CHAPTER II.

Ancient Nubian (?)—Barbarous.Ancient Egyptian.—Ammonia.Ancient Syrian.—Cyder.Ancient Syrian.—Pandar.Ancient Lydian.—Mæander.Ancient Persian.—Paradise.

Ancient Nubian (?)—Barbarous.

Ancient Egyptian.—Ammonia.

Ancient Syrian.—Cyder.

Ancient Syrian.—Pandar.

Ancient Lydian.—Mæander.

Ancient Persian.—Paradise.

§ 164. Again, a word from a given language may be introduced by more lines than one; or it may be introduced twice over; once at an earlier, and again at a later period. In such a case its form will, most probably, vary; and, what is more, its meaning as well. Words of this sort may be calleddi-morphic, theirdi-morphism, having originated in one of two reasons—a difference of channel, or a difference of date. Instances of the first are,syrup,sherbet, andshrub, all originally from theArabic,srb; but introduced differently, viz., the first through the Latin, the second through the Persian, and the third through the Hindoo. Instances of the second are words likeminster, introduced in the Anglo-Saxon, as contrasted withmonastery, introduced during the Anglo-Norman period. By the proper application of these processes, we account for words so different in present form, yet so identical in origin, aspriestandpresbyter,episcopalandbishop, &c.

§ 165.Distinction.—The history of the languages that have been spoken in a particular country, is a different subject from the history of a particular language. The history of the languages that have been spoken in the United States of America, is the history ofIndianlanguages. The history of the languages of the United States is the history of the Germanic language.

§ 166.Words of foreign simulating a vernacular origin.—These may occur in any mixed language whatever; they occur, however, oftener in the English than in any other.

Let a word be introduced from a foreign language—let it have some resemblance in sound to a real English one: lastly, let the meanings of the two words be not absolutely incompatible. We may then have a word of foreign origin taking the appearance of an English one. Such, amongst others, arebeef-eater, frombœuffetier;sparrow-grass,asparagus;Shotover,Chateau vert;[24]Jerusalem,Girasole;[25]Spanishbeefeater,Spina befida;periwig,peruke;runagate,renegade;lutestring,lustrino;[26]O yes,Oyez!ancient,ensign.[27]

Dog-cheap.—This has nothing to do withdogs. The first syllable isgod=goodtransposed, and the second thech-pinchapman(=merchant)cheap, andEast-cheap. In Sir J. Mandeville, we findgod-kepe=good bargain.

Sky-larking.—Nothing to do withlarksof any sort; still less the particular species,alauda arvensis. The word improperly speltl-a-r-k, and banished to the slang regions of the English language, is the Anglo-Saxonlác=game, orsport; wherein theais sounded as infather(not as infarther).Lek=game, in the present Scandinavian languages.

Zachary Macaulay=Zumalacarregui;Billy Ruffian=Bellerophon;Sir Roger Dowlass=Surajah Dowlah, although so limited to the common soldiers, and sailors who first used them, as to be exploded vulgarisms rather than integral parts of the language, are examples of the same tendency towards the irregular accommodation of misunderstood foreign terms.

Birdbolt.—An incorrect name for thegadus lota, oreel-pout, and a transformation ofbarbote.

Whistle-fish.—The same forgadus mustela, orweazel-cod.

Liquorice=glycyrrhiza.

Wormwood=weremuth, is an instance of a word from the same language, in an antiquated shape, being equally transformed with a word of really foreign origin.

§ 167. Sometimes the transformation of thenamehas engendered a change in the object to which it applies, or, at least, has evolved new ideas in connection with it. How easy for a person who used the wordsbeef-eater,sparrow-grass, orJerusalem, to believe that the officers designated by the former either eat or used to eat more beef than other people (or at least had an allowance of that viand); that the second word was the name for agrass, or herb of whichsparrowswere fond; and thatJerusalemartichokes came from Palestine.

What has just been supposed is sometimes a realoccurrence. To account for the nameShotover-hill, I have heard that Little Johnshot overit. Here the confusion in order to set itself right, breeds a fiction. Again, in chess, the piece now called thequeen, was originally theelephant. This was in Persian,ferz. In French it becamevierge, which, in time, came to be mistaken for a derivative, andvirgo=the virgin,the lady,the queen.

§ 168. Sometimes, where the form of a word in respect to itssoundis not affected, a false spirit of accommodation introduces an unetymologicalspelling; asfrontispiece[28]fromfrontispecium,sovereign, fromsovrano,colleaguefromcollega,lanthorn(old orthography) fromlanterna.

