The present chapter is intended not to exhaust the list, but to illustrate the character of those orthographical expedients which insufficient alphabets, changes in language, and the influences of etymology engender both in the English and in other tongues.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.
§ 256. The preceding chapter has exhibited the theory of a full and perfect alphabet; it has shown how far the English alphabet falls short of such a standard; and, above all, it has exhibited the various conventional modes of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives ahistoryof our alphabet, whereby many of its defects areaccounted for. These defects, it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the rest of the world; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it possesses them in a higher degree than any.
With few, if any, exceptions, all the modes of writing in the world originate, directly or indirectly, from the Phœnician, Hebrew, or Semitic alphabet. This is easily accounted for when we call to mind,—1. The fact that the Greek, the Latin, and the Arabian alphabets, are all founded upon this; and, 2. The great influence of the nations speaking those three languages. The present sketch, however, is given only for the sake of accounting for defects.
§ 257.Phœnician, Hebrew, or Semitic Period.—At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phœnicia, and the neighbouring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters. For these see the Hebrew Grammars and the Phœnicia of Gesenius.
The chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only twenty-two letters will be insufficient. Now, in the particular case of the languages in point, the number of elementary sounds, as we infer from the present Arabic, was above the average.It may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic alphabet wasinsufficientfor even the Semitic languages.
It was, moreover,inconsistent: since sounds as like as those oftethandtau(mere variations of each other) were expressed by signs as unlike asט andת; whilst sounds as unlike as those ofbethwith a point, andbethwithout a point (bandv), were expressed (if expressed at all) by signs as like asב andבּ.
In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to another, and be found, at once, to coincide.
The Greeks had, in all probability, sounds which were wanting in Palestine and Phœnicia. In Palestine and Phœnicia it is certain that there were sounds wanting in Greece.
Of the twenty-two Phœnician letters the Greeks took but twenty-one. The eighteenth letter,tsadi,ץ, was never imported into Europe.
§ 258.Greek Period.—Compared with the Semitic, theOldGreek alphabet ran thus:—
Such the order and form of the Greek and Hebrew letters. Here it may be remarked, that, of each alphabet, it is only the modern forms that are compared; the likeness in theshapeof the letters may be seen by comparing them in theirolder stages. Of these the exhibition, in a work like the present, is inconvenient. They may, however, be studied in the work already referred to in thePhœniciaof Gesenius. Thenamesof the letters are as follows:—
§ 259. The Asiatic alphabet of Phœnicia and Palestine is now adapted to the European language of Greece. The first change took place in the manner of writing. The Orientals wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to right. Besides this, the following principles, applicable whenever the alphabet of one language is transferred to another, were recognised:—
1. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case, as seen above, with the eighteenth letter,tsadi.
2. Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8, 16, and probably with some others.
3. Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was the case with 6 and 19.
4. For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signsφ,χ,υ,ω.
5. The new signs were not mere modifications of the olderones (as was the case withפּ,פ,בּ,ב, &c. in Hebrew), but new, distinct, and independent letters.
In all this there was an improvement. The faults of the newer Greek alphabet consisted in the admission of the compendiumψ=ps, and the retention of the fifteenth letter (samech,xi), with the power ofks, it being also a compendium.
§ 260.The Italian or old Latin period.—That it was either from the original Phœnician, or from theoldGreek, that the Italian alphabets were imported, we learn from the existence in them of the lettersfandq, corresponding respectively to the sixth and nineteenth letters; these having, in the second stage of the Greek alphabet, been ejected.
