THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, &c.
§ 300. The demonstrative pronouns are, 1.He,it. 2.She. 3.This,that. 4.The.
He,she, andit, generally looked on as personal, are here treated as demonstrative pronouns, for the following reasons.
1. The personal pronouns form an extremely natural class, if the pronouns of the two first persons (andsewhen found in the language) be taken by themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along withhe,it, andshe. The absence of gender, the peculiarity in their declension, and their defectiveness are marked characters wherein they agree with each other, but not with any other words.
2. The idea expressed byhe,it, andsheis naturally that of demonstrativeness. In the Latin languageis,ea,id;ille,illa,illud;hic,hæc,hoc, are demonstrative pronouns in sense, as well as in declension.
3. The plural formsthey,them, in the present English, are the plural forms of the root ofthat, a true demonstrative pronoun; so that even ifhe,she, anditcould be treated as personal pronouns, it could only be in their so-called singular number.
4. The wordshehas grown out of the Anglo-Saxonseó. Nowseówas in Anglo-Saxon the feminine form of the definite article; the definite article being a demonstrative pronoun.
Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as follows:—
She.—The Anglo-Saxon formheó, being lost to the language, is replaced by the feminine articleseó.
Her.—This is a case, not of the presentshe, but of the Anglo-Saxonheó: so thatshemay be said to be defective inthe oblique cases andherto be defective in the nominative.
Him.—A true dative form, which has replaced the Anglo-Saxonhine. When used as a dative, it was neuter as well as masculine.
His.—Originally neuter as well as masculine. Now as a neuter, replaced byits—"et quidem ipsa voxhis, ut et interrogativumwhose, nihil aliud sunt quamhee's,who's, ubisomnino idem præstat quod in aliis possessivis. Similiter autemhisprohee'seodem errore quo nonnunquambinprobeen; itemwhoseprowho'seodem errore quodone,gone,knowne,growne, &c., prodoen,goen,knowen, veldo'n,go'n,know'n,grow'n; utrobique contra analogiam linguæ; sed usu defenditur."—Wallis, c. v.
It.—Changed from the Anglo-Saxonhit, by the ejection ofh. Thetis no part of the original word, but a sign of the neuter gender, forming it regularly fromhe. The same neuter sign is preserved in the Latinidandillud.
Its.—In the course of time the nature of the neuter signt, init, the form being found in but a few words, became misunderstood. Instead of being looked on as an affix, it passed for part of the original word. Hence was formed fromitthe anomalous genitiveits, superseding the Saxonhis. The same was the case with—
Hers.—Theris no part of the original word, but the sign of the dative case. These formations are of value in the history of cases.
They,their,them.—Whenhithad been changed intoit, whenheóhad been replaced byshe, and when the single formthe, as an article, had come to serve for all the cases of all the genders, two circumstances took place: 1. The formsþámandþáraas definite articles became superfluous; and, 2. The connexion between the plural formshí,heom,heora, and the singular formsheandit, grew indistinct. These were conditions favourable to the use of the formsthey,them, andtheir, instead ofhí,heom,heora.
Theirs.—In the same predicament withhersandits; either the case of an adjective, or a case formed from a case.
Thanorthen, andthere.—Although now adverbs, they were once demonstrative pronouns, in a certain case and in a certain gender.—Thanandthenmasculine accusative and singular,therefeminine dative and singular.
An exhibition of the Anglo-Saxon declension is the best explanation of the English. Be it observed, that the cases marked in italics are found in the present language.
I.
Se,seó.
Of this word we meet two forms only, both of the singular number, and both in the nominative case;viz.masc.se; fem.seó(the). The neuter gender and the other cases of the article were taken from the pronounþæt(that).
II.
þæt(that, the), andþis(this).
III.
Hit(it),he(he),heó(she).
IV.
þe(the)—Undeclined, and used for all cases and genders.
§ 301.These.—Here observe—
1st. That thesis no inflection, but a radical part of the word, like thesingeese.
2nd. That the Anglo-Saxon form isþâs.
These facts create difficulties in respect to the wordthese. Mr. Guest's view is, perhaps, the best;viz.that the plural element of the word is the lettere, and that this-eis the old English and Anglo-Saxon adjective plural; so thatthes-eis formed fromthes, asgode(=boni) is formed fromgod(=bonus).
The nominative plural in the Old English ended ine; as,
In Old English MSS. this plural in-eis general. It occurs not only in adjectives and pronouns as a regular inflection, but even as a plural of the genitivehis, that word being treated as a nominative singular; so thathiseis formed fromhis, assuifromsuus, or asejimight have been formed fromejus; provided that in the Latin language this last word had been mistaken for a nominative singular. The following examples are Mr. Guest's.
1. In these lay a gret multitude ofsykemen,blinde, crokid, anddrye.Wicliffe, Jon. v.
1. In these lay a gret multitude ofsykemen,blinde, crokid, anddrye.
Wicliffe, Jon. v.
2. In all the orders foure is non that canSo much of dalliance and faire language,He hadde ymade ful many a marriage—His tippet was ay farsed ful of knives,And pinnes for to givenfairewives.Chau., Prol.
2. In all the orders foure is non that canSo much of dalliance and faire language,He hadde ymade ful many a marriage—His tippet was ay farsed ful of knives,And pinnes for to givenfairewives.
2. In all the orders foure is non that can
So much of dalliance and faire language,
He hadde ymade ful many a marriage—
His tippet was ay farsed ful of knives,
And pinnes for to givenfairewives.
