2. In all the orders foure is non that canSo much of dalliance and faire language,He hadde ymade ful many a marriage—His tippet was ay farsed ful of knives,And pinnes for to givenfairewives.—Chau., Prol.
2. In all the orders foure is non that canSo much of dalliance and faire language,He hadde ymade ful many a marriage—His tippet was ay farsed ful of knives,And pinnes for to givenfairewives.—Chau., Prol.
2. In all the orders foure is non that can
So much of dalliance and faire language,
He hadde ymade ful many a marriage—
His tippet was ay farsed ful of knives,
And pinnes for to givenfairewives.—Chau., Prol.
3. Andalthe cuntre of Judee wente out to him, andallemen of Jerusalem.—Wicliffe, Mark i.4. He ghyueth lif toallemen, and brething, andallethingis; and made of vonalkynde of men to inhabit onalthe face of the erthe.—Wicliffe, Dedis of Apostlis, xvii.
3. Andalthe cuntre of Judee wente out to him, andallemen of Jerusalem.—Wicliffe, Mark i.
4. He ghyueth lif toallemen, and brething, andallethingis; and made of vonalkynde of men to inhabit onalthe face of the erthe.—Wicliffe, Dedis of Apostlis, xvii.
5. That fadres sone whichallethinges wrought;Andall, that wrought is with a skilful thought,The Gost that from the fader gan procede,Hath souled hem.—Chau., The Second Nonnes Tale.6. Andallewe that ben in this arayAnd makenallthis lamentation,We lostenalleour husbondes at that toun.—Chau., The Knightes Tales.
5. That fadres sone whichallethinges wrought;Andall, that wrought is with a skilful thought,The Gost that from the fader gan procede,Hath souled hem.—Chau., The Second Nonnes Tale.
5. That fadres sone whichallethinges wrought;
Andall, that wrought is with a skilful thought,
The Gost that from the fader gan procede,
Hath souled hem.—Chau., The Second Nonnes Tale.
6. Andallewe that ben in this arayAnd makenallthis lamentation,We lostenalleour husbondes at that toun.—Chau., The Knightes Tales.
6. Andallewe that ben in this aray
And makenallthis lamentation,
We lostenalleour husbondes at that toun.—Chau., The Knightes Tales.
7. Agoodman bryngeth forthgodethingsis ofgoodtresore.—Wicliffe, Matt. xii.8. So everygoodtree makethgodefruytis, but an yvel tree maketh yvel fruytes. Agoodtree may not mak yvel fruytis, neither an yvel tree may makegodefruytis. Every tree that maketh notgoodfruyt schal be cut down.—Wicliffe, Matt. vii.9. Men loveden more darknessis than light for her werkes werenyvele, for ech man that doethyvel, hateth the light.—Wicliffe, John iii.10. Andothereseedis felden among thornes wexen up and strangliden hem, andothereseedis felden into good lond and gaven fruyt, sum an hundred fold,anothersixty fold, anotherthritty fold, &c.—Wicliffe, Matt. xiii.11. Yet the while he spake to the puple lohismother andhisebrethren stonden withoute forth.—Wicliffe, Mat. xii.12. Andhisedisciplis camen and takenhisbody.—Wicliffe, Matt., xiv.
7. Agoodman bryngeth forthgodethingsis ofgoodtresore.—Wicliffe, Matt. xii.
8. So everygoodtree makethgodefruytis, but an yvel tree maketh yvel fruytes. Agoodtree may not mak yvel fruytis, neither an yvel tree may makegodefruytis. Every tree that maketh notgoodfruyt schal be cut down.—Wicliffe, Matt. vii.
9. Men loveden more darknessis than light for her werkes werenyvele, for ech man that doethyvel, hateth the light.—Wicliffe, John iii.
10. Andothereseedis felden among thornes wexen up and strangliden hem, andothereseedis felden into good lond and gaven fruyt, sum an hundred fold,anothersixty fold, anotherthritty fold, &c.—Wicliffe, Matt. xiii.
11. Yet the while he spake to the puple lohismother andhisebrethren stonden withoute forth.—Wicliffe, Mat. xii.
12. Andhisedisciplis camen and takenhisbody.—Wicliffe, Matt., xiv.
13. WhenthiseBretons tuo were fled out ofthislondIne toke his feaute of alle, &c.—Rob Brunne, p. 3.
13. WhenthiseBretons tuo were fled out ofthislondIne toke his feaute of alle, &c.—Rob Brunne, p. 3.
13. WhenthiseBretons tuo were fled out ofthislond
Ine toke his feaute of alle, &c.—Rob Brunne, p. 3.
14.Thisis thilk disciple that bereth witnessyng ofthesethingis, and wroot them.—Wicliffe, John xxi.15. Seye to us in what powers thou doistthesethingis, and who is he that gaf to theethispower.—Wicliffe, Luke xx.
14.Thisis thilk disciple that bereth witnessyng ofthesethingis, and wroot them.—Wicliffe, John xxi.