The value of forms like these consists in their showing that language is affected by false etymologies as well as by true ones.

§ 169. Inlambkinandlancet, the final syllables (-kinand-et) have the same power. They both express the idea of smallness or diminutiveness. These words are but two out of a multitude, the one (lamb) being of Saxon, the other (lance) of Norman origin. The same is the case with the superadded syllables:-kinis Saxon;-etNorman. Now to add a Saxon termination to a Norman word, orvice versâ, is to corrupt the English language.

This leads to some observations respecting—

§ 170.Introduction of new words—Hybridism.—Hybridism is a term derived fromhybrid-a,a mongrel; a Latin wordof Greek extraction.

The terminations-ize(as incriticize),-ism(as incriticism),-ic(as incomic), these, amongst many others, are Greek terminations. To add them to words of other than of Greek origin is to be guilty of hybridism.

The terminations-ble(as inpenetrable),-bility(as inpenetrability,-al(as inparental)—these, amongst many others, are Latin terminations. To add them to words of other than of Latin origin is to be guilty of hybridism.

Hybridism is the commonest fault that accompanies the introduction of new words. The hybrid additions to the English language are most numerous in works on science.

It must not, however, be concealed that several well established words are hybrid; and that, even in the writings of the classical Roman authors, there is hybridism between the Latin and the Greek.

The etymological view of every word of foreign origin is, not that it is put together in England, but that it is brought whole from the language to which it is vernacular. Now no derived word can be brought whole from a language unless, in that language, all its parts exist. The wordpenetrabilityis not derived from the English wordpenetrable, by the addition of-ty. It is the Latin wordpenetrabilitasimported.

In derived words all the parts must belong to one and the same language, or, changing the expression,every derived word must have a possible form in the language from which it is taken. Such is the rule against Hybridism.

§ 171. A true word sometimes takes the appearance of a hybrid without really being so. The-icle, inicicle, is apparently the same as the-icleinradicle. Now, asiceis Gothic, and-icleclassical, hybridism is simulated.Icicle, however, is not a derivative but a compound; its parts beingisandgicel, both Anglo-Saxon words.

§ 172.On Incompletion of the Radical.—Let there be in a given language a series of roots ending in-t, assæmat. Let a euphonic influence eject the-t, as often as the word occurs in the nominative case. Let the nominative case be erroneously considered to represent the root, or radical, of the word. Let a derivative word be formed accordingly,i.e., on the notion that the nominative form and the radical form coincide. Such a derivative will exhibit only a part of the root; in other words, the radical will be incomplete.

Now all this is what actually takes place in words likehæmo-ptysis(spitting of blood),sema-phore(a sort of telegraph). The Greek imparisyllabics eject a part of the root in the nominative case; the radical forms beinghæmat-andsæmat-, nothæm-andsæm-.

Incompletion of the radical is one of the commonest causes of words being coined faultily. It must not, however, be concealed, that even in the classical writers, we have (in words likeδίστομος) examples of incompletion of the radical.

§ 173. The preceding chapters have paved the way for a distinction between thehistoricalanalysis of a language, and thelogicalanalysis of one.

Let the present language of England (for illustration's sake only) consist of 40,000 words. Of these let 30,000 be Anglo-Saxon, 5,000 Anglo-Norman, 100 Celtic, 10 Latin of the first, 20 Latin of the second, and 30 Latin of the third period, 50 Scandinavian, and the rest miscellaneous. In this case the language is considered according to the historical origin of the words that compose it, and the analysis (or, if the process be reversed, the synthesis) is an historical analysis.

But it is very evident that the English, or any other language, is capable of being contemplated in another view, and that the same number of words may be very differently classified. Instead of arranging them according to the languages whence they are derived, let them be disposed according to the meanings that they convey. Let it be said, for instance, that out of 40,000 words, 10,000 are the names of natural objects, that 1000 denote abstract ideas, that 1000 relate to warfare, 1000 to church matters, 500 to points of chivalry, 1000 to agriculture, and so on through the whole. In this case the analysis (or, if the process be reversed, the synthesis) is not historical but logical; the words being classed not according to their origin, but according to their meaning.

Now the logical and historical analysis of a language generally in some degree coincides, as may be seen by noticing the kind of words introduced from the Anglo-Norman, the Latin of the fourth period, and the Arabic.

THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

§ 174. The relation of the present English to the Anglo-Saxon is that of amodernlanguage to anancientone: the wordsmodernandancientbeing used in a defined and technical sense.

Let the wordsmiðumillustrate this.Smiðum, the dative plural ofsmið, is equivalent in meaning to the Englishto smiths, or to the Latinfabris.Smiðumhowever, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two wordsi.e., a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letters, insmithsshows that the word is plural. The-um, insmiðum, does this and something more. It is the sign of thedative caseplural. The-uminsmiðum, is the part of a word. The preposition to is a separate word with an independent existence.Smiðumis the radical syllablesmið,plusthe subordinate inflectional syllable-um, the sign of the dative case.To smithsis the substantivesmiths,plusthe prepositionto, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in form. As far, then, as the word just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English thus. It expresses a given idea by a modification of the form of the root, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea by the addition of a preposition. The Saxon inflection is superseded by a combination of words.

The part that is played by the preposition with nouns, is played by the auxiliaries (have,be, &c.) with verbs.

The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement. (1.)The earlier the stage of a givenlanguage the greater the amount of its inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the smaller the amount of them.(2.)As languages become modern they substitute prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses.(3.)The amount of inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of prepositions and auxiliary verbs.(4.)In the course of time languages drop their inflection and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means of prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place.(5.)Given two modes of expression, the one inflectional(smiðum), the other circumlocutional(to smiths), we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second to a late, stage of language.

The present chapter, then, showing the relation of the English to the Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the general relation of a modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; so also the Modern High German to the Mœso-Gothic; so the Modern Dutch of Holland to the Old Frisian; so, moreover, amongst the languages of a different stock, are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the Ancient Greek.

§ 175. Contrasted with the English, but contrasted with it only in those points where the ancient tongue is compared with the modern one, the Anglo-Saxon has the following differences.

NOUNS.

Of Gender.—In Anglo-Saxon there are three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter. Withadjectiveseach gender has its peculiar declension; withsubstantivesthere are also appropriate terminations, but only to a certain degree;e.g., of words ending in-a(nama, a name;cuma, a guest), it may be stated that they are always masculine; of words in-u(sunu, a son;gifu, a gift), that they are never neuter; in other words, that they are either mas. or fem.

The definite article varies with the gender of its substantive;þæt eage, the eye;se steorra, the star;seo tunge, the tongue.

Of Number.—The plural form in-en(as inoxen), rare in English, was common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole declension;e.g.,eágan, eyes;steorran, stars;tungan, tongues. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxons had forms in-uand-a, asricu, kingdoms;gifa, gifts. The termination-s, current in the present English was confined to a single gender and to a single declension, asendas, ends;dagas, days;smiðas, smiths.

Of Case.—Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least three; viz. the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words an ablative or instrumental one.Smið, a smith;smiðe, to a smith;smiðes, of a smith. Plural,smiðas, smiths;smiðum, to smiths;smiða, of smiths:he, he;hine, him;him, to him;his, his;se, the;þa, the;þy, with the;þam, to the;þæs, of the.

Of the dative in-um, the wordwhilom(at times,at whiles) is a still extant and an almost isolated specimen.

Of Declension.—InAnglo-Saxonit is necessary to determine the termination of a substantive. There is the weak, or simple declension for words ending in a vowel (aseage,steorra,tunga), and the strong, or complex declension for words ending in a consonant (smið,spræc,leáf). The lettersianduare dealt with as semivowels, semivowels being dealt with as consonants; so that words likesunuandgifubelong to the same declension assmiðandsprǽc.

That the form of adjectives varies with their definitude or indefinitude, has been seen from§ 93: definite adjectives following the inflection of the simple; indefinite ones that of the complex declension.

The detail of the Anglo-Saxon declension may be collected from§§ 83-89.

The Anglo-Saxon inflection of the participles present is remarkable. With the exception of the form for the genitive plural definite (which, instead of-ena, is-ra,) they follow the declension of the adjectives. From the masculine substantives formed from them, and denoting the agent, they may be distinguished by a difference of inflection.

Pronouns Personal.—Of the pronominal inflection in Saxon, the character may be gathered from the chapter upon pronouns. At present, it may be stated that, like the Mœso-Gothic and the Icelandic, the Anglo-Saxon language possessed for the first two persons adualnumber; inflected as follows:

Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative pronouns, as well as the numeralstwaandþreo, had a fuller declension than they have at present.

