va aN oe aut a air ret it fe a
a ce ii
a (3) ee ey HSS a

i AH He ‘ Ay
11s
Haha aa

oft

4 Hate Hi vik oH ait i eh
rat

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

 

FROM

 

 

 
Cornell University Library
PE 1075.W98 1906

“Whitin

olin
THE HISTORICAL STUDY OF
THE MOTHER TONGUE

AN INTRODUCTION TO PHILOLOGICAL
METHOD

BY HENRY CECIL WYLD

BAINES PROFESSOR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND PHILOLOGY IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL

NEW YORK
E. P, DUTTON AND COMPANY
1906
»
ae

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
PREFACE

In undertaking the task of writing such a work as the
present small volume, I did not disguise from myself the
difficulty of what lay before me; now that I have com-
pleted it, I am in no way blind to the imperfections of the
achievement. Ina sense, the object of the book is a modest
one—to give, not the history of our language, but some
indications of the point of view from which the history of
a language should be studied, and of the principal points
of method in such a study. These methods are chiefly
determined by the views which are held at the present
time concerning the nature of language, and the mode of
its development ; and such views, in their turn, are based
upon the knowledge of facts, concerning the life-history of
many languages, which have been patiently accumulated
during the last eighty years. I have hoped, in the fol-
lowing pages, to prepare the way for the beginner, to the
study of at least some of the great writers who have been
the pioneers of our knowledge of the development of our
own tongue, and of its relations to other languages, as well
as the chief framers of contemporary philological theory.
Thus the present work aims at no more than to serve as
an introduction to the more advanced scientific study of

linguistic problems in the pages of first-hand authorities.

v
®
vi PREFACE

Advanced text-books of the German type are naturally
almost unintelligible to the beginner, who has not under-
gone some preliminary training in philological aim and
method. Of the text-books published in this country,
which are nearly all of a more popular description, some
are—to our shame be it spoken—mere cram-books, which
strive only to give such ‘tips’ as shall enable the reader to
pass certain examinations, while several others, by writers
of repute and learning, are lacking in any general state-
ment of principles. or reference to authorities, in case
the student should by chance wish to pursue the subject
further than the covers of this or that small if admirable
book. Again, a serious defect, as it appears to me, of
many of the best elementary books on the History of
English, is that the bare facts are stated, dogmatically
and categorically, without any suggestion as to the sources
of information or the methods of arriving at the results
stated. As a practical teacher of English to University
students of various stages of knowledge, from beginners
onwards, I know that intelligent students are often irri-
tated, on the one hand, by not being told how certain
facts concerning past forms of speech are arrived at, and,
on the other hand, by finding no reference to authorities
who might give them the information which the writer
of the manual so often withholds.

The worst feature in the withholding of such informa-
tion is that the solitary student, who has not access to
University classes, after he has read the books and mastered
the facts, has yet not received anything in the shape of a
training in the actual methods of the science of language ;
he has acquired a knowledge of a certain number of facts,
PREFACE vii

but they exist in his mind isolated, and unrelated to any-
thing else, least of all to a principle of wide application.
Thus he acquires no new outlook upon linguistic phenomena,
no method whereby he can pursue the subject for himself.
It is believed that the chapters upon General Principles
which follow, may be of use in putting the student upon
right lines of further thought and study.

In dealing with genera] questions, I have sought as far
as possible to illustrate principles by concrete examples
drawn from the development of English.

In treating the more specific problems connected with
the Aryan and Germanic languages I have sought, not so
much to supplement the knowledge which it is possible to
derive from the usual small work on Comparative Philology,
as to make this clear on those points where I have found
uncertainty to exist in the minds of students as to the
precise bearing of this or that statement, and also to relate
this part of the subject to general principles of the history
of language on one hand, and on the other to the history of
our own language. I thought it advisable to add a chapter
on Methods of Reconstruction, since, although most of the
small text-books teem with references to Parent Aryan,
Ihave never yet found a student who had gathered from
their pages how anyone knew what Parent Aryan was like.
In this section, as throughout the book, I have striven to
keep ever before the mind of the student the fact that we
are dealing with changes in actual speech sounds, and not
with detters, which is, unfortunately, too often the impres-
sion gathered from elementary manuals. I believed that
a brief statement concerning the phenomena grouped
together under the name Adlaut or Gradation would be
viii PREFACE

useful, seeing that any explanation of them is generally
omitted in the kind of books referred to—even in the
best. ;

The task of selection, in treating the development of
English itself, was very difficult, and I do not claim to
have accomplished it with perfect success. Among the
books generally accessible to students who are compelled
to tackle the subject without the help of an experienced
and highly trained teacher, there are several which con-
tain an admirable marshalling of facts. Since I believed
it desirable to devote a large portion of so small a book
as the present to general questions, space was not available
to restate facts which are to be found in most other books
corresponding in size to the present volume. I therefore
tried to select such points as I have found are generally
the least well understood by ordinary students with no
special training, but which are, nevertheless, of the greatest
importance to a proper understanding of the facts of
present-day English. I have tried, amongst other things,
to emphasize, rather more than is usually the case in books
for beginners, the rise of double forms in Middle English,
and to show how often both doublets survive, if not in
standard English, then in the modern dialects—one type
in this form of present-day English, another in that. It
is desirable that students should realize that much that is
considered ‘vulgar’ in English is merely so by convention—
for the reason, that is, that the polite dialect has selected
another form, but that a very large number of ‘vulgarisms’
are historically quite as ‘correct’ as the received form.
This knowledge must tend to a saner and a more scientific
view of what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in speech. My debts.
PREFACE ix

to other books of various kinds are, it need hardly be said,
innumerable. I trust that I have made some, if not ade-
quate, acknowledgment in the references given hereafter.

I am proud to acknowledge a special debt to Dr. Henry
Sweet, one that is far deeper than any I could have con-
tracted by the mere use of his books, great as that is.
For many years past, the cordial personal intercourse
which I have been privileged to enjoy with Dr. Sweet,
has been an unfailing source of stimulus and enlighten-
ment. I regret that this little work is not a worthier
tribute to his teaching and influence. If the following
pages should contribute at all to a wider adoption of
Dr. Sweet’s Phonetic and Historical Methods, in Training
Colleges and in the upper forms of secondary schools,
and among private students, it will help to bring about
a sounder mode of study of our own tongue than that
which is commonly pursued in the majority of such
institutions.

It is a pleasant duty to express my gratitude to Miss
Irene F. Williams, M.A., formerly Research Fellow of the
University of Liverpool, who most generously undertook
the laborious task of compiling the index to the present
volume. ‘This contribution, by an expert English philo-
logist, must, I feel sure, materially increase the utility of

the book.
HENRY CECIL WYLD.

ALVEscoT, Oxon,
July, 1906.
CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I.

II.
Il.

‘
VII.
VIII.
Ix.

“xO.
XIII.
XIV.

XV.

INTRODUCTION ; THE AIMS OF HISTORICAL LIN-
GUISTIC STUDY : - -

THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH - -

HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON

SOUND CHANGE “ - =

DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE: THE RISE OF
DIALECTS -

LINGUISTIC CONTACT

ANALOGY * *

METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE,
AND THE DERIVED FAMILIES OF LANGUAGES -

THE GERMANIC FAMILY

. THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH: GENERAL REMARKS ON

THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE INQUIRY, AND
THE MAIN PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH IT
HISTORY OF ENGLISH: THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD
THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD - é
CHANGES IN ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION DURING
THE MODERN PERIOD—THE DEVELOPMENT OF
ENGLISH SOUNDS FROM THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
TO THE PRESENT DAY : ~
THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH
SUBJECT INDEX
WORD INDEX =
LIST OF AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO -

xi

PAGE

27
55
67

91
119
128
141

165
195

205
216 237 oe
250

299
339 -
382
393
409
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION ; THE AIMS OF HISTORICAL
LINGUISTIC STUDY

Tue practical study of language, or rather the study of
language for practical purposes, is familiar to everyone,
and plays, of necessity, a large part in all schemes of
education. In infancy and childhood the mother-tongue
is gradually, although instinctively, acquired. Later on,
the native tongue becomes the subject of more deliberate
study, and to this is added, for the most part, that of
other languages, both living and dead.

It is convenient to consider as ‘ practical’ that study of
languages which has as its aim the mastery of tongues
for the purpose of using them—that is, for the purpose
either of speaking or reading them, or both.

From this point of view the schoolboy acquires, with
various degrees of success, the pronunciation, the vocabu-
lary, and the general structure of several languages, both
ancient and modern. He is instructed in the rules of
inflection and of syntax; he masters many exceptions,
which perhaps, in his eyes, hardly serve to prove the rule.

In all this study of Latin and Greek, English, French,
1
2 INTRODUCTION

and German, which in this country occupies the chief
energies of boyhood and early manhood, the view of
language which is perpetually before the mind of the
student is one and the same—namely, that of language
in a state of suspended animation, stationary, and un-
changing. That is to say, that the various languages are
studied merely in the forms in which they exist at a par-
ticular period of their development. ‘There is, as a rule,
but little suggestion from the teacher that the language
under consideration has developed from something very
different ; still less that, if it is a living tongue, it will
probably change still further—that it is, in fact, in a
constant state of flux. The literary form of language is
that upon which the attention is almost exclusively con-
centrated, and the student naturally learns to regard
language as something fixed and unchanging. He is not
encouraged to ask the reason for the rules which he has to
master, and must be content with the explanation which
comes so readily from the teacher’s tongue: that some
apparent exception to the general rule was made—de-
liberately, for all that he hears to the contrary—‘ for the
sake of euphony.’ It is but rarely suggested that some
puzzling rule of ‘letter’ change in Latin or Greek is based
upon the speech habits of the Romans or Greeks hundreds
—perhaps thousands—of years before the Classical Period
of those languages, or that the conditions under which the
‘exceptional’ form occurs differ, in a way that can be
ascertained, from those which produce the ‘normal ’ form.

It is not intended, in the above remarks, to criticise
adversely the methods employed in teaching the Classics
to the very young ; the age at which scientific explanations
DIFFERENT VIEWS OF LANGUAGE 3

of linguistic facts should be given is a question for educa-
tionists to decide. All that it is for the moment desired
to emphasize is that the practical study of language
differs very considerably from the historical study, in
point of view and in method.

Every teacher of the history of English or of any other
language knows how difficult it is to convey to young
students at the University the first inkling of the historical
point of view and method as applied to language.

Nor is this surprising when we consider how different is
the way in which one trained in historical methods regards
human speech, from that which is the natural standpoint
of the practical and literary student of language. To
take a few points: the schoolboy has been taught, ‘ We
ought to pronounce as we spell’; when he begins to study
the history of a language he is told, ‘ Not at all; we spell
in such and such a way, because originally the pronuncia-
tion was approximately this or that.’ He has hitherto
believed that the written, literary form of language was
the real language, and that uttered speech was a rather
lame attempt to follow the former; instead of this view
receiving confirmation from his new teachers, he is asked
to discard it completely, to think of language as some-
thing which is primarily uttered and heard, and to
banish, for the time being, from his mind the fact that
writing has been invented. Again, whereas the young
student has probably gathered that ‘rules’ of speech were
made by grammarians, and therefore must be obeyed,
he now hears that the grammarians have absolutely no
authority to prescribe what is ‘right’ or ‘ wrong,’ but can
merely state what is the actual usage, and that they are

1—2
4 INTRODUCTION

good or bad grammarians according as they report truth-
fully on this point.

To many people ‘ exceptions’ to grammatical rules are
as the breath of their nostrils, and ‘irregularities’ in
language are a source of income. It is therefore dis-
concerting to a youth, hitherto bred up in an atmosphere
of linguistic chaos, to be told that the entire conception
of ‘exceptions’ upon which he has been nourished is
fundamentally fallacious, that there is no such thing as
real ‘ irregularity ’ in the historical development of speech,
that anomalies are only apparent, that nothing occurs in
language without a reason, and that this reason must be
sought, even though, in many cases, it elude our pursuit.
It is to be hoped that there is nothing unjust in this
adumbration of the contrast between what we may call the
popular or literary, (in this case they are the same thing)
and the philological view of language. The examples
given as exhibiting the point of view of one who has
never approached the problems of the history of a
language are all drawn from the personal experience of
a teacher.

We may now endeavour to state rather more fully the
main considerations upon which the method of historical.
linguistic study at the present time is based. The general
method pursued is the outcome of the views now held
concerning the nature of language, and the conditions
under which it lives and grows.

By the history of a language is meant an account of its
development in all its dialects, of all the changes which
these have undergone, from the earliest period at which it
is possible to obtain any knowledge of them, down to the
THE HISTORICAL VIEW 5

latest. This investigation demands the formulation, so
far as possible, of the laws of change which obtain at any
given moment in the language—that is, a statement of
each tendency to change as it arises, and an examination
of the factors and conditions of each tendency. Now, all
knowledge of any period of a language other than the
present, must necessarily be obtained from written docu-
ments. What we are investigating, however, is the life-
history of the language itself—that is, of the feelings and
ideas of the people, as they have been handed on and
modified through the ages, and of one of the most direct
and expressive symbols of these, namely, the various
sounds formed by the organs of speech. Uttered speech
is itself a mere set of symbols of certain states of con-
sciousness ; a mode of expression often less direct than
a gesture, a picture, or a statue, since these can represent
a passion, a wish, or a memory of an event in such a
way that they may be of universal significance. The
symbol in these cases is self-interpretative. The symbols
of speech, however, are only intelligible to those to whom
they have become familiar by custom, and who associate
the same groups of ideas with the sounds. Uttered
speech, therefore, is an indirect and symbolic mode of
conveying impressions from one mind to another; but
written language is more indirect still, for it is but the
symbol of a symbol. Until the written record is inter-
preted, and converted into the sounds which it symbolizes,
it means nothing ; it does not become language.

This process of interpretation has to be carried out,
and the veil of symbolism rent asunder, before we can
arrive, in dealing with the records of the past, at the
6 INTRODUCTION

actual subject of our investigation. We must never lose
sight of the true aim of our search—the spoken sound,
which is the outward and audible part of language. It
is clear that the degree of success with which we recon-
struct the earlier stages of a language, and therefore the
measure of accuracy in our views of its history, depends
to a very large extent upon our power of interpreting
correctly the written symbols, and of making them live as
sounds.

But, however successful may be our attempts at re-
vivifying the past history of a language, so long as we
confine ourselves to a single tongue the limits of possibility
are reached comparatively soon—the record fails us often
just when we most need it. In tracing back the history of
English, we have a series of documents which stretch back
for more than twelve hundred years. During this period
the language has undergone many changes—in sounds, in
vocabulary, in accidence, and in the structure of the
sentence. The earlier writings, in so far as they are, within
the limits of possibility, a faithful record of what was
actually the condition of English at different stages of
development, enable us to observe the rise and passing
away of various habits of speech and tendencies to change.
Thus, for instance, we can understand why ‘ breath’ (brep)
has a voiceless final consonant, and ‘breathe’ (brid) a voiced,
since we can show that the latter word had an earlier
form, O.E. br@pan or brépan (inf.), whereas the O.E. form
of the former was br@p or brép; and, further, that voiceless
open consonants were voiced in O.E. medially between
vowels, but remained voiceless when final. The voiced
sound in ‘ breathe’ is therefore due to a change which took
PAST INTERPRETS PRESENT 7

place hundreds of years ago, when the verbal forms still
retained their suffixes, and when p was followed by a vowel.
In the same way we need not go beyond our own language
to understand the difference of vowels between the singular
‘child’ and the plural ‘children. In this case, as in the
former, there is nothing in the spelling of the two forms
to indicate a difference of pronunciation. In O.E. the
singular was ¢ild, which originally had a short vowel.
Before the end of the O.E. period, however (by 1050
probably), short vowels were lengthened before the com-
bination -ld. This old long z developed quite regularly
into our present diphthong (ai). This lengthening, how-
ever, did not take place when the combination -/d- was
followed by a third consonant. The O.E. plural of this
word was ¢cildru, which in M.E. appears as childre side by
side with the weak form children, both of which forms
retained the old short % sound. This sound has remained
unchanged down to the present time. The differences
between singular and plural here, therefore, are due to the
presence or absence respectively, of the conditions of vowel-
lengthening in O.E.

On the other hand, there is a vast number of phenomena
whose explanation cannot be found within the history of
English itself, because their causes lie further back than
the period of the oldest English records. The substantive
* doom’ (dim) is related to the verb ‘deem, the former
being normally developed from O.E. dom, the latter from
O.E. déman. Here the difference exists already in the
oldest form of English of which we have any direct know-
ledge. We might surmise, perhaps, that the relation of
the two vowels (a) and (i) in these words was identical with
8 INTRODUCTION

that between those of the words ‘tooth’ (tap), plural
‘teeth’ (tip), or goose (gus), geese (gis), which in O.E. are
top, tép, gos, gés, respectively. Since the differences here
are already well established in the earliest form of English
which has come down to us, we are unable to decide from
a consideration of that language by itself whether this
vowel difference is original—whether, that is, from time
immemorial there have always been two distinct forms of
the roots of these words, or whether the differences arose
at a later date. In the latter case we should assume that,
owing to causes which cannot be traced in the O.E. period
as we know it, one original vowel had been differentiated
into two quite separate sounds. Is there any way of
getting beyond the written documents of English and
settling this question? Can we by any means reconstruct
the forms as they existed before they were separated ?
Assuming that the differences are not primitive, can we
supply the missing link which O.E. cannot reveal? ‘The
answer is to be found in the wider survey of other cognate
languages, known as the Science of Comparative Philology.
It has been universally accepted since Franz Bopp founded
scientific philology, that what are known as the Aryan or
Indo-Germanic languages, are a group of speech-families
descended, or developed from a common ancestor. English,
as is well known, is a member of the Germanic family
of this group. Bya minute comparison of the peculiarities
of all the sister languages of a family, comparative
philology endeavours to gain a knowledge of a form older
than any of them—their common ancestor. In the case of
English we should first try, by comparing the Germanic
tongues, to reconstruct parent Germanic, and then, by a
COMPARATIVE AND HISTORICAL GRAMMAR 9

similar process of comparison of this with the ancestral
forms of other Aryan families—Indian, Greek, Italic,
Slavonic, ete.—to reach some conception of the source
of all, the Primitive Aryan mother-tongue. The methods
of comparison and reconstruction will be discussed later
on, and it is sufficient here to point out the close relation-
ship between historical and comparative grammar. The
latter is, indeed, only an extension of the former ; it carries
the study of the history of a single language further back,
and seeks to shed more light upon it by investigating the
habits and nature of its sisters, cousins, parents, and grand-
parents. We may consider Aryan speech as one vast and
living stream of language, which has flowed into many
different branching channels. These, again, fork out into
innumerable rivulets.

Languages which have been separate for thousands of
years have altered so much from their original form, and
have developed on such different lines, that they are often
absolutely unrecognisable as relatives; but, nevertheless,
we may reflect that English, as it is spoken to-day, has
reached its present form by being passed on from mouth
to mouth for thousands of years, from a time when it
began to vary from a tongue which had in it the potenti-
alities not only of English, but also of Greek, of Slavonic,
and Celtic. Every family of languages, each individual
of the family, has its peculiar habits and tendencies of
development. One language may very early lose a feature
which another will preserve for ages. Again, a certain
characteristic may disappear from a language, leaving
behind it, however, a trace of its existence. In this case
we can see the result, but not the cause, nor can we account
10 INTRODUCTION

for the result until we find that some other language has
preserved the feature in question. The change of vowels
in O.E. dom, déman, etc., can easily be accounted for by a
comparison with the other Germanic languages, which show
that the O.E. noun preserves the original vowel 6, which
has been changed in O.E. from a back to a front vowel
through the influence of a front consonant (j) which
has disappeared in that language, although it is preserved
in Gothic domjan, Old High German tuomian. This
particular kind of change, known as i-mutation, occurs
in hundreds of words in O.E., though, as a rule, the i or 7
which caused the fronting, disappeared before the English
period, leaving only the effects of its original presence,
which can be demonstrated, however, from cognate lan-
guages.

In the historical study of a language we are perpetually
brought face to face with problems, the solution of which
requires not only a careful sifting of evidence, but a trained
judgment in drawing conclusions therefrom. To deal
successfully with historical linguistic problems the critical
faculty needs to be formed and strengthened by contact
with the actualities of living speech, and clarified by a
knowledge of the general conditions which govern the
development of all language.

“——~)_~—«Of late years some understanding of the general prin-
ciples of speech development has come to be regarded as
essential to the fruitful study or just conception of the
history of any language. It is now commonly held that
the best way to form sound general views as to the nature
of speech-life is to study the facts of living language,
especially as they are displayed most familiarly in the
STARTING-POINT OF THE STUDY 11

speech habits of ourselves and our contemporaries. These
facts, which we can observe directly, are the best key to
the understanding of those forces which helped to mould
language in the past, since there is no reason for believing
that the conditions under which human speech existed
and developed in bygone ages were essentially different
from those which obtain at the present day. We should
endeavour, therefore, to realize what the ‘ life’ of language
really is by the practical study and observation of a living
tongue, and, further, that tendencies to modify language,
such as we may discover in ourselves, have always been in
operation ; in other words, the process of the evolution of
language is always going on, and the factors which direct
it are of the same kind in all periods.

The life of language has two aspects—the facts of human
consciousness, which are the subject of psychological
investigation, and the facts connected with the mode of
expression, which in the case of speech are the sounds
which result from the movements of the vocal organs.
This latter group of facts are the subject of a special
branch of physiological inquiry, that of practical Phonetics.

If linguistic study be confined to a purely literary form
of language, and especially to the literary forms of the
ancient languages, there is a tendency for the student to
get into the habit of considering language as some-
thing cut and dried, and fixed once for all in a definite
mould.

We are apt to forget that all literary languages are, to
a certain extent, artificial products. They are deliberate,
and bound by tradition, and they lack the spontaneity of
unstudied, natural utterance. The development of literary
12 INTRODUCTION

dialects will be discussed hereafter, but it may be pointed
out here that this form of language is slowly evolved from
the spoken language, and is in all cases behind this in
development, in the sense of being more archaic, and
generally less flexible and adaptable. Any new departure
in the literary language can only come from the spoken
form. In the case of languages which are no longer spoken,
and which therefore depend entirely upon literary tradition,
development is impossible. In the case of Latin, for
instance, which is still largely cultivated as a literary
vehicle, it is obvious that no innovation can take place,
except, indeed, by the incorporation into Latin style of
the idiom of the writer’s native tongue, which was largely
done by medieval writers, and possibly, quite unconsciously,
at the present day also, even by good scholars. Such
innovations as this, however, do not change real classical
Latin itself, and are rightly regarded as ‘corruptions.’
There is no possible source of Latin except genuine Latin
authors ; all potentialities of normal development are at an
end, and Latin prose, when written at the present day,
can only be a reproduction of well-authenticated modes of
expression, for which sanction can be found in the classical
writers.

_ The literary form of a language which is still spoken,
* however, is forever receiving fresh life from the colloquial
speech. As new words or expressions come into use in the
spoken language, they are gradually promoted to a place
in the language of literature, and they often remain in use
here after they have ceased to be employed in the ordinary
colloquial speech of everyday life. Thus the written form
of a living language does not become fixed, but is forever
THE LITERARY BIAS 13

undergoing regeneration and rejuvenation. But this new
life comes primarily from the spoken language.

Another unfortunate view which the exclusive study of
the literary language gives rise to, is that which regards
speech as something with a life of its own, something
which can exist apart from those who speak it. That
which is written remains: scratched on parchment or
graven upon stone, the symbols of written language may
endure for countless ages. This permanence and indepen-
dence of the symbol has led men to attribute the same
character to that for which it stands.

Now, it is an essential element in the conception which
scholars at. the present day have of language, that it does
not exist by itself, and apart from the speakers. This
conception brings us back to the importance of spoken
language, for this can only be reached through the speakers
themselves. The study of speech, as has been indicated,
involves, first, that of certain psychological processes, and,
secondly, that of the symbol and expression of these—that
is, of speech sounds, which are the result of certain series
of bodily activities.

The outward and audible part of language, the symbol
of what is inward and of the mind, can be reached directly
and immediately; it can be observed in others as well as
in ourselves. The psychological side of language can only
be studied directly and immediately by the analysis of our
own consciousness. From the use of intelligible symbols
we are able to infer in other minds the same mental pro-
cesses and conceptions as those which exist in our own.
For these reasons we insist upon the importance of the
careful study of spoken language generally, and also
14 INTRODUCTION

in particular, upon that of our own speech in both
aspects.

Spoken language is the natural expression of the person-
ality of living human beings; from the nature of the case,
this must vary along with the change of their mental and
bodily habits. A nation, a small community, or an indi-
vidual, is continually gaining new experiences, feeling new
aspirations, discovering fresh needs. All these conditions
find expression in their speech. Speakers form fresh
associations, and gradually come to use old words in
a new way. The history of a single language yields in-
numerable instances of change in the meanings of words.
Or words fall out of use, because for some reason they are
superfluous. Again, contact with other nations is the means
of introducing foreign words into the native vocabulary,
both for things and ideas which are quite primitive and
familiar, and for those which pass into the national con-
sciousness as knowledge and experience widen. In the
domain of vocabulary there is a perpetual losing, gaining,
and readaptation of material.

Nor does pronunciation stand still in a living language.
Speech sounds are the result of certain bodily movements,
which we may consider as a group of physical habits.
The habitual movements of the vocal organs vary from
generation to generation, and so, therefore, do the sounds
which result from them. Up to a certain point of literary
development, the written form of a language records,
approximately, the changes of pronunciation, though the
record is probably always some way behind the actual
facts, after the first attempts to write the language down
have been made. But after a time a fixed method of
SOUND CHANGE 15

spelling is introduced, with which the pronunciation grows
more and more out of harmony as time goes on. In
English, the main features of our spelling became fixed in
the sixteenth century, so that the far-reaching changes
in our pronunciation which took place during the next
three centuries are, of course, unrecorded in our
orthography.

The principles and possibilities of sound change, which
are so vitally important in modern philology, can only be
really grasped by those who have investigated, in their
own speech, the processes of articulation, and have
observed how these tend to vary.

Before leaving, for the moment, the question of change
in pronunciation in living speech, we may consider a little
more fully the importance of a phonetic training for the
student of the history of his own or any other tongue.
We have just seen that sound change is a process which is
always going on in language, and it has been noted that
the interpretation of the written symbols of the past plays
a very large part in historical linguistic study ; and, further,
in judging of what took place in the past, we need the help
of our actual experience of the present. This is especi-
ally true of theories of the change of sounds, for unless
these changes can be realized in a practical way, our
account of the development of speech forms degenerates
into a mere algebraic equation, far removed from the real,
living facts. Now, if these assertions are true it follows
that a general knowledge of the processes upon which
speech sounds depend, and some power to discriminate
varieties of sound is essential to the scientific study of
language. One result of the one-sided view of language
16 INTRODUCTION

which is. almost universal in this country is that hardly
anybody really knows what his own speech is like. Most
people think of language in terms of black symbols on
white paper, and not in terms of sounds at all.

They even go the length of pretending that they
can hear a difference between such pairs as horse—hoarse,
Parma—Palmer, kernel—colonel, and so on. Of course,
a difference can easily be made; pronunciation can be
‘faked’ to any extent. The point is that in ordinary
educated English speech in the South, there is no differ-
ence between the above pairs.

Phonetics is still regarded by the majority of educated
persons as either a fad, or a fraud, possibly a pious one.
If it is insisted that more attention should be paid, in the
teaching of English, to the ‘spoken language, there is an
outcry to the effect that English literature is one of the
noblest of human achievements, that the ordinary speech
of children and even of grown-up people is full of vul-
garisms, mistakes in grammar, and solecisms of every sort,
and that by dwelling upon English as it is spoken, these
errors will merely be confirmed. English, it is urged,
is seen at its noblest in the works of the great writers ;
these should form the sole subject of English studies. To
suggest a scientific way of investigating the sounds of the
language which we speak, rouses antipathy and opposition.

It is, of course, easy to find reasons against that which
we cannot or will not understand. Thus when, a few
years ago, the Scotch Education Department introduced
phonetics into the list of subjects to be studied in the
training colleges, arguments of the most conflicting nature
were urged against the measure. The present writer
POPULAR MISCONCEPTIONS 17

has the best reason for knowing that, whereas one party
held that it was preposterous for the Department to try
and ‘improve’ Scottish speech by insisting upon the adop-
tion of English models of pronunciation, others objected
chiefly because, they said, to dwell upon what actually
occurred in Scotch pronunciation, instead of insisting upon
what ought to occur, would tend to confirm and perpetuate
the vulgarisms.

As both of these objections, or similar ones, are prob-
ably urged not only in Scotland, but also in this country,
against the study of phonetics, it is, perhaps, worth while
to answer them. In the first place, it should be said that
by the study of phonetics is not meant the attempt to
introduce this or that pronunciation, but simply a study
of the actual movements of the vocal organs which result
in the various sounds of human speech. A phonetic
training involves, then, no more than development of the
power of discriminating between different sounds, and a
knowledge of how the sounds are made. If we could hear all
sounds quite accurately, and knew how to reproduce them,
we should have no trouble in acquiring the pronunciation
of foreign languages. This is perhaps an impossible degree
of perfection for most, but a phonetic training will un-
doubtedly help in the right direction. It may be added
that every teacher of languages must needs be to a certain
extent a phonetician ; he endeavours to teach his pupils to
pronounce certain sounds; he pronounces the sound him-
self, and often tries to explain how this is done. All that
is here urged is that he should give right instructions, and
not, as is too often the case, a perfectly fantastic account
of the position of the tongue, jaws, etc. It should be

2
18 INTRODUCTION

understood that phonetic study does not involve a prefer-
ence for this or that manner of pronunciation of English.
In fact, the first lesson which the serious student of
phonetics has to learn is to take facts as they are, to
start with, to begin with his own natural pronunciation,
and to attempt to become conscious of the movements
of his tongue and lips in framing those sounds which he
habitually employs in speaking his native language, with-
out discussing the question of whether his pronunciation
is ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ A street arab who had thoroughly
mastered the principles of his own ‘ speech basis’—that is,
of that group of movements and positions of tongue, lips,
jaws, etc., which occurred naturally in his manner of
speech—and who could accurately describe these, would be
a far more competent phonetician than the speaker of a
very ‘pure’ and refined form of English who was ignorant
of what his own sounds actually were, or of how he made
them. This brings us to a consideration of the fallacy
that the minute study of one’s own pronunciation, if it
happens to be faulty or ‘vulgar, will tend to confirm
and make more inveterate those defects which it should
be our constant endeavour to get rid of. This view is
a very common one, and it amounts to saying that if we
have a failing or a vice, which we wish to correct, it is
better to ignore it, or at most only to have a very vague
idea of its precise nature. Whether this principle holds
good or not in conduct, or in intellectual habits, we need
not discuss here, but it is absolutely certain that it is
false in matters of pronunciation. One reason why so —
many teachers of foreign languages fail to impart an

accurate pronunciation to their pupils is that they them-
VULGARISMS 19

selves are so frequently quite unacquainted with the speech
basis of those whom they are teaching. They are unable
to say authoritatively, ‘ Your English sound is so-and-so,
and it is made in such and such a way; this foreign sound
for which you are substituting your own sound which
strikes your ear as something like it, is so-and-so and it
is made in such-and such a way, entirely different from
that set of articulations which produces the English sound.”
If we wish to master a foreign sound, instead of being con-
tent with substituting a sound of our own language which,
to the untrained ear, somewhat resembles it, we must
thoroughly understand both sounds, so as to discriminate
between and contrast, both the sounds themselves, and the
vocal movements and positions which produce them.

If, then, it be desired to ‘correct’ the pronunciation of
the native language, the same principle holds, for from the
moment that the problem is to acquire a new sound, it
matters not whether that sound occurs in another form of
English or in some remote foreign tongue, the difficulty
is of the same kind—namely, to master a new series of
movements, or a new combination of movements, of the
organs of speech.

Whatever be the case then, in other spheres of thought
and conduct, in pronunciation, at any rate, an accurate
knowledge of our ‘faults’ is the beginning of ‘improve-
ment”: it is, indeed, a necessary first step.

With regard to the expressions so commonly applied to
speech, such as ‘ mistake,’ ‘ vulgarism,’ ‘corruption,’ and
the like, it is inevitable that our views of the propriety of
such terms should change in proportion as we learn some-
thing concerning the path of development which any

2-2
20 INTRODUCTION

language has travelled during a few centuries. The
reason for this statement will appear more fully in the
course of this book; but it may be said here that most
of the abusive terms popularly applied to certain forms of
speech have, from the scientific point of view, either no
meaning at all, or one which differs widely from that
which such terms usually bear.

One who is accustomed to observe how a language
changes in the course of centuries; how speakers in one
age, or in one province, naturally acquire habits of speech
which differ widely from those which obtain at other times
and in other geographical areas; how a community tends
to modify its speech now in one direction, now in another,
sometimes owing to social or other conditions which can
be traced, sometimes without any discoverable external
cause, one who is an unprejudiced student of the develop-
ment of human culture as it is expressed in spoken language,
is unwilling to assert that one line of development is ‘good,’
while another is ‘bad,’ or to dogmatize as to what ought to
be the form which language shall take. If we regard the
unfolding of that body of habits which we call ‘ language’
as a natural process, one which is for the most part uncon-
scious and independent of the deliberate intention of the
speakers, we are content to chronicle what actually exists,
and investigate so far as possible how it arose: we do
not attempt to adjudge praise or blame to this or that
phenomenon. In a word, as students of the history of
language, we are concerned purely with the facts, all the
facts that we can ascertain, and from them we endeavour
to form a clear conception of what is, and of how it arose
out of what was.
CORRECTNESS IN LANGUAGE 21

Do we then, admit no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in language
from this point of view? Certainly we do; only we
should define these terms, as Osthoff pointed out years
ago (Schrifisprache und Volksmundart, Berlin, 1883,
p. 25, etc.), in rather a different way from that popularly
accepted. Whatever exists in the natural speech of a
community at a given period is right for the speech of that
community at that particular moment; it is, whether we
like it or not, a fact of the speech history of the com-
munity. Any manner of speech—whether pronunciation,
word, grammatical inflection, or form of sentence—which
is foreign to the natural speech habit of a community at a
given period is wrong, so far as the dialect of the moment
in that particular community is concerned.

The failure to grasp this simple principle is responsible
for the popular misconception of the terms ‘correct’ and
‘incorrect’ speech, and the consequent misuse of them.

What usually happens is that the critic of language
has in his mind a vague picture of an ideal standard of
language, probably based on his own vague notion of the
way he speaks himself, and he proceeds to test all other
modes of speech by this standard. If other speakers
appear to the censor to approximate to his own standard,
he approves them as ‘ good’ or ‘correct’ speakers; if he
gathers that they deviate from the model which he has
set up, then they are set down as being ‘corrupt, ‘ in-
correct,’ or even ‘vulgar.’ But he does not realize that
those who speak differently from himself are not pretend-
ing, for the most part, that they are speaking in the same
way ashe does. They are quite frankly using the natural
dialect of another geographical area, another suburb, it
22 INTRODUCTION

may be, or of a, different social class. Probably each man
who comes under the condemnation of our critic is, as a
matter of fact, speaking his own dialect quite ‘ correctly’
from the point of view mentioned above. On the other
hand, a mixture of dialects is not infrequently heard. A
speaker tries to adopt the speech of what he considers a
more refined or more elevated sphere than that which is
customary to him, and occasionally reverts to his own
natural way of speaking—to his native dialect, in fact.
The error in judging of such cases lies in not realizing
that every form of speech, whether it be a provincial or
a class dialect, has a perfectly good reason for existing
and for being as it is; each has its own history, and has
followed its own path of development. According to this
view, therefore, each dialect is equally * good” and equally
“correct. There are, however, two tests by which the
relative superiority of different dialects may be gauged—
the one real and absolute, the other artificial and a
matter of convention.

A language may justifiably be judged, and its merits
appreciated, according to its qualities as a medium of
expression. The degree of expressiveness which a language
possesses is its true claim to respect. If it can be shown
that one form of speech is more flexible, more adapt-
able to the needs of those who speak it, more capable
of expressing subtle shades of thought and feeling than
another, then we may surely say that it is the finer
language of the two.

The other test of superiority, which we have called
artificial and conventional, has a very real existence in
English—namely, the test of what is received and re-
STANDARD ENGLISH 23

cognised as the ‘correct’ form of speech in polite and
cultivated society. From the purely scientific point of
view, as has been already set forth, no difference of
superiority can be recognised between the speech heard
at the bench of a village ale-house and that of the
Bench of Bishops. But according to the actual feelings
of English society, that of the latter is the more dis-
tinguished, graceful, and desirable. It is a fact which
nothing can alter, that there is a form of English which
enjoys a prestige, and a place in the general estimation
of which nothing can rob it. This form of English is
essentially a class dialect ; it is independent, or largely in-
dependent, of locality; it is the form of English which
obtains, with an astonishing degree of uniformity, among
the upper and upper middle classes of this country, and it
may be heard with the same purity in Durham, York,
Newcastle, or Birmingham, as in London, Oxford, or Cam-
bridge. So greatly is this standard English prized, that
those who have not acquired it from the cradle upwards,
usually take pains to do so in later life, and there can be
no doubt that it is convenient for those who wish to enter
the public services or to take part in distinguished social
gatherings to possess it, or at least a good imitation of it.
Those who have spoken from childhood this colourless form
of English, free from provincial peculiarities, devoid of the
rasping sound of inverted r before consonants, with no ten-
dency to shaky initial aspirates in stressed words, or even
in words which have only a secondary stress, no undue
mouthing or over-emphatic utterance, not unnaturally
regard it as the purest, most harmonious, and most refined
form of English speech. This view of a language, how-
24 INTRODUCTION

ever, is purely a matter of custom; we always admire
most what we are accustomed to hear and to use ourselves.
Such an estimate has no absolute value, but is entirely
relative and subjective. Speakers of Northern English
and Scotch speakers often consider standard English as
mincing and affected, in some cases even (e.g, the loss of
the r-sound before consonants) as slipshod and almost
vulgar. So much for habit.

The historical position of this polite form of English is
that it is a very mixed dialect, which, by a variety of social
and political circumstances, has acquired prominence over
all other English dialects by becoming the language of
Literature (for the written language is largely based upon
it), of the Court, of the aristocracy, of the Law, the Church,
the Legislature, and the Stage. It is probable that the
Metropolis, Oxford, and the East Midlands all contributed
to its origin, while the remoter influences of the North and
the extreme South have both helped to shape it. We
shall have to consider the rise of this dialect more in
detail later on. It might probably be maintained with
considerable plausibility that, owing to the circumstances
of its history, the standard dialect, which of all forms of
spoken English approximates most nearly to the written
language, has an absolute superiority to any other dialect
of our language as a means of expression, excepting always
some of the dialects of Scotland. At the same time, it may
perhaps temper the enthusiasm of some to remind them
that standard English is not nearly so uniform in its
sounds or in its other characteristics as a superficial
observer might imagine, and, further, that the standard
varies considerably from generation to generation; for
THE NATURAL STARTING-POINT 25

instance, much that was very ‘good form” as recently as
the end of the eighteenth century would now be considered
‘ vulgar’ or * provincial’ even by speakers who are not over-
fastidious. The pronunciations ‘ sarvant,’ * goold’ (guld),
‘chaney tay-pot’ (t{éni tépot), and the frequent use of
the pronoun ’em (am), may serve as examples of this fact
in the meantime.

The upshot of the foregoing remarks is that we may
keep our natural preferences for this or that English
dialect, but we must not ignore the fact that other dialects
exist, and we should admit that it is not wise to abuse
them, simply because they differ from the form that we
ourselves use.

It is very important for the student to recognise and
observe differences in English speech, and to contrast and
compare them. ‘The problem of English philology lies
within the differences and agreements of the various
English dialects, and questions at issue are the origin,
history, and mutual relations of these.

Within the limits of such an investigation, questions
arise which contain the germ of all comparative philology;
the methods pursued in dealing with the history of the
English dialects are those which it is also desirable to
pursue in considering the relations of the great Aryan
families of languages.

The study of the native tongue, beginning with its
spoken forms, and proceeding thence to inquire into the
why and wherefore of what exists, is therefore the best
introduction to the advanced study of Aryan philology in
its widest sense. All the principles of linguistic develop-
ment, all the factors of evolution, exist ready for our
26 INTRODUCTION

observation in the living speech of our own English
dialects; and while, as has been said, the discipline
afforded by their study is a preparation for the larger
science, it should be borne in mind that this study cannot
be profitably pursued unless the same accuracy of method,
and the same exactness of observation be applied in both
cases, and, above all, unless the same scientific spirit and
the same general conception of the life of language ani-
mate all our inquiries.
CHAPTER II
THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH*

Puovetics, or the science of speech sounds, involves a two-
fold training—that of the ear to discriminate minute
shades of difference in sound, and that of the vocal organs
to reproduce these. The former is only gained by the
repeated hearing of varieties of sound and a keen and
patient observation; the latter by a knowledge of the
processes of articulation and a careful cultivation of the
power of recognising the muscular sensations associated
with the different movements and positions of the vocal
organs in speech.

This power of recognition, which is almost lacking in
untrained persons, must be based, primarily, upon the
observation of one’s own speech. To gain the power to
analyze and describe the movements of the vocal organs in
uttering the most familiar sounds of our own language is
to make the first steps in a real knowledge of scientific and
practical phonetics.

Anything like a complete treatise on phonetics would
be out of place in such a work as this, and no more is here
attempted than to give a brief outline of the classification

* The letters placed in brackets in the following pages are the
Phonetic Symbols of the sounds referred to.

27
28 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

of speech sounds according to the Organic Method, as set
forth in the system of Melville Bell, the author of Visible
Speech, and made more scientific and exact by Mr. Sweet.
For a full treatment of the subject the student may refer
to Sweet’s Primer of Phonetics (second edition), History of
English Sounds, 1888, and to Sievers’ Phonetik (fourth
edition). The student will be well advised to approach
the study of phonetics with the help of a teacher, and also
to master one system thoroughly before coquetting with
others, as the result of reading a series of treatises by
different writers is usually to produce confusion of mind,
no proper grasp of any system, and no gain in the control
of the speech organs.

The classification of speech sounds according to the
organic system is based upon a consideration of the
position and condition of those organs which produce the
sounds. It is an axiom that the same sound can only be
uttered in one way—that is, by a given mode of activity of
a particular organ. If the position and the mode of
activity be altered ever so little, a different sound is the
result. The limit of discrimination of minute differences
of position and sound is that of delicacy of ear and muscular
sensation.

The organs which play a part in the production of the
sounds of speech are: The Lungs, from which the air-
stream passes through the glottis, mouth, and nose; the
Diaphragm, the muscle which controls the volume and force
of the air-stream; the Glottis; the Mouth cavity; the
Hard and Soft Palates ; the Nose; the Tongue; and the
Lips. The Jaws are important, especially the movable
lower jaw, since the tongue is raised or lowered in con-
PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION 29

junction with it; and the teeth and gums, since they
contribute to the formation of sounds, with the aid of the
lips and tongue.

We may consider briefly the activities of those organs of
speech which can be moved at will.

The Glottis contains the Vocal Chords, which can be
either stretched across it so as to close it, or folded back
so as to leave it completely open.

In the former case, if the air be driven through, the
vocal chords vibrate, as the air-stream forces its way
between them.

The sound caused by the air passing through the closed
glottis, and setting up vibration in the vocal chords, is
technically known as Voice. This vibration accompanies
most vowels in ordinary ‘loud’ speech, and a great number
of consonants, such as z, v, and ¢h in ‘ this’ (3).

When the air-stream passes through the open glottis,
and the chords do not vibrate, as in the ordinary sigh, the
sound is known as Breath, as in s, f, th in ‘ think’ (p).

A third possibility is Whisper, in which the glottis is
definitely contracted and narrowed, but the vocal chords
are not tightened, and do not vibrate.

The Soft Palate or Velum, from which the uvula depends,
serves to open or close the nose passage, and probably also
acts in sympathetic relation to certain movements of the
tongue.

The Uvula in certain sounds, such as the usual French r,
trills against the back of the tongue, which in this case is
raised.

The Nose Passage is open in the so-called nasal sounds,
such as the consonants n, m, ng (Q) in ‘sing’ (sin), or in
30 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

the nasalized vowels so frequent in French, as in ‘bon’
(b3), ‘fin? (f&), ‘un’ (@), etc. In these cases the air-
stream passes through the nose passage. In the nasal
vowels the stream passes through mouth and nose at once,
in n, m, only through the latter.

In other than nasal sounds the nose passage is closed by
the soft palate.

The Tongue is, perhaps, the most important, as it
certainly is the most active, of the vocal organs.

The tongue can move chiefly in four ways: inwards and
outwards—that is, it can be retracted or advanced ; up
and down—that is, it can be raised or lowered.

If the tongue be retracted or drawn back, the back
part, or even the root, is brought into play; if it be
advanced or thrust forwards towards the front teeth, the
forward part or the tip comes into activity.

In considering the raising or lowering of the tongue, we
distinguish different degrees of Height, which, as we shall
see, are of great significance in determining the sound of
vowels,

In addition to the direction of the movements of the
tongue, we have also to take account of the particular
part or area involved in uttering a given sound.

Beginning from the back of the mouth, we distinguish
the Root ; the Back ; the Front or Middle of the tongue ;
the Blade, which is that portion which lies between the
middle and the Point or tip; and, lastly, the Point
itself.

Each of these areas functions in the production of
speech sounds, and their several activities are associated
with characteristic sounds.
ACTIVITIES OF THE ORGANS OF SPEECH 31

The Lips are the most easily observed of all the
movable organs of speech. They may be drawn back
from the teeth so as almost to expose these, as in French 7
in ‘fini, or they may be protruded or pouted. The lips
can function in the formation both of vowels and conso-
nants; in the former case they always act in conjunction
with the tongue, in the latter they may act either in con-
junction with the tongue, independently of any other
organ, or by a combination of the lower lip and the upper
teeth.

Distinction between Vowels and Consonants.

By a Consonant we understand a speech sound in which
the air-stream is either completely stopped for a moment,
as (b, d, g) (in ‘ good, etc.), or in the formation of which
the passage is so far narrowed that there is a distinct friction
set up as the air-stream passes out.

In a true Vowel the air-passage is never sufficiently
narrowed to produce such friction, although in the case of
certain vowels, such as (i) or (u), the narrowing of the air-
passage is so great that, under certain conditions, as when
the air-stream is forced through with great vigour, an
appreciable friction results. In this case the sound ceases
to be a pure vowel sound, and becomes consonantal. In
pronouncing such words as ‘ sea’ many speakers make the
final vowel into a weak Open consonant, with a distinct
‘buzz, uttering (sij) instead of (si).

It is best to begin the study of speech sounds with the
consonants, as the positions of the vocal organs in pro-
nouncing these sounds are more easily realized by the
student.
32 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

The Classification of Consonants.

In considering any given consonant, we have to deter-
mine the following points: (A) The organ or organs with
which the sound is formed, and, if the tongue be used, also
the particular area which functions; (B) the mode of
activity ; (C) whether the articulation is or is not accom-
panied by Voice—that is, by vibration of the Vocal Chords.

A. The Organs and Area.—From this point of view
we have first of all to determine whether the particular con-
sonant we are considering is formed in the Throat (by a
contraction below the Glottis) ; by one of the areas of the
Tongue already described—Back, Front, Blade, etc.; by
the Lips; or by a combination of more than one organ,
such as the Tongue and Lips.

B. The Mode of Activity.—From this point of view we
distinguish the following classes :

(1) Open Consonants, in which the iouth passage is
sufficiently narrowed to produce a very distinct friction,
the air-stream, however, continuing to pass so long as the
position is maintained and the air driven from the lungs.
This friction may be made at any part of the passage along
its whole length—below the glottis in the case of throat
consonants, above the glottis by every part of the tongue,
by the lips, or by approximating one of the lips to the
teeth. Examples of open consonants are— ch’ in Scotch
‘loch’ (x), made between the Back of the Tongue and the
Soft Palate (Back-Open) ; s (¢) made between the Blade of
the Tongue and the Hard Palate (Blade-Open) ; th (p) in
‘think,’ made between the Point of the tongue and the
Teeth (Point-Teeth-Open) ; and so on.
MODE OF FORMATION 383

(2) Stops, or Stop Consonants, in which the passage is
for a moment completely closed, and then suddenly opened,
so that the air bursts forth with a certain puff. These are
popularly called Explosives. This stopping of the passage
may, like the narrowing in (1), be made right along the
whole length of the passage. A few examples of stops are
(k), made by Back of Tongue and Hard Palate (Back-
Stop); English (t), made between Point of Tongue and
Gums just behind upper teeth (Point-Stop) ; (p) made by
the lips (Lip-Stop).

(3) Nasal Consonants, which are formed, as has been
already said, by allowing the air-stream to pass through
the nose passage. In the case of the English nasal conso-
nants the mouth-passage is always closed, so that (n) is
really a nasalized (d)—that is, Point-(Stop)-Nasal; but
any open consonant may also be nasalized, in which case
the air passes through both nose and mouth at the same
time. Besides n, English has m, formed by the lips (Lip-
Nasal), and ng, as in ‘sing’ (y, Back-Nasal), formed by the
back of the tongue against the soft palate. Thus (m) is
merely a nasalized (b), and (1) a nasalized (g).

(4) Divided or Side Consonants.—This class is chiefly
typified by the J-sounds, which are made by the tongue
forming a partial stoppage, in such a way as to permit the
air-stream to escape on either side of the point of contact.
English (1) is usually formed by the tongue in contact with
the gums just behind the upper teeth, in exactly the same
way as ordinary English (d), except that, whereas in this case
the closure is complete, in that of (1) the edges of the tongue
on either side of the point of contact are so far removed from
the gums as to allow the air-stream to pass all the time in

3
34 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

the manner just described. Some speakers, notably the
Welsh, form contact with only one side of the tongue, so
that the air passes out between the other side of the
tongue and the gums or teeth. Hence the name Side
consonant. This kind of Divided articulation can be
carried out between any area of the tongue and the palate.
Thus we have in some languages, ¢.g., Russian, a back-
divided consonant—that is, an J formed with the same part
of the tongue as that which forms the back-stop (g).

(5) Trills.—This name explains itself, and the typical
trilled sounds are the r-series. In Scotch r it is the point of
the tongue which trills just behind the teeth ; in French 7
it is the Uvula which trills upon the back of the tongue.
In Southern English there is normally no trill, no * rolling’
of the r, the sound being usually some variety of weak point-
open consonant.

C. Voice and Breath.—These terms, which refer respec-
tively to the activity and passivity of the vocal chords,
have already been explained. The vibration of the vocal
chords, which we call Voice, produces a very characteristic
sound, sometimes called ‘ buzz,’ and the vibration can easily
be felt if the fingers are placed upon the ‘ Adam’s Apple’
while such sounds as (z, v, or 5) are uttered with a certain
loudness. Open consonants are the best for this purpose,
because they can be prolonged to any extent—so long,
indeed, as the supply of air from the lungs holds out.

Each and every consonant position may be either
accompanied by vibration of the vocal chords or the
reverse ; that is to say, that every consonant may be either
Voiced or un-Voiced. It does not follow that any given
language possesses both voiced and voiceless varieties of all
its consonants. Thus in English we have no entirely
CONSONANTS IN NATURAL SERIES 35

voiceless 7, although this is common in Welsh, where it is
expressed by J/, as in Llandudno, etc.; while in German
the voiced form of ‘sh,’ as in ship (§), does not exist, and
causes Germans great trouble, although it is frequent in
French, where it is written ‘j,’ as in ‘jamais’ (zame), etc.,
and occurs also in English in such words as ‘pleasure’ (pleza).

One of the first exercises which the beginner should
practise is that of unvoicing voiced, and voicing unvoiced
consonants. This implies such control of the glottis that
it can be consciously and deliberately opened and closed at
will. When the student has thoroughly mastered this
process, he will find that he has added considerably to his
range of easily articulated sounds.

In describing a consonantal sound it is usually only
necessary to mention the fact when it is Voiced, it being
assumed that such is not the case if nothing is said about
it. Thus (g) is described as the back-stop-voice, while the
corresponding Breath or Voiceless sound is described
simply as back-stop.

In studying the consonants it is convenient to take them
in their natural series; thus, if we begin with the back
consonants, we have the following table :

 

 

Back (Voiced). f Back (Voiceless).
Open... | z, as in Gm. sorge x, as in Scot. loch
Stop ... | g, as in good k, as in car, or king
Nasal... | 9, as in sing Qs —
Divided | t, as in Russ. (tofad), | t, —
‘horse’
Trill ... | r, as in Fr. rendre r, as in Fr. francais

 

 

 

 

3—2
36 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

The advantage of this method of practice is, that not
only is it exhaustive, since it considers all the possible
consonants—at least, in type—of the group, but it also
impresses upon the student the natural relationship of
consonants which are formed in the same part of the
mouth, although in different ways; and, further, if the
sounds are practised in order, it helps to make him con-
scious of the processes of articulation.

The beginner starts with the familiar sounds of the
series, and gradually learns the unfamiliar ones by acquiring
the power to use his organs of speech in new ways. In
the back-voice series only two of the series are familiar to
most English speakers—(g) and (y)—but, taking these as a
starting - point, the student, by closely observing his
muscular sensations, so learns to form the Open and the
Divided with the same part of the tongue which he uses in
forming the Stop and the Nasal. The power of unvoicing
depends upon the degree of control which the beginner has
over his vocal chords. The back-trill will probably require
considerable practice before it can be formed easily and
perfectly, and without making faces. The student will
find, as a rule, that the utterance of a new sound, the
position for which he has only imperfectly mastered,
has at first a peculiar ghastliness and hollowness in
the effect which it makes upon the ear. This is due
to the fact that the organs of speech are in what is
to them an unnatural position, which they cannot main-
tain with ease—in fact, the performance is at first a
clumsy one.

It is important that teachers, at any rate, should acquire
by practice the power of forming all the sounds with
CLASSIFICATION OF VOWELS 37

which they deal, clearly, easily, and with precision, as this
gives confidence to the learner.

Full tables of the consonants, and minute accounts of
each variety, are given in the works by Sweet and Sievers
mentioned above.

The Vowels.

There are four main points to be considered in the
analysis of vowel sounds. The peculiar acoustic character
of a vowel sound depends upon: A. The height of
the tongue; B. the part of the tongue which functions ;
C. the degree of tenseness of the tongue; D. the position
of the lips. If we know these four points with regard to
any particular vowel, and can put them into effect with
our own vocal organs, then we can both pronounce the
vowel ourselves, and so describe it that there can be no
doubt as to the precise sound we mean.

We will briefly consider the points in the above order.

A. The Height of the Tongue.—We have already said
that the tongue can be either raised or lowered. We
distinguish three main degrees of Height—High, Mid,
Low. Each of these positions may be taken by the
back, the front, or the whole of the tongue. Thus we
have a high-back, a mid-back, and a low-back vowel, and
similarly with the front and mized or flat vowels.

B. The Part of the Tongue which Functions.—It has
been already said that if the tongue be retracted the back
part comes into play, and that if it be advanced the front
is brought into activity. If the tongue be neither re-
tracted nor advanced, but remain approximately flat in the
mouth, then neither back nor front predominates, but the
38 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

tongue is used along its whole length. From this point of
view, therefore, we distinguish the possibilities: vowels
made by the Back of the tongue—Back-vowels ; those
made with the Front of the tongue—Front-cowels ; and
vowels formed by the Whole of the tongue—Flat or Mixed
vowels, A typical back vowel in English is the (a) in
‘ father ° (faa), a front is the (i) in ‘ see’ (si), and a mixed
or flat vowel is the vowel in bird (bid). -To realize the
backward and forward movement of the tongue, the
student may pronounce in a whisper, or articulate silently,
the sound (i) (as in ‘ boot’), and (i) (as in ‘ see”), or, better,
the French u (y) in ‘lune’ alternately, (u-y, u-y, u-y),
several times, when he will at once become conscious of
the sawing backwards and forwards movements.

The front-slack series is the best for the beginner to
practise, to realize the height of the tongue; because most
Southern English speakers have all three vowels in their
normal pronunciation of English.

The following series should be pronounced in order, care
being taken to observe the gradual lowering of the front
of the tongue, and the gradual sinking of the lower jaw.

 

 

Front.
High ... was (@) in bit
Mid ... ss (e) in bet
Low ... ‘as (ze) in bat

 

 

The low-front vowel is a great difficulty to Scotch and
North of England speakers, who, as a rule, do not possess
TENSE AND SLACK CONDITIONS OF THE TONGUE 39

it in the sounds of their natural speech, but must acquire
it with great trouble and patience. Such speakers substi-
tute a back vowel, a variety, only short, of the first vowel
in ‘father.’ This particular difficulty is one which the
uninformed ‘imitation’ method hardly ever overcomes,
and many people are irretrievably branded as ‘ provincial ”
speakers in consequence of their failure to acquire the
standard English sound. This is not the expression of a
supercilious sense of superiority (there is no particular
ethical merit about the low-front vowel), but merely a
statement of a scientific fact concerning the dialects of
Modern English.

C. The Degree of Tenseness of the Tongue.—For prac-
tical purposes it is sufficient to distinguish a tense and a
slack condition of the tongue. The muscular sensation
which characterizes each may be experienced by pro-
nouncing alternately, and contrasting the accompanying
sensations, ee (1) in ‘see’ and i (2) in ‘sit, or French é (e)
in ‘été’ with English e (e) in ‘ bet.’

The tongue may be either ¢ense or slack while occupying
any or all of the before-mentioned positions, so that we
have a high-front-tense, a high-front-slack ; high-back-tense,
high-back-slack, and so on throughout all the vowels of
every series, back, front, and flat.

It should be noted that Mr. Sweet generally uses the
terms narrow = tense, and wide = slack, and these terms
are probably quite as much used by phoneticians as tense
and slack ; unfortunately, however, some writers, but imper-
fectly acquainted with the principles and terminology of
the Organic System, have been so far misled by ‘narrow’
and ‘ wide’ as to understand them to refer to the narrow-
40 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

ing or widening of the mouth passage by raising or
lowering the tongue. In other words, they have confused
‘narrowness,’ which merely means ¢enseness when applied
to vowels, with Height, and have gathered that the vowel
(2) in ‘bit, which Mr. Sweet would call the high-front-wide,
is intermediate in position between (i) in ‘see’ and (e) in
‘ été” than which nothing is more false.

The important thing for the beginner is thoroughly to
understand the terminology which he uses, and to be able
to realize by his muscular sensations the processes of which
it is descriptive. On the whole, perhaps, tense and slack
are to be preferred to narrow and wide, as being more
definitely descriptive of the facts.

D. The Position of the Lips.—The action of the lips is
obviously quite independent of that of the tongue, so that,
no matter how the latter is being employed, the lips may
be either passive, whether slightly parted or drawn back
so as to leave the air-stream an unhindered exit, or they
may be more or less brought forward or pouted so as to
muffle, to a greater or less extent, the air-stream after it
passes the teeth.

This pouting or bringing together of the lips is technically
known as Rounding, and a vowel thus formed is called a
Round or Rounded vowel.

When the student has mastered the processes of retract-
ing and advancing, raising and lowering the tongue at
pleasure, he should pass with equal assiduity to that of
rounding and unrounding ; that is, he should pronounce a
vowel sound—for instance, (i) (high-front-tense)—endeavour
to feel the position of the tongue, and then, while being
careful to maintain this unaltered, he should prolong the
ROUNDED VOWELS 41

vowel, and alternately advance and retract ips. The
rounding of (i) results in (y) (high-front-tense-round),
which is the sound of French wu in ‘dur,’ ‘ but,” ‘ va,’ etc.
This sound, which often presents great difficulties to
English people, may often be perfectly acquired in a few
minutes by the above simple experiment. The same
acoustic effect may be produced by forming a small circle
with the finger and thumb, and pronouncing (i) through
this, when the effect, if the aperture be sufficiently small,
will at once be (y), which, perhaps, the student has long
tried in vain to pronounce. It should be noted that the
degree of rounding—that is, of the smallness of the aper-
ture—is normally related to the height of the tongue, so that
in most languages high vowels have the greatest, and low
vowels the least degree of rounding. But languages some-
times develop vowels in which the rounding is abnormal—
high vowels with the slighter rounding generally associated
with mid or low vowels, or low or mid vowels with a
greater amount of rounding than is usual to those degrees
of height. In the former case we speak of under-rounding,
in the latter we say that the vowel is over-rounded.

Examples of the latter process are found in Swedish
long o, mid-back-tense, with over-rounding, which to
foreign ears sounds like (i), and in the German %, which
is the mid-front-tense, with over-rounding, the acoustic
effect being identical with that of French (y) to untrained
ears. An example of an under-rounded vowel is heard in
the Lancashire sound of the vowel in ‘bush,’ ‘ butcher,’
etc. (mid-back-tense, under-rounded).

In describing a vowel, the four points above discussed are
mentioned in the order in which we have dealt with them.
42 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

If there be no rounding, it is usually unnecessary to mention
the action of the lips, it being assumed that these play no
part in the particular sound unless the rounding be stated.

Thus (i) in ‘ boot’ is the high-back-tense-round ; the (4)
in ‘father’ the mid-back-slack.

From the above account it will be seen that there are
thirty-six main normal vowels: three back, three front,
and three flat or mixed vowels, according to the height of
the tongue—that is, nine positions ; the sounds associated
with each of these positions are further increased by another
nine, giving eighteen, according to whether the tongue be
tense or slack ; and, lastly, every tense and every slack vowel
may be rounded, bringing the number up to thirty-six.

Shifted Vowels.—Mr. Sweet, in the second edition of
his Primer of Phonetics, has recently pointed out that it
is possible, while using the back of the tongue, to shift
the raised part forward, so that the air-passage is narrowed
further forward than in the case of the normal vowels,
where the narrowing takes places between the tongue and
that part of the palate immediately above the area of
activity. Similarly, in articulating front vowels, the
tongue may be drawn back, so the area of articulation is
further back in the palate, although the front of the
tongue is still used. The character of these ‘shifted’
vowels is, according to Mr. Sweet's view, sufficiently dis-
tinct from that of vowels formed in normal manner to
justify the former being classified as distinct sounds. This
brings the number of well-marked, distinct vowel sounds
up to seventy-two. Many of the Modern English dialects
contain ‘shifted’ vowels, which it is very difficult to
locate, unless this possibility be remembered.
MINUTE SHADES OF SOUND 43

Intermediate Varieties of Vowel Sounds.—It must be
borne in mind that the above enumeration and tabulating
of vowels according to the Organic System only deals with
the chief, distinctive types. Thus (i) (high-front) is quite
distinct from (e) (mid-front), both to the ear and to the
muscular sense, but it is possible to lower the tongue
gradually from the high position to one which produces a
sound different from the typical vowel associated with that
position, but not yet fully a mid vowel. In such a case
we should have to determine whether the position was, as
a matter of fact, nearer to the high or the mid. In the
former case we should classify the vowel as a high vowel
lowered ; in the latter, as a mid vowel raised.

These intermediate positions occur in all languages,
especially in dialects. In Danish the ordinary (é) (mid-
front) is so far raised towards the high position that the
effect it produces upon the ear of a foreigner at the first
hearing is almost that of (i). In many Scotch dialects the
high-front-slack vowel is considerably lowered, almost to
the position of the mid-front (e), and the mid-front is also
lowered almost to (x2). So alike is the Scotch (i) in ‘bit’
to the English (<) in ‘ bet’ that, unless the mid-front were
also proportionately lowered, the two sounds would be
confused. As a rule, language shrinks from having two
distinct vowels so closely alike as (i) lowered, and normal (c)
at one and the same period—if one is lowered the other is
lowered too.

In English there is a tendency, at any rate among
speakers of standard English, to avoid these lowered
vowels altogether, and to pronounce the normal high and
mid vowels. This gives to the standard dialect a certain
44 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

clearness and distinctness which is often lacking in the
pronunciation of other dialects.

Glides.—In ordinary speech the vocal organs, especially
the tongue, frequently have to assume, in rapid succession,
a series of positions which are very different, and com-
paratively far removed one from the other, as one sound
after another is uttered by the speaker. To get from one
position to another, the organs move with great rapidity,
and these movements are called giides. It sometimes
happens that the passage of the organs from one position
to another results in audible sounds. The sounds are called
glide sounds, and sometimes also, merely glides.

We may distinguish : (1) Glides produced as the organs
pass from repose to activity—that is, when beginning to
speak ; (2) those due to the organs passing from one mode
of activity to another—these occur during the utterance
of words or word-series ; (3) the movements of the organs
in passing from a state of activity to one of repose—that
is, when pausing or ceasing to speak.

Glides are very important to the student of language,
for they not only are very characteristic of any actually
spoken language, but in the history of a language they
often develop into independent sounds.

To illustrate these two points. It makes all the difference
to the pronunciation of French whether a foreigner,
especially an Englishman, has acquired the proper glides
after the voiceless stops, p, t, k. In French, when these
sounds are followed by a vowel, the voicing begins before
the stop is opened, so that the latter part of the consonant
is rarely voiced. In English and German, on the other
hand, after voiceless stops, the vocal chords are not closed
GLIDES 45

until the stops have been opened, so that there is a slight
puff of breath between the stop and the following vowel. A
glide after a sound is called an Off-glide, so that we say that
in French there is a Voice off-glide after voiceless stops, but
in English a Breath off-glide. To show how important
glides are in the development of language, we may instance
the process known as F’racture, or Brechung,in O.E. In
primitive O.E. such a form as *ald (‘old’) became *auld in
the South, by the development of the glide between the
front vowel @ and the following -dd into a full vowel. This
primitive @u subsequently became wa, written ea, in eald
from *cld, beald from *beld, etc. The other Germanic
languages and some of the English dialects developed
no vowel from the off-glide in these cases, so that at the
present day we have old from an Anglian did (late Anglian),
and in High German alt.

The whole subject of glides demands the special atten-
tion of the student, and he must study the phenomena
in his own speech, aided by the special phonetic treatises ;
but enough has, perhaps, been said here to make the term
and the ideas connected with it intelligible in subsequent
references in the present work.

Accent,

Under this head are often included two quite distinct
phenomena—Stress or Emphasis, and Intonation.

Stress depends upon the degree of force with which the
air-stream is expelled from the lungs. An increase of force
in the air-stream causes increased loudness in the case
of vowels and all voiced sounds.

We distinguish three chief degrees of stress—Strong,
46 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

Medium, Weak. ‘These terms are, of course, purely relative.
When a word consists of several syllables, various degrees
of stress are exhibited in its pronunciation. Thus in such a
word as * perceptible, the strongest stress is on the second
syllable, the weakest on the first, the next weakest on the
third, and the second strongest on the fourth. The
tendency is to alternate strong and weak stress. When
we speak of the stressed syllable of a word, we mean the
syllable which has the chief, or strongest, stress. When
we say that a syllable is unstressed we mean that it has the
weakest stress: some force it must have, otherwise it would
be inaudible, and would disappear altogether. The dis-
appearance of very weakly stressed syllables is a frequent
phenomenon in the history of language. In Modern
English certain words are differently stressed, according to
the sentence in which they occur. Thus the auxiliary
‘have’ occurs in the forms (hev) with strong stress, (hav)
with weaker stress, (v) when completely unstressed. Com-
pare the sentences: (wea h&v jw bin ? weer (h)av ju bin?
ai v bin in landen).

As regards the distribution of stress, we can distinguish
three varieties—Increasing, Even, and Diminishing stress.
In English the highest point of stress in an emphatic
syllable is the beginning, from which point the force in a
monosyllabic word is diminished. In the distribution of
stress over a word of several syllables, or over a breath-
group—that is, the whole series of syllables uttered with
one breath—the force is usually varied during the utter-
ance by alternately increasing and diminishing the air-
stream.

Even stress implies that the degree of force is maintained
ACCENT—QUANTITY 47

constant throughout the utterance. This never actually
happens in English, since in the single syllable the stress is
decreased so that it gets weaker and weaker, and if, as
happens comparatively rarely, two succeeding syllables
have an equal amount of stress, the second is uttered with
a fresh impulse of the breath, as in plwm cake (plam kéik),
John Jones (dzén dizéunz).

Stress is an important factor in determining syllable
division.

Intonation is a question of pitch. Alterations of pitch
in speech are produced by tightening the vocal chords for
a high tone, loosening or shortening them for a low
tone.

We have Rising Intonation, as in the interrogative,
sharply-uttered ‘what? Falling Intonation, as in the
negative reply to a question—‘no!’ Fall and Rise is heard
in the warming or expostulatory ‘take care!’ uttered
with a certain impatience; Rise and Fall in the con-
temptuous or supercilious ‘oh!’ These combined tones
are of importance in the history of language, but they
cannot easily be studied except with the aid of oral
instruction.

It should be noted that every speaker naturally pitches
his voice on a certain note as his normal pitch; every tone
which he utters above this is a rise, every one below it is a

fall. The degree of rise and fall which takes place in
speech is different in, and very characteristic of, different
languages or dialects.

Quantity.—This, again, is a relative term ; long vowels
in some languages are shorter than in others. Differences
of quantity exist in consonants also. In English, final
48 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

voiced consonants are long compared to those of German.
Contrast, for instance, the final n of English ‘man,’ and
German ‘ mann.’

It is important to distinguish between a long and a
double consonant. The latter class are heard in Swedish,
Italian, and many other languages. They even occur in
English in such compounds as ‘ book-case.’ In a double
consonant the position of the vocal organs is maintained
for a certain space of time, and a new impulse of breath
is given in the middle, whereas in a long consonant there is
no fresh impulse of breath during the maintenance of the
position. A further possibility is to utter the same
consonant twice—that is, with two off-glides. This is occa-
sionally heard from very self-conscious and affected speakers
in English, who are trying to ‘ talk fine.’ ‘This hill has a
flat top’ would normally be pronounced (Sis hil hez a
fleettap), with no escape of breath between the ¢ of flat and
that of top; the affected pronunciation referred to would
be (flat tap), with an off-glide after each ¢, before the new
impulse of breath. It is to be observed that there is no
necessary connection between the quantity and the quality
of vowels; that is to say, that any vowel may be pro-
nounced either long or short. In English tense (i) only
occurs long, but in French it is usually quite short.
Again, the mid-front-slack (ce) is always short in English
at the present time in the standard language, but many of
the dialects have (@), which is also common in French, as
in ‘ béte” (bet), ete.

Syllable Division.—'The essential characteristic of a
syllable is that there is no sense of break or interruption
to destroy its unity. Anything which causes a break in
SYLLABLE DIVISION 49

continuity produces a sense of duality, and tends to
destroy the unity of the syllable.

The interruption of the unity of a syllable may be
caused in various ways:

1. By alternation of strong and weak stress. So long
as the stress is even or gradually diminishing, a vowel
may be prolonged indefinitely without producing upon
the ear the sense of discontinuity. But if we pronounce
a very long vowel, such as (@), and alternately increase
and diminish the stress, we at once break it up into as
many syllables as there are increases and decreases :
(d-a-d-a-d-a), and so on.

2. By alternating greater and lesser sonority. The
vowel (a) is more sonorous than (2), because the mouth
passage is wider when pronouncing it, and consequently a
bigger volume of voice can pass through. If, therefore, we
alternate (a-i-a-i-a)—that is, first strong, then weak, then
strong sonority—we cannot escape the sense of as many
syllables as there are increases after reductions of sonority.

In a true diphthong, such as (az), as in English ‘bite,’
we have, it is true, a gradual reduction of sonority and of
stress ; but the sense of unity is not lost, because the
reduction is so gradual, and because the second vowel
loses its syllabicness by virtue of its lack of sonority as
compared with the preceding (a), which also bears the
stress. A true diphthong may be defined as a combina-
tion of two vowels, of which only one is syllabic, the
other having neither stress nor sonority in comparison,
and being therefore non-syllabic.

3. The interruption of continuity may be produced by

the air-stream being either very considerably hindered,
4
50 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

through the narrowing of the mouth passage, as by an
Open Consonant, or altogether checked for a moment, as by
a Stop Consonant. The presence of a consonant between
two vowels, since it breaks the continuity more or less
completely, must of necessity produce two syllables.

The Limits of the Syllable.*—A syllable ends when the
weakest degree of stress is reached, and the next begins
with the fresh increase. Thus in England we pronounce
the name of the famous University and golfing city of Fife-
shire, St. Andrews, as (sont éndriz), but in Scotland itself
the universal pronunciation is (sen tandriiz) ; that is, we
continue to diminish the stress until the off-glide of the ¢,
whereas the Scotch reach their weakest stress with the n.

Phonetic Symbols.

A few remarks upon the use of a phonetic transcription
will not be out of place here.

The Organic symbols are, of course, by far the most accu-
rate, since they are not mere arbitrary alphabetic signs, but
are intended to express the actual positions of the organs
of speech, the presence or absence of breath, of rounding,
of nasality, and so on. But it is admitted that they are
cumbersome, and for the transcription of words and
sentences a simpler notation can be used with advantage.
Sweet’s Broad Romic is a convenient system of symbols which
is widely used, and the International alphabet is employed
by Passy, Lloyd, Vietor, and many other phoneticians.

After all, any alphabet is a mere convention, and pro-
vided we know what sounds we intend to express, the

* For a clear and admirable treatment of Quantity, Syllable

Division, Stress, and Intonation, of. Jespersen, Lehrbuch der Phonetik,
1904, pp. 173-240.
USE OF PHONETIC SYMBOLS 51

simpler the method of graphic expression the better. In
dealing with a single language, or a limited series of
sounds, it is best first to define in the terminology of the
organic system the value of the symbols commonly em-
ployed in the ordinary spelling of the language in ques-
tion, and then to adopt some familiar symbol to express
the sound whenever it occurs. Thus, if we know that
French w in ‘ but,’ ¢ vu,’ etc., is the high-front-tense-round,
we may use any recognised symbol we choose to express
it, provided our employment of the symbol be consistent.
Thus ii, y would both serve the purpose. If we have
defined ti or y as = high-front-tense-round when tran-
scribing French, there is no reason why the same symbol
should not be used to express a different sound in our
transcription of another language which does not possess
h-f-t-r. In Russian, for instance, it is often convenient to
use y for the high-flat-tense, since in that language h-f-t-r
does not occur.

This economic principle of using the same symbol for
different sounds in different languages has the advantage
of avoiding the inconvenience of mastering seventy-two
perfectly arbitrary symbols for the vowels, many of which
we may never need at all. In oral teaching, when demon-
strating on the blackboard, and in scientific treatises,
Sweet’s organic symbols for the vowels are exceedingly
convenient, since they are easily mastered and are per-
fectly definite in significance. It is useful when writing
to be able to express with a single symbol such facts as
the exact position of the tongue and lips, thus conveying
precisely the shade of sound which we are dealing with.
Otherwise we must, in exact discussion, use the cumbersome

4—2
52 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

‘high-front-tense-round,’ which we may, however, shorten
as above to h-f-t-r, and so on with all the other vowels.
The symbol T, really a pointer indicating direction, is
useful in conjunction with alphabetic signs. T means lower-
ing of the tongue, | raising, + advancing, and — retrac-
tion. Thus if (e) be the symbol for the normal mid-front-

slack, (¢ T) would indicate the lowered Scotch variety.

