The alphabet of Phœnicia and Palestine being adapted to the language of Greece, the first change took place in the manner of writing. The Phœnicians wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to right. Besides this, the following principles were recognised;—
a.Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case, as seen above, with the eighteenth letter,tsadi.
b.Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8, 16, and probably with some others.
c.Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was the case with 6 and 19.
d.For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signsφ,χ,υ,ω.
e.The new signs were not mere modifications of the older ones, but totally new letters.
All this was correct in principle; and the consequence is, that the Greek alphabet, although not originally meant to express a European tongue at all, expresses the Greek language well.
§ 162. But it was not from the Greek that our own alphabet was immediately derived; although ultimatelyit is referable to the same source as the Greek,viz., the Phœnician.
It was theRomanalphabet which served as the basis to the English.
And it is in the changes which the Phœnician alphabet underwent in being accommodated to the Latin language that we must investigate the chief peculiarities of the present alphabet and orthography of Great Britain and America.
Now respecting the Roman alphabet, we must remember that it wasnottakendirectlyfrom the Phœnician; in this important point differing from the Greek.
Nor yet was it taken,in the first instance, from the Greek.
It had adoubleorigin.
The operation of the principles indicated in §161was a work of the time; and hence the older and more unmodified Greek alphabet approached in character its Phœnician prototype much more than the later, or modified. As may be seen, by comparing the previous alphabets with the common alphabets of the Greek Grammar, the letters 6 and 19 occur in the earlier, whilst they are missing in the later, modes of writing. On the other hand, theoldalphabet has no such signs asφ,χ,υ,ω,ψ, andξ.
Such being the case, it is easy to imagine what would be the respective conditions of two Italian languages which borrowed those alphabets, the one from the earlier, the other from the later Greek. The former would contain the equivalents tovaw(6), andkof(19); but be destitute ofφ,χ, &c.; whereas the latter would haveφ,χ, &c., but be without eithervaworkof.
Much the same would be the case with any singleItalian language which took as its basis theearlier, but adopted, during the course of time, modifications from thelaterGreek. It would exhibit within itself characters common to the two stages.
This, or something very like it, was the case with Roman. For the first two or three centuries the alphabet was Etruscan; Etruscan deriveddirectlyfrom the Greek, and from theoldGreek.
Afterwards, however, the later Greek alphabet had its influence, and the additional letters which it contained were more or less incorporated; and that without effecting the ejection of any earlier ones.
§ 163. With these preliminaries we may investigate the details of the Roman alphabet, when we shall find that many of them stand in remarkable contrast with those of Greece and Phœnicia. At the same time where they differ with them, they agree with the English.
§ 164. The differences of this table are referable to one of the following four heads:—a.Ejection.b.Addition.c.Change of power.d.Change of order.
a.Ejection.—In the first instance, the Italians ejected as unnecessary, letters 7,[44]9, and 11:zayn(zæta),teth(thæta), andkaf(kappa). Either the sounds which they expressed were wanting in their language; or else they were expressed by some other letter. The former was probably the case with 7 and 9,zætaandthæta, the latter with 11,kappa.
b.Addition.—Out of the Greekiôta, two; out of the Greekupsilon, four modifications have been evolved; viz.,iandjout ofι, andu,v,w,y, out ofυ.
c.Change of power.—Letter 3, in Greek and Hebrew had the sound of thegingun; in Latin that ofk. The reason for this lies in the structure of the Etruscan language. In that tongue theflatsounds were remarkably deficient; indeed, it is probable, that that ofgwas wanting. Itssharpequivalent, however, the sound ofk, was by no means wanting; and the Greekgammawas used to denote it. This made the equivalent tok, the third letter of the alphabet, as early as the time of the Etruscans.
But theRomanshad both sounds, theflatas well asthesharp,gas well ask. How did they express them? Up to the second Punic War they made the rounded form of the GreekΓ, out of which the letter C has arisen, do double work, and signifykandgequally, just as in the present Englishthis sounded as the Greekθ,[45]and asdh;[46]in proof whereof we have in the Duillian column,MACESTRATOS = MAGISTRATOS, andCARTHACINIENSES = CARTHAGINIENSES.
Thus much concerning the power and places of the Latinc, as opposed to the Greekγ. But this is not all. The use ofgamma, with the power ofk, madekappasuperfluous, and accounts for its ejection in theEtruscanalphabet; a fact already noticed.
