§ 93. A true word sometimes takes the appearance ofa hybrid without really being so. The-icle, inicicle, is apparently the same as the-icleinradicle. Now, asiceis Gothic, and-icleclassical, hybridism is simulated.Icicle, however, is not a derivative but a compound; its parts beingisandgicel, both Anglo-Saxon words.[39]
§ 94.On incompletion of the radical.—Let there be in a given language a series of roots ending in-t, assæmat. Let a euphonic influence eject the-t, as often as the word occurs in the nominative case. Let the nominative case be erroneously considered to represent the root, or radical, of the word. Let a derivative word be formed accordingly,i.e., on the notion that the nominative form and the radical form coincide. Such a derivative will exhibit only a part of the root; in other words, the radical will be incomplete.
Now all this is what actually takes place in words likehæmo-ptysis(spitting of blood),sema-phore(a sort of telegraph). The Greek imparisyllabics eject a part of the root in the nominative case; the radical forms beinghæmat-andsæmat-, nothæm-andsæm-.
Incompletion of the radical is one of the commonest causes of words being coined faultily. It must not, however, be concealed, that even in the classical writers, we have in words likeδίστομοςexamples of incompletion of the radical.
§ 95. The preceding chapters have paved the way for a distinction between thehistoricalanalysis of a language, and thelogicalanalysis of one.
Let the present language of England (for illustration's sake only) consist of 40,000 words. Of these let 30,000be Anglo-Saxon, 5,000 Anglo-Norman, 100 Celtic, 10 Latin of the first, 20 Latin of the second, and 30 Latin of the third period, 50 Scandinavian, and the rest miscellaneous. In this case the language is considered according to the historical origin of the words that compose it, and the analysis is an historical analysis.
But it is very evident that the English, or any other language, is capable of being contemplated in another view, and that the same number of words may be very differently classified. Instead of arranging them according to the languages whence they are derived, let them be disposed according to the meanings that they convey. Let it be said, for instance, that out of 40,000 words, 10,000 are the names of natural objects, that 1000 denote abstract ideas, that 1000 relate to warfare, 1000 to church matters, 500 to points of chivalry, 1000 to agriculture, and so on through the whole. In this case the analysis is not historical but logical; the words being classed not according to theirorigin, but according to theirmeaning.
Now the logical and historical analyses of a language generally in some degree coincide; that is, terms for a certain set of ideas come from certain languages; just as in English a large proportion of our chemical terms are Arabic, whilst a still larger one of our legal ones are Anglo-Norman.
THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
§ 96. The relation of the present English to the Anglo-Saxon is that of amodernlanguage to anancientone: the wordsmodernandancientbeing used in a defined and technical sense.
Let the wordsmiðumillustrate this.Smið-um, the dative plural ofsmið, is equivalent in meaning to the Englishto smiths; or to the Latinfabr-is.Smiðum, however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two words (i.e., a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letters, insmiths, shows that the word is plural. The-um, insmiðum, does this and something more. It is the sign of thedative caseplural. The-uminsmiðum, is the part of a word. The prepositiontois a separate word with an independent existence.Smiðumis the radical syllablesmið+ the subordinate inflectional syllable-um, the sign of the dative case. The combinationto smithsis the substantivesmiths+ the prepositionto, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in form. As far, then, as the words just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English by expressing an idea by a certainmodification of the form of the root, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea bythe addition of a preposition; inother words, the Saxoninflectionis superseded by acombinationof words.
The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement. 1.The earlier the stage of a given language the greater the amount of its inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the smaller the amount of them.2.As languages become modern they substitute prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses.3.The amount of inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of prepositions and auxiliary verbs.4.In the course of time languages drop their inflections, and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means of prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place.5.Given two modes of expression, the one inflectional(smiðum),the other circumlocutional[40](to smiths),we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second to a late, state of language.
The present chapter, then showing the relation of the English to the Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits thegeneralrelation of a modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; and so are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the ancient Greek.
§ 97. Contrasted with the English, the Anglo-Saxon has (among others) the following differences.
NOUNS.
1.Gender.—In Anglo-Saxon there were three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter. Withadjectiveseach gender had its peculiar declension. Withsubstantivesalso there were appropriate terminations, though only to a certain degree.
2. The definite article varied with the gender of its substantive;þæt eage, the eye;se steorra, the star;seo tunge, the tongue.
3.Number.—The plural form in-en(as inoxen), rare in English, was common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole declension;e.g.,eágan, eyes;steorran, stars;tungan, tongues. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxons had forms in-uand-aasricu, kingdoms;gifa, gifts. The termination-s, current in the present English, was confined to a single gender and to a single declension, asendas, ends;dagas, days;smiðas, smiths.
