THE EPOCHS OF LANGUAGE IN GENERAL AND OF THE ENGLISH TONGUE ESPECIALLY. AN INAUGURAL DISSERTATION UPON OBTAINING THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY AND MASTER OF ARTS IN THK UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN BY THE REVEREND JAMES CLARK SENIOR CURATE OF ROTHERHAM YORKSHIRE GOTTINGEN PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY W, FR, KAESTNER 1866. ^ >Css \ § CHAPTER I. ';^ THE EPOCHS OF LANGUAGE. ^ According' to one school of philologists , — language ,r^-. has passed through three distinct stages : — First, a Radi- ' cal or Monosyllabic stage represented by the Indo- Chinese group of idioms; Secondly an Ag gluiinative stage, represented by the Turanian family; and Thirdly — an Inflexional stage, represented by both the Aryan and Semitic families. It is contended that all inflected languages have pre- viously passed through an agglutinative stage, and that all agglutinative languages were previously radical, and mo- nosyllabic. Now that there is a generally observable morpho- logical distinction between the Turanian and the Indo-Eu- ropean and Semitic families of languages, cannot well be denied. There is a characteristic difl"erence, for example, between the structure of the Osmanlic or Magyar verb — for the Hungarian verb is a scarcely less remarkable and beautiful example of agglutination than the Turkic, and that of a Gothic or Pelasgic language. Take for the sake of illustration the following forms of the Hungarian verb verni = 1o beat: I. ver-ni ... to beat II. ver-het-ni . . to be able to beat III. ver et-ni . . to be beaten 1 IV. ver-ct-het-iii to be able to be beaten V. ver-eoci-ni to heal frequeutly VI. ver-degei-iii to beat frequently a little at a tinte VII. ver-int-ui . . to beat a little VIII . ver-cked-ui . to beat one another IX. ver-od-ni . . to beat oneself against anything X. ver-god-ni . . to beat through with difficulty XI. ver-tet ni . . to cause to beat. Now these, although beautiful examples of agglutina- tion, do not establish the exclusively agglutinative character of the language to which they may belong. Notwithstand- ing the highly agglutinative character of the conjugational systems af these, and other idioms of the Turanian family, it would still be more correct to say that they were ag- glutinativo-inflexional rather than purely agglutinative. The morphological difference between an Aryan and a Turanian language is not as great as some philologists are disposed to think. A distinction which is to furnish the basis of a classification — and above all of a natural classification, ought itself to be a distinction both well-defined and founded in nature. Does such distinction, therefore, exist between the so-called agglutinative idioms and those which are in- flexional? With all deference to the eminent scholarship of Dr. Max Miiller, and others of his school, we are dis- posed to answer in the negative. How does the Professor distinguish between these two classes of languages? „The chief distinction," he writes, „ between an inflexional and an agglutinative language consists in the fact that aggluti- native languages preserve the consciousness of their roots, and therefore do not allow them to be affected by phonetic corruption ; and though they have lost the consciousness of the original meaning of their terminations they feel di- stinctly the difference between the significative root and the modifying; elements. Not so in the inflexional languages. There the varions elements, which enter into the composi- tion of words may become so welded together, and suffer so much from phonetic corruption, that none but the edu- cated would be aware of an original distinction between root and termination, and none but the comparative gram- marian able to discover the seams which separate the com- ponent parts." — Science of Language Vol. I. pp. 337. 338. And again: — „The difference between an Aryan and a Turanian language is somewhat the same as between a good and bad mosaic. The Aryan words seem made of one piece, the Turanian words clearly show the sutures and fissures, where the small stones are cemented together." — The Science of Lang. Vol. L pp. 303. 304. But these surely are the distinctions rather of poetry than of science. There are surely here no sufficient morphological grounds upon which the languages of the Aryan and Scythian fa- milies should be separable into distinct classes, as inflexio- nal and agglutinative respectively. Upon the contrary, the two classes are essentially — despite admitted differences, one and the same. Phonetic corruption may, it is true, have more extensively affected the Aryan than the Scy- thian or Turanian languages; but upon the other hand, the Scythic are not exempted from the operation of a si- milar law. As Professor Dr. Henry Ewald in his Sprach- wissenschaftliche Abhand/ungen has indicated, Turanian words do not always show the „sutures and fissures." Al- though there is an admitted difference between these two great classes of languages as to the degree in which they admit of synthesis or agglutination, — yet are they alike in this that in their conjugational and in some cases even in their declensional systems the component linguistic ele- ments are welded together into a common mass, and are 1* distinguishable only by the aid of the science of compara- tive grammar. What essential — we use the "word essen- tial designedly and deliberately, is there between the fol- lowing Turano-Turkic, and Aryano — Pelasgic grammatical forms ? The Turk says: — Present Preterite f):;'^ ~~ sever-i-m = I love j.o^.,A« — sever-di-m ^^^^ — sever-sin S'^jY^ — sever-di-n ^^^ — sever ^0^^^ — sever-di J;^'" "~ sever-i-z jV^^jA- — sever-di-k ;^'^}!s sever-siniz j^^j^^ — sever- di-niz .V - sever-ler Jo^^*^ — sever-di-ler The Latin says : — Present Preterite am-o am-av-i am-as am-av-isti am-at am-av-it am-amus am-av-imus am-atis am-av-isti s am- ant am-av- erunt W.ere is there, we ask, any essential morphological difference between these two sets of grammatical forms? In the Turkish, it will be said, there is a consciousness of the significative root as distinguished from the modifying element. Exactly so : — and if that is all , it is readily admitted. But may not the same observation be extended as much to the Latin as to the Turkish? The Latin was quite as conscious of the theme A M as distinguished from its modal, temporal, and pronominal terminations as is the Turk of the theme ^^ sec as distinguish from Us postfor- matives. And in the great majority of Aryan verbs the theme is in a similar manner consciously distinguished from the merely formative increment, whether postpositional or prepositional. Nor even in the case of those words which in the process of inflexion also admit of intromutation is there this supposed oblivion of the thematic element. Thus the Aryan recognizes the root or theme, as may be, as contradistinguished from the termination as much in eg-i I have done as in ag-o = / do; as much in re-tvcp-a as in Tvn-T-M; — nor is he less conscious of the root in the intromutative forms at-est, thoughi-est, and men than in the forms e at-est, thi(n)k-est , and ma?i. But further, it must be remembered that in the conju- gational systems of many of the Turanian languages pho- netic corruption has transpired in respect of the formative elements. It can not be denied that the following prono- minal terminations Singular Plural I. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. Turkish -m -n — -miz -niz — Esthonian -n -d -P -me -te -wad Magyar -m -sz -unk -tok -nak Tungusian -m -(n)di — -wun -sun -tin are phonetic corruptions — mere mutilations of earlier in- dependent forms. They are at least as much so as are the ordinary Aryan sufformatives. Whatever is maintained in the one case, must be maintained in the other. And the same criticism holds good as much in the case of the temporal as in that of the pronominal exponents. Has the preterital -t- in oma-Tns lost its original character, and been reduced like the -d in love-d to a mere increment? Has it, in a word, experienced phonetic corruption? Even so. As much must be maintained in respect of the Os~ 6 maulic preterital ^> d, the Tungusic -ca (= ta>, the Ma- p;yar -t or -d, the Finnish -t or-d, and the pretcrital -/ or-d oi" the Tamil, Canarese, Malayalain, Tulu, Sconi GOnd, and otiier Dcklianic idioms. Nor must we in this discussion omit the fact that in tiie Turanian languages, even the stem-words are not al- ways preserved in their integrity. Thus the Magyar 1. lel-em = I find .... is in Esthonian 1. lei-an 2. lel-ed — — 2. lei-ad 3. lel-i — — 3. lei-ab 1. lel-juk — — 1. lei-am e 2. lel-itek — — 2. lei-ate 3. lel-ik — — 3. lei-awad Here the verbal radix is LEL: but in Esthonian it has suffered phonetic corruption into LEI — to which latter theme the pronominal suffixes attach themselves as if to an original root. And the Magyar itself furnishes further instances of the same thing. Thus fekudni = to lie, aludni = to sleep, venni = to buy, and menni = to go furnish the root-forms fekiid, alud, ven and men: and yet, notwithstanding all this, in the present and preterite tenses of these verbs, — not the true radix, but a phone- tic corruption of it, is exhibited. Thus : — Present Radix Radix Radix Radix (fekiid) (alud) (ven) (m e n) 1. feksz-em alsz-om vesz-ek megy-ek 2. feksz-el alsz-ol vesz-el megy-sz 3. feksz-ik alsz-ik vesz-en me-n 1. feksz-unk alsz-unk vesz-iink megy-iink 2. feksz-etek alsz-otok vesz-tek men-tek 3. feksz-enek alsz-anak vesz-nek men-nek Preterite 1. fekv-em alv-am vev-ek raen-ek 2. fekv-el alv-al vev-el ID en-el 3, fekv-ek alv-ek vev-e men-e 1. fekv-enk alv-auk vev-enk men-enk 2. fekv-etek alv-atok vev-etek men-etek 3. fekv-enek alv-anak vev-enek men-enek It may be stated indeed that some monosyllabic ver- bal roots in the Magyar deviate from their radical forms so far as to show a new root for nearly each tense. Si- milarly the primitive roots jdv = to come, loo :=. to shoot, szov = to weave, hiv = to call, and sziv = to draw, lose the terminal consonant of the radix, appearing in the infinitive as jo-ni, Id-ni, szo-ni, hi-ni, and szi-ni. So also the Causative forms of en-ni, hinni and venni are eletm not entetni, hitelni not h'wtetjii, vetetni and not venfetni. And this phenomenon appears elsewhere in the Tura- nian group. In the Tartar languages of Southern India, for example', verbal roots not infrequently experience in- tromutation and phonetic corruption similarly to the intromu- tation and detrition of radical elements which are admitted to characteristically affect the radices of the Aryan and Semitic languages. Thus the Telugu evinces a tendency to reject or soften away consonants from the middle of words — even though such consonants should belong to the root. Thus the Tamil neruppu = fire, elumbu = a bone, porndu = time, and marundu = medicine appear iu Telugu as nippu, emmu, poddu , and mandu. Similarly a radical consonant sometimes disappears from words in the Tamil, while it has been retained in the Telugu. Someti- mes too in the Dravidiau vernaculars the vowels as well as the consonants undergo mutation. Thus this shortening 8 or modification of llie vowel ol tlie root occurs in certain Tamil preterites. For example, «e = to burn becomes in the preterite — not 0(7 gundu or vrmdu, but vcndu; nogu (Root no) = to be in pain, becomes in the preterite — not no gundu or nondu, but ndndu ; and hun = to see, not kandu, but kandu. A lengthening of the vowel also occurs in certain substantives derived from verbs, as mln = a star from mln = lo shine, with which compare cIth 'cdc = speech from ci=a^ vac. In Canarese and Telugu but especially in the latter, the final consonant of the root is usually either euphonically commuted or wholly elided : and as it appears to us , any such change , even although due to laws of euphony, has a real grammatical value, — for doubtless, laws of euphony must explain many of the radical intromutations of the Aryan and Semitic idioms, which, upon that account are not, and cannot be considered as any the less instances of phonetic corruption. Thus in Telugu eddu =z an ox and penchu z=z to increase occur instead of the Tamil erdu or erudu, and perukku or pe- rutichu. Also among the disyllabic roots there frequently occurs a softening away of the middle consonant, as when canarese dogal-u = skin , pes'ar a name, togap-pu ;=: a col- lection appear in Tamil as tol, per, and top-pu. These examples also illustrate the tendency to monosyllabism al- ready referred in the foregoing pages. And the sort of changes here indicated occur also in other Tartar idioms. In the Tungusic and Lapponic, it is interesting to observe, how the pronominal roots undergo intromutatiou in the oblique cases: thus, the Tungusic bi = I (pi. bu = we), shows in the oblique cases of the singular the theme min, and in the oblique cases of the plural the theme mun. So in like manner the Mandshu 9 bi z=: 1 shows an intromutation of the radix in its plur. nom. be, while in the oblique cases of the singular the theme is min and in the corresponding cases of the plural men. Thus too the Lapponic mon = I, don = thou, son == he appear in their oblique cases as mu, du, and su, and in the plural as mi, di, si; while the relative pro- nouns gi =■ who, and mi = ichat appear in their oblique cases as gae, and ma. — Lappish Grammatik, udarbeitet efter den finmarkiske Hovedialekt eller Sproget af I. A. Friis. Cand. TheoL, pp. 59, 70, Christiana 1856. Similarly in the Lapponic verb laet = to be, we have as marked an ex- ample of phonetic corruption of the radix as in any Aryan vocable that could be cited. If as Friis states the stem- form of this verb is laekke, we are safe in affirming that it has suffered mutilation throughout nearly the whole of its paradigm. But premising that that is the root in Lappo- nic as in other Ugro-Tartar idioms, which remains after the removal of the sign of the infinitive — even then the root-form thus furnished admits indisputably of intromuta- tive modification. The third person singular of the pre- sent tense of the Indicative mood is lae, which corresponds as in other Turanian languages with the form, which re- mains after the removal of the sign of the infinitive. Thus infinitive lae-t, the -t being formative gives lae as in the third person singular of the Indicative present. But even this shorter theme in lae is not maintained uniformly throughout the conjugation of this verb. In the first pers. dual of the Indicative present, it is changed to le; thus le-dne = we two are, not lae-dne. In the Pre- terite first person singular, and third pers. pi., the form, which Friis declares to be the radix appears as leg, not la^k; while in several imperative forms, the theme is nei- ther leg, nor laek, but lek. In the optative present lae the 10 |)rol»al)lc root appears modified from lae to //. Thus in tlie Lappouic ol' uorllieru Fiiimark, >ve have in the Optative: Singular 1. li-lci-m ... J would he 2. li-fci-k 3. Ii-(ci Dual 1. li-f'ci-me 2. li-lci-de 3. li-fci-ga Plural 1. li-fci-mek 2. li-fci-dek 3. li-fci And, in the Lapponic of Sweden, the radix takes yet ano- ther form that namely of lu, as: Singular 1. lu-li-b I would be 2. lu-li-h 3. lu-li Dual 1. lu-li-men 2. lu-li-ten 3. lu-li-kaii Plural 1. lu-li-me 2. lu-li-te 3. lu-li-n Thus far then it is clearly demonstrated that the diffe- rence between the so-called agglutinative languages, and those which are inflexional is one rather of degree than of kind. Phonetic corruption has, it is true, operated more extensively upon the Aryan than the Turanian group: but at the same time there is no sufficient reason for their se- paration morphologically. The consciousness of the roots, which is said to mark off the agglutinative from the in- flexional stage, is found in many cases not to have been preserved. The Turanian roots are not exempt from the Semitico-Aryan intromutations they have been operated u upon only in a less degree by phonetic corruption. And, therefore, the so-called agglutinative idioms are agglutina- tivo-inflexional rather than strictly and exclusively agglu- tinative. Consequently also the division of the history of language into the three stages already described as Radi- cal, Agglutinative, a.iid Inflexional appears to us to be open to valid objection. What then, we come to enquire, are the epochs, through >yhich language has passed? Through how many clearly defined periods has it been brought? The answer is easy. Upon historical evidence we have it that lan- guage has passed through two distinct stages, to which, by inference, a third or rather a first is added. If the Sanscrit or Zend be compared with their mo- dern derivates, it will be seen that they respectively differ from each other in their grammatical tendencies. The same difference is also observable between English and Anglo-Saxon, Danish and Icelandic, Dutch and Old Fri- sian, and New High German and Maeso-Gothic. And the difference, when exactly defined is this, — that while the Sanscrit, Zend and Gothic are in the synthetic stage, their more modern derivates have passed Jnto that named ana- lytic. In the second or Synthetic stage of a language, ideas are conveyed inflexionally rather than circumlocutionally. The genius of a language in this stage of its development favours the formation of conjugational and declensional sy- stems. Thus in the Tamanac Indian jarer-bac-ure = / carry is formed, according to Wilh. von Humboldt , of the root jare, — (Infin, jareri =z to carry) ; of bac or uac, — (In- fiu. uacschiri =l to be); and of the personal pronoun ure =^ 1. In the same language uteripipra = / will not go, or more literally I-to-go-choose-not, is an expression com- 12 ])OUii(ie(l of ulcri zzz to go -f- 'pi (liifm. ipi-ri = lo cituose) -\- pra = not. Similarly in tlio (Hiayiiia Indian dialect spoken in the province ol" New Andalusia, ulechire or, / shall yo = lite- rally the pronoun u =^ I -{- le (shortened from the radi- cal ule =z lo yo) zzz go -{- chire = the conj. also, or then; and punpuectopuchcmaz i= thou art fat in body or literally, flesh-for-fal-lhuuart is com\)omu\Gd oi' pun = flesh, puec = for, topuc/ic =■■ fat, m z= thon, and az = the theme of the Chayma verb substantive. And to such an extent is this synthesis carried that the Chayma and Ta- manac verbs exhibit an enormous complication of teuses; while even to the rudest of the American aboriginal ver- naculars is this synthetic structure so preserved — that the whole of these New World idioms have not inappro- piatily received the characteristic denomination of „Poly- synthetic". The Coptic in like manner shows a decided tendency to synthesis, not only in its conjugational system, but also in its formation of words. Thus metrepherpetou = malice, is composed of five elements, and may be ren- dered as „the quality [met] of a subject {reph), which makes [er] the thing which is [pet), evil (om)." The first element also appears in the words metouro = a kingdom (from met and ouro :== a king), and met matoi = an army from a composition of the same prefix with the word matoi = a soldier. The second element appears in the words rephnau := an inspector, and rephshemshe = a minister, the prefix in question having been compounded in the one case with the verb nau == to see, and in the other with UJUUJG shemshe = to minister. In Bashmouric this prefix appears as leph. Hence '^eq'^g^en lephtihep is the Bashmouric for judge and contains three distinct elements (1) the forma- tive prefix leph signifying the subject of an action; (2) ti a 13 verbal prefix == to do at this present time ; and (3) the root hep = judgment (in Coptic hap). Similarly in Coptic Aid.ri'^^d.Ti maentihap = a tribunal in synthesized from ma = a place, e« = a genitival postfix , f i = a verbal prefix to do or be doing; and fourthly a finally hap = a sub- stantival radix signifying judgment. In the Turkish also this tendency to synthesis is markedly exhibited. Thus the Turk in his conjugatioual scheme expresses the ideas of negation, possibility or potentiality, causality, passivity, re- flexiveness, and reciprocity — not by separate words, but by means of inflexional increments. For example, seo-mek = to love becomes by means of the increment ^ me, see- me-mek = not to love; and by means of the increments *s ehme , sev-eh-me-mek = to be unable to love. By the increment .j> der causality is expressed as in sev-der-mek = to cause to love, and sev-der-eh-me-mek = to be not able io cause to love: so also by the increment J H the Turk expresses passivity, — by tji. ish reciprocity, — and by ^ in reflexiveness. Thus sev-il-mek = to be loved, or negatively sev-il-me-mek = not to be loved, or causa- tively sev-il-der-mek = to cause to be loved. So also sev-ish-mek = to love reciprocally , or with the passive increment sev-ish-el-mek = to be loved reciprocally; or with the increments of passivity, causality, and impossibility, we have sev-ish-el-der-eh-me~mek =^ to be unable to cause to be loved reciprocally. Similarly sev-in-mek = to love one's self, and sev-en-der-eh-me-mek is to be unable to cause to love one's self. Now in all these cases inflexional increments are em- ployed in preference to analytic or metaphrastic forms. The relations of nouns — the comparison of adjectives, and even the relation of subject and predicate are by 14 idioms in tlio Synthetic stap;o expressed inflexionally. In the Greeiilandic, which hy verbal iiillexions expresses the accusatival rclatious of the |)ronouns there are , in conse- quence, not fewer than twenty-seven forms for every tense. And as to case relations even the Latin expresses as many as six, the Sanscrit as many as eight, and the Finnish the extraordinary number of fifteen. Now it is manifest that a language, which in its expression of the relations of nouns, can construct not fewer than fifteen cases, is in a high degree synthetic — is, in fact, typical of its class. Languages like the Finnish, Lapponic, Basque, Tur- kish, and Hungarian, evidently prefer a terminational me- thod of expressing thought — where it is not impracti- cable. And such being the case — they, and languages of like psychologico-linguistic tendency, as evidently per- tain to the epoch denominated Synthetic. But in the modern languages, properly so called, a reverse tendency is observable. Preference is shown, not for inflexional, but for analytic forms. Thus instead of the Old Frisian sMp-a = of the ships, and skip-um = to the ships, which are inflexional expressions, the modern Dutch has van de schepen, and aan de schepen. In brief, languages in the third or Analytic epoch of development prefer circumlocutional to inflexional or ag- glutinative forms of utterance. Inflexions may not have entirely disappeared ; but they are nevertheless obsolescent. Disappear they must and will — at least ultimately — and for this reason that the genius of a language, when it has entered upon this third or analytic stage of its develop- ment, is decidedly repugnant to grammatical forms. The modern English, for example, is almost as entirely destitute of all grammar proper as the language of China. A lan- guage in this last stage of its evolution shows a strong 15 and characteristic tendency to discontinue all inflexional modes of expression. Prepositions and auxiliary verbs take the place of cases and tenses: syntactical conventions supplant the older linguistic or grammatical forms: agglu- tinations are resolved, — inflexions analysed ; — until hu- man speech is made, in its last reduction, closely to re- semble, — as in the case of the Chinese, what it must have been in the very genesis of its history. Its vocables are not pure uucompounded radicals, it is true, but per- haps that is all that remains, by which to distinguish a perfectly analytic from a perfectly radical and primordial idiom. A first or Radical stage has, however, been here as elsewhere alluded to; but the existence of such an epoch of development is a matter purely of inference. No known language belongs to such epoch. The Chinese has indeed been referred to as a Radical language; but only by mis- take. While professors Max MUller, and Benloew speak with confidence a favour of the radical structure of this language; — Jacob Grimm speaks only with hesitation; — and Wilhelni Schott — one of the very highest authorities upon Asiatic philology, speaks to an exactly opposite ef- fect. We have already shown that the Chinese is rather an Analytic than a Radical language, since its glossary shows the extensive operation of phonetic corruption. It is therefore, only by inference that a Radical stage is presumed to have had existence. It is evident, for example that the inflexions which are met with among the Terminational or Synthetic lan- guages are due for their formation to the agglutination of distinct words, which, in an earlier period, must have had an independent existence. Thus the modal, temporal, causative, frequentative, desiderative and other verbal in- 16 crenicnts were probably (though not certainly) in the first instances independent vocables, which have in the course of lime lost their original and indej)endent character. It seems highly probable, therefore, — although not absolu- tely demonstrable, lliat there existed a first or Radical stage which furnished the elements out of which arose the complicated so-to-say kaleidoscopic linguistic combinations of the next succeeding epoch. In the first period all is in solution: in the second — crystallization has ensued : and in the third and last de- liquescence. There are, then, three epochs in the history of lan- guage. First, — the Radical Epoch, in which all words were radicals being monosyllabic, polysyllabic, or both, and which as such admitted only of syntactical modification. Secondly — we have a Synthetic or Terrninational Epoch, in which by means of verbal synthesis the various declensional, conjugational , and other inflexional systems have taken their rise. And thirdly, we have an Analytic or Mefaphrasfic Epoch, in which the grammatical systems of the second period are decomposed in to their component elements or equivalents. And, morphologically considered, the English language pertains, as we have already remarked, to this third or Analytic period. CHAPTER II. THE TRANSITION OF ANGLO-SAXON INTO ENGLISH. The transition of Anglo-Saxon into English proceeded by several successive stages. Thus Anglo-Saxon became what is called Semi -Saxon; — Serai -Saxon passed into Old English, — into Middle English, — and Middle Eng- lish into New or Modern English. These changes, however, did not take place otherwise than very gradually and al- most imperceptibly. The stages respectively are not marked off from each other by very precisely determinable dates. But yet when compared at intervals of something like a century, or more, — it will be easy to discern and de- scribe the nature of the changes actually effected. These, as will here after be seen, relate chiefly to orthography, inflexion , and the introduction of new forms. Anglo-Saxon. From about A. D. 450 to A. D. 1150, the language of England was Anglo-Saxon, — the chief authors being Alfred, Caedmou the Anglo-Saxon Milton, the ., Saxon Chroniclers", Elfric, and the unknown poet who sang of the exploits of ,, Beowulf, king of the Weder Geats." Semi-Saxon. From circa A. D. 1150 to A. D. 1250, the language of England was not Anglo-Saxon, but Semi- Saxon, and the principal works written during this stage of the language were — the ,, History of King Lear and 2 18 his Dqughlers", ihe „Poem of Layamon", llie laller |)arl of llie „Saxon Chronicle" and the „Ormnlutn." IVIarsh , ho- >ve>ver, regards llie Onmiliim as Kiiolisli than as Semi- Saxon. Old English. From circa A. D. 1250 lo llic dealli of Edward 11. (A. D. 1327), the language ol England was Old English, and the jjrincipal works pertaining to this stage of our tongue were — the „Vision of Piers Plowman" supposed to have been written circa A. I). 13G2 by one Robert Langton a monk; the ^Romance of Havelok the Dane;" the „Poems" of Robert Mannynge: the „(;harter of Henry III. (A, D. 1258); — and some other literary monumeuta. Middle English. From ci7'ca A. D. 1327 to circa A. D. 1558 the language of England was Middle English, the principal Middle English writers being Chaucer, Wycliffe, Mandevil, Lydgate, and Caxton. Modern or New English. From the reign of Henry VIII. up to the present time, the language of England was the Modern or New English. This period is pre-eminently rich in every species of literature. The following are some of the chief points of contrast and comparison between Anglo-Saxon and Semi-Saxon. 1. The forms se, seo of the Anglo-Saxon article be- gin to occur less frequently, or are, in other words, obso- lescent forms in the Semi-Saxon stage. The ablative form |)y t= by, with, or from the is also in this second stage, obsolescent. 2. The Semi-Saxon as contrasted with the Anglo-Saxon is marked by the shortening, and in some cases by the apocopatiou of terminal vowels. Thus in the „nistory of King Lear", in what is perhaps the older version, it is said: — > 19 „Bladud hafde ene soiie Leir was ihaten" where son-e occurs for the Anglo-Saxon accusative son-n. Again, in the same production „m pan'' occurs for „in {)on-e" by apocopation of -e, and change of the included vowel from o to a. Similarly Semi-Saxon puts — paet ylc for the older and completer form ftaet ylce: and dag-es for the Anglo-Saxon plural daeg-as. 3. Another characteristic of the Semi-Saxon is the confusion of the plurals of the several Anglo-Saxon de- clensions. Thus nouns which in A. S. are pluralized in -as as munac-as are sometimes pluralized in S. S, in -an as munac-an: and nouns which were properly pluralizable in -an are upon the contrary frequently pluralized in -s or-es, as steorr-es for A. S. steorr-an. The Anglo-Norman plural in -s or -es may have in part facilitated this process. 4. The replacement of the A. S. dative in -m by a dative in -w is also characteristic of Semi-Saxon. Thus in the „Hi«tory of King Lear and his Daughters", it is said of the town build by the king: — ,,Kaer-Leir hehte {)e burh. Leof heo wes f^an kinge, |>a we, an ure leod-quide, Leir-chestre clepiad, Geare a f)an holde dawon" where the expression — „a f)aw holde dawo/i" would be represented in Anglo-Saxon as „an \}-A.m eald-?vliicli must be irganled as clearly iii- tlicalive of the breaking,- up of the Aiig;lo-Haxon declensio- nal sysleni. Hence, as we have now to remark, llie obso- lescence ol' ihe (lalive and ablative cases. 6. Another charactcrislic oC the Semi-Saxon is the ob- solescence of the dual forms. In A. S., the only duali- zable forms were the pronouns of the first and second persons. Hence the forms toil = we two, git = yon tiro. In S. S. these forms were fast passing away. In Old English they had entirely disappeared. And hence from their occurrence in the „Onnulum" it would seem not- withstanding the Hon. G. P. Marsh's view to the contrary, that the Ormulum was Semi-Saxon rather than Old English. 7. Ill Semi-Saxou, moreover, besides the apocopalions already noticed, there occurred a. An apocopation of the infinitival termination in -». Thus S. S. nemn-i for A. S. nemn-an. b. An apocopation of the past participle of the Strong conjugation in -en. Thus S. S. i-hol-e for A. S. ge-hdt- en , or hat-en. 8. It is also noticeable that in Semi-Saxon the proper gerundial formative in -anne or -enne became obsolete being replaced by the infinitive form — in -au. Thus S. S. to luf-ian for A. S. to lufig-enne. 9. In Semi-Saxon, the indicative plural termination in -a^ passed in like manner into obsolescence, being repla- ced by the subjunctival termination in on — changed however, for the most part into -en. Thus hi clep-en =: they call for hi clypi-a^ : so also hed gunn-en for heo gunn-aS. 10. There is also observable in Semi-Saxon a ten- dency to phonetic changes of considerable importance. The period was also marked by a somewhat unsettled orthography. 21 Differentia between Semi-Saxon and Old English. When Semi-Saxou had developed into Old Euglish, the following among other points of contract presented themselves. 1. While in S, S. the forms se, sed of the article were obsolescent — the form |)aet being chiefly in use, — in 0. E. all three forms became quite obsolete, being replaced by the form ^e. 2. In 0. E., the Semi-Saxon dative form in -o}i (A. S. -urn) finally disappears, the preposition to with a plural in s being used instead. A dative singular in -e is never- theless retained. 3. The genitive in -es is also generally omitted in 0. E. after the preposition „of": — generally, we say, be- cause this was not invariably the case. Thus in Lawrance Minot (A. D. 1333—1352): „Now God of might-e5 mast." And further it is noteworthy that the genitive in -es co- mes in 0. E. to be exclusively employed for all nouns whatsoever. Thus 0. E. gen. nam-es for A. S. nam-an: — 0, E. spi^ec-es for A. S. spraec-e. Tlie genitive plural in -cna was also ejected, as 0. E. eyes' for A. S. edg-ena; tung-es for tung-ena. The genitive plural in -;• or -ra, although existing in 0. E. as heora = theirs, alter = of all, was nevertheless decadent. 4. In Old English all A. S. plurals in -a, -u, and -an have finally disappeared. Thus son-s for S. S. Son-an and A. S. sun-a: — 0. E. trees for A. S. treow-u; 0. E. tong-es for A. S. tung-an. 5. The dual forms wit, and gil arc in 0. E. totally obsolete. 6. In Old English the pronominal forms hed, hi, hir, heom, hem etc., are current, although in the state of ob- 22 solcscoiice, as in llic (bllovviiift- alliloralive cou|)lel from IMiiiol: - „VVilh hir tellies and liir tags Of Z>rca(l full y-crammed." 7. Participles in -andc or -ende take in 0. K. the tcriiiiiialious -ung or-ing. Thus in the Proclamation of Henry III, to the people of Huntingdonshire — „Send 1 grel~ing" where 0. E. gret-ing is for A. S. and S. S. gretende. 8. In Old Englisli many preterites are strong which subsequently became weak as dahe or dalf, afterwards deloed; 0. E. wop and wex^ which in later English still appeared as loepl and waxed. 9. in 0. E. the infinitival termination in -u disappears after the preposition „?o". 10. The plural indicative form in -aS is replaced by the subjunctival pi. form in -on even more completely than in the Semi-Saxon period, although even in 0. E. it will occasionally occur — as indeed it does as late as the time of Shakespeare. Thus Robert of Gloucester writes — „Ac lowe men hold-e//i to Englyss." Usually, however the re- placement occurred. Thus in Piers Plowman the phrases: — „playd-en full seld": — „feign-e7i hem fantasies" etc. 11. In 0. E. the ad of the third person singular is more generally replaced by -S. as he tells for he tel-^, and he loves for he luf-a^. Differentia between 0. E. and M. E. As to the Middle English it is distingnished from English in the earlier sta- ges principally by the absence of certain grammatical forms. 1. In M. E. the article is destitute of inflexion, the indefinite form t)e being employed alike in all cases. In 23 0. E. upon the contrary fyan, f)enne, paere, and pam "were current forms. 2. The M. E. substantives lose all their inflexions. All genitive terminations disappear except the genitive in -s. The 0. E. genitive plural in -r or -m becomes quite obsolete. The analytic expression of all occurs for the 0. E. all-cr, etc. The accusative terminations also entirely evanesce: and in a similar manner the 0. E. dative in -e becomes obsolete. 3. Certain pronominal forms become obsolete. Thus heo, is replaced by sed = she — the feminine singular of the definite article in Anglo-Saxon. The plural forms hi, heora (hire) , and hem are replaced by the words they, their, them. And here it may be remarked that the dati- ves of the pronouns of the third person were used as ac- cusatives, while the true accusative forms evanesced. Thus hine, hi, and hit are respectively replaced by him, her and him: and the plural accusative hi was in like manner re- l)laced first by its proper dative him or in the 0. E. or- thography hem, and then finally by the dative plural of the article, namely, t)am or in M. and N. E. orthography Ihetn. The obsolete forms of the definite article came in this way to be ai)plied to new uses, and in this — their new application, were no longer obsolete. It is by a similar process that ille, illaj illud came in Latin to be used not only in its proper character as a demonstrative, but also in a new sense as a personal pronoun of the third per- son. In the Danish a similar replacement occurred, not indeed in the singular, but in the plural of the pronoun of the third person. Thus : — 24 masc. N. han := he G. bans A. ham (really a datice) Cein. N, hun . . . she \ G. hendes A. liendc Plural ni. et 1'. N. de G. deres A. dem (really a dative). In the modern Dutch a replacement of the original per- sonal pronoun of the third person has occurred in the no- minative case only of the feminine singular, and in the genitive only of the masculine singular; while in the plu- ral, replacement has occurred in all the three genders, but only in the nominative case. Thus, in the following de- clension of the pers. pron. of the third person — zij (cf. A. S. seo; Germ, sie; Eng. she), — zijns (cf. Germ, sein), — and zij = Ihey (pi. for all three genders) — are not original constituent elements of the pronoun in question, but are parts of the definite article employed to supply de- clensional gaps due to the partial obsolescence of such original personal pronoun In Old Frisian the replacement here indicated has not transpired the 3rd pers. pi. they being represented, not by any form of the article as zij, sie etc., but by the original form hja — it being homologous with the A. S. hi, the Erse he, and the Cornish-Armorican hi. 4. In Middle English the forms mtn and pin are obsoles- cent — the forms w?^ and % being of more frequent occurrence. 25 5. Middle English is further characterised by a prefe- rence for weak preterites. In Old and Middle English too the Anglo-Saxon and Semi-Saxon plural forms synd, syn- don are replaced by ben and beeth. 6. In M. E. the past participle ge-wes-en becomes quite obsolete, being supplanted by the form been. 7. The subjunctive forms be, been (A. S. bed, beon) were in M. E. substituted for the older subjunctival forms of the substantive verb , namely waere, waeron. Thus in Chaucer „That they mote sing-en and be-en light" where be-en is the Anglo-Saxon plural subjunctive form beon. 8. In M. E., the infinitive be-en (A. S. beon and Ge- rund, to beonne] is obsolescent. Its use is occasional, however, in Chaucer and other M. E. writers. Thus in the jjRomaunt of the Rose" : „For there is neither busk nor hay In May that it n'ill shrowded been.'' Where be-en is an infinitive representing either the A. S. inf. beon or the Gerund to beonne with the usual change of -anne, -onne, or -enne to -en. Usually, however, in Middle English both the infiniti- val termination in -en, and the infinitivo-Gerundial termi- nation in -nne have disappeared. 9. In Old and Middle English alike, and even in Se- mi-Saxon, there are observable processes of phonetic refi- nement, and of orthographic change, which have ultimately effected a total change in the physiognomy of the lan- guage. In Semi-Saxon the dissolution of the inflexional system of the Anglo-Saxon, was almost more than inci- pient. And once begun, the process went rapidly on to its completion. 2G AcM? or modern Knyiisk. In llio New or Modern English (ill grammar proper has lolally disappeared. „The last characlrrislic ol' a grammar (lillerenl from thai of the present English is the veri)ai |)liiral in -en as toe lell-en, ye lell-en^ they lell-en.'' And as this disappeared from current use in the reign of Henry VIII., the Middle Eng- lish may be said to have passed in that reign into Eng- lish called New or Modern. „To tell you my opinion" >vrole Ben iousoii „1 am persuaded that the lack here of will be found a great blemish to our tongue." In Bcu Jonson's time, therefore, the plural form in -en had evi- dently become antiquated. It was frequently emj)Ioyed, it is true, by Spenser (A. D. 1553 — 1559) — an Elizabe- than writer; ])ut its employment by Spenser was due solely to that poet's liking for archaic forms of diction. And to this penchanl of the poet must be attributed the fact that Spenser's style was Middle English, although he himself was a writer of the Modern period. CHAPTER III. TRACES OF THE ANGLO-SAXON GRAMMAR IN MODERN ENGLISH. Although, as has just been remarked, all granimar proper has disappeared from the English, — although in other words, it has, as a language passed from the In- flexional into the Analytic stage of linguistic development; yet is it an interesting fact, that our present English re- tains some traces of its former grammatical structure. 1. In forms like ough-t, tha-t, i-t (cf. A. S. hi-t; Du. hi-t; Icel. hi-tl; 0. Frisian hi-t; M. Gothic i-ta\ athioar-t, wha-t, etc., — we have an ancient neuter postfix, said by many grammarians to be of Norse origin, but which is, in reality, found not only in both the Norse and the Teuto- nic languages of the Gothic, but also in many other lan- guages both Aryan and Extra- Aryan. This postfix in -/ Anglo-Saxon preserved exclusively in the declension of its pronouns as he, heo, hi-t, — he, she, it; se , seo , pae-t ; and liwa = who and neuter hwae-t = wha-t. In the Scandinavian idioms alone, however, is this neuter postfor- mative currently employed as such. Thus Dan. en god mand = a good man where mand is masculine; but e-t god-t barn =z a good child, where barn is neuter. Both the article and the adjective take the postfix in question. It is also more than possible that some of our sub- 2S slaiilival and adverbial Corms in -/, t'spccially >vlieii deri- ved Irom verbs and adjectives, are also prlniilive neuters. Thus, Diin. rod-t —redness is from the adjective /•«(/= rt'^; Dan. Derliiier-blaa-t = Prussian blue from the adjective blaa =:z blue by the additioji of the neuter sunorinative. (lompare also such words as see-d, A. S. sae-d, Germ. saa-t, l)u. zaa-d and chi/-d, A. S. cil-d, Germ, kin-d, I)u. kin-d. 2. In forms like on-ce, twi-ce, ihri-ce, hen-cc, when-ce, or according to the 0. E. orthography on-es, t>vi-es, thri-es, heann-es, whenn-es etc., we have the Anglo-Saxon geniti- val termination in -cs. Compare also such forms to>vard-s, by right-es, betime-s, eft-soon-s, unavvare-s, while-s. 3. In forms like mi-ne, thi-ne, wood-en^ oak-en^ gold-en etc., we have the Anglo-Saxon genitive in -an or -n, pi. -cna. 4. In forms like he-r (A. S. ki-rd), ou-r (A. S. u-re), you-r (A. S. edw-er) , thei-r (A. S, j)a-ra) — we have the Anglo-Saxon genitive in -r, -re, -er, pi. -ora or -ra. In the Provincial forms he-r-n ou-r-n, you-r-n, thei-r-n, the genitive in -n has been by excess of expression added to the genitive in -;•; while in the current forms ^e-r-s, ou-r-s, you-r-s, thei-r-s, the genitive in -s has been pleouastically added to the genitive in -/■. 5. In forms like me in me Ihinks . nic-seems , hi-m the-m, who-m, seld-om, whil-om etc., we have the A. S, dative in -m pi. -m or -urn. The corresponding forms in A. S. were me; him; J)ara, or |)aem; hwam or hwaem; seld-an dative in -an cf. Germ, sell-en , Du. zeld-en] ; and hicil-um, or hwil-on. 6. In the accusative form her we have the dative of heo, viz. hi-re, of which dative form he-re (A. S. he-r]; 29 the-re (A. S. ^aer [para) ; whe-re — A. S. hwaer [hwar] — are further examples. 7. In forms like tlie-u — A. S. {)Oune ; when — A. S. hwaenne; twai-n — A. S. twegen; tha-n which is etyrao- logically the same word with the-n: — we have traces of the Anglo-Saxou accusative in -an, ~na or -ne. 8. In why — A. S. hiDij we have the ablative of who — A. S. hwd. In the word „fAe" in such phrases as „the more'-' — „the better — in Anglo-Saxon />«/' tnd — py bet; and in the Ormulum „th-i ma'' and „te batlre": — we have an ablative of the article. The ^the'' derived, as in this case, from f)y' and the „the'^ derived from the inde- clinable pronoun jje — are quite distinct. 9. In Anglo-Saxon the nominative and accusative pi. of the indefinite inflexion of the adjective terminated in -e : and this form is pretty generally preserved in Old and Middle English. Thus singular all pi. all-e. The following are examples. a. A good man bringeth forth god-e thingis of good „tresore". — Wycliffe. b. And his-e disciples conieii and token his „body" — Wycliffe. c. „And all-e we that ben in this aray And maken all this lamentation We losten all-e our husbondes at that louu" — Chaucer — Knighte's Tale. We may also add to these the following examples. Thus in Latimer's IlIrd sermon occurs the following passage: a. There were, sayelh St. John multi ex principibus qui crediderunt in eum"; — „many-e of the chyef-e meune believed in hym." Doo ye se any boddy follow hym but begerly-e fishers, and surh-e as have nothynge to take to?" 30 III Sir David IJndsay tliorc also occurs this passage: I). „For lyrst Airllit on the fresch~e fcildis, the iiolt maid iioyis vitht many loud Ion." A{>aiu ill Sir John Mandevil in the VII chapter en- tilled — „0r the Pilgriinages in Jerusalem and of the Holy Places there aboute," — written circa A. D. 1400 — the subjoined citations. c. This contree and loud of Jerusalem hath ben in many dyvers-e nacones hondes .... that is to sayne, of Jewes, of Chananees, — Assiryenes, Perses, Medaynes, Macedoynes, of Grekes, Rq- maynes, of Chrlsten-e-men, of Sarrazines, Barba- ryeues, Turkes, Tartaryenes, and of many-e other-e dycers-e nacyons. And now have the hethen-e men holden that land in her bonds XL. zer and more." d. „Bawdewyn, and other-e crislen-e kyngs of Jeru- salem." So also in the couplet of Lawrence Minot A. D. J 333 — 1352. e. „It seemed he was feared for strokes When he did fell his great-e oakes." And it may be here remarked that of this nominative and accusative plural in -e , we have probably a remnant in the word thes-e. Here the -s is radical not inflexional as appears from the Anglo-Saxon jjas with its singular forms {)es, {)eds, {)is. The probability then is that the suf- fixed -e is the AngJo-Saxon adjective plural of the indefi- nite inflexion. 10. In the forms child-er , yeoman-ry, rook-ery , we have the A, S. plural in -rii, -ra. In the word child-r-en, we have a pleonastic plural — compare the Anglo-Saxon 31 cild, pi. cild-ru or cild-ra; the Provincial form child-er ; and the Germ. pi. kind-er. In this plural in -r, there has, therefore, been added a pluralic -n. Lamh-er-en — an analogous form occurs in Wycliife. The Dutch has the pleonastic plurals kind-er-s, and in exact analogy with the modern English kind-er-en. 11. In the pronoun you — A, S. eow, — we have a proper accusative, while in ye — A. S. ge, we have its nominative. 12. In its, we have a form due to false analogy: for i-t (A. S. hi-t) is of course a neuter, to which the ge- nitival postfix -s has been annexed, in ignorance of its proper genitive his as such. (See Chapt. II). 13. In the form my, we have an accusative — A. S. me, meh, mec, employed as a genitive. 14. In comparatives as Bopp has shown, the funda- mental idea is that of a relation between tivo, in superla- tives that of a relation and comparison between many. Hence in forms like — - eilh-er, neith-er, wheth-er, oth-er ov-er, und-er, upp-er, loic-er, inn-er, out-er — we have true comparatives both in form and in sense. 15. In the form worse we have apparently a compa- rative in -s, with which may be compared the M. G. comp. in -za, the Latin in ios , ius , the Bohemian and Polish in ■ssj, -ssy, the Zend in -is, the Sanscrit in -iyas, and Vedic in -yas. Tiie existence of such forms as M. G. vairs-iza; 0. H. G. wirs-iro ; M. II. G. wirs-er would seem, however, to fa- vour an opposite conclusion , to wit , that the -s in worse was radical, not formative. Upon the other hand the O. Norse verri; Dan. vaerre, and Swed vdrre seem to indicate that the s is after all 32 inflexional: - in which case the M. CJ. cair-s-ha, — tlie 0. IJ. G. wlv-s-iro, and the Al. II. (i. wlr-s-er, like the Provincial English iror-s-ar, — must he joj»ar(le(l as double coniparatiNcs. And this view is stren{»,lhene(l by the exi- stence of such forms as the 0. »S wir-so and the A. iS. ivyr-se, where there is no pleonasm. As to the two forms ol' comparison in -/• and -.v, they are linguistically identi- cal: — the form in -/• being- but a derivale from that in -s. Thus in Latin tlie form iuc/-ios is older than the form }nel-ior. 16. Double comparatives are not uncommon. Thus nea-r-er is a double comparative. The positive was in Anglo-Saxon neah = nigh; the comparative uea-rre, ny-r or nea-r ; and the sujjerlative neh-st, — nyh-st, or next. 17. In for-m-er, we have a comparative formed uj)on a superlative. In Anglo-Saxon se for-ma was a superla- tive, signifying the first or fore most. To this superlative, therefore, the comparatival postform -er has been annexed by false analogy, in the word in question. 18. In whilst, betwi-xt , amid-st we have superlative forms. 19. In hind-m-ost, in-m-ost, out-m-ost etc., we have double or pleonastic superlatives. In the Sanscr. papist ha- tama = xccxidrog, pessimus, we have a similar excess of expression. For superlatives in ist/ui (Ji. S. ost; Eng. and Germ, est) are occasionally treated as positives, and made to take the terminations tara for the comparative, and tama for the superlative, as: — pap-istha-tara , pap-istha- iama. The -m in such forms as for-m-ost, hind-m-ost etc. is a remnant of the Moeso-Gothic superlatival termination in -ema or -ma as fru-nia, hind-em a. Compare also the above cited Anglo-Saxon superlative for-ma. 33 20. Of such forms as furthermost, hindermost etc. two views may be taken: — a. That there is as Dr. Latham, Rask, and others hold, a true composition of the comparatives further, hinder with the superlative -most as further-most, hinder-most. h. That these are pleonastic superlatives having a comparative as theme thus further-m-ost, hinder-m-ost. The former view is the only tenable one. 21. Among the verbs such forms as did the preterite of do, and hight — A. S. he-ht which has been identified with the Moeso-Gothic hai-hait = vocavi, — there is ge- nerally held to be a trace of the reduplicative perfect found in the Gothic, Pelasgic, and other idioms. The form did is supposed to be an altered form from di-do , the theoretic reduplicative perfect of do. In A. S. its chief presentments are pres. do; pret. dy-de; inf do-n; Ger. to dd-nne; pres. partic. do-nde ; and past participle {ge)-ddn. 22. The termination -ing in the present participle is the -ung of Anglo-Saxon nouns, and is not in any way connected with the A. S. participial ending in -ende or -nde. The participle in English is therefore as to its form a verbal noun. Compare such Greek forms as o wv, ^ ovaa, TO oVj which show the participle under treatment as a noun. Id ov for example signifies the abstract prin- ciple of existence and is one of the names ascribed to the Deity. 23. As to the adverbs, it may be remarked that in A. S., they were frequently formed from adjectives by the addition of -e , which in many instances was afterwards dropped. In some, however, it has been preserved as in wid-e, — originally an adverb derived from the Anglo- Saxon adjective wid = wide: and in sor-e — also origi- nally an adverb formed as above from the adjective sar. LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS III (MiIn Knolisl. nilhr in A. S. 003 017 250 7 • MOW >>liollv ohsololc. (l(M'i\('(l by the aimexation of -e from (he Aiijnlo -Saxon adjoclive hracd = fjuiclt , rath. The theme of this word is preserved in our comparative rrt//«-er — in A. S. hrnc^-rc . ■ — hrnc^-or.