Furthermore, an addition to the Etruscan alphabet was required by the existence of the sound ofg, in Latin, as soon as the inconvenience of usingcwith a double power became manifest. What took place then? Even this. The third letter was modified in form, or became a new letter,cbeing altered intog; and the new letter took its place in the alphabet.
Where was this? As theseventhletter betweenf(digamma) andh(hæta).
Why? Because it was there where there was a vacancy, and where it replaced the Greekzæta, or the Hebrewzayn, a letter which,at that time, was not wanted in Latin.
d.Change of order.—As far as the letterscandgare concerned, this has been explained; and it has been shown that change of order and change of power are sometimes very closely connected. All that now need be added is, that those letters which werelastintroduced from the Greek into the Roman alphabet, were placed at the end.
This is whyu,v,w, andycome aftert—the last letter of the original Phœnician, and also of theolderGreek.
This, too, is the reason forzcoming last of all. It was restored for the purpose of spelling Greek words. But as its original place had been filled up byg, it was tacked on as an appendage, rather than incorporated as an element.
Xinpower, coincided with the Greekxi; inplace, with the Greekkhi. Itspositionseems to have determined itsform, which is certainly that ofXrather than ofΞ. The full investigation of this is too lengthy for the present work.
§ 165. It should be observed, that, in the Latin, the letters have no longer anynames(likebeth,bæta), except such as are derived from their powers (be,ce).
§ 166. The principles which determined the form of the Roman alphabet were, upon the whole, correct; and, hence, the Roman alphabet, although not originally meant to express an Italian tongue at all, expressed the language to which it was applied tolerably.
On the other hand, there were both omissions and alterations which have had a detrimental effect upon the orthography of those other numerous tongues to which Latin has supplied the alphabet. Thus—
a.It is a matter of regret, that the differences which the Greeks drew between the so-calledlongandshorteando, was neglected by the Latins; in other words, thatωwas omitted entirely, andηchanged in power. Had this been the case, all the orthographical expedients by which we have to express the difference between theoinnot, and theoinnote, would have been prevented—not,note,moat—bed,bead,heel,glede, &c.
b.It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessarycompendiumasq=cu, orcw, should have been retained from the old Greek alphabet; and, still more so, that the equally superfluousx=cs, orks, should have been re-admitted.
c. It is a matter of regret, that the Greekθwas not treated like the Greekζ. Neither were wanted at first; both afterwards. The manner, however, of their subsequent introduction was different.Zætacame in as a simple single letter, significant of a simple single sound.Thæta, on the contrary, although expressive of an equally simple sound, becameth. This was a combination rather than a letter; and the error which it engendered was great.
It suggested the idea, that a simple sound was a compound one—which was wrong.
It further suggested the idea, that the sound ofθdiffered from that ofτ, by the addition ofh—which was wrong also.
§ 167. The Greek language had a system of sounds different from the Phœnician; and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.
The Roman language had a system of sounds different from the Greek and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.
This leads us to certain questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon. Hadita system of sounds different from the Roman? If so, what modifications did the alphabet require? Were such modifications effected? If so, how? Sufficiently or insufficiently? The answers are unsatisfactory.
§ 168. The Anglo-Saxon had, even in its earliest stage, the following sounds, for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs or letters—
1. The sound of thethinthin.
2. The sound of thethinthine.
It had certainly these: probably others.
§ 169. Expressive of these, two new signs were introduced,viz.,þ=thinthin, andð=thinthine.
W, also evolved out ofu, was either an original improvement of the Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of the allied languages of the Continent. Probably the latter was the case; since we find the following passage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid's "Krist:"—"Hujus enim linguæ barbaries, ut est inculca et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticæ artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum triau u uut puto quærit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente."
This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered the purpose to which it was applied tolerably.
§ 170. Change, however, went on; and the orthography which suited the earlier Anglo-Saxon would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not suit the language which had become or was becoming,English; wherein the sounds for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs increase. Thus there is at present—
1. The sound of theshinshine.
2. The sound of thezinazure.
How are these to be expressed? The rule has hitherto been to denote simple single sounds, by simple single signs, and where such signs have no existence already, tooriginate new ones.
