10.Ten=δέκα,decem. The Mœso-Gothic form istihun; wherein theh=thecofdecemand theκofδέκα. The Icelandic form istiu, and, likeδέκα, is without the-n(or-m). The hypothesis as to the-mor-nwill be given in the next chapter.
11.Eleven.By no means the equivalent toundecim=1 + 10.
α. Theeisein=one.Einlif,ein-lef,eilef,eilf,elf, Old High German;andlova, Old Frisian;end-leofan,endlufan, Anglo-Saxon. This is universally admitted.
β. The-lev-is a modification of the rootlaib-an=manere=to stay=to be over. Henceeleven=one over(ten). This isnotuniversally admitted.
γ. The-nhas not been well accounted for. It is peculiar to the Low Germanic dialects.—Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946.
12.Twelve=the roottwo+ the rootlaib=two over(ten).Tvalif, Mœso-Gothic;zuelif, Old High German;toll, Swedish. The same doubts that apply to the doctrine of the-lv-inelevenrepresenting the root-laib, apply to the-lv-intwelve.—Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946.
13.Thirteen=3 + 10. So on till twenty.
30.Thirty=3 × 10, or three decads. This difference in the decimal power of the syllables-teenand-tyis illustrated by—
α. The Mœso-Gothic.—Here we find the roottig-used as a true substantive, equivalent in form as well as power to the Greekδέκ-ας.Tváim tigum þusandjom=duobus decadibus myriadum. (Luke xiv. 31.)Jêrê þrijê tigivé=annorum duarum decadum.(Luke iii. 23.)þrins tiguns silubrinaize=tres decadas argenteorum.(Matthew xxvii. 3, 9.)—Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 948.
β. The Icelandic.—"The numbers from 20 to 100 are formed by means of the numeral substantive,tigr, declined likeviðr, and naturally taking the word which it numerically determines in the genitive case.
"This is the form of the inflection in the best and oldest MSS. A little later was adopted theindeclinableformtigi, which was used adjectivally."—Det Oldnorske Sprogs Grammatik, af P. A. Munch, og C. B. Unger, Christiania, 1847.
§ 330. Generally speaking, the greater part of the numerals are undeclined, even in inflected languages. As far asnumbergoes, this is necessary.
Oneis naturally and exclusively singular.
Twois naturally dual.
The rest are naturally and exclusively plural.
As to the inflection of gender and cases, there is no reason why all the numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latinunus,una,unum,unius.
ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.
§ 331. The remarks at the close of the last chapter but one indicated the fact that superlative forms were found beyond the superlative degree. The present chapter shows that they are certainly found in some, and possibly in all of the ordinal numbers.
First.—In Mœso-Gothic,fruma,frumist; in Anglo-Saxon,forma,fyrmest; in Old High German,vurist; in Old Norse,fyrst; in New High German,erst. In all these words, whether inm, inmst, or inst, there is a superlative form. The same is the case withpratamas, Sanskrit;fratemas, Zend;πρῶτος, Greek;primus, Latin;primas, Lithuanic. Considering that,compared with the other ordinals, the ordinal ofoneis a sort of superlative, this is not at all surprising.
Between the wordsoneandfirstthere is no etymological relation. This is the case in most languages.Unus,primus,ἑῖς,πρῶτος, &c.
§ 332.Second.—Between this word and its cardinal,two, there is no etymological connexion. This is the case in many, if not in most, languages. In Latin the cardinal isduo, and the ordinalsecundus, a gerund ofsequor, and meaningthe following. In Anglo-Saxon the form wasse oðer=the other. In the present German, the ordinal iszweite, a word etymologically connected with the cardinalzwei=two.
Old High German,andar; Old Saxon,othar; Old Frisian,other; Middle Dutch,ander. In all these words we have the comparative form-ter; and considering that,compared with the word first, the wordsecondis a sort ofcomparative, there is nothing in the circumstance to surprise us. The Greek formsδεύτεροςandἕτερος, the Latinalter, and the Lithuanicantras, are the same.
§ 333. With the third ordinal number begin difficulties: 1. in respect to their form; 2. in respect to the idea conveyed by them.
1. Comparingthird,fourth,fifth, &c., withthree,four, andfive, the formation of the ordinal from the cardinal form may seem simply to consist in the addition ofdorth. Such, however, is far from being the case.
