A Handbook of the English Language

In what number these words, having a collective sense, require their verbs to be, is a point of syntax.

§ 201. The plural form children (child-er-en) requires particular notice.

In the first place it is a double plural; the -en being the -en in oxen, whilst the simpler form child-er occurs in the old English, and in certain provincial dialects.

Now, what is the -er in child-er?

In Icelandic, no plural termination is commoner than that in -r; as geisl-ar = flashes, tung-ur = tongues, &c. Nevertheless, it is not the Icelandic that explains the plural form in question.

Besides the word childer, we collect from the Old High German the following forms in -r:—

and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being of the neuter gender.

Now, the theory respecting this form which is propounded by Grimm is as follows:—

1. The -r represents an earlier -s.

2. Which was, originally, no sign of a plural number, but merely a neuter derivative affix, common to the singular as well as to the plural number.

3. In this form it appears in the Mœso-Gothic: ag-is = fear (whence ague = shivering), hat-is = hate, riqv-is = smoke (reek). In none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the singular number.

To these doctrines, it should be added, that the reason why a singular derivational affix should become the sign of the plural number, lies, most probably, in the collective nature of the words in which it occurs: Husir = a collection of houses, eiger = a collection of eggs, eggery or eyry. In words like yeoman-r-y and Jew-r-y, the -r has, probably, the same origin, and is collective.

In Wicliffe we find the form lamb-r-en, which is to lamb as children is to child.

§ 202. The form in -en.—In the Anglo-Saxon no termination of the plural number is more common than -n: tungan, tongues; steorran, stars. Of this termination we have evident remains in the words oxen, hosen, shoon, eyne, words more or less antiquated. This, perhaps, is no true plural. In welk-in = the clouds, the original singular form is lost.

§ 203. Men, feet, teeth, mice, lice, geese.—In these we have some of the oldest words in the language. If these were, to a certainty, true plurals, we should have an appearance somewhat corresponding to the so-called weak and strong tenses of verbs; viz., one series of plurals formed by a change of the vowel, and another by the addition of the sibilant. The word kye, used in Scotland for cows, is of the same class. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that of the present English.

§ 204. Brethren.—Here there are two changes. 1. The alteration of the vowel. 2. The addition of -en. Mr. Guest quotes the forms brethre and brothre from the Old English. The sense is collective rather than plural.

Peasen = pulse.—As children is a double form of one sort (r + en), so is peasen a double form of another (s + en); pea, pea-s, pea-s-en. Wallis speaks to the singular power of the form in -s;—"Dicunt nonnulli a pease, pluraliter peasen; at melius, singulariter a pea, pluraliter pease."—P. 77. He might have added, that, theoretically, pease was the proper singular form; as shown by the Latin pis-um.

Pullen = poultry.

Lussurioso.—What? three-and-twenty years in law!

Vendice.—I have known those who have been five-and-fifty, and all about pullen and pigs.—"Revenger's Tragedy," iv. 1.

If this were a plural form, it would be a very anomalous one. The -en, however, is no more a sign of the plural than is the -es in rich-es (richesse.) The proper form is in -ain or -eyn.

Chickens.—A third variety of the double inflection (en + s), with the additional peculiarity of the form chicken being used, at present, almost exclusively in the singular number, although, originally, it was, probably, the plural of chick. So Wallis considered it:—"At olim etiam per -en vel -yn formabant pluralia; quorum pauca admodum adhuc retinemus. Ut, an ox, a chick, pluralitur oxen, chicken (sunt qui dicunt in singulari chicken, et in plurali chickens)." Chick, chick-en, chick-en-s.

Fern.—According to Wallis the -n in fer-n is the -en in oxen, in other words a plural termination:—"A fere (filix) pluraliter fern (verum nunc plerumque fern utroque numero dicitur, sed et in plurali ferns); nam fere et feres prope obsoleta sunt." Subject to this view, the word fer-n-s would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word chicken-s. It is doubtful, however, whether Wallis's view be correct. A reason for believing the -n to be radical is presented by the Anglo-Saxon form fearn, and the Old High German, varam.