Tocombine existing letters, rather than to coin a new one, has only been done rarely. The Latin substitutionof the combinationthfor the simple singleθ, was exceptionable. It was a precedent, however, which now begins to be followed generally.
§ 171. It is this precedent which accounts for the absence of any letter in English, expressive of either of the sounds in question.
§ 172. Furthermore, our alphabet has not only not increased in proportion to our sound-system, but it hasdecreased. The Anglo-Saxonþ= thethinthin, andð= thethinthine, have become obsolete; and a difference in pronunciation, which our ancestors expressed,weoverlook.
The same precedent is at the bottom of this; a fact which leads us to—
§ 173.The Anglo-Norman alphabet.—The Anglo-Saxon language wasGothic; the alphabet,Roman.
The Anglo-Norman language wasRoman; the alphabet,Romanalso.
The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source; his writing from another.
The Anglo-Norman took both from the same.
In adapting a Latin alphabet to a Gothic language, the Anglo-Saxon allowed himself more latitude than the Anglo-Norman. We have seen that the new signsþandðwere Anglo-Saxon.
Now the sounds which these letters represent did not occur in the Norman-French, consequently the Norman-French alphabet neither had nor needed to have signs to express them; until after the battle of Hastings,when it became the Anglo-Norman of England.
Then, the case became altered. The English language influenced the Norman orthography, and the Norman orthography the English language; and the result was, that the simple single correct and distinctivesigns of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, became replaced by the incorrect and indistinct combinationth.
This was a loss, both in the way of theoretical correctness and perspicuity.
Such is the general view of the additions, ejections, changes of power, and changes of order in the English alphabet. The extent, however, to which an alphabet is faulty, is no measure of the extent to which an orthography is faulty; since an insufficient alphabet may, by consistency in its application, be more useful than a full and perfect alphabet unsteadily applied.
§ 174. One of our orthographical expedients,viz., the reduplication of the consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical languages:terra,θάλασσα. Nevertheless, the following extract from the "Ormulum" (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have met with.
And whase wilenn shall þis boc,Efft oþerr siþe writenn,Himm bidde icc þatt hett write rihht,Swa sum þiss boc himm tæcheþþ;All þwerrt utt affterr þatt itt issOppo þiss firrste bisne,Wiþþ all swilc rime als her iss sett,Wiþþ alse fele wordess:And tatt he loke well þatt heAn boc-staff write twiggess,[47]Eggwhær þær itt uppo þiss bocIss writenn o þatt wise:Loke he well þatt hett write swa,Forr he ne magg noht elless,On Englissh writenn rihht te word,þatt wite he well to soþe.
And whase wilenn shall þis boc,Efft oþerr siþe writenn,Himm bidde icc þatt hett write rihht,Swa sum þiss boc himm tæcheþþ;All þwerrt utt affterr þatt itt issOppo þiss firrste bisne,Wiþþ all swilc rime als her iss sett,Wiþþ alse fele wordess:And tatt he loke well þatt heAn boc-staff write twiggess,[47]Eggwhær þær itt uppo þiss bocIss writenn o þatt wise:Loke he well þatt hett write swa,Forr he ne magg noht elless,On Englissh writenn rihht te word,þatt wite he well to soþe.
And whase wilenn shall þis boc,
Efft oþerr siþe writenn,
Himm bidde icc þatt hett write rihht,
Swa sum þiss boc himm tæcheþþ;
All þwerrt utt affterr þatt itt iss
Oppo þiss firrste bisne,
Wiþþ all swilc rime als her iss sett,
Wiþþ alse fele wordess:
And tatt he loke well þatt he
An boc-staff write twiggess,[47]
Eggwhær þær itt uppo þiss boc
Iss writenn o þatt wise:
Loke he well þatt hett write swa,
Forr he ne magg noht elless,
On Englissh writenn rihht te word,
þatt wite he well to soþe.
§ 175.The order of the alphabet.—In the history of our alphabet, we have had the history of certain changes in the arrangement, as well as of the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question now presents itself:viz., Is there in the order of the letters anynaturalarrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession of letters arbitrary and accidental? The following facts suggest an answer in the affirmative.
The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:—
Letbeth,vaw, andpe(b,v,p) constitute a series called series P. Letgimel,kheth, andkof(g,kh,k') constitute a series called series K. Letdaleth,teth, andtau, (d,t',t) constitute a series called series T. Letaleph,he, andaynconstitute a series called the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order.
Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel series; that of series K follows; and in the last place, comes the letter of series T. After this the order changes;dalethbeing followed byheof the vowel series.
In this second sequence therelativepositions ofv,kh, andt', are the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series. The sequence itself is broken by the letterzaynbut it is remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but fragmentary. Still, even now,pe, of series P, followsayn;tau, of series T, is farthest from it, andkof, of series K, is intermediate.
If this be the case, and, if the letters, so to say,circulate, the alterations made in their order during the transfer of their alphabet from Greece to Rome, have had the unsatisfactory effect of concealing an interesting arrangement, and of converting a real, though somewhat complex regularity, into apparent hazard and disorder.
1. Explain the termssharp,explosive,true aspirate,apparent aspirate,broad,dependent.2. Exhibit the difference between the quantity ofsyllablesand the quantity ofvowels.3. Accentuate the following words,—attribute(adjective),survey(verb),August(the month).4. Under what conditions is thesoundof consonants doubled?5. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the relations of thea) mutes,b) the vowels, underlining those which do not occur in English.6. What is the power ofphinPhilip? what inhaphazard? Illustrate the difference fully.7. Investigate the changes by which the wordspicture,nature, derived from the Latinpicturaandnatura, aresounded pictshurandnatshur.8. How do you sound the combinationapd? Why?9. In what points is the English alphabetinsufficient,redundant, andinconsistent?10. Why isz(zæta), which is the sixth letter in the Greek, the last in the English alphabet?
1. Explain the termssharp,explosive,true aspirate,apparent aspirate,broad,dependent.
2. Exhibit the difference between the quantity ofsyllablesand the quantity ofvowels.
3. Accentuate the following words,—attribute(adjective),survey(verb),August(the month).
4. Under what conditions is thesoundof consonants doubled?
5. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the relations of thea) mutes,b) the vowels, underlining those which do not occur in English.
6. What is the power ofphinPhilip? what inhaphazard? Illustrate the difference fully.
7. Investigate the changes by which the wordspicture,nature, derived from the Latinpicturaandnatura, aresounded pictshurandnatshur.
8. How do you sound the combinationapd? Why?
9. In what points is the English alphabetinsufficient,redundant, andinconsistent?
10. Why isz(zæta), which is the sixth letter in the Greek, the last in the English alphabet?
ETYMOLOGY.
ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY.
§ 176. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a wide, and at times in a restricted sense.
If in the English language we take such a word asfathers, we are enabled to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two elements. By comparing it with the wordfather, we see that thesis neither part nor parcel of the original word. Hence the word is capable of being analysed;fatherbeing the original primitive word, andsthe secondary superadded termination. From the wordfather, the wordfathersisderived, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended. What has been said of the wordfathersmay also be said offatherly,fatherlike,fatherless, &c. Now, from the wordfather, all these words (fathers,fatherly,fatherlike, andfatherless) differ in form and in meaning. To become such a word asfathers, &c., thewordfatherischanged. Of changes of this sort, it is the province of etymology to take cognizance.
§ 177. Compared with the formfathers, the wordfatheris the older form of the two. The wordfatheris a word current in this the nineteenth century. The same word is found much earlier, under different forms, and in different languages. Thus, in the Latin language, the form waspater; in Greek,πατήρ. Now, withfatherandfathers, the change takes place within the same language, whilst the change that takes place betweenpaterandfathertakes place within different languages. Of changes of this latter kind it is, also, the province of etymology to take cognizance.
§ 178. In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizanceof the changes of the form of words. However, as the etymology that compares the formsfathersandfatheris different from the etymology that comparesfatherandpater, we have, of etymology, two sorts: one dealing with the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language (father,fathers), the other dealing with the changes that words undergo in passing from one language to another (pater,father).
The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the etymology of the ensuing pages.
The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word,historicaletymology, orcomparativeetymology.
§ 179. It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in one point, viz., in taking cognizance of thechanges of forms that words undergo. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, asfather,fathers, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time, aspater,father, is a matter of indifference.
In the Latinpater, and in the Englishfather, we have one of two things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or two words descended or derived from a common original source.
Infatherswe have a formation deduced from the radical wordfather.
With these preliminaries we may understand Dr. Johnson's explanation of the word etymology.
"Etymology,n. s.(etymologia, Lat.)ἔτυμος(etymos)true, andλόγος(logos)a word.
