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, and the 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, so current in German, as the equivalent to-ess, and as a feminine affix (freund=a friend;freundinn=a female friend), is found only in one or two words in English.
There were fivecarlinsin the southThat fell upon a scheme,To send a lad to London townTo bring them tidings hame.Burns.
There were fivecarlinsin the southThat fell upon a scheme,To send a lad to London townTo bring them tidings hame.
There were fivecarlinsin the south
That fell upon a scheme,
To send a lad to London town
To bring them tidings hame.
Burns.
Burns.
Carlinmeans anold woman: Icelandic,kerling; Sw.,käring; Dan.kælling. Root,carl.
Vixenis a true feminine derivative fromfox. German,füchsinn.
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.
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;bakster=abaking-woman;waschster=a washerwoman. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 339.) 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 must not, 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 formdeaconessis 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. The circumstance ofprinceending in the sound ofs, works a change in the accent of the word. Assis the final letter, it is necessary, in forming the plural number, and the genitive case, to add, not the simple letters, as inpeers,priests, &c., but the syllable-es. This makes the plural number and genitive case the same as the feminine form. Hence the feminine form is accentedprincéss, whilepeéress,príestess, &c., carry the accent on the first syllable.Princéssis remarkable as being the only word in English where the accent lies on the subordinate syllable.
10. It is uncertain whetherkit, as compared withcat, be a feminine form or a diminutive form; in other words, whether it mean afemale cator ayoung cat.—See the Chapter on the Diminutives.
11.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 (taken from Grimm, iii. p. 341) 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.
12. Observe, the formgänserichhas 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(or-rik), with a masculine power. Of this termination we have a remnant, in English, preserved in the curious worddrake. Toduckthe worddrakehas no etymological 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 formdrake. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 341.)
13.Peacock,peahen,bridegroom.—In these compounds, it is not the wordspeaandbridethat are rendered masculine or feminine by the addition ofcock,hen, andgroom, but it is the wordscock,hen, andgroomthat are modified by prefixingpeaandbride. For an appreciation of this distinction, see the Chapter on Composition.
THE NUMBERS.
§ 280. In the Greek language the wordpatærsignifies a father, speaking ofone, whilstpateresignifiestwo fathers, speaking of 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 the singular, 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 (in Greek being extended to verbs). 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 at all, except the natural dual in the wordsamboandduo.
§ 281. 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.
§ Different from the question, to what degree have we numbers? is the question,—over what extent of our 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 dualnumber is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew.
There is no dual in the present English. 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 there was one.
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.
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 say,bonus 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.
For the formsselvesandothers, see the Syntax. For the present, it is sufficient to foreshadow a remark which will be made on the wordself,viz.that whether it be a pronoun, a substantive, or an adjective, is a disputed point.
Words likewheat,pitch,gold, &c., where the idea is naturally singular; words likebellows,scissors,lungs, &c., where the idea is naturally plural; and words likedeer,sheep, where the same form serves for the singular and plural, inasmuch as there takes place no change of form, are not under the province of etymology.
§ 282. The current rule is, that the plural number is formed from the singular by addings, asfather,fathers.However, if the reader will revert to the Section upon the sharp and flat Mutes, where it is stated that mutes of different degrees of sharpness and flatness cannot come together in the same syllable, he will find occasion to take to the current rule a verbal exception. The letter added to the wordfather, making itfathers, issto the eye only. To the ear it 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 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.(thesoundof the word being expressed),pea,peaz;tree,treez;day,dayz;hill,hillz;hen,henz;gig,gigz;trap,traps;pit,pits;stack,stacks. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary.
I. In the case of words ending inb,v,d, thethinthine=ð, org, a change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharpsaffixed, was not a matter of choice, but of necessity; the combinationsabs,avs,ads,aðs,ags, being unpronounceable. See the Section on the Law of Accommodation.
II. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second (aps,afs,ats,aþs,asks), or the second to the first (abz,avz,aðz,agz), is determined by the habit of the particular language in question; and, with a few apparent exceptions (mark the wordapparent), it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and notvice versâ.
III. Such combinations aspeas,trees,hills,hens, &c. (thespreserving its original power, and being sounded as if writtenpeace,treece,hillce,hence), being pronounceable, the change fromstoz, in words so ending, isnota matter determined by the necessity of the case, but by the habit of the English language.
IV. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not ins, but inz, the original addition was notz, buts. This weinfer 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.
§ 283.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.
§ 284. "A fewapparentexceptions."—These words are taken from Observation II. in the present section. The apparent exceptions to the rule there laid down are the wordsloaf,wife, and a few others, whose plural is not soundedloafs,wifs(loafce,wifce), butloavz,wivz(writtenloaves,wives). Here it seems as ifzhad been added to the singular; and, contrary to rule, the final letter of the original word been accommodated to thez, instead of thezbeing accommodated to the final syllable of the word, and so becomings. It is, however, very probable that instead of the plural form being changed, it is the singular that has been modified. In the Anglo-Saxon thefat the end of words (as in the present Swedish) had the power ofv. In the allied language the words in point are spelt with theflatmute, asweib,laub,kalb,halb,stab,German. The same is the case withleaf,leaves;calf,calves;half,halves;staff,staves;beef,beeves: this last word being Anglo-Norman.
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, its sense is collective rather than plural; in the third place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it fromlens, soundedlenz. That its sense is collective rather than plural (a distinction to which the reader's attention is directed), 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(diez) 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 ofstudy, of some art, or of 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(fysica). 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.
In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs to be, is a point of syntax.
§ 285. The plural formchildren(child-er-en) requires particular notice.
In the first place it is a double plural: the-enbeing the-eninoxen, whilst the simpler formchild-eroccurs in the old English, and in certain provincial dialects.
Now, what is the-erinchild-er?
In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner thanthat in-r; asgeisl-ar=flashes,tung-ur=tongues, &c. Nevertheless, it is not the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question.
Besides the wordchilder, we collect from the other Gothic tongue the following forms in-r.—
and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all beingof the neuter gender. The particular Gothic dialect wherein they occur most frequently is the Dutch of Holland.
Now, the theory respecting the form so propounded by Grimm (D. G. iii. p. 270) is as follows:—
1. The-rrepresents an earlier-s.
2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number.
3. In this form it appears in the Mœso-Gothic:ag-is=fear(whenceague=shivering),hat-is=hate,rigv-is=smoke(reek). In none of these words is the-sradical, and in none is it limited to the singular number.
To these views Bopp adds, that the termination in question is the Sanskrit-as, a neuter affix; as intêj-as=splendour,strength, fromtij=tosharpen.—V. G. pp. 141-259, Eastwick's and Wilson's translation.
To these doctrines of Grimm and Bopp, it should be added, that the reason why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in thecollectivenature of the words in which it occurs:Husir=a collection of houses,eigir=a collection of eggs, eggeryoreyry. For further observations on the power of-r, and for reasons for believing it to be the same as in the wordsJew-r-y,yeoman-r-y, see a paper of Mr. Guest's, Philol. Trans., May 26, 1843. There we find the remarkable formlamb-r-en, from Wicliffe, Joh. xxi.Lamb-r-en:lamb::child-r-en:child.
§ 286.The form in -en.—In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural number is more common than-n:tungan, tongues;steorran, stars. Of this termination we have evident remains in the wordsoxen,hosen,shoon,eyne, words more or less antiquated. This, perhaps, isnotrue plural. Inwelk-in=the clouds, the original singular form is lost.
§ 287.Men, feet, teeth, mice, lice, geese.—In these we have some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a certainty, true plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the weak and strong tenses of verbs;viz., one series of plurals formed by a change of the vowel, and another by the addition of the sibilant. The wordkye, used in Scotland forcows, is of the same class. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that of the present English.
