The alphabet of Phœnicia and Palestine being adapted to the language of Greece, the first change took place in the manner of writing. The Phœnicians wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to right. Besides this, the following principles were recognised;—

a. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case, as seen above, with the eighteenth letter, tsadi.

b. Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8, 16, and probably with some others.

c. Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was the case with 6 and 19.

d. For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signs φ, χ, υ, ω.

e. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older ones, but totally new letters.

All this was correct in principle; and the consequence is, that the Greek alphabet, although not originally meant to express a European tongue at all, expresses the Greek language well.

§ 162. But it was not from the Greek that our own alphabet was immediately derived; although ultimately it is referable to the same source as the Greek, viz., the Phœnician.

It was the Roman alphabet which served as the basis to the English.

And it is in the changes which the Phœnician alphabet underwent in being accommodated to the Latin language that we must investigate the chief peculiarities of the present alphabet and orthography of Great Britain and America.

Now respecting the Roman alphabet, we must remember that it was not taken directly from the Phœnician; in this important point differing from the Greek.

Nor yet was it taken, in the first instance, from the Greek.

It had a double origin.

The operation of the principles indicated in § 161 was a work of the time; and hence the older and more unmodified Greek alphabet approached in character its Phœnician prototype much more than the later, or modified. As may be seen, by comparing the previous alphabets with the common alphabets of the Greek Grammar, the letters 6 and 19 occur in the earlier, whilst they are missing in the later, modes of writing. On the other hand, the old alphabet has no such signs as φ, χ, υ, ω, ψ, and ξ.

Such being the case, it is easy to imagine what would be the respective conditions of two Italian languages which borrowed those alphabets, the one from the earlier, the other from the later Greek. The former would contain the equivalents to vaw (6), and kof (19); but be destitute of φ, χ, &c.; whereas the latter would have φ, χ, &c., but be without either vaw or kof.

Much the same would be the case with any single Italian language which took as its basis the earlier, but adopted, during the course of time, modifications from the later Greek. It would exhibit within itself characters common to the two stages.

This, or something very like it, was the case with Roman. For the first two or three centuries the alphabet was Etruscan; Etruscan derived directly from the Greek, and from the old Greek.

Afterwards, however, the later Greek alphabet had its influence, and the additional letters which it contained were more or less incorporated; and that without effecting the ejection of any earlier ones.

§ 163. With these preliminaries we may investigate the details of the Roman alphabet, when we shall find that many of them stand in remarkable contrast with those of Greece and Phœnicia. At the same time where they differ with them, they agree with the English.

§ 164. The differences of this table are referable to one of the following four heads:—a. Ejection. b. Addition. c. Change of power. d. Change of order.

a. Ejection.—In the first instance, the Italians ejected as unnecessary, letters 7,^[44] 9, and 11: zayn (zæta), teth (thæta), and kaf (kappa). Either the sounds which they expressed were wanting in their language; or else they were expressed by some other letter. The former was probably the case with 7 and 9, zæta and thæta, the latter with 11, kappa.

b. Addition.—Out of the Greek iôta, two; out of the Greek upsilon, four modifications have been evolved; viz., i and j out of ι, and u, v, w, y, out of υ.

c. Change of power.—Letter 3, in Greek and Hebrew had the sound of the g in gun; in Latin that of k. The reason for this lies in the structure of the Etruscan language. In that tongue the flat sounds were remarkably deficient; indeed, it is probable, that that of g was wanting. Its sharp equivalent, however, the sound of k, was by no means wanting; and the Greek gamma was used to denote it. This made the equivalent to k, the third letter of the alphabet, as early as the time of the Etruscans.

But the Romans had both sounds, the flat as well as the sharp, g as well as k. How did they express them? Up to the second Punic War they made the rounded form of the Greek Γ, out of which the letter C has arisen, do double work, and signify k and g equally, just as in the present English th is sounded as the Greek θ,^[45] and as dh;^[46] in proof whereof we have in the Duillian column, MACESTRATOS = MAGISTRATOS, and CARTHACINIENSES = CARTHAGINIENSES.

Thus much concerning the power and places of the Latin c, as opposed to the Greek γ. But this is not all. The use of gamma, with the power of k, made kappa superfluous, and accounts for its ejection in the Etruscan alphabet; a fact already noticed.

