§ 281. Expressions liketo err=error,to forgive=forgiveness, in lines like
"To err is human, to forgive divine,"
"To err is human, to forgive divine,"
"To err is human, to forgive divine,"
are very remarkable. They exhibit the phenomena of a nominative case having grown not only out of a dative but out of a dativeplusits governing preposition.
ON DERIVED VERBS.
§ 282. Of the divisions of verbs into active and passive, transitive and intransitive, unless there be an accompanying change ofform, etymology takes no cognisance. The forces of the auxiliary verbs, and the tenses to which they are equivalent, are also points of syntax rather than of etymology.
Four classes, however, ofderivedverbs, as opposed tosimple, especially deserve notice.
I. Those ending in-en; assoften,whiten,strengthen, &c. Here the-enis a derivational affix; and not a representative of the Anglo-Saxon infinitive form-an(aslufian,bærnan=to love,to burn), and the Old English-en(astellen,loven).
II. Transitive verbs derived from intransitives by a change of the vowel of the root.
In Anglo-Saxon these words were more numerous than they are at present.
All these intransitives form their præterite by a change of vowel; assink,sank; all the transitives by the addition ofdort, assell,sell'd.
III. Verbs derived from nouns by a change of accent; asto survéy, from asúrvey.
Walker attributes the change of accent to the influence of the participial termination-ing. All words thus affected are of foreign origin.
IV. Verbs formed from nouns by changing a finalsharpconsonant into its correspondingflatone; as,
ON THE PERSONS.
§ 283. Compared with the Latin, the Greek, the Mœso-Gothic, and almost all the ancient languages, there is, in English, in respect to the persons of the verbs, but a very slight amount of inflection. This may be seen by comparing the English wordcallwith the Latinvoco.
Here the Latins have different forms for each different person, whilst the English have forms for two only; and even of these one (callest) is becoming obsolete. With the forms voc-o, voc-amus, voc-atis, voc-ant, there is, in the current English, nothing correspondent.
In the wordam, as compared withareandart, we find a sign of the first person singular.
In the old formstellen,weren, &c., we have a sign of the plural number.
§ 284. In the Modern English, the Old English, and the Anglo-Saxon, the peculiarities of our personal inflections are very great. This may be seen from the following tables of comparison:—
§ 285. Herein remark; 1. the Anglo-Saxon addition oftin the second person singular; 2. the identity in form of the three persons of the plural number; 3. the change of-aðinto-enin the Old English plural; 4. the total absence of plural forms in the Modern English; 5. the change of thethintos, inlovethandloves. These are points bearing especially upon the history of the Englishpersons. The following points indicate a more general question:
1. The full formprennamesin the newer Old High German, as compared withsôkjamin theoldMœso-Gothic.
2. The appearance of therin Icelandic.
3. The difference between the Old Saxon and the Anglo-Saxon in the second person singular; the finaltbeing absent in Old Saxon.
§ 286.The person in -t.—The formsart,wast,wert,shalt,wilt, orar-t,was-t,wer-t,shal-t,wil-t, are remarkable. Here the second person singular ends, not in-st, but int. The reason for this is to be sought in the Mœso-Gothic and the Icelandic.
In those languages the form of the person changes with the tense, and the second singular of the præterite tense of one conjugation is, not-s, but-t; as Mœso-Gothic,svôr=I swore,svôrt=thou swarest,gráip=I griped,gráipt=thou gripedst; Icelandic,brannt=thou burnest,gaft=thou gavest. In the same languages ten verbs are conjugated like præterites. Of these, in each language,skalis one.
§ 287.Thou spakest,thou brakest,thou sungest.[53]—
In these forms there is a slight though natural anomaly. They belong to the class of verbs which form their præterite by changing the vowel of the present; assing,sang, &c. Now, all words of this sort in Anglo-Saxon formed their second singular præterite, not in-st, but in-e; asþú funde=thou foundest,þú sunge=thou sungest. The English termination is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to the præterites formed by changing the vowel.Thou loved'stis Anglo-Saxon as well as English,viz.,þú lufodest.
