the islands of Shetland and Orkney in their way.

"As we have seen that, according to Ptolemy, there were, in his time,
different tribes of Belgæ, settled on the northern {134} extremity of our
country: the most natural idea undoubtedly is, that they came directly from
the Continent. For had these Belgæ crossed the English Channel, according
to the common progress of barbarous nations, it is scarcely supposable that
this island would have been settled to its utmost extremity so early as the
age of Agricola.

"There is every reason to believe, that the Belgic tribes in Caledonia,
described by Ptolemy, were Picts. For as the Belgæ, Picts, and Saxons seem
to have had a common origin, it is not worth while to differ about names.
These frequently arise from causes so trivial, that their origin becomes
totally inscrutable to succeeding ages. The Angles, although only one
tribe, have accidentally given their name to the country which they
invaded, and to all the descendants of the Saxons and Belgæ, who were by
far more numerous.

"It is universally admitted, that there is a certain national character, of
an external kind, which distinguishes one people from another. This is
often so strong that those who have travelled through various countries, or
have accurately marked the diversities of this character, will scarcely be
deceived even as to a straggling individual. Tacitus long ago remarked the
striking resemblance between the Germans and Caledonians. Every stranger,
at this day, observes the great difference and complexion between the
Highlanders and Lowlanders. No intelligent person in England is in danger
of confounding the Welsh with the posterity of the Saxons. Now, if the
Lowland Scots be not a Gothic race, but in fact the descendants of the
ancient British, they must be supposed to retain some national resemblance
of the Welsh. But will any impartial observer venture to assert, that in
feature, complexion, or form, there is any such similarity as to induce the
slightest apprehension that they have been originally the same people?"[31]

It is doubtful, however, whether Cæsar meant to say more than that over
above certain differences which distinguished the Belgæ from the other
inhabitants of the common country _Gallia_, there was an intermixture of


The import of a possibly Germanic origin for the Belgæ gives us the import
of a possibly Germanic origin for--

§ 193. _The Caledonians._--A speculative sentence of Tacitus indicates the
chance of the Caledonians being Germanic:--"_Britanniam qui mortales initio
coluerint, indigenæ an advecti, ut inter barbaros, parum compertum. Habitus
corporum varii: atque ex eo argumenta: namque rutilæ Caledoniam habitantium
comæ, magni artus, Germanicam originem adseverant._"--Agricola, xi.

The continuation of the passage quoted in § 193 has induced the notion that
there have been in Britain Spanish, Iberic, or Basque tribes:--"_Silurum
colorati vultus, et torti plerumque crines, et posita contra Hispania,
Iberos veteres trajecisse, easque sedes occupâsse fidem
faciunt._"--Agricola, xi.

As this, although an opinion connected with the history of the languages of
Great Britain, is not an opinion connected with the history of the English
language, it is a question for the Celtic, rather than the Gothic,
philologist. The same applies to the points noticed in §§ 136-138.
Nevertheless they are necessary for the purposes of minute philological

§ 194. As early as the year A.D. 1676, an opinion was advanced by[32]
Aylett Sammes, in a work entitled Britannia Antiqua Illustrata, that the
first colonisers of Ireland were the merchants of Tyre and Sidon. In
confirmation of this opinion the existence of several Eastern customs in
Ireland was adduced by subsequent antiquarians. Further marks of an Eastern
origin of the Irish were soon found in the Gaelic dialect of that country.
Finally, the matter (in the eyes at least of the national writers) was
satisfactorily settled by the famous discovery, attributed to General
Vallancey, of the true meaning of the Carthaginian lines in Plautus.

In the Little Carthaginian (Poenulus) of the Latin comic writer Plautus, a
portion of the dialogue is carried on in the language of Carthage.

That the Punic language of Carthage should closely {136} resemble that of
the mother-city Tyre, which was Phoenician; and that the Phoenician of Tyre
should be allied to the language of Palestine and Syria, was soon remarked
by the classical commentators of the time. Joseph Scaliger asserted that
the Punic of the Poenulus _differed but little from pure Hebrew_--"_Ab
Hebraismi puritate parum abesse._"

Emendated and interpreted by Bochart, the first ten lines of a speech in
Act v. s. 1. stand thus:--

  1. N' yth alionim valionuth sicorath jismacon sith
  2. Chy-mlachai jythmu mitslia mittebariim ischi
  3. Liphorcaneth yth beni ith jad adi ubinuthai
  4. Birua rob syllohom alonim ubymisyrtohom
  5. Bythrym moth ymoth othi helech Antidamarchon
  6. Ys sideli: brim tyfel yth chili schontem liphul
  7. Uth bin imys dibur thim nocuth nu' Agorastocles
  8. Ythem aneti hy chyr saely choc, sith naso.
  9. Binni id chi lu hilli gubylim lasibil thym
  10. Body aly thera ynn' yss' immoncon lu sim--

  _The Same, in Hebrew Characters._

  [Hebrew: LPWRQNT 'T BNY 'T YD `DY WBNWTY:] .3
  [Hebrew: BW' DY `LY TR` 'N': HNW 'SH'L 'M MNKR LW 'M] .01

Six lines following these were determined to be _Liby_-Phoenician, or the
language of the native Africans in the neighbourhood of Carthage, mixed
with Punic. These, it was stated, had the same meaning with the ten lines
in Carthaginian.

The following lines of Plautus have, by all commentators, {137} been viewed
in the same light, _viz._ as the Latin version of the speech of the

  1. Deos deasque veneror, qui hanc urbem colunt,
  2. Ut, quod de mea re huc veni, rite venerim.
  3. Measque hic ut gnatas, et mei fratris filium
  4. Reperire me siritis: Di, vostram fidem!
  5. Quæ mihi surruptæ sunt, et fratris filium:
  6. Sed hic mihi antehac hospes Antidamas fuit.
  7. Eum fecisse aiunt, sibi quod faciendum fuit.
  8. Ejus filium hic esse prædicant Agorastoclem:
  9. Deum hospitalem et tesseram mecum fero:
  10. In hisce habitare monstratum est regionibus.
  11. Hos percunctabor, qui huc egrediuntur foras.

Guided by the metrical _paraphrase_ of the original author, Bochart laid
before the scholars of his time a Latin version, of which the following is
an English translation:--

_Close Translation of Bochart's Latin Version._

  1. I ask the gods and goddesses that preside over this city,
  2. That my plans may be fulfilled.--May my business prosper under their
  3. The release of my son and my daughters from the hands of a robber.
  4. May the gods grant this, through the mighty spirit that is in them and
      by their providence!
  5. Before his death, Antidamarchus used to sojourn with me.
  6. A man intimate with me: but he has joined the ranks of those whose
      dwelling is in darkness (the dead).
  7. There is a general report that his son has here taken his abode;
      _viz._ Agorastocles.
  8. The token (tally) of my claim to hospitality is a carven tablet, the
      sculpture whereof is my god. This I carry.
  9. A witness has informed me that he lives in this neighbourhood.
  10. Somebody comes this way through the gate: behold him: I'll ask him
      whether he knows the name.

To professed classics and to professed orientalists, the version of Bochart
has, _on the whole_, appeared satisfactory. Divisions of opinion there have
been, it is true, even amongst those who received it; but merely upon
matters of detail. Some have held that the Punic is Syriac rather than
Hebraic, whilst others have called in to its interpretation the Arabic,
{138} the Maltese, or the Chaldee; all (be it observed) languages akin to
the Hebrew. Those who look further than this for their affinities,
Gesenius[33] dismisses in the following cavalier and cursory manner:--"_Ne
eorum somnia memorem, qui e Vasconum et Hiberniæ linguis huic causæ
succurri posse opinati sunt; de quibus copiosius referre piget._"

The remark of Gesenius concerning the pretended affinities between the
Punic and Hibernian arose from the discovery attributed to General
Vallancey; _viz._ that the speech in Plautus was Irish Gaelic, and
consequently that the Irish was Carthaginian, and _vice versâ_. The word
_attributed_ is used because the true originator of the hypothesis was not
Vallancey, but O'Neachtan.

_The Gaelic Version._

  1. N 'iath all o nimh uath lonnaithe socruidshe me comsith
  2. Chimi lach chuinigh! muini is toil, miocht beiridh iar mo scith
  3. Liomhtha can ati bi mitche ad éadan beannaithe
  4. Bior nar ob siladh umhal: o nimh! ibhim a frotha!
  5. Beith liom! mo thime noctaithe; neil ach tan ti daisic mac coinme
  6. Is i de leabhraim tafach leith, chi lis con teampluibh ulla
  7. Uch bin nim i is de beart inn a ccomhnuithe Agorastocles!
  8. Itche mana ith a chithirsi; leicceath sith nosa!
  9. Buaine na iad cheile ile: gabh liom an la so bithim'!
  10. Bo dileachtach nionath n' isle, mon cothoil us im.

_In English._

  1. Omnipotent much-dreaded Deity of this country! assuage my troubled
  2. Thou! the support of feeble captives! being now exhausted with
      fatigue, of thy free will guide to my children!
  3. O let my prayers be perfectly acceptable in thy sight!
  4. An inexhaustible fountain to the humble: O Deity! let me drink of its
  5. Forsake me not! my earnest desire is now disclosed, which is only that
      of recovering my daughters.
  6. This was my fervent prayer, lamenting their misfortunes in thy sacred
  7. O bounteous Deity! it is reported here dwelleth Agorastocles.
  8. Should my request appear just, let here my disquietudes cease.
  9. Let them be no longer concealed; O that I may this day find my
  10. They will be fatherless, and preys to the worst of men, unless it be
      thy pleasure that I should find them.

From the quotations already given, the general reader may see that both the
text and the translation of Plautus are least violated in the reading and
rendering of Bochart, a reading and rendering which no _Gothic_ or
_Semitic_ scholar has ever set aside.

§ 195. _The hypothesis of an aboriginal Finnic population in Britain and
elsewhere._--A Celtic population of Britain preceded the Germanic. Are
there any reasons for believing that any older population preceded the

The reasoning upon this point is preeminently that of the Scandinavian
(_i.e._ Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian) school of philology and ethnology.

Arndt, I believe, was the first who argued that if the so-called
Indo-European nations were as closely connected with each other as they are
generally considered, their separation from the common stock must have been
subsequent to the occupation of Europe by some portion or other of the
human species--in other words, that this earlier population must have been
spread over those areas of which the Indo-Europeans took possession only at
a later period.

That the divisions of such an earlier population were, _at least_, as
closely connected with each other as the different members of the so-called
Indo-European class, was a reasonable opinion. It was even reasonable to
suppose that they were _more_ closely connected; since the date of their
diffusion must have been nearer the time of the original dispersion of

If so, all Europe (the British Isles included) might have had as its
aborigines a family older than the oldest members of the Indo-European
stock; a family of which every member may now be extinct, or a family of
which remains may still survive.

Where are such remains to be sought? In two sorts of localities-- {140}

1. Parts _beyond_ the limits of the area occupied by the so-called

2. Parts _within_ the limits of the so-called Indo-Europeans; but so
fortified by nature as to have been the stronghold of a retiring

What are the chief parts coming under the first of these conditions?

_a._ The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Scandinavian and
Slavonic areas, _i.e._ the countries of the Laplanders and Finnlanders.

_b._ The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Iranian stock, _i.e._
the Dekkan, or the country of those natives of India (whatever they may be)
whose languages are not derived from the Sanscrit.

What are parts coming under the second of these conditions?

_a._ The Basque districts of the Pyrenees, where the language represents
that of the aborigines of Spain anterior to the conquest of the Roman.

_b._ The Albanians.--Such the doctrine of the _continuity_ of an
_ante_-Indo-European population, from Cape Comorin to Lapland, and from
Lapland to the Pyrenees. There is _some_ philological evidence of this:
whether there is _enough_ is another matter.

This view, which on its _philological_ side has been taken up by Rask,
Kayser, and the chief Scandinavian scholars, and which, whether right or
wrong, is the idea of a bold and comprehensive mind, as well as a powerful
instrument of criticism in the way of a provisional theory, has also been
adopted on its _physiological_ side by the chief Scandinavian anatomists
and palæontologists--Retzius, Eschricht, Niilson, and others. Skulls
differing in shape from the Celtic skulls of Gaul, and from the Gothic
skulls of Germany and Scandinavia, have been found in considerable numbers;
and generally in burial-places of an apparently greater antiquity than
those which contain typical Celtic, or typical Gothic crania. Hence there
is some _anatomical_ as well as philological evidence: whether there is
enough is another question.

       *       *       *       *       *







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

I. 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. Now 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 {142} of the two syllables
remained the same; 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.

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.

II. 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.

In many cases it is sufficient, in comparing consonants, to compare
syllables that contain those consonants; _e.g._, 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) imperfect sounds of _p'_, _b'_, _t'_, _d'_. In doing
this we isolate the consonant. {143}

§ 197. 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 fore part
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 breath.

§ 198. 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_, _g_, _s_, _z_, &c.) _Definitions_
for the different sorts of articulate sounds have still to be laid down. In
place of these, we have general assertions concerning the properties and
qualities of the respective classes. Concerning the consonants as a class,
we may predicate one thing concerning the liquids, and concerning the
mutes, another. What the nature of these assertions is, will be seen after
the explanation of certain terms.

§ 199. _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. {144}

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 Sanskrit 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.

_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.

§ 200. 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.

§ 201.--The letter _h_ is no articulate sound, but only a breathing.

For the semivowels and the diphthongs, see the sequel.

       *       *       *       *       *




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

1. _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

2. _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. _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.

§ 203. _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 [sigma] (Greek [Greek: sigma]).

4. That the _z_ in _azure_, _glazier_ (French _j_), is a simple single
sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign [zeta] (Greek [Greek:
zêta]). {146}

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 _[kappa]_ and
the sign _[gamma]_ (Greek [Greek: kappa] and [Greek: gamma]).

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, at
the first glance, such might appear to be the case. _F_ is continuous,
whilst _p_ is explosive. _S_, however, is continuous, and _s_, in respect
to the difference under consideration, is classed not with _f_ the
continuous sound but with _p_ the explosive one. I am unable to account for
the difference between _p_ and _f_. It exists: it is visible. It has been
expressed by a term. _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 _[kappa]_ to _k_.
  As _[kappa]_ is to _k_ so is _[gamma]_ to _g_.
  As _[gamma]_ is to _g_ so is _[sigma]_ to _s_.
  As _[sigma]_ is to _s_ so is _[zeta]_ to _z_.

Hence _p_, _b_, _t_, _d_, _k_, _g_, _s_, _z_, are _lene_; _f_, _v_, _þ_,
_ð_, _[kappa]_, _[gamma]_, _[sigma]_, _[zeta]_, are _aspirate_. Also _p_,
_f_, _t_, _þ_, _k_, _[kappa]_, _s_, _[sigma]_, are _sharp_, whilst _b_,
_v_, _d_, _ð_, _g_, _[gamma]_, _z_, _[zeta]_, are _flat_; so that there is
a double series of relationship capable of being expressed as follows:--

      _Lene_.              _Aspirate_.
  _Sharp_. _Flat_.      _Sharp_.  _Flat_.
    _p_     _b_          _f_       _v_
    _t_     _d_          _þ_       _ð_
    _k_     _g_          _[kappa]_ _[gamma]_
    _s_     _z_          _[sigma]_ _[zeta]_

       _Sharp_.             _Flat_.
  _Lene_. _Aspirate_.  _Lene_.  _Aspirate_
    _p_     _f_          _b_       _v_
    _t_     _þ_          _d_       _ð_
    _k_     _[kappa]_    _g_       _[gamma]_
    _s_     _[sigma]_    _z_       _[zeta]_


I am not familiar enough with the early grammarians to know when the terms
_lene_ and _aspirate_ were first used. They were the Latin equivalents to
the Greek words [Greek: psilon] (_psilon_) and [Greek: dasu] (_dasy_)
respectively. The Greek terms are preferable. _They_ convey no determinate
idea, whereas the Latin terms convey a false one. The origin of the word
aspirate I imagine to be as follows. The Latin language, wanting both the
sound of the Greek _theta_, and the sign to express it (_[theta]_) rendered
it by _th_. This orthography engenders the false notion that _[theta]_
differed from _[tau]_ by the addition of the aspirate _h_. To guard against
similar false notions, I rarely hereafter use the word aspirate without
qualifying it by the addition of the adjective _so-called_.

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

I believe that in the fact of each mute appearing in a fourfold form
(_i.e._ sharp, or flat, lene, or (so-called) aspirate), lies the essential
character of the mutes as opposed to the liquids.

_Y_ and _w_.--These sounds, respectively intermediate to _[gamma]_ and _i_
(the _ee_ in _feet_), and to _[upsilon]_ and _u_ (_oo_ in _book_), form a
transition from the vowels to the consonants.

§ 204. It has been seen that the sixteen mutes are reducible to four
series. Of these series, _p_, _t_, _k_, _s_, may respectively be taken as
the types. Of the liquids it may be predicated as follows:--

1. That _m_ is allied to the series _p_.--The combination _inp_ has a
tendency to become _imp_.

2. That _n_ is allied to the series _t_.--The combination _imt_ has a
tendency to become either _impt_, or _int_.

3. That _l_ is allied to the series _k_.--The evidence of this lies deep in
comparative philology.

4. That _r_ is allied to the series _s_.--The evidence of this is of the
same nature with that of the preceding assertion.

The series _p_ and _k_ have this peculiarity.--They are connected with the
vowels through _w_ and _u_ (_oo_), and through _y_ and _i_ (_ee_)

§ 205. The French word _roi_ and the English words _oil_, {148} _house_,
are specimens of a fresh class of articulations; _viz._, of compound vowel
sounds or _diphthongs_. The diphthong _oi_ is the vowel _o_ modified, plus
the _semi_vowel _y_ (not the _vowel_ _i_) modified. The diphthongal sound
in _roi_ is the vowel _o_ modified, _plus_ the semivowel _w_ (not the vowel
_u_ or _oo_) modified. In _roi_ the semivowel element precedes, in _oil_ it
follows. In _roi_ it is the semivowel allied to series _p_; in _oil_ it is
the semivowel allied to series _k_. _The nature of the modification that
the component parts of a diphthong undergo has yet to be determined_;
although it is certain there is one. If it were not so, the articulations
would be _double_, not _compound_.

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_.

§ 206. _Chest_, _jest_.--Here we have compound consonantal sounds. The _ch_
in _chest_ is _t_ + _sh_ ([sigma]), the _j_ in _jest_ is _d_ + _zh_
([zeta]). 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.

§ 207. _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, of which
the combination _ng_ is a conventional mode of expressing.

§ 208. Other terms, chiefly relating to the vowels, have still to be
explained. The _é_ of the French has been called _fermé_, or _close_
(Italian, _chiuso_). Its opposite, the _a_ in _fate_, is _open_.

Compared with _a_ in _fate_, and the _o_ in _note_, _a_ in _father_, {149}
and the _aw_ in _bawl_, are _broad_, the vowels of _note_ and _fate_ being

§ 209. 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 would fain 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 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

To the preceding remarks the following statements may be added.

1. That the words _independent_ and _dependent_ correspond with the terms
_perfect_ and _imperfect_ of the Hebrew grammarians.

2. That the Hebrew grammars give us the truest notions respecting these
particular properties of vowels.

The following sentences are copied from Lee's Hebrew Grammar, Art. 33,
34:--"By _perfect vowels_ is meant, vowels which, being preceded by a
consonant" (_or without being so preceded_), "will constitute a complete
syllable, as [Hebrew: BA] _b[=a]_. By _imperfect vowels_ is meant those
vowels which are not generally" (_never_) "found to constitute syllables
without either the addition of a consonant or of an accent. Such syllables,
therefore, must be either like [Hebrew: BDA] _bad_, or [Hebrew: BA]
_b[=a]_, _i.e._, followed by a consonant, or accompanied by an accent." For
further remarks on this subject, see the chapter on accent.

§ 210. Before _i_, _e_, and _y_ of the English alphabet, and before _ü_ and
_ö_ German, the letters _c_ and _g_ have the tendency to assume the sound
and power of _s_ or _z_, of _sh_ or _zh_, of _ch_ or _j_; {150} in other
words, of becoming either _s_ or some sound allied to _s_. Compared with
_a_, _o_, and _u_ (as in _gat_, _got_, _gun_), which are _full_, _i_, _e_,
_y_, are _small_ vowels.

It not every vowel that is susceptible of every modification. _I_ (_ee_)
and _u_ (_oo_) are incapable of becoming broad. _E_ in _bed_ (as I have
convinced myself), 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.

§ 211. _Vowel System._

     _Broad._           |                       _Slender._
                        |                           |
  _Independent._        |_Independent._             | _Dependent._
                        |                           |
  _a_, in _father_      |_a_, in _fate_             |_a_, in _fat_.
                        |_e fermé_, _long_          |_e fermé_, _short_.
  _e_, in _meine_, Germ.|                           |_e_, in _bed_.
                        |_ee_, in _feet_            |_i_, in _pit_.
                        |_ü_, of the German, _long_ |the same, _short_.
                        |_oo_, in _book_            |_ou_, in _could_.
                        |_o chiuso_                 |the same, _short_.
  _aw_, in _bawl_       |_o_, in _note_             |_o_, in _note_.

From these, the semivowels _w_ and _y_ make a transition to the consonants
_v_ and the so-called aspirate of _g_ ([gamma], not being in English),

§ 212. _System of Consonants._

  _Liquids._ |               _Mutes._                 | _Semivowels._
             |                                        |
             |      _Lene._      |     _Aspirate._    |
             |                   |                    |
             | _Sharp._  _Flat._ | _Sharp._   _Flat._ |
             |                   |                    |
     _m_     |  _p_       _b_    |  _f_        _v_    |      _w_
     _n_     |  _t_       _d_    |  _þ_        _ð_    |
     _l_     |  _k_       _g_    |  [kappa]  [gamma]  |      _y_
     _r_     |  _s_       _z_    |  [sigma]  [zeta]   |

§ 213. Concerning the vowel system I venture no assertion. The consonantal
system I conceive to have been exhibited above in its whole fulness. The
number of mutes, _specifically_ distinct, I consider to be sixteen and no
more: the number of liquids, four. What then are the powers of the numerous
letters in alphabets like those of Arabia and Armenia? What {151} is the
German _ch_, and Irish _gh_? _Varieties_ of one or other of the sounds
exhibited above, and not articulations specifically distinct.

§ 214. There is a _difference between a connexion in phonetics and a
connexion in grammar_.--Phonetics is a word expressive of the
subject-matter of the present chapter. The present chapter determines
(amongst other things) the systematic relation of articulate sounds. The
word _phônæticos_ ([Greek: phônêtichos]) signifies _appertaining to
articulate sounds_. It is evident that between sounds like _b_ and _v_, _s_
and _z_, there is a connexion in phonetics. Now in the grammar of languages
there is often a change, or a permutation of letters: _e.g._, in the words
_tooth_, _teeth_, the vowel, in _price_, _prize_, the consonant, is
changed. Here there is a connexion in grammar.

That the letters most closely allied in phonetics should be most frequently
interchanged in grammar, is what, on _à priori_ grounds, we most naturally
are led to expect. And that such is _often_ the case, the study of
languages tells us. That, however, it is always so, would be a hasty and an
erroneous assertion. The Greek language changes _p_ into _f_. Here the
connexion in phonetics and the connexion in language closely coincide. The
Welsh language changes _p_ into _m_. Here the connexion in phonetics and
the connexion in language do _not_ closely coincide.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 215. Certain combinations of articulate sounds are incapable of being
pronounced. The following rule is one that, in the forthcoming pages, will
frequently be referred to. _Two (or more) _mutes_, of different degrees of
sharpness and flatness, are incapable of coming together in the same
syllable._ For instance, _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, _z_, &c. being flat, and _p_,
_f_, _t_, _k_, _s_, &c. being sharp, such combinations as _abt_, _avt_,
_apd_, _afd_, _agt_, _akd_, _atz_, _ads_, &c., are unpronounceable.
_Spelt_, indeed, they may be; but attempts at pronunciation end in a
_change_ of the combination. In this case either the flat letter is changed
to its sharp equivalent (_b_ to _p_, _d_ to _t_, &c.) or _vice versâ_ (_p_
to _b_, _t_ to _d_). The combinations _abt_, and _agt_, to be pronounced,
must become either _apt_ or _abd_, or else _akt_ or _agd_.

For determining which of the two letters shall be changed, in other words,
whether it shall be the first that accommodates itself to the second, or
the second that accommodates itself to the first, there are no general
rules. This is settled by the particular habit of the language in

The word _mutes_ in the second sentence of this section must be dwelt on.
It is only with the _mutes_ that there is an impossibility of pronouncing
the heterogeneous combinations above mentioned. The liquids and the vowels
are flat; but the liquids and vowels, although flat, may be followed by a
sharp consonant. If this were not the case, the combinations _ap_, _at_,
_alp_, _alt_, &c. would be unpronounceable.

The semivowels, although flat, admit of being followed by a sharp

The law exhibited above may be called the law of accommodation. {153}

Combinations like _gt_, _kd_, &c., may be called incompatible combinations.

§ 216. _Unstable combinations._--That certain sounds in combination with
others have a tendency to undergo changes, may be collected from the
observation of our own language, as we find it spoken by those around us,
or by ourselves. The _ew_ in _new_ is a sample of what may be called an
unsteady or unstable combination. There is a natural tendency to change it
either into _oo_ (_noo_) or _yoo_ (_nyoo_); perhaps also into _yew_

§ 217. _Effect of the semivowel _y_ on certain letters when they precede
it._--Taken by itself the semivowel _y_, followed by a vowel (_ya_, _yee_,
_yo_, _you_, &c.), forms a stable combination. Not so, however, if it be
preceded by a consonant, of the series _t_, _k_, or _s_, as _tya_, _tyo_;
_dya_, _dyo_; _kya_, _kyo_; _sya_, _syo_. There then arises an unstable
combination. _Sya_ and _syo_ we pronounce as _sha_ and _sho_; _tya_ and
_tyo_ we pronounce as _cha_ and _ja_ (_i.e._ _tsh_, _dzh_.). This we may
verify from our pronunciation of words like _sure_, _picture_, _verdure_
(_shoor_, _pictshoor_, _verdzhoor_), having previously remarked that the
_u_ in those words is not sounded as _oo_ but as _yoo_. The effect of the
semivowel _y_, taken with instability of the combination _ew_, accounts for
the tendency to pronounce _dew_ as if written _jew_.

§ 218. _The evolution of new sounds._--To an English ear the sound of the
German _ch_ falls strange. To an English organ it is at first difficult to
pronounce. The same is the case with the German vowels _ö_ and _ü_ and with
the French sounds _u_, _eu_, &c.

To a German, however, and a Frenchman, the sound of the English _th_
(either in _thin_ or _thine_) is equally a matter of difficulty.

The reason of this lies in the fact of the respective sounds being absent
in the German, French, and English languages; since sounds are easy or hard
to pronounce just in proportion as we have been familiarised with them.

There is no instance of a new sound being introduced at once into a
language. Where they originate at all, they are _evolved_, not imported.

§ 219. _Evolution of sounds._--Let there be a language where there is no
such a sound as that of _z_, but where there is the sound of _s_. The sound
of _z_ may be evolved under (amongst others) the following conditions. 1.
Let there be a number of words ending in the flat mutes; as _slab_, _stag_,
_stud_, &c. 2. Let a certain form (the plural number or the genitive case)
be formed by the addition of _is_ or _es_; as _slabis_, _stages_, _studes_,
&c. 3. Let the tendency that words have to contract eject the intermediate
vowel, _e_ or _i_, so that the _s_ of the inflexion (a _sharp_ mute) and
the _b_, _d_, _g_, &c. of the original word (_flat_ mutes) be brought into
juxta-position, _slabs_, _studs_, _stags_. There is then an incompatible
termination, and one of two changes must take place; either _b_, _d_, or
_g_ must become _p_, _t_, or _k_ (_slaps_, _staks_, _stuts_); or _s_ must
become _z_ (_stagz_, _studz_, _slabz_). In this latter case _z_ is evolved.

Let there be a language wherein there are no such sounds as _sh_, _ch_
(_tsh_), or _j_ (_dzh_); but where there are the sounds of _s_, _t_, _d_,
and _y_.

Let a change affect the unstable combinations _sy_, _ty_, _dy_. From this
will arise the evolved sounds of _sh_, _ch_, and _j_.

The phenomena of evolution help to determine the pronunciation of dead

§ 220. _On the value of a sufficient system of sounds._--In certain
imaginable cases, a language may be materially affected by the paucity of
its elementary articulate sounds.

In a given language let there be the absence of the sound _z_, the other
conditions being those noted in the case of the words _stag_, _slab_,
_stud_, &c. Let the intermediate vowel be ejected. Then, instead of the _s_
being changed into an evolved _z_, let the other alternative take place; so
that the words become _staks_, _slaps_, _stuts_. In this latter case we
have an alteration of the original word, brought about by the insufficiency
of the system of articulate sounds.

§ 221. _Double consonants rare._--It cannot be too clearly understood that
in words like _pitted_, _stabbing_, _massy_, &c. there is no real
reduplication of the sounds of _t_, _b_, and _s_, respectively. Between the
words _pitted_ (as with the small-pox) and _pitied_ (as being an object of
pity) there is a difference in {155} spelling only. In speech the words are
identical. _The reduplication of the consonant is in English, and the
generality of languages, a conventional mode of expressing upon paper the
shortness (dependence) of the vowel that precedes._

§ 222. Real reduplications of consonants, _i.e._, reduplications of their
_sound_, are, in all languages, extremely rare. I am fully aware of certain
statements made respecting the Laplandic and Finlandic languages, _viz._,
that doubled consonants are, in them, of common occurrence. Notwithstanding
this, I have an impression that it is generally under one condition that
true reduplication takes place. In compound and derived words, where the
original root _ends_, and the superadded affix _begins_ with the same
letter, there is a reduplication of the sound, and not otherwise. In the
word _soulless_, the _l_ is doubled to the ear as well as to the eye; and
it is a false pronunciation to call it _souless_ (_soless_). In the
"Deformed Transformed" it is made to rhyme with _no less_, improperly.

  "Clay, not dead but soulless,
    Though no mortal man would choose thee,
  An immortal no less
    Deigns not to refuse thee."

In the following words, all of which are compounds, we have true specimens
of the doubled consonant.

  _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.

§ 223. _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 signs. {156}

In our own language the _true_ aspirates, like the true duplications, 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_, _offhand_.
    --    _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_      --      _well-head_, _foolhardy_.
    --    _m_ and _h_      --      _Amherst_.
    --    _n_ and _h_      --      _unhinge_, _inherent_, _unhappy_.

Now in certain languages the _true_ aspirates are of common occurrence,
_i.e._, sounds like the _t_ in _nuthook_, the _ph_ in _haphazard_, &c., are
as frequent as the sounds of _p_, _b_, _s_, &c. In the spelling of these
sounds by means of the English we are hampered by the circumstance of _th_
and _ph_ being already used in a different sense.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 224. 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 (mark, not an absolute
necessity) to insert an intervening sound.

In English, the form which the Latin word _numerus_ takes is _num_b_er_; in
Spanish, _nom_b_re_. 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 [Greek: eu] (_well_),
and [Greek: phônê] (_fônæ_, a voice). The province of euphony has not been
very accurately determined.

§ 225. In the word _number_, _nombre_, the letter inserted was _b_; and for
_b_ being the particular letter employed, there is a reason derived from
the _system_ of articulate sounds.

1. That the letter inserted should be a consonant is evident. The _vowel_
_e_ (in _num_e_rus_) had been previously ejected.

2. That it should be a mute is evident. A liquid would have given the
unstable or unpronounceable combinations _mnr_, _mlr_, _mrr_, _mmr_.

3. That it should be a consonant, either of series _b_ or of series _s_,
was natural; it being series _b_ and series _s_ with which _m_ and _r_ are
respectively connected.

4. That it should be a consonant of series _b_, rather than one of series
_s_, we collect from the fact that _msr_ (_numsrus_) or _mzr_ (_numzrus_)
give inharmonious, and, consequently, unstable combinations. {158}

5. That of the _b_ series, it should be _b_ or _v_ (flat) rather than _p_
or _f_ (sharp), we infer from the fact of _m_ and _r_ both being flat.

6. Of _v_ and _b_, the latter alone gives a stable combination, so that we
have the Spanish form _nom_b_re_, and not _nom_v_re_.

In this we have an illustration of the use of attending to the nature and
connections of articulate sounds in general.

§ 226. The affinity of _m_ for the series _b_, of _n_ for the series _t_,
gives occasion to further euphonic changes. The combinations _mt_, _md_,
_mþ_, _mð_, are unstable. The syllables _emt_, _emd_, are liable to one of
two modifications. Either _p_ or _b_ will be inserted, and so make them
_empt_ (as in _tempt_), _embd_ (as in _Embden_), or else the _m_ will
become _n_, forming the syllable _ent_, _end_, _enþ_, _enð_.

Similar tendencies, in a certain degree, affect the combinations _enp_,
_enb_. They are liable to become _emp_, or _emb_. Any one may see that the
word _enperor_ embarrasses the utterance.

§ 227. The combination _tupt_ is stable, so also is the combination _tuft_.
But the combination _tupth_ is unstable: since the _p_ is lene, the _þ_ is
a (so-called) aspirate. Hence arises a process of accommodation by which
the word becomes either _tupt_ or _tufth_ (_tufþ_).

In respect to the unstable combination _tupth_, we may observe this, _viz._
that the ways of altering it are two. Either the first letter may be
accommodated to the second, _tufþ_, or the second may be accommodated to
the first, _tupt_. Which of these two changes shall take place is
determined by the particular habit of the language. In Greek we add to the
radical syllable [Greek: tup]-, the inflectional syllable -[Greek: thên].
The _first_ letter, [pi], is accommodated to the second, [theta], and the
word becomes [Greek: tuphthên] (_tyfþæn_), as in [Greek: etuphthên]
(_etyfþæn_). In English we add to the radical syllable _stag_, the
inflectional syllable _s_. Here the _second_ letter is accommodated to the
first, and the resulting word is not _staks_, but _stagz_.

§ 228. The Irish Gaelic, above most other languages, illustrates a euphonic
principle that modifies the vowels of a word. The vowels _a_, _o_, _u_, are
full, whilst _i_, _e_, _y_, are small. Now if to a syllable containing a
small vowel, as _buil_, there be added {159} a syllable containing a broad
one, as _-am_, a change takes place. Either the first syllable is
accommodated to the second, or the second to the first; so that the vowels
respectively contained in them are either both full or both small. Hence
arises, in respect to the word quoted, either the form _bu_a_l_a_m_, or
else the form _bu_i_l_i_m_.

§ 229. 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. The following are instances of the permutation of letters.

_Permutation of Vowels._

  _a_         to _[)e]_,      as _man_, _men_.
  _a_         to _oo_,        as _stand_, _stood_.
  _a_         to _u_,         as _dare_, _durst_.
  _a_         to _[=e]_,      as _was_, _were_.
  _ea_        to _o_,         as _speak_, _spoken_.
  _ea=[)e]_   to _ea=[=e]_,   as _breath_, _breathe_.
  _ee_        to _[)e]_,      as _deep_, _depth_.
  _ea_        to _o_,         as _bear_, _bore_.
  _i_         to _a_,         as _spin_, _span_.
  _i_         to _u_,         as _spin_, _spun_.
  _i=ei_      to _o_,         as _smite_, _smote_.
  _i=ei_      to _[)i]_,      as _smite_, _smitten_.
  _i_         to _a_,         as _give_, _gave_.
  _i=ei_      to _a_,         as _rise_, _raise_.
  _[)i]_      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_.
  _[)o]_      to _e_,         as _brother_, _brethren_.
  _[=o]=oo_   to _i_,         as _do_, _did_.
  _o=oo_      to _o=[)u]_,    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_.
  _ð_  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. Important changes are undergone by
the sounds _k_, _g_, and the allied ones _nk_, _ng_, _y_, as will be seen
in the chapter on verbs.

_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_),  _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.

§ 230. In all the words above the change of sound has been brought about by
the grammatical inflection of the word wherein it occurs. This is the case
with the words _life_ and _live_, and with all the rest. With the German
word _leben_, compared with the corresponding word _live_, in English, the
change is similar. It is brought about, however, not by a grammatical
inflection, but by a difference of time, and by a difference of place. This
indicates the distinction between the permutation of letters and the
transition of letters. In dealing with permutations, we compare different
parts of speech; in dealing with transitions, we compare different
languages, or different stages of a single language.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 231. 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 _v_ 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_, _fev-er_?

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 follows it,
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 _[=a]p_. 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 {162}
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 _[=a]p_ 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 _[=a]p_ 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 its inaccuracy, before he proceeds to the
conclusions that will be drawn from it.

The account, however, being recognised, we have in the current natural
sound of _p_ two elements:--

1. That formed by the current of air and the closure of the lips, as in
_[=a]p_. 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
_p[=a]_. 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. {163}

Let the sound of breath arrested be expressed by [pi], and that of breath
escaping be expressed by [varpi], the two together form the current natural
sound _p_ ([pi]+[varpi]=_p_).

Thus _[=a]p_ (as quoted above) is _p_ - [varpi], or [pi]; whilst _pa_
(sounded similarly) is _p_ - [pi], or [varpi].

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 each sound being expressed by a separate sign, the word
_happy_ is divided thus, _ha[pi]-[varpi]y_; and that such is 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, of which more will be said in the chapter on

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 232. The dependent vowels, as the _a_ in _fat_, _i_ in _fit_, _u_ in
_but_, _o_ in _not_, have this character; _viz._ they are all uttered with
rapidity, and 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_, _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 1/3 of the whole

Let, however, the _n_ and _t_ of _note_ be each as 1, the _o_ being as 2.
Then, instead of each consonant constituting 1/3 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.

§ 233. The division of _vowels_ into long and short coincides _nearly_ with
the division of them into independent and dependent. Mark the word
_vowels_, and mark the word _nearly_. In the length and shortness of vowels
there are degrees. This is especially the case with the broad vowels. The
_a_ in _father_ is capable of being pronounced either very quickly, or very
slowly. It may be attend most rapidly and yet preserve its broad character,
_i.e._, become neither the _a_ in _fat_, nor the _a_ in _fate_. {165}

In the independence and dependence of vowels there are no degrees.

Subject to the views laid down in the next section, the vowel _ee_ in
_seeing_ is long, and it is certainly independent. Whether the _syllable
see-_ be long is another question.

1. All long vowels are independent, but all independent vowels are not

2. All dependent vowels are short, but all short vowels are not dependent.

Clear notions upon these matters are necessary for determining the
structure of the English and classical metres.

§ 234. The qualified manner in which it was stated that the _vowel_ in the
word _seeing_ was long, and the attention directed to the word _vowels_ in
the preceding section, arose from a distinction, that is now about to be
drawn, between the length of _vowels_ and the length of _syllables_.

The independent 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 _seen_, or
by a vowel, as in _see-ing_.

The dependent 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, and still retain its
dependent character and also its shortness. Such is the power it has 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. Measured by the quantity of the vowel the
word _sits_ is short, and the syllable _see-_ in _seeing_ is long.

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 {166} 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.

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

II. 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.

III. 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.

IV. 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.

These remarks are appreciated when we consider the comparative characters
of the classical and the English prosody.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 235. 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_, _besoúght_, _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--_Régular_, _an´tidote_,
_for´tify_, _suscéptible_, _incontrovértible_.

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

A great number of words are distinguished by the accent alone. The
following list is from Nares' Orthoepy, a work to which the reader is

  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.


That class of words that by a change of accent are converted from nouns
into verbs (_súrvey_, _survéy_, _cóntrast_, _contrást_, &c.) will be
noticed more at large in the Chapter on Derivation.

§ 236. In words like _thínking_, _fóxes_, _lon´ger_, _len´gthen_, &c. we
have two parts; first the original word, the root, or the radical part, as
_think_, _fox_, _long_, _length_, &c.; and next, the inflectional, or the
subordinate part, _-ing_, _-es_, _-er_, _-en_, &c.

To assert as a universal rule that the _accent is always on the root, and
never on the subordinate part of a word_, is too much. Although in the
_English_ language such an assertion (with one exception) is found true; by
the French and other languages it is invalidated.

In words like _len´g-then-ing_, we have a _second_ inflectional or
subordinate syllable; and the accent remains in its original place,
_absolutely, but not relatively_. _It is all the farther from the end of
the word._ Besides indicating the propriety of determining the place of the
accent by counting from the end, rather than the beginning of a word, this
circumstance indicates something else.

Imagine the English participles to be declined, and to possess cases,
formed by the addition of fresh syllables. In this case the word
_len´gthening_ would become a quadri-syllable. But to throw the accent to
the fourth syllable from the end is inconvenient. Hence a necessity of
removing it from the radical, and placing it on an inflectional syllable.

The German word _lében_ (to _live_) illustrates the foregoing sentence.
_Léb-_ is the root, _léb-end_=_living_, from whence _lebéndig_=_lively_
(with the accent on an inflectional syllable), although this last word
might without inconvenience have been accented on the first syllable; that
being only the third from the end.

Confusion between the radical and inflectional syllables of a word, arising
from the situation of the accent, may work the deterioration of a language.

§ 237. In _týrant_ and _presúme_, we deal with single words; and in each
_word_ we determine which _syllable_ is accented. {169} 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. I.)

§ 238. Accent plays an important part in determining the nature of certain
compound words--For this, see the Chapter on Composition.

It also plays an important part in determining the nature of the English
metres--See Prosody.

Thirdly (the subject of the present section), it plays an important part in
all systems of orthography.

The quotation from Professor Lee's Hebrew Grammar, in p. 149, is referred
to; and a particular attention to a somewhat difficult subject is

The _u_ in the word _monument_ is what a classic would call _short_.

The second _syllable_ in the word _monument_ is what a classical scholar
would call _short_. The vowel is _short_, and the syllable taken altogether
is _short_. Herein it agrees with the first syllable _mon-_. It differs,
however, from the syllable _mon-_ in being destitute of an accent,
_mónument_. With the third syllable _-ment_, it agrees in the eyes of an
Englishman, but differs in the eyes of a scholar. The vowels _u_ and _e_
are equally short, and, as the Englishman measures by the vowel {170} the
syllables _-u_ and _-ment_ are both short. Not so, however, with the
scholar. He measures by the syllable and determines that the _e_, although
naturally a short vowel, is made _long_ by position. However, in being each
destitute of an accent the syllables _-u_ and _-ment_ agree. Be it remarked
a second time that the accent in _mónument_ lies on the first syllable.

Now the _-u_ in _mónument_ although _short_, is not _dependent_.

If, however, the syllable _-nu_ take an accent; that is, if the place of
the accent be removed from the first to the second syllable, the vowel _u_
still being kept short, we have a word which we spell thus, _monumment_.
Now the _u_ in _monumment_ is not only short, but dependent. It is upon
this effect of an accent that the quotation from Lee's Hebrew Grammar, p.
149, especially bears.

And now two questions arise:--1. How is it that the accent has the effect
of rendering such a syllable as the _u_ in _monumment_ dependent? 2. Why do
we in spelling such a syllable double the consonant?