VERBS.

Mood.—The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with the exception of the conjugation of the verb substantive) differs from the indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon inflected as follows:

The Saxon infinitive ended in-an(lufian), and besides this there was a so-called gerundial form, tolufigenne.

Tense.—In regard to tense, the Anglo-Saxon coincided with the English. The present language has two tenses, the present and the past; the Saxon had no more. This past tense the modern English forms either by addition (love,loved), or by change (fall,fell). So did the Anglo-Saxons.

Number and Person.—In the present English the termination -eth(moveth) is antiquated. In Anglo-Saxon it was the only form recognized. In English the plural number (indicative as well as subjunctive) has no distinguishing inflection. It was not so in Anglo-Saxon. There, although thepersonswere identical in form, thenumberswere distinguished by the termination -aðfor the indicative, and -nfor the subjunctive. (See above.) For certain forms in the second conjugation, see the remarks on the formsdrunkanddrank, in Part IV.

Such are the chief points in the declension of nouns and the conjugation of verbs that give a difference of character between the ancient Anglo-Saxon and the modern English: and it has already been stated that the difference between the New and the Old German, the Dutch and the Frisian, the Italian, &c., and the Latin, the Romaic and the Greek, &c., are precisely similar.

How far two languages pass with equal rapidity from their ancient to their modern, from their inflected to their uninflected state (in other words, how far all languages alter at the same rate), is a question that will be noticed elsewhere. At present, it is sufficient to say, that (just as we should expectà priori) languages donotalter at the same rate.

Akin to the last question is a second one: viz.: how far the rate of change in a given language can be accelerated by external circumstances. This second question bears immediately upon the history of the English language. The grammar of the current idiom compared with the grammar of the Anglo-Saxon is simplified. How far was this simplification of the grammar promoted by the Norman Conquest. The current views exaggerate the influence of the Norman Conquest and of French connexions. The remark of Mr. Price in his Preface to Warton, acceded to by Mr. Hallam in his Introduction to the Literature of Europe, is, that every one of theother Low Germanic languages (affected by nothing corresponding to the Norman Conquest) displays the same simplification of grammar as the Anglo-Saxon (affected by the Norman Conquest) displays. Confirmatory of this remark, it may be added, that compared with the Icelandic, the Danish and Swedish do the same. Derogatory to it is the comparatively complex grammar of thenewGerman, compared, not only with the Old High German, but with the Mœso-Gothic. An extract from Mr. Hallam shall close the present section and introduce the next.

"Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to determine the commencement of the English language: not so much, as in those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce why it should pass for a separate language, rather than a modification or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage, and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:—1. By contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think, can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pass for the latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which is to cover everything from A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1250."—Chapter i. 47.

§ 176. At a given period, then, the Anglo-Saxon of the standard, and (if the expression may be used) classical authors, such as Cædmon, Alfred, Ælfric, &c., had undergone such a change as to induce the scholars of the present age to denominate it, not Saxon, butSemi-Saxon. It had ceased to be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become English. In certain parts of the kingdom, where the mode of speechchanged more rapidly than elsewhere, the Semi-Saxon stage of our language came earlier. It was, as it were, precipitated.

The History of King Leir and his Daughters is found in two forms. Between these there is a difference either of dialect or of date, and possibly of both. Each, however, is Semi-Saxon. The extracts are made from Thorpe's Analecta Anglo-Saxonica, p. 143.

The Grave, a poetical fragment, the latter part of the Saxon Chronicle, a Homily for St. Edmund's Day (given in the Analecta), and above all the printed extracts of the poem of Layamon, are the more accessible specimens of the Semi-Saxon. The Ormulum, although in many points English rather than Saxon, retains the dual number of the Anglo-Saxon pronouns. However, lest too much stress be laid upon this circumstance, the epistolary character of the Ormulum must be borne in mind.

It is very evident that if, even in the present day, there were spoken in some remote district the language of Alfred and Ælfric, such a mode of speech would be called, not Modern English, but Anglo-Saxon. This teaches us that the stage of language is to be measured, not by its date, but by its structure. Hence, Saxon ends and Semi-Saxon begins, not at a given year, A.D., but at that time(whenever it be) when certain grammatical inflections disappear, and certain characters of a more advanced stage are introduced.

