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 {231} 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_.--
Hus-er, _Houses_. Old High German.
Chalp-ir, _Calves_. ditto.
Lemp-ir, _Lambs_. ditto.
Plet-ir, _Blades of gra.s.s_. ditto.
Eig-ir, _Eggs_. ditto.
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 Moeso-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 _tej-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_. {232}
-- 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 cla.s.s. The list in Anglo-Saxon of words of this kind is different from that of the present English.
_Sing._ _Plur._ Freond Frnd _Friends._ Feond Fynd _Foes._ Niht Niht _Nights._ Boc Bec _Books._ Burh Byrig _Burghs._ Broc Brec _Breeches._ Turf Trf _Turves._
-- 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_:--"Dic.u.n.t 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.
{233}
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_.
A false theefe, That came like a false fox, my _pullain_ to kill and mischeefe.
_Gammer Gurton"s Needle_, v. 2.
_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 dic.u.n.t 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._--p.r.o.nounced _wimmen_, as opposed to the singular form _woomman_.
Probably an instance of accommodation.
_Houses._--p.r.o.nounced _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._--p.r.o.nounced _padhz_, _yoodhz_. The same peculiarity in the case of __ and __, as occurs between _s_ and _z_ in the words _house_, _houses_. "Finita in _f_ plerumque alleviantur in plurali numero, subst.i.tuendo _v_; ut _wife_, _wives_, &c. Eademque alleviatio est etiam in _s_ et _th_, quamvis retento charactere, in _house_, _cloth_, _path_."--P.
79.
{234}
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 const.i.tutes 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 {235} called the accusative, another the dative, a third the genitive, and so on.
Perhaps, however, the relationship alone does not const.i.tute 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 const.i.tute 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.
_Latin._ _English._ _Sing. Nom._ _Pater_ _a father._ _Gen._ _Patris_ _a father"s._ _Dat._ _Patri_ _to a father._ _Acc._ _Patrem_ _a father._ _Abl._ _Patre_ _from a father._