CHAPTER XXVII.

Can,cunne,canst,cunnon,cunnan,cuðe,cuðon,cuð—such are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of themaccount for the-l. The presence of the-lmakes the wordcouldirregular. No reference to the allied languages accounts for it.

Notwithstanding this, the presence of the-lis accounted for. Inwouldandshouldthe-lhas a proper place. It is part of the original words,willandshall. A false analogy looked uponcouldin the same light. Hence a true irregularity;provided that theLbe pronounced.

TheL, however, is pronounced by few, and that only in pursuance to the spelling. This reduces the wordcouldto an irregularity, not of language, but only of orthography.

That the mere ejection of the-nincan, and that the mere lengthening of the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the processes that convert the Greekὀδόντος(odontos) intoὀδούς(odows).

§ 391. The verbquothis truly defective. It is found in only one tense, one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the præterite tense. It has the further peculiarity of preceding its pronoun. Instead of sayinghe quoth, we sayquoth he. In Anglo-Saxon, however, it was not defective. It was found in the other tenses, in the other number, and in other moods.Ic cweðe,þu cwyst,he cwyð.Ic cwæð,þú cwæðe,he cwæð,we cwædon,ge cwædon,hi cwædon. Imperative,cweð. Participle,gecweden. In the Scandinavian it is current in all its forms. There, however, it means, notto speakbut tosing. As far as its conjugation goes, it is strong. As far as its class goes, it follows the form ofspeak,spoke. Like speak, its Anglo-Saxon form is inæ, ascwæð. Like one of the forms ofspeak, its English form is in o, asquoth,spoke.

The whole of the present chapter is indicative of the nature of irregularity, and of the elements that should enter into the definition of it, rather than exhaustive of the detail.

The principle that I recognise for myself is to consider no word irregular unless it can be proved so. This view includes the words affected by ambiguous processes, and by processes of confusion, and no others. The words affected byextraordinary processes form a provisional class, which a future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be regular.Worseandcould(its spelling being considered) are the fairest specimens of our irregulars. The class, instead of filling pages, is exceedingly limited.

THE IMPERSONAL VERBS.

§ 392.Meseems.—Equivalent toit seems to me;mihi videtur,φαίνεταί μοι. The verbseemsis intransitive; consequently the pronounmehas the power of a dative case. The pronoun it is not required to accompany the verb.

§ 393.Methinks.—In Anglo-Saxon there are two forms;þencan=to think, andþincan=to seem. It is from the latter form that the verb inmethinkscomes. Such being the case, it is intransitive, and consequently the pronounmehas the power of a dative case. The pronounitis not required to accompany the verb.

Of this word we have also the past formmethought.

Methought I saw my late espoused wifeBrought to me, like Alcestis, from the grave.Milton.

Methought I saw my late espoused wifeBrought to me, like Alcestis, from the grave.

Methought I saw my late espoused wife

Brought to me, like Alcestis, from the grave.

Milton.

§ 394.Me listeth, orme lists.—Equivalent toit pleases me=me juvat. Anglo-Saxonlystan=to wish,to choose, alsoto please,to delight; Norse,lysta. Unlike the other two, the verb is transitive, so that the pronounmehas the power of an accusative case. The pronounitis not required to accompany the verb.

These three are the only true impersonal verbs in the English language. They form a class by themselves, because no pronoun accompanies them, as is the case with the equivalent expressionsit appears,it pleases, and with all the other verbs in the language.

In the old language impersonal verbs, or rather the impersonal use of verbs, was commoner than at present.

Himoughtennow to have the lese pain.Legend of Good Women, 429.

Himoughtennow to have the lese pain.

Legend of Good Women, 429.

Himoughtnot to be a tyrant.Legend of Good Women, 377.

Himoughtnot to be a tyrant.

Legend of Good Women, 377.

Me mete.—Chaucer.

Well me quemeth.—Conf. Amantis.

In the following lines the construction is,it shall please your Majesty.

I'll muster up my friends to meet your Grace,Where and what time your Majesty shall please.Richard III., iv. 4.

I'll muster up my friends to meet your Grace,Where and what time your Majesty shall please.

I'll muster up my friends to meet your Grace,

Where and what time your Majesty shall please.

Richard III., iv. 4.

See a paper of Mr. Guest's, Phil. Trans., vol. ii. 241.

Strictly speaking, the impersonal verbs are a part of syntax rather than of etymology.

THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.