Chau., Prol.
Chau., Prol.
3. Andalthe cuntre of Judee wente out to him, andallemen of Jerusalem.—Wiclif, Mark i.4. He ghyueth lif toallemen, and brething, andallethingis; and made of vonalkynde of men to inhabit onalthe face of the erthe.—Wicliffe, Dedis of Apostlis, xvii.
3. Andalthe cuntre of Judee wente out to him, andallemen of Jerusalem.—Wiclif, Mark i.
4. He ghyueth lif toallemen, and brething, andallethingis; and made of vonalkynde of men to inhabit onalthe face of the erthe.—Wicliffe, Dedis of Apostlis, xvii.
5. That fadres sone whichallethinges wrought;Andall, that wrought is with a skilful thought,The Gost that from the fader gan procede,Hath souled hem.Chau., The Second Nonnes Tale.6. Andallewe that ben in this arayAnd makenallthis lamentation,We lostenalleour husbondes at that toun.Chau., The Knightes Tale.
5. That fadres sone whichallethinges wrought;Andall, that wrought is with a skilful thought,The Gost that from the fader gan procede,Hath souled hem.
5. That fadres sone whichallethinges wrought;
Andall, that wrought is with a skilful thought,
The Gost that from the fader gan procede,
Hath souled hem.
Chau., The Second Nonnes Tale.
Chau., The Second Nonnes Tale.
6. Andallewe that ben in this arayAnd makenallthis lamentation,We lostenalleour husbondes at that toun.
6. Andallewe that ben in this aray
And makenallthis lamentation,
We lostenalleour husbondes at that toun.
Chau., The Knightes Tale.
Chau., The Knightes Tale.
7. Agoodman bryngeth forthgodethingis ofgoodtresore.—Wicliffe, Matt. xii.8. So everygoodtree makethgodefruytis, but an yvel tree maketh yvel fruytes. Agoodtree may not mak yvel fruytis, neither an yvel tree may makegodefruytis. Every tree that maketh notgoodfruyt schal be cut down.—Wicliffe, Matt. vii.9. Men loveden more darknessis than light for her werkes werenyvele, for ech man that doethyvel, hateth the light.—Wicliffe, Jon. iii.10. Andothereseedis felden among thornes wexen up and strangliden hem, andothereseedis felden into good lond and gaven fruyt, sum an hundred fold,anothersixty fold, anotherthritty fold, &c.—Wicliffe, Matt. xiii.11. Yet the while he spake to the puple lohismother andhisebrethren stonden withoute forth.—Wicliffe, Matt. xii.12. Andhisedisciplis camen and tokenhisbody.—Wicliffe, Matt. xiv.
7. Agoodman bryngeth forthgodethingis ofgoodtresore.—Wicliffe, Matt. xii.
8. So everygoodtree makethgodefruytis, but an yvel tree maketh yvel fruytes. Agoodtree may not mak yvel fruytis, neither an yvel tree may makegodefruytis. Every tree that maketh notgoodfruyt schal be cut down.—Wicliffe, Matt. vii.
9. Men loveden more darknessis than light for her werkes werenyvele, for ech man that doethyvel, hateth the light.—Wicliffe, Jon. iii.
10. Andothereseedis felden among thornes wexen up and strangliden hem, andothereseedis felden into good lond and gaven fruyt, sum an hundred fold,anothersixty fold, anotherthritty fold, &c.—Wicliffe, Matt. xiii.
11. Yet the while he spake to the puple lohismother andhisebrethren stonden withoute forth.—Wicliffe, Matt. xii.
12. Andhisedisciplis camen and tokenhisbody.—Wicliffe, Matt. xiv.
13. WhanthiseBretons tuo were fled out ofthislondIne toke his feaute of alle, &c.Rob. Brunne, p. 3.
13. WhanthiseBretons tuo were fled out ofthislondIne toke his feaute of alle, &c.
13. WhanthiseBretons tuo were fled out ofthislond
Ine toke his feaute of alle, &c.
Rob. Brunne, p. 3.
Rob. Brunne, p. 3.
14.Thisis thilk disciple that bereth witnessyng ofthesethingis, and wroot them.—Wicliffe, John xxi.15. Seye to us in what powers thou doistthesethingis, and who is he that gaf to theethispower.—Wicliffe, Luke xx.
14.Thisis thilk disciple that bereth witnessyng ofthesethingis, and wroot them.—Wicliffe, John xxi.
15. Seye to us in what powers thou doistthesethingis, and who is he that gaf to theethispower.—Wicliffe, Luke xx.
§ 302.Those.—Perhaps the Anglo-Saxonþáwithsadded. Perhaps theþásfromþiswith its power altered. Rask, in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar, writes "from þis we find, in the plural, þæs for þás. From which afterwards, with a distinction in signification,theseandthose." The English formtheyis illustrated by the Anglo-Saxon formðage=þá. The whole doctrine of the forms in question has yet to assume a satisfactory shape.
The present declension of the demonstrative pronouns is as follows:—
I.
The—Undeclined.
II.
She—Defective in the oblique cases.
III.
He.
IV.
That.
V.
Singular, This.Plural, These.
VI.
Those.
THE RELATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, AND CERTAIN OTHER PRONOUNS.
§ 303. In the relative and interrogative pronouns,who,what,whom,whose, we have, expressed by a change of form, a neuter gender,what; a dative case,whom; and a genitive case,whose: the true power of thes(viz.as the sign of a case) being obscured by the orthographical addition of theemute.