§ 261. The first alphabet imported into Italy was the Etruscan. In this theβ,δ, andοwere ejected, their sounds (as it is stated) not being found in the Etruscan language. Be it observed, that the sounds both ofβandδareflat. Just as in the Devonshire dialect the flat sounds (z,v, &c.) have the preponderance, so, in the Etruscan, does there seem to have been a preponderating quantity of the sharp sounds. This prepares us for a change, the effects whereof exist in almost all the alphabets of Europe. In Greek and Hebrew the third letter (gimel,gamma) had the power of the flat muteg, as ingun. In the Etruscan it had the power ofk. In this use of the third letter the Romans followed the Etruscans: but, as they had also in their language the sound ofg(as ingun), they used, up to the Second Punic War, the third letter (viz.c), to denote both sounds. In the Duillian column we haveMacestratos,Carthacinienses.[36]Afterwards, however, the separate sign (or letter)gwas invented, being originally a mere modification ofc. Theplaceofgin the alphabet is involved in the history ofz.
§ 262. The Roman alphabet had a double origin. For the first two centuries after the foundation of the city the alphabet used was the Etruscan, derived directly from the Greek, and from theoldGreek. This accounts for the presence offandq.
Afterwards, however, the Romans modified their alphabet by the alphabet of the Italian Greeks; these Italian Greeks using the late Greek alphabet. This accounts for the presence ofv, originating in the Greekypsilon.
In accommodating the Greek alphabet to their own language, the Latins recognised the following principles:—
I. The ejection of such letters as were not wanted. Thus it was that the seventh letter (zayn,zæta) was thrown out of the alphabet, and the new letter,g, put in its place. Subsequently,zwas restored for the sake of spelling Greek words, but was placed at the end of the alphabet. Thus also it was, thatthæta,kappa(cbeing equivalent tok), and the fifteenth letter, were ejected, whileψandχwere never admitted. In after-times the fifteenth letter (nowxi) was restored, for the same reason thatzwas restored, and, likez, was placed at the end of the alphabet.
II. The use of the imported letters with a new power. Hence the sixth letter took the sound, not ofvorw, but off; and the eighth ofh.
Beyond this the Romans made but slight alterations. In ejectingkappa,thætaandchi, they did mischief. The same in changing the power ofc. The representation ofφbyph, and ofθbythwas highly erroneous. The retention ofxandqwas unnecessary.Vandj, two letters whereby the alphabet was really enriched, were mere modifications ofuandirespectively.Yalso seems a modification ofv.
Neither the Latin, Greek, nor Hebrew orthographies were much warped to etymological purposes.
It should be observed, that in the Latin the letters have no longer any names (likebeth,bæta), except such as are derived from their powers (be,ce).
It may now be seen that with a language containing such sounds as thethinthinandthine, and thechin the Germanauch, it is to their advantage to derive their alphabet from the Greek; whilst, with a language containing such sounds ashandv, it is to their advantage to derive it from the Latin.
It may also be seen, that, without due alterations andadditions, the alphabet of one country will not serve as the alphabet of another.
§ 263.The Mœso-Gothic alphabet.—In the third century the classical alphabets were applied to a Gothic language. I use the word alphabets because the Mœso-Gothic letters borrowed from both the Latin and the Greek. Their form and order may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus and in Lye's Grammar. With the Greek they agree in the following particulars.
1. In the sound of the third letter being not that ofκ(c), but of thegingun.
2. In retainingkappaandchi.
3. In expressing the simple single sound ofthby a simple single sign. This sign, however, has neither the shape nor alphabetical position of the Greekthæta.
With the Latin they agree, 1. in possessing letters equivalent tof,g,h,q,y.
2. In placingzat the end of the alphabet.
The Mœso-Gothic alphabet seems to have been formed on eclectic principles, and on principles sufficiently bold. Neither was its application traversed by etymological views. I cannot trace its influence, except, perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon lettersþandƿ, upon any other alphabet; nor does it seem to have been acted upon by any earlier Gothic alphabet.
§ 264.The Anglo-Saxon alphabet.—What sort of an alphabet the Gothic languages possess we know: what sort of alphabet they require, we can determine. For the following sounds (amongst others) current in the Gothic, either one or both of the classical languages are deficient in corresponding signs.