§ 288.Brethren.—Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the vowel. 2. The addition of-en.Mr. Guest quotes the formsbrethreandbrothrefrom the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural.
Peasen=pulse.—Aschildrenis a double form of one sort (r+en), so ispeasena double form of another (s+en);pea,pea-s,pea-s-en. Wallis speaks to thesingularpower of the form in-s:—"Dicunt nonnullia pease, pluraliterpeasen; at melius, singularitera pea, pluraliterpease:"—P. 77. He might have added, that, theoretically,peasewas the proper singular form; as shown by the Latinpis-um.
Pullen=poultry.
Lussurioso.—What? three-and-twenty years in law?Vendice.—I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all aboutpullenand pigs.—Revenger's Tragedy, iv. 1.
Lussurioso.—What? three-and-twenty years in law?
Vendice.—I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all aboutpullenand pigs.—Revenger's Tragedy, iv. 1.
If this were a plural form, it would be a very anomalous one. The-en, however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the-esinrich-es(richesse). The proper form is in-ainor-eyn.
A false theefe,That came like a false fox, mypullainto kill and mischeefe.Gammer Gurton's Needle, v. 2.
A false theefe,That came like a false fox, mypullainto kill and mischeefe.
A false theefe,
That came like a false fox, mypullainto kill and mischeefe.
Gammer Gurton's Needle, v. 2.
Gammer Gurton's Needle, v. 2.
Chickens.—A third variety of the double inflection (en+s), with the additional peculiarity of the formchickenbeing used, at present, almost exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, probably, the plural ofchick. So Wallis considered it:—"At olim etiam per-envel-ynformabant pluralia: quorum pauca admodum adhuc retinemus. Ut,an ox,a chick, pluraliteroxen,chicken(sunt qui dicunt in singularichicken, et in pluralichickens)."—(P. 77).Chick,chick-en,chick-en-s.
Fern.—According to Wallis the-ninfer-nis the-eninoxen, in other words, a plural termination:—"Afere(filix) pluraliterfern(verum nunc plerumquefernutroque numero dicitur, sed et in pluraliferns); namfereetferesprope obsoleta sunt."—(P. 77.) Subject to this view, the wordfer-n-swould exhibit the same phenomenon as the wordchicke-n-s. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A reason for believing the-nto be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon formfearn, and the Old High German,varam.
Women.—Pronouncedwimmen, as opposed to the singular formwoomman. Probably an instance of accommodation.
Houses.—Pronouncedhouz-ez. The same peculiarity in the case ofsandz, as occurs betweenfandvin words likelife,lives, &c.
Paths, youths.—Pronouncedpadhz,yoodhz. The same peculiarity in the case ofþandð, as occurs betweensandzin the wordshouse,houses. "Finita infplerumque alleviantur in plurali numero, substituendov; utwife,wives, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam insetth, quamvis retento charactere, inhouse,cloth,path."—P. 79.
ON THE CASES.
§ 289. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases, depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the sentencea house of a father, the idea expressed by the wordsof a father, is an idea of relation between them and the wordhouse. This idea is an idea of property or possession. The relation between the wordsfatherandhousemay be called the possessive relation. This relation, or connexion, between the two words is expressed by the prepositionof.
Ina fathers housethe idea is, there or thereabouts, the same; the relation or connexion between the two words being the same. The expression, however, differs. Ina father's housethe relation, or connexion, is expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form,fatherbecomingfather's.
He gave the house to a father.—Here the wordsfatherandhousestand in another sort of relationship; the relationship being expressed by the prepositionto. The ideato a fatherdiffers from the ideaof a father, in being expressed in one way only;viz., by the preposition. There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done withfather's.
The father taught the child.—Here there is neither preposition nor change of form. The connexion between the wordsfatherandchildis expressed by the arrangement only.