15. Seye to us in what powers thou doistthesethingis, and who is he that gaf to theethispower.—Wicliffe, Luke xx.
§ 233.Those.—Perhaps the Anglo-Saxonþáwithsadded. Perhaps theþásfromþiswith its power altered. Rask, in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar, writes "fromþiswe find, in the plural,þæsforþás. From which afterwards, with a distinction in signification,theseandthose." The English formtheyis illustrated by the Anglo-Saxon formðage=þá. The whole doctrine of the forms in question has yet to assume a satisfactory shape.
The present declension of the demonstrative pronouns is as follows:—
A.
She.—Defective in the oblique cases.
B.
He.
C.
I.
That.
II.
Singular, This.Plural, These.
III.
Those.
IV.
The—Undeclined.
THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS.
§ 234. In the relative and interrogative pronouns,who,what,whom,whose, we have, expressed by a change of form, a neuter gender,what; a dative casewhom; and a genitive case,whose: the true power of thes(viz., as the sign of a case) being obscured by the orthographical addition of theemute.
To these may be added, 1. the adverbwhy, originally the ablative formhvi(quo modo?quâ viâ?). 2. The adverbwhere, a feminine dative, likethere. 3.When, a masculine accusative (in Anglo-Saxonhwæne), and analogous tothen.
The two sounds in the Danish wordshvi,hvad, &c., and the two sounds in the English,what,when(Anglo-Saxon,hwæt,hwæne) account for the formswhyandhow. In the first thewalone, in the second thehalone, is sounded. The Danish forwhyishvi, pronouncedvi.
§ 235. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply to a few of the remaining pronouns.
Same.—Wanting in Anglo-Saxon, where it was replaced by the wordylca,ylce. Probably derived from the Norse.
Self.—Inmyself,thyself,herself,ourselves,yourselves,a substantive (or with a substantival power), and preceded by a genitive case. Inhimselfandthemselvesan adjective (or with an adjectival power), and preceded by an accusative case.Itselfis equivocal, since we cannot say whether its elements areitandself, oritsandself; theshaving been dropped in utterance. It is very evident that either the form likehimself, or the form likethyself, is exceptionable; in other words, that the use of the word is inconsistent. As this inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxons, the history of the word gives us no elucidation. In favour of the forms likemyself(selfbeing a substantive), are the following facts:—
1. The plural wordselves, a substantival, and not an adjectival form.
2. The Middle High German phrasesmîn lîp,dîn lîp,my body,thy body, equivalent in sense tomyself,thyself.
3. The circumstance that ifselfbe dealt with as a substantive, such phrases asmy own self,his own great self, &c., can be used; whereby the language is a gainer.
"Voxself, pluraliterselves, quamvis etiam pronomen a quibusdam censeatur (quoniam ut plurimum per Latinumipseredditur), est tamen plane nomen substantivum, cui quidem vix aliquod apud Latinos substantivum respondet; proxime tamen accedet voxpersonavelpropria personautmy self,thy self,our selves,your selves, &c. (ego ipse,tu ipse,nos ipsi,vos ipsi, &c.), ad verbummea persona,tua persona, &c. Fateor tamenhimself,itself,themselves, vulgo dici prohis-self,its-self,theirselves; at (interpositoown)his own self, &c.,ipsius propria persona, &c."—Wallis. c. vii.
4. The fact that many persons actually sayhisselfandtheirselves.
Whit.—As in the phrasenot a whit. This enters in the compound pronounsaughtandnaught.
One.—As in the phraseone does so and so. From the Frenchon. Observe that this is from the Latinhomo, in Old Frenchhom,om. In the Germanic tonguesmanis used in the same sense:man sagt=one says=on dit.One, likeselfandother, is so far a substantive, that it is inflected. Gen. sing,one's own self: plural,my wife and little ones are well.
Derived pronouns.—Any, in Anglo-Saxon,ænig. In Old High German we haveeinîc=any, andeinac=single. In Anglo-Saxonânegameanssingle. In Middle High Germaneinecis always single. In New High Germaneinigmeans, 1.a certain person(quidam), 2.agreeing;einzig, meaningsingle. In Dutchênechhas both meanings. This indicates the wordán,one, as the root of the word in question.
Compound pronouns.—Which, as has been already stated more than once, is most incorrectly called the neuter ofwho. Instead of being a neuter, it is a compound word. The adjectiveleiks,like, is preserved in the Mœso-Gothic wordsgaleiksandmissaleiks. In Old High German the form islih, in Anglo-Saxonlic. Hence we have Mœso-Gothichvêleiks; Old High German,huëlih; Anglo-Saxon,huilicandhvilc; Old Frisian,hwelik; Danish,hvilk-en; German,welch; Scotch,whilk; English,which. The same is the case with—
1.Such.—Mœso-Gothic,svaleiks; Old High German,sôlîh; Old Saxon,sulîc; Anglo-Saxon,svilc; German,solch; English,such. Rask's derivation of the Anglo-Saxonswilcfromswa-ylc, is exceptionable.
2.Thilk.—An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, asthick,thuck,theck, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt, Ritson, and Weber, fromsë ylca, is foundin the following forms: Mœso-Gothic,þéleiks; Norse,þvilikr.