§ 288. In the northern dialects of the Anglo-Saxon the-ðof plurals likelufiað=we lovebecomes-s. In the Scottish this change was still more prevalent:
The Scottes come that to this dayHavysand Scotland haldyn ay.—Wintoun, 11, 9, 73.
The Scottes come that to this dayHavysand Scotland haldyn ay.—Wintoun, 11, 9, 73.
The Scottes come that to this day
Havysand Scotland haldyn ay.—Wintoun, 11, 9, 73.
James I. of England ends nearly all his plurals in-s.
ON THE NUMBERS OF VERBS.
§ 289. As compared with the present plural forms,we love,ye love,they love, the Anglo-Saxons had the truly plural forms,we lufiað,ge lufiað,hi lufiað. The Old English also had a true plural inflectionwe loven,ye loven,they loven. The present English wants both the form in-en, and the form in-að. In other words, the Anglo-Saxon and the Old English have a pluralpersonalcharacteristic, whilst the Modern English has nothing to correspond with it.
§ 290. In the formsluf-iað, andlov-en, the change from singular to plural is made by adding a syllable; but there is no reason against the inflection running thus—I love,thou lovest,he loves;we lave,ye lave,they lave; in other words, there is no reason against thevowelof the root being changed, just as is the case with the formspeak, spoke;fall, fell.
Now, in Anglo-Saxon, with a great number of verbs such a plural inflection not only actually takes place, but takes place most regularly. It takes place, however, in the past tense only. And this is the case in all the Gothic languages as well as in Anglo-Saxon. Amongst the rest, in—
Mœso-Gothic.
Anglo-Saxon.
From these examples the reader has himself drawn his inference;viz.that words like
generally called double forms of the past tense, were originallydifferent numbers of the same tense, the forms ina, asswam, being singular, and the forms inu, asswum, plural.
ON MOODS.
§ 291. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered.
Between the second plural imperative, and the second plural indicative,speak ye, andye speak, there is no difference of form.
Between the second singular imperativespeak, and the second singular indicative,speakest, there is a difference in form.
Still, as the imperative formspeakis distinguished from the indicative formspeakestby thenegationof a character rather than by the possession of one, it cannot be said that there is in English any imperative mood.
§ 292.If he speak, as opposed toif he speaks, is characterized by a negative sign only, and consequently is no true example of a subjunctive.Be, as opposed toam, in the sentenceif it be so, is a fresh word used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a subjunctive. It is a different word altogether, and is only the subjunctive ofam, in the waypussis the vocative ofcat.
The only true subjunctive inflection in the English language is that ofwereandwert, as opposed to the indicative formswasandwast.
ON TENSES IN GENERAL.
§ 293. The nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to the Greek; since in that language they are more numerous, and more strongly marked than elsewhere.
I strike,I struck.—Of these words, the first implies an action taking place at the time of speaking, the second marks an action that has already taken place.
These two notions of present and of past time, being expressed by a change of form, are true tenses. If there were no change of form, there would be no change of tense. They are the only true tenses in our language. InI was beating,I have beaten,I had beaten, andI shall beat, a difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed bya combination of words, and notby a change of form, no true tenses are constituted.
§ 294. In Greek the case is different.Τύπτω(typtô) =I beat;ἔτυπτον(etypton) =I was beating;τύψω(typsô) =I shall beat;ἔτυψα(etypsa) =I beat;τέτυφα(tetyfa) =I have beaten;ἐτετύφειν(etetyfein) =I had beaten. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and the same conjugation, six different tenses; whereas, in English, there are but two. The formsτέτυφαandἔτυψαare so strongly marked, that we recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed by a reduplication of the initialτ, and, consequently, maybe called the reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the formἔτυψαanεis prefixed, and anσis added. In the allied language of Italy theεdisappears, whilst theσ(s) remains.Ἔτυψαis said to be an aorist tense.Scripsiis toscriboasἔτυψαis toτύπτω.