2. Arguing from the nature of the first two ordinals, namely, the wordsfirstandsecond, of which one has been called a superlative and the other a comparative, it may seem a simple matter to associate, in regard to the rest, the idea of ordinalism with the idea of comparison. A plain distinction, however, will show that the case of the first two ordinals is peculiar.Firstis a superlative, not as compared with its cardinal,one, but as compared with the other numerals.Second, orother, is a comparative, not as compared with its cardinal,two, but as compared with the numeralone. Now it is very evident, that, if the other ordinals be either comparatives or superlatives, they must be so, not as compared with one another, but as compared with their respective cardinals.Sixth, to be anything like a superlative, must be so when compared withsix.
§ 334. Now there are, in etymology, two ways of determining the affinity of ideas. The first is the metaphysical, the second the empirical, method.
This is better than that, is a sentence which the pure metaphysician may deal with. He may first determine that there is in it the idea of comparison; and next that the comparison is the comparison betweentwoobjects, and no more than two. This idea he may compare with others. He may determine, that, with a sentence likethis is one and that is the other, it has something in common; since both assert something concerningone out of two objects. Upon this connexion in sense he is at liberty to reason. He is at liberty to conceive that in certain languages words expressiveof allied ideas may also be allied in form. Whether such be really the case, he leaves to etymologists to decide.
The pure etymologist proceeds differently. He assumes the connexion in meaning from the connexion in form. All that he at first observes is, that words likeotherandbetterhave one and the same termination. For this identity he attempts to give a reason, and finds that he can best account for it by presuming some affinity in sense. Whether there be such an affinity, he leaves to the metaphysician to decide. This is the empirical method.
At times the two methods coincide, and ideas evidently allied are expressed by forms evidently allied.
At times the connexion between the ideas is evident; but the connexion between the forms obscure: andvice versâ. Oftener, however, the case is as it is with the subjects of the present chapter. Are the ideas of ordinalism in number, and of superlativeness in degree, allied? The metaphysical view, taken by itself, gives us but unsatisfactory evidence; whilst the empirical view, taken by itself, does the same. The two views, however, taken together, give us evidence of the kind called cumulative, which is weak or strong according to its degree.
Compared withthree,four, &c., all the ordinals are formed by the addition ofth, ort; andth,ð,t, ord, is the ordinal sign, not only in English, but in the other Gothic languages. But, as stated before, this is not the whole of the question.
The lettertis found, with a similar power, 1. In Latin, as intertius,quartus,quintus,sextus; 2. Greek, as inτρίτος(tritos),τέταρτος(tetartos),πέμπτος(pemptos),ἕκτος(hectos),ἔννατος(ennatos),δέκατος(dekatos); 3. Sanskrit, as intritiyas,ćatuŕtas,shasht´as=third,fourth,sixth; 4. In Zend, as inthrityas=the third,haptathas=the seventh; 5. In Lithuanic, asketwirtas=fourth,penktas=fifth,szesztas=sixth; 6. In Old Slavonic, as incétvertyi=fourth,pjatyi=fifth,shestyi=sixth,devjatyi=ninth,desjatyi=tenth. Speaking more generally, it is found, with a similar force, throughout the Indo-European stock.
The following forms indicate a fresh train of reasoning.The Greekἑπτὰ(hepta), and Icelandicsjau, have been compared with the Latinseptemand the Anglo-Saxonseofon. In the Greek and Icelandic there is the absence, in the Latin and Anglo-Saxon the presence, of a final liquid (morn).
Again, the Greek formsἐννέα(ennea), and the Icelandicníu=nine, have been compared with the Latinnovemand the Gothicnigun.
Thirdly, the Greekδέκα(deka), and the Icelandictíu, have been compared with the Latindecemand the Gothictihun=ten.
These three examples indicate the same circumstance;viz.that themorn, inseven,nine, andten, is no part of the original word.
§ 335. The following hypotheses account for these phenomena;viz.that the termination of the ordinals is the superlative termination-tam: that in some words, like the Latinseptimus,the whole form is preserved; that in some, as inτέταρτος=fourth, thetonly remains; and that in others, as indecimus, themalone remains. Finally, that inseven,nine, andten, the final liquid, although now belonging to the cardinal, was once the characteristic of the ordinal number. For a fuller exhibition of these views, see Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 640.
THE ARTICLES.
