Phonetic attraction. 
 
 R» J. Lloyd
 
 ■FFvOM-THE-LmRAK?/'OF 
 -OTTO -BREMER.'
 
 mm 
 
 PHOlsTETIC 
 
 ATTRACTIOi^. 
 
 i»a; Thesis suhniitted to the University of London, 
 
 ^'' hij R. J. LLOYD, M.A., Candidate for the degree 
 
 I of Doctor of Literature, 1888. 
 
 m 
 
 M5:
 
 f.ll'
 
 PHONETIC 
 
 ATTKACTIO:^. 
 
 Thesis siilnnltted to the VniveTsity of London, 
 hy li. J. LLOYD, M.A., Candidate for the degree 
 of Doctor of Literature, 1888. 

 
 LIVERPOOL: 
 
 Turner and Dunnett, Printers. 17a, Fenwick Street. 
 
 MDCCCLXXXVIII. 
 
 ' . • • •. 
 
 • • • • • € 
 
 
 
 • • • « 
 
 » • • • • 
 •• • • • 
 
 I • • _ • 
 
 »••••• *•* • •« 
 
 • • • 
 
 » • • • ••
 
 
 <r 
 
 PHONETIC ATTRACTION: 
 
 An Essay upon the Influence of Similarities in Sound upon the 
 Growth of Language and the Meaning of Words. 
 
 It is but seldom that tlie working liypotheses which are 
 
 adopted hy a science in its infancy are found to sijuare with 
 
 the observed facts which in jn'ocess of time the industry of its 
 
 votaries succeeds in auiassing. I'irst one conjecture is tried 
 
 and then another, until at last one is found which cannot be 
 
 rejected altogether, and up(in this, by progressive emendations 
 
 and extensions, a true theory of the science is gradually built up. 
 
 The Science of Language is no excejition to this rule. It 
 
 begins with wild guesses tracing back all language to some 
 
 primeval agreement, to some divin(i revelation, to the imitation 
 
 of natural sounds, or to a comnmn source in the Hebrew. Hut 
 
 g none of these hypotheses were found capable of being ri\'eted 
 
 ^ to the substance of the science by the necessary chain of facts. 
 
 2 Its students were therefore compelled to descend to huml)ler 
 
 ^ methods, and to Ije content for a while to amass facts, and to 
 
 CO 
 
 bring out the empirical laws upon which alone higher general- 
 izations can safely be founded. First of all the direct relations 
 of the modern to the classical languages were studied and 
 explored. Then came the discovery of Sanskrit and Old Persian; 
 and thereupon the splendid generalization of CTrimm gave a new 
 interest to the study of every Aryan language, both ancient 
 and modern. Philologists devoted themselves with enthusiasm 
 to the task of folloAving out that law into all its developments, 
 and with pardonable zeal they would fain for a time have brought 
 every word of every Aryan language under its immediate 
 dominion. No equally great discovery has since been made, 
 but a va:it number of minor and local generalizations have
 
 98 
 
 been successfully effected; physiology lias been called in to give 
 precision to })bonetics, aud to assist in formulating the laws of 
 sound-change, especially in the departments left untouched by 
 Grimm, such as the vowels, uasals, and liquids. Other investi- 
 gators, following up certain exceptions to Grimm's law, have 
 discovered and measured the influence of accent in the process 
 of sound-change. 
 
 The net result of all these discoveries has been to give to 
 the study of the Aryan languages a certain scientific basis, but 
 not one of the highest, nor indeed at all of a permanently 
 satisfactory, kind. They undoubtedly suffice to trace back a 
 very large body of Aryan speech to a comparatively limited 
 list of Aryan roots ; but it is to be feared that in the absence 
 of larger explanations they are often stretched to cover cases 
 which do not fairly fall under them : and even where their 
 application is most entirely satisfactory, the further question 
 inevitably arises — Whence came the roots themselves 1 
 
 Professor Max Mliller, lecturing in London, a good many 
 years ago, recommended that, for the present and provisionally, 
 the Aryan roots should be accepted as ultimate facts : and 
 in doing so he was probably right both from a scientific and 
 from a practical point of view. The work which at that time 
 lay immediately before the philologist was the perfecting of the 
 empirical laws of the change and succession of spoken sounds 
 in the Aryan languages, and during the progress of that work 
 it was 2)ractically wise and scientifically justifiable to postpone 
 the ulterior problem of the origin of roots. 
 
 But it is a problem which is sure to recur; for nothing 
 is clearer than that Aryan language did not begin with a 
 ready-made stock of Aryan roots. The roots themselves need 
 accounting for, as well as the Avords which are their offspring. 
 Professor Max Miiller points, no doubt, in the right direction, 
 though vaguely, Avhen he says that we must view the roots 
 of all languages as the survivors in a struggle for existence. 
 He points out how vastly fewer are the actual Aryan roots 
 than the number which the vocal elements of Aryan speech
 
 99 
 
 are theoretically capable of producing : and he leads lis to 
 infer that the immense number of vacancies th\is disclosed is 
 due to tlie van(|uishment and extirpation of the weaker roots 
 by the superior energy of the stronger. 
 
 But how and why some roots flourish and some decay, 
 Avhy some are victors and some are vamjuished, are questions upon 
 which he declines for the present to enter. Circumstances, 
 however, seem at length both to be bringing these cpiestions 
 again to the front, and also to be furnishing us with some 
 contributions towards their solution. The introduction of a 
 chronological element into philology has been fraught with 
 great results. Derivations however plausible are not now 
 readily adopted unless they are such as the conjunctions of 
 time, place and history Avould reasonably admit of; and the 
 result has been to discredit many rash and superficial guesses, 
 and to relegate still more into a limbo of uncertainty. The 
 confident expectation of tracing everything, or nearly every- 
 thing, back in a straight line to Aryan roots lias received 
 a rude shock. Abysses of time and space are found to 
 yawn between many modern words and any jjossible ancient 
 prototype, quite too wide to lie bridged by nny imaginable 
 process of transmission. Dr. Murray, writing in April of the 
 present year, enumerates under the letter B alone no less than 
 fifty-four words Avhicli he has failed to trace to any ancient 
 roots, and which he concludes to be, fnr the most part at 
 least, examples of more or less recent Avord-creation. He further 
 remarks that that portion of the <lictionary " contains many 
 illustrations of the fact, which has of late years powerfully 
 impressed itself upon philological students, that the creative 
 period of language, the epoch of 'roots' has never come to 
 an end. The origin of language is not to be sought merely 
 in a far-off Indo-European antiquity, or in a still earlier 
 pre-Aryan yore-time; it is still in perennial process around 
 us." 
 
 Such being the latest and best conclusions of philology, 
 there seem to be reasonable grounds for think inij' that the
 
 100 
 
 problem of the origin, nature and growtli of roots need no 
 longer be entirely ignored. If some roots are comparatively 
 modern, and if their rise and develojiment can be traced 
 historically ■^^■ith some approach to accuracy; if moreover, Ave 
 are enabled to gather from the history of acknowledged Aryan 
 or Teutonic roots wliat are the conditions which respectively 
 promote and hinder their influence and vitality, we may 
 perhaps be al)le to ap}»ly the knowledge thus acquired to the 
 general question of the origin of roots, whether Aryan or post- 
 Aryan. 
 
 The most cursory comparisdu of tlic lifodiistories of 
 various words reveals the fact ihat some words adhere to their 
 original meaning with a vastly greater tenacity than others : 
 and a further examination leads us t<i I'ecognize readily two or 
 three leading causes which contril)ute, by tiie degree of their 
 presence or absence, to render that tenacity greater or less. 
 
 Fiist among such causes must lie placed i)recisioii of 
 meaning and frequency of use. These, taken jointly, form 
 the strongest possible bond l)y which words and meanings 
 can be held tirndy each to each. When both are })resent in a 
 sufficient degree, all other causes, both friendly and hostile, 
 may be safely left (_)ut of the account, except of course, the 
 inevitable sweep of plionetic variation and decay. 
 
 Take for instance, in any languagv, the numerals and the 
 pronouns. These both comljine in the highest degree the 
 essential attributes of exactness aiid frequency. They are in- 
 capable either of shading off into a series of adjacent meanings, 
 or of being transplanted into distant fields liy metaphorical 
 uses. And we tind in them acc'ordiugiy a phenomenal longevity 
 of form and stal)ilitv of meaning, insomucli tliat they often 
 reniiiiu as the landmarks of relationship between languages 
 which have otherwise diifted apart in almost every particular. 
 
 It is best to consider these two (pialities — precision and 
 freqiiency — ^jointly, because separately they are almost powerless: 
 the absence of one is generally sufficient to paralyze the 
 other, Take, for example, the absence of precision ; and
 
 101 
 
 for tliat purpose let iis institute a comparison l)et\veon the 
 names of tlie most frequently used numbers and names 
 of the most frequently occurring colours. In jioint of 
 frequency there is clc\arly little to choose ; Ijut avc feel 
 at once that there is a vast difierence in definiteness and 
 stability. There is no fear that the Avord ivo will gradually 
 come to mean 2l, then 2i, then 2|, and finally be trans- 
 formed into three : but the word blue is used even now to 
 cover a vast number of adjacent meanings ; it shades otf in 
 various directions into colours which, at the point of contact, 
 are as totally indistinguishable as in the long run they become 
 totally different ; and there was clearly nothing, until science 
 wedded it to certain lines in the spectrum, to attach the 
 term blue sharply to a certain area of colour, or to prevent 
 it from slowly gliding into other fields, and attaining to a 
 totally different signification. These apprehensions are fully 
 confirmed by facts. In the classic dialect of English the 
 wanderings of the term hlue are comparatively narroAv, but 
 its Northern equivalent Jdae still varies in moaning from the 
 blue-black colour nf the blaeberry to the dull grey of 
 unbleached cottons, and in former times it has been iised 
 to express the Latin /ulcus, as well as the deeper brown 
 of the compound Bin-man, a blackamoor. In old Spanish 
 the same word takes the form blaro, and is found to mean 
 yellowish grey ! After that it is not hard to believe that 
 the Latin ffarus — yellow — is really, as phonetically it seems 
 to be, the cognate of the old Teutonic bJ,ar/r-o;: lilue, from 
 which all the other words cited are ultimately derived. 
 
 The o)dy way in which colour-words are found to maintain 
 any historical fixity whatever is by association either Avith the 
 tints of nature or the pigments of art. There is little danger 
 at jiresent of any change in the meaning of orange or vermilio]i: 
 and such words as a::itre and green preserve a certain limited 
 constancy, not by virtue of their forgotten derivations, but by 
 traditional association with sky and tree. lUit until brought to 
 an anchor by some such associations as these, the meaning of
 
 102 
 
 colour names undergoes tlie most surprising fluctuations even 
 in a very short space of time. Tliree centuries ago auburn 
 meant whitisli, and drah meant no colour at all (=F. drap, 
 undijed clotli). 
 
 Frequency of use, then, is no guarantee of stability in the 
 sen.se of words unless it is accompanied by precision of meaning: 
 and conversely a large amount, of ])recision "will not save a word 
 from corruption unless it is fre(|uently used. Take, for instance, 
 the verb which exists in Latin as frul, in (>. E. as hrumn, in 
 M. E. as hroulcen : its obedience to Grimm's law shows that it 
 dates back to Aryan antiquity : it is actively used both in 
 English and Latin, and so long as that activity lasts it preserves 
 in both forms, in sjjite of long centuries of severance, an 
 absolutely identical meaning. But in English its use at length 
 declines; it is elboAved out of the way by foreign words, such 
 as the vei'bs to «.ye and to enjuii : and 2xtri pas-ni, with the decline 
 in its activity there sets in a perversion of its meaning. The 
 word Avliich in its active phase had resisted the changes of 
 millenniums, passes rapidly through several gradations of 
 meaning, and now, after three or four centuries, is only heard 
 in the sense of brookiwj an insult or an injury, which is 
 certainly very far from enjoying it. 
 
 Whatever be the cause of the inactivity of a word, whether 
 it be pushed aside by busier rivals, or whetiier it is its misfortune 
 to convey a meaning wliirh raivly nce<ls to be expressed, the 
 result is the same: the word which is little used is easily perverted. 
 Let it be understood, of course, that these remarks ap])ly only 
 to the current coin of })opular speecli : the terms of science are 
 held to their meanings in a dilferent way. 
 
 An apt illustration is here afforded by the verb to huij, 
 and one of its derivatives. The old English verb hicgan, to 
 buy, liad a secondary and less usual form dhicgan, to abye. 
 The original difference between them seems to have been one 
 of emphasis rather than of meaning : the one meant to buy or 
 'poij-for (civilization had not yet dissociated those operations): 
 the other meant to buy or pay-for comphtclij, fidly, out and
 
 103 
 
 out. r>ut there is for synonyms a law of differentiation from 
 wliicli they rarely escape : it is always hard for any Avord 
 which is the synonym of a stronger one to survive ver}' lou'4 
 except on condition of assuming some slightly different mean- 
 ing, which is waiting and wanting to he expressed. In this 
 case the second Avord was felt to he especially suited to expiess 
 the religious ideas of redeAnption and expiaticv. It had for a 
 time a great currency in theological literature, and thus worked 
 its way hack into the popular vocabulary under the douhle 
 meaning of expiating an offence, and suffering or enduring a 
 penalty. This last turn of meaning is probably due to the 
 attraction of the verb to abide, a word at first totally uncon- 
 nected with the verb to ahije, except by its sound. Tlie 
 attraction set up by sound had been poAverless, or at least 
 unobserved, to long as tlie two verbs Avere sejiarated by a vast 
 gulf of meaning, but when once they were brought within the 
 sphere of each other's sensible attraction, they rushed together 
 and were merged, so that the one could hardly be distinguished 
 from the other. Thus the verb to ahije oidy escaped the 
 u.sual fate of weak synonyms in one case in order to f dl into it 
 in anotheiv It Avas useless to have tAvo forms of tlu' verl) to 
 abide, and the less frequent was discarded. The verb to aJujc 
 no longer lives in spoken English, and is oidy used in literature 
 as a consci(uis archaism. 
 