4.Case.—Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least three; viz., the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words an ablative or instrumental one.Smið, a smith;smiðe, to a smith;smiðes, of a smith. Plural,smiðas, smiths;smiðum, to smiths;smiða, of smiths:he, he;hine, him;him, to him;his, his;se, the;þa, the;þy, with the;þam, to the;þæs, of the.
5.Declension.—InAnglo-Saxonit was necessary to determine the declension of a substantive. There was the weak, or simple declension for words ending in a vowel (as,eage,steorra,tunga), and the strong declension for words ending in a consonant (smið,spræc,leáf). The lettersianduwere dealt with as semivowels, semi-vowels being dealt with as consonants; so that words likesunuandgifubelonged to the same declension assmiðandsprǽc.
6.Definite and indefinite form of adjectives.—In Anglo-Saxon each adjective had two forms, onedefiniteand oneindefinite. There is nothing of this kind in English. We saya good sword, andthe good swordequally. In Anglo-Saxon, however, the first combination would bese gode sweord, the secondán god sweord, the definite form being distinguished from the indefinite by the addition of a vowel.
7.Pronouns personal.—The Anglo-Saxon language had for the first two persons adualnumber; inflected as follows:
Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative pronouns, as well as the numeralstwaandþreo, had a fuller declension than they have at present.
VERBS.
8.Mood.—The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with one exception[41]) differs from the indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon considerably different from the indicative.
The Saxon infinitive ended in-an(lufian), and besides this there was a so-called gerundial form,to lufigenne.
Besides these there were considerable differences in respect to particular words; but of these no notice is taken; the object being to indicate the differences between theancientandmodernstages of a language in respect togrammatical structure.
9. To bring about these changes a certain amountof timeis, of course, necessary; a condition which suggests the difficult question as to therateat which languages change. This is different for different languages; but as the investigation belongs togeneralphilology rather than to the particular history of the English language, it finds no place here.
§ 98. The extent, however, to which external causes may accelerate or retard philological changes, isnotforeign to our subject; the influence of the Norman Conquest, upon the previous Anglo-Saxon foundation, being a problem of some difficulty.
At the first glance it seems to have been considerable, especially in the way of simplifying the grammar. Yet the accuracy of this view is by no means unequivocal. The reasons against it are as follows:
a.In Friesland no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Frisian, as compared with the ancient, is nearly as simple in its grammatical structure, as the English is when compared with the Anglo-Saxon.
b.In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Danish and Swedish, as compared with the Old Norse, are nearly as simple in their grammatical structure, as the English is, when compared with the Anglo-Saxon.
The question requires more investigation than it has met with.
An extract from Mr. Hallam's "History of Literature" closes the present section, and introduces the next.
"Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to determine the commencement of the English language; not so much, as in those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce why it should pass for a separate language, rather than a modification or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage, and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:—1. By contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think, can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pass for the latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which is to cover everything fromA.D.1150 toA.D.1250."—Chapter i. 47.
"Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to determine the commencement of the English language; not so much, as in those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce why it should pass for a separate language, rather than a modification or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage, and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:—1. By contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think, can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pass for the latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which is to cover everything fromA.D.1150 toA.D.1250."—Chapter i. 47.
§ 99. This shows that by the middle of the 12th century, the Anglo-Saxon of the standard Anglo-Saxon authors, had undergone such a change as to induce the scholars of the present ago to denominate it, not Saxon, butSemi-Saxon. It had ceased to be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become English.
Some, amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon are,
1. The substitution of-anfor-as, in the plural ofsubstantives,munucanformunucas(monks); and, conversely, the substitution of-sfor-n, assteorresforsteorran(stars).
2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels,þæt ylcforþæt ylce;soneforsunu;namefornama;dagesfordagas.
3. The substitution of-nfor-min the dative case,hwilonforhwilum.
4. The ejection of the-nof the infinitive mood,cummeforcuman(to come),nemnefornemnen(to name).
5. The ejection of-enin the participle passive,I-hoteforgehaten(called,hight).
6. The gerundial termination-enne, superseded by the infinitive termination-en; asto lufianforto lufienne, orlufigenne.
7. The substitution of-enfor-aðin the persons plural of verbs;hi clepen(they call) forhi clypiað, &c.
The preponderance (not the occasional occurrence) of forms like those above constituteSemi-Saxonin contradistinction to standard Saxon, classical Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon proper.
