In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs to be, is a point of syntax.
§ 201. The plural formchildren(child-er-en) requires particular notice.
In the first place it is a double plural; the-enbeing the-eninoxen, whilst the simpler formchild-eroccurs in the old English, and in certain provincial dialects.
Now, what is the-erinchild-er?
In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than that in-r; asgeisl-ar=flashes,tung-ur=tongues, &c. Nevertheless, it is not the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question.
Besides the wordchilder, we collect from the Old High German the following forms in-r:—
and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all beingof the neuter gender.
Now, the theory respecting this form which is propounded by Grimm is as follows:—
1. The-rrepresents an earlier-s.
2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number.
3. In this form it appears in the Mœso-Gothic:ag-is=fear(whenceague=shivering),hat-is=hate,riqv-is=smoke(reek). In none of these words is the-sradical, and in none is it limited to the singular number.
To these doctrines, it should be added, that the reason why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in thecollectivenature of the words in which it occurs:Husir=a collection of houses,eiger=a collection of eggs,eggeryoreyry. In words likeyeoman-r-yandJew-r-y, the-rhas, probably, the same origin, and iscollective.
In Wicliffe we find the formlamb-r-en, which is tolambaschildrenis tochild.
§ 202.The form in -en.—In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural number is more common than-n:tungan, tongues;steorran, stars. Of this termination we have evident remains in the wordsoxen,hosen,shoon,eyne, words more or less antiquated. This, perhaps, isnotrue plural. Inwelk-in=the clouds, the original singular form is lost.
§ 203.Men,feet,teeth,mice,lice,geese.—In these we have some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a certainty, true plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the so-calledweakandstrongtenses of verbs;viz., one series of plurals formed by a change of the vowel, and another by the addition of the sibilant. The wordkye, used in Scotland forcows, is of the same class. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that of the present English.
§ 204.Brethren.—Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the vowel. 2. The addition of-en. Mr. Guest quotes the formsbrethreandbrothrefrom the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural.
Peasen=pulse.—Aschildrenis a double form of onesort (r+en), so ispeasena double form of another (s+en);pea,pea-s,pea-s-en. Wallis speaks to thesingularpower of the form in-s;—"Dicunt nonnullia pease, pluraliterpeasen; at melius, singularitera pea, pluraliterpease."—P. 77. He might have added, that, theoretically,peasewas the proper singular form; as shown by the Latinpis-um.
Pullen= poultry.
Lussurioso.—What? three-and-twenty years in law!Vendice.—I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all aboutpullenand pigs.—"Revenger's Tragedy," iv. 1.
Lussurioso.—What? three-and-twenty years in law!
Vendice.—I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all aboutpullenand pigs.—"Revenger's Tragedy," iv. 1.
If this were a plural form, it would be a very anomalous one. The-en, however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the-esinrich-es(richesse.) The proper form is in-ainor-eyn.
A false theefe,That came like a false fox, mypullainto kill and mischeefe."Gammer Gurton's Needle," v. 2.
A false theefe,That came like a false fox, mypullainto kill and mischeefe."Gammer Gurton's Needle," v. 2.
A false theefe,
That came like a false fox, mypullainto kill and mischeefe.
"Gammer Gurton's Needle," v. 2.
Chickens.—A third variety of the double inflection (en+s), with the additional peculiarity of the formchickenbeing used, at present, almost exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, probably, the plural ofchick. So Wallis considered it:—"At olim etiam per-envel-ynformabant pluralia; quorum pauca admodum adhuc retinemus. Ut,an ox,a chick, pluralituroxen,chicken(sunt qui dicunt in singularichicken, et in pluralichickens)."Chick,chick-en,chick-en-s.
Fern.—According to Wallis the-ninfer-nis the-eninoxen, in other words a plural termination:—"Afere(filix) pluraliterfern(verum nunc plerumquefernutroque numero dicitur, sed et in pluraliferns); namfereetferesprope obsoleta sunt." Subject to this view, the wordfer-n-swould exhibit the same phenomenon as the wordchicken-s. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A reason for believing the-nto be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon formfearn, and the Old High German,varam.
