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of Great Britain spread itself at the expense of some earlier and more aboriginal language, which it displaced and superseded.

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

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of Great Britain spread itself at the expense of some earlier and more aboriginal language, which it displaced and superseded.

§ 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 22. Difficulties respecting the identification of the Saxons.—There are two senses of the word Saxon, one of which causes difficulty by being too limited; the other by being too wide.

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

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

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

§ 29. The Chauci.—Connected with the Frisii.—Falling into two divisions—the lesser (?) Chauci, from the Ems to the Weser; the greater (?) Chauci from the Weser to the Elbe—μετὰ δὲ τούτους (the Frisians), Καῦχοι οἱ μικροὶ μέχρι τοῦ Οὐισούργιος ποταμοῦ, εἶτα Καῦχοι οἱ μειζοῦς, μέχρι τοῦ Ἄλβιος ποταμοῦ.

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

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

On the other hand, it is necessary, since although the à priori view is in favour of the coast having supplied the British immigration, the chances of its having proceeded from the interior by the way of the large rivers Rhine, Weser, and Elbe, must also be taken into consideration.

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

§ 28. The Frisians.—First known to the Romans during the campaign of Drusus—"tributum Frisiis transrhenano populo—Drusus jusserat modicum;"^[3] Tacitus, Ann. iv. 72. Extended, according to Ptolemy, as far north as the Ems—τὴν δὲ παρωκεανῖτιν κατέχουσιν ... οἱ Φρίσσιοι, μέχρι τοῦ Αμισίου ποταμοῦ.

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

§ 29. The Chauci.—Connected with the Frisii.—Falling into two divisions—the lesser (?) Chauci, from the Ems to the Weser; the greater (?) Chauci from the Weser to the Elbe—μετὰ δὲ τούτους (the Frisians), Καῦχοι οἱ μικροὶ μέχρι τοῦ Οὐισούργιος ποταμοῦ, εἶτα Καῦχοι οἱ μειζοῦς, μέχρι τοῦ Ἄλβιος ποταμοῦ.

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

§ 34. The Saxons of Holstein, how large their area?—There is no reason for considering the Nordalbingian Holtsati, Thiedmarsi and Stormarii as other than Saxons; although the fact of the Northfrisians to the north, and of the Frisians of Hanover to the south of them, is a slight complication of the primâ facie view.

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

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

a. The Holtsati=the people of Holstein. Here holt=wood, whilst sat is the -set in Somer-set and Dor-set.

§ 36. The Germans of the Middle Rhine.—Of the Germans of the Lower and Middle Rhine, it is only necessary to mention one—

The Franks.—We shall see that, taking the two terms in their widest sense, the Franks and the Saxons were in contact, a fact which makes it necessary to notice at least some portion of the Frank area.

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

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

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

§ 40. Eastern limit.—Preliminary remark.—Before the eastern limit of the Saxons is investigated, it will be well to indicate the extent to which it differs from the southern.

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

§ 41. Slavonians of Holstein, Mecklenburg, and Lauenburg.—The Polabi—From po=on, and Labe=the Elbe. Name Slavonic. Germanized by the addition of the termination—ing, and so become Po-lab-ing-i; just as in Kent we find the Kent-ing-s. Conterminous with the Nordalbingian Stormarii, from whom they are divided by the river Bille, a small confluent of the Elbe. Capital Ratzeburg. First mentioned by writers subsequent to the time of Charlemagne.—D.N.

Note.—The northern frontier of the Saxon area is intermediate in character to the western and southern on one hand, and to the eastern on the other; the Danish of the Cimbric Peninsula being—though not German—Gothic.

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

§ 43. Obotriti, written also Obotritæ, Abotriti, Abotridi; Apodritæ, Abatareni, Apdrede, Afdrege, and for the sake of distinction from a people of the same name, Nort-Obtrezi, occupants of the western part of Mecklenburg, and extended as far east as the Warnow, as far south as Schwerin. Called by Adam of Bremen, Reregi. The Obotrites were allies of the Franks against the Saxons, and after the defeat and partial removal of the latter, were transplanted to some of their localities.—"Saxones transtulit" (i.e., Charlemagne), "in Franciam et pagos transalbianos Abodritis dedit."—Eginhart Ann. A.D. 804.—D.N.

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

§ 45. The Warnabi or Warnavi.—Locality. Parts about Grabow, Valley of the Elbe. This is the locality of the Varini of Tacitus, the Οὐΐρούνοι of Ptolemy, and the Werini of later writers, a tribe connected with the Angli, and generally considered as Germanic.—D.N.

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

§ 46. Morizani.—The district round the Moritz Lake.—D.N.

§ 47. Doxani.—Locality; the valley of the Dosse.—D.N.

§ 48. Hevelli.—Locality; the valley of the Hevel. These are the Slavonians of Brandenburg and Mittelmark.—D.N.

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

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

§ 52. The area occupied by the Saxons of Germany has been investigated; and it now remains to ask, how far the language of the occupants was absolutely identical throughout, or how far it fell into dialects or sub-dialects. In doing this, it may as well be asked, First, what we expect, à priori; Second, what we really find.

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

§ 54. Such is what we expect. How far it was the fact is not known for want of data. What is known, however, is as follows.—There were at least two divisions of the Saxon; (1st) the Saxon of which the extant specimens are of English origin, and (2nd), the Saxon of which the extant specimens are of continental origin. We will call these at present the Saxon of England, and the Saxon of the Continent.

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

§ 63. The data for the study of the Old Saxon are as follows:—

§ 64. Heliand, pp. 12, 13. (Schmeller's Edition.)

10. Heliand, a Gospel Harmony in alliterative metre, and the chief Old Saxon composition extant.

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

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

§ 69. The Scandinavian branch of the Gothic stock comprehends, 1. The dialects of Scandinavia Proper, i.e., of Norway and Sweden; 2. of the Danish isles and Jutland; 3. of Iceland; 4. of the Feroe Isles. On the side of Lapland the languages of this branch come in contact with the Laplandic and Finlandic; whilst in Sleswick they are bounded by the Low German.

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

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

§ 71. 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 Hermanic, Alaric, Theodoric, Genseric (?), Euric, Athanaric, and Totila.

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

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

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

A. The Baltic doctrine. According to this the Goths migrated from the Baltic to the Mæotis, from the Mæotis to the Euxine, and from the Euxine to the Danube, along which river they moved from east to west.

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

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

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

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

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

The truer view of the question is as follows:—

§ 82. The Low German and Platt-Deutsch.—The words Low German are not only lax in their application, but they are equivocal; since the term has two meanings, a general meaning when it signifies a division of the Germanic languages, comprising English, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon, Old Saxon, and Frisian, and a limited one when it means the particular dialects of the Ems, the Weser, and the Elbe. To avoid this the dialects in question will be henceforth called by their continental name of Platt-Deutsch; which although foreign, is convenient.

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

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

Plur.

§ 88. The persons are as follows:—

Of the Icelandic verbs the infinitives end in -a; as kalla, to call; elska, to love; whereas the Saxon termination is -an; as lufian, to love; wyrcan, to work.

§ 91. In the previous comparison the substantives were divided as follows:—1st. into those ending with a vowel; 2ndly, into those ending with a consonant. In respect to the substantives ending with a vowel (eáge, nama, tunge), it may have been observed that their cases were in A. S. almost exclusively formed in -n, as eágan, tungan, &c.; whilst words like skip and smið had, throughout their whole declension, no case formed in -n; no case indeed wherein the sound of -n entered. This enables us (at least with the A. S.) to make a general assertion concerning the substantives ending in a vowel in contrast to those ending in a consonant, viz. that they take an inflection in -n.

Plur.

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

§ 91. In the previous comparison the substantives were divided as follows:—1st. into those ending with a vowel; 2ndly, into those ending with a consonant. In respect to the substantives ending with a vowel (eáge, nama, tunge), it may have been observed that their cases were in A. S. almost exclusively formed in -n, as eágan, tungan, &c.; whilst words like skip and smið had, throughout their whole declension, no case formed in -n; no case indeed wherein the sound of -n entered. This enables us (at least with the A. S.) to make a general assertion concerning the substantives ending in a vowel in contrast to those ending in a consonant, viz. that they take an inflection in -n.

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

Furthermore, be it observed that nouns in general are weak and strong, in other words, that adjectives are weak or strong, as well as substantives. Between substantives and adjectives, however, there is this difference:—

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

§ 98. German.—The points to remember concerning this term are—

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

§ 99. Dutch.—For the purposes of Philology the meaning given to this word is inconvenient. In England, it means the language of the people of Holland.

9. That by a similar latitude the words Francic and Alemannic have been occasionally used as synonymous with Germanic.

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

4. So also is the derivation of the modern word Dutch, in all its varied forms:—Old High-German, Diutisc; Anglo-Saxon, Þeódisc; Latin, Theodisca, Theudisca, Teutisca; Italian, Tedesco; Danish, Tyske; English, Dutch; the latter part of the word being the adjectival ending -isc=ish.

§ 101. Anglo-Saxon—In the ninth century the language of England was Angle, or English. The lingua Anglorum of Bede is translated by Alfred on englisce. The term Saxon was in use also at an early (perhaps an equally early) date—fures quos Saxonice dicimus vergeld þeóvas. The compound term Anglo-Saxon is later.—Grimm, Introduction to the third edition of D.G., p. 2.

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

§ 102. Icelandic, Old Norse.—Although Icelandic is the usual name for the mother-tongue of the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, the Norwegian philologists generally prefer the term Old Norse.

§ 106. The Angles; who were they, and what was their relation to the Saxons?—The first answer to this question embodies a great fact in the way of internal evidence, viz., that they were the people from whom England derives the name it bears=the Angle-land, i.e., land of the Angles. Our language too is English, i.e., Angle. Whatever, then, they may have been on the Continent, they were a leading section of the invaders here. Why then has their position in our inquiries been hitherto so subordinate to that of the Saxons? It is because their definitude and preponderance are not so manifest in Germany as we infer (from the terms England and English) it to have been in Britain. Nay more, their historical place amongst the nations of Germany, and within the German area, is both insignificant and doubtful; indeed, it will be seen from the sequel, that in and of themselves we know next to nothing about them, knowing them only in their relations, i.e., to ourselves and to the Saxons. The following, however, are the chief facts that form the foundation for our inferences.

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

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

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

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

Extract from Ptolemy.—This connects the Angles with the Suevi, and Langobardi, and places them on the Middle Elbe.

§ 111. The district called Angle.—The district of Anglen, so called (where it is mentioned at all) at the present moment, is a part of the Dutchy of Sleswick, which is literally an Angle; i.e., a triangle of irregular shape, formed by the Schlie, the Flensborger Fiord, and a line drawn from Flensborg to Sleswick; every geographical name in it being, at present, Danish, whatever it may have been previously. Thus some villages end in bye (Danish=town) as Hus-bye, Herreds-bye, Ulse-bye, &c.; some in gaard (=house), as Oegaard; whilst the other Danish forms are skov=wood (shaw), hofved=head, lund=grove, &c. In short it has nothing to distinguish it from the other parts of the peninsula.

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

§ 113. Inferences and remarks.—a. That whilst the root Angl- in Tacitus, Ptolemy, Procopius, and the Leges Anglorum, &c., is the name of a people, the root Angl- in the Anglen of Sleswick, is the name of a district; a fact which is further confirmed by the circumstance of there being in at least one other part of Scandinavia, a district with a similar name—"Hann átti bu a Halogolandi i Aungli."^[14]—Heimskringla, iii. 454.

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

c. That the Angles of England were the Angli of Tacitus, Ptolemy, Procopius, and the Leges Anglorum et Werinorum, whatever these were.

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

§ 116. What were the Werini, with whom the Angles were connected in the Leges Anglorum et Werinorum? Without having any particular data for connecting the Werini (Varni, Οὐάρνοι) with either the High-German, or the Mœso-Gothic divisions, there are in favour of their being Slavonic in locality, the same facts as applied to the Suevi and Langobardi, with the additional one, that the name probably exists at present in the River Warnow, of Mecklenburg Schwerin, at the mouth of which (Warnemunde) the town of Rostock stands.

Velleius states that there were Suevi on the west of the Middle Elbe, Ptolemy, that there were Suevi to the east of it, i.e., as far as the River Suebus (Oder?).—Καὶ τὸ τῶν Σουήβων τῶν Σεμνόνων, οἵτινες διήκουσι μετὰ τὸν Ἄλβιν ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰρημένου μέρους (the middle Elbe) πρὸς ἀνατολὰς μέχρι τοῦ Σουήβου ποταμοῦ.^[16]

§ 117. What were the Thuringians, with whom the Angles are connected in the Leges Anglorum, &c.; Germanic in locality, and most probably allied to the Goths of Mœsia in language.

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

As this word is compound (-varii=ware=inhabitants), the root remains Angr-, a word which only requires the r to become l in order to make Angl-. As both the locality and the relation to the Saxons, make the Angrivarian locality one of the best we could assume for the Angles, the only difficulty lies in the change from r to l. Unfortunately, this, in the Saxon-German, is an unlikely one.

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

§ 128. Exceptions.—Still there are exceptions. Of these the most important are as follows:—

§ 129. German tribes where there is no direct evidence as to their having made part of the population of England, but where the à priori probabilities are strongly in their favour. This applies to—a. The Batavians. No direct evidence, but great à priori probability.

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

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

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

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

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

3.

§ 138. The ancient language of Gaul Cambrian.—The evidence in favour of the ancient language of Gaul being Cambrian rather than Gaelic, lies in the following facts:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. Proper names—generally of geographical localities; as the Thames, Kent, &c.

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

§ 152. The Danish, or Norse.—The pirates that pillaged Britain, under the name of Danes, were not exclusively the inhabitants of Denmark. Of the three Scandinavian nations, the Swedes took the least share, the Norwegians the greatest in these invasions. Not that the Swedes were less piratical, but that they robbed elsewhere,—in Russia, for instance, and in Finland.

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

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

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

Others are the names of articles of foreign origin, as pipor, pepper, piper; purpur, purple, purpura; pumicstan, pumice-stone, pumex.

§ 155. The Norwegian, Danish, Norse, or Scandinavian element of the Anglo-Norman (as in the proper names Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, and perhaps others) constitutes the indirect Scandinavian element of the English.

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

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

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

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

§ 159. The following is a list of the chief Latin substantives, introduced during the latter part of the fourth period; and, preserving the Latin plural forms—

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

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

Lixivium

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

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

§ 163. In § 157 a distinction is drawn between the direct and indirect, the latter leading to the ultimate origin of words.

§ 164. Again, a word from a given language may be introduced by more lines than one; or it may be introduced twice over; once at an earlier, and again at a later period. In such a case its form will, most probably, vary; and, what is more, its meaning as well. Words of this sort may be called di-morphic, their di-morphism, having originated in one of two reasons—a difference of channel, or a difference of date. Instances of the first are, syrup, sherbet, and shrub, all originally from the Arabic, srb; but introduced differently, viz., the first through the Latin, the second through the Persian, and the third through the Hindoo. Instances of the second are words like minster, introduced in the Anglo-Saxon, as contrasted with monastery, introduced during the Anglo-Norman period. By the proper application of these processes, we account for words so different in present form, yet so identical in origin, as priest and presbyter, episcopal and bishop, &c.

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

§ 165. Distinction.—The history of the languages that have been spoken in a particular country, is a different subject from the history of a particular language. The history of the languages that have been spoken in the United States of America, is the history of Indian languages. The history of the languages of the United States is the history of the Germanic language.

Ancient Nubian (?)—Barbarous.

Ancient Egyptian.—Ammonia.

Ancient Syrian.—Cyder.

Ancient Syrian.—Pandar.

Ancient Lydian.—Mæander.

Ancient Persian.—Paradise.

§ 166. Words of foreign simulating a vernacular origin.—These may occur in any mixed language whatever; they occur, however, oftener in the English than in any other.

§ 168. Sometimes, where the form of a word in respect to its sound is not affected, a false spirit of accommodation introduces an unetymological spelling; as frontispiece^[28] from frontispecium, sovereign, from sovrano, colleague from collega, lanthorn (old orthography) from lanterna.

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

§ 171. A true word sometimes takes the appearance of a hybrid without really being so. The -icle, in icicle, is apparently the same as the -icle in radicle. Now, as ice is Gothic, and -icle classical, hybridism is simulated. Icicle, however, is not a derivative but a compound; its parts being is and gicel, both Anglo-Saxon words.