An accent falling upon a syllable must, of necessity, do one of two things:
it must affect the vowel, or it must affect the consonant. If it affect the
vowel, the vowel becomes the predominant part of the syllable, as in
_mónooment_; but, if it affect the consonant, the consonant becomes the
predominant part of the syllable, as _monum´ment_.

In words like _monumment_ the consonant is, strictly speaking, as single as
it is in _monument_, or _monooment_. Its _absolute_ sound is the same. Not
so its _relative_ sound. This is exaggerated by two circumstances:--1, The
comparative shortness of the vowel _u_; 2, the fact of the accent falling
on it. The increased relative importance of the letter _m_ in the word
_monumment_ is mistaken for a reduplication of the sound. This is the
reason why in most languages the shortness of a vowel is expressed by the
doubling of the consonant following; this doubling being no true
reduplication of the sound, but a mere orthographical conventionality.

§ 239. Accent and quantity, as may have been collected from pp. 164-167, do
_not_ coincide. Nothing shows this more {171} clearly than words like the
adjective _augúst_, and the substantive _Aúgust_ (the month), where the
quantity remains the same, although the accent is different. The following
quotation from Mr. Guest's English Rhythms is made for the sake of four

1. Of showing that the generality of writers have the credit of confusing
accent with quantity--

2. Of showing that there is a reason for such a confusion having existed--

3. Of indicating the propriety of the expressions in italics--It is not
stated that the consonant _c_ is doubled, but that it is added to the first
syllable. The difference lies, not in its reduplication, but in its

4. Of taking a slight exception--A syllable (accented or unaccented) must
be either independent or dependent; if the latter, then in most immediate
contact with the consonant that follows.

    "Besides the increase of loudness, and the sharper tone which
    distinguishes the accented syllable, there is also a tendency to dwell
    upon it, or, in other words, to lengthen its quantity. We cannot
    increase the loudness or the sharpness of a tone without a certain
    degree of muscular action: and to put the muscles in motion requires
    time. It would seem that the time required for producing a perceptible
    increase in the loudness or sharpness of a tone is greater than that of
    pronouncing some of our shorter syllables. If we attempt, for instance,
    to throw the accent on the first syllable of the word _become_, we must
    either lengthen the vowel, and pronounce the word _bee-come_, _or add
    the adjoining consonant to the first syllable, and so pronounce the
    word_ _bec-ome_. We often find it convenient to lengthen the quantity
    even of the longer syllables, when we wish to give them a very strong
    and marked accent. Hence, no doubt, arose the vulgar notion, that
    accent always lengthens the quantity of a syllable.

    "It is astonishing how widely this notion has misled men, whose
    judgment, in most other matters of criticism, it would be very unsafe
    to question. Our earlier writers, almost to a man, confound accent with
    quantity."--B. i. C. iv.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 240. The present chapter is one, not upon the details of the
pronunciation of the English language, but upon the principles of orthoepy.
For the details of pronunciation the reader is referred to Nares' Orthoepy,
and to the common pronouncing dictionaries, with the preliminary
recommendation to use them with caution. _Orthoepy_, a word derived from
the Greek _orthon_ (_upright_), and _epos_ (_a word_), signifies the right
utterance of words. Orthoepy differs from orthography by determining how
words are spoken, whereas orthography decides how they are spelt. The one
is a question of speech, the other a question of spelling. Orthography
presupposes orthoepy.

§ 241. Of pronunciation there are two kinds, the colloquial and the
rhetorical. In common conversation we pronounce the _i_ in _wind_, like the
_i_ in _bit_; in rehearsing, or in declamation, however, we pronounce it
like the _i_ in _bite_; that is, we give it a diphthongal sound. In reading
the Scriptures we say _blesséd_; in current speech we say _blest_. It is
the same with many words occurring in poetry.

§ 242. Errors in pronunciation are capable of being classified. In the
first place, they may be arranged according to their situation. The man who
pronounces the verb _to survéy_, as if it was _súrvey_ (that is, with the
accent on the wrong syllable), errs in respect to the accentuation of the
word; the situation, or seat of his error, being the accent. To say
_or[=a]tor_ instead of _or[)a]tor_ is to err in respect to the quantity of
the word, the seat of the error being in the quantity; and to pronounce the
_a_ in _father_, as it is pronounced in Yorkshire, or the _s_ in _sound_,
as it is pronounced in Devonshire (that is, as _z_), is to err in {173} the
matter of the articulate sounds. To mispronounce a word because it is
misspelt[34] is only indirectly an error of orthoepy. It is an error, not
so much of orthoepy, as of orthography; and to give a wrong inflection to a
word is not bad pronunciation but bad grammar. For practical purposes,
however, many words that are really points of grammar and of orthography,
may be dealt with as points of orthoepy.

That the preceding classification is natural I am induced to believe by the
following circumstances. Errors in the way of articulation generally arise
from a source different from those of accent and of quantity. Errors in
accent and quantity are generally referable to insufficient grammatical or
etymological knowledge, whilst the errors of articulation betray a
provincial dialect.

The misdivision of syllables, an orthoepical error of a fourth kind, has in
the English, and perhaps in other languages, given rise to a peculiar class
of words. There have been those who have written _a nambassador_ for _an
ambassador_, misdividing the syllables, and misdistributing the sound of
the letter _n_. The double form (_a_ and _an_) of the English indefinite
article, encourages this misdivision. Now, in certain words an error of
this kind has had a permanent influence. The English word _nag_ is, in
Danish, _ög_; the _n_, in English, having originally belonged to the
indefinite _an_, which preceded it. The words, instead of being divided
thus, _an ag_, were divided thus, _a nag_, and the fault became
perpetuated. That the Danish is the true form we collect, firstly, from the
ease with which the English form is accounted for, and, secondly, from the
old Saxon form _ehu_, Latin _equus_. In _adder_ we have the process
reversed. The true form is _nadder_, old English; _natter_, German. Here
the _n_ is taken from the substantive and added to the article. In _newt_
and _eft_ we have each form. The list of words of this sort can be

§ 243. In the second place, faults of pronunciation may be arranged
according to their cause.


1. _The fault of incompetent enunciation._--A person who says _sick_ for
_thick_, or _elebben_ for _eleven_, does so, not because he knows no
better, but because he cannot enounce the right sounds of _th_ and _v_. He
is _incompetent_ to it. His error is not one of ignorance. It is an
acoustic or a phonetic defect. As such it differs from--

2. _The fault of erroneous enunciation._--This is the error of a person who
talks of _jocholate_ instead of _chocolate_. It is not that he _cannot_
pronounce rightly, but that he mistakes the nature of the sound required.
Still more the person who calls _a hedge_ _a nedge_, and _an edge_ _a

§ 244. Incompetent enunciation, and erroneous enunciation are, however,
only the proximate and immediate causes of bad orthoepy. Amongst the remote
causes (the immediate causes of _erroneous_ enunciation) are the following.

I. _Undefined notions as to the language to which a word belongs._--The
flower called _anemone_ is variously pronounced. Those who know Greek say
_anem[=o]ne_, speaking as if the word was written _anemohny_. The mass say,
_anem[)o]ne_, speaking as if the word was written _anemmony_. Now, the
doubt here is as to the language of the word. If it be Greek, it is

  [Greek: Haima rhodon tiktei, ta de dakrua tan anemônan].


And if it be English, it is (on the score of analogy) as undoubtedly
_anémmony_. The pronunciation of the word in point is determined when we
have determined the language of it.

II. _Mistakes as to fact, the language of a word being determined._--To
know the word _anem[=o]ne_ to be Greek, and to use it as a Greek word, but
to call it _anem[)o]ny_, is not to be undecided as to a matter of language,
but to be ignorant as to a matter of quantity.

III. _Neglect of analogy._--Each and all of the following words, _orator_,
_theatre_, _senator_, &c. are in the Latin language, from whence they are
derived, accented on the second syllable; as _orátor_, _theátre_,
_senátor_. In English, on the contrary, they are accented on the first; as
_órator_, _théatre_, {175} _sénator_. The same is the case with many other
words similarly derived. They similarly suffer a change of accent. So many
words do this, that it is the rule in English for words to throw their
accent from the second syllable (counting from the end of the word) to the
third. It was on the strength of this rule,--in other words, on the
analogies of _orator_, &c., that the English pronunciation of the Greek
word [Greek: anemônê] was stated to be _anémmone_. Now, to take a word
derived from the Latin, and to look to its original quantity only, without
consulting the analogies of other words similarly derived, is to be
neglectful of the analogies of our own language, and attentive to the
quantities of a foreign one.

These, amongst others, the immediate causes of erroneous enunciation, have
been adduced not for the sake of exhausting, but for the sake of
illustrating the subject.

§ 245. In matters of orthoepy it is the usual custom to appeal to one of
the following standards.

I. _The authority of scholars._--This is of value up to a certain point
only. The fittest person for determining the classical pronunciation of a
word like _anemone_ is the classical scholar; but the mere classical
scholar is far from being the fittest person to determine the analogies
that such a word follows in English.

II. _The usage of educated bodies, such as the bar, the pulpit, the senate,
_&c.__--These are recommended by two circumstances: 1. The chance that each
member of them is sufficiently a scholar in foreign tongues to determine
the original pronunciation of derived words, and sufficiently a critic in
his own language to be aware of the analogies that are in operation. 2. The
quantity of imitators that, irrespective of the worth of his pronunciation,
each individual can carry with him. On this latter ground the stage is a
sort of standard.

The objection to the authority of educated bodies is its impracticability.
It is only the usage of the component individuals that can be determined.
Of these many may carry with them the dialects of their provinces, so that,
although good standards on points of accent and quantity, they are bad ones
upon points of articulation. {176}

III. _The authority of societies constituted with the express purpose of
taking cognizance of the language of the country._--These, although
recognized in Italy and other parts of the Continent, have only been
proposed in Great Britain. Their inefficacy arises from the inutility of
attempting to fix that which, like language, is essentially fluctuating.

IV. _The authority of the written language._--The value of this may be
collected from the chapter on orthography.

V. These, amongst others, the standards that have been appealed to, are
adduced not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to show the
unsatisfactory nature of authority in matters of speech.

§ 246. For a person, on a point of pronunciation, to trust to his own
judgment, he must be capable, with every word that he doubts about, of
discussing three questions:--

I. _The abstract or theoretical propriety of a certain pronunciation._--To
determine this he must have a sufficient knowledge of foreign tongues and a
sufficient knowledge of English analogies. He must also have some test by
which he can determine to what language an equivocal word belongs. Of tests
for this purpose, one, amongst others, is the following:--Let it be asked
whether the word _lens_ (in Optics) is English or Latin; whether it is to
be considered as a naturalised word or a strange one. The following fact
will give an answer. There is of the word _lens_ a plural number, and this
plural number is the English form _lenses_, and not the Latin form
_lentes_. The existence of an English inflection proves that the word to
which it belongs is English, although its absence does not prove the
contrary. That the word _anemone_ is English (and consequently pronounced
_anem[)o]ne_) we know from the plural form, which is not _anemonæ_, but

II. _The preference of one pronunciation over another on the score of
utility._--The word _ascetic_, for certain orthographical reasons,
notwithstanding its origin from the Greek word _askeó_, is called
_assetic_. From similar reasons there is a tendency to call the word
_sceptic_, _septic_. Theoretical propriety (and, be it observed, the
analogy of _ascetic_ has not been overlooked) is in {177} favour of the
word being sounded _skeptic_. The tendency of language, however, is the
other way. Now, the tendency of language and the theoretical propriety
being equal, there is an advantage (a point of utility) in saying
_skeptic_, which turns the scale. By sounding the _k_ we distinguish the
word _skeptic_ from _septic_. By this the language gains a point in
perspicuity, so that we can talk of the _anti-skeptic_ writings of Bishop
Warburton and of the _anti-septic_ properties of charcoal.

III. _The tendencies of language_.--From p. 153, we see that the
combination _ew_ is an unstable combination, that it has a tendency to
become _yoo_, and that the _y_ in _yoo_ has a tendency to change a _d_
preceding into _j_; in other words, we see the reason why, by many persons,
_dew_ is pronounced _jew_.

It is generally an easier matter to say how a word will be sounded a
hundred years hence, than to determine its present pronunciation.
Theoretical propriety is in favour of _dew_, so also is the view in the way
of utility. Notwithstanding this, posterity will say _jew_, for the
tendencies of language are paramount to all other influences.

We may now judge of the relative value of the three lines of criticism
exhibited above. Other things being equal, the language should have the
advantage of the doubt, and the utility of a given pronunciation should
prevail over its theoretical propriety. Where, however, the tendencies are
overwhelming, we can only choose whether, in doubtful words, we shall speak
like our ancestors, or like our posterity.[35]

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 247. Orthoepy determines the correct pronunciation of 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_. The 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.

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

§ 248. First, in respect to a full and perfect 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.

An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on
the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a {179} 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, [Hebrew: P] (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) [Hebrew: P], and may be written
thus [Hebrew: P], or thus [Hebrew: P]´ or [Hebrew: P]', &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 [Hebrew: P], but a letter altogether new, such as _f_, or [phi],
&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 inconsistent.

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_. {180}

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 [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T`], mere
_varieties_ of each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar
signs, whilst [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T], sounds _specifically_ distinct,
are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter.

§ 249. _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 nowise 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

1. _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_.

2. _The aim at secondary objects._--The natural aim of orthography, of
spelling, or of writing (for the three terms mean the same thing), 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 {181} 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.

3. _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.

§ 250. _Difference between the change of a sound and the original false
expression of a sound._--The letter _u_ is a simple single sign. The sound
of _ow_, in _town_, is a diphthongal, or a double, sound. Now, in
Anglo-Saxon, the modern word _town_ is spelt _tún_. In this case one of two
things must have taken place: either the word must have changed its sound,
or the Anglo-Saxons must have expressed it falsely and improperly.

§ 251. 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. {182}

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.

§ 252. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate
sounds of the language. The enumeration of these is, strictly speaking, a
point, not of orthography, but of orthoepy. It is, however, so intimately
connected with the former that the present chapter seems its proper place.
The vowels belonging to the English language are the _twelve_ following:--

   1. That of _a_  in  _father_.  |   7. That of _e_  in  _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_.

For the relations of these see Chapter II.

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_  --    _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_.

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_, _vale_."

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.

Now, although every sound specifically distinct should be expressed by a
distinct sign, it does not follow that mere modifications or varieties
(especially if they be within certain limits) should be so expressed. In
the Greek language sounds as like as the _o_ in _not_ and the _o_ in _note_
are expressed by signs as unlike as [omicron] and [omega]; that is, by the
letters _omicron_ and _omega_ respectively; and so it is with [epsilon] and
[eta]. All that can be said in this case is, that it is the character of
the Greek alphabet to represent a difference which the English neglects.

With respect to the diphthongs it is incorrect, uncommon, and inconvenient
to represent them by simple single signs, rather than by combinations. In
the English language the sounds {184} of _ou_, _ew_, and _oi_, are properly
spelt with two letters. Not so, however, of _i_ in _bite_.

The compound sibilants may also be expressed not by single signs, but by
the combinations _tsh_ and _dzh_; although, for certain reasons, such a
mode of spelling is inconvenient. With these views we may appreciate,

I. _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.

II. _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 signs 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 _sh_.

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 _ch_.

 III. _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 {185} 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_.

IV. _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 _oe_, as in _Æneas_ and _Croesus_, except in
the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.

V. _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 the
_c_, _æ_, and _oe_ are retained in the alphabet for etymological purposes

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
{186} 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, of the English alphabet and

I). _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 {187} _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.

II.) _The historical propriety 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 [upsilon], 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 [gamma] and [sigma] and not of the Greek _kappa_.

In remodelling alphabets the question of historical propriety should be
recognized. Other reasons for the use of a particular letter in a
particular sense being equal, the historical propriety should decide the
question. The above examples are illustrative, not exhaustive.

§ 253. _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 [omicron] and [omega],
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 (-) denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or
independent, whilst the sign (U) indicates shortness, or dependence. In
such a case, instead of writing _not_ and _n[omega]t_, like the Greeks, we
may write _n[)o]t_ and _n[=o]t_, the sign serving for a fresh letter.
Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the
natural use of (-) and (U) is to express length or shortness, dependence or
independence. Now, supposing the broad sound of _o_ {188} 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 (-) 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 (-)
we may, if we choose, substitute such a mark as (´) (and write
_nót_=_n[=o]t_=_n[omega]t_=_n[=o]te)_; provided only that the sign (´)
expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark
(´), _viz._ 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. 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 is an orthographical expedient, or a conventional mode of

The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the mode 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 juxta-position 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). {189}

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.

_X_, however, and _q_ are not orthographical expedients. They are
orthographical compendiums.

The above instances have been adduced as illustrations only. Further
details will be found hereafter. For many of them we can give a reason (for
instance, for the reduplication of a consonant to express the shortness of
the preceding vowel), and of many of them we can give an historical account
(see Chapter X.).

§ 254. The mischief of orthographical expedients is this:--When a sign, or
letter, is used in a _conventional_, it precludes us from using it (at
least without further explanation) in its _natural_ sense: _e.g._, the
double _o_ in _mood_ constitutes but one syllable. If in a foreign language
we had, immediately succeeding each other, first the syllable _mo_, and
next the syllable _od_, we should have to spell it _mo-od_, or _möod_ or
_mo-[o-hook]d_, &c. Again, it is only by our knowledge of the language that
the _th_ in _nuthook_, is not pronounced like the _th_ in _burthen_. In the
languages of India the true sound of _t_ + _h_ is common. This, however, we
cannot spell naturally because the combination _th_ conveys to us another
notion. Hence such combinations as _thh_, or _t`_, &c., in writing Hindoo

A second mischief of orthographical conventionalities, is the wrong notions
that they engender, the eye misleading the ear. That _th_ is really _t_ +
_h_, no one would have believed had it not been for the spelling.

§ 255. The present section is the partial application of the preceding
observations. It is a running commentary upon the orthographical part of
Dr. Johnson's Grammar. Presuming a knowledge of the detail of the English
orthography, it attempts an explanation of some of its leading characters.
Many of these it possesses in common with other tongues. Several are
peculiar to itself. {190}

"_A_, sounded as _aw_, or as a modification of _o_."--_A_, as in _father_,
and _o_, as in _note_ (as may be seen in p. 150), form the extremities of
the vowel system. Notwithstanding this, the two sounds often interchange.
The orthographical systems of most languages bear witness to this. In
French the _au_ in _autel_ has the sound of _o_; in Danish _aa_=_o_
(_baade_ being pronounced _bohde_); in Swedish _å_ has the same power. In
Old English the forms _hond_, _strond_, &c., occur, instead of _hand_,
strand, &c. In Anglo-Saxon, brád, stán, &c., correspond to the English
forms _broad_, _stone_. I am not able to say whether _a_ changes oftenest
to _o_, or _o_ to a. The form _hond_ is older than the form _hand_. In the
word _salt_, however, the _a_ was pronounced as the _a_ in _fat_ before it
was pronounced (as at present) like the _o_ in _not_. If this were not the
case it would never have been spelt with an a. In the words _launch_ and
_haunch_, by some called _lanch_, _hanch_, and by others _lawnch_,
_hawnch_, we find a present tendency to interchange these sounds.

The change from _a_ to _o_ takes place most especially before the liquid
_l_, _wall_, _call_, _fall_. When the liquid _l_ is followed by another
consonant, it (_viz._ _l_) is generally sunk in pronunciation, _falcon_,
_salmon_, &c., pronounced _faucon_, _sammon_, or _saumon_. The reason of
this lies in the following fact, _viz._, _that syllables wherein there are,
at the same time, two final consonants and a long vowel, have a tendency to
become shortened by one of two processes, viz., either by ejecting one of
the consonants, or by shortening the vowel_. That the _l_ in _falcon_ is
affected not by the change of _a_ to _o_, but by the change of a short
vowel to a long, or of a slender one to a broad one, is shown in the
tendency which the common people have to say _hode_ for _hold_, as well as
by the Scotch form _gowd_ for _gold_. This fact bears upon the difficult
problem in the Greek (and in other languages), _viz._, whether the
_lengthening_ of the vowel in words like _[Greek: odous]_ (compared with
_[Greek: odontos]_), is the cause or the effect of the rejection of the

"_E_ is long, as in _scene_; or short, as in _cellar_."'--_Johnson._ It has
been stated before that the (so-called) long sound of _e_ is non-existent,
and the _e_ in _scene_, is the (so-called) long sound of the _i_ in _pit_.

For the power of _e_ in _since_ and _once_, see the remarks on _s_.

For the power of _e_ in _hedge_ and _oblige_, see the remarks on _g_.

The power of _e_ mute in words like _cane_, _bane_, _tune_, _robe_, _pope_,
_fire_, _cure_, _tube_, has already been noticed. It serves to denote the
length of the preceding vowel. For this purpose it is retained; but it was
not for this purpose that it was invented. Originally it expressed a sound,
and it is only by a change of language that it has come, as it were by
accident, to be an orthographical expedient.

Let a word consist of two syllables. Let the latter end in a vowel. Let
there be between the vowel of the first and the vowel of the second
syllable, one consonant and no more, _e. g._, _namæ_. Let the consonant
belong to the root of the word; and let the first syllable of the word be
the essential and the radical part of it. Let this same syllable (as the
essential and radical part of it) have an accent. The chances are that,
under such circumstances, the vowel of the first syllable will be long
(independent), just as the chances are that a vowel followed by two
consonants will be short. Let a change in language affect the _final_
vowel, so that a word which was originally pronounced _nama_, should
become, first, _namë_, and afterwards _n[=a]m_, _naim_, or _næm_; the vowel
being sounded as the _a_ in _fate_. Let the final _e_, although lost in
pronunciation, be retained in the spelling. The chances are that, the above
conditions being given, such an _e_ (final and mute) shall, whenever it
occurs, occur at the end of a long syllable. The next process is for a
succeeding generation to mistake a coincidence for a sign, and to imagine
that an _e_ mute expresses the length of syllable.

I consider this to be the key to the use of the _e_ mute in all words where
it is preceded by one consonant only.

From the circumstance that the French and the English are the only nations
wherein the _e_ mute is part and parcel of the orthography, it has been
hastily imagined that the employment of it is to be attributed to the
Norman Conquest. The truth, however, is, that we find it equally in words
of Saxon and of Norman origin.

The fact that, in certain words, an _e_ mute is preceded by {192} two
consonants and by a short vowel, does not militate against the view given

"_I_ has a sound, long, as in _fine_, and short, as in _fin_. That is
eminently observable in _i_, which may be likewise remarked in other
letters, that the short sound is not the long sound contracted, but a sound
wholly different."--_Johnson._ This extract has been made in order to add
the authority of Johnson to the statement so often repeated already;
_viz._, that the _i_ in _bite_ is not the long sound of the _i_ in _bit_.

For the sound of _u_ in _guest_, _prorogue_, _guard_, see the remarks on

As a vowel, _y_ is wholly superfluous. It is a current remark that more
words end in _y_ (_fortify_, _pretty_) than in any other letter. This is
true only in respect to their spelling. As a matter of _speech_, the _y_
final has always the sound either of the _ee_ in _feet_, or of the _i_ in
_bite_. Such is the case with the words _fortify_ and _pretty_, quoted
above. For some reason or other, the vowel _e_ is never, in English,
written at the end of words, unless when it is mute; whilst _i_ is never
written at all. Instead of _cri_, we write _cry_, &c. This is a peculiarity
of our orthography, for which I have no satisfactory reason. It _may_ be,
that with words ending in _e_, _y_ is written for the sake of showing that
the vowel is not mute, but sounded. Again, the adjectives ending in _y_ as
_any_, and the adverbs in _ly_, as _manly_, in the older stages of our
language ended, not in _y_, but in _ig_ (_manlig_, _ænig_); so that the
present _y_, in such words, may be less the equivalent of _i_ than the
compendium of _ig_. I venture this indication with no particular

The _b_ in _debtor_, _subtile_, _doubt_, agrees with the _b_ in _lamb_,
_limb_, _dumb_, _thumb_, _womb_, in being mute. It differs, however, in
another respect. The words _debtor_, _subtle_, _doubt_, are of classical,
the words _lamb_, _limb_, _dumb_, &c., are of Saxon, origin. In _debtor_,
&c., the _b_ was, undoubtedly, at one time, pronounced, since it belonged
to a different syllable; _debitor_, _subtilis_, _dubito_, being the
original forms. I am far from being certain that with the other words,
_lamb_, &c., this was the case. With them the _b_ belonged (if it belonged
to the word at all) to the same syllable as the _m_. I think, {193}
however, that instead of this being the case, the _b_, in _speech_, never
made a part of the word at all; that it belongs now, and that it always
belonged, to the _written_ language only; and that it was inserted in the
spelling upon what may be called the principle of imitation. For a further
illustration of this, see the remarks on the word _could_.

"_Ch_ has a sound which is analysed into _tsh_, as _church_, _chin_,
_crutch_. _C_ might be omitted in the language without loss, since one of
its sounds might be supplied by _s_, and the other by _k_, but that it
preserves to the eye the etymology of words, as _face_ from _facies_,
_captive_ from _captivus_"--_Johnson._

Before _a_, _o_, _u_ (that is, before a full vowel), _c_ is sounded as _k_;
before _e_, _i_, and _y_ (that is, before a small vowel), it has the power
of _s_. This change of sound according to the nature of the vowel
following, is so far from being the peculiarity of the English, that it is
common in all languages; except that sometimes _c_, instead of becoming
_s_, becomes _ts_, _tsh_, _ksh_, in other words, some other sibilant; _but
always a sibilant_. A reference to p. 153 will explain this change. At a
certain time, _k_ (written _c_, as is the case in Latin) becomes changed by
the vowel following into _ksh_, and from thence into _s_, _ts_, or _tsh_.
That the syllables _cit_, _cyt_, _cet_, were at one time pronounced _kit_,
_kyt_, _ket_, we believe: 1. from the circumstance that if it were not so,
they would have been spelt with an _s_; 2. from the comparison of the Greek
and Latin languages, where the words _cete_, _circus_, _cystis_, Latin, are
[Greek: kêtê, kirkos], [Greek: kustis], Greek.

In the words _mechanical_, _choler_, &c., derived from the Greek, it must
not be imagined that the _c_ represents the Greek _kappa_ or [kappa]. The
combination _c_ + _h_ is to be dealt with as a single letter. Thus it was
that the Romans, who had in their language neither the sound of [chi], nor
the sign [kappa], rendered the Greek _chi_ ([chi]), just as by _th_ they
rendered [theta], and by _ph_, [phi].

The faulty representation of the Greek [chi] has given rise to a faulty
representation of the Greek [kappa], as in _ascetic_, from [Greek:

"_C_, according to the English orthography, never ends a {194} word;
therefore we write _stick_, _block_, which were originally _sticke_,
_blocke_. In such words _c_ is now mute."--_Johnson._ Just as there was a
prejudice against _i_ or _e_ ending a word there seems to have been one in
the case of c. In the word _Frederick_ there are three modes of spelling:
1. Frederic; 2. Frederik; 3. Frederick. Of these three it is the last only
that seems, to an Englishman, natural. The form Frederic seems
exceptionable, because the last letter is _c_, whilst Frederik is objected
to because _k_ comes in immediate contact with the short vowel.

Now the reason against _c_ ending a word seems this. From what has been
remarked above, _c_ seems, in and of itself, to have no power at all.
Whether it shall be sounded as _k_ or as _s_ seems undetermined, except by
the nature of the vowel following. If the vowel following be small,
_c_=_s_, if full, _c_=_k_. But _c_ followed by nothing is equivocal and
ambiguous. Now _c_ final is _c_ followed by nothing; and therefore _c_
equivocal, ambiguous, indefinite, undetermined. This is the reason why _c_
is never final. Let there be such words as _sticke_ and _blocke_. Let the
_k_ be taken away. The words remain _stice_, _bloce_. The _k_ being taken
away, there is a danger of calling them _stise_, _blose_.

A verbal exception being taken, the statement of Dr. Johnson, that in words
like _stick_ and _block_ the _c_ is mute, is objectionable. The mute letter
is not so much the _c_ as the _k_.

"_G_ at the end of a word is always hard, as _ring_, _sing_."--_Johnson._ A
verbal exception may be taken here. _Ng_, is not a combination of the
sounds of _n_+_g_, but the representation of a simple single sound; so
that, as in the case of _th_ and _sh_, the two letters must be dealt with
as a single one.

"_G_ before _n_ is mute, as _gnash_, _sign_, _foreign_."--_Johnson._ The
three words quoted above are not in the same predicament. In words like
_gnash_ the _g_ has been silently dropped on the score of euphony (see
remarks on _k_); in _sign_ and _foreign_ the _g_ has not been dropped, but
changed. It has taken the allied sound of the semivowel _y_, and so, with
the preceding vowel, constitutes a diphthong. {195}

Before _a_, _o_, _u_ (full vowels), _g_ has the sound, as in _gay_, _go_,
_gun_: before _e_, _i_, _y_, that of _gem_, _giant_.

At the end of a word (that is, followed by nothing at all), or followed by
a consonant, it has the same sound that it has before _a_, _o_,
_u_--_agog_, _grand_. This shows that such is its natural sound. In _hedge_
and _oblige_ the _e_ mute serves to show that the _g_ is to be pronounced
as _j_.

Let there be the word _r[)o]g_. Let the vowel be lengthened. Let this
lengthening be expressed by the addition of _e_ mute, _roge_. There is now
a risk of the word being called _roje_. This is avoided by inserting _u_,
as in _prorogue_. Why, however, is it that the _u_ runs no chance of being
pronounced, and the word of being sounded _prorogwé_? The reason for this
lies in three facts. 1. The affinities between the sounds of _ga_ and _ka_.
2. The fact that _qu_ is merely _kw_. 3. The fact that in _qu_, followed by
another vowel, as in _quoit_ (pronounced _koyt_), _antique_, &c., the _u_
is altogether omitted in pronunciation. In other words, the analogy of _qu_
is extended to _gu_.

For the varied sounds of _gh_ in _plough_, _tough_, _enough_ (_enow_),
_through_, we must remember that the original sound of _gh_ was a hard
guttural, as is at present the case in Scotland, and between _g_, _h_, _f_,
_v_, _w_, there are frequent interchanges.

"_H_ is a note of aspiration."--It is under the notion that _th_, _ph_,
_sh_, as in _thin_, _thine_, _Philip_, _shine_, are aspirated sounds, that
_h_ is admitted in the spelling. As has been repeatedly stated, _th_, _ph_,
_sh_ are to be treated as single signs or letters.

"_J_, consonant, sounds uniformly like the soft _g_ (_i.e._, as in _gem_),
and is, therefore, a letter useless, except in etymology, as _ejaculation_,
_jester_, _jocund_, _juice_."--_Johnson._ It may be added that it never
occurs in words of Saxon origin, and that in the single word _Allelujah_ it
has the sound of _y_, as in the German.

_K_ never comes before _a_, _o_, _u_, or before a consonant. It is used
before _e_, _i_, _y_, where _c_ would, according to the English analogy, be
liable to be sounded as _s_; as in _kept_, _king_, _skirt_. These words, if
written _cept_, _cing_, _scirt_, would run the risk of being sounded
_sept_, _sing_, _sirt_. Broadly speaking, _k_ is never {196} used except
where _c_ would be inconvenient. The reason of this lies in the fact of
there being no such letter as _k_ in the Latin language. Hence arose in the
eyes of the etymologist the propriety of retaining, in all words derived
from the Latin (_crown_, _concave_, _concupiscence_, &c.), the letter _c_,
to the exclusion of _k_. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, being
taken from the Roman, excluded _k_, so that _c_ was written even before the
small vowels, _a_, _e_, _i_, _y_; as _cyning_, or _cining_, _a king_. _C_
then supplants _k_ upon etymological grounds only. In the languages derived
from the Latin this dislike to the use of _k_ leads to several
orthographical inconveniences. As the tendency of _c_, before _e_, _i_,
_y_, to be sounded as _s_ (or as a sound allied to _s_), is the same in
those languages as in others; and as in those languages, as in others,
there frequently occur such sounds as _kit_, _ket_, _kin_, &c., a
difficulty arises as to the spelling. If spelt _cit_, _cet_, &c., there is
the risk of their being sounded _sit_, _set_. To remedy this, an _h_ is
interposed--_chit_, _chet_, &c. This, however, only substitutes one
difficulty for another, since _ch_ is, in all probability, already used
with a different sound, _e.g._, that of _sh_, as in French, or that of _k_
guttural, as in German. The Spanish orthography is thus hampered. Unwilling
to spell the word _chimera_ (pronounced _kimera_) with a _k_; unable to
spell it with either _c_ or _ch_, it writes the word _quimæra_. This
distaste for _k_ is an orthographical prejudice. Even in the way of
etymology it is but partially advantageous, since in the other Gothic
languages, where the alphabet is less rigidly Latin, the words that in
English are spelt with a _c_, are there written with _k_,--_kam_, German;
_komme_, Danish; _skrapa_, Swedish;=_came_, _come_, _scrape_.

The use of _k_ final, as in _stick_, &c., has been noticed in p. 194.

"_Skeptic_, for so it should be written, not _sceptic_."--_Johnson._ Quoted
for the sake of adding authority to the statement made in p. 193, _viz._,
that the Greek _kappa_ is to be represented not by _c_, but by _k_.

"_K_ is never doubled, but _c_ is used before it to shorten the vowel by a
double consonant, as _c[)o]ckle_, _p[)i]ckle_."--_Johnson._ {197} This is
referable to the statement that _k_ is never used where _c_ is admissible.

"_K_ is used before _n_, _knell_, _knot_, but totally loses its
sound."--_Johnson._ This, however, is not the ease in the allied languages;
in German and Danish, in words like _knecht_, _knive_, the _k_ is sounded.
This teaches us that such was once the case in English. Hence we learn that
in the words _knife_, _knight_ (and also in _gnaw_, _gnash_), we have an
antiquated or obsolete orthography.

For the ejection of the sound of _l_ in _calf_, _salmon_, _falcon_, &c. see
under a. For the _l_ in _could_, see that word.

"_N_ is sometimes mute after _m_, as _damn_, _condemn_,
_hymn_."--_Johnson._ In all these words the _n_ originally belonged to a
succeeding syllable, _dam-no_, _condem-no_, _hym-nus_.

_Q_, accurately speaking, is neither a letter, nor an abbreviation. It is
always followed by _u_, as _queen_, _quilt_, and the two letters _qu_ must
be looked upon as a single sign, equivalent to (but scarcely an
abbreviation) of _kw_. _Q_ is not=_k_ alone. The combination _qu_, is never
sounded _koo_. Neither is _kw_. If it were so, there would be in the word
_queen_ (currently speaking) _three_ sounds of _u_, _viz._, two belonging
to _q_ (=_kw_), and one belonging to _u_ itself. _W_ being considered as=2
_u_: _q_=_k_ + ½ _w_. This view of _q_ bears upon the theory of words like
_prorogue_, &c.

The reader is referred to p. 152. There he is told that, when a word ends
in a flat consonant, _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, the plural termination is not the
sound of _s_, but that of _z_ (_stagz_, _dogz_); although _s_ be the letter
_written_. Such also is the case with words ending in the vowels or the
liquids (_peaz_, _beanz_, _hillz_, not _peace_, _beance_, _hillce_). This
fact influences our orthography. The majority of words ending in _s_ are
found to be plural numbers, or else (what is the same thing in respect to
form) either genitive cases, or verbs of the third person singular; whilst
in the majority of these the _s_ is sounded as _z_. Hence, the inference
from analogy that _s_ single, at the end of words, is sounded as _z_. Now
this fact hampers the orthography of those words wherein _s_ final retains
its natural sound, as _since_, _once_, _mass_, _mace_; for let these be
{198} written _sins_, _ons_, _mas_, the chances are that they will be
pronounced _sinz_, _onz_, _maz_. To remedy this, the _s_ may be doubled, as
in _mass_. This, however, can be done in a few cases only. It cannot be
done conveniently where the vowel is long, the effect of a double consonant
being to denote that the preceding vowel is short. Neither can it be done
conveniently after a consonant, such combinations as _sinss_, &c., being
unsightly. This throws the grammarian upon the use of _c_, which, as stated
above, has, in certain situations, the power of _s_. To write, however,
simply _sinc_, or _onc_, would induce the risk of the words being sounded
_sink_, _onk_. To obviate this, _e_ is added, which has the double effect
of not requiring to be sounded (being mute), and of showing that the _c_
has the sound of _s_ (being small).

"It is the peculiar quality of _s_ that it may be sounded before all
consonants, except _x_ and _z_, in which _s_ is comprised, _x_ being only
_ks_, and _z_ only a hard [flat] or gross _s_. This _s_ is therefore
termed by grammarians _suæ potestatis litera_, the reason of which the
learned Dr. Clarke erroneously supposed to be, that in some words it might
be doubled at pleasure."--_Johnson._ A reference to the current Greek
Grammars will indicate another reason for [sigma] being called _suæ
potestatis litera_. It will there be seen that, whilst [pi], [beta],
[phi]--[kappa], [gamma], [chi]--[tau], [delta], [theta]--are grouped
together, as _tenues_, _mediæ_, and _aspiratæ_, and as _inter se cognatæ_,
[sigma] stands by itself; [zeta] its media (flat sound) being treated as a
double letter, and _sh_, its so-called aspirate, being non-existent in the
Greek language.

The sound of _ti_ before a vowel, as in _salvation_, is explained in p.

"_Th_ has two sounds; the one soft [flat], as _thus_, _whether_; the other
hard [sharp], as _thing_, _think_. The sound is soft [flat] in all words
between two vowels, as _father_, _whether_; and between _r_ and a vowel, as
_burthen_."--_Johnson._ The reason of the latter statement lies in the fact
of both the vowels and _r_ being _flat_ (see p. 152), and so exerting a
flattening influence upon the sounds in contact with them.

In the substantives _breath_ and _cloth_, the _th_ is sharp (_i.e._, as
_th_ in _thin_); in the verbs _breathe_ and _clothe_, the _th_ is flat
(_i.e._, {199} as _th_ in _thine_).--A great number of substantives may be
made verbs by changing the sound of their final consonant. However, with
the words _breathe_ and _clothe_, a second change has taken place, _viz._,
the vowel has been lengthened. Now of these two changes, _viz._, the
lengthening of the vowel, and the flattening of the consonant, which is the
one represented by the _e_ mute, in _clothe_ and _breathe_, as compared
with _cloth_ and _breath_? I imagine the former. Hence an exception is
taken to the following statement of Dr. Johnson:--"When it (_th_) is
softened [flattened] at the end of a word, an _e_ silent must be added, as
_breath_, _breathe_, _cloth_, _clothe_."

The sounds of the _s_ in _sure_, of the _t_ in _picture_ (when pronounced
_pictshure_), and of the _z_ in _azure_ and _glazier_, are explained in p.

The present chapter is intended not to exhaust the list, but to illustrate
the character of those orthographical expedients which insufficient
alphabets, changes in language, and the influences of etymology engender
both in the English and in other tongues.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 256. 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 the various 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 Phoenician, Hebrew, or Semitic
alphabet. This is easily accounted for when we call to mind,--1. The fact
that the Greek, the Latin, and the Arabian alphabets, are all founded upon
this; and, 2. The great influence of the nations speaking those three
languages. The present sketch, however, is given only for the sake of
accounting for defects.

§ 257. _Phoenician, Hebrew, or Semitic Period._--At a certain period the
alphabet of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the neighbouring languages of the
Semitic tribes, consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters. For
these see the Hebrew Grammars and the Phoenicia of Gesenius.

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. Now, in the particular case of the languages in point, the
number of elementary sounds, as we infer from the present Arabic, was above
the average. {201} It may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic
alphabet was _insufficient_ for even the Semitic languages.

It was, moreover, _inconsistent_: since sounds as like as those of _teth_
and _tau_ (mere variations of each other) were expressed by signs as unlike
as [Hebrew: T`] and [Hebrew: T]; whilst sounds as unlike as those of _beth_
with a point, and _beth_ without a point (_b_ and _v_), were expressed (if
expressed at all) by signs as like as [Hebrew: B] and [Hebrew: B].

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, at once, to coincide.

The Greeks had, in all probability, sounds which were wanting in Palestine
and Phoenicia. In Palestine and Phoenicia it is certain that there were
sounds wanting in Greece.

Of the twenty-two Phoenician letters the Greeks took but twenty-one. The
eighteenth letter, _tsadi_, [Hebrew: TS], was never imported into Europe.

§ 258. _Greek Period._--Compared with the Semitic, the _Old_ Greek alphabet
ran thus:--

      _Hebrew._    _Greek._   |   _Hebrew._    _Greek._
   1.  [Alef]      [Alpha].   |  13.  [Mem]       [Mu].
   2.  [Bet]       [Beta].    |  14.  [Nun]       [Nu].
   3.  [Gimel]     [Gamma].   |  15.  [Samekh]    [Sigma]?
   4.  [Dalet]     [Delta].   |  16.  [Ayin]      [Omicron].
   5.  [He]        [Epsilon]. |  17.  [Pe]        [Pi].
   6.  [Vav]       [Digamma]. |  18.  [Tsadi]     --
   7.  [Zayin]     [Zeta].    |                 A letter called
   8.  [Khet]      [Eta].     |  19.  [Kuf]   koppa, afterwards
   9.  [Tet]       [Theta].   |                   ejected.
  10.  [Yod]       [Iota].    |  20.  [Resh]      [Rho].
  11.  [Kaf]       [Kappa].   |  21.  [Shin]      [San] afterwards [Sigma]?
  12.  [Lamed]     [Lambda].  |  22.  [Tav]       [Tau].

Such the order and form of the Greek and Hebrew letters. Here it may be
remarked, that, of each alphabet, it is only the modern forms that are
compared; the likeness in the _shape_ of the letters may be seen by
comparing them in their {202} older stages. Of these the exhibition, in a
work like the present, is inconvenient. They may, however, be studied in
the work already referred to in the _Phoenicia_ of Gesenius. The _names_ of
the letters are as follows:--

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

§ 259. The Asiatic alphabet of Phoenicia and Palestine is now adapted to
the European language of Greece. The first change took place in the manner
of writing. The Orientals wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to
right. Besides this, the following principles, applicable whenever the
alphabet of one language is transferred to another, were recognised:--

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 [phi], [chi], [upsilon],

5. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older {203} ones (as
was the case with [Hebrew: P], [Hebrew: P], [Hebrew: B], [Hebrew: B], &c.
in Hebrew), but new, distinct, and independent letters.

In all this there was an improvement. The faults of the newer Greek
alphabet consisted in the admission of the compendium [psi]=_ps_, and the
retention of the fifteenth letter (_samech_, _xi_), with the power of _ks_,
it being also a compendium.

§ 260. _The Italian or old Latin period._--That it was either from the
original Phoenician, or from the _old_ Greek, that the Italian alphabets
were imported, we learn from the existence in them of the letters _f_ and
_q_, corresponding respectively to the sixth and nineteenth letters; these
having, in the second stage of the Greek alphabet, been ejected.