Women.—Pronouncedwimmen, as opposed to the singular formwoomman. Probably an instance of accommodation.
Houses.—Pronouncedhouz-ez. The same peculiarity in the case ofsandz, as occurs betweenfandvin words likelife,lives, &c.
Paths,youths.—Pronouncedpadhz,yoodhz. The same peculiarity in the case ofþandð, as occurs betweensandzin the wordshouse,houses. "Finita infplerumque alleviantur in plurali numero, substituendov; utwife,wives, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam insetth, quamvis retento charactere, inhouse,cloth,path."
§ 205. The words soundedhouz-ez,padh-z,yoodh-z, taken along with the extract from Wallis, lead us to an important class of words.—§199b.
§ 206. Certain words ending inf, likeloaf,wife, &c.
The regular plural of these would beloafs,wifes, pronouncedloafce,wifce, &c.
But this is not the case. The sound added to the finalfis the sound ofz, not that ofs.
And the plurals are soundedloavz,wivz(wivez,weivz).
Furthermore, the sound of the finalfis changed to that ofv; in other words, thefirstof the two letters is accommodated to the second, in violation to the rule of §199b.
Can this be explained? Perhaps it can. In the Swedish language the letterfhas the sound ofv; so thatstafis soundedstav.
Again, in the allied languages the words in questionend in theflat(not thesharp) mute,—weib,laub,calb,halb,stab, &c. =wife,leaf,calf,half,staff.
This makes it probable that, originally, thefinwife,loaf, &c. was sounded asv; so that the singular forms werewive,loav.
If so, theplural isperfectly normal; it being thesingularform on which the irregularity lies.
ON THE CASES.
§ 207. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases, depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the terma house of a father, the idea expressed by the wordsof a father, is an idea of relation between them and the wordhouse. This idea is an idea of property or possession. The relation between the wordsfatherandhousemay be called thepossessiverelation. This relation, or connexion, between the two words, is expressed by the prepositionof.
In the terma father's house, the idea is, there or thereabouts, the same; the relation or connexion between the two words being the same. The expression, however, differs. Ina father's housethe relation, or connexion, is expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form,fatherbecomingfather's.
He gave the house to a father.—Here the wordsfatherandhousestand in another sort of relationship, the relationship being expressed by the prepositionto. The ideato a fatherdiffers from the ideaof a father, in being expressed in one way only;viz., by the preposition. There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done withfather's.
The father taught the child.—Here there is neither preposition nor change of form. The connexion betweenthe wordsfatherandchildis expressed by the arrangement only.
§ 208. Now if the relation alone between two words constitute a case, the wordsa child,to a father,of a father, andfather's, are all equally cases; of which one may be called the accusative, another the dative, a third the genitive, and so on.
Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not constitute a case. Perhaps there is a necessity of either the addition of a preposition (as inof a father), or of a change in form (as infather's). In this case (althoughchildbe not so)father's,of a father, andto a father, are all equally cases.
Now it has long been remarked, that if the use of a preposition constitute a case, there must be as many cases in a language as there are prepositions, and that "above a man,beneath a man,beyond a man,round about a man,within a man,without a man, shall be cases as well asof a man,to a man, andwith a man."
§ 209. For etymological purposes, therefore, it is necessary to limit the meaning of the word case; and, as a sort of definition, it may be laid down thatwhere there is no change of form there is no case. With this remark, the English language may be compared with the Latin.
Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in English there are buttwo, there are (as far, at least, as the wordpaterandfatherare concerned) three more cases in Latin than in English.
It does not, however, follow that because in the particular wordfatherwe have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two.
§ 210. Neither does it follow, that because two words may have thesame formthey are necessarily in thesame case; a remark which leads to the distinction betweena real and an accidental identity of form.