Some amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon are,

1. The substitution of -anfor -as, in the plural of substantives,munucanformunucas(monks); and, conversely, the substitution of -sfor -n, assteorresforsteorran(stars). The use of -s, as the sign of the plural, without respect to gender, or declension, may be one of those changes that the Norman Conquest forwarded; -sbeing the sign of the plural in Anglo-Norman.

2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels,þæt ylcforþæt ylce;soneforsunu;namefornama;dagesfordagas.

3. The substitution of -nfor -min the dative case,hwilonforhwilum.

4. The ejection of the -nof the infinitive mood,cummeforcuman(to come),nemnefornemnen(to name).

5. The ejection of -enin the participle passive,I-hoteforgehaten(called,hight).

6. The gerundial termination -enne, superseded by the infinitive termination -en; asto lufianforto lufienne, orlufigenne.

7. The substitution of -enfor -aðin the persons plural of verbs;hi clepen(they call) forhi clypiað, &c.

The preponderance (not the occasional occurrence) of forms like those above constitute Semi-Saxon in contradistinction to standard Saxon, classical Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon proper.

§ 177.Old English Stage.—Further changes convert Semi-Saxon into Old English. Some, amongst others, are the following:—

1. The ejection of the dative plural termination -um, and the substitution of the prepositiontoand the plural sign -s; asto smithsforsmiðum. Of the dative singular the -eis retained (ende,worde); but it is by no means certain that, although recognized in writing, it was recognized in pronunciation also.

2. The ejection of -esin the genitive singular whenever theprepositionofcame before it;Godes love(God's love), but thelove of God, and not thelove of Godes.

3. The syllable-esas a sign of the genitive case extended to all genders and to all declensions;heart'sforheortan;sun'sforsunnan.

4. The same in respect to the plural number;sterresforsteorran;sonsforsuna.

5. The ejection of-nain the genitive plural; asof tunges'fortungena.

6. The use of the wordthe, as an article, instead ofse, &c.

The preponderance of the forms above (and not their occasional occurrence) constitutes old English in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

The following extract from Henry's history (vol. viii. append. iv.) is the proclamation of Henry III. to the people of Huntingdonshire, A.D. 1258. It currently passes for the earliest specimen of English.

"Henry, thurg Godes fultome, King on Engleneloande, lhoaurd on Yrloand, Duke on Normand, on Acquitain, Eorl on Anjou, send I greting, to alle hise holde, ilærde & ilewerde on Huntingdonschiere."That witen ge well alle, thæt we willen & unnen (grant) thæt ure rædesmen alle other, the moare del of heom, thæt beoth ichosen thurg us and thurg thæt loandes-folk on ure Kuneriche, habbith idon, and schullen don, in the worthnes of God, and ure threowthe, for the freme of the loande, thurg the besigte of than toforen iseide rædesmen, beo stedfæst and ilestinde in alle thinge abutan ænde, and we heaten alle ure treowe, in the treowthe thæt heo us ogen, thet heo stede-feslliche healden & weren to healden & to swerien the isetnesses thet beon makede and beo to makien, thurg than toforen iseide rædesmen, other thurg the moare del of heom alswo, also hit is before iseide. And thet æheother helpe thet for to done bitham ilche other, aganes alle men in alle thet heo ogt for to done, and to foangen. And noan ne of mine loande, ne of egetewhere, thurg this besigte, muge beon ilet other iwersed on oniewise. And gif oni ether onie cumen her ongenes, we willen & heaten, thæt alle ure treowe heom healden deadlichistan. And for thæt we willen thæt this beo stædfast and lestinde, we senden gew this writ open, iseined with ure seel, to halden amanges gew ine hord. Witnes us-selven æt Lundæn, thæne egetetenthe day on the monthe of Octobr, in the two and fowertigthe geare of ure crunning."

"Henry, thurg Godes fultome, King on Engleneloande, lhoaurd on Yrloand, Duke on Normand, on Acquitain, Eorl on Anjou, send I greting, to alle hise holde, ilærde & ilewerde on Huntingdonschiere.