§ 336. In the generality of grammars the definite articlethe, and the indefinite articlean, are the very first parts of speech that are considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite article. In the former language they sayἀνήρ τις=a certain man: in the Latin the wordsfilius patrismean equallythe son of the father,a son of a father,a son of the father, orthe son of a father. In Mœso-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the indefinite article; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a different word from what occurs in English. In these the Greekτιςis expressed by the Gothic rootsum.
Now, as it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the wordssome man,a certain man, anda man, are, there or thereabouts, the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and Mœso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the argument, be fairly said that the wordssumandτιςare pronouns with a certain sense, and thataandanare no more; consequently, that in Greek the indefinite article isτις, in Mœso-Gothicsum, and in Englishaoran,
A distinction, however, may be made. In the expressionἀνήρ τις(anær tis)=a certain man, ora man, and in the expressionsum mann, the wordssumandτιςpreserve their natural and original meaning; whilst ina manandan oxthe wordsaandanare used in a secondary sense. These words, as is currently known, are one and the same, then, in the forma, being ejected through a euphonic process. They are, moreover, the same words with the numeralone;Anglo-Saxon,án; Scotch,ane. Now, between the wordsa manandone man, there is a difference in meaning; the first expression being the most indefinite. Hence comes the difference between the English and the Mœso-Gothic expressions. In the one the wordsumhas a natural, in the other the wordanhas a secondary power.
The same reasoning applies to the wordthe. Compared witha man, the wordsthe manare very definite. Compared, however, with the wordsthat man, they are the contrary. Now, just asanandahave arisen out of the numeralone, so hasthearisen out of the demonstrative pronounþæt, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in Anglo-Saxon there was a formþe, undeclined, and common to all the cases of all the numbers.
In no language in its oldest stage is there ever a word giving, in its primary sense, the ideas ofaandthe. As tongues become modern, some noun with asimilarsense is used to express them. In the course of time a change of form takes place, corresponding to the change of meaning;e. g.,onebecomesan, and afterwardsa. Then it is that articles become looked upon as separate parts of speech, and are dealt with accordingly. No invalidation of this statement is drawn from the Greek language. Although the first page of the etymology gives usὁ,ἡ,τὸ(ho,hæ,to), as the definite articles, the corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that, in the oldest stage of the language,ὁ(ho)=the, had the power ofοὗτος(howtos)=this.
The origin of the articles seems uniform. In Germanein, in Danishen, stand toonein the same relation thatandoes. The Frenchun, Italian and Spanishuno, are similarly related tounus=one.
And as, in Englishthe, in Germander, in Danishden, come from the demonstrative pronouns, so in the classical languages are the Frenchle, the Italianilandlo, and the Spanishel, derived from the Latin demonstrative,ille.
In his Outlines of Logic, the present writer has given reasons for considering the wordno(as inno man) an article.
Thatthe, in expressions likeall the more,all the better, &c., is no article, has already been shown.
DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS.
§ 337. Compared with the wordslamb,man, andhill, the wordslambkin,mannikin, andhillockconvey the idea of comparative smallness or diminution. Now, as the wordhillock=a little hilldiffers in form fromhillwe have in English a series of diminutive forms, or diminutives.
The English diminutives may be arranged according to a variety of principles. Amongst others:
1.According to their form.—The wordhillockis derived fromhill, by the addition of a syllable. The wordtipis derived fromtop, by the change of a vowel.
2.According to their meaning.—In the wordhillockthere is the simple expression of comparative smallness in size. In the worddoggiefordog,lassieforlass, the addition of the-iemakes the word not so much a diminutive as a term of tenderness or endearment. The idea of smallness, accompanied, perhaps, with that of neatness, generally carries with it the idea of approbation. The wordcleanin English, means, in German,little=kleine. The feeling of protection which is extended to small objects engenders the notion of endearment. In Middle High German we havevaterlìn=little father,mütterlìn=little mother. In Middle High German there is the diminutivesunnelìn; and the Frenchsoleilis from the Latin formsolillus. In Slavonic the wordslunze=sunis a diminutive form.
The Greek wordμείωσις(meiôsis) means diminution; the Greek wordὑποκόρισμαmeans an endearing expression. Hence we get names for the two kinds of diminutives;viz., the termmeioticfor the true diminutives, and the termhypocoristicfor the diminutives of endearment.—Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 664.