3.Ilk.—Found in the Scotch, and always preceded by the article;the ilk, orthat ilk, meaningthe same. In Anglo-Saxon this word isycla, preceded also by the articlese ylca,seó ylce,þæt ylce. In English, as seen above, the word is replaced bysame. In no other Gothic dialect does it occur. According to Grimm, this is no simple word, but a compound one, of which some suchwordaseiis the first, andlîcthe second element.
Aught.—In Mœso-Gothic is found the particle,aiv,ever, but only in negative propositions;ni(not) preceding it. Its Old High German form isêo,io; in Middle High German,ie; in New High German,je; in Old Saxon,io; in Anglo-Saxon,â; in Norse,æ. Combined with this particle the wordwhit(thing) gives the following forms: Old High German,êowiht; Anglo-Saxon,âviht; Old Frisian,âwet; Englishaught. The wordnaughtisaughtpreceded by the negative particle.
Each.—The particlegienters, like the particle in the composition of pronouns. Old High German,êogalîher, every one;êocalih, all; Middle High German,iegelich; New High German,jeglich; Anglo-Saxon,ælc; English,each; thelbeing dropped, as inwhichandsuch.Ælc, as the original of the Englisheachand the Scotchilka,[51]must by no means be confounded with the wordylce,the same.
Everyin Old English,everich,everech,everilk one, isælc, preceded by the particleever. (Grimm. D. G. iii. 54.)
Either.—Old High German,êogahuëdar; Middle High German,iegewëder; Anglo-Saxon,æghväðer,ægðer; Old Frisian,eider.
Neither.—The same with the negative article prefixed.Neither:either::naught:aught.
§ 236.Other,whether.—These words, although derived forms, being simpler than some that have preceded, might fairly have been dealt with before. They make, however, a transition from the present to the succeeding chapter, and so find a place here.
A.First, it may be stated of them that the idea which they express is not that ofone out of many, but that ofone out of two.
1. In Sanscrit there are two forms,a)kataras, the same word aswhether, meaningwhich out of two;b)katamas, which out of many. So alsoêkateras, one out of two;êkatamas, one out of many. In Greek the Ionic formκότερος (πότερος); in Latin,uter,neuter,alter; and in Mœso-Gothic,hvathar, have the same form and the same meaning.
2. In the Scandinavian language the wordanden, Dano-Saxon,annar, Iceland. corresponds to the English wordsecond, and not the Germanzweite: e.g.,Karl den Anden, Charles the Second. Nowantharis the older form ofother.
B.Secondly, it may be stated of them, that the termination-eris the same termination that we find in the comparative degree.
1. The idea expressed by the comparative degree is the comparison, not ofmanybut oftwothings;this is better than that.
2. In all the Indo-European languages where there are pronouns in-ter, there is also a comparative degree in-ter. See next chapter.
3. As the Sanscrit formkatarascorresponds with the comparative degree, where there is the comparison oftwo things with each other; so the wordkatamasis asuperlative form; and in the superlative degree lies the comparison ofmanythings with each other.
Henceotherandwhether(to which may be addedeitherandneither) are pronouns with the comparative form.
Otherhas the additional peculiarity of possessing the plural formothers. Hence, likeself, it is, in the strictest sense, a substantival pronoun.
ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER.
§ 237. Preparatory to the consideration of the degrees of comparison, it is necessary to make some remarks upon a certain class of words, which, with considerable differences of signification, all agree in one fact,viz., all terminate in-er, ort-er.
1. Certain pronouns, asei-th-er,n-ei-th-er,whe-th-er, oro-th-er.
2. Certain prepositions and adverbs, asov-er,und-er,af-t-er.
3. Certain adjectives, with the form of the comparative, but the power of the positive degree; asupp-er,und-er,inn-er,out-er,hind-er.
4. All adjectives of the comparative degree; aswis-er,strong-er,bett-er, &c.
Now what is the idea common to all these words, expressed by the sign-er, and connecting the four divisions into one class? It is not the mere idea of comparison; although it is the comparative degree, to the expression of which the affix in question is more particularly applied. Bopp, who has best generalised the view of these forms, considers the fundamental idea to be that ofduality. In the comparative degree we have a relation between one object andsomeother object like it, or a relation between two single elements of comparison:A is wiser than B. In the superlative degree we have a relation between oneobject andallothers like it, or a relation between one single and one complex element of comparison:A is wiser than B, C, D, &c.
"As in comparatives a relation betweentwo, and in superlatives a relation betweenmany, lies at the bottom, it is natural that their suffixes should be transferred to other words, whose chief notion is individualised through that of duality or plurality."—"Vergleichende Grammatik," § 292, Eastwick's and Wilson's Translation.
The most important proofs of the view adduced by Bopp are,—
1. The Sanskrit formkataras=which oftwopersons?is a comparative form; whilstkatamas=which of more than two persons?a superlative form. Similarly,êkataras=one of two persons;êkatamas=one of more than two persons.
2. The Greek forms,ἑκάτερος=each(or either)out of two persons; whilstἕκαστος=each or any out of more than two persons.
§ 238. The more important of the specific modifications of the general idea involved in the comparison of two objects are,—
1. Contrariety: as ininner,outer,under,upper,over. In Latin the words forrightandleftend in-er,—dexter,sinister.
2. Choice in the way of an alternative; aseither,neither,whether,other.
§ 239.Either,neither,other,whether.—It has just been stated that the general fundamental idea common to all these forms is that ofchoice between one of two objects in the way of an alternative. Thus far the termination-erineither, &c., is the termination-erin the true comparatives,brav-er,wis-er, &c.Eitherandneitherare common pronouns.Other, likeone, is apronoun capable of taking the plural form of a substantive (others), and also that of the genitive case (the other's money, the other's bread).Whetheris a pronoun in the almost obsolete formwhether( =which)of the two do you prefer, and a conjunction in sentences likewhether will you do this or not? The use of the formothersis recent. "They are taken out of the way as all other."—Job. "And leave their riches for other."—Psalms.
THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.
§ 240. There are four leading facts here,—
1.The older form in -s.In English we say old-er, bett-er, sweet-er; in Old High German they similarly said, alt-iro, bets-iro, suats-iro; but in Mœso-Gothic the forms were ald-iza, bat-iza, sut-iza.
2.Adverbsare susceptible of comparison;e.g.—Come as soon as you can, but do not come sooner than is convenient.
3. The Anglo-Saxon comparison of the adverbs is different from that of the adjectives; there being one form in-reand-este, another in-orand-ostrespectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives: asse scearp-re sweord=the sharper sword, andse scearp-este sword=the sharpest sword. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs: as,se sweord scyrð scearp-or=the sword cuts sharper, andse sweord scyrð scearp-ost=the sword cuts sharpest.
4. In the Anglo-Saxon, the following words exhibit a change of vowel.
§ 241. Now the fourth of these facts explains the present formselderandeldest, the comparatives and superlative ofold, besides which there are the regular formsold-erandold-est; between which there is, however, a difference in meaning—elderbeing used as a substantive, and having a plural form,elders.
§ 242. The abverbial forms in-orand-ost, as compared with the adjectival in-re, and-esteexplain the formrather. This rhymes tofather; theabeing full. Nevertheless, the positive form israthermeaningquick, easy= the classical rootῥαδ-inῥάδιος. What we doquicklyandwillinglywe dopreferably. Now if the wordratherwere an adjective, the vowel of the comparative would be sounded as theainfate, as it is, however, it is abverbial, and as such is properly sounded as theainfather.
The difference between the action of the small vowel in-re, and of the full in-oreffects this difference, sinceobeing a full vowel, it has the effect of making theafull also.
§ 243. The old form in-swill be considered, after notice has been taken of what may be called—
§ 244.Excess of expression.—Of this two samples have already been given: 1. in words likesongstress; 2. in words likechildren. This may be calledexcess of expression; the feminine gender, in words likesongstress, and the plural number, in words likechildren, being expressed twice over. In the vulgarismbettererforbetter, and in the antiquated formsworserforworse, andlesserforless, we have, in the case of the comparatives, as elsewhere, an excess of expression. In the old High German we have the formsbetsërôro,mêrôro,êrërëra=better,more,ere.
§ 245.Better.—Although in the superlative formbestthere is a slight variation from the strict form of that degree, the wordbetteris perfectly regular. So far, then, from truth are the current statements that the comparison of the wordsgood, better, andbestis irregular. The inflection is not irregular, but defective. As the statement that applies togood,better, andbestapplies to many words besides, it will be well in this place, once for all, to exhibit it in full.
§ 246.Difference between a sequence in logic and a sequence in etymology.—The ideas or notions ofthou, thy, thee, are ideas between which there is a metaphysical or logical connexion. The train of such ideas may be said to form a sequence, and such a sequence may be called a logical one.
The wordsthou, thy, thee, are words between which there is aformalor anetymologicalconnexion. A train of such words may be called a sequence, and such a sequence may be called an etymological one.
In the case ofthou, thy, thee, the etymological sequence tallies with thelogicalone.
The ideas ofI,my, andmeare also in a logical sequence: but the formsI,my, andmeare not altogether in an etymological one.
In the case ofI, my, me, the etymological sequence doesnottally (or tallies imperfectly) with the logical one.
This is only another way of saying that between the wordsIandmethere is no connexion in etymology.
It is also only another way of saying, that, in the oblique cases,I, and, in the nominative case,me, aredefective.
Now the same is the case withgood, better,bad, worse, &c.Goodandbadare defective in the comparative and superlative degrees;betterandworsearedefective in the positive; whilst betweengoodandbetter,badandworse, there is a sequence in logic, but no sequence in etymology.
§ 247. To return, however, to the wordbetter; no absolute positive degree is found in any of the allied languages, and in none of the allied languages is there found any comparative form ofgood. Its root occurs in the following adverbial forms: Mœso-Gothic,bats; Old High German,pats; Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon,bet; Middle High German,baz; Middle Dutch,bat,bet.
§ 248.Worse.—This word is one of two things.
1. It is a positive form with a comparative sense; in which casesis part of the root.
2. It is a comparative degree from the positive formwor-(vair-,wir-,vyr-), in which casesis thesof the Old Mœso-Gothic inflexion preserved in this single word.
