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

the evidence of the foregoing list is in their favour. But what is the case with the Middle Dutch? The genitive mîns is evidently the derivative of mîn.

The reason why the forms like mîner seem derived is because they are longer and more complex than the others. Nevertheless, it is by no means an absolute rule in philology that the least compound form is the oldest. A word may be adapted to a secondary meaning by a change in its parts in the way of omission, as well as by a change in the way of addition.

§ 402. As to the question whether it is most likely for an adjective to be derived from a case, or a case from an adjective, it may be said, that philology furnishes instances both ways. Ours is a case derived, in syntax at least, from an adjective. Cujum (as in cujum pecus) and sestertium are Latin instances of a nominative case being evolved from an oblique one.

§ 403. Syntactic evidence.—If in Anglo-Saxon we found such expressions as dœl min = pars mei, hœlf þin = dimidium tui, we should have a reason, as far as it went, for believing in the existence of a true genitive. Such instances, however, have yet to be quoted.

§ 404. Again—as min and þin are declined like adjectives, even as meus and tuus are so declined, we have means of ascertaining their nature from the form they take in certain constructions; thus, minra = meorum, and minre = meæ, are the genitive plural and the dative singular respectively. Thus, too, the Anglo-Saxon for of thy eyes should be eagena þinra, and the Anglo-Saxon for to my widow, should be wuduwan minre; just as in Latin, they would be oculorum tuorum, and viduæ meæ.

If, however, instead of this we find such expressions as eagena þin, or wuduwan min, we find evidence in favour of a genitive case; for then the construction is not one of concord, but one of government, and the words þin and min must be construed as the Latin forms tui and mei would be in oculorum mei, and viduæ mei; viz.: as genitive cases. Now, whether a sufficient proportion of such constructions exist or not, they have not yet been brought forward.

Such instances, even if quoted, would not be conclusive.

§ 405. Why would they not be conclusive? Because even of the adjective there are uninflected forms.

As early as the Mœso-Gothic stage of our language, we find rudiments of this omission of the inflection. The possessive pronouns in the neuter singular sometimes take the inflection, sometimes appear as crude forms, nim thata badi theinata = ᾆρόν σου τὸν κράββατον (Mark ii. 9), opposed to nim thata badi thein, two verses afterwards. So also with mein and meinata. It is remarkable that this omission should begin with forms so marked as those of the neuter (-ata). It has, perhaps, its origin in the adverbial character of that gender.

Old High German.—Here the nominatives, both masculine and feminine, lose the inflection, whilst the neuter retains it—thin dohter, sîn quenâ, min dohter, sinaz lîb. In a few cases, when the pronoun comes after, even the oblique cases drop the inflection.

Middle High German.—Preceding the noun, the nominative of all genders is destitute of inflection; sîn lîb, mîn ere, dîn lîb, &c. Following the nouns, the oblique cases do the same; ine herse sîn. The influence of position should here be noticed. Undoubtedly a place after the substantive influences the omission of the inflection. This appears in its maximum in the Middle High German. In Mœso-Gothic we have mein leik and leik meinata.

§ 406. Now by assuming the extension of the Middle High German omission of the inflection to the Anglo-Saxon; and by supposing it to affect the words in question in all positions (i.e., both before and after their nouns), we may explain the constructions in question, in case they occur. But, as already stated, no instances of them have been quoted.

To suppose two adjectival forms, one inflected (min, minre, &c.), and one uninflected, or common to all genders and both numbers (min), is to suppose no more than is the case with the uninflected þe, as compared with the inflected þæt.

§ 407. Hence, the evidence required in order to make a single instance of min or þin, the necessary equivalents to mei and tui, rather than to meus and tuus, must consist in the quotation from the Anglo-Saxon of some text, wherein min or þin occurs with a feminine substantive, in an oblique case, the pronoun preceding the noun. When this has been done, it will be time enough to treat mine and thine as the equivalents to mei and tui, rather than as those to meus and tuus.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WEAK PRÆTERITE.

§ 408. The remote origin of the weak præterite in -d or -t, has been considered by Grimm. He maintains that it is the d in d-d, the reduplicate præterite of do. In all the Gothic languages the termination of the past tense is either -da, -ta, -de, -ði, -d, -t, or -ed, for the singular, and -don, -ton, -tûmês, or -ðum, for the plural; in other words, d, or an allied sound, appears once, if not oftener. In the plural præterite of the Mœso-Gothic, however, we have something more, viz., the termination -dêdum; as nas-idêdum, nas-idêduþ, nas-idedun, from nas-ja; sôk-idêdum, sôk-idêduþ, sôk-idêdun, from sôk-ja; salb-ôdedum, salb-ôdêduþ, salb-ôdêdun, from salbô. Here there is a second d. The same takes place with the dual form salb-ôdêduts, and with the subjunctive forms, salb-ôdêdjan, salb-ôdêduts, salb-ôdedi, salb-ôdêdeits, salb-ôdêdeima, salb-ôdedeiþ, salb-ôdedina. The English phrase, we did salve, as compared with salb-ôdedum, is confirmatory of this.

§ 409. Some remarks of Dr. Trithen's on the Slavonic præterite, in the "Transactions of the Philological Society," induce me to prefer a different doctrine, and to identify the -d in words like moved, &c., with the -t of the passive participles of the Latin language; as found in mon-it-us, voc-at-us, rap-t-us, and probably in Greek forms like τυφ-θ-είς.

1. The Slavonic præterite is commonly said to possess genders: in other words, there is one form for speaking of a past action when done by a male, and another for speaking of a past action when done by a female.

2. These forms are identical with those of the participles, masculine or feminine, as the case may be. Indeed the præterite is a participle. If, instead of saying ille amavit, the Latins said ille amatus, whilst, instead of saying illa amavit, they said illa amata, they would exactly use the grammar of the Slavonians.

3. Hence, as one class of languages, at least, gives us the undoubted fact of an active præterite being identical with a passive participle, and as the participle and præterite in question are nearly identical, we have a fair reason for believing that the d, in the English active præterite, is the d of the participle, which in its turn, is the t of the Latin passive participle.

§ 410. The following extract gives Dr. Trithen's remarks on the Slavonic verb in his own words:—

"A peculiarity which distinguishes the grammar of all the Slavish languages, consists in the use of the past participle, taken in an active sense, for the purpose of expressing the præterite. This participle generally ends in l; and much uncertainty prevails both as to its origin and its relations, though the termination has been compared by various philologists with similar affixes in the Sanscrit, and the classical languages.

"In the Old Slavish, or the language of the church, there are three methods of expressing the past tense: one of them consists in the union of the verb substantive with the participle; as,

Rek esm'         chital esmi' Rek esi' chital esi' Rek est' chital est'.

"In the corresponding tense of the Slavonic dialect we have the verb substantive placed before the participle:

Ya sam imao mi' smo imali Ti si imao vi' ste imali On ye imao omi su imali.

"In the Polish it appears as a suffix:

Czytalem        czytalismy Czytales czytaliscie Czytal czytalie.

"And in the Servian it follows the participle:

Igrao sam       igrali smo Igrao si igrali ste Igrao ye igrali su.

"The ending -ao, of igrao and imao, stands for the Russian al, as in some English dialects a' is used for all."

PART V.

SYNTAX.

CHAPTER I.

ON SYNTAX IN GENERAL.

§ 411. The word syntax is derived from the Greek syn (with or together) and taxis (arrangement). It relates to the arrangement, or putting together, of words. Two or more words must be used before there can be any application of syntax.

There is to me a father.—Here we have a circumlocution equivalent to I have a father. In the English language the circumlocution is unnatural. In the Latin it is common. To determine this, is a matter of idiom rather than of syntax.

§ 412. In the English, as in all other languages, it is convenient to notice certain so-called figures of speech. They always furnish convenient modes of expression, and sometimes, as in the case of the one immediately about to be noticed, account for facts.

§ 413. Personification.—The ideas of apposition and collectiveness account for the apparent violations of the concord of number. The idea of personification applies to the concord of gender. A masculine or feminine gender, characteristic of persons, may be substituted for the neuter gender, characteristic of things. In this case the term is said to be personified.

The cities who aspired to liberty.—A personification of the idea expressed by cities is here necessary to justify the expression.

It, the sign of the neuter gender, as applied to a male or female child, is the reverse of the process.

§ 414. Ellipsis (from the Greek elleipein = to fall short), or a falling short, occurs in sentences like I sent to the bookseller's. Here the word shop or house is understood. Expressions like to go on all fours, and to eat of the fruit of the tree, are reducible to ellipses.

§ 415. Pleonasm (from the Greek pleoazein = to be in excess) occurs in sentences like the king, he reigns. Here the word he is superabundant.

My banks, they are furnished,—the most straitest sect,—these are pleonastic expressions. In the king, he reigns, the word king is in the same predicament as in the king, God bless him.

The double negative, allowed in Greek and Anglo-Saxon, but not admissible in English, is pleonastic.

The verb do, in I do speak, is not pleonastic. In respect to the sense it adds intensity. In respect to the construction it is not in apposition, but in the same predicament with verbs like must and should, as in I must go, &c.; i.e., it is a verb followed by an infinitive. This we know from its power in those languages where the infinitive has a characteristic sign; as, in German,