§ 100.Old English stage.—Further changes convert Semi-Saxon into Old English. Some, amongst others, are the following:—
1. The ejection of the dative plural termination-um, and the substitution of the preposition to and the plural sign-s; asto smithsforsmiðum. Of the dativesingularthe-eis retained (ende,worde); but it is by no means certain that, although recognized in writing, it was equally recognized in pronunciation also.
2. The ejection of-esin the genitive singular whenever the prepositionofcame before it;Godes love(God's love), but thelove of God, and not thelove of Godes.
3. The syllable-esas a sign of the genitive caseextended to all genders and to all declensions;heart'sforheortan;sun'sforsunnan.
4. The same in respect to the plural number;sterresforsteorran;sonsforsuna.
5. The ejection of-nain the genitive plural; asof tungesfortungena.
6. The use of the wordthe, as an article, instead ofse, &c.
Thepreponderanceof the forms above (and not their mere occasional occurrence) constitutesOld Englishin contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
§ 101. In the Old English the following forms predominate.
1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative pronoun, or definite article;þan,þenne,þære,þam;—in contradistinction to the Middle English.
2. The presence of the dative singular in-e;ende,smithe.
3. The existence of a genitive plural in-ror-ra;heora, theirs;aller, of all. This, with substantives and adjectives, is less common.
4. The substitution ofheoforthey, ofheorafortheir, ofhemforthem.
5. A more frequent use ofminandthin, formyandthy;—in contradistinction to both Middle and Modern English.
6. The use ofheoforshe;—in contradistinction to Middle and Modern English and Old LowlandScotch.
7. The use of broader vowels; as iniclepudoriclepod(foriclepedoryclept);geongost, youngest;ascode, asked;eldore, elder.
8. The use of the strong preterits (seethe chapter on the tenses of verbs), where in the present English the weak form is found—wex,wop,dalf, forwaxed,wept,delved.
9. The omission not only of the gerundial termination-enne, but also of the infinitive sign-enafterto;to honte,to speke;—in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
10. The substitution of-enfor-eþor-eð, in the first and second persons plural of verbs;we wollen, we will:heo schullen, they should.
11. The comparative absence of the articlesseandseo.
12. The substitution ofbenandbeeth, forsyndandsyndon=we,ye,they are.
§ 102. Concerning the extent to which the Anglo-Norman was used, I retail the following statements and quotations.
1. "Letters even of a private nature were written in Latin till the beginning of the reign of Edward I., soon after 1270, when a sudden change brought in the use of French."—Mr. Hallam, communicated by Mr. Stevenson(Literature of Europe, i. 52,and note).2. Conversation between the members of the Universities was ordered to be carried on either in Latin or French:—"Si qua inter se proferant, colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur."—Statutes of Oriel College, Oxford.—Hallam, ibid.from Warton.3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."—Ibid.4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into French."—Ibid."Pueri in scholis, contra morem cæterarum nationum, et Normannorum adventu, derelicto proprio vulgari, construere Gallice compelluntur. Item quod filii nobilium ab ipsis cunabulorum crepundiis ad Gallicum idioma informantur. Quibus profecto rurales homines assimulari volentes, ut per hoc spectabiliores videantur, Francigenari satagunt omni nisu."—Higden(Ed. Gale, p. 210).
1. "Letters even of a private nature were written in Latin till the beginning of the reign of Edward I., soon after 1270, when a sudden change brought in the use of French."—Mr. Hallam, communicated by Mr. Stevenson(Literature of Europe, i. 52,and note).
2. Conversation between the members of the Universities was ordered to be carried on either in Latin or French:—"Si qua inter se proferant, colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur."—Statutes of Oriel College, Oxford.—Hallam, ibid.from Warton.
3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."—Ibid.
4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into French."—Ibid."Pueri in scholis, contra morem cæterarum nationum, et Normannorum adventu, derelicto proprio vulgari, construere Gallice compelluntur. Item quod filii nobilium ab ipsis cunabulorum crepundiis ad Gallicum idioma informantur. Quibus profecto rurales homines assimulari volentes, ut per hoc spectabiliores videantur, Francigenari satagunt omni nisu."—Higden(Ed. Gale, p. 210).
§ 103. The reigns of Edward III., and Richard II., may be said to form a transition from theOldto theMiddle; those of Mary and Elizabeth from theMiddleto theNew,RecentorModern English. No very definite line of demarcation, however, can be drawn.
§ 104. Thepresenttendencies of the English may be determined by observation: and as most of them will be noticed in the etymological part of this volume, the few here indicated must be looked upon as illustrations only.
1. The distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood is likely to pass away. We verify this by the very general tendency to sayif it is, andif he speaks, rather thanif it be, andif he speak.