Now if the relation alone between two words constitutes a case, the words or sentences,child;to a father;of a father; andfather's, are all equally cases; of which one may becalled the accusative, another the dative, a third the genitive, and so on.
Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not constitute a case. Perhaps there is a necessity of either the addition of a preposition (as inof a father), or of a change in form (as infather's). In this case (althoughchildbe not so)father's,of a father, andto a father, are all equally cases.
Now it is a remark, at least as old as Dr. Beattie,[39]that if the use of a preposition constitute a case, there must be as many cases in a language as there are prepositions, and that "above a man,beneath a man,beyond a man,round about a man,within a man,without a man, shall be cases, as well asof a man,to a man, andwith a man."
For etymological purposes it is necessary to limit the meaning of the word case; and, as a sort of definition, it may be laid down thatwhere there is no change of form there is no case. With this remark, the English language may be compared with the Latin.
Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in English there are buttwo, there are (as far, at least, as the wordpaterandfatherare concerned) three more cases in Latin than in English. It does not, however, follow that because infatherwe have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two.
In order to constitute a case there must be a change of form.—This statement is a matter of definition. A second question, however, arises out of it;viz., whetherevery change of form constitute a case? In the Greek language there are the wordsἔριν(erin), andἔριδα(erida). Unlike the wordsfatherandfather'sthese two words have precisely the same meaning. Each is called an accusative; and each,consequently, is said to be in the same case with the other. This indicates the statement, that in order to constitute a case there must be notonly a change of form,but also a change of meaning. Whether such a limitation of the word be convenient, is a question for the general grammarian. At present we merely state that thereis no change of case unless there be a change of form. Hence, in respect to the wordpatribus(and others like it), which is sometimes translatedfrom fathers, and at other timesto fathers, we must say, not that in the one case the word is ablative and in the other dative, but that a certain case is used with a certain latitude of meaning. This remark bears on the wordherin English. Inher bookthe sense is that of the case currently called genitive. Init moved her, the sense is that of the case currently called the accusative. If we adhere, however, to what we have laid down, we must take exceptions to this mode of speaking. It is not that out of the single formherwe can get two cases, but that a certain form has two powers; one that of the Latin genitive, and another that of the Latin accusative.
§ 290. This leads to an interesting question,viz., what notions are sufficiently allied to be expressedbythe same form, andinthe same case? The wordher, in its two senses, may, perhaps, be dealt with as a single case, because the notions conveyed by the genitive and accusative are, perhaps, sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same word. Are the notions, however,of a mistress, andmistresses, so allied? I think not; and yet in the Latin language the same form,dominæ, expresses both. Ofdominæ=of a mistress, and ofdominæ=mistresses, we cannot say that there is one and the same case with a latitude of meaning. The words were, perhaps, once different. And this leads to the distinction betweena real and an accidental identity of form.
In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the wordssmith(smið),end(ende), andday(dæg), were, respectively,smithes(smiðes),endes, anddayes(dæges); whilst the nominative plurals were, respectively,smithas(smiðas),endas, anddayas(dægas). A process of change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in eachword was ejected. The result was, that the forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and the same; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident.
This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England, identical; the apostrophe infather'sbeing a mere matter of orthography. However, there wasoncea difference. This modifies the previous statement, which may now stand thus:—for a change of case there must be a change of form existing or presumed.
§ 291.The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they spread.—In the English language there is undoubtedly anominativecase. This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (father,good,he) equally. It is found in both numbers.
Accusative.—Some call this the objective case. The wordshim(singular) andthem(plural) (whatever they may have been originally) are now true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only.Thee,me,us, andyouare, to a certain extent, true accusatives.
They are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2. They are distinguished from the formsI,my, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only.
One word of English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of the term,viz., the wordtwain=two. The-nintwai-nis the-ninhine=himandhwone=whom. This we see from the following inflection:—
Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the original character oftwégenbeing accusative. The-nis by no means radical; besides which, itisthe sign of an accusative case, and isnotthe sign of a nominative.
