The English Language

2. The termination -ess, in which so large a portion of our feminine substantives terminate, is not of Saxon but of classical origin, being derived from the termination -ix, genitrix.

3. The words shepherdess, huntress, and hostess are faulty; the radical part of the word being Germanic, and the secondary part classical: indeed, in strict English grammar, the termination -ess has no place at all. It is a classic, not a Gothic, element.

4. The termination -inn, so current in German, as the equivalent to -ess, and as a feminine affix (freund=a friend; freundinn=a female friend), is found only in one or two words in English.

Carlin means an old woman: Icelandic, kerling; Sw., käring; Dan. kælling. Root, carl.

Vixen is a true feminine derivative from fox. German, füchsinn.

Bruin=the bear, may be either a female form, as in Old High German përo=a he-bear, pirinn=a she-bear, or it may be the Norse form björn=a bear, male or female.

Words like margravine and landgravine prove nothing, being scarcely naturalised.

5. The termination -str, as in webster, songster, and baxter, was originally a feminine affix. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon,

The same is the case in the present Dutch of Holland: e.g., spookster=a female fortune-teller; bakster=a baking-woman; waschster=a washerwoman. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 339.) The word spinster still retains its original feminine force.

6. The words songstress and seamstress, besides being, as far as concerns the intermixture of languages, in the predicament of shepherdess, have, moreover, a double feminine termination; 1st. -str, of Germanic, 2nd. -ess, of classical, origin.

7. In the word heroine we have a Greek termination, just as -ix is a Latin, and -inn a German one. It must not, however, be considered as derived from hero, by any process of the English language, but be dealt with as a separate importation from the Greek language.

8. The form deaconess is not wholly unexceptionable; since the termination -ess is of Latin, the root deacon of Greek origin: this Greek origin being rendered all the more conspicuous by the spelling, deacon (from diaconos), as compared with the Latin decanus.

9. The circumstance of prince ending in the sound of s, works a change in the accent of the word. As s is the final letter, it is necessary, in forming the plural number, and the genitive case, to add, not the simple letter s, as in peers, priests, &c., but the syllable -es. This makes the plural number and genitive case the same as the feminine form. Hence the feminine form is accented princéss, while peéress, príestess, &c., carry the accent on the first syllable. Princéss is remarkable as being the only word in English where the accent lies on the subordinate syllable.

10. It is uncertain whether kit, as compared with cat, be a feminine form or a diminutive form; in other words, whether it mean a female cat or a young cat.—See the Chapter on the Diminutives.

11. Goose, gander.—One peculiarity in this pair of words has already been indicated. In the older forms of the word goose, such as χὴν, Greek; anser, Latin; gans, German, as well as in the derived form gander, we have the proofs that, originally, there belonged to the word the sound of the letter n. In the forms ὀδοὺς, ὀδόντος, Greek; dens, dentis, Latin; zahn, German; tooth, English, we find the analogy that accounts for the ejection of the n, and the lengthening of the vowel preceding. With respect, however, to the d in gander, it is not easy to say whether it is inserted in one word or omitted in the other. Neither can we give the precise power of the -er. The following forms (taken from Grimm, iii. p. 341) occur in the different Gothic dialects. Gans, fem.; ganazzo, masc., Old High German—gôs, f.; gandra, m., Anglo-Saxon—gâs, Icelandic, f.; gaas, Danish, f.; gassi, Icelandic, m.; gasse, Danish, m.—ganser, ganserer, gansart, gänserich, gander, masculine forms in different New German dialects.

12. Observe, the form gänserich has a masculine termination. The word täuberich, in provincial New German, has the same form and the same power. It denotes a male dove; taube, in German, signifying a dove. In gänserich and täuberich, we find preserved the termination -rich (or -rik), with a masculine power. Of this termination we have a remnant, in English, preserved in the curious word drake. To duck the word drake has no etymological relation whatsoever. It is derived from a word with which it has but one letter in common; viz. the Latin anas=a duck. Of this the root is anat-, as seen in the genitive case anatis. In Old High German we find the form anetrekho=a drake; in provincial New High German there is enterich and äntrecht, from whence come the English and Low German form drake. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 341.)

13. Peacock, peahen, bridegroom.—In these compounds, it is not the words pea and bride that are rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of cock, hen, and groom, but it is the words cock, hen, and groom that are modified by prefixing pea and bride. For an appreciation of this distinction, see the Chapter on Composition.

CHAPTER III.

THE NUMBERS.