2. The distinction between the participle passive and the past tense is likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to sayit is broke, andhe is smote, forit is brokenandhe is smitten.
3. Of the double forms,sungandsang,drankanddrunk, &c., one only will be the permanent.
As stated above, these tendencies are but a few out of many, and have been adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it.
1. Classify the Celtic elements of the English language.2. Enumerate the chief periods during which words from the Latin were introduced into English, and classify the Latin elements accordingly.3. What words were introduceddirectlyby the Danes, Scandinavians, or Norsemen? Whatindirectly? Through what language did these latter come?4. Give the dates of the Battle of Hastings, and of the reigns of Louis Outremer, Ethelred II, and Edward the Confessor. What was the amount of Norman-French elements in England anterior to the Conquest?5. Give the languages from whence the following words were introduced into the English—flannel,jerked(as tobeef),hammock,apparatus,waltz,Seraph,plaid,street,muslin.6. Distinguish between thedirect,indirect, andultimateorigin of introduced words. What words have we in English which are supposed to haveoriginatedin the Ancient Ægyptian, the Syrian, and the languages of Asia Minor?7. Under what different forms do the following words appear in English—monasterium,πρεσβύτερος,ἐπίσκοπος. Account for these differences.Syrup,shrub, andsherbet, all originate from the same word. Explain the present difference.8. Give thedirectorigin (i.e., the languages from which they wereimmediatelyintroduced) of—Druid,epistle,chivalry,cyder,mæander. Give theindirectorigin of the same.9. Investigate the process by which a word likesparrow-grass, apparently ofEnglishorigin, is, in reality, derived from the Latin wordasparagus. Point out the incorrectness in the wordsfrontispiece,colleague, andlanthorn.10. To what extent mayNorse, and to what extent mayCelticwords, not found in the current language of English, be found in the provincial dialects?11. What were the original names of the townsWhitbyandDerby? From what language are the present names derived? Give the reason for your answer.12. Show the extent to which thelogicalandhistoricalanalyses coincide in respect to the words introduced from the Roman of the second period, the Arabic, the Anglo-Norman, and the Celtic of the current English.13. What are the plural forms ofcriterion,axis,genius,index,dogma? When is a word introduced from a foreign languageperfectly, whenimperfectlyincorporated with the language into which it is imported? Is the following expression correct—the cherubim that singeth aloft? If not, why?14. What is there exceptionable in the wordssemaphore(meaning a sort of telegraph), andwitticism. Give the etymologies of the wordsicicle,radicle, andradical.15. What are the singular forms ofcantharides,phænomena, anddata?16. What are the stages of the English language? How does the present differ from the older ones?17. Exhibit in detail the inflections of the Anglo-Saxona) noun, andb) verb, which are not found in the present English. What is the import of the loss of inflections, and their replacement by separate words? What is the nature of such words in nouns? What in verbs?18. Contrast the syntax of the Anglo-Saxon with the Modern English adjective. What is the English for the Anglo-Saxon wordswit,unc,incer?19. Express, in general terms, the chief points wherein a modern language differs from an ancient one: or, rather, the points wherein the different stages of the same language differ.20. Investigate the influence of the Norman Conquest on the English. Explain the terms Semi-Saxon, Old English, and Middle English. Compare the stages of the English with those of the other Gothic tongues.21. Give the Modern English for the following forms and expressions—munucas,steorran,to lufienne. What are the Anglo-Saxon forms ofmunucan,steorres,i-hotte,clepen? Translate the Latin wordomnium(genitive plural ofomnis) intoOldEnglish. Translatethe Greekὁ,ἡ,τὸinto Anglo-Saxon, Old English, and Modern English.22. Investigate the extent to which the Anglo-Norman superseded the Anglo-Saxon subsequent to the Conquest. Is any further change in the grammatical structure of our language probable? If so, what do you consider will be the nature of it?
1. Classify the Celtic elements of the English language.
2. Enumerate the chief periods during which words from the Latin were introduced into English, and classify the Latin elements accordingly.
3. What words were introduceddirectlyby the Danes, Scandinavians, or Norsemen? Whatindirectly? Through what language did these latter come?
4. Give the dates of the Battle of Hastings, and of the reigns of Louis Outremer, Ethelred II, and Edward the Confessor. What was the amount of Norman-French elements in England anterior to the Conquest?
5. Give the languages from whence the following words were introduced into the English—flannel,jerked(as tobeef),hammock,apparatus,waltz,Seraph,plaid,street,muslin.
6. Distinguish between thedirect,indirect, andultimateorigin of introduced words. What words have we in English which are supposed to haveoriginatedin the Ancient Ægyptian, the Syrian, and the languages of Asia Minor?