Tables of Phonetic Symbols for Consonants

THE CONSONANTS.

and Vowels used in this Book.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back, | Front. | Blade. od Potash

e\Sreletelei ele ies

a a a a roa} > a > a >
Open . hy)yzijljisizl/f pls]
Stop k}|g|é|g}/—|—|—|—| t]}/d}
Nasal ... —!|y/—|—)/—|—|—|—]| 2 n |
Divided —|t/—|/—;—|—|—|—] 1

Lip. Lip-teeth. Lip-back.

Breath. | Voice. | Breath. | Voice. | Breath. | Voice.

Open — _ f Vv Ww w
Stop p b — —-};— —
Nasal m m — os wee a
Divided ... | — — — o— = oe

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘STAMOA ASNAL

— ans “Bury ‘c — vy = yoy ‘Bug ‘c _— * MOT
= (1ay10ys) ( nvaq Wo a F == . ¢ a2 ‘i
(Bao) \uyoy “ws Ww 9078 “WD “0 PAL
(1048) gnd “3005
= Fug “UD | ‘aq 6h . — nd ‘Buy ¢ _— “ys
(Bao) { Moc suns" aung “2 H wnd “Bug ‘n Wat
‘WL “yoeg “‘quorg ‘1d ‘yoeg “yuo1g
“axn0y  -axnoy
pg ‘Say ‘y =< hs "TI AS a=. 2) “Buy ei see MOT
‘3 ‘
= yng “Bug ‘8 ap “a |W || somaey 6 ON || poy “Bag | po
474 = (Suo]) {as “Suq\ , ‘H see = ng ‘Bag ‘| yStEy
[PIP “309g ‘L (qioys) | ae ag J" ina ay aes
4°14 “ypeg | “yuorg “Id "yoeg “qu01y |
“dNNOUNG) *aNNOUNG)

‘STAMOA HOVIS

‘SaN|eA 4194}, pue sjoquikg jeMOA Jo ajIQuy

 

 
54 THE SOUNDS OF SPEECH

In order not to multiply symbols beyond what is abso-
lutely necessary, (h) will be used initially in phonetic
transcription to express the ordinary ‘ aspirate’ of Modern
English ; medially and finally it indicates a back-open-
voiceless consonant. (r) is not included in the above table;
English r in the South is a weak point-teeth-open consonant,
in Scotch it is a point-trill, in French a back-trill. In
some of the English dialects of the South and Midlands it
is an inverted consonant—i.e., an open consonant formed
by the point of the tongue turned upwards and backwards.

¢, g are habitually written at the present day in the
ordinary spelling of O.E. to indicate fronted sounds ; the
latter is generally pronounced as a front-open consonant in
O.E., as in giefan, ‘ give.” When used in the special way
indicated above, all symbols are in this book enclosed in
brackets ; thus Si¢fan would be (jievan), etc.

Length is marked by a stroke above the letter—a, 4, etc.
A vowel symbol which is not thus marked is intended to
express a short sound, and shortness is otherwise not
specially indicated as a rule. The symbol ~ placed over a
vowel implies nasalization, as in Fr. (k5td) content.

Forms placed in brackets are intended to express the
pronunciation, according to the above table of symbols.
The ordinary spelling is either in italics or in inverted
commas—e.g., ‘hot’ (hot), ‘father’ (fada).

It will be observed that the slack vowels are represented
by italic letters, except in the cases of (c), (a), and (2),
which are well known, and convenient; the symbols for
the dense vowels are all romic. Italic letters, therefore,
enclosed in brackets always indicate slack, and romic
always tense vowels.
CHAPTER III
HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON

One of the most familiar incidents of daily life is that of
a child learning to speak. It is an experience which every
normal human being has undergone in his own person,
although the memory of the first steps is lost long before
the process is nearly complete. The infant slowly learns
to utter a few intelligible sounds in his native tongue
from those who surround him—his parents, his nurse, his
brothers and sisters. He learns by imitation to reproduce,
at first very imperfectly, the sounds which he hears, and
by constant repetition on the part of his first teachers,
accompanied by explanatory gestures, such as pointing to
a person or a thing, or performing an action while utter-
ing its name, he gradually comes to connect the uttered
sound with the person, the object, or the action which
it symbolizes.

Those who in after-life acquire a foreign language in
the country itself, or among native speakers, nurses,
governesses, etc., in their own country, to a certain extent
repeat the process whereby they originally learnt their
own language. This is undoubtedly the most direct and
natural way of mastering a language, and, supplemented

later on by the artificial aids of grammar and dictionary,
55
56 HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON

it gives a grip of the genius of a foreign tongue, and
forms the speech instinct in a way that no other method
can accomplish. It is a remarkable fact, when we reflect
upon the difficulties which in later life beset the learning of
a new language, especially the new pronunciation, that
within a few years the child acquires with perfect exact-
ness, in all normal cases, the pronunciation of those speakers
from whom he learns his native language. Of course,
there are cases of inherent defective utterance, in which
certain sounds remain difficult or even impossible to pro-
nounce perfectly to the end of the life of the speaker. It
is also true, as we shall see, that no two speakers of the
same community or the same family do, in all respects,
pronounce exactly alike. Still, the fact remains that
after a few years the child can and does, to all intents
and purposes, reproduce the pronunciation of the circle in
which he is brought up, with so great a degree of fidelity,
that his pronunciation is felt by everyone to be identical
with that upon which it is based—the speech of his family
and closest intimates. It would appear that this power
of learning by imitation pure and simple is, as a rule,
limited to the sounds of the mother-tongue, or at most to
one or two other languages which are acquired in early
childhood.

To understand the reason of this we must inquire more
closely what are the processes which actually come into
play in the utterance of speech sounds.

First of all the organs of speech perform certain move-
ments, in order to get into the position necessary for the
production of the sound to be uttered. ‘This series of
movements, and this position, which is maintained for a
MEMORY-PICTURES OF SOUND AND POSITION 87

certain time, gives rise to characteristic muscular sensa-
tions. Then the sound is uttered, and this, again, produces
a definite physical sensation upon the auditory nerves.
These muscular sensations and this auditory experience
are the physiological processes involved in each utterance
of asound. But this is not all; each nervous impression
is recorded in the consciousness, and goes to form what
may be called memory-pictures. In the utterance of a
speech sound memory - pictures are formed—(a) of the
sound itself, (6) of the muscular sensations arising from
the movements of the vocal organs into the required
position, and of a certain characteristic tension required
to maintain the position during the utterance of the sound.
That is to say, that in addition to the memory-picture of
sound, there are also formed memory-pictures of the move-
ment series and of the position. These memory-pictures
of sound, movements, and position, are the psychological
processes which accompany the utterance of every speech
sound. ‘These memory-pictures are formed unconsciously,
but until they are formed it is impossible to reproduce a
speech sound. ‘This is why a child only slowly acquires
the power to reproduce the sounds of his mother-tongue.
The first mental picture formed is that of the sound itself,
as heard from others. Then there is a tentative groping
to reproduce it, but the necessary series of organic move-
ments, and the position, have generally to be learnt, as the
results of many mistaken attempts. Thus, when a child
substitutes a point-stop (t) for a back-stop (k), and says,
for instance, (tis) for (kis), it is probable that he can
discriminate between the two sounds when he hears them ;
but his inability to do so in his own speech is due to the
58 HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON

fact that he has not yet learned to form a stop with the
back of his tongue, although he can do so with the point.
The movement of retracting the tongue, and the position
of the tongue pressed against the soft palate are un-
familiar, and have to be acquired by experiment. When
once the unaccustomed movements have been performed, a
faint mental picture is recorded, which makes the next
utterance easier, With each repeated carrying out of a
series of movements the memory-picture becomes clearer
and more definite, until at last, the series being faithfully
and definitely imprinted upon the memory, it can be repro-
duced accurately at will. The memory-picture of the sound
is often more distinct, because the sound is heard not only
from our own pronunciation, in which it gradually becomes
associated with those of the movements and position, but
also frequently in the pronunciation of others. Whereas,
then, the sound-picture is made stronger by hearing other
speakers, the movement and position pictures can only be
made clearer by our own pronunciation of the sound. The
sound-picture sometimes remains clear when the position-
picture has become blurred, and faint from lack of habit
in uttering the sound, in which case the former helps
to correct and reconstruct the latter, because the result of
our attempts at pronunciation does not satisfy our recol-
lection of the sound.

It may be noted here that it is important not to allow
those who are learning a foreign language to get into the
habit of wrong pronunciation ; since each repeated utter-
ance of the wrong sound makes the memory-picture of
the movements and position clearer and deeper, and there-
fore increasingly difficult to eradicate. Teachers who
FORMATION OF SPEECH HABITS 59

trust to imitation alone in imparting a foreign pronuncia-
tion, often repeat the desired sound hundreds of times with
little result, the reason being that while the pupil’s correct
sound-picture may indeed be strengthened, the wrong
position-picture remains uncorrected, and becomes clearer
and more imperishable each time the same mistake in
pronunciation is made. Thus a discrepancy often arises
between the memory-picture of the sound and that of
the process of reproducing it. It is this existence of the
memory-pictures of the sounds and positions which occur
in our own language, and which we have strengthened for
years by daily habit, that makes it so difficult to form
fresh memory-pictures in later life. Our speech habit
has become inveterate, and we cannot easily acquire a
different one.

With the young child the case is different. His mental
and bodily habits are of recent formation, his speech
basis is not fixed; he can easily change it, or form a new
set of memory-pictures, both of sounds and of physical
movements : hence he can more readily acquire the sounds
of a foreign language than the adult.

The complex processes of utterance, even those involved
in producing the sounds of our mother-tongue, are for
the most part quite unrealized by the speaker. The
series of memory-pictures graven upon the consciousness
give rise to the familiar series of movements and positions,
and to the sounds associated with them, and yet we are
unaware both of the psychological and of the physiological
part of the process. A phonetic training involves learning
to realize and recognise both of these aspects of utterance.
We have to bring the mental pictures and the resultant
60 HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON

movements and positions from the plane of unconscious-
ness or subconsciousness to that of full consciousness,
Most people, as soon as they think about the subject, can
realize mentally, the series of movements which are neces-
sary to the pronunciation of many of the familiar conso-
nants, such as p, ¢, and even k, though this is more
difficult, without (even silently) going through the actual
movements themselves. But most untrained experimenters
will probably find, at first, that they are unable to realize
at all, the series of movements required for the pro-
nunciation of even such familiar vowel sounds as (1), as in
* bee” (bi), or (5), as in ‘ saw’ (sd). To assist in bringing the
familiar but unrealized processes of pronunciation into the
realms of definite consciousness, the beginner may be
recommended to pronounce some familiar sound aloud
several times, concentrating his attention upon the move-
ments which the vocal organs instinctively perform ; then
to ‘whisper’ the sound, still closely observing the move-
ments ; then to go through the series of movements silently,
not even uttering the sound in a ‘ whisper’; and finally to
reproduce the series mentally, without carrying out the
movements at all. It will be seen that such an exercise
can only be carried out with sounds which are perfectly
familiar, and which the vocal organs can produce in-
stinctively through the existence of a clear (although
subconscious) memory - picture. It follows that the
necessary and proper basis for phonetic training is the
careful study of the mother-tongue, and of that particular
form of it which we naturally and habitually use. Thus
it would be an unsound method for a dialect speaker, or
one whose pronunciation was strongly coloured by a ‘ pro-
THE PHONETIC CONSCIENCE 61

vincial accent, to begin the scientific study of sounds by
considering first of all the sounds of some ideal ‘ standard’
of English speech which were quite unfamiliar, and which
he would almost certainly not reproduce accurately. This
is especially true of Scotch speakers, who, even if they
do not speak ‘broad Scotch, have in nearly all cases a
strongly-marked Scotch speech basis, for which there are,
of course, good historical reasons. It cannot be too
strongly insisted upon that the student must cultivate a
‘phonetic conscience, and study the sounds of his own
natural speech as they are, without attempting to change
them or ‘fake’ them in any way. They are the only
sounds which he is an absolute master of, which he makes
instinctively and without taking thought, and they are
therefore the only sounds upon which he can properly begin
his observations. When he is able to analyze the mental
and physical processes involved in his own natural pro-
nunciation, the student can proceed, being now a master
of the power of analysis, and having gained some conscious
control of his vocal organs, to practise new series of move-
ments, and thus to acquire new sounds.

From the above considerations, the reason for our
reiterated insistence upon the importance of our own form
of speech as the basis of scientific linguistic study will,
perhaps, become more apparent. Anyone who has gone
through the somewhat difficult mill of systematic linguistic
training can but smile at the arguments adduced against
beginning with the native dialect by those who are com-
pletely innocent of any real knowledge of what is aimed
at, or of the methods whereby it alone can be achieved.

The fact that the processes of speech utterance are
62 HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON

naturally unconscious is an important one, in view of the
bearing which, as we shall see hereafter, it has upon
the question of sound change. ‘This fact can readily be
ascertained by any beginner who tries to realize mentally,
in the manner suggested above, how he produces any vowel
sound which is familiar to him in his own pronunciation
of English. Such an attempt will at once bring the truth
of the foregoing statement home to the student in the
most convincing manner. It is, however, just one of
those essential general principles, an ignorance of which
renders unreal and fruitless any discussion of the important
question of sound change, and of the closely allied con-
ception of phonetic law.

It is probably the too exclusive study of the literary
form of language which fosters the view, so often taught,
or at least implied in the teaching given, that speech
is deliberate and conscious, and that the speaker, even
when talking naturally and untrammelled by conventional
models, definitely intends to pronounce in a certain way,
which he elects to use rather than another.

In writing, the whole process is fraught with a certain
deliberation, which is encouraged by the necessity of pay-
ing attention to the formation of the letters and the
correct spelling, although even this becomes largely
instinctive by long habit. There is in writing, however,
a constant attention to literary form, a deliberate selection
of words and forms of sentence, which takes place here
to a far greater extent than is possible in any but the
most studied kind of public discourse, and which is almost
entirely absent from familiar and colloquial speech.

At any rate, it is certain that the natural speaker is
SPEECH ENVIRONMENT 63

quite unconscious even of the precise acoustic effect of the
sounds which he uses, while of the subtle and delicate
adjustments and co-ordinations of the vocal mechanism he
is completely ignorant. He does not attempt, consciously
at least, either to preserve or to modify any sound or
syllable.

The pronunciation of other speakers, which we may call
the ‘speech environment, certainly exercises an influence
upon every individual. From others he learned his pro-
nunciation to start with, and from those with whom he is
brought in contact throughout his life he, in a sense, goes
on learning so long as his sense of hearing lasts :—that is
to say, the speech of the individual tends to approximate
to the average speech of those with whom he is brought
into contact. This influence of one speaker upon another,
which will be discussed more at length in another chapter,
is, however, normally, unperceived by those who under-
go it.

The case in which a speaker, from Scotland, let us say,
comes to England, and definitely and deliberately tries to
get rid of his ‘Scotch accent, and adopts the speech of
the South, is nothing against the general principle that
the influence of one form of speech upon another is exerted
unconsciously. In the case cited we have, to start with, a
conventional and artificial preference for Southern rather
than for Northern English, and, further, what takes place
is simply that the speaker chooses to learn another dialect.
This differs only in degree from the case in which a Dutch-
man in Germany elects to acquire and to speak German.

If it be true that the language of every speaker under-
goes, throughout his life, a continuous influence from other
64 HOW LANGUAGE 1S ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON

speakers with whom he comes in contact, it would seem as
though the process of ‘acquiring’ a language was one
which is never complete, and which never ceases while
life and intelligence remain. And this is, in a sense, the
case ; but it is possible and useful to set a limit in thought
to the period during which the native language is being
acquired. Certainly, as far as pronunciation is concerned,
we may say that, up to a point, the child is still ‘learning’
to speak. ‘There comes a time, however, when he has
mastered all the sounds in use among those with whom he
lives. Those with whom he associates most closely during
this early period of life, may be considered as his ‘speech
parents "—those from whom he learns. After this the circle
of persons with whom he comes in contact will, in all
probability, be greatly widened with advancing years.
The unconscious influence of this growing circle of speakers
affects his pronunciation; but less and less so after the
early years, for the reason that the individual has already
‘learnt’ his language, has formed his own speech basis,
and has an independent existence as a speaker. There-
fore the wnconscious influence of other speakers upon the
pronunciation of an individual acts slowly, and is com-
paratively slight after this first period. As regards the
other sides of language, vocabulary and sentence-structure,
these are undoubtedly susceptible of unconscious modifi-
cation for a very much longer period. These aspects of
language are the expression of personal culture and
experience, and naturally tend to become richer, more
complex and more varied, with the growth of the
intellectual and moral man.

The life-history of the speech of the individual is a part
LANGUAGE CHANGED IN TRANSMISSION 65

of the history of the language ; and so, the problem of the
acquirement of his language by the individual, is part of
the general problem of the development of language.

For we cannot regard language as something which
is handed on in a fixed and definite form from one
individual, and acquired in precisely the same form by
another. It is changed, however inconsiderably, in the
very process of transmission, re-minted at the outset by
the crucible of the new mind into which it passes, and the
slightly different physical organism, which performs afresh
the movements of speech.

Thus we see that the elements of change in language lie
in the transmission from one generation to another, and in
the essential differences which exist between individuals.

The conception of an absolutely uniform language, exist-
ing even during a single generation, and in a single small
community, is in reality a mere hypothetical assumption.

We shall now have to consider how far uniformity of
speech actually does exist, in what way definite tendencies
of change arise in the individual, why and to what extent
these are shared by the community at large.

Nore.—In pursuing the study of the General Principles
of the development of language, which are dealt with in
this and several subsequent chapters of this book, the
student should consult :

Swreer: Words, Logic, and Grammar, Trans. Phil. Soc.,
1875-1876. History of Language, Dent, 1900.
History of English Sounds, §§ 1-241, Oxford, 1888.

Srronc, LocEMANN, AND WHEELER: History of Language,

Longmans, 1891.
5
66 HOW LANGUAGE IS ACQUIRED AND HANDED ON

Pau: Principien der Sprachgeschichte.

[An epoch-making book; has contributed largely
to form the modern point of view. Most writers
on General Principles at the present day draw
their inspiration primarily from it.]

Wecuster: Gibt es Lautgesetze ? 1900.
OstHorr and Brucmann: Vorwort to Morphologische

Untersuchungen, Erster Theil, 1878.

Other works will be referred to in the course of the
following pages. My debt to all the above is very great
—TI acknowledge it here—for the general treatment of the
subjects discussed in the next few chapters.
CHAPTER IV
SOUND CHANGE

By the phrase ‘sound change’ is meant those changes in
pronunciation which take place in every language in the
course of time. It is easy to convince ourselves that
changes of pronunciation have occurred in English, for
instance, in the last 200 years. ‘Pope’s lines—
‘ And praise the easy vigour of a line,
Where Denham’s strength, and Waller’s sweetness join’

—are often quoted to illustrate the fact, borne out by other
evidence, that the rhymes in his time were (lain—dzoin).

Again, the same poet writes :

‘ Fearing ev’n fools, by flatterers besieged,
And so obliging, that he ne’er obliged,’

where the last word was undoubtedly pronounced (dblidzd).
These rhymes at least illustrate the fact that less than
200 years ago two English words were pronounced by a
cultivated person like Pope, who frequented the best
English society of his day, in a manner which at the
“present time would strike people of the same standing as
strange, if not vulgar.

If we consider the written records of still earlier periods
of our language in the light of that method of inter-

preting the old symbols which we owe primarily to the late
67 5—2
68 SOUND CHANGE

Mr. A. J. Ellis, the differences of pronunciation which we
are able to feel certain existed between the speech of these
periods and that of the present day are so great that,
putting aside the other differences of vocabulary and the
general structure of the language, we cannot doubt that
the English of King Alfred, of Chaucer, and even of
Shakespeare, would be largely unintelligible to us, if we
were able to ‘hold an hour’s communion with the dead.’

If this remarkable amount of change has taken place in
a few centuries in the pronunciation of several generations
of Englishmen living in England, how much greater will be
the degree of change which the pronunciation of one and
the same language will undergo in the course of several
thousands of years among separate nations living in
widely remote countries! We can form some idea of the
possibilities of the extent of divergence from an original
form under these conditions if we consider the diversity
which the same word exhibits in the various Aryan
families of speech.

It might seem at the first blush improbable or impossible
that Scrt. dhamas,Gk. duos, Lat. famus, O.S1.dgmt, Gothic
dauns, O.E. dii-st, from earlier *dunst (Eng. dust), can
have anything in common as regards form, and yet, unless
the modern science of Comparative Philology is entirely
vain and its methods futile, all these words are merely the
various pronunciations, developed in the course of long
ages, of the same original word or ‘ root’ among different
branches of Aryan speech. In the case of the O.E. word
dist there is also a difference of suffix ; Scrt. and O.SI. agree
in having an original long %@ compared with a short, but
also original vowel in the other languages ; while the Gothic
,

MODIFICATION OF THE MEMORY-PICTURES 69

dauns has, again, a different, but equally original, form of the
vowel; otherwise the above forms are completely cognate.

It is proposed in this chapter to discuss how, and from
what cause, the sounds of speech undergo change.

And first let us say that, although the phrase “sound
change’ is convenient and in universal use, it is, from the
point of view of strict accuracy, erroneous. For we are to
consider that a sound in itself cannot change ; it is uttered
and is gone: it has in itself no permanence. When we say
that the same sound is repeated, we mean that an identical,
or nearly identical, series of movements of the vocal
organs is performed, and that the same acoustic effect is
produced as upon a former occasion.

The permanent element in uttered speech—that part,
therefore, which is capable of a historical development—
is the psychological element, those groups of memory-
pictures upon which we dwelt in the preceding chapter.

The pronunciation of the same word in the same com-
munity is different from one age to another; we say,
speaking loosely, that in this case the sounds of the com-
munity have changed. What has really happened is that
the underlying memory-pictures of sound and movements
undergo gradual modification, and are different in one age
from what they were in a former, and, in all probability,
from what they will be later on.

If this is borne in mind, we may continue to speak of
‘sound change, meaning thereby a change in the aggregate
of mental pictures possessed by all the individuals of a
community, the result of which is that a series of substi-
tutions takes place of one sound for another, until the
sounds actually pronounced by a later generation in the
70 SOUND CHANGE

same word differ widely from those pronounced by an
earlier generation (cf Wechsler, pp. 26, 27).

If the pronunciation of a language changes, it can only
be due to the fact that the vocal organs are used by the
members of a community in a different way at one period
from what they are at another; the series of movements
of the vocal organs, the positions which these assume in
speaking, and therefore the underlying mental pictures of
these, have been modified.

We have said that that group of physical movements
and those underlying groups of mental pictures which
exist at any moment among the members of a community
constitute what is known as the ‘ speech basis.’

An inquiry into the causes and processes of sound change,
then, is actually an inquiry into the conditions under which
the speech basis of a community is gradually modified.

It will be convenient to consider the question, in the
first instance, as it affects the individual, since the speech
of a community is obviously merely the collective utter-
ance of the individuals of which it is composed. The
relation of the individual to his community will be dis-
cussed in the next chapter.

All bodily movements which are the result of volition
can only be carried out by virtue of the subconscious
memory - picture which they reproduce each time the
action is repeated. Until this memory-picture is formed,
the series of movements is uncertain and imperfect. If we
take the case of such a highly-specialized series of co-
ordinated movements as those necessary to ‘ cast a fly’ in
fishing, or of using a billiard cue so as to produce a
‘screw, it is evident that these, like the series of move-
LIMITS OF UNPERCEIVED DEVIATION 71

ments of the vocal organs which produce a speech sound,
can only be successfully carried out as the result of con-
siderable practice. In all cases the memory-picture must
be clear and definite. Now, it is evident that although
a practised fisherman can generally throw a fly so as to
produce approximately the desired result—in this case,
that is to say, to put it modestly, at least in such a way as
not to flick the fly off—he nevertheless does not reproduce
in each successive cast precisely and absolutely the same
series of movements; there are variations in the degree of
force, in the direction, in the curves described by the
hand as it is raised and brought forward again after the
line has been straightened behind the fisherman, and in
many other ways too subtle to analyze. Yet each success-
ful cast (successful in the sense indicated above) satisfies
the person who performs the movements: he feels that he
has cast his fly in the proper way. This merely means
that, in spite of divergence, the series of movements corre-
sponds to, and reproduces the memory-picture of the
process sufficiently exactly for the divergence not to be
appreciable. A certain possible limit of deviation from
the memory-picture exists, within which the departure is
unperceived. If, however, the divergence of the action
from the memory-picture of this be too great, the fisher-
man is conscious of it, and feels that he has made a bad
throw—a fact of which the loss of his fly probably adds
further confirmation,

In just the same way, the actions of the vocal organs
in speech, reproduce the memory-pictures approximately,
though not always exactly. Here, again, if the move-
ment-series deviates beyond a certain extent from the
72 SOUND CHANGE

mental picture, the divergence is recognised, partly by | ; »
the actual muscular sensation, but more generally by | j |
reason of the divergence of the result from the memory-) | ,

picture of the sound. j

But the memory-pictures themselves are not homo;
geneous, and composed of only one kind of impressio 5
for each repeated utterance of the sound leaves its tra¢e
upon the mental picture. Upon the mind is recorded
each divergence from the original picture—that is, a new
impression of a slightly different character is made. Of
the various impressions recorded, the most recent are the
deepest and most potent; so that in the course of time the
new impressions outweigh the older in the memory-picture.
Thus in time the aggregate of impressions result in a
memory-picture which is of a slightly different character
from the old one. From this new memory-picture the
same degree of unperceived divergence is possible, this
degree being always constant; but since the memory-
picture itself has been modified, the starting-point of
divergence has also been shifted slightly further from the
original point of departure.

To put the matter in another way, if the change in
pronunciation is sufficiently gradual, if it does not pro-
ceed further than a certain point at a time, the individual
does not perceive the slight shifting which has taken
place, and the impression is unconsciously recorded. If,
however, the pronunciation at a given moment of utter-
ance is too far from what the speaker instinctively feels to
be the normal, he at once perceives the difference, and
‘corrects’ the result as a ‘mistake’ or a ‘slip of the
tongue.’ Thus, on account of the inherent instability of
EXAMPLES OF ISOLATIVE SOUND CHANGE 73

the organs of speech and the habits of using them, the pro-
nunciation of each individual is continually liable to slight
variation, and therefore, gradually, to permanent alteration.

Variation in the speech of the individual is, according
to the above statements, in the natural and inevitable
order of things. The speech basis is gradually modified,
and with it the sounds change.

This natural shifting of the speech basis is the cause of
all change in sound, when this is gradual and regular.

Sound changes are conveniently divided into two main
classes: Isolative Changes, which take place independent
of other neighbouring sounds in the word or sentence, and
uninfluenced by them; and Combinative Changes, in which
sounds are modified by others which occur in close
proximity to them. Both classes of changes depend
upon the shifting of the organic basis of speech. It may
be well to give at once concrete examples from our own
language of each kind of change.

Isolative Changes.—Down to the end of the fifteenth
century, or the beginning of the sixteenth, the long
sound (ii), whether inherited from Old English or acquired
(in French words) during the Middle English period, per-
sisted, so far as we can tell, practically unaltered, unless,
indeed, it was shortened by other combinative factors.
About the date above mentioned, however, in the South,
and far North into the Midlands, (ii) was gradually diph-
thongized by a process which we need not now discuss,
until it reached, probably by the middle of the eighteenth
century, its present sound of (aw), as in ‘house’ (haus),
‘ground’ (graund), etc. Another isolative change of
comparatively recent origin is that of the eighteenth-
74 SOUND CHANGE

century (%) sounds to (4). Almost all (@) sounds which
occur in Modern English, as in ‘father’ (fade), ‘rather’
(rada), ‘clerk’ (klak), go back to eighteenth-century (%)
sounds, the forms of these words in that century being
(féder, reder, klérk), This change involves a gradual
retraction of the tongue from a low-front vowel position
to that of the low-back, which has been subsequently
raised, nearly everywhere, to the mid-back, the present
sound. It is curious to reflect that during part of the
eighteenth century the sound (a) did not exist in the
standard dialect of English. Foreign words, introduced
during this period, which contained (@) in the language
from which they were borrowed, still retain the sound (5),
which was then substituted for the original (a); thus
‘brandy pawnee’=(pini), Scrt. pani, ‘water’; and the
place-names Cabul (K5bul) for Kabul, and Cawnpore
(Konpd[e]). In the same way the now slightly vulgar
pronunciation (v5z) ‘vase’ represents, no doubt, an
eighteenth-century attempt at the French sound (vaz).

An old-fashioned pronunciation of ‘rather’ as (rei%o),
which still obtains in America, and, curiously enough, in
this country also, amongst school-boys, though only as
form of peculiar emphasis, goes back to a different type,
eighteenth-century (réder), which can be shown to have
existed side by side with the type (r#¥or). This form
must be still further derived from a M.E. type, raver
(r@Ser), whereas our modern form (rae) is from a M.E.
riser, the first vowel of which was fronted to (%) giving
(reSar) in the sixteenth, and (rxter), with vowel-
lengthening before (5), in the seventeenth or early
eighteenth century. With the exception of this com-
COMBINATIVE FRONTING IN O.E. 75

binative lengthening, all the changes which the two
M.E. types rater and rder have undergone are isolative
in character.

Combinative Changes.—The number of these in the
history of English, as, indeed, in that of most languages,
is very large. A few examples will suffice for the moment.

The two words ‘cold’ and ‘chill’ are both derived from
the same root (although they have different suffixes),
but different combinative factors have determined their
respective forms.

In O.E. these words appear as c@ld, an Anglian form,
and ¢iele, a West Saxon form. It is the difference of the
initial with which we are primarily concerned here. In
‘cold, from O.E. cdld, from Gmc. *kalda-, the initial
consonant, a voiceless back-stop, is the original consonant,
and has undergone no change, being followed by a back
vowel ; in ‘chill, however, the O.E. éiele presupposes an
earlier, primitive Old West Saxon *éeali, from a still earlier
*keel, which comes from a Gme. *kali-. In this case the
original Gmc. back-stop has been fronted in West Saxon
to a front-stop, which has developed into the Modern
English ‘ch-’ (t{) sound. ‘This is an example of the
fact that in prehistoric O.E. a back-stop was fronted to a
front-stop before a following front vowel—in this case (2)
low-front. Wherever in Modern English what is popularly
called the ‘ch-’ sound (t{) occurs in words of native
English origin, it is derived from an earlier k, fronted,
during the O.E. period, through the influence of a following
original front vowel,—one that is, which was already front
in the oldest English period.

Other examples of this combinative fronting of an
76 SOUND CHANGE

earlier & through the influence of a following front vowel
are: O.E. éin(n), Mod.E. ‘chin,’ with which compare Gothic
kinnus, O.E. cycene, an early loan-word from Latin
coguina, through an intermediate form, *kukina. In this
O.E. word the second k was fronted before the front vowel i,
whereas the initial remains a back consonant, because the
following y, although also a front vowel, did not become
so until the tendency for such vowels to affect preceding
consonants had passed away. These processes will be
described later on in more detail, in dealing specifically
with O.E. sound changes.

Another combinative tendency which affects a large
number of words in O.E. was that to round back vowels
before nasal consonants. Thus we have reason to know
that the O.E. ména, ‘moon,’ came from an earlier form,
*mano, with the unrounded (@) (mid- or low-back) in the
first syllable. It is probable that the vowel itself was
first slightly nasalized, and this nasal (a) gradually tended
to acquire a rounded pronunciation, just as the nasal
vowel in en, an, in French, as in enfant (afd), is rounded, in
the pronunciation of most French speakers, sometimes to
a very considerable extent.

Now, it is characteristic of all tendencies of change in
pronunciation, both Isolative and Combinative, that they
obtain only for a period in the history of a language, and
then pass away. Thus, for instance, as we have seen at a
certain time, the speakers of Old English tended to pro-
nounce back consonants before front vowels more and
more forward, until at last they were uttered as wholly
front consonants. But this habit died out, since we find
that this modification of back consonants does not take
DYING OUT OF TENDENCIES OF CHANGE 77

place before those front vowels which were developed by a
later process from earlier back vowels. We pronounce, to
the present day, a back consonant in ‘kin,’ and therefore
can have no doubt that the O.E. word cynn, ‘race,
‘family,’ also had a back consonant (k) initially, although
the next sound in the word, y (high-front-round), is just
as much a front vowel as i in O.E. ¢in, * chin.” But O.E. y
in the former word was originally «, as we can see from a
comparison with the Gothic kuni, which preserves the
older form of the vowel. The O.E. y sound was developed
by a fronting of original u, at a period at which there was
no longer any tendency on the part of English speakers to
advance the place of articulation of & when it came imme-
diately before a front vowel.

According to the varying speech habits, the same com-
bination of sounds is differently treated, not only in dif-
ferent dialects or languages, but in the same language at
different periods. The so-called Sound Laws, or Phonetic
Laws, therefore, are merely statements to the effect that
at a given time, a given community tended to alter the pro-
nunciation of such and such a sound, or combination of
sounds, in such and such a way. This, of course, does
not prevent the same tendency arising, independently, in
totally unrelated languages, or more than once in the same

language.

The problem of combinative changes is no less difficult
than that of isolative changes. It is true that, in the
former case, the immediate phonetic or physiological
causes which determine the change are generally apparent ;
but these causes are not of universal operation, as we have
seen from the fact that different languages, or the same
78 SOUND CHANGE

language at different periods of its history, may treat the
same combination of sounds in different ways, now leaving
it unaltered, now altering it in this way or that.

This transitoriness of tendencies of sound change has
already been illustrated by those combinative processes in
the history of English to which passing reference has been
made, but further illustration may be useful to show with
what varying force they obtain, even among the different
dialects of the same language.

A good example of this is the process known as ‘u-d-
Umlaut; which began in O.E., probably early in the
eighth century. Briefly stated, this process consisted in
the development of a vowel-glide after a front vowel when
a back rounded vowel follows in the next syllable. This
vowel-glide apparently develops into a full vowel, which
combines with the preceding to produce a diphthong.
Thus an original widu, ‘wood,’ becomes *wi"du, then
wiudu, whence wiodu in Northumbrian and weodu (wudu)
in Mercian and West Saxon.

The O.E. dialects vary considerably, both in the extent
to which this diphthonging takes place, and also in the
conditions which promote its occurrence.

In West Saxon, Northumbrian, and part of the Kentish
area, @ remains unaffected by a following u, 0, a; in Mercian,
on the other hand, original @, when followed by one of
these vowels, is diphthongized, first to a, wu, wo, @a, ca,
the latter being the ordinary spelling. Thus in W.S. and
Northumbrian the plural of fat, ‘cup,’ * vessel’ (Mod.E.
‘vat’), is fatu, from *fetu, with un-fronting of @ to a
before the following w, but in Mercian featu.

The vowels i and ¢ are diphthongized, to a certain
UNEQUAL DEVELOPMENT 79

extent, in all dialects, but the conditions under which this
occurs are far more limited in W.S. than in the other
dialects; also w produces diphthongization much more
readily in this dialect than a or o. Thus, after w,7 be-
came iu<Cio<ceo quite normally, no matter what the
intervening consonant may be: cwicw, ‘living,’ becomes
cweocu; widu<Cweodu (whence, later, c(w)ucu, wudu),
otherwise the vowel remains undiphthongized, except when
i, r, or the lip consonants intervene: sicol, ‘ sickle, from
*sikul, nigun, ‘nine, from *nizun, sinu, ‘sinew, hnitu,
‘nit’; but sweotol (and swutol), ‘clear,’ from *switul,
meolc (earlier miuduc), from *miluk, ‘milk,  seofon,
‘seven, from *siéun, cleopode, ‘called, from *cliupode,
earlier clipode, pret. of clipian, and so on.

Under approximately the same conditions original ¢
becomes eu, then co: cofor, ‘wild boar, from ebur, heorot,
‘hart,’ from earlier herut, heolstor, ‘darkness,’ from earlier
helustor ; but regol, ‘rule, an early loan-word from the
Latin regula, fetor, ‘fetter, from *fetur, sprecol, from
earlier sprecul, ‘ loquacious.’

It appears, from the above examples, that in W.S. the
tendency to diphthongization did not arise when the inter-
vening consonant was a point-teeth or back, unless w pre-
ceded the z or e.

In the Kentish dialect of O.E., on the other hand, z and
e, and, in some early texts, & also, appear to be diphthong-
ized, whenever wu follows in the next syllable, whether w
precedes or not, and no matter what the nature of the
intervening consonant. Thus we find such forms as reogol,
‘rule, breogo, ‘ prince, from *bregu, freodu- (in names),
when WSS. has fridu-. Such Kentish forms as ‘to nio-
80 SOUND CHANGE

manne, ‘to take, forgeofan (inf.), earlier *-geban, where i
and ¢ are diphthongized by a following a, are quite foreign
to W.S., which has némanne, giefan (also from *geban, by
a process peculiar to W.S. (p. 236).

Mercian and Northumbrian also diphthongize 7 and e
freely ; the former @ as well, but before a following back
consonant (c or g) the diphthong is ‘smoothed’ or mon-
ophthongized again, in these dialects, by a tendency which
arose subsequent to the w-, a-, 0-Umlaut. Thus in Mercian
*degum, degas (dat. and nom.-ace. pl. of deg, ‘day’)
apparently became *de“gum, etc., but were subsequently
smoothed to degum, degas, which are the forms actually
found in the principal Mercian text (Vespasian Psalter).

These processes of diphthongization did not arise, so far
as we know, in any of the O.E. dialects before the begin-
ning of the eighth or, at earliest, the end of the seventh
century, and when once the above changes were complete,
the speech habit which produced them died out, never
again to be revived.*

It might appear that the problem of Combinative
Change differs essentially from that of Isolative Change,
since in the former case the ‘ causes’ can be discovered and
stated, whereas in the latter case it is only possible to
state that this or that change occurs, undetermined, how-
ever, so far as we can discover, by the nature of the
surrounding sounds. But since, as we have seen, the
‘causes’ of Combinative Change depend for their effective-
ness upon the natural speech tendencies which obtain at

* A very full account, and copious illustrations of every class of
Isolative and Combinative Sound Change, will be found in Paul
Passy’s Changements Phonétiques du Langage, Paris, 1891.
CAUSES OF SOUND CHANGE 81

the moment throughout a community, it is evident that
the real determining ‘cause’ of this class of sound changes,
as of isolative changes, is the speech basis. It is the
general habit of speech which produces among a group of
speakers the tendency to a given treatment of a combina-
tion of sounds, no less than to that of the isolated sound.
Some German writers (e.g., Sievers, in his Phonetik) employ
the terms ‘bedingt, or ‘caused, sound change for combina-
tive, as distinct from ‘ unbedingt, or ‘ uncaused, for isola-
tive change. These terms are misleading, unless it be
clearly borne in mind that both classes of change are
ultimately caused or determined by the natural tendencies
which are inseparable from a given speech basis. It is
only by virtue of this that the pronunciation of a sound,
at a given moment in the history of a language, tends to
be influenced by the surrounding sounds.

We cannot explain the reason of the rise and passing
away of these tendencies ; we can only shift the matter a
stage further back, and say that they are inseparably
associated with the speech basis of the community at the
moment, and that, since this is unstable, so also the ten-
dencies to variation must necessarily be in different direc-
tions at different times and among different communities.

The real problem of the causes of sound change, then,
is put in the question, What factors determine the precise
nature of the speech basis of a community at a particular
period? If we could answer this question, we should solve
the question which is involved in it, namely, Why do the
speakers of a community show at one period a set of ten-
dencies in pronunciation, a group of speech habits, which
are quite foreign to their ancestors or their descendants in

6
82 SOUND CHANGE

former or later ages?—we should be far nearer than we
are at present to solving one of the most important prob-
lems connected with the evolution of speech.

Many attempts have been made to account for the
general fact that the sounds of language change, but none
are wholly satisfactory. The simple question, What is it
that modifies the speech basis of a community ? remains
unanswered, or, at best, only partially answered.

Formerly all sound change was ascribed to the inherent
laziness of men, who were said to be for ever striving after
increased ease of utterance. This was the view of the
eminent philologist Schleicher (Deutsche Sprache, pp. 50 and
following) and Whitney the Sanscrit scholar (Language and
its Study, 1875, pp. 42,43,and Life and Growth of Language,
1886, p. 49, etc.). It must be urged against this theory
that ease and difficulty are very relative terms—familiar
sounds being, as a rule, easy, unfamiliar sounds difficult ;
and although a certain absolute difficulty might, perhaps, be
asserted to exist in certain sound combinations, they are
nevertheless preserved in some languages. Some changes
which occur in language seem to be in the direction rather
of increased than less effort. The real answer, however,
is that the fact of ease or difficulty existing among a given
community in the pronunciation of certain sounds depends
upon their speech basis.

A desire for Euphony is another popular explanation,
which formerly received the support of authorities—e.g.,

Bopp, Vgl. Gr., pp. 7, 77, 96, 274, etc.; Vocalismus;

pp. 18, 29; also Scherer, Geschichte d. deutschen Spry
pp. 136-138. This suggestion must be at once rejected
when we reflect that pronunciation changes gradually,
INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE 83

without the deliberate intention, or even the knowledge, of
the speakers; and, further, that the deliberate alteration
of pronunciation for the purpose of producing a more
beautiful effect upon the ear would make sound change
largely a matter of personal whim, which would result in
endless diversity—to the extent of imperilling intelligi-
bility—within the same community.

The influence of Climate was pressed by Osthoff (Das
physiologische und das psychologische Moment in der
Sprachlichen Formenbildung, 1879) as a means of account-
ing for the diversity of treatment of the same original
sounds among the various groups of Aryan speakers.
It cannot be denied that climate, since it determines so
largely the general mode of life, the social organization,
and the bodily habits of a community, and originally
possibly even the racial characters must also, to some
extent, at least, affect the language. And yet the sounds
of a language go on changing throughout the centuries,
while the people continue to live under the same climatic
conditions. It would seem more probable that climate
might help to predispose the speech basis of a community
in a new direction, if a tribe migrated from its original
seat to a new and very different geographical area, but
that when the climatic conditions had once produced their
effect, or continued to produce them upon each succeeding
generation, they would rather tend to conserve than to
alter the speech basis, unless, of course, some marked
change of climate came about. At any rate, so far, no
specific sound change has ever been related, with certainty,
to any definite conditions of climate, and it seems as if
the most that we can say is, that climate may contribute

6—2
84 SOUND CHANGE

to produce a speech basis which inherently tends to vary
along certain lines, although the connection between the
two has never yet been shown.

Darmsteter (La Vie des Mots, 1887, p. 7) and Passy
(Changements Phonétiques du Langage, 1891, pp. 230-235)
maintain that sound change is primarily due to the
‘mistakes’ and faulty imitation of the pronunciation of
their elders by children when learning to speak. This
amounts to saying that children never perfectly master the
sounds of their native language, a view which seems to be
contradicted by experience; for the grosser ‘ mistakes’ of
children are soon corrected, and at seven or eight years
of age the normal child is usually completely conversant
with all the sounds in use among the community in which
he lives. Besides, it is not explained how it comes about
that all the children of the same generation make approxi-
mately the same ‘mistakes’; or, in other words, why, if
sound change has its roots in ‘mistakes’ of this kind, the
pronunciation of a given community tends to vary on
practically homogeneous lines. It is, of course, true that
language changes from generation to generation, in the
very process, as we have seen, of being handed on, but this
is because the rising generation begins, as it were, where
the former leaves off; their speech is the reproduction
of the most recent developments of their parents’ speech,
and has, therefore, a slightly different starting-point of
deviation. ‘Thus, if the norm of the parents’ speech be
represented by a, with a possible, unperceived deviation
represented by a+, the children’s norm will perhaps be a’,
with the range of possibilities of deviation, bringing the
limit to a’. There is also an element of variation in the
FOREIGN CONTACT 85

fact that individuals are differently constituted, mentally
and physically, so that the learner’s speech can never be
an exact reproduction of that of his parents. But these
personal peculiarities in speech cannot, normally, exceed
the limits at which they are recognisable.

Lastly, in enumerating the various explanations pro-
posed, we may mention the factor which has been empha-
sized by Hirt (Indogermanische Forschungen, iv.,pp. 86-45),
and quite recently, and more fully, by Wechsler (Gibi es
Lauigesetze ? 1900), as chief among the influences which
modify the speech basis—namely, contact with foreign
speakers.

The nature of this influence is easily grasped. In
attempting to reproduce the sounds of a foreign language
we inevitably, as has been already pointed out, attempt to
imitate the strange sounds by uttering those sounds which
are nearest to them, according to our own perceptions, in
our own language. We never completely acquire the new
series of movements—that is, the speech basis of the foreign
tongue—but tend to modify the sounds, according to our
own familiar habits of articulation. Thus in time may we
indeed acquire a new speech basis, one different from our
own, but differing, also, more or less, from that of the
language we are trying to speak. The result is practically
a new form of speech which is neither one thing nor the
other. If we conceive of this process on a much larger
scale, as when two races come into social contact and acquire
each other’s language, subsequently the speech of one will
predominate, that of the other dying out, with the result
that the speech basis of the whole area occupied by the
two groups of speakers has been shifted: first in the
86 SOUND CHANGE

mouths of the foreigners, and then, if these and their
descendants are really assimilated, so that the two races
are welded into a single community, by the reaction of
the new manner of speech on the old. In the primitive
wanderings of races the process of the incorporation of
peoples speaking different languages must continually be
going on.

The further question of how far racial characteristics tell
in moulding the speech basis, is also involved in the above
hypothesis. Are we to add race mixture as a further in-
fluence on the language arising from foreign contact ?

It seems evident that such obvious points as the degree
of thickness of the lips, the length and general size of the
tongue, the facial angle, the shape and size of the nose, all
of which are characteristic racial features, must play a
considerable part in determining the original speech basis;
and there may be subtler points of anatomical structure
which play a part, as well as the general temperament and
natural bodily habit.

But so far the anatomists have done but little to show
the precise connection between the physical structure of
races and the speech basis therewith associated.

In the absence of precise knowledge it is, perhaps, safer
to assume that, within limits, the speech organs are so
adaptable that an individual of any race can acquire the
speech habits of any other, provided his linguistic training
begins in childhood, and that the structural differences
between the vocal organs of the various races are of less
importance, on the whole, in determining the speech basis,
than are those particular habits of using the organs, which
are acquired in infancy by the unconscious and natural
RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS 87

process of learning the mother-tongue, understanding by
this phrase the language which a child learns first.

It seems that a change in the speech basis need not
imply a modification in the structure of the speech organs
themselves, but only of the mode of using them.

At the same time, it is a reasonable inference that the
speech basis is, under normal conditions, related to the
actual shape and structure of the organs of speech, and
therefore that the more two races differ in physical type,
the greater will be the differences in their natural speech
habits. In this sense, the effect of foreign speakers in
modifying the speech basis of a community, will be in
proportion to the degree of separation between the
two races. The more unlike one race is to another in
temperament and physical type, the greater will be the
difference between the natural tendencies of their speech
organs; the more considerable, therefore, the modification
which the language of each will undergo in the mouths of
speakers of the other race.

The views of Hirt and Wechsler are widely accepted at
the present moment, and there can be no doubt that the
suggestion which they contain is a most valuable one in
explaining, for instance, the differences which exist between
the several groups of the Aryan family of languages, or the
different branches of the Latin tongues—lItalian, Spanish,
French, Provencal, etc., all of which have been developed
from closely-allied forms of popular Latin; but the ex-
planation does not always apply to the case where a single
language in the course of its history develops, as we have
seen is the case in English, quite different tendencies in
succeeding periods, without it being possible to show the
88 SOUND CHANGE

connection between these tendencies, and any specific
characteristic in other languages which have come into
contact with it by conquest or otherwise. It might be
maintained that those well-marked sound changes which
distinguish Old English from the other West Germanic
languages are, in some obscure way, due to the influence of
native British speakers of Celtic origin, and later on of
Scandinavians, and that the impulse to the sound changes
which characterize the Middle English period had its
origin in the speech of the Normans; but even if such
a theory could be substantiated, which is in the highest
degree improbable, what foreign influence is responsible
for the very considerable changes which have taken place
in English pronunciation since the sixteenth century ?

A factor which has hitherto hardly been considered, and
which has certainly not been systematically investigated, is
Occupation. ‘There can be little doubt that the prolonged
use of certain parts of the body in a particular way tends
not only to affect the form and function of the parts
themselves, but also, indirectly, induces a certain general
bodily habit. There are many such modifications of the
individual which affect the organs of speech, and may pre-
dispose the person concerned to a particular mode of using
these. Thus it might be supposed that such work as
swinging a scythe or flail would develop the muscles of the
chest and throat, in such a way as to affect the utterance.
Again, the constant necessity to shout, which exists in
noisy occupations, such as that of the fisherman or sailor,
who has to make himself heard through the storm, or that
of the blacksmith or factory hand, who must make their
voices rise above the clang of the hammer on the anvil, or the
INFLUENCE OF OCCUPATION 89

hum and clashing of machinery, can but produce a perma-
nent habit of speaking loud, which may affect the quality
of the sounds uttered. Another point is that in speaking
from a distance or amid noise, certain speech sounds
become practically useless, because they are inaudible—
namely, voiceless consonants, especially the stops. Under
these conditions the vowels are all-important, particularly
those of the stressed syllables. These remarks are merely
thrown out as a suggestion of a possible source of the
modification of the speech basis. In any case, occupation
can hardly be omitted from the forces which affect the
development of language.

Of all the above factors which, it has been maintained,
modify the speech basis, none can be considered wholly
sufficient to explain all cases ; and, although we may admit
that race, climate, occupation, and foreign contact, each and
all play their part in determining the physical and mental
habits of a community, we must also recognise that the
whole question is still very obscure, and that at present we
know neither the precise way in which speech is affected by
these modifying factors, nor how any of them, while
remaining to all appearance constant, can yet produce
tendencies of change, now in this way, now in that, in the
pronunciation of a single language.

In fact, so far as the history of a single language is con-
cerned, which is spoken for a long period by the same race,
in the same geographical area, and under identical climatic
conditions, unaffected, for long periods at any rate, by any
alien language, it is hardly too much to say that, although
we can understand why the pronunciation should indeed
be liable to change, we can, as yet, form no idea as to why
90 SOUND CHANGE

such a language develops just those specific changes in its
sound system which, as a matter of fact, actually occur,
nor why these arise at one period rather than another.
For the present, the words of M. Paul Passy (Changements
Phonétiques, § 617) remain true: ‘En somme, ce que
nous savons sur les causes premieres des changements
phonétiques est bien peu de chose. Nous constatons que
dans tel dialecte, 4 tel moment, telle ou telle tendance
phonétique prédomine; pourquoi prédomine-t-elle, nous
lignorons, ou nous pouvons tout au plus le conjecturer,’
CHAPTER V

DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE: THE RISE OF
DIALECTS

Tue problem now before us is how, from an originally
uniform and homogeneous form of speech, there are
developed, in the course of time, innumerable varieties—
dialects which differ in varying degrees one from the other
in essential features of pronunciation, and languages which
are so distinct that only the most searching historical in-
vestigation can reveal their original affinity.

We may say at once that there is no radical difference
between a ‘Dialect’ and a ‘Language.’ From the moment
that two forms of speech present what we somewhat
vaguely call ‘dialectal’ differences, which mark them as
separate, the potentialities exist for infinite divergence.
Under favourable conditions the two dialects may grow
wider and wider apart, until not only are the two groups
of speakers mutually unintelligible, but their common
origin could never be suspected without the application
of rigid historical and comparative method.

The distinction between a ‘ Dialect’ and a ‘ Language”
is only one of the degree of differentiation from the
original type.

We have seen that the starting-point of sound change

91
92 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

lies in the individual speaker. A change in the speech of
a community is the result of the tendencies of a host ‘of
individuals. It has been pointed out that every individual
differs slightly from every other; how, then, can we speak
of a community possessing a homogeneous language?
Further, we may ask, What is the precise relation of the
speech of the individual to that of the community ?

It is as well to know clearly what we mean by the term
‘community,’ and it may be defined, for purposes of linguis-
tic discussion, as a group of individuals who, by reason
chiefly of the frequency of their social intercourse, natur-
ally use the same form of speech, and among whom the
individual differences are so slight that they are inappre-
ciable. We speak of the ‘community at large,’ generally
meaning thereby all persons who live in these islands.
But within this large group of human beings there are
many smaller groups and sections of the community.
The smaller the social division, the closer must be the
bond between the members of it, the more frequent and
intimate their intercourse. Thus the inhabitants of a
province, county, or large city form a little community or
State by themselves, whose members are to a great extent
independent of, and shut off from the influence of, other
counties and cities. Normally, the communication and
opportunities for social intercourse of such a group of
persons among themselves are greater than those between
them and the members of other similar groups outside
their own. But even within the limits of the county or
province, still smaller and more closely knit communities
exist, in the villages and the hamlets included within the
wider division. The hamlets and villages, again, are
SPEECH COMMUNITIES 93

made up of groups of separate families, and these, the
narrowest and closest of all divisions of society, consist of
individuals.

In the strict sense, the limits of a speech community are
comparatively narrow. Only such persons who, by virtue
of their place of abode, and their occupations, and their
general conditions of life, are brought into constant, and
more or less intimate social intercourse, can be said to
constitute a speech community. In the country, the
village is generally coextensive with the speech com-
munity; in large towns the population forms itself into
speech communities in the narrow sense, on principles
which are largely determined by class and occupation ; but
also to some extent by the actual distribution of the
inhabitants throughout the various quarters and districts
of the city.

Among the members of the community, in the narrowest
sense, there exist not only actual differences of pronuncia-
tion, but also differences of tendency—one individual tends
to vary his pronunciation in this way, another in that.
But these differences of actual pronunciation, and of ten-
dency to change, are usually so slight, that they are un-
perceived, both by the individual himself and by the
community among whom he lives. They arise, as we have
seen, quite naturally, from the differences of mental and
physical organization ; but they do not progress beyond a
certain point, partly because of the unconscious effort of
the speaker to reproduce exactly the sounds which he
habitually hears, and partly because social intercourse,
whereby the speech is acquired and handed on, no less than
the fact that all the speakers of the community are under
94 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

practically identical conditions of life, naturally contributes
to produce approximately the same habits of mind and
body, therefore the same speech basis, and consequently
the same pronunciation, and the same tendencies of change,
in all the members of the community.

The majority of tendencies of variation in speech habit
which exist in the individual will be shared also by the
speech community at large, so that they will be strength-
ened and encouraged by social intercourse. Those ten-
dencies, on the other hand, which are peculiar to the
individual, and which are not shared by the community,
will not gain ground, but will be eliminated. The
strongest and most clearly marked of these individual
tendencies will be unconsciously suppressed, or, in some
cases even, will be deliberately checked in youth, by the
corrective ridicule of associates; others, which are not
sufficiently marked to be generally noticeable, either dis-
appear naturally with the definite acquirement of the
speech basis, or may continue to exist, so long as they do
not develop beyond the point at which they are recognis-
able by the speaker himself and by his companions. Thus
there is in every community a certain body of tendency
which is common to all speakers, and this develops, un-
perceived and gradual, but also, for the time being,
unchecked.

Allowing, then, for the slight and unrecognised differ-
ences which exist between individual and individual, we may
say that the speech of a community, in the special sense
above defined, is homogeneous for all practical purposes ;
and, allowing for the elimination of the purely individual
tendencies, which do not jump with the general trend of
INTERRUPTION OF SOCIAL INTERCOURSE 95

speech habit, we may further say that all the members of
such a community will tend, at a given time, to change
their speech basis, and therefore their pronunciation, in
one and the same direction.

Now, it is clear that this uniformity of pronunciation,
and this agreement in direction of change, presuppose the
existence of a community in the sense in which we have
defined it—namely, under such conditions that all the
members have equal opportunities of intercourse with each
other. If, however, this state of things be altered or
upset, if circumstances arise which make this social inter-
course less frequent, and less intense at any point within
the community, or which create conditions in the mode of
life which affect the community unequally; then we can
no longer regard the groups of speakers thus unequally
affected, and variously circumstanced, as one community in
the terms of our definition, but must consider that there
are as many communities as there are centres of disturb-
ance of the original conditions. We may regard the
groups of speakers thus formed as isolated the one from
the other, the degree of isolation being measured by the
degree of interruption of the social intercourse which
formerly existed.

Now, when isolation occurs, which splits one community
into two or more groups, the necessary conditions are
present for the differentiation of the originally homogene-
ous speech into dialects. Each group will tend to develop
its language along different lines, and the differences,
slight enough in the beginning, may in time attain con-
siderable proportions. The reason why the different
groups of speakers necessarily grow further and further
96 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

apart as regards their language is not difficult to under-
stand. We must consider that every individual naturally
tends gradually to diverge from the norm in speech so far
as is possible within the limits already described. But
the question of which of his personal tendencies are
allowed to develop, and which are eliminated, is deter-
mined by the general balance of habit and tendency in
the community as a whole. So soon as the constitution
of the community is changed, the balance is upset, and
tendencies which would before have been checked may
now, among a smaller group of speakers find a wider echo:
—that is, there is a larger proportion of speakers who
share them. These tendencies, therefore, are confirmed,
and may become general among the new and smaller com-
munity. Again, tendencies which find encouragement, and
gain a firm footing in one community, are eliminated in
another. Of course, unless the isolation be complete, it is
probable that all the groups of speakers will still have
certain lines of change in common, and will also agree, as
before, in suppressing, for the most part unconsciously,
certain other tendencies.

The formation of dialects depends, then, upon the
development of different groups or series of tendencies
among communities which are isolated one from the other.
The extent to which two or more dialects differ from, or
agree with each other, in fostering, or eliminating, this or
that tendency to variation, will depend upon the degree
of completeness of the isolation of the several com-
munities.

We may now properly inquire what are the chief factors
of isolation, or modes of interruption, of social intercourse,

ui
DIVISIONS OF SOCIETY—MODES OF ISOLATION 97

which split up a community and give rise to dialectal
differences,

We may divide human society into groups of increasing
size: the Family, a group of individuals naturally asso-
ciated together by the fact of common parents and a
common dwelling-place ; the Hamlet or Village, or group
of Families; the Province, which includes numerous
villages ; and the Nation at large, which embraces all—
Provinces, Villages, Hamlets, Families, and Individuals.

Each of these divisions, while it typifies characteristic
modes of isolation of group from group, necessarily in-
volves also a characteristic association of the members of
each group. Individual is isolated from individual, even
in the same family, as we have seen, by slight differences
of mind and body. These are the psychological and
physiological, or Organic factors of isolation. Among
them we may also consider differences of Age and of Sex.
Family is separated from Family by the barriers of Occupa-
tion, Class, and the fact of living in different houses—these
we may call the Social factors; Hamlet or Village from
other Hamlets and Villages by the geographical features
of the country—varying distance, rivers, mountain ranges,
forests, moors, or lakes, and by what we may call Political
conditions. These are the geographical factors, which, of
course, include also the Political, Social, and Organic
factors. Province is isolated from Province, and Nation
from Nation, by the same kind of factors, only they are
naturally intensified as the geographical separation becomes
greater, until this often involves the further factors of
Climate, Soil, the general mode of life, Religion, and Race

itself.
7
98 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

The wider our Social divisions, the more powerful, impor-
tant, and complete becomes the mode of isolation which is
associated with it. A community may gradually spread,
by a process of natural and steady increase in numbers,
over an immense area, until the outlying fringes of popu-
lation attain to so great a geographical severance from the
original centre that they reach an altogether different
soil and climate. These may involve a total change in
mode of life and in the whole fabric of Society, and con-
tact with new and very different races. On the other
hand, instead of the gradual spread of the population
over wide tracts of country, the same results may be more
rapidly, but just as completely, attained by a section of
the community moving off from their original seats, and
proceeding, within a comparatively short space of time, to
a remote geographical area.

It will be readily recognised that the Geographical
factors are the most powerful of all in the differentiation
of speech, since not only do they involve the complete
isolation which results from a total severance of all social
intercourse, thus including, in a very thorough form, all
that group of factors which we have called the Social
group. but they also expose the speakers to new conditions
of Soil and Climate, and all that follows therefrom, and
in this way are active in modifying the physical and
mental organization, and therefore the speech basis. As
we have repeatedly insisted, the speech basis of a people,
even when they are living under the same conditions for a
long space of time, tends to vary; but this process is
greatly hastened and intensified if the community be
subjected to such changed conditions of life and such

*

%
SOCIAL ISOLATION—CLASS DIALECTS 99

different outward surroundings as those to which it is
exposed by migration to other climes, far-distant lands,
and among alien peoples. We can observe how great are
the differences in speech in a single large town between
the different classes—the Public Services, the Professions,
Commerce in its various grades, the Artisans, the Slum-
dwellers. The isolation between these groups is Social,
partly the natural result of difference of occupation, partly,
also, due to the more artificial barriers of Class or Caste
which are closely associated therewith. Originally, prob-
ably, the same, the divisions created by Occupation and
by Class are now distinct in nature, although they cross
each other and overlap at innumerable points.

But with all its differences of dialect, the speech of one
large town, taken as a whole, may appear almost homo-
geneous, if we compare it with that of another town in the
same country which is a few hundred miles away. Such
towns as Glasgow, Liverpool, and Bristol, all possess a
number of what we may call class and occupational
dialects, but the differences between such dialects are
comparatively slight, by the side of those differences which
will appear from a comparison of the speech as a whole, in
each of the cities mentioned, with that of the others ; that
is to say, that those speakers from Glasgow who differ most
widely amongst each other, will have far more in common
in their several pronunciations, than they will have with
any speakers from Liverpool or Bristol. This statement
does not, of course, include speakers of Standard English
in these cities, whose speech is not appreciably modified
by the Regional Dialect.

The social conditions at the present time are so complex

7—2
100 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

that, apart from the inhabitants of small country villages,
practically no individual can be regarded merely as the
member of a single community. From his position in
society, the nature of his avocations, and the place of his
abode, almost every one belongs, from these different points
of view, to several communities; he is brought, with
varying degrees of intimacy, into relations with people of
every class, engaged upon all manner of employments, and
coming from widely different parts of the country. The
result is that the speech of almost every individual, unless,
indeed, as we have said, he lives continuously in one small
country village, where the social circle is extremely limited,
and where communication with the outer world is incon-
siderable and infrequent—the speech of every individual
does not represent a uniform dialect, as spoken by any
single class or community, but is, in reality, a compromise
between the characteristics of several different dialects.
Consider the case of a wealthy merchant or banker. He
spends part of his time in the city, where he associates
with persons employed in business similar to his own, some
of them his equals in education and social status, others
belonging to a different social class, and therefore, often,
to a very different speech community. Our banker or
merchant has been at a Public School, and at a University ;
he has spent, perhaps, some years in foreign travel as part
of his general training; his wealth enables him to reside in
London for part of the year, and also to live in baronial
fashion in the country for the other part. Outside his
hours of business he associates with his fellow merchant
princes, but also with men of the liberal professions, with
diplomats, members of Parliament, military men, country
SOCIAL AND LINGUISTIC CONDITIONS 101

gentlemen, peasants, and peers. It is impossible to classify
such a man merely as either a city merchant, a man about
town, a University man, or a country gentleman. He is each
and all of these in turn ; he belongs to several communities
at once, and his speech inevitably bears traces of his contact
with, and sojourn among, every one of them, though one
or other will preponderate in determining his mode of
utterance. It is probable that in the case of our hypo-
thetical merchant prince, the speech of the more dis-
tinguished classes, among whom he moves as an equal, will
to all intents and purposes be his, especially if he has been
familiar with it from childhood ; but he will not entirely
escape the influences of the other class, occupational, or
regional dialects with which he is brought into contact.
In fact, every speaker of the ‘ standard’ English dialect is
subjected to the same complex linguistic influences, and his
speech necessarily bears traces, however slight these may
be, of other forms of English, whether they be the dialect
of a class, of a province, or a blending of both. In the
same way, no provincial dialect is completely uninfluenced
by standard English on the one hand, and by neighbouring
local forms of speech on the other.

It is a remarkable thing how comparatively homogeneous
the standard English dialect actually is, and how this form
of our language may be heard, with a uniformity of pro-
nunciation and intonation in which minor differences
appear to be merged, in the mouths of the educated upper
classes in all parts of the country.

This degree of uniformity is due to the free intermixture
of all people of a certain amount of wealth, which is
rendered possible by the facilities of modern locomotion.
102 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

This process of unification is begun at those great
meeting-places for the wealthy youth of England—the
Public Schools and the older Universities.

This linguistic influence is further carried to all classes of
the population, in every nook and corner of England, by the
clergy, and to a lesser extent by the national schoolmaster.

The fact is that never, under any social conditions,
whether these be the most simple and primitive, or the
most complex imaginable, is the isolation of any group of
speakers from outside influences absolutely complete. ‘The

. members of a small linguistic group or community may—
indeed, do—enjoy a far greater frequency of intercourse
among themselves than do any of them with the members
of communities outside. In a primitive state of society it
is difficult to draw a distinction between the Homestead,
which includes the members of one family and their
dependents, and the Hamlet. But the influence of external
communities, too, must of necessity be exerted to some
extent—directly in some cases, in others indirectly. Thus,
no dialect can possibly possess absolute uniformity, for the
external influences do not affect all the members equally.
New and ‘foreign’ tendencies are acquired by some
members and not by others.

A group of families who reside in proximity, in the
same hamlet, (or even the divisions of one and the same
family) may represent so many separate communities.
The isolation of one’ such family or division from another
may not be great, but it is sufficient to allow of each being
subject to slightly different external speech influences, or
reacting in a slightly different way to the same influence.
One family may acquire this peculiarity from the speakers
RELATIVE UNIFORMITY OF SPEECH 103

of another village, while another family takes on quite
a different habit or tendency. If we took as a test the
possession, or the reverse, of these particular habits of
speech, it would be necessary to classify the two families
as forming two slightly distinct communities, speaking two
slightly different dialects. On the other hand, the points
in which there was linguistic agreement between the
families of the same village would be far in advance, in
number and degree, of those in which they differed ; so
that, bearing in mind the actual facts, we should be justified
in asserting that the dialect of the village or homestead
was uniform, in the relative sense that the members of that
particular village community showed a greater linguistic
affinity with each other, than with any other group or
groups of speakers.

It is in this qualified and relative sense, that we speak of
the uniformity and homogeneity of Primitive Aryan or
Primitive Germanic speech. We cannot conceive of any
considerable collection of human beings whose speech
should not present at least that degree of dialectal
differentiation, which must exist between the different
families or households that make up the community as
a whole. The two principles—individual variation and
collective unity—are for ever contrasted in language. As
Paul has said (Principien, p. 55), it belongs to the nature
of language, as a medium of social intercourse, that the
individual speaker should feel himself to be in agreement
with his fellows.

Divergencies which originally arise in a single family
may, in time, spread to one or more other families, and
thence to the whole tribe. If a group of closely allied
104 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

families move off from the rest of the tribe, and migrate
to a distant area, the slight peculiarities which in their
original seats differentiated their speech from that of
their fellow-tribesmen may form the starting-point for
divergencies of considerable magnitude.

It is possible that the beginnings of the dissimilar
tendencies among the various Aryan languages in the
treatment of lip-modified back consonants, and of the
‘ palatalized” or partly-fronted consonants, may have arisen
as slight dialectal divergencies within Primitive Aryan itself.

It is important to realize that the gradual dying out of
the old local dialects, which is at present going on, and the
levelling up and down of speech, throughout our own
country, to a type which appears to offer but an insig-
nificant degree of variety, is not a purely natural process.
There is no natural tendency in a language which is
already differentiated into various dialects, to become
uniform ; nor do the impulses towards divergence become
weaker with the growth of civilization, and the spread of
education. The phenomenon which we are witnessing
in England to-day, is that of one dialect being gradually
substituted for others. That such a substitution should
occur is not a new thing in the history of language; it
depends in our own case upon the prestige of the en-
croaching dialect, as well as upon social conditions. The
degree of uniformity with which the standard dialect is
spoken over a large area, depends upon the extent to which
the factors of geographical and social isolation can be
weakened. At the present day, this is undoubtedly effected
to a certain extent, partly by the mixture of classes, which
characterizes our social system, partly, also, by the great
THE DREAM OF A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE 105

development in means of communication between different
parts of the country, which has taken place during the last
fifty years, chief among which we must, of course, place
railway extension; but we must by no means disregard
the influence of the bicycle and the motor-car.

Still, it is easy to over-estimate the degree of uniformity
which exists in English speech, and a minute investigation
by a trained observer, will reveal differences which are very
real, but which easily escape the notice of the untrained ear.

The need of a uniform international language has of late
years been forcibly urged, and to-day there are probably
many thousands of persons all over Europe who can speak
Esperanto. It is interesting to speculate as to the
probable future of this movement. From what we know
concerning the changes of languages, it seems probable
that if this artificial language were really to become
firmly established in all the civilized countries of the world,
it could not long retain a sufficient degree of uniformity,
either in structure, or in pronunciation, to serve the purpose
for which it was originally created. At the present
moment, there is a conventional pronunciation which can
be approximately acquired, with fair ease, by the natives of
most countries. But, already, every speaker must neces-
sarily modify the sounds in a certain way, in accordance
with the speech basis of his mother-tongue. Thus an
Englishman will diphthongize (3) and (é) to (ow) and (ce) ;
a Russian will make 6 into (5)—that is, low-back-tense-
round; a Swede will either over-round this sound, (6), till
the effect produced upon foreign ears is that of (i), or will
attempt to reproduce it by (0). Again, such a sound as
(a), = high-back-tense-round, will be made by the Swede
106 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

into the high-flat-tense-round or the mid-back-tense-
over-rounded, and by the Frenchman into a high-back-
tense-round with considerable advancing of the tongue; a
Welshman will make (6) and (é@) into (9) and (é), and so on.
This for a beginning. But when once the language has been
learnt, and has become a traditional form of speech, as is
presumably hoped by those who advocate its use, its sounds
will develop on different lines in every country, since, as
they will be identical with the corresponding sounds in the
native language, they will, of course, follow precisely the
same path of change as that which these pursue. Thus
we should expect that in a few generations Esperanto will
be different in each country, so far as the sounds are
concerned. Added to the difficulty of diffusing a uniform
sound system among widely-separated peoples, each speak-
ing a distinct language of their own, we must further
consider the equally formidable difficulty of preserving a
uniform system of accent, including thereunder both stress
and intonation. Frenchmen will never, as a nation, acquire
a system of strong stress on certain syllables of words,
with weak stresses on the others, such as exists in Italian
or the Germanic languages. A very slight error in the
distribution of stress is sufficient to make a word unin-
telligible. The present writer has repeatedly heard a
Frenchman pronounce the word ‘literature’ (litératjir)
instead of (I¢tarat{a) or (Iftret{s), with the result that a
group of Englishmen who were present, were completely
baffled as to what he meant. The same Frenchman also
spoke of the works of (bernért{au), whom the writer took
to be a Chinese author, until it appeared from the con-
versation that Mr. Bernard Shaw (banad{s) was referred to.
POSSIBILITIES OF ESPERANTO 107

It is difficult, at present, to see how divergencies of this
kind can be avoided, in the pronunciation of Esperanto ;
and if they exist, not only will the new language
lack uniformity from the beginning, but the subsequent
divergencies in the different countries will be all the
greater from the fact that the starting-points will be
diverse to begin with, and the tendencies which mould the
future destinies of the various forms will be different in
each case. It may be argued that the facilities of inter-
national communication are rapidly developing, that the
geographical isolation between even the mutually remotest
countries of the world will, in time, be no more insuperable
than that between the North and South of England at the
present day, or again, that the increased use of telephonic
communication may make it as easy to converse with a man
in St. Petersburg as with one in the same room. We must
admit that progress in the utilization of steam, electricity,
and mechanical contrivances generally, has done much,
and will doubtless do yet more, to break down the isola-
tion imposed by distance; but this can never wholly
disappear—nothing can ever make social intercourse
between persons who habitually live hundreds of thousands
of miles from each other, as easy, intimate, and frequent as
that between individuals living in the same village, or
between communities separated only by a few miles of road
or rail. Thus, while the differentiation of language may
become increasingly slow, the process must always continue.

The general structure, the word-order, and form of the
sentence in such an artificial language as Esperanto must
of necessity be profoundly affected in the different centres
in which it is cultivated, by the native idiom, since there
108 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

are no models, as in the case of Latin, to serve as guides.
Latin is no longer susceptible of development, so long as
the classical models are followed ; it is crystallized once for
all, and any departure from the old usage is jealously
avoided. Nevertheless, in the Medieval Latinity the
language is so far a living and traditional instrument of
expression, that it was variously affected by the native
dialects of the different countries where it was written, so
far as structure and idiom are concerned. Immutability
in speech is inconceivable, so long as it remains a living
expression of thought and emotion, which has its roots in
the national consciousness. A language can only cease
to change, when it has ceased to live. Change is the
necessary penalty which is paid for life, by any form of
speech. If Esperanto, so it would appear, ever becomes
a living language, it will change, and change in different
ways among different groups of human beings. In this
case it will no longer serve as a means of international
communication. In fact, this purpose can only be realized
if Esperanto never actually quickens, but always remains
a mere artificial and lifeless collection of words, pro-
nounced according to carefully-drawn rules (which must
be learnt afresh by each speaker, and rigidly adhered to),
and built up into sentences according to rules upon which
all the Esperantists must agree. In this case, doubtless,
it will be possible for students from all parts of the world
to hold with each other a kind of restricted intercourse
both by word of mouth and in writing. The interesting
and curious point will be, that from time to time, the
natural developments, which are bound to creep in with
extensive usage, will need to be deliberately suppressed by
CONDITIONS OF DIFFERENTIATION—SUMMARY 109

congress after congress, as the heresies of the early Church
were by the Councils.

Such is what might be expected, from what we know of
the differentiation of language, to happen to Esperanto, as
to any other living form of speech, which has a wide
geographical diffusion.

In the last chapter we dealt with the way in which the
language of an individual changes, and also discussed
briefly the various determining causes of sound change
which various writers have suggested. The present chapter
has been an attempt to show how, when factors come into
play which bring a group of individuals into close social
relationship with each other, and at the same time cut
them off from other groups of speakers, sound change,
which is natural and inevitable, in the speech of all groups,
yet takes place in each group along lines more or less
different. It has been said that the origin of this differen-
tiation, was the fact that in each group of speakers a different
set of tendencies gets the upper hand, while each group
also, unconsciously, eliminates on different principles. The
various interplay of individual tendencies produces, in each
community, a net result which is special and characteristic.