Women.—Pronounced wimmen, as opposed to the singular form woomman. Probably an instance of accommodation.

Houses.—Pronounced houz-ez. The same peculiarity in the case of s and z, as occurs between f and v in words like life, lives, &c.

Paths, youths.—Pronounced padhz, yoodhz. The same peculiarity in the case of þ and ð, as occurs between s and z in the words house, houses. "Finita in f plerumque alleviantur in plurali numero, substituendo v; ut wife, wives, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam in s et th, quamvis retento charactere, in house, cloth, path."

§ 205. The words sounded houz-ez, padh-z, yoodh-z, taken along with the extract from Wallis, lead us to an important class of words.—§ 199 b.

§ 206. Certain words ending in f, like loaf, wife, &c.

The regular plural of these would be loafs, wifes, pronounced loafce, wifce, &c.

But this is not the case. The sound added to the final f is the sound of z, not that of s.

And the plurals are sounded loavz, wivz (wivez, weivz).

Furthermore, the sound of the final f is changed to that of v; in other words, the first of the two letters is accommodated to the second, in violation to the rule of § 199 b.

Can this be explained? Perhaps it can. In the Swedish language the letter f has the sound of v; so that staf is sounded stav.

Again, in the allied languages the words in question end in the flat (not the sharp) mute,—weib, laub, calb, halb, stab, &c. = wife, leaf, calf, half, staff.

This makes it probable that, originally, the f in wife, loaf, &c. was sounded as v; so that the singular forms were wive, loav.

If so, the plural is perfectly normal; it being the singular form on which the irregularity lies.

CHAPTER IV.

ON THE CASES.

§ 207. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases, depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the term a house of a father, the idea expressed by the words of a father, is an idea of relation between them and the word house. This idea is an idea of property or possession. The relation between the words father and house may be called the possessive relation. This relation, or connexion, between the two words, is expressed by the preposition of.

In the term a father's house, the idea is, there or thereabouts, the same; the relation or connexion between the two words being the same. The expression, however, differs. In a father's house the relation, or connexion, is expressed, not by a preposition, but by a change of form, father becoming father's.

He gave the house to a father.—Here the words father and house stand in another sort of relationship, the relationship being expressed by the preposition to. The idea to a father differs from the idea of a father, in being expressed in one way only; viz., by the preposition. There is no second mode of expressing it by a change of form, as was done with father's.

The father taught the child.—Here there is neither preposition nor change of form. The connexion between the words father and child is expressed by the arrangement only.

§ 208. Now if the relation alone between two words constitute a case, the words a child, to a father, of a father, and father's, are all equally cases; of which one may be called the accusative, another the dative, a third the genitive, and so on.

Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not constitute a case. Perhaps there is a necessity of either the addition of a preposition (as in of a father), or of a change in form (as in father's). In this case (although child be not so) father's, of a father, and to a father, are all equally cases.

Now it has long been remarked, that if the use of a preposition constitute a case, there must be as many cases in a language as there are prepositions, and that "above a man, beneath a man, beyond a man, round about a man, within a man, without a man, shall be cases as well as of a man, to a man, and with a man."

§ 209. For etymological purposes, therefore, it is necessary to limit the meaning of the word case; and, as a sort of definition, it may be laid down that where there is no change of form there is no case. With this remark, the English language may be compared with the Latin.

Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in English there are but two, there are (as far, at least, as the word pater and father are concerned) three more cases in Latin than in English.

It does not, however, follow that because in the particular word father we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two.

§ 210. Neither does it follow, that because two words may have the same form they are necessarily in the same case; a remark which leads to the distinction between a real and an accidental identity of form.

In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words smið, ende, and dæg, were respectively, smiðes, endes, and dæges; whilst the nominative plurals were, smiðas, endas, and dægas.

