This accounts for the participial form _forlorn_, or _lost_, in New High German _verloren_. In Milton"s lines,
---- the piercing air Burns _frore_, and cold performs the effect of fire, _Paradise Lost_, b. ii.,
we have a form from the Anglo-Saxon participle _gefroren_ = _frozen_.
-- 350. B. The _participle_ in -D, -T, or -ED.--In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjective. Like the adjective, it is, in the present English, undeclined.
In Anglo-Saxon it differed in form from the praeterite, inasmuch as it ended in -ed, or -t, whereas the praeterite ended in -ode, -de, or -te: as, _lufode_, _baernde_, _dypte_, praeterites; _gelufod_, _baerned_, _dypt_, participles.
As the ejection of the e (in one case final in the other not) reduces words like _baerned_ and _baernde_ to the same form, it is easy to account for the present ident.i.ty of form between the weak praeterites and the participles in -d: e.g., _I moved_, _I have moved_, &c.
-- 351. _The prefix_ Y.--In the older writers, and in works written, like Thomson"s "Castle of Indolence," in imitation of them, we find prefixed to the praeterite participle the letter y-, as, _yclept_ = _called_: _yclad_ = _clothed_: _ydrad_ = _dreaded_.
The following are the chief facts and the current opinion concerning this prefix:--
1. It has grown out of the fuller forms ge-: Anglo-Saxon, ge-: Old Saxon, gi-: Mso-Gothic, ga-: Old High German, ka-, cha-, ga-, ki-, gi-.
2. It occurs in each and all of the Germanic languages of the Gothic stock.
3. It occurs, with a few fragmentary exceptions, in none of the Scandinavian languages of the Gothic stock.
4. In Anglo-Saxon it occasionally indicates a difference of sense; as, _haten_ = _called_, _ge-haten_ = _promised_; _boren_ = _borne_, _ge-boren_ = _born_.
5. It occurs in nouns as well as verbs.
6. Its power, in the case of nouns, is generally some idea of _a.s.sociation_, or _collection_.--Mso-Gothic, _sins_ = _a journey_, _ga-sina_ = _a companion_; Old High German, _perc_ = _hill_; _ki-perki_ (_gebirge_) = _a range of hills_.
7. But it has also a _frequentative_ power; a frequentative power, which is, in all probability, secondary to its collective power; since things which recur frequently recur with a tendency to collection or a.s.sociation; Middle High German, _ge-ra.s.sel_ = _rustling_; _ge-rumpel_ = _c-rumple_.
8. And it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality.
_Anglo-Saxon._ _English._ _Anglo-Saxon._ _Latin._
Feax _Hair_ _Ge-feax_ _Comatus._ Heorte _Heart_ _Ge-heort_ _Cordatus._ Stence _Odour_ _Ge-stence_ _Odorus._
This power is also a collective, since every quality is a.s.sociated with the object that possesses it; _a sea with waves_ = _a wavy sea_.
9. Hence it is probable that the ga-, ki-, or gi-, Gothic, is the _c.u.m_ of Latin languages. Such, at least, is Grimm"s view, as given in the "Deutsche Grammatik," i. 1016.
Concerning this, it may be said that it is deficient in an essential point.
It does not show how the participle past is collective. Undoubtedly it may be said that every such participle is in the condition of words like _ge-feax_ and _ge-heort_; i.e., that they imply an a.s.sociation between the object and the action or state. But this does not seem to be Grimm"s view; he rather suggests that the ge- may have been a prefix to verbs in general, originally attached to all their forms, but finally abandoned everywhere except in the case of the participle.
The theory of this prefix has yet to a.s.sume a satisfactory form.
CHAPTER x.x.xI.
COMPOSITION.
-- 352. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and indubitable specimens of composition--_day-star_, _vine-yard_, _sun-beam_, _apple-tree_, _ship-load_, _silver-smith_, &c. The words _palpable_ and _indubitable_ have been used, because in many cases, as will be seen hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound or not.
-- 353. Now, in each of the compounds quoted above, it may be seen that it is the second word which is qualified, or defined, by the first, and that it is not the first which is qualified, or defined, by the second. Of _yards_, _beams_, _trees_, _loads_, _smiths_, there may be many sorts, and, in order to determine what _particular_ sort of _yard_, _beam_, _tree_, _load_, or _smith_, may be meant, the words _vine_, _sun_, _apple_, _ship_, and _silver_, are prefixed. In compound words it is the _first_ term that defines or particularises the _second_.
-- 354. That the idea given by the word _apple-tree_ is not referable to the words _apple_ and _tree_, irrespective of the order in which they occur, may be seen by reversing the position of them. The word _tree-apple_, although not existing in the language, is as correct a word as _thorn-apple_. In _tree-apple_, the particular sort of _apple_ meant is denoted by the word _tree_, and if there were in our gardens various sorts of plants called _apples_, of which some grew along the ground and others upon trees, such a word as _tree-apple_ would be required in order to be opposed to _earth-apple_, or _ground-apple_, or some word of the kind.
In the compound words _tree-apple_ and _apple-tree_, we have the same elements differently arranged. However, as the word _tree-apple_ is not current in the language, the cla.s.s of compounds indicated by it may seem to be merely imaginary. Nothing is farther from being the case. A _tree-rose_ is a _rose_ of a particular sort. The generality of _roses_ being on _shrubs_, this grows on a _tree_. Its peculiarity consists in this fact, and this particular character is expressed by the word _tree_ prefixed. A _rose-tree_ is a _tree_ of a particular sort, distinguished from _apple-trees_, and _trees_ in general (in other words, particularised or defined), by the word _rose_ prefixed.
A _ground-nut_ is a _nut_ particularised by growing in the ground. A _nut-ground_ is a _ground_ particularised by producing nuts.
A _finger-ring_, as distinguished from an _ear-ring_, and from _rings_ in general (and so particularised), is a _ring_ for the _finger_. A _ring-finger_, as distinguished from _fore-fingers_, and from _fingers_ in general (and so particularised), is a _finger_ whereon _rings_ are worn.
-- 355. At times this rule seems to be violated. The words _spit-fire_ and _dare-devil_ seem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the case of a _spit-fire_, that what he (or she) _spits_ is _fire_; and that, in the case of a _dare-devil_, what he (or she) _dares_ is the _devil_. In this case the initial words _spit_ and _dare_ are particularised by the final ones _fire_ and _devil_. The true idea, however, confirms the original rule. A _spit-fire_ voids his fire by spitting. A _dare-devil_, in meeting the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. A _spit-fire_ is not one who spits fire, but one whose fire is _spit_. A _dare-devil_ is not one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil is even dared.
-- 356. Of the two elements of a compound word, which is the most important?
In one sense the latter, in another sense the former. The latter word is the most _essential_; since the general idea of _trees_ must exist before it can be defined or particularised; so becoming the idea which we have in _apple-tree_, _rose-tree_, &c. The former word, however, is the most _influential_. It is by this that the original idea is qualified. The latter word is the staple original element: the former is the superadded influencing element. Compared with each other, the former element is active, the latter pa.s.sive. Etymologically speaking, the former element, in English compounds, is the most important.
-- 357. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the detail of the composition of words; e.g., how nouns combine with nouns, as in _sun-beam_; nouns with verbs, as in _dare-devil_, &c. It is thought however, sufficient in the present work to be content with, 1. defining the meaning of the term composition; 2. explaining the nature of some obscure compounds.
Composition is the joining together, _in language_, of _two different words_, and _treating the combination as a single term_. Observe the words in italics.
_In language._--A great number of our compounds, like the word _merry-making_, are divided by the sign -, or the hyphen. It is very plain that if all words _spelt_ with a hyphen were to be considered as compounds, the formation of them would be not a matter of speech, or language, but one of writing or spelling. This distinguishes compounds in language from mere printers" compounds.
_Two._--For this, see -- 369.
_Different._--In Old High German we find the form _selp-selpo_. Here there is the junction of two words, but not the junction of two _different_ ones.
This distinguishes composition from gemination.
_Words._--In _father-s_, _clear-er_, _four-th_, &c., there is the addition of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition from derivation.
_Treating the combination as a single term._--In determining between derived words and compound words, there is an occasional perplexity; the perplexity, however, is far greater in determining between a _compound word_ and _two words_. In the eyes of one grammarian the term _mountain height_ may be as truly a compound word as _sun-beam_. In the eyes of another grammarian it may be no compound word, but two words, just as _Alpine height_ is two words; _mountain_ being dealt with as an adjective.
It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part.
-- 358. As a preliminary to a somewhat subtle distinction, the attention of the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from Churchill:--
"Then rest, my friend, _and spare_ thy precious breath."
On each of the syllables _rest_, _friend_, _spare_, _prec-_, _breath_, there is an accent. Each of these syllables must be compared with the one that precedes it; _rest_ with _then_, _friend_ with _my_, and so on throughout the line. Compared with the word _and_, the word _spare_ is not only accented, but the accent is conspicuous and prominent. There is so little on _and_, so much on _spare_, that the disparity of accent is very manifest.
Now, if in the place of _and_, there were some other word, a word not so much accented as _spare_, but still more accented than _and_, this disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be said to be at _par_, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly altered from Churchill, the real reading being
"Then rest, my friend, _spare, spare_ thy precious breath."
In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been supposed. In the words _spare, spare_, the accents are nearly at _par_.
Such the difference between accent at par and disparity of accent.
Good ill.u.s.trations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following: _the lime house near the bridge north of the new port_. Compare the parity of accent on the pairs of words _lime_ and _house_, _bridge_ and _north_, _new_ and _port_, with the disparity of accent in the compound words _Limehouse_, _Bridgenorth_, and _Newport_. The separate words _beef steak_, where the accent is nearly at _par_, compared with the compound word _sweepstakes_, where there is a great disparity of accent, are further ill.u.s.trations of the same difference.