What has just been supposed is sometimes a real occurrence. To account for the name Shotover-hill, I have heard that Little John shot over it. Here the confusion in order to set itself right, breeds a fiction. Again, in chess, the piece now called the queen, was originally the elephant. This was in Persian, ferz. In French it became vierge, which, in time, came to be mistaken for a derivative, and virgo=the virgin, the lady, the queen.

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

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

Now all this is what actually takes place in words like hæmo-ptysis (spitting of blood), sema-phore (a sort of telegraph). The Greek imparisyllabics eject a part of the root in the nominative case; the radical forms being hæmat- and sæmat-, not hæm- and sæm-.

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

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

The earlier the stage of a given language the greater the amount of its inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the smaller the amount of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. The comparative absence of the articles se and seo;—ditto.

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

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

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

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

§ 188. That what is true concerning the Orkneys (viz. that they were Scandinavian) is not true for the south and eastern parts of Scotland, is to be collected from the peculiar distribution of the Scottish Gaelic; which indicates a distinction between the Scandinavian of the north of Scotland and the Scandinavian of the east of England. The Lowland Scotch recedes as we go northward. Notwithstanding this, it is not the extreme north that is most Gaelic. In Caithness the geographical names are Norse. Sutherland, the most northern county of Scotland, takes its name from being south; that is, of Norway. The Orkneys and Shetland are in name, manners, and language, Norse or Scandinavian. The Hebrides are Gaelic mixed with Scandinavian. The Isle of Man is the same. The word Sodor (in Sodor and Man) is Norse, with the same meaning as it has in Sutherland. All this indicates a more preponderating, and an earlier infusion of Norse along the coast of Scotland, than that which took place under the Danes upon the coasts of England, in the days of Alfred and under the reign of Canute. The first may, moreover, have this additional peculiarity, viz. of being Norwegian rather than Danish. Hence I infer that the Scandinavians settled in the northern parts of Scotland at an early period, but that it was a late period when they ravaged the southern ones; so that, though the language of Orkney may be Norse, that of the Lothians may be Saxon.

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

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

§ 190. In the way of orthography, the most characteristic difference between the English and Scotch is the use, on the part of the latter, of qu for wh; as quhen, quhare, quhat, for when, where, what. The substitution of sch for sh (as scho for she), and of z for the Old English ȝ (as zour for ȝeowr, your), is as much northern English as Scotch.

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

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

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

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

That the Punic language of Carthage should closely resemble that of the mother-city Tyre, which was Phœnician; and that the Phœnician of Tyre should be allied to the language of Palestine and Syria, was soon remarked by the classical commentators of the time. Joseph Scaliger asserted that the Punic of the Pœnulus differed but little from pure Hebrew—"Ab Hebraismi puritate parum abesse."

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

1. Omnipotent much-dreaded Deity of this country! assuage my troubled mind!

2. Thou! the support of feeble captives! being now exhausted with fatigue, of thy free will guide to my children!

3. O let my prayers be perfectly acceptable in thy sight!

4. An inexhaustible fountain to the humble: O Deity! let me drink of its streams!

5. Forsake me not! my earnest desire is now disclosed, which is only that of recovering my daughters.

6. This was my fervent prayer, lamenting their misfortunes in thy sacred temples.

7. O bounteous Deity! it is reported here dwelleth Agorastocles.

8. Should my request appear just, let here my disquietudes cease.

9. Let them be no longer concealed; O that I may this day find my daughters!

10. They will be fatherless, and preys to the worst of men, unless it be thy pleasure that I should find them.

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

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

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

§ 198. The primary division of our articulate sounds is into vowels and consonants. The latter are again divided into liquids (l, m, n, r) and mutes (p, b, f, v, t, d, g, s, z, &c.) Definitions for the different sorts of articulate sounds have still to be laid down. In place of these, we have general assertions concerning the properties and qualities of the respective classes. Concerning the consonants as a class, we may predicate one thing concerning the liquids, and concerning the mutes, another. What the nature of these assertions is, will be seen after the explanation of certain terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. That the z in azure, glazier (French j), is a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign ζ (Greek ζῆτα).

§ 204. It has been seen that the sixteen mutes are reducible to four series. Of these series, p, t, k, s, may respectively be taken as the types. Of the liquids it may be predicated as follows:—

§ 205. 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 modified, plus the semivowel y (not the vowel i) modified. The diphthongal sound in roi is the vowel o modified, plus the semivowel w (not the vowel u or oo) modified. In roi the semivowel element precedes, in oil it follows. In roi it is the semivowel allied to series p; in oil it is the semivowel allied to series k. The nature of the modification that the component parts of a diphthong undergo has yet to be determined; although it is certain there is one. If it were not so, the articulations would be double, not compound.

§ 206. Chest, jest.—Here we have compound consonantal sounds. The ch in chest is t + sh (σ), the j in jest is d + zh (ζ). 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.

§ 205. 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 modified, plus the semivowel y (not the vowel i) modified. The diphthongal sound in roi is the vowel o modified, plus the semivowel w (not the vowel u or oo) modified. In roi the semivowel element precedes, in oil it follows. In roi it is the semivowel allied to series p; in oil it is the semivowel allied to series k. The nature of the modification that the component parts of a diphthong undergo has yet to be determined; although it is certain there is one. If it were not so, the articulations would be double, not compound.

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

§ 208. Other terms, chiefly relating to the vowels, have still to be explained. The é of the French has been called fermé, or close (Italian, chiuso). Its opposite, the a in fate, is open.

§ 210. Before i, e, and y of the English alphabet, and before ü and ö German, the letters c and g have the tendency to assume the sound and power of s or z, of sh or zh, of ch or j; in other words, of becoming either s or some sound allied to s. Compared with a, o, and u (as in gat, got, gun), which are full, i, e, y, are small vowels.

§ 211. Vowel System.

§ 210. Before i, e, and y of the English alphabet, and before ü and ö German, the letters c and g have the tendency to assume the sound and power of s or z, of sh or zh, of ch or j; in other words, of becoming either s or some sound allied to s. Compared with a, o, and u (as in gat, got, gun), which are full, i, e, y, are small vowels.

§ 212. System of Consonants.

§ 213. Concerning the vowel system I venture no assertion. The consonantal system I conceive to have been exhibited above in its whole fulness. The number of mutes, specifically distinct, I consider to be sixteen and no more: the number of liquids, four. What then are the powers of the numerous letters in alphabets like those of Arabia and Armenia? What is the German ch, and Irish gh? Varieties of one or other of the sounds exhibited above, and not articulations specifically distinct.

§ 214. There is a difference between a connexion in phonetics and a connexion in grammar.—Phonetics is a word expressive of the subject-matter of the present chapter. The present chapter determines (amongst other things) the systematic relation of articulate sounds. The word phônæticos (φωνήτιχος) signifies appertaining to articulate sounds. It is evident that between sounds like b and v, s and z, there is a connexion in phonetics. Now in the grammar of languages there is often a change, or a permutation of letters: e.g., in the words tooth, teeth, the vowel, in price, prize, the consonant, is changed. Here there is a connexion in grammar.

§ 213. Concerning the vowel system I venture no assertion. The consonantal system I conceive to have been exhibited above in its whole fulness. The number of mutes, specifically distinct, I consider to be sixteen and no more: the number of liquids, four. What then are the powers of the numerous letters in alphabets like those of Arabia and Armenia? What is the German ch, and Irish gh? Varieties of one or other of the sounds exhibited above, and not articulations specifically distinct.

§ 215. Certain combinations of articulate sounds are incapable of being pronounced. The following rule is one that, in the forthcoming pages, will frequently be referred to. Two (or more) mutes, of different degrees of sharpness and flatness, are incapable of coming together in the same syllable. For instance, b, v, d, g, z, &c. being flat, and p, f, t, k, s, &c. being sharp, such combinations as abt, avt, apd, afd, agt, akd, atz, ads, &c., are unpronounceable. Spelt, indeed, they may be; but attempts at pronunciation end in a change of the combination. In this case either the flat letter is changed to its sharp equivalent (b to p, d to t, &c.) or vice versâ (p to b, t to d). The combinations abt, and agt, to be pronounced, must become either apt or abd, or else akt or agd.

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

The law exhibited above may be called the law of accommodation.

§ 217. Effect of the semivowel y on certain letters when they precede it.—Taken by itself the semivowel y, followed by a vowel (ya, yee, yo, you, &c.), forms a stable combination. Not so, however, if it be preceded by a consonant, of the series t, k, or s, as tya, tyo; dya, dyo; kya, kyo; sya, syo. There then arises an unstable combination. Sya and syo we pronounce as sha and sho; tya and tyo we pronounce as cha and ja (i.e. tsh, dzh.). This we may verify from our pronunciation of words like sure, picture, verdure (shoor, pictshoor, verdzhoor), having previously remarked that the u in those words is not sounded as oo but as yoo. The effect of the semivowel y, taken with instability of the combination ew, accounts for the tendency to pronounce dew as if written jew.

§ 218. The evolution of new sounds.—To an English ear the sound of the German ch falls strange. To an English organ it is at first difficult to pronounce. The same is the case with the German vowels ö and ü and with the French sounds u, eu, &c.

§ 219. Evolution of sounds.—Let there be a language where there is no such a sound as that of z, but where there is the sound of s. The sound of z may be evolved under (amongst others) the following conditions. 1. Let there be a number of words ending in the flat mutes; as slab, stag, stud, &c. 2. Let a certain form (the plural number or the genitive case) be formed by the addition of is or es; as slabis, stages, studes, &c. 3. Let the tendency that words have to contract eject the intermediate vowel, e or i, so that the s of the inflexion (a sharp mute) and the b, d, g, &c. of the original word (flat mutes) be brought into juxta-position, slabs, studs, stags. There is then an incompatible termination, and one of two changes must take place; either b, d, or g must become p, t, or k (slaps, staks, stuts); or s must become z (stagz, studz, slabz). In this latter case z is evolved. Again,

§ 220. On the value of a sufficient system of sounds.—In certain imaginable cases, a language may be materially affected by the paucity of its elementary articulate sounds.

There is no instance of a new sound being introduced at once into a language. Where they originate at all, they are evolved, not imported.

§ 221. Double consonants rare.—It cannot be too clearly understood that in words like pitted, stabbing, massy, &c. there is no real reduplication of the sounds of t, b, and s, respectively. Between the words pitted (as with the small-pox) and pitied (as being an object of pity) there is a difference in spelling only. In speech the words are identical. The reduplication of the consonant is in English, and the generality of languages, a conventional mode of expressing upon paper the shortness (dependence) of the vowel that precedes.

§ 222. Real reduplications of consonants, i.e., reduplications of their sound, are, in all languages, extremely rare. I am fully aware of certain statements made respecting the Laplandic and Finlandic languages, viz., that doubled consonants are, in them, of common occurrence. Notwithstanding this, I have an impression that it is generally under one condition that true reduplication takes place. In compound and derived words, where the original root ends, and the superadded affix begins with the same letter, there is a reduplication of the sound, and not otherwise. In the word soulless, the l is doubled to the ear as well as to the eye; and it is a false pronunciation to call it souless (soless). In the "Deformed Transformed" it is made to rhyme with no less, improperly.

§ 221. Double consonants rare.—It cannot be too clearly understood that in words like pitted, stabbing, massy, &c. there is no real reduplication of the sounds of t, b, and s, respectively. Between the words pitted (as with the small-pox) and pitied (as being an object of pity) there is a difference in spelling only. In speech the words are identical. The reduplication of the consonant is in English, and the generality of languages, a conventional mode of expressing upon paper the shortness (dependence) of the vowel that precedes.

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

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

§ 225. In the word number, nombre, the letter inserted was b; and for b being the particular letter employed, there is a reason derived from the system of articulate sounds.

§ 226. The affinity of m for the series b, of n for the series t, gives occasion to further euphonic changes. The combinations mt, md, mþ, mð, are unstable. The syllables emt, emd, are liable to one of two modifications. Either p or b will be inserted, and so make them empt (as in tempt), embd (as in Embden), or else the m will become n, forming the syllable ent, end, enþ, enð.

4. That it should be a consonant of series b, rather than one of series s, we collect from the fact that msr (numsrus) or mzr (numzrus) give inharmonious, and, consequently, unstable combinations.

§ 227. The combination tupt is stable, so also is the combination tuft. But the combination tupth is unstable: since the p is lene, the þ is a (so-called) aspirate. Hence arises a process of accommodation by which the word becomes either tupt or tufth (tufþ).

§ 228. The Irish Gaelic, above most other languages, illustrates a euphonic principle that modifies the vowels of a word. The vowels a, o, u, are full, whilst i, e, y, are small. Now if to a syllable containing a small vowel, as buil, there be added a syllable containing a broad one, as -am, a change takes place. Either the first syllable is accommodated to the second, or the second to the first; so that the vowels respectively contained in them are either both full or both small. Hence arises, in respect to the word quoted, either the form bualam, or else the form builim.

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

§ 228. The Irish Gaelic, above most other languages, illustrates a euphonic principle that modifies the vowels of a word. The vowels a, o, u, are full, whilst i, e, y, are small. Now if to a syllable containing a small vowel, as buil, there be added a syllable containing a broad one, as -am, a change takes place. Either the first syllable is accommodated to the second, or the second to the first; so that the vowels respectively contained in them are either both full or both small. Hence arises, in respect to the word quoted, either the form bualam, or else the form builim.

§ 230. In all the words above the change of sound has been brought about by the grammatical inflection of the word wherein it occurs. This is the case with the words life and live, and with all the rest. With the German word leben, compared with the corresponding word live, in English, the change is similar. It is brought about, however, not by a grammatical inflection, but by a difference of time, and by a difference of place. This indicates the distinction between the permutation of letters and the transition of letters. In dealing with permutations, we compare different parts of speech; in dealing with transitions, we compare different languages, or different stages of a single language.

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

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

§ 233. The division of vowels into long and short coincides nearly with the division of them into independent and dependent. Mark the word vowels, and mark the word nearly. In the length and shortness of vowels there are degrees. This is especially the case with the broad vowels. The a in father is capable of being pronounced either very quickly, or very slowly. It may be attend most rapidly and yet preserve its broad character, i.e., become neither the a in fat, nor the a in fate.

§ 234. The qualified manner in which it was stated that the vowel in the word seeing was long, and the attention directed to the word vowels in the preceding section, arose from a distinction, that is now about to be drawn, between the length of vowels and the length of syllables.

§ 233. The division of vowels into long and short coincides nearly with the division of them into independent and dependent. Mark the word vowels, and mark the word nearly. In the length and shortness of vowels there are degrees. This is especially the case with the broad vowels. The a in father is capable of being pronounced either very quickly, or very slowly. It may be attend most rapidly and yet preserve its broad character, i.e., become neither the a in fat, nor the a in fate.

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

§ 236. In words like thínking, fóxes, lon´ger, len´gthen, &c. we have two parts; first the original word, the root, or the radical part, as think, fox, long, length, &c.; and next, the inflectional, or the subordinate part, -ing, -es, -er, -en, &c.

§ 237. 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.

§ 238. Accent plays an important part in determining the nature of certain compound words—For this, see the Chapter on Composition.

§ 237. 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.

§ 239. Accent and quantity, as may have been collected from pp. 164-167, do not coincide. Nothing shows this more clearly than words like the adjective augúst, and the substantive Aúgust (the month), where the quantity remains the same, although the accent is different. The following quotation from Mr. Guest's English Rhythms is made for the sake of four things:—

The second syllable in the word monument is what a classical scholar would call short. The vowel is short, and the syllable taken altogether is short. Herein it agrees with the first syllable mon-. It differs, however, from the syllable mon- in being destitute of an accent, mónument. With the third syllable -ment, it agrees in the eyes of an Englishman, but differs in the eyes of a scholar. The vowels u and e are equally short, and, as the Englishman measures by the vowel the syllables -u and -ment are both short. Not so, however, with the scholar. He measures by the syllable and determines that the e, although naturally a short vowel, is made long by position. However, in being each destitute of an accent the syllables -u and -ment agree. Be it remarked a second time that the accent in mónument lies on the first syllable.