But when a change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in each word was ejected, the result was, that the forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and the same; so that the identity of the two cases is an accident.

This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England, identical; the apostrophe in father's being a mere matter of orthography. However, there was once a difference. This modifies the previous statement, which may now stand thus:—for a change of case there must be a change of form existing or presumed.

§ 211. The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they spread.—In the English language there is undoubtedly a nominative case. This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and pronouns (father, good, he) equally. It is found in both numbers.

§ 212. Accusative.—Some call this the objective case. The words him and them (whatever they may have been originally) are now (to a certain extent) true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. Thee, me, us, and you are, to a certain extent, true accusatives. These are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case. 2. They are distinguished from the forms I, my, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only.

One word in the present English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of the term, viz., the word twain = two. The -n in twai-n is the -n in hine = him and hwone = whom. This we see from the following inflection:—

Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the original character of twégen being accusative. The -n is by no means radical; besides which, it is the sign of an accusative case, and is not the sign of a nominative.

§ 213. Dative.—In the antiquated word whilom (at times), we have a remnant of the old dative in -m. The sense of the word is abverbial; its form, however, is that of a dative case.

§ 214. Genitive.—Some call this the possessive case. It is found in substantives and pronouns (father's, his), but not in adjectives. It is formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant (father, fathers; buck, bucks); or if the word end in -s, by that of -es (boxes, judges, &c.) It is found in both numbers: the men's hearts; the children's bread. In the plural number, however, it is rare; so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends in s (as it almost always does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words as fatherses, foxeses, princeses, &c.

§ 215. Instrumental.—The following extracts from Rask's "Anglo-Saxon Grammar," teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word spelt t-h-e, or of the so-called definite article—"The demonstrative pronouns are þæt, se, seó (id, is, ea), which are also used for the article; and þis, þes, þeós (hoc, hic, hæc). They are thus declined:—

"The indeclinable þe is often used instead of þæt, se, seó, in all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times, as an article. Hence the English article the.

"þý seems justly to be received as a proper ablativus instrumenti, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, mid þý áþe = with that oath ("Inæ Leges," 53). And in the same place in the dative, on þǽm áþe = in that oath."—Pp. 56, 57.

Hence the the that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon þý is one word; whilst the the that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon þe, another. The latter is the common article: the former the the in expressions like all the more, all the better = more by all that, better by all that, and the Latin phrases eo majus, eo melius.

That why is in the same case with the instrumental the ( = þý) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflexion of the interrogative pronoun:—

Hence, then, in the and why we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply, instrumentals.

§ 216. The determination of cases.—How do we determine cases? In other words, why do we call him and them accusatives rather than datives or genitives? By one of two means; viz., either by the sense or the form.

Suppose that in the English language there were ten thousand dative cases and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in -m, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident that, whatever might be the meaning of the words him and them their form would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusatives, and the form dative, we should doubt which test to take.

My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by the form of the word alone; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word should be said to be in the dative case. Now the words him and them (to which we may add whom) were once dative cases;^[48] -m in Anglo-Saxon being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the Anglo-Saxons their sense coincided with their form. At present they are dative forms with an accusative meaning. Still, as the word give takes after it a dative case, we have, even now, in the sentence, give it him, give it them, remnants of the old dative sense. To say give it to him, to them, is unnecessary and pedantic: neither do I object to the expression, whom shall I give it? If ever the formal test become generally recognised and consistently adhered to, him, them, and whom will be called datives with a latitude of meaning; and then the only true and unequivocal accusatives in the English language will be the forms you, thee, us, me, and twain.

§ 217. Analysis of cases.—In the word children's we are enabled to separate the word into three parts. 1. The root child. 2. The plural signs r and en. 3. The sign of the genitive case, s. In this case the word is said to be analysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the analysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought always to be attempted.

§ 218. The true nature of the genitive form in 's.—It is a common notion that the genitive form father's is contracted from father his. The expression in our liturgy, for Jesus Christ his sake, which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this assertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it.