To these may be added, 1. the adverbwhy, originally the ablative formhvi(quo modo? quâ viâ?). 2. The adverbwhere, a feminine dative, likethere. 3.When, a masculine accusative (in Anglo-Saxonhwæne), and analogous tothen.
§ 304. The following points in the history of the demonstrative and relative pronouns are taken from Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii. pp. 1, 2, 3.
Throughout the Indo-European tribe the interrogative or relative idea is expressed byk, or by a modification ofk; e.g.,qu,hv, orh; as Sanskrit,kas, who;kataras, which of two;katama, which of many.—Lithuanic,kas, who;koks, of what sort;kokelys, how great;kaip, how.—Slavonic:kto, who, Russian and Polish;kdo, who, Bohemian;kotory, which, Russian;kolik, how great.—Quot,qualis,quantus, Latin.—Κόσος,κοῖος,κότε, Ionic Greek; in the other dialects, however,πότερος,πόσος, &c.—Gothic:hvas, who, Mœso-Gothic;huer, Old High German;hvaþar, which of two, Mœso-Gothic;huëdar, Old High German;hvem,hvad,huanne,huar, Norse;what,why,which,where, &c., English.
Throughout the Indo-European tribe the demonstrative idea is expressed byt, or by a modification of it; as, Sanskrit,tat, that;tata-ras, such a one out of two.—Lithuanic,tas, he;toks, such;tokelys, so great;taip, so.—Slavonic,t'orta, he;taku, such;tako, so.—Tot,talis,tantum, Latin.—Τόσος,τοῖος,τότε, Greek;this,that,thus, English, &c.
The two sounds in the Danish wordshvi,hvad, &c., and the two sounds in the English,what,when(Anglo-Saxon,hwæt,hwæne), account for the formswhyandhow. In the first thewalone, in the second thehalone, is sounded. The Danish for why ishvi, pronouncedvi; in Swedish the word ishu.
§ 305. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply to a few of the remaining pronouns. For further details, see Grimm, D. G. iii. 4.
Same.—Wanting in Anglo-Saxon, where it was replaced by the wordylca,ylce. Probably derived from the Norse.
Self.—Inmyself,thyself,herself,ourselves,yourselves, a substantive (or with a substantival power), and preceded by a genitive case. Inhimselfandthemselvesan adjective (or with an adjectival power), and preceded by an accusative case.Itselfis equivocal, since we cannot say whether its elements areitandself, oritsandself; theshaving been dropped in utterance. It is very evident that either the form likehimself, or the form likethyself, is exceptionable; in other words, that the use of the word is inconsistent. As this inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxons, the history of the word gives us no elucidation. In favour of the forms likemyself(selfbeing a substantive), are the following facts:—
1. The plural wordselves, a substantival, and not an adjectival form.
2. The Middle High German phrases,mîn lîp,dîn lîp,my body,thy body, equivalent in sense tomyself,thyself.
3. The circumstance that ifselfbe dealt with as a substantive, such phrases asmy own self,his own great self, &c., can be used; whereby the language is a gainer.
"Voxself, pluraliterselves, quamvis etiam pronomen a quibusdam censeatur (quoniam ut plurimum per Latinumipseredditur), est tamen plane nomen substantivum, cui quidem vix aliquod apud Latinos substantivum respondet; proxime tamen accedet voxpersonavelpropria persona, utmy self,thy self,our selves,your selves, &c. (ego ipse,tu ipse,nos ipsi,vos ipsi, &c.), ad verbummea persona,tua persona, &c. Fateor tamenhimself,itself,themselvesvulgo dici prohis-self,its-self,theirselves; at (interpositoown)his own self, &c.,ipsius propria persona, &c."—Wallis, c. vii.
4. The fact that many persons actually sayhisselfandtheirselves.
Whit.—As in the phrasenot a whit. This enters in the compound pronounsaughtandnaught.
One.—As in the phraseone does so and so. From the Frenchon. Observe that this is from the Latinhomo, in Old Frenchhom,om. In the Germanic tonguesmanis used in the same sense:man sagt=one says=on dit.One, likeselfandother, is so far a substantive, that it is inflected. Gen. sing,one's own self: plural,my wife and little ones are well.
Derived pronouns.—Any, in Anglo-Saxon,ænig. In Old High German we haveeinîc=any, andeinac=single. In Anglo-Saxonânegameanssingle. In Middle High Germaneinecis alwayssingle. In New High Germaneinigmeans, 1.a certain person(quidam), 2.agreeing;einzig, meaningsingle. In Dutchênechhas both meanings. This indicates the wordán,one, as the root of the word in question.—Grimm, D. G. iii. 9.
Compound pronouns.—Which, as has been already stated more than once, is most incorrectly called the neuter ofwho. Instead of being a neuter, it is a compound word. The adjectiveleiks,like, is preserved in the Mœso-Gothic wordsgaleiks, andmissaleiks. In Old High German the form islih, in Anglo-Saxonlic. Hence we have Mœso-Gothic,hvêleiks; Old High German,huëlih; Anglo-Saxon,huilicandhvilc; Old Frisian,hwelik; Danish,hvilk-en; German,welch; Scotch,whilk; English,which. (Grimm, D. G., iii. 47). The same is the case with—
1.Such.—Mœso-Gothic,svaleiks; Old High German,sôlih; Old Saxon,sulîc; Anglo-Saxon,svilc; German,solch; English,such. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 48). Rask's derivation of the Anglo-Saxonswilcfromswa-ylc, is exceptionable.