§ 249.More.—In Anglo-Saxon this ismâ; in the English of the reign of Elizabeth it ismoe; and in certain provincial dialects it ismo, at the present time.
Notwithstanding this,i.e., the form being positive, thepowerof the word has always been comparative, and meantmorerather thanmuch, ormany.
§ 250.Less.—In Anglo-Saxonlæssaandlæs. Here there is nounequivocalsign of the comparative degree; what, then, is the nature of the word? Is it a positive form with a comparative power likemoe? or is it an old comparative in-s? This is undecided. What does it come from? Grimm derives it from the Mœso-Gothic rootlasiv=weak. His doctrine is doubtful. I cannot but believe that it comes from the same root aslitt-le; where the old Frisian formlitich, shows that the-lis no essential part of the word, and the Danish formlillegetsrid of thet. Still the word is difficult; indeed it is unexplained.
§ 251.Near,nearer.—Anglo-Saxon,neah; comparative,nearre,near,nyr; superlative,nyhst,nehst. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon positive and superlative, the absence of ther. This shows that the English positivenearis the Anglo-Saxon comparativenearre, and that in the secondary comparativenearer, we have anexcess of expression. It may be, however, that therinnearis a mere point of orthography, and that it is not pronounced; since, in the English language the wordsfatherandfartherare, for the most part, pronounced alike.
§ 252.Farther.—Anglo-Saxonfeor, fyrre, fyrrest. Thethseems euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives theδinἀνδρὸς, fromἀνὴρ= man.
Further.—Confounded withfarther, although in reality from a different word,fore. Old High German,furdir; New High German,der vordere; Anglo-Saxon,fyrðre.
§ 253.Former.—A comparative formed from the superlative;formabeing such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with irregularity.
§ 254. In Mœso-Gothicspêdistsmeanslast, andspêdiza=later. Of the wordspêdiststwo views may be taken. According to one it is the positive degree with the addition ofst; according to the other, it is the comparative degree with the addition only oft. Now, Grimm and others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is formed, not directly from the positive, but indirectly through the comparative.
With the exception ofworseandless, all the English comparatives end in-r: yet no superlative ends in-rt, the form being, notwise, wiser, wisert, butwise, wiser, wisest. This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the comparative forms ins;since it is from these, before they have changed tor, that we must suppose the superlatives to have been derived. The theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the superlative degree. It was introducedafterthe establishment of the comparative, andbeforethe change of-sinto-r.
THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE.
§ 255. The Anglo-Saxon word forfirstwasfor-m-a.
The root wasfor= the Latinpræ, the Greekπρο, and being the same combination which occurs infore,fore-m-ost, &c.
Themwas the Anglo-Saxon sign of the superlative degree.
It is themin the Latin wordspri-m-us,inti-m-us,exti-m-us,ulti-m-us, &c.
It occurs even in the Gothic tongues; in other words, besidesfor-m-a.
In short,mis an old sign of the superlative degree; probably older than the usual form,-st, discussed in §254. This has some important applications.
§ 256.Former.—This is a remarkable word: it is a comparative derived from the Anglo-Saxon superlative, and its analysis isfor-m-er, withexcess of inflexion.
§ 257.Nea-r-est.—Here theris no part of the original root, as may be seen in §251. It has grown out of-ahpronounced as theainfather. The true forms are positive,neah; comparative,neah-er; superlative,neah-est. Such, to a certain extent, is really the case.
§ 258.Next.—The superlative ofnigh, contracted fromnigh-est. The Anglo-Saxon forms wereneah,nyh-st,neh-st,nyh-ste. In Anglo-Saxon the letterhwas pronounced strongly, and sounded likegork. This fact isstill shown in the spelling; asnigh. In the wordnextthis sound is preserved, slightly changed into that ofk;next=nek-st.
§ 259.Upmost, &c.—The common statement concerning words likeupmostis, that they are compound words, formed by the addition of the wordmost: this, however, is more than doubtful.
The Anglo-Saxon language presents us with the following forms:—
Now the words in question show at once, that, as far as they are concerned, themthat appears in the last syllable of each has nothing to do with the wordmost.
From the words in question there was formed, in Anglo-Saxon, a regular superlative form in the usual manner;viz., by the addition of-st; asæfte-m-est,fyr-m-est,læte-m-est,sið-m-est,yfe-m-est,ute-m-est,inne-m-est.
Hence, in the present English, the different parts of the syllablemost(in words likeupmost) come from different quarters. Themis themin the Anglo-Saxon wordsinnema, &c.; whilst the-stis the common sign of the superlative. Hence, in separating such words asmidmostinto its component parts, we should write
§ 260. In certain words, however, the syllablem-ostis added to a word already ending in-er; that is, already marked with the sign of the comparative degree.
THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.
§ 261. Generally speaking, the greater part of the cardinal numbers are undeclined. As far asnumbergoes, this is necessary.
Oneis naturally and exclusivelysingular.
Twois naturallydual.
The rest are naturally and exclusivelyplural.
As to the inflection of gender and case, there is no reason why all the numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latinunus, una, unum,unius. It is a mere habit of our language that they are not so in English.
THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.
§ 262. By referring to §259, we see that-mwas an early sign of the superlative degree. This bears upon the numeralsseven,nine, andten.
These arecardinalnumbers. Nevertheless, the present chapter is the proper place for noticing them.
There is good reason for believing that the final-nis no part of the original root. Thus,—
a.Sev-en= the Latinsept-em, where the-mis equivalent to the-n. But in the Greekἑπτὰ, and the Scandinaviansyv, andsju, neither-nnor-moccur.
b.Ni-ne.—This same applies here. The Latin form isnov-em; but the Greek and Norse areἐννέαandniu.
c.Ten.—The older form isti-h-un, in Latinde-c-em. The English-nis the Latin-m. Nevertheless, in the Greek and Norse the forms areδέκαandtuo.
§ 263. What explains this? The following hypothesis. Some of the best German authorities believe, that the-m, expressive of the superlative degree, was also used to denote theordinal character(ordinality)of the numerals; so that the-m-indeci-m-us, was the-m-inulti-m-usandexti-m-us. This is the first step in the explanation.
§ 264. The next is, to suppose that certaincardinalnumerals have taken and retained theordinalform; these being the—
I give no opinion as to the accuracy or erroneousness of this view.
§ 265.Thir-teen, &c., isthreewithtenadded, or 3 + 10.
§ 266.Thir-ty, &c., isthree tens(three decades), or 3 × 10. In Mœso-Gothic we find the-tyin the fuller formtig=δέκ-αςin Greek.
THE ARTICLES.
§ 267. In the generality of grammars the definite articlethe, and the indefinite articlean, are the very first parts of speech that are considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite article. In the former language they sayἀνήρ τις=a certain man: in the latter the wordsfilius patrismean equallythe son of the father,a son of a father,a son of the father, orthe son of a father. In Mœso-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the indefinite article; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a different word from what occurs in English. In these the Greekτιςis expressed by the Gothic rootsum.
Now, since it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the wordssome man,a certain man, anda man, are much the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and Mœso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the argument, be fairly said that the wordssumandτιςare pronouns with a certain sense, and thataandanare no more; consequently, that in Greek the indefinite article isτις, in Mœso-Gothicsum, and in Englishaoran.
A distinction, however, may be made. In the expressionἀνήρ τις(anær tis) =a certain man, ora man, and in the expressionsum mann, the wordssumandτιςpreserve their natural and original meaning; whilst ina manandan oxthe wordsaandanare used in a secondary sense. These words, as is currently known, are one and the same, then, in the forma, being ejected through a euphonic process. They are, moreover, the same words with the numeralone; Anglo-Saxon,án; Scotch,ane. Now, between the wordsa manandone man, there is a difference in meaning; the first expression being the most indefinite. Hence comes the difference between the English and Mœso-Gothic expressions. In the one the wordsumhas a natural, in the other, the wordanhas a secondary power.
The same reasoning applies to the wordthe. Compared witha man, the wordsthe manare very definite. Compared, however, with the wordsthat man, they are the contrary. Now, just asanandahave arisen out of the numeralone, so hasthearisen out of the demonstrative pronounþæt, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in Anglo-Saxon there was a formþe, undeclined, and common to all the cases of all the numbers.
In no language in its oldest stage is there ever a word giving, in its primary sense, the ideas ofaandthe. As tongues become modern, some noun with asimilarsense is used to express them. In the course of time a change of form takes place, corresponding to the change of meaning;e.g.,onebecomesan, and afterwardsa. Then it is that articles become looked upon as separate parts of speech, and are dealt with accordingly. No invalidation of this statement is drawn from the Greek language. Although the first page of the etymology gives usὁ,ἡ,τὸ(ho, hæ,to), as the definite articles, the corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that, in the oldest stage of the language,ὁ(ho) =the, had the power ofοὗτος(howtos) =this.
The origin of the articles seems uniform. In Germanein, in Danishen, stand toonein the same relation thatandoes. The Frenchun, Italian and Spanishuno, are similarly related tounus=one.
And as, in English,the, in Germander, in Danishden, come from the demonstrative pronouns, so, in the classical languages, are the Frenchle, the Italianilandlo, and the Spanishel, derived from the Latin demonstrativeille.
In his "Outlines of Logic," the present writer has given reasons for considering the wordno(as inno man) an article.
Thatthe, in expressions likeall the more,all the better, &c., is no article, has already been shown.
DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS.
§ 268. Compared with the wordslamb,man, andhill, thewordslambkin,mannikin, andhillockconvey the idea of comparative smallness or diminution. Now, as the wordhillock=a little hilldiffers informfromhill, we have in English a series ofdiminutiveforms, ordiminutives.
The English diminutives may be arranged according to a variety of principles. Amongst others:
1.According to their form.—The wordhillockis derived fromhill, by theadditionof asyllable. The wordtipis derived fromtop, by thechangeof avowel.
2.According to their meaning.—In the wordhillockthere is the simple expression of comparative smallness in size. In the worddoggiefordog,lassieforlass, the addition of the-iemakes the word not so much a diminutive as a term of tenderness or endearment. The idea of smallness, accompanied, perhaps, with that of neatness, generally carries with it the idea of approbation; hence, the wordcleanin English, means, in German,little=kleine. The feeling of protection which is extended to small objects engenders the notion of endearment.
