Would,should,could.—It must not be imagined thatcouldis in the same predicament with these words. Inwillandshallthe-lis part of the original word. This is not the case withcan. For the formcould, see §331.
§ 315.Aught.—In Anglo-Saxonáhte, the præterite of the present formáh, pluralágon.—As late as the time of Elizabeth we findoweused forown. The present formownseems to have arisen from the pluralágon.Aughtis the præterite of the Anglo-Saxonáh;owedof the Englishowe=debeo;ownedof the Englishown=possideo. The wordown, in the expressionto own to a thing, has a totally different origin. It comes from the Anglo-Saxonan(plural,unnon) =I give, orgrant=concedo.
§ 316.Durst.—The verbdareis both transitive and intransitive. We can say eitherI dare do such a thing, orI dare (challenge) such a man to do it. This, in the present tense, is unequivocally correct. In the past the double power of the worddareis ambiguous; still it is, to my mind at least, allowable. We can certainly sayI dared him to accept my challenge; and we can, perhaps, sayI dared venture on the expedition. In this last sentence, however,durstis the preferable expression.
Now, althoughdareis both transitive and intransitive,durstis only intransitive. It never agrees with the Latin wordprovoco; only with the Latin wordaudeo. Moreover, the worddursthas both a present and a past sense. The difficulty which it presents consists in the presence of the-st, letters characteristic of the second person singular, but here found in all the persons alike; asI durst,they durst, &c.
This has still to be satisfactorily accounted for.
Must.—A form common to all persons, numbers, and tenses. That neither the-snor the-tare part of the original root, is indicated by the Scandinavian formmaae(Danish), pronouncedmoh; præteritemaatt.
This form has still to be satisfactorily accounted for.
Wist.—In its present form a regular præterite fromwiss=know. The difficulties of this word arise from the parallel formswit(as into wit), andwot=knew. The following are the forms of this peculiar word:—
In Mœso-Gothic, 1 sing. pres. ind.váit; 2. do.,váist; 1 pl.vitum; præterite 1 s.vissa; 2vissêss; 1 pl.vissêdum. From the formváistwe see that the second singular is formed after the manner ofmust; that is,váiststands instead ofváit-t. From the formvissêdumwe see that the præterite is not strong, but weak; therefore thatvissais euphonic forvista.
In Anglo-Saxon.—Wât,wást,witon,wiste, andwisse,wiston.—Hence the double forms,wiste, andwisse, verify the statement concerning the Mœso-Gothicvissa.
In Icelandic.—Veit,veizt,vitum,vissi. Danishved,vide,vidste. Observe the formvidste; since, in it, thedof the root (in spelling, at least) is preserved. Thetof the Anglo-Saxonwisteis thet, not of the root, but of the inflection.
In respect to the four forms in question,viz.,wit,wot,wiss,wisst, the first seems to be the root; the second a strong præterite regularly formed, but used (likeοἶδαin Greek) with a present sense; the third a weak præterite, of which the-thas been ejected by a euphonic process, used also with a present sense; the fourth is a second singular fromwissafter the manner ofwertfromwere, a second singular fromwitafter the manner ofmust, a secondary præterite fromwiss, or finally, the formwisse, anterior to the operation of the euphonic process that ejected the-t.
§ 317. In the phrasethis will do=this will answer the purpose, the worddois wholly different from the worddo, meaningto act. In the first case it is equivalent to the Latinvalere; in the second to the Latinfacere. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection isdeáh,dugon,dohte,dohtest, &c. Of the second it isdó,doð,dyde, &c. I doubt whether the præteritedid, as equivalent tovalebat=was good for, is correct. In the phraseit did for him=it finished him, either meaning may be allowed.
In the present Danish they writeduger, but sayduer: asduger et noget?=Is it worth anything?pronounceddooer deh note?This accounts for the ejection of theg. The Anglo-Saxon formdeáhdoes the same.
§ 318.Mind—mind and do so and so.—In this sentence the wordmindis wholly different from the nounmind. The Anglo-Saxon forms aregeman,gemanst,gemunon, without the-d; this letter occurring only in the præterite tense (gemunde,gemundon), of which it is the sign.Mindis, then, a præterite form with a present sense; whilstminded(as inhe minded his business) is an instance of excess of inflection; in other words, it is a præterite formed from a præterite.
§ 319.Yode.—The obsolete præterite ofgo, now replaced bywent, the præterite ofwend. Regular, except that the initialghas becomey.
§ 320.Did.—See §317.