The relative agreement and homogeneity in the speech
of the members of the same community was attributed to
the unconscious subordination and elimination of idiosyn-
crasies, and the approximation by the individual of his
speech to that of the average of the community. It has
been further repeatedly pointed out that the line of develop-
ment followed by the pronunciation of a community, is
determined by the particular line of gradual shifting of the
110 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

speech basis, and this in its turn is the result of a combina-
tion of those general factors already referred to. A few
words may be in place here as to the part which these
factors play in the speech of the community considered as
an association of individuals. It is well to observe that
a given set of factors—the Climatic or the Occupational—
may, and often do, affect, directly, and equally, all the
individuals of a community; but it must not be forgotten
that this is not necessarily the case. In the case where
the modifying influences of occupation, for instance, act
directly, and to the same degree, upon a whole group of
individuals it is natural to expect that the results, allow-
ing, of course, for the differences of individual temperament
and organization, so often insisted upon, will be the same
for all—that is, that the whole group will undergo the
same kind of modification of the speech basis.

On the other hand, it must be remembered that the
modifying factors may operate by affecting only a few
individuals of a group directly, and that the results of this
direct influence upon their speech may, through social inter-
course, gradually spread to all the other members, although
the majority of them have never been directly exposed to
that particular source of modification which induces the
change in the speech basis. Thus, in the speech of the
individual, it is possible, theoretically, to distinguish on
the one hand, those alterations of his speech basis which
are the result of the direct modification of his habits of
speech, or of the actual organs themselves, by external
factors, such as occupation, climate, etc.; and on the
other those which he acquires by the unconscious
imitation of other speakers. A single individual might,
SPREADING OF SOUND CHANGES 111

under favourable conditions, be the originator of far-
reaching modifications in the speech basis of a large
community. For this to come about it would be neces-
sary that the peculiarity gained ground, in the first
instance, in a very restricted community, such as a family
in which the individual, perhaps as father or chief, had
considerable influence. Thence the change might easily
affect an ever-widening circle. ‘The smaller the social
circle involved, and the more limited its relations with
larger divisions of society, the less chance there is of the
purely individual peculiarities being swamped and elimi-
nated by the speech of the majority. Such considerations
bring home to us how complex may be the question of the
rise of this or that departure in a language from the
former speech habit; since, although, by the time a
linguistic phenomenon comes under the observation of
science, it may be wide-spread, and appear in a whole
family of languages, it may, nevertheless, have had its
origin in a remote past, in some obscure and subtle
influence exerted upon a very small speech community.

It is probable that in the history of a language different
groups of factors co-operate, with varying force, at different
periods—now one group predominate in influence, now
another. But at present our analysis of causes does not
enable us to do more than suggest in a general way, the
probable nature of the modifying factors at work ; we are
for the most part unable to see the precise connection
between the effects which we chronicle, and any specific one
of the possible causes which may have produced them.

Before concluding this chapter, it may be appropriate
to say something of the conception of ‘ Laws of Sound
112 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

Change,’ ‘ Phonetic Laws, or ‘Sound Laws, as they are
variously called, which plays so important a part in modern
historical linguistic study.

The phrase is used to express several slightly different
ideas, but, reduced to the simplest form, a sound law is
merely a statement of the observed facts of pronunciation
of a given language at a particular period. The state-
ment that at the present day in the South of England the
r-sounds have no trill, but are varieties of a weak point-
Open consonant, is a sound law. ‘This is the simplest
form of sound law. Again, we may state more precisely
the phonetic conditions within the word or sentence, under
which a sound occurs at a certain period in the history of
a language, as when we say that the definite article in
English has the vowel (1) when stressed: ‘he is the one man
I want to see’ (hi 2z 61 wan men ai wont ta si)—(é) when
unstressed, before a word beginning with a vowel ; (2) when
unstressed, before a consonant. Both forms are shown in
‘the earth is the Lord’s’ (8% Ap iz 3a l5dz). If we compare
the form of a word in more than one period of the same
language, we often note that the sound which was pro-
nounced in the earlier has been replaced by another sound
in the later period. The statement that O.H.G (ii) has
‘become,’ or been replaced by, (aw) in Mod. H.G.—e.g.,
O.H.G. mis, Mod. Ger. maus—is a sound law which is
revealed by historical grammar. Lastly, we apply the
term ‘sound law’ to the facts of differentiation revealed
by the comparison of the forms of the same word in more
than one cognate language. The result of comparing
Sanscrit satam, ‘hundred,’ Gk. éxatov, Lat. centwm, Gothic
hund, Lithuanian szimtas, is that we can formulate the
THE IMPORTANCE OF PHONOLOGY 113

law that a certain original sound, which we will for the
moment call 2, has become § (§) in Sert., # in Gk. and
Lat., h (=x) in Gmce., sz (=§) in Lithuanian.

This inquiry into the particular series of substitution of
sounds, or ‘sound changes,’ which occur in languages at a
given moment in their life-history is a very important
part of the modern science of language in its historical
and comparative aspects. This branch of inquiry, known
as Phonological investigation, is at the base of all scientific
linguistic study; and the reason for this is obvious when we
reflect that unless we know the habits and tendencies to
change which characterize a language, or family of languages,
we cannot identify, with any degree of certainty, the same
word in the various forms it may assume in different ages
and in different languages. Until we can take this pre-
liminary step, we cannot profitably compare the forms of
one language with the cognate forms in another. We
could not know that Irish iasc was cognate with Latin
piscis and with English fish, unless we knew from other
sources that, initial p is lost in Celtic, but becomes /
in Gme.

We have repeatedly insisted in this and the foregoing
chapters, that change in language takes place unconsciously
—that there is nothing arbitrary or whimsical about it.
It has been said that each speaker can diverge to a certain
extent from the norm in pronunciation without the diver-
gence being apparent to himself or his fellows. This
means that every speaker has a certain group of slight
varieties of sound, upon which he rings the changes, all
of which, in his consciousness, to his muscular sensations,

and to his sense of hearing, represent one and the same
8
114 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

sound, Every time he utters a word containing a particu-
lar sound, he produces one or other of the varieties which
represent his conception of the sound. He may utter now
this, now that variety, but he does not go outside the
limits imposed by his powers of discrimination of sound
and sensation. We may say, therefore, with the above
qualification, that the speaker will always pronounce the
same sound in the same way. What is true of the
individual is true also of the community; and, with
qualifications of the kind just made, we may assert
that, in a given community, at a given period, the
same sound will be pronounced in the same way, when-
ever it occurs under the same conditions—that is, unless
it be affected by the neighbouring sounds in word or
sentence.

This is what is meant by the statement, which the
school of Leskien, Brugmann, Osthoff, Paul, and Sievers
_ have raised into a cardinal axiom of method, that ‘ sound
laws admit of no exceptions.’ When apparent exceptions
are found it means either—(1) That there are combinative
factors at work which we have omitted from our calcula-
tion — that is, that the sound is affected by other
sounds in the same word, or sentence, or by accent.
(2) That the particular word in which the apparent excep-
tion occurs, contains a sound which is in reality different
in origin, or which has been earlier differentiated from
the other sounds with which we had classified it.
Cases (1) and (2) necessitate the restatement of our
law, or the formulation of a new law, as the case may
be. (3) A word may be borrowed from another dialect
or language, in which it is pronounced in a different
INADMISSIBILITY OF ‘ EXCEPTIONS’ 115

way from the ordinary form in the native dialect. ‘Ex-
ceptions’ of this order are found in all dialects, which
is what we should expect from what has been said
with regard to the influence constantly exerted by one
dialect upon another. In standard or literary dialects
loan-forms from a variety of dialects are particularly fre-
quent. In fact, most literary forms of speech are, to a
great extent, artificial products, and represent rather a
mixture of elements from several dialects, than any one
uniform dialect. Hence a literary language is a far less
favourable field for the observation of the laws of the
evolution of speech, than an unwritten peasant dialect.
(4) The apparent exception may be a form which has
not developed by the ordinary processes of sound change
from an older form, but due to the Analogy of another
form in the same grammatical category, or with which
some mental association has been formed. The question
of Analogy will be dealt with subsequently.

Having regard to the above facts, the mutual influence
of dialects upon each other, and the consequent absence of
absolute uniformity of speech, except within the narrowest
limits of small communities,—while even here there are
the ‘dialects’ of the individuals to be reckoned with,—
it is clear that any statement that such and such a sound
becomes such and such another, at a given period in a.
given dialect, can only be an approximation to the actual
facts. Thus, when we say that the eighteenth-century
English vowel (®) became (@) in the standard English of the
next century—e.g., eighteenth-century (pzst, l#f, p&p)=
present-day (past, laf, pap)—we select a particular average

type from among several varieties of pronunciation. If
8—2
116 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

we were to examine the pronunciation of these words by
a hundred Englishmen at the present day, all from more
or less the same class, and who had received the same
kind of education, we might possibly find a dozen or more
slightly different vowels among them, all of which might
be roughly classified as varieties of long (@), while some
of the number might possibly retain some form of the
eighteenth-century vowel. The individual varieties of
the first class would come under our law, while the others
would be classed as dialectal variants, due to the influence
of provincial forms of speech, in which the law did not
obtain—that is, in which the change of (#) to (a) had
not taken place. A full and complete history of a
language would involve an account of the speech of every
individual.

In the spelling of Middle English many dialectal
varieties of pronunciation, and doubtless also of individual
peculiarities, are expressed; but in a highly-cultivated
literary language the spelling is usually crystallized, and
expresses merely a general average of the extant pronun-
ciations, the same symbol being used by ‘correct’ writers
without regard to differences. Thus we must be prepared
to admit that such symbols as Greek ow, Latin @, Gothic
ai, which, for practical purposes of philological statement
and investigation, we consider as representing severally the
same sound, (6, U, a) respectively, with perfect consistency,
may in reality have been conventionally used, in the same
words, by writers whose pronunciation differed more or less
considerably. In all cases, however, until a spelling has
become absolutely fixed, like that of classical Greek and
Latin or Modern English, it is safe to assume that the use
INDIVIDUAL DIVERSITY 117

of the symbol is fairly consistent, and that it expresses,
at the worst, a group of closely-related varieties of
sound.

So much stress has been laid upon the varieties which
exist in what is treated for scientific purposes as a unity—
namely, that group of individual dialects which we call a
single language, or homogeneous dialect—because these
differences, although they are not lost sight of by philo-
logical scholars when they assert that the laws of sound
change admit of no exceptions, and speak of ‘ uniform’
languages and dialects, are yet very apt to be totally
ignored by less experienced students, to the great detriment
of method, and obscuring of ideas. Each individual, we
must remember, pronounces the same sound, whenever it
occurs, according to the character of his speech basis,
and what is true of the individual is true also of
the community. The net result of the regularity and
consistency of individual habit and tendency, is con-
sistency of general tendency in such a collection of
individual dialects as goes to make up what we call a
language.

With these considerations as a background of our con-
sciousness, we may accept the statement that sound laws
admit of no exceptions. Unless this were true, if,
indeed, sound change were the result of chance or of
whim, then, as Leskien said years ago (Deklination im
Slavisch und Deutsch, 1877, p. xxviii), language, the
subject of our investigations, would be incapable of
scientific treatment, and there could be no science of
language.

Sound laws are not of the nature of natural laws, since
118 DIFFERENTIATION OF LANGUAGE

they have not a universal application to human language
in general, but only hold good of a specific dialect at a
given time. A sound law is merely a statement of a fact,
or a sequence of facts, but does not include a statement
of general conditions, under which these are bound to
occur, nor an indication of the universal causes of the

phenomena which are recorded.
CHAPTER VI
LINGUISTIC CONTACT

WE have already seen how the speech of each individual
within a given community presents certain characteristic
personal peculiarities. Every individual speaker affects,
and is affected by, the speech of every other speaker with
whom he comes into contact. Similarly, the language of
a small community influences, and is influenced by, the
dialects, more or less closely related, of neighbouring
communities.

This process of action and reaction of one form of speech
upon another goes on wherever two or more individuals
or communities are brought into social relations with
each other. If it is traceable in the case of communities
whose forms of speech are closely related, or are merely
dialects of the same language, the effect produced by
widely different, or totally unrelated languages, upon each
other, is still more considerable.

The contact between two languages may be either direct,
by personal intercourse between the speakers, or indirect,
through the medium of literature. Direct contact comes
about on the frontiers of two speech areas; by the trans-
ference of considerable communities among foreign races,
either by a peaceful migration and settlement or through

119
120 LINGUISTIC CONTACT

warlike invasion ; or, again, by means of individuals who
travel among foreign speakers, and sojourn for a greater
or less period in another country.

The larger the number of speakers between whom and
the foreign speakers contact exists, the greater the influence
upon both languages. Colonization and conquest offer
the most favourable conditions for linguistic contact on a
considerable scale, provided that the new race does not
drive out or exterminate the old. When two races live
side by side, each preserving their own language, but, from
the necessities of life, compelled to know, or at least to
understand, that of the other to a certain extent, as in
the case of the Scandinavians in England, who were first
piratical invaders, then settlers, the influence of each
language upon the other is likely to be profound. Under
such conditions, there grows up in time, a large section, in
both communities, which is bi-lingual. Perhaps at last
the condition of bi-lingualism is reached by practically all
speakers in each community. When this happens, one or
other of the languages will gradually die out. The ques-
tion of which community surrenders its language, will be
determined by various social, intellectual, and other condi-
tions. Intermarriage welds the two races into one, and the
speech which survives as the language of the community,
bears traces of that which has died out. ‘The language
which has gone under, may leave traces of its existence
upon the pronunciation, the vocabulary, and the general
structure of the language.

We have already pointed out that when a language is
acquired by foreigners, the original pronunciation is never
perfectly preserved, owing to the difference of the speech-
DIRECT INFLUENCE—SOUNDS AND VOCABULARY 121

bases. Although, here and there, an isolated individual
may be able to speak two languages with equal perfection
of pronunciation, this is impossible in the case of a large
bi-lingual community. The speech basis of the native
tongue is transferred to the newly-acquired language, and,
as a result, the sounds of the latter undergo considerable
modification, In the case where the native speech is
acquired by the incoming race, it is maintained that the
modification of this is far less than that which follows
from the adoption of the immigrant language by the
original inhabitants of a country (cf. Wechsler, Gibt es
Lautgesetze ? p. 97). The adoption of English by the
Normans illustrates the former, that of the Romance
languages by Teutons and Celts the latter.

The incorporation of any considerable proportion of
foreign elements, into the vocabulary of a language, implies
a certain amount of bi-lingualism—at least, for a time. A
bi-lingual speaker will often introduce foreign words when
speaking his own language, and vice versd. At first, the
words thus introduced from one language into another,
are, chiefly, the designations of ideas or objects which are
familiar to one people, but not to the other. The first
reason for such loans is the actual necessity which is felt,
to express a given conception, or to indicate some object
for which no name exists in the language in use at the
moment. The fact of a people possessing no name for a
natural product does not imply any inferiority, though this
may be inferred, up to a certain point, when the word
borrowed is the name of some object of industry. On the
other hand, the necessity of borrowing words which express
ethical, religious, or political conceptions, most certainly
122 LINGUISTIC CONTACT

denotes inferiority of moral and civil development, on the
part of those who are compelled to seek their mode of
expression from foreign sources. As a rule the new word
is adopted at the same time as the idea, or the object
which it denotes.

There are two ways of enriching the vocabulary of a
language, when the need for this arises from the introduc-
tion of fresh ideas, or new products of human ingenuity :
one, that which we have hitherto been considering, by in-
corporating new material from another tongue ; the other,
by adapting and combining elements of the native vocabu-
lary, on the model of the foreign name. An example of
this is the German vaterland or the Russian otichestvo
(atitSestvo), which are translations of the Latin patria.

The introduction of foreign elements into a language in
the first instance, usually starts, as we have seen, with an
individual who is master of both tongues. In employing
a foreign word, the individual has no intention to intro-
duce a permanent element into the vocabulary: he merely
supplies the necessity of the moment. For a word to
become permanently fixed in a language, it is a necessary
condition, as a rule, that it should be repeatedly used,
and that it should be used spontaneously from several
centres within the community. Foreign words gain a foot-
ing gradually. At first they are only used among a small
group of individuals who are closely associated together
by class, occupation, or nearness of geographical con-
tiguity. Thence they may spread to other groups of a
similar nature, and finally to the whole community.
Some words may never come into general use, but may
always be confined to the upper grades of the community.
LOAN-WORDS AND FOREIGN SOUNDS 123

By the time a foreign element has passed into general
usage, it is no longer felt to be an alien, but has become
part and parcel of the native language.

A foreign word generally gains currency in a form as
near to the original as the natural pronunciation of the
community permits. It is very rare that a word retains
a sound which does not exist in the language into which
it is borrowed. Still, foreign sounds are occasionally intro-
duced into a language in isolated words, as, for instance,
the initial (z) of génte which is pronounced by the educated
German, or the nasalized vowel in the French envelope
which still survives in the pronunciation of some English
speakers. Such foreign sounds, however, are confined to
the more cultivated classes of a community, and in general
use, the nearest sound in the native speech is substituted
for them.

The original stress of foreign words is preserved long
after their sounds have been replaced by the native
sounds, Thus, while the numerous Norman-French words
in Chaucer contain but few vowel or consonantal sounds
which do not also occur in native English words, the
original accent still persists in many, by the side however,
of another form in which the accent is on the first syllable,
as in English words—e.g., vertie (Fr.), vértue (Eng.),
licotr and licour, etc.*

* Sounds which do not occur in native English words, but which
were maintained in French loan-words, are : (01) in joie, jointe, etc. ;
(at) probably still pronounced with slight nasalization in Chaucer’s
day in chaunce, chaunge, etc. (t{aiinse, t{aéndze). Among con-
sonants, the combination (dz) does not occur initially in English
words, although common in Norman French: juge, gentil (dzydze,
dzentil), etc.
124 LINGUISTIC CONTACT

The Norman words which are found in English, won
their way in through the prolonged direct, and intimate
contact of the two races, which led to a final amalgama-
tion. As the Normans were scattered throughout the
length and breadth of the country, they affected all
dialects equally. The Scandinavian invaders and settlers,
on the other hand, were confined to certain districts. In
those districts where they settled, the two races and the
two languages were gradually fused ; here the contact was
direct and intimate. But the Scandinavian elements are
not found in equal numbers in all dialects. In those
dialects which had no direct contact with Scandinavian
speech these elements are scanty, and when they exist,
have spread from other areas where the influence of the
Northmen was directly exercised. Thus foreign influence
may pass indirectly to speakers who have had no direct
contact with the alien race, through the medium of other
speakers of their own blood, with whom the foreigners
came into direct relation.

Still more attenuated, is the influence which one language
may exert upon another through travellers, or others who
spend some time in foreign countries, and then return to
their own country, bringing accounts of strange customs
or institutions, or articles of native industry. Many
Indian words have passed into English through the inter-
mediary of our civil and military officials. These words
gain currency partly by means of literature, partly through
direct contact of Anglo-Indians with their countrymen.
The number of persons, among the governing classes in
England, who have no connection with India through
members of their family, or their friends is small, so that
SUBSTITUTION OF SOUND—INDIRECT INFLUENCE 125

probably a very large number of Indian words have become
known to the upper classes of Englishmen, by word of
mouth, from persons who acquired them direct from Indian
speakers. On the other hand, the same words are known
to other sections of the community in this country, only
in their written form, from books and newspapers. Such
words will be pronounced by the former class of persons
with an approximation to their Indian form, and are thus
in the same position as words acquired by direct contact ;
by the latter class, however, for whom they have never
been living elements of a spoken language, they are uttered.
according to the nearest interpretation of the written
symbols in harmony with their ordinary English values.
Of course, as India and its institutions become more and
more widely and directly known, the traditional pro-
nunciation of Indian words obtains an ever-increasing
diffusion.

The changes in pronunciation which words undergo in
the process of their direct incorporation from living
foreign languages, are in the nature of instantaneous
substitution of the nearest native sound for the unfamiliar
foreign sound. What are known as Acoustic changes, or
changes due to faulty imitation, occur chiefly in foreign
words. When once a word has been incorporated and
thoroughly acclimatized, so that it is no longer felt as
other than part of the language, it shares in all the changes
of pronunciation which take place in the language.

We have now briefly to consider the influence of one
language upon another as exerted through literature. When
a foreign word gains a footing in a language, not from a
living spoken tongue, but from one which is no longer spoken,
126 LINGUISTIC CONTACT

which is dead, the only possible source from which it can
come, is the written remains of the language as preserved
in literature. The great culture languages of Greek and
Latin have contributed, and continue to contribute, a
large proportion of the vocabularies of every European
language. Only next in importance, from this point of
view is French, which, from the early Middle Age down
to the present day, has been regarded as the chief vehicle
among the modern languages of all that is distinguished
and polite in Art and Letters. In the case of a living
language, however, it is difficult to draw the line of dis-
tinction between influence which comes purely through
the written form, and that which may be exerted directly
by the uttered speech upon some individual or group, and
which has spread from them, by word of mouth and by
means of the pen, into the language of life and of
literature. In the case of words borrowed from dead
languages, however, there can be no doubt. Words from
such a source acquire the sounds which in every respect
are normal and natural in the language into which they
are taken.

Many words borrowed from Latin into English are, and
remain essentially, ‘learned’ as distinct from ‘ popular’
words—that is to say, they belong to the language of
books, and not to that of everyday life. We do not learn
them as children in the ordinary course of social relations
with our fellows, but acquire them later from our school-
master or our school-books.

But many words which had a ‘ learned’ origin pass, in the
course of time, into universal usage in the language of every-
day life ; they are no longer felt as grand, important words,
LEARNED AND POPULAR WORDS—ARCHAISMS 127

but express homely and familiar things or ideas. They cease
to be ‘learned,’ and become popular. It has been well
pointed out that ‘ the true distinction between a “learned”
and a “popular” word depends not upon etymology, but
upon usage” (cf. Greenough and Kittredge, Words and
their Ways in English Speech, p. 29). Such words as
disaster, contradict, humour, are examples from among
many, of words of distinctly learned origin, which are
now in everybody’s mouth. Telephone, Telegraph, Phono-
graph, which are modern concoctions from the Greek,
have come to be, owing to the progress of scientific and
practical discovery, among the commonest words, just as
the inventions which they designate are among the most
familiar objects of modern life.

Another form of the process of borrowing words from
a dead language is the revival of archaisms, or even of
words which are completely obsolete, from earlier phases of
the native language. his process is essentially artificial,
and the old-new words rarely pass beyond the pages of
the works in which their new birth takes place. At best,
such revivals survive only in the mannered writing, or the
painful and studied utterances of an individual, or of a
literary clique.
CHAPTER VII
ANALOGY

Tue power of variously inflecting words in order to express
different shades of thought and syntactic relations, comes
naturally, in speaking a language of which we have even a
moderate command. But such a power of ‘ correctly’ form-
ing adverbs from adjectives, of expressing past action, or ~
plurality, or possession, does not depend upon the capacity
of calling up the recollection of every individual form which
is used. No human memory is stored with the past tenses
of every verb which the speaker uses, with the comparative
of every adjective, with the plural of every noun.

Nor is this necessary, for in the moment of utterance
the formative element. required, rises naturally in the mind
of the speaker, although he may have no recollection of
ever having heard it in that precise combination in which
he is using it. The speaker, in fact, remakes for himself
the conjugations of verbs, the declension of nouns, and so
on, by the ‘correct’ use of certain formative suffixes. Were
an effort of memory required in each instance, fluent and
rapid speech would be impossible.

The fact is that comparatively few types remain in the
memory, and from these the rest of the forms which the

speaker uses are generalized, are made according to the
128
@
‘RIGHT’ OR ‘WRONG’ FORMS 129

model of those forms which actually are stored in the
memory. This process is known as Analogy. Certain
formative suffixes are associated in our minds with certain
syntactic functions, and, as occasion demands, these in-
flexional elements, rise quite naturally into the conscious-
ness, along with the shades of thought and meaning with
which they are associated.

Analogy, and not memory for individual forms, is the
natural process which takes place in the course of living
utterance. The greater number of forms produced by
this process are—allowing, of course, for the changes in
sound which have occurred—identical with those which the
same process called into existence at earlier periods of the
language—that is to say, they are historically ‘ correct.’
But in some cases new associations have been formed,
so that the forms which a given generation of speakers,
habitually, and naturally, call into existence in speaking,
may differ from those which the speakers of earlier periods
were in the habit of using.

The question of whether a form is ‘ right” or ‘ wrong,’
is decided by the speech habit of the community at the
time being. Forms in general use are ‘correct,’ those
which are not in use are ‘ wrong.”

An important point to bear in mind, however, is that,
whether a form produced by a given speaker, by the
process we are discussing, be ‘right’ or * wrong,’ in the
sense in which we have just defined these terms, the actual
process whereby the form is created, is the same in all
cases. If a speaker makes use of a form which he has
created according to some type which he has in his mind,
but which is * wrong’ in the sense of not being the one in

2
e
130 ANALOGY

general use in the speech community of which he is a
member, this arises from the fact that for some reason or
other his associations, in this particular case, are different
from those of the community at large.

The history of every language abounds with forms which
are new departures from an earlier habit, and which are
due to the formation of new association groups within the
minds of the speakers of the generation which gave them
birth. Words are associated in the mind, in groups,
according to three main principles: their general affinity
of meaning; identity of grammatical function ; similarity
of form. When more than one basis of association exists
between a group of words, the association is doubly strong.

Examples of association by virtue of general affinity
of meaning are—Natural Relationships: Father, Mother,
Brother, Sister; the names of the seasons of the year :
Spring, Summer, etc. ; names of animals: (a) Wild Animals:
Lion, Tiger; (b) Domestic Animals: Cat, Dog, Sheep,
Oxen. In the same way we connect all the cases of an
inflected substantive, all the persons and tenses of a verb,
and so on. From this point of view, every word in the
language naturally falls, in the mind of the speaker, into
a group of words, linked together, more or less closely, by
a general association of meaning. Such natural groups
we may call association groups.

The second class of association groups, the members of
which are linked together in our consciousness, are those
whose basis of association is their community of gram-
matical or syntactical function. In this way are connected
all plurals of substantives—dogs, boys, trees, ete.—which
agree further in expressing the idea of plurality by the
BASES OF ASSOCIATION—GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION 1831

same formative element. Even when this is not the case,
and when the idea of plurality is expressed by different
means, as in mice, houses, children, the association, though
looser, still exists. Similarly, while all adverbs are asso-
ciated as possessing a common function, the relations are
of various degrees of closeness. In the most general way,
simply as adverbs, hardly, well, here, are associated. But
we can distinguish more intimately related groups of
adverbs, such as adverbs of manner—hardly, bitterly, well,
il. Of these, the first two are peculiarly closely associated
in possessing the same formative suffix—ly, and the last
two have the further association of antithesis. Again, we
may make an intimate group of adverbs of place—here,
there, everywhere, and so on.

Passing to verbal forms, all preterites are associated in
that they express the idea of past action—placed, told,
rang, went, came. Within the large group of preterites,
however, the weak past tenses, the strong past tenses, and
the weak past tenses with change of vowel, form so many
smaller and more closely related groups of association.
Thus gave, came, wrote, are more nearly associated with
each other than they are with sent, charmed, and so on.
In the case of strong verbs there are small groups which
have the same vowel sequence—sing, sang, sung; ring,
rang, rung.

In speech, the way in which a past tense of a verb is
formed, depends upon the associations which exist in the
speaker’s mind. Thus, if a speaker had the association
groups sing’, sang, sung, ring, rang, rung, and fling, with
past part. flung, he might quite naturally form a preterite
*flang instead of flung. It would be incorrect to describe

9—2
132 ANALOGY

such a process as ‘false’ analogy, as is sometimes done.
The actual process is ‘ correct” enough, although the result
in this case is a form not commonly employed. The speaker
who makes such a form, merely shows that he has not the
past tense of fling in his memory, and that he forms one
on the pattern of two other past tenses which happen. to
be the received forms. The ‘correct’ speaker who has
heard the received form flung, has grown to isolate the
word from the class of verbs which have the sequence of
three vowels, and to form an association between it and
such verbs as stick, stuck, and so on.

Whenever a speaker uses a form which strikes us as
* wrong ’—that, is unusual—we may be sure that there is
some reason for it ; and the interesting thing is to discover
the precise association which exists in the speaker’s mind.
If the association is different from that which exists in our
mind, then the application of the principle of analogy,
itself essentially the same in all cases, will lead to a
different result.

The question of which is the ‘regular’ type within
a, given speech community depends partly upon the number
of words which form the association group, and partly
upon the frequency of occurrence. Sweet has pointed
out (New Engl. Gr., § 538) that in colloquial language
only common words, as a rule, present * exceptional’ forms.
The plural men could never have been preserved had it
been a word but rarely used. It is one of those isolated
words which are, as it were, specially learnt at.a very early
age by constant repetition. But if the word man became
obsolete, or fell into infrequent use, it is inevitable that
we should form the plural according to the pattern of the
LEVELLING UNDER COMMONEST TYPE 133

thousands of other words in English which have -s-plurals.
Young children, whose knowledge of, and experience in,
the language is slight, constantly make such mistakes as
‘ foots,” ‘ tooths,’ ‘oxes,’ and so on, simply because they
‘have not learnt that these words are isolated from the vast
majority of words which take -s-plurals.

Even in the case of common words, the attraction of
larger groups often proves too strong, and the ‘ exceptional ’
forms tend to disappear. Thus we now say books, and in
the standard language at any rate, cows, although O.E. had
béé, which would have produced ‘ beech’ in Mod. Eng., and
cy, which would have given ‘ ky’ (kat), which latter form,
indeed, persists in Scotland and in some English dialects.
Hence, it is frequently necessary to assume some additional
association in order to explain the retention in Mod. Eng.
of forms which differ from the common type. The O.E.
neuter plural scéap (Angl. scép) persists in the modern
plural ‘sheep’; and here we may perhaps assume an associa-
tion with ‘flock’ or ‘herd,’ and regard a ‘flock of sheep’ as
a kind of collective noun in which the individual animals
are lost sight of. Another inevitable association of ‘sheep’
is with ‘ cattle. We may contrast this view of sheep, en
masse, with that of ‘dambs and their dams, when the com-
parative isolation of the individual mothers scattered over
a field, with their offspring skipping round them, and the
plurality of the individuals is forcibly brought home to
the spectator.

A curious case is that of the plural jish applied chiefly
to an article of diet, when the association is probably with
‘flesh’ or ‘food.’ This is a new plural, since the O.E.
form was fiscas, and therefore demands the assumption of
134 ANALOGY

some new association such as that suggested. The form
Jishes, the descendant of the old plural, is applied more
usually to the living creatures, especially when enume-
rating, or dealing with different species, as in the title of
Couch’s famous book on British Fishes.

Words which constantly occur in the same phrase are

often: so closely associated in the mind that one suggests

the other. Such pairs are: male and female; king and
queen ; mother and father ; here, there, and everywhere ; and
so on. The reason, in the first place, for these phrases
is that an intimate association of meaning exists between
the words thus linked together. The result of such associa-
tion is that the words influence each other formally. The
word female is from an Old French femelle, Latin fémella,
which normally would appear in Mod. Eng., as (fimel),
a form heard in Scotch ; but the association with male has
influenced the second syllable, until many speakers believe
the word to be a form of male with a prefix: hence the
still further popular new formation ‘ shemale, used
jocularly.

In Scotch king is pronounced with a short, tense (i), the
origin of which can scarcely be other than its association
with queen (Scotch kwin). Mother in O.E. was médor,
and the d continued into late M.E. The modern (8) is
undoubtedly due to the association with brother, O.E.
brésor, where the (8) is original. The association between
these two words is twofold—they both are names for
family relationships, and they both have, and have always
had, the same vowel. When once the open consonant
was established in mother, this word influenced the word
father, which in O.E. is feeder and in M.E. fader and fader.
ISOLATION FROM ORIGINAL ASSOCIATION-GROUP 185

The pronunciations (Sir, wir) for there and where are
established for the eighteenth century (cf. Ellis, Early
English Pronunciation, p. 104), and the same pronuncia-
tion of these words occurs in many popular dialects of the
present day (cf. Wright’s English Dialect Grammar, under
there and where in Index). It can hardly be doubted that
we have here, not a normal phonetic development, but the
result of the association of there and where with here, in
which word the (i) has arisen by regular sound change:
(O.E. hér, but hwér, pér).

A group of words of cognate origin are sometimes so far
differentiated in form by different phonetic conditions that
they cease to be felt as etymologically identical. In this case
we say that a word has been isolated from its original
association group. The words doom, -dom (in kingdom,
etc.), and deem, are all derived from the same original root,
dom-, but probably no one but a student of the history of
English associates them together in his mind at the present
time. Deem, from O.E. déman (vb.), shows a vowel changed
by the process of i-mutation from an older 6, and -dom has
sunk to the level of a mere formative suffix, and has no
independent existence. From the substantive doom a new
verb has been formed, which, however, has a different
meaning from that of the original verb deem at the present
time. It is generally the case that when two words have
become isolated from each other by change of form, the
meanings also grow further and further apart, till at last
there is absolutely nothing which leads to an association
between them. No English speaker now connects for-lorn
with the verb Jose, and yet the former was originally the
regular past participle of the latter verb. The old verb
136 ANALOGY

forlose is lost except in the solitary surviving form just
quoted, and the uncompounded verb Jose has a newly-
formed past participle, which is now, however, of some
antiquity. ‘The analogy of such a participle as for-sworn
has maintained the fossil Jorn; but its meaning has
diverged considerably, and has grown further and further
away from that of the simple verb Jose, until there is
nothing left, either in form or meaning, which should serve
to connect them together in the mind of an ordinary
speaker.

It often happens that before the association between
a group or pair of words is quite broken by change of form,
Analogy intervenes, and, eliminating some of the deviating
forms, levels the group all under one type.

Take the words cool (adj.); to cool, coolness. Here
O.E. has col, the normal ancestor of cool ; but célan (vb.),
and célnesse; (cf. dom, déman). In this case Analogy
came into play in time to prevent a further differentiation
of form and meaning, which might have broken all connec-
tion between the words, and has formed a new verb and a
new abstract noun. ‘The formal connection, as well as
that of meaning, between these words and cold is possibly
still felt by some speakers, but the association is not
strong enough for them to affect each other formally. In
the case of the further cognate chill, the association is
probably entirely one of affinity of meaning. In the last
case the differentiation is very far back indeed, and consists
in a very primitive, pre-English difference of vowel and
of formative suffix, and subsequent English combinative _
changes.

In cases where cognate forms which have been consider-
DIFFERENTIATION OF MEANING 187

ably differentiated by sound changes have resisted the
tendency to isolate them from their original association
group, as in the case of foot, which retains its plural feet,
this is due, as has been said, to the frequency of occurrence,
but also to the close association of general meaning which
exists between the singular and plural of the same word.

It is sometimes said that Analogy hinders normal sound
change, but this is scarcely accurate. What actually
occurs is that, although the change is carried out regularly
enough, yet, in certain cases, some stronger association
works, with the result of re-creating a form identical with
the old, on the analogy of some cognate which has not
undergone the change. In such a case both forms, the
new creation and that produced by the ordinary processes
of sound change, are often preserved side by side, not
infrequently, however, with a differentiation of meaning.
The wider apart the two forms become, the greater the
likelihood that each will be specialized for a different
function. We have seen this to a certan extent in the
two verbs deem and doom. Another case of a similar kind
is seen in the two words ghostly and ghastly. The latter
is the normal phonetic development of the O.E. adj.
gastlzt, which in M.E. appears in the form giistlich(e)
and gastli, with a normal shortening of O.E. a before such
a consonantal combination as -st/-. This word underwent
a fronting of the vowel in the seventeenth century (geestli).
Then in the eighteenth (sz) was lengthened before -st-,
giving a form (géstli), and this (@) became (4) in the late
eighteenth or early nineteenth century. Ghostly, on the
other hand, is a M.E. new formation from the substantive
gost, when the 6 for O.E. a is perfectly normal.
138 ANALOGY

Another example of a similar process is seen in the
adjectives formed by the suffix -lke. This is originally
cognate with the adjectival and adverbial suffix -ly, both
being forms of the O.E. lic. The O.E. suffix is itself
derived from the old substantive /i¢ = body, form. Thus
originally wi/lic, ‘ womanly,’ ‘ feminine,’ meant ‘ having the
body or form of a woman.’ Already in O.E. when used
as a suffix, the word had doubtless been completely isolated
from the substantive in the consciousness of the speakers,
and had become a mere formative element, although the
association with geliée, ‘like’ (literally ‘having the same
form’), was probably still maintained. ‘Then in M.E. the
suffix -lik, -lich or -li, was shortened through lack of stress,
became isolated even from 3elich, 3eltk, and was still
further emptied of its original independent meaning.
When this had come about, a fresh class of adjectives
arose, formed from -lik. ‘Thus at the present time -ly, -like
both exist as living suffixes, the former being principally
adverbial, and we have the doublets wifely, wifelike, manly,
manlike, and so on. The two suffixes, it will be noted,
express different shades of meaning ; the older being purely
formative of adjectives or adverbs, the latter having the
more definite sense of ‘like a wife’ or ‘ beseeming a wife,’
etc. No doubt the association with the independent word
lke tends to preserve the diphthong (ai) even in the un-
stressed position.

The process of Analogy is operative in every period of
linguistic development, and although attention is usually
only called to it when it produces a new and strange form,
it nevertheless comes into play in every utterance of con-
nected speech. The history of any language shows that
NEW ASSOCIATION GROUPS 139

Analogy, besides working as a conservative factor by pro-
ducing forms that are historically ‘correct,’ is also per-
petually causing new departures, due to the gradual shifting
of association groups which is ever taking place with every
language which is alive, on the lips, and in the minds, of
living speakers. These new associations are formed, in the
first instance, within the individual consciousness, and their
chance of becoming permanent parts of speech depends
upon whether they are shared by the community at large.
If this is not the case, the new departures of individual
speakers are eliminated by social intercourse with that
majority of other speakers who have different association
groups. Just as each community has its own tendencies
of sound change, which are different in some respects from
those of other communities; so also each community has
its association groups, which are different from dialect to
dialect. When we come across a dialect whose speakers
have a different series of associations from those which
exist in our own minds, we are apt to consider the result
as ‘ungrammatical’ and ‘wrong,’ forgetting that there is
absolutely no test whereby we can gauge the inherent
‘ correctness” or ‘falseness’ of mental associations as ex-
pressed in speech. The human mind plays freely around
and among the phenomena of speech; and we cannot control
the subtle conditions which establish links between idea
and idea, between word and word.

Within a given dialect certain associations are current,
and practically universal, and therefore ‘correct’ so far
as that dialect is concerned. The power to speak the
dialect of a community ‘correctly’—that is, in the
same way as the members of that community speak it—
140 ANALOGY

depends upon possessing the same association groups as
they.

In tracing the history of a language, we are constantly
confronted by forms which are the result, not of natural
phonetic development, but of analogy, and in this case it
is our business to endeavour to discover the group of forms
with which the new association has been established.
There is no limit to the period, nor to the dialect, in which
these new formations arise; and experience teaches us that
they did, as a matter of fact, come into existence and gain
a permanent footing in the classical languages of antiquity,
nay, in Primitive Aryan itself; just as they do at the
present day, alike in polished literary speech, and in
peasant dialect.
CHAPTER VIII
METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

Tue science of language is often divided into two main
branches, General Comparative Philology of the Aryan
languages (not to go beyond these for the moment), and
the special History of the several Families of Aryan speech,
or of individual languages. The Comparative Philolo-
gist, as such, is mainly concerned with that original unity
which has been dissolved; with the original forms from
which those of the various families and individual lan-
guages spring—that is, with the Primitive Aryan mother-
tongue. The Comparative Philologist in the special
sense is chiefly occupied with the reconstruction of this
mother-tongue, and therefore is concerned primarily with
the points of agreement between the different languages.
But before he can reach the final unity, the primitive
mother-forms, he must needs observe how great is the
_ diversity among the groups of languages with which he
deals ; and this can only be accounted for from a know-
ledge of the special speech habits of the speakers of each
language.

The investigation of these habits is the business of
special students of the history of a single language, or of a
group of closely allied tongues, such as the Germanic or

141
142 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

Slavonic. By comparing the cognate forms of such a group,
it is possible to form some idea of a phase of speech-life
which is more primitive than any actually preserved—to
reconstruct, in fact, Primitive Germanic or Primitive
Slavonic.

But before we can compare words in different languages,

with any profit, we must be quite sure that those forms
we are comparing are really cognates—that they really are
the descendants of the same original form. The closer the
languages are in relationship, the less difficulty will there
be in recognising their cognate forms. ‘Thus the merest
beginner would hardly doubt the affinity of O.E. fot,
‘foot,’ Gothic fotus, O.Norse fotr, O.H.G. fuoz. Even
if he went further, and ascertained that ‘ foot’ in Secrt.
was pad-, pad-, in Greek wovs, in Latin pés he might
surmise that these were all forms of the same word which
is found in the Germanic languages. The tests of identity
‘of origin, are form and meaning. But, since related
languages often develop on widely differing lines, the form
frequently undergoes very remarkable changes, and the
meaning may vary so greatly, that it is not always easy
to see how this or that particular shade of significance
becomes attached to a particular root.

The science of Comparative Philology has been gradually
built up, until we are now often able to assert with confi-
dence, the original identity of words, which, a few years ago,
no one would have dreamed of connecting with each other.
This is made possible by. our ever“i “increasing knowledge of
the laws of sound change within the individual languages.
By this means it is possible gradually to.divest a form of
its more recent “peculiarities, and to reconstruct its earlier

Baga
TESTS OF IDENTITY 148

phases, so that many old friends emerge, as it were, from
disguise. But in the beginning it was necessary to start
with such words as from their nature, admitted but little
change in meaning, and whose form in several tongues was
sufficiently recognised to prohibit any reasonable doubts of
identity. The classes of words most suitable for purposes
of comparison, in the beginning, are words which express
concrete and familiar objects, such as the natural relation-
ships—father, mother, brother, etc. ; names of parts of the
body—head, eyes, ears, feet, etc. ; names for the earth, the
sky, water, the wind, heat, cold, snow; names of the most
widely distributed plants and animals. Further, we should
expect to find the designation of the numerals, at any rate
up to ten, the common property of men whose ancestors
had, in ages however remote, spoken one and the same
language. These are the kind of words upon which the
foundations of Comparative Philology are laid, and when
these are built with care and thoroughness, the way is
paved for further progress. Now, when, in the case of
words in different languages of whose identity there can
be no reasonable doubt, even from the beginning, we
observe a regular permutation of sounds constantly re-
curring throughout a series of languages, when the differ-
ences between the languages are always of the same nature,
we are able to lay it down as a general principle, based on
observation, that such and such a sound in this language
corresponds with such and such a sound in that. We
proceed upon the assumption that the same changes will
always occur, under the same conditions, in the same
language ; if we find in a large number of cases that when
Greek, Latin, etc., have p, Germanic shows f, we expect
144 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

that this will always be the case, when the conditions are
the same. In those cases where Greek p does not corre-
spond to f in Germanic, we assume, either that the p in
question does not represent the same original sound as
that which we know becomes f in Germanic, or that there
are conditions present which differentiate the case from
others with which we are familiar. These conditions it
then becomes our business to discover.

We do not believe that Greek and Latin are derived from
Sanscrit ; nor Germanic from Greek or Latin; but rather,
that they are all derived from a common ancestor now
long dead. Therefore, we do not state our sound law in the
form of saying that Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin p becomes
f in Germanic; but that a Primitive Aryan p is retained
in the former three languages, but has become / in
Germanic. Having gained, then, some knowledge of the
precise way in which the groups of languages we are
comparing, agree with, or differ from each other, and,
further, a knowledge of some of the principal laws of
sound-change of each of the derived languages, we ask
what were the original forms from which those forms which
we know have developed. In other words, the question
we try to solve is, which of the forms before us is most
primitive, which preserves most faithfully the features of
the original common mother. The reconstructed forms
of Primitive Aryan or Primitive Germanic which, accord-
ing to present philological method, figure so largely in
comparative and historical studies must not be taken too
seriously therefore ; these merely record the opinion that
this or that feature in this or that language is primitive
and original, and in assigning such and such a form as
‘SEEK’ AND ‘ BE-SEECH’ 145

the common ancestor of a group of forms from various
languages we must be prepared to show how each is
derived from it.

In tracing the history of a word, root, or grammatical
form in a single language, we get, as a rule, more light
upon it the further we can go back ; and by allowing for
the various isolative and combinative sound changes which
have affected it, we are gradually able to show the original
identity of the root with that which occurs in a con-
siderable number of words. But so long as we keep to
one language we can only discover the principle of those
changes the conditions of which were present at some
time during the period of which we have an historical
record of that language. Thus if we were dealing with
the history of the word seek in English compared with
be-seech, we should first inquire what was the oldest
recorded form of these words. A glance at an etymo-
logical dictionary, or, better still, at an ‘ Anglo-Saxon’
dictionary, would reveal the fact that in both cases the
infinitive was séc(¢)an, with nothing to show that the
present difference between the final consonants of the two
words existed. In Middle English we find that séken,
séchen, beséhen, beséchen, all occurred ; and, further, that in
the present-day English dialects sevh, seech, bescek, beseech,
are in use in different parts of the country. Now, the
Mod. Eng. ‘ ch-° (t{) sound presupposes a different sound
in O.E. from that which has become & in Mod. Eng.,
and that sound, we should find, if we consulted an O.E.
grammar, was certainly pronounced in the O.E. séc(e)an.
It was probably a front-stop consonant, and it invariably
develops into the Mod. Eng. ‘-ch’ (t{); at any rate, in the

10
146 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

South and Midlands. At this rate the M.E. séchen would
appear to be normally developed from O.E. sé(e)an.
How are we to account for the M.K. and Mod. Eng. forms
with -k? Certainly not by assuming an ‘exceptional’
change of -¢ (front-stop) to (k). If we look at the paradigm
of the O.E. verb, it appears that in West Saxon it ran as
follows in the Pres. Indic. Sing.: i séée, pu secst, hé secp ;
and in M.E. the same texts which have ich séche in
Ist person singular, and séchen in the Inf., not infrequently
have sékst, sékp in the 2nd and 3rd persons. The O.E.
spelling does not express any difference of pronunciation ;
but the M.E. spelling shows a back-stop in the two last
forms, and this implies a corresponding distinction in O.E.,
although this is not expressed in the written forms of
that language. What conditions have these two forms in
common, which distinguish them from the lst Pers. and
from the Inf.? They both have voiceless open consonants,
s and p respectively, immediately after the ¢. May we not,
then, formulate tentatively the law that in O.E., before ¢
had developed into its present sound,—perhaps even before
it had reached the pure front-stop stage,—when it was
_ followed immediately by a voiceless open consonant, it
became a back-stop (k)? This is borne out by other
examples. We have thus accounted for the existence of
two forms with k-sounds in the conjugation of the O.E.
verb sééan. But we have still to explain how this sound
got into the Ist Pers. Pres. Indic. and the Inf.

We are perfectly justified, from what is known of the
habits of speakers, in assuming the possibility that a
whole verb might be formed on the Analogy of two
persons, especially when these are so frequently used as were
‘SEEK’ AND ‘SOUGHT? 147

the 2nd and 8rd persons singular in O.E. and M.E. We
should explain M.E. séken, etc., and Mod. Eng. scck in
this way. For some reason the analogy has not taken
place in be-seech, which retains the O.E. ¢- form unaffected
by the other persons. In the case of the dialects above
referred to, the Analogy affects sometimes the compounded,
sometimes the uncompounded verb.

This digression from the general statement is intended
to show that reference to the earlier forms of a language
may tell us something which cannot be gathered from its
latest forms. The varying conditions which subsequently
differentiated O.E. ¢ into & on the one hand, and on the
other to ‘-ch’ (t{), were present, and expressed in the
spelling of English itself. But if we now proceed to
inquire the reason of the differences of vowel between
seck or sevch, on one hand, and that of the past tense
sought, on the other, we can get no light, so long as we
confine our attention to English. As far back as we
can go in the history of that language, we find this differ-
ence of vowels, but nothing to account for it. O.E. has
séCan—sohtc, and here we can note that the variation is
é—6, an interchange which occurs in a large number of
associated pairs of words in O.E., it is true; but this fact
does not help us to explain the change.

The next step, therefore, is to inquire what is the
corresponding form to O.E. sécan in the other Gmc.
languages. It is possible that some of these may retain
some feature which O.E. has lost, and which may explain
the interchange of vowels. The corresponding verb in
Gothic is sdkjan, in O. Sax. sdkian, in O.H.G. swohhan.
From these forms we learn that O.E. is peculiar in

10—2
148 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

having é in the root of the Inf. It appears that both
Gothic and O. Sax. have 6, which vowel, as we have seen,
also occurs in O.E. in the Pret. O.H.G. wo appears in a
large number of words in which Gothic and O. Sax. have 6.
We are, therefore, justified in assuming that 0 is the most
primitive form of the vowel in the inf. Why has O.E, é
here? Now, both Gothic and O. Sax. possess a feature
which does not appear either in O.H.G. or in O.E., and
that is that they preserve a suffix -jan or -tan in the inf. ;
that is to say that 7 or i appears in these languages
immediately after the k. The sound of j, we have reason
to believe, was that of a front-open consonant, closely
related, from the position of the organs of speech and the
area employed in its articulation, to i, which is a high-
front vowel. Now, -jan is a very common verbal suffix in
Gothic, and in all cases where O.E. and Gothic agree in
possessing certain verbs, we find that the vowel of these
verbs, if 6 in Gothic, is é in O.E.; if @ in the former
language, ¢ in the latter; if w in Gothic, then @ in
English—that is, that where Gothic has a back vowel
English shows a front in the inf. of corresponding verbs,
when there is reason to believe that aj originally occurred
in the suffix. For example: Goth. drobdjan, *‘ disturb,
‘trouble,’ O.E. dréfan; Goth. fodjan, ‘ feed, O.E. fédan;
Goth. ga-métjan, ‘ meet, O.E. métan, and so on. Ex-
amples of Goth. a= 0.E. e, under the same conditions,
are: Goth. namnjan, ‘name, O.E. nemnan ; Goth. satjan,
‘set,’ O.E. settan; Goth. warjan, ‘defend, O.E. werian.
Examples of Goth. u=0.E. y are: Goth. bugyan, ‘buy,’
0.E. byégan ; Goth. fulljan, ‘fill? O.E. fyllan ; Goth.
huggrjan (= hupgrjan), sto hunger, O.E. hyngr (ian.
ANCESTRAL FORMS OF OLD ENGLISH 149

In all these cases Gothic shows consistently a back vowel
in the root, followed by 7; O.E. invariably has in the
same words a front vowel in the root, but has usually no
j or 7 following. We need not pause here to discuss
under what circumstances 7 is also preserved in O.E., but
may note that when it is lost in that language the pre-
ceding consonant is doubled, provided that the sound
immediately preceding the consonant is not a long vowel
(of. settan and bytgan, where ¢g is the O.E. mode of
writing a long voiced stop).

In all the above cases, although only Gothic forms are
here given, O. Sax. and O.H.G. agree in showing 6 (O.H.G.
uo), a,and u respectively where O.E. has é, ¢, andy. The
inference we draw is that 6, a, and u are more primitive than
the English vowels in these words, and that the special
quality of these, front instead of back, is due to a change
in the earlier sounds produced by the following j or i. This
is still further borne out by the fact that 0, etc., are pre-
served in O.E. itself, in cases where the root is not followed
by j or 2. Thus by the side of métan we have in O.E. the
substantive Se-mdt, by the side of fédan, fda, ‘ food,’ just
as we have sdh-te by the side of séc(e)an. With O.E.
nemnan we may compare the sub. nama, and with fyllan
the adj. full. The comparison of the other Germanic
tongues, in deciding the question of the difference of
vowel in sé¢(e)an—sohte, showed us that O.E. must also
once have had an inf. *sdkjan, since it enabled us to
supply the lost 7 which effected the change from the more
primitive vowel 6, preserved in Gothic and O. Sax. The
forms in the cognate languages also made it certain that
the original vowel was the same as that preserved in the
150 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

unchanged forms in O.E. itself. Another fact which
emerges from our examination of the above forms is that
the particular change in question, which has already been
referred to in an earlier chapter of this book, although it
took place before the earliest English documents, yet
occurred after English had developed into a dialect, or
group of dialects, independent from the parent Germanic.
Had the change affected Primitive Gmc. before its dif-
ferentiation, we should find traces of it in Gothic; whereas
we find none, and only signs of its beginning in O. Sax,
and O.H.G. This process of i- or j-mutation, as it is
called, arose independently in English, and, at a later
date, in most of the other Gme. languages. It affects all
back vowels in O.E. which occur in the roots of words
containing originally j or ¢ in the next syllable or suffix ;
not only in verbs, as in the examples given above, but in
all words whose suffix fulfils, or once fulfilled, the necessary
conditions.

When once the knowledge of such a process has been
gained by a comparison of the cognate languages, it can
be utilized for purposes of reconstruction, without a
further appeal to the comparative method. Thus, if we
find the O.E. forms betst, ‘ best, fyrst, < first,’ compared
with fur-dor, we should be justified in assuming the possi-
bility of an old superlative suffix -ist, which has changed
a and w to e and y in these words, even if we had not, for
the moment, the confirmatory evidence of Gothic bat-ist-s,
« best.”

We see that a knowledge of the sound changes peculiar
to the individual languages helps us to reconstruct primi-
tive forms which may be of use in a wider comparative
GOTHIC TUNpUS AND OLD ENGLISH TOp 151

survey; but this special knowledge of an individual
language can only be gained, at first, by knowing what was
the starting-point of the language we are considering, and
this knowledge, again, can only be acquired with certainty
by the help of the cognate languages. Our Primitive
Gmc. forms, which we may reconstruct from English alone,
must be tested by comparing them with the other Gmc.
languages. If from our knowledge of the laws of each,
we reach the same result in reconstruction, no matter
from which we start, then we may have a very fair convic-
tion that our reconstruction is right.

But it sometimes happens that the consideration of the
Gme. languages alone leaves us in the lurch, and that we
are stopped by what are insuperable difficulties, so far as
the light shed from these alone reaches.

If, for instance, we compare the Gmc. forms of so
common a word as ‘ tooth,’ we find that in O.E. we have
top, in Goth. twnpus, in O.H.G. zand; and we may well
ask what is the relation of these forms to each other.
Gothic and O.E. agree in the initial and final consonants
of the root ¢ and p; there is, therefore, the a priori reason
of greater frequency, for assuming that ¢ and p are more
primitive than the O.H.G. z and d. On the other hand,
Gothic and O.H.G. agree in having a nasal consonant
after the vowel, and we must assume either that O.E. has
lost an n, or that Gothic and O.H.G. have both introduced
one in this word. According to the same general prin-
ciple of relative frequency of occurrence, it is more
reasonable to assume that these languages preserve an
original nasal here, where O.E. has lost it. It is im-
probable that two languages so far separated geographi-
152 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

cally as Gothic and O.H.G., should have developed,
independently, a habit of infixing nasals. We naturally
next inquire why, in this case, O.E. has lost an original
nasal which is preserved by Gothic and O.H.G. There are
plenty of examples of words in which the latter languages
have a nasal, but in which O.E. has not: O.H.G. gans,
* goose,’ O.E. gés; Goth. munps, O.H.G. mund, ‘ mouth,’
O.E. mip; Goth. sinps, ‘road,’ ‘ journey, O.H.G. sind,
also Goth. ga-sinpja, O.H.G. gi-sindo, ‘travelling com-
panion,’ ‘servant’; O.E., stp, ge-stp; Goth. anpar, O.H.G.
andar, ‘other, O.E. oper; Goth. and O.H.G. hansa,
‘host, O.E. hos; O.H.G. samfto, ‘soft, O.E. soft. These
examples suffice to show the conditions under which the
nasal is lost in O.E: It will be observed that in all the
above cases, there is in Gothic, immediately after the
nasal, and in O.E., following the vowel, one or other of
the three consonants, s, f, or p—that is to say, a voiceless
open consonant.

The agreement of Gothic and O.E., as regards the con-
sonants, is a strong indication of these being primitive, so
that we can formulate the law that O.E. loses a nasal
(n, or m) before voiceless open consonants, and we can re-
construct for prehistoric O.E., forms with the nasals as
they occur in Gothic.

It is further to be noticed that the vowel which
precedes the nasal undergoes in O.E. a compensatory
lengthening, and that in cases where Gothic and O.H.G.,
and therefore presumably the parent Gmc. also, have the
combination -an-+- voiceless open consonant, O.E. has 6—
that is to say that in this case, the original a has been
rounded as well as lengthened. We may now return to
*TANp- AND *TUNp- BOTH PRIMITIVE 153

O.E. top, and in the light of the above examples and
remarks, we see that we shall be justified in reconstructing
therefrom an earlier form *tanp-, which, allowing for the
regular differences of the consonants, agrees entirely with
the O.H.G. zand. The Gothic form, on the other hand,
as we have seen, is ¢unp-us instead of tanp-, as we might
have expected on the analogy of anpar compared with
O.E. dper.

Is there any process of change peculiar to Gothic
whereby a form tanp- could become tunp-? There is
none; and the Gothic forms with -un-, such as munbps,
quoted above, and kunps, ‘known, O.E. ci#p, O.H.G.
chund ; juggs (=jung-), ‘ young,’ O. Fris., O.S., O.H.G.
jung ; hund, ‘hundred’; O.E., O. Sax. hund, O.H.G. hunt,
etc., show that Gothic, as a rule, agrees with the other
Gmc. languages in preserving the combination -wn- in
cognate words. Indeed, the agreement is so complete,
and so widely extended among the Gmc. languages; that,
following the ordinary method, we must assume that
Gmc. -un- is preserved in all the languages; and, con-
versely, that when the derived languages all agree in
showing this combination it is original. ‘The result of
this is that we must regard the Gothic form ¢unp- as
original: preserved from the parent language, and not
derived from any other form of the same ‘root.’ We
are therefore compelled to conclude that there were in
Gmc. two forms of this root: one, ¢unp-, preserved in
Gothic, and another, *tanp-, from which the O.E. and
O.H.G. forms, and the O. Norse tannr, from *tanp-r,
from *tanp-az, were derived. How are we to account
for the differentiation of an original ‘root’ into two
154 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

forms, *fanp- and tunp-? The fact itself is common
enough in Gothic and the other Gmc. languages, and the
so-called strong verbs offer plenty of examples. The
following table will illustrate this :

Inf. Pret. Sing. Pret. PL Past Partic.

O.E. .. bind-an band bund-on bund-en ‘bind’
Goth. ... bind-an band bund-um_ bund-an-s_,,
O.H.G. ... bint-an  bant  bunt-um  bunt-an 39

OE. .. Wind-an wand  wund- wund- ‘wind’
Goth. ... -wind-an wand wund-um wund-ans_,,
O.H.G. .... vint-am vant  vunt-um  vunt-an 24

O.E. .. Winn-an wann wunn- wunn- ‘struggle?
Goth, ... -winn-an wann wunn-um wunn-ans 5
O.H.G. .... vinn-an = vann vunn-um  vunn-an a

Numerous examples also occur of the same ‘root’
appearing in different forms.

Gothic has -hinp-an, ‘to catch, hand-us, ‘ the hand,’
originally ‘that which seizes, and hwnp-s, ‘that which is
seized,’ or ‘booty’; O.E. has hand, and hip, ‘booty,
from *hunp-, with the loss of the nasal before -p-, as in
mup, from *munp- ; O.H.G. hant, ‘hand, and heri-hunda
(=0.E. hap), * war plunder.’ Side by side with sinps and
ga-sinpa, Goth. has the vb. sand-jan, ‘send, and O.E.
sip >>* sinp-, and send-an >>* sand-jan, with the j-mutation
of a referred to above. Besides the changes which occur
in the strong vb. bindan, Gothic has and-bund-nan, ‘to
release’ ; bandi, ‘a fetter’ (exactly corresponding to O.E.
bend, where ¢ is the é-mutation of a); and ga-binda,
‘bond, etc.

These examples show that this interchange of vowels
within the same ‘root’ was an established fact in Gme.
before its differentiation, since it occurs in all the derived
LIGHT SHED BY WIDER COMPARISON 155

languages. We can, therefore, learn nothing of its origin
from Gmc. alone. If we go beyond Gmce., and compare
the forms in the other Aryan languages which are cognate
with tunpus, etc., we find a curious variety of forms.
Latin dent-, Gk. 6-80v7-, Sert. dant-, Lith. dant-is, are
the forms in the principal Aryan languages which we have
to compare with each other, and with the two Gmc. types
*tanp- and tunp-, which we have found ourselves justified in
reconstructing. The question now before us is: What
are the Primitive Aryan types from which the above
forms are derived, and what is their precise mutual re-
lationship? Our comparison of the Gme. languages
yielded two types for parent Gmc. ; to what does a wider
survey lead us? In the first instance, we may settle the
question of the consonants, We note that Scrt., Gk.,
Latin, and Lith. all agree in having d- as the initial, and
-t- as the final consonant of the root; and in the face of
this unanimity we must conclude that sounds which all these
languages have preserved, are the original Aryan sounds.
Gme. ¢=original d-, and p=original ¢, are the result of a
characteristic ‘shifting’ of the older consonants, which,
with the reservation formulated in what is known as
Verner’s Law, hereafter to be discussed, invariably pro-
duces the same results; so that wherever the other
languages agree in having d, Gmc. has ¢, and where they
have ¢, Gmc. has p, except under the special conditions
stated by Verner.

We may now return to the vowels, and for this purpose
it will be convenient to deal here with the group of vowel
+n,—on, en, an, etc. It might be contended that since
Sert., Lith., and Gmc. all agree in possessing a form of
156 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

the above root with -an-, this must be regarded as a primi-
tive form ; let us see whether this can be upheld. If -an-
is to be regarded as a primitive Aryan form, it can only
be on account of the agreement in the three languages
which we have just noted. This assumption would imply
that we regard a primitive -an- as having been preserved
in Sert., Lith., and Gmc. We shall do well to examine
severally the claims of each language to the primitiveness
of its -a- and -an- sounds. Let us take Sert. first. Al-
though this language agrees with Gmc. and Lith. in this
case, it is at variance with Gk., which has -ov-. The
same disparity is observable in Sert. jambha-, ‘tooth’;
Gk. youdos, youdios, ‘molar’ (which correspond to O.E, |
camb, * comb’), and in tam, ‘this’ (acc.); Gk. tov; Goth.
pan-a; Scrt. damas, ‘house’; Gk. douos; Lat. domus,
Here we have Scrt. and Gme. an, am by the side of
Gk. -ov-, -ou-..

But in Sert. janas, ‘race,’ we have -en- both in Latin
and Gk.—genus, yévos; and the same divergence appears
in Sert. bandhus, a ‘relative,’ compared with Gk. zevOepés.
Lith. also shows disagreement with Scrt. here, for its
cognate is béndras, ‘companion.’ This is the same root
which in Gmc. has, as we have seen, the three forms bind-,
band-, bund-. In Sert. dnti, ‘against, Gk. dvti, Lat.
ante, Sert. agrees with Gk. and Latin.

‘These examples show that Scrt. -an- is represented in
Gk. sometimes by -ov-, sometimes by -ev-, more rarely
by av-.

If we compare the correspondences of simple a in Scrt.
without a following nasal, we find the same divergence in
some, at least, of the cognate languages.
CORRESPONDENCES OF SCRT. 4A IN GK. AND LATIN 157

1. Scrt. a=Gk. a in djami, ‘drive’; Gk. dyw, Lat. ago:
ajras, ‘ground’; Gk. aypés; Lat. ager ; Goth. akrs.

2. But Sert. a=Gk. o in pati, ‘husband’; Gk. woos:
avi-, ‘sheep’; Gk. dvs (from *68Fis); Lat. ovis: katara,
‘which of two’; Gk. worepos: dadarga, ‘he has seen’;
Gk. dé8opxe, ete.

3. Sert. a=Gk. « in asti, ‘is’; Gk. dori; Lat. est;
Lith. ésti.

Sert. ava, ‘horse’; Lat. equus : Sert. ca, ‘and’; Gk. ré;
Lat. que.

Sert. pdta-ti, ‘he flies’; Gk. wére-tav; Lat. petit, etc.

We see that the three vowels a, e, o in Latin and Greek
are all represented in Sanscrit by a; in fact, ¢ and o do not
exist at all in this language. If, then, Scrt. a be in all
cases primitive, we must assume that the other languages
which possess a more varied vowel system have differen-
tiated an original vowel a into three distinct sounds, a, e, 0.
The alternative is that the three vowels existed in the
mother-tongue, but were all levelled in Scrt. under one
sound, a.

Passing to Lithuanian, this language agrees with Scrt.
in having a where Gk. and Latin show o : nakt-is, ‘ night,’
Lat. nox (=*nokt-s); -patis, ‘lord’; Gk. woos; avis,
‘sheep’; Gk. d(F)is, Lat. ovis.

On the other hand, Lithuanian agrees with Gk., Lat.,
Gmc. in showing ¢, thus differing from Scrt.—esmi, ‘am’;
Gk. ewe (=eous): medts, ‘honey’; Gk. pebv; O.E.
medu (=*medu); O.H.G. metu; but Scrt. madhu: sénas,
‘old’; Gk. &0s (=*aévos); Lat. senex. Again, the
closely-allied Slavonic languages, such as Old Bulgarian
(or Old Church Slav.), agree also with Gk. in having o in
158 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

cases where Lith. has a: O. Slav. nosti, ‘night’; Lith. naktis.
O. Slav. ovi-tsa, ‘sheep’; Lith. avis. This makes it probable
that o existed in Primitive Lith. also, but was unrounded
to a in the independent life-history of the language.

Last we have to deal with Germanic, which, like Sert., had
already, in its earliest literary period, no original o sound ;
at any rate, not in stressed syllables. It can be shown that
when this vowel appears in the Old Gmc. languages, it is
either derived by a secondary process from an earlier u, or
has been preserved in late loan words from foreign languages.
In all cases where Gk. has 0, Gmc. has a in cognate words.
But it can be established that the sound o underwent a
change to a within the historic period, since foreign proper
names which contained the former sound appear in Gme.
speech, when borrowed, with a. Thus the Gallo-Roman
Moguntiacum, ‘Mainz, is Maginza in O.H.G.; and Vosegus,
‘the Voges, appears with a in O.H.G., as Wascono walt.
The inference generally drawn from these facts is that up to
a certain period, parent Gmc. preserved o, which it inherited
from Aryan; but that then a tendency arose to unround
o to a, which tendency naturally affected the loan words
also. Those words which were borrowed subsequent to this
change, preserved their o-sound in Gme. speech (cf. 0.H.G.
kocchon, ‘to cook,’ from Lat. coquere).

If the above reasoning be correct, then Gme. originally
possessed the vowel o ; its a is not primitive in those cases
where it corresponds to o in Gk. and Latin, and therefore
proves nothing when compared with the a of Sert. and Lita.

We have now briefly examined the claims of a in Scrt.,
Lith., and Gmc. successively, to be regarded as primitive
in cases where Gk. and Latin have the vowel 0. We have
*PALATALIZATION’? IN SCRT. 159

seen that Scrt. a corresponds not only to a in Gk. and
Latin, but also to e and o; and we are therefore forced to
admit, either that Gk. and Latin preserve the three original
sounds, or, at any rate, an original diversity, whereas Scrt.
has lost it; or that in the former languages, one original
sound, without any discoverable difference of conditions,
has been treated in three different ways. The latter
possibility we may reject at once on general grounds. For
the former view there are overwhelming arguments. Of
these, that which establishes beyond any reasonable doubt
the primitiveness of Gk. ¢, is the strongest ; and to it is due
the conviction, now universally shared by all philological
scholars, that the Gk. vowel system is far nearer to that
of the original Aryan than are the Sanscrit vowels.

There are certain words which have a variety of back-
stop in Latin, Celtic, and Lithuanian, but which in
Sanscrit have a sound, expressed in transliteration by the
symbol c, and usually pronounced (t{), but which is
classified as a ‘ palatal,’ and was originally, almost certainly,
a front-stop. The vowel which follows it is always a in
Sert. In Gk. these words have 7 or 7, which, for reasons
into which it is needless to enter here, are known to have
developed from a back-stop with lip modification.

This ‘ palatalization’ in Sanscrit was for a long time
unaccounted for, since, in other words, Sanscrit agrees
with the languages above mentioned in also having s—that
is, a back consonant.

The explanation was discovered independently by several
scholars about the same time (see Bechtel, Hauptprodleme,
p- 62). It is this: In cases where the European languages
(Gk.. Latin. etc.) have a or o following the consonant,
160 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

Sanscrit agrees with them in having a back consonant;
in those cases where the former languages have ¢, Sanscrit
has c, the front consonant. A natural inference is that in
Sanscrit also, ¢ formerly occurred in those cases where it is
found in Gk., Latin, etc., and, e being a front vowel, fronted
the preceding consonant. After the fronting process
was complete, Sanscrit levelled ¢ under a, the series of
changes probably being: e—aw—a. If this is so, then
prehistoric Sanscrit must have agreed with all the European
tongues in possessing ¢, and thus the last argument against
accepting this as the original sound disappears.

Examples are: Scrt. panca, ‘five, Gk. wévre (from
* penkwe) ; Lat. quingue (from * kwenkwe, from * penkwe).
Sert. catvdras, ‘four, Gk. téocapes and téscapes
(Beeotian), Lith. keturi, Old Irish cethir. On the other
hand, Sanscrit has kdksa, ‘hip-joint’=Lat. cora; also
kakid, ‘ summit ’= Lat. caciimen.

When it was thus established that Sanscrit a was not
original in cases where the other languages had e, it was
further asked, Why should Scrt. a, which corresponds to
o in Gk. and Lat., etc., be original either? No reason could
be shown for the development in these languages of o from
an earlier a ; but, on the other hand, belief in the primitive-
ness of the Scrt. vowel system was seriously shaken. Hence-
forth, it was regarded as, at the very least, highly probable
that the three vowels a, ¢, o all existed in the Aryan
mother-tongue ; a view which, as has been said, scholars
now regard as established. Of all the Aryan languages, the
Hellenic group are now considered to preserve the primitive
vowel system most faithfully. Greek is by far the richest
in vowel sounds, and hence, instead of attributing, as was
SUMMARY OF RESULTS 161

formerly done, a poor vowel system to the mother-tongue,
it is now the universal practice to credit it rather with the
wealth and variety which is found in that group of
dialects, than with the poverty and comparative monotony
of Sanscrit.

After this long discussion, which it is hoped may have
afforded some illustration of the methods of comparison
and reconstruction, we may return to a consideration of
the various forms of the root ‘tooth’ in the different
Aryan languages.

We had established (see p. 154) the existence of two
forms of the root in Gmc.—*tunp-, which is found in
Gothic, and *tanp-, which is the ancestor of O.E. ¢op and
O.H.G. zand. The forms enumerated from other languages
were—Scrt. dant; Lith. dant-2s; Lat. dent-; and Gk.
6-ddvT-. From what has just been said, it will be seen
that we are now in a position to regard Gk. -dovt- as
primitive, and practically identical with the ancestral
form. Weare further justified in equating it with the Gmc.
*tanp (see p. 158), and with the Lith. dant-s (pp. 157, 158).

As regards the Scrt. form, the a might represent either
an original o, in which case the Scrt. form may also be
derived from the form *dont-, or it might be derived from
an earlier *dent-. Since, however, the former is so well
established for several branches of the Aryan family, it is
on the whole, perhaps, more probable that the Scrt. form
also goes back to this, in common with Lith., Gk., and
Gmc. We may now pass on to discuss the Latin form
dent- and the Gothic tunp-us. What are the mutual
relations of these, and what connection have they with

the Aryan *dont- which we have established ?
11
162 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

Lat. dent- might, if taken by itself, be an original form,
representing an Aryan *dent- ; just as Gk. zrev0-epos, Lith.
bend-ras, represent an original *bhendh-. This form occurs
in Gmc. as bind-an, with Gme. change from e to i before
n-+consonant. At this rate, original *dent- would produce
in Gme. *éenp-, and thence *éinp-, but this form of this
particular word is not found in any Gmc. tongue.

There are other cases, however, when Lat. -en corresponds
to Gme. -un: for instance, Lat. cent-um, Goth. hund-, ‘100’;

. to these forms there correspond é-catdv in Gk., szimtas in
Lith., and Satdém in Scrt. Again, Lat. ment-, * mind’;
Goth. ga-mund-s, ‘remembrance,’ corresponds to Scrt. mati-,
‘thought.’ In these cases we see that Lat. en, Gme. wn,
correspond to forms in Scrt. and Gk. which have no nasal.
In this case Lat. en cannot be derived from an original en,
since, as we have just seen, that is preserved in Gk. and in
Sert. becomes an (7evOepds, Lat. of-fendia, * tie, ‘band’;
Sert. bandhus, etc.) ; further, original en equals Gothic -in-,
and not -un-. We may formulate our results so far thus:

{ a -an- Scrt. -an-

The} Gk. -ov- | _ The } Gk. -ev- <,

oi -on- jens "Om. Series) Lat. -en. ja eM
Gme. -an- Gme. -en (in)

Sert. wu
- | Gk. -a-
The Series  F' atone |e g

Gme. -un-

That is to say that by the side of the forms -en- and -on-
of roots with a nasal, we must assume that a third form
existed—a form which, whatever it was, acquired various
sounds in the separate development of each Aryan language.
It is generally assumed that this third form was a weakened
VOCALIC N, 4 IN ARYAN 163

form which possessed, originally, no definite vowel sound,
but contained a syllabic nasal very similar, probably, to
the second syllable of the English word ‘ bution’ (batn).
Comparative philologists usually write this hypothetical
sound 2, to distinguish it from the consonantal », or
in the case of centum, etc.; of. Lith. sztmtas, from Aryan
*kmtdm, We have thus established a strong probability
that Gothic éunp- and Latin dent- are both from an original
form *dnt-, whereas the various other forms of this word,
including the O.H.G. sand and O.E. ¢op, are all derivable
from a primitive *dont-.

Although only two forms of this root have survived
other similar roots preserve all three forms, thus : qevdepos,
bendras and bind-, from *bhendh- ; band and bandhus, from
*bhondh; bund and of-fend-ix, from *bhudh-. This dif-
ferentiation of an original vowel, which goes back to the
mother-tongue, is known as Ablaut or Gradation. The
supposed causes of this phenomenon will be treated later on.

We have endeavoured in the above discussion to illustrate
the method, and line of reasoning whereby the reconstructed
forms of the mother-tongue are arrived at.

The principles upon which our method is based are
briefly stated by Brugmann (Techmer’s Zeitschrift, Bd. L.,
pp. 254, 255). They may be summarized as follows :

The probability that any given feature in a language is
primitive increases with the number of languages in which
it can be traced.

The greater the geographical separation of those
languages in which the same feature occurs, the greater
the likelihood that it is inherited from the mother-tongue.

Geographical separation limits the probability that the

11—2
164 METHODS OF COMPARISON AND RECONSTRUCTION

occurrence of the same peculiarity in several languages
is due to contact between them at a late period, or to
borrowing.

In cases where we find diversity of form in the derived
languages, we assume diversity in the mother-tongue,
unless we are able to show that this diversity is due to
special conditions in individual languages—that is, to
particular laws of sound change which we can state
definitely.

It is desirable to take as wide a survey as possible, and
to check the results and conclusions at which we arrive,
from several sides.

In all reconstruction we must be guided by common-
sense ; we must bear in mind that we are dealing with
sounds, and not with symbols, and must not overstep the
limits of what is reasonable and probable in the sphere of
actual change of sound.
CHAPTER IX

THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE, AND
THE DERIVED FAMILIES OF LANGUAGES

Since even the most elementary books on the History of
English contain at least some statement to the effect that
there once existed a language, long since extinct, which
is now known as the Aryan mother-tongue, from which
various groups or families of languages sprang, together
with an enumeration of these, a very brief account of the
present views on this subject will suffice in this place.
All that need be attempted here is a short and, if possible,
a clear account of what is meant by the phrase mother-
tongue, an enumeration of the principal groups of languages
into which this was differentiated, the supposed relation-
ship in which they stand to each other, with a more par-
ticular account of one group—the Germanic, of which our
own language is a member.

Among the numerous general authorities on the ques-
tions with which we are about to deal, there may be
mentioned: Isaac Taylor, The Origin of the Aryans,
1890; Sweet, History of Language, 1900; Schrader,
Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, 1890; and, above
all, Brugmann, Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik

der Indogermanischen Sprachen [2nd ed.], Bd. I. (Laut-
165
166 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

lehre), 1897 ; and Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik der Indo-
germanischen Sprachen, Bd. I. (Lautlehre), 1902, by the
same author. The introductory chapters of the last two
works deal with the classification and other general prob-
lems connected with the Aryan languages. The larger
book should be constantly consulted by advanced students
of Comparative Philology, while even beginners might with
advantage consult the smaller. -Brugmann’s works are
standard text-books of the best kind ; they are masterpieces
of method, and display the latest results of modern research,
more especially in so far as it deals with such problems as
are settled and no longer under discussion. Brugmann
represents the solid, safe, conservative wing of the new
science of language, of which, together with Osthoff,
Paul, Sievers, and one or two more, he was the founder
more than thirty years ago. Students of the history of
the Science of Comparative Philology will recognise Scherer
and Leskien as the intellectual fathers of the band of
scholars of whom Osthoff and Brugmann are now the
distinguished and venerated chiefs.

The Conception of a Family of Languages.

The resemblances and agreements in the forms of words,
in vocabulary, and in inflections, which exist between such
languages as Mod. Eng., Dutch, Danish, and German,
are so striking that they cannot fail to impress even
the least instructed student of two or more of the above
languages. The farther back we go in the history of these
tongues, and the earlier the forms of them which we
compare, the closer becomes the resemblance. That there
is an intimate connection between them is obvious. They
MODERN GERMANIC LANGUAGES COMPARED 167

are commonly classed together under the general name of
the Germanic or Teutonic languages. We may take a few
points of resemblance for consideration : (1) The modern
Continental languages of the so-called Germanic group
have, in a large number of cases, practically the same
group of sounds associated with the same meaning.
German kommen, ‘come,’ Dutch komme(n), Swedish komma,
German tag, ‘day,’ Dutch dag (dah), Danish dag (de3) ;
German ein, zwei, drei, vier, fiinf, Dutch een, twee, drie,
vier, vijf, Swedish en, twa, tre, fyra, fem=1, 2, 3, 4, 5;
German mutter, Dutch moeder, Swedish moder, ‘ mother.’
And so on throughout the vocabulary, we find that these
languages have in common thousands of words identical
in meaning, and differing but little in pronunciation.
The resemblances of Mod. Eng. to the other languages
are in many cases not so close, but none the less unmistak-
able. (2) We find that all of these languages agree in
possessing a class of so-called weak verbs, which form their
past tense by the addition of the suffix -de, -te, -ed, or -ede,
to the root of the verb. Eng. hear, hear-d ; Swedish héra,
hér-de ; Dutch hooren, hoor-de ; German héren, hér-te, and
so on. (3) These languages all possess groups of so-
called strong verbs, which form their past tenses and past
participles by series of changes in the vowels of the
‘root’: Eng. sing, sang, sung; Danish synge, sang,
sunget; Dutch zingen, zong, ge-zongen; German singen,
sang, ge-sungen, etc.

Now, agreement between languages which includes
sounds, vocabulary, inflection, and such deep - rooted
features as vowel change within the ‘root’ itself, cannot
be mere coincidence. Neither, when we find such common
168 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

features equally among widely-separated groups of speakers,
such as the Germans, Swedes, Danes, and English, can the
agreement be the result of wholesale borrowing ; for in this
case it would naturally be asked, from whom have all
these languages borrowed their characteristic features?
Again, there is no reason for assuming that any one of
these languages is the surviving ancestor of all the others.
There remains only the possibility that English, Dutch,
the Scandinavian languages, and German, are each and all
the descendants of the same original language; that they
represent, in fact, the various forms into which a parent
language, which no longer exists, has been differentiated, by
virtue of such factors of isolation as those we have already
discussed. Cf. p. 96, etc. This extinct form of speech, out
of which we assume all these languages to have developed,
along more or less different lines, we call Primitive Germanic.
Parent Germanic, or simply Germanic. If we wished to
compare the Germanic languages systematically, we should
take the oldest forms of each which are preserved in writ-
ing. The above examples are drawn from the modern
languages, partly because these are, on the whole, more
familiar and accessible to the general student, partly also
to show how close the resemblance still is, even after all
these centuries of separation. The oldest considerable body
of ancient Germanic speech is the fourth-century translation
of part of the Bible in Gothic, a language long extinct.
By applying to the other ancient and modern languages
or dialects of Europe and India tests similar to those
briefly suggested above, similar results are obtained
by scholars—namely, that at various points languages
resolve themselves into groups of closely-related forms of
CHIEF DIVISIONS OF ARYAN SPEECH 169

speech. For each of these groups it appears necessary to
assume a primitive ancestral form which no longer survives,
and from which the various members of the group have
been differentiated, in the same way as the Germanic
languages sprang from parent Germanic.

Thus we are able, from this point of view, to distinguish
‘ the following groups or Families of Speech: (1) Indian,
of which the best-known ancient representative is Sanscrit,
franian, which includes Old (and Mod.) Persian (West
Iranian), and Zend, the dialect in which the Avesta—that
is, the collection of the ancient sacred books of the Parsees
—is written (Kast Iranian). This dialect is also known as
Old Bactrian. Indian and Iranian dialects are usually
grouped under the general head of Indo-Iranian. The
earliest remains of Sanscrit are the hymns of the Rig-Veda,
the language of which is approximately 4,000 years old.
(2) Armenian, whose written records go back to the fifth
century of our era. (3) Hellenic, or Greek dialects.
(4) Albanian, now recognised as a member of an independent
group. (5) Jtalic, which consists on the one hand of Latin,
and on the other of the Oscan and Umbrian dialects.
(6) Celtic, of which ancient Gaulish was a member, but
which is best known from Old and Modern Irish and Scotch
Gaelic on the one hand, and from Welsh in all its stages on
the other. (7) Germanic. (8) Baltic-Slavonic. The last
represents two nearly-related divisions of one original group.
The Baltic division is known to us from Lettish (still
spoken), Old Prussian (which died out in the seventeenth
century), and by Lithuanian, spoken at the present day by
something between one million and a half and two million
persons in Russia and East Prussia. Lithuanian records
170 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

go no further back than the tenth century. The Slavonic
division consists of Russian, Bulgarian, Servian (Eastern),
Bohemian or Chekh (t{ch), Sorbian, and Polish (Western).
The oldest form of Slavonic known is preserved in a trans-
lation of the Bible and other religious writings from the
ninth century. The dialect is known as Old Bulgarian,
Old Church Slavonic, or simply Old Slavonic.

The Aryan Family of Languages.

A comparison of the common characteristics of each of
the above families of languages with the others reveals the
fact that there are many features shared by the whole
group of families. These consist of fundamental elements
of vocabulary, such as the numerals, the substantive verb,
the pronouns, the names for the natural relationships.
Further innumerable suffixes and formative elements appear,
under varying forms, it is true, in all the above families.
They all show the same principle of vowel gradation, or
differentiation of vowels in the same root, and the main out-
lines of sentence-structure and syntax are common to all.

Here, again, the points of agreement are too numerous
and too deeply seated to be fortuitous; and the same
inference is drawn with regard to the mutual relations
of the various families, as were drawn from facts of the
same order, in connection with the relationship of the
different languages which go to make up a given family.

The assumption is made, that each of the now separate
families of languages is sprung from a common parent
language, the characteristics of which are preserved with
varying degrees of fidelity in the derived languages. ‘This
common parent, the undifferentiated ancestral form of
“CRADLE OF THE ARYANS’ 171

speech, from which it is assumed that Indo-Iranian and
Slavonic,and Greek and Latin, and Celtic and Germanic, have
all been developed, is known as the Aryan Mother-Tongue,
Primitive Aryan, or Indo-Germanic (Idg.), etc. This form
of speech is, of course, nowhere spoken at the present
time, nor has it ever been within the historic period.
Authorities differ as to the length of time which has
elapsed since the differentiation of the mother-tongue
into dialects, but we may take it at something between
ten and twelve thousand years.

Where was Primitive Aryan spoken ?

The answer to this question, down to twenty-five years
ago, was generally given in the words which the late
Mr. Max Miiller used, in dealing with the subject, to
the end of his life—‘ somewhere in Asia. With the
exception, however, of Mr. Max Miiller, and the dis-
tinguished Berlin Professor, Johann Schmidt, who died two
or three years ago, probably no other responsible authority
would have given such an answer—at least, not in a dog-
matic manner—any time during the last quarter of a
century. The question is discussed at length in the
works mentioned above by Taylor, Schrader, and Sweet ;
and among recent contributions to the subject, the reader
may also refer to Schrader, Reallexikon der Indogerm.
Altertumskunde, 1901, under heading, ‘ Urheimat der Indo-
germanen’, Hirt, Indogerm. Forsch., i., p. 464; and
Kretschmer, Hinl. in die Gesch. d. griech. Spr., 1896.
It is sufficient here to say that the universal view now
held by scholars is that the ‘Home of the undivided
Aryans’ was ‘somewhere’ in Northern or Central Europe.
172 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

In favour of the old view no serious argument ever has been,
or ever could be, advanced, while all the evidence derived
from archeology, ethnology, and comparative philology,
makes for the probability of the ‘ European hypothesis.’

It is to be deplored that the writers of elementary text-
books, or * cram-books,’ as they too often are, should still
continue to copy, out of the works of an earlier generation,
among other views now obsolete, this particular view
of migration in successive waves from Asia, which often
appears in modern books of the class alluded to, not as a
tentative and possible account of what happened, but in
the form of a categorical statement of undisputed fact. Un-
fortunately, the theory has been discredited for more than

thirty years.
The Aryan Race,

It used formerly to be assumed that, since affinity
of language had been proved between Indians, Slavs,
Germans, Greeks, Italians, and Celts, it therefore also
followed that ‘the same blood flowed in the veins’
of all. At the present time probably no impartial
observer would suggest such a view. The Aryan lan-
guages are obviously spoken at the present day by men
of very different physical types, and certainly of distinct
race. Which of the existing races who speak Aryan
languages represents the original race? Perhaps none.
On the other hand, it is maintained by many writers that
the blonde, long-headed races of Northern Europe are
nearest in physical type to the original Aryans. This
question, however interesting in itself from many points
of view, has but little bearing upon the problems of
speech development with which we are here concerned.
RACE AND LANGUAGE NOT COEXTENSIVE 178

Whether the original speakers of Primitive Aryan were
fair, like some Swedes and Russians; or dark, like other
Slavs, and like some of the speakers of Irish and Welsh
at the present day; or whether the mother-tongue was
spoken both by fair and dark races, does not primarily
concern us. We are content to know that there was
a mother-tongue, which, in the course of time, spread
over an immense geographical area, and was acquired
by people of various racial types, who lost their own
language in consequence; a fact which was probably of
significance in determining the particular line of deviation
from the original form, which Aryan speech followed in
different areas (see ante, pp. 86 and 87).

The Relative Primitiveness of the Divisions of Aryan
Speech.

As regards the preservation of inflections in their
original fulness and variety, the general principle seems
to be that those languages which longest preserved their
old ‘free’ accent of the mother-tongue, such as Sanscrit,
Greek, Baltic-Slavonic, retained also for a long time a
large proportion of the original suffixes and formative
elements following the root; those, on the other hand,
which, like Latin, Celtic, and Germanic, developed a fixed
and stereotyped accent at a comparatively early period,
suffered a greater loss of inflections through the weakening
of that part of words which was habitually unaccented.

When we come to consider sound changes, however, no
special claim to superior general fidelity to the original
quality of the sounds, in other than final syllables, can be
advanced in favour of any particular group of languages.
174 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

A sound is here subject to numerous changes, both
Combinative and Isolative; there it appears to enjoy
immunity from change. Thus, for instance, ancient
Greek has preserved the rich and varied vowel system
of Primitive Aryan with remarkable fidelity, but the old
consonantal system undergoes many striking changes in
this language: s, except when final, becomes h, and
is often lost; the old back consonants with lip modifica-
tion become, according to the conditions in which they
appear, pure lip stops, or pure point-teeth stops; the
old voiced aspirates are all unvoiced; if two aspirates
of any kind follow each other in successive syllables of the
same word, the first loses its aspiration. This last change
is known as ‘ Grassman’s Law, and applies also to Sanscrit.
All final consonants are lost, and ¢ before z becomes s.
Sanscrit has a poor and monotonous vowel system com-
pared with Greek ; but the consonants, with the exception
of the back series (back, back-outer, and back-lip-modified),
are on the whole primitive. The outer varieties of back
consonants become § ({) and % respectively. Latin preserves
in many cases the simple vowels intact, but they are liable
to various combinative changes ; the diphthongs oi, eu, ou,
are all levelled under @ (though O. Lat. still has oe for the
first) ; at becomes ae (ae), and then é; es becomes 7 Latin
preserves faithfully the lip-modified back consonants which
Greek changes so completely; but gets rid altogether of
aspirated stops, which become under various conditions
b, d, and f Germanic preserves the old vowel system
fairly well, but levels @ under 6, o under a, ei under i,
and oi under ai. All the stop consonants undergo change;
the voiced stops are unvoiced, the voiceless stops are
SCHLEICHER’S GENEALOGICAL CLASSIFICATION 175

opened in the corresponding areas of articulation; the
voiced aspirated stops also become the corresponding
voiced open consonants.

Such are a few of the principal characteristic changes which
take place in four important families of the Aryan languages.
Clearly the paths of development are very various.

The Mutual Relations of the Chief Groups of Aryan
Speech.

The problem of how to group the Aryan languages, or
families of languages, among themselves in such a way as
to express the degree of relationship in which they stand
to each other has occupied a number of eminent scholars.
Schleicher (Deutsche Sprache", p. 29) remarks, in some-
what general terms, that when two or more members of
a family of languages resemble each other closely, we
naturally assume that they have not been so long sepa-
rated from each other, as have other members of the same
family which have already diverged from each other much
farther. On the grounds of this principle, and guided by
what he assumed to be decisive points of resemblance,
Schleicher formulated his famous ‘ Stammbaum, or genea-
logical tree, which expresses his conception of the inter-
relations of the Idg. languages and the relative periods
at which they differentiated from the mother-tongue and
from each other (see Compendium*, 1866, p. 9). He con-
ceives that Idg. first split into two branches (‘durch
ungleiche entwickelung ’)—that is to say that the ancestral
form of Slavonic and Germanic (‘ Slavo-deutsch’) deviated
from the remaining Ursprache. Then this remaining stem,
which Schleicher calls ‘ Ariograekoitaloceltisch, divided
176 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

into Arian (that is, the Indian group) on the one hand,
and a dialect from which was subsequently differentiated
Greek, Italic, and Celtic, on the other.

This Stammbaum theory was ruthlessly attacked by
Johann Schmidt in 1872 (Verwandtschafisverhilinisse
der Idg. Spr.), who altogether rejects the old explana-
tion of the Idg. differentiation, and substitutes for it
what is known as the ‘ Wellen-, or Ubergangstheorie’
—that is, the theory of gradual transition. Schmidt's
investigation embraced at once all the various points
of agreement which exist among all the groups of Idg.
speech. As a result, he believed himself justified in
giving the following account of the process of the break-
ing up of the primitive speech. Indo-Germanic speech
extended over a geographically unbroken area, in which
arose from the earliest times, at different points, slight
beginnings of incipient dialects in the shape of sound
variation, which extended more or less far from their
starting-place into the neighbouring districts. These
differences grew up gradually among the speakers of what
was once a homogeneous speech, and formed the proto-
types of the subsequent families of languages. ‘These
dialects, however, Schmidt regarded as, in the first place,
forming a continuous series, and shading one into the
other. ‘Then, here and there, the speech of one area
gained in importance and strength, and absorbed those
on either side which differed only slightly from it, thus
destroying several links in the chain and leaving a gulf.
This process happened in various centres, with the result
that speech-islands were left, which differed widely from
the surrounding forms. This was the origin of the great
SCHMIDT’S WELLENTHEORIE 177

families of Idg. speech. (For good account of Schmidt’s
theory of: Schrader, Sprugi., p. 89, etc.; and Brugmann
in Techmer’s Zitschr., i., p. 226, etc.)

This explanation entirely swept away Schleicher’s original
‘speech unities’ of ‘Slavo-Germanic,’ ‘ Graeko-Italo-Cetic,’
etc. Schmidt showed that if the Slavonic languages could
not be widely separated from the Germanic, on account of
certain resemblances, too strong and too numerous to be
due to coincidence, neither could the Slavonic languages
be separated from the Indo-Iranian group. Greek, on the
other hand, had undoubtedly close affinities to Sanscrit ;
but also other, equally strongly-marked characters in
common with Latin. Thus the old division of the
European and Asiatic branches, supposed to represent
two main dialects of the Mother-Tongue, was done away
with. The Gme. family in Schmidt’s scheme comes between
Slavonic and Celtic, and the latter forms the connecting-
link between Gme. and Latin, thus completing the circle
of affinities. This ingenious view of gradual transitions,
and the subsequent dying out of intermediate varieties,
was accepted by Schrader (Joc. cit.) and by Paul (in the
Chapter ‘Sprachspaltung,’ Principien d. Sprgesch.).

Modifications of the ‘ Ubergangstheorie.’

In 1876 Leskien published his Deklination im Slavisch-
Litamischen und Germanischen, in the Introduction to which
he discusses the question of Idg. classification at some
length. On p. x of the Introduction he criticises Schmidt's
statement of his case, and contrasts the new views with the
Stammbaumtheorie. He points out that the ‘ Ubergangs-
theorie’ by itself, involves the gradual spread of popu-

12
78 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

lation, by mere increase, over a slowly but ever increasing
area. Schleicher’s explanation involves migrations of
considerable magnitude, a process which would accomplish
the work of differentiation far quicker and more com-
pletely. Leskien, however, does not by any means reject
Schmidt’s hypothesis, but proposes to modify it, and to
combine it with the theory of genealogical development.
It is possible for a large community, whose speech had
already two slight dialectal varieties, to migrate from
their original seat and settle down, still as one community,
for a long time. In this case we assume three sections, as
it were, of Schmidt’s community—A, B, C, of which
B’s speech forms the connecting-link between A and Be
and his different points of agreement with both. Thus
in their original seat A and B have had, as it were, a
common speech life, so have B and C, but not A and C.
Then B and C move off together, and in their new home
continue their common life. Any developments subse-
quently undergone by A must be quite distinct from B;
and, on the other hand, B may develop on lines common
to C, but in which obviously A can have no share,
Leskien applies this argument to the relations of Indo-
Tranian, Slav.-Lith., and Gmc., and considers the treatment
of Aryan k and of bh-m; for this latter example I propose
to substitute that of bh=Gk. ¢, Gme. and Slav. b.
Indo-Iranian shares with the Baltic-Slavic languages the
change of one of the original k sounds to 8 (§), but
Gme. shows no such tendency; on the other hand,
Indo-Iranian (originally, at any rate) preserves the old
aspirate bh, while both Gme. and Slav. get rid of the
aspiration.
LESKIEN—BRUGMANN ON ARYAN AFFINITIES 179

With this modification, then, Leskien’s diagram (Einleit-
ung, p. xi) may be reproduced as follows :

1 ci ‘ *
Lith. ee el

was

Recent Views.

If we accept Hirt’s view of the importance of foreign
influence in differentiating language, (cf. p. 85) it would
seem that some such modification of Schmidt’s theory
as that proposed by Leskien is necessary ; since, on the
one hand, it accounts for the points of resemblance
between different families of Idg. speech, and, on the
other, allows also for the possibility of contact with
speakers of non-Idg. languages, which may explain the
great diversity which also exists. With regard, how-
ever, to the features which several languages have in
common, but which others do not possess, on the basis
of which Schmidt postulated his system of continuous
contact, Brugmann has taken up a very sceptical attitude.
In an elaborate article in Techmer’s Zeitschrift fir allge-
meine Sprachwissenschaft, i., p. 226, ete. (Zur Frage nach
den Verwandtschaftsverhiltnissen der Idg. Spr.), after dis-

* The similarity between Slav.-Lith. and Gme. in their treatment
of original bh consisted primarily in the loss of aspiration; since
although, later on, the individual Gmc. languages developed a voiced
lip-stop (b) under certain conditions, there is reason to believe that

this sound did not exist in Gmc. itself, and that bh became at first
a lip-open-voice consonant.

12—2
180 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

cussing one after another, all the special points of develop-
ment which two or more groups of Idg. speech have in
common, he comes to the conclusion that the majority of
them prove nothing in support of the assumption of the
peculiarly close relationship claimed between those groups
of languages in which they occur (loc. cit., pp. 252-254).
The only exception to this destructive conclusion ad-
mitted by Brugmann is the close relationship of Celtic
and Italic (p. 253). The same views are maintained in
the most recent pronouncements of the same author (cf.
Grundriss’, i., pp. 22-27; and Kurze-vergleichende Gr.,
pp. 3, 4, 18-22). The agreements which exist then, as
they unquestionably do, between two or more speech
groups, are not necessarily to be explained by assuming
with Schleicher a common ‘ Slavo-Germanic’ language,
or a common ‘ Graeko-Italic’ period.

Brugmann suggests possibilities other than the genea-
logical theory. The ancestors of two or more groups may
have lived side by side, in a remote prehistoric period, before
the breaking up of the mother-tongue, and may have
developed the same tendencies in common. In such a case
we should have to deal with dialectal variation originating
within Aryan itself. It matters little whether, in their
subsequent life-history, the languages remain in geographi-
cal contact, or become widely separated ; for in the race-
migrations of ages, original contiguity may be broken and
joined again more than once. In grouping the languages
of the Aryan stock, Brugmann arranges the families in
the order suggested by their mutual resemblances; this is
the most practical method of arrangement so long as it
is remembered that nothing beyond resemblance is implied
ARYAN CONSONANTS

181

thereby, and that the question of how to interpret the
resemblance is left open. It is possible that examples of
original dialectal character are afforded by the treatment
of & (forward k), which becomes s or (§) in Indo-Iranian
and in Baltic-Slavonic, but which in all the other families

is levelled under the full-back stop.

The Sounds of the Mother-Tongue.

By applying methods similar to those illustrated in the
last chapter, the following sounds are now believed to

have existed in Primitive Aryan :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consonants.

Back. oot ee Back-outer, Front,
Open... — _— — j
Stop ...|k, kh, g, gh} k” g™ |[k, kh, g gh) —
Nasal... y —_— — _—
Divided —_ — — —

Blade. Point-teeth. Lip. Se
Open... 8, Z — = w
Stop ... —_— t, th, d, dh |p, ph, b, bh —
Nasal... — n m —
Divided — —_ —
Trill ... —_— r a —

 

 
182 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

 

 

 

Vowels.
Unrounded, i Rounded.
Front. | Back. Flat. Back.
High ...| i | = re a
Mid Pe é a 3 6
Low... — _— _— 3 (?)

 

 

 

 

Also syllabic 1, r, n, m; and the diphthongs : éi, éu, ai,
au, Gi, du.

The Relations of Vowels to each other in Aryan—Ablaut,
or Vowel Gradation.

Cf. Brugmann; Grundr.? i., p. 482, etc., and Vgi. Gr.
p-. 138, etc.; Hirt d. Idg. Ablaut, 1900, and Griech. Gr.,
ch. ix. and x. ; Streitberg Urgerm. Gr., p. 86, etc. ; Noreen
Urgerm. Lautlehre, p. 37, etc.; and the references given
in these works.

In all Idg. languages, certain vowel changes occur within
groups of etymologically related words, both in ‘roots’
and in suffizes—e.g.: in Gk., Néyo, ‘I speak’; Xéyos, ‘word’s
dai, ‘I speak’ (Doric), dwvy, ‘ voice’; marnp, ‘ father,’
Ace, rrarépa; pevrya, ‘I fly,’ Aorist épuyov, etc. In Latin,
tego, ‘cover,’ perf. téxi; moneo, literally ‘cause to re-
member,’ me-min-i, =*men-; dare, ‘give’; donum, ‘gift’;
ditus, ‘given, etc. In Gmc., vowel changes of this nature
take place regularly in the strong verbs—e.g.: Gothic,
giban, ‘give, pret. sing. gaf, pret. pl. gébum, kiusan,
‘choose,’ pret. sing. kaus, pret. pl. kusum, etc.; also in
GRADATION A PHONOLOGICAL PROBLEM 183

other etymologically related words: O.E., deg, ‘ day,’
dogor ; Goth., hinpan, ‘ catch, handus, ‘ hand” (literally,
* that which seizes’), etc.

The above changes cannot be explained by sound laws
peculiar to the particular languages in which they occur ;
their explanation must be sought in the common mother-
tongue. The phenomena of these primitive vowel alterna-
tions are all included under the name Ablaut, invented by
Grimm, although they are of various nature, and the causes
which produced them must have been of several kinds;
according to the present view however, it is probable that
they were in all cases associated with primitive conditions of
accentuation. Although the differentiation of vowels by
Ablaut was made use of in Idg. to express differences of
meaning, these latter are only indirectly related to the
vowel changes. If a vowel originally recurred in a parti-
cular form in a particular grammatical category—as, for
instance, in the Germanic strong verbs—this was because the
phonetic conditions were present upon which that form of
the vowel depended. ‘The origin of Ablaut distinctions,
then, is a phonological problem. Even in Idg. itself there
must have been cases like that of the suffix in Gk. 6y-Tp,
compared with p7-rwp, in which the variation of the vowel
performed no semasiological function at all.

The full explanation of this difficult question will prob-
ably always remain hidden, since we are here dealing
with a portion of the earliest history of the Ursprache
itself.

No single sound law produced all the phenomena with
which the historical period of Idg. speech presents us in
this respect, but a considerable number of laws, which
184 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

were active at different periods, possibly widely separated
in time.

The Ablaut as we know it in the earliest historic period is
the result of the stratifications of the speech of different ages.

We have to distinguish two fundamentally distinct kinds
of Ablaut: a Quantitative and a Qualitative. The latter
kind consists in the interchange, within cognate ‘ roots’ and
suffixes, of vowels of different Quality—e.g., €-6 (cf pntnp-
pytwp). The causes of this Ablaut are the most obscure.

Quantitative Ablaut, on the other hand, consists in the
shortening or lengthening of vowels. This kind of Ablaut
is associated mainly with the position of the accent in
Primitive Aryan. By accent here may in all probability
be understood stress.

It should be remembered that Idg. consisted, not of
‘ Roots, but of words. ‘ Roots, which are mere grammatical
abstractions, had no existence in Jdg. any more than in
Modern English. Since, however, it is necessary to make
some kind of abstraction in dealing with groups of cognate
words, it is better to call these ‘ Bases. Aryan words
were monosyllabic and polysyllabic, and so we speak also
of monosyllabic and polysyllabic Bases.

The accent in Aryan was ‘free ’—that is, the chief accent
might rest, theoretically, upon any syllable in a word. In
a word of several syllables only one syllable can have full
stress; the other syllables have varying degrees of stress.
It is enough to distinguish, from this point of view, Strong,
Medium, and Weak syllables, all of these being, however,
relative terms—Strong implying the chief stress in any given
word, Weak implying the east stress, or what is also called
absence of stress (cf. pp. 45 and 46 above).
ALTERATIONS OF VOWEL QUANTITY 185

Now, at a certain period in primitive Idg. vowels were
very sensitive to the influence of stress. According to the
degree of strength with which any syllable was uttered, so
its original vowel or diphthong was either preserved in its
full volume, or was weakened or * reduced, If the syllable
was altogether unstressed, it might lose its vowel com-
pletely. ‘The only vowels which, after the period of this
weakening in unaccented syllables, could stand in strong
syllables were «, ¢, 6, and diphthongal combinations of
these with i, w, 7, 2, m, 7.

We distinguish, then, three main ‘ grades’ or ‘ stufen’
of vowels, one of which every syllable of an Aryan word
must necessarily contain : the Fwd grade in strong syllables,
the Reduced grade in Medium syllables, and the ‘ Vanish-
ing’ grade in IWeak syllables.

The ‘ Dehnstufe’ or Lengthened Grade.

So far we have only considered the weakening or total
disappearance of a vowel; there remains to be dealt with
the further case in which an original short vowel is
lengthened. To this grade German writers give the name
of Dehnstufe or ‘ stretch grade,

It does not follow that all long vowels in Idg. are of
this origin; there are original long vowels, which were
long before the beginning of the Ablaut processes. But
in word series (Ablautsreihen) in which we find long vowels
side by side with short vowels, the short vowels occurring,
not in the Reduced grades, but in Full grades, showing
that they are original, then, in these cases, we may assume
that we are in the presence of the ‘ Stretch’ grade.
186 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

Compare, for instance, Latin vého with perf. véxi (Idg.
e-6); O.E. sé, pret. sing. of sittan (=Idg. *sod), with sot,
‘ soot ’—literally, ‘that which settles down’ (= Idg. *sad).
The explanation of this lengthening has been formulated by
Streitberg (I. F.., iii. 805, etc.), and has gained fairly general
acceptance. Briefly stated, his law runs: ‘ The short vowel
of an accented (Strong) syllable is lengthened in Idg.
when a following syllable is lost (gf also Brugmann,
Vgi. Gr., p. 38, and Hirt, Idg. Ablaut, p. 22, etc.). This,
of course, is merely the general explanation of the origin
of the lengthening in Idg. itself; it does not follow that
we are always able to trace the loss of a syllable in all cases
where the Dehnstufé occurs in the derived languages.

The Vowels of the Weakened Grades.

The fate of the Aryan full vowels when weakened under
the conditions described above (p. 185) is clearly a matter
of hypothesis. It is, however, our business to endeavour
to form some idea of what happened by a comparison of all
the derived languages. The reduced forms of 4, é, 6 appear
in Indo-Iranian as i, and in all the other families of Aryan
speech as a. It is therefore assumed that the original
sound was an ‘ obscure’ vowel, which is written a in philo-
logical works.

Nore.—Thus Brugmann, Grundriss,? loc. cit., and Vgl.
Gr., § 127; Hirt, on the other hand (Idg. Ablaut, p. 5,
etc.) assumes that these vowels did not lose their original
quality in Idg. when reduced, but were merely unvoiced,
and, instead of a, writes ¢ @ 0. Hirt’s reason for so doing
is that in Greek Qeréds compared with riOnus, orards
compared with wcraut, Sords compared with didwpu, the
REDUCTION OF LONG AND SHORT VOWELS _ 187

original quality of e, a, 0 reappears. He argues that the
whispered vowel has emerged in Greek with mere shorten-
ing, while the other languages have lost the original quality
of e and a, and levelled them under a. This view is also
shared by Fick, Bechtel, Wackernagel, and Collitz (see
references in Hirt), Brugmann, however, and probably
most other scholars, explain the above Greek forms as new
formations from @ards, etc.

The reduction of short a, e, 0 cannot be proved, from
any historical indications, to have altered these vowels at
all, since the original vowels reappear intact in positions
where, theoretically speaking, reduction must have taken
place—that is, in weak syllables. Brugmann writes these
theoretical reduced vowels ,, ., ,, but does not discuss
their nature. Hirt, again, assumes that these were voiceless
(‘tonlose) vowels. In the derived languages this grade is
indistinguishable from the full grade short vowels.

Nore.—The modification by accent of the long and short
vowels cannot have been synchronous. We may accept
Hirt’s hypothesis concerning the reduction of the short
vowels, since it appears to jump with the facts. But the
long vowels certainly appear to have lost their character-
istic quality altogether. If this is so, then the two pro-
cesses cannot have taken place at the same time, since it
is scarcely conceivable that a short vowel, when unaccented,
should retain its quality more completely than a long, at
a period when all vowels in weak syllables were affected.
We may, perhaps, assume an early period of vowel reduction
which only affected short vowels, which were either unvoiced
or whispered in weak syllables, but which left long vowels
188 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

unaltered. ‘Then in a subsequent period long vowels were
reduced under the same conditions, only more completely
than the short vowels in the former period, since they
lost their quality and became an indeterminate sound (a),
We must suppose that in this period the whispered or
voiceless ¢, ¢, 9 which had been produced in the former age
of reduction remained without further alteration. Ata
later period the latter class were again fully voiced, thus
being levelled under the unreduced a, e, 0, while a remained
until the breaking up of Aryan into dialects, and was then
levelled under a in all groups except Jndo-Iranian, where
it became i.

Qualitative Ablaut.—Under certain conditions, which
are by no means clear as yet, primitive é in F'udl Grade
syllables became J, and é in the same grade became 6,
Therefore, when we have a base in which primitive é or é
occur, we may also expect to find cognate forms with
Sor 6. This J underwent lengthening in the Dehnstufe.

We may summarize the foregoing statement as follows

 

D. D*. F.

Fy
.°

z | ¥.

 

| | | sore
ovounxw oo

| | J of

soap oOo
afaol|o

o

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nore.—D. = Dehnstufe ; D.° = Dehnstufe in which 6
from é occurs; F.= Full Grade; F.° that in which o from
e occurs; R.= Reduced Grade ; V.= Vanishing Grade.
TREATMENT OF DIPHTHONGS IN WEAK SYLLABLES 189

Diphthongal Combinations in Ablaut.

Each and all the above vowels of the F. Grade occurred
in Aryan in combination with i, «, and the vocalic con-
sonants J, m, n, Tr.

The long diphthongs were levelled under the original
shorts, or were monophthongized in all Idg. languages
except Scrt., in which there are still traces of the long
(cf. Brugmann, Grundr.,” i., p. 203, etc.).

For the -i- and -u- long diphthongs we assume a R. grade
4, 24, which appear to have been levelled already in Idg.
under the F. Grade before vowels. In the V. Grade the
first element entirely disappears, leaving i, y. In all grades
4 and zw are vowels before consonants, but become con-
sonants before following vowels.

The combinations of J, m, etc., are treated in the same
manner: F. el, ol; R. al; V. 1, etc. The ‘liquids’ and
nasals in the V. Grade are consonantal before vowels, other-
wise they are syllabic. The Reduced grades 4%, au, of long
diphthongs appear as 7,% before consonants; as ai, au
before vowels. “oo

The reduced grades of the short diphthongs e2, ai, oj
are either levelled under the V. grade, or, when they
receive a secondary accent are lengthened to 7, i.

Although theoretically, each vowel in every word might,
under the necessary conditions, appear in every grade,
it does not follow that, in the derived languages, all
the original possible forms of a word, ‘root, or suffix
survive; they are very rarely all found in any one
language, and some have apparently disappeared from

all languages.
190 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

Examples of Aryan Ablaut.

 

 

 

lag. e Series.
F. D.
Vv.
ello eis
Ar. *std-, ‘sit’: Idg. -sd-:
Lat. sedére | Lat. sodalis | Lat.séd-imus| O.E. sot Lat. nidus
Gk. &buar | Goth. sat Goth. sétum >*nisdos
O, Sl. sedeti O.E. seton O.E. nest
O.E. sittan
> *set-jan
Ar. *bher-: Idg. *bhr-:
Lat. fero Lat. for-s, | Goth. bérum | Gk. dup Gk. &-¢p os
Gk. ¢épw for-tina | O.E. bron | Lat. fur (chariot-
Goth. bairan | Gk. gopa board for
O.E. beran | Goth. bar tivo)
O.E. ber dg. big :
Goth. baur
O.E. boren
(= Gme.
*bur-)
Ar. *ped : Idg. pd-:
Gk. réfa Lith. padas | Lat. pes Gk. és Gk. eai-
Lat. pédem | Gk. odds >*péds (Doric) B5-a-
Lat. ap- Goth. fotus = *epi-pd-
-ix
Ar, *-ter: e
Lat. pater | Lat. auc-tor | Gk. tarjp | Gk. dpa-rwp | Lat. pa-tr-is
O.E. feder | Goth. bré-par] Gk. ppa-rnp Gk. gpa-rp-d
Goth. bro-pr-
ahans

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The symbol < in this book means ‘ becomes,’ or ‘ develops into’;
> means ‘ derived from.’
ABLAUT SERIES ILLUSTRATED 191

Idg. o Series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F. D. V.
0. 0.
Ar. *0kw-:
Gk. doce =*oxre; | Gk. d77-w7r-a; dp _
dyropae
Lat. oculus
Ar. *éd-:
Gk. 6807 Gk. 65087 —
Lat. odor
Idg. a Series.
F. Dz. Vv.
a. a
Ar. *ak-:
Sert. djras Gk. 7}y¢ (n from @) | Sert. pari-jman
Gk. dypés Lat. examen
Gk. ayo, axtwp (>-ag-men)
Lat. ago, actor | Lat. amb-ages
Goth. agrs O. Ir. ag
O.E. ecer
Ar. *ndse :
O.H.G. nasa Lat. nares —
Scrt. (Instr.) nasa | Lat. nasus

 

 

 

 

 

Norr.—According to Hirt, the forms dypés, Ajras, ager,
akrs, also nasa and nasa, are R. grade (cf. Idg. Abl., §§ 761-
764) ; but the reduced grade of the ¢, a, 0 series are in-
distinguishable from the F. grade in the derived languages.
192 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE

 

 

 

 

 

Idg. é Series.
F. R. Vv.
& a.
Ar. *sé, ‘sow’:
Lat. sévi Lat. satus Sert. s-tri,
Lat. sémen * ‘ wife’
Goth. mana-séps
Ar. *dhé, ‘place’:
Sert. dadhami Sert. hitds Sert. da-dh-
Gk, riOnys (b from dh) mas
Lat. féci Gk. riBewev
Goth. gadéps Lat. facio
O.E. ded
Ar. *léd, ‘let, ‘grow
tired’:
Gk. Andety Lat. lassus —
Goth. létan >*lad-to-
O.E. ltan Goth. lats
Idg. 6 Series.
F. R. Vv.
3 a
Ar. *do-, ‘ give’:
Sert. dadati Sert. a-ditas déva4-t-tas
Gk. 8280p Sert. ditis (-¢- from -d-)
Gk. dé Gk. dédopev Lat. dé-d-i
Lat. donum Lat. datus
Lat. donare Lat. datio
Ar. *bhog-, ‘roast’:
Gk. doyw Gk. dayety =
O.E. bic (pret. of | O.E. bac-an
bacan) O.E. beecere

 

 

 

 

 
POLYSYLLABIC BASES 198

 

 

 

Idg. & Series.
: F. Rn. t Y.
a e.
| Ar, *sthd-, * stand’: i
Gk. i iornpe ;  Sert. sthitds Sert. gd-sth-d
Gk. otyjcw Gk. Hora-pev (* standing-
(n from a) Gk. otatos place for
Lat. stare Lat. status cows *)
Lat. stamen Lat. statim Goth. awistr
Goth. stols Goth. staps (= *oui-st-
tro) ‘sheep-
fold°
O.H.G. ewist
Ar. *bAG, * speak *: >*awist
Gk. dnui (*baui)} Gk.damew
Lat. fari
Lat. fama

 

 

 

 

For an account and full examples of the Ablaut in
original polysyllabic bases, see Brugmann and Hirt, loc. cit.,
especially the latter. In dealing with these bases, it is
necessary to distinguish the vowel gradation in each
syllable. A few examples may be given here (the numbers
refer to syllables) :

Aryan * génewo, ‘knee.

Sert. janu, Gk. yévu, have F. in Ist, R, in 2nd: Goth.
kniu (=*gnewo-), O.E., cned, have V. in Ist, F. in 2nd;
Sert. abhi-jni, ‘down to the knee, Gk. yr. Tpoxvu,
Goth. knussjan, have V. in Ist, R. in 2nd.; while D. grade

appears in Gk. yeria, in Ist.
138
194 THE ARYAN OR INDO-GERMANIC MOTHER-TONGUE
Aryan * gené, * Soné, * Send, * Sond, * know.’

Goth. kann has F. (Idg. *gon-); Lith. zindti, Goth.
kunnaida, have R. or V. in Ist (Idg. *gn-) and F. in 2nd;
Scrt. a-jfia-sam, jfia-tdés, Gk. yi-yvo-oxw, Lat. ndsco, O.E.
cnawan, have V. in Ist (Idg. gn-) and F. in 2nd; 0.H.G..
kunst (Idg. *gn-t-to) has R. in Ist and V. in 2nd.

Aryan * pelé, ‘ fill.”
Sert. parinas (r from 1) has F. in Ist and 2nd; Sert.
prnati, Lat. plénus, etc., Gk. wA7-pes, etc., have V. in Ist,

F. in 2nd; Scrt. ptrnds, Lith. pilnas, Goth. fulls, have
R. in 1st, V. in 2nd.

Aryan * perd, * perem, ‘ forward.”

Gk. mpi, O.H.G. vruo (=* fro), have V. in Ist, F. in
2nd; Lith. pirmas, O.E. forma (= *furma > Idg.
*prmo-), have R. in Ist, F. in 2nd (or 3rd if we assume
pro-Idg. *peremo); Goth. fruma, O.E. from (=*prmo),
have R. in Ist, V. in 2nd (*peremo), and F, in 3rd.

The phenomena of Ablaut are to be regarded as a series
of Combinative Changes which took place in the mother-
tongue. They are among the most characteristic features
of Aryan speech. If primitive Aryan be a dialect of a still
older language, then we may consider that its characteristic

independent life as Aryan begins with the first Ablaut
changes.
CHAPTER X

THE GERMANIC FAMILY

Tus Family, which is of special importance to students of
English, falls into three divisions—the North Germanic
or Scandinavian; the East Germanic, represented by
Gothic and the language of the Vandals, both long ex-
tinct, and the latter only preserved in proper names ;
West Germanic, the earliest forms of which are Old
Saxon, the Old English dialects, Old Frisian, all of
which belong to the so-called Low German group, and
Old High German, the name given to a group of West
Germanic dialects in which the voiceless stops of Ger-
manic, preserved in all other dialects and languages
of this family, underwent a change to open consonants
or affricated sounds respectively, during the sixth and
seventh centuries. Other consonants also underwent
change, but less universally than Gmc. p, ¢, k, though even
in the case of k the opening or affrication was not carried
out with perfect uniformity, in all positions, in every H.G.
dialect. Within the West Germanic branch itself, it is
now usual to assume an Anglo-Frisian group, which subse-
quently differentiated into Old Frisian and Old English.
(For statement and arguments in favour of this view, see
especially Siebs, Zur Gesch. d. engl-friesisch. Spr., 1889, and

Bremer, Ethnographie der germ. Stimme’?, 1900, p. 108, etc.
195 13—2
196 THE GERMANIC FAMILY

The latter is a reprint from Paul’s Grundr.*, in which see
p- 842, etc.) This assumption of an original Anglo-
Frisian unity is based upon certain very close agreements
in vocabulary, and in the treatment of the vowel sounds,
which exist between O.E. and O. Fris. At the same time,
the Angilo-Frisian unity, although a very plausible hypo-
thesis, is contested by some scholars (¢.9., Morsbach, Beibi.
zur Anglia, vii., and Wyld, Engl. Studien, xxviii., pp. 393,
394, Otia Merseiana, iv., pp. 75, '76), and a further critical
examination of the points of agreement between the two
languages is desirable in order to determine how far these
are really due to a common, and how far to an indepen-
dent, development.

[On the classification of the Germanic languages, their
mutual relations and characteristics, the best authorities
are: Kluge, Vorgeschichte der germanischen Sprachen in
Paul’s Grundriss? ; Streitberg, Ur-germanische Grammatik,
pp. 9-18 (the latter book is perhaps the best introduc-
tion to the study of Germanic Philology which exists);
Evinleitendes in Dieter’s Laut- und Formeniehre d. altger-
manischen Dialekte, vol. i., 1898. The above works con-
tain full references to the special grammars of the several
languages, and to authorities on the various questions of
general and special bearing connected with Germanic
Philology. ]

Primitive Germanic.

By this term is meant, as already indicated, that un-
differentiated form of speech, distinguished from Primitive
Aryan by possessing the characteristic Germanic features,
and containing the germ of those peculiarities which subse-
quently appear in those languages, already enumerated,
FORMS OF GERMANIC—HOW ARRIVED AT __197-

which spring from this source. The sources of our know-
ledge of Parent Germanic are of a twofold character:
Direct and Indirect.

The direct sources of knowledge are scanty, and consist
(1) of Gme. words mostly occurring in proper names
mentioned in the works of Greek and Latin writers from
the time of Cesar; and (2) very early loan-words from
Gme. still preserved in Finnish, which in many cases
retain down to the present day the original full Gme.
form. 'The indirect sources are (1) the earliest Runic
inscriptions in Primitive Norse, some of which are as old
as the first century of our era, and the language of which
is therefore but a stage removed from Primitive Gmc. ; and
(2) the reconstructions which are made according to
the strict methods of modern Comparative Philology (cf.
Chapter VIII.).

Characteristics of Germanic.

At what point of the original Aryan dialectal differen-
tiation does Germanic come into existence? Can we say
that when a certain group of features have developed
within a speech area this ceases to be Primitive Aryan
any longer, but has now an independent existence with
the definitely-marked features of the ancestor of the
Germanic languages ?

Probably the most characteristic and typical Germanic
characteristics are the consonantal changes, the so-called
sound-shifting processes, known to the readers of text-books
as Grimm’s Law. We might perhaps say that from the
moment that original t, p, k, have become open consonants,
here is the beginning of Gmc. Since none of the readers
(and few of the writers) of the ordinary small primer
198 ‘THE GERMANIC FAMILY

which discourses glibly of Grimm's Law have any idea
where that Law is to be found in the works of Grimm,
nor how he states it, it may be of interest to mention that
in vol. i. of the Deutsche Grammatik, p. 584, etc. (I quote
from the edition of 1822), the immortal grammarian dis-
cusses, with numerous examples, the relations of the con-
sonantal sounds of Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin, etc., with
those of Gothic and Old High German. Grimm also
notes that in certain Gothic words ‘ exceptions ” occur to
the usual correspondences of Gk., Lat., Scrt. p, ¢, k, to
Gothic f, p, etc. These exceptions were to be explained
some fifty years later by Verner.

The statement of these facts of consonantal change
which would be accepted at the present day is very dif-
ferent from Grimm’s statement, as the reader may see by
comparing the treatment of the subject by Streitberg, for
example, with the above passages in Grimm’s Grammar.

The Consonantal Shiftings in Germanic.

I. Aryan p, t, k were aspirated to ph, th, kh, being thus
levelled under the original voiceless aspirated stops.

II. All the voiceless aspirated stops, both old and new,
were opened, and became the corresponding voiceless open
consonants.

Examples :

‘ph (original) ; O, Sax. and O.H.G. fadlan, ‘fall’;

Gk. carro.
ph (from earlier p) ; Goth. -/aps, ‘lord,’ ‘ master’;

Scrt. pdti-, ‘master’; Gk. réots (from *potis),

‘husband’; Lat. hos-pit-is (gen.), * guest-

friend.’

Aryan
CONSONANTAL CHANGES—GRIMM—VERNER 199

th (original); Goth. skapjan, ‘to harm’; Gk.
a-oxnOns, * blameless.’

th (from earlier t); Goth. munps; O.E. mip,
‘mouth’; Lat. mentum, *‘ chin.’

Aryan

kh (original) ; ?
Aryan kh (from earlier k); Goth. hairto, ‘heart’; O.E.
heorte ; Gk. xapdia; Lat. cord-is (gen.).

These changes invariably take place initially ; medially,
however, when the accent in Aryan fell on any other
syllable than that immediately preceding them, the Gmc.
consonants f, p, 2 (back-open cons.) were voiced to 6
(lip-open-voice), 3 (point-teeth-open-voice), and x (written
g@ in most old Germanic languages, but = back-open-voice),
These were the ‘exceptions’ to his law which puzzled
Grimm, but which were explained as above by Verner
(Kuhn's Zeitschrift, xxiii., pp. 97-1380) in 1877. Sanscrit
and Greek often preserve the original accent, so that where
we find 6, d, g, in Germanic, instead of the voiceless sounds,
the Greek forms often show the accent on some other syllable
than that immediately preceding the consonant. This habit
of voicing in the Germanic languages, under the above
conditions, proves that parent Germanic retained the
original system of ‘free’ accent, since the same root shows
voiceless or voiced forms according to the shifting position
of the accent.

Examples of Verner’s Law :

Aryan p (or ph) =Gme. 6 (written 4); Goth. and
O. Sax. sibun, ‘7°; Sert. saptd ; Gk. érd.
200 THE GERMANIC FAMILY

Aryan ¢ (th) = Gme.d (written d); Goth. fadar, ‘father’;
O.E. feder ; Sert. pitar ; Gk. warip.

Aryan k=Gme. 3 (written g); O.E. sweger, ‘ mother-
in-law’; Scrt. svagrii; Gk. éxupa, from *¢Fexupa.

Nore.—The old Germanic languages do not distinguish
b, d, g, according to whether they represent open conso-
nants or stops. Originally these consonants were all open
in Gme. It is usual for philologists, for purposes of
accuracy, to write these original open consonants 4, d, 3.
The popular expression that ‘i became g by Verner’s law’
is most mischievous, and gives a false impression. We are
dealing with changes which took place hundreds of years
before writing was known to the Gmc. peoples—with pure
sound changes. The facts are simply and accurately stated
by saying that the lip, point-teeth, and back voiceless open
consonants were voiced. ‘That is the process which took
place under the conditions described by Verner.

The Third Germanic Consonant Shifting.

The Aryan aspirated voiced stops, bh, dh, gh, are
opened in Gme. to the corresponding voiced open con-
sonants,

The 4, @, 3 thus produced are indistinguishable from
the same sounds which arose according to the conditions
of Verner’s Law; they share in each language the sub-
sequent development of these, and are also written }, d, g
in the old languages.

These voiced aspirates survive, as such, only in Sanscrit ;
in Gk. they remain as aspirates (apart from certain com-
binative changes), but are unvoiced, and are written ¢, 0, y.
COMPLETION OF THE SHIFTINGS 201

Examples :

Aryan dh, Gmc. &: Goth. ga-dé-p-s, ‘deed’; O.E. dad ;
Scrt. dé-dha-mi, ‘set, place’; Gk. ré-Oy-p.

Aryan bh, Gmc. 6: Goth. bropar, ‘brother’; O.E.
bropor ; Scrt. bhra-tar; Gk. dpdrwp.

Aryan gh, Gmc. 3: Goth. steigan, ‘climb, ascend’;
O.E. stigan ; Sert. stighnuté ; Gk. oreiyo.

The Fourth and Last Consonantal Shifting in Germanic.

The Aryan voiced stops 2, d, g, were unvoiced in Gme.
to the corresponding breath-stops p, ¢, k.

There is an indication of the approximate date of these
processes of shifting in place-names. The mountain name
Finne was borrowed by the Suevi from the Gaulish penn,
after they crossed the Elbe in the fifth century z.c. There-
fore the change from p to f was subsequent to this. On
the other hand, the Gmc. Dénavi, ‘ Danube,’ from Latin
Danuvius, preserves the d unchanged, which shows’ that
the change from d to & had already taken place before the
incorporation of this name in Gmc. speech, which occurred
about 100.8.c. (On the relative chronology of the shifting
processes, see Kluge, Paul und Braune’s Beitr., ix., 173, etc.,
and Streitberg, Joc. cit., § 126.)

Examples of Fourth Shifting of Voiced Stops :

Aryan b, Gmc. p: Goth. paida, ‘coat’; O.E. pad; Gk.
(Thracian) Sairn, ‘ shepherd’s coat of skins.’

Aryan d, Gmc. ¢: Goth. ga-famjan, ‘tame’; O.E.
temian; Gk. daudw ; Lat. dom-are.

Aryan g, Gme. k: O.E. cran, ‘crane’; O. Sax. crano ;

Gk. yépavos.
202 THE GERMANIC FAMILY

Characteristic Treatment of the Aryan Vowels in Germanic.

A. Isolative Changes.

Aryan o is unrounded to a in Gme.: Lat. ovis, ‘ sheep’;
Gk. d:s, from *oFis ; Goth, awis-tr, ‘sheepfold’; Lat. hostis,
‘enemy,’ ‘stranger’; Goth. gast-s; O. Sax., O.H.G. gast,
‘guest.’ Thus original o and a are indistinguishable in Gmc.

Aryan a is rounded to 5 in Gme., and is thus levelled
under original 6: Gk. ¢parwp, ‘brother’; Lat. frater ;
Goth. bropar ; O.E. bropor ; Lat. sagire, ‘ perceive quickly
and keenly ’; Goth. sok-jan, ‘seek.’

Aryan & is lowered to & in Gmc. This & is again raised
to é in Goth; in West Gme. it becomes 4, and in O.E.
this @ is again fronted to @: Gk. ti-@n-u, ‘ place, etc. ;
Goth. ga-déps, ‘deed’; O.H.G. tat; O.E. déd ; Gk. vf-pa,
‘ thread’; Lat. né-re, ‘sew’; Goth. népla, ‘needle’; O.H.G.
nddala ; O.E. nédi.

Aryan oi is levelled wnder ai in Gmc.: Gk. otvy, one,
upon a die’; O. Lat. oinos (later anus) ; Goth. ains ; O. Lat.
moitare (later mitare), ‘change’; Goth. maidjan, ‘alter.’

Aryan ou is levelled wnder au in Gmc. : Gk. ods, from
*ovos, from *ovcos, ‘ear’; Lat. auris, from *ausis, from
*ousis ; Goth. auso ; Gk. d-covw, from Aryan * sm-kous-jo,
‘hear’; Goth. haus-jan, ‘hear.’

Aryan ei becomes i in Gmc.: Gk. rretOw, ‘ persuade’ ;
Lat. fido, from *feido; Goth. beidan, ‘expect’ (ei in
Goth. =i); O.E. bidan ; O.H.G, bitan.

[Aryan é is probably the origin of an @ sound which
appears as such in the Gmc. languages. ]

The other Aryan vowels are unaffected by isolative
change in Gmc.
VOWEL CHANGES 203

B. Combinative Changes.

Aryan e, which is otherwise preserved in Gmnc., is raised
to iin Gme. under the following conditions: (1) Before i
or j in the following syllable: Gk. wéooos (from * pe8-jos) ;
Lat. medius ; Goth, midjis; O.E. midd; O. Sax. middi ;
Gk. Eopas (from *cedjouar), ‘sit’; Lat. sed-ére ; O. Sax.
sittian; O.E. sitian (from *sett-jan); O.H.G. sizzen.
(2) e becomes i when followed by a nasal + another
consonant: Gk. vev@epés, ‘ father-in-law ’ (literally, * rela-
tion’); Lith. bendras, ‘companion,’ from Lat. of-fend-ix,
root *bhendh- ; Goth., O.E., O. Sax. bindan.

[e also becomes ¢ in Gmc. in unstressed syllables; ¢f.
O.E. pl. fét, ‘feet, from *fotiz (nom. sing. fot), Lat.
ped-es. |

Apart from these conditions, ¢ remains in Gmce.:
Gk. &w, ‘eat’; Lat. edo; O.E., O. Sax. etan; Gk. épyor,
* work’ (from *Fépyov) ; O. Sax. werk; O.H.G. were ; and
so on.

West Germanic Characteristics.

The Gmc. sound system underwent but few changes in
W. Gmc., but these few are important.

The change of @ to @ has already been mentioned. In
addition, the combinative treatment of 7 and « must be

_ noted.

Gme. 7 remains in W. Gmc., unless followed in the
next syllable by 4 or 6, in which case it was lowered to e :
O.E., O.H.G. nest, ‘nest, from *nizdo (cf. Lat. nidus,
from *nizdos).

Of course, if n + consonant intervened between ¢ and a, 6,
iremained. Gmc. wu also remained, apart from the presence
204 THE GERMANIC FAMILY

of a following d, 6, in which case it was lowered to o in
W. Gmc.: O.E. ova; Goth. auhsa (=*uhsa) ; Sert. uksan ;
O.E. gold, ‘gold, from Gmc. *guldo; cof: kulta, ‘gold,
a very early Gme. loan-word in Finnish.

The above account of the treatment of Aryan sounds in
Germanic is the merest outline. The question of the lip-
modified back consonants, of consonantal combinations,
and of the special W. Gme. treatment of i and w between
vowels, have not been dealt with; on all these points the
reader should consult Streitberg’s Urgerm. Grammatik.
CHAPTER XI

THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH: GENERAL REMARKS ON
THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE INQUIRY, AND
THE MAIN PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH IT

Ir it were necessary to answer as briefly as possible the
question, What does the history of English involve? it
might be said that, given the English language as it now
exists, in all its forms, spoken and written, historical in-
quiry should attempt to trace the origin and development
of the characteristic features of each.

This is the ideal of completeness; practically the
history of English is mainly concerned with the rise, on
the one hand, of present-day polite spoken English, and,
on the other, with that of the literary dialect. The
problems herein involved are sufficiently complicated, and
the history of the modern dialects, or forms of popular
speech, at any rate in its minute detail, is held to be the
work of the special investigator. At the same time, it is
important to have some conception of the popular dialects,
and to understand as clearly as possible their mutual
relations, as well as their relation to, and influence upon,
the more cultivated and artificial forms of English speech.

Two methods of procedure are open to the student.

He may either start with the language as he knows it,
205
206 THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH

and trace it backwards, step by step, to the earliest forms
preserved in the oldest written documents; or, starting
with these, he may work forwards to the present day.
Whichever method be chosen, it is necessary to have at
least some knowledge of the language at each stage of its
development, and, further, it is of the highest importance
that the student should endeavour to realize as far as
possible each stage as a living language which was actually
spoken. In fact, every step we take into the past of a
language involves a process of reconstruction: first, an
interpretation of the written symbols, and then the
gradual realization of the consciousness of the part, so
that the sentences begin to pulsate with life, and become
for us the living expression of the thoughts and emotions
of the men who uttered them. There can be no doubt
that the best way to cultivate this power of getting into
sympathetic touch with the speech of a bygone age is to
train the perceptions and the sensibilities in the school of
modern speech, and for this reason, as well as for others
repeatedly argued in these pages, the study of the spoken
language of our own time is the best training-ground for
historical study.

Each period of the development of English presents
special problems to the investigator—problems which
depend partly upon the nature of the changes which the
language itself undergoes, partly upon the social con-
ditions and general historical and political events which
affected the linguistic conditions, and partly, also, upon the
form in which the records of each age have come down to
us. The minute investigation of the dialectal varieties in
Old and Middle English is the business of the specialist,
ENGLISH SPEECH IN EARLIER PERIODS 207

and many of the details which are of great interest and
importance for him have but little bearing upon the
development of present-day English.

The solution of one and the same kind of problem may
demand a different method at different times. Thus the
reconstruction of the pronunciation, which is necessarily our
first care in dealing with the written records of all periods
earlier than our own, offers difficulties of quite a different
kind in Old English from those which meet us in attempt-
ing to realize the sounds of Shakespeare. In the latter
case we have a considerable body of direct contemporary
testimony, sometimes, it is true, rather contradictory, as
to the phonetic values expressed by the symbols in ordinary
spelling ; in the former the precise sound which the letters
were intended to express can only be inferred indirectly
from the spelling of foreign words of whose pronunciation
at the time something is known, by the help of com-
parative philology, or by considering the later develop-
ments, since the O.E. period. On the other hand, in
dealing with the written language of periods which had
no stereotyped orthography, we have, at any rate, the
advantage of being warned by a change in the spelling
of a probable change in sound, whereas for the last
400 years—although, as can be shown from other
sources, considerable changes in English pronunciation
have taken place—the spelling during this period has
varied so little that, were there no other means of in-
formation, we might suppose that sound change had been
arrested since early in the sixteenth century.

Probably the best course for the student of the history
of English to pursue is first to make himself acquainted
208 THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH

with the chief characteristics of each period, and then to
construct for himself as complete a picture as possible of
the gradual passing of the speech of one period into that
of the next, until the whole space of time covered by the
records is filled in. A narrative which should thus set forth
in outline the changes through which our language has
passed during the last 1,200 years, might with advantage,
in the first instance, be limited to the history of the
modern literary language, and that form of spoken
English which most closely resembles it. The question
would thus be, What is the relation of these modern
forms to the earlier forms of English? ‘The scope of this
inquiry might be extended, especially by Scotch students,
so as to include the rise of Scots, as aj form of speech so
distinct from English, that it deservés to be ranked as
another language. No other grounsof English dialects,
except those out of which the literary and polite spoken
English grew, possesses the distinction which Scots
achieved of being for centuries the speech of kings and
scholars, of poets and historians ; the language at once of
the Court, the Government, the Church, and of Literature.
3 Besides the problems connected with changes in sound,
the student of the history of English must naturally trace
the modifications in the inflexional system which have
taken place, many of which are also associated with sound
change. The impoverishment of the English grammatical
inflexions has been due very largely to phonetic changes
which have occurred in the unstressed syllables of words,
whereby many final syllables have been lost altogether,
while others have been very considerably altered from
their original form. The changes in our accidence,
THE SOURCES OF LOAN-WORDS 209

especially the loss of many case-endings, have brought
about very marked changes in the form and structure of
the sentence.

Inseparable, too, from the growth of culture, and from
a general expansion of a nation’s genius, is the develop-
ment of the vocabulary. It is natural that the meaning of
words should change as the group of ideas associated with
a given word is now widened, now contracted, but perhaps
the most considerable modifications of our vocabulary at
all ages have come from without, by the incorporation of
altogether new material from other languages. Every
text-book upon the history of English contains more or
less reliable lists of foreign words which have passed at
various times, and from different sources, into usage in the
English tongue. It will be convenient to deal with the
question of loan-words. under a separate heading within
each section which is devoted to a period in the growth
of English. Points of interest in connection with this
subject are: to distinguish words of foreign origin which
have got into English, through the spoken language, from
those which have been incorporated from merely literary
sources ; to determine the period at which any given word
or class of words passed into English. One of the chief
popular fallacies in dealing with loan-words is the assump-
tion that the latter question can be settled out of hand
by an appeal to history. Thus, for instance, it is com-
monly assumed by popular writers that all Latin words
which occur in Old English, and which refer to ideas or
objects connected with the Christian religion, were in-
corporated into English at the time of the mission of

St. Augustine. As a matter of fact, some of these words
14
210 THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH

are centuries older, and were certainly acquired by the
heathen English, already in their Continental homes. The
one sure test of the immediate source of an early loan-
word, and the date of its importation, is its form, and the
consideration of the changes which it has undergone in
common with the native element of the language into which
it has been borrowed. If this test cannot be applied, as
is sometimes the case, there always remains a certain
dubiety as to the precise period of borrowing.

In studying the various forms of English preserved in
the literary remains of the Old and Middle periods, it is
important to keep the several dialects distinct, and,
further, not to confuse the language of different ages.
It often happens that a work comes down to us in several
manuscripts, copied at different times by a variety of
scribes, whose native dialect is not always the same as
that of the original. In such cases there is naturally a
mixture of dialectal forms, and not infrequently, also,
a mixture of forms which belong to the period of the
original with those which are contemporary with the
copy. This confusion arises from the fact that the scribe
sometimes faithfully copied his text, but sometimes also
wrote the form which was current in his own speech,
instead of the more archaic form of his model.

Therefore the study of the dialect of a given area, at
a given period, must be based, in the first instance, upon
texts whose date and dialect can be fixed beyond any
doubt. Although the spelling in Old and Middle English
texts is on the whole fairly consistent and regular, there
is always the apparently exceptional spelling, which occurs
here and there, and which deserves attention. The
INCONSISTENCIES OF SPELLING IN EARLY MSS. 211

questions raised by the occasional departure of scribes
from the conventional spelling are: Do they represent a
new tendency which is springing up within the dialect,
a new departure from the older mode of speech which the
traditional spelling records, and which the scribe from time
to time, either deliberately or unconsciously, expresses in a
phonetic spelling? Are they mere careless scribal errors ?
Do they represent another type of pronunciation in use
within the dialect, due to class or other differentiation,
or to the influence of another dialect ? While it is unwise
to attach too much importance to sporadic eccentricities
of spelling on the part of a scribe, they should all receive
consideration, and anything like repeated deviation from
the tradition should be carefully investigated, since if it
can be shown to express some reality of pronunciation,
it is certainly of value, and may throw great light upon
the speech habits of the period.

Chief Points of General Method.

There are certain general principles of method which
should be constantly borne in mind in the historical study
of language, and these may now be summarized, even at
the risk of repetition, for they follow logically from that
view of language which this work has attempted to set
forth, and some of the principles have already been
formulated in this and in earlier chapters.

1. We must not be misled by the inconsistency of the
written representation of sounds in early records, into
assuming an inconsistency of pronunciation. Such incon-
sistency of spelling may occur while the pronunciation

itself is perfectly constant. A fluctuation i ee
212 THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH

representation of sounds is particularly likely to occur in
a period in which a series of sound changes are in process
of being carried out, or have just been completed. The
fluctuation in spelling may make it appear as though, in
the same text, there were traces both of the beginning and
the end of a particular process of sound change. Even
when a spelling is to a great extent phonetic, as in
O.E., it will generally be slightly behind the actual
pronunciation.

2, Apparent anomalies in the development of sounds,
or ‘exceptions’ to well-established sound laws, may result
from a mixture of dialectal forms; and the ‘exception’
may prove to be merely an importation from another
dialect in which that particular line of development is
quite normal. The mixture of dialects is especially common
in literary forms of language, which represent historically
the pure form of no single dialect, but a conglomeration
of several. The higher the development and cultivation
of a literary dialect, the more artificial it is likely to be,
and the further removed from any naturally-developed
form of living speech. Good examples of artificial literary
dialects are the Greek xoiv7j, Classical Latin, and Modern
Polite English. In O.E. and early M.E. the various forms
of written English each represent pretty accurately the
dialect of the province in which the text was written.
But Chaucer’s English is no longer the dialect of a
particular geographical area, but rather a fully-developed
literary or official form of speech which shows considerable
dialectal mixture. These literary or official dialects often
become, with certain modifications, the traditional mode
of speech of a social class, or even of a whole country.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL METHOD 213

3. Many apparent ‘exceptions’ are the result of
Analogy, and not of Phonetic development at all. The
history of every language has numerous examples of forms
of this nature. In Mod. Eng. the preterites of ‘break’
and ‘speak’ are not the representatives of O.E. brec,
sp(r)ec, but are formed on the analogy of the p.p. brok-en,
spok-en. This process of forming new associations, as we
have seen (Chapter VII.), is always at work at all periods
of every language. In postulating Analogy in explanation
of a form which has not followed the ordinary phonetic
development, it is our business to discover the group of
forms associations with which has caused the new departure
in question.

4. After a sound has changed, within the dialect of a
given community, to something quite different from its
original form, the same sound may reappear within the
same dialect from some other source, and may then
remain, the tendency to change it having passed away.
The Southern and Midland dialects of English rounded
all O.E. & sounds to 6 (5) in early Transition M.E.,
O.E. ham, etc., becoming hom, etc. But in M.E. @
reappeared again from two sources: (1) O.E. -d- in open
syllables was lengthened—O.E. sé(e)amu< M.E. schdme.
(2) Norman-French @ in loan-words—e.g., ddme, ‘lady.
This new @ survived during the whole M.E. period, until
it was fronted in the sixteenth century to (#), which later
became (é), whence Standard English (¢) as in ‘ shame’
(Setm) and ‘dame’ (deim).

5. Where diversity of sound exists, we assume it to
represent original diversity, unless the conditions whereby
one sound was differentiated into several, can be clearly
214 THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH

shown. Thus in O.E. the vb. ‘to bear’ has the following
forms of the root: Inf. ber-an, pret. sing. ber, pret. pl.
bér-on, p.p. bor-en. Here we assume that there were
originally four distinct forms of the root in Gumc., since
nothing that we know of the habits of O.E. leads us
to believe that any conditions are present in these cases
to split up one sound into four; and, further, a com-
parison of the other old Gmc. tongues points also to the
conclusion that so far as Gmc. is concerned, there were
always four distinct forms of the root (cf examples of e-
series of Aryan Ablaut, under *dher- in Chapter IX.). On
the other hand, if we take the three vowels a, ¢, ea, in the
O.E. racu, ‘narrative’; recéean, inf. ‘to narrate’; reahte,
pret. ‘narrated,’ we have every reason to assume that in
this case one original Gmc. sound a has been differentiated
into three sounds in O.E. itself, and the conditions of that
differentiation can be stated (cf Chapter XII., sections on
i-mutation and Fracture). Thus we should reconstruct the
earlier forms *raka-, *rekk-jan, *rah-ta, respectively, to
correspond to the three O.E. forms above.

6. The same sound, as we have just seen, may have a
various development in the same dialect under different
phonetic conditions. Later on, when the tendencies of
combinative change which produced the variety have passed
away, the different forms may be used promiscuously, and
without regard to the original conditions under which
they severally arose. It should be remembered that com-
binative change may operate not only within what we
call the ‘ word,” but also within the breath-group, or, as it
often is, the sentence.

The two words ‘of’ and ‘ off’ in Modern English, were
DOUBLETS DUE TO VARYING STRESS 215

originally doublets of the same word, the voiced final
consonant occurring in cases where the word was unstressed
in the sentence, the voiceless final when it was stressed.
Now the two forms are independent and distinct words,
each specialized to express a different meaning; and
although ‘of, as it happens, is usually without stress,
‘off? may be used equally in stressed or unstressed posi-
tions. In the same way the word seint, ‘saint, had two
forms in M.E.: (sin) in unstressed positions, (saint) when
stressed. The latter strong form has become Mod. Eng.
‘saint’ (sent) ; the former has become (san or sont), as in
St. Andrews (sont endriiz) or St. John, the name of the
Apostle (san dim). But in the family name St. John,
pronounced (sindzen), the stress has been shifted to the
first syllable, which, however, still preserves the original
form which it acquired in unstressed positions; and the
same is true of the name St. Leger (silidZa) as regards the
vowel, although here the -n has been lost. The sub-
stantive ‘saint,’ however, always preserves the strong or
stressed form, even when it occurs with weak stress in a
sentence.

The principles of modern philological method have been
formulated on various occasions, notably by Brugmann—
e.g., Morphol. Untersuch., i., p. xiii, etc.; Zum heutigen
Stand der Sprachwissensch., p. 53, etc. ; Grundr.*, pp. 63-
72; Griech. Gr’, pp. 2-9.
CHAPTER XII
HISTORY OF ENGLISH: THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

Tue designation Old English is applied to that period of
the history of our people which extends from the first
settlement of Germanic tribes in these islands down to the
coming of the Normans. The O.E. period of the language
may roughly be estimated as reaching down to 1050, after
which period the chief features of the next, or Transition
period from Old to Middle English, begin to be fairly well
established, and expressed in the written forms which have
come down to us.

Within the O.E. period of the history of the language
it is possible to distinguish, from the documents, three
stages of development, which are known respectively as
the Earhest, down to 750; Early, down to 900; Late,
down to 1050. The dates here given are, of course, only
approximate, since neither the imperfection of the series of
records, nor the slow and gradual mode of growth in
language, permit us to make a precise hard-and-fast division
between different periods.

There are three chief types of dialectal variety distin-
guishable from the records: Saxon, of which West Saxon

became the principal dialect of literature ; Kentish, the
216
CLASSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS 217

dialect of the Jutes ; Anglian, which includes both North-
umbrian and Mercian.

Sources of our Knowledge of 0.E.

Practically everything of value from a literary point of
view is preserved in W.S., having been either written in that
dialect originally or copied into it at a later period. There
are a certain number of Charters, which possess great his-
torical interest, in other dialects, especially Kentish. There
is little original prose, except Homilies and Laws, which
are mainly W.S. in form ; and of the translated literature
the greatest part, and that which is of the chiefest interest,
the authentic works of King Alfred, is in the same dialect—
the other dialects, apart from charters, being represented
almost entirely by translations of the Psalms and inter-
linear versions of the New Testament. There are glossaries,
which are of great value to students of the language, in
Saxon, Kentish, and Mercian dialects. The poetical
literature, with the exception of a few fragments in Early
Northumbrian, exists in manuscripts of the tenth and
eleventh centuries in a dialect which, while it is largely
W.S., yet shows numerous characteristics of other dialects,
the result, probably, of late copying from Anglian by
WSS. scribes.

The following is a list of the chief remains which are
important for the study of the several dialects. It will
be noticed that very little Earliest W.S. has been pre-
served.

A. Earliest Texts.
1. Norrsumsr1an.—Northumbrian Fragments, in Sweet's
Oldest English Texts, p. 149, etc. Liber Vite,
218

2 =

THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

O.E.T., p. 153, etc. Northumbrian Genealogies,
0.E.T., p. 167, etc. Names in Moore MS. of Bede’s
Eccl. Hist., O.E.T., p. 131, ete.

Mexrcian.—Epinal Glossary (circa 700), Corpus Glossary
(circa 50), in O.E.T. Charters of eighth century
(Latin, containing Eng. words and names), 0.E.T.,
p- 429, ete.

Kentisu.—Charters (Latin, but containing Eng. words
and names), O.E.T., p. 427, etc. These documents
belong to seventh and eighth centuries ; the earliest
of these, No. 4 in O.E.T., is the oldest written
document we possess containing English forms.

West Saxon.—Charter No. 3 in O.E.T.

B, Ninth-Century Texts (Early).

. NortHUMBRIAN.
. Mercian.—Vespasian Psalter and Hymns, O.E.T., p.

183, etc.; the Hymns also Sweet, A.S. Reader,
p- 117, ete.