7. Under what different forms do the following words appear in English—monasterium,πρεσβύτερος,ἐπίσκοπος. Account for these differences.Syrup,shrub, andsherbet, all originate from the same word. Explain the present difference.
8. Give thedirectorigin (i.e., the languages from which they wereimmediatelyintroduced) of—Druid,epistle,chivalry,cyder,mæander. Give theindirectorigin of the same.
9. Investigate the process by which a word likesparrow-grass, apparently ofEnglishorigin, is, in reality, derived from the Latin wordasparagus. Point out the incorrectness in the wordsfrontispiece,colleague, andlanthorn.
10. To what extent mayNorse, and to what extent mayCelticwords, not found in the current language of English, be found in the provincial dialects?
11. What were the original names of the townsWhitbyandDerby? From what language are the present names derived? Give the reason for your answer.
12. Show the extent to which thelogicalandhistoricalanalyses coincide in respect to the words introduced from the Roman of the second period, the Arabic, the Anglo-Norman, and the Celtic of the current English.
13. What are the plural forms ofcriterion,axis,genius,index,dogma? When is a word introduced from a foreign languageperfectly, whenimperfectlyincorporated with the language into which it is imported? Is the following expression correct—the cherubim that singeth aloft? If not, why?
14. What is there exceptionable in the wordssemaphore(meaning a sort of telegraph), andwitticism. Give the etymologies of the wordsicicle,radicle, andradical.
15. What are the singular forms ofcantharides,phænomena, anddata?
16. What are the stages of the English language? How does the present differ from the older ones?
17. Exhibit in detail the inflections of the Anglo-Saxona) noun, andb) verb, which are not found in the present English. What is the import of the loss of inflections, and their replacement by separate words? What is the nature of such words in nouns? What in verbs?
18. Contrast the syntax of the Anglo-Saxon with the Modern English adjective. What is the English for the Anglo-Saxon wordswit,unc,incer?
19. Express, in general terms, the chief points wherein a modern language differs from an ancient one: or, rather, the points wherein the different stages of the same language differ.
20. Investigate the influence of the Norman Conquest on the English. Explain the terms Semi-Saxon, Old English, and Middle English. Compare the stages of the English with those of the other Gothic tongues.
21. Give the Modern English for the following forms and expressions—munucas,steorran,to lufienne. What are the Anglo-Saxon forms ofmunucan,steorres,i-hotte,clepen? Translate the Latin wordomnium(genitive plural ofomnis) intoOldEnglish. Translatethe Greekὁ,ἡ,τὸinto Anglo-Saxon, Old English, and Modern English.
22. Investigate the extent to which the Anglo-Norman superseded the Anglo-Saxon subsequent to the Conquest. Is any further change in the grammatical structure of our language probable? If so, what do you consider will be the nature of it?
SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING.
GENERAL NATURE AND CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
§ 105. To two points connected with the subject of the following chapter, the attention of the reader is requested.
a.In the comparison of sounds the ear is liable to be misled by the eye. Thus—
The syllableskaandgaare similar syllables. The vowel is in each the same, and the consonant is but slightly different. Hence the wordskaandgaare more allied to each other than the wordskaandba,kaandta, &c., because the consonantal sounds ofkandgare more allied than the consonantal sounds ofkandb,kandt.
Comparing the syllablesgaandka, we see the affinity between the sounds, and we see it at the first glance. It lies on the surface, and strikes the ear at once.
It is, however, very evident that ways might be devised or might arise from accident, of concealing thelikeness between the two sounds, or, at any rate, of making it less palpable. One of such ways would be a faulty mode of spelling. If instead ofgawe wroteghathe following would be the effect: the syllable would appear less simple than it really was; it would look as if it consisted of three parts instead of two, and consequently its affinity tokawould seem less than it really was. It is perfectly true that a little consideration would tell us that, as long as the sound remained the same, the relation of the two syllables remained the same also; and that, if the contrary appeared to be the case, the ear was misled by the eye. Still a little consideration would be required. Now in the English language we have (amongst others) the following modes of spelling that have a tendency to mislead;—
The sounds ofphand off, inPhilipandfillip, differ to the eye, but to the ear are identical. Here a difference is simulated.
The sounds ofthinthin, and ofthinthine, differ to the ear but to the eye seem the same. Here a difference is concealed.
