' J J I ' I J V ' " *.MU/ «ll IIR J » » ^^^'> ^ c^ \\u -J ■73 s M J J M 1 1 M ! J n ' ....Of 4r c-i — ^ ^ ij: CO ^\\EUNIVER% A>;lOSANCflfj>^ ^ % >i ^\\\tliNlVER% >• 02 'Jiiijftv-:>ui-'^ o ■HFlfj-^ '•^/^ad/MiNiiJv^v .1 %1 \^ ^^MF-IJNIVFR.r/A > o = V C ,-A,.OF-CAlIFn% .-I- nF'G' .V ^^illRRARYQr >i ^JO>^ '^(i/OJIlVJJO"^ A\^FIINIVFR5-/A ,vlOS-AVrFlf.r^ 1 55 .^OFCAllF0/?/A, .^OFCALIFO% S3' ^^WE llNIVER,5"//>, ^lOS-ANuLLr. Qf ft: v/«^*\ Vr,^^-' ^ '\^ ^ -'-^^ ^- 31 CAllFOff^ 'lll# .\\UUNIVER% ,OFCAIIFO%, ^C'AaVdHIB^'^ ms.> ' ^,^l•lIBRARYG^^ 2 Vr> M . J--3 ^.^VUBRARYQ/:, ^OJIWDJO"^ \\\MJNIVERy/A 1*^^ so ^OF-CAIIFO;?,)^ ^.OfCAllFO/?^ ^WEIjN'lVFRS//, ^ "^/^aiMNn-j^v^ ^(9A«v}ien#' ^^Aavaan# '^-tjuonysov^'^ ARYOc 4^llIBRARY^r \MEUN'1VER5'/A vjvlOSA^Flfj, <.OF-CAIIFO/?^ '^. \NCElfx^ ^^lllBRARYQr ^^^\^•lIBRARYQ^^ ^^\\E■U^'IVFR ,^.OF-CAllF0/?i> ,-^OFCAUF0^t> >- %:^l ^'^mj^ys^^^ Till': ENGLISH LANGUAGE BY R. G. LATHAM, lALA., M.D., F.E.S., LA'lE KKLLOVV OV KING S COLI.IiGE, CAMBRIDGE ; I.A 1 E FROFESSOK OF TUE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN UXIVEKSITY COIXEGE, LONDON. FOURTH EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. IL LONDON : WALTON AND MABEllLY, UPPER GOWER STREET, AND IVY LANE, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1855. LO^DOK: I'KINTEU BY WOODPAIL AND KINUEK, ANGEl, CODliT, SKlKHEIi STKEET. • • • • t t • f CONTENTS. PART III. P H N E S I S. CHAPTER I. ELEMENTARY SOUNDS OF THE ENGLISH LANGtTAGE. — LETTERS. — ALPHABET. — PECULIARITIES OF THE ENGLISH SOUND-SYSTEM. SECT. 277. Elementary sounds .... 278. Arrangement — Alphabet 279. Ivcmarks ..... 280. The R hirrient .... 281. Compound sibilants — their evolution and effects 282. Remarks ..... pAGi: 1 3 4 G 8-17 17 CIIArTER II. POWERS OF LETTERS AND COMBINATIONS. 283. Single vowels and vowels with an e mute 284. Power of Y . 285. Double vowels . 286. Combinations of two different vowels 287. Vowels followed by a semi-vowel 288. Combinations of three vowels . 289. Consonants 290. The superfluous letters 291. Double consonants 292. if and the combinations of // . 293. The compound sibilants 294. The XG in kimj, &c. . 20-2.-. 2.5 25 2G 32 33 34 38 39 39 40 41 a 2 r* IV CONTENTS. CHAPTER III. ACCENT.- EMPHASIS. — QUANTITY. — PEKMUTATION AND TRANSITION OF SOUNDS. PAGE 43 SECT. 295. Accent . 296. Emphasis 297. Quantity 298. Permutation of sounds 299. Transition of sounds • • • • . 45 . 46 . 46 • • • • . 48 CHAPTER IV. ORTHOEPY. 300. . Orthoepy and orthography 301. Errors of pronunciation 302. Standards of orthoepy 303. Orthbepic tests 50 51 63 54 CHAPTER V. ORTHOGRAPHY. — ORTHOGRAPHIC EXPEDIENTS. 304. Orthography and orthoepy 305. Full and perfect alphabet 306. Criticism of English . — Insufficiency . — Inconsistency . — Erroueousness — Redundancy , — Unsteadiness, &c. 307. On certain conventional modes of spelling 308. 309. The e mute, &c. . 56 59 60 60 60 61 61 61-63 63 65-71 CHAPTER VI. HISTORICAL SKETCH OP THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 310. Explanation of irregularities 311. Phoenician period 312. Greek period . 313. Older Greek alphabet . 314. Criticism 315. The early Italian and Etruscan alphabets 72 72 73 77 80 90 CONTENTS. 310. Antiquity of ortho;y;raphic expedients 317. The otyinolojjiciil principle 318. Koiiiaii period . 319. German period 320. Angle alphabet 321. Anylo-Nornian alpliabet 322. Extract from Ornuilum !)4 1)9 KJU 109 110 113 115 TAUT IV. ETYMOLOGY CHAPTER I. PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY. 323. Double meaning' of term lis CHAPTER II. COMPOSITION. 324-32fi. Definition of composition 121-123 327. Parity of accent . 123 328. Obscure compounds . . 127 329. Exceptions .... . 128 330. Third element in compounds . . 130 — Decomposites .... . 131 331. Combinations . 132 CHAPTER III. DERIVATION AND INFLECTION. 332. Derivation 333. Forms like top and tip 334. Combinations 335. Current and obsolete processes 135 137 137 143 VI CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. DIMINUTIVES AND AUGMENTATIVES. 336. Diminutives . 337. Aug-mentatives 338. Patronymics CHAPTER V. PATRONYMICS. CHAPTER VI. GENTILE FORMS. 339. Gentile Forms— Wales CHAPTER VII. GENDER. 340-342. Latin genders, &c. 343. Sex . 344. True and apparent genders CHAPTER VIII. THE NUMBERS. 345. Dual number . 346, 347. Plural in -s 348. The form in cMld-r-en 341). The form in -en, &c. . PAGE 145 147 149 151 152-155 . 155 157-159 . 160 161-167 . 167 168 CHAPTER IX. THE CASES. 350. Meaning of word case . 171 351. Cases in English . 174 352. Determination of cases . 176 353. Origin of cases . 177 354. Analysis of cases . 178 355. Case in -s . 178 CONTENTS. VII CIIAl'THR X. CERTAIN KOIIMS IN -Kli. 356. Eifh-er, ot-er, und-cr, hett-er — Illustration fVuin the Laplandic PAOE 179 180 CHAPTER XL THE COMPAli 357. Degrees of comparison 358. Comparison of adverbs 359. Elder, &c. — Cliaiine of vowe 360. Excess of expression 361. Sequence in logic 362. Worse, Sic. . ATIVE DEGREE 182 182 183 184 184 185 CHAPTER Xn. THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. 363. The terminations -st and -m-ost 189 CHAPTER XIII. THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 364. True personal pronoun.s 192 CHAPTER XIV. TUE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH. 365. The Latin se, nhi 195 CHAPTER XV THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, ETC. .^66. He, she, it, this, that, the — These — Those 197 199 201 viii CONTENTS. CHAPTER XVI. THE EEIiATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS. ] SECT. 367. Wlio, what, kc. . • . • • .203 CHAPTER XVn. THE ARTICLES. FACE 368. A, the, no . 207 CHAPTER XVni. THE CARDINAL NUMBERS. 369. Their ethnological value ..... 212 — 10 + 2 and 10 X 2 . . . . . .214 — Limits to the inflection of the numeral . . . 215 CHAPTER XIX. THE ORDINAL NUMBERS. 370. First and second ...... 216 371. Third, fourth, &c. . . . . • .217 — Ordinal and superlative forms . . . .219 CHAPTER XX. THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE. 372. Convertibility . . . . . .220 373. Mei as opposed to mens ..... 225 374. The A. S. min and ^in . . . . . 226 375. Syntactic evidence ...... 227 CHAPTER XXI. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE INFINITIVE MOOD. 376. Substantival character of verbs .... 230 377. Verbs declined . . . . . .231 CONTENTS. IX CHAPTER XX I r. DERIVED VEUBS. SECT. PAGE 378. Soften, rise, raise, &c. ..... 233 CHAPTER XXUI. THE PEKSONS. 379-381. Persons in Englisli .... 235-238 382. Persons in -t, -art, &c. ..... 238 383. Forms like spa/cent, sunf/est, &e. .... 238 384. Plurals in -« . . . . . . . 239 CHAPTER XXIV. THE NUMBEUS OP VERBS. 385. Personal signs of numbers ..... 240 CHAPTER XXV. MOODS. 38(). The infinitive, imperative, &c. .... 242 CHAPTER XXVI. TENSES IX GENERAL. 387. General nature of tenses ..... 243 388. Mceso-Gothic perfects ..... 244 389. Strong and weak verbs ..... 245 CHAPTER XXVII. THE SO-CALLED STRONG PR^ETERITES. 390. Sang, 6'unf/, &c. ...... 246 391. Forms in a and o . , . . . . 249 CHAPTER XXVIII. THE SO-CALLED WEAK PRiETERITES. 392. The weak inflection . . . . . .251 393. Divisions ....... 252 CONTENTS. SECT. 394. PriTJterites in -ed and -t 395. Prfcterites like rnade, had, yode, &c. PAGE 253 256 CHAPTER XXIX. THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE. 396. The form in -ing 397. Substantival power of participle 257 258 CHAPTER XXX. THE PAST PARTICIPLE. 398. Similarity to the prseterite 399. Forlorn, frore 400. The form in -ed, -d, or -t 401. The 7/- in y-cleped, &c. 402. Table 260 261 261 262 263 CHAPTER XXXI. CONSTITUTION OF THE PR^ITERITE FORMS. — THE SO-CALLED STRONG PRETERITE. 403. Strong prseterites originally reduplicate 265 CHAPTER XXXII. CONSTITUTION OF THE PRiETERITE FORMS. — THE SO-CALLED WEAK PRiETERITE. 404. Grimm's views of origin of -f? . . . . 267 405. Slavonic preterites ..... 267 CHAPTER XXXIII. DEFECT AND IRREGULARITY. 406. Strong verbs not irregular 407, 408. Criticism .... 409. Approximate example of irregularity 410. Example of defect . 270 271-275 . 275 . 275 CONTENTS. \l (•ii,\i'ri:i; xxxiv. Tin: VKKB-SOBSTANTIVK. 8K(T. 411. ITrt*, be, am worth PACE •J77 CHAPTER XXXV. FCUTnER CONSIDERATION OF THE SO-CALLED STRONG PRiETERITES. 412. Stroll''' coiiiliiiiatioiis 280 41,3. A. S. forms . 2S2 414. Old English forms . . 283 415. Criticism . 284 416. Classification 2SG-297 CHAPTER XXXVI. THE WORDS DIO (properly USED) AND MIGHT. 417. Bid . 418. Hight 298 298 CHAPTER XXXVn. THE WORDS UIV AND BECAME, CATACHRESTIC. 419. Did . 420. Became 300 300 CHAPTER XXXVHI. CERTAIN APPARENTLY IRREGLTL,\R PRESENTS. 421. Memini and oT5a ' 422. Dare, durst . 423. Own, owned, from own = admit 424. Can . 425. Shall and shotdd 426. Might, from maij 427. Minded 428. Wot . 429. Ought 430. Must . 431, 432. Class natural 301 302 304 305 306 306 307 308 308 310 no, 311 Xll CONTENTS. CHAPTER XXXIX. CONJUGATION. SECT. 433, 434. Only one real conjugation PAGE 312-315 CHAPTER XL. ADVERBS. 435. Classification of adverbs 436. Adverbs of deflection 437. Words like darhling . 438. Words like brightly . 316 317 318 318 439. Here, hither 440. Hence 441. Yonder CHAPTER XLL CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE. 319 320 320 CHAPTER XLH. WHEN, THEN, AND THAN. 442. Origin of the words 322 443. Prepositions 444. Conjunctions 445. Yes and no 446. Particles CHAPTER XLHI. PREPOSITIONS, ETC. 323 323 324 324 CONTENTS. XIII PART V. SYNTAX. CIIArTER I. SYNTAX IN GENERAL. 447. The term syntax 448. What is not and what is syntax 449. Figures of speech — Personification — Elhp-sis — Pleonasm — Zeiig-ina — Tlphs rh ffrmaipSfievov 450. Apposition 451. Collective nouns 452. Complex forms 453. True notion of part of speech 454. Convertibility CHAPTER II. SYNTAX OP SUBSTANTIVES. 455. Convertibility 456. Proper names 457. Collocation .... CHAPTER III. SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES. 458. Pleonasm .... 459. Collocation .... 460. Government .... 461. More fruitful, &c. CHAPTER IV. SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS. 462. Syntax of pronouns important PAGE 325 327 328 328 328 329 329 329 330 330 331 331 331 3,34 335 335 336 336 336 337 339 xiv CONTENTS. CHAPTER V. THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. PAGE SECT. 463. Pronomen reverentice . . • • .341 464. Dat'mis Ethicxis . . . . • .341 465. Reflected personal pronouns ..... 342 CHAPTER VI. THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND ON THE PRONOUNS OP THE THIRD PERSON. 466. True demonstrative pronoun .... 344 467. Take them things away ..... 345 468. Hie and ille, this and that . . . . . 345 CHAPTER Vn. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF. 469. Government, apposition, composition . . . 348 470. Tier-self, it-self ...... 350 471. Inflection of self ...... 350 CHAPTER VIII. THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 472. My and mine, &c. ...... 351 CHAPTER IX. THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 473, 474. That, which, what ..... 354 475. The man as rides to market ..... 355 476-479. Concord of relative and antecedent . . 355-359 CHAPTER X. THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN. 480. Direct and oblique interrogations .... 3G0 481, 482. Who7n do they say that it is? . . . 361, 362 CONTENTS. XV CIIArTKU XI. TUE KECIPKOCAIj CONSTUUOTIoN. SECT. I'AOK 4S3, 4H4, Structure of reciprocal expressioii.s . . 'M^>^^, 304 (Jii AFTER XII. THE IN1>ETEK.M1.\ATE I'JlONOl'NS. 485. On dit = one says ...... 3(!'» 486. It jyd there ....... 'M't Es sind ....... 3GU CHAPTER XIII. THE AHTICLES. 487. Repetition of article ..... 367 CHAPTER XIV. THE NUMERALS. 488. The thousand-nnd-first ..... 368 — Thejirst two and twujirst ..... 368 CHAPTER XV. VERBS IX GENERAL. 489. Transitive verbs ...... 369 CHAPTER XVI. THE CONCORT) OF VERBS. 490. 491. Concord of person .... 371-^474 492. Concord of number ...... 375 — Plural subjects witb singular predicates . . . 375 — Singular subjects with plural predicates . , . 375 CHAPTER XVII. THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS. 493. Objective and modal government .... 376 494. Appositional construction — Verb and nominative . . 378 XVI CONTENTS. SECT. 495. Verb and genitive case 496. Verb and accusative case 497. The partitive construction 498. / believe it to be him . 499. 4>rj/tl ilvon SeffTTdrris 500. It is believed to be PAGE 380 380 380 380 381 381 501. Meseems, &c. CHAPTER XVIII. THE IMPERSONAL VERBS. 383 502. Dying-day 503. / am beaten CHAPTER XIX. THE PARTICIPLES. 884 384 CHAPTER XX. THE MOODS. 504. The infinitive mood . 505. Peculiarities of imperatives 506. Syntax of subjunctives 385 387 387 CHAPTER XXI. THE TENSES. 507. Present form habitual — future 388 CHAPTER XXIL SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OP VERBS. 508. /, or he, am (is) wrony 389 CHAPTER XXIII. THE AUXILIARY VERBS. .509. Classification 391 CONTENTS • XMI SECT. y„^,y. 510. Time and tense ...... 39:1 Present . 393 Aorist 393 Future . 393 Imperfect 394 Perfect . 394 Pluperfect 394 Future present 394 Future prjeterite . 394 Emphatic tenses . 395 Predictive future 395 Promissive future 395 oil. Historic present 395 .'1I2, 513. Use of perfect for present, &c. 39G 514. Varieties of tense 397 Continuance 397 Habit 398 515. Inference of continuance 398 — Inference of contrast 398 516. Have with a participle 399 517. I am to speak — I am to blame 400 518. I am beaten .... 401 519. Present use of ought, &c. 403 CHAPTER XXIV. SHALL AND WILL. 520. Use of shall and ivill 521. Extract from Wallis „ Arclideacon Hare „ Professor de Morgan „ „ Massou 405-410 . 410 . 410 411 413 CHAPTER XXV. THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS. 522. The syntax of adverbs simple 523. The termination -Jy . 524. From u-hence, &c. 415 415 410 CHAPTER XXV^I. ON PREPOSITIONS. 525, 526. All prepositions govern cases VOL. II. 4i:-4i;» XVlll CONTENTS. SECT. 527. From to die . . 528. For to go . 529. No prepositions in composition PAGE 419 419 419 CHA.PTER XXVII. OONJTTNCTIONS. 530, 531. Syntax of conjunctions 532. Relatives and conjunctions 533, 534. Government of mood 535, 536. Conditional propositions 537. -(/"aud sinct . 538. Use of that . 539. Succession of tenses 540. Succession of moods 541. Be for 7nay he 542. Disjunctives 543-546. Either, neither . 420-422 422 423 424 425 425 426 428 429 429 430-432 CHAPTER XXVIII. THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE. 547. Place of negative .... . 433 548. Distribution, &c. .... 433 549. Two, or more, negatives 434 550. Questions of appeal .... 434 551. Extract ..... . 434 552. Accusative 553. Dative CHAPTER XXIX. THE CASE ABSOLUTE. 436 436 CONTENTS. XIX PART VI. PROSODY. CHAPTER I, GENERAL VIEW OF METRE. 554. The word Prosody 555. Syllables, how affected PACK 439 440 CHAPTER II. QUANTITY. 55G. Classical metres 557. Length of voweh and leng-th of syllables 442 443 CHAPTER HI. ALLITERATIVE METRES. 558. Specimens from Swedish, &c. 559. Rules . 445-448 . 448 CHAPTER IV. RHYME AND ASSONANCE. 560,561. Rhyme .... 562. Varieties of imperfect rhyme 563. Analysis of a rhyming syllable 564. Single, &c. rhymes 565. Constant and inconstant parts of rhyme 566. Assonances 451-453 453 454 456 457 458 CHAl^TER V. METRICAL NOTATION AND SCANSION. 567. Measures and feet 568. Scansion 459 462 XX CONTENTS. 569. Accent essential .'570. Length of last measure indifferent .'i"!. Division of lines PAGE 462 463 470 CHAPTER VI. CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. rtj'l. Verses formed by a a: 573. „ „ X a 574, „ „ ax X t) / O* y^ yy tic (X %M^ * 576. „ „ X X a 577. Nomenclature of English metres 472 475 479 480 482 483-486 CHAPTER VII. SYMMETKICAL, UNSYMMETBICAL, AND CONVERTIBLE METRES. — RHYTHM. 578. Latitude in respect to accentual recurrences 579. Convertible metres .... 580. Metrical and grammatical combinations 581. Rhythm ..... 582. Contrast between verbal and metrical formulae 487 489 490 491 491 CHAPTER VIII. ENGLISH IMITATIONS OF THE CLASSICAL METRES. 583. The classical metres as read by Englishmen 584. Reasons against the classical nomenclature as api)lied to English metres .... 585. The classical metres metrical to English readers 586. Why? .... 587. Conversion of English into classical metres 588. Caesura .... 589. Feet and measures . 590. Synapheia .... 493 495 497 498 500 501 502 502 THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. PART in. A A P II N E S I S. CHAPTER I. ELEMENTARY SOUNDS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. LETTERS. ALPHABET. PECULIARITIES OF THE ENGLISH SOUND- SYSTEM. § 277. The elcmcntaiy sounds of the English language are forty ; of these, thirty-four are simple and six compound. ( simple. Vowels (12). 1. 2. The sound of the letter a in fal/ier a in fate. 3. a in fat. 4. e in bed. 5. letters ee in feet. 6. letter i in tin. 7. letters oo in cool. 8. letter u in full. 9. letters aw in dawl. 10. letter o in note. 11. in )iot. 12. n in diet. Semi- Vowels (2). 13. w in well. VOL. II. E ELEMENTARY SOUNDS OP 14, The sound of tlie letter *i/ in yet. Mules (14). 15. • p in pain. 16. • h in hane. 17. « f in fane. 18. • V in vain. 19. • t in tin. 20. • d in din. 21. letters til in tliin. 22. • til in tliine. 23. letter k in kill. 24. • g in gun. 25. • • s in seal. 26. • • z in zeal. 27. letters sh 'n\ shine. 28. letter z in azure. Nasal (1). 29. letters > ng in king. Aspirate (1) 30. letter li in liot. Liquids (i). 31. • I in loio. 32. • • m in mow. 33. « n in no. 34. • r in roio. CO MPOUND. Bipldlioyujs :^o- 35. Thes ound of the letter 3 ou in house. 36. , • ew in neio. 37. letter i in pine. 38. letters oi in voice. CompomuT\ (2). 39. , ch in chest (or of tsh) Sibilants J 40. • J in Jest (or of dzh). These two compound sounds are formed by combining the sound of t with that of sh, and the sound of d with that of zh, respectively. Hence the real sound of the ch in chest, is that of tsh, or nearly so. Thus : Church might be spelt tshurtsh. Chide . . tshide. Chirp .' . tshirp. Chin . . • tshin, &c. * The letter y has sometimes the power of a vowel, as in merry ; sometimes of a semi-vowel, as in yet. Sometimes, too, it is sounded as the i in pine, in which case it is a Diphthong. THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 3 And the real sound of the J In jest is that of (h/i, or nearly so. Thus : Join might be spelt dzhoin. Jump . . (bitump. Jet . . chJu't. John . . Dc/ion, S:c. The arrangement of sounds, as far as we have hitherto gone, is a natural arrangement; that is, vowels arc arranged with vowels, consonants with consonants, mutes with unites, liquids with liquids, and cognate sounds with cognate sounds. It will soon be seen that, besides the natural arrangement of the sounds of a language, there is an artificial arrange- ment as well ; or if not artificial, one ichich at the first view apjiears to be so. Sounds are capable of being expressed in writing by signs. These signs arc seen by the eye, whilst sounds are heard by the ear. Figures like b, h,f, that represent sounds, arc called letters. The figures of the letters are as follows : — 5 Vowels — a, c, i, o, u. 2 Semi-vowels — y, w. 10 Mutes — }), b, f, V, t, d, k, g, s, z. 1 Aspirate — h. 4 Liquids — 1, m, n, r. 1 Double sound — ^j. 3 Superfluous letters — c, q, x. AVords like bee, eff, aitch, &c., are the names of letters. The names of the letters are as follows : — 5 Vowels — a, e, i, o, you, wy. 2 Semi-vowels — double-you, wy. 10 Mutes — bee, dee, eff, gee, kay, pee, ess, tee, vee, zed (or izzard) . 4 Liquids — el, cm, en, err. 1 Aspirate — aitch. 1 Double letter — ^jay [dzhaij). 3 Superfluous letters — see, cue, eks. § 278. The letters of the English language are twenty-six in number, their form, order, and names being as follows : — B 2 4 ELEMENTARY SOUNDS OF Roman , Italic. Name. A B a b A B a b a bee C c d D c d see (cee) dee E e E e e J? G H f g h F E f 9 h eff jee aitch I J K L i • J k 1 I J K L • % 3 h I i, or ei/e j consonant, ovjai/ hay el M m M m em N n N n en P a E P q r P Q R P 9. r pee cue ar s s S s ess T t T t tee U V 11 V U V u V ii, or yo^i V, consonant, or vee w w ir w double u X X X X eks Y z y z Y Z y z wy zed, or izzard The English letters were originally reckoned at twenty- four, because, anciently, i and j, as well as u and v, were expressed by the same character. The order of the letters is called the Al2:)hahet ; because, in the Greek language, the names of the first two letters were alpha and beta respectively ; that is, alpha was the name of the letter which we call a, and beta of b. Apparently this order is artificial — only, however, apparently. The extent to which it has a character of regularity will be seen hereafter. § 279. Remarks on the English Phonesis. — Sounds 1, 2, 3. The a in father. This sound, so common in French, Italian, Spanish, German, and most other languages, is compara- THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 5 tively rare in Enirlisli — rare, at least, as a proper power of a. Hence, the ordinary power of tliis letter [i.e. the sound of the a in ftite) is an English ])eculiarity. In nine lanp. ^'orl. /?yosan. The combinations, then, kj and ce are equivalent to each THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 15 other, i. e. each clement in each has the same power — the words in the second cohinin bcinj;; not absohitely Norse words, but A. S. words as they would appear if written according to the Norse orthoirraphv. If we now ask how this kj is sounded in Scandinavia, we get a most instructive answer. In Denmark it either retains its natural power of k + y, or else drops the sound of ij and becomes a simple k. In Norway it takes the sound of ksh. In Sweden that of tsh. The Norwegian form I beheve to be transitional. We may now go back again to t + >/. Doing so, we shall raise a new question. Mutatis mutandis, the history of ^ + y was also the history of d-\-y ) so that when one became tsh the other became dzh. Assume that (j -\- y comports itself in the same way toward k-\-y, and, mutatis mutandis, the phenomena we have just investigated repeat themselves. Hence, when ki/a becomes ks/ia and tsha, gya becomes gzlia and dzha. If so — The A. S. ge should coincide with the English y; The Norwegian gj should be sounded as gzh ; and The Swedish as dzh (the English j) . Yet such is not the case. The Norwegian and Swedish^' are often sounded alike, and that, not as either gzh, or dzh, but as the semi-vowel y — gjore in Norwegian, g'Ora in Swedish, being pronounced xjorc and y'ora. Now take the Anglo-Saxon — Gea is iu modern English J'ea not /a. Gealew . . J'ellow . /cllow. Gear . . lear . /ear. and so on with the majority of examples of this combination. This departure on the part of y -f y from the analogy of d-\-y, presenting itself as it does (to go no further) in three languages, is remarkable. It can, however, be explained ; the close affinity between g and y {ga and ya) being the reason of it. It is this affinity which diverts (so to say) the line of change from the compound sibilants to the semi-vowel. The evolution of the sound of tsh (for an evolved rather than 16 ELEMENTARY SOUNDS OF an original sound it seems to have been) has now been explained ; as lias^ also, the reason why gy has not undergone, mutatis mutandis, the same series of changes as ky, and it may be added that our inquiry, as far as it has hitherto gone, has been to the effect that the sound of dzh should have no existence in English, except so far as it is either an original element of the A. S. phonesis, or a result of the combination d-\-y [ver-dure, wer-dzhoor). At any rate, it has not grown out of the process which gives us our tsh. Nevertheless, it has not only an English existence independ- ent of the combination d+y, but it cannot be shown to have been original to our tongue. The letter^' spells it. The letter j, however, was strange to the A. S. alphabet ; and equally strange were any combinations that may reasonably be supposed to have represented it. It can not only, then, not be shown to have been original to our tongue, but good reasons may be given for denying its presence in our earliest sound- system. It is an evolved sound of comparatively recent origin, and, if we look at the words in which it occurs, we shall easily get the history of its evolution. It is rare in words of Angle, common in words of French and Latin origin ; words which are some- times spelt with a c/ (followed by e or i) and sometimes with aj. a. Gentle, general, gender, ^iant, //ibbet, &c. b. Judge, ^/ust, juggle, jest, &c. Now, with all these words the initial sound in the original French was that of zh. Hence, whilst the ch in choose {tsh) has grown out of the A. S. k-\-y, it is out of the French zh that we have evolved our j, as in jest {dzhest), and our g, as in yibbet {dzhihhet). Not that the histories of the two evolutions, though different, are unconnected. The existence of the previous tsh of A. S. origin, undoubtedly, promoted the change from zh to dzh. Then there are the words in ch like ch'iei', and chase, &c., &c., of French origin. The ch here originally represented the sound of sh. It now =: tsh. The reason for this lies in the prece- dents and analogies of the A. S. k + y and its changes, and the French J {zh) with its conversion into dzh. I conclude my observations on this long and complex ques- THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 17 tion with remarkiiii^ tluit^ difFcri-nt as arc the liistorics of our tsh and (hh {ch and j), they still ilhi.strate tlie same general fact — viz. the instabihty of the combinations s, z, t, d, k, or g-^y, and their tendency to become sibihint. AVith the ch and g {sh and zh) of the French, the very form of the combination suggests the history of the diange. There was once a sound of k and^ (as in ^un). Otherwise the letters would never have been used as they are. Withy the case is less clear. The name, however, of "Jupiter" (writes Professor Key) " was undoubtedly written originally Diupiter, so Janus was at first Dianus, just as the goddess Diana was called by the rustics Jana." — Alphabet, p. 71. § 282. The chief points wherein the English sound-system differs from that of the more important modern languages, are worth noting; a knowledge of them being useful in the study of foreign tongues. The scarcity of proper open sounds contrasts the vowel j)art of the English sound-system with that of the Italian, French, and other languages. It is well known how common the sounds of both the a in father and the aw in baicl are there. In the French the e final is mute ; so that the extent to which the open sound of the e in lied is wanting in English is not very manifest in the study of that language. Neither is in Italian, where no words end in -er. In German, however, and the Norse tongues, it requires some attention to discern the diffe- rence of sound between a final -e (as in meiue), and a final -er (as in meiner). The absence of the e and 6 ferme of the French and Italian, and other tongues, is another point to be remembered in the study of fresh languages. Thus the a in the Danish Kone runs great chance of being sounded by an Englishman as the oo in cool. The ii of the Germans (y Danish and u French) is a wholly new sound to the Englishman. So is the Danish and German, and the eu French. As these two sounds are both absent in Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, the vowel-system of these languages is pro tanto more English than the French and German, &c. On the other VOL. II. c 18 ELEMENTARY SOUNDS OP hand, the u in hut gives foreigners trouble, being (as has been already stated) rare in the European tongues, though common in the Asiatic. In the simplicity of its nasal system (i. e. the sounds like the ng in king) the English agrees with the German, and is specially contrasted with the French and Portuguese. W is English rather than continental. The best way for foreigners to leani it is to place an u- [oo in cool) before some syllaljle beginning with a vowel, and pronounce it as quickly as possible ; e. g. on, w-on (oo-on) ; et, u-et {po-et), &c. In this way the sound of w is soon obtained. The mute-system in English is one of the fullest in the Avorld. Out of the 4 quaternions 3 are full and perfect; so that 14 out of the 16 mutes belong to our language. The two that are wanting, the so-called aspirates of k and g, are the scarcest. Next to these come ^ and j?, which we have. But though full, the English mute-system is simple. Each sound has its normal and typical form ; so that the varieties which go by the names of guttural, cerebral, &c., are wanting. Hence the ch German and many similar sounds are strange to us. The question of simple single sounds is one thing; that of their combinations another. The diphthongs in English are simple and few ; though some languages [e. g. the Swedish) have fewer. They are all, too, of one sort ; i. e. that wherein the semi-vowel elements come last. Sounds like the French oi in roi we have none ; nor yet (in the written language at least) any wherein y precedes its vowel. In the provincial dialects, however, they are by no means wanting. The nasal ng is never initial. We say song, but not ngos. This limitation of the nasal to the final parts of syllables is common. The Germans, Italians, &c., avoid an initial ng as much as does the Englishman. In the Keltic, however, it occurs, as it also does in many Asiatic languages. Though the English sibilants are compound, they are never complex. Thus, we say slia or slio. We also say tsha or tsho. But we never combine the two ; never use the complex sound I THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 19 shtshn or shtsho ; never say zlulzlia or zhilzho. Neither do the Itahans, wliosc sibilant system is very like our own. The Sla- vonic population, on the other hand, do ; and make no difficulty of such sounds as shtshe, or s/ifs/wlsh. This practice of using their compound sibilants in complex combinations, makes the Slavonic sound-system look much more unlike the English than it really is. o 20 POWERS OF CERTAIN LETTERS CHAPTEli II. POWERS OF CERTAIN LETTERS AND COMBINATIONS. § 283. Single Vowels and Vowels followed by a Consonant and e Mute.— {I.) A has six sounds, — 1, that of the a in fate ; 2, that of the a in fat ; 3, the a in father ; and 4, the aw in bawl; 5, the o in not ; 6, the e in bed. The fourth and fifth are sounds of o. The sound of the a in fate is the long, that of the a in fat the short, sound of a. They are the two most usual powers of the letter. The sixth power is exceptional, and is only found in the words Thames, manij, and any ; pronounced Temz, menni, enni. When a precedes a single consonant followed by a mute e, it is always sounded as in fate. Except in the word have, which is pronounced haw. The following words are also considered exceptions, though it is doubtful whether they arc really so : — Are — which is generally pronounced ay-r. Are, however, with the a as in fate, is equally correct. Bade — the preterit tense of bid, generally pronounced badd. Bade, however, with the a as in fate, is used by good speakers. Gape — This is sometimes pronounced with the a sounded as in father. It is a pronunciation for which no good reason can be given. It is, perhaps, commoner on the stage than elsewhere. A is sounded as in father, when it precedes Im, as in psahn, calm. Also in the word master. Also in certain words ending in If, or he — as calf, half, calve, salve. When followed by th (as in thin), ns, nee, nt, nd, st, sh, sp, it is sometimes pronounced as in father, sometimes as in fat. In words like bath, path — dance, glance, lance, France, prance — answei — grant, slant — slander — last, vast — basket — hasp, AND COMBINATIONS. 21 it may safely be said that, in the hist century, the habit of pro- nouncing the a as in fntltcr, and that in a decided manner, was general, '\\'\{\\ equal safety it may be added, that the present tendency is to sound the a as m fat. Hence the jjronuneiation is in a transitional state; and, pi-rhaps, the sound now given to the a is of an intermediate character — not so broad as in futlier, nor yet so slender as in man. In words derived from the Latin mando, where the and is final, the sound is always broad — as command, remand, demand. Extract from IValker. — " There are certain words from the Italian, and Spanish languages — such as lumbago, bravado, tornado, farrago, Sec, which are sometimes heard with this sound of a ; but, except in bravo, heard chiefly at the theatres, the English sound of a is preferable in all these Avords." See remarks on i. A, when long and followed by //, in an accented syllable, is pronounced as the aw in bawl. It is also so sounded when fol- lowed by a single / succeeded by any consonant but p, b, f, or V ; as salt, bald, false, falcon. Exceptions. — Words derived from the Arabic language, and beginning with al, as alchemist, alcoran, &c. Exceptions. — Most Avords derived from the classical lan- guages — as calculate. Caution. — It is only in accented syllables that the al =. aw. Hence, in words like alte'rnate the a is sounded as in fat, although alter is pronounced a'lclter. So it is in balsamic; although balsam is sounded ba'wlsom, or ba'icsom. Caution. — In words like do'wnfall, although the all be unac- cented, it is still pronounced broad. The reason of this is, that the monosyllable /«// preserves its sound even when, by compo- sition, it loses its accent. So likewise it is with also and almost. Whether we sound them cilso and dllmost, or also and allmost, the sound of a is the same (i. e. of aiv) . Sometimes the I is omitted as well. Thus, falcon is pro- nounced fawcon and fawlcon. Caution. — In words like alley, valley, the a is short. Hence they are excluded from the rvile under consideration. A is sounded as aw in the word icater {icaicter). A when short and preceded by iv is pronounced as the o in 22 POWERS OF CERTAIN LETTERS not, except when followed by the sounds of k, g, or ng. Thus, wan, want, loas, what, &c., but not ivax {waks), wag, twang. This is the case even when // follows; since we pronounce wallow and swallow, as wollo and swollo, rather than as wawlo and swawlo. Observe. — As q is always followed by u, and as qu = kw, the rule for pronouncing words like quantity and quality is con- tained in the preceding one. These are sounded, kwontity, kwollity. (2.) E has four sounds— 1, that of the e in bed; 2, that of the e in glebe ; 3, that of the a in fat ; 4, that of the i in pin. The second is really the long sound of the i in pin. The last two are exceptional. E is never mute at the end of words derived from the Greek and Latin — as epitome, catastrophe, apostrophe, simile. When e precedes a single consonant, followed by an e mute, it has the sound of the ee in feet. Except in the words where, there, and ere rr before. Were, therefore. — Walker directs that the word were, as well as the there in therefore, should be sounded as werr and therr. It is doubtful whether this is called for in the present state of our language. The exceptional sovmds of e are those of the a in fat, and of the i in pin. It has the former of these in clerk and sergeant ; the latter in England and pretty, pronounced dark, sargeant, Ingland, pritty. Whether Derby be sounded as it is spelt, or as Darby, the oftener, is uncertain. The tendencies are towards the former pronunciation. Whether engine be sounded as it is spelt, or as ingine, the oftener, is also uncertain. The tendencies are towards the latter pronunciation. In the plural termination spelt es, the real sound is iz — prais-es, praiz-iz. With e before a final unaccented / or n, the vowel sound is often scarcely perceptible at all; words like weazel and harden being sounded weaz'l, hard'n. (3.) I has three sounds — 1, that of the i in pin ; 2, that of the i in pine ; 3, that of the ee in feet. Of these the second is no true prolongation of the first, but a diphthong. The third AND COMBINATIONS. 2.3 is found only in words derived from the modern foreign lan- juap:es. A\'hen i precedes a single consonant followed by e mute, it has the sound of the i in fine, or the diphthongal sound ; except in certain words derived from the modern foreign languages. S/iire. — In the last century the word was pronounced sheer by the best speakers. At present this usage is ecpiivoeal. IVr- haps the best rule is to sound the i as in pine, when the syllalde is accented, or out of composition, and as the i in fr when un- accented — Knight of the shire ; Yovks/ierr. Extract from Walker. — "The words that have preserved the foreign sound of i like ee, are the following : — ambergris, verde- gris, antique, becafico, bombasin, Brasil, capuchin, colbertine, caprice, chagrin, chevaux-defrise, critique (for criticism), gabar- dine, haberdine, sardine, trephine, quarantine, routine, fascine, fatigue, intrigue, glacis, invalid, machine, magazine, marine, palanquin, pique, police, profile, recitative, mandarine, tambourine, tontine, transmarine, ultramarine. In all these words, if, for the last i, we substitute ee, we shall have the true pronunciation. In signior the first i is thus pronounced. Mr. Sheridan j)ro- nounces vertigo and serpigo with the accent on the second syllabic, and the i long, as in tie and pie. Dr. Kenrick gives these words the same accent, but sounds the i as e in tea and pea. The latter is, in my opinion, the general pronunciation.^^ Now as vertigo and serpigo, according to the English pronun- ciation of the Latin language, would not be pronounced ver- teego and serpeego, even in reading a classic author, it is not reasonable that they should so be pronounced in English. Indeed, it is only in words derived from the modern tongues that i should ever be sounded as ee. To pronounce initial as if written ineetial, is to speak as if we mistook a word of Latin for one of French origin. The same reasoning applies to words where a has its foreign power. ^ATien i is in an unaccented syllable followed by a consonant, it is difficult to determine whether it has the sound of i in pine, or that of i in pin. Thus, a word like fidelity may be either fi-delity or fid-cUtij. In the following cases it is always di})h- thonural : — 24 POWERS OF CERTAIN LETTERS 1. Compounds of bi, as bi-capsular, bi-corporal, bi-pennate, &c. 2. Compouuds of tri, as tri-corporal, tri-gintesimal, &c. 3. Words bcginuing with pri, d.?, primeval, primordial, — except primer and primitive. In most — probably in all — otber words either sound is allow- able. \"iTien i is in an unaccented syllable followed by a vowel, it is doubtful whether it has the sound of i in p)ine, or of the ee in feet. The former sound, however, is preferable — di-urnal, di- ameter, &c., not de-urnal, de-amiter. (4.) O has five sounds : that of — 1, the o in note ; 2, the o in not ; 3, the o in prove ; 4, the o in woman ; 5, the o in love. Of these the third and fourth arc no true sounds of o, but of u. The fifth is a peculiar and unclassed sound^ i. e. that of the u in but. When precedes a single consonant, followed by an e mute, it has the sound of the o in note. Except in the words prove, move, lose, where it is sounded like the oo in cool, and in others like love and glove, where it is sounded as the u in but. is sounded as the u in full in the following words-— bosom, woman, wolf, wolsey, Wolverhampton. In worsted and Worces- ter the r is generally silent, and the o takes this sound. (5.) ?7has four sounds — 1, that of the eiv in new ; 2, that of the u in full; 3, that of the u in but ; 4, the sound of yoo. Two other sounds are exceptional — 1, that of the e in bed ; 2, that of the i in pin. The usual short sound of u is that which it has in but. The only words where it is sounded as in full are — bull, full, pull, words compounded of full, as wonderful, dreadful, &c., bullock, bully, bullet, bulwark, fuller, fullingmill, pulley, pullet, push, bush, bushel, pmlpit, puss, butcher, cushion, cuckoo, pudding, sugar, huzzar, 2CL\dj)iit. Put is only pronounced in this way when it is a verb. The game of put and the village of Putney have the u sounded as in but. So has putty. Bullion is placed by Walker in the foregoing list. The pre- sent writer would sound the u as in but. AND COMBINATIONS. 25 In the word bury the u is sounded as the e in bed. In buay, as the i in /jm. § 284. Power of Y. — The sounds of y fall into two divisions — its power as a semi-vowel, and its power as a vowel. As a semi-vowel it has one sound only — that of the y in yet. As a vowel it has three — 1, that of the ee in feet ; 2, that of the i in pine ; 3, that of the i in pin. When y precedes a single consonant followed by an e mute, it has the sound of the i in Jine — as rhyme, thyme. However, in this ])osition it occurs only in words of foreign (chiefly of Greek) origin. It is only, too, in words of foreign (chiefly Greek) origin that y occurs with the sound of the i in pin — as system, syntax, pro- nounced sistem, sintax. Of its two long sounds, y has that of the i in pine, when the syllable in which it occurs is accented; as cyder, tyrant, reply. It has that of the ee in feet when the syllable is im-accented ; as — liberty, fury, tenderly. The only exception is in the case of verbs ending in fy, from the Latin Ji ■=. to become, such as moUi-fy, forti-fy, where the y, altliough unaccented, is sounded as the % in pine. § 285. Double Vorcels. — (1.) AA. Double a is found only in certain proper names, chiefly of Hebrew origin, as Aaron, Baal. (2.) EE. Double ee, without an apostrophe, has only one sound, that of the ee in feet. In e'er, and ne'er, contracted from ever and never, and with an apostrophe to indicate the loss of the V, it is pronounced as the a in fate. Exception. — In one word ee has the sound of the i m pin, i. e. in breeches, from breech, pronounced britches, from britch. Chizcake for cheesecake is exceptionable. Beelzebub, is more correctly sounded Beelzebub, though Belzebub and Beelzebub"^ are sufficiently English. (3.) 00. The usual sound of oo is that of the oo in cool ; which is, really, no modification of o, but the long sound of the u in full. Besides this it has the following three — * "With the ee as in feet. 26 POWERS OP CERTAIN LETTERS 1 . Of the u in full ; as ivool, wood, good, foot, stood. 2. Of the u in but ; as blood, flood, soot. 3. Of the in grove ; as door, floor. Moor=:a black man, is sometimes sounded more, sometimes as it is spelt. Soot, also, is sometimes pronounced as it is spelt. I, U, and Y, are never doubled. § 286. Combinations of tivo Different Votvels. — AE has the sound of the e in bed ; as Michael, Michaelmas. AI has the sound of the a in fate ; as hail, sail, tail, stain, &c. Exception 1. — The words said, again, and against. Here the ai is pronounced as e. Exception 2. — The word aisle. This is sounded He. Walker draws a distinction between said as a tense, and said as a participle ; stating that in the first case it rhymes to bed, in the second to trade ; as, he said [sed], but the said [sade) man. Plaid is pronounced two ways ; either to rhyme with mad or with made. When Walker wrote, raillery was considered as a rhyme to salary. So it was in Swift^s time — " Where iu eighteen-peuny gallery Irish wits learn Irish raillery." It is doubtful whether such is the case now; the general sound of the ai being more probably that of the a in fate. In which case it coincides with the spelling. When Walker wrote, raisin was sounded as reeson. It is doubtful whether this be the present pronunciation. ^0 is only found in the word gaol, the obsolete mode of spelling jail. AU, unless followed by n, succeeded by a consonant (vA'hen the pronunciation is doubtful), is sounded as aw, as taught, haul, Saul, caught, &c. Exception 1. — Laugh, draught. Here the au is sounded like the a in father. Exception 2. — Hautboy, sounded ho-hoy. Exception 3. — Cauliflower, laurel, laudanum, sounded colli- flower, lorrel, lodnum. AND COMBINATIONS. 27 All followed by n, succeeded by a consonant, is sounded sometimes as the a in father, and sometimes as the aiv in buivl. 1. As the (I m father. The word in which this pronunciation is the most general and imefiuivocal is aunt. 2. As the aw in Ijaivl. The words wherein this pronuncia- tion is the most general and unequivocal are vaunt, ami araunt, maunder (to be querulous), Maundaij (in ]\launday Thursday), daunt, paunch, gaunt, saunter. Between these, however, there is the following list wherein the pronunciation fluctuates. Flaunt sometimes sonuded fla)it* sometimes JIa?cnt. Haunt hant haicnt. Gauntlet gantlet gaicntlet. Jaunt jant jaicnt. Jaundice jandice juicndice. Laundress landress lawndress. Laundry landry lawndry. Askant, askance, hunch (?), lanch (?), being more properly w'ritten without the u, do not come under this head. They more properly belong to that class of words wbere the simple a has the sound of father. EA has the following sounds — 1 . Of the c in glebe in anneal, appeal, appear, appease, aread, arreais, beacon, beadle, beadroll, beads, beadsman, beagle, beak, beaker, beam, bean, beard, bearded, beast, beat, beaten, beaver, beleaguer, beneath, bequeath, bereave, besmear, bespeak, bleach, bleak, blear, bleat, bohea, breach, bream, to breathe, cease, cheap, cheat, clean, cleanly (adverb), clear, clearance, clean, cochineal, colleague, conceal, congeal, cream, creak, crease, creature, deacon, deal, dean, deanery, dear, decease, defeasance, defeasible, defeat, de- mean, demeanor, decrease, dream, drear, dreary, each, eager, eaten, eaves, entreat, endear, escheat, fear, fearful, feasible, fea- sibility, feast, feat, feature, flea, fleam, freak, gear, gleam, glean, to grease, grease, greaves, heal, heap, hear, heat, heath, heathen, heave, impeach, increase, interleave, knead, lea, to lead, leader, leaf, league, leak, lean, leash, leasing, least, leave, leaves, mead, meagre, meal, mean, meat, measles, neap, near, neat, pea, peace, peak, peal, pease, peat, plea, plead, please, reach, to read, ream, * Sounded tlirougliout this column as in father. 28 POWERS OF CERTAIN LETTERS reap, rear, rearward, reason, redstreak, release, repeal, repeat, retreat, reveal, screak, scream, seal, sea, seam, seamy, sear, sear- cloth, season, seat, shear, shears, sheath, sheathe, sheaf, sneak, sneaker, sneaking, speak, spear, steal, steam, streak, streamer, streamy, surcease, tea, teach, league, teal, team, tear (substantive)j tease, teat, treacle, treason, treat, treatment, treaty, tweak, veal, underneath, uneasy, unreave, uprear, weak, iveaken, weal, weald, wean, iveanling, iveariyiess, ivearisome, weary, weasand, weasel, weave, wheal, ivheat, wheaten, wreak, wreath, wreathe, wreathy, year, yearling, yearly, zeal. 2. Of the e in bed — as abreast, ahead, k,c., already, bedstead, behead, bespread, bestead, bread, breadth, breakfast, breast, breath, cleanse, cleanly (adjective), cleanlily, dead, deadly, deaf, deafen, dearth, death, earl, earldom, early, earn, earnest, earth, earthen, earthly, endeavour, feather, head, heady, health, heard, hearse, heaven, heavy, jealous, instead, lead (a metal), leaden, learnt, learning, leather, leaven, meadow, meant, measure, pearl, peasant, pheasant, pleasant, pleasantry, pleasure, read (past time and participle), readily, readiness, ready, realm, rehearsal, rehearse, research, seamstress, search, spread, stead, steadfast, steady, stealth, stealthy, sweat, sweaty, thread, threader, threat, threaten, treachery, tread, treadle, treasure, wealth, wealthy, weapon, iveather, yearn, zealot, zealous, zealously. 3. Of the a in fate, as in bear, pear, swear, tear, wear, break, steak. These last two words, however, are often pro- nounced hreek, and sleek. Read rhymes to feed in the present tense, to fed in the pre- terite and participle. 4. As the a m. father, in heart, hearth. EI has four sounds — 1. That of the a mfate- — as either (?), neither (?), leisure (?), deign, vein, rein, reign, feign, feint, veil, heinous, heir, heiress, inveigh, inveigle (?), neigh, skein, reins, their, theirs, eight, freight, weight, neighbour. 2. That of the e in glebe, as either (?), neither (?), leisure (?), ceiling, conceit, receipt, conceive, perceive, deceive, receive, in- veigle (?), seize, seizen, seignior, seigniory, seine, plebeian. 3. That of the i in pine — as either (?), neither (?), height, and sleight. AND COMBINATIONS. 29 4. That of the c ill bed^m heifer, nonpareil, pronounced heffer, nonpareil. It may be seen that leisure anil inveigle occur in two of the preceding lists, and cither and neither in tlirec of theni, accom- panied by a note of interrogation. This means that the ])re- sent writer will not take upon himself to determine between the different pronimciations. EO has five sounds — • 1 . That of the ee in feet, as in people. 2. That of the e in bed ; as leopard, jeopardy, feoffee, f coffer, and feoffment, which are sounded as if written feffee, feffer, feffment. 3. That of the o in note ; as in yeoman. 4. That of tlie oo in cool, as in rjalleon, a Spanish shi]), wliich is pronounced galloon. 5. When unaccented and at the end of syllables, it is sounded as the u in but — as truncheon, courageous, pronounced trunshun, cou-rage-us. In spelling, the old orthographies /eo^Z, /<'» as deep, depth. ea to 0, as bear, bore. i to a, as spin, span. PERMUTATION OF SOUNDS. 47 Pcrmntation of Voivels. i to u. as spin, spun. l=el to 0, as smite, smote. i=ei to h as smite, smitten. i to a, as give, gave. i=ei to a. as rise, raise. 1 to e, as sit, set. 070 to €10, as blow, blew. to e. as strong, strength. 00 to ee. as tooth, teeth. to i, as top, tip. to e, as old, elder ; tell, told. to e, as brother, brethren. 0=00 to h as do, did. 0=00 to = l(, as do, done. 00 to o> as choose, chose. Permutation of Consonants. f to V, life, live ; calf, calves. v to =s. brea th, to breatlie. 1? to d, seethe, sod , • clothe, clad. d to t, hidld, built. 8 to ^> nse, to use. s to r, was, , were i lose, forlorn. In have and had we have the ejection of a sound ; in ivork and wrought) the transposition of one. Permutation of Combinations. te=t ow to 010, as gri7id, ground. to i^ei, as monse, mice ; cow, hine. ink to a)/gh, as dri?ik, draught. ing to ough, as bring, brought. y (formerly g) to ough, as bug, bought, igh—ei to ov.gh, as fight, fought. eeh to ough, as seeh, sought. It must be noticed that the list above is far from being an exhaustive one. The expression too of the changes under- gone has been rendered difficult on account of the imper- fection of our orthography. The whole section has been 48 PERMUTATION OF SOUNDS. written in illustration of the meaning of tlie word permutation, rather than for aoy specific object in grammar. In all the words above the change of sound has been brought about by the grammatical inflection of the word wherein it occurs. This is the case with the words life and live, and with all the rest. With the German word leben, compared with the corresponding word live, in English, the change is similar. It is brought about, however, not by a grammatical inflection, but by a difference of time, and by a difierence of place ; in fact, the words life and lehen belong to different languages. This indicates the distinction between the permutation of letters and the transition of letters. In dealing with permutations, we compare difi'erent parts of speech ; in dealing with transitions, we compare different lan- guages, or difi"ei*ent stages of a single language. § 299. The Transition of Letters is a part of Comparative Philology. Nevertheless, it is well to know how it difi^ers from permutation. It is also well to note the phenomenon that the following lists of the same words in different lan- guages, short as it is, is still sufficient to indicate. This is the regularity under which the modifications of the same words, with their similar, though different forms, exhibit themselves. The change which takes place with one word beginning with (say) p, takes place with others as well. Thus — between the Greek, the Latin, and the English — 1 . An initial 11 or P, becomes F. Greek. Latin. English. -Tva-rn^ pater father ■Tc'/ioi; pl-enus full, 2. An initial O or F, becomes B. Greek. Latin. EngliaJi, n(p-a.\it cap-ut head* KU^S-la. cord- licart. 4. An initial F, or G, becomes K. Greek. Latin. Evyltsh. y^oj-u gno-sco know yiv-oi gen-US kin. 5. An initial Q, or Til, becomes D. Tliis becomes/ in Latin. Greek. Latin. Emjllxh. 6v^-at for- a door Bvyarn^ daii^ 305. Of a full and perfect alphabet and orthogra})hy, then, the cliief conditions are as follows : — 1. That for every simple single sound, inca])ablc of being represented by a combination of letters, there be a simple single sign. 2. That sounds within a determined degree of likeness be represented by signs within a determined degree of likeness ; whilst sounds beyond a certain degree of likeness be repre- sented by distinct and difierent signs, and that uniforinlij. 3. That no sound have more than one sign to express it. 4. That no sign express more than one sound. 5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words, and not their histories. 6. That changes of speech be followed by corresponding changes of spelling. Of all the points connected with the improvement of vicious modes of spelling, this requires the most careful and discreet haudlinc:. The elementary articulate sounds of the English Language are to be found in § 277. To these some writers would add the additional sound of the e fcrme of the French, believing that the vowel in words like their and vein has a different sound from the vowel in words like thei-e and vai7i. For my own part I cannot detect such a difference either in my own speech or that of my neighbours ; although I am far from denying that in certain dialects of our language such may have been the case. The following is an extract from the Danish grammar for Englishmen by Professor Rask, whose eye, in the matter in question, seems to have misled his ear : " The eferme, or close e, is very frequent in Danish, but scarcely perceptible in Eng- lish ; unless in such words as their, vein, veil, which aj^pcar to sound a little different from there, vain, vale." Now the vowels being twelve, the diphthongs four, and the 60 ORTHOGRAPHY. consonantal sounds twenty-four, we have altogether as many as forty sounds^ some being so closely allied to each other as to be mere modifications, and others being combinations rather than simple sounds ; all, however, agreeing in requiring to be ex- pressed by letters or by combinations of letters, and to be dis- tinguished from each other. But, although every sound specifically distinct should be expressed by a distinct sign, it does not follow that mere modi- fications or varieties (especially if they be within certain limits) should be so expressed. In the Greek language sounds as like as the in not and the o in note are expressed by signs as unlike as o and w ; that is, by the letters omicron and omega respec- tively ; and so it is with e and tj. All that can be said in this case is, that it is the character of the Greek alphabet to repre- sent a difference which the English neglects. With respect to the diphthongs it is incorrect, uncommon, and inconvenient to represent them by simple single signs, rather than by combinations. In the English language the sounds of ou, eiu, and oi, are properly spelt with two letters. Not so, however, of i in bite. The compound sibilants may also be expressed not by single signs, but by the combinations tsh and dzh. § 306. With these views we may appreciate, 1. The insufficiency of the English alphabet — a. In respect to the voivels. — Notwithstanding the fact that the sounds of the a in father, fate, and fat, and of the o and the aw in note, not, and bawl, are modifications of a and o re- spectively, we have still six vowel sounds specifically distinct, for which (y being a consonant rather than a vowel) we have but fve signs. The u in duck, specifically distinct from the u in bull, has no specifically distinct sign to rejiresent it. b. In respect to the consonants. — The th in thin, the th in thine, the sh in shine, the z in azure, and the ng in king, five sounds specifically distinct, and five sounds perfectly simple, require corresponding signs, which they have not. 2. Its inconsistency. — The / in fan, and the v in van, sounds in a certain degree of relationship to p and b, are expressed by signs as unlike as / is unlike p, and as v is imlike b. The sound of the th in thin, the th in thine, the sh in shine, similarly ORTHOGRAPHY. 61 related to t, d, and s, arc expressed by signs as like /, d, and .9, respectively, as t/i and s/i. The compound sibilant sound ot'y in jest is sj)elt with the single sign j, whilst the compound sibilant sound in chest is spelt with the conibinatioii ch. 3. Erroneousness. — The sound of the ee infect is considered the long (independent) sound of the e in bed ; whereas it is the long (indc])endent) sound of the i in pit. The i in bite is considered as the long (independent) sound of the i in pit ; whereas it is a diphthongal sound. The u in duck is looked upon as a modification of the ti in bull; whereas it is a specifically distinct sound. The ou in house and the oi in oil arc looked upon as the compounds of u and i and of and u respectively; whereas the latter element of them is not i and u, but y and w. The ih in thin and the th in thine arc dealt with as one and the same sound ; whereas they are sounds specifically disthict. The ch in chest is dealt with as a modification of c (either with the powder of k or of s) ; whereas its elements are t and sh. 4. Redundancy. — As far as the representation of sounds is concerned the letter c is superfluous. In words like citizen it may be replaced by s ; in w'ords like cat by k. In ch, as in chest, it has no pro2)er place. In ch, as in mechanical, it may be replaced by k. Q is superfluous, civ or kiv being its equivalent. X also is superfluous, ks, gs, or z, being equivalent to it. The diphthongal forms ce and a', as in ^neas and Croesus, except in the way of etymology, are superfluous and re- dundant. 5. Unsteadiness. — Here we have (amongst many other ex- amples), 1. The consonant c with the double power of 5 and k ; 2. g with its sound in yun and also with its sound in ym ; 3. X wdth its sounds in Alexander, apoplexy, Xennphon. In the foregoing examples a single sign has a double power ; in the words Philip and Jillip, &c. a single sound has a double sign. In respect to the degree wherein the English orthogra])hy 62 ORTHOGRAPHY. is made subservient to etymology^ it is sufficient to repeat the statement that the c, <2, and m are retained in the alphabet for etymological purposes only. The defects noticed in the preceding sections are absolute defects, and would exist, as they do at present, were there no language in the world except the English. This is not the case with those that are now about to be noticed ; for them, indeed, tlie word defect is somewhat too strong a term. They may more properly be termed inconveniences. Compared with the languages of the rest of the world the use of many letters in the English alphabet is singular. The letter i (when long or independent) is, with the exception of England, generally sounded as ee. With Englishmen it has a diphthongal power. The inconvenience of this is the neces- sity that it imposes upon us, in studying foreign languages, of unlearning the sound which we give it in our own, and of learning the sound which it bears in the language studied. So it is (amongst many others) with the letter j. In English this has the sound of dsh, in French of zh, and in German of y. From singularity in the use of letters arises inconvenience in the study of foreign tongues. In using y as dzh there is a second objection. It is not only inconvenient, but it is theoretically incorrect. The letter j was originally a modification of the vowel i. The Germans, who use it as the semi-vowel y, have perverted it from its original power less than the English have done, who sound it dzh. With these views we may appreciate, of the English alpha- bet and orthography — 1. Its convenience or inconvenience in respect to learning foreign tongues. — The sound given .to the a in fate is singular. Other nations sound it as a in father. The sound given to the e, long (or independent), is singular. Other nations sound it either as a in fate, or as eferme. The sound given to the i in bite is singular. Other nations sound it as ee in feet. The sound given to the oo in fool is singular. Other nations sound it as the o in note, or as the 6 in chiuso. ORTHOGRAPHY. 63 The sound given to the v in duck is singular. Other nations sound it as the u in bull. The sound given to the ou in house is singular. Other nations, more correctly, represent it by au or aw. The sound given to the w in wet is somewhat singular, but is also correct and convenient. "With many nations it is not found at all, whilst with those where it occui-s it has the sound (there or thereabouts) of v. The sound given to y is somewhat singular. In Danish it has a vowel power. In German the semi-vowel sound is spelt with j. The sound given to z is not the sound which it has in German and Itahan; but its power in English is convenient and correct. The sound given to ch in chest is singular. In other lan- guages it has generally a guttural sound; in French that of sh. The English usage is more correct than the French, but less coiTcct than the Geraian. The sound given to^ (as said before) is singular. 2. The historical propriety of certain letters. — The use of i with a diphthongal power is not only singular and incon- venient, but also historically incorrect. The Greek iota, from whence it originates, has the sound of i and ee, as in pit and feet. The y, sounded as in yet, is historically incorrect. It grew out of the Greek v, a vowel, and no semi-vowel. The Danes still use it as such, that is, with the power of the German u. The use of j for dzh is historically incon-ect. The use of c for k in words derived from the Greek, as ascetic, &c. is historically incorrect. In remodelling alpha- bets the question of historical propriety should be recognised. Other reasons for the use of a particular letter 'in a particular sense being equal, the historical propriety should decide the question. The above examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. § 307. On certain conventional modes of spelling. — In the Greek language the sounds of a in not and of o in note (although alhed) are expressed by the unlike signs or letters 6-4 ORTHOGRAPHY. o and (jj, respectively. In most other languages the difference between the sounds is considered too slight to require for its expression signs so distinct and dissimilar. In some languages the difference is neglected altogether. In many, however, it is expressed, and that by some modification of the original letter. Let the sign ( ' ) denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or independent, whilst the sign ( " ) indicates short- ness, or dependence. In such a case, instead of vrriting not and nwt, like the Greeks, we may write not and not, the sign serving for a fresh letter. Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the natural use of (') and ( " ) is to express length and shortness, dependence or inde- pendence. Now, supposing the broad sound of a to be already represented, it is very evident that, of the other two sounds of a, the one must be long (independent), and the other short (dependent) ; and as it is only necessaiy to express one of these conditions, we may, if we choose, use the sign ( ' ) alone; its presence denoting length, and its absence shortness (independence or dependence). As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of ( ' ) we may, if we choose, substitute such a mark as ( ' ) (and write not zz not = nwt = note) ; provided only that the sign ( ' ) expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark ('), viz. as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long (independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (') natural? For a reason that the reader has anticipated, it is not natural, but conventional. It is used elsewhere not as the sign of quantity, but as the sign of accent ; consequently being placed over a letter, and being interpreted according to its natural mean- ing, it gives the idea, not that the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or accented. Its use as a sign of quantity is an orthographical expedient, or a conventional mode of spelling. The English language abounds in orthographical expe- dients ; the mode of expressing the quantity of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin with these : — ORTlIOGRAPnY. 65 The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllahlc (as in feet, cool), is an orthographic expedient. It merely means that the syllabic is long (or independent). The reduplication of a consonant after a vowel, as in spotted, torrent, is, in most cases, an orthographic cxjie- dicnt. It merely denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent). The use of th with the power of the first consonantal sound in thin and tliine, is an orthographic exi)edient. The combina- tion must be dealt with as a single letter. X, however, and q are not orthographic expedients. Tliey are orthographic compendiunis. The mischief of orthographic expedients is this : — "When a sign, or letter, is used in a conventional, it precludes us from using it (at least without further explanation) in its natural sense. Thus the double a in mood constitutes but one syllable. If, in a foreign language, we had, immediately succeeding each other, first the syllable mo, and next the syllable od, we should have to spell it mo-od, or mood, or mo-bd, &c. Again, it is only by our knowledge of the language that the th in nnthook, is not pronounced like the th in burthen. In the languages of India the true sound of ^ + ^ is common. This, however, we cannot spell naturally ; because the combination th conveys to us ano- ther notion. Hence arise such combinations as thh, or t' , &c., in writing Hindoo words. A second mischief of orthographic conventionalities, is the wi'ong notions that they engender, the eye misleading the ear. That th is really t -f h, no one would have believed had it not been for the spelling. § 308. The e mute — the juxta-position of different vowels. — Two important modes of spelling still stand over for notice. (1.) By adding a second vowel, and so giving the appearance of a diphthong {red, redd) ; and (2) by adding at the end of the word the letter c, which, from the circumstance of its not being sounded, is called the e mute [bat, bate) ; we get, for the present stage of the Enrjlish language, the same results that come from the reduplication of the vowel, as in feet and cool; i.e. we get a sign to the eye that the vowel is long or independent. Such, at least, is the general inference from these combinations. At VOL. II. F 66 ORTHOGRAPHY. the same time it is doubtful wlietlier either of these is a true orthographic expedient; inasmuch as it is highly probable that they once represented (or approached the representation of) a real sound ; e. g. the e now called mute was once sounded. Again, the provincial pronunciation of such a word as wheat is whee-ut (there or thereabouts). This, which is provincial now, may easily be archaic, i. e. belong to the written language in an older stage. If so, the second vowel is no true ortho- graphic expedient. Whatever it may be now, it originally ex- pressed a real sound ; a real sound which has changed and sim- plified itself during the interval. § 309. Long as is the list of the diiferent powers of the different letters of the English Language, the greater part of them finds an explanation in one of the above-mentioned principles. The etymological principle exjjlains much ; for the English is a language which pre-eminently recognises it ; and it is also a language which, from the complex character of its organisa- tion, has a large field for its application. Change between the first use of a given mode of spelling and the present time explains much also ; Orthographic expedients explain more; Fourthly, the juxta-position of incompatible sounds explains much (see remarks on d and s) . B. — The b in debtor, subtle, doubt, agrees with the b in lamb, dumb, thumb, womb, in being mute. It differs, however, in another respect. The words debtor, subtle, doubt, are of classical, the words lamb, dumb, &c. are of Angle origin. In debtor, &c. the b was undoubtedly at one time pronounced, since it belonged to a difi*erent syllable ; debitor, subtilis, dubito, being the original forms. I am far from being certain that, with the other words, lamb, &c. this was the case. With them the b belonged (if it belonged to the word at all) to the same syllable as the m. I think, however, that instead of this being the case, the b, in speech, never made a part of the word at all ; that it belongs now, and that it always belonged, to the written language only; and that it was inserted in the spelling upon what may be called the principle of imitation. OllTIIOGRAPIIY. 67 D- — The reason for d being often sounded like t, is as fol- lows : — The words where it is so sounded arc either the past tenses or tlie })articiplcs of verbs ; as plucked, tossed, stepped, &c. Now the letter e in the second syllable of these words is not sounded ; whence the sounds of k, of s, and of p, conic in im- mediate contact with the sound of the letter d. But the sound of the letter d is flat, whilst those of k, s, and p are sharp ; so that the combinations kd, sd, and pd are unpro- nounceable. Hence d is sounded as t. In the older stages of the English Language the vowel e (or some other vow'cl equivalent to it) was actually sounded, and in those times d was sounded also. Hence d is retained in spelling, although its sound is the sound of t. K (C). — 1. Before e, i, and y, the letter c is pronounced as s — cetaceous, city, Cyprian ; 2. Before a, o, and u, it is sounded as k — cat, cqol, cut ; 3. Before a consonant it is so sounded — craft. On the other hand — 1. K rarely comes before a, o, or ii — 2. But it is used before e, i, or y ; because in that position c would run the chance of being sounded as s. Hence at the end of words k is used in preference to c. We write stick, lock, rather than stic, loc, or slice, locc. And the reason is clear ; the sound of c is either that of k or that of s. Which of these sounds it shall represent is detemiined by what follows. If followed by nothing, it has no fixed sound ; but At the end of words it is followed by nothing ; A\lience it has, at the end of words, no fixed sound ; and Therefore, being inconvenient, has to be replaced by k. But, besides this, k is rarely doubled. We w^-ite stick rather than stikk. This is because it is never used except where c would be pronounced as s ; that is, before a small vowel. If kid were spelt cid, it would run the chance of being pro- nounced sid. Now, the preference of c to A; is another instance of the influ- ence of the Latin language. The letter k was wanting in F 2 68 ORTHOGRAPHY. Latin; and as such was eschewed by languages whose ortho- graphy Avas influenced by the Latin, Hence arose in the eyes of the etymologist the propriety of retaining^ in all words derived from the Latin [crown, concave, concupiscence, &c.), the letter c to the exclusion of k. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, being taken from the Roman, excluded k, so that c was written even before the small vowels, a, e, i, y ; as cyning, or cining, a king. C then supplants k upon etymological grounds only. In some of the languages derived from the Latin this dislike to the use of k leads to several orthographical inconveniences. As the tendency of c before e, i, y, to be sounded as s (or as a sound allied to s), is the same in those languages as in others ; and as, in those languages as in others, there frequently occur such sounds as kit, ket, kin, &c., a difficulty arises as to the spelling. If spelt cit, cet, &c. there is risk of their being sounded sit, set. To remedy this an h is interposed — chit, diet, &c. This, however, only substitutes one difficulty for another, since cli is, in all probability, already used with a different sound: e.g. that of sh, as in French; or that of k guttural, as in German. The Spanish orthography is thus hampered. Unwilling to spell the word chimera (pro- nounced kimera) with a k; unable to spell it with either c or ch, it writes the word quimera. This distaste for k is an ortho- graphic prejudice. Even in the way of etymology it is but partially advantageous : since in the other Gothic languages, where the alphabet is less rigidly Latin, the words that in Eng- lish are spelt with a c, are there written with k — kam, German ; komme, Danish ; skrapa, Swedish = came, come, scrape. That the syllables cit, cyt, cet, were at one time pronounced kit, kyt, ket, we believe: 1. from the circumstance that if it were not so, they would have been spelt with an s; 2. from the comparison of the Greek and Latin languages, where the words cete, circus, cystis, Latin, are Krjrrj, KipKog, Kvang, Greek. In the words mechanical, choler, &c. derived from the Greek, it must not be imagined that the c represents the Greek kappa or k. The combination c ■\- h is to be dealt with as a single letter. Thus it was that the Romans, who had in their language neither the sound of ;^, nor the sign k, ORTIIOGRArilV. fifj rendered the Greek chi {■)^, just as by th they rendered 0, and hy ph, f/,. The faulty representation of the Greek ^ has given rise to a faulty representation of the Greek k, as in asatic, from UCrKt'lTlKOfJ. G. — Where c is sounded as k, y is sounded as in (jun. Where c is sounded as s, y is sounded asj {dzh) — not always, though generally. This engenders the use of u as an orthographic expedient. In words like prorogue, &c. its effeet is to separate the cj from the e, and (so doing) to prevent it being sounded as j {dzh). The letter S. — In a vei^y large class of words the letter s is used in spelling where the real sound is that of the letter z. Words like stays, bulls, peas, &c. are pronounced stayz, hallz, peaz. It is very important to be familiar with this orthogra- phical substitution of s for z. The reason for it is as follows : — The words where it is so sounded are either possessive cases, or plural nominatives ; as stay's, stays, slab's, slabs, &c. Now in these words (and in words like them) the sounds of y (in stay) and of b (in slab) come in immediate contact with the sound of the letter s. But the sound of the letter s is sharp, whdst those of y and b are flat, so that the combinations ys, bs, are unpronounce- able. Hence s is sounded as z. In the older stages of the English language a vowel was interposed between the last letter of the word and the letter s, and, Avhen that vowel was sounded, s was sounded also. Hence s is retained in spelling, although its sound is the sound of z. This fact of the final s being so frequently sounded as z reduces the writer to a strait whenever he has to express the true sound of s at the end of a word. To write s on such an occasion would be to use a letter that would probably be mispronounced ; that is, pronounced as z. The first expedient he would hit upon would be to double the s, and write ss. But here he would meet with the follow- ing difficultv : — A double consonant expresses the shortness of 70 ORTHOGRAPHY. the vowel preceding, toss, hiss, egg, &c. Hence a double 8 [ss) might be misinterpreted. This throws the grammarian upon the use of c, which, as stated above, has, in certain situations, the power of s. To write, however, simply sine, or one, would induce the risk of the words being sounded sink, onk. To obviate this, e is added, which has the double effect of not requiring to be sounded (being mute), and of showing that the c has the sound of s (being small). " It is the peculiar quality,'^ writes Johnson, " of s that it may be sounded before all consonants, except x and z, in which s is compound, being only ks, and z only a hard [flat] or gross s. It is therefore termed by grammarians sua potes- tatis litem ; the reason of which the learned Dr. Clarke errone- ously supposed to be, that in some words it might be doubled at pleasure.^^ A reference to the current Greek Grammars will indicate another reason for ct being called sua potestatis litera. It will there be seen that, whilst tt, j3, ^ — k, y, % — r, S, — are grouped together, as tenues, media, and aspirata, and as inter se cognata, a stands by itself; Z„ its media (flat sound), being treated as a double letter, and sh, its so-called aspirate, being non-existent in the Greek language. H. — The reason for h appearing in combination with t and s, in words like thin and shine, is as follows : — The Greeks had in their language the sounds of both the t in tin, and of the th in thin. These two sounds they viewed in a proper light; that is, they considered them both as simple single elementary sounds. Accordingly, they expressed them by signs, or letters, equally simple, single, and elementary. The first they de- noted by the sign, or letter, r, the second by the sign, or letter, Q. They observed also the difierence in sound between these two sounds. To this difference of sound they gave names. The sound of r [t) was called psilon (a word meaning hare). The sound of [th) was called dasy (a word meaning rough). In the Latin language, however, there was no such sound as that of the th in thin. ORTHOGRAPHY. 