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

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

§ 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.

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

§ 5. Inference.—As it is nearly certain, that 449 A.D. is not the date of the first introduction of German tribes into Britain, we must consider that the displacement of the original British began at an earlier period than the one usually admitted, and, consequently, that it was more gradual than is usually supposed.

§ 6. Out of the numerous tribes and nations of Germany, three have been more especially mentioned as the chief, if not the exclusive, sources of the present English population of Great Britain. These are the Jutes, the Saxons, and the Angles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 15. The extract from Beda requires further remarks.

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

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

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

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

§ 20. The Anglo-Saxon area coincided—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 41. Another characteristic of the Scandinavian language is the possession of a passive form, or a passive voice, ending in -st:—ek, þu, hann brennist = I am, thou art, he is burnt; ver brennumst = we are burnt; þér brennizt = ye are burnt; þeir brennast = they are burnt. Past tense, ek, þu, hann brendist; ver brendumst, þér brenduzt, þeir brendust. Imperat.: brenstu = be thou burnt. Infinit.: brennast = to be burnt.

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

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

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

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

§ 56. I believe then, that, so far from the current accounts being absolutely correct, in respect to the Germanic elements of the English population, the Jutes, as mentioned by Beda, formed no part of it, whilst the Frisians, not so mentioned, were a real constituent therein; besides which, there may, very easily, have been other Germanic tribes, though in smaller proportions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 71. Latin of the first period.—Of the Latin introduced by Cæsar and his successors, the few words remaining are those that relate to military affairs; viz. street (strata); -coln (as in Lincoln = Lindi colonia); -cest- (as in Gloucester = glevæ castra) from castra. The Latin words introduced between the time of Cæsar and Hengist may be called the Latin of the first period, or the Latin of the Celtic period.

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

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

§ 74. Roman of the second period.—Of the Latin introduced under the Christianised Saxon sovereigns, many words are extant. They relate chiefly to ecclesiastical matters, just as the Latin of the Celtic period bore upon military affairs. Mynster, a minster, monasterium; portic, a porch, porticus; cluster, a cloister, claustrum; munuc, a monk, monachus; bisceop, a bishop, episcopus; arcebisceop, archbishop, archiepiscopus; sanct, a saint, sanctus; profost, a provost, propositus; pall, a pall, pallium; calic, a chalice, calix; candel, a candle, candela; psalter, a psalter, psalterium; mæsse, a mass, missa; pistel, an epistle, epistola; prædic-ian, to preach, prædicare; prof-ian, to prove, probare.

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

§ 76. When we remember that the word Norman means man of the north, that it is a Scandinavian, and not a French word, that it originated in the invasions of the followers of Rollo and and other Norwegians, and that just as part of England was overrun by Pagan buccaneers called Danes, part of France was occupied by similar Northmen, we see the likelihood of certain Norse words finding their way into the French language, where they would be superadded to its original Celtic and Roman elements.

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

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

§ 79. Greek.—Words derived directly from the Greek are in the same predicament as the Latin of the third period—phænomenon, phænomena; criterion, criteria, &c.; words which are only indirectly of Greek origin, being considered to belong to the language from which they were immediately introduced into the English. Such are deacon, priest, &c., introduced through the Latin. Hence a word like church proves no more in regard to a Greek element in English, than the word abbot proves in respect to a Syrian one.

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

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

§ 83. Miscellaneous elements.—Of miscellaneous elements we have two sorts; those that are incorporated in our language, and are currently understood (e.g., the Spanish word sherry, the Arabic word alkali, and the Persian word turban), and those that, even amongst the educated, are considered strangers. Of this latter kind (amongst many others) are the oriental words hummum, kaftan, gul, &c.

§ 90. Sometimes, where the form of a word in respect to its sound is not affected, a false spirit of accommodation introduces an unetymological spelling; as frontispiece, from frontispecium, sovereign, from sovrano, colleague from collega, lanthorn (old orthography) from lanterna.

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

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

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

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

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

§ 98. The extent, however, to which external causes may accelerate or retard philological changes, is not foreign to our subject; the influence of the Norman Conquest, upon the previous Anglo-Saxon foundation, being a problem of some difficulty.

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

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

§ 103. The reigns of Edward III., and Richard II., may be said to form a transition from the Old to the Middle; those of Mary and Elizabeth from the Middle to the New, Recent or Modern English. No very definite line of demarcation, however, can be drawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 112.—The letter h is no articulate sound, but only a breathing.

§ 113.—The attention of the reader is now directed to the following foreign vowel sounds.

§ 114. The system of the mutes.—Preliminary to the consideration of the system of the mutes, let it be observed:—

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

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

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

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

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

§ 120. Chest, jest.—Here we have compound consonantal sounds. The ch in chest = t + sh; the j in jest = d + zh. I believe that in these combinations one or both the elements, viz., t and sh, d and zh, are modified; but I am unable to state the exact nature of this modification.

§ 121. Ng.—The sound of the ng in sing, king, throng, when at the end of a word, or of singer, ringing, &c., in the middle of a word, is not the natural sound of the combination n and g, each letter retaining its natural power and sound; but a simple single sound, for which the combination ng is a conventional mode of expression.

§ 122. Compared with a in fate, and the o in note, a in father, and the aw in bawl, are broad; the vowels of note and fate being slender.

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

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

§ 126. System of Consonants.

§ 127. 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 all attempts at pronunciation end in a change of the combination. In this case either the flat letter is really 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.

§ 128. Unstable combinations.—That certain sounds in combination with others have a tendency to undergo farther changes, may be collected from the observation of our own language, as we find it spoken by those around us, or by ourselves. The diphthong ew is a sample of what may be called an unsteady or unstable combination. There is a natural tendency to change it either into oo or yoo; perhaps also into yew. Hence new is sometimes sounded noo, sometimes nyoo, and sometimes nyew.

§ 129. 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 or s, as tya, tyo; dya, dyo; 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 the instability of the combination ew, accounts for the tendency to pronounce dew as if written jew.

§ 130. 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 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 in writing the shortness or dependence, of the vowel preceding.

§ 131. Real reduplications of consonants, i.e., reduplications of their sound, are, in all languages, extremely rare. In English they occur only under one condition. 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:—

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

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

§ 134. In the words give and gave we have a change of tense expressed by a change of vowel. In the words price and prize a change of meaning is expressed by a change of consonant. In clothe and clad there is a change both of a vowel and of a consonant. In the words to use and a use there is a similar change, although it is not expressed by the spelling. To the ear the verb to use ends in z, although not to the eye. All these are instances of the permutation of letters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 141. In týrant and presúme, we deal with single words; and in each word we determine which syllable is accented. Contrasted with the sort of accent that follows, this may be called a verbal accent.

§ 142. Orthoepy, a word derived from the Greek orthon (upright), and epos (a word), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy determines words, and deals with a language as it is spoken; orthography determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a language as it is written. This latter term is derived from the Greek words orthos (upright), and graphé, or grafæ (writing). Orthography is less essential to language than orthoepy; since all languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are written. Orthography presupposes orthoepy. Orthography addresses itself to the eye, orthoepy to the ear. Orthoepy deals with the articulate sounds that constitute syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by which such articulate sounds are expressed in writing. A letter is the sign of an articulate (and, in the case of h, of an inarticulate) sound.

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 152. The insufficiency of the English alphabet.—

§ 153. Its inconsistency.—The f in fan, and the v in van, sounds in a certain degree of relationship to p and b, are expressed by sounds as unlike as f is unlike p, and as v is unlike b. The sound of the th in thin, the th in thine, the sh in shine, similarly related to t, d, and s, are expressed by signs as like t, d, and s, respectively, as th and sh.

§ 154. Erroneousness.—The sound of the ee in feet is considered the long (independent) sound of the e in bed; whereas it is the long (independent) sound of the i in pit.

§ 155. Redundancy.—As far as the representation of sounds is concerned the letter c is superfluous. In words like citizen it may be replaced by s; in words like cat by k. In ch, as in chest, it has no proper place. In ch, as in mechanical, it may be replaced by k.

§ 156. Unsteadiness.—Here we have (amongst many other examples), 1. The consonant c with the double power of s and k; 2. g with its sound in gun and also with its sound in gin; 3. x with its sounds in Alexander, apoplexy, Xenophon.

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

§ 158. The historical propriety or impropriety of certain letters.—The use of i with a diphthongal power is not only singular and inconvenient, but also historically incorrect. The Greek iota, from whence it originates, has the sound of i and ee, as in pit and feet.

§ 159. On certain conventional modes of spelling.—In the Greek language the sounds of o in not and of o in note (although allied) are expressed by the unlike signs (or letters) ο and ω, respectively. In most other languages the difference between the sounds is considered too slight to require for its expression signs so distinct and dissimilar. In some languages the difference is neglected altogether. In many, however, it is expressed, and that by some modification of the original letter.

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

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

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

§ 173. The Anglo-Norman alphabet.—The Anglo-Saxon language was Gothic; the alphabet, Roman.

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

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

§ 176. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a wide, and at times in a restricted sense.

§ 179. It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in one point, viz., in taking cognizance of the changes of forms that words undergo. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, as father, fathers, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time, as pater, father, is a matter of indifference.

§ 180. How far is there such a thing as gender in the English language? This depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word.

§ 181. Neither are words like cock-sparrow, man-servant, he-goat, &c., as compared with hen-sparrow, maid-servant, she-goat, &c., specimens of gender. Here a difference of sex is indicated by the addition of a fresh term, from which is formed a compound word.

§ 182. In the Latin words genitrix = a mother, and genitor = a father, we have a nearer approach to gender. Here the difference of sex is expressed by a difference of termination; the words genitor and genitrix being in a true etymological relation, i.e., either derived from each other, or from some common source. With this we have, in English corresponding modes of expression: e.g.

§ 183. This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to gender rather than gender itself; the difference from true grammatical gender being as follows:—

§ 184. Contrast, however, with the words genitor and genitrix the words domina = a mistress, and dominus = a master.

§ 185. It may be laid down as a sort of definition, that there is no gender where there is no affection of the declension: consequently, that, although we have, in English, words corresponding to genitrix and genitor, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding to dominus and domina.

