A Handbook of the English Language by Robert Gordon Latham (books for men to read .txt) 📖
- Author: Robert Gordon Latham
- Performer: -
Book online «A Handbook of the English Language by Robert Gordon Latham (books for men to read .txt) 📖». Author Robert Gordon Latham
§ 378. Adverbs of deflection may originally have been—
a. Substantive; as needs in such expressions as I needs must go.
b. Adjectives; as the sun shines bright.
c. Prepositions; as I go in, we go out; though, it should be added, that in this case we may as reasonably derive the preposition from the adverb as the adverb from the preposition.
§ 379. Adjectives of deflection derived from substantives may originally have been—
a. Substantives in the genitive case; as needs.
b. Substantives in the dative case; as whil-om, an antiquated word meaning at times, and often improperly spelt whilome. In such an expression as wait a while, the word still exists; and while = time, or rather pause; since, in Danish, hvile = rest.
El-se (for ell-es); unawar-es; eftsoon-s are adjectives in the genitive case. By rights is a word of the same sort; the -s being the sign of the genitive singular like the -s in father's, and not of the accusative plural like the -s in fathers.
Once (on-es); twice (twi-es); thrice (thri-es) are numerals in the genitive case.
§ 380. Darkling.—This is no participle of a verb darkle, but an adverb of derivation, like unwaringûn = unawares, Old High German; stillinge = secretly, Middle High German; blindlings = blindly, New High German; darnungo = secretly, Old Saxon; nichtinge = by night, Middle Dutch; blindeling = blindly, New Dutch; bæclinga = backwards, handlunga = hand to hand, Anglo-Saxon; and, finally, blindlins, backlins, darklins, middlins, scantlins, stridelins, stowlins, in Lowland Scotch.
CHAPTER XXXIV.ON CERTAIN ADVERBS OF PLACE.
§ 381. It is a common practice for languages to express by different modifications of the same root the three following ideas:—
1. The idea of rest in a place.
2. The idea of motion towards a place.
3. The idea of motion from a place.
This habit gives us three correlative adverbs—one of position, and two of direction.
§ 382. It is also a common practice of language to depart from the original expression of each particular idea, and to interchange the signs by which they are expressed; so that a word originally expressive of simple position or rest in a place may be used instead of the word expressive of direction, or motion between two places. Hence we say, come here, when come hither would be the more correct expression.
§ 383. The full amount of change in this respect may be seen from the following table, illustrative of the forms here, hither, hence.
Mœso-Gothic þar, þaþ, þaþro,hêr, hiþ, hidrô, there, thither, thence.
here, hither, hence. Old High German huâr, huara, huanana,
dâr, dara, danana,
hear, hêra, hinana, where, whither, whence.
there, thither, thence.
here, hither, hence. Old Saxon huar, huar, huanan,
thar, thar, thanan,
hêr, hër, hënan, where, whither, whence.
there, thither, thence.
here, hither, hence. Anglo-Saxon þar, þider, þonan,
hvar, hvider, hvonan,
hêr, hider, hënan, there, thither, thence.
where, whither, whence.
here, hither, hence. Old Norse þar, þaðra, þaðan,
hvar, hvert, hvaðan,
hêr, hëðra, hëðan, there, thither, thence.
where, whither, whence.
here, hither, hence. Middle High German dâ, dan, dannen,
wâ, war, wannen,
hie, hër, hennen, there, thither, thence.
where, whither, whence.
here, hither, hence. Modern High German da, dar, dannen,
wo, wohin, wannen,
hier, her, hinnen, there, thither, thence.
where, whither, whence.
here, hither, hence.
§ 384. Local terminations of this kind, in general, were commoner in the earlier stages of language than at present. The following are from the Mœso-Gothic:—
Innaþrô = from within. Utaþrô = from without. Iuþaþrô = from above. Fáirraþrô = from afar. Allaþrô = from all quarters.§ 385. The -ce ( = es) in hen-ce, when-ce, then-ce, has yet to be satisfactorily explained. The Old English is whenn-es, thenn-es. As far, therefore, as the spelling is concerned, they are in the same predicament with the word once, which is properly on-es, the genitive of one. This origin is probable, but not certain.
§ 386. Yonder.—In the Mœso-Gothic we have the following forms: jáinar, jáina, jánþrô = illic, illuc, illinc. They do not, however, quite explain the form yon-d-er. It is not clear whether the d = the -d in jâind, or the þ in jainþro.
§ 387. Anon, is used by Shakspeare, in the sense of presently.—The probable history of this word is as follows: the first syllable contains a root akin to the root yon, signifying distance in place. The second is a shortened form of the Old High German and Middle High German, -nt, a termination expressive, 1, of removal in space; 2, of removal in time; Old High German, ënont, ënnont; Middle High German, ënentlig, jenunt = beyond.
CHAPTER XXXV.ON WHEN, THEN, AND THAN.
§ 388. The Anglo-Saxon adverbs are whenne and þenne = when, then.
The masculine accusative cases of the relative and demonstrative pronoun are hwæne (hwone) and þæne (þone).
Notwithstanding the difference, the first form is a variety of the second; so that the adverbs when and then are really pronominal in origin.