§ 280. In the Greek language the word patær signifies a father, speaking of one, whilst patere signifies two fathers, speaking of a pair, and thirdly, pateres signifies fathers, speaking of any number beyond two. The three words, patær, patere, and pateres, are said to be in different numbers, the difference of meaning being expressed by a difference of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks of one is the singular, the number that speaks of two is the dual (from the Latin word duo=two), and the number that speaks of more than two is the plural.

All languages have numbers, but all languages have not them to the same extent. The Hebrew has a dual, but it is restricted to nouns only (in Greek being extended to verbs). It has, moreover, this peculiarity; it applies, for the most part, only to things which are naturally double, as the two eyes, the two hands, &c. The Latin has no dual number at all, except the natural dual in the words ambo and duo.

§ 281. The question presents itself,—to what extent have we numbers in English? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual.

§ Different from the question, to what degree have we numbers? is the question,—over what extent of our language have we numbers? This distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who said typtô=I beat, typteton=ye two beat, typtomen=we beat, had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns; while the Hebrew dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual number is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew.

There is no dual in the present English. It has been seen, however, that in the Anglo-Saxon there was a dual. But the Anglo-Saxon dual, being restricted to the personal pronouns (wit=we two; git=ye two), was not co-extensive with the Greek dual.

There is no dual in the present German. In the ancient German there was one.

In the present Danish and Swedish there is no dual. In the Old Norse and in the present Icelandic a dual number is to be found.

From this we learn that the dual number is one of those inflections that languages drop as they become modern.

The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins say, bonus pater=a good father; boni patres=good fathers. In the Latin, the adjective bonus changes its form with the change of number of the substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon there were plural forms for the adjectives.

For the forms selves and others, see the Syntax. For the present, it is sufficient to foreshadow a remark which will be made on the word self, viz. that whether it be a pronoun, a substantive, or an adjective, is a disputed point.

Words like wheat, pitch, gold, &c., where the idea is naturally singular; words like bellows, scissors, lungs, &c., where the idea is naturally plural; and words like deer, sheep, where the same form serves for the singular and plural, inasmuch as there takes place no change of form, are not under the province of etymology.

§ 282. The current rule is, that the plural number is formed from the singular by adding s, as father, fathers. However, if the reader will revert to the Section upon the sharp and flat Mutes, where it is stated that mutes of different degrees of sharpness and flatness cannot come together in the same syllable, he will find occasion to take to the current rule a verbal exception. The letter added to the word father, making it fathers, is s to the eye only. To the ear it is z. The word sounds fatherz. If the s retained its sound, the spelling would be fatherce. In stags, lads, &c., the sound is stagz, ladz. The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously expressed, is as follows.—The plural is formed from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s): e.g. (the sound of the word being expressed), pea, peaz; tree, treez; day, dayz; hill, hillz; hen, henz; gig, gigz; trap, traps; pit, pits; stack, stacks. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary.

I. In the case of words ending in b, v, d, the th in thine=ð, or g, a change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharp s affixed, was not a matter of choice, but of necessity; the combinations abs, avs, ads, aðs, ags, being unpronounceable. See the Section on the Law of Accommodation.

II. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second (aps, afs, ats, aþs, asks), or the second to the first (abz, avz, aðz, agz), is determined by the habit of the particular language in question; and, with a few apparent exceptions (mark the word apparent), it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not vice versâ.

III. Such combinations as peas, trees, hills, hens, &c. (the s preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written peace, treece, hillce, hence), being pronounceable, the change from s to z, in words so ending, is not a matter determined by the necessity of the case, but by the habit of the English language.

IV. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in s, but in z, the original addition was not z, but s. This we infer from three facts: 1. From the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound of z being either rare or non-existent in Anglo-Saxon; 3. from the sufficiency of the causes to bring about the change.

It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals are either mere points of orthography, or else capable of being explained on very simple euphonic principles.

§ 283. Boxes, churches, judges, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes.—Here there is the addition, not of the mere letter s, but of the syllable -es. As s cannot be immediately added to s, the intervention of a vowel becomes necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in -es really end either in the sounds of s, or in the allied sounds of z, sh, or zh, may be seen by analysis; since x=ks, ch=tsh, and j or ge=dzh, whilst ce, in prince, is a mere point of orthography for s.

Monarchs, heresiarchs.—Here the ch equals not tsh, but k, so that there is no need of being told that they do not follow the analogy of church, &c.

Cargoes, echoes.—From cargo and echo, with the addition of e; an orthographical expedient for the sake of denoting the length of the vowel o.

Beauty, beauties; key, keys.—Like the word cargoes, &c., these forms are points, not of etymology, but of orthography.

