previously unknown. Herein the family is enlarged, or increased, by the
_real_ addition of a new member, in a recognised degree of relationship.

"_b._ A degree of relationship previously unrecognised may be recognised,
_i.e._, a family wherein it was previously considered that a
second-cousinship was as much as could be admitted within its pale, may
incorporate third, fourth, or fifth cousins. Here the family is enlarged,
or increased, by a _verbal_ extension of the term.

"Now it is believed that the distinction between increase by the way of
real addition, and increase by the way of verbal extension, has not been
sufficiently attended to. Yet, that it should be more closely attended to,
is evident; since, in mistaking a verbal increase for a real one, the whole
end and aim of classification is overlooked. The publication of Dr.
Prichard's Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, in 1831, {96} supplied
philologists with the most definite addition that has perhaps, yet been
made to ethnographical philology.

"Ever since then the Celtic has been considered to be Indo-European. Indeed
its position in the same group with the Iranian, Classical,
Slavono-Lithuanic, and Gothic tongues, supplied the reason for substituting
the term Indo-_European_ for the previous one Indo-_Germanic_.

"On the other hand, it seems necessary to admit that _languages are allied
just in proportion as they were separated from the mother-tongue in the
same stage of its development_.

"If so, the Celtic became detached anterior _to the evolution of the
declension of nouns_, whereas the Gothic, Slavonic, Classical and Iranian
languages all separated _subsequent to that stage_."[21]

This, along with other reasons indicated elsewhere,[22] induces the present
writer to admit an affinity between the Celtic and the other so-called
Indo-European tongues, but to deny that it is the same affinity which
connects the Iranian, Classical, Gothic and Slavonic groups.

{97}

PART II.

HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

--------

CHAPTER I.

HISTORICAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

§ 149. The Celtic elements of the present English fall into five classes.

1. Those that are of late introduction, and cannot be called original and
constituent parts of the language. Such are (amongst others) the words
_flannel_, _crowd_ (a fiddle), from the Cambrian; and _kerne_ (an Irish
foot-soldier), _galore_ (enough), _tartan_, _plaid_, &c., from the Gaelic
branch.

2. Those that are common to both the Celtic and Gothic stocks, and are
Indo-European rather than either Welsh, or Gaelic, or Saxon. Such (amongst
others) are _brother_, _mother_, in Celtic _brathair_, _mathair_; the
numerals, &c.

3. Those that have come to us from the Celtic, but have come to us through
the medium of another language. Such are _druid_ and _bard_, whose
_immediate_ source is, not the Celtic but, the Latin.

4. Celtic elements of the Anglo-Norman, introduced into England after the
Conquest, and occurring in that language as remains of the original Celtic
of Gaul.

5. Those that have been retained from the original Celtic of the island,
and which form genuine constituents of our language. These fall into three
subdivisions.

_a._ Proper names--generally of geographical localities; as _the Thames_,
_Kent_, &c. {98}

_b._ Common names retained in the provincial dialects of England, but not
retained in the current language; as _gwethall_=_household stuff_, and
_gwlanen_=_flannel_ in Herefordshire.

_c._ Common names retained in the current language.--The following list is
Mr. Garnett's:--

  _Welsh_.                    _English_.

  Basgawd                   _Basket_.
  Berfa                     _Barrow_.
  Botwm                     _Button_.
  Bràn                      _Bran_.
  Clwt                      _Clout_, _Rag_.
  Crochan                   _Crock_, _Crockery_.
  Crog                      _Crook_, _Hook_.
  Cwch                      _Cock_, in _Cock-boat_.
  Cwysed                    _Gusset_.
  Cyl, Cyln                 _Kiln_ (_Kill_, provinc.).
  Dantaeth                  _Dainty_.
  Darn                      _Darn_.
  Deentur                   _Tenter_, in _Tenterhook_.
  Fflaim                    _Fleam_, _Cattle-lancet_.
  Fflaw                     _Flaw_.
  Ffynnell (air-hole)       _Funnel_.
  Gefyn (fetter)            _Gyve_.
  Greidell                  _Grid_, in _Gridiron_.
  Grual                     _Gruel_.
  Gwald (hem, border)       _Welt_.
  Gwiced (little door)      _Wicket_.
  Gwn                       _Gown_.
  Gwyfr                     _Wire_.
  Masg (stitch in netting)  _Mesh_.
  Mattog                    _Mattock_.
  Mop                       _Mop_.
  Rhail (fence)             _Rail_.
  Rhasg (slice)             _Rasher_.
  Rhuwch                    _Rug_.
  Sawduriaw                 _Solder_.
  Syth (glue)               _Size_.
  Tacl                      _Tackle_.

§ 150. _Latin of the first period._--Of the Latin introduced by Cæsar and
his successors, the few words remaining are those that relate to military
affairs; _viz._ _street_ (_strata_); _coln_ (as in _Lincoln_=_Lindi
colonia_); _cest_ (as in _Gloucester_=_glevæ castra_) from _castra_. The
Latin words introduced between the time of Cæsar and Hengist may be called
the _Latin of the first period_, or the _Latin of the Celtic period_.

§ 151. _The Anglo-Saxon._--This is not noticed here, because from being the
staple of the present language it is more or less the subject of the book
throughout.

§ 152. _The Danish, or Norse._--The pirates that pillaged Britain, under
the name of Danes, were not exclusively the inhabitants of Denmark. Of the
three Scandinavian nations, the Swedes took the least share, the Norwegians
the greatest {99} in these invasions. Not that the Swedes were less
piratical, but that they robbed elsewhere,--in Russia, for instance, and in
Finland.

The language of the three nations was the same; the differences being
differences of dialect. It was that which is now spoken in Iceland, having
been once common to Scandinavia and Denmark. Whether this was aboriginal in
_Denmark_, is uncertain. In _Scandinavia_ it was imported; the tongue that
it supplanted having been, in all probability, the mother-tongue of the
present Laplandic.

The Danish that became incorporated with our language, under the reign of
Canute and his sons, may be called the direct Danish (Norse or
Scandinavian) element, in contradistinction to the indirect Danish of §§
144, 155.

The determination of the amount of Danish in English is difficult. It is
not difficult to prove a word _Scandinavian_. We must also show that it is
not German. A few years back the current opinion was against the doctrine
that there was much Danish in England. At present, the tendency is rather
the other way. The following facts are from Mr. Garnett.--Phil. Trans. Vol.
i.

1. The Saxon name of the present town of _Whitby_ in Yorkshire was
_Streoneshalch_. The present name _Whitby_, _Hvitby_, or _White-town_, is
Danish.

2. The Saxon name of the capital of Derbyshire was _Northweortheg_. The
present name is Danish.

3. The termination _-by_=_town_ is Norse.

4. On a monument in Aldburgh church, Holdernesse, in the East Riding of
Yorkshire, referred to the age of Edward the Confessor, is found the
following inscription:--

  _Ulf_ het aræran cyrice _for hanum_ and for Gunthara saula.
  "Ulf bid rear the church for him and for the soul of Gunthar."

Now, in this inscription, _Ulf_, in opposition to the Anglo-Saxon _wulf_,
is a Norse form; whilst _hanum_ is a Norse dative, and by no means an
Anglo-Saxon one.--Old Norse _hanum_, Swedish _honom_.

5. The use of _at_ for _to_ as the sign of the infinitive mood {100} is
Norse, not Saxon. It is the regular prefix in Icelandic, Danish, Swedish,
and Feroic. It is also found in the northern dialects of the Old English,
and in the particular dialect of Westmoreland at the present day.

6. The use of _sum_ for _as_; _e.g._--_swa sum_ we forgive oure detturs.

7. Isolated words in the northern dialects are Norse rather than Saxon.

  _Provincial._   _Common Dialect._   _Norse._

  Braid         _Resemble_          Bråas, _Swed_.
  Eldin         _Firing_            Eld, _Dan_.
  Force         _Waterfall_         Fors, _D. Swed_.
  Gar           _Make_              Göra, _Swed_.
  Gill          _Ravine_            Gil, _Iceland_.
  Greet         _Weep_              Grata, _Iceland_.
  Ket           _Carrion_           Kiöd=Flesh, _Dan_.
  Lait          _Seek_              Lede, _Dan_.
  Lathe         _Barn_              Lade, _Dan_.
  Lile          _Little_            Lille, _Dan_.

§ 153. _Roman of the Second Period._--Of the Latin introduced under the
Christianised Saxon sovereigns, many words are extant. They relate chiefly
to ecclesiastical matters, just as the Latin of the Celtic period bore upon
military affairs.--_Mynster_, a minster, _monasterium_; _portic_, a porch,
_porticus_; _cluster_, a cloister, _claustrum_; _munuc_, a monk,
_monachus_; _bisceop_, a bishop, _episcopus_; _arcebisceop_, archbishop,
_archiepiscopus_; _sanct_, a saint, _sanctus_; _profost_, a provost,
_propositus_; _pall_, a pall, _pallium_; _calic_, a chalice, _calix_;
_candel_, a candle, _candela_; _psalter_, a psalter, _psalterium_; _mæsse_,
a mass, _missa_; _pistel_, an epistle, _epistola_; _prædic-ian_, to preach,
_prædicare_; _prof-ian_, to prove, _probare_.

The following are the names of foreign plants and animals:--_camell_, a
camel, _camelus_; _ylp_, elephant, _elephas_; _ficbeam_, fig-tree, _ficus_;
_feferfuge_, feverfew, _febrifuga_; _peterselige_, parsley, _petroselinum_.

Others are the names of articles of foreign origin, as _pipor_, pepper,
_piper_; _purpur_, purple, _purpura_; _pumicstan_, pumice-stone, _pumex_.
{101}

The above-given list is from Guest's English Rhythms (B. iii. c. 3). It
constitutes that portion of the elements of our language which may be
called the Latin of the second, or Saxon period.

§ 154. _The Anglo-Norman element._--For practical purposes we may say that
the French or Anglo-Norman element appeared in our language after the
battle of Hastings, A.D. 1066.

Previous, however, to that period we find notices of intercourse between
the two countries.

1. The residence in England of Louis Outremer.

2. Ethelred II. married Emma, daughter of Richard Duke of Normandy, and the
two children were sent to Normandy for education.

3. Edward the Confessor is particularly stated to have encouraged French
manners and the French language in England.

4. Ingulphus of Croydon speaks of his own knowledge of French.

5. Harold passed some time in Normandy.

6. The French article _la_, in the term _la Drove_, occurs in a deed of
A.D. 975.--See Ranouard, _Journal des Savans_, 1830.

The chief Anglo-Norman elements of our language are the terms connected
with the feudal system, the terms relating to war and chivalry, and a great
portion of the law terms--_duke_, _count_, _baron_, _villain_, _service_,
_chivalry_, _warrant_, _esquire_, _challenge_, _domain_, &c.

§ 155. The Norwegian, Danish, Norse, or Scandinavian element of the
Anglo-Norman (as in the proper names _Guernsey_, _Jersey_, _Alderney_, and
perhaps others) constitutes the _indirect_ Scandinavian element of the
English.

§ 156. _Latin of the Third Period._--This means the Latin which was
introduced between the battle of Hastings and the revival of literature. It
chiefly originated with the monks, in the universities, and, to a certain
extent, in the courts of law. It must be distinguished from the _indirect_
Latin introduced as part and parcel of the Anglo-Norman. It has yet to be
accurately analyzed. {102}

_Latin of the Fourth Period._--This means the Latin which has been
introduced between the revival of literature and the present time. It has
originated in the writings of learned men in general, and is distinguished
from that of the previous periods by--

1. Being less altered in form--

2. Preserving, in the case of substantives, in many cases its original
inflections; _axis_, _axes_; _basis_, _bases_--

3. Relating to objects and ideas for which the increase of the range of
science in general has required a nomenclature.

§ 157. _Greek._--Words derived _directly_ from the Greek are in the same
predicament as the Latin of the third period--_phænomenon_, _phænomena_;
_criterion_, _criteria_, &c.; words which are only _indirectly_ of Greek
origin, being considered to belong to the language from which they were
immediately introduced into the English. Such are _deacon_, _priest_, &c.,
introduced through the Latin; thus a word like _church_ proves no more in
regard to a Greek element in English, than the word _abbot_ proves in
respect to a Syrian one.

§ 158. The Latin of the fourth period and the Greek agree in retaining, in
many cases, the Latin or Greek inflexions rather than adopting the English
ones; in other words, they agree in being but _imperfectly incorporated_.
The phænomenon of imperfect incorporation (an important one) is reducible
to the following rules:--

1. That it has a direct ratio to the date of the introduction, _i.e._, the
more recent the word the more likely it is to retain its original
inflexion.

2. That it has a relation to the number of meanings belonging to the words:
thus, when a single word has two meanings, the original inflexion expresses
one, the English inflexion another--_genius_, _genii_, often (_spirits_),
_geniuses_ (_men of genius_).

3. That it occurs with substantives only, and that only in the expression
of number. Thus, although the plural of substantives like _axis_ and
_genius_ are Latin, the possessive cases are English. So also are the
degrees of comparison, for {103} adjectives like _circular_, and the
tenses, &c. for verbs, like perambulate.

§ 159. The following is a list of the chief Latin substantives, introduced
during the latter part of the fourth period; and, preserving the _Latin_
plural forms--

FIRST CLASS.

_Words wherein the Latin Plural is the same as the Latin Singular._

  (_a_) _Sing._       _Plur._           (_b_) _Sing._      _Plur._
       Apparatus       apparat_us_     |     Caries          cari_es_
       Hiatus          hiat_us_        |     Congeries       congeri_es_
       Impetus         impet_us_.      |     Series          seri_es_
                                       |     Species         speci_es_
                                       |     Superficies     superfici_es_.

SECOND CLASS.