Furthermore. These last sounds appear to the eye to be double or compound. This is not the case; they are simple single sounds, and not the sounds oftfollowed byh, as the spelling leads us to imagine.
b.Besides improper modes of spelling, there is another way of concealing the true nature of sounds. If I say thatkaandgaare allied, the alliance is manifest; since I compare the actualsounds. If I saykaandgeeare allied, the alliance is concealed; since I compare, not the actual sounds, but only thenames of the lettersthat express those sounds. Now in the English language we have (amongst others) the following names of letters that have a tendency to mislead:—
The soundsfaandvaare allied. The nameseffandveeconceal this alliance.
The soundssaandzaare allied. The namesessandzedconceal the alliance.
In comparing sounds it is advisable to have nothing to do either with letters or names of letters. Compare the sounds themselves.
§ 106. In many cases it is sufficient, in comparing consonants, to compare syllables that contain those consonants;e.g., in order to determine the relations ofp,b,f,v, we saypa,ba,fa,va; or for those ofsandz, we saysa,za. Here we comparesyllables, each consonant being followed by a vowel. At times this is insufficient. We are often obliged to isolate the consonant from its vowel, and bring our organs to utter (or half utter) the imperfect sounds ofp',b',t',d'.
§ 107. Let any of thevowels(for instance, theainfather) be sounded. The lips, the tongue, and the parts within the throat remain in the same position; and as long as these remain in the same position the sound is that of the vowel under consideration. Let, however, a change take place in the position of the organs of sound; let, for instance, the lips be closed, or the tongue be applied to the front part of the mouth: in that case the vowel sound is cut short. It undergoes a change. It terminates in a sound that is different, according to the state of those organs whereof the position has been changed. If, on the vowel in question, the lips be closed, there then arises an imperfect sound ofborp. If on the other hand, the tongue be applied to the front teeth, or to the forepart of the palate, the sound is one (more or less imperfect) oftord. This fact illustrates the difference between the vowels and the consonants. It may be verifiedby pronouncing theainfate,eeinfeet,ooinbook,oinnote, &c.
It is a further condition in the formation of a vowel sound, that the passage of the breath be uninterrupted. In the sound of thel'inlo(isolated from its vowel) the sound is as continuous as it is with theainfate. Between, however, the consonantland the vowelathere is this difference: witha, the passage of the breath is uninterrupted; withl, the tongue is applied to the palate, breaking or arresting the passage of the breath.
§ 108. The primary division of our articulate sounds is into vowels and consonants. The latter are again divided into liquids (l,m,n,r) and mutes (p,b,f,v,t,d,k,g,s,z, &c.).
§ 109.Sharp and flat.—Take the sounds ofp,f,t,k,s. Isolate them from their vowels, and pronounce them. The sound is the sound of a whisper.
Letb,v,d,g,z, be similarly treated. The sound is no whisper, but one at the natural tone of our voice.
Nowp,f,t,k,s(with some others that will be brought forward anon) aresharp, whilstb,v, &c., areflat. Instead ofsharp, some sayhard, and instead offlat, some saysoft. The termssonantandsurdare, in a scientific point of view, the least exceptionable. They have, however, the disadvantage of being pedantic. Thetenuesof the classics (as far as they go) are sharp, themediæflat.
§ 110.Continuous and explosive.—Isolate the sounds ofb,p,t,d,k,g. Pronounce them. You have no power of prolonging the sounds, or of resting upon them. They escape with the breath, and they escape at once.
It is not so withf,v,sh,zh. Here the breath is transmitted by degrees, and the sound can be drawn out and prolonged for an indefinite space of time. Nowb,p,t, &c., are explosive,f,v, &c., continuous.
§ 111. Concerning the vowels, we may predicatea) that they are all continuous,b) that they are all flat.
Concerning the liquids, we may predicatea) that they are all continuous,b) that they are all flat.
Concerning the mutes, we may predicatea) that one half of them is flat, and the other half sharp, andb) that some are continuous, and that others are explosive.
§ 112.—The letterhis noarticulatesound, but only a breathing.
SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
§ 113.—The attention of the reader is now directed to the followingforeignvowel sounds.
1. Theé fermé, of the French.—This is a sound allied to, but different from, theainfate, and theeeinfeet. It is intermediate to the two.
2. Theuof the French,üof the Germans,yof the Danes.—This sound is intermediate to theeeinfeet, and theooinbook.
3. Theo chiuso, of the Italians.—Intermediate to theoinnote, and theooinbook.
For these sounds we have the following sequences:ainfate,é fermé,eeinfeet,üinübel(German),ooinbook,o chiuso,oinnote. And this is the true order of alliance among the vowels;ainfate, andoinnote, being the extremes; the other sounds being transitional or intermediate. As the English orthography is at once singular and faulty, it exhibits the relationship but imperfectly.
