Ceóse,I choose; ceâs,I chose; curon,we chose; gecoren,chosen.Forleóse,I lose; forleás,I lost; forluron,we lost; forloren,lost.Hreose,I rush; hreás,I rushed; hruron,we rushed; gehroren,rushed.
Ceóse,I choose; ceâs,I chose; curon,we chose; gecoren,chosen.Forleóse,I lose; forleás,I lost; forluron,we lost; forloren,lost.Hreose,I rush; hreás,I rushed; hruron,we rushed; gehroren,rushed.
Ceóse,I choose; ceâs,I chose; curon,we chose; gecoren,chosen.
Forleóse,I lose; forleás,I lost; forluron,we lost; forloren,lost.
Hreose,I rush; hreás,I rushed; hruron,we rushed; gehroren,rushed.
This accounts for the participial formforlorn, orlost, in New High Germanverloren. In Milton's lines,
—— the piercing airBurnsfrore, and cold performs the effect of fire,—Paradise Lost, b. ii.,
—— the piercing airBurnsfrore, and cold performs the effect of fire,—Paradise Lost, b. ii.,
—— the piercing air
Burnsfrore, and cold performs the effect of fire,—Paradise Lost, b. ii.,
we have a form from the Anglo-Saxon participlegefroren=frozen.
§ 350. B. Theparticiplein-D,-T, or-ED.—In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjective. Like the adjective, it is, in the present English, undeclined.
In Anglo-Saxon it differed in form from the præterite, inasmuch as it ended in-ed, or-t, whereas the præterite ended in-ode,-de, or-te: as,lufode,bærnde,dypte, præterites;gelufod,bærned,dypt, participles.
As the ejection of thee(in one case final in the other not) reduces words likebærnedandbærndeto the same form, it is easy to account for the present identity of form between the weak præterites and the participles in-d:e.g.,I moved,I have moved, &c.
§ 351.The prefixY.—In the older writers, and in works written, like Thomson's "Castle of Indolence," in imitation of them, we find prefixed to the præterite participle the lettery-, as,yclept=called:yclad=clothed:ydrad=dreaded.
The following are the chief facts and the current opinion concerning this prefix:—
1. It has grown out of the fuller formsge-: Anglo-Saxon,ge-: Old Saxon,gi-: Mœso-Gothic,ga-: Old High German,ka-,cha-,ga-,ki-,gi-.
2. It occurs in each and all of the Germanic languages of the Gothic stock.
3. It occurs, with a few fragmentary exceptions, in none of the Scandinavian languages of the Gothic stock.
4. In Anglo-Saxon it occasionally indicates a difference of sense; as,hâten=called,ge-hâten =promised;boren=borne,ge-boren =born.
5. It occurs in nouns as well as verbs.
6. Its power, in the case of nouns, is generally some idea ofassociation, orcollection.—Mœso-Gothic,sinþs=a journey,ga-sinþa=a companion; Old High German,perc=hill;ki-perki(gebirge) =a range of hills.
7. But it has also afrequentativepower; a frequentative power, which is, in all probability, secondary to its collective power; since things which recur frequently recurwith a tendency to collection or association; Middle High German,ge-rassel=rustling;ge-rumpel=c-rumple.
8. And it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality.
This power is also a collective, since every quality is associated with the object that possesses it;a sea with waves=a wavy sea.
9. Hence it is probable that thega-,ki-, orgi-, Gothic, is thecumof Latin languages. Such, at least, is Grimm's view, as given in the "Deutsche Grammatik," i. 1016.
Concerning this, it may be said that it is deficient in an essential point. It does not show how the participle past is collective. Undoubtedly it may be said that every such participle is in the condition of words likege-feaxandge-heort;i.e., that they imply an association between the object and the action or state. But this does not seem to be Grimm's view; he rather suggests that thege-may have been a prefix to verbs in general, originally attached to all their forms, but finally abandoned everywhere except in the case of the participle.
The theory of this prefix has yet to assume a satisfactory form.
COMPOSITION.