 The strongest bond, then, by which a Avord and its 
 meaning can be attached together is that of frequent use 
 and im'cise meaning. Words fulfilling these conditions con- 
 stitute the solid fuiindation, the iirm, bony skeleton of any 
 language of Avhich they form a part. But in the nature of 
 thiiigs tliey are few, especially in languages Avhich have attained 
 to any degree of copiousness. The majority of Avords in any 
 copious language are not of frequent use, and the majority 
 of the meanings Avhich the unscientific vocabulary aims to 
 express are either indefiiute in themselves or are prone to 
 wander long and far under vaiious metaphorical disguises. 
 
 i!(evertheless, such words often possess a very high degree 
 
 B
 
 104 
 
 of fixity, but it is attained iu a different way. Influences . 
 which count for nothing with the stronger class of words are 
 often quite sufficient to liold these weaker ones in their places 
 with wonderfully enduring constancy. The strongest of these 
 influences is that of phonetic association. Its operation is 
 partly analogous to what we have seen of that of visual 
 association in giving fixity to the meaning of colours ; but 
 it goes much further than that. Words are themselves sounds, 
 and their relations with sound are not mediate but direct, 
 not occasional but ever present, not necessarily intellectual or 
 conscious, but often automatic — either by nature or by the 
 effect of long use. The nature of these relations varies from 
 the utmost simplicity to the highest complexity ; but it is 
 only in their simplest forms that they have hitherto received 
 much attention. Much has been said about the influence upon 
 language of the sounds of nature, the cries of animals and 
 the interjections of men ; but it will be the chief aim of this 
 essay to shew that beyond these simple and obvious cases 
 there is a less obvious but much wider region wherein 
 phonetic association has also its sway, and produces far more 
 notable results. 
 
 Nevertheless, our way to the complex must always lie 
 through the simple, and it will lie necessary to give some 
 brief attention to the obvious cases named, before advancing 
 to the consideration of the more complex phenomena. 
 
 There is an acknowledged difference in the expressiveness 
 of words, a difference which all men feel but few ever attempt 
 to analyse. Upon what, then, does expressiveness depend ? 
 Clearly upon the vividness and completeness with which the 
 spoken word recalls the act or tiling which it is intended to 
 express. Now wliat power has a word to call up images of 
 this kind, and whereby is it attained*? Some writers have 
 maintained that there are certain instinctive interjectional cries 
 which are linked by nature with the expression of certain 
 emotions. But however that may be, it seems certain that 
 these natural roots, if existent, are exceedingly sterile. They
 
 105 
 
 do not lead up to any nomenclature of " emotions, our names 
 for which, sucli as anger, lade, affection, envij, are almost 
 uniformly drawn hy metaphor from the external world. 
 Neglecting these, therefore, as doubtfully existent and certainly 
 unimportairt, we may say, generally, that the expressiveness 
 of a word lies in the strength of its associations with the 
 act or thing which it is intended to represent. 
 
 The word itself, of course, is clearly incapable of recalling 
 by direct and immediate association anything except things 
 of like nature with itself. It contains in itself two elements- 
 voice and articulation — the one phonetic and the other mus- 
 cular: and it has thus direct associations on the one hand 
 with similar phenomena of sound, and on the other with 
 similar phenomena of force and motion. Beyond this it 
 cannot directly go. Of these two classes the former is by 
 far the most numerous and definite : the number of natural 
 sounds having some affinity to the sounds of the voice is very 
 great, and the resemblance often very clear; but the move- 
 ments of the vocal organs and the breath, so far as they 
 are seen and felt in ordinary speaking, offer but few and 
 mostly vague images of the phenomena of external motion and 
 force. The former class will, therefore, when we conic to deal 
 Avith them, claim our first attention, but reasons will be adduced 
 for suspecting that the latter by their directness exercise a 
 subtle intiuence of great power. 
 
 When Ave once pass from direct to secondary association, 
 the step may be taken in either of two different directions. 
 Given a certain sound in nature, and a certain more or less 
 exact counterpart of it among the sounds of the voice, we may 
 pass by secondary association, either on the one hand to those 
 other external phenomena Avhich associate themselves most 
 firmly with the external sound, or on the other to those vocal 
 utterances which, though not identical with the given words, 
 are of exceedingly similar articulation. 
 
 There is, for example, a certain kind of sound in nature 
 which we represent imitatively by the word eracli. BetAveen
 
 106 
 
 the spoken word and the natnral .sound there is a direct and 
 strong association ; and that association is capable of being 
 extended by a second link in either direction. Now, what are 
 the strongest links on either side? On the side of the external 
 sound the stronofest connection which it has to offer is that 
 which binds it to the phenoniearon with Avhich it is most 
 frequently associated in nature, which iu this case is that of 
 fracture or breakage : and by virtue of this the word, which 
 originally meant only a noise like that of breaking, comes to 
 mean breaking itself, and then by another link of the same 
 kind it comes to mean tlie lissure which is the result of 
 breaking. 
 
 But the spoken Avord has also its associations, of which 
 the most elementary are those which Ijind it to all similar 
 sounds, and especially to all words which in any degree 
 resemble it. We are entitled to conclude, on purely physio- 
 logical grounds, that the mere utterance of the word crack must 
 partly reanimate in the organism the traces of all similar sounds 
 to wdiich it is already accustomed, such as creak, crake, croak, 
 crow, crock, crockery, crackle, crackling, cracker, cracknel, and 
 crash, besides many more in a less degree, whose resemblance 
 is less striking. 
 
 It will probably sound [uiradoxical to say that of these 
 two kinds of association the second is generally, and in the 
 course of ages always, the more powerful in its influence upon 
 the growth of language and tlie history of words. The other 
 appears from an intellectual point of view so much more 
 natural, reasonable, and even necessary, that it seems almost 
 an absurdity to place it upon a level with random associations 
 of sound like thesp, possessing a good deal more, apparently, of 
 rime than of reason. 
 
 For the word random describes (piite rightly the nature of 
 this association, so far at least as the first link of it is 
 concerned. Its complete randomness is not seen in the ex- 
 ample given, because it so happens that nearly every word 
 strongly resembling the word crack has some imaginable affinity
 
 107 
 
 of meaning with it. But the same associations would have 
 been momentarily kindled in the organism even if each of 
 these sounds liad liappened to be wedded to an opposed, or an 
 incongruous, or an irrelevant meaning. It is true that un'^er 
 ihose ciicumstances, the incipient association would in each 
 case have been instantly snapped : the association attaching 
 to the word on its other or intellectual side would have 
 effectually 1 arred the way to consciousness. A hostile meaning 
 would immediately quench it, whilst an irrelevant or incon- 
 gruous meaning would give it no point of attachment. Be 
 tliis as it may, the first link of such an attachment is always 
 formed inevitably, firmly, automatically in the organism, and 
 that none the less that in most instances we never become 
 conscious of it. 
 
 vSuch conclusions at least appear to be quite warranted by 
 p.sychological facts. The association between sinuilar Avords is 
 in the hearer an association of sound with sound, and in the 
 speaker an association of muscular motions with muscular 
 motions. Such associations, if very exact or very habitual, are 
 foiuid to operate quite unconsciously. Their circuit seems to 
 be completed within the ganglia of special sense, either with- 
 out reaching at all to the cerebral hemispheres, or, at any rate, 
 without reaching them in such a way as to emerge into 
 consciousness. 
 
 Let us now turn to the other kind of secondary 
 association — association not through form but through meaning. 
 Closer examination will show that such associations are by 
 no means so natural and necessary as we seem to feel them 
 to be at first sight. The feeling of their naturalness and 
 necessity is largely an aftei'growth, arising from habitude and 
 phonetic identity. If they were really natural and necessary 
 the same associations would always grow ; but they do not. 
 Take the verb to crackle, which is the frequentative and 
 diminutive form of crack ; it never gets beyond its original 
 phonetic meaning : the sense of fracture or fissure is entirely 
 Avanling. Hut its absence is purely arbitrary, fur the correspond-
 
 108 
 
 ing French verb craqueler not only has the sense of minute 
 fracture, but has it to the exckision of the original sense of 
 crackling. 
 
 The reason wliy we are disposed to make, relatively, too 
 much of this kind of association is that it is . necessarily, to 
 some extent, intelligent and conscious. Between the sound we 
 call a cracJi, and the phenomenon of breaking, or the thing 
 we call a fissure, there is a gulf of meaning which can only 
 be crossed by a very distinct intellectual act, an act so 
 marked that the Avord may easily have continued, as many 
 have done before, to be used in its original sense for scores 
 or hundreds of years before anybody ventured to take the 
 leap which mentally separates its secondary from its primary 
 meaning. For the first meaning is one purely for the ear : 
 to any other organ it conveys not a particle of information; 
 but the secondary meanings address themselves to the sight, 
 to the touch, to the muscular feelings ; it is by these that 
 we appreciate and understand both the act and the results 
 of breakage. These are not only not phenomena of souml, 
 but they have not, of necessity, any scrap of connection 
 with it. Now, though it is easy, as already pointed out, for 
 impressions of the .s'«?we sense to link themselves automatically 
 together without the intervention of consciousness ; it is rarely, 
 indeed, that such connections can be effected between 
 impressions of different senses Avithout the conscious co-operation 
 of the mind. What few connections of that kind exist are 
 of a very fundamental kind, and seem to be implanted by 
 nature to minister to our most elementary perceptions and 
 wants. But in all ordinary cases the impressions of diverse 
 senses cannot be linked in the lower nerve-centres ; con- 
 nection fails altogether to be established, except through the 
 brain and the mind. 
 
 Thus it comes to pass that the attraction to which 
 words are subjected by contiguous meanings makes a much 
 greater show in our minds than the attraction due to neigh- 
 bouring sounds. The steps to which the first leads are few,
 
 109 
 
 great, and conscious, bnt the second is a gentle, invisible, 
 but unceasing and self-multiplying force, whose influence we 
 are prone to overlook altogether until it becomes too palpable 
 to be neglected, and then we commonly set it down to 
 entirely different causes. This will be seen more fully later 
 on : enough has perhaps now been said to justify provisionally 
 the division of the subject hereinafter adopted. Its fuller 
 justification will probably be attained when the arguments 
 here foreshadowed have been discussed more amply in tlicir 
 proper order and the validity of their conclusions has been 
 ])rought to the decisive arbitrament of facts. 
 
 It is proposed, then, to discuss the phenomena of phonetic 
 association in its two first and most important stages, whicli 
 we will continue to call, as heretofore, the primary and tlie 
 secondary ; it is proposed to divide the first of these into 
 two parts relating to the direct expressiveness of words, 
 firstly in describing sounds, and secondly in describing pheno- 
 mena of force and motion : and finally, it is intended to 
 divide secondary association into two parts, the first relating 
 to the secondary associations of words on the side of sound, 
 and the second on the side of meaning. Tertiary and remoter 
 types of association will only be treated in those forms whose 
 extreme force and directness permit them to be fairly grouped 
 with the secondary. 
 
 Beginning then with the direct expression of natural sounds 
 by spoken words, we find ourselves at once in a province 
 where even the primary law of definite ami frequent associa- 
 tion, so wonderfully illustrated by (rrimni, is (tiily very 
 partially oljeyed. The process of phonetic transmutation, 
 which in so many prominent instances fails completely aftei' 
 thousands of years of attrition, to weaken the bond between 
 a primeval Aryan word and its meaning, has a fiital efiect 
 upon words whose meaning is itself phonetic : and the more 
 purely phonetic the meaning the more fatal is the effect. 
 
 Were we to go, for example, and try to find an iVryan 
 prototype for our word, cruel; our search would be in vain.
 
 110 
 
 We oufjht. if we found anvtliiiifj at all, to find a root GRAG 
 or CiARCijOr ?ometliing like that; but we do not. The nearest 
 we find is GAR, t) creak or cry, but we fail to find that it is 
 connected with the English word by any vestige of historical 
 filiation. We do find, on the other hand, a root KARlv, 
 whose affinity in sound is in itself enougli to prove its want of 
 affinity in history and family descent : and what it seems to 
 show is this — that our Aryan ancestors were as much alive to 
 the descriptive meiits of a syllable like tliat as we are, and 
 employed it accordingly. 
 
 And whenever we try to trace back to Aryan sources a 
 word whose meaning is almost entirely phonetic, the result in 
 nineteen cases out of twenty is utter failure. It is not hard 
 to conjecture how thi^ may l)e, and the exceptions themselves 
 will be fouiul to add force to our conjectures. 
 