"1.The descent or derivation of a word from its original; the deduction of formations from the radical word; the analysis of compounds into primitives.
"2.The part of grammar which delivers the inflections of nouns and verbs."
ON GENDER.
§ 180. How far is there such a thing asgenderin the English language? This depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word.
In the Latin language we have the wordstaurus=bull, andvacca=cow. Here the natural distinction ofsexis expressed bywhollydifferent words. With this we have corresponding modes of expression in English:e.g.,
The mode, however, of expressing different sexes bywhollydifferent words is not a matter ofgender. The wordsboyandgirlbear noetymologicalrelation to each other; neither being derived from the other, nor in any way connected with it.
§ 181. Neither are words likecock-sparrow,man-servant,he-goat, &c., as compared withhen-sparrow,maid-servant,she-goat, &c., specimens ofgender. Here a difference of sex is indicated by the addition of a fresh term, from which is formed a compound word.
§ 182. In the Latin wordsgenitrix=a mother, andgenitor=a father, we have a nearer approach togender. Here the difference of sex is expressed by a difference of termination; the wordsgenitorandgenitrixbeing in a true etymological relation,i.e., either derived from each other, or from some common source. With this we have, in English corresponding modes of expression:e.g.
§ 183. This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to gender rather thangenderitself; the difference from true grammatical gender being as follows:—
Let the Latin wordsgenitorandgenitrixbe declined:—
The syllables in italics are the signs of the cases and numbers. Now those signs are the same in each word, the difference of meaning (or sex) not affecting them.
§ 184. Contrast, however, with the wordsgenitorandgenitrixthe wordsdomina=a mistress, anddominus=a master.
Here the letters in italics, or the signs of the cases and numbers, are different; the difference being brought about by the difference of gender. Now it is very evident that, ifgenitrixbe a specimen of gender,dominais something more.
§ 185. It may be laid down as a sort of definition, thatthere is no gender where there is no affection of the declension: consequently, that, although we have, in English, words corresponding togenitrixandgenitor, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding todominusanddomina.
§ 186. The second element in the notion of gender, although I will not venture to call it an essential one, is the following:—In the wordsdominaanddominus,mistressandmaster, there is anaturaldistinction of sex; the one being masculine, or male, the other feminine, or female. In the wordsswordandlancethere isno naturaldistinction of sex. Notwithstanding this, the wordhasta, in Latin, is as much of the feminine gender asdomina, whilstgladius=a swordis, likedominus, a masculine noun. From this we see that, in languages wherein there are true genders, a fictitious orconventional sex is attributed even to inanimate objects; in other words,sexis a natural distinction,gendera grammatical one.
§ 187. In §185it is written, that "although we have, in English, words corresponding togenitrixandgenitor, we have no true genders until we findwords corresponding to dominusanddomina."—The sentence was intentionally worded with caution. Words likedominusanddomina, that is, words where the declension is affected by the sex,areto be foundeven in English.
The pronounhim, from the Anglo-Saxon and Englishhe, as compared with the pronounher, from the Anglo-Saxonheó, is affected in its declension by the difference of sex, and is a true, though fragmentary, specimen of gender. The same is the case with the formhisas compared withher.
The pronounit(originallyhit), as compared withhe, is a specimen of gender.
The relativewhat, as compared with the masculinewho, is a specimen of gender.
The formsit(forhit) andheare as much genders ashocandhic, and the formshocandhicare as much genders asbonumandbonus.
§ 188. The formation of the neuter gender by the addition of-t, in words likewha-t,i-t, andtha-t, occurs in other languages. The-tintha-tis the-dinistu-d, Latin, and the-tinta-t, Sanskrit.
§ 189. In the Mœso-Gothic and Scandinavian, theadjectivesform the neuters in-t, in Old High German in-z(ts), and in Modem German in-s(derived from-z)—Mœso-Gothic,blind-ata; Icel.,blind-t; Old High German,plint-ez, M. G.blind-es=cæc-um.
Caution.—Which, isnotthe neuter ofwho.