§ 352. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and indubitable specimens of composition—day-star,vine-yard,sun-beam,apple-tree,ship-load,silver-smith, &c. The wordspalpableandindubitablehave been used, because in many cases, as will be seen hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound or not.
§ 353. Now, in each of the compounds quoted above, it may be seen that it is the second word which is qualified, or defined, by the first, and that it is not the first which is qualified, or defined, by the second. Ofyards,beams,trees,loads,smiths, there may be many sorts, and, in order to determine whatparticularsort ofyard,beam,tree,load, orsmith, may be meant, the wordsvine,sun,apple,ship, andsilver, are prefixed. In compound words it is thefirstterm that defines or particularises thesecond.
§ 354. That the idea given by the wordapple-treeis not referable to the wordsappleandtree, irrespective of the order in which they occur, may be seen by reversing the position of them. The wordtree-apple, although not existing in the language, is as correct a word asthorn-apple. Intree-apple, the particular sort ofapplemeant is denoted by the wordtree, and if therewere in our gardens various sorts of plants calledapples, of which some grew along the ground and others upon trees, such a word astree-applewould be required in order to be opposed toearth-apple, orground-apple, or some word of the kind.
In the compound wordstree-appleandapple-tree, we have the same elements differently arranged. However, as the wordtree-appleis not current in the language, the class of compounds indicated by it may seem to be merely imaginary. Nothing is farther from being the case. Atree-roseis aroseof a particular sort. The generality ofrosesbeing onshrubs, this grows on atree. Its peculiarity consists in this fact, and this particular character is expressed by the wordtreeprefixed. Arose-treeis atreeof a particular sort, distinguished fromapple-trees, andtreesin general (in other words, particularised or defined), by the wordroseprefixed.
Aground-nutis anutparticularised by growing in the ground. Anut-groundis agroundparticularised by producing nuts.
Afinger-ring, as distinguished from anear-ring, and fromringsin general (and so particularised), is aringfor thefinger. Aring-finger, as distinguished fromfore-fingers, and fromfingersin general (and so particularised), is afingerwhereonringsare worn.
§ 355. At times this rule seems to be violated. The wordsspit-fireanddare-devilseem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the case of aspit-fire, that what he (or she)spitsisfire; and that, in the case of adare-devil, what he (or she)daresis thedevil. In this case the initial wordsspitanddareare particularised by the final onesfireanddevil. The true idea, however, confirms the original rule. Aspit-firevoids his fire by spitting. Adare-devil, in meeting the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. Aspit-fireis not one who spits fire, but one whose fire isspit. Adare-devilis not one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil is even dared.
§ 356. Of the two elements of a compound word, which is the most important? In one sense the latter, in another sense the former. The latter word is the mostessential; since the general idea oftreesmust exist before it can be defined or particularised; so becoming the idea which we have inapple-tree,rose-tree, &c. The former word, however, is the mostinfluential. It is by this that the original idea is qualified. The latter word is the staple original element: the former is the superadded influencing element. Compared with each other, the former element is active, the latter passive. Etymologically speaking, the former element, in English compounds, is the most important.
§ 357. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the detail of the composition of words;e.g., how nouns combine with nouns, as insun-beam; nouns with verbs, as indare-devil, &c. It is thought however, sufficient in the present work to be content with, 1. defining the meaning of the term composition; 2. explaining the nature of some obscure compounds.
Composition is the joining together,in language, oftwo different words, andtreating the combination as a single term. Observe the words in italics.
In language.—A great number of our compounds, like the wordmerry-making, are divided by the sign -, or the hyphen. It is very plain that if all wordsspeltwith a hyphen were to be considered as compounds, the formation of them would be not a matter of speech, or language, but one of writing or spelling. This distinguishes compounds in language from mere printers' compounds.
Two.—For this, see §369.
Different.—In Old High German we find the formsëlp-sëlpo. Here there is the junction of two words, but not the junction of twodifferentones. This distinguishes composition from gemination.
Words.—Infather-s,clear-er,four-th, &c., there is the addition of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition from derivation.