3.According to their historical origin.—The syllable-ock, as inhillock, is of Anglo-Saxon and Gothic origin. The-et, as inlancet, is of French and classical origin.
4.According as they affect proper names or common names.—Hawkin,Perkin,Wilkin, &c. In these words we have the diminutives ofHal,Peter,Will, &c.
§ 338. The diminutive forms of Gothic origin are the first to be considered.
1.Those formed by a change of vowel.—Tip, fromtop. The relation of the feminine to the masculine is allied to the ideas conveyed by many diminutives. Hence in the wordkit, fromcat, it is doubtful whether there be meant a female cat or a little cat.Kidis a diminutive form ofgoat.
2.Those formed by the addition of a letter or letters.—Of the diminutive characteristics thus formed the commonest, beginning from the simpler forms, are
Ie.—Almost peculiar to the Lowland Scotch; asdaddie,lassie,minnie,wifie,mousie,doggie,boatie, &c.—Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 686.
Ock.—Bullock,hillock.
Kin.—Lambkin,mannikin,ladikin, &c. As is seen above, common in proper names.
En.—Chicken,kitten, fromcock,cat. The notion of diminution, if indeed that be the notion originally conveyed, lies not in the-en, but in the vowel. In the wordchicken, fromcock, observe the effect of the small vowel on thec.
The consideration of words likeducklingandgoslingis purposely deferred.
The chief diminutive of classical origin is—
Et, as intrumpet,lancet,pocket; the wordpock, as inmeal-pock=a meal-bag, being found in the Scottish. From the French-ette, as incaissette,poulette.
The forms-rel, as incockerel,pickerel, and-let, as instreamlet, require a separate consideration. The first has nothing to do with the Italian formsacquerellaandcoserella—themselves, perhaps, of Gothic, rather than of classical origin.
In the Old High-German there are a multitude of diminutive forms in-l; asouga=an eye,ougili=a little eye,lied=a song,liedel=a little song. "In Austria and Bavariaare the formsmannel,weibel,hundel, &c., ormannl,weibl,hundl, &c. In some districts there is anrbefore thel, asmadarl=a little maid,muadarl=a little mother,briadarl=a little brother, &c. This is occasioned by the false analogy of the diminutives of the derived form inr."—Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 674. This indicates the nature of words likecockerel.
Even in English the diminutive power of-elcan be traced in the following words:—
Soare=a deer in its third year.Sor-rel=a deer in its second year.—SeeLove's Labour Lost, with the note.
Tiercel=a small sort of hawk, one-third less (tierce) than the common kind.
Kantle=small corner, fromcant=a corner.—Henry IV.
Hurdle; in Dutchhorde; German,hurde.Hording, without the-l, is used in an allied sense by builders in English.
In the words in point we must assume an earlier form,cockerandpiker, to which the diminutive form-elis affixed. If this be true, we have, in English, representatives of the diminutive form-l, so common in the High Germanic dialects.Wolfer=a wolf,hunker=a haunch,flitcher=a flitch,teamer=a team,fresher=a frog,—these are north country forms of the present English.[43]
The termination-let, as instreamlet, seems to be double, and to consist of the Gothic diminutive-l, and the French diminutive-t.
§ 339.Augmentatives.—Compared withcapello=a hat, the Italian wordcapellone=a great hatis an augmentative. The augmentative forms, pre-eminently common in the Italian language, often carry with them a depreciating sense.
The termination-rd(in Old High German,-hart), as indrunkard,braggart,laggard,stinkard, carries with it this idea of depreciation. Inbuzzard, andreynard, the name of thefox, it is simply augmentative. Inwizard, fromwitch, it has the power of a masculine form.
The termination-rd, taken from the Gothic, appears inthe modern languages of classical origin: French,vieillard; Spanish,codardo. From these we get at, second-hand, the wordcoward.—Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 707.
The wordsweetheartis a derived word of this sort, rather than a compound word; since in Old High German and Middle High German, we have the corresponding formliebhart. Now the form forheartis in German nothart, butherz.
Words likebraggadocio,trombone,balloon, being words of foreign origin, prove nothing as to the further existence of augmentative forms in English.