1. The expression the Queen's Majesty is not capable of being reduced to the Queen his Majesty.

2. In the form his itself, the s has precisely the power that it has in father's, &c. Now his cannot be said to arise out of he + his.

3. In the Slavonic, Lithuanic, and classical tongues, the genitive ends in s, just as it does in English; so that even if the words father his would account for the English word father's, it would not account for the Sanskrit genitive pad-as, of a foot; the Zend dughdhar-s, of a daughter; the Lithuanic dugter-s; the Greek ὀδόντ-ος; the Latin dent-is, &c.

CHAPTER V.

THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

§ 219. I, we, us, me, thou, ye.—These constitute the true personal pronouns. From he, she, and it, they differ in being destitute of gender.

These latter words are demonstrative rather than personal, so that there are in English true personal pronouns for the first two persons only.

§ 220. The usual declension of the personal pronouns is exceptionable. I and me, thou and ye, stand in no etymological relations to each other. The true view of the words is, that they are not irregular but defective. I has no oblique, and me no nominative case. And so it is with the rest.

§ 221. You.—As far as the practice of the present mode of speech is concerned, the word you is a nominative form; since we say you move, you are moving, you were speaking.

Why should it not be treated as such? There is no absolute reason why it should not. The Anglo-Saxon form for you was eow, for ye, ge. Neither bears any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative. Hence, it, perhaps, is more logical to say that a certain form (you), is used either as a nominative or accusative, than to say that the accusative case is used instead of a nominative. It is clear that you can be used instead of ye only so far as it is nominative in power.

Ye.—As far as the evidence of such expressions as get on with ye is concerned, the word ye is an accusative form. The reasons why it should or should not be treated as such are involved in the previous paragraph.

§ 222. Me.—carrying out the views just laid down, and admitting you to be a nominative, or quasi-nominative case, we may extend the reasoning to the word me, and call it also a secondary or equivocal nominative; inasmuch as such phrases as it is me = it is I are common.

Now to call such expressions incorrect English is to assume the point. No one says that c'est moi is bad French, and that c'est je is good.

§ 223. Caution.—Observe, however, that the expression it is me = it is I will not justify the use of it is him, it is her = it is he and it is she. Me, ye, you, are what may be called indifferent forms, i.e., nominative as much as accusative, and accusative as much as nominative. Him and her, on the other hand, are not indifferent. The -m and -r are respectively the signs of cases other than the nominative.

§ 224. Again: the reasons which allow the form you to be considered as a nominative plural, on the strength of its being used for ye, will not allow it to be considered a nominative singular on the strength of its being used for thou.

§ 225. In phrases like you are speaking, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, the courtesy consists in treating one person as more than one, and addressing him as such, rather than in using a plural form in a singular sense. It is certain that, grammatically considered, you = thou is a plural, since the verb with which it agrees is plural:—you are speaking, not you art speaking.

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE TRUE REFLECTIVE PRONOUN IN THE GOTHIC LANGUAGES, AND ON ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLISH.

§ 226. A true reflective pronoun is wanting in English. In other words, there are no equivalents to the Latin forms sui, sibi, se.

Nor yet are there any equivalents to the forms suus, sua, suum: since his and her are the equivalents to ejus and illius, and are not adjectives but genitive cases.

At the first view, this last sentence seems unnecessary. It might seem superfluous to state, that, if there were no such primitive form as se, there could be no such secondary form as suus.

Such, however, is not the case. Suus might exist in the language, and yet se be absent; in other words, the derivative form might have continued whilst the original one had become extinct.

Such is really the case with the Old Frisian. The reflective personal form, the equivalent to se, is lost, whilst the reflective possessive form, the equivalent to suus, is found. In the Modern Frisian, however, both forms are lost.

CHAPTER VII.

THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, &c.

§ 227. The demonstrative pronouns are, 1. He, it. 2. She. 3. This, that. 4. The.

He, she, and it, generally looked on as personal, are here treated as demonstrative pronouns, for the following reasons.