Treating the combination as a single term.—In determining between derived words and compound words, there is an occasional perplexity; the perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between acompound wordandtwo words. In the eyes of one grammarian the termmountain heightmay be as truly a compound word assun-beam. In the eyes of another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just asAlpine heightis two words;mountainbeing dealt with as an adjective. It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part.
§ 358. As a preliminary to a somewhat subtle distinction, the attention of the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from Churchill:—
"Then rést, my friénd,and spárethy précious bréath."
"Then rést, my friénd,and spárethy précious bréath."
"Then rést, my friénd,and spárethy précious bréath."
On each of the syllablesrést,friénd,spáre,préc-,bréath, there is an accent. Each of these syllablesmust be compared with the one that precedes it;restwiththen,friendwithmy, and so on throughout the line. Compared with the wordand, the wordspareis not only accented, but the accent is conspicuous and prominent. There is so little onand, so much onspare, that the disparity of accent is very manifest.
Now, if in the place ofand, there were some other word, a word not so much accented asspare, but still more accented thanand, this disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be said to be atpar, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly altered from Churchill, the real reading being
"Then rést, my friénd,spare, sparethy précious bréath."
"Then rést, my friénd,spare, sparethy précious bréath."
"Then rést, my friénd,spare, sparethy précious bréath."
In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been supposed. In the wordsspare, spare, the accents are nearly atpar. Such the difference between accent at par and disparity of accent.
Good illustrations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following:the lime house near the bridge north of the new port. Compare the parity of accent on the pairs of wordslimeandhouse,bridgeandnorth,newandport, with the disparity of accent in the compound wordsLímehouse,Brídgenorth, andNéwport. The separate wordsbeef steak, where the accent is nearly atpar, compared with the compound wordsweépstakes, where there is a great disparity of accent, are further illustrations of the same difference.
The difference between a compound word and a pair of words is further illustrated by comparing such terms as the following:—bláck bírd, meaning abird thatis black, withbláckbird= the Latinmerula;blúe béll, meaning abell that is blue, withblúebell, the flower. Expressions like ashárp edgéd instrument, meaningan instrument that is sharp and has edges, as opposed toa shárp-edged instrument, meaningan instrument with sharp edges, further exemplify this difference.
Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, that, in the English language,there is no composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent.
§ 359. The reader is now informed, that unless he has taken an exception to either a statement or an inference, he has either seen beyond what has been already laid down by the author, or else has read him with insufficient attention. This may be shown by drawing a distinction between a compound form and a compound idea.
In the wordsa red house, each word preserves its natural and original meaning, and the statement suggested by the term isthat a house is red. By a parity of reasoninga mad houseshould mean ahouse that is mad; and provided that each word retain itsnatural meaningand itsnatural accent, such is the fact. Let ahousemean, as it often does, afamily. Then the phrase,a mad house, means that thehouse,or family,is mad, just as ared housemeans that thehouse is red. Such, however, is not the current meaning of the word. Every one knows thata mad housemeansa house for mad men; in which case it is treated as a compound word, and has a marked accent on the first syllable, just asLímehousehas. Now, compared with the wordred house, meaning a house of ared colour, and compared with the wordsmad house, meaning aderanged family, the wordmádhouse, in its common sense, expressed a compound idea; as opposed to two ideas, or a double idea. The wordbeef steakis evidently a compound idea; but as there is no disparity of accent, it is not a compound word. Its sense is compound. Its form is not compound but double. This indicates the objection anticipated, which is this:viz., that a definition, which would exclude such a word asbeef steakfrom the list of compounds, is, for that very reason, exceptionable. I answer to this, that the term in question is a compound idea, and not a compound form; in other words, that it is a compound in logic, but not a compound in etymology. Now etymology, taking cognisance of forms only, has nothing to do with ideas, except so far as they influence forms.
Such is the commentary upon the words,treating the combination as a single term; in other words, such the difference between a compound word and two words. The rule, being repeated, stands (subject to exceptions indicated above) thus:—there is no true composition without either a change of form or a change of accent.
§ 360. As I wish to be clear upon this point, I shall illustrate the statement by its application.