"That witen ge well alle, thæt we willen & unnen (grant) thæt ure rædesmen alle other, the moare del of heom, thæt beoth ichosen thurg us and thurg thæt loandes-folk on ure Kuneriche, habbith idon, and schullen don, in the worthnes of God, and ure threowthe, for the freme of the loande, thurg the besigte of than toforen iseide rædesmen, beo stedfæst and ilestinde in alle thinge abutan ænde, and we heaten alle ure treowe, in the treowthe thæt heo us ogen, thet heo stede-feslliche healden & weren to healden & to swerien the isetnesses thet beon makede and beo to makien, thurg than toforen iseide rædesmen, other thurg the moare del of heom alswo, also hit is before iseide. And thet æheother helpe thet for to done bitham ilche other, aganes alle men in alle thet heo ogt for to done, and to foangen. And noan ne of mine loande, ne of egetewhere, thurg this besigte, muge beon ilet other iwersed on oniewise. And gif oni ether onie cumen her ongenes, we willen & heaten, thæt alle ure treowe heom healden deadlichistan. And for thæt we willen thæt this beo stædfast and lestinde, we senden gew this writ open, iseined with ure seel, to halden amanges gew ine hord. Witnes us-selven æt Lundæn, thæne egetetenthe day on the monthe of Octobr, in the two and fowertigthe geare of ure crunning."

§ 178. The songs amongst the political verses printed by the Camden Society, the romance of Havelok the Dane,William and the Werwolf, the Gestes of Alisaundre, King Horn, Ipomedon, and the King of Tars; and, amongst the longer works, Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle, and the poems of Robert of Bourn (Brunn), are (amongst others) Old English. Broadly speaking, theOldEnglish may be said to begin with the reign of Henry III., and to end with that of Edward III.

In the Old English the following forms predominate.

1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative pronoun, or definite article;þan,þenne,þære,þam;—in contradistinction to the Middle English.

2. The presence of the dative singular in-e;ende,smithe;—ditto.

3. The existence of a genitive plural in-ror-ra;heora, theirs;aller, of all;—ditto. This with substantives and adjectives is less common.

4. The substitution ofheoforthey, ofheorafortheir, ofhemforthem;—in contradistinction to the later stages of English, and in contradistinction to old LowlandScotch. (See Chapter III.)

5. A more frequent use ofminandthin, formyandthy;—in contradistinction to middle and modern English.

6. The use ofheoforshe;—in contradistinction to middle and modern English and old LowlandScotch.

7. The use of broader vowels; as iniclepudoriclepod(foriclepedoryclept);geongost, youngest;ascode, asked;eldore, elder.

8. The use of the strong preterits (seethe chapter on the tenses of verbs), where in the present English the weak form is found;wex,wop,dalf, forwaxed,wept,delved.

9. The omission not only of the gerundial termination-enne, but also of the infinitive sign-enafterto;to honte,to speke;—in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

10. The substitution of-enfor-eþor-eðin the first and second persons plural of verbs;we wollen, we will:heo schullen, they should;—ditto.

11. The comparative absence of the articlesseandseo;—ditto.

12. The substitution ofbenandbeeth, forsyndandsyndon=we,ye,they are;—in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

§ 179. The degree to which the Anglo-Saxon was actually influenced by the Anglo-Norman has been noticed. The degree wherein the two languages came in contact is, plainly, another consideration. The first is the question, How far one of two languages influenced the other? The second asks, How far one of two languages had the opportunity of influencing the other? Concerning the extent to which the Anglo-Norman was used, I retail the following statements and quotations.

1. "Letters even of a private nature were written in Latin till the beginning of the reign of Edward I., soon after 1270, when a sudden change brought in the use of French."—Mr. Hallam, communicated by Mr. Stevenson(Literature of Europe, I. 52, and note).2. Conversation between the Members of the Universities was ordered to be carried on either in Latin or French:—"Si qua inter se proferant, colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur."—Statutes of Oriel College, Oxford.—Hallam, ibid.from Warton.3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."—Ibid.4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into French,"—Ibid."Pueri in scholis, contra morem cæterarum nationum, et Normannorum adventu, derelicto proprio vulgari, construere Gallice compelluntur. Item quod filii nobilium ab ipsis cunabulorum crepundiis ad Gallicum idioma informantur. Quibus profecto rurales homines assimulari volentes, ut per hoc spectabiliores videantur, Francigenari satagunt omni nisu."—Higden(Ed. Gale, p. 210).

2. Conversation between the Members of the Universities was ordered to be carried on either in Latin or French:—"Si qua inter se proferant, colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur."—Statutes of Oriel College, Oxford.—Hallam, ibid.from Warton.

3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."—Ibid.

4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into French,"—Ibid."Pueri in scholis, contra morem cæterarum nationum, et Normannorum adventu, derelicto proprio vulgari, construere Gallice compelluntur. Item quod filii nobilium ab ipsis cunabulorum crepundiis ad Gallicum idioma informantur. Quibus profecto rurales homines assimulari volentes, ut per hoc spectabiliores videantur, Francigenari satagunt omni nisu."—Higden(Ed. Gale, p. 210).

That there was French in England before the battle of Hastings appears on the authority of Camden:—

"Herein is a notable argument of our ancestors' steadfastness in esteeming and retaining their own tongue. For, asbefore the Conquest, they misliked nothing more in King Edward the Confessor, than that he was Frenchified, and accounted the desire of a foreign language then to be a foretoken of the bringing in of foreign powers, which indeed happened."—Remains, p. 30.

§ 180. In Chaucer and Mandeville, and perhaps in all the writers of the reign of Edward III., we have a transitionfrom the Old to the Middle English. The last characteristic of a grammar different from that of the present English, is the plural form in-en;we tellen,ye tellen,they tellen. As this disappears, which it does in the reign of Queen Elizabeth (Spenser has it continually), the Middle English may be said to pass into the New or Modern English.

§ 181. Thepresenttendencies of the English may be determined by observation; and as most of them will be noticed in the etymological part of this volume, the few here indicated must be looked upon as illustrations only.

1. The distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood is likely to pass away. We verify this by the very general tendency to sayif it is, andif he speaks, forif it be, andif he speak.

2. The distinction (as far as it goes) between the participle passive and the past tense is likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to sayit is broke, andhe is smote, forit is broken, andhe is smitten.

3. Of the double forms,sungandsang,drankanddrunk, &c. one only will be the permanent.

As stated above, these tendencies are a few out of a number, and have been adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it.

§ 182. What the present language of England would have been had the Norman Conquest never taken place, the analogy of Holland, Denmark, and of many other countries enables us to determine. It would have been much as it is at present. What it would have been had theSaxonconquest never taken place, is a question wherein there is far more speculation. Of France, of Italy, of Wallachia, and of the Spanish Peninsula, the analogies all point the same way. They indicate that the original Celtic would have been superseded by the Latin of the conquerors, and consequently that our language in its later stages would have been neither British nor Gaelic, but Roman. Upon these analogies, however, we may refine. Italy, was from the beginning, Roman; the Spanish Peninsula was invaded full early; no ocean divided Gaul from Rome; and the war against the ancestors of the Wallachians was a war of extermination.

ON THE LOWLAND SCOTCH.

§ 183. The termLowlandis used to distinguish the Scotch of the South-east from the Scotch of the Highlands. The former is English in its immediate affinities, and Germanic in origin; the latter is nearly the same language with the Gaelic of Ireland, and is, consequently, Celtic.

The question as to whether the Lowland Scotch is a dialect of the English, or a separate and independent language, is a verbal rather than a real one.

Reasons for considering the Scotch and English asdialectsof one and the same language lie in the fact of their being (except in the case of the more extreme forms of each) mutually intelligible.

Reasons for calling one a dialect of the other depend upon causes other than philological,e.g., political preponderance, literary development, and the like.

Reasons for treating the Scotch as a separate substantive language lie in the extent to which it has the qualities of a regular cultivated tongue, and a separate substantive literature—partially separate and substantive at the present time, wholly separate and substantive in the times anterior to the union of the crowns, and in the hands of Wyntoun, Blind Harry, Dunbar, and Lindsay.

§ 184. Reasons for making thephilologicaldistinction between the English and Scotch dialects exactly coincide with the geographical and political boundaries between the two kingdoms are not so easily given. It is not likely that the Tweed and Solway should divide modes of speech so accurately as they divide laws and customs; that broad and trenchant lines of demarcation should separate the Scotchfrom the English exactly along the line of the Border; and that there should be no Scotch elements in Northumberland, and no Northumbrian ones in Scotland. Neither is such the case. Hence, in speaking of the Lowland Scotch, it means the language in its typical rather than in its transitional forms; indeed, it means theliteraryLowland Scotch which, under the first five Stuarts, was as truly an independent language as compared with the English, as Swedish is to Danish, Portuguese to Spanish, orvice versâ.

§ 185. This limitation leaves us fully sufficient room for the notice of the question as to itsorigin; a notice all the more necessary from the fact of its having created controversy.