Did, fromdo=facio, is astrongverb. This we infer from the form of its participledone.
If so the final-dis not the same as the-dinmoved. What is it? There are good grounds for believing that in the worddidwe have a single instance of the oldreduplicate præterite. If so, it is the latterdwhich is radical, and the former which is inflectional.
ON CONJUGATION.
§ 321. Attention is directed to the following list of verbs. In the present English they all form the præterite in-dor-t; in Anglo-Saxon, they all formed it by a change of the vowel. In other words they areweak verbs that were once strong.
§ 322. Respecting thestrongverb, the following general statements may be made:
1. Many strong verbs become weak; whilst no weak verb ever becomes strong.
2. All the strong verbs are of Saxon origin. None are classical.
3. The greater number of them are strong throughout the Gothic tongues.
4. No new word is ever, upon its importation, inflected according to the strong conjugation. It is always weak. AsearlyasA.D.1085, the French wordadouber=to dub, was introduced into English. Its præterite wasdubbade.
5. All derived words are inflected weak. The intransitive formsdrinkandlie, are strong; the transitive formsdrenchandlay, are weak.
This shows that the division of verbs intoweakandstrongis a truly natural one.
DEFECTIVENESS AND IRREGULARITY.
§ 323. The distinction between irregularity and defectiveness has been foreshadowed. It is now more urgently insisted on.
The words that have hitherto served as illustrations are the personal pronounsIorme, the adjectivesgood,better, andbest.
The view of these words was as follows;viz., that none of them wereirregular, but that they were alldefective.Mewanted the nominative,Ithe oblique cases.Goodwas without a comparative,betterandbesthad no positive degree.
Nowmeandbettermay be said to make good the defectiveness ofIandgood; andIandgoodmay be said to replace the forms wanting inmeandbetter. This gives us the principle ofcompensation. To introduce a new term,Iandme,goodandbetter, may be said to becomplementaryto each other.
What applies to nouns applies to verbs also.Goandwentare not irregularities.Gois defective in the past tense.Wentis without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and are complementary to each other.
The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first instrument of criticism for coming to trueviews concerning the proportion of the regular and irregular verbs.
§ 324. The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is the meaning that we attach to the term.
It is very evident that it is in the power of the grammarian to raise the number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the definition of the wordirregular; in other words, by framing an exclusive rule. The current rule of the common grammariansisthat the præterite is formedby the addition of-t, or-d, or-ed; a position sufficiently exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole class of strong verbs, but also words likebentandsent, where-texists, but where it does not exist asan addition. The regular forms, it may be said, should bebendedandsended.
Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might be made more so. The regular forms might, by thefiatof a rule, be restricted to those in-d. In this case words likeweptandburntwould be added to the already numerous list of irregulars.
Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that no word was regular, unless it ended in-ed.
§ 325. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymologyreducesirregularity; and that by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but general.The quantum of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the generality of our rules.In language itself there is no irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that change words; and, as irregularityis in the direct proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes.
§ 326. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards the definition of the wordirregular.
Vital and obsolete processes.—The wordmovedis formed frommove, by the addition of-d. The addition of-dis the process by which the present form is rendered præterite. The wordfellis formed fromfall, by changingaintoe. The change of vowel is the process by which the present form is rendered præterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In what respect do they differ?
For the sake of illustration, let a new word be introduced into the language. Let a præterite tense of it be formed. This præterite would be formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding-d. Nonewverb ever takes a strong præterite. The like takes place with nouns. Nonewsubstantive would form its plural, likeoxenorgeese, by adding-en, or by changing the vowel. It would rather, likefathersandhorses, add the lene sibilant.
Now, the processes that changefall,oxandgooseintofell,oxen, andgeese, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in its present stage, areobsoleteprocesses; whilst those that changemoveintomoved, andhorseintohorses, operating on the language in its present stage, arevitalprocesses.
A definition of the wordirregularmight be so framed as to include all words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a definition would make all the strong verbs irregular.
The very fact of so natural a class as that of the strongverbs being reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as this.
§ 327.Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit.—The combinations-pd,-fd,-kd,-sd, and some others, are unpronounceable. Hence words likestep,quaff,back,kiss, &c., take after them the sound of-t;stept,quafft, &c., being their præterites, instead ofstepd,quaffd. Here the change from-dto-tis a matter of necessity. It is not so with words likeweep, andwept, &c. Here the change of vowel is not necessary.Weeptmight have been said if the habit of the language had permitted.