§ 395. The verb substantive is generally dealt with as an irregular verb. This is inaccurate. The true notion is that the idea ofbeingorexistingis expressed by four different verbs, each of which is defective in some of its parts. The parts, however, that are wanting in one verb, are made up by the inflections of one of the others. There is, for example, no præterite of the verbam, and no present of the verbwas. The absence, however, of the present form ofwasis made up by the wordam, and the absence of the præterite form ofamis made up by the wordwas.

§ 396.Was.—Defective, except in the præterite tense, where it is found both in the indicative and conjunctive.

In the older stages of the Gothic languages the word has both a full conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it has an infinitive, a participle present, and a participle past. In Mœso-Gothic it is inflected throughout with-s; asvisa,vas,vêsum,visans. In that language it has the power of the Latinmaneo=to remain. The-rfirst appears in the Old High German;wisu,was,wârumês,wësaner. In Norse thesentirely disappears, and the word is inflected withrthroughout;vera,var,vorum, &c.

§ 397.Be.—Inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both indicative and subjunctive; found also as aninfinitivebeón, as a gerund tobeonne, and as a participlebeonde. In the present English its inflection is as follows:—

The line in Milton beginningIf thou beest he—(P. L. b. ii.), leads to the notion that the antiquated formbeestis not indicative, but conjunctive. Such, however, is not the case:býstin Anglo-Saxon is indicative, the conjunctive form beingbeó.—And every thing that pretty bin(Cymbeline).—Here the wordbinis the conjunctive plural, in Anglo-Saxonbéon; so that the wordsevery thingare to be considered equivalent to the plural formall things. The phrase in Latin would stand thus,quotquot pulcra sint; in Greek thus,ἁ ἄν κάλα ᾖ. Theindicativeplural is, in Anglo-Saxon, notbeón, butbeóðandbeó.

§ 398. In the Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1051, it is stated that the Anglo-Saxon formsbeó,bist,bið,beoð, orbeó, have not a present, but a future sense; that whilstammeansI am,beómeansI shall be; and that in the older languages it is only where the formamis not found thatbehas the power of a present form. The same root occurs in the Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues with the same power; as,esmi=I am;búsu=I shall be, Lithuanic.—Esmu=I am;buhshu=I shall be, Livonic.—Jesm=I am;budu=I shall be, Slavonic.—Gsem=I am;budu=I shall be, Bohemian. This, however, proves, not that there is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense (or form), but that the wordbeóhas a future sense. There is no fresh tense where there is no fresh form.

The following is a specimen of the future power ofbeónin Anglo-Saxon:—"Hi nebeóðna cílde, soðlice, on domesdæge, acbeóðswa micele menn swa swa hi, migton beón gif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre ylde."—Ælfric's Homilies. "Theywill notbe children, forsooth, on Domesday, butwill beas much(so muckle) men as they might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age."

§ 399. If we consider the wordbeónlike the wordweorðan(see below) to mean not so muchto beas tobecome, we get an element of the idea of futurity. Things which arebecoming anythinghave yet something further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power ofbe. In English we often saymayforshall, and the same was done in Anglo-Saxon.—"Ic ðe secge, heò is be ðam húse ðe Fegor hátte, and nán man nis ðe hig wíte(shall, may know)ær ðám myclan dóme."—Ælfric's Homilies, 44.

§ 400.Am.—Of this form it should be stated, that the letter-mis no part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it is in all the Indo-European languages.

It should also be stated, that, although the fact be obscured, and although the changes be insufficiently accounted for, the formsam,art,are, andis, are not, likeamandwas, parts of different words, but forms of one and the same word; in other terms, that, although betweenamandbethere is no etymological connexion, there is one betweenamandis. This we collect from the comparison of the Indo-European languages.

In English and Anglo-Saxon the word is found in thepresent indicative only. In English it is inflected through both numbers; in Anglo-Saxon in the singular number only. The Anglo-Saxon plurals are forms of the Germanseyn, a verb whereof we have, in the present English, no vestiges.

Worth.—In the following lines of Scott, the wordworth=is, and is a fragment of the regular Anglo-Saxon verbweorðan=to be, orto become; German,werden.

Woeworththe chase, woeworththe day,That cost thy life, my gallant grey.Lady of the Lake.

Woeworththe chase, woeworththe day,That cost thy life, my gallant grey.

Woeworththe chase, woeworththe day,

That cost thy life, my gallant grey.

Lady of the Lake.

THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE.

§ 401. The present participle, called also the active participle and the participle in-ing, is formed from the original word by adding-ing; as,move,moving. In the older languages the termination was more marked, being-nd. Like the Latin participle in-ns, it was originally declined. The Mœso-Gothic and Old High German forms arehabandsandhapêntêr=having, respectively. The-sin the one language, and the-êrin the other, are the signs of the case and gender. In the Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon the forms are-andand-ande; asbindand,bindande=binding. In all the Norse languages, ancient and modern, the-dis preserved. So it is in the Old Lowland Scotch, and in many of the modern provincial dialects of England, wherestrikand,goand, is said forstriking,going. In Staffordshire, where the-ingis pronounced-ingg, there is a fuller sound than that of the current English. In Old English the form in-ndis predominant, in Middle English, the use fluctuates, and in New English the termination-ingis universal. In the Scotch of the modern writers we find the form-in.

The rising sun o'er Galston muirsWi' glorious light was glintin';The hares were hirplin' down the furs,The lav'rocks they were chantin'.Burns'Holy Fair.

The rising sun o'er Galston muirsWi' glorious light was glintin';The hares were hirplin' down the furs,The lav'rocks they were chantin'.

The rising sun o'er Galston muirs

Wi' glorious light was glintin';

The hares were hirplin' down the furs,

The lav'rocks they were chantin'.

Burns'Holy Fair.

It is with the oblique cases of the present participles of the classical languages, rather than with the nominative, that we must compare the corresponding participle in Gothic;e.g.,ἔχοντ-ος(ekhontos), Greek;habent-is, Latin;hapênt-êr, Old High German.

§ 402. It has often been remarked that the participle is used in many languages as a substantive. This is true in Greek,

Ὁ πράσσων=the actor, when a male.Ἡ πρασσοῦσα=the actor, when a female.Τὸ πράττον=the active principle of a thing.

Ὁ πράσσων=the actor, when a male.

Ἡ πρασσοῦσα=the actor, when a female.

Τὸ πράττον=the active principle of a thing.

§ 403. But it is also stated, that, in the English language, the participle is used as a substantive in a greater degree than elsewhere, and that it is used in several cases and in both numbers,e.g.,

Risingearly is healthy,There is healthin risingearly.This is the advantageof risingearly.Therisingsin the North, &c.

Risingearly is healthy,

There is healthin risingearly.

This is the advantageof risingearly.

Therisingsin the North, &c.

Archbishop Whately has some remarks on this substantival power in his Logic.

Some remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, in the Introduction to his edition of Tooke's Diversions of Purley, modify this view. According to these, the-ingin words likerisingis not the-ingof the present participle; neither has it originated in the Anglo-Saxon-end. It is rather the-ingin words likemorning, which is anything but a participle of the non-existent verbmorn, and which has originated in the Anglo-Saxon substantival termination-ung. Upon this Rask writes as follows:—"Gitsung,gewilnung=desire;swutelung=manifestation;clænsung=a cleansing;sceawung=view,contemplation;eorð beofung=an earthquake;gesomnung=an assembly. This termination is chiefly used in forming substantives from verbs of the first class in-ian; as,hálgung=consecration, fromhálgian=to consecrate. These verbs are all feminine."—Anglo-Saxon Grammar, p. 107.

Now, whatever may be the theory of the origin of the termination-ingin old phrases likerising early is healthy, it cannot apply to expressions of recent introduction. Here the direct origin in-ungis out of the question.

The view, then, that remains to be taken of the forms in question is this:

1. That the older forms in-ingare substantival in origin, and=the Anglo-Saxon-ung.

2. That the latter ones are participial, and have been formed on a false analogy.

THE PAST PARTICIPLE.

§ 404. The participle in-en.—In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjectives. Like the adjectives, it is, in the present English, undeclined.

In Anglo-Saxon it always ended in-en, assungen,funden,bunden. In English this-enis often wanting, asfound,bound; the wordboundenbeing antiquated. Words where the-enis wanting may be viewed in two lights; 1, they may be looked upon as participles that have lost their termination; 2, they may be considered as præterites with a participial sense.

§ 405.Drank, drunk, drunken.—With all words wherein the vowel of the plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the plural form. To sayI have drunk, is to use an ambiguous expression; sincedrunkmay be either a participleminusits termination, or a præterite with a participial sense. To sayI have drank, is to use a præterite for a participle. To sayI have drunken, is to use an unexceptionable form.