The termtrée-roseis often pronouncedtrée róse; that is, with the accent atpar. It is compound in the one case; it is a pair of words in the other.
The termsmountain ashandmountain heightare generally (perhaps always) pronounced with an equal accent on the syllablesmount-andash,mount-andheight, respectively. In this case the wordmountainmust be dealt with as an adjective, and the words considered as two. The wordmoúntain waveis often pronounced with a visible diminution of accent on thelast syllable. In this case there is a disparity of accent, and the word is compound.
§ 361. The following quotation indicates a further cause of perplexity in determining between compound words and two words:—
1.A wet sheet and a blowing gale,A breeze that follows fast;That fills the white and swelling sail,And bends thegallant mast.—Allan Cunningham.2.Britannia needs no bulwarks,No towers along the steep;Her march is o'er themountain-wave,Her home is on the deep.—Thomas Campbell.
1.
1.
A wet sheet and a blowing gale,A breeze that follows fast;That fills the white and swelling sail,And bends thegallant mast.—Allan Cunningham.
A wet sheet and a blowing gale,
A breeze that follows fast;
That fills the white and swelling sail,
And bends thegallant mast.—Allan Cunningham.
2.
2.
Britannia needs no bulwarks,No towers along the steep;Her march is o'er themountain-wave,Her home is on the deep.—Thomas Campbell.
Britannia needs no bulwarks,
No towers along the steep;
Her march is o'er themountain-wave,
Her home is on the deep.—Thomas Campbell.
To speak first of the termgallant mast. Ifgallantmeanbrave, there aretwo words. If the words be two, there is a stronger accent onmast. If the accent onmastbe stronger, the rhyme withfastis more complete; in other words, the metre favours the notion of the words being considered astwo.Gallant-mast, however, is a compound word, with an especial nautical meaning. In this case the accent is stronger ongal-and weaker on-mast. This, however, is not the state of things that the metre favours. The same applies tomountain wave. The same person who in prose would throw a stronger accent onmount-and a weaker one onwave(so dealing with the word as a compound), might, in poetry, the wordstwo, by giving to the last syllable a parity of accent.
The following quotation from Ben Jonson may beread in two ways; and the accent may vary with the reading:
1.Lay thy bow of pearl apart,And thysilver shiningquiver.2.Lay thy bow of pearl apart,And thysilver-shiningquiver.—Cynthia's Revels.
1.
1.
Lay thy bow of pearl apart,And thysilver shiningquiver.
Lay thy bow of pearl apart,
And thysilver shiningquiver.
2.
2.
Lay thy bow of pearl apart,And thysilver-shiningquiver.—Cynthia's Revels.
Lay thy bow of pearl apart,
And thysilver-shiningquiver.—Cynthia's Revels.
§ 362.On certain words wherein the fact of their being compound is obscured.—Composition is the addition of a word to a word, derivation is the addition of certain letters or syllables to a word. In a compound form each element has a separate and independent existence; in a derived form, only one of the elements has such. Now it is very possible that in an older stage of a language two words may exist, may be put together, and may so form a compound, each word having, then, a separate and independent existence. In a later stage of language, however, only one of these words may have a separate and independent existence, the other having become obsolete. In this case a compound word would take the appearance of a derived one, since but one of its elements could be exhibited as a separate and independent word. Such is the case with, amongst others, the wordbishop-ric. In the present language the wordrichas no separate and independent existence. For all this, the word is a true compound, since, in Anglo-Saxon, we have the nounríceas a separate, independent word, signifyingkingdomordomain.
Again, without becoming obsolete, a word may alter its form. This is the case with most of our adjectivesin-ly. At present they appear derivative; their termination-lyhaving no separate and independent existence. The older language, however, shows that they are compounds; since-lyis nothing else than-lic, Anglo-Saxon;-lih, Old High German;-leiks, Mœso-Gothic; =like, orsimilis, and equally with it an independent separate word.