Furthermore, an addition to the Etruscan alphabet was required by the existence of the sound of g, in Latin, as soon as the inconvenience of using c with a double power became manifest. What took place then? Even this. The third letter was modified in form, or became a new letter, c being altered into g; and the new letter took its place in the alphabet.

Where was this? As the seventh letter between f (digamma) and h (hæta).

Why? Because it was there where there was a vacancy, and where it replaced the Greek zæta, or the Hebrew zayn, a letter which, at that time, was not wanted in Latin.

d. Change of order.—As far as the letters c and g are concerned, this has been explained; and it has been shown that change of order and change of power are sometimes very closely connected. All that now need be added is, that those letters which were last introduced from the Greek into the Roman alphabet, were placed at the end.

This is why u, v, w, and y come after t—the last letter of the original Phœnician, and also of the older Greek.

This, too, is the reason for z coming last of all. It was restored for the purpose of spelling Greek words. But as its original place had been filled up by g, it was tacked on as an appendage, rather than incorporated as an element.

X in power, coincided with the Greek xi; in place, with the Greek khi. Its position seems to have determined its form, which is certainly that of X rather than of Ξ. The full investigation of this is too lengthy for the present work.

§ 165. It should be observed, that, in the Latin, the letters have no longer any names (like beth, bæta), except such as are derived from their powers (be, ce).

§ 166. The principles which determined the form of the Roman alphabet were, upon the whole, correct; and, hence, the Roman alphabet, although not originally meant to express an Italian tongue at all, expressed the language to which it was applied tolerably.

On the other hand, there were both omissions and alterations which have had a detrimental effect upon the orthography of those other numerous tongues to which Latin has supplied the alphabet. Thus—

a. It is a matter of regret, that the differences which the Greeks drew between the so-called long and short e and o, was neglected by the Latins; in other words, that ω was omitted entirely, and η changed in power. Had this been the case, all the orthographical expedients by which we have to express the difference between the o in not, and the o in note, would have been prevented—not, note, moat—bed, bead, heel, glede, &c.

b. It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessary compendium as q = cu, or cw, should have been retained from the old Greek alphabet; and, still more so, that the equally superfluous x = cs, or ks, should have been re-admitted.

c. It is a matter of regret, that the Greek θ was not treated like the Greek ζ. Neither were wanted at first; both afterwards. The manner, however, of their subsequent introduction was different. Zæta came in as a simple single letter, significant of a simple single sound. Thæta, on the contrary, although expressive of an equally simple sound, became th. This was a combination rather than a letter; and the error which it engendered was great.

It suggested the idea, that a simple sound was a compound one—which was wrong.

It further suggested the idea, that the sound of θ differed from that of τ, by the addition of h—which was wrong also.

§ 167. The Greek language had a system of sounds different from the Phœnician; and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.

The Roman language had a system of sounds different from the Greek and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.

This leads us to certain questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon. Had it a system of sounds different from the Roman? If so, what modifications did the alphabet require? Were such modifications effected? If so, how? Sufficiently or insufficiently? The answers are unsatisfactory.

§ 168. The Anglo-Saxon had, even in its earliest stage, the following sounds, for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs or letters—

1. The sound of the th in thin.

2. The sound of the th in thine.

It had certainly these: probably others.

§ 169. Expressive of these, two new signs were introduced, viz., þ = th in thin, and ð = th in thine.

W, also evolved out of u, was either an original improvement of the Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of the allied languages of the Continent. Probably the latter was the case; since we find the following passage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid's "Krist:"—"Hujus enim linguæ barbaries, ut est inculca et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticæ artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto quærit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente."

This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered the purpose to which it was applied tolerably.

§ 170. Change, however, went on; and the orthography which suited the earlier Anglo-Saxon would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not suit the language which had become or was becoming, English; wherein the sounds for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs increase. Thus there is at present—

1. The sound of the sh in shine.

2. The sound of the z in azure.

How are these to be expressed? The rule has hitherto been to denote simple single sounds, by simple single signs, and where such signs have no existence already, to originate new ones.

To combine existing letters, rather than to coin a new one, has only been done rarely. The Latin substitution of the combination th for the simple single θ, was exceptionable. It was a precedent, however, which now begins to be followed generally.

§ 171. It is this precedent which accounts for the absence of any letter in English, expressive of either of the sounds in question.

§ 172. Furthermore, our alphabet has not only not increased in proportion to our sound-system, but it has decreased. The Anglo-Saxon þ = the th in thin, and ð = the th in thine, have become obsolete; and a difference in pronunciation, which our ancestors expressed, we overlook.

The same precedent is at the bottom of this; a fact which leads us to—

§ 173. The Anglo-Norman alphabet.—The Anglo-Saxon language was Gothic; the alphabet, Roman.

The Anglo-Norman language was Roman; the alphabet, Roman also.

The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source; his writing from another.

The Anglo-Norman took both from the same.

In adapting a Latin alphabet to a Gothic language, the Anglo-Saxon allowed himself more latitude than the Anglo-Norman. We have seen that the new signs þ and ð were Anglo-Saxon.

Now the sounds which these letters represent did not occur in the Norman-French, consequently the Norman-French alphabet neither had nor needed to have signs to express them; until after the battle of Hastings, when it became the Anglo-Norman of England.

Then, the case became altered. The English language influenced the Norman orthography, and the Norman orthography the English language; and the result was, that the simple single correct and distinctive signs of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, became replaced by the incorrect and indistinct combination th.

This was a loss, both in the way of theoretical correctness and perspicuity.

Such is the general view of the additions, ejections, changes of power, and changes of order in the English alphabet. The extent, however, to which an alphabet is faulty, is no measure of the extent to which an orthography is faulty; since an insufficient alphabet may, by consistency in its application, be more useful than a full and perfect alphabet unsteadily applied.

§ 174. One of our orthographical expedients, viz., the reduplication of the consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical languages: terra, θάλασσα. Nevertheless, the following extract from the "Ormulum" (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have met with.

§ 175. The order of the alphabet.—In the history of our alphabet, we have had the history of certain changes in the arrangement, as well as of the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question now presents itself: viz., Is there in the order of the letters any natural arrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession of letters arbitrary and accidental? The following facts suggest an answer in the affirmative.

The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:—

Let beth, vaw, and pe (b, v, p) constitute a series called series P. Let gimel, kheth, and kof (g, kh, k') constitute a series called series K. Let daleth, teth, and tau, (d, t', t) constitute a series called series T. Let aleph, he, and ayn constitute a series called the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order.

Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel series; that of series K follows; and in the last place, comes the letter of series T. After this the order changes; daleth being followed by he of the vowel series.

In this second sequence the relative positions of v, kh, and t', are the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series. The sequence itself is broken by the letter zayn but it is remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but fragmentary. Still, even now, pe, of series P, follows ayn; tau, of series T, is farthest from it, and kof, of series K, is intermediate.

If this be the case, and, if the letters, so to say, circulate, the alterations made in their order during the transfer of their alphabet from Greece to Rome, have had the unsatisfactory effect of concealing an interesting arrangement, and of converting a real, though somewhat complex regularity, into apparent hazard and disorder.

QUESTIONS.

1. Explain the terms sharp, explosive, true aspirate, apparent aspirate, broad, dependent.

2. Exhibit the difference between the quantity of syllables and the quantity of vowels.

3. Accentuate the following words,—attribute (adjective), survey (verb), August (the month).

4. Under what conditions is the sound of consonants doubled?

5. Exhibit, in a tabular form, the relations of the a) mutes, b) the vowels, underlining those which do not occur in English.

6. What is the power of ph in Philip? what in haphazard? Illustrate the difference fully.

7. Investigate the changes by which the words picture, nature, derived from the Latin pictura and natura, are sounded pictshur and natshur.

8. How do you sound the combination apd? Why?

9. In what points is the English alphabet insufficient, redundant, and inconsistent?

10. Why is z (zæta), which is the sixth letter in the Greek, the last in the English alphabet?

PART IV.

ETYMOLOGY.

CHAPTER I.

ON THE PROVINCE OF ETYMOLOGY.

§ 176. The word etymology, derived from the Greek, in the current language of scholars and grammarians, has a double meaning. At times it is used in a wide, and at times in a restricted sense.

If in the English language we take such a word as fathers, we are enabled to divide it into two parts; in other words, to reduce it into two elements. By comparing it with the word father, we see that the s is neither part nor parcel of the original word. Hence the word is capable of being analysed; father being the original primitive word, and s the secondary superadded termination. From the word father, the word fathers is derived, or (changing the expression) deduced, or descended. What has been said of the word fathers may also be said of fatherly, fatherlike, fatherless, &c. Now, from the word father, all these words (fathers, fatherly, fatherlike, and fatherless) differ in form and in meaning. To become such a word as fathers, &c., the word father is changed. Of changes of this sort, it is the province of etymology to take cognizance.

§ 177. Compared with the form fathers, the word father is the older form of the two. The word father is a word current in this the nineteenth century. The same word is found much earlier, under different forms, and in different languages. Thus, in the Latin language, the form was pater; in Greek, πατήρ. Now, with father and fathers, the change takes place within the same language, whilst the change that takes place between pater and father takes place within different languages. Of changes of this latter kind it is, also, the province of etymology to take cognizance.

§ 178. In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizance of the changes of the form of words. However, as the etymology that compares the forms fathers and father is different from the etymology that compares father and pater, we have, of etymology, two sorts: one dealing with the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language (father, fathers), the other dealing with the changes that words undergo in passing from one language to another (pater, father).

The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the etymology of the ensuing pages.

The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word, historical etymology, or comparative etymology.

§ 179. It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in one point, viz., in taking cognizance of the changes of forms that words undergo. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, as father, fathers, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time, as pater, father, is a matter of indifference.

In the Latin pater, and in the English father, we have one of two things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or two words descended or derived from a common original source.

In fathers we have a formation deduced from the radical word father.

With these preliminaries we may understand Dr. Johnson's explanation of the word etymology.

"Etymology, n. s. (etymologia, Lat.) ἔτυμος (etymos) true, and λόγος (logos) a word.

"1. The descent or derivation of a word from its original; the deduction of formations from the radical word; the analysis of compounds into primitives.

"2. The part of grammar which delivers the inflections of nouns and verbs."

CHAPTER II

ON GENDER.

§ 180. How far is there such a thing as gender in the English language? This depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word.

In the Latin language we have the words taurus = bull, and vacca = cow. Here the natural distinction of sex is expressed by wholly different words. With this we have corresponding modes of expression in English: e.g.,

The mode, however, of expressing different sexes by wholly different words is not a matter of gender. The words boy and girl bear no etymological relation to each other; neither being derived from the other, nor in any way connected with it.

§ 181. Neither are words like cock-sparrow, man-servant, he-goat, &c., as compared with hen-sparrow, maid-servant, she-goat, &c., specimens of gender. Here a difference of sex is indicated by the addition of a fresh term, from which is formed a compound word.

§ 182. In the Latin words genitrix = a mother, and genitor = a father, we have a nearer approach to gender. Here the difference of sex is expressed by a difference of termination; the words genitor and genitrix being in a true etymological relation, i.e., either derived from each other, or from some common source. With this we have, in English corresponding modes of expression: e.g.

§ 183. This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to gender rather than gender itself; the difference from true grammatical gender being as follows:—

Let the Latin words genitor and genitrix be declined:—

The syllables in italics are the signs of the cases and numbers. Now those signs are the same in each word, the difference of meaning (or sex) not affecting them.

§ 184. Contrast, however, with the words genitor and genitrix the words domina = a mistress, and dominus = a master.

Here the letters in italics, or the signs of the cases and numbers, are different; the difference being brought about by the difference of gender. Now it is very evident that, if genitrix be a specimen of gender, domina is something more.

§ 185. It may be laid down as a sort of definition, that there is no gender where there is no affection of the declension: consequently, that, although we have, in English, words corresponding to genitrix and genitor, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding to dominus and domina.

§ 186. The second element in the notion of gender, although I will not venture to call it an essential one, is the following:—In the words domina and dominus, mistress and master, there is a natural distinction of sex; the one being masculine, or male, the other feminine, or female. In the words sword and lance there is no natural distinction of sex. Notwithstanding this, the word hasta, in Latin, is as much of the feminine gender as domina, whilst gladius = a sword is, like dominus, a masculine noun. From this we see that, in languages wherein there are true genders, a fictitious or conventional sex is attributed even to inanimate objects; in other words, sex is a natural distinction, gender a grammatical one.

§ 187. In § 185 it is written, that "although we have, in English, words corresponding to genitrix and genitor, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding to dominus and domina."—The sentence was intentionally worded with caution. Words like dominus and domina, that is, words where the declension is affected by the sex, are to be found even in English.

The pronoun him, from the Anglo-Saxon and English he, as compared with the pronoun her, from the Anglo-Saxon heó, is affected in its declension by the difference of sex, and is a true, though fragmentary, specimen of gender. The same is the case with the form his as compared with her.

The pronoun it (originally hit), as compared with he, is a specimen of gender.

The relative what, as compared with the masculine who, is a specimen of gender.

The forms it (for hit) and he are as much genders as hoc and hic, and the forms hoc and hic are as much genders as bonum and bonus.

§ 188. The formation of the neuter gender by the addition of -t, in words like wha-t, i-t, and tha-t, occurs in other languages. The -t in tha-t is the -d in istu-d, Latin, and the -t in ta-t, Sanskrit.

§ 189. In the Mœso-Gothic and Scandinavian, the adjectives form the neuters in -t, in Old High German in -z (ts), and in Modem German in -s (derived from -z)—Mœso-Gothic, blind-ata; Icel., blind-t; Old High German, plint-ez, M. G. blind-es = cæc-um.

Caution.—Which, is not the neuter of who.

§ 190. Just as there are in English fragments of a gender modifying the declension, so are there, also, fragments of the second element of gender; viz., the attribution of sex to objects naturally destitute of it. The sun in his glory, the moon in her wane, are examples of this. A sailor calls his ship she. A husbandman, according to Mr. Cobbett, does the same with his plough and working implements:—"In speaking of a ship we say she and her. And you know that our country-folks in Hampshire call almost every thing he or she. It is curious to observe that country labourers give the feminine appellation to those things only which are more closely identified with themselves, and by the qualities or conditions of which their own efforts, and their character as workmen, are affected. The mower calls his scythe a she, the ploughman calls his plough a she; but a prong, or a shovel, or a harrow, which passes promiscuously from hand to hand, and which is appropriated to no particular labourer, is called a he."—"English Grammar," Letter v.

§ 191. Now, although Mr. Cobbett's statements may account for a sailor calling his ship she, they will not account for the custom of giving to the sun a masculine, and to the moon a feminine, pronoun, as is done in the expressions quoted in the last section; still less will it account for the circumstance of the Germans reversing the gender, and making the sun feminine, and the moon masculine.

§ 192. Let there be a period in the history of a language wherein the sun and moon are dealt with, not as inanimate masses of matter, but as animated divinities. Let there, in other words, be a time when dead things are personified, and when there is a mythology. Let an object like the sun be deemed a male, and an object like the moon, a female, deity. We may then understand the origin of certain genders.

The Germans say the sun in her glory; the moon in his wane. This difference between the usage of the two languages, like so many others, is explained by the influence of the classical languages upon the English.—"Mundilfori had two children; a son, Mâni (Moon), and a daughter, Sôl (Sun)."—Such is an extract out of an Icelandic mythological work, viz., the prose Edda. In the classical languages, however, Phœbus and Sol are masculine, and Luna and Diana feminine. Hence it is that, although in Anglo-Saxon and Old-Saxon the sun is feminine, it is in English masculine.

Philosophy, charity, &c., or the names of abstract qualities personified, take a conventional sex, and are feminine from their being feminine in Latin.

As in all these words there is no change of form, the consideration of them is a point of rhetoric, rather than of etymology.

§ 193. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to miscellaneous remarks upon the true and apparent genders of the English language.

1. With the false genders like baron, baroness, it is a general rule that the feminine form is derived from the masculine, and not the masculine from the feminine; as peer, peeress. The words widower, gander, and drake are exceptions. For the word wizard, from witch, see the section on augmentative forms.

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, is current in German, as the equivalent to -ess, and as a feminine affix (freund = a friend; freundinn = a female friend). In English it occurs only in a fragmentary form;—e.g., in vixen, a true feminine derivative from fox = füchsinn, German.

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.

Caution.—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; baxster = a baking-woman; waschster = a washerwoman. 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 deaconness 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. 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 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.

10. 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.

11. Peacock, peahen.—In these compounds, it is not the word pea that is rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of cock and hen, but it is the words cock and hen that are modified by prefixing pea.

CHAPTER III.

THE NUMBERS.

§ 194. In the Greek language the word patær signifies a father, denoting one, whilst patere signifies two fathers, denoting 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. 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, except the natural one in the words ambo and duo.

§ 195. 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.

§ 196. 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.

§ 197. 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.

§ 198. Respecting the formation of the plural, the current rule is, that it is formed from the singular by adding s, as father, fathers. This, however, is by no means a true expression. The letter s 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, though somewhat lengthily 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.

§ 199. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary.

a. 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.

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

c. 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.

d. 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.

§ 200. 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.

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 pens, sounded penz. That its sense is collective rather than plural, 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 (diz) 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 (fysika). 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.