§ 240. The present chapter is one, not upon the details of the pronunciation of the English language, but upon the principles of orthoepy. For the details of pronunciation the reader is referred to Nares' Orthoepy, and to the common pronouncing dictionaries, with the preliminary recommendation to use them with caution. Orthoepy, a word derived from the Greek orthon (upright), and epos (a word), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy differs from orthography by determining how words are spoken, whereas orthography decides how they are spelt. The one is a question of speech, the other a question of spelling. Orthography presupposes orthoepy.

§ 241. Of pronunciation there are two kinds, the colloquial and the rhetorical. In common conversation we pronounce the i in wind, like the i in bit; in rehearsing, or in declamation, however, we pronounce it like the i in bite; that is, we give it a diphthongal sound. In reading the Scriptures we say blesséd; in current speech we say blest. It is the same with many words occurring in poetry.

§ 242. Errors in pronunciation are capable of being classified. In the first place, they may be arranged according to their situation. The man who pronounces the verb to survéy, as if it was súrvey (that is, with the accent on the wrong syllable), errs in respect to the accentuation of the word; the situation, or seat of his error, being the accent. To say orātor instead of orător is to err in respect to the quantity of the word, the seat of the error being in the quantity; and to pronounce the a in father, as it is pronounced in Yorkshire, or the s in sound, as it is pronounced in Devonshire (that is, as z), is to err in the matter of the articulate sounds. To mispronounce a word because it is misspelt^[34] is only indirectly an error of orthoepy. It is an error, not so much of orthoepy, as of orthography; and to give a wrong inflection to a word is not bad pronunciation but bad grammar. For practical purposes, however, many words that are really points of grammar and of orthography, may be dealt with as points of orthoepy.

§ 244. Incompetent enunciation, and erroneous enunciation are, however, only the proximate and immediate causes of bad orthoepy. Amongst the remote causes (the immediate causes of erroneous enunciation) are the following.

§ 245. In matters of orthoepy it is the usual custom to appeal to one of the following standards.

III. Neglect of analogy.—Each and all of the following words, orator, theatre, senator, &c. are in the Latin language, from whence they are derived, accented on the second syllable; as orátor, theátre, senátor. In English, on the contrary, they are accented on the first; as órator, théatre, sénator. The same is the case with many other words similarly derived. They similarly suffer a change of accent. So many words do this, that it is the rule in English for words to throw their accent from the second syllable (counting from the end of the word) to the third. It was on the strength of this rule,—in other words, on the analogies of orator, &c., that the English pronunciation of the Greek word ἀνεμώνη was stated to be anémmone. Now, to take a word derived from the Latin, and to look to its original quantity only, without consulting the analogies of other words similarly derived, is to be neglectful of the analogies of our own language, and attentive to the quantities of a foreign one.

§ 246. For a person, on a point of pronunciation, to trust to his own judgment, he must be capable, with every word that he doubts about, of discussing three questions:—

The objection to the authority of educated bodies is its impracticability. It is only the usage of the component individuals that can be determined. Of these many may carry with them the dialects of their provinces, so that, although good standards on points of accent and quantity, they are bad ones upon points of articulation.

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

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

§ 249. The right application of an alphabet.—An alphabet may be both sufficient and consistent, accurate in its representation of the alliances between articulate sounds, and in nowise redundant; and yet, withal, it may be so wrongly applied as to be defective. Of defect in the use or application of the letters of an alphabet, the three main causes are the following:—

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

§ 250. Difference between the change of a sound and the original false expression of a sound.—The letter u is a simple single sign. The sound of ow, in town, is a diphthongal, or a double, sound. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, the modern word town is spelt tún. In this case one of two things must have taken place: either the word must have changed its sound, or the Anglo-Saxons must have expressed it falsely and improperly.

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

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

§ 252. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate sounds of the language. The enumeration of these is, strictly speaking, a point, not of orthography, but of orthoepy. It is, however, so intimately connected with the former that the present chapter seems its proper place. The vowels belonging to the English language are the twelve following:—

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

§ 253. On certain conventional modes of spelling.—In the Greek language the sounds of o in not and of o in note (although allied) are expressed by the unlike signs or letters 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.

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

§ 254. The mischief of orthographical expedients is this:—When a sign, or letter, is used in a conventional, it precludes us from using it (at least without further explanation) in its natural sense: e.g., the double o in mood constitutes but one syllable. If in a foreign language we had, immediately succeeding each other, first the syllable mo, and next the syllable od, we should have to spell it mo-od, or möod or mo-ỏd, &c. Again, it is only by our knowledge of the language that the th in nuthook, is not pronounced like the th in burthen. In the languages of India the true sound of t + h is common. This, however, we cannot spell naturally because the combination th conveys to us another notion. Hence such combinations as thh, or t‛, &c., in writing Hindoo words.

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

§ 255. The present section is the partial application of the preceding observations. It is a running commentary upon the orthographical part of Dr. Johnson's Grammar. Presuming a knowledge of the detail of the English orthography, it attempts an explanation of some of its leading characters. Many of these it possesses in common with other tongues. Several are peculiar to itself.

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

§ 257. Phœnician, Hebrew, or Semitic Period.—At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phœnicia, and the neighbouring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters. For these see the Hebrew Grammars and the Phœnicia of Gesenius.

§ 258. Greek Period.—Compared with the Semitic, the Old Greek alphabet ran thus:—

§ 259. The Asiatic alphabet of Phœnicia and Palestine is now adapted to the European language of Greece. The first change took place in the manner of writing. The Orientals wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to right. Besides this, the following principles, applicable whenever the alphabet of one language is transferred to another, were recognised:—

The chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only twenty-two letters will be insufficient. Now, in the particular case of the languages in point, the number of elementary sounds, as we infer from the present Arabic, was above the average. It may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic alphabet was insufficient for even the Semitic languages.

§ 260. The Italian or old Latin period.—That it was either from the original Phœnician, or from the old Greek, that the Italian alphabets were imported, we learn from the existence in them of the letters f and q, corresponding respectively to the sixth and nineteenth letters; these having, in the second stage of the Greek alphabet, been ejected.

§ 262. The Roman alphabet had a double origin. For the first two centuries after the foundation of the city the alphabet used was the Etruscan, derived directly from the Greek, and from the old Greek. This accounts for the presence of f and q.

5. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older ones (as was the case with פּ‎, פ‎, בּ‎, ב‎, &c. in Hebrew), but new, distinct, and independent letters.

§ 263. The Mœso-Gothic alphabet.—In the third century the classical alphabets were applied to a Gothic language. I use the word alphabets because the Mœso-Gothic letters borrowed from both the Latin and the Greek. Their form and order may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus and in Lye's Grammar. With the Greek they agree in the following particulars.

It may also be seen, that, without due alterations and additions, the alphabet of one country will not serve as the alphabet of another.

§ 264. The Anglo-Saxon alphabet.—What sort of an alphabet the Gothic languages possess we know: what sort of alphabet they require, we can determine. For the following sounds (amongst others) current in the Gothic, either one or both of the classical languages are deficient in corresponding signs.

§ 265. The Anglo-Norman Period.—Between the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Norman-French, there are certain points of difference. In the first place, the sound-system of the languages (like the French) derived from the Latin, bore a greater resemblance to that of the Romans, than was to be found amongst the Gothic tongues. Secondly, the alphabets of the languages in point were more exclusively Latin. In the present French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, there is an exclusion of the k. This is not the case with the Anglo-Norman. Like the Latins, the Anglo-Normans considered that the sound of the Greek θ was represented by th: not, however, having this sound in their language, there was no corresponding sign in their alphabet. The greatest mischief done by the Norman influence was the ejection from the English alphabet of þ and ð. In other respects the alphabet was improved. The letters z, k, j, were either imported or more currently recognised. The letter y took a semi-vowel power, having been previously represented by e; itself having the power of i. The mode of spelling the compound sibilant with ch was evolved. My notions concerning this mode of spelling are as follows:—At a given period the sound of ce in ceaster, originally that of ke, had become, first, that of ksh, and, secondly, that of tsh; still it was spelt ce, the e, in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons, having the power of y. In the eyes also of the Anglo-Saxons the compound sound of ksh, or tsh, would differ from that of k by the addition of y: this, it may be said, was the Anglo-Saxon view of the matter. The Anglo-Norman view was different. Modified by the part that, in the combination th, was played by the aspirate h, it was conceived by the Anglo-Normans, that ksh, or tsh, differed from k, not by the addition of y (expressed by e), but by that of h. Hence the combination ch as sounded in chest. The same was the case with sh. This latter statement is a point in the history, not so much of an alphabet, as of an orthography.

Of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet we may safely say that it was insufficient. The points wherein the Latin alphabet was improved in its adaptation to the Gothic tongues, are, 1. the admission of þ and ð; 2. the evolution of w out of u. Upon this latter circumstance, and on k and z, I make the following extract from the Latin Dedication of Otfrid's Krist:—"Hujus enim linguæ barbaries, ut est inculta et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticæ artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto quærit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente," And, further, in respect to other orthographical difficulties:—"Interdum vero nec a, nec e, nec i, nec u, vocalium sonos præcanere potui, ibi y Grecum mihi videbatur ascribi. Et etiam hoc elementum lingua hæc horrescit interdum; nulli se characteri aliquotiens in quodam sono nisi difficile jungens. K et z sæpius hæc lingua extra usum Latinitatis utitur; quæ grammatici inter litteras dicunt esse superfluas. Ob stridorem autem dentium interdum ut puto in hac lingua z utuntur, k autem propter faucium sonoritatem."

§ 266. The reduplication of the consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical languages: terra, θάλασσα. The following extract from the Ormulum (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have met with. The extract is from Thorpe's Analecta Anglo-Saxonica.

§ 265. The Anglo-Norman Period.—Between the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Norman-French, there are certain points of difference. In the first place, the sound-system of the languages (like the French) derived from the Latin, bore a greater resemblance to that of the Romans, than was to be found amongst the Gothic tongues. Secondly, the alphabets of the languages in point were more exclusively Latin. In the present French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, there is an exclusion of the k. This is not the case with the Anglo-Norman. Like the Latins, the Anglo-Normans considered that the sound of the Greek θ was represented by th: not, however, having this sound in their language, there was no corresponding sign in their alphabet. The greatest mischief done by the Norman influence was the ejection from the English alphabet of þ and ð. In other respects the alphabet was improved. The letters z, k, j, were either imported or more currently recognised. The letter y took a semi-vowel power, having been previously represented by e; itself having the power of i. The mode of spelling the compound sibilant with ch was evolved. My notions concerning this mode of spelling are as follows:—At a given period the sound of ce in ceaster, originally that of ke, had become, first, that of ksh, and, secondly, that of tsh; still it was spelt ce, the e, in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons, having the power of y. In the eyes also of the Anglo-Saxons the compound sound of ksh, or tsh, would differ from that of k by the addition of y: this, it may be said, was the Anglo-Saxon view of the matter. The Anglo-Norman view was different. Modified by the part that, in the combination th, was played by the aspirate h, it was conceived by the Anglo-Normans, that ksh, or tsh, differed from k, not by the addition of y (expressed by e), but by that of h. Hence the combination ch as sounded in chest. The same was the case with sh. This latter statement is a point in the history, not so much of an alphabet, as of an orthography.

§ 267. "I cannot trace the influence of the Mœso-Gothic alphabet, except, perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters þ and ƿ, upon any other alphabet; nor does it seem to have been itself acted upon by any earlier Gothic alphabet." (See p. 205.) The reason for the remark in Italics was as follows: In the Icelandic language the word run signifies a letter, and the word runa a furrow, or line. It has also some secondary meanings, which it is unnecessary to give in detail. Upon a vast number of inscriptions, some upon rocks, some upon stones of a defined shape, we find an alphabet different (at least, apparently so) from that of the Greeks, Latins, and Hebrews, and also unlike that of any modern nation. In this alphabet there is a marked deficiency of curved or rounded lines, and an exclusive preponderance of straight ones. As it was engraved rather than written, this is what we naturally expect. These letters are called Runes, and the alphabet which they constitute is called the Runic alphabet. Sometimes, by an extension of meaning, the Old Norse language, wherein they most frequently occur, is called the Runic language. This is as incorrect as to call a language an alphabetic language. To say, however, the Runic stage of a language is neither inaccurate nor inconvenient. The Runic alphabet, whether borrowed or invented by the early Goths, is of greater antiquity than either the oldest Teutonic or the Mœso-Gothic alphabets. The forms, names, and order of the letters may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus, in Olai Wormii Literatura Runica, in Rask's Icelandic Grammar, and in W. Grimm's Deutsche Runer.

And tatt he loke wel þatt he

An boc-staff write twiggess,^[37]

Eggwhær þær itt uppo þiss boc

Iss writenn o þatt wise:

Loke he well þatt hett write swa,

Forr he ne magg noht elless,

On Englissh writenn rihht te word,

Þatt wite he wel to soþe.

§ 268. The Order of the Alphabet.—In the history of our alphabet, we have had the history of the changes in the arrangement, as well as of the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question now presents itself: viz., Is there in the order of the letters any natural arrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession of letters arbitrary and accidental? In the year 1835 I conceived, that in the order of the Hebrew alphabet I had discovered a very artificial arrangement. I also imagined that this artificial arrangement had been detected by no one besides myself. Two years afterwards a friend^[38] stated to me that he had made a similar observation, and in 1839 appeared, in Mr. Donaldson's New Cratylus, the quotation with which the present section will be concluded. The three views in the main coincide; and, as each has been formed independently (Mr. Donaldson's being the first recorded), they give the satisfactory result of three separate investigations coinciding in a theory essentially the same. The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:—

§ 267. "I cannot trace the influence of the Mœso-Gothic alphabet, except, perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters þ and ƿ, upon any other alphabet; nor does it seem to have been itself acted upon by any earlier Gothic alphabet." (See p. 205.) The reason for the remark in Italics was as follows: In the Icelandic language the word run signifies a letter, and the word runa a furrow, or line. It has also some secondary meanings, which it is unnecessary to give in detail. Upon a vast number of inscriptions, some upon rocks, some upon stones of a defined shape, we find an alphabet different (at least, apparently so) from that of the Greeks, Latins, and Hebrews, and also unlike that of any modern nation. In this alphabet there is a marked deficiency of curved or rounded lines, and an exclusive preponderance of straight ones. As it was engraved rather than written, this is what we naturally expect. These letters are called Runes, and the alphabet which they constitute is called the Runic alphabet. Sometimes, by an extension of meaning, the Old Norse language, wherein they most frequently occur, is called the Runic language. This is as incorrect as to call a language an alphabetic language. To say, however, the Runic stage of a language is neither inaccurate nor inconvenient. The Runic alphabet, whether borrowed or invented by the early Goths, is of greater antiquity than either the oldest Teutonic or the Mœso-Gothic alphabets. The forms, names, and order of the letters may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus, in Olai Wormii Literatura Runica, in Rask's Icelandic Grammar, and in W. Grimm's Deutsche Runer.

§ 269. Parallel and equivalent orthographies.—Let there be in two given languages the sound of k, as in kin. Let each of these languages represent it by the same letter, k. In this case, the two orthographies are identical. Let, however, one nation represent it by k, and another by c. In this case the orthographies are not identical, but parallel. The same is the case with combinations. Let one nation (say the Anglo-Saxon) represent the sound of y (in ye) by e, whilst another nation (the Norse) represents it by j. What the Anglo-Saxon spells ceaster, the Northman spells kjaster; and what the Northman spells kjære, the Anglo-Saxon spells ceære. Let the sound of this ce and kj undergo a change, and become ksh; kjære and ceære, being pronounced kshære. The view of the Northman and Anglo-Saxon will be the same; each will consider that the compound sound differs from the simple one by the addition of the sound of y; that sound being expressed in one nation by e, and in the other by j. In this case the two expressions of the compound sound are parallel, its elements being considered the same, although the signs by which those elements are expressed are different.

In the horizontal arrangement we shall, for the sake of greater simplicity, omit the liquids and the sibilant, and then we have

§ 270. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a wide, and at times in a restricted, sense. What follows is an exhibition of the province or department of etymology.

§ 271. The nature of gender is best exhibited by reference to those languages wherein the distinction of gender is most conspicuous. Such a language, amongst others, is the Latin.

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

§ 273. In the Latin words genitrix=a mother, and genitor=a father, we have a nearer approach to gender. Here the difference of sex is expressed by a difference of termination; 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.,

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

§ 273. In the Latin words genitrix=a mother, and genitor=a father, we have a nearer approach to gender. Here the difference of sex is expressed by a difference of termination; 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.,

§ 275. The second element in the notion of gender, although I will not venture to call it an essential one, is the following:—In the words domina and dominus, mistress and master, there is a natural distinction of sex; the one being masculine, or male, the other feminine, or female. In the words sword and lance there is no natural distinction of sex. Notwithstanding this, the word hasta, in Latin, is as much a feminine gender as domina, whilst gladius=a sword is, like dominus, a masculine noun. From this we see that, in languages wherein there are true genders, a fictitious or conventional sex is attributed even to inanimate objects. Sex is a natural distinction, gender a grammatical one.

§ 276. "Although we have, in English, words corresponding to genitrix and genitor, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding to dominus and domina."—The sentence was intentionally worded with caution. Words like dominus and domina, that is, words where the declension is affected by the sex, are to be found.

§ 277. The formation of the neuter gender by the addition of -t, in words like wha-t, i-t, and tha-t, occurs in other Indo-European languages. The -t in tha-t is the -d in istu-d, Latin, and the -t in ta-t, Sanskrit. Except, however, in the Gothic tongues, the inflection -t is confined to the pronouns. In the Gothic this is not the case. Throughout all those languages where there is a neuter form for adjectives at all, that form is either -t, or a sound derived from it:—Mœso-Gothic, blind-ata; Old High German, plint-ez; Icelandic, blind-t; German, blind-es=blind, cæc-um.—See Bopp's Comparative Grammar, Eastwick and Wilson's translation, p. 171.

The pronoun it (originally hit), as compared with he, is a specimen of gender.

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

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

Now, although Mr. Cobbett's statements may account for a sailor calling his ship she, they will not account for the custom of giving to the sun a masculine, and to the moon a feminine, pronoun, as is done in the expressions quoted at the head of this section; still less will it account for the circumstance of the Germans reversing the gender, and making the sun feminine, and the moon masculine.

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

§ 281. The question presents itself,—to what extent have we numbers in English? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual.

§ 282. The current rule is, that the plural number is formed from the singular by adding s, as father, fathers. However, if the reader will revert to the Section upon the sharp and flat Mutes, where it is stated that mutes of different degrees of sharpness and flatness cannot come together in the same syllable, he will find occasion to take to the current rule a verbal exception. The letter added to the word father, making it fathers, is s to the eye only. To the ear it is z. The word sounds fatherz. If the s retained its sound, the spelling would be fatherce. In stags, lads, &c., the sound is stagz, ladz. The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously expressed, is as follows.—The plural is formed from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s): e.g. (the sound of the word being expressed), pea, peaz; tree, treez; day, dayz; hill, hillz; hen, henz; gig, gigz; trap, traps; pit, pits; stack, stacks. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary.

§ 284. "A few apparent exceptions."—These words are taken from Observation II. in the present section. The apparent exceptions to the rule there laid down are the words loaf, wife, and a few others, whose plural is not sounded loafs, wifs (loafce, wifce), but loavz, wivz (written loaves, wives). Here it seems as if z had been added to the singular; and, contrary to rule, the final letter of the original word been accommodated to the z, instead of the z being accommodated to the final syllable of the word, and so becoming s. It is, however, very probable that instead of the plural form being changed, it is the singular that has been modified. In the Anglo-Saxon the f at the end of words (as in the present Swedish) had the power of v. In the allied language the words in point are spelt with the flat mute, as weib, laub, kalb, halb, stab, German. The same is the case with leaf, leaves; calf, calves; half, halves; staff, staves; beef, beeves: this last word being Anglo-Norman.

§ Different from the question, to what degree have we numbers? is the question,—over what extent of our language have we numbers? This distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who said typtô=I beat, typteton=ye two beat, typtomen=we beat, had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns; while the Hebrew dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual number is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew.

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

Mathematics, metaphysics, politics, ethics, optics, physics.—The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each is the name of some department of study, of some art, or of some science. As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote, either of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and sciences of Greece be expressed, in Greek, rather by a substantive and an adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for instance, let it be the habit of the language to say the musical art, rather than music. Let the Greek for art be a word in the feminine gender; e.g., τέχνη (tekhnæ), so that the musical art be ἡ μουσίκη τέχνη (hæ mousikæ tekhnæ). Let, in the progress of language (as was actually the case in Greece), the article and substantive be omitted, so that, for the musical art, or for music, there stand only the feminine adjective, μουσίκη. Let there be, upon a given art or science, a series of books, or treatises; the Greek for book, or treatise, being a neuter substantive, βίβλιον (biblion). Let the substantive meaning treatise be, in the course of language, omitted, so that whilst the science of physics is called φυσίκη (fysikæ), physic, from ἡ φυσίκη τέχνη, a series of treatises (or even chapters) upon the science shall be called φύσικα (fysika) or physics. Now all this was what happened in Greece. The science was denoted by a feminine adjective singular, as φυσίκη (fysicæ), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective plural, as φύσικα (fysica). The treatises of Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive, that in the middle ages a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two sources, viz., from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as physic, logic; in the second place a plural form, as mathematics, metaphysics, optics.

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

To these doctrines of Grimm and Bopp, it should be added, that the reason why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in the collective nature of the words in which it occurs: Husir=a collection of houses, eigir=a collection of eggs, eggery or eyry. For further observations on the power of -r, and for reasons for believing it to be the same as in the words Jew-r-y, yeoman-r-y, see a paper of Mr. Guest's, Philol. Trans., May 26, 1843. There we find the remarkable form lamb-r-en, from Wicliffe, Joh. xxi. Lamb-r-en : lamb :: child-r-en : child.

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

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

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

§ 290. This leads to an interesting question, viz., what notions are sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same form, and in the same case? The word her, in its two senses, may, perhaps, be dealt with as a single case, because the notions conveyed by the genitive and accusative are, perhaps, sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same word. Are the notions, however, of a mistress, and mistresses, so allied? I think not; and yet in the Latin language the same form, dominæ, expresses both. Of dominæ=of a mistress, and of dominæ=mistresses, we cannot say that there is one and the same case with a latitude of meaning. The words were, perhaps, once different. And this leads to the distinction between a real and an accidental identity of form.

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

In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words smith (smið), end (ende), and day (dæg), were, respectively, smithes (smiðes), endes, and dayes (dæges); whilst the nominative plurals were, respectively, smithas (smiðas), endas, and dayas (dægas). A process of change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in each word was ejected. The result was, that the forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and the same; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident.

§ 292. 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.

§ 293. When all traces of the original dative signification are effaced, and when all the dative cases in a language are similarly affected, an accusative case may be said to have originated out of a dative.

"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:—

§ 294. Thus far the question has been concerning the immediate origin of cases: their remote origin is a different matter.

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

Her.—For this word, as well as for further details on me and my, see the Chapters on the Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns.

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

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

§ 298. We and me have been dealt with as distinct words. But it is only for practical purposes that they can be considered to be thus separate; since the sounds of m and w are allied, and in Sanskrit the singular form ma=I is looked upon as part of the same word with vayam=we. The same is the case with the Greek με (me), and the plural form ἡμεῖς (hæmeis)=we.

That the sound of k originally belonged to the pronouns me and thee, we learn not only from the Anglo-Saxons mec, þec, meh, þeh, but from the Icelandic mik, þik, and the German mich, dich. This accounts for the form my; since y=ey, and the sounds of y and g are allied. That both me and my can be evolved from mik, we see in the present Scandinavian languages, where, very often even in the same district, mig is pronounced both mey and mee.

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

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

§ 301. These.—Here observe—

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

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

6. And alle we that ben in this aray

And maken all this lamentation,

We losten alle our husbondes at that toun.

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

§ 304. The following points in the history of the demonstrative and relative pronouns are taken from Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii. pp. 1, 2, 3.

§ 305. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply to a few of the remaining pronouns. For further details, see Grimm, D. G. iii. 4.

Throughout the Indo-European tribe the demonstrative idea is expressed by t, or by a modification of it; as, Sanskrit, tat, that; tata-ras, such a one out of two.—Lithuanic, tas, he; toks, such; tokelys, so great; taip, so.—Slavonic, t' or ta, he; taku, such; tako, so.—Tot, talis, tantum, Latin.—Τόσος, τοῖος, τότε, Greek; this, that, thus, English, &c.

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

§ 307. The more important of the specific modifications of the general idea involved in the comparison of two objects are,—

§ 308. A confirmation of Bopp's view is afforded by the Laplandic languages. Herein the distinction between one of two and one of more than two is expressed by affixes; and these affixes are the signs of the comparative and superlative: gi=who; gua-bba=who of two; gutte-mush=who of many.

"As in comparatives a relation between two, and in superlatives a relation between many, lies at the bottom, it is natural that their suffixes should be transferred to other words, whose chief notion is individualised through that of duality or plurality."—Vergleichende Grammatik, § 292, Eastwick's and Wilson's Translation.

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

3. Precisely as the words guabba and guttemush are formed, so also are the regular degrees of adjectives.

§ 310. The proper preliminary to the study of the comparative and quasi-comparative forms in English is the history of the inflection or inflections by which they are expressed. There is no part of our grammar where it is more necessary to extend our view beyond the common limit of the Gothic stock of languages, than here.

§ 311. Before we consider the Gothic forms of the comparative, it may be advisable to note two changes to which it is liable. 1. The change of s into r; the Latin word meliorem being supposed to have been originally meliosem, and the s in nigrius, firmius, &c., being considered not so much the sign of the neuter gender as the old comparative s in its oldest form. 2. The ejection of t, as in the Latin words inferus, superus, compared with the Greek λεπτότερος (leptoteros).

§ 312. Now, of the two parallel forms, the Gothic one was the form s; the words other and whether only preserving the form tr. And here comes the application of the remarks that have just gone before. The vast majority of our comparatives end in r, and so seem to come from tr rather than from s. This, however, is not the case. The r in words like sweeter is derived, not from tar—t, but from s, changed into r. In Mœso-Gothic the comparative ended in s (z); in Old High German the s has become r: Mœso-Gothic aldiza, batiza, sutiza; Old High German, altiro, betsiro, suatsiro; English, older, better, sweeter.

§ 311. Before we consider the Gothic forms of the comparative, it may be advisable to note two changes to which it is liable. 1. The change of s into r; the Latin word meliorem being supposed to have been originally meliosem, and the s in nigrius, firmius, &c., being considered not so much the sign of the neuter gender as the old comparative s in its oldest form. 2. The ejection of t, as in the Latin words inferus, superus, compared with the Greek λεπτότερος (leptoteros).

§ 313. Comparison of adverbs.—The sun shines bright.—Herein the word bright means brightly; and although the use of the latter word would have been the more elegant, the expression is not ungrammatical; the word bright being looked upon as an adjectival adverb.

§ 314. Change of vowel.—By reference to Rask's Grammar, § 128, it may be seen that in the Anglo-Saxon there were, for the comparative and superlative degrees, two forms; viz. -or and -re, and -ost and -este, respectively.

Now let the root mag-, as in magnus, μέγας, and mikil (Norse), give the idea of greatness. In the Latin language we have from it two comparative forms: 1. the adjectival comparative major=greater; 2. the adverbial comparative magis=more (plus). The same takes place in Mœso-Gothic: maiza means greater, and is adjectival; mais means more, and is adverbial. The Anglo-Saxon forms are more instructive still; e.g., þäs þe mâ=all the more, þäs þe bet=all the better, have a comparative sense, but not a comparative form, the sign r being absent. Now, compared with major, and subject to the remarks that have gone before, the Latin magis is the older form. With mâ and bet, compared with more and better, this may or may not be the case. Mâ and bet may each be one of two forms; 1. a positive used in a comparative sense; 2. a true comparative, which has lost its termination. The present section has been written not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to show that in the comparative degree there were often two forms; of which one, the adverbial, was either more antiquated, or more imperfect than the other: a fact bearing upon some of the forthcoming trains of etymological reasoning.

§ 315. The previous section has stated that in Anglo-Saxon there were two forms for the comparative and superlative degrees, one in -re and -este, the other in -or and -ost, respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives; as se scearpre sweord=the sharper sword, and se scearpeste sweord=the sharpest sword. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs; as, se sweord scyrð scearpor=the sword cuts sharper, and se sweord scyrð scearpost=the sword cuts sharpest.

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

The adjectival form has, as seen above, a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding syllable small: old, elder.

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

§ 318. Difference between a sequence in logic and a sequence in etymology.—The ideas or notions of thou, thy, thee, are ideas between which there is a metaphysical or logical connexion. The train of such ideas may be said to form a sequence and such a sequence may be called a logical one.

§ 319. Worse.—Mœso-Gothic, vairsiza; Old High German, wirsiro; Middle High German, wirser; Old Saxon, wirso; Anglo-Saxon, vyrsa; Old Norse, vërri; Danish, værre; and Swedish, värre. Such are the adjectival forms. The adverbial forms are Mœso-Gothic, vairs; Old High German, virs; Middle High German, wirs; Anglo-Saxon, vyrs: Old Norse, vërr; Danish, værre; Swedish, värre.—Grimm, D. G. iii. 606. Whether the present form in English be originally adjectival or adverbial is indifferent; since, as soon as the final a of vyrsa was omitted, the two words would be the same. The forms, however, vairsiza, wirser, worse, and vërri, make the word one of the most perplexing in the language.

§ 325. 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.

The forms (or words) thou, thy, thee, are forms or words between which there is a formal or an etymological connexion. A train of such words may be called a sequence, and such a sequence may be called an etymological one.

§ 326. The history of the superlative form, accurately parallel with what has been stated of the comparative, is as follows:—

§ 327. The combination st occurs in other words besides those of the superlative degree; amongst others, in certain adverbs and prepositions, as among, amongst; while, whilst; between, betwixt.—Its power here has not been well explained.

Of the English superlatives, the only ones that demand a detailed examination are those that are generally despatched without difficulty; viz., the words in most; such as midmost, foremost, &c. The current view is the one adopted by Rask in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar (§ 133), viz., that they are compound words, formed from simple ones by the addition of the superlative term most. Grimm's view is opposed to this. In appreciating Grimm's view, we must bear in mind the phenomena of excess of expression; at the same time we must not depart from the current theory without duly considering the fact stated by Rask; which is, that we have in Icelandic the forms nærmeir, fjærmeir, &c., nearer, and farther, most unequivocally compounded of near and more, and of far and more.

§ 328. In one sense the cardinal numbers form no part of a work on etymology. They are single words, apparently simple, and, as such, appertaining to a dictionary rather than to a grammar.

§ 329. It is an ethnological fact, that the numerals are essentially the same throughout the whole Indo-European class of languages. The English three is the Latin tres, the Sanskrit tri, &c. In the Indo-European languages the numerals agree, even when many common terms differ.

The word pair also=2; but not absolutely, not unequivocally, and only in a secondary manner.

This form is difficult. The Mœso-Gothic form is sibun, without a -t-; the Norse, syv, without either -t- or -n (=-m). A doubtful explanation of the form seven, &c., will be found in the following chapter.

§ 330. Generally speaking, the greater part of the numerals are undeclined, even in inflected languages. As far as number goes, this is necessary.

α. The Mœso-Gothic.—Here we find the root tig- used as a true substantive, equivalent in form as well as power to the Greek δέκ-ας. Tváim tigum þusandjom=duobus decadibus myriadum. (Luke xiv. 31.) Jêrê þrijê tigivé=annorum duarum decadum. (Luke iii. 23.) þrins tiguns silubrinaize=tres decadas argenteorum. (Matthew xxvii. 3, 9.)—Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 948.

§ 331. The remarks at the close of the last chapter but one indicated the fact that superlative forms were found beyond the superlative degree. The present chapter shows that they are certainly found in some, and possibly in all of the ordinal numbers.

§ 332. Second.—Between this word and its cardinal, two, there is no etymological connexion. This is the case in many, if not in most, languages. In Latin the cardinal is duo, and the ordinal secundus, a gerund of sequor, and meaning the following. In Anglo-Saxon the form was se oðer=the other. In the present German, the ordinal is zweite, a word etymologically connected with the cardinal zwei=two.

§ 333. With the third ordinal number begin difficulties: 1. in respect to their form; 2. in respect to the idea conveyed by them.

Old High German, andar; Old Saxon, othar; Old Frisian, other; Middle Dutch, ander. In all these words we have the comparative form -ter; and considering that, compared with the word first, the word second is a sort of comparative, there is nothing in the circumstance to surprise us. The Greek forms δεύτερος and ἕτερος, the Latin alter, and the Lithuanic antras, are the same.

§ 334. Now there are, in etymology, two ways of determining the affinity of ideas. The first is the metaphysical, the second the empirical, method.

§ 335. The following hypotheses account for these phenomena; viz. that the termination of the ordinals is the superlative termination -tam: that in some words, like the Latin septimus, the whole form is preserved; that in some, as in τέταρτος=fourth, the t only remains; and that in others, as in decimus, the m alone remains. Finally, that in seven, nine, and ten, the final liquid, although now belonging to the cardinal, was once the characteristic of the ordinal number. For a fuller exhibition of these views, see Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 640.

§ 336. In the generality of grammars the definite article the, and the indefinite article an, are the very first parts of speech that are considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite article. In the former language they say ἀνήρ τις=a certain man: in the Latin the words filius patris mean equally the son of the father, a son of a father, a son of the father, or the son of a father. In 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.

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

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

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

In the Old High-German there are a multitude of diminutive forms in -l; as ouga=an eye, ougili=a little eye, lied=a song, liedel=a little song. "In Austria and Bavaria are the forms mannel, weibel, hundel, &c., or mannl, weibl, hundl, &c. In some districts there is an r before the l, as madarl=a little maid, muadarl=a little mother, briadarl=a little brother, &c. This is occasioned by the false analogy of the diminutives of the derived form in r."—Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 674. This indicates the nature of words like cockerel.

§ 340. Patronymics.—In the Greek language the notion of lineal descent, in other words, the relation of the son to the father, is expressed by a particular termination; as, Πηλεὺς (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, or Gaelic MacDonald. In these last-named words, the words son and Mac mean the same thing; so that Johnson and MacDonald are not derived, but compound words. This Greek way of expressing descent is peculiar, and the words wherein it occurs are classed together by the peculiar name patronymic, from patær=a father, and onoma=a name. Is there anything in English corresponding to the Greek patronymics? It was for the sake of this question that the consideration of the termination -ling, as in duckling, &c., was deferred.

The termination -rd, taken from the Gothic, appears in the modern languages of classical origin: French, vieillard; Spanish, codardo. From these we get at, second-hand, the word coward.—Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 707.

§ 341. These have been illustrated by Mr. Guest in the Transactions of the Philological Society.

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

§ 344. Returning, however, to the illustration of the substantival character of the so-called infinitive mood, we may easily see—

§ 345. The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (or infinitive form) consisted, in full, of three cases, a nominative (or accusative), a dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because its occurrence in the Gothic language is the least constant.

§ 346. With these preliminaries we can take a clear view of the English infinitives. They exist under two forms, and are referable to a double origin.

§ 343. A noun is a word capable of declension only. A verb is a word capable of declension and conjugation also. The fact of verbs being declined as well as conjugated must be remembered. The participle has the declension of a noun adjective, the infinite mood the declension of a noun substantive. Gerunds and supines, in languages where they occur, are only names for certain cases of the verb.

§ 347. Of number, person, mood, tense, and conjugation, special notice is taken in their respective chapters. Of the divisions of verbs into active and passive, transitive and intransitive, unless there be an accompanying change of form, etymology takes no cognisance. The forces of the auxiliary verbs, and the tenses to which they are equivalent, are also points of syntax rather than of etymology.

§ 348. 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.

§ 351. The detail of the persons seems to be as follows:—

§ 352. The person in -T.—Art, wast, wert, shalt, wilt. Here the second person singular ends, not in -st, but in -t. A reason for this (though not wholly satisfactory) we find in the Mœso-Gothic and the Icelandic.

I call, first person singular.—The word call is not one person more than another. It is the simple verb, wholly uninflected. It is very probable that the first person was the one where the characteristic termination was first lost. In the Modern Norse language it is replaced by the second: Jeg taler=I speak, Danish.

§ 353. Thou spakest, thou brakest, thou sungest.^[45]—In these forms there is a slight though natural anomaly. They belong to the class of verbs which form their præterite by changing the vowel of the present; as sing, sang, &c. Now, all words of this sort in Anglo-Saxon formed their second singular præterite, not in -st, but in -e; as þú funde=thou foundest, þú sunge=thou sungest. The English termination is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to the præterites formed by changing the vowel. Thou loved'st is Anglo-Saxon as well as English, viz., þú lufodest.

In those languages the form of the person changes with the tense, and the second singular of the præterite tense of one conjugation is, not -s, but -t; as Mœso-Gothic, svôr=I swore, svôrt=thou swarest, gráip=I griped, gráipt=thou gripedst; Icelandic, brannt=thou burnest, gaft=thou gavest. In the same languages ten verbs are conjugated like præterites. Of these, in each language, skal is one.

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

§ 355. The inflection of the present tense, not only in Anglo-Saxon, but in several other languages as well, has been given in the preceding chapter. As compared with the present plural forms, we love, ye love, they love, both the Anglo-Saxon we lufiað, ge lufiað, hi lufiað, and the Old English we loven, ye loven, they loven, have a peculiar termination for the plural number which the present language wants. In other words, the Anglo-Saxon and the Old English have a plural personal characteristic, whilst the Modern English has nothing to correspond with it.

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

§ 357. Between the second plural imperative, and the second plural indicative, speak ye and ye speak, there is no difference of form. Between the second singular imperative speak, and the second singular indicative, speakest, there is a difference in form. Still, as the imperative form speak is distinguished from the indicative form speakest by the negation of a character rather than by the possession of one, it cannot be said that there is in English any imperative mood.

§ 358. If he speak, as opposed to if he speaks, is characterised by a negative sign only, and consequently is no true example of a subjunctive. Be, as opposed to am, in the sentence if it be so, is an uninflected word used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a subjunctive.

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

§ 360. Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two tenses. Both forms exist. They are used, however, indiscriminately. The aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect. The perfect has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist. In the following pair of quotations, vixi, the aorist form, is translated I have lived, while tetigit, the perfect form, is translated he touched.

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;^[47] 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 : scribo :: ἔτυψα : τύπτω.

§ 361. 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.

§ 361. 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.

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

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

§ 364. Contains the two words fall and fell, hold and held, where the sound of o is changed into that of ĕ. Here must be noticed the natural tendency of a to become o; since the forms in Anglo-Saxon are, Ic fealle, I fall; Ic feoll, I fell; Ic healde, I hold; Ic heold, I held.

§ 376. Contains the single word choose, in the præterite chose; in Anglo-Saxon, ceóse, ceás.

Even in the present English it will be found convenient to call the forms like sang and drank the singular, and those like sung and bound the plural forms.

§ 377. The præterite tense of the weak verbs is formed by the addition of -d or -t. If necessary, the syllable -ed is substituted for -d.

§ 378. The verbs of the weak conjugation fall into three classes. In the first there is the simple addition of -d, -t, or -ed.

After l, m, n, r, w, y, or a vowel, the addition is also -d. This is the habit of the English language. Filt, slurt, strayt, &c., are as pronounceable as filld, slurrd, strayd, &c. It is the habit, however, of the English language to prefer the latter forms. All this, as the reader has probably observed, is merely the reasoning concerning the s, in words like father's, &c., applied to another letter and to another part of speech.

§ 379. In the second class, besides the addition of -t or -d, the vowel is shortened. It also contains those words which end in -d or -t, and at the same time have a short vowel in the præterite. Such, amongst others, are cut, cost, &c., where the two tenses are alike, and bend, rend, &c., where the præterite is formed from the present by changing -d into -t, as bent, rent, &c.

§ 380. Third class.—In the second class the vowel of the present tense was shortened in the præterite. In the third class it is changed.

In this class we sometimes find -t where the -d is expected; the forms being left and dealt, instead of leaved and dealed.

§ 381. Out of the three classes into which the weak verbs in Anglo-Saxon are divided, only one takes a vowel before the d or t. The other two add the syllables -te, or -de, to the last letter of the original word. The vowel that, in one out of the three Anglo-Saxon classes, precedes d is o. Thus we have lufian, lufode; clypian, clypode. In the other two classes the forms are respectively bærnan, bærnde; and tellan, tealde, no vowel being found. The participle, however, as stated above, ended, not in -de or -te, but in -d or -t; and in two out of the three classes it was preceded by a vowel, gelufod, bærned, geteald. Now in those conjugations where no vowel preceded the d of the præterite, and where the original word ended in -d or -t, a difficulty, which has already been indicated, arose. To add the sign of the præterite to a word like eard-ian (to dwell) was an easy matter, inasmuch as 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.

§ 382. Made, had.—In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms are macode and hæfde, respectively. The words, however, in regard to the amount of change, are not upon a par. The f in hæfde was probably sounded as v. Now v 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.

B. 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.

§ 382. Made, had.—In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms are macode and hæfde, respectively. The words, however, in regard to the amount of change, are not upon a par. The f in hæfde was probably sounded as v. Now v 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.

The Mœso-Gothic forms are dar, dart? dar, daúrum, daúruþ, daúrun, for the persons of the present tense; and daúrsta, daúrstês, daúrsta, &c., for those of the præterite. The same is the case throughout the Germanic languages. No -s, however, appears in the Scandinavian; the præterites being þorði and törde, Icelandic and Danish. The Anglo-Saxon is dear=I dare, dearst=thou darest, durron=we, ye, or they dare; subjunctive, durre, dorste, dorston. Old Saxon, present, dar; præterite dursta. The Mœso-Gothic tense, daúrsta, instead of daúrda, shows the antiquity of this form in -s.

In p. 298 it was stated that the Mœso-Gothic termination of the second singular of the strong præterites was -t. It is here mentioned that must is a præterite form. Now the final letter of the root mot, and the sign of the second singular of the strong præterite, are the same, -t. Now, as -t cannot be immediately added to t, the natural form of the second singular mót-t is impracticable. Hence, before the -t of the second person, the -t of the root is changed, so that, instead of máimáit-t, bigat-t, fáifalþ-t, láilot-t, &c., we have máimáis-t, bigas-t, fáifals-t, láilos-t, &c., Mœso-Gothic.—See Deutsche Grammatik, 844.

In respect to the four forms in question, viz., wit, wot, wiss, wist; the first seems to be the root; the second a strong præterite regularly formed, but used (like οἶδα in Greek) with a present sense; the third a weak præterite, of which the -t has been ejected by a euphonic process, used also with a present sense; the fourth is a second singular from wiss after the manner of wert from were, a second singular from wit after the manner of must, a secondary præterite from wiss, or finally, the form wisse, anterior to the operation of the euphonic process that ejected the -t.

This fact alters our view of the form minded. Instead of being a secondary præterite, it is a tertiary one. Geman (the apparent present) being dealt with as a strong præterite with a present sense, mind (from the Anglo-Saxon gemunde) is the secondary præterite, and minded (from the English mind) is a tertiary præterite. To analyse the word, the præterite is first formed by the vowel a, then by the addition of -d, and, thirdly, by the termination -ed; man, mind, minded.

§ 383. The current statement respecting verbs like sing and fall, &c., is that they are irregular. How far this is the case may be seen from a review of the twelve classes in Mœso-Gothic, where the change of the vowel is subject to fewer irregularities than elsewhere. In the first six conjugations the præterite is replaced by a perfect tense. Consequently, there is a reduplication. Of these the fifth and sixth superadd to the reduplication a change of the vowel.

§ 384. Such is the arrangement of the strong verbs in Mœso-Gothic, with which the arrangement of the strong verbs in the other Gothic languages may or may not coincide.

3.

§ 385. Preliminary, however, to making them, the reader's attention is directed to the following list of verbs. In the present English they all form the præterite in -d or -t; in Anglo-Saxon, they all form it by a change of the vowel. In other words they are weak verbs that were once strong.

These statements are made lest the reader should expect to find between the English and the Anglo-Saxon classification anything more than a partial coincidence. A detailed exhibition of the English conjugations would form a work of itself. Moreover, the present classes of the strong verbs must, to a great degree, be considered as provisional.

§ 386. The first of the general statements made concerning strong verbs, with a view of proving that the order is natural, shall be the one arising out of the preceding list of præterites.

Swallow

§ 387. Obsolete forms.—Instead of lept, slept, mowed, snowed, &c., we find, in the provincial dialects and in the older writers, the strong forms lep, step, mew, snew, &c. This is no more than what we expect. Here there are two forms, and each form is of a different conjugation.

§ 388. Double Forms.—In lep and mew we have two forms, of which one only is current. In swoll and swelled, in clomb and climbed, and in hung and hanged, we have two forms, of which both are current. These latter are true double forms. Of double forms there are two kinds.

§ 389. In § 361 the distinction between irregularity and defectiveness was slightly foreshadowed. In pp. 243, 267, it was exhibited in its principles. In the present chapter the difference is more urgently insisted on.

The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is the meaning that we attach to terms.

I. Vital and obsolete processes.—The word moved is formed from move, by the addition of -d. The addition of -d is the process by which the present form is rendered præterite. The word fell is formed from fall, by changing a into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present form is rendered præterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In what respect do they differ?

A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In this case stept (modified by a process of necessity), and wept (modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular.

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

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

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

Can, cunne, canst, cunnon, cunnan, cuðe, cuðon, cuð—such are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them account for the -l. The presence of the -l makes the word could irregular. No reference to the allied languages accounts for it.

§ 392. Meseems.—Equivalent to it seems to me; mihi videtur, φαίνεταί μοι. The verb seems is intransitive; consequently the pronoun me has the power of a dative case. The pronoun it is not required to accompany the verb.

§ 394. Me listeth, or me lists.—Equivalent to it pleases me=me juvat. Anglo-Saxon lystan=to wish, to choose, also to please, to delight; Norse, lysta. Unlike the other two, the verb is transitive, so that the pronoun me has the power of an accusative case. The pronoun it is not required to accompany the verb.

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

§ 396. Was.—Defective, except in the præterite tense, where it is found both in the indicative and conjunctive.

§ 397. Be.—Inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both indicative and subjunctive; 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:—

§ 398. In the Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1051, it is stated that the Anglo-Saxon forms beó, bist, bið, beoð, or beó, have not a present, but a future sense; that whilst am means I am, beó means I shall be; and that in the older languages it is only where the form am is not found that be has the power of a present form. The same root occurs in the Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues with the same power; as, esmi=I am; búsu=I shall be, Lithuanic.—Esmu=I am; buhshu=I shall be, Livonic.—Jesm=I am; budu=I shall be, Slavonic.—Gsem=I am; budu=I shall be, Bohemian. This, however, proves, not that there is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense (or form), but that the word beó has a future sense. There is no fresh tense where there is no fresh form.

§ 399. If we consider the word beón like the word weorðan (see below) to mean not so much to be as to become, we get an element of the idea of futurity. Things which are becoming anything have yet something further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power of be. In English we often say may for shall, and the same was done in Anglo-Saxon.—"Ic ðe secge, heò is be ðam húse ðe Fegor hátte, and nán man nis ðe hig wíte (shall, may know) ær ðám myclan dóme."—Ælfric's Homilies, 44.

§ 397. Be.—Inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both indicative and subjunctive; 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:—

§ 400. Am.—Of this form it should be stated, that the letter -m is no part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it is in all the Indo-European languages.

The following is a specimen of the future power of beón in Anglo-Saxon:—"Hi ne beóð na cílde, soðlice, on domesdæge, ac beóð swa micele menn swa swa hi, migton beón gif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre ylde."—Ælfric's Homilies. "They will not be children, forsooth, on Domesday, but will be as much (so muckle) men as they might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age."

In English and Anglo-Saxon the word is found in the present indicative only. In English it is inflected through both numbers; in Anglo-Saxon in the singular number only. The Anglo-Saxon plurals are forms of the German seyn, a verb whereof we have, in the present English, no vestiges.

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

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

It is with the oblique cases of the present participles of the classical languages, rather than with the nominative, that we must compare the corresponding participle in Gothic; e.g., ἔχοντ-ος (ekhontos), Greek; habent-is, Latin; hapênt-êr, Old High German.