A definition of the wordirregularmight be so framed as to include all words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In this casestept(modified by a process of necessity), andwept(modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular.
A less limited definition might account words regular as long as the process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it would class with the irregulars.
Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation.
§ 328.Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes.—The whole scheme of language is analogical. A new word introduced into a language takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The analogy is extended. Now few forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one. The formswept, andslept, correspondwith each other. They are brought about by the same process:viz., by the shortening of the vowel inweepandsleep. The analogy ofweepis extended tosleep, andvice versâ. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both words. The alteration itself is the leading fact. The extent of its influence is an instrument of classification. When processes affect a considerable number of words, they may be calledordinaryprocesses; as opposed toextraordinaryprocesses, which affect one or few words.
When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing similar.
A definition of the wordirregularmight be so framed as to include all words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered regular.
§ 329.Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes.—The wordsweptandsleptare similarly affected. Each is changed fromweepandsleeprespectively; and we know that the process which affects the one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process.
Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the wordworsehas been explained in the Chapter on the Comparative Degree. There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the process isambiguous.
A definition of the wordirregularmight be so framed as to include all words affected by ambiguous processes.
§ 330.Normal processes as opposed to processes ofconfusion.—Let a certain word come under class A. Let all words under class A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under class A. This word will be affected even as the rest of class A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or analogical.
Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under class A, onlyappearto do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The analogy then is a false one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a process of confusion.
Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words likesongstress,theirs,minded, where the wordssongstr-,their-,mind-, are dealt with as roots, which they are not.
Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion—each, or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient.
With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we see the analogy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one.
§ 331.Could.—With all persons who pronounce thelthis word is truly irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form iscuðe. Thelis inserted by a process of confusion.
Can,cunne,canst,cunnon,cunnan,cuðe,cuðon,cuð—such are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them account for thel. The presence of thelmakes the wordcouldirregular. No reference to the allied languages accounts for it.
Notwithstanding this, the presence of thelis accounted for. Inwouldandshouldthelhas a properplace. It is part of the original words,willandshall. A false analogy looked uponcouldin the same light. Hence a true irregularity;provided that theLbe pronounced.
TheL, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance with the spelling. This reduces the wordcouldto an irregularity, not of language, but only of orthography.
That the mere ejection of the-nincan, and that the mere lengthening of the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the processes that convert the Greekὀδόντος(odontos) intoὀδούς(odows).
§ 332. The verbquothis truly defective. It is found in only one tense, one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the præterite tense. It has the further peculiarity of preceding its pronoun. Instead of sayinghe quoth, we sayquoth he. In Anglo-Saxon, however, it was not defective. It was found in the other tenses, in the other number, and in other moods.Ic cweðe,þú cwyst,he cwyð;ic cwæð,þú cwæðe,he cwæð,we cwædon,ge cwædon,hi cwædon; imperative,cweð; participle,gecweden. In the Scandinavian it is current in all its forms. There, however, it means, notto speakbut tosing. As far as its conjugation goes, it is strong. As far as its class goes, it follows the form ofspeak,spoke. Likespeak, its Anglo-Saxon form is inæ, ascwæð. Like one of the forms ofspeak, its English form is ino, asquoth,spoke.
§ 333. The principle that gives us the truest views of the structure of language is that which considers no word irregular unless it be affected by either anambiguousprocess, or by aprocess of confusion. The words affected byextraordinary processesform a provisional class, which a future increase of our etymologicalknowledge may show to be regular.Worseandcouldare the fairest specimens of our irregulars. Yet evencouldis only an irregularity in the written language. The printer makes it, and the printer can take it away. Hence the class, instead of filling pages, is exceedingly limited.
THE IMPERSONAL VERBS.
§ 334. Inme-seems, andme-thinks, themeis dative rather than accusative, and =mihiandμοιrather thanmeandμε.
§ 335. Inme-listeth, themeis accusative rather than dative, and =meandμεrather thanmihiandμοι.
For the explanation of this difference seeSyntax, Chapter XXI.
THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.
§ 336. The verb substantive is generally dealt with as anirregularverb. This is inaccurate. The true notion is that the idea ofbeingorexistingis expressed by four different verbs, each of which is defective in some of its parts. The parts, however, that are wanting in one verb, are made up by the inflections of one of the others. There is, for example, no præterite of the verbam, and no present of the verbwas. The absence, however, of the present form ofwasis made up by the wordam, and the absence of the præterite form ofamis made up by the wordwas.