_Words wherein the Latin Plural is formed from the Latin Singular by
changing the last Syllable._

(_a_).--_Where the Singular termination _-a_ is changed in the Plural into
_-æ__:--

       _Sing._         _Plur._         |     _Sing._         _Plur._
       Formul_a_       formul_æ_       |     Nebul_a_        nebul_æ_
       Lamin_a_        lamin_æ_        |     Scori_a_        scori_æ_.
       Larv_a_         larv_æ_         |

(_b_).--_Where the singular termination _-us_ is changed in the Plural into
_-i__:--

       _Sing._         _Plur._         |     _Sing._         _Plur._
       Calcul_us_      calcul_i_       |     Polyp_us_       polyp_i_
       Coloss_us_      coloss_i_       |     Radi_us_        radi_i_
       Convolvul_us_   convolvul_i_    |     Ranuncul_us_    ranuncul_i_
       Foc_us_         foc_i_          |     Sarcophag_us_   sarcophag_i_
       Geni_us_        geni_i_         |     Schirrh_us_     schirrh_i_
       Mag_us_         mag_i_          |     Stimul_us_      stimul_i_
       Nautil_us_      nautil_i_       |     Tumul_us_       tumul_i_.
       Oesophag_us_    oesophag_i_     |

(_c_).--_Where the Singular termination _-um_ is changed in the Plural into
_-a__:--

       _Sing._         _Plur._         |     _Sing._         _Plur._
       Animalcul_um_   animalcul_a_    |     Mausole_um_     mausole_a_
       Arcan_um_       arcan_a_        |     Medi_um_        medi_a_
       Collyri_um_     collyri_a_      |     Memorand_um_    memorand_a_
       Dat_um_         dat_a_          |     Menstru_um_     menstru_a_
       Desiderat_um_   desiderat_a_    |     Moment_um_      moment_a_
  {104}
       Effluvi_um_     effluvi_a_      |     Premi_um_       premi_a_
       Empori_um_      empori_a_       |     Scholi_um_      scholi_a_
       Encomi_um_      encomi_a_       |     Spectr_um_      spectr_a_
       Errat_um_       errat_a_        |     Specul_um_      specul_a_
       Gymnasi_um_     gymnasi_a_      |     Strat_um_       strat_a_
       Lixivi_um_      lixivi_a_       |     Succedane_um_   succedanea.
       Lustr_um_       lustr_a_        |

(_d_).--_Where the singular termination _-is_ is changed in the Plural into
_-es__:--

       _Sing._         _Plur._         |     _Sing._         _Plur._
       Amanuens_is_    amanuens_es_    |     Ellips_is_      ellips_es_
       Analys_is_      analys_es_      |     Emphas_is_      emphas_es_
       Antithes_is_    antithes_es_    |     Hypothes_is_    hypothes_es_
       Ax_is_          ax_es_          |     Oas_is_         oas_es_
       Bas_is_         bas_es_         |     Parenthes_is_   parenthes_es_
       Cris_is_        cris_es_        |     Synthes_is_     synthes_es_
       Diæres_is_      diæres_es_      |     Thes_is_        thes_es_.

THIRD CLASS.

_Words wherein the Plural is formed by inserting _-e_ between the last two
sounds of the singular, so that the former number always contains a
syllable more than the latter_:--

  _Sing_.                              _Plur_.

  Apex       _sounded_   apec-_s_      apic_es_
  Appendix      --       appendic-_s_  appendic_es_
  Calix         --       calic-_s_     calic_es_
  Cicatrix      --       cicatric-_s_  cicatric_es_
  Helix         --       helic-_s_     helic_es_
  Index         --       indec-_s_     indic_es_
  Radix         --       radic-_s_     radic_es_
  Vertex        --       vertec-_s_    vertic_es_
  Vortex        --       vortec-_s_    vortic_es_.

In all these words the _c_ of the singular number is sounded as _k_, of the
plural as _s_.

§ 160. The following is a list of the chief Greek substantives lately
introduced, and preserving the _Greek_ plural forms--

FIRST CLASS.

_Words where the singular termination _-on_ is changed in the plural into
_-a__:--

  _Sing._        _Plur._

  Apheli_on_     apheli_a_
  Periheli_on_   periheli_a_
  Automat_on_    automat_a_
  Criteri_on_    criteri_a_
  Ephemer_on_    ephemer_a_
  Phænomen_on_   phænomen_a_.

{105}

SECOND CLASS.

_Words where the plural is formed from the original root by adding either
_-es_ or _-a_, but where the singular rejects the last letter of the
original root._

_Plurals in _-es__:--

  _Original root._  _Plur._        _Sing._

  Apsid-          apsid_es_      apsis
  Cantharid-      cantharid_es_  cantharis
  Chrysalid-      chrysalid_es_  chrysalis
  Ephemerid-      ephemerid_es_  ephemeris
  Tripod-         tripod_es_     tripos.

_Plurals in_ -a:--

  _Original root._  _Plur._        _Sing._

  Dogmat-         dogmat_a_      dogma
  Lemmat-         lemmat_a_      lemma
  Miasmat-        miasmat_a_     miasma[23]

§ 161. _Miscellaneous elements._--Of miscellaneous elements we have two
sorts; those that are incorporated in our language, and are currently
understood (_e.g._, the Spanish word _sherry_, the Arabic word _alkali_,
and the Persian word _turban_), and those that, even amongst the educated,
are considered strangers. Of this latter kind (amongst many others) are the
Oriental words _hummum_, _kaftan_, _gul_, &c.

Of the currently understood miscellaneous elements of the English language,
the most important are from the French; some of which agree with those of
the Latin of the fourth period, and the Greek in preserving the _French_
plural forms--as _beau_, _beaux_, _billets-doux_.

_Italian._--Some words of Italian origin do the same: as _virtuoso_,
_virtuosi_.

_Hebrew._--The Hebrew words, _cherub_ and _seraph_ do the same; the form
_cherub-im_, and _seraph-im_, being not only plurals but Hebrew plurals.

Beyond the words derived from these five languages, none form their plurals
other than after the English method, _i.e._, in _-s_: as _waltzes_, from
the German word _waltz_.

§ 162. The extent to which a language, which like the English, at one and
the same time requires names for many objects, comes in contact with the
tongues of half the world, {106} and has, moreover, a great power of
incorporating foreign elements, derives fresh words from varied sources,
may be seen from the following incomplete notice of the languages which
have, in different degrees, supplied it with new terms.

_Arabic._--Admiral, alchemist, alchemy, alcohol, alcove, alembic, algebra,
alkali, assassin, from a paper of Mr. Crawford, read at the British
Association, 1849.

_Persian._--Turban, caravan, dervise, &c.--_Ditto._

_Turkish._--Coffee, bashaw, divan, scimitar, janisary, &c.--_Ditto._

_Hindu languages._--Calico, chintz, cowrie, curry, lac, muslin, toddy,
&c.--_Ditto._

_Chinese._--Tea, bohea, congou, hyson, soy, nankin, &c.--_Ditto._

_Malay._--Bantam (fowl), gamboge, rattan, sago, shaddock, &c.--_Ditto._

_Polynesian._--Taboo, tattoo.--_Ditto._

_Tungusian_, or some similar Siberian language.--Mammoth, the bones of
which are chiefly from the banks of the Lena.

_North American Indian._--Squaw, wigwam, pemmican.

_Peruvian._--Charki=prepared meat; whence _jerked_ beef.

_Caribbean._--Hammock.

_Ancient Carian._--Mausoleum.

§ 163. In § 157 a distinction is drawn between the _direct_ and _indirect_,
the latter leading to the _ultimate origin_ of words.

Thus a word borrowed into the English from the French, might have been
borrowed into the French from the Latin, into the Latin from the Greek,
into the Greek from the Persian, &c., and so _ad infinitum_.

The investigation of this is a matter of literary curiosity rather than any
important branch of philology.

The ultimate known origin of many common words sometimes goes back to a
great date, and points to extinct languages--

  _Ancient Nubian (?)_--Barbarous.
  _Ancient Egyptian._--Ammonia.
  _Ancient Syrian._--Cyder.
  _Ancient Syrian._--Pandar.
  {107}
  _Ancient Lydian._--Mæander.
  _Ancient Persian._--Paradise.

§ 164. Again, a word from a given language may be introduced by more lines
than one; or it may be introduced twice over; once at an earlier, and again
at a later period. In such a case its form will, most probably, vary; and,
what is more, its meaning as well. Words of this sort may be called
_di-morphic_, their _di-morphism_, having originated in one of two
reasons--a difference of channel, or a difference of date. Instances of the
first are, _syrup_, _sherbet_, and _shrub_, all originally from the
_Arabic_, _srb_; but introduced differently, viz., the first through the
Latin, the second through the Persian, and the third through the Hindoo.
Instances of the second are words like _minster_, introduced in the
Anglo-Saxon, as contrasted with _monastery_, introduced during the
Anglo-Norman period. By the proper application of these processes, we
account for words so different in present form, yet so identical in origin,
as _priest_ and _presbyter_, _episcopal_ and _bishop_, &c.

§ 165. _Distinction._--The history of the languages that have been spoken
in a particular country, is a different subject from the history of a
particular language. The history of the languages that have been spoken in
the United States of America, is the history of _Indian_ languages. The
history of the languages of the United States is the history of the
Germanic language.

§ 166. _Words of foreign simulating a vernacular origin._--These may occur
in any mixed language whatever; they occur, however, oftener in the English
than in any other.

Let a word be introduced from a foreign language--let it have some
resemblance in sound to a real English one: lastly, let the meanings of the
two words be not absolutely incompatible. We may then have a word of
foreign origin taking the appearance of an English one. Such, amongst
others, are _beef-eater_, from _boeuffetier_; _sparrow-grass_, _asparagus_;
_Shotover_, _Chateau vert_;[24] _Jerusalem_, _Girasole_;[25] _Spanish {108}
beefeater_, _Spina befida_; _periwig_, _peruke_; _runagate_, _renegade_;
_lutestring_, _lustrino_;[26] _O yes_, _Oyez!_ _ancient_, _ensign_.[27]

_Dog-cheap._--This has nothing to do with _dogs_. The first syllable is
_god_=_good_ transposed, and the second the _ch-p_ in _chapman_
(=_merchant_) _cheap_, and _East-cheap_. In Sir J. Mandeville, we find
_god-kepe_=_good bargain_.

_Sky-larking._--Nothing to do with _larks_ of any sort; still less the
particular species, _alauda arvensis_. The word improperly spelt _l-a-r-k_,
and banished to the slang regions of the English language, is the
Anglo-Saxon _lác_=_game_, or _sport_; wherein the _a_ is sounded as in
_father_ (not as in _farther_). _Lek_=_game_, in the present Scandinavian
languages.

_Zachary Macaulay_=_Zumalacarregui_; _Billy Ruffian_=_Bellerophon_; _Sir
Roger Dowlass_=_Surajah Dowlah_, although so limited to the common
soldiers, and sailors who first used them, as to be exploded vulgarisms
rather than integral parts of the language, are examples of the same
tendency towards the irregular accommodation of misunderstood foreign
terms.

_Birdbolt._--An incorrect name for the _gadus lota_, or _eel-pout_, and a
transformation of _barbote_.

_Whistle-fish._--The same for _gadus mustela_, or _weazel-cod_.

_Liquorice_=_glycyrrhiza_.

_Wormwood_=_weremuth_, is an instance of a word from the same language, in
an antiquated shape, being equally transformed with a word of really
foreign origin.

§ 167. Sometimes the transformation of the _name_ has engendered a change
in the object to which it applies, or, at least, has evolved new ideas in
connection with it. How easy for a person who used the words _beef-eater_,
_sparrow-grass_, or _Jerusalem_, to believe that the officers designated by
the former either eat or used to eat more beef than other people (or at
least had an allowance of that viand); that the second word was the name
for a _grass_, or herb of which _sparrows_ were fond; and that _Jerusalem_
artichokes came from Palestine.

What has just been supposed is sometimes a real {109} occurrence. To
account for the name _Shotover-hill_, I have heard that Little John _shot
over_ it. Here the confusion in order to set itself right, breeds a
fiction. Again, in chess, the piece now called the _queen_, was originally
the _elephant_. This was in Persian, _ferz_. In French it became _vierge_,
which, in time, came to be mistaken for a derivative, and _virgo_=_the
virgin_, _the lady_, _the queen_.

§ 168. Sometimes, where the form of a word in respect to its _sound_ is not
affected, a false spirit of accommodation introduces an unetymological
_spelling_; as _frontispiece_[28] from _frontispecium_, _sover_eig_n_, from
_sovrano_, _colle_a_gue_ from _collega_, _lant_h_orn_ (old orthography)
from _lanterna_.

The value of forms like these consists in their showing that language is
affected by false etymologies as well as by true ones.

§ 169. In _lambkin_ and _lancet_, the final syllables (_-kin_ and _-et_)
have the same power. They both express the idea of smallness or
diminutiveness. These words are but two out of a multitude, the one
(_lamb_) being of Saxon, the other (_lance_) of Norman origin. The same is
the case with the superadded syllables: _-kin_ is Saxon; _-et_ Norman. Now
to add a Saxon termination to a Norman word, or _vice versâ_, is to corrupt
the English language.

This leads to some observations respecting--

§ 170. _Introduction of new words_--_Hybridism._--Hybridism is a term
derived from _hybrid-a_, _a mongrel_; a Latin word _of Greek extraction_.

The terminations _-ize_ (as in _criticize_), _-ism_ (as in _criticism_),
_-ic_ (as in _comic_), these, amongst many others, are Greek terminations.
To add them to words of other than of Greek origin is to be guilty of
hybridism.

The terminations _-ble_ (as in _penetrable_), _-bility_ (as in
_penetrability_, _-al_ (as in _parental_)--these, amongst many others, are
Latin terminations. To add them to words of other than of Latin origin is
to be guilty of hybridism.

{110}

Hybridism is the commonest fault that accompanies the introduction of new
words. The hybrid additions to the English language are most numerous in
works on science.

It must not, however, be concealed that several well established words are
hybrid; and that, even in the writings of the classical Roman authors,
there is hybridism between the Latin and the Greek.

The etymological view of every word of foreign origin is, not that it is
put together in England, but that it is brought whole from the language to
which it is vernacular. Now no derived word can be brought whole from a
language unless, in that language, all its parts exist. The word
_penetrability_ is not derived from the English word _penetrable_, by the
addition of _-ty_. It is the Latin word _penetrabilitas_ imported.

_In derived words all the parts must belong to one and the same language_,
or, changing the expression, _every derived word must have a possible form
in the language from which it is taken_. Such is the rule against
Hybridism.

§ 171. A true word sometimes takes the appearance of a hybrid without
really being so. The _-icle_, in _icicle_, is apparently the same as the
_-icle_ in _radicle_. Now, as _ice_ is Gothic, and _-icle_ classical,
hybridism is simulated. _Icicle_, however, is not a derivative but a
compound; its parts being _is_ and _gicel_, both Anglo-Saxon words.

§ 172. _On Incompletion of the Radical._--Let there be in a given language
a series of roots ending in _-t_, as _sæmat_. Let a euphonic influence
eject the _-t_, as often as the word occurs in the nominative case. Let the
nominative case be erroneously considered to represent the root, or
radical, of the word. Let a derivative word be formed accordingly, _i.e._,
on the notion that the nominative form and the radical form coincide. Such
a derivative will exhibit only a part of the root; in other words, the
radical will be incomplete.

Now all this is what actually takes place in words like _hæmo-ptysis_
(_spitting of blood_), _sema-phore_ (_a sort of telegraph_). The Greek
imparisyllabics eject a part of the root in the nominative case; the
radical forms being _hæmat-_ and _sæmat-_, not _hæm-_ and _sæm-_. {111}

Incompletion of the radical is one of the commonest causes of words being
coined faultily. It must not, however, be concealed, that even in the
classical writers, we have (in words like [Greek: distomos]) examples of
incompletion of the radical.

§ 173. The preceding chapters have paved the way for a distinction between
the _historical_ analysis of a language, and the _logical_ analysis of one.