§ 363. "Subject to a few exceptions, it may be laid down, thatthere is no true composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent."—Such is the statement made in §358. The first class of exceptions consists of those words where the natural tendency to disparity of accent is traversed by some rule of euphony. For example, let two words be put together, which at their point of contact form a combination of sounds foreign to our habits of pronunciation. The rarity of the combination will cause an effort in utterance. The effort in utterance will cause an accent to be laid on the latter half of the compound. This will equalize the accent, and abolish the disparity. The wordmonkshood, the name of a flower (aconitum napellus), where, to my ear at least, there is quite as much accent on the-hoodas on themonks-, may serve in the way of illustration.Monksis one word,hoodanother. When joined together, theh-of the-hoodis put in immediate apposition with thesof themonks-. Hence the combinationmonkshood. At the letterssandhis the point of contact. Now the sound ofsfollowed immediately by the sound ofhis a true aspirate. But true aspirates are rare in the English language. Being of rare occurrence, the pronunciation of them is a matter of attention and effort; and this attention and effort create an accent which otherwise would be absent.Hence words likemónks-hóod,well-héad, and some others.
Real reduplications of consonants, as inhóp-póle, may have the same parity of accent with the true aspirates: and for the same reasons. They are rare combinations that require effort and attention.
§ 364. The second class of exceptions contains those words wherein between the first element and the second there is so great a disparity, either in the length of the vowel, or the length of the syllableen masse, as to counteract the natural tendency of the first element to become accented. One of the few specimens of this class (which after all may consist of double words) is the termupstánding. Here it should be remembered, that words likehapházard,foolhárdy,uphólder, andwithhóldcome under the first class of the exceptions.
§ 365. The third class of exceptions contains words likeperchánceandperháps. In all respects but one these are double words, just asby chanceis a double word.Per, however, differs frombyin having no separate existence. This sort of words we owe to the multiplicity of elements (classical and Gothic) in the English language.
§ 366.Peacock,peahen.—If these words be rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of the elements-cockand-hen, the statements made in the beginning of the present chapter are invalidated. Since, if the wordpea-be particularized, qualified, or defined by the words-cockand-hen, thesecondterm defines or particularises thefirst, which is contrary to the rule of §356. The truth, however, is, that the words-cockand-henare defined by the prefixpea-. Preparatory to the exhibition of this, let us remember that the wordpea(althoughnow found in composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a species of fowl, likepheasant,partridge, or any other appellation. It is the Latinpavo, Germanpfau. Now if the wordpeacockmean apea(pfauorpavo) that is a male, then dowood-cock,black-cock, andbantam-cock, meanwoods,blacks, andbantamsthat are male. Or if the wordpeahenmean apea(pfauorpavo) that is female, then domoorhenandguineahenmeanmoorsandguineasthat are female. Again, if apeahenmean apea(pfauorpavo) that is female, then does the compoundpheasant-henmean the same ashen-pheasant; which is not the case. The fact is thatpeacockmeans acock that is a pea(pfauorpavo);peahenmeans ahen that is a pea(pfauorpavo); and, finally,peafowlmeans afowl that is a pea(pfauorpavo). In the same waymoorfowlmeans, not amoor that is connected with a fowl, but afowl that is connected with a moor.
§ 367. It must be clear that in every compound word there are, at least, two parts;i.e., the whole or part of the original, and the whole or part of the superadded word. In the most perfect forms of inflection, however, there is athirdelement,viz., a vowel, consonant, or syllable that joins the first word with the second.
In the older forms of all the Gothic languages the presence of this third element was the rule rather than the exception. In the present English it exists in but few words.
a.The-a-inblack-a-mooris possibly such a connecting element.
b.The-in-innight-in-galeis most probably such a connecting element. Compare the German formnacht-i-gale, and remember the tendency of vowels to take the sound of-ngbeforeg.
§ 368.Improper compounds.—The-s-in words likeThur-s-day,hunt-s-man, may be one of two things.
a.It may be the sign of the genitive case, so thatThursday=Thoris dies. In this case the word is animproper compound, since it is like the wordpater-familiasin Latin, in a common state of syntactical construction.
b.It may be a connecting sound, like the-i-innacht-i-gale. Reasons for this view occur in the following fact:—
In the modern German languages the genitive case of feminine nouns ends otherwise than in-s. Nevertheless, the sound of-s-occurs in composition equally, whether the noun it follows be masculine or feminine. This fact, as far as it goes, makes it convenient to consider the sound in question as a connective rather than a case. Probably, it is neither one nor the other exactly, but the effect of a false analogy.