. Kentiso.—Numerous Charters, mostly English, 0.E.T.,

p. 441, etc.; three in A.S. Reader’, p. 189, etc.
Bede Glosses (MS. Cott., C. II.), circa 900, O.E.T.,
p- 179, ete.

. West Saxon.—Works of King Alfred : Cura Pastorailis,

Sweet, 1871; Orosius, Sweet, 1880. Parker MS. of
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle down to 891, Ed. Plummer.
Two of the Saxon Chronicles, 2 vols. Oxford, 1892-
1900.
LATE O.E. DOCUMENTS 219

C. Late Texts.

Durham Ritual: Surtees Soc.,
vol. iv., 1840. Cf. also Skeat’s
Northern} collation, Tr. Phil. Soc., 1879.
Area Durham Book or Lindisfarne
Gospels: Skeat, Gospels in

1. Norru- Anglo-Saxon, 1871-1887.

UMBRIAN (Rushworth MS': Interlinear ver-
sion of SS. Mark, Luke, John,

Southern} known as Rushworth?, Matthew

Area in this MS. being in Mercian.

Gf. Skeat’s ed. of Gospels

| above.

2. Mexrcian.—Rushworth? : Interlinear Gloss to Matthew,
second half of tenth century. Cf Skeat above.
Glosses from MS. Royal, 2 A.20. Ed. by Zupitza in
Zeitschrift fiir deutsches Altertum, Bd. xxxiii., p. 47,
etc. (circa 1000).

3. Kentisu.—Glosses: Zupitza in Ztschr. f. d. A., xxi.,
p. 1, etc., and xxii., p. 223, etc. ; also in Wright-
Wiilkers Vocabularies, p. 55, etc., 1884. Hymn,
known as ‘ Kentish Hymn, in Kluge’s ags Lesebuch
and Sweet’s 4.8. Reader. Psalm L., known as‘ Kentish
Psalm, in Kluge’s Lesebuch.

4. Wesr Saxon.—i/fric’s Grammar and Glossary (circa
100), Zupitza, 1880. d£/fric’s Homilies, Ed. Thorpe,
1844-1846. West Saxon Gospels, MS. Corpus, Cam-
bridge (written at Bath, circa 1000), Cf. Skeat’s
Ed. of Gospels in Anglo-Saxon above.

5. Another Saxon Dialect, but not the West Saxon of

 
220 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

ffilfred nor of Atlfric, is represented by a Gloss,
(Harleian MS. 3,376 ; printed Wright-Wiilker, 1, 192,
etc.) and a set of Homilies, known as the Blickling
Homilies (Ed. Morris, E.E.T.S., 1880). Both of
these texts are tenth century, the latter MS. being
dated 979 in the text itself.

Authorities on O.E.. Grammar.—The best general authori-
ties on O.E. Grammar are Biilbring, Altenglisches Elemen-
tarbuch, Heidelberg, 1902; and Sievers, Angelsachsische
Grammatik, Halle, 1898. These works deal with all the
problems of O.E. Grammar, the latter entering into the
discussion of dialectal differences with considerable minute-
ness. A brief but reliable outline is found in the Gram-
matical Introduction to Sweet’s Anglo-Saxon Reader,
seventh edition.

The following special monographs will be found useful
for advanced, detailed study of O.E. dialects :

Northumbrian Texts.

Linvexér, V.: Die Sprache d. Rituals von Durham, Helsing-
fors, 1890. Worterbuch zur interlinearglosse des
Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, Bonner ‘Beitriige zur
Anglistic ix., 1901. Die Stidnorthumbrischen Mun-
dart (Die Spr. d. gl. Rushworth?), Bonner Beitr., x.,
1901. Glossar zur altnorthumbrischen Evangelien-
berzetzung die sogenannte Glosse Rushworth, Helsing-
fors, 1897. ,

Lea, E. M.: The Language of the Northumbrian Gloss to
the Gospel of St. Mark, Anglia, xvi., 62-206.

Ficusun, H.: Die Sprache d. northumbrischen interlinear-
MONOGRAPHS ON 0O.E. DIALECTS 221

version zum Johannes-Evangelium, Anglia, xxiv.,
1-99.

[Both of the above, Lea and Fiichsel, deal with the
Lindisfarne Gospels, or Durham Book.]

Coox, A. S.: 4 Glossary of the Old Northumbrian Gospels
(Lindisfarne), Halle, 1894.

Mercian Texts.

Dieter, F.: Die Sprache und Mundart, der dltesten englis-
chen Denkmdler (Espinal and Corpus Glossaries),
Gottingen, 1885.

Cuapwicx, H. M.: Studies in Old English (deals with the
old Glossaries), 1899.

Brown, E. M.: Spr. d. Rushworth Glossen (Rushw.'),
Part I., Gdttengen, 1891. The Language of the Rush-
worth Gloss to Matthew, Part II., Gottingen, 1892.

Zeuner, R.: Die Spr. d. Kentischen Psalters (Vespas. A. 1),
Halle, 1881.

[This text (Vespasian Psalter) was formerly supposed
to be Kentish, though now universally recognised
as Mercian. |

Tuomas, P. G.,and Wytp, H. C.: A Glossary of the Mer-
cian Hymns (in Vespas. A. 1) in Otia Merseiana,
vol. iv., Liverpool, 1904.

Grimm, C.: Glossar. 2. Vesp. Ps. und d. Hymnen, Heidel-

berg, 1906.
Kentish Texts.

Wotr, R.: Untersuchung d. Laute in d. Kentischen Urkun-
den, Heidelberg, 1893.

Wiuutams, IRENE: Grammatical Investigation of the Old
Kt. Glosses (MS. Vespas. D. vi.), Bonner Beitr., xix.,

1906.
222 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

West Saxon.

Cosi, P. J.: Altwestsdchsische Grammatik, Haag, 1888,

[This is practically an exhaustive monograph based
upon Alford’s Cura Pastoralis. It treats also,
though less fully, with the forms of the Parker
Chronicle. It is invaluable for the study of
Early West Saxon. ]

Fiscuer, F.: The Stressed Vowels of Aifric’s Homilies,
Publications of Mod. Lang. Assoc. of America, vol. i.,
Baltimore, 1889.

Brixy, H.: Die altenglische Latein-Grammatik des Alfric,
Berlin, 1904.

Truspacu, G.: Die Lautlehre d. spdtwestsichsischen
Evangelien, Bonn, 1905.

Harris, M. A.: Glossary of the West Saxon Gospels,
Boston, 1899.

Saxon Patois.

Harpy: Die Sprache d. Blickling-Homilien, Leipzig, 1899.
Bout, P.: Die Sprache d. altenglischen Glossen in Ms
Harley 3,376, Bonner Beitr. xv., 1904.

Numerous articles on special points are referred to in
the works here enumerated, and in the grammars of Sievers
and Biilbring.

Pronunciation of Old English.

This is established by the following considerations:
(1) Old English was first written, after the introduc-
tion of Christianity, in the British form of the Latin
alphabet. The contemporary pronunciation of Latin is
therefore important in settling the probable value of the
symbols in O.E., since the English would naturally use the
PRONUNCIATION OF VOWELS 223

symbol which represented in Latin the nearest sound to
their own. (2) Phonetic considerations based (a) upon
the West Germanic origin of the English sound, (6) upon
the subsequent history of the sound in Middle and Modern
English. (3) A comparison of varieties of spelling of the
same word, representing different scribal attempts to ex-
press the same sound, or unconscious lapses from the tra-
ditional mode of spelling, in favour of one more phonetic.
(4) Accents in the manuscripts indicating quantity ; length
is also sometimes expressed by doubling the vowel.

In spite of everything, however, there must always
remain some uncertainty and difference of opinion on
certain points.

The following table shows the probable value of the
O.E. symbols of the vowels :

 

 

 

Unrounded Vowels, Rounded Vowels.
Back. Front. Back. Front.
High... — i a ¥
Mid... a & 5 |B(<a
Low ... |& (or mid?) ae _— —

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are also combinations of above in the diphthongs
&, 6a (CO0<); i (CWS. i€ or &; Kt. €0 or 16; North.
16; Mer. é6). [The marks of length are only occasional
in the manuscripts. ]

As regards the question of whether the above vowels
were ‘tense’ or ‘slack,’ it is probable that the High and Mid
224 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

vowels in the front series (unrounded) existed in a ‘ tense’
form, both long and short, and, further, that a short mid-
front-slack also existed, having a different origin. It is
usual among English scholars to write this vowel ¢, a symbol
which is found in some manuscripts.

The symbol dé (mid-front-round) hardly occurs in W.
Saxon texts, @ being the symbol used already in Early
W. Saxon. This probably implies that unrounding took
place earlier in this dialect than in the others. In North-
umbrian @ is used during the whole O.E. period. On the
whole, it is possible that all the round vowels were tense.

Originally, doubtless, (5) low-back-tense-round, and the
same vowel short and slack, existed, but the long at any
rate seems to have been levelled under the mid-back-round,
by, or soon after, the historic period.

Pronunciation of Old English Consonants.

In addition to the ordinary Latin consonantal symbols,
certain letters of Runic origin are habitually used from
the ninth century onwards to express English sounds which
did not exist in Latin. Thus p (‘thorn’) is written to
express the point-teeth-open consonant, whether voiced or
voiceless, and p (‘wén’) to express that of ‘w’ (lip-back-
open).

Before the historic period, the old k (back-stop-breath)
was differentiated in O.E. into a back and a front stop.
The latter was the ancestor of the Mod. Eng. ‘ch’- sound
(t{). The manuscripts occasionally write k for the former,
but more often c, which does duty both for the back and
the front sounds. It is convenient to distinguish the two
sounds by writing ¢ for the fronted consonant. It is a
PRONUNCIATION OF &, g, g, ég IN OE. 225

disputed point how soon the full (t§) sound, as in Present
English, developed. Most German scholars insist that
this sound was fully established quite early in the O.E.
period. Sweet has always held that the O.E. sound was
a front stop, which view is shared by the present writer.
It is merely a question of probabilities, and cannot be
definitely settled one way or the other. The really
important thing is to realize that there were two sounds
in O.E., a back and a front, and to express this fact in
pronunciation.

Another symbol whose pronunciation is doubtful is g.
The O.E. form of this letter is always z, or 5, down to the
middle of the eleventh century, after which the Continental
gis used. There were originally two sounds in West Gmc.,
which were inherited by O.E., and expressed by the symbol
z, etc., a back-open-voice and front-open-voice, (i.e., /).
The back-open, before the historical period, was differen-
tiated into a back and a front sound, the latter thus being
levelled under original 7 to all appearances. These sounds
continue to be written z without any distinction during
the O.E. period. It is probable that by the year 1000,
or thereabouts, the back-open was stopped initially, but
remained an open consonant medially and finally.

The O.E. symbol, c3, which represents the doubling of
old g before j, was, in Sweet’s view, pronounced as a voiced
front stop during the O.E. period. Here again opinions
are divided, German scholars, Sievers, Biilbring, and Kluge,
maintaining that the Mod. Eng. sound -‘dge’ (dz) was
already established.

For a full account and discussion of O.E. pronunciation,

cf. Bilbring, Elementarbuch, pp. 18-31 ; Sweet, History of
15
1
i
!
i

\

226 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

English Sounds, pp. 101-149; and for an additional dis-
cussion of O.E. c, g, cg, also Kluge in Paul's Grundriss,
pp. 989, etc.

| The most practical book for beginners who want to
‘jlearn the language is probably Sweet’s First Steps in
Anglo-Saxon, which should be followed up with his Angio-
Saxon Reader (seventh edition). Both works contain a
short, practical account of the pronunciation, a practical
grammar, accidence and syntax, as well as well-chosen

d. texts, and a glossary. Another book, which may be re-

|

commended to beginners is A. S. Cook’s First Book in Old
English, Athenzum Press, 1903 (third edition), which, in
addition to phonology, grammar, vocabulary, and texts,
contains also a useful bibliography.

Old English Sound Changes.

The vowel system of O.E. is distinguished from that of
the other West Gmc. languages, notably from Old High
German, by a number of characteristic changes which
took place in the former group of dialects, mostly before
the period of the documents. These changes are of both
the Isolative and Combinative classes, and a knowledge of
them is of importance to those who wish to pursue the
history of the language in a systematic way, further back
than Old English itself, and to inquire into its precise
relationship with the other West Gmc. languages,

For those whose main object, however, is to trace the
growth of the Modern Language, and to relate it to the
earlier forms, a detailed knowledge of the minutiz of O.E.
sound change is out of place for this particular purpose.

In the same way, the specialist is deeply interested in
ISOLATIVE SOUND CHANGES 227

the dialectal differences of O.E. ‘The most important of
these consist in the different treatment, in different geo-
graphical areas, of the original vowel sounds. But these
early differences are but faintly reflected, even in the full
M.E. period of the language, and in the Modern speech
hardly any of the primitive dialectal distinctions can be
traced.

The various local treatment of sounds which we find in
M.E. seems in the light of our present knowledge of O.E.
to be but of recent growth, and as for the English dialects
of to-day, their peculiarities, so far as we can trace their
origin, would appear for the most part not to be more
than two, or at the most three, hundred years old.

As in a work like the present space is necessarily
limited, it will be best in dealing with the phonology of O.E.
to consider mainly, such typical sound changes, whether
of common O.E. origin or subsequently developed during
the O.E. period, within the several dialects, as have left
their traces upon the language of the present day, of
which some knowledge is necessary in order to under-
stand the phenomena of Mod. Eng. grammar. For this
purpose we shall endeavour to make a judicious selection
in the following account.

Changes in the West Germanic Vowels which
affected Old English generally.
A. Isolative Changes.

1. W. Gmc. a<0.E. @: O.E. deg; Gothic dag-s ;
O.H.G. tac; O.E. xcer, ‘field’; O. Sax. akkar ;
O.H.G. acchar.

2. W. Gmc. d<O.E. @: O.E. mép, ‘mowing’; O.H.G.
mad ; O.E. wépn, * weapon’; O.H.G. wafan.

15—2
228 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

3. W. Gme. & (i.¢., nasalized a) << 6, then, with loss of
nasalization, O.E. 6: pdhte, pret. of pencan, from
pahta, cf. Goth. pahta; O.H.G. dahta, ‘ thought.’

[Nore.-—This nasalized a, which was developed
already in Germanic itself (cf. under Com-
binative Changes, pp. 231-233), appears
rounded to 6 in the earliest English texts,
of all dialects. It is probable that originally
it was a low-back-tense-round, though it may
have been raised to the mid position quite
early.]

4. W. Gmc. ai <O.E. @: O.E. ham; Goth. haims ;
O.H.G. heim; O.E. gat, ‘goat’; Goth. gaits ;
O.H.G. geiz.

5. W. Gime. au << O.E. &%, whence @0, é@, and finally
éa@ in nearly all dialects: O.E. éage, ‘ eye’; Goth.
augo ; O.H.G. ouga ; O.E. héGfod, ‘head’; Goth.
haubip ; O.H.G. houdit.

B. Combinative Changes.

1. Rounding of W. Gme. a to o before Nasals.—In O.E.
texts of all periods, from ninth century onwards, such
double forms as mann, monn, land, lond, nama, noma,
‘name,’ etc., are found. The oldest texts have only -an-
in these words, and a comparison with the other Gmc.
languages leaves no doubt that this is the original form.
In ninth-century texts, however (King Alfred’s period), the
forms with -on- largely predominate, while later on, in the
tenth and eleventh centuries, those with -an- are again in
the majority.

In M.E. the -on- forms again become frequent, but in
Mod. Eng. they have almost entirely disappeared, the
preposition on being the only form which has survived in
ROUNDING OF 4 IN O.E. 229

the polite language, apart from cases where lengthening
has taken place (see below).

It might appear that such words as ‘strong, ‘long, etc.,
were examples of the preservation of the -on- forms; but
this, as we shall see, is not the case, and these forms
require a different explanation (see p. 273).

It is impossible to believe in the alternate change of
-an- to -on-, and of this to -an- in late O.E., and again of
this back to -on- in M.E., and finally in a return to -an-
in Mod. Eng. At any rate, there cannot have been an
alternate process of rounding and unrounding going on for
centuries. As Sweet pointed out long ago (see Introduction
to Cura Pastoralis, p. xxii), in all dialects, at all periods,
both -an- and -on- forms are found ; sometimes one is in
the majority, sometimes the other. It looks as if a double
pronunciation existed at the same time amid speakers of
the same dialect, just as nowadays we hear both (zs) and
(ds) =* ass,’ and so on, among persons who otherwise have
no dialectal peculiarity. ‘The preponderance of this or
that form may have been quite artificial, and a question
of fashion. :

2. Rounding of W. Gme. a to 6 before Nasals.—This is
universal in all O.E. dialects from the earliest period.
Examples are: O.E. mdna, ‘moon’; O. Sax. and O.H.G.
mano; O.E. ndmon, pret. pl. of niman, ‘take’; O.H.G.
namum, etc. ‘This sound (a), as we have seen, otherwise
than before nasals, becomes & in O.E., and its subsequent
non-W, Sax. development is important in the history of
the language.

3. Fracture or ‘ Brechung.—This isthe name given to
the diphthonging of original O.E. front vowels before
230 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

certain consonants or combinations of consonants. This
change is not, in all its forms, strictly ‘common O.E.,
since it is more fully developed in W. Sax. and Kentish
than in the Anglian dialects. The dialectal differences
in this particular will, however, be discussed subsequently,
and we may now content ourselves with describing the
process itself, and the conditions under which it occurs in
those dialects in which it is most observable.

The Primitive O.E. front vowels i, ¢, @ are diph-
thongized respectively to iu, ew, and au before h or
h + another consonant, rr or r + another consonant;
@ undergoes the same change before UZ or J + another
consonant, and 2, e before Z + h or c.

The process depends upon the character of the following
consonants: h was a back-open-voiceless, and JJ, rr, or
Z and r, when followed by other consonants, appear to
have been pronounced either as back consonants, or,
as is more probable, as strongly inverted consonants—
that is, with the point of the tongue turned upwards and
backwards. This mode of articulation is heard to-day in
the pronunciation of r throughout the whole of the Saxon
part of England, and also in Oxfordshire. Inverted J,
or Z formed with considerable hollowing out of the front
part of the tongue, is also common in the Southern
dialects. The result of this method of articulation was
that a strong glide vowel was developed between 3, ¢, @,
and the following h, ll, etc., and rr, etc. At the present
day in such a word as ‘ale’ we often hear (ai"l) with
a fairly distinct u-like glide before the * thick’ J.

The glide in O.E. would appear to have been of
wu quality. In the ninth century au had become ea, and
FRACTURE—-LOSS OF NASALS 231

ew eo—in West Saxon at any rate. In an early North-
umbrian text (Bede’s Death Song) iu is still preserved in
wiurpip, later wiorpep.

Examples are:

(1) of @: O.E. (W.S. and Kt.) eahta, ‘eight, O. Sax.,
O.H.G. ahto; O.E. earm, ‘ poor, O.H.G. arm ;
O.E. (WS. and Kt.) ceald, ‘ cold,” O.H.G. kalt.

(2) of e: O.E. feohtan, ‘fight,’ vb., O.H.G. fehtan ;
O.E. eorpe, ‘earth,’ O. Sax. ertha, O.H.G. erda;
O.E. eolh, ‘elk, cf. M.H.G. elch.

4, Loss of Nasal Consonant before Voiceless Open Con-
sonants (h, f, p, 8), and the Result of Preceding Vowel.
(a) Before h: Since all the Gmc. languages show a loss
of n and m before a following h, we may assume that this
loss took place in the common Gme. period. Before
disappearing, however, the nasal consonant nasalized the
preceding vowel, and in O.E., at any rate, the nasalization
was preserved down to the beginning of the English
period. Examples: Goth. pagkjan (=pankjan), ‘ think,’
pret. pahta; O.H.G. denken, déchta, with originally
nasalized d. The preterite form is from earlier * payk-ta,
which became *payh-ta, with the common Gmc. change of
-kt- to -ht-. The O.E. form pdhte shows the characteristic
rounding of this nasal vowel, and compensatory lengthen-
ing after the loss of nasalization. The Primitive O.E.
distinction between this @ and W. Gmc. @ is shown by the
difference of the subsequent treatment in O.E., the latter
being fronted to &.

Another example of this rounding and lengthening in
O.E. is brohte, pret. of bring-an, which stands for earlier
232 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

*brayhta, which became *brdhta. Other vowels than a
are merely lengthened in compensation for the loss of
nasality ; thus O.E. péhte, pret. of pynéean, ‘seem,’ from
puhte, from *punhta; O.E. pédn, ‘prosper,’ is from
* binhan, which in Prim. O.E. was * pihan, whence * pizhan
with Fracture, which in W. Sax. became * piu(h)an,
* pion, and finally péon, with change of %<é. In O. Sax.
this vb. appears as ¢hthan, and in O.H.G. dihan. The
original m is seen in another form preserved in O.E.,
gepungen (originally a participial form), in which earlier
h has been voiced to g (back-open-voice) by the process
known as Verner’s Law, which depends upon the place of
the accent. Before o the nasal consonant is not lost.

(6) Loss of Nasal before f, p, s.—This is a Primitive
Old English change, but is precisely similar in nature
and in results to the foregoing.

O.E. sdfte, ‘soft, O.H.G. samfio; O.E. tap, ‘tooth’;
0.H.G. zand, both from earlier * tanp (see ante, pp. 152-3) ;
O.E. sip, ‘journey, Goth. sinps, O.H.G. sind; O.E. gis,
* goose,’ O.H.G. gans ; O.E. as, ‘us,’ O.H.G. uns.

It is probable that the 6 in these words, as well as in
the class before mentioned, which show an earlier loss of
the nasal, was originally different from the other O.E. @
(in fot, ‘ foot, etc.), which represents an original Gme. 6.
The former may have been the low-back-rownd. In any
case, there is no graphic distinction made between the
two sounds in O.E., and their subsequent history has been
identical. The levelling under one sound almost certainly
took place early in the O.E. period.

In words like O.E. gos, top, etc., the process of change
was apparently as follows: * ans, *gins, * gas, *g6s,
THE O.E, PROCESS OF ELMUTATION 233

gos. The rounding of the nasalized @ was earlier than
that of a before a nasal consonant, since the earliest texts
invariably have 6 in gods, ete. whereas, as we have seen,
monn, etc., appear in the earliest records of English with a.

5. i- or j- Mutation.—This process, often called by the
German name, ?-Umlaut, is common to all the O.E. dialects,
and there is no O.E. sound change whose traces are so
perceptible in Mod. Eng. It consists in the fronting of
an original back vowel, or diphthong, which contained at
least one back element, by the influence of a following -i-
or ¥j- in the following sytlable. It is generally held now
that the -i- or -j- first fronted or front-modified the
intervening consonant or group of consonants, and that
this in turn fronted the vowel immediately preceding them.*
The only front vowel affected is @, which is raised to e.
In this case it was possible for the fronting of the vowel
not to take place until after the i orj had disappeared
altogether. All that was necessary was that, before being
dropped, it should have fronted to a greater or lesser
extent the intervening consonant. The fronting of the
vowel was a comparatively late process, taking place about
the beginning of the seventh century, shortly before the
earliest manuscripts which we possess in O.E. were written.
It can be shown that ¢-mutation was later than Fracture,
for instance, since diphthongs produced by the latter process
are further affected by the former. In cases where the -i- or

* When the fronting was caused by -j-, as in -ja- or -jo-stem
nouns or -jan verbs, the -j- was assimilated to the preceding con-
sonant, which was thus not only fronted, but lengthened—as in cynn,
from *kunja, etc. 1 was not doubled, and -j- remained (after short
vowels). When final, -j- became -i- and the ein O.E. (Cf. here >
heri > *haerj > *harja.
234 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

yj- have disappeared in O.E. its original existence can
usually be established by referring to the cognate word in
Gothic or Old High German.

The following examples illustrate the effect of this
mutation upon the various vowels :

The mutation of « is ¢; O.E. petéean, ‘ to cover,’ from *pakk-jan (of. O.E.
.. pace, ‘roof’).
53 aise: O.E. ge-slegen, ‘struck,’ p.p. from *slag-in-.
$5 o is ¢ (earlier @): O.E. ele, ‘oil,’ loan-word from Latin
oleum, W. Gme. *olja.
3 wisy:0O.E. cynn, ‘race,’ ‘family,’ from *kuinj, ef. Gothic
kunt from *heunja.
0.E. fyllam, ‘ fill). from *fulijan (of. O.E. full).
Gis ®: O.E, s®lan, ‘bind,’ from *saljan (ef. O.E. sai,

“rope ’).
$5 6 is é (earlierx@): 1. Original 6: O.E. fé#, trom *fotiz,
pl. of O.E. fot.

2. 6 from 6: O.E. gés, pl. of gas, from *gasi.

3. 5 from W. Gme. @: O.E. fehp, ‘takes,’ from
*fohip, *fohip, *fanhip (cf. O.E. fo, ‘I take,’
from *foha, *faha, *fagha).

5 wis#: 1. W. Gme. @: O.E. fglp, ‘ filth,’ from */adip,

O. Sax. falipa (of. O.E. ful, ‘ foul’).

2. O.E. &: O.E. dystig, ‘dusty,’ from *distig
(of. O.E. dist, O.H.G. dunst).

The i-mutation of the O.E. diphthongs will be best
treated under the head of Dialectal Divergences.

In some words it might appear that y was the mutation
of o—e.g., gylden, ‘golden, compared with gold, the
substantive; fywen, ‘vixen, feminine of for; gyden,
“ goddess, compared with $od. The fact is that the o in
the above words is a W. Gme. ‘change from an earlier
u before a following a in the stem ending. The original «
was, however, preserved unchanged when followed by #, so
that *guldin-, *fuhsin-, *pudin, remained unchanged until
the period when the following -i- fronted the root vowel
to y.

 
VOWEL LENGTHENING IN O.E. 235

Lengthening of Short Vowels.—During the O.E. period
original short vowels were lengthened before the consonantal
combinations -/d, nd, mb + étld, ‘child’; féndan, vb. ‘ find’;
camb, ‘comb.’ These lengthenings are important for the
subsequent history of the language, their later development
being similar to that of original long vowels. When these
combinations are followed by another consonant, such as
r, which occurs, for instance, in the plural suffix, -rw—
ctldru, liambru, etc.—the lengthening does not take place,
or is subsequently got rid of. This explains the inter-
change of diphthong and short vowel in (t{atld—tfildren),
and also the short vowel in Mod. Eng. (lem), which must
be explained from the plural type with a short vowel
in O.K.

Many later shortenings took place in cases where a third
consonant follows the vowel in compounds—eg., hand,
handfull, etc. (cf. p. 272, etc., below).

Dialectal Divergences in the Old English Vowel System.

Each of the O.E. dialects possesses certain characteristic
phonological features peculiar to itself alone. ‘The West
Saxon dialect has more individual peculiarities than any of
the others which, in a large number of cases, agree in those
respects in which they differ from West Saxon, Thus it is
often sufficient to describe a characteristic as West Saxon
on the one hand, or as non-West Saxon on the other,
implying by the latter phrase that Northumbrian,
Mercian, and Kentish agree in that particular respect.

In Modern English it is comparatively rare that a form
can be derived only from the exclusively West Saxon type,
though this sometimes happens. On the other hand, the
survivals of Anglian peculiarities, common to both North-
236 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

umbria and Mercia, are numerous; a few specifically North-
umbrian, exist, and a few which are specifically Kentish.

The following are the chief O.E. dialectal differences
which can still be traced in Modern Polite English :

A. Features Common to all the non-West Saxon Dialects.—
1. Primitive O.E. @, which remains in W.S., is raised to é
in the other dialects: W.S. d@d, ‘ deed,’ non-W/S. déd ;
W'S. sd, ‘seed, non-W.S. séd. The forms with é are the
ancestral forms of the Mod. Eng. (i) forms, seed, deed, etc.
The other O.E. &, the i-mutation of 4, is preserved in all
dialects except Kentish, which raises it to é- cléne, ‘clean’;
in other dialects cléne, from *clani.

2. The i-mutation of Pr. O.E. 2 (Gme. au) is @, later
¥ in W.S.; but in the other dialects é: W.S. hiéran, later
hgran, ‘hear,’ from *héarjan. Cf. Goth. hausjan>Gme.
*hauyan, non-W.S. héran. This is the origin of Mod.
Eng. ‘hear’ (hia(r)). The W.S. form, had it survived,
would have given (hata(r)).

3. After front consonants, (é, &, s¢), @, and e are diph-
thongized, in W.S., to éa and ie (later y) respectively.
This diphthonging does not take place in non-W.S—
e.g., sceld, ‘shield,’ W.S. sézeld, stgld; non-W-S. scéld,
whence Mod. Eng, (fild). On the other hand, Mod. Eng.
chill is apparently from W.S. éi(e)le, and not from non-
W'S. cele. The W.S. form is‘ from *éeli, whence *éeali,
and then éiele, cyle, with i-mutation of ea.

B. Common Anglian Features.—1. Pr. O.E. a, @ is not
diphthongized to ca before J, iJ, or 1 + another consonant,
in Anglian asin W.S., but remains as a, and is subsequently
lengthened to a: W.S. eald, ‘ old, Ang. ald; W'S. éeald,
‘cold, Anglian cald ; W.S. beald, ‘bold, Anglian bald ;
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VARIOUS DIALECTS 237

WS. weald, ‘ forest,’ Anglian wald. The long @ in these
words, together with all other O.E. @ sounds, was rounded
to o in M.E. in the South and Midlands, and is the origin
of Mod. Eng. (ow). Thus the Anglian forms of above
words gave rise to Mod. Eng. old, cold, bold, wold. The
W.S. form of the last word appears to be also preserved in
the modern doublet form weald.

C. Distinctively Northumbrian Features.—1. In Late
Northumbrian the combination weo- appears as wo-.
The same combination in Late W.S. appears as wu - WS.
weorp, later warp, Late Nth. worp ; W.S. sweord, ‘ sword,’
later swurd, Late Nth. sword, etc. Mercian and Kentish pre-
serve weo unaltered. 2. 7% does not undergo change to @,
but preserves the first element unaltered during O.E. period.

D. Kentish Features.—In Kentish, by the middle of the
ninth century, the earlier 7-sounds, the result of i-mutation
of «, had been unrounded and lowered to @. All the other
dialects preserve ¥ during the whole O.E. period. In M.E.,
as we shall see, the Saxon dialects alone preserved the old
sound ; the Anglian unrounded it to 7 Thus, such forms
as gelt, * guilt, W.S. gylt ; synn, * sin,’ W.S. senn; snetor,
‘wise,’ W.S. snytor, etc., are typically Kentish. In the
modern language a few of these forms with old Kentish e
occur—e.g., merry, from Kentish merig =W.S. myrig. The
cognate substantive mirth, on the other hand, is Anglian as
regards its spelling, while the actual pronunciation might be
from either the W.S. or the Anglian type. In a few cases
the modern forms preserve the M.E. spelling w, which is
Norman French manner of expressing the old Saxon
y sound—e.g., church, from WS. éyrée ; bury (vb.), W.S.
byrgean, M.E, (Southern) burien. In the latter word it is
238 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

interesting to note that, although we retain the Southern
(Saxon) spelling, we pronounce the Kentish vowel ¢ (ber?).
Such words as ridge and bridge, O.K. hryég, brycg, are
Middle Anglian in spelling and pronunciation, but the
Southern or Saxon variants occur in dialectal forms, such
as Somersetshire burge, with metathesis, and in proper
names, such as Rudge.

[Nore.—The original O.E. form of ¢éyrée is éir(i)ce ; the
y, which is represented by M.E. wu, must be due to the
_ influence of 7.]

The Old English Vocabulary.

The native vocabulary closely agrees with that of the
other W. Gmc. languages, and more particularly with that
of the Continental Angles, with O. Frisian and O. Saxon.
The foreign elements are, in the main, from three sources,
Celtic, Latin, and Old Norse.

Celtic Loan-Words in Old English.

The number of these is far smaller than was formerly
supposed, and it is probable that a.thorough investigation
of Welsh would reveal the existence of a larger number of
words borrowed from English in the early period into that
language.

Among those words of undoubted Celtic origin which
are found in O.E., it is possible to distinguish at least two
strata : those which were passed into the vocabulary during
the common Germanic period, and which survived in the
several Germanic languages after the separation, and those
which came independently into the English vocabulary
through contact of the Germanic settlers in these islands
with the Celtic inhabitants.
CELTIC LOAN-WORDS 239

One of the earliest of the former class is O.E. rice,
‘kingdom,’ ‘rule,’ which is found also in Gothic reiki,
‘kingdom,’ retks, ‘ruler, O.S. riki, O.H.G. rihhi (Mod.
Germ. reich). This word in the. form *rig- must have
been borrowed from Celtic sources before the Pr. Gmce.
‘shifting’ of the original voiced stops 8, d, g, to p, t, k;
hence the g was unvoiced along with the original Aryan
voiced stops. In O. Irish the word is ri, with genitive rig,
which is cognate with Latin réx (rék-s, from *rég-s) and
reg-o, etc. Mod. Eng. still preserves the word in bishop-ric.

Other words for which this‘Pr. Celtic origin is sometimes
claimed are doubtful, since, instead of being loan-words
borrowed before the Germanic consonant ‘ shifting, they
may equally well be cognattt possessed by Germanic and
Celtic alike.

Among words borrowed in Britain in the O.E. period
may be mentioned dry} ‘magician, in common use in
poetry, borrowed, apparently, from a form resembling that
found in O, Irish drui. ‘Mod. Eng. druid is related to this
word, but has reached us through the French, from Gaulish
sources. Another word is O.E. dunn, * dun, ‘dark brown,
from a Celtic type, donnas. Cf. Welsh dwn (=dun),
‘dusky,’ Irish donn, ‘brown.’ . Brocc, ‘badger’ (¢f. O. Ir.
brocc), occurs already in the Epa! Glossary, and is still
in dialectal use.

Latin Element-in Old English.
This forms by far the most considerable part of the
foreign element in the O.E. vocabulary. ‘The question is

not so simple as might appear from the lists of Latin loan-
words which are given in some -books on the history of
240 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

English. It is possible to distinguish at least three classes
of words of Latin origin in O.E: (1) Words which formed
part of the common West Germanic, or common Germanic,
vocabulary; (2) words acquired first in this country,
before the conversion of the English to Christianity ;
(3) words which passed into O.E. at a later period, after
the introduction of Christianity, through the influence of
the Church and the spread of learning.

The only true test of the period at which any particular
word was borrowed is its form. It is certain that some
words relating to Christian ideas and beliefs were adopted
by the Germanic peoples Jong before they were converted
from heathendom; while, as is natural, the actual adoption
of the Christian religion, its forms and ceremonies, its
ideals and its culture, led to the introduction of a host of
fresh words to express new ideas. It is therefore unsound
and inaccurate to mix up in one class all the words of
Latin origin which relate to Christianity, and label them
* words of Christian origin.” O.E. cirée, éiriée, < church,’
from Gk. xupsaxd, ‘ belonging to the Lord, is a very early
loan, which goes back at least to the W. Gmc. period
’ (of. O.H.G. chirihha.)

1. As regards the earliest class of Latin words, those
acquired in the Continental Period, it is possible that
some may have passed into W. Gmc. through the medium
of Celtic; and, again, it is not always possible, apparently,
even for Celtic experts, to distinguish with absolute cer-
tainty between words in Celtic which are Latin loan-words
and those which are genuine Celtic, cognate with the Latin

forms.
The best tests of a Latin word having been adopted in the
LATIN WORDS FROM CONTINENTAL PERIOD 241

Gmc. or W. Gmc. period are, first, the retention in genuine
popular words of the Latin intervocalic p, ¢, c (k), un-
affected by the later Neo-Latin voicing: O.E. n&p, ‘turnip,’
Lat. napus; mynet, ‘coin,’ Lat. moneta ; f%-beam, ‘fig-tree,”
Lat. faus ; secondly, its occurrence in several Gmc. tongues
with the characteristic treatment which it would have
undergone in each language had it belonged to the native
element of Gmc. or W. Gmc. Thus O.E. str@t, compared
with O. Sax. strata, O.H.G. strazza, Mod. Eng. street,
from Latin strata via, ‘ paved way, clearly belonged to the
common W. Gme. vocabulary, for the @ has been fronted
to @ in O.E. like original W. Gmc. 4d, and the O.H.G.
form shows the High German change of W. Gmc. ¢ to zz.
In the same way O.E. (W. Sax.) ¢vése, later ¢yse, non-
W. Sax. dase, is a W. Gme. loan from Latin cd@seus, whence
we may assume a form *kasj0-, *kasi, which gave rise on
the one hand to O.H.G. chasi (Mod. Germ. kise), and on
the other to the English forms. (W. Sax. éése is from
earlier *éedst, from *¢#st, with diphthongization of @ to 2a
after a front consonant, and subsequent i-mutation to @,
whence 7 in Late W. Sax.) Mod. Eng. ‘cheese’ is from
the non-W. Sax. form. Latin Casar was adopted into
Gme. speech at an early period, the sound of the old diph-
thong being approximately preserved: Gothic kaisar,
O.H.G. cheisar. In O.E. the diphthong underwent, in
common with W. Gme. ai, the characteristic change to
a; hence we get O.E. cdsere. It is, of course, possible that
this word was independently borrowed by Gothic and
by W. Gime.

It must be borne in mind that in these loan-words we
are not dealing with words written down, with the spell-

16
242 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

ing of classical Latin, but with words actually used in
living popular speech. In popular Latin, } between
vowels was early weakened to an open consonant, at
first a pure lip-open, like Gmc. 6. This sound is gene-
rally written fin O.E., though the spelling 6 is found in
early texts. In O.H.G., it is written 6; hence Lat. cucur-
bita, ‘ gourd, O.E. cyrfet (with i-mutation), O.H.G. chur-
bizz; Lat. tabula, ‘ plank,’ ‘ writing-table,’ O.E. tefl, ‘table’
(for games), O.H.G. zabal, and so on.

2. Words from Popular Sources acquired in Britain.—
Wright, in his The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon, pro-
pounded the view that the people in the towns in this
country continued to speak Latin long after the Romans
had withdrawn from the island, and expresses his belief
that if Britain had not been settled by the English ‘ we
should have been now a people talking a Neo-Latin tongue,
closely resembling French.’ He thinks that the Angles
and Saxons found the inhabitants of this country speaking
Latin, and not a Celtic dialect. Pogatscher, in his impor-
tant book, Zur Lautlehre der Griechischen und Lateinischen
und Romanischen Lehnworte im Altenglischen, 1888, accepts
this view in the fullest possible way, going further, indeed,
than Wright, who, in the passage quoted by Pogatscher
himself (Joc. cit., p. 3), expressly says: ‘I have a strong
suspicion, from different circumstances I have remarked,
that the towns in our island continued, in contradistinction
from the country, to use the Latin tongue long after the
Empire of Rome had disappeared, and after the country
had become Saxon.’ Subsequently, however, Pogatscher’s
views were, to a certain extent, modified by the arguments
of Loth (Les Mots Latins dans les Langues Brittoniques,
LATIN WORDS ACQUIRED FROM BRITISH SPEAKERS 243

1892), and in an article, Angellsachsen und Romanen
(Englische Studien, xix., p. 3, etc.), he apparently con-
tents himself with Wright’s view that Latin was spoken
in cities, without insisting that it had become the national
language. The important point, however, is that it seems
to be well established that a form of Latin—a popular
dialect which had begun to undergo some of the changes
characteristic of the Neo-Latin languages—actually was
spoken in this country for some time after the coming of
‘the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. This form of spoken
Latin was the source of the numerous popular words of
Latin origin which passed into English during the period
between the settlement of Britain and the acceptance of
. Christianity, as preached by St. Augustine. But this
spoken Latin had undergone certain important changes in
pronunciation by the middle of the fifth century. It no
longer retained the form of old classical Latin, but had
advanced in many respects in the same direction as the
popular forms of Latin on the Continent, which were the
ancestors of the modern Romance languages. The words
borrowed from this source into O.E. had naturally already
undergone the characteristic changes of early Romance, and
the O.E. forms of them retain, as far as is possible, the pro-
nunciation which they had in Brito-Romance at the date
of the borrowing. When once these words had passed
into O.E. speech they became part and parcel of that
speech, and underwent the same subsequent changes as
native O.E. words.

Among the most characteristic changes of popular Latin,
which was developing into Romance, is the voicing of p,
t, and c (k), between vowels. We have seen that those

16—2
244 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

words borrowed from Latin in the Continental period
retain the above consonants, in this position, unaltered.
The later words, however, acquired in England, show a
change of p tof (=v), of ¢ to d, and of c tog. It should
be noted that O.E. f represents a Romance b (voiced stop),
a sound which did not occur medially in O.E. in the
earliest period ; g was also pronounced as an open con-
sonant in the medial position.

Examples.—Lat. p: capistrum, ‘halter,’ O.E. cafester,
from Brit.-Rom. *kaéestr-; prafost, ‘officer, Lat. pre-
positus. Lat.t: ruta, O.E. ride, ‘rue’; morap, ‘ sweetened
wine,’ Lat. mordatum, represents a further Romance de-
velopment of intervocalic d from ¢ to d, a voiced open
consonant. Lat. k: faniculum, O.K. jinugl, ‘fennel’;
Lat. cuculla, O.E. cugele, ‘cowl, monk’s hood.’

The loan-words of early Brito-Latin origin, as well, of
course, as those of Continental origin, undergo, as has
been said, such ordinary O.E. sound changes, as took
place after the date of borrowing. A few examples are:

(1) Change of a to 2: O.E. non-W. Sax. cester, from
¥eastr.

(2) W. Sax. diphthonging after front cons.: W. Sax.
ceaster.

(3) Fracture: Wyrtgcorn, from * Vortigern; mearm-stan,
Lat. marmor ; sealm, Lat. (p)salmus.

(4) i-mutation : cycene, from Lat. coquina; Wyrtgeorn,
from * Vorti-<* Wurti-.

The oldest English form of Lincoln on record is
Lin(d)cylene (A. Sax. Chron., 941, 942, Parker MS.), and
other manuscripts have -cylne, -kylne. Now, this, the
genuine O.E. form of the Latin colonia, shows unmis-
CITANGES IN SPOKEN LATIN 245

takuble signs of having passed through Celtic speech.
Cylene presupposes a pre-mutation form *culine, from
*coline ; the change of o to u when i follows in the next
syllable being normal in O.E., and observable in many
Brito-Latin loan-words. It can be shown that a change
of 6 to & and of this to g (high-front-round) took place
in Celtic. But if this word came into English, in the
place-names or otherwise, from the form *coljna before
the period of the O.E. i-mutation, (¥) would be an un-
known sound to English speakers, and the nearest approach
to it in English would be (i). Hence we may assume that
the earliest English form was colina, whence *cilina, and
finally, with mutation, cyd(e)ne. The O.E. variant -colne,
whence our spelling -coln, is a later form taken direct from
literary Latin.

To show how important is the form of the word in
determining the date of its importation into the language,
we may instance the two O.E. words ynée, ‘ inch,’ and yndse,
or yntse, ‘ounce,’ which are both derived ultimately from the
Latin wncia, Both show i-mutation, and must therefore
both have been introduced before 600 or thereabouts.
Which is the earlier form? Obviously ynée, for the
following reasons: Latin wncia, if borrowed in Gmc., would
undoubtedly assume some such form as *unkjd-, which
would normally become ynie in O.E. and inch in
Mod. Eng. As a matter of fact, wnkja occurs in Gothic,
but this may well be an independent loan. In Romance
speech uncia became (* ontgja), whence later (*ont{ia), with
assibilation of ¢ before i, j, similar to that which de-
veloped also in English, and has given us our pronuncia-
tion (int}). But the English process was far slower than
246 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

the Romance change ; hence by the fifth or sixth centuries
the latter language had already developed a sound not far
removed from (t{), whereas O.E., although it had begun
to front & before i and 7, had not progressed so far. We
may therefore regard the -és- in O.E. yntse as an English
approximation to the Brito-Romance sound in the word,
the earlier loan ynée having at this period probably the
form (*un¢i) with a front stop.

In cases where Latin words contain no test sounds such
as intervocalic voiceless stops, there cannot be absolute
certainty as to whether they belong to the earliest Con-
tinental class of loans, or whether they were acquired early
in the English period, and even the fact that the same
word exists in O.H.G. or O. Sax. does not necessarily
settle the matter in favour of the former class, since each
language may have adopted the words independently.
On the other hand, words which retain the Latin inter-
vocalic ¢, etc., might belong either to the Continental
period or the late English, if their vowels are not such
as are liable to early English sound changes.

Enough has perhaps been said to show that the question
of Latin words in O.E. is fraught with difficulties, and
one that presents some problems which cannot be definitely
solved.

8, Latin Words chiefly from Ecclesiastical or Learned
Sources, borrowed after Conversion of the English to
Christianity. After the introduction of the Christian
religion, and with it Latin culture, into England, the
vocabulary was further enriched by words both bearing
directly upon the Church, its government and ideals, its
officers, the functions of the ministers of religion and their
CHRISTIANITY IN ENGLAND 247

vestments, etc., and also by others expressing the circum-
stances and objects connected with the everyday life of
Christians both clerical and lay. The new culture affected
the language of Englishmen in two ways: by introducing
words direct from classical Latin, and by calling into
existence fresh adaptations and combination of native
words to express hitherto unknown objects and ideas.

The Latin words which passed into English after the
introduction of Christianity are chiefly from literary and
not spoken popular Latin; hence they had not undergone
the characteric changes of the latter. Again, most of the
characteristic English sound changes had already been
carried out by the beginning of the seventh century,
so that from the English side they underwent, as a rule,
comparatively little change. Further, it is probable that
during the Old English period these words remained, for
the most part, the linguistic property of the clergy and
learned classes; they were derived from literary sources,
and preserved, to a great extent, the form in which they
were borrowed.

A few examples of learned words are: Discipul, ‘ dis-
ciple’; martyr; pail, * pallium’; pdpa, ‘pope’; sdcerd,
‘ priest,’ from sacerdos. Words of more popular origin
and use are: <Abbod, ‘abbot’; clmesse, ‘alms, from
alimosina ; domne (applied to a Bishop or Archbishop) ;
meesse, *‘ mass,’ from *messa, Lat. missa.

Many native words were adapted to Christian uses.
Such are: hisl, applied to the Blessed Sacrament, but
originally meaning ‘sacrifice’ in general, Cf. Goth.
hunsl ; scearn, ‘the tonsure,’ related to scieran, ‘to cut’;
an-buend and dn-setl, ‘hermit’ and ‘ hermitage’; /fulwian,
248 THE OLD ENGLISH PERIOD

‘baptize’ = *ful-wthan, ‘consecrate’; fulluht and fulwiht,
‘baptism, -wiht being probably associated in popular
etymology with the word meaning creature; godspellere,
‘evangelist’; hisl-pegn, ‘acolyte’; gelapung, ‘the Church’
—literally, those who have received the ‘call’ or ‘in-
vitation.”

The Picardian form market, from Latin mercatum,
occurs in the Laud MS. of the Chronicle under the
year 963, but this text was written in the first quarter of
the twelfth century.

[In addition to the works by Kluge and Pogatscher,
cited above, the reader should also consult The Influence of
Christianity on the Vocabulary of Old English, Part I., by
H. 8. MacGillivray, Halle, 1902.]

The Scandinavian Element.

It is well known that the language of the invading
Norsemen, usually known to us as the ‘ Danes,’ has left
considerable traces upon the vocabulary both of the
literary language and of that of the dialects of English.
Although the process of the blending of the two languages
was undoubtedly carried out during the O.E. period, it is
not until the M.E. period that this linguistic element
finds its way, to any considerable extent, into the written
records so far as they have come down to us. ‘The reason
for this is that for a long time English and Scandinavian
were spoken side by side by two separate communities in
those districts which were settled by the Northmen. Not
until the two races had amalgamated, and Norse had given
way altogether to English, did many Scandinavian words
become part and parcel of English speech. It is pointed
EARLIEST LOANS FROM SCANDINAVIAN INVADERS 249

out by Bjérkman, in the introductory remarks to his
excellent book, Scandinavian Loan-Words in Middle
English, Part I., Halle, 1900, that the words from this
source found in O.E., which, indeed, are few in number,
and which have mostly died out by the M.E. period,
refer for the most part to things connected with the life
and institutions of the invaders, such as cnear, ‘ war-ship’;
fylcian, ‘to collect’; dra, the name of a coin; and so on.
Those words and expressions which appear at a later date,
on the other hand, reveal something very different from
the superficial relations between the two peoples, such as
the above words point to. The later words include several
adverbs, pronouns, and other words which show a close
and intimate connection between English and Scandinavian
speakers.

The fact that practically no prose literature of the early
period has survived in any but a West Saxon form no doubt
also accounts to a certain extent for the paucity of Scandi-
navian words actually recorded in O.E. itself. The list of
these words given by Kluge, Paul's Grundr., p. 982, etc.,
includes many words whose Scandinavian origin is doubtful.
The close affinity of sounds and vocabulary between the
two languages makes it in many cases practically im-
possible to be certain whether the word in question is
really a Norse loan-word or an original English word.
The question of the linguistic tests of true Scandinavian
words will fall to be discussed in the next chapter.
CHAPTER XIII

THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

A coMPLETE account of the various forms of English
speech, which should trace the development of each and
show their mutual relations, would be a most complicated
task, and one which in the present state of knowledge
would be impossible.

The difficulty arises partly in the number of M.E. texts,
and the great dialectal variety which they display; partly
also in the fact that the remains of O.E. outside the West
Saxon dialect are so scanty.

The modern dialects are not, as a rule, the repre-
sentatives of the M.E. dialects, except in certain of their
most pronounced features, such as the Northern (é or 1,
etc.), as contrasted with South and Midland (ou), which
both represent Common O.E. @. Most of the peculiarities
of the modern dialects are of quite recent development,
and afford but little help in elucidating the problems of
the M.E. period. It is quite possible, of course, that
many features of the present-day dialects, which it is
impossible to discover from the texts of the earlier period,
may already have been developed, but could find no
adequate expression in the spelling. On the other hand,
there is no doubt whatever that the majority of the most

250
DIALECTAL DIVERSITY IN MIDDLE ENGLISH 25]

characteristic features of Middle Kentish and Middle
Southern (from Somersetshire to Sussex) have completely
vanished from the modern speech of those areas. ‘The
Middle English dialects, therefore, stand to a great extent
isolated ; of some, we cannot watch the early develop-
ment, owing to the loss or absence of records of the oldest
period ; while there are others whose subsequent career we
cannot trace, because they have perished.

Towards the end of the fourteenth century there
emerges, from among the many provincial forms which
had hitherto been used for literary purposes, a dialect,
chiefly Midland in character, but containing some elements
at least of all the other chief dialectal types, which hence-
forth serves as the exclusive form of speech used in
literature, and from which Modern Standard English is
descended. This, with certain variations, is the English
of Chaucer, of Wycliff, and of Gower.

The precise area in which the literary dialect arose is
still disputed, but there can be little doubt that, whatever
may have been its precise antecedents, it was a real living
form of speech, not a literary concoction, and that the
English of Chaucer is the flexible, racy speech of a class, if
not of a province, most probably that of the upper strata
of English educated society—the language at once of the
nobles and officials of the Court, and of the scholars and
divines of the University of Oxford.

It is true that in a few cases the Modern Standard
English form of a given word cannot be traced directly to
that particular M.E. type which is found in Chaucer’s
language ; but, speaking generally, we may say that the
literary English of to-day is the lineal representative of
252 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

the dialect in which Chaucer writes. ‘This being the case,
the most practical course for the student of the history of
the English language is to consider M.E. as culminating
in the dialect of literature as found in Chaucer, and to
take that as the M.E. type from which he traces Modern
English.

But in order to understand, even approximately, the
development of Chaucer’s English from the older forms,
the beginner must become acquainted with the chief
general M.E. characteristics, of sound change, inflexional
system, and vocabulary.

He must, further, consider the main characteristic
features of the principal M.E. dialectal types, in order
that he may recognise their forms in Chaucer’s language
and in that of the modern period.

General Authorities on the Middle English Period.

So far there is no complete and minute M.E. Grammar,
and we have largely to rely upon monographs of particular
texts. The principal M.E. Grammar is that of Morsbach,
Mittelenglische Grammatik, 1 Theil, Halle, 1896. This
is minute, and deals with the phonology of all the
dialects. So far as it goes, this is a most valuable book
for the advanced student, but, unfortunately, it breaks off
in the middle of a paragraph, without having dealt with
the whole vowel system. In this work the texts and
authorities of each dialect are enumerated, and _ the
problems of accent and quantity are exhaustively treated.
In the second volume of Kaluza’s Historische Grammatik
der Englischen Sprache, Berlin, 1901, the main features
of M.E. are dealt with in a short space, and in a manner
CHRONOLOGICAL AND DIALECTAL DIVISIONS 2538

which is practical and convenient for beginners, especially
those whose main object is to trace the history of the
standard language. Sound and suggestive, though difficult
to use on account of lack of systematic arrangement, is
Kluge’s Geschichte d. Engl. Spr.in Paul's Grundriss, The
development of M.E. sounds from O.E. is dealt with in
Sweet’s History of English Sounds (H.E.S.), Oxford, 1888,
pp. 154-198; and the same writer's New English Grammar,
Part 1., Oxford, 1892, Shorter English Historical Grammar,
and Primer of Historical English Grammar (the latter a
masterpiece of concise and accurate statement), all give a
short but clear account of the main characteristics of
M.E. in their relation both to the earlier and the later
forms of English. An exceedingly useful sketch of M.E.
Grammar for beginners is also prefixed to Specimens of
Early English—Part I., from 1150-1800 ; Part II., 1298-
1393.

Other general works and monographs dealing with specific
texts will be referred to in the course of this chapter.

Chronological Divisions of Middle English.
We may adopt Sweet’s divisions, which are: T'ransition
O.E., 1100-1200; Early M.E., 1200-1300; Late M.E.,
1330-1400.

Dialectal Divisions of Middle English.

It is possible to distinguish four chief dialectal types,
which correspond to the O.E. divisions, although within
each of the original dialectal areas numerous sub-varieties
are recorded in M.E. ‘The principal dialect groups are :

(1) Northern, descended from Old Northumbrian. By
the beginning of the fourteenth century it is possible to
254 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

distinguish between Scots and Northern English, although
the former name (M.E. Scotis) appears to have been
applied only to Gaelic speech down to the sixteenth
century.

(2) Midland, which corresponds to the old dialects of
Mercia and East Anglia. The Midland area reaches as far
south as the Thames.

(8) The Southern, or Saxon Dialects ; and

(4) The Dialect of Kent.

Texts representing the Chief Dialects.

It will be unnecessary here to do more than enumerate
a few of the chief M.E. texts, of which the date of the
manuscript and the place in which it was written is well
established.

A. Transition Texts— East Midland.—A.S. Chronicle,
Laud MS., from 1122-1154, probably written about 1154
at Peterborough. Extracts from this are to be found in
Skeat’s Specimens, Part I. The whole text may be read
either in Thorpe’s Ed. of A.S. Chronicle (Rolls Series) or
in Plummer’s T'wo Saxon Chronicles, Oxford, 1892.

Southern.—History of the Holy Rood-tree, circa 1170,
Ed. Napier, E.E.T.S., 1894,

B. Early Middle English—Northern.—Metrical Psalter,
Yorkshire, before 1300. Extracts .in Specimens, Part IL,
Ed. Surtees Soc., 1843-1847 ; Cursor Mundi, circa 1800;
Specimens, Part IT.

Midland.— The Ormulum, written in Lincolnshire in
1200. Extracts occur in Sweet’s First Middle English
Primer and in Skeat’s Specimens. The most recent com-
plete edition is that of Holt, Oxford, 1878.
REPRESENTATIVE MIDDLE ENGLISH TEXTS = 255

Southern.—Ancren Riwle (A.R.), Dorsetshire, circa 1225.
Extracts in Sweet’s Middle English Primer and the Speci-
mens, In the latter book other Dorsetshire texts of about
the same period, and perhaps by the same author, may be
studied. The standard edition of 4.#. is that of Morton,
Camden Soc., 1852.

Kentish.—Various Sermons and Homilies in the Kentish
Dialect, from 1200-1250, are to be found in Skeat’s
Specimens, Part I.

C. Late Middle English—Northern.—Prick of Conscience
(Hampole), Yorks, before 1349 ; Specimens, Part II., Ed.
Morris, E.E.T.S.

Midland.—Alliterative Poems, Lancashire, circa 1360 ;
Specimens, Ed. Morris, E.E.T.S., 1869; Earliest Prose
Psalter, West Midland, 1375, Ed. Bilbring, E.E.TS.,
1891.

Southern.— St. Editha, Wolts, 1400, Ed. Horstmann,
1883.

Kentish. — Ayenbite of Inwyt, 1340; see Specimens,
Part II., Ed. Morris, E.E.T.S., 1866. We have, un-
fortunately, no Northern texts of this period earlier than
the two mentioned in x above—that is to say, nothing
to bridge the gulf of more than two hundred years, and
no texts produced in Scotland till the Bruce, 1875.

General Characteristics of Middle English compared with
Old English.

A. Middle English Orthography.—The changes in spell-
ing which distinguish the period with which we are dealing
with that which went before are of a twofold nature.
There are, firstly, the changes introduced in an attempt
256 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

to express the changes which were taking place in pro-
nunciation; and, secondly, those due to the application
of an entirely different system of sound notation, which
was in the main Norman French. The former class will
be more fully treated in enumerating the M.E. sound
changes.

The influence of French spelling is present in various
degrees even in very early M.E. texts, and even before the
Conquest. Thus w, instead of the English intervocalic 7
to express a voiced sound, occurs in an eleventh-century
manuscript. Later on w is universal in such a Southern
text as 4.R., although Northern texts retain f much later
even in French words. ‘The Midland Orm writes serrfeun
usually, but serruen only once (H.E.S., 602).

The spelling of the Ormuluwm, which is so remarkably
consistent and methodical as to call for special notice,
shows only very slight touches of Norman influence, but is
partly the English traditional spelling, with modifications
introduced by the writer Orm for purposes of greater
phonetic exactitude.

As the knowledge of French and French documents
became more and more widespread among educated
Englishmen, the French mode of expressing sounds became
fixed, so that, instead of the orthography being English,
slightly influenced by French, as in the case of some early
MLE. manuscripts, that of the late M.E. period is princi-
pally basally French, with a certain residue of traditional
English spellings.

In the South, where we find the largest proportion of
Anglo-French loan-words in the early period, French
orthography begins earlier than in the North and Mid-
CHANGES IN SPELLING 257

lands. French loan-words retain their regular French
spelling, and this system is then transferred to English
words containing sounds approximately the same as those
occurring in French. Thus already in 4.R. we find
French c (=s) transferred to English words, as in seldcéne,
* seldom-seen.’

The following is a list of some of the chief novelties in
M.E. spelling ; many of them have survived in the English
spelling of the present day :

Vowels.—o written for O.E. wu in the neighbourhood of
n,m, V, W; a purely graphic attempt to distinguish letters
which resemble each other in shape: sone, ‘ son, O.E. sunu.
The sound itself (u) remains during the M.E. period.

u written for O.E. y when this sound is preserved, other-
wise for A.-Fr. u, which had the sound of y (i.e., high-
front-round) ; cf. wurchen, O.E. wyrcan. When long, the
same sound is written ui (in the South), to represent
O.E. § : huiren, ‘hear, O.E. hyran.

ou for O.E. a, and for A.-Fr. (i)-sound: hous, ‘ house,
O.E. his; court. This spelling is very rare for the short
(u)-sound.

ie occurs in Gower and other texts to express a long
tense (&), as distinct from the slack (é), written e- hieren,
“hear, O.E. (non-W.S.), héran.

y is written for (i). It never expresses the rounded (y)
in M.E.

Consonants.—ch is written for O.E. é already in the
middle of the twelfth century (cf. the so-called Kentish
Gospels, for instance) : chester, O.E. (Kentish, etc.) cester ;
chéke, O.E. céac, ‘cheek.’ Medially cch or chch occur.
-tch- is rare before the fifteenth century.

[

17
258 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

gg is written for the O.E. ¢g: brigge, brugge, O.E.
brycg, ‘bridge.’ The spelling -dg- for this sound is not
common before the fifteenth century.

J is written initially for the same sound, which only
occurs in this position in French words: jugement, ete.

The O.E. symbol z, slightly modified in shape, is re-
tained in M.E. to express the front-open voiced consonant :
3iwen, ‘ give,’ O.E. giefan ; we}, ‘way, O.E. weg. The use
of y for this sound belongs to the later M.E. period.

The symbol g is a new symbol imported by French
scribes. Prior to the Conquest, x was the only form of the
letter, and did duty for both back and front consonants.
The new symbol appears first about the first quarter of the
twelfth century. At first the scribes use the English symbol
z and the Continental @ indiscriminately for either the
back or the front sound. From the thirteenth century
onwards, however, the distinction is usually consistently
made, the modified form 3 of the old letter 3 being used
for the latter, the new for the former sound. Orm makes
the distinction most carefully, and further introduces a
symbol of his own, a combination of the Continental 9 and
English 3, to express a back stop, in words like god, ete.

[Nore.—This interesting and important discovery was
made by Professor Napier. Cf Academy, 1890, p. 188,
and the reprint of the article in History of the Holy Rood-
tree, E.E.T-S., 1894, p. '71.]

gu, the French symbol for a back stop before front
vowels, is still retained in guest. In M.E. it is sometimes
written in guod, ‘ good,’ and kingue.

gh is written for a back-open voiceless consonant,
O.E. h: inogh, ‘enough, O.E. gendh.
CHANGES IN PRONUNCIATION 259

sch, ssch, sh, are written for O.E. sé, and less commonly
ss and s: schip, ssip, flessch, fless, etc.

th replaces p and 8: thinken, etc., in Late M.E.

qu replaces O.E. cw: quéne, ‘woman’ (kwene), O.E.
cwéne ; queen, ‘queen’ (kwén), O.E. cwén.

c is used for (s) in French words, as at present in face,
etc., and occasionally, as we have seen, in English words as
well.

u, and later v, are used medially, instead of O.E. f, to
express the voiced sound: lawerd, O.E. hiaford, ‘lord’;
evel and evel, ‘ evil, O.E. (Kentish) efel. In Southern texts,
where O.E. f was voiced initially, w, v are written in that
position: worp, O.E. forp. In A.B. f is still written
finally, to avoid confusion with the vowel, as in Jif, ‘ life’ ;
also before voiced consonants, as in hefde, ‘had, O.E.
hefde.

B. Middle English Sounds.—The quality of M.E. sounds
is established partly from historical considerations of their
origin and subsequent development, partly from the
various phonetic attempts to render them made by the
scribes, partly by the rhymes of the M.E. period.

By the last means we are able, for instance, to show the
existence of two long ‘e’-sounds, although the M.E. spell-
ing does not in all cases distinguish. Chaucer, a careful
and accomplished maker of rhymes, never rhymes M.E. é,
the result of a M.E. lengthening of O.E. &, as in béren,
O.E. béran, with the other é inherited from O.E., as in
héren, ‘hear, O.E. héran. Further, we still distinguish
between the sounds of the two words ‘hear’ and ‘bear.’
There can be little doubt that in M.E. the sound in

héren was a mid-front-tense, whereas that in ‘ béren’
17—2
260 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

was mid-front-slack. This M.E. distinction is still
further confirmed by the scribal distinction, already
noted, of ie for the former class of words, and ¢ for the
latter.

The quantity of vowels is established by the means just
described, which are, however, even more conclusive in

/ settling the quantity than they are in determining the
precise quality of a vowel.

For the quantities of early M.E. the Ormulum is in-
valuable, since the writer invariably doubles the conso-
nant after short vowels, or, in the few cases where this is
not practicable, marks the short quantity thus: néame,
‘name, etc.

We may assume that when Orm does not double the
consonant, the preceding vowel is long. Thus he dis-
tinguishes between the singular lamb, with long 4@, already
in O.E., and the plural Jammbre, where the combination of
consonants (mbr) has prevented lengthening.

Marks to show that a vowel is long are rare in M.E.,
but the doubling of vowels for this purpose, although
not consistently practised in early M.E., is very common,
and fairly regularly carried out in later M.E., as in
Chaucer's stoon, ‘stone’; heeth, ‘heath, ete.

Qualitative Sound Changes in Middle English.

1. O.E. a, which includes both original @ and @ length-
ened from &@ during the O.E. period, before -Jd, -mb, -nd,
hand, lamb, and Anglian ald (M.E. lomb, hénd, old), is
rounded to 0 (5) in the South and Midlands: O.E. ham,
‘home,’ M.E. hom; O.E. sar, ‘sore, M.E. sér, ete.

In the North, except before 7 + another consonant,
0.E. A ROUNDED IN SOUTH, FRONTED IN NORTH 261

@ is gradually fronted to é through intermediate stage
of @. This sound is written a in the North of England,
but in Scotland often ai. Its front character can be
shown from the M.E. rhymes, and also from the Mod.
Scots and Northern Eng. dialect forms, which show
(é, ia), ete.

The Southern and Midland rounding must have begun
very early, since no N.-Fr. word with @, such as dame,
‘lady,’ fame, etc., ever shows any trace of the process.
Therefore, before the period of the earliest loan-words from
Norman sources, O.E. @ and Fr. @ were already distinct.
The early manuscripts are by no means consistent in
writing o for the old @ sound. The Kentish Homilies
(MS. Vespas., A. 22, before 1150) occasionally writes 6 by
the side of the usual @ The Laud MS. of the Chronicle
has one example, more, under the year 1137 (cf. Skeat’s
Specimens, I., p.11, 1. 42). This manuscript was probably
written after the year 1154. Orm (1200), though such
a careful orthographist, writes a in all cases, never o.
This probably indicates that the change had not gone
far enough in his dialect, to be recognisable as a new
sound. Genesis and Exodus, also E. Midl. fifty years
later, has plenty of 6 spellings. The so-called Lambeth
Homilies (before 1200) has no 0, but always @; while the
collection of Homilies of the same date in Trinity College,
Cambridge, have 6 universally, and apparently no @’s.
Ancren Riwle (1225) has 6, oa in hundreds of cases,
@ occurring only once in an unequivocal word, wat ;
lates, from O.N. lat, l@te, is thus written five times.
[On this text, cf Ostermann, Bonner Beitr, 1905.]
It is therefore clear that the rounding of @ had been
262 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

carried out in the South and in some Midland dialects
by the second half of the twelfth century, even although
the scribes do not consistently express this in their
spellings. On the other hand, it can be proved by an
examination of the rhymes of Barbour’s Bruce (1375) that
by that date the Northern fronting was fully complete.
ansuer—mar, O.E. mara, ‘ more’ (Book I., 437, 438) ; war,
‘was,’ O.E. (Northern) wéron, rhymes to mar (Book IL.,
59, 60); war to rair, ‘roar, O.E. raran (Book IV., 422,
423). The front quality of the vowel in war, in spite of
the spelling, is proved by the rhyme of wer, with different
spelling, to French manér (Book IV., 7, 8), and by that
of ere, O.E. &r, to were (Book IV., 402, 403). The vowel
in all these words is certainly front, either (#) or (#), or
even possibly (€), which is suggested by the rhyme neir,
‘near, manéir (Book IV., 377, 378). In the sixteenth
century the rhyme dréme, ‘dream,’ O.E. dréam, with hame,
is noted by Professor Gregory Smith in Specimens of
Middle Scots, p. xx; cf. also ibid., p. 1'74, lines 18, 14, in a
poem by Sir David Lindsay.

2. O.E. @ (1), when original, was very early in the O.E.
period raised to é@ in all dialects but W. Saxon. This
sound is represented in the earliest M.E. (Southern) texts
by the spellings @ or ea, the levelling of @ with the old
long diphthong having already taken place in O.E. Later
on this sound seems to disappear altogether, even in
Southern, the non-Saxon é@ penetrating from the other
dialects.

O.E. @ (2), which was the i-mutation of a, survives, in
all dialects but Kentish, throughout the O.E. period. In
M.E. it was gradually raised to (2), written @, ea, ee.
TREATMENT OF 0 IN NORTHERN DIALECTS 268

In Mod. Eng. this sound, in common with Anglian é, has
become (i), but its origin is often expressed by the spelling
ea, as in heath, O.E. hp, from *hapi, as distinguished
from deed, from non-W.S. déd, earlier ded, with
original @. This M.E. (2) was not raised to (i) in Mod.
Eng. until much later than the M.E. tense sound, and is
still preserved as (g), etc., in Irish English (¢f pp. 320, 321).

3. O.K. 6, often written oo in M.E., was pronounced
with increased rounding, and by the period of Chaucer
had probably reached a sound closely resembling Swedish
6, which to the ear is almost like @ In the sixteenth
century the full (i) sound was developed. In the North
O.E. 6 had a different development, as is shown by such
rhymes in Northern Eng. and Scotch texts as forténe—sone,
‘soon’ (Pricke of Consc., 1273-1274, circa 1340); auen-
ture—forfure, ‘perished, O.E. forfor (Bruce, Book X.,
528, 529) ; blid—riide (Schir W. Wallace, 1488, Book IL.,
91, 92). In the same poem, Book II., we find fide, ‘food,’
O.E. foda (308), blad (311), gid (312), all rhyming with
conclid (314). There are numerous examples of such
rhymes in Scotch texts. Here we find, then, O.E. 6
written 0, w, oi, etc., rhyming with French @ (¥), which is
also spelled in exactly the same ways as the former sound.
The inference is that in Northern Eng. .and Scotch, by the
fourteenth century, at any rate, the two sounds were felt as
identical. Whatever may have been the precise sound
intended, it is clear that its acoustic effect was approxi-
mately that of a high-front-round vowel, or perhaps a
high-mixed-round, that it was the ancestor of the various
sounds representing O.E. 6, which we find in the modern
dialects of Scotland and the North of England, and that

o|

Nel
264 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

it evidently did not pass through the (a) stage which is
universal in the South and Midlands.

4, O.E. % is unrounded everywhere but in the South
to 7, which shares the same development as original 7, and
becomes (ai) in Mod. Eng. In the South the g sound is
preserved, and is written u or wi. The Southern forms
have died out, with the exception of ‘bruise’ (bruz),
O.E. brysan, which has preserved the characteristic M.E.
Sthn. spelling. It must be noted that 7 became @ in
Kentish already in the middle of the ninth century, and
this sound, together with all other O.E. és, is preserved
in M.E. in that dialect.

5. O.E. é, 7%, and &% were preserved unaltered, unless
affected by a M.E. process of shortening (see p. 270, etc.),
so far as the evidence goes, during the whole M.E. period.
(&) was raised to (i) in the early Modern period; & was
diphthongized in the South and Midlands about the same
time, to a sound which subsequently became (au). The
Norman spelling ow to express % has been retained, and is
now popularly regarded as the natural symbol of the
modern diphthong. (i) was diphthongized to (ai) in the
sixteenth century, and from it (ai) has developed, with
slight variations, in all dialects.

The Short Vowels.— With the exception of O.E. &, these
undergo no qualitative change during the M.E. period.

6. O.E. & appears already in O.E., as ¢ in Kentish, and
to a certain extent in Mercian. In W. Sax. and North-
umbrian @ is preserved. In M.E., Southern texts, espe-
cially Kentish, preserve e, but otherwise a is the usual
form. Chaucer has fader, ‘father, O.E. fader ; water,
O.E. weeter, * water.’
LOSS OF OLD DIPHTHONGS IN M.E. 265

In the later language the e-forms disappear altogether.
In combination with 3, ¢ forms in Kentish a diphthong,
written ¢7,

Those dialects which have a combine this sound into the
diphthong ai with the following 3, as in dai. Sometimes 2,
sometimes 3 is written. In early texts the O.E. distinction
between the sing. and pl. of such words as deg, pl. dagas,
etc., is preserved: dai, dawes, etc. (on change of O.E. g
to w, see p. 274 below). Chaucer has dai, day, dayes, etc.,
with the 3 of the sing. generalized throughout. On the
other hand, he has the vb. dawen, ‘dawn, from O.E.
dagian, earlier *daggjan. Apparently, the diphthongs et
ai were scarcely distinguishable in M.E. The vowel in
wei, ° way, rein, ‘rain, O.E. weg, regn, has had precisely
the same development as that in dai, O.E. dag, and
wain, O.K. wegn, ‘ wain.’

O.E. a when preserved, is, of course, indistinguishable
from @ in M.E.

The 0.E. Diphthongs.—Such of these as survive the
various O.E. combinative factors in the different dialects,
which tend to monophthongize them, are completely
monophthongized in the M.E. period, except in Kentish,
where the spellings dyath, ‘death, O.E. déap, pyef, ‘ thief,’
O.E. péof, seem to imply a diphthongal pronunciation.
But with the dying out of the Kentish dialect all trace
of the original diphthongs, as such, disappears.

Otherwise, O.E. 2a is monophthongized to (#) in early
M.E., and 2 to (é). The diphthongal spellings, are, how-
ever, common in early texts, in spite of the undoubted
change of sound. Similarly, the short diphthongs ea
‘and eo become (z) and (e) respectively. This is proved
266 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

by the fact that éa, é6 are not infrequently written for
old &, é, and conversely ; while the original short @ and ¢
are often expressed by ea and co respectively. In fact, in
early texts €4 is a regular symbol for, and proves the
existence of, the sounds (&). This (&), representing the
original diphthongs, was, together with original #,
raised to (é). The new (é) sound was completely levelled
under original O.E. é, and the original O.E. 2 when
preserved short, was levelled under the new é.

Mod. Eng. weald, side by side with wold, appears to
represent the Saxon weald, E.M.E. weld, whence wéild (),
Early Mod. (wéld). Wold is, of course, the old Anglian
wald. The early Middle Kentish chold, ‘cold,’ is ap-
parently a mixture of Southern ¢ald, cheld, and Anglian
cald, cold.

The Development of New Diphthongs in Middle English.

The various diphthongs which came into existence
during the M.E. period are the result either of the
vocalizing of O.E. & (front-open voice consonant) after
a preceding @ or e, as has been already indicated above,
as in dei, dai, rein, etc.; of the development of a front
vowel glide before fronted h, as in heih, ‘high,’ O.Angl.
héh, etc.; or the development of a back vowel glide
between a back vowel and a back-open consonant, as in
douhter, O.E. dohter ; inouh, ‘ enough,’ O.E. genoh, plouh,
‘plough, O.E. ploh. In late O.E. the last two words
become inuh and plih respectively, by the over-rounding
and raising of (6) to (a) through the influence of the
second element of the diphthong, and the subsequent
contraction of (au) to (a). The literary English (plaw)
THE NEW DIPHTHONGS 267

and the archaic (inauw) *enow’ are the seals not of the
old nom., which in Late O.E. had h, but of the oblique
cases, where the voice sound was retained—O.E. gendge,
ploges. This O.E. g became w in M.E.—inowe, plowes,
etc., where 6u or Gm had the same sound as in the Nom.
The sometime existence of the actual diphthong (du) is
confirmed by the Modern dialect form (pldh), in which
the second element has been lost. The standard English
(inaf), ‘ enough,’ represents the old nom.; and so do the
dialect forms (pluh, pluf, inh), ete. The O.E. combina-
tion ag- before vowels produces M.E. aw-au (cf. O.E.
dragan, M.K. drawen).