Let the present language of England (for illustration's sake only) consist
of 40,000 words. Of these let 30,000 be Anglo-Saxon, 5,000 Anglo-Norman,
100 Celtic, 10 Latin of the first, 20 Latin of the second, and 30 Latin of
the third period, 50 Scandinavian, and the rest miscellaneous. In this case
the language is considered according to the historical origin of the words
that compose it, and the analysis (or, if the process be reversed, the
synthesis) is an historical analysis.

But it is very evident that the English, or any other language, is capable
of being contemplated in another view, and that the same number of words
may be very differently classified. Instead of arranging them according to
the languages whence they are derived, let them be disposed according to
the meanings that they convey. Let it be said, for instance, that out of
40,000 words, 10,000 are the names of natural objects, that 1000 denote
abstract ideas, that 1000 relate to warfare, 1000 to church matters, 500 to
points of chivalry, 1000 to agriculture, and so on through the whole. In
this case the analysis (or, if the process be reversed, the synthesis) is
not historical but logical; the words being classed not according to their
origin, but according to their meaning.

Now the logical and historical analysis of a language generally in some
degree coincides, as may be seen by noticing the kind of words introduced
from the Anglo-Norman, the Latin of the fourth period, and the Arabic.

{112}

CHAPTER II.

THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

§ 174. The relation of the present English to the Anglo-Saxon is that of a
_modern_ language to an _ancient_ one: the words _modern_ and _ancient_
being used in a defined and technical sense.

Let the word _smiðum_ illustrate this. _Smiðum_, the dative plural of
_smið_, is equivalent in meaning to the English _to smiths_, or to the
Latin _fabris_. _Smiðum_ however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a
substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two words
_i.e._, a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letter _s_,
in _smiths_ shows that the word is plural. The _-um_, in _smiðum_, does
this and something more. It is the sign of the _dative case_ plural. The
_-um_ in _smiðum_, is the part of a word. The preposition to is a separate
word with an independent existence. _Smiðum_ is the radical syllable
_smið_, _plus_ the subordinate inflectional syllable _-um_, the sign of the
dative case. _To smiths_ is the substantive _smiths_, _plus_ the
preposition _to_, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but
different from it in form. As far, then, as the word just quoted is
concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English thus. It expresses a
given idea by a modification of the form of the root, whereas the modern
English denotes the same idea by the addition of a preposition. The Saxon
inflection is superseded by a combination of words.

The part that is played by the preposition with nouns, is played by the
auxiliaries (_have_, _be_, &c.) with verbs.

The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement.
(1.) _The earlier the stage of a given {113} language the greater the
amount of its inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given
language, the smaller the amount of them._ (2.) _As languages become modern
they substitute prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses._
(3.) _The amount of inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount
of prepositions and auxiliary verbs._ (4.) _In the course of time languages
drop their inflection and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means
of prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place._ (5.) _Given two modes
of expression, the one inflectional _(smiðum)_, the other circumlocutional
_(to smiths)_, we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second
to a late, stage of language._

The present chapter, then, showing the relation of the English to the
Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the general relation of a
modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are
the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; so also the Modern
High German to the Moeso-Gothic; so the Modern Dutch of Holland to the Old
Frisian; so, moreover, amongst the languages of a different stock, are the
French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin,
and the Romaic to the Ancient Greek.

§ 175. Contrasted with the English, but contrasted with it only in those
points where the ancient tongue is compared with the modern one, the
Anglo-Saxon has the following differences.

NOUNS.

_Of Gender._--In Anglo-Saxon there are three genders, the masculine, the
feminine, and the neuter. With _adjectives_ each gender has its peculiar
declension; with _substantives_ there are also appropriate terminations,
but only to a certain degree; _e.g._, of words ending in _-a_ (_nama_, a
name; _cuma_, a guest), it may be stated that they are always masculine; of
words in _-u_ (_sunu_, a son; _gifu_, a gift), that they are never neuter;
in other words, that they are either mas. or fem.

The definite article varies with the gender of its substantive; _þæt eage_,
the eye; _se steorra_, the star; _seo tunge_, the tongue. {114}

_Of Number._--The plural form in _-en_ (as in _oxen_), rare in English, was
common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole
declension; _e.g._, _eágan_, eyes; _steorran_, stars; _tungan_, tongues.
Besides this, the Anglo-Saxons had forms in _-u_ and _-a_, as _ricu_,
kingdoms; _gifa_, gifts. The termination _-s_, current in the present
English was confined to a single gender and to a single declension, as
_endas_, ends; _dagas_, days; _smiðas_, smiths.

_Of Case._--Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least
three; viz. the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and
adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words
an ablative or instrumental one. _Smið_, a smith; _smiðe_, to a smith;
_smiðes_, of a smith. Plural, _smiðas_, smiths; _smiðum_, to smiths;
_smiða_, of smiths: _he_, he; _hine_, him; _him_, to him; _his_, his; _se_,
the; _þa_, the; _þy_, with the; _þam_, to the; _þæs_, of the.

Of the dative in _-um_, the word _whilom_ (_at times_, _at whiles_) is a
still extant and an almost isolated specimen.

_Of Declension._--In _Anglo-Saxon_ it is necessary to determine the
termination of a substantive. There is the weak, or simple declension for
words ending in a vowel (as _eage_, _steorra_, _tunga_), and the strong, or
complex declension for words ending in a consonant (_smið_, _spræc_,
_leáf_). The letters _i_ and _u_ are dealt with as semivowels, semivowels
being dealt with as consonants; so that words like _sunu_ and _gifu_ belong
to the same declension as _smið_ and _spr['æ]c_.

That the form of adjectives varies with their definitude or indefinitude,
has been seen from § 93: definite adjectives following the inflection of
the simple; indefinite ones that of the complex declension.

The detail of the Anglo-Saxon declension may be collected from §§ 83-89.

The Anglo-Saxon inflection of the participles present is remarkable. With
the exception of the form for the genitive plural definite (which, instead
of _-ena_, is _-ra_,) they follow the declension of the adjectives. From
the masculine substantives formed from them, and denoting the agent, they
may be distinguished by a difference of inflection. {115}

           _Participle._          _Substantive._

  Wegferende=_Wayfaring_.       Wegferend=_Wayfarer_.

  _Sing. Nom._ Wegferende         Wegferend.
        _Acc._ Wegferendne        Wegferend.
        _Abl._ Wegferende         Wegferende.
        _Dat._ Wegferendum        Wegferende.
        _Gen._ Wegferendes        Wegferendes.
  _Plur. Nom._ Wegferende         Wegferendas.
        _Dat._ Wegferendum        Wegferendum.
        _Gen._ Wegferendra        Wegferenda.

_Pronouns Personal._--Of the pronominal inflection in Saxon, the character
may be gathered from the chapter upon pronouns. At present, it may be
stated that, like the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic, the Anglo-Saxon
language possessed for the first two persons a _dual_ number; inflected as
follows:

        _1st Person._             _2nd Person._

  _Nom._ Wit    _We two._     _Nom._ Git   _Ye two._
  _Acc._ Unc    _Us two._     _Acc._ Inc   _You two._
  _Gen._ Uncer  _Of us two._  _Gen._ Incer _Of you two._

Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative pronouns, as well
as the numerals _twa_ and _þreo_, had a fuller declension than they have at
present.

VERBS.

_Mood._--The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with the
exception of the conjugation of the verb substantive) differs from the
indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon inflected
as follows:

                  _Indicative Mood._

  _Pres. Sing._ 1. Lufige.       _Plur._ 1. }
                2. Lufast.               2. } Lufiað.
                3. Lufað.                3. }

                  _Subjunctive Mood._

  _Pres. Sing._ 1.}              _Plur._ 1. }
                2.} Lufige.              2. } Lufion.
                3.}                      3. }

The Saxon infinitive ended in _-an_ (_lufian_), and besides this there was
a so-called gerundial form, to _lufigenne_. {116}

_Tense._--In regard to tense, the Anglo-Saxon coincided with the English.
The present language has two tenses, the present and the past; the Saxon
had no more. This past tense the modern English forms either by addition
(_love_, _loved_), or by change (_fall_, _fell_). So did the Anglo-Saxons.

_Number and Person._--In the present English the termination -_eth_
(_moveth_) is antiquated. In Anglo-Saxon it was the only form recognized.
In English the plural number (indicative as well as subjunctive) has no
distinguishing inflection. It was not so in Anglo-Saxon. There, although
the _persons_ were identical in form, the _numbers_ were distinguished by
the termination -_að_ for the indicative, and -_n_ for the subjunctive.
(_See above._) For certain forms in the second conjugation, see the remarks
on the forms _drunk_ and _drank_, in Part IV.

Such are the chief points in the declension of nouns and the conjugation of
verbs that give a difference of character between the ancient Anglo-Saxon
and the modern English: and it has already been stated that the difference
between the New and the Old German, the Dutch and the Frisian, the Italian,
&c., and the Latin, the Romaic and the Greek, &c., are precisely similar.

How far two languages pass with equal rapidity from their ancient to their
modern, from their inflected to their uninflected state (in other words,
how far all languages alter at the same rate), is a question that will be
noticed elsewhere. At present, it is sufficient to say, that (just as we
should expect _à priori_) languages do _not_ alter at the same rate.

Akin to the last question is a second one: viz.: how far the rate of change
in a given language can be accelerated by external circumstances. This
second question bears immediately upon the history of the English language.
The grammar of the current idiom compared with the grammar of the
Anglo-Saxon is simplified. How far was this simplification of the grammar
promoted by the Norman Conquest. The current views exaggerate the influence
of the Norman Conquest and of French connexions. The remark of Mr. Price in
his Preface to Warton, acceded to by Mr. Hallam in his Introduction to the
Literature of Europe, is, that every one of the {117} other Low Germanic
languages (affected by nothing corresponding to the Norman Conquest)
displays the same simplification of grammar as the Anglo-Saxon (affected by
the Norman Conquest) displays. Confirmatory of this remark, it may be
added, that compared with the Icelandic, the Danish and Swedish do the
same. Derogatory to it is the comparatively complex grammar of the _new_
German, compared, not only with the Old High German, but with the
Moeso-Gothic. An extract from Mr. Hallam shall close the present section
and introduce the next.

    "Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to
    determine the commencement of the English language: not so much, as in
    those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather
    from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual
    succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We
    should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally
    well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth
    centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth
    century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce
    why it should pass for a separate language, rather than a modification
    or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage,
    and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:--1. By
    contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography
    of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and
    consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the
    introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and
    ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think,
    can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and
    this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much
    of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pass for the
    latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's
    fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of
    our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which
    is to cover everything from A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1250."--Chapter i. 47.

§ 176. At a given period, then, the Anglo-Saxon of the standard, and (if
the expression may be used) classical authors, such as Cædmon, Alfred,
Ælfric, &c., had undergone such a change as to induce the scholars of the
present age to denominate it, not Saxon, but _Semi_-Saxon. It had ceased to
be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become English. In certain parts of the
kingdom, where the mode of speech {118} changed more rapidly than
elsewhere, the Semi-Saxon stage of our language came earlier. It was, as it
were, precipitated.

The History of King Leir and his Daughters is found in two forms. Between
these there is a difference either of dialect or of date, and possibly of
both. Each, however, is Semi-Saxon. The extracts are made from Thorpe's
Analecta Anglo-Saxonica, p. 143.

  Bladud hafde ene sune,           Bladud hadde one sone,
  Leir was ihaten;                 Leir was ihote,
  Efter his fader daie,            After his fader he held þis lond,
  He heold þis drihlice lond,      In his owene hond,
  Somed an his live,               Ilaste his lif-dages,
  Sixti winter.                    Sixti winter.
  He makade ane riche burh,        He makede on riche borh,
  Þurh radfulle his crafte,        Þorh wisemenne reade,
  And he heo lette nemnen,         And hine lette nemni,
  Efter him seolvan;               After him seolve;
  Kaer-Leir hehte þe burh.         Kair-Leir hehte þe borh.
  Leof heo wes þan kinge,          Leof he was þan kinge;
  Þa we, an ure leod-quide,        Þe we, on ure speche,
  Leir-chestre clepiad,            Leþ-chestre cleopieþ,
  Geare a þan holde dawon.         In þan eolde daiye.

The Grave, a poetical fragment, the latter part of the Saxon Chronicle, a
Homily for St. Edmund's Day (given in the Analecta), and above all the
printed extracts of the poem of Layamon, are the more accessible specimens
of the Semi-Saxon. The Ormulum, although in many points English rather than
Saxon, retains the dual number of the Anglo-Saxon pronouns. However, lest
too much stress be laid upon this circumstance, the epistolary character of
the Ormulum must be borne in mind.

It is very evident that if, even in the present day, there were spoken in
some remote district the language of Alfred and Ælfric, such a mode of
speech would be called, not Modern English, but Anglo-Saxon. This teaches
us that the stage of language is to be measured, not by its date, but by
its structure. Hence, Saxon ends and Semi-Saxon begins, not at a given
year, A.D., but at that time {119} (whenever it be) when certain
grammatical inflections disappear, and certain characters of a more
advanced stage are introduced.

Some amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon
are,

1. The substitution of -_an_ for -_as_, in the plural of substantives,
_munucan_ for _munucas_ (monks); and, conversely, the substitution of -_s_
for -_n_, as _steorres_ for _steorran_ (stars). The use of -_s_, as the
sign of the plural, without respect to gender, or declension, may be one of
those changes that the Norman Conquest forwarded; -_s_ being the sign of
the plural in Anglo-Norman.

2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels, _þæt ylc_ for _þæt ylce_;
_sone_ for _sunu_; _name_ for _nama_; _dages_ for _dagas_.

3. The substitution of -_n_ for -_m_ in the dative case, _hwilon_ for
_hwilum_.

4. The ejection of the -_n_ of the infinitive mood, _cumme_ for _cuman_
(_to come_), _nemne_ for _nemnen_ (_to name_).

5. The ejection of -_en_ in the participle passive, _I-hote_ for _gehaten_
(_called_, _hight_).

6. The gerundial termination -_enne_, superseded by the infinitive
termination -_en_; as _to lufian_ for _to lufienne_, or _lufigenne_.

7. The substitution of -_en_ for -_að_ in the persons plural of verbs; _hi
clepen_ (_they call_) for _hi clypiað_, &c.

The preponderance (not the occasional occurrence) of forms like those above
constitute Semi-Saxon in contradistinction to standard Saxon, classical
Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon proper.

§ 177. _Old English Stage._--Further changes convert Semi-Saxon into Old
English. Some, amongst others, are the following:--

1. The ejection of the dative plural termination -_um_, and the
substitution of the preposition _to_ and the plural sign -_s_; as _to
smiths_ for _smiðum_. Of the dative singular the -_e_ is retained (_ende_,
_worde_); but it is by no means certain that, although recognized in
writing, it was recognized in pronunciation also.

2. The ejection of -_es_ in the genitive singular whenever the {120}
preposition _of_ came before it; _Godes love_ (_God's love_), but the _love
of God_, and not the _love of Godes_.

3. The syllable _-es_ as a sign of the genitive case extended to all
genders and to all declensions; _heart's_ for _heortan_; _sun's_ for
_sunnan_.

4. The same in respect to the plural number; _sterres_ for _steorran_;
_sons_ for _suna_.

5. The ejection of _-na_ in the genitive plural; as _of tunges'_ for
_tungena_.

6. The use of the word _the_, as an article, instead of _se_, &c.

The preponderance of the forms above (and not their occasional occurrence)
constitutes old English in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

The following extract from Henry's history (vol. viii. append. iv.) is the
proclamation of Henry III. to the people of Huntingdonshire, A.D. 1258. It
currently passes for the earliest specimen of English.

    "Henry, thurg Godes fultome, King on Engleneloande, lhoaurd on Yrloand,
    Duke on Normand, on Acquitain, Eorl on Anjou, send I greting, to alle
    hise holde, ilærde & ilewerde on Huntingdonschiere.

    "That witen ge well alle, thæt we willen & unnen (grant) thæt ure
    rædesmen alle other, the moare del of heom, thæt beoth ichosen thurg us
    and thurg thæt loandes-folk on ure Kuneriche, habbith idon, and
    schullen don, in the worthnes of God, and ure threowthe, for the freme
    of the loande, thurg the besigte of than toforen iseide rædesmen, beo
    stedfæst and ilestinde in alle thinge abutan ænde, and we heaten alle
    ure treowe, in the treowthe thæt heo us ogen, thet heo stede-feslliche
    healden & weren to healden & to swerien the isetnesses thet beon makede
    and beo to makien, thurg than toforen iseide rædesmen, other thurg the
    moare del of heom alswo, also hit is before iseide. And thet æheother
    helpe thet for to done bitham ilche other, aganes alle men in alle thet
    heo ogt for to done, and to foangen. And noan ne of mine loande, ne of
    egetewhere, thurg this besigte, muge beon ilet other iwersed on
    oniewise. And gif oni ether onie cumen her ongenes, we willen & heaten,
    thæt alle ure treowe heom healden deadlichistan. And for thæt we willen
    thæt this beo stædfast and lestinde, we senden gew this writ open,
    iseined with ure seel, to halden amanges gew ine hord. Witnes us-selven
    æt Lundæn, thæne egetetenthe day on the monthe of Octobr, in the two
    and fowertigthe geare of ure crunning."

§ 178. The songs amongst the political verses printed by the Camden
Society, the romance of Havelok the Dane, {121} William and the Werwolf,
the Gestes of Alisaundre, King Horn, Ipomedon, and the King of Tars; and,
amongst the longer works, Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle, and the poems
of Robert of Bourn (Brunn), are (amongst others) Old English. Broadly
speaking, the _Old_ English may be said to begin with the reign of Henry
III., and to end with that of Edward III.

In the Old English the following forms predominate.

1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative pronoun, or definite article;
_þan_, _þenne_, _þære_, _þam_;--in contradistinction to the Middle English.

2. The presence of the dative singular in _-e_; _ende_, _smithe_;--_ditto_.

3. The existence of a genitive plural in _-r_ or _-ra_; _heora_, theirs;
_aller_, of all;--_ditto_. This with substantives and adjectives is less
common.

4. The substitution of _heo_ for _they_, of _heora_ for _their_, of _hem_
for _them_;--in contradistinction to the later stages of English, and in
contradistinction to old Lowland _Scotch_. (See Chapter III.)

5. A more frequent use of _min_ and _thin_, for _my_ and _thy_;--in
contradistinction to middle and modern English.

6. The use of _heo_ for _she_;--in contradistinction to middle and modern
English and old Lowland _Scotch_.

7. The use of broader vowels; as in _iclep_u_d_ or _iclep_o_d_ (for
_iclep_e_d_ or _ycl_e_pt_); _geong_o_st_, youngest; _ascode_, asked;
_eldore_, elder.

8. The use of the strong preterits (_see_ the chapter on the tenses of
verbs), where in the present English the weak form is found; _wex_, _wop_,
_dalf_, for _waxed_, _wept_, _delved_.

9. The omission not only of the gerundial termination _-enne_, but also of
the infinitive sign _-en_ after _to_; _to honte_, _to speke_;--in
contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

10. The substitution of _-en_ for _-eþ_ or _-eð_ in the first and second
persons plural of verbs; _we wollen_, we will: _heo schullen_, they
should;--_ditto_.

11. The comparative absence of the articles _se_ and _seo_;--_ditto_. {122}

12. The substitution of _ben_ and _beeth_, for _synd_ and _syndon_=_we_,
_ye_, _they are_;--in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

§ 179. The degree to which the Anglo-Saxon was actually influenced by the
Anglo-Norman has been noticed. The degree wherein the two languages came in
contact is, plainly, another consideration. The first is the question, How
far one of two languages influenced the other? The second asks, How far one
of two languages had the opportunity of influencing the other? Concerning
the extent to which the Anglo-Norman was used, I retail the following
statements and quotations.

    1. "Letters even of a private nature were written in Latin till the
    beginning of the reign of Edward I., soon after 1270, when a sudden
    change brought in the use of French."--_Mr. Hallam, communicated by Mr.
    Stevenson_ (_Literature of Europe, I. 52, and note_).

    2. Conversation between the Members of the Universities was ordered to
    be carried on either in Latin or French:--"_Si qua inter se proferant,
    colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur._"--_Statutes of Oriel
    College, Oxford.--Hallam, ibid._ from Warton.

    3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town
    Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in
    Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."--_Ibid._

    4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into
    French,"--_Ibid._ "_Pueri in scholis, contra morem cæterarum nationum,
    et Normannorum adventu, derelicto proprio vulgari, construere Gallice
    compelluntur. Item quod filii nobilium ab ipsis cunabulorum crepundiis
    ad Gallicum idioma informantur. Quibus profecto rurales homines
    assimulari volentes, ut per hoc spectabiliores videantur, Francigenari
    satagunt omni nisu._"--_Higden_ (_Ed. Gale_, p. 210).

That there was French in England before the battle of Hastings appears on
the authority of Camden:--

    "Herein is a notable argument of our ancestors' steadfastness in
    esteeming and retaining their own tongue. For, as _before the
    Conquest_, they misliked nothing more in King Edward the Confessor,
    than that he was Frenchified, and accounted the desire of a foreign
    language then to be a foretoken of the bringing in of foreign powers,
    which indeed happened."--_Remains_, p. 30.

§ 180. In Chaucer and Mandeville, and perhaps in all the writers of the
reign of Edward III., we have a transition {123} from the Old to the Middle
English. The last characteristic of a grammar different from that of the
present English, is the plural form in _-en_; _we tellen_, _ye tellen_,
_they tellen_. As this disappears, which it does in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth (Spenser has it continually), the Middle English may be said to
pass into the New or Modern English.

§ 181. The _present_ tendencies of the English may be determined by
observation; and as most of them will be noticed in the etymological part
of this volume, the few here indicated must be looked upon as illustrations
only.

1. The distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood is likely to
pass away. We verify this by the very general tendency to say _if it is_,
and _if he speaks_, for _if it be_, and _if he speak_.

2. The distinction (as far as it goes) between the participle passive and
the past tense is likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to
say _it is broke_, and _he is smote_, for _it is broken_, and _he is
smitten_.

3. Of the double forms, _sung_ and _sang_, _drank_ and _drunk_, &c. one
only will be the permanent.

As stated above, these tendencies are a few out of a number, and have been
adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it.

§ 182. What the present language of England would have been had the Norman
Conquest never taken place, the analogy of Holland, Denmark, and of many
other countries enables us to determine. It would have been much as it is
at present. What it would have been had the _Saxon_ conquest never taken
place, is a question wherein there is far more speculation. Of France, of
Italy, of Wallachia, and of the Spanish Peninsula, the analogies all point
the same way. They indicate that the original Celtic would have been
superseded by the Latin of the conquerors, and consequently that our
language in its later stages would have been neither British nor Gaelic,
but Roman. Upon these analogies, however, we may refine. Italy, was from
the beginning, Roman; the Spanish Peninsula was invaded full early; no
ocean divided Gaul from Rome; and the war against the ancestors of the
Wallachians was a war of extermination.

{124}

CHAPTER III.

ON THE LOWLAND SCOTCH.

§ 183. The term _Lowland_ is used to distinguish the Scotch of the
South-east from the Scotch of the Highlands. The former is English in its
immediate affinities, and Germanic in origin; the latter is nearly the same
language with the Gaelic of Ireland, and is, consequently, Celtic.

The question as to whether the Lowland Scotch is a dialect of the English,
or a separate and independent language, is a verbal rather than a real one.

Reasons for considering the Scotch and English as _dialects_ of one and the
same language lie in the fact of their being (except in the case of the
more extreme forms of each) mutually intelligible.

Reasons for calling one a dialect of the other depend upon causes other
than philological, _e.g._, political preponderance, literary development,
and the like.

Reasons for treating the Scotch as a separate substantive language lie in
the extent to which it has the qualities of a regular cultivated tongue,
and a separate substantive literature--partially separate and substantive
at the present time, wholly separate and substantive in the times anterior
to the union of the crowns, and in the hands of Wyntoun, Blind Harry,
Dunbar, and Lindsay.

§ 184. Reasons for making the _philological_ distinction between the
English and Scotch dialects exactly coincide with the geographical and
political boundaries between the two kingdoms are not so easily given. It
is not likely that the Tweed and Solway should divide modes of speech so
accurately as they divide laws and customs; that broad and trenchant lines
of demarcation should separate the Scotch {125} from the English exactly
along the line of the Border; and that there should be no Scotch elements
in Northumberland, and no Northumbrian ones in Scotland. Neither is such
the case. Hence, in speaking of the Lowland Scotch, it means the language
in its typical rather than in its transitional forms; indeed, it means the
_literary_ Lowland Scotch which, under the first five Stuarts, was as truly
an independent language as compared with the English, as Swedish is to
Danish, Portuguese to Spanish, or _vice versâ_.

§ 185. This limitation leaves us fully sufficient room for the notice of
the question as to its _origin_; a notice all the more necessary from the
fact of its having created controversy.

What is the _primâ facie_ view of the relations between the English of
England, and the mutually intelligible language (Scotch or English, as we
choose to call it) of Scotland? One of three:--

1. That it originated in England, and spread in the way of extension and
diffusion northwards, and so reached Scotland.

2. That it originated in Scotland, and spread in the way of extension and
diffusion southwards, and so reached England.

3. That it was introduced in each country from a common source.

In any of these cases it is Angle, or Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon, even as
English is Angle, or Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon.

§ 186. A view, however, different from these, and one disconnecting the
Lowland Scotch from the English and Anglo-Saxon equally, is what may be
called the _Pict_ doctrine. Herein it is maintained that the Lowland
_Scotch is derived from the Pict, and that the Picts were of Gothic_
origin. The reasoning upon these matters is to be found in the Dissertation
upon the Origin of the Scottish Language prefixed to Jamieson's
Etymological Dictionary: two extracts from which explain the view which the
author undertakes to combat:--

_a._ "It is an opinion which, after many others, has been pretty generally
received, and, perhaps, almost taken for granted, that the language spoken
in the Lowlands of {126} Scotland is merely a corrupt dialect of the
English, or at least of the Anglo-Saxon."

_b._ "It has generally been supposed that the Saxon language was introduced
into Scotland in the reign of Malcolm Canmore by his good queen and her
retinue; or partly by means of the intercourse which prevailed between the
inhabitants of Scotland and those of Cumberland, Northumberland,
Westmoreland, and Durham, which were held by the Kings of Scotland as fiefs
of the crown of England. An English writer, not less distinguished for his
amiable disposition and candour than for the cultivation of his mind, has
objected to this hypothesis with great force of argument."

§ 187. Now, as against any such notion as that involved in the preceding
extracts, the reasoning of the learned author of the Scottish Dictionary
may, perhaps, be valid. No such view, however, is held, at the present
moment, by any competent judge; and it is doubtful whether, in the extreme
way in which it is put forward by the opponent of it, it was ever
maintained at all.

Be this, however, as it may, the theory which is opposed to it rests upon
the following positions--

1. That the Lowland Scotch were Picts.

2. That the Picts were Goths.

In favour of this latter view the chief reasons are--

1. That what the Belgæ were the Picts were also.

2. That the Belgæ were Germanic.

Again--

1. That the natives of the Orkneys were Picts.

2. That they were also Scandinavian.

So that the Picts were Scandinavian Goths.

From whence it follows that--assuming what is true concerning the Orkneys
is true concerning the Lowland Scotch--the Lowland Scotch was Pict,
Scandinavian, Gothic, and (as such) more or less Belgic.

For the non-Gothic character of the Picts see the researches of Mr.
Garnett, as given in § 139, as well as a paper--believed to be from the
same author--in the Quarterly Review for 1834. {127}

For the position of the Belgæ, see Chapter IV.

§ 188. That what is true concerning the Orkneys (viz. that they were
Scandinavian) is _not_ true for the south and eastern parts of Scotland, is
to be collected from the peculiar distribution of the Scottish Gaelic;
which indicates a distinction between the Scandinavian of the north of
Scotland and the Scandinavian of the east of England. The Lowland Scotch
recedes as we go northward. Notwithstanding this, it is _not_ the extreme
north that is most Gaelic. In Caithness the geographical names are Norse.
_Sutherland_, the most northern county of Scotland, takes its name from
being _south_; that is, of Norway. The Orkneys and Shetland are in name,
manners, and language, Norse or Scandinavian. The Hebrides are Gaelic mixed
with Scandinavian. The Isle of Man is the same. The word _Sodor_ (in Sodor
and Man) is Norse, with the same meaning as it has in _Sutherland_. All
this indicates a more preponderating, and an earlier infusion of Norse
along the coast of Scotland, than that which took place under the Danes
upon the coasts of England, in the days of Alfred and under the reign of
Canute. The first may, moreover, have this additional peculiarity, _viz._
of being Norwegian rather than Danish. Hence I infer that the Scandinavians
settled in the northern parts of Scotland at an early period, but that it
was a late period when they ravaged the southern ones; so that, though the
language of Orkney may be Norse, that of the Lothians may be Saxon.

To verify these views we want not a general dictionary of the Scottish
language taken altogether, but a series of local glossaries, or at any rate
a vocabulary, 1st, of the northern; 2ndly, of the southern Scottish.

Between the English and Lowland Scotch we must account for the likeness as
well as the difference. The Scandinavian theory accounts for the difference
only.

§ 189. Of the following specimens of the Lowland Scotch, the first is from
The Bruce, a poem written by Barbour, Archdeacon of Aberdeen, between the
years 1360 and 1375; the second from Wyntoun; the third from Blind Harry's
poem, Wallace, 1460; and the fourth from Gawin Douglas's translation of the
Æneid, A.D. 1513. {128}

      _The Bruce_, iv. 871--892.

  And as he raid in to the nycht,
  So saw he, with the monys lycht,
  Schynnyng off scheldys gret plenté;
  And had wondre quhat it mycht be.
  With that all hale thai gaiff a cry,
  And he, that hard sa suddainly
  Sic noyis, sumdele affrayit was.
  Bot in schort time he till him tais
  His spyrites full hardely;
  For his gentill hart, and worthy,
  Assurit hym in to that nede.
  Then with the spuris he strak the sted,
  And ruschyt in amaing them all.
  The feyrst he met he gert him fall;
  And syne his suord he swapyt out,
  And roucht about him mony rout,
  And slew sexsum weill sone and ma:
  Then wndre him his horss thai sla:
  And he fell; but he smertty rass,
  And strykand rowm about him mass:
  And slew off thaim a quantité.
  But woundyt wondre sar was he.

  _Wyntoun's Chronicle_, I. xiii. 1--22.

  Blessyde Bretayn Beelde sulde be
  Of all þe Ilys in þe Se,
  Quhare Flowrys are fele on Feldys fayre
  Hale of hewe, haylsum of ayre.
  Of all corne þare is copy gret,
  Pese and A'tys, Bere and Qwhet:
  Báth froyt on Tre, and fysche in flwde;
  And tyl all Catale pasture gwde.
  Solynus Sayis, in Brettany
  Sum steddys growys sá habowndanly
  Of Gyrs, þat sum tym (but) þair Fe
  Frá fwlth of Mete refrenyht be,
  Ðair fwde sall turne þam to peryle,
  To rot, or bryst, or dey sum quhyle.
  Ðare wylde in Wode has welth at wille;
  Ðare hyrdys hydys Holme and Hille:
  Ðare Bwyis bowys all for Byrtht,
  {129}
  Báthe Merle and Ma[:w]esys mellys for myrtht:
  Ðare huntyng is at all kyne Dere,
  And rycht gud hawlkyn on Bÿwer;
  Of Fysche þaire is habowndance;
  And nedfulle thyng to Mannys substance.

      _Wallace_, xi. 230-262.

  A lord off court, quhen he approchyt thar,
  Wnwisytly sperd, withoutyn prouision;
  "Wallace, dar ye go fecht on our lioun?"
  And he said; "Ya, so the Kyng suffyr me;
  Or on your selff, gyff ye ocht bettyr be."
  Quhat will ye mar? this thing amittyt was,
  That Wallace suld on to the lioun pas.
  The King thaim chargyt to bring him gud harnas:
  Then he said; "Nay, God scheild me fra sic cass.
  I wald tak weid, suld I fecht with a man;
  But (for) a dog, that nocht off armes can,
  I will haiff nayn, bot synglar as I ga."
  A gret manteill about his hand can ta,
  And his gud suerd; with him he tuk na mar;
  Abandounly in barrace entryt thar.
  Gret chenys was wrocht in the yet with a gyn,
  And pulld it to quhen Wallace was tharin.
  The wod lyoun, on Wallace quhar he stud,
  Rampand he braid, for he desyryt blud;
  With his rude pollis in the mantill rocht sa.
  Aukwart the bak than Wallace can him ta,
  With his gud suerd, that was off burnest steill,
  His body in twa it thruschyt euirilkdeill.
  Syn to the King he raykyt in gret ire,
  And said on lowd; "Was this all your desyr,
  To wayr a Scot thus lychtly in to wayn?
  Is thar mar doggis at ye wald yeit haiff slayne?
  Go, bryng thaim furth, sen I mon doggis qwell,
  To do byddyng, quhill that with thee duell.
  It gaynd full weill I graithit me to Scotland;
  For grettar deidis thair men has apon hand,
  Than with a dog in battaill to escheiff--
  At you in France for euir I tak my leiff."

{130}

      _Gawin Douglas_, Æn. ii.

  As Laocon that was Neptunus priest,
  And chosin by cavil vnto that ilk office,
  Ane fare grete bull offerit in sacrifice,
  Solempnithe before the haly altere,
  Throw the still sey from Tenedos in fere,
  Lo twa gret lowpit edderis with mony thraw
  First throw the flude towart the land can draw.
  (My sprete abhorris this matter to declare)
  Aboue the wattir thare hals stude euirmare,
  With bludy creistis outwith the wallis hie,
  The remanent swam always vnder the se,
  With grisly bodyis lynkit mony fald,
  The salt fame stouris from the fard they hald,
  Unto the ground thay glade with glowand ene,
  Stuffit full of venom, fire and felloun tene,
  With tounges quhissling in thar mouthis red,
  Thay lik the twynkilland stangis in thar hed.
  We fled away al bludles for effere.
  Bot with ane braide to Laocon in fere
  Thay stert attanis, and his twa sonnys zyng
  First athir serpent lappit like ane ring,
  And with thare cruel bit, and stangis fell,
  Of tender membris tuke mony sory morsel;
  Syne thay the preist invadit baith twane,
  Quhilk wyth his wappins did his besy pane
  His childer for to helpen and reskew.
  Bot thay about him lowpit in wympillis threw,
  And twis circulit his myddel round about,
  And twys faldit thare sprutillit skynnis but dout,
  About his hals, baith neck and hed they schent.
  As he ettis thare hankis to haue rent,
  And with his handis thaym away haue draw,
  His hede bendis and garlandis all war blaw
  Full of vennum and rank poysoun attanis,
  Quhilk infekkis the flesche, blude, and banys.

§ 190. In the way of orthography, the most characteristic difference
between the English and Scotch is the use, on the part of the latter, of
_qu_ for _wh_; as _quhen_, _quhare_, _quhat_, for _when_, _where_, _what_.
The substitution of _sch_ for _sh_ (as _scho_ for _she_), and of _z_ for
the Old English _[gh]_ (as _zour_ for _[gh]eowr_, _your_), is as much
northern English as Scotch. {131}

In pronunciation, the substitution of _d_ for _ð_ (if not a point of
spelling), as in _fader_ for _father_; of _a_ for _o_, as _báith_ for
_both_; of _s_ for _sh_, as _sall_ for _shall_; and the use of the guttural
sound of _ch_, as in _loch_, _nocht_, are the same.

The ejection of the _n_ before _t_, or an allied sound, and the lengthening
of the preceding vowel, by way of compensation, as in _begouth_ for
_beginneth_, seems truly Scotch. It is the same change that in Greek turns
the radical syllable [Greek: odont] into [Greek: odous].

The formation of the plural of verbs in _-s_, rather than in _-th_ (the
Anglo-Saxon form), is Northern English as well as Scotch:--Scotch,
_slepys_, _lovys_; Northern English, _slepis_, _lovis_; Old English,
_slepen_, _loven_; Anglo-Saxon _slepiað_, _lufiað_.

The formation of the plural number of the genitive case by the addition of
the syllable _-is_ (_blastis_, _birdis_, _bloomis_), instead of the letter
_-s_ (_blasts_, _birds_, _blooms_), carries with it a metrical advantage,
inasmuch as it gives a greater number of double rhymes.

The same may be said of the participial forms, _affrayit_, _assurit_, for
_affrayd_, _assured_.

Concerning the comparative rate of change in the two languages no general
assertion can be made. In the Scotch words _sterand_, _slepand_, &c., for
_steering_, _sleeping_, the form is antiquated, and Anglo-Saxon rather than
English. It is not so, however, with the words _thai_ (_they_), _thaim_
(_them_), _thair_ (_their_), compared with the contemporary words in
English, _heo_, _hem_, _heora_. In these it is the Scottish that is least,
and the English that is most Anglo-Saxon.

{132}

CHAPTER IV.

OF CERTAIN UNDETERMINED AND FICTITIOUS LANGUAGES OF GREAT BRITAIN.

§ 191. The languages mentioned in the present chapter claim their place on
one ground only,--_they have been the subject of controversy_. The notice
of them will be brief. The current texts upon which the controversies have
turned will be quoted; whilst the opinion of the present writer is left to
be collected from the title of the chapter.

_The Belgæ._--By some these are considered a Germanic rather than a Celtic
tribe; the view being supported by the following extracts from
Cæsar:--"_Gallia est omnis divisa in tres partes; quarum unam incolunt
Belgæ, aliam Aquitani, tertiam, qui ipsorum lingua Celtæ, nostra Galli,
appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt.
Gallos--a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit._"--B. G. i. "_Belgæ ab
extremis Galliæ finibus oriuntur._"--B. G. ii. "_Quum ab his quæreret, quæ
civitates, quantæque in armis essent, et quid in bello possent, sic
reperiebat: plerosque Belgas esse ortos a Germanis, Rhenumque antiquitùs
transductos, propter loci fertilitatem ibi consedisse; Gallosque, qui ea
loca incolerent, expulisse; solosque esse qui patrum nostrorum memoria,
omni Gallia vexata Teutones Cimbrosque intra fines suos ingredi
prohibuerunt._"--B. G. ii. 4. "_Britanniæ pars interior ab iis incolitur
quos natos in insulâ ipsâ memoriâ proditum dicunt: maritima pars ab iis,
qui prædæ ac belli inferendi causa ex Belgio transierant._"--B. G. v. 12.

§ 192. The possibly Germanic origin of the Belgæ, and the Belgic element of
the British population, are matters which bear upon the question indicated
in § 10, or that of the Germanic influences anterior to A.D. 449. {133}

They have a still more important bearing, the historian over and above
identifying the Belgæ with the Germans, affirms _that what applies to the
Belgæ applies to the Picts_ also.

Now this is one of the arguments in favour of the doctrine exhibited (and
objected to) in pp. 124-127, and the extent of questions upon which it
bears, may be collected from the following quotation:--"A variety of other
considerations might be mentioned, which, although they do not singly
amount to proof, yet merit attention, as viewed in connexion with what has
been already stated.

"As so great a part of the eastern coast of what is now called England was
so early peopled by the Belgæ, it is hardly conceivable that neither so
enterprising a people, nor any of their kindred tribes, should ever think
of extending their descents a little farther eastward. For that the Belgæ
and the inhabitants of the countries bordering on the Baltic, had a common
origin, there seems to be little reason to doubt. The Dutch assert that
their progenitors were Scandinavians, who, about a century before the
common era, left Jutland and the neighbouring territories, in quest of new
habitations.[29] The Saxons must be viewed as a branch from the same stock;
for they also proceeded from modern Jutland and its vicinity. Now, there is
nothing repugnant to reason in supposing that some of these tribes should
pass over directly to the coast of Scotland opposite to them, even before
the Christian era. For Mr. Whitaker admits that the Saxons, whom he
strangely makes a Gaulic people, in the second century applied themselves
to navigation, and soon became formidable to the Romans.[30] Before they
could become formidable to so powerful a people, they must have been at
least so well acquainted with navigation as to account it no great
enterprise to cross from the shores of the Baltic over to Scotland,
especially if they took the islands of Shetland and Orkney in their way.

"As we have seen that, according to Ptolemy, there were, in his time,
different tribes of Belgæ, settled on the northern {134} extremity of our
country: the most natural idea undoubtedly is, that they came directly from
the Continent. For had these Belgæ crossed the English Channel, according
to the common progress of barbarous nations, it is scarcely supposable that
this island would have been settled to its utmost extremity so early as the
age of Agricola.

"There is every reason to believe, that the Belgic tribes in Caledonia,
described by Ptolemy, were Picts. For as the Belgæ, Picts, and Saxons seem
to have had a common origin, it is not worth while to differ about names.
These frequently arise from causes so trivial, that their origin becomes
totally inscrutable to succeeding ages. The Angles, although only one
tribe, have accidentally given their name to the country which they
invaded, and to all the descendants of the Saxons and Belgæ, who were by
far more numerous.

"It is universally admitted, that there is a certain national character, of
an external kind, which distinguishes one people from another. This is
often so strong that those who have travelled through various countries, or
have accurately marked the diversities of this character, will scarcely be
deceived even as to a straggling individual. Tacitus long ago remarked the
striking resemblance between the Germans and Caledonians. Every stranger,
at this day, observes the great difference and complexion between the
Highlanders and Lowlanders. No intelligent person in England is in danger
of confounding the Welsh with the posterity of the Saxons. Now, if the
Lowland Scots be not a Gothic race, but in fact the descendants of the
ancient British, they must be supposed to retain some national resemblance
of the Welsh. But will any impartial observer venture to assert, that in
feature, complexion, or form, there is any such similarity as to induce the
slightest apprehension that they have been originally the same people?"[31]

It is doubtful, however, whether Cæsar meant to say more than that over
above certain differences which distinguished the Belgæ from the other
inhabitants of the common country _Gallia_, there was an intermixture of
Germans.

{135}

The import of a possibly Germanic origin for the Belgæ gives us the import
of a possibly Germanic origin for--

§ 193. _The Caledonians._--A speculative sentence of Tacitus indicates the
chance of the Caledonians being Germanic:--"_Britanniam qui mortales initio
coluerint, indigenæ an advecti, ut inter barbaros, parum compertum. Habitus
corporum varii: atque ex eo argumenta: namque rutilæ Caledoniam habitantium
comæ, magni artus, Germanicam originem adseverant._"--Agricola, xi.

The continuation of the passage quoted in § 193 has induced the notion that
there have been in Britain Spanish, Iberic, or Basque tribes:--"_Silurum
colorati vultus, et torti plerumque crines, et posita contra Hispania,
Iberos veteres trajecisse, easque sedes occupâsse fidem
faciunt._"--Agricola, xi.

As this, although an opinion connected with the history of the languages of
Great Britain, is not an opinion connected with the history of the English
language, it is a question for the Celtic, rather than the Gothic,
philologist. The same applies to the points noticed in §§ 136-138.
Nevertheless they are necessary for the purposes of minute philological
analysis.

§ 194. As early as the year A.D. 1676, an opinion was advanced by[32]
Aylett Sammes, in a work entitled Britannia Antiqua Illustrata, that the
first colonisers of Ireland were the merchants of Tyre and Sidon. In
confirmation of this opinion the existence of several Eastern customs in
Ireland was adduced by subsequent antiquarians. Further marks of an Eastern
origin of the Irish were soon found in the Gaelic dialect of that country.
Finally, the matter (in the eyes at least of the national writers) was
satisfactorily settled by the famous discovery, attributed to General
Vallancey, of the true meaning of the Carthaginian lines in Plautus.

In the Little Carthaginian (Poenulus) of the Latin comic writer Plautus, a
portion of the dialogue is carried on in the language of Carthage.

That the Punic language of Carthage should closely {136} resemble that of
the mother-city Tyre, which was Phoenician; and that the Phoenician of Tyre
should be allied to the language of Palestine and Syria, was soon remarked
by the classical commentators of the time. Joseph Scaliger asserted that
the Punic of the Poenulus _differed but little from pure Hebrew_--"_Ab
Hebraismi puritate parum abesse._"

Emendated and interpreted by Bochart, the first ten lines of a speech in
Act v. s. 1. stand thus:--

  1. N' yth alionim valionuth sicorath jismacon sith
  2. Chy-mlachai jythmu mitslia mittebariim ischi
  3. Liphorcaneth yth beni ith jad adi ubinuthai
  4. Birua rob syllohom alonim ubymisyrtohom
  5. Bythrym moth ymoth othi helech Antidamarchon
  6. Ys sideli: brim tyfel yth chili schontem liphul
  7. Uth bin imys dibur thim nocuth nu' Agorastocles
  8. Ythem aneti hy chyr saely choc, sith naso.
  9. Binni id chi lu hilli gubylim lasibil thym
  10. Body aly thera ynn' yss' immoncon lu sim--

  _The Same, in Hebrew Characters._

  [Hebrew: N' 'T `LYWNYM W`LYWNWT SHKWRT YSMKWN Z'T:] .1
  [Hebrew: KY MLKY NTMW: MTSLYCH MDBRYHM `SQY:] .2
  [Hebrew: LPWRQNT 'T BNY 'T YD `DY WBNWTY:] .3
  [Hebrew: BRWCH RB SHLHM `LYWNYM WBMSHWRTHM:] .4
  [Hebrew: BT`RM MWT CHNWT 'WTY HLK 'NTYDMRKWN:] .5
  [Hebrew: 'YSH SHYD`LY: BRM T`PL 'T CHYLY SHKYNTM L'PL:] .6
  [Hebrew: 'T BN 'MYTS DBWR TM NQWT` NWH 'GWRST`WQLYS:] .7
  [Hebrew: CHWTM CHNWTY HW' KYWR SH'LY CHWQ Z'T NWSH':] .8
  [Hebrew: BYNY `D KY LW H'LH GBWLYM LSHBT TM:] .9
  [Hebrew: BW' DY `LY TR` 'N': HNW 'SH'L 'M MNKR LW 'M] .01

Six lines following these were determined to be _Liby_-Phoenician, or the
language of the native Africans in the neighbourhood of Carthage, mixed
with Punic. These, it was stated, had the same meaning with the ten lines
in Carthaginian.

The following lines of Plautus have, by all commentators, {137} been viewed
in the same light, _viz._ as the Latin version of the speech of the
Carthaginian.

  1. Deos deasque veneror, qui hanc urbem colunt,
  2. Ut, quod de mea re huc veni, rite venerim.
  3. Measque hic ut gnatas, et mei fratris filium
  4. Reperire me siritis: Di, vostram fidem!
  5. Quæ mihi surruptæ sunt, et fratris filium:
  6. Sed hic mihi antehac hospes Antidamas fuit.
  7. Eum fecisse aiunt, sibi quod faciendum fuit.
  8. Ejus filium hic esse prædicant Agorastoclem:
  9. Deum hospitalem et tesseram mecum fero:
  10. In hisce habitare monstratum est regionibus.
  11. Hos percunctabor, qui huc egrediuntur foras.

Guided by the metrical _paraphrase_ of the original author, Bochart laid
before the scholars of his time a Latin version, of which the following is
an English translation:--

_Close Translation of Bochart's Latin Version._

  1. I ask the gods and goddesses that preside over this city,
  2. That my plans may be fulfilled.--May my business prosper under their
      guidance!
  3. The release of my son and my daughters from the hands of a robber.
  4. May the gods grant this, through the mighty spirit that is in them and
      by their providence!
  5. Before his death, Antidamarchus used to sojourn with me.
  6. A man intimate with me: but he has joined the ranks of those whose
      dwelling is in darkness (the dead).
  7. There is a general report that his son has here taken his abode;
      _viz._ Agorastocles.
  8. The token (tally) of my claim to hospitality is a carven tablet, the
      sculpture whereof is my god. This I carry.
  9. A witness has informed me that he lives in this neighbourhood.
  10. Somebody comes this way through the gate: behold him: I'll ask him
      whether he knows the name.

To professed classics and to professed orientalists, the version of Bochart
has, _on the whole_, appeared satisfactory. Divisions of opinion there have
been, it is true, even amongst those who received it; but merely upon
matters of detail. Some have held that the Punic is Syriac rather than
Hebraic, whilst others have called in to its interpretation the Arabic,
{138} the Maltese, or the Chaldee; all (be it observed) languages akin to
the Hebrew. Those who look further than this for their affinities,
Gesenius[33] dismisses in the following cavalier and cursory manner:--"_Ne
eorum somnia memorem, qui e Vasconum et Hiberniæ linguis huic causæ
succurri posse opinati sunt; de quibus copiosius referre piget._"

The remark of Gesenius concerning the pretended affinities between the
Punic and Hibernian arose from the discovery attributed to General
Vallancey; _viz._ that the speech in Plautus was Irish Gaelic, and
consequently that the Irish was Carthaginian, and _vice versâ_. The word
_attributed_ is used because the true originator of the hypothesis was not
Vallancey, but O'Neachtan.

_The Gaelic Version._

  1. N 'iath all o nimh uath lonnaithe socruidshe me comsith
  2. Chimi lach chuinigh! muini is toil, miocht beiridh iar mo scith
  3. Liomhtha can ati bi mitche ad éadan beannaithe
  4. Bior nar ob siladh umhal: o nimh! ibhim a frotha!
  5. Beith liom! mo thime noctaithe; neil ach tan ti daisic mac coinme
  6. Is i de leabhraim tafach leith, chi lis con teampluibh ulla
  7. Uch bin nim i is de beart inn a ccomhnuithe Agorastocles!
  8. Itche mana ith a chithirsi; leicceath sith nosa!
  9. Buaine na iad cheile ile: gabh liom an la so bithim'!
  10. Bo dileachtach nionath n' isle, mon cothoil us im.

_In English._

  1. Omnipotent much-dreaded Deity of this country! assuage my troubled
      mind!
  2. Thou! the support of feeble captives! being now exhausted with
      fatigue, of thy free will guide to my children!
  3. O let my prayers be perfectly acceptable in thy sight!
  4. An inexhaustible fountain to the humble: O Deity! let me drink of its
      streams!
  5. Forsake me not! my earnest desire is now disclosed, which is only that
      of recovering my daughters.
  6. This was my fervent prayer, lamenting their misfortunes in thy sacred
      temples.
  7. O bounteous Deity! it is reported here dwelleth Agorastocles.
  {139}
  8. Should my request appear just, let here my disquietudes cease.
  9. Let them be no longer concealed; O that I may this day find my
      daughters!
  10. They will be fatherless, and preys to the worst of men, unless it be
      thy pleasure that I should find them.

From the quotations already given, the general reader may see that both the
text and the translation of Plautus are least violated in the reading and
rendering of Bochart, a reading and rendering which no _Gothic_ or
_Semitic_ scholar has ever set aside.

§ 195. _The hypothesis of an aboriginal Finnic population in Britain and
elsewhere._--A Celtic population of Britain preceded the Germanic. Are
there any reasons for believing that any older population preceded the
Celtic?

The reasoning upon this point is preeminently that of the Scandinavian
(_i.e._ Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian) school of philology and ethnology.

Arndt, I believe, was the first who argued that if the so-called
Indo-European nations were as closely connected with each other as they are
generally considered, their separation from the common stock must have been
subsequent to the occupation of Europe by some portion or other of the
human species--in other words, that this earlier population must have been
spread over those areas of which the Indo-Europeans took possession only at
a later period.

That the divisions of such an earlier population were, _at least_, as
closely connected with each other as the different members of the so-called
Indo-European class, was a reasonable opinion. It was even reasonable to
suppose that they were _more_ closely connected; since the date of their
diffusion must have been nearer the time of the original dispersion of
mankind.

If so, all Europe (the British Isles included) might have had as its
aborigines a family older than the oldest members of the Indo-European
stock; a family of which every member may now be extinct, or a family of
which remains may still survive.

Where are such remains to be sought? In two sorts of localities-- {140}

1. Parts _beyond_ the limits of the area occupied by the so-called
Indo-Europeans.

2. Parts _within_ the limits of the so-called Indo-Europeans; but so
fortified by nature as to have been the stronghold of a retiring
population.

What are the chief parts coming under the first of these conditions?

_a._ The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Scandinavian and
Slavonic areas, _i.e._ the countries of the Laplanders and Finnlanders.

_b._ The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Iranian stock, _i.e._
the Dekkan, or the country of those natives of India (whatever they may be)
whose languages are not derived from the Sanscrit.

What are parts coming under the second of these conditions?

_a._ The Basque districts of the Pyrenees, where the language represents
that of the aborigines of Spain anterior to the conquest of the Roman.

_b._ The Albanians.--Such the doctrine of the _continuity_ of an
_ante_-Indo-European population, from Cape Comorin to Lapland, and from
Lapland to the Pyrenees. There is _some_ philological evidence of this:
whether there is _enough_ is another matter.

This view, which on its _philological_ side has been taken up by Rask,
Kayser, and the chief Scandinavian scholars, and which, whether right or
wrong, is the idea of a bold and comprehensive mind, as well as a powerful
instrument of criticism in the way of a provisional theory, has also been
adopted on its _physiological_ side by the chief Scandinavian anatomists
and palæontologists--Retzius, Eschricht, Niilson, and others. Skulls
differing in shape from the Celtic skulls of Gaul, and from the Gothic
skulls of Germany and Scandinavia, have been found in considerable numbers;
and generally in burial-places of an apparently greater antiquity than
those which contain typical Celtic, or typical Gothic crania. Hence there
is some _anatomical_ as well as philological evidence: whether there is
enough is another question.

{141}

PART III.

SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING.

--------

CHAPTER I.

GENERAL NATURE OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.

§ 196. To two points connected with the subject of the following Chapter,
the attention of the reader is requested.

I. In the comparison of sounds the ear is liable to be misled by the eye.

The syllables _ka_ and _ga_ are similar syllables. The vowel is in each the
same, and the consonant is but slightly different. Now the words _ka_ and
_ga_ are more allied to each other than the words _ka_ and _ba_, _ka_ and
_ta_, &c., because the consonantal sounds of _k_ and _g_ are more allied
than the consonantal sounds of _k_ and _b_, _k_ and _t_.

Comparing the syllables _ga_ and _ka_, we see the affinity between the
sounds, and we see it at the first glance. It lies on the surface, and
strikes the ear at once.

It is, however, very evident that ways might be devised, or might arise
from accident, of concealing the likeness between the two sounds, or, at
any rate, of making it less palpable. One of such ways would be a faulty
mode of spelling. If instead of _ga_ we wrote _gha_ the following would be
the effect: the syllable would appear less simple than it really was; it
would look as if it consisted of three parts instead of two, and
consequently its affinity to _ka_ would seem less than it really was. It is
perfectly true that a little consideration would tell us that, as long as
the sound remained the same, the relation {142} of the two syllables
remained the same; and that, if the contrary appeared to be the case, the
ear was misled by the eye. Still a little consideration would be required.
Now in the English language we have, amongst others, the following modes of
spelling that have a tendency to mislead:--

The sounds of _ph_ and of _f_, in _Philip_ and _fillip_, differ to the eye,
but to the ear are identical. Here a difference is simulated.

The sounds of _th_ in _thin_, and of _th_ in _thine_, differ to the ear,
but to the eye seem the same. Here a difference is concealed.

These last sounds appear to the eye to be double or compound. This is not
the case; they are simple single sounds, and not the sounds of _t_ followed
by _h_, as the spelling leads us to imagine.

II. Besides improper modes of spelling, there is another way of concealing
the true nature of sounds. If I say that _ka_ and _ga_ are allied, the
alliance is manifest; since I compare the actual sounds. If I say _ka_ and
_gee_ are allied, the alliance is concealed; since I compare, not the
actual sounds, but only the names of the letters that express those sounds.
Now in the English language we have, amongst others, the following names of
letters that have a tendency to mislead:--

The sounds _fa_ and _va_ are allied. The names _eff_ and _vee_ conceal this
alliance.

The sounds _sa_ and _za_ are allied. The names _ess_ and _zed_ conceal the
alliance.

In comparing sounds it is advisable to have nothing to do either with
letters or names of letters. Compare the sounds themselves.

In many cases it is sufficient, in comparing consonants, to compare
syllables that contain those consonants; _e.g._, to determine the relations
of _p_, _b_, _f_, _v_, we say _pa_, _ba_, _fa_, _va_; or for those of _s_
and _z_, we say _sa_, _za_. Here we compare _syllables_, each consonant
being followed by a vowel. At times this is insufficient. We are often
obliged to isolate the consonant from its vowel, and bring our organs to
utter (or half utter) imperfect sounds of _p'_, _b'_, _t'_, _d'_. In doing
this we isolate the consonant. {143}

§ 197. Let any of the _vowels_ (for instance, the _a_ in _father_) be
sounded. The lips, the tongue, and the parts within the throat remain in
the same position: and as long as these remain in the same position the
sound is that of the vowel under consideration. Let, however, a change take
place in the position of the organs of sound; let, for instance, the lips
be closed, or the tongue be applied to the front part of the mouth: in that
case the vowel sound is cut short. It undergoes a change. It terminates in
a sound that is different, according to the state of those organs whereof
the position has been changed. If, on the vowel in question, the lips be
closed, there then arises an imperfect sound of _b_ or _p_. If, on the
other hand, the tongue be applied to the front teeth, or to the fore part
of the palate, the sound is one (more or less imperfect) of _t_ or d. This
fact illustrates the difference between the vowels and the consonants. It
may be verified by pronouncing the _a_ in _fate_, _ee_ in _feet_, _oo_ in
_book_, _o_ in _note_, &c.

It is a further condition in the formation of a vowel sound, that the
passage of the breath be uninterrupted. In the sound of the _l'_ in _lo_
(isolated from its vowel) the sound is as continuous as it is with the _a_
in _fate_. Between, however, the consonant _l_ and the vowel _a_ there is
this difference: with _a_, the passage of the breath is uninterrupted; with
_l_, the tongue is applied to the palate, breaking or arresting the passage
of the breath.

§ 198. The primary division of our articulate sounds is into vowels and
consonants. The latter are again divided into liquids (_l_, _m_, _n_, _r_)
and mutes (_p_, _b_, _f_, _v_, _t_, _d_, _g_, _s_, _z_, &c.) _Definitions_
for the different sorts of articulate sounds have still to be laid down. In
place of these, we have general assertions concerning the properties and
qualities of the respective classes. Concerning the consonants as a class,
we may predicate one thing concerning the liquids, and concerning the
mutes, another. What the nature of these assertions is, will be seen after
the explanation of certain terms.

§ 199. _Sharp and flat._--Take the sounds of _p_, _f_, _t_, _k_, _s_;
isolate them from their vowels, and pronounce them. The sound is the sound
of a whisper. {144}

Let _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, _z_, be similarly treated. The sound is no whisper,
but one at the natural tone of our voice.

Now _p_, _f_, _t_, _k_, _s_ (with some others that will be brought forward
anon) are _sharp_, whilst _b_, _v_, &c. are _flat_. Instead of _sharp_,
some say _hard_, and instead of _flat_, some say _soft_. The Sanskrit terms
_sonant_ and _surd_ are, in a scientific point of view, the least
exceptionable. They have, however, the disadvantage of being pedantic. The
_tenues_ of the classics (as far as they go) are sharp, the _mediæ_ flat.

_Continuous and explosive._--Isolate the sounds of _b_, _p_, _t_, _d_, _k_,
_g_. Pronounce them. You have no power of prolonging the sounds, or of
resting upon them. They escape with the breath, and they escape at once.

It is not so with _f_, _v_, _sh_, _zh_. Here the breath is transmitted by
degrees, and the sound can be drawn out and prolonged for an indefinite
space of time. Now _b_, _p_, _t_, &c. are explosive _f_, _v_, &c.
continuous.

§ 200. Concerning the vowels, we may predicate _a_) that they are all
continuous, _b_) that they are all flat.

Concerning the liquids, we may predicate _a_) that they are all continuous,
_b_) that they are all flat.

Concerning the mutes, we may predicate _a_) that one half of them is flat,
and the other half sharp, and _b_) that some are continuous, and that
others are explosive.

§ 201.--The letter _h_ is no articulate sound, but only a breathing.

For the semivowels and the diphthongs, see the sequel.

{145}

CHAPTER II.

SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.

§ 202.--The attention of the reader is now directed to the following
_foreign_ vowel sounds.

1. _é fermé_, of the French.--This is a sound allied to, but different
from, the _a_ in _fate_, and the _ee_ in _feet_. It is intermediate to the
two.

2. _u_ of the French, _ü_ of the Germans, _y_ of the Danes.--This sound is
intermediate to the _ee_ in _feet_, and the _oo_ in _book_.

3. _o chiuso_, of the Italians.--Intermediate to the _o_ in _note_, and the
_oo_ in _book_.

For these sounds we have the following sequences: _a_ in _fate_, _é fermé_,
_ee_ in _feet_, _ü_ in _übel_ (German), _oo_ in _book_, _o chiuso_, _o_ in
_note_. And this is the true order of alliance among the vowels; _a_ in
_fate_, and _o_ in _note_, being the extremes; the other sounds being
transitional or intermediate. As the English orthography is at once
singular and faulty, it exhibits the relationship but imperfectly.

§ 203. _The system of the mutes._--Preliminary to the consideration of the
system of the mutes, let it be observed:--

1. that the _th_ in _thin_ is a simple single sound, different from the
_th_ in _thine_, and that it may be expressed by the sign þ.

2. That the _th_ in _thine_ is a simple single sound, different from the
_th_ in _thin_, and that it may be expressed by the sign ð.

3. That the _sh_ in _shine_ is a simple single sound, and that it may be
expressed by the sign [sigma] (Greek [Greek: sigma]).

4. That the _z_ in _azure_, _glazier_ (French _j_), is a simple single
sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign [zeta] (Greek [Greek:
zêta]). {146}

5. That in the Laplandic, and possibly in many other languages, there are
two peculiar sounds, different from any in English, German, and French,
&c., and that they may respectively be expressed by the sign _[kappa]_ and
the sign _[gamma]_ (Greek [Greek: kappa] and [Greek: gamma]).

With these preliminary notices we may exhibit the system of the sixteen
mutes; having previously determined the meaning of two fresh terms, and
bearing in mind what was said concerning the words sharp and flat,
continuous and explosive.

_Lene and aspirate._--From the sound of _p_ in _pat_, the sound of _f_ in
_fat_ differs in a certain degree. This difference is not owing to a
difference in their sharpness or flatness. Each is sharp. Neither is it
owing to a difference in their continuity or explosiveness; although, at
the first glance, such might appear to be the case. _F_ is continuous,
whilst _p_ is explosive. _S_, however, is continuous, and _s_, in respect
to the difference under consideration, is classed not with _f_ the
continuous sound but with _p_ the explosive one. I am unable to account for
the difference between _p_ and _f_. It exists: it is visible. It has been
expressed by a term. _P_ is called _lene_, _f_ is called _aspirate_.

  As _f_ is to _p_ so is _v_ to b.
  As _v_ is to _b_ so is _þ_ to _t_.
  As _þ_ is to _t_ so is _ð_ to d.
  As _ð_ is to _d_ so is _[kappa]_ to _k_.
  As _[kappa]_ is to _k_ so is _[gamma]_ to _g_.
  As _[gamma]_ is to _g_ so is _[sigma]_ to _s_.
  As _[sigma]_ is to _s_ so is _[zeta]_ to _z_.

Hence _p_, _b_, _t_, _d_, _k_, _g_, _s_, _z_, are _lene_; _f_, _v_, _þ_,
_ð_, _[kappa]_, _[gamma]_, _[sigma]_, _[zeta]_, are _aspirate_. Also _p_,
_f_, _t_, _þ_, _k_, _[kappa]_, _s_, _[sigma]_, are _sharp_, whilst _b_,
_v_, _d_, _ð_, _g_, _[gamma]_, _z_, _[zeta]_, are _flat_; so that there is
a double series of relationship capable of being expressed as follows:--

      _Lene_.              _Aspirate_.
  _Sharp_. _Flat_.      _Sharp_.  _Flat_.
    _p_     _b_          _f_       _v_
    _t_     _d_          _þ_       _ð_
    _k_     _g_          _[kappa]_ _[gamma]_
    _s_     _z_          _[sigma]_ _[zeta]_

       _Sharp_.             _Flat_.
  _Lene_. _Aspirate_.  _Lene_.  _Aspirate_
    _p_     _f_          _b_       _v_
    _t_     _þ_          _d_       _ð_
    _k_     _[kappa]_    _g_       _[gamma]_
    _s_     _[sigma]_    _z_       _[zeta]_

{147}

I am not familiar enough with the early grammarians to know when the terms
_lene_ and _aspirate_ were first used. They were the Latin equivalents to
the Greek words [Greek: psilon] (_psilon_) and [Greek: dasu] (_dasy_)
respectively. The Greek terms are preferable. _They_ convey no determinate
idea, whereas the Latin terms convey a false one. The origin of the word
aspirate I imagine to be as follows. The Latin language, wanting both the
sound of the Greek _theta_, and the sign to express it (_[theta]_) rendered
it by _th_. This orthography engenders the false notion that _[theta]_
differed from _[tau]_ by the addition of the aspirate _h_. To guard against
similar false notions, I rarely hereafter use the word aspirate without
qualifying it by the addition of the adjective _so-called_.

All the so-called aspirates are continuous; and, with the exception of _s_
and _z_, all the lenes are explosive.

I believe that in the fact of each mute appearing in a fourfold form
(_i.e._ sharp, or flat, lene, or (so-called) aspirate), lies the essential
character of the mutes as opposed to the liquids.

_Y_ and _w_.--These sounds, respectively intermediate to _[gamma]_ and _i_
(the _ee_ in _feet_), and to _[upsilon]_ and _u_ (_oo_ in _book_), form a
transition from the vowels to the consonants.

§ 204. It has been seen that the sixteen mutes are reducible to four
series. Of these series, _p_, _t_, _k_, _s_, may respectively be taken as
the types. Of the liquids it may be predicated as follows:--

1. That _m_ is allied to the series _p_.--The combination _inp_ has a
tendency to become _imp_.

2. That _n_ is allied to the series _t_.--The combination _imt_ has a
tendency to become either _impt_, or _int_.

3. That _l_ is allied to the series _k_.--The evidence of this lies deep in
comparative philology.

4. That _r_ is allied to the series _s_.--The evidence of this is of the
same nature with that of the preceding assertion.

The series _p_ and _k_ have this peculiarity.--They are connected with the
vowels through _w_ and _u_ (_oo_), and through _y_ and _i_ (_ee_)
respectively.

§ 205. The French word _roi_ and the English words _oil_, {148} _house_,
are specimens of a fresh class of articulations; _viz._, of compound vowel
sounds or _diphthongs_. The diphthong _oi_ is the vowel _o_ modified, plus
the _semi_vowel _y_ (not the _vowel_ _i_) modified. The diphthongal sound
in _roi_ is the vowel _o_ modified, _plus_ the semivowel _w_ (not the vowel
_u_ or _oo_) modified. In _roi_ the semivowel element precedes, in _oil_ it
follows. In _roi_ it is the semivowel allied to series _p_; in _oil_ it is
the semivowel allied to series _k_. _The nature of the modification that
the component parts of a diphthong undergo has yet to be determined_;
although it is certain there is one. If it were not so, the articulations
would be _double_, not _compound_.

The words quoted indicate the nature of the diphthongal system.

1. Diphthongs with the semivowel _w_, _a_) _preceding_, as in the French
word _roi_, _b_) _following_, as in the English word _new_.

2. Diphthongs with the semivowel _y_, _a_) _preceding_, as is common in the
languages of the Lithuanic and Slavonic stocks, _b_) _following_, as in the
word _oil_.

3. Triphthongs with a semivowel both _preceding_ and _following_.

The diphthongs in English are four; _ow_ as in _house_, _ew_ as in _new_,
_oi_ as in _oil_, _i_ as in _bite_, _fight_.

§ 206. _Chest_, _jest_.--Here we have compound consonantal sounds. The _ch_
in _chest_ is _t_ + _sh_ ([sigma]), the _j_ in _jest_ is _d_ + _zh_
([zeta]). I believe that in these combinations one or both the elements,
_viz._, _t_ and _sh_, _d_ and _zh_, are modified; but I am unable to state
the exact nature of this modification.

§ 207. _Ng._--The sound of the _ng_ in _sing_, _king_, _throng_, when at
the end of a word, or of _singer_, _ringing_, &c. in the middle of a word,
is not the natural sound of the combination _n_ and _g_, each letter
retaining its natural power and sound; but a simple single sound, of which
the combination _ng_ is a conventional mode of expressing.

§ 208. Other terms, chiefly relating to the vowels, have still to be
explained. The _é_ of the French has been called _fermé_, or _close_
(Italian, _chiuso_). Its opposite, the _a_ in _fate_, is _open_.

Compared with _a_ in _fate_, and the _o_ in _note_, _a_ in _father_, {149}
and the _aw_ in _bawl_, are _broad_, the vowels of _note_ and _fate_ being
_slender_.

§ 209. In _fat_, the vowel is, according to common parlance, _short_; in
_fate_, it is _long_. Here we have the introduction of two fresh terms. For
the words _long_ and _short_, I would fain substitute _independent_ and
_dependent_. If from the word _fate_ I separate the final consonantal
sound, the syllable, _fa_ remains. In this syllable the _a_ has precisely
the sound that it had before. It remains unaltered. The removal of the
consonant has in nowise modified its sound or power. It is not so with the
vowel in the word _fat_. If from this I remove the consonant following, and
so leave the _a_ at the end of the syllable, instead of in the middle, I
must do one of two things: I must sound it either as the _a_ in _fate_, or
else as the _a_ in _father_. Its (so-called) short sound it cannot retain,
unless it be supported by a consonant following. For this reason it is
_dependent_. The same is the case with all the so-called short sounds,
_viz._, the _e_ in _bed_, _i_ in _fit_, _u_ in _bull_, _o_ in _not_, _u_ in
_but_.

To the preceding remarks the following statements may be added.

1. That the words _independent_ and _dependent_ correspond with the terms
_perfect_ and _imperfect_ of the Hebrew grammarians.

2. That the Hebrew grammars give us the truest notions respecting these
particular properties of vowels.

The following sentences are copied from Lee's Hebrew Grammar, Art. 33,
34:--"By _perfect vowels_ is meant, vowels which, being preceded by a
consonant" (_or without being so preceded_), "will constitute a complete
syllable, as [Hebrew: BA] _b[=a]_. By _imperfect vowels_ is meant those
vowels which are not generally" (_never_) "found to constitute syllables
without either the addition of a consonant or of an accent. Such syllables,
therefore, must be either like [Hebrew: BDA] _bad_, or [Hebrew: BA]
_b[=a]_, _i.e._, followed by a consonant, or accompanied by an accent." For
further remarks on this subject, see the chapter on accent.

§ 210. Before _i_, _e_, and _y_ of the English alphabet, and before _ü_ and
_ö_ German, the letters _c_ and _g_ have the tendency to assume the sound
and power of _s_ or _z_, of _sh_ or _zh_, of _ch_ or _j_; {150} in other
words, of becoming either _s_ or some sound allied to _s_. Compared with
_a_, _o_, and _u_ (as in _gat_, _got_, _gun_), which are _full_, _i_, _e_,
_y_, are _small_ vowels.

It not every vowel that is susceptible of every modification. _I_ (_ee_)
and _u_ (_oo_) are incapable of becoming broad. _E_ in _bed_ (as I have
convinced myself), although both broad and slender, is incapable of
becoming independent. For the _u_ in _but_, and for the _ö_ of certain
foreign languages, I have no satisfactory systematic position.

§ 211. _Vowel System._

     _Broad._           |                       _Slender._
                        |                           |
  _Independent._        |_Independent._             | _Dependent._
                        |                           |
  _a_, in _father_      |_a_, in _fate_             |_a_, in _fat_.
                        |_e fermé_, _long_          |_e fermé_, _short_.
  _e_, in _meine_, Germ.|                           |_e_, in _bed_.
                        |_ee_, in _feet_            |_i_, in _pit_.
                        |_ü_, of the German, _long_ |the same, _short_.
                        |_oo_, in _book_            |_ou_, in _could_.
                        |_o chiuso_                 |the same, _short_.
  _aw_, in _bawl_       |_o_, in _note_             |_o_, in _note_.

From these, the semivowels _w_ and _y_ make a transition to the consonants
_v_ and the so-called aspirate of _g_ ([gamma], not being in English),
respectively.

§ 212. _System of Consonants._

  _Liquids._ |               _Mutes._                 | _Semivowels._
             |                                        |
             |      _Lene._      |     _Aspirate._    |
             |                   |                    |
             | _Sharp._  _Flat._ | _Sharp._   _Flat._ |
             |                   |                    |
     _m_     |  _p_       _b_    |  _f_        _v_    |      _w_
     _n_     |  _t_       _d_    |  _þ_        _ð_    |
     _l_     |  _k_       _g_    |  [kappa]  [gamma]  |      _y_
     _r_     |  _s_       _z_    |  [sigma]  [zeta]   |

§ 213. Concerning the vowel system I venture no assertion. The consonantal
system I conceive to have been exhibited above in its whole fulness. The
number of mutes, _specifically_ distinct, I consider to be sixteen and no
more: the number of liquids, four. What then are the powers of the numerous
letters in alphabets like those of Arabia and Armenia? What {151} is the
German _ch_, and Irish _gh_? _Varieties_ of one or other of the sounds
exhibited above, and not articulations specifically distinct.

§ 214. There is a _difference between a connexion in phonetics and a
connexion in grammar_.--Phonetics is a word expressive of the
subject-matter of the present chapter. The present chapter determines
(amongst other things) the systematic relation of articulate sounds. The
word _phônæticos_ ([Greek: phônêtichos]) signifies _appertaining to
articulate sounds_. It is evident that between sounds like _b_ and _v_, _s_
and _z_, there is a connexion in phonetics. Now in the grammar of languages
there is often a change, or a permutation of letters: _e.g._, in the words
_tooth_, _teeth_, the vowel, in _price_, _prize_, the consonant, is
changed. Here there is a connexion in grammar.

That the letters most closely allied in phonetics should be most frequently
interchanged in grammar, is what, on _à priori_ grounds, we most naturally
are led to expect. And that such is _often_ the case, the study of
languages tells us. That, however, it is always so, would be a hasty and an
erroneous assertion. The Greek language changes _p_ into _f_. Here the
connexion in phonetics and the connexion in language closely coincide. The
Welsh language changes _p_ into _m_. Here the connexion in phonetics and
the connexion in language do _not_ closely coincide.

{152}

CHAPTER III.

OF CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.

§ 215. Certain combinations of articulate sounds are incapable of being
pronounced. The following rule is one that, in the forthcoming pages, will
frequently be referred to. _Two (or more) _mutes_, of different degrees of
sharpness and flatness, are incapable of coming together in the same
syllable._ For instance, _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, _z_, &c. being flat, and _p_,
_f_, _t_, _k_, _s_, &c. being sharp, such combinations as _abt_, _avt_,
_apd_, _afd_, _agt_, _akd_, _atz_, _ads_, &c., are unpronounceable.
_Spelt_, indeed, they may be; but attempts at pronunciation end in a
_change_ of the combination. In this case either the flat letter is changed
to its sharp equivalent (_b_ to _p_, _d_ to _t_, &c.) or _vice versâ_ (_p_
to _b_, _t_ to _d_). The combinations _abt_, and _agt_, to be pronounced,
must become either _apt_ or _abd_, or else _akt_ or _agd_.

For determining which of the two letters shall be changed, in other words,
whether it shall be the first that accommodates itself to the second, or
the second that accommodates itself to the first, there are no general
rules. This is settled by the particular habit of the language in
consideration.

The word _mutes_ in the second sentence of this section must be dwelt on.
It is only with the _mutes_ that there is an impossibility of pronouncing
the heterogeneous combinations above mentioned. The liquids and the vowels
are flat; but the liquids and vowels, although flat, may be followed by a
sharp consonant. If this were not the case, the combinations _ap_, _at_,
_alp_, _alt_, &c. would be unpronounceable.

The semivowels, although flat, admit of being followed by a sharp
consonant.

The law exhibited above may be called the law of accommodation. {153}

Combinations like _gt_, _kd_, &c., may be called incompatible combinations.

§ 216. _Unstable combinations._--That certain sounds in combination with
others have a tendency to undergo changes, may be collected from the
observation of our own language, as we find it spoken by those around us,
or by ourselves. The _ew_ in _new_ is a sample of what may be called an
unsteady or unstable combination. There is a natural tendency to change it
either into _oo_ (_noo_) or _yoo_ (_nyoo_); perhaps also into _yew_
(_nyew_).

§ 217. _Effect of the semivowel _y_ on certain letters when they precede
it._--Taken by itself the semivowel _y_, followed by a vowel (_ya_, _yee_,
_yo_, _you_, &c.), forms a stable combination. Not so, however, if it be
preceded by a consonant, of the series _t_, _k_, or _s_, as _tya_, _tyo_;
_dya_, _dyo_; _kya_, _kyo_; _sya_, _syo_. There then arises an unstable
combination. _Sya_ and _syo_ we pronounce as _sha_ and _sho_; _tya_ and
_tyo_ we pronounce as _cha_ and _ja_ (_i.e._ _tsh_, _dzh_.). This we may
verify from our pronunciation of words like _sure_, _picture_, _verdure_
(_shoor_, _pictshoor_, _verdzhoor_), having previously remarked that the
_u_ in those words is not sounded as _oo_ but as _yoo_. The effect of the
semivowel _y_, taken with instability of the combination _ew_, accounts for
the tendency to pronounce _dew_ as if written _jew_.

§ 218. _The evolution of new sounds._--To an English ear the sound of the
German _ch_ falls strange. To an English organ it is at first difficult to
pronounce. The same is the case with the German vowels _ö_ and _ü_ and with
the French sounds _u_, _eu_, &c.

To a German, however, and a Frenchman, the sound of the English _th_
(either in _thin_ or _thine_) is equally a matter of difficulty.

The reason of this lies in the fact of the respective sounds being absent
in the German, French, and English languages; since sounds are easy or hard
to pronounce just in proportion as we have been familiarised with them.

There is no instance of a new sound being introduced at once into a
language. Where they originate at all, they are _evolved_, not imported.
{154}

§ 219. _Evolution of sounds._--Let there be a language where there is no
such a sound as that of _z_, but where there is the sound of _s_. The sound
of _z_ may be evolved under (amongst others) the following conditions. 1.
Let there be a number of words ending in the flat mutes; as _slab_, _stag_,
_stud_, &c. 2. Let a certain form (the plural number or the genitive case)
be formed by the addition of _is_ or _es_; as _slabis_, _stages_, _studes_,
&c. 3. Let the tendency that words have to contract eject the intermediate
vowel, _e_ or _i_, so that the _s_ of the inflexion (a _sharp_ mute) and
the _b_, _d_, _g_, &c. of the original word (_flat_ mutes) be brought into
juxta-position, _slabs_, _studs_, _stags_. There is then an incompatible
termination, and one of two changes must take place; either _b_, _d_, or
_g_ must become _p_, _t_, or _k_ (_slaps_, _staks_, _stuts_); or _s_ must
become _z_ (_stagz_, _studz_, _slabz_). In this latter case _z_ is evolved.
Again,

Let there be a language wherein there are no such sounds as _sh_, _ch_
(_tsh_), or _j_ (_dzh_); but where there are the sounds of _s_, _t_, _d_,
and _y_.

Let a change affect the unstable combinations _sy_, _ty_, _dy_. From this
will arise the evolved sounds of _sh_, _ch_, and _j_.

The phenomena of evolution help to determine the pronunciation of dead
languages.

§ 220. _On the value of a sufficient system of sounds._--In certain
imaginable cases, a language may be materially affected by the paucity of
its elementary articulate sounds.

In a given language let there be the absence of the sound _z_, the other
conditions being those noted in the case of the words _stag_, _slab_,
_stud_, &c. Let the intermediate vowel be ejected. Then, instead of the _s_
being changed into an evolved _z_, let the other alternative take place; so
that the words become _staks_, _slaps_, _stuts_. In this latter case we
have an alteration of the original word, brought about by the insufficiency
of the system of articulate sounds.

§ 221. _Double consonants rare._--It cannot be too clearly understood that
in words like _pitted_, _stabbing_, _massy_, &c. there is no real
reduplication of the sounds of _t_, _b_, and _s_, respectively. Between the
words _pitted_ (as with the small-pox) and _pitied_ (as being an object of
pity) there is a difference in {155} spelling only. In speech the words are
identical. _The reduplication of the consonant is in English, and the
generality of languages, a conventional mode of expressing upon paper the
shortness (dependence) of the vowel that precedes._

§ 222. Real reduplications of consonants, _i.e._, reduplications of their
_sound_, are, in all languages, extremely rare. I am fully aware of certain
statements made respecting the Laplandic and Finlandic languages, _viz._,
that doubled consonants are, in them, of common occurrence. Notwithstanding
this, I have an impression that it is generally under one condition that
true reduplication takes place. In compound and derived words, where the
original root _ends_, and the superadded affix _begins_ with the same
letter, there is a reduplication of the sound, and not otherwise. In the
word _soulless_, the _l_ is doubled to the ear as well as to the eye; and
it is a false pronunciation to call it _souless_ (_soless_). In the
"Deformed Transformed" it is made to rhyme with _no less_, improperly.

  "Clay, not dead but soulless,
    Though no mortal man would choose thee,
  An immortal no less
    Deigns not to refuse thee."

In the following words, all of which are compounds, we have true specimens
of the doubled consonant.

  _n_ is doubled in _unnatural_, _innate_, _oneness_.
  _l_      --       _soulless_, _civil-list_, _palely_.
  _k_      --       _book-case_.
  _t_      --       _seaport-town_.

It must not, however, be concealed, that, in the mouths even of correct
speakers, one of the doubled sounds is often dropped.

§ 223. _True aspirates rare._--The criticism applied to words like
_pitted_, &c., applies also to words like _Philip_, _thin_, _thine_, &c.
There is therein no sound of _h_. How the so-called aspirates differ from
their corresponding lenes has not yet been determined. That it is _not_ by
the addition of _h_ is evident. _Ph_ and _th_ are conventional modes of
spelling simple single sounds, which might better be expressed by simple
single signs. {156}

In our own language the _true_ aspirates, like the true duplications, are
found only in compound words; and there they are often slurred in the
pronunciation.

  We find _p_ and _h_ in the words _haphazard_, _upholder_.
    --    _b_ and _h_      --      _abhorrent_, _cub-hunting_.
    --    _f_ and _h_      --      _knife-handle_, _offhand_.
    --    _v_ and _h_      --      _stave-head_.
    --    _d_ and _h_      --      _adhesive_, _childhood_.
    --    _t_ and _h_      --      _nuthook_.
    --    _th_ and _h_     --      _withhold_.
    --    _k_ and _h_      --      _inkhorn_, _bakehouse_.
    --    _g_ and _h_      --      _gig-horse_.
    --    _s_ and _h_      --      _race-horse_, _falsehood_.
    --    _z_ and _h_      --      _exhibit_, _exhort_.
    --    _r_ and _h_      --      _perhaps_.
    --    _l_ and _h_      --      _well-head_, _foolhardy_.
    --    _m_ and _h_      --      _Amherst_.
    --    _n_ and _h_      --      _unhinge_, _inherent_, _unhappy_.

Now in certain languages the _true_ aspirates are of common occurrence,
_i.e._, sounds like the _t_ in _nuthook_, the _ph_ in _haphazard_, &c., are
as frequent as the sounds of _p_, _b_, _s_, &c. In the spelling of these
sounds by means of the English we are hampered by the circumstance of _th_
and _ph_ being already used in a different sense.

{157}

CHAPTER IV.

EUPHONY; THE PERMUTATION AND THE TRANSITION OF LETTERS.

§ 224. 1. Let there be two syllables, of which the one ends in _m_, and the
other begins with _r_, as we have in the syllables _num-_ and _-rus_ of the
Latin word _numerus_.

2. Let an ejection of the intervening letters bring these two syllables
into immediate contact, _numrus_. The _m_ and _r_ form an unstable
combination. To remedy this there is a tendency (mark, not an absolute
necessity) to insert an intervening sound.

In English, the form which the Latin word _numerus_ takes is _num_b_er_; in
Spanish, _nom_b_re_. The _b_ makes no part of the original word, but has
been inserted for the sake of euphony; or, to speak more properly, by a
euphonic process. The word euphony is derived from [Greek: eu] (_well_),
and [Greek: phônê] (_fônæ_, a voice). The province of euphony has not been
very accurately determined.

§ 225. In the word _number_, _nombre_, the letter inserted was _b_; and for
_b_ being the particular letter employed, there is a reason derived from
the _system_ of articulate sounds.

1. That the letter inserted should be a consonant is evident. The _vowel_
_e_ (in _num_e_rus_) had been previously ejected.

2. That it should be a mute is evident. A liquid would have given the
unstable or unpronounceable combinations _mnr_, _mlr_, _mrr_, _mmr_.

3. That it should be a consonant, either of series _b_ or of series _s_,
was natural; it being series _b_ and series _s_ with which _m_ and _r_ are
respectively connected.

4. That it should be a consonant of series _b_, rather than one of series
_s_, we collect from the fact that _msr_ (_numsrus_) or _mzr_ (_numzrus_)
give inharmonious, and, consequently, unstable combinations. {158}

5. That of the _b_ series, it should be _b_ or _v_ (flat) rather than _p_
or _f_ (sharp), we infer from the fact of _m_ and _r_ both being flat.

6. Of _v_ and _b_, the latter alone gives a stable combination, so that we
have the Spanish form _nom_b_re_, and not _nom_v_re_.

In this we have an illustration of the use of attending to the nature and
connections of articulate sounds in general.

§ 226. The affinity of _m_ for the series _b_, of _n_ for the series _t_,
gives occasion to further euphonic changes. The combinations _mt_, _md_,
_mþ_, _mð_, are unstable. The syllables _emt_, _emd_, are liable to one of
two modifications. Either _p_ or _b_ will be inserted, and so make them
_empt_ (as in _tempt_), _embd_ (as in _Embden_), or else the _m_ will
become _n_, forming the syllable _ent_, _end_, _enþ_, _enð_.

Similar tendencies, in a certain degree, affect the combinations _enp_,
_enb_. They are liable to become _emp_, or _emb_. Any one may see that the
word _enperor_ embarrasses the utterance.

§ 227. The combination _tupt_ is stable, so also is the combination _tuft_.
But the combination _tupth_ is unstable: since the _p_ is lene, the _þ_ is
a (so-called) aspirate. Hence arises a process of accommodation by which
the word becomes either _tupt_ or _tufth_ (_tufþ_).

In respect to the unstable combination _tupth_, we may observe this, _viz._
that the ways of altering it are two. Either the first letter may be
accommodated to the second, _tufþ_, or the second may be accommodated to
the first, _tupt_. Which of these two changes shall take place is
determined by the particular habit of the language. In Greek we add to the
radical syllable [Greek: tup]-, the inflectional syllable -[Greek: thên].
The _first_ letter, [pi], is accommodated to the second, [theta], and the
word becomes [Greek: tuphthên] (_tyfþæn_), as in [Greek: etuphthên]
(_etyfþæn_). In English we add to the radical syllable _stag_, the
inflectional syllable _s_. Here the _second_ letter is accommodated to the
first, and the resulting word is not _staks_, but _stagz_.

§ 228. The Irish Gaelic, above most other languages, illustrates a euphonic
principle that modifies the vowels of a word. The vowels _a_, _o_, _u_, are
full, whilst _i_, _e_, _y_, are small. Now if to a syllable containing a
small vowel, as _buil_, there be added {159} a syllable containing a broad
one, as _-am_, a change takes place. Either the first syllable is
accommodated to the second, or the second to the first; so that the vowels
respectively contained in them are either both full or both small. Hence
arises, in respect to the word quoted, either the form _bu_a_l_a_m_, or
else the form _bu_i_l_i_m_.

§ 229. In the words _give_ and _gave_ we have a change of tense expressed
by a change of vowel. In the words _price_ and _prize_ a change of meaning
is expressed by a change of consonant. In _clothe_ and _clad_ there is a
change both of a vowel and of a consonant. In the words _to use_ and _a
use_ there is a similar change, although it is not expressed by the
spelling. To the ear the verb _to use_ ends in _z_, although not to the
eye. The following are instances of the permutation of letters.

_Permutation of Vowels._

  _a_         to _[)e]_,      as _man_, _men_.
  _a_         to _oo_,        as _stand_, _stood_.
  _a_         to _u_,         as _dare_, _durst_.
  _a_         to _[=e]_,      as _was_, _were_.
  _ea_        to _o_,         as _speak_, _spoken_.
  _ea=[)e]_   to _ea=[=e]_,   as _breath_, _breathe_.
  _ee_        to _[)e]_,      as _deep_, _depth_.