2.Thilk.—An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, asthick,thuck,theck, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt,Ritson, and Weber, fromsë ylca, is found in the following forms: Mœso-Gothic,þêleiks; Norse,þvilikr. (Grimm, iii. 49.)
3.Ilk.—Found in the Scotch, and always preceded by the article;the ilk, orthat ilk, meaningthe same. In Anglo-Saxon this word isylca, preceded also by the articlese ylca,seó ylce,þæt ylce. In English, as seen above, the word is replaced bysame. In no other Gothic dialect does it occur. According to Grimm, this is no simple word, but a compound one, of which some such word aseiis the first, andlîcthe second element. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 50.)
Aught.—In Mœso-Gothic is found the particleaiv,ever, but only in negative propositions;ni(not) preceding it. Its Old High German form isêo,io; in Middle High German,iein New High German,je; in Old Saxon,io; in Anglo-Saxon,â; in Norse,æ. Combined with this particle the wordwhit(thing) gives the following forms: Old High German,éowiht; Anglo-Saxon,âviht; Old Frisian,âwet; English,aught. The wordnaughtisaughtpreceded by the negative particle. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 52.)
Each.—The particlegienters, like the particle in the composition of pronouns. Old High German,êogalîher, every one;êocalih, all; Middle High German,iegelich; New High German,jeglich; Anglo-Saxon,ælc; English,each; thelbeing dropped, as inwhichandsuch.Ælc, as the original of the Englisheachand the Scotchilka,[42]must by no means be confounded with the wordylce,the same. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 54.)
Every, in Old English,everich,everech,everilk one, isælc, preceded by the particleever. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 54.)
Either.—Old High German,êogahuëdar; Middle High German,iegewëder; Anglo-Saxon,æghväðer,ægðer; Old Frisian,eider.
Neither.—The same, with the negative article prefixed.Neither:either::naught:aught.
Other,whether.—These words, although derived forms, being simpler than some that have preceded, might fairlyhave been dealt with before. They make, however, a transition from the present to the succeeding chapter, and so find a place here.
A.First, it may be stated of them that the idea which they express is not thatof one out of many, but that ofone out of two.
1. In Sanskrit there are two forms,a)kataras, the same word aswhether, meaningwhich out of two;b)katamas,which out of many. So alsoêkateras,one out of two;êkatamas,one out of many. In Greek, the Ionic formκότερος(πότερος); in Latin,uter,neuter,alter; and in Mœso-Gothic,hvathar, have the same form and the same meaning.
2. In the Scandinavian language the wordanden, Dano-Saxonannar, Iceland corresponds to the English wordsecond, and not the Germanzweite:e. g.,Karl den Anden,Charles the Second. Nowantharis the older form ofother.
B.Secondly, it may be stated of them, that the termination-eris the same termination that we find in the comparative degree.
1. The idea expressed by the comparative degree is the comparison, not ofmany, but oftwothings;this is better than that.
2. In all the Indo-European languages where there are pronouns in-ter, there is also a comparative degree in-ter. See next chapter.
3. As the Sanskrit formkatarascorresponds with the comparative degree, where there is the comparison oftwo things with each other; so the wordkatamasis a superlative form; and in the superlative degree lies the comparison ofmanythings with each other.
Henceotherandwhether(to which may be addedeitherandneither) are pronouns with the comparative form.
Otherhas the additional peculiarity of possessing the plural formothers. Hence, likeself, it is, in the strictest sense, a substantival pronoun.
ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER.
§ 306. Preparatory to the consideration of the degrees of comparison, it is necessary to make some remarks upon a certain class of words, which, with considerable differences of signification, all agree in one fact, viz., all terminate in-er, ort-er.
1. Certain pronouns, asei-th-er,n-ei-th-er,whe-th-er,o-th-er.
2. Certain prepositions and adverbs, asov-er,und-er,af-t-er.
3. Certain adjectives, with the form of the comparative, but the power of the positive degree; asupp-er,und-er,inn-er,out-er,hind-er.
4. All adjectives of the comparative degree; aswis-er,strong-er,bett-er, &c.
Now what is the idea common to all these words, expressed by the sign-er, and connecting the four divisions into one class? It is not the mere idea of comparison; although it is the comparative degree, to the expression of which the affix in question is more particularly applied. Bopp, who has best generalised the view of these forms, considers the fundamental idea to be that ofduality. In the comparative degree we have a relation between one object andsomeother object like it, or a relation between two single elements of comparison:A is wiser than B. In the superlative degree we have a relation between one object andallothers like it, or a relation between one single and one complex element of comparison:A is wiser than B, C, D, &c.
"As in comparatives a relation betweentwo, and in superlatives a relation betweenmany, lies at the bottom, it isnatural that their suffixes should be transferred to other words, whose chief notion is individualised through that of duality or plurality."—Vergleichende Grammatik, § 292, Eastwick's and Wilson's Translation.
The most important proofs of the view adduced by Bopp are,—
1. The Sanskrit formskataras=which of two persons?a comparative form;katamas=which of more than two persons?a superlative form. Similarly,êkataras=one of two persons;êkatamas=one of more than two persons.