In O.E. af- the consonant is sometimes weakened to a
vowel, thus forming the second element of a diphthong—
O.E. hafoc, M.E. hauk ; and the same thing may happen
to O.E. ef, as in M.E. eute, ‘ newt,’ O.E. efete.

The combination a¥- in Norman French words was
pronounced (aun) by some speakers, presumably in imita-
tion of the original nasal vowel. Such spellings as dawn-
gerous, aungel, ‘angel,’ are frequent, and they survive in
many cases in Mod. Eng.—eg., haunt, haunch, aunt,
jaundice, laundry, etc. Here the fluctuation of the Mod.
Eng. pronunciation between (5) and (a) makes it evident
that two types, one (au) and the other (aun), existed
in M.E, The Mod. Eng. (hint), dzsndis, I5ndri), etc., go
back to M.E. (haunt), dzaundis), etc.; while the Mod.
Eng. pronunciations (hant), dzdndis, ant), etc, are
descended from M.E. forms without diphthongization.
In the same way Mod. Eng. al-, pronounced (51-), ‘also
presupposes an earlier (aul-), as in Mod. Eng. (51, solt,
bal) = ‘all,’ ¢ salt,’ ‘ bawl,’ from (aul, sault, baul). This is

nM
268 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

apparently the result of the development of a parasitic (u)
between a and the following /.

Quantitative Vowel Changes in Middle English.

1. Lengthening of Original Short Vowels.

(a) Early Lengthening before Consonantal Combinations.
—As we have seen, all short vowels were lengthened in
late O.E. before certain consonantal combinations. Un-
less conditions arise to shorten these vowels again, their
length is preserved in M.E. In the case of the length-
ened a before -id, mb, nd, ng, the survival of the new
quantity is made certain by the spellings hond (Orm hand),
strong (Orm strang), etc., which show that the lengthened
@ is rounded to 6 together with original O.E. a, in ham,
M.E. hom, etc. In other cases we have to depend upon
Orm’s spellings (ante, p. 260), the occasional marks of
length in the manuscripts, rhymes of the new long vowels
with original longs, and the later history of the words
in English. Thus from the latter point of view Mod.
Eng. jind (faind) field (fild), hound (haund), can only be
derived from M.E. types with the long vowels 7, é, and &%
respectively. Orm’s spellings, findenn, feld, hund, corro-
borate the assumption of the existence of such types,
as do the other M.E. spellings, field (€), hownd (a), which
have survived to the present day.

In certain words, such as hand, lamb, etc., where we
should expect a M.E. lengthening, on account of the
presence of the combinations -mb, -nd, etc., the Mod.
Eng. forms nevertheless presuppose M.E. forms with a
short vowel. In these cases we must assume that both
VOWEL-LENGTHENING IN OPEN SYLLABLES 269

long and short forms existed in M.E., the latter types pro-
duced by inflexion. (On this point see pp. 271-278 below.)

(0) Later Lengthening of Vowels in an Open Syllable.—
By the first half of the thirteenth century, the typical
M.E. lengthening of the vowel a, @, e, o in open syllables
was complete, and had taken place in all dialects.

This is shown by the frequent rhyming of original short
vowels in this position, with original longs: swéte—edgéte,
O.E. swéte, gadgete ; Gre—vorlore(n), O.E. ar, forliren
[of Morsbach, ME. Gr., p. 86]. Such rhymes at least
prove agreement in quantity, if not in the quality of the :
vowels.

Again, already in Orm we find faderr, ‘ father, O.E.
féder, and waterr, O.E. wé&ter, with (4); etenn, ‘eat,’
O.E. ean; chele, ‘cold, O.E. (non-W.S.) é£le, both
with (£); chosenn, p.p. of chésenn, ‘ choose,’ O.E. cédren,
(Orm’s p.p. has s on the analogy of the inf. and pres.
indic.); hope, O.E. hépu, both with (5). The Mod. Eng.
spelling ‘ eat’ implies a long slack (¢)—at any rate down
to the sixteenth century, when the corresponding tense
sound was written ee, and was raised to (i). The length-
ened 6 must also have had a different sound in M.E. from
the original 6. The latter became (a) in the sixteenth
century; the latter was still (5), and was later, in the seven-
teenth century, raised to (3). (See below, pp. 323, 324,
on development of the two 6-sounds in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries.) The sounds in Mod. Eng. water
and father (5 and a@) do not represent the normal inde-
pendent development of this M.E. d. The vowel in water
is influenced by the w, and that in father is from a M.E.
doublet with a short vowel. (See below, pp. 271 and 317.)
270 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

M.E. a, whether due to lengthening of older 4, or
whether it be a N. Fr. a, develops in standard Mod. Eng.
into the diphthong («), with the same sound as the name
of the first letter of the alphabet. Thus O.E. néma,
M.E. name, Mod. Eng. (nim); N. Fr. dame, Mod. Eng.
deim. The dialectal (feisar or fédar) exactly represent
M.E. fader, so far as the long vowel is concerned.

2. Vowel Shortening in Middle English.

The chief factor of vowel shortening in M.E. is the
presence of a long or double consonant, or a group of
consonants, immediately after the vowel.

From the above statement, those consonant groups
which, as we have seen (ante, p. 235), tend to lengthen
a short vowel, must, of course, be excepted.

It is immaterial whether the shortening group occurs in
the body of a simple word or arises in composition, pro-
vided that the combination existed before the shortening
process began. Examples:

A. Before double consonants :
1. Mette, ‘ met, O.E. métte, from *mét-de, from meétede.

B. Before other consonant groups :

1. Two stops: keppte, ‘kept, O.E. cépte; sleppte,
‘slept,’ O.E. slépte.

2, Stop + divided, or nasal: titmost, O.E. atmest ; little,
O.E. lgtle ; chappmenn, O.E. ééapmenn.

3. Stop + open cons.: dépthe, O.E. *déppu or *déoppu ;
Edward, O.E. Eadward.

4. Open cons. + stop: soffte, soft, O.E. sdfte ; wissdim,
O.E. wisdom ; sohhte, O.K. schte, * sought.’
SHORTENING OF OLD LONG VOWELS 271

5. Open cons. + divided or nasal cons.: gisling, dimin.
of gas ; deffies, ‘devils,’ O.E. dzofol ; wimman, from wifmann.

6. Open cons. + open cons. or h: hiswif, Mod. Eng.
(hazif) ; gdshauk, O.E. goshafoc.

7. Nasal cons. + stop: flemmde, * put to flight, O.E.
(Angl.) flémde.

8. Divided or nasal cons. + open cons.: hallghenn,
‘hallow,’ later M.E. halwen; fillthe, ‘filthy OE. fylp;
monthe, ‘month, O.E. ménap ; obl. cases, modnpe, etc.

9. Nasal + divided cons. : clennlike, O.E. cléniiée.

[Norz.—The words with doubled consonants above are
Orm’s spelling, which proves the preceding vowels to be
short. ]

It will be observed that under the conditions enumerated
not only are original O.E. long vowels shortened, but also
that the new (M.E.) long vowels, developed in open
syllables, do not arise here, in close syllables.

The occurrence in the declension, conjugation, or other
inflection of a word of both open and close syllables is
of great importance for the subsequent history of the
language. In this way doublets arose of the same word,
one with a long, the other with a short. Thus the nouns
fader and water were long, but in the inflected forms the
combinations -dr-, -tr- arose by the syncope of the e of
the second syllable. The genitives were fddres, watres.
Similarly, words which had original long vowels under-
went shortening in inflection as a result of syncope.
Thus dével in nom. form, O.E. déafol, had pl. dévles
(cf. Orm’s déffles above) ; from this shortened type, which
gave rise to a new nom., Mod. Eng. (devil) is derived.

Shortening was apparently normal before -s¢ and -sch (§),
272 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

O.E sé. Words with original long vowels before these
combinations show, however, some fluctuation of quantity
in M.E. Thus O.E. bréost became M.E. brést, whence
brést. Brést, however, is also found, and this type is
probably due to the inflected forms, where the syllable
division was bré-stess, etc. Modern dialect forms, such as
(brist, brést), also exist (cf. also ‘ priest, M.E. pré-stes).
In the same way Standard Mod. Eng. flesh goes back to a
type (flef) in M.E. But the M.E. form with the long
vowel (Orm has ff@sh) must be due to the syllable division
of Gen. fl@-shes, etc.

The Late O.E. lengthenings before -nd, -mb, etc., are
also liable to show short forms in Standard Mod. Eng.
In many cases here, too, doublets arose in inflection, since
the lengthening either never took place or was got rid of
before a third consonant. Thus Mod. Eng. lamb, compared
with M.E. lomb, clearly goes back to a M.E. type with a
short vowel, such as occurs in the plural lambre. Mod. Eng.
hand (hend) perhaps arose from such compounds as hand-
ful. Mod. Eng. friend (frend), by the side of M.E. frénd,
from O.E. fréond, is from a shortened M.E. type, which
arose, perhaps, in the compound fréndschipe. The Scotch
dialects preserve the representative of the long M.E. type
here, as does Standard English also in fiend (find), M.E.
fend, O.E. feond. Mod. Eng. child—children (tSaild—
t{ildren) preserve the normal interchange of long and
short seen in Orm’s child, pl. chilldre. There are some
short forms in Mod. Eng. which it is difficult to account
for, unless we assume that shortening could take place
within the longer breath group or sentence under the
same conditions as those which caused it in the inflected
MODERN EQUIVALENTS OF M.E. DOUBLETS 273

word or compound. Such are dand (lend) compared with
M.E. lénd, Orm land; and band (bend) compared with
bond. The latter represents a much later shortening of
M.E, bond, O.E. band, similar to that which has taken
place also in long, M.E. long; strong, M.E. strong.
Against the latter form Standard English has hang, sang
(heey, szey), ete.

In most cases where O.E. short vowels were lengthened
and O.E. longs shortened, the possibility of doublets
existed from the inflectional or other conditions of M.E.
In a vast number of cases, by comparing Standard English
with the Modern dialects, it will be seen that both long
and short forms have been perpetuated in modern speech.

The original rise of the doublets had nothing to do
with dialectal idiosyncrasy, but the subsequent generaliza-
tion of the long or short type, as the only form in use,
depends upon the speech habit of the particular com-
munity. As we have seen, Standard English is by no
means consistent in this respect, but uses now the
descendant of a M.E. long, now of a short vowel.

The best general accounts of the quantitative and
qualitative vowel changes in M.E. are to be found in
Sweet’s H.E.S. and Morsbach’s M.E. Gr. The latter is
particularly elaborate, though as regards the qualitative
vowel changes it is unfortunately still awaiting completion.

The Treatment of the Old English Consonants in Middle
English.

1. The Back Consonants.—O.E. g remained as a back

stop initially before original back vowels and before

consonants. Orm, as we have seen (p. 258), invented a
18
274 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

special symbol to express this sound. Non-initially, O.E.
was an open voiced consonant, which in M.E. acquired
considerable lip modification, together with a weakening
of the back consonantal element, the tongue being lowered
to a vowel position. The result is the Mod. Eng. w, in
words like draw, M.E. drawen, O.E. dragan. Orm
writes the O.E. symbol 3 followed by / for this sound,
implying probably that the back element still predominated
in his pronunciation. Medially and finally M.E. w com-
bined with the preceding vowel to form a diphthong.
O.E. c remained as a back stop in all positions. The O.E.
cn- in cna@wan, etc., remained in the Standard pronuncia-
tion down to the sixteenth or early seventeenth century.
O.E. h, a voiceless back consonant, medially between
before or after back vowels, remained as such in M.E.
The same tendency to lip modify h existed as in the case
of the voiced sound, the result in the case of h, however,
being the development of a lip-teeth (f) sound, as in
Mod. Eng. tough (taf), O.E. toh. This is the normal
development in Standard English and in many dialects.
In the Northern dialects the old back-open voiceless
consonant remains to this day, as in Scotch (pluh), etc.
Standard (plau) is, as we have seen, a doublet, formed
from the oblique cases which had @ in O.E. and w in M.E.
Before ¢, h also became (f) in M.E., brofte, O.E. brohte
occurs in Lagomon, while the Modern dialects have forms
like broft, ‘ brought’ (in Cornwall), and thoft, ‘ thought,’ in
Kent, Devon, and Cornwall. For other examples see
Wright, Dialect Gr., § 359. The more usual development
in this position, however, seems to have been either the
voicing of h, in which case it formed the second element
BACK AND FRONT CONSONANTS 275

(u) of a diphthong, as in the types from which Standard
English (d5ta, brSt, p5t), etc., sprang, or the preservation
of the back-open voiceless consonant unchanged, as in Sc.
(poht), etc.

O.E. hw was apparently preserved as a voiceless w in
the Lower Midlands and South; in the North and part of
the Midlands the back element was strongly consonantal.
This is expressed in Northern texts by the spelling qu, as in
quale, * whale, O.E. hwal ; quét, * wheat,’ O.E. hwéte, etc.
The pronunciation (kw) is apparently unknown in the
Modern dialects, and probably never developed.

Initially before vowels h remains in M.E. as a rule, though
it is very early lost in the neuter pronoun hit, which already
in Orm is itt. Modern Scotch still preserves the strong
form hit, which is, indeed, the only form in the Sc. dialects.

The Front Consonants.—The O.E. front stops ¢ and ¢&
were fully assibilated to (t|) and (dz) early in the M.E.
period. The methods of representing these sounds have
already been described (ante, pp. 257, 258). For the former,
the ME. spelling ch, later tch, are conclusive, but for the
latter the M.E. spellings gg are of doubtful significance,
being also used for the stop, as in the Scand. legges, ‘legs.’
We have therefore to rely chiefly on the evidence of the
Modern dialects to establish the existence of the (dz) sound
inM.E. Unlike ch (t{), (dz), with the exception of one or
two much-discussed words, never occurs initially in English
words, though common in words of French origin, where
it is usually written 7 in Mod. Eng., as in judge, joy, jest, etc.

The development of ¢ and ¢g in M.E. and Mod. Eng.
presents much difficulty, since in many cases where we
should expect (t{ and dz) we get instead back stops—dick

: 18—2
276 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

by the side of ditch, flick by the side of jlitch, seg by the
side of sedge, rig by the side of ridge, and so on.

The orthodox view is that in the North, O.E. é and ¢g
were not as fully fronted as in the South, and that in M.E.,
or perhaps earlier, instead of developing into the full assi-
bilated sounds, they were unfronted and became back
stops. Thus words like seg, brig, and flick are looked upon
as typically Northern forms, like sedge, bridge, flitch as
normal Southern products.

Unfortunately, this theory, simple as it looks, will
not bear investigation. It is true that M.E. texts and
Modern dialects have, on the whole, more (-k and -g)
and fewer (t{ and dz) forms in the Northern, while the
proportions are reversed in the Southern ; but numerous
assibilated forms actually do occur in the Northern, and
many forms with back stops in the Southern, which on
the ordinary theory can only be accounted for by the
assumption of a system of wholesale borrowing. Some of
the Southern k-forms, such as seek, compared with be-seech,
are admittedly due to the second and third person singular :
O.E. sécst, sécp, M.E. sékst, sékp in the Southern, where s
and p have unfronted ¢; others may be due to Scandina-
vian influence, though this cannot be invoked in the case
of dialects which never had direct contact with Scandina-
vian speech. On the other hand, the occurrence of (t{ and
dz) forms in Northern dialects would seem to disprove the
assertion that the O.E. front stops were not fully fronted
in the North.

Fleck or fick, ‘ flitch,’ in Somerset, Wilts, Hants, and
Isle of Wight; seg, ‘sedge, in Gloucester, and, on the
other hand, midge in Northumberland, Cumberland, West-
THE PUZZLE OF THE INITIAL ‘PALATALS’ = 277

morland, Durham, and East Yorks; cleéch, clutch, ‘ brood
of chickens,’ in Northumberland, Durham, North Yorks,
are troublesome forms to explain on the received theory.
None of the attempted explanations of these facts are
wholly satisfactory, but some are less so than others.
Initial & representing O.E. ¢, as in kettle, O.K. Ccietel,
cetel ; kirk, O.E. ¢éyrée, etc, are universally supposed to be
of Scandinavian origin. The k-forms are well established
in M.E., though the normal English chetel, and of course
chirche, etc., also occur, the former being comparatively
rare. M.E. caf, ‘chaff, compared with O.E. (W. Sax.)
éeaf, is explainable as due to the analogy of pl. O.E. cafu.
O.E. g initially offers further difficulties. Before @ it
normally appears written as 3, y, yh, etc., in M.E., without .
change of sound. Thus: for-3ete(n), yete(n) ‘ forget’;

3elle(n), yelle(n), * yell’; 3elpe(n); yelpe(n) ‘boast’; 3ére, |

yére, etc., * year,’ and so on.
Before i, 3 is often lost in M.E., and in some words the

Modern Standard language and the dialects show the same i xs

\
5
i

loss quite regularly; thus O.E. gif, ‘ify M.E. if; O.E.

gicel, M.E. ikyl, etc., Eng. ic-icle, O.E. gittan, M.E.

Le

icching, icche(n), Mod. Eng. itch; also in the prefix ge-, <\v

M.E. i-cume, * come,’ p.p. Mod. Eng. ‘ yclept,’ hand--work, /
O.E. hand-ge-weorc. M.E. also has yide, * guild,’ ym-ston,
‘gem, O.K. gim-stan.

But M.E. has far more cases of 3é/, 3im, etc., and, what
is still more difficult to explain, many with g. The ap-
pearance of g- is equally difficult to understand whether it
occur before i, where we should expect to find it lost
altogether, or before é, where we should expect M.E. 3, y,
Mod. Eng. y. Here, apparently, we have the strange
278 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

phenomenon of a front-open consonant becoming a back
stop. The words in which this occurs in Standard English
are: give, O.E. giefan, gefan; gift; get, O.E.- gietan, getan;
guest (with Norm. Fr. spelling gu-), O.E. giest, gest ; begin,
O.E. be-ginnan. To these may be added such Modern
dialect forms as gif, ‘if, gilpie, ‘a young spark,’ related to
O.E. gielpan, ‘boast, and one or two others of more
doubtful origin.

Now the back stop is established for M.E. in each of
these words, since spellings with g occur, often by the side
of those with 3 or y, in texts from every part of the country,
and Orm uses his new symbol for the back stop once at least,
in ge&fen (pret. pl.). Further, the evidence of the Modern
dialects shows that in all cases two, in a few three, M.E,
types must have existed—one with g, one with y, one with
the initial consonant lost. For instance, give, meaning
‘ give way,’ ‘thaw,’ is found, apparently, in Norfolk, Surrey,
Kent, and Somerset ; yeave, verb, with same meaning, and
yeavey, adjective, though now obsolete, existed a hundred
years ago in Devon, and were still preserved even later in
the English dialect of a West-Country colony in Wexford ;
eave, (h)eave, ‘to thaw, ‘grow moist, is found in West
Somerset, Cornwall, and Dorset.

The modern forms are given here to supplement and
confirm the evidence for the existence of three types in
M.E. What is the explanation of the apparent triple
mode of treatment of the same original sound in the same
dialects? Clearly, we do not assert that we have here an
‘exception’ to the ordinary laws of sound change in
English. Either the three forms arose under different
conditions which we have failed to discriminate, or the
‘anomalous’ forms are due to some external influence.
MODERN FORMS WITH G- > O.E. <- 279

As usual in cases of great difficulty, the influence of the
Scandinavian settlers has been called in to account for
the forms with stops—give, etc. It is quite possible, of
course, that in districts where Norse was spoken side by
side with English, and where people knew both English
giefan or gefan, and Norse geva, English speakers might,
when speaking their own language, substitute the initial
consonant which they used in addressing the foreigners : this
is possible, but it is not very likely to have taken place in
such a common word. Moreover, the widespread distribu-
tion of the g-forms, which exist even in M.E. in all
dialects, makes it impossible to account for them, in all
cases, on the hypothesis of Scandinavian influence. In
such a word as begin we might attribute the g to the pret.
and p.p. O.E. began, begunnon, begunnen, and this is prob-
ably the right explanation of that form.

On the other hand, it is possible that in give we have a
‘perfectly normal English development of a stop under con-
ditions of strong stress, whereas with weak stress the open
consonant remained. It is to be observed that it is only
those O.E. g’s which represent original Gmc. g which
are stopped in M.E. and the Modern dialects ; those which
represent Gmc. j, as in O.E. gear, never become g, but
remain as y, or disappear altogether. This may imply
that O.E. & had two different pronunciations in O.E.,
according to its origin. If this were not the case, it is a
strange coincidence that there should not be some examples
of g=Gme. j being stopped in subsequent times. This
whole question isdiscussed at length in an article by the pre-
sent writer in Otia Merseiana, vol. ii., History of O.E. g in
the Middle and Modern English Dialects, in which examples
are given of the distribution of each of the three forms
280 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

in more than fifty M.E. texts and all the chief Modern
dialects.

O.E. f and s were pronounced as voiced sounds in the
South, especially in Kent in M.E., as is shown by the
spelling wader, ‘father,’ zéchen, ‘seek.’ This pronunciation
still survives in the Modern Southern dialects, and Standard
English vat, O.E. fat (of. wine fat in New Testament),
and vixen, O.E. fy«en, are isolated examples of forms from
a Southern dialect.

Summary of Dialectal Differences.

We may summarize the chief characteristic differences
of dialectal treatment of the O.E. vowels.

In Midland, Southern, and Kentish is rounded to 6 (5)
written 0, 00, oa.
In Northern is gradually fronted to (@, ¢, 2), written a, ai.
In Northern, before 1+cons., @ is diphthongized to au,
which becomes 5 in Modern period.

Becomes @ already in O.E. period in the Anglian dialects
and Kentish.
This @ remains in M.E.
Is preserved during O.E. period, and in M.E, in Saxon
dialects ; this @ becomes (é).
O.E. @ (Preserved in all old dialects except Kentish ; becomes @
(i-muta- there, and is retained in M.E.
tion of @) (In all dialects of M.E., except Kentish, becomes (2).

In Midland, Southern, and Kentish is gradually over-
0.E. 3

OE, &

O.E. #
(Pr. O.E. @)
ee

rounded and raised towards (ii).
In Northern is fronted or ‘mixed,’ and rhymes in M.E,
with French # (=j).
This sound is written u, ud, o¢, in Northern and Sc.
0.5. # Is retained only in Southern, written wi, u.
(i-muta- In Northern and Midland is unrounded to 2.
: -\ | In Kentish appears as 2, which had developed already in
tion of i) O.E. perio

The Late W. Sax. 7, from ié, is peculiar to this dialect ;
it is levelled under 7 in M.E. in Southern: huiren,
OE. # ‘hear,’ Late W. Sax. hyran.
All the other dialects have @ already in O.E., and this
remains in M.E. héren, etc,
LOAN WORDS IN M.E. 281

The Foreign Elements in Middle English.

1. (a) The Scandinavian Loan-words.— As we have
already seen, this element appears in O.E. to a certain
extent, though in that period the words from this source are
chiefly those which denote things and institutions belong-
ing to the Norsemen, and more particularly such as refer
to those habits, possessions, or institutions which would
naturally come under the notice of a people who were in
that unfortunate relation to them in which the English
continued for so long. A terrorized community who were
constantly expecting the attack of rapacious pirates, in
which expectation they were not disappointed, might
naturally know the names which their enemies gave to
their vessels—‘ barda,’ *cnear’; and would not be un-
familiar with the name of the coins, ‘dra, with which
their foes may occasionally have paid for those treasures
-or articles of food, which were not extorted at the point of
the sword. Such words as the above and others of the
same nature appear, though late, in O.E. literature.

But the real influence of the Danish language upon our
own was exercised when the foreigners had become per-
manent settlers within our country, after they had mingled
their blood with our own—when they had ceased to be
regarded in the light of aliens. While the amalgamation
of races, through intermarriage, was taking place, there
would naturally be several generations of bi-lingual
speakers: persons who sprang from mixed unions between
Scandinavians and English. Among such families, both
tongues would be equally familiar, and when speaking
English it would be an unconscious process to introduce
282 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

from time to time a Norse word instead of an English one;
especially as the two languages were of such close affinity
that their forms were in many cases practically identical ;
in others, though slightly different, were yet recognisable
and intelligible to English and Norse alike. To the bi-
lingual period succeeded the age in which English definitely
got the upper hand; the younger generations no longer
spoke Norse, but the English which remained, had incor-
porated, and made its own, many elements from the vocabu-
lary of the language which had died out. In some cases
these loans ousted the original English words altogether.

The very closeness of the resemblance between the two
languages, makes it often a matter of difficulty to deter-
mine, with absolute certainty, whether a given word is
English or Norse. Bjérkman, in the work already quoted
(ante, p. 249), points out that words could be introduced
from one language into the other without either side
recognising that they were foreign words. Cognate words
in the two languages, which were identical in form, though
slightly different in meaning, often acquired in English
the sense which they possessed in Scandinavian. An
example of this is O. Norse soma, ‘befit, suit,’ which is
cognate with the O.E. séman, ‘settle, ‘satisfy. In M.E.
the word sémen appears in the sense of ‘ befit, suit, beseem,’
etc., which last is, of course, the modern form of the
word. We may compare also the adjective seemly, M.E.
sémelich, sémli, etc.

‘The phonological tests which we should naturally apply
to settle the origin of a word as definitely English or
Norse, are not always to be relied upon, since from the
similarity of the two languages, it was possible, in adopting
NORSE INFLUENCE ON THE LANGUAGE 283

a word from Norse into English, to give it a thoroughly
English form. Scandinavian words were changed to their
phonological English equivalent by an unconscious ety-
mological instinct. Thus O.E. sé- was recognised as
identical with Norse sk-, and there were a large number of
words which existed in both languages, and which differed
only in having sk- in one, sc- in the other. Bi-lingual
speakers who used both forms of these words could easily
substitute sk- when speaking English, and might even
introduce the sound into English words which had no
Scandinavian equivalent. M.E. scatteren, ‘scatter,’ side
by side with the genuine English form shatteren, may well
be due to such a process, Again, the etymological identity
of Scandinavian ¢ with O.E. a was clearly perceived, and
we find the Scandinavian name sveinn appearing as swan,
a word which was not normally used in O.E. as a proper
name, and whose Norse form is often transliterated
phonetically in that language as Swegen. Similarly, the
technical term heimsdcn, * an attack on the house or home,’
is translated literally into O.E. as hamsocn.

The question of the precise original affinities between
Northern English and Scandinavian is obscure, on account
of the absence of early records. Hence in many cases it
cannot be determined with certainty which points of
resemblance are due to primitive affinity, which to indepen-
dent parallel development, and which to later contact.

(6) Scandinavian Suffixes in English__Many M.E. verbs
in -l- and -n- appear to be loan-words, and words with these
suffixes are much more frequent in M.E. than in O.E. It
seems probable that these suffixes may have spread from
Scandinavian words to stems of English origin. When the
284 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

suffixes occur attached to native words, doubt may exist as
to whether the forms with the suffixes are wholly Scan-
dinavian or only the suffix. Examples of -l suffix are:
M.E. babblen, ‘babble, Swed. babbla; M.E. bustlen,
‘wander blindly,’ O. West Scand. bustla, ‘splash about’;
Mod. Eng. dialect daggle, with various meanings, such as
‘to drizzle” and ‘to trail in the dirt,’ etc.; dangle, Swed.
dialect dangla. The -n- suffix is used in Scandinavian
speech to form weak intransitive verbs, generally inchoative,
from verbal roots and adjectives (cf. Sweet, New English
Grammar, p. 467). The -n- verbs in O.E. (cf. Sievers’
list in his 4s. Gr.,? § 411, Anm. 4) are not inchoative,
and are formed from adjectives or substantives which
already possess an -n- suffix, such as wecen, ‘ watching,’
whence dweacnian; festenian, ‘fix, ‘fasten, is from
feesten, ‘fortress, and so on. Examples of Scandinavian
verbs with this suffix are hvitna, ‘whiten, 2.¢., ‘ become
white.” Ancren Riwle has hwiten used intransitively,
p- 150, 1. 7 (Morton’s Ed., cf. Skeat’s Etymological
Dictionary, sub ‘whiten’), but the Metrical English
Psalter, p. 50, 1. 9, has ‘ And over snawe sal I whitened be,
where the word is used transitively.

Such transitive verbs as gladden, redden, frighten, etc.,
are new formations of M. or Mod. Eng. Most of the -n-
verbs in O.E. are transitive. The intransitive usage, as
well as many of the verbs themselves of this class, would
appear to be of Scandinavian origin. Examples are:
batten, O. Swed. batna, from root bat-, which we have in
better, O.K. beter, Goth. batiz; M.E. bliknen, ‘turn
pale, O. West Scand. blikna; M.E. dawnen, ‘dawn,’
O.E. dagian. On the other hand, O.E. costnian, M.E.
TRACES OF NORSE SUFFIXES 285

cosinen, ‘tempt, which occurs in lfric, is probably
native. (On the above, see also Skeat, Principles of English
Etymology, i., p. 275 ; Kluge, Grundr.?, p. 939.)

A trace of the O.N. nom. case ending -r is seen in O.E.
pr@ll, where the JJ, which in true O.E. words, we should
expect to be simplified after a long vowel, is borrowed from
Norse and preserved. This long 7 is due to the O.N.
change of -Ir to J.

The neuter suffix -¢ is still preserved in scant, from
O.N. skamt (neuter), ‘short, and in M.E. wi3t, Modern
dialect wight, ‘ strong,’ ‘nimble.’

In spite of the doubts that may arise in specific cases
from the reasons already mentioned, the most reliable tests
of the Scandinavian origin of words in English are those
based upon phonological characteristics. In cases where
the forms in M.E. or Mod. Eng. cannot be explained by
any known law of English sound change, whereas the
Scandinavian sound laws are in complete agreement with
the form, we are justified, pending fresh information, in
assigning a Scandinavian origin. ‘There are, indeed, some
words for which the evidence is particularly conclusive,
since it can be shown that their form has been determined
by prehistoric sound changes which distinguish the North
Germanic, to which the Scandinavian dialects belong, from
the West Germanic group, of which O.E. is a member.

A good example is the class of words which illustrate
the development of Gmc. -#- after original short vowels.
In West Gmc. this sound became a vowel, and formed a
diphthong with the preceding vowel. In West Gmc., on
the other hand, it was stopped to -gg(w-), and in this
form remains in Scandinavian. Mod. Eng. dialect dag,
286 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

‘ dew,’ also ‘to bedew,’ appears in O. West Scand. as
dogg, and in N. Swed. as dagg. ‘This represents an
original *daiwa, which regularly appears in O.E. as dza(w),
M.E. deu, Mod. Eng. dew, O.H.G. tou.

Similarly, M.E. haggen, ‘ cut, hew,’ represents O. West
Scand. hoggua, from *haian. In W. Gmc. this is regularly
represented by O.E. héawan, O.H.G. howwan, Mod. Eng.
hew. Again, Mod. Eng. dialect scag, ‘ to hide, take shelter,’
and scug, ‘a place of shelter, is from a Scandinavian
skuggi, ‘ shade,’ Danish skygge, * overshadow.” The Gmc.
form would be *skujan, *skat( j)an, whence O.E. scéawan,
German schauen. Other examples of this class of words
are: egg, O. West Scand. egg, but O.E. &g, MLE. ¢i,
German ¢i; trig, ‘safe, tight, trim,’ etc.; O. West Scand.
tryggr, ‘trusty, true,’ but O.E. trzowe, ge-trtewe, Mod,
Eng. true, O.H.G. gitriuwi, German traiie, etc.

As examples of Mod. Eng. words whose form is at
variance with what must have been the fate of the genuine
O.E. forms had these survived, but which may be explained
on the assumption of borrowing from Scandinavian, we
may take the words weak, bleak. In O.E. we have blac,
‘pale, and wdk, ‘weak, which in Mod. Eng. must
have become ‘bloke, ‘ woke’ respectively—in fact, the
M.E. ancestors of these forms 616k, wok are actually
found.

The Mod. Eng. forms, however, are clearly from ON.
bleikr, veikr. It must be admitted that the development
of the vowel in the English words (i) is not quite clear, on
the assumption that they preserved the diphthong into the
MLE. period, and diphthongized forms are found in M.E.
On the other hand, it is possible that in some English
FRENCH INFLUENCE 287

dialects an early monopthongizing of Norse ei to (é or 2)
took place.

Another good reason which justifies us in claiming a
M.E. or Mod. Eng. word as Scandinavian is the fact, if it
be a common word in familiar use, that it is not found in
O.E., although the usual word in Norse. Orm is particularly
rich in words of this kind, and has, among many others, the
following, most of which are still in use: takenn, ‘take,’
the O.E. word is niman, and ‘nim’ is still found in our
dialects ; til, ‘to,’ cf. un-til, and the common use of #il for
‘to’ in the Northern dialects; skinn, ‘skin, O.E. hyd,
‘hide’; occ., ‘and; skill, instead of the genuine Eng. craft;
alle, instead yfel, ‘evil’; meoc, meek,’ O.N. mjukr ; gate,
‘way,’ ‘gait. The English pronouns they, their, them, are
all of Scandinavian origin, and have entirely replaced the
O.E. hie, hira, heom, of which the last two are still found
in Chaucer in the form hir, hem. (In addition to the
authorities already quoted, see also Brate’s useful article,
Nordische Lehnworter im Ormulum, Paul and Braune’s
Beitr. x.

2. The French Element.—The problems connected with
the influence of French upon English during the M.E. period
have been exhaustively treated by Mr. Skeat in his Principles
of English Etymology, vol. ii. ‘The student should further
consult the Anhang (Supplement) on this subject, by
Behrens, incorporated with Kluge’s Geschichte d. Engl.
Spr. in Paul’s Grundriss, pp. 950, etc.; and Appendix III.
in Mr. Bradley’s edition of Morris’s Historical Outlhnes of
English Accidence contains a list of Norman French words
from the principal English works from the twelfth to the

early fourteenth century.
288 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

As the question of Norman French influence has been
so thoroughly and clearly treated in the above, and is, on
the whole, familiar to students of the history of English,
no more need be done here than to summarize a few of
the chief points of importance in this connection.

Norman French was a Northern French dialect. This
dialect was spoken for about 300 years in England as
a living, everyday language, at first by the official, noble,
and governing classes, whose native language it was, later
on by Englishmen also, even of the well-to-do sort gene-
rally. By the middle of the thirteenth century, probably,
most educated persons were bi-lingual, those of Norman
origin speaking at least some English, while the natives
acquired the language of the foreigners. With the fusion
of the races came, as we saw in the case of Norse, a fusion
of vocabularies also. The Norman laws contain many
technical words of English origin, while French words
begin to be used in ever-increasing numbers by English
writers from the year 1100 onwards.

Norman French, or, as, following Mr. Skeat, we may call
it, Anglo-French, naturally had a development of its own
in this country. Besides being the language of everyday
life among the upper classes, this dialect was also the
official dialect of the law and of Parliament down to 1362,
and it continued to be taught in schools down to 1385,

With its death as an official vehicle there followed the
rapid dying out of Anglo-French as a spoken language.
In fact, English must have already obtained a very strong
hold upon all classes before French was abolished by law
as the dialect of officialdom ; but the latter occurrence gave
it its death-blow. We may conclude, therefore, that soon
INFLECTIONS 289

after the middle of the fourteenth century the direct source
of French words of this particular origin was running low.
By this time, however, hundreds of Anglo-French words
had passed into the speech of Englishmen, a very large
number of which have remained to this day in universal
use, Chaucer’s language shows how deeply the new element
had penetrated into the texture of English vocabulary ; it
was no longer felt as strange by his time: it was part and
parcel of English.

By the side of Anglo-French words derived direct, in
England itself, many others were borrowed during the
fourteenth century from the French of the Continent,
mostly from the Central French or Parisian dialect of
the fle de France, but others also from the Picardian
dialect.

The influence of Central French, both direct and
through literature, which began in the M.E. period, has
continued ever since, and was especially strong during the
seventeenth century, as may be seen from such a comedy
as Dryden’s Mariage a la Mode.

Middle English Inflections.

The changes wrought during the Transition and M.E.
periods in the O.E. inflectional system are the result
partly of natural sound change, partly of analogy.

As a result of the former, we may say generally that all
unstressed vowels—that is, therefore, all the vowels of the
endings—were levelled under e—e.g., O.E. stanas, M.E.
ston-es ; O.E. éagena (gen. pl.), M.E. €(e)ne; O.E. wudw,
M.E. wode, etc. Final m was levelled under n, which was

subsequently dropped altogether.
19
290 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

An account of M.E. inflections is to be found in The
Introduction of Morris and Skeat’s Specimens of Early
English, vols. i. and ii. ; and the development from O.E.
is briefly traced in Sweet’s various works, already cited,
upon Historical English Grammar, and in Morris's
Historical Outlines of English Accidence (Ed. Bradley).

We select here some of the leading features of the M.E.
inflectional system for enumeration.

Declensions.

Substantives.—The O.E. substantives, like those in all
-other Gme., or, for the matter of that, in all Aryan
languages, are classified for purposes of declension, ac-
cording to the nature of their stems. We distinguish
vowel stems and consonantal stems. In the former case
the characteristic vowel of a class followed the ‘root’ or
base, and was immediately followed by the case ending:
Nom. sing. Gk. Xv«-o-s, Gme. *wulf-a-z, Goth. wulf-s (the
stem vowel being lost in the historic period in Gmc.), O.E.
wulf (with loss not only of stem vowel, but of case-ending
as well); instr. pl. Lith. av-i-mis, ‘sheep, Goth. (dat.)
gast-i-m, * guests,’ O.E. (dat.) sun-u-m, ‘sons.’ The stems
even in Gmc. had undergone some levelling through
analogy, and in O.E. all stems take the ending -um in
dat. pl., the vowel in this case representing at once u and
o, and the m being all that was left of the original instr.
pl. case-ending -mis, fully preserved, as seen above in
Lithuanian.

Consonantal stems are those which end in consonants,
which sometimes, as in the case of Latin pes, ‘foot, from
*ped-s, was the final consonant of the ‘ root ’ itself ; in other
THE RUIN OF THE DECLENSIONS 291

cases, such as hom-in-em or mat-ép-a, was preceded by a
vowel.

Of the consonantal stems, the most important class in
O.E. is that of the -n-stems, usually known as the ‘Weak’
declension. O.E. nama, gen. sing., etc., naman, gen. pl.
namna, The O.E. declensions, already greatly dilapidated
by change and loss of final or other unstressed syllables, and
considerably confused by analogy, as compared with that
system which Comparative Philology enables scholars to
reconstruct as the original Aryan, underwent further dila-
pidation and confusion in M.E. through the continued
operation of similar factors of change. It is still possible
to distinguish a-stems, u-stems, i-stems, etc., among the
‘strong’ declensions of O.E. In M.E. these are very soon
all levelled under one ‘strong’ type, that of masculine
a-stems. The full M.E. form of this declension runs :

Singular. Plural.
N.A. ston. stones.
G. stones. stone.

D. stone. stonen.

Before the end of the M.E. period, however, all that
survived in the sing. was the gen. -es, and in the pl. -es was
used throughout for all cases, A weak gen. pl. in -ene also
occurs.

The ola weak declension included all three genders.
Masculines have -a@ in nom. sing. and -an in the other
cases; the pl. ran nom. and acc. -an, gen. -ena, dat. -um
(like strong nouns).

The neuter weak declension was the same, except that nom.
and acc. sing. ended in -e ; the feminine had -e in nom. sing.,

19—2
a

292 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

otherwise was declined exactly like the masculine. In
M.E. the sing. of all genders has -e in nom., -en in the
other cases; the pl. -en in all cases but the gen., which
ends in -ene.

Here, again, we soon find the suffix -en used simply to
express plural number.

The weak gen. pl. -ene was sometimes retained for con-
venience, fairly late, and is often used in early texts with
nouns which otherwise took the strong pl. suffix -es in the
nom. pl—alre Kingene King occurs in a twelfth-century
homily (Morris, O.£. Homilies, second series, p. 89, 1. 16).

Of the two types of declension, the strong predominates
greatly in the North and Midlands, while the weak is far more
frequent in the South, where it is extended to words which
were originally strong. At the present day the Berkshire
dialect uses primrosen and housen in addition to the
other scattered waifs of this declension which survive in
the Standard language.

Verbs.—Among the most characteristic dialectal distinc-
tions in M.E. are the personal endings of the pres. indic.
of verbs, They are as follows:

North : -e or -es in first, and -es in all other persons sing.

and pl.

Midlands: first -e, second -est, third -eth ; pl. -en in all
persons.

Southern : first -e, second -(e)st, third -(e)éh ; pl. -eth in all
persons.

The present participle ends in -and (e) in the North,
-end(e) in the Midlands, ind(e) in the South.
The suffix -ing(e), originally that whereby verbal nouns

, | were formed (O.E. -ung, as in leornung, etc.), gradually
THE DEFINITE ARTICLE 293

replaces the older -ind(e) as the suffix of present participles,
although the former continued to be used in the South
down to the middle of the fourteenth century, while
the old ending -and was still preserved in the North con-
siderably later—e.g., syngand, sayand, plesand, etc., are
still used by Sir David Lyndsay in a passage of some
twenty verses given by Mr. Gregory Smith in Specimens
of Middle Scots, pp. 162, 163, by the side of forms
in -ing.

Pronouns.—The distinctions of gender and case ex-
pressed by the O.E. demonstrative pronoun, also used
as a definite article, se, sz, pet, were considerably im-
paired in M.E. The Northern and Midland dialects
very early use the new form pe (where the p is due to
the analogy of the other cases and genders) as an inde-
clinable article in all cases and for all genders of the sing.
the pl. is pa. In the South, however, the distinctions of
gender and case are preserved much longer. A new fem.
nom. sing. ped was formed to replace the old fem. seo by
the side of masc. pe, and pet, corresponding to O.E. pat,
was used before neuter words.

In the North pet was used as a demonstrative pronoun,
indeclinable, with a pl. pas.

Traces of the original inflections still survive in a few
fossilized forms, ¢.g., the proper name Atterbury—M.E.
at per(e) bury, O.E. et pére byrig, the change from at per
to atter being quite normal in M.E. ; for the nonce =M.E.
Sor pe nénes = for pen ones, where pen is properly a dative,
O.E. pém, levelled under the accusative, O.E. pone, Gnes
being a genitive in form, used first adverbially, but here
as a substantive. The neuter article survives in Se. the tane
294 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

and the tither, originally M.E. pet ame, pet oper. The
other was perfectly polite colloquial English a hundred
years ago, though now felt as a vulgarism when used
seriously.

The Rise of Literary English.

The works written in this country down to the third
quarter of the fifteenth century show more or less strongly
marked points of divergence in the form of language,
according to the province in which they were written,
These differences are observable in the vocabulary, more
strongly still in the inflexions, and most characteristically
of all in the sound system, so far as this can be recon-
structed from the spelling.

From the period at which Caxton’s activities begin
(1475), the dialectal variety, which had hitherto been so
remarkable a feature, disappears, to all intents and pur-
poses, from literature. Henceforth the language of books
becomes uniform, the spelling, owing to the necessity for
comparative consistency felt by the printers, rapidly
crystallizes, and the form of language thus displayed
differs but little in its written form from that of
the present day, of which it is, indeed, the lineal
ancestor.

This literary dialect, to which Caxton by his copious
industry gave wide currency and permanence, was not a
bogus form of speech, deliberately vamped together from
various written or spoken sources, It represents a living,
spoken form of language, that of the Capital.

The London Dialect.—This dialect can be traced from
the middle of the thirteenth century, in proclamations,
DIALECTAL CHARACTER OF LITERARY ENGLISH 295

charters, and wills—that is, both in public and private
documents. The earliest forms are distinctly Southern
in character, but Midland influence gains ground, and
even Northern features find their way into the latest
charters of the fifteenth century. Kentish influence is
considerable, but the Saxon elements are more and more
eliminated.

The language of literature and the Standard spoken
English of the present day, while mainly Midland, or,
rather, traceable to a M.E. Midland type, yet preserve
Northern, Saxon, and Kentish elements in isolated cases.
It is contended by Morsbach (Uber den Ursprung der
neuenglischen Schrifisprache, Heilbronn, 1888)—(1) that
this composite dialect developed naturally in the Metropolis
owing to social and political conditions; (2) that this is
proved by an investigation of the official and legal docu-
ments in English emanating from London during the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries ; (3) this dialect gradually
spread its influence as a literary medium far and wide,
until it became the only recognised form for writers from
all provinces. Caxton, who translated several important
works, such as Trevisa’s version of Higden, into the
London dialect, greatly contributed to the spread of this
form of speech.

Dibelius, in John Capgrave und die englische Schrift-
sprache, Anglia, xxiii., p. 152, etc., argues that not only
in London, but in Oxford also, the tendency arose to
set up a fixed literary form of English. Wycliffe, a
Yorkshireman by birth, who became Master of Balliol,
chose the Oxford type as his literary vehicle. The
differences between the London and Oxford types persisted
296 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

down to the third quarter of the fifteenth century. Both
types were imitated throughout the country, and documents
from Norfolk, Suffolk, and Worcester all show, by the side
of local peculiarities, certain points of agreement with both
the Oxford and the London forms of English. These
points of agreement become stronger as time goes on,
showing that the standards of both places were followed
over a wide area. The knowledge of the London English,
before printing, would naturally spread through the in-
fluence of the law and legislature; that of Oxford would
be carried far and wide by the clergy. In this way the
path was prepared for the universal acceptance of a literary
form which combined the features of both the Oxford and
the London models. Such a form, Dibelius maintains, is
to be found in the printed works of Caxton, and such a
form exists in Present-day English, which is the descen-
dant of the dialect employed by Caxton. ‘The great
writer of the Oxford type of English was Wycliffe, whose
translation of the Bible contributed to give currency to
that form, and this influence may be detected among some
of the writers of the Paston Letters. Dibelius, while laying
stress upon the English of Oxford as an important element
in the literary dialect, admits freely that the London type
predominates, and that its influence is found everywhere,
even in writings which show no trace of Oxford influence.
Caxton’s English is far more that of London than of
Oxford, and probably what of the latter element is found
in his works is due to literature rather than to direct con-
tact.

The language of Chaucer deviates in many respects
from the typical London dialect of the charters, and the
CHAUCER AND CAXTON 297

modern English literary language is nearer to the latter
than to the former. The explanation probably is that,
although Chaucer certainly wrote in one form of the
London speech of his day, the particular variety of this
which he employed was the courtly language of the upper
strata of society. His writings seem to represent an actual
contemporary form of language rather than a literary
tradition. The language actually preserved in the London
wills and charters is most probably, to a certain extent,
stereotyped, and the same may well be true of the Oxford
type as represented by Wycliffe. Chaucer’s language
contains more Southern (Saxon), and probably also more
Kentish elements than that form which was to become the
ancestor of Present-day English. Strong though the literary
influence of Chaucer was, it was not sufficient to found a
permanent type of literary language, in spite of his
numerous imitators and followers. We must, indeed,
suppose that a Court dialect is a more transitory type of
speech, more liable to the modifying effects of fashion, than
the speech of the educated middle class. It would appear
that the form adopted by Caxton in his writings was so
vigorous and full of vitality, as a spoken language also,
that it was confirmed, consolidated, and, when necessary,
subsequently rejuvenated from the spoken form. Just as
the written forms of this dialect rapidly ousted and re-
placed the other English dialects for purposes of public
and private written documents, such as wills, letters, and
documents of all kinds, no less than in purely literary
productions, so also, though this was a slower process,
and one‘ not yet complete, the spoken form became the
standard language of the learned, the polite, and the

7
298 THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD

fashionable, to the gradual elimination of provincial
speech.

In addition to the authorities referred to above, the
student may, with great profit, consult Ten Brink, Chaucer's
Sprache und Verskunst, Leipzig, 1899, and the remarks on
pp. 20-29 of Kaluza’s Historische Grammatik der englischen
Spr., vol. i., Berlin, 1900.
CHAPTER XIV

CHANGES IN ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION DURING THE
MODERN PERIOD—THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH
SOUNDS FROM THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY TO THE
PRESENT DAY

The Problem.

Ir is proposed in this chapter to attempt to trace the
development of the English language, more particularly
of the Standard dialect, so far as the pronunciation is con-
cerned, through the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth
centuries, and to inquire by what paths of change the
sounds of late M.E. passed into those forms which they
now have in English speech.

During the five hundred years which have elapsed since
the death of Chaucer very remarkable and far-reaching
changes have taken place in the Standard language, and
of these we may distinguish two main features. Firstly,
the actual sounds, especially the vowels, have undergone
considerable shifting ; and secondly, from the materials at
our disposal, it is possible to establish the fact that in
most words more than one type of pronunciation of the
vowels has always existed, and that that type which at
one period is considered the ‘ correct’ one, at a subsequent
date is often discarded in favour of another type, or its

299
300 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

descendant, which a former age would have regarded as
‘ill-bred,’ ‘ vulgar,’ or ‘ incorrect.”

The task of the reconstruction of the pronunciation of
English during the different epochs of the Modern Period
is of a different nature from that of establishing the sounds
of Old and Middle English. In the latter case we have a
variegated orthography which differs from dialect to dialect,
in some cases from scribe to scribe, in the efforts to express
the sound. The problem is to interpret the written symbols:
in the former case we have a conventional spelling which
is practically fixed, and such varieties as exist throw but
little light upon the changes of pronunciation. On the
other hand, we have in the Modern Period, for the first
time, a series of systematic attempts, from various motives,
to describe the actual sounds used and their distribution.
The problem, therefore, is mainly how to interpret rightly
the accounts given by contemporaries of the pronunciation
of the various generations. It is unquestionable that in
this task we obtain help from knowledge gathered in-
directly by a study of the changing spelling of M.E.,
just as this knowledge is itself often supplemented and
confirmed by the categorical statements of sixteenth or
seventeenth century writers.

The Sources of our Knowledge of the Pronunciation of the
Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries,
From the year 1530 onwards there exists a series of
works by English writers in English, French, Welsh, and
Latin which deal directly or incidentally with the pro-
nunciation of English during the age in which the writers
lived. These men belonged to several different classes of
FIRST STEPS IN RECONSTRUCTION 301

society ; there were Divines, some of whom were Bishops
and Court Chaplains, Oxford and Cambridge Professors
and Heads of Houses, Schoolmasters of various ranks;
there were Poets, Scholars, and Men of Science.

The late A. J. Ellis, to whom belongs the glory of
having first made use of such writers as the above for our
present purpose, and of having ferreted out many a long-
forgotten tract, gives in Part I. of his wonderful work on
Early English Pronunciation, Chapter I., an interesting
account of his first struggles to interpret the accounts
given by the above-mentioned phonetic authorities. His
first certain guide to sixteenth-century pronunciation was
derived from the works of William Salesbury, who in 1547
published a Welsh and English Dictionary, in the Intro-
duction to which, according to Ellis, ‘about 150 typical
English words’ are transcribed ‘into Welsh letters.’ The
same writer also produced in 1567 a tract upon the pro-
nunciation of Welsh, in which he refers to many other
languages, thus establishing for the modern reader the
pronunciation of sixteenth-century Welsh. It can thus
be shown that the pronunciation of Welsh has changed
very little since Salesbury’s time, and his transliterations
of English words into Welsh spelling are therefore of the
highest value in ascertaining the English pronunciation of
his day. Salesbury’s essays are published im extenso by
Ellis, together with an English translation of the Welsh
treatise, in E.E.P., p. 743, etc. An even earlier phonetic
transliteration of English into Welsh spelling, that of a
Hymn to the Virgin, made about 1500 (cf. Sweet, H.E.S.,
p. 203), was published in the T’ransactions of the Philo-

logical Society, 1880-1881.

q
302 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

The following is a selection of the principal authorities,
a fuller list of which is given in Elliss E.E.P., Part I,
p. 31, etc., and Sweet’s H.E.S., p. 204, etc. :

Sixteenth-century Authorities.
1530. Patscrave: Lesclarcissement de la langue Francoyse.

[Palsgrave was a graduate of Cambridge, and tutor
to Princess Mary, sister of Henry VIII., and later
on a Royal Chaplain. He died in 1554. He
spoke the form of English in vogue at Court.
His book contains an elaborate account of French
pronunciation, elucidated by reference to English
and Italian. ]

1545. Metcret: T'raité touchant le commun usage de
Vescriture francoise.

[This book deals with French pronunciation, and
makes the pronunciation of Palsgrave’s English
analogues more secure. ]

1547. Saressury: A Dictionary of Englishe and Welshe.

[Salesbury was born in Denbighshire, and studied
at Oxford. See reference to this book and to
Ellis’s account of it above.]

1555. Curxe (Sir Joun): De pronunciatione Greece.

[Cheke was born at Cambridge in 1514, and moved
in the best literary society. He was Secretary
of State in 1552, and died in 1557. In his trea-
tise several Greek sounds are illustrated by Eng-
lish words spelled phonetically in Greek letters. ]

1567. Satessury: A playne and familiar Introduction
teaching how to pronounce the letters in the
Brytishe Tongue, now commonly called Welsh.

[All the important portions of this book reprinted
by Ellis; see references above. |
SIXTEENTH-CENTURY AUTHORITIES 303

1568. Smirn (Sir Tuomas): De recta et emendata lingua
anglice scriptione.

[Smith was born in 1515 at Saffron Walden, Essex.
He was a Fellow of Queen’s College, Cambridge,
public orator, and in 1536 became Provost of
Eton. He was a Secretary of State in 1548,
Privy Councillor in 1571. He died in 1577. The
object of the above book was to improve English
spelling. It contains tables of words printed in
a phonetic alphabet. ]

1569. Harr: An Orthographie : conteyning the due order
and reason, howe to write or painte thimage of
mannes voice, most like to the life or Nature.
By J. H. Chester.

[Hart was the real name of the writer of this book,
according to the catalogue of the British Museum.
Hart was, according to Ellis, probably a Welsh-
man. Phonetic symbols are used in the above
work, and the author was acquainted with several
languages. He favours a pronunciation which
was in his day only coming in. Gill, writing
more than fifty years later, says of Hart:
‘Sermonem nostrum characteribus suis non sequi
sed ducere meditabatur.”]

1580. Buttoxar: Booke at large for the Amendment of
Orthographie for English Speech.

[Bullokar uses phonetic spelling. The pronuncia-

tion which he records is archaic, and agrees more

with that of Palsgrave than with that of his own
immediate contemporaries. ]

1619 and 1621. Git: Logonomia Anglica.

[Gill was born in Lincolnshire in 1564 (same year as
Shakespeare); member of C.C.C., Cambridge ;
Headmaster of St. Paul’s School, 1608; died
304 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

1635. He transcribes passages from the Psalms
and from Spenser in his phonetic alphabet, and
discusses pronunciation at length. Gill is old-
fashioned, and has a horror of modernisms. The
pronunciation described is, on the whole, that of
the middle of the sixteenth century. The work
was reprinted in 1903 by Jiriczek in the series
‘ Quellen und Forschungen,’ Strassburg. |

Burien: The English Grammar . . . whereto is annexed
an Index of Words like and unlike.

[Butler was a member of Magdalen College, Oxford,

and a country clergyman. He uses phonetic

spelling. His pronunciation is that of the end

of the sixteenth century, and he opposes the new
pronunciation.]

Seventeenth-century Authorities.

Ben Jonson’s English Grammar is of interest on account
of its author, but is of little value for our purpose.

1651. Wiuts (Tuomas, of Thistlewood, Middlesex) : Vesti-
bulum Lingue Latine. A Dictionarie for Children.
[Contains upwards of 4,000 words, supposed to be

arranged according to rhyme, but in most cases,
in reality, grouped according to spelling. There

are a certain number of genuine rhymes which
are useful, |

1653-1699. Wats: Grammatica Lingue Anglicane.
Cui prefigitur De Loquela; sive de sonorum
omnium loquelarium formatione: Tractatus Gram-
matico-Physicus.

, This book went through six editions between the

above dates. Wallis was born at Ashford, in
Kent in 1616; appointed Savilian Professor of
SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTHORITIES 305

Geometry at Oxford in 1649; died, 1703. The
introduction is of great importance, and estab-
lishes, with considerable certainty, the value of
all the symbols. This work is the chief authority
for the middle of the seventeenth century. ]

1668. Witxins: An Essay towards a Real Character, and
a Philosophical Language.

[Wilkins was born in Northamptonshire in 1614;
graduated at Oxford in 1648; elected Warden
of Wadham, 1648; Bishop of Ripon, 1668;
died, 1672. This ‘#ssay’ contains an admirable
treatise on Phonetics. Wilkins makes use of a
phonetic alphabet, into which he transliterates
the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed. The book is
not infrequently to be met with in booksellers’
catalogues of the present day.]

1668. Prick: English Orthographie is the beginning of a
very long title, which includes, among other
things, ‘ Also some Rules for the points and pro-
nunciation.”

[The book, when used by the side of other
authorities, is useful ‘in discriminating the

exact sounds of the different vowel digraphs of
the seventeenth century.’]

1685. Cooper: Grammatica Lingue Anglicune.

[This book contains a treatise on speech sounds,
a discussion of peculiarities of orthography and
pronunciation, and long lists of words illus-
trating the several vowel sounds. ]

1688, Mizce: The Great French Dictionary.

[Valuable information as to pronunciation prefixed
to each letter. ]
20
306 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

Kighteenth-Century Authorities.

1701. Jones (Joun): Practical Phonography. (The first
words of an immense title.)

[A kind of pronouncing dictionary, in which all
kinds of pronunciations of the same words are
given, and therefore valuable as recording what
actually occurred in English speech at the
beginning of the eighteenth century. ]

Circa 1713. Anonymous: Grammar of the English Tongue.

[Useful in corroboration of the statements of other
authorities of the period. ]

1725. Lepiarp: Grammatica Anglicana Critica, in which
English words are transliterated phonetically into
German spelling. Ellis gives a full account of
results (Part IV., p. 1040, etc.).

1766. Bucuanan: Essay towards establishing a standard
for an elegant and wniform pronunciation of
the English Language throughout the British
Dominions.

[The work of a Scotsman, this book bears some
traces of this in the pronunciation described.
Ellis notes that on the whole, however, this does
not differ materially from that heard in the
middle of the nineteenth century, except inas-
much as certain pronunciations of certain words
are given as ‘learned and polite’ which would
not now be so accounted. |

A tract by Dr. Benjamin Franklin, entitled 4
Scheme for a New Alphabet and Reformed Mode
of Spelling, in the form of a correspondence
between himself and a lady, is given by Ellis
(pp. 1058, etc.). The correspondence was carried
on in the proposed alphabet, and the tract contains
a table of sounds and symbols, and remarks by
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE AUTHORITIES 307

Franklin thereupon. Ellis prints the paper in
full, but unfortunately turns the whole thing
into his own very clumsy Paleotype.

Method of using the Authorities——By comparing the
statements of a considerable number of contemporary
authorities with regard to the pronunciation of a given
sound, weighing one against another, and checking and
interpreting one by another, we attempt first to arrive at
a conclusion as to what is the precise sound which the
various writers are trying to describe. The result of such
an investigation often leads to the conclusion that at the
same period there was more than one pronunciation of
the same word; the writers are manifestly describing
different sounds, though dealing with the same symbol.
We thus establish the existence of two or more types of
pronunciation at the same period. These varieties may
arise from several causes. They may be the descendants
of doublets which arose at an earlier period; they may
represent different dialectal treatments of the same original
sound ; they may represent the pronunciation of the older
and younger generation respectively. When the existence of
the several types at a given period is once definitely estab-
lished, the next problem is to inquire which earlier type
each represents, and into which later form it subsequently
develops. Until we have done this we can form no true
idea of the development of any particular sound. Hence
it is of the highest importance to know ail the pronuncia-
tions of a given word which existed at a given time. If
we find that ‘blood’ was pronounced (blud) in the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuries, we are not justified in
concluding, without further evidence, that the modern

20—2
308 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

form (blad) is its lineal descendant. This would be tanta-
mount to asserting that seventeenth-century (i) appears as
(a) in the nineteenth, a statement which would at once be
disproved by further examination. The problem resolves
itself into showing (1) what sixteenth-century sound was
the ancestor of Present-day (a), and (2) what is the
Present-day representative of the sixteenth and seven-
teenth century (a). When we find that a very large
number of words which now contain the sound (a) were
pronounced with (ti) in the sixteenth century, and with
that sound alone, we should be inclined to say that the
former sound has been developed from the latter, and
further to postulate a sixteenth-century pronunciation
(bliid) as the ancestor of the Present-day polite form of
the word. As a matter of fact, the pronunciation (bliid)
can be shown to have existed in the sixteenth century by
the side of (blud). Similarly, although we can show that
in the eighteenth century, in good society, people said
(Kweeliti) and (Kweentiti), it would be quite erroneous to
suppose that these particular forms developed into the
Present-day (Kwolit) and (Kwontiti). The former types
have simply been discarded, and their places have been
taken by others whose predecessors existed in the
eighteenth century side by side with those first mentioned,
although at that time they did not happen to be the
forms in fashionable use.

In a word, when tracing the history of a language we
must always bear in mind the twofold problem: first,
the development of the actual sounds themselves, and,
secondly, the changing fashion of using them in a given
dialect in a particular group of words,
MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF M.E. A 309

Ellis and Sweet both give the statements of the various
authorities, so that the student can draw his own con-
clusions, in which he will, however, receive great help
from the discussion of every point by the above-mentioned
scholars. Ellis, besides the words in the text, has copious
pronouncing vocabularies of the sixteenth, seventeenth,
and eighteenth centuries, compiled from the whole body
of Orthographists, Phoneticians, and Dictionary - makers
of those centuries. In these lists all the variants in each
period are given, and they are of the greatest use as
affording convenient material for phonological investi-
gation.

The Sounds in Detail.

In the present case the most convenient way of dealing
with the subject will be to start with the M.E. sound and
trace it downwards to the present day.

By way of illustration of the kind of material upon
which our conclusions are based, and also of the method
of dealing with it, it will be as well to give the full state-
ments of the contemporary authorities concerning M.E. a
and Gd. The development of the remaining sounds will be
given without reference to these, but each statement ‘is
based upon the same kind of material as that given in the
case of a and 4.

The rules of pronunciation as given by the authorities
are always based upon the uses of the letters.

PatseraveE (1530): ‘The soundyng of a which is most
generally used throughout the frenche tonge is such as we
use with vs, where the best englysche is spoken, whiche
is lyke as the Italians sound a, or as they with vs, that
pronounce the latine tonge aryght.’
8310 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

This points to a mid-back-slack for ‘the best English.’
Possibly the other sound of a which Palsgrave implies also
existed in his day was a fronted form—almost our (e).

Satespury (1547): ‘A in English is of the same sound
as a in Welsh, as is evident in these words of English—all,
aal, pale, paal, sale, sal.’

The double vowels here imply length, and the last word
should have been transcribed saal. The sound of a in
Welsh at present is (a) mid-back-slack, whether long or
short. He invariably transcribes M.E. @ with aa, and
M.E. a with ae, apart from occasional inconsistencies like
the above: babe he writes baab, bake, baak, plague, plaag,
etc. Examples of short a are papp, nag, fflacs (flax), etc.

Smiru (1568) says the only sounds of English a are those
of long and short Latin a.

As samples of short a he has: man, far, hat, mar, pass ;
examples of the long are: mane, farewell, hate, mare, pace,
bare, bake. Since Salesbury gives the last word with (4),
there can be little doubt what sound Smith implied by
‘sonus a vocalis Romane longe.’ The first group had
the same sound short.

Harr (1569) identifies English a with that of German,
Italian, French, Spanish, and Welsh, which is to be pro-
nounced ‘ with wyde opening the mouth, as when a man
yauneth.’

Butter (1633) : ‘4 is in English, as in all other languages,
the first vowel, and the first letter of the Alphabet ; the
which . . . hath two sounds, one when it is short, another
when long, as in man and mane, hat and hate.

This is the first indication of a distinction in quality
between long and short a, and it is not repeated till fifty
FRONTING OF M.E. A 311

years later, by Cooper. It seems clear that Butler must
have heard a difference, however, and since both long and
short are certainly fronted a little later, it seems probable
that one may have been slightly in advance of the other
in reaching (z). Again, since M.E. long @ has not only
been fronted, but also raised to (é, @, e?) in later English,
we shall perhaps be justified in assuming that Butler pro-
nounced (het) hat, but (ht) hate. If so, he must have
been rather in advance of other contemporary writers, and
must have described the pronunciation just coming in.
Palsgrave’s implied statement of the existence of another
sound of a, than of full-mid-back sound, may have referred
to this fronted form, which in his day was apparently not
highly esteemed, and may have originated in provincial
speech.

The net result of the above statements seems to be that
M.E. a, long or short, was retained throughout the six-
teenth and well into the seventeenth century. The front-
ing tendency began in the sixteenth century, but was
considered first as a vulgarism, and then as new-fangled,
until the first quarter of the seventeenth century.

Middle ‘English ‘a’ in Seventeenth-Century Pronunciation.

Brew Jonson (1640): ‘A with us in most words is pro-
nounced lesse than the French 4, as in art, act, apple,
ancient. But when it comes before 7 in the end of a
syllable, it obtaineth the full French sound, and is uttered
with the mouth and throat wide open’d, the tongue bent
back from the teeth, as in al, smal, gal, fail, tal, cal.

The first of these statements, that a ‘is lesse than the
French 4,’ seems to indicate that Ben Jonson followed the
812 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

(then) new fashion, and pronounced a fronted (a), though
perhaps not yet (a). The a before 7 was clearly a full-
back vowel, whether mid or low it is impossible to say,
The pronunciation of all, small, gall, etc., here described
is not that which produced Present-day Standard English
(51, sm51), etc. We shall deal with that under the M.E. au.

Wattis (1653-1699) represents fully-developed, typical
seventeenth-century pronunciation. He describes English
a as ‘a exile, and goes on: ‘ Quale auditur in vocibus, dat,
vespertilio; bate, discordia; pal, palla episcopalis; pale,
pallidus; Sam (Samuelis contractio) ; same, idem ; lamb,
agnus ; lame, claudus; dam, mater (brutosum); dame,
domina; bar, vectis; bare, nudus; ban, exsecror; bane,
pernicies, etc. Differt hic sonus a Germanorum 4 pingwi
seu aperto ; eo quod Angli linguz medium elevent, adeoque
aérem in Palato comprimant ; Germani vero linguz medium
deprimant, adeoque aérem comprimant in gutture. Galli
fere sonum illum proferunt ubi e preecedit literam m vel n,
in eadem syllaba ut entendement, etc.

This vowel (a) has previously been classified by Wallis
as one of those of which he says : ‘ Vocales Patinz in Palato
formantur, aére scilicet inter palati et lingue medium
moderate compresso’; and distinguishing the particular
vowel he says: ‘Majori apertura formatur Anglorum a,
hoc est @ exile.’

This description must refer to the same sound as that
which Ben Jonson says is ‘lesse than the French 4,’ and is
pretty clearly fixed by Wallis as the low-front, being made
by the ‘middle of the tongue’ and with *a greater open-
ing’ than the other front vowels. It will be noticed that
the English words in the passage quoted above are alter-
RISE OF THE MODERN 2 SOUND 313

nately short and long, and must therefore be (a), as in
(beet), and (#), as in (bxt), respectively.

Wikis (1668) says of a ‘that it is framed by an emis-
sion of the breath, betwixt the tongue and the concave of
the palate ; the upper superfices of the tongue being rendered
less concave, and at a less distance from the palate.’

Wilkins’ pairs of words to illustrate the short and long
form of this sound are—

Rad-nor
trade

Short: bat mat

Long: bate

pal
pale

val-ley
vale

fat
Sate

These examples and the remarks of Wilkins which have
been quoted point to the same results as in the case of
Wallis.

Coorer (1685): Cooper’s account of the pronunciation
of a must indeed have been considered ‘ new-fangled’ by
the older generation of his contemporaries. He distinguishes
two sounds for original long a, using the phrase ‘ a exilis’
to designate a different sound from that referred to by
previous writers when they use the expression. The fol-
lowing are his remarks: ‘ A formatur a medio lingue ad
concavum palati paululum elevato. In his can possum,
pass by pretereo, a corripitur ; in cast jacio, past pro passed
preteritus, producitur. Frequentissimus auditur hic sonus
apud Anglos, qui semper hoc modo pronunciant a Latinum ;
ut in amabam. . . . Hunc sonum correptum produc-
tum semper scribimus per a; at huic characteri preterea
adhibentur sonus unus et alter: prior, qui pro vocali ejus
longa habetur ut in cane . . . posterior ut in was sect.
septima sub o gutturalem.’

This seems to imply that can and pass had (2), cast,

mate

 

 

 

 

 
3814. ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

past (%). Further, the symbol a also expresses a sound
which is generally held to be the ordinary long sound (&),
but which is not the same; this other sound occurs in cane.
Incidentally we may notice that Cooper pronounced was,
not (weez), but (woz). What was the third sound expressed
by a?

Writing of ¢, he says : ‘« formatur a lingua magis elevata
et expansa, quam in @ proprius ad extremitatem, unde
concavum palati minus redditur sonus magis acutus; ut
in ken video.... Vera majusce soni productio scribitur
per a atque a longum falso denominatur ; ut in cane, canna;
wane, deflecto ; and ante ge ut age, etas ; in ceteris autem
vocabulis (ni fallor) omnibus ubi e quiescens ad finem
syllabee post a, adjicitur; w gutturalis . . . inseritur
post a ut in same, nomen, quasi scriberetur na-um dis-
syllabum.’

Here we have the statement that the sound in cane, wane
was the long of that in ken, and that in the two former
words it was falsely called ‘long a.’ This clearly implies
that the third vowel sound expressed by the symbol a was
a mid-front, presumably, since it is the long of that in ken,
a slack vowel =(é). A further statement is that when this
long sound stood before certain consonants a vowel glide * u
gutturalis,’ was developed after it. Writers of this period
nearly always mean by short u an unrounded vowel, prob-
ably very similar to that in Present-day but, and this sound,
whatever it may have been when stressed (probably high-
back-tense), may have actually existed in Cooper's day as
a glide vowel, or, as is, perhaps, more probable, the sound
actually intended here is the mix-mixed-slack (a). This
implies a pronunciation (kéen) (néem), etc.
THE THREE ‘ A’-SOUNDS

315

Cooper’s lists illustrating the different sounds of a are

as follows :

 

a brevis (= ®).

a longa (= &).

a exilis (=).

 

bar, vectis.
blab, effutio.
cap, pileum.
car, carrus.
eat, catus.
dash, allido.
flash, fulguro.
gash, cesura.
grand, grandis.
land, terra.
mash, farrago.
pat, aptus.
tar, pix fluida.

 

 

barge, navicula.
blast, flatus.
carking, anxietas.
carp, carpo.

cast, jactus.

dart, jaculum.
Sflasket, corbus gluus.
gasp, oscito.
grant, concedo.
lanch, solvo.
mask, larva.
path, semita.
tart, scriblita.

 

bare, nudus.
blazon, divulgo.
cape, capa.
care, cura.
case, theca,
date, dactylus.
flake, flocculus.
gate, janua.
grange, villa.
lane, viculus.
mason, lapidarius.
pate, caput.
tares, lolia.

 

 

Among words which have the diphthong (za), Cooper
includes many which in M.E. had a diphthong ai, which
was evidently levelled, in his speech under M.E. a. The

€a list is:

bain, balneum.
bane, venenuum.
main, magnus.
mane, juba.
plain, manifestus.
plane, lavigo.

hail, grando.
hale, traho.
layn, jacui.
lane, viculus.
spaid, castratus.
spade, ligo.

maid, virgo.
made, factus.
pain, dolor.
pane, quadra,
tail, cauda.
tale, fabula.

Miege (1688) confirms Cooper’s account of @ in certain

words :

‘Dans Ja langue Anglaise cette voyelle A s’appelle et
se prononce ai. Lorsqu’elle est jointe avec d'autres lettres,
elle retient ce méme son dans la plupart des Mots; mais
il se prononce tantét long, tantét bref. L'a se prononce
en ai long generalement lorsqu’il est suivi immediatement
316 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

d'une consonne, et d’unee final. Exemple: fare, tare, care,
grace, fable, qui se prononcent ainsi faire, taire, caire,
graice, faible.

Miege notes that ‘regard se prononce regaird. . . .
Dans le mot de Jane l’a se prononce en ¢ masculin,
Dgéne.”

The eighteenth-century authorities are very unsatis-
factory in their statements regarding the fate of the three
seventeenth-century sounds (, #, &). Apparently they
were all preserved, () becoming tense late in the century,
and @ tending to be retracted towards d, which sound
it has to-day in Standard English. In Sheridan’s Dic-
tionary, however (1780), we still find only (p&p), etc., and
no (d) sounds. In the course of the nineteenth century
(é) was diphthongized in Standard English to (7), in which
the first element is half tense. In the Cockney dialect of
London, and often in Liverpool and Manchester, this has
become (sei) or (at), according to the social class of the
speaker.

We may now summarize the results of the foregoing
inquiry. M.E. a and @ were preserved on the whole
throughout the sixteenth century, although the fronting
process may have begun here and there before the end of
the century. In the seventeenth century the fronting
process was completed, (a) becoming (z), as at present, (@)
becoming (#). In the course of the century (&) was raised
to (2). Before certain combinations (a) was lengthened
during this century. This lengthening does not affect all
words of the same class, therefore we must suppose that in
some cases forms from other dialects were adopted by
speakers of the Standard language. It seems to take
HISTORY OF M.E. A SUMMARIZED 317

place chiefly before s and r followed by another consonant,
and before (p and 3)—e.g., (k&rt, g&sp, pp).

This new long (#) was not levelled under the old long
(from M.E. 4@), since this had already become (é). Concrete
examples of the development of M.E. @ are :

bat — 17th \ (bat).
MLE, of ser} cent, ()f(reSer) (r#Ser)\ 18th 19th \(ra@or).
(beep) < (bp) cent. (); cent. (@) f (bap).

ice 17th aed )y}< (fés) 18th (fés) 19th (feis).
M.E. af ine |= cent. \ m) (ném) | <cent. (ném) feet (neim),
raver (rade) =< (ré8er) €-é (réSer)} ez (reide),

The origin of the M.E. doublets rater, raver, fader, fader,
have already been explained in the chapter on M.E. sound-
changes (ante, p. 271). Present-day (a) is never derived
from M.E. a, which is always (i), but. from M.E. a with
‘seventeenth-century lengthening.