§ 269. The Greek wordμείωσις(meiôsis) means diminution; the Greek wordὑποκόρισμα(hypokorisma) meansan endearing expression. Hence we get names for the two kinds of diminutives;viz., the termmeioticfor the true diminutives, and the termhypocoristicfor the diminutives of endearment.
3.According to their historical origin.—The syllable-ock, as inhillock, is of Anglo-Saxon and Gothic origin. The-et, as inlancet, is of French and classical origin.
4.According as they affect proper names, or common names.—Hawkin,Perkin,Wilkin, &c. In these words we have the diminutives ofHal,Peter,Will, &c.
§ 270. The diminutive forms of Gothic origin are the first to be considered.
1.Those formed by a change of vowel.—Tip, fromtop. The relation of the feminine to the masculine is allied to the ideas conveyed by many diminutives. Hence in the wordkit, fromcat, it is doubtful whether there be meant a female cat or a little cat.Kidis a diminutive form ofgoat.
2.Those formed by the addition of a letter or letters.—Of the diminutive characteristics thus formed the commonest, beginning from the simpler forms, are
Ie.—Almost peculiar to the Lowland Scotch; asdaddie,lassie,minnie,wifie,mousie,doggie,boatie, &c.
Ock.—Bullock,hillock.
Kin.—Lambkin,mannikin,ladikin, &c. As is seen above, common in proper names.
En.—Chicken,kitten, fromcock,cat. The notion of diminution, if indeed that be the notion originally conveyed, lies not in the-en, but in the vowel. In the wordchicken, fromcock, observe the effect of the small vowel on thec.
The consideration of words likeduckling, andgosling, is purposely deferred.
The chief diminutive of classical origin is—
Et, as intrumpet,lancet,pocket; the wordpock, as inmeal-pock=a meal-bag, being found in the Scottish. From the French-ette, as incaissette,poulette.
The forms-rel, as incockerel,pickerel, and-let, as instreamlet, require a separate consideration. The first has nothing to do with the Italian formsacquerellaandcoserella—themselves, perhaps, of Gothic, rather than of classical origin.
In the Old High-German there are a multitude of diminutive forms in-el; asouga=an eye,ougili=a little eye;lied=a song,liedel=a little song. This indicates the nature of words likecockerel.
Even in English the diminutive power of-elcan be traced in the following words:—
Soare= a deer in its third year.Sor-rel—a deer in its second year.—See "Love's Labour Lost," with the note.
Tiercel= a small sort of hawk, one-third less (tierce) than the common kind.
Kantle=small corner, fromcant=a corner.—"Henry IV."
Hurdle; in Dutchhorde; German,hurde.Hording, without the-l, is used in an allied sense by builders in English.
In the words in point we must assume an earlier form,cockerandpiker, to which the diminutive form-elis affixed. If this be true, we have, in English, representatives of the diminutive form-elso common in the High Germanic dialects.Wolfer=a wolf,hunker=a haunch,flitcher=a flitch,teamer=a team,fresher=a frog,—these are north country forms of the present English.
The termination-let, as instreamlet, seems to be double, and to consist of the Gothic diminutive-l, and the French diminutive-t.
§ 271.Augmentatives.—Compared withcapello=a hat, the Italian wordcapellone=a great hat, is an augmentative. The augmentative forms, pre-eminently common in the Italian language, often carry with them a depreciating sense.
The termination-rd(in Old High German,-hart), as indrunkard,braggart,laggard,stinkard, carries with it this idea of depreciation. Inbuzzard, andreynard, the name of the fox, it is simply augmentative. Inwizard, fromwitch, it has the power of a masculine form.
The termination-rd, taken from the Gothic, appears in the modern languages of classical origin: French,vieillard; Spanish,codardo. From these we get, at secondhand, the wordcoward.
The wordsweetheartis a derived word of this sort, rather than a compound word; since in Old High German and Middle High German, we have the corresponding formliebhart. Now the form forheartis in German nothart, butherz.
Words likebraggadocio,trombone,balloon, being words of foreign origin, prove nothing as to the further existence of augmentative forms in English.
§ 272.—Patronymics.—In the Greek language the notion oflineal descent, in other words, the relation of the son to the father, is expressed by a particular termination; asΠηλεύς(Peleus),Πηλείδης(Peleidæs), the son of Peleus. It is very evident that this mode of expression is very different from either the English formJohnson=the son of John, or the GaelicMacDonald=the son of Donald. In these last-named words, the wordssonandMacmean the same thing; so thatJohnsonandMacDonaldare notderivedbutcompoundwords. This Greek way of expressing descent is peculiar, and the words wherein it occurs are classed together by the peculiar namepatronymic; frompatær=a father, andonoma=a name.
Is there anything in English corresponding to the Greek patronymics?
Not in thepresentEnglish? There was, however, in the Anglo-Saxon.
