THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.
-- 262. By referring to -- 259, we see that -m was an early sign of the superlative degree. This bears upon the numerals _seven_, _nine_, and _ten_.
These are _cardinal_ numbers. Nevertheless, the present chapter is the proper place for noticing them.
There is good reason for believing that the final -n is no part of the original root. Thus,--
a. _Sev-en_ = the Latin _sept-em_, where the -m is equivalent to the -n.
But in the Greek ?pt?, and the Scandinavian _syv_, and _sju_, neither -n nor -m occur.
b. _Ni-ne_.--This same applies here. The Latin form is _nov-em_; but the Greek and Norse are ????a and _niu_.
c. _Ten_.--The older form is _ti-h-un_, in Latin _de-c-em_. The English -n is the Latin -m. Nevertheless, in the Greek and Norse the forms are d??a and _tuo_.
-- 263. What explains this? The following hypothesis. Some of the best German authorities believe, that the -m, expressive of the superlative degree, was also used to denote the _ordinal character_ (_ordinality_) _of the numerals_; so that the -m- in _deci-m-us_, was the -m- in _ulti-m-us_ and _exti-m-us_. This is the first step in the explanation.
-- 264. The next is, to suppose that certain _cardinal_ numerals have taken and retained the _ordinal_ form; these being the--
_Latin._ _English._ _Greek._ _Norse._
_Sept-em_, _sev-en_, as opposed to the ?pta _sjau_.
_Nov-em_, _ni-ne_ " " e??ea _niu_.
_Dec-em_, _te-n_ " " de?a _tiu_.
I give no opinion as to the accuracy or erroneousness of this view.
-- 265. _Thir-teen_, &c., is _three_ with _ten_ added, or 3 + 10.
-- 266. _Thir-ty_, &c., is _three tens_ (_three decades_), or 3 10. In Mso-Gothic we find the -ty in the fuller form _tig_ = d??-a? in Greek.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE ARTICLES.
-- 267. In the generality of grammars the definite article _the_, and the indefinite article _an_, are the very first parts of speech that are considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite article. In the former language they say ???? t?? = _a certain man_: in the latter the words _filius patris_ mean equally _the son of the father_, _a son of a father_, _a son of the father_, or _the son of a father_. In Mso-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the indefinite article; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a different word from what occurs in English. In these the Greek t?? is expressed by the Gothic root _sum_.
Now, since it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the words _some man_, _a certain man_, and _a man_, are much the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and Mso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the argument, be fairly said that the words _sum_ and t?? are p.r.o.nouns with a certain sense, and that _a_ and _an_ are no more; consequently, that in Greek the indefinite article is t??, in Mso-Gothic _sum_, and in English _a_ or _an_.
A distinction, however, may be made. In the expression ???? t?? (_anaer tis_) = _a certain man_, or _a man_, and in the expression _sum mann_, the words _sum_ and t?? preserve their natural and original meaning; whilst in _a man_ and _an ox_ the words _a_ and _an_ are used in a secondary sense.
These words, as is currently known, are one and the same, the n, in the form _a_, being ejected through a euphonic process. They are, moreover, the same words with the numeral _one_; Anglo-Saxon, _an_; Scotch, _ane_. Now, between the words _a man_ and _one man_, there is a difference in meaning; the first expression being the most indefinite. Hence comes the difference between the English and Mso-Gothic expressions. In the one the word _sum_ has a natural, in the other, the word _an_ has a secondary power.
The same reasoning applies to the word _the_. Compared with _a man_, the words _the man_ are very definite. Compared, however, with the words _that man_, they are the contrary. Now, just as _an_ and _a_ have arisen out of the numeral _one_, so has _the_ arisen out of the demonstrative p.r.o.noun _aet_, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in Anglo-Saxon there was a form _e_, undeclined, and common to all the cases of all the numbers.
In no language in its oldest stage is there ever a word giving, in its primary sense, the ideas of _a_ and _the_. As tongues become modern, some noun with a _similar_ sense is used to express them. In the course of time a change of form takes place, corresponding to the change of meaning; e.g., _one_ becomes _an_, and afterwards a. Then it is that articles become looked upon as separate parts of speech, and are dealt with accordingly. No invalidation of this statement is drawn from the Greek language. Although the first page of the etymology gives us ?, ?, t? (_ho, hae, to_), as the definite articles, the corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that, in the oldest stage of the language, ? (_ho_) = _the_, had the power of ??t?? (_howtos_) = _this_.
The origin of the articles seems uniform. In German _ein_, in Danish _en_, stand to _one_ in the same relation that _an_ does. The French _un_, Italian and Spanish _uno_, are similarly related to _unus_ = _one_.
And as, in English, _the_, in German _der_, in Danish _den_, come from the demonstrative p.r.o.nouns, so, in the cla.s.sical languages, are the French _le_, the Italian _il_ and _lo_, and the Spanish _el_, derived from the Latin demonstrative _ille_.
In his "Outlines of Logic," the present writer has given reasons for considering the word _no_ (as in _no man_) an article.
That _the_, in expressions like _all the more_, _all the better_, &c., is no article, has already been shown.
CHAPTER XV.
DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS.
-- 268. Compared with the words _lamb_, _man_, and _hill_, the words _lambkin_, _mannikin_, and _hillock_ convey the idea of comparative smallness or diminution. Now, as the word _hillock_ = _a little hill_ differs in _form_ from _hill_, we have in English a series of _diminutive_ forms, or _diminutives_.
The English diminutives may be arranged according to a variety of principles. Amongst others:
1. _According to their form._--The word _hillock_ is derived from _hill_, by the _addition_ of a _syllable_. The word _tip_ is derived from _top_, by the _change_ of a _vowel_.
2. _According to their meaning._--In the word _hillock_ there is the simple expression of comparative smallness in size. In the word _doggie_ for _dog_, _la.s.sie_ for _la.s.s_, the addition of the -ie makes the word not so much a diminutive as a term of tenderness or endearment. The idea of smallness, accompanied, perhaps, with that of neatness, generally carries with it the idea of approbation; hence, the word _clean_ in English, means, in German, _little_ = _kleine_. The feeling of protection which is extended to small objects engenders the notion of endearment.
-- 269. The Greek word e??s?? (_meiosis_) means diminution; the Greek word ?p?????sa (_hypokorisma_) means an endearing expression. Hence we get names for the two kinds of diminutives; viz., the term _meiotic_ for the true diminutives, and the term _hypocoristic_ for the diminutives of endearment.
3. _According to their historical origin._--The syllable -ock, as in _hillock_, is of Anglo-Saxon and Gothic origin. The -et, as in _lancet_, is of French and cla.s.sical origin.
4. _According as they affect proper names, or common names._--_Hawkin_, _Perkin_, _Wilkin_, &c. In these words we have the diminutives of _Hal_, _Peter_, _Will_, &c.
-- 270. The diminutive forms of Gothic origin are the first to be considered.
1. _Those formed by a change of vowel._--_Tip_, from _top_. The relation of the feminine to the masculine is allied to the ideas conveyed by many diminutives. Hence in the word _kit_, from _cat_, it is doubtful whether there be meant a female cat or a little cat. _Kid_ is a diminutive form of _goat_.
2. _Those formed by the addition of a letter or letters._--Of the diminutive characteristics thus formed the commonest, beginning from the simpler forms, are
Ie.--Almost peculiar to the Lowland Scotch; as _daddie_, _la.s.sie_, _minnie_, _wifie_, _mousie_, _doggie_, _boatie_, &c.
Ock.--_Bullock_, _hillock_.
Kin.--_Lambkin_, _mannikin_, _ladikin_, &c. As is seen above, common in proper names.
En.--_Chicken_, _kitten_, from _c.o.c.k_, _cat_. The notion of diminution, if indeed that be the notion originally conveyed, lies not in the -en, but in the vowel. In the word _chicken_, from _c.o.c.k_, observe the effect of the small vowel on the c.
The consideration of words like _duckling_, and _gosling_, is purposely deferred.
The chief diminutive of cla.s.sical origin is--
_Et_, as in _trumpet_, _lancet_, _pocket_; the word _pock_, as in _meal-pock_ = _a meal-bag_, being found in the Scottish. From the French -ette, as in _caissette_, _poulette_.
The forms -rel, as in _c.o.c.kerel_, _pickerel_, and -let, as in _streamlet_, require a separate consideration. The first has nothing to do with the Italian forms _acquerella_ and _coserella_--themselves, perhaps, of Gothic, rather than of cla.s.sical origin.