§ 189. In the Mœso-Gothic and Scandinavian, the adjectives form the neuters in -t, in Old High German in -z (ts), and in Modem German in -s (derived from -z)—Mœso-Gothic, blind-ata; Icel., blind-t; Old High German, plint-ez, M. G. blind-es = cæc-um.

§ 190. Just as there are in English fragments of a gender modifying the declension, so are there, also, fragments of the second element of gender; viz., the attribution of sex to objects naturally destitute of it. The sun in his glory, the moon in her wane, are examples of this. A sailor calls his ship she. A husbandman, according to Mr. Cobbett, does the same with his plough and working implements:—"In speaking of a ship we say she and her. And you know that our country-folks in Hampshire call almost every thing he or she. It is curious to observe that country labourers give the feminine appellation to those things only which are more closely identified with themselves, and by the qualities or conditions of which their own efforts, and their character as workmen, are affected. The mower calls his scythe a she, the ploughman calls his plough a she; but a prong, or a shovel, or a harrow, which passes promiscuously from hand to hand, and which is appropriated to no particular labourer, is called a he."—"English Grammar," Letter v.

§ 192. Let there be a period in the history of a language wherein the sun and moon are dealt with, not as inanimate masses of matter, but as animated divinities. Let there, in other words, be a time when dead things are personified, and when there is a mythology. Let an object like the sun be deemed a male, and an object like the moon, a female, deity. We may then understand the origin of certain genders.

§ 193. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to miscellaneous remarks upon the true and apparent genders of the English language.

§ 194. In the Greek language the word patær signifies a father, denoting one, whilst patere signifies two fathers, denoting a pair, and thirdly, pateres signifies fathers, speaking of any number beyond two. The three words, patær, patere, and pateres, are said to be in different numbers, the difference of meaning being expressed by a difference of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks of one is the singular, the number that speaks of two is the dual (from the Latin word duo = two), and the number that speaks of more than two is the plural.

§ 197. The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins say bonus pater = a good father; boni patres = good fathers. In the Latin, the adjective bonus changes its form with the change of number of the substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon there were plural forms for the adjectives.

§ 198. Respecting the formation of the plural, the current rule is, that it is formed from the singular by adding s, as father, fathers. This, however, is by no means a true expression. The letter s added to the word father, making it fathers, is s to the eye only. To the ear it is z. The word sounds fatherz. If the s retained its sound the spelling would be fatherce. In stags, lads, &c., the sound is stagz, ladz. The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously, though somewhat lengthily expressed, is as follows.—The plural is formed from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s): e.g. (the sound of the word being expressed), pea, peaz; tree, treez; day, dayz; hill, hillz; hen, henz; gig, gigz; trap, traps; pit, pits; stack, stacks.

§ 199. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary.

§ 200. Boxes, churches, judges, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes.—Here there is the addition, not of the mere letter s, but of the syllable -es. As s cannot be immediately added to s, the intervention of a vowel becomes necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in -es really end either in the sounds of s, or in the allied sounds of z, sh, or zh, may be seen by analysis; since x = ks, ch = tsh, and j or ge = dzh, whilst ce, in prince, is a mere point of orthography for s.

§ 201. The plural form children (child-er-en) requires particular notice.

§ 202. The form in -en.—In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural number is more common than -n: tungan, tongues; steorran, stars. Of this termination we have evident remains in the words oxen, hosen, shoon, eyne, words more or less antiquated. This, perhaps, is no true plural. In welk-in = the clouds, the original singular form is lost.

§ 203. Men, feet, teeth, mice, lice, geese.—In these we have some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a certainty, true plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the so-called weak and strong tenses of verbs; viz., one series of plurals formed by a change of the vowel, and another by the addition of the sibilant. The word kye, used in Scotland for cows, is of the same class. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that of the present English.

§ 204. Brethren.—Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the vowel. 2. The addition of -en. Mr. Guest quotes the forms brethre and brothre from the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural.

§ 205. The words sounded houz-ez, padh-z, yoodh-z, taken along with the extract from Wallis, lead us to an important class of words.—§ 199 b.

§ 206. Certain words ending in f, like loaf, wife, &c.

§ 207. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases, depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the term a house of a father, the idea expressed by the words of a father, is an idea of relation between them and the word house. This idea is an idea of property or possession. The relation between the words father and house may be called the possessive relation. This relation, or connexion, between the two words, is expressed by the preposition of.

§ 211. The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they spread.—In the English language there is undoubtedly a nominative case. This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (father, good, he) equally. It is found in both numbers.

§ 212. Accusative.—Some call this the objective case. The words him and them (whatever they may have been originally) are now (to a certain extent) true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. Thee, me, us, and you are, to a certain extent, true accusatives. These are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2. They are distinguished from the forms I, my, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only.

§ 213. Dative.—In the antiquated word whilom (at times), we have a remnant of the old dative in -m. The sense of the word is abverbial; its form, however, is that of a dative case.

§ 214. Genitive.—Some call this the possessive case. It is found in substantives and pronouns (father's, his), but not in adjectives. It is formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant (father, fathers; buck, bucks); or if the word end in -s, by that of -es (boxes, judges, &c.) It is found in both numbers: the men's hearts; the children's bread. In the plural number, however, it is rare; so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends in s (as it almost always does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words as fatherses, foxeses, princeses, &c.

§ 215. Instrumental.—The following extracts from Rask's "Anglo-Saxon Grammar," teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word spelt t-h-e, or of the so-called definite article—"The demonstrative pronouns are þæt, se, seó (id, is, ea), which are also used for the article; and þis, þes, þeós (hoc, hic, hæc). They are thus declined:—

§ 216. The determination of cases.—How do we determine cases? In other words, why do we call him and them accusatives rather than datives or genitives? By one of two means; viz., either by the sense or the form.

§ 217. Analysis of cases.—In the word children's we are enabled to separate the word into three parts. 1. The root child. 2. The plural signs r and en. 3. The sign of the genitive case, s. In this case the word is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought always to be attempted.

§ 218. The true nature of the genitive form in 's.—It is a common notion that the genitive form father's is contracted from father his. The expression in our liturgy, for Jesus Christ his sake, which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it.

§ 219. I, we, us, me, thou, ye.—These constitute the true personal pronouns. From he, she, and it, they differ in being destitute of gender.

§ 220. The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exceptionable. I and me, thou and ye, stand in no etymological relations to each other. The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective. I has no oblique, and me no nominative case. And so it is with the rest.

§ 221. You.—As far as the practice of the present mode of speech is concerned, the word you is a nominative form; since we say you move, you are moving, you were speaking.

§ 222. Me.—carrying out the views just laid down, and admitting you to be a nominative, or quasi-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to the word me, and call it also a secondary or equivocal nominative; inasmuch as such phrases as it is me = it is I are common.

§ 223. Caution.—Observe, however, that the expression it is me = it is I will not justify the use of it is him, it is her = it is he and it is she. Me, ye, you, are what may be called indifferent forms, i.e., nominative as much as accusative, and accusative as much as nominative. Him and her, on the other hand, are not indifferent. The -m and -r are respectively the signs of cases other than the nominative.

§ 225. In phrases like you are speaking, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, the courtesy consists in treating one person as more than one, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, you = thou is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural:—you are speaking, not you art speaking.

§ 226. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin forms sui, sibi, se.

§ 227. The demonstrative pronouns are, 1. He, it. 2. She. 3. This, that. 4. The.

§ 228. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as follows:—

§ 229. Her.—This is a case, not of the present she, but of the Anglo-Saxon heó: so that she may be said to be defective in the oblique cases, and her to be defective in the nominative.

§ 230. Theirs.—In the same predicament with hers and its; either the case of an adjective, or a case formed from a case.

§ 231. An exhibition of the Anglo-Saxon declension is the best explanation of the English. Be it observed, that the cases marked in italics are found in the present language.

§ 232. These.—Here observe—

§ 233. Those.—Perhaps the Anglo-Saxon þá with s added. Perhaps the þás from þis with its power altered. Rask, in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar, writes "from þis we find, in the plural, þæs for þás. From which afterwards, with a distinction in signification, these and those." The English form they is illustrated by the Anglo-Saxon form ðage = þá. The whole doctrine of the forms in question has yet to assume a satisfactory shape.

§ 234. In the relative and interrogative pronouns, who, what, whom, whose, we have, expressed by a change of form, a neuter gender, what; a dative case whom; and a genitive case, whose: the true power of the s (viz., as the sign of a case) being obscured by the orthographical addition of the e mute.

§ 235. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply to a few of the remaining pronouns.

§ 236. Other, whether.—These words, although derived forms, being simpler than some that have preceded, might fairly have been dealt with before. They make, however, a transition from the present to the succeeding chapter, and so find a place here.

§ 237. Preparatory to the consideration of the degrees of comparison, it is necessary to make some remarks upon a certain class of words, which, with considerable differences of signification, all agree in one fact, viz., all terminate in -er, or t-er.

§ 239. Either, neither, other, whether.—It has just been stated that the general fundamental idea common to all these forms is that of choice between one of two objects in the way of an alternative. Thus far the termination -er in either, &c., is the termination -er in the true comparatives, brav-er, wis-er, &c. Either and neither are common pronouns. Other, like one, is a pronoun capable of taking the plural form of a substantive (others), and also that of the genitive case (the other's money, the other's bread). Whether is a pronoun in the almost obsolete form whether ( = which) of the two do you prefer, and a conjunction in sentences like whether will you do this or not? The use of the form others is recent. "They are taken out of the way as all other."—Job. "And leave their riches for other."—Psalms.

§ 240. There are four leading facts here,—

§ 241. Now the fourth of these facts explains the present forms elder and eldest, the comparatives and superlative of old, besides which there are the regular forms old-er and old-est; between which there is, however, a difference in meaning—elder being used as a substantive, and having a plural form, elders.

§ 242. The abverbial forms in -or and -ost, as compared with the adjectival in -re, and -este explain the form rather. This rhymes to father; the a being full. Nevertheless, the positive form is rather meaning quick, easy = the classical root ῥαδ- in ῥάδιος. What we do quickly and willingly we do preferably. Now if the word rather were an adjective, the vowel of the comparative would be sounded as the a in fate, as it is, however, it is abverbial, and as such is properly sounded as the a in father.