 Let us attempt to follow in imagination the fortunes of the 
 Aryan root KARK or KRAK, and to see if we encounter 
 anything which would militate agaiast its long stability. Let 
 us suppose that it made its way in due coarse into the Low 
 German languages. Bat in doing so it must pass inevitably 
 through a certain phonetic transformation. It is transmuted 
 into the form HRAH or, perhaps, HLAH : and it is possible 
 that we see it still in the Gothic hlahjan, which is the old 
 English hlehhan and the modern English laugh. But it is 
 "a far cry" from crack to laugh. Why this great change of 
 meaning'? Well, it cannot be denied that the word hul quite 
 lost its first descriptiveness by being transformed into HLAH or 
 HRAH : and to make matters worse, the far more descriptive 
 forms KRAK and KLAK seem to arise by a kind of new Ijirth 
 in the Teutonic languages themselves. The old word is attacked 
 and beaten on its own ground, and it only just manages to 
 survive in one collateral meaning, which it luckily happens to 
 express with greater phonetic propriety in its alt-red than in 
 its original form. 
 
 Another similar survival is the verl) to wheeze, O.E. hwcesaii. 
 This is said to be descended from the Aryan root KWAS, to
 
 Ill 
 
 sigh, sob, or pant. Whether the sense of wheezhig was 
 strictly within the original meaning does n^t ap})ear, but it is 
 quite clear that when Teutonic tongues twisted it into HWAS, 
 it became more descriptive of that meaning than it had ever 
 been before; and it continues to live exactly in the degree 
 and way in which it continued to be imitative. 
 
 Facts, therefore, seem to point to the conclusions which 
 we might have suspected beforehand, that in describing sounds, 
 men always in the long run prefer those words which imitate 
 them most closely, and that in this province at any rate, tliere is 
 an innate attraction which either draws form towards meaning 
 or meaning towards form, so that here, at least, the empirical 
 law of Grimm, and even the great law of definite and frequent 
 association upon which it is based, are systematically eluded 
 or defeated. 
 
 The same conclusions are illustrated in another way when 
 we find that words with the same phonetic meaning are often 
 found to have a much closer resemblance in different languages, 
 than Grimm's law would warrant. When we place the English 
 dink and dcmk alongside of the Latin dongor and the Greek 
 KXa^jT] ; or the English boom or endwo alongside of the Greek 
 l36fM/3o<; or kokkv^: or the M. E, tinken, with its modern 
 offshoots tinker and tinkle, alongside of the Latin tinnitus and 
 tintinnabulum, we illustrate strongly the failure of Grimm's law 
 to maintain its hold over words whose meaning is mainly 
 phonetic. 
 
 But it is only in words that are very markedly phonetic 
 that these conclusions hold good in their fullest extent. It 
 might be thought, for example, that the names given to the 
 cries of animals would always be closely imitative, and that 
 if names whicli were not imitative did, in fact, arise, they 
 would be liable to be very soon supplanted by more expres- 
 sive forms. And we do, in fact, find that this ha]>pens in 
 most cases: the words caw, coo, cluck, mew, purr, tell their 
 own story, and even the less happy imitation, hleat, finds a 
 very close parallel in the Greek ^XriXV- ^^^^ ^^'^ ^^^"^® ^^^^'
 
 112 
 
 content in English during tlie whole historical period to 
 express the noises of tlie ox and dog by the words helloio 
 and harli, which are by no means closely imitative, if they 
 are so at all. It is not because they are hard to imitate; 
 the Latin mugire, and the Greek /jiVKdo/biai are palpable imita- 
 tions of tlie noises of cattle, and parallel forms are heard 
 even in our own nurseries, but they fail to unseat the 
 established Avord. 
 
 Wliy is this so? It is simply that when we take a 
 word to mean the cry of a certain animal its meaning is no 
 longer purely phonetic: it is no longer a word like hum, 
 boom or huzz, meaning only a certain sound Avhenever and 
 wherever it is met with : it is confined to such a sound 
 issuing from a certain source. This shows how slight a thing 
 is sometimes sufficient to bring even words of strongly phonetic 
 meaning under the regular laws of language. 
 
 Yet even bark and bellow may not be in the last resort 
 entirely unimitative. They are said to be traceable to the 
 Aryan roots BHEAG and BHAL, and in that case they are 
 not originally the names of specific cries at all, but general 
 names for certain kinds of sound. It is conceivable that the 
 one arose imitatively from such noises as those of the tearing 
 of leather, or coarse textile materials, and the other from those 
 of resounding vessels, and the like. This, of course, is mere 
 hypothesis, but the very powerful sway of imitation in the 
 phonetic province justifies us in seeking an imitative origin for 
 every phonetic word. 
 
 Let us now pass on to consider, briefly, the other sphere 
 in which the voice is capable, though in a minor degree, of 
 direct imitation — the region of force and motion. 
 
 It would l)e vain, however, to imagine that there is 
 always a clear line of demarcation between this region and the 
 former one. Sucli words, for example, as the modernly inven- 
 ted 2^'^ff ^^'^ bang have from the first a mixed imitativeness, 
 partly of sound and partly of force and motion; and tlie case 
 is further complicated by the ease with wliich even a purely
 
 11.3 
 
 phonetic root takes on kinetic meanings by secondary associa- 
 tion. This will be well illustrated when we come to discuss 
 the modern Avord hoom and its cognates. 
 
 It seems also pretty clear that modern English words are 
 less capable of imitating nature on the kinetic side than those 
 of the primitive Aryans. Those forcible utterances represented 
 by us as KH, DH, and BH, are only very feebly represen- 
 ted by the modern h, or tli, or v. One needs only to 
 pronounce after the Sanskrit fashion the Aryan roots BHEAG 
 and BHAL, already alluded to, or the still more forcible 
 BHLA, to blow, and BHRAM, to hum or vil)rate, in order to 
 realize the weakness of our own vocal resources as compared 
 with the energetic forms of former times. 
 
 It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Avords of 
 kinetic meaning do not possess that mobility which phonetic 
 ones exhibit, l»ut may generally be traced back to distant 
 Aryan or Teutonic roots ; and also that the appearance of 
 new roots developed by purely kinetic inritation is com- 
 paratively rare. Yet modern English Avords are ni>t quite 
 removed from kinetic influences or devoid of kinetic expression, 
 as may be seen in several Avays. 
 
 The trilled r is one of the most forcible utterances which 
 survive in English : and the exaggerated use of it Avhich is 
 artfully made by the tragedian is the commonplace of satire. 
 It is not unlikely that the historical groAvth of force in 
 Avords like arranf and arrogant is due to their possessing this 
 letter in a position wliere it must be forcibly trilled, i.e., in 
 a short accented syllable, Avitli a vowel following. This is 
 seen still more cleatly in Hio wurd alai-inn, wlien^ such a 
 voAvel is actually thrust iutn iJn' word to facilitate a f.^rcible 
 pronuneiatiun coiiespuiuling to its meaning. 
 
 It Avould be prssiblc to extend this line of observation to 
 more delicate shadec of expression. The sound of the rolling 
 r might easily be imagined to have some affinitj' Avitli that of 
 round bodies trundling and bounding along a flat surface, and 
 might be fancied to account for, not the origin, but the
 
 114 
 
 preferential use of the word barrel to represent a rolliiig 
 package, herrij a round fruit, and for harrow generally meaning 
 a trundling vehicle. It might also be imagined that the 
 vibratory nature of the trilled r has something to do with 
 its general force as a termination, in giving to verbs a 
 frequentative meaning. We hear no longer any trill in such 
 words as Jiiclcer and Jiatier, but in the older fikeren and 
 floteren it was evident enough. 
 
 So also if we take any very large family of synonyms, 
 such as those which signify various kinds of tearing or breaking 
 — break, bur.-<f, bruise, crack, cruxh, fracture, infringe, rip, tear, 
 snap, tfiaat'li, rui^ture, &c., we shall often find little or nothing in 
 their etymology or history to account for their differentiation 
 of meaning, and the temptation will be strong to imagine an 
 influence in tlie sounds themselves which has led to their 
 preferential application to express given shades of meaning. 
 
 No douljt our guesses might sometimes be right, but in 
 the science of language, and especially in the obscurer parts 
 of it, the conclusions of theory need continually to be checked 
 by comparison with fact. No method which leaves this out 
 of account is worth trusting for a moment, for nowhere has 
 unchecked imagination led to more serious error. 
 
 We are here, therefore, in a region where our confirmatory 
 examples must be either exceedingly numerous or exceedingly 
 apt and convincing. Wlien we see, for example, two parallel 
 imitative forms like the words bob and jwp, bang and pang, 
 arising and growing side 1)y side during the historical period, 
 a careful comparison of these alone might tell us something 
 about the natural difference in kinetic and phonetic expression 
 between voiced and unvoiced consoiuiuts. In like manner the 
 drifting apart under the eye of history, of words once abso- 
 lutely identical, such as astonish and astound, vindicate and 
 avenge, might lead us to assign some part of their divergence 
 to the specific influence of the sounds in Avhich they dilfer. 
 English affords in one case a particularly large class of such 
 instances, in the great number of competing synonyms created
 
 115 
 
 by the preference of tlie Soiith for tlie sound of ch where the 
 North preferred to keep l: W\\y does belch expel the older 
 helkl Why do the solid bank and the wooden henrJi agree to 
 partition their coiunion meaning between them in that par- 
 ticular way ? Why does dike generally moan a solid inound 
 while ditch generally means the wet trench out of which it 
 was du^l These instances are of the valuable kind which 
 alone are of any importance by themselves or in small 
 numbers: but )io doubt there are other cases Avhere a large 
 number of less decisive instances might lead to conclusions 
 of a reliable kind. 
 
 There is reason to think that in one way or other 
 systematic investigation might throw further light upon the 
 facts of natural expressiveness, especially upon those of a 
 kinetic nature, as well as on the obscurer of the i)lionetic ones. 
 When one sees the old kinetic root GAEBH, to seize, sud- 
 denly reviving in the English grab, with numerous less perfect 
 copies like grip, gripe, grope, grapple, grasp, none of which can 
 be traced beyond English or its kindred Germanic languages, one 
 feels that in spite of its obsc;irity, the study of kinetic 
 imitation might, if pursued scientifically, yield noteworthy results. 
 In like manner when one finds the old English word can, 
 a moderate-sized vessel of stone, wood, earthenware, or metal, 
 and the imported word canister, a basket made of cane, 
 both coming in modern times to mean a clattering structure 
 made of tin, one suspects that there may be some lurking 
 phonetic power in the old Aryan root KAX, to resound, as 
 seen in the Latin can-ere, to sound, to sing, and the Greek 
 Kava-)(i^^ clangour : although it is qviite unknown to earlier 
 English as an imitative root. 
 
 But the facts which of all others seem suited to throw a 
 flood of light upon the growth of roots in general, and of 
 imitative roots in particular, are those concerning the growth of 
 new words in modern languages in historical times, as revealed 
 by recent researches : and in no language are these materials 
 now becoming more plentiful than in our own. When Ave
 
 116 
 
 look caivfully at tlie long list of words whicli Dr. IMurray has 
 concluded to he mostly of imitative origin, -we are struck at 
 once by the fact that they are in great part not isolated words, 
 hut have come up in groups, owning a fairly strong resemhlauce 
 to each other hoth in original meaning, and in their typical 
 sj'llahle or syllahles. It would he premature to discuss these 
 groups here, because they are intimately connected with the 
 suhject of secondary association, which we have yet to consider. 
 But there is one word of great importance which is not 
 in V( lived in man}^ such collateral relationships, and an account 
 of it will form a fitting conclusion to the treatment of primary 
 or direct representation hoth in its phonetic and kinetic aspect. 
 The wiii'd hand seems from Murray's Dictionary to he 
 quite a recent one in literary English. Its first known 
 appearance is in the middle of the sixteenth century; and 
 its meaning is that of violent striking : the phonetic meaning 
 is quite subordinate, but comes out more as time goes on. As 
 its use is largely Northern, and the same word with the same 
 meaning exists in Swedish, it is very possible that it came 
 from Scandinavia in earlier times ami led an obscure existence 
 in Northern dialects for some time before it appeared in 
 literature. 
 
 Further than this -we cannot go. Its resemblance to 
 the Knglish }>"U(j and the Latin pnnijo lielps us nothing. 
 Tlic former seems to Ite onlv another recent English word 
 like h(W(i itself; its idcntitication by Professor Skeat with the 
 earlier ;)ra?/f/ or pr()))<j dues not carry conviction: and the 
 Latin form ]uii)ij() is precisely that which (Irinim forbids us 
 identify with eitlier ]iiu}ij ur hnmj in iMiglish. Its real 
 gnate, fmnj, stands ready to refute the relationship. (_)ther 
 Aryan connections are wanting, and when Ave refer to the 
 Aryan roots BHAGr and BHAK, Avhich are its correct proto- 
 types in sound, we find them to Ite associated with totally 
 irrelevant meanings. 
 
 Two theories, therefore, and only two, are open to us 
 respecting the (mtrance of the word hanij into English. 
 
 lo 
 CO
 
 117 
 
 Either it is of native English growth, or it crept obscurely 
 into English dialects, and thence into literature : in either 
 case it made its way hy its innate })honetic and kinetic force, 
 and not because there was any lack of older words to express 
 its menning. 
 
 The second of these alternative thcoiies leads us to 
 remark that the operation of direct association is very far 
 from beintr confined to the invention of imitative words or 
 roots. It is conceivable that hawj is not originally English, 
 but it is inconceivable that it was not recommended by its 
 phonetic merits to popular use. We may often be quite able 
 to trace a word to a foreign source, and yet, at the same 
 time, be compelled to admit that it was its imitative power 
 which recommended it for adoption. 
 