§ 295. Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two tenses. Both forms exist. They are used, however, indiscriminately. The aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect. The perfect has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist. In the following pair of quotations,vixi, the aorist form, is translatedI have lived, whiletetigit, the perfect form, is translatedhe touched.
Vixi, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi;Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibis imago.—Æn.iv.Ut primum alatistetigitmagalia plantis.—Æn.iv.
Vixi, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi;Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibis imago.—Æn.iv.
Vixi, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi;
Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibis imago.—Æn.iv.
Ut primum alatistetigitmagalia plantis.—Æn.iv.
Ut primum alatistetigitmagalia plantis.—Æn.iv.
§ 296. When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference of meaning, it has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in question. One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that, although in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word. Wherever there is the perfect, the aorist is wanting, andvice versâ. The two ideasI have struckandI struckare merged into the notion of past time in general, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that of the Greek perfect, and sometimes by that of the Greek aorist. On account of this the grammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses tofive; forms likecucurriandvixibeing dealt with as one and the same tense. The true view is, that incurrothe aorist form is replaced by the perfect, and invixithe perfect form is replaced by the aorist.
§ 297. In thepresentEnglish there is no undoubted perfect or reduplicate form. The formmovedcorresponds in meaning not withτέτυφαandmomordi, but withἔτυψαandvixi. Its sense is that ofἔτυψα, and not that ofτέτυφα. The notion given byτέτυφαwe express by the circumlocutionI have beaten. We have no such form asbebeatormemove. In the Mœso-Gothic, however, there was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well as an aorist. It is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the first six conjugations are characterized.
In Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an aorist sense, andvice versâ.
In Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms.
In Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, the two forms are dealt with as a single tense;láilôbeing called the præterite ofláia, andsvôrthe præterite ofsvara. The true view, however, is that in Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, there are two past tenses, each having a certain latitude of meaning, and each, in certain words, replacing the other.
The reduplicate form, in other words, the perfect tense, is current in none of the Gothic languages except theMœso-Gothic. A trace of it is said to be found in the Anglo-Saxon of the seventh century in the wordheht, which is considered to behê-ht, the Mœso-Gothicháiháit,vocavi.Didfromdois also considered to be a reduplicate form.
§ 298. In the English language the tense corresponding with the Greek aorist and the Latin forms likevixi, is formed after two modes; 1, as infell,sang, andtook, fromfall,sing, andtake, by changing the vowel of the present: 2, as inmovedandwept, frommoveandweep, by the addition of-dor-t; the-dor-tnot being found in the original word, but being a fresh element added to it. In forms, on the contrary, likesangandfell, no addition being made, no new element appears. The vowel, indeed, is changed, but nothing is added. Verbs, then, of the first sort, may be said to form their præterites out of themselves; whilst verbs of the second sort require something from without. To speak in a metaphor, words likesangandfellare comparatively independent. Be this as it may, the German grammarians call the tenses formed by a change of vowel thestrongtenses, thestrongverbs, thestrongconjugation, or thestrongorder; and those formed by the addition ofdort, theweaktenses, theweakverbs, theweakconjugation, or theweakorder.Bound,spoke,gave,lay, &c., arestrong;moved,favoured,instructed, &c., areweak.
THE STRONG TENSES.
§ 299. The strong præterites are formed from the present by changing the vowel, assing,sang;speak,spoke.
In Anglo-Saxon, several præterites change, in their plural, the vowel of their singular; as
The bearing of this fact upon the præterites has already been indicated. In a great number of words we have a double form, asranandrun,sangandsung,drankanddrunk, &c. One of these forms is derived from the singular, and the other from the plural.
In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the singular; indeed, it is often the plural;—e.g., Ic fand,I found, we fundon,we found, are the Anglo-Saxon forms. Now the present wordfoundcomes, not from the singularfand, but from the pluralfundon; although in the Lowland Scotch dialect and in the old writers, thesingularform occurs;
Donald Caird finds orra things,Where Allan Gregorfandthe tings.—Scott.