Note.—The wordshimandthemare true accusatives in even a less degree thanthee,me,us, andyou. The Anglo-Saxon equivalents to the Latin wordseosandilloswerehi(orhig) andþá(orþæge); in other words, the sign of the accusative was other than the sound of-m. The case whichreallyended in-mwas the so-called dative; so that the Anglo-Saxon formshim(orheom) andþám=the Latiniisandillis.
This fact explains the meaning of the words,whatever they may have been originally, in a preceding sentence. It also indicates a fresh element in the criticism and nomenclature of the grammarian;viz., the extent to which thehistoryof a form regulates its position as an inflection.
Dative.—In the antiquated wordwhilom(at times), we have a remnant of the old dative in-m. Thesenseof the word is adverbial; its form, however, is that of a dative case.
Genitive.—Some call this the possessive case. It is found in substantives and pronouns (father's,his), but not in adjectives. It is formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant (father,fathers;buck,bucks); or if the word end ins, by that ofes(boxes,judges, &c.) It is found in both numbers:the men's hearts;the children's bread. In the plural number, however, it is rare; so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends ins(as it almost always does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words asfatherses,foxeses,princesseses, &c.
Instrumental.—The following extracts from Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar, teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word speltt-h-e, or of the so-called definite article.
"The demonstrative pronouns areþæt,se,seó(id,is,ea), which are also used for the article; andþis,þes,þeós(hoc,hic,hæc). They are thus declined:—
"The indeclinableþeis often used instead ofþæt,se,seo, in all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times, as an article. Hence the English articlethe.
"þyseems justly to be received as a properablativus instrumenti, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as,mid þy áþe=with that oath(Inæ Reges, 53). And in the same place in the dative,on þǽm áþe=in that oath."—Pp. 56, 57.
Hence thethethat has originated out of the Anglo-Saxonþýis one word; thethethat has originated out of the Anglo-Saxonþe, another. The latter is the common article: the former thethein expressions likeall the more,all the better=more by all that,better by all that, and the Latin phraseseo majus,eo melius.
Thatwhyis in the same case with the instrumentalthe(=þy) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflection of the interrogative pronoun:—
Hence, then, intheandwhywe have instrumental ablatives, or, simply,instrumentals.
§ 292.The determination of cases.—How do we determine cases? In other words, why do we callhimandthemaccusatives rather than datives or genitives? By one of two means;viz., either by the sense or the form.
Suppose that in the English language there were ten thousand dative cases and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in-m, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident that, whatever might be the meaning of the wordshimandthemtheir form would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusative, and the form dative, we should doubt which test to take.
My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by theformof the wordalone; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word should be said to be in the dative case. Now, as stated above, the wordshimandthem(to which we may addwhom) were once dative cases;-min Anglo-Saxon being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the Anglo-Saxons their sense coincided with their form. At present they are dative forms with an accusative meaning. Still, as the wordgivetakes after it a dative case, we have, even now, in the sentence,give it him,give it them, remnants of the old dative sense. To saygive it to him,to them, is unnecessary and pedantic: neither do I object to the expression,whom shall I give it? If ever theformaltest become generally recognised and consistently adhered to,him,them, andwhomwill be called datives with a latitude of meaning; and then the only true and unequivocal accusatives in the English language will be the formsyou,thee,us,me, andtwain.
My, an accusative form (meh,me,mec), has now a genitive sense. The same may be said ofthy.
Me, originally an accusative form (bothmeandmycan grow out ofmecandmeh), had, even with the Anglo-Saxons, a dative sense.Give it meis correct English. The same may be said ofthee.
Him, a dative form, has now an accusative sense.
Her.—For this word, as well as for further details onmeandmy, see the Chapters on the Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns.
§ 293. When all traces of the original dative signification are effaced, and when all the dative cases in a language are similarly affected, an accusative case may be said to have originated out of a dative.
§ 294. Thus far the question has been concerning the immediate origin of cases: their remote origin is a different matter.