§ 403. But it is also stated, that, in the English language, the participle is used as a substantive in a greater degree than elsewhere, and that it is used in several cases and in both numbers, e.g.,

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

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

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

These two statements bear upon the future history of the præterite. That of the two forms sang and sung, one will, in the course of language, become obsolete is nearly certain; and, as the plural form is also that of the participle, it is the plural form which is most likely to be the surviving one.

§ 408. The participle in -d, -t, or -ed.—In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjective. Like the adjective, it is, in the present English, undeclined.

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

As the ejection of the e reduces words like bærned and bærnde to the same form, it is easy to account for the present identity of form between the weak præterites and the participles in -d: e. g., I moved, I have moved, &c.

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

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

§ 415. The attention of the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from Churchill:—

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

Treating the combination as a single term.—In determining, in certain cases, between derived words and compound words, there is an occasional perplexity; the perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between a compound word and two words. In the eyes of one grammarian the term mountain height may be as truly a compound word as sunbeam. In the eyes of another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just as Alpine height is two words; mountain being dealt with as an adjective. It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part. This fact was foreshadowed in the Chapter upon Accents.

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

To speak first of the word (or words) gallant mast. If gallant mean brave, there are two words. If the words be two, there is a stronger accent on mast. If the accent on mast be stronger, the rhyme with fast is more complete; in other words, the metre favours the notion of the words being considered as two. Gallant-mast, however, is a compound word, with an especial nautical meaning. In this case the accent is stronger on gal- and weaker on -mast. This, however, is not the state of things that the metre favours. The same applies to mountain wave. The same person who in prose would throw a stronger accent on mount- and a weaker one on wave (so dealing with the word as a compound), might, in poetry, make the words two, by giving to the last syllable a parity of accent.

§ 419. "Subject to four classes of exceptions, it may be laid down that there is no true composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent."—Such is the statement made in p. 359. The first class of exceptions consists of those words where the natural tendency to disparity of accent is traversed by some rule of euphony. For example, let two words be put together, which at their point of contact form a combination of sounds foreign to our habits of pronunciation. The rarity of the combination will cause an effort in utterance. The effort in utterance will cause an accent to be laid on the latter half of the compound. This will equalize the accent, and abolish the disparity. The word monkshood, the name of a flower (aconitum napellus), where, to my ear at least, there is quite as much accent on the -hood as on the monks-, may serve in the way of illustration. Monks is one word, hood another. When joined together, the h- of the -hood is put in immediate opposition with the -s of the monks-. Hence the combination monkshood. At the letters s and h is the point of contact. Now the sound of s followed immediately by the sound of h is a true aspirate. But true aspirates are rare in the English language. Being of rare occurrence, the pronunciation of them is a matter of attention and effort; and this attention and effort creates an accent which otherwise would be absent. Hence words like monkshóod, well-héad, and some others.

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

§ 420. For a remark on the words peacock, peahen, see the Chapter upon Gender.—If these words be rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of the elements -cock and -hen, the statements made in the beginning of the present chapter are invalidated. Since, if the word pea- be particularized, qualified, or defined by the words -cock and -hen, the second term defines or particularises the first, which is contrary to the rule of p. 355. The truth, however, is, that the words -cock and -hen are defined by the prefix pea-. Preparatory to the exhibition of this, let us remember that the word pea (although now found in composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a species of fowl, like pheasant, partridge, or any other appellation. It is the Latin pavo, German pfau. Now, if the word peacock mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is a male, then do wood-cock, black-cock, and bantam-cock, mean woods, blacks, and bantams that are male. Or if the word peahen mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is female, then do moorhen and guineahen mean moors and guineas that are female. Again, if a peahen mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is female, then does the compound pheasant-hen mean the same as hen-pheasant; which is not the case. The fact is that peacock means a cock that is a pea (pfau or pavo); 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.

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.

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

§ 420. For a remark on the words peacock, peahen, see the Chapter upon Gender.—If these words be rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of the elements -cock and -hen, the statements made in the beginning of the present chapter are invalidated. Since, if the word pea- be particularized, qualified, or defined by the words -cock and -hen, the second term defines or particularises the first, which is contrary to the rule of p. 355. The truth, however, is, that the words -cock and -hen are defined by the prefix pea-. Preparatory to the exhibition of this, let us remember that the word pea (although now found in composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a species of fowl, like pheasant, partridge, or any other appellation. It is the Latin pavo, German pfau. Now, if the word peacock mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is a male, then do wood-cock, black-cock, and bantam-cock, mean woods, blacks, and bantams that are male. Or if the word peahen mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is female, then do moorhen and guineahen mean moors and guineas that are female. Again, if a peahen mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is female, then does the compound pheasant-hen mean the same as hen-pheasant; which is not the case. The fact is that peacock means a cock that is a pea (pfau or pavo); 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.

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

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

§ 424. The present chapter closes with the notice of two classes of words. They are mentioned now, not because they are compounds, but because they can be treated of here more conveniently than elsewhere.

In the first edition the sentence ran "two or more" words; being so written to account for compounds like mid-ship-man, gentle-man-like, &c., where the number of verbal elements seems to amount to three.

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

§ 426. Derivation proper may be divided according to a variety of principles. Amongst others,

The degrees of comparison, or certain derived forms of adjectives; the ordinals, or certain derived forms of the numerals; the diminutives, &c., or certain derived forms of the substantive, have been separated from derivation properly so called. I am not certain, however, that for so doing there is any better reason than mere convenience. By some the decrees of comparison are considered as points of inflection.

§ 427. The list (taken from Walker) of words alluded to in p. 293, is as follows:—

III. According to the form.—Sometimes the derivational element is a vowel (as the -ie in doggie); sometimes a consonant combined: in other words, a syllable (as the -en in whiten); sometimes a change of vowel without any addition (as the i in tip, compared with top); sometimes a change of consonant without any addition (as the z in prize, compared with price; sometimes it is a change of accent, like a súrvey, compared with to survéy. To classify derivations in this manner is to classify them according to their form. For the detail of the derivative forms, see Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 89-405.

§ 428. Churl, earl, owl, fowl, hail, nail, sail, snail, tail, hazel, needle, soul, teazle, fair, beam, bottom, arm, team, worm, heaven, morn, dust, ghost, breast, rest, night, spright, blind, harp, flax, fox, finch, stork, &c. All these words, for certain etymological reasons, are currently considered, by the latest philologists, as derivatives. Notwithstanding the general prevalence of a fuller form in the Anglo-Saxon, it is clear that, in respect to the evidence, they come under division B.

Tórment

§ 429. Forms like tip, from top, price and prize, &c., are of importance in general etymology. Let it be received as a theory (as with some philologists is really the case) that fragmentary sounds like the -en in whiten, the -th in strength, &c., were once words; or, changing the expression, let it be considered that all derivation was once composition. Let this view be opposed. The first words that are brought to militate against it are those like tip and prize, where, instead of any addition, there is only a change; and, consequently, no vestiges of an older word. This argument, good as far as it goes, is rebutted in the following manner. Let the word top have attached to it a second word, in which second word there is a small vowel. Let this small vowel act upon the full one in top, changing it to tip. After this, let the second word be ejected. We then get the form tip by the law of accommodation, and not as an immediate sign of derivation. The i in chick (from cock) may be thus accounted for, the -en in chicken being supposed to have exerted, first, an influence of accommodation, and afterwards to have fallen off. The i in chick may, however, be accounted for by simple processes.

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

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

§ 432. The adverbs of deflection (of the chief importance in etymology) may be arranged after a variety of principles. I. According to the part of speech from whence they originate. This is often an adjective, often a substantive, at times a pronoun, occasionally a preposition, rarely a verb. II. According to the part of the inflection from whence they originate. This is often an ablative case, often a neuter accusative, often a dative, occasionally a genitive.

A Better, worse.—Here the combination of sounds gives equally an adjective and an adverb. This book is better than that—here better agrees with book, and is therefore adjectival. This looks better than that—here better qualifies looks, and is therefore adverbial. Again; to do a thing with violence is equivalent to do a thing violently. This shows how adverbs may arise out of cases. In words like the English better, the Latin vi=violenter, the Greek κάλον=κάλως, we have adjectives in their degrees, and substantives in their cases, with adverbial powers. In other words, nouns are deflected from their natural sense to an adverbial one. Adverbs of this kind are adverbs of deflection.

§ 433. Darkling.—This is no participle of a verb darkle, but an adverb of derivation, like unwaringun=unawares, Old High German; stillinge=secretly, Middle High German; blindlings=blindly, New High German; darnungo=secretly, Old Saxon; nichtinge=by night, Middle Dutch; blindeling=blindly, New Dutch; bæclinga=backwards, handlunga=hand to hand, Anglo-Saxon; and, finally, blindlins, backlins, darklins, middlins, scantlins, stridelins, stowlins, in Lowland Scotch.—Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 236.

Little, less, well.—Neuter accusatives of adjectives. Bright, in the sun shines bright, is a word of the same class. The neuter accusative is a common source of adverbs in all tongues.

§ 434. "Adverbs like brightly may (laxly speaking) be called adverbs of derivation." Such the assertion made a few paragraphs above. The first circumstance that strikes the reader is, that the termination -ly is common both to adjectives and to adverbs. This termination was once an independent word, viz., leik. Now, as -ly sprung out of the Anglo-Saxon -lice, and as words like early, dearly, &c., were originally arlîce, deorlîce, &c., and as arlîce, deorlîce, &c., were adjectives, the adverbs in -ly are (strictly speaking) adverbs, not of derivation, but of deflection.

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

§ 439. The -ce (=es) in hen-ce, when-ce, then-ce, has yet to be satisfactorily explained. The Old English is whenn-es, thenn-es. As far, therefore, as the spelling is concerned, they are in the same predicament with the word once, which is properly on-es, the genitive of one. This statement, however, explains only the peculiarity of their orthography; since it by no means follows, that, because the -s in ones and the -s in whennes, thennes are equally replaced by -ce in orthography, they must equally have the same origin in etymology.

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

Modern High German

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

§ 442. Prepositions.—Prepositions, as such, are wholly unsusceptible of inflection. Other parts of speech, in a state of inflection, may be used with a prepositional sense. This, however, is not an inflection of prepositions.

§ 443. Conjunctions.—Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly unsusceptible of inflection. Like prepositions they are never made by means of a derivational element. Like prepositions they are either simple (as and, if), or complex (as also, nevertheless).

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

§ 443. Conjunctions.—Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly unsusceptible of inflection. Like prepositions they are never made by means of a derivational element. Like prepositions they are either simple (as and, if), or complex (as also, nevertheless).

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

§ 446. The inflection of pronouns has its natural peculiarities in language; it has also its natural difficulties in philology. These occur not in one language in particular, but in all generally. The most common peculiarity in the grammar of pronouns is the fact of what may be called their convertibility. Of this convertibility the following statements serve as illustration:—

§ 447. The à priori view of the likelihood of words like mine and thine being genitive cases, must be determined by the comparison of three series of facts.

The reflective pronoun often becomes reciprocal.

§ 448. The ideas of possession and partition as expressed by genitive forms.—If we take a hundred genitive cases, and observe their construction, we shall find, that, with a vast majority of them, the meaning is reducible to one of two heads; viz., the idea of possession or the idea of partition.

1. The ideas expressed by the genitive case, with particular reference to the two preponderating notions of possession and partition.

§ 449. The adjectival expression of the idea of possession.—All the world over, a property is a possession; and persons, at least, may be said to be the owners of their attributes. Whatever may be the nature of words like mine and thine, the adjectival character of their Latin equivalents, meus and tuus, is undoubted.

§ 450. These observations should bring us to the fact that there are two ideas which, more than any other, determine the evolution of a genitive case—the idea of partition and the idea of possession; and that genitive cases are likely to be evolved just in proportion as there is a necessity for the expression of these two ideas.—Let this be applied to the question of the à priori probability of the evolution of a genitive case to the pronouns of the first and second persons of the singular number.

The ideas of partition and possession merge into one another.—A man's spade is the possession of a man; a man's hand is the part of a man. Nevertheless, when a man uses his hand as the instrument of his will, the idea which arises from the fact of its being part of his body is merged in the idea of the possessorship which arises from the feeling of ownership or mastery which is evinced in its subservience and application. Without following the refinements to which the further investigation of these questions would lead us, it is sufficient to suggest that the preponderance of the two allied ideas of partition and possession is often determined by the personality or the non-personality of the subject, and that, when the subject is a person, the idea is chiefly possessive; when a thing, partitive—caput fluvii=the head, which is a part, of a river; caput Toli=the head, which is the possession, of Tolus.

§ 451. The idea of possession, and its likelihood of determining the evolution of a genitive form to the pronouns of the first and second person singular. —It is less likely to do so with such pronouns than with other words, inasmuch as it is less necessary. It has been before observed, that the practice of most languages shows a tendency to express the relation by adjectival forms—meus, tuus.

§ 452. The idea of partition, and its likelihood of determining the evolution of a genitive form, &c.—Less than with other words.

§ 453. Such are the chief à priori arguments against the genitival character of words like mine and thine.

A personal pronoun of the singular number is the name of a unity, and, as such, the name of an object far less likely to be separated into parts than the name of a collection. Phrases like, some of them, one of you, many of us, any of them, few of us, &c., have no analogues in the singular number, such as one of me, a few of thee, &c. The partitive words that can combine with singular pronouns are comparatively few; viz., half, quarter, part, &c.: and they can all combine equally with plurals—half of us, a quarter of them, a part of you, a portion of us. The partition of a singular object with a pronominal name is of rare occurrence in language.

§ 454. Against this circumstance of the -n in mine and thine being the sign of anything rather than of a genitive case, and against the primâ facie evidence afforded by it, the following facts may, or have been, adduced as reasons on the other side. The appreciation of their value, either taken singly or in the way of cumulative evidence, is submitted to the reader. It will be seen that none of them are unexceptionable.

§ 458. But this is not the present question. In Anglo-Saxon there is but one form, min and þin=mei and meus, tui and tuus, indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective?

§ 459. Etymological evidence.—Assuming two powers for the words min and þin, one genitive, and one adjectival, which is the original one? or, going beyond the Anglo-Saxon, assuming that of two forms like meina and meins, the one has been derived from the other, which is the primitive, radical, primary, or original one?

§ 457. The following differences of form, are found in the different Gothic languages, between the equivalents of mei and tui, the so-called genitives of ego and tu, and the equivalents of meus and tuus, the so-called possessive adjectives.

§ 460. Syntactic evidence.—If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as dæl min=pars mei, hælf þin=dimidium tui, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a genitive with a partitive power. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted; whilst, even if quoted, they would not be conclusive. Expressions like σὸς πόθος=desiderium tui, σῆ προμηθίᾳ = providentiâ propter te, show the extent to which the possessive expression encroaches on the partitive.

The reason why the forms like mîner seem derived is because they are longer and more complex than the others. Nevertheless, it is by no means an absolute rule in philology that the least compound form is the oldest. A word may be adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts in the way of omission, as well as by a change in the way of addition. Such is the general statement. Reasons for believing that in the particular cases of the words in question such is the fact, will be found hereafter.

§ 461. Again—as min and þin are declined like adjectives, even as meus and tuus are so declined, we have means of ascertaining their nature from the form they take in certain constructions; thus, minra=meorum, and minre=meæ, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for of thy eyes should be eagena þinra, and the Anglo-Saxon for to my widow, should be wuduwan minre; just as in Latin, they would be oculorum tuorum, and viduæ meæ.

§ 462. A few references to the Deutsche Grammatik will explain this.

§ 463. Now by assuming (which is only a fair assumption) the extension of the Middle High German omission of the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words in question in all positions (i.e., both before and after their nouns), we explain these constructions by a process which, in the mind of the present writer, is involved in fewer difficulties than the opposite doctrine of a genitive case, in words where it is not wanted, and with a termination which is foreign to it elsewhere.

If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as eagena þin, or wuduwan min, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words þin and min must be construed as the Latin forms tui and mei would be in oculorum mei, and viduæ mei; viz.: as genitive cases. Now, whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions (real or apparent) exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.