2. The Greek forms,ἑκάτερος=each or either out of two persons;ἕκαστος=each or any out of more than two persons.
§ 307. The more important of the specific modifications of the general idea involved in the comparison of two objects are,—
1. Contrariety; as ininner,outer,under,upper,over. In Latin the words forrightandleftend in-er,—dexter,sinister.
2. Choice in the way of an alternative; aseither,neither,whether,other.
An extension of the reasoning probably explains forms like the Greekἀμφό-τερ-ος, and thepluralpossessive formsνωΐ-τερ-ος,ἡμέ-τερ-ος, &c, which, like our own forms in-r, (ou-r,you-r) correspond in termination with the comparative degree (σοφώ-τερ-ος,wiser). Words, also, likehitherandthitherare instances of what is probably the effect of a similar association of ideas.
§ 308. A confirmation of Bopp's view is afforded by the Laplandic languages. Herein the distinction betweenone of twoandone of more than twois expressed by affixes; and these affixes are the signs of the comparative and superlative:gi=who;gua-bba=who of two;gutte-mush=who of many.
1.Gi=who, so thatguabbamay be called its comparative form.
2.Guttealso=who, so thatguttemushmay be called its superlative.
3. Precisely as the wordsguabbaandguttemushare formed, so also are the regular degrees of adjectives.
a.Nuorra=young;nuor-ab=younger;nuora-mush=youngest.
b.Bahha=bad;baha-b=worse;baha-mush=worst.
The following extracts from Stockfleth's Lappish Grammar were probably written without any reference to the Sanskrit or Greek. "Guabba, of which the form and meaning are comparative, appears to have originated in a combination of the pronoungi, and the comparative affix-abbo."—"Guttemush, of which the form and meaning are superlative, is similarly derived from the pronoungutte, and the superlative affix-mush."—Grammatik i det Lappiske Sprog, §§ 192, 193.
§ 309.Either,neither,other,whether.—It has just been stated that the general fundamental idea common to all these forms is that ofchoice between one of two objects in the way of an alternative. Thus far the termination-erineither, &c., is the termination-erin the true comparatives,brav-er,wis-er, &c.Eitherandneitherare common pronouns.Other, likeone, is a pronoun capable of taking the plural form of a substantive (others), and also that of the genitive case (the other's money,the other's bread).Whetheris a pronoun in the almost obsolete formwhether (=which) of the two do you prefer, and a conjunction in sentences likewhether will you do this or not?The use of the formothersis recent. "They are taken out of the way as all other."—Job. "And leave their riches for other."—Psalms.
THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.
§ 310. The proper preliminary to the study of the comparative and quasi-comparative forms in English is the history of the inflection or inflections by which they are expressed. There is no part of our grammar where it is more necessary to extend our view beyond the common limit of the Gothic stock of languages, than here.
In the Sanskrit language the signs of the comparative degree are two:—1.-tara, aspunya=pure;punya-tara=purer; 2.-îyas, askśipra=swift;kśêpîyas=swifter. Of these the first is the most in use.
The same forms occur in the Zend; ashusko=dry;huskô-tara=drier;-îyas, however, is changed into-is.
In the classical languages we have the same forms. 1. inuter,neuter,alter,πότερος,λεπτότερος. 2. In the adverbmagis, Lat. In Bohemian and Polish,-ssjand-szycorrespond with the Sanskrit forms-îyas.
Thus we collect, that, expressive of the comparative degree, there are two parallel forms;viz., the form intr, and the form ins; of which one is the most in use in one language, and the other in another.
§ 311. Before we consider the Gothic forms of the comparative, it may be advisable to note two changes to which it is liable. 1. The change ofsintor; the Latin wordmeliorembeing supposed to have been originallymeliosem, and thesinnigrius,firmius, &c., being considered not so much the sign of the neuter gender as the old comparativesin its oldest form. 2. The ejection oft, as in the Latin wordsinferus,superus, compared with the Greekλεπτότερος(leptoteros).
§ 312. Now, of the two parallel forms, the Gothic one was the forms; the wordsotherandwhetheronly preserving the formtr. And here comes the application of the remarks that have just gone before. The vast majority of our comparatives end inr, and so seem to come fromtrrather than froms. This, however, is not the case. Therin words likesweeteris derived, not fromtar—t, but froms, changed intor. In Mœso-Gothic the comparative ended ins(z); in Old High German theshas becomer: Mœso-Gothicaldiza,batiza,sutiza; Old High German,altiro,betsiro,suatsiro; English,older,better,sweeter.
The importance of a knowledge of the form insis appreciated when we learn that, even in the present English, there are vestiges of it.
§ 313.Comparison of adverbs.—The sun shines bright.—Herein the wordbrightmeansbrightly; and although the use of the latter word would have been the more elegant, the expression is not ungrammatical; the wordbrightbeing looked upon as an adjectival adverb.
The sun shines to-day brighter than it did yesterday, and to-morrow it will shine brightest.—Here also the sense is adverbial; from whence we get the fact, that adverbs take degrees of comparison.
Now let the rootmag-, as inmagnus,μέγας, andmikil(Norse), give the idea of greatness. In the Latin language we have from it two comparative forms: 1. the adjectival comparativemajor=greater; 2. the adverbial comparativemagis=more(plus). The same takes place in Mœso-Gothic:maizameansgreater, and is adjectival;maismeansmore, and is adverbial. The Anglo-Saxon forms are more instructive still;e.g.,þäs þe mâ=all the more,þäs þe bet=all the better, have a comparative sense, but not a comparative form, the signrbeing absent. Now, compared withmajor, and subject to the remarks that have gone before, the Latinmagisis the older form. Withmâandbet, compared withmoreandbetter, this may or may not be the case.Mâandbetmay each be one of two forms; 1. a positive used in a comparative sense; 2. a true comparative, which has lostits termination. The present section has been written not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to show that in the comparative degree there were often two forms; of which one, the adverbial, was either more antiquated, or more imperfect than the other: a fact bearing upon some of the forthcoming trains of etymological reasoning.