§ 243. The old form in -s will be considered, after notice has been taken of what may be called—

§ 244. Excess of expression.—Of this two samples have already been given: 1. in words like songstress; 2. in words like children. This may be called excess of expression; the feminine gender, in words like songstress, and the plural number, in words like children, being expressed twice over. In the vulgarism betterer for better, and in the antiquated forms worser for worse, and lesser for less, we have, in the case of the comparatives, as elsewhere, an excess of expression. In the old High German we have the forms betsërôro, mêrôro, êrërëra = better, more, ere.

§ 245. Better.—Although in the superlative form best there is a slight variation from the strict form of that degree, the word better is perfectly regular. So far, then, from truth are the current statements that the comparison of the words good, better, and best is irregular. The inflection is not irregular, but defective. As the statement that applies to good, better, and best applies to many words besides, it will be well in this place, once for all, to exhibit it in full.

§ 247. To return, however, to the word better; no absolute positive degree is found in any of the allied languages, and in none of the allied languages is there found any comparative form of good. Its root occurs in the following adverbial forms: Mœso-Gothic, bats; Old High German, pats; Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon, bet; Middle High German, baz; Middle Dutch, bat, bet.

§ 248. Worse.—This word is one of two things.

§ 249. More.—In Anglo-Saxon this is mâ; in the English of the reign of Elizabeth it is moe; and in certain provincial dialects it is mo, at the present time.

§ 250. Less.—In Anglo-Saxon læssa and læs. Here there is no unequivocal sign of the comparative degree; what, then, is the nature of the word? Is it a positive form with a comparative power like moe? or is it an old comparative in -s? This is undecided. What does it come from? Grimm derives it from the Mœso-Gothic root lasiv = weak. His doctrine is doubtful. I cannot but believe that it comes from the same root as litt-le; where the old Frisian form litich, shows that the -l is no essential part of the word, and the Danish form lille gets rid of the t. Still the word is difficult; indeed it is unexplained.

§ 251. Near, nearer.—Anglo-Saxon, neah; comparative, nearre, near, nyr; superlative, nyhst, nehst. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon positive and superlative, the absence of the r. This shows that the English positive near is the Anglo-Saxon comparative nearre, and that in the secondary comparative nearer, we have an excess of expression. It may be, however, that the r in near is a mere point of orthography, and that it is not pronounced; since, in the English language the words father and farther are, for the most part, pronounced alike.

§ 253. Former.—A comparative formed from the superlative; forma being such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with irregularity.

§ 254. In Mœso-Gothic spêdists means last, and spêdiza = later. Of the word spêdists two views may be taken. According to one it is the positive degree with the addition of st; according to the other, it is the comparative degree with the addition only of t. Now, Grimm and others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is formed, not directly from the positive, but indirectly through the comparative.

§ 255. The Anglo-Saxon word for first was for-m-a.

§ 256. Former.—This is a remarkable word: it is a comparative derived from the Anglo-Saxon superlative, and its analysis is for-m-er, with excess of inflexion.

§ 257. Nea-r-est.—Here the r is no part of the original root, as may be seen in § 251. It has grown out of -ah pronounced as the a in father. The true forms are positive, neah; comparative, neah-er; superlative, neah-est. Such, to a certain extent, is really the case.

§ 258. Next.—The superlative of nigh, contracted from nigh-est. The Anglo-Saxon forms were neah, nyh-st, neh-st, nyh-ste. In Anglo-Saxon the letter h was pronounced strongly, and sounded like g or k. This fact is still shown in the spelling; as nigh. In the word next this sound is preserved, slightly changed into that of k; next = nek-st.

§ 259.

§ 260. In certain words, however, the syllable m-ost is added to a word already ending in -er; that is, already marked with the sign of the comparative degree.

§ 261. Generally speaking, the greater part of the cardinal numbers are undeclined. As far as number goes, this is necessary.

§ 262. By referring to § 259, we see that -m was an early sign of the superlative degree. This bears upon the numerals seven, nine, and ten.

§ 264. The next is, to suppose that certain cardinal numerals have taken and retained the ordinal form; these being the—

§ 265. Thir-teen, &c., is three with ten added, or 3 + 10.

§ 266. Thir-ty, &c., is three tens (three decades), or 3 × 10. In Mœso-Gothic we find the -ty in the fuller form tig = δέκ-ας in Greek.

§ 267. In the generality of grammars the definite article the, and the indefinite article an, are the very first parts of speech that are considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite article. In the former language they say ἀνήρ τις = a certain man: in the latter the words filius patris mean equally the son of the father, a son of a father, a son of the father, or the son of a father. In Mœso-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the indefinite article; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a different word from what occurs in English. In these the Greek τις is expressed by the Gothic root sum.

§ 268. Compared with the words lamb, man, and hill, the words lambkin, mannikin, and hillock convey the idea of comparative smallness or diminution. Now, as the word hillock = a little hill differs in form from hill, we have in English a series of diminutive forms, or diminutives.

§ 270. The diminutive forms of Gothic origin are the first to be considered.

§ 271. Augmentatives.—Compared with capello = a hat, the Italian word capellone = a great hat, is an augmentative. The augmentative forms, pre-eminently common in the Italian language, often carry with them a depreciating sense.

§ 272.—Patronymics.—In the Greek language the notion of lineal descent, in other words, the relation of the son to the father, is expressed by a particular termination; as Πηλεύς (Peleus), Πηλείδης (Peleidæs), the son of Peleus. It is very evident that this mode of expression is very different from either the English form Johnson = the son of John, or the Gaelic MacDonald = the son of Donald. In these last-named words, the words son and Mac mean the same thing; so that Johnson and MacDonald are not derived but compound words. This Greek way of expressing descent is peculiar, and the words wherein it occurs are classed together by the peculiar name patronymic; from patær = a father, and onoma = a name.

§ 273. The only word in the present English that requires explanation is the name of the principality Wales.

§ 274. In order to understand clearly the use of the so-called infinitive mood in English, it is necessary to bear in mind two facts, one a matter of logic, the other a matter of history.

§ 281. Expressions like to err = error, to forgive = forgiveness, in lines like

§ 282. Of the divisions of verbs into active and passive, transitive and intransitive, unless there be an accompanying change of form, etymology takes no cognisance. The forces of the auxiliary verbs, and the tenses to which they are equivalent, are also points of syntax rather than of etymology.

§ 283. Compared with the Latin, the Greek, the Mœso-Gothic, and almost all the ancient languages, there is, in English, in respect to the persons of the verbs, but a very slight amount of inflection. This may be seen by comparing the English word call with the Latin voco.

§ 284. In the Modern English, the Old English, and the Anglo-Saxon, the peculiarities of our personal inflections are very great. This may be seen from the following tables of comparison:—

§ 285. Herein remark; 1. the Anglo-Saxon addition of t in the second person singular; 2. the identity in form of the three persons of the plural number; 3. the change of -að into -en in the Old English plural; 4. the total absence of plural forms in the Modern English; 5. the change of the th into s, in loveth and loves. These are points bearing especially upon the history of the English persons. The following points indicate a more general question:

§ 286. The person in -t.—The forms art, wast, wert, shalt, wilt, or ar-t, was-t, wer-t, shal-t, wil-t, are remarkable. Here the second person singular ends, not in -st, but in t. The reason for this is to be sought in the Mœso-Gothic and the Icelandic.

§ 287. Thou spakest, thou brakest, thou sungest.^[53]—

§ 288. In the northern dialects of the Anglo-Saxon the -ð of plurals like lufiað = we love becomes -s. In the Scottish this change was still more prevalent:

§ 289. As compared with the present plural forms, we love, ye love, they love, the Anglo-Saxons had the truly plural forms, we lufiað, ge lufiað, hi lufiað. The Old English also had a true plural inflection we loven, ye loven, they loven. The present English wants both the form in -en, and the form in -að. In other words, the Anglo-Saxon and the Old English have a plural personal characteristic, whilst the Modern English has nothing to correspond with it.

§ 290. In the forms luf-iað, and lov-en, the change from singular to plural is made by adding a syllable; but there is no reason against the inflection running thus—I love, thou lovest, he loves; we lave, ye lave, they lave; in other words, there is no reason against the vowel of the root being changed, just as is the case with the form speak, spoke; fall, fell.

§ 291. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered.

§ 292. If he speak, as opposed to if he speaks, is characterized by a negative sign only, and consequently is no true example of a subjunctive. Be, as opposed to am, in the sentence if it be so, is a fresh word used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a subjunctive. It is a different word altogether, and is only the subjunctive of am, in the way puss is the vocative of cat.

§ 293. The nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to the Greek; since in that language they are more numerous, and more strongly marked than elsewhere.

§ 294. In Greek the case is different. Τύπτω (typtô) = I beat; ἔτυπτον (etypton) = I was beating; τύψω (typsô) = I shall beat; ἔτυψα (etypsa) = I beat; τέτυφα (tetyfa) = I have beaten; ἐτετύφειν (etetyfein) = I had beaten. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and the same conjugation, six different tenses; whereas, in English, there are but two. The forms τέτυφα and ἔτυψα are so strongly marked, that we recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed by a reduplication of the initial τ, and, consequently, may be called the reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the form ἔτυψα an ε is prefixed, and an σ is added. In the allied language of Italy the ε disappears, whilst the σ (s) remains. Ἔτυψα is said to be an aorist tense. Scripsi is to scribo as ἔτυψα is to τύπτω.

§ 296. When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference of meaning, it has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in question. One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that, although in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word. Wherever there is the perfect, the aorist is wanting, and vice versâ. The two ideas I have struck and I struck are merged into the notion of past time in general, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that of the Greek perfect, and sometimes by that of the Greek aorist. On account of this the grammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses to five; forms like cucurri and vixi being dealt with as one and the same tense. The true view is, that in curro the aorist form is replaced by the perfect, and in vixi the perfect form is replaced by the aorist.

§ 297. In the present English there is no undoubted perfect or reduplicate form. The form moved corresponds in meaning not with τέτυφα and momordi, but with ἔτυψα and vixi. Its sense is that of ἔτυψα, and not that of τέτυφα. The notion given by τέτυφα we express by the circumlocution I have beaten. We have no such form as bebeat or memove. In the Mœso-Gothic, however, there was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well as an aorist. It is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the first six conjugations are characterized.