 This is pre-eminently the case with words which have 
 entered the language through the popular, as distinguished 
 from the literary, vocabulary. Hence, it applies with vastly 
 greater force to words coming obscurely from the Keltic, 
 Scandinavian, and Low German languages, than to those which 
 are adopted, for the sake of the meaning, from the Romanic 
 tonsues or other literary sources. 
 
 One precaution is here worth observing. It is to con- 
 sider always what was the probable pronunciation of the word 
 at the date of its introduction. Many words will thus be 
 found to regain an inlitati^•eness which is lost in the modern 
 sound of the word. The word slough, for example, as now 
 pronounced, is not particularly expressive, but i)ronounced as 
 in older English from Chaucer backwards, nothing could 
 recall more naturally the noise of footsteps in clayey mire ; 
 and whether invented by the Anglo-Saxons or adopted by 
 them, as Professor Skeat supposes, from the Keltic, its 
 expressive sound must have mainly procured its admission into 
 English. 
 
 Let us now take up the subjwit of secondary or indirect 
 association, and begin, as arranged, with that branch of it 
 ■\vhose importance is here strongly maintained and which
 
 118 
 
 contemplates the extension of the primary association Ijetween 
 a certain vocal sign and certain cognizable meaning on the 
 side of the vocal sign, through the links which bind it to all 
 similar sounds, and especially to all similar words to which 
 the organism is already accustomed. 
 
 One instance of the effects of this kind of association 
 has been already given, incidentally, and for another purpose, 
 in tlie case of the words ahide and aluje. In every case of 
 this kind there are really three links in the association, the 
 link between meaning and word on the one side, between 
 word and word in tlie middle, and between word and meaning 
 on the other side. The extreme and practically unbreakable 
 strength of the two external links will not be denied : it is 
 the middle or phonetic link which demands our closer atten- 
 tion. Reasons have been given for thinking that that link is 
 continually and unfailingly, though often unperceivably, offering 
 or attempting to join the other two. It is too weak to effect 
 that object l)y its own force, and still less can it do so if there 
 is any repugnance or even a complete indifference on the part 
 of the words to be connected. Let, however, but the smallest 
 approachment take place between the meanings, and the con- 
 nection is instantly effected ; the wonls have thenceforward a 
 power of mutual suggestion, which tends to grow continually 
 stronger, and to lead to still further approachments unless 
 defeated bj^ other attractive forces of the same kind. 
 
 For it is usual for a word to have not simply one but 
 many connections of this kind, some drawing it one way 
 and some another ; and it is by the resultant of these forces 
 that the present drift of its meaning is largely determined. 
 Sometimes, as in the case already cited, the influence of one 
 strong and closely neighbouring word is so powerful as to 
 overbear all others : at other times, and indeed generally, 
 there are many competing influences tending to draw it in 
 various directions. The result of all these tendencies seems 
 to be best described by a physical metaphor. 
 
 Let each class of similar words be conceived as a group
 
 119 
 
 of bodies having weight or mass, where weight or mass 
 represent the importance or force of the word, as measured 
 by its frequency of use and precision of meaning : let the 
 distance at which these bodies are placed from one another 
 represent the nearness or remoteness of their existing forms 
 and significations : tlien the mutual and combined attractions 
 of these bodies, as deduced from the law of gravitation, 
 would be a fitting physical image of the phonetic attractions 
 which are continually moulding the historical development 
 of our language, and especially of our weaker words. The 
 latter forces are as silent, as unremitting, and apparently as 
 inevitable as the former, and the law under which all physical 
 bodies attract each other, more according to their mass and 
 less according to their distance, affords an excellent image 
 of the way in which attraction is modified by the strength 
 of the attracting word or words, and by the nearness or 
 remoteness of their forms and significations. 
 
 This is, perhaps, better illustrated by considering the 
 case of a word now first presenting itself for admission into 
 the language, tlian l)y that of one whose relationships are 
 already establislied, we cannot very well tell hoAv. We are 
 speaking, be it remembered, of [lopular words without any 
 known literary antecedents, wliich alone are of any value to 
 us in studying the pro-literary course of language. 
 
 It is evident that such a word would often, in one 
 important particular, resemble tliose which we have already 
 noticed as drawing their significance from their resemblance, 
 more or less exact, to the noises of nature. They would have 
 a similarity, more or less striking, to many known and familiar 
 woids. Those resemblances may be often even more striking 
 than those which occur in nature, because it is always possible 
 for one articulate sound to approach much more closely to 
 another than to any inarticulate or semi-articulate sound of 
 the external world. If the meanings of the words thus called 
 up are such as to chiine in strongly with that of the new 
 candidate for acceptance, they give to it a warmth and colour, 
 
 D
 
 120 
 
 and an appearance of familiarity and appropriateness which 
 tell powerfully in favour of its acceptance and perpetuation : 
 and vice versa. The more numerous and powerful is the group 
 of words thus enlisted, the more will the entrance of the new 
 comer ])e facilitated. 
 
 Nor will tliis influence be found to end there. It can 
 still he traced after the full entrance of the word into the 
 language. Shades of meaning, which are supported by 
 numerous and powerful phonetic associations will be found 
 to live, and other meanings to decay. Sometimes, even the 
 whole meaning of the word will be drawn bodily aside by 
 some powerful attraction. At other times the effect of this 
 attraction will be noted as eminently conservative, enabling a 
 group of minor wortls, by their mutual support, to preserve, 
 in a body, a stability of meaning and a continuity of 
 history which they Avould have been powerless to maintain 
 alone. 
 
 These remarks have a pretty obvious bearing upon the 
 theory of Aryan roots, jjut it is perhaps better to reserve any 
 direct comments on that subject, until the propositions just 
 laid down have received very ample illustration. 
 
 The negative evidence in support of them will ho. found 
 to be (piite as striking as the positive, and it is therefore 
 proposed to give illustrations of Dissociation, as well as of 
 Attraction. It will be shown how alterations, purely phonetic, 
 such as a change of pronunciation, or even of accent, seem to 
 loosen a word from its traditional moorings and set it drifting 
 till it finds another anchorage : how the obsolescence of its 
 resembling words has a precisely similar effect ; how the 
 same word, in different phonetic surroundings, is drawn 
 towards different types of meaning ; how different words of 
 one identical meaning are slowly differentiated by their 
 associations of sound ; and how the parallel existence of a 
 strongly resembling or identical root may gradually fill with 
 its associations words totally unconnected with it until all 
 thought of their real or origmal root is utterly submerged.
 
 121 
 
 Beginning then with some instances in which the entrance 
 of a new word into English has been facilitated or perhaps 
 procured by phonetic associations, let us first instance the 
 word booty, plunder. Its first appearance is in Caxton, at 
 which time the very similar word hoot, profit, now only seen 
 in the idiomatic phrase to hoot, was still one of the best 
 understood and most active words in the language. Thus 
 one word makes way for another until at last a whole family 
 is formed. The word frisk, for example, seems to enter 
 English first as an adjective, meaning lively or blithe. Its 
 adoption is countenanced by the old English word fresh, whose 
 original meaning was much the same. Their joint presence 
 opens the way for hrlsk, which emerges from some obscure 
 source in the latter half of the sixteenth century ; and that 
 again may have aided the adoption of the French brusque 
 shortly afterwards. The origin of the term boulder stone is 
 exceedingly obscure, but it implies from the first the attribute 
 of smooth roundedness which would derive phonetic colour 
 from the older words howl, hall and the numerous tribe to 
 which they belong. The word blot is without any discover- 
 able counterpart outside our own language. It is first found 
 in 1325, and Dr. Murray suggests that it " may really be 
 connected with ^j/o^," or may unite " a notion of spot with 
 some words in bl — ." The words intended are no doubt 
 black, blue, and their cognates. These would give picturesque 
 force to the first part of the word. As to the second part it 
 is interesting to note that both jilot and sjwt are used in 
 Middle English in the sense of Mot. They are both to be 
 found within four lines of each other in Piers Plowman, 
 B text, XIII, 315-8. 
 
 Nothiiig could illustrate better than this last example 
 the heterogeneous nature of the associations which are some- 
 times fastened upon a word by its sound. We have here 
 a word whose very birth, or at the least its entrance into 
 English, was brought about by its phonetic resemblance to 
 two or three quite sporadic words. The n(!w word, by what
 
 122 
 
 may be callcJ secondaiy imitation, seemed happily to call up 
 by its mere sound the joint associations of form and colour 
 which go to make up its meaning : and its picturesque 
 effectiveness secured it at once a lasting place in English 
 speech. 
 
 Nor was this the limit of its vitahty. Three centuries 
 later the then thoroughly English word Uot united its asso- 
 ciations with those of the equally common word botch, a 
 boil or pustule, and peihaps with some more, to sanction, 
 or it may be to engender and produce, the new word blotch, 
 a boil or eruptive patch on the skin. Here again the forma- 
 tive elements of the meaning arc drawn from quite diverse 
 sources by the mere force of sound. 
 
 Yet another instance is to be seen in the Avord blurt, 
 which makes its first appearance in English at the beginning 
 of the seventeenth century. It comes like the rest without 
 any literary credentials, but it finds strong phonetic allies on 
 the one hand in the great family of words which are ranged 
 under the Ayran root BHLA, to blow, and on the other 
 hand in the words spirt, spurt, squirt, and more remotely, 
 perhaps, snort and _tf(rt, and the obsolete jert, all signifying 
 some kind of violent emission or projection. 
 
 Nor need we resort altogether to remote centuries and 
 to vulgar speech to trace out, in some degree, the operation 
 of the principle here contended for. "When Cowper (Iliad 
 XV. 1. 485), speaks of " assuasive drugs/' none but a very 
 keenly critical reader feels the least doubt about his meaning. 
 He clearly means drugs that assuage the evils of sickness. 
 No one but an etymologist is in the least danger of mis- 
 understanding him. For the meaning is not etymological, 
 but imitative. Originally drawn from the Lritin ad and 
 suadno, this word has happened, by its sound, to suggest 
 another word so forcibly as to bear down etymology, and 
 give it, even in the usage of those who must have well 
 known its proper derivation, a meaning considerably removed 
 therefrom.
 
 123 
 
 "VVe may readily conclude, from the last example, that 
 if such things can happen in polite literature and in words 
 of classical origin, they must happen much more frequently 
 in the usage of the people, and in words which are without 
 a literary history. The instances blot and hlurt also are 
 of very great signiiicance. For they both seem to spring 
 from sporadic aud remarkably disconnected sources, and 
 if phonetic forces when divergent in direction can effect so 
 much, it follows a fortiori that the influence of a family of 
 words, whose attractions of form and meaning all pull one 
 Avay mvist be powerful indeed. 
 
 We are led thus to suspect the possible agency of phonetic 
 attraction in quarters where it has not previously been thought 
 of. It is seen to l)e quite possible that many words which 
 we rank as derived from certain roots may really not have 
 grown directly out of them at all, but may have come into 
 existence independently. Their apparent connection is due to 
 some accidental resemblance of meaning which enlisted some 
 powerful family of words on their side, and thus procured first 
 of all their currency in the language, and then their still closer 
 assimilation to the family type. 
 
 If this suspicion be well founded we ought to see some 
 traces of such a process within the compass of the historical 
 period. We ought to be able to lay our finger somewhere 
 upon a word of indisputably alien origin bearing indisputable 
 traces of attraction towards some powerful word or group. 
 Xor need we look long in vain. 
 
 The verb to broach comes now so near in form and 
 meaning to some offshoots of the old Aryan root BHEAG, 
 such as breach, broke, broken, that if our language had been 
 without a history, etymologists would have unhesitatingly made 
 it a member of that family. As it is, we know that its 
 origin is totaly different. Its real cognate in English is 
 brooch, an ornamental pin, and both go back to the French 
 hroche, a brooch, a spit or a spike. To broach a wine-cask 
 was properly therefore to thrust a spike into it in order to
 
 124 
 
 arrive at its contents. But that is certainly not the metaphor 
 wliicli we intend when we speak of broaching a subject. 
 It" it was, there woukl still be good sense in talking, as 
 our ancestors did, about broacliing a joint when we prepare 
 it for roasting, or broaching a horse when we apply the 
 spur. The truth is that the original force of the word 
 broach has been so overshadowed and obliterated by its 
 })lionetic associations with a powerful alien group of words 
 that it has been utterly unable to survive except in those 
 senses which admitted of being referred to this new root. 
 To spur a horse, to spit a piece of meat, can only by a 
 very forced metaphor be described as breaking into them : 
 l)ut to broach a hogshead of claret or to broach a subject 
 of discussion are expressions which ally themselves readily 
 Avith the verb to bni'ik and its cognates : and it is in these 
 meanings only that the word survives. 
 
 We here again arrive at conclusions having a manifest 
 bearing on the theory of Aryan roots, Init it will be better to 
 abstain from following up that line of enquiry mitil we have 
 examined the phenomenon of phonetic attraction from every 
 point of view, and arrived at some approximate idea of its real 
 potency. 
 
 It will be best to begin Avith the simi)lest possible cases, 
 which are, of course, those in which two words only are prin- 
 cipally concerned. In this class of cases there are again two 
 pretty well marked kinds, the one consisting of those wherein 
 the two attracting and attracted words are of no very different 
 weight, and the other of those wherein there is a great 
 ditference. 
 