§ 464. The remote origin of the weak præterite in -d or -t, has been considered by Grimm, in the Deutsche Grammatik. He maintains that it is the d in d-d, the reduplicate præterite of do. In all the Gothic languages the termination of the past tense is either -da, -ta, -de, -ði, -d, -t, or -ed, for the singular, and -don, -ton, -tûmês, or -ðum, for the plural; in other words, d, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the plural præterite of the Mœso-Gothic we have something more, viz. the termination -dêdum; as nas-idêdum, nas-idêduþ, nas-idêdum, from nas-ja; sôk-idêdum, sôk-idêduþ, sôk-idêdum from sôk-ja; salb-ôdêdum, salb-ôdêduþ, sâlb-ôdêdun, from salbô. Here there is a second d. The same takes place with the dual form salb-ôdêduts; and with the subjunctive forms, salb-ôdêdjan, salb-ôdêduts, salb-ôdêdi, salb-ôdêdeits, salb-ôdêdeima, salb-ôdêdeiþ, salb-ôdêdeina. The English phrase, we did salve, as compared with salb-ôdêdum, is confirmatory of this.—Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1042.

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

§ 466. The following extract exhibits Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic verb:—

2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine or feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the præterite is a participle; and the fact of its being so accounts for the apparently remarkable fact of its inflection. If, instead of saying ille amavit, the Latins said ille amatus, whilst instead of saying illa amavit they said illa amata, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonians.

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

§ 468. To reduce a sentence to its elements, and to show that these elements are, 1, the subject, 2, the predicate, 3, the copula; to distinguish between simple terms and complex terms,—this is the department of logic.

§ 469. The following question now occurs. If the history of forms of speech be one thing, and the history of idioms another; if this question be a part of logic, and that question a part of rhetoric; and if such truly grammatical facts as government and concord are, as matters of common sense, to be left uninvestigated and unexplained, what remains as syntax? This is answered by the following distinction. There are two sorts of syntax; theoretical and practical, scientific and historical, pure and mixed. Of these, the first consists in the analysis and proof of those rules which common practice applies without investigation, and common sense appreciates, in a rough and gross manner, from an appreciation of the results. This is the syntax of government and concord, or of those points which find no place in the present work, for the following reason—they are either too easy or too hard for it. If explained scientifically they are matters of close and minute reasoning; if exhibited empirically they are mere rules for the memory. Besides this they are universal facts of languages in general, and not the particular facts of any one language. Like other universal facts they are capable of being expressed symbolically. That the verb (A) agrees with its pronoun (B) is an immutable fact: or, changing the mode of expression, we may say that language can only fulfil its great primary object of intelligibility when A = B. And so on throughout. A formal syntax thus exhibited, and even devised à priori, is a philological possibility. And it is also the measure of philological anomalies.

Swear by your sword—swear on your sword.—Which of these two expressions is right? This depends on what the speaker means. If he mean make your oath in the full remembrance of the trust you put in your sword, and with the imprecation, therein implied, that it shall fail you, or turn against you if you speak falsely, the former expression is the right one. But, if he mean swear with your hand upon your sword, it is the latter which expresses his meaning. To take a different view of this question, and to write as a rule that verbs of swearing are followed by the preposition on (or by) is to mistake the province of the grammar. Grammar tells no one what he should wish to say. It only tells him how what he wishes to say should be said.

§ 470. Pure syntax.—So much for one sort of syntax; viz., that portion of grammar which bears the same relation to the practice of language, that the investigation of the syllogism bears to the practice of reasoning. The positions concerning it are by no means invalidated by such phrases as I speaks (for I speak), &c. In cases like these there is no contradiction; since the peculiarity of the expression consists not in joining two incompatible persons, but in mistaking a third person for a first—and as far as the speaker is concerned, actually making it so. I must here anticipate some objections that may be raised to these views, by stating that I am perfectly aware that they lead to a conclusion which to most readers must appear startling and to some monstrous, viz., to the conclusion that there is no such thing as bad grammar at all; that everything is what the speaker chooses to make it; that a speaker may choose to make any expression whatever, provided it answer the purpose of language, and be intelligible; that, in short, whatever is is right. Notwithstanding this view of the consequence I still am satisfied with the truth of the premises. I may also add that the terms pure and mixed, themselves suggestive of much thought on the subject which they express, are not mine but Professor Sylvester's.

§ 469. The following question now occurs. If the history of forms of speech be one thing, and the history of idioms another; if this question be a part of logic, and that question a part of rhetoric; and if such truly grammatical facts as government and concord are, as matters of common sense, to be left uninvestigated and unexplained, what remains as syntax? This is answered by the following distinction. There are two sorts of syntax; theoretical and practical, scientific and historical, pure and mixed. Of these, the first consists in the analysis and proof of those rules which common practice applies without investigation, and common sense appreciates, in a rough and gross manner, from an appreciation of the results. This is the syntax of government and concord, or of those points which find no place in the present work, for the following reason—they are either too easy or too hard for it. If explained scientifically they are matters of close and minute reasoning; if exhibited empirically they are mere rules for the memory. Besides this they are universal facts of languages in general, and not the particular facts of any one language. Like other universal facts they are capable of being expressed symbolically. That the verb (A) agrees with its pronoun (B) is an immutable fact: or, changing the mode of expression, we may say that language can only fulfil its great primary object of intelligibility when A = B. And so on throughout. A formal syntax thus exhibited, and even devised à priori, is a philological possibility. And it is also the measure of philological anomalies.

§ 471. Mixed syntax.—That, notwithstanding the previous limitations, there is still a considerable amount of syntax in the English, as in all other languages, may be seen from the sequel. If I undertook to indicate the essentials of mixed syntax, I should say that they consisted in the explanation of combinations apparently ungrammatical; in other words, that they ascertained the results of those causes which disturb the regularity of the pure syntax; that they measured the extent of the deviation; and that they referred it to some principle of the human mind—so accounting for it.

§ 472. Mixed syntax requires two sorts of knowledge—metaphysical, and historical.

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

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

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

§ 476. Pleonasm (from the Greek pleonazein=to be in excess) occurs in sentences like the king, he reigns. Here the word he is superabundant. In many pleonastic expressions we may suppose an interruption of the sentence, and afterwards an abrupt renewal of it; as the king—he reigns.

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

§ 476. Pleonasm (from the Greek pleonazein=to be in excess) occurs in sentences like the king, he reigns. Here the word he is superabundant. In many pleonastic expressions we may suppose an interruption of the sentence, and afterwards an abrupt renewal of it; as the king—he reigns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The king and the lords and commons forms an excellent frame of government.—Here the expression is doubtful. Substitute with for the first and, and there is no doubt as to the propriety of the singular form is.

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

§ 484. Etymological convertibility.—The words then and than, now adverbs or conjunctions, were once cases: in other words, they have been converted from one part of speech to another. Or, they may even be said to be cases, at the present moment; although only in an historical point of view. For the practice of language, they are not only adverbs or conjunctions, but they are adverbs or conjunctions exclusively.

At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, originally one part of speech (e.g. a noun), may become another (e.g. a verb). This may be called the convertibility of words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 490. Proper names can only be used in the singular number.—This is a rule of logic, rather than of grammar. When we say the four Georges, the Pitts and Camdens, &c., the words that thus take a plural form, have ceased to be proper names. They either mean—

From expressions like ποτήριον ψυχροῦ (Matt. xiv. 51), from the Greek, and perfundit gelido (understand latice), from the Latin, we find that the present ellipsis was used with greater latitude in the classical languages than our own.

§ 491. Collocation.—In the present English, the genitive case always precedes the noun by which it is governed—the man's hat=hominis pileus; never the hat man's=pileus hominis.

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

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

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

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

1. From the fact that in most languages which have inflections to a sufficient extent, the word meaning like governs a dative case.

§ 496. The 9th Chapter of Part IV., should be read carefully. There, there is indicated a refinement upon the current notions as to the power of the comparative degree, 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.

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

§ 496. The 9th Chapter of Part IV., should be read carefully. There, there is indicated a refinement upon the current notions as to the power of the comparative degree, 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.

§ 498. The syntax of substantives is, in English, simple, from the paucity of its inflections, a condition which is unfavourable towards the evolution of constructional complexities; the most remarkable exception being the phenomenon of convertibility noticed above.

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

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

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

§ 502. Personal pronouns.—The use of the second person plural instead of the second singular has been noticed in p. 246. This use of one number for another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used is conveniently called the pronomen reverentiæ.

§ 503. In English, however, there is a second change over and above the change of number, viz. that of case. We not only say ye instead of thou, but you instead of ye.—(See p. 245).

§ 504. Dativus ethicus.—In the phrase

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

the me is expletive, and is equivalent to for me. This expletive use of the dative is conveniently called the dativus ethicus. It occurs more frequently in the Latin than in the English, and more frequently in the Greek than in the Latin.

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

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

In the phrase I fear me (used by Lord Campbell in his Lives of the Chancellors), the verb fear is intransitive or neuter; in other words, the word me (unless, indeed, fear mean terrify) expresses no object of any action at all; whilst the meaning is the same as in the simple expression I fear.

§ 508. Reasons have been given in p. 249, for considering the so-called pronouns of the third person (he, she, it, they) demonstrative rather than truly personal.

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

§ 510. From p. 250, it may be seen that its is a secondary genitive, and it may be added, that it is of late origin in the language. The Anglo-Saxon form was his, the genitive of he for the neuter and masculine equally. Hence, when, in the old writers, we meet his, where we expect its, we must not suppose that any personification takes place, but simply that the old genitive common to the two genders is used in preference to the modern one limited to the neuter, and irregularly formed. This has been illustrated by Mr. Guest.

§ 511. For the archaic and provincial use of him and he for it see ibid.; remembering that the two cases are different. His for its is an old form retained: him and he for it are really changes of gender.

§ 512. Take them things away.—Here we have them for those. The expression, although not to be imitated, is explained by the originally demonstrative power of them.

§ 513. This and that.—The remarks upon the use of these words in certain expressions is brought at once to the Latin scholar by the quotation of the two following lines from Ovid, and the suggestion of a well-known rule in the Eton Latin Grammar.

§ 514. What is the rule in English?

§ 515. The undoubted constructions of the word self, in the present state of the cultivated English, are three-fold.

§ 516. 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.

§ 517. In the exhibition of the second construction of the word self it was assumed that the case was a case of apposition, and that self was substantival in character. Nevertheless, this is by no means a necessary phenomenon. Self might, as far as its power is determined by its construction alone, in words like himself as easily be an adjective as a substantive. In which case the construction would be a matter, not of apposition, but of agreement. To illustrate this by the Latin language, himself, might equal either eum personam (him, the person), or eum personalem (him personal). The evidence, however, of the forms like myself, as well as other facts adduceable from comparative philology, prove the substantival character of self. On the other hand, it ought not to be concealed that another word, whereof the preponderance of the adjectival over the substantival power is undoubted, is found in the Old English, with just the same inconsistency as the word self; i.e., sometimes in government (like a substantive), and sometimes in either concord or apposition, like a word which may be either substantive or adjective. This word is one; the following illustrations of which are from Mr. Guest.—Phil. Trans. No. 22.

§ 516. 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.

§ 518. As to the inflection of the word -self, all its compounds are substantives; inasmuch as they all take plural forms as far as certain logical limitations will allow them to do so—ourselves, yourselves, themselves.

§ 519. The construction of self and a personal pronoun with a verb may be noticed in this place. It is only in the case of the two pronouns of the singular number that any doubt can arise.

§ 520. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first class contains the forms connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in their syntax, with my and thy, &c. The second class contains the forms connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in their syntax, with mine and thine, &c.

§ 521. There is, however, a palpable difference between the construction of my and mine. We cannot say this is mine hat, and we cannot say this hat is my. Nevertheless, this difference is not explained by any change of construction from that of adjectives to that of cases. As far as the syntax is concerned the construction of my and mine is equally that of an adjective agreeing with a substantive, and of a genitive (or possessive) case governed by a substantive.

§ 522. The word that, although originally, when a demonstrative pronoun, a neuter singular, is now used as a relative for all genders, and both numbers.

§ 524. Which has so nearly replaced what that the general use of this last word with its proper power, as a neuter relative, is, in the present English, vulgar, e.g.,

§ 525. The word as, properly a conjunction, is occasionally used as a relative—the man as rides to market.

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

§ 527. It is necessary that the relative be in the same number with the antecedent. As, however, who, which, whom, are equally singular and plural, and as what, which is really singular, is not used as a relative, the application of this law is limited to the word whose. Now whose is, etymologically, a genitive case, and a genitive case of the singular number. Hence the expression the men whose daggers stabbed Cæsar can only be justified by considering that the word whose is plural as well as singular. Such is the case. If not the expression is as illogical as homines cujus sicæ, &c. would be in Latin.

§ 528. It is not necessary for the relative to be in the same case with its antecedent.

§ 529. The reason why the relative must agree with its antecedent in both number and gender, whilst it need not agree with it in case, is found in the following observations.

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

3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the person or thing which does, or suffers them is single—John.

§ 531. One or two points connected with the construction of those sentences wherein relative pronouns occur, are necessary to be familiarly understood in order for us to see our way clearly to certain real and apparent anomalies in the syntax of this class of words.

Now, although true and unequivocal ellipses are scarce, the preceding is one of the most unequivocal kind—the word which connects the two propositions being wanting.

§ 532. Observe.—That three circumstances complicate the syntax of the relative pronoun.

§ 533. This last finds place in the present chapter.

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

The reason of this is clear. The verb that determines the case of the relative is brought in contact with the antecedent, and the case of the antecedent is accommodated to the case of the relative.

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

§ 536. Nevertheless, such expressions as whom do they say that it is? are common, especially in oblique questions. The following examples are Mr. Guest's.—Philological Transactions.

§ 539. To the question, who is this? many would answer not I, but me. This confusion of the case in the answer favours a confusion of case in the question.

§ 540. In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual action there are in reality two assertions, viz., the assertion that A. strikes (or loves) B., and the assertion that B. strikes (or loves) A.; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence, if the expressions exactly coincided with the fact signified, there would always be two propositions. This, however, is not the habit of language. Hence arises a more compendious form of expression, giving origin to an ellipsis of a peculiar kind. Phrases like Eteocles and Polynices killed each other are elliptical, for Eteocles and Polynices killed—each the other. Here the second proposition expands and explains the first, whilst the first supplies the verb to the second. Each, however, is elliptic. The first is without the object, the second without the verb. That the verb must be in the plural (or dual) number, that one of the nouns must be in the nominative case, and that the other must be objective, is self-evident from the structure of the sentence; such being the conditions of the expression of the idea. An aposiopesis takes place after a plural verb, and then there follows a clause wherein the verb is supplied from what went before.

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

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

§ 543. Two other pronouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the present habit of the English language, one pronoun, and one adverb of pronominal origin are also used indeterminately viz., it and there.

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

§ 543. Two other pronouns, or, to speak more in accordance with the present habit of the English language, one pronoun, and one adverb of pronominal origin are also used indeterminately viz., it and there.

§ 547. The rule of most practical importance about the articles is the rule that determines when the article shall be repeated as often as there is a fresh substantive, and when it shall not.

§ 548. The numeral one is naturally single. All the rest are naturally plural.

§ 549. It is by no means a matter of indifference whether we say the two first or the first two.

§ 550. For the purposes of syntax it is necessary to divide verbs into the five following divisions: transitive, intransitive, auxiliary, substantive, and impersonal.

§ 551. The auxiliary verbs will be noticed fully in Chapter XXIII.

A. Transitive verbs are naturally followed by some noun or other; and that noun is always the name of something affected by them as an object.

§ 552. The verb substantive has this peculiarity, viz. that for all purposes of syntax it is no verb at all. I speak may, logically, be reduced to I am speaking; in which case it is only the part of a verb. Etymologically, indeed, the verb substantive is a verb; inasmuch as it is inflected as such: but for the purposes of construction, it is a copula only, i.e., it merely denotes the agreement or disagreement between the subject and the predicate.

§ 553. The verb must agree with its subject in person, I walk, not I walks: he walks, not he walk.

§ 556. The concord of number.—It is believed that the following three rules will carry us through all difficulties of the kind just exhibited.

§ 557. Plural subjects with singular predicates.—The wages of sin are death.—Honest men are the salt of the earth.

Rule 2. That, except in the case of the word there (p. 434), the word which comes first is always the subject, until the contrary be proved.

§ 558. The government of verbs is of two sorts, (1.) objective, and (2.) modal.

§ 559. Modal verbs may be divided into a multiplicity of divisions. Of such, it is not necessary in English to give more than the following four:—

§ 560. Verb and nominative case.—No verb governs a nominative case. The appositional construction seems to require such a form of government; but the form is only apparent.

