A Handbook of the English Language by Robert Gordon Latham (cat reading book txt) 📕

§ 365. The third class of exceptions contains words like perchánce and perháps. In all respects but one these are double words, just as by chance is a double word. Per, however, differs from by in having no separate existence. This sort of words we owe to the multiplicity of elements (classical and Gothic) in the English language.

§ 366. Peacock, peahen.—If these words be rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of the elements -cock and -hen, the statements made in the beginning of the present chapter are invalidated. Since, if the word pea- be particularized, qualified, or defined by the words -cock and -hen, the second term defines or particularises the first, which is contrary to the rule of § 356. The truth, however, is, that the words -cock and -hen are defined by the prefix pea-. Preparatory to the exhibition of this, let us remember that the word pea (although now found in composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a species of fowl, like pheasant, partridge, or any other appellation. It is the Latin pavo, German pfau. Now if the word peacock mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is a male, then do wood-cock, black-cock, and bantam-cock, mean woods, blacks, and bantams that are male. Or if the word peahen mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is female, then do moorhen and guineahen mean moors and guineas that are female. Again, if a peahen mean a pea (pfau or pavo) that is female, then does the compound pheasant-hen mean the same as hen-pheasant; which is not the case. The fact is that peacock means a cock that is a pea (pfau or pavo); peahen means a hen that is a pea (pfau or pavo); and, finally, peafowl means a fowl that is a pea (pfau or pavo). In the same way moorfowl means, not a moor that is connected with a fowl, but a fowl that is connected with a moor.

§ 367. It must be clear that in every compound word there are, at least, two parts; i.e., the whole or part of the original, and the whole or part of the superadded word. In the most perfect forms of inflection, however, there is a third element, viz., a vowel, consonant, or syllable that joins the first word with the second.

In the older forms of all the Gothic languages the presence of this third element was the rule rather than the exception. In the present English it exists in but few words.

a. The -a- in black-a-moor is possibly such a connecting element.

b. The -in- in night-in-gale is most probably such a connecting element. Compare the German form nacht-i-gale, and remember the tendency of vowels to take the sound of -ng before g.

§ 368. Improper compounds.—The -s- in words like Thur-s-day, hunt-s-man, may be one of two things.

a. It may be the sign of the genitive case, so that Thursday = Thoris dies. In this case the word is an improper compound, since it is like the word pater-familias in Latin, in a common state of syntactical construction.

b. It may be a connecting sound, like the -i- in nacht-i-gale. Reasons for this view occur in the following fact:—

In the modern German languages the genitive case of feminine nouns ends otherwise than in -s. Nevertheless, the sound of -s- occurs in composition equally, whether the noun it follows be masculine or feminine. This fact, as far as it goes, makes it convenient to consider the sound in question as a connective rather than a case. Probably, it is neither one nor the other exactly, but the effect of a false analogy.

§ 369. Decomposites.—"Composition is the joining together of two words."—See § 357.

Words like mid-ship-man, gentle-man-like, &c., where the number of verbal elements seems to amount to three, are no exception to this rule; since compound radicals like midship and gentleman, are, for the purposes of composition, single words. Compounds wherein one element is compound are called decomposites.

§ 370. There are a number of words which are never found by themselves; or, if so found, have never the same sense that they have in combination. Mark the word combination. The terms in question are points of combination, not of composition: since they form not the parts of words, but the parts of phrases. Such are the expressions time and tide—might and main—rede me my riddle—pay your shot—rhyme and reason, &c. These words are evidently of the same class, though not of the same species with bishopric, colewort, spillikin, gossip, mainswearer, &c.

These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words preserved in composition. The former give us obsolete words preserved in combination.

ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION.

§ 371. Derivation, like etymology, is a word used in a wide and in a limited sense. In the wide sense of the term, every word, except it be in the simple form of a root, is a derived word. In this sense the cases, numbers, and genders of nouns, the persons, moods, and tenses of verbs, the ordinal numbers, the diminutives, and even the compound words, are alike matters of derivation. In the wide sense of the term the word fathers, from father, is equally in a state of derivation with the word strength from strong.

In the use of the word, even in its limited sense, there is considerable laxity and uncertainty.

Gender, number, case.—These have been called the accidents of the noun, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation in its stricter sense, or from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of declension. Nouns are declined.

Person, number, tense, voice.—These have been called the accidents of a verb, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation properly so called, and to class together under the name of conjugation. Verbs are conjugated.

Conjugation and declension constitute inflection. Nouns and verbs, speaking generally, are inflected.