71 And, consequently, there was no simple single sign to repre- sent it. Notwithstanding this tlic Latins knew of the sound, and of its being in Greek ; and, at times, when they wrote words of Greek extraction, they had occasion to represent it. They also knew that the sound was called diisy, in o])posi- tion to the sound of t (r), which was psilon. Now the Latins conceived that the difference between a sound called psilon, and a sound called dasy, consisted in the latter being pronounced with a stronger breath, or breathing. In the Latin language the word aspiration means breathing ; so that, according to the views just stated, the Greek word dasy was translated by the Latin w^ord aspiratum {i. e. aspirated or accompanied by a breathing). In Latin the letter h was not called a sound, but merely a breathing* (aspiratio). This being the case, the addition of the letter h was thought a fit way of expressing the difference between the sounds of the t in tin and the th in thin. As the influence of the Latin language was great, this view of the nature of the sound of th (and of sounds like it) became common. The Anglo-Saxons, like the Greeks, had a simple single sign for the simple single sound : rzr. jj (for the th in thin), and ^ (for the th in thine). But their Norman conquerors had neither soimd nor sign, and so they succeeded in superseding the Anglo-Saxon by the Latin mode of spelling. Add to this, that they treated the two sounds of th [thin and thine) as one, and spelt them both alike. * Tlic fiict of asper = dasy has, probably, had somctliing to do with the evolution of this term. If so, it has elFected a catachrcsk. 72 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF CHAPTER VI. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET, § 310. The preceding chapters have exhibited the theory of a full and perfect alphabet ; they have shown how far the English falls short of such a standard ; and; besides this, they have exhi- bited some of the various conventional modes of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives a histonj of our alpha- bet, whereby many of its defects are partially accounted for. These defects, it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the rest of the world ; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it possesses them in higher degree than any other. With few, if any, exceptions, all the modes of writing in the world originate, dii'cctly or indirectly, from the Phoenician. This is easily accounted for when we call to mind, (1) the fact that the Greek, the Latin, and the Arabic alphabets, are all founded upon this ; and (2) the great influence of the nations speaking those three languages. The present sketch, however, is given only for the sake of accounting for our chief defects and peculiarities. §311. Phoenician period. — At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the neighbouring languages of the so-called Semitic tribes, consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters. The chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only twenty-two letters will be insufficient. Now, in the pticuarlar case of the languages in point, the number of elementary sounds, as we infer from the present Arabic, was above the average. Hence, THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 73 it may safely be asserted, that the original Phoenician alphabet was insufficient for even the Phoenician languaire. It was, moreover, inconsistent ; since sounds as like as those of teth and tau (mere variations of each other) were expressed by signs as unlike as 13 and r\ ; whilst sounds as unlike as those of beth with a point, and bet/i without a point {b and v), were ex- pressed (if expressed at all) by signs as like as 2 and H. This, however, was a subseciuent change. In its early state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to another, and be found, at once, to coincide. The Greeks had, in all probability, sounds which were want- ing in Palestine and Phoeuicia. In Palestine and Phoenicia it is certain that there were sounds wanting in Greece. Of the twenty-two Phoenician letters, the Greeks appear to have taken but twenty-one. The eighteenth letter, tsadi, seems either never to have been introduced into Europe, or to have become obsolete immediately after its introduction. § 312. G7'eek period. — Compared with the Semitic, the Old Greek alphabet ran thus : — Hebrew. Greek. Hebrew. Greek 1. ^ A. 12. b A. 2. n B. 13. D M. 3. 3 r. 14. J N. 4. 1 A. 15. D s 5. n E. 16. 0^ o. 6. 1 F. 17. 3 n. 7. T Z. 18. 2: 8. n H. 19. P Q* 9. ^ ©. 20. 1 p. 10. "» I. 21. V s. 11. D K. 22. n T. In a work specially devoted to the history of alphabetic writing, the so-called Semitic letters should appear in their very oldest fomi. They do not, however, do so in the foregoing * Or rather the letter out of which Q grew. 74 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF table. Indeed^ although we are speaking of the Phoenician alphabet^ the forms themselves of the letters are not Phccnician. They are (as may be seen from the heading of the columns) Hebrew. For the chief purposes of the present chapter this is sufficient. The older forms, however, may be studied in more works than one, e.g. in the Phoenicia of Gesenius, in Professor Kcy^s Alphabet, &c. The names of the letters are as follows : — Hebrew. Greek. 1. Alef Alfa. 2. Beth Beta. 3. Gimel Gamma. 4. Daleth Delta. 5. He E. 6. Vaw Digamma 7. Zayn Zeta. 8. Heth Eta. 9. Teth Theta. 10. Yod Iota. 11. Kaf Kappa. Kehreio. Greeks 12. Lamed Lambda 13. Mem Mu. 14. Nmi Nu. 15. Samekh Sigma. 16. Ayn 0. 17. Pi Pi 18. Tsadi 19. Kof Koppa. 20. Eesh Rho. 21. Sin San. 22. Tau Tau. When this alphabet of twenty-two letters was transferred from Phoenicia to Greece, the following changes took place; changes of which the effects are to be found, more or less, in more than half the alphabets of the world, even at the present time : — Letter 6 {Vaw) became obsolete. Letters 5 and 8 (E and H). The Greeks, like the Phoenicians, &c. used them with similar, though different, powers. In the languages akin to the Phoenician, these were sounds of h — aspirates (so-called) or gutturals. In the Greek, this aspirate or guttural power grew obsolete, and the powers of the letters equivalent to the 11 and H became those of the vowels e and ee. Furthermore, the Greeks (probabl}^, at some compa- ratively late period) added to the name E, the adjective psilon {—bare, or, in the technical language of the grammarian, lene) ; and, hence the name became E-psilon, Epsilon, or Epsilon. What the Greeks in aftertimes wrote X and $, the Greek during the first stage of the alphabet wrote KH and IIH. THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 75 Letters 15 and 21 [Samckh and Sin). Of these, the latter took the Greek fonn, San, only in the earlier stages of the lanirnagc. In the later this name became obsolete. When this had taken place, the name Sirjma (which word for \vord = Samck/i,j\\st as word for word SfinzzSin) was transferred from the fifteenth letter to the twentieth. Letter 16, Atjn. The history of this sign is nearly that of the sign n (E)- It came to denote the sound of o, having originally been something different. AVhat this original sound was is uncertain. It is generally considered to have been a nasal, i. e. something akin to the ng in ktnrj. Such is the history of the change it undenvent when becoming Greek as a sign. Different from this is the histoiy of the name by which it was known. This came to be Omikron [-zi little o), 0-mikron, Omikron ; this being, mutatis mutandis, the change that con- verted E into Epsilon. The history, however, of the two letters differs ; inasmuch as the letter from which Epsilon was differ- entiated (viz. the sound of Eta), was already a part of the alphabet, whereas the sound from which Omikron was differen- tiated was an addition, a sound of comparatively late origin, of which the sign was Q, and the name O mega, 0-mega, Omega. Letter 18, Tsadi. Sec below. Letter 19, Kof, like Vaw, became obsolete — both as a name and as a letter ; not simply, like San, where the name only got lost, whilst the letter remained, but wholly and absolutely, letter and name as well. We have now seen that out of tw^enty-two Phoenician letters, and a like number of names of letters, the Greeks adopted as many as twenty-one, if w^e suppose that Tsadi never made any part of the Greek alphabet ; but, with Tsadi, twenty-two. The doubts about this sign arise out of the fact of there having been an old Greek name Sampi. How came it ? Word for word it seems to be Tsadi. Yet there is no proof that Tsadi was ever taken into the Greek alphabet. It occurs in no MS., in no inscription. Nevertheless, it may have once been Greek — having become obsolete at a very early period. 76 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF Hence, we may treat it as a letter lost at so early a period as, for practical purposes, to be ignored as a part of the Greek alphabet — which, then, (as aforesaid) consists of twenty-one letters out of twenty-two — letters and names of letters. Mark this difference, and — Then, ask what principles regulated the adaptation of the Phoenician alphabet to the Greek language ; the answers being — Firstly, that letters expressive of sounds to which there were no precise equivalents in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with the letters. Figured. Hebreio. Greek. n E rr H V o Named. Hebrew. Greek. He Epsilon. HetJi Eta. Ayn 0. Sounded. Hebrew. Greek. h e hh ee ng (?) Secondly, that letters which were not wanted were allowed to drop out of the alphabet, either wholly or partially : wholly, when the name and letter were each allowed to grow obsolete ; partially, when either the name alone or the letter alone Avas ejected. With the Greek equivalent to Kof, the letter was wholly lost, the name being nearly so. The sixth letter, how- ever, or the representative of Vaiv, although obsolete as the sign of a sound, was retained as the sign of a number ; viz. the number six (^ := 6) . Again, there were either sounds in the Greek Language which were wanting in the Phoenician, or (what, for practical purposes, is the same thing) the Greeks determined upon expressing certain differences which the Phoenicians left unre- presented. This, however, could not be done without further change — change which arose out of the insufficiency of the original scanty alphabet of twenty-two signs. Hence, for such simple single elementary articulate sounds for which there was no sign or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. Furthermore, these new signs, as will be seen in the sequel, were not mere modifications of the older ones, but new, distinct, and independent letters — THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 77 Calk'd. Fif/ttred. Sounded. Upsilon Y u. Fi {Ph^) «D f {ph). Khi {Chi) X kh (c/i). Psi f ps. Omega SI 6. The place of these new sounds was at the end of the alpha- bet. They foHowcd Tau, and came altogether. They might have been put in the vacancies left by the ejected or obsolete letters ; but they were not. The names of the letters were accommodated to the genius of the Greek Language. Thus, to say nothing about the minor modifications, of Alfa, Beta, Lambda, from Alef, Beth, Lamed, &c., we find that — Zayn becomes Zeta. Heth — Eta. Teth — Theta. SamekJt — Sipna. Ayn — 0. ResJt — Mho. The order of the letters is preserved, the letters themselves bcins: used as numerals. Hence — Greek. Hebrew. Numeral A r=: K =: 1. B = 2 z= 2. r = .1 = 3. A ::zz 1 = •1. E =r n = 5. f = ? :^ G, Z = rr = 7. H = ID = 8. z=. 1 z= 9. I = D = 10. Here let us pause ; first, to remark that there are at least two epochs in the history of the Greek alphabet, or, changing the expression, two alphabets, the Older and the Newer ; and, next, to consider certain points connected with them both. § 313. The Older Greek Alphabet as compared ivith the 78 HISTORICAL SKETCH OP JSfeioer. — We get at the difference between the Older Greek Alphabet as opposed to the Newer^ by remembering — 1. What has been ejected; 2. What has been changed; 3. What has been added. The ejections were of two kinds. a. There was the ejection of both name and letter. This took place with the letters and names that grew out of Van and Kof. h. There was the ejection of the name only. This took place with San. The changes were of two kinds. a. There was a change of name, e.g. the addition of the adjectives psilon and mikron to e and o respectively ; the transfer of the denomination sigma to the twenty-first letter, and the substitution for it of the name Xi for letter 16. b. There was a change of /orm. The new letter Khi became X, and S became what was originally the representative of the Hebrew Samekh. The additions have already been noticed. Now the details respecting the points wherein the Greek alphabet in its newer, difi'ered from the Greek alphabet in its older stage, are of far less importance than the considerations that arise out of the simple fact of there having been two stages at all — viz. the Older and Newer. When did the latter begin ? When did the former end ? Did they pass into one another by degrees, or was there a broad and definite line of demarcation between them ? Did the one become prevalent in one part of the Greek area, and the other in another ? Was one Attic rather than Doric or Ionic, the other Doric or Ionic rather than Attic ? The answers to all this involve special and minute investigations into the archaeology and palaeography of Greece, and it is not Greece that the present work is written about. Hence, the points under notice are indicated rather than investigated. On the other hand, a great deal that bears even upon the history of the English alphabet up to its very latest date, is to be found in the difiference between the Old Greek alphabet of twenty-one (or twenty-two) letters, and the newer one of more than twenty-two. THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 79 We may easily uiulerstaiid the nature of these phenomena by asking a few questions^ wliieli, however hypothetieal they may be, will well illustrate the bearings of the faets under notiee. "AVhat" (let us ask) "would be the character of the present alphabet of the English Language if it had been taken direct from the Greek V This engenders another question, "Which Greek is meant, the Older alj)hal)et or the Newer ; the Older which ran from Alfa to Tan, or the Newer which ran from Alfa to Omega ?" Whichever way we answer, we find something difierent from the present state of things ; e. g. if we had taken direct from either the Older or Newer Greek, 3 would be the sixth letter in our alphabet instead of the last. Again, had we taken from the Newer alone, w-e should have had two different t^s and different oh — one for the e in pen, and another for the e in glebe ; one for the in not, another for the in note, &c., &c. Again, let us look at the two letters C7 and Q. The former we could only have got from the Newer, the latter only from the Older alphabet. Yet we have both ; and that when our alpha- bet has not been taken from the Greek at all. This (to which much might be added) suggests the likeli- hood of the difference of the two stages of the Greek alphabet being important, and deserving of attention. Let us deal with it in as simple a form as possible, unencumbered of unnecessary details, and solely with a view to the phenomena which it will explain. Doing this let us take the two extreme forms — the oldest, which will also be the most Phoenician ; the new^est, which will also be the most English or Angle form. 1 . Alfa A Alfa 1. 2. Beta B Beta 2. 3. Gamma r Gamma 3. 4. Delta A Delta 4. 5. Epsilon E E 5. 6. Zeta z Di(/amma 6. 7. Eta H Eta 7. 8. Theta Theta 8. 9. Iota I Iota 9. 10. Kappa K Kappa 10. 80 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF 11. Lambda 12. Mu 13. Nu 14. Xi 15. Omikron 16. Pi A M N O n Lambda Mu Nu Samekh Pi Koppa Tsadi (?) Eho San Tau 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 31. 17.Ilho P 18. Sigma S 19. Tau T 20. Upsilon T 21. Pi O 23. Khi X 23. Psi Y 34. Omega n In this table Tsadi has been admitted, because, as it pro- fesses to exhibit the extreme forms of the Greek alphabet, the verij early period to which that letter may be referred is re- cognised. It may not be inconvenient to give names to these two extreme forms, names founded upon the character of the re- semblance which they bear to the two alphabets with which they are most compared. These are the Phoenician on the one side, and the Slavonic on the other. From these two terms let us coin the words Phcenicoeid and Slavoniform* It is clear that the earlier any alphabet is derived from the Greek, the more Phcenicoeid it will be; nay, it may be so Phoenicoeid as to present the same appearance that would have arisen out of an immediate deduction from the Phoenician itself. Let us, in fixing upon a rough approximation for the two stages, say that 700 b.c. the Greek alphabet was Phoenicoeid rather than Slavoniform, and 100 b.c. Slavoniform rather than Phoenicoeid. § 314. The reader may now either continue the study of the present section, or pass on to § 315. If he do the former, he will meet with some observations upon writing in general, observations which have their bearing upon the criti- * See note at end of chapter for meaning of this term. TUE ENOLISII ALI'HABET. 81 cism of the (Icvclojjnicnt, evolution, and affiliation of alphabets of the world at large; observations, however, whieii are more or less episodical to the ])rescnt work. On the other hand, by missing these questions for the ])resent, he may take U]) the history of the PhaMiieian and I'hocnicoeid alphabets of Italy; alj)habets whose strueturc intluenced that of the liomans, the lionian alphabet being the basis of our own. The questions to be notieed are those of — (1.) Form, to whieh are subordinate those of nexus and direction; (2.) Povjer ; (3.) Name ; and (4.) Order. 1. Form. — At the present moment we have more foimis than one for the same letter, and it is not difficult to see how they originated. There are the Capitals — ditlerent in MSS. and in printed books, different, too, from what they were in the days of Black-letter. There are the smaller letters — different in writing and in printing, different, too, from the Black-letter. There are Italics, which arc intermediate to t}q)e and MS. — print in imitation of penmanship. All this we find within the limits of our own language. Beyond these limits, we find dif- ference as well as likeness. The Geinnan and Danish texts are what the English once was, i. e. forms of Black-lcttci- — and that in writing as well as printing. It is easy, then, to find varieties in the form of the letters. How do they arise ? Printing is one process, writing ano- ther. One requires a pen, the other a type. Differences of this kind evidently have a tendency to develope different results. But printing is a recent invention, and, being such, is evidently inadequate to account for the differences of form between the old alphabets. lYhat do we look for here ? Difference of material — difference of the material written on, difference in the instrument wherewith men wrote. It is no slight matter in respect to the shape of a letter whether we use a pen, a style, or a reed, a waxen tablet, a strip of papyrus, or a skin of parchment Again, we have a coinage. So had the ancients. A coin, however, is at least as different from a printed book as a printed book is from a MS. Finally — we have inscriptions. So had the ancients. Now, without saying that MS. writing demands that its VOL. II. ^ 82 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF letters should be round and curved rather than straight and angular, it is safe to say that inscriptional writing requires angular and straight lines rather than curves and sinuo- sities. Hence, with the slightest tendency for the MS. forms of letters to get rounded, there sets in a tendency towards the evolution of two classes of letters — one for inscriptions (or ghjptographic), one for communications on paper, parchment, &c. (or cursive) . Now, the cursive forms tolerate the introduc- tion of glyptogra])hic shapes better than the glyptographic tolerate the introduction of cursive ones. Hence, in inscrip- tions we find the angular forms almost exclusively; in MSS. the curved forms, and, on certain occasions, the angular ones as well. Out of tliese angular, inscriptional, or glyptographic lettei'S grow the Capital as opposed to the Small letters. Now, as all our early specimens of the alphabet are from coins or inscriptions, it is only the Capital or glyptographic forms of the older alphabets that we know anything about. Hence, in working problems connected with the affiliation and derivation of alphabets, we must compare the Capitals rather than the smaller letters — the glyptographic rather than the cursive forms. Closely akin and (as aforesaid) subordinate to the question of forms, is that of — • Nexus, connection, conjunction, or concatenation. — In glypto- graphy we carve, in MS. we write. In the former, the letters may be kept separate ; in the latter, they have a tendency to join, or touch each other. Carve such a word as THOMAS on a tombstone, stamp such a word as GEORGE on a coin, and the letters keep separate. Print them, and they must be sepa- rate. Write them, and they run into each other. This pro- duces modifications of form, i. e. connecting lines and abbre- viations. Closely akin, and (as aforesaid) subordinate to the question of concatenation, is that of — Direction. — TVe write from left to right — George. But what if we wrote er/roeG, i.e. from right to left? The Hebrews did so write. Again, they or we might have written THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 8.S G e o r S e i. e. from top to bottom — or vice versd — e g r o e G from bottom to top. No known nation writes from bottom to top. The Mongols, however, write from top to bottom. Hence, the direction of a line of wa-iting may be either hori- zontnl, OY perpendicular [vertical) — these being the primary lines. Intermediate to the two we may have one from comer to corner, or a diagonal one. This might easily have existed, though it is not known to have done so. The direction, then, of a line of writing may be horizontal, vertical, or a mixture of the two, i. e. diagonal — the two first forms being real and actually in practice. Again, the Greeks give us the adverb /Souor/ao^i/dov {bustro- fedon), from /3ouc {bus ^ ox) and arfjiclt [stref-zzturn). This means the way in which an ox at the plough turns, i. e. up one furrow and down another. Hence, in the bustrofedon direction one line runs from right to left (or vice versd), and the next from left to right (or vice versa). It is not enough to remember the different possible and actual varieties of direction, deducing the diagonal from a mixture of the two primary forms of the vertical and horizontal, as well as noticing the left -to -rig Id, the right-to-left, and the bustrofedon forms of the latter; there is a further distinction to be drawn — the distinction between the direction of letters and the direction of lines. Such a Hne as — r ^ 84 HISTORICAL SKETCH OP The way was long, the wind was cold, is written horizontally^ and from left -to -rig lit. Divide it into two, and reverse the direction of the latter half, so as to get a sample of right-to-left mode of writing ; which (as the two hemistichs are taken together) will also be hustro- fedon. Tlie way was long, .dloc saw dniw eht Could this be written otherwise ? Yes. It might run — The way was long, • hloo SBW himr sdt The difference between these two examples is clear. In the former the line is read from right to left, the letters preserving their original aspect. In the latter the direction of the indi- vidual letters is changed as well as that of the line in general. 2. Power. — Examples of the change of power have been given in the cases of the Greek Eta, Ejmlon, &c. They generally arise out of the difference between the sound-system of the language from which the alphabet is taken, and that of the language which takes it. Under certain conditions a long- line of alterations may occur, and the power of a given letter may end in being something very different from what it was at the beginning. The Greek, for instance, changes the power of the Phoenician 11. A third language may take from the Greek, and change the Greek Eta, and so on ad infinitum. 3. Name. — The names of A and B were in Greek and Hebrew Alfa and Alef, Beta and Beth respectively. The name of the same letters in English are a and bee. The Greek used an alphabet, w^e an A B C. There is a transparently visible difference between these two classes of names. The Greek and Hebrew foi-ms are those of ordinary substantives; the English are simply the powers of the letter put in a pronounceable form. 4. Order. — That the letters of a language should take some definite order, is an absolute necessity, as soon as such a book as a dictionary or glossary comes into use. There must, then, be some determinate sequence — i. e. if a precedes b once, it must always precede it; and so on. THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 85 The real date, however, of this order or sequence is much earlier. It is, at least, as old as the term Alphuhet ; a word compounded of the names of the first two letters of the Greek series — a/fa imd beta ; in llehrew, ^/z/and bci/i. The follow- ing extract from Professor Key gives us an ingenious specu- lation respecting the word clement — " Alpliahet is the name given to the scries of letters used in clilfcr- ent countries at different times. The term is borrowed from the Greek language, in which alpha, hela, are the tirst two letters ; or if we go a step farther back, we should derive the word from the He- brew, which gives to the corresponding letters the names aleph, heth. Thus the formation of the word is precisely analogous to that of our familiar expression, the A, B, C ; and some writers have found a similar origin for the Latin name given to the letters, viz. elenietUa, which, it must be allowed, bears an extraordinary similarity in sound to the three liquids, I, /«, n ; but to make this derivation satisfactory, it should be proved that these letters were at one time the leaders of the alphabet, for otherwise it would be difficult to account for the selection of a name from them in preference to the rest." Another point connected with the history of the Alphabet (the word being used in its strict etymological sense, and meaning the order of the letters) is the fact, that in the Greek and Hebrew it had a double function. In other words, the letters denoted numbers as well as sounds ; so that a = 1, /3 = 2, yzz 3, &c. The bearing of this doirble power is important. Say, that in the present English there were no such signs as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, &c., but the letters a, b, c, d, e, &c., instead. Say, too, that some orthograjjhic reformer persuaded his countrymen that the letter c was superfluous — as it actually is. Say, that he made out a case for its ejection. A difficulty would then present itself. Though useless and (perhaps) ob- structive as the sign of a sound, it would be wanted as a number, and, as a number, it would have to keep its place in the alphabet. It has been seen that something of this kind was the case with the Hebrew vau, when taken into the Greek. Hence, the subtraction of a letter from an alphabet, wherein numbers as well as sounds arc expressed, is inconvenient. But suppose the case to be one of addition as well as subtrae- 86 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF tion, i. e. that c has to be ejected, but that some letter has to be added. In such a case the one may be substituted for the other — and the order of the alphabet remained unchanged. Thirdly — there may be a case of simple addition ; whereby some letter is added, and no letter taken away. Where must be the place of this new sign ? At the end of the alphabet. This, at least, is what we expect a priori, and this is what, in many alphabets, we find to have actually been the case. At the same time, there are other likely situations as well — e. g. a newly-added letter allied to (say) h, or t, may easily be placed next to those signs — intercalated or interposed, so to say. The conclusion of these episodical sections respecting certain points connected with the general history of alphabetic writing is now at hand ; it being only necessary to remind the reader that the only questions under consideration in the present work are those that account for certain phenomena connected with the alphabet of the English Language. The origin of the Phoenician letters is another matter altogether. It is another matter altogether, whether we consider it historically or de- velopmentally, whether we ask from what older literature (if any) the Phoenicians took their letters, or whether we in- vestigate the internal changes by which one form of alphabet was evolved out of another. It is one thing to ask whether Phoenicia may have taken its alphabet from Egypt or Assyria, another to ask whether what is now a letter may not once have been a syllable, and whether what at a later period was a syllable may not at an earlier one have been a whole word. All this, however, we pass over sicca pede. Neither are the details of the changes that converted the Phoenicoeid form of the Greek Alphabet into the Slavoniform of great importance. The letter of the greatest value that they gave us was the U psilon (U-psilon, Upsilon), the parent of u, V, y, and w. "At tau,'' writes Professor Key, "the Hebrew series terminates, while the Greek adds first a i^, then a 9, a y^, a-il^,, and an w. That some of these did not belong to the early Greek alphabet is proved histori- cally. The u appears rarely before the year 403 B.C. ; ^, x^ f, X, and Simo- nides Z, H, ^, n, is full of so many difficulties that belief could not readily be given to him, even were there no counter authority. Tor upon what principle could the Greek letters have attained their present order, if they were introduced according to the chronological arrange- ment given by Pliny ? But fortunately in the very passage of Pliny referred to (vii. 5G, or 57), he gives another statement from Aristotle, differing from his own in several particulars, but, it must be confessed, not more satisfactory. They mutually serve, however, to weaken the authority of each other. In enumerating the sixteen letters it may be observed that the long vowels H, n, the double letters Z, H, T, the aspirates , X, 0, are excluded by Pliny. In defence of fi, "¥, X, O, we say nothing ; but the character H certainly did exist, not indeed as a long vowel, but as an aspirate. Thus with the diyamma, the letter H (cheth), and the theta, the old alphabet possessed a complete trio of aspirates : so erroneous is the notion that they should all be excluded. Lastly, as for Z and H, the circumstance of their situation correspond- ing precisely to the zain and samech of the Hebrew would induce us to defend them, even at the risk of supposing (if such supposition be necessary) that, in their original power, they were not double letters. "We do not, however, mean that the very characters existed, but that sibilants of some kind occupied tluir places. The precise correspond- ence of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets in the order and power and names of the letters is an argument of much stronger weight than any testimony from such careless and late writers as Pliny and Plutarch." Yet one more general observation. In § 277 I have written that " the arrangement of sounds, as far as we have hitherto gone, is a natural arrangement ; that is, vowels are arranged with vowels, consonants with consonants, mutes with mutes, liquids with liquids, and cognate sounds with cognate sounds. It will soon be seen that, besides the natural arrauirement of 88 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF the sounds of a laugiiagej there is an artificial arrangement as well/' This artificial arrangement is, of course, the Alphabet ; in which it may safely be said that the general opinion of philo- logucs is in favom- of the order or sequence of its letters being arbitrary or conventional. Why does b precede c and Cfi The ordinary answer is, that it does so because the first dis- poser and arranger of the letters chose to place it before them. Had he done the exact contrary he was free to do so. Such sequences as c, d, h ; d, c, h ; b, d, c, would have been just as good had they existed. But I continue, and qualify mj/ statement, adding to the term " artificial arrangement," the following words, " or if not artificial, one ivhich at the first view appears to be so." This suggests that the conventional, artificial, arbitrary, or non- natural order of the present alphabet may be so only appa- rently. In realitij it may be natural — its natm'al character being disguised. Now, the order of the Hebrew Alphabet is as follows : — Name. Sound. Name. Sound. 1. Alef ( Vowel or ( breathing. 12. Lamed L. 13. Mem M. 2. Belli B. 14. Nun N. 3. Ghnel G.* 15. Samekh a variety of S. 4. 5. Daleth He D. ( Either a vowel 1 or an aspirate. 16. 17. Ayn Pe ( Either a vowel |or ? P. 6. Taw V. 18. Tsadi TS. 7. Zayn Z. 19. Koph a variety of K. 8. Kheth a variety of K. 20. Resh E. 9, Teth a variety of T. 21. Sin S. 10. Yod I. 22. Tau T. 11. Kuph K. Let beth, vaw, and pe {b, v, p) constitute a series called iseries P. Let gimel, kheth, and koph {g, kh, k') constitute a series called series K. Let daleth, teth, and tau {d, f, t) con- stitute a scries called series T. Let alef, he, and ayn con- * As in gun. THE ENGLISH ALniABET. 89 stitutc a scries called the vowel scries. Let the first four letters be taken in their order. 1. Alef . . .of tlie vowel scries. 2. BHh . . .of series P. 3. Gimel . . .of series K. 4. Daldh . . .of series T. Herein the consionant of series B conies next to the letter of the vowel series; that of series K follows; and, in the last place comes the letter of scries D. After this the order changes : daleth being followed by he of the vowel series. 5. Ue 6. Vaw 7 . Zapi 8. Keth 9. TetJi of the vowel series, of series P. of series K. of series T, In this second sequence the relative positions of v, kh, and f are the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series. The sequence itself is broken by the letter zayn, but it is remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel, and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but frag- mcntaiT. Still, even now, pe, of series P, follows oyn ; tau, of series D, is farthest from it ; and kophy of series K, is inter- mediate. I am satisfied that we have in the Hebrew alpha- bet, and in all alphabets derived from it (consequently in the English), if not a system, the rudiments of a system, and that the system is of the sort indicated above ; in other words, that the order of the alphabet is a circulating order. The earliest notification of this natural character, so dis- guised as to appear artificial, is to be found in the following extract from a work so often quoted already — Key's "Al- phabet :"— "But we are digressing too long from the question about the prin- ciple which governed the first arrangement of the Hebrew or old Greek alphabet, if principle there be. Though we cannot satisfac- torily account for the whole order throughout the twenty-two letters, 90 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF there are certainly traces of some regularity in the arrangement. We find first the simplest of the vowel sounds followed by the three medials, 0, y, S ; then another vowel, followed, with some irregularity indeed, by aspirates corresponding in order to the above consonants, vail, clietli, tlietJi, no bad representatives of (f>, ;^, 0. Then again we have a vowel t, followed soon after by three consonants related to each, other, \, iJL, V. Soon after we find a fourth vowel o, and after it, with a little interruption it must be allowed, pi, kopini, tau. It cannot w^ell be a mere accident that the several classes of labials, palatals, and dentals occur so nearly together in the difi"erent parts of the series, and always in the same order." We may now follow oiir alphabet into Italy. § 315. The Early Italian and Etruscan Alphabets. — This was taken from either the Phoenician itself, or the Phoenicoeid Greek. We know this from the presence of the letters F and Q — the former from Vau, the latter from Koppa. What more took place ? Just what did in Greece. Where a letter was not wanted^ it was either not taken in or allowed, to drop out of the alphabet. Where a modification of its power was necessary^ such modification was admitted. In this way the equivalent to Vau took the sound of F, rather than that of V, More changes of the kind will be found in the history of the Etruscan alphabet. In the Etruscan language, unless we are misled by the spelling, there was a remarkable preponde- rance of the sha7p sounds as opposed to the flat, and a corre- sponding deficiency of the flat sounds as opposed to the sharp. Thus, there were the sounds of p, f, t, and s, in abundance, but not those of b, v, d, and z. Hence the equivalents to beth, daleth, and zayn, are wanting in the Etruscan ; whilst that of vau is found with an altered power. An alphabet derived from the Etruscan would be poorer than one derived from the Greek, and if the language to which it applied contained the flat sounds of b, d, and z, the represen- tation of that language in writing would run every chance of being but indifferently good ; in other words, it would run every risk of being very bad. If the Etruscans wanted so many of the common elementary sounds, what did they have in their stead? anything or nothing? THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 91 Was tlie soiintl-system absolutely poor, or was it only diflfcrcnt from the Greek ? It is not neccssaiy to investigate these questions. It is enough to know that the signs for b and d, were wanting in the Etrusean al|)habet — absolutely wanting. The siyn for Vau was admitted — its power being changed. Instead of ■=. r it i=y. The effect of this we find in (nir own language at the present moment. But there was another sound which was also said to be wanting in Etruscan, viz. that of the Greek o-mikron. What was the effect of this ? It might be one of two things. a. Either the sign which represented the Hebrew Aijn might be utterly absent from the Etruscan alphabet, or — b. It might be incorporated therein with an altered power. In other words, we might have either a case of ejection or a case of adaptation. I have little doubt hut that the case is one of adaptation. If we look to any of the ordinary tables which give us an Etruscan alphabet, we find that, when we get to the place of the Hebrew Ayn, or the Greek Omikron, there is a blank, or hiatus — indicating that no equivalent thereof is to be found in the Etruscan. We note this, and proceed, until we come to Tail (t). Here the Phoenician and the Phoenocoeid Greek alphabets end; but not the later Greek nor the Roman, nor yet the Etruscan. After T comes U — ^just as, in the later Greek, Upsilon follows Tau. But this is not all. Though, place for place, and poicer for poiver, this equivalent to the Greek v differs from the Hebrew Ayn, its form is the same. In considering the origin of 1', which he traces to V (which is only a modified ?7), Professor Key writes : — *' If we traced the Greek letter Y or V still farther back, we should perhajis arrive at the opinion that it grew itself out of a carelessly- written 0. The Hebrew character which corresponds to 0, viz. J7, already exhibits the opening above, just as the Hebrew JO does, com- pared witli the Greek 0. So, too, the English often write a capital without joining the circle at the top. To these considcralious may be added the fact that the Hebrew alphabet, which ended with a T, con- tains no other equivideut for the Greek Y : and again the Etruscans had but one character V, without any 0." 92 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF Now^ I think that the identity of the Etiaiscan U with the Hebrew Axjn, form for form, is beyond question. If so, it may be doubted whether the current expressions of the differences between the Etruscan and Greek alphabets are strictly accurate. It may be doubted whether we may correctly say that the Etruscans had no equivalent to the Greek Omikron. They may easily have had no such sound. Whether, however, it is equally accurate to say that they had no such letter, is another matter. They certainly had a sign that originated out of the Hebrew Aijn ; and this was what the Greeks had also. Hence, if I were writing on the antiquities of the Etruscan alphabet, I would rather, than say that they had no equivalent to the Greek o, write that they had such an equivalent, but that they sounded it somewhat differently (i. e. as u), and wrote it in a modified form, i. e. open at the top, and with an angle at the bottom, instead of making it circular (Fas opposed to 0). If so, the Etruscan alphabet ends at t, and has no gap between the equivalents of Samekh {Xi) and Pe (Pi) — at least in its earliest stage. At a later period, when Roman influences may have acted on it, the case was, perhaps, different. And this leads to the hypothetical explanation of the origin of u ; which is as follows : — a. It was no invention of any Greek, but an original consti- tuent of the early Phoenicoeid alphabet, in which, form for form, and place for place, it represented Ayn. b. But this it did in some peculiar dialect wherein o was sounded as u — a dialect which, pj^o tanto, agreed with the Etruscan, but which was not Etruscan, nor yet (necessarily) the dialect from which the Etruscans took their alphabet. c. The form of this equivalent of Ar/n was angular rather than circular. Meanwhile, — d. In another dialect wherein a retained its natural sound, the equivalent to Ayn was, in form, circular rather than angular, and its sound that of the Greek Omikron. Hence, there were (by hypothesis) two Greek dialects that adopted the Phoenician alphabet, one representing, by the equivalent to Ayn, the sound of a rather than that of u, the other that of u rather than o. Call these dialects U and O. In dialect is it found that a THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 93 new sijrn is wanting, a sign fur a sound not identical with o, but allied to it ; viz. that of u (whether sounded as in Italian or as in French). Such being the case, recourse is had to the allied dialect (C/), which supplies the sign that afterwards takes the name Upsilon. Such is the author's hypothesis respecting the evolution of tlie Greek Upsilon and its equivalents — a hypothesis which arises out of the necessity of accounting for two antagonistic facts, viz. its similarity in form to the Hebrew Atjii, and its dissimilarity of power, place, and name. The importance of the investigation of the origin of the letter itself becomes apparent when we consider the number of forms that it has given rise to. Out of the Greek Upsilon have grown the English u, v, iv, and y ; out of the Hebrew Ayn have grown not only u, V, w, and y, but o also. Returning to the more general questions connected with the Etruscan alphabet, we find that (to go no further into the list of its deficiencies) it was poorer than the Greek by the signs for b and d. "Wanting these, did it want g (as in gun) also ? We should ask this question. As h is to^;, as v to/, as d to /, as z to s, so is g to k. With five, then, of the flat sounds being absent, it is by no means unlikely that the sixth was absent also. If so, there should be no Etruscan equivalent to Gimel or Gamma. But such is not the case. There is one. But, perhaps, this was sounded as Kof or Kappa ; just as Vau was sounded, not as v, but as/. There is, however, a sign for Kaf, or Kappa, as well ; and this sign engenders a difficulty. It is a fact against the doctrine that the Etruscan equivalent to Gimel or Gamma :=: k. If it did, what was the use of Kappa ? I think that this difficulty is got over by supposing that the Etruscan equivalent to Kappa was no ordinary k, but some guttural variation of it. If so, the original suggestion may stand, viz. that the third letter of the Etruscan alphabet was the sign for k. Still there is a complication. There is a sign for the Greek KM, and this, unless either a su})erfluity or a mere Greek interpolation, was a guttural k — such a A; as Kappa is supposed to have represented. I think, however, that this is an interpolation. If this be the case, there are no difficulties in the cuiTcnt and i)i HISTORICAL SKETCH OF generally-admitted doctrine tliat tlie Gamma of tlie Greeks, with its sound of the g in gun, was sounded in Etruscan as k. But as k is neither more nor less than the c in cat, we may say that it is to the Etruscan that we trace the origin of that letter, a letter of which the history is remarkable and complex. First, there grows a k out of g ; and then this k becomes, in certain conditions, s. How, however, came its form ? The remarks in pp. 81 — 84 explain this. The original 'j underwent two changes — one in respect to outline, and one in respect to direction. It lost its angle and became a curve. It faced the right hand instead of the left. So arose the third letter of the alphabet, which in the modern language, is more s than k, and more k than g. Still it was out of a Gamma that it was evolved. Let us now repeat a previous question, useful though hypo- thetical. Supposing the English to have been taken direct from the Etruscan, what would have been its character, or (limiting the question for convenience sake) what would have been its chief peculiarities ? There would have been nothing to spell such words as not and note with — nothing for such words as bat, date, vane, zany, 01' gun — no b, no d, no v, no z, no g. Besides this, K would be the second letter in the alphabet, which would run A, K, E, F, &c., instead of A, B, C, D, E, V, &c. Now, this order, though avoided in one respect, is approached in another. Unlike the Etruscans, we have B in the second, and D in • the fourth place ; but, like them, we have F instead of V, and more important still, we have a sound which originated in that of K in the third place — viz. the letter c. § 316. One of the chief objects of the present notices is to show the extent to which many of the facts connected with the modern orthographies are anything but novelties. On the contrary, the greater part of the principles that are exhibited in our orthographic expedients and in other portions of our orthography, are as old as the Greek stage of the alphabet. Thus— 1. The expression of the so-called aspiration of a letter hj the addition of the letter h was Gree/c— That it was Italian is well THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 95 known ; but that it was Greek also is often overlooked. Nevertheless, in the older inscripti(jns, KM and nil stand for what was afterwards X and , just as they do in the Latin and many subsequent alphabets. I find no notice, however, of the /// in thin being expressed by TH ; as analogy suggests. The reason for this is clear. It lies in the fact of there already being the simple single sign of e {theta). Now the condjinations KH, and IIH, prove one of two points ; either that the orthographic expedient of spelling the simple single sound of the ch in locli {Scotch), and the ph in philosopJiy, by means of a combination of two letters, is of such antiquity as to go back to the earlier epochs of the alpha- bet, or, that the sounds in question are derivatives from the powers of the kh and j)h, in inA-^orn (inM-orn), and haja-Aazard (ha/>//-azard) . In the former, there has been an incorrect and conventional mode of spelling from the beginning ; in the latter, the method, once correct, has, by subsequent change, be- come inaccurate. I have no hesitation in committing myself to the former of these two doctrines. 2. The expression of the shortness of a vowel by the redu- plication of the folloicing consonant (an orthographic ex- pedient already noticed) is Greek. — This we infer from such words as Kopvaait), QaXdcraa {korijssd, thalassa), &c. ; words which suggest the same kind of alternative as the one sug- gested by the combinations KH, OH, viz. the fact of either there having been a conventional mode of spelling at a very early date, or a natural one with subsequent change. The former is what I hold ; not holding that the cto- {ss) in BaXdaaa {thalassa), &c. was ever sounded as a true double s. 3. Do the orthographic expedients for denoting the long- ness of vowels go back to the Greek period ? Of the redu- plication of the same vowel (as the e in feet), I remember no instances; although I should not be surprised to find them. Of the Greek diphthongs the list was a long one. "Without going minutely into the criticism of it, I think that some of them at some stage of the language were sounded as simple single vowels. Cicero, for instance, tells us that bin'i and ftivsi were pronounced alike; in other words, that ti Greek = i 9G HISTORICAL SKETCH OF Latin. Whichever way we take this statement^ we get a simple single letter, and a combination of two letters sounded alike. Whether^ however, this identity belonged to the earliest stage of the alphabet is uncertain. The conditions of the Greek alphabet, as applied to the expression of the difference between the long and short vowels, were very peculiar — very peculiar, and by no means simple. Between two pairs of vowel sounds the differentiation was an easy matter. It was an easy matter in the case of the e in feet as opposed to the e in fen ; and it was an easy matter in the case of the o in note as opposed to the o in not. In each of these cases there was a separate single sign for the separate single sounds of £ and ?}, o and w. What, however, was to be done with a, i, and v — sometimes long, sometimes short ? At the first view, the answer seems simple. Exjoress by some means or other (natural or con- ventional, as the case may be,) one of the two powers — either the longness of the vowel in question or its shortness, and with this be satisfied. All that is not long will be short, and vice versa. Hence one sign will sufiice; its presence indi- cating one quality, its absence another. This is what we do with om* accents, and this is all we need to do. But the Greeks could only do this by the adoption of just that one orthographic exjiedient which they least admitted, viz. the reduplication of the vowel (e as in feet). I say that they eschewed this mode of expression. Had they not done so, the equivalents to i) and w (as compared with t and o) would, in the cases of a, i, and v, have been aa, a, and vv. This might have been carried consistently throughout the language, with only one inconvenience attending, the inconvenience already noticed. When the real sounds of a + a, t + t, or y + u oc- curred, there would be no mode of expressing them. I say that it was only by the adoption of this expedient that the Greeks could express the longness or shortness of their vowels by one method. To understand this, let us look at the other alternatives. Let us first ask what would have been the efiects of what we may call the diphthongal system, the system by which the £t=i [bird and jStvt/). THE ENGLISH ALrnABET. 97 Upon ^\hat principle is this combination formed? It is formed upon the j)riiK-iple nhich gives to t a semi-vowel power — i. e. which considers its power to be that of the ij in yet, rather than the i in i-et. If it were not so, there would be two vowels, and the combination would be dissyllabic. This is as much as we can say at present ; since notice must be taken of another combination — ov or s. It is safe to say that this stands in the same relation to v that n does to i, being its long sound. And — That it stands in the same relation to o that ei docs to e is evident. Again — the relations of the vowel v to the semi-vowel w (as in wet) are those of i to y. Hence — In the combination ov the latter letter is a semi-vowel, rather than a vowel, in power. If it were not so, the com- bination would be dissyllabic. Now what is the function of this semi-vowel element — an element which may express one of two things, the quality of the sound or its quantity ? If the combination ov be a long sound of v, which of the two letters denotes the longness and which represents the vowel ? Or — supposing we were to change the principle of repre- sentation, and instead of using a letter we were to denote the property of longness by some mark (say ' or "), which of the letters should we eject, and which should we keep ? AVhich would stand as it was, and which woidd be replaced by our mark ? Should we write d (or o), or v (or v) ? The latter. If the previous view be correct that ov is the long power of v, the quality is represented by the latter, the quantity by the former, letter. The same applies to h. So much for one view of these combinations. There is another which nuiy easily be anticipated. According to this, € and o express the quality, and t and v the quantity ; so that £t is £, and ov is o lengthened by the addition of the semi- vowels y and iv. It is not necessary, in a work like the present, to go into VOL. II. H 98 HISTORICAL SKETCH OP the criticism of these two doctrines. The latter^ however^ is that of the writer. The real point of importance is^ the inapplicability of either principle to a. Affix I to a and you have the combination ai. Affix w to a and you have the combination av. Now, however conveniently, £«=:«, or ovzzv, neither m nor av conveniently zr a, inasmuch as they had already their own proper function of expressing something else. Whatever were the sounds of at in Kaiu), or av in KavGU), there were not those that stood in the same relation to a, as u did to i, and ov to v. To recapitulate — w^e have called the principle that gives us u and ov the diphthongal principle, and have shown that it could not be applied to all the three vowels consistently and steadily throughout. Hence — in the case of the two alternatives alluded to, the Greeks were debarred from the first. They could not express the long vowels by a certain uniform method, and leave the reader to discover the short ones for himself on the principle that whatever was not long was short. But could they not reverse this process, and by steadily and consistently showing when a vowel was short, leave the reader to find out the long ones ? They could not. Why not ? The orthographic expedient by which we express the short- ness of a vowel by doubling the consonant that follows, is no novelty. On the contrary, it has been specially stated that it was to be found so early as the Greek stage of the alphabet. If so, why not act upon it ? Why not spell all words where- in the a was sounded as in BaXaaaa [thalassa), the t as in Trefj^iKKag [Perdikkas], or the v as in Kopvaau) {korysso) with two s's, or two k's, &c. ? If this be done, the long sounds may be left to themselves, whatever is not short being long. The Swedish orthography goes largely on this principle, and a very fair orthography it is. Why could not the early Greeks have done the same ? They were prevented by their prosody. Unfor- tunately for the Greek orthography, the same reduplication of the consonant that shortened the voivel lengthened the stjllable. TUE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 91) The Greeks^ then, could not be consistent in the representa- tion of tlie longness and the shortness of their vowels ; and being unable to be consistent, had recourse to two principles — a. Sometimes, the lungness of a syllable was shown by spell- ing it as a diplithong; and — b. Sometimes, the shortness of a syllable was shown by doubling the consonant that concluded it. Both these methods are English, inasmuch as we not only write such combinations as oe, &c., to show that a vowel is long, but we also write such combinations as ock {okk), &c., to show that a vowel is short. This has been stated already. The antiquity of the practice is stated now. § 317. The Etymological Principle, — how far teas it Greek ? — That the greater part of our chief orthographic expedients are anything but novelties has been shown ; for it has been shown that they can be traced up to the earliest period of our alphabetic history. How far is this the case with the Etymo- logical principle ? Did the Romans recognise it ? Yes. Did the Greeks ? Xo. Such is our answer ; affirmative to the one question, negative to the other. Nor is it difficult to find the reason for the difference. The Roman literature began be- times to be affected by Greek influences, and Greek words at an early period found their way into the Latin lana:na«'e. Now between the Greek and the Phoenician there was no such close literary contact, no great influence, no great borrowing of words ; besides which the difference between the alphabets was greater than that between the Roman and the Greek. Neither Greeks nor Romans paid much attention to the study of the languages of the countries with which they came in contact ; indeed, they despised them as barbarous. Of the two, how- ever, the Romans paid the most. They studied the Greeks, and kept up a connection with their literatm-e. The Greeks, on the other hand, when they had got what they wanted, in the shape of an alphabet, from the East, seem to have done with their instructors in the art of writing, to have dispensed with them entirely, to have distanced them in the race of Literature, and to have ignored all subsequent influences. Hence, if they did borrow a word from Asia, they took no more pains to keep up for it its Asiatic character, than we do H 2 100 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF to indicate by the outward and visible sign of a peculiar ortho- graphy the Chinese^ or Indian origin of such words as tea, or shawL The Greeksj then^ ignored the etymological principle in the case of words of foreign origin. The Greeks ignored, but the Romans recognised, it ; so that it is to the Roman period (and no further) that we can trace it. Did the Greeks ignore the etymological principle in toto, i. e. in the spelling of words wherein one sound was changed for another according to the rules of their own grammar ? Thus — if the present tense of a word was tup, and the preterite tuf, how would they spell the latter ? Would they concoct any means for retaining the original letter j^ (or some part thereof) in the derivative form, in order to show the connection ? We do it. So do many others. But did the Greeks ? No. If one sound was changed into another, they took the change as they found it, and expressed it accordingly. Thus, one form of TVTTTw {tijjjto), was written TiTV(^a {tetyfa), another 'irvcpOtjv [etijf\en). They might, however, have written tvtttii), rervTr'a, and trinr'Triv — by which process the etymological connection between the tt' and t on the one side, and the tt and r on the othei', would have been all the clearer. N evertheless, the Greeks did nothing of the kind, and they were wise in not doing it. As languages get modern they tend toward the contrary extreme, and so far over-do their etymologies as to conceal difference in order to exhibit likeness — a proceeding generally unnecessary, rarely successful, always and essentially untrue. The general features, then, of our orthography, are as old as the Greek period. The most important details we get from — § 318. The lloman. — Here we begin with the notices of such particular letters as claim attention; first of which comes — C, the third letter of the Roman alphabet as it is of our own ; but not the third of the Greek, nor yet the third of the Hebrew. The chief points of its history have already been given; the change, in power, from g to k, being Etruscan. Now, without saying that the Romans took their alphabet exclusively from the Etruscan, I hold that they did so as far THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. I 01 as the letter c is concerned ; in other words, I donbt whether the Romans wonkl ever have given it its modern power if it liad not been for the Etrnscans having done so l)efore them, in their neighbonrhood. But the Etruscans did so because the natnre of their hniguage (whose sound-system wanted b, g, and d) sug- gested it. Why do I indicate this ? I do it for the sake of showing how little there is of what is arhilrary in the struc- tui'c of the alphabet; which has grown after the fashion of a tree, rather than been built up after the manner of a house. "This letter," writes Professor Key, "is derived from the Latin alphabet, in which it first appears. But even in that alphabet it ori- ginally possessed the power of y, as pronounced in (jooae. Thus the Eoman proper names Cains and Cneius, which retained this sound, are correctly represented in the Greek character by r«to; and Tvr,io; ; and the Duilian inscription, the orthography of which, however, seems to belong to a hater date than the events celebrated in it, presents maces- trains, leciones, pucnandod, ecfociont, in the place of the modern forms, magistratus, legiones, pugnando, ecfuglunt. Indeed the poet Ausonius expressly states that C once performed the duty of G ; Gamma vice functapr'ms C. (See also Testus, vv. Prodigia, Orcum.) Tliis medial pronunciation corresponds with the power of the letters which occupy the third phice in the Greek and Hebrew alphabets, gamma and gimel; and the identity of the letters is confirmed by the similarity of the forms. " The letter c in English is pronounced as s before i, c, and h before a, 0, u. This variety in the power of the letter seems difficult to aecoimt for ; but it may be observed that «, e belong to one end of the vowel series, a, o, ?< to the other; and it is further to be noticed that the vowels i and e, when they precede vowels, have a power approaching to that of y in youth, and that if. in addition to this, c or g precede, there often results a sound like that at the beginning of the words cliurch and John, and this sound of ch is not very different from a sibilant. The vowels i and e produce a similar sound when pre- ceded by a (/ or ^ and followed as before by a vowel. Thus from ration the Italians have obtained ragione ; and from radio, raggio ; from Diana the rustics of ancient Italy made Java. These considera- tions are perhaps supported by the employment of the little mark called cedilla in the French language, which is used to denote that c is to be pronounced as an s even before the other vowels, as ca ; for the mark appears to have been originally an /." 102 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF In this extract^ the statement that c originally possessed the power of the g in goose requires qualification. As the sentence stands, it looks as if all the old c's of the Latin language were once sounded as ^'s, or, at any rate, that the normal and pri- mary power of the letter was that of G, that of C being deriva- tive, secondary, aberrant, and exceptional. Of course, in the Greek and Phanician, all of what was afterwards C was, originally, G. In the Latin, however, I find no reason for believing that the sound of G was the older. On the contrary, I believe that that of C was. How came it, then, ever to be sounded as G ? I imagine that the same Etruscan influence which gave the third letter with its peculiar power to the Roman alphabet, also determined either the non-adoption or the non-invention of any representative of the sound of G — in the first instance, at least. Yet as this sound of G was Roman, the sign that should indicate it was necessary. In due course of time it came into existence. Previous, however, to its development, I hold that C did double duty — partly as C, and partly as G — primarily, however, as the former, and not as the latter, letter. Neither do I deny that at a period thus early its third power of s (or some modification of s) may have existed. I cannot, however, think that at the time when legio and pugno were spelt lecio and pucno, that such a word as canis was either pronounced ganis, or spelt kanis — admitting, however, the possibility of the latter alternative. F. — The history of this letter is given in the sketch of the Etniscan stage. It arose out of Vau. But what if the sound of Vau [v) existed in the language as well ? A difficulty would arise. Either a new sign must be developed to represent it, or an orthographic expedient must be resorted to. This bears on the history of our letter v — now at the end, once at the beginning, of the alphabet. I see in this modification of the power of Vau a confir- mation of the views already expressed concerning the influence of the Etruscan alphabet on the Latin. Why should the Romans change the power of either Gamma or Vau, when they had the sounds of both G and V? A fortiori, why THE ENGLISU ALPHABET. 103 change both ? If we h)ok at the sound-sytem of the language, the alteration is pre-eminently gratuitous. But it is not gra- tuitous if we lot)k at the sound-system of the Etruscans, and, along with that, the extent to which tlie Romans borrowed from Etruria. " G. — This letter is derived to us from the Latin alphabet, in which it first appears. In the Greek alphabet its place is supplied by zela. If, as seems probable, the sound of this Greek letter was the same as the consonantal sound at the beginning of the word judge, it may perhaps be inferred that the hissing sound now given to the letter g existed already in some dialect of ancient Italy. The sound at any rate is familiar to the modern Italian. The sound of the letter g in the English language is two-fold. Before a, o, and n, and occasionally before i and e, it is the medial letter of the guttural order. The other sound, which it possesses only before i and e, is one of the medials of the sibilant series, and is also represented by the letter j as pronounced by the English. The sibilant sound is written in Italian by two letters gi, as Giacomo, .lacob, or by gg, as oggi, to-day. The two-fold nature of the sound corresponds to the double sound of the letter c, which is sometimes a /•, sometimes an «." — Key's Alphabet, p. 63. A great deal of what applies to C applies to G also ; and the history of the two letters is closely connected ; indeed the histories of C, G, and K may be said to be coraplementai-y to each other. Add to this that the histories of Zeta and Van are, notwith- standing certain details, alike. Each was taken into the Latin alphabets from the Phoenician, either directly or indirectly. Each was changed in power. Each reappears — the one as v, the other as z, and each at the end of the alphabet. Place for place, however, and sign for sign, we must remem- ber that F is V; and also we must remember that, place for place and sign for sign, G is Z. That the sibilant power of G [zz-dzh) is of the antiquity ascribed to it by Professor Key is probable. If so, the double power of g (as in gun and gibbet z:.dzhibbet) is no novelty. Neither (if the view concerning c be correct) is the double power of that letter (as in cut and citgzzsiti/) a novelty. H. — The effect of the Latin orthography upon this letter 104. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF was to fix it as the sign of the so-called aspirate. It was either this or something akin to it in the Phoenician. It was either this or something akin to it in the Phenicoeid Greek, But it was neither this nor anything very like it in the later Greek. In the later Greek it was a vowel, the aspirate being expressed by \ But as this ' is considered to have been but the left- hand half of H ( I ) in an abbreviated and rounded foi'm, we may say that both its powers were preserved in the Greek — both its powers and half its form. The Latin language, by ignoring the power to which the Greeks gave the greater pro- minence, fixed (as has been already stated) the power of H as an aspirate. But (as has also been stated) it was not the Latins who devised the notion that such combinations as PH and THz=. F and the sound of the th in thin. This had been excogitated by the Greeks during the time that Eta was used as H. A remark of Professor Key's upon the name of this letter (the word aitch) now finds place. He thinks that it was origi- nally " ech, with the vowel prefixed, as en, ef, el, kc." {Alpha- bet, p. 66.) Now I doubt this. I think that the ch {tsh) represents no k but a t, i. e. the t in Eta or Heth. The equivalent to the Greek Theta, Hebrew Teth. — The Latins having no sound for which this sign was wanted never took it up into their alphabet ; and hence, our alphabet runs H, I, instead of H, Th, I [Eta, Theta, Iota, ov Heth, Teth, Yod.) The last remark upon the H, a remark concerning the word aitch, was upon the question of name. The present remark on the absence of the equivalent to Theta is upon a question of order. Both demand our attention. / is but a modification of / — the original power being un- certain, as is the date of its evolution. "/in the Englisli language lias a sibilant sound, closely connected with that of the syllable di before a vowel. It has a similar, though not the same, sound in the French tongue ; but in German it is pro- nounced altogether as our y before a vowel. What its pronunciation was in Latin may admit of dispute, for although it is generally laid down that its power with the Komans was the same as with the Ger- THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 10-5 mans, there is reason for thinking that our own sound of the letter was not unknown to the ancient inhabitants of Italy. The name of Jupiter was undoubtedly written originally Diupiter, so Janus was at first Diiinus, just as the goddess Diana was called by the rustics Jana. The argument might be strengthened by comparing the Latin jinigo with the Greek ^st/yn,'^*, Jupiter with Zev irars^, &c., and also by referring to the modern Italian forms, ffior/o, giovare, giovenco, gio- vane, &c. There is no absurdity in supposing that two pronuncia- tions may have co-existed in the same country. As to the form of the lottery, it was originally identical with that of i, and the distinc- tion between them is of recent date. Exactly in the same way among the numerals used in medical prescriptions, it is the practice to write the last symbol for unity with a longer stroke, vj. vij. viij." — Key's Alphabet, p. 71. K. — It is only in the latei* Latin that K is absent from the alphabet. The " old inscriptions of the language offer abun- dant examples of K, which in fact began to disappear, just as Y and Z came into use,'' — Key, p. 44. Again — " The following are some among the Latin words in which the letter k is found in inscriptions : Kaeso, Kaia, kalator, kalendae, kandidatus, Kaninius, kanus, kapitolium, kaput, karcer, karitas, Karmenta, Kar- tago, karus, kasa, Kastor, kasus, kastra, and arka, dedikare, evokare, iudikare, Parka, Volkanus." This early use of K, to a certain extent, invalidates the doc- trine laid down under C, viz. that that letter was not originally G. Nevertheless, I hold that the facts on the other side pre- ponderate. The equivalent to Samekh. — Tliis was neither taken up by the Latins nor wanted. Hence, x has no place in their earlier alphabet. "When it appears in their later, it takes its place at the end. O. — The presence of this letter in the Latin alphabet is against its exclusive origin from the Etruscan, an origin which is not claimed. All that is claimed is a large amount of Etrus- can influence, as shown in the cases of C and V. The equivalent to Tsadi. — Neither taken in nor wanted. These omissions make our alphabet run N, 0, P, Q, R, rather than A^, X, 0, P, TS, Q, as the Hebrew does. 106 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF Q has already been noticed. It was kept in the Latin, though in the Greek it was allowed to become obsolete. U. — How this is supposed to have gi'own out of Ayn has been stated. Out of U grew V, i.e. the semi-vowel sound grew out of the vowel, not vice versa. Such is the genesis of the power. That of ihefo7'm is different. Here, the semi-vowel form, or the angular one, is the older. Hence, in one sense {i. e. in respect to its poiver) V grew out of U, whereas, in another sense (^. e. in respect to its form), U grew out of V. W (as is well known) has originated since the Latin period. X — This letter, " to an Englishman, is the representative of what might as well be denoted by the two consonants Is. But in the Greek alphabet it was merely a guttural aspirate, equivalent probably to the German cJi. The cause of this change in the power of the symbol appears to admit of the following explanation : — Before the employment by the Greeks of their character H or |, it was their com- mon custom to represent this sound by XE, as may be seen in Boeckh's inscriptions, rather than by KS, of which there exist, however, a ^ew examples, as in the so-called Nanian inscription. Now the Komans copied this Greek practice, and we consequently find in Latin in- scriptions such forms as maxsvmvs, pkoxsvmvs, &c. (See the Index of Marini's Fratelli Arvali.) So again coins give us the proper name Axsivs, where the later orthography would have been AXivs ; and even existing manuscripts still bear traces of this orthography. Thus the Mediceau MS. of Virgil has exsesa {Aen. viii. 418), exsvit {Aen. viii. 567). But the Eomans, being generally averse to the aspirated letters (It itself, though written, seems not to have been pronounced by them), had little or no occasion for the character x except in this combination with an s." The author proceeds — " The letter X was the last in the Eoman alphabet, neither Y nor Z belonging to it, although the majority of Latin grammars include them. On reflection, however, it will be admitted that the words in which those two letters occur are not really part of the Latin language, but borrowed from the Greek, as zephyriis, zona ; or from some East- ern source, as yaza. Such forms as lacliryma, Jiyems, sylva, are simply errors of modern editors. The Eomans themselves wrote lacruma or lacrima, Mems, or rather hlemps, and silva." THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 107 Having now got tlirough the details of the Latin alphabet, we may ask what jji-inciplcs the Romans recognised in the accommodation of the Greek letters to their own language ? There was the ejection of such letters as were not wanted. Thus it was that theta, kappa [c being equivalent to k), and the fifteenth letter, were ejected, while \p and y^ were never admitted. In after-times the fifteenth letter (now xi) was restored, for the same reason that z was restored, both being placed at the end of the alphabet. 2. The power of the retained letters was modified. Hence the sixth letter took the sound, not of v, but of/", and the eighth that of h. Beyond this the Romans made but slight alterations. By letting kappa become obsolete they did mischief, as they did by changing the power of c. The representation of by ph, and of Q by th, was erroneous. The retention of x and q was unnecessary. V and j, two letters whereby the alphabet was really enriched, were mere modifications of u and i respectively. It may now be seen that with a language containing such sounds as the th in tliin and thine, and the ch in the German auch, it is to their advantage to derive their alphabet from the Greek ; whilst, with a language containing such sounds as h and V, it is to their advantage to derive it from the Latin. 3. The practice of the Romans of writing from left to right, settled the question of direction for all the western nations; none of whom write from right to left. They would not indeed have done this had they taken their alphabets from the later Greeks^ They icould, however, have done so had they taken them from the earlier Greek, the Etruscan, or the Phoj- nician itself. 4. The practice of the Romans of calling the letters by their powers, rather than their names, i. e. of saying a and bee, rather than alfa and beta, has been adopted by all the other nations of Western Europe. Aitch, however, as aforesaid, is probably Eta (Jieth) ; whilst Zed is certainly Zcta — name for name. This, indeed, is the greatest innovation referable to the Roman period ; the chief orthographic expedients, such as the use of the h in the so-called aspirates, the diphthongal expression of the 108 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF longness of a vowel, and the doubling of the following conso- nant to express its shortness, being as much Greek as Latin. The particular letter from which the most important conse- quences have flowed, is k — and these have followed, not be- cause of its adoption by the Latins, but on account of its having been dropped out of their aljjhabet. All the modern countries whose languages are derived from the Latin are unwilling to use this sign, and eschew it as much as possible. The Italian has nothing to say to it, but eliminates it from his alphabet; the Spaniard, the Portuguese, and the Frenchman do the same. The Wallachians and Moldavians, whose language is derived from the Roman of the time of Trajan, use a Slavonic alphabet, and as this is of Greek origin, the equivalent to kappa is retained. More than this — one language of even German origin so al- lows its orthography to be modified by Latin precedents, and by the example of the nations whose languages are derived from the Latin, as to depart from the practice of the allied tongues of Germany, Holland, and Scandinavia, and, without abso- lutely ejecting k, never to use it where a c can be used instead of it. This language is our own. In Danish, Swedish, Ger- man, and Dutch, such words as cari, and come, &c., &c., are spelt kan-, and kom-, &c., &c. In the Anglo-Saxon period of our language this use of c was even more general than it is with us. It was used even before the small vowels, and in situations where (perhaps) it ran the chance of being sounded as a sibilant. Thus, what we spell king the Angles spelt cyning. That the etymological principle was recognised by the Ro- mans has already been stated. It was recognised by them ; but it was recognised, in a far greater degree, by the nations whose languages and literatures were of Roman origin. The remarks upon the use of c and the disuse of k indicate this. There is another principle the history of which I have not investigated; but which deserves attention. We may call it the principle of differentiation, or, to borrow a phrase from the Latin grammarians, the oh differ entiam principle. Let two words differ in meaning, but be sounded alike. A critic in the language wherein they occur may consider it TIIK ENGLISH ALl'lIABET. 10!) necessary to represent this difference in the spelling. In such a case he would devise one conibination of letters for the word in one sense, and another for the word in another. Let the words lone and loan explain this j)i'iiiciple of differentiation. How old is it? It is certainly Euglish. A^'as it also Latin? Was it Greek ? The Greeks recognised it, but not to any great extent. But the Greeks had, over and above their letters, a system of accents as well. Now these accents they used as means of differentiation, and, so doing, expressed to the eye differences which the ear did not recognise, and which had had no existence in the language as it was spoken. The llomans, on the other hand, who had no accents in current use, could only differentiate their words by changing the com- bination of letters by which they were represented. Hence, we may say that, if the Greeks recognised the principle of differ- entiation, it was the Romans who brought it to bear upon the spelling of words — spelling meaning the combination of letters. § 319. The German period. — It was from the classical alpha- bets that the German were derived — classical meaning Latin and Greek, collectively. This mode of expressing ourselves is necessary; inasmuch as it was from neither the one nor the other of these lanjruasres exclusivelij that the German alphabets were derived. Nor is this double origin difficult to explain. The Goths of Moesia had moved so far eastwards, before they became a Christian and let- tered nation, that their area was conterminous with that of the Greek language of Byzantium as well as that of the Latin of Italy. Let us say, then, that whilst the Western German alphabets were Latin, the Eastern German alphabets were Latin and Greek as well. This intermixture of Latin and Greek influences is visible in the alphabet of the Germans just noticed, viz. : — The Moeso-Gothic Alphabet. — The form and order of the letters may be seen in Hickes' " Thesaurus'' and in Lye's " Grammar." With the Greek they agree in the following particulars : — 1. In the sound of the third letter being not that of k (c), but of the g in gun. 110 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF 2. lu retaining kappa and khi. 3. In expressing the simple single sound of th by a simple single sign. This sign, however, has neither the shape nor the alphabetical position of the Greek theta. With the Latin they agree, 1, in possessing letters equiva- lent to h, q, y. 3. In placing z at the end of the alphabet. The Moeso-Gothic alphabet seems to have been formed on sound principles, and on principles sufficiently bold. Neither was its application traversed by etymological views. § 320. The Angle Alphabet. — I hold that the particular Germans from whom the Angles took their alphabet were the Franks. What were the chief peculiarities of the Angle sound- system ? It contained — 1. The th in thin. — A sign in Greek (0), but none in Latin. 2. The th in thine. — A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. 3. The ch in the German auch. — A sign in Greek {y), but none in Latin. 4. The flat sound of the same, or the probable sound of the h in \urh, leoht, &c., Anglo-Saxon. — A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. 5. The sh in shine. — A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. 6. The z in azure. — A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. 7. The ch in chest. — A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we suppose that at the time when the Anglo-Saxon alphabet was formed, the Latin c in words like civitas had the power, which it has in the present Italian, of ch. 8. The j in jest. — A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we admit the same supposition in respect to (/, that has been indicated in respect to c. 9. The sound of the kj in the Norwegian kjenner; viz. that (thereabouts) of ksh. — A sign neither in Latin nor Greek. 10. The English sound of w. — A sign neither in Latin nor Greek. 11. The sound of the German ii, Danish y. — No sign in Latin, probably one in Greek, viz. v. THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 1 i 1 12. Signs for distinguishing the long and short powers of £ and Tj, o and w. — "Wanting in Latin, but existing in Greek. In all these ])oints the elassical alphabets (one or both) were deficient. To make up for their insufficieney one of two things was necessary — either to coin new letters, or to use con- ventional combinations of the old. In the Anglo-Saxon alphabet (derived from the Latin) we have the following features : — 1. C used to the exclusion of k. 2. The absence of the letter j, either with the power of ij, as in German, of ;:h, as in French, or of clzh, as in English. 3. The absence of ^ ; a useful omission, civ serving instead. 4. The absence of v ; u, either single or double, being used instead. 5. The use of y as a vowel, and of e as y. 6. The absence of z. 7. Use of uu, as w, or v in Old Saxon. 8. The use, in certain conditions, of / for v. 9. The presence of the simple single signs ]> and ^, for the th in thin, and the th in thine, these being introduced as new signs. " Literam T pronunciaturo, si spiritus pinguius exeat, et quasi per foramen ; formatur Graecorum ; Hebraeorum Thau rai)liatum ; Ara- bum The: hoc est Anglorum (h in vocibus thiyh, femur; //////, tenuis; thing, res ; thought, cogitatio ; throng, caterva, &c. " Anglo-Saxones ohm scribebant hac nota \ cpam Sjpinam voca- bant. Cambro-Britanni per th semper scribunt." " Literam 7) pronunciaturo, si spiritus erumpat modo pinguiori, et quasi per foramen, formatur Arabura Dhal ; Hebraeorum Daleth raphatum ; llispanorum D moUius, qualitur nerape profeni solet ea litera in medio et fine vocabulorum, ut Majestad, Trinidad, kc. " Hunc sonum Angli eodem prorsus modo scribunt quo sonum alium paulo supra nominatum, nerape per th, ut in vocibus thg, thine, tuus ; this, hoc ; though, qnamvis ; Sec. Anglo-Saxones olim sonum ilium per Jj, hunc vero per D, ^, scripsisse puto, prout ex eorum scriptis, liquet (quanquam et ipsi charaeteres illos uou raro promiscue usurpabanl) : " Sequentibus autem seculis Angli eundem eharacterem J) utrique sono adhibuerunt, qui paulatim degeneravit in eharacterem V, qui in libris quamplurimis manu-scriptis perpetuo conspicitur in iis vocabuhs 112 HISTORICAL SKETCH OP quae nunc per th scribuntur : Atque hinc est quod mos olim invaluerit, qui etiain adimc non raro retinetur, scribendi y^, y*, y", pro the, that, thou, &c. Cambro-Britanni sonum ilium per th, hunc per dd perpetuo scribniit ; nisi quod aliqui melius scribi posse contendunt per dh, qui nou taraen obtinuerunt ut. mos olim receptus immutetur. " Nos autem (ut dictum est) utruraque sonum promiscue scribimus per th. Sed male quidem ; cum neuter eorem sit sonus compositus, sed plane simplex, a sonis literarum t ei d eodem fere mode deflec- tentes quo f ti v a. sonis literarum p et i." I cannot say whether the Moeso-Gothic practice of express- ing the sound of the Greek by a simple single sign did, or did not, help in the evolution of these two sounds. The letter w was evolved out of u, being either an original improvement of the Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of the allied languages of the Continent. Probably the latter was the case; since we find the following passage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid^s "Krist:" — " Hujus enim linguse barbaries, ut est inculta et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticse artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto quserit in sono ; priores duo con- sonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono maneute.^^ The Anglo-Saxon alphabet, although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered the purpose to which it was applied tolerably. Change, however, went on ; and the orthography which suited the earlier Anglo-Saxon would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not suit the language which had become, or was becoming, English, wherein the sounds for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs increase. Thus there is at present — 1. The sound of the sh in shine. 2. The sound of the z in azure. How are these to be expressed ? The rule has hitherto been to denote simple single sounds by simple single signs, and where such signs have no existence already, to originate new ones. To combine existing letters, rather than to coin new ones, THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 1 1 3 has but been done rarely. The Latin substitution of the com- bination th for tlic simple single 0, was exceptionable. It was a precedent, however, which was generally followed. It is this precedent which accounts for the absence of any letter in English, expressive of either of the sounds in question. Furthermore, our alphabet has not only not increased in proportion to our sound-system, but it has decreased. The Anglo-Saxon \ = the th in thin and 'S == the th in thine, have become obsolete. Hence, a difference in pronunciation, which our ancestors expressed, ive overlook. This leads us to — § 321. The Anrjio-Normnn Alphabet. — The Anglo-Saxon lan- guage was Gothic, the alphabet Roman. The Anglo-Norman language was Roman, the alphabet Roman also. The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source ; his writing from another. The Anglo-Norman took both from the same. Betw^een the Latin alphabet as applied to the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Norman-French, there are certain points of difference. In the first place, the sound-system of the languages (like the French) derived from the Latin, bore a greater resemblance to that of the Romans, than was to be found amongst the Gothic tongues. Secondly, the alphabets of the languages in point were more exclusively Latin. In the present French, Italian, Spanish, and Portu- guese, there is an exclusion of the k. This is not the case with the Anglo-Norman. Like the Latins, the Anglo-Normans considered that the sound of the Greek 9 was represented by th : not, however, having this sound in their language, they had no corresponding sign in their alphabet. The greatest mischief done by the Norman influence was the ejection from the English alphabet of \> and "S. In other respects the alj)ha- bet was improved. The letters z, k, j, were either imported or more currently recognised. The letter y took a semi-vowel power, having been previously represented by e, itself having the power of i. The mode of spelling the compound sibilant with ch was evolved. My notions concerning this mode of spelling are as follows : — At a given period the sound of ce in VOL. II. I 114 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF ceaster, originally that of ke, had become^ first, that of hsh, and, secondly, that of tsh ; still it was spelt ce, the e, in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons, having the power of y. In the eyes also of the Anglo-Saxons the compound sound of ksh, or tsh, would differ from that of k by the addition of y ; this, it may be said, was the Anglo-Saxon view of the matter. The Anglo-Norman view was different. Modified by the part that, in the combina- tion th, was played by the aspirate h, it was conceived by the Anglo-Normans, that ksh, or tsh, differed from k, not by the addition of y (expressed by e), but by that of h. Hence, the com- bination ch as sounded in chest. The same was the case with sh. It is safe to say that in his adaptation of the alphabet of one language to the sound-system of another, the Angle allowed himself greater latitude, and acted with a more laudable bold- ness, than the Norman. The forms of the Anglo-Saxon letters are as follows : — ENGLISH. • ANGLO- ■SAXON. Capital. Small. Capital. Smat A a TC a B b B b C c E c D d D b E e e e F f p F G g G 5 H h IP li I i I I L 1 L 1 M m CD ra N n N n o P P P P K r E n S s 8 r T t T ■c U u U u W w W p X X X X Y y Y • y THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 115 A. — The line across the top of this letter in its capital form, is Old German as well as A. S. F. — The Angle form for this letter appears in a MS. from continental Germany, to which a date as early as a.d. 700 has been assigned. It is one containing a portion of the text of Livy. A notice on the last page states that it belonged to Suitbert, Bishop of Duurstcdc, in the IVetherlands. Now, Suitbert was the Apostle of the Frisians, and was made Bishop A.D. 693. The MS. is now in the Imperial Libraiy at Vienna. The more modern forai, however, seems to have been in use at the same time — at least for small letters. In the case of capitals the Angle form is pretty general. H, — The capital H is simply the small one with the upper part of its left limb truncated or cut off. The form is Old German as well as A. S. M. — The Angle form in this is early German also. I occurs in the same MS. as the Angle F, as well as in many others. R. — This form is got at by bringing the left limb of the Latin letter below the line, by producing it (so to say) or making an underlength of it. In this form it appears in the Suitbert MS., both as a small letter and as a capital. The form of the right limb seems to be wholly Angle. S. — The old form f originates in the Angle y. The under- length is Old German as well as English. In the Old German orthographies, however, there is an over-length as well, i. e. the letter both rises above, and sinks below the line. T. — This is like a c with a line across its top. This is Old Genuan as well as A. S. It is really the Greek r, ^ith its vertical line rounded. Y. — The dot over the top is Old German as well as A. S. § 322. One of our orthographic expedients, viz. the redu- plication of the consonant following, to expi-ess the shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical languages : tcrro, OciXaacra. This has been already stated. In respect, however, to its application in English, the follow- ing extract from the Ormulum written in the thirteenth I 2 116 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF centur}^) is the fullest recognition of the practice that 1 have met with. And wliase wilenn sliall jjis hoc, Efl't oferr sif)e writenn, Himm bidde ice fatt hett write rihlit, SwH sum fiiss boe himm tseche])]? ; All J)vverrt utt affterr Jjatt itt iss Oppo jjiss firrste bisne, Wi)?]? all swilc rime als her iss sett, WiJjJ) alse fele wordess : And tatt he loke well fiatt he An boc-staff tvrite tic'ujgess* Eggwhser jjser itt uppo Jjiss boc Iss writenn o ))att wise : Loke he well Jjatt hett write swa, Forr he ne maet? noht elless, On Englissh writenn rihht te word, jjatt wite he well to sojje. Parallel and equivalent orthographies. — Let there be in two given languages the sound of k, as in kin. Let each of these languages represent it by the same letter^ k. In this case, the two orthographies are identical. Let, however, one nation represent it by k, and another by c. In this case the ortho- graphies are not identical, but parallel. The same is the case with combinations. Let one nation (say the Anglo-Saxon) represent the sound of y (in ye) by e, whilst another nation (the Norse) represents it by J. What the Anglo-Saxon spells ceaster, the Northman spells kjaster ; and what the Northman spells kj(Ere, the Anglo-Saxon spells cecere. Let the sound of this ce and kj undergo a change, and become ksJi ; kjcRre, and ceoire, being pronounced kshare. The view of the Northman and Anglo-Saxon will be the same ; each will consider that the compound sound differs from the simple one by the addition of the sound of y ; that sound being expressed in one nation by e, and in the other by^. In this case the two expressions of the compound sound are parallel, its elements being con- sidered the same, although the signs by which those elements arc expressed are different. * Write one letter twice. THE ENGLISH ALPHABET. 1 1 7 Let, however, ii diffcroiit view of the coinpouiul sound be taken. Let it be thouj^ht that the sound of ksli (htfers from that of k, not by the addition of the sound of ij, but Ijy that of h) and so let it be spelt kh or t7/. In this case, tin; ortho- frrajdiies kh and kj (or ce) are not paialkl, but equivalent. They express the same sound, but they do not denote the same elements. The same sound is, very possibly, expressed by the Anglo-Saxon ce, the Norwegian kj, and the English ch. In this case ce and kj are parallel, ce and ch equivalent, orthographies. Note. — The chief alphabets derived from the Greek were the Slavonic. Hence, in proportion as the Greek alphabet ap- proached the time at which that derivation took place, it was SlavuniJ'orm — the word meaning, not so much actual likeness to the Slave as the form of the Greek itself out of which the Slave originated. Note. — The notices of p. 115, on the extent to which the Anglo-Saxon form of the letters was also German, arc founded on the specimens of Die Buchschriften dcs Mittelalters, &c., Vienna, 185.2. PART IV. ETYMOLOGY, CHAPTER I. ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY. § 323. The word etymology has a double meaning. At times it is used in a wide, and at times in a restricted, sense. If we take such a word as fathers, we can divide it into tw^o parts, or reduce it into two elements. By comparing it with father, we see that the s is neither part nor parcel of the original word. Fathers is capable of being analysed : father being the original primitive word, and s the secondary super- added termination. From the word father, the word fathers is derived, deduced, or descended. What has been said of this may also be said of fatherly, fatherlike, fatherless, &c. Now, from the word father, all these words [fathers, fatherly, fatherlike, and fatherless) differ in form, and in meaning. To become such a word as fathers, &c., the word father is changed. Of changes of this sort, it is the province of etymology to take cognizance. Compared with the form fathers, the word father is the older form of the two. The word father is a word current in this the nineteenth century. The same word was current in the first century, although under a different form, and in a different language. Thus, in the Latin language, the form was pater ; and in the Greek Trar/jp. Now, just as the word father, compai'cd with fathers, is original and primitive, so is pater, compared with father, original and primitive also. The ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY. 1 1 'J difference is, that in respect to father and fathers, the change that takes place, takes place within the same language, whilst the change that takes place between pater and father takes place \\-ithin different languages. Of changes of this latter kind it is the province of etymo- logy to take cognizance. In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizance of the changes of the form of words. However, as the etymology that compares the forms fathers and father is different from the etymology that compares father and pater, we have, of etymology, two sorts : one dealing with the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language {father, fathers), the other dealing with the changes that words un- dergo in passing from one language to another {pater, father). The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the etymology of the ensuing pages. The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word, historical etymology, or comparative etymology. It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etpnology agree in one point, viz. in taking cognizance of the changes of form that words undergo. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, as father, fathers, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time, as pater, father, is a matter of indifference. In the Jj^tm. j)((ter, and in the English father, we have one of two things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or tw'o words descended or derived from a common original source. In fathers we have a formation deduced from the radical word father. In fatherlike we have a compound word capable of being analysed into the two primitive woi'ds, 1. father ; 2. like. With these preliminaries we may a])preciate (or criticise) Dr. Johnson's explanation of the word etymology. "Etymology, n. s. {ctymologia, Lat.) trvnog {etymos) true, and X070C {logos) a word. 120 ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY. " 1 , The descent or derivation of a word from its original ; the deduction of formations from the radical word ; the analysis of compounds into primitives. '^ 2. The part of grammar which delivers the inflections of nouns and verbs." J COMPOSITION. 1 -2 1 CHAPTER II. COMPOSITION. § 3.24. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and indubitable specimens of composition. Daij- Star, vine-yard, sun-beam, apple-tree, ship-load, silver-smith, &c. The words palpable and indubitable have been used, because, in many cases, as will be seen hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound or not. Now, in each of the compounds quoted above, it may be seen that it is the second word which is qualified or defined, by the first, and that it is not the first which is qualified or de- fined, by the second. Of ijards, beams, trees, loads, smiths, there may be many sorts, and, in order to determine what particular sort of i/ard, beam, tree, load, or smith, may be meant, the words vine, sun, apple, ship, and silver, are pre- fixed. In compound words it is the Jirst term that defines or particularises the second. That the idea given by the word apple-tree is not referable to the words apple and ti^ee, irrespective of the order in which they occur, may be seen by reversing the position of them. The word tree-apple, although not existing in the language, is as correct a word as thorn-apple. In tree-apple, the particu- lar sort of apple meant is denoted by the word tree, and if there were in our gardens various sorts of plants called apples, of which some grew along the ground and others upon trees, such a word as tree-apple would be required in order to be opposed to earth-apple, or ground-apple, or some word of the kind. In the compound words tree-apple and apple-tree, we have the same elements difi'erently arranged. However, as the 122 COMPOSITION. word tr'ee-apple is not current in the language^ the class of compounds indicated by it may seem to be merely imaginary. Nothing is further from being the case. A tree-rose is a rose of a particular sort. The generality of roses being on shrubs, this grows on a tree. Its peculiarity consists in this fact, and this particular character is expressed by the word tree jirefixed. A rose-tree is a tree of a particular sort, distinguished from apple-trees, and trees in general (in other words, particularised or defined) by the word tree prefixed. A ground-nut is a nut particularised by growing in the ground. A nut-ground is a ground particularised by producing nuts. A finger-ring, as distinguished from ear-rings, and from rings in general (and so particularised), is a ring for the finger. A ring fiinger, as distinguished from fore-fingers, and from fingers in general (and so particularised), is a finger whereon rings are worn. At times this rule seems to be violated. The words spitfire and daredevil seem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the case of a spitfire, that what he (or she) spits is fire ; and that, in the case of a daredevil, what he (or she) dares is the devil. In this case the initial words spit and dare, g,re particularised by the final ones fire and devil. The ti'ue idea, however, confirms the original rule. A spitfire voids his fire by spitting. A daredevil, in meeting the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. A spitfire is not one who spits fire, but one whose fire is spit. A daredevil is not one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil is even dared. § 325. Of the two elements of a compound word, which is the most important ? In one sense the latter, in another sense the foi-nier. The latter word is the most essential; since the general idea of trees must exist before it can be defined or particularised ; so becoming the idea which we have in apple- tree, rose-tree, Szc. The former word, however, is the most influential. It is by this that the original idea is qualified. The latter word is the staple original element : the former is the superadded influencing element. Compared with each COMPOSITION. 123 other, the former element is active, the latter passive. Ety- mologically speaking, the former element, in English com- pounds, is the most important. Before we come to the details of the composition of words it is necessary to, 1, define the meaning of the term composition; 2, explain the nature of some obscure compounds. § 326. Composition is the joining together, in language, of two different ivords, and treating the combination as a single term. Observe the words in italics. In Language. — A great number of our compounds, like the word merry-making, are divided by the sign -, or the hyphen. It is very plain that if all words spelt with a hyphen were to be considered as compounds, the formation of them would be not a matter of speech or language, but one of writing or spelling. This distinguishes compounds in language from mere printers' compounds. Different. — In Old High-German we find the form selp- selpo. Here there is the junction of two words, but not the junction of two different ones. This distinguishes composition from gemination. — Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 405. Words. — In fathers, clear-er, four-th, &c., there is the addi- tion of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition from derivation. Treating the combination as a single term. — In determining, in certain cases, between derived words and compound words, there is an occasional perplexity ; the perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between a compound word and two ivords. In the eyes of one grammarian the term mountain height may be as truly a compound word as sunbeam. In the eyes of another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just as Alpine height is two words ; mountain being dealt with as an adjective. It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part. § 327. The attention of the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from Churchill : — "Then rest, my friend, and spare thy precious breath." On each of the syllables rest, friend, spare, prec-, breath, 124 COMPOSITION. there is an accent. Each of these syllables must be compared with the one that precedes it ; rest v/ith then, friend with my, and so on throughout the line. Compared with the word and, the word spare is not only accented, but the accent is conspi- cuous and prominent. There is so little on and, and so much on spare, that the disparity of accent is very manifest. Now, if in the place of and, there was some other word, a word not so much accented as spare, but still more accented than and, this disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be said to be at par, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly altered from Churchill, the real reading being — Then rest, ray friend, spare, spare thy precious breath. — In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been supposed. In the words spare, spare, the accents are nearly at par. Such is the difference betw een accent at par and disparity of accent. Good illustrations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following : the lime house near the new port. Compare the parity of accent on the separate words lime and house, bridge and north, new and port, with the disparity of accent in the compound words Limehouse, and Neuport. The separate words beef steak, where the accent is nearly at par, compared with the compound word sweepstakes, where there is a great disparity of accent, are further illustrations of the same difference. The difference between a compound word and two words is greatest where the first is an adjective. This we see in com- paring such terms as the following : black bird, meaning a bird that is black, with blackbird = the Latin merula ; or blue bell, meaning a bell that is blue, with bluebell, the flower. Expres- sions like a sharp edged instrument, meaning an instrument that is sharp and has edges, as opposed to a sharp-edged instrument, meaning an instrument with sharp edges, further exemplify this difference. Subject to four small classes of exceptions, it may be laid down, that, in the English language, there is no composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent. COMPOSITION. 125 The reader is now informed, that unless, in what has gone before, he has taken an excej)tion to either a statement or an inference, he has either seen beyond what has Ijeen ahrady laid down by the author, or else has read him with insufficient attention. This may be shown by drawing a distinction be- tween a com})oand form and a com])ound idea. In the words a red house, each word preserves its natural and original meaning, and the statement is tJiat a house is red. 13y a parity of reasoning, a mad house should mean a house that is mad ; and, pi-ovided that each word retain its natural meaning and its natural accent, such is the fact. Let a house mean, as it often docs, a. fa inibj. Then the phrase, a mad house, means that the house, or family, is mad, just as a red house means that the house is red. Such, however, is not the current meaning of the word. Every one know that a mad house means a house for mad men ; in which case it is treated as a compound word, and has a marked accent on the first syllable, just as Limehouse has. Now, compared with the words red house, meaning a house of a red colour, and compared witli the words mad house, meaning a deranged family, the word madhouse, in its common sense, expresses a compound idea; as opposed to two ideas, or a double idea. The word beef steak is evidently a compound idea; but, as there is no disparity of accent, it is not a compound word. Its sense is compound; its form is not compound, but double. This indicates the objection antici- pated, which is this : viz. that a definition, which would exclude such a word as beef steak from the list of compounds, is, for that very reason, exceptionable. I answer to this, that the term in qiiestion is a compound idea, and not a compound form ; in other words, that it is a compound in logic, but not a compound in etymology. Now etymology, taking cognizance of forms only, has nothing to do with ideas, except so far as they influence forms. Such is the commentary upon the words, " treating the com- bination as a single term;" in other words, such the diff'erence between a compound word and two words. The rule, being repeated, stands (subject to the four classes of exceptions) thus: There is no true composition icithout either a change of form or 126 COMPOSITION. a change of accent. As I wish to be clear upon this point, I shall illustrate the statement by its application. The word tree-rose is often pronounced tree rose ; that is, with the accent at par. It is compound in the one case ; it is two words in the other. The words mountain ash and mountain height are generally (perhaps always) pronounced with an equal accent on the sylla- bles mount- and ash, mount- and height, respectively. In this case the word mountain must be dealt with as an adjective, and the words considered as two. The word mountain wave is often pronounced with a visible diminution of accent on the last syllable. In this case there is a disparity of accent, and the word is compound. The following quotations indicate a further cause of per- plexity in determining between compound words and two words : — 1. A wet sheet and a blowing gale, A breeze that follows fast ; That fills the white and swelling sail, And bends the gallant mast. Allan Cunningham. 2. Britannia needs no bulwarks, No towers along the steep ; Her march is o'er the motmtain-icave, Her home is on the deep. Thomas Campbell. To speak first of the word (or words) gallant mast. If gallant mean brave, there are two words. If the words be two, there is a stronger accent on mast. If the accent on mast be stronger, the rhyme with fast is more complete ; in other words, the metre favours the notion of the words being considered as two. Gallant-mast, however, is a compound word, with an especial nautical meaning. In this case the accent is stronger on gal- and weaker on -mast. This, however, is not the state of things that the metre favours. The same applies to mountain wave. COMPOSITION. 127 The same person who in ])rosc woukl throw a stronger accent on mount- and a weaker one on wave (so deahng with the word as a compound), might, in poetry, make the words tuu, by giving to the hist syllabic a parity of accent. The following quotation from Ben Jonson may be read in two ways ; and the accent may vary wath the reading. 1. Lay thy bow of pearl apart, And thy siher shlnhuj quiver. 2. Lay thy bow of pearl apart. And thy silver-shining quiver. CyntldcHs Bevels, § 328. On certain words whei-ein the fact of their being com- pound is obscured. — Composition is the addition of a word to a word, derivation is the addition of letters or syllables to a word. In a compound form each element has a separate and independent existence; in a derived form, only one of the elements has such. Now it is very possible that in an older stage of a language tw^o words may exist, may be put together, and may so form a compound ; at the time in point each word having a separate and independent existence : whilst, in a later stage of language, only one of these words may have a separate and independent existence, the other having become obsolete. In this case a compound word would take the appearance of a derived one, since but one of its ele- ments could be exhibited as a separate and independent word. Such is the case with, amongst others, the word bishopric. In the present language the word ric has no separate and inde- pendent existence. For all this, the word is a true compound, since, in Anglo-Saxon, we have the noun rice as a separate, independent word, signifying kingdom or domain. Again, without becoming obsolete, a word may alter its form. This is the case with most of our adjectives in -ly. At present they appear derivative ; their termination -Jy having no separate and independent existence. The older language, however, shows that they are compounds ; since -hj is nothing else than -lie, Anglo-Saxon; -lih, Old High-German; -leiks, 128 COMPOSITION. Mceso-Gotliic ; == like, or similis, and equally with it an inde- pendent separate word. For the following words a separate independent root is presumed rather than shown. It is presumed, however, on grounds that satisfy the etymologist. Mis-, as in misdeed, &c. — Moeso-Gothic, misso r= in turns ; Old Norse, a mis = alternately ; Middle High-German, misse zz mistake. The original notion alternation, thence change, thence defect. Compare the Greek aXXwg. — Grimm, Deutsche Gram- matik, ii. 470. Dom, as in wisdom, &c. — the substantive dom presumed. — Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 491 . Hood, and head, as in Godhead, manhood, &c. — The substan- tive hdids r= person, order, kind, presumed. — Deutsche Gram- matik, ii. 497. Nothing to do with the word head. Ship, as in friendship. — Anglo-Saxon, -scipe and -scedft ; German, -schaft ; McEso-Gothic, gaskafts zz a creature, or crea- tion. The substantive skafts or skajj presumed. The -skip or -scape in landskip is only an older form. — Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 522. Less, as in sleepless, &c., has nothing to do with less. Derived from Idus, Ids, destitute ofz=. Latin, expers, — Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 565. For the further details, which are very numerous, see the Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii. § 329. " Subject to four classes of exceptions, it may be laid down that there is no true composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent." — The first class of ex- ceptions consists of those words where the natural tendency to disparity of accent is traversed by some rule of euphony. For example, let two words be put together, which at their point of contact form a combination of sounds foreign to our habits of pronunciation. The rarity of the combination will cause an effort in utterance. The effort in utterance will cause an ac- cent to be laid on the latter half of the compound. This will equalize the accent, and abolish the disparity. The word monkshood, the name of a flower {aconitum napellus), where, to my car at least, there is quite as much accent on the -hood as on the monks-, may serve in the way of illustration. Monks COMPOSITION. 12!) is one word, hootl atiothcr. AMuii joined toirctlicr, tlic //- of the -hood is put in iimiicdiate ojjposition with the -s of the monks-. IIciicc the combination monksJiood. At the letters s and h is the point of contact. Now the sound of .v followed inmicdiately by the sound of // is a true aspirate. Jiut true aspirates are rare in the Enp;lish language. Being of rare occurrence, the pronunciation of them is a matter of attention and effort; and this attention and effort creates an accent which otherw'ise would be absent. Hence words like monks- Mod, ivell-head, and some others. Ileal reduplications of consonants, as in hop-pole, may have the same parity of accent with the time aspirates : and for the same reasons. They are rare combinations that require cffoi't and attention. The second class of exceptions contains those words wherein between the first element and the second there is so great a disparity, either in the length of the vowel, or the length of the syllabic en masse, as to counteract the natural tendency of the first element to become accented. One of the few specimens of this class (which after all may consist of double words) is the term upstanding. Here it should be remem- bered, that words like haphazard, foolhardy , vpholdcr, and u'ith- liuld come under the first class of the exceptions. The third class of exceptions contains words like perchance and perhaps. In all respects but one these are double words, just as by chance is a double word. Per, however, differs from by in having no separate existence. This sort of words we owe to the multiplicity of elements (classical and Gothic) in the English language. To anticipate objections to the rule respecting the disparity of accent, it may be v;ell to state in fresh terms a fact already indicated, viz. that the same combination of words may in one sense be compound, and in the other double (or two). An up- hill game gives us the combination tip -\- hill as a compound. He ran vp hill gives us the combination up + hill as two words. So it is with down + hill, down -{-rigid, and other words. Man- servant, cock-sparrow, &c. are double or compound, as they are pronounced man-servant, man-servant, cock-sparrow, or cock-sparrovK VOL. II. K 130 COMPOSITION. The foui'th class is hypothetical. I can, however, imagine that certain compounds may, if used almost exclusively in poetry and with the accent at 'par, become so accented even in the current language. For a remark on the words peacock, peahen, see the chapter upon Gender. — If these words be rendered masculine or femi- nine by the addition of the elements -cock and -hen, the state- ments made in the beginning of the present chapter are invali- dated; since, if the word pea- be particularised, qualified, or defined by the words -cock and -hen, the second term de- fines or particularises the first, which is contrary to rule. The truth, however, is, that the words -cock and -hen are defined by the prefix ])ea-. Preparatory to the exhibition of this, let us remember that the word j^j^a (although now found in composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a species of fowl, like pheasant, partridge, or any other appellation. It is the Latin pavo, German jo/czm. Now, if the word peacock mean a pea [pfau or pavo) that is a male, then do wood-cock, black-cock, and bantam-cock, mean woods, blacks, and bantams that are male. Or if the word peahen mean a pea {pfau or pavo) that is female, then do moorhen and guineahen mean moors and guineas that are female. Again, if a peahen mean a jjea {pfau or pavo) that is female, then does the com- pound pheasant-hen mean the same as hen-pheasant ; which is not the case. The fact is that peacock means a cock that is a pea {pfau or pavo) ; peahen means a lien that is a pea {pfau or pavo) ; and, finally, peafoivl means a foi/:l that is a pea {pfau or pavo). In the same way moorfowl means, not a moor that is connected with a fowl, but a fowl that is connected with a moor. § 330. It must be clear, ex vi termini, that in every com- poimd word there are two parts; i. e. the whole or part of the original, and the whole or part of the supei'added, word. In the most perfect forms of inflection there is a third element, viz. a vowel, consonant, or syllable that joins the first word wth the second. In the older forms of all the Gothic languages the presence of this third element was the rule rather than the exception. In the present English it exists in but few words. COMPOSITION. ]:U a. The -ii- in blnck-a-moor is possibly such a connecting element. b. The -in- in niyht-in-yale is most probably such a connect- ing element. Compare the German form naclit-i-yull, and remember the tendency of vowels to take the sound of -nij before (j. Improper compuunih. — The -s- in words like Thur-s-day, hunts-man, may be one of two things — a. It may be the sign of the genitive case, so that Thursday = Thoris dies. In this case the word is an improper compound, since it is like the word pater-familias in Latin, in a common state of syntactic construction. b. It may be a connecting sound, like the -i- in nacht-i-yall. Reasons for this view occur in the following fact : — In the modern German languages the genitive case of femi- nine nouns ends otherwise than in -s. Nevertheless, the sound of -s- occurs in composition equally, whether the noun it fol- lows be masculine or feminine. This fact, as far as it goes, makes it convenient to consider the sound in question as a con- nective rather than a case. Probably, it is neither one nor the other exactly, but the effect of a false analogy. Decomposites. — " Composition is the joining together of tivo words." Coinpound radicals, like midship and yentleman, in midship- man and yentleman-like, are, for the purposes of composition, single words. Compounds wherein one element is compound are called decomposites. There are a number of w^ords which are never found by themselves ; or, if so found, have never the same sense that they have in combination. jMark the word combination. The terms in question arc points of combination, not of composi- tion : since they form not the part of words, but the parts of phrases. Such are the expressions time and tide — miylit and main — rede me my riddle — pay your shot — rhyme and reason, &c. These words are evidently of the same class, though not of the same species, with bishopric, colewort, spillikin, yossip, mainsivearer, &c. These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words preserved in composition. The former give us obsolete words preserved in combination. K 3 132 COMPOSITION. § 331. By attending to the following sections we shall see in what way the different parts of speech are capable of being put together by composition. Substantives -preceded by Substantives. — A large and import- ant class. Day-star, morning -star, evening-star, land-slip, watch-house, light-house, rose-tree, oak-tree, fir-tree, harvest- time, goose-grass, sea-man, collar-bone, shoulder-blade, ground- nut, earth-nut, hazel-nut, wall-nut, fire-wood, sun-light, moon- light, star-light, torch-light, ^c. Substantives preceded by Adjectives. — (1.) Proper Names. — Good-man, New-man, North-humberland, South-hampton. (2.) Common Names. — Blind-worm, free-man, free-thinker, half- penny, grey-beard, green-sward, white-thorn, black-thorn, mid- day, mid-summer, quick-silver, holy-day, 8^c. Substantives jjreceded by Verbs. — Turn-spit, spit-fire, dare- devil, whet-stone, kill-cow, sing-song, turn-coat, S^c. Substantives preceded by the Present Particip)le. — Turning- lathe, sawing-mill. Substantives preceded by the Past Participle of the Strong form. — None. Substantives preceded by the Past Participle of the Weak form. — None. Adjectives preceded by Substantives. — Sin-ful, thank-ful, and other words ending in -ful. Blood-red, eye-bright, coal-black, snow-white, nut-broivn, heart-whole, ice-cold, foot-sore, ^c. Adjectives preceded by Adjectives. — All-mighty, two-fold, many-fold, ^c. Adjectives preceded by Verbs. — Stand-still, live-long. Very rare. Adjectives preceded by Present Participles. — None. Adjectives preceded by Past Participles of the Strong form. — None. Adjectives preceded by Past Participles of the Weak form. — None. Verbs preceded by Substantives. — God-send. Rare^ and doubtful. Verbs preceded by Adjectives. — Little-heed, rough-hew. Rare, and doubtful. Verbs preceded by Verbs. — Hear-say. Rare. Verbs preceded by Present Participles. — None. COMl'OSITION. l.'3-5 Verbs preceded fiy Past Purticiph'S of the Strortrj form. — None. Verbs preceded In/ Pusf Participles of the Weak form. — None. Present Participles preceded by Adjectives. — AIl-seeiiKj, all- ruliny, soft-Jloicinxj, fast-sailing, merry-making. Past Participles of the Strong form preceded by an Adjective. — New-born, j'ree-spoken. Present Participles preceded by Substantives. — Fruit-bearing, music-making. Past Participles of the Strong form preceded by Substantives. — Heaven-born, bed-ridden. Past Participles of the Weak form preceded by Substantives. — Blood-stained. Past Participles of the Weak form preceded by an Adjective. — Dear-bought, fresh-made, new-made, neiv-laid. Verbal Substantives preceded by Substantives. — Man-eater, woman-eater, kid-napj)er, horn-blower. — Numerous. Verbal Substantives preceded by Adjectives. — None. Verbal Substantives preceded by Verbs. — None. Verbal Substantives preceded by Participles. — None. Verbal Substantives preceded by Verbals. — None. Verbal Adjectives preceded by Substantives. — Mop-headed, chicken-hearted. Verbal Adjectives pj-eceded by Adjectives. — Cold-hearted, flaxen-haired, hot-headed, curly-pated. Verbal Adjectives preceded by Verbs. — None. Verbal Adjectives preceded by Participles. — None. Verbal Adjectives preceded by Verbals. — None. Adverbs entering into composition are of two sorts : — 1st. Those that can be separated from the word with which they combine, and, nevertheless, appear as independent words ; as over, under, lucll, &c. These are called Separable Adverbs. 2nd. Those that, when they are separated from the verb with which they combine, have no independent existence as separate words ; e. g. the syllable un- in unloose. These are called In- separable Adverbs. Words pjreceded by Separable Adverbs. — Over-do, rinder-go, ivell-beloved, &c. Numerous. 134 COMPOSITION". Words preceded by Inseparable Adverbs. Words preceded by the Inseparable Adverb be-. — Be- hove, he- fit, he-seem, be-lieve, he-lie, he-spatter, he-smear, he-get, he-labour, he-do, he-gin {on-ginnan in A. S.), be-gird, he-hold, he-mourn, he- reave, he-deck, be-think, he-mire, he-rhyme. The forms through- out the allied languages are generally hi- or he-. Words formed by the Inseparable Adverb un-. — Un-hind, un- do, un-loose, un-lock, un-wind. The forms of the Inseparable in the different allied languages are — in Mceso-Gothic, and- ; in Old High-German, ind-, int-, in- ; in Old Saxon, ant- ; in Middle and New High-German, ent- ; in Anglo-Saxon, on- ; as on-hindan {un-bind), on-don [un-do], on-lysan [un-loose), on- Mean [un-lock], on-ivindan [un-wind). Words formed by the Inseparable Adverb a-. — A-light, a- rouse, a-rise, a-ivake, a-wak-en, a-bet, a-bide, a-llay. The forms of this Inseparable, different in different allied languages, are — in Moeso-Gothic, us- ; in Old High-German, ur-, ar-, ir-, er-, er- ; in Old Saxon and in Anglo-Saxon, a-; as d-rtsan [a-rise), d-weccan [a-wake). Words formed by the Inseparable Adverb for-. — For-get, for- do, fore-go, for- give, for -bid, for -hear, forswear. The for- here is of a different origin, and different in meaning and power, from the /ore- in words like fore-tell. In different allied lan- guages it takes different forms. In Moeso-Gothic, /air, faur, fra. In Old High-German, far, fer, fir, for. In Middle and New High-German, ver. In Anglo-Saxon, for. ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION. 135 CHAPTER III. ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION. § 33.2. Derivation, like etumology^ is a word used in a wide and in a limited sense. In the wide sense of the term eveiy word, except it be in the simple form of a root, is a derived word. In this sense the cases, numbers, and genders of nouns, the persons, moods, and tenses of verbs, the ordinal numbers, the diminutives, and even the compound words, are alike mat- ters of derivation. In the wide sense of the term the word fathers, from father, is equally in a state of derivation with the word strength, from strong. In the use of the word, even in its limited sense, there is considerable laxity and uncertainty, as may be seen by attending to the following terms : — Gender, number, case. — These have been called the accidents of the noun, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation in its stricter sense, or from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of declension. Nouns are declined. Person, number, tense, voice. — These have been called the accidents of a verb, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of conjugation. Verbs are conjugated. Conjugation and declension constitute inflection. Nouns and verbs, speaking generally, are inflected. Inflection, a part of derivation in its wider sense, is sepa- rated from derivation properly so called, or from derivation in its limited sense. Derivation proper may be divided according to a variety of principles. Amongst others — 136 ON DERIVATION AND I. According to the evidence. — In tlie evidence that a word is not simple^ but derived^ there are at least two degrees. 1. That the word strength is a derived word I collect to a certainty from the word strong, an independent form, which I can separate from it. Of the nature of the word strength there is the clearest evidence, or evidence of the first degree. 2. Fowl, hail, nail, sail, tail, soul ; in Anglo-Saxon, fugel, hcegel, nagel, segel, tagel, saivel. — These words are by the best grammarians considered as derivatives. Now, with these words I can not do what was done with the word strength, I can not take from them the part which I look upon as the derivational addition, and after that leave an independent word. Strength — th is a true word; fowl ovfugel—l\% no true word. If I believe these latter words to be derivations at all, I do it because I find in words like handle, &c., the -/ as a derivational addi- tion. Yet, as the fact of a word being sometimes used as a derivational addition does not preclude it from being at other times a part of the root, the evidence that the words in ques- tion are not simj)le, but derived, is not cogent. In other words, it is evidence of the second degree. II. According to the effect. — The syllable -en in the word whiten changes the noun white into a verb. This is its efi'ect. We may so classify as to arrange combinations like -en (whose efi'ect is to give the idea of the verb) in one order ; whilst com- binations like th (whose efi'ect is, as in the word strength, to give the idea of abstraction) form another order. III. According to the form. — Sometimes the derivational element is a vowel (as the -ie in doggie) ; sometimes a conso- nant combined : sometimes a syllable (as the -en in whiten) ; sometimes a change of vowel without any addition (as the i in tip, compared with toji) ; sometimes a change of consonant without any addition (as the z in prize, compared with price) . Sometimes, too, it is a change of accent, like a survey, com- pared with to survey. To classify derivations in this manner is to classify them according to their form. For the detail of the derivative forms, see Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 89 — 405. IV. According to the historical origin of the derivational ele- ments. — For this see Vol. I. V. According to the number of the derivational elements. — In INFLECTION. 137 fisher, as compared with fish, there is but one derivational affix. In fishery, as compared with fish, the number of derivational elements is two. § 333. Forms like tip, from top, price and prize, &c., are of importance in general etymology. Let it be received as a theory (as with some philologists is really the case) that frag- mcntaiy sounds like the -en in whiten, the -th in strength, &c., were once words ; or, changing the expression, let it be consi- dered that all derivation was once composition. Let this view be opposed. The first words that are brought to militate against it are those like tip and prize, where, instead of any addition, there is only a change ; and, consequently, no vestiges of an older ivord. This argument, good as far as it goes^ is rebutted in the following manner. Let the word top have attached to it a second word, in which second word there is a small vowel. Let this small vowel act upon the full one in top, changing it to tip. After this, let the second word be ejected. We then get the form tip by the law of accommodation, and not as an immediate sign of derivation. The i in chick (from cock) may be thus accounted for, the -en in chicken being sup- posed to have exerted, first, an intiuenee of accommodation, and afterwards to have fallen off. § 33-1. Derivation hij means of the addition of a Vowel. — The* only vowel sound that in English constitutes by itself a form of derivation is that of the ee in feet, expressed for the most part by the letter t/. It oecui's with two very distinct powers. 1. As a Diminutive; babe, bab-ij. In Lowland Scotch it is far more common, and is spelt -ie ; as dogg-ie, lass-ie, ladd-ie, mous-ie, wif-ie =: little (or dear) dog, lass, lad, mouse, wife. In the w^ord babg its power as a diminutive is obsolete. 2. After certain words ending in -r ; as fish-er-y, rook-er-y, brav-er-y, fool-er-y, pirud-er-y, slav-er-y, ivitch-er-y, nurs-er-y, stitch-er-y, and a few others. Respecting these latter words it must be 'remembered — I a. That they are Double Derivatives ; b. That the -r is probably the same as the -r in children ; * The -y in words like might-y orijin.atcd in -ig ; as m'M-ig, A. S. 138 ON DERIVATION AND c. That the vowel sound is not of Saxon or even Gothic origin. It originates from the -y in words like astronom-y, histor-y, propliec-y , necromanc-y, &c., all of which are words derived, not from any Gothic language, but from the Latin or Greek. The original forms of these endings was -ia, as astro- nom-i-a, Mstor-i-a, &c. Hence words like fish-er-y, &c., are improperly formed. Derivation by means of the addition of the liquid L. — 1. Sub- stantives. — Gir'd-le, kem-el. 2. Adjectives. — Litt-le, mick-le. 3. Verbs. — Spark-le. Derivation by means of the addition of the liquid R. — Sub- stantives. — Words that in A. S. ended in -er, and were (or would have been) of the masculine gender — laugh-t-er, slaugh- t-er. Words that in A. S. ended in -er, and were (or would have been) of the neuter gender — lay-er, lai-r (A. S. Iseg-er), fodd-er (from the root oi feed). Substantives that in A. S. ended in -ere, and were (or would have been) of the masculine gender. — These form a numerous and important class. They are almost all the names of agents, and, if we subtract from almost any of them the ending -er, the remainder is either a verb or a word that can be used as such ', e.g. Q, bak-er performs the act of baking, and (as such) is an agent (or one who acts or does), so that the word bak-er is the name of an agent. Subtract -er, and the remainder is bake, a word that can be used as a verb, e.g. to bake, I bake, &c. — read-er, sinn-er, harp-er, full-er, begg-er (or begg- ar), hunt-er, lend-er, borrow-er, reap-er, mow-er, sow-er, plough- er, fish-er, deal-er, wander-er, rvrit-er, lead-er, steer-er, look-er, heal-er, cobbl-er, li-ar, robb-er, sail-or, teach-er, help-er, los-er, hear-er, buy-er, sell-er, shap-er, leap-er, runn-er, walk-er, jump- er, murder-er, slaughter-er, fiddl-er, giv-er, work-er, rid-er, kill-er, slay-er, slumber-er, sleep-er, keep-er, dream-er, tell-er, bak-er, brew-er, thatch-er, weaver, spinn-er, ivait-er, eat-er, drink-er, din-er, rov-er, lov-er, mov-er, jlatter-er, mill-er, glov-er, hatt-er. Substantives that in A. S. ended in -ra, and were (or would have been) masculine — gander (A. S. gand-ra'). INFLECTION. 13U Verbs. — Hind-er, loiv-er. Derivation by means of the addition of the liquid jM. — Few or none. Derivations by means of the addition of the lifjuid N. — Sub- stantives. — Maid-en, (jamm-on [rjame), mai-n (as in mifjht and main). That the -n is no part of the original word in mai-n, we see from the word may. The idea in both may and mai-n is that of power. Adjectives. — 1. "Words where the -n is preceded in the Old High-German and the Old Saxon by -a--=.an; e.g. eik-an {own), 0. H. G. ; eg-an (own), O. S. — otv-n, op-en. 2. Words where the -n is preceded in Mceso-Gothic by -ei-, in Old Iligh-Gcrman by -i-, and in Old Saxon by -i- ; e.g. \aurn-ein-s [thorny), M. G. ; ird-in {earthen), 0. II. G; bom-in {woody, i. e. made of beams), 0. S. AVords of this sort express in English the circumstances of the object to which they are applied being made of the material of which the radical part of the derivative is the name : thus, gold-en is a derivative from gold; gold is the radical part of the derivative gold-en ; the radical word gold is the name of a material of which certain objects (such as guineas, &c.) may be made. AMien we say golden guinea we apply the word golden to the object guinea, and express the circumstance of guineas being made of gold, or (in other words) of that material of ^\hich gold (the radical part of the derivative w-ord gold-en) is the name. Oak-en, ash-en, beech-en, braz-en, flax-en, gold-en, lead-en, silk-en, wood- en, wooll-en, twigg-en (obsolete), hemjj-en, ivheat-en, oat-en, wax-en. Derivations formed by the addition of the mute letter P. — None. Derivations formed by the addition of the mute letter B. — None. Derivations formed by the addition of the mute lettei^ F. — None. Derivations formed by the addition of the mute letter Y. — In the p7-esent stage of the current English language, none. Derivations formed by the addition of the sound of the semi- vowel W. — In the present stage of the current English, none. Derivations formed by the addition of the sound of the vowel 140 ON DERIVATION AND 0^ originating in -ow or -ov, and spelt in the present English -ow. — Although it is proper in all cases of grammar to con- sider the sound rather than the spelling of wordsj the deriva- tives in question are more fitly connected with O than V. By comparison with shade and mead, the forms shad-ow and mead-ow are shown to be derivative ; whilst the following forms prove that the -oiv, although now sounded as the vowel -0 [shadd-o, medd-o), originated in -w or -v : skad-v-j-an = to sha-dow, M. G. ; scead-uw-es-=z shadow's, A. S.; scead-ew-anzz to sha-dow, A. S. Derivation hy means of the addition of the mute consonant T. — 1. Substantives. — Words which in A, S. ended in -t, gif-t, shrift, theft, wef-t [weave], rif-t, drift, thrif-t, fros-t [freeze), gris-t [grind], fligh-t, sigh-t, draugh-t [draw], weigh-t. 2. Words which in A. S. ended in -ta. The compounds of the word ivright (from the root work] ; such as cart-wrigh-t, wheel-wrigh-t, mill-ivrigh-t, &c. Adjective. — Tigh-t [tie]. Derivations hy means of the addition of the mute consonant D. — Substantives. — Bran-d [burn, brenn, obsolete), floo-d [flow], mai-d [may in Lowland Scotch), see-d [sow], bur-d-en [bear]. Adjectives. — Dea-d [die], col-d [cool]. In the word thir-d, from three, the d stands for th (as in fif-th, &c.), in order to avoid the occurrence of the sound of th twice within the same syllable. Derivation by means of the addition of TH (A. S. Ji) as sounded in thin. — Substantives. — The following words ending in -th are the names of abstract ideas ; dea-th, bir-th [bear], heal-th, leng-th, bread-th, heigh-th, dep-th, mir-th, tru-th [trow, Lowland Scotch), weal-th, fil-th, til-th [tillage, ov tilled ground] , ki-th (as in the phrase kith and kin) . Adjectives. — The syllable -cou-th in the compound word un- cou-th. This word originally meant unknown, originating in the word ken=.to know. This we see from the following forms, kun-\-s, in the Moeso-Gothic, and chun-t, in the Old High- German, signifying known [kenned]. Derivatives by means of the addition of TH (A. S. ^) as sounded in thine. — Bur-th-en, derived from bear. Derivatives by means of the addition of the sound of the mute INFLECTION. Ml consonant S, sounded as in sin. — Substantives. — In the word goose (goo-se) the -s is no ])art of the original word, in which also an -n and a -d have been lost. Compare the German word yan-s, and the Enjilish word ijnnd-er. The -s in goo-se is derivative. Derivatives by means of the addition of the sound of the Z in zeal and the S in flags (tlagz). — Verbs. — Cleanse {clenz), from clean. In A. S. clce?i-s-i-an. Derivatives by means of the addition of the sound of the SII in shine. — Few or none. Derivation by means of the addition of the sound of the Z in azure. — None. Derivation by means of the addition of the mute letter K. — Hill-ock. Derivation by means of the addition of the mute letter G. — None. Derivations formed by the addition of the sound of the vowel E {as in feet), originating in -ig, and spelt in the present English -y, — All the derivative adjectives that now end in -y, ended in A. S. in ig ; as blood-y, craft-y, drear-y, might-y, mist-y, mood-y, merr-y, worth-y, of which the A. S. forms were bldd-ig, crceft-ig, dreor-ig, miht-ig, mist-ig, mod-ig, myr-ig, xvorth-ig. Although it is proper in all cases of grammar to consider the sound rather than the spelling of words, the derivatives in question are more fitly placed in the present section than elsewhere. Derivation by means of the addition of the syllable -ing. — Farth-ing (j), rid-ing* {^, a corruption from tlirith-ing). Also clean-s-ing, dawn-ing, morn-ing. In these words the -ing was originally -ung ; as clan-s-ung, dag-ung, A. S. It is clear that forms like cleansing from the A. S. cl»X£(ST}c {PeleidcEs), the son of Peleus. It is very evident that this mode of expression is very different from either the English form Johnson, or Gaelic MacDonahl. In these last- named words, the words son and Mac mean the same thing ; so that Johnson and MacDonald are not derived, but compound words. This Greek way of expressing descent is peculiar, and the words wherein it occxu's are classed together by the pecu- culiar name patronymic, from paUer ^father, and onoma rz a name. Is there anything in English corresponding to the Greek patronymics ? It was for the sake of this question that the consideration of the termination -ling, as in duckling, &c., was deferred. The termination -ling, like the terminations -rel and -let, is compound. Its simpler form is -ing. This, from being af- fixed to the derived forms in -I, has become -ling. In Anglo-Saxon the termination -ing is as truly patronymic as -tSrjc is in Greek. In the Bible-translation the son of Elisha is called Elising. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle occm* such genealogies as the following : — Ida was Eopping, Eoppa Esing, Esa Inging, Inga Angenviting^ Angenvit Alocing, Aloe Beonocing, Beonoc Branding, Brand Baldaging, Bceldag, V6- dening, Voden Fri^owulfing, Fri^oiculf Finning, Finn Godiviilf- ing, GodwvJf Geating=:l(\a was the son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esing, Esing of Inga, Inga of Angennt, Angenvit of Aloe, Aloe of Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand of Bfeldag, Ba.4dag of Woden, Woden of Fri'Sowulf, Fri'Sowidf of Finn, Finn of 150 PATRONYMICS. Godwulf, Godwulf of Geat. — In Greek, "l8a riv 'EoTTTTfiSrjc, "EoTTTTa Hasibr^g, ' Haa lyysibrig, ' lyya ^ Ayyev(piTeibr}g, &C. In the plural number these forms denote the race of; as Scyldingas ■=. the Scyldings, or the race of Scyld, &c. Edgar AtheKng means Edgar of the race of the nobles. The pri- mary of -inff and -l-ing is descent or relationship ; from these comes the idea of youth and endearment, and thence the true diminutive idea. In darling, stripling, duckling, gosling (pr. gesling), kitling (pr. kitten), nestling, yearling, chickling , falling , fledgling, firstling, the idea of descent still remains. In hire- ling the idea of diminution is accompanied with the idea of contempt. In changeling we htwe a Gothic termination and a classical root. See, for the full exposition of this view, Deutsche Gra?mnatik, ii. 349 — 36 i, iii. 683. GENTILE FORMS. CHAPTER XI. GENTILE rORMS. § 339. These have been illustrated by Mr. Guest in the Transactions of the Philological Society. The only word in the present English that requii'es explana- tion is the name of the principality Wales. 1. The form is plural, however much the meaning may be singular ; so that the -s in Wales is the -s m fathers, &c. 2. It has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon from iveaUias^ foreigners, the name by which the Welsh are spoken of by the Germans of England, just as the Italians are called Welsh by the Germans of Germany : lual-nutszz. foreign nuts. 3. The transfer of the name of the people inhabiting a certain country to the country so inhabited, was one of the commonest processes in both Anglo-Saxon and Old English. — Guest, Phil. Trans. 152 ON GENDER. CHAPTER VII. ON GENDER. § 340. The nature of gender is best exhibited by reference to those languages wherein the distinction of gender is most conspicuous. Such a language^ amongst others^ is the Latin. How far is there such a thing as gender in the English lan- guage ? This depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word. In the Latin language^ where there are confessedly genders, we have the words taurus, meaning a bull, and vacca, meaning a cow. Here the natural distinction of sex is expressed by wJiolly different words. With this we have corresponding- modes of expression in English : e. g. — Male. Female. Male. Female. Bachelor Spinster. Horse Mare. Boar Sow. Ram Ewe. Boy Girl. Sou Daughter. Brother Sister. Uncle Aunt. Buck Doe. Father Mother, &c The mode, however, of expressing different sexes by wholly different words is not a matter of gender. The words hoy and girl bear no etymological relation to each other -, neither being derived from the other, nor in way connected with it. Neither are words like cock-sparrow, man-servant, he-goat, &c., as compared with hen-sparrow, maid-servant, she-goat, &c., spe- cimens of gender. Here a difference of sex is indicated by the addition of a fresh term, from which is formed a com- pound word. In the Latin words genitrix =. a mother, and genitor = a father, we have a nearer approach to gender. Here the difference of sex is expressed by a difference of termination ; ON GENDER. 153 the words yenitor and (jenitrix being in a true etymological re- lation, i. e. cither derived from each other, or from some common source. With thiswe have, in English, corresponding modes of expression : e. (j. — Male. Female. Actor Actress. Arbiter Arbitress. Barou Baroness. Benefactor Benefactress Count Countess. Duke Duchess. Male. Female. Lion Lioness. Peer Peeress. Poet Poetess. Sorcerer Sorceress. Songster Songstress Tiger Tigress. This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an ap- proach to gender rather than gender itself. Its difference from true grammatical gender is as follows : — Let the Latin words (jenitor and genitrix be declined : — Sing. Flur. Nom. Genitor Genitrix. Gen. Genitor-^5 Genitric-2.s. Bat. Gcnitor-i Geuitric-i. Ace. Genitor-e»i Genitric-ej«. Voc. Genitor Genitrix. Nom. Genitor-e? Genitric-es. Gen. Genitor-??/^ Genitric-«;rt. Bat. Genitor-i^«-s Genitric-iitfs Ace. Gcnitor-es Genitric-es. Voc. Genitor-e« Genitric-e*. The syllables in italics are the signs of the cases and numbers. Now these signs are the same in each word, the difference of meaning (or sex) not affecting them. Contrast, however, with the words genitor and genitrix the words domina z=. a mistress, and dominus z= a master. Sing. Plur. Nom. Domin-a Domin-?!i ing foniis (taken from Grimni;, iii. ]^. 311) occur in the different Gothic dialects. Gans, I'ein. ; gmuizzo, niasc, Old Ilifrh-Ger- man — gas, f '. ; (jondra, m.., Anglo-Saxon — ydn, Icelandic, f . ; gaas, Danish, f, ; gassi, Icelandic, ni. ; gassc, Danish, m. — ganser, gtinserer, gnnsart, gdnserich, gander, masculine forms in different New German dialects. Observe, the form gdnserich has a masculine termination. The word tduberich, in jjrovincial New German, has the same form and the same power. It denotes a male dove ; taube, in German, signifying- a dove. In gdnserich and tduberich, we find preserved the termination -rich (or -rik), with a masculine power. Of this termination we have a remnant, in English, preserved in the curious word drake. To duck the word drake has no etvmoloiiical relation whatsoever. It is derived from a word with which it has but one letter in common ; viz. the Latin anas'=.a duck. Of this the root is anat-, as seen in the genitive case anatis. In Old High-German we find the form anetr'ekhoz^a drake; in provincial New High-German there is enterich and dntrecht, from whence come the English and Low- German form drake. — Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 341 . Peacock, peahen, bridegroom. — In these compounds, it is not the words pea and bride that are rendered masculine or femi- nine by the addition of cock, hen, and groom, but it is the words cock, hen, and groom that are modified by prefixing pea and bride. For an appreciation of this distinction, see the chapter on Composition. 160 THE NUMBERS. CHAPTER VIII. THE NUMBERS. § 345. In the Greek language the word patar signifies a father, speaking of one, whilst patere signifies two fathers, speaking of a pair, and ihvcdXy , pateres %\^\i\^q& fathers, speak- ing of any number beyond two. The three words, patar, patere, and pateres, are said to be in difi*erent numbers, the diff"erence of meaning being expressed by a diff'erence of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks of one is the singular, the number that speaks of tivo is the dual (from the Latin word duo =: tico), and the number that speaks of more than two is the plural. All languages have numbers, but all languages have not them to the same extent. The Hebrew has a dual, but it is restricted to nouns only (in Greek being extended to verbs). It has, moreover, this peculiarity ; it applies, for the most part, only to things which are naturally double, as the two eyes, the two hands, &c. The Latin has no dual number at all, except the natural dual in the words amho and duo. The question presents itself, — to what extent have we num- bers in English ? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual. Different from the question, to what degree have we num- bers ? is the question, — over what extent of our language have we numbers ? This distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who said typt6-=.I beat, ttjptetonzz ye two beat, tijptomen ■=. we beat, had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns ; while the Hebrew dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual num- THE NUMBERS. 101 ber is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew. There is no dual in the present English. It has been seen, however, that in the Anglo-Saxon there rvas a dual. But the Anglo-Saxon dual, being restricted to the personal pronouns {ivit r= ive two ; (jit zz ye two), was not co-extensive with the Greek dual. There is no dual in the present German. In the ancient Geraian there was one. In the present Danish and Swedish there is no dual. In the Old Norse and in the present Icelandic a dual number is to be found. From this we learn that the dual number is one of those in- flections that languages drop as they become modern. The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural ? The Latins say, bonus pater = u good father ; horn patres "=. ijood fathers. In the Latin, the adjective ionws changes its form with the change of number of the substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that is changed. Hence we sec that in tlie Latin language the numbers were extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present English is in the same rela- tion as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon there were plural forms for the adjectives. For the forms selves and others, see the Syntax. Words like wheat, pitch, gold, &c., where the idea is natu- rally singular; words like belloivs, scisso7-s, lurifjs, Szc, where the idea is naturally plural ; and words like deer, sheep, where the same form serves for the singular and plural, inasmuch as there takes place no change of form, are not under the ])ro- vince of etymology. § 346. The current rule is, that the plural number is formed from the singular by adding s, as father, fathers. However, if the reader will revert to the remarks upon the sharp and Hat Mutes, where it is stated that mutes of different degrees of shai*pness and flatness cannot come together in the same sylla- ble, he will find occasion to take to the current rule a verbal VOL. II. M 162 THE NUMBERS. exception. The letter added to the word father, making it fathers, is s to the eye only. To the ear it is z. The word so\xn.(h father z. If the s retained its sounds the spelling would he fatherce. In stags, lads, 8cc., the sound is stagz, ladz. The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously expressed, is as follows : — The plural is formed from the singu- lar, by adding to words ending in a vowel a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant {z) ; and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibikmt [s] : e. g. (the sound of the word being expressed), pea, peaz ; tree, treez ; day, dayz ; hill, hillz ; hen, henz ; gig, gigz ; trap, traps ; pit, pits ; stack, stacks. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary. 1. In the case of words ending in b, v, d, the th in thine =: ^, or g, a change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharp s affixed, is not a matter of choice, but of necessity ; the combinations abs, avs, ads, a^s, ags, being unpronounce- able. 3. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommo- dated to the second [aps, afs, ats, a])S, asks), or the second to the first [abz, avz, a^z, agz), is determined by the habit of the particular language in question ; and, with a few apparent ex- ceptions (mark the word apparent), it is the rule of the Eng- lish language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not vice versa. 