§ 261. The first alphabet imported into Italy was the Etruscan. In this the
[beta], [delta], and [omicron] were ejected, their sounds (as it is stated)
not being found in the Etruscan language. Be it observed, that the sounds
both of [beta] and [delta] are _flat_. Just as in the Devonshire dialect
the flat sounds (_z_, _v_, &c.) have the preponderance, so, in the
Etruscan, does there seem to have been a preponderating quantity of the
sharp sounds. This prepares us for a change, the effects whereof exist in
almost all the alphabets of Europe. In Greek and Hebrew the third letter
(_gimel_, _gamma_) had the power of the flat mute _g_, as in _gun_. In the
Etruscan it had the power of _k_. In this use of the third letter the
Romans followed the Etruscans: but, as they had also in their language the
sound of _g_ (as in _gun_), they used, up to the Second Punic War, the
third letter (_viz._ _c_), to denote both sounds. In the Duillian column we
have MACESTRATOS, CARTHACINIENSES.[36] Afterwards, however, the separate
sign (or letter) _g_ was invented, being originally a mere modification of
c. The _place_ of _g_ in the alphabet is involved in the history of _z_.

§ 262. The Roman alphabet had a double origin. For the first two centuries
after the foundation of the city the alphabet used was the Etruscan,
derived directly from the Greek, and from the _old_ Greek. This accounts
for the presence of _f_ and _q_.


Afterwards, however, the Romans modified their alphabet by the alphabet of
the Italian Greeks; these Italian Greeks using the late Greek alphabet.
This accounts for the presence of _v_, originating in the Greek _ypsilon_.

In accommodating the Greek alphabet to their own language, the Latins
recognised the following principles:--

I. The ejection of such letters as were not wanted. Thus it was that the
seventh letter (_zayn_, _zæta_) was thrown out of the alphabet, and the new
letter, _g_, put in its place. Subsequently, _z_ was restored for the sake
of spelling Greek words, but was placed at the end of the alphabet. Thus
also it was, that _thæta_, _kappa_ (_c_ being equivalent to _k_), and the
fifteenth letter, were ejected, while [psi] and [chi] were never admitted.
In after-times the fifteenth letter (now _xi_) was restored, for the same
reason that _z_ was restored, and, like _z_, was placed at the end of the

II. The use of the imported letters with a new power. Hence the sixth
letter took the sound, not of _v_ or _w_, but of _f_; and the eighth of

Beyond this the Romans made but slight alterations. In ejecting _kappa_,
_thæta_ and _chi_, they did mischief. The same in changing the power of c.
The representation of [phi] by _ph_, and of [theta] by _th_ was highly
erroneous. The retention of _x_ and _q_ was unnecessary. _V_ and _j_, two
letters whereby the alphabet was really enriched, were mere modifications
of _u_ and _i_ respectively. _Y_ also seems a modification of _v_.

Neither the Latin, Greek, nor Hebrew orthographies were much warped to
etymological purposes.

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_).

It may now be seen that with a language containing such sounds as the _th_
in _thin_ and _thine_, and the _ch_ in the German _auch_, it is to their
advantage to derive their alphabet from the Greek; whilst, with a language
containing such sounds as _h_ and _v_, it is to their advantage to derive
it from the Latin.

It may also be seen, that, without due alterations and {205} additions, the
alphabet of one country will not serve as the alphabet of another.

§ 263. _The Moeso-Gothic alphabet._--In the third century the classical
alphabets were applied to a Gothic language. I use the word alphabets
because the Moeso-Gothic letters borrowed from both the Latin and the
Greek. Their form and order may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus and in Lye's
Grammar. With the Greek they agree in the following particulars.

1. In the sound of the third letter being not that of [kappa] (_c_), but of
the _g_ in _gun_.

2. In retaining _kappa_ and _chi_.

3. In expressing the simple single sound of _th_ by a simple single sign.
This sign, however, has neither the shape nor alphabetical position of the
Greek _thæta_.

With the Latin they agree, 1. in possessing letters equivalent to _f_, _g_,
_h_, _q_, _y_.

2. In placing _z_ at the end of the alphabet.

The Moeso-Gothic alphabet seems to have been formed on eclectic principles,
and on principles sufficiently bold. Neither was its application traversed
by etymological views. I cannot trace its influence, except, perhaps, in
the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters _þ_ and _[wynn]_, upon any other
alphabet; nor does it seem to have been acted upon by any earlier Gothic

§ 264. _The Anglo-Saxon alphabet._--What sort of an alphabet the Gothic
languages possess we know: what sort of alphabet they require, we can
determine. For the following sounds (amongst others) current in the Gothic,
either one or both of the classical languages are deficient in
corresponding signs.

1. The _th_ in _thin_.--A sign in Greek ([theta]), but none in Latin.

2. The _th_ in _thine_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.

3. The _ch_ in the German _auch_.--A sign in Greek ([chi]), but none in

4. The flat sound of the same, or the probable sound of the _h_ in _þurh_,
_leoht_, _&c_., Anglo-Saxon.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. {206}

5. The _sh_ in _shine_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.

6. The _z_ in _azure_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.

7. The _ch_ in _chest_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we
suppose that at the time when the Anglo-Saxon alphabet was formed, the
Latin _c_ in words like _civitas_ had the power, which it has in the
present Italian, of _ch_.

8. The _j_ in _jest_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we admit
the same supposition in respect to _g_, that has been indicated in respect
to c.

9. The sound of the _kj_; in the Norwegian _kjenner_; _viz._, that
(thereabouts) of _ksh_.--A sign neither in Latin nor Greek.

10. The English sound of _w_.--A sign neither in Latin nor Greek.

11. The sound of the German _ü_, Danish _y_.--No sign in Latin; probably
one in Greek, _viz._, [upsilon].

12. Signs for distinguishing the long and short vowels, as [epsilon] and
[eta], [omicron] and [omega].--Wanting in Latin, but existing in Greek.

In all these points the classical alphabets (one or both) were deficient.
To make up for their insufficiency one of two things was necessary, either
to coin new letters, or to use conventional combinations of the old.

In the Anglo-Saxon alphabet (derived from the Latin) we have the following

1. _C_ used to the exclusion of _k_.

2. The absence of the letter _j_, either with the power of _y_, as in
German, of _zh_, as in French, or of _dzh_, as in English.

3. The absence of _q_; a useful omission, _cw_ serving instead.

4. The absence of _v_; _u_, either single or double, being used instead.

5. The use of _y_ as a vowel, and of _e_ as _y_.

6. The absence of _z_.

7. Use of _uu_, as _w_, or _v_: Old Saxon.

8. The use, in certain conditions, of _f_ for _v_.

9. The presence of the simple single signs _þ_ and _ð_, for the _th_ in
_thin_, and the _th_ in _thine_.

Of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet we may safely say that it was _insufficient_.
The points wherein the Latin alphabet was {207} improved in its adaptation
to the Gothic tongues, are, 1. the admission of _þ_ and _ð_; 2. the
evolution of _w_ out of _u_. Upon this latter circumstance, and on _k_ and
_z_, I make the following extract from the Latin Dedication of Otfrid's
Krist:--"Hujus enim linguæ barbaries, ut est inculta 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,"
And, further, in respect to other orthographical difficulties:--"Interdum
vero nec _a_, nec _e_, nec _i_, nec _u_, vocalium sonos præcanere potui,
ibi _y_ Grecum mihi videbatur ascribi. Et etiam hoc elementum lingua hæc
horrescit interdum; nulli se characteri aliquotiens in quodam sono nisi
difficile jungens. _K_ et _z_ sæpius hæc lingua extra usum Latinitatis
utitur; quæ grammatici inter litteras dicunt esse superfluas. Ob stridorem
autem dentium interdum ut puto in hac lingua _z_ utuntur, _k_ autem propter
faucium sonoritatem."

§ 265. _The Anglo-Norman Period._--Between the Latin alphabet, as applied
to the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin alphabet, as applied to the
Norman-French, there are certain points of difference. In the first place,
the sound-system of the languages (like the French) derived from the Latin,
bore a greater resemblance to that of the Romans, than was to be found
amongst the Gothic tongues. Secondly, the alphabets of the languages in
point were more exclusively Latin. In the present French, Italian, Spanish,
and Portuguese, there is an exclusion of the _k_. This is not the case with
the Anglo-Norman. Like the Latins, the Anglo-Normans considered that the
sound of the Greek [theta] was represented by _th_: not, however, having
this sound in their language, there was no corresponding sign in their
alphabet. The greatest mischief done by the Norman influence was the
ejection from the English alphabet of _þ_ and _ð_. In other respects the
alphabet was improved. The letters _z_, _k_, _j_, were either imported or
more currently recognised. The letter _y_ took a semi-vowel power, having
been previously represented by _e_; {208} itself having the power of _i_.
The mode of spelling the compound sibilant with _ch_ was evolved. My
notions concerning this mode of spelling are as follows:--At a given period
the sound of _ce_ in _ceaster_, originally that of _ke_, had become, first,
that of _ksh_, and, secondly, that of _tsh_; still it was spelt _ce_, the
_e_, in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons, having the power of _y_. In the eyes
also of the Anglo-Saxons the compound sound of _ksh_, or _tsh_, would
differ from that of _k_ by the addition of _y_: this, it may be said, was
the Anglo-Saxon view of the matter. The Anglo-Norman view was different.
Modified by the part that, in the combination _th_, was played by the
aspirate _h_, it was conceived by the Anglo-Normans, that _ksh_, or _tsh_,
differed from _k_, not by the addition of _y_ (expressed by _e_), but by
that of _h_. Hence the combination _ch_ as sounded in _chest_. The same was
the case with _sh_. This latter statement is a point in the history, not so
much of an alphabet, as of an orthography.

The preceding sketch, as has been said more than once before, has been
given with one view only, _viz._, that of accounting for defective modes of
spelling. The history of almost all alphabets is the same. Originally
either insufficient, erroneous, or inconsistent, they are transplanted from
one language to a different, due alterations and additions rarely being

§ 266. The reduplication of the consonant following, to express the
shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical
languages: _terra_, [Greek: thalassa]. The following extract from the
Ormulum (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of
the practice that I have met with. The extract is from Thorpe's Analecta

  And whase wilenn shall þis boc,
    Efft oþerr siþe writenn,
  Himm bidde iec 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 wel þatt he
    _An boc-staff write twiggess_,[37]
  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 wel to soþe.

Concerning the various other orthographical expedients, such as the
reduplication of the vowel to express its length (_mood_), &c., I can give
no satisfactory detailed history. The influence of the Anglo-Norman, a
language derived from the Latin, established, in its fullest force, the
recognition of the etymological principle.

§ 267. "I cannot trace the influence of the Moeso-Gothic alphabet, except,
perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters _þ_ and _[wynn]_, upon any
other alphabet; _nor does it seem to have been itself acted upon by any
earlier Gothic alphabet_." (See p. 205.) The reason for the remark in
Italics was as follows: In the Icelandic language the word _run_ signifies
a _letter_, and the word _runa_ a _furrow_, or _line_. It has also some
secondary meanings, which it is unnecessary to give in detail. Upon a vast
number of inscriptions, some upon rocks, some upon stones of a defined
shape, we find an alphabet different (at least, apparently so) from that of
the Greeks, Latins, and Hebrews, and also unlike that of any modern nation.
In this alphabet there is a marked deficiency of curved or rounded lines,
and an exclusive preponderance of straight ones. As it was engraved rather
than written, this is what we naturally expect. These letters are called
Runes, and the alphabet which they constitute is called the Runic alphabet.
Sometimes, by an extension of meaning, the Old Norse language, wherein they
most frequently occur, is called the Runic language. This is as incorrect
as to call a language an alphabetic language. To say, however, the Runic
stage of a language is neither inaccurate nor inconvenient. The Runic
alphabet, whether borrowed or invented by the early Goths, is of greater
antiquity {210} than either the oldest Teutonic or the Moeso-Gothic
alphabets. The forms, names, and order of the letters may be seen in
Hickes' Thesaurus, in Olai Wormii Literatura Runica, in Rask's Icelandic
Grammar, and in W. Grimm's Deutsche Runer.

The original number of the Runic letters is sixteen; expressing the sounds
of _f_, _u_, _þ_, _o_, _r_, _k_, _h_, _n_, _a_, _i_, _s_, _t_, _b_, _l_,
_m_, _y_. To these are added four spurious Runes, denoting _c_, _x_, _æ_,
_ö_, and eight pointed Runes after the fashion of the pointed letters in
Hebrew. In all this we see the influence of the imported alphabet upon the
original Runes, rather than that of the original Runes upon the imported
alphabet. It should, however, be remarked, that in the Runic alphabet the
sound of _th_ in _thin_ is expressed by a simple sign, and that by a sign
not unlike the Anglo-Saxon þ.

§ 268. _The Order of the Alphabet._--In the history of our alphabet, we
have had the history of the 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? In the year 1835 I conceived, that in the
order of the Hebrew alphabet I had discovered a very artificial
arrangement. I also imagined that this artificial arrangement had been
detected by no one besides myself. Two years afterwards a friend[38] stated
to me that he had made a similar observation, and in 1839 appeared, in Mr.
Donaldson's New Cratylus, the quotation with which the present section will
be concluded. The three views in the main coincide; and, as each has been
formed independently (Mr. Donaldson's being the first recorded), they give
the satisfactory result of three separate investigations coinciding in a
theory essentially the same. The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as

     _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. _Koph_    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 _koph_ (_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 D. 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 {212} series D, is farthest from it; and _koph_, of series K, is
intermediate. I am satisfied that we have in the Hebrew alphabet, and in
all alphabets derived from it (consequently in the English), if not a
system, the rudiments of a system, and that the system is of the sort
indicated above; in other words, that the order of the alphabet is a
_circulating order_.

In Mr. Donaldson's hands this view is not only a fact, but an instrument of
criticism:--"The fact is, in our opinion, the original Semitic alphabet
contained only sixteen letters. This appears from the organic arrangement
of their characters. The remaining sixteen letters appear in the following
order:--_aleph_, _beth_, _gimel_, _daleth_, _he_, _vaw_, _kheth_, _teth_,
_lamed_, _mem_, _nun_, _samech_, _ayn_, _pe_, _koph_, _tau_. If we examine
this order more minutely, we shall see that it is not arbitrary or
accidental, but strictly organic, according to the Semitic articulation. We
have four classes, each consisting of four letters: the first and second
classes consist each of three mutes, preceded by a breathing; the third of
the three liquids and the sibilant, which, perhaps, closed the oldest
alphabet of all; and the fourth contains the three supernumerary mutes,
preceded by a breathing. We place the characters first vertically:--

  Aleph   [Alef]     First breathing
  Beth    [Bet]      B }
  Gimel   [Gimel]    G } _Media._
  Daleth  [Dalet]    D }
  He      [He]       Second breathing.
  Vaw     [Vav]      Bh }
  Kheth   [Khet]     Gh } _Aspirate._
  Teth    [Tet]      Dh }
  Lamed   [Lamed]    L }
  Mem     [Mem]      M } _Liquids._
  Nun     [Nun]      N }
  Samech  [Samekh]   S _The Sibilant_.
  Ayn     [Ayin]     Third breathing.
  Pe      [Pe]       P }
  Koph    [Kuf]      K } _Tenues._
  Tau     [Tav]      T }

In the horizontal arrangement we shall, for the sake of greater simplicity,
omit the liquids and the sibilant, and then we have {213}

  _Breathings._   _Labials._   _Palatals._   _Linguals._

  [Alef]        [Bet]      [Gimel]     [Dalet]
  [He]          [Vav]      [Khet]      [Tet]
  [Ayin]        [Pe]       [Kuf]       [Tav]

In this we see, that, while the horizontal lines give us the arrangement of
the mutes according to the breathings, the vertical columns exhibit them
arranged according to the organ by which they are produced. Such a
classification is obviously artificial."

§ 269. _Parallel and equivalent orthographies._--Let there be in two given
languages the sound of _k_, as in _kin_. Let each of these languages
represent it by the same letter, _k_. In this case, the two orthographies
are identical. Let, however, one nation represent it by _k_, and another by
c. In this case the orthographies are not identical, but parallel. The same
is the case with combinations. Let one nation (say the Anglo-Saxon)
represent the sound of _y_ (in _ye_) by _e_, whilst another nation (the
Norse) represents it by _j_. What the Anglo-Saxon spells _ceaster_, the
Northman spells _kjaster_; and what the Northman spells _kjære_, the
Anglo-Saxon spells _ceære_. Let the sound of this _ce_ and _kj_ undergo a
change, and become _ksh_; _kjære_ and _ceære_, being pronounced _kshære_.
The view of the Northman and Anglo-Saxon will be the same; each will
consider that the compound sound differs from the simple one by the
addition of the sound of _y_; that sound being expressed in one nation by
_e_, and in the other by _j_. In this case the two expressions of the
compound sound are parallel, its elements being considered the same,
although the signs by which those elements are expressed are different.

Let, however, a different view of the compound sound be taken. Let it be
thought that the sound of _ksh_ differs from that of _k_, not by the
addition of the sound of _y_, but by that of _h_; and so let it be spelt
_kh_ or _ch_. In this case the orthographies _kh_ and _kj_ (or _ce_) are
not parallel, but equivalent. They express the same sound, but they do not
denote the same elements. The same sound is, very possibly, expressed by
the Anglo-Saxon _ce_, the Norwegian _kj_, and the English _ch_. In this
case _ce_ and _kj_ are parallel, _ce_ and _ch_ equivalent, orthographies.

       *       *       *       *       *







§ 270. 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. What follows is an exhibition of
the province or department of etymology.

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. The word _fathers_ is a word
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 (not, however, necessarily) 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.

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 was current in {215} the first century, although
under a different form, and in a different language. Thus, in the Latin
language, the form was _pater_; and earlier still, there is the Sanskrit
form _pitr_. Now, just as the word _father_, compared with _fathers_, is
original and primitive, so is _pater_, compared with _father_, original and
primitive. The difference is, that in respect to _father_ and _fathers_,
the change that takes place, 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 the province of
etymology to take cognizance.

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.

It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in one
point, viz., in taking cognizance of the _changes of form 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_.

In _fatherlike_ we have a compound word capable of being analysed into the
two primitive words, 1. _father_; 2. _like_.

With these preliminaries we may appreciate (or criticise) Dr. Johnson's
explanation of the word etymology.

"ETYMOLOGY, N. S. (_etymologia_, Lat.) [Greek: etumos] (_etymos_) _true_,
and [Greek: logos] (_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

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 271. The nature of gender is best exhibited by reference to those
languages wherein the distinction of gender is most conspicuous. Such a
language, amongst others, is the Latin.

How far is there such a thing as gender in the English language? This
depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word gender.

In the Latin language, where there are confessedly genders, we have the
words _taurus_, meaning a _bull_, and _vacca_, meaning a _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.

§ 272. 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.

§ 273. 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; {218} 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.

This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to gender
rather than gender itself. Its difference from true grammatical gender is
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 these
signs are the same in each word, the difference of meaning (or sex) not
affecting them.

§ 274. 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.

As terms, to be useful, must be limited, 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_.

§ 275. 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 a 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. Sex is a natural distinction, gender a grammatical

§ 276. "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.

The pronoun _him_, from the Anglo-Saxon and English _he_, as compared with
the pronoun _her_, from the Anglo-Saxon _heò_, is affected in its
declension by the difference of sex, and is a true, though fragmentary,
specimen of gender: for be it observed, that as both words are in the same
case and number, the difference in form must be referred to a difference of
sex expressed by 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. {220}

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 _hic_ and _hæc_,
and the forms _hic_ and _hæc_ are as much genders as _dominus_ and

§ 277. The formation of the neuter gender by the addition of _-t_, in words
like _wha-t_, _i-t_, and _tha-t_, occurs in other Indo-European languages.
The _-t_ in _tha-t_ is the _-d_ in _istu-d_, Latin, and the _-t_ in _ta-t_,
Sanskrit. Except, however, in the Gothic tongues, the inflection _-t_ is
confined to the _pronouns_. In the Gothic this is not the case. Throughout
all those languages where there is a neuter form for _adjectives_ at all,
that form is either _-t_, or a sound derived from it:--Moeso-Gothic,
_blind-ata_; Old High German, _plint-ez_; Icelandic, _blind-t_; German,
_blind-es_=_blind_, _cæc-um_.--See Bopp's Comparative Grammar, Eastwick and
Wilson's translation, p. 171.

_Which_, as seen below, is _not_ the neuter of _who_.

§ 278. 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 everything _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.

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 {221} feminine, pronoun, as is done in the
expressions quoted at the head of this section; still less will it account
for the circumstance of the Germans reversing the gender, and making the
_sun_ feminine, and the _moon_ masculine.

Let there be a period in the history of a nation 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 period in the history of a
nation wherein dead things are personified, and wherein there is a
mythology. Let an object like the _sun_ be deemed a male, and an object
like the _moon_ a female, deity.

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 (taken second-hand from Grimm,
vol. iii. p. 349) out of an Icelandic mythological work, _viz._, the prose
Edda. In the classical languages, however, _Phoebus_ 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

_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 these words there is no change of form, the consideration of them is
a point of rhetoric, rather than of etymology.

Upon phrases like _Cock Robin_, _Robin Redbreast_, _Jenny Wren_, expressive
of sex, much information may be collected from Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik,
vol. iii. p. 359.

§ 279. 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 {222} 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_, so current in German, as the equivalent to
_-ess_, and as a feminine affix (_freund_=_a friend_; _freundinn_=_a female
friend_), is found only in one or two words in English.

  There were five _carlins_ in the south
    That fell upon a scheme,
  To send a lad to London town
    To bring them tidings hame.


_Carlin_ means an _old woman_: Icelandic, _kerling_; Sw., _käring_; Dan.
_kælling_. Root, _carl_.

_Vixen_ is a true feminine derivative from _fox_. German, _füchsinn_.

_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.

Words like _margravine_ and _landgravine_ prove nothing, being scarcely

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_     }           { Bacestre, _a female baker_.
  Fiðelere, _a male fiddler_ }    were   { Fiðelstre, _a female fiddler_.
  Vebbere, _a male weaver_   }  opposed  { Vëbbëstre, _a female weaver_.
  Rædere, _a male reader_    }     to    { 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_; _bakster_=_a {223} baking-woman_;
_waschster_=_a washerwoman_. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 339.) The
word _spinster_ still retains its original feminine force.

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 _deaconess_ 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. The circumstance of _prince_ ending in the sound of _s_, works a change
in the accent of the word. As _s_ is the final letter, it is necessary, in
forming the plural number, and the genitive case, to add, not the simple
letter _s_, as in _peers_, _priests_, &c., but the syllable _-es_. This
makes the plural number and genitive case the same as the feminine form.
Hence the feminine form is accented _princéss_, while _peéress_,
_príestess_, &c., carry the accent on the first syllable. _Princéss_ is
remarkable as being the only word in English where the accent lies on the
subordinate syllable.

10. It is uncertain whether _kit_, as compared with _cat_, be a feminine
form or a diminutive form; in other words, whether it mean a _female cat_
or a _young cat_.--See the Chapter on the Diminutives.

11. _Goose_, _gander_.--One peculiarity in this pair of words has already
been indicated. In the older forms of the word _goose_, such as [Greek:
chên], 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 [Greek: odous], [Greek:
odontos], Greek; _dens_, _dentis_, Latin; _zahn_, {224} 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 (taken from Grimm, iii. p. 341) 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

12. 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_. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p.

13. _Peacock_, _peahen_, _bridegroom_.--In these compounds, it is not the
words _pea_ and _bride_ that are rendered masculine or feminine by the
addition of _cock_, _hen_, and _groom_, but it is the words _cock_, _hen_,
and _groom_ that are modified by prefixing _pea_ and _bride_. For an
appreciation of this distinction, see the Chapter on Composition.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 280. In the Greek language the word _patær_ signifies a father, speaking
of _one_, whilst _patere_ signifies _two fathers_, speaking of 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 (in Greek
being extended to verbs). 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 at all, except the
natural dual in the words _ambo_ and _duo_.

§ 281. 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.

§ 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 {226} 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.

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.

For the forms _selves_ and _others_, see the Syntax. For the present, it is
sufficient to foreshadow a remark which will be made on the word _self_,
_viz._ that whether it be a pronoun, a substantive, or an adjective, is a
disputed point.

Words like _wheat_, _pitch_, _gold_, &c., where the idea is naturally
singular; words like _bellows_, _scissors_, _lungs_, &c., where the idea is
naturally plural; and words like _deer_, _sheep_, where the same form
serves for the singular and plural, inasmuch as there takes place no change
of form, are not under the province of etymology.

§ 282. The current rule is, that the plural number is formed from the
singular by adding _s_, as _father_, _fathers_. {227} However, if the
reader will revert to the Section upon the sharp and flat Mutes, where it
is stated that mutes of different degrees of sharpness and flatness cannot
come together in the same syllable, he will find occasion to take to the
current rule a verbal exception. The letter 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 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_. Upon the formation of the
English plural some further remarks are necessary.

I. 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. See the Section
on the Law of Accommodation.

II. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second
(_aps_, _afs_, _ats_, _aþs_, _asks_), or the second to the first (_abz_,
_avz_, _aðz_, _agz_), is determined by the habit of the particular language
in question; and, with a few apparent exceptions (mark the word
_apparent_), it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the
second sound to the first, and not _vice versâ_.

III. 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.

IV. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in _s_, but in _z_,
the original addition was not _z_, but _s_. This we {228} 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.

§ 283. _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.

§ 284. "A few _apparent_ exceptions."--These words are taken from
Observation II. in the present section. The apparent exceptions to the rule
there laid down are the words _loaf_, _wife_, and a few others, whose
plural is not sounded _loafs_, _wifs_ (_loafce_, _wifce_), but _loavz_,
_wivz_ (written _loaves_, _wives_). Here it seems as if _z_ had been added
to the singular; and, contrary to rule, the final letter of the original
word been accommodated to the _z_, instead of the _z_ being accommodated to
the final syllable of the word, and so becoming _s_. It is, however, very
probable that instead of the plural form being changed, it is the singular
that has been modified. In the Anglo-Saxon the _f_ at the end of words (as
in the present Swedish) had the power of _v_. In the allied language the
words in point are spelt with the _flat_ mute, as _weib_, _laub_, _kalb_,
_halb_, _stab_, {229} German. The same is the case with _leaf_, _leaves_;
_calf_, _calves_; _half_, _halves_; _staff_, _staves_; _beef_, _beeves_:
this last word being Anglo-Norman.

_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 _lens_,
sounded _lenz_. That its sense is collective rather than plural (a
distinction to which the reader's attention is directed), 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_ (_diez_) 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, [Greek: eleêmosunê]; 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 {230} 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._, [Greek: technê] (_tekhnæ_), so that the _musical art_ be
[Greek: hê mousikê technê] (_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, [Greek: mousikê]. 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, [Greek: biblion] (_biblion_). Let
the substantive meaning _treatise_ be, in the course of language, omitted,
so that whilst the science of physics is called [Greek: phusikê]
(_fysikæ_), _physic_, from [Greek: hê phusikê technê], a series of
treatises (or even chapters) upon the science shall be called [Greek:
phusika] (_fysika_) or physics. Now all this was what happened in Greece.
The science was denoted by a feminine adjective singular, as [Greek:
phusikê] (_fysicæ_), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective
plural, as [Greek: phusika] (_fysica_). 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.

§ 285. 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 {231} 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 other Gothic tongue the
following forms in _-r_.--

  Hus-er,   _Houses_.          Old High German.
  Chalp-ir, _Calves_.          ditto.
  Lemp-ir,  _Lambs_.           ditto.
  Plet-ir,  _Blades of grass_. ditto.
  Eig-ir,   _Eggs_.            ditto.

and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being _of the
neuter gender_. The particular Gothic dialect wherein they occur most
frequently is the Dutch of Holland.

Now, the theory respecting the form so propounded by Grimm (D. G. iii. p.
270) is as follows:--

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 Moeso-Gothic: _ag-is_=_fear_ (whence
_ague_=_shivering_), _hat-is_=_hate_, _rigv-is_=_smoke_ (_reek_). In none
of these words is the _-s_ radical, and in none is it limited to the
singular number.

To these views Bopp adds, that the termination in question is the Sanskrit
_-as_, a neuter affix; as in _têj-as_=_splendour_, _strength_, from
_tij_=to _sharpen_.--V. G. pp. 141-259, Eastwick's and Wilson's

To these doctrines of Grimm and Bopp, 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_, _eigir_=_a collection of
eggs, eggery _or_ eyry_. For further observations on the power of _-r_, and
for reasons for believing it to be the same as in the words _Jew-r-y_,
_yeoman-r-y_, see a paper of Mr. Guest's, Philol. Trans., May 26, 1843.
There we find the remarkable form _lamb-r-en_, from Wicliffe, Joh. xxi.
_Lamb-r-en_ : _lamb_ :: _child-r-en_ : _child_. {232}

§ 286. _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.

§ 287. _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 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._

§ 288. _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_.


    _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_, pluraliter _oxen_, _chicken_ (sunt qui
dicunt in singulari _chicken_, et in plurali _chickens_)."--(P. 77).
_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."--(P. 77.) Subject to
this view, the word _fer-n-s_ would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word
_chicke-n-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_."--P.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 289. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases,
depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the sentence _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 _a fathers 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

_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.

Now if the relation alone between two words constitutes a case, the words
or sentences, _child_; _to a father_; _of a father_; and _father's_, are
all equally cases; of which one may be {235} 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 is a remark, at least as old as Dr. Beattie,[39] 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_."

For etymological purposes 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
English. It does not, however, follow that because in _father_ we have but
two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two.

_In order to constitute a case there must be a change of form._--This
statement is a matter of definition. A second question, however, arises out
of it; _viz._, whether _every change of form constitute a case_? In the
Greek language there are the words [Greek: erin] (_erin_), and [Greek:
erida] (_erida_). Unlike the words _father_ and _father's_ these two words
have precisely the same meaning. Each is called an accusative; and each,
{236} consequently, is said to be in the same case with the other. This
indicates the statement, that in order to constitute a case there must be
not _only a change of form_, _but also a change of meaning_. Whether such a
limitation of the word be convenient, is a question for the general
grammarian. At present we merely state that there _is no change of case
unless there be a change of form_. Hence, in respect to the word _patribus_
(and others like it), which is sometimes translated _from fathers_, and at
other times _to fathers_, we must say, not that in the one case the word is
ablative and in the other dative, but that a certain case is used with a
certain latitude of meaning. This remark bears on the word _her_ in
English. In _her book_ the sense is that of the case currently called
genitive. In _it moved her_, the sense is that of the case currently called
the accusative. If we adhere, however, to what we have laid down, we must
take exceptions to this mode of speaking. It is not that out of the single
form _her_ we can get two cases, but that a certain form has two powers;
one that of the Latin genitive, and another that of the Latin accusative.

§ 290. This leads to an interesting question, _viz._, what notions are
sufficiently allied to be expressed _by_ the same form, and _in_ the same
case? The word _her_, in its two senses, may, perhaps, be dealt with as a
single case, because the notions conveyed by the genitive and accusative
are, perhaps, sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same word. Are the
notions, however, _of a mistress_, and _mistresses_, so allied? I think
not; and yet in the Latin language the same form, _dominæ_, expresses both.
Of _dominæ_=_of a mistress_, and of _dominæ_=_mistresses_, we cannot say
that there is one and the same case with a latitude of meaning. The words
were, perhaps, once different. And this 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 _smith_
(_smið_), _end_ (_ende_), and _day_ (_dæg_), were, respectively, _smithes_
(_smiðes_), _endes_, and _dayes_ (_dæges_); whilst the nominative plurals
were, respectively, _smithas_ (_smiðas_), _endas_, and _dayas_ (_dægas_). A
process of change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in
each {237} 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_.

§ 291. _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.

_Accusative._--Some call this the objective case. The words _him_
(singular) and _them_ (plural) (whatever they may have been originally) are
now true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only.
_Thee_, _me_, _us_, and _you_ are, to a certain extent, true accusatives.

They 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 of 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

                       _Neut._    _Masc._     _Fem._
  _N. and Ac._          Twá,      Twégen,      Twá.
  _Abl. and Dat._             Twám,            Tw['æ]m.
  _Gen._                      Twegra,          Twega.

Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the
original character of _twégen_ being accusative. The {238} _-n_ is by no
means radical; besides which, it _is_ the sign of an accusative case, and
is _not_ the sign of a nominative.

_Note._--The words _him_ and _them_ are true accusatives in even a less
degree than _thee_, _me_, _us_, and _you_. The Anglo-Saxon equivalents to
the Latin words _eos_ and _illos_ were _hi_ (or _hig_) and _þá_ (or
_þæge_); in other words, the sign of the accusative was other than the
sound of _-m_. The case which _really_ ended in _-m_ was the so-called
dative; so that the Anglo-Saxon forms _him_ (or _heom_) and _þám_=the Latin
_iis_ and _illis_.

This fact explains the meaning of the words, _whatever they may have been
originally_, in a preceding sentence. It also indicates a fresh element in
the criticism and nomenclature of the grammarian; _viz._, the extent to
which the _history_ of a form regulates its position as an inflection.

_Dative._--In the antiquated word _whilom_ (_at times_), we have a remnant
of the old dative in _-m_. The _sense_ of the word is adverbial; its form,
however, is that of a dative case.

_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_, _princesseses_, &c.

_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 declined:-- {239}

              _Neut._ _Masc._    _Fem._      _Neut._   _Masc._   _Fem._
  _Sing. N._   þæt     se         seó         þis       þes       þeós.
        _A._   þæt     þone       þá          þis       þisne     þás.
               \----\/----/                   \-----\/-----/
        _Abl._      þý            þ['æ]re          þise           þisse.
        _D._        þám           þ['æ]re          þisum          þisse.
        _G._        þæs           þ['æ]re          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_, _seo_, in all
cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times,
as an article. Hence the English article _the_.

"_þy_ seems justly to be received as a proper _ablativus instrumenti_, as
it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, _mid
þy áþe_=_with that oath_ (Inæ Reges, 53). And in the same place in the
dative, _on þ['æ]m áþe_=_in that oath_."--Pp. 56, 57.

Hence the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _þý_ is one
word; 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_ (=_þy_) may be
seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflection of the interrogative

        _Neut._    _Masc._
  _N._   Hwæt       Hwá.
  _A._   Hwæt       Hwone (hwæne).
  _Abl._      _Hwi_
  _D._         Hwám (hwæ'm)
  _G._         Hwæs.

Hence, then, in _the_ and _why_ we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply,

§ 292. _The determination of cases._--How do we determine cases? In other
words, why do we call _him_ and _them_ {240} 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 accusative, 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, as stated above, the words
_him_ and _them_ (to which we may add _whom_) were once dative cases; _-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 _twain_.

_My_, an accusative form (_meh_, _me_, _mec_), has now a genitive sense.
The same may be said of _thy_.

_Me_, originally an accusative form (both _me_ and _my_ can grow out of
_mec_ and _meh_), had, even with the Anglo-Saxons, a dative sense. _Give it
me_ is correct English. The same may be said of _thee_.

_Him_, a dative form, has now an accusative sense.

_Her._--For this word, as well as for further details on _me_ and _my_, see
the Chapters on the Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns. {241}

§ 293. When all traces of the original dative signification are effaced,
and when all the dative cases in a language are similarly affected, an
accusative case may be said to have originated out of a dative.

§ 294. Thus far the question has been concerning the immediate origin of
cases: their remote origin is a different matter.

The word _um_ occurs in Icelandic. In Danish and Swedish it is _om_; in the
Germanic languages _omme_, _umbi_, _umpi_, _ymbe_, and also _um_. Its
meaning is _at_, _on_, _about_. The word _whilom_ is the substantive
_while_=_a time_ or _pause_ (Dan. _hvile_=_to rest_), with the addition of
the preposition _om_. That the particular dative form in _om_ has arisen
out of the noun _plus_ the preposition is a safe assertion. I am not
prepared, however, to account for the formation of all the cases in this

§ 295. _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.

§ 296. _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 all the languages of the vast Indo-European tribe, except the Celtic,
the genitive ends in _s_, just as it does in {242} 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 [Greek:
odont-os]; the Latin _dent-is_, &c.

For further remarks upon the English genitive, see the Cambridge
Philological Museum, vol. ii. p. 246.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 297. _I, we, us, me, thou, ye._--These constitute the true personal
pronouns. From _he_, _she_, and _it_, they differ in being destitute of

These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there
are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only.

In other languages the current pronouns of the third person are, as in
English, demonstrative rather than personal.

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 with respect to
the rest.

_I_, in German _ich_, Icelandic _ek_, corresponds with [Greek: egô], and
_ego_ of the classical languages; _ego_ and [Greek: egô] being, like _I_,
defective in the oblique cases.

_My_, as stated above, is a form originally accusative, but now used in a
genitive sense.

_Me._--In Anglo-Saxon this was called a dative form. The fact seems to be
that both _my_ and _me_ grow out of an accusative form, _meh_, _mec_.

That the sound of _k_ originally belonged to the pronouns _me_ and _thee_,
we learn not only from the Anglo-Saxons _mec_, _þec_, _meh_, _þeh_, but
from the Icelandic _mik_, _þik_, and the German _mich_, _dich_. This
accounts for the form _my_; since _y_=_ey_, and the sounds of _y_ and _g_
are allied. That both _me_ and _my_ can be evolved from _mik_, we see in
the present Scandinavian languages, where, very often even in the same
district, _mig_ is pronounced both _mey_ and _mee_. {244}

_We_ and _our_.--These words are not in the condition of _I_ and _me_.
Although the fact be obscured, they are really in an etymological relation
to each other. This we infer from the alliance between the sounds of _w_
and _ou_, and from the Danish forms _vi_ (_we_), _vor_ (_our_). It may be
doubted, however, whether _our_ be a true genitive rather than an
adjectival form. In the form _ours_ we find it playing the part, not of a
case, but of an independent word. Upon this, however, too much stress
cannot be laid. In Danish it takes a neuter form: _vor_=_noster_;
_vort_=_nostrum_. From this I conceive that it agrees, not with the Latin
genitive _nostrûm_, but with the adjective _noster_.

_Us, we, our._--Even _us_ is in an etymological relation to _we_. That _we_
and _our_ are so, has just been shown. Now in Anglo-Saxon there were two
forms of _our_, _viz_., _úre_ (=_nostrûm_), and _user_ (=_noster_). This
connects _we_ and _us_ through _our_.

From these preliminary notices we have the changes in form of the true
personal pronouns, as follows:--


  _1st Term._ (_for nominative singular_).
        _I._ Undeclined.
  _2nd Term._ (_for the singular number_).
        Acc. _Me_.   Gen. _My_.                       Form in _n_--_Mine_.
  _3rd Term._ (_for the plural number_).
        Nom. _We_.   Acc. _Us_.                Form in _r_--_Our_, _ours_.


  _1st Term._ (_for the singular number_).
       Nom. _Thou_.  Acc. _Thee_.  Gen. _Thy_.        Form in _n_--_Thine_.
  _2nd Term._ (_for the plural number_).
       Nom. _Ye_.    Acc. _You_.              Form in _r_--_Your_, _yours_.

§ 298. _We_ and _me_ have been dealt with as distinct words. But it is only
for practical purposes that they can be considered to be thus separate;
since the sounds of _m_ and _w_ are allied, and in Sanskrit the singular
form _ma_=_I_ is looked upon as part of the same word with _vayam_=_we_.
The same is the case with the Greek [Greek: me] (_me_), and the plural form
[Greek: hêmeis] (_hæmeis_)=_we_.

_You._--As far as the practice of the present mode of speech {245} 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. All that can be said is, that the historical reason and the
logical reason are at variance. The Anglo-Saxon form for _you_ was _eow_,
for _ye_, _ge_. Neither bear any sign of case at all, so that, form for
form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative, as the
habit of language may make them. 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.

_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 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. The
fact is, that the whole question is a question of degree. Has or has not
the custom been sufficiently prevalent to have transferred the forms _me_,
_ye_, and _you_ from one case to another, as it is admitted to have done
with the forms _him_ and _whom_, once dative, but now accusative?

_Observe._--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.

Again: the reasons which allow the form _you_ to be {246} 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_. It is submitted to the reader, that in phrases like
_you are speaking_, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea
is really plural; in other words, that 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 speaking_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 299. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words,
there are no equivalents to the Latin pronominal forms _sui_, _sibi_, _se_.

Nor yet are there any equivalents in English to the so-called adjectival
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_
(or its equivalent), there could be no such secondary form as _suus_ (or
its equivalent).

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; as they also are in the present English.

The history of the reflective pronoun in the Gothic tongues is as

_In Moeso-Gothic._--Found in three cases, _seina_, _sis_, _sik_=_sui_,
_sibi_, _se_.

_In Old Norse._--Ditto. _Sin_, _ser_, _sik_=_sui_, _sibi_, _se_.

_In Old High German._--The dative form lost; there being no such word as
_sir_=_sis_=_sibi_. Besides this, the genitive {248} or possessive form
_sin_ is used only in the masculine and neuter genders.

_In Old Frisian._--As stated above, there is here no equivalent to _se_;
whilst there _is_ the form _sin_=_suus_.

_In Old Saxon._--The equivalent to _se_, _sibi_, and _sui_ very rare. The
equivalent to _suus_ not common, but commoner than in Anglo-Saxon.

_In Anglo-Saxon._--No instance of the equivalent to _se_ at all. The forms
_sinne_=_suum_, and _sinum_=_suo_, occur in Beowulf. In Cædmon cases of
_sin_=_suus_ are more frequent. Still the usual form is _his_=_ejus_.

In the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, the true reflectives, both personal and
possessive, occur; so that the modern Frisian and English stand alone in
respect to the entire absence of them.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 321-348.

The statement concerning the absence of the true reflective in English,
although negative, has an important philological bearing on more points
than one.

1. It renders the use of the word _self_ much more necessary than it would
be otherwise.

2. It renders us unable to draw a distinction between the meanings of the
Latin words _suus_ and _ejus_.

3. It precludes the possibility of the evolution of a middle voice like
that of the Old Norse, where _kalla-sc_=_kalla-sik_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 300. 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 (and _se_ when found in the language) be taken by
themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along with _he_, _it_,
and _she_. The absence of gender, the peculiarity in their declension, and
their defectiveness are marked characters wherein they agree with each
other, but not with any other words.

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 declension.

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, it could only
be in their so-called singular number.

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
being a demonstrative pronoun.

Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as follows:--

_She._--The Anglo-Saxon form _heó_, being lost to the language, is replaced
by the feminine article _seó_.

_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 {250} the oblique cases
and _her_ to be defective in the nominative.

_Him._--A true 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.

_They_, _their_, _them_.--When _hit_ had been changed into _it_, when _heó_
had been replaced by _she_, and when the single form _the_, as an article,
had come to serve for all the cases of all the genders, two circumstances
took place: 1. The forms _þám_ and _þára_ as definite articles became
superfluous; and, 2. The connexion between the plural forms _hí_, _heom_,
_heora_, and the singular forms _he_ and _it_, grew indistinct. These were
conditions favourable to the use of the forms _they_, _them_, and _their_,
instead of _hí_, _heom_, _heora_.

_Theirs._--In the same predicament with _hers_ and _its_; either the case
of an adjective, or a case formed from a case. {251}

_Than_ or _then_, and _there_.--Although now adverbs, they were once
demonstrative pronouns, in a certain case and in a certain gender.--_Than_
and _then_ masculine accusative and singular, _there_ feminine dative and

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_.