 We have had already one instance of the latter class in 
 the verbs abye and abide : of which the upshot was that the 
 weaker was virtually swallowed up by the stronger. And 
 other instances are not hard to find, accompanied by not very 
 dissimilar results. Few persons when they speak of the 
 burden of a song, of a complaint, or of a story, imagine that 
 they are using a word which was formerly quite distinct
 
 125 
 
 from the old English word burden, and which by the mere 
 chance of phonetic resemblance has been completely swallowed 
 up by it. It is really the French word bourdon, humming, 
 once applied to a kind of subdued droning accompaniment 
 of minor voices to the principal voice, and recently reimported 
 by us us the name of an organ stop. The two words are 
 perfectly distinct in Chaucer and even Spenser, but from 
 that point the less is lost in the greater, and it now lives 
 only in what we imagine to be a minor sense of the more 
 powerful word. 
 
 In another instance the weaker word still survives, but 
 only in a sense dictated by the stronger, of which it now 
 seems to be merely a derivative. It is the word carousal. 
 Its original English sense is that which it bears in the name 
 of the Parisian Place du Carrousel, namely, a kind of tourna- 
 ment or tilting festival. But there was already in English the 
 closely resembling and frequently used verb to carouse, and 
 hence in a little more than a century the other word also began 
 to be associated with that meaning of drunken merrymaking, 
 which is now the only one which it conveys to the popular 
 mind. 
 
 But this utter absorption cannot take place when both 
 words have a vigorous life uf their own. The effect in that 
 case exhibits a contrast which has again its metaphorical 
 parallel in the physical world. If the examples just cited are 
 like those of meteorites falling into and being lost in a 
 planetary mass, the examples which follow will be found 
 rather to recall the behaviour of double stars, chained indeed 
 to a certain limited space by their mutual attraction, but saved 
 from coalescence by their busy revolution round an ideal centre. 
 
 The two Avords hoiU and about would seem to the unin- 
 structed eye to be as closely and obviously connected as the 
 words round and around. But that is very far from being the 
 case : they originate horn widely different sources, and owe 
 their present intimacy altogether to phonetic attraction. The 
 word bout really goes back to the old Aryan root BIIUGH, to
 
 126 
 
 bend, and its true English cognates are the word hoio in its 
 various senses and their numerous offspring. It properly means 
 a bend or curve, but the influence of the very strong word 
 about brings it during the Middle English period to mean a 
 whole circumference, or complete revolution, and hence to signify 
 periodical recurrences of various kinds. The word about, it is 
 perhaps scarcely necessary to say, has no connection Avith the 
 root BHUGU, but was evidently compounded, before the historical 
 period began, from d-be-dtan, on-by-out, tliat is to say, around 
 or near. 
 
 The two words beli"of and behalf now approximate very 
 closely in meaning as well as in form, but this is not due 
 to any resemblance of origin but probably to phonetic attraction. 
 The use of behalf is originally adverbial or prepositional, with 
 a genitive case in immediate proximity : be healfe meant in old 
 English by the half or on the side (of somebody). The modern 
 phrase on mij behalf means etymologically therefore simply 
 on my imrt. But the meaning of behoof is much less colour- 
 less than this, as may be seen in its still living cognate, 
 to behove : the earliest examples show the same !^trong 
 meanmg of duty or necessity. When the Northumbrian 
 gospels Avish to express that men ought always to pray and 
 not to faint, they say that it is lehoflic, behoof-like. What 
 then has since happened? It would seem that a compromise 
 has been effected, the stronger meaning grt)wing weaker and 
 tiie weaker stronger until something like an equilibrium is 
 established. The phrase "on my behalf" no longer means 
 simply "on my part," but "in my interest," and in the 
 nearly equivalent phrase "for my behoof" the sense of duty 
 is softened down to that of advantage. 
 
 Even in cases where the jneanings are alrpady closely 
 allied phonetic resemblance has its effect in lending mutual 
 support and stability to the members of the group. The 
 word afraid has doubtless received greater expressiveness and 
 wider use from the pronunciation afeurd, which connected it 
 with fear : and afraid in its turn seems to have helped to
 
 127 
 
 perpetuate the verb to off right, especially as a past participle. 
 Yet none of these words have the least relationship beyond 
 their sound. 
 
 In other cases the mutual attraction and support is at 
 present confined to certain senses only. When we speak of 
 a man overtaxiny his powers the metaphor, though frequent, 
 is not a very happy one: but it probably derives its felt 
 expressiveness from the feelings obscurely evoked by its 
 resemblance to overtasking. And when we say that a man is 
 of a brooding disposition, may not our mental picture of the 
 internal ferment be unconsciously coloured by the phonetic 
 coincidence with the verb to bretv? 
 
 The principles here laid down have a manifest applica- 
 tion to the case of homonyms i.e., words of identical sound 
 but of different meaning. It happens, as a rule, that a pair 
 of homonyms are widely different in signification: fur if they 
 approach very closely they either absorb one another, or they 
 are found inconvenient and one of then) is rejected. But 
 wherever association is possible the one meaning does not fail 
 to give colour to the other. We may know quite well that 
 the two meanings of the English broil go back to two quite 
 distinct French verbs briVer and brouiller, but when we read 
 of civil broils, the heat and sputter of the other meaning 
 enter in spite of ourselves into our mental imagery. We may 
 be struck with wonder that the word shoal can represent two 
 things so difterent as an assembly of fishes and a mass of 
 sand, but we connect them mentally by assigning to the 
 word shoal some meaning like that of mass or quantity, and 
 thus quietly help to obliterate the fact that a shoal of fishes 
 is the Old English scohi, a school, whilst a sandbank is 
 a place where the water is shoal or shallow. Thus do 
 homonyms, wlien once any imaginable community of sense is 
 set up, draw each other irresistil)ly together and at last entirely 
 coalesce. Few people imagine when they speak of oicning a 
 mistake, of having a sidmming in the head, of bidding some 
 one goodbye, of the art and mystenj of some handicraft, of a
 
 128 
 
 miserly old screw, or of a ship's timbers being shivered, that 
 they are really using dead homonyms, which have been drawn 
 and incorporated into the body of meaning possessed by 
 another word by the force of i)honetic attraction. 
 
 Quitting now these simplest cases of attraction, let us 
 advance to those next in order of complexity, that is to say, 
 those in which a word is subjected to the attraction of more 
 than one resembling word. Such instances fall at once into 
 two separate classes of widely diflerent importance. The 
 larger and more important class is that wherein the attracting 
 words have a resemblance not only to the attracted word but 
 also to each other; but there is a smaller and less frequent 
 class wherein the attracting words bear little or no resemblance 
 to each other : and it is perhaps best to view these first 
 because they exclude, ex hypothesi, the operation of the bug- 
 bear called by philologists " popular etymology/' which seems 
 often in reality to be only the final stage of phonetic 
 attraction. 
 
 Two apt examples of the kind in question have already 
 been cited in another place, — the words hlart and hlot : and 
 the list might easily be extended. Let one very good one 
 here suffice. The history of the word tweezers as disclosed 
 by Prof. Skeat is very remarkable, and hardly explicable 
 except by the force of phonetic attraction. It is really the 
 French ehd, a case, such as is used for holding needles, 
 scissors or mathematical or surgical instruments. It appears 
 as an English word in Cotgrave — " a chirurgian's case or 
 ettuy." But the initial syllable si/on fell off, as it did in 
 the case of ticJcet and some other French words. It figures 
 in fact in Sherwood's index to Cotgrave as " a surgeon's tweese 
 or biix of instruments." Such cases being generally made in 
 two halves, connected like the backs of a book and folding 
 face to face, we are not surprised later on to find Eobt. Boyle 
 writing "^ I drew a little penknife out of a jair of tweezes I 
 then chanced to have about me." We furthermore read in 
 the Tutler, Mar. 7, 1709-10, on the subject of toilet requisites.
 
 129 
 
 "Then his tweezer-cases are inconiparal)le ; you shall have one 
 not much bigger than your finger, with seventeen several 
 instruments in it, all necessary every hour of the day." That 
 iweezcr-case here meant a case for tweezers admits of no man- 
 ner of doubt ; and it is impossible not to concede Prof. 
 Skeat's inference that a tweezer was properly an instrument 
 contained in a tweesc. So far, so good : but the explanation 
 fails to show why the word was applied to this kind of 
 instrument only, and not to any other of the multifarious 
 contents of the tweeze. The above quotation does not justify 
 us in inferring that all the instruments in the case were ever 
 called tweezers. Had it been called a lancet-case we should 
 not liave inferred that they were all lancets, but only that 
 some of the more important instruments bore that name. 
 And the strict limitation of the term tweezers is well shewn 
 by the contemporary evidence of Phillips (New World of 
 "Words, 1706) who gives the word tweezers with this one 
 meaning, — "nippers or pincers, to pull hair iip by the roots." 
 Now why did the name settle at once upon this particular 
 instrument and not upon the others 1 It seems to be a clear 
 case of phonetic attraction. The new word called up a sound- 
 picture of the instrument scizhuj and squeezing its object and 
 twirling, twisting, tweaking or twitching it forth. "Whether the 
 sound is naturallj' as well as secondarily imitative we will 
 not discuss ; but the A.S. cwisan, io-ctvisan, to crush, to 
 squeeze, are worth comparing. 
 
 But it is not in cases like this that phonetic attraction 
 usually displays its power. The cases where diverse attractions 
 thus happily co-operate are naturally rare : and when several 
 words exert a sensible attraction upon another it is usually 
 because the attracting words are all of the same phonetic type, 
 so that their attractions all pull one way. 
 
 In tliis, as in tlie previously noticed classes, plionetic 
 attraction may be studied in every stage of intensit}^, from that 
 of remote suggestion and hardly conscious colouring up to the 
 most complete assimilation. Few people imagine Avhcn they
 
 130 
 
 use tlie word bondage that they are employing a word which 
 had originally no connection with binding or with bonds. Take 
 away those associations and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, 
 left behind : tlie word is quite emptied of its meaning. Its form 
 too is so regular that, if bondage had been without a history, 
 we should have thought it absurd to trace it to any other source 
 than to the family which clusters round the English verb to 
 hind, and the Aryan root BHADH or BHANDH. It is now, 
 indeed, to the popular ear at least, a fully adopted and admitted 
 member of that family, but its real parentage is utterly different. 
 Bondage is really, in mediaeval use, whether English, 
 French, or Latin, a kind of tenure in villenage, that is to say, 
 not on condition of military service, but of cultivation and 
 the sharing of produce : it derives its meaning from A.S. 
 bondu, a cultivator, which is modelled in turn upon the present 
 particijDle of the old ]S^orthern word hda to occupy, i.e., to 
 inhabit (a dwelling) and to till (the land attached to it). 
 Faint traces still remain to us of both senses in boor, a culti- 
 vator, and hus-band the occupier of a dwelling, as well as in 
 hus-band-man. 
 
 When villenage died out the nature of bondage became 
 obscure, the wide distinction between it and slavery was lost 
 sight of, and its meaning was at length fully governed by the 
 phonetic suggestions of bind, bond, bound, and their allies. 
 
 A milder instance of the same kind of attraction is seen 
 in the word belfry, which originally had nothing at all to do 
 with bells or even with church towers, but Avas the name of 
 a besieging engine of tower-like shape. So bloat seems 
 originally to mean to soak or soften, but its resemblance to 
 the verb to blow and its subordinates brings it to the quite 
 different meaning of puffing out, or of causing to swell by 
 puffing out. 
 
 There is a danger in adducing instances of less marked 
 degrees of attraction lest they should be thought fanciful, but 
 it can hardly be wrong to point out that the mental picture 
 raised in English by such a word as barricade is quite
 
 131 
 
 uninfluenced by the French harrique, or the Italian harrica, 
 whilst the English har and its relatives are strongly appealed 
 to. It is probable that to the English mind a barricade is 
 an obstruction of a very inilofinite kind, whilst to the French 
 or Italian it Avould hardly be po-^silde to mentally construct it 
 without the specific presence of empty barrels or boxes. 
 
 So also when we find the meaning of brink slowly verging 
 from that of slope or decUvUy to that of ahrapt edge, we suspect 
 an occult attraction which is, perhaps, that of the family of 
 words of which break is the type. The nasal would be no 
 impediment to the ear in forming such an association ; there 
 is a clear connection between click and clink, clack and clank, 
 tick and tinkle. 
 
 This tendency in words to gravitate towards strong groups 
 of pre-existing words is sometimes so strong as to draw not 
 only isolated strangers, but even sometimes to detach tlie 
 members of other groups from their more rightful but weaker 
 connections. The word bondage has already furnished us with 
 one instance of this kind, but it is possible to find instances 
 which are yet more impressive, because all the words concerned 
 are still alive before our eyes. 
 
 The verb to demean is not without living cognates. The 
 noun demeanour is enough to show exactly what it ought to 
 mean : to demean oneself is to conduct or behave oneself in 
 some particular way, — whether well or ill or indifferently can 
 only be determined from the context. It has obviously nothing 
 to do with the powerful adjective mean and its derivatives. 
 Yet the attraction of that group has been so strong as utterly 
 to corrupt the meaning of the word. To demean is now to 
 disgrace oneself, to do something derogatory, to stoop to some 
 menial or even dishonourable function. This change is usually 
 set down to " popular etymology," but that theory will hardly 
 suffice wlien we find the new meaning countenanced by compar- 
 atively careful and instructed writers like Kingsley {Saint's 
 Tragedy III. 4, 176). Philologists do not seem to reflect, when 
 talking about the dire effects of popular etymology, that Demos
 
 132 
 
 is not an etymologist at all. It is true that he effectually 
 dictates the meanings of popular words and makes them into 
 current coin whether they liear the hall-mark of the etymo- 
 logist or not. But he does not do this according to the 
 promptings of a perverted or any other etymologj''. He is 
 really guided by the felt imprcssiveness, the picturesque power 
 of wordS; in short by their capability to call up a lively 
 image of their meaning in virtue of their phonetic and 
 other connections. It is not till the whole thing is done 
 that any thought of etymology arises, and tben it arises only 
 on the part of the etymologists themselves. Judicious writers 
 and speakers accept the situation without attempting to fasten 
 on Demos a process of derivation which never entered into 
 his head. 
 