3. Such combinations as peas, trees, hills, hens, &c. (the s preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written peace, treece, hillce, hence), being pronounceable, the change from s to z, in words so ending, is not a matter determined by the necessity of the case, but by the habit of the English language. 4. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in s, but in z, the original addition was not z, but s. This we infer from three facts: 1. From the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound of z being either rare or non-existent in Anglo- Saxon ; 3. from the sufficiency of the causes to bring about the change. § 347. It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals are either mere points of orthography, or THE NUMBERS. 16:3 else capable of being cxplaiued on very simple euphonic prin- ciples. Boxes, churches, jndf/es, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes. — Here there is the addition, not of the mere letter .v, but of the syllabic -es. As s cannot be immediately added to s, the intervention of a vowel becomes necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in -es really end either in the sound of s, or in the allied sounds of z, sh, or zh, may be seen by analysis ; since x =i ks, ch = tsh, and j or ()e i= dzh, whilst ce, in prince, is a mere point of orthography for s. Monarchs, heresiarchs. — Here the ch equals not tsh, but k, so that there is no need of being told that the words do not follow the analogy of church, &c. Cargoes, echoes. — From cargo and echo, with the addition of e, an orthographical expedient for the sake of denoting the length of the vowel o. Beauty, beauties ; key, keys. — Like the word cargoes, &c., these forms are points, not of etymology, but of orthogra2)hy. Plural of certain icords in f. — The following words end in the sharp mute / — loaf, half, wife, life, calf, leaf. Now, according to § 34G, their plurals should be formed by the addition of the sound of s in seal, and so be loafs, halfs, ivifes, lifes, calfs, leafs (pronounced loafce, halfce, icifce, lifce, calfce, leafce). This, however, is not the case. Their plurals are formed by the addition of the sound of z in zeal, and are loaves, halves, wives, lives, calves, leaves (pronounced loavz, halvz, wivz, livz, calvz, leavz) ; the sound of the / being changed into that of v. Respecting these words we must observe — 1. That the vowel before/ is long. Words like muff, where the vowel is short, form their plurals by means of the sound of the s in seal ; as muff, miiff-s (pronounced muffce). 2. That they are all of Anglo-Saxon origin. In the words mischief, chief, handkerchief, grief, relief, the plural is formed as in muff, that is, by the addition of the sound of s — mischiefs, chiefs, &c. Putting these two facts together, we can use more general language, and say that — When a word ends in the sound of /, preceded by a long M 2 164 THE NUMBERS. vowel, and is of Anglo-Saxon *origin, the plural is formed by the addition of the sound of the z in zeal. To this rule there are two exceptions. 1. Dwarf; a word of Anglo-Saxon origin^ but which forms its plural by means of the sound of s — dwarfs (pronounced dwarf ce) . 2. Beef; a word not of Anglo-Saxon origin, but which forms its plural by means of the sound of z — beeves (pro- nounced beevz). If we ask the reason of this peculiarity in the formation of the plurals of these words in -/, we shall find reason to believe that it lies with the singular rather than the plural forms. In Anglo-Saxon,/ at the end of a word was sounded as v; and it is highly probable that the original singulars were sounded loav, halv, wive, calv, leav. Can this be explained ? Perhaps it can. In the Swedish language the letter/ has the sound oi v ; so thats^fl/is sounded stav. Again, in the allied languages the words in question end in the flat (not the sha7-p) mute, — weib, laub, calb, halb, stab, &c. ■zzwife, leaf, calf, half, staff. Hence, the plural is probably normal ; it being the singular form on which the irregularity lies. Pence. — The peculiarity of this word consists in having a flat liquid followed by the sharp sibilant s (spelt ce), conti"ary to the rule given above. In the first place, it is a contracted form from pennies ; in the second place, its sense is collective rather than plural ; in the third place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it from pens, sounded penz. That its sense is collective rather than plural (a distinction to which the reader^s attention is directed), we learn from the word sixpence, which, compared with sixpences, is no plural, but a singular form. Dice. — In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason that pence is peculiar. We find the sound of s after a vowel, where that of z is expected. This distinguishes dice for play, from dies {diez) for coining. Dice, perhaps, like pence, is collective rather than plural. In geese, lice, and mice, we have, apparently, the same phe- THE NUMIJKRS. 105 nomcnon as in dice, viz. a sharj) sibilant (s) where a Jlat one [z) is expected. Tlic s, however, in these words is not the sign of the phiral, but the hist letter of the original word. 1. Alms. — Some say, these alms are nsrful ; in which case the word (thus is plural. Others say, this alms is useful ; in which case the word alms is singular. Now in the word alius the -s is no sign of the plural ninnbcr, but part of the original singular, like the s in gouse or loss. The Anglo-Saxon form was almesse. Notwithstanding this, we cannot say ulms-es in the same way that we can say loss-es. Hence the word alms is, in respect to its original form, singular; in respect to its meaning, either singular or plural. 2. Riches. — Most writers say, riches are useful ; in which case the word riches is plural. Still there are a few who say, riches is useful; in which case the word riches is singular. Now in the word riches the -s is no sign of the plural number, since there is no such substantive as rich ; on the contrary, it is part of the original singular, like the s in distress. The form in the original French, from which language it was derived, was richesse. Notwithstanding this, we cannot say richess-es in the same way that we can say distress-es. Hence the word riches is, in respect to its original form, singular; in respect to its meaning, cither singular or plural, most frequently the latter. 3. News. — Some say, this neios is good ; in which case the word neivs is singular. ]More rarely we find the expression these news are good ; in which case the word news is plvn-al. Now in the word news the -s (unlike the s in alms and riches) is no part of the original singular, but the sign of the plural, like the s in trees. Notwithstanding this, we cannot subtract the s, and say new, in the same way that we can form tree from trees. Hence the word news is, in respect to its original form, plural ; in respect to its meaning, either singular or plural, most frequently the former. 4. Means. — Some say, these means are useful ; in which case the W'Ord means is plural. Others say, this means is useful ; in which case the word means is singular. Now in the word means the -s (unlike the s in aluts and riches, but like the s in news) is no part of the original singular, but the sign of the 1G6 THE NUMBE plural^ like the s in trees. The form in the original French, from which language the word is derived, is moyen, singular; moyens, plural. If we subtract from the word means the letter s, we say mean. Now as a singular form of the word means, with the sense it has in the phrase ways and means, there is, in the current English, no such word as mean, any more than there is such a word as new from news. But, in a different sense, there is the singular form mean ; as in the phrase the golden mean, meaning middle course. Hence the word means is, in respect to its form, plural; in respect to its meaning, either singular or plural. 5. Pains. — Some say, these pains are well-taken; in which case the word pains is phiral. Others say, this pains is well- taken ; in which case the word pains is singular. The form in the original French, from which language the word is derived, is peine. The reasoning that has been applied to the word means is closely applicable to the word pains. 6. The same also applies to the word amends. The form in French is amende, without the s. 7. 8, &c. Mathematics, rnetaphysics, politics, ethics, optics, jjhysics. — The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis re- specting these words, to which I invite the reader^s criticism. All the words in point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each is the name of some department of study, of some art, or of some science. As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote either of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and sciences of Greece be expressed, in Greek, rather by a substantive and an adjective combined, than by a simple substantive ; for instance, let it be the habit of the language to say the musical art, rather than music. Let the Greek for art be a word in the feminine gender ; e. g. rtxyri {tekhnce), so that the musical art be 17 fxovaiKri rixvr] {lice mousika tekhnce). Let, in the progress of language (as was actually the case in Greece), the article and substantive be omitted, so that, for the musical art, or for music, there stand only the feminine adjective, fxovmKTi]. Let there be, upon a given art or science, a series of books, or treatises ; the Greek for hook, or treatise, being a neuter substantive, /3('/3A(ov {bihlion). Let the sub- THE NUMBERS. I(i7 stantivc meaning treatise be, in the course of language, omitted, so that whilst the science of physics is called (/(i^tj'kjj {fysikce), physic, from 7/ ^v^Iki} T£\ri;, a series of treatises (or even chapters) upon tiic science shall be called (^tixjiKu [fysika] or physics. Now all this was what happened in Greece. The science was denoted by a feminine adjective singular, as (pvaiKr] (fysiae), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective ])lural, as (pvaiKu (J'ysica). The treatises of Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive tliat, in the middle ages, a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two sources, viz. from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as jihysic, logic ; in the second j)lace a plural form, as matJtcmatics, metapJiysics, optics. In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs to be, is a point of syntax. § 348. The plui'al form children {child-er-en) requires parti- cular notice. In the first place it is a double plural : the -en being the -en in oxen, whilst the simpler form child-er occurs in the Old English, and in certain provincial dialects. Now, what is the -cr in child-er ? In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than that in -r ; as geisl-ar =: jlashes, tuny-ur n tongues, Sec. Neverthe- less, it is not the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question. Besides the w^ord childcr, we collect from the other Gothic tongue the following forms in -r : — Hus-er, Houses, Old High-German. Glial p-ir, Calves. ditto. Lerap-ir, Lamhs. ditto. Plet-ir, Blades of grass. ditto. Eig-ir, I^gys. ditto. and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being of the neuter gender. The particular Gothic dialect wherein they occur most frequently is the Dutch of Holland. Now, the theoiy respecting this form, as propounded l)y Grimm (D. G. iii. p. 270), is as follows : — 168 THE NUMBERS. 1. The -r represents an earlier -s. 2. Which was^ originally^ no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number. 3. In this form it appears in the Moeso-Gothic : ag-is :=.fear (whence ague z= shivering), hat-is zz. hate, rigv-is := smoke [reek). In none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the singular number. It should be added, that the reason why a singular deriva- tional affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in the collective nature of the words in which it occurs : — Husir zz a collection of houses, eigir r= a collection of eggs, eggery or eyry. For further observations on the power of -r, and for reasons for believing it to be the same as in the words Jew-r-y, yeoman-r-y, see a paper of Mr. Guest's, Philol. Trans., May 26, 1843. There we find the remarkable form lamb-r-en, from Wiclifie, Joh. xxi. Lamb-r-en : lamb : : child-r- en : child. § 349. The form in -en. — In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural number is more common than -n : tungan, tongues; steorran, stars. In the present English the word oxen is the only specimen of this form in current use. In the old and middle English stages of our language the number of words in -en was much greater than at present. hos-e?j = hose or stoclcino-s c- shoo-/i := slioe-s e^-ue = eyes bischop-era = bishop-5 eldr-ere = elder-s avw-en = arrow -s sclier-ew =: shire-5 doghtv-en = daughter-s sustr-e?? = sister-s uncl-m = uncle-5 tre-en r= tree-s souldr-m = soldier-s. Men, feet, teeth, mice, lice, geese. — In these we have some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a cer- THE NUMBERS. lOf) tainty, true plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the weak and strong tenses of verbs; viz. one series of ])lurals formed by a chaugi; of the vowel, and another by the addition of the sibilant. The word kye, used in Scot- land for cows, is of the same class. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that of the present English. Sing. Flur. Freoiul . . Try lid . . Friends. Fediid . . l\nd . . Foes. Niht . . Niht . . NitjJds. Boc . . Bcc . . Books. Burli . . Byrig . . Burghs. Bruc . . Brcc . . Breeches. Turf . . Tyrf . . Turves. Brethren. — Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the vowel. 2. The addition of -en. Mr. Guest quotes the forms hrethre and hrothre from the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural. Peasen rz. pulse. — As children is a double form of one sort {r-\-en), so is peasen a double form of another [s-'t-en); pea, pea-s, pea-s-en. Wallis speaks to the singular power of the form in -s: — " Dicunt nonnulli a pease, phiralitcr peasen; at melius, singulariter a pea, \)\nvd\it(iv pease." — P. 77. He might have added, that, theoretically, pease was the proper singular form ; as shown by the Latin pis-um. Pullen zz poultry. Lussurioso — "What ? three-and-twenty years in law ? Vetidice. — I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all iihoxiii pullen and pigs. — Revenger s Tragedy, iv. 1. If this were a plural form, it would be a veiy anomalous one. The -en, however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the -es in rich-es {richesse). The proper form is in -ain or -egn. A false theefe, That came like a false fox, my pullain to kill and mischeefe. Gammer Gurtons Needle, v. ii. Chickens. — A third variety of the double inflection {en -t- s), with the additional peculiarity of the form chicken being used. 170 THE NUMBERS. at present^ almost exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, probably, the plural of chick. So Wallis considered it : — " At olim etiam per -en vel -yn formabant pluralia; quorum pauca admodum adhuc retinemus. Ut, an ox, a chick, pluraliter oxen, chicken (sunt qui dicunt in singu- lar! chicken, et in plurali chickens)'' — P. 77. Chick, chick-en, chick-ens. Fern. — According to Wallis the -n in fer-n is the -en in oxen, in other words, a plural termination: — '^ Kfere [filix] pluraliter /erw (verum nunc plerumque fern utroque numero dicitur, sed et in plurali ferns) ; nam fe7'e et feres prope obsoleta sunt.'' — P. 77.- Subject to this view, the word fer-n-s would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word chicke-n-s. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A reason for believing the -n to be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon form fearn, and the Old High-German, varayn. Women. — Pronounced wimmen, as opposed to the singular fomi woomman. Houses. — Pronounced houz-ez. The same peculiarity in the case of s and z, as occurs between / and v in words like life, lives, &c. Paths, yonths. — Vvonoimced padhz,yoodhz. The same pecu- liarity in the case of ]> and "S, as occurs between s and z in the words house, houses. " Finita in / plerumque alleviantur in plurali numero, substituendo v ; ut wife, wives, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam in s et th, quamvis retento charactere, in house, cloth, jiath." — P. 79. ON THE CASES. ]7l CHAPTER IX. ON THE CASES. § 350. The extent to winch there are, in the English lan- guage, cases, depends on the meaning Avhich we attach to the word case. In the sentence a house of a father, the idea ex- pressed by the words of a father, is an idea of a relation between them and the word house. This idea is an idea of property or possession. The relation between the words /«//<«* and hotise may be called the possessive relation. This relation, or connection, between the two words is expressed by the pre- position of. In a father^s house the idea is, there or thereabouts, the same ; the relation or connection between the tw o words being the same. The expression, however, differs. In a father's house the relation, or connection, is expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form, father becoming father^s. He gave the house to a father. — Here the words father and house stand in another sort of relationship ; the relationship being expressed by the preposition to. The idea to a father differs from the idea of a father, in being expressed in one way only ; viz. by the preposition. There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done with father's. The fathei' taught the child. — Here there is neither preposi- tion nor change of form. The connection between the words father and child is expressed by the arrangement only. Now if the relation alone between two words constitutes a case, the w-ords or sentences, child; to a father; of a fatlier; 'dud father's, are all equally cases; of which one may be called 172 ON THE CASES. the accusative, another the dative, a third the genitive, and so on. Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not constitute a case. Perhaps there is a necessity of either the addition of a preposition (as in of a father), or of a change in form (as in father's) . In this case (although child be not so) father's, of a father, and to a father, are all equally cases. Now it is a remark, at least as old as Dr. Beattie, that if the use of a preposition constitute a case, there must be as many cases in a language as there are prepositions, and that " above a man, beneath a man, beyond a man, round about a man, within a man, without a man, shall be cases, as well as of a man, to a man, and with a man'' — Murray's Grammar, vol. i. p. 79. For etymological purposes it is necessary to limit the mean- ing of the word case ; and, as a sort of definition, it may be laid down that where there is no change of form there is no case. With this remark, the English language may be com- pared with the Latin. Latin. English. Sing. Nom. Pater . . . a father. Gen. Patris . . . a father's, Dat. Patri . . .to a father. Jcc. Pair em . . . a father. Abl. Patre . . . from a father. Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in English there are but two, there are (as far, at least, as the word pater and father are concerned) three more cases in Latin than in English. It does not, however, follow that because in father we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two. In order to constitute a case there must be a change of form. — This statement is a matter of definition. A second question, however, arises out of it : viz. whether every change of form con- stitute a case ? In the Greek language there are the words ipiv [erin), and ipi^a {erida). Unlike the words father and father's, these two words have precisely the same meaning. Each is called an accusative; and each, consequently, is said to be in the same case with the other. This indicates the ON THE CASES. 17.*i statement, that in order to constitute a case there must be not only a change of form, hut also a chamjc of mcnniny. A\'hcther sueh a limitation of the word be convenient, is a question for the general grammarian. At present we merely state that there is no change of case unless there be a chanrje of form. Hence, in respect to the word patriljus (and others like it), which is some- times translated from fathers, and at other times to fathers, we must say, not that in the one case the word is ablative and in the other dative, but that a certain case is used with a certain latitude of meaning. This remark bears on the word her in English. In her hook the sense is that of the case currently called genitive. In it moved her, the sense is that of the case currently called the accusative. If we adhere, however, to what we have laid down, we must take exceptions to this mode of speaking. It is not that out of the single form her we can get two cases, but that a certain form has two powers ; one that of the Latin genitive, and another that of the Latin accu- sative. This leads to an interesting question, viz. what notions are sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same form, and in the same ease ? The word her, in its two senses, may, perhaps, be dealt with as a single case, because the notions conveyed by the genitive and accusative are, perhaps, sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same word. Are the notions, however, of a mistress, and i7iistresses, so allied ? I think not ; and yet in the Latin language the same fonn, domina, expresses both. Of domince'=.of a mistress, and of domin(E'=. mistresses, we cannot say that there is one and the same case with a latitude of meaning. The words wei-e, perhaps, once different. And this leads to the distinction between a real and an accidental identity of form. In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words smith [smv^), end [ende), and day (dcey), were, respec- tively, smithes {smiles), endes, and dayes {dtec/es) ; whilst the nominative plurals were, respectively, smithas {smi^as), endas, and dayas {dtegas). A process of change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in each word] was ejected. The result was, that the forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and the same ; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident. 174 ON THE CASES. This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England, identical ; the apostrophe in father's being a mere matter of orthography. However, there was once a difference. This modifies the previous statement, which may now stand thus : — for a change of case there must he a change of form existing or presumed. § 351. The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they spread. — In the English language there is un- doubtedly a nominative case. This occurs in substantives, ad- jectives, and pronouns [father, good, he) equally. It is found in both numbers. Accusative. — Some call this the objective case. The words him (singular) and the^n (plural) (whatever they may have been originally) are now true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. Thee, me, us, and you are, to a certain extent, true accusatives. They are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2. They are distinguished from the forms /, my, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Never- theless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and ai*e distinguished by negative characters only. One word of English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of the term, viz. the word twain zz two. The -n in twai-n is the -n in hine :=. him and hwome :=. whom. This we see from the following inflection : — Neut. Masc. Jem. N. and Ac. Twa, Twegen, Tvva. Ahl. and Dai. Twam, Twse'ra. Gen. Twegra, Twega. Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the original character of twegen being accusative. The -n is by no means radical ; besides which, it is the sign of an accusative case, and is not the sign of a nominative. The words him and them are true accusatives in even a less degree than thee, me, us, and you. The Anglo-Saxon equi- valents to the Latin words eos and illos were hi (or hig) and \d ON THE CASES. 17."5 (or Ipceffc) ; in other words, the sign of the accusative was otlicr than the sound of -ni. The case which really ended in -m was the so-called dative ; so that the Anglo-Saxon forms him (or hcum) and }j)(hn = the Latin iis and illis. This fact explains the meaning of the words, wliati'ver they may have been orir/iiuilly,\n a preceding sentence. It also indi- cates a fresh element in the eriticisin and nomenclature of the grammarian; viz. the extent to which the histury of a form regulates its position as an inflection. Dative. — In the antiquated word whilom {at times), we have a remnant of the old dative in -m. The sense of the word is adverbial ; its form, however, is that of a dative ease. Genitive. — Some call this the possessive case. It is found in substantives and pronouns [father's, his), but not in adjectives. It is formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant {father, fat has ; buck, bucks) ; or, if the word end in s, by that of es {boxes, judges, &c.). It is found in both numbers : the men's hearts ; the children's bread. In the plural number, however, it is rare ; so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends in s (as it almost always does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words as fatherses, foxeses, princessescs, &c. Instrumental. — The following extracts from Eask's "Anglo- Saxon Grammar," teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the ^vord spelt t-h-e, or of the so-called definite article. "The demonstrative pronouns are ]iat, se, sed {id, is, ea), which are also used for the article ; and \iis, \>cs, \)eds {hoc, hie, hcec). They are thus declined : — Nent. Masc. Fern. Neut. Masc. Fern. Sing. N. })fet se sco jiis jjcs feos. A. jjict fione )?a fis fisuc fas. Jbl. Jjy Jjaj're pise fisse. B. J'atn jjaj're })isiim fissc. G. ffcs fas're })iscs Jjissc. riur. N. and A. pa J?as. Abl.andB. K'tn jjisuni. G. |)iira J)issa. 176 ON THE CASES. " The indeclinable ]>e is often used instead of ])(Et, se, seo, in all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times, as an article. Hence the English article the. "YJ seems justly to be received as a proper ahlativus in- strumenti, as it occurs often in this character, even in the mas- culine gender ; as, mid ]??/ d\e =: with that oath (Inse Reges, 53). And in the same place in the dative, on ^am d^e-=.in that oath."—P]). 56, 57. Hence the the that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon fiy is one word ; the the that has originated out of the Anglo- Saxon ])e, another. The latter is the common article : the former the the in expressions like all the more, all the better = more by all that, better by all that, and the Latin phi-ases eo majiis, eo melius. That ivhy is in the same case with the instrumental the (^ \)y) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflection of the interrogative pronoun : — Neut. Masc. N. Hwa;t Hwa. A. Hwset v Hwone (hwsene), Abl. Hwi. JD. Hwam (liwse'm). G. Hvvses. Hence, then, in the and why we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply, instrumentals . § 352. The determination of cases. — How do we determine cases ? In other words, why do we call him and them accu- satives rather than datives or genitives ? By one of two means; viz. either by the sense or the form. Suppose that in the English language there were ten thou- sand dative cases and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in -m, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident that, whatever might be the meaning of the words him and them, their form would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusative, and the form dative, we should doubt which test to take. My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to deter- mine cases by the fo?'m of the word alone ; so that, even if a ON THE CARES. 1 "^7 word had a dative sense only once, where it had an accnsativc sense ten thousand times, such a word shouhl be said to be in the dative case. Now, as stated above, the words him and them (to which we may add whom) were once dative cases ; -m in Anghi-Saxon being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the Angh)-Saxons their sense coincided with their form. At present they are dative forms with an accusative meaning. Still, as the word give takes after it a dative case, we have, even now, in the sentence, give it him, give it them, remnants of the old dative sense. To say give it to him, to them, is unnecessary and pedantic : neither do I object to the expression, ivhoin shall I give it ? If ever the formal test become generally recognised and consistently adhered to, him, them, and rchom will be called datives with a latitude of mean- ing ; and then the approximate accusatives in the English language will be the forms you, thee, us, me, and the only true accusative will be the word twain. My, an accusative form [meh, me, mec), has now a genitive sense. The same may be said of thy. Me, originally an accusative form (both me and my can grow out of mec and meh), had, even with the Anglo-Saxons, a dative sense. Give it me is con-ect English. The same may be said of thee. Him, a dative form, has now an accusative sense. Her. — For this word, as well as for further details on me and my, see the chapters on the Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns. When all traces of the original dative sisnification are effaced, and when all the dative cases in a language are simi- larly affected, an accusative case may be said to have originated out of a dative. § 353. Thus far the question has been concerning the immediate origin of cases : their remote origin is a different matter. The word um occurs in Icelandic. In Danish and Swedish it is om ; in the Germanic languages omme, umbi, umpi, ymhe, and also um. Its meaning is at, on, about. The word ivhilom is the substantive ivhileziia time or pause (Dan. hvi!e=:to rest), with the addition of the preposition om. That the par- VOL. II. N 178 ON THE CASES. ticvilar dative form in om has arisen out of the noun + the preposition^ is a safe assertion. I am not prepared, however^ to account for the formation of all the cases in this manner. § 354. Analysis of cases. — In the word children's we are enabled to separate the word into three parts. 1. The root child. 2. The plural signs /- and en. 3. The sign of the genitive case, s. In this case the word is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought always to be attempted. § 355. The true nature of the genitive form in s. — It is a common notion that the genitive form father's is contracted from father his. The expression in our liturgy, for Jesus Christ his sake, which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it. 1. The expression the Queen's Majestrj is not capable of being reduced to the Queen his Majesty. 2. In the form his itself, the s has precisely the power that it has in father's, &c. Now his cannot be said to arise out of he + his. 3. Even if the words father his would account for the Eng- lish word father's, it would not account for the Sanskrit geni- tive pad-as, of a foot ; the Zend dughdhar-s, of a daughter ; the Lithuanic dugter-s ; the Greek oSo'vr-oc ; the Latin dent-is, &c. ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER. 179 CHAPTER X. ox CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER. § 356. We now pass from the Cases and Numbers of Sub- stantives to the Degrees of Comparison of Adjectives. Preparatory, however, to the consideration of this part of Etymology, we must attend to certain phenomena connected with the forms in -er — as wheth-er, oth-er, &c. Let these serve as a text. I. First, it may be stated of them that the idea which they express is not that of one out of many, but that of one out of two. II. Secondly, it may be stated of them, that the termination -er is the same termination that we find in the comparative degree. As the Sanskrit form kataras corresponds with the com- parative degree, where there is the comparison of two things with each other, so the word katamas is a superlative form, and in the superlative degree lies the comparison of many thiners with each other. Hence other and whether (to which may be added either and neither) are pronouns with the comparative form. Let us now go to some other words. In the list come — 1. Certain pronouns, as ei-th-er, n-ei-th-er, ivhe-th-er, o-th-er. 2. Certain prepositions and adverbs, as ov-er, und-er, af-t-er. 3. Adjectives of the comparative degree ; as wis-er, strong-er, hett-er, &c. 4. Certain adjectives, with the form of the comparative, but the power of the positive degree; as upp-er, und-er, inn-er, out-er, hind-er. N 2 180 ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER. Now what is the idea common to all these words, which is expressed by the sign -er, and which connects the four divisions into one class ? It is not the mere idea of comparison, Bopp, who has best generalised the view of these forms, considers the fundamental idea to be that of duality. In the comparative degree we have a relation between one object and some other object like it, or a relation between two single elements of comparison : A is wiser than B. In the superlative degree we have a relation between one object and all others like it, or a relation between one single and one complex element of com- parison : A is wiser than B, C, D, &c. The more important of the specific modifications of the general idea involved in the comparison of two objects are, — 1 . Contrariety ; as in inner, outer, under, u^^per, over. In Latin the words for right and left end in -er, — dexter, sinister. 2. Choice in the way of an alternative ; as either, neither, whether, other. An extension of the reasoning probably explains forms like the Greek afx(^6-Tip-oq, and the plural possessive forms vdii-rep-OQ, rifxi-Tsp-OQ, &c., which, like our own forms in -r, [ou-r, you-r) correspond in termination with the comparative degree (o-o^aj-rtp-oc^ wisei^). Words, also, like hither and thither are instances of what is probably the effect of a similar association of ideas. A confirmation of Bopp's view is afforded by the Laplandic languages. Herein the distinction between one of two and one of more than two is expressed by afiixes ; and these affixes are the signs of the comparative and superlative : giz=.who ; gua-bba = who of two ; gutte-mush r= who of many. 1. Gi^iwho, so that guabha maybe called its comparative form. 2. Gutte also=iiy//o, so that guttemush may be called its superlative. 3. Precisely as the words guabba and guttemush are formed, so also are the regular degrees of adjectives. a, Nuorra :=. young ; nuor-ab = younger ; nuora-mush zz youngest. h. Bahha =: bad ; baha-b z= worse ; baha-mush ^ worst. ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -KK. 1 fi 1 The following extracts from Stockfleth's Lappish Grammar, were probably written without any reference to the Sanskrit or Greek. " Guahha, of which the form and meaning are compa- rative, appears to have originated in a combination of the pronoun (ji, and the comparative affix -ahho." — " Guttemush, of which the form and meaning are superlative, is similarly derived from the pronoun gutte, and the superlative affix -mush." — Grammatik i det Lappiske Sprog, §§ 192, 193. 182 THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. CHAPTER XL THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. § 357. In the present English the Adjectives preserve the same form throughout both numbers, and in all genders. Consequently they are destitute of case ; the objective, the nominative, and the possessive senses being expressed alike. — A good man, a good woman, a good sword ; the good m.en, the good women, the good swords ; a good man's son, a good woman's son, a good sword's edge. The only mode in which adjectives change their form is in the case of the Degrees of Comparison. The adjective in its simple form is called the Positive Adjec- tive. From the adjective in its Positive form, are formed — 1, the Comparative ; 2, the Superlative Degree. The sign of the Comparative Degree is equivalent in mean- ing to the word more. In the word bright-er, the syllable -er is the sign of the Comparative Degree. The w^ord bright-er is equivalent in meaning to more bright. The sign of the Superlative Degi-ee is equivalent in meaning to the word most. In the word hright-est, the syllable -est is the sign of the Superlative Degree. Also, the word bright-est is equivalent in meaning to the words most bright. The comparative degree is formed from the positive by the addition of the syllable -er ; as cold, cold-er ; rich, rich-er ; dry, dry-er ; low, low-er. This is the manner in which the greater part of the English comparatives is formed. § 358. Comparison of Adverbs. — The sun shines bright.' — Herein the word bright means brightly ; and although the use of the latter word would have been the more elegant, the expression is not ungrammatical ; the word bright being looked upon as an adjectival adverb. THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. 183 The sun shines to-daij hrir/hter than it did yesterday, and to-morrow it icill shine brightest. — Here also the sense is ad- verbial ; froju whence we get the fact^ that adverbs take degrees of comparison. Now let the root mag-, as in magnvs, iiiyac, and mikil (Norse), give the idea of greatness. In the Latin language we have from it two comparative forms: 1. the adjectival com- parative major ■=! greater ; 2. the adverbial comparative magis =z7nore {plus). The same takes place in Moeso-Gothic : maiza means greater, and is adjectival ; mais means more, and is adverbial. The Anglo-Saxon forms are more instructive still; e.g. \as \e md-=.all the more, \ds \e het'=.all the better, have a comparative sense, but not a comparative foi-m, the sign r being absent. § 359. Change of vowel. — By reference to Rask's " Gram- mar" (§ 128), it may be seen that in the Anglo-Saxon there were, for the comparative and superlative degrees, two forms; viz. -or and -re, and -ost and -este, respectively. The fulness or smallness of a vowel in a given syllable may work a change in the nature of the vowel in a syllable adjoining. In the Anglo-Saxon the following words exhibit a change of vowel : — Posifive. Comparative. Superlative. Lang, Lengre, Longest. Long. Strang, Strengre, Strangest. Strong Geong, Gyngre, Gyngest. Young. Sceort, Scyrtre, Scyrtest. Short. Heah, Hyrre, Hyhst. High. Eald, Yldre, Tldest. Old. Of this change, the word last quoted is a still-existing specimen, as old, elder and older, eldest and oldest. Between the two forms there is a difference in meaning, elder being used as a substantive, and hanng a plural form, elders. It has been stated above that in Anglo-Saxon there were two forms for the comparative and superlative degrees, one in -re and -este, the other in -or and -ost, respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives; as se 18^ THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. scearpe sweordzz the sharper sword, and se scearpeste sweord=. the sharpest sword. The second, on the othex- hand, was the form taken by adverbs; as, se sweord scyr^ scearpor •=: the sword cuts sharper, and se siveord sctjr^ scearpost = the sword cuts sharpest. The adjectival form has, as seen above, a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding syllable small ; old, elder. The adverbial form has a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding syllable full. Of this effect on the part of the adverbial form the adverbial comparative rather is a specimen. "VVe pronounce the a as in father, or full. Nevertheless, the positive form is small, the a being pronounced as the a mfate. The word rather means quick, easy rz the classical root paS- in pa^ioQ. What we do quickly and willingly we do preferably. Now if the word rather were an adjective, the vowel of the compai'ative would be sounded as the a in fate. As it is, howevei', it is adverbial, and as such is properly sounded as the a in father. The difference between the action of the small vowel in -re, and of the full in -or, effects this difference. § 360. Excess of expression. — Of this two samples have already been given: 1. in words like songstress; 2. in words like children. This may be called excess of expression ; the feminine gender, in words like songstress, and the plui-al num- ber, in words like children, being expressed twice over. In the vulgarism hetterer for better, and in the antiquated forms worser for ivorse, and lesser for less, we have in the case of the comparatives, as elsewhere, an excess of expression. In the Old High-German we have the forms betseroro, meroro, er'erera =: better, more, ere. § 361. Difference between a sequence in logic and a sequence in etymology. — The ideas or notions of thou, thy, thee, are ideas between which there is a metaphysical or logical connection. The train of such ideas may be said to form a sequence, and such a sequence may be called a logical one. The forms (or words) thou, thy, thee, are forms or words between which there is a formal or an etymological con- THE COMrARATIVE DEGREE. 186 nectlon. A train of such words may be called a sequence, and such a sequence may be called an etymological one. In the case of tituii, tinj, thee, the etymological sequence tallies with the logical one. The ideas of /, my, and me are also in a logical sequence : but the forms I, my, and me are not altogether in an etymolo- gical one. In the case of /, my, me, the etymological sequence does not tally (or tallies imperfectly) with the logical one. This is only another way of saying that between the words / and me there is no connection in etymology. It is also only another way of saying, that, in the oblique cases, 7, and, in the nominative case, me, are defective. Now the same is the case with good, better, bad, worse, &c. Good and bad are defective in the comparative and superlative degrees ; better and worse are defective in the positive ; whilst between good and better, bad and worse, there is a sequence in logic, but no sequence in etymology. § 362. It is necessary to know that in the Moeso-Gothic the comparative degree was formed differently from the compara- tive degi'ce in Anglo-Saxon, English, and the other allied languages. Instead of being formed by the addition of the sound of -r, it was formed by the addition of the sound of -s or -z. Positive. Comparative. Enylish. aid, ald-iza. old, old-er. silt, sut-iza, sweet, sweet-er. blind. bliud-oza, blind, blind-er. In the latter stages of language this s became r. In the word ivorse w^e may svippose that there is a remnant of the old comparative in -s or -z. The Moeso-Gothic form is vdirsiza, the Anglo-Saxon ryrsa. The following forms help to illustrate the history of the dif- ficult word : — Moeso-Gothic, vairsiza ; Old High-German, wirsiro ; INIiddle High-German, wirser ; Old Saxon, wirso ; Anglo-Saxon, vyrsa ; Old Norse, viirri ; Danish, V(er7'e ; and Swedish, vdrre. Such 186 THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. are the adjectival forms. The adverbial forms are — Moeso- GothiCj vairs ; Old High-German^ virs ; Middle High-German, wirs ; Anglo-Saxon, vijrs ; Old Norse, verr ; Danish, vcerre ; Swedish, vdrre. — Grimm, D. G. iii. 606. Whether the pre- sent form in English be originally adjectival or adverbial is in- different ; since, as soon as the final a of vyrsa was omitted, the two words would be the same. The forms, however, vair- siza, tvirser, worse, and verri, make the word one of the most perjjlexing in the language. If the form worse be taken without respect to the rest, the view of the matter is simply that in the termination s we have a remnant of the Moeso-Gothic forms, like sutiza, &c., in other words, the old comparative in s. Wirser and vairsiza traverse this view. They indicate the likelihood of the s being no sign of the degree, but a part of the original word. Otherwise the r in wirser, and the z in vairsiza, denote an excess of expression. The analogies of songstress, children, and hetsesroro show that excess of expression frequently occurs. The analogy of md and bet show that worse may possibly be a positive form. The word vei'vi indicates the belief that the s is no part of the root. Finally, the euphonic processes of the Scandinavian lan- guages tell us that, even had there been an s, it would, in all probability, have been ejected. These difficulties verify the statement that the word woi'se is one of the most perplexing in the language. Much, more. — Here, although the words be unlike each other, there is a true etymological relation. Moeso-Gothic, mikils ; Old High-German, mihhil ; Old Saxon, m?^?/; Anglo- Saxon, mycel ; Old Norse, mickill ; Scotch, muckle and mickle (all ending in /) ; Danish, megen, m. ; meget, n. ; Swed- ish, mycken, m.; myckett, n. (where no / is found). Such is the adjectival form of the positive, rarely found in the Modern Gothic languages, being replaced in German by gross, in English by great, in Danish by stor. The adverbial forms are miok and miog, Norse ; much, English. It is remarkable THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. 187 that this last forai is not found in Anglo-Saxon^ being rcj)laccd by sure, Germ, se/ir. — Gkimm, D. G. iii. C08. The adverbial and the Norse tbrnis indicate that the / is no part of the original word. Comparison with other Indo- European languages gives us the same circumstance : San- skrit, maha ; Latin, may-nus ; Greek, /ie'-yac {megas). There is in ]Moeso-Gothic the compai'ative form mdiza, and there is no objection to presuming a longer form, magiza ; since in the Greek form fidt^uw, compared with fii-yaq, there is a similar disappearance of the g. In the Old High-German we find mero, corresponding with nidlza, Moeso-Gothic, and with more, English. Mickle (replaced by great) expresses size; much, quantity; many, number. The words more and most apply equally to number and quantity. I am not prepared either to assert or to deny that many, in Anglo-Saxon mcBnig, is from the same root with much. Of the word md notice has already been taken. Its later form, moe, occurs as late as Queen Elizabeth, with an adjectival as well as an adverbial sense. Little, less. — Like much and more, these words are in an etymological relation to each other. McEso-Gothic, leitils ; Old High-German, luzil ; Old Saxon, luttil ; Anglo-Saxon, lytel ; Middle High-Gennan, lilt z el ; Old Norse, litill. In these forms we have the letter /. Old High-German Pro- vincial, luzk ; Old Frisian, litich ; Middle Dutch, luttik ; Swedish, liten; Danish, liden. — Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 611. From these we find that the / is either no part of the original word, or one that is easily got rid of. In Swed- ish and Danish there are the forms lille and liden; whilst in the neuter form, lidt, the d is unpronounced. Even the word liden the Danes have a tendency to pronounce leen. My owii notion is that these changes leave it possible for less to be derived from the root of little. According to Grimm, the Anglo-Saxon Idssa is the Gothic lasivoza, the comparative of lasivs =z weak. — Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 611. In Anglo-Saxon there was the adjectival form lassa, and the adverbial form kes. In either case we have the form s. Near, nearer. — Anglo-Saxon, 7ieah ; comparative, nearre, 188 THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. neai', nyr ; superlative, nyhst, nehst. Observe, in the Anglo- Saxon positive and superlative, the absence of the r. This shows that the English positive near is the Anglo-Saxon comparative nearre, and that in the secondary comparative nearer, we have an excess of expression. It may be, however, that the r in near is a mere point of orthography, and that it is not pronounced. The fact that in the English language the words father and farther are, for the most part, pronounced alike, is the key to the forms near and nearer. Farther. — Anglo-Saxon, feor, fyrre, fyrrest. The ih seems euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the § in av^poq. Further. — Confounded with farther, although in reality from a different word, ybre. Old High-German, ywrf/fr ; New High- Gei'man, der vordere ; Anglo-Saxon, fyr^re. Former. — A comparative formed from the superlative ; forma being such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with irregularity. THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. 189 CHAPTER XII. THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. § 363. The comparative degree is formed from the positive by the addition of the syllable -er ; as dark, dark-er ; cold, cold-er; rich, rich-er ; dry, dry-er ; low, low-er. The superlative degree is formed from the positive by the addition of the syllable -est ; as dark, dark-est ; cold, cold-est ; rich, rich-est ; dry, dry-est ; low, loio-est. But the superlative may also be formed from the comparative by changing the r of the comparative into s, and adding t ; as dark-er, dark-es, dark-es-t ; cold-er, cold-es, cold-es-t ; rich-er, rich-es,rich-es-t ; d7'y-er,dry-es, dry-es-t ; low-er, low-es, low-es-t. To understand the reason why this complex and apparently unnecessary process has been noticed, we must remember what has been said concerning the Moeso-Gothic language, and the extent to which it preserves the older forms of the Gothic in- flections. The Mceso-Gothic Comparative ivas not formed in r, but in s. — Ald-iza, hat-iza, sut-iza, were the original forms of what became in Old High-German alt-iro, hets-iro, suats-iro, and in English, old-er, hett-er, sweet-er. This is one fact. Another is, that irhilst many languages have a Comparative without a Superlative degree, few or none have a Superlative without a Comparative. Hence, in the case of a Superlative in -st, two views may be taken. According to the one it is the Positive with the addition of st ; according to the other, it is the old Comparative in -s with the addition only of /. Now, Grimm, and others, lay down as a rule, that the Su])erlative is formed, not directly from the Positive, but iiidi- rectly through the Comparative. 190 THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. With tlie exception of worse and less, all the English Com- paratives end in r ; yet no Superlative ends in rt, the form being, not wise, wiser, wisert, but wise, wiser, ivisest. This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives addi- tional importance to the Comparative forms in s ; since it is from these, before they have changed to r, that we must suppose the Superlatives to have been derived. This theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the Superlative degree. It was introduced into the languages allied to the English, after the establishment of the Comparative and before the change of s into r. Of the other English superlatives, the only ones that demand a detailed examination, are those that are generally despatched without difficulty; viz. the words in most; such as midmost, foremost, &c. The current view is, that they are compound words, formed from simple ones, by the addition of the super- lative term most. Grimm^s view is opposed to this. In appre- ciating Grimm^s view, we must bear in mind the phenomena of excess of expression ; at the same time we must not depart from the current theory without duly considering a fact stated by Rask; which is, that we have in Icelandic the forms ncermeir, fjcermeir, &c. Clearer, and farther, most unequivocally com- pounded of near and more, and of far and more. The A. S. gives us the following forms : — Anglo-Saxon. EnglisJt. innema (inn-ema) inmost utema (ut-ema) outraost si^ema (si^-ema) latest lajtema (Iset-ema) latest ni^ema (ni^-ema) nethermost forma (for-ma) foremost seftema (seft-ema) aftermost iifema (uf-ema) utmost laindema (hind-ema) hindmost midema (mid-ema) midmost. Besides these, there are in the other allied languages, words like fruma —first, aftuma — last, miduma = middle. ^ Now the words in question show at once, that, as far as THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. 191 they arc concerned, tlie m that aj)j)cars in the hist syllal>lc of each has nothing to do with the word most. Hence, from the words in question there was formed, in Anglo-Saxon, a regular superlative form in the usual manner ; viz. by the addition of st ; as afte-m-esf, fyr-m-est, late-m-est, sv^-m-est, yfe-m-est, ute-m-est. And, hence, in the present English, the different parts of the syllable most (in words like vpmost), come from different quar- ters. The m is the m in the Anglo-Saxon words innema, &c. ; whilst the -st is the common sign of the superlative. In sepa- rating such words as midmost into its component parts, we should write — mid-m-ost not mid-raost ut-m-ost — ut-raost up-m-ost — up-most fore-ra-ost — fore-most in-m-ost — in-most Iiind-m-ost — hind-most out-m-ost — out-most. In certain words the syllabic m-ost is added to a word already ending in er ; that is, to a word ali'cady marked with the sign of the comparative degree. neth-er-m-ost hind-cr-m-ost utt-er-m-ost out-er-m-ost upp-er-m-ost inn-er-m-ost. Having accounted for the m in the words just mentioned, we can account for the m, in the word former. Former {for-m-er) is a comparative from the Anglo-Saxon superlative forma ifor-m-a). . The words inmost, outmost, upmost, midmost, foremost, hind- most, utmost, arc doubly superlative. The words nethermost, uppermost, uttermost, undermost, outer- most, and innermost, arc trebly superlative. 192 THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. CHAPTER XIII. THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. § 364. / — we, us, me — thou — ye. — These constitute the true personal pronouns. From he, she, and it, they differ in being destitute of gender. These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only. In most other languages the current pronouns of the third person are, as in English, demonstrative rather than personal. The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exception- able. / and me, thou and ye, stand in no etymological relations to each other. The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective. / has no oblique, and me no nomina- tive case. And so with respect to the i-est. My. — My, as stated above, is a form originally accusative, but now used in a genitive sense. Me. — In Anglo-Saxon this was called a dative form. The fact seems to be that both my and me grow out of an accusative form, meh, mec. That the sound of k originally belonged to the pronouns me and thee, we learn not only from the Anglo-Saxon mec, \ec, meh, Ipeh, but from the Icelandic mik, \)ik, and the German mich, dich. This accounts for the foi'm my ; since y = ey, and the sounds of y and g are allied. That both me and my can be evolved from mik, we see in the present Scandinavian languages, where, very often even in the same district, mig is pronounced both mey and mee. We and our. — These words are not in the condition of / and me. Although the fact be obscured, they are really in an ety- mological relation to each other. This we infer from the alii- TUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 193 ancc between the sounds of ?/• and ou, and from tlic Danish forms vi {we), vor [oit?-). It may be doubted, however, whether our be a true genitive ratlier than an adjeetival form. In the form (Airs we find it phiying; the part, not of a case, but of an independent word. Upon this, however, too much stress can- not be laid. In Danish it takes a neuter form : tor rz nostn- ; vurt =: nostrum. From this I conceive that it agrees, not w ith the Latin genitive nostrum, but with the adjective noster. Wc, our, and us. — Even us is in an etymological relation to xce. That we and our are so, has just been shown. Now in Anglo- Saxon there were two forms of our, viz. ure (=: nostrum), and ^lser (z: noster). This connects ice and us through our. From these preliminary notices we have the changes in form of the true personal pronouns, as follows : — 1st Person. \st Term, {for nominative singular). I. TJndeclined. 2««? Term, {for the singular number). Ace. Me. Gen. il/y. Form in n — Mine. Zrd Term, {for the plural number). Nom. If'e. Ace. Us. Forms in /• and -r-s — Our, ours. 2nd Person. 1st Term, {for the singular number). Nom. Thou. Ace. Thee. Geu. Th^. Form in n — Thine. 2nd Term, {for the plural number). Nora. Te and you. Ace. Tou and ge. Forms in ;• and -?•-* — Your, gours. We and me have been dealt with as distinct words. But it is only for practical pur])oses that they can be considered to be thus separate; since the sound of m and iv arc allied. You. — As far as the practice of the present mode of speech is concerned, the word you is a nominative form ; since we say you move, you ore moving, you were speaking. Wliy should it not l)e treated as such ? There is no abso- lute reason why it should not. All that can be said is, that the historical reason and the logical reason are at variance. The Anglo-Saxon form for you was cow, for ye, ge. Neither bear any sign of ease at all, so that, form for form, they are VOL. II. O 194 THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. equally and indifferently nominative and accusative, as the habit of language may make them. Hence it, perhaps, is more logical to say that a certain form {you) is used either as a nominative or accusative, than to say that the accusative case is used instead of a nominative. It is clear that you can be used instead of ye only so far as it is nominative in power. Ye. — As far as the evidence of such expressions as get on with ye is concerned, the word ye is an accusative form. Me. — Carrying out the views just laid down, and admitting you to be a nominative, or ^wasi-nominative case, we may ex- tend the reasoning to the word me, and call it also a secondary nominative ; inasmuch as such phrases as it is me =. it is I are common. Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No one says that c'est moi is bad French, and that c'est je is good. The fact is, that the ^hole question is a question of degree. Has or has not the custom been suffi- ciently prevalent to have transferred the forms me, ye, and you from one case to another ? At the same time it must be observed that the expression it is me r= it is I will not justify the use of it is him, it is her z= it is he and it is she. Me, ye, you, are what may be called indif- ferent forms, i. e. nominative as mvich as accusative, and accu- sative as much as nominative. Him and her, on the other hand, are not indifferent. The -m and -r are respectively the signs of cases other than the nominative. Again : the reasons which allow the form you to be con- sidered as a nominative plural, on the strength of its being used for ye, will not allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its being used for thou. It is submitted to the reader, that in phrases like you are speaking, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural ; in other words, that the courtesy consists in treating one person as more than one, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, you =. thou is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural. Thus we say, you are speaking; not you art speaking. THE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN. 195 CHAPTER XIV. ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LAN- GUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH. § 3G5. A TRUE reflective pronoun is wanting in English, In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin prono- minal forms, se, sibi. Nor yet are there any equivalents in English to the so- called adjectival forms suus, sua, suuni : since his and he?- are the equivalents to ejus and illius, and are not adjectives but genitive cases. At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form as se (or its equivalent), there could be no such secondaiy foim as suus (or its equivalent). Such, however, is not the case. Suus might exist in the language, and yet se be absent ; in other words, the derivative form might have continued whilst the original one had become extinct. Such is really the case with the Old Frisian. The reflec- tive personal form, the equivalent to se, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive fonn, the equivalent to suus, is found. In the Modern Frisian, however, both forms are lost. The history of the reflective pronoun in the Gothic tongues is as follows : — In Mwso-Gothic. — Found in two cases, sis, sik'=.sibi, se. In Old Norse. — Ditto. Ser, sik z=. sibi, se. In Old High-German. — The dative form lost; there being no such word as sir :r sis = sibi. In Old Frisian. — As stated above, there is here no equi\a- lent to se ; whilst there is the adjectival form sin =. suus. In Old Saxon. — The equivalent to se and sibi veiy rare. o 2 196 THE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN. The equivalent to suus not common, but commoner than in Anglo-Saxon. In Anglo-Saxon. — No instance of the equivalent to se at all. The forms sinnezzsuum, and sinum:=suo, occur in Beowulf. In Cfedmon cases of sinzzsuus, are more frequent. Still the usual form is his i= ejus. In the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, the true reflectives, both personal and possessive, occur; so that the modern Fri- sian and English stand alone in respect to the entire absence of them. — Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 321 — 348. The statement concerning the absence of the true reflective in English, although negative, has an important philological bearing on more points than one. 1 . It renders the use of the word self much more necessary than it would be otherwise. 2. It renders us unable to draw a distinction between the meanings of the Latin words suus and ejus. 3. It precludes the possibility of the evolution of a middle voice like that of the Old Norse, where kalla-sc:=. kalla-sik. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. 1^7 CHAPTER XV. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, &C. § 366. The demonstrative pronouns arc, 1. He, it. 2. She. 3. This, that. 4. The. He, she, and it, generally looked on as personal, are here treated as demonstrative pronoims, for the following reasons. 1. The personal pronouns form an extremely natural class, if the pronouns of the two first persons be taken by themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along with he, it, and she. The absence of gender, the peculiarity in their declension, and their defectiveness, are marked characters wherein they agree with each other, but not A\"ith any other words. 2. The idea expressed by he, it, and she is naturally that of demonstrativeness. In the Latin language is, ea, id ; ille, ilia, illud ; hie, hcec, hoc, are demonstrative pronouns in sense, as well as in declension. 3. The plural forms they, them, in the present English, arc the plural forms of the root of that, a true demonstrative ])ro- noun ; so that even if he, she, and it could be treated as per- sonal pronouns, it could only be in the singular number. 4. The word she has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon seo. Now seo was in Anglo-Saxon the feminine form of the definite article ; the definite article being a demonstrative pronoun. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as follows : — She. — The Anglo-Saxon form heo, being lost to the lan- guage, is replaced by the feminine article seo. Her. — This is a case, not of the present she, but of the Anglo-Saxon heo: so that she may be said to be defective in the oblique cases and her to be defective in the nomi- native. 198 THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. Him. — A true dative form, which has replaced the Anglo- Saxon hine. When used as a dative, it was neuter as well as masculine. His. — Originally neuter as well as masculine. Now, as a neuter, replaced by its — " et quidem ipsa vox his, ut et inter- rogativum whose, nihil aliud sunt quam hee's, who's, ubi * omnino idem prsestat quod in aliis possessivis. Similiter au- tem his pro hee's eodem errore quo nonnunquam hin pro been; item whose pro who^s eodem eri-ore quo done, gone, knowne, growne, &c., pro doen, goen, knowen, vel do'n, gd'n, know'n, grow'n ; utrobique contra analogiam linguse ; sed usu defenditur." — Wallis, c. v. //. — Changed from the Anglo-Saxon hit, by the ejection of h. The t is no part of the original word, but a sign of the neuter gender, forming it regularly from he. The same neuter sign is preserved in the Latin id and illud. Its. — In the course of time the nature of the neuter sign t, in it, the form being found in but a few words, became misunderstood. Instead of being looked on as an affix, it passed for part of the original word. Hence was formed from it the anomalous genitive its, superseding the Saxon his. The same was the case with — Hers. — The r is no part of the original word, but the sign of the dative case. These formations are of value in the histoiy of cases. They, their, them. — As hit changed into it ; as heo became replaced by she, and as the vowel form the, as an arti- cle, came to serve for all the cases of all the genders, two circumstances took place: 1. The forms ]idm and ^dra as definite articles became superfluous ; and, 2. The connection between the plural forms hi, heom, heora, and the singular forms he and it, grew indistinct. These were conditions favourable to the use of the forms theij, them, and their, instead of hi, heom, heora. Theirs. — In the same predicament with hers and its. Than or tlien, and there. — Although now adverbs, they were once demonstrative pronouns, in a certain case and in a certain gender — than and then masculine accusative and singular, there feminine dative and singular. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. 199 An exhibition of the Anglo-Saxon declension is the best ex- planation of the English, lie it observed, that the cases marked in italics are found in the present language. I. Se, seu. Of this word the Anglo-Saxon has two forms only, both of the singular number, and both in the nominative case ; viz. masc. se ; fem. sea (the) the article were taken from the pronoun ])(Et. II. ])cet (that, the), and \)i.s (this). The neuter gender and the other cases of Neut. Masc. Fem. Neut. Masc. Fem. Sing. Nona. ])(et Y>s C3 Jjeos. Ace. \)cei ])one jja jjis J)isne )3as. Abl. \>y Jjy ]>a're. Jj/V fiise fiissc. Dat. Jiara f^im \!re're. f)isum fisum ))isse. Gen. fses })3es \)(e're. jjises J)ises JjissCi Pkir. Nora. Ace. \d. \fh. Abl. Dat. \dm. })isum. Gen. \)dra. Jjissa. til. Hit (it), he (he), heu (she). Sing. Nom. Jdt he heo. Ace. kit hine hi. Dat. kim him hire. (ien. his his hire. Plur. Nom. Ace. Dat. Gen. hi. him (heom). hira (heora). IV. ])ica persona, tun persona, &c. Fatcor tamen himself, itself, themselves, vulgo dici pro his-self, its-self, theirselves ; at (intcrposito oion) his own self, &c., ipsius propria persona,^' kc. — AVallis, c. vii. 4. The fact that many persons actually say hisself and their- selves. Whit. — As in the phrase not a ivhif. This enters in the compound pronomis ouffht and naught. Qnc^ — As in the phrase one does so and so. From the French on. Observe that this is from the Latin homo, in Old French horn, om. In the Germanic tongues man is used in the same sense: man sagtrzone saysz=.on dit. One, like self and other, is so far a substantive, that it is inflected. Gen. sing. one's own self : plural, my wife and little ones are ivell. Derived pronouns. — Any, in Anglo-Saxon, cenig. In Old High-German we have eimcz^any, and einac=: single. In Anglo-Saxon dnega means single. In IMiddlc High-German einec is always single. In New High-German einig means, 1. a certain person [quidam), 2. agreeing; einzig meaning single. In Dutch enech has both meanings. This indicates the word an, one, as the root of the word in question. — Grimm, D. G. iii. 9. Compound pronouns. — Which, as has been already stated more than once, is most incorrectly called the neuter of u-ho. Instead of being a neuter, it is a compound word. The adjective leiks, like, is preserved in the Mocso-Gothic words galeiks, and missaleiks. In Old High-German the form is lih, in Anglo-Saxon lie. Hence we have Moeso-Gothic, hveleiks ; Old High-German, huelih ; Anglo-Saxon, huilic and hvilc ; Old 'Frisian, hwelik ; Danish, hvilk-en ; German, welch; Scotch, ichilk ; Enghsh, which. (Gkimm, D. G. iii. 47.) The same is the case with — 1. Such. — iNIoeso-Gothic, svaleiks ; Old High-German, solih; Old Saxon, sulk; Anglo-Saxon, svilc ; German, solch ; Eng- lish, such. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 48.) Rask^s derivation of the Anglo-Saxon sivilc from swa-ylc, is exceptionable. 2. Thilk. — An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, as thick, thuck, theck, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt, Ritsou, and Weber, from se ylca, is found in the following 206 RELATIVE AND INTERROaATIVE PRONOUNS. forms : Moeso-Gothic^ ]>eleiks ; Norse, ])vilikr. (Grimm, iii. 49.) 3. Ilk. — Found in the Scotcli, and always preceded by the article ; the ilk, or that ilk, meaning the same. In Anglo- Saxon this word is ylca, preceded also by the article se ylca, seo ylce, ]i(Bt ylce. In English, as seen above, the word is replaced by same. In no other Gothic dialect does it occur. According to Grimm, this is no simple word, but a compound one, of which some such word as ei is the first, and lie the second element. {Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 50.) Aught. — In Moeso-Gothic is found the particle aiv, ever, but only in negative propositions ; ni {not) preceding it. Its Old High-German form is eo, io ; in Middle High-German, ie ; in New High-German, je ; in Old Saxon, io ; in Anglo-Saxon, d; in Norse, «. Combined with this particle the word whit {thing) gives the following forms : Old High-German, eowiht ; Anglo-Saxon, dviht ; Old Frisian, dwet ; English, aught. The word naught is aught preceded by the negative particle. {Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 52.) Each. — The particle gi enters, like the particle, in the com- position of pronouns. Old High-German, eogaliher, every one ; eocalih, all ; Middle High-German, iegelich ; New High- German, jeglich ; Anglo-Saxon, (elc ; English, each ; the / being dropped, as in 7vhich and such. yElc, as the original of the English each and the Scotch ilka,^ must by no means be confounded with the word ylce, the same. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 54.) Every, in Old English, everich, everech, everilk one, is celc, preceded by the particle ever. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 54.) Either. — Old High-German, eogahuedar ; Middle }i\^\- Gevman, iegeweder ; Anglo-Saxon, csghvd^er, ceg^er ; Old Fri- sian, eider. Neither. — The same, with the negative article prefixed. Neither : either : : naught : aught. * Different from ilk. THE ARTICLES. 207 CHAPTER XVII. THE ARTICLES. § 368. In the generality of graininars the definite article the, and the indefinite article an, are the veiy first parts of speech that are considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there is no indefi- nite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite article. In the former language they say avi'ip rig'^a certain man : in the Latin the words filius patris mean equally the son of the father, a son of a father, a son of the father,- or the son of a father. In ]\IcESo-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the indefinite article ; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a different word fi-om w^hat occurs in English. In these the Greek ng is expressed by the Gothic root sum. Now, as it is very evident that, as far as the sense is con- cerned, the words some man, a certain man, and a man, are, there or thereabouts, the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and jMocso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the argument, be fairly said that the words sum and Tig are pronouns with a certain sense, and that a and an are no more; consequently, that in Greek the indefinite atticle is ng, in Moeso-Gothic sum, and in English a or an. A distinction, however, may be made. In the expression ctj'j/jO Tig {ancer tis)zz.a certain man, or a man, and in the expression sum mann, the words sxim and Tig preserve their natural and original meaning : whilst in a man and an ox the words a and an are used in a secondaiy sense. These words, as is currently known, are one and the same, the n, in the form a, being ejected through a euphonic process. 208 THE ARTICLES. They are, moreover, the same words with the numeral one ; Anglo-Saxon, an; Scotch, ane. Now, between the words a man and one man, there is a difference in meaning ; the first expression being the most indefinite. Hence comes the differ- ence between the English and the Moeso-Gothic expressions. In the one word sum has a natural, in the other the word an has a secondary power. The same reasoning applies to the w^ord the. Compared with a man, the words the man are very definite. Compared, however, with the words that man, they are the contrary. Now, just as an and a have arisen out of the numeral one, so has the arisen out of the demonstrative pronoun ^cet, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in Anglo-Saxon there was a form \e, undeclined, and common to all the cases of all the numbers. In no language in its oldest stage is there ever a word giving, in its primary sense, the ideas of a and the. As tongues become modern, some noun with a similar sense is used to express them. In the course of time a change of form takes place, corresponding to the change of meaning; e.g. one becomes an, and afterwards a. Then it is that articles become looked upon as separate parts of speech, and are dealt with accordingly. No invalidation of this statement is drawn from the Greek language. Although the first page of the etymology gives us 6, 17, to [ho, hce, to), as the definite articles, the corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that in the oldest stage of the language, 6 (Ao) rz the, had the power of ouro^- {howtos) zz. this. The origin of the articles seems uniform. In German ein, in Danish en, stand to one in the same relation that an does. The French un, Italian and Spanish uno, are similarly related to unus zz one. And as, in English tlie, in German dei', in Danish den, come from the demonstrative pronouns, so in the classical languages are the French le, the Italian il and lo, and the Spanish el, de- rived from the Latin demonstrative, ille. In his Outlines of Logic, the present writer has given reasons for considering the word no (as in no man) an article. TTTE ARTICLES. 209 That the, in expressions like all the more, all the better, &c., is no article, has already been shown. The declension of the pronouns, as given in a tabular view, is as follows : — Pronouns of the First Person Sinf/ular. Nom. /. Poss. — Obj. _ Nom. — Poss. my Obj. me. Pronoun of the First Person Plural, Xotn. ice Poss. our Obj. ns. Pronoun of the Second Person Singular. Nora. tkou Poss. t/iy Obj. tkeei- Pronoun of the Second Person Plural. Nom. ye ox you Poss. your Obj. you or ye. Pronouns of the Third Person Singular, originally Demonstrative. 1. Neut. its f it. Neut, Poss. — — — Obj. _ — _ * Originally hit ; t being' the sigu of the neuter gender. t Originally his. X The masculine form se existed in Anglo-Saxon, but is now extinct. VOL. II. p 2[asc. Fern. Nora, he Poss. his her Obj. him her 2. Masc. Fern. Nom. — she t 210 THE ARTICLES. 3. Pronoun of the Third Person Plural, originally Demonstrative. For all Genders alike. Nom. tkey Poss. their Obj. them. 4. Demonstrative Pronouns, signifying nearness or proximity. Sing, this \ Plur. thee. Demonstrative Pronouns, signifying distance. 1. Sing, that Plur. those. Relative Pronoun, Sing. ] Plur. Masc . and Fem. Neut. Masc. and Fem. Nora. icho what Nom. who Poss. whose Poss. whose Obj. whom what. Obj. whom. The Reflect ]ve Pronoun. Sing. Plur. Nom. self Nom. selves Poss. self 's. Poss. selves' Neut. This is my own dear self, and this my own dear self's handi- work. These are our own selves' making. Such forms as self's and selves' are undoubtedly rare; perhaps no instance can be found of them. At the same time they are possible forms, and, if wanted, are strictly grammatical. Sub- stitute the word individuality for self, and we see how truly its nature is substantival. A. This is the opinion of a humble individual {my self). B. The7i I don't think much of your humble individuality (self), nor yet of your humble individuality's [self's) opinion. THE ARTICLES. 