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_


_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_     _þ['æ]re_.     _þise_    þise     þisse.
        Dat.   þám      þám     _þ['æ]re_.      þisum    þisum    þisse.
        Gen.   þæs      þæs     _þ['æ]re_.      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.

§ 301. _These._--Here observe-- {252}

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 _þâs_.

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 letter _e_, and that this _-e_ is the old English and Anglo-Saxon
adjective plural; so that _thes-e_ is formed from _thes_, as _gode_
(=_boni_) is formed from _god_ (=_bonus_).

The nominative plural in the Old English 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

    _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.--_Wiclif_, 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 Tale.

    7. A _good_ man bryngeth forth _gode_ thingis 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_, Jon. 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_, Matt. xii.

    12. And _hise_ disciplis camen and token _his_ body.--_Wicliffe_, Matt.

  13. Whan _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.

§ 302. _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

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,[40] then    --
        _Dat._          --       --                There.[40]
  _Plur. Nom._                       They.[41]
        _Acc._                       Them.[41]
        _Gen._                       Their.[41]
  _Secondary Gen._                   Theirs.[41]


_Singular_, This. _Plural_, These.



       *       *       *       *       *




§ 303. 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_.

§ 304. The following points in the history of the demonstrative and
relative pronouns are taken from Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii. pp.
1, 2, 3.

Throughout the Indo-European tribe the interrogative or relative idea is
expressed by _k_, or by a modification of _k_; e.g., _qu_, _hv_, or _h_; as
Sanskrit, _kas_, who; _kataras_, which of two; _katama_, which of
many.--Lithuanic, _kas_, who; _koks_, of what sort; _kokelys_, how great;
_kaip_, how.--Slavonic: _kto_, who, Russian and Polish; _kdo_, who,
Bohemian; _kotory_, which, Russian; _kolik_, how great.--_Quot_, _qualis_,
_quantus_, Latin.--[Greek: Kosos], [Greek: koios], [Greek: kote], Ionic
Greek; in the other dialects, however, [Greek: poteros], [Greek: posos],
&c.--Gothic: _hvas_, who, Moeso-Gothic; _huer_, Old High German; _hvaþar_,
which of two, Moeso-Gothic; _huëdar_, Old High German; _hvem_, _hvad_,
_huanne_, _huar_, Norse; _what_, _why_, _which_, _where_, &c., English.

Throughout the Indo-European tribe the demonstrative idea is expressed by
_t_, or by a modification of it; as, Sanskrit, _tat_, that; _tata-ras_,
such a one out of two.--Lithuanic, _tas_, he; _toks_, such; _tokelys_, so
great; _taip_, so.--Slavonic, _t'_ or {256} _ta_, he; _taku_, such; _tako_,
so.--_Tot_, _talis_, _tantum_, Latin.--[Greek: Tosos], [Greek: toios],
[Greek: tote], Greek; _this_, _that_, _thus_, English, &c.

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_; in
Swedish the word is _hu_.

§ 305. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply
to a few of the remaining pronouns. For further details, see Grimm, D. G.
iii. 4.

_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_, {257} _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.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 9.

_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
Moeso-Gothic words _galeiks_, and _missaleiks_. In Old High German the form
is _lih_, in Anglo-Saxon _lic_. Hence we have Moeso-Gothic, _hvêleiks_; Old
High German, _huëlih_; Anglo-Saxon, _huilic_ and _hvilc_; Old Frisian,
_hwelik_; Danish, _hvilk-en_; German, _welch_; Scotch, _whilk_; English,
_which_. (Grimm, D. G., iii. 47). The same is the case with--

1. _Such._--Moeso-Gothic, _svaleiks_; Old High German, _sôlih_; Old Saxon,
_sulîc_; Anglo-Saxon, _svilc_; German, _solch_; English, _such_. (Grimm, D.
G. iii. 48). 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, {258} Ritson,
and Weber, from _së ylca_, is found in the following forms: Moeso-Gothic,
_þêleiks_; Norse, _þvilikr_. (Grimm, iii. 49.)

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
_ylca_, 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. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 50.)

_Aught._--In Moeso-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, _éowiht_; Anglo-Saxon, _âviht_; Old Frisian, _âwet_; English,
_aught_. The word _naught_ is _aught_ preceded by the negative particle.
(Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 52.)

_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,_[42] must by no
means be confounded with the word _ylce_, _the same_. (Grimm, D. G. iii.

_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_.

_Other_, _whether_.--These words, although derived forms, being simpler
than some that have preceded, might fairly {259} 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 Sanskrit 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 [Greek: koteros] ([Greek: poteros]); in Latin,
_uter_, _neuter_, _alter_; and in Moeso-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 Sanskrit 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

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 306. 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_, _o-th-er_.

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 {261} 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 forms _kataras_=_which of two persons?_ a comparative form;
_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, [Greek: hekateros]=_each or either out of two persons_;
[Greek: hekastos]=_each or any out of more than two persons_.

§ 307. 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_,

An extension of the reasoning probably explains forms like the Greek
[Greek: ampho-ter-os], and the _plural_ possessive forms [Greek:
nôi-ter-os], [Greek: hême-ter-os], &c, which, like our own forms in _-r_,
(_ou-r_, _you-r_) correspond in termination with the comparative degree
([Greek: sophô-ter-os], _wiser_). Words, also, like _hither_ and _thither_
are instances of what is probably the effect of a similar association of

§ 308. A confirmation of Bopp's view is afforded by the Laplandic
languages. Herein the distinction between _one of two_ and _one of more
than two_ is expressed by affixes; and these affixes are the signs of the
comparative and superlative: _gi_=_who_; _gua-bba_=_who of two_;
_gutte-mush_=_who of many_.

1. _Gi_=_who_, so that _guabba_ may be called its comparative form.

2. _Gutte_ also=_who_, so that _guttemush_ may be called its superlative.

3. Precisely as the words _guabba_ and _guttemush_ are formed, so also are
the regular degrees of adjectives. {262}

_a._ _Nuorra_=_young_; _nuor-ab_=_younger_; _nuora-mush_=_youngest_.

_b._ _Bahha_=_bad_; _baha-b_=_worse_; _baha-mush_=_worst_.

The following extracts from Stockfleth's Lappish Grammar were probably
written without any reference to the Sanskrit or Greek. "_Guabba_, of which
the form and meaning are comparative, appears to have originated in a
combination of the pronoun _gi_, and the comparative affix
_-abbo_."--"_Guttemush_, of which the form and meaning are superlative, is
similarly derived from the pronoun _gutte_, and the superlative affix
_-mush_."--Grammatik i det Lappiske Sprog, §§ 192, 193.

§ 309. _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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 310. The proper preliminary to the study of the comparative and
quasi-comparative forms in English is the history of the inflection or
inflections by which they are expressed. There is no part of our grammar
where it is more necessary to extend our view beyond the common limit of
the Gothic stock of languages, than here.

In the Sanskrit language the signs of the comparative degree are two:--1.
_-tara_, as _punya_=_pure_; _punya-tara_=_purer_; 2. _-îyas_, as
_k['s]ipra_=_swift_; _k['s]êpîyas_=_swifter_. Of these the first is the
most in use.

The same forms occur in the Zend; as _husko_=_dry_; _huskô-tara_=_drier_;
_-îyas_, however, is changed into _-is_.

In the classical languages we have the same forms. 1. in _uter_, _neuter_,
_alter_, [Greek: poteros], [Greek: leptoteros]. 2. In the adverb _magis_,
Lat. In Bohemian and Polish, _-ssj_ and _-szy_ correspond with the Sanskrit
forms _-îyas_.

Thus we collect, that, expressive of the comparative degree, there are two
parallel forms; _viz._, the form in _tr_, and the form in _s_; of which one
is the most in use in one language, and the other in another.

§ 311. Before we consider the Gothic forms of the comparative, it may be
advisable to note two changes to which it is liable. 1. The change of _s_
into _r_; the Latin word _meliorem_ being supposed to have been originally
_meliosem_, and the _s_ in _nigrius_, _firmius_, &c., being considered not
so much the sign of the neuter gender as the old comparative _s_ in its
oldest form. 2. The ejection of _t_, as in the Latin words _inferus_,
_superus_, compared with the Greek [Greek: leptoteros] (_leptoteros_).

§ 312. Now, of the two parallel forms, the Gothic one was the form _s_; the
words _other_ and _whether_ only preserving the form _tr_. And here comes
the application of the remarks that have just gone before. The vast
majority of our comparatives end in _r_, and so seem to come from _tr_
rather than from _s_. This, however, is not the case. The _r_ in words like
_sweeter_ is derived, not from _tar_--_t_, but from _s_, changed into _r_.
In Moeso-Gothic the comparative ended in _s_ (_z_); in Old High German the
_s_ has become _r_: Moeso-Gothic _aldiza_, _batiza_, _sutiza_; Old High
German, _altiro_, _betsiro_, _suatsiro_; English, _older_, _better_,

The importance of a knowledge of the form in _s_ is appreciated when we
learn that, even in the present English, there are vestiges of it.

§ 313. _Comparison of adverbs._--_The sun shines bright._--Herein the word
_bright_ means _brightly_; and although the use of the latter word would
have been the more elegant, the expression is not ungrammatical; the word
_bright_ being looked upon as an adjectival adverb.

_The sun shines to-day brighter than it did yesterday, and to-morrow it
will shine brightest._--Here also the sense is adverbial; from whence we
get the fact, that adverbs take degrees of comparison.

Now let the root _mag-_, as in _magnus_, [Greek: megas], and _mikil_
(Norse), give the idea of greatness. In the Latin language we have from it
two comparative forms: 1. the adjectival comparative _major_=_greater_; 2.
the adverbial comparative _magis_=_more_ (_plus_). The same takes place in
Moeso-Gothic: _maiza_ means _greater_, and is adjectival; _mais_ means
_more_, and is adverbial. The Anglo-Saxon forms are more instructive still;
_e.g._, _þäs þe mâ_=_all the more_, _þäs þe bet_=_all the better_, have a
comparative sense, but not a comparative form, the sign _r_ being absent.
Now, compared with _major_, and subject to the remarks that have gone
before, the Latin _magis_ is the older form. With _mâ_ and _bet_, compared
with _more_ and _better_, this may or may not be the case. _Mâ_ and _bet_
may each be one of two forms; 1. a positive used in a comparative sense; 2.
a true comparative, which has lost {265} its termination. The present
section has been written not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to
show that in the comparative degree there were often two forms; of which
one, the adverbial, was either more antiquated, or more imperfect than the
other: a fact bearing upon some of the forthcoming trains of etymological

§ 314. _Change of vowel._--By reference to Rask's Grammar, § 128, it may be
seen that in the Anglo-Saxon there were, for the comparative and
superlative degrees, two forms; _viz._ _-or_ and _-re_, and _-ost_ and
_-este_, respectively.

By reference to p. 159 of the present volume, it may be seen that the
fulness or smallness of a vowel in a given syllable may work a change in
the nature of the vowel in a syllable adjoining. 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._

Of this change, the word last quoted is a still-existing specimen, as
_old_, _elder_ and _older_, _eldest_ and _oldest_. Between the two forms
there is a difference in meaning, _elder_ being used as a substantive, and
having a plural form, _elders_.

§ 315. The previous section has stated that in Anglo-Saxon there were two
forms for the comparative and superlative degrees, one in _-re_ and
_-este_, the other in _-or_ and _-ost_, respectively. Now the first of
these was the form taken by adjectives; as _se scearpre sweord_=_the
sharper sword_, and _se scearpeste sweord_=_the sharpest sword_. The
second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs; as, _se sweord
scyrð scearpor_=_the sword cuts sharper_, and _se sweord scyrð
scearpost_=_the sword cuts sharpest_.

The adjectival form has, as seen above, a tendency to make the vowel of the
preceding syllable small: _old_, _elder_. {266}

The adverbial form has a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding
syllable full.

Of this effect on the part of the adverbial form the adverbial comparative
_rather_ is a specimen. We pronounce the _a_ as in _father_, or full.
Nevertheless, the positive form is small, the _a_ being pronounced as the
_a_ in _fate_.

The word _rather_ means _quick_, _easy_=the classical root [Greek: rhad-]
in [Greek: rhadios]. 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
adverbial, and as such is properly sounded as the _a_ in _father_.

The difference between the action of the small vowel in _-re_, and of the
full in _-or_, effects this difference.

§ 316. _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_.

§ 317. _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.

§ 318. _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 one.

The forms (or words) _thou_, _thy_, _thee_, are forms or words {267}
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.

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: Moeso-Gothic, _bats_; Old High German, _pats_;
Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon, _bet_; Middle High German, _baz_; Middle Dutch,
_bat_, _bet_.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 604.

§ 319. _Worse._--Moeso-Gothic, _vairsiza_; Old High German, _wirsiro_;
Middle High German, _wirser_; Old Saxon, _wirso_; Anglo-Saxon, _vyrsa_; Old
Norse, _vërri_; Danish, _værre_; and Swedish, _värre_. Such are the
adjectival forms. The adverbial forms are Moeso-Gothic, _vairs_; Old High
German, _virs_; Middle High German, _wirs_; Anglo-Saxon, _vyrs_: Old Norse,
_vërr_; Danish, _værre_; Swedish, _värre_.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 606. Whether
the present form in English be originally adjectival or adverbial is
indifferent; since, as soon as the final _a_ of _vyrsa_ was omitted, the
two words would be the same. The forms, however, _vairsiza_, _wirser_,
_worse_, and _vërri_, make the word one of the most perplexing in the
language. {268}

If the form _worse_ be taken without respect to the rest, the view of the
matter is simply that in the termination _s_ we have a remnant of the
Moeso-Gothic forms, like _sutiza_, &c., in other words, the old comparative
in _s_.

_Wirser_ and _vairsiza_ traverse this view. They indicate the likelihood of
the _s_ being no sign of the degree, but a part of the original word.
Otherwise the _r_ in _wirser_, and the _z_ in _vairsiza_, denote an excess
of expression.

The analogies of _songstress_, _children_, and _betsërôro_ show that excess
of expression frequently occurs.

The analogy of _mâ_ and _bet_ show that _worse_ may possibly be a positive

The word _vërri_ indicates the belief that the _s_ is no part of the root.

Finally the euphonic processes of the Scandinavian languages tell us that,
even had there been an _s_, it would, in all probability, have been
ejected. These difficulties verify the statement that the word _worse_ is
one of the most perplexing in the language.

§ 320. _Much_, _more_.--Here, although the words be unlike each other,
there is a true etymological relation. Moeso-Gothic, _mikils_; Old High
German, _mihhil_; Old Saxon, _mikil_; Anglo-Saxon, _mycel_; Old Norse,
_mickill_; Scotch, _muckle_ and _mickle_ (all ending in _l_): Danish,
_megen_, m.; _meget_, n.; Swedish, _mycken_, m.; _myckett_, n. (where no
_l_ is found). Such is the adjectival form of the positive, rarely found in
the Modern Gothic languages, being replaced in German by _gross_, in
English by _great_, in Danish by _stor_. The adverbial forms are _miök_ and
_miög_, Norse; _much_, English. It is remarkable that this last form is not
found in Anglo-Saxon, being replaced by _sâre_, Germ, _sehr_.--Grimm, D. G.
iii. 608.

The adverbial and the Norse forms indicate that the _l_ is no part of the
original word. Comparison with other Indo-European languages gives us the
same circumstance: Sanskrit, _maha_; Latin, _mag-nus_; Greek, [Greek:
megas] (_megas_).

There is in Moeso-Gothic the comparative form _máiza_, and there is no
objection to presuming a longer form, _magiza_; since in the Greek form
[Greek: meizôn], compared with [Greek: megas], there {269} is a similar
disappearance of the _g_. In the Old High German we find _mêro_,
corresponding with _máiza_, Moeso-Gothic, and with _more_, English.

_Mickle_ (replaced by _great_) expresses size; _much_, quantity; _many_,
number. The words _more_ and _most_ apply equally to number and quantity. I
am not prepared either to assert or to deny that _many_, in Anglo-Saxon
_mænig_, is from the same root with _much_. Of the word _mâ_ notice has
already been taken. Its later form, _moe_, occurs as late as Queen
Elizabeth, with an adjectival as well as an adverbial sense.

§ 321. _Little_, _less_.--Like _much_ and _more_, these words are in an
etymological relation to each other. Moeso-Gothic, _leitils_; Old High
German, _luzil_; Old Saxon, _luttil_; Anglo-Saxon, _lytel_; Middle High
German, _lützel_; Old Norse, _lîtill_. In these forms we have the letter
_l_. Old High German Provincial, _luzíc_; Old Frisian, _litich_; Middle
Dutch, _luttik_; Swedish, _liten_; Danish, _liden_.--Deutsche Grammatik,
iii. 611. From these we find that the _l_ is either no part of the original
word, or one that is easily got rid of. In Swedish and Danish there are the
forms _lille_ and _liden_; whilst in the neuter form, _lidt_, the _d_ is
unpronounced. Even the word _liden_ the Danes have a tendency to pronounce
_leen_. My own notion is that these changes leave it possible for _less_ to
be derived from the root of _little_. According to Grimm, the Anglo-Saxon
_lässa_ is the Gothic _lasivôza_, the comparative of
_lasivs_=_weak_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 611. In Anglo-Saxon there was
the adjectival form _læssa_, and the adverbial form _læs_. In either case
we have the form _s_.

§ 322. _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. The fact that in the English language the words
_father_ and _farther_ are, for the most part, pronounced alike, is the key
to the forms _near_ and _nearer_. {270}

§ 323. _Farther._--Anglo-Saxon _feor_, _fyrre_, _fyrrest_. The _th_ seems
euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the [delta] in [Greek:

_Further._--Confounded with _farther_, although in reality from a different
word, _fore_. Old High German, _furdir_; New High German, _der vordere_;
Anglo-Saxon, _fyrðre_.

§ 324. _Former._--A comparative formed from the superlative; _forma_ being
such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with

Languages have a comparative without a superlative degree; no _language has
a superlative degree without having also a comparative one_.

§ 325. In Moeso-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 into the
Indo-European tongues after the establishment of the comparative, and
before the change of _-s_ into _-r_. I give no opinion as to the truth of
this theory.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 326. The history of the superlative form, accurately parallel with what
has been stated of the comparative, is as follows:--

In Sanskrit there is, 1. the form _tama_, 2. the form _ishta_; the first
being the commonest. The same is the case in the Zend.

Each of these appears again in the Greek. The first, as [Greek: tat]
(_tat_), in [Greek: leptotatos] (_leptotatos_); the second, as [Greek: ist]
(_ist_), in [Greek: oiktistos] (_oiktistos_). For certain reasons, Grimm
thinks that the tat stands for _tamt_, or _tant_.

In Latin, words like _intimus_, _extimus_, _ultimus_, preserve _im_; whilst
_venustus_, _vetustus_, and _robustus_, are considered as positives,
preserving the superlative form _-st_.

Just as in _inferus_ and _nuperus_, there was the ejection of the _t_ in
the comparative _ter_, so in _infimus_, _nigerrimus_, &c., is there the
ejection of the same letter in the superlative _tim_.

This gives us, as signs of the superlative, 1. _tm_; 2. _st_; 3. _m_, _t_
being lost; 4. _t_, _m_ being lost.

Of the first and last of these, there are amongst the _true_ superlatives,
in English, no specimens.

Of the third, there is a specimen in the Anglo-Saxon _se forma_, _the
first_, from the root _fore_, as compared with the Latin _primus_, and the
Lithuanic _pirmas_.

The second, _st_ (_wise_, _wisest_), is the current termination.

Of the English superlatives, the only ones that demand a detailed
examination are those that are generally despatched without difficulty;
_viz._, the words in _most_; such as _midmost_, _foremost_, &c. The current
view is the one adopted by Rask in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar (§ 133), _viz._,
that they are {272} compound words, formed from simple ones by the addition
of the superlative term _most_. Grimm's view is opposed to this. In
appreciating Grimm's view, we must bear in mind the phenomena of _excess of
expression_; at the same time we must not depart from the current theory
without duly considering the fact stated by Rask; which is, that we have in
Icelandic the forms _nærmeir_, _fjærmeir_, &c., _nearer_, and _farther_,
most unequivocally compounded of _near_ and _more_, and of _far_ and

Let especial notice be taken of the Moeso-Gothic forms _fruma_, first;
_aftuma_, last; and of the Anglo-Saxon forms _forma_, _aftema_, aftermost;
_ufema_, upmost; _hindema_, hindmost; _midema_, midmost; _innema_, inmost;
_ûtema_, outmost; _siðema_, last; _latema_, last; _niðema_, nethermost.
These account for the _m_.

Add to this, with an excess of expression, the letters _st_. This accounts
for the whole form, as _mid-m-ost_, _in-m-ost_, &c. Such is Grimm's view.

_Furthermost_, _innermost_, _hindermost_.--Here there is a true addition of
_most_, and an excess of inflection, a superlative form being added to a
word in the comparative degree.

_Former._--Here, as stated before, a comparative sign is added to a word in
the superlative degree.

§ 327. The combination _st_ occurs in other words besides those of the
superlative degree; amongst others, in certain adverbs and prepositions, as
_among_, _amongst_; _while_, _whilst_; _between_, _betwixt_.--Its power
here has not been well explained.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 328. In one sense the cardinal numbers form no part of a work on
etymology. They are single words, apparently simple, and, as such,
appertaining to a dictionary rather than to a grammar.

In another sense they are strictly etymological. They are the basis of the
ordinals, which are formed from them by derivation. Furthermore, some of
them either have, or are supposed to have, certain peculiarities of form
which can be accounted for only by considering them derivatives, and that
of a very peculiar kind.

§ 329. It is an ethnological fact, that the numerals are essentially the
same throughout the whole Indo-European class of languages. The English
_three_ is the Latin _tres_, the Sanskrit _tri_, &c. In the Indo-European
languages the numerals agree, even when many common terms differ.

And it is also an ethnological fact, that in a great many other groups of
languages the numerals differ, even when many of the common terms agree.
This is the case with many of the African and American dialects. Languages
alike in the common terms for common objects differ in respect to the

What is the reason for this inconsistency in the similarity or
dissimilarity of the numerals as compared with the similarity or
dissimilarity of other words? I believe that the following distinction
leads the way to it:--

The word _two_=2, absolutely and unequivocally, and in a primary manner.

The word _pair_ also=2; but not absolutely, not unequivocally, and only in
a secondary manner. {274}

Hence the distinction between absolute terms expressive of number, and
secondary terms expressive of number.

When languages separate from a common stock before the use of certain words
is fixed as _absolute_, there is room for considerable latitude in the
choice of numerals; _e.g._, whilst with one tribe the word _pair_=_two_,
another tribe may use the word _couple_, a third _brace_, and so on. In
this case dialects that agree in other respects may differ in respect to
their numerals.

When, on the other hand, languages separate from a common stock after the
meaning of such a word as _two_ has been fixed absolutely, there is no room
for latitude; and the numerals agree where the remainder of the language

1. _One_=_unus_, Latin; [Greek: heis] ([Greek: hen]), Greek.

2. _Two_=_duo_, [Greek: duo].

3. _Three_=_tres_, [Greek: treis].

4. _Four_=_quatuor_, [Greek: tettara]. This is apparently problematical.
Nevertheless, the assumed changes can be verified by the following forms:--

[alpha]. _Fidvor_, Moeso-Gothic. To be compared with _quatuor_.

[beta]. [Greek: Pisures], Æolic. Illustrates the change between [tau]- and
[pi]- (allied to _f-_), within the pale of the classical languages.

5. _Five_=_quinque_, [Greek: pente]. Verified by the following forms:--

[alpha]. [Greek: Pempe], Æolic Greek.

[beta]. _Pump_, Welsh. These account for the change from the _n_ + _t_ in
[Greek: pente] to _m_ + _p_.

[gamma]. _Fimf_, Moeso-Gothic; _fünf_, Modern High German.

[delta]. _Fem_, Norse.

The change from the [pi]- of [Greek: pente] to the _qu-_ of _quinque_ is
the change so often quoted by Latin and Celtic scholars between _p_ and
_k_: [Greek: hippos], [Greek: hikkos], _equus_.

6. _Six_=[Greek: hex], _sex_.

7. _Seven_=[Greek: hepta], _septem_.

This form is difficult. The Moeso-Gothic form is _sibun_, without a _-t-_;
the Norse, _syv_, without either _-t-_ or _-n_ (=_-m_). A doubtful
explanation of the form _seven_, &c., will be found in the following
chapter. {275}

8. _Eight_=[Greek: oktô], _octo_.

9. _Nine_=[Greek: ennea], _novem_. The Moeso-Gothic form is _nigun_, the
Icelandic _niu_. In the Latin _novem_ the _v_=the _g_ of _nigun_. In the
English and Greek it is wanting. The explanation of the _-n_ and _-m_ will
be found in the following chapter.

10. _Ten_=[Greek: deka], _decem_. The Moeso-Gothic form is _tihun_; wherein
the _h_=the _c_ of _decem_ and the [kappa] of [Greek: deka]. The Icelandic
form is _tiu_, and, like [Greek: deka], is without the _-n_ (or _-m_). The
hypothesis as to the _-m_ or _-n_ will be given in the next chapter.

11. _Eleven._ By no means the equivalent to _undecim_=1 + 10.

[alpha]. The _e_ is _ein_=_one_. _Ein_lif, _ein_-lef, _ei_lef, _ei_lf,
_e_lf, Old High German; _and_lova, Old Frisian; _end_-leofan, _end_lufan,
Anglo-Saxon. This is universally admitted.

[beta]. The _-lev-_ is a modification of the root _laib-an_=_manere_=_to
stay_=_to be over_. Hence _eleven_=_one over_ (_ten_). This is _not_
universally admitted.

[gamma]. The _-n_ has not been well accounted for. It is peculiar to the
Low Germanic dialects.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946.

12. _Twelve_=the root _two_ + the root _laib_=_two over_ (_ten_). _Tvalif_,
Moeso-Gothic; _zuelif_, Old High German; _toll_, Swedish. The same doubts
that apply to the doctrine of the _-lv-_ in _eleven_ representing the root
_-laib_, apply to the _-lv-_ in _twelve_.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946.

13. _Thirteen_=3 + 10. So on till twenty.

30. _Thirty_=3 × 10, or three decads. This difference in the decimal power
of the syllables _-teen_ and _-ty_ is illustrated by--

[alpha]. The Moeso-Gothic.--Here we find the root _tig-_ used as a true
substantive, equivalent in form as well as power to the Greek [Greek:
dek-as]. _Tváim tigum þusandjom_=_duobus decadibus myriadum_. (Luke xiv.
31.) _Jêrê þrijê tigivé_=_annorum duarum decadum._ (Luke iii. 23.) _þrins
tiguns silubrinaize_=_tres decadas argenteorum._ (Matthew xxvii. 3,
9.)--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 948. {276}

[beta]. The Icelandic.--"The numbers from 20 to 100 are formed by means of
the numeral substantive, _tigr_, declined like _viðr_, and naturally taking
the word which it numerically determines in the genitive case.

  _Nom._ Fjórir tigir manna     = _four tens of men_.
  _Gen._ Fjögurra tiga manna    = _of four tens of men_.
  _Dat._ Fjórum tigum manna     = _to four tens of men_.
  _Acc._ Fjóra tiga manna       = _four tens of men_.

"This is the form of the inflection in the best and oldest MSS. A little
later was adopted the _indeclinable_ form _tigi_, which was used
adjectivally."--Det Oldnorske Sprogs Grammatik, af P. A. Munch, og C. B.
Unger, Christiania, 1847.

§ 330. Generally speaking, the greater part of the numerals are undeclined,
even in inflected languages. 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 cases, there is no reason why all the
numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin _unus_, _una_,
_unum_, _unius_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 331. The remarks at the close of the last chapter but one indicated the
fact that superlative forms were found beyond the superlative degree. The
present chapter shows that they are certainly found in some, and possibly
in all of the ordinal numbers.

_First._--In Moeso-Gothic, _fruma_, _frumist_; in Anglo-Saxon, _forma_,
_fyrmest_; in Old High German, _vurist_; in Old Norse, _fyrst_; in New High
German, _erst_. In all these words, whether in _m_, in _mst_, or in _st_,
there is a superlative form. The same is the case with _pratamas_,
Sanskrit; _fratemas_, Zend; [Greek: prôtos], Greek; _primus_, Latin;
_primas_, Lithuanic. Considering that, _compared with the other ordinals_,
the ordinal of _one_ is a sort of superlative, this is not at all

Between the words _one_ and _first_ there is no etymological relation. This
is the case in most languages. _Unus_, _primus_, [Greek: heis], [Greek:
prôtos], &c.

§ 332. _Second._--Between this word and its cardinal, _two_, there is no
etymological connexion. This is the case in many, if not in most,
languages. In Latin the cardinal is _duo_, and the ordinal _secundus_, a
gerund of _sequor_, and meaning _the following_. In Anglo-Saxon the form
was _se oðer_=_the other_. In the present German, the ordinal is _zweite_,
a word etymologically connected with the cardinal _zwei_=_two_.

Old High German, _andar_; Old Saxon, _othar_; Old Frisian, _other_; Middle
Dutch, _ander_. In all these words we have the comparative form _-ter_; and
considering that, _compared with the word first_, the word _second_ is a
sort of {278} comparative, there is nothing in the circumstance to surprise
us. The Greek forms [Greek: deuteros] and [Greek: heteros], the Latin
_alter_, and the Lithuanic _antras_, are the same.

§ 333. With the third ordinal number begin difficulties: 1. in respect to
their form; 2. in respect to the idea conveyed by them.

1. Comparing _third_, _fourth_, _fifth_, &c., with _three_, _four_, and
_five_, the formation of the ordinal from the cardinal form may seem simply
to consist in the addition of _d_ or _th_. Such, however, is far from being
the case.

2. Arguing from the nature of the first two ordinals, namely, the words
_first_ and _second_, of which one has been called a superlative and the
other a comparative, it may seem a simple matter to associate, in regard to
the rest, the idea of ordinalism with the idea of comparison. A plain
distinction, however, will show that the case of the first two ordinals is
peculiar. _First_ is a superlative, not as compared with its cardinal,
_one_, but as compared with the other numerals. _Second_, or _other_, is a
comparative, not as compared with its cardinal, _two_, but as compared with
the numeral _one_. Now it is very evident, that, if the other ordinals be
either comparatives or superlatives, they must be so, not as compared with
one another, but as compared with their respective cardinals. _Sixth_, to
be anything like a superlative, must be so when compared with _six_.

§ 334. Now there are, in etymology, two ways of determining the affinity of
ideas. The first is the metaphysical, the second the empirical, method.

_This is better than that_, is a sentence which the pure metaphysician may
deal with. He may first determine that there is in it the idea of
comparison; and next that the comparison is the comparison between _two_
objects, and no more than two. This idea he may compare with others. He may
determine, that, with a sentence like _this is one and that is the other_,
it has something in common; since both assert something concerning _one out
of two objects_. Upon this connexion in sense he is at liberty to reason.
He is at liberty to conceive that in certain languages words expressive
{279} of allied ideas may also be allied in form. Whether such be really
the case, he leaves to etymologists to decide.

The pure etymologist proceeds differently. He assumes the connexion in
meaning from the connexion in form. All that he at first observes is, that
words like _other_ and _better_ have one and the same termination. For this
identity he attempts to give a reason, and finds that he can best account
for it by presuming some affinity in sense. Whether there be such an
affinity, he leaves to the metaphysician to decide. This is the empirical

At times the two methods coincide, and ideas evidently allied are expressed
by forms evidently allied.

At times the connexion between the ideas is evident; but the connexion
between the forms obscure: and _vice versâ_. Oftener, however, the case is
as it is with the subjects of the present chapter. Are the ideas of
ordinalism in number, and of superlativeness in degree, allied? The
metaphysical view, taken by itself, gives us but unsatisfactory evidence;
whilst the empirical view, taken by itself, does the same. The two views,
however, taken together, give us evidence of the kind called cumulative,
which is weak or strong according to its degree.

Compared with _three_, _four_, &c., all the ordinals are formed by the
addition of _th_, or _t_; and _th_, _ð_, _t_, or _d_, is the ordinal sign,
not only in English, but in the other Gothic languages. But, as stated
before, this is not the whole of the question.

The letter _t_ is found, with a similar power, 1. In Latin, as in
_tertius_, _quartus_, _quintus_, _sextus_; 2. Greek, as in [Greek: tritos]
(_tritos_), [Greek: tetartos] (_tetartos_), [Greek: pemptos] (_pemptos_),
[Greek: hektos] (_hectos_), [Greek: ennatos] (_ennatos_), [Greek: dekatos]
(_dekatos_); 3. Sanskrit, as in _tritiyas_, _['c]atu['r]tas_,
_shasht´as_=_third_, _fourth_, _sixth_; 4. In Zend, as in _thrityas_=_the
third_, _haptathas_=_the seventh_; 5. In Lithuanic, as
_ketwirtas_=_fourth_, _penktas_=_fifth_, _szesztas_=_sixth_; 6. In Old
Slavonic, as in _cétvertyi_=_fourth_, _pjatyi_=_fifth_, _shestyi_=_sixth_,
_devjatyi_=_ninth_, _desjatyi_=_tenth_. Speaking more generally, it is
found, with a similar force, throughout the Indo-European stock.

The following forms indicate a fresh train of reasoning. {280} The Greek
[Greek: hepta] (_hepta_), and Icelandic _sjau_, have been compared with the
Latin _septem_ and the Anglo-Saxon _seofon_. In the Greek and Icelandic
there is the absence, in the Latin and Anglo-Saxon the presence, of a final
liquid (_m_ or _n_).

Again, the Greek forms [Greek: ennea] (_ennea_), and the Icelandic
_níu_=_nine_, have been compared with the Latin _novem_ and the Gothic

Thirdly, the Greek [Greek: deka] (_deka_), and the Icelandic _tíu_, have
been compared with the Latin _decem_ and the Gothic _tihun_=_ten_.

These three examples indicate the same circumstance; _viz._ that the _m_ or
_n_, in _seven_, _nine_, and _ten_, is no part of the original word.

§ 335. The following hypotheses account for these phenomena; _viz._ that
the termination of the ordinals is the superlative termination _-tam_: that
in some words, like the Latin _septimus,_ the whole form is preserved; that
in some, as in [Greek: tetartos]=_fourth_, the _t_ only remains; and that
in others, as in _decimus_, the _m_ alone remains. Finally, that in
_seven_, _nine_, and _ten_, the final liquid, although now belonging to the
cardinal, was once the characteristic of the ordinal number. For a fuller
exhibition of these views, see Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 640.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 336. 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 [Greek: anêr tis]=_a certain man_:
in the Latin 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 Moeso-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 [Greek: tis]
is expressed by the Gothic root _sum_.

Now, as it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the
words _some man_, _a certain man_, and _a man_, are, there or thereabouts,
the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and
Moeso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state
of the argument, be fairly said that the words _sum_ and [Greek: tis] are
pronouns with a certain sense, and that _a_ and _an_ are no more;
consequently, that in Greek the indefinite article is [Greek: tis], in
Moeso-Gothic _sum_, and in English _a_ or _an_,

A distinction, however, may be made. In the expression [Greek: anêr tis]
(_anær tis_)=_a certain man_, or _a man_, and in the expression _sum mann_,
the words _sum_ and [Greek: tis] 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_; {282} 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 the Moeso-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 [Greek: ho],
[Greek: hê], [Greek: to] (_ho_, _hæ_, _to_), as the definite articles, the
corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that, in the oldest stage of
the language, [Greek: ho] (_ho_)=_the_, had the power of [Greek: houtos]

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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 337. 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

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. 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. In Middle High German we
have _vaterlìn_=_little father_, _mütterlìn_=_little mother_. In Middle
High German there is the diminutive _sunnelìn_; and the French _soleil_ is
from the Latin form _solillus_. In Slavonic the word _slunze_=_sun_ is a
diminutive form.

The Greek word [Greek: meiôsis] (_meiôsis_) means diminution; the Greek
word [Greek: hupokorisma] 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
endearment.--Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 664. {284}

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.

§ 338. 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.--Deutsche Grammatik,
iii. 686.

_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 _-l_;
as _ouga_=_an eye_, _ougili_=_a little eye_, _lied_=_a song_, _liedel_=_a
little song_. "In Austria and Bavaria {285} are the forms _mannel_,
_weibel_, _hundel_, &c., or _mannl_, _weibl_, _hundl_, &c. In some
districts there is an _r_ before the _l_, as _madarl_=_a little maid_,
_muadarl_=_a little mother_, _briadarl_=_a little brother_, &c. This is
occasioned by the false analogy of the diminutives of the derived form in
_r_."--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 674. This indicates the nature of words
like _cockerel_.

Even in English the diminutive power of _-el_ can be traced in the
following words:--

_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 _-l_, 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.[43]

The termination _-let_, as in _streamlet_, seems to be double, and to
consist of the Gothic diminutive _-l_, and the French diminutive _-t_.

§ 339. _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 {286} the modern
languages of classical origin: French, _vieillard_; Spanish, _codardo_.
From these we get at, second-hand, the word _coward_.--Deutsche Grammatik,
iii. 707.

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

§ 340. _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, [Greek: Pêleus] (_Peleus_), [Greek: Pêleidês]
(_Peleidæs_), the son of Peleus. It is very evident that this mode of
expression is very different from either the English form _Johnson_, or
Gaelic _MacDonald_. 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? It was for the
sake of this question that the consideration of the termination _-ling_, as
in _duckling_, &c., was deferred.

The termination _-ling_, like the terminations _-rel_ and _-let_, is
compound. Its simpler form is _-ing_. This, from being affixed to the
derived forms in _-l_, has become _-ling_.

In Anglo-Saxon the termination _-ing_ is as truly patronymic as [Greek:
-idês] is 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 Êsing, Êsa 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 Esing, Esing of Inga, Inga of
Angenvit, {287} Angenvit of Aloc, Aloc of Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand of
Bældag, Bældag of Woden, Woden of Friðowulf, Friðowulf of Finn, Finn of
Godwulf, Godwulf of Geat.--In Greek, [Greek: Ida ên Eoppeidês, Eoppa
Êseidês, Êsa Ingeidês, Inga Angenphiteidês], &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. The
primary of _-ing_ and _-l-ing_ is descent or relationship; from these comes
the idea of youth and endearment, and thence the true diminutive idea. In
_darling_, _stripling_, _duckling_, _gosling_ (pr. _gesling_), _kitling_
(pr. for _kitten_), _nestling_, _yearling_, _chickling_, _fatling_,
_fledgling_, _firstling_, the idea of descent still remains. In _hireling_
the idea of diminution is accompanied with the idea of contempt. In
_changeling_ we have a Gothic termination and a classical root. See, for
the full exposition of this view, Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 349-364, iii.

In the opening speech of Marlow's Jew of Malta we have the following

  Here have I pursed their paltry _silverlings_.
  Fie! what a trouble 'tis to count this trash!
  Well fare the Arabs, that so richly pay
  For what they traffick in with wedge of gold.

The word _silverlings_ has troubled the commentators. _Burst their
silverbins_ has been proposed as the true reading. The word, however, is a
true diminutive, as _siluparlinc_, _silarbarling_=_a small silver coin_,
Old High German.

A good chapter on the English diminutives may be seen in the Cambridge
Philological Museum, vol. i. p. 679.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 341. These have been illustrated by Mr. Guest in the Transactions of the
Philological Society.

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_, 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:
_wal-nuts_=_foreign nuts_.

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.--Guest, Phil. Trans.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 342. 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
position. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun ever does
or can express; _e.g._, the relation of the agent 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.

Logically, 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

§ 343. A noun is a word capable of declension only. A {290} 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 infinite mood the declension of a noun
substantive. Gerunds and supines, in languages where they occur, are only
names for certain cases of the verb.

Although in all languages the verb is equally capable of declension, it is
not equally declined. The Greeks, for instance, used forms like

  [Greek: to phthonein]=_invidia_.
  [Greek: tou phthonein]=_invidiæ_.
  [Greek: en tôi phthonein]=_in invidia_.

oftener than the Romans. The fact of there being an article in Greek may
account for this.

§ 344. Returning, however, to the illustration of the substantival
character of the so-called infinitive mood, we may easily see--

[alpha]. 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_.

[beta]. 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.

[gamma]. 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_.

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.

§ 345. The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (or {291} infinitive
form) consisted, in full, of three cases, a nominative (or accusative), a
dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because its occurrence in
the Gothic language is the least constant.

In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in -an:

  Lufian =_to love_=_amare_.
  Bærnan =_to burn_=_urere_.
  Syllan =_to give_=_dare_.

Be it observed, that the _-en_ in words like _strengthen_, &c., is a
derivational termination, and by no means a representation of the
Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection is
lost in the present English, except in certain provincial dialects.

In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in _-nne_, and was
(as a matter of syntax) generally, perhaps always, 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_.

§ 346. 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 in _-nne_.

Expressions like _to err_=_error_, _to forgive_=_forgiveness_, in lines

  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

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 347. Of number, person, mood, tense, and conjugation, special notice is
taken in their respective chapters. 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 etymology.

Four classes, however, of derived verbs, as opposed to simple, especially
deserve notice.

I. Those ending in _-en_; as _soften_, _whiten_, _strengthen_, &c. Here it
has been already remarked that 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_,

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. The
following list is taken from the Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 386.

  _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 awaken_.

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
_fell_, _fell'd_.

III. Verbs derived from nouns by a change of accent; as _to survéy_, from a
_súrvey_. For a fuller list see the Chapter on Derivation. 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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 348. Compared with the Latin, the Greek, the Moeso-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_.  [44]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 of _voco_ marked in italics 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

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.      Sôkjand.

                   _Old High German._
  _Singular._  Prennu.      Prennîs.     Prennit--_burn._
  _Plural._    Prennames.   Prennat.     Prennant.

  _Singular._  Kalla.       Kallar.      Kallar--_call._
  _Plural._    Köllum.      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.

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
_sókjam_ in the _old_ Moeso-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.

4. The respective powers of M in the first, of S in the second, and of T
(or its allied sounds) in the third persons singular; {296} of MES in the
first, of T (or its allied sounds) in the second, and of ND in the third
persons plural. In this we have a regular expression of the persons by
means of regular signs; and this the history of the personal terminations

§ 349. _First person singular._--That the original sign of this person was
M we learn from the following forms: _dadâmi_, Sanskrit; _dadhâmi_, Zend;
_[Greek: didômi]_, Greek; _dumi_, Lithuanic; _damy_, Slavonic=_I give_. The
Latin language preserves it in _sum_ and _inquam_, and in the first persons
of tenses, like _legam_, _legebam_, _legerem_, _legissem_. The form _im_=_I
am_ occurs in Moeso-Gothic; and the words _stom_=_I stand_, _lirnem_=_I
shall learn_, in Old High German. The word _am_ is a fragmentary specimen
of it in our own language.

_Plural._--The original sign MES. _Dadmas_, Sanskrit; _[Greek: didomes]_,
afterwards _[Greek: didomen]_, Greek; _damus_, Latin=_we give_. The current
form in Old High German.

These forms in M may or may not be derived from the pronoun of the first
person; _mâ_, Sanskrit; _me_, Latin, English, &c.

