Imágenes de páginas
PDF

bles us to state a greater variety of circumstances in connection with the antecedent, and occasionally to state them more forcibly. The relative is equivalent to a personal pronoun with a connective of general signification. We do not mean to affirm, that in the original signification that connective will be found; but that such is the present force. The dependