35.Losses of English from the Incoming of Norman-French.—(ii) The arrestment of growth in the purely English part of our language, owing to the irruption of Norman-French, and also to the ease with which we could take a ready-made word from Latin or from Greek, killed off an old power which we once possessed, and which was not without its own use and expressiveness. This was the power of making compound words. The Greeks in ancient times had, and the Germans in modern times have, this power in a high degree. Thus a Greek comic poet has a word of fourteen syllables, which may be thus translated—“Meanly-rising-early-and-hurrying-to-the-tribunal-to-denounce-another-for-an-infraction-of-the-law-concerning-the-exportation-of-figs.”6And the Germans have a compound like “the-all-to-nothing-crushing philosopher.” The Germans also sayiron-pathforrailway,handshoeforglove, andfinger-hatforthimble. We also possessed this power at one time, and employed it both in proper and in common names. Thus we had and have the namesBrakespear,Shakestaff,Shakespear,Golightly,Dolittle,Standfast; and the common nounswant-wit,find-fault,mumble-news(fortale-bearer),pinch-penny(formiser),slugabed. In older times we hadthree-foot-stool,three-man-beetle7;stone-cold,heaven-bright,honey-sweet,snail-slow,nut-brown,lily-livered(forcowardly);brand-fire-new;earth-wandering,wind-dried,thunder-blasted,death-doomed, and many others. But such words asforbearsorfore-eldershave been pushed out byancestors;forewitbycautionorprudence; andinwitbyconscience. Mr Barnes, the Dorsetshire poet, would like to see these and similar compounds restored, and thinks that we might well return to the old clear well-springs of “English undefiled,” and make our own compounds out of our own words. He even carries his desires into the region of English grammar, and, fordegrees of comparison, proposes the phrasepitches of suchness. Thus, instead of the Latin wordomnibus, he would havefolk-wain; for the Greekbotany, he would substitutewort-lore; forauction, he would give usbode-sale;globulehe would replace withballkin; the Greek wordhorizonmust give way to the pure Englishsky-edge; and, instead ofquadrangle, he would have us all write and sayfour-winkle.36.Losses of English from the Incoming of Norman-French.—(iii) When once a way was made for the entrance of French words into our English language, the immigrations were rapid and numerous. Hence there were many changes both in the grammar and in the vocabulary of English from the year 1100, the year in which we may suppose those Englishmen who were living at the date of the battle of Hastings had died out. These changes were more or less rapid, according to circumstances. But perhaps the most rapid and remarkable change took place in the lifetime of William Caxton, the great printer, who was born in 1410. In his preface to his translation of the ‘Æneid’ of Virgil, which he published in 1490, when he was eighty years of age, he says that he cannot understand old books that were written when he was a boy—that “the olde Englysshe is more lyke to dutche than englysshe,” and that “our langage now vsed varyeth ferre from that whiche was vsed and spoken when I was borne. For we Englysshemen ben borne ynder the domynacyon of the mone [moon], which is neuer stedfaste, but euer wauerynge, wexynge one season, and waneth and dycreaseth another season.” This as regards time.—But he has the same complaint to make as regards place. “Comyn englysshe that is spoken in one shyre varyeth from another.” And he tells an odd story in illustration of this fact. He tells about certain merchants who were in a ship “in Tamyse” (on theThames), who were bound for Zealand, but were wind-stayed at the Foreland, and took it into their heads to go on shore there. One of the merchants, whose name was Sheffelde, a mercer, entered a house, “and axed for mete, and specyally he axyd after eggys.” But the “goode-wyf” replied that she “coude speke no frenshe.” The merchant, who was a steady Englishman, lost his temper, “for he also coude speke no frenshe, but wolde have hadde eggys; and she understode hym not.” Fortunately, a friend happened to join him in the house, and he acted as interpreter. The friend said that “he wolde have eyren; then the goode wyf sayde that she understod hym wel.” And then the simple-minded but much-perplexed Caxton goes on to say: “Loo! what sholde a man in thyse dayes now wryte, eggës or eyren?” Such were the difficulties that beset printers and writers in the close of the fifteenth century.37.Latin of the Fourth Period.—(i) This contribution differs very essentially in character from the last. The Norman-French contribution was a gift from a people to a people—from living beings to living beings; this new contribution was rather a conveyance of words from books to books, and it never influenced—in any great degree—thespoken languageof the English people. The ear and the mouth carried the Norman-French words into our language; the eye, the pen, and the printing-press were the instruments that brought in the Latin words of the Fourth Period. The Norman-French words that came in took and kept their place in the spoken language of the masses of the people; the Latin words that we received in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries kept their place in the written or printed language of books, of scholars, and of literary men. These new Latin words came in with theRevival of Learning, which is also called theRenascence.The Turks attacked and took Constantinople in the year1453; and the great Greek and Latin scholars who lived in that city hurriedly packed up their priceless manuscripts and books, and fled to all parts of Italy, Germany, France, and even into England. The loss of the East became the gain of the West. These scholars became teachers; they taught the Greekand Roman classics to eager and earnest learners; and thus a new impulse was given to the study of the great masterpieces of human thought and literary style. And so it came to pass in course of time that every one who wished to become an educated man studied the literature of Greece and Rome. Even women took to the study. Lady Jane Grey was a good Greek and Latin scholar; and so was Queen Elizabeth. From this time began an enormous importation of Latin words into our language. Being imported by the eye and the pen, they suffered little or no change; the spirit of the people did not influence them in the least—neither the organs of speech nor the ear affected either the pronunciation or the spelling of them. If we look down the columns of any English dictionary, we shall find these later Latin words in hundreds.Opinionembecameopinion;factionem,faction;orationem,oration;pungentempassed over in the form ofpungent(though we hadpoignantalready from the French);pauperemcame in aspauper; andseparatumbecameseparate.38.Latin of the Fourth Period.—(ii) This went on to such an extent in the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, that one writer says of those who spoke and wrote this Latinised English, “If some of their mothers were alive, they were not able to tell what they say.” And Sir Thomas Browne (1605-1682) remarks: “If elegancy (= the use of Latin words) still proceedeth, and English pens maintain that stream we have of late observed to flow from many, we shall, within a few years, be fain to learn Latin to understand English, and a work will prove of equal facility in either.” Mr Alexander Gill, an eminent schoolmaster, and the then head-master of St Paul’s School, where, among his other pupils, he taught John Milton, wrote a book in 1619 on the English language; and, among other remarks, he says: “O harsh lips! I now hear all around me such words ascommon,vices,envy,malice; evenvirtue,study,justice,pity,mercy,compassion,profit,commodity,colour,grace,favour,acceptance. But whither, I pray, in all the world, have you banished those words which our forefathers used for these new-fangled ones?Are our words to be executed like our citizens?” And he calls this fashion of using Latin words “the new mange in our speaking and writing.” But the fashion went on growing; and even uneducated people thought it a clever thing to use a Latin instead of a good English word. Samuel Rowlands, a writer in the seventeenth century, ridicules this affectation in a few lines of verse. He pretends that he was out walking on the highroad, and met a countryman who wanted to know what o’clock it was, and whether he was on the right way to the town or village he was making for. The writer saw at once that he was a simple bumpkin; and, when he heard that he had lost his way, he turned up his nose at the poor fellow, and ordered him to be off at once. Here are the lines:—“As on the way I itinerated,A rural person I obviated,Interrogating time’s transitation,And of the passage demonstration.My apprehension did ingenious scanThat he was merely a simplician;So, when I saw he was extravagánt,Unto the óbscure vulgar consonánt,I bade him vanish most promiscuously,And not contaminate my company.”39.Latin of the Fourth Period.—(iii) What happened in the case of the Norman-French contribution, happened also in this. The language became saturated with these new Latin words, until it became satiated, then, as it were, disgusted, and would take no more. Hundreds of“Long-tailed words inosityandation”crowded into the English language; but many of them were doomed to speedy expulsion. Thus words likediscerptibility,supervacaneousness,septentrionality,ludibundness(love of sport), came in in crowds. The verbinteneratetried to turn outsoften; anddeturpateto take the place ofdefile. But good writers, like Bacon and Raleigh, took care to avoid the use of such terms, and to employ only those Latin words which gave them the power to indicate a new idea—a new meaning or a new shadeof meaning. And when we come to the eighteenth century, we find that a writer like Addison would have shuddered at the very mention of such “inkhorn terms.”40.Eye-Latin and Ear-Latin.—(i) One slight influence produced by this spread of devotion to classical Latin—to the Latin of Cicero and Livy, of Horace and Virgil—was to alter the spelling of French words. We had already received—through the ear—the French wordsassaute,aventure,defaut,dette,vitaille, and others. But when our scholars became accustomed to the book-form of these words in Latin books, they gradually altered them—for the eye and ear—intoassault,adventure,default,debt, andvictuals. They went further. A large number of Latin words that already existed in the language in their Norman-French form (for we must not forget that French is Latin “with the ends bitten off”—changed by being spoken peculiarly and heard imperfectly) were reintroduced in their original Latin form. Thus we hadcaitifffrom the Normans; but we reintroduced it in the shape ofcaptive, which comes almost unaltered from the Latincaptivum.Featwe had from the Normans; but the Latinfactum, which provided the word, presented us with a second form of it in the wordfact. Such words might be calledEar-LatinandEye-Latin;Mouth-LatinandBook-Latin;Spoken LatinandWritten Latin; or Latin at second-hand and Latin at first-hand.41.Eye-Latin and Ear-Latin.—(ii) This coming in of the same word by two different doors—by the Eye and by the Ear—has given rise to the phenomenon ofDoublets. The following is a list ofLatin Doublets; and it will be noticed that Latin1stands for Latin at first-hand—from books; and Latin2for Latin at second-hand—through the Norman-French.Latin Doublets or Duplicates.Latin.Latin1.Latin2.AntecessoremAntecessorAncestor.BenedictionemBenedictionBenison.Cadentia (Low Lat. noun)CadenceChance.CaptivumCaptiveCaitiff.ConceptionemConceptionConceit.ConsuetudinemConsuetudeCustom.Costume.CophinumCoffinCoffer.Corpus (a body)CorpseCorps.Debitum (something owed)DebitDebt.Defectum (something wanting)DefectDefeat.DilatāreDilateDelay.ExemplumExampleSample.Fabrĭca (a workshop)FabricForge.FactionemFactionFashion.FactumFactFeat.FidelitatemFidelityFealty.FragilemFragileFrail.Gentīlis (belonging to agensor family)GentileGentle.HistoriaHistoryStory.HospitaleHospitalHotel.LectionemLectionLesson.LegalemLegalLoyal.MagisterMasterMr.Majorem (greater)MajorMayor.MaledictionemMaledictionMalison.MonetaMintMoney.NutrimentumNutrimentNourishment.OrationemOrationOrison (a prayer).Paganum (a dweller in apagusor country district)PaganPayne (a proper name).Particulam (a little part)ParticleParcel.PauperemPauperPoor.PenitentiamPenitencePenance.PersecutumPersecutePursue.Potionem (a draught)PotionPoison.PungentemPungentPoignant.QuietumQuietCoy.RadiusRadiusRay.RegālemRegalRoyal.RespectumRespectRespite.SecurumSecureSure.SenioremSeniorSir.SeparatumSeparateSever.SpeciesSpeciesSpice.StatumStateEstate.TractumTractTrait.TraditionemTraditionTreason.ZelosumZealousJealous.42.Remarks on the above Table.—The wordbenison, a blessing, may be contrasted with its opposite,malison, a curse.—Cadenceis the falling of sounds;chancethe befalling of events.—Acaitiffwas at first acaptive—then a person who made no proper defence, butallowedhimself to be taken captive.—Acorpsis abodyof troops.—The wordsampleis found, in older English, in the form ofensample.—Afeatof arms is a deed orfactof arms,par excellence.—To understand howfragilebecamefrail, we must pronounce theghard, and notice how the hard guttural falls easily away—as in our own native wordsflailandhail, which formerly contained a hardg.—Amajoris agreatercaptain; amayoris a greatermagistrate.—Amagistermeans abigger man—as opposed to aminister(fromminus), a smaller man.—Monetawas the name given to a stamped coin, because these coins were first struck in the temple of Juno Moneta, Juno the Adviser or the Warner. (From the same root—mon—comemonition,admonition;monitor;admonish.)—Shakespeare uses the wordorisonfreely forprayer, as in the address of Hamlet to Ophelia, where he says, “Nymph, in thy orisons, be all my sins remembered!”—Poorcomes to us from an Old French wordpoure; the newer French ispauvre.—To understand the vanishing of thegsound inpoignant, we must remember that the Romans sounded it always hard.—Severwe get throughseparate, becausepandvare both labials, and therefore easily interchangeable.—Treason—with itssinstead ofti—may be compared withbenison,malison,orison,poison, andreason.43.Conclusions from the above Table.—If we examine the table on page 231 with care, we shall come to several undeniable conclusions. (i) First, the words which come to us direct from Latin are found more in books than in everyday speech. (ii) Secondly, they are longer. The reason is that the words that have come through French have been worn down by the careless pronunciation of many generations—by that desire for ease in the pronouncing of words which characterises all languages, and have at last been compelled to take that form which was least difficult to pronounce. (iii) Thirdly, the twosets of words have, in each case, either (a) very different meanings, or (b) different shades of meaning. There is no likeness of meaning incadenceandchance, except the common meaning offallwhich belongs to the root from which they both spring. And the different shades of meaning betweenhistoryandstory, betweenregalandroyal, betweenpersecuteandpursue, are also quite plainly marked, and are of the greatest use in composition.44.Latin Triplets.—Still more remarkable is the fact that there are in our language words that have made three appearances—one through Latin, one through Norman-French, and one through ordinary French. These seem to live quietly side by side in the language; and no one asks by what claim they are here. They are useful: that is enough. These triplets are—regal,royal, andreal;legal,loyal, andleal;fidelity,faithfulness,8andfealty. The adjective real we no longer possess in the sense ofroyal, but Chaucer uses it; and it still exists in the nounreal-m.Lealis most used in Scotland, where it has a settled abode in the well-known phrase “the land o’ the leal.”45.Greek Doublets.—The same double introduction, which we noticed in the case of Latin words, takes place in regard to Greek words. It seems to have been forgotten that our English forms of them had been already given us by St Augustine and the Church, and a newer form of each was reintroduced. The following are a few examples:—Greek.Older Form.Later Form.Adamanta9(the untameable)DiamondAdamant.BalsamonBalmBalsam.Blasphēmein (to speak ill of)BlameBlaspheme.Cheirourgon9(a worker with the hand)ChirurgeonSurgeon.Dactŭlon (a finger)Date (the fruit)Dactyl.PhantasiaFancyPhantasy.Phantasma (an appearance)PhantomPhantasm.Presbuteron (an elder)PriestPresbyter.ParalysisPalsyParalysis.ScandălonSlanderScandal.It may be remarked of the wordfancy, that, in Shakespeare’s time, it meantloveorimagination—“Tell me, where isfancybred,Or in the heart, or in the head?”It is now restricted to mean a lighter and less serious kind of imagination. Thus we say that Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ is a work of imagination; but that Moore’s ‘Lalla Rookh’ is a product of the poet’s fancy.46.Characteristics of the Two Elements of English.—If we keep our attention fixed on the two chief elements in our language—the English element and the Latin element—the Teutonic and the Romance—we shall find some striking qualities manifest themselves. We have already said that whole sentences can be made containing only English words, while it is impossible to do this with Latin or other foreign words. Let us take two passages—one from a daily newspaper, and the other from Shakespeare:—(i) “We find thefunctionsof such anofficial definedin theAct. He is to be alegally qualified medical practitionerof skill andexperience, toinspectandreport periodicallyon thesanitary conditionof town ordistrict; toascertaintheexistenceofdiseases, moreespecially epidemics increasingtheratesofmortality, and topointout theexistenceof anynuisancesor otherlocal causes, which are likely tooriginateandmaintainsuchdiseases, andinjuriously affectthe health of theinhabitantsof such town ordistrict; to takecognisanceof theexistenceof anycontagious disease, and to point out the mostefficacious meansfor theventilationofchapels,schools,registered lodging-houses, and otherpublicbuildings.”In this passage, all the words in italics are either Latin or Greek. But, if the purely English words were left out, the sentence would fall into ruins—would become a mere rubbish-heap of words. It is the small particles that give life andmotion to each sentence. They are the joints and hinges on which the whole sentence moves.—Let us now look at a passage from Shakespeare. It is from the speech of Macbeth, after he has made up his mind to murder Duncan:—(ii) “Go bid thymistress, when my drink is ready,She strike upon the bell. Get thee to bed!—Is this a dagger which I see before me,The handle toward my hand? Come! let me clutch thee!—I have thee not; and yet I see thee still.”In this passage there is only one Latin (or French) word—the wordmistress. If Shakespeare had used the wordlady, the passage would have been entirely English.—The passage from the newspaper deals with largegeneralisations; that from Shakespeare with individualactsandfeelings—with things that comehome“to the business and bosom” of man as man. Every master of the English language understands well the art of mingling the two elements—so as to obtain a fine effect; and none better than writers like Shakespeare, Milton, Gray, and Tennyson. Shakespeare makes Antony say of Cleopatra:—“Age cannot wither her; norcustomstaleHer infinitevariety.”Here the French (or Latin) wordscustomandvarietyform a vivid contrast to the English verbstale, throw up its meaning and colour, and give it greater prominence.—Milton makes Eve say:—“I thither wentWithinexperienc’dthought, and laid me downOn the green bank, to look into theclearSmoothlake, that to me seem’d another sky.”Here the wordsinexperiencedandcleargive variety to the sameness of the English words.—Gray, in the Elegy, has this verse:—“The breezy call ofincense-breathing morn,The swallow twittering from the straw-built shed,The cock’s shrillclarionor theechoinghorn,No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed.”Hereincense,clarion, andechoinggive a vivid colouring to the plainer hues of the homely English phrases.—Tennyson, in the Lotos-Eaters, vi., writes:—“Dear is thememoryof our wedded lives,And dear the lastembracesof our wivesAnd their warm tears: but all hathsuffer’d change;Forsurelynow our household hearths are cold:Our sonsinheritus: our looks arestrange:And we should come like ghosts totrouble joy.”Most powerful is the introduction of the French wordssuffered change,inherit,strange, andtrouble joy; for they give with painful force the contrast of the present state of desolation with the homely rest and happiness of the old abode, the love of the loving wives, the faithfulness of the stalwart sons.47.English and other Doublets.—We have already seen how, by the presentation of the same word at two different doors—the door of Latin and the door of French—we are in possession of a considerable number of doublets. But this phenomenon is not limited to Latin and French—is not solely due to the contributions we receive from these languages. We find it alsowithinEnglish itself; and causes of the most different description bring about the same results. For various reasons, the English language is very rich in doublets. It possesses nearly five hundred pairs of such words. The language is all the richer for having them, as it is thereby enabled to give fuller and clearer expression to the different shades and delicate varieties of meaning in the mind.48.The sources of doubletsare various. But five different causes seem chiefly to have operated in producing them. They are due to differences ofpronunciation; to differences inspelling; tocontractionsfor convenience in daily speech; to differences indialects; and to the fact that many of them come fromdifferent languages. Let us look at a few examples of each. At bottom, however, all these differences will be found to resolve themselves intodifferences of pronunciation. They are either differences in the pronunciation of the same word bydifferent tribes, or by men in different counties, who speak different dialects; or by men of different nations.49.Differences in Pronunciation.—From this source we haveparsonandperson(the parson being thepersonor representative of the Church);sopandsoup;taskandtax(theskhas here becomeks);threadandthrid;ticketandetiquette;sauceandsouse(to steep in brine);squallandsqueal.50.Differences in Spelling.—Toandtooare the same word—one being used as a preposition, the other as an adverb;ofandoff,fromandfro, are only different spellings, which represent different functions or uses of the same word;onionandunionare the same word. Anunion10comes from the Latinunus, one, and it meant a large single pearl—a unique jewel; the word was then applied to the plant, the head of which is of a pearl-shape.51.Contractions.—Contraction has been a pretty fruitful source of doublets in English. A long word has a syllable or two cut off; or two or three are compressed into one. Thusexamplehas becomesample;aloneappears also aslone;amendhas been shortened intomend;defendhas been cut down intofend(as infender);manœuvrehas been contracted intomanure(both meaning originally to work with the hand);madambecomes’minyes ’m11; andpresbyterhas been squeezed down intopriest.12Other examples of contraction are:capitalandcattle;chirurgeon(a worker with the hand) andsurgeon;choleraandcholer(from chŏlos, the Greek word forbile);disportandsport;estateandstate;esquireandsquire;Egyptianandgipsy;emmetandant;gammonandgame;grandfatherandgaffer;grandmotherandgammer;iota(the Greek letteri) andjot;maximumandmaxim;mobileandmob;mosquitoandmusket;papaandpope;periwigandwig;poesyandposy;procuratorandproctor;shallopandsloop;unityandunit. It is quite evident that the above pairs of words, although in reality one, have very different meanings and uses.52.Difference of English Dialects.—Another source of doublets is to be found in the dialects of the English language. Almost every county in England has its own dialect; but three main dialects stand out with great prominence in our older literature, and these are theNorthern, theMidland, and theSouthern. The grammar of these dialects13was different; their pronunciation of words was different—and this has given rise to a splitting of one word into two. In the North, we find a hardc, as in thecasterofLancaster; in the Midlands, a softc, as inLeicester; in the South, ach, as inWinchester. We shall find similar differences of hardness and softness in ordinary words. Thus we findkirkandchurch;cankerandcancer;canalandchannel;deckandthatch;drillandthrill;fanandvan(in a winnowing-machine);fitchandvetch;haleandwhole;mashandmess;naught,nought, andnot;pike,peak, andbeak;pokeandpouch;quid(a piece of tobacco for chewing) andcud(which means the thingchewed);reaveandrob;ridgeandrig;scabbyandshabby;scarandshare;screechandshriek;shirtandskirt;shuffleandscuffle;sprayandsprig;wainandwaggon—and other pairs. All of these are but different modes of pronouncing the same word in different parts of England; but the genius of the language has taken advantage of these differentways of pronouncingto make differentwordsout of them, and to give them different functions, meanings, and uses.CHAPTER III.HISTORY OF THE GRAMMAR OF ENGLISH.1.The Oldest English Synthetic.—The oldest English, or Anglo-Saxon, that was brought over here in the fifth century, was a language that showed the relations of words to each other by adding different endings to words, or bysynthesis. These endings are calledinflexions. Latin and Greek are highly inflected languages; French and German have many more inflexions than modern English; and ancient English (or Anglo-Saxon) also possessed a large number of inflexions.2.Modern English Analytic.—When, instead of inflexions, a language employs small particles—such as prepositions, auxiliary verbs, and suchlike words—to express the relations of words to each other, such a language is calledanalyticornon-inflexional. When we say, as we used to say in the oldest English, “God is ealra cyninga cyning,” we speak a synthetic language. But when we say, “God is kingofall kings,” then we employ an analytic or uninflected language.3.Short View of the History of English Grammar.—From the time when the English language came over to this island, it has grown steadily in the number of its words. On the other hand, it has lost just as steadily in the number of its inflexions. Put in a broad and somewhat rough fashion, it may be said that—(i)Up to the year 1100—one generation after the Battle of Senlac—the English language was aSyntheticLanguage.(ii)From the year 1100 or thereabouts, English has been losing its inflexions, and gradually becoming more and more anAnalyticLanguage.4.Causes of this Change.—Even before the coming of the Danes and the Normans, the English people had shown a tendency to get rid of some of their inflexions. A similar tendency can be observed at the present time among the Germans of the Rhine Province, who often drop annat the end of a word, and show in other respects a carelessness about grammar. But, when a foreign people comes among natives, such a tendency is naturally encouraged, and often greatly increased. The natives discover that these inflexions are not so very important, if only they can get their meaning rightly conveyed to the foreigners. Both parties, accordingly, come to see that therootof the word is the most important element; they stick to that, and they come to neglect the mere inflexions. Moreover, the accent in English words always struck the root; and hence this part of the word always fell on the ear with the greater force, and carried the greater weight. When the Danes—who spoke a cognate language—began to settle in England, the tendency to drop inflexions increased; but when the Normans—who spoke an entirely different language—came, the tendency increased enormously, and the inflexions of Anglo-Saxon began to “fall as the leaves fall” in the dry wind of a frosty October. Let us try to trace some of these changes and losses.5.Grammar of the First Period, 450-1100.—The English of this period is called theOldest EnglishorAnglo-Saxon. The gender of nouns was arbitrary, or—it may be—poetical; it did not, as in modern English it does, follow the sex. Thusnama, a name, was masculine;tunge, a tongue, feminine; andeáge, an eye, neuter. Likenama, the proper names of men ended ina; and we find such names as Isa, Offa, Penda, as the names of kings. Nouns at this period had five cases, with inflexions for each; now we possess but one inflexion—that for the possessive.—Even the definite article was inflected.—The infinitive of verbs ended inan; and the signto—which we received from theDanes—was not in use, except for the dative of the infinitive. This dative infinitive is still preserved in such phrases as “a house to let;” “bread to eat;” “water to drink.”—The present participle ended inende(in the Northande). This present participle may be said still to exist—in spoken, but not in written speech; for some people regularly saywalkin,goin, forwalkingandgoing.—The plural of the present indicative ended inathfor all three persons. In the perfect tense, the plural ending wason.—There was no future tense; the work of the future was done by the present tense. Fragments of this usage still survive in the language, as when we say, “He goes up to town next week.”—Prepositions governed various cases; and not always the objective (or accusative), as they do now.6.Grammar of the Second Period, 1100-1250.—The English of this period is calledEarly English. Even before the coming of the Normans, the inflexions of our language had—as we have seen—begun to drop off, and it was slowly on the way to becoming an analytic language. The same changes—the same simplification of grammar, has taken place in nearly every Low German language. But the coming of the Normans hastened these changes, for it made the inflexional endings of words of much less practical importance to the English themselves.—Great changes took place in the pronunciation also. The hardcorkwas softened intoch; and the hard gutturalgwas refined into ayor even into a silentw.—A remarkable addition was made to the language. The Oldest English or Anglo-Saxon had no indefinite article. They saidofer stánforonarock. But, as the French have made the articleunout of the Latinunus, so the English pared down the northernane(=one) into the articleanora. The Anglo-Saxon definite article wasse,seo,þaet; and in the grammar of this Second Period it becameþe,þeo,þe.—The French plural inestook the place of the English plural inen. Buthousenandshoonexisted for many centuries after the Norman coming; and Mr Barnes, the Dorsetshire poet, still deplores the ugly sound ofnestsandfists, and would like to be able to say and to writenestenandfisten.—The dative plural, which ended inum, becomes aneor anen. Theum,however, still exists in the form ofominseldom(= at few times) andwhilom(= in old times).—The gender of nouns falls into confusion, and begins to show a tendency to follow the sex.—Adjectives show a tendency to drop several of their inflexions, and to become as serviceable and accommodating as they are now—when they are the same with all numbers, genders, and cases.—Theanof the infinitive becomesen, and sometimes even thenis dropped.—Shallandwillbegin to be used as tense-auxiliaries for the future tense.7.Grammar of the Third Period, 1250-1350.—The English of this period is often calledMiddle English.—The definite article still preserves a few inflexions.—Nouns that were once masculine or feminine become neuter, for the sake of convenience.—The possessive inesbecomes general.—Adjectives make their plural ine.—The infinitive now takestobefore it—except after a few verbs, likebid,see,hear, etc.—The present participle iningemakes its appearance about the year 1300.8.Grammar of the Fourth Period, 1350-1485.—This may be calledLater Middle English. An old writer of the fourteenth century points out that, in his time—and before it—the English language was “a-deled a thre,” divided into three; that is, that there were three main dialects, theNorthern, theMidland, and theSouthern. There were many differences in the grammar of these dialects; but the chief of these differences is found in the plural of the present indicative of the verb. This part of the verb formed its plurals in the following manner:—Northern.Midland.Southern.We hopësWe hopenWe hopeth.You hopësYou hopenYou hopeth.They hopësThey hopenThey hopeth.14In time the Midland dialect conquered; and the East Midland form of it became predominant all over England. As early as the beginning of the thirteenth century, this dialect had thrown off most of the old inflexions, and had become almost as flexionlessas the English of the present day. Let us note a few of the more prominent changes.—The first personal pronounIcorIchloses the guttural, and becomesI.—The pronounshim,them, andwhom, which are true datives, are used either as datives or as objectives.—The imperative plural ends ineth. “Riseth up,” Chaucer makes one of his characters say, “and stondeth by me!”—The useful and almost ubiquitous letterecomes in as a substitute fora,u, and evenan. Thusnamabecomesname,sunu(son) becomessune, andwithutanchanges intowithute.—The dative of adjectives is used as an adverb. Thus we findsoftë,brightëemployed like oursoftly,brightly.—Thenin the infinitive has fallen away; but theëis sounded as a separate syllable. Thus we findbrekë,smitëforbrekenandsmiten.9.General View.—In the time of King Alfred, the West-Saxon speech—the Wessex dialect—took precedence of the rest, and became the literary dialect of England. But it had not, and could not have, any influence on the spoken language of other parts of England, for the simple reason that very few persons were able to travel, and it took days—and even weeks—for a man to go from Devonshire to Yorkshire. In course of time the Midland dialect—that spoken between the Humber and the Thames—became the predominant dialect of England; and the East Midland variety of this dialect became the parent of modern standard English. This predominance was probably due to the fact that it, soonest of all, got rid of its inflexions, and became most easy, pleasant, and convenient to use. And this disuse of inflexions was itself probably due to the early Danish settlements in the east, to the larger number of Normans in that part of England, to the larger number of thriving towns, and to the greater and more active communication between the eastern seaports and the Continent. The inflexions were first confused, then weakened, then forgotten, finally lost. The result was an extreme simplification, which still benefits all learners of the English language. Instead of spending a great deal of time on the learning of a large number of inflexions, which are to them arbitrary and meaningless,foreigners have only to fix their attention on the words and phrases themselves, that is, on the very pith and marrow of the language—indeed, on the language itself. Hence the great German grammarian Grimm, and others, predict that English will spread itself all over the world, and become the universal language of the future. In addition to this almost complete sweeping away of all inflexions,—which made Dr Johnson say, “Sir, the English language has no grammar at all,”—there were other remarkable and useful results which accrued from the coming in of the Norman-French and other foreign elements.10.Monosyllables.—The stripping off of the inflexions of our language cut a large number of words down to the root. Hundreds, if not thousands, of our verbs were dissyllables, but, by the gradual loss of the endingen(which was in Anglo-Saxonan), they became monosyllables. Thusbindan,drincan,findan, becamebind,drink,find; and this happened with hosts of other verbs. Again, the expulsion of the guttural, which the Normans never could or would take to, had the effect of compressing many words of two syllables into one. Thushaegel,twaegen, andfaegen, becamehail,twain, andfain.—In these and other ways it has come to pass that the present English is to a very large extent of a monosyllabic character. So much is this the case, that whole books have been written for children in monosyllables. It must be confessed that the monosyllabic style is often dull, but it is always serious and homely. We can find in our translation of the Bible whole verses that are made up of words of only one syllable. Many of the most powerful passages in Shakespeare, too, are written in monosyllables. The same may be said of hundreds of our proverbs—such as, “Cats hide their claws”; “Fair words please fools”; “He that has most time has none to lose.” Great poets, like Tennyson and Matthew Arnold, understand well the fine effect to be produced from the mingling of short and long words—of the homely English with the more ornate Romance language. In the following verse from Matthew Arnold the words are all monosyllables, with the exception oftiredandcontention(which is Latin):—
35.Losses of English from the Incoming of Norman-French.—(ii) The arrestment of growth in the purely English part of our language, owing to the irruption of Norman-French, and also to the ease with which we could take a ready-made word from Latin or from Greek, killed off an old power which we once possessed, and which was not without its own use and expressiveness. This was the power of making compound words. The Greeks in ancient times had, and the Germans in modern times have, this power in a high degree. Thus a Greek comic poet has a word of fourteen syllables, which may be thus translated—
“Meanly-rising-early-and-hurrying-to-the-tribunal-to-denounce-another-for-an-infraction-of-the-law-concerning-the-exportation-of-figs.”6
And the Germans have a compound like “the-all-to-nothing-crushing philosopher.” The Germans also sayiron-pathforrailway,handshoeforglove, andfinger-hatforthimble. We also possessed this power at one time, and employed it both in proper and in common names. Thus we had and have the namesBrakespear,Shakestaff,Shakespear,Golightly,Dolittle,Standfast; and the common nounswant-wit,find-fault,mumble-news(fortale-bearer),pinch-penny(formiser),slugabed. In older times we hadthree-foot-stool,three-man-beetle7;stone-cold,heaven-bright,honey-sweet,snail-slow,nut-brown,lily-livered(forcowardly);brand-fire-new;earth-wandering,wind-dried,thunder-blasted,death-doomed, and many others. But such words asforbearsorfore-eldershave been pushed out byancestors;forewitbycautionorprudence; andinwitbyconscience. Mr Barnes, the Dorsetshire poet, would like to see these and similar compounds restored, and thinks that we might well return to the old clear well-springs of “English undefiled,” and make our own compounds out of our own words. He even carries his desires into the region of English grammar, and, fordegrees of comparison, proposes the phrasepitches of suchness. Thus, instead of the Latin wordomnibus, he would havefolk-wain; for the Greekbotany, he would substitutewort-lore; forauction, he would give usbode-sale;globulehe would replace withballkin; the Greek wordhorizonmust give way to the pure Englishsky-edge; and, instead ofquadrangle, he would have us all write and sayfour-winkle.
36.Losses of English from the Incoming of Norman-French.—(iii) When once a way was made for the entrance of French words into our English language, the immigrations were rapid and numerous. Hence there were many changes both in the grammar and in the vocabulary of English from the year 1100, the year in which we may suppose those Englishmen who were living at the date of the battle of Hastings had died out. These changes were more or less rapid, according to circumstances. But perhaps the most rapid and remarkable change took place in the lifetime of William Caxton, the great printer, who was born in 1410. In his preface to his translation of the ‘Æneid’ of Virgil, which he published in 1490, when he was eighty years of age, he says that he cannot understand old books that were written when he was a boy—that “the olde Englysshe is more lyke to dutche than englysshe,” and that “our langage now vsed varyeth ferre from that whiche was vsed and spoken when I was borne. For we Englysshemen ben borne ynder the domynacyon of the mone [moon], which is neuer stedfaste, but euer wauerynge, wexynge one season, and waneth and dycreaseth another season.” This as regards time.—But he has the same complaint to make as regards place. “Comyn englysshe that is spoken in one shyre varyeth from another.” And he tells an odd story in illustration of this fact. He tells about certain merchants who were in a ship “in Tamyse” (on theThames), who were bound for Zealand, but were wind-stayed at the Foreland, and took it into their heads to go on shore there. One of the merchants, whose name was Sheffelde, a mercer, entered a house, “and axed for mete, and specyally he axyd after eggys.” But the “goode-wyf” replied that she “coude speke no frenshe.” The merchant, who was a steady Englishman, lost his temper, “for he also coude speke no frenshe, but wolde have hadde eggys; and she understode hym not.” Fortunately, a friend happened to join him in the house, and he acted as interpreter. The friend said that “he wolde have eyren; then the goode wyf sayde that she understod hym wel.” And then the simple-minded but much-perplexed Caxton goes on to say: “Loo! what sholde a man in thyse dayes now wryte, eggës or eyren?” Such were the difficulties that beset printers and writers in the close of the fifteenth century.
37.Latin of the Fourth Period.—(i) This contribution differs very essentially in character from the last. The Norman-French contribution was a gift from a people to a people—from living beings to living beings; this new contribution was rather a conveyance of words from books to books, and it never influenced—in any great degree—thespoken languageof the English people. The ear and the mouth carried the Norman-French words into our language; the eye, the pen, and the printing-press were the instruments that brought in the Latin words of the Fourth Period. The Norman-French words that came in took and kept their place in the spoken language of the masses of the people; the Latin words that we received in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries kept their place in the written or printed language of books, of scholars, and of literary men. These new Latin words came in with theRevival of Learning, which is also called theRenascence.
The Turks attacked and took Constantinople in the year1453; and the great Greek and Latin scholars who lived in that city hurriedly packed up their priceless manuscripts and books, and fled to all parts of Italy, Germany, France, and even into England. The loss of the East became the gain of the West. These scholars became teachers; they taught the Greekand Roman classics to eager and earnest learners; and thus a new impulse was given to the study of the great masterpieces of human thought and literary style. And so it came to pass in course of time that every one who wished to become an educated man studied the literature of Greece and Rome. Even women took to the study. Lady Jane Grey was a good Greek and Latin scholar; and so was Queen Elizabeth. From this time began an enormous importation of Latin words into our language. Being imported by the eye and the pen, they suffered little or no change; the spirit of the people did not influence them in the least—neither the organs of speech nor the ear affected either the pronunciation or the spelling of them. If we look down the columns of any English dictionary, we shall find these later Latin words in hundreds.Opinionembecameopinion;factionem,faction;orationem,oration;pungentempassed over in the form ofpungent(though we hadpoignantalready from the French);pauperemcame in aspauper; andseparatumbecameseparate.
38.Latin of the Fourth Period.—(ii) This went on to such an extent in the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, that one writer says of those who spoke and wrote this Latinised English, “If some of their mothers were alive, they were not able to tell what they say.” And Sir Thomas Browne (1605-1682) remarks: “If elegancy (= the use of Latin words) still proceedeth, and English pens maintain that stream we have of late observed to flow from many, we shall, within a few years, be fain to learn Latin to understand English, and a work will prove of equal facility in either.” Mr Alexander Gill, an eminent schoolmaster, and the then head-master of St Paul’s School, where, among his other pupils, he taught John Milton, wrote a book in 1619 on the English language; and, among other remarks, he says: “O harsh lips! I now hear all around me such words ascommon,vices,envy,malice; evenvirtue,study,justice,pity,mercy,compassion,profit,commodity,colour,grace,favour,acceptance. But whither, I pray, in all the world, have you banished those words which our forefathers used for these new-fangled ones?Are our words to be executed like our citizens?” And he calls this fashion of using Latin words “the new mange in our speaking and writing.” But the fashion went on growing; and even uneducated people thought it a clever thing to use a Latin instead of a good English word. Samuel Rowlands, a writer in the seventeenth century, ridicules this affectation in a few lines of verse. He pretends that he was out walking on the highroad, and met a countryman who wanted to know what o’clock it was, and whether he was on the right way to the town or village he was making for. The writer saw at once that he was a simple bumpkin; and, when he heard that he had lost his way, he turned up his nose at the poor fellow, and ordered him to be off at once. Here are the lines:—
“As on the way I itinerated,A rural person I obviated,Interrogating time’s transitation,And of the passage demonstration.My apprehension did ingenious scanThat he was merely a simplician;So, when I saw he was extravagánt,Unto the óbscure vulgar consonánt,I bade him vanish most promiscuously,And not contaminate my company.”
“As on the way I itinerated,
A rural person I obviated,
Interrogating time’s transitation,
And of the passage demonstration.
My apprehension did ingenious scan
That he was merely a simplician;
So, when I saw he was extravagánt,
Unto the óbscure vulgar consonánt,
I bade him vanish most promiscuously,
And not contaminate my company.”
39.Latin of the Fourth Period.—(iii) What happened in the case of the Norman-French contribution, happened also in this. The language became saturated with these new Latin words, until it became satiated, then, as it were, disgusted, and would take no more. Hundreds of
“Long-tailed words inosityandation”
crowded into the English language; but many of them were doomed to speedy expulsion. Thus words likediscerptibility,supervacaneousness,septentrionality,ludibundness(love of sport), came in in crowds. The verbinteneratetried to turn outsoften; anddeturpateto take the place ofdefile. But good writers, like Bacon and Raleigh, took care to avoid the use of such terms, and to employ only those Latin words which gave them the power to indicate a new idea—a new meaning or a new shadeof meaning. And when we come to the eighteenth century, we find that a writer like Addison would have shuddered at the very mention of such “inkhorn terms.”
40.Eye-Latin and Ear-Latin.—(i) One slight influence produced by this spread of devotion to classical Latin—to the Latin of Cicero and Livy, of Horace and Virgil—was to alter the spelling of French words. We had already received—through the ear—the French wordsassaute,aventure,defaut,dette,vitaille, and others. But when our scholars became accustomed to the book-form of these words in Latin books, they gradually altered them—for the eye and ear—intoassault,adventure,default,debt, andvictuals. They went further. A large number of Latin words that already existed in the language in their Norman-French form (for we must not forget that French is Latin “with the ends bitten off”—changed by being spoken peculiarly and heard imperfectly) were reintroduced in their original Latin form. Thus we hadcaitifffrom the Normans; but we reintroduced it in the shape ofcaptive, which comes almost unaltered from the Latincaptivum.Featwe had from the Normans; but the Latinfactum, which provided the word, presented us with a second form of it in the wordfact. Such words might be calledEar-LatinandEye-Latin;Mouth-LatinandBook-Latin;Spoken LatinandWritten Latin; or Latin at second-hand and Latin at first-hand.
41.Eye-Latin and Ear-Latin.—(ii) This coming in of the same word by two different doors—by the Eye and by the Ear—has given rise to the phenomenon ofDoublets. The following is a list ofLatin Doublets; and it will be noticed that Latin1stands for Latin at first-hand—from books; and Latin2for Latin at second-hand—through the Norman-French.
Cadentia (Low Lat. noun)
Corpus (a body)
Debitum (something owed)
Defectum (something wanting)
Fabrĭca (a workshop)
Gentīlis (belonging to agensor family)
Majorem (greater)
Orison (a prayer).
Paganum (a dweller in apagusor country district)
Payne (a proper name).
Particulam (a little part)
Potionem (a draught)
42.Remarks on the above Table.—The wordbenison, a blessing, may be contrasted with its opposite,malison, a curse.—Cadenceis the falling of sounds;chancethe befalling of events.—Acaitiffwas at first acaptive—then a person who made no proper defence, butallowedhimself to be taken captive.—Acorpsis abodyof troops.—The wordsampleis found, in older English, in the form ofensample.—Afeatof arms is a deed orfactof arms,par excellence.—To understand howfragilebecamefrail, we must pronounce theghard, and notice how the hard guttural falls easily away—as in our own native wordsflailandhail, which formerly contained a hardg.—Amajoris agreatercaptain; amayoris a greatermagistrate.—Amagistermeans abigger man—as opposed to aminister(fromminus), a smaller man.—Monetawas the name given to a stamped coin, because these coins were first struck in the temple of Juno Moneta, Juno the Adviser or the Warner. (From the same root—mon—comemonition,admonition;monitor;admonish.)—Shakespeare uses the wordorisonfreely forprayer, as in the address of Hamlet to Ophelia, where he says, “Nymph, in thy orisons, be all my sins remembered!”—Poorcomes to us from an Old French wordpoure; the newer French ispauvre.—To understand the vanishing of thegsound inpoignant, we must remember that the Romans sounded it always hard.—Severwe get throughseparate, becausepandvare both labials, and therefore easily interchangeable.—Treason—with itssinstead ofti—may be compared withbenison,malison,orison,poison, andreason.
43.Conclusions from the above Table.—If we examine the table on page 231 with care, we shall come to several undeniable conclusions. (i) First, the words which come to us direct from Latin are found more in books than in everyday speech. (ii) Secondly, they are longer. The reason is that the words that have come through French have been worn down by the careless pronunciation of many generations—by that desire for ease in the pronouncing of words which characterises all languages, and have at last been compelled to take that form which was least difficult to pronounce. (iii) Thirdly, the twosets of words have, in each case, either (a) very different meanings, or (b) different shades of meaning. There is no likeness of meaning incadenceandchance, except the common meaning offallwhich belongs to the root from which they both spring. And the different shades of meaning betweenhistoryandstory, betweenregalandroyal, betweenpersecuteandpursue, are also quite plainly marked, and are of the greatest use in composition.
44.Latin Triplets.—Still more remarkable is the fact that there are in our language words that have made three appearances—one through Latin, one through Norman-French, and one through ordinary French. These seem to live quietly side by side in the language; and no one asks by what claim they are here. They are useful: that is enough. These triplets are—regal,royal, andreal;legal,loyal, andleal;fidelity,faithfulness,8andfealty. The adjective real we no longer possess in the sense ofroyal, but Chaucer uses it; and it still exists in the nounreal-m.Lealis most used in Scotland, where it has a settled abode in the well-known phrase “the land o’ the leal.”
45.Greek Doublets.—The same double introduction, which we noticed in the case of Latin words, takes place in regard to Greek words. It seems to have been forgotten that our English forms of them had been already given us by St Augustine and the Church, and a newer form of each was reintroduced. The following are a few examples:—
Adamanta9(the untameable)
Blasphēmein (to speak ill of)
Cheirourgon9(a worker with the hand)
Dactŭlon (a finger)
Date (the fruit)
Phantasma (an appearance)
Presbuteron (an elder)
It may be remarked of the wordfancy, that, in Shakespeare’s time, it meantloveorimagination—
“Tell me, where isfancybred,Or in the heart, or in the head?”
“Tell me, where isfancybred,
Or in the heart, or in the head?”
It is now restricted to mean a lighter and less serious kind of imagination. Thus we say that Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ is a work of imagination; but that Moore’s ‘Lalla Rookh’ is a product of the poet’s fancy.
46.Characteristics of the Two Elements of English.—If we keep our attention fixed on the two chief elements in our language—the English element and the Latin element—the Teutonic and the Romance—we shall find some striking qualities manifest themselves. We have already said that whole sentences can be made containing only English words, while it is impossible to do this with Latin or other foreign words. Let us take two passages—one from a daily newspaper, and the other from Shakespeare:—
(i) “We find thefunctionsof such anofficial definedin theAct. He is to be alegally qualified medical practitionerof skill andexperience, toinspectandreport periodicallyon thesanitary conditionof town ordistrict; toascertaintheexistenceofdiseases, moreespecially epidemics increasingtheratesofmortality, and topointout theexistenceof anynuisancesor otherlocal causes, which are likely tooriginateandmaintainsuchdiseases, andinjuriously affectthe health of theinhabitantsof such town ordistrict; to takecognisanceof theexistenceof anycontagious disease, and to point out the mostefficacious meansfor theventilationofchapels,schools,registered lodging-houses, and otherpublicbuildings.”
In this passage, all the words in italics are either Latin or Greek. But, if the purely English words were left out, the sentence would fall into ruins—would become a mere rubbish-heap of words. It is the small particles that give life andmotion to each sentence. They are the joints and hinges on which the whole sentence moves.—Let us now look at a passage from Shakespeare. It is from the speech of Macbeth, after he has made up his mind to murder Duncan:—
(ii) “Go bid thymistress, when my drink is ready,She strike upon the bell. Get thee to bed!—Is this a dagger which I see before me,The handle toward my hand? Come! let me clutch thee!—I have thee not; and yet I see thee still.”
(ii) “Go bid thymistress, when my drink is ready,
She strike upon the bell. Get thee to bed!—
Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come! let me clutch thee!
—I have thee not; and yet I see thee still.”
In this passage there is only one Latin (or French) word—the wordmistress. If Shakespeare had used the wordlady, the passage would have been entirely English.—The passage from the newspaper deals with largegeneralisations; that from Shakespeare with individualactsandfeelings—with things that comehome“to the business and bosom” of man as man. Every master of the English language understands well the art of mingling the two elements—so as to obtain a fine effect; and none better than writers like Shakespeare, Milton, Gray, and Tennyson. Shakespeare makes Antony say of Cleopatra:—
“Age cannot wither her; norcustomstaleHer infinitevariety.”
“Age cannot wither her; norcustomstale
Her infinitevariety.”
Here the French (or Latin) wordscustomandvarietyform a vivid contrast to the English verbstale, throw up its meaning and colour, and give it greater prominence.—Milton makes Eve say:—
“I thither wentWithinexperienc’dthought, and laid me downOn the green bank, to look into theclearSmoothlake, that to me seem’d another sky.”
“I thither went
Withinexperienc’dthought, and laid me down
On the green bank, to look into theclear
Smoothlake, that to me seem’d another sky.”
Here the wordsinexperiencedandcleargive variety to the sameness of the English words.—Gray, in the Elegy, has this verse:—
“The breezy call ofincense-breathing morn,The swallow twittering from the straw-built shed,The cock’s shrillclarionor theechoinghorn,No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed.”
“The breezy call ofincense-breathing morn,
The swallow twittering from the straw-built shed,
The cock’s shrillclarionor theechoinghorn,
No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed.”
Hereincense,clarion, andechoinggive a vivid colouring to the plainer hues of the homely English phrases.—Tennyson, in the Lotos-Eaters, vi., writes:—
“Dear is thememoryof our wedded lives,And dear the lastembracesof our wivesAnd their warm tears: but all hathsuffer’d change;Forsurelynow our household hearths are cold:Our sonsinheritus: our looks arestrange:And we should come like ghosts totrouble joy.”
“Dear is thememoryof our wedded lives,
And dear the lastembracesof our wives
And their warm tears: but all hathsuffer’d change;
Forsurelynow our household hearths are cold:
Our sonsinheritus: our looks arestrange:
And we should come like ghosts totrouble joy.”
Most powerful is the introduction of the French wordssuffered change,inherit,strange, andtrouble joy; for they give with painful force the contrast of the present state of desolation with the homely rest and happiness of the old abode, the love of the loving wives, the faithfulness of the stalwart sons.
47.English and other Doublets.—We have already seen how, by the presentation of the same word at two different doors—the door of Latin and the door of French—we are in possession of a considerable number of doublets. But this phenomenon is not limited to Latin and French—is not solely due to the contributions we receive from these languages. We find it alsowithinEnglish itself; and causes of the most different description bring about the same results. For various reasons, the English language is very rich in doublets. It possesses nearly five hundred pairs of such words. The language is all the richer for having them, as it is thereby enabled to give fuller and clearer expression to the different shades and delicate varieties of meaning in the mind.
48.The sources of doubletsare various. But five different causes seem chiefly to have operated in producing them. They are due to differences ofpronunciation; to differences inspelling; tocontractionsfor convenience in daily speech; to differences indialects; and to the fact that many of them come fromdifferent languages. Let us look at a few examples of each. At bottom, however, all these differences will be found to resolve themselves intodifferences of pronunciation. They are either differences in the pronunciation of the same word bydifferent tribes, or by men in different counties, who speak different dialects; or by men of different nations.
49.Differences in Pronunciation.—From this source we haveparsonandperson(the parson being thepersonor representative of the Church);sopandsoup;taskandtax(theskhas here becomeks);threadandthrid;ticketandetiquette;sauceandsouse(to steep in brine);squallandsqueal.
50.Differences in Spelling.—Toandtooare the same word—one being used as a preposition, the other as an adverb;ofandoff,fromandfro, are only different spellings, which represent different functions or uses of the same word;onionandunionare the same word. Anunion10comes from the Latinunus, one, and it meant a large single pearl—a unique jewel; the word was then applied to the plant, the head of which is of a pearl-shape.
51.Contractions.—Contraction has been a pretty fruitful source of doublets in English. A long word has a syllable or two cut off; or two or three are compressed into one. Thusexamplehas becomesample;aloneappears also aslone;amendhas been shortened intomend;defendhas been cut down intofend(as infender);manœuvrehas been contracted intomanure(both meaning originally to work with the hand);madambecomes’minyes ’m11; andpresbyterhas been squeezed down intopriest.12Other examples of contraction are:capitalandcattle;chirurgeon(a worker with the hand) andsurgeon;choleraandcholer(from chŏlos, the Greek word forbile);disportandsport;estateandstate;esquireandsquire;Egyptianandgipsy;emmetandant;gammonandgame;grandfatherandgaffer;grandmotherandgammer;iota(the Greek letteri) andjot;maximumandmaxim;mobileandmob;mosquitoandmusket;papaandpope;periwigandwig;poesyandposy;procuratorandproctor;shallopandsloop;unityandunit. It is quite evident that the above pairs of words, although in reality one, have very different meanings and uses.
52.Difference of English Dialects.—Another source of doublets is to be found in the dialects of the English language. Almost every county in England has its own dialect; but three main dialects stand out with great prominence in our older literature, and these are theNorthern, theMidland, and theSouthern. The grammar of these dialects13was different; their pronunciation of words was different—and this has given rise to a splitting of one word into two. In the North, we find a hardc, as in thecasterofLancaster; in the Midlands, a softc, as inLeicester; in the South, ach, as inWinchester. We shall find similar differences of hardness and softness in ordinary words. Thus we findkirkandchurch;cankerandcancer;canalandchannel;deckandthatch;drillandthrill;fanandvan(in a winnowing-machine);fitchandvetch;haleandwhole;mashandmess;naught,nought, andnot;pike,peak, andbeak;pokeandpouch;quid(a piece of tobacco for chewing) andcud(which means the thingchewed);reaveandrob;ridgeandrig;scabbyandshabby;scarandshare;screechandshriek;shirtandskirt;shuffleandscuffle;sprayandsprig;wainandwaggon—and other pairs. All of these are but different modes of pronouncing the same word in different parts of England; but the genius of the language has taken advantage of these differentways of pronouncingto make differentwordsout of them, and to give them different functions, meanings, and uses.
1.The Oldest English Synthetic.—The oldest English, or Anglo-Saxon, that was brought over here in the fifth century, was a language that showed the relations of words to each other by adding different endings to words, or bysynthesis. These endings are calledinflexions. Latin and Greek are highly inflected languages; French and German have many more inflexions than modern English; and ancient English (or Anglo-Saxon) also possessed a large number of inflexions.
2.Modern English Analytic.—When, instead of inflexions, a language employs small particles—such as prepositions, auxiliary verbs, and suchlike words—to express the relations of words to each other, such a language is calledanalyticornon-inflexional. When we say, as we used to say in the oldest English, “God is ealra cyninga cyning,” we speak a synthetic language. But when we say, “God is kingofall kings,” then we employ an analytic or uninflected language.
3.Short View of the History of English Grammar.—From the time when the English language came over to this island, it has grown steadily in the number of its words. On the other hand, it has lost just as steadily in the number of its inflexions. Put in a broad and somewhat rough fashion, it may be said that—
(i)Up to the year 1100—one generation after the Battle of Senlac—the English language was aSyntheticLanguage.
(ii)From the year 1100 or thereabouts, English has been losing its inflexions, and gradually becoming more and more anAnalyticLanguage.
4.Causes of this Change.—Even before the coming of the Danes and the Normans, the English people had shown a tendency to get rid of some of their inflexions. A similar tendency can be observed at the present time among the Germans of the Rhine Province, who often drop annat the end of a word, and show in other respects a carelessness about grammar. But, when a foreign people comes among natives, such a tendency is naturally encouraged, and often greatly increased. The natives discover that these inflexions are not so very important, if only they can get their meaning rightly conveyed to the foreigners. Both parties, accordingly, come to see that therootof the word is the most important element; they stick to that, and they come to neglect the mere inflexions. Moreover, the accent in English words always struck the root; and hence this part of the word always fell on the ear with the greater force, and carried the greater weight. When the Danes—who spoke a cognate language—began to settle in England, the tendency to drop inflexions increased; but when the Normans—who spoke an entirely different language—came, the tendency increased enormously, and the inflexions of Anglo-Saxon began to “fall as the leaves fall” in the dry wind of a frosty October. Let us try to trace some of these changes and losses.
5.Grammar of the First Period, 450-1100.—The English of this period is called theOldest EnglishorAnglo-Saxon. The gender of nouns was arbitrary, or—it may be—poetical; it did not, as in modern English it does, follow the sex. Thusnama, a name, was masculine;tunge, a tongue, feminine; andeáge, an eye, neuter. Likenama, the proper names of men ended ina; and we find such names as Isa, Offa, Penda, as the names of kings. Nouns at this period had five cases, with inflexions for each; now we possess but one inflexion—that for the possessive.—Even the definite article was inflected.—The infinitive of verbs ended inan; and the signto—which we received from theDanes—was not in use, except for the dative of the infinitive. This dative infinitive is still preserved in such phrases as “a house to let;” “bread to eat;” “water to drink.”—The present participle ended inende(in the Northande). This present participle may be said still to exist—in spoken, but not in written speech; for some people regularly saywalkin,goin, forwalkingandgoing.—The plural of the present indicative ended inathfor all three persons. In the perfect tense, the plural ending wason.—There was no future tense; the work of the future was done by the present tense. Fragments of this usage still survive in the language, as when we say, “He goes up to town next week.”—Prepositions governed various cases; and not always the objective (or accusative), as they do now.
6.Grammar of the Second Period, 1100-1250.—The English of this period is calledEarly English. Even before the coming of the Normans, the inflexions of our language had—as we have seen—begun to drop off, and it was slowly on the way to becoming an analytic language. The same changes—the same simplification of grammar, has taken place in nearly every Low German language. But the coming of the Normans hastened these changes, for it made the inflexional endings of words of much less practical importance to the English themselves.—Great changes took place in the pronunciation also. The hardcorkwas softened intoch; and the hard gutturalgwas refined into ayor even into a silentw.—A remarkable addition was made to the language. The Oldest English or Anglo-Saxon had no indefinite article. They saidofer stánforonarock. But, as the French have made the articleunout of the Latinunus, so the English pared down the northernane(=one) into the articleanora. The Anglo-Saxon definite article wasse,seo,þaet; and in the grammar of this Second Period it becameþe,þeo,þe.—The French plural inestook the place of the English plural inen. Buthousenandshoonexisted for many centuries after the Norman coming; and Mr Barnes, the Dorsetshire poet, still deplores the ugly sound ofnestsandfists, and would like to be able to say and to writenestenandfisten.—The dative plural, which ended inum, becomes aneor anen. Theum,however, still exists in the form ofominseldom(= at few times) andwhilom(= in old times).—The gender of nouns falls into confusion, and begins to show a tendency to follow the sex.—Adjectives show a tendency to drop several of their inflexions, and to become as serviceable and accommodating as they are now—when they are the same with all numbers, genders, and cases.—Theanof the infinitive becomesen, and sometimes even thenis dropped.—Shallandwillbegin to be used as tense-auxiliaries for the future tense.
7.Grammar of the Third Period, 1250-1350.—The English of this period is often calledMiddle English.—The definite article still preserves a few inflexions.—Nouns that were once masculine or feminine become neuter, for the sake of convenience.—The possessive inesbecomes general.—Adjectives make their plural ine.—The infinitive now takestobefore it—except after a few verbs, likebid,see,hear, etc.—The present participle iningemakes its appearance about the year 1300.
8.Grammar of the Fourth Period, 1350-1485.—This may be calledLater Middle English. An old writer of the fourteenth century points out that, in his time—and before it—the English language was “a-deled a thre,” divided into three; that is, that there were three main dialects, theNorthern, theMidland, and theSouthern. There were many differences in the grammar of these dialects; but the chief of these differences is found in the plural of the present indicative of the verb. This part of the verb formed its plurals in the following manner:—
In time the Midland dialect conquered; and the East Midland form of it became predominant all over England. As early as the beginning of the thirteenth century, this dialect had thrown off most of the old inflexions, and had become almost as flexionlessas the English of the present day. Let us note a few of the more prominent changes.—The first personal pronounIcorIchloses the guttural, and becomesI.—The pronounshim,them, andwhom, which are true datives, are used either as datives or as objectives.—The imperative plural ends ineth. “Riseth up,” Chaucer makes one of his characters say, “and stondeth by me!”—The useful and almost ubiquitous letterecomes in as a substitute fora,u, and evenan. Thusnamabecomesname,sunu(son) becomessune, andwithutanchanges intowithute.—The dative of adjectives is used as an adverb. Thus we findsoftë,brightëemployed like oursoftly,brightly.—Thenin the infinitive has fallen away; but theëis sounded as a separate syllable. Thus we findbrekë,smitëforbrekenandsmiten.
9.General View.—In the time of King Alfred, the West-Saxon speech—the Wessex dialect—took precedence of the rest, and became the literary dialect of England. But it had not, and could not have, any influence on the spoken language of other parts of England, for the simple reason that very few persons were able to travel, and it took days—and even weeks—for a man to go from Devonshire to Yorkshire. In course of time the Midland dialect—that spoken between the Humber and the Thames—became the predominant dialect of England; and the East Midland variety of this dialect became the parent of modern standard English. This predominance was probably due to the fact that it, soonest of all, got rid of its inflexions, and became most easy, pleasant, and convenient to use. And this disuse of inflexions was itself probably due to the early Danish settlements in the east, to the larger number of Normans in that part of England, to the larger number of thriving towns, and to the greater and more active communication between the eastern seaports and the Continent. The inflexions were first confused, then weakened, then forgotten, finally lost. The result was an extreme simplification, which still benefits all learners of the English language. Instead of spending a great deal of time on the learning of a large number of inflexions, which are to them arbitrary and meaningless,foreigners have only to fix their attention on the words and phrases themselves, that is, on the very pith and marrow of the language—indeed, on the language itself. Hence the great German grammarian Grimm, and others, predict that English will spread itself all over the world, and become the universal language of the future. In addition to this almost complete sweeping away of all inflexions,—which made Dr Johnson say, “Sir, the English language has no grammar at all,”—there were other remarkable and useful results which accrued from the coming in of the Norman-French and other foreign elements.
10.Monosyllables.—The stripping off of the inflexions of our language cut a large number of words down to the root. Hundreds, if not thousands, of our verbs were dissyllables, but, by the gradual loss of the endingen(which was in Anglo-Saxonan), they became monosyllables. Thusbindan,drincan,findan, becamebind,drink,find; and this happened with hosts of other verbs. Again, the expulsion of the guttural, which the Normans never could or would take to, had the effect of compressing many words of two syllables into one. Thushaegel,twaegen, andfaegen, becamehail,twain, andfain.—In these and other ways it has come to pass that the present English is to a very large extent of a monosyllabic character. So much is this the case, that whole books have been written for children in monosyllables. It must be confessed that the monosyllabic style is often dull, but it is always serious and homely. We can find in our translation of the Bible whole verses that are made up of words of only one syllable. Many of the most powerful passages in Shakespeare, too, are written in monosyllables. The same may be said of hundreds of our proverbs—such as, “Cats hide their claws”; “Fair words please fools”; “He that has most time has none to lose.” Great poets, like Tennyson and Matthew Arnold, understand well the fine effect to be produced from the mingling of short and long words—of the homely English with the more ornate Romance language. In the following verse from Matthew Arnold the words are all monosyllables, with the exception oftiredandcontention(which is Latin):—