§ 190. Just as there are in English fragments of a gender modifying the declension, so are there, also, fragments of the second element of gender;viz., the attribution of sex to objects naturally destitute of it.The sun inhisglory,the moon inherwane, are examples of this. A sailor calls his shipshe. A husbandman, according to Mr. Cobbett, does the same with hisploughand working implements:—"In speaking of ashipwe saysheandher. And you know that our country-folks in Hampshire call almost every thingheorshe. It is curious to observe that country labourers give the feminine appellation to those things only which are more closely identified with themselves, and by the qualities or conditions of which their own efforts, and their character as workmen, are affected. The mower calls hisscytheashe, the ploughman calls hisploughashe; but a prong, or a shovel, or a harrow, which passes promiscuously from hand to hand, and which is appropriated to no particular labourer, is called ahe."—"English Grammar," Letter v.
§ 191. Now, although Mr. Cobbett's statements may account for a sailor calling his shipshe, they will not account for the custom of giving to the sun a masculine, and to the moon a feminine, pronoun, as is done in the expressions quoted in the last section; still less will it account for the circumstance of the Germans reversing the gender, and making thesunfeminine, and themoonmasculine.
§ 192. Let there be a period in the history of a language wherein thesunandmoonare dealt with, not as inanimate masses of matter, but as animated divinities. Let there, in other words, be a time when dead things are personified, and when there is amythology. Let an object like thesunbe deemed amale, and an object likethemoon, afemale, deity. We may then understand the origin of certain genders.
The Germans say thesun inherglory; themoon inhiswane. This difference between the usage of the two languages, like so many others, is explained by the influence of the classical languages upon the English.—"Mundilfori had two children; a son, Mâni (Moon), and a daughter, Sôl (Sun)."—Such is an extract out of an Icelandic mythological work,viz., the prose Edda. In the classical languages, however,PhœbusandSolare masculine, andLunaandDianafeminine. Hence it is that, although in Anglo-Saxon and Old-Saxon thesunisfeminine, it is in Englishmasculine.
Philosophy,charity, &c., or the names of abstract qualities personified, take a conventional sex, and are feminine from their being feminine in Latin.
As in all these words there is no change of form, the consideration of them is a point of rhetoric, rather than of etymology.
§ 193. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to miscellaneous remarks upon the true and apparent genders of the English language.
1. With the false genders likebaron,baroness, it is a general rule that the feminine form is derived from the masculine, and not the masculine from the feminine; aspeer,peeress. The wordswidower,gander, anddrakeare exceptions. For the wordwizard, fromwitch, see the section on augmentative forms.
2. The termination-ess, in which so large a portion of our feminine substantives terminate, is not of Saxon but of classical origin, being derived from the termination-ix,genitrix.
3. The wordsshepherdess,huntress, andhostessare faulty; the radical part of the word being Germanic, andthe secondary part classical: indeed, in strict English Grammar, the termination-esshas no place at all. It is a classic, not a Gothic, element.
4. The termination-inn, is current in German, as the equivalent to-ess, and as a feminine affix (freund=a friend;freundinn=a female friend). In English it occurs only in a fragmentary form;—e.g., invixen, a true feminine derivative fromfox=füchsinn, German.
Bruin=the bear, may be either a female form, as in Old High Germanpëro=a he-bear,pirinn=a she-bear; or it may be the Norse formbjörn=a bear, male or female.
Caution.—Words likemargravineandlandgravineprove nothing, being scarcely naturalised.
5. The termination-str, as inwebster,songster, andbaxter, was originally a feminine affix. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon,
The same is the case in the present Dutch of Holland:e.g.,spookster=a female fortune-teller;baxster=a baking-woman;waschster=a washerwoman. The wordspinsterstill retains its original feminine force.
6. The wordssongstressandseamstress, besides being, as far as concerns the intermixture of languages, in the predicament ofshepherdess, have, moreover, a double feminine termination; 1st.-str, of Germanic, 2nd.-ess, of classical, origin.
7. In the wordheroinewe have a Greek termination, just as-ixis a Latin, and-inna German one. It mustnot, however, be considered as derived fromhero, by any process of the English language, but be dealt with as a separate importation from the Greek language.
8. The formdeaconnessis not wholly unexceptionable; since the termination-essis of Latin, the rootdeaconof Greek origin: this Greek origin being rendered all the more conspicuous by the spelling,deacon(fromdiaconos), as compared with the Latindecanus.