§ 369.Decomposites.—"Composition is the joining together oftwowords."—See §357.
Words likemid-ship-man,gentle-man-like, &c., where the number of verbal elements seems to amount tothree, are no exception to this rule; sincecompound radicalslikemidshipandgentleman, are, for the purposes of composition, single words. Compounds wherein one element is compound are calleddecomposites.
§ 370. There are a number of words which are never found by themselves; or, if so found, have never the same sense that they have incombination. Mark the wordcombination. The terms in question are points ofcombination, not of composition: since they form not theparts of words, but the parts of phrases. Such are the expressionstime and tide—might and main—rede me my riddle—pay your shot—rhyme and reason, &c. These words are evidently of the same class, though not of the same species withbishopric,colewort,spillikin,gossip,mainswearer, &c.
These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words preserved in composition. The former give us obsolete words preserved in combination.
ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION.
§ 371.Derivation, likeetymology, is a word used in a wide and in a limited sense. In the wide sense of the term, every word, except it be in the simple form of a root, is a derived word. In this sense the cases, numbers, and genders of nouns, the persons, moods, and tenses of verbs, the ordinal numbers, the diminutives, and even the compound words, are alike matters of derivation. In the wide sense of the term the wordfathers, fromfather, is equally in a state of derivation with the wordstrengthfromstrong.
In the use of the word, even in its limited sense, there is considerable laxity and uncertainty.
Gender,number,case.—These have been called theaccidentsof the noun, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation in its stricter sense, or from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of declension. Nouns aredeclined.
Person,number,tense,voice.—These have been called theaccidentsof a verb, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of conjugation. Verbs areconjugated.
Conjugation and declension constitute inflection. Nouns and verbs, speaking generally, are inflected.
Inflection, a part of derivation in its wider sense, is separated from derivation properly so called, or from derivation in its limited sense.
The degrees of comparison, or certain derived forms of adjectives; the ordinals, or certain derived forms of the numerals; the diminutives, &c., or certain derived forms of the substantive, have been separated from derivation properly so called, and considered as parts of inflection. I am not certain, however, that for so doing there is any better reason than mere convenience.
Derivation proper, the subject of the present chapter, comprises all the changes that words undergo, which are not referable to some of the preceding heads. As such, it is, in its details, a wider field than even composition. The details, however, are not entered into.
§ 372. Derivation proper may be divided according to a variety of principles. Amongst others—
I.According to the evidence.—In the evidence that a word is not simple, but derived, there are at least two degrees.
a.That the wordstrengthis a derived word I collect to a certainty from the wordstrong, an independent form, which I can separate from it. Of the nature of the wordstrengththere is the clearest evidence, or evidence of the first degree.
b.Fowl,hail,nail,sail,tail,soul; in Anglo-Saxon,fugel,hægel,nægel,segel,tægel,sawel.—These words are by the best grammarians considered as derivatives. Now, with these words I cannot do what was done with the wordstrength, I cannot take from them the part which I look upon as the derivational addition, and after that leave an independent word.Strength-this a true word;fowlorfugel-lis no true word. If I believethese latter words to be derivations at all, I do it because I find in words likeharelle, &c., the-las a derivational addition. Yet, as the fact of a word being sometimes used as a derivational addition does not preclude it from being at other times a part of the root, the evidence that the words in question are not simple, but derived, is not cogent. In other words, it is evidence of the second degree.
II.According to the effect.—The syllable-enin the wordwhitenchanges the nounwhiteinto a verb. This is its effect. We may so classify derivational forms as to arrange combinations like-en(whose effect is to give the idea of the verb) in one order; whilst combinations like-th(whose effect is, as in the wordstrength, to give the idea of abstraction) form another order.