§ 340.Patronymics.—In the Greek language the notion of lineal descent, in other words, the relation of the son to the father, is expressed by a particular termination; as,Πηλεὺς(Peleus),Πηλείδης(Peleidæs), the son of Peleus. It is very evident that this mode of expression is very different from either the English formJohnson, or GaelicMacDonald. In these last-named words, the wordssonandMacmean the same thing; so thatJohnsonandMacDonaldare not derived, but compound words. This Greek way of expressing descent is peculiar, and the words wherein it occurs are classed together by the peculiar namepatronymic, frompatær=a father, andonoma=a name. Is there anything in English corresponding to the Greek patronymics? It was for the sake of this question that the consideration of the termination-ling, as induckling, &c., was deferred.
The termination-ling, like the terminations-reland-let, is compound. Its simpler form is-ing. This, from being affixed to the derived forms in-l, has become-ling.
In Anglo-Saxon thetermination-ingis as truly patronymic as-ιδηςis in Greek. In the Bible-translation the son of Elisha is calledElising. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle occur such genealogies as the following:—Ida wæs Eopping, Eoppa Êsing, Êsa Inging, Inga Angenviting, Angenvit Alocing, Aloc Beonocing, Beonoc Branding, Brand Bældæging, Bældæg Vódening, Vóden Friðowulfing, Friðowulf Finning, Finn Godwulfing, Godwulf Geating=Ida was the son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esing, Esing of Inga, Inga of Angenvit,Angenvit of Aloc, Aloc of Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand of Bældag, Bældag of Woden, Woden of Friðowulf, Friðowulf of Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godwulf of Geat.—In Greek,Ἴδα ἦν Ἐοππείδης, Ἔοππα Ἠσείδης, Ἤσα Ἰγγείδης, Ἴγγα Ἀγγενφιτείδης, &c. In the plural number these forms denote therace of; asScyldingas=the Scyldings, or the race ofScyld, &c. Edgar Atheling means Edgar of the race of the nobles. The primary of-ingand-l-ingis descent or relationship; from these comes the idea of youth and endearment, and thence the true diminutive idea. Indarling,stripling,duckling,gosling(pr.gesling),kitling(pr. forkitten),nestling,yearling,chickling,fatling,fledgling,firstling, the idea of descent still remains. Inhirelingthe idea of diminution is accompanied with the idea of contempt. Inchangelingwe have a Gothic termination and a classical root. See, for the full exposition of this view, Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 349-364, iii. 682.
In the opening speech of Marlow's Jew of Malta we have the following lines:—
Here have I pursed their paltrysilverlings.Fie! what a trouble 'tis to count this trash!Well fare the Arabs, that so richly payFor what they traffick in with wedge of gold.
Here have I pursed their paltrysilverlings.Fie! what a trouble 'tis to count this trash!Well fare the Arabs, that so richly payFor what they traffick in with wedge of gold.
Here have I pursed their paltrysilverlings.
Fie! what a trouble 'tis to count this trash!
Well fare the Arabs, that so richly pay
For what they traffick in with wedge of gold.
The wordsilverlingshas troubled the commentators.Burst their silverbinshas been proposed as the true reading. The word, however, is a true diminutive, assiluparlinc,silarbarling=a small silver coin, Old High German.
A good chapter on the English diminutives may be seen in the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. i. p. 679.
GENTILE FORMS.
§ 341. These have been illustrated by Mr. Guest in the Transactions of the Philological Society.
The only word in the present English that requires explanation is the name of the principalityWales.
1. The form is plural, however much the meaning may be singular; so that the-sinWale-sis the-sinfathers, &c.
2. It has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon fromwealhas=foreigners, the name by which the Welsh are spoken of by the Germans of England, just as the Italians are called Welsh by the Germans of Germany:wal-nuts=foreign nuts.
3. The transfer of the name of thepeopleinhabiting a certain country to thecountryso inhabited, was one of the commonest processes in both Anglo-Saxon and Old English.—Guest, Phil. Trans.
ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE NOUN AND VERB, AND ON THE INFLECTION OF THE INFINITIVE MOOD.
§ 342. In order to understand clearly the use of the so-called infinitive mood in English, it is necessary to bear in mind two facts, one a matter of logic, the other a matter of history.
In the way of logic, the difference between a noun and a verb is less marked than it is in the way of grammar.
Grammatically, the contrast is considerable. The inflection of nouns expresses the ideas of sex as denoted by gender, and of relation in place as denoted by cases. That of verbs rarely expresses sex, and never position. On the other hand, however, it expresses what no noun ever does or can express;e.g., the relation of the agent to the individual speaking, by means of person; the time in which acts take place, by means of tense; and the conditions of their occurrence, by means of mood.