1. Thethinthin.—A sign in Greek (θ), but none in Latin.
2. Thethinthine.—A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.
3. Thechin the Germanauch.—A sign in Greek (χ), but none in Latin.
4. The flat sound of the same, or the probable sound of thehinþurh,leoht,&c., Anglo-Saxon.—A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.
5. Theshinshine.—A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.
6. Thezinazure.—A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.
7. Thechinchest.—A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we suppose that at the time when the Anglo-Saxon alphabet was formed, the Latincin words likecivitashad the power, which it has in the present Italian, ofch.
8. Thejinjest.—A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we admit the same supposition in respect tog, that has been indicated in respect toc.
9. The sound of thekj; in the Norwegiankjenner;viz., that (thereabouts) ofksh.—A sign neither in Latin nor Greek.
10. The English sound ofw.—A sign neither in Latin nor Greek.
11. The sound of the Germanü, Danishy.—No sign in Latin; probably one in Greek,viz.,υ.
12. Signs for distinguishing the long and short vowels, asεandη,οandω.—Wanting in Latin, but existing in Greek.
In all these points the classical alphabets (one or both) were deficient. To make up for their insufficiency one of two things was necessary, either to coin new letters, or to use conventional combinations of the old.
In the Anglo-Saxon alphabet (derived from the Latin) we have the following features:—
1.Cused to the exclusion ofk.
2. The absence of the letterj, either with the power ofy, as in German, ofzh, as in French, or ofdzh, as in English.
3. The absence ofq; a useful omission,cwserving instead.
4. The absence ofv;u, either single or double, being used instead.
5. The use ofyas a vowel, and ofeasy.
6. The absence ofz.
7. Use ofuu, asw, orv: Old Saxon.
8. The use, in certain conditions, offforv.
9. The presence of the simple single signsþandð, for thethinthin, and thethinthine.
Of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet we may safely say that it wasinsufficient. The points wherein the Latin alphabet wasimproved in its adaptation to the Gothic tongues, are, 1. the admission ofþandð; 2. the evolution ofwout ofu. Upon this latter circumstance, and onkandz, I make the following extract from the Latin Dedication of Otfrid's Krist:—"Hujus enim linguæ barbaries, ut est inculta et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticæ artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum triau u uut puto quærit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente," And, further, in respect to other orthographical difficulties:—"Interdum vero neca, nece, neci, necu, vocalium sonos præcanere potui, ibiyGrecum mihi videbatur ascribi. Et etiam hoc elementum lingua hæc horrescit interdum; nulli se characteri aliquotiens in quodam sono nisi difficile jungens.Ketzsæpius hæc lingua extra usum Latinitatis utitur; quæ grammatici inter litteras dicunt esse superfluas. Ob stridorem autem dentium interdum ut puto in hac linguazutuntur,kautem propter faucium sonoritatem."
§ 265.The Anglo-Norman Period.—Between the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Norman-French, there are certain points of difference. In the first place, the sound-system of the languages (like the French) derived from the Latin, bore a greater resemblance to that of the Romans, than was to be found amongst the Gothic tongues. Secondly, the alphabets of the languages in point were more exclusively Latin. In the present French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, there is an exclusion of thek. This is not the case with the Anglo-Norman. Like the Latins, the Anglo-Normans considered that the sound of the Greekθwas represented byth: not, however, having this sound in their language, there was no corresponding sign in their alphabet. The greatest mischief done by the Norman influence was the ejection from the English alphabet ofþandð. In other respects the alphabet was improved. The lettersz,k,j, were either imported or more currently recognised. The letterytook a semi-vowel power, having been previously represented bye;itself having the power ofi. The mode of spelling the compound sibilant withchwas evolved. My notions concerning this mode of spelling are as follows:—At a given period the sound ofceinceaster, originally that ofke, had become, first, that ofksh, and, secondly, that oftsh; still it was speltce, thee, in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons, having the power ofy. In the eyes also of the Anglo-Saxons the compound sound ofksh, ortsh, would differ from that ofkby the addition ofy: this, it may be said, was the Anglo-Saxon view of the matter. The Anglo-Norman view was different. Modified by the part that, in the combinationth, was played by the aspirateh, it was conceived by the Anglo-Normans, thatksh, ortsh, differed fromk, not by the addition ofy(expressed bye), but by that ofh. Hence the combinationchas sounded inchest. The same was the case withsh. This latter statement is a point in the history, not so much of an alphabet, as of an orthography.