The modal construction may also be called the adverbial construction; because the effect of the noun is akin to that of an adverb,—I fight with bravery=I fight bravely: he walks a king=he walks regally. The modal (or adverbial) construction (or government) sometimes takes the appearance of the objective: inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently followed by a substantive; which substantive is in the objective case. Nevertheless, this is no proof of government. For a verb to be capable of governing an objective case, it must be a verb signifying an action affecting an object: and if there be no such object, there is no room for any objective government. To break the sleep of the righteous, is to affect, by breaking, the sleep of the righteous: but, to sleep the sleep of the righteous, is not to affect by sleeping the sleep of the righteous; since the act of sleeping is an act that affects no object whatever. It is a state. We may, indeed, give it the appearance of a transitive verb, as we do when we say, the opiate slept the patient, meaning thereby, lulled to sleep; but the transitive character is only apparent.

§ 561. The verb and genitive case.—No verb in the present English governs a genitive case. In Anglo-Saxon certain verbs did: e.g., verbs of ruling and others—weolde thises middangeardes=he ruled (wealded) this earth's. Genitive cases, too, governed by a verb are common both in Latin and Greek. To eat of the fruit of the tree is no genitive construction, however much it may be equivalent to one. Fruit is in the objective case, and is governed not by the verb but by the preposition of.

§ 562. The verb and accusative.—All transitive verbs govern an accusative case,—he strikes me, thee, him, her, it, us, you, them.

§ 563. The partitive construction.—Certain transitive verbs, the action whereof is extended not to the whole, but only to a part of their object, are followed by the preposition of and an objective case. To eat of the fruit of the tree=to eat a part (or some) of the fruit of the tree: to drink of the water of the well=to drink a part (or some) of the water of the well. It is not necessary, here, to suppose the ellipsis of the words part (or some). The construction is a construction that has grown out of the partitive power of the genitive case; for which case the preposition of, followed by the objective, serves as an equivalent.

§ 564. It has been already stated that forms like I believe it to be him, and forms like I believe it to be he, had not been investigated. Of these, the former is, logically, correct.

§ 565. The expression ob differentiam.—The classical languages, although having but one of the two previous forms, are enabled to effect a variation in the application of it, which, although perhaps illogical, is convenient. When the speaker means himself, the noun that follows, esse, or εἶναι, is nominative,—φημὶ εἶναι δεσπότης=I say that I am the master: ait fuisse celerrimus=he says that he himself was the swiftest—but, φημὶ εἶναι δεσπότην=I say that he (some one else) is the master; and ait fuisse celerrimum=he says that he (some one else) is the swiftest. This, though not adopted in English, is capable of being adopted,—He believes it to be he (i.e., the speaker) who invented the machine; but, he believes it to be him (that is, another person) who invented it.

§ 564. It has been already stated that forms like I believe it to be him, and forms like I believe it to be he, had not been investigated. Of these, the former is, logically, correct.

§ 566. When the substantive infinitive, to be, is preceded by a passive participle, combined with the verb substantive, the construction is nominative,—it is believed to be he who spoke, not it is believed to be him.—Here there are two propositions:

§ 567. The present participle, or the participle in -ing, must be considered in respect to its relations with the substantive in -ing. Dying-day is, probably, no more a participle than morning-walk. In respect to the syntax of such expressions as the forthcoming, I consider that they are either participles or substantives.

§ 568. The past participle corresponds not with the Greek form τυπτόμενος, but with the form τετυμμένος. I am beaten is essentially a combination, expressive not of present but of past time, just like the Latin sum verberatus. Its Greek equivalent is not εἰμὶ τυπτόμενος=I am a man in the act of being beaten, but εἰμὶ τετυμμένος=I am a man who has been beaten. It is past in respect to the action, though present in respect to the state brought about by the action. This essentially past element in the so-called present expression, I am beaten, will be again referred to.

§ 569. The infinitive mood is a noun. The current rule that when two verbs come together the latter is placed in the infinitive mood means that one verb can govern another only by converting it into a noun—I begin to move=I begin the act of moving. Verbs, as verbs, can only come together in the way of apposition—I irritate, I beat, I talk at him, I call him names, &c.

§ 570. The construction, however, of English infinitives is twofold. (1.) Objective. (2.) Gerundial.

§ 571. Imperatives have three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in English, be used in the second person: (2.) They take pronouns after, instead of before, them: (3.) They often omit the pronoun altogether.

§ 572. For the syntax of subjunctives, see the Chapter on Conjunctions.

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

§ 574. 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.

§ 575. For the impersonal verbs see Part IV. Chapter 27.

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

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

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

§ 579. The following is an exhibition of some of the times in which an action may take place, as found in either the English or other languages, expressed by the use of either an inflection or a combination.

C. Classification of auxiliary verbs in respect to their mode of construction.—Auxiliary verbs combine with others in three ways.

3. Future.—An action that has neither taken place, nor is taking place at the time of speaking, but which is stated as one which will take place.—Expressed, in English, by the combination of will or shall with an infinitive mood. In Latin and Greek by an inflection. I shall (or will) speak, λέκ-σω, dica-m.

8. Future præterite.—Action future as regards the time of speaking, past as regards some future time.—I shall have spoken by this time to-morrow.

§ 580. The representative expression of past and future time.—An action may be past; yet, for the sake of bringing it more vividly before the hearers, we may make it present. He walks (for walked) up to him, and knocks (for knocked) him down. This denotes a single action; and is by no means the natural habitual power of the English present. So, in respect to a future, I beat you if you don't leave off, for I will beat you. This use of the present tense is sometimes called the historic use of the present tense. I find it more convenient to call it the representative use; inasmuch as it is used more after the principles of painting than of history; the former of which, necessarily, represents things as present, the latter, more naturally, describes them as past.

§ 581. The present tense can be used instead of the future; and that on the principle of representation. Can a future be used for a present? No.

§ 580. The representative expression of past and future time.—An action may be past; yet, for the sake of bringing it more vividly before the hearers, we may make it present. He walks (for walked) up to him, and knocks (for knocked) him down. This denotes a single action; and is by no means the natural habitual power of the English present. So, in respect to a future, I beat you if you don't leave off, for I will beat you. This use of the present tense is sometimes called the historic use of the present tense. I find it more convenient to call it the representative use; inasmuch as it is used more after the principles of painting than of history; the former of which, necessarily, represents things as present, the latter, more naturally, describes them as past.

§ 582. Certain adverbs, i.e., those of time, require certain tenses. I am then, I was now, I was hereafter, &c., are contradictory expressions. They are not so much bad grammar as impossible nonsense. Nevertheless, we have in Latin such expressions as

§ 583. Two fresh varieties in the use of tenses and auxiliary verbs may be arrived at by considering the following ideas, which may be superadded to that of simple time.

In respect to the perfect tense there is no doubt. The answer is in the affirmative. For all purposes of syntax a perfect tense, or a combination equivalent to one, is a present tense. Contrast the expression, I come that I may see; with the expression, I came that I might see; i.e., the present construction with the aorist. Then, bring in the perfect construction, I have come. It differs with the aorist, and agrees with the present. I have come that I may see. The reason for this is clear. There is not only a present element in all perfects, but for the purposes of syntax, the present element predominates. Hence expressions like I shall go, need give us no trouble; even though shall be considered as a perfect tense. Suppose the root, sk-ll to mean to be destined (or fated). Provided we consider the effects of the action to be continued up to the time of speaking, we may say I have been destined to go, just as well as we can say I am destined to go.

§ 584. It is necessary to remember that the connection between the present and the past time, which is involved in the idea of a perfect tense (τέτυφα), or perfect combination (I have beaten), is of several sorts.

1. The inference of continuance.—When a person says, I have learned my lesson, we presume that he can say it, i. e., that, he has a present knowledge of it. Upon this principle κέκτημαι=I have earned=I possess. The past action is assumed to be continued in its effects.

§ 585. The construction of the auxiliary, may, will be considered in the Chapter on Conjunctions; that of can, must, and let, offer nothing remarkable. The combination of the auxiliary, have, with the past participle requires notice. It is, here, advisable to make the following classifications.

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

3. The combination of have with been is more illogical still, and is a stronger instance of the influence of an illegitimate imitation. In German and Italian, where even intransitive verbs are combined with the equivalents to the English have (haben and avere), the verb substantive is not so combined; on the contrary, the combinations are

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

§ 588. Shall and will.—The simply predictive future verb is shall. Nevertheless, it is only used in the first person. The second and third persons are expressed by the promissive verb will.

§ 589. Archdeacon Hare explains this by a usus ethicus. "In fact, this was one of the artifices to which the genius of the Greek language had recourse, to avoid speaking presumptuously of the future: for there is an awful, irrepressible, and almost instinctive consciousness of the uncertainty of the future, and of our own powerlessness over it, which, in all cultivated languages, has silently and imperceptibly modified the modes of expression with regard to it: and from a double kind of litotes, the one belonging to human nature generally, the other imposed by good-breeding on the individual, and urging him to veil the manifestations of his will, we are induced to frame all sorts of shifts for the sake of speaking with becoming modesty. Another method, as we know, frequently adopted by the Greeks was the use of the conditional moods: and as sentiments of this kind always imply some degree of intellectual refinement, and strengthen with its increase, this is called an Attic usage. The same name too has often been given to the above-mentioned middle forms of the future; not that in either case the practice was peculiar to the Attic dialect, but that it was more general where the feelings which produced it were strong and more distinct. Here again our own language supplies us with an exact parallel: indeed this is the only way of accounting for the singular mixture of the two verbs shall and will, by which, as we have no auxiliary answering to the German werde, we express the future tense. Our future, or at least what answers to it, is, I shall, thou wilt, he will. When speaking in the first person, we speak submissively: when speaking to or of another, we speak courteously. In our older writers, for instance in our translation of the Bible, shall is applied to all three persons: we had not then reacht that stage of politeness which shrinks from the appearance even of speaking compulsorily of another. On the other hand the Scotch use will in the first person: that is, as a nation they have not acquired that particular shade of good-breeding which shrinks from thrusting itself^[61] forward."

The promissive future verb is will. Nevertheless, it is only used in the first person. The second and third persons are expressed by the predictive verb shall.

§ 590. Notice of the use of will and shall, by Professor De Morgan.—"The matter to be explained is the synonymous character of will in the first person with shall in the second and third; and of shall in the first person with will in the second and third: shall (1) and will (2, 3) are called predictive: shall (2, 3) and will (1) promissive. The suggestion now proposed will require four distinctive names.

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

§ 592. Ought, would, &c., used as presents.—These words are not in the predicament of shall.

§ 593. By substituting the words I am bound for I ought, we may see the expedients to which this present use of the præterite forces us.

Anglo-Saxon

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

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

§ 596. The termination -ly was originally adjectival. At present it is a derivational syllable by which we can convert an adjective into an adverb: brave, brave-ly. 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.

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

§ 596. The termination -ly was originally adjectival. At present it is a derivational syllable by which we can convert an adjective into an adverb: brave, brave-ly. 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.

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

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

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

§ 601. The writer, however, of a paper on English preterites and genitives, in the Philological Museum (II. 261) objects to the current doctrine concerning such constructions as, this is a picture of the king's. Instead of considering the sentence elliptic, and equivalent to this is a picture of or (from) the king's pictures, he entertains the following view,—"I confess, however, that I feel some doubt whether this phrase is indeed to be regarded as elliptical, that is, whether the phrase in room of which it is said to stand, was ever actually in use. It has sometimes struck me that this may be a relict of the old practice of using the genitive after nouns as well as before them, only with the insertion of the preposition of. One of the passages quoted above from 'Arnold's Chronicle,' supplies an instance of a genitive so situated; and one cannot help thinking that it was the notion that of governed the genitive, that led the old translators of Virgil to call his poem The Booke of Eneidos, as it is termed by Phaer, and Gawin Douglas, and in the translation printed by Caxton. Hence it may be that we put the genitive after the noun in such cases, in order to express those relations which are most appropriately expressed by the genitive preceding it. A picture of the king's is something very different from the king's picture: and so many other relations are designated by of with the objective noun, that if we wish to denote possession thereby, it leaves an ambiguity: so, for this purpose, when we want to subjoin the name of the possessor to the thing possest, we have recourse to the genitive, by prefixing which we are wont to express the same idea. At all events as, if we were askt whose castle Alnwick is, we should answer, The Duke of Northumberland's; so we should also say, What a grand castle that is of the Duke of Northumberland's! without at all taking into account whether he had other castles besides: and our expression would be equally appropriate, whether he had or not."

§ 602. It is not so safe to say in the present English that no preposition governs a dative. The expression give it him is good English; and it is also equivalent to the Latin da ei. But we may also say give it to him. Now the German zu=to governs a dative case, and in Anglo-Saxon, the preposition to, when prefixed to the infinitive mood, required the case that followed it to be a dative.

Ours does not necessarily mean of us. It may also mean of our hills, i. e., of the hills of our choice. Nightes may mean of the night's hours. In the expression, what a grand castle, &c., it is submitted to the reader that we do take into our account other castles, which the Duke of Northumberland may or may not have. The Booke of Eneidos is a mistaken Latinism. As it does not seem to have been sufficiently considered that the real case governed by of (as by de in Latin) is the ablative, it is the opinion of the present writer that no instance has yet been produced of of either governing, or having governed a genitive case.

§ 603. When the infinitive mood is used as the subject of a proposition, i.e., as a nominative case, it is impossible to allow to the preposition to, by which it is preceded, any separate existence whatever,—to rise=rising; to err=error. Here the preposition must, for the purposes of syntax, be considered as incorporated with the noun, just like an inseparable inflection. As such it may be preceded by another preposition. The following example, although a Grecism, illustrates this:—

§ 604. Akin to this, but not the same, is the so-called vulgarism, consisting of the use of the preposition for. I am ready to go=I am ready for going=the so-called vulgarism, I am ready for to go. Now, this expression differs from the last in exhibiting, not only a verbal accumulation of prepositions, but a logical accumulation as well: inasmuch as for and to express like ideas.

§ 605. Composition converts prepositions into adverbs. Whether we say upstanding or standing-up, we express the manner in which an action takes place, and not the relation between two substantives. The so-called prepositional compounds in Greek (ἀναβαίνω, ἀποθνήσκω, &c.) are all adverbial.

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

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

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

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

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

§ 610. By considering the nature of such words as when, their origin as relatives on the one hand, and their conjunctional character on the other hand, we are prepared for finding a relative element in words like till, until, before, as long as, &c. These can all be expanded into expressions like until the time when, during the time when, &c. Hence, in an expression like seek out his wickedness till thou find (not findest) none, the principle of the construction is nearly the same as in he that troubled you, &c., or vice versâ.^[63]

2. Of two propositions one may be the condition of the other—the day will be clear if the sun shine. Here, although it is certain that if the sun shine the day will be clear, there is no certainty of the sun shining. Of the two propositions one only embodies a certain fact, and that is certain only conditionally.

§ 611. In most conditional expressions the subjunctive mood should follow the conjunction. All the following expressions are conditional.

Between certain relative pronouns and those particular conjunctions that govern a subjunctive mood there is also a point of connection. Both suggest an element of uncertainty or indefinitude. This the relative pronouns do, through the logical elements common to them and to the interrogatives: these latter essentially suggesting the idea of doubt. Wherever the person, or thing, connected with an action, and expressed by a relative be indefinite, there is room for the use a subjunctive mood. Thus—he that troubled you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.

§ 612. This introduces a fresh question. Conditional conjunctions are of two sorts:—

Expressions like though and although are peculiar. They join propositions, of which the one is a primâ facie reason against the existence of the other: and this is the conditional element. In the sentence, if the children be so badly brought up, they are not to be trusted, the bad bringing-up is the reason for their being unfit to be trusted; and, as far as the expression is concerned, is admitted to be so. The only uncertainty lies in the question as to the degree of the badness of the education. The inference from it is unequivocal.

§ 613. Now, if every conjunction had a fixed unvariable meaning, there would be no difficulty in determining whether a condition was absolute, and beyond doubt, or possible, and liable to doubt. But such is not the case.

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

Although may precede a proposition which is admitted as well as one which is doubted.

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

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

In English the word that, so used, cannot be said to govern a mood, although generally followed by either may or might. It should rather be said to require a certain combination to follow it. The most important point connected with the powers of that is the so-called succession of tenses.