 The word tidy again has been quite as completely drawn 
 away from its real cognate tide, as demean from demeanour. 
 The A.S. word tid is exactly preserved to us in Whitsun- 
 tide, eventide, &c., — the time or season of Pentecost, of 
 evening, &c. Hence tidy is really synonymous with timely : its 
 primary meaning is seasonable, appropriate. Its steady drift 
 towards the meaning of physical neatness is hard to account 
 for, except on the ground of some steady external attraction. 
 That is perhaps found in the associations of the powerful 
 words tic, tiyht, and their comrades, which in nautical use 
 have strong suggestions of external neatness ; and there is 
 an appropriateness in these suggestions which seems to make 
 them natural in a more extended sense. 
 
 Sometimes a word is drawn aside even by the associations 
 of a minor unaccented syllable, particularly if it be the terminal 
 one. When a terminal syllable hajipens to resemble one of 
 those which the language has appropriated to the office of 
 suffixes it brings the word into a certain phonetic similarity to 
 a very large number of words bearing that suffix, and the 
 result is sometimes a very surprising modification of its meaning. 
 The word burial, for example, exists in the oldest English 
 in the form Uriels, a hurying-j^lace : but the s was mistaken
 
 133 
 
 for a sign of the plural, the el was identified with the Romanic 
 suffix al, as seen in v-ithdraic-al , hetray-al, &c., and thus burial 
 has entirely ceased to mean a burying place, and has come to 
 mean the act or ceremony of burying. 
 
 So also bridal, which is properly bride-ale, a wedding feast, 
 has come to mean the act or ceremony of marrying. 
 
 A less palpable instance is seen in bicker, a word which in 
 early use is applied to stern and violent contests, but which 
 seems to owe its gradual weakening of meaning to the 
 termination -er, so often associated in verbs with a petty and 
 frequentative signification. 
 
 There is another class of instances wheie a converse process 
 seems to have gone on, the termination having been somewhat 
 modified to give better expression to the meaning : it is the 
 class of augmentative words whose French termination is -on, 
 and Italian -on". If these words succeed in maintaining the 
 accent on the last syllable their English termination is -oo7i, 
 as in balloon, bassoon, doubloon, but if not, it is -on, as in baton, 
 button, battalion. Comparing the two sets of instances one 
 hardly feels it unlikely that the meaning had something to do 
 with the fortunes of the termination; the words which had 
 to express a big or imposing meaning perpetuated the imposing 
 termination. It is significant that baton, so long as it meant a 
 good stout cudgel, preserved the form batoon, but when it 
 came to mean a little wand, it subsided into the unobtrusive 
 baton. 
 
 Besides all these classes of instances there are others 
 wherein the force of phonetic attraction is not strong enougli 
 to enable one word to draw another directly towards itself, 
 but is yet able to give either a marked deflection or a palp- 
 able addition to its meaning. 'L'lie word blazonry has nothing 
 whatever to do with blaze, but it conveys an irresistible impres- 
 sion of brilliancy : the word bower has no connection with 
 bough, but we always figure it mentally among the trees : 
 we may know very well that a bandit is not necessarily a 
 member of a bajid, yet a solitary bandit would seem an
 
 134 
 
 incongruity : the etymology of the verb to asjoire does not 
 contain the slightest hint of upwardness, hut tliat notion is 
 unconsciously added hy the upward-pointing spire. 
 
 And there are doubtless a vast number of cases wherein 
 the meaning of words receives additional colour from phonetic 
 influences, though at the same time we are quite unable to 
 lay our finger at once upon the attra^^.ting word. If, for 
 example, the attraction is due, not to one M'ord or class of 
 words, but to several sporadic and unrelated influences, it may 
 be next to impossible to trace out these severally unimportant 
 forces. The result of the attraction may be plain, but the 
 causes may not be definitely discoveral^le. 
 
 It often seems to happen that the history of a word 
 exhibits a steady but unaccountable drift in the direction of 
 an altered meaning : and it does not seem too much to infer 
 from all the evidence which has now been adduced that the 
 cause of such a drift is really very often phonetic attraction. 
 Take the common adverb apace: it is the French a pas, at 
 a (good) pace. But it seems to be a f;ict, although unnoticed 
 in the " New Dictionary," that this word did not at first 
 imply haste or speed. There is an example in Chaucer 
 {Troilus II. 89-90), and another cited by Prof. Skeat from 
 the Canterbury Tales, where it may imply a steady or con- 
 tinuous pace, but most certainly not a quick one. 
 
 What are we to say about a case like this"? The sub- 
 sequent drift of meaning is as unaccountable as it is clear. 
 We look in vain for any word sufficiently approaching it 
 either in meaning or phonetic type to account for the rapid 
 strengthening of its signification. We find numbers of words 
 of remoter resemblance, such as race, ch'.ise, haste, which we 
 might imagine to liave been concerned in the matter : but 
 this is mere conjecture, and can hardly lead to results of any 
 specific value. Nevertheless it is important to remember, what 
 may now be taken to be proved, that most words are sur- 
 rounded by an atmosphere or firmament of attractions which 
 whether determinable or indeterminable, exert a powerful 
 influence on their history.
 
 135 
 
 That principle may be furtlier illustrated by cases where 
 the effect of an outside word or words has been not to 
 smuggle an additional meaning into another word, but to betid 
 it from its original intention into something slightly different. 
 The French word honte, kindness, goodness, is in that 
 language chained very firmly to its place by the formidable 
 adjective hon, good; but the former word enters our language 
 in the form hounty, and it comes without the latter : the 
 result is that its meaning begins to drift : it is probably 
 influenced by the companionship of the words abound, 
 abundant, &c. : its meaning becomes that of charitable gen- 
 erosity, ^ov does the movement thus set going among these 
 words terminate with themselves : it spreads to the word boon. 
 We do not imagine now-a-days when we hear of things 
 which are " a boon and a blessing to men " that a boon 
 is properly the Old Northern Avord hon, a prayer. If it after- 
 wards comes to mean the favour prayed for, and finally to 
 mean any good thing which might be prayed for, the intellec- 
 tual sliding here disclosed is not uncaused and motiveless, but 
 largely the result of phonetic attraction : and we shall not 
 arrive at a sound understanding of changes like this until we 
 view them not only on their intellectual but also on their 
 phonetic side. 
 
 Similar instances of the deflection of words miglit be 
 multiplied. The word baffle conveys to us the meaning of 
 unexpected defeat, and defeat implies conflict or attack. But 
 its original meaning has nothing to do with conflict : it means 
 to revile, disgrace, or belittle a man. It only drifts into a 
 meaning associated witli conflict, l)y the constant suggestion 
 of battle. It is probable in the same way that auburn (alburnus), 
 wliich was formerly accented on the second syllable, and bnrnisfi, 
 which is originally to make broicn, owe some of the Ijrilliancy 
 of tlieir English meaning to association with burn and its 
 compounds. 
 
 Here, again, there are, doubtless, multitudes of other less 
 palpable cases which we may be certain to exist, although they
 
 136 
 
 elude specitic investigation. The word balderdash, for example, 
 signifies originally a kind of liquor; but it would be profitless 
 to attempt to guess the attractions which have gradually drawn 
 it into its present meaning, however sure we may feel that some 
 of them at least were phonetic. 
 
 Sometimes, but more rarely, phonetic association takes 
 effect upon the form of words, and not upon their meaning. 
 Amaranth is properly amarant, Ijut the suggests of polya7ith-us, 
 helianth-as, &c., have been too strong for it : the common word 
 tight begins at first with a th, but the phonetic influence of 
 tie transmutes it into t : twit had once a long i for its vowel, 
 but is perhaps shortened by tivitch : hat, a winged animal, in 
 Middle English is JxiJcke, the change being perhaps due to its 
 beating the air : and 77iafe, a companion, in place of the long 
 established form make, is perhaps partly due to concurrent 
 associations of meet, adj., and meet, verb. 
 
 The contrasted phenomena of Dissociation have already 
 been incidentally touched upon, especially in case of the 
 attraction of words out of one family into another : but it 
 now demands a fuller treatment. 
 
 It is surprising how small a phonetic change will effect 
 a great dissociation. It may be in the pronunciation : the word 
 one undergoes historically a remarkable change in sound, and 
 straightway the word at-one loses half its meaning : the word 
 diary adopts ch where it formerly had c or ce, and forthwith 
 its relationship to care is totally forgotten : the word brid 
 (doubtless from resemblance to breed and brood) long signified 
 young birds, fledglings, but when it changed to the less 
 similar form bird it easily spread its meaning further : the 
 French brunir, to embrown, Avas able, — when it changed its 
 form to burrtir, — to shake off the close association of colour and 
 assume the meaning of burnishing as well as bronzing : the 
 Latin biiUire, to boil, gives birth to an Italian verb bulicare, 
 very expressive of lively ebullition, but the same line of 
 descent, carried through the French boufljger to the English 
 budge, yields us a word wherein all thought of boiling is
 
 137 
 
 forgotten and tli8 motion ilenoted is not at all lively but 
 unwilling and slow. Compare with this result the Aryan 
 root BHUGII and its Sanskrit derivative hhuj, to bend, to 
 yield. 
 
 Sometimes a mere change of accent is enough to effect 
 the dissociation. Few people habitually remember that the 
 ■words antic anrl antique are in their origin absolutely identical. 
 The simple change of accent has cut the former quite away 
 from its cognates and allowed changes to supervene which, 
 if the accent had maintained its place, would have been 
 manifestly impossible. A similar thing seems to happen in 
 the pair of etymologically identical words aggravate and aggrieve. 
 The former is at once seen, according to the well known rules 
 of Romanic philology, to be a learned, and the other a popular, 
 form. Bat, contrary to the general rule, the more regular word has 
 in English the more forcible meaning. The explanation seems 
 to lie in the accent; the accented syllable of the one happens 
 to recall the very forcible root AG, of which many offshoots 
 such as agony ami antagonid are familiar in English^ and 
 it thus acquires an adventitious poignancy which enables it 
 to outrival its old compeer. 
 
 Sometimes again dissociation takes place because the words 
 which once afforded to another its finu amdiorage have become 
 almost or altogether obsolete. (-)ue excellent instance has been 
 given already in the case of bondage. Another is afforded 
 by the adjective wo-hegonc. The picture which that word calls 
 up to us is that of one given up, self-abandoned, to wo. 
 But the latter part of it is really the past participle of the 
 old verb bc-ga-n, to he-go, i.e., to surround or encompass, and 
 was undoubtedly intended to call up a somewhat different 
 image. 
 
 Another kind of dissociation has been already hinted at 
 in the case of the words bounty and Ixirricada; it is that 
 which arises when the same word is exposed to the phonetic 
 surroundings of two dilfeicut languages. If the connection 
 suggested by Prof. Skeat between English agog and French 
 
 ^411)9!
 
 138 
 
 a gogo is real, nothing could better display tlie extreme 
 distance to Avliich twin words may be drawn apart under 
 such circumstances. The English word, under the powerful 
 influence of the verb to go, acquires a very active and bustling 
 meaning, whilst the French one seems to fall into the hardly 
 weaker hands of the word gout and its surroundings, so that 
 vivre a gogo is to live as one pleases, to be in clover or 
 at ease. 
 
 The same principle again is illustrated by the case of 
 doublets, i.e., of words etymologically identical which have 
 gradually come to express different meanings. When pairs of 
 words such as dip and clasp, grope and grasp), smile and smirh, 
 which once expressed identical meanings, are found to drift 
 apart, it is not unnatural to seek an explanation in that very 
 difference of form which alone makes at first any distinction 
 between them. For difference of form means to some extent 
 difference of phonetic affinities and therefore difference of 
 history. The word grasp is at first a mere derivative and 
 duplicate of the verb to grope, l)ut its altered form brings it 
 into phonetic relationship with clasp and hasp), which in turn 
 revive its affinity with its ancient cognate grip-en, A. 8. grip-an, 
 to grip : and so the alteration of form draws after it a still 
 greater alteration of meaning. The case of smile and smirk is 
 not very dissimilar. The first is Scandinavian, the second 
 Old English ; they meet as competitors of identical meaning 
 upon Middle English ground : but in modern English the 
 associations of jerk, quirk, and others, seem to have degraded 
 the Anglo-Saxon in favour of the Northern word. 
 
 Some instances have already l)een given, such as hout, 
 demean, and tidy, where words have been drawn very far 
 towards an alien root, but it is possible to give instances of 
 complete dispossession : the alien word has not simply drawn 
 the other out of its original place, it has planted itself in its 
 seat, usurped its office and ol)literated its remembrance. No 
 one, when he thinks about it, doubts for a moment that the 
 words accord, concord, and discord are derived from the Latin
 
 139 
 
 cor, the heart : but it is eqiiallj certain that no ordinary man, 
 and perhaps very few scliolars, are at all reminded of cor, 
 the heart, when they use those words. The metaphor which 
 they each and all recall is a musical one, — harmony or the 
 want of it. Whence this strange concurrent deflection 1 
 Clearly from the Latin chorda, the English clwrd and cord. 
 The associations of that totally disconnected root have dis- 
 possessed tlie original cor to such an extent that the latter 
 counts for nothing and the former for everything in the 
 picture which those words call up. 
 