211 Indeterminate Pronoun. Sing. Plur. Nom. one Poss. one's. Nom. onen Poss. ones' One is unwilling to put one's friend to trouble. My wife and little ones are ivell. These are my two little ones' play- things. P o. 212 ON THE CARDINAL NUMBERS. CHAPTER XVIII. OF THE CARDINAL NUMBERS. § 369. In one sense the cai'dinal numbers form no part of a work on etymology. They are single words, apparently simple, and, as such, appertaining to a dictionary rather than to a grammar. In another sense they are strictly etymological. They are the basis of the ordinals, which are formed from them by derivation. Furthermore, some of them either have, or are supposed to have, certain peculiarities of form which can be accounted for only by considering them derivatives, and that of a very peculiar hind. It is an ethnological fact, that the numerals are essentially the same throughout the whole Indo-European class of lan- guages. The English three is the Latin tres, the Sanskrit tri, &c. In the Indo-European languages the numerals agree, even when many common terms differ. And it is also an ethnological fact, that in a great many other groups of languages the numerals differ, even when many of the common terms agree. This is the case with many of the African and American dialects. Languages alike in the common terras for common objects differ in respect to the nu- merals. What is the reason for this inconsistency in the similarity or dissimilarity of the numerals as compared with the similarity or dissimilarity of other words ? I believe that the following dis- tinction leads the way to it : — The word two =: 2, absolutely and unequivocally, and in a primary manner. The word pair also = 2 ; but not absolutely, not unequivo- cally, and only in a secondary manner. ON THE CARDINAL NUMBERS. 21 .'3 Hence the distinction between absolute terms expressive of number, and secondary terms expressive of number. When hinguages separate from a common stock before the use of certain words is fixed as absolute, there is room for considerable latitude in the choice of numerals; e.g. whilst with one tribe the word pair =. two, another tribe may use the word couple, a third brace, and so on. In this case dialects that agree in other respects may differ in respect to their numerals. When, on the other hand, languages separate from a common stock after the meaning of such a word as two has been fixed absolutely, there is no room for latitude ; and the numerals agree where the remainder of the language differs. 1. One-=.unus, Latin; iig (tV), Greek. 2. Two = duo, Svo. 3. Three :zz tres, rpilc;. 4. Four z= qua tuor, Tirrapa — this is apparently problemati- cal. Nevertheless, the assumed changes can be verified by the following forms : — a. Fidvor, Moeso-Gothic — to be compared with quatuor. h. Yllavptq, iEolic — illustrates the change between r- and IT- (allied to/-), within the pale of the classical languages. 5. Five •=. quinque, irivre — verified by the following forms : — a. TlifXTre, ^Eolic Greek. b. Pump, Welsh — these account for the change from the n-\-t in TTtvTe to m+p. c. Fimf, Moeso-Gothic ; fiinf, Modern High-German. d. Fern, Norse. The change from the tt- of Trivre to the qu- of quinque is the change so often quoted by Latin and Celtic scholars between j^ and k : 'l-mrog, 'iKKog, equus. 6. Sixzz'lB,, sex. 7. Seven =itTr-u, septem. This form is difficult. The Moeso-Gothic form is sibun, without a -t-; the Norse, syv, without either -t- or -n (rr-?n). A possible explanation of the form seven, &c., will be found in the following chapter. 8. Eight zz OKTO), octo. 214 ON THE CARDINAL NUMBERS. 9. NinezzlvvLa, novem. The Moeso-Gothic form is nigun, the Icelandic niu. In the Latin novem, the v •=. the g of nigun. In the Enghsh and Greek it is wanting. The explanation of the -n and -m will be found in the following chapter. 10. Ten — Sf (ca, decern. The Moeso-Gothic form is tihun ; wherein the h z= the c of decern and the k of Sc'fca. The Ice- landic form is iiu, smd, like deKa, is without the -n (or -m). The hyjjothesis as to the -yn or -n will be given in the next chapter. 11. Eleven. By no means the equivalent to undecim =: 1 + 10. a. The e is einz=:one. Einli?, em-lef, eilef, eflf, elf, Old High-German ; andlova, Old Frisian ; mc?-leofan, endinian, Anglo-Saxon. This is imiversally admitted. b. The -lev- is a modification of the root laib-an = manere r= to stay z^ to be over. Hence eleven zz one over {ten). This is not universally admitted. c. The -n has not been well accounted for. It is peculiar to the Low Germanic dialects. — Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946. 12. Twelve zz the root ^?^o-l-the root laib=ztwo over (ten). Tvalif, Mceso-Gothic ; zuelif, Old High-German ; toll, Swedish. The same doubts that apply to the doctrine of the -Iv- in eleven representing the root -laib, apply to the -Iv- in twelve. — Deut- sche Grammatik, ii. 946. 13. Thirteen zz2> + \^. So on till twenty. 30. Thh'ty=:.2>-\-\0, or three decads. This difference in the decimal power of the syllables -teen and -ty is illustrated by- a. The Moeso-Gothic. — Here we find the root tig- used as a true substantive, equivalent in form as well as power to the Greek StK-ag. Tvdim tigum \usandjom. z=: duobus decadibus myriadum. (Luke xiv. 31.) Jere \rije tigiveziLannorum dua- rum decadum. (Luke iii. 23.) frms tiguns silubrinaize = tres decadas argenteorum. (Matthew xxvii. 3, 9.) — Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 948. b. The Icelandic. — "The numbers from 20 to 100 are formed by means of the numeral substantive, tigr, declined ON THE CARDINAL NUMBERS. 215 like vi'Sr, and naturally taking the word which it numerically determines in the genitive case. Nom. Fjorir tiu:ir maniui = four lem of men. Gen. rjijgun'a tiga manna = of four tens of men. Bat. Fjdrum tigum manna "= to four tens of men. Ace. rjdra tiga manna = four tens of men. " This is the ibrui of the inflection in the best and oldest MSS. A little later was adopted the indeclinable form tigi, which was used adjectivally/^ — Det Oldnorske Sprogs Gram- matik, af P. A. Munch, eg C. B. Unger, Christiania, 1847. Generally speaking, the greater part of the numerals are un- declined, even in inflected languages. As far as number goes, this is necessary. One is naturally and exclusively singular. Tico is naturally dual. The rest are naturally and exclusively plural. As to the inflection of gender and cases, there is no reason why all the numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin units, una, unum, uniits. 216 ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS. CHAPTER XIX. ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS. § 370. The remarks at the close of the last chapter but one indicated the fact that superlative forms were found beyond the superlative degree. The present chapter shows that they are certainly found in some, and possibly in all of the ordinal numbers. First. — In Mceso-Gothic, fruma, frumist ; in Anglo-Saxon, forma, fijrmest ; in Old High-German, vurist ; in Old Norse, fyrst ; in New High-German, erst. In all these words, whether in m, in mst, or in st, there is a superlative form. The same is the case with pratamas, Sanskrit; fratemas, Zend; irpCjTOQ, Greek ; primus, Latin ; primas, Lithuanic. Considering that, compared with the other ordinals, the ordinal of one is a sort of superlative, this is not at all surprising. Between the words 07ie and first there is no etymological relation. This is the case in most languages. Unus, primus, tic, TrpioTOg, &C. Second. — Between this word and its cardinal, two, there is no etymological connection. This is the case in many, if not in most, languages. In Latin the cardinal is duo, and the ordinal secundus, a gerund of sequor, and meaning the follow- ing. In Anglo-Saxon the form was se o^er z= the other. In the present German, the ordinal is zweite, a word etymologi- cally connected with the cardinal zwei =: two. Old High-German, andar ; Old Saxon, othar ; Old Frisian, other ; Middle Dutch, ander. In all these words we have the comparative form -ter ; and considering that, compared with the word first, the word second is a sort of comparative, there is nothing in the circumstance to surprise us. The Greek ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS. 217 forms BtvTtpog and inpor, the Latiu alter, and the Lithuanic antras, are the same. §371. With the third ordinal number begin difficulties: 1, in respect to their form; 2, in respect to the idea conveyed by them. 1. Comparing third, fourth, fifth, &c., with three, four, and five, the formation of the ordinal from the cardinal form may seem simply to consist in the addition of d or th. Such, how- ever, is far from being the case. 2. Arguing from the nature of the first two ordinals, namely, the words first and second, of which one has been called a su- perlative and the other a comparative, it may seem a simple matter to associate, in regard to the rest, the idea of ordinalism with the idea of comparison. A plain distinction, however, will show that the case of the first two ordinals is ])eculiar. First is a superlative, not as compared with its cardinal, one, but as compared with the other numerals. Second, or other, is a comparative, not as compared with its cardinal, tico, but as compared with the numeral one. Now, it is very evident, that, if the other cardinals be either comparatives or superlatives, they must be so, not as compared with one another, but as compared with their respective cardinals. Sixth, to be anything like a superlative, must be so when compared with six. Now, there arc, in etymology, two ways of determining the affinity of ideas. The first is the metaphysical, the second the empirical method. This is better than that, is a sentence which the pure meta- physician may deal with. He may first determine that there is in it the idea of comparison ; and next, that the comparison is the comparison between two objects, and no more than two. The idea he may compare with others. He may determine, that, with a sentence like this is one and that is the other, it has something in connnon ; since both assert something concerning one out of two objects. Upon this connection in sense he is at liberty to reason. He is at liberty to conceive that in certain languages words expressive of allied ideas may also be allied in form. AVhcther such be really the case, he leaves to etymolo- gists to decide. The pure etymologist proceeds differently. He assumes the 218 ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS. connection in meaning from the connection in form. All that he at first observes is, that words like other and better have one and the same termination. For this identity he attempts to give a reason, and finds that he can best account for it by pre- suming some afiinity in sense. Whether there be such an affinity, he leaves to the metaphysician to decide. This is the empirical method. At times the two methods coincide, and ideas evidently allied are expressed by forms evidently allied. At times the connection between the ideas is evident ; but the connection between the forms obscure : and vice versa. Oftener, however, the case is as it is with the subjects of the present chapter. Are the ideas of ordinalism in number, and of superlativeness in degree, allied ? The metaphysical view, taken by itself, gives us but unsatisfactory evidence; whilst the empirical view, taken by itself, does the same. The two views, however, taken together, give us evidence of the kind called cumulative, which is weak or strong according to its degree. Compared with three, four, &c., all the ordinals are formed by the addition of th, or t ; and th, ^, t, or d, is the ordinal sign, not only in English, but in the other Gothic languages. But, as stated before, this is not the whole of the question. The letter / is found, with a similar power, 1. In Latin, as in tertius, quartus, quintus, sextus ; 2. Greek, as in rpiTog [tritos], TirapTOQ [tetartos], tt'chtttoq [pemptos), 'Iktoq [hectos), evvaTog {ennatos), ^sKarog [dekatos); 3. Sanskrit, as in triti- yas, 'catuj'tas, shasht'as = third, fourth, sixth ; 4. In Zend, as in thrityasz=.the third, haptathaszz. the seventh; 5. In Lithuanic, as ketwirtas z=. fourth, penktas •=. fifth, szesztas zz. sixth ; 6. In Old Slavonic, as in cetvertyi ■=. fourth, pjatiji ■=. fifth, shestyi = sixth, devjatyi = ninth, desjatyi r= tenth. Speaking more gene- rally, it is found, with a similar force, throughout the Indo- European stock. The following forms indicate a fresh train of reasoning. The Greek Ittto. [hepta), and Icelandic sjau, have been com- pared with the Latin septem and the Anglo-Saxon seofon. In the Greek and Icelandic there is the absence, in the Latin and Ana;lo-Saxon the presence, of a final liquid (m or n). ON THE OIIDIXAL NUMBERS. 21!) Agaiiij the Greek forais Ivvia (ennea), and the Icelandic niu ^nine, have been compared with the Latin nuvem and the Gothic nigun. Thirdly, the Greek Seku (deka), and the Icelandic tiu, have been conipai'ed A^th the Latin decern and the Gothic tihunzz. ten. These three examples indicate the same circumstance ; viz. that the m or n, in seven, nine, and ten, is no part of the original word. The following hypotheses account for these phenomena; viz. that the termination of the ordinals is the superlative termination -tam : that in some words, like the Latin septimus, the whole form is preserved ; that in some, as in Tiraproq zn fourth, the t only remains ; and that in others, as in decimus, the m alone remains. Finally, that in seven, nine, and ten, the final liquid, although now belonging to the cardinal, was once the characteristic of the ordinal number. For a fuller exhibition of these \'iews, see Gri.mm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. GiO. 220 ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF CHAPTER XX. ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE. § 372. Before we pass from the Declension of Nouns to the Conjugation of Verbs, a few remarks must be made on the grammatical position of the words mine and thine. The inflection of pronouns has its natural peculiarities in language. It has also its natural difficulties in philology. These occur not in one language in particular, but in all generally. The most common peculiarity in the grammar of pronouns is the fact of what may be called their convertibility. Of this convertibility the following statements serve as illustra- tion : — 1. Of case. — In our own language the words my and thy, although at present possessives, were previously datives, and, earlier still, accusatives. Again, the accusative you replaces the nominative ye, and vice versa. 2. Of number. — The words thou and thee are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, ye and you, have replaced them. 3. Of person. — The Greek language gives us examples of this in the promiscuous use of viv, fiiv, ct^e, and lavrov ; whilst sich and sik are used with a similar latitude in the Mid- dle High-German and Scandinavian. 4. Of class. — The demonstrative pronouns become — a. Personal pronouns. b. Eelative pronouns. c. Articles. These statements are made for the sake of illustrating, not THE WORDS MINE AND THINE. 221 of exhausting, the subject. It follows, however, as an in- ference from them, that the classification of pronouns is com- plicated. Even if we knew the original power and derivation of every form of every pronoun in a language, it would be far from an easy matter to determine therefrom the paradigm that they should take in grammar. To place a word accord- ing to its power in a late stage of language might confuse the studv of an early stage. To say that because a word was once in a given class, it should always be so, would be to deny that in the present English they, these, and she are personal pro- nouns at all. The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a pro- noun, its present power and its orirjinal power, are often con- flicting. In the English language the point of most importance in this department of grammar is the place of forms like mine and thine; in other words, of the forms in -n. Are they genitive cases of a personal pronoun, as mei and tui are sup- posed to be in Latin, or are they possessive pronouns, like mevs and tuus ? Now, if we take up the common grammars of the English language as it is, we find, that, whilst my and thy are dealt with as genitive cases, mine and thine ai'e considered adjectives. In the Anglo-Saxon grammars, however, min and ]iin, the older forms of mine and thine, are treated as genitives ; of which my and thy have been dealt with as abbreviated forms, and that by respectable scholars. Now^, to prove from the syntax of the older English that in many cases the two forms w^ere convertible, and to answer that the words in question are either genitive cases or adjectives, is lax philology ; since the real question is, ichich of the two is the primary, and which the secondary meaning ? The a priori view of the likelihood of words like mine and thine being genitive cases, must be determined by the compa- rison of three series of facts. 1. The ideas expressed by the genitive case, with particular reference to the two preponderating notions of possession and partition. 2. The circumstance of the particular notion of possession 222 ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF being, in the case of the personal pronouns of the two first persons singular, generally expressed by a form undoubtedly adjectival. 3. The extent to which the idea of partition becomes merged in that of possession, and vice versa. The ideas of possession and partition as expressed by genitive fo7'ms. — If we take a hundred genitive cases, and observe their construction, we shall find, that, with a vast majority of them, the meaning is reducible to one or two heads ; viz. the idea of possession or the idea of partition. Compared with these two powers all the others are incon- siderable, both in number and importance; and if, as in the Greek and Latin languages, they take up a large space in the grammars, it is from their exceptional character rather than from their normal genitival signification. Again, if both the ideas of possession and partition may, and in many cases must be, reduced to the more general idea of relation, this is a point of grammatical phraseology by no means afi'ecting the practical and special bearings of the pre- sent division. The adjectival expression of the idea of possession. — All the world over, a property is a possession ; and persons, at least, may be said to be the owners of their attributes. Whatever may be the nature of words like mine and thine, the ad- jectival character of their Latin equivalents, mens and tuus, is undoubted. The ideas of partition and possession merge into one another. — A man's spade is the possession of a man ; a man's hand is the part of a man. Nevertheless, when a man uses his hand as the instrument of his will, the idea which arises from the fact of its being part of his body is merged in the idea of the possessorship which arises from the feeling of ownership or mastery which is evinced in its subservience and application. Without following the refinements to which the further inves- tigation of these questions would lead us, it is sufiicient to suggest that the preponderance of the two allied ideas of partition and possession is often determined by the personality or the non-personality of the subject, and that, when the subject is a person, the idea is chiefly possessive; when a THE WORDS MINE AND THINE. 223 tiling, partitive — caput Jluiii = tlw head, u-hich is a part, of a river ; caput Tuli — the head, which is the possession, of Tolas. But as persons may be degraded to the rank of things, and as things may, by personification, be elevated to the level of persons, this distinction, although real, may become apparently invalid. In phrases like, a tributary to the Tiber — the criminal lost his ei/e — this field belongs to that parish — the ideas of pos- sessorship and partition, as allied ideas subordinate to the idea of relationship in general, verify the interchange. These observations should bring us to the fact that there are two ideas which, more than any other, determine the evolution of a genitive case — the idea of partition and the idea of posses- sion ; and tluit genitive cases are likely to be evolved just in pro- portion as there is a necessity for the expression of these two ideas. — Let this be applied to the question of the a priori pro- bability of the evolution of a genitive case to the pronouns of the first and second persons of the singular number. The idea of possession, and its likelihood of determining the evolution of a genitive form to the pronouns of the first and second person singular. — It is less likely to do so with such pronouns than with other words, inasmuch as it is less necessary. It has been before observed, that the practice of most languages shows a tendency to express the relation by adjectival forms — mens, tuus. An objection against the conclusiveness of this argument will be mentioned in the sequel. The idea of partition, and its likelihood of determining the evolution of a genitive form, &^c. — Less than with other words. A personal pronoun of the singular number is the name of a unity, and, as such, the name of an object far less likely to be separated into parts than the name of a collection. Phrases like, some of them, one of you, many of us, any of them, few of us, ^c, have no analogues in the singular number, such as, one of me, a few of thee, &c. The partitive words that can combine with singular pronouns are comparatively few; viz. half quar- ter, part, &c. : and they can all combine equally with plurals — half of us, a quarter of them, a part of you, a portion of us. 224 ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OP The partition of a singular object with a pronominal name is of rare occurrence in language. This last statement proves something more than appears at first sight. It proves that no argument in favour of the so- called singular genitives, like mine and thine, can be drawn from the admission (if made) of the existence of the true plural geni- tives ou-r, you-r, tliei-r. The two ideas are not in the same predicament. We can say, one of ten, or ten of twenty ; but we cannot say one of one — Was hira Matheus sum =. Matthew was one of them ; Andreas : Your noither = neither of you ; Amis and Ameloun — from Mr. Guest : Her eyder zz either of them; Octavian. — Besides this, the form of the two numbers is neither identical, nor equally genitival ; as may be seen by contrasting mi-n and thi-n with ou-r and you-r. Such are the chief a priori arguments against the genitival character of words like mine and thine. Akin to these, and a point which precedes the a posteriori evidence as to the nature of the words in question, is the deter- mination of the side on which lies the onus probandi. This question is material ; inasmuch as, although the present wTiter believes, for his own part, that the forms under discussion are adjectival rather than genitival, this is not the point upon which he insists. What he insists upon is, the fact of the genitival character of mine and thine requiring a particular proof ; which particular proof no one has yet given : in other words, his position is, that they are not to be thought genitive until proved to be such. It has not been sufficiently considered that the prima facie evidence is against them. They have not the form of a geni- tive case — indeed, they have a difi'erent one ; and whoever assumes a second form for a given case has the burden of proof on his side. Against this circumstance of the -n in mine and thine being the sign of anything rather than of a genitive case, and against the prima facie evidence afforded by it, the following facts may be, or have been, adduced as reasons on the other side. The appreciation of their value, either taken singly or in the way of cumulative evidence, is submitted to the reader. It will be seen that none of them are unexceptionable. THE WORDS MINE AND THINE. 225 The fact that, if the irords mine and thine fl?r not genitive cases, there is not a (jenitive case at all. — It is not necessary that there should be one. Particular reasons in favour of the pro- bability of personal pronouns of the singular number being destitute of such a case have been already adduced. 7/ is more likely that a word should be defective than that it should have a separate form. The analogy of the forms mei and e/uov in Latin and Greek. — It cannot be denied that this has some value. Nevertheless, the argument deducible from it is anything but conclusive. 1. It is by no means an indubitable fact that mei and Ifxov are really cases of the pronoun. The extension of a principle acknowledged in the Greek language might make them the genitive cases of adjectives used pronominally. Thus — Id ifji.ov — syw, ToD \fJI.OV ■=. lfX.OV, Assume the omission of the article and the extension of the Greek principle to the Latin language, and l/uou and mei may be cases, not of if^l and 7ne, but of tfxoc and mens. 2. In the classical languages the partitive power was ex- pressed by the genitive. " mult a que pars mei Yitabit Libitinam." This is a reason for the evolution of a genitive power. Few such fonns exist in the Gothic ; part my is not English, nor was dal min Anglo-Saxon = part of me, or pars mei. § 373. The following differences of fomi are found in the different Gothic languages, between the equivalents of mei and tui, the so-called genitives of ego and tu, and the equiva- lents of mens and tuus, the so-called possessive adjectives. Mteso- Gothic . . meina = mei as opposed to raeins = 7ueus. ]3eina = ful . . . . Jieins = tuus. Old High-Gervian . niin = iiiei . . miner = vie us. dill = tui . diner = tuus. Old Norse . . . mill = 711 ei . . . . minn = 7»eus. Jjin . = tui . . pinii = tuus. VOL. IT. Q 226 ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF Middle Dutch . . mins z=. met as opposed to min r= yneus. dins =: tui .... din = tuus. Modem ILujh-German mmi =^ viei .... meiner = metis . dein =: tui .... deiner z= tuus. In tliis list, those languages where the two forms are alike are not exhibited. This is the case with the Anglo-Saxon and Old Saxon. In the above-noticed differences of form lie the best reasons for the assumption of a genitive case, as the origin of an adjec- tival form; and, undoubtedly, in those languages where both forms occur, it is convenient to consider one as a case and one as an adjective. § 374. But this is not the present question. In Anglo- Saxon there is but one form, min and Ipin zz mei and mens, tui and tuus, indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective ? This involves two sorts of evidence. Etymolof/ical evidence. — Assuming two powers for the words min and ])in, one genitive and one adjectival, which is the original one ? or, going beyond the Anglo-Saxon, assuming that of two forms like meina and meins, the one has been derived from the other, which is the primitive, radical, pri- mary, or original one ? Men, from whom it is generally unsafe to differ, consider that the adjectival form is the derived one; and, as far as forms like miner, as opposed to min, are concerned, the evi- dence of the foregoing list is in their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch ? The genitive mins is evidently the derivative of min. The reason why the forms like miner seem derived is because they arc longer and more complex than the others. Neverthe- less, it is by no means an absolute rule in philology that the least compound form is the oldest. A word may be adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts in the way of omission, as well as by a change in the way of addition. Such is the general statement. Reasons for believing that in the particular cases of the words in question such is the fact, will be found hereafter. As to the question whether it is most likely for an adjective THE WORDS MINE AND THINE. 227 to be derived from a case, or a case from an adjective, it maybe said, that jjliilology furnishes instances both ways. Ours is a case derived, in syntax at least, from an adjective. Cujus (as in cujum pecus) and sestertium are Latin instances of a nomina- tive case being evolved from an oblique one. § 375. Syntactic evidence. — If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as dcel rnin ■=. jiars viei, /ta/f\)iii i= dhiddium tui,y,-e should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a genitive with a partitive power. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted ; whilst, even if quoted, they would not be conclusive. Expressions like aog ttoOoc; =, deside- rium tui, ai) irpofirjOia "zz providentid propter /e, show the extent to which the possessive expression encroaches on the partitive. 1. The words min or \in, with a power anything rather than possessive, would not for that reason be proved (on the strength of their meaning) to be genitive cases rather than possessive pronouns ; since such latitude in the power of the possessive pronoun is borne out by the comparison of languages — Trartp i]fxCov (not rifxtTspoc;) in Greek is pr/tcr noster (not nostrum) in Latin. Again — as nun and ]iin arc declined like adjectives, even as mens and tuus are so declined, we have means of ascertain- ing their nature from the form they take in certain construc- tions ; thus, minm =. meovvan, and 77iinre = meiv, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for of tlnj eyes should be eagena \iinra, and the Anglo-Saxon for to my ividow, should be ivuduwan minre ; just as, in Latin, they would be oculorum tuoruni, and vidute mea. If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as eagena fm, or wuduwan min, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case ; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words pin and 7nin must be construed as the Latin forms tui and mei would be in oculorum mei, and vidua mei ; viz. as genitive cases. Now% whether a sufficient ])roportion of such constructions (real or apparent) exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward. Such instances have yet to be quoted; whilst even if quoted, they would not be conclusive. Q 2 228 ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF A few references to the Deutsche Grammatik will explain this. As early as the Moeso-Gothic stage of onr language, we find rudiments of the omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the neuter singular sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms : nim tliata hadi theinata r: upov GOV Tov Kjoa'j3/3arov (Mark ii. 9), opposed to nim thata hadi thein, two verses afterward?. So also with mein and mein- ata. — Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 470. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with forms so marked as those of the neuter {-ata). It has, perhaps, its origin in the adverbial character of that gender. Old High-German. — Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it — thin dohter, sin quend, min dohter, sinaz lib. In a few cases, when the pronoun comes after, even the oblique cases drop the inflection. — Deutsche Grammatik, 474-478. Middle High-German, — Preceding the noun, the nominative of all genders is destitute of inflection ; sin lib, min ere, din lib, &c. Following the nouns, the oblique cases do the same ; ine herse sin. — Deutsclie Chrammatik, 480. The influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a place after the substantive influences the omission of the inflection. This appears in its maximum in the Middle High-German. In Ma3so-Gothic we have mein leik and leik meinata. — Deutsche Grammatik, 470. Now, by assuming (which is only a fair assumption) the ex tension of the Middle High-German omission of the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon ; and by supposing it to affect the words in question in all positions {i. e. both before and after their nouns), we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as already stated, no instances of them have been quoted. To suppose two adjectival forms, one inflected {min, minre, &c.), and one uninflected, or common to all genders and both numbers (mm), is to suppose no more than is the case with the uninflected Ipe, as compared with the inflected jxet. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of /nm or fm the necessary equivalent to mei and tui, THE WORDS MINE AND THINE. 229 rather than to mens and tuns, must consist in the quotation from the Anglo-Saxon of some text, wherein min or \iin occurs with a feminine substantive, in an oblique case, the ])ronoun preceding the noun. When this has been done, it wdl be time enough to treat mine and thine as the equivalents to met and tui, rather than as those to meus and tuus. 230 ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CHAPTER XXL ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB^ AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE INFINITIVE MOOD. § 376. In order to understand clearly the use of the so- called infinitive mood in English, it is necessary to bear in mind two facts, one a matter of logic, the other a matter of history. In the way of logic, the diflference between a noun and a verb is less marked than it is in the way of grammar. Grammatically, the contrast is considerable. The inflection of nouns expresses the ideas of sex as denoted by gender, and of relation in place as denoted by cases. That of verbs rarely expresses sex, and never position in space. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun ever does or can express ; e. g. the relation of the agent to the individual speaking, by means of person ; the time in which acts take place, by means of tense ; and the conditions of their occurrence, by means of mood. The idea of number is the only one that, on a superficial view, is common to these two important parts of speech. Logically, the contrast is inconsiderable. A noun denotes an object of which either the senses or the intellect can take cog- nizance, and a verb does no more. To move ■=. motion, to rise •=. rising, to err n error, to forgive ^z forgiveness. The only difference between the two parts of speech is this, that, whereas a noun may express any object whatever, verbs can only express those objects which consist in an action. And it is this super- added idea of action that superadds to the verb the phenomena of tense, mood, person, and voice ; in other words, the pheno- mena of conjugation. T11J<: NOUN AND VERB. 2 Til A noun is a word capable of declension only. A verb is a word capable of declension and conjuiration also. The fact of verbs being declined as well as conjugated must be renu'rnbered. The participle has the declension of a noun adjective, the infi- nitive mood the declension of a noun substantive. Gerunds and supines, in languages where they occur, arc only names for certain cases of the verb. Although in all languages the verb is equally capable of de- clension, it is not equally declined. The Greeks, for instance, used forms like TO (pSovEi'v = invidia, Tov (^9ovs7v = invldicp, Ev tJ (pQovi'i'ii = in invidia, oftener than the Romans. The fact of there being an article in Greek may account for this. In respect to the substantival character of the so-called infi- nitive mood, we may easily see — a. The name of any action may be used without any mention of the agent. Thus, we may speak of the simple fact of u-a/k- ing or moving, independently of any specification of the iculker or mover. b. That, when actions are spoken of thus indefinitely, the idea of either person or numbei has no place in the conception ; from A\hich it follows that the so-called infinitive mood must be at once impersonal, and without the distinction of singidar, dual, and plural. c. That, nevertheless, the ideas of time and relation in space have place in the conception. We can think of a person being in the act of striking a hloiv, of his having been in the act of striking a b/otc, or of his being about to be in the act of striking a blow. We can also think of a person being in the act of doing a good action, or of his beingyrom the act of doing a good action. § 377. This has been written to show that verbs are as naturally declinable as nouns. What follows will show that the verbs of the Gothic languages in particular were actually declined, and that fragments of this declension remain in the present English. The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (or infinitive) 2.32 ON THE NOUN AND VERB. form consisted, in full, of three cases, a nominative (or ac- cusative), a dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because its occurrence in the Gothic language is the least constant. In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in -an : Lufian = to love = amare. Baernan = to hum = urere. Syllan = to give = dare. Caution. — The -en in words like strengthen, &c., is a deriva- tional termination, and by no means a representation of the Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection is lost in the present English, except in certain provincial dialects. In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in -nne, and was (as a matter of syntax) generally, perhaps always, preceded by the preposition to. To lufienne =^ ad amandum. To bsernenne = ad urendum. To syllanne ^ ad dandwm. The genitive, ending in -es, occurs only in Old High-German and Modern High-German, pldsannes, weinnenes. With these preliminaries we can take a clear view of the English infinitives. They exist under two forms, and are refer- able to a double origin. 1. The independent form. — This is used after the words can, may, shall, will, and some others, as, / can speak, I may go, 1 shall come, I will move. Here there is no preposition, and the origin of the infinitive is from the form in -an. 2. The prepositional form. — This is used after the majority of English verbs, as / wish to speak, I mean to go, I intend to come, I determine to move. Here we have the preposition to and the origin of the infinitive is from the form in ~nne. Expressions like to err zz error, to forgive =i forgiveness, in lines like " To err is human, to forgive divine," are very remarkable. They exhibit the phenomena of a nomi- native case having grown not only out of a dative, but out of a dative plus its governing preposition. ON DERIVED VERBS. 233 CIIAPTEll XXII. ON DERIVED VERBS. 9 378. Of number, person, mood, tense, and conjugation, special notice is taken in their respective chapters. Of the divisions of verbs into active and passive, transitive and intran- sitive, unless there be an accompanying change of form, etymo- logy takes no cognisance. The forces of the auxiliary verbs, and the tenses to which they are equivalent, are also points of syntax rather than of etymology. Four classes, however, of derived verbs, as opposed to simple, especially deserve notice. 1. Those ending in -en ; as soften, whiten, strengthen, &c. Here it has been already remarked that the -en is a deriva- tional affix ; and not a representative of the Anglo-Saxon infini- tive forai -an (as lujian, barnan ■=. to love, to burn), and the Old English -en (as tellen, loven). 2. Transitive verbs derived from iutransitives by a change of the vowel of the root. rimitive Intransitive Form. Derived Transitive Form Eise . Eaise. Lie . Lay. Sit . . . . Set. Fall . . Fell. Drink . . Drench. In Anglo-Saxon these words were more numerous than they are at present. The following list is taken from the " Cam- bridge Philological Museum," ii. 386. Intrans. I/i/tnitive. Yrnan, to run Byrnan, to hum Trans. Infinitive. iErnan, to make to run. Baeruan, to make to burn. 234 ON DERIVED VERBS. Intrans. Infinitive. Drlncan, to drink Sincan, to sink Liegan, to lie Sittan, to sit Dnfan, to drift Feallan, to fall Weallan, to boil Fleogan, to fiy Beogan, to how Faran, to go Wacan, to wake Trans. Infinitive, Drencan, to drench. Sencan, to make to sink. Lecgan, to lay. Settan, to set. Draefan, to drive. Fyllan, to fell. Wyllan, to make to boil. A-fligau, to put to flight. Bigan, to bend. Feran, to convey. Weccan, to awaken. All these intransitives form their prseterite by a change of vowel, as sink, sank ; all the transitives by the addition of d or t, 2,% fell, felV d. 3. Verbs derived from nouns by a change of accent ; as to survey, from a survey. Walker attributes the change of accent to the influence of the participial termination -ing. All words thus affected are of foreign origin. 4. Verbs formed from nouns by changing a final sharp con- sonant into its corresponding flat one ; as — The use . The breath The cloth . to use, pronounced uze. « to breathe — breadhe. to clothe — clodhe. ON THE PERSONS. 235 CHArTETl XXIII. ON THE PERSONS. § 379. Compared with the Latin, the Greek, the Mocso- Gothic, and almost all the ancient languages, there is, in English, in respect to the persons of the verbs, but a veiy slight amount of inflection. This may be seen by comparing the En";lish word call with the Latin voco. Sing. Plur. Sing. Plur 1. Voc-o. Yoc-anms. Call. Call. 2. Voc-as. Yoc-atls. Call -est. Call 3. Voc-at. 'Yoc-ant. *Call-eth. Call Here the Latins have difl'erent forms for each different per- son, whilst the English have forms for two only; and even of these one icallest) is becoming obsolete. With the forms of voco marked in italics there is, in the current English, nothing correspondent. In the word am, as compared with are and art, we find a sign of the first person singular. In the old fonns tellen, iceren, &c. we have a sign of the plural number. In the Modern English, the Old English, and the Anglo- Saxon, the peculiarities of our personal inflections are very great. This may be seen from the following tables of compa- rison : — Present Tense, IndicaUve Mood, Mceso-Gothic. 1st person. 2nd person. 3rd person. Singular. Sokja. Sokeis. Sokeij) — seek Plural. Sokjam. SokeiJ). * Or calU. Sokjand. 236 ON THE PERSONS. Present Tense, Indicative Mood. Old High- German. 1st person. 2nd person. 3rd person. Singular. Prennu. Premiis. Prennit — burn. Plural. Prennames. Prennat. Icelandic. Prennant. Singular. Kalla. Kallar. Kallar — call. Plural. KoUum. Kallif. Old Saxon. Kalla. Singidar. Sokju. Sokis. Sokid — seek. Plural. Sokjad. Sokjad. Anglo-Saxon. Sokjad. Singular. Lufige. Lufast. LufaS. Plural. Lufia^. Lufia^. Old English. LufiaS. Singular. Love. Lovest. Loveth. Plural. Loven. Loven. Modern English. Loven. Singular. Love. Lovest. Loveth (or Loves) Plural. Love. Love. Love. Herein remark; 1. the AngloSsLXon addition of t in the second person singular; 2. the identity in form of the three persons of the plural number ; 3. the change of -a^, into -en in the Old English plural ; 4. the total absence of plui'al forms in the Modern English ; 5. the change of the th into s, in loveth and loves. § 380. The present state of the personal inflection in Eng- lish, so different from that of the older languages, has been brought about by two processes. 1. Change of form. — ^) The ejection of -es in -mes, as in sok- jam and kollum, compared with prennames; ^) the ejection of -m, as in the first person singidar, almost throughout ; <=) the change of -s into -r, as in the Norse kallar, compared wdth the Ger- manic sdkeis ; ^) the ejection of -d from -nd, as in loven (if this be the true explanation of that form) compared with prennant ; «) the ejection of -nd, as in kalla ; ^) the addition of -t, as ON THE PERSONS. 237 in lufast and lovest. In all these cases we have a change of form. 2. Confusion or extension. — In vulgarisms like / goes, I is, one person is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like / are, ue (joes, one number is vised instead of another. In vul- garisms like / be tired, or if I am tired, one mood is used instead of another. In vulgarisms like / give for / gave, one tense is used for another. In all this there is confusion. There is also extension : since, in the phrase / is, the third person is used instead of the first ; in other words, it is used with an ex- tension of its natural meaning. It has the power of the third person -|- that of the first. In the coui'se of time one person may entirely supplant, supersede, or replace another. The ap- plication of this is as follows : — The only person of the plural number originally ending in S is the second ; as sdkeip, prennat, kallilp, lufia^ ; the original ending of the first person being -mes or -m, as prennames, sukjam, kdllwn. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, the other two persons end in S, as lufia^. Has -m, or -mes, changed to ^, or has the second person superseded the first ? The latter alternative seems the likelier. § 381. The detail of the persons seems to be as follows : — / call, first person singular. — The word call is not one person more than another. It is the simple verb, wholly uuin- flected. It is very probable that the first person was the one where the characteristic termination was first lost. lu the Modern Norse language it is replaced by the second : Jeg tuler zz: I speak, Danish. Thuu callest, second person singular. — The final -t a])])eai's throughout the Anglo-Saxon, although wanting in Old Saxon. In Old High-German it l)egins to appear in Otfrid, and is general in Notker. In Middle High-German and New High- German it is universal. — Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1041. 857. He calleth or lie calls, third person singular. — The -s in calls is the -th in calleth, changed. The Norse form kallar either derives its -r from the -th by way of change, or else the form is that of the second person replacing the first. Lujia'6, Anglo-Saxon, fir.>t person plural. — The second per- son in place of the first. The same in Old Saxon. 238 ON THE PERSONS. • Lufia^, Anglo-Saxon, third person plural. — Possibly changed from -ND, as in sokjand. Possibly the second person. Loven, Old English. — For all the persons of the plural. This form may be accounted for in three ways : 1. The -m of the Moeso-Gothic and Old High-German became -n ; as it is in the Middle and Modern German, where all traces of the original -m are lost. In this case the first person has replaced the other two. 2. The -nd may have become -n; in which case it is the third person that replaces the others. 3. The indi- cative fomi loven may have arisen out of a subjunctive one ; since there was in Anglo-Saxon the form lufion, or lujian, subjunctive. § 382. The person in -t. — Art, wast, wert, shalt, wilt. Here the second person singular ends, not in -st, but in -t. A reason for this (though not wholly satisfactory) we find in the Moeso- Gothic and the Icelandic. In those languages the form of the person changes with the tense, and the second singular of the prseterite tense of one conjugation is not -s, but -t; as Moeso-Gothic, svor = I swore, svort zz thou swarest, grdip ■=. I griped, grdipt = thou gripedst ; Icelandic, brannt = thou burnest, gaft = thou gavest. In the same languages ten verbs are conjugated like prseterites. Of these, in each language, skal is one. Moeso-Gothic. Singular, 1. Skal. 2. Skalt. 3. Skall. Dual. Skulu. Skuluts. Skuluts. Icelandic. Plural. Skulum Skulu]). Skulun. Singiilar. 1. Skall. 2. Skalt. 3. Skal. Plural. Skulum. Skulu=S. Skulu. § 383. Thou spakest, thou brakes t, thou sungest. — In these forms there is a slight though natural anomaly. The second singular prseterite in A. S. was formed not in -st, but in -e ; as hufunde := thou foundest, \ii sunge zz thou sungest. Hence, ON THE PERSONS. 239 the present Englisli tcrnuiiatiou is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to the prrcterites formed by ehanging the vowel — the strung prrcterites so-called. Thou luved'st is Anglo-Saxon as well as English, viz. ]>«< lufodest. Again, in A. S., the vowel of the plural of certain (so-called) strong preterites was different from that of the singular. More than this — the vowel of the second person singular was different from that of the first and third, but the same as that of the plural. Hence — Sirigular. 1. Ic srmg. 2. J3U SMDge 3. He sail": D' Plural. 1. We s?nigon. 2. Ge s?r6t, / have wept, or / ivept. Teka, / touch . Taitok, / have touched, or / touched. In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an aorist sense, and vice versa. ON TENSES IN GENERAL. 245 In Mocso- Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms. In Moeso-Gothic, as in Latin, the two forms arc dealt with as a single tense ; Idilo being called the ])rjeterite of Idia, and svor the prfcterite of svara. The true view, however, is that, in Moeso Gothic, as in Latin, there are two past tenses, each having a certain latitude of meaning, and each, in certain words, replacing the other. The reduplicate form, in other words, the perfect tense, is current in none of the Gothic languages except the Moeso- Gothic. A trace of it is said to be found in the Anglo-Saxon, in the word helit, which is considered to be he-lit, the Moeso- Gothic hdihdit, vocavi. — [Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 378.) Did from do is also considered to be a redu])licate form. [See below.) § 389. In the English language the tense corresponding in power with the Greek aorist and the Latin forms like vixi, is formed after two modes; 1, as in fell, sang, and took, fvom fall, sing, and take, by changing the vowel of the present ; 2, as in moved and ivept, from move and loeep, by the addition of d or t ; the d or t not being found in the original word, but being a fresh element added to it. In forms, on the contraiy, like sang and fell, no addition being made, no new element appears. The vowel, indeed, is changed, but nothing is added. Verbs, then, of the first sort, may be said to form their prsetcrites out of themselves ; whilst verbs of the second sort require something from without. To speak in a metaphor, words like sang and fell are comparatively independent. Be this as it may, the German grammarians call the tenses formed by a change of vowel the Strong tenses, the Strong verbs, the Strong conjuga- tion, or the Strong order; and those formed by the addition of d or t, the rF(?«/c tenses, the Jl'eak verbs, the TJ'eak conjugation, or the Weak order. Bound, spoke, gave, lag, &c., ai-c Strong ; moved, favoured, instructed, &c., are Weak. 245 THE SO-CALLED STRONG PR^TERITEb. CHAPTER XXVII. THE SO-CALLED STRONG PRiETERITES. § 390. The Strong prseterites are formed from the present by clianging the vowel. Present. Prceterite. Present. PrcEterite fall fell forget forgot befall befell eat ate hold held tread trod draw drew come came slay slew overcome overcame fly flew become became blow- blew bid bade crow crew forbid forbade know knew give gave grow grew forgive forgave throw threw wake woke beat beat strike struck weave wove arise arose freeze froze abide abode steal stole smite smote speak spoke ride rode swear swore stride strode bear bore drive drove forbear forbore thrive throve tear tore strive strove wear wore write wrote break broke climb clomb shake shook bite bit take took *swim swam forsake forsook * begin began get got *spin spun beget begot win won THE SO-CALLED STRONG PRETERITES. 2 47 Present. Pralerite. Present. Pralerite *sing Siing ♦shrink shrunk ♦spring sprung dig dug *sting stung stick stuck *ring nang run ran * wring wrung burst burst *fling flung bind bound *cling clung find found ♦string strung grind ground ♦sling slung wind wound ♦sink sunk choose chose. ♦drink drank 1 How far can these varied forms be reduced to rule ? AMiat are the divisions and sub-divisions of the so-called Strong class ? Before we consider this let us be sure that we have got the full amount of in-egularity — real or apparent. Now we do not get this until we have noted a fact connected with those verbs of the above-given list which are marked with an asterisk. To each and all of these there are (or have been at some earlier stage of the language) two prseterites, one of which is formed in a (as swam), and the other in u (as swum), as — 'resent. Pneterite in a. Prceierite in u sw/m begm swam began sw«m beg«n smg smk drmk sang sank drank s?mg s?mk dremk. Such is the fact. Its explanation lies in the facts of chap- ter xxiv. There we learn that in A. S. several prseterites changed, in the plural, the vowel of their singular. Singular. Ic sang ^ I sang Jju swnge = Thou s?mgest He sang = He sanar. Plural. We s?mgon = We s«ng Ge s«ngou = Ye swng Hi swngou = They swng. What inference is clearer than that the prrcterite in a comes 248 THE SO-CALLED STRONG PRETERITES. from the singular, and the prseterite in u from the plural of the A. S. ? Note. — In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the singular ; indeed, it is often the plural ; — e. g. Tc fand, / found, we fwndon, ive found, are the Anglo- Saxon forms. Now the present word found comes, not from the singular /tt/u/j but from the plural /wncfon ; although, in the Lowland Scotch dialect and in the old miters, the singular form occurs : Donald Caird finds orra things, Where Allan (axe.gox fand the tings. — ScoTX. The verbs wherein the double form of the present prseterite is thus explained, fall into two classes. 1. In the first class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were a in the singular, and i in the plural ; as — Sing, Plnr. seean (/ shone) aras (/ arose) smat {I smote). This accounts for — scinon {we shone) arisen {we arose) smitou {we smote) Present. PrcBt.from Sing. form. Fr at. from Flur.form. rise rose smite smote ride rode stride strode slide *slode chide *chode drive drove thrive throve write wrote slit *slat bite *bat *ris smit *rid strid slid chid *driv *thriv writ slit bit. 2. In the second class, the Anglo-Saxon forms were a in the singular, and u in the plural ; as — * The forms marked thus * are either obsolete or provincial. THE SO-CALLED STRONG PRETERITES. 249 Si tiff. band fatid grand wimd. Plur. biindon (ice bound) fmuloii {ice found) gruiidon {wc yround) wuudon {ice wound). This accounts for — Present. Frcet.from Sing. form. F rat. from Flur.fon.i. swim begin spin sing swing spring sting ring wring fling string sink drink shrink stink burst bind find swam began *span sang *swang sprang *stang rang *wrang flang *strang sank drank shrank *stank *brast *band *fand swum begun spun sung swung sprung stung rung wrung flung strung sunk drunk shrunk stunk burst bound found. § 391. The following double prseterites are differently ex- plained. The one often (but not uJicoys) is from the Anglo- Saxon participle, the other from the Anglo-Saxon prateritc. Present. Praferite in o. Prceterite in a cleave clove ♦clave steal stole *stale speak spoke spake swear swore sware bear bore bare tear tore *tare wear wore ♦ware Obsolete. 20 THE SO-CALLED STRONG PRETERITES. ^resent. Pr&terite in o. Prceteriie in a break broke brake get got *gat tread trod *trad bid bade bid. This is as much as need, at present, be said respecting the so-called Strong Prseterites. Whatever they are, they are aiiything but Irregular, as may be seen in chapter xxxiii., a chapter which, for the sake of convenience, finds its place after those on the Weak Prseterites and the Participles. * Obsolete. THE SO-CALLED WEAK J'RiETERITES. 251 CHAPTER XXVIII. THE SO-CALLED WEAK PR/ETERITES. § 392. The prrpterite tense of the so-called Weak Verbs is formed by the addition of -d or -t. If necessaiy, the syllable -ed is substituted for -d. The ciu'rent statement that the syllable -ed, rather than the letter -d, is the sign of the prscterite tense, is true only in regard to the written language. In stabbed, moved, bragged, whizzed, judged, filled, slurred, slammed, shunned, barred, strewed, the e is a point of spelling only. In language, except in declamation, there is no second vowel sound. The -d comes in immediate contact with the final letter of the original word, and the number of syllables remains the same as it was before. When, however, the original word ends in -d or -t, as slight or brand, then, and then only (and that not always), is there the addition of the syllable -ed ; as in slighted, branded. This is necessary, since the combinations slightt and brandd are unpronounceable. Whether the addition be -d or -t depends upon the flatness or sharpness of the preceding letter. After b, v, th (as in clothe), g, or z, the addition is -d. This is a matter of necessity. We say stabd, movd, clothd, braggd, ivhizzd, because stabt, movt, clotht, braggt, whizzt, are unpronounceable. After /, m, n, r, tr, g, or a vowel, the addition is also -d. This is no matter of necessity, but simply the habit of the English language. Filf, slurt, strayf, &c. are as pronounce- able as filld, slurrd, sfrai/d, &c. It is the habit, however, of the English language to prefer the lattn- forms. All this, as 252 THE SO-CALLED WEAK PRETERITES. the reader has probably observed^ is merely the reasoning con- cerning the s, in words like father's, kc, applied to another letter and to another part of speech. § 393. The verbs of the Weak conjugation fall into three classes. In the first there is the simple addition of -d, -f, or -ed. Serve, served. Cry, cried. Betray, betrayed. Expel, expelled. Accuse, accused. Instruct, instructed. Invite, invited. Waste, wasted. Dip, dipped (dipt) Slip, slipped (slipC). Step, stcjiped {stcpl). Look, looked (loo/d). Pluck, plucked {pluckt). Toss, tossed (tost). Push, pushed (pmJif). Confess, confessed (confest). To this class belong the greater part of the Weak Verbs and all verbs of foreign origin. In the second class, besides the addition of -t or -d, the vowel is shortened. It also contains those words which end in -d or -t, and at the same time have a short vowel in the prgeterite. Such, amongst others, are cut, cost, &c., where the two tenses are alike, and hend, rend, Bcc, where the prgeterite is formed from the present by changing -d into -t, as bent, rent, &c. In the following list, the words ending in -p are remark- able; since, in Anglo-Saxon, each of them had, instead of a Weak, a Strong prseterite. Leave, left. Cleave, cleft. Bereave, bereft. Deal, deaU. Feel, fel^. Dream, dreamt. Lean, lean^. Learn, learnt. Creep, crept. Sleep, slept. Leap, lept. Keep, kept. Weep, wept. Sweep, swept. Lose, lost. Flee, fled. In this class w^e sometimes find -/ where the -d is ex- pected; the forms being left and dealt, instead of leaved and dealed. Third class. — In the second class the vowel of the present TUK SO-CALLED ^VEAK PILETKRITES. 253 tense was shortened \n the prseterite. In the tliird class it is changed. Tell, told. "Will, would. Sell, sold. Shall, should. To this class belong the remarkable pvfetcrites of the verbs seek, beseech, catch, teach, hriug, think, and bui/, viz. sought, besought, caught, taught, brought, thought, and bought. In all thesCj the final consonant is either g or k, or else a sound allied to those mutes. When the tendency of these sounds to become h and g, as well as to undergo further changes, is remembered, the forms in point cease to seem anomalous. In wrought, from work, there is a transposition. In laid and said the present forms make a show of regularity which they have not. The true original forms should be legde and scj^de, the infinitives being lecgan, secgan. In these words the i represents the semi-vowel y, into which the original g was changed. The An 2;lo- Saxon forms of the other words are as follows : — Byegan, bolite. Secan, sohte. Wyrcau, wdibte. Bringan, brolite. ])encan, ])6hte. § 394. Out of the three classes into which the "Weak "\''erbs in Anglo-Saxon arc divided, only one takes a vowel before the d or t. The other two add the syllables -te, or -de, to the last letter of the original word. The vowel that, in one out of the three Anglo-Saxon classes, precedes d is o. Thus we have lufian, lufode ; clypian, chjpode. In the other two classes the forms are res])ectively b(ernan, bcernde ; and tellan, tealde, no vowel being found. The participle, however, as stated above, ended, not in -de or -te, but in -d or -t ; and in two out of three classes it was preceded by a vowel, gelufod, bcerned, geteald. Now in those conjugations where no vowel preceded the d of the prreterite, and where the original word ended in -d or -/, a ditficultv, which has already been indicated, arose. To add the sign of the prieterite to a word like eard-ion {to dujell) was an easy matter, inasmuch as eard-ian was a word 254 THE SO-CALLED WEAK PR.ETERITES. belonging to the first class, and in the first class the prseterite was formed in -ode. Here the vowel o kept the two d'& from coming in contact. With words, however, like metan and sendan, this was not the case. Here no vowel intervened; so that the natural prseterite forms wei-e met-te, send-de, com- binations wherein one of the letters ran every chance of being dropped in the pronunciation. Hence, with the exception of the verbs in the first class, words ending in -d or -t in the root admitted no additional d or t in the prseterite. This difficulty, existing in the present English as it existed in the Anglo-Saxon, modifies the prseterites of most words ending in ~t or -d. In several words there is the actual addition of the syllable -ed; in other words d is separated from the last letter of the original word by the addition of a vowel ; as ended, instructed, &c. Of this e two views may be taken. 1. It may be derived from the original o in -ode, the termi- nation of the first class in Anglo-Saxon. This is the opinion which we form when the word in question is known to have belonged to the Anglo-Saxon language, and, in it, to the first class. Ended, 'planted, warded, hated, heeded, are (amongst others) words of this sort; their Anglo-Saxon forms being endode, i^lantode, nmirdode, hatode, and eahtode, from endian, plantian, weardian, hatian, and eahtian. 2. The form may be looked upon, not as that of the prseterite, but as that of the participle in a transferred sense. This is the view when we have two forms, one with the vowel, and the other without it, as bended and bent, wended and went, plighted and plir/ht. In several words the final -d is changed into -t, as bend, bent; rend, rent; send, sent; gild, gilt; build, built; spend, spent, &c. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; as feed, fed ; bleed, Med ; breed, bred ; meet, met ; speed, sped ; read, read, &c. Words of this last-named class cause occa- sional difficulty to the graumiarian. No addition is made to the root, and, in this circumstance, they agree with the Strong Verbs. Moreover, there is a change of the vowel. In this THE SO-CALLED WEAK PRiETERITES. 255 circumstance also they agree with the Strong Verbs. Hence with forms like /erf and led we are in doubt as to the Conjuga- tion. This doubt we have three means of settling. 1. By the form of the Participle. — The -en in beaten shows that the word heat is Strong. 2. By the nature of the Vowel. — The "Weak form of to beat would be bet, after the analogy oi feed and read. By some persons the w ord is pronounced bet, and with those who do so the word is Weak. 3. By a knowledge of the Older forms. — The A. S. form is becite, beot. There is no such a Weak form as bedte, bcette. The pra^terite of sendan is sende, Weak. There is in A. S. no such form as sand, Strong. In all this we see a .,:cries of expedients for separating the prseterite form from the pi'cscnt, w^hen the root ends with the same sound with which the affix begins. The addition of the vowel takes place only in verbs of Class I. The change from a long vowel to a short one, as in feed, fed, &c., can only take place where there is a long vowel to be changed. Where the vowels are short, and, at the same time, the w^ord ends in d, the d of the present may became i iu the pra^terite. Such is t^ie case with bend, bent. Where there is no long vowel to shorten, and no d to change into t, the two tenses, of necessity, remain alike; such is the case with cut, cost, &c., &c. Words like planted, heeded, &c. belong to Class I. ; words like feed, lead, to Class II. Bend and cut belong also to thr Second Class ; they belong to it, however, by what may be called an etpnological fiction. The vowel would be changed if it could, § 395. Certain so-called irregularities may now be noticed.— Made, had. — In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms arc macode and hafde, respectively. Would, should, could. — It must not be imagined that could is in the same predicament with these w^ords. In will and shall 256 THE SO-CALLED WEAK PRETERITES. the -/ is part of the original word. This is not the case with can. Yode. — Instead of goed, a regular prseterite from go, now obsolete, and replaced by we7it, the prseterite of wend, — he wends his way — he went his way. Except that the initial ^ has become y, and the e follows instead of preceding the d (a mere point of spelling), there is nothing peculiar in this word. For could, aught, minded, and did, see the following chapters. This is as much as need, at present, be said about the so- called Weak prseterites. AVhatever they are, they are anything but Irregular, as may may be seen in chapter xxxiii. THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE. 257 CHAPTER XXIX. THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE. § 396. The present participle, called also the active parti- ciple and the participle in -ing, is formed from the original word by adding -ing ; as, move, moving. In the older languages the termination was more marked, being -7id. Like the Latin participle in -ns, it -was originally declined. The Moeso-Gothic and Old High-German forms are hahands and hapenter tz having, respectively. The -s in the one language, and the -er in the other, are the signs of the case and gender. In the Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon the forms are -and and -ande ; as bindand, hindande == binding. In all the Norse languages, ancient and modern, the -d is preserved. So it is in the Old Lowland Scotch, and in many of the modern provincial dialects of England, where strikand, goand, is said for striking, going. In Staffordshire, where the -ing is pronounced -ingg, there is a fuller sound than that of the current English. In Old Eng- lish the form in -nd is predominant, in Middle English the use fluctuates, and in New English the termination -ing is uni- versal. In the Scotch of the modern writers we find the form -in. The rising sun o'er Galslon muirs Wi' glorious light was glintiu' ; The hares were hirplin' down the furs, The lav'rocks they were chantin'. Burns' Ilohj Fair. It is with the oblique cases of the present participles of the classical languages, rather than with the nominative, that we VOL. II. S 258 THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE. must compare the corresponding" participle in Gothic ; e. g. ixpvT-oQ {ekhontos), Greek ; hahent-is, Latin ; hapent-er, Old High-German. § 397. It has often been remarked that the participle is used in many languages as a substantive. This is true in Greek — 'o Trfoca-acov = tlie actor, when a male. 'h 'JTfa.a-a-ovcra, = the actor, wlien a female. To TrpaxTov = the actke principle of a thine/. But it is also stated^ that^ in the English language, the participle is used as a substantive in a greater degree than elsewhere, and that it is used in several cases and in both numbers, e. g. — Rishig early is liealtby. There is liealtli in rising early. This is the advantage of rising early. The risings in the North, &c. Archbishop Whately has some remarks on this substantival power, in his Logic. Some remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, in the Litroduction to his edition of Tooke's " Diversions of Purley," modify this view. According to these, the -iyig in words like rising is not the -ing of the present participle ; neither has it originated in the Anglo-Saxon -end. It is rather the -ing in words like morning, which is anything but a participle of the non-existent verb morn, and which has originated in the Anglo-Saxon substan- tival termination -ung. Ujjon this Rask w^rites as follows : — " Gitsung, geivilnung ■=. desire; svmtelung rr manifestation ; clmnsung -zz a cleansing ; sceawung ■=. view, contemplation ; eo?'^ heofimg =r an earthquake ; gesomnung = an assembly. This termination is chiefly used in forming substantives from verbs of the first class in -ian ; as, hdlgung ■=. consecration, from hdlgian ■=. to consecrate. These verbs are all feminine.''^ — Anglo-Saxon Grammar, p. 107. Now, whatever may be the theory of the origin of the ter- mination -ing in old phrases like rising early is healthy, it THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE. 259 cannot apply to cxj)rcssions of recent intHnluction. Here the direct origin in -uny is out of the question. The view, then, that remains to be taken of the forms in question is this : 1. That the older forms in -iny are substantival in origin, and = the Anglo-Saxon -ung. 2. That the latter ones are participial, and have been formed on a false analogy. 260 THE PAST PARTICIPLE. CHAPTER XXX. THE PAST PARTICIPLE. §398. The participle in -en. — In, the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjectives. Like the adjec- tiveSj it is, in the present English, undeclined. In Anglo-Saxon it always ended in -en, as sunken, funden, hunclen. In English this -en is often wanting, as found, bound; the word hounden being antiquated. Words where the -en is wanting may be viewed in two lights; 1, they may be looked upon as participles that have lost their termination ; 2, they may be considered as prseterites with a participial sense. Drank, drunk, drunken. — With all words wherein the vowel of the plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the plural form. To say / have drunk, is to use an ambiguous expression ; since drunk may be either a parti- ciple minus its termination, or a prgeterite with a participial sense. To say / have drank, is to use a prseterite for a par- ticiple. To say / have drunken, is to use an unexceptionable form. In all words with a double form, as spake and spoke, brake and broke, clave and clove, the participle follows the form in 0, as spoken, broken, cloven. Spaken, braken, claven, are impossible forms. There are degrees in laxity of language, and to say the spear is broke is better than to say the spear is brake. These two statements bear upon the future history of the prseterite. That of the two forms sanff and sung, one will, in the course of language, become obsolete, is nearly certain ; and, as the plural form is also that of the participle, it is the plural form which is most likely to be the surviving one. THE PAST PARTICIPLE. 2G1 As a general rule, we find the participle in -en wherever tlic prseterite is strong; indeed, the participle in -en may be called the strong participle, or the participle of the strong conjugation. Still the two forms do not always coincide. In vioiv, vwwed, mown ; soiv, sowed, sown ; and several other words, we tind the participle strong, and the ])ra3terite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is only another way of saying that the preterite has a greater tendency to pass from strong to weak than the participle. § 399. In the Latin language the change from s to r, and vice versa, is veiy common. We have the double forms arbor and arhos, honor and honos, &c. Of this change we have a few specimens in English. The words rear and raise, as com- pared with each other, are examples. In Anglo-Saxon a few words undergo a similar change in the plural number of the strong preterites. Cedse, I choose ; ceas, / cliose ; curon, ice chose ; gecoren, chosen. Forleose, / /o«g ; forleas, / Zo.s^ ; ioYluxon, tee lost ; forloren, Zos^. Hreose, I rush ; hreas, I rushed ; hruroii, zee rushed ; gehroren, rushed. This accounts for the participial form forlorn or lost, in New High-German verloren. In Milton's lines, the niercins: air P' Burns/yw, nas-idedun, from nas-ja ; sok-idedmn, sdk-idedu]), sdk-idcdiin, from sdk-ja ; salb-odedum, salb-ddedu]), salb-ddedun, from salhd. Here there is a second d. The same takes place with the dual form salb-ddeduts, and with the subjunctive forms, salb-ddedjon, salb-dddduts, salb- ddedi, salb-ddedeits, salb-ddedeima, salb-ddedei\>, salb-ddedina. The English phrase, ive did salve, as compared with salb- ddedum, is confirmatoiy of this. (D. G. i. 1012.) § 405. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic pifeterite, in the " Transactions of the Philological Society,^' induce me to prefer a difiFercnt doctrine, and to identify the -d in words like moved, &c., with the -t of the passive participles of the Latin language ; as found in mon-i/-us, voc-oZ-ns, rap- t-us, and probably in Greek forms like TV(p-d-tig. 1. The Slavonic prreterite is commonly said to possess genders : in other words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male, and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female. 268 CONSTITUTION OF 2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine and feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the prseterite is a participle. If, instead of saying ille amavit, the Latins said ille amatus, whilst, instead of saying ilia amavit, they said ilia amata, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonians. 3. Hence, as one class of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact of an active prsetei'ite being identical with a passive participle, and as the participle and prseterite in ques- tion are nearly identical, we have a fair reason for believing that the d, in the English active prseterite, is the d of the par- ticiple, which, in its turn, is the t of the Latin passive par- ticiple. The following extract gives Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic verb in his own words : — "A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an active sense, for the purpose of expressing the prseterite. This participle generally ends in -I ; and much uncertainty prevails both as to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit, and the clas- sical languages. "In the Old Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three methods of expressing the past tense : one of them consists in the union of the verb substantive with the participle ; as — Rek esm! . . . cMtal esmi' Rek es'i . . . chital esi' Reh est' . . . chital est. " In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb substantive placed before the participle : — Ta sam imao . . mi' smo imali Tl si imao . . vi' ste imali On ye imao , * omi sn imali. " In the Polish it appears as a suffix : — Czytalem . . . czytalismy Czytales . . . czytaUscie Czytal . . . czytalic. THE PRiETERITE FORMS. 200 " And in the Senian it follows the participle : — Igrao mm . . . igrali smo Igrao si . . . igrali sle Igrao ye . . . igrali stt. " The ending -ao, of igrao and iiiiao, stands for the llussian a/, as in some English dialects a is used for all." 270 DEFECT AND IRREGULARITY. CHAPTEU XXXIII. DEFECT AND IRREGULARITY. § 406. In tlie chapter upon the Strong Prseterites, I went out of my way to state that, whatever those forms were, they were not Irregular. Nevertheless, in nine grammars out of ten they are called so. The same caution against the habit of multiplying irre- gularities may be found amongst the remarks on the compa- risons of adjectives. The present chapter is devoted to the illustration of the same subject. The better the grammarian the fewer the irre- gularities of his grammar. If it were not so, the phenomena of language would scarcely be worth studying. Now the pre-eminently irregular part of the ordinary gram- mars is the part that deals with the so-called Strong Verbs — not that there are no irregularities elsewhere, but that this is the great field for them; the field wherein language most espe- cially runs riot, and least shows itself reducible to law. The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal pronouns / and me, and the adjectives good, better, and best. The view of these words w^as as follows : viz. that none of them were irregular, but that they were all defective. Me wanted the nominative, / the oblique cases. Good was with- out a comparative, better and best had no positive degree. Now me and better may be said to make good the defective- ness of / and good ; and / and good may be said to replace the forms wanting in me and better. This gives us the prin- ciple of compensation. To introduce a new term, / and 7ne, good and better, may be said to be complementary to each other. DEFECT AND IRREGULARITY. 271 What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. Go and vent are not irrcuularities. Go is (at least in the ])resent stage of our language) defective in the past tense, ll'ent (at least in its current sense) is without a present. The two words, how- ever, compensate their mutual dctieiencies, and are to each other complementary. The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion of the regular and in-egular verbs. § 407. The second instrument of criticism in determin- ing the irregular verbs, is the meaning that we attach to terms. It is very evident that it is in the power of the gram- marian to raise the number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the definition of the word irre- gular; in other words, by framing an exclusive rule. The current rule of the common grammarians is that the prpetcritc is formed hj the addition of -t, or -d, or -ed. Now this posi- tion is sufficiently exclusive ; since it proscribes not only the whole class of strong verbs, but also words like bent and sent, where -t exists, but where it does not exist as an addition. The regular forms, it may be said, should be bended and sended. Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might be made more so. The regular forms might, by the fiat of a rule, be restricted to those in -d. In this case words like wept and burnt would be added to the already numerous list of irregulars. Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that no word was regular, unless it ended in -ed. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambi- tious of acquiring. True etymology reduces irregularity by making the rules of grammar not exclusive, but general. The quantum of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the generality of our rules. In language itself there is no irre- gularity. The word itself is only another name for our / 272 DEFECT A^D IRREGULARITY. ignorance of the processes that change words ; and, as in-e- gularity is in the dii-ect proportion to the exchisiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes. ^ 408. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towai'ds (but not to) the deftnition of the word irregular. 1 . Vital and obsolete processes. — The word moved is formed from move, by the addition of -d. The addition of -d is the process by which the present form is rendered pi-seterite. The word fell is formed fi-om fall, by changing a into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present form is rendered prseterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In what respect do they differ ? For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the language. Let a prteterite tense of it be foi-med. This pneterite would be formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding -d. Xo new verb ever takes a strong pneterite. The like takes place with nouns. Xo new substantive would form its plural, like oxen or geese, by adding -en, or by chang- ing the vowel. It would rather, like fathers and horses, add the lene sibilant. rs ow, the processes that change fall, ox, and goose into fell, oxen, and geese, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in its present stage, are obsolete processes ; whilst those that change move into moved, and horse into horses, operating on the language in its present stage, are vital processes. A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a definition would, in the present English, make words Hke bent, sought, &c. (the euphonic pro- cesses being allowed for), regular, and all the strong verbs irregular. The vers- fact of so natural a class as that of the strong: verbs being reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a delinition as this. 2. Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit. — The combinations -pd-, -fd-, -kd-, -sd-, and some others, are unpronounceable. Hence words hke step, quaff, back, kiss, kc. DEFECT AND IRREGULARITY. 273 take after tlicni the sound of -/; sfipl, (juofft, kc. (tlic sound bi'ing repivscntc'd), being their pneterites, instead of slt'jjrl, quiiJD'd. Here the ehange from -d (the natural termination) to -t is a matter (or j)rocess) of necessity. It is not so with words like tceep and ivept, &c. Here the change of vowel is not necessary. JFeept might have been said if the habit of the language had permitted. A detinition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In this case ste])t (modified by a process of necessity), and wept (modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular. A less limited definition miiziht account words re2:ular as long as the process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it would class with the irregulars. Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation. 3. Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes. — The whole scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a Ian2:ua2;c takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now^ few forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others correspond- ing with them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one. The forms wept and slept correspond with each other. They are brought about by the same process ; viz. by the shortening of the vowel in weep and sleep. The analogy of weep is extended to sleep, and vice versa. Changing our expression, a common influence aflfects both words. The alteration itself is an ultimate fact. The extent of its influence is an instrument of classification. AVhen processes affect a considerable number of words, they may be called ordinary processes; as opposed to extraordinary processes, which affect one or few words. When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess oui- ignorance, and say that it is affected by an VOL. II. T 274 DEFECT AND IRREGULARITY. extraordinary process, by a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to wliich we know nothing similar. A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by extraordinary processes ; the rest being considered regular. 4. Positive processes as opposed to amhiguous processes. — The words wept and slept are similarly affected. Each is changed from weep and sleep respectively; and we know that the process which affects the one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process. Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word worse is explained in § 362, and the reader is referred to the section. There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the process is ambiguous. A definition of the word irregular might be so framed as to include all words affected by ambiguous processes. 5. Normal processes as opposed to jjr-ocesses of confusion. — Let a certain word come under Class A. Let all words under Class A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under Class A. This word will be affected even as the rest of Class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical. Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under Class A, appear to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a process of con- fusion . Exam})les of this (a few amongst many) are words like songstress, theirs, minded, where the words songstr — , their — , and mind — , arc dealt with as roots, which they are not. Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion — each, or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The practice of etymologists will de- termine what definition is most convenient. With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous processes we are unable to make a DEFECT AND IRREGULARITY. 275 choice. AVitli processes of confusion we sec tlic aiialoiry, but, at the same tiuie, see that it is a false one, § 409. Ajiproaiinate rxnnij)l(' of irrcay that they consisted in the t\|ilaiiatioii of 828 ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL. . combinations ap-parenthj ungrammatical ; in other words, that they ascertained the results of those causes which disturb the regularity of the pure syntax; that they measured the extent of the deviation ; and that they referred it to some principle of the human mind — so accounting for it. I am going, — Pure syntax explains this. / have gone. — Pure syntax will not explain this. Never- theless, the expression is good English. The power, however, of both have and gone is different from the usual power of those words. This difference mixed syntax explains. Mixed syntax requires two sorts of knowledge — metaphy- sical, and historical. 1. To account for such a fact in language as the expression the man as rides to market, instead of the usual expression the man who rides to market, is a question of what is commonly called metaphysics. The idea of comparison is the idea com- mon to the words as and who. 2. To account for such a fact in language as the expres- sion / have ridden a horse is a question of history. We must know that when there was a sign of an accusative case in English the words horse and ridden had that sign ; in other words, that the expression was, originally, / have a horse as a ridden thing. These two views illustrate each other. § 449. In the English, as in all other languages, it is con- venient to notice certain so-called figures of speech. They always furnish convenient modes of expression, and some- times, as in the case of the one immediately about to be noticed, account for facts. Personification. — The ideas of apposition and collectiveness account for the apparent violations of the concord of number. The idea of personification applies to the concord of gender. A masculine or feminine gender, characteristic of persons, may be substituted for the neuter gender, characteristic of things. In this case the term is said to be personified. The cities who aspired to liberty. — 'A personification of the idea expressed by cities is here necessary to justify the ex- pression. It, the sign of the neuter gender, as applied to a male or female child, is the reverse of the process. Ellipsis (from the Greek elleipein zz to fall short), or a ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL. 329 fiiUiiKj short, occurs in sentences like / sent to tlic Ijooksrllcr's. Here the word shop or house is understood. Expressions like to (JO on all fours, and to cat of the fruit of the tree, arc reduci- ble to ellipses. Pleonasm (from the Greek pleonnzein =. to he in excess) occurs in sentences like the king, he reigns. Here the word he is superabundant. In many pleonastic expressions we may suppose an interruption of the sentence, and afterwards an abrupt renewal of it ; as the king — he reigns. The fact of the word he neither qualifying nor explaining the word king, distinguishes pleonasm from apposition. Pleonasm, as far as the view above is applicable, is reduced to what is, apparently, its opposite, viz. ellipsis. My banks, tliey are furnished, — the most straitest sect, — these are pleonastic expressions. In the king, he reigns, the word king is in the same predicament as in the king, God bless him. The double negative, allowed in Greek and Anglo-Saxon, but not admissible in Engli.sli, is pleonastic. The verb do, in / do speak, is not pleonastic. In respect to the sense it adds intensity. In respect to the construction it is not in apposition, but in the same predicament with verbs like must and should, as in / must go, &c. ; i. e. it is a verb followed by an infinitive. This we know from its power in those languages where the infinitive has a characteristic sign ; as in German — Die Augen tliaten ihm winken. — Goetiie. Besides this, make is similarly used in Old English. — But men make draw the branch thereof, and beren him to be graffed at Babyloyne. — Sir J. Mandeville. The figure zeugma. — They wear a garment like that of the Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves. — Tlie verb, naturally applying to garment only, is here used to govern lan- guage. This is called, in Greek, zeugma (junction). My paternal home icas made desolate, and he himself was sacrificed. — The sense of this is plain; he means my father. Yet no such substantive as father has gone before. It is supplied, however, from the word paternal. The sense indi- 380 ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL. cated hy paternal gives us a subject to whicli he can refer. In other words, the word he is understood, according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed. This figure, in Greek, is called pros to semainomenon {according to the thing indicated). § 450. Apposition. ~— Ccesar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain. — Here the words Roman emperor explain, or define, the word Casar ; and the sentence, filled up, might stand, Casar, that is, the Roman emperor, &c. Again, the word Roman emperor might be wholly ejected; or, if not ejected, they might be thrown into a parenthesis. The practical bear- ing of this fact is exhibited by changing the form of the sentence, and inserting the conjunction and. In this case, instead of one person, two are spoken of, and the verb invades must be changed from the singular to the plural. Now the words Roman emperor are said to be in apposition to Casar. They constitute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one. They are, as it were, laid alongside [appositi) of the word Ccesar. Cases of doubtful number, wherein two substantives precede a verb, and wherein it is uncertain whether the verb should be singular or plural, are decided by determining whether the substantives be in apposition or the contrary. No matter how many nouns there may be, as long as it can be shown that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular number. § 451. Collectiveness as opjwsed to plurality. — In sentences like the meeting was large, the multitude pursue pleasure, meet- ing and multitude are each collective nouns ; that is, although they present the idea of a single object, that object consists of a plurality of individuals. Hence, pursue is put in the plural number. To say, however, the meeting were large would sound improper. The number of the verb that shall accompany a collective noun depends upon whether the idea of the multipli- city of individuals, or that of the unity of the aggregate, shall predominate. ^and and salt and a mass of iron is easier to bear than a man without understanding. — Let sand and salt and a mass of iron be dealt with as a scries of things the aggregate of whicli foi-ms a mixture, and the cxpi-ession is allowable. ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL. 331 The king and the lords and commons fonns an excellent frame of yovei'nment. Here tlie expression is doubtl'ul. Substitute with for the first and, aiul there is no doubt as to the proj)riety of the singular form is. § 452. The reduction of complex forms to simple ones. — Take, for instance, a current ilkistration, viz. the-kinf/-of'Saxoni/s army. — Here the assertion is, not that the army belongs to Saxony, but that it belongs to the kiny of Saxony ; which Avords must, for the sake of taking a true view of the construc- tion, be dealt with as a single word in the possessive case. Here two cases are dealt with as one ; and a complex term is treated as a single word. The same reasoning applies to phrases like the two kiny Williams. If we say the two kinys William, we must account for the phrase by ajjposition. ^ 453. True notion of the j)nrt of speech in use. — In he is gone, the word yone must be considered as equivalent to absent ; that is, as an adjective. Otherwise the expression is as incorrect as the expression she is eloped. Strong partici- ples are adjectival oftener than weak ones; their form being common to many adjectives. True notion of the oriyinal form. — In the phrase / must speak, the word speak is an infinitive. In the phrase / am forced to speak, the word speak is (in the present English) an infinitive also. In one case, however, it is preceded by to ; whilst in the other, the participle to is absent. The reason for this lies in the original diff"erence of form. Speak — to := the Anglo- Saxon sprecan, a simple infinitive; to speak, or speak -^ to = the Anglo-Saxon to sprecanne, an infinitive in the dative case. § 454. Convertibility. — In the English language, the greater part of the words may, as far as their form is concerned, be one part of speech as well as another. Thus the combinations s-a-n-th, or f-r-e-n-k, if they existed at all, might exist as either nouns or verbs, as either substantives or adjectives, as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositions. This is not the case in the Greek language. There, if a word be a substantive, it will probably end in -s, if an infinitive verb, in -ein, Szc. The 332 ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL. bearings of this difference between languages like the English and languages like the Greek will soon appear. At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, originally one part of speech {e.g. a noun), may become another {e. g. a verb). This may be called the convertibility of words. There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic con- vertibility ; and althougli, in some cases, the line of demarca- tion is not easily drawn between them, the distinction is intel- ligible and convenient. Etymological convertibility.' — The words then and than, now adverbs or conjunctions, were once cases : in other words, they have been converted from one part of speech to another. Or, they may even be said to be cases, at the present moment ; although only in an historical point of view. For the practice of language, they are not only adverbs or conjunctions, but they are adverbs or conjunctions exclusively. Syntactic convertibility. — The combination to err, is at this moment an infinitive verb. Nevertheless it can be used as the equivalent to the substantive error. To err is human := error is human. Now this is an instance of syntactic conversion. Of the two meanings, there is no doubt as to which is the primary one ; which primary meaning is part and parcel of the language at this moment. The infinitive, when used as a substantive, can be used in a singular form only. To err z=. error ; but we have no such form as to errs — errors. Nor is it wanted. The infinitive^ in a substantival sense, always conveys a general statement, so that even when singular, it has a pku-al power; just as man is mortal tz men are mortal. The adjective used as a substantive. — Of these, we have exam- ples in expressions like the blacks of Africa— the bitters and sweets of life — all fours rvere put to the ground. These are true instances of conversion, and are proved to be so by the fact of their taking a plural form. Let the blind lead the blind is not an instance of conversion. The word blind in l)oth instances remains an adjective, and is shown to remain so by its being un inflected. ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL. 333 Uninflectcd purts of speech, nsetl as su/jstanlicef!. — A\ licii Kin^ Kicluird III. says, none of your ifn, he uses the word if as a substantive r: eocpressians of doubt. So in the expression one long now, the word now zz present time. The convertibility of words in English is vciy great ; and it is so because the structure of the language favours it. As few words have any peculiar signs expressive of their being parti- cular parts of speech, interchange is easy, and conversion fullows the logical association of ideas unimpeded. The convertibility of words is in the inverse ratio to the amount of their inflection. ,'j;}4 SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVKS. CHAPTEE II. SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES. § 455. The phenomena of convertibility have been ah'eady explained. The remaining points connected with the syntax of substan- tives, are chiefly points of either elhpsis, or apposition. Ellipsis of substantives. — The historical view of phrases, like Riindell and Bridge's, St. Paul's, &c., shows that this ellipsis is common to the English and the other Gothic languages. Furthermore, it shows that it is met with in languages not of the Gothic stock ; and, finally, that the class of words to which it applies, is, there or thereabouts, the same generally. A. 1. The words most commonly understood, are house and family, or words reducible to them. In Latin, Diana =. cedent DiancB. — Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262. 2. Country, i^etinue. — Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262. 3. Son, daughter, wife, widow. — Deutsche Gi^ammatik, iv. 262.— NrjXeuc Ko'Sjoou, Greek. B. The following phrases are referable to a different class of relations — 1. Right and left — supply hand. This is, probably, a real ellipsis. The words right and left, have not yet become true substantives ; inasmuch as they have no plural forms. In this respect, they stand in contrast with bitter and sweet ; inasmuch as we can say he has tasted both the hitters and sweets of life. Nevertheless, the expression can be refined on. 2. All fours. — To go on all fours. No ellipsis. The word fours is a true substantive, as proved by its existence as a plural. From expressions like irortjpiov -ipvxpov (Matt. xiv. 51), SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES. 335 from the Greek, and perfundit (jclidu (uiidcrstaiul /tilicr), from the Latin, we find that the ])rcsent elhpsis was used with greater hititudc in the chissical huiguagcs than our own. § 456. Proper names can only be used in the sinyular number. — This is a rule of logic, rather than of granunar. ^^'hcn we say the four Georges, the Pitts and Camdens, &:c., the words that thus take a plural form, have ceased to l^e proper names. They either mean — 1. The persons called George, &c. 2. Or, persons so like George, that they may be considered as identical. § 457. Collocation. — In the present English, the genitive case always precedes the noun by which it is governed — the man's hat =: hominis pileus ; never the hat man's = pileus hominis. O i- 36 SYNTAX OP ADJECTIVES. CHAPTER III. SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES. § 458. Pleonasm. — Pleonasm can take place with adjectives only in the expression of the degrees of comparison. Over and above the etymological signs of the comjjarative and superla- tive degi'ees, there may be used the superlative words more and most. And this pleonasm really occurs — The more serener spirit. The most straitest sect. These are instances of pleonasm in the strictest sense of the term. § 459. Collocation. — As a general rule, the adjective pre- cedes the substantive — a good man, not a man good. When, however, the adjective is qualified by either the expression of its degree, or accompanied by another adjective, it may follow the substantive — A man just and good. A woman icise and fair. A hero devoted to his country. A patriot disinterested to a great degree. Single simjile adjectives thus placed after their substantive, belong to the poetry of England, and especially to the ballad poetry — sighs profound — the leaves green. § 4G0. Government. — The only adjective that governs a case, is the word like. In the expression, this is like him, &c., the original power of the dative remains. This we infer — SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES. 337 1. From the fact tliat in most lanjruatrcs which liavc inflec- tions to a sufficient extent, the word meaning like governs a dative case. 2. From the fact that if ever we use in English any ])repo- sition at all to express similitude, it is the preposition to — like to me, like to death, &c. Expressions like/w// of meat, good for John, are by no means instances of the government of adjectives ; the really governing words being the prepositions to and /or respectively. The most that can be said, in cases like these, is that parti- cular adjectives determine the use of particular prepositions — thus the preposition o/ generally follows the adjective /m//, &c. § 461. The positive degree preceded by the adjective more, is equivalent to the comparative form — e. g. more ivise =z wiser. The reasons for employing one expression in preference to the other, depend upon the nature of the particular word used. When the word is, at one ^and the same time, of Anglo- Saxon origin and monosyllabic, there is no doubt about the preference to be given to the form in -er. Thus_, wis-er is preferable to 77iore wise. When, however, the word is compound, or trisyllabic, the combination with the w^ord jnore is preferable — more fruiff III being better than fruitfuHer. more villanous . . . villanouser. Between these two extremes, there are several intermediate forms wherein the use of one rather than another, will depend upon the taste of the writer. The question, however, is a ques- tion of euphony, rather than of aught else. It is also illus- trated by the principle of not multiplying secondary elements. In such a word as fruit-full-er, there are two additions to the root. The same is the case with the i>\\per\iiti\c, fruit full-est. Section 350 should be read carefully. There, there is indi- cated a retinement upon the currcntnotions as to the power of the comparative degree, and reasons are given for believ- ing that the fundamental notion expressed by the comparative inflection is the idea of comparison or contrast between two objects. VOL. II. z 838 SYNTAX OF ADJECTIVES. In this case, it is better, in speaking of only two objects, to use the comparative degree rather than the superlative — even when we use the definite article the. Thus — This is the better of the two, is preferable to This is the best of the two. This principle is capable of an application more extensive than our habits of speaking and writing will verify. Thus, to go to other parts of speech, we should logically say — Whether of the two, rather than but not Which of the two. Either the father or the son. Either the father, the son, or the daughter. 1 This statement may be refined on. It is chiefly made for the sake of giving fresh prominence to the idea of duality expressed by the terminations -er and -ter. The absence of inflection simplifies the syntax of adjectives. Violations of concord are impossible where there are no con- cords to violate. We could not make an adjective disagree with its substantive if we wished. SYNTAX OF TRONOUNS. 339 CHAPTER IV. SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS. § 462. The syntax of substantives is, in English, simple, from the paucity of its inflections, a condition which is un- favourable towards the evolution of constructional complexi- ties ; the most remarkable exception being the phenomenon of convertibility noticed above. The same is the case with adjectives. The want of in- flection simplifies their syntax equally with that of the sub- stantives. But with the pronouns this is not the case. Here we have — 1. Signs of gender; 2. Signs of case; 3. Signs of num- ber, to a greater extent, and with more peculiarities, than elsewhere. Furthermore, the pronouns exhibit in a great degree the phenomena of conversion indicated in ^ 454. Pleonasm in the syntax of pronouns. — In the following sen- tences the words in italics are pleonastic. 1. The king, he is just, 2. I saw Jwr, the queen. 3. The raen, tliey were there. 4. The khig, his crown. Of these forms, the first is more common than the second and third, and the fourth more common than the first. The fourth has another clcnunit of importance. It has given rise to the absurd notion that the genitive case iu -5 {fat/ter-s) is a contraction from //is [father his). To say nothing about the inapplicability of this rule to z 2 840 SYNTAX OF PRONOUNS. ' feminine genders, and plural numbers, the whole histoiy of the Indo-Germanic language is against it. 1. We cannot reduce the queen's majesty to the queen his majesty. 2. We cannot reduce the children's bread to the children his bread. 3. The Anglo-Saxon forms are in -es, not in his. 4. The word his itself must be accounted for; and that cannot be done by assuming his to be he + his. 5. The -s in father's is the -is in patris, and the -oq in TraTipoq. The preceding examples illustrate an apparent paradox, viz. the fact of pleonasm and ellipsis being closely allied. The king, he is just, dealt with as a single sentence, is undoubt- edly pleonastic. But it is not necessarily to be considered as a mere simple sentence. The king may represent a first sen- tence incomplete, whilst he is just represents a second sentence in full. What is pleonasm in a single sentence, is ellipsis in a double one. THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 341 CHAPTER V. THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. § 463. Personal pronouns. — Tlie use of the second person plural instead of the second singular has already been noticed. This use of one number for another is current throughout the Gothic languages. A pronoun so used is conveniently- called the pronomen reverentice. In English^ however, there is a second change over and above the change of number, viz. that of case. We not only say ye instead of thou, but you instead of ye. Mr. Guest remarks, "that at one time the two forms ye and you seemed to have been nearly changing place in our language. As I have made ye one, Lords, one remain ; So I grow stronger you more honour gain. Henry Fill. iv. 2. What gain you by forbidding it to teaze ye. It now can neither trouble you nor please ye. Dryden." In German and the Danish the pronomen reverentia is got at by a change, not of number, but of person — in other words, the pronoun of the tJiird person is used instead of that of the second ; just as if, in the English, we said xcill they lualk = icill you icalk, luill ye tvalk, ivilt thou walk. § 461. Dativus ethicus. — In the phrase Eob me the exchequer. — Henry IF, the me is expletive, and is equivalent to for me. This ex- pletive use of the dative is conveniently called the dativus 342 THE TRUE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. ethicus. It occurs more frequently in the Latin than in the English^ and more frequently in the Greek than in the Latin. §465. The reflected personal pronoun. — In the English language there is no equivalent to the Latin se, the German sich, and the Scandinavian sik, and sig. It follows from this that the word self is used to a greater extent than would otherwise be the case. I strike me is awkward, but not ambiguous. Tlwu strikest thee is awkward, but not ambiguous. He strikes him is ambiguous ; inasmuch as him may mean either the person who strikes or some one else. In order to be clear we add the word self when the idea is reflective. He strikes himself is, at once, idiomatic, and unequivocal. So it is with the plural persons. We strike us is awkward, but not ambiguous. Ye strike you is the same. They strike them is ambiguous. This shows the value of a reflective pronoun for the third person. As a general rule, therefore, whenever we use a verb reflectively we use the word self in combination with the personal pronoun. Yet this was not always the ease. The use of the simple personal pronoun was current in Anglo-Saxon, and that, not only for the two first persons, but for the third as well. The exceptions to this rule are either poetical expressions, or imperative modes. He sat him down at a pillar's base. — ^Byron. Sit thee down. Reflective neuters. — In the phrase / strike me the verb strike is transitive ; in other words, the word me expresses the object of an action, and the meaning is difi"erent from the meaning of the simple expression I strike. In the phrase I fear me (used by Lord Campbell in his " Lives of the Chancellors"), the verb fear is intransitive or neuter ; in other words, the word me (unless, indeed, fear mean THE TRUE PERSONAL TRONOUNS. 343 terrify) expresses no object of any iiction at all ; whilst the meaning is the same as in the simple expression I fear. Here the reflective pronoun appears out of place, i. e. after a neuter or intransitive verb. Such a use, however, is but the fragment of an extensive system of reflective verbs thus fonned, developed in different degrees in the different Gothic languages; but in all more than in the English. Equivocal reflectives. — The proper place of the reflective is after the verb. The proper place of the governing pronoun is, in the indica- tive and subjunctive moods, befoj-e the verb. Hence in expressions like the preceding there is no doubt as to the power of the pronoun. The imperative mood, however, sometimes pi'esents a com- plication. Here the governing person may follow the verb. Mount ye ■=. either he mounted or mount yourselves. \\\ phrases like this, and in phrases Busk ye, husk ye, my bonny, bonny bride, Busk ye, busk ye, my winsome marrow, the construction is ambiguous. Ye may either be a nomina- tive case governing the verb busk, or an accusative case go- verned by it. This is an instance of what may be called the equivocal reflective. 344 OF THE SYNTAX OF CHAPTER VI. ON THE SYNTAX OF THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, AND THE PRONOUNS OF THE THIRD PERSON. § 466. Reasons have been given in § 366, for considering the so-called pronouns of the third person {he, she, it, they) de- monstrative rather than truly personal. As his, and her, are genitive cases (and not adjectives), there is no need of explaining such combinations as his mother, her father, inasmuch as no concord of gender is expected. The expressions are respectively equivalent to mater ejus, not mater sua; pater ejus, . pater sims. From § 366, it may be seen that its is a secondary genitive, and it may be added, that it is of late origin in the language. The Anglo-Saxon form was his, the genitive of he for the neuter and masculine equally. Hence, when, in the old writers, we meet his, where we expect its, we must not suppose that any personification takes place, but simply that the old genitive common to the two genders is used in preference to the modern one limited to the neuter, and irregularly formed. This has been illustrated by Mr. Guest. The following instances are the latest specimens of its use: — " The apoplexy is, as I take it, a kind of lethargy. I have read the cause of Ms effects in Galeu ; it is a kind of deafness." — 2 Henri/ ir. i. 2. " If tlie salt have lost Ids savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned ? It is neither tit for the land nor yet for the dunghill ; but men cast it out." — laihe xiv. 34, 35. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. 345 " Some afTiiin tliat every plant has Jm particular fly or caterpillar, which it breeds and feeds." — Walton's Angler. " This rule is not so general, but that it admittcth of his excep- tions." — Carew. " Tlie genitive its is of late introduction into our language. Thougli used by our dramatists and many of their contem- poraries, it does not occur in the versions of our Bible, the sub- stitute being his or the compound term thereof.'' — Phil. Trans. No. 25. For the archaic and provincial use of him and he fur it sec ibid. ; remembering that the two cases are different. His for its is an old form retained : him and he for it are really changes of gender. § 467. Take them things away. — Here we have tJtem for those. The expression, although not to be imitated, is explained by the originally demonstrative power of them. Sometimes the expression is still more anomalous, and we hear the so-called nominative case used, instead of the accusa- tive. In the expression take they things away, the use of they for them (itself for those) is similarly capable of being, down to a certain period of our language, explained as an archaism. The original accusative was fo, and jjo .- the form in -m being dative. § 468. This and that. — The remarks upon the nse of these words in certain expressions is brought at once to the Latin scholar by the quotation of the two following lines from Ovid, and the suggestion of a well-known rule in the Eton Latin Granmiar : — Quocunqrie aspicies nihil est nisi pontus et aer; Nubibus hie ttimidus, Jluctibus ille miuax. Here hie {zz this or the one) refers to the antecedent last named (the air) ; whilst ille (= that or the other) refers to the antecedent first named (the sea). Now on the strength of this example, combined with others, it is laid down as a rule in Latin that hie {this) refers to the last-named antecedent, ille to the lirst-uamcd. AVhat is the rule in English ? Suppose we say John's is a good sword and so is C/uirles's ; 346 ON THE SYNTAX OF this cut through a thick rope, the other cut through an iron rod. Or, instead of saying this and that, we may say the one and the other. It is clear that, in determining to which of the two swords the respective demonstratives refer, the meaning will not help us at all, so that our only recourse is to the rules of grammar ; and it is the opinion of the present writer that the rules of grammar will help us just as little. The Latin rule is adopted by scholars, but still it is a Latin rule rather than an English one. The truth is, that it is a question which no authority can settle; and all that grammar can tell us is (what we know without it), that this refers to the name of the idea which is logically the most close at hand, and that to the idea which is logically the most distant. What constitutes nearness or distance of ideas — in other words, what determines the sequence of ideas — is another ques- tion. That the idea, however, of sequence, and, consequently, of logical proximity and logical distance, is the fundamental idea in regard to the expressions in question, is evident from the very use of the words this and that. Now the sequence of ideas is capable of being determined by two tests. 1. The idea to which the name was last given, or (changing the expression) the name of the last idea, may be the nearest idea in the order of sequence, and, consequently, the idea referred to by the pronoun of proximity. In this case the idea closest at hand to the writer of the second line of the couplet quoted above was the idea of the atmosphere [aer), and it was, consequently, expressed by this [hie). 2. Or the idea to which the name was first given, or (chang- ing the expression) the name of the first idea, may be the nearest idea in the order of sequence, and consequently the idea referred to it by the pronoun of proximity ; inasmuch as the idea which occurs first is the most prominent one, and what is prominent appears near. In this case, the idea closest at hand to the writer of the second line of the couplet quoted above would have been the idea of the sea [pontus), and it would, consequently, have been the idea expressed by this {hie). THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. 347 As Ovid, Lowcvcr, cousidurcd the idea at the eiul of the last half of one sentence to be the idea nearest to the begin- ning; of the next, we have him expressing himself as he does. On the other hand, it is easy to coneeive a writer with whom the nearest idea is the idea that led the way to the others. As I believe that one and the same individual may measure the sequence of his ideas sometimes according to one of these pi'incipk's, and sometimes according to another, I believe that all rules about the relations of this and that are arbitrary. It is just a matter of chance whether a thinker take up his line of ideas by the end or by the beginning. The analogies of such expressions as the following are in favour of this, in English, applying to the first subject, that to the second ; since the word attorney takes the place of this, and applies to the first name of the two, i. e. to Thurlow : — " It was a proud day for the bar wlieu Lord Xorth made Thurlow (I) and (2) Wedderburn (1) Attorney (2) and Solicitor General." — Mathias, from Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, 348 ON THE CONSTRUCTION OV CHAPTER VII. ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD SELF. § 469. The undoubted constructions of the word self, in the present state of the cultivated Enghsh, are threefold. 1. Government. — In myself, thyself, ourselves, and your- selves, the construction is that of a common substantive with an adjective or genitive case. Myself :=. my individuality, and is similarly construed — mea individualitas (or persona), or mei individualitas (or persona) . 2. Apposition. — In himself and themselves, when accusa- tive^ the construction is that of a substantive in apposition with a pronoun. Himself := him, the individual. 3. Composition. — It is only, however, when himself and them- selves are in the accusative case, that the construction is ap- positional. When they are used as nominatives, it must be explained on another principle. In phrases like He himself was present, T//e?/ the^iiselves were present, there is neither apposition nor government; him and them, being neither related to my and thy, so as to be governed, nor yet to he and they, so as to form an apposition. In order to come under one of these conditions, the phrases should be either he his self {they their selves), or else he he self {they they selves). In this difficulty, the only logical view that can be taken of the matter, is to consider the words himself and them- selves, not as two words, but as a single word compounded; and even then, the compound will be of an irregular kind ; inasmuch as the inflectional element -m, is dealt with as part and parcel of the root. Herself. — The construction here is ambiguous. It is one of THE WORD SELF. 349 thf preceding constructions. ^Vllicll, however, it is, is uncer- tain ; since her may be cither a so-called genitive, like my, or an accusative, like him. Itself — is also ambiguous. The s may represent the -s in its, as well as the s- in self. This inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxon stage of the English language. In the exhibition of the second construction of the word self, it was assimicd that the case was a case of apposition, and that self was substantival in character. Nevertheless, this is by no means a necessary phenomenon. Self might, as far as its power is determined by its construction alone, in words like himself, as easily be an adjective as a substantive. In which case the construction would be a matter, not of apposition, but of agreement. To illustrate this by the Latin language, himself might equal either eum personam [him, the person), or eum per- soruilem [him personal). The evidence, however, of the forms like myself, as well as other facts adducible from comparative philology, prove the substantival character of self. On the other hand, it ought not to be concealed that another word, whereof the preponderance of the adjectival over the substan- tival power is undoubted, is found in the Old English, with just the same inconsistency as the word self ; i. e. sometimes in government (like a substantive), and sometimes in either concord or apposition, like a word which may be either substantive or adjective. This word is one; the following illustrations of which are from !Mr. Guest. — Phil. Trans. No. 22. In this world wote I no knight, Who durst his one with hym figlit. Ipomedon, 1C90. fall ha hire ane were Ayein so kene keisere and al bis kine riche. St. Catherine, 90. Though she alone were Against so fierce a kaiser, and all his kingdom. Here his one, her one, mean his singleness, her single ness. lie made his mone Within a garden all him one. GowER, Confess. .Irnant. 350 ON THE WORD SELF. Here him one zz himself in respect to its construction, § 470. As to the inflection of the word -self, all its com- pounds are substantives ; inasmuch as they all take plural forms as far as certain logical limitations will allow them to do so — ourselves, yowselves, themselves. Myself, thyself, himself, itself, and herself, are naturally sin- gular, and under no circumstances can become plural. Themselves is naturally plural, and under no circumstances can become singular. Ourselves and yourselves are naturally plural; yet under cer- tain circumstances they become singular. a. Just as men say we for I, so may they say our for my. b. Just as men say you for thou, so may they say your for thy. In respect to the inflection in the way of case, there are no logical limitations whatever. There is nothing against the existence of a genitive form self's except the habit of the English language not using one, founded on the little necessity for so doing. — Are you sure this is your own ? Yes, I am sure it is my own self's. Such an expression is. both logic and grammar. When an adjective intervenes between self and its personal pronoun the construction is always in the way of government ; in other words, the personal pronoun is always put in the genitive case. His own self, )wt liim own self. Their own selves, 7iot them own selves. § 471 . The construction of self and a personal pronoun with a verb may be noticed in this place. It is only in the case of the two pronouns of the singular number that any doubt can arise. 1. When myself or thyself stands alone, the verb that follows is in the third person — myself is (not am) iveak, thyself is (not art) weak. Here the construction is just the same as in the proposition my body is weak. 2. When myself or thyself is preceded by / or thou, the verb that follows is in the first person — /, myself am (not is) weak ; thou, till/self art (not is) weak. ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. Sol CHAPTER VIII. ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. § 472. The possessive pronouns fall into two classes. The first class contains the forms connected, partially in tlicir etymology and wholly in their syntax, with my and thy, &c. The second class contains the forms connected, partially in their etymology and wholly in their syntax^ with mine and thine, &c. The first class is the class of what may be called the oblique possessives; the name being founded upon the etymological fact of their being connected with the oblique cases of the pronominal intlection. — My, thy, his (as in his hook), her, its (as in its book), our, your, their. These are conveniently con- sidered as the equivalents to the Latin forms, inei, tui, ejus, nostrum, vestrum, eorum. The second class is the class of what may be called the absolute possessives ; the name being founded upon the syn- tactic fact of their being able to form the term of a proposition by themselves; as whose is this? Mine {not my). — Mine, thine, his (as in the book is his), Iters, ours, yours, theirs, are conveniently considered as the equivalents to the Latin fonns mens, mea, meum ; tuns, tua, tuum ; suus, sua, suum ; noster, nostra, nostrum ; tester, vestra, vestrum. How far either or both of these two classes of pronouns are cases, or adjectives, is a point of etymology that has already been noticed (Part IV. chap. xx.). How far both or either are cases or adjectives is, in syntax, a matter of indifference. There is, however, a palpable difference between the con- 352 ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. struction of my and mine. We cannot say this is mine hat, and we cannot say this hat is my. Nevertheless^ this difference is not explained by any change of construction from that of adjectives to that of cases. As far as the syntax is concerned, the construction of 7ny and mme is equally that of an adjective agreeing with a substantive, and of a genitive (or possessive) case gove7'ned by a substantive. Now a common genitive case can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term {i. e. absolutely) . — 1. As part of a term — this is Juki's hat. 2. As a whole term — this hat is John's. And a common adjective can be used in two ways; either as part of a term, or as a whole term {i.e. absolutely). — 1. As part of a term — these are good hats. 2. As a whole term — these hats are good. Now whether we consider my, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess only one of the properties just illustrated, i. e. they can only be used as part of a term — this is my hat ; not tliis hat is my. And whether we consider 7nine, and the words like it, as adjectives or cases, they possess only one of the properties just illustrated, i. e. they can only be used as whole terms, or abso- lutely — this hat is mine ; not this is mine hat. For a full and perfect construction, whether of an adjective or a genitive case, the possessive pronouns present the pheno- menon of being, singly, incomplete, but, nevertheless, comple- mentary to each other when taken in their two forms. In the absolute construction of a genitive case, the term is formed by the single word only so far as the expression is con- cerned. A substantive is always understood from what has preceded. — This discovery is Newton's zz. this discovery is New- ton's discovery. The same with adjectives. — This weather is fine =: this wea- ther is fine weather. And the same with absolute pronouns. — This hat is mine z=. this hat is my hat ; and this is a hat of mine =: this is a hat of my hats. In respect to all matters of syntax considered exclusively, it is so thoroughly a matter of indifference whether a word be an ON THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 853 adjective or a genitive case, that Wallis considers the fonns in -'s, like father's, not as genitive cases, but as adjectives. Looking to the logic of the question alone, he is right, and, looking to the practical syntax of the question, he is right also. lie is only wrong on the etymological side of the question. " Nomina substantiva apud nos nullum vcl generum vel casuum discrimen sortiuntur." — P. 76. " Duo sunt adjcctivorum genera, a substantivis immediate descen- dentia, qua; semper substantivis suis prKponuntur. Primum quidem adjectivum possessivum libet appellare. Fit autem a quovis substan- tive, sive singulari sive plurali, addito -s. — Ut itians nature, the nature of man, uatura humana vel hominis; mens nature, natura liumana vel hominum ; Firf/iVs poems, the poems of Firgil, poemata Virgilii vel Virgiliana."— P. 89. VOL. II. A A 35 i THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. CHAPTER IX. THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. § 473. The word that, although originally^ when a demon- strative pronoun, a neuter singular, is now used as a relative for all genders, and both numbers. 1. He that spoke. — Masculine gender. 2. She that spoke. — Feminine gender. 3. They that fought. — Plural number. 4. The mau that I struck. — Oljective case. § 474. EtjTiiologically, ivhich is no true neuter of who, but a compound word. It is used, however, with less latitude than that. The beginning of the Lord's Prayer exhibits it in combination with a masculine noun. Generally, howevei', it is confined to the neuter gender ; in which it is common to both numbers. 1. The dagger wJiich stabbed Caesar. — Nominative singular. 2. The daggers tchich stabbed Caesar. — Nominative plural. 3. The dagger Khich I grasp. — Objective singular. 4. The daggers which I grasp. — Objective Plural. JJliich has so nearly replaced ivhat that the general use of this last word with its proper power, as a neuter relative, is, in the present English, vulgar, e. fj. — 1. The dagger what stabbed Caesar. 2. The dagger what I grasp. In one case, however, ivhat is used as a true relative, viz. when the antecedent is either this or that. This is tchat I mean ; not, this is which I mean. That is v:hat I mean ; not, that is zchich I mean. THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 355 § 475. The word as, properly a conjunction, is occasionally used as a relative — i/ie man as rhlrs to market. This expression is not to be imitated. It ought, however, to be explained. As is a conjunction denoting comparison. The ideas of comparison and equivalence are allied. The rela- tive isj ex vi termini, the equivalent, in one part of a sentence, to the antecedent in another. (1) The man — (2) who speaks. Here tvho zz. man. (1) As white — (2) as snow. Here snow zz white. § 476. It is necessary that the relative be in the same gender as the antecedent — the man who — the ivoman who — the thing ivhich. It is necessary that the relative be in the same mimher with the antecedent. It is not necessary for the relative to be in the same case with its antecedent. 1. John, icho trusts me, comes here. 2. John, 7c1iom I trust, comes here. 3. John, ichose confidence I possess, comes here. 4. I trust John, wJio trusts me. The reason why the relative must agree with its antecedent in both number and gender, whilst it need not agree with it in case, is found in the following: observations. 1. All sentences containing a relative contain two verbs — John ivho (1) trusts me (2) comes here. 2. Two verbs express two actions — (1) trust, (2) come. 3. Whilst, however, the actions are two in number, the person or thing which does, or suffers them is single — John. 4. He {she or it) is singular, ex vi termini. The relative expresses the idcntitij between the subjects (or objects) of the two actions. Thus ivho zz John, or is another name for John. 5. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of AA 2 356 THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. one and the same gender. The John who trusts is necessarily of the same gender with the John who comes. 6. Things and persons that are one and the same, are of one and the same number. The number of Johns who trust, is the same as the number of Johns who come. Both these elements of concord are immutable. 7. But a third element of concord is not immutable. The person or thing that is an agent in the one part of the sen- tence, may be the object of an action in the other. The John whom I trust may tynist me also. Hence — a. T trust John — John the object. b. John trusts me — John the agent. As the relative is only the antecedent in another form, it may change its case according to the construction. 1. I trust John — (2) John trusts me. 2. I trust John — (2) He trusts me. 3. I trust John — (2) Who trusts me. 4. John trusts me — (2) 1 trust John. 5. John trusts me — (2) I trust him. 6. John trusts me — (2) I trust whom. 7. John trusts me — (2) Whom I trust. 8. John — (2) Whom I trust trusts me. § 477. The hooks I want are here, — This is a specimen of a true ellipsis. In all such phrases in full, there are three essen- tial elements. 1. The first proposition ; as the hooks are here. 2. The second proposition ; as I want. 3. The word which connects the two propositions, and with- out which they naturally make separate, independent, uncon- nected statements. Now, although true and unequivocal ellipses are scarce, the preceding is one of the most unequivocal kind — the word which connects the two propositions being wanting. § 478. One or two points connected with the construction of those sentences wherein relative pronouns occur, are neces- sary to be familiarly understood in order for us to see our way clearly to certain real and apparent anomalies in the syntax of this class of words. THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 357 1. Every sentence wlicrcin a relative occurs, is conii)le.\, i. e. it consists of two propositions — the man tv/w rides is come = (1) the man is come ; (2) ivho rides. Here the relative tcho has uo meaning in itself, but takes a meaning from the noun of the preceding clause. 2. The relative is the demonstrative or personal j^ronoun under another form. — The two ])ropositions (1) the man is come; (2) who rides zz (1) the man is come; (2) he rides. 3. The demonstrative or personal p7'onoun is the substantive in another form. — The two propositions (1) the man is come ; (2) he rides = (1) the man is come ; (2) the man rides. 4. Hence the relative is the equivalent to a demonstrative pronoun, or to a substantive, indifferently. 5. But the relative is the equivalent to the pronoun and substantive, and something more. In sentences like The man is come — he rides — The man is come — the man rides. The identity between the person mentioned in the two pro- positions is implied, not expressed. This the relative expresses; and hence its use in languages. 6. From these observations we get a practical rule for deter- mining doubful constructions. a. lleduce the sentence to the several propositions (which arc never less than two) which it contains. b. Replace the relative by its equivalent personal or demon- strative pronoun, or by its equivalent substantive. c. The case of the demonstrative or substantive, is the case of the relative also. By applying this rule to such expressions as Satan, than wJioiii None higher sat, thus spake, we find them, according to the current etymology, incor- rect — Satau spake — none sat higher than he sat. Satan spake — none sat higher than Satan sat. Hence the expression should be — Satan than who None higlier sat. 358 THE RELATIVE PRONOUNS. Observe. — The words, according to the current etymology, indicate an explanation which, rightly or wrongly, has been urged in favour of expressions like the one in question, and which will be noticed in a future chapter. Observe. — That three circumstances complicate the syntax of the relative pronoun. 1. The elliptic form of the generality of the sentences wherein it follows the word than. 2. The influence of the oblique interrogation, 3. The influence of an omitted relative. This last finds place in the present chapter. When the relative and antecedent are in different cases, and the relative is omitted, the antecedent is sometimes put in the case of the relative. He whom I accuse has eutered. Contracted according to § 477 — He I accuse has entered. Changed, according to the present section — Him I accuse has entered. And so (as shown by Mr. Guest, Philological Transactions), Shakspere has really written, — Him I accuse. The city gates by this lias entered. Coriolanus, v. 5. Better leave undone, than by our deeds acquire Too high a fame, when him we serve 's away. Antony and Cleopatra^ iii. 1. The reason of this is clear. The verb that determines the case of the relative is brought in contact with the ante- cedent, and the case of the antecedent is accommodated to the case of the relative. The Greek phrase, ^jow/iat /3f/3Xioiit((l. It umy belong to either elause of the sentence, i. e. the whole sentence may be dividetl into — Either — U in I i/oitr manler — Or — your lauder who comiitandH you. This is the first point to observe. Tlie next is, that the verb in the second clause {command or commands) is governed, not by cither tlie personal prononn or the substantive, but l>y the relative, i, e. in the particular case before us, not by either /or master, but by iv/io. And this brings us to the following question : — with which of the two antecedents docs the relative agree ? with / or with master ? This may be answered by the two following rules : — Rule 1. — A\Tien the two antecedents are in the same pro- position, the relative agrees with the first. Thus — 1. It is /your master — 2. Who command you. Rule 2. — When the two antecedents are in different pro- positions, the relative agrees with the second. Thus— 1. Itis/— 2. Your master who commands you. This, however, is not all. What determines whether the two antecedents shall be in the same or in dilferent proposi- tions ? I believe that the following rules for what may be called the distribution of the substantive antecedent will bear criticism. Rule 1. That when there is any natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the rela- tive, the antecedent belongs to the second clause. Thus, in the expression just quoted, the word master is logically con- nected with the w ord command ; and this fact makes the ex- pression. It is I your master who commands you, the better of the two. Rule 2. That when there is no natural connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the rela- 374 THE CONCORD OP VERBS. tive^ the antecedent belongs to the lirst clause. It is I, John, who command (not commands) you. To recapitulate, the train of reasoning has been as fol- lows : — 1. The person of the second verb is the person of the relative. 2. The person of the relative is that of one of two ante- cedents. 3. Of such two antecedents the relative agrees with the one which stands in the same proposition with itself. 4. Which position is determined by the connection or want of connection between the substantive antecedent and the verb governed by the relative. Respecting the person of the verb in the first proposition of a complex sentence there is no doubt. I, your master, who commands you to make haste, am (not is) in a hurry. Here, / am in a hurry is the first proposition ; who commands you to make haste, the second. It is not difficult to see why the construction of sentences consisting of two propositions is open to an amount of latitude which is not admissible in the construction of single jiroposi- tions. As long as the different parts of a complex idea are contained within the limits of a single proposition, their subor- dinate character is easily discerned. When, however, they amount to whole propositions, they take the appearance of being independent members of the sentence. § 492. The concord of number. — It is believed that the following three rules will carry us through all difficulties of the kind just exhibited. Rule 1. That the verb agrees with the subject, and with nothing but the subject. The only way to justify such an expression as the ivages of sin is death, is to consider death not as the subject, but as the predicate ; in other words, to consider the construction to be, death is the wayes of sin. Rule 2. That, except in the case of the word there (§ 486), the word which comes first is always the subject, until the contrary be proved. Rule 3. That no number of connected singular nouns can govern a plural verb, unless they be connected by a copulative THE CONCORD OF VERBS. 375 conjunction. The sun and miion sltinc, — the sun in conjunction M itli the moon shines. Plural subjects with singular predicates. — The wages of sin are death. — Honest men are the salt of the earth. Singular subjects with ]jlu7'al predicates. — These constructions are rarer than the prccedini; : inasmuch as two or more persons (or things) are oftener spoken of as being equivalent to one, than one person (or thing) is spoken of as being equivalent to two or more. Sixpence is twelve halfpennies. He ii all head and shoulders. Vulnera totus erat. Tu es delicia; niea). 376 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS. CHAPTEil XVII. ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS. § 493. The government of verbs is of two sorts^ (1.) objec- tive, and (2.) modal. It is objective where the noun which follows the verb is the name of some object affected by the action of the verb, — as he strikes me ; he ivounds the enemy. It is modal when the noun which follows the verb is not the name of any object affected by the verb, but the name of some object explaming the manner in which the action of the verb takes place, the instrument with which it is done, the end for which it is done, &c. The government of all transitive verbs is necessarily objec- tive. It may also be modal, — / strike the enemy with the sword zz ferio host em gladio. The government of all intransitive verbs can only be modal, — / walk with the stick. When we say, / walk the horse, the word walk has changed its meaning, and signifies make to walk, and is, by the very fact of its being followed by the name of an object, converted from an intransitive into a tran- sitive verb. The modal construction may also be called the adverbial construction ; because the effect of the noun is akin to that of an adverb, — I Jiyht with bravery = IJi(/ht bravely ; he ivalks a king — he walks regally. The modal (or adverbial) construc- tion (or government) sometimes takes the appearance of the objective : inasmuch as intransitive verbs are frequently fol- lowed by a substantive ; which substantive is in the objective ON TilE GOVERNiMENT OF VERBS. 377 case. Nevertlmlcss, this is no ])roof of trovernnicnt. For a verb to be capable of governing an objective case, it must be a verb signifying an action affecting an object : and if there be no such object, there is no room for any objective government. To break the sleep of the righteous is to effect, by breakiuy, the sleep of the righteous : but, to sleep the sleep of the rujhteous, is not to affect by sleeping the sleep of the righteoiis ; since the act of sleeping is an act that affects no object whatever. It is a state. We may, indeed, give it the ap])cariuice of a transitive verb, as we do when we say, the opiate slept the patient, mean- ing thereby, lulled to sleep ; but the transitive character is only apparent. To sleep the sleep of the righteous is to sleep in agreement with — or according to — or after the manner of — the sleep of the righteous, and the construction is adverbial. In the grammars of the classical languages, the following mle is exceptionable — Quodvis verbum admittit accusativujn nominis sibi cognati. It does so ; but it governs the accusative case not objectively but modally. Modal verbs may be divided into a multiplicity of divisions. Of such, it is not necessary in English to give more than the following; four : — 1. Oppositional. — As, she ivalks a queen: you consider me safe. The appositional construction is, in reality, a matter of concord rather than of gender. It will be considered more fully in the following section. 2. Traditive. — As, / give the book to you zz do librum tibi. I teach you the lesson zz StS/icrKw al rijv di^aaKoXiav. In all traditive expression, there are three ideas : (1.) an agent, (.'2.) an object, (3.) a person, or thing, to which the object is made over, or transferred, by the agent. For this idea the term dative is too restricted : since in Greek and some other lan- guages, both the name of the object conveyed, and the name of the person to whom it is conveyed are, frequently, put in the accusative case. 3. Instrumental. — \:i, I fight with a sword =: pug no ense =■ feohte sweorde, — Anglo-Saxon. 4. Emphatic. — As, he sleeps the sleep of the righteous. 378 ON THE GOVERNMENT OP VERBS. § 494. Verb and nominative case. — No verb governs a nomi- native case. The appositional construction seems to require such a form of government ; but the form is only apparent. It is I. It is thou. It is he, &c. HerCj although the word is is followed by a nominative case, it by no means governs one — at least not as a verb. It has been stated above that the so-called verb-substantive is only a verb for the purposes of etymology. In syntax, it is only a part of a verb, i. e. the copula. Now this fact changes the question of the construction in expressions like it is I, &c., from a point of government to one of concord. In the previous examples the words it, is, and /, were, respectively, subject, copula, and j)'''edicate ; and, as it is the function of the copula to denote the agreement between the predicate and the subject, the real point to investigate is the nature of the concord between these two parts of a pro- position. Now the predicate need agree with the subject in case only. 1. It has no necessary concord in gender — she is a man in courage — he is a woman in effeminacy — it is a girl. 2. It has no necessary concord in number — sin is the wages of death — it is these that do the mischief. 3. It has no necessary concord in person — / am he whom you mean. 4. It has, however, a necessary concord in case. Nothing but a nominative case can, by itself, constitute a term of either kind — subject or predicate. Hence, both terms must be in the nominative, and, consequently, both in the same case. Expres- sions like this is for me are elliptic. The logical expression is this is a thing for me. Rule. — The predicate must be of the same case with its subject. Hence — The copula, instead of determining a case, expresses a concord. Rule 1. — All words connected with a nominative case by the ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS. 379 copula {i.e. the so-called vcrh-substantivc) must he iioiniiiativc. — It is I ; I am safe. Rule 2. — All words in apposition with a word so connected must be nominative. — It is difficult to illustrate this from the English language, from owv want of inflections. In Latin, however, we say vucoi' Johannes =z I am called John, not vocor Johannem. Here the logical equivalent is ego sum vocatus Johannes — where — 1. Efjo, is nominative because it is the subject, 2. Vocatus is nominative because it is the predicate, agree- ing with the subject. 3. Johannes is nominative because it is part of the predi- cate, and in aj)positiou with vocatus. N.B. Although in precise language Johannes is said to agree with vocatus rather than to be in a})position with it, the expres-' sion, as it stands, is correct. Apposition is the agreement of substantives, agreement the apposition of adjectives. llule 3. — All verbs which, when resolved into a copula and participle, have their participle in apposition (or agreeing), with the noun, are in the same condition as simple copulas — she walks a queen zz. she is walking/ a queen = ilia est incedens regina. Rule 4. — The construction of a subject and copula preceded by the conjunction that, is the same in respect to the predicate by which they are followed as if the sentence were an isolated pro|)osition. This rule determines the propriety of the expression — / believe that it is he as opposed to the expression / believe that it is him. I believe zz I am believing, and forms one proposition. It is he, forms a second. That, connects the two ; but belongs to neither. Now, as the relation between the subject and predicate of a proposition cannot be affected by a word which does not belong to it, the construction is the same as if the propositions were wholly separate. N.B. The question (in cases where the conjunction that is not used) as to the greater propriety of the two expressions — 380 ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS, I believe it to be him — / believe it to be he — has yet to be con- sidered. § 495. The verb and genitive case. — No verb in the present English governs a genitive case. In Anglo-Saxon certain verbs did : e. g. verbs of ruling and others — weolde thises mid- dangeardes =: he ruled {wealded) this earth's. Genitive cases, too, governed by a verb are common both in Latin and Greek. To eat of the fruit of the tree is no genitive construction, however much it may be equivalent to one. Fruit is in the objective case, and is governed not by the verb, but by the pre- position of. § 496, The verb and accusative. — All transitive verbs govern an accusative case, — he strikes me, thee, him, her, it, us, ijou, them. The verb and dative case. — The word give, and a few others, govern a dative case. Phrases like give it him, whom shall I give it? are perfectly correct, and have been explained above. The prepositional construction give it to him, — to whom shall I give it ? is unnecessary. The evidence of this is the same as in the construction of the adjective like. § 497. The partitive construction. — Certain transitive verbs, the action whereof is extended not to the whole, but only to a part of their object, are followed by the preposition of and an objective case. To eat of the fruit of the tree =. to eat apart (or some) of the fruit of the tree: to drink of the water of the well = to drink a part (or some) of the water of the well. It is not necessary, here, to suppose the ellipsis of the word part (or some). The construction is a construction that has grown out of the partitive power of the genitive case; for which case the preposition of, followed by the objective, serves as an equivalent. § 498. It has been already stated that forms like / believe it to be him, and forms like / believe it to be he, had not been in- vestigated. Of these, the former is, logically, correct. Here, the word, to be, is, in respect to its power, a noun. As such, it is in the accusative case after the verb believe. With this accusative infinitive, it agrees, as being part of the same complex idea. And him does the same. ON THE GOVERNMENT OF VERBS. 381 In English \vc have two methods of expressing one idea ; the method in question, and thf mothod bv means ^f the eon- j unction that. 1 . / beliece it to be him. 2. I believe that it i:?. § 505. Imperatives have three peculiarities. (1.) They can only, in Enuilish, be used in the second jjcrson : (2.) They take pronouns after, instead of before, tlicni : (.3.) They often omit the pronoun altogether. § 50G. For the syntax of subjunctives, sec the cha])tcr on Conjunctions. cc 2 888 ON THE TENSES. CHAPTER XXI. ON THE TENSES. § 507. Notwithstanding its name, the present tense in English, does not express a strictly ^resew^ action. It rather expresses an habitnal one. He speaks well =: he is a good speaker. If a man means to say that he is in the act of speaking, he says / am speaking. It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive mood, a future power — I heat you ( = I will heat you) if you don't leave off. The English prseterite is the equivalent, not to the Greek perfect, but the Greek aorist. / heat z=. ervipa, not rirvcpa. The true perfect is expressed, in English, by the aiixiliary have + the past participle. SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS. 389 CHAPTER XXII. SYNTAX OF Tin: PERSON'S OF VERBS. § 508. The concord of persons. — A difficulty that occurs frequently in the Latin language is rare in English. In ex- pressions like effo et ille followed by a verb^ there arises a question as to the person in which that verb should be iised. Is it to be in the first person in order to agree with ego, or in the third in order to agree with ille ? For the sake of laying down a rule upon these and similar points, the classi- cal grammarians arrange the persons (as they do the genders) according to their dignity, making the verb (or adjective if it be a question of gender) agree with the most icorthy. In respect to persons, the first is more worthy than the second, and the second more worthy than the third. Hence, the Latins said — Ego et Balbits smtulimus mauus. Tu et Balbus sicstulistis maiius. Now, in Englic^h, the plural form is the same for all three persons. Hence we say / and you are friends, you and I are friends, I and he are friends, &c., so that, for the practice of language, the question as to the relative dignity of the three persons is a matter of indifl"erence. Nevertheless, it may occur even in English. Whenever two or more pronouns of difterent persons, and of the singular number, follow each other disjunctively, the question of concord arises. / or you, — you or he, — he or I. I believe that, in these eases, the rule is as follows : — 1. Whenever the words either or neither precede the pro- 890 SYNTAX OF THE PERSONS OF VERBS. nouns, the verb is in the third person. Either you or I is in the wrong ; neither you nor I is in the wrong. 2. Whenever the disjunctive is simple (i. e. unaccompanied with the word either or neither) the verb agrees with the first of the two pronouns. / or /(e am. in the wroiiu;. He or / /.y in tlie wrong'. Thou or he art in the wrong. He or thou is in the wrong-. The reasons for these rules will appear in the chapter on ' Conjunctions. Now, provided that they are correct, it is clear that the English language knows nothing about the relative degrees of dignity between these three pronouns ; since its habit is to make the verb agree with the one which is placed first — whatever may be the person. I am strongly inclined to be- lieve that the same is the case in Latin ; in which case (in the sentence ego et Balbus sustulimus manus) sustulimus agrees, in person, with ego, not because the first person is the worthiest, but because it comes first in the proposition. That the greater supposed worth of the first person may be a reason for putting it first in the proposition is likely enough. ON Till-: AUXILIARY VERBS. 31)1 CILVrTER XXIII. ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. § 509. The auxiliary vcrbs^ in English, play a most im- portant part in the syntax of the language. They may be classified upon a variety of principles. The following, how- ever, are all that need here be applied. I. Classification of auxiliaries according to their inflectional or non-inflectional poivers. — Inflectional auxiliaries are those that may either replace or be replaced by an inflection. Thus — / am struck z=. the Latin ferior, and the Greek Tvirrouai. These auxiliaries are in the same relation to verbs that prepo- sitions are to nouns. The inflectional auxiliaries are, — 1. Have ; equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense — / have bitten = mo-mordi. 2. Shall; ditto. I shall call ■=. voc-aho. 3. Hill; ditto. I will call =. voc-abo. 4. May ; equivalent to an inflection in the way of mood. / am come that I may see z=. venio ut vid-eam. 5. Be; equivalent to an inflection in the way of voice. To be beaten :=. verberari, Tv-TerrOai. 6. Am, art, is, are ; ditto. Also equivalent to an inflection in the way of tense. / am moving =. move-o. 7. Was, ivere ; ditto, ditto. I was beaten = i-TvcpOtji'. I was moving z=. move-bam. Do, can, must, and let, are non-inflectional auxiliaries. II. Classification of auxiliaries according to their non-auxi- liary signifi cat ions. ^i^he power of the word have in the com- bination / have a horse, is clear enough. It means pos- session. The power of the same word in the combination / have been, is not so clear ; nevertheless, it is a power which has 392 ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. grown out of the idea of possession. Tliis shows tliat the power of a verb as an auxihary may be a modification of its original power ; i. e. of the power it has in non-auxihary con- structions. Sometimes the diiference is very Kttle : the word let, in let us go, has its natural sense of permission unimpaired. Sometimes it is lost altogether. Can and may exist only as auxiliaries. 1. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of possession — have. 2. Auxiliaries derived from the idea of existence — be, is, was. 3. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent — shall. There are etymological reasons for believing that shall is no present tense, but a perfect. 4. Auxiliary derived from the idea of future destination, dependent upon the volition of the agent — will. Shall is simply predictive ; will is predictive and promissive as well. 5. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances external to the agent — may. 6. Auxiliary derived from the idea of power, dependent upon circumstances internal to the agent — can. May is simply permissive ; can is potential. In respect to the idea of power residing in the agent being the cause which determines a contingent action, can is in the same relation to may as will is to shall. "May et can, cum eorum prasteritis imperfectisj miyld et could, potentiain innuunt : cum hoc tamen discrimine : may et might vel de jure vel saltern de rei possibilitate dicuiitur, at can et could de viribus agentis." — Wallis, p. 107. 7. Auxiliary derived from the idea of sufferance — let. 8. Auxdiary derived from the idea of necessity — must. " Must necessitatem iiimiit. Debeo, oportet, nccesse est urere, / must hum, Aliquando sed rarius in pra!terito dicitur must (quasi ex musfd seu musft contractus). Sic, si de prasterito dicatur, he must (aenmust't) be burnt, oportebat uri seu necesse habuit ut m-eretur." — Wallis, p. 107. 9. Auxiliary derived from the idea of action — do. III. Classification of auxiliary vej'bs in respect to their mode ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. 893 of cunslruclioa. — Auxiliary verbs coiubine with ">tliri> in two ways. 1. With jjarticiples. — a) With the ])reseiit or active j)ui-- ticiple — / am speaking : b) "\^'ith the past, or passive, participle — / am beaten, I have beaten. 2. With infinitives. — a) With the objective iiiHiiitive — / can speak : b) AA'itli the geruiidial infinitive — / have to speak. Caution. — Such expressions as / sliall have dune, and / mean to have done, &c., are mixed, i. e. they give us the combination of the auxiliar and infinitive [shall have), followed by that of the auxiliar and participle [have done). IV. Auxiliar ij verbs maij be classified accordiny to their effect. — Thus — have makes the combination in which it appears equivalent to a tense : be to a passive form ; may to a sign of mood, &c. This sketch of the dijQferent lights under which auxiliary verbs may be viewed, has been written for the sake of illus- trating, rather than exhausting, the subject. § 510. The following is an exhibition of some of the times in which an action may take place, as found in either the English or other languages, expressed by the use of either an inflection or a combination. Time considered in one point only — 1. Present. — An action taking place at the time of speak- ing, and incomplete. — / am beutiny, I am beiny beaten. Not expressed, in English, by the simple present tense ; since / beat means / am in the habit of beatiny. 2. Aorist. — An action that took place in j)ast time, or pre- vious to the time of speaking, and which has no connection with the time of speakitig, — / struck, I icas stricken. Ex- pressed, in English, by the prseterite, in Greek by the aorist. The term aorist, from the Greek u-opiarog zz undefined, is a convenient name for this sort of time. 3. Future. — An action that has neither taken place, nor is taking place at the time of speaking, but which is stated as one which ivill take place. — Expressed, in Englisli, by the com- bination of ivill or shall with an infinitive mood. In Latin and Greek by an inflection. / shall (or will) speak, XtK-aw, dica-m. 394 ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. None of tliese expressions imply more than a single action ; in other words^ they have no relation to any second action occurring simultaneously with them, before them, or after them. — / am speaking now, I spoke yesterday, I shall speak to-morrow. Of course, the act of mentionnig them is not considered as an action related to them in the sense here meant. By considering past, present, or future actions not only by themselves, but as related to other past, present, or future actions, we get fresh varieties of expression. Thus, an act may have been going on, when some other act, itself an act of past time, interrupted it. Here the action agrees with a present action, in being incomplete; but it differs from it in having been rendci'ed incomplete by an action that has past. This is exactly the case with the — 4. Imperfect.— I was reading when he entered. Here we have two acts ; the act of reading and the act of entering. Both are past as regards the time of speaking, but both are present as regards each other. This is expressed, in English, by the past tense of the verb-substantive and the present par- ticiple, / was speaking ; and in Latin and Greek by the imper- fect tense, dicebam, trvKTov. 5. Perfect. — Action past, but connected with the present by its elfects oi- consequences. — / have written, and here is tlie letter. Expressed in English by the auxiliary verb have, followed by the participAe passive in the accusative case and neuter gender of the singular number. The Greek expresses this by the reduplicate perfect : Ti-TV(pa = / have beaten. 6. Plvjjerfect. — Action past, but connected with a second action, subsequent to it, ivhich is also jjast — / had written when he came in. 7. Future present. — Action future as regards the time of speaking, present as regards some future time. — / shall be speaking about this time to-morrow. 8. Future praiterite. — Action future as regards the time of speaking, past as regards some future time. — / shall have spoken by this time to-morrow. These are the chief expressions which are simply determined by the relations of actions to each other, and to the time of speaking, either in the English or any other language. But ON TIIK AUXILIARY VERBS. 395 oviT and al)()Vi' tlic simple iilca oi" tinir, tlii-n; may he others superadikd : thus, the j)hrase, J do speak, means, not only that / am in the habit of speaking, but that 1 also insist upon it being understood that 1 am so. Again, an action that is mentioned as eitlier taking place, or as having taken place at a given time, may take place again and again. Hence the idea of habit may arise out of the idea of either present time or aorist time. a. In English, the present form expresses habit. b. l\\ Greek the aorist expresses liabit. Again, one tense, or one combination, may be used for another. / ivas speaking when he enters. The results of these facts may now be noticed : 1. The emphatic present and j^rceterite. — Expressed by do (or did), as stated above. A man says / do (or did) speak, read, ^c, when, either directly or by implication, it is asserted or implied that he docs not. As a question implies doubt, do is used in interrogations. "Do et did iiulicaiit empliatice tcmpus praisens, et pra^teritum im- perltclura. Uro, urt-ham ; I burn, I burned : vel (eniphaticc) / do burn, 1 did burn." — Wallis, p. 100. 2. The predictive futui-e. — I sltall be there to-morrow. This means simply that the speaker will be present. It gives no clue to the circumstances that will determine his beini? so. 3. The promissire future. — I will be there to-morrow. — This means not only that the speaker will be present, but that he intends being so. For further observations on shall and will, see chapter xxiv. 4. That the power of the present tense is, in English, not present, but habitual, has already been twice stated. § 511. The representative expression of past and future time. — An action may be past ; yet, for the sake of bringing it more vividly before the hearers, we may make it present. He walks (for walked) vp to him, and knocks (for knocked) him down. This denotes a single action; and is by no means the natural habitual power of the English present. So, in respect to a future, / beat you if guu don't leave oJJ', for / ivill beat you. This use of the present tense is sometimes called the historic 396 ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. use of the present tense. I find it more convenient to call it the representative use : inasmuch as it is used more after the principles of painting than of history; the former of which, necessarily, represents things as present, the latter, more natu- rally, describes them as past. The use of the representative present to expi'css simple ac- tions is unequivocally correct. To the expression, however, of complex actions it gives an illogical character, — As I ivas doing this he enters (for entered). Ne\ertheless, such a use of the present is a fact in language, and we must take it as it occurs. § 512. The present tense can be used instead of the future; and that on the principle of representation. Can a future be used for a present ? No. The present tense can be used instead of the aorist; and that on the principle of representation. Can a past tense, or com- bination, be used for^a present ? In respect to the perfect tense there is no doubt. The answer is in the affirmative. For all purposes of syntax a perfect tense, or a combination equivalent to one, is a present tense. Contrast the expression, / come that I may see; with the expression, / came tJuit I mir/ht see; i. e. the present construction with the aorist. Then, bring in the perfect con- struction, I have come. It differs with the aorist, and agrees with the present. / have come that I may see. The reason for this is clear. There is not only a present element in all perfects, but for the purposes of syntax, the present element predominates. Hence expressions like / shall go, need give us no trouble ; even though shall be considered as a perfect tense. Suppose the root, sk-ll to mean to he destined (or fated). Pi'ovided we consider the effects of the action to be continued up to the time of speaking, we may say 1 have been destined to go, just as well as we can say I am destined to go. The use of the aorist as a present (except so far as both the tenses agree in their power of expressing habitual actions) is a more difficult investigation. It bears upon such expressions as / ought tu go, &c., and will be taken up in the Syntax. § 513. Certain adverbs, i. e. those of time, require certain tenses. / am then, I was now, I ivas hereafter, ike, are con- ON THE AUXILIARY VKRBS. 31)7 tradictory expressions. They are not so mtieh l)a{l grammar as impossible nonsense. Nevertheless, wr have in lyatin such expressions as " Ut siitnm in ponto tcr frigoro constitit Ister." Here the ccmneetion of the present ami peri'ect ideas ex- plains the ap])arent eontradiction. The present state may be the resnlt of a previous one; so that a prseterite element may be involved in a present expression. Ut sumus =: since I have been where I am. It is hardly necessaiy to remark that such expressions as since I am here (where since rz inasmuch as) do not eome under tliis elass. § 514. Two fresh varieties in tlic use of tenses and auxiliar)^ verbs may be arrived at by considering the following ideas, which may be superadded to that of simple time. 1. Continuance in case of future actions. — A future action may not only take place, but continue : thus, a man may, on a given day, not only be called by a particidar name, but may keep that name. AVhen Ilesiod says that, notwithstanding certain changes which shall have taken place, good shall cotiti- nue to be mixed with bad, he does not say, tcrOAa iJii\()iintTcu KaKolaiv, but. Opera tt Diea. Again,— Ovdu(; xxTu o-TTou^i? fjt.'.Tiyyfu!pyitmon, 'A?iX os'Tiif Yit TO •:rpi;Tov lyyiy^ot-^^'.icn, Aristoimi. Eqiutes, 1366. Here iutTfyypa(}){i(TiTai means change from one class to another, tjytypa'^e-ai continuance 'in the same. — See ]\Iathiie, ii. ^ 198. Upon the lines — 'OGeV ■ufOi UtOfUltl WSTTFfWV XE>£X>i3'e7«» Troades, 13, 14. Seidler remarks that kX i/ 1'/trt rat, est nomen accipiet ; KtK\{]at7ai, nonien geret. 398 ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. Now it is quite true that this Greek tense, the so-called paulo-post-futurum, " bears the same relation to the other futiires as, among the tenses of past time, the perfectum does to the aorist." — (Mathise.) And it is also true that it by no means answers to the English shall have been. Yet the logical elements of both are the same. In the English expression, the past power of the pei'fect predominates, in the Greek its pi'e- sent power. 2. Habit in the case of past actions. — I had dined when I rode out. This may apply to a particular dinner, followed by a particular ride. But it may also mean that when the speaker had dined, according to habit, he rode out according to habit also. This gives us a variety of pluperfect ; which is, in the French language, represented by separate combination^' avais dine, feus dine. § 515. It is necessary to remember that the connection be- tween the present and the past time, which is involved in the idea of a perfect tense {TeTv 402 ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. but to the combination / have been moved, i. e. it has a past and not a present sense. In Greek the difference is plainer still, because in Greek there are two participles passive, one for the present, and another for the past tense; e.g. TvirTOfxevog cl/xt [typtomenos eimi) r= lam one in the act of undergoing a beating ; TtTvufxivoq Hfii "n I am one who has undergone a beating. The reason for this confusion in English, lies in the absence of a passive form for the present. In Moeso-Gothic there existed the forms slahada := he, [she or it) is beaten [percutitur, tvtt- Terai), and slahanda "=. they are beaten [percutiuntur , rvTrrovrai) [typtontai). These were true passive forms. In like manner there occurred gibada = he [she or it) is given [datur), &c. Now, as long as there was a proper form for the present, like those in Mceso-Gothic, the combination of the present tense of the verb-substantive with the participle past passive had the same sense as in Latin and Greek ; that is, it indicated past time : e. g. ga-bundan-s im rz I have been bound (not / am bound), gibans ist = he {she or it) has been given (not is given), &c. When the passive form, however, was lost, the combina- tion took the sense of a present tense. The extent to which this difference has engendered, in the various languages of the Gothic stock, a variety of expedients, may be seen from the following tables taken from the D. G. iv. 19. The equivalents to the Latin datur are in — Mccso-Gotliic . gib-ada. Old High-German ist kep-an. J3 53 • • wirdit kep-an. „ „ of Notker wirt keb-en. Middle High-German wirt geb-en. New High-German . wird ge-geb-en. Old Saxou is gebh-an. 5, ... wirtheth gebh-an Middle Dutch . 63 ge-ghev-en. 5J J3 • • • bleft ge-ghev-en. New Dutch wordt ge-gev-en. Old Frisian werth e-jev-en. Anglo-Saxon . . . . weorde^ gif-cn. English .... is giv-en. ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. 403 Old Norse Swedish . Danish To the Latin datiis est the equivalents are in — cr gef-inn. gifv-es. bliver giv-en. vorder giv-en. Mteso-Gothic Old llii-h-Clcrmaii of Notker Middle High-German New Iligh-Germau Old Saxon Middle Dutch )> >» • New Dutch Old Frisian Anglo-Saxon . English Old Norse Swedish Danish ist gib-ans. vas gib-ans. vartli gib-ans. was kep-an. warth kep-an. ist kep-an. ist geb-an. "*ist 2;e-geb-en worden. was gebhan. warth gebh-an. wacrt ghe-gev-en. blef ghe-gev-en. *es ghc-gcv-en worden. is ejeven. is gif-en. has been giv-en. hefr verit gef-inn. bar varit gifv-en. liar varet giv-cn. D. G. iv. in. § 519. OiKjht, would, ^c, used as presents. — These words are not in the predicament of shall. They arc present in power, and past in form. So is s/iall. But they are not, like shall, perfect forms ; i. e. they have no natm'al present element in them. They are aorist praeterites. Nevertheless, they have a pre- sent sense. So had their equivalents in Greek: tx/^'"'^' — XP^i ' ^'^^* ^— ^^'> TTpocrriKtv =: Trpoai)Kti. In Latin, too, would was often not represented by either vulo or voleham, but by velim. I believe that the usus ethicus is at the bottom of this con • struction. Is become given, or is given become. I) p 2 404 ON THE AUXILIARY VERBS. The assertion of duty or oblit/ation is one of those asser- tions of which men like to soften the expression : should, ought. .... So is the expression of power, as denoted by mai/ or can — might, could. Very often when we say you should (or ought to) do this, we leave to be added by implication — but you do not. Very often when we s^ay / could (or might) do this, we leave to be added by implication— Z>m/ / do not exert my power. Now, what is left undone by the present element in this assertion, viz. the duty to do it, or the power of doing it, con- stitutes a past element in it ; since the power (or duty) is, in relation to the performance, a cause — insufficient, indeed, but still antecedent. This hypothesis is suggested, rather than asserted. By substituting the words / am hound, for / ought, we may see the expedients to which this present use of the prseterite forces us. / am bound to do this now = / owe to do this now. How- ever, we do not say owe, but ought. Hence, when we wish to say / was bound to do this two years ago, we cannot say / ought (owed) to do this, &c., since ought is already used in a present sense. We therefore say, instead, / ought to have done this two years ago ; which has a similar, but by no means an identical meaning. / ivas bound to pay two years ago, means two years ago I was under an obligation to make a payment, either then or at some future time. I was bound to have paid, &c., means / was under an obliga- tion to have made a payment. If we use the word ought, this difference cannot be ex- pressed. Common people sometimes say, you had not ought to do so and so ; and they have a reason for saying it. The Latin language is more logical. It says not debet factum fuisse, but debuit fieri. SHALL AND WILL. 40.' CHAPTER XXIV. SHALL AND WILL. § 520. The niceties connected with the use of these two words are well known. They are sufficiently numerous and complicated to demand a special notice. 1 . The first point to bear in mind is the fact, that although such phrases as I shall speak, and / will speak, are CdWcA. future tenses, they are, in reality, no such thing. They arc combina- tions of a present tense and an infinitive mood — speak being the infinitive mood, and shall and uill the present tenses of should and ivould. The act that is to be done is future. The state of things on the part of the person who is to do it is present. 2. The next point is one of less importance in the way of Syntax, than it has been in the way of Etymology ; being also, a point which has already been elucidated. It is the difference between the two words ivill and shall as present tenses. The former is a present tense, absolutely and completely, having always been one. The latter was originally a perfect, and is what we have called a prseterite-present, or (changing the pre- fix) a perfect-present. For the chief purposes, however, of the present chapter {i. e. for the chief j)urposes of Syntax), they are both equally present. Nevertheless, the original difference requires re- membering. 3. The construction of the two words in their relations to the infinitive which follows them is the same, being also the same as those of the words can, may, must, and a few others. Tlu-y are never found except in connection with other verbs. Hence, whilst we say — 406 SHALL AND WILL. I can do this We can do this. Thou viayest do this Ye may do tliis. He must do this They must do this. He shall do this They shall do this. She will do this They icill do this. we cannot say — I begin to can They begin to can. Thou beginnest to may Ye begin to may. He begins to must They begin to must. He begins to shall They begin to shall. She begins to will* They begin to will. nor yet- I am camming Thou art maying. He is musting We are shalliug. He is tvilling.* 4. This creates difficulties when we come to the important investigation of their meaning as separate and independent words. § 521. The difficulties, however, ai-e fewer with will than they are with shall. a. Will. — Two facts help us here. We have the same combination of sounds in the word will = volition. We may say, indeed, that we have the same word ; the same word used both as a substantive and as a verb. — He has so strong a will that whatsoever he wills he will do. The classical languages give us the roots vol (in vol-o) and ^ouX {hul) in [5ov\-o fiai (bulomai). Hence, whatever may be the case with shall, its fellow-word will denotes not only the fact that something is predicted to take place, but that the cause by which it will be brought about is an act of volition on the part of the agent who effects it ; such an agent being itself the origi- nator of the action rather than the mere instrument through which certain external influences operate. b. Shall. — Our aids here are inconsiderable. All that either comparative philology, or the search for collateral meanings leads to, as a certainty, is an approximate reconstruction of the original form. And here, without going beyond the pale of * Not, at least, in the senses we say, //e will be burnt. SHALL AND WILL. 107 the Germiin family ot" liiuguajrcs, wc Icarii that the folder Ibmi was skal — the present h reprcsentiiifr, and having grown out of an original k. That the vowel of the original ])reseut was i is not so certain. Probably, however, it was so. Let us deal with the word as if this were certain ; the primi- tive form being skil-. Now — Lot its opposition, or contrast, to will lead us towards an inkling of its meaning. If will mean agency determined by the volition of the agent, skil may mean agency determined by causes acting from without upon and through the uycnt ; the agent who may more properly be considered as an in- strument. Let us say that tcill means having the intention to do so and so, whilst shall means being in the condition to do so and so. Can we go further ? I think we can. The only certainty that comparative philology gives us in the ease of shall is the consonant k as the second letter of the root [skal for shall) . But it is highly probable that the substantive skill is as truly a derivative from the same root as shall, as will zz volo, is the same word as zcill in I tvill speak = loquar. Now, such expressions as the condition to do so and so, and the bias to do so and so, are by no means widely separated in meaning, inasmuch as the tei'm bias implies external influence rather than internal resolve. These bring us to the participle determined, a word w^hich, at first, suggests ideas akin to v:iU rather than to shall. At first, I say it does this, because when we use such a phrase as a determined fellow, we raise the idea of a man of a strong loill — of a wilful man who will have his own way, or, at least, of a man not easily diverted from his purpose by external accidents. On the other hand, however, the con- nection between bias and determination is close. Often as wc use the word determined to express the moral quality of strong- willed, we fully as often use it to denote the effect of external agencies. We do this (for instance) when we talk of the conduct of a weak man being determined by circumstances. The ideas of determination and decision arc visibly allied to each other. A decided man is (in the first instance) one whom 408 SHALL AND WILL. events have brought to a decision, just as a determined man is one whom events have brought to a determination. To keep in this state shows firmness of character, and hence the ordinary power of the word — Decide, distinr/uish, differ. — I submit that the sequence of ideas here is transparently clear. Now sk-l :=; differ, distinr/uish, separate. It is the Norse word skiija so translated. It is also the English word in the phrase ivhat skills it ? =: what difference does it make ? Let shall be called the predictive, whilst will is the promissive, future. The former simply states that a thing which has not yet happened, will happen hereafter ; the forces that are to bring it about being indefinite. The latter states not only that a thing which has not yet happened will happen hereafter, but also implies a certain amount of defiuitude in respect to the forces which will effect it. They are, by no means, forces brought from the whole universe of possibilities indefinitely, but forces of a specific character. They are engendered in the moral constitution (real or supposed) of the agent — real, when the agent is an actual rational being, supposed, when, without being actually rational, it has a certain amount of rationality attributed to it, in the way of personification on the part of the speaker, either conscious or unconscious. This is what the two words denote. Prediction is the genus, promise the species. All future things may be pre- dicted; a portion of them only can be promised. Promise implies a promiser, and a promise is a prediction ful- filling its ovvn accomplishment. Will {volition) is an element in all such ideas. I do not say that these two words are the best that can be applied. I only add that they are words already used ; and that by Wallis, as will soon be seen. Such are the preliminaries. What is their application ? The ordinary rule of the language of South (though not of North) Britain, the ordinary rule of the English (though not of the Scotch) is as follows : — SHALL AND WILL. 409 When simple prediction is intended, the predictive shall is nsed in the tirst person only, the auxiliaiy of the two other jjersons being the proniissivc will. Thus — If three persons are in a house, and the house is on fire, although the conditions under which all the three are likely to be burnt are the same, the manner of expressing them is dif- ferent. A, for instance, says of himself — I shall be burnt. But of B and C, he says — You will be burnt, and He will be burnt. lie also says of B and C collectively — They will be burnt. Meanwhile — A and B say of themselves' — We shall be burnt. This is the way that A and B speak when the burning de- pends upon causes external to themselves. To say the least of such a mode of expression as this, it is an inconsistent one. But the inconsistency docs not stop here, as we may see by an examination of the promissive forms of parlance, where the process is reversed. If one out of three persons, choosing, for himself and fellows, between the stake and some other alternative, prefer to be burnt, the locution varies. A, for instance, says of himself — I tcill be burnt. But of B and C he says — You shall be burnt, and He shall be burnt. He also says of B and C collectively — They shall be burnt, or else Ye shall be burnt. Changing the expression — shall is predictive, and irill is 410 SHALL AND WILL. promissive in the first person only ; whereas, in the second and tliird, will is predictive, and shall promissive. In the words of Wallis — " In primis personis shall simpli- citer prcedicentis est ; will, quasi promittentis aut minantis. " In secundis et tertiis personis, shall promittentis est aut minantis : will simpHciter prcedicentis. " Uram = / shall burn. Ures = TJiou wilt burn. Uret =: He vnll burn. nempe, hoc f uturum pr«(/ico. " / will burn. Thou shalt burn. He shall bum. Uremus z= We shall burn. Uretis = Ye will burn. Urent = They toill burn. We toill burn. Ye shall burn. They shall burn. nempe, hoc futurum spondeo, vel faxo ut sit." Again — " would et should illud indicant quod erat vel esset futurum : cum hoc tantum discrimine : would voluntatem innuit, sen agentis propensionem : should sirapliciter futuri- tionem." — Wallis, p. 107. Two extracts are now submitted to the reader, in the hope that they will lead him towards an approximate solution of these difficult complications — the first from a philologue, the second from a logician and mathematician. The first is from Archdeacon Hare, who explains the locutions by a usus ethicus : — " There is an awful, irrepressible, and almost instinctive consciousness of the uncertainty of the future, and of our -own powerlessness over it, which, in all cultivated languages, has silently and imperceptibly modified the modes of expression with regard to it : and from a double kind of litotes, the one belonging to human nature generall}'^, the other imposed by good-breeding on the individual, and urging him to veil the manifestations of his will, we are induced to frame all sorts of shifts for the sake of speaking with becoming modesty. This is the only way of accounting for the singular mixture of the two verbs shall and will, by which, as we have no auxiliary answering to the German iverde, we express the future tense. Our future, or at least SHALL AND WILL. 411 what answers to it, is, / shall, Hum wilt, he irill. \\'hen spc-akiiig ill the first person, we speak submissively : when speakinp; to or of another, we speak courteously. In our older writers — for instance, in our translation of the Bible — sliall is applied to all three persons : we had not then reaeht that stage of politeness wliich shrinks from the appearance even of speaking eompulsorily of another. On the other hand, the Scotch use ivill in the first person ; that is, as a nation, they have not acquired that particular shade of good-breeding which shrinks from thrusting itself forward." The second is from Professor De Morgan, writing with Archdeacon Harems doctrine under his special consideration : — " The matter to be explained is the synonymous character of will in the first person with shall in the second and third ; and of shall in the first person with will in the second and third : shall (1) and ivill (2, 3) arc called predictive ; shall (2, 3) and will (1) promissive. The suggestion now proposed will require four distinctive names. "Archdeacon Hare's usus ethicus is taken from the brighter side of human nature : — ' When speaking in the first person we speak submissively ; when speaking to or of another, we speak courteously/ This ex})lains / shall, thou ivilt ; but I cannot think it explains / ivill, thou shall. It often happens that you will, with a persuasive tone, is used courteously for something next to, if not quite, i/ou shall. The present ex- planation is taken from the darker side ; and it is to be feared that tlic <:) priori probabilities are in its favour. " In introducing the common mode of stating the future tenses, grammar has proceeded as if she were more than a formal science. She has no more business to collect together / shall, thou ivilt, he ivill, than to do the same with / rule, thou art ruled, he is ruled. " It seems to be the natural disposition of man to think of his own volition in two of the following categories, and of another man's in the other two : " Compelling, non-compelling ; restrained, non-restrained. " The ego, with reference to the non-ego, is apt, thinking of himself, to propound the alternative, ' Shall I compel, or shall 412 SHALL AND WILL. I leave him to do as he likes ?' so that, thinking of the other, the alternative is, ' shall he be restrained, or shall he be left to his own will V Accordingly, the express introduction of his own will is likely to have reference to compulsion, in case of op])Osition : the express introduction of the will of another, is likely to mean no more than the gracious permission of the ego to let non-ego do as he likes. Correlatively, the suppres- sion of reference to his own will, and the adoption of a simply predictive form on the part of the ego, is likely to be the mode with which, when the person is changed, he will asso- ciate the idea of another having his own way ; while the suppression of reference to the will of the non-ego is likely to infer restraint produced by the predominant will of the ego. " Occasionally, the will of the non-ego is referred to as under restraint in modern times. To I will not, the answer is some- times you shall, meaning, in spite of the will — sometimes you ivill, meaning that the ivill will be changed by fear or sense of the inutility of resistance.''^ Adopting the limitation suggested in respect to the func- tions of the grammarian, I would remark that the words ego, and non-ego, do not exactly denote the will of the speaker, and the will of some one else, inasmuch as in many of the locutions there is no notion of will at all. Ego rather means action arising from an internal impulse, whilst non-ego implies action arising from circumstances external to the agent. With ego the iviller is the primum mobile, with non-ego the actor is an instrument rather than an original and spontaneous agent. According, then, as one of these two ideas predominate, the use of will or shall is determined. In subordinating the ivill to the shall the usus ethicus has an influence. When the agency of external influences is subordinated to the ivill of the actor, the converse takes place, and the speaker expresses him- self according to his feeling of power over them. This may be called the usus jjotentialis. Between these two there is a debatable ground, of which it is likely enough that the Scotch and early English writers may have apportioned a full share in the way of potentiality, the later English authors inclining to the v^us ethicus. How far this is done on either side I cannot say. I doubt SHALL AND WILL. 413 whether tlic curivnt ride is so absohite as it is said to Ijc. 'J'he very extreme instance of " 1 will be drowned, no one stiall pull me out," may or may not be a real one. At any rate it is generally given to an Irishman. How a Scotchman would analyse certain expressions I cannot say. I can only say that Englishmen sometimes speak and write more Scotico. Of this I can give an instance out of my own writings. If the reader will turn to the 31()th page of my first volume (lines 20 and 21) he will find the following sentence: — "An extract from Mr. Ilalliun shall close the present section and introduce the next." This is from the pen of an Englishman, of Lincolnshire, South Bucks, and Cambridge, who^ at the date of the extract, had never been north of the Humber, not, at least, in Great Britain. As such, wc must take it as we find it — as a sample of Eng- lish. It was written unconsciously and currente calamo. It expressed the state of mind in which he was in. I have seen it, however, quoted as an instance of bad English. Coming as it did from a professor of the English language, it was a well- chosen example, if a true one. But the more I have looked at the context the more satisfied I am that it is an accurate expression. All that it violates is a rule ill-drawn up. Had the sentence been the first in the work, the first in the chapter, or the first on the subject, irill would have been the pro])er word. It would denote what I, as the primum mobile, meant to do. But it refers to what precedes rather than to what follows. By these jore-cedents it is (so to say) conditioned. It formed a part of an argument, to which argument I, the writer, was so far bound as to be an instrument rather than an originator. I was not K. G. Latham doing as I thought fit with my own, but the servant of my premises. The more I analyse the text and context the more I am satisfied this is the case. At any rate I am an Englishman, writing English. I wull now (here I say will because the forthcoming remarks are additions to my previous argument rather than necessary parts of it, and I am comparatively free to either insert or omit them) make another extract from a professor (and, I may add, a master) of the English language. But he is a North Briton, Mr. Masson. He writes, "I could count up and name at this moment, some four or five men to whose personal 414 SHALL AND WILL. influence, experienced as a student, I owe more than to any books, and of wliom, while life lasts, I will always think with gratitude."* Assuredly, an Englishman would have written " shall always think." Why would he ? Not because he wrote more correctly, but because he expressed a different idea. Mr. Masson speaks direct from the feelings engendered by the kindness and services of the former teachers. He speaks from his own mind, so that he not only gives us their action on himself but his own reaction on them. He might, however, have done differently. He might have spoken from the simple action of them, keeping the reaction of his own mind in the background. An English writer would have done so, and have said shall accordingly. The grammar of both is good — for grammar only tells us how to express our thoughts in language. It does not tell us what to think. Now the Eng- lishman and Scotchman in the matter of shall and will think differently. Why they do so is another matter. The English- man subordinates himself to the circumstances that determine his actions. The Scotchman subordinates the circumstances to himself. The one carries the line of causality through his own mind before he takes it up. The other takes it up before his mind has re-acted on it. Without asking whether will or shall be the better reading in the following extract, let us ask what each means. Pity, kind gentlefolks, friends of humanity ! Keen blows the wind and the night 's coming on, Give me some food for my mother and charity; Give me some food and then I ] , ,, [ be gone. Here — Will be gone means / will trouble you no more. Shall be gone means You will get rid of me. * Lecture delivered at Uuiversity College, London. — October, 1854. THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS. 415 CHAPTEU XXV. THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS. § 522. The syntax of the adverb is comparatively simple. Adverbs have no concord. Neither have they any government. They seem, indeed, to have it, when they are in the comparative or superlative degree ; but it is merely apparent. In this is better than that, the word that is governed neither by better nor by than. It is not governed at all. It is a nominative case ; the subject of a separate proposition. This is better [i. e. more good) than that is good. Even if we admit such an expression as he is stronger than me to be good English, there is no adverbial government. Than, if it govern me at all, governs it as a pre- position. The position of an adverb is, in respect to matters of syntax, pre-eminently parenthetic; i.e. it may be omitted without injuring the construction. He is fighting — now ; he ivas fighting — then; he fights — bravely ; I am — almost — tired, &c. By referring to the chapter on the Adverbs, we shall find that the neuter adjective is frequently converted into an adverb by deflection. As any neuter adjective may be so deflected, we may justify such expressions as full (for fully) as conspicuous, and peculiar (for peculiarly) bad grace, &c. We are not, how- ever, bound to imitate everything that we can justify. § 523. The termination -ly was originally adjectival. At present it is a derivational syllable by which we can convert an adjective into an adverb : brave, brave-ly. ^Mion, ho\vc\ cr, the adjective ends in -ly already, the formation is awkward. / eat my daily bread is unexceptionable English ; / eut my 416 THE SYNTAX OF ADVERBS. bread daily is exceptionable. One of two things must here take place : the two syllables -hj are packed into one (the full expression being dai-li-ly) or else the construction is that of a neuter adjective deflected. Adverbs ai*e convertible. The then men "zi ol vvv ftporoi, &c. § 524. From whence, from thence. — This is an expression which, if it have not taken root in our language, is likely to do so. It is an instance of excess of expression in the way of syntax ; inasmuch as the -ce denotes direction from a place, and the preposition does the same. It is not so important to determine what this construction is, as to suggest what it is not. It is nut an instance of an adverb governed by a pre- position. If the two words be dealt with as logically separate, whence (or thence) must be a noun =. ivhich place (or that place); just as from then till now z=.from that time to this. But if the two words be dealt with as one, the preposition from has lost its natural power, and become the element of an adverb. This latter view is the better ; in which case the construc- tion gives us an improper compound. ON PREPOSITIONS. 417 CHAPTER XXVI. ox PREPOSITIONS. § 525. All prepositions govern an oblique case. If a word cease to do this, it ceases to be a preposition. In the first of the two following sentences the w^ord up is a preposition, in the second an adverb. 1. / climbed up the tree. 2. / climbed up. All prepositions in English precede the noun which they govern. / climbed vp the tree, never / climbed the tree up. This is a matter not of government, but of collocation. It is the case in most languages ; and, from the frequency of its occurrence, the term pre-position (or prefix) has originated. Nevertheless, it is by no means a philological necessity. In many languages the prepositions are post -positive, following their noun. No preposition, in the present English, governs a genitive case. This remark is made, because expressions like the port of the body •=. pars corporis, — apiece of the bread =i portio panis, make it appear as if the preposition of did so. The true expression is, that the preposition of, followed by an objective case, is equivalent, in many instances, to the genitive case of the classical lansiuages. The w'riter, however, of a paper on English pra^teritcs and genitives, in the " Philological Museum" (vol. ii. p. 261) objects to the current doctrine concerning such constructions as, this is a picture of the king's. Instead of considering the sentence elliptic, and equivalent to this is a picture of the king's pictures, he confesses that he feels "some doubt whether this phrase is VOL. II. E E 418 ON PREPOSITIONS. indeed to be regarded as elliptical, that is, whether the phrase in room of which it is said to stand, was ever actually in use. It has sometimes struck me/' he continues, " that this may be a relict of the old practice of using the genitive after nouns as well as before them, only with the insertion of the preposition of. One of the passages quoted above from ' Arnold's Chro- nicle,' supplies an instance of a genitive so situated; and one cannot help thinking that it was the notion that of governed the genitive, that led the old tianslators of Virgil to call his poem The Books of Eneidos, as it is termed by Phaer, and Gawin Douglas, and in the translation printed by Caxton. Hence it may be that we put the genitive after the noun in such cases, in order to express those relations which are most appropriately expressed by the genitive preceding it. A picture of the king's is something very different from the king's picture : and so many other relations are designated by of with the objective noun, that if we wish to denote possession thereby, it leaves an ambiguity : so, for this purpose, when we want to subjoin the name of the possessor to the thing possest, we have recourse to the genitive, by prefixing which we are wont to express the same idea. At all events as, if we were askt whose castle Alnwick is, we should answer. The Duke of Northumberland' s ; so we should also say, JVhat a grand castle that is of the Duke of Northumberland' s ! without at all taking into account whether he had other castles besides : and our expression would be equally appropriate, whether he had or not." Again, Mr. Guest quotes, amongst other passages, the following : — Suffice this hill of our& — They fought two houres of the nightes — Yet neither class of examples is conclusive. Ours does not necessarily mean of us. It may also mean of our hills, i. e. of the hills of our choice. Nightes may mean of the night's hours. In the expression, what a grand castle, &c., it is submitted to the reader that we do take into our account other castles, which the Duke of Northumberland may or may not have. The Booke of Eneidos is a mistaken Latinism. As ON PREPOSITIONS. 419 it docs not seem to liavf bcon sufficiently considered that the real case governed by of (as by de in Latin) is the ablative, it is the opinion of the present writer that no instance has yet been ])roduced of of either govci'ning, or having governed a genitive case. § 526. It is not so safe to say in the present English, that no preposition governs a dative. The expression give it him is good English ; and it is also equivalent to the Latin da ei. But we may also say (/ive it to him. Now the German zu =: to governs a dative case, and in Anglo-Saxon, the j)reposition to, when prefixed to the infinitive mood, required the case that followed it to be a dative. § 527. When the infinitive mood is used as the subject of a proposition, i. e. as a nominative case, it is impossible to allow to the preposition to, by which it is preceded, any separate existence whatever, — to rise = rising ; to err =: error. Here the preposition must, for the purposes of syntax, be consi- dered as incorporated with the noun, just like an inseparable inflection. As such it may be ju-ccedcd by another prej)osi- tion. The following example, although a Grecism, illustrates this : — Yet not to have been dipt in Lethe's lake. Could save the son of Thetis //'ow to die. § 528. Akin to this, but not the same, is the so-called wl- garism, consisting of the use of the ])rcposition for. I am ready to (jo "=. I am ready for (joinrj =: the so-called vulgarism, / am ready for to yo. Now, this expression difiPers from the last in exhibiting, not only a verbal accumulation of preposi- tions, but a logical accumulation as well : inasmuch as for and to express like ideas. § 529. Composition converts prepositions into adverbs. Whether we say upstanding or standing-vp, we express the manner in which an action takes place, and not the relation between two substantives. The so-called prepositional com- pounds in Greek [avajiaivu) airoBviiaKU), &c.) are all adver- bial. E E 2 420 ON CONJUNCTIONS. CHAPTER XXVII. ON CONJUNCTIONS. § 530. A conjunction is a part of speech which connects either terms or propositions. In such a sentence as all men are black or white, the terms are connected^ the proposition being only one. The terminal conjunctions, as they may be called, are rarer than the propositional. The day is bright, is one proposition. The sun shines, is another. The day is bright because the sun shines is a pair of prepositions connected by the conjunction, because. From this it follows, that whenever there is a propositional conjunction, there are two subjects, two copulas, and two pre- dicates : i. e, two propositions in all their parts. But these may be expressed compendiously. The sun shines, and the moon shines, may be expressed by the sun and moon shine. Nevertheless, however compendious may be the expression, there are always two propositions wherever there is one con- junction. A part of speech that merely combines two words is a preposition, — the sun along with the moon shines. It is highly important to remember that conjunctions con- nect propositions. It is also highly important to remember that many double propositions may be expressed so compendiously as to look like one. When this takes place, and any question arises as to the construction, they must be exhibited in their fully- expanded form ; i. e. the second subject, the second predicate, and the second copula must be supplied. This can always be ON CONJUNCTIONS. '^21 done from the first proposition, — he likes you letter than me =: he likes you better than he likes me. Most conjunctions have been developed out of sonic other part of speech. Thus — The conjunction of comparison, than, is derived from the adverb of time, then. Tliis, in its turn, is derived from the accusative singular of the demonstrative pronoun. The conjunction, that, is derived also from a demonstrative pronoun. The conjunction, therefore, is a demonstrative prononn + a preposition. The conjunction, because, is a substantive governed by a preposition. One and the same word, in one and the same sentence, is a conjunction or preposition, as the case may be. All fled but John. — If this mean all fled except John, the word but is a preposition, the word John is an accusative case, and the proposition is single. We may see this by remem- bering that if, instead of John, we had a personal pronoun, we should say all fled but him. All fled but John. — If this mean all fled, but John did not fly, the word but is a conjunction, the word John is a nomina- tive case, and the propositions are two in number. We may see this by remembering that if, instead of John, we had a per- sonal pronoun, we should say, all fled but he. From facts of this kind it is often necessarj^ to detennine whether a word be a conjunction or not. If it be a conjunction it cannot govern a case. If it govern a case, it is no conjunction but a preposition. A conjunction cannot govern a case, for the following reason, — the word that follows it m.ust be the subject of the second proposition, and, as such, a nominative case. § 531. The third point to determine in the syntax of con- junctions is, the certainty or uncertainty in the mind of the speaker as to the facts expressed by the propositions which they serve to connect. 1. Each proposition may contain a certain, definite, absolute fact — the day is clear because the sun shines. Here there is neither doubt nor contingency of either the day being clear, or of the sun shining. 422 ON CONJUNCTIONS. 2. Of two propositions one may be the conditition of the other — the day will be clear if the sun shine. Here, although it is certain that if the sun shine the day will be clear, there is no certainty of the sun shining. Of the two propositions one only embodies a certain fact. Now an action^ wherein there enters any notion of uncer- tainty, or indefinitude, and is at the same time connected with another action, should be expressed, not by the indicative mood, but by the subjunctive, — if the sun shine the day will be clear. To say shines would be exceptionable. Simple uncertainty will not constitute a subjunctive con- struction, — / am, perhaps, in the wrong. Neither will simple connection, — / am wrong because you are right. But the two combined constitute the construction in ques- tion, — if I be wrong, you are right. Now, a conjunction that connects two certain propositions, may be said to govern an indicative mood. And a conjunction that connects an uncertain proposition with a certain one, may be said to govern a subjunctive mood. The government of mood is the only form of government of which covjunctions are capable. § 532. Previous to the question of the government of con- junctions in the way of mood, it is necessary to notice certain points of agreement between them and the relative pronouns ; inasmuch as, in many cases, the relative pronoun exerts the same government, in the way of determining the mood of the verb, as the conjunction. Between the relative pronouns and conjunctions in general, there is this point of connection, — both join propositions. Whei-ever there is a relative, there is a second proposition. So there is wherever there is a conjunction. Between certain relative pronouns and those particular con- junctions that govern a subjunctive mood there is also a point of connection. Both suggest an element of uncertainty or indefinitude. This the relative pronouns do, through the logical elements common to them and to the interrogatives : these latter essentially suggesting the idea of doubt. Wherever the person, or thing, connected with an action, and expressed ON CONJUNCTIONS. 423 by a relative be indefinite, there is room for the use of a sub- junctive mood. He that troubled you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. § 533. By considering the nature of such words as lohen, their origin as relatives on the one hand, and their conjunc- tional character on the other hand, we are prepared for finding a relative element in words like till, until, before, as long as, &c. These can all be expanded into expressions like until the time when, during the time when, &c. Hence, in an expression like seek out his luickedness till thou find none, the principle of the constmction is nearly the same as in he that troubled you, &c., or vice versa. ^ § 534. In most conditional expressions the subjunctive mood should follow the conjunction. All the following expres- sions are conditional. 1. Except I he by Silvia in the night, If Shakspere. There is no music in the nightingale. 2. Let us go and sacrifice to the Lord our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence. — Old Testament. 3. Revenge back on itself recoils, Let it. I reck not, so it light well aimed. J. Milton. 4. 7/* this he the case. 5. Although ray house he not so with God. — Old Testament. 6. He shall not eat of the holy thing unless he wash his flesh with water. — Old Testament. Expressions like except and unless are equally conditional with words like if and provided that, since they are equivalent to if — not. Expressions like though and although are peculiar. They * Notwithstanding the extent to which a relative may take the appear- ance of conjunction, there is always one unequivocal method of deciding its true nature. The relative is always a part of the second propositiou. A conjunction is, generally, no part of either. 424 ON CONJUNCTIONS. join propositions, of which the one is a prima facie reason against the other. In the sentence, if the children be so hadly brought up, they are not to be trusted, the bad bringing-up is the reason for their being unfit to be trusted ; and, as far as the expression is concerned, is admitted to be so. The only uncer- tainty lies in the question as to the degree of the badness of the education. The inference from it is unequivocal. But if, instead of saying if, we say although, and omit the word not, so that the sentence run, although the children be so badly brought up they are to be trusted, we do two things : we indicate the general relation of cause and effect that exists between bad bringing-up and unfitness for being trusted, but we also, at the same time, take an exception to it in the par- ticular instance before us. These remarks have been made for the sake of showing the extent to which words like though, &c., are conditional. It must be remembered, howevei', that conjunctions, like the ones lately quoted, do not govern subjunctive moods be- cause they are conditional, but because, in the particular condition which they accompany, there is an element of un- certainty. § 535. This introduces a fresh question. Conditional con- junctions are of two sorts : — 1. Those which express a condition as an actual fact, and one admitted as such by the speaker. 2. Those which express a condition as a possible fact, and one which the speaker either does not admit, or admits only in a qualified manner. 8ince the child7'en are so badly brought up, &c. — This is an instance of the first construction. The speaker admits as an actual fact the bad bringing-up of the cJnldren. If the children be so badly brought-up, &c. — This is an instance of the second construction. The speaker admits as a possible fact the bad bringing-up of the children ; but he does not adopt it as an indubitable one. § 536. Now, if every conjunction had a fixed unvariable meaning, there would be no difficulty in determining whether a condition was absolute and beyond doubt, or possible and liable to doubt. But such is not the case. ON CONJUNCTIONS. 425 Although may precede a proposition which is admitted as well as one which is doubted. a. Although the rJiildren are, &c. b. Although the children be, &c. Ify too, may precede propositions wherein there is no doubt whatever implied : in other words, it may be used instead of since. In some languages this interchange goes further than in others ; in the Greek, for instance, such is the case with d, to a very great extent indeed. Hence we must look to the meaning of the sentence in general, rather than to the particular conjunction used. It is a philological fact (j)robably referable to the vmls ethicus) that if may stand instead of since. It is also a philological fact that when it does so it should be followed by the indicative mood. This is written in the way of illustration. ^Vhat applies to if applies to other conjunctions as well. § 537. As a point of practice, the following method of de- termining the amount of doubt expressed in a conditional pro- position is useful : — Insert, immediately after the conjunction, one of the two following phrases, — (1.) as is the case ; (2.) as may or may not be the case. By ascertaining which of these two su])plemcnts expresses the meaning of the speaker, we ascertain the mood of the verb which follows. When the first formula is the one required, there is no element of doubt, and the verb should be in the indicative mood. If {as is the case), he is gone, I jnust follow him. Here if^ since. When the second formula is the one required, there is an element of doubt, and the verb should be in the subjunctive mood. If {as may or may not be the case) he be gone, I must follow him. May and might are tenses which combined with an infinitive serve as equivalents to a true mood ; just as the preposition of + a substantive r= a case. § 538. The use of the word that in expressions like / eat that I may live, &c., is a modification of the subjunctive con- 426 ON CONJUNCTIONS. struction, that is conveniently caWed potential. It denotes that cue act is done fox* the sake of supplying the power or oppor- tunity for the performance of another. In English the word that, so used, cannot be said to govern a mood, although generally followed by either may or might. It should rather be said to require a certain combination to follow it. The most important point connected with the powers of that is the so-called succession of tenses. § 539. The succession of tenses. — Whenever the conjunction that expresses intention, and consequently connects two verbs, the second of which denotes an action which takes place after the action denoted by the first, the verbs in question must be in the same tense. I do this that I mai/ gain by it. I did this t/iat I 7}Ut/M gaiu by it. In the Greek language this is expressed by a difference of mood; the subjunctive giving the construction equivalent to may, the optative to might. A little consideration will show that this rule is absolute. For a man to be doing one action (in present time) in order that some other action may follow it (in past time) is to reverse the order of cause and effect. To do anything in A.D. 1851, that something may result from it in 1850 is a contradiction; and so it is to say I do this that / might gain by it. The reasons against the converse construction are nearly, if not equally, cogent. To have done anything at any pre- vious time in order that a present effect may follow, is, ipso facto, to convert a past act into a present one, or, to speak in the language of the grammarian, to convert an aorist into a perfect. To say / did this that I may gain by it is to make, by the very effect of the expression, either may equivalent to might, or did equivalent to have done. I did this that / might gain. I have done this that I may gain. A clear perception of the logical necessity of the law of the succession of tenses, is necessary for understanding the nature ON CONJUNCTIONS. 427 of several anomalous passagjcs in the classical writers. In tiic followinir, an aorist is fulldwed not by an optative, but by a subjunctive. ET? /JafTi^iVf, u tiJaxE Kfovov •rrx~<; uyy.vMfxriT'.u Here it is necessaiy to construe eSwke, /las given and con- tinues to allow, which is to construe it like -d. perfect* tense. Upon similar passages iMathiie writes, "but frequently the conjunctive is used, although the preceding word be in the time past, viz. when the verb 'which depends upon the con- junction shows an action continued to the present time." That means when the verb is really a perfect. In Latin, when the same form is both aorist and perfect, the succession of tenses is a means of determining which of the two meanings it conveys. Veni ut viclcam = / /lave come that I may see. Veni ut viderem zz I came that I might see. Arnold states, from Kriigcr and Zumpt, that even where the prseterite was clearly a perfect {i.e. — to have with the participle), the Roman ear was so accustomed to the imper- fect subjunctive, that it preferred such an expression as diu duhitavi num melius esset to diu duhitavi num melius sit. The latter part of the statement is sure enough ; but it is by no means so sure that dubitavi, and similar forms in similar con- structions are perfects. There is no reason for considering this to be the case in the present instance. It seems to be so, because it is connected with diu ; but an action may last a long * Unless another view be taken of the construction, and it be argued that ISojKe is, etyinologically speaking, no aorist but a perfect. In form it is almost as much one tense as another. If it wants the reduplication of the perfect, it has the perfect characteristic k, to the exclusion of the aorist c ; and thus far the evidence is equal. The persons, however, are more aorist than perfect. For one of Mathiic's aorists (/ieefjfce) a still better case might be made, showing it to be, even in etymology, more perfect than aorist. VLnivei fie xpi'O'oi') T^f Ta\aiirwpov, X^P'" EeVoj narpaioi, Kol ktuvuv is ofSyu' a\hs MsflJjx*, '^"^ avrbs xpy^-iv iv dSfioii «XT?- Kflixat 5' iit" aKTa7s. EUR. ITeC. 428 ON CONJUNCTIONS. time, and yet not last up to the time of speaking. Diu dubi- tavi probably expresses, / doubted a long time, and leaves it to be inferred that now I do not doubt. § 540. It has been stated above that whilst the Latin and English have a succession of tenses, the Greek language exhibits what may be called a succession of moods. This suggests inquiry. Is the difference real ? If so, how is it explained ? If not, which of the two grammatical systems is right ? — the English and Latin on the one side, or the Greek on the other ? Should tvtttoihl be reduced to a past tense, or verberarem be considered an optative mood ? The present writer has no hesitation in stating his belief, that all the phsenomena explicable by the assumption of an optative mood are equally explicable by an expansion of the subjunctive, and a different distribution of its tenses. 1. Let riii/'w be considered a subjunctive /w^wre instead of a subjunctive aorist. 2. Let Tinrroifxi be considered an imperfect subjunctive. 3. Let reTixpoifxi be considered a pluperfect subjunctive. 4. Let Tarvipaiixi be considered an aorist subjunctive. Against this view there are two reasons : 1. The double forms rvipaifxi and Tvipot/xi, one of which would remain unplaced. 2. The use of the optative and conjunctive in simple propo- sitions, as — u Tai, y^voio Trarpo? evrv^iurecoi;. The first reason I am not prepared to impugn. Valeat quantum, &ic. The second indicates a class of expressions which tense will not explain, and which mood will. Yet this is not conclusive. Would that thou wert is thoroughly optative : yet it is expressed by a tense. The ybrm of the so-called optatives proves nothing. Neither the subjunctive nor the optative has any signs of mood at all, except the negative one of the absence of the augment. Their sicrns are the signs of tense. In favour of the view are the following reasons : — 1. The analogy of other languages. The imperfect has a subjunctive in Latin. So has the future. ON CONJUNCTIONS. 421) 2. The undoubtedly future eharaeter of the so-calk-d aorist imperative. To give an onh-r to do a thing in past time is a philological contradietion. Forms like jiXt^ov i/iust be fu- ture. Though ^tg and tiOh differ in power, they both mean an action subsequent to, ov, at any rate, simultaiu'ous with the order given ; certainly not one anterior to it. § 541. Be may stand for })uii/ be. In tliis case the prfctc- rite is not ivere but mi(//it be. The sentence, what care / how fair the lady be, if she be not fair to her admirer /* is accurate. Here be i= maij be. But, ichat cared / hoiu fair the Uuhj were, if she were not fair to her admirer ? is inaccurate. It ought to run thus, — ivhat cared / how fair the lady might be, if she were not fair to her admirer .?* § 542. Disjunctives. — Di^^junctivcs [or, nor) are of two sorts, real and nominal. A king or queen always rules in England. Here the dis- junction is real ; king w queen being different names for differ- ent objects. In all real disjunctions the inference is, that if one out of two (or more) individuals (or classes) do not perform a certain action, the other does. A sovereign or supreme rule?- always rules in England. Here the disjunction is nominal ; sovereign and supreme governor being different names for the same object. In all nominal disjunctives the inference is, that if an agent (or agents) do not perform a certain action under one name, he does (or they do) it under another. Nominal disjunctives are called by Harris, s?/;Odisjunetives. * It ia almost unnecessary to state that the sentence quoted in the text is really a beautiful couplet of Witlior's poetry transprosed. It was advisable to do this, for the sake of guardiu^ agaiust the eflfect of the rhyme. To have written What care I how fair she is If she be not fair to me ? would have made the grammar seem worse than it really was, by disap- pointing the reader of a rhyme. On the other hand, to have written Wliat care I how fair she tcere. If she were not kind affair f would have made the grammar seem better than it really was, by sup- plying one. 430 ON CONJUNCTIONS. In the English language there is no separate word to distin- guish the nominal from the real disjunctive. In Latin, vel is considered by Harris to be disjunctive, sive subdisjunctive. As a periphrasis the combination in other words is subdis- junctive. Both nominal and real disjunctives agree in this, — whatever may be the number of nouns which they connect, the con- struction of the verb is the same as if there were but one — Henry or John, or Thomas, walks (not walk) ; the sun, or solar luminary, shines (not shine). The disjunctive isolates the subject, however much it may be placed in juxtaposition with other nouns. § 543. Either, neither. — Many disjunctives imply an alter- native. If it be not this person (or thing) that performs a certain action (or exists in a certain state) it is some other. If a person (or thing) do not perform a certain action (or exist in a certain state), under one name, he (or it) does so under another. This alternative is expressed by the word either. When the word either is connected immediately with the copula of a proposition, it is, if not a true conjunction, at least a part of a conjunctional periphrasis. — This either is or is not so. When it belongs more to one of the terms of a proposition than to the copula, it is a pronoun, — Either I or you is in the wrong. It is either you or I. I use the M^ords, part of a conjunctional periphrasis, be- cause the full conjunction is either + or (or neither + nor) ; the essential conjunctions being the latter words. To these, either (or neither) is superadded, indicating the manner in which the disjunction expressed by or (or nor) takes place ; i. e. they show that it takes place in the manner of an alter- native. Now, this superadded power is rather adverbial than conjunctional. § 544. From the pronominal character of the word either, when it forms part of a term, and from the power of the dis- junctive, or, in isolating the subject of the verb, combined with an assumption which will be explained hereafter, we get at the principle of certain rules for doubtful constructions. ON CONJUNCTIONS. 431 In expressions like cither you or 1 is in the wronfj, we nin.st consider either not only as a pronoun, but as the leading pro- noun of the proposition ; a pronoun of wiiieh or I is an expla- nation ; and, finally, as the pronoun whieh determines the person of the verb. Either you or I is wromj =■ one of us {you or I) is uronff. Then, as to expressions like /, or you, am in the wrong. Here, / is the leading pronoun, which determines the person of the verbs; the words, or you, being parenthetic, and subordi- nate. § 545. Will this principle justify such expressions as either they or we is in the lorong ? Or will it justify such expressions as either he or they is in the ivrong ? Or will it justify such expressions as / or they am in the wrong ? In all which sentences one pronoun is plural. Perhaps not. The assnmption that has been just alluded to, as helping to explain certain doubtful constructions, is the fol- lowing, viz. that in eases of apposition, disjunction, and com- plex terms, the first word is the one which determines the character of the sentence wherein it occurs. This is a practice of the English language, which, in the opinion of the present writer, nothing but a \ery decided preponderance of a differ- ence in person, gender, or number, can overrule. Such may fairly be considered to be the case in the three examples just adduced ; especially as there is also the secondary influence of the conjunctional character of the word either. Thus, although we say, — One of two parties, they or ive, is in the ivrong. "VVe also say, — Either they or we are in the wrong. As for the other two expressions, they are in the same predi- cament, with an additional reason for the use of the plural. It contains the singular. The chief object of the present remarks has been less to explain details than to give due pro- minence to the following leading principles. 1. That either (or neither) is essentially singular in nnndjer. 2. That it is, like any conmion noun, of the third person. 432 ON CONJUNCTIONS. 3. That it is pronominal where it is in apposition with another noun. 4. That when it is the first word of the proposition it deter- mines the concord of the verb, unless its character of a noun of the singular number and third person be disguised by the prominence of some plural form, or some pronoun of the first or second person in the latter part of the term. 5. That in a simple disjunctive proposition {i. e. one where either does not occur) all nouns are subordinate to the first. § 546. I believe that the use of either is limited to real dis- junctives ; in other words, that we can say either a king or a queen always reigns in England, but that we cannot say either a sovereign or a supreme ruler always reigns in England. SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE. 433 CHAPTER XXVIII. THE SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE. § 547. When the verb is in the infinitive mood, the nega- tive precedes it. — Not to advance is to retreat. When the verb is not in the infinitive mood, the negative follows it. — He advanced not. I cannot. This rule is absolute. It only seems to precede the verb in such expressions as / do not advance, I cannot advance, I have not advanced, &c. However, the words do, can, and hat^e, are no infinitives ; and it consequently follows them. The word advance is an infinitive, and it consequently precedes it. ^^'allis's rule makes an equivalent statement, although differently. " Adverbium negandi not (non) verbo postponitur (nempe aux- iliari primo si adsit; aut si non adsit auxiliare, verbo princi- pali) : aliis tamen orationis partibus prrcfigi solet." — P. 113. That the negative is rarely used, except with an auxiliary — in other words, that the presence of a negative converts a simple form like it burnetii not into the circumlocution it does not bum — is a fact in the practice of the English language. The syntax is the same in either expression. § 548. What may be called the distribution of the negative is pretty regular in English. Thus, when the word not comes between an indicative, imperative, or subjunctive mood and an infinitive verb, it almost always is taken with the word which it follows — / can not eat may mean either / can — not eat (i. e. I can abstain), or / can not — eat [i. e. I am unable to eat) ; but, as stated above, it almost always has the latter signification. But not a/wa>/s. In Byron^s "Deformed Transfornu'd^' we find the following lines : — VOL. II. F F 434 SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE. Clay ! not dead but soulless, ' Though no mortal man would choose thee, An immortal no less Deigns not to refa&e thee. Here not to refuse ^ to accept ; and is probably a Grecism. To not refuse would, perhaps, be better. The next expression is still more foreign to the English idiom : — For not to have been dipped in Lethe's lake Could save the son of Thetis from to die. Here not is to be taken with could. § 549. In the present English, two negatives make an affirmative. / have not not seen him z=. I have seen him. In Greek this was not the case. Du(B aut plures negatives apud Grcecos vehementius negant is a well-known rule. The Anglo- Saxon idiom differed from the English and coincided with the Greek . The French negative is only apparently double ; words hke point, pas, mean not not, but at all. Je ne parle pas = / not speak at all, not / not speak no. § 550. Questions of appeal. — All questions imply want of information ; want of information may then imply doubt ; doubt, perplexity ; and perplexity the absence of an alter- native. In this way, what are called, by Mr. Arnold,* ques- tions of appeal, are, practically speaking, negatives. What should I do ? when asked in extreme perplexity, means that nothing can well be done. In the following passage we have the presence of a question instead of a negative : — Or hear'st thou {clids, Lat.) rather pure setherial stream. Whose fountain who («o one) shall tell ? Paradise Lost. § 551. The following extract from the "Philological Mu- seum" (vol. ii.) illustrates a curious and minute distinction, which the author shows to have been current when Wycliffe wrote, but which was becoming obsolete when Sir Thomas * Latin Frose Composition, p. 123. SYNTAX OF THE NEGATIVE. 435 More wrote. It is frofre ge-l)a(d), wedx under wolcnum, weorS-inynduin )3ah ; o^ -f him se'g-hwlyc ))ara ymb-sittendra, ol'er hron-rade, hyrau scolde, goinban gyldan — •jj wae's god cyning — ^aem eafera wse's sefer canned, geong in geardum, Jjone god sende folce to frofre ; fyren-pearfe on-geat, ■j5 hie se'r drugon, aldor-(le)ase. lange hwile, him jjfes lif-frea, wuldres wealdend, worold-are for-geaf — Bed-wulF WEe's breme, blae'd wide sprang, Scyldes eafera, Scede-landum in. OLD SAXON. FROM THE HILDEBB.AND AND HATHUBKAND. " Ih gihorta that seggen, that sie urhetton a^non muctin Hildibraht enti Ilathubrant nntar heriuntuem, Sunu fatar ungo ; iro saro rihtun, Garutun sc iro guthhamun, gurtun sih iro suert ana, HeUdos, ubar ringa, do sie to dero hiltu rituu. HiUibraht gimahalta, Heribrantes sunu, her was heroro man, Ferahes frotoro, her fragen gistuont, Fohem wortum : wer sin fater wari ; Fires in folclie, eddo wehches cnuosles du sis ? Ibu du mi aenan sages, ik mideo are-wet, Chind in chuninchriche, chud ist min al irmindeot. ALLITERATI VK METRES. 447 ITadubralit giiiuihalti lliltibrantcs suini : Dat sagctim mi Userc liuti alte anti I'role, dca, crliiua warun, Dat Ililbrant hacttl miu fater ih heittu Iladubrant. Forii her ostar <;iliucit, iloli licr Otachrcs iiid llina miii Tliootriclic cnti sinero degano filu ; 111 r lurlacli in Liiiti; luttila sitteii Prut ill bare ; barn unwahson, Arboolosa hcract, ostar liiiia dct, Sid dch-ichc darba gistuontura, fatcrcres mines, Dat was so IViuutlaos man her was Otachre umracttirri, Degano dechisto, unti Dcotriehe darba gistontum ; Her was eo folcbes at ente, irao was eo fehcta ti leop. Child was her chonnem maniiuma, ni wanin ih, in lib habbe. 3. OLD NORSE. FROM THE EDDA. Volaspd, stanzas 1 — 6. 1. Hlji)'Ss bi^ ek aUar helgar kindir, meiri ok minui, mogu HeimdaUar : vihhi at ek Valfu^rs vcl tramtclja, fornspjoll fira, fau er ek frcmst um man. 2. Ek man jotua ar um borna, fa er foi-^uni mik foedda hof^u ; iiiu man ek hcima, 11 III ivi^jur, mjotviS moiran fyr mold ne^an. 3. A'r var alda far er Y'mir byg^i, vara sandr ne sser no svalar uuuir, jor^ fanusk fpva ne uppliiminn, gap var ginnunga, en gras hvergi. A'^r l?urs synir bjo^um um yp^u, })eir er mi^garS mceraii skopu : sol skein sunnan a salar steina, \>d var grand grt)iu graniam lauki. Sol varp sunnan, siiini mana, liendi inni hcegri um himinjodyr; sol pat ne vissi hvar hon sali atti, mani )jat ne vissi hvat hann niotrins atti. 448 ALLITERATIVE METRES. stjornur J)at ne vissu livar ])3er staSi attu. \)a gengu regin oil a rokstola, ginnheilog go^, ok um fat gaettusk nott ok niSjum nofn um gafu, morgin hetu ok mi^jan dag, undorn ok aptan, arum at telja. Daz hort ih rahhon Dia werolt-rehtwison, Daz sculi der Antichristo Mit Eliase pagan. Der warch ist kiwafanit ; Deune wirdit untar in wik arhapan; Khensun sind so kreftic, Diri kosa ist so mihhil. Elias stritit Pi den ewigon lip, Will den rehtkernon Daz rihhi kistarkan ; Pidiu seal imo halfan Der himiles kiwaltit. Der Anticristo stet Pi dem Altfiante Stet pi demo Satanase, Der inan farsenkan seal ; Pidiu seal er in der wicsteti OLD HIGH-GEKMAK Enti in demo sinde Sigalos werdan. Doh wauit des vila gotmanno, Daz Elias in demo wige arwartit (werdit). Sar so daz Eliases pluot In erda kitruifit. So impriunant die perga, Poum ni kistentit Einic in erdu. Aha artruknent, Muor varsuilhet sih, Suilizot lougui der himil Mano vallit, Prinnit mittilagart, Stein ni kistentit einik in erdu. Verit denne stuatago in lant, Yerit mit din viuriu Viriho wison, Dar ni mai denne mak andremo. Want pivallan, § 559. The system of alliteration has hitherto been explained in the most general way possible ; all that has been attempted being the exhibition of the principle upon which such extracts as the preceding can be understood to be metrical ; and that this their metrical character is by no means transparently clear, may be collected from the fact that many of the old allitera- tional compositions were treated by the earlier scholars as prose. As a general rule all early German poetry is alliterative ; though it by no means follows that alliteration was equally general in all the German forms of speech. ALLITERATIVE METRES. 449 Alliteration preceded rhyme. Kliynie folknved alliteration. Hence, whenever we have no specimens of a given form of speech anterior to the evolution of rhyme, we have no aliitera- tional compositions. This is the case with the Frisian, the Batavian, and the Platt-Deutsch dialects. Indeed, for the Ilii^h-German the poem of ^luspilli is a solitary, or nearly solitary, instance. The two languages wherein there is the most of it are the English during the Anglo-Saxon and early English periods, and the Norse. In the latter we not only get numerous specimens, but we also get the rules of its Prosody. These are, perhaps, more artificial than actual practice requires. They are also more stringent and elaborate than those of Anglo-Saxon and High-German. Thus, the alliterative syllables take names, one being the head-sta\e and the other two the iy-stavcs. The head-stave has its place at the beginning of the second line, or (if we throw the two into one) immediately after a break, caesura, pause, or quasi-divisiou. The by-staves belong to the first line out of two, or to the first member of a single one. This is a rule that gives stringency to the system. Others give licence. Thus, — An unaccented svllable at the beKinnius: of the second line f DO (or member) counts as nothing. Again, the vowels which collectively are dealt with as a single letter not only mai/ but must be difi'erent. This goes far to enable anything and everything to be metre — inasmuch as all that is wanted to constitute either one long or two short lines is the occurrence of three words beginning with a vowel, and accented on their initial syllable. The following is from Thorlakson's Translation of " Paradise Lost : " — "Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our woe. With loss of Eden, till one greater itan Restore us, and regain the blissful seat. Sing, heavenly Muse, that on the secret top Of Oreb, or of Sinai, didst inspire That shepherd, who first taught the chosen seed, In the beginning how tlie Heavens and Earth VOL. II. G G 450 ALLITERATIVE METRES. Eose out of Chaos : or if Sion hill Delight thee more, and Siloa's brook that flow'd Past by the oracle of God." " Um fyrsta manns felda hly^ni ok atlysting af epli forboSnu, hva^an dveegr upp kom dau^i, Edens missir, ok allt bol manna ; " Jjartil annarr eiiin, se^ri maSr, aptr fser OSS viSreista, ok afrekar nyan OSS til handa fulls selustaS fogrum sigri ; Syiig jju, Menta- moSir himneska ! J)u sem Hdrebs fyrr a huldum toppi, e^a Sinai, sau^aver'Si innblest frse^anda utvalit S0e^i, hve alheimr skopst af alls samblandi ; E=Sa lysti fik langtum heldr at Zions hss'S ok Siloa brunni, sera frarastreymdi hjaErett gu=Sligri!' The full details of the Norse alliterative system may be found in Rask on the Icelandic Prosody. RHYME AND ASSONANCE. 45] CHAPTER IV. RHYME AND ASSONANCE. >§ 560. In an Alliteration the likeness between the articulate sounds which constitute it occurs at the beyinning of words. In rhyme it occurs at the end. Observe in each of the following couplets the last syllable of each line. They are said to rlnjme to each other. O'er the glad waters of the dark blue sea. Our thoughts as boundless, and our souls as free. Far as the breeze can bear the billow's /oa?«. Survey our empire and behold our honie. These are our realms, no limits to our sicai/ — Our flag the sceptre all who meet obey. The next extract is a stanza of Gray's Elegy, where, instead of following one another in succession, the rhyming lines come alternately. Full many a gem of purest ray serene The dark, unfathom'd depths of ocean bear ; Full many a flower is born to blush unseen. And waste its sweetness on the desert air. — Gray. In other stanzas the rhyming lines arc sometimes continuous, and sometimes separated from each other by an interval. And yet how lovely in thine age of woe, Land of lost gods and godlike men, art t/ioti ! Thy vales of evergreen, thy hills of snow. Proclaim thee Nature's varied favourite noic : G G 2 452 RHYME AND ASSONANCE. Tliy fanes, thy temples to thy surface bow. Commingling slowly with heroic earth. Broke by the share of every rustic plough : So perish monuments of mortal birth, So perish all in turn, save well-recorded worth. — Byron. It is not difficult to see, in a general way, in what rhyme consists. The syllables see and free, foam, home, &c., are syllables of similar sound; and lines that end in syllables of similar sound are lines that rhyme. By substituting in a line or stanza, instead of the final syllable, some word different in sound, although similarly accented and equally capable of making sense, we may arrive at a general view of the nature and influence of rhyme as an ornament of metre. In the following stanza we may spoil the effect by substituting the word glen for vale, and light for ray. Turn, gentle hermit of the vale. And guide thy lonely wai/ To where yon taper cheers the dale With hospitable ray. — Goldsmith. With this contrast — Turn, gentle hermit of the glen, And guide thy lonely way To where yon taper cheers the dale With hospitable light. § 561. Syllables may be similar in their sound, and yet fail in furnishing full, true, and perfect rhymes. In each of the forthcomilig couplets there is evidently a similarity of sound, and there is equally evidently an imperfection in the rhyme. 1. The soft-flowing outline that steals from the eye, Who threw o'er the surface, — did you or did I ? Whitehead. 'T is with our judgments as our watches; none Go just alike, yet each believes his own. — Pope. KUYMK AND ASSONANCE. 453 3. Soft o'er the shrouds aerial whispers breathe, That scem'd but zephyrs to the train beneath. — Pope. The first of these three pairs of verses was altered into — The soft-flowing outline that steals from the view, "Who threw o'er the surface, — did I or did you? and that solely on account of tlic inipcrfectncss of the original endings, eye and /. These are sanijjles of what passes for a rhyme without being one. Neither are the syllables hiyh and -hj, in the following, rhymes. The witch she held the luiir in her hand, The red flame blazed high ; And round about the caldron stofit. They danced right mQxnly. — Kirke AYiiite. § 562. Varieties of imperfect Rhymes. — None and own are better lyhmcs than none and man ; because there are degrees in the amount to which vowels diflfer from one another, and the sounds of the o in none and the o in own are more alike than the sounds of the o in none and the a in man. In like manner breathe and teeth are nearer to rhymes than breathe and teaze ; and breathe and teaze are more alike in sound than breathe and teal. All this is because the sound of the th in teeth is more allied to that of the th in breathe than that of the z in teaze, and to the z in teaze more than to the / in teal. Tiiis shows that in imperfect rhymes there are degrees, and that some approach the nature of true ones more than others. High and /, hair and air, are imperfect rhymes. Whose generous children narrow'd not their hearts With commerce, giv'n alone to arms and arts. — Byrox. Words where the letters coincide, but the sounds differ, are only rhymes to the eye. Breathe and beneath arc in this pre- dicament ; so also are cease and ease {eaze) . In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease. Sprang the rank weed, and thrived with large increase. Pope. 45-1 RHYME AND ASSONANCE. If the sounds coincide, the difference of the letters is unim- portant. Bold in the practice of mistaken rules, Prescribe, apply, and call their masters fools. They talk of principles, but notions prize, And all to one loved folly sacrifice. § 563. Analysis of a rhyming syllable. — Let the syllable told be taken to pieces. For metrical purposes it consists of three parts or elements : 1, the vowel (o) ; 2, the part preceding the vowel {t) ; 3, the part following the vowel {Id). The same may be done with the word bold. The two words can now be com- pared with each other. The comparison shows that the vowel is in each the same (o) ; that the part following the vowel {Id) is the same ; and, finally, that the part preceding the vowel is different {t and b). This difference between the part pre- ceding the vowel is essential. Told, compared with itself {told), is no rhyme, but an homoeoteleuton {ofxoioq, homoios = like, and TeXevrt), teleutcB = end) or like-ending. It differs from a rhyme in having the parts preceding the vowel alike. Absolute identity of termi- nation is not recognised in English poetry, except so far as it is mistaken for rhyme. The soft-flowing outline that steals from the eye^ Who threw o'er the surface ? did you or did I? Whitehead. Here the difference in spelling simulates a difference in sound, and a homoeoteleuton takes the appearance of a rhyme. Bold and note. — As compared with each other, these words have two of the elements of a rhyme : viz. the identity of the vowel, and the difference of the parts preceding it. They want, however, the third essential, or the identity of the parts following; Id being different from t. The coincidence, how- ever, as far as it goes, constitutes a point in metre, as will soon be seen. Bold and mild. — Here also are two of the elements of a rhyme, viz. the identity of the parts following the vowel {Id), and the difference of the parts preceding {b and m). The KIIYME AND ASSONANCE. ^0 identity of the vowel (o being different from i) is, however, wanting. Rhymes may eonsist of a single syUable, as told, hold; of two sylhibles, as ivatcr, dmajhtcr ; of three, as chcerilij, ivcn- rily. Now, the rhyme begins where tlie dissimilarity of parts immediately before the main vowel begins. Then follows the vowel ; and, lastly, the parts after the vowel. All the parts after the vowel must be absolutely identical. Mere similarity is insufficient. Then come ere a minute 's gone, For the long summer day Puts its wings, swift as linnets' on, For Hying away. — Clare. In the lines just quoted there is no rhyme, but an asso- nance. The identity of the parts after the main syllable is destroyed by the single sound of the (/ in ffone. A rhyme, to be perfect, must fall on syllables equally accented. — To make skt/ and the last syllable of merri/y serve as rhymes, is to couple an accented syllabic with an un- accented one. A rhyme, to be perfect, must fall upon syllables absolutely accented. — To make the last syllables of w^ords like tligh/y and merri/y serve as rhymes, is to couple together two unac- cented syllables. A rhyme consists in the combination of like and unlike sounds. — Words like / and eije [homceoteleuta), ease and cease (vowel assonances), love and grove (consonantal assonances), are printers' rhymes; or mere combinations of like aiul unlike letters. A rhyme, moreover, consists in the combination of like and unlike articulate sounds — Hit and it are not rhymes, but identical endings; the h being no articulation. To my ear, at least, the pair of words, hit and it, comes under a different class from the pair hit (or it) and pit. Hence — A full and perfect rhyme (the term being stringently de- fined) consists in the recurrence of one or more final sijllahlea equally and absolutehj accented, wherein the vowels and the parts 456 RHYME AND ASSONANCE, following the vowel shall be identical, whilst the parts preceding the vowel shall be articulately different. To this definition, words like old and bold form no exception. At the first view it may be objected that in words like old there is no part preceding the vowel. Compared, however, with bold, the negation of that part constitutes a difi'erence. The same applies to words like go and lo, where the negation of a part following the vowel is a point of identity. Fm-ther- more, I may observe, that the word part is used in the singular number. The assertion is not that every individual sound preceding the vowel must be different, but that the aggregate of them must be so. Hence, pra^j and braij (where the r is common to both forms) form as true a rhyme as bray and play, w^here all the sounds preceding a differ. § 564. Single Rhymes. — An accented syllable standing by itself, and coming under the conditions given above, consti- tutes a single rhyme. 'T is hard to say if greater want of skill Appear in writing or in judging ill ; But, of the two, less dangerous is the offence To tire the patience than mislead the sense. Some few in that, but thousands err in this ; Ten censure wrong, for one that writes ^miss. — Pope. Double Rhymes. — An accented syllable followed by an unac- cented one, and coming under the conditions given above, constitutes a double rhyme. The meeting points the sacred hair dissever From her fair head for ever and for ever. — Pope. Prove and explain a thing till all men doubt it. And write about it. Goddess, and about it. — Pope. Treble Rhymes. — An accented syllable followed by two unac- cented ones, and coming under the conditions given above, constitutes a treble rhyme. Beware that its fatal ascendancy Do not tempt thee to mope and repine ; With a humble and hopeful ^Qpendency Still await the good pleasure divine. lUIVME AND ASSONANCE. 457 Success in a liij;licr hca/i/ude Is the end of wliat 'a under the pole. A pliilosopher takes it with ymlUiule, And believes it the best in the whole. — Byrom. § 5G5. Constant and incunslunt parts dJ a rlnjau'. (Jl the three parts, or elements, of a rhyme, the vowel and the part which follows the vowel are constant, i. e. they cannot be changed without changing: or destroying the rhyme. In told and bold, plunder, blunder, both the o or u on one side, and the -/(/ or -nder on the other are immutable. Of the three parts, or elements, of a rhyme the part which precedes the vowel is inconstant, i. e. it must be changed in order to effect the rhyme. Thus, old and old, told and told, bold and bold, do not rhyme with each other; although old, bold, told, scold, &c., do. Hence — Rule 1. In two or more syllables that rhyme with each other, neither the vowel nor the sounds which follow it can be diffei'e7it. Rule 2. In two or more syllables that rhyme with each other, the sounds which precede the vowel cannot be alike. Now the number of sounds which can precede a vowel is limited : it is that of the consonants and consonantal combina- tions ; of w hich a list can be made a priori. p pi pr h hi br f / f>- V tl vr t tl tr d dl dr th till thr dh did dhr k H kr fj ^- -^ -"- «-« ^^- &c. are the symbolical representations of the classical feet. The classical grammarians have names for their feet ; e. g. iambic is the name of ^—, trochee of -^, dactyle of -«", amphi- brachys of «-", anapcest of ""-, &c. The English grammarians have, hitherto, had no symbols for their measures : since those that have been submitted to the reader are only suggested or proposed. Neither have the English grammarians names for their measures. Sometimes, they borrow the classical terms iambic, trochee, &c. As symbols I have suggested a and x. As names for the English measures I have nothing to offer except the remark that the classical names are never used with impunity. Their adoption invariably engenders confusion. It is very true that, mutatis mutandis (^. e. accent being sub- stituted for quantity), words like tyrant and presume are trochees and iambics; but it is also true that, with the common nomenclature, the full extent of the change is rarely appreciated. METRICAL NOTATION AND SCANSION. HJ 1 Syniholically expressed, the following forms denote the following niciisurcs : — 1. a X = tyrant. 2. X a = presiune. 3. a X X = merrily. 4. X a X ■= dim/jle. 5. X X a = cavalier. I have stated that as names of the English metres I have nothing to offer. I have only said what they should not be called. They should not be called feet, and they should not bear the names borne by feet, e.g. the names trochee, iambic, &c. Notwithstanding, however, the want of appropriate deno- minations for the English measures, the practical incon- venience that arises from their absence is inconsiderable; inasmuch as the number of our primaiy combinations is li- mited, and their order natural. Thus — Feet consisting of a single syllable, and feet consisting of four syllaljles, are of such extreme rarity that the only practical combinations are the dissyllabic and the trisyllabic — (1) a X and xa, (2) a x x, x a x, and x x a. Of these let the shorter take precedence ; so that a x and X a form the former of two divisions. Within each of these divisions, let those combinations come first whose accent shows itself the soonest — thus let a x precede x a, and a x x precede x a x. The result is — _. „ , . ,r (1. «.r — tyrant. A. Dissyllabic Measures ■) ^ > *' (^ I. X a — presume. CZ. ax X — mi'rrihj. B. Trisyllabic Measures \\. x a x — disable. ^5, X X a — cavalier. As this order is natural, it may be adopted as permanent also ; in which case our measures are the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth. On these measures the following general assertions may be made ; viz. — 462 METRICAL NOTATION AND SCANSION. That the dissyllabic measures are, in English, commoner than the trisyllabic. That, of the dissyllabic measures, the second is commoner than the first. § 568. Scansion. — Grouped together according to certain rules, measures constitute lines or verses ; and grouped together according to certain rules, lines constitute couplets, triplets, stanzas, &c. The absence or the presence of rhyme constitutes blank verse or rhyming verse, as the case may be. The succession, or periodic return, of rhymes constitutes stanzas, or continuous metre, as the case may be. The quantity of rhymes in succession constitutes couplets, or triplets. The investigation of the measures of a line, verse, &c., is called Scansion. In taking the length of a line, we may measure by either the accents or the syllables; so that with four measures of the formulas a oc ov sc a, we may take our choice between saying that the verse has four accents, or saying that it has eight syllables. For all scientific purposes we count by accents rather than svllables — in other words, the accent determines the mea- sure, and the measure the verse. At the same time we have, in common language, such terms as octosyllabic, applied to lines like— The w'^y was long, the wind was cold. § 569. Accent is essential to English metre. Rhyme, on the other hand, is only an ornament. Of all the ornaments of English versification it is undoubtedly the most important. Still it is not essential. Metres where there is no rhyme are called Blank Metres. Of man's first disobedience and the fruit Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world and all our woe, With loss of Eden, till one greater Man Eestore us, and regain the blissful seat, Sing, Heavenly Muse ! — Milton . METRICAL NOTATION AND SCANSION. 463 The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppctli as the gentle dew from heaven Upon the plaec beneath ; it is twice bless'd, It blesscth him that gives, and him tliat takes ; 'T is mightiest of the mighty, it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown. His sceptre shows the force of temporal power. The attribute of awe and majesty. Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings : But mercy is above this sceptred sway ; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings : It is an attribute to God himself ; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice. — Siiakspere. § 570. The last measure in a line or verse is indifferent as to its length. — By referring to the notice of single rhymes, we shall find that the number of syllables is just double the number of accents ; that is, to each accented there is one un- accented syllable, and no more. Hence, with five accents, there are to each line ten syllables. This, however, is not the case where the rhymes are double. Here, with five ac- cents, there are to each line eleven syllables. Now it is in the last measure that this supernumeraiy unaccented syllable appears ; and it is a general rale, that, in the last measure of any verse, supernumerary unaccented syllables can be ad- mitted without destroying the original character of the mea- sure. Hence it is, that, up to a certain point, we may say that the length of the concluding measure of a line or verse is a matter of indifference. In the lines The meeting points the sacred hair dissever From her fair head, for ever and for ever. X a appears to be converted into x a x. A different view, however, is the more correct one. Dissever, and for ever, arc are rather x a with a syllable over. This extra syllable may be expressed by the sign plus ( + ), so that the words in point may be expressed hy x a-\r , rather than by x a x. 464 METRICAL NOTATION AND SCANSION. It is very clear that measures whereof the last syllable is accented (that is, measures like x a, presume, or x x a, cava- lier) can only vaiy from their original character on the side of excess ; that is, they can only be altered by the addition of fresh syllables. To subtract a syllable from such feet is impossible; since it is only the last syllable that is capable of being subtracted. If that last syllable, however, be the accented syllable of the measure, the whole measure is an- nihilated. Nothing remains but the unaccented syllable preceding; and this, as no measure can subsist without an accent, must be counted as a supernumerary part of the preceding measure. With the measures a x, a x x, x a x, the case is different. Here there is room for a syllable or syllables to be sub- tracted. Queen and huntress, chaste and fair, Now the sun is laid to sleep, Seated in thy silver chair. State in wonted splendour keep : Hesperus invokes thy light, Goddess, exquisitely bright. — Ben Jonson. In all these lines the last measure is deficient in a syllable, yet the deficiency is allow^able, because each measure is the last one of the line. The formula for expressing fair, sleep, chair, &c., is not a, but rather a x followed by the minus sign ( — ), or a X — . A little consideration will show, that, amongst the English measures, x a and x x a naturally form single, a x and x a x double, and a x x treble rhymes. Let a line consist of five measures, each measure being x a. This we may express thus : xaxaxaxaxa. The presence of a supernumerary syllable may be denoted by the sign +. X a X a X a x a x a-\-. METRICAL NOTATION AND SCANSION. 465 On the other hand, the sign — indicates the absence of a syllable : so that the line Queen and huntress, chaste and fair, runs ax ax ax a x — . These forms may be rendered more compendious by the introduction of the arithmetical sign x signifyinj^ multipli- cation, by means of which we may write, instead of the shorter form a X a X a x a x — , a X X \ — . SPECIMENS. 1. (ff X.) Lines wherein the accent falls on the first, third, and fifth syllables, &c., i. e. upon every second syllable, beginning with the first. So she strove against her weakness. Though at times her spirits sank ; Shaped her heart with woman's meekness To all duties of her r5nk. A'nd a gentle consort made he; A'ud her gentle mind was such. That she grew a noble lady, A'nd the people loved her much. But a trouble weigh'd upon her, A'nd perplex'd her night und morn "With the burden of an honour U'uto which she was not born. — Tennyson. Lay thy bow of pearl ap^rt, A'nd thy silver shining quiver ; Give unto the flying hart Time to breathe, how short soever ; Thou that mak'st a day of night, Goddess exquisitely bright. — Ben Jonson. VOL. II. " H 4 '6 6 METRICAL NOTATION AND SCANSION. 2. {x a.) Lines \vliereiii the accent falls on the second, fourth, and sixth syllables, i. e. upon every second syllable, beginning from the second. A. On, on he hasten'd, and be drew My gaze of wonder as he flew. Thougli like a demon of the night He pass'd and vanish'd from my sight, His aspect and his air imprest A troubled memor}' on my breast ; And long upon my startled ear Rung his dark courser's hoofs of fear. — Byron. B. The war, that for a space did fail, Now trebly thunder'd on the gale. And Stanley was the cry ; A light on Marmion's visage shed, And fired his glazing eye : With dying hand above his head He shook the fragments of his blade, And shouted victory ! — Scott. C. On what foundation stands the warrior's pride ? How just his hopes, let Swedish Charles decide. A frame of adamant, a soul of fire. No dangers fright him, no misfortunes tire ; O'er Love, o'er Fear extends his wide domain, Unconquered lord of pleasure and of pain. No joy to him pacific sceptres yield, War sounds the trump, he rushes to the field; Behold auxiliar kings their powers combine ; And one capitulate, and one resign. Peace courts his hand, but spreads her charms in vain. "Tliink nothing gain'd," he cries, "till nought remain. On Moscow's walls till Swedish banners iiy, And all be mine beneath the polar sky !" The march begins in military state, And nations on his eye suspended wait. METKICAL NOTATION AND SCANSION. 467 Stern Famine guards the solitary coast, And Winter barricades the realms of frost, lie comes ! nor toil nor want his course delay : Hide blushing Cilory, hide I'ultowa's day. His fall was destined to a barren strand, A petty fortress, and a dubious haiul. He left a name at which the world ,:,M-ew ])ale, To point a moral and adorn a tale. — Johnson, 3. (« X X.) Lines wherein the accent falls on the first tuul fourth syllables, i.e. upon every third syllable, beginning with the Ji7-st. A. Pibroeli o' Donuil Dhu ! Pibroch o' Donuil ! Wake thy shrill voice anew, Summon Clan Connuil. Come away, come away, Hark to the summons ! Come in vour war array. Gentles and commons. — Come ev'ry lull-plaid, and True heart that wears one ; Come ev'ry steel blade, and Strong hand that bears one. — Leave the deer, leave the steer. Leave nets and barges : Come with your I'lghting-gear, Broadswords and targes. Come as the w'lnds come, when Forests are rended ; Come as the waves come, when Navies are stranded ; Faster come, faster come. Faster and faster. Chief, vassal, page, and groom, Tenant and master. Fast they come, fast they come. See how they gather ! H H 2 468 METRICAL NOTATION AND SCANSION. Wide waves the eagle plume, Blended with heather. Cast your plaids, draw your blades, Forward each man set ! Pibroch of Donuil Dhu, Knell for the onset. — Scott. 4. (x a X.) Lines wherein the accent falls on the second and fifth sylla- bles; i. e. upon every third syllable, beginning with the second. The black bands came over The A'lps and their snow ; With Bourbon, the rover. They pass'd the broad P6. We [have] beaten all [our] foemen. We [have] captured a king, We [have] tiirn'd back on no men. And so let us sing, " The Bourbon for ever ! Though penniless all. We '11 [have] one more endeavour At yonder old wall. With [the] Boi'irbon we '11 gather At day-dawn before The gates, and together Or break or climb o'er The wall : on the ladder As mounts each firm foot. Our shout shall be gladder, [And] death only be miite. — The Bourbon ! the Bourbon ! Sans country or home. We '11 follow the Bourbon To plunder old Eome." — Byron. 5. (x X a.) Lines wherein the accent falls on the third and sixth sylla- bles ; i. e. upon every third syllable,, beginning with the third. METRICAL NOTATION AND SCANSION. 16!) c The metres of this measure are rarely regular, x x a bein frequently re])laeecl by x a x and a x x. 1. The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold. And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold : And the shci'n of the spears was like stars on the sea, AVhen the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee. 2. Like the leaves of the forest when summer is green, That host with their banners at sunset were seen : Like the leaves of the forest when autumn is blown. That host on the morrow lay wither'd and strown. 3. For the A'ngel of Death spread his wings on the blast. And breathed in the face of the foe as he pass'd ; And the eyes of the sleepers wax'd deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still. 4. And there lay the steed with his nostril all wide ; But through it there roll'd not the breath of his pride : And the foam of his gasping lay white on the turf, And cold as the sprdy of the rock-beating surf. 5. And there lay the rider distorted and pale, With the dew on his brow, and the rust on his mail ; And the tents were all silent, the banners alone, The lances unlifted, the trumpet unblown. fi. And the widows of A'shur are loud in their wail, And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal, And the might of the Gentile unsmote by the sword Hath melted Hke snow in the glance of the Lord. — Byron. Know ye the land where the cypress and* myrtle Ai'e emblems of deeds that are done in their clime, Where the rage of the vulture, the love of the turtle, Now melt into sorrow, now madden to crime ? * The formula x x a appears most in the middle and concluding lines of this extract. •i70 METRICAL NOTATION AND SCANSION. Know ye the land of the cedar and vine, Where the flowers ever blossom, the beams ever shine ; Where the light wings of Zephyr, oppressed with perfume, Wax faint o'er the gardens of Gul in her bloom ; W^here the citron and olive are fairest of fruit, And the voice of the nightingale never is mute : W^here the tints of the earth, and the hues of the sky. In colour though varied, in beauty may vie, And the purple of Ocean is deepest in dye ; Where the virgins are soft as the roses they twine. And all, save the spirit of man, is divine? 'T is the clime of the East ; 't is the land of the Sun — Can he smile on such deeds as his children have done? Oh ! wild as the accents of lover's farewell Are the hearts which they bear, and the tales which they tell. Byron {Bride of Abijdos). § 571. It is not always easy to tell where certain lines end, and where certain others begin. Thus, we may read — 1. The Lord descended from above. And bowed the heavens most high ; And underneath his feet He cast The darkness of the sky. 2. On Cherubs and on Seraphim, Full royally He rode. And on the wings of mighty winds Came flying all abroad. But we may also read — The Lord descended from above, and bowed the heavens most high, And underneath his feet He cast the darkness of the sky. On Cherubs and on Seraphim full royally He rode, And on the wings of mighty winds came flying all abroad. In this matter the following distinction is convenient. When the last syllable of the fourth measure [i. e. the eighth syllable in the line) in the one verse rhymes with the corre- sponding syllable in the other, the long verse should be looked METRICAL NOTATION AND SCANSION. 1-71 upon as broken up into two short ones; in other words, the couplets should be dealt with Jis a stanza. AVhere there is no rhyme except at the seventh measure, the verse should remain undivided. Thus — Turn, gentle hermit of the glen, and guide thy lonely way To where yon taper cheers the vale with hospitable ray — constitute a single couplet of two lines, the number of rhymes being two. But — Turn, gentle hermit of the dale. And guide thy lonely Avay To where yon taper cheers the vale "With hospitable ray. — Goldsjiitu. constitute a stanza of four lines, the number of rhymes being four. To cany this principle throughout our metres may, perhaps, be inconvenient. Lines as short as — It screamed and growled, and cracked and hotcled, it would divide into two. On the other hand, lines as long as — Where Virtue wants and Vice abounds, And wealth is but a baited hook, it would make one of. Thus the former would run — It screamed and growled. And cracked and howled, &c. ; whereas the second would be — Where Virtue wants and Vice abounds, and wealth is but a baited hook, &c. Nevertheless, the principle is suggested. 472 CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. CHAPTER VI. CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. § 572. Verses formed by the First Measure or a x. — 1. A verse so short as to consist of a single accented syllable can be conceived to exist. Its formula would he a x — . I know of no actual specimens. The next in point of brevity would be a X. This also is either non-existent, or too rare to be of practical importance. 2. Verses of Two Measures. Formula ax a x, ov a x x2. Eicli the treasure, Sweet tbe pleasure. — Dryden. Verses of Formula a x a x — , ov a x x 2 — . Tumult cease, Sink to peace. 3. Three Measures. Formula a x x ^. E'very drop we sprinkle, Smoothes away a wrinkle. Formula a x x^ Fill the bumper fair — O'n the brow of care. The two varieties of this formula, rhyming alternately, con- stitute the following stanza : — Fill the bumper fair ; E'very drop we sprinkle, O'n the brow of care, Smoothes away a wrinkle. CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. 473 Sages can, they say, Seize the lightning's pinion, A'nd bring down its ray From the starr'd dominion. — MooiiE. 4. Foiir Measures. Fonnula n x x 1. Then her countenance all over — But he clasp'd her like a lover. Formula a x x ^: — • Pale again as death did prove — A'nd he cheer'd her soul with love. These two varieties alternating, and with rhyme, constitute one of the commonest metres of which c a; is the basis. Then her coiintenance all over Pale again as death did prove ; Biit he clasp'd her like a lover, A'nd he cheer'd her soul with love. — Tennyson. 5. Five measures. Formula a x xo. Narrowing in to where they sat assc^nabled, Low voluptuous music winding trembled. Formula « .r x 5 — . Then methoiight I heard a hollow sound, Gath'ring up from ciU the lower groiind. The two varieties mixed : — Then methought I heard a hollow sound, Gath'ring up from all the lower ground. Narrowing in to where they sat assembled, Low voluptuous music winding trembled, "Wov'n in circles : they that heard it sigh'd, Panted, hand in hand, with faces pale, Swung themselves, and in low tones replied ; Till the fountain spouted, showering wide Sleet of diamond-drift and pearly hail : Then the music touch'd the gates and died. Tennyson, 6. Six measures. Formula a .r x 6, or a ^ x 6 — . 474 CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. O'n a moviiitaiii, stietch'd beneath a hoary willow, Lay a shepherd swain, and vicw'd the rolling billow. 7. Seven measures. Formula axx7,oxaxy.7 — . We have had enough of action and of motion ; we — Let us swear an oatli, and keep it, w'ith an equal mind — 8. Eight measures. Formula a xx^, ov a x y~% — . Comrades, leave me here a little, while as yet 'tis early morn : Leave me here ; and, when you want me, soxind upon the bugle horn. Lines of this formula occur sometimes unmixed^ and consti- tuting whole poems ; as — Here about the beach I wander'd, nourishing a youth sublime With the fairy tales of science, and the long residts of Time ; When the centuries behind me, like a fruitful land reposed ; When I clung to all the Present for the promise that it closed ; When I dipp'd into the Future, far as human eye could see, Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be — In the spring a fuller crimson comes upon the robin's breast; In the spring the wanton lapwing gets himself another crest: In the spring a livelier iris changes on the burnish'd dove ; In the spring a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love. Then her cheek was pale and thinner than should be for one so young, And her eyes on all ray motions with a mute observance hung. And I said, " My cousin Amy, speak, and speak the truth to me ; Trust me, cousin, all the current of my being sets to thee." Tennysqn {Lockesley HalT). Sometimes mixed with other measures (as with lines of for- mula « ^ X 7) : — We have had enough of action and of motion ; we RoU'd to larboard, roll'd to starboard, when the surge was seething free, Where the wallowing monster spouted his foam-fountains in the sea. Let us swear an oath, and keep it with an equal mind. In the hollow lotos-land to live and lie reclined On the hills, like gods together, careless of mankind : CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. -iTo For they lie beside their nectar, and their bolts arc hnrl'd Far below them in the valleys, and the clouds are lightly curl'd Round their j^oUkn houses, girdled with the gleaming world ; Where they smile in secret, looking over wasted lands. Blight and famine, plague and earthquake, roaring deeps and fiery sands. Clanging fights, and flaming towns, and sinking ships, and praying hands. — Surely, surely slumber is more sweet than toil ; the shore, Than labour in the deep mid-oecan, wind, and wave, and oar. Oh ! rest ye, brother mariners, we will not wander more. Tennyson {The Lotos Eaters). Lines based upon a x arc rarely without rhymes ; in other words, they rarely constitute blank verse. § 573. Verses formed hy the Second Measure, or ^r a. — 1. Lines so short as to be reducible to x a are of too rare an occurrence to demand special notice. Formula x a -\- . Thou Being All-seeing, Oil hear my fervent prayer ; Still take her. And make her Thy most peculiar care. — Burns. Generally two lines of this formula are arranged as single verses. Such is the case with those just quoted, that arc printed — Thou Being, all-seeing. Oh hear my fervent prayer ; Still take her, and make her Thy most peculiar care. 2. Two measures. Formula x o x 2. Unheard, unknown, He makes his moan^ What sounds were heard ! What scenes appear'd — The strains decay. And melt away. — Pope. 476 CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. Formula x a x 2 + • Upon a mountain, Beside a fountain. 3. Three measures. Formula -\- . 'Twas when the seas were roSring — A damsel lay deploring. The alternation of the two varieties oi x « x 3 constitutes what may be called Gay's stanza. 'Twas when the seas were roaring With hollow blasts of wind, A damsel lay deploring, All on a rock reclined. Wide o'er the foaming billows She cast a wistful look ; Her head was crown'd with willows, That trembled o'er the brook. — Gay, Cold sweat is plashing o'er them, Their breasts are beating slow : The sands and shelves before them Flash fire at every blow. Their fellows stand in fear of The upshot of the fray ; The child unborn shall hear of The wrestling of that day. 4. Four measures. Formula ^ a x 4, On, on he hasten'd, and he drew My gaze of wonder as he flew. 5. Five measures. Formula x ax5. Fond fool ! six feet of earth is all thy store, And he that seeks for all shall have no more. — Hall. Formula x aX 5 -{■ . The meeting points the sacred hair dissever. From her fair head for ever and for ever. — Pope. CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. 477 This last is the standard nu^trc of the English language. In point of time it is one of onr earliest forms of verse. It was written by Chaucer in the fourteenth century, is written by the poets of the present generation, and has been used by most writers of the intermediate period. Its chief cultivators have been Chaucer, Dryden, Pope, Cowj)cr, and Byron, in rhyme ; and Milton and the dramatists in blank verse. In character it has every variety. For serious poetry (except in the drama) it is considered that the admission of an extra syllable at the end of the line {i. e. formula a; a x ij +) is exceptionable. When- ever it occurs in ]Milton, it is found fault with by Johnson ; and the same author asserts, that, with one exception, it always appears disadvantageously in Pope. In the drama, where the language of common life is more especially imitated, the for- mula x a X 5 + is not only admissible but necessary. The general term for metres of the form in question is Heroic. The first division into which the heroic metres fall is into, a. Blank heroics, b. llhyming heroics. Blank Heroics. — Blank heroics, or blank verse, as it is gene- rally called, falls into two varieties, determined by the nature of the subject-matter : a. Dramatic blank verse ; b. Narrative blank verse. Dramatic Blank Verse. — A\'ith the exception of the earliest dramas in the language, and some rhyming tragedies written in imitation of the French about the time of Charles II., the writings for the English stage consist chiefly of either prose or blank verse. It is in blank verse that most tragedies and many comedies are either wholly or partially written. Dra- matic blank verse not only admits, but calls for, the formula .r « X 5 + . Often there are two supernumerary syllables. In rhyming metres these woiald constitute double rhymes. OTHELLO's SPEECH BEFORE TUE SENATOKS. Most potent, grave, and reverend seigniors, ^ly very noble and approv'd good masters, — Tiiat I have ta'en away this old man's daughter. It is most true : true, I liave married her ; The very head and front of my o^fendiufj Hath this extent, no more. Eude I 'm in speech, And little bless'd with tlie set phrase of peace ; 478 CHIEF ENGLISH METliES. Yov since these arms of mine had seven years' pith Till now some nine moons wasted, they have us'd Their dearest action in the tented field, And little of this great world can I speak, More than pertains to feats of broil and batile ; And therefore little shall I grace my cause In speaking of myself: yet by your p alienee I will a round unvaruish'd tale deliver Of my whole course of love : what drugs, what charms, What conjuration, and what mighty magic, (For such proceedings am I charg'd withal,) I won his daughter. — Shakspere. Narrative Blank Verse. — The metre of " Paradise Lost/' " Paradise Regained/' Young's " Night Thoughts/' Covvper's '' Task/' Cowper's " Homer/' &c. Nine times the space that measures day and night To mortal men, he, with his horrid crew, Lay vanquish'd, rolling in the fiery gulf Confounded, though immortal : but his doom Preserved him to more wrath, for now the thought Both of lost happiness and lasting pain Torments him. Here the admission of a supernumerary final syllable is rare. Lines of eleven syllables like the following are un- common. Of sovran power with awful ctxtmony. Paradise Lost, b. i. RliT/minff Heroics. — In proportion as the subject is serious and dignitiedj the use of double and treble rhymes is avoided. 6. Six measures. Formulas w a x 6, and x a x 6 +. He lifted up his hand that back again did start. — Spenser. Ye sacred bards that to your harps' melodious strings Sung th' ancient heroes' deeds, the monuments of kings ; If, as those Druids taiight who kept the British rites, And dwelt in darksome groves, there counselling with sprites. When these our souls by death our bodies do forsake. They instantly again to other bodies take, I could liave wish'd your souls redoubled in my breast. To give my verse applaiise to time's eternal rest. — Drayton. CHIEF ENGLISH MKTKES. t7:> 7. Seven measures. Fonuulas ./■ (t x 1 , and .r « x 7 + . But one request I make to lliiu lliat sits the skies above, That 1 were freely out of debt as I were out of love ; Oh, then to danee and sing and play I should be very willing, I 'd never owe a maid a kiss, and ne'er a knave a shilling. Sickling. 8. Eight measures. Formulas x a x H^ and x « x H + . Where virtue wants, and vice abounds, and wealth is but a baited hook Wherewith men swallow down the bane before on danger dark they look. § 574. Verses formed upon the Third Measure, or a x x. — Verses formed upon measure a x x are neither frequent nor regular. Generally there is the deficiency of some unaccented syllable, in which the formula is reduced to a x x — , which may be confounded with the first measure, or a x. The point to determine is, whether the general character of the verse be trisyllabic or dissyllabic. 1. Two measures. Formulas a x x x 2, and a x x x 2 — . Of these the latter is most common. Not only one of the unaccented syllables, but even both of them are frequently wanting at the end of lines. Where shall the lover rest. Whom the Fates sever, From his true maiden's breast, rartcd for ever ? Where through groves deep and high, Sounds the far biQow ; Where early violets die U'ndcr the willow. — Scott. O'ft have I seen the sun. To do her honour, Fix himself at his noon To look upon her. And hath gilt ev'ry gi'ove E'v'ry hill near her. With his flames from above, Striving to ehecr her. 480 CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. A'ncl when she from his sight Hath herself turned, He, as it had been night, I'n clouds hath mourned. — Drayton. 2. Three measures. Formulas a x xxS, and a x xx3 — . Peace to thee, isle of the ocean, Peace to thy breezes and billows ! — Byrox. 3. Four measures. Formulas a x xx4>, and a x ^ X 4— . Merrily, merrily shall I live now, U'nder the blossom that hangs on the bough. — -Shakspere. 1. Warriors or chiefs, should the shaft or the sword Pierce me in leading the host of the Lord, Heed not the corpse, though a king 's in your path. Bury your steel in the bosoms of Gath. 3. Thou, who art bearing my buckler and bow. Should the soldiers of Saul look away from the foe. Lay me that moment in blood at thy feet, Mine be the doom that they dare not to meet. 3. Farewell to others, but never we j^art, Heir to my royalty, son of my heart ; Bright be the diadem, boundless the sway, Or kingly the death that awaits us to-day. — Byron. § 575. Verses formed upon the Fourth Measure, or x a x. — Verses of a single measure are equivocal, since x a x cannot be distinguished from xa +, and x a x — is identical in form with X a. The general character of the verses in the neighbourhood determine, whether measures of this sort shall be looked upon as dissyllabic or trisyllabic. 1, Two measures. Formulas x a x x 2, and x a x x2 — . Beside her are laid Her mattock and spade — Alone she is there, Her shoulders are bare — CIirEF ENGLISH METRES. 4^1 E'ver ;il6iie She nuiketh her moan. — Tennyson'. But vainly tlioii warrest; For tills is alone in Thy power to ch'clare, That, in the dim forest, Thou heard'st a low mf>anintr. — Coletupor. o 2. Three measures. Formulas x a x y. 3, ami x a .r x 3 — . I 've found out a gift for ray fair ; T 've foiind where the wood-pigeons breed : But let me that plunder forbear ; She 'II say 't was a barbarous deed. He ne'er could be true, she averr'd, "Who [would] rob a poor bird of its young; [i\.nd] I loved her the more when I heard Such tenderness fall from her tongue. — Siienstone. A conquest how hard and how glorious ; Though fate had fast bound her. With Styx nine times round her, Yet music and love were viclorious. — Pope. 3. Four measures. Formulas x a x x 4, and x a x x i — . The world will not change, and her heart will not break. Tennyson. Eemember the glories of Brian the brave. — Moore. Oh hii^li thcc, my babie, thy sire was a knight, Thy mother a lady both lovely and bright : The woods, and the glens, and the towers which we see, They all are belonging, dear babie, to thee. — Scott. I ask not the pleasures that riches supply, My sabre must win what the weaker must buy : [It] shall win the fair bride with her long flowing hair, And many a maid from her mother shall tear. I love the fair face of tlie maid in her youth, [Her] caresses shall lull me, her music shall soothe. [Let] her bring to my chamber the many-toned lyre, And sing me a song on the fall of her sire. — Byron. VOL. II. I I 482 CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. Oh ! young Locliinvar is come out of the west : Through all the wide border his steeds are the best ; And, save his good broadsword, he weapons had none. He rode all unarm'd, and he rode all alone. So faithful in love, and so gallant in war, [Did] ye e'er hear of bridegroom like young Lochinvar ? Scott. [Thanks,] my Lord, for your ven'son ; for finer nor fatter Ne'er ranged in the forest nor smoked on the platter : The flesh was a picture for painters to stiidy. The fat was so wlute, and the lean was so ruddy. [Though] my stomach was sharp, I could scarce help regrettin; To spoil such a delicate picture by eating. — Goldsmith. § 576. Verses formed upon the Fifth Measure, or x x a. . 1. Formula x x a. As ye sweep Through the deep. — Campbell. Usually — As ye sweep, through the deep. 2. Formula x x a x2. In my rage shall be seen The revenge of a queen. — xVddison. 3. Formula x x a x3. Mixed with 2. See the snakes how they rear, How they hiss in the air. And the sparkles they flush from their eyes. — Dryden. 4. Formula x x a x 4^. And the king seized a flambeau with zeal to destroy. — Duyden. 5. Formula x x a x ^. , RarCj if real. 6. formula x x ax 6. J 7. Formula x x ax 7 — . Now he rode on the waves of the wide rolling sea, and he forayed around like a hawk. It is only the postulate of p. 452 in respect to the effect of CniEF ENGLISH METRES. 48. 'J a rhyme or its absence that makes this a single line rather than two. § 577. Nomenclature of Enylish metres. — It is o\\\y a few of the En«;Ush metres that are known by fixed names. They are as follows : — 1. Gay's Stanza. — Lines of three measures, a: a, with alternate rhymes. The odd (/. e. the 1st and 3rd) rhymes double. 'T was when the seas were roaring With hollow blasts of wind, A damsel lay deploring, All on a rock reclined. 2. Common Octosyllabics. — Fonr measures, x a, with rhyme, and (unless the rhymes be double) eight syllables {octo syllabce). —Butler's " Hudibras," Seott's poems, "The Giaour," and other poems of Lord Byron. 3. Elegiac Octosyllabics. — Same as the last, except that the rhymes are regularly alternate, and the verses arranged in stanzas. And on her lover's arm she leant, And round her waist she felt it fold, And far across the hills they went. In that new world which now is old : Across the hills and far away, Beyond their utmost purple rim, And deep into the dying day The happy princess follow 'd him. — Tennyson, 4. Octosyllabic Triplets. — Three rhymes in succession. Ge- nerally arranged as stanzas. I blest them, and they wander'd on ; I spoke, but answer came there none : The dull and bitter voice was gone. — Tennyson. 5. Blank Verse. — Five measures, x a, without rhyme. "Para- dise Lost," Young's " Night Thoughts," Cowper's " Task." 6. Heroic Couplets. — Five measures, x a, with pairs of rhymes. Chaucer, Denham, Dndcn, Waller, Pope, Gold- smith, Cowpcr, Byron, Moore, Shelley, &c. This is the common metre for narrative, didactic, and descriptive poetiT. I I 2 484 CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. 7. Heroic Triplets. — Five measures, x a. Three rhymes in succession. Arranged in stanzas. This metre is sometimes in- terposed among heroic couplets. 8. Elegiacs. — Five measures, x a, with regularly-alternate rhymes, and arranged in stanzas. The curfew tolls the knell of parting day, The lowing herds wind slowly o'er the lea, The ploughman homeward plods his weary way, And leaves the world to darkness and to me. — Gray. 9. Rhymes Royal. — Seven lines of heroics, with the last two rhymes in succession, and the first five recurring at in- tervals. This Troilus, in gift of curtesie, With hauk on hond, and with a huge rout Of knightes, rode, and did her company. Passing all through the valley far about ; And further would have ridden out of doubt. Full faine and woe was liim to gone so sone ; But turn he must, and it was eke to doen. — Chaucer. This metre was common with the writers of the earlier part of Queen Elizabeth^s reign. It admits of varieties according to the distribution of the first five rhymes. 10. Ottava Rima. — A metre with an Italian name, and bor- rowed from Italy, where it is used generally for narrative poetry. The " Morgante Maggioi-e" of Pulci, the " Orlando Innamorato^' of Bojardo, the " Orlando Furioso^' of Ariosto, the " Gierusalemme Liberata " of Tasso, are all written in this metre. Besides this, the two chief epics of Spain and Portugal respectively (the " Araucana ''•' and the " Os Lusiados ") are thus composed. Hence it is a form of poetry which is Conti- nental rather than English, and naturalized rather than indi- genous. The stanza consists of eight lines of heroics, the six first rhyming alternately, the last two in succession. Arrived there, a prodigious noise he hears, Which suddenly along the forest spread ; Whereat from out his quiver he prepares An arrow for his bow, and lifts his head ; CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. 485 And, lo ! a monstrous herd of swine appears, And onward rushes with tempestuous tread, And to the fountain's brink precisely pours, So tliat the giant 's join'd by all the boars. Morgante Mafjfjiore (Lord Byhox's TraiiHlalion). 11. Terza Rima. — Like the last, borrowed botli in name and nature from the Italian, and scarcely yet naturalized in England. The Spirit of the fervent days of old, When words were things that came to pass, and Thought riash'd o'er the future, bidding men behold Their children's children's doom already brought Forth from the abyss of Time whicli is to be, The Chaos of events where lie half-wrought Shapes that must undergo mortality : What the great seers of Israel wore within, That Spirit v/as on them and is on me ; And if, Cassandra-like, amidst the din Of conflicts, none will hear, or hearing heed This voice from out the Wilderness, the sin Be theirs, and my own feelings be my meed, The only guerdon I have ever known. 12. Alexandrines. — Six measures, x a, generally (perhaps always) with rhyme. The name is said to be taken from the fact that early romances upon the deeds of Alexander of Maccdon, of great popularity, were written in this metre. One of the longest poems in the English language is in Alex- andrines, viz. Drayton^s " Poly-olbion.^' 13. Spenserian Stanza. — A stanza consisting of nine lines, the eight first heroics, the last an Alexandrine. It hath been through all ages ever seen, That with the prize of arms and ehivakie The prize of beauty still hath joined been, And that for reason's special privitie ; For either doth on other much rely. For he mcseems most fit the fair to serve That can her best defend from villanie ; And she most fit his service doth deserve, That fairest is, and from her faith will never swerve. Spenser. 486 CHIEF ENGLISH METRES. "Childe Harold^' and other important poems are composed in the Spenserian stanza. 14. Service Metre. — Couplets of seven measures, x a. This is the common metre of the Psalm versions. It is also called Common Measure, or Long Measure. 15. Ballad Stanza. — Service metre broken up in the way suggested mp. 452. Goldsmith's "Edwin and Angelina," &c. 16. Poulterer's Measure. — Alexandrines and service metre alternately. Found in the poetry of Henry the Eighth's time. No other amongst the numerous English metres have hitherto received names. SYMMETRICAL METRE.— KlIVTllM. 487 CHAPTER Vll. SYMMETRICAL, UNSYMMETRICAL, AND CONVERTIBLE METRES. RHYTHM. § 578. Latitude in respect to the pei'iorlicitt/ of the recurrence of similarhj-acccnted syllables in English. — jNIctre is the re- currence, within certain intervals, of syllables similarly af- fected. The particular way in which syllables are affected in English metres is that of accent. The more regular the period at which similar accents re- cur the more typical the metre. Nevertheless absolute regularity is not requisite. This leads to the difference between symmetrical and un- symmetrical metres. Symmetric Metres. — Allowing for indifference of the num- ber of syllables in the last measure, it is evident that in all lines where the measures are dissyllabic the syllables will be a multiple of the accents, i. e. they will be twice as numerous. Hence, w^ith three accents there are six syllables ; with four accents, eight syllables, &c. Similarly, in all lines where the measures are trisyllabic the syllable will also be multiples of the accents, i. e. they will be thrice as numerous. Hence, with three accents there w^ill be nine syllables, with four accents, twelve syllables, and with seven accents, twenty-one syllables. Lines of this sort may be called symmetrical. Unsymmetric Metres. — Lines, where the syllables are 7iot a multiple of the accents, may be called unsymmetric. Oc- casional specimens of such lines occur interspersed amongst others of symmetrical character. Where this occurs the 488 SYMMETRICAL, UNSYMMETRICAL, general character of the versification may be considered as symmetrical also. The casCj however, is different where the whole character of the versification is unsymmetrical, as it is in the greater part of Coleridge^s " Christabel/^ and Byron's " Siege of Corinth." In the year since Jesus died for men, Eighteen hundred years and ten, We were a gallant company', Elding o'er land and sailing o'er sea. O'h ! but we went merrily' ! We forded the river, and clomb the high hill. Never our steeds for a day stood still. Whether we hiy in the cave or the shed. Our sleep fell soft on the hardest bed ; Whether we cduch'd on our rougli capote, Or the rougher plank of our gliding boat; Or stretch'd on the beach or our saddles spread As a pillow beneath the resting head, Fresh we woke upon the morrow. A'll our thoughts and words had scope. We had health and we had hope. Toil and travel, but no sorrow. Here the formula is — xxaxaxaxa a X a X a X a axxaxaxa axxaxaxxa a X a X a X X xaxxaxxaxxa axxaxxaxa a X X a X X a X X a xaxaxxaxa axxaxxaxa xxaxaxxaxa xaxxaxxaxa XX axxaxaxa axaxaxax a X a X a X a a X a X a X a a X a X a X ax I AND CONVERTIBLE METRES. — RIIYTILM. 489 These lines are naturally trisyllabic ; from any measure of which one of the unaccented syllables may be ejected. Where they are symmetrical they are so by accident. A metrical fiction, that conveniently illustrates their struc- ture, is the doctrine that they are lines formed upon measure X a X, for which either x x a or a x x may be substituted, and from luhich either a x or x a may be formed by ejection of either the first or last unaccented syllable. § 579. Convertible Metres. — Such a line as Ere her faithless sons betray 'd her may be read in two ways. We may either lay full stress upon the word ere, and read E're her faitliless sons betray'd her ; or we may lay little or no stress upon either ere or her, reserv- ing the full accentuation for the syWahle faith- in faithless, in which case the reading would be Ere her faithless sons betray'd her. Lines of this sort may be called examples of convertible metres, since, by changing the accent, a dissyllabic line may be con- verted into one partially trisyllabic, and vice versa. This property of convertibility is explained by the fact of accentuation being a relative quality. In the example before us ere is sufficiently strongly accented to stand in contrast to her, but it is not sufficiently strongly accented to stand upon a par with the faith- m faithless if decidedly pronounced. The real character of convertible lines is determined from the character of the lines with which they are associated. That the second mode of reading the line in question is the proper one, may be shown by reference to the stanza wherein it occurs. Let E'rin remember her days of old, Ere her faithless sous betniy'd her, When IVIalaehi wore the collar of gold. Which he won from the proud invader. Again, such a line as For the glory 1 have lost, 490 SYMMETRICAL, UNSYMMETRICAL, although it may be read For the glory I have lost, would be read improperly. The stanza wherein it occurs is essentially dissyllabic {a .%). Heed, oh heed my fatal story ! r am Hosier's injured ghost. Come to seek for fame and glory — Tor the glory I' have lost. § 580. Metrical and Grammatical Combinations. — Words, or parts of words, that are combined as measures, are words, or parts of words, combined metrically, or in metrical com- bination. Syllables combined as words, or words combined as portions of a sentence, are syllables and words grammatically combined, or in grammatical combination. The syllables ere her faith- form a metrical combination. The words her faithless sons form a grammatical combi- nation. When the syllables contained in the same measure (or con- nected metrically) are also contained in the same construction (or connected grammatically), the metrical and the grammatical combinations coincide. Such is the case with the line Eemember | the glories | of Brian | the Brave ; where the same division separates both the measure and the subdivisions of the sense, inasmuch as the word the is connected with the word glories equally in grammar and in metre, in syntax and in prosody. So is of with Brian, and the with Brave. Contrast with this such a line as A chieftain to the Highlands bound. Here the metrical division is one thing, the grammatical divi- sion another, and there is no coincidence. Metrical, A chief I tain to | the High | lands bound. AND CONVERTIBLE METRES. — RIIVTIIM. 491 Grammatical, A chieftain | to the Highlands | bound. In the following stanza the coincidence of the metrical and grammatical combination is nearly complete : — To arms ! to arms ! The serfs, thev roam O'er hill, and dale, and glen : The king is dead, and time is come To choose a chief a^ain. In "Warriors or chiefs, should the shaft or the sword Pierce me in leading the host of the Lord, Heed not the corpse, though a king 's in your path, Bury your steel in the bosoms of Gath. — Byron. there is a non-coincidence equally complete. § 581. Rhythm. — -The character of a metre is marked and prominent in proportion as the metrical and the grammatical combinations coincide. The extent to which the measure a X X 1% the basis of the stanza last quoted is concealed by the antagonism of the metre and the construction. If it were not for the axiom, that every m,etre is to be considered uniform until there is proof to the contrary, the lines might be divided thus : — ax X a X X a x x a ax X a X X a X x a ax X a X X a x x a ax X a X a X x a The variety which arises in versification from the different degrees between the coincidence and the non-coincidence be- tween the metrical and grammatical combinations may be called Rhythm. § 582. The majority of English icwds are of the fonn a x ; that is, words like tyrant are commoner than words like presilme. The majority of English metres are of the form x a ; that is, lines like The xcay was Uny, the icind was cold, 492 SYMMETRICAL METRE. — RHYTHM. are commoner than lines like Queen and huntress chaste and fair. The multitude of unaccentuated words like the, from, &c., taken along with the fact that they precede the words with which they agree, or which they govern, accounts for the apparent antagonism between the formulse of our words and the formulse of our metres. The contrast between a Swedish line of the form a x, and its literal English version in x a, shows this. In Swedish the secondary part of the construction follows, in English it precedes the main word. Sicedish. \-Axeti kommer, fugle?^? quittrar, skovew lo'fvfls, sokre ler. English. The spring is come, the bird is blythe, the wood is green, the sun is bright. In this way Syntax affects Prosody. ENGLISH IMITATIONS OF CLASSICxVL METRES. 49 .S CHAPTER VIII. ENGLISH IMITATION'S OF THE CLASSICAL METRES. § 583. The Classical Metres as read by Enylishmen. — The metres of the classical languages consist essentially in the recuiTcnce of similar quantities ; accent plaijing a part. — Now there are reasons for investigating the facts involved in this statement more closely than has hitherto been clone; since the following circumstances make some inquiry into the ex- tent of the differences between the English and the classical systems of metre, an appropriate element of a work upon the English language. 1. The classical poets are authors pre-eminently familiarized to the educated English reader. 2. The notions imbibed from a study of the classical pro- sodies have been unduly mixed up with those wliich should have been derived more especially from the poetry of the German nations. 3. The attempt to introduce (so-called) Latin and Greek metres into the Geniian tongues, has been partially successful on the Continent, and not unattempted in Great Britain. The first of these statements requires no comment. The second will bear some illustration. The English gram- marians sometimes borrow the classical terms, iambic, trochee, &c., and api)ly them to their own metres. How is this done? In two ways, one of which is wholly incorrect, the other partially correct, but inconvenient. To imagine that we have in English, for the practical purposes of prosody, syllables long in quantity or short in quantity, syllables capable of being arranged in groups con- stituting feet, and feet adapted for the construction of hexa- 494i ENaLISH IMITATIONS OF metres, pentametres, sapphics, and alcaics, just as the Latins and Greeks had, is wholly incorrect. The English system of versification is founded, not upon the pei'iodic recurrence of similar quantities, but upon the periodic recurrence of simi- lar accents. The less incorrect method consists in giving up all ideas of the existence of quantity, in the proper sense of the word, as an essential element in English metre ; whilst we admit accent as its equivalent ; in which case the presence of an accent is supposed to have the same import as the lengthening, and the absence of one, as the shortening, of a syllable ; so that, mu- tatis mutandis, a is the equivalent to , and x to ". In this case the metrical notation for — The way was long, the wind was cold — Merrily, merrily, shall I live now — would be, not — X a, X a, X a, x a, a X X, a X X, a X x, a respectively, but — W_ W- V. «./_ WW _WW ..WW Again — As they splash in the blood of the slippery street, is not — tV CC CCy OC QO Cv^ CO 00 it. CO CO (X. but — WW« \J \J m. WW« WW With this view there are a certain number of classical feet, with their syllables affected in the way of quantity, to which there are equivalent English measures with their syllables af- fected in the way of accent. Thus if the formula A, " " be a classical, the formula a a; is an English trochee. B, " „ ,, X a ,, iambus. c, ,, ,, a X X ,, dactyle. D," ,, ,, xax ,, amphibrachys. E,""' ,, ,, xxa ,, anapaest. TUE CLASSICAL METRES. iO-'J And so on in respect to the larger groups of similarly- afFected syllables which constitute whole lines and stanzas; verses like A. Come to seek for fame and "rlorv — II. The way was long, the wind was cold — c. Merrily, merrily shall I live now — 1). But vainly thou warrest — E. At the close of the dtiy when the hamlet is still — are {a), trochaic; {b), iambic; (c), dactylic; (//-a(i-a'. The evidence upon these points is derived from the structure of language in general. The onus probandi lies with the author who presumes an arsis (accent in the English sense) on a ?io«-radical syllabic. Doubts, however, as to the pronunciation of certain words, leave the precise number of lines violating the rule given above undetermined. It is considered sufficient to show that wherever they occur the iambic character is violated. The circumstance, however, of the last half of the third foot requiring an arsis, brings us only half way towards the doctrine of the cresura. AVith this must be combined a second 506 ENGLISH IMITATIONS OF fact arising out of the constitution of the Greek language in respect to its accent. In accordance with the views just exhibited^ the author conceives that no Greek word has an arsis upon the last syllable^ except in the three following cases : — 1. Monosyllables, not enclitic; as (tcJ^w'v, irag, x^'^'^j ^/^w'c, Vb) V, VVV, &C. 2. Circumflex futures ; as ve/xw', te/xm', &c. 3. Words abbreviated by apocope ; in which case the penul- timate is converted into a final syllable; Sw'fx, (peidiad' Kevrei t\ fyw'-y^ &c. Now the fact of a syllable with an arsis being, in Greek, rarely final, taken along with that of the sixth syllable re- quiring, in the senarius, an arsis, gives, as a matter of necessity, the circumstance that, in the Greek drama, the sixth syllable shall occur anywhere rather than at the end of a word ; and this is only another way of saying, that, in a tragic senarius, the syllable in question shall generally be followed by other syllables in the same word. All this the author considers as so truly a matter of necessity, that the objection to his view of the Greek caesura must lie either against his idea of the nature of the accents, or nowhere; since, that being admitted, the rest follows of course. As the sixth syllable must not be final, it must be followed in the same word by one syllable, or by more than one. 1. The sixth syllable followed by one syllable in the same word. — This is only another name for the seventh syllable occurring at the end of a word, and it gives at once the hep- thimimer ccesura : as — Hxw VEJcpwv y<.tv^^u) mo. nan ay.oiov w'Kot,^, IxTJjptOJg K'kiy.OOi CTiV sf £C7Tf/Xj!/.E)'0t. OjJ.0V T£ TTXtCCVUl V T£ KCCt (TTetlUyuXTttltl , 2. The sixth syllable followed by two [or more) syllables in the same word. — This is only another name for the eighth (or some syllable after the eighth) syllable occurring at the end of a word ; as — OojtAij ppornuv «» fxctruv j/,t TTfoayeXx. THE CLASSICAL METRES. 507 Now this arrangement of syllables, taken by itself, gives any- thing rather than a licpthiniiiiier ; so that if it were at this point that our investigations terminated, little wonld be done towards the evolution of the rationale of the cfesura. It will appear, however, that in those cases where the circumstance of the sixth syllable being followed by two others in the same words, causes the eighth (or some syllable after the eighth) to be final, cither a penthiniiuicr cjcsura, or an equivalent, will, with but few exceptions, be the result. This we may prove by taking the eighth syllabic and counting back from it. What foUoios this svllable is immaterial : .it is the number of svHables in the same word that precedes it that demands attention. 1. The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by nothing. — This is equivalent to the seventh syllable at the end of the preceding word : a state of things which, as noticed above, gives the hepthimimer csesura. Avrpfi^o" "yfAacr^a 7ra/:*|^>lT0p it yn. 2. The eighth syllable preceded in the same icord by one syllable. — This is equivalent to the sixth syllable at the end of the word preceding ; a state of things which, as noticed above, rarely occurs. "When, however, it does occur, one of the three conditions under which a final syllable can take an arsis must accompany it. Each of these conditions requires notice. a). With a non-enclitic 7??ono-syllable the result is a penthi- mimer caesura ; since the syllable preceding a monosyllabic is necessarily final. No remark has been made by critics upon lines consti'ucted in this manner, since the csesura is a penthimimer, and conse- quently their rules are undisturbed. |3). With j9o/y-syllabic circumflex futures constituting the third foot, there would be a violation of the current rules respecting the csesura. Notwithstanding this, if the views of the present j)aper be true, there would be no violation of the iambic character of the senarius. Against such a line as Viotyu TO j'ov ti^ui TToOft voy ect/Xtov 508 ENGLISH IMITATIONS OF there is no argument a priori on the score of the iambic character being violated ; whilst in respect to objections derived from evidence a posteriori, there is sufficient reason for such lines being rare. y). With ^oZ//-syllables abbreviated by apocope, we have the ate of things which the i name of quasi-cajsura ; as- state of things which the metrists have recognised under the Kektejte fjiyi ^EtdE a^ iyu nxov ITapn'. 3. — The eighth sijllable preceded in the same word by two syllables. — This is equivalent to the fifth syllable occurring at the end of the word preceding : a state of things which gives the penthimimer caesura j as — A«jt/t7rpof 5 ovvoiar-xi; £//. TrpeTov -raj cci^ipi. 4. The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by three or more than three syllables. — This is equivalent to the fourth (or some syllable preceding the fourth) syllable occurring at the end of the word preceding; a state of things which would include the third and fourth feet in one and the same word. This concurrence is denounced in the Supplement to the Pre- face to the Hecuba, where, however, the rule, as in the case of the quasi-csesura, from being based upon merely empirical evidence, requires limitation. In lines like — or (an imaginary example), Ton; aoiam atJTTJdJ? iTTpo^oJcr tv ccvdoxai, there is no violation of the iambic character, and consequently no reason against similar lines having been written ; although from the average propoi'tion of Greek words like tTruKaaai and aawi^riaTpotpoKTiv, there is every reason for their being rare. After the details just given the recapitulation is brief. 1. It was essential to the character of the senarius that the sixth syllable, or latter half of the third foot, should have an arsis, ictus metricus, or accent in the English sense. To this THE CLASSICAL METRES. 509 condition of the iambic rh\ ihui the Gi'eek tragedians, cither consciously or unconsciously, adhered. 2. It was the character of the Greek language to admit an arsis on the last syllable of a word only under circumstances comparatively rare. 3. These two facts, taken together, caused the sixth syllabic of a line to be anywhere rather than at the end of a word. 4. If followed by a single syllabic in the same word, the result was a hepthimimer csesura. 5. If followed by more syllables than one, some syllable in an earlier part of the line ended the word preceding, and so caused either a penthimimer, a quasi-csesura, or the occurrence of the third and fourth foot in the same w'ord. 6. As these two last-mentioned circumstances were rare, the general phenomenon presented in the Greek senarius was the occurrence of either the penthimimer or hepthi- mimer. 7. Respecting these two sorts of csesura, the iides, instead of being exhibited in detail, may be replaced by the simple assertion that there should be an arsis on the sixth syllable. From this the rest follows. 8. Respecting the non-occurrence of the third and fourth feet in the same word, the assertion may be withdrawn en- tirely. 9. Respecting the quasi-csesura, the rules, if not altogether withdrawn, mav be extended to the admission of the last syllable of circumflex futures (or to any other polysyllables with an equal claim to be considered accented on the last syllable) in the latter half of the third foot. FINIS. Printed by Woodfall and Kinder, Angel Court, Skinner Street, London. WORKS BY T>\i. II. (i. LATHAM. A HAND-BOOK OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE; for the Use of Students of the Universities and Higher Classes of Schools. Second Edition. 1 vol. crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. cloth. THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Fourth Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. AN ELEMENTARY ENGLISH GRAMMAR FOR THE USE OF SCHOOLS. Thirteenth Thousand. 12mo. 4s. 6d. cloth. AN ENGLISH GRAMMAR FOR THE USE OF LADIES' SCHOOLS. Foolscap 8vo. cloth, Is. 6d. THE HISTORY AND ETYMOLOGY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, FOR THE USE OF CLASSICAL SCHOOLS. Second Edition. Foolscap 8vo. cloth, Is. 6(/. A GRAMMAR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, FOR THE USE OF COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS. Foolscap 8vo. cloth, Is. 6- <: CO =3 <— » it: I - -c^-^- ^&Aaviian-i'^ % \/, ^//. ^,^HlBRARY■Q/r. l5 1 cc > "^/^dHAiNn-awv ^ ^OFCAIIFO% aWEUSWERJ//- .VWSMElfj> ^(?Aavaaii-^'^'^ t ........ ^lOSANCElfx^ ■> u- (OK— 1 :s3 "^Aa^AINfl-JW^^ ^^^l•LlBRARYQ^ % 1 '^:lOSA}iCEl% 3 li. i^ '^AN:iMWa:iV\V •^ ^.OFCAIIFO% .^,OFCAllF0/?4^ 1- rl ^ ^\^EUN"'''""'^ -r o A ^ -^ 1 j(? >i L 006 21 1 395 fi •— V-;; ,,1' 1.11 rno. 7- '"% = -< o ?3 > SO ^OFCAL TwPR', RFQONAL LIBRARY FADlfTV ic AA 000 355 321 \ S^ ^., b-: ^Ok^nm^ '^omnm^ ^ a '^^auJIlVDJO'^ |LI(Tj >- c:: < ^WM'^•IVERy/A ^v>lOSANCfLfj: ^ o .5' AiNaauv' ^^OFCAIIFO?^ OC C3 — V ^OFCAIIFO/?,! ^10SA»JCFI% ^<:'Aaviian-^\^'^' ^nMUBRARY(9^ ^sMIIBRARYQt ^^MEDNIVERSy^ AINa-^WV ^^OFCAIIFO% ^OFCAIIFO;?,{^ or '^•Aavaaii^^^'^' ^<::'AavaaiH^'^'^ ^tllBRARYO^ .NM-UBRARYQr "^.i/OJITVJ JO"^ ^W^EDVIVERy/^ ■^/iiiJAINOmV ^OF-CAllF0/?4> ^OFCAlIF0/?4 ^ fk ^-^ 15