The idea of number is the only one that, on a superficial view, is common to these two important parts of speech.
Logically, the contrast is inconsiderable. A noun denotes an object of which either the senses or the intellect can take cognizance, and a verb does no more.To move=motion,to rise=rising,to err=error,to forgive=forgiveness. The only difference between the two parts of speech is this, that, whereas a noun may express any object whatever, verbs can only express those objects which consist in an action. And it is this superadded idea of action that superadds to the verb the phenomena of tense, mood, person, and voice; in other words, the phenomena of conjugation.
§ 343. A noun is a word capable of declension only. Averb is a word capable of declension and conjugation also. The fact of verbs being declined as well as conjugated must be remembered. The participle has the declension of a noun adjective, the infinite mood the declension of a noun substantive. Gerunds and supines, in languages where they occur, are only names for certain cases of the verb.
Although in all languages the verb is equally capable of declension, it is not equally declined. The Greeks, for instance, used forms like
oftener than the Romans. The fact of there being an article in Greek may account for this.
§ 344. Returning, however, to the illustration of the substantival character of the so-called infinitive mood, we may easily see—
α. The name of any action may be used without any mention of the agent. Thus, we may speak of the simple fact ofwalkingormoving, independently of any specification of thewalkerormover.
β. That, when actions are spoken of thus indefinitely, the idea of either person or number has no place in the conception; from which it follows that the so-called infinitive mood must be at once impersonal, and without the distinction of singular, dual, and plural.
γ. That, nevertheless, the ideas of time and relation in spacehaveplace in the conception. We can think of a person beingin the act of striking a blow, of hishaving been in the act of striking a blow, or of hisbeing about to be in the act of striking a blow. We can also think of a person beingin the act of doing a good action, or of his beingfrom the act of doing a good action.
This has been written to show that verbs of languages in general are as naturally declinable as nouns. What follows will show that the verbs of the Gothic languages in particular were actually declined, and that fragments of this declension remain in the present English.
§ 345. The inflection of the verb in its impersonal (orinfinitive form) consisted, in full, of three cases, a nominative (or accusative), a dative, and a genitive. The genitive is put last, because its occurrence in the Gothic language is the least constant.
In Anglo-Saxon the nominative (or accusative) ended in -an:
Be it observed, that the-enin words likestrengthen, &c., is a derivational termination, and by no means a representation of the Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive inflection is lost in the present English, except in certain provincial dialects.
In Anglo-Saxon the dative of the infinitive verb ended in-nne, and was (as a matter of syntax) generally, perhaps always, preceded by the prepositionto.
The genitive, ending in-es, occurs only in Old High German and Modern High German,plâsannes,weinnenes.
§ 346. With these preliminaries we can take a clear view of the English infinitives. They exist under two forms, and are referable to a double origin.
1. The independent form.—This is used after the wordscan,may,shall,will, and some others, as,I can speak,I may go,I shall come,I will move. Here there is no preposition, and the origin of the infinitive is from the form in-an.
2. The prepositional form.—This is used after the majority of English verbs, asI wish to speak,I mean to go,I intend to come,I determine to move. Here we have the prepositiontoand the origin of the infinitive is from the form in-nne.
Expressions liketo err=error,to forgive=forgiveness, in lines like
To err is human, to forgive divine,
To err is human, to forgive divine,
To err is human, to forgive divine,
are very remarkable. They exhibit the phenomena of a nominative case having grown not only out of a dative but out of a dativeplusits governing preposition.
ON DERIVED VERBS.
§ 347. Of number, person, mood, tense, and conjugation, special notice is taken in their respective chapters. Of the divisions of verbs into active and passive, transitive and intransitive, unless there be an accompanying change of form, etymology takes no cognisance. The forces of the auxiliary verbs, and the tenses to which they are equivalent, are also points of syntax rather than of etymology.
Four classes, however, of derived verbs, as opposed to simple, especially deserve notice.
I. Those ending in-en; assoften,whiten,strengthen, &c. Here it has been already remarked that the-enis a derivational affix; and not a representative of the Anglo-Saxon infinitive form-an(aslufian,bærnan=to love,to burn), and the Old English-en(astellen,loven).