 When we speak of a man being cashiered the picture 
 called up in the mind of tlie heaver is that of liis being dis- 
 missed from his employment and paid off by the cashier : 
 but it is really a <|uite different woid, being in fact the 
 French casser, imported ])y way of Hollajid by the soldiers 
 of Elizabeth. The Dutch form is kasseren, and the earliest 
 English forms are casseer and casheer. But both of them 
 have at first the full meaning of the French casser, to break 
 up, to annul, as well as to discharge. Its subsidence into 
 the last sense only is due to the complete expulsion of its 
 original associations by an utterly alien word. 
 
 The word blunderbuss is properly the Dutch donder-bus, 
 thunder-box, the name of a Dutch fire-arm : but to an English 
 ear the word donder did not so immediately suggest thunder 
 as dunder-head and its revise<l version blunder-head, both of 
 Avhich were already current in the language. The perversion 
 thus suggested doubtless received countenance, as indicated by 
 Dr. Murray, from the random firing of the weapon, and the 
 displacement of donder by blunder was soon complete. 
 
 The word blindfold again would certainly not be used 
 to-day of any one who was really blind, nor of anybody 
 except one whose eyes were bandaged : but it originally means 
 one who is really l)lind, and it has nothing whatever to do 
 with bandaging. Had it come down to us in a regular form 
 it would have been blind-felled, smitten or struck blind. Here 
 again an alien word has completely ousted the original possessor.
 
 140 
 
 Having thns illustrated in its chief aspects tlio behaviour 
 of individual words under the influence of phonetic attraction, 
 it will be interesting to note its effect upon the growth and 
 fortunes of families or groups of Avords. It is now obvious 
 that the leading result of this attraction must be to con- 
 solidate and enlarge, perhaps even to create, such groups. 
 The instances adduced will not have conveyed to us tlieir 
 right impression if we are led to imagine that phonetic 
 attraction is in its normal operation an innovating force. 
 The most noticeable effects of physical gravitation are the 
 downfalls and crashes which it produces from time to time 
 upon the surface of the earth, but they are all simply nothing 
 to the statical energy which it continually and unobtrusively 
 exerts in holding the framework of the globe together. So 
 likewise the great families of words Avhich in many cases 
 have descended to us not only through all history, Ijut through 
 an almost inscrutable antiquity beyond, may perhaps be found 
 to owe their wonderful solidarity and family permanence not 
 really to etymology but to the force of phonetic attraction. 
 
 The theory of Aryan roots in its present uncompleted 
 condition is quite as unsatisfactoiy as any which has preceded 
 it. Max Miiller in his Lectures pours well deserved ridicule 
 upon the hypothesis of a congress of hitherto speechless sages 
 assembling to discuss the invention and promulgation of language : 
 but when he enlarges upon the predicative nature of roots and 
 the very highly general or abstract nature of the ideas which 
 some of tliem express, does he not render it equally incredible 
 that language in its ruder stages ever Ijuilt itself consciously 
 upon such roots 1 Yet so long as we continue to follow his 
 (excellent temporary) advice and continue to regard Aryan 
 roots as ultimate facts, it is almost impossible to avoid that 
 implication. 
 
 The habit of tracing back all or most words to the 
 hypothetical Aryan forms of a far-off antiquity gives to the 
 latter an air of infinite priority and remoteness. The habit 
 of calling these forms roots gives to words the appearance of
 
 141 
 
 having grown out of these roots, although we have in many 
 cases no knowledge whatever of such a process. The habit of 
 talking of them as if they had a real and separate existence 
 leads us into some danger of assuming that words of a very 
 highly abstract meaning formed the staple vocabulary of a bar- 
 barous people. 
 
 It cannot be too steadily kept in mind that an Aryan 
 root is simply the syllable or sound in which a number of post- 
 Aryan words of nearly related meaning arc found, after due 
 allowance for the regular divergence of sounds in language, 
 to agrep. It is to be feared that many etymologists, consciously 
 or unconsciously, regard the relationship between an Aryan 
 root and its associated words exactly as they would regard the 
 relationship between the English words, amour, amHij, amlahle, 
 &c., and the root of the Latin am-o. In other words, they 
 seem to be always implying that the words are derived from 
 the root. But there is not the least justification for such an 
 assumption. It is quite as feasible, when avc look into the 
 evidence, to suppose that the root was derived from the words, 
 as that words were derived from the roots. It is not a case of 
 literary derivation at all, but simjdy of a resemblance in form 
 and meaning, of whose origin we know nothing Avhatever, except 
 perhaps, that in all likelihood it was )iot literary. 
 
 Let us take, for example, a root which has already been 
 incidentally mentioned, the root BHEAG, and let us briefly 
 examine the large class of Wdrds which in any way resemble 
 it or its olfshoots in form and meaning. They will be found 
 to fall into several vei-y remarkably distinct categories. In the 
 first line we have the English hrealc, the Latin freg-i, and the 
 Greek pi'j'y-vvixi, of which it is perhaps more correct to say 
 that theif radical syllables are allotropic forms of the root 
 BHIiAG than to say that they are derived from it. Then we 
 have a second class wherein this root has been somewhat modified 
 by known inflectional or other influences, such as the English 
 broken, the Latin fract-uw, and the Greek ippo}'y6<i, all meaning 
 broken. After these come two sub-classes of palpable derivatives,
 
 142 
 
 the one from tlie unmodified, and the other from the modified, 
 stems ; such as frag-ile and frag-ment, hreali-age and break-able 
 of the first named class, and brolicn-ly and broken-ness, fract-ure 
 and fracf.-ionalhj, or the Greek pcoya?, cloven, and pco^, a cleft, 
 of the other class. 
 
 Up to this point all is plain sailing ; the words have 
 all a real and a direct etymological connexion with the root 
 BHRAG; but below these we find three very important classes 
 whose connexion with it is either indirect, or conjectural, 
 or purely phonetic. And beyond these agnin there is a very 
 important body of unclassed words, which are freely assumed 
 by some etymologists to be cognates, not because they are seen 
 to obey any regular formative rale, but because they exhibit 
 some general phonetic resemblance and because our ignorance 
 of their antecedents relieves the hypothesis of derivation from 
 the possibility of being absolutely confuted. 
 
 First of all then, after the four classes of direct cognates, 
 come those whose relationship is real but indirect, of which we 
 have apt instances in English in the noun brlch- and the verb 
 f'raj/^ to pound or l)ruise. These are, of course, the French brlque 
 and brairc, but French in its turii derived them from the Teu- 
 tonic forms brifl- and brecli-cn, which are the close relatives of 
 our own verb to break. When therefore the words brick and 
 bray made their way into English, and into close companion- 
 ship with the verb to break, they Avere but wanderers 
 I'eturning home again. But at the same time we must clearly 
 understand that they returned entirely in the guise of strangers 
 and that, if their adoption was aided by the verb to break, it 
 was purely by associations of sound and meaning, not at all 
 by etymology. They would have stood exactly the same chance 
 of adoption if they had been totally unrelated. 
 
 iSText comes the class whose etymological relationship to 
 the root EHRAG is more or less conjectural. We have 
 already given reasons for thinking that the meaning of the 
 word brink is influenced phonetically by those of the break- 
 class. We traced it back to a Scandinavian source, iind there
 
 us 
 
 is just a possibility tliat it may go beyond that again to the 
 root BHRAG ; but it is a pure speculation. The case of 
 the adjective brittle is still more instructive. It goes back to 
 the Anglo-Saxon hreot-an, a synonym of hrfc-an, to break, but 
 the identification of these two verbs with one another is a 
 step of very doubtful propriety. We have no knowledge what- 
 ever of any process Tiy wliicli the one verb could give birth 
 to the other ; and if we ascrilje their parallel existence to 
 phonetic attraction, which is a cause capable of exactly 
 accounting for them, we shuU act much more scientifically 
 than in assuming derivations of a type for which we have no 
 vestige of authority. It is true that we can trace out types 
 parallel to hreot-an in all the Scandinavian languages, but that 
 does not affect the matter. If we could trace it back to the 
 primeval Aryan it would still remain more probable that the 
 two roots had attracted each other into paralkdism than that 
 either had given birth to the other by any process of deriva- 
 tion. The converse influence of the same attraction is well 
 seen in the temporary development of a form hrlclde. 
 
 There still remains a class of words which though perhaps 
 strongly influenced by the root BHRAG in virtue of its phon- 
 etic alliances are really known to be of historically diverse 
 origin. The word Jiroach has been already instanced ; and to 
 this may be added the word fractious, which Professor Skeat 
 traces back to the Middle English verb fraccli-en, to squeal. 
 But it would be idle to dispute that the modern use of frac- 
 tious is far more determined by its phonetic allies, such as 
 refractory and others of the BHRAG class, than by its real 
 ancestor, fracch-en, to squeal. 
 
 We now come to that residuum of instances which clearly 
 
 do not belong to tht' first four classes, but which we have 
 
 hesitated to distribute among the three last classes, because 
 
 etymologists seem generally to speak of them as if they were, 
 
 in the ordinary and direct sense, cJerlred from £ome wortl or 
 
 words of the BHRAG type. In Greek there is the word 
 
 pTjyfiLV, the surf, the water's edge, the brink (of anything). 
 
 Q
 
 U4 
 
 This has very mucli tlie air of a couipouud, and if any distinct 
 force, either independent or formative, could be assigned to the 
 second syllable it might be admitted to be such : but in the 
 absence of evidence it is better to consider such a Avord as 
 having indeed strong phonetic affinities with pijy-vufxi and 
 drawing therefrom vast picturesque force, but not necessarily 
 derived from it. Compare with it another phonetically 
 resembling word, pa^i?, the backbone (of an animal), the ridge 
 (of a mountain). It also derives a picturesque jaggedness from 
 its connection with pijyvv/xt, but in this case clearly without 
 etymological justification, because its real English cognate seems 
 to be the Avord ridge, Anglo-Saxon hrijcg, the back. 
 
 A Latin form here also claims attention. It will have 
 been noticed that the perfect tense freg-i has been taken as 
 the typical Latin form of the root BHRAG, because it presents 
 no modification of form which cannot be fairly accounted for ; 
 whilst the present tense, frang-o, contains a nasal element 
 whose origin is not clear. To say that it is derived from a 
 more primitive form frag-o, by nasalization, is not quite a satis- 
 factory explanation. The probability that sucli a primitive 
 form existed is very great, not only from Grimm's law, but from 
 the actual survival of forms such as frag-or and re-frag-or, which 
 seem to postulate it. But what is meant l)y the nasalization 
 of such a form 1 If nasalization means simply the addition of n, 
 then the assertion that fi'cig-o becomes frang-o by nasalization 
 is only a worthless truism. If on the other hand it means 
 that the Latin language was always at liberty to nasalize its 
 stems, or any class of them, it is obviously untrue. There is 
 no regular formative process known to the classic dialect of 
 Latin by which the n can be accounted for. It is at best a 
 dialectal, possibly even an unrelated or foreign, form which at 
 some period gained an entrance into Latin by the help of the 
 older frag-o, and then by dint of some superiority in its felt 
 expressiveness superseded the word under whose patronage it 
 had first made its way. We have only to consider what a 
 mass of ostensibly nasalized forms we could catalogue in
 
 145 
 
 English, if the early history of our language was as scanty as 
 that of Latin, in order to see that the supposed i)rocess of 
 nasalization must be regarded as mythical luiless it can be 
 historically confirmed. The grain of truili Avliich it contains is 
 that wliich has been already insisted on, that the additional 
 presence of the nasal is unable to prevent the older word from 
 exerting a very powerful attraction upon the younger, and 
 eftecting its speedy entrance or re-entrance into the language. 
 
 Granting even that it might be really a re-entrance (from 
 some nasal-loving dialect), it woidd still be true that the way 
 for its return was made clear, not by etymology, but by mere 
 phonetic attraction. 
 
 If, then, the root BHRAG still maintains itself as the 
 head of a powerful family of living English Avords it may be 
 fairly said that in every instance outside those of direct and 
 palpable derivation, it owes their attachment to the force of 
 phonetic attraction. Every example, from the re-attachment 
 of cognate words like hricli and hray and probably frango, 
 to the attraction of utterly alien words like broach and frac- 
 tious, is found to OAve its existence to the same force. 
 
 Such is the result of the examination of the root BHRAGr 
 and its adherents. But if we choose a root Avliose history runs 
 down, not through the polite literature of Greece and Rome, 
 but through obscure popular and barbarous dialects, the results 
 will bear much more strongly upon the probable life of roots 
 in Aryan and post-Aryan antiquity: and it Avill be interesting 
 to note whether in this case the evidences of phonetic attraction 
 are greater or less. 
 
 Let us take the root BHALGH, to bulge, which ought 
 in the regular course of things to yield us English forms in 
 halg-, or something differing only from that by the normal 
 course of vowel-change. Tt Avill be also quite riglit to keep a 
 look-out for forms Avhich might conceivably be ranged under 
 an English type hag- or hal-. These minor radicals are very 
 likely indeed to be found growing alongside of a type like halg-; 
 yet it would be rash to say that they might grow out of it.
 
 U6 
 
 Now tliat we are familiar with tlie power to produce parallelisms 
 of this kind wliicli is })OSsessed by mere phonetic attraction, 
 such expressions as "derived" or " weakened " or "syncopated" 
 stems seem to convey unwarranted assumptions of processes 
 whose existence or possibility we are quite ignorant of. 
 