In all words with a double form, asspakeandspoke,brakeandbroke,claveandclove, the participle follows the form ino, asspoken,broken,cloven.Spaken,braken,claven, are impossible forms. There are degrees in laxity of language, and to saythe spear is brokeis better than to saythe spear is brake.

These two statements bear upon the future history of the præterite. That of the two formssangandsung, one will, in the course of language, become obsolete is nearly certain; and, as the plural form is also that of the participle, it is the plural form which is most likely to be the surviving one.

§ 406. As a general rule, we find the participle in-enwherever the præterite is strong; indeed, the participle in-enmay be called the strong participle, or the participle of the strong conjugation. Still the two forms do not always coincide. Inmow,mowed,mown;sow,sowed,sown; and several other words, we find the participle strong, and the præterite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is only another way of saying that the præterite has a greater tendency to pass from strong to weak than the participle.

§ 407. In the Latin language the change fromstor, andvice versâ, is very common. We have the double formsarborandarbos,honorandhonos, &c. Of this change we have a few specimens in English. The wordsrearandraise, as compared with each other, are examples. In Anglo-Saxon a few words undergo a similar change in the plural number of the strong præterites.

Ceóse,I choose; ceás,I chose; curon,we chose; gecoren,chosen.Forleóse,I lose; forleás,I lost; forluron,we lost; forloren,lost.Hreose,I rush; hreás,I rushed; hruron,we rushed; gehroren,rushed.

Ceóse,I choose; ceás,I chose; curon,we chose; gecoren,chosen.

Forleóse,I lose; forleás,I lost; forluron,we lost; forloren,lost.

Hreose,I rush; hreás,I rushed; hruron,we rushed; gehroren,rushed.

This accounts for the participial formforlorn, orlost, in New High Germanverloren. In Milton's lines,

—— the piercing airBurnsfrore, and cold performs the effect of fire.Paradise Lost, b. ii.

—— the piercing airBurnsfrore, and cold performs the effect of fire.

—— the piercing air

Burnsfrore, and cold performs the effect of fire.

Paradise Lost, b. ii.

we have a form from the Anglo-Saxon participlegefroren=frozen.

§ 408. The participle in-d,-t, or-ed.—In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjective. Like the adjective, it is, in the present English, undeclined.

In Anglo-Saxon it differed in form from the præterite, inasmuch as it ended in-ed, or-t, whereas the præterite ended in-ode,-de, or-te: as,lufode,bærnde,dypte, præterites;gelufod,bærned,dypt, participles.

As the ejection of theereduces words likebærnedandbærndeto the same form, it is easy to account for the presentidentity of form between the weak præterites and the participles in-d:e. g.,I moved,I have moved, &c.

§ 409. In the older writers, and in works written, like Thomson's Castle of Indolence, in imitation of them, we find prefixed to the præterite participle the lettery-, asyclept=called:yclad=clothed:ydrad=dreaded.

The following are the chief facts and the current opinion concerning this prefix:—

1. It has grown out of the fuller formsge-: Anglo-Saxon,ge-: Old Saxon,gi-: Mœso-Gothic,ga-: Old High German,ka-,cha-,ga-,ki-,gi-.

2. It occurs in each and all of the Germanic languages of the Gothic stock.

3. It occurs, with a few fragmentary exceptions, in none of the Scandinavian languages of the Gothic stock.

4. In Anglo-Saxon it occasionally indicates a difference of sense; ashâten=called,ge-hâten=promised,boren=borne,ge-boren=born.

5. It occurs in nouns as well as verbs.

6. Its power, in the case of nouns, is generally some idea ofassociation, orcollection.—Mœso-Gothic,sinþs=a journey,ga-sinþa=a companion; Old High German,perc=hill;ki-perki(ge-birge)=a range of hills.

7. But it has also afrequentativepower; a frequentative power which is, in all probability, secondary to its collective power: since things which recur frequently recur with a tendency to collection or association; Middle High German,ge-rassel=rustling;ge-rumpel=c-rumple.

8. And it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality.

This power is also a collective, since every quality is associated with the object that possesses it:a sea with waves=a wavy sea.

9. Hence it is probable that thega-,ki-, orgi-, Gothic, is thecumof Latin languages. Such is Grimm's view, as given in Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1016.