1. The personal pronouns form an extremely natural class, if the pronouns of the two first persons be taken by themselves. This is not the case if they be taken along with he, it, and she.

2. The idea expressed by he, it, and she is naturally that of demonstrativeness. In the Latin language is, ea, id; ille, illa, illud; hic, hæc, hoc, are demonstrative pronouns in sense, as well as in declension.

3. The plural forms they, them, in the present English, are the plural forms of the root of that, a true demonstrative pronoun; so that even if he, she, and it could be treated as personal pronouns, they could not.

4. The word she has grown out of the Anglo-Saxon seó. Now seó was in Anglo-Saxon the feminine form of the definite article; the definite article itself being originally a demonstrative pronoun.

§ 228. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon the present English stands as follows:—

She.—The Anglo-Saxon form heó, being lost to the language, is replaced by the feminine article seó.

§ 229. Her.—This is a case, not of the present she, but of the Anglo-Saxon heó: so that she may be said to be defective in the oblique cases, and her to be defective in the nominative.

Him.—A dative form, which has replaced the Anglo-Saxon hine. When used as a dative, it was neuter as well as masculine.

His.—Originally neuter as well as masculine. Now as a neuter, replaced by its—"et quidem ipsa vox his, ut et interrogativum whose, nihil aliud sunt quam hee's, who's, ubi s omnino idem præstat quod in aliis possessivis. Similiter autem his pro hee's eodem errore quo nonnunquam bin pro been; item whose pro who's eodem errore quo done, gone, knowne, growne, &c., pro doen, goen, knowen, vel do'n, go'n, know'n, grow'n; utrobique contra analogiam linguæ; sed usu defenditur."—Wallis, c.v.

It.—Changed from the Anglo-Saxon hit, by the ejection of h. The t is no part of the original word, but a sign of the neuter gender, forming it regularly from he. The same neuter sign is preserved in the Latin id and illud.

Its.—In the course of time the nature of the neuter sign t, in it, the form being found in but a few words, became misunderstood. Instead of being looked on as an affix, it passed for part of the original word. Hence was formed from it the anomalous genitive its superseding the Saxon his. The same was the case with—

Hers.—The r is no part of the original word, but the sign of the dative case. These formations are of value in the history of cases.

§ 230. Theirs.—In the same predicament with hers and its; either the case of an adjective, or a case formed from a case.

Than or then, and there.—Although now adverbs, they were once demonstrative pronouns, in a certain case and in a certain gender, viz., than and then masculine accusative and singular, there feminine dative and singular.

§ 231. An exhibition of the Anglo-Saxon declension is the best explanation of the English. Be it observed, that the cases marked in italics are found in the present language.

I.

Se, seó ( = she).

Of this word we meet two forms only, both of the singular number, and both in the nominative case; viz., masc., se; fem. seó ( = the). The neuter gender and the other cases of the article were taken from the pronoun þæt ( = that).

II.

III.

IV.

þe (the)—Undeclined, and used for all cases and genders.

§ 232. These.—Here observe—

1st. That the s is no inflection, but a radical part of the word, like the s in geese.

2nd. That the Anglo-Saxon form is þás.

These facts create difficulties in respect to the word these. Mr. Guest's view is, perhaps, the best; viz., that the plural element of the word is the final -e, and that this -e is the old English and Anglo-Saxon adjective plural; so that thes-e is formed from this, as gode ( = boni) is from god ( = bonus).

The nominative plural in the Old English adjective ended in -e; as,

In Old English MSS. this plural in -e is general. It occurs not only in adjectives and pronouns as a regular inflection, but even as a plural of the genitive his, that word being treated as a nominative singular; so that hise is formed from his, as sui from suus, or as eji might have been formed from ejus; provided that in the Latin language this last word had been mistaken for a nominative singular. The following examples are Mr. Guest's.

1. In these lay a gret multitude of syke men, blinde, crokid, and drye.—Wicliffe, Jon. v.