The preceding sketch, as has been said more than once before, has been given with one view only,viz., that of accounting for defective modes of spelling. The history of almost all alphabets is the same. Originally either insufficient, erroneous, or inconsistent, they are transplanted from one language to a different, due alterations and additions rarely being made.
§ 266. The reduplication of the consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical languages:terra,θάλασσα. The following extract from the Ormulum (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have met with. The extract is from Thorpe's Analecta Anglo-Saxonica.
And whase wilenn shall þis boc,Efft oþerr siþe writenn,Himm bidde iec þatt hett write rihht,Swa sum þiss boc himm tæcheþþ;All þwerrt utt affterr þatt itt issOppo þiss firrste bisne,Wiþþ all swilc rime als her iss sett,Wiþþ alse fele wordess:And tatt he loke wel þatt heAn boc-staff write twiggess,[37]Eggwhær þær itt uppo þiss bocIss writenn o þatt wise:Loke he well þatt hett write swa,Forr he ne magg noht elless,On Englissh writenn rihht te word,Þatt wite he wel to soþe.
And whase wilenn shall þis boc,Efft oþerr siþe writenn,Himm bidde iec þatt hett write rihht,Swa sum þiss boc himm tæcheþþ;All þwerrt utt affterr þatt itt issOppo þiss firrste bisne,Wiþþ all swilc rime als her iss sett,Wiþþ alse fele wordess:
And whase wilenn shall þis boc,
Efft oþerr siþe writenn,
Himm bidde iec þatt hett write rihht,
Swa sum þiss boc himm tæcheþþ;
All þwerrt utt affterr þatt itt iss
Oppo þiss firrste bisne,
Wiþþ all swilc rime als her iss sett,
Wiþþ alse fele wordess:
And tatt he loke wel þatt heAn boc-staff write twiggess,[37]Eggwhær þær itt uppo þiss bocIss writenn o þatt wise:Loke he well þatt hett write swa,Forr he ne magg noht elless,On Englissh writenn rihht te word,Þatt wite he wel to soþe.
And tatt he loke wel þatt he
An boc-staff write twiggess,[37]
Eggwhær þær itt uppo þiss boc
Iss writenn o þatt wise:
Loke he well þatt hett write swa,
Forr he ne magg noht elless,
On Englissh writenn rihht te word,
Þatt wite he wel to soþe.
Concerning the various other orthographical expedients, such as the reduplication of the vowel to express its length (mood), &c., I can give no satisfactory detailed history. The influence of the Anglo-Norman, a language derived from the Latin, established, in its fullest force, the recognition of the etymological principle.
§ 267. "I cannot trace the influence of the Mœso-Gothic alphabet, except, perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon lettersþandƿ, upon any other alphabet;nor does it seem to have been itself acted upon by any earlier Gothic alphabet." (See p. 205.) The reason for the remark in Italics was as follows: In the Icelandic language the wordrunsignifies aletter, and the wordrunaafurrow, orline. It has also some secondary meanings, which it is unnecessary to give in detail. Upon a vast number of inscriptions, some upon rocks, some upon stones of a defined shape, we find an alphabet different (at least, apparently so) from that of the Greeks, Latins, and Hebrews, and also unlike that of any modern nation. In this alphabet there is a marked deficiency of curved or rounded lines, and an exclusive preponderance of straight ones. As it was engraved rather than written, this is what we naturally expect. These letters are called Runes, and the alphabet which they constitute is called the Runic alphabet. Sometimes, by an extension of meaning, the Old Norse language, wherein they most frequently occur, is called the Runic language. This is as incorrect as to call a language an alphabetic language. To say, however, the Runic stage of a language is neither inaccurate nor inconvenient. The Runic alphabet, whether borrowed or invented by the early Goths, is of greater antiquitythan either the oldest Teutonic or the Mœso-Gothic alphabets. The forms, names, and order of the letters may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus, in Olai Wormii Literatura Runica, in Rask's Icelandic Grammar, and in W. Grimm's Deutsche Runer.
The original number of the Runic letters is sixteen; expressing the sounds off,u,þ,o,r,k,h,n,a,i,s,t,b,l,m,y. To these are added four spurious Runes, denotingc,x,æ,ö, and eight pointed Runes after the fashion of the pointed letters in Hebrew. In all this we see the influence of the imported alphabet upon the original Runes, rather than that of the original Runes upon the imported alphabet. It should, however, be remarked, that in the Runic alphabet the sound ofthinthinis expressed by a simple sign, and that by a sign not unlike the Anglo-Saxon þ.
§ 268.The Order of the Alphabet.—In the history of our alphabet, we have had the history of the changes in the arrangement, as well as of the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question now presents itself:viz., Is there in the order of the letters anynaturalarrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession of letters arbitrary and accidental? In the year 1835 I conceived, that in the order of the Hebrew alphabet I had discovered a very artificial arrangement. I also imagined that this artificial arrangement had been detected by no one besides myself. Two years afterwards a friend[38]stated to me that he had made a similar observation, and in 1839 appeared, in Mr. Donaldson's New Cratylus, the quotation with which the present section will be concluded. The three views in the main coincide; and, as each has been formed independently (Mr. Donaldson's being the first recorded), they give the satisfactory result of three separate investigations coinciding in a theory essentially the same. The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:—
Letbeth,vaw, andpe(b,v,p) constitute a series called series P. Letgimel,kheth, andkoph(g,kh,k`) constitute a series called series K. Letdaleth,teth, andtau(d,t`,t) constitute a series called series T. Letaleph,he, andaynconstitute a series called the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order.
1.Alephof the vowel series.2.Bethof series P.3.Gimelof series K.4.Dalethof series T.
1.Alephof the vowel series.2.Bethof series P.3.Gimelof series K.4.Dalethof series T.
1.Alephof the vowel series.
2.Bethof series P.
3.Gimelof series K.
4.Dalethof series T.
Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel series; that of series K follows; and, in the last place, comes the letter of series D. After this the order changes:dalethbeing followed byheof the vowel series.
5.Heof the vowel series.6.Vawof series P.7.Zayn——8.Khethof series K.9.Tethof series T.
5.Heof the vowel series.6.Vawof series P.7.Zayn——8.Khethof series K.9.Tethof series T.
5.Heof the vowel series.
6.Vawof series P.
7.Zayn——
8.Khethof series K.
9.Tethof series T.
In this second sequence therelativepositions ofv,kh, andt`are the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series. The sequence itself is broken by the letterzayn, but it is remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel, and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but fragmentary. Still, even now,pe, of series P, followsayn;tau, ofseries D, is farthest from it; andkoph, of series K, is intermediate. I am satisfied that we have in the Hebrew alphabet, and in all alphabets derived from it (consequently in the English), if not a system, the rudiments of a system, and that the system is of the sort indicated above; in other words, that the order of the alphabet is acirculating order.
In Mr. Donaldson's hands this view is not only a fact, but an instrument of criticism:—"The fact is, in our opinion, the original Semitic alphabet contained only sixteen letters. This appears from the organic arrangement of their characters. The remaining sixteen letters appear in the following order:—aleph,beth,gimel,daleth,he,vaw,kheth,teth,lamed,mem,nun,samech,ayn,pe,koph,tau. If we examine this order more minutely, we shall see that it is not arbitrary or accidental, but strictly organic, according to the Semitic articulation. We have four classes, each consisting of four letters: the first and second classes consist each of three mutes, preceded by a breathing; the third of the three liquids and the sibilant, which, perhaps, closed the oldest alphabet of all; and the fourth contains the three supernumerary mutes, preceded by a breathing. We place the characters first vertically:—
In the horizontal arrangement we shall, for the sake of greater simplicity, omit the liquids and the sibilant, and then we have
In this we see, that, while the horizontal lines give us the arrangement of the mutes according to the breathings, the vertical columns exhibit them arranged according to the organ by which they are produced. Such a classification is obviously artificial."
§ 269.Parallel and equivalent orthographies.—Let there be in two given languages the sound ofk, as inkin. Let each of these languages represent it by the same letter,k. In this case, the two orthographies are identical. Let, however, one nation represent it byk, and another byc. In this case the orthographies are not identical, but parallel. The same is the case with combinations. Let one nation (say the Anglo-Saxon) represent the sound ofy(inye) bye, whilst another nation (the Norse) represents it byj. What the Anglo-Saxon spellsceaster, the Northman spellskjaster; and what the Northman spellskjære, the Anglo-Saxon spellsceære. Let the sound of thisceandkjundergo a change, and becomeksh;kjæreandceære, being pronouncedkshære. The view of the Northman and Anglo-Saxon will be the same; each will consider that the compound sound differs from the simple one by the addition of the sound ofy; that sound being expressed in one nation bye, and in the other byj. In this case the two expressions of the compound sound are parallel, its elements being considered the same, although the signs by which those elements are expressed are different.
Let, however, a different view of the compound sound be taken. Let it be thought that the sound ofkshdiffers from that ofk, not by the addition of the sound ofy, but by that ofh; and so let it be speltkhorch. In this case the orthographieskhandkj(orce) are not parallel, but equivalent. They express the same sound, but they do not denote the same elements. The same sound is, very possibly, expressed by the Anglo-Saxonce, the Norwegiankj, and the Englishch. In this caseceandkjare parallel,ceandchequivalent, orthographies.
ETYMOLOGY.
————
ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY.
§ 270. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a wide, and at times in a restricted, sense. What follows is an exhibition of the province or department of etymology.
If in the English language we take such a word asfathers, we are enabled to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two elements. By comparing it with the wordfather, we see that thesis neither part nor parcel of the original word. The wordfathersis a word capable of being analysed;fatherbeing the original primitive word, andsthe secondary superadded termination. From the wordfather, the wordfathersis derived, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended. What has been said of the wordfathersmay also be said offatherly,fatherlike,fatherless, &c. Now, from the wordfather, all these words (fathers,fatherly,fatherlikeandfatherless) differ in form, and (not, however, necessarily) in meaning. To become such a word asfathers, &c., the wordfatheris changed. Of changes of this sort, it is the province of etymology to take cognizance.
Compared with the formfathers, the wordfatheris the older form of the two. The wordfatheris a word current in this the nineteenth century. The same word was current inthe first century, although under a different form, and in a different language. Thus, in the Latin language, the form waspater; and earlier still, there is the Sanskrit formpitr. Now, just as the wordfather, compared withfathers, is original and primitive, so ispater, compared withfather, original and primitive. The difference is, that in respect tofatherandfathers, the change that takes place, takes place within the same language, whilst the change that takes place betweenpaterandfathertakes place within different languages. Of changes of this latter kind it is the province of etymology to take cognizance.
In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizanceof the changes of the form of words. However, as the etymology that compares the formsfathersandfatheris different from the etymology that comparesfatherandpater, we have, of etymology, two sorts: one dealing with the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language (father,fathers), the other dealing with the changes that words undergo in passing from one language to another (pater,father).
The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the etymology of the ensuing pages.
The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word, historical etymology, or comparative etymology.
It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in one point, viz., in taking cognizance of thechanges of form that words undergo. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, asfather,fathers, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time, aspater,father, is a matter of indifference.
In the Latinpater, and in the Englishfather, we have one of two things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or two words descended or derived from a common original source.
Infatherswe have a formation deduced from the radical wordfather.
Infatherlikewe have a compound word capable of being analysed into the two primitive words, 1.father; 2.like.
With these preliminaries we may appreciate (or criticise) Dr. Johnson's explanation of the word etymology.
"Etymology,n. s.(etymologia, Lat.)ἔτυμος(etymos)true, andλόγος(logos)a word.
"1.The descent or derivation of a word from its original; the deduction of formations from the radical word; the analysis of compounds into primitives.
"2.The part of grammar which delivers the inflections of nouns and verbs."
ON GENDER.
§ 271. The nature of gender is best exhibited by reference to those languages wherein the distinction of gender is most conspicuous. Such a language, amongst others, is the Latin.
How far is there such a thing as gender in the English language? This depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word gender.
In the Latin language, where there are confessedly genders, we have the wordstaurus, meaning abull, andvacca, meaning acow. Here the natural distinction of sex is expressed bywhollydifferent words. With this we have corresponding modes of expression in English:e.g.,
The mode, however, of expressing different sexes bywhollydifferent words is not a matter of gender. The wordsboyandgirlbear noetymologicalrelation to each other; neither being derived from the other, nor in any way connected with it.
§ 272. Neither are words likecock-sparrow,man-servant,he-goat, &c., as compared withhen-sparrow,maid-servant,she-goat, &c., specimens of gender. Here a difference of sex is indicated by the addition of a fresh term, from which is formed a compound word.
§ 273. In the Latin wordsgenitrix=a mother, andgenitor=a father, we have a nearer approach to gender. Here the difference of sex is expressed by a difference of termination;the wordsgenitorandgenitrixbeing in a true etymological relation,i. e., either derived from each other, or from some common source. With this we have, in English corresponding modes of expression:e. g.,
This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to gender rather than gender itself. Its difference from true grammatical gender is as follows:—
Let the Latin wordsgenitorandgenitrixbe declined:—
The syllables in italics are the signs of the cases and numbers. Now these signs are the same in each word, the difference of meaning (or sex) not affecting them.
§ 274. Contrast, however, with the wordsgenitorandgenitrixthe wordsdomina=a mistress, anddominus=a master.
Here the letters in italics, or the signs of the cases and numbers, are different, the difference being brought about by the difference of gender. Now it is very evident that, ifgenitrixbe a specimen of gender,dominais something more.
As terms, to be useful, must be limited, it may be laid down, as a sort of definition, thatthere is no gender where there is no affection of the declension: consequently, that, although we have, in English, words corresponding togenitrixandgenitor, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding todominusanddomina.
§ 275. The second element in the notion of gender, although I will not venture to call it an essential one, is the following:—In the wordsdominaanddominus,mistressandmaster, there is anaturaldistinction of sex; the one being masculine, or male, the other feminine, or female. In the wordsswordandlancethere isno naturaldistinction of sex. Notwithstanding this, the wordhasta, in Latin, is as much a feminine gender asdomina, whilstgladius=a swordis, likedominus, a masculine noun. From this we see that, in languages wherein there are true genders, a fictitious or conventional sex is attributed even to inanimate objects. Sex is a natural distinction, gender a grammatical one.
§ 276. "Although we have, in English, words corresponding togenitrixandgenitor, we have no true genders until we findwords corresponding to dominus and domina."—The sentence was intentionally worded with caution. Words likedominusanddomina, that is, words where the declension is affected by the sex,areto be found.
The pronounhim, from the Anglo-Saxon and Englishhe, as compared with the pronounher, from the Anglo-Saxonheò, is affected in its declension by the difference of sex, and is a true, though fragmentary, specimen of gender: for be it observed, that as both words are in the same case and number, the difference in form must be referred to a difference of sex expressed by gender. The same is the case with the formhisas compared withher.