_Second person singular._--The original sign S. _Dadasi_, Sanskrit; [Greek:
didôs], Greek; _das_, Latin; _dasi_, Slavonic. Preserved in the Gothic

_Plural._--The original sign T, or an allied sound. _Dadyata_, Sanskrit;
_daidhyâta_, Zend; [Greek: didote], Greek; _datis_, Latin; _d[ou]kite_,
Lithuanic; _dashdite_, Slavonic=_ye give_. Current in the Gothic languages.

These forms in T and S may or may not be derived from the pronoun of the
second person; _tva_, Sanskrit; [Greek: su], Greek; _thou_, English.

_Third person singular._---The original sign T. _Dadati_, Sanskrit;
_dadhâiti_, Zend; [Greek: didôti], Old Greek; _dat_, Latin; _d[ou]sti_,
Lithuanic; _dasty_, Slavonic=_he gives_. Preserved in the Gothic languages.

_Plural._--The original sign NT. _Dadenti_, Zend; [Greek: didonti],
afterwards [Greek: didousi], Greek; _dant_, Latin=_they give_. In
Moeso-Gothic and Old High German.

The preceding examples are from Grimm and Bopp. To them add the Welsh form
_carant_=_they love_, and the Persian _budend_=_they are_. {297}

The forms in T and NT may or may not be derived from the demonstrative
pronoun _ta_, Saxon; [Greek: to], Greek; _that_, English, &c.

§ 350. The present state of the personal inflection in English, so
different from that of the older languages, has been brought about by two

I. _Change of form._--^a) The ejection of _-es_ in _-mes_, as in _sôkjam_
and _köllum_, compared with _prennames_; ^b) the ejection of _-m_, as in
the first person singular, almost throughout; ^c) the change of _-s_ into
_-r_, as in the Norse _kallar_, compared with the Germanic _sôkeis_; ^d)
the ejection of _-d_ from _-nd_, as in _loven_ (if this be the true
explanation of that form) compared with _prennant_; ^e) the ejection of
_-nd_, as in _kalla_; ^f) the addition of _-t_, as in _lufast_ and
_lovest_. In all these cases we have a change of form.

II. _Confusion or extension._--In vulgarisms like _I goes_, _I is_, one
person is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like _I are_, _we goes_,
one number is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like _I be tired_, or
_if I am tired_, one mood is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like _I
give_ for _I gave_, one tense is used for another. In all this there is
confusion. There is also extension: since, in the phrase _I is_, the third
person is used instead of the first; in other words, it is used with an
extension of its natural meaning. It has the power of the third person +
that of the first. In the course of time one person may entirely supplant,
supersede, or replace another. The application of this is as follows:--

The only person of the plural number originally ending in ð is the second;
as _sókeiþ_, _prennat_, _kalliþ_, _lufiað_; the original ending of the
first person being _-mes_, or _-m_, as _prennames_, _sôkjam_, _köllum_.
Now, in Anglo-Saxon, the _first_ person ends in ð, as _lufiað_. Has _-m_,
or _-mes_, changed to ð, or has the second person superseded the first? The
latter alternative seems the likelier.

§ 351. The detail of the persons seems to be as follows:--

_I call_, first person singular.--The word _call_ is not one person more
than another. It is the simple verb, wholly uninflected. It is very
probable that the first person was the {298} one where the characteristic
termination was first lost. In the Modern Norse language it is replaced by
the second: _Jeg taler_=_I speak_, Danish.

_Thou callest_, second person singular.--The final _-t_ appears throughout
the Anglo-Saxon, although wanting in Old Saxon. In Old High German it
begins to appear in Otfrid, and is general in Notker. In Middle High German
and New High German it is universal.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1041. 857.

_He calleth_, or _he calls_, third person singular.--The _-s_ in _calls_ is
the _-th_ in _calleth_, changed. The Norse form _kallar_ either derives its
_-r_ from the _-th_ by way of change, or else the form is that of the
second person replacing the first.

_Lufiað_, Anglo-Saxon, first person plural.--The second person in the place
of the first. The same in Old Saxon.

_Lufiað_, Anglo-Saxon, third person plural.--Possibly changed from -ND, as
in _sôkjand_. More probably the second person.

_Loven_, Old English.--For all the persons of the plural. This form may be
accounted for in three ways: 1. The _-m_ of the Moeso-Gothic and High Old
German became _-n_; as it is in the Middle and Modern German, where all
traces of the original _-m_ are lost. In this case the first person has
replaced the other two. 2. The _-nd_ may have become _-n_; in which case it
is the third person that replaces the others. 3. The indicative form
_loven_ may have arisen out of a subjunctive one; since there was in
Anglo-Saxon the form _lufion_, or _lufian_, subjunctive. In the Modern
Norse languages the third person replaces the other two: _Vi tale_, _I
tale_, _de tale_=_we talk_, _ye talk_, _they talk_.

§ 352. _The person in_ -T.--_Art_, _wast_, _wert_, _shalt_, _wilt_. Here
the second person singular ends, not in _-st_, but in _-t_. A reason for
this (though not wholly satisfactory) we find in the Moeso-Gothic and the

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 Moeso-Gothic, _svôr_=_I swore_, _svôrt_=_thou swarest_, _gráip_=_I
griped_, _gráipt_=_thou gripedst_; Icelandic, _brannt_=_thou burnest_,
_gaft_=_thou_ {299} _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.

§ 353. _Thou spakest, thou brakest, thou sungest._[45]--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_.

§ 354. 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_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 355. The inflection of the present tense, not only in Anglo-Saxon, but in
several other languages as well, has been given in the preceding chapter.
As compared with the present plural forms, _we love_, _ye love_, _they
love_, both the Anglo-Saxon _we lufiað_, _ge lufiað_, _hi lufiað_, and the
Old English _we loven_, _ye loven_, _they loven_, have a peculiar
termination for the plural number which the present language wants. In
other words, the Anglo-Saxon and the Old English have a plural _personal_
characteristic, whilst the Modern English has nothing to correspond with

The word _personal_ is printed in italics. It does not follow, that,
because there is no plural _personal_ characteristic, there is also no
plural characteristic.

There is no reason against the inflection of the word _love_ 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 with the number. In such a case there would be no _personal_
inflection, though there would be a plural, or a _numeral_, inflection.

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 ate_; étum, _we ate_.
  Stal, _I stole_; stêlum, _we stole_.
  Qvam, _I came_; qvêmum, _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_; swungon, _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_.

In all the Anglo-Saxon words, it may be remarked that the change is from
_a_ to _u_, and that both the vowels are short, or dependent. Also, that
the vowel of the present tense is _i_ short; as _swim_, _sing_, &c. The
Anglo-Saxon form of _run_ is _yrnan_.

In the following words the change is from the Anglo-Saxon _á_ to the
Anglo-Saxon _[=i]_. In English, the regularity of the change is obscured by
a change of pronunciation.

  Bát, _I bit_; biton, _we bit_.
  Smát, _I smote_; smiton, _we smit_.

From these examples the reader has himself drawn his inference; _viz._ that
words like

  _Began, begun._
  _Ran, run._
  _Span, spun._
  _Sang, sung._
  [46]_Swang, swung._
  _Sprang, sprung._
  _Sank, sunk._
  _Swam, swum._
  _Rang, rung._
  [46]_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 _u_, as _swum_, and the forms in
_i_, _bit_, being plural.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 356. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered.

§ 357. 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.

§ 358. _If he speak_, as opposed to _if he speaks_, is characterised 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 an uninflected
word used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a

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._     _Plural._     |   _Singular._      _Plural._
  1. I was.       We were.      |   If I were.       If we were.
  2. Thou wast.   Ye were.      |   If thou wert.    If ye were.
  3. He was.      They were.    |   If he were.      If they were.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 359. 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. They are however, 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

In Greek the case is different. [Greek: Tuptô] (_typtô_)=_I beat_; [Greek:
etupton] (_etypton_)=_I was beating_; [Greek: tupsô] (_typsô_)=_I shall
beat_; [Greek: etupsa] (_etypsa_)=_I beat_; [Greek: tetupha] (_tetyfa_)=_I
have beaten_; [Greek: etetuphein] (_etetyfein_)=_I had beaten_. In these
words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and the same conjugation,
six different tenses;[47] whereas, in English, there are but two. The forms
[Greek: tetupha] and [Greek: etupsa] are so strongly marked, that we
recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed by a
reduplication of the initial [tau], and, consequently, may be called the
reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the form [Greek:
etupsa] an [epsilon] is prefixed, and an [sigma] is added. In the allied
language of Italy {304} the [epsilon] disappears, whilst the [sigma] (_s_)
remains. [Greek: Etupsa] is said to be an aorist tense. _Scripsi_ :
_scribo_ :: [Greek: etupsa] : [Greek: tuptô].

§ 360. 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 ibit imago.--_Æn._ iv.

  Ut primum alatis _tetigit_ magalia plantis.--_Æn._ iv.

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.

§ 361. In the present English there is no undoubted perfect or reduplicate
form. The form _moved_ corresponds in meaning not with [Greek: tetupha] and
_momordi_, but with [Greek: etupsa] and _vixi_. Its sense is that of
[Greek: etupsa], and not that of [Greek: tetupha]. The notion given by
[Greek: tetupha] we express by the circumlocution _I have beaten_. We have
no such form as _bebeat_ or _memove_. In the Moeso-Gothic, however, there
was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well as an
aorist. It {305} is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the
first six conjugations are characterized.

  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_.
  3d.  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_.
       Têka,     _I touch_ . Táitôk,     _I have touched_, or _I touched_.

In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an
aorist sense, and _vice versâ_.

In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms.

In Moeso-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 Moeso-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 Moeso-Gothic. A trace of it is found in
the Anglo-Saxon of the seventh century in the word _heht_, which is
considered to be _hê-ht_, the Moeso-Gothic _háiháit_, _vocavi_. This
statement is taken from the Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 378. _Did_
from _do_ is also considered to be a reduplicate form.

§ 362. 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 {306} 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. For the proof that the division of
verbs into weak and strong is a natural division, see the Chapter on

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 363. The strong præterites are formed from the present by changing the
vowel, as _sing_, _sang_, _speak_, _spoke_.

The first point in the history of these tenses that the reader is required
to be aware of, is stated in the Chapter upon the Numbers, viz., that, 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_.

As a general rule, the second singular has the same vowel with the plural
persons, as _burne_, _thou burntest_, plural _burnon_, _we burnt_.

The bearing of this fact upon the præterites has been indicated in p. 300.
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. I cannot say at what
period the difference of form ceased to denote a difference of sense.

In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the
singular one. For instance, Ic f_a_nd, _I found_, we f_u_ndon, _we found_,
are the Anglo-Saxon forms. Now the present word _found_ comes, not from the
singular _fand_, but from the plural _fund_; although in the Lowland Scotch
dialect and in the old writers, the singular form occurs.

  Donald Caird finds orra things,
  Where Allan Gregor _fand_ the tings.--Scott.

Even in the present English it will be found convenient to {308} call the
forms like _sang_ and _drank_ the singular, and those like _sung_ and
_bound_ the plural forms.

Be it observed, that, though this fact accounts for most of our double
forms, it will not account for all. In the Anglo-Saxon, Ic spr['æ]c, _I
spake_, we spr['æ]con, _we spake_. There is no change of number to account
for the two forms _spake_ and _spoke_.

_First Class._

§ 364. Contains the two words _fall_ and _fell_, _hold_ and _held_, where
the sound of _o_ is changed into that of _[)e]_. Here must be noticed the
natural tendency of _a_ to become _o_; since the forms in Anglo-Saxon are,
_Ic fealle_, I fall; _Ic feoll_, I fell; _Ic healde_, I hold; _Ic heold_, I

_Second Class._

§ 365. Here the præterite ends in _-ew_. Words of this class are
distinguished from those of the third Class by the different form of the
present tense.

  _Present._   _Præterite._
    Draw        Drew.
    Slay        Slew.
    Fly         Flew.

In these words the _w_ has grown out of a _g_, as may be seen from the
Anglo-Saxon forms. The word _see_ (_saw_) belongs to this class: since, in
Anglo-Saxon, we find the forms _geseáh_ and _gesegen_, and in the Swedish
the præterite form is _saag_.

_Third Class._

§ 366. Here an _o_ before _w_, in the present, becomes _e_ before _w_ in
the præterite; as

  _Present._   _Præterite._
    Blow.        Blew.
    Crow.        Crew.
    Throw.       Threw.
    Know.        Knew.
    Grow.        Grew.

_Fourth Class._

§ 367. Contains the single word _let_, where a short _e_ in the {309}
present remains unchanged in the præterite. In the Anglo-Saxon the present
form was _Ic læte_, the præterite _Ic lét_.

_Fifth Class._

§ 368. Contains the single word _beat_, where a long _e_ remains unchanged.
In Anglo-Saxon the forms were _Ic beate_, _Ic beot_.

_Sixth Class._

§ 369. Present _come_, præterite _came_, participle _come_. In Anglo-Saxon,
_cume_, _com_, _cumen_.

_Seventh Class._

§ 370. In this class we have the sounds of the _ee_, in _feet_, and of the
_a_ in _fate_ (spelt _ea_ or _a_), changed into _o_ or _oo_. As several
words in this class have a second form in _a_, the præterite in _o_ or _oo_
will be called the primary, the præterite in _a_ the secondary form.

  _Present._  _Primary Præterite._  _Secondary Præterite._

    Heave       [48]Hove                    --
    Cleave          Clove              [48]Clave.
    Weave           Wove                    --
    Freeze          Froze                   --
    Steal           Stole              [48]Stale.
    Speak           Spoke                  Spake.
    Swear           Swore                  Sware.
    Bear            Bore                   Bare.
    Tear            Tore               [48]Tare.
    Shear       [48]Shore                   --
    Wear            Wore               [48]Ware.
    Break           Broke                  Brake.
    Shake           Shook                   --
    Take            Took                    --
    Forsake         Forsook                 --
    Stand           Stood                   --
     --             Quoth                   --
    Get             Got                [48]Gat.

The præterite of _stand_ was originally long. This we collect {310} from
the spelling, and from the Anglo-Saxon form _stód_. The process that ejects
the _nd_ is the same process that, in Greek, converts [Greek: odont-os]
into [Greek: odous].

All the words with secondary forms will appear again in the eighth class.

_Eighth Class._

§ 371. In this class the sound of the _ee_ in _feet_, and the _a_ in _fate_
(spelt _ea_), is changed into a. Several words of this class have secondary
forms. Further details may be seen in the remarks that come after the
following list of verbs.

  _Present._  _Primary Præterite._   _Secondary Præterite._

    Speak           Spake                 Spoke.
    Break           Brake                 Broke.
    Cleave      [49]Clave                 Clove.
    Steal       [49]Stale                 Stole.
    Eat             Ate                    --
    Seethe          --                [49]Sod.
    Tread       [49]Trad                  Trod.
    Bear            Bare                  Bore.
    Tear            Tare                  Tore.
    Swear           Sware                 Swore.
    Wear        [49]Ware                  Wore.
    Bid             Bade                  Bid.
    Sit             Sate                   --
    Give            Gave                   --
    Lie             Lay                    --
    Get         [49]Gat                   Got.

Here observe,--1. That in _speak_, _cleave_, _steal_, the _ea_ has the same
power with the _ee_ in _freeze_ and _seethe_; so that it may be dealt with
as the long (or independent) sound of the _i_ in _bid_, _sit_, _give_.

2. That the same view may be taken of the _ea_ in _break_, although the
word by some persons is pronounced _brake_. _Gabrika_, _gabrak_,
Moeso-Gothic; _briku_, _brak_, Old Saxon; _brece_, _brac_, Anglo-Saxon.
Also of _bear_, _tear_, _swear_, _wear_. In the provincial dialects these
words are even now pronounced _beer_, _teer_, _sweer_. The forms in the
allied languages are, in {311} respect to these last-mentioned words, less
confirmatory; Moeso-Gothic, _svara_, _báira_; Old High German, _sverju_,

3. That the _ea_ in _tread_ was originally long; Anglo-Saxon, _tredan_,
_trede_, _tr['æ]d_, _treden_.

4. _Lie._--Here the sound is diphthongal, having grown out of the
Anglo-Saxon forms _licgan_, _l['æ]g_, _legen_.

5. _Sat._--The original præterite was long. This we collect from the
spelling _sate_, and from the Anglo-Saxon _s['æ]t_.

_Ninth Class._

§ 372. _A_, as in _fate_, is changed either into the _o_ in _note_, or the
_oo_ in _book_. Here it should be noticed that, unlike _break_ and _swear_,
&c., there is no tendency to sound the _a_ of the present as _ee_, neither
is there, as was the case with _clove_ and _spoke_, any tendency to
secondary forms in a. A partial reason for this lies in the original nature
of the vowel. The original vowel in _speak_ was e. If this was the _é
fermé_ of the French, it was a sound from which the _a_ in _fate_ and the
_ee_ in _feet_ might equally have been evolved. The vowel sound of the
verbs of the present class was that of _a_ for the present and that of _ó_
for the præterite forms; as _wace_, _wóc_, _grafe_, _gróf_. Now of these
two sounds it may be said that the _a_ has no tendency to become the _ee_
in _feet_, and that the _ó_ has no tendency to become the _a_ in _fate_.

The sounds that are evolved from the accentuated _ó_, are the _o_ in _note_
and the _oo_ in _book_.

  _Present._     _Præterite._

  Awake             Awoke.
  Wake              Woke.
  Lade          [50]Lode.
  Grave         [50]Grove.
  Take              Took.
  Shake             Shook.
  Forsake           Forsook.
  Shape         [50]Shope.

_Tenth Class._

§ 373. Containing the single word _strike_, _struck_, _stricken_. It is
only in the Middle High German, the Middle Dutch, the New High German, the
Modern Dutch, and the English, that {312} this word is found in its
præterite forms. These are, in Middle High German, _streich_; New High
German, _strich_; Middle Dutch, _strêc_; Modern Dutch, _strîk_. Originally
it must have been referable to the ninth class.

_Eleventh Class._

§ 374. In this class we first find the secondary forms accounted for by the
difference of form between the singular and plural numbers. The change is
from the _i_ in _bite_ to the _o_ in _note_, and the _i_ in _pit_.
Sometimes it is from the _i_ in _bit_ to the _a_ in _bat_. The Anglo-Saxon
conjugation (A) may be compared with the present English (B).


  _Present._         _Præterite sing._        _Præterite plur._

  Scine (_shine_)        Sceán (_I shone_)      Scinon (_we shone_).
  Arise (_arise_)        Arás (_I arose_)       Arison (_we arose_).
  Smite (_smite_)        Smát (_I smote_)       Smiton (_we smite_).


  _Present._         _Præt.--Sing. form._     _Præt.--Pl. form._

  Rise                     Rose                 [51]Ris.
  Abide                    Abode                     --
  Shine                    Shone                     --
  Smite                    Smote                    Smit.
  Ride                     Rode                 [51]Rid.
  Stride                   Strode                   Strid.
  Slide                [51]Slode                    Slid.
  Glide                [51]Glode                     --
  Chide                [51]Chode                     --
  Drive                    Drove                [51]Driv.
  Thrive                   Throve               [51]Thriv.
  Strive                   Strove                    --
  Write                    Wrote                    Writ.
  Climb                    Clomb                     --
  Slit                 [51]Slat                     Slit.
  Bite                 [51]Bat                      Bit.

On this list we may make the following observations and statements.


1. That, with the exception of the word _slit_, the _i_ is sounded as a

2. That, with the exception of _bat_ and _slat_, it is changed into _o_ in
the singular and into _[)i]_ in the plural forms.

3. That, with the exception of _shone_, the _o_ is always long (or

4. That, even with the word _shone_, the _o_ was originally long. This is
known from the final _-e_ mute, and from the Anglo-Saxon form _scéan_;
Moeso-Gothic, _skáin_; Old Norse, _skein_.

5. That the _o_, in English, represents an _á_ in Anglo-Saxon.

6. That the statement last made shows that even _bat_ and _slat_ were once
in the same condition with _arose_ and _smote_, the Anglo-Saxon forms being
_arás_, _smát_, _bát_, _slát_.

_Twelfth Class._

§ 375. In this class _i_ is generally short; originally it was always so.
In the singular form it becomes _[)a]_, in the plural, _[)u]_.

    _Present._      _Præt.--Sing. form._      _Præt.--Pl. form._
     Swim                  Swam                  Swum.
     Begin                 Began                 Begun.
     Spin              [52]Span                  Spun.
     Win               [52]Wan               [53]Won.
     Sing                  Sang                  Sung.
     Swing             [52]Swang                 Swung.
     Spring                Sprang                Sprung.
     Sting             [52]Stang                 Stung.
     Ring                  Rang                  Rung.
     Wring             [52]Wrang                 Wrung.
     Fling                 Flang                 Flung.
     Cling                  --                   Clung.
  [52]Hing                 Hang                  Hung.
     String            [52]Strang                Strung.
     Sling                  --                   Slung.
     Sink                  Sank                  Sunk.
     Drink                 Drank                 Drunk.
     Shrink                Shrank                Shrunk.
     Stink             [52]Stank                 Stunk.
     Swink                  --                    --
     Slink                  --                   Slunk.
     Swell                 Swoll                  --
     Melt              [54]Molt                   --
     Help              [54]Holp                   --
     Delve             [54]Dolv                   --
     Dig                    --                   Dug.
     Stick             [54]Stack                 Stuck.
     Run                   Ran                   Run.
     Burst                  --                   Burst.
     Bind                  Band                  Bound.
     Find              [54]Fand                  Found.
     Grind                  --                   Ground.
     Wind                   --                   Wound.

Upon this list we make the following observations and statements:--

1. That, with the exceptions of _bind_, _find_, _grind_, and _wind_, the
vowels are short (or dependent) throughout.

2. That, with the exception of _run_ and _burst_, the vowel of the present
tense is either the _i_ or e.

3. That _i_ short changes into _a_ for the singular, and into _u_ for the
plural forms.

4. That _e_ changes into _o_ in the singular forms; these being the only
ones preserved.

5. That the _i_ in _bind_, &c., changes into _ou_ in the plural forms; the
only ones current.

6. That the vowel before _m_ or _n_ is, with the single exception of _run_,
always _i_.

7. That the vowel before _l_ and _r_ is, with the single exception of
_burst_, always e.

8. That, where the _i_ is sounded as in _bind_, the combination following
is _-nd_.

9. That _ng_ being considered as a modification of _k_ (the Norse and
Moeso-Gothic forms being _drecka_ and _drikjan_), it may be stated that _i_
short, in the twelfth class, precedes either a liquid or a mute of series

From these observations, even on the English forms only, we find thus much
regularity; and from these observations, even on the English forms only, we
may lay down a rule like the following: _viz._ that _i_ or _u_, short,
before the consonants _m_, _n_, {315} or _ck_, is changed into _a_ for the
singular, and into _u_ for the plural forms; that _i_ long, or diphthongal,
becomes _ou_; that _e_ before _l_ becomes _o_; and that _u_ before _r_
remains unchanged.

This statement, however, is nothing like so general as the one that, after
a comparison of the older forms and the allied languages, we are enabled to
make. Here we are taught,

1. That, in the words _bind_, &c., the _i_ was once pronounced as in
_till_, _fill_; in other words, that it was the simple short vowel, and not
the diphthong _ey_; or at least that it was treated as such.

  Binda      Band      Bundum      Bundans.
  Bivinda    Bivand    Bivundum    Bivundums.
  Finþa      Fanþ      Funþum      Funþans.

  Bind       Band      Bundon      Bunden.
  Finde      Fand      Fundon      Funden.
  Grinde     Grand     Grundon     Grunden.
  Winde      Wand      Wundon      Wunden.

              _Old Norse._
  Finn       Fann      Funðum      Funninn.
  Bind       Batt      Bundum      Bundinn.
  Vind       Vatt      Undum       Undinn.

When the vowel _[)i]_ of the present took the sound of the _i_ in _bite_,
the _[)u]_ in the præterite became the _ou_ in _mouse_. From this we see
that the words _bind_, &c., are naturally subject to the same changes with
_spin_, &c., and that, _mutatis mutandis_, they are so still.

2. That the _e_ in _swell_, &c., was once _[)i]_. This we collect from the
following forms:--_hilpa_, Moeso-Gothic; _hilfu_, Old High German; _hilpu_,
Old Saxon; _hilpe_, Middle High German; _hilpe_, Old Frisian.
_Suillu_=_swell_, Old High German. _Tilfu_=_delve_, Old High German;
_dilbu_, Old Saxon. _Smilzu_, Old High German=_smelt_ or _melt_. This shows
that originally the vowel _i_ ran throughout, but that before _l_ and _r_
it was changed into e. This change took place at different periods in
different dialects. The Old Saxon preserved the {316} _i_ longer than the
Anglo-Saxon. It is found even in the _middle_ High German; in the _new_ it
has become _e_; as _schwelle_, _schmelze_. In one word _milk_, the original
_i_ is still preserved; although in Anglo-Saxon it was _e_; as _melce_,
_mealc_=_milked_, _mulcon_. In the Norse the change from _i_ to _e_ took
place full soon, as _svëll_=_swells_. The Norse language is in this respect

3. That the _o_ in _swoll_, _holp_, was originally _a_; as

  Hilpa     Halp     Hulpum         Moeso-Gothic.
  Suillu    Sual     Suullumês      Old High German.
  Hilfu     Half     Hulfumês          Ditto.
  Tilfu     Talf     Tulfumês          Ditto.
  Hilpe     Halp     Hulpun         Middle High German.
  Dilbe     Dalp     Dulbun            Ditto.
  Hilpe     Halp     Hulpon            Ditto.
  Svëll     Svall    Sullum         Old Norse.
  Melte     Mealt    Multon         Anglo-Saxon.
  Helpe     Haelp    Hulpon            Ditto.
  Delfe     Dealf    Dulfon            Ditto.

4. That a change between _a_ and _o_ took place by times. The Anglo-Saxon
præterite of _swelle_ is _sweoll_; whilst _ongon_, _bond_, _song_,
_gelomp_, are found in the same language for _ongan_, _band_, _sang_,
_gelamp_.--Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar, p. 90.

5. That _run_ is only an apparent exception, the older form being _rinn_.

  The rain _rinns_ down through Merriland town;
    So doth it down the Pa.--_Old Ballad._

The Anglo-Saxon form is _yrnan_; in the præterite _arn_, _urnon_. A
transposition has since taken place. The word _run_ seems to have been
originally no present, but a præterite form.

6. That _burst_ is only an apparent exception. Before _r_, _[)e]_, _[)i]_,
_[)u]_, are pronounced alike. We draw no distinction between the vowels in
_pert_, _flirt_, _hurt_. The Anglo-Saxon forms are, _berste_, _byrst_,
_bærse_, _burston_, _borsten_.

_Thirteenth Class._

§ 376. Contains the single word _choose_, in the præterite _chose_; in
Anglo-Saxon, _ceóse_, _ceás_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 377. 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

When, however, the original word ends in _-d_ or _-t_, as _slight_ or
_brand_, then, and then only (and that not always), is there the addition
of the syllable _-ed_; as in _slighted_, _branded_. This is necessary,
since the combinations _slightt_ and _brandd_ are unpronounceable.

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

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 {318} _father's_, &c., applied to another letter and to
another part of speech.

For some historical notices respecting the use of _-d_, _-t_, and _-ed_, in
the spelling of the English præterites and participles, the reader is
referred to the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. i. p. 655.

§ 378. The verbs of the weak conjugation fall into three classes. In the
first there is the simple addition of _-d_, _-t_, or _-ed_.

  Serve, served.
  Cry, cried.
  Betray, betrayed.
  Expel, expelled.
  Accuse, accused.
  Instruct, instructed.
  Invite, invited.
  Waste, wasted.

  Dip, dipped (_dipt_).
  Slip, slipped (_slipt_).
  Step, stepped (_stept_).
  Look, looked (_lookt_).
  Pluck, plucked (_pluckt_).
  Toss, tossed (_tost_).
  Push, pushed (_pusht_).
  Confess, confessed (_confest_)

To this class belong the greater part of the weak verbs and all verbs of
foreign origin.

§ 379. In the second class, besides the addition of _-t_ or _-d_, the vowel
is _shortened_. It also contains those words which end in _-d_ or _-t_, and
at the same time have a short vowel in the præterite. Such, amongst others,
are _cut_, _cost_, &c., where the two tenses are alike, and _bend_, _rend_,
&c., where the præterite is formed from the present by changing _-d_ into
_-t_, as _bent_, _rent_, &c.

In the following list, the words ending in _-p_ are remarkable; since, in
Anglo-Saxon, each of them had, instead of a weak, a strong præterite.

  Leave, left.
  Cleave, cleft.
  Bereave, bereft.
  Deal, de[)a]l_t_.
  Feel, fel_t_.
  Dream, dre[)a]m_t_.
  Lean, le[)a]n_t_.
  Learn, learn_t_.
  Creep, crept.
  Sleep, slept.
  Leap, lept.
  Keep, kept.
  Weep, wept.
  Sweep, swept.
  Lose, lost.
  Flee, fled.

In this class we sometimes find _-t_ where the _-d_ is expected; the forms
being _left_ and _dealt_, instead of _leaved_ and _dealed_. {319}

§ 380. Third class.--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:--

  Byegan, bóhte.
  Sècan, sóhte.
  Wyrcan, wórhte.
  Bringan, bróhte.
  Þencan, þóhte.

§ 381. 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, _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 {320}
_eard__ian_ 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_.

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. Of this _e_ two
views may be taken.

1. It may be derived from the original _o_ in _-ode_, the termination of
the first class in Anglo-Saxon. This is the opinion which we form when the
word in question is known to have belonged to the Anglo-Saxon language,
and, in it, to the first class. _Ended_, _planted_, _warded_, _hated_,
_heeded_, are (amongst others) words of this sort; their Anglo-Saxon forms
being _endode_, _plantode_, _weardode_, _hatode_, and _eahtode_, from
_endian_, _plantian_, _weardian_, _hatian_, and _eahtian_.

2. The form may be looked upon, not as that of the præterite, but as that
of the participle in a transferred sense. This is the view when we have two
forms, one with the vowel, and the other without it, as _bended_ and
_bent_, _wended_ and _went_, _plighted_ and _plight_.

A. In several words the final _-d_ is changed into _-t_, as _bend_, _bent_;
_rend_, _rent_; _send_, _sent_; _gild_, _gilt_; _build_, _built_; _spend_,
_spent_, &c.

B. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as _feed_, _fed_;
_bleed_, _bled_; _breed_, _bred_; _meet_, _met_; _speed_, _sped_;
_r[=e]ad_, _r[)e]ad_, &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. {321} 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 _be[)a]t_, after the analogy of _feed_ and _r[=e]ad_. By some
persons the word is pronounced _bet_, and with those who do so the word is

_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 separating the præterite form
from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which the
affix begins.

The addition of the vowel takes place only in verbs of the first class.

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.

Words like _planted_, _heeded_, &c., belong to the first class. Words like
_feed_, _lead_, to the second class. _Bend_ and _cut_ belong also to the
second class; they belong to it, however, by what may be termed an
etymological fiction. The vowel would be changed if it could.

§ 382. _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_
{322} 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 the Chapter upon Irregularity.

_Aught._--In Anglo-Saxon _áhte_, the præterite of the present form _áh_,
plural _ágan_.--As late as the time of Elizabeth we find _owe_ used for
_own_. The present form _own_ seems to have arisen from the plural _ágen_.
_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

_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.

The Moeso-Gothic forms are _dar_, _dart?_ _dar_, _daúrum_, _daúruþ_,
_daúrun_, for the persons of the present tense; and _daúrsta_, _daúrstês_,
_daúrsta_, &c., for those of the præterite. The same is the case throughout
the Germanic languages. No _-s_, however, appears in the Scandinavian; the
præterites being _þorði_ and _törde_, Icelandic and Danish. The Anglo-Saxon
is _dear_=_I dare_, _dearst_=_thou darest_, _durron_=_we_, {323} _ye_, or
_they dare_; subjunctive, _durre_, _dorste_, _dorston_. Old Saxon, present,
_dar_; præterite _dursta_. The Moeso-Gothic tense, _daúrsta_, instead of
_daúrda_, shows the antiquity of this form in _-s_.

The readiest mode of accounting for the form in question is to suppose that
the second singular has been extended over all the other persons. This
view, however, is traversed by the absence of the _-s_ in the Moeso-Gothic
present. The form there (real or presumed) is not _darst_, but _dart_. Of
this latter form, however, it must be remarked that its existence is

In Matthew xxvi. 67, of the Moeso-Gothic Gospel of Ulphilas, is found the
form _kaúpastêdun_, instead of _kaúpatidédun_, the præterite plural of
_kaúpatjan_=_to beat_. Here there is a similar insertion of the
_-s_.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 848, 852, 853.

The _-s_ in _durst_ 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 _maatte_.

The readiest mode of accounting for the _-s_ in _must_, is to presume that
it belongs to the second singular, extended to the other persons,
_mo-est_=_must_. Irrespective, however, of other objections, this view is
traversed by the forms _môtan_, Moeso-Gothic (an infinitive), and _mót_,
Moeso-Gothic, Old Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon (a first person present). These
neutralise the evidence given by the Danish form _maae_, and indicate that
the _-t_ is truly a part of the original root.

Now, the _-t_ being considered as part of the root, the _-s_ cannot be
derived from the second singular; inasmuch as it precedes, instead of
following the _-t_.

At one time, for want of a better theory, I conceived, that in the word in
point (and also in _durst_ and a few others), we had traces of the
Scandinavian passive. This notion I have, for evident reasons, abandoned.

In p. 298 it was stated that the Moeso-Gothic termination of the second
singular of the strong præterites was _-t_. It is {324} here mentioned that
_must_ is a præterite form. Now the final letter of the root _mot_, and the
sign of the second singular of the strong præterite, are the same, _-t_.
Now, as _-t_ cannot be immediately added to _t_, the natural form of the
second singular _mót-t_ is impracticable. Hence, before the _-t_ of the
second person, the _-t_ of the root is changed, so that, instead of
_máimáit-t_, _bigat-t_, _fáifalþ-t_, _láilot-t_, &c., we have _máimáis-t_,
_bigas-t_, _fáifals-t_, _láilos-t_, &c., Moeso-Gothic.--See Deutsche
Grammatik, 844.

The euphonic reason for the _-s_, in _must_, is sufficient to show that it
is in a different predicament from _durst_.

The provincial form _mun_, there or thereabouts equivalent in meaning to
_must_, has no etymological connexion with this last named word. It is a
distinct word, in Scandinavian _monne_.

_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 Moeso-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_, _wâst_, _witon_, _wiste_ and _wisse_,
_wiston_.--Here the double forms, _wiste_ and _wisse_, verify the statement
concerning the Moeso-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_,
_wist_; the first seems to be the root; the second a strong præterite
regularly formed, but used (like [Greek: oida] 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 {325} 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_.

_Do._--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_, _dóð_, _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 _deah_ does the same.

In respect to the præterite of _do_=_facio_, difficulties present

Is the word weak?--This is the view that arises from the form _did_. The
participle _done_ traverses this view.

Is the word strong?--In favour of this notion we have the English
participle _done_, and the præterite second singular in Old High German
_tâti_. Against it are the Old Saxon _dédos_, and the Anglo-Saxon _dydest_,
as second singulars.

Is there a reduplication?--If this were the case, we might assume such a
form as _dôan_, _dáidô_, for the Moeso-Gothic. This view, however, is
traversed by the substantival forms _dêds_, Moeso-Gothic; _tât_, Old High
German; _dæd_, Anglo-Saxon; which show that the second _-d_ is part of the
original word.

The true nature of the form _did_ has yet to be exhibited.--See Deutsche
Grammatik, i. 1041.

_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_, {326} _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.

A præterite formed upon a præterite may also be called a secondary
præterite; just as the word _theirs_, derived from _their_ (a case formed
from a case), is called a secondary genitive.

In like manner the present form _mind_ is not a genuine present, but a
præterite with a present sense; _its form being taken as the test_.
Presents of this sort may be called transformed præterites.

It is very evident that the præterites most likely to become present are
those of the strong class. In the first place, the fact of their being
præterite is less marked. The word _tell_ carries with it fewer marks of
its tense than the word _moved_. In the second place they can more
conveniently give rise to secondary præterites. A weak præterite already
ends in _-d_ or _-t_. If this be used as a present, a second _-d_ or _-t_
must be appended.

Hence it is that all the transposed præterites in the Gothic tongues were,
before they took the present sense, not weak, but strong. The word in
question, _mind_ (from whence _minded_), is only an apparent exception to
this statement.

Now the words _shall_, _can_, _owe_ (whence _aught_), _dare_, _may_, _man_
(of the Anglo-Saxon _geman_, the origin of _mind_), are, (irrespective of
their other peculiarities), for certain etymological reasons, looked upon
as præterite forms with a present sense.

And the words _should_, _could_, _aught_, _dared_ (or _durst_), _must_,
_wist_, _might_, _mind_, are, for certain etymological reasons, looked upon
as secondary præterites.

This fact alters our view of the form _minded_. Instead of being a
secondary præterite, it is a tertiary one. _Geman_ (the apparent present)
being dealt with as a strong præterite with a present sense, _mind_ (from
the Anglo-Saxon _gemunde_) is the secondary præterite, and _minded_ (from
the English _mind_) is a tertiary præterite. To analyse the word, the {327}
præterite is first formed by the vowel _a_, then by the addition of _-d_,
and, thirdly, by the termination _-ed_; _man_, _mind_, _minded_.

The proof of this we collect from the second persons singular,
Moeso-Gothic. The second singular præterite of the strong class is _-t_; of
the weak class, _-es_; of the present, both weak and strong, _-s_. Now the
second singular of the words in point is _skal-t_, _kan-t_, _áih-t_,
_dar-t?_ _mag-t_, _man-t_, respectively.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 852.

Besides this, in Anglo-Saxon, the plural forms are those of the strong
præterites. See Rask, p. 79.

_Yode._--The obsolete præterite of _go_, now replaced by _went_, the
præterite of _wend_. Regular, except that the initial _g_ has become _y_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 383. The current statement respecting verbs like _sing_ and _fall_, &c.,
is that they are irregular. How far this is the case may be seen from a
review of the twelve classes in Moeso-Gothic, where the change of the vowel
is subject to fewer irregularities than elsewhere. In the first six
conjugations the præterite is replaced by a perfect tense. Consequently,
there is a reduplication. Of these the fifth and sixth superadd to the
reduplication a change of the vowel.

   _Present._            _Past.[55]_            _Past Participle._
                   _Sing._      _Plural._

   1. Salta       Sáisalt        Sáisaltum          Saltans        _Leap._
   2. Háita       Háiháit        Háiháitum          Háitans        _Call._
   3. Hláupa      Hláiláup       Hláiláupum         Hláupans       _Run._
   4. Slêpa       Sáizlêp        Sáislêpum          Slêpans        _Sleep._
   5. Láia        Láilô          Láilôum            Láilans        _Laugh._
   6. Grêta       Gáigrôt        Gáigrôtum          Grêtans        _Weep._
   7. Svara       Svôr           Svôrum             Svarans        _Swear._
   8. Greipa      Gráip          Gripum             Gripans        _Gripe._
   9. Biuda       Báuþ           Budum              Budans         _Offer._
  10. Giba        Gab            Gêbum              Gibans         _Give._
  11. Stila       Stal           Stêlum             Stulans        _Stole._
  12. Rinna       Rann           Runnum             Runnans        _Run._

Exhibited in a tabular form, the changes of the vowels in Moeso-Gothic are
as follows:--

       _Prs._    _Pst. S._    _Pst. Pl._    _Part._
   1.    a           a            a            a
   2.    ái          ái           ái           ái
   3.    áu          áu           áu           áu
   4.    ê           ê            ê            ê
   5.    ái          ô            ô            a
   6.    ê           ô            ô            ê
   7.    a           ô            ô            a
   8.    ei          ái           i            i
   9.    iu          áu           u            u
  10.    i           a            ê            i
  11.    i           a            ê            u
  12.    i           a            u            u

§ 384. Such is the arrangement of the strong verbs in Moeso-Gothic, with
which the arrangement of the strong verbs in the other Gothic languages may
or may not coincide.

For a full and perfect coincidence three things are necessary:--1. the
coincidence of form; 2. the coincidence of distribution; 3. the coincidence
of order.

1. _Coincidence of form._.--Compared with the Moeso-Gothic _rinna_, _rann_,
_runnum_, _runnans_, the Old High German inflection coincides most rigidly;
_e.g._, _rinnu_, _ran_, _runnumês_, _runnanê_. The vowel is the same in the
two languages, and it is similarly changed in each. It is very evident that
this might be otherwise. The Moeso-Gothic _i_ might have become _e_, or the
_u_ might have become _o_. In this case, the formula for the two languages
would not have been the same. Instead of _i, a, u, u_ (see the tabular
arrangement), serving for the Old High German as well as the Moeso-Gothic,
the formula would have been, for the Moeso-Gothic, _i, a, u, u_, and for
the Old High German _e, a, u, u_, or _i, a, o, o_. The forms in this latter
case would have been equivalent, but not the same.

2. _Coincidence of distribution._--A given number of words in the
Moeso-Gothic form their præterites by changing _i_ into _a_; in other
words, a given number of verbs in Moeso-Gothic are inflected like _rinna_
and _rann_. The same is the case with the Old High German. Now if these
words are the same in the two languages, the Moeso-Gothic and the Old High
German (as far as the agreement extends) coincide in the distribution of
their verbs; that is, the same words are arranged in the same class, or
(changing the phrase) are distributed alike.

3. _Coincidence of order._--The conjugation to which the Moeso-Gothic words
_rinna_ and _rann_ belong is the twelfth. The same is the case in Old High
German. It might, {330} however, have been the case that in Old High German
the class corresponding with the twelfth in Moeso-Gothic was the first,
second, third, or any other.

Now a coincidence of form, a coincidence of distribution, and a coincidence
of order, in all the classes of all the Gothic languages, is more than can
be expected. If such were the case, the tenses would be identical

Coincidence of form is infringed upon by the simple tendency of sounds to
change. _Hilpa_ in Moeso-Gothic is _helpe_ in Anglo-Saxon: _hulpans_ in
Moeso-Gothic is _holfanêr_ in Old High German, and _holpen_ in Anglo-Saxon.
A change, however, of this sort is insufficient to affect the arrangement.
_Helpan_, in Anglo-Saxon, is placed in the same class with _spinnan_; and
all that can be said is, that the Moeso-Gothic _i_ is, in Anglo-Saxon,
represented not by _i_ exclusively, but sometimes by _i_ and sometimes by

Coincidence of distribution is of great etymological importance. A word may
in one stage of a language take the form of one conjugation, and in another
that of another. The word _climban_ is, in Anglo-Saxon, placed in the same
conjugation with _drincan_, &c. For this there was a reason; _viz._, the
fact of the _i_ being short. For the _i_ being short there was a reason
also. The _b_ preceded the vowel _a_, and consequently was sounded. This
was the case whether the word was divided _clim-ban_ or _climb-an_. _An_,
however, was no part of the original word, but only the sign of the
infinitive mood. As such it became ejected. The letter _b_ then came at the
end of the word; but as the combination _mb_, followed by nothing was
unstable, _b_ was soon lost in pronunciation. Now _b_ being lost, the vowel
which was once short became lengthened, or rather it became the sound of
the diphthong _ei_; so that the word was no longer called _cl[)i]mb_, but
_clime_. Now the words that follow the analogy of _spin_, _span_ ,&c. (and
consequently constitute the twelfth class), do so, not because the vowel is
_i_, but because it is a short _i_; and when the _i_ is sounded like a
diphthong, the præterite is formed differently. The Anglo-Saxon præterite
of _climban_ was sounded _cl[)o]mm_, and rhymed to _from_; the English
præterite (when strong) of {331} _climb_ is sounded _cl[=o]mbe_, rhyming to
_roam_. The word _climb_, which was once classed with _spin_ and _sing_, is
now to be classed with _arise_ and _smite_; in other words, it is
distributed differently.

Coincidence in the order of the classes is violated when a class which was
(for instance) the third in one language becomes, in another language the
fourth, &c. In Moeso-Gothic the class containing the words _smeita_,
_smáit_, _smitum_, _smitans_, is the eighth. This is a natural place for
it. In the class preceding it, the vowel is the same in both numbers. In
the classes that follow it, the vowel is changed in the plural. The number
of classes that in Moeso-Gothic change the vowel is five; _viz._, the
eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth. Of these the eighth is the
first. The classes where the change in question takes place form a natural
subdivision, of which the eighth class stands at the head. Now in
Anglo-Saxon the vowel is not changed so much as in the Moeso-Gothic. In
words like _choose_, _give_, and _steal_, the vowel remains unaltered in
the plural. In Moeso-Gothic, however, these words are, respectively, of the
ninth, tenth, and eleventh classes. It is not till we get to the eleventh
that the Anglo-Saxon plurals take a fresh vowel. As the presence or absence
of a change of vowel naturally regulates the order of the classes, the
eighth class in Moeso-Gothic becomes the eleventh in Anglo-Saxon. If it
were not so, the classes where a change took place in the plural would be
separated from each other.

The later the stage of the language, the less complete the coincidence in
the classes.

Of the present arrangement, the twelfth class coincides most throughout the
Gothic languages.

In the word _climb_, a reason was given for its having changed from the
twelfth class to the eleventh class. This, in the present state of our
knowledge, cannot always be done.

These statements are made lest the reader should expect to find between the
English and the Anglo-Saxon classification anything more than a partial
coincidence. A detailed exhibition of the English conjugations would form a
work of {332} itself. Moreover, the present classes of the strong verbs
must, to a great degree, be considered as provisional.

Observe, that it is the _classes_ of the strong verbs that are provisional.
With the great divisions into weak and strong, the case is far otherwise.
The general assertions which will be made in p. 333, respecting the strong
conjugation, show most cogently that the division is a natural one.

§ 385. Preliminary, however, to making them, the reader's 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 form it by a
change of the vowel. In other words they are weak verbs that were once


          _English._         |      _Anglo-Saxon._
  _Present._   _Præterite._  | _Present._   _Præterite._
    Wreak        Wreaked.    |   Wrece        Wr['æ]c.
    Fret         Fretted.    |   Frete        Fr['æ]t.
    Mete         Meted.      |   Mete         M['æ]t.
    Shear        Sheared.    |   Scere        Scear.
    Braid        Braided.    |   Brede        Br['æ]d.
    Knead        Kneaded.    |   Cnede        Cn['æ]d.
    Dread        Dreaded.    |   Dr['æ]de     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       Þærse.
    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.

§ 386. The first of the general statements made concerning strong verbs,
with a view of proving that the order is _natural_, shall be the one
arising out of the preceding list of præterites.

I. Many strong verbs become weak; whilst no weak verb ever becomes strong.

II. All the strong verbs are of Saxon origin. None are classical.

III. The greater number of them are strong throughout the Gothic tongues.

IV. 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 dubb_, was introduced into English. Its præterite was


V. All derived words are inflected weak. The intransitive forms _drink_ and
_lie_, are strong; the transitive forms _drench_ and _lay_, are weak.

The fourth statement will again be recurred to. The present object is to
show that the division into strong and weak is natural.

§ 387. _Obsolete forms._--Instead of _lept_, _slept_, _mowed_, _snowed_,
&c., we find, in the provincial dialects and in the older writers, the
strong forms _lep_, _step_, _mew_, _snew_, &c. This is no more than what we
expect. Here there are two forms, and each form is of a different

§ 388. _Double Forms._--In _lep_ and _mew_ we have two forms, of which one
only is current. In _swoll_ and _swelled_, in _clomb_ and _climbed_, and in
_hung_ and _hanged_, we have two forms, of which both are current. These
latter are true double forms. Of double forms there are two kinds.

1. Those like _swoll_ and _swelled_; where there is the same tense, but a
different conjugation.

2. Those like _spoke_ and _spake_; where the tense is the same and the
conjugation the same, but where the form is different.

The bearings of these double forms (which, however, are points of general
rather than of English grammar) are as follows. Their number in a given
language may be very great, and the grammarian of a given language may call
them, not double forms of the same tense, but different tenses. Let the
number of words like _swoll_ and _swelled_ be multiplied by 1000. The
chances are, that, in the present state of etymology, they would be called
first præterites and second præterites. The bearing of this remark upon the
so-called aorists and futures of the Greek language is evident. I think
that a writer in the Cambridge Philological Museum[57] indicates the true
nature of those tenses. They are the same tense in a different conjugation,
and differ from _swoll_ and _swelled_ only in the frequency of their

Difference of form, and difference of conjugation, may each simulate a
difference of tense.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 389. In § 361 the distinction between irregularity and defectiveness was
slightly foreshadowed. In pp. 243, 267, it was exhibited in its principles.
In the present chapter the difference is more urgently insisted on.

The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal
pronouns _I_ and _me_, and the adjectives _good_, _better_, and _best_. See
the sections referred to above.

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 (at least in the present stage of our language)
defective in the past tense. _Went_ (at least in its current sense) is
without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual
deficiencies, and are to each other complementary.

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.

The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is
the meaning that we attach to terms. {336}

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_. Now this position is
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_.

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 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 processes.

The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards (but not to) the
definition of the word irregular.

I. _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 {337} 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, in the present English, make words like _bent_, _sought_,
&c. (the euphonic processes being allowed for), regular, and 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

II. _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. (the _sound_
being represented), being their præterites, instead of _stepd_, _quaffd_.
Here the change from _-d_ (the natural termination) to _-t_ is a matter (or
process) 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 {338} 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.

III. _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 an ultimate 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

IV. _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 {339} the process which affects the
one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive

Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word
_worse_ is explained in p. 267, and the reader is referred to the section.
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.

V. _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, _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-_, and _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.

§ 390. _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 {340} 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 to 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 [Greek: odontos] (_odontos_) into [Greek:
odous] (_odows_).

§ 391. 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_, _þu 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_.

The whole of the present chapter is indicative of the nature of
irregularity, and of the elements that should enter into the definition of
it, rather than exhaustive of the detail.

The principle that I recognise for myself is to consider no word irregular
unless it can be proved so. This view includes the words affected by
ambiguous processes, and by processes of confusion, and no others. The
words affected by {341} extraordinary processes form a provisional class,
which a future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be
regular. _Worse_ and _could_ (its spelling being considered) are the
fairest specimens of our irregulars. The class, instead of filling pages,
is exceedingly limited.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 392. _Meseems._--Equivalent to _it seems to me_; _mihi videtur_, [Greek:
phainetai moi]. The verb _seems_ is intransitive; consequently the pronoun
_me_ has the power of a dative case. The pronoun it is not required to
accompany the verb.

§ 393. _Methinks._--In Anglo-Saxon there are two forms; _þencan_=_to
think_, and _þincan_=_to seem_. It is from the latter form that the verb in
_methinks_ comes. Such being the case, it is intransitive, and consequently
the pronoun _me_ has the power of a dative case. The pronoun _it_ is not
required to accompany the verb.

Of this word we have also the past form _methought_.

  Methought I saw my late espoused wife
  Brought to me, like Alcestis, from the grave.


§ 394. _Me listeth_, or _me lists_.--Equivalent to _it pleases me_=_me
juvat_. Anglo-Saxon _lystan_=_to wish_, _to choose_, also _to please_, _to
delight_; Norse, _lysta_. Unlike the other two, the verb is transitive, so
that the pronoun _me_ has the power of an accusative case. The pronoun _it_
is not required to accompany the verb.

These three are the only true impersonal verbs in the English language.
They form a class by themselves, because no pronoun accompanies them, as is
the case with the equivalent expressions _it appears_, _it pleases_, and
with all the other verbs in the language.

In the old language impersonal verbs, or rather the impersonal use of
verbs, was commoner than at present.

  Him _oughten_ now to have the lese pain.

  _Legend of Good Women_, 429.


  Him _ought_ not to be a tyrant.

  _Legend of Good Women_, 377.

  Me mete.--CHAUCER.

  Well me quemeth.--_Conf. Amantis._

In the following lines the construction is, _it shall please your Majesty_.

  I'll muster up my friends to meet your Grace,
  Where and what time your Majesty shall please.

  _Richard III_., iv. 4.

See a paper of Mr. Guest's, Phil. Trans., vol. ii. 241.

Strictly speaking, the impersonal verbs are a part of syntax rather than of

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 395. 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_.

§ 396. _Was._--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 has both a full
conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it has an infinitive, a
participle present, and a participle past. In Moeso-Gothic it is 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_, _wârumês_, _wësaner_. In Norse the
_s_ entirely disappears, and the word is inflected with _r_ throughout;
_vera_, _var_, _vorum_, &c.

§ 397. _Be._--Inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both
indicative and subjunctive; found also as an {345} infinitive _beón_, as a
gerund to _beonne_, and as a participle _beonde_. In the present English
its inflection is as follows:--


      _Indicative._    |    _Conjunctive._   |    _Imperative._
     _Sing._   _Plur._ | _Sing._   _Plur._   | _Sing._    _Plur._
                       |                     |
  1.  --         --    |  Be.       Be.      |  --         --
  2. Beest.      --    |  Beest?    Be.      |  Be.        Be.
  3.  --         --    |  Be.       Be, Bin. |  --         --
                       |                     |
     _Infin._ To be.     _Pres. P._ Being.      _Past Part._ Been.

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: _býst_ 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 _béon_; 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 pulcra sint_; in Greek thus, [Greek: ha an kala êi]. The
_indicative_ plural is, in Anglo-Saxon, not _beón_, but _beóð_ and _beó_.

§ 398. In the Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1051, it is stated that the
Anglo-Saxon forms _beó_, _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 (or form), 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 {346} (so muckle) men as they might be if
they were full grown (waxen) in customary age."

§ 399. If we consider the word _beón_ like the word _weorðan_ (see below)
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
Anglo-Saxon.--"_Ic ðe secge, heò is be ðam húse ðe Fegor hátte, and nán man
nis ðe hig wíte_ (_shall, may know_) _ær ðám myclan dóme_."--Ælfric's
Homilies, 44.

§ 400. _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 all the Indo-European 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._           _Ani._           _Ashti_.
  Greek               [Greek: Eimi].   [Greek: Eis].   [Greek: Ei].
  Latin               _Sum._            _Es._            _Esti._
  Lithuanic           _Esmi._           _Essi._          _Esti._
  Old Slavonic        _Yesmy._          _Yesi._          _Yesty._
  Moeso-Gothic        _Im._             _Is._            _Ist._
  Old Saxon            --           [58]_Is._            _Ist._
  Anglo-Saxon         _Eom._            _Eart._          _Is._
  Icelandic           _Em._             _Ert._           _Er._
  English             _Am_.             _Art._           _Is._

In English and Anglo-Saxon the word is found in the {347} present
indicative only. In English it is inflected through both numbers; in
Anglo-Saxon in the singular number only. The Anglo-Saxon plurals are forms
of the German _seyn_, a verb whereof we have, in the present English, no

_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._

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 401. 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 Moeso-Gothic and Old High German forms are _habands_ and
_hapêntêr_=_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_.

It is with the oblique cases of the present participles of the classical
languages, rather than with the nominative, that we must compare the
corresponding participle in Gothic; _e.g._, {349} [Greek: echont-os]
(_ekhontos_), Greek; _habent-is_, Latin; _hapênt-êr_, Old High German.

§ 402. It has often been remarked that the participle is used in many
languages as a substantive. This is true in Greek,

  [Greek: Ho prassôn]=_the actor_, when a male.
  [Greek: Hê prassousa]=_the actor_, when a female.
  [Greek: To pratton]=_the active principle of a thing_.

§ 403. 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.

Archbishop Whately has some remarks on this substantival power in his

Some 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
question. {350}

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 participial, and have been formed on a false

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 404. 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.

§ 405. _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 unexceptionable 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_.

These two statements bear upon the future history of the præterite. That of
the two forms _sang_ and _sung_, one will, in the course of language,
become obsolete is nearly certain; and, as the plural form is also that of
the participle, it is the plural form which is most likely to be the
surviving one. {352}

§ 406. 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.

§ 407. 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_; ceás, _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_.

§ 408. 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_ reduces words like _bærned_ and _bærnde_ to the
same form, it is easy to account for the present {353} identity of form
between the weak præterites and the participles in _-d_: _e. g._, _I
moved_, _I have moved_, &c.

§ 409. 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_:

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-_: Moeso-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_,

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_.--Moeso-Gothic, _sinþs_=_a journey_,
_ga-sinþa_=_a companion_; Old High German, _perc_=_hill_; _ki-perki_
(_ge-birge_)=_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_. {354}

9. Hence it is probable that the _ga-_, _ki-_, or _gi-_, Gothic, is the
_cum_ of Latin languages. Such is Grimm's view, as given in 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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 410. 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.

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.

§ 411. 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 {356} 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 _ear-rings_, 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.

§ 412. At times this rule seems to be violated. The words _spitfire_ and
_daredevil_ seem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the
case of a _spitfire_, that what he (or she) _spits_ is _fire_; and that, in
the case of a _daredevil_, 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 _spitfire_ voids his fire by spitting. A _daredevil_, in meeting
the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. A _spitfire_ is
not one who spits fire, but one whose fire is _spit_. A _daredevil_ is not
one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil is even dared.

§ 413. 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 {357} other, the former element is
active, the latter passive. Etymologically speaking, the former element, in
English compounds, is the most important.

§ 414. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the composition of
words; _e.g._, how nouns combine with nouns, as in _sunbeam_; nouns with
verbs, as in _daredevil_, &c. It is thought 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.

_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.--Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik,
iii. 405.

_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, in certain
cases, 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 _sunbeam_. 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.
This fact was foreshadowed in the Chapter upon Accents. {358}

§ 415. The attention of the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly
altered, from Churchill:--

  "Then rést, my friénd, _and spáre_ thy précious bréath."

On each of the syllables _rest_, _friend_, _spare_, _prec-_, _breath_,
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_, and so much on _spare_, that the disparity of accent is
very manifest.

Now, if in the place of _and_, there was 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 breath.--

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 separate 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.

§ 416. The difference between a compound word and two words is greatest
where the first is an adjective. This we see in comparing such terms as the
following: _bláck bírd_, meaning a _bird that is black_, with
_bláckbird_=the Latin _merula_; or _blúe béll_, meaning a _bell that is
blue_, with _blúebell_, the flower. {359} 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 four small classes of 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_.

The reader is now informed, that unless, in what has gone before, 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 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, expresses 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. {360} 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 the four
classes of exceptions) thus: _There is no true composition without either a
change of form or a change of accent._ As I wish to be clear upon this
point, I shall illustrate the statement by its application.

The word _trée-rose_ is often pronounced _trée róse_; that is, with the
accent at _par_. It is compound in the one case; it is two words in the

The words _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.

§ 417. 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_.



  Britannia needs no bulwarks,
    No towers along the steep;
  Her march is o'er the _mountain-wave_,
    Her home is on the deep.


To speak first of the word (or words) _gallant mast_. If _gallant_ mean
_brave_, there are _two words_. If the words be two, there {361} 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, make 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._

§ 418. _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 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; at the time in point each word having a separate and
independent existence: whilst, in a later stage of language, 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 _bishopric_. In the present language the word _ric_ has no separate
and independent existence. For all this, the word {362} 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_, Moeso-Gothic;=_like_, or _similis_, and equally with it
an independent separate word.

For the following words a separate independent root is presumed rather than
shown. It is presumed, however, on grounds that satisfy the etymologist.

_Mis-_, as in _misdeed_, &c.--Moeso-Gothic, _missô_=_in turns_; Old Norse,
_â mis_=_alternately_; Middle High German, _misse_=_mistake_. The original
notion _alternation_, thence _change_, thence _defect_. Compare the Greek
[Greek: allôs].--Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 470.

_Dom_, as in _wisdom_, &c.--The substantive _dôm_ presumed.--Deutsche
Grammatik, ii. 491.

_Hood_ and _head_, as in _Godhead_, _manhood_, &c.--The substantive
_háids_=_person_, _order_, _kind_, presumed.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 497.
Nothing to do with the word _head_.

_Ship_, as in _friendship_.--Anglo-Saxon, _-scipe_ and _-sceäft_; German,
_-schaft_; Moeso-Gothic, _gaskafts_=_a creature_, or _creation_. The
substantive _skafts_ or _skap_ presumed. The _-skip_ or _-scape_ in
_landskip_ is only an older form.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 522.

_Less_, as in _sleepless_, &c., has nothing to do with _less_. Derived from
_láus_, _lôs_, _destitute of_=Latin, _expers_.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii.

For the further details, which are very numerous, see the Deutsche
Grammatik, vol. iii.

§ 419. "Subject to four classes of 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 p. 359. The first class
of exceptions consists {363} 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 opposition 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 creates an
accent which otherwise would be absent. Hence words like _monkshóod_,
_well-héad_, and some others.

Real reduplications of consonants, as in _hop-pole_, 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.

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.

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 {364} we owe to the multiplicity of
elements (classical and Gothic) in the English language.

To anticipate objections to the rule respecting the disparity of accent, it
may be well to state in fresh terms a fact already indicated, viz., that
the same combination of words may in one sense be compound, and in the
other double (or two). _An uphill game_ gives us the combination _up_ +
_hill_ as a compound. _He ran up hill_ gives us the combination _up_ +
_hill_ as two words. So it is with _down_ + _hill_, _down_ + _right_, and
other words. _Man-servant_, _cock-sparrow_, &c., are double or compound, as
they are pronounced _mán-sérvant_, _mán-servant_, _cóck-spárrow_, or

The fourth class is hypothetical. I can, however, imagine that certain
compounds may, if used almost exclusively in poetry, and with the accent at
_par_, become so accented even in the current language.

§ 420. For a remark on the words _peacock_, _peahen_, see the Chapter upon
Gender.--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 p. 355. 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_); {365} _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_.

§ 421. It must be clear, _ex vi termini_, that in every compound word there
are 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 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_.

§ 422. _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.

§ 423. _Decomposites._--"Composition is the joining together of _two_
words."--See p. 357.

In the first edition the sentence ran "_two or more_" words; being so
written to account for compounds like _mid-ship-man_, {366}
_gentle-man-like_, &c., where the number of verbal elements seems to amount
to three.

Nevertheless, the caution was unnecessary. Compound radicals like _midship_
and _gentleman_, are, for the purposes of composition, single words.
Compounds wherein one element is compound are called decomposites.

§ 424. The present chapter closes with the notice of two classes of words.
They are mentioned now, not because they are compounds, but because they
can be treated of here more conveniently than elsewhere.

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_, and the
words quoted in p. 362. These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words
preserved in composition. The former give us obsolete words preserved in

The other words are etymological curiosities. They may occur in any
language. The English, however, from the extent of its classical element,
is particularly abundant in them. It is a mere accident that they are all
compound words.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 425. 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

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 {368} so called. I am not certain, however, that for so
doing there is any better reason than mere convenience. By some the decrees
of comparison are considered as points of inflection.

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.

§ 426. 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 can not do what was done
with the word _strength_, I can not 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 _handle_, &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 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 {369} element is
a vowel (as the _-ie_ in _doggie_); sometimes a 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. For the detail of the
derivative forms, see Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 89-405.

IV. _According to the historical origin of the derivational elements._--For
this see the Chapter upon Hybridism.

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.

§ 427. The list (taken from Walker) of words alluded to in p. 293, is as

  _Nouns._     _Verbs._

  Ábsent     absént.
  Ábstract   abstráct.
  Áccent     accént.
  Áffix      affíx.
  Aúgment    augmént.
  Cólleague  colléague.
  Cómpact    compáct.
  Cómpound   compóund.
  Cómpress   compréss.
  Cóncert    concért.
  Cóncrete   concréte.
  Cónduct    condúct.
  Cónfine    confíne.
  Cónflict   conflíct.
  Cónserve   consérve.
  Cónsort    consórt.
  Cóntract   contráct.
  Cóntrast   contrást.
  Cónverse   convérse.
  Cónvert    convért.
  Désert     desért.
  Déscant    descánt.
  Dígest     digést.
  Éssay      essáy.
  Éxtract    extráct.
  Férment    fermént.
  Fréquent   freqúent.
  Ímport     impórt.
  Íncense    incénse.
  Ínsult     insúlt.
  Óbject     objéct.
  Pérfume    perfúme.
  Pérmit     permít.
  Préfix     prefíx.
  Prémise    premíse.
  Présage    preságe.
  Présent    presént.
  Próduce    prodúce.
  Próject    projéct.
  Prótest    protést.
  Rébel      rebél.
  Récord     recórd.
  Réfuse     refúse.
  Súbject    subjéct.
  Súrvey     survéy.
  Tórment    tormént.
  Tránsfer   transfér.
  Tránsport. transpórt.

§ 428. _Churl_, _earl_, _owl_, _fowl_, _hail_, _nail_, _sail_, _snail_,
_tail_, _hazel_, _needle_, _soul_, _teazle_, _fair_, _beam_, _bottom_,
_arm_, _team_, _worm_, _heaven_, _morn_, _dust_, _ghost_, _breast_, _rest_,
_night_, _spright_, _blind_, _harp_, _flax_, _fox_, _finch_, _stork_, &c.
All these words, for certain etymological reasons, are currently
considered, by the latest philologists, as derivatives. Notwithstanding the
general prevalence of a fuller form in the Anglo-Saxon, it is clear that,
in respect to the evidence, they come under division B.

§ 429. Forms like _tip_, from _top_, _price_ and _prize_, &c., are of
importance in general etymology. Let it be received as a theory (as with
some philologists is really the case) that fragmentary sounds like the
_-en_ in _whiten_, the _-th_ in _strength_, &c., were once _words_; or,
changing the expression, let it be considered that all derivation was once
composition. Let this view be opposed. The first words that are brought to
militate against it are those like _tip_ and _prize_, where, instead of any
_addition_, there is only _a change_; and, consequently, no vestiges of an
older _word_. This argument, good as far as it goes, is rebutted in the
following manner. Let the word _top_ have attached to it a second word, in
which second word there is a small vowel. Let this small vowel act upon the
full one in _top_, changing it to _tip_. After this, let the second word be
ejected. We then get the form _tip_ by the law of accommodation, and not as
an immediate sign of derivation. The _i_ in _chick_ (from _cock_) may be
thus accounted for, the _-en_ in _chicken_ being supposed to have exerted,
first, an influence of accommodation, and afterwards to have fallen off.
The _i_ in _chick_ may, however, be accounted for by simple processes.

§ 430. 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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 431. _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. This division is
logical rather than etymological.

A division, however, which although logical bears upon etymology, is the

_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 degrees.

_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

Words like _better_ and _worse_ are adjectives or adverbs as they are
joined to nouns or verbs.

Adverbs differ from nouns and verbs in being susceptible of one sort of
inflection only, _viz._, that of degree.

Secondly, adverbs may be divided according to their form and origin. This
is truly an etymological classification.

A _Better, worse._--Here the combination of sounds gives equally an
adjective and an adverb. _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 [Greek: kalon]=[Greek:
kalôs], we have {372} 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.

B _Brightly, bravely._--Here an adjective is rendered adverbial by the
addition of the derivative syllable _-ly_. Adverbs like _brightly_, &c.,
may (laxly speaking) be called adverbs of derivation.

C _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

_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.

§ 432. The adverbs of deflection (of the chief importance in etymology) may
be arranged after a variety of principles. I. According to the part of
speech from whence they originate. This is often an adjective, often a
substantive, at times a pronoun, occasionally a preposition, rarely a verb.
II. According to the part of the inflection from whence they originate.
This is often an ablative case, often a neuter accusative, often a dative,
occasionally a genitive.

The following notices are miscellaneous rather than systematic.

_Else, unawares, eftsoons._--These are the genitive forms of adjectives.
_By rights_ is a word of the same sort.

_Once, twice, thrice._--These are the genitive forms of numerals.

_Needs_ (as in _needs must go_) is the genitive case of a substantive.

_Seldom._--The old dative (singular or plural) of the adjective _seld_.

_Whilom._--The dative (singular or plural) of the substantive _while_.

_Little, less, well._--Neuter accusatives of adjectives. _Bright_, in the
_sun shines bright_, is a word of the same class. The {373} neuter
accusative is a common source of adverbs in all tongues.

_Athwart._--A neuter accusative, and a word exhibiting the Norse neuter in

§ 433. _Darkling._--This is no participle of a verb _darkle_, but an adverb
of derivation, like _unwaringun_=_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.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 236.

§ 434. "Adverbs like _brightly_ may (laxly speaking) be called adverbs of
derivation." Such the assertion made a few paragraphs above. The first
circumstance that strikes the reader is, that the termination _-ly_ is
common both to adjectives and to adverbs. This termination was once an
independent word, _viz._, _leik_. Now, as _-ly_ sprung out of the
Anglo-Saxon _-lice_, and as words like _early_, _dearly_, &c., were
originally _arlîce_, _deorlîce_, &c., and as _arlîce_, _deorlîce_, &c.,
were adjectives, the adverbs in _-ly_ are (_strictly speaking_) adverbs,
not of derivation, but of deflection.

It is highly probable that not only the adverbs of derivation, but that
also the absolute adverbs, may eventually be reduced to adverbs of
deflection. For _now_, see Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 249.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 435. 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

§ 436. 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.

§ 437. This may be seen in the following table, illustrative of the forms
_here_, _hither_, _hence_, and taken from the Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 199.

  _Moeso-Gothic_         þar, þaþ, þaþro,         _there, thither, thence_.
                         hêr, hiþ, hidrô,         _here, hither, hence_.
  _Old High German_      huâr, huara, huanana,    _where, whither, whence_.
                         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 German_   dâ, dan,dannen,          _there, thither, thence_.
                         wâ, war, wannen,         _where, whither, whence_.
                         hie, hër, hennen,        _here, hither, hence_.
  _Modern High German_   da, dar, dannen,         _there, thither, thence_.
                         wo, wohin, wannen,       _where, whither, whence_.
                         hier, her, hinnen,       _here, hither, hence_.

§ 438. These local terminations were commoner in the earlier stages of
language than at present. The following are from the Moeso-Gothic:--

  Ïnnaþrô   = _from within_.
  [=U]taþrô = _from without_.
  Ïnnaþrô   = _from above_.
  Fáirraþrô = _from afar_.
  Allaþrô   = _from all quarters_.

Now a reason for the comparative frequency of these forms in Moeso-Gothic
lies in the fact of the Gospel of Ulphilas being a translation from the
Greek. The Greek forms in [Greek: -then, esôthen, exôthen, anôthen,
porrhôthen, pantothen], were just the forms to encourage such a formation
as that in _-þro_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 199, &c.

§ 439. 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 statement, however, explains only the peculiarity of their
orthography; since it by no means follows, that, because the _-s_ in _ones_
and the _-s_ in _whennes_, _thennes_ are equally replaced by _-ce_ in
orthography, they must equally have the same origin in etymology.

§ 440. _Yonder._--In the Moeso-Gothic we have the following forms:
_jáinar_, _jáina_, _jáinþrô_=_illic_, _illuc_, _illinc_. They do not,
however, explain the form _yon-d-er_. It is not clear whether the _d_=the
_-d_ in _jâind_, or the _þ_ in _jáinþro_.

_Anon_, as 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, {376} _ënentlig_,
_jenunt_=_beyond_. The transition from the idea of _place_ to that of
_time_ is shown in the Old High German, _nâhunt_, and the Middle High
German, _vërnent_=_lately_; the first from the root _nigh_, the latter from
the root _far_.--See Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 215.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 441. 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 pronominal in origin.

As to the word _than_, the conjunction of comparison, it is a variety of
_then_; the notions of _order_, _sequence_, and _comparison_ being allied.

_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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 442. _Prepositions._--Prepositions, as such, are wholly unsusceptible of
inflection. Other parts of speech, in a state of inflection, may be used
with a prepositional sense. This, however, is not an inflection of

No word is ever made a preposition by the addition of a derivational[59]
element. If it were not for this, the practical classification of the
prepositions, in respect to their form, would coincide with that of the
adverbs. As it is, there are only the prepositions of deflection, and the
absolute prepositions. On another principle of division there are the
simple prepositions (_in_, _on_, &c.), and the complex prepositions
(_upon_, _roundabout_, _across_).

The prepositions of deflection, when simple, originate chiefly in adverbs,
as _up_, _down_, _within_, _without_, unless, indeed, we change the
assertion, and say that the words in point (and the others like them) are
adverbs originating in prepositions. The absence of characteristic
terminations renders these decisions difficult.

The prepositions of deflection, when complex, originate chiefly in nouns,
accompanied by an absolute preposition; as _instead of_ of substantival,
_between_ of adjectival origin.

The absolute prepositions, in the English language, are _in_, _on_, _of_,
_at_, _up_, _by_, _to_, _for_, _from_, _till_, _with_, _through_.

§ 443. _Conjunctions._--Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly
unsusceptible of inflection. Like prepositions they {379} are never made by
means of a derivational element. Like prepositions they are either simple
(as _and_, _if_), or complex (as _also_, _nevertheless_).

The conjunctions of deflection originate chiefly in imperative moods (as
_all_ save _one_, _all_ except _one_); participles used like the ablative
absolute in Latin (as _all_ saving _one_, _all_ excepting _one_); adverbs
(as _so_); prepositions (as _for_); and relative neuters (as _that_).

The absolute conjunctions in the English language are _and_, _or_, _but_,

§ 444. _Yes, no._--Although _not_ may be reduced to an adverb, _nor_ to a
conjunction, and _none_ to a noun, these two words (the direct affirmative,
and the direct negative) are referable to none of the current parts of
speech. Accurate grammar places them in a class by themselves.

§ 445. _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 affirmatives; 3, direct negatives;
4, absolute conjunctions; 5, absolute prepositions; 6, adverbs
unsusceptible of degrees of comparison; 7, inseparable prefixes.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 446. 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._--Laying aside the habit of the Germans and other nations,
of using the third person plural for the second singular (as in expressions
like _wie befinden sie sich_ = _how do they find themselves?_ instead of
_how do you find yourself?_) the Greek language gives us examples of
interchange in the way of persons in the promiscuous use of [Greek: nin,
min, sphe], and [Greek: heautou]; 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. {381}

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.

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_. Are they genitive cases of a personal pronoun, as _mei_
and _tui_ are supposed to be in Latin, or are they possessive pronouns like
_meus_ and _tuus_?

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; of which _my_ and _thy_ have been dealt with as
abbreviated forms, and that by respectable scholars.

Now, to prove from the syntax of the older English that in many cases the
two forms were convertible, and to answer that the words in question are
_either_ genitive cases or adjectives, is lax philology; since the real
question is, _which of the two is the primary, and which the secondary

§ 447. The _à priori_ view of the likelihood of words like _mine_ and
_thine_ being genitive cases, must be determined by the comparison of three
series of facts.

1. The ideas expressed by the genitive case, with particular reference to
the two preponderating notions of possession and partition. {382}

2. The circumstance of the particular notion of possession being, in the
case of the personal pronouns of the two first persons singular, generally
expressed by a form undoubtedly adjectival.

3. The extent to which the idea of partition becomes merged in that of
possession, and _vice versâ_.

§ 448. _The ideas of possession and partition as expressed by genitive
forms._--If we take a hundred genitive cases, and observe their
construction, we shall find, that, with a vast majority of them, the
meaning is reducible to one of two heads; _viz._, the idea of possession or
the idea of partition.

Compared with these two powers all the others are inconsiderable, both in
number and importance; and if, as in the Greek and Latin languages, they
take up a large space in the grammars, it is from their exceptional
character rather than from their normal genitival signification.

Again, if both the ideas of possession and partition may, and in many cases
must be, reduced to the more general idea of relation, this is a point of
grammatical phraseology by no means affecting the practical and special
bearings of the present division.

§ 449. _The adjectival expression of the idea of possession._--All the
world over, a property is a possession; and _persons_, at least, may be
said to be the owners of their attributes. Whatever may be the nature of
words like _mine_ and _thine_, the adjectival character of their Latin
equivalents, _meus_ and _tuus_, is undoubted.

_The ideas of partition and possession merge into one another._--_A man's
spade is the_ possession _of a man; a man's hand is the_ part _of a man._
Nevertheless, when a man uses his hand as the instrument of his will, the
idea which arises from the fact of its being _part_ of his body is merged
in the idea of the possessorship which arises from the feeling of ownership
or mastery which is evinced in its subservience and application. Without
following the refinements to which the further investigation of these
questions would lead us, it is sufficient to suggest that the preponderance
of the two allied ideas of partition and possession is often determined by
the {383} personality or the non-personality of the subject, and that, when
the subject is a person, the idea is chiefly possessive; when a thing,
partitive--_caput fluvii_=_the head, which is a part, of a river_; _caput
Toli_=_the head, which is the possession, of Tolus_.

But as persons may be degraded to the rank of things, and as things may, by
personification, be elevated to the level of persons, this distinction,
although real, may become apparently invalid. In phrases like a _tributary
to the Tiber_--_the criminal lost his eye_--_this field belongs to that
parish_--the ideas of possessorship and partition, as allied ideas
subordinate to the idea of relationship in general, verify the interchange.

§ 450. These observations should bring us to the fact that there are two
ideas which, more than any other, determine the evolution of a genitive
case--the idea of partition and the idea of possession; _and that genitive
cases are likely to be evolved just in proportion as there is a necessity
for the expression of these two ideas_.--Let this be applied to the
question of the à priori probability of the evolution of a genitive case to
the pronouns of the first and second persons of the singular number.

§ 451. _The idea of _possession_, and its likelihood of determining the
evolution of a genitive form to the pronouns of the first and second person
singular._ --It is less likely to do so with such pronouns than with other
words, inasmuch as it is less necessary. It has been before observed, that
the practice of most languages shows a tendency to express the relation by
adjectival forms--_meus_, _tuus_.

An objection against the conclusiveness of this argument will be mentioned
in the sequel.

§ 452. _The idea of _partition_, and its likelihood of determining the
evolution of a genitive form, &c._--Less than with other words.

A personal pronoun of the _singular_ number is the name of a unity, and, as
such, the name of an object far less likely to be separated into parts than
the name of a collection. Phrases like, _some of them_, _one of you_, _many
of us_, _any of them_, _few of us_, &c., have no analogues in the singular
number, such as _one of me_, _a few of thee_, &c. The partitive words that
can {384} combine with singular pronouns are comparatively few; _viz._,
_half_, _quarter_, _part_, &c.: and they can all combine equally with
plurals--_half of us_, _a quarter of them_, _a part of you_, _a portion of
us_. The partition of a singular object with a pronominal name is of rare
occurrence in language.

This last statement proves something more than appears at first sight. It
proves that no argument in favour of the so-called _singular_ genitives,
like _mine_ and _thine_, can be drawn from the admission (if made) of the
existence of the true plural genitives _ou-r_, _you-r_, _thei-r_. The two
ideas are not in the same predicament. We can say, _one of ten_, or _ten of
twenty_; but we cannot say _one of one_--_Wæs hira Matheus sum_=_Matthew
was one of them_; Andreas--_Your noither_=_neither of you_; Amis and
Ameloun--from Mr. Guest: _Her eyder_=_either of them_; Octavian.--Besides
this, the form of the two numbers are neither identical, nor equally
genitival; as may be seen by contrasting _mi-n_ and _thi-n_ with _ou-r_ and

§ 453. Such are the chief _à priori_ arguments against the genitival
character of words like _mine_ and _thine_.

Akin to these, and a point which precedes the _à posteriori_ evidence as to
the nature of the words in question, is the determination of the side on
which lies the _onus probandi_. This question is material; inasmuch as,
although the present writer believes, for his own part, that the forms
under discussion are adjectival rather than genitival, this is not the
point upon which he insists. What he insists upon is the fact of the
genitival character of _mine_ and _thine_ requiring a particular proof;
which particular proof no one has yet given: in other words, his position
is that they are not to be thought genitive until proved to be such.

It has not been sufficiently considered that the _primâ facie_ evidence is
against them. They have not the form of a genitive case--indeed, they have
a different one; and whoever assumes a second form for a given case has the
burden of proof on his side.

§ 454. Against this circumstance of the _-n_ in _mine_ and _thine_ being
the sign of anything rather than of a genitive case, and against the _primâ
facie_ evidence afforded by it, the {385} following facts may, or have
been, adduced as reasons on the other side. The appreciation of their
value, either taken singly or in the way of cumulative evidence, is
submitted to the reader. It will be seen that none of them are

§ 455. _The fact, that, if the words _mine_ and _thine_ are not genitive
cases, there is not a genitive case at all._--It is not necessary that
there should be one. Particular reasons in favour of the probability of
personal pronouns of the singular number being destitute of such a case
have been already adduced. _It is more likely that a word should be
defective than that it should have a separate form._

§ 456. _The analogy of the forms _mei_ and _[Greek: emou]_ in Latin and
Greek._--It cannot be denied that this has some value. Nevertheless, the
argument deducible from it is anything but conclusive.

1. It is by no means an indubitable fact that _mei_ and [Greek: emou] are
really cases of the pronoun. The _extension_ of a principle acknowledged in
the Greek language might make them the genitive cases of adjectives used
pronominally. Thus,

  [Greek: To emon]   =  [Greek: egô],
  [Greek: Tou emou]  =  [Greek: emou],
  [Greek: Tôi emôi]  =  [Greek: emoi].

Assume the omission of the article and the extension of the Greek principle
to the Latin language, and [Greek: emou] and _mei_ may be cases, not of
[Greek: eme] and _me_, but of [Greek: emos] and _meus_.

2. In the classical languages the partitive power was expressed by the

 "---- multaque pars mei
  Vitabit Libitinam."

This is a reason for the evolution of a genitive power. Few such forms
exist in the Gothic; _part my_ is not English, nor was _dæl min_
Anglo-Saxon,=_part of me_, or _pars mei_.

§ 457. The following differences of form, are found in the different Gothic
languages, between the equivalents of _mei_ and _tui_, the so-called
genitives of _ego_ and _tu_, and the equivalents of _meus_ and _tuus_, the
so-called possessive adjectives. {386}

  _Moeso-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 this list, those languages where the two forms are alike are not
exhibited. This is the case with the Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon.

In the above-noticed 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.

§ 458. 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.

§ 459. _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 {387} 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. Such
is the general statement. Reasons for believing that in the particular
cases of the words in question such is the fact, will be found hereafter.

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. _Cujus_ (as in _cujum pecus_) and _sestertium_
are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one.

§ 460. _Syntactic evidence._--If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions
as _dæl min_=_pars mei_, _hælf þin_=_dimidium tui_, we should have a
reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a genitive
with a partitive power. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted;
whilst, even if quoted, they would not be _conclusive_. Expressions like
[Greek: sos pothos]=_desiderium tui_, [Greek: sê promêthiai] = _providentiâ
propter te_, show the extent to which the possessive expression encroaches
on the partitive.

1. The words _min_ or _þin_, with a power anything rather than possessive,
would not for that reason be proved (on the strength of their meaning) to
be genitive cases rather than possessive pronouns; since such latitude in
the power of the possessive pronoun is borne out by the comparison of
languages--[Greek: pater hêmôn] (not [Greek: hêmeteros]) in Greek is _pater
noster_ (not _nostrum_) in Latin.

§ 461. 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,
_min_ra=_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 {388} 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 (real or apparent)
exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.

Such instances have yet to be quoted; whilst even if quoted, they would not
be conclusive.

§ 462. A few references to the _Deutsche Grammatik_ will explain this.

As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of
the omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the _neuter
singular_ sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms,
_nim thata badi theinata_=[Greek: aron sou ton krabbaton] (Mark ii. 9.)
opposed to _nim thata badi thein_ two verses afterwards. So also with
_mein_ and _meinata_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 470. 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

_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.--Deutsche Grammatik, 474-478.

_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_.--Deutsche Grammatik, 480. 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 Moeso-Gothic we have _mein leik_ and _leik
meinata_.--Deutsche Grammatik, 470.

§ 463. Now by assuming (which is only a fair assumption) 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 {389} after their nouns), we explain these constructions by
a process which, in the mind of the present writer, is involved in fewer
difficulties than the opposite doctrine of a genitive case, in words where
it is not wanted, and with a termination which is foreign to it elsewhere.

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_.--See pp. 251-253.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 464. The remote origin of the weak præterite in _-d_ or _-t_, has been
considered by Grimm, in the Deutsche Grammatik. 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
Moeso-Gothic we have something more, _viz._ the termination _-dêdum_; as
_nas-idêdum_, _nas-idêduþ_, _nas-idêdum_, from _nas-ja_; _sôk-idêdum_,
_sôk-idêduþ_, _sôk-idêdum_ from _sôk-ja_; _salb-ôdêdum_, _salb-ôdêduþ_,
_sâlb-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-ôdêdi_, _salb-ôdêdeits_,
_salb-ôdêdeima_, _salb-ôdêdeiþ_, _salb-ôdêdeina_. The English phrase, _we
did salve_, as compared with _salb-ôdêdum_, is confirmatory of
this.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1042.

§ 465. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic præterite, in the
Transactions of the Philological Society, induce me 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 [Greek: tuph-th-eis].

l. 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; and the
fact of its being so accounts for {391} the apparently remarkable fact of
its inflection. 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 language, the Slavonic gives us the undoubted fact of an
active præterite growing out of a passive participle (unless, indeed, we
chose to say that both are derived from a common origin); and as the
English participle and præterite, when weak, are nearly identical, we have
reason for believing that the _d_, in the English active præterite, is the
_t_ in the Latin passive participle.

§ 466. The following extract exhibits Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic

    "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:

      _Yasam 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_."

       *       *       *       *       *







§ 467. 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 studied syntax.

Much that is considered by the generality of grammarians as syntax, can
either be omitted altogether, or else be better studied under another name.

§ 468. To reduce a sentence to its elements, and to show that these
elements are, 1, the subject, 2, the predicate, 3, the copula; to
distinguish between simple terms and complex terms,--this is the department
of logic.

To show the difference in force of expression, between such a sentence as
_great is Diana of the Ephesians_, and _Diana of the Ephesians is great_,
wherein the natural order of the subject and predicate is reversed, is a
point of rhetoric.

_I am moving._--To state that such a combination as _I am moving_ is
grammatical, is undoubtedly a point of syntax. Nevertheless it is a point
better explained in a separate treatise, than in a work upon any particular
language. The expression proves its correctness by the simple fact of its
universal intelligibility.

_I speaks._--To state that such a combination as _I speaks_, {393}
admitting that _I_ is exclusively the pronoun in the first person, and that
_speaks_ is exclusively the verb in the third, is undoubtedly a point of
syntax. Nevertheless, it is a point which is better explained in a separate
treatise, than in a work upon any particular language. An expression so
ungrammatical, involves a contradiction in terms, which unassisted common
sense can deal with. This position will again be reverted to.

_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.

_I am speaking, I was reading._--There was a stage in the Gothic languages
when these forms were either inadmissible, or rare. Instead thereof, we had
the present tense, _I speak_, and the past, _I spoke_. The same is the case
with the classical languages in the classical stage. To determine the
difference in idea between these pairs of forms is a matter of metaphysics.
To determine at what period each idea came to have a separate mode of
expression is a matter of the _history_ of language. For example, _vas
láisands_ appears in Ulphilas (Matt. vii. 29). There, it appears as a rare
form, and as a literal translation of the Greek [Greek: ên didaskôn] (_was
teaching_). The Greek form itself was, however, an unclassical expression
for [Greek: edidaske]. In Anglo-Saxon this mode of speaking became common,
and in English it is commoner still.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 5. This is a
point of idiom involved with one of history.

_Swear by your sword--swear on your sword._--Which of these two expressions
is right? This depends on what the speaker means. If he mean _make your
oath in the full remembrance of the trust you put in your sword, and with
the imprecation, therein implied, that it shall fail you, or turn against
you if you speak falsely_, the former expression is the right one. But, if
he mean swear _with your hand upon your sword_, it is the latter which
expresses his meaning. To take a different view of this question, and to
write as a rule that {394} _verbs of swearing are followed by the
preposition on_ (or _by_) is to mistake the province of the grammar.
Grammar tells no one what he should wish to say. It only tells him how what
he wishes to say should be said.

Much of the criticism on the use of _will_ and _shall_ is faulty in this
respect. _Will_ expresses one idea of futurity, _shall_ another. The syntax
of the two words is very nearly that of any other two. That one of the
words is oftenest used with a first person, and the other with a second, is
a fact, as will be seen hereafter, connected with the nature of _things_,
not of words.

§ 469. The following question now occurs. If the history of forms of speech
be one thing, and the history of idioms another; if this question be a part
of logic, and that question a part of rhetoric; and if such truly
grammatical facts as government and concord are, as matters of common
sense, to be left uninvestigated and unexplained, what remains as syntax?
This is answered by the following distinction. There are two sorts of
syntax; theoretical and practical, scientific and historical, pure and
mixed. Of these, the first consists in the analysis and proof of those
rules which common practice applies without investigation, and common sense
appreciates, in a rough and gross manner, from an appreciation of the
results. This is the syntax of government and concord, or of those points
which find no place in the present work, for the following reason--_they
are either too easy or too hard for it_. If explained scientifically they
are matters of close and minute reasoning; if exhibited empirically they
are mere rules for the memory. Besides this they are universal facts of
languages in general, and not the particular facts of any one language.
Like other universal facts they are capable of being expressed
symbolically. That the verb (A) agrees with its pronoun (B) is an immutable
fact: or, changing the mode of expression, we may say that language can
only fulfil its great primary object of intelligibility when A = B. And so
on throughout. A formal syntax thus exhibited, and even devised _à priori_,
is a philological possibility. And it is also the measure of philological
anomalies. {395}

§ 470. _Pure syntax._--So much for one sort of syntax; _viz._, that portion
of grammar which bears the same relation to the practice of language, that
the investigation of the syllogism bears to the practice of reasoning. The
positions concerning it are by no means invalidated by such phrases as _I
speaks_ (for _I speak_), &c. In cases like these there is no contradiction;
since the peculiarity of the expression consists not in joining two
incompatible persons, but in mistaking a third person for a first--_and as
far as the speaker is concerned, actually making it so_. I must here
anticipate some objections that may be raised to these views, by stating
that I am perfectly aware that they lead to a conclusion which to most
readers must appear startling and to some monstrous, _viz._, to the
conclusion that _there is no such thing as bad grammar at all_; _that
everything is what the speaker chooses to make it_; _that a speaker may
choose to make any expression whatever, provided it answer the purpose of
language, and be intelligible_; _that, in short, whatever is is right_.
Notwithstanding this view of the consequence I still am satisfied with the
truth of the premises. I may also add that the terms _pure_ and _mixed_,
themselves suggestive of much thought on the subject which they express,
are not mine but Professor Sylvester's.

§ 471. _Mixed syntax._--That, notwithstanding the previous limitations,
there is still a considerable amount of syntax in the English, as in all
other languages, may be seen from the sequel. If I undertook to indicate
the essentials of mixed syntax, I should say that they consisted in the
explanation of combinations _apparently_ ungrammatical; in other words,
that they ascertained the results of those causes which disturb the
regularity of the pure syntax; that they measured the extent of the
deviation; and that they referred it to some principle of the human
mind--so accounting for it.

_I am going._--Pure syntax explains this.

_I have gone._--Pure syntax will not explain this. Nevertheless, the
expression is good English. The power, however, of both _have_ and _gone_
is different from the usual power of those words. This difference mixed
syntax explains. {396}

§ 472. Mixed syntax requires two sorts of knowledge--metaphysical, and

1. To account for such a fact in language as the expression _the man as
rides to market_, instead of the usual expression _the man who rides to
market_, is a question of what is commonly called metaphysics. The idea of
comparison is the idea common to the words _as_ and _who_.

2. To account for such a fact in language as the expression _I have ridden
a horse_ is a question of history. We must know that when there was a sign
of an accusative case in English the word _horse_ had that sign; in other
words that the expression was, originally, _I have a horse as a ridden
thing_. These two views illustrate each other.

§ 473. 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.

§ 474. _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.

§ 475. _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

§ 476. _Pleonasm_ (from the Greek _pleonazein_=_to be in excess_) occurs in
sentences like _the king, he reigns_. Here the word _he_ is superabundant.
In many _pleonastic_ {397} expressions we may suppose an interruption of
the sentence, and afterwards an abrupt renewal of it; as _the king_--_he

The fact of the word _he_ neither qualifying nor explaining the word
_king_, distinguishes pleonasm from apposition.

Pleonasm, as far as the view above is applicable, is reduced to what is,
apparently, its opposite, _viz._, ellipsis.

_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.

§ 477. _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).

§ 478. _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_). {398}

§ 479. _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.

§ 480. _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
_is_. {399}

§ 481. _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 reasoning applies to phrases like _the two king Williams_. If we
say _the two kings William_, we must account for the phrase by apposition.

§ 482. _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

§ 483. _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 language. 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, {400} 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.

§ 484. _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.

§ 485. _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_.

§ 486. _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.

§ 487. _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_. {401}

So in the expression _one long now_, the word _now_=_present time_.

§ 488. 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

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 489. The phenomena of convertibility have been already explained.

The remaining points connected with the syntax of substantives, are chiefly
points of either ellipsis, or apposition.

_Ellipsis of substantives._--The historical view of phrases, like _Rundell
and Bridge's_, _St. Pauls'_, &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.

A. 1. The words most commonly understood, are _house_ and _family_, or
words reducible to them. In Latin, _Dianæ_=_ædem Dianæ_.--Deutsche
Grammatik, iv. 262.

2. _Country, retinue._--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262.

3. _Son_, _daughter_, _wife_, _widow_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv.
262.--[Greek: Nêleus Kodrou], Greek.

B. The following phrases are referable to a different class of relations--

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.

From expressions like [Greek: potêrion psuchrou] (Matt. xiv. 51), {403}
from the Greek, and _perfundit gelido_ (understand _latice_), from the
Latin, we find that the present ellipsis was used with greater latitude in
the classical languages than our own.

§ 490. _Proper names can only be used in the singular number._--This is a
rule of logic, rather than of grammar. When we say _the four Georges_, _the
Pitts and Camdens_, &c., the words that thus take a plural form, have
ceased to be proper names. They either mean--

1. The persons called _George_, &c.

2. Or, persons so like _George_, that they may be considered as identical.

§ 491. _Collocation._--In the present English, the genitive case always
precedes the noun by which it is governed--_the man's hat_=_hominis
pileus_; never _the hat man's_=_pileus hominis_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 492. _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.

§ 493. _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_.

§ 494. _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 {405} 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.

The most that can be said, in cases like these, is that particular
adjectives determine the use of particular prepositions--thus the
preposition _of_, generally follows the adjective _full_, &c.

§ 495. 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 villanous_      _villanouser_.

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,

§ 496. The 9th Chapter of Part IV., should be read carefully. There, there
is indicated a refinement upon the current notions as to the power of the
comparative degree, {406} 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_.

§ 497. 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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 498. The syntax of substantives is, in English, simple, from the paucity
of its inflections, a condition which is unfavourable towards the evolution
of constructional complexities; the most remarkable exception being the
phenomenon of convertibility noticed above.

The same is the case with adjectives. The want of inflexion simplifies
their syntax equally with that of the substantives.

But with the pronouns this is not the case. Here we have--

1. Signs of gender; 2. Signs of case; 3. Signs of number, to a greater
extent, and with more peculiarities, than elsewhere.

Furthermore, the pronouns exhibit in a great degree the phenomena of
conversion indicated in p. 400.

§ 499. _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.

§ 500. 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. {408}

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 to be _he_ + _his_.

5. The _-s_ in _father's_ is the _-is_ in _patris_, and the -[Greek: os] in
[Greek: pateros].

§ 501. 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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 502. _Personal pronouns._--The use of the second person plural instead of
the second singular has been noticed in p. 246. This use of one number for
another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used is
conveniently called the _pronomen reverentiæ_.

§ 503. In English, however, there is a second change over and above the
change of number, _viz._ that of case. We not only say _ye_ instead of
_thou_, but _you_ instead of _ye_.--(See p. 245).

Mr. Guest remarks, "that at one time the two forms _ye_ and _you_ seem to
have been nearly changing place in our language.

  As I have made _ye_ one, Lords, one remain;
  So I grow stronger _you_ more honour gain.

  _Henry VIII._ 4, 2.

  What gain _you_ by forbidding it to teaze _ye_,
  It now can neither trouble you nor please _ye_.


In German and the Danish the _pronomen reverentiæ_ is got at by a change,
not of number, but of person--in other words, the pronoun of the _third_
person is used instead of that of the _second_; just as if, in the English,
we said _will they walk_=_will you walk_, _will ye walk_, _wilt thou walk_.

§ 504. _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_. It occurs more
frequently in the Latin than in the {410} English, and more frequently in
the Greek than in the Latin.

§ 505. _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 two first 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.

§ 506. _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_) {411} 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.

§ 507. _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_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 508. Reasons have been given in p. 249, for considering the so-called
pronouns of the third person (_he_, _she_, _it_, _they_) demonstrative
rather than truly personal.

§ 509. 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_.

§ 510. From p. 250, it may be seen 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. This has been
illustrated by Mr. Guest.

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_ flavour, 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_


"The genitive _its_ is of late introduction into our language. Though used
by our dramatists and many of their cotemporaries, it does not occur in the
versions of our Bible, the substitute being _his_ or the compound term
_thereof_."--Phil. Trans., No. 25.

§ 511. For the archaic and provincial use of _him_ and _he_ for _it_ see
_ibid._; remembering that the two cases are different. _His_ for _its_ is
an old form retained: _him_ and _he_ for _it_ are really changes of gender.

§ 512. _Take them things away._--Here we have _them_ for _those_. The
expression, although not to be imitated, is explained by the originally
demonstrative power of _them_.

Sometimes the expression is still more anomalous, and we hear the so-called
nominative case used instead of the accusative. In the expression _take
they things away_, the use of _they_ for _them_ (itself for _those_) is
similarly capable of being, down to a certain period of our language,
explained as an archaism. The original accusative was _þa_, and _þo_: the
form in _-m_ being dative.

§ 513. _This_ and _that_.--The remarks upon the use of these words in
certain expressions is brought at once to the Latin scholar by the
quotation of the two following lines from Ovid, and the suggestion of a
well-known rule in the Eton Latin Grammar.

  _Quocunque aspicies nihil est nisi pontus et aer;_
    _Nubibus hic tumidus, fluctibus ille minax._

Here _hic_ (=_this_ or _the one_) refers to the antecedent last named (the
_air_); whilst _ille_ (=_that_ or _the other_) refers to the antecedent
first named (the _sea_).

Now on the strength of this example, combined with others, it is laid down
as a rule in Latin that _hic_ (_this_) refers to the last-named antecedent,
_ille_ to the first-named.

§ 514. What is the rule in English?

Suppose we say _John's is a good sword and so is Charles's_; _this cut
through a thick rope, the other cut through an iron rod_. Or instead of
saying _this_ and _that_ we may say _the one_ and _the other_. It is clear
that, in determining to which of the {414} two swords the respective
demonstratives refer, the meaning will not help us at all, so that our only
recourse is to the rules of grammar; and it is the opinion of the present
writer that the rules of grammar will help us just as little. The Latin
rule is adopted by scholars, but still it is a Latin rule rather than an
English one.

The truth is, that it is a question which no authority can settle; and all
that grammar can tell us is (what we know without it) that _this_ refers to
the name of the idea which is logically the most close at hand, and _that_
to the idea which is logically the most distant.

What constitutes nearness or distance of ideas, in other words, what
determines the sequence of ideas is another question. That the idea,
however, of sequence, and, consequently of logical proximity and logical
distance, is the fundamental idea in regard to the expressions in question
is evident from the very use of the words _this_ and _that_.

Now the sequence of ideas is capable of being determined by two tests.

1. The idea to which the name was last given, or (changing the expression)
the name of the last idea may be the nearest idea in the order of sequence,
and, consequently, the idea referred to by the pronoun of proximity. In
this case the idea closest at hand to the writer of the second line of the
couplet quoted above was the idea of the _atmosphere_ (_aer_), and it was,
consequently, expressed by (_this_) _hic_.

2. Or the idea to which the name was first given, or (changing the
expression) the name of the first idea may be the nearest idea in the order
of sequence, and consequently the idea referred to it by the pronoun of
proximity; inasmuch as the idea which occurs first is the most prominent
one, and what is prominent appears near. In this case, the idea closest at
hand to the writer of the second line of the couplet quoted above would
have been the idea of the _sea_ (_pontus_), and it would, consequently,
have been the idea expressed by _this_ (_hic_).

As Ovid, however, considered the idea at the end of the last half of one
sentence to be the idea nearest to the {415} beginning of the next, we have
him expressing himself as he does. On the other hand, it is easy to
conceive a writer with whom the nearest idea is the idea that led the way
to the others.

As I believe that one and the same individual may measure the sequence of
his ideas sometimes according to one of these principles, and sometimes
according to another, I believe that all rules about the relations of
_this_ and _that_ are arbitrary.

It is just a matter of chance whether a thinker take up his line of ideas
by the end or by the beginning. The analogies of such expressions as the
following are in favour of _this_, in English, applying to the _first_
subject, _that_ to the _second_; since the word _attorney_ takes the place
of _this_, and applies to the first name of the two, _i. e._, to _Thurlow_.

    "It was a proud day for the bar when Lord North made Thurlow (1) and
    (2) Wedderburn (1) Attorney (2) and Solicitor General."--_Mathias from
    Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors._

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 515. The undoubted constructions of the word _self_, in the present state
of the cultivated English, are three-fold.

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

2. _Apposition._--In _him-self_ and _them-selves_, when accusative, the
construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun.
_Him-self_=_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.

§ 516. _Her-self._--The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of the
preceding constructions. Which, however it is, {417} is uncertain; since
_her_ may be either a so-called genitive, like _my_, or an accusative like

_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

§ 517. In the exhibition of the second construction of the word _self_ it
was assumed that the case was a case of apposition, and that _self_ was
substantival in character. Nevertheless, this is by no means a necessary
phenomenon. _Self_ might, as far as its power is determined by its
construction alone, in words like _himself_ as easily be an adjective as a
substantive. In which case the construction would be a matter, not of
apposition, but of _agreement_. To illustrate this by the Latin language,
_himself_, might equal either _eum personam_ (_him, the person_), or _eum
personalem_ (_him personal_). The evidence, however, of the forms like
_myself_, as well as other facts adduceable from comparative philology,
prove the substantival character of _self_. On the other hand, it ought not
to be concealed that another word, whereof the preponderance of the
adjectival over the substantival power is undoubted, is found in the Old
English, with just the same inconsistency as the word _self_; _i.e._,
sometimes in government (like a substantive), and sometimes in either
concord or apposition, like a word which may be _either_ substantive or
adjective. This word is _one_; the following illustrations of which are
from Mr. Guest.--_Phil. Trans. No. 22._

  In this world wote I no knight,
  Who durst _his one_ with hym fight.

  _Ipomedon_, 1690.

                  þah ha _hire ane_ were
  Ayein so kene keisere and al his kine riche.

  _St. Catherine_, 90.

                  Though she _alone_ were
  Against so fierce a kaiser, and all his kingdom.

Here _his one_, _her one_, mean _his singleness_, _her singleness_.

            He made his mone
  Within a garden all _him one_.

  GOWER, _Confess. Amant._


Here _him one_ = _himself_ in respect to its construction.

§ 518. As to the inflection of the word _-self_, all its compounds are
substantives; inasmuch as they all take plural forms as far as certain
logical limitations will allow them to do so--_ourselves_, _yourselves_,

_Myself_, _thyself_, _himself_, _itself_, and _herself_, are naturally
singular, and under no circumstances can become plural.

_Themselves_ is naturally plural, and under no circumstances can become

_Ourselves_ and _yourselves_ are naturally plural; yet under certain
circumstances they become singular.

_a._ Just as men say _we_ for _I_, so may they say _our_ for _my_.

_b._ Just as men say _you_ for _thou_, so may they say _your_ for _thy_.

In respect to the inflection in the way of case, there are no logical
limitations whatever. There is nothing against the existence of a genitive
form _self's_ except the habit of the English language not to use one,
founded on the little necessity for so doing.--_Are you sure this is your
own?_ _Yes, I am sure it is my own self's._ Such an expression is both
logic and grammar.

When an adjective intervenes between _self_ and its personal pronoun the
construction is always in the way of government; in other words, the
personal pronoun is always put in the genitive case.

  His own self, _not_ him own self.
  Their own selves, _not_ them own selves.

§ 519. The construction of _self_ and a personal pronoun with a verb may be
noticed in this place. It is only in the case of the two pronouns of the
singular number that any doubt can arise.

1. When _myself_ or _thyself_ stands alone, the verb that follows is in the
third person--_myself is_ (not _am_) _weak_, _thyself is_ (not _art_)
_weak_. Here the construction is just the same as in the proposition _my
body is weak_.

2. When _myself_ or _thyself_ is preceded by _I_ or _thou_, the verb that
follows is in the first person--_I, myself, am_ (not _is_) _weak_; _thou,
thyself, art_ (not _is_) _weak_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 520. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first class
contains the forms connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in
their syntax, with _my_ and _thy_, &c. The second class contains the forms
connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in their syntax, with
_mine_ and _thine_, &c.

The first class is the class of what may be called the _oblique_
possessives; the name being founded upon the etymological fact of their
being connected with the oblique cases of the pronominal inflection.--_My_,
_thy_, _his_ (as in _his book_), _her_, _its_ (as in _its book_), _our_,
_your_, _their_. These are conveniently considered as the equivalents to
the Latin forms _mei_, _tui_, _ejus_, _nostrum_, _vestrum_, _eorum_.

The second class is the class of what may be called the _absolute_
possessives; the name being founded upon the syntactic fact of their being
able to form the term of a proposition by themselves; as _whose is this?_
_Mine_ (not _my_).--_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_. How far
either or both of these two classes of pronouns are cases, or adjectives,
is a point of etymology that has already been noticed (Part IV., chap. 37).

How far either or both are cases or adjectives is, in syntax, a matter of

§ 521. There is, however, a palpable 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 {420} 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, complimentary to each other when taken in
their two forms.

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_.

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 {421} 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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 522. The word _that_, although originally, when a demonstrative pronoun,
a neuter singular, is now used as a relative for all genders, and both

  1. He _that_ spoke.--_Masculine gender._
  2. She _that_ spoke.--_Feminine gender._
  3. They _that_ fought.--_Plural number._
  4. The man _that_ I struck.--_Objective case._

§ 523. Etymologically, _which_ is no true neuter of _who_, but a compound
word. It is used, however, with less latitude than _that_. The beginning of
the Lord's Prayer exhibits it in combination with a masculine noun.
Generally, however, it is confined to the neuter gender; in which it is
common to both numbers.

  1. The dagger _which_ stabbed Cæsar.--_Nominative singular._
  2. The daggers _which_ stabbed Cæsar.--_Nominative plural._
  3. The dagger _which_ I grasp.--_Objective singular._
  4. The daggers _which_ I grasp.--_Objective plural._

§ 524. _Which_ has so nearly replaced _what_ that the general use of this
last word with its proper power, as a neuter relative, is, in the present
English, vulgar, _e.g._,

  1. The dagger _what_ stabbed Cæsar.
  2. The dagger _what_ I grasp.

In one case, however, _what_ is used as a true relative, _viz._, when the
antecedent is either _this_ or _that_.

  This is _what_ I mean; _not_, this is _which_ I mean.
  That is _what_ I mean; _not_, that is _which_ I mean.


§ 525. The word _as_, properly a conjunction, is occasionally used as a
relative--_the man_ as _rides to market_.

This expression is not to be imitated. It ought, however, to be explained.
_As_ is a conjunction denoting comparison. The ideas of comparison and
equivalence are allied. The relative is _ex vi termini_ the equivalent, in
one part of a sentence, to the antecedent in another.

    (1) The man--(2) who speaks.

Here _who_=_man_.

    (1) As white--(2) as snow.

Here _snow_=_white_.

§ 526. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _gender_ as the
antecedent--_the man who_--_the woman who_--_the thing which_.

§ 527. It is necessary that the relative be in the same _number_ with the
antecedent. As, however, _who_, _which_, _whom_, are equally singular and
plural, and as _what_, which is really singular, is not used as a relative,
the application of this law is limited to the word _whose_. Now _whose_ is,
etymologically, a genitive case, and a genitive case of the singular
number. Hence the expression _the men whose daggers stabbed Cæsar_ can only
be justified by considering that the word _whose_ is plural as well as
singular. Such is the case. If not the expression is as illogical as
_homines_ cujus _sicæ_, &c. would be in Latin.

§ 528. 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.

§ 529. 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 {424} 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.

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.

§ 530. _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, {425} the preceding
is one of the most unequivocal kind--the word which connects the two
propositions being wanting.

§ 531. One or two points connected with the construction of those sentences
wherein relative pronouns occur, are necessary to be familiarly understood
in order for us to see our way clearly to certain real and apparent
anomalies in the syntax of this class of words.

1. Every sentence wherein a relative occurs, is complex, _i.e._, it
consists of two propositions--_the man who rides is come_=(1) _the man is
come_; (2) _who rides_. Here the relative _who_ has no meaning in itself,
but takes a meaning from the noun of the preceding clause.

2. _The relative is the demonstrative or personal pronoun under another
form._--The two propositions (1) _the man is come_; (2) _who rides_=(1)
_the man is come_; (2) _he rides_.

3. _The demonstrative or personal pronoun is the substantive in another
form._--The two propositions (1) _the man is come_; (2) _he rides_=(1) _the
man is come_; (2) _the man rides_.

4. Hence the relative is the equivalent to a demonstrative pronoun, or to a
substantive, indifferently.

5. But the relative is the equivalent to the pronoun and substantive, and
_something more_. In sentences like

  The man is come--he rides--
  The man is come--the man rides.

The identity between the person mentioned in the two propositions is
implied, not expressed. This the relative _expresses_; and hence its use in

6. From these observations we get a practical rule for determining doubtful

_a._ Reduce the sentence to the several propositions (which are never less
than two) which it contains.

_b._ Replace the relative by its equivalent personal or demonstrative
pronoun, or by its equivalent substantive.

_c._ The case of the demonstrative or substantive, is the case of the
relative also.

By applying this rule to such expressions as

            Satan, than _whom_
  None higher sat, thus spake

{426} we find them, _according to the current etymology_, incorrect--

  Satan spake--none sat higher than he sat.
  Satan spake--none sat higher than Satan sat.

Hence the expression should be,

          Satan than _who_
  None higher sat.

_Observe._--The words, _according to the current etymology_, indicate an
explanation which, rightly or wrongly, has been urged in favour of
expressions like the one in question, and which will be noticed in a future

§ 532. _Observe._--That three circumstances complicate the syntax of the
relative pronoun.

1. The elliptic form of the generality of the sentences wherein it follows
the word _than_.

2. The influence of the oblique interrogation.

3. The influence of an omitted relative.

§ 533. This last finds place in the present chapter.

_When the relative and antecedent are in different cases, and the relative
is omitted, the antecedent is sometimes put in the case of the relative._

  He whom I accuse has entered.

Contracted according to p. 424.

  He I accuse has entered.

Changed, according to the present section,--

  Him I accuse has entered.

And so (as shown by Mr. Guest, _Philological Transactions_), Shakspeare has
really written,--

                  _Him_ I accuse,
  The city gates by this has entered.

  _Coriolanus_, v. 5.

  Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire
  Too high a fame, when _him_ we serve's away.

  _Antony and Cleopatra_, iii. 1.

The reason of this is clear. The verb that determines {427} the case of the
relative is brought in contact with the antecedent, and the case of the
antecedent is accommodated to the case of the relative.

The Greek phrase, [Greek: chrômai bibliois hois echô], is an instance of
the converse process.

§ 534. _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 who 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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 535. 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_.

§ 536. Nevertheless, such expressions as _whom do they say that it is?_ are
common, especially in oblique questions. The following examples are Mr.
Guest's.--_Philological Transactions._

    "And he axed hem 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.

Two circumstances encourage this confusion. 1. The presence of a second
verb, which takes the appearance of a governing verb. 2. The omission of a
really oblique antecedent or relative. 3. The use of accusative for
nominative forms in the case of personal pronouns.

§ 537. _The presence of a second verb_, &c.--_Tell_ me _whom_ she _is_.
Here _tell_ is made to govern _whom_, instead of _whom_ being left, as
_who_, to agree with _she_.

§ 538. _The omission_, &c.--Tell me _whom_ she is you _love_. Here the full
construction requires a second pronoun--tell me _who_ she is _whom_ you
_love_; or else, tell me _her whom_ you love.

§ 539. To the question, _who is_ this? many would answer not _I_, but _me_.
This confusion of the case in the answer favours a confusion of case in the

It is clear that much of this reasoning applies to the relative powers of
_who_, as well as to the interrogative.

But, it is possible that there may be no incorrectness at all: insomuch as
_whom_ may have become a true nominative. Mr. Guest has truly remarked that
such is the case in the Scandinavian language, where _hve-m_=_who_=_qui_.

This view, if true, justifies the use of _whom_ after the conjunctions
_than_ and _as_; so that the expression,--

        Satan than _whom_
  None higher sat,

may be right.

Nevertheless, it does not justify such expressions as--

  None sit higher than _me_.
  None sit higher than _thee_.
  None sit higher than _us_.
  None sit higher than _her_.


The reason of this is clear. _Whom_ is supposed to be admissible, not
because the sentence admits an accusative case; but because custom has
converted it into a nominative. For my own part, I doubt the application of
the Danish rule to the English language. Things may be going that way, but
they have not, as yet, gone far enough.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 540. 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. The first is
without the object, the second without the verb. That the verb must be in
the plural (or dual) number, that one of the nouns must be in the
nominative case, and that the other must be objective, is self-evident from
the structure of the sentence; such being the conditions of the expression
of the idea. An aposiopesis takes place after a plural verb, and then there
follows a clause wherein the verb is supplied from what went before.

§ 541. 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 {432} 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_.

The Lapplandic, and, probably other languages, have the same elements of

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 542. 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_, [Greek:
legetai], _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.--Deutsche Grammatik.

In the Old English, the form _man_ often lost the _-n_, and became
_me_.--Deutsche Grammatik. This form is also extinct.

The present indeterminate pronoun is _one_; as, _one says_=_they say_=_it
is said_=_man sagt_, German=_on dit_, French=_si dice_, Italian.

It has been stated in p. 257, 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_.

§ 543. Two other pronouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the present
habit of the English language, one {434} pronoun, and one adverb of
pronominal origin are also used indeterminately viz., _it_ and _there_.

§ 544. _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.

§ 545. _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 _there_ 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.

§ 546. 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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 547. 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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 548. 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 pair_.

Expressions like _the thousandth-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_.

§ 549. 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

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 550. 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_.

§ 551. _The auxiliary verbs_ will be noticed fully in Chapter XXIII.

§ 552. 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.

This does not apply to the infinitive mood. The infinitive mood of the
so-called verb substantive is a noun; not, however, because it is a verb
substantive, but because it is an infinitive mood.

For the _impersonal_ verbs see Part IV., Chapter 27.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 553. 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.

§ 554. 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. {440}

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.

§ 555. 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

  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 {442} relative, the antecedent
belongs to the first clause. _It is I, John, who command_ (not _commands_)

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.

§ 556. _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_ (p. 434), the word
which comes first is always the subject, until the contrary be proved.

_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_.

§ 557. _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.

  [Greek: Hektor, atar su moi essi patêr kai potnia mêtêr,]
  [Greek: Êde kasignêtos, su de moi thaleros parakoitês].

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 558. 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 gladio_.

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 (or government) sometimes takes the appearance
of the objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by
a substantive; which substantive is in the objective case. 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:
and {445} if there be no such object, there is no room for any objective
government. _To break the sleep of the righteous_, is to _affect, by
breaking, the sleep of the righteous_: but, _to sleep the sleep of the
righteous_, is not to _affect by sleeping the sleep of the righteous_;
since the act of sleeping is an act that affects no object whatever. It is
a _state_. We may, indeed, give it the appearance of a transitive verb, as
we do when we say, _the opiate slept the patient_, meaning thereby, _lulled
to sleep_; but the transitive character is only apparent.

_To sleep the sleep of the righteous_ is to _sleep in agreement with_--or
_according to_--or _after the manner of_--_the sleep of the righteous_, and
the construction is adverbial.

In the grammars of the classical languages, the following rule is
exceptionable--_Quodvis verbum admittit accusativum nominis sibi cognati_.
It does so; but it governs the accusative case not objectively but modally.

§ 559. Modal verbs may be divided into a multiplicity of divisions. Of
such, it is not necessary in English to give more than the following

1. _Appositional._--As, _she walks a queen_: _you consider me safe_. The
appositional construction is, in reality, a matter of concord rather than
of gender. It will be considered more fully in the following section.

2. _Traditive._--As, _I give the book to you_=_do librum tibi_. _I teach
you the lesson_=[Greek: didaskô se tên didaskalian]. In all traditive
expressions there are three ideas; (1.) an agent, (2.) an object, (3.) a
person, or thing, to which the object is made over, or transferred, by the
agent. For this idea the term dative is too restricted: since in Greek and
some other languages, both the name of the object conveyed, and the name of
the person to whom it is conveyed are, frequently, put in the accusative

3. _Instrumental._--As, _I fight with a sword_=_pugno ense_=_feohte

4. _Emphatic._--As, _he sleeps the sleep of the righteous_.

§ 560. _Verb and nominative case._--No verb governs a nominative case. The
appositional construction _seems_ to require such a form of government; but
the form is only apparent. {446}

  It is I.
  It is thou.
  It is he, &c.

Here, although the word _is_ is _followed_ by a nominative case, it by no
means governs one--at least not as a verb.

It has been stated above that the so-called verb substantive is only a verb
for the purposes of etymology. In syntax, it is only a part of a verb,
_i. e._, the copula.

Now this fact changes the question of the construction in expressions like
_it is I_, &c., from a point of government to one of concord. In the
previous examples the words _it_, _is_, and _I_, were, respectively,
_subject_, _copula_, and _predicate_; and, as it is the function of the
copula to denote the agreement between the predicate and the subject, the
real point to investigate is the nature of the concord between these two
parts of a proposition.

Now the predicate need agree with the subject in case only.

1. It has no necessary concord in gender--_she is a man in courage_--_he is
a woman in effeminacy_--_it is a girl_.

2. It has no necessary concord in number--_sin is the wages of death_--_it
is these that do the mischief_.

3. It has no necessary concord in person--_I am he whom you mean_.

4. It _has_, however, a necessary concord in case. Nothing but a nominative
case can, by itself, constitute a term of either kind--subject or
predicate. Hence, both terms must be in the nominative, and, consequently,
both in the same case. Expressions like _this is for me_ are elliptic. The
logical expression is _this is a thing for me_.

_Rule._--The predicate must be of the same case with its subject.

Hence--The copula instead of determining[60] a case expresses a concord.


_Rule 1._--All words connected with a nominative case by the copula
(_i.e._, the so-called verb-substantive) must be nominative.--_It is I_; _I
am safe_.

_Rule 2._--All words in apposition with a word so connected must be
nominative.--It is difficult to illustrate this from the English language
from our want of inflexions. In Latin, however, we say _vocor Johannes_=_I
am called John_, not _vocor Johannem_. Here the logical equivalent is _ego
sum vocatus Johannes_--where--

1. _Ego_, is nominative because it is the subject.

2. _Vocatus_ is nominative because it is the predicate agreeing with the

3. _Johannes_, is nominative because it is part of the predicate, and in
apposition with _vocatus_.

N.B. Although in precise language _Johannes_ is said to agree with
_vocatus_ rather than to be in apposition with it, the expression, as it
stands, is correct. Apposition is the agreement of substantives, agreement
the apposition of adjectives.

_Rule 3._--All verbs which, when resolved into a copula and participle,
have their participle in apposition (or agreeing) with the noun, are in the
same condition as simple copulas--_she walks a queen_=_she is walking a
queen_=_illa est incedens regina_.

_Rule 4._--The construction of a subject and copula preceded by the
conjunction _that_, is the same in respect to the predicate by which they
are followed as if the sentence were an isolated proposition.

This rule determines the propriety of the expression--_I believe that it is
he_ as opposed to the expression _I believe that it is him_.

_I believe_=_I am believing_, and forms one proposition.

_It is he_, forms a second.

_That_, connects the two; but belongs to neither.


Now, as the relation between the subject and predicate of a proposition
cannot be affected by a word which does not belong to it, the construction
is the same as if the propositions were wholly separate.

N.B. The question (in cases where the conjunction _that_ is not used), as
to the greater propriety of the two expressions--_I believe it to be
him_--_I believe it to be he_--has yet to be considered.

§ 561. _The verb and genitive case._--No verb in the present English
governs a genitive case. In Anglo-Saxon certain verbs did: _e.g._, _verbs
of ruling_ and others--_weolde thises middangeardes_=_he ruled_ (_wealded_)
_this earth's_. Genitive cases, too, governed by a verb are common both in
Latin and Greek. _To eat of the fruit of the tree_ is no genitive
construction, however much it may be equivalent to one. _Fruit_ is in the
objective case, and is governed not by the verb but by the preposition

§ 562. _The verb and accusative._--All transitive verbs govern an
accusative case,--_he strikes me_, _thee_, _him_, _her_, _it_, _us_, _you_,

_The verb and dative case._--The word _give_, and a few others, govern a
dative case. Phrases like _give it him_, _whom shall I give it_, are
perfectly correct, and have been explained above. The prepositional
construction _give it_ to _him_,--_to whom shall I give it?_ is
unnecessary. The evidence of this is the same as in the construction of the
adjective _like_.

§ 563. _The partitive construction._--Certain transitive verbs, the action
whereof is extended not to the whole, but only to a part of their object,
are followed by the preposition of and an objective case. _To eat of the
fruit of the tree_=_to eat a part_ (or _some_) _of the fruit of the tree_:
_to drink of the water of the well_=_to drink a part_ (or _some_) _of the
water of the well_. It is not necessary, here, to suppose the ellipsis of
the words _part_ (or _some_). The construction is a construction that has
grown out of the partitive power of the genitive case; for which case the
preposition _of_, followed by the objective, serves as an equivalent.

§ 564. It has been already stated that forms like _I believe_ {449} _it to
be him_, and forms like _I believe it to be he_, had not been investigated.
Of these, the former is, logically, correct.

Here, the word, _to be_, is, in respect to its power, a noun.

As such, it is in the accusative case after the verb _believe_.

With this accusative infinitive, _it_ agrees, as being part of the same
complex idea. And _him_ does the same.

In English we have two methods of expressing one idea; the method in
question, and the method by means of the conjunction, _that_.

  1. _I believe it to be him._
  2. _I believe that it is he._

In the first example, _it_ is the object; and _it-to-be-him_ forms one
complex term.

In the second, _he_ agrees with _it_; and _it_ is the subject of a
separate, though connected, proposition.

Of these two forms the Latin language adopts but one, _viz._, the
former,--_credo eum esse_, not _credo quod illud est ille_.

§ 565. _The expression_ ob differentiam.--The classical languages, although
having but one of the two previous forms, are enabled to effect a variation
in the application of it, which, although perhaps illogical, is convenient.
When the speaker means himself, the noun that follows, _esse_, or [Greek:
einai], is nominative,--[Greek: phêmi einai despotês]=_I say that I am the
master_: _ait fuisse celerrimus_=_he says that he himself was the
swiftest_--but, [Greek: phêmi einai despotên]=_I say that he_ (some one
else) _is the master_; and _ait fuisse celerrimum_=_he says that he_ (some
one else) _is the swiftest_. This, though not adopted in English, is
capable of being adopted,--_He believes it to be he_ (_i.e._, the speaker)
_who invented the machine_; but, _he believes it to be him_ (that is,
another person) _who invented it_.

§ 566. When the substantive infinitive, _to be_, is preceded by a passive
participle, combined with the verb substantive, the construction is
nominative,--_it is believed to be he who spoke_, not _it is believed to be
him_.--Here there are two propositions:

  1. It is believed.--
  2. Who spoke.

{450} Now, here, _it_ is the subject, and, as such, nominative. But it is
also the equivalent to _to be he_, which must be nominative as well. _To be
he is believed_=_esse-ille creditur_,--or, changing the mode of proof,--

1. _It_ is the subject and nominative.

2. _Believed_ is part of the predicate; and, consequently, nominative also.

3. _To be he_ is a subordinate part of the predicate, in apposition with
_believed_--_est creditum, nempe entitas ejus_. Or, _to be he is
believed_=_esse-ille est creditum_.

As a general expression for the syntax of copulas and appositional
constructions, the current rule, that _copulas and appositional verbs must
be followed by the same case by which they are preceded_, stands good.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 567. 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 foeminæ._

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
_foeminæ elevantis_.--_Quid est significatio foeminæ elevantis pallam?_

For the extent to which the view differs from that of Priestley, and still
more with that of Mr. Guest, see _Phil. Trans._, 25.

§ 568. The past participle corresponds not with the Greek form [Greek:
tuptomenos], but with the form [Greek: tetummenos]. _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 [Greek: eimi
tuptomenos]=_I am a man in the act of being beaten_, but [Greek: eimi
tetummenos]=_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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 569. 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.

§ 570. The construction, however, of English infinitives is twofold. (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_.

This 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.

    Thou shalt not _see_ thy brother's ox or his ass _fall_ down by the

    We _heard_ him _say_ I will destroy the temple.

    {453} I _feel_ the pain _abate_.

    He _bid_ her _alight_.

    I would fain _have_ any one _name_ to me that tongue that any one can
    speak as he should do by the rules of grammar.

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.

The following examples, from the Old English, of the gerundial construction
where we have, at present, the objective, are Mr. Guest's.

  1. Eilrid _myght nought to stand_ þam ageyn.

  _R. Br._

  2. Whether feith schall _mowe to save_ him?

  WICLIF, _James_ ii.

  3. My woful child what flight _maist thou to take_?

  HIGGINS, _Lady Sabrine_, 4.

  4. Never to retourne no more,
  Except he _would_ his life _to loose_ therfore.

  HIGGINS, _King Albanaet_, 6.

  5. He said he _could not to forsake_ my love.

  HIGGINS, _Queen Elstride_, 20.

  6. The mayster _lette_ X men and mo
  _To wende_.

  _Octavian_, 381.

  7. And though we owe the fall of Troy requite,
  Yet _let_ revenge thereof from gods _to_ lighte.

  HIGGINS, _King Albanaet_, 16.

  8. _I durst_, my lord, _to wager_ she is honest.

  _Othello_, iv. 2.

  9. Whom, when on ground, she grovelling _saw to roll_,
  She ran in haste, &c.

  _F. Q._ iv. 7, 32.


§ 571. Imperatives have three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in
English, be used in the second person: (2.) They take pronouns after,
instead of before, them: (3.) They often omit the pronoun altogether.

§ 572. For the syntax of subjunctives, see the Chapter on Conjunctions.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 573. 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_.

§ 574. The English præterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect
but the Greek aorist. _I beat_=[Greek: etupsa] not [Greek: tetupha]. The
true perfect is expressed, in English, by the auxiliary _have_ + the past

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 575. For the impersonal verbs see Part IV. Chapter 27.

§ 576. _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 {457} 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.

The reasons for these rules will appear in the Chapter on Conjunctions.

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. That the greater supposed worth of the first person may be
a reason for putting it first in the proposition is likely enough.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 577. 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_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 578. 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 inflectional 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 [Greek: tuptomai]. 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

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_, [Greek: tuptesthai].

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_=[Greek: e-tuphthên]. _I was

_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 {460}
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_ {461} _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 beaten_.

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.

§ 579. The following is an exhibition of some of the _times_ in which an
action may take place, as found in either the English or other languages,
expressed by the use of either an inflection or a combination.

_Time considered in one point only_--

1. _Present._--An action taking place at the time of speaking, and
incomplete.--_I am beating_, _I am being beaten_. _Not_ expressed, in
English, by the simple present tense; since _I beat_ means _I am in the
habit of beating_.

2. _Aorist._--An action that took place in past time, or previous to the
time of speaking, and which has no connection with the time of
speaking.--_I struck_, _I was stricken_. Expressed, in English, by the
præterite, in Greek by the aorist. The term aorist, from the Greek [Greek:
a-oristos]=_undefined_, is a convenient name for this sort of time.

3. _Future._--An action that has neither taken place, nor is taking place
at the time of speaking, but which is stated as one which _will_ take
place.--Expressed, in English, by the combination of _will_ or _shall_ with
an infinitive mood. In Latin and Greek by an inflection. _I shall_ (or
_will_) _speak_, [Greek: lek-sô], _dica-m_. {462}

None of these expressions imply more than a single action; in other words,
they have no relation to any second action occurring simultaneously with
them, before them, or after them.--_I am speaking now_, _I spoke
yesterday_, _I shall speak to-morrow_. Of course, the act of mentioning
them is not considered as an action related to them in the sense here

By considering past, present, or future actions not only by themselves, but
as related to other past, present, or future actions, we get fresh
varieties of expression. Thus, an act may have been going on, when some
other act, itself an act of past time, interrupted it. Here the action
agrees with a present action, in being incomplete; but it differs from it
in having been rendered incomplete by an action that has past. This is
exactly the case with the--

4. _Imperfect._--_I was reading when he entered._ Here we have two acts;
the act of _reading_ and the act of _entering_. Both are past as regards
the time of speaking, but both are present as regards each other. This is
expressed, in English, by the past tense of the verb substantive and the
present participle, _I was speaking_; and in Latin and Greek by the
imperfect tense, _dicebam_, [Greek: etupton].

5. _Perfect._--Action past, but connected with the present by its effects
or consequences.--_I _have_ written, and here is the letter._ Expressed in
English by the auxiliary verb _have_, followed by the _participle passive
in the accusative case and neuter gender of the singular number_. The Greek
expresses this by the reduplicate perfect: [Greek: te-tupha]=_I have

6. _Pluperfect._--Action past, but connected with a second action,
subsequent to it, _which is also past_.--_I _had_ written when he _came_

7. _Future present._--Action future as regards the time of speaking,
present as regards some future time.--_I shall _be speaking_ about this
time to-morrow._

8. _Future præterite._--Action future as regards the time of speaking, past
as regards some future time.--_I shall _have spoken_ by this time
to-morrow._ {463}

These are the chief expressions which are simply determined by the
relations of actions to each other, and to the time of speaking, either in
the English or any other language. But over and above the simple idea of
_time_, there may be others superadded: thus, the phrase, I do _speak_
means, not only that _I am in the habit of speaking_, but that I also
_insist_ upon it being understood that I am so.

Again, an action that is mentioned as either taking place, or as having
taken place at a given time, may take place again and again. Hence the idea
of _habit_ may arise out of the idea of either present time or aorist time.

[alpha]. In English, the present form expresses _habit_. See p. 455.

[beta]. In Greek the aorist expresses habit.

Again, one tense, or one combination, may be used for another. _I was
speaking when he enters._

The results of these facts may now be noticed:

1. The _emphatic present and præterite._--Expressed by _do_ (or _did_), as
stated above. A man says _I do_ (or _did_) _speak_, _read_, &c., when,
either directly or by implication, it is asserted or implied that he does
not. As a question implies doubt, _do_ is used in interrogations.

    "_Do_ et _did_ indicant emphatice tempus præsens, et præteritum
    imperfectum. _Uro_, _urebam_; _I burn_, _I burned_: vel (emphatice) _I
    do burn_, _I did burn_."--WALLIS, p. 106.

2. _The predictive future._--_I shall be there to-morrow._ This means
simply that the speaker will be present. It gives no clue to the
circumstances that will determine his being so.

3. The _promissive future._--_I will be there to-morrow._--This means not
only that the speaker will be present, but that he _intends_ being so. For
further observations on _shall_ and _will_, see pp. 471-474.

4. That the power of the present tense is, in English, not present, but
habitual, has already been twice stated.

§ 580. _The representative expression of past and future time._--An action
may be past; yet, for the sake of bringing it more vividly before the
hearers, we may make it present. {464} _He walks (_for_ walked) up to him,
and knocks (_for_ knocked) him down._ This denotes a single action; and is
by no means the natural habitual power of the English present. So, in
respect to a future, _I beat you if you don't leave off_, for _I will beat
you_. This use of the present tense is sometimes called the _historic_ use
of the present tense. I find it more convenient to call it the
representative use; inasmuch as it is used more after the principles of
painting than of history; the former of which, necessarily, _represents_
things as present, the latter, more naturally, describes them as _past_.

The use of the representative present to express simple actions is
unequivocally correct. To the expression, however, of complex actions it
gives an illogical character,--_As I was doing this he enters_ (for
_entered_). Nevertheless, such a use of the present is a fact in language,
and we must take it as it occurs.

§ 581. The present tense can be used instead of the future; and that on the
principle of representation. Can a future be used for a present? No.

The present tense can be used instead of the aorist; and that on the
principle of representation. Can a past tense, or combination, be used for
a present?

In respect to the perfect tense there is no doubt. The answer is in the
affirmative. For all purposes of syntax a perfect tense, or a combination
equivalent to one, is a present tense. Contrast the expression, _I come
that I may see_; with the expression, _I came that I might see_; _i.e._,
the present construction with the aorist. Then, bring in the perfect
construction, _I have come_. It differs with the aorist, and agrees with
the present. _I have come that I may see._ The reason for this is clear.
There is not only a present element in all perfects, but for the purposes
of syntax, the present element predominates. Hence expressions like _I
shall go_, need give us no trouble; even though _shall_ be considered as a
perfect tense. Suppose the root, _sk-ll_ to mean _to be destined_ (or
_fated_). Provided we consider the effects of the action to be continued up
to the time of speaking, we may say _I _have been_ destined to go_, just as
well as we can say _I _am_ destined to go_. {465}

The use of the aorist as a present (except so far as both the tenses agree
in their power of expressing _habitual_ actions) is a more difficult
investigation. It bears upon such expressions as _I ought to go_, &c., and
will be taken up in p. 475.

§ 582. Certain adverbs, _i.e._, those of time, require certain tenses. _I
am then_, _I was now_, _I was hereafter_, &c., are contradictory
expressions. They are not so much bad grammar as impossible nonsense.
Nevertheless, we have in Latin such expressions as

 "Ut _sumus_ in ponto ter frigore constitit Ister."

Here the connection of the present and perfect ideas explains the apparent
contradiction. The present state may be the result of a previous one; so
that a preterite element may be involved in a present expression. _Ut
sumus_=_since I have been where I am_.

It is hardly necessary to remark that such expressions as _since I am here_
(where _since_=_inasmuch as_) do not come under this class.

§ 583. Two fresh varieties in the use of tenses and auxiliary verbs may be
arrived at by considering the following ideas, which may be superadded to
that of simple time.

1. _Continuance in the case of future actions._--A future action may not
only take place, but continue: thus, a man may, on a given day, not only be
called by a particular name, but may _keep_ that name. When Hesiod says
that, notwithstanding certain changes which shall have taken place, good
shall _continue_ to be mixed with bad, he does not say, [Greek: esthla
michthêsetai kakoisin], but,

  [Greek: All' empês kai toisi memixetai esthla kakoisin].

  _Opera et Dies._


  [Greek: Epeith' ho politês entetheis en katalogôi]
  [Greek: Oudeis kata spoudas metengraphêsetai],
  [Greek: All' hosper ên to prôtun engegrapsetai].

  ARISTOPH. _Equites_, 1366.


Here [Greek: metengraphêsetai] means _change from one class to another_,
[Greek: êngegrapsetai] _continuance in the same_.--See Mathiæ, ii. § 498.

Upon the lines,--

  [Greek: Hothen pros andrôn husterôn keklêsetai]
  [Greek: Doureios hippos].

  _Troades_, 13, 14.

Seidler remarks that [Greek: klêthêsetai], est _nomen accipiet_; [Greek:
keklêsetai], _nomen geret_.

Now it is quite true that this Greek tense, the so-called
_paulo-post-futurum_, "bears the same relation to the other futures as,
among the tenses of past time, the perfectum does to the
aorist."--(Mathiæ.) And it is also true that it by no means answers to the
English _shall have been_. Yet the logical elements of both are the same.
In the English expression, the _past_ power of the perfect predominates, in
the Greek its _present_ power.

2. _Habit in the case of past actions._--_I had dined when I rode out._
This may apply to a particular dinner, followed by a particular ride. But
it may also mean that when the speaker _had dined, according to habit, he
rode out, according to habit also_. This gives us a variety of pluperfect;
which is, in the French language, represented by separate
combination--_j'avais diné_, _j'eus diné_.

§ 584. It is necessary to remember that the connection between the present
and the past time, which is involved in the idea of a perfect tense
([Greek: tetupha]), or perfect combination (_I have beaten_), is of several

It may consist in the _present proof_ of the _past_ fact,--_I have written,
and here is the evidence_.

It may consist in the _present effects_ of the _past_ fact,--_I have
written, and here is the answer_.

Without either enumerating or classifying these different kinds of
connexion, it is necessary to indicate two sorts of _inference_ to which
they may give origin.

1. _The inference of continuance._--When a person says, _I have learned my
lesson_, we presume that he can say it, _i. e._, that, _he has a present
knowledge of it_. Upon this principle {467} [Greek: kektêmai]=_I have
earned_=_I possess_. The past action is assumed to be continued in its

2. _The inference of contrast._--When a person says, _I have been young_,
we presume that he is so no longer. The action is past, but it is continued
up to the time of speaking by the contrast which it supplies. Upon this
principle, _fuit Ilium_ means _Ilium is no more_.

In speaking, this difference can be expressed by a difference of accent. _I
_have_ learned my lesson_, implies that _I don't mean to learn it again_.
_I have _learned_ my lesson_, implies that _I can say it_.

§ 585. The construction of the auxiliary, _may_, will be considered in the
Chapter on Conjunctions; that of _can_, _must_, and _let_, offer nothing
remarkable. 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. {468}

_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 equitatam_ (singular,
neuter). Here the construction is--

 "Triste ... maturis frugibus imbres,
  Arboribus venti, nobis Amaryllides iræ."

or in Greek--

  [Greek: Deinon gunaixin hai di' ôdinôn gonai].

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_.

2. 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 imitation.

3. 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_ {469} (_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.

§ 586. _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 (see Mr. Guest, _Phil. Trans._ No. 44) 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.

§ 587. _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 loved_.

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_.

§ 588. _Shall_ and _will._--The simply predictive future verb is _shall_.
Nevertheless, it is only used in the first person. The second and third
persons are expressed by the promissive verb _will_.

The promissive future verb is _will_. Nevertheless, it is only used in the
first person. The second and third persons are expressed by the predictive
verb _shall_. {470}

"In _primis_ personis _shall_ simpliciter prædicentis est; _will_, quasi
promittentis aut minantis.

"In secundis et tertiis personis, _shall_ promittentis est aut minantis:
_will_ simpliciter prædicentis.

 "Uram=_I shall burn_.
  Ures=_Thou wilt burn_.
  Uret=_He will burn_.
  Uremus=_We shall burn_.
  Uretis=_Ye will burn_.
  Urent=_They will burn_.

nempe, hoc futurum prædico.

 "_I will burn._
  _Thou shalt burn._
  _He shall burn._
  _We will burn._
  _Ye shall burn._
  _They shall burn._

nempe, hoc futurum spondeo, vel faxo ut sit."

Again--"_would_ et _should_ illud indicant quod erat vel esset futurum: cum
hoc tantum discrimine: _would_ voluntatem innuit, seu agentis propensionem:
_should_ simpliciter futuritionem."--Wallis, p. 107.

§ 589. Archdeacon Hare explains this by a _usus ethicus_. "In fact, this
was one of the artifices to which the genius of the Greek language had
recourse, to avoid speaking presumptuously of the future: for there is an
awful, irrepressible, and almost instinctive consciousness of the
uncertainty of the future, and of our own powerlessness over it, which, in
all cultivated languages, has silently and imperceptibly modified the modes
of expression with regard to it: and from a double kind of _litotes_, the
one belonging to human nature generally, the other imposed by good-breeding
on the individual, and urging him to veil the manifestations of his will,
we are induced to frame all sorts of shifts for the sake of speaking with
becoming modesty. Another method, as we know, frequently adopted by the
Greeks was the use of the conditional moods: and as sentiments of this kind
always imply some degree of intellectual refinement, and strengthen with
its increase, this is called an Attic usage. The same name too has often
been given to the above-mentioned middle forms of the future; not that in
either case the practice was peculiar to the Attic dialect, but that it was
more general where the feelings which produced it were {471} strong and
more distinct. Here again our own language supplies us with an exact
parallel: indeed this is the only way of accounting for the singular
mixture of the two verbs _shall_ and _will_, by which, as we have no
auxiliary answering to the German _werde_, we express the future tense. Our
future, or at least what answers to it, is, _I shall_, _thou wilt_, _he
will_. When speaking in the first person, we speak submissively: when
speaking to or of another, we speak courteously. In our older writers, for
instance in our translation of the Bible, _shall_ is applied to all three
persons: we had not then reacht that stage of politeness which shrinks from
the appearance even of speaking compulsorily of another. On the other hand
the Scotch use _will_ in the first person: that is, as a nation they have
not acquired that particular shade of good-breeding which shrinks from
thrusting itself[61] forward."


§ 590. _Notice of the use of _will_ and _shall_, by Professor De
Morgan._--"The matter to be explained is the synonymous character of _will_
in the first person with _shall_ in the second and third; and of _shall_ in
the first person with _will_ in the second and third: _shall_ (1) and
_will_ (2, 3) are called _predictive_: _shall_ (2, 3) and _will_ (1)
_promissive_. The suggestion now proposed will require four distinctive

"Archdeacon Hare's _usus ethicus_ is taken from the brighter side of human
nature:--'When speaking in the first person we speak submissively; when
speaking to or of another, we speak courteously.' This explains _I shall_,
_thou wilt_; but I cannot think it explains _I will_, _thou shalt_. It
often happens {473} that _you will_, with a persuasive tone, is used
courteously for something next to, if not quite, _you shall_. The present
explanation is taken from the darker side; and it is to be feared that the
_à priori_ probabilities are in its favour.

"In introducing the common mode of stating the future tenses, grammar has
proceeded as if she were more than a formal science. She has no more
business to collect together _I shall_, _thou wilt_, _he will_, than to do
the same with _I rule_, _thou art ruled_, _he is ruled_.

"It seems to be the natural disposition of man to think of his own volition
in two of the following catagories, and of another man's in the other two:

  Compelling, non-compelling; restrained, non-restrained.


"The _ego_, with reference to the _non-ego_, is apt, thinking of himself,
to propound the alternative, 'Shall I compel, or shall I leave him to do as
he likes?' so that, thinking of the other, the alternative is, 'shall he be
restrained, or shall he be left to his own will?' Accordingly, the express
introduction of his own will is likely to have reference to compulsion, in
case of opposition: the express introduction of the will of another, is
likely to mean no more than the gracious permission of the _ego_ to let
_non-ego_ do as he likes. Correlatively, the suppression of reference to
his own will, and the adoption of a simply predictive form on the part of
the _ego_, is likely to be the mode with which, when the person is changed,
he will associate the idea of another having his own way; while the
suppression of reference to the will of the _non-ego_ is likely to infer
restraint produced by the predominant will of the _ego_.

"Occasionally, the will of the _non-ego_ is referred to as under restraint
in modern times. To _I will not_, the answer is sometimes _you shall_,
meaning, in spite of the will--sometimes _you will_, meaning that the will
will be changed by fear or sense of the inutility of resistance."[62]

§ 591. _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 Moeso-Gothic.

  _Language._             Latin _datur_.           Latin _datus est_.

  _Moeso-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, blîft 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.

§ 592. _Ought, would, &c., used as presents._--These words are not in the
predicament of _shall_.

They are _present_ in power, and _past_ in form. So, perhaps, is _shall_.

But they are not, like _shall_, perfect forms; _i. e._, they have no
natural present element in them.

They are _aorist_ præterites. Nevertheless, they have a present sense.

So had their equivalents in Greek: [Greek: echrên]=[Greek: chrê], [Greek:
edei]=[Greek: dei], [Greek: prosêken]=[Greek: prosêkei].

In Latin, too, _would_ was often not represented by either _volo_ or
_volebam_, but by _velim_.

I believe that the _usus ethicus_ is at the bottom of this construction.

The assertion of _duty_ or _obligation_ is one of those assertions which
men like to soften in the expression: _should_, _ought_.

So is the expression of power, as denoted by _may_ or _can_--_might_,

Very often when we say _you should_ (or _ought to_) _do this_, we leave to
be added by implication--_but you do not_.

Very often when we say _I could_ (or _might_) _do this_, we leave to be
added by implication--_but I do not exert my power_.

Now, if what is left undone be the _present_ element in this assertion, the
duty to do it, or the power of doing it, constitutes a past element in it;
since the power (or duty) is, in relation to the performance, a
cause--insufficient, indeed, but still antecedent. This hypothesis is
suggested rather than asserted.

§ 593. By substituting the words _I am bound_ for _I ought_, {476} we may
see the expedients to which this present use of the præterite forces us.

_I_ am bound _to do this_ now = _I_ owe _to do this_ now. However, we do
not say _owe_, but _ought_.

Hence, when we wish to say _I_ was bound _to do this_ two years ago, we
cannot say _I ought_ (_owed_) _to do this_, &c., since _ought_ is already
used in a present sense.

We therefore say, instead, _I_ ought to have done _this_ two years ago;
which has a similar, but by no means an identical meaning.

_I was bound to pay two years ago, _means_ two years ago I was under an
obligation to make a payment, either then or at some future time._

_I was bound to have paid, _&c., means_ I was under an obligation to have
made a payment._

If we use the word _ought_, this difference cannot be expressed.

Common people sometimes say, _you had not ought to do so and so_; and they
have a reason for saying it.

The Latin language is more logical. It says not _debet factum fuisse_, but
_debuit fieri_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 594. 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

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.

§ 595. 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_, and _peculiar_ (for _peculiarly_)
_bad grace_, &c. We are not, however, bound to imitate everything that we
can justify.

§ 596. 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_. {478} 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 deflected.

Adverbs are convertible. _The then men_=[Greek: hoi nun brotoi], &c. This
will be seen more clearly in the Chapter on Conjunctions.

§ 597. 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.

§ 598. _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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 599. All prepositions govern an oblique case. If a word cease 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 _prefix_) has
originated. Nevertheless, it is by no means a philological necessity. In
many languages the prepositions are _post-positive_, following their noun.

§ 600. 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.

§ 601. The writer, however, of a paper on English preterites and genitives,
in the Philological Museum (II. 261) objects to the current doctrine
concerning such constructions as, _this is a picture of the king's_.
Instead of considering the sentence elliptic, and equivalent to _this is a
picture of_ or (_from_) _the king's pictures_, he entertains the following
view,--"I confess, however, that I feel some doubt whether this phrase is
{480} indeed to be regarded as elliptical, that is, whether the phrase in
room of which it is said to stand, was ever actually in use. It has
sometimes struck me that this may be a relict of the old practice of using
the genitive after nouns as well as before them, only with the insertion of
the preposition _of_. One of the passages quoted above from 'Arnold's
Chronicle,' supplies an instance of a genitive so situated; and one cannot
help thinking that it was the notion that _of_ governed the genitive, that
led the old translators of Virgil to call his poem _The Booke of Eneidos_,
as it is termed by Phaer, and Gawin Douglas, and in the translation printed
by Caxton. Hence it may be that we put the genitive after the noun in such
cases, in order to express those relations which are most appropriately
expressed by the genitive preceding it. _A picture of the king's_ is
something very different from _the king's picture_: and so many other
relations are designated by _of_ with the objective noun, that if we wish
to denote possession thereby, it leaves an ambiguity: so, for this purpose,
when we want to subjoin the name of the possessor to the thing possest, we
have recourse to the genitive, by prefixing which we are wont to express
the same idea. At all events as, if we were askt whose castle Alnwick is,
we should answer, _The Duke of Northumberland's_; so we should also say,
_What a grand castle that is of the Duke of Northumberland's!_ without at
all taking into account whether he had other castles besides: and our
expression would be equally appropriate, whether he had or not."

Again, Mr. Guest quotes, amongst other passages, the following:--

  Suffice this hill _of ours_--
  They fought two houres _of the nightes_--

Yet neither class of examples is conclusive.

_Ours_ does not necessarily mean _of us_. It may also mean of _our hills_,
_i. e._, of _the hills of our choice_. _Nightes_ may mean _of the night's
hours_. In the expression, _what a grand castle_, &c., it is submitted to
the reader that we _do_ take into our account other castles, which the Duke
of Northumberland {481} may or may not have. _The Booke of Eneidos_ is a
mistaken Latinism. As it does not seem to have been sufficiently considered
that the real case governed by _of_ (as by _de_ in Latin) is the ablative,
it is the opinion of the present writer that no instance has yet been
produced of _of_ either governing, or having governed a genitive case.

§ 602. It is not so safe to say in the present English that no preposition
governs a dative. The expression _give it him_ is good English; and it is
also equivalent to the Latin _da ei_. But we may also say _give it to him_.
Now the German _zu_=_to_ governs a dative case, and in Anglo-Saxon, the
preposition _to_, when prefixed to the infinitive mood, required the case
that followed it to be a dative.

§ 603. When the infinitive mood is used as the subject of a proposition,
_i.e._, as a nominative case, it is impossible to allow to the preposition
_to_, by which it is preceded, any separate existence whatever,--_to
rise_=_rising_; _to err_=_error_. Here the preposition must, for the
purposes of syntax, be considered as incorporated with the noun, just like
an inseparable inflection. As such it may be preceded by another
preposition. The following example, although a Grecism, illustrates this:--

  Yet not to have been dipt in Lethe's lake,
  Could save the son of Thetis _from to die_.

§ 604. Akin to this, but not the same, is the so-called vulgarism,
consisting of the use of the preposition _for_. _I am ready to go=I am
ready for going_=the so-called vulgarism, _I am ready_ for _to go_. Now,
this expression differs from the last in exhibiting, not only a _verbal_
accumulation of prepositions, but a _logical_ accumulation as well:
inasmuch as _for_ and _to_ express like ideas.

§ 605. Composition converts prepositions into adverbs. Whether we say
_upstanding_ or _standing-up_, we express the _manner_ in which an action
takes place, and not the relation between two substantives. The so-called
prepositional compounds in Greek ([Greek: anabainô, apothnêskô], &c.) are
all adverbial.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 606. 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.

§ 607. 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. {483}

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 reason,--the word that follows it _must_ be the subject of the
second proposition, and, as such, a nominative case.

§ 608. 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_.

2. 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 {484} 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._

§ 609. 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 be
indefinite, there is room for the use {485} a subjunctive mood. Thus--he
that troubled you shall bear his judgment, _whosoever_ he _be_.

§ 610. 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_.[63]

§ 611. 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.


    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.


    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 {486} 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.

§ 612. 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.

§ 613. 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. {487}

    _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 [Greek: ei], to a very great
extent indeed.

Hence we must look to the meaning of the sentence in general, rather than
to the particular conjunction used.

It is a philological fact (probably referable to the _usus ethicus_) 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.

§ 614. 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 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_.

§ 615. 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

In English the word _that_, so used, cannot be said to govern a mood,
although generally followed by either _may_ or _might_. {488} It should
rather be said to require a certain combination to follow it. The most
important point connected with the powers of _that_ is the so-called
_succession of tenses_.

§ 616. _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_.

A clear perception of the logical necessity of the law of the succession of
tenses, is necessary for understanding the nature of several anomalous
passages in the classical writers. In the following, an aorist is followed
not by an optative, but by a subjunctive.

  [Greek: Ouk agathon polukoiraniê; heis koiranos estô,]
  [Greek: Heis basileus, hôi edôke Kronou pais ankulomêteô]
  [Greek: Skêptron t' êde themistas, hina sphisin embasileuêi.]


Here it is necessary to construe [Greek: edôke], _has given and continues
to allow_, which is to construe it like a _perfect_[64] tense. Upon similar
passages Mathiæ writes, "but frequently the conjunctive is used, although
the preceding word be in the time past, viz., when the verb which depends
upon the conjunction shows an action continued to the present time." That
means when the verb is really a perfect.

In Latin, where the same form is both aorist and perfect, the succession of
tenses is a means of determining which of the two meanings it conveys.
_Veni ut videam_=_I have come that I may see._ _Veni ut viderem_=_I came
that I might see_.

Arnold states, from Krüger and Zumpt, that even where the præterite was
clearly a perfect (_i. e._, =_to have_ with the participle), the Roman ear
was so accustomed to the _imperfect_ subjunctive, that it preferred such an
expression _as diu dubitavi num melius esset to diu dubitavi num melius
sit_. The latter part of the statement is sure enough; but it is by no
means so sure that _dubitavi_, and similar forms in similar constructions
are perfects. There is no reason for considering this to be the case in the
present instance. It seems to be so, because it is connected with _diu_;
but an action may last a long time, and yet not last up to the time of
speaking. _Diu dubitavi_ probably expresses, _I doubted a long time_, and
leaves it to be inferred that _now I do not doubt_.

§ 617. It has been stated above that whilst the Latin and English have a
succession of _tenses_, the Greek language {490} exhibits what may be
called a succession of _moods_. This suggests inquiry. Is the difference
real? If so, how is it explained? If not, which of the two grammatical
systems is right?--the English and Latin on the one side, or the Greek on
the other? Should [Greek: tuptoimi] be reduced to a past tense, or
_verberarem_ be considered an optative mood.

The present writer has no hesitation in stating his belief, that all the
phænomena explicable by the assumption of an optative mood are equally
explicable by an expansion of the subjunctive, and a different distribution
of its tenses.

1. Let [Greek: tupsô] be considered a subjunctive _future_ instead of a
subjunctive aorist.

2. Let [Greek: tuôtoimi] be considered an _imperfect subjunctive_.

3. Let [Greek: tetuphoimi] be considered a _pluperfect subjunctive_.

4. Let [Greek: tupsaimi] be considered an aorist _subjunctive_.

Against this view there are two reasons:

1. The double forms [Greek: tupsaimi] and [Greek: tupsoimi], one of which
would remain unplaced.

2. The use of the optative and conjunctive in simple propositions, as--

  [Greek: ô pai, genoio patros eutuchesteros.]

The first reason I am not prepared to impugn. _Valeat quantum_, &c. The
second indicates a class of expressions which tense will _not_ explain, and
which mood _will_. Yet this is not conclusive. _Would that thou wert_ is
thoroughly optative: yet it is expressed by a tense.

The _form_ of the so-called optatives proves nothing. Neither the
subjunctive nor the optative has any signs of _mood_ at all, except the
negative one of the absence of the augment. Their signs are the signs of

In favour of the view are the following reasons:--

1. The analogy of other languages. The imperfect has a subjunctive in
Latin. So has the future.

2. The undoubtedly future character of the so-called aorist imperative. To
give an order to do a thing in _past_ time is a philological contradiction.
Forms like [Greek: blepson] _must_ be future. Though [Greek: thes] and
[Greek: tithei] differ in power, they both mean an {491} action subsequent
to, or, at any rate, simultaneous with the order given; certainly not one
anterior to it.

§ 618. _Be_ may stand for _may be_. In this case the preterite is not
_were_ but _might be_. The sentence, _what_ care _I how fair the lady_ be,
_if she be not fair to her admirer_? is accurate. Here _be_ = _may be_.
But, _what_ cared _I how fair the lady_ were, _if she were not fair to her
admirer_? is inaccurate. It ought to run thus,--_what_ cared _I how fair
the lady_ might be, _if she were not fair to her admirer_?[65]

§ 619. _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, {492} _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.

§ 620. _Either, neither._--Many disjunctives imply an alternative. If it be
not this person (or thing) that performs a certain action (or exists in a
certain state) it is some other. If a person (or thing) do not perform a
certain action (or exist in a certain state), under one name, he (or it)
does so under another. This alternative is expressed by the word _either_.

When the word _either_ is connected immediately with the copula of a
proposition, it is, if not a true conjunction, at least _a part of a
conjunctional periphrasis_.--_This either is or is not so._

When it belongs more to one of the terms of a proposition than to the
copula, it is a pronoun,--_Either I or you is in the wrong_. _It is either
you or I._

I use the words, _part of a conjunctional periphrasis_, because the full
conjunction is _either_ + _or_ (or _neither_ + _nor_); the essential
conjunctions being the latter words. To these, _either_ (or _neither_) is
superadded, indicating the _manner_ in which the disjunction expressed by
_or_ (or _nor_) takes place; _i. e._, they show that it takes place in the
manner of an alternative. Now, this superadded power is rather adverbial
than conjunctional.

§ 621. From the pronominal character of the word _either_, when it forms
part of a term, and from the power of the disjunctive, _or_, in _isolating_
the subject of the verb, combined with an assumption which will be
explained hereafter, we get at the principle of certain rules for doubtful

In expressions like _either you or I is in the wrong_, we must {493}
consider _either_ not only as _a_ pronoun, but as _the leading_ pronoun of
the proposition; a pronoun of which _or I_ is an explanation; and, finally,
as the pronoun which determines the person of the verb. _Either you or I is
wrong_=_one of us_ (_you or I_) _is wrong_.

Then, as to expressions like _I, or you, am in the wrong_. Here, _I_ is the
leading pronoun, which determines the person of the verbs; the words, _or
you_, being parenthetic, and subordinate. These statements bear upon the
rules of p. 457.

§ 622. Will this principle justify such expressions as _either they or we
is in the wrong_?

Or will it justify such expressions as _either he or they is in the wrong_?

Or will it justify such expressions as _I or they am in the wrong_? In all
which sentences one pronoun is plural.

Perhaps not. The assumption that has been just alluded to, as helping to
explain certain doubtful constructions, is the following, _viz._, that in
cases of apposition, disjunction, and complex terms, the _first_ word is
the one which determines the character of the sentence wherein it occurs.
This is a practice of the English language, which, in the opinion of the
present writer, nothing but a very decided preponderance of a difference in
person, gender, or number, can overrule. Such may fairly be considered to
be the case in the three examples just adduced; especially as there is also
the secondary influence of the conjunctional character of the word
_either_. Thus, although we say,--

    _One of two parties, they or we, is in the wrong._

We also say,--

    _Either they or we are in the wrong_.

As for the other two expressions, they are in the same predicament, with an
additional reason for the use of the plural. It _contains_ the singular.
The chief object of the present remarks has been less to explain details
than to give due prominence to the following leading principles.

1. That _either_ (or _neither_) is[66] essentially singular in number.


2. That it is, like any common noun, of the third person.

3. That it is pronominal where it is in apposition with another noun.

4. That when it is the first word of the proposition it determines the
concord of the verb, unless its character of a noun of the singular number
and third person be disguised by the prominence of some plural form, or
some pronoun of the first or second person in the latter part of the term.

5. That in a simple disjunctive proposition (_i.e._, one where _either_
does not occur) all nouns are subordinate to the first.

§ 623. I believe that the use of _either_ is limited to _real_
disjunctives; in other words, that we can say _either a king or a queen
always reigns in England_, but that we cannot say _either a sovereign or a
supreme ruler always reigns in England_.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 624. 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.

§ 625. 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
lines:-- {496}

  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_.

§ 626. 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_.

§ 627. _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,[67] _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 ætherial stream,
  Whose fountain who (_no one_) shall tell?

  _Paradise Lost._

§ 628. The following extract from the Philological Museum (vol. ii.)
illustrates a curious and minute distinction, which the author shows to
have been current when Wicliffe wrote, but which was becoming obsolete when
Sir Thomas More wrote. It is an extract from that writer against Tyndall.


"I would not here note by the way that Tyndall here translateth _no_ for
_nay_, for it is but a trifle and mistaking of the Englishe worde: saving
that ye shoulde see that he whych in two so plain Englishe wordes, and so
common as in _naye_ and _no_ can not tell when he should take the one and
when the tother, is not for translating into Englishe a man very mete. For
the use of these two wordes in aunswering a question is this. _No_
aunswereth the question framed by the affirmative. As for ensample if a
manne should aske Tindall himselfe: ys an heretike meete to translate Holy
Scripture into Englishe? lo to thys question if he will aunswere trew
Englishe, he must aunswere _nay_ and not _no_. But and if the question be
asked hym thus lo: is not an heretike mete to translate Holy Scripture into
Englishe? To this question if he will aunswere trewe Englishe, he must
aunswere _no_ and not _nay_. And a lyke difference is there betwene these
two adverbs _ye_ and _yes_. For if the question bee framed unto Tindall by
the affirmative in thys fashion. If an heretique falsely translate the New
Testament into Englishe, to make his false heresyes seem the word of Godde,
be his bokes worthy to be burned? To this questyon asked in thys wyse, yf
he will aunswere true Englishe, he must aunswere _ye_ and not _yes_. But
now if the question be asked him thus lo; by the negative. If an heretike
falsely translate the Newe Testament into Englishe to make his false
heresyes seme the word of God, be not hys bokes well worthy to be burned?
To thys question in thys fashion framed if he will aunswere trewe Englishe
he may not aunswere _ye_ but he must answere _yes_, and say yes marry be
they, bothe the translation and the translatour, and al that wyll hold wyth

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 629. 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.

       *       *       *       *       *




§ 630. Prosody deals with metre; and with accent, quantity and the
articulate sounds, as subordinate to metre. For these the reader is
referred to Part III. Chapters 1. 6. 7.

_Metre_ is a general term for the recurrence, within certain intervals, of
syllables similarly affected.

Syllables may be similarly affected: 1. in respect to their quantities; 2.
in respect to their accents; 3. in respect to their articulations.


  P[)a]l[=a]i k[)y]næg[)e]to[=u]nt[)a] k[=a]i m[)e]tro[=u]m[)e]n[=o]n.
  [Greek: Palai kunêgetounta kai metroumenon.]--SOPH. _Ajax_, 3.

Here there is the recurrence of similar quantities.


  The wáy was lóng, the wínd was cóld.

  _Lay of the Last Minstrel._

Here there is the recurrence of similar accents.


  The way was long, the wind was _cold_,
  The minstrel was infirm and _old_.--_Ditto._

Here, besides the recurrence of similar accents, there is a recurrence of
the same articulate sounds; _viz._ of _o_ + _ld_.

§ 631. Metres founded upon the periodic recurrence of similar articulations
are of two sorts.

1. _Alliterative metres._--In alliterative metres a certain {500} number of
words, within a certain period, must _begin_ with a similar articulation.

  In Caines cynne
  þone cwealm gewræc.


Alliteration is the general character of all the _early_ Gothic metres.
(See Rask's _Anglo-Saxon Grammar_, Rask, _On the Icelandic Prosody_, and
Conybeare, _On Anglo-Saxon Poetry_.)

2. _Assonant metres._--In assonant metres a certain number of words, within
a certain period, must _end_ with a similar articulation. All _rhymes_ and
all approaches to rhyme, form the assonant metres. The word _assonant_ has
a limited as well as a general sense.

§ 632. All metre goes by the name of poetry, although all poetry is not
metrical. The Hebrew poetry (_see_ Lowth, _De Sacra Poesi Hebræorum_) is
characterized by the recurrence of similar _ideas_.

§ 633. The metres of the classical languages consist _essentially_ in the
recurrence of similar quantities; accent also playing a part. The
incompatibility of the classical metres with the English prosody lies in
the fact (stated at p. 166), _that the classic writer measures quantity by
the length of the syllable taken altogether, while the Englishman measures
it by the length of the vowel alone_.

§ 634. The English metres consist essentially of the recurrence of similar
accents; the recurrence of similar articulations being sometimes (as in all
rhyming poetry) superadded.

§ 635. In the specimen of alliteration lately quoted the only articulation
that occurred was the letter c. It is very evident that the _two_, the
_three_, or the _four_ first letters, or even the whole syllable, might
have coincided. Such is the case with the following lines from Lord Byron:

  Already doubled is the cape, the bay
  Receives the _prow_, that _prou_dly _sp_urns the _sp_ray.

Alliteration, as an ornament, must be distinguished from alliteration as
the essential character of metre. Alliteration, as an ornament, is liable
to many varieties. {501}

§ 636. _Rhyme._--In _English_ versification, _rhyme_ is, next to accent,
the most important element. The true nature of a rhyme may best be
exhibited after the analysis of a syllable, and the exhibition of certain
recurrent combinations, that look like rhyme without being so.

Let the syllable _told_ be taken to pieces. For metrical purposes it
consists of three parts or elements: 1, the vowel (_o_); 2, the part
preceding the vowel (_t_); 3, the part following the vowel (_ld_). The same
may be done with the word _bold_. The two words can now be compared with
each other. The comparison shows that the vowel is in each the same (_o_);
that the part following the vowel (_ld_) is the same; and, finally, that
the part preceding the vowel is _different_ (_t_ and _b_). This difference
between the part preceding the vowel is essential.

_Told_, compared with itself (_told_), is no rhyme, but an _homoeoteleuton_
([Greek: homoios], _homoios_=_like_, and [Greek: teleutê], _teleutæ_=_end_)
or _like-ending_. It differs from a rhyme in having the parts preceding the
vowel alike. Absolute identity of termination is not recognized in English
poetry, except so far as it is mistaken for rhyme.

  The soft-flowing outline that steals from the _eye_,
  Who threw o'er the surface? did you or did _I_?


Here the difference in spelling simulates a difference in sound, and a
_homoeoteleuton_ takes the appearance of a rhyme.

_Bold_ and _note_.--As compared with each other, these words have two of
the elements of a rhyme: _viz._ the identity of the vowel, and the
difference of the parts preceding it. They want, however, the third
essential, or the identity of the parts following; _ld_ being different
from _t_. The coincidence, however, as far as it goes, constitutes a point
in metre. The words in question are assonances in the limited sense of the
term; and because the identity lies in the _vowels_, they may be named
vowel assonances. Vowel assonances are recognized in (amongst others) the
Spanish and Scandinavian metrical systems. In English they occur only when
they pass as rhymes. {502}

_Bold_ and _mild_.--Here also are two of the elements of a rhyme, viz., the
identity of the parts following the vowel (_ld_), and the difference of the
parts preceding (_b_ and _m_). The identity of the vowel (_o_ being
different from _i_) is, however, wanting. The words in question are
assonances in the limited sense of the term, and consonantal assonances.
Recognized in the Scandinavian, they occur in English only when they pass
as rhymes.

Rhymes may consist of a single syllable, as _told_, _bold_, of two
syllables, as _water_, _daughter_; of three, as _cheerily_, _wearily_. Now,
the rhyme begins where the dissimilarity of parts immediately before the
main vowel begins. Then follows the vowel; and, lastly, the parts after the
vowel. All the parts after the vowel must be absolutely identical. Mere
similarity is insufficient.

  Then come ere a _minute's_ gone,
    For the long summer day
  Puts its wings, swift as _linnets'_ on,
    For flying away.--CLARE.[68]

In the lines just quoted there is no rhyme, but an assonance. The identity
of the parts after the main syllable is destroyed by the single sound of _g
in gone_.

A rhyme, to be perfect, must fall on syllables equally accented.--To make
_sky_ and the last syllable of merri_ly_ serve as rhymes, is to couple an
accented syllable with an unaccented one.

A rhyme, to be perfect, must fall upon syllables absolutely accented.--To
make the last syllables of words like fligh_ty_ and merri_ly_ serve as
rhymes, is to couple together two unaccented syllables.

Hence there may be (as in the case of blank verse) accent without rhyme;
but there cannot be rhyme without accent.

A rhyme consists in the combination of like and unlike _sounds_.--Words
like _I_ and _eye_ (_homoeoteleuta_), _ease_ and _cease_ (vowel
assonances), _love_ and _grove_ (consonantal assonances), are printers'
rhymes; or mere combinations of like and unlike letters.


A rhyme, moreover, consists in the combination of like and unlike
_articulate_ sounds. _Hit_ and _it_ are not rhymes, but identical endings;
the _h_ being no articulation. To my ear, at least, the pair of words,
_hit_ and _it_, comes under a different class from the pair _hit_ (or _it_)
and _pit_.

§ 637. A full and perfect rhyme (the term being stringently defined)
consists in _the recurrence of one or more final syllables equally and
absolutely accented, wherein the vowel and the part following the vowel
shall be identical, whilst the part preceding the vowel shall be different.
It is also necessary that the part preceding the vowel be articulate._[69]

The deviations from the above-given rule, so common in the poetry of all
languages, constitute not rhymes, but assonances, &c., that, by poetic
licence, are recognized as equivalents to rhymes.

§ 638. _Measure._--In lines like the following, the accent occurs on every
second syllable; in other words, every accented syllable is accompanied by
an unaccented one.

  The wáy was lóng, the wínd was cóld.

This accented syllable and its accompanying unaccented one constitute a
_measure_. The number of the syllables being two, the measure in question
is dissyllabic.

§ 639. In lines like the following the accent falls on every third
syllable, so that the number of syllables to the measure is three, and the
measure is trisyllabic.

  At the clóse of the dáy when the hámlet is stíll.--BEATTIE.

The primary division of the English measures is into the dissyllabic and
the trisyllabic.


§ 640. _Dissyllabic measures._--The words _týrant_ and _presúme_ are
equally dissyllabic measures; in one, however, the accent falls on the
first, in the other on the second syllable. This leads us to a farther
division of the English measures.

A measure like _presúme_ (where the accent lies on the second syllable) may
be repeated throughout a whole verse, or a whole series of verses; as,

  Then fáre thee wéll mine ówn dear lóve;
    The wórld has nów for ús
  No gréater gríef, no paín abóve,
    The páin of párting thús.--MOORE.

Here the accent falls on the second syllable of the measure.

A measure like _týrant_ (where the accent lies on the first syllable) may
be repeated throughout a whole verse, or a whole series of verses; as,

  Héed! O héed, my fátal stóry;
    Í am Hósier's ínjured ghóst;
  Cóme to séek for fáme and glóry,
    Fór the glóry Í have lóst.--GLOVER.

The number of dissyllabic measures is, of necessity, limited to two.

§ 641. _Trisyllabic measures._--The words _mérrily_, _disáble_, _cavaliér_,
are equally trisyllabic, but not similarly accented. Each constitutes a
separate measure, which may be continued through a whole verse, or a whole
series of verses; as,


  Mérrily, mérrily, sháll I live nów,
  Únder the blóssom that hángs on the bóugh.



  But váinly 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.


  There's a beáuty for éver unfádingly bríght;
  Like the lóng ruddy lápse of a súmmer-day's níght.

  _Lalla Rookh._

The number of trisyllabic measures is, of necessity, limited to three.

§ 642. The nature of measures may, as we have already seen, be determined
by the proportion of the accented and unaccented syllables. It may also be
determined by the proportion of the long and short syllables.--In the one
case we measure by the accent, in the other by the quantity. Measures
determined by the quantity are called _feet_. The word _foot_ being thus
defined, we have no _feet_ in the English metres; since in English we
determine our measures by accent only.

The classical grammarians express their feet by symbols; [-] denoting
length, [U] shortness. Forms like [U- -U -UU U-U UU-] &c., are the
symbolical representations of the classical feet.

The classical grammarians have names for their feet; _e.g._, _iambic_ is
the name of [U-], _trochee_ of [-U], _dactyle_ of [-UU], _amphibrachys_ of
[U-U], _Anapæst_ of [UU-], &c.

The English grammarians have no symbols for their feet: since they have no
form for expressing the absence of the accent. Sometimes they borrow the
classical forms [U] and [-]. These, however, being originally meant for
the expression of _quantity_, confusion arises from the use of them.

Neither have the English grammarians names for their measures. Sometimes,
they borrow the classical terms _iambic_, _trochee_, &c. These, however,
being meant for the expression of _quantity_, confusion arises from the use
of them.

As symbols for the English measures, I indicate the use of _a_ as denoting
an accented, _x_ an unaccented syllable; or else that of + as denoting an
accented, - an unaccented syllable. Finally, ´ may denote the accent, ¨ the
absence of it.

As names for the English measures I have nothing to offer. At times it is
convenient to suppose that they have a definite order of arrangement, and
to call words like _týrant_ the _first_ measure, and words like _presúme_
the second measure. In like manner, _mérrily_ is measure 3; _disáble_, 4;
and _cavaliér_, 5. As the number of measures is (from the necessity of the
case) limited, this can be done conveniently. The classical {506} names are
never used with impunity. Their adoption invariably engenders confusion. It
is very true that, _mutatis mutandis_ (_i. e._, accent being substituted
for quantity), words