§ 314.Change of vowel.—By reference to Rask's Grammar, § 128, it may be seen that in the Anglo-Saxon there were, for the comparative and superlative degrees, two forms;viz.-orand-re, and-ostand-este, respectively.
By reference to p.159of the present volume, it may be seen that the fulness or smallness of a vowel in a given syllable may work a change in the nature of the vowel in a syllable adjoining. In the Anglo-Saxon the following words exhibit a change of vowel.
Of this change, the word last quoted is a still-existing specimen, asold,elderandolder,eldestandoldest. Between the two forms there is a difference in meaning,elderbeing used as a substantive, and having a plural form,elders.
§ 315. The previous section has stated that in Anglo-Saxon there were two forms for the comparative and superlative degrees, one in-reand-este, the other in-orand-ost, respectively. Now the first of these was the form taken by adjectives; asse scearpre sweord=the sharper sword, andse scearpestesweord=the sharpest sword. The second, on the other hand, was the form taken by adverbs; as,se sweord scyrð scearpor=the sword cuts sharper, andse sweord scyrð scearpost=the sword cuts sharpest.
The adjectival form has, as seen above, a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding syllable small:old,elder.
The adverbial form has a tendency to make the vowel of the preceding syllable full.
Of this effect on the part of the adverbial form the adverbial comparativeratheris a specimen. We pronounce theaas infather, or full. Nevertheless, the positive form is small, theabeing pronounced as theainfate.
The wordrathermeansquick,easy=the classical rootῥαδ-inῥάδιος. What we doquicklyandwillinglywe dopreferably. Now if the wordratherwere an adjective, the vowel of the comparative would be sounded as theainfate. As it is, however, it is adverbial, and as such is properly sounded as theainfather.
The difference between the action of the small vowel in-re, and of the full in-or, effects this difference.
§ 316.Excess of expression.—Of this two samples have already been given: 1. in words likesongstress; 2. in words likechildren. This may be calledexcess of expression; the feminine gender, in words likesongstress, and the plural number, in words likechildren, being expressed twice over. In the vulgarismbettererforbetter, and in the antiquated formsworserforworse, andlesserforless, we have, in the case of the comparatives, as elsewhere, an excess of expression. In the Old High German we have the formsbetsërôro,mêrôro,êrërëra=better,more,ere.
§ 317.Better.—Although in the superlative formbestthere is a slight variation from the strict form of that degree, the wordbetteris perfectly regular. So far, then, from truth are the current statements that the comparison of the wordsgood,better, andbestis irregular. The inflection is not irregular, but defective. As the statement that applies togood,better, andbestapplies to many words besides, it will be well in this place, once for all, to exhibit it in full.
§ 318.Difference between a sequence in logic and a sequence in etymology.—The ideas or notions ofthou,thy,thee, are ideas between which there is a metaphysical or logical connexion. The train of such ideas may be said to form a sequence and such a sequence may be called a logical one.
The forms (or words)thou,thy,thee, are forms or wordsbetween which there is a formal or an etymological connexion. A train of such words may be called a sequence, and such a sequence may be called an etymological one.
In the case ofthou,thy,thee, the etymological sequence tallies with the logical one.
The ideas ofI,my, andmeare also in a logical sequence: but the formsI,my, andmeare not altogether in an etymological one.
In the case ofI,my,me, the etymological sequence doesnottally (or tallies imperfectly) with the logical one.
This is only another way of saying that between the wordsIandmethere is no connexion in etymology.
It is also only another way of saying, that, in the oblique cases,I, and, in the nominative case,me, are defective.
Now the same is the case withgood,better,bad,worse, &c.Goodandbadare defective in the comparative and superlative degrees;betterandworseare defective in the positive; whilst betweengoodandbetter,badandworse, there is a sequence in logic, but no sequence in etymology.
To return, however, to the wordbetter; no absolute positive degree is found in any of the allied languages, and in none of the allied languages is there found any comparative form ofgood. Its root occurs in the following adverbial forms: Mœso-Gothic,bats; Old High German,pats; Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon,bet; Middle High German,baz; Middle Dutch,bat,bet.—Grimm, D. G. iii. 604.
§ 319.Worse.—Mœso-Gothic,vairsiza; Old High German,wirsiro; Middle High German,wirser; Old Saxon,wirso; Anglo-Saxon,vyrsa; Old Norse,vërri; Danish,værre; and Swedish,värre. Such are the adjectival forms. The adverbial forms are Mœso-Gothic,vairs; Old High German,virs; Middle High German,wirs; Anglo-Saxon,vyrs: Old Norse,vërr; Danish,værre; Swedish,värre.—Grimm, D. G. iii. 606. Whether the present form in English be originally adjectival or adverbial is indifferent; since, as soon as the finalaofvyrsawas omitted, the two words would be the same. The forms, however,vairsiza,wirser,worse, andvërri, make the word one of the most perplexing in the language.
If the formworsebe taken without respect to the rest, the view of the matter is simply that in the terminationswe have a remnant of the Mœso-Gothic forms, likesutiza, &c., in other words, the old comparative ins.