§ 298. In the English language the tense corresponding with the Greek aorist and the Latin forms like vixi, is formed after two modes; 1, as in fell, sang, and took, from fall, sing, and take, by changing the vowel of the present: 2, as in moved and wept, from move and weep, by the addition of -d or -t; the -d or -t not being found in the original word, but being a fresh element added to it. In forms, on the contrary, like sang and fell, no addition being made, no new element appears. The vowel, indeed, is changed, but nothing is added. Verbs, then, of the first sort, may be said to form their præterites out of themselves; whilst verbs of the second sort require something from without. To speak in a metaphor, words like sang and fell are comparatively independent. Be this as it may, the German grammarians call the tenses formed by a change of vowel the strong tenses, the strong verbs, the strong conjugation, or the strong order; and those formed by the addition of d or t, the weak tenses, the weak verbs, the weak conjugation, or the weak order. Bound, spoke, gave, lay, &c., are strong; moved, favoured, instructed, &c., are weak.

§ 299. The strong præterites are formed from the present by changing the vowel, as sing, sang; speak, spoke.

§ 300. The verbs wherein the double form of the present præterite is thus explained, fall into two classes.

§ 303. An arrangement of the preceding verbs into classes, according to the change of vowel, is by no means difficult, even in the present stage of the English language. In the Anglo-Saxon, it was easier still. It is also easier in the provincial dialects, than in the literary English. Thus, when

§ 304. The præterite tense of the weak verbs is formed by the addition of -d or -t.

§ 305. When, however, the original word ends in -d or -t, as slight or brand, then, and then only is there the real addition of the syllable -ed; as in slighted, branded.

§ 307. II. In the second class, besides the addition of -t or -d, the vowel is shortened,

§ 309. Out of the three classes into which the weak verbs in Anglo-Saxon are divided, only one takes a vowel before the d or t. The other two add the syllables -te or -de, to the last letter of the original word. The vowel that, in one out of the three Anglo-Saxon classes, precedes d is o. Thus we have lufian, lufode; clypian, clypode. In the other two classes the forms are respectively bærnan, bærnde; and tellan, tealde, no vowel being found. The participle, however, as stated above, ended, not in -de or -te, but in -d or -t; and in two out of the three classes it was preceded by a vowel; the vowel being e,—gelufod, bærned, geteald. Now in those conjugations where no vowel preceded the d of the præterite, and where the original word ended in -d or -t, a difficulty, which has already been indicated, arose. To add the sign of the præterite to a word like eard-ian (to dwell) was an easy matter, inasmuch as eardian was a word belonging to the first class, and in the first class the præterite was formed in -ode. Here the vowel o kept the two d's from coming in contact. With words, however, like métan and sendan, this was not the case. Here no vowel intervened; so that the natural præterite forms were met-te, send-de, combinations wherein one of the letters ran every chance of being dropped in the pronunciation. Hence, with the exception of the verbs in the first class, words ending in -d or -t in the root admitted no additional d or t in the præterite. This difficulty, existing in the present English as it existed in the Anglo-Saxon, modifies the præterites of most words ending in -t or -d.

§ 310. In several words there is the actual addition of the syllable -ed; in other words d is separated from the last letter of the original word by the addition of a vowel; as ended, instructed, &c.

§ 312. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as feed, fed; bleed, bled; breed, bred; meet, met; speed, sped; rēad, rĕad, &c. Words of this last-named class cause occasional difficulty to the grammarian. No addition is made to the root, and, in this circumstance, they agree with the strong verbs. Moreover, there is a change of the vowel. In this circumstance also they agree with the strong verbs. Hence with forms like fed and led we are in doubt as to the conjugation. This doubt we have three means of settling, as may be shown by the word beat.

§ 313. The following verbs form their præterite in -t:—

§ 314. Certain so-called irregularities may now be noticed.—Made, had.—In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms are macode and hæfde, respectively. The words, however, in regard to the amount of change, are not upon a par. The f in hæfde was probably sounded as v. Now v is a letter excessively liable to be ejected, which k is not. K, before it is ejected, is generally changed into either g or y.

§ 315. Aught.—In Anglo-Saxon áhte, the præterite of the present form áh, plural ágon.—As late as the time of Elizabeth we find owe used for own. The present form own seems to have arisen from the plural ágon. Aught is the præterite of the Anglo-Saxon áh; owed of the English owe = debeo; owned of the English own = possideo. The word own, in the expression to own to a thing, has a totally different origin. It comes from the Anglo-Saxon an (plural, unnon) = I give, or grant = concedo.

§ 316. Durst.—The verb dare is both transitive and intransitive. We can say either I dare do such a thing, or I dare (challenge) such a man to do it. This, in the present tense, is unequivocally correct. In the past the double power of the word dare is ambiguous; still it is, to my mind at least, allowable. We can certainly say I dared him to accept my challenge; and we can, perhaps, say I dared venture on the expedition. In this last sentence, however, durst is the preferable expression.

§ 317. In the phrase this will do = this will answer the purpose, the word do is wholly different from the word do, meaning to act. In the first case it is equivalent to the Latin valere; in the second to the Latin facere. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection is deáh, dugon, dohte, dohtest, &c. Of the second it is dó, doð, dyde, &c. I doubt whether the præterite did, as equivalent to valebat = was good for, is correct. In the phrase it did for him = it finished him, either meaning may be allowed.

§ 318. Mind—mind and do so and so.—In this sentence the word mind is wholly different from the noun mind. The Anglo-Saxon forms are geman, gemanst, gemunon, without the -d; this letter occurring only in the præterite tense (gemunde, gemundon), of which it is the sign. Mind is, then, a præterite form with a present sense; whilst minded (as in he minded his business) is an instance of excess of inflection; in other words, it is a præterite formed from a præterite.

§ 319. Yode.—The obsolete præterite of go, now replaced by went, the præterite of wend. Regular, except that the initial g has become y.

§ 320. Did.—See § 317.

§ 321. Attention is directed to the following list of verbs. In the present English they all form the præterite in -d or -t; in Anglo-Saxon, they all formed it by a change of the vowel. In other words they are weak verbs that were once strong.

§ 322. Respecting the strong verb, the following general statements may be made:

§ 323. The distinction between irregularity and defectiveness has been foreshadowed. It is now more urgently insisted on.

§ 325. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology reduces irregularity; and that by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but general. The quantum of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the generality of our rules. In language itself there is no irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes.

§ 326. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards the definition of the word irregular.

§ 327. Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit.—The combinations -pd, -fd, -kd, -sd, and some others, are unpronounceable. Hence words like step, quaff, back, kiss, &c., take after them the sound of -t; stept, quafft, &c., being their præterites, instead of stepd, quaffd. Here the change from -d to -t is a matter of necessity. It is not so with words like weep, and wept, &c. Here the change of vowel is not necessary. Weept might have been said if the habit of the language had permitted.

§ 328. Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes.—The whole scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a language takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one. The forms wept, and slept, correspond with each other. They are brought about by the same process: viz., by the shortening of the vowel in weep and sleep. The analogy of weep is extended to sleep, and vice versâ. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both words. The alteration itself is the leading fact. The extent of its influence is an instrument of classification. When processes affect a considerable number of words, they may be called ordinary processes; as opposed to extraordinary processes, which affect one or few words.

§ 329. Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes.—The words wept and slept are similarly affected. Each is changed from weep and sleep respectively; and we know that the process which affects the one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process.

§ 330. Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion.—Let a certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical.

§ 331. Could.—With all persons who pronounce the l this word is truly irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form is cuðe. The l is inserted by a process of confusion.

§ 332. The verb quoth is truly defective. It is found in only one tense, one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the præterite tense. It has the further peculiarity of preceding its pronoun. Instead of saying he quoth, we say quoth he. In Anglo-Saxon, however, it was not defective. It was found in the other tenses, in the other number, and in other moods. Ic cweðe, þú cwyst, he cwyð; ic cwæð, þú cwæðe, he cwæð, we cwædon, ge cwædon, hi cwædon; imperative, cweð; participle, gecweden. In the Scandinavian it is current in all its forms. There, however, it means, not to speak but to sing. As far as its conjugation goes, it is strong. As far as its class goes, it follows the form of speak, spoke. Like speak, its Anglo-Saxon form is in æ, as cwæð. Like one of the forms of speak, its English form is in o, as quoth, spoke.

§ 333. The principle that gives us the truest views of the structure of language is that which considers no word irregular unless it be affected by either an ambiguous process, or by a process of confusion. The words affected by extraordinary processes form a provisional class, which a future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be regular. Worse and could are the fairest specimens of our irregulars. Yet even could is only an irregularity in the written language. The printer makes it, and the printer can take it away. Hence the class, instead of filling pages, is exceedingly limited.

§ 334. In me-seems, and me-thinks, the me is dative rather than accusative, and = mihi and μοι rather than me and με.

§ 335. In me-listeth, the me is accusative rather than dative, and = me and με rather than mihi and μοι.

§ 336. The verb substantive is generally dealt with as an irregular verb. This is inaccurate. The true notion is that the idea of being or existing is expressed by four different verbs, each of which is defective in some of its parts. The parts, however, that are wanting in one verb, are made up by the inflections of one of the others. There is, for example, no præterite of the verb am, and no present of the verb was. The absence, however, of the present form of was is made up by the word am, and the absence of the præterite form of am is made up by the word was.

§ 337. Was is defective, except in the præterite tense, where it is found both in the indicative and conjunctive.

§ 338. Be is inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both indicative and subjunctive. It is found also as an infinitive, beón; as a gerund, to beonne; and as a participle, beonde; in the present English its inflection is as follows:

§ 341. Now, if we consider the word beón like the word weorðan (see § 343) to mean not so much to be as to become, we get an element of the idea of futurity. Things which are becoming anything have yet something further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power of be. In English we often say may for shall, and the same was done in Anglo-Saxon.

§ 342. Am.—Of this form it should be stated that the letter -m is no part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it is in Greek, and several other languages.

§ 343. Worth.—In the following lines of Scott, the word worth = is, and is a fragment of the regular Anglo-Saxon verb weorðan = to be, or to become; German werden.