Concerning this, it may be said that it is deficient in an essential point. It does not show how the participle past is collective. Undoubtedly it may be said that every such participle is in the condition of words likege-feaxandge-heort;i. e., that they imply an association between the object and the action or state. But this does not seem to be Grimm's view; he rather suggests that thege-may have been a prefix to verbs in general, originally attached to all their forms, but finally abandoned everywhere except in the case of the participle. The theory of this prefix has yet to assume a satisfactory form.

COMPOSITION.

§ 410. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and indubitable specimens of composition.Day-star,vine-yard,sun-beam,apple-tree,ship-load,silver-smith, &c. The wordspalpableandindubitablehave been used, because, in many cases, as will be seen hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound or not.

Now, in each of the compounds quoted above, it may be seen that it is the second word which is qualified, or defined, by the first, and that it is not the first which is qualified or defined, by the second. Ofyards,beams,trees,loads,smiths, there may be many sorts, and, in order to determine whatparticularsort ofyard,beam,tree,load, orsmith, may be meant, the wordsvine,sun,apple,ship, andsilver, are prefixed. In compound words it is thefirstterm that defines or particularises the second.

§ 411. That the idea given by the wordapple-treeis not referable to the wordsappleandtree, irrespective of the order in which they occur, may be seen by reversing the position of them. The wordtree-apple, although not existing in the language, is as correct a word asthorn-apple. Intree-apple, the particular sort ofapplemeant is denoted by the wordtree, and if there were in our gardens various sorts of plants calledapples, of which some grew along the ground and others upon trees, such a word astree-applewould be required in order to be opposed toearth-apple, orground-apple, or some word of the kind.

In the compound wordstree-appleandapple-tree, we have the same elements differently arranged. However, as thewordtree-appleis not current in the language, the class of compounds indicated by it may seem to be merely imaginary. Nothing is farther from being the case. Atree-roseis a rose of a particular sort. The generality of roses being onshrubs, this grows on atree. Its peculiarity consists in this fact, and this particular character is expressed by the wordtreeprefixed. Arose-treeis atreeof a particular sort, distinguished fromapple-trees, andtreesin general (in other words, particularised or defined) by the wordroseprefixed.

Aground-nutis anutparticularised by growing in the ground.A nut-groundis agroundparticularised by producing nuts.

Afinger-ring, as distinguished fromear-rings, and fromringsin general (and so particularised), is aringfor thefinger. Aring finger, as distinguished fromfore-fingers, and fromfingersin general (and so particularised), is afingerwhereonringsare worn.

§ 412. At times this rule seems to be violated. The wordsspitfireanddaredevilseem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the case of aspitfire, that what he (or she)spitsisfire; and that, in the case of adaredevil, what he (or she)daresis thedevil. In this case the initial wordsspitanddare, are particularised by the final onesfireanddevil. The true idea, however, confirms the original rule. Aspitfirevoids his fire by spitting. Adaredevil, in meeting the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. Aspitfireis not one who spits fire, but one whose fire isspit. Adaredevilis not one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil is even dared.

§ 413. Of the two elements of a compound word, which is the most important? In one sense the latter, in another sense the former. The latter word is the mostessential; since the general idea oftreesmust exist before it can be defined or particularised; so becoming the idea which we have inapple-tree,rose-tree, &c. The former word, however, is the mostinfluential. It is by this that the original idea is qualified. The latter word is the staple original element: the former is the superadded influencing element. Compared with eachother, the former element is active, the latter passive. Etymologically speaking, the former element, in English compounds, is the most important.

§ 414. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the composition of words;e.g., how nouns combine with nouns, as insunbeam; nouns with verbs, as indaredevil, &c. It is thought sufficient in the present work to be content with, 1. defining the meaning of the term composition; 2. explaining the nature of some obscure compounds.

Composition is the joining together,in language, of twodifferent words, andtreating the combination as a single term. Observe the words in italics.

In language.—A great number of our compounds, like the wordmerry-making, are divided by the sign -, or the hyphen. It is very plain that if all wordsspeltwith a hyphen were to be considered as compounds, the formation of them would be not a matter of speech, or language, but one of writing or spelling. This distinguishes compounds in language from mere printers' compounds.

Different.—In Old High German we find the formsëlp-sëlpo. Here there is the junction of two words, but not the junction of twodifferentones. This distinguishes composition from gemination.—Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 405.

Words.—Infather-s,clear-er,four-th, &c., there is the addition of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition from derivation.

