_Mis-_, as in _misdeed_, &c.--Moeso-Gothic, _misso_=_in turns_; Old Norse, _a mis_=_alternately_; Middle High German, _misse_=_mistake_. The original notion _alternation_, thence _change_, thence _defect_. Compare the Greek [Greek: allos].--Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 470.
_Dom_, as in _wisdom_, &c.--The substantive _dom_ presumed.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 491.
_Hood_ and _head_, as in _G.o.dhead_, _manhood_, &c.--The substantive _haids_=_person_, _order_, _kind_, presumed.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 497.
Nothing to do with the word _head_.
_Ship_, as in _friendship_.--Anglo-Saxon, _-scipe_ and _-sceaft_; German, _-schaft_; Moeso-Gothic, _gaskafts_=_a creature_, or _creation_. The substantive _skafts_ or _skap_ presumed. The _-skip_ or _-scape_ in _landskip_ is only an older form.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 522.
_Less_, as in _sleepless_, &c., has nothing to do with _less_. Derived from _laus_, _los_, _dest.i.tute of_=Latin, _expers_.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii.
565.
For the further details, which are very numerous, see the Deutsche Grammatik, vol. iii.
-- 419. "Subject to four cla.s.ses of exceptions, it may be laid down that _there is no true composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent_."--Such is the statement made in p. 359. The first cla.s.s of exceptions consists {363} of those words where the natural tendency to disparity of accent is traversed by some rule of euphony. For example, let two words be put together, which at their point of contact form a combination of sounds foreign to our habits of p.r.o.nunciation. The rarity of the combination will cause an effort in utterance. The effort in utterance will cause an accent to be laid on the latter half of the compound. This will equalize the accent, and abolish the disparity. The word _monkshood_, the name of a flower (_aconitum napellus_), where, to my ear at least, there is quite as much accent on the _-hood_ as on the _monks-_, may serve in the way of ill.u.s.tration. Monks is one word, hood another. When joined together, the _h-_ of the _-hood_ is put in immediate opposition with the _-s_ of the _monks-_. Hence the combination _monkshood_. At the letters _s_ and _h_ is the point of contact. Now the sound of _s_ followed immediately by the sound of _h_ is a true aspirate. But true aspirates are rare in the English language. Being of rare occurrence, the p.r.o.nunciation of them is a matter of attention and effort; and this attention and effort creates an accent which otherwise would be absent. Hence words like _monkshood_, _well-head_, and some others.
Real reduplications of consonants, as in _hop-pole_, may have the same parity of accent with the true aspirates: and for the same reasons. They are rare combinations that require effort and attention.
The second cla.s.s of exceptions contains those words wherein between the first element and the second there is so great a disparity, either in the length of the vowel, or the length of the syllable _en ma.s.se_, as to counteract the natural tendency of the first element to become accented.
One of the few specimens of this cla.s.s (which after all may consist of double words) is the term _upstanding_. Here it should be remembered, that words like _haphazard_, _foolhardy_, _upholder_, and _withhold_ come under the first cla.s.s of the exceptions.
The third cla.s.s of exceptions contains words like _perchance_ and _perhaps_. In all respects but one these are double words, just as _by chance_ is a double word. _Per_, however, differs from _by_ in having no separate existence. This sort of words {364} we owe to the multiplicity of elements (cla.s.sical and Gothic) in the English language.
To antic.i.p.ate objections to the rule respecting the disparity of accent, it may be well to state in fresh terms a fact already indicated, viz., that the same combination of words may in one sense be compound, and in the other double (or two). _An uphill game_ gives us the combination _up_ + _hill_ as a compound. _He ran up hill_ gives us the combination _up_ + _hill_ as two words. So it is with _down_ + _hill_, _down_ + _right_, and other words. _Man-servant_, _c.o.c.k-sparrow_, &c., are double or compound, as they are p.r.o.nounced _man-servant_, _man-servant_, _c.o.c.k-sparrow_, or _c.o.c.k-sparrow_.
The fourth cla.s.s is hypothetical. I can, however, imagine that certain compounds may, if used almost exclusively in poetry, and with the accent at _par_, become so accented even in the current language.