§ 344. The present participle, called also the active participle and the participle in -ing, is formed from the original word by adding -ing; as, move, moving. In the older languages the termination was more marked, being -nd. Like the Latin participle in -ns, it was originally declined. The Mœso-Gothic and Old High German forms are habands and hapêntér = having, respectively. The -s in the one language, and the -êr in the other, are the signs of the case and gender. In the Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon the forms are -and and -ande; as bindand, bindande = binding. In all the Norse languages, ancient and modern, the -d is preserved. So it is in the Old Lowland Scotch, and in many of the modern provincial dialects of England, where strikand, goand, is said for striking, going. In Staffordshire, where the -ing is pronounced -ingg, there is a fuller sound than that of the current English. In Old English the form in -nd is predominant, in Middle English the use fluctuates, and in New English the termination -ing is universal. In the Scotch of the modern writers we find the form -in.

§ 345. It has often been remarked that the participle is used in many languages as a substantive. This is true in Greek,

§ 346. A. The participle in -EN.—In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjectives. Like the adjectives, it is, in the present English, undeclined.

§ 347. Drank, drunk, drunken.—With all words wherein the vowel of the plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the plural form. To say I have drunk, is to use an ambiguous expression; since drunk may be either a participle minus its termination, or a præterite with a participial sense. To say I have drank, is to use a præterite for a participle. To say I have drunken, is to use an unexceptional form.

§ 348. As a general rule, we find the participle in -en wherever the præterite is strong; indeed, the participle in -en may be called the strong participle, or the participle of the strong conjugation. Still the two forms do not always coincide. In mow, mowed, mown, sow, sowed, sown; and several other words, we find the participle strong, and the præterite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is only another way of saying that the præterite has a greater tendency to pass from strong to weak than the participle.

§ 349. In the Latin language the change from s to r, and vice versâ, is very common. We have the double forms arbor and arbos, honor and honos, &c. Of this change we have a few specimens in English. The words rear and raise, as compared with each other, are examples. In Anglo-Saxon a few words undergo a similar change in the plural number of the strong præterites.

§ 350. B. The participle in -D, -T, or -ED.—In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjective. Like the adjective, it is, in the present English, undeclined.

§ 351. The prefix Y.—In the older writers, and in works written, like Thomson's "Castle of Indolence," in imitation of them, we find prefixed to the præterite participle the letter y-, as, yclept = called: yclad = clothed: ydrad = dreaded.

§ 352. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and indubitable specimens of composition—day-star, vine-yard, sun-beam, apple-tree, ship-load, silver-smith, &c. The words palpable and indubitable have been used, because in many cases, as will be seen hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound or not.

§ 357. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the detail of the composition of words; e.g., how nouns combine with nouns, as in sun-beam; nouns with verbs, as in dare-devil, &c. It is thought however, sufficient in the present work to be content with, 1. defining the meaning of the term composition; 2. explaining the nature of some obscure compounds.

§ 358. As a preliminary to a somewhat subtle distinction, the attention of the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from Churchill:—

§ 361. The following quotation indicates a further cause of perplexity in determining between compound words and two words:—

§ 362. On certain words wherein the fact of their being compound is obscured.—Composition is the addition of a word to a word, derivation is the addition of certain letters or syllables to a word. In a compound form each element has a separate and independent existence; in a derived form, only one of the elements has such. Now it is very possible that in an older stage of a language two words may exist, may be put together, and may so form a compound, each word having, then, a separate and independent existence. In a later stage of language, however, only one of these words may have a separate and independent existence, the other having become obsolete. In this case a compound word would take the appearance of a derived one, since but one of its elements could be exhibited as a separate and independent word. Such is the case with, amongst others, the word bishop-ric. In the present language the word ric has no separate and independent existence. For all this, the word is a true compound, since, in Anglo-Saxon, we have the noun ríce as a separate, independent word, signifying kingdom or domain.

§ 363. "Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that there is no true composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent."—Such is the statement made in § 358. The first class of exceptions consists of those words where the natural tendency to disparity of accent is traversed by some rule of euphony. For example, let two words be put together, which at their point of contact form a combination of sounds foreign to our habits of pronunciation. The rarity of the combination will cause an effort in utterance. The effort in utterance will cause an accent to be laid on the latter half of the compound. This will equalize the accent, and abolish the disparity. The word monkshood, the name of a flower (aconitum napellus), where, to my ear at least, there is quite as much accent on the -hood as on the monks-, may serve in the way of illustration. Monks is one word, hood another. When joined together, the h- of the -hood is put in immediate apposition with the s of the monks-. Hence the combination monkshood. At the letters s and h is the point of contact. Now the sound of s followed immediately by the sound of h is a true aspirate. But true aspirates are rare in the English language. Being of rare occurrence, the pronunciation of them is a matter of attention and effort; and this attention and effort create an accent which otherwise would be absent. Hence words like mónks-hóod, well-héad, and some others.

§ 365. The third class of exceptions contains words like perchánce and perháps. In all respects but one these are double words, just as by chance is a double word. Per, however, differs from by in having no separate existence. This sort of words we owe to the multiplicity of elements (classical and Gothic) in the English language.

§ 366. Peacock, peahen.—If these words be rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of the elements -cock and -hen, the statements made in the beginning of the present chapter are invalidated. Since, if the word pea- be particularized, qualified, or defined by the words -cock and -hen, the second term defines or particularises the first, which is contrary to the rule of § 356. The truth, however, is, that the words -cock and -hen are defined by the prefix pea-. Preparatory to the exhibition of this, let us remember that the word pea (although now found in composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a species of fowl, like pheasant, partridge, or any other appellation. It is the Latin pavo, German pfau. Now if the word peacock mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is a male, then do wood-cock, black-cock, and bantam-cock, mean woods, blacks, and bantams that are male. Or if the word peahen mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is female, then do moorhen and guineahen mean moors and guineas that are female. Again, if a peahen mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is female, then does the compound pheasant-hen mean the same as hen-pheasant; which is not the case. The fact is that peacock means a cock that is a pea (pfau or pavo); peahen means a hen that is a pea (pfau or pavo); and, finally, peafowl means a fowl that is a pea (pfau or pavo). In the same way moorfowl means, not a moor that is connected with a fowl, but a fowl that is connected with a moor.

§ 367. It must be clear that in every compound word there are, at least, two parts; i.e., the whole or part of the original, and the whole or part of the superadded word. In the most perfect forms of inflection, however, there is a third element, viz., a vowel, consonant, or syllable that joins the first word with the second.

§ 368. Improper compounds.—The -s- in words like Thur-s-day, hunt-s-man, may be one of two things.

§ 369. Decomposites.—"Composition is the joining together of two words."—See § 357.

§ 370. There are a number of words which are never found by themselves; or, if so found, have never the same sense that they have in combination. Mark the word combination. The terms in question are points of combination, not of composition: since they form not the parts of words, but the parts of phrases. Such are the expressions time and tide—might and main—rede me my riddle—pay your shot—rhyme and reason, &c. These words are evidently of the same class, though not of the same species with bishopric, colewort, spillikin, gossip, mainswearer, &c.

§ 371. Derivation, like etymology, is a word used in a wide and in a limited sense. In the wide sense of the term, every word, except it be in the simple form of a root, is a derived word. In this sense the cases, numbers, and genders of nouns, the persons, moods, and tenses of verbs, the ordinal numbers, the diminutives, and even the compound words, are alike matters of derivation. In the wide sense of the term the word fathers, from father, is equally in a state of derivation with the word strength from strong.

§ 373. In words like bishopric, and many others mentioned in the last Chapter, we had compound words under the appearance of derived ones; in words like upmost, and many others, we have derivation under the appearance of composition.

§ 374. Adverbs.—The adverbs are capable of being classified after a variety of principles.

§ 375. Well, better, ill, worse.—Here we have a class of adverbs expressive of degree, or intensity. Adverbs of this kind are capable of taking an inflection, viz., that of the comparative and superlative degrees.

§ 376. Secondly, adverbs may be divided according to their form and origin.

§ 379. Adjectives of deflection derived from substantives may originally have been—

§ 380. Darkling.—This is no participle of a verb darkle, but an adverb of derivation, like unwaringûn = unawares, Old High German; stillinge = secretly, Middle High German; blindlings = blindly, New High German; darnungo = secretly, Old Saxon; nichtinge = by night, Middle Dutch; blindeling = blindly, New Dutch; bæclinga = backwards, handlunga = hand to hand, Anglo-Saxon; and, finally, blindlins, backlins, darklins, middlins, scantlins, stridelins, stowlins, in Lowland Scotch.

§ 381. It is a common practice for languages to express by different modifications of the same root the three following ideas:—

§ 384. Local terminations of this kind, in general, were commoner in the earlier stages of language than at present. The following are from the Mœso-Gothic:—

§ 385. The -ce ( = es) in hen-ce, when-ce, then-ce, has yet to be satisfactorily explained. The Old English is whenn-es, thenn-es. As far, therefore, as the spelling is concerned, they are in the same predicament with the word once, which is properly on-es, the genitive of one. This origin is probable, but not certain.

§ 386. Yonder.—In the Mœso-Gothic we have the following forms: jáinar, jáina, jánþrô = illic, illuc, illinc. They do not, however, quite explain the form yon-d-er. It is not clear whether the d = the -d in jâind, or the þ in jainþro.

§ 387. Anon, is used by Shakspeare, in the sense of presently.—The probable history of this word is as follows: the first syllable contains a root akin to the root yon, signifying distance in place. The second is a shortened form of the Old High German and Middle High German, -nt, a termination expressive, 1, of removal in space; 2, of removal in time; Old High German, ënont, ënnont; Middle High German, ënentlig, jenunt = beyond.

§ 388. The Anglo-Saxon adverbs are whenne and þenne = when, then.

§ 389. As to the word than, the conjunction of comparison, it is another form of then; the notions of order, sequence, and comparison being allied.

§ 390. Prepositions.—Prepositions are wholly unsusceptible of inflection.

§ 391. Conjunctions.—Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly unsusceptible of inflection.

§ 392. Yes, no.—Although not may be considered to be an adverb, nor a conjunction, and none a noun, these two words, the direct categorical affirmative, and the direct categorical negative, are referable to none of the current parts of speech. Accurate grammar places them in a class by themselves.