§ 114.The system of the mutes.—Preliminary to the consideration of the system of the mutes, let it be observed:—
1. that thethinthinis a simple single sound, different from thethinthine, and that it may be expressed by the signþ.2. That thethinthineis a simple single sound, differentfrom thethinthin, and that it may be expressed by the signð.3. That theshinshineis a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the signσ[42](Greekσῖγμα).4. That thezinazure,glazier(Frenchj) is a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the signζ[42](Greekζῆτα).5. That in the Laplandic, and possibly in many other languages, there are two peculiar sounds, different from any in English, German, and French, &c., and that they may respectively be expressed by the signκand the signγ[42](Greekκάππαandγάμμα).
1. that thethinthinis a simple single sound, different from thethinthine, and that it may be expressed by the signþ.
2. That thethinthineis a simple single sound, differentfrom thethinthin, and that it may be expressed by the signð.
3. That theshinshineis a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the signσ[42](Greekσῖγμα).
4. That thezinazure,glazier(Frenchj) is a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the signζ[42](Greekζῆτα).
5. That in the Laplandic, and possibly in many other languages, there are two peculiar sounds, different from any in English, German, and French, &c., and that they may respectively be expressed by the signκand the signγ[42](Greekκάππαandγάμμα).
§ 115. With these preliminary notices we may exhibit the system of the sixteen mutes; having previously determined the meaning of two fresh terms, and bearing in mind what was said concerning the wordssharpandflat,continuousandexplosive.
Lene and aspirate.—From the sound ofpinpat, the sound offinfatdiffers in a certain degree. This difference is not owing to a difference in their sharpness or flatness. Each is sharp. Neither is it owing to a difference in their continuity or explosiveness; althoughfis continuous, whilstpis explosive. This we may ascertain by considering the position ofs. The sound ofsiscontinuous; yets, in respect to the difference under consideration, is classed not withfthe continuous sound but withpthe explosive one. This difference, which has yet to be properly elucidated, is expressed by a particular term; andpis calledlene,fis calledaspirate.
Asfis topso isvtob.Asvis tobso isþtot.Asþis totso isðtod.Asðis todso isκtok.Asκis tokso isγtog.Asγis togso isσtos.Asσis tosso isζtoz.
Asfis topso isvtob.Asvis tobso isþtot.Asþis totso isðtod.Asðis todso isκtok.Asκis tokso isγtog.Asγis togso isσtos.Asσis tosso isζtoz.
Asfis topso isvtob.
Asvis tobso isþtot.
Asþis totso isðtod.
Asðis todso isκtok.
Asκis tokso isγtog.
Asγis togso isσtos.
Asσis tosso isζtoz.
Hencep,b,t,d,k,g,s,z, arelene;f,v,þ,ð,κ,γ,σ,ζ, areaspirate. Alsop,f,t,þ,k,κ,s,σ, aresharp, whilstb,v,d,ð,g,γ,z,ζ, areflat; so that there is a double series of relationship capable of being expressed as follows:—
All the so-called aspirates are continuous; and, with the exception ofsandz, all the lenes are explosive.
§ 116. I believe that in the fact of each mute appearing in a four-fold form (i.e., sharp, or flat, lene, or aspirate), lies the essential character of the mutes as opposed to the liquids.
§ 117.Yandw.—These sounds, respectively intermediate toγandi(theeeinfeet), and tovandu(ooinbook), form a transition from the vowels to the consonants.
§ 118. The French wordroi, and the English wordsoil,house, are specimens of a fresh class of articulations;viz., ofcompound vowelsounds or diphthongs. The diphthongoiis the vowelo+ thesemivowely. The diphthongal sound inroiis the vowelo+ the semivowelw. Inroithe semivowel element precedes, inoilit follows.
§ 119. The words quoted indicate the nature of the diphthongal system.
1. Diphthongs with the semivowelw,a)preceding, as in the French wordroi,b)following, as in the English wordnew.
2. Diphthongs with the semivowely,a)preceding, as is common in the languages of the Lithuanic and Slavonic stocks,b)following, as in the wordoil.
3. Triphthongs with a semivowel bothprecedingandfollowing.
The diphthongs in English are four;owas inhouse,ewas innew,oias inoil,ias inbite,fight.
§ 120.Chest,jest.—Here we havecompound consonantalsounds. Thechinchest=t+sh; thejinjest=d+zh. I believe that in these combinations one or both the elements,viz.,tandsh,dandzh, are modified; but I am unable to state the exact nature of this modification.
§ 121.Ng.—The sound of thenginsing,king,throng, when at the end of a word, or ofsinger,ringing, &c., in the middle of a word, is not the natural sound of the combinationnandg, each letter retaining its natural power and sound; but a simple single sound, for which the combinationngis a conventional mode of expression.
§ 122. Compared withainfate, and theoinnote,ainfather, and theawinbawl, arebroad; the vowels ofnoteandfatebeingslender.
§ 123. Infat, the vowel is, according to common parlance,short; infate, it islong. Here we have the introduction of two fresh terms. For the wordslongandshort, I substituteindependentanddependent. If from the wordfateI separate the final consonantal sound, the syllablefaremains. In this syllable theahas precisely the sound that it had before. It remains unaltered. The removal of the consonant has in nowise modified its sound or power. It is not so, however, with the vowel in the wordfat. If from this I remove the consonant following, and so leave theaat the end of the syllable, instead of in the middle, I must do one of two things: I must sound it either as theainfate, or else as theainfather. Its (so-called) short sound it cannot retain, unless it be supported by a consonant following. For this reason it isdependent. The same is the case with all the so-called short sounds,viz., theeinbed,iinfit,uinbull,oinnot,uinbut.
§ 124. It is not every vowel that is susceptible of every modification.I(ee) andu(oo) are incapable of becomingbroad. Theeinbed, although both broad and slender, is incapable of becomingindependent. For theuinbut, and for theöof certain foreign languages, I have no satisfactory systematic position.
§ 125.Vowel System.
From these the semivowelswandymake a transition to the consonantsvand the so-called aspirate ofg, respectively.
§ 126.System of Consonants.
OF CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.
§ 127. Certain combinations of articulate sounds are incapable of being pronounced. The following rule is one that, in the forthcoming pages, will frequently be referred to.Two (or more)mutes, of different degrees of sharpness and flatness, are incapable of coming together in the same syllable.For instance,b,v,d,g,z, &c., being flat, andp,f,t,k,s, &c., being sharp, such combinations asabt,avt,apd,afd,agt,akd,atz,ads, &c., are unpronounceable.Spelt, indeed, they may be; but all attempts atpronunciationend in achangeof the combination. In this case either the flat letter is really changed to its sharp equivalent (btop,dtot, &c.) orvice versâ(ptob,ttod). The combinationsabtandagt, to be pronounced, must become eitheraptorabd, or elseaktoragd.
The wordmutesin the third sentence of this section must be dwelt on. It is only with themutesthat there is an impossibility of pronouncing the heterogeneous combinations above-mentioned. The liquids and the vowels are flat; but the liquids and vowels, although flat, may be followed by a sharp consonant. If this were not the case, the combinationsap,at,alp,alt, &c., would be unpronounceable.
The semivowels, also, although flat, admit of being followed by a sharp consonant.
§ 128.Unstable combinations.—That certain sounds in combination with others have a tendency to undergo farther changes, may be collected from the observation of our own language, as we find it spoken by those around us, or by ourselves. The diphthongewis a sample of what may be called an unsteady orunstablecombination. There is a natural tendency to change it either intooooryoo; perhaps also intoyew. Hencenewis sometimes soundednoo, sometimesnyoo, and sometimesnyew.
§ 129.Effect of the semivowelyon certain letters when they precede it.—Taken by itself the semivowely, followed by a vowel (ya,yee,yo,you, &c.), forms a stable combination. Not so, however, if it be preceded by a consonant, of the seriestors, astya,tyo;dya,dyo;sya,syo. There then arises an unstable combination.Syaandsyowe pronounce asshaandsho;tyaandtyowe pronounce aschaandja(i.e.,tsh,dzh). This we may verify from our pronunciation of words likesure,picture,verdure(shoor,pictshoor,verdzhoor), having previously remarked that theuin those words is not sounded asoobut asyoo. The effect of the semivowely, taken with the instability of the combinationew, accounts for the tendency to pronouncedewas if writtenjew.
§ 130.Double consonants rare.—It cannot be too clearly understood that in words likepitted,stabbing,massy, &c., there is no real reduplication of the sounds oft,b, ands, respectively. Between the wordspitted(as with the small-pox) andpitied(as being an object of pity) there is a difference in spelling only. In speech the words are identical.The reduplication of the consonant is, in English and the generality of languages, aconventional mode of expressing in writing the shortness or dependence, of the vowel preceding.
§ 131. Real reduplications of consonants,i.e., reduplications of theirsound, are, in all languages, extremely rare. In English they occur only under one condition. Incompoundandderivedwords, where the original rootends, and the superadded affixbegins, with the same letter, there is a reduplication of the sound and not otherwise. In the wordsoulless, thelis doubled to the ear as well as to the eye; and it is a false pronunciation to call itsouless(soless). In the "Deformed Transformed" it is made to rhyme withno less, improperly:—