Donald Caird finds orra things,Where Allan Gregorfandthe tings.—Scott.
Donald Caird finds orra things,
Where Allan Gregorfandthe tings.—Scott.
§ 300. The verbs wherein the double form of the present præterite is thus explained, fall into two classes.
1. In the first class, the Anglo-Saxon forms wereáin the singular, andiin the plural; as—
This accounts for—
2. In the second class, the Anglo-Saxon forms wereain the singular, anduin the plural, as—
This accounts for—
§ 301. The following double præterites are differently explained. The primary oneoften(but notalways) is from the Anglo-Saxonparticiple, the secondary from the Anglo-Saxonpræterite.
§ 302. The following verbs have only a single form for the præterite,—
§ 303. An arrangement of the preceding verbs into classes, according to the change of vowel, is by no means difficult, even in the present stage of the English language. In the Anglo-Saxon, it was easier still. It is also easier in the provincial dialects, than in the literary English. Thus, when
as they actually are by many speakers, they come in the same class with,—
and form their præterite by means of a similar change,i.e., by changing the sound of theeeinfeet(speltea) into that of theainfate; viewed thus, the irregularity is less than it appears to be at first sight.
Again,treadis pronouncedtredd, but many provincial speakers saytreed, and so said the Anglo-Saxons, whose form wasic trede=I tread. Their præterite wastræd. This again subtracts from the apparent irregularity.
Instances of this kind may be multiplied; the whole question, however, of the conjugation of thestrong verbsis best considered after the perusal of the next chapter.
THE WEAK TENSES.
§ 304. The præterite tense of the weak verbs is formed by the addition of-dor-t.
If necessary, the syllable-edis substituted for-d.
The current statement that the syllable-ed, rather than the letter-dis the sign of the præterite tense, is true only in regard to the written language. Instabbed,moved,bragged,whizzed,judged,filled,slurred,slammed,shunned,barred,strewed, theeis a point of spelling only. Inlanguage, except in declamation, there is no second vowel sound. The-dcomes in immediate contact with the final letter of the original word, and the number of syllables remains the same as it was before. We saystabd,môved,bragd, &c.
§ 305. When, however, the original word ends in-dor-t, asslightorbrand, then, and then only is there the real addition of the syllable-ed; as inslighted,branded.
This is necessary, since the combinationsslighttandbranddare unpronounceable.
Whether the addition be-dor-tdepends upon the flatness or sharpness of the preceding letter.
Afterb,v,th(as inclothe),g, orz, the addition is-d. This is a matter of necessity. We saystabd,môvd,clôthd,braggd,whizzd, becausestabt,môvt,clotht,braggt,whizzt, are unpronounceable.
Afterl,m,n,r,w,y, or a vowel, the addition is also-d. This is thehabitof the English language.Filt,slurt,strayt, &c., are as pronounceable asfilld,slurrd,strayd, &c. It is the habit, however, of the English language to prefer the latter forms.
All this, as the reader has probably observed, is merely the reasoning concerning thes, in words likefather's, &c., applied to another letter and to another part of speech.
§ 306. The verbs of the weak conjugation fall into three classes.
I. In the first there is the simple addition of-d,-t, or-ed.
To this class belong the greater part of the weak verbs and all verbs of foreign origin.
§ 307. II. In the second class, besides the addition of-tor-d, the vowel isshortened,
Here the final consonant is-t.
Here the final consonant is-d.
§ 308. III. In the second class the vowel of the present tense wasshortenedin the præterite. In the third class it ischanged.