9.Goose, gander.—One peculiarity in this pair of words has already been indicated. In the older forms of the wordgoose, such asχὴν, Greek;anser, Latin;gans, German, as well as in the derived formgander, we have the proofs that, originally, there belonged to the word the sound of the lettern. In the formsὀδοὺς,ὀδόντος, Greek;dens,dentis, Latin;zahn, German;tooth, English, we find the analogy that accounts for the ejection of then, and the lengthening of the vowel preceding. With respect, however, to thedingander, it is not easy to say whether it is inserted in one word or omitted in the other. Neither can we give the precise power of the-er. The following forms occur in the different Gothic dialects.Gans, fem.;ganazzo, masc., Old High German—gôs, f.;gandra, m., Anglo-Saxon—gâs, Icelandic, f.;gaas, Danish, f.;gassi, Icelandic, m.;gasse, Danish, m.—ganser,ganserer,gansart,gänserich,gander, masculine forms in different New German dialects.
10. Observe, the formgänserich, has a masculine termination. The wordtäuberich, in provincial New German, has the same form and the same power. It denotes amale dove;taube, in German, signifying adove. Ingänserichandtäuberich, we find preserved the termination-rich(orrik), with a masculine power. Of this termination we have a remnant, in English, preserved in the curious worddrake. Toduckthe worddrakehas noetymological relation whatsoever. It is derived from a word with which it has but one letter in common;viz., the Latinanas=a duck. Of this the root isanat-, as seen in the genitive caseanatis. In Old High German we find the formanetrekho=a drake; in provincial New High German there isenterichandäntrecht, from whence come the English and Low German form,drake.
11.Peacock,peahen.—In these compounds, it is not the wordpeathat is rendered masculine or feminine by the addition ofcockandhen, but it is the wordscockandhenthat are modified by prefixingpea.
THE NUMBERS.
§ 194. In the Greek language the wordpatærsignifies afather, denotingone, whilstpateresignifiestwo fathers, denoting a pair, and thirdly,pateressignifiesfathers, speaking of any number beyond two. The three words,patær,patere, andpateres, are said to be in different numbers, the difference of meaning being expressed by a difference of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks ofoneis thesingular, the number that speaks oftwois thedual(from the Latin wordduo=two), and the number that speaks ofmore than twois theplural.
All languages have numbers, but all languages have not them to the same extent. The Hebrew has a dual, but it is restricted to nouns only. It has, moreover, this peculiarity; it applies, for the most part, only to things which are naturally double, asthe two eyes,the two hands, &c. The Latin has no dual number, except thenaturalone in the wordsamboandduo.
§ 195. The question presents itself,—to what extent have we numbers in English? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual.
§ 196. Different from the question,to what degree have we numbers?is the question,—over what extent ofour language have we numbers?This distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who saidtyptô=I beat,typteton=ye two beat,typtomen=we beat, had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns; while the Hebrew dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual number is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew.
There is no dual in thepresentEnglish. It has been seen, however, that in the Anglo-Saxon therewasa dual. But the Anglo-Saxon dual, being restricted to the personal pronouns (wit=we two;git=ye two), was not co-extensive with the Greek dual.
There is no dual in the present German. In the ancient German therewasone.
In the present Danish and Swedish there is no dual. In the Old Norse and in the present Icelandic a dual number is to be found.
From this we learn that the dual number is one of those inflections that languages drop as they become modern.
§ 197. The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins saybonus pater=a good father;boni patres=good fathers. In the Latin, the adjectivebonuschanges its form with the change of number of the substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon there were plural forms for the adjectives.
§ 198. Respecting the formation of the plural, the current rule is, that it is formed from the singular by addings, asfather,fathers. This, however, is by no means a true expression. The lettersadded to the wordfather, making itfathers, issto theeyeonly. To theearit isz. The word soundsfatherz. If thesretained its sound the spelling would befatherce. Instags,lads, &c., the sound isstagz,ladz. The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously, though somewhat lengthily expressed, is as follows.—The plural is formed from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s):e.g.(the sound of the word being expressed),pea,peaz;tree,treez;day,dayz;hill,hillz;hen,henz;gig,gigz;trap,traps;pit,pits;stack,stacks.