§ 337.Wasis defective, except in the præterite tense, where it is found both in the indicative and conjunctive.
In the older stages of the Gothic languages the word had both a full conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it had an infinitive, a participle present, and a participle past. In Mœso-Gothic it was inflected throughout with-s; asvisa,vas,vêsum,visans. In that language it has the power of the Latinmaneo=toremain. Therfirst appears in the Old High German,wisu,was,wârumés,wësaner. In Norse thesentirelydisappears, and the word is inflected withrthroughout;vera,var,vorum, &c.
§ 338.Beis inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both indicative and subjunctive. It is found also as an infinitive,beón; as a gerund,to beonne; and as a participle,beonde; in the present English its inflection is as follows:
§ 339. The line in Milton beginningIf thou beest he—(P. L. b. ii.), leads to the notion that the antiquated formbeestis not indicative, but conjunctive. Such, however, is not the case:bystin Anglo-Saxon is indicative, the conjunctive form beingbeó.And every thing that pretty bin(Cymbeline).—Here the wordbinis the conjunctive plural, in Anglo-Saxonbeón; so that the wordsevery thingare to be considered equivalent to the plural formall things. The phrase in Latin would stand thus,quotquot pulchra sint; in Greek, thus,ἁ ἂν κάλα ᾖ. Theindicativeplural is, in Anglo-Saxon, notbeón, butbeóðandbeó.
§ 340. In the "Deutsche Grammatik" it is stated that the Anglo-Saxon formsbeô,bist,bið,beoð, orbeó, have not a present but afuturesense; that whilstammeansI am,beómeansI shall be; and that in the older languages it is only where the formamis not found thatbehas the power of a present form. The same root occursin the Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues with the same power; as,esmi=I am;búsu=I shall be, Lithuanic.Esmu=I am;buhshu=I shall be, Livonic.—Jesm=I am;budu=I shall be, Slavonic.—Gsem=I am;budu=I shall be, Bohemian. This, however, proves, not that there is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense, but that the wordbeóhas a future sense. There is no fresh tense where there is no fresh form.
The following is a specimen of the future power ofbeónin Anglo-Saxon:—"Hi nebeóðna cílde, soðlice, on domesdæge, acbeóðswa micele menn swa swa hi migton beón gif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre ylde."—Ælfric's Homilies. "Theywill not bechildren, forsooth, on Domesday, butwill beas much (so muckle) men as they might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age."
§ 341. Now, if we consider the wordbeónlike the wordweorðan(see §343) to mean not so muchto beas tobecome, we get an element of the idea of futurity. Things which arebecoming anythinghave yet something further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power ofbe. In English we often saymayforshall, and the same was done in Anglo-Saxon.
§ 342.Am.—Of this form it should be stated that the letter-mis no part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it is inGreek, and several other languages.
It should also be stated, that although the fact be obscured, and although the changes be insufficiently accounted for, the formsam,art,are, andis, are not, likeamandwas, parts of different words, but forms of one and the same word; in other terms, that, although betweenamandbethere is no etymological connexion,there is one betweenamandis. This we collect from the comparison of the Indo-European languages.
§ 343.Worth.—In the following lines of Scott, the wordworth=is, and is a fragment of the regular Anglo-Saxon verbweorðan=to be, orto become; Germanwerden.
Woeworththe chase, woeworththe day,That cost thy life, my gallant grey.—Lady of the Lake.
Woeworththe chase, woeworththe day,That cost thy life, my gallant grey.—Lady of the Lake.
Woeworththe chase, woeworththe day,
That cost thy life, my gallant grey.—Lady of the Lake.
THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE.
§ 344. The present participle, called also the active participle and the participle in-ing, is formed from the original word by adding-ing; as,move,moving. In the older languages the termination was more marked, being-nd. Like the Latin participle in-ns, it was originally declined. The Mœso-Gothic and Old High German forms arehabandsandhapêntér=having, respectively. The-sin the one language, and the-êrin the other, are the signs of the case and gender. In the Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon the forms are-andand-ande; asbindand,bindande=binding. In all the Norse languages, ancient and modern, the-dis preserved. So it is in the Old Lowland Scotch, and in many of the modern provincial dialects of England, wherestrikand,goand, is said forstriking,going. In Staffordshire, where the-ingis pronounced-ingg, there is a fuller sound than that of the current English. In Old English the form in-ndis predominant, in Middle English the use fluctuates, and in New English the termination-ingis universal. In the Scotch of the modern writers we find the form-in.