§ 389. As to the word than, the conjunction of comparison, it is another form of then; the notions of order, sequence, and comparison being allied.
This is good; then (or next in order) that is good, is an expression sufficiently similar to this is better than that to have given rise to it; and in Scotch and certain provincial dialects we actually find than instead of then.
CHAPTER XXXVI.PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS.
§ 390. Prepositions.—Prepositions are wholly unsusceptible of inflection.
§ 391. Conjunctions.—Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly unsusceptible of inflection.
§ 392. Yes, no.—Although not may be considered to be an adverb, nor a conjunction, and none a noun, these two words, the direct categorical affirmative, and the direct categorical negative, are referable to none of the current parts of speech. Accurate grammar places them in a class by themselves.
§ 393. Particles.—The word particle is a collective term for all those parts of speech that are naturally unsusceptible of inflection; comprising, 1, interjections; 2, direct categorical affirmatives; 3, direct categorical negatives; 4, absolute conjunctions; 5, absolute prepositions; 6, adverbs unsusceptible of degrees of comparison; 7, inseparable prefixes.
CHAPTER XXXVII.ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE.
§ 394. The inflection of pronouns has its natural peculiarities in language. It has also its natural difficulties in philology. These occur not in one language in particular, but in all generally.
The most common peculiarity in the grammar of pronouns is the fact of what may be called their convertibility. Of this convertibility the following statements serve as illustration:—
1. Of case.—In our own language the words my and thy although at present possessives, were previously datives, and, earlier still, accusatives. Again, the accusative you replaces the nominative ye, and vice versâ.
2. Of number.—The words thou and thee are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, ye and you, have replaced them.
3. Of person.—The Greek language gives us examples of this in the promiscuous use of νιν, μιν, σφε, and ἑαυτοῦ; whilst sich and sik are used with a similar latitude in the Middle High German and Scandinavian.
4. Of class.—The demonstrative pronouns become—
a. Personal pronouns.
b. Relative pronouns.
c. Articles.
The reflective pronoun often becomes reciprocal.
§ 395. These statements are made for the sake of illustrating, not of exhausting, the subject. It follows, however, as an inference from them, that the classification of pronouns is complicated. Even if we knew the original power and derivation of every form of every pronoun in a language, it would be far from an easy matter to determine therefrom the paradigm that they should take in grammar. To place a word according to its power in a late stage of language might confuse the study of an early stage. To say that because a word was once in a given class, it should always be so, would be to deny that in the present English they, these, and she are personal pronouns at all.
The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a pronoun, its present power and its original power, are often conflicting.
§ 396. In the English language the point of most importance in this department of grammar is the place of forms like mine and thine; in other words, of the forms in -n.
Now, if we take up the common grammars of the English language as it is, we find, that, whilst my and thy are dealt with as genitive cases, mine and thine are considered adjectives. In the Anglo-Saxon grammars, however, min and þin, the older forms of mine and thine, are treated as genitives or possessives.
§ 397. This gives us two views of the words my and thy.
a. They may be genitives or possessives, which were originally datives or accusatives; in which case they are deduced from the Anglo-Saxon mec and þec.
b. They may be the Anglo-Saxon min and þin, minus the final -n.
Each of these views has respectable supporters. The former is decidedly preferred by the present writer.
§ 398. What, however, are thine and mine? Are they adjectives like meus, tuus, and suus, or cases like mei, tui, sui, in Latin, and hi-s in English?
It is no answer to say that sometimes they are one and sometimes the other. They were not so originally. They did not begin with meaning two things at once; on the contrary, they were either possessive cases, of which the power became subsequently adjectival, or adjectives, of which the power became subsequently possessive.
§ 399. In Anglo-Saxon and in Old Saxon there is but one form to express the Latin mei (or tui), on the one side, and meus, mea, meum (or tuus, &c.), on the other. In several other Gothic tongues, however, there was the following difference of form:
Mœso-Gothic meina = mei as opposed to meins = meus. þeina = tui - þeins = tuus. Old High German mîn = mei - mîner = meus. dîn = tui - dîner = tuus. Old Norse min = mei - minn = meus. þin = tui - þinn = tuus. Middle Dutch mîns = mei - mîn = meus. dîns = tui - dîn = tuus. Modern High German mein = mei - meiner = meus. dein = tui - deiner = tuus.In these differences of form lie the best reasons for the assumption of a genitive case, as the origin of an adjectival form; and, undoubtedly, in those languages where both forms occur, it is convenient to consider one as a case and one as an adjective.
§ 400. But this is not the present question. In Anglo-Saxon there is but one form, min and þin = mei and meus, tui and tuus, indifferently. Is this form an oblique case or an adjective?
This involves two sorts of evidence.
§ 401. Etymological evidence.—Assuming two powers for the words min and þin, one genitive, and one adjectival, which is the original one? Or, going beyond the Anglo-Saxon, assuming that of two forms like meina and meins, the one has been derived from the other, which is the primitive, radical, primary, or original one?
Men, from whom it is generally unsafe to differ, consider that the adjectival form is the derived one; and, as far as forms like mîner, as opposed to mîn, are concerned,
Comments (0)