§ 199. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary.
a.In the case of words ending inb,v,d, thethinthine=ð, org, a change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharpsaffixed, wasnot a matter of choice but of necessity; the combinationsabs,avs,ads,aðs,ags, being unpronounceable.
b.Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second (aps,afs,ats,aþs,aks), or the second to the first (abz,avz,adz,aðz,agz), is determined bythe habit of the particular languagein question; and, with a fewapparentexceptions it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and notvice versâ.
c.Such combinations aspeas,trees,hills,hens, &c., (thespreserving its original power, and being sounded asifwrittenpeace,treece,hillce,hence), being pronounceable, the change fromstoz, in words so ending, isnotamatter determined by the necessity of the case, but by the habit of the English language.
d.Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not ins, but inz, the original addition was notz, buts. This we infer from three facts: 1. From the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound ofzbeing either rare or non-existent in Anglo-Saxon; 3. from the sufficiency of the causes to bring about the change.
It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals are either mere points of orthography, or else capable of being explained on very simple euphonic principles.
§ 200.Boxes, churches, judges, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes.—Here there is the addition, not of the mere letters, but of the syllable-es. Asscannot be immediately added tos, the intervention of a vowel becomes necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in-esreally end either in the sounds ofs, or in the allied sounds ofz,sh, orzh, may be seen by analysis; sincex=ks,ch=tsh, andjorge=dzh, whilstce, inprince, is a mere point of orthography fors.
Monarchs,heresiarchs.—Here thechequals nottsh, butk, so that there is no need of being told that they do not follow the analogy ofchurch, &c.
Cargoes,echoes.—Fromcargoandecho, with the addition ofe; an orthographical expedient for the sake of denoting the length of the vowelo.
Beauty, beauties;key, keys.—Like the wordcargoes, &c., these forms are points, not of etymology, but of orthography.
Pence.—The peculiarity of this word consists in having aflatliquid followed by the sharp sibilants(speltce), contrary to the rule given above. In the first place, it is a contracted form frompennies; in the second place, itssense is collective rather than plural; in the third place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it frompens, soundedpenz. That its sense iscollectiverather thanplural, we learn from the wordsixpence, which, compared withsixpences, is no plural, but a singular form.
Dice.—In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason thatpenceis peculiar.—We find the sound ofsafter a vowel, where that ofzis expected. This distinguishesdicefor play, fromdies(diz) for coining.Dice, perhaps, likepence, is collective rather than plural.
Ingeese,lice, andmice, we have, apparently, the same phenomenon as indice,viz., a sharp sibilant (s) where aflatone (z) is expected. Thes, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural, but the last letter of the original word.
Alms.—This is no true plural form. Thesbelongs to the original word, Anglo-Saxon,ælmesse; Greek,ἐλεημοσύνη; just as thesingoosedoes. How far the word, although a true singular in its form, may have a collective signification, and require its verb to be plural, is a point not of etymology, but of syntax. The same is the case with the wordriches, from the Frenchrichesse. Inrichesthe last syllable being sounded asez, increases its liability to pass for a plural.
News,means,pains.—These, the reverse ofalmsandriches, are true plural forms. How far, in sense, they are singular is a point not of etymology, but of syntax.
Mathematics,metaphysics,politics,ethics,optics,physics.—The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each is the name of some department of study, of some art, orof some science. As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote, either of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and sciences of Greece be expressed in Greek, rather by a substantive and an adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for instance, let it be the habit of the language to saythe musical art, rather thanmusic. Let the Greek forartbe a word in the feminine gender;e.g.,τέχνη(tekhnæ), so that themusical artbeἡ μουσίκη τέχνη(hæ mousikæ tekhnæ). Let, in the progress of language (as was actually the case in Greece), the article and substantive be omitted, so that, for themusical art, or formusic, there stand only the feminine adjective,μουσίκη. Let there be, upon a given art or science, a series of books, or treatises; the Greek forbook, ortreatise, being a neuter substantive,βίβλιον(biblion). Let the substantive meaningtreatisebe, in the course of language, omitted, so that whilst the science of physics is calledφυσίκη(fysikæ), physic, fromἡ φυσίκη τέχνη, a series of treatises (or even chapters) upon the science shall be calledφύσικα(fysika) or physics. Now all this was what happened in Greece. The science was denoted by a feminine adjective singular, asφυσίκη(fysicæ), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective plural, asφύσικα(fysika). The treatises of Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive, that in the middle ages a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two sources,viz., from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, asphysic,logic; in the second place a plural form, asmathematics,metaphysics,optics.