III.According to the form.—Sometimes the derivational element is a vowel (as the-ieindoggie), sometimes a consonant (as the-thinstrength), sometimes a vowel and consonant combined; in other words a syllable (as the-en, inwhiten), sometimes a change of vowel without any addition (as the-iintip, compared withtop), sometimes a change of consonant without any addition (as thezinprize, compared withprice). Sometimes it is a change of accent, like asúrvey, compared withto survéy. To classify derivations in this manner, is to classify them according to their form.
IV.According to the historical origin of the derivational elements.
V.According to the number of the derivational elements.—Infisher, as compared withfish, there is but one derivational affix. Infishery, as compared withfish, the number of derivational elements is two.
§ 373. In words likebishopric, and many others mentioned in the last Chapter, we had compound words under the appearance of derived ones; in words likeupmost, and many others, we have derivation under the appearance of composition.
ADVERBS.
§ 374.Adverbs.—The adverbs are capable of being classified after a variety of principles.
Firstly, they may be divided according to their meaning. In this case we speak of the adverbs oftime,place,number,manner.
§ 375.Well,better,ill,worse.—Here we have a class of adverbs expressive of degree, or intensity. Adverbs of this kind are capable of taking an inflection,viz., that of the comparative and superlative degrees.
Now,then,here,there.—In the idea expressed by these words there are no degrees of intensity. Adverbs of this kind are incapable of taking any inflection.
Adverbs differ from nouns and verbs in being susceptible of one sort of inflection only,viz., that of degree.
§ 376. Secondly, adverbs may be divided according to their form and origin.
Better,worse.—Here the words are sometimes adverbs; sometimes adjectives.—This book is better than that—herebetteragrees withbook, and is, therefore, adjectival.This looks better than that—herebetterqualifieslooks, and is therefore adverbial. Again;to do a thing with violenceis equivalentto do a thing violently. This shows how adverbs may arise out of cases. In words like the Englishbetter, the Latinvi=violenter, the Greekκαλὸν=καλῶς, we have adjectives in theirdegrees, and substantives in their cases, with adverbial powers. In other words, nouns are deflected from their natural sense to an adverbial one. Adverbs of this kind are adverbs ofdeflection.
Brightly,bravely.—Here an adjective is rendered adverbial by the addition of the derivative syllable-ly. Adverbs likebrightly, &c., may be called adverbs ofderivation.
Now.—This word has not satisfactorily been shown to have originated as any other part of speech but as an adverb. Words of this sort are adverbsabsolute.
§ 377.When,now,well,worse,better—here the adverbial expression consists in a single word, and issimple.To-day,yesterday,not at all,somewhat—here the adverbial expression consists of a compound word, or a phrase. This indicates the division of adverbs intosimpleandcomplex.
§ 378. Adverbs of deflection may originally have been—
a.Substantive; asneedsin such expressions asI needs must go.
b.Adjectives; as thesun shines bright.
c.Prepositions; asI go in,we go out; though, it should be added, that in this case we may as reasonably derive the preposition from the adverb as the adverb from the preposition.
§ 379. Adjectives of deflection derived from substantives may originally have been—
a.Substantives in thegenitivecase; asneeds.
b.Substantives in thedativecase; aswhil-om, an antiquated word meaningat times, and often improperly speltwhilome. In such an expression aswait a while, the word still exists; andwhile=time, or ratherpause; since, in Danish,hvile=rest.
El-se(forell-es);unawar-es;eftsoon-sareadjectivesin the genitive case.By rightsis a word of the same sort; the-sbeing the sign of the genitive singular like the-sinfather's, and not of the accusative plural like the-sinfathers.
Once(on-es);twice(twi-es);thrice(thri-es) arenumeralsin the genitive case.
§ 380.Darkling.—This is no participle of a verbdarkle, but an adverb of derivation, likeunwaringûn=unawares, Old High German;stillinge=secretly, Middle High German;blindlings=blindly, New High German;darnungo=secretly, Old Saxon;nichtinge=by night, Middle Dutch;blindeling=blindly, New Dutch;bæclinga=backwards,handlunga=hand to hand, Anglo-Saxon; and, finally,blindlins,backlins,darklins,middlins,scantlins,stridelins,stowlins, in Lowland Scotch.
ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE.
§ 381. It is a common practice for languages to express by different modifications of the same root the three following ideas:—
1. The idea of restina place.
2. The idea of motiontowardsa place.
3. The idea of motionfroma place.
This habit gives us three correlative adverbs—one ofposition, and two ofdirection.
§ 382. It is also a common practice of language to depart from the original expression of each particular idea, and to interchange the signs by which they are expressed; so that a word originally expressive of simple position orrest in a placemay be used instead of the word expressive of direction,or motion between two places. Hence we say,come here, whencome hitherwould be the more correct expression.
§ 383. The full amount of change in thisrespectmay be seen from the following table, illustrative of the formshere,hither,hence.
§ 384. Local terminations of this kind, in general, were commoner in the earlier stages of language than at present. The following are from the Mœso-Gothic:—
§ 385. The-ce( =es) inhen-ce,when-ce,then-ce, has yet to be satisfactorily explained. The Old English iswhenn-es,thenn-es. As far, therefore, as the spelling is concerned, they are in the same predicament with the wordonce, which is properlyon-es, the genitive ofone. This origin is probable, but not certain.
§ 386.Yonder.—In the Mœso-Gothic we have the following forms:jáinar,jáina,jánþrô=illic,illuc,illinc. They do not, however, quite explain the formyon-d-er. It is not clear whether thed= the-dinjâind, or theþinjainþro.
§ 387.Anon, is used by Shakspeare, in the sense ofpresently.—The probable history of this word is as follows: the first syllable contains a root akin to the rootyon, signifyingdistance in place. The second is a shortened form of the Old High German and Middle High German,-nt, a termination expressive, 1, of removal inspace; 2, of removal intime; Old High German,ënont,ënnont; Middle High German,ënentlig,jenunt=beyond.
ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN.
§ 388. The Anglo-Saxon adverbs arewhenneandþenne=when,then.
The masculine accusative cases of the relative and demonstrative pronoun arehwæne(hwone) andþæne(þone).
Notwithstanding the difference, the first form is a variety of the second; so that the adverbswhenandthenare really pronominal in origin.
§ 389. As to the wordthan, the conjunction of comparison, it is another form ofthen; the notions oforder,sequence, andcomparisonbeing allied.
This is good;then(ornext in order)that is good, is an expression sufficiently similar tothis is better than thatto have given rise to it; and in Scotch and certain provincial dialects we actually findthaninstead ofthen.
PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS.
§ 390.Prepositions.—Prepositions are wholly unsusceptible of inflection.
§ 391.Conjunctions.—Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly unsusceptible of inflection.
§ 392.Yes,no.—Althoughnotmay be considered to be an adverb,nora conjunction, andnonea noun, these two words, the direct categorical affirmative, and the direct categorical negative, are referable to none of the current parts of speech. Accurate grammar places them in a class by themselves.
§ 393.Particles.—The word particle is a collective term for all those parts of speech that arenaturallyunsusceptible of inflection; comprising, 1, interjections; 2, direct categorical affirmatives; 3, direct categorical negatives; 4, absolute conjunctions; 5, absolute prepositions; 6, adverbs unsusceptible of degrees of comparison; 7, inseparable prefixes.
ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE.
§ 394. The inflection of pronouns has its natural peculiarities in language. It has also its natural difficulties in philology. These occur not in one language in particular, but in all generally.
The most common peculiarity in the grammar of pronouns is the fact of what may be called theirconvertibility. Of thisconvertibilitythe following statements serve as illustration:—
1.Of case.—In our own language the wordsmyandthyalthough at present possessives, were previously datives, and, earlier still, accusatives. Again, the accusativeyoureplaces the nominativeye, andvice versâ.
2.Of number.—The wordsthouandtheeare, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms,yeandyou, have replaced them.
3.Of person.—The Greek language gives us examples of this in the promiscuous use ofνιν,μιν,σφε, andἑαυτοῦ; whilstsichandsikare used with a similar latitude in the Middle High German and Scandinavian.
4.Of class.—The demonstrative pronouns become—