The pronounit(originallyhit), as compared withhe, is a specimen of gender.
The relativewhat, as compared with the masculinewho, is a specimen of gender.
The formsit(forhit) andheare as much genders ashicandhæc, and the formshicandhæcare as much genders asdominusanddomina.
§ 277. The formation of the neuter gender by the addition of-t, in words likewha-t,i-t, andtha-t, occurs in other Indo-European languages. The-tintha-tis the-dinistu-d, Latin, and the-tinta-t, Sanskrit. Except, however, in the Gothic tongues, the inflection-tis confined to thepronouns. In the Gothic this is not the case. Throughout all those languages where there is a neuter form foradjectivesat all, that form is either-t, or a sound derived from it:—Mœso-Gothic,blind-ata; Old High German,plint-ez; Icelandic,blind-t; German,blind-es=blind,cæc-um.—See Bopp's Comparative Grammar, Eastwick and Wilson's translation, p. 171.
Which, as seen below, isnotthe neuter ofwho.
§ 278. Just as there are in English fragments of a gender modifying the declension, so are there, also, fragments of the second element of gender;viz., the attribution of sex to objects naturally destitute of it.The sun inhisglory,the moon inherwane, are examples of this. A sailor calls his shipshe. A husbandman, according to Mr. Cobbett, does the same with hisploughand working implements:—"In speaking of ashipwe saysheandher. And you know that our country-folks in Hampshire call almost everythingheorshe. It is curious to observe that country labourers give the feminine appellation to those things only which are more closely identified with themselves, and by the qualities or conditions of which their own efforts, and their character as workmen, are affected. The mower calls hisscytheashe, the ploughman calls hisploughashe; but a prong, or a shovel, or a harrow, which passes promiscuously from hand to hand, and which is appropriated to no particular labourer, is called ahe."—English Grammar, Letter V.
Now, although Mr. Cobbett's statements may account for a sailor calling his shipshe, they will not account for the custom of giving to the sun a masculine, and to the moon afeminine, pronoun, as is done in the expressions quoted at the head of this section; still less will it account for the circumstance of the Germans reversing the gender, and making thesunfeminine, and themoonmasculine.
Let there be a period in the history of a nation wherein the sun and moon are dealt with, not as inanimate masses of matter, but as animated divinities. Let there, in other words, be a period in the history of a nation wherein dead things are personified, and wherein there is a mythology. Let an object like thesunbe deemed a male, and an object like themoona female, deity.
The Germans say thesun inherglory; themoon inhiswane. This difference between the usage of the two languages, like so many others, is explained by the influence of the classical languages upon the English.—"Mundilfori had two children; a son, Mâni (Moon), and a daughter, Sôl (Sun)."—Such is an extract (taken second-hand from Grimm, vol. iii. p. 349) out of an Icelandic mythological work,viz., the prose Edda. In the classical languages, however,PhœbusandSolare masculine, andLunaandDianafeminine. Hence it is that, although in Anglo-Saxon and Old-Saxon thesunisfeminine, it is in English masculine.
Philosophy,charity, &c., or the names of abstract qualities personified, take a conventional sex, and are feminine from their being feminine in Latin.
As in these words there is no change of form, the consideration of them is a point of rhetoric, rather than of etymology.
Upon phrases likeCock Robin,Robin Redbreast,Jenny Wren, expressive of sex, much information may be collected from Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii. p. 359.
§ 279. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to miscellaneous remarks upon the true and apparent genders of the English language.
1. With the false genders likebaron,baroness, it is a general rule that the feminine form is derived from the masculine, and not the masculine from the feminine; aspeer,peeress. The wordswidower,gander, anddrakeare exceptions. Forthe wordwizard, fromwitch, see the section on augmentative forms.