-- 420. For a remark on the words _peac.o.c.k_, _peahen_, see the Chapter upon Gender.--If these words be rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of the elements _-c.o.c.k_ and _-hen_, the statements made in the beginning of the present chapter are invalidated. Since, if the word _pea-_ be particularized, qualified, or defined by the words _-c.o.c.k_ and _-hen_, the second term defines or particularises the first, which is contrary to the rule of p. 355. The truth, however, is, that the words _-c.o.c.k_ and _-hen_ are defined by the prefix _pea-_. Preparatory to the exhibition of this, let us remember that the word _pea_ (although now found in composition only) is a true and independent substantive, the name of a species of fowl, like _pheasant_, _partridge_, or any other appellation. It is the Latin _pavo_, German _pfau_. Now, if the word _peac.o.c.k_ mean a _pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is a male, then do _wood-c.o.c.k_, _black-c.o.c.k_, and _bantam-c.o.c.k_, mean _woods_, _blacks_, and _bantams_ that are male. Or if the word _peahen_ mean a _pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is female, then do _moorhen_ and _guineahen_ mean _moors_ and _guineas_ that are female.
Again, if a _peahen_ mean a _pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_) that is female, then does the compound _pheasant-hen_ mean the same as _hen-pheasant_; which is not the case. The fact is that _peac.o.c.k_ means a _c.o.c.k that is a pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_); {365} _peahen_ means a _hen that is a pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_); and, finally, _peafowl_ means a _fowl that is a pea_ (_pfau_ or _pavo_). In the same way _moorfowl_ means, not a _moor that is connected with a fowl_, but a _fowl that is connected with a moor_.
-- 421. It must be clear, _ex vi termini_, that in every compound word there are two parts; _i. e._, the whole or part of the original, and the whole or part of the superadded word. In the most perfect forms of inflection there is a third element, _viz._, a vowel, consonant, or syllable that joins the first word with the second.
In the older forms of all the Gothic languages the presence of this third element was the rule rather than the exception. In the present English it exists in but few words.
_a._ The _-a-_ in _black-a-moor_ is possibly such a connecting element.
_b._ The _-in-_ in _night-in-gale_ is most probably such a connecting element. Compare the German form _nacht-i-gale_, and remember the tendency of vowels to take the sound of _-ng_ before _g_.
-- 422. _Improper compounds._--The _-s-_ in words like _Thur-s-day_, _hunt-s-man_, may be one of two things.
_a._ It may be the sign of the genitive case, so that _Thursday_=_Thoris dies_. In this case the word is an improper compound, since it is like the word _pater-familias_ in Latin, in a common state of syntactical construction.
_b._ It may be a connecting sound, like the _-i-_ in _nacht-i-gale_.
Reasons for this view occur in the following fact:--
In the Modern German languages the genitive case of feminine nouns ends otherwise than in _-s_. Nevertheless, the sound of _-s-_ occurs in composition equally, whether the noun it follows be masculine or feminine.
This fact, as far as it goes, makes it convenient to consider the sound in question as a connective rather than a case. Probably, it is neither one nor the other exactly, but the effect of a false a.n.a.logy.
-- 423. _Decomposites._--"Composition is the joining together of _two_ words."--See p. 357.
In the first edition the sentence ran "_two or more_" words; being so written to account for compounds like _mid-ship-man_, {366} _gentle-man-like_, &c., where the number of verbal elements seems to amount to three.
Nevertheless, the caution was unnecessary. Compound radicals like _midship_ and _gentleman_, are, for the purposes of composition, single words.
Compounds wherein one element is compound are called decomposites.
-- 424. The present chapter closes with the notice of two cla.s.ses of words.
They are mentioned now, not because they are compounds, but because they can be treated of here more conveniently than elsewhere.
There are a number of words which are never found by themselves; or, if so found, have never the same sense that they have in combination. Mark the word combination. The terms in question are points of combination, not of composition: since they form not the parts of words, but the parts of phrases. Such are the expressions _time and tide_--_might and main_--_rede me my riddle_--_pay your shot_--_rhyme and reason_, &c. These words are evidently of the same cla.s.s, though not of the same species with _bishopric_, _colewort_, _spillikin_, _gossip_, _mainswearer_, and the words quoted in p. 362. These last-mentioned terms give us obsolete words preserved in composition. The former give us obsolete words preserved in combination.