Wirserandvairsizatraverse this view. They indicate the likelihood of thesbeing no sign of the degree, but a part of the original word. Otherwise therinwirser, and thezinvairsiza, denote an excess of expression.
The analogies ofsongstress,children, andbetsërôroshow that excess of expression frequently occurs.
The analogy ofmâandbetshow thatworsemay possibly be a positive form.
The wordvërriindicates the belief that thesis no part of the root.
Finally the euphonic processes of the Scandinavian languages tell us that, even had there been ans, it would, in all probability, have been ejected. These difficulties verify the statement that the wordworseis one of the most perplexing in the language.
§ 320.Much,more.—Here, although the words be unlike each other, there is a true etymological relation. Mœso-Gothic,mikils; Old High German,mihhil; Old Saxon,mikil; Anglo-Saxon,mycel; Old Norse,mickill; Scotch,muckleandmickle(all ending inl): Danish,megen, m.;meget, n.; Swedish,mycken, m.;myckett, n. (where nolis found). Such is the adjectival form of the positive, rarely found in the Modern Gothic languages, being replaced in German bygross, in English bygreat, in Danish bystor. The adverbial forms aremiökandmiög, Norse;much, English. It is remarkable that this last form is not found in Anglo-Saxon, being replaced bysâre, Germ,sehr.—Grimm, D. G. iii. 608.
The adverbial and the Norse forms indicate that thelis no part of the original word. Comparison with other Indo-European languages gives us the same circumstance: Sanskrit,maha; Latin,mag-nus; Greek,μέγας(megas).
There is in Mœso-Gothic the comparative formmáiza, and there is no objection to presuming a longer form,magiza; since in the Greek formμείζων, compared withμέγας, thereis a similar disappearance of theg. In the Old High German we findmêro, corresponding withmáiza, Mœso-Gothic, and withmore, English.
Mickle(replaced bygreat) expresses size;much, quantity;many, number. The wordsmoreandmostapply equally to number and quantity. I am not prepared either to assert or to deny thatmany, in Anglo-Saxonmænig, is from the same root withmuch. Of the wordmânotice has already been taken. Its later form,moe, occurs as late as Queen Elizabeth, with an adjectival as well as an adverbial sense.
§ 321.Little,less.—Likemuchandmore, these words are in an etymological relation to each other. Mœso-Gothic,leitils; Old High German,luzil; Old Saxon,luttil; Anglo-Saxon,lytel; Middle High German,lützel; Old Norse,lîtill. In these forms we have the letterl. Old High German Provincial,luzíc; Old Frisian,litich; Middle Dutch,luttik; Swedish,liten; Danish,liden.—Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 611. From these we find that thelis either no part of the original word, or one that is easily got rid of. In Swedish and Danish there are the formslilleandliden; whilst in the neuter form,lidt, thedis unpronounced. Even the wordlidenthe Danes have a tendency to pronounceleen. My own notion is that these changes leave it possible forlessto be derived from the root oflittle. According to Grimm, the Anglo-Saxonlässais the Gothiclasivôza, the comparative oflasivs=weak.—Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 611. In Anglo-Saxon there was the adjectival formlæssa, and the adverbial formlæs. In either case we have the forms.
§ 322.Near,nearer.—Anglo-Saxon,neah; comparative,nearre,near,nyr; superlative,nyhst,nehst. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon positive and superlative, the absence of ther. This shows that the English positivenearis the Anglo-Saxon comparativenearre, and that in the secondary comparativenearer, we have an excess of expression. It may be, however, that therinnearis a mere point of orthography, and that it is not pronounced. The fact that in the English language the wordsfatherandfartherare, for the most part, pronounced alike, is the key to the formsnearandnearer.
§ 323.Farther.—Anglo-Saxonfeor,fyrre,fyrrest. Thethseems euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives theδinἄνδρος.
Further.—Confounded withfarther, although in reality from a different word,fore. Old High German,furdir; New High German,der vordere; Anglo-Saxon,fyrðre.
§ 324.Former.—A comparative formed from the superlative;formabeing such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with irregularity.
Languages have a comparative without a superlative degree; nolanguage has a superlative degree without having also a comparative one.
§ 325. In Mœso-Gothicspêdistsmeanslast, andspêdiza=later. Of the wordspêdiststwo views may be taken. According to one it is the positive degree with the addition ofst; according to the other, it is the comparative degree with the addition only oft. Now, Grimm and others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is formed, not directly from the positive, but indirectly through the comparative.
With the exception ofworseandless, all the English comparatives end inr: yet no superlative ends inrt, the form being, notwise,wiser,wisert, butwise,wiser,wisest. This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the comparative forms ins; since it is from these, before they have changed tor, that we must suppose the superlatives to have been derived. The theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the superlative degree. It was introduced into the Indo-European tongues after the establishment of the comparative, and before the change of-sinto-r. I give no opinion as to the truth of this theory.
THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE.
§ 326. The history of the superlative form, accurately parallel with what has been stated of the comparative, is as follows:—
In Sanskrit there is, 1. the formtama, 2. the formishta; the first being the commonest. The same is the case in the Zend.
Each of these appears again in the Greek. The first, asτατ(tat), inλεπτότατος(leptotatos); the second, asιστ(ist), inοἴκτιστος(oiktistos). For certain reasons, Grimm thinks that the tat stands fortamt, ortant.