Treating the combination as a single term.—In determining, in certain cases, between derived words and compound words, there is an occasional perplexity; the perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between a compound word andtwo words. In the eyes of one grammarian the termmountain heightmay be as truly a compound word assunbeam. In the eyes of another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just asAlpine heightis two words;mountainbeing dealt with as an adjective. It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part. This fact was foreshadowed in the Chapter upon Accents.

§ 415. The attention of the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from Churchill:—

"Then rést, my friénd,and spárethy précious bréath."

On each of the syllablesrest,friend,spare,prec-,breath, there is an accent. Each of these syllables must be compared with the one that precedes it;restwiththen,friendwithmy, and so on throughout the line. Compared with the wordand, the wordspareis not only accented, but the accent is conspicuous and prominent. There is so little onand, and so much onspare, that the disparity of accent is very manifest.

Now, if in the place ofand, there was some other word, a word not so much accented asspare, but still more accented thanand, this disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be said to be atpar, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly altered from Churchill, the real reading being

Then rést, my friénd,spare, sparethy précious breath.—

In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been supposed. In the wordsspare, spare, the accents are nearly atpar. Such the difference between accent atparand disparity of accent.

Good illustrations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following:the lime house near the bridge north of the new port.Compare the parity of accent on the separate wordslimeandhouse,bridgeandnorth,newandport, with the disparity of accent in the compound wordsLímehouse,Brídgenorth, andNéwport. The separate wordsbeef steak, where the accent is nearly atpar, compared with the compound wordsweépstakes, where there is a great disparity of accent, are further illustrations of the same difference.

§ 416. The difference between a compound word and two words is greatest where the first is an adjective. This we see in comparing such terms as the following:bláck bírd, meaning abird that is black, withbláckbird=the Latinmerula; orblúe béll, meaning abell that is blue, withblúebell, the flower.Expressions likea shárp edgéd instrument, meaningan instrument that is sharp and has edges, as opposed to ashárp-edged instrument, meaningan instrument with sharp edges, further exemplify this difference.

Subject to four small classes of exceptions, it may be laid down, that, in the English language,there is no composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent.

The reader is now informed, that unless, in what has gone before, he has taken an exception to either a statement or an inference, he has either seen beyond what has been already laid down by the author, or else has read him with insufficient attention. This may be shown by drawing a distinction between a compound form and a compound idea.

In the wordsa red house, each word preserves its natural and original meaning, and the statement isthat a house is red. By a parity of reasoninga mad houseshould mean ahouse that is mad; and, provided that each word retain its natural meaning and its natural accent, such is the fact. Let ahousemean, as it often does, afamily. Then the phrase,a mad house, means that thehouse,or family,is mad, just as ared housemeans that thehouse is red. Such, however, is not the current meaning of the word. Every one knows thata mad housemeansa house for mad men; in which case it is treated as a compound word, and has a marked accent on the first syllable, just asLímehousehas. Now, compared with the wordred house, meaning a house of ared colour, and compared with the wordsmad house, meaning aderanged family, the wordmádhouse, in its common sense, expresses a compound idea; as opposed to two ideas, or a double idea. The wordbeef steakis evidently a compound idea; but, as there is no disparity of accent, it is not a compound word. Its sense is compound; its form is not compound, but double. This indicates the objection anticipated, which is this:viz., that a definition, which would exclude such a word asbeef steakfrom the list of compounds, is, for that very reason, exceptionable. I answer to this, that the term in question is a compound idea, and not a compound form; in other words, that it is a compound in logic, but not a compound in etymology.Now etymology, taking cognisance of forms only, has nothing to do with ideas, except so far as they influence forms.

Such is the commentary upon the words, "treating the combination as a single term;" in other words, such the difference between a compound word and two words. The rule, being repeated, stands (subject to the four classes of exceptions) thus:There is no true composition without either a change of form or a change of accent.As I wish to be clear upon this point, I shall illustrate the statement by its application.

The wordtrée-roseis often pronouncedtrée róse; that is, with the accent atpar. It is compound in the one case; it is two words in the other.

The wordsmountain ashandmountain heightare generally (perhaps always) pronounced with an equal accent on the syllablesmount-andash,mount-andheight, respectively. In this case the wordmountainmust be dealt with as an adjective, and the words considered as two. The wordmoúntain waveis often pronounced with a visible diminution of accent on the last syllable. In this case there is a disparity of accent, and the word is compound.

§ 417. The following quotation indicates a further cause of perplexity in determining between compound words and two words:—

Back to Index Next