The other words are etymological curiosities. They may occur in any language. The English, however, from the extent of its cla.s.sical element, is particularly abundant in them. It is a mere accident that they are all compound words.
{367}
CHAPTER x.x.xII.
ON DERIVATION AND INFLECTION.
-- 425. Derivation, like _etymology_, is a word used in a wide and in a limited sense. In the wide sense of the term every word, except it be in the simple form of a root, is a derived word. In this sense the cases, numbers, and genders of nouns, the persons, moods, and tenses of verbs, the ordinal numbers, the diminutives, and even the compound words, are alike matters of derivation. In the wide sense of the term the word _fathers_, from _father_, is equally in a state of derivation with the word _strength_, from _strong_.
In the use of the word, even in its limited sense, there is considerable laxity and uncertainty.
_Gender, number, case._--These have been called the _accidents_ of the noun, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation in its stricter sense, or from derivation properly so called, and to cla.s.s together under the name of declension. Nouns are declined.
_Person, number, tense, voice._--These have been called the accidents of a verb, and these it has been agreed to separate from derivation properly so called, and to cla.s.s together under the name of conjugation. Verbs are conjugated.
Conjugation and declension const.i.tute inflection. Nouns and verbs, speaking generally, are inflected.
Inflection, a part of derivation in its wider sense, is separated from derivation properly so called, or from derivation in its limited sense.
The degrees of comparison, or certain derived forms of adjectives; the ordinals, or certain derived forms of the numerals; the diminutives, &c., or certain derived forms of the substantive, have been separated from derivation properly {368} so called. I am not certain, however, that for so doing there is any better reason than mere convenience. By some the decrees of comparison are considered as points of inflection.
Derivation proper, the subject of the present chapter, comprises all the changes that words undergo, which are not referable to some of the preceding heads. As such, it is, in its details, a wider field than even composition. The details, however, are not entered into.
-- 426. Derivation proper may be divided according to a variety of principles. Amongst others,
I. _According to the evidence._--In the evidence that a word is not simple, but derived, there are at least two degrees.
A. That the word _strength_ is a derived word I collect to a certainty from the word _strong_, an independent form, which I can separate from it. Of the nature of the word _strength_ there is the clearest evidence, or evidence of the first degree.
B. _Fowl, hail, nail, sail, tail, soul; _in Anglo-Saxon_, fugel, haegel, naegel, segel, taegel, sawel._ --These words are by the best grammarians considered as derivatives. Now, with these words I can not do what was done with the word _strength_, I can not take from them the part which I look upon as the derivational addition, and after that leave an independent word. _Strength_ - _th_ is a true word; _fowl_ or _fugel_ - _l_ is no true word. If I believe these latter words to be derivations at all, I do it because I find in words like _handle_, &c., the _-l_ as a derivational addition. Yet, as the fact of a word being sometimes used as a derivational addition does not preclude it from being at other times a part of the root, the evidence that the words in question are not simple, but derived, is not cogent. In other words, it is evidence of the second degree.
II. _According to the effect._--The syllable _-en_ in the word _whiten_ changes the noun _white_ into a verb. This is its effect. We may so cla.s.sify as to arrange combinations like _-en_ (whose effect is to give the idea of the verb) in one order; whilst combinations like _th_ (whose effect is, as in the word _strength_, to give the idea of abstraction) form another order.
III. _According to the form._--Sometimes the derivational {369} element is a vowel (as the _-ie_ in _doggie_); sometimes a consonant combined: in other words, a syllable (as the _-en_ in _whiten_); sometimes a change of vowel without any addition (as the _i_ in _tip_, compared with _top_); sometimes a change of consonant without any addition (as the _z_ in _prize_, compared with _price_; sometimes it is a change of _accent_, like _a survey_, compared with _to survey_. To cla.s.sify derivations in this manner is to cla.s.sify them according to their form. For the detail of the derivative forms, see Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 89-405.