In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the wordssmið,ende, anddæg, were respectively,smiðes,endes, anddæges; whilst the nominative plurals were,smiðas,endas, anddægas.
But when a change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in each word was ejected, the result was, that the forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and the same; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident.
This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England, identical; the apostrophe infather'sbeing a mere matter of orthography. However, there wasoncea difference. This modifies the previous statement, which may now stand thus:—for a change of case there must be a change of form existing or presumed.
§ 211.The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they spread.—In the English language there is undoubtedly anominativecase. This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (father,good,he) equally. It is found in both numbers.
§ 212.Accusative.—Some call this theobjectivecase. The wordshimandthem(whatever they may have beenoriginally) are now (to a certain extent) true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only.Thee, me, us, andyouare, to a certain extent, true accusatives. These are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2. They are distinguished from the formsI,my, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only.
One word in the present English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of the term,viz., the wordtwain=two. The-nintwai-nis the-ninhine=himandhwone=whom. This we see from the following inflection:—
Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the original character oftwégenbeing accusative. The-nis by no means radical; besides which, itisthe sign of an accusative case, and isnotthe sign of a nominative.
§ 213.Dative.—In the antiquated wordwhilom(at times), we have a remnant of the old dative in-m. Thesenseof the word is abverbial; its form, however, is that of a dative case.
§ 214.Genitive.—Some call this the possessive case. It is found in substantives and pronouns (father's, his), but not in adjectives. It is formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant (father, fathers; buck, bucks); or if the word end in-s, by that of-es(boxes,judges, &c.) It is found in both numbers:the men's hearts;the children's bread. In the plural number, however, it is rare; so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends ins(as it almost always does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words asfatherses,foxeses,princeses, &c.
§ 215.Instrumental.—The following extracts from Rask's "Anglo-Saxon Grammar," teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word speltt-h-e, or of the so-called definite article—"The demonstrative pronouns areþæt, se, seó(id, is, ea), which are also used for the article; andþis, þes, þeós(hoc, hic, hæc). They are thus declined:—
"The indeclinableþeis often used instead ofþæt, se, seó, in all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times, as an article. Hence the English articlethe.
"þýseems justly to be received as a properablativus instrumenti, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as,mid þý áþe=with that oath("Inæ Leges," 53). And in the same place in the dative,on þǽm áþe=in that oath."—Pp. 56, 57.
Hence thethethat has originated out of the Anglo-Saxonþýis one word; whilst thethethat has originatedout of the Anglo-Saxonþe, another. The latter is the common article: the former thethein expressions likeall the more,all the better=more by all that,better by all that, and the Latin phraseseo majus,eo melius.
Thatwhyis in the same case with the instrumentalthe( =þý) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflexion of the interrogative pronoun:—
Hence, then, intheandwhywe have instrumental ablatives, or, simply,instrumentals.
§ 216.The determination of cases.—How do we determine cases? In other words, why do we callhimandthemaccusatives rather than datives or genitives? By one of two means;viz., either by thesenseor theform.
Suppose that in the English language there were ten thousand dative cases and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in-m, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident that, whatever might be the meaning of the wordshimandthemtheir form would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusatives, and the form dative, we should doubt which test to take.
My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by theformof the wordalone; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word should be said to be in the dative case. Now the wordshimandthem(to which we may addwhom) were once dative cases;[48]-min Anglo-Saxon being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the Anglo-Saxons their sense coincided with their form. At present they are dative forms with an accusative meaning. Still, as the wordgivetakes after it a dative case, we have, even now, in the sentence,give it him,give it them, remnants of the old dative sense. To saygive it to him,to them, is unnecessary and pedantic: neither do I object to the expression,whom shall I give it?If ever theformaltest become generally recognised and consistently adhered to,him,them, andwhomwill be called datives with a latitude of meaning; and then the only true and unequivocal accusatives in the English language will be the formsyou,thee,us,me, andtwain.