To this class belong the remarkable præterites of the verbsseek,beseech,catch,teach,bring,think, andbuy,viz.,sought,besought,caught,taught,brought,thought, andbought. In all these, the final consonant is eithergork, or else a sound allied to those mutes. When the tendency of these sounds to becomehandy, as well as to undergo farther changes, is remembered, the forms in point cease to seem anomalous. Inwrought, fromwork, there is a transposition. Inlaidandsaidthe present forms make a show of regularity which they have not. The true original forms should belegdeandsægde, the infinitives beinglecgan,secgan. In these words theirepresents the semivowely, into which the originalgwas changed. The Anglo-Saxon forms of the other words are as follows:—
§ 309. Out of the three classes into which the weak verbs in Anglo-Saxon are divided, only one takes a vowel before thedort. The other two add the syllables-teor-de, to the last letter of the original word. The vowel that, in one out of the three Anglo-Saxon classes, precedesdiso. Thus we havelufian,lufode;clypian,clypode. In the other two classes the forms are respectivelybærnan,bærnde; andtellan,tealde, no vowel being found. Theparticiple, however, as stated above, ended, not in-deor-te, but in-dor-t; and in two out of the three classes it was preceded by a vowel; the vowel beinge,—gelufod,bærned,geteald. Now in those conjugations where no vowel preceded thedof the præterite, and where the original word ended in-dor-t, a difficulty, which has already been indicated, arose. To add the sign of the præterite to a word likeeard-ian(to dwell) was an easy matter, inasmuch aseardianwas a word belonging to the first class, and in the first class the præterite was formed in-ode. Here the vowelokept the twod's from coming in contact. With words, however, likemétanandsendan, this was not the case. Here no vowel intervened; so that the natural præterite forms weremet-te,send-de, combinations wherein one of the letters ran every chance of being dropped in the pronunciation. Hence, with the exception of the verbs in the first class, words ending in-dor-tin the root admitted no additionaldortin the præterite. This difficulty, existing in the present English as it existed in the Anglo-Saxon, modifies the præterites of most words ending in-tor-d.
§ 310. In several words there is the actual addition of the syllable-ed; in other wordsdis separated from the last letter of the original word by the addition of a vowel; asended,instructed, &c.
§ 311. In several words the final-dis changed into-t,asbend,bent;rend,rent;send,sent;gild,gilt;build,built;spend,spent, &c.
§ 312. In several words the vowel of the root is changed; asfeed,fed;bleed,bled;breed,bred;meet,met;speed,sped;rēad,rĕad, &c. Words of this last-named class cause occasional difficulty to the grammarian. No addition is made to the root, and, in this circumstance, they agree with the strong verbs. Moreover, there is a change of the vowel. In this circumstance also they agree with the strong verbs. Hence with forms likefedandledwe are in doubt as to the conjugation. This doubt we have three means of settling, as may be shown by the wordbeat.
a.By the form of the participle.—The-eninbeatenshows that the wordbeatis strong.
b.By the nature of the vowel.—The weak form ofto beatwould bebet, orbeăt, after the analogy offeedandread. By some persons the word is pronouncedbet, and with those who do so the word is weak.
c.By a knowledge of the older forms.—The Anglo-Saxon form isbeáte,beot. There is no such a weak form asbeáte,bætte. The præterite ofsendanissendeweak. There is in Anglo-Saxon no such form assand, strong.
In all this we see a series of expedients for distinguishing the præterite form from the present, when the root ends with the same sound with which the affix begins.
The change from a long vowel to a short one, as infeed,fed, &c., can only take place where there is a long vowel to be changed.
Where the vowels are short, and, at the same time, the word ends in-d, the-dof the present may become-tin the præterite. Such is the case withbend,bent.
When there is no long vowel to shorten, and no-dto change into-t, the two tenses, of necessity, remain alike; such is the case withcut,cost, &c.
§ 313. The following verbs form their præterite in-t:—
§ 314. Certainso-calledirregularities may now be noticed.—Made,had.—In these words there is nothing remarkable but the ejection of a consonant. The Anglo-Saxon forms aremacodeandhæfde, respectively. The words, however, in regard to the amount of change, are not upon apar. Thefinhæfdewas probably sounded asv. Nowvis a letter excessively liable to be ejected, whichkis not.K, before it is ejected, is generally changed into eithergory.