II. Transitive verbs derived from intransitives by a change of the vowel of the root.
In Anglo-Saxon these words were more numerous than they are at present. The following list is taken from the Cambridge Philological Museum, ii. 386.
All these intransitives form their præterite by a change of vowel, assink,sank; all the transitives by the addition ofdort, asfell,fell'd.
III. Verbs derived from nouns by a change of accent; asto survéy, from asúrvey. For a fuller list see the Chapter on Derivation. Walker attributes the change of accent to the influence of the participial termination-ing. All words thus affected are of foreign origin.
IV. Verbs formed from nouns by changing a final sharp consonant into its corresponding flat one; as,
ON THE PERSONS.
§ 348. Compared with the Latin, the Greek, the Mœso-Gothic, and almost all the ancient languages, there is, in English, in respect to the persons of the verbs, but a very slight amount of inflection. This may be seen by comparing the English wordcallwith the Latinvoco.
Here the Latins have different forms for each different person, whilst the English have forms for two only; and even of these one (callest) is becoming obsolete. With the forms ofvocomarked in italics there is, in the current English, nothing correspondent.
In the wordam, as compared withareandart, we find a sign of the first person singular.
In the old formstellen,weren, &c., we have a sign of the plural number.
In the Modern English, the Old English, and the Anglo-Saxon, the peculiarities of our personal inflections are very great. This may be seen from the following tables of comparison:—
Herein remark; 1. the Anglo-Saxon addition oftin the second person singular; 2. the identity in form of the three persons of the plural number; 3. the change of-aðinto-enin the Old English plural; 4. the total absence of plural forms in the Modern English; 5. the change of thethintos, inlovethandloves. These are points bearing especially upon the history of the English persons. The following points indicate a more general question.
1. The full formprennamesin the newer Old High German, as compared withsókjamin theoldMœso-Gothic.
2. The appearance of therin Icelandic.
3. The difference between the Old Saxon and the Anglo-Saxon in the second person singular; the finaltbeing absent in Old Saxon.
4. The respective powers ofMin the first, ofSin the second, and ofT(or its allied sounds) in the third persons singular;ofMESin the first, ofT(or its allied sounds) in the second, and ofNDin the third persons plural. In this we have a regular expression of the persons by means of regular signs; and this the history of the personal terminations verifies.
§ 349.First person singular.—That the original sign of this person wasMwe learn from the following forms:dadâmi, Sanskrit;dadhâmi, Zend;δίδωμι, Greek;dumi, Lithuanic;damy, Slavonic=I give. The Latin language preserves it insumandinquam, and in the first persons of tenses, likelegam,legebam,legerem,legissem. The formim=I amoccurs in Mœso-Gothic; and the wordsstom=I stand,lirnem=I shall learn, in Old High German. The wordamis a fragmentary specimen of it in our own language.
Plural.—The original signMES.Dadmas, Sanskrit;δίδομες, afterwardsδίδομεν, Greek;damus, Latin=we give. The current form in Old High German.
These forms inMmay or may not be derived from the pronoun of the first person;mâ, Sanskrit;me, Latin, English, &c.
Second person singular.—The original signS.Dadasi, Sanskrit;δίδως, Greek;das, Latin;dasi, Slavonic. Preserved in the Gothic languages.
Plural.—The original signT, or an allied sound.Dadyata, Sanskrit;daidhyâta, Zend;δίδοτε, Greek;datis, Latin;d[ou]kite, Lithuanic;dashdite, Slavonic=ye give. Current in the Gothic languages.
These forms inTandSmay or may not be derived from the pronoun of the second person;tva, Sanskrit;σὺ, Greek;thou, English.
Third person singular.—-The original signT.Dadati, Sanskrit;dadhâiti, Zend;δίδωτι, Old Greek;dat, Latin;d[ou]sti, Lithuanic;dasty, Slavonic=he gives. Preserved in the Gothic languages.
Plural.—The original signNT.Dadenti, Zend;δίδοντι, afterwardsδιδοῦσι, Greek;dant, Latin=they give. In Mœso-Gothic and Old High German.
The preceding examples are from Grimm and Bopp. To them add the Welsh formcarant=they love, and the Persianbudend=they are.
The forms inTandNTmay or may not be derived from the demonstrative pronounta, Saxon;τὸ, Greek;that, English, &c.