 Setting aside all regular grammatical derivatives, which 
 are both few in number and for the present purpose unimportant, 
 we find ourselves able to assemble so goodly a concourse of 
 words resembling the types named that, if English were a 
 language without a history, we might easily imagine that this 
 whole triform family had descendeil to us from Aryan times. 
 Resembling the first or full type we find huhje, hihje, bulJc, 
 belch: the second — hag, hig, hndget, huggage, : the third — 
 bellows, billow, belly, boil, hall, hide, bale, howl, holder, ballot^ 
 bald, boulder, bullet. But the following tabulated list puts a 
 very different face upon the matter : — 
 
 Found ill 
 English ^^^j_ 
 
 A.D. 
 
 Earliest 
 English form. 
 
 Earliest 
 English meaning. 
 
 Origin traceable 
 to 
 
 1000 belch 
 
 bealc-ian 
 
 bt^lch, ejaculate 
 
 English — 
 
 ,, bellows 
 
 (blast-) bclig 
 
 (blow-) bag 
 
 Common Teutonic. 
 
 „ belly 
 
 helig 
 
 bag, pod 
 
 « !5 
 
 ,, boil (sb.) byl 
 
 tumour 
 
 5) J5 
 
 „ bowP 
 
 holla 
 
 bowl, basin 
 
 J5 55 
 
 ,, bolster 
 
 holster 
 
 pillow 
 
 )> 5 ) 
 
 1230 bulge 
 
 bulge 
 
 bag, jioucli 
 
 Ereucli — Gaulish. 
 
 „ I'a^' 
 
 bagge 
 
 bag 
 
 Scaud. ? 
 
 1297 bald 
 
 hallede 
 
 rotund, hairless 
 
 Eng. from ball or 
 Welsh % 
 
 1300 big 
 
 big 
 
 stout, stioiig 
 
 dialectal — Scand. % 
 
 „ ball 
 
 bal 
 
 globe 
 
 Scand. ] Com. 
 
 132.5 bale 
 
 bale 
 
 bale 
 
 Fr. or Flem.f Tent. 
 
 1300 boulder 
 
 hulder 
 
 cobble-(stone) 
 
 dialectal — Scand J 
 
 „ bnll 
 
 holle 
 
 bubble 
 
 variant of howl} 
 
 1314 bole 
 
 bole 
 
 tree-trunk 
 
 Scandinavian. 
 
 1413 bowP 
 
 buule 
 
 ball 
 
 French — Latin. 
 
 1430 baggage 
 
 uagage 
 
 baggage 
 
 French — Romanic.
 
 U7 
 
 Found in 
 
 English ^^^^.^^ 
 AD. 
 
 Earliest Earlics'; 
 English form. English meaning. 
 
 Origin traceable 
 to 
 
 1440 Lulk 
 
 hoik 
 
 a heap 
 
 Scandinavian. 
 
 1450 budget 
 
 hoirgetle 
 
 liag, poucli 
 
 French dim. oibnhjc. 
 
 1513 bilge 
 
 hilge 
 
 hull (of ship) 
 
 variant of buhje. 
 
 1549 ballot^ 
 
 ballot 
 
 voting ball 
 
 Ital. dim. of ball. 
 
 1552 billoAv 
 
 helloice 
 
 billow 
 
 Scand. — Teut. 
 
 1557 bullet 
 
 ballet 
 
 cannon ball 
 
 French dim. of: bo tcP 
 
 1865 ballot^ 
 
 ballot 
 
 small bale 
 
 „ „ bale 
 
 Instead 
 
 of finding 
 
 that our three 
 
 leading types go all 
 
 straight back to Aryan antiquity, we hud ourselves unable to 
 trace the bag- forms back to the Anglo-Saxon at all, nor can 
 we accept bealci-an as a normal representative of the radical 
 bait/-. It is the subordinate form bal- which alone finds full 
 and strong representation in the earliest English. Xot that 
 the complete root baJ[/- is totally ab.sent : it is found in the 
 now long extinct verb belg-an, to swell with rage, but it is 
 not a familiar power in the language like its so-called Aveaker 
 derivative, hal-. 
 
 The subsequent history of the group quite accords with 
 these beginnings. The existence of such a compact body of 
 Anglo-Saxon words of one type and meaning fticilitates the 
 adoption of more. Eighteen such words are here catalogued ; 
 but it is instructive to notice that 07ili/ one of them turns out 
 to be in any way a derivative or variant of any of the original 
 six. Yet they markedly adhere to the same phonetic type and 
 to the same class of meanings, insomuch that the majority of 
 them might have easily been conjectured to have etymological 
 relations to the root bal-, if the materials for historical research 
 had not existed. 
 
 These facts cast a strong light backward upon the original 
 group which is found existing in Anglo-Saxon. What reason 
 have we to suppose any greater community of origin in these 
 words than in their successors, or any more filial principle of 
 growth in Anglo-Saxon than in Early English? "Would not fuller 
 knowledge have shewn the same diversity of origin in them also ?
 
 These are questions which cannot he ansAvered, hut the 
 fact tliat they can ho leasoiiahly asked ought to inspire caution 
 in asserting relationship between the words which seem to 
 range thoni&elves under tlie same etymological radical, unless 
 they exhibit, at the least, a form and meaning which can be 
 exactly accounted for, either by phonetic law or by grammatical 
 derivation. It is clear that even then we may easily admit 
 some relationships which have no right to be admitted. 
 
 The groups often hitherto assumed to be etymological turn 
 out to be largely phonetic, nor is such a group much less stable 
 or permanent than an etymological one. The present example 
 would show it to be even more so. The death of the A.S. 
 verb he.lg-mi. left two of the three main divisions of the great 
 BHALGH tribe extinct in English, and powerless to revive by any 
 process of etymology. But the still remaining link of sound helped 
 back the 5a/_7-forms, and these in turn, losing their I in forms 
 like houge and budge (for huhje) may have helped back the 
 Z'a^-forms : and it is thus possible that this ancient family of 
 words now at length finds itself reconstituted in English by 
 the same force Avhich first, in all likelihood, created it, the force 
 of phonetic attraction. 
 
 Some assumptions are involved here which it is best to 
 state. (Jiic is that the variability of Keltic consonants might 
 permit the h of bulge to be identified with Aryan BH : and 
 the other is that the fcrtr/-forms, or some of them, really go 
 back through Scandinavian to a Teutonic or Aryan source. 
 
 Yet the reconstituting force, after all, was not etymological 
 but phonetic; and liaving by this example shown that ancient roots 
 continue to grow in modern times by phonetic attraction, we 
 will endeavour to show, finally, that their very origin may be 
 sometimes due to the same cause. 
 
 It has already been hinted that there are signs of the 
 growth of new and indigenous word-families in English during 
 the historical period. A list of such a family is given below, 
 which seems to cluster round, rather than to groAv out of, the 
 root syllable bom-.
 
 149 
 
 Found in 
 
 Word. 
 
 English. 
 
 1225 bounce 
 
 Earliest English 
 form. 
 
 Earliest English 
 meaning. 
 
 Origin. 
 
 hunse 
 
 to thump, to Lang prob, imitative, 
 (to rebound, not till 1519) 
 
 bob 
 
 bonche 
 honcJie 
 bom 
 
 to pommel 
 a bunch, a hump 
 to tlmmp, to punch 
 part of the body 
 a kind of cannon 
 to hum or boom 
 
 prob. imitative. 
 
 ig 
 
 unknown, cf. bimch^ 
 
 French — Latin. 
 
 imitative. 
 
 Fr. — Lat. — Greek. 
 
 imitative. 
 
 1588 bomb 
 1593 bound 
 1597 bumble 
 
 1280 bob 
 
 1325 bunch' 
 
 1362 bunch" 
 
 1387 bum 
 
 1430 bombard bumbard 
 
 1440 boom bomhon 
 
 1553 bombast bombage waddinf 
 
 1566 bump bump to cause to swell 
 
 (1611, to strike heavily) 
 
 borne an explosive Spanish — Latin. 
 
 bound to leap French — Latin. 
 
 bombill buzzing, bluster imitative. 
 
 The first thing which strikes us on scanning these particulars 
 is tliat the group is decidedly not Aryan ; it not only appears 
 to arise without the aid of cither imported or inherited models, 
 but it is without any clear Aryan prototype at all. The next 
 thing worthy of remark is that its origin is even more purely 
 phonetic than it appears to be : for Avhen we trace back tlie 
 four apparent exceptions we are led straight back in two cases 
 to the imitative Latin word bomb-us, Greek ^o/j.^a, a booming 
 sound ; in the case of bound, which is the French word boiid-ir, 
 we find a wonderful parallel to the English bounce and bump, 
 for its early meaning in French is to resound ; and in the case 
 of bombast we have an apt instance of an uncom})leted phonetic 
 and historical attraction, from a totally alien source, in actual 
 operation under our eyes. 
 
 The thiid point which arrests attention is the practical 
 identity of the radical syllable in nearly all the early forms, 
 coupled with the absence of any vestige of an etymological 
 relationship. There is not a word upon the list which can clearly 
 be said to be a variant or a derivative of any otlier of tliem. 
 Can we suppose then that there is no kin<l of unity Ijetweeu
 
 150 
 
 tliem 1 Decidedly not ; Liit it is only such a unity as we might 
 fairly expect to be developed hy phonetic attraction, ami 
 hardly in any other way. 
 
 It will he noticed, perhaps, that there is not the same 
 consonance in the column of meanings that there was in the 
 BHALGH class : but this again admits of partial explanation 
 on the hypothesis of attraction. The growth of that class had 
 a very firm and definite staning point, in five strong Saxon 
 words, all meaning a rotund body of some sort ; and the 
 result is seen in a column of meanings adhering most remarkably 
 to that general type down to the present day : whilst the 
 meanings on the present list, though fewer, embody at least 
 five logically distinct ideas, — those of a dull continued sound, 
 a dull sudden sound, a heavy blow, a rebound, and a lump or 
 hunch. But though logically distinct they are all very obviously 
 associated in nature except the last; and Professor Skeat 
 conceives even that also to arise from natural association, through 
 the swelling which is the result of a heavy blow. Nor can it 
 be considered unnatural that, in the absence of anything which 
 conld limit them to a fixed type of meaning, the signification 
 of these imitative words t-hould wander over all the phenomena 
 with which their sound was intimately associated, and that 
 they should actually seem to countenance each other in these 
 wanderings. But if they had found a solid body of English words 
 already attached exclusively to one of these meanings the result 
 might have been different. And if the type had had its origin 
 in the same antiipiity as the root BHALGH it is also possible 
 that the struggles of the intervening ages would have led in 
 this case also to tiie more decisive predominence of a 
 single meaning, and to the banishment or atrophy of the 
 remainder. 
 
 We have now pursued the subject of phonetic attraction 
 as far as it can conveniently be pursued by itself. We are 
 already at a point where the case is complicated by questions 
 of int'llectual ai-sociation ; and some treatment of that subject 
 would certainly be necessary before any attempt was made to
 
 151 
 
 discuss the question of roots in its fullest extent, seeing" that a 
 very large number of them are not of that phonetic and 
 kinetic type of meaning Avhich alone can be accounted for by 
 direct imitation. 
 
 But the minor task which was proposed at the outset is 
 now complete, and it will be useful in conclusion to summarize 
 the residts attained. It is here maintained that every word in 
 a language, particularly if it be a word of comparatively rare 
 emplojanent and undefined meaning, is sul)jected on every side 
 to attractions proceeding from all words possessing any com- 
 munity of form and import, and that these attractions continually 
 tend to draw it into still closer conformity : that the chief result 
 of this tendency has been to draw words together into clusters 
 of a more or less resembling form and signification, and its 
 chief office still is to keep these assemlilages intact : that this, 
 its statical effect, is lialjle to be overlookcil, being commonly 
 ascribed to etymological or quasi-etymological causes : tliat its 
 exceptional effects in changing and removing the meanings, 
 and occasionally the forms, of words are nevertheless very 
 striking: that they are to be clearly traced in every class of 
 cases where the hypothesis of attraction would teach us to look 
 for them : that the attraction set up by form needs Init a very 
 slight resemblance of meaning in order to make itself sensibly 
 felt : that, as a rule, this attraction midtiplies itself, by 
 creating an increased resemblance of signification : that this 
 is seen much better in the popular vocabulary than in words 
 which possess any literary or scientific fixity : that the 
 theory applies therefore still more strongly to Aryan or 
 paulo-post-Aryan times than to modern literary ages : tliat 
 phonetic attraction had ])robably a good deal to do with the 
 growth of Aryan roots, or some of them : tliat modern example 
 shews how a tribe of words o\\ning the same common radical 
 may grow up under purely phonetic influences without any 
 ostensible etymological process : that in fact it seems to be the 
 first corollary from the doctrine of phonetic attraction that some 
 roots at least have grown, not, as the name would inqily, from 
 
 H
 
 152 
 
 within, but like a sand bank or a (Tystal, from the continual 
 attraction and addition of similar parts from without. 
 
 It remains only to add that, as this thesis is put forward 
 as a study in English philology, the argument and the instances 
 are confined as much as possible to the English language, but 
 it is believed that the conclusions will hold good for other 
 languages in the degree of their similarity. The author submits 
 his conclusions to that process of natural selection and survival 
 of the fittest which rules as much the fate of philological 
 theories and of Aryan word-clusters as of other sublunary things.
 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACIL 
 
 AA 000 352 592 o