The wordumoccurs in Icelandic. In Danish and Swedish it isom; in the Germanic languagesomme,umbi,umpi,ymbe, and alsoum. Its meaning isat,on,about. The wordwhilomis the substantivewhile=a timeorpause(Dan.hvile=to rest), with the addition of the prepositionom. That the particular dative form inomhas arisen out of the nounplusthe preposition is a safe assertion. I am not prepared, however, to account for the formation of all the cases in this manner.
§ 295.Analysis of cases.—In the wordchildren'swe are enabled to separate the word into three parts. 1. The rootchild. 2. The plural signsranden. 3. The sign of the genitive case,s. In this case the word is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought always to be attempted.
§ 296.The true nature of the genitive form in s.—It is a common notion that the genitive formfather'sis contracted fromfather his. The expression in our liturgy,for Jesus Christ his sake, which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it.
1. The expression theQueen's Majestyis not capable of being reduced to theQueen his Majesty.
2. In the formhisitself, theshas precisely the power that it has infather's, &c. Nowhiscannot be said to arise out ofhe+his.
3. In all the languages of the vast Indo-European tribe, except the Celtic, the genitive ends ins, just as it does inEnglish; so that even if the wordsfather hiswould account for the English wordfather's, it would not account for the Sanskrit genitivepad-as, of a foot; the Zenddughdhar-s, of a daughter; the Lithuanicdugter-s; the Greekὀδόντ-ος; the Latindent-is, &c.
For further remarks upon the English genitive, see the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. ii. p. 246.
THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.
§ 297.I, we, us, me, thou, ye.—These constitute the true personal pronouns. Fromhe,she, andit, they differ in being destitute of gender.
These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only.
In other languages the current pronouns of the third person are, as in English, demonstrative rather than personal.
The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exceptionable.Iandme,thouandye, stand in no etymological relations to each other. The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective.Ihas nooblique, andmeno nominative case. And so with respect to the rest.
I, in Germanich, Icelandicek, corresponds withἐγὼ, andegoof the classical languages;egoandἐγὼbeing, likeI, defective in the oblique cases.
My, as stated above, is a form originally accusative, but now used in a genitive sense.
Me.—In Anglo-Saxon this was called a dative form. The fact seems to be that bothmyandmegrow out of an accusative form,meh,mec.
That the sound ofkoriginally belonged to the pronounsmeandthee, we learn not only from the Anglo-Saxonsmec,þec,meh,þeh, but from the Icelandicmik,þik, and the Germanmich,dich. This accounts for the formmy; sincey=ey, and the sounds ofyandgare allied. That bothmeandmycan be evolved frommik, we see in the present Scandinavian languages, where, very often even in the same district,migis pronounced bothmeyandmee.
Weandour.—These words are not in the condition ofIandme. Although the fact be obscured, they are really in an etymological relation to each other. This we infer from the alliance between the sounds ofwandou, and from the Danish formsvi(we),vor(our). It may be doubted, however, whetherourbe a true genitive rather than an adjectival form. In the formourswe find it playing the part, not of a case, but of an independent word. Upon this, however, too much stress cannot be laid. In Danish it takes a neuter form:vor=noster;vort=nostrum. From this I conceive that it agrees, not with the Latin genitivenostrûm, but with the adjectivenoster.
Us, we, our.—Evenusis in an etymological relation towe. Thatweandourare so, has just been shown. Now in Anglo-Saxon there were two forms ofour,viz.,úre(=nostrûm), anduser(=noster). This connectsweandusthroughour.
From these preliminary notices we have the changes in form of the true personal pronouns, as follows:—
§ 298.Weandmehave been dealt with as distinct words. But it is only for practical purposes that they can be considered to be thus separate; since the sounds ofmandware allied, and in Sanskrit the singular formma=Iis looked upon as part of the same word withvayam=we. The same is the case with the Greekμε(me), and the plural formἡμεῖς(hæmeis)=we.