The rising sun o'er Galston muirsWi' glorious light was glintin';The hares were hirplin' down the furs,The lav'rocks they were chantin'.—Burns'Holy Fair.
The rising sun o'er Galston muirsWi' glorious light was glintin';The hares were hirplin' down the furs,The lav'rocks they were chantin'.—Burns'Holy Fair.
The rising sun o'er Galston muirs
Wi' glorious light was glintin';
The hares were hirplin' down the furs,
The lav'rocks they were chantin'.—Burns'Holy Fair.
§ 345. It has often been remarked that the participle is used in many languages as a substantive. This is true in Greek,
Ὁ πράσσων=the actor, when a male.Ἡ πρασσοῦσα=the actor, when a female.Τὸ πράττου=the active principle of a thing.
Ὁ πράσσων=the actor, when a male.Ἡ πρασσοῦσα=the actor, when a female.Τὸ πράττου=the active principle of a thing.
Ὁ πράσσων=the actor, when a male.
Ἡ πρασσοῦσα=the actor, when a female.
Τὸ πράττου=the active principle of a thing.
But it is also stated, that, in the English language, the participle is used as a substantive in a greater degree than elsewhere, and that it is used in several cases and in both numbers,e.g.,
Risingearly is healthy,There is healthin risingearly.This is the advantageof risingearly.Therisingsin the North, &c.
Risingearly is healthy,There is healthin risingearly.This is the advantageof risingearly.Therisingsin the North, &c.
Risingearly is healthy,
There is healthin risingearly.
This is the advantageof risingearly.
Therisingsin the North, &c.
Some acute remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, in the Introduction to his edition of Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," modify this view. According to these, the-ingin words likerisingis not the-ingof the present participle; neither has it originated in the Anglo-Saxon-end. It is rather the-ingin words likemorning; which is anything but a participle of the non-existent verbmorn, and which has originated in the Anglo-Saxon substantival termination-ung. Upon this Rask writes as follows:—"Gitsung,gewilnung=desire;swutelung=manifestation;clænsung=a cleansing;sceawung=view,contemplation;eorð-beofung=an earthquake;gesomnung=an assembly. This termination is chiefly used in forming substantives from verbs of the first class in-ian; ashálgung=consecration, fromhálgian=to consecrate. These verbs are all feminine."—"Anglo-Saxon Grammar," p. 107.
Now, whatever may be the theory of the origin of the termination-ingin old phrases likerising early ishealthy, it cannot apply to expressions of recent introduction. Here the direct origin in-ungis out of the question.
The view, then, that remains to be taken of the forms in question is this:
1. That the older forms in-ingare substantival in origin, and = the Anglo-Saxon-ung.
2. That the latter ones areirregularlyparticipial, and have been formed on a false analogy.
THE PAST PARTICIPLE.
§ 346. A.The participle in-EN.—In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjectives. Like the adjectives, it is, in the present English, undeclined.
In Anglo-Saxon it always ended in-en, assungen,funden,bunden. In English this-enis often wanting, asfound,bound; the wordboundenbeing antiquated.
Words where the-enis wanting may be viewed in two lights; 1, they may be looked upon as participles that have lost their termination; 2, they may be considered as præterites with a participial sense.
§ 347.Drank,drunk,drunken.—With all words wherein the vowel of the plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the plural form. To sayI have drunk, is to use an ambiguous expression; sincedrunkmay be either a participleminusits termination, or a præterite with a participial sense. To sayI have drank, is to use a præterite for a participle. To sayI have drunken, is to use an unexceptional form.
In all words with a double form, asspakeandspoke,brakeandbroke,claveandclove, the participle follows the form ino, asspoken,broken,cloven.Spaken,braken,clavenare impossible forms. There are degrees in laxity of language, and to saythe spear is brokeis better than to saythe spear is brake.
§ 348. As a general rule, we find the participle in-enwherever the præterite is strong; indeed, the participle in-enmay be called the strong participle, or the participle of the strong conjugation. Still the two forms do not always coincide. Inmow,mowed,mown,sow,sowed,sown; and several other words, we find the participle strong, and the præterite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is only another way of saying that the præterite has a greater tendency to pass from strong to weak than the participle.
§ 349. In the Latin language the change fromstor, andvice versâ, is very common. We have the double formsarborandarbos,honorandhonos, &c. Of this change we have a few specimens in English. The wordsrearandraise, as compared with each other, are examples. In Anglo-Saxon a few words undergo a similar change in the plural number of the strong præterites.