§ 284. "A few apparent exceptions."—These words are taken from Observation II. in the present section. The apparent exceptions to the rule there laid down are the words loaf, wife, and a few others, whose plural is not sounded loafs, wifs (loafce, wifce), but loavz, wivz (written loaves, wives). Here it seems as if z had been added to the singular; and, contrary to rule, the final letter of the original word been accommodated to the z, instead of the z being accommodated to the final syllable of the word, and so becoming s. It is, however, very probable that instead of the plural form being changed, it is the singular that has been modified. In the Anglo-Saxon the f at the end of words (as in the present Swedish) had the power of v. In the allied language the words in point are spelt with the flat mute, as weib, laub, kalb, halb, stab, German. The same is the case with leaf, leaves; calf, calves; half, halves; staff, staves; beef, beeves: this last word being Anglo-Norman.

Pence.—The peculiarity of this word consists in having a flat liquid followed by the sharp sibilant s (spelt ce), contrary to the rule given above. In the first place, it is a contracted form from pennies; in the second place, its sense is collective rather than plural; in the third place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it from lens, sounded lenz. That its sense is collective rather than plural (a distinction to which the reader's attention is directed), we learn from the word sixpence, which, compared with sixpences, is no plural, but a singular form.

Dice.—In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason that pence is peculiar. We find the sound of s after a vowel, where that of z is expected. This distinguishes dice for play, from dies (diez) for coining. Dice, perhaps, like pence, is collective rather than plural.

In geese, lice, and mice, we have, apparently, the same phenomenon as in dice, viz., a sharp sibilant (s) where a flat one (z) is expected. The s, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural, but the last letter of the original word.

Alms.—This is no true plural form. The s belongs to the original word, Anglo-Saxon, ælmesse; Greek, ἐλεημοσύνη; just as the s in goose does. How far the word, although a true singular in its form, may have a collective signification, and require its verb to be plural, is a point not of etymology, but of syntax. The same is the case with the word riches, from the French richesse. In riches the last syllable being sounded as ez, increases its liability to pass for a plural.

News, means, pains.—These, the reverse of alms and riches, are true plural forms. How far, in sense, they are singular is a point not of etymology, but of syntax.

Mathematics, metaphysics, politics, ethics, optics, physics.—The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each is the name of some department of study, of some art, or of some science. As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote, either of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and sciences of Greece be expressed, in Greek, rather by a substantive and an adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for instance, let it be the habit of the language to say the musical art, rather than music. Let the Greek for art be a word in the feminine gender; e.g., τέχνη (tekhnæ), so that the musical art be ἡ μουσίκη τέχνη (hæ mousikæ tekhnæ). Let, in the progress of language (as was actually the case in Greece), the article and substantive be omitted, so that, for the musical art, or for music, there stand only the feminine adjective, μουσίκη. Let there be, upon a given art or science, a series of books, or treatises; the Greek for book, or treatise, being a neuter substantive, βίβλιον (biblion). Let the substantive meaning treatise be, in the course of language, omitted, so that whilst the science of physics is called φυσίκη (fysikæ), physic, from ἡ φυσίκη τέχνη, a series of treatises (or even chapters) upon the science shall be called φύσικα (fysika) or physics. Now all this was what happened in Greece. The science was denoted by a feminine adjective singular, as φυσίκη (fysicæ), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective plural, as φύσικα (fysica). The treatises of Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive, that in the middle ages a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two sources, viz., from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as physic, logic; in the second place a plural form, as mathematics, metaphysics, optics.

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

§ 285. 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 other Gothic tongue the following forms in -r.—

and others, the peculiarity of which is the fact of their all being of the neuter gender. The particular Gothic dialect wherein they occur most frequently is the Dutch of Holland.

Now, the theory respecting the form so propounded by Grimm (D. G. iii. p. 270) 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, rigv-is=smoke (reek). In none of these words is the -s radical, and in none is it limited to the singular number.

To these views Bopp adds, that the termination in question is the Sanskrit -as, a neuter affix; as in têj-as=splendour, strength, from tij=to sharpen.—V. G. pp. 141-259, Eastwick's and Wilson's translation.

To these doctrines of Grimm and Bopp, 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, eigir=a collection of eggs, eggery or eyry. For further observations on the power of -r, and for reasons for believing it to be the same as in the words Jew-r-y, yeoman-r-y, see a paper of Mr. Guest's, Philol. Trans., May 26, 1843. There we find the remarkable form lamb-r-en, from Wicliffe, Joh. xxi. Lamb-r-en : lamb :: child-r-en : child.

§ 286. 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.

§ 287. 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 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.

§ 288. 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, pluraliter oxen, chicken (sunt qui dicunt in singulari chicken, et in plurali chickens)."—(P. 77). 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."—(P. 77.) Subject to this view, the word fer-n-s would exhibit the same phenomenon as the word chicke-n-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."—P. 79.

CHAPTER IV.

ON THE CASES.

§ 289. The extent to which there are, in the English language, cases, depends on the meaning which we attach to the word case. In the sentence 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 a fathers 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.

Now if the relation alone between two words constitutes a case, the words or sentences, 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 is a remark, at least as old as Dr. Beattie,^[39] 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."

For etymological purposes 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 father we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two.

In order to constitute a case there must be a change of form.—This statement is a matter of definition. A second question, however, arises out of it; viz., whether every change of form constitute a case? In the Greek language there are the words ἔριν (erin), and ἔριδα (erida). Unlike the words father and father's these two words have precisely the same meaning. Each is called an accusative; and each, consequently, is said to be in the same case with the other. This indicates the statement, that in order to constitute a case there must be not only a change of form, but also a change of meaning. Whether such a limitation of the word be convenient, is a question for the general grammarian. At present we merely state that there is no change of case unless there be a change of form. Hence, in respect to the word patribus (and others like it), which is sometimes translated from fathers, and at other times to fathers, we must say, not that in the one case the word is ablative and in the other dative, but that a certain case is used with a certain latitude of meaning. This remark bears on the word her in English. In her book the sense is that of the case currently called genitive. In it moved her, the sense is that of the case currently called the accusative. If we adhere, however, to what we have laid down, we must take exceptions to this mode of speaking. It is not that out of the single form her we can get two cases, but that a certain form has two powers; one that of the Latin genitive, and another that of the Latin accusative.

§ 290. This leads to an interesting question, viz., what notions are sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same form, and in the same case? The word her, in its two senses, may, perhaps, be dealt with as a single case, because the notions conveyed by the genitive and accusative are, perhaps, sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same word. Are the notions, however, of a mistress, and mistresses, so allied? I think not; and yet in the Latin language the same form, dominæ, expresses both. Of dominæ=of a mistress, and of dominæ=mistresses, we cannot say that there is one and the same case with a latitude of meaning. The words were, perhaps, once different. And this 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 smith (smið), end (ende), and day (dæg), were, respectively, smithes (smiðes), endes, and dayes (dæges); whilst the nominative plurals were, respectively, smithas (smiðas), endas, and dayas (dægas). A process of 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.

§ 291. 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.

Accusative.—Some call this the objective case. The words him (singular) and them (plural) (whatever they may have been originally) are now true accusatives. The accusative case is found in pronouns only. Thee, me, us, and you are, to a certain extent, true accusatives.

They 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 of 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.

Note.—The words him and them are true accusatives in even a less degree than thee, me, us, and you. The Anglo-Saxon equivalents to the Latin words eos and illos were hi (or hig) and þá (or þæge); in other words, the sign of the accusative was other than the sound of -m. The case which really ended in -m was the so-called dative; so that the Anglo-Saxon forms him (or heom) and þám=the Latin iis and illis.

This fact explains the meaning of the words, whatever they may have been originally, in a preceding sentence. It also indicates a fresh element in the criticism and nomenclature of the grammarian; viz., the extent to which the history of a form regulates its position as an inflection.

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

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, princesseses, &c.

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, seo, in all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times, as an article. Hence the English article the.

"þy seems justly to be received as a proper ablativus instrumenti, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, mid þy áþe=with that oath (Inæ Reges, 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; 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 (=þy) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflection of the interrogative pronoun:—

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

§ 292. 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 accusative, 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, as stated above, the words him and them (to which we may add whom) were once dative cases; -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.

My, an accusative form (meh, me, mec), has now a genitive sense. The same may be said of thy.

Me, originally an accusative form (both me and my can grow out of mec and meh), had, even with the Anglo-Saxons, a dative sense. Give it me is correct English. The same may be said of thee.

Him, a dative form, has now an accusative sense.

Her.—For this word, as well as for further details on me and my, see the Chapters on the Personal and Demonstrative Pronouns.

§ 293. When all traces of the original dative signification are effaced, and when all the dative cases in a language are similarly affected, an accusative case may be said to have originated out of a dative.

§ 294. Thus far the question has been concerning the immediate origin of cases: their remote origin is a different matter.

The word um occurs in Icelandic. In Danish and Swedish it is om; in the Germanic languages omme, umbi, umpi, ymbe, and also um. Its meaning is at, on, about. The word whilom is the substantive while=a time or pause (Dan. hvile=to rest), with the addition of the preposition om. That the particular dative form in om has arisen out of the noun plus the preposition is a safe assertion. I am not prepared, however, to account for the formation of all the cases in this manner.

§ 295. 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.

§ 296. 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 all the languages of the vast Indo-European tribe, except the Celtic, 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.

For further remarks upon the English genitive, see the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. ii. p. 246.

CHAPTER V.

THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

§ 297. 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.

In other languages the current pronouns of the third person are, as in English, demonstrative rather than personal.

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 with respect to the rest.

I, in German ich, Icelandic ek, corresponds with ἐγὼ, and ego of the classical languages; ego and ἐγὼ being, like I, defective in the oblique cases.

My, as stated above, is a form originally accusative, but now used in a genitive sense.

Me.—In Anglo-Saxon this was called a dative form. The fact seems to be that both my and me grow out of an accusative form, meh, mec.

That the sound of k originally belonged to the pronouns me and thee, we learn not only from the Anglo-Saxons mec, þec, meh, þeh, but from the Icelandic mik, þik, and the German mich, dich. This accounts for the form my; since y=ey, and the sounds of y and g are allied. That both me and my can be evolved from mik, we see in the present Scandinavian languages, where, very often even in the same district, mig is pronounced both mey and mee.

We and our.—These words are not in the condition of I and me. Although the fact be obscured, they are really in an etymological relation to each other. This we infer from the alliance between the sounds of w and ou, and from the Danish forms vi (we), vor (our). It may be doubted, however, whether our be a true genitive rather than an adjectival form. In the form ours we find it playing the part, not of a case, but of an independent word. Upon this, however, too much stress cannot be laid. In Danish it takes a neuter form: vor=noster; vort=nostrum. From this I conceive that it agrees, not with the Latin genitive nostrûm, but with the adjective noster.

Us, we, our.—Even us is in an etymological relation to we. That we and our are so, has just been shown. Now in Anglo-Saxon there were two forms of our, viz., úre (=nostrûm), and user (=noster). This connects we and us through our.

From these preliminary notices we have the changes in form of the true personal pronouns, as follows:—

§ 298. We and me have been dealt with as distinct words. But it is only for practical purposes that they can be considered to be thus separate; since the sounds of m and w are allied, and in Sanskrit the singular form ma=I is looked upon as part of the same word with vayam=we. The same is the case with the Greek με (me), and the plural form ἡμεῖς (hæmeis)=we.

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. All that can be said is, that the historical reason and the logical reason are at variance. The Anglo-Saxon form for you was eow, for ye, ge. Neither bear any sign of case at all, so that, form for form, they are equally and indifferently nominative and accusative, as the habit of language may make them. 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.

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 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. The fact is, that the whole question is a question of degree. Has or has not the custom been sufficiently prevalent to have transferred the forms me, ye, and you from one case to another, as it is admitted to have done with the forms him and whom, once dative, but now accusative?

Observe.—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.

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. It is submitted to the reader, that in phrases like you are speaking, &c., even when applied to a single individual, the idea is really plural; in other words, that 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.

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

Nor yet are there any equivalents in English to the so-called adjectival 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 (or its equivalent), there could be no such secondary form as suus (or its equivalent).

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; as they also are in the present English.

The history of the reflective pronoun in the Gothic tongues is as follows:—

In Mœso-Gothic.—Found in three cases, seina, sis, sik=sui, sibi, se.

In Old Norse.—Ditto. Sin, ser, sik=sui, sibi, se.

In Old High German.—The dative form lost; there being no such word as sir=sis=sibi. Besides this, the genitive or possessive form sin is used only in the masculine and neuter genders.

In Old Frisian.—As stated above, there is here no equivalent to se; whilst there is the form sin=suus.

In Old Saxon.—The equivalent to se, sibi, and sui very rare. The equivalent to suus not common, but commoner than in Anglo-Saxon.

In Anglo-Saxon.—No instance of the equivalent to se at all. The forms sinne=suum, and sinum=suo, occur in Beowulf. In Cædmon cases of sin=suus are more frequent. Still the usual form is his=ejus.

In the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, the true reflectives, both personal and possessive, occur; so that the modern Frisian and English stand alone in respect to the entire absence of them.—Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 321-348.

The statement concerning the absence of the true reflective in English, although negative, has an important philological bearing on more points than one.

1. It renders the use of the word self much more necessary than it would be otherwise.

2. It renders us unable to draw a distinction between the meanings of the Latin words suus and ejus.

3. It precludes the possibility of the evolution of a middle voice like that of the Old Norse, where kalla-sc=kalla-sik.