§ 217.Analysis of cases.—In the wordchildren'swe are enabled to separate the word into three parts. 1. The rootchild. 2. The plural signsranden. 3. The sign of the genitive case,s. In this case the word is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought always to be attempted.
§ 218.The true nature of the genitive form in 's.—It is a common notion that the genitive formfather'sis contracted fromfather his. The expression in our liturgy,for Jesus Christ his sake, which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest errors in etymology, the followingthree statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it.
1. The expression theQueen's Majestyis not capable of being reduced to theQueen his Majesty.
2. In the formhisitself, theshas precisely the power that it has infather's, &c. Nowhiscannot be said to arise out ofhe+his.
3. In the Slavonic, Lithuanic, and classical tongues, the genitive ends ins, just as it does in English; so that even if the wordsfather hiswould account for the English wordfather's, it would not account for the Sanskrit genitivepad-as, of a foot; the Zenddughdhar-s, of a daughter; the Lithuanicdugter-s; the Greekὀδόντ-ος; the Latindent-is, &c.
THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
§ 219.I,we,us,me,thou,ye.—These constitute the true personal pronouns. Fromhe,she, andit, they differ in being destitute of gender.
These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only.
§ 220. The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exceptionable.Iandme,thouandye, stand in no etymological relations to each other. The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective.Ihas nooblique, andmeno nominative case. And so it is with the rest.
§ 221.You.—As far as the practice of the present mode of speech is concerned, the wordyouis anominativeform; since we sayyou move,you are moving,you were speaking.
Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it should not. The Anglo-Saxon form foryouwaseow, forye,ge. Neither bears any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative. Hence, it, perhaps, is more logical to say that a certain form (you), is usedeitheras a nominative or accusative, than to saythat the accusative case is used instead of a nominative. It is clear thatyoucan be used instead ofyeonly so far as it is nominative in power.
Ye.—As far as the evidence of such expressions asget on with yeis concerned, the wordyeis an accusative form. The reasons why it should or should not be treated as such are involved in the previous paragraph.
§ 222.Me.—carrying out the views just laid down, and admittingyouto be a nominative, orquasi-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to the wordme, and call it also a secondary or equivocal nominative; inasmuch as such phrases asit is me=it is Iare common.
Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No one says thatc'est moiis bad French, and thatc'est jeis good.
§ 223.Caution.—Observe, however, that the expressionit is me=it is Iwill not justify the use ofit is him,it is her=it is heandit is she.Me,ye,you, are what may be calledindifferent forms,i.e., nominative as much as accusative, and accusative as much as nominative.Himandher, on the other hand, are not indifferent. The-mand-rare respectively the signs of cases other than the nominative.
§ 224. Again: the reasons which allow the formyouto be considered as a nominative plural, on the strength of its being used forye, will not allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its being used forthou.
§ 225. In phrases likeyou are speaking, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, the courtesy consists in treatingoneperson asmore than one, and addressing him as such,rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered,you=thouis a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural:—you are speaking, notyou art speaking.
ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH.
§ 226. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin formssui,sibi,se.
Nor yet are there any equivalents to the formssuus, sua, suum: sincehisandherare the equivalents toejusandillius, and are not adjectives but genitive cases.
At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form asse, there could be no such secondary form assuus.
Such, however, is not the case.Suusmight exist in the language, and yetsebe absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued whilst the original one had become extinct.
Such is really the case with theOldFrisian. The reflective personal form, the equivalent tose, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive form, the equivalent tosuus, is found. In theModernFrisian, however, both forms are lost.
THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS,&c.
§ 227. The demonstrative pronouns are, 1.He, it. 2.She. 3.This, that. 4.The.
He,she, andit, generally looked on as personal, are here treated as demonstrative pronouns, for the following reasons.
1. The personal pronouns form an extremely natural class, if the pronouns of the two first persons be taken by themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along withhe,it, andshe.