The seventeenth and eighteenth century sound (&) is
still preserved in many of the Southern English dialects,
and in the Irish brogue, where such pronunciations as
(k#rd), (bép) are usual. In the Northern dialects the
fronting of M.E. a was never fully carried out, and (a) is
either preserved as a full-back or is only slightly advanced.
The seventeenth-century lengthening does not seem to
have affected these dialects, which have the same vowel in
(man, bap, ka(r)d), etc.

The Present-day forms ‘clerk’ (klak); * Derby’ (dabi) ;
(hap) hearth ; (hat), heart, may be discussed here. Origin-
ally, both of these words had M.E. er—clerk, Derbi. But
in M.E. e before r was often made into a, doubtless through
an intermediate stage (a). This has happened in star,
far, where the old spelling has been retained. In these
318 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

words we have the sixteenth-century (a), seventeenth-
century (z), then (#), which, as we have seen, becomes (4)
in Late English. Our pronunciation of clerk and Derby,
heart, hearth, etc., goes back, in each case, to a M.E. (a),
which has regularly become (@) in Late English by the
stages mentioned. The spelling in these words is that of
another M.E. type, with («) or (é), which before r becomes
(4) quite regularly in Late English. The provincial or
‘vulgar’ (dabé klik, hip) go back to the M.E. (er) type.
In other words, Standard English preserves this type ; thus
(savant), servant; (had), heard; (lin), learn, are derived from
M.E. pronunciations with (er, @r). In eighteenth-century
colloquial literature these words are sometimes spelled darn,
sarvant, which expresses a then common pronunciation (lérn,
szrvant), etc., and these forms are established by seven-
teenth and eighteenth century authorities. In politespeech,
however, only the (4) forms survive in these words. The
spelling Clark in the proper name, of course, implies the
same type as that which is now received as ‘correct.’ It is
one of those sports of fashion so common in the history of
a Class Dialect that (klak, dabi) should now be considered
vulgar, and (sdvant) equally so.

ME. (€) and (é) and (é).—The short, slack M.E. (e) has
survived in English pronunciation to the present day. It
occurs in such words as men, better, set, etc., and in friend
(frend), where it is the result of a M.E, shortening of é,
which subsequently lost its tenseness, probably also in
breath, from M.E. (brep) from (brép), from earlier br&p.
The unshortened form is heard in ‘breathe, M.E. bréden.

The symbol ¢ in M.E. also denoted two distinct long
vowels, as we have seen (above, p. 259, etc.).
HISTORY OF M.E. TENSE E 319

1. (é), which had two origins: (a) O.E. @, M.E. hép, from
O.E. hep; (6) O.E. e, lengthened during M.E. period in
open syllables : béren ‘ bear,’ O.E. beran; méte, ‘ meat, O.E.
mete.

2. (¢), which sprang from—(a),O.E. 6, whatever its origin,
as in hér, ‘here’; hé, ‘he’; séd (now W. Sax.), ‘seed’; guén,
O.E. cwén ; (6) O.E. @o, as in bé, ‘ bee,’ O.E. béo ; fré, ‘free ;
O.E. fréo. (c) Kentish e (from y), lengthened in M.E,
open syllables, as in ével, ‘evil, O. Kt. efel, W.S., etc.’,
yfel. (d) O.E. é, from original e lengthened before -/d, etc.,
during the O.E. period, as in M.E. schéld, ‘shield, O.E.
scéld, earlier sééld; M.E. féld ‘ field’; O.E. féld, earlier f¢id.
(e) Anglo-French é as in chéfe, chiefe, appéren, appiéren.

We may conveniently deal first with the development of
M.E. tense é. The earliest sixteenth-century authorities
show that before the middle of the century this sound had
already been raised to the high-front-tense (i). The words
which appear in the pages of these writers as having un-
mistakably (i) are: he, we, me, she, bee, bier, peer, cheese,
chief, field, ease, lief, sheep, trees, queen, friend, feet, sheet,
meet, geese, deed, weary, greet, ween, green, to wet (Levins’
Manipulus).

These all agree with the Present-day Standard English,
except friend—at present (frend), which is from a M.E.
shortened form—though Scotch has (frind)—and to wet.
Our (wet) is a M.E. shortening of the O.E. w&tan, M.E.
(wéten), and apparently preserves the Saxon form, whereas
sixteenth-century (wit), like Mod. Sc. ‘weet,’ goes back to an
Old Anglian wétan, which preserved its tense vowel in M.E.
and underwent no shortening—at any rate not until quite
recently. Whenever we find evidence of this raising to (1)
320 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

in sixteenth century, we must assume a form with tense (8)
in M.E. Most words of this class were spelled already in
the sixteenth century with ce, in distinction to those with
M.E. (2), written ea. The sound thus developed under-
goes no further change beyond the fact that in words like
‘bier’ a vowel glide has developed after the (i) before the
r, which was subsequently lost in pronunciation, while (7)
has become (i) in Standard English : (bia), etc.

This raising of (é) to (i) could not have taken place
until the old 7 of O. and M.E. had been diphthongized,
otherwise the new (i) would have shared its fate.

The Treatment of M.E. Slack (é).—After the raising of
(¢), (€) was gradually made tense, and thus a new (6) arose.
The raising of this sixteenth-century (e) to (i) did not,
apparently, take place in the received pronunciation before
the eighteenth century, but it must have occurred among
some speakers as early as the first quarter of the seventeenth
century, since Gill complains of a foppish pronunciation
of meat as (mit) instead of (mét), and (liv), leave, instead of
(lév). This is not merely a case of an old-fashioned speaker
objecting to a new pronunciation which was already well
established, since the change did not become widespread
till much later. It is impossible to say whether this seven-
teenth-century raising of the new (é) had its origin ina
provincial or a class dialect, but in any case it is a good
example of the fact that what is deemed, at one period, an
affected pronunciation often represents a genuine tendency
of language, which later on becomes universal.

It is interesting to note that the Irish brogue retains
the seventeenth and eighteenth century pronunciations of
M.E. (é), as (€); (hét), heat, (sé), sea, (trét), treat, (bét) beat,
THE (41) AND (01) SOUNDS 321

(konsél), conceal, (dél), deal, etc., are all regular seventeenth
and eighteenth century pronunciations, which are still
heard in Ireland.

Standard English retains (€) as (eé) in a few words : great,
break—where, perhaps, the r may have prevented raising —
and steak, which must, perhaps, be regarded as a provincial
survivor. Curiously enough, (brik) is quite a common pro-
nunciation in Ireland to-day, and this form and (grit) are
both recorded for the eighteenth century. The vowel in
head, dead, bread, red, etc., which in M.E. was (@), is the
result of an Early Modern shortening. The unshortened
forms are heard in Sc. (hid, did), etc., where the normal
eighteenth-century raising has taken place. The shortening
of the vowel in these words which is common in Sc. must
be quite recent.

M.E. 7 and ot.—The former sound has invariably become
the diphthong (ai) in Present-day English. That the
process must have begun in the first quarter of the sixteenth
century is certain, as we have already indicated, from the
fact that Palsgrave (1530) distinctly identifies the pro-
nunciation of M.E. (€) with that of French 7, which latter,
he says, is pronounced ‘almost as we sound e with vs.’ It is
curious that, although Palsgrave implies a difference between
French and English 7, he does not definitely suggest that
the latter is a diphthong, and neither Smith, Bullokar, nor
Gill hint at all clearly at diphthongal pronunciation. On
the other hand, in the Hymn to the Virgin 7 is trans-
literated ei in ei = I—abeiding, abiding, Kreist, Christ ; and
Salesbury writes vein for vine, ddein, thine, deitses (dait{ez)
for the provincial pronunciation of ‘ditch,’ ete. Hart also

writes ei—reid bei, ‘ride by,’ which leaves no doubt that
21
3822 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

these writers recognised the diphthongal character of the
sound. In the next century the first element is identified by
Wilkins as the sound in but, which, as we shall see, had in
his day already a pronunciation not far removed from the
present sound, probably that of rather a higher back vowel.
Holder states that the sound is a diphthong composed of a,
i, or e, i. Cooper gives the same account of the sound as
Wilkins, and Miege says the best way of describing the
sound is by the two vowels a and i.

An important point is that both Cooper and Jones
identify the sound of 7 in wine, guide, with that of oi in
Joint, broil, etc. In this connection we may note that
Pope rhymes join with line. (Cf p. 67 above.)

The meaning of all this is that M.E. 7 from early in the
sixteenth century underwent a process of diphthongization,
and by the last half of the seventeenth century had reached
the stage (ai) or (ai), in which stage it was identical with
the contemporary pronunciation of the old French diph-
thong oi (in joy, join, etc.). This accounts for Pope’s
rhyme above. Henceforth the normal development of both
classes of words would, of course, have been the same, and
Present-day English shows the last stage in that develop-
ment in the diphthong (ai) in (waif, lain, fain, taim), etc.,
wife, line, fine, time, etc. In the other class of words,
however, those with old oi, the old diphthong has been
artificially reintroduced through the influence of the spell-
ing; hence dine and joim no longer rhyme in Standard
English, In Vulgar and Dialectal English, however, the
old of has pursued its normal course of development, and
has become (ai), just as old 7 has. Hence we get the
‘vulgar’ (bail, dzain, ail), etc., which comic writers express
THE TWO ‘0’ SOUNDS 323

by the spellings bile, gine, ile, for boil, joi, oil, etc. Here
again the Irish brogue preserves the eighteenth-century
sound, and has (ai) or (ai) in both classes of words, which
is the explanation of the popular belief, in this country, that
an Irishman calls himself what the humorous writers spell
as ‘ Oirishman, and that he pronounces (woif, foiv, join) for
wife, five, shine, etc. The eighteenth-century pronuncia-
tion of this diphthong is approximately preserved also in
Oxfordshire and Berkshire.

M.E. 6.—The symbol o represented two distinct long
vowels in M.E.: (a) The old tense 6, as in god, * good’;
bled, ‘blood’; sdna, ‘soon,’ etc. ; (b) a slack vowel with an
o-quality, and which had two origins: (1) the rounding ot
O.E. a, as in ston, * stone,’ O.E. stan; old, O.E. ald; and
(2) the lengthening of O.E. 4 in open syllables, as in prdte,
‘throat, O.E. protu; dpen, O.E. Open, etc. The slack
sound was often written oa in M.E., but not with perfect
regularity, and the tense was frequently written oo to
express length, but this symbol is very often written for
the long slack also, as in stoon, etc.

Development of M.E. tense 6.—This sound, originally
probably the mid-back-tense-round, as in Modern French
beau, was gradually over-rounded, passing through the
stage of the Modern Swedish 6 in sol, ‘sun,’ which, to
unaccustomed ears, has almost the acoustic effect of (i),
and then raised until it became a fully-formed (a).

The sixteenth-century writers on the subject leave no
doubt that this stage was reached by the middle of that
century. It is frankly described by the best authorities
as an (i)- sound. This sound, when once developed,

either (1) remains until the present time, as in spoon, root,
21—2
324 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

fool, shoe, loose, etc. (=spin, rat, ful, fu, lis); or (2) it
has undergone (in Standard English) a recent (early nine-
teenth-century [?]) shortening, in which case it also becomes
slack, as in good, book, wood, foot, etc. ( gud, buk, wud,
fut) ; or (3) it underwent shortening to (i) already in the
sixteenth century. The fate of this sixteenth-century
shortening we shall discuss under the treatment of six-
teenth-century and M.E. (i).

[Nore.— Smith (1568) says that the Scots pronounce (¥) in
cook, good, blood, hood, flood, book, took, evidently referring
to the same sound as is still heard in Sc. as the represen-
tative of O.E. tense 0. ]

M.E. slack 6.—This sound, probably the mid-back-slack-
round, was preserved in early Mod. Eng. This is con-
firmed by the identification of it with Welsh 6, with the
Italian ‘open’ o, and as the long sound of short English o.
Smith (1568) gives the pairs smock—smoke, hop—hope, sop
—soap, not—note, rob —robe, etc., as showing the short and
long of the same vowel. Florio (1611) identifies the sound
of Italian ‘open’ o with that in English bone, dog, God,
rod, stone, tone, etc.

Gill (1621) recognises only one o-sound—short, as in coll,
long, as in coal. Up to this point, after the raising and
over-rounding of the old tense 6 to (i), no tense 6 existed
in English, only (0). In 1653, however, Wailis recognises
two long o-sounds, one identical with French aw (6), the
other long a variety of that in folly, cost, etc. The former
of these sounds is, of course, the tense 0, and has developed
out of the long slack of the former generation. It is men-
tioned by Waillis as occurring in one, none, whole, coal, boat ;
and Wilkins also mentions an 0, obviously the same sound,
THE RISE OF THE ‘OBSCURE’ SOUND M.E. GU 325

which has no corresponding short sound in English, which
is found in boat, foale, vote, mote, pole, rode. Wallis’s one,
none (On, non) belong, of course, to a different type of
pronunciation from that used to-day in these words.
Wallis’s other long o-sound is a new slack o, developed
from an earlier (au), which will be discussed later.

The new middle seventeenth-century long tense o just
described, derived from the earlier long slack, was preserved
in English until it was diphthongized to its present various
diphthongal forms in the nineteenth century.

As regards M.E. @ little need be said, as it has changed
but little, beyond being lowered, perhaps, during the
eighteenth century, from a mid to a low-back-slack-
round.

M.E. %.—This was, in all probability, a tense vowel,
and remained unchanged down to the end of the sixteenth
century. During the sixteenth century the number of
words containing this sound was increased. by the addition
of several with a shortened form of the new (a) from M.E.
tense (6). Among words with original % which are men-
tioned by the sixteenth-century writers as still retaining
this sound are buck, gut, lust, suffer, thunder, all of which
are transliterated with w by Salesbury (bwck, gwt, etc.);
but, luck, mud, full, pull, etc., and among those with the
new (i) from (6) for which a shortened pronunciation is
established are : good, flood, look, blood, book.

During the seventeenth century short w was gradually
unrounded in all those words in which it occurred. This
is made clear by the statements of the authorities, some of
whom are at a loss to describe the new sound. Wallis
says short w has an ‘obscure sound’ which resembles that
326 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

of the final syllable of French serviteur ; Wilkins describes
it as ‘a simple letter, a pert, sonorous guttural, being
framed by a free emission of breath from the throat,’
Holder gives a very definite account of what we should
now call a high-back-unrounded vowel, saying that that wu
is an (u) sound ‘in which the lip does not concur, as in cué,
full” (kat, fal). This can only mean unrounded (u). This
is the ancestor of our present sound, which has, however,
been lowered from a high to a mid-back. It should be
noted that in Present-day Standard the old (u) is still
kept, as a rule, after lip consonants (put, pull, bull, full,
etc.), though now pronounced slack, having probably been
restored, if, indeed, it actually ever was unrounded, before
the tongue position was lowered. This is not universally
the case, however, as is seen from but, mud, punt, etc.,
which have the unrounded sound.

The seventeenth-century authorities are not always in
agreement with Present-day polite usage as regards the
distribution of the unrounded vowel, especially in words
where it represents the shortened sixteenth-century (i) from
tense (6). The following pronunciations are all recorded
in the seventeenth century: from (bazem), ‘ bosom,’ (fat),
‘ foot,’ (gad), ‘ good,’ (had), ‘hood,’ (sat), ‘soot,’ (stad),
‘stood,’ (tak), ‘took,’ (wad), ‘ wood,’ (wal), ‘wool,’ all of
which would be regarded as vulgar provincialisms by
educated society to-day. They may, of course, still be
heard in the dialects. The Standard pronunciation of to-
day, in the above words, namely (fut), etc., is, of course, a
later shortening, as already pointed out, of a seventeenth-
century type with (G) or perhaps with (u), since the
shortened types are also recorded in late seventeenth
THREEFOLD PRONUNCIATION OF OLD TENSE 0 327

century, and side by side with (fat), which, by the way, is
designated barbare by Cooper, we get also (fut) and (fit).

On the other hand, (ii) is recorded by Cooper in blood,
flood, brother, where we now have (a). In any case, it
would appear that fashion has decided which type of an
old (M.E.) tense 6-word shall be considered as correct at
the present day. Thus in ‘spoon’ (spiin) we have six-
teenth-century (ii) preserved ; in ‘book’ (buk) we have a
seventeenth or eighteenth century shortening of this (i);
and in blood (blad), (masa), ‘ mother,’ (brad), * brother,’
we have representatives of a sixteenth-century shortening
of the new (i), which, as we have seen, underwent un-
rounding in the following century.

There is no reason, except fashion, why (blad) should be
polite, but (fat) vulgar, nor why, on the other hand, (blud)
or (blud) should have vanished from educated speech.

The seventeenth-century unrounding was not carried out
equally in all dialects. Thus, in Lancashire sixteenth-
century i was partially unrounded and lowered, and the
characteristic tense sound which results is used in all cases
to represent M.E. and sixteenth-century i—that is, equally
in cut, pull, foot, the full unrounded vowel of the Standard.
dialect being unknown, and also the fully rounded high-
back-slack. Those sixteenth-century (ii)s which were not
shortened during that century remain unchanged, as in
(kak, buk), ete.

In other forms of English, again, such as some of the
Yorkshire dialects, sixteenth-century (ii) undergoes no
unrounding at all, but remains everywhere as (%), with
loss of tenseness—e.g., full, cut, nut, etc. (of. Wright,
Windmill Dialect, § 111).
828 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

In Scotch dialects sixteenth-century (#%) has been un-
rounded, and has become the mid-back-tense, as in
Standard English. In the Standard English as spoken in
Scotland the slack sound of short (u) is unknown, and the
archaic short tense sound is preserved, fill and fool both
having the same sound, namely high-back-tense-round,
short.

In the genuine Sc. vernacular O.E. tense 6 underwent a
totally different development already in the M.E. period
from that which it followed in Southern English.

M.E. i.—Just before M.E. tense 6 was raised to (i),
the original @ underwent the beginnings of a process of
diphthongization. From Palsgrave’s remarks it would
appear that already in his day there was a very slight
degree of diphthongization, sufficient to distinguish the
sound from the newly-developed (i), but not enough to con-
fuse it with the older (aw) in (graunt), ‘grant,’ (faul), ‘fall’
(see below, pp. 333-336). The process of diphthongization
probably consisted of, first, a sudden decrease of stress
during the utterance of (i), thus giving (iu) or (aw); then
the dissimilation of the two elements, possibly by partially
unrounding and lowering the first element to (6), giving
(du) ; then the complete unrounding of the first element to
(du) ; then shortening and slacking to (aw), which is ap-
proximately the present pronunciation in the Standard
dialect. Various vulgarisms and provincial forms of this
diphthong exist, such as (aw, ew). In some dialects
monophthonging, apparently from the (aw) stage, has
taken place—e.g., Windhill Dialect has, etc., from (haus).
On the other hand, the Dialect of Addlington (Lancs) has
(brén, his, ¢, énd), etc., =‘ brown,’ ‘ house,’ ‘ how,’ ‘hound,’
ME. (Y) BECOMES (JU) 329

where the monophthongization has apparently taken
place from the (ew) stage. (Cf. Hargreaves, Addlington
Dialect, § 12.) There is no reason to suppose that
(ew, wu) are intermediate stages on the way to (au);
they are, rather, special further developments of that
sound.

M.E. y written u.—The sound ¥—that is, the high-front-
tense-round—survived throughout the M.E. period. Its
origins are: (1) O.E. y (in the Southern or Saxon dialects) ;
(2) Anglo-French 7 (written «). There seems no doubt
that the (7) sound remained in English pronunciation
down to the middle of the seventeenth century, since
writers as late as Wallis (1653) identify the ‘long w’ in
muse, tune, lute, dure (endure), mute, view, lieu, with
French wu, that is, of course (¥), and Wallis states that
some also pronounce ew or iw. This would imply that
there were two pronunciations, a simple (¥) and a diph-
thongized (iy). Price also (1688) suggests a diphthongal
pronunciation in muse, refuse, etc., ‘as if it were composed
of iw.’ On the other hand, Wilkins (1688) says that
Englishmen cannot pronounce French, or, as he calls it,
‘whistling a,’ since to them, as ‘to all nations among
whom it is not used, it is of so laborious and difficult pro-
nunciation that I shall not proceed further to any ex-
plication of it.’ Wilkins transliterates ‘communion’ as
(komiiinion). Apparently, then, by this time there were
two old-fashioned types of pronunciation of this sound—
(iy and 7), and the newer pronunciations (iu and 4).
These sounds represented, not only M.E. g, but also M.E.
eu, as in (diy), ‘dew, M.E. dew; ([k]ni¥), ‘knew,’ M.E.
kneu ; (bli¥), ‘blue,’ M.E. bleu, etc. It seems probable
330 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

that the (¥) lost its front quality in the third quarter of
the seventeenth century, so that the two types were (bliu),
corresponding to earlier (bliy), and blu), corresponding to
earlier (bly). At the present day, in the Standard lan-
guage, we have on the one hand (bli), ‘blue,’ (pri),
‘threw,’ (riil), ‘rule,’ etc., and on the other (tjizdi),
‘tuesday,’ (mjuz), ‘muse,’ (fj), ‘few,’ (stjupid), also
(stjupid), ‘stupid, (djuk), ‘duke,’ etc., corresponding to
sixteenth-century (iy) and (¥) respectively. In dialectal
speech different types often exist from those used in the
Standard, and (duk) from (dyk), (stupid) from (st¥pid),
(tuzd:) from (t¥zdei), (nu), ‘new,’ from (ny), are quite
common. Again, provincial (rial), ‘rule, (blia), and
(blja), ‘blue,’ (friat), ‘ fruit, etc., also exist.

Cure is now variously (kjtie, kjua, kjoa, and kj5), or, in
those dialects where the r is preserved, (kjir) or (kjuor).
Wallis indicates the pronunciation (kyr), and Cooper,
already, (kiuer). The only word which preserves O.E.
(Saxon) y in the Standard dialect is bruise (briz), where
the wi is actually a Southern M.E. spelling for 7.

The dialects of Devonshire and Somerset seem still to
preserve a sound approximating to the M.E. and sixteenth-
century (7) to the present day.

The Middle English Diphthongs.

M.E. ai and ei.—These diphthongs were often confused
in Late M.E., to judge by the spelling. The Welsh
authorities of the sixteenth century make no distinction.
The Hymn to the Virgin writes ai, ae, ay in away, awae,
kae, agaynst, and ei only in ddey, ddei. Salesbury trans-
literates both sounds by ai, ay—vain =‘ vein’ and ‘ vain’;
M.E. EI, AI 331

nayl=‘nail.” Salesbury uses ¢: for the new diphthong
from old (i).

On the other hand, Palsgrave (1530) distinguishes
between («) in obey, grey, in which ‘e shall have his dis-
tinct sound,’ and (ai) in rayne, * rain,’ payn, ‘ pain, fayne,
‘fain, etc., in which ‘a is sounded distinctly, and i shortly
and confusedly.” Smith (1568) says the distinction be-
tween the two is very slight, but admits (ci) in feint,
deinte, peint, fem (verb). He says that certain affected
women, who wish to appear to speak ‘ more urbanely,’
pronounce (e#) or (7) not only in words where it is written,
but also in words with ai, as in dai, wai, mai, tail, fail, pain,
claim, plat, arai, etc. Of these, wai, ‘way, should, from
the etymological point of view, have (¢). Smith says the
first element is short among ‘ urbane’ speakers, but that
country folks pronounce it long, ‘ with an odious kind of
sound, fat and greasy to excess,’ saying daai, paai, etc.

These remarks surely mean that the distinction between
ai and ei no longer existed, except, perhaps, artificially,
through the influence of the spelling. Apparently Smith
himself pronounced (az) with the first element very short
and slightly fronted ; old-fashioned people and country-
folk said (az) with a full back vowel in the first element,
and affected persons and ‘silly women,’ or ‘ mopseys,’ as
they were called, (zi) or even (e#), thus anticipating the
fashionable pronunciation of a later day. There can be
no doubt that the pronunciation of the affected persons
was gaining the day, for Hart, in 1569, recognises no diph-
thong at all, but gives pre, we, se, etc., for ‘ pray,’ * way,’
‘say.’ Gill (1629) strongly condemns ‘ mopseys’ in general,
and Hart in particular, and disapproves of (médz) for
332 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

(maids), ‘ maids,’ and (ple) for (plai). Butler (1623) records
with disapproval the pronunciation (z) in may, nay, play,
pray, say, stay, fray, slay, pay, bailey, travail. Wallis and
Wilkins both describe a diphthong that must be intended
for (i). Price (1668) admits a diphthong (2?) in a good
many words with ai and ey, but a single vowel (@) ap-
parently in many others. Cooper (1685) admits a diph-
thong in a few words—brain, eight, frail—otherwise ai, ay
for him has the sound of contemporary a, that is, (a) or (e),
and he gives the following words as pairs containing the
same vowel, long and short respectively: satl—sell, saint—
sent, tail—tell, taint—tent, which must imply (é) in (sél),
* sail,’ etc.

The result of these somewhat contradictory accounts
seems to be that M.E. ei, ai were early (in the sixteenth cen-
tury) levelled under one sound in the best speech, probably
(at). The diphthongal character was lost in some dialects,
retained in others, though whether these were class dialects,
or associated with a geographical area, we cannot say.
The Standard language tended more and more to front and
raise the first element in those cases where diphthongal
pronunciation remained, and by the end of the seventeenth
century the monophthongal pronunciation (#), or among
the younger generation (é), was fully established, so that
the sound was levelled under that of M.E. a, and henceforth
shared the same development, being gradually tensened to
(@), which was subsequently diphthongized again to (eé) or
(c) in the nineteenth century.

Many dialects retain to the present day the M.E. vowel
(ai) recorded as that of country folks in the seventeenth
century, in words like (tail, pail), * tail,’ ¢ pail,’ ete.
M.E. (4U) BECOMES (5) 333

Early Modern English au.—This sound existed in the
sixteenth century in words of several classes. They were
mostly inherited from M.E., and to this there is only one
possible exception. The (aw) diphthongs, which are cer-
tainly of M.E. origin, occurred in the following conditions:

1. M.E. aw or aw from O.E. -ag-: M.E. sawe, ‘saw,
O.E. sagu; M.E. drawen, ‘draw, O.E. dragan; from
O.E. -aw-; M.E. clawe, ‘claw, O.E. clawu; O.E. -ah-:
M.E. laughen, O.E. hlahhan.

2. M.E. au from Anglo-Fr. aw: cause, * cause.’

3. In the combination original an followed by another
consonant in words of Anglo-Fr. or Fr. origin: daunger,
‘danger’; aungel, ‘ angel’; haunt, jawndice, etc.

(au) further occurred in stressed syllables where a was
followed by Z in words both of English and French origin :
all, sixteenth-century (awl), fall, sixteenth-century (faul),
call, sixteenth-century (kaul). According to Sweet
(H.E.S., 784), this diphthong was developed in the Early
Modern period.

The history of this (aw) from the sixteenth century
onwards is clear. The diphthong persisted throughout
the century, but towards the end, the pronunciation (5)—
2.¢., low-back-tense-round — or something very like it,
appears to be already established. The process of change
must have been: the first element was rounded through
the influence of the (w), giving (5u), then the second element
was absorbed, and the sound was monophthongized to (3)
and tensened to (5), its present form. From the seven-
teenth century onwards (5) is the only representative of

the old (au).

Sixteenth-century examples are (baul, haul, waul, faul,
3384 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

kaul, haw, lauful, strau, mau, t\awns, graunt, dzaundis,
launs), etc.=ball, hall, wall, fall, call, haw, lawful, straw,
maw, chance, grant, jaundice, lance. The (5) stage is
occasionally recorded in the seventeenth century, but, pre-
sumably, did not last long. In that century most of
these words are recorded with (5), but occasionally, appa-
rently, with (sw), written ow by Cooper and oou by Gill,
which probably represents the intermediate stage.

Of the words mentioned above with (aw) before »,
however, only jawndice exists with (5) in the Standard
English of the present day, and many speakers, including
the present writer, pronounce (dzdndis) here with (@), as
in all the other words in the list with a nasal.

In several other words of this group we have doublets in
the polite pronunciation of to-day—e.g., (h5n{) and (hdn)),
‘haunch’; (15n§) and (ldn§), as well as (lzen{), ‘launch’; (vont)
and (vant), ‘ vaunt’; (l5ndrz) and (ldndri), ‘laundry’; (h5nt)
and (h@nt), ‘haunt’; also in the name Saunders or Sanders,
which is pronounced according to the taste or traditions
of its owner (sSndaz) or (séndaz). Dance is pronounced
both (dans) and (dzens), (d5ns) having disappeared ; lance
=(lans) or (lens), but there is no (J5ns), and the name
Launcelot is never (l5nsilot), only (ldnstlot) or (lensélot).

The first point to be clear about is that the pronuncia-
tion (5) in any of these words represents an older (az).
But (au) or its descendant (5) were not the only forms in
use in the seventeenth century. Side by side with these
we find also doublets with (se) which are sometimes given
by the same authorities as alternatives to the (5) pro-
nunciation. Thus we find (deent, flent, heent, dzeent, teent)
=daunt, flaunt, haunt, jaunt, taunt. ‘These would appear
DEVELOPMENT OF MLE. -(AN)- AND -(AL)- 335

to be the ancestors of the modern forms with (a). They
gave rise to two types—one which retained (ze), another in
which it was lengthened to (#). The short forms remain,
and correspond to the present-day (dens, lenf), etc. ;
the long forms develop (a) in the late eighteenth century,
and are therefore the direct ancestors of (ld@n{, laéndr?), etc.

The existence of the types (lenf, l5n!) side by side in
the seventeenth century shows that by the side of (laun)),
etc., which gave rise to the latter, forms such as (lan§), the
ancestor of the former, must have existed, although not
recorded, in the sixteenth century. This proves that in
M.E. the Anglo-French combination -an- before a- con-
sonant was not universally diphthongized to (awn), but
that a type -(an)- also existed. This probability is also
suggested by the fluctuation of M.E. spelling, which writes
both haunten and hanten. Non-diphthongized forms also
existed of the -al- combinations. Present-day (kaf),
‘calf, (kam), ‘calm,’ (kwam), ‘qualm,’ (sdém), ‘ psalm,’
(haf), ‘half, etc., are from eighteenth-century (k#f),
seventeenth-century (kef), sixteenth-century (kalf and
kaf), and so on with the others. The pronunciation
(kw5m), which is sometimes heard, of course represents a
doublet (kwaulm). Scotch (h5f), etc., is the representative
of sixteenth-century (haulf).

Present-day English has (ldfte, draft) by the side of
(t5t, f5t), ‘laughter, draught, taught, aught.’ Here,
again, we have the survivals of two distinct types: (lafta),
etc., comes from eighteenth-century (lzftar), from (leftar),
from lafter). This may well be a M.E. treatment of (h),
in which case there would be no diphthonging. Those
speakers, on the other hand, who said (lahter) developed
38386 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

the form (laufh]ter), which is, indeed, recorded for the
sixteenth century, together with its descendant (15[h]ter)
later on. This is the form apparently represented by our
traditional spelling. This type still survives in Scotch.
(t3t) is the normal development of M.E. ¢ahte, and in this
word it would seem that no doublet with (f) survives.

M.E. ou.—The vowel in thought, brought, daughter,
etc., which represents M.E. 0, with a glide vowel developed
before h, as in the case of M.K. -ah-, has apparently passed
through an (dw) stage, at which point it must have been
levelled with the earlier (aw), or the series may have been
(ow) with slack o, (6) with long slack o after absorption
of u, and the levelling of such a long vowel with (5) is a
natural tendency.

The Consonants in the Modern Period.

On the whole, but little change has taken place in the
pronunciation of the consonants since the sixteenth cen-
tury. There are, however, a few points which deserve
notice.

The symbols -gh- medially or finally were pronounced,
according to the nature of the preceding vowel, as a front
or back open voiceless consonant (h). That this had in
some dialects a lip modification, when back, is evident from
the fact that in a large number of words in Standard
English it has become pure (f). In words where it repre-
sented a Front open consonant, and in a few where it was
Back, (h) remained, apparently with a very slight con-
sonantal friction, well into the seventeenth century, in
the pronunciation of some speakers. It seems probable
that in most words with back (h) two types of pronuncia-
CHANGES IN CONSONANT SOUNDS 337

tion existed in the sixteenth century—(lafter) and (lahter),
(boft) and (boht), ‘laughter,’ ‘ bought,’ etc. At any rate,
both of these types are proved to have existed in the above
words and in many others, while the evidence of the
Modern dialects, taken together with the Standard language,
would greatly extend the list. Of course, no (u) glide
was developed in the (/') types, and there are consequently
no examples of the combination (-5f-) in these words, unless,
indeed, it exists in some of the popular dialects, in which
case it is the result of a blending of two types—the vowel
of one and the consonant of the other.

Initial kn-, gn--—The combination -kn- retained the
initial stop, at any rate until the seventeenth century.
From the testimony of the authorities it seems probable
that m was unvoiced in this position, and the (k) lost.
Cooper says that knave is pronounced like hnave, which
seems to imply a voiceless ». In the late seventeenth and
early eighteenth centuries the authorities are at variance
as to the pronunciation of gn-, Jones making it ordinary
(voiced) n, while Lediard describes voiceless n. Possibly
gn- and kn- had both been levelled under the latter
sound, in which case we might conclude that in the early
eighteenth century the voiceless pronunciation still existed,
while the new voiced n was coming in.

Initial wr--—The w was still heard down to the begin-
ning of the eighteenth century. It still remains in this
position in certain Scotch dialects, as (v)—eg., vrit,
‘ write, in Aberdeenshire.

Loss of r.—This is, perhaps, one of the most consider-
able changes that has taken place in recent English,
especially the Standard dialect. 1 is lost medially before

22
838 ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN THE MODERN PERIOD

consonants, and finally unless the next word in the breath-
group begins with a vowel. With the loss of r certain
modifications have occurred in the preceding vowels:
(1) Development of vowel murmur, as in (fata, bied);
(2) the levelling of several distinct vowels under (a), as in
(bad, wid, lan, wim, had), or under (5), as in (hd, m3, pj).
CHAPTER XV

THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

A.tHoucH it has been found convenient, as a matter of
systematic arrangement, to reserve this subject until the
end of the present work, it is nevertheless strongly to be
recommended that, in teaching, the study of actual living
English should serve as the starting-point of, and as the
preparation for, the historical study of our language.

The reason for this must have become apparent from
the general tenor of this book. The first preparation for
a competent study of the history of a language is some
training in phonetics, and for this the native spoken lan-
guage must serve as a basis. The first lessons in accurate
observation and analysis of speech sounds must be learned,
as has been repeatedly pointed out, from one’s own speech,
and that of one’s associates.

From the study of the sounds of his own language, the
student will naturally proceed to examine the structure,
the accidence, and syntax of the spoken form of English.
The methods of such an investigation have been exempli-
fied in Mr. Sweet’s Primer of Spoken English, 1900, and
this admirable work may serve as a model to the teacher
who conducts a class in the subject, though it must natur-
ally be borne in mind that just as Mr. Sweet has described

339 22—2
340 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

his ow pronunciation, so the student must learn to observe
and describe his own, noting the points of agreement and
of difference between his own speech habits and those of
his associates, and between that set forth in the Primer.

When at least some knowledge of the facts of contem-
porary English has been gained, the next step is to inquire
how they arose; and to answer this question involves an
inquiry into the earlier forms of our language. For this,
one trained to observe the facts of actually existing speech
has the best kind of preparation. He has been brought
face to face with the realities of language in its spoken
form; he has learnt to recognise that linguistic study is
primarily concerned with what is uttered and heard; he
has acquired to some extent the power of understanding
what is meant by sound change; he has found from ob-
servation that various factors are at work in modifying
the speech of the individual; he knows something of
analogy; he has seen that speech habits vary from indi-
vidual to individual, and from community to community,
Thus, from a systematic and intelligent study of the spoken
language, the beginner has been made familiar with many
of the facts and general principles which it is essential to
know and understand in order to grasp the vital points of
linguistic development.

The Relation of Written and Spoken English.

The first ‘ vulgar error’ which it is necessary to dispel
is the belief that good speakers, in ordinary conversation,
merely reproduce the language of books, and that the
Spoken is based upon the Literary language.

The language of conversation has an independent life,
SPEAKING“AND WRITING 341

quite apart from the written forms of speech. Literature,
among a highly-educated community, especially one whose
ideas and experiences are drawn more from books than
from life, undoubtedly influences the Spoken language, but
it is not the main source of this. The source of Spoken
English is, mainly and primarily, direct tradition of utter-
ance, passed on from one generation to another. The
sources of the language of literature are twofold: first,
literary tradition, and secondly, though equally important,
the spoken language of the period. The term Spoken
English has been used in the present case to cover all the
various forms of the language spoken throughout the
country ; the term Written Language, to cover at once the
language of literature proper, and the humbler attempts
of ordinary speakers to record their ideas in writing instead
of in speech sounds—to use, that is, symbols of a different
order to represent what is already a group of symbols.

It will be convenient, for purposes of contrast, to select
one type of Written English on one hand, and of Spoken
English on the other. For the former we take what we
may call the Literary English proper: that form of the
written language which is regulated by tradition, which is
deliberate, self-conscious, and artistic. For the latter
we take what may be called Standard Spoken English,
which we have often referred to by this name in earlier
chapters of this book.

There is what the present writer believes to be an
unfortunate habit among some authorities on linguistic
subjects, of bracketing Literary and Standard Spoken
English together, under the single name Literary English,
thereby confusing two distinct phenomena, and suggesting
342 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

the very fallacy which it is so important to avoid, namely,
that this form of the spoken language is derived from,
or a reproduction of, the language of literature. The
idea that those speakers of English who do not speak
what is technically known as a Dialect, in the special
sense of the term, are reproducing, or attempting to repro-
duce, in their speech the language of books is funda-
mentally erroneous. This would be possible, though not
desirable, as regards style and vocabulary ; it is impossible
in the domain of pronunciation. 'To speak of the sounds
of Literary English is an absurdity, since what is written
has no sounds until it is uttered, and then it naturally is
pronounced according to the speech habits of the particular
reader. When Dr. Wright, in the English Dialect Gr.,
speaks of the pronunciation of ‘Literary English,’ he means,
of course, Standard Spoken English. What we have called
Standard English, but what may also be called Polite
English, or, with certain qualifications, simply Good
English, is as much a reality as the dialect of West
Somerset or of Windhill; it has had a normal and natural
growth from a particular form of fifteenth-century English,
and although it has, in the course of time, incorporated
fresh elements from the outside, and discarded others that
were once part and parcel of it, its history can be traced,
as we have attempted to show in the former chapter, with
considerable certainty for more than 300 years. Standard
English, it is true, is no longer a regional dialect ; it is
emphatically a class dialect, which is fast absorbing other
forms of Spoken English. Present-day Standard English,
as we have already seen, springs originally from the same
source as the literary dialect—that is, from the London
RELATION OF LITERARY TO SPOKEN ENGLISH 348

dialect of the fifteenth century ; and just as this, in its
written form, at a much earlier date, gained universal
currency in writings, so the former is now gradually but
surely gaining ground among all classes and in all areas.
What the printing press did long ago for the written form,
modern means of locomotion are doing to-day for the
spoken. We shall return later to the important question
of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in speech; in the meantime, it may
be pointed out that the Standard dialect of English is to
some extent more artificial than other forms of Spoken
English, in that it is more subject to fashion, and, it may
perhaps be admitted, more shaped, in any given age, by a
deliberate selective and eliminating process. What, then,
is the relation of this form of Spoken English to the
language of Literature ?

Both, as has been said, are sprung originally from the
same source; they have developed differently by virtue of
the different conditions under which they severally exist.
One great and obvious external difference between Written
and Spoken English is that, whereas the spelling of the
former is fixed, and no longer expresses the variations of
sound which exist in different areas, and arise in different
ages, the spoken form is for ever undergoing changes in

ronunciation, with the passage of time and the spread of
this dialect among all sections of the population. The
spelling of Literary English, then, no longer expresses, even
approximately, the facts of actual utterance, as they exist
in Standard Spoken English, in its different varieties.

But the differences between Written and Spoken English
are deeper than those produced merely by a pronunciation
which has far outstripped its symbolical expression, and
344 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

include also differences of style, of idiom, of choice of
words, and grammatical forms.

The language of literature, in all these respects, is always
slightly more archaic than the uttered speech of the same
period ; certain words and expressions are avoided in
writing a serious prose, because they are felt to be too
familiar — too closely associated with the commonplaces
and vulgarities of everyday existence; others, on the
other hand, find no place in the Spoken language, because
they seem to savour of pomposity or bookishness.

But literary style changes from agetoage. To a certain
extent each generation has its own style. Matthew Arnold
appears to fail in perfect critical insight when he points to
a noble passage from Dryden’s Preface to his translation
of the 4neid, and remarks that it is ‘such a prose as we
would all gladly use if we only knew how.’ This is
neither adequate as an appreciation of Dryden, nor is it
strictly true. Only in very special circumstances, and as
an exercise in imitation, would a writer of the present
day ‘gladly use’ the prose of the seventeenth century.
Herein, indeed, lies the heart of the whole matter. The
literary language is kept living and flexible only by a close
relation with the colloquial speech of the age. A purely
literary tradition, however splendid, will not suffice for the
style of a later period. A literary tradition alone, deprived
of the living spirit which informs the great works that
created the tradition, is a lifeless thing. The breath of
life comes into literary form from the living spoken Jan-
guage, as it comes into literature itself from touch with life.
Thus, while great prose owes much to tradition, it owes
still more to the racy speech of the age in which it is
THE LIFE-BLOOD OF LITERATURE 345

produced. The best prose is never entirely remote in
form from the best corresponding conversational style of
the period. A robust, intense style glows with emotion,
and pulsates with passion; a calm and restrained prose
must yet be animated with an undercurrent of strenuous
thought or genuine feeling. If these be lacking, the most
accomplished reproduction of an old literary model is stiff
and uninteresting.

The impression made by fine prose of any age, and not
infrequently also by verse, of the less artificial and elaborate
kind, is that the author writes very much as he would speak,
if he were conveying the same ideas by word of mouth.
This is felt strongly in reading Chaucer’s Canterbury
Tales, in those passages where the felicitousness and com-
petence of expression reaches its highest point; it is felt
in reading Latimer’s Sermons; in nearly all of Dryden’s
critical prose; in the Letters of Horace Walpole and of
Gray ; in Swift, in Goldsmith, and in Sheridan.

It is this quality of vitality, which springs from a
mastery of the best spoken form of English of his age, that
compels our admiration in the prose of Dryden; but what
we should ‘ gladly use’ is not his precise form, which is no
longer a living vehicle of thought and feeling, but a prose
which should combine the elements of literary tradition on
the one hand, with those of contemporary colloquial speech
on the other, in that just proportion, and with that subtle
blending, which is the secret of great writers in all ages.
No writer can express himself adequately in a language
which is not his own; the thoughts and emotions of one
age cannot be conveyed in a style which is outworn;
and this has come about when the relation between the
346 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

language of literature and that of everyday life is
severed.

It would probably be a fruitful investigation to trace
the connection between the prose style of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries and that of the closest repro-
duction of the conversational style of the corresponding
period which we possess—that is, the language of the
Comic Drama.

The Spoken Language.

One of the most striking features of living, uttered
speech is its adaptability. Standard English is not fixed
and rigid in form; in the same period, and in the mouth
of the same speaker, it is not invariable under all condi-
tions, and in every kind of company. The actual sounds
employed, the speed of utterance, the intonation, the
sentence structure, the choice of vocabulary, are all
variable according to the requirements of the moment.
The speaker adapts his speech, both in public oration, and
in private conversation, to suit his audience. This modi-
fication of the language in its different elements may be
deliberate, but for the most part is unconscious and
instinctive.

In public speaking, the manner of the discourse of an
accomplished and practised orator is determined to a
great extent by the size of the audience; but also by the
speaker’s estimate of their mental calibre, no less than by
his own. Upon this power of ‘ getting into touch’ with
his hearers, on the part of the speaker, the success and
effectiveness of an academic lecture, a political harangue,
or an after-dinner speech will largely depend. There is
ADAPTABILITY OF THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE 347

room for an investigation into the variations of style,
vocabulary, idiom, and syntax of the same speaker, accord-
ing to the size, intellectual quality, and general temper of
his audience.

Public oratory is that form of the Spoken language
which comes nearest to the language of literature in
style. But if this form of uttered language is liable to
modification in the manner indicated, the private speech
of ordinary conversation is no less sensitive to the modi-
fying influences of social atmosphere. There is room for
a vast amount of variability in the colloquial speech of
the same individual, according to the company in which
he is placed. Phraseology, vocabulary, even pronuncia-
tion, tend, each and all, to adapt themselves to the
personality and attainments of the person addressed. The
manner of speech may be perfectly natural, or it may
become stilted, pompous, flippant, archaic, or slangy,
accordingly as the real or fancied personality of the hearer
excites reverence, trepidation, confidence, affection, or con-
tempt in the mind of the speaker. The disparity which
provokes such departure from the normal colloquial style,
may be of the most varied kind: it may consist in differ-
ence of rank, of official status, age, intellectual or moral
worth, or in worldly success, all of which affect different
minds in different ways.

In some cases convention, as it were, strikes the keynote,
by prescribing by what title certain personages shall be
addressed, but the rest is left to the instinct or intuition
of the speaker. Thus, by a convention which will prob-
ably never change, the Deity, in both private and public
devotions, is invariably addressed in the second person
348 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

singular; and in this solitary case the pronoun of that
person is preserved, which is otherwise completely obsolete
in Standard English, except among members of the Society
of Friends.

There can be no doubt that the best speaker, whether
‘in private or public, is he, the form of whose discourse
instinctively shapes itself to the requirements of the
moment, without any apparent effort or deliberation.

For there is a limit beyond which adaptiveness cannot
go, without awakening resentment or uneasiness in the
hearers, or, what is perhaps worse, without imperilling the
vividness and sense of reality in the expression; and this
limit is reached very soon after the modification of form,
or choice of verbiage becomes self-conscious and deliberate.
If a speaker reacts too much to his environment—to
borrow a phrase from the vocabulary of Biology—if he is
either overawed by a sense of the superiority of those to
whom he speaks, or too deeply conscious of the reverse
quality, all naturalness of speech is at an end. For in
one case a speaker will speak too carefully and pedanti-
cally: he will mince in his pronunciation, and, worst of all,
perhaps tend to obsequiousness; in the other, a sense of
self-importance may bloat his diction to pomposity, and
convey the feeling that he is trying hard to be worthy of
himself. Or, again, by a too familiar and undignified
discourse, he may make his hearers feel that by an infinite
condescension he is coming down from an immeasurable
height to their level, and perhaps sinking below it. In
both cases the speaker may fall back upon set phrases devoid
of character. Thus the right and proper adaptation of
spoken language cannot be carried out on any precon-
STEREOTYPED VERBIAGE 349

ceived principle, but must spring from a sympathetic and
humane insight into the personality of those to whom we
speak, a nice appreciation of the psychological conditions
of the moment. If a speaker would sway his audience to
his own mood, or instil his own opinions into their minds,
if he would ‘ carry them with him,’ as the phrase runs, he
must first lay his finger upon the pulse of their temper
and of their prejudices. The speaker himself must barely
perceive the process of adaptation, the hearers not at all;
they are merely conscious that the form in which the ideas
are clothed is entirely suitable and convincing.

Lifeless Forms of English.

A living form of speech is one which expresses real ideas
and feelings and genuine convictions in a form suited to
the audience and the occasion, springing from the mind of
the speaker in the process of his thought, and revealing
something at least of his personality. In order to arrest
attention and compel interest, an utterance, whether it
be a public oration or familiar discourse, must contain
something more than the obvious truisms of a pro-
position in Euclid; the style in which the thoughts are
clothed must be personal to the speaker, and not the mere
repetition of set phrases. The essentials of living utter-
ance are, then, reality of conviction, and individuality of
form and phrase. Both of these qualities are very often
found to a remarkable degree in quite uncultivated, and
even in ‘illiterate,’ speakers. From these realities of
speech life, we now turn aside for a short space, to consider
a dreary linguistic waste of crystallized phrases, lifeless
forms devoid of movement or feeling, peopled only with
350 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

the ghosts of ideas, and the spectral shadows of human
desires.

There are many types of unreal, lifeless English ; they
range from the terrible phrases of ‘Commercial English,’
such as ‘Your esteemed favour of even date to hand,’
through those unconvincing fossils of language which
help to fill space in the daily paper—‘ The greatest
consternation prevailed when the news of the disaster
reached the city,’ or the curious jargon known as ‘ Com-
mittee English’—‘* Your committee beg to report that
while fully recognising the importance of the subject
of , they consider that, under the circumstances,
it is undesirable to take any further steps in the matter
for the present’—up to the language of public legal
documents and of high officialdom. All these lifeless
forms of English have at least this in common: they con-
sist largely of cut-and-dried phrases pieced together. In
these phrases, whether they be uttered or written, there
lurks no human emotion, no intensity of thought; they
reveal nothing of the state of mind of him who uses them ;
they kindle no hope or enthusiasm in the hearer. The cheap
verbiage of the penny-a-liner is generally the cloak of his
incapacity to express anything; the stereotyped phrases,
of the fluent committee debater, or of the official generally,
are devices for politely shelving inconvenient questions, or
are intended to guard the speaker from identifying himself,
or his office, too intimately and irrevocably, with any par-
ticular line of thought or action. The characteristic effect
of a diction of set expressions artfully tagged together,
whether this be the result of incompetence, as in the case
of a bad writer, or of design, as in that of a wary and

 
VULGARITY OF CONVENTIONAL PHRASES 351

experienced official, is that it is singularly lacking in interest
or power of convincing those to whom it is addressed.
Thus the historian of the Police Court does not quicken
our pulses by a single beat by his account of ‘a young lady
of prepossessing appearance, fashionably attired, etc. Ifa
body of starving men petition Parliament to relieve their
necessities, it neither appeases their hunger, nor calms
their anxiety, to be told that their circumstances ‘ will
receive the careful consideration of the Government.’
Clothed in the language of conventional set phrase, the
noblest thoughts and loftiest aspirations are robbed of
their grandeur and become commonplace ; events of the
greatest solemnity and moment, or the actions of heroes,
shrink to the insignificance of a meeting of directors ;
while what is trite or vulgar, in feeling, or in ideas, simply
vanishes altogether amid the meaningless verbiage.
Distressing as the habit is of using a series of stereo-
typed expressions, even in formal deliverances on public
bodies, or in the written forms in journalism, it must be
recognised that it is very much worse to do so in private
intercourse, either in conversation or in correspondence.
It is felt that to speak ‘Committee English’ in private is
an offence which can only arise, either, from ill-breeding,
or from ignorance of the proper forms of polite Spoken
English. ‘ Proverbial expressions and trite sayings,’ says
Lord Chesterfield, * are the flowers of the rhetoric of a
vulgar man.’ Whatever be the cause which induces a
speaker to mask his real feelings and views in this lifeless
form of language, the result is fatal to a satisfactory
understanding. ‘The sense of sincerity, ease, and reality
vanishes, and an uncomfortable atmosphere of uncertainty ,
352 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

if not of absolute distrust, is created. There can be no
doubt that for those who have not habitually heard good,
racy, expressive Polite English spoken from childhood, this
is a most necessary side of English study from a purely
practical point of view. Unfortunately, it is almost uni-
versally supposed to be enough to acquire a fairly good
knowledge of the written language, and the differences
between good Written and good Spoken English are com-
pletely ignored, not only in primary schools, but also in
the curriculum for the training of teachers...

The art of speaking English so as to be ‘ familiar, but
by no means vulgar,’ is apparently supposed to be the
common heritage of the primary teacher. This is, how-
ever, as far as possible from being the case. It is perfectly
true that the only way of learning to speak any dialect
readily and fluently, whether it be good English or good
French, is to hear it and use it so frequently that it
becomes instinctive. At the same time, much help in the
direction of observation can be given, and should be given
systematically. Now, many persons in this country, who
are otherwise highly educated, fail signally in possessing a
command of easy, natural, Polite Spoken English. The
reason for this is that they have not grown up in circles
where this kind of English is current, neither have they
had their attention directed to its characteristics. The
result is they have the choice between the English of
books or of set phrases on the one hand, or on the other,
a form more or less ‘incorrect’ or ‘ provincial,’ perhaps,
but nevertheless a living form, which they have been
carefully taught to avoid.

The fact is that the native form of Spoken English is
THE CONCEPTION OF A STANDARD OF SPEECH 353

eliminated by training, but no colloquial form is put in its
place.

The importance of the study of Spoken English has
been constantly emphasized in the foregoing pages as a
necessary preparation for the historical study of the
language, and as a starting-point of phonetic training.
From this point of view, the student’s own natural speech
forms the proper basis of study, and so long as that
inquiry is confined to the above-mentioned limits, no
question of ‘Right’ or ‘Wrong’ arises—merely that of
what actually occurs in the speech of a given individual
or group of individuals. But from the practical, as con-
trasted with the purely historical and scientific, standpoint,
the power of vriting and speaking ‘correct’ English can-
not be disregarded in any complete scheme of education,
and it is now suggested that it is quite as necessary to speak
well as to write well. In the study of Spoken English,
from the practical point of view, three main sides of the
subject must be dealt with: Pronunciation, Vocabulary,
and the choice of Idiom.

Standards of Good or Bad Spoken English.

It has been made abundantly clear in the course of
the present volume that there is no absolute standard of
‘correctness’ in language beyond that established by the
habitual usage of a given community. Such a standard,
as has been said, holds good for that community at a given
moment. But as speech habit changes, so ideas of what
is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ have also to be readjusted.
From this point of view, which is the purely scientific
one, there is no question of degrees of worthiness between

23
354 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

different dialects ; they are each and all regarded merely
as varying phases of linguistic development—the facts of
each and all equally deserve attention. We now pass to
examine a little more closely a different view of language,
one which definitely holds that of the numerous forms of
English, one is pre-eminently Good English, the best and
most polite among the dialects.

It has been said in an earlier chapter (cf pp. 22-25)
that it is possible to over-estimate the degree of uniformity
with which Standard English is spoken throughout the
country, and it should be remembered that a form of
language which is disseminated over so wide a geo-
graphical area and among such divers classes must inevit-
ably undergo a certain degree of differentiation. The
checks which exist upon the tendency to differentiate
Standard English, and the forces which make possible so
large a degree of uniformity as undoubtedly exists, have
already been discussed (cf. pp. 99-105). It is perhaps not
strange that the very phrase Standard English should
arouse antagonism in minds which, possibly through no
fault of the individual, are prejudiced by being in-
sufficiently informed.

It is perhaps said, ‘ You admit a considerable amount
of differentiation in your so-called Standard English,
and yet you adhere to the conception of a Standard.
How is this logical?? The reply to this objection is,
that the distinctions between the different forms of
Standard English are very slight, almost imperceptible,
indeed, to any but the most alert and practised observer,
and that they shrink to a negligible quantity compared
with the differences between out-and-out ‘ Vulgarism’ on
PRONUNCIATION THE TEST OF ‘CORRECTNESS’ 355

the one hand, or provincial—that is, regional—dialects on
the other.

In Standard English, as with all other forms of speech,
a certain degree of divergence is possible, without such
divergence being felt as constituting a different dialect,
Of a dozen speakers of Standard English, each may possess
slight differences of utterance, or phraseology, and yet
none feel that the speech of any of the others, even where
it differs from his own, verges towards Vulgarism or
‘ Dialect ’ in the special sense.

The most noteworthy criterion of Good English, or
Standard English, is pronunciation. In this respect there
are two main points to be observed—the actual sounds
employed and the proper distribution of those sounds ; that
is, the use of them in the right words. The fact that a
certain group of sounds, and those sounds only (subject to
the slight divergences already mentioned), and, further, a
certain distribution of those sounds, is accepted in the
polite usage is the result of convention. The fundamental
reason of that convention is that certain pronunciations
are associated by long habit with a cultivated mind, liberal
education, refined taste, and good breeding generally ; other
pronunciations are associated with the reverse qualities of
mind and manners. The former mode of pronunciation is
held to be an indication of the possession of the politer
education. If it be asked where this superior form of
English is heard, it may be answered, that on the whole, it
is the speech in vogue at the Court, in the Church, at the
Bar, at the older Universities, and at the great Public
Schools. The English of the stage is also a form of
Standard English, but it differs from the English of good

23—2
356 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

society, partly in being more archaic, partly also in being
marred by certain artificialities and affectations of pro-
nunciation. That a standard form of English has been
in existence, sedulously cultivated, and jealously (if often
foolishly) treasured, for the last 350 years at least, no
one who has studied the authorities upon English Pro--
nunciation, from the middle of the sixteenth century
downwards, quoted in the preceding chapter, can have any
doubt whatever.

At the present time it will not be denied that to inculcate
the speaking of correct English is the chief solicitude of a
very large number of persons engaged in Primary and
Secondary Education in this country. Those whose busi-
ness it is to teach, who are to become public speakers, or
who wish to enter upon public life, or affairs of any kind,
undoubtedly find it convenient to get rid of whatever
native ‘vulgarisms’ or dialectal peculiarities their speech
contains, and to attempt to approximate their Spoken
English to that standard form which is no longer confined
to a single province, or to a particular social class.

In the face of these facts it cannot be thought presump-
tuous to insist upon the existence of a recognised standard
of English speech, to endeavour to arrive at some clear
ideas as to its characteristics, and to indicate a reasonable
way of regarding it.

In such an inquiry the main things to be avoided are,
on the one hand, tolerating too great slackness and sloven-
liness, which is the fallacy of those who incline to reject
the whole conception of a standard of speech, and on the
other the pedantic insistence upon precious and artificial
forms of language; the setting up, in fact, of.a false
THE ELEMENT OF ARTIFICIALITY 357

standard of perfection, which is the prevailing sin of those
who are over-anxious to speak ‘ correctly.’

It has been said, that owing to social circumstances, a
certain type of English speech is regarded as an evidence
of cultivation and refinement, and this in itself would con-
stitute a strong claim for this form of English to be con-
sidered as worthy of attention; but it might further be
urged that Standard English has an absolute superiority
over any other dialect in the high degree of acoustic dis-
tinctness which it possesses, compared with the provincial
or vulgar forms of English. This quality makes it emi-
nently suitable for public speaking.

To what Extent Standard English is Artificial.

In a perfectly natural, unconventional, and popular form
of speech, such as we may find in many of the remote
provincial dialects of this country, the speakers do not
consider the question of ‘ correctness’ or the reverse. They
speak the dialect as it was transmitted to them, without
inquiring whether one of two variants which may exist
within the dialect, in certain cases, is ‘better’ than the
other.

In fact, ordinary dialect speakers have no standard of
speech, or none, at least, determined by any canons of taste,
or what is called ‘good form.’ Such is the position of all
primitive languages, of all such as are not the vehicles of
culture, or of such, as by the force of social conditions,
have become, as it were, backwaters of the great stream of
national speech. This subordinate position of the pro-
vincial dialects is the inevitable result of the rise of one
immensely predominant form of language, as that of the
358 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

official classes, and of the most cultivated portion of the
community. When one dialect obtains the dignity of
becoming the channel of all that is worthiest in the national
literature and the national civilization, the other less
favoured dialects shrink into obscurity and insignificance.
The latter preserve, however, this advantage, considered as
types of linguistic development, that the primitive condi-
tions under which language exists, and changes, are far
more faithfully represented in them than in the cultivated
dialect. For it is a characteristic, and necessarily so, of a
standard dialect, that the question of what is ‘ Right’ or
‘Wrong, ‘ Correct’ or ‘* Incorrect, ‘Good Form’ or ‘ Bad
Form, ‘ Polite’ or ‘ Vulgar,’ should be raised.

From the moment that such conceptions as these are
introduced, a certain element of artificiality arises in that
form of language which is affected by them. This element
of artificiality, however, lies, as a rule, not in the actual
forms or phrases themselves, nor in the mode of their
development, but simply in the fact that a more or less
deliberate choice is exercised by the speakers in eliminating,
or adopting for use this or that particular pronunciation,
word, phrase, or construction. It is important to realize
that the most fastidious speaker does not create new forms
himself, nor deliberately carry out a sound change. Un-
less he is deliberately artificial, the individual merely exer-
cises a power of selection from among speech elements,
sounds, and the rest, which exist already, and which have
arisen by a perfectly natural and normal process of de-
velopment. Thus even in the most highly cultivated form
of Standard Dialects, whether it be English or any other
language, speakers cannot consciously alter the course of
SHIFTING OF THE STANDARD OF ‘CORRECTNESS’ 359

the natural trend of development; this goes on unper-
ceived, here, as in the most barbarous and primitive form
of speech. But in the Standard Language, at any given
period, certain modes of speech may be definitely avoided,
while others are habitually used.

The standard of what is Polite or the reverse varies
from age to age, and in former chapters of this book
examples of this fluctuation have been given. One factor,
which determines the rejection of what was formerly held
to be the best usage, is undoubtedly the spread of Standard
English among various social classes, with the result that
a particular pronunciation, word or phrase, loses distinc-
tion, and acquires so common a currency, that with it an
association of vulgarity or lack of refinement is formed.
There is in this respect an analogy between fashion in
speech and other fashions or habits. They may start
high up in the social scale, and be gradually imitated and
adopted as signs of superiority by the lower grades of
society. By the time, however, that the fashion has
become firmly fixed among such classes as do not usually
enjoy a reputation for refinement and distinction, it has
been already discarded by those divisions of society whence
it originally proceeded. In the curious turns of fashion in
speech, not only is that given up which an earlier genera-
tion considered good, but what they held as vulgar is often
adopted by their successors.

The differences in pronunciation which exist at a given
time, between the various sections of English people who
speak what we may call a variety of Standard English,
consist for the most part, not of differences in the actual
sounds used, but in the distribution of the sounds. It is,
360 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

of course, merely a question of degree, but we must admit
that such a pronunciation as that of the Cockney (ratuwat)
‘railway, with the triphthong (aiu), which is absolutely
unknown in the best Standard English, in any word,
reveals a wider dialectal difference from the received form
(retlwet), than that of such a pronunciation as (dens)
instead of the (in the South) more usual (dans), or (k5fé),
‘ coffee,’ as compared with (kof). Again, the Cockney
sound in the unstressed syllable of ‘father’ (mid-flat-
tense, instead of slack), or in that ‘ boots’ (high-back-out-
tense-round, instead of the full-back), are sounds which the
speakers of the best English never by any chance employ
—which, indeed, they would probably have considerable
difficulty in reproducing. Such differences as these con-
stitute, as it appears, not a mere Variety, but a different
Dialect. On the other hand, such pronunciations as (kof,
alta, hjimeres, pjwa, or pjis, k5tesi) as compared with
(k5f, Slte, jimeras, pj5, katasi) do not constitute more
than varieties, or alternative pronunciations, both of which
are, at the present time, perhaps almost equally widespread
among speakers of good Standard English. The existence
of such alternatives seems to show a period of transition
as regards the standard of pronunciation in these particular
words. Probably fifty years hence fashion will have
decided definitely in favour of one or other of the above
types. The present writer inclines to believe that there is
a slight majority of speakers of Standard English at the
present time in favour of the latter group of pronuncia-
tions given above, and that in time those in the former
group will disappear, as possible standard forms. There
are cases where the distribution of particular sounds among
LORD CHESTERFIELD ON CORRECT SPEECH 361

a given set of words is so definitely fixed by the received
usage that a deviation from such a system of distribution
would be quite enough to constitute a wide difference of
dialect. Thus there is not the faintest doubt that (spin,
buk, blad, klak, dabi, vatji, or vatja, lin, r5p, amay) are
the received forms of these words among the best speakers,
and that such pronunciations as (spun, bik [or bak], blud,
klak, dabi, vatju, lan, rap, aman) are at the present time
‘vulgarisms,’ or provincial forms.

Thus the history of a standard form of language com-
prises these two aspects—natural development or gradual
shifting of the speech habit, and the fluctuations of fashion
which determine the particular action of the selective

process.

[Nore.—Since the above was written, Professor Ripp-
mann’s Sounds of Spoken English (Dent, 1906) has ap-
peared. Students will find this book useful, and the
remarks on the distribution of vowel sounds in English are

particularly interesting. |

Criteria of ‘Good’ Pronunciation.

The most usual way of dealing with this question is to
lay down certain definite rules as to how English ‘ ought’
.to be pronounced. This is the worst possible method,
because it implies the existence of an absolute standard of
Right and Wrong in language.

The only test of what the conventional standard of any
age really is, is simply the custom of good speakers. ‘A
man of fashion,’ says Lord Chesterfield—and we may give
the remark a wider application—‘a man of fashion takes
362 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

great care to speak very correctly and grammatically, and
to pronounce properly—that is, according to the usage of
the best companies.’ That is the right definition of
speaking ‘ correctly,’ and it can hardly be improved upon.
Any system of pronunciation which is not based upon one
actually in use, is merely theoretical, and therefore worth-
less. It is impossible to say a priori how a doubtful word
may or may not be pronounced. All that a teacher of
pronunciation is justified in saying is, ‘This word is pro-
nounced in such and such a way by good speakers.’ But if
he has not heard good speakers pronounce the word ; if he
himself is not naturally one (that is, from the time he
learned to speak) ; or if, being a ‘ good speaker,’ he has
yet no personal experience of how the word in question
actually is pronounced, then he simply does not know, and
cannot teach the pronunciation of it. To go beyond such ex-
perience, and to say that the word ‘ ought’ to be pronounced
thus or thus, is to court disaster. These theoretical pro-
nunciations, so far from being ‘refined’ or showing culture,
are merely laughable. For if a speaker has not heard a
word pronounced, what means can he possibly have for
knowing what the sound of it ‘ ought’ to be? There are,
indeed, two ways by which he might arrive at a conclusion.
The first, and the worst, and yet that usually employed by
those who theorize about pronunciation, is the spelling ;
the other is the early history of the word in question, and
of other words originally containing the same sound. To
start with, let us say at once that neither of these tests
will enable us to determine how the word ‘ ought’ to have
developed, since neither the schoolmaster nor the elocu-
tionist can prescribe the path along which language shall
EXPERIENCE ALONE TEACHES HOW TO PRONOUNCE 363

change, any more than they can ‘bind the Unicorn, or
draw out Leviathan with an hook.’ Now as to how far
either of the above methods can help us to arrive at what
the pronunciation of a word is, which is the true object
of our inquiry. The most unreliable of all guides to the
pronunciation of an English word is its spelling, and
nothing is more ludicrous than a theoretical pronunciation
based solely upon it. On the other hand, a knowledge of
the history of English sounds would certainly enable us to
say, ‘ The pronunciation may be so and so.’ It could not
do more than suggest the possibilities ; only a knowledge
of the actual usage of the time could decide between the
variously differentiated forms which our historical method
would enable us to infer. For instance, a speaker (let us
say a German philologist) who had never heard the word
‘good’ pronounced might know that O.E. gad is capable
of producing three types in Modern English (gid, gud,
gad), but he could not possibly say which is actually
in use among ‘good speakers’ until he had gained the
living experience.

As a matter of fact, any scholar so well versed in the
history of English as to be able to reconstruct the possible
forms of a word, would also know that, in Lord Chester-
field’s phrase, only the ‘usage of the best companies’
could decide between them.

In the case of words which are very rarely used, or which
are revivals of obsolete forms, the tradition has naturally
died out; there is no modern form, and the speaker who
uses such words has his choice between the historical
pronunciation (that which the word would probably have
obtained if it had survived), or of a spelling pronunciation
364 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

pure and simple. A curious example of a word which is
really obsolete, because the institution which it denotes
has passed away, is ‘ chivalry.’ This word only survives in
historical or romantic diction, and the old tradition has
been lost. It is now very commonly pronounced (fivelri),
as if it were a word of recent importation from French,
whereas it came into English through Norman-French ;
and there is no doubt that in that tongue, and in
Middle English, it was pronounced (tfivalri), which would
become (t{ivalri) in Modern English. This pronunciation
is indicated in Campbell’s lines :

“Wave, Munich, all thy banners wave,

And charge with all thy chivalry,’
where the alliteration is obviously (t{adz w2d 51 Sai tfivolri).

The sport of falconry has practically died out in England,
and both it, and the bird from which it takes its name, are
known to most people only from books. The result is that
the old pronunciation, without the J, has been lost, and the
present pronunciation is due to the spelling. I have ob-
served, however, that those few persons who have personal
knowledge of the bird, and of the sport, invariably pro-
nounce (f5ken, fokenri), or at any rate the oldest genera-
tion do, instead of the now received (f5lken), The general
question of spelling-pronunciations which have become
fixed and received will be discussed later on.

But if such artificial pronunciations are practically
inevitable in the case of rare and obsolete words, they are
inadmissible and ridiculous for words which are in common
use, and which the speakers must have heard hundreds of
times, ~

The chief cause of these absurdities occurring among
VULGARITY OF SHAM REFINEMENT 365

educated speakers is a mistaken striving after refinement.
Public speakers, especially those whose traditions are purely
academic rather than of a wider social world, are not in-
_ frequently guilty of extraordinary lapses from decorum and
' propriety in the matter of pronunciation.

It may seem incredible that men of learning, who convey
the general impression that they expect to be taken seriously,
should corrupt the English tongue to the extent of pro-
nouncing (poignant, lemb, létaratj5a, raitéas, fohed, grinwitS,
saudan), all of which pronunciations the present writer has
heard in the course of the last few years, instead of the
‘proper pronunciation "—in the sense of Lord Chesterfield
—(pomnant, lem, leteret{e, ratt{as, forid, grinidz, saden).
The speakers who perpetrated these forms pour rire must
have known quite well what the ordinary pronunciation
was; they must have been aware that their forms were
deliberately falsified on the spur of the moment, from some
vague idea of importing greater dignity (as they supposed)
to their discourse. In these cases the speakers must
have been anxious to deserve the praise, often ignorantly
bestowed by the injudicious, that they ‘ pronounced every
letter distinctly.” On the same principle, apparently, an
eminent actor delights provincial audiences with the fervid
expression of his (lov) ‘ love.’

If we consider that we write many ‘letters’ in English
spelling which represent no sound that has been heard in
English speech for 500 years, or sometimes longer, it is
easy to see that the practice, if consistently carried out,
would result in an altogether unintelligible jargon, one
which would, in most cases, resemble nothing that had ever
existed in English, during the whole course of its history.
366 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

It is a great fallacy to imagine that ‘Good English’ is to
be obtained by distorting natural and usual pronunciation
to suit some arbitrary standard of ‘ refinement’ set up by
an individual. Besides the monstrosities cited above, this
effort at ‘refinement’ not infrequently leads to the pro-
duction of strange and, in their context, quite un-English
sounds, such as (éi, €) instead of (ai) in ‘light,’ ‘rhyme,’
‘prime,’ ‘desire,’ and so on, which has not even the
specious justification of ‘giving every letter its full
sound.’

The first pitfall to avoid, then, is a bogus ‘refinement’
of utterance.

The next error, closely allied to it, but often springing
from a different motive, is over-carefulness. It may be
laid down as a general principle that just as ‘refined’
speech such as we have been considering is always absurd,
so ‘careful’ speech is always vulgar. The best English
never conveys the impression of carefully-studied utterance
on the part of the speaker ; there is never any suspicion of
mincing, as if to avoid some irretrievable vulgarism. This
kind of pedantic and unreal pronunciation has nothing to
be said in its favour. It may proceed from any one of the
following causes : (1) Ignorance of the habitual pronuncia-
tion of good speakers. (2) A foolish desire to improve
upon the received pronunciation, either by giving greater
fulness, or, perhaps, even by introducing some sound which
has either long disappeared, or has never existed at all;
this motive is that wish for ‘refinement’ or ‘correctness’
already discussed. (3) In addressing a large audience
public speakers feel a need for great precision, distinctness,
and volume. ‘To attain these ends they are sometimes
THE ‘LETTER’? WHICH KILLETH 367

unfortunately led into an exaggerated modification of their
pronunciation, beyond the limits of the natural. We
have already noted that there is a necessary and legitimate
adaptation of speech under these circumstances, but a good
speaker does not deviate so far from his natural modes of
utterance as to produce something strange and manifestly
artificial. It is surely absurd to maintain that the English
of the present day is unfitted, in its natural form, for
public oratory, and that it needs to be distorted for this
purpose into something altogether different. (4) Many
speakers have a curious sentimentality with regard to
English. They are so solicitous of its purity and integrity,
that practically no existing form of natural Spoken English
comes up to their ideal of what the language ought to be.
The ideal of this school is based entirely upon the present-
day spelling. They may be quite ignorant of how that
spelling came about, they may know nothing of the history
of English pronunciation, but they show a remarkable
tenderness for the letters, which they have come to think
really are the word. This point of view is respon-
sible for more eccentricities and affectations in pronuncia-
tion than any of the others, excepting, perhaps, that
which aims at a personal distinction of utterance, as a
kind of protest against the prevailing vulgarity. Both
the speaker who wishes to speak better than anyone else,
and the sentimentalist who lovingly clings to the ‘ letters,’
are open to the grave reproach that they generally carry
their vagaries into the colloquial speech of everyday life ;
and that while they are often fully conversant with polite
usage, they yet deliberately set it at nought.

Assuming that a speaker had a thorough knowledge of
368 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

the history of English pronunciation, it would, of course,
be possible for him to select for his own usage the sound
system in vogue in any century that he preferred. In this
case he would at least be employing forms that had once
had a real existence. Probably few would commend such
a practice in speech, any more than they would welcome
the return on the part of isolated individuals to the wigs of
Charles the Second’s day, or the ruffs of the age of the first
James. But the sentimental speaker of English is not as
a rule familiar with any earlier phase of his language, but
simply concocts a fancy dialect on the most unreliable of
all bases—that of spelling, a guide which, as we have seen,
is certain to lead the theorist into endless error.

The only safe course as regards pronunciation is frankly
to recognise the fact that language changes, that standards
of excellence shift, that the individual cannot delay the
process, and that he is consulted as to which direction
development will take.

The only good reason for deviating from the received
standard of English speech is ignorance of it. The best
substitute for such a form of English is a genuine pro-
vincial dialect, or an honest ‘vulgarism.’ For lack of
knowledge may be informed, and, if necessary, a new
dialect can be acquired.

The Teaching of Polite Pronunciation.

If it is desired to instruct those who do not possess it,
in polite English pronunciation, there are three Perfect
Points which demand attention, if success is to be attained.
They are: The attitude of the teacher towards the actual
TEACHING A NEW PRONUNCIATION 369

dialect of the pupil; the setting up of true standards of
speech ; the method of imparting the new pronunciation.
It is not too harsha criticism on most of those who under-
take this task, whether it be in schools, in training colleges,
or among private pupils, in this country, to say that in the
great majority of cases, the three points just mentioned do
not meet with satisfactory or adequate treatment at their
hands.