Inflection, a part of derivation in its wider sense, is separated from derivation properly so called, or from derivation in its limited sense.

The degrees of comparison, or certain derived forms of adjectives; the ordinals, or certain derived forms of the numerals; the diminutives, &c., or certain derived forms of the substantive, have been separated from derivation properly so called, and considered as parts of inflection. I am not certain, however, that for so doing there is any better reason than mere convenience.

Derivation proper, the subject of the present chapter, comprises all the changes that words undergo, which are not referable to some of the preceding heads. As such, it is, in its details, a wider field than even composition. The details, however, are not entered into.

§ 372. Derivation proper may be divided according to a variety of principles. Amongst others—

I. According to the evidence.—In the evidence that a word is not simple, but derived, there are at least two degrees.

a. That the word strength is a derived word I collect to a certainty from the word strong, an independent form, which I can separate from it. Of the nature of the word strength there is the clearest evidence, or evidence of the first degree.

b. Fowl, hail, nail, sail, tail, soul; in Anglo-Saxon, fugel, hægel, nægel, segel, tægel, sawel.—These words are by the best grammarians considered as derivatives. Now, with these words I cannot do what was done with the word strength, I cannot take from them the part which I look upon as the derivational addition, and after that leave an independent word. Strength -th is a true word; fowl or fugel -l is no true word. If I believe these latter words to be derivations at all, I do it because I find in words like harelle, &c., the -l as a derivational addition. Yet, as the fact of a word being sometimes used as a derivational addition does not preclude it from being at other times a part of the root, the evidence that the words in question are not simple, but derived, is not cogent. In other words, it is evidence of the second degree.

II. According to the effect.—The syllable -en in the word whiten changes the noun white into a verb. This is its effect. We may so classify derivational forms as to arrange combinations like -en (whose effect is to give the idea of the verb) in one order; whilst combinations like -th (whose effect is, as in the word strength, to give the idea of abstraction) form another order.

III. According to the form.—Sometimes the derivational element is a vowel (as the -ie in doggie), sometimes a consonant (as the -th in strength), sometimes a vowel and consonant combined; in other words a syllable (as the -en, in whiten), sometimes a change of vowel without any addition (as the -i in tip, compared with top), sometimes a change of consonant without any addition (as the z in prize, compared with price). Sometimes it is a change of accent, like a súrvey, compared with to survéy. To classify derivations in this manner, is to classify them according to their form.

IV. According to the historical origin of the derivational elements.

V. According to the number of the derivational elements.—In fisher, as compared with fish, there is but one derivational affix. In fishery, as compared with fish, the number of derivational elements is two.

§ 373. In words like bishopric, and many others mentioned in the last Chapter, we had compound words under the appearance of derived ones; in words like upmost, and many others, we have derivation under the appearance of composition.

ADVERBS.

§ 374. Adverbs.—The adverbs are capable of being classified after a variety of principles.

Firstly, they may be divided according to their meaning. In this case we speak of the adverbs of time, place, number, manner.

§ 375. Well, better, ill, worse.—Here we have a class of adverbs expressive of degree, or intensity. Adverbs of this kind are capable of taking an inflection, viz., that of the comparative and superlative degrees.

Now, then, here, there.—In the idea expressed by these words there are no degrees of intensity. Adverbs of this kind are incapable of taking any inflection.

Adverbs differ from nouns and verbs in being susceptible of one sort of inflection only, viz., that of degree.

§ 376. Secondly, adverbs may be divided according to their form and origin.

Better, worse.—Here the words are sometimes adverbs; sometimes adjectives.—This book is better than that—here better agrees with book, and is, therefore, adjectival. This looks better than that—here better qualifies looks, and is therefore adverbial. Again; to do a thing with violence is equivalent to do a thing violently. This shows how adverbs may arise out of cases. In words like the English better, the Latin vi = violenter, the Greek καλὸν = καλῶς, we have adjectives in their degrees, and substantives in their cases, with adverbial powers. In other words, nouns are deflected from their natural sense to an adverbial one. Adverbs of this kind are adverbs of deflection.

Brightly, bravely.—Here an adjective is rendered adverbial by the addition of the derivative syllable -ly. Adverbs like brightly, &c., may be called adverbs of derivation.

Now.—This word has not satisfactorily been shown to have originated as any other part of speech but as an adverb. Words of this sort are adverbs absolute.

§ 377. When, now, well, worse, better—here the adverbial expression consists in a single word, and is simple. To-day, yesterday, not at all, somewhat—here the