§ 393. Particles.—The word particle is a collective term for all those parts of speech that are naturally unsusceptible of inflection; comprising, 1, interjections; 2, direct categorical affirmatives; 3, direct categorical negatives; 4, absolute conjunctions; 5, absolute prepositions; 6, adverbs unsusceptible of degrees of comparison; 7, inseparable prefixes.

§ 394. The inflection of pronouns has its natural peculiarities in language. It has also its natural difficulties in philology. These occur not in one language in particular, but in all generally.

§ 407. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of min or þin, the necessary equivalents to mei and tui, rather than to meus and tuus, must consist in the quotation from the Anglo-Saxon of some text, wherein min or þin occurs with a feminine substantive, in an oblique case, the pronoun preceding the noun. When this has been done, it will be time enough to treat mine and thine as the equivalents to mei and tui, rather than as those to meus and tuus.

§ 408. The remote origin of the weak præterite in -d or -t, has been considered by Grimm. He maintains that it is the d in d-d, the reduplicate præterite of do. In all the Gothic languages the termination of the past tense is either -da, -ta, -de, -ði, -d, -t, or -ed, for the singular, and -don, -ton, -tûmês, or -ðum, for the plural; in other words, d, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the plural præterite of the Mœso-Gothic, however, we have something more, viz., the termination -dêdum; as nas-idêdum, nas-idêduþ, nas-idedun, from nas-ja; sôk-idêdum, sôk-idêduþ, sôk-idêdun, from sôk-ja; salb-ôdedum, salb-ôdêduþ, salb-ôdêdun, from salbô. Here there is a second d. The same takes place with the dual form salb-ôdêduts, and with the subjunctive forms, salb-ôdêdjan, salb-ôdêduts, salb-ôdedi, salb-ôdêdeits, salb-ôdêdeima, salb-ôdedeiþ, salb-ôdedina. The English phrase, we did salve, as compared with salb-ôdedum, is confirmatory of this.

§ 409. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic præterite, in the "Transactions of the Philological Society," induce me to prefer a different doctrine, and to identify the -d in words like moved, &c., with the -t of the passive participles of the Latin language; as found in mon-it-us, voc-at-us, rap-t-us, and probably in Greek forms like τυφ-θ-είς.

§ 410. The following extract gives Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic verb in his own words:—

§ 411. The word syntax is derived from the Greek syn (with or together) and taxis (arrangement). It relates to the arrangement, or putting together, of words. Two or more words must be used before there can be any application of syntax.

§ 412. In the English, as in all other languages, it is convenient to notice certain so-called figures of speech. They always furnish convenient modes of expression, and sometimes, as in the case of the one immediately about to be noticed, account for facts.

§ 413. Personification.—The ideas of apposition and collectiveness account for the apparent violations of the concord of number. The idea of personification applies to the concord of gender. A masculine or feminine gender, characteristic of persons, may be substituted for the neuter gender, characteristic of things. In this case the term is said to be personified.

§ 414. Ellipsis (from the Greek elleipein = to fall short), or a falling short, occurs in sentences like I sent to the bookseller's. Here the word shop or house is understood. Expressions like to go on all fours, and to eat of the fruit of the tree, are reducible to ellipses.

§ 415. Pleonasm (from the Greek pleoazein = to be in excess) occurs in sentences like the king, he reigns. Here the word he is superabundant.

§ 416. The figure zeugma.—They wear a garment like that of the Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves.—The verb, naturally applying to garment only, is here used to govern language. This is called in Greek, zeugma (junction).

§ 417. My paternal home was made desolate, and he himself was sacrificed.—The sense of this is plain; he means my father. Yet no such substantive as father has gone before. It is supplied, however, from the word paternal. The sense indicated by paternal gives us a subject to which he can refer. In other words, the word he is understood, according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed. This figure in Greek is called pros to semainomenon (according to the thing indicated).

§ 418.—Apposition,—Cæsar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain.—-Here the words Roman emperor explain, or define, the word Cæsar; and the sentence, filled up, might stand, Cæsar, that is, the Roman emperor, &c. Again, the words Roman emperor might be wholly ejected; or, if not ejected, they might be thrown into a parenthesis. The practical bearing of this fact is exhibited by changing the form of the sentence, and inserting the conjunction and. In this case, instead of one person, two are spoken of, and the verb invades must be changed from the singular to the plural.

§ 419. Collectiveness as opposed to plurality.—In sentences like the meeting was large, the multitude pursue pleasure, meeting and multitude are each collective nouns; that is, although they present the idea of a single object, that object consists of a plurality of individuals. Hence, pursue is put in the plural number. To say, however, the meeting were large would sound improper. The number of the verb that shall accompany a collective noun depends upon whether the idea of the multiplicity of individuals, or that of the unity of the aggregate, shall predominate.

§ 420. The reduction of complex forms to simple ones.—Take, for instance, the current illustration, viz., the-king-of-Saxony's army.—Here the assertion is, not that the army belongs to Saxony, but that it belongs to the king of Saxony; which words must, for the sake of taking a true view of the construction, be dealt with as a single word in the possessive case. Here two cases are dealt with as one; and a complex term is treated as a single word.

§ 421. True notion of the part of speech in use.—In he is gone, the word gone must be considered as equivalent to absent; that is, as an adjective. Otherwise the expression is as incorrect as the expression she is eloped. Strong participles are adjectival oftener than weak ones: their form being common to many adjectives.

§ 422. Convertibility.—In the English language, the greater part of the words may, as far as their form is concerned, be one part of speech as well as another. Thus the combinations s-a-n-th, or f-r-e-n-k, if they existed at all, might exist as either nouns or verbs, as either substantives or adjectives, as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositions. This is not the case in the Greek languages. There, if a word be a substantive, it will probably end in -s; if an infinitive verb, in -ein, &c. The bearings of this difference between languages like the English and languages like the Greek will soon appear.

§ 424. Syntactic convertibility.—The combination to err, is at this moment an infinitive verb. Nevertheless it can be used as the equivalent to the substantive error.

§ 425. The adjective used as a substantive.—Of these, we have examples in expressions like the blacks of Africa—the bitters and sweets of life—all fours were put to the ground. These are true instances of conversion, and are proved to be so by the fact of their taking a plural form.

§ 426. Uninflected parts of speech, used as substantive.—When King Richard III. says, none of your ifs, he uses the word if as a substantive = expressions of doubt.

§ 427. The convertibility of words in English is very great; and it is so because the structure of the language favours it. As few words have any peculiar signs expressive of their being particular parts of speech, interchange is easy, and conversion follows the logical association of ideas unimpeded.

§ 428. The phenomena of convertibility have been already explained.

§ 429. The following phrases are referable to a different class of relations—

§ 430. Pleonasm.—Pleonasm can take place with adjectives only in the expression of the degrees of comparison. Over and above the etymological signs of the comparative and superlative degrees, there may be used the superlative words more and most.

§ 431. Collocation.—As a general rule, the adjective precedes the substantive—a good man, not a man good.

§ 432. Government.—The only adjective that governs a case, is the word like. In the expression, this is like him, &c., the original power of the dative remains. This we infer—

§ 433. The positive degree preceded by the adjective more, is equivalent to the comparative form—e.g., more wise = wiser.

§ 434. In the Chapter on the Comparative Degree is indicated a refinement upon the current notions as to the power of the comparative degree, and reasons are given for believing that the fundamental notion expressed by the comparative inflexion is the idea of comparison or contrast between two objects.

§ 435. The absence of inflection simplifies the syntax of adjectives. Violations of concord are impossible. We could not make an adjective disagree with its substantive if we wished.

§ 436. Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns.—In the following sentences the words in italics are pleonastic:

§ 437. The fourth has another element of importance. It has given rise to the absurd notion that the genitive case in -'s (father-'s) is a contraction from his (father his).

§ 438. The preceding examples illustrate an apparent paradox, viz., the fact of pleonasm and ellipsis being closely allied. The king he is just, dealt with as a single sentence, is undoubtedly pleonastic. But it is not necessary to be considered as a mere simple sentence. The king—may represent a first sentence incomplete, whilst he is just represents a second sentence in full. What is pleonasm in a single sentence is ellipsis in a double one.

§ 439. Personal pronouns.—The use of the second person plural instead of the second singular has been noticed already. This use of one number for another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used is conveniently called the pronomen reverentiæ.

§ 440. Dativus ethicus.—In the phrase

§ 441. The reflected personal pronoun.—In the English language there is no equivalent to the Latin se, the German sich, and the Scandinavian sik, and sig.

§ 442. Reflective neuters.—In the phrase I strike me, the verb strike is transitive; in other words, the word me expresses the object of an action, and the meaning is different from the meaning of the simple expression I strike.

§ 443. Equivocal reflectives.—The proper place of the reflective is after the verb.

§ 444. As his and her are genitive cases (and not adjectives), there is no need of explaining such combinations as his mother, her father, inasmuch as no concord of gender is expected. The expressions are respectively equivalent to

§ 445. It has been stated that its is a secondary genitive, and it may be added, that it is of late origin in the language. The Anglo-Saxon form was his, the genitive of he for the neuter and masculine equally. Hence, when, in the old writers, we meet his, where we expect its, we must not suppose that any personification takes place, but simply that the old genitive common to the two genders is used in preference to the modern one limited to the neuter, and irregularly formed.

§ 446. The undoubted constructions of the word self, in the present state of the cultivated English, are threefold.

§ 447. Her-self.—The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of the preceding constructions. Which, however it is, is uncertain; since her may be either a so-called genitive, like my, or an accusative like him.

§ 448. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first contains the forms like my and thy, &c.; the second, those like mine and thine, &c.

§ 451. In respect to all matters of syntax considered exclusively, it is so thoroughly a matter of indifference whether a word be an adjective or a genitive case that Wallis considers the forms in -'s, like father's, not as genitive cases but as adjectives. Looking to the logic of the question alone he is right, and looking to the practical syntax of the question he is right also. He is only wrong on the etymological side of the question.

§ 452. It is necessary that the relative be in the same gender as the antecedent—the man who—the woman who—the thing which.

§ 456. As the relative is only the antecedent in another form, it may change its case according to the construction.

§ 457. The books I want are here.—This is a specimen of a true ellipsis. In all such phrases in full, there are three essential elements.

§ 458. When there are two words in a clause, each capable of being an antecedent, the relative refers to the latter.

§ 459. Questions are of two sorts, direct and oblique.

§ 460. Nevertheless, such expressions as whom do they say that it is? are common, especially in oblique questions.

§ 461. In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual action there are in reality two assertions, viz., the assertion that A. strikes (or loves) B., and the assertion that B. strikes (or loves) A.; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence, if the expressions exactly coincided with the fact signified, there would always be two propositions. This, however, is not the habit of language. Hence arises a more compendious form of expression, giving origin to an ellipsis of a peculiar kind. Phrases like Eteocles and Polynices killed each other are elliptical, for Eteocles and Polynices killed—each the other. Here the second proposition expands and explains the first, whilst the first supplies the verb to the second. Each, however, is elliptic.

§ 462. This is the syntax. As to the power of the words each and one in the expression (each other and one another), I am not prepared to say that in the common practice of the English language there is any distinction between them. A distinction, however, if it existed, would give strength to our language. Where two persons performed a reciprocal action on another, the expression might be one another; as Eteocles and Polynices killed one another. Where more than two persons were engaged on each side of a reciprocal action, the expression might be each other; as, the ten champions praised each other.

§ 463. Different nations have different methods of expressing indeterminate propositions.

§ 466. It can be either the subject or the predicate of a sentence,—it is this, this is it, I am it, it is I. When it is the subject of a proposition, the verb necessarily agrees with it, and can be of the singular number only; no matter what be the number of the predicate—it is this, it is these.

§ 467. There can only be the predicate of a subject. It differs from it in this respect. It follows also that it must differ from it in never affecting the number of the verb. This is determined by the nature of the subject—there is this, there are these.

§ 468. Although it, when the subject, being itself singular, absolutely requires that its verb should be singular also, there is a tendency to use it incorrectly, and to treat it as a plural. Thus, in German, when the predicate is plural, the verb joined to the singular form es ( = it) is plural—es sind menschen, literally translated = it are men; which, though bad English, is good German.

§ 486. Notwithstanding its name, the present tense in English does not express a strictly present action. It rather expresses an habitual one. He speaks well = he is a good speaker. If a man means to say that he is in the act of speaking, he says I am speaking.

§ 487. The English præterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect but the Greek aorist. I beat = ἔτυψα not τέτυφα. The true perfect is expressed, in English, by the auxiliary have + the past participle.

§ 488. The concord of persons.—A difficulty that occurs frequently in the Latin language is rare in English. In expressions like ego et ille followed by a verb, there arises a question as to the person in which that verb should be used. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree with ego, or in the third in order to agree with ille? For the sake of laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classical grammarians arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to their dignity, making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the most worthy. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said—

§ 489. In the Chapter on the Impersonal Verbs, it is stated that the construction of me-thinks is peculiar.

§ 490. In English there is neither a passive nor a middle voice.

§ 491. The auxiliary verbs, in English, play a most important part in the syntax of the language. They may be classified upon a variety of principles. The following, however, are all that need here be applied.

§ 492. The combination of the auxiliary, have, with the past participle requires notice. It is, here, advisable to make the following classifications.

§ 493. I am to speak.—Three facts explain this idiom.

§ 494. I am to blame.—This idiom is one degree more complex than the previous one; since I am to blame = I am to be blamed. As early, however, as the Anglo-Saxon period the gerunds were liable to be used in a passive sense: he is to lufigenne = not he is to love, but he is to be loved.

§ 495. I am beaten.—This is a present combination, and it is present on the strength of the verb am, not on the strength of the participle beaten, which is præterite.

§ 496. The syntax of the adverb is simpler than that of any other part of speech, excepting, perhaps, that of the adjective.

§ 497. By referring to the Chapter on the Adverbs, we shall find that the neuter adjective is frequently converted into an adverb by deflection. As any neuter adjective may be so deflected, we may justify such expressions as full (for fully) as conspicuous (for conspicuously), and peculiar (for peculiarly) bad grace, &c. We are not, however, bound to imitate everything that we can justify.

§ 498. The termination -ly was originally adjectival. At present it is a derivational syllable by which we can convert an adjective into an adverb: brave, brave-ly. When, however, the adjective ends in -ly already, the formation is awkward. I eat my daily bread is unexceptionable English; I eat my bread daily is exceptionable. One of two things must here take place: the two syllables ly are packed into one (the full expression being dai-li-ly), or else the construction is that of a neuter adjective deflected.

§ 499. It has been remarked that in expressions like he sleeps the sleep of the righteous, the construction is adverbial. So it is in expressions like he walked a mile, it weighs a pound. The ideas expressed by mile and pound are not the names of anything that serves as either object or instrument to the verb. They only denote the manner of the action, and define the meaning of the verb.

§ 500. From whence, from thence.—This is an expression which, if it have not taken root in our language, is likely to do so. It is an instance of excess of expression in the way of syntax; the -ce denoting direction from a place, and the preposition doing the same. It is not so important to determine what this construction is, as to suggest what it is not. It is not an instance of an adverb governed by a preposition. If the two words be dealt with as logically separate, whence (or thence) must be a noun = which place (or that place); just as from then till now = from that time to this. But if (which is the better view) the two words be dealt with as one (i.e., as an improper compound) the preposition from has lost its natural power, and become the element of an adverb.

§ 501. All prepositions govern an oblique case. If a word ceases to do this, it ceases to be a preposition. In the first of the two following sentences the word up is a preposition, in the second an adverb.

§ 502. No preposition, in the present English, governs a genitive case. This remark is made, because expressions like the part of the body = pars corporis,—a piece of the bread = portio panis, make it appear as if the preposition of did so. The true expression is, that the preposition of followed by an objective case is equivalent in many instances, to the genitive case of the classical languages.

§ 503. A conjunction is a part of speech which connects propositions,—the day is bright, is one proposition. The sun shines, is another. The day is bright because the sun shines is a pair of propositions connected by the conjunction, because.

§ 504. The second point in the syntax of conjunctions is the fact of their great convertibility. Most conjunctions have been developed out of some other part of speech.

§ 505. The third point to determine in the syntax of conjunctions is the certainty or uncertainty in the mind of the speaker as to the facts expressed by the propositions which they serve to connect.

§ 506. Previous to the question of the government of conjunctions in the way of mood, it is necessary to notice certain points of agreement between them and the relative pronouns; inasmuch as, in many cases, the relative pronoun exerts the same government, in the way of determining the mood of the verb, as the conjunction.

§ 511. As a point of practice, the following method of determining the amount of doubt expressed in a conditional proposition is useful:—

§ 512. The use of the word that in expressions like I eat that I may live, &c., is a modification of the subjunctive construction, that is conveniently called potential. It denotes that one act is done for the sake of supplying the power or opportunity for the performance of another.

§ 513. The succession of tenses.—Whenever the conjunction that expresses intention, and consequently connects two verbs, the second of which takes place after the first, the verbs in question must be in the same tense.

§ 514. Disjunctives.—Disjunctives (or, nor) are of two sorts, real and nominal.

§ 515. When the verb is in the infinitive mood, the negative precedes it.—Not to advance is to retreat.

§ 516. What may be called the distribution of the negative is pretty regular in English. Thus, when the word not comes between an indicative, imperative, or subjunctive mood and an infinitive verb, it almost always is taken with the word which it follows—I can not eat may mean either I can—not eat (i.e., I can abstain), or I can not—eat (i.e., I am unable to eat); but, as stated above, it almost always has the latter signification.

§ 517. In the present English, two negatives make an affirmative. I have not not seen him = I have seen him. In Greek this was not the case. Duæ aut plures negativæ apud Græcos vehementius negant is a well known rule. The Anglo-Saxon idiom differed from the English and coincided with the Greek. The French negative is only apparently double; words like point, pas, mean not not, but at all. Je ne parle pas = I not speak at all, not I not speak no.

§ 518. Questions of appeal.—All questions imply want of information; want of information may then imply doubt; doubt, perplexity; and perplexity the absence of an alternative. In this way, what are called, by Mr. Arnold,^[65] questions of appeal, are, practically speaking, negatives. What should I do? when asked in extreme perplexity, means that nothing can well be done. In the following passage we have the presence of a question instead of a negative:—

§ 519. Broadly speaking, all adverbial constructions are absolute. The term, however, is conveniently limited to a particular combination of the noun, verb, and participle. When two actions are connected with each other, either by the fact of their simultaneous occurrence, or as cause and effect, they may be expressed within the limits of a single proposition, by expressing the one by means of a verb, and the other by means of a noun and participle agreeing with each other. The door being open, the horse was stolen.

§ 520. The word Prosody is derived from a Greek word (prosodia) signifying accent. It is used by Latin and English grammarians in a wider sense, and includes not only the doctrines of accent and quantity, but also the laws of metre and versification.

§ 521. Observe the accents in the following lines:—

§ 522. Metre is a general term for the recurrence within certain intervals of syllables similarly affected. The syllables that have just been numbered are similarly affected, being similarly accented. Accent is not the only quality of a syllable, which by returning at regular intervals can constitute metre. It is the one, however, upon which English metre depends. English metre essentially consists in the regular recurrence of syllables similarly accented.

§ 523. Measures.—For every accented syllable in the following line, write the letter a, and for every unaccented one, the letter x, so that a may stand for an accent, x for the absence of one—

§ 526. The third is exhibited by the word cavaliér (x x a).

§ 527. The expression of measures, lines, &c., by such symbols as a x, x a, &c., is metrical notation.

§ 528. Rhyme.—We can have English verse without rhyme. We cannot have English verse without accent. Hence accent is an essential; rhyme an accessory to metre.

§ 535. An accented syllable followed by two unaccented ones, and coming under the conditions given above, constitutes a treble rhyme.

§ 536. Metres where there is no rhyme are called blank metres.

§ 537. The last measure in a line or verse is indifferent as to its length.—By referring to the section upon single rhymes, we shall find that the number of syllables is just double the number of accents; that is, to each accented there is one unaccented syllable, and no more. Hence, with five accents, there are to each line ten syllables. This is not the case with all verses. Some rhymes are double, and the last accented syllable has two unaccented ones to follow it. Hence, with five accents there are to each line eleven syllables. Now it is in the last measure that this supernumerary unaccented syllable appears; and it is a general rule, that, in the last measure of any verse, supernumerary unaccented syllables can be admitted without destroying the original character of the measure.

§ 538. See the verses in the section on double rhymes. Here the original character of the measure is x a throughout, until we get to the words disséver and for éver, and afterwards to men doúbt it, and aboút it. At the first view it seems proper to say that in these last-mentioned cases x a is converted into x a x. A different view, however, is the more correct one. Disséver and for éver, are rather x a with a syllable over. This extra syllable may be expressed by the sign plus ( + ), so that the words in point may be expressed by x a +, rather than by x a x. It is very clear that a measure whereof the last syllable is accented (that is, measures like x a, presúme, or x x a, cavalíer), can only vary from their original character on the side of excess; that is, they can only be altered by the addition of fresh syllables. To subtract a syllable from such feet is impossible; since it is only the last syllable that is capable of being subtracted. If that last syllable, however, be the accented syllable of the measure, the whole measure is annihilated. Nothing remains but the unaccented syllable preceding; and this, as no measure can subsist without an accent, must be counted as a supernumerary part of the preceding measure.

§ 539. With the measures a x, a x x, x a x, the case is different. Here there is room for syllable or syllables to be subtracted.

§ 540. The chief metres in English are of the formula x a. It is only a few that are known by fixed names. These are as follows:—

§ 541. Certain parts of England are named as if their population were preeminently Saxon rather than Angle; viz., Wes-sex ( = West Saxons), Es-sex ( = East Saxons), Sus-sex ( = South Saxons), and Middle-sex, ( = Middle Saxons).

§ 542. It is safe to say that the dialects of the English language do not coincide with the distribution of these terms. That parts of the Angle differ from parts of the Saxon districts in respect to the character of their provincialisms is true; but it is by no means evident that they differ on that account.

§ 544. That Jute characteristics will be sought in vain is the inference from §§ 7-13.

§ 545. The traces of the Danes, or Northmen, are distinct; the following forms of local names being primâ facie evidence (at least) of Danish or Norse occupancy.

§ 546. In respect to their distribution, the Danish forms are—

§ 547. Next to the search after traces of the original differences in the speech of the Continental invaders of Great Britain, the question as to the origin of the written language of England is the most important.

[1] The immediate authority for these descents, dates, and localities is Sharon Turner. They are nearly the same as those which are noticed in Mr. Kemble's Saxons in England. In the former writer, however, they are given as historical facts; in the latter they are subjected to criticism, and considered as exceptionable.

[2] It is from Beda that the current opinions as to the details of the Anglo-Saxon invasion are taken; especially the threefold division into Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. These migrations were so large and numerous that the original country of the Angles was left a desert. The distribution of the three divisions over the different parts of England was also Beda's.

[3] Gildas was a British ecclesiastic, as Beda was an English one. His locality was North Wales: his time earlier than Beda's by perhaps one hundred years.

[4] This account is from Jornandes, who is generally considered as the chief repertory of the traditions respecting the Gothic populations. He lived about A.D. 530. The Gepidæ were said to be the laggards of the migration, and the vessel which carried them to have been left behind: and as gepanta in their language meant slow, their name is taken therefrom.

[5] Widukind was a monk of Corvey in Flanders, who wrote the Ecclesiastical History of his monastery.

[6] Geoffry of Monmouth, like Gildas, is a British authority. His date was the reign of Henry II. The Welsh traditions form the staple of Geoffry's work, for which it is the great repertory.

[7] The date of this was the reign of Marcus Antoninus. Its place, the Danubian provinces of Rhætia, and Pannonia. It was carried on by the Germans of the frontier or march—from whence the name—in alliance with the Jazyges, who were undoubtedly Slavonic, and the Quadi, who were probably so. Its details are obscure—the chief authority being Dio Cassius.

[8] The reign of Valentinian was from A.D. 365 to A.D. 375.

[9] The date of this has been variously placed in A.D. 438, and between A.D. 395 and A.D. 407. Either is earlier than A.D. 449.

[10] The Saxon Chronicle consists of a series of entries from the earliest times to the reign of King Stephen, each under its year: the year of the Anglo-Saxon invasion being the usual one, i.e., A.D. 449. The value of such a work depends upon the extent to which the chronological entries are cotemporaneous with the events noticed. Where this is the case, the statement is of the highest historical value; where, however, it is merely taken from some earlier authority, or from a tradition, it loses the character of a register, and becomes merely a series of dates—correct or incorrect as the case may be. Where the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle really begins to be a cotemporaneous register is uncertain—all that is certain being that it is so for the latest, and is not so for earliest entries. The notices in question come under the former class. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle had been edited by the Master of Trinity College, Oxford (Dr. Ingram), and analyzed by Miss Gurney.

[11] Asserius was a learned Welsh ecclesiastic who was invited by King Alfred into Wessex, and employed by that king as one of his associates and assistants in civilizing and instructing his subjects. Several works are mentioned as having been written by Asserius, but the only one extant is his history of King Alfred, which is a chronicle of various events between the year of Alfred's birth, A.D. 849, to A.D. 889.

[12] The compounds of the Anglo-Saxon word ware = occupants, inhabitants, are too numerous to leave any doubt as to this, and several other, derivations. Cant-ware = Cant-icolæ = people of Kent: Hwic-ware = Hviccas = the people of parts of Worcestershire,^[67] Glostershire, and (to judge from the name) of War-wickshire also.

[13] The Annales Saxonici, or Saxon Chronicles, embrace the history of Britain, between the landing of Cæsar and the accession of Henry II. They are evidently the work of various and successive writers, who were Saxon ecclesiastics. But nothing certain can be affirmed of the authors of their respective portions.—See Note 10.

[14] See Note 2.

[26] In Hampshire.

[27] In Northern Germany.

[15] Adam of Bremen was a Minor Canon of the Cathedral of Bremen, about the years 1067-1077. He travelled in Denmark, and was in great favour with King Sweyn of that country. He wrote an Ecclesiastical History of the spread of Christianity in the North, to which he appended a description of the geography, population, and archæology of Denmark and the neighbouring countries.

[28] The Eyder.

[16] Ethelward was an Anglo-Saxon nobleman, who wrote a chronicle of events from the creation of the world to the death of King Edgar, A.D. 875.

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

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

[29] See §§ 21-29.

[30] Saxons North of the Elbe (Albis).

[17] The following is a specimen of the Frisian of Gysbert Japicx, in metre. It is part of a rustic song, supposed to be sung by a peasant on his return from a wedding feast. Date about A.D. 1650.

[18] Of the early constitution of states of East Friesland, we have a remarkable illustration in the old Frisian Laws. These are in the native Frisian tongue, and, except that they represent republican rather than monarchical institutions, are similar in form, in spirit, to the Saxon.

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

§ 56. I believe then, that, so far from the current accounts being absolutely correct, in respect to the Germanic elements of the English population, the Jutes, as mentioned by Beda, formed no part of it, whilst the Frisians, not so mentioned, were a real constituent therein; besides which, there may, very easily, have been other Germanic tribes, though in smaller proportions.

[19] The great blow against the sovereignty of Rome, and the one which probably prevented Germany from becoming a Roman province, was struck by the Cheruscan Arminius against Quintilius Varus, in the reign of Augustus. The date of the organized insurrection of Arminius was A.D. 9; the place, the neighbourhood of Herford, or Engern, in Westphalia. Drawn into an inpracticable part of the country, the troops of Varus were suddenly attacked and cut to pieces—consisting of more than three legions. "Never was victory more decisive, never was the liberation of an oppressed people more instantaneous and complete. Throughout Germany the Roman garrisons were assailed and cut off; and, within a few weeks after Varus had fallen, the German soil was freed from the foot of an invader.

[20] Heliand is the gerund from helian = heal, and means the Healer or Saviour. It is the name of an old Saxon poem, in alliterative metre, of the tenth or eleventh century, in the dialect supposed to have belonged to the parts about Essen, Cleves, and Munster in Westphalia. It is a sort of Gospel Harmony, or Life of Christ, taken from the Gospels. It has been edited by Schmeller.

[21] Hildubrand and Hathubrant, father and son, are two legendary heroes belonging to that cycle of German fiction of which Theodoric of Verona is the centre. A fragment containing an account of their hostile meeting, being mutually unknown, in alliterative metre, represents the fictional poetry of the old Saxons in the same way (though not to the same extent) that the Heliand represents their sacred poetry. The "Hildubrand and Hathubrant" have been edited by Grimm.

[22] In a language which for a long time was considered to be the Dutch of Holland in its oldest known form, there is an imperfect translation of the Psalms; referred by the best writers on the subject to the reign of Charlemagne, and thence called the Carolinian Psalms. The best text of this is to be found in a Dutch periodical, the Taalkundig Magazijn.

[23] Beowulf is by far the most considerable poem, not only in Anglo-Saxon, but in any old Gothic tongue. It has been admirably edited and translated by Mr. Kemble. The subject is the account of Beowulf, an Angle hero—Angle but not English, as the scene of the poem is on the Continent. In its present form it shows traces of the revision of some Christian writer: the basis, however, of its subject, and the manners it describes, are essentially Pagan. The most remarkable feature in the poem is the fact that no allusion is made to England—so that, Anglo-Saxon as the work is—it belongs to the Anglo-Saxons of Germany before they became English.

[24] A Gospel Harmony translated from the one of Tatian, exists in a dialect too little purely High German, to pass absolutely as such, yet less Low German than the Dutch of Holland. This belongs to the Middle Rhine, and is called Frank.

[25] The Alemannic is the German of the Upper Rhine; the dialect out of which the Bavarian and Swiss grew. Its chief specimens occur in—

[31] See Notes 17 and 18.

[32] De Mor. Germ. 40.

§ 15. The extract from Beda requires further remarks.

§ 76. When we remember that the word Norman means man of the north, that it is a Scandinavian, and not a French word, that it originated in the invasions of the followers of Rollo and and other Norwegians, and that just as part of England was overrun by Pagan buccaneers called Danes, part of France was occupied by similar Northmen, we see the likelihood of certain Norse words finding their way into the French language, where they would be superadded to its original Celtic and Roman elements.

[33] Meaning ditch

[34] This list is taken from Smart's valuable and logical English Grammar.

[35] As in Shotover Hill, near Oxford.

[36] As in Jerusalem artichoke.

[37] A sort of silk.

[38] Ancient Cassio—"Othello."