You.—As far as the practice of the present mode of speechis concerned, the wordyouis anominativeform; since we sayyou move,you are moving,you were speaking.
Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it should not. All that can be said is, that the historical reason and the logical reason are at variance. The Anglo-Saxon form foryouwaseow, forye,ge. Neither bear any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative, as the habit of language may make them. Hence, it, perhaps, is more logical to say that a certain form (you) is usedeitheras a nominative or accusative, than to say that the accusative case is used instead of a nominative. It is clear thatyoucan be used instead ofyeonly so far as it is nominative in power.
Ye.—As far as the evidence of such expressions asget on with yeis concerned, the wordyeis an accusative form. The reasons why it should or should not be treated as such are involved in the previous paragraph.
Me.—Carrying out the views just laid down, and admittingyouto be a nominative, orquasi-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to the wordme, and call it also a secondary nominative; inasmuch as such phrases asit is me=it is Iare common.
Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No one says thatc'est moiis bad French, and thatc'est jeis good. The fact is, that the whole question is a question of degree. Has or has not the custom been sufficiently prevalent to have transferred the formsme,ye, andyoufrom one case to another, as it is admitted to have done with the formshimandwhom, once dative, but now accusative?
Observe.—That the expressionit is me=it is Iwill not justify the use ofit is him,it is her=it is heandit is she.Me,ye,you, are what may be calledindifferentforms,i. e.nominative as much as accusative, and accusative as much as nominative.Himandher, on the other hand, are not indifferent. The-mand-rare respectively the signs of cases other than the nominative.
Again: the reasons which allow the formyouto beconsidered as a nominative plural, on the strength of its being used forye, will not allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its being used forthou. It is submitted to the reader, that in phrases likeyou are speaking, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, that the courtesy consists in treatingoneperson asmore than one, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered,you=thouis a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural:—you are speaking, notyou art speaking.
ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH.
§ 299. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin pronominal formssui,sibi,se.
Nor yet are there any equivalents in English to the so-called adjectival formssuus,sua,suum: sincehisandherare the equivalents toejusandillius, and are not adjectives but genitive cases.
At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form asse(or its equivalent), there could be no such secondary form assuus(or its equivalent).
Such, however, is not the case.Suusmight exist in the language, and yetsebe absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued whilst the original one had become extinct.
Such is really the case with theOldFrisian. The reflective personal form, the equivalent tose, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive form, the equivalent tosuus, is found. In theModernFrisian, however, both forms are lost; as they also are in the present English.
The history of the reflective pronoun in the Gothic tongues is as follows:—
In Mœso-Gothic.—Found in three cases,seina,sis,sik=sui,sibi,se.
In Old Norse.—Ditto.Sin,ser,sik=sui,sibi,se.
In Old High German.—The dative form lost; there being no such word assir=sis=sibi. Besides this, the genitiveor possessive formsinis used only in the masculine and neuter genders.
In Old Frisian.—As stated above, there is here no equivalent tose; whilst thereisthe formsin=suus.
In Old Saxon.—The equivalent tose,sibi, andsuivery rare. The equivalent tosuusnot common, but commoner than in Anglo-Saxon.
In Anglo-Saxon.—No instance of the equivalent toseat all. The formssinne=suum, andsinum=suo, occur in Beowulf. In Cædmon cases ofsin=suusare more frequent. Still the usual form ishis=ejus.
In the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, the true reflectives, both personal and possessive, occur; so that the modern Frisian and English stand alone in respect to the entire absence of them.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 321-348.
The statement concerning the absence of the true reflective in English, although negative, has an important philological bearing on more points than one.
1. It renders the use of the wordselfmuch more necessary than it would be otherwise.
2. It renders us unable to draw a distinction between the meanings of the Latin wordssuusandejus.
3. It precludes the possibility of the evolution of a middle voice like that of the Old Norse, wherekalla-sc=kalla-sik.