In Latin, words likeintimus,extimus,ultimus, preserveim; whilstvenustus,vetustus, androbustus, are considered as positives, preserving the superlative form-st.
Just as ininferusandnuperus, there was the ejection of thetin the comparativeter, so ininfimus,nigerrimus, &c., is there the ejection of the same letter in the superlativetim.
This gives us, as signs of the superlative, 1.tm; 2.st; 3.m,tbeing lost; 4.t,mbeing lost.
Of the first and last of these, there are amongst thetruesuperlatives, in English, no specimens.
Of the third, there is a specimen in the Anglo-Saxonse forma,the first, from the rootfore, as compared with the Latinprimus, and the Lithuanicpirmas.
The second,st(wise,wisest), is the current termination.
Of the English superlatives, the only ones that demand a detailed examination are those that are generally despatched without difficulty;viz., the words inmost; such asmidmost,foremost, &c. The current view is the one adopted by Rask in his Anglo-Saxon Grammar (§ 133),viz., that they arecompound words, formed from simple ones by the addition of the superlative termmost. Grimm's view is opposed to this. In appreciating Grimm's view, we must bear in mind the phenomena ofexcess of expression; at the same time we must not depart from the current theory without duly considering the fact stated by Rask; which is, that we have in Icelandic the formsnærmeir,fjærmeir, &c.,nearer, andfarther, most unequivocally compounded ofnearandmore, and offarandmore.
Let especial notice be taken of the Mœso-Gothic formsfruma, first;aftuma, last; and of the Anglo-Saxon formsforma,aftema, aftermost;ufema, upmost;hindema, hindmost;midema, midmost;innema, inmost;ûtema, outmost;siðema, last;latema, last;niðema, nethermost. These account for them.
Add to this, with an excess of expression, the lettersst. This accounts for the whole form, asmid-m-ost,in-m-ost, &c. Such is Grimm's view.
Furthermost,innermost,hindermost.—Here there is a true addition ofmost, and an excess of inflection, a superlative form being added to a word in the comparative degree.
Former.—Here, as stated before, a comparative sign is added to a word in the superlative degree.
§ 327. The combinationstoccurs in other words besides those of the superlative degree; amongst others, in certain adverbs and prepositions, asamong,amongst;while,whilst;between,betwixt.—Its power here has not been well explained.
OF THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.
§ 328. In one sense the cardinal numbers form no part of a work on etymology. They are single words, apparently simple, and, as such, appertaining to a dictionary rather than to a grammar.
In another sense they are strictly etymological. They are the basis of the ordinals, which are formed from them by derivation. Furthermore, some of them either have, or are supposed to have, certain peculiarities of form which can be accounted for only by considering them derivatives, and that of a very peculiar kind.
§ 329. It is an ethnological fact, that the numerals are essentially the same throughout the whole Indo-European class of languages. The Englishthreeis the Latintres, the Sanskrittri, &c. In the Indo-European languages the numerals agree, even when many common terms differ.
And it is also an ethnological fact, that in a great many other groups of languages the numerals differ, even when many of the common terms agree. This is the case with many of the African and American dialects. Languages alike in the common terms for common objects differ in respect to the numerals.
What is the reason for this inconsistency in the similarity or dissimilarity of the numerals as compared with the similarity or dissimilarity of other words? I believe that the following distinction leads the way to it:—
The wordtwo=2, absolutely and unequivocally, and in a primary manner.
The wordpairalso=2; but not absolutely, not unequivocally, and only in a secondary manner.
Hence the distinction between absolute terms expressive of number, and secondary terms expressive of number.
When languages separate from a common stock before the use of certain words is fixed asabsolute, there is room for considerable latitude in the choice of numerals;e.g., whilst with one tribe the wordpair=two, another tribe may use the wordcouple, a thirdbrace, and so on. In this case dialects that agree in other respects may differ in respect to their numerals.
When, on the other hand, languages separate from a common stock after the meaning of such a word astwohas been fixed absolutely, there is no room for latitude; and the numerals agree where the remainder of the language differs.
1.One=unus, Latin;ἑῖς(ἓν), Greek.
2.Two=duo,δύο.
3.Three=tres,τρεῖς.
4.Four=quatuor,τέτταρα. This is apparently problematical. Nevertheless, the assumed changes can be verified by the following forms:—
α.Fidvor, Mœso-Gothic. To be compared withquatuor.
β.Πίσυρες, Æolic. Illustrates the change betweenτ- andπ- (allied tof-), within the pale of the classical languages.
5.Five=quinque,πέντε. Verified by the following forms:—
α.Πέμπε, Æolic Greek.
β.Pump, Welsh. These account for the change from then+tinπέντεtom+p.
γ.Fimf, Mœso-Gothic;fünf, Modern High German.
δ.Fem, Norse.
The change from theπ- ofπέντεto thequ-ofquinqueis the change so often quoted by Latin and Celtic scholars betweenpandk:ἵππος,ἵκκος,equus.
6.Six=ἓξ,sex.
7.Seven=ἑπτὰ,septem.
This form is difficult. The Mœso-Gothic form issibun, without a-t-; the Norse,syv, without either-t-or-n(=-m). A doubtful explanation of the formseven, &c., will be found in the following chapter.
8.Eight=ὀκτὼ,octo.
9.Nine=ἐννέα,novem. The Mœso-Gothic form isnigun, the Icelandicniu. In the Latinnovemthev=thegofnigun. In the English and Greek it is wanting. The explanation of the-nand-mwill be found in the following chapter.