The instruction is given either by a regular elocutionist,
or by any ordinary master or mistress, just as occasion
serves. In the former case, the instruction, so far as it
goes, is more or less systematic ; in the latter it is purely
haphazard, and takes the form of the occasional correction
of isolated ‘ mistakes ’ as they occur in reading. The pro-
fessed teacher of elocution, it is true, is primarily con-
cerned with showing how poetry or prose should be read,
in such a way as to ‘interpret the author’s meaning’;
incidentally he also ‘corrects’ pronunciation. We may
take the three points in order, and endeavour to state
fairly the necessary shortcomings both of professional
elocutionist and ordinary master or mistress.

The Attitude of the Teacher towards the Dialect of the
Pupil.

The possession of a certain dialect as a native form of
speech implies, as we know, the possession of a certain
speech basis. The nature of this determines the natural
tendencies and habits of pronunciation. If it is proposed
to acquire a new and different pronunciation, a new
speech basis must first be gradually formed. The first step

in this process is for the speaker Lo know thoroughly, and
24
370 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

understand, the facts of his own speech habits. Thence he
can proceed to learn different habits.

Now, what is the practice of the inexperienced and un-
trained teacher of pronunciation? He brushes aside, as
of no interest, no value, and as having no justification, the
speech habits of a lifetime ; he throws contempt or ridicule
upon the pupil’s accent. His one idea is to ignore and
forget the natural pronunciation of those whose speech he
is to ‘improve.’ He asserts that it is ‘wrong,’ but he
gives no reason for the statement; he abuses and dis-
parages that which the pupil has learnt, from his mother,
perhaps, and which he has heard and used himself so long
as he can remember. He is quite ignorant of the ways of
that ever-varying mystery, human speech ; yet he takes
upon himself to abuse and condemn a form of it which
may have had a historical existence and development as
‘regular’ as Standard English itself, and which is, perhaps,
a far purer dialect. He could not inform his class why his
own speech ought to serve as a model, nor why it differs
from theirs, nor, indeed, with any degree of accuracy, how
it differs from theirs ; yet he presumes to reiterate his own
pronunciation of this or that word, and to assert that it
is ‘Right.’ During the whole course of his instruction
he never explains the meaning of the terms ‘ Right’ and
‘Wrong,’ which he uses so often, beyond, perhaps, conveying
the idea that the ‘ wrong’ pronunciations of the students are
bad attempts on their part to pronounce as he does himself.

Now, as most people with self-respect are keenly sensitive
on the question of their language, such a method as that
described (as it is believed without exaggeration), merely
wounds without enlightening.
GOOD COLLOQUIAL ENGLISH THE BEST MODEL 371

The Standards which are Set Up.

It is almost inevitable that a professional elocutionist,
from his training, should seek his models of pronunciation
and delivery, not in the best colloquial forms of English,
but in the artificial declamatory utterance usual on the
stage, or in high-flown public oratory. The standards,
therefore, which he submits for the imitation of his pupils,
and which he himself strives to illustrate in private con-
verse, no less than in public recitation, are generally apt
to be artificial to the last degree. There is a danger that,
considered as types of public speaking, these standards
will be archaic and pedantic ; while as forms of colloquial
speech they will be as far removed from the familiar pro-
nunciation of good society as any dialect or out-and-out
vulgarism could be. In this form of English we generally
find all the distressing symptoms discussed above—over-
carefulness, bogus refinement, impossible pronunciations,
_based, not on the fact of what is, but on a theory of what
‘ought’ to be. Undesirable as this kind of pronunciation
is, even in public speaking, it is intolerable in private
conversation ; and he who practises it can hardly hope to
escape the reproach of being a coxcomb and a pedant ; he
will certainly not pass for a well-spoken, well-bred person.
We may grant that a competent teacher of elocution as
such, even one who teaches on the above lines, has the
power of imparting an intelligible and an expressive, if,
perhaps, rather too ‘ theatrical’ a delivery; but we can
but feel that his method, even if considered as a training
in public speaking only, is an inversion of the natural
process. Before a man can speak well in public, he must

24,2
372 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

first learn to speak well in private. The latter mode of
speech must, above all things, be natural, and must not be
based primarily upon models derived from public oratory,
neither in pronunciation, nor in choice of diction. Good
colloquial English, in a word, is not a modification of the
English of the platform. On the other hand, it might
with greater propriety be held that the best public speak-
ing is a modified and adapted form of the best colloquial
speech—of that which follows ‘the usage of the best
companies.” The teacher of elocution, by training and
tradition, belongs to that sentimental order of persons,
already referred to, who are jealous guardians of what they
conceive to be the purity of English pronunciation, and
strenuous opponents of new-fangled looseness and easy
carelessness in utterance. He bewails the corrupt state
into which the English language has fallen; he regards
every pronunciation which differs from his own highly-
wrought system as wrong and vulgar. So far from
attempting to follow the best usage of his age in pro-
nunciation, he denounces all natural pronunciation as
slovenly, and wishes rather to lead contemporary speech
into other paths, and to insist upon a pronunciation partly
of his own making, partly delivered to him by tradition
from those who taught him his craft. It will, perhaps, be
apparent, from what has been already said concerning
artificial pronunciations, that those who attempt to pre-
serve an old pronunciation, rather than adopt that in
common use, are in reality, too often the worst innovators,
since they ‘restore, from insufficient knowledge, a pro-
nunciation which has never existed, and which is entirely
new. It is difficult to understand why it should be held
NEW TENDENCIES IN THE RISING GENERATION 373

that a new and natural development in language is a
matter for regret. Modern English has slowly reached its
present form by slow development, and has passed through
numerous phases on its way thither from parent Aryan.
By a series of minute but unceasing changes which have
gone on during a period which a moderate estimate counts
at 10,000 years, that far-off mother-tongue has passed
here into Greek, there into Russian, there again into
English, and into innumerable other forms of speech.
Change may be slower in Modern English to-day than it
was thousands of years ago in Central Europe, but none
the less is the drama of transformation being enacted here
as there. If it were not so, if it had not always been so,
there could be no comparative philology, no possibility of
‘wrong’ speech, or ‘faulty’ delivery, and, consequently,
no Art of Elocution; for Aryan speech would be un-
differentiated, all individuals would speak alike—‘all the
earth would be of one speech and one language.’

Whether this would have been an advantage or not we
need not consider, for the fact is that language is always
changing, and always will change. This being the case,
the only reasonable attitude is that which observes and
notes the changes as they occur, and accepts them with a
good grace. Those who teach a younger generation must
be prepared to find tendencies in the speech of their pupils
which are absent from, or less fully developed in, their own.
Careful observation over a wide field is necessary to enable
us to distinguish these new tendencies, which are natural,
and which are foreshadowings of future development, from
other deviations from what we take to be Standard English,
which are dialectal or personal peculiarities.
374 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

Methods of Teaching a New Pronunciation.

We have already insisted so frequently, in the earlier
chapters of this book, upon the importance of phonetics
in the practical and historical study of language that it is
unnecessary to return at any length to the question. It is

enough to say that to learn a new pronunciation of the
- native language involves the same kind of difficulties as to
learn any other new pronunciation. In approaching this
practical side of linguistic study, mere imitation is in-
adequate and unsatisfactory, and systematic phonetic
method is necessary. Since the proper pronunciation of a
language includes two problems, the mastery of the right
sounds, and the use of them in the right words, it will be
found desirable, not only to make a phonetic analysis of
the sounds of Standard English, which should be compared
with that first made of the learner’s own sounds, but also
to use texts in phonetic transcription which show the
distribution of the sounds. The use of-a simple phonetic
alphabet should be practised, and the student should make
transcripts of prose and verse in his own native pronuncia-
tion, and also take down his teacher’s pronunciation from
dictation. It is, perhaps, necessary to warn those who
have not experience in this kind of work that the
passages must be written down according to the natural
pronunciation of the words in breath-groups, and not as
consisting of isolated words. Thus, if Shenstone’s lines
were dictated—

‘So sweetly she bade me adieu,
I thought that she bade me return,’
 

THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF POLITE UTTERANCE 375

they should be read and taken down thus:
(‘Sou switld ft bed mé adja,
at pot Sot fz bed mi ritain),
and not ;
(‘Sou switle fi bed mi edju,
at pot Set fi bed mi ritan),

In this way the student learns, not only a natural instead
of a pedantic and forced pronunciation of the sentence,
but he also realizes how the sounds of words vary according
to the degree of stress and the character of neighbouring
sounds in any given context.

It should be remembered that very important elements
in Polite English are proper stress, intonation, rate of
utterance, and the accomplished use of the voice. Mr.
Sweet in his New English Grammar has shown what vital
elements stress and intonation are in English syntax.
What is known as ‘ over-emphasis’ is a vulgarism which
must at all costs be eliminated. It consists in placing
certain parts of the sentence in too strong a relief, by a
disproportionate contrast between strong and weak stress,
and also in allowing strong stress to recur too frequently
in the breath-group. The result is a noisy clatter which
suggests a series of jerks, instead of a quiet, even flow of
speech, with occasional salient syllables strongly stressed,
as good sense, good syntax, and good taste demand.

Intonation is the most difficult element in pronunciation
to describe or to acquire. Vulgar speakers often affect the
frequent use of compound tones to express persuasiveness,
self-confidence, or good-natured cunning and sagacity.
Good speakers avoid this means for the expression of
these emotions, or use it very sparingly. The exaggerated
376 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

use of the compound tones suggests impertinent familiarity.
The Scotch peculiarity of finishing a sentence with a
rising tone suggests querulousness, or cavilling, to English
ears. One of the most characteristic features in a dialect
is the precise degree of rise or fall, which it would demand
to express with exactness a musical notation. Foreigners
often produce a very curious effect by raising or lowering
the pitch too much or too little as the case may be.

As regards the management of the speaking voice,
nothing can make a poor voice into a good one; but an
element in the best manner of speech is undoubtedly good
resonance. In men a full chest note is usual among the
best speakers, and a throttled, choky, wheezy utterance is
not impressive. It is not given to everyone to possess a
fine voice, but training and practice can give control and
resonance even to a voice which is naturally weak and
thin. Among certain classes of academic speakers a pecu-
liar shrill, squeaky falsetto is in vogue, which we must
pity as a misfortune in those who are naturally so afflicted,
but which some will consider an absurd affectation in those
who adopt it, being able to speak otherwise. This is prob-
ably another instance of that sham refinement too often
deliberately acquired by the misguided. Among women
shrill falsetto is rarely heard, except from those who have
no pretentions to culture or manners. It is strange that
some men, who represent the most fastidious and precious
class in the world, should apparently have come to regard
a squeaky voice as the sign of an enlightened mind and an
exquisite taste. This manner of speech conveys the im-
pression of querulous and impotent weakness, a quality in
itself devoid of dignity and charm.
 

INNOVATIONS IN PRONUNCIATION DUE TO SPELLING 377

The Influence of Spelling on English Pronunciation.

The number of words in English, of which the ‘ spelling
pronunciation’ has become current, in place of the tra-
ditional sound, is relatively small. An imposing list of
these is given by Professor Koeppel, in his interesting
little book, Spelling Pronunciations: Bemerkungen ‘ber
den Exnfluss des Schriftbildes auf den Laut im Englischen ;
Strassburg, 1901. (Quellen und Forschungen, Bd. 1xxxix.)
The principles which underlie this curious phenomenon
are, in most cases, either the loss of the tradition of pro-
nunciation of an obsolete word, which has been revived
from literary sources as a semi-colloquial word ; or, in the
case of common, genuine colloquial words, the victory of a
pedantic effort at refinement and correctness. In the case
of proper names, the cause is often sheer ignorance of the
traditional pronunciation, on the part of those who are
strangers to a person or a place. With the arrival of the
Railway in remote districts, porters, from London perhaps,
din into the ears of travellers the name of the station,
which they know chiefly from printed sources. The rising
generation of natives very soon adopt the new pronuncia-
tion, and the mere tourist does so the more readily that
he himself has no knowledge of the local, and therefore
true, pronunciation. A few examples must suffice, as
Professor Koeppel has dealt so copiously with the subject.

The name of St. Alphege is a good example of a literary
revival, which, however, is not treated in his book. This
saint’s day, as is recorded in the Prayer-Book Calendar, is
April 19. A certain number of churches in England are
dedicated to him, and he is (I believe) universally known
378 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

at the present day as (sont elfedz). The O.E. form of
the name is 4]fh@ah, which in Mod. English could only
normally become either (elvi) or (lv). The present
actual pronunciation is apparently from a M.E. spelling
Alphejje (alfeje), which later on, when the memory of the
stout old Archbishop had faded from men’s minds, and his
name from their lips was spelt Alphegge or Alphege, and
pronounced (alfedz).

The pronunciation of ‘ forward’ as (fowad) instead of
the normal (forad) can only be the result of the same
tendency which still makes some people say (fohed) instead
of (forid) or (fored). But while the latter is still the sign
either of a prig, or of one who is unacquainted with the
speech of ‘ the best. companies,’ the former is the accepted
and ‘correct’ form, except in the Navy. (fared) survives,
of course, in provincial dialects, and in very colloquial
speech among all classes.

The Fifeshire place-name Kilonquahar, which the
present writer has heard old Fife people call (Kenjahar), is
now apparently always called (Kilkoyker). The present
writer can also remember the old-fashioned pronunciation
of the Sussex villages Ardingly and Helingly as (adinlat), or
among the lower orders themselves (zrdinlaé), and (hiléylai).
These have now given place to (adéyli) and (hilépli).
Sussex people still talk of (wadast, midest) for Wadhurst,
Midhurst, and this is the pronunciation of the local
gentry; but (wodhast, midhast) are fast coming in
through porters and trippers.

(sairinseste), Cirencester, is more common now than
either (sistta) or (sisiste) even, or perhaps especially, among
those who know the place quite well.
THE CORRUPTION OF PROPER NAMES 379

The village in which these words are written is locally
known as (Slsket) or (alsket) ; but the inhabitant of this
village, when he takes his ticket at Oxford Station, less
than twenty miles away, is usually corrected by the
booking-clerk, who insists on (zlveskat).

Lord Derby’s Lancashire seat Knowsley is almost uni-
versally called (nowzlt), yet this pronunciation cannot
conceivably have developed from M.E. Knouesli, or
Knou(Dwesh, O.K. Kenulfes l@ah. The true descendant
of the old forms is heard in the now ‘ vulgar’ (nawzlt),
which, I am told, still persists among the aged in the
district.

In fact, English Place-names are now so generally
corrupted in their pronunciation through the influence
of spelling, that in many cases it is impossible to under-
stand the connection between the old forms and the
current pronunciation. It becomes, therefore, of the
utmost importance to ascertain the true pronunciation
among old people in the district itself, and to pay but
smal] attention, until this is done, either to the spelling, or
to the conventional pronunciation, if we wish to trace the
history of the name. In the case of other English words,
whose modern forms do not square with the older forms,
as regards normal sound change, the possibility of a
corrupt modern pronunciation, based upon the spelling,
must be borne in mind. We should rather assume this,
than an ‘exception ’ to the known tendencies of change in
the language.

We occasionally hear peculiarly flagrant breaches of
polite usage, such as (iz nat it) for (tant it) or (zm not at),
for the now rather old-fashioned, but still commendable,
380 THE STUDY OF PRESENT-DAY ENGLISH

(cint ai) or the more usual and familiar (ant ai), or, in
Ireland (zmnt ai). These forms, which can only be
based upon an uneasy and nervous stumbling after *cor-
rectness,’ are perfectly indefensible, for no one ever uttered
them naturally and spontaneously. They are struck out
by the individual, in a painful gasp of false refinement.
There is little chance of such abortive creations getting
a secure foothold in traditional English, unless linguistic
education becomes altogether divorced from life, and until
the native language is taught as though it were a dead
language, with which the schoolmaster had but an imper-
fect acquaintance.

This imperfect treatment of a great subject must now
draw to a close. The mere thought of human speech,
passed on from lip to lip through unnumbered ages,
changing along a definite path among each race as it
flashes through them, unconsciously shaped to the needs
of every mind, which it mirrors, and yet, in spite of all,
preserving an identity which the ear of science can recog-
nise, is one which must kindle a strange sense of wonder
and reverence. ‘The most commonplace form of language
which we can think of has an ancestry more ancient than
any custom or myth which survives. The humblest form
of English, whether spoken in a remote Devonshire
hamlet or in a Northern pit village, is an echo of a tongue
that once sounded in far-distant countries, among alien
and savage men, and in ages possibly, when the present
configuration of the globe was not yet determined.

Language, so familiar, and yet so mysterious, lies all
about us. The human mind and the human vocal organs,
 

CONCLUSION 381

the one more complex, the others defter, than in the remote
past, but still essentially the same now as then, are an
ever-present field for the observation of the student. The
root of all science may lie in an awakened and alert
curiosity concerning the obvious and the commonplace.

This little book could find no more fitting conclusion
than the words of Atlfric, in the Preface of his Lives of
the Saints :

‘Ne secge we nan ping niwes on pissere gesetnysse,
forpan be hit stod gefyrn awriten
. . . peah pe pa lewedan men pet nyston.’

‘We say nothing new in this work, for it all stood written long ago,
albeit laymen did not know it.’
«

SUBJECT INDEX

Ablaut, nature of, 163; in Aryan, 182; name due to
Grimm, 183; accent and, 184, 185; grades, 185,
186, 187; quantitative, 184; qualitative, 184, 188 ;
diphthongal combinations in, 189; examples of, 190-
194.

Accent, Aryan, 184; Parent Germanic, 199.

Alphabet, International, 50.

Analogy, ‘exceptions’ due to, 115, 213; process of, 129;
memory and, 129; ‘false, 132; mistakes due to,
182, 133; results in new formations, 134, 135; pre-
vention of differentiation by, 186; normal sound
change and, 137 ; continual process of, 138-140.

Anglo-French, 288, 289.

Anglo-Frisian Unity, views of Siebs and Bremer, 195;
Morsbach and Wyld, 196.

Archaisms, revival of, 127.

Arnold, Matthew, appreciation of Dryden, 344,

Aryan, Mother-tongue, 8, 9, 170, 171; reconstructed
forms, value of, 144; relative homogeneity of, 103;
wealthy vowel system of, 161; divisions of, 169,
373; race, 172, 173; its cradle, 171, 172; rela-
tive primitiveness of chief divisions, 1'73, 174; mutual
relations of these, 1'75-181 ; consonants, 181 ; vowels,
182; ablaut, 182-194; accent, 184; Modern English
and, 373.

Association groups, 130-131 ; levelling of exceptions due
to, 133; isolation from, 135, 136.

Avesta, the, dialect of, 169.

Barbour’s ‘ Bruce,’ rhymes in, 262.

382
SUBJECT INDEX 383

Bjorkman, remarks on Scandinavian loan-words in O.E.,
249; on close resemblancé between English and
Norse, 282.

Bopp, Franz, 8; views on sound change, 82.

Brugmann asserts inadmissibility of ‘exceptions, 114;
principles of method used in reconstruction, stated
by, 163; works of, 166; views of Aryan affinities,
179, 180; on reduced vowels, 186, 187 ; principles of
philological method formulated by, 215.

Biilbring on pronunciation of O.E. c3, 225,

Caxton, Literary English and, 294; London dialect and,
295, 296, 297.

Chaucer, persistence of Norman-French accent in, 123;
Literary dialect and, 251: rhymes of, 259; O.E. &,
a@g in, 265; French influence on language of, 289 ;
London dialect and, 296, 297; Canterbury Tales,
expression in, 345.

Chesterfield, Lord, his definition of correct speech, 361,
362 ; condemns trite phrases, 351.

Cognates, examples of, 142; tests of identity of origin,
142.

Comparison, reconstruction based on, 142, 150; words
suitable for, 143; conditions necessary for, 142;
limitations within one language, 145, 147; im-
portance of early forms for, 145, 146, 147; light
thrown by widening range of, 147-149, 155-163 ;
limitations, within one speech-family of, 151-155.

Consonants, classification of, 32-35 ; natural series of, 35,
36; long and double, 48.

Conversation, Language of, independent life of, 340, 341 ;
adaptation to environment, 347, 348 ; limits of adap-
tation, 348, 349.

‘Correctness’ in language, standard of, 353; fluctuation
of standard of, 359 ; Lord Chesterfield’s definition of,
361, 362.

Corruptions, 12; common use of the term, 19.

Darmsteter, views on sound change, 84.

‘Dialect’ and ‘language’ compared, 91.

Dialects, mixture of, 22; tests of relative superiority of,
384 SUBJECT INDEX

22, 23; importance of study of, 25, 26, 205; rise of,
95, 96; class, 99; artificial, literary, 212; decay of
English, 104; scientific view of equality among, 353,
354; absence of standard in, 357; subordinate posi-
tion of, 357, 358; linguistic development in, 358 ;
standard, artificiality in, 358, 359.

Dryden, French influence in, 289 ; appreciation by Matthew
Arnold, $44; prose of, 344, 345.

Ellis interprets authorities on pronunciation, 67, 68, 301,
309.

English, development of vocabulary of, 209; modified in-
flexional system of, 208; Norman words in, 124;
Scandinavian words in, 124; Indian words in, 124;
lifeless forms of, 349-353.

English, Correct, practical advantages of its study and use,
352, 353.

English dialects, decay of, 104.

English, Good, reality of existence of, 342.

English, History of, what it involves, 205; methods of
study, 205, 206.

English, Literary, ‘sounds’ of, inaccurate use of term, 341,
342; sources of, 251, 342, 343; rise of, 294-297 ;
Chaucer and, 251; Wycliff and, 251; Gower and,
251; Caxton and, 294; Standard English and, 251,
295, 340-346.

English, Middle, apparently exceptional spellings in, 210,
211; relation to Modern English, 250; authorities
on, 252, 253; chronological divisions, 253; dialects,
253, 254; texts, 254, 255; orthography, 255-259 ;
pronunciation, how established, 259, 260; sound
changes in, 260-265 ; treatment of O.E. diphthongs,
265, 266; rise of new diphthongs in, 266, 267;
vowel-lengthening, 268, 269 ; vowel-shortening, 270-
273; doublets in, 273; treatment of O.E. conso-
nants, 273-280 ; O.E. ¢, and ¢g, difficulties concerning,
in, 275-277; summary of dialectal differences in, 280 ;
French element in, 287-289; inflexions, 289-293 ;
Scandinavian element, 281-284; tests of Scandinavian
origin, 285-287.
SUBJECT INDEX 385

English, Modern, development of M.E. vowels in, 309-330 :
d, statements of authorities concerning, 309-316;
a, summary of development of, 316, 317; ¢, 317, 318;
é ‘ tense,’ 319, 320; 2, 0%, 321-323 ; &< slack,’ 320, 321 ;
6 ‘tense,’ 323-327 ; 6 tense, Scotch pronunciation of,
324; 6 ‘slack,’ development of, 324, 325; 5, 325;
tt, 825-327; % in Scotch dialects, 328; z, 328; ds
329, 330; treatment of M.E. diphthongs, 330-336 :
ai, et, development of, 330-332; au, 333-336; ou,
336 ; consonants, development of, in, 336-338 ; slow
development of, 373: Aryan and, 373.

English, Old, problems presented by MSS., 210; sig-
nificance of ‘exceptional’ spellings, 210; stages of
development, 216; dialects, 216-217; sources of
knowledge of, 217; texts, 217-220; monographs on,
220-222 ; pronunciation, 222, 223; values of vowel
symbols, 223-224; pronunciation of consonants,
224-225 ; symbols, 224, 225; é, o, 8, é@ in, 225;
authorities on pronunciation of, 225-226; books for
beginners on, 226; W. Germanic vowel changes affect-
ing, 227-231 ; an, on in, 229; Fracture or ‘ Brechung,’
229-231; nasals, loss of, 232, 233; i-mutation, 233,
234; lengthening of vowels, 235; dialectal diver-
gences, 235-238 ; Celtic loan-words, 238-239 ; Latin
loan-words, 239-248 ; Scandinavian loan-words, 248-
249 ; native words adapted to Christian uses, 247,
248.

English Place-Names, 378, 379.

English, Polite, 342 ; rate of utterance in, 375.

English, Spoken, historical study and, 205, 339 ; first steps
in study of, 339, 340; source of, 341; use of term,
341 ; importance of study of, 206, 353; standards of
Good or Bad, 353-357.

English of the Stage, 355, 356. g

English, Standard, existence of, 23; historical position of,
24; varying standard of, 24, 25, 318, 359; uni-
formity in, 22-25, 101, 102, 354; spread of, 104,--—-
105 ; source of, 251, 295, 342, 343 ; provincial speech
and, 297, 298; changes in, 299; Literary English

25
386 SUBJECT INDEX

and, 251, 295, 340-346; existence and growth of,
342, 356; nature of, 342; artificiality of, 343, 357-
364; adaptability of, 346-349 ; checks upon differen-
tiation in, 354 ; pronunciation, chief criterion of, 355 ;
where heard, 355; possible divergences in, 355, 359,
360 ; importance of, for teacher, etc., 356; ‘ abso-
lute’ superiority of, 24, 357 ; influence of fashion on,
327, 359.

Environment, Influence of, 63; normally unperceived, 63 ;
gradually lessens, 64.

Esperanto, 105; its probable future, 105-109.

Exceptions, explanations of apparent, 114-115, 212-214,
379.

Foreign words, translations of, 122; conditions for incor-
poration of, 122, 123.

Germanic, 8, 168, 196; divisions of, 195; authorities, 196 ;
sources of knowledge of, 197; characteristics of, 197 ;
consonant shifting, 198-201; ‘free’ accent, 199;
treatment of Aryan vowels, 202-203 ; West, charac-
teristics, 203.

Glides, 44; p, ¢, k, in English and French, 44.

Gower, and the literary dialect, 251; distinguishes be-
tween tense and slack 6, 257.

Grammar, comparative and historical, 9.

Grassmann’s Law, 1'74.

Greek, faithfully preserves primitive vowel system, 160,
174; Grassmann’s Law, 1'74.

Grimm’s Law, 197, 198.

Hirt, views on sound change, 85, 87, 179; on reduced
vowels, 186, 187, 191.

Historical linguistic study, 1-3; aim, 6; methods of, 4-10,
211-215; necessary equipment for, 10-11; proper
basis of, 61, 206, 339.

Imitation, limitations of, 56, 374; dangers of faulty, 58,
59; native tongue learnt by, 54; sound change and
faulty theories concerning, 84; changes due to faulty,
125.

mutation, 10, 150, 233, 234.
ntonation, 47; in Polite English, 375, 376.
SUBJECT INDEX 387

-jan suffix in Gothic and Old Saxon, 148.

Kluge on pronunciation of O.E. 3, 225, 226; Scandinavian
words in O.E., 249.

Language, continual change in, 14, 373.

Language, Life of, psychological aspect, 11, 13; physio-
logical, 11, 13.

Language, Literary, danger of exclusive study of, 11, 13;
position with regard to spoken language, 12, 340,
341 ; comparatively archaic, 344; sources of, 341.

Language, Spoken, limitations, 5; changes in, 14; writing
and, 5, 62; unconscious process of, 61, 62, 63; im-
portance of study of, 10, 11, 13, 206; advantage of
training in facts of, 340; independent life of, 340,
341; influence of literature on, 341; adaptability
of, 346 ui

Language, Standard, two aspects of history of, 361.

Language transmission, changes involved in, 65.

Language, Written, use of term, 341.

Latin, corruptions in, 12; the primitive vowels and diph-
thongs in, 174; the primitive consonants in, 174.
Leskien asserts inadmissibility of ‘exceptions, 114, 117;
position of, in linguistic science, 166 ; modifies ‘ Uber-

gangstheorie, 177-179.

Linguistic contact, through literature, 125, 126 ; introduc-
tion of foreign elements, 122-124.

Loan-words, development indicated by, 121, 122; points
of interest concerning, 209; popular fallacies con-
cerning, 209; test of source of, 210; importance of
form, 245; Scandinavian, 248, 249, 281-285 ; Latin,
939-248 ; Celtic, 238-239; tests for Scandinavian
origin of, 285-287.

London Dialect, Standard English and, 294-298, 342, 343.

Max Miiller, original home of the Aryans, views on, 171.

Memory Pictures, 57-59; gradual alteration of, 72; sub-
conscious, 70, 71.

‘Mistake,’ significance of term, 19, 20.

Napier, Professor, his discovery of Orm’s new symbol, 258.

Obsolete Forms, possible pronunciations of, 363, 364,

Orm, value of his orthography, 256; establishes M.E.

25—2
 

388 SUBJECT INDEX

quantities, 260, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272; his n
symbol for back-stop (g), 258.

Osthoff defines ‘correctness’ in language, 21; views |
sound change, 83; asserts inadmissibility of ‘exce
tions, 114; position in science of language, 166.

Passy, views on sound change, 84, 90.

Paston Letters, Oxford dialect and, 296.

Paul, remarks on relation of individual speaker to cor
munity, 103; asserts inadmissibility of * exception
114; position of, in science of language, 166; ‘ Welle
theorie,’ views on, 177.

Philology, comparative, meaning of, 8; task of, 14
advance of science of, 142 ; method of, 143, 144,

Phonetic Analysis, pronunciation and, 374.

Phonetic Laws, meaning of term, 112; nature of, 11'
exceptions to, inadmissible, 114.

Phonetic practice, 60 ; exercises, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41.

Phonetic symbols, 50, 51; tables of, 52, 53; explanatic
of, 54; usefulness of, 3'74. .

Phonetic training, ingenious objections to, 16, 17; in
portance of, 15, 874; what it involves, 17, 18, 27, 5
60; why advantageous, 18, 19; proper basis fo
ae 60, 61, 339;° historical linguistic study an
339.

Phonological investigation, nature and importance of, 11¢

Place-names, English, $78, 379.

Pogatscher, views on use of Latin by Britons, 242, 243,

Pronunciation, spelling and, 14, 15, 116, 212; sixteentl
century, authorities on, 302-304 ; seventeenth-centur
authorities on, 304, 305 ; eighteenth-century, author
ties on, 306; interpretation of authorities on, 30’
808; influence of fashion on, 327, 359; varieti
within Standard Dialect of, 359, 360; varieties ind
cating difference of dialect, 361; English spellin
and, 363, 377-380; vulgarity of ‘ overcarefulnes:
in, 366, 367; difficulties involved in wunfamilia
374.

Pronunciation, Correct, decided by experience, 362, 363.

Pronunciation, ‘Good,’ criteria of, 361-368.
SUBJECT INDEX 389

Pronunciation, Polite, teaching of, 368-376; present
methods of teaching, criticism of, 369-371.

Pronunciations, Spelling, 377-379 ; absurdity of, 364-366 ;
causes of, 365, 377, 378, 380.

Prose, natural language of good, 345.

Public Speaking, 346, 347, 348.

Quantity, 47, 48.

Reconstruction, possibility of, 142; test of accurate, 151;
principles of, 163, 164; necessity of, 206; varying
methods of, 207 ; Modern period, problem of, 300.

Reconstructed Forms, value of, 144,

‘Right’ and ‘Wrong ’ in Language, definition of, 21, 129;
analogy and, 132, 139; scientific and practical views
of, 353 ; constant change in, 353; Standard Dialects
and, 358 ; no ‘absolute’ standard of, 361; ignorant
use of terms, 370.

Rig-Veda, hymns of, 169.

Salesbury, William, 301.

Sanscrit, a, an in Lithuanian and, 156, 157; sounds in
Greek and Latin corresponding to a in, 156-159;
palatalization in, 159, 160 ; vowel system less primi-
tive than Greek, 160, 174; consonants relatively
primitive in, 174.

Scherer, views on sound change, 82; position of, in science
of language, 166.

Schleicher, views on sound change, 82; his ‘Stammbaum’
theory, 175, 178, 180.

Schmidt, Johann, original home of Aryans, views on, 171;
attacks ‘Stammbaum’ theory, 1/6; ‘ Wellentheorie,’
176, 177, 178, 179.

Schrader accepts Schmidt’s ‘ Wellentheorie,’ 177.

Scotch, sixteenth-century % in dialects of, 328; O.E. 0
tense in, 328.

Scots, distinguished history of, 208.

Seek, ‘beseech’ and, 145, 146, 147; ‘sought’ and, 147-
150.

Shakespeare, reconstruction of his pronunciation, 207.

Sievers, use of term ‘ bedingt,’ 81; asserts inadmissibility
of ‘exceptions,’ 114; position of, in science of language,
390 SUBJECT INDEX

166 ; on pronunciation of O.E. c3, 225; on -n- verbs
in O.E., 284.

Skeat, on French element in English, 287, 288.

Sound change, fact of, 14, 15; evidence of, in written
records, 67; in cognate forms, 68; inaccuracy of
term, 69; process of, 70, 71, 72, 73; cause of, 73,
81; isolative, 73, 74; combinative, 75-77, 214;
transitoriness of tendencies, 76-78, 373; theories in
explanation of, 82-85; caused by~ foreign contact,
85-87; occupation as factor in, 88; inadequacy of
theories to explain it, 89; spread of, 110, 1IT;-
unconscious nature of, 113 ; importance of study of,
113 ; laws of, 111, 112; analogy and, 137.

Sound changes, Old English, 226, 232, 233; West Ger-
manic affecting Old English, 227-232; Middle
English, 260-265; Modern English, 309, etc. (see
English, Modern).

Sound Laws, meaning of term, 77; admit of no exceptions,
114, 11%. .

Speech of a Town, how far homogeneous, 99.

Speech basis, 70; factors involved in, 81; influence of race
on, 86; influenced by physical type, 87; change
in, 87; by occupation, 88; foreign sounds modified
by native, 120, 121.

Speech communities, meaning of term, 92-93; possibilities
and limitations of change in, 93, 94; relative homo-
geneity within, 94, 109; contact between, 119-121;
modes of isolation of, 97, 98.

Speech, ‘correct,’ popular view of, 21 ; scientific conception
of, 21, 129.

Speech family, Aryan, existence of, 8; Aryan, divisions of,
169; conception of, 166-168.

Speech habits, formation of, 58, 59.

Speech, Individual, various influences on, 100-102; diverg-
ence originates from, 103, 104.

Speech, Living, essentials of, 349.

Speech sounds, classification of, 28-31; processes involved
in utterance of, 56, 57, 58.

Spelling, English, fixed, 15; pronunciation and, 14, 15,
SUBJECT INDEX 391

116, 212; Middle English, 116, 255-259; English
pronunciation and, 363, 377-380.

Spelling Pronunciations, absurdity of, 364, 365, 366;
= English, 377-380; causes of, 365, 377, 378,
80.

‘Stammbaum’ theory, Schleicher and the, 175; Johann

Schmidt, attack on, 1'76, 177; Leskien, views on,
177, 178.

Standard, constant shifting of, 353, 359.

Stereotyped Phrases, 350, 351; effect of use of, 351;
Lord Chesterfield’s opinion of, 351.

Streitberg on lengthening of original short vowels, 186.

Stress, 45; degrees of, 46; distribution of, 46; importance »
of, 106; preservation of, 123; Ablaut and, 184;
doublets due to, 215; in Polite English, 375.

Sweet, improves Organic Method, 28; use of terms
‘narrow’ and ‘wide,’ 39, 40; discovers ‘shifted’
vowels, 42; his phonetic symbols, 50, 51; remarks
on ‘exceptional’ forms, 132; on pronunciation of
O.E. c3, 225; remarks on -an and -on forms in Old
_English, 229; his divisions of Middle English, 253 ;
on Scandinavian verbs with -n- suffix, 284; discusses
problems of Modern English pronunciation, 309; on
development of aw, 333; spoken English, indicates
method of study of, 339; on importance of stress
and intonation in English, 375.

Syllable, limits of, 50; division, 48, 49.

Texts, O.E., 217-220; M.E., 254, 255.

Tunpus-top-dent, ete., methods of comparison and recon-
struction illustrated by, 151-163.

Verner’s Law, 198, 199, 200.

Voice, management of, in speech, 376.

Vowels, consonants and, 31; analysis of, 37; tongue
activities for, 37; muscular activities for, 39; lip
activity for, 40, 41; description of, 41, 42 ; positions,
42; difficulty of ‘low-front, 38; * shifted,’ 42; inter-
mediate varieties of, 43.

‘Vulgarism,’ 19.

Wechsler, views on sound change, 85, 87.
392 SUBJECT INDEX

‘Wellen’ or ‘Wbergangstheorie,’ Johann Schmidt and the,
176, 177; Schrader, views on, 1777; Paul, views on,
177; Leskien, modification of, 177-179.

Whitney, views on sound change, 82.

Wright, views on the use of Latin in Britain, 242, 243.

Lar dialect and, 251; Oxford type and, 296,
297.
n=note.

WORD INDEX

>= derived from. dial. = dialectal.

obs. =obsolete. Square

brackets indicate phonetic spelling.

Sanskrit.

abhi-jnd, 193
aditas, 192
ajami, 157
ajiasam, 194
ajras, 157, 191
anti, 156

asti, 157

asva, 157

avi-, 157
bandhus, 156, 162
bhra-tar, 201
ca, 157
catvaras, 160
dadarga, 157
dadati, 192
dadhami, 192, 201
dadhmas, 192
damas, 156
dant-, 155, 161
dévattas, 192
dhiimas, 68
ditis, 192
gostha, 193
hitds, 192
jambha, 156

janas, 156
janu, 193
jhatds, 194
kak8Sa, 160
kakid, 160
katara, 157
madhu, 157
mati-, 162
nasa, 191
pid-, 142
panca, 160
pani, 74
pari-jman, 191
arinas, 194
patati, 157
pati, 157, 198
pitér, 200
prnati, 194
purnds, 194
sapta,.199
gatam, 112, 162
sthitds, 193
stighnute, 201
stri, 192
svagri, 200
tam, 156
uksan, 204
393

 

 

Greek.

aypos, 157, 191
ayo, 157, 191
a-Koto, 202
axtwp, 191
avi, 156
a-axnOys, 199
Bairn (Thracian),
201
ryévos, 156
ryépavos, 201
rye-yva-cnw, 194
yvuk, 193
yovu, 193
youdios, 156
ryouhos, 156
yovia, 193
Saudaw, 201
déSopxKe, 157
didoper, 192
diSw@pt, 186, 192
di-pp-os, 190
Sopuos, 156
dots, 186
Sacw, 192
gw, 203
394

&€opuat, 190, 203
éxatov, 112, 162
éxupa, 200

elpi, 157

évos, 157
etri-35-a, 190
émta, 199
épyov, 203

éoti, 157
épuyov, 182
Axe, 191

Gatos, 187
Oeréds, 186
Oipds, 68
t-orapev, 193
toast, 186
iornpt, 193
xapdia, 199
cuptard, 240
Aéyw, 182
Anoetv, 192
Aébyos, 182
AvKos, 290

péOv, 157
péccos, 203
vij-ya, 202
6547, 191
6-dovt-, 155, 161
68087, 191

olvn, 202

dus, 157, 202
émr-wtr-a, 191
doce, 191

ovs, 202

dypopat, 191
marépa, 182, 291
matyp, 182, 190,

200

qéta, 190

 

WORD INDEX

tetOw, 202
trevOepos, 156, 162,
16%, 203
aévre, 160
méaaapes, 160
qéte-rat, 157
mAH-pes, 194
aroé0s, 190
moots, 157, 198
motepos, 157
qrovs, 142
mpoyvu, 193
mpwi, 194
mas (Doric), 190
PNT, pytop, 183,
184

oraros, 186, 193

oreixo, 201

oTnow, 193

opdrXro, 198

té, 157

TiOeuer, 192

TiOnus, 186, 192,
201, 202

tov, 156

hapév, 193

papi (Doric), 182

gépo, 190

detryw, 182

pnui, 193

dopa, 190

ppa-tnp, 190

ppa-Twp, 190,201,
202

g¢pa-rp-a, 190
dayw, 192
gary, 182
dap, 190
ay, 191

 

Latin.

actor, 191
ager, 157
ago, 157, 191
ambages, 191
ante, 156
appodix, 190
auctor, 190
auris, 202
caciimen, 160
Cesar, 241
capistrum, 244
caseus, 241
centum, 112, 162,
163
colonia, 244
coquere, 158
coquina, 76, 244
cordis, 199
coxa, 160
cuculla, 244
cucurbita, 242
Danuvius, 201
dare, 182
datio, 192
datus, 182, 192
dedi, 192
dent-, 155,161,163
domare, 201
domus, 156
dénare, 192
donum, 182, 192
edo, 203
equus, 157
est, 157
examen, 191
facio, 192
foenuculum, 244
fama, 193
fari, 193
féci, 192
femella, 134
fero, 190
ficus, 241
fido, 202
fors, 190
fortina, 190
frater, 202
famus, 68
far, 190
genus, 156
hominem, 291
hospitis, 198
hostis, 202
lassus, 192
marmor, 244
medius, 203
memini, 182
ment-, 162
mentum, 199
mercatum, 248
moneo, 182
moneta, 241
moratum, 244
mutare (> moi-
tare), 202
napus, 241
nares, 191
nasus, 191
nére, 202
nidus, 190, 203
nosco, 194
nox, 157
oculus, 191
odor, 191
offendix, 162, 163,
203

¥

 

WORD INDEX

oleum, 234:
ovis, 157, 202
pater, 190
patria, 122
patris, 190
pedem, 190
pedes, 203
pes, 142,
290

petit, 157
piscis, 113
plénus, 194

190,

A

psalmus, 244
que, 157
quinque, 160
rego, 239
regula, 79
rex, 239
ruta, 244
sagire, 202
satus, 192
sedére, 190, 203
sedimus, 190
semen, 192
senex, 157
sévi, 192
sodalis, 190
stamen, 193
stare, 193
statim, 193
status, 193
strata via, 241
tabula, 242
tego, texi, 182
uncia, 245
unus > _ oinos,

202
veho, véxi, 186

 

395

Gallo-Roman.
Moguntiacum,
158
Vosegus, 158

Old French.
femelle, 134

French.

beau, 53
béte, 48
bon, 30
but, 41, 51
content,.54
dé, 53
dur, 41
enfant, 76
été, 39, 40
fin, 30
fini, 31
francais, 35
génie, 123
jamais, 35
lune, 38
rendre, 35
si, 53
un, 30
vu, 41, 51
Old Irish.
ag, 191
brocc, 239
cethir, 160
drui, 239
ri, rig, 239
Irish.

donn, 239
iasc, 113
396

Welsh.

dwn, 239
Llandudno, 35

Gothic.

ains, 202
akrs, 157, 191
andbundnan, 154
anpar, 152, 153
augo, 228
auhsa, 204
auso, 202
awistr, 193, 202
bairan, 190
bandi, 154
bar, 190
batists, 150
batiza, 284
baur, 190
beidan, 202
berum, 190
bindan, 154, 203
brdpar, 190, 201,
202
broprahans, 190
bug-jan, 148
dags, 227
dauns, 68
domjan, 10
drobjan, 148
fadar, 200
-faps, 198
fodjan, 148
fotus, 142, 190
fruma, 194
fulljan, 148
fulls, 194
gabinda, 154

 

WORD INDEX
gadéps, 192, 201,
202

gaf, 182
gaits, 228
gamotjan, 148
gamunds, 162
gasinpa, 154
gasinpja, 152
gastim (dat.), 290
gasts, 202
gatamjan, 201
gébum, 182
giban, 182
haims, 228
hairt6, 199
handus, 154, 183
hansa, 152
haubip, 228
hausjan, 202, 236
-hinpan, 154, 183
huggrjan, 148
hund, 112, 153,
162
hunsl, 247
hunps, 154
juggs, 153
kaisar, 241
kann, 194
kaus, 182
kinnus, 76
kiusan, 182
kniu, 193
knussjan, 193 .
kuni, 77, 234
kunnaida, 194
kunps, 153
kusum, 182
lats, 192
létan, 192

 

maidjan, 202
mana-séps, 192
midjis, 203
munps, 152, 153,
199
namnjan, 148
népla, 202
paida, 201
reiki, 239
reiks, 239
sandjan, 154
sat, 190
satjan, 148
setum, 190
sibun, 199
sinps, 152, 154,
232
skapjan, 199
sokjan, 147, 202
staps, 193
steigan, 201
stols, 193
tunpus, 151, 153,
161, 163
pahta, 228, 231
pagkjan, 231
pana, 156
unkja, 245
warjan, 148
-windan, 154
-winnan, 154

wulfs, 290

Old Norse.

bleikr, 286
fotr, 142
geva, 279
heimsocn, 283
hvitna, 284
lite, 261
lat, 261
mjukr, 287
skamt, 285
soma, 282
sveinn, 283
tannr, 153
veikr, 286

Old West Scan-
dinavian.

blikna, 284
bustla, 284
dogg, 286
egg, 286
hoggua, 286
tryggr, 286

Old Swedish.
batna, 284

Swedish.

babbla, 284
dagg, 286
dangla (dial.), 284
en, 167

fem, 167
fyra, 167
hora, 167
horde, 167
komma, 167
moder, 167
tre, 167
twa, 167

Danish.

dag, 167
sang, 167
skygge, 286

 

WORD INDEX

synge, 167

sunget, 167

Old English.
Abbod, 247
szecer, 191, 227
Bg, 286
elfhéah, 378
zelmesse, 24'7
zr, 262
ald, 45, 236, 260,

323
an-buend, 24'7
an-setl, 247
ar, 269
a-weecnian, 284
bacan, 192
beecere, 192
beer, 190, 213
bron, 190, 214
band, 273
barda, 281
beald, bald, 45,

236
beé, 133
beginnan, 278
béo, 319
beran, 190, 213,

259, 319
beter, 284
betst, 150
bidan, 202
bindan, 154, 203
blac, 286
bléd, 323
boc, 192
boren, 190, 214
breec, 213
braepan, brépan, 6

 

397

brép, brép, 6
breogo, 79
breodst, 272
bringan, 23]
broce, 239
brohte, 231, 274
br6por, 134, 201,
202
bry¢g, 238, 258
brysan, 264
byégan, 148
byrgean, 237
ceefester, 244
cald, '75, 236
camb, 156, 235
casere, 241
céac, 257
ceaf, cafu, 277
ceald, 231, 236
¢@apmenn, 270
ceaster,  Gaester,
24:4
célan, 136
cele, 236, 269
célnesse, 136
cépte, 270
cester, 257
ciele, 75, 236
ciése, 241
cietel, cetel, 277
éild, 7, 235
cildru, 7
cin(n), 76, '77
CGirice, 240
clénlice, 271
clawu, 333
cléne, 236
cleopode, 79
cnawan, 194, 274
398

cnear, 249, 281

cnéo, 193

cdl, 136

coren, 269

costnian, 284

cran, 201

cugele, 244

cup, 153

creft, 287

cwén, 259, 319

cwéne, 259

ewicu, cweocu,
c(w)ucu, 79

cy, 133

cycene, 76, 244

cynn, 77, 233 n.,
234

éyrce, 237, 238,
Q77

cyrfet, 242

d&d, 192, 201,
202, 236, 263

deg, 183, 227, 265

deegas, 80

degum, 80

dagas, 265

dagian, 265, 284

deap, 265

dea(w), 286

ded, 236, 263

déman, 7, 10, 135

deofol, 271

discipul, 247

dogor, 183

dohter, 266

dom, 7, 10

domne, 247

dragan, 267, 274,
333

 

WORD INDEX

dréam, 262
dréfan, 148
dry, 239
dunn, 239
dust, 68, 234
dystig, 234
Eadward, 270
Gage, 228
éagena, 289
eahta, 231
eald, ald, 45, 236
earm, 231
&adgete, 269
efel, 259, 319
efete, 267
ele, 234
eofor, 79
eolh, 231
eorpe, 231
etan, 203, 269
feeder, 134, 190,
200, 264, 269
feesten, 284
feestenian, 284
feet, '78, 280
fatu, 78.
featu, '78
féedan, 148, 149
feld, 319
feohtan, 231
feond, 272
fet, 2038, 234
fetor, 79
fic-béam, 241
findan, 235
finugl, 244
fiscas, 183
flémde, 271
fo, fehp, 234

 

foda, 149, 263
forgeofan, 80
forfor, 263
forloren, 269
forma, 194
forp, 259

fot, 142, 232, 234
fox, 234

fréo, 319
fréond, 272
freodu-, 79
fridu, 79
from, 194

full, 149, 234

fulluht, 248
fulwian, 247
fulwiht, 248
furdor, 150
fylcian, 249
fyllan, 148, 149,
234
f¥lp, 234, 271
fyrst, 150
fyxen, 234, 280
gastlic, 137
gat, 228
gear, 279
gefan, 278, 279
gelapung, 248
gelice, 138
gelt, 237
genoge, 267
genoh, 258, 266
gés, 8, 234
gesip, 152
geslegen, 234
gest, 278
getan, 278
getriéwe, 286
giccan, 277

gicel, 277

giefan, 54, 80,
258, 278, 279

gielpan, 278

giest, 278

-gietan, 278

gif, 277

gim-stan, 277

god, 234

god, 363

godspellere, 248

gold, 204, 234

gos, 8, 152, 232,
233, 234

goshafoc, 271

gyden, 234

gylden, 234

gylt, 237

heefde, 259

hzp, 263, 319

hafoc, 267

him, 213, 228,
260

hamsocn, 283

hand, 154, 260

handgeweorc, 277

he, 319

héafod, 228

héawan, 286

héh, 266

heolstor, 79

heorot, 79

heorte, 199

hér, 135, 319

héran, 236, 257,
259

here, 233

hiéran, hyran, 236

 

WORD INDEX

hie, hira, heom,
287
hlaford, 259
hlahhan, 333
hnitu, 79
hopu, 269
hos, 152
hryég, 238
hund, 153
hus, 257
husl, 247
husl-pegn, 248
hup, 154
hweel, 275
hwte, 275
hwzr, 135
hyd, 287
hyngr(i)jan, 148
hyran, 257, 280
lztan, 192
lamb, 260
land, 228
leornung, 292
lic, 138
Lin(d)cylene, 244
lond, 228
lytle, 270
maeesse, 24'7
mp, 227
mann, 228
mara, 262
market, 248
martyr, 247
mearm-stan, 244
medu, 157
meolc, 79
merig, 237
métan, 148, 149
mete, 319

 

399

meétte, 270
midd, 203
modor, 134
mona, 76, 229
monap, 271
monn, 228, 233
morap, 244
gemot, 149
mup, 152, 199
mynet, 241
myrig, 237
nzdl, 202
nzxp, 241
nama, 149, 228,
270, 291
nemnan, 148, 149
nest, 190, 203
nigun, 79
niman, 229, 287
nimanne, 80
to niomanne, 80
noma, 228
nomon, 229
open, 323
ora, 249, 281
Oper, 152, 153
oxa, 204
pad, 201
pell, 247
papa, 247
ploges, 267
ploh, 266
prafost, 244
racu, 214
raran, 262
reahte, 214
retcean, 214
regn, 265
regol, 79
400

reogol, 79

rice, 239

rude, 244

sacerd, 247

sed, sed, 236

sélan, 234

set, 186

ston, 190

sagu, 333

sal, 234

sar, 260

sc(ejamu, 213

scéap, scép, 133

scearn, 247

stéawan, 286

scéld, 236, 319

scield, s¢¥ld, 236

scieran, 247

se, seo, pet, 293

sealm, 244

sééan, 147

séc(e)an, 145, 146,
149

sécst, sécp, 276

sed, 319

seman, 282

sendan, 154

senn, 237

seofon, 79

settan, 148

sicol, 79

sinu, 79

sip, 152, 154, 232

sittan, 190, 203

slépte, 270

snetor, 237

snytor, 237

soft, 152

softe, 232, 270

 

WORD INDEX

sdhte, 147, 149,
270

sona, 323

sot, 186, 190

sp(r)zec, 213

sprecol, 79

stan, 323

stanas, 289

stigan, 201

strzt, 241

sunu, 257

sunum (dat.), 290

swan, 283

Swegen, 283

sweger, 200

sweord, swurd,
237

sweotol, 79

_swéte, 269

sword, 237

synn, 237

tefl, 242

temian, 201

tép, 8

toh, 274

top, 8, 151, 153,
161, 163, 2382

tréowe, 286

psec, 234

peccean, 234

pencan, 228

peof, 265

péon, 232

pohte, 228, 231

préll, 285

protu, 323

puhte, 232

pyncean, 232

us, 232

 

utmest, 270 |
weecen, 284 '
weegn, 265
wepn, 227
wetan, 319
weeter, 264, 269
wak, 286
wald, 237, 266
weald, 236, 266
weg, 258, 265
weodu, wudu, 78,
719
weorp, wurp, 237
werian, 148
weron, 262
wetan, 319
wiflic, 138
windan, 154
winnan, 154
wiodu, 78
wiorpep, 231
wisdom, 270
wiurpiP, 231
worp, 237
wudu, 78, 79, 289
wulf, 290
wyrcan, 257
Wyrtgeorn, 244
yfel, 287
ynée, 245, 246
yndse, 245
yntse, 245, 246

Middle English.

apperen, 319
appiéren, 319
ansuér, 262
auenture, 263
aungel, 267, 333
brurse

babblen, 284
be, 319

béren, 259, 319
beséchen, 145
beséken, 145
bleu, 329
bliknen, 284
blak, 286
blad, 263
bond, 273
brést, 272
brigge, 258
brofte, 274
brugge, 258
burien, 237
bustlen, 284
caf, 277

cause, 333
chappmenn, 270
chaunce, 123 n.
chaunge, 123 n.
chéfe, 319
chéke, 257
chele, 269
chester, 257
chetel, 277
chiefe, 319
child, 272
childre, 7
children, 7
chilldre, 272
chirche, 277
chéld, 266
chosenn, 269
clawe, 333
clennlike, 271
conclid, 263
costnen, 285
court, 257

 

WORD INDEX

dai, 265, 266

dime, 213, 261,
270

daunger, 333

daungerous, 267

dawen, 265

dawes, 265

dawnen, 284

day, 265

dayes, 265

deffles, 271

dei, 266

depthe, 270

deu, 286, 329

douhter, 266

drawen, 267, 274,
333

dreme, 262

dyath, 265

Edward, 270

@ene, 289

ei, 286

ere, 262

etenn, 269

edgéte, 269

euel, 259

eute, 267

evel, 259, 319

fider, 134, 264,
270, 271

faderr, 269

fame, 261

fader, 317

féld, 268, 319

fénd, 272

field, 268

fillthe, 271

findenn, 268

flemmde, 27

 

401

fless, flessch, 259
forftre, 263
for-3ete(n),
yete(n), 277
forténe, 263
fre, 319
frend, 272
frendschipe, 272
fade, 263
géfen, 278
gastli, 137
gastlich(e), 137
gate, 287

3elle(n), yelle(n),
277

3elpe(n), yelpe(n),
277

gentil, 123 n.
3ére, yére, 277
3if, 277

3im, 277
3iuen, 258
god, 258, 323
goshauk, 271
gosling, 270
gost, 137
gud, 263
guod, 258
haggen, 286
hallghenn, 271
halwen, 271
hame, 262
hand, 268

‘handfull, 235, 272

hanten, 335
hauk, 267
haunt, 333
haunten, 335
heeth, 260

26
402

hefde, 259
heih, 266
hem, 287
héren, 259, 280
hép, 319
hieren, 257
hir, 287

hit, 275

hom, 213, 260
hond, 260, 268
hope, 269
hound, 268
hous, 257
huiren, 257, 280
hund, 268
huswif, 271
hwiten, 284
icche(n), 277
icching, 277
i-cume, 277
if, 277

ikyl, 277

ille, 287
inogh, 258
induh, 266
indwe, 267

itt, 275
jaundice, 333
joie, 123 n.
jointe, 123 n.
juge, 123 n.
jugement, 258
keppte, 270
kingene, 292
kingue, 258
kneu, 329
lamb, 260
lambre, 272
lammbre, 260

 

WORD INDEX

land, 273
lates, 261
lauerd, 259
laughen, 333
legges, 275
Tae:
fcour

lif, 259
little, 270
lomb, 260, 272
lond, 273
long, 273
manér, 262
manéir, 262
mar, 262
méoc, 287
méte, 319
mette, 270
monthe, 271
more, 261
name, 260, 270
neir, 262
6ld, 260, 323
Open, 323
bre, 269
plesand, 293
plouh, 266
plowes, 267
quale, 275
queen, 259
quén, 319
quéne, 259
quét, 275
rair, 262
rader, 75, 317
rein, 266
rade, 263
sawe, 333
sayand, 293

 

scatteren, 283
schime, 213
schéld, 319
schip, 259
sechen, 145, 146
séken,-145, 147
sékst, 276
sékp, 276
seldcéne, 257
semelich, 282
sémen, 282
semli, 282
serrfenn, 256
serruen, 256
shatteren, 283
skill, 287
skinn, 287
sleppte, 270
soffte, 270
sohhte, 270
sone, 257

sone, 263

sor, 260

ssip, 259

ston, 291, 323
stones, 289
stoon, 260
strang, 268
strong, 268, 273
swéte, 269
syngand, 293
tahte, 336
takenn, 287
pe, peo, pet, 293
thinken, 259
prote, 323
pyef, 265

til, 287

uader, 280
uorp, 259
utmost, 270
vertue | 193
vértue
vorlére(n), 269
wald, 266
wain, 265
war, 262
wat, 261
water, 264, 271
we}, 258

wei, 265
were, 262
wigt, 285
wimman, 271
wissd6m, 270
wode, 289
wok, 286
wurchen, 257
ylde, 277
ym-ston, 277
zéchen, 280

English.

ale, 230
all, 267, 312, 333
Alphege, 377
alter [Slt], 360
Alvescot [Slskat,
etc.], 379
among [amay,
etc.], 361
Ardingley, 378
ass, 229
Atterbury, 293
aught, 335
aunt, 267
ball, 334:
band, 273

 

WORD INDEX

bat, 38

bath, 317

batten, 284

bawl, 267

to bear, 214

bee, 60

begin, 278, 279

beseech, 145, 14'7,
276

beseek (dial.), 145

bet, 38, 39, 43

better, 284, 318

bird, 38, 53

_ bishopric, 239

bit, 38, 40, 43

bite, 49

bitterly, 131

bleak, 286

blood, 307, 325,
327, 361

blue, 329, 330

boil, 323

bold, 237

bond, 273

book, 133, 324,
325, 327, 361

book-case, 48

boot, 38, 42, 53

boots, 360

bought, 337

boys, 130

brandy pawnee,

bread, 321
break, 321
breath, 6, 318
breathe, 6, 318
bridge, 238
broft (dial.), 274

 

403

broil, 322

broken, 213

brother, 130, 134,
327

brought, 336

bruise, 264, 330

buck, 325

buik (Se.), 53

bull, 326

bury, 237

bush, 41

but, 53, 314, 322,
325, 326

butcher, 41

Cabul, 74

calf, 335

call, 333, 334

calm, 335

came, 131

can, 313

cane, 314

car, 35

cast, 313

cat, 53, 180

Cawnpore, 74

chance, 334

charmed, 131

cheese, 241

child, 7, 235, 272

children, 7, 131,
235, 272

chill, '75, 186, 236

chin, 76, 77

chivalry, 364

church, 237

Cirencester, 378

Clark, 318

clerk, ‘74,
318, 361

26—2

317,
404

cletch (dial.), 277

clutch (ial.), 277

coffee, 360

cold, 75, 136, 237

contradict, 127

cool, 136

to cool, 136

coolness, 136

cough [k5f, etc.]
360

courtesy. [ktasi,
etc.], 360

cows, 133

cure, 330

cut, 327

dag (dial.), 285

daggle (dial.), 284

dame, 213, 270

dams, 133

dance, 334, 360

dangle, 284

daughter, 336

daunt, 334

dead, 321

deed, 236, 263

deem, 7, 135, 137

Derby, 317, 318,
361

desire, 366

dew, 286, 329

disaster, 127

ditch, 276

dog, 130

-dom, 135

doom, 7, 185, 187

draught, 325

draw, 274

druid, 239

duke, 330

 

WORD INDEX

dust, 68

eat, 269

eave (dial.), 278

ego, 286

oe 267

envelope, 123

face, 259, 317

falcon, 364

falconry, 364

fall, 333, 334

far, 317

father, 38, 39, 42,
53, 54, '74, 130,
134, 269, 360

feet, 137

female, 134

few, 330

field, 268

fiend, 272

find, 268

fine, 322

fish, 113, 133

fishes, 134

flaunt, 334

fleck (dial.), 276

flick (dial.), 276

flesh, 133, 272

fling, 131, 132

flitch, 276

flock, 133

flood, 325

flung, 131, 132

food, 133

fool, 324, 328

foot, 137, 324,
327

forehead _[forid,
etc.], 365, 378

forlorn, 135

 

forsworn, 136

forward, 378

friend, 272, 318,
319

frighten, 284.

full, 325, 326, 327,
328

gall, 312

gave, 131

geese, 8

get, 278

ghastly, 137

ghostly, 137

gif (dial.), 278

gift, 278

gilpie (dial.), 278

give, 278, 279

gladden, 284

good, 31, 35, 324,
325

goose, 8

grant, 334

great, 321

Greenwich [grin-
idz, etc.], 365

ground, 73

guest, 258, 278

guide, 322

gut, 325

hale, 311

hall, 334

hand, 272

handiwork, 277

hang, 273

hardly, 131

hat, $11

haw, 334

haunch, 267, 334

haunt, 267, 334
have, 46

head, 53, 321

hear, 167, 236

heard, 167, 318

heart, 317, 318

hearth, 317, 318

heath, 263

(h)eave (dial.),
278

Helingly, 378

herd, 133

here, there, every-
where, 131, 134

here, 131, 135

hew, 286

hit (Sc.), 275

horse, hoarse, 16

hot, 53, 54

hound, 268

house, 73

housen (dial.), 292

houses, 131

humorous, [ju-
meras, etc. ], 360

humour, 127

hundred, 112

icicle, 277

ill, 131

inch, 245

itch, 277

jaundice, 267,334

jaunt, 334

Jest, 275

join, 322, 323

joint, 322

joy, 275

judge, 275

ken, 314

kernel, colonel, 16

 

WORD INDEX

kettle, 277

Kilconquahar,378

kin, 77

king, 35, 134

kirk (Sc.), 277

knave, 337

knew, 329

Knowsley, 379

lamb, 235, 272,
365

lambs, 133

lance, 334

land, 273

laughter, 335, 337

Launcelot, 334

launch, 334

laundry, 267, 334

lawful, 334

learn (lan, etc.],
318, 361

leave, 320

light, 366

-like, 138

Lincoln, 244

line, 322

literature [litara-
t§a, ete.], 365

loch (Sc.), 32, 35

long, 229, 273

look, 325

loose, 324

lorn, 136

lose, 135, 136

love, 365

luck, 325

lust, 325

man, 132

manlike, 138

manly, 138

 

405

maw, 334

meat, 320

men, 132, 318

merry, 237

mice, 131

midge (dial.), 276

Midhurst, 378

mirth, 237

moon, 76

mother, 130, 134,
327

mud, 325, 326

muse, 330

name, 260, 270,
317

nim (dial.), 287

nonce, for the, 293

nut, 327

of, 214, 215

off, 214, 215

oil, 323

old, 45, 237

pail, 382

Parma — Palmer,
16

pass, 313

past, 314

phonograph, 127

placed, 131

pleasure, 35

plough, 266

poignant _[poi-
nant, etc.], 365

priest, 272

prime, 366

primrosen (dial.),
292

psalm, 335
pull, 325,326, 327
406

punt, 326
pure [pj5, etc.],
360

put, 53, 326, (Sc.)
53

quality, 308

qualm, 335

quantity, 308

queen (Sc.), 134

railway, 360

rang, 131

rather, 74, 317

red, 321

redden, 284

rhyme, 366

ridge, 238, 276

righteous [rait{as,
etc. |], 365

ring, 131

root, 323

Rudge, 238

rule, 330

rung, 131

saint, St., 215

Sanders, 334

sang, 131, 167,
273

salt, 267

Saunders, 334

saw, 53, 60

scag (dial.), 286

scant, 285

scug (dial.), 286

sea, 31

sedge, 276

see, 38, 39, 53

seech (dial.), 145

seed, 236

seek, 145, 147,276

 

WORD INDEX

seemly, 282

seg (dial.), 276

sent, 131

servant, 318

set, 318

shame, 213

sheep, 133

shemale  (pop.),

shield, 236

ship, 35

shoe, 324

sing, 29, 33, 35,
131, 167

sit, 39

small, 312

sought, 147

southern _[saten,
etc. |, 365

spoken, 213

spoon [spun, etc. ],
323, 327, 361

star, 317

steak, 321

stick, 132

straw, 334

street, 241

strong, 229, 273

stuck, 132

stupid, 330

suffer, 325

sung, 131, 167

tail, 332

tane and _ the
tither, the (Sc.),
294

taught, 335
taunt, 334
teeth, 8

 

telegraph, 127

telephone, 127

the, 112

their, they, them,
287

there, 135

think, 29, 32

this, 29

thoft (dial.), 274

thought, 336

threw, 330

thunder, 325

til (dial.), 287

time, 322

told, 131

tooth, 8, 151, 161

Vother, the (obs.),
294

tough, 274

trees, 130

trig (dial.), 286

true, 286

Tuesday, 330

until, 287

vase, 74

vat, 280

vaunt, 334

virtue [vatju,
etc.], 361

vixen, 280

Wadhurst, 378

wall, 334

wane, 314

was, 314

water, 269

weak, 286

weald, 266

weet (Sc.), 319

well, 131
went, 131

wet, 319

where, 135

wife, 322

wifelike, 138

wifely, 138

wight (dial.), 285

wine, 322

winefat, 280

wold, 237, 266

womanly, 138

wood, 324

wrath [r5p, etc.],
361

write, 337

wrote, 131

yclept, 277

yeave (dial. obs.),
278

yeavey (dial. obs.),
278

Old Saxon.

ahto, 231
akkar, 227
bindan, 203
crano, 201
ertha, 231
etan, 203
fallan, 198
falipa, 234
gast, 202
jung, 153
mano, 229
middi, 203
riki, 239
sibun, 199
sittian, 203
sokian, 147

 

WORD INDEX

strata, 241
thihan, 232
werk, 203

Old Frisian.
jung, 153

Dutch.

dag, 167

drie, 167

een, 167
hoorde, 167
hooren, 167
komme(n), 167
moeder, 167
twee, 167

vier, 167

vijf, 167
zingen, 167
zong, 167
ge-zongen, 167

Old High German.

acchar, 227
ahto, 231
andar, 152
arm, 231
bintan, 154
bitan, 202
chasi, 241
chirihha, 240
cheisar, 241
chund, 153
churbizz, 242
dahta, 228
denken, dachta,
231
dihan, 232
dunst, 234

 

407

erda, 229
ewist, 193
fallan, 198
fehtan, 231
fuoz, 142
gans, 152, 232
gast, 202
geiz, 228
gisindo, 152
gitriuwi, 286
hansa, 152
hant, 154
heim, 228
heri-hunda, 154
houbit, 228
houwan, 286
hunt, 153
jung, 153
kalt, 231
kocchon, 158
kunst, 194
mad, 227
Maginza, 158
mano, 229
metu, 157
mund, 152
mus, 112
nadala, 202
namum, 229
nasa, 191
nest, 20%
ouga, 228
rihhi, 239
samfto, 152, 2352
sind, 152, 232
sizzen, 203
strazza, 241
suohhan, 14'7
tac, 227
408

tat, 202

tou, 286

tuomian, 10

uns, 232

vinnan, 154

vintan, 154

vruo, 194

wafan, 227,

Wascono walt, 158

werc, 203

zabal, 242

zand, 151, 153,
161, 163, 232

Middle High
German.

elch, 231

German.

alt, 45

blume, 53

drei, 167

ei, 286

ein, 167

fiinf, 167 |
genie [Sent], 123

 

WORD INDEX

hat, 53
hoéren, hérte, 167

' kdse, 241

kommen, 167
lohn, 53
maus, 112
mutter, 167
reich, 239
sang, 167
schauen, 286
singen, 167
sorge, 35
stock, 53
ge-sungen, 167
tag, 167

triue, 286
vaterland, 122
vier, 167

zwei, 167

Lithuanian.

avimis, 290

avis, 157, 158

bendras, 156, 162,
163, 203

dantis, 155, 161

 

esmi, 157

ésti, 157

keturi, 160

medts, 157

naktis, 157, 158

-patis, 157

pilnas, 194

pirmas, 194

sénas, 157

szimtas, 112, 162,
163

Zinoti, 194

Old Slavonic.

dy-mti, 68
nosti, 158

ovitsa, 158
sedeti, 190

Russian.
[tofad], 35
otichestvo, 122

Finnish.
kulta, 204
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
REFERRED TO

[This list does not include the monographs, etc., enumerated in the lists
in Chapters XII. and XIV.]

BecuteL: Hauptprobleme der indogerm. Lautlehre seit
Schleicher, 1892.

Bett, MEtvittr: Visible Speech.

BsoOrxman: Scandinavian Loan- Words in Middle English,
Part I., Halle, 1900.

Borr, F.: Vergleichende Grammatik (3rd ed.) ; Vocalismus,
1836.

Brate, E.: Nordische lehnwérter im Ormulum, Beitr. X.
(1884), 1-80.

Bremer, O.: Ethnographie der germ. Stamme,? 1900.

Bruemann: Griechische Grammatik,? 1900; Grundriss
der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogerman-
ischen Sprachen (2nd ed.), Bd. I. (Lautlehre), 1897 ;
Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik der Indogerman-
ischen Sprachen, Bd. I. (Lautlehre), 1902; Zum
heutigen Stand der Sprachwissenschaft, 1885; Zur
Frage nach den Verwandtschaftsverhiltnissen der Idg.
Spr. (in Techmer’s Zeitschrift fir allgemeine Sprach-
wissenschaft I.).

Bisrinc, K. D.: Altenglisches Elementarbuch. I. Laut-
lehre, Heidelberg, 1902.

DarmstETER: La Vie des Mots, 1887.

Diseuius: John Capgrave und die englische Schriftsprache,
Anglia XXIIL., p. 152, etc.

Dierer: Laut- und Formenlehre d. altgermanischen
Dialekte, vol. i., 1898.

409
410 LIST OF AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO

Exus, A. J.: Early English Pronunciation, Parts I.-IV.,
1869-1874.

GrREENoucH ann Kirrrepce: Words and their Ways in
English Speech, 1902.

Grimm: Deutsche Grammatik, vols. i.-iv., 1822-1837.

Harereaves: The Addlington Dialect. Heidelberg, 1904.

Hirr: d. Idg. Ablaut, 1900; Griechische Grammatik,
1902; Verwandtschaftsverhiltnisse der Indoger-
manen, in Indogermanische Forschungen IV., pp. 36-
45; Urheimat der Indogerm., in Indog. Forsch. I.

JEsPERsEN: Lehrbuch der Phonetik, 1904.

Korrrei: Spelling Pronunciations: Bemerkungen iiber
den Einfluss des Schriftbildes auf den Laut im
Englischen. Strassbourg, 1901. (Quellen u. Forsch-
ungen, Bd. 89).

Katuza, M.: Historische Grammatik der Englischen
Sprache, vol. i. Berlin, 1900. Vol. ii., 1901.

Kuucr, Fr.: Geschichte der Englischen Sprache, in Paul's
Grundriss ; Vorgeschichte der germanischen Sprachen,
in Paul's Grundriss.?

Krerscumrr: Einleitung in die Gesch. d. griech. Sprache,
1896. one Demat inns

Lusxren: Deklination im Slavisch,und Deutsch, 1876.

Lorn: Angelsachsen und Romanen, in Englische Studien
XIX ; Les Mots Latins dans les Langues Brittoniques,
1892.

MacGittivray, H. S.: The Influence of Christianity on
the Vocabulary of Old English. Part I. Halle,
1902.

Morris: Historical Outlines of English Accidence, edited
by Bradley.

Mornis anp Sxeat: Specimens of Early English.

Morszacn, L.: Anglia Beiblatt VII; Mittelenglische
Grammatik, 1 Theil. Halle, 1896; Uber den Urs-
Poe der neuenglischen Schriftsprache, Heilbronn,

888.

Napier, A.: Notes on the Orthography of the Ormulum,
Academy, 1890; and in History of the Holy Rood-
tree, E. E. T. S., 1894, p. 71.
LIST OF AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO 411

Noreen, A.: Urgermanische Lautlehre, 1894.
OstEerMANN: Lautlehre Ancren Riwle, Bonner Beitriige,
1905. ,
Osrnorr: Das physiologische und das _psychologische
Moment in der sprachlichen Formenbildung, 1879 ;

Schriftsprache und Volksmundart, Berlin, 1883.

OsrHorr anD Brucmann : Morphologische Untersuchungen,
Vol. I., 1878.

Passy, Paut: Changements Phonétiques du Langage.
Paris, 1891.

Pau: Principien der Sprachgeschichte.

PocatscuEr: Zur Lautlehre der griech., lat. und roman.
lehnwoGrter im altenglischen (Q. F. 64). Strassburg,
1888.

Rippmann, W.: The Sounds of Spoken English. London,
1906.

ScurrEer: Geschichte d. deutschen Sprache, 1868.

ScHLEICHER: Compendium,? 1866; Deutsche Sprache,?
1869.

Scumipt, JoHann: Verwandtschaftsverhiltnisse der Idg.
Sprachen, 1872.

Scuraper: Urheimat der Indogermanen, in Reallexikon
der Indogerm. Altertumskunde 1901 ; Sprachverglei-
chung und Urgeschichte, 1890.

Srezs: Zur Geschichte der engl.-friesisch. Sprache, 1889.

Sievers, E.: Angelsiichsische Grammatik,? Halle, 1898 ;
Phonetik, 4th ed.

Sxear: Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English
Language, 1901; Principles of English Etymology.

SmirH, Grecory: Specimens of Middle Scots.

Srreirgerc, W., Indogerm, Forschungen, iii. 305, etc. ;
Urgermanische Grammatik.

Srronc, LoceManN anD WHEELER: History of Language,
1891.

Sweet, Henry: Cura Pastoralis, Introduction; History
of English Sounds, Oxford, 1888; History of Lan-
guage, 1900 ; New English Grammar, Part I., Oxford,
1892; Primer of Phonetics (2nd ed.), Oxford, 1902 ;
Primer of Historical English Grammar; Primer of
412 LIST OF AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO

Spoken English (3rd ed.), Oxford, 1900; Shorter
English Historical Grammar; Words, Logic, and
Grammar, Trans. Phil. Soc., 1875-76.

Taytor, Isaac: The Origin of the Aryans, 1890.

Ten Brink: Chaucers Sprache und Verskunst, Leipzig,
1899.

WecussLER: Gibt es Lautgesetze? 1900.

Wuttney: Language and its Study, 1875; Life and
Growth of Language, 1886.

Wricut, JosepH: English Dialect Grammar, 1905;
Grammar of the ‘Dialect of Windhill, E.D.S., 1892.

Wyip: History of O.E. g in the Middle and Modern
English Dialects, Otia Merseiana, vol. ii.; Engl.
Studien, XXVIII., p. 393, etc.; Otia Merseiana,
IV., p. 75, ete.

THE END

 

BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

st

Hs
att
Bi
Hts

shah
AR
i

SRR HES
Bat the
et

 

a
a

iit

mi)

iy