What is theprimâ facieview of the relations between the English of England, and the mutually intelligible language (Scotch or English, as we choose to call it) of Scotland? One of three:—

1. That it originated in England, and spread in the way of extension and diffusion northwards, and so reached Scotland.

2. That it originated in Scotland, and spread in the way of extension and diffusion southwards, and so reached England.

3. That it was introduced in each country from a common source.

In any of these cases it is Angle, or Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon, even as English is Angle, or Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon.

§ 186. A view, however, different from these, and one disconnecting the Lowland Scotch from the English and Anglo-Saxon equally, is what may be called thePictdoctrine. Herein it is maintained that the LowlandScotch is derived from the Pict, and that the Picts were of Gothicorigin. The reasoning upon these matters is to be found in the Dissertation upon the Origin of the Scottish Language prefixed to Jamieson's Etymological Dictionary: two extracts from which explain the view which the author undertakes to combat:—

a."It is an opinion which, after many others, has been pretty generally received, and, perhaps, almost taken for granted, that the language spoken in the Lowlands ofScotland is merely a corrupt dialect of the English, or at least of the Anglo-Saxon."

b."It has generally been supposed that the Saxon language was introduced into Scotland in the reign of Malcolm Canmore by his good queen and her retinue; or partly by means of the intercourse which prevailed between the inhabitants of Scotland and those of Cumberland, Northumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham, which were held by the Kings of Scotland as fiefs of the crown of England. An English writer, not less distinguished for his amiable disposition and candour than for the cultivation of his mind, has objected to this hypothesis with great force of argument."

§ 187. Now, as against any such notion as that involved in the preceding extracts, the reasoning of the learned author of the Scottish Dictionary may, perhaps, be valid. No such view, however, is held, at the present moment, by any competent judge; and it is doubtful whether, in the extreme way in which it is put forward by the opponent of it, it was ever maintained at all.

Be this, however, as it may, the theory which is opposed to it rests upon the following positions—

1. That the Lowland Scotch were Picts.

2. That the Picts were Goths.

In favour of this latter view the chief reasons are—

1. That what the Belgæ were the Picts were also.

2. That the Belgæ were Germanic.

Again—

1. That the natives of the Orkneys were Picts.

2. That they were also Scandinavian.

So that the Picts were Scandinavian Goths.

From whence it follows that—assuming what is true concerning the Orkneys is true concerning the Lowland Scotch—the Lowland Scotch was Pict, Scandinavian, Gothic, and (as such) more or less Belgic.

For the non-Gothic character of the Picts see the researches of Mr. Garnett, as given in§ 139, as well as a paper—believed to be from the same author—in the Quarterly Review for 1834.

For the position of the Belgæ, see Chapter IV.

§ 188. That what is true concerning the Orkneys (viz. that they were Scandinavian) isnottrue for the south and eastern parts of Scotland, is to be collected from the peculiar distribution of the Scottish Gaelic; which indicates a distinction between the Scandinavian of the north of Scotland and the Scandinavian of the east of England. The Lowland Scotch recedes as we go northward. Notwithstanding this, it isnotthe extreme north that is most Gaelic. In Caithness the geographical names are Norse.Sutherland, the most northern county of Scotland, takes its name from beingsouth; that is, of Norway. The Orkneys and Shetland are in name, manners, and language, Norse or Scandinavian. The Hebrides are Gaelic mixed with Scandinavian. The Isle of Man is the same. The wordSodor(in Sodor and Man) is Norse, with the same meaning as it has inSutherland. All this indicates a more preponderating, and an earlier infusion of Norse along the coast of Scotland, than that which took place under the Danes upon the coasts of England, in the days of Alfred and under the reign of Canute. The first may, moreover, have this additional peculiarity,viz.of being Norwegian rather than Danish. Hence I infer that the Scandinavians settled in the northern parts of Scotland at an early period, but that it was a late period when they ravaged the southern ones; so that, though the language of Orkney may be Norse, that of the Lothians may be Saxon.

To verify these views we want not a general dictionary of the Scottish language taken altogether, but a series of local glossaries, or at any rate a vocabulary, 1st, of the northern; 2ndly, of the southern Scottish.

Between the English and Lowland Scotch we must account for the likeness as well as the difference. The Scandinavian theory accounts for the difference only.

§ 189. Of the following specimens of the Lowland Scotch, the first is from The Bruce, a poem written by Barbour, Archdeacon of Aberdeen, between the years 1360 and 1375; the second from Wyntoun; the third from Blind Harry's poem, Wallace, 1460; and the fourth from Gawin Douglas's translation of the Æneid, A.D. 1513.

Back to Index Next