§ 350. The present state of the personal inflection in English, so different from that of the older languages, has been brought about by two processes.
I.Change of form.—a) The ejection of-esin-mes, as insôkjamandköllum, compared withprennames;b) the ejection of-m, as in the first person singular, almost throughout;c) the change of-sinto-r, as in the Norsekallar, compared with the Germanicsôkeis;d) the ejection of-dfrom-nd, as inloven(if this be the true explanation of that form) compared withprennant;e) the ejection of-nd, as inkalla;f) the addition of-t, as inlufastandlovest. In all these cases we have a change of form.
II.Confusion or extension.—In vulgarisms likeI goes,I is, one person is used instead of another. In vulgarisms likeI are,we goes, one number is used instead of another. In vulgarisms likeI be tired, orif I am tired, one mood is used instead of another. In vulgarisms likeI giveforI gave, one tense is used for another. In all this there is confusion. There is also extension: since, in the phraseI is, the third person is used instead of the first; in other words, it is used with an extension of its natural meaning. It has the power of the third person + that of the first. In the course of time one person may entirely supplant, supersede, or replace another. The application of this is as follows:—
The only person of the plural number originally ending in ð is the second; assókeiþ,prennat,kalliþ,lufiað; the original ending of the first person being-mes, or-m, asprennames,sôkjam,köllum. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, thefirstperson ends in ð, aslufiað. Has-m, or-mes, changed to ð, or has the second person superseded the first? The latter alternative seems the likelier.
§ 351. The detail of the persons seems to be as follows:—
I call, first person singular.—The wordcallis not one person more than another. It is the simple verb, wholly uninflected. It is very probable that the first person was theone where the characteristic termination was first lost. In the Modern Norse language it is replaced by the second:Jeg taler=I speak, Danish.
Thou callest, second person singular.—The final-tappears throughout the Anglo-Saxon, although wanting in Old Saxon. In Old High German it begins to appear in Otfrid, and is general in Notker. In Middle High German and New High German it is universal.—Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1041. 857.
He calleth, orhe calls, third person singular.—The-sincallsis the-thincalleth, changed. The Norse formkallareither derives its-rfrom the-thby way of change, or else the form is that of the second person replacing the first.
Lufiað, Anglo-Saxon, first person plural.—The second person in the place of the first. The same in Old Saxon.
Lufiað, Anglo-Saxon, third person plural.—Possibly changed from-ND, as insôkjand. More probably the second person.
Loven, Old English.—For all the persons of the plural. This form may be accounted for in three ways: 1. The-mof the Mœso-Gothic and High Old German became-n; as it is in the Middle and Modern German, where all traces of the original-mare lost. In this case the first person has replaced the other two. 2. The-ndmay have become-n; in which case it is the third person that replaces the others. 3. The indicative formlovenmay have arisen out of a subjunctive one; since there was in Anglo-Saxon the formlufion, orlufian, subjunctive. In the Modern Norse languages the third person replaces the other two:Vi tale,I tale,de tale=we talk,ye talk,they talk.
§ 352.The person in-T.—Art,wast,wert,shalt,wilt. Here the second person singular ends, not in-st, but in-t. A reason for this (though not wholly satisfactory) we find in the Mœso-Gothic and the Icelandic.
In those languages the form of the person changes with the tense, and the second singular of the præterite tense of one conjugation is, not-s, but-t; as Mœso-Gothic,svôr=I swore,svôrt=thou swarest,gráip=I griped,gráipt=thou gripedst; Icelandic,brannt=thou burnest,gaft=thougavest. In the same languages ten verbs are conjugated like præterites. Of these, in each language,skalis one.
§ 353.Thou spakest, thou brakest, thou sungest.[45]—In these forms there is a slight though natural anomaly. They belong to the class of verbs which form their præterite by changing the vowel of the present; assing,sang, &c. Now, all words of this sort in Anglo-Saxon formed their second singular præterite, not in-st, but in-e; asþú funde=thou foundest,þú sunge=thou sungest. The English termination is derived from the present. Observe that this applies only to the præterites formed by changing the vowel.Thou loved'stis Anglo-Saxon as well as English,viz.,þú lufodest.
§ 354. In the northern dialects of the Anglo-Saxon the -ð of plurals likelufiað=we lovebecomes-s. In the Scottish this change was still more prevalent: