-- 170. _Introduction of new words_--_Hybridism._--Hybridism is a term derived from _hybrid-a_, _a mongrel_; a Latin word _of Greek extraction_.
The terminations _-ize_ (as in _criticize_), _-ism_ (as in _criticism_), _-ic_ (as in _comic_), these, amongst many others, are Greek terminations.
To add them to words of other than of Greek origin is to be guilty of hybridism.
The terminations _-ble_ (as in _penetrable_), _-bility_ (as in _penetrability_, _-al_ (as in _parental_)--these, amongst many others, are Latin terminations. To add them to words of other than of Latin origin is to be guilty of hybridism.
{110}
Hybridism is the commonest fault that accompanies the introduction of new words. The hybrid additions to the English language are most numerous in works on science.
It must not, however, be concealed that several well established words are hybrid; and that, even in the writings of the cla.s.sical Roman authors, there is hybridism between the Latin and the Greek.
The etymological view of every word of foreign origin is, not that it is put together in England, but that it is brought whole from the language to which it is vernacular. Now no derived word can be brought whole from a language unless, in that language, all its parts exist. The word _penetrability_ is not derived from the English word _penetrable_, by the addition of _-ty_. It is the Latin word _penetrabilitas_ imported.
_In derived words all the parts must belong to one and the same language_, or, changing the expression, _every derived word must have a possible form in the language from which it is taken_. Such is the rule against Hybridism.
-- 171. A true word sometimes takes the appearance of a hybrid without really being so. The _-icle_, in _icicle_, is apparently the same as the _-icle_ in _radicle_. Now, as _ice_ is Gothic, and _-icle_ cla.s.sical, hybridism is simulated. _Icicle_, however, is not a derivative but a compound; its parts being _is_ and _gicel_, both Anglo-Saxon words.
-- 172. _On Incompletion of the Radical._--Let there be in a given language a series of roots ending in _-t_, as _saemat_. Let a euphonic influence eject the _-t_, as often as the word occurs in the nominative case. Let the nominative case be erroneously considered to represent the root, or radical, of the word. Let a derivative word be formed accordingly, _i.e._, on the notion that the nominative form and the radical form coincide. Such a derivative will exhibit only a part of the root; in other words, the radical will be incomplete.
Now all this is what actually takes place in words like _haemo-ptysis_ (_spitting of blood_), _sema-ph.o.r.e_ (_a sort of telegraph_). The Greek imparisyllabics eject a part of the root in the nominative case; the radical forms being _haemat-_ and _saemat-_, not _haem-_ and _saem-_. {111}
Incompletion of the radical is one of the commonest causes of words being coined faultily. It must not, however, be concealed, that even in the cla.s.sical writers, we have (in words like [Greek: distomos]) examples of incompletion of the radical.
-- 173. The preceding chapters have paved the way for a distinction between the _historical_ a.n.a.lysis of a language, and the _logical_ a.n.a.lysis of one.
Let the present language of England (for ill.u.s.tration"s sake only) consist of 40,000 words. Of these let 30,000 be Anglo-Saxon, 5,000 Anglo-Norman, 100 Celtic, 10 Latin of the first, 20 Latin of the second, and 30 Latin of the third period, 50 Scandinavian, and the rest miscellaneous. In this case the language is considered according to the historical origin of the words that compose it, and the a.n.a.lysis (or, if the process be reversed, the synthesis) is an historical a.n.a.lysis.
But it is very evident that the English, or any other language, is capable of being contemplated in another view, and that the same number of words may be very differently cla.s.sified. Instead of arranging them according to the languages whence they are derived, let them be disposed according to the meanings that they convey. Let it be said, for instance, that out of 40,000 words, 10,000 are the names of natural objects, that 1000 denote abstract ideas, that 1000 relate to warfare, 1000 to church matters, 500 to points of chivalry, 1000 to agriculture, and so on through the whole. In this case the a.n.a.lysis (or, if the process be reversed, the synthesis) is not historical but logical; the words being cla.s.sed not according to their origin, but according to their meaning.
Now the logical and historical a.n.a.lysis of a language generally in some degree coincides, as may be seen by noticing the kind of words introduced from the Anglo-Norman, the Latin of the fourth period, and the Arabic.
{112}
CHAPTER II.
THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
-- 174. The relation of the present English to the Anglo-Saxon is that of a _modern_ language to an _ancient_ one: the words _modern_ and _ancient_ being used in a defined and technical sense.
Let the word _smium_ ill.u.s.trate this. _Smium_, the dative plural of _smi_, is equivalent in meaning to the English _to smiths_, or to the Latin _fabris_. _Smium_ however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two words _i.e._, a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letter _s_, in _smiths_ shows that the word is plural. The _-um_, in _smium_, does this and something more. It is the sign of the _dative case_ plural. The _-um_ in _smium_, is the part of a word. The preposition to is a separate word with an independent existence. _Smium_ is the radical syllable _smi_, _plus_ the subordinate inflectional syllable _-um_, the sign of the dative case. _To smiths_ is the substantive _smiths_, _plus_ the preposition _to_, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in form. As far, then, as the word just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English thus. It expresses a given idea by a modification of the form of the root, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea by the addition of a preposition. The Saxon inflection is superseded by a combination of words.
The part that is played by the preposition with nouns, is played by the auxiliaries (_have_, _be_, &c.) with verbs.
The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement.
(1.) _The earlier the stage of a given {113} language the greater the amount of its inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the smaller the amount of them._ (2.) _As languages become modern they subst.i.tute prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses._ (3.) _The amount of inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of prepositions and auxiliary verbs._ (4.) _In the course of time languages drop their inflection and subst.i.tute in its stead circ.u.mlocutions by means of prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place._ (5.) _Given two modes of expression, the one inflectional _(smium)_, the other circ.u.mlocutional _(to smiths)_, we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second to a late, stage of language._
The present chapter, then, showing the relation of the English to the Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the general relation of a modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; so also the Modern High German to the Moeso-Gothic; so the Modern Dutch of Holland to the Old Frisian; so, moreover, amongst the languages of a different stock, are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the Ancient Greek.
-- 175. Contrasted with the English, but contrasted with it only in those points where the ancient tongue is compared with the modern one, the Anglo-Saxon has the following differences.
NOUNS.
_Of Gender._--In Anglo-Saxon there are three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter. With _adjectives_ each gender has its peculiar declension; with _substantives_ there are also appropriate terminations, but only to a certain degree; _e.g._, of words ending in _-a_ (_nama_, a name; _c.u.ma_, a guest), it may be stated that they are always masculine; of words in _-u_ (_sunu_, a son; _gifu_, a gift), that they are never neuter; in other words, that they are either mas. or fem.
The definite article varies with the gender of its substantive; _aet eage_, the eye; _se steorra_, the star; _seo tunge_, the tongue. {114}
_Of Number._--The plural form in _-en_ (as in _oxen_), rare in English, was common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole declension; _e.g._, _eagan_, eyes; _steorran_, stars; _tungan_, tongues.
Besides this, the Anglo-Saxons had forms in _-u_ and _-a_, as _ricu_, kingdoms; _gifa_, gifts. The termination _-s_, current in the present English was confined to a single gender and to a single declension, as _endas_, ends; _dagas_, days; _smias_, smiths.
_Of Case._--Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least three; viz. the nominative, dative, genitive. With the p.r.o.nouns and adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words an ablative or instrumental one. _Smi_, a smith; _smie_, to a smith; _smies_, of a smith. Plural, _smias_, smiths; _smium_, to smiths; _smia_, of smiths: _he_, he; _hine_, him; _him_, to him; _his_, his; _se_, the; _a_, the; _y_, with the; _am_, to the; _aes_, of the.
Of the dative in _-um_, the word _whilom_ (_at times_, _at whiles_) is a still extant and an almost isolated specimen.
_Of Declension._--In _Anglo-Saxon_ it is necessary to determine the termination of a substantive. There is the weak, or simple declension for words ending in a vowel (as _eage_, _steorra_, _tunga_), and the strong, or complex declension for words ending in a consonant (_smi_, _spraec_, _leaf_). The letters _i_ and _u_ are dealt with as semivowels, semivowels being dealt with as consonants; so that words like _sunu_ and _gifu_ belong to the same declension as _smi_ and _spr["ae]c_.
That the form of adjectives varies with their definitude or indefinitude, has been seen from -- 93: definite adjectives following the inflection of the simple; indefinite ones that of the complex declension.
The detail of the Anglo-Saxon declension may be collected from ---- 83-89.
The Anglo-Saxon inflection of the participles present is remarkable. With the exception of the form for the genitive plural definite (which, instead of _-ena_, is _-ra_,) they follow the declension of the adjectives. From the masculine substantives formed from them, and denoting the agent, they may be distinguished by a difference of inflection. {115}
_Participle._ _Substantive._
Wegferende=_Wayfaring_. Wegferend=_Wayfarer_.
_Sing. Nom._ Wegferende Wegferend.
_Acc._ Wegferendne Wegferend.
_Abl._ Wegferende Wegferende.
_Dat._ Wegferendum Wegferende.
_Gen._ Wegferendes Wegferendes.
_Plur. Nom._ Wegferende Wegferendas.
_Dat._ Wegferendum Wegferendum.
_Gen._ Wegferendra Wegferenda.
_p.r.o.nouns Personal._--Of the p.r.o.nominal inflection in Saxon, the character may be gathered from the chapter upon p.r.o.nouns. At present, it may be stated that, like the Moeso-Gothic and the Icelandic, the Anglo-Saxon language possessed for the first two persons a _dual_ number; inflected as follows:
_1st Person._ _2nd Person._
_Nom._ Wit _We two._ _Nom._ Git _Ye two._ _Acc._ Unc _Us two._ _Acc._ Inc _You two._ _Gen._ Uncer _Of us two._ _Gen._ Incer _Of you two._
Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative p.r.o.nouns, as well as the numerals _twa_ and _reo_, had a fuller declension than they have at present.