2. The idea expressed byhe,it, andsheis naturally that of demonstrativeness. In the Latin languageis, ea, id;ille, illa, illud;hic, hæc, hoc, are demonstrative pronouns in sense, as well as in declension.
3. The plural formsthey, them, in the present English, are the plural forms of the root ofthat, a true demonstrative pronoun; so that even ifhe,she, anditcould be treated as personal pronouns,theycould not.
4. The wordshehas grown out of the Anglo-Saxonseó. Nowseówas in Anglo-Saxon the feminine form of the definite article; the definite article itself being originally a demonstrative pronoun.
§ 228. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as follows:—
She.—The Anglo-Saxon formheó, being lost to the language, is replaced by the feminine articleseó.
§ 229.Her.—This is a case, not of the presentshe, but of the Anglo-Saxonheó: so thatshemay be said to be defective in the oblique cases, andherto be defective in the nominative.
Him.—A dative form, which has replaced the Anglo-Saxonhine. When used as a dative, it was neuter as well as masculine.
His.—Originally neuter as well as masculine. Now as a neuter, replaced byits—"et quidem ipsa voxhis, ut et interrogativumwhose, nihil aliud sunt quamhee's,who's, ubisomnino idem præstat quod in aliis possessivis. Similiter autemhisprohee'seodem errore quo nonnunquambinprobeen; itemwhoseprowho'seodem errore quodone,gone,knowne,growne, &c., prodoen,goen,knowen,veldo'n,go'n,know'n,grow'n; utrobique contra analogiam linguæ; sed usu defenditur."—Wallis, c.v.
It.—Changed from the Anglo-Saxonhit, by the ejection ofh. Thetis no part of the original word, but a sign of the neuter gender, forming it regularly fromhe. The same neuter sign is preserved in the Latinidandillud.
Its.—In the course of time the nature of the neuter signt, init, the form being found in but a few words, became misunderstood. Instead of being looked on as an affix, it passed for part of the original word. Hence was formed fromitthe anomalous genitiveitssuperseding the Saxonhis. The same was the case with—
Hers.—Theris no part of the original word, but the sign of the dative case. These formations are of value in the history of cases.
§ 230.Theirs.—In the same predicament withhersandits; either the case of an adjective, or a case formed from a case.
Thanorthen, andthere.—Although now adverbs,they were once demonstrative pronouns, in a certain case and in a certain gender,viz.,thanandthenmasculine accusative and singular,therefeminine dative and singular.
§ 231. An exhibition of the Anglo-Saxon declension is the best explanation of the English. Be it observed, that the cases marked in italics are found in the present language.
I.
Se, seó( =she).
Of this word we meet two forms only, both of the singular number, and both in the nominative case;viz., masc.,se; fem.seó( = the). The neuter gender and the other cases of the article were taken from the pronounþæt( = that).
II.
III.
IV.
þe(the)—Undeclined, and used for all cases and genders.
§ 232.These.—Here observe—
1st. That thesis no inflection, but a radical part of the word, like thesingeese.
2nd. That the Anglo-Saxon form isþás.
These facts create difficulties in respect to the wordthese. Mr. Guest's view is, perhaps, the best;viz., that the plural element of the word is the final-e, and that this-eis the old English and Anglo-Saxon adjective plural; so thatthes-eis formed fromthis, asgode( =boni) is fromgod( =bonus).
The nominative plural in the Old English adjective ended in-e; as,
In Old English MSS. this plural in-eis general. It occurs not only in adjectives and pronouns as a regular inflection, but even as a plural of the genitivehis, that word being treated as a nominative singular; so thathiseis formed fromhis, assuifromsuus, or asejimight have been formed fromejus; provided that in the Latin language this last word had been mistaken for a nominative singular. The following examples are Mr. Guest's.
1. In these lay a gret multitude ofsykemen,blinde, crokid, anddrye.—Wicliffe, Jon. v.
1. In these lay a gret multitude ofsykemen,blinde, crokid, anddrye.—Wicliffe, Jon. v.