In the Anglo-Saxon, thetermination-ingis as truly patronymic as-ίδηςin Greek. In the Bible-translation theson of Elishais calledElising. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle occur such genealogies as the following:—Ida wæs Eopping,Eoppa Esing,Esa Inging,Inga Angenviting,Angenvit Alocing,Aloc Beonocing,Beonoc Branding,Brand Bældæging,Bældæg Vódening,Vóden Friðowulfing,Friðowulf Finning,Finn Godwulfing,Godwulf Geating= Ida was the son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esa, Esa of Inga, Inga of Angenvit, Angenvit of Aloc, Aloc of Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand of Bældæg, Bældæg of Woden, Woden of Friðowulf, Friðowulf of Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godwulf of Geat.—In Greek,Ἴδα ἦν Ἐοππείδης, Ἔοππα Ἠσείδης, Ἤσα Ἰγγείδης, Ἴγγα Ἀγγενφιτείδης, &c. In the plural number these forms denote therace of; asScyldingas=the Scyldings, or the race ofScyld, &c. Edgar Atheling means Edgar of the race of the nobles.
GENTILE FORMS.
§ 273. The only word in the present English that requires explanation is the name of the principalityWales.
1. The form isplural, however much the meaning may besingular; so that the-sinWale-sis the-sinfathers, &c.
2. It has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon fromwealhas=foreigners, fromwealh=a foreigner, the name by which the Welsh are spoken of by the Germans of England, just as the Italians are called Welsh by the Germans of Germany; and just aswal-nuts=foreign nuts, ornuces Galliæ.Welsh=weall-isc=foreign, and is a derived adjective.
3. The transfer of the name of thepeopleinhabiting a certain country to thecountryso inhabited, was one of the commonest processes in both Anglo-Saxon and Old English.
ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE INFINITIVE MOOD.
§ 274. In order to understand clearly the use of the so-called infinitive mood in English, it is necessary to bear in mind two facts, one a matter oflogic, the other a matter ofhistory.
In the way oflogic, the difference between a noun and a verb is less marked than it is in the way ofgrammar.
Grammatically, the contrast is considerable. The inflection of nouns expresses the ideas of sex as denoted by gender, and of relation in place as denoted by cases. That of verbs rarely expresses sex, and never relations in place. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun ever does or can express;e.g., the relation of the agency to the individual speaking, by means ofperson; the time in which acts take place, by means oftense; and the conditions of their occurrence, by means ofmood.
The idea ofnumberis the only one that, on a superficial view, is common to these two important parts of speech.
§ 275. Logically, however, the contrast is inconsiderable. A noun denotes an object of which either the senses or the intellect can take cognizance, and a verb does no more.To move=motion,to rise=rising,to err=error,to forgive=forgiveness. The only difference between the two parts of speech is this, that, whereas a nounmay express any object whatever, verbs can only express those objects which consist in an action. And it is this superadded idea of action that superadds to the verb the phenomena of tense, mood, person, and voice; in other words, the phenomena of conjugation.
§ 276. A noun is a word capable ofdeclensiononly. A verb is a word capable of declension andconjugationalso. The fact of verbs being declined as well as conjugated must be remembered.The participle has the declension of a noun adjective, the infinitive mood the declension of a noun substantive. Gerunds and supines, in languages where they occur, are only names for certain cases of the verb.
§ 277. Although in all languages the verb is equally capable of declension, it is not equally declined. The Greeks, for instance, used forms like
§ 278. Returning, however, to the illustration of the substantival character of the so-called infinitive mood, we may easily see—
α. That the name of any action may be used without any mention of the agent. Thus, we may speak of the simple fact ofwalkingormoving, independently of any specification of thewalkerormover.
β. That, when actions are spoken of thus indefinitely, the idea of either person or number has no place in the conception; from which it follows that the so-called infinitive mood must be at once impersonal, and without the distinction of singular, dual, and plural.
γ. That, nevertheless, the ideas of time and relation in spacehaveplace in the conception. We can think ofa person beingin the act of striking a blow, of hishaving been in the act of striking a blow, or of hisbeing about to be in the act of striking a blow. We can also think of a person beingin the act of doing a good action, or of his beingfrom the act of doing a good action.
§ 279. This has been written to show that verbs of languages in general are as naturally declinable as nouns. What follows will show that the verbs of the Gothic languages in particular were actually declined, and that fragments of this declension remain in the present English.
The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (or infinitive state) consisted, in its fullest form, of three cases, a nominative (or accusative), a dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because its occurrence in the Gothic languages is the least constant.
In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in-an, with a singlen.
In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in-nne, and was preceded by the prepositionto.
The genitive, ending in-es, occurs only in Old High German and Modern High German,plâsannes,weinnenes.
§ 280. With these preliminaries we can take a clear view of the English infinitives. They exist under two forms, and are referable to a double origin.
1. Theindependentform.—This is used after the wordscan,may,shall,will, and some others, as,I can speak,I may go,I shall come,I will move. Here thereis no preposition, and the origin of the infinitive is from the form in-an.
2. Theprepositionalform.—This is used after the majority of English verbs, as,I wish to speak,I mean to go,I intend to come,I determine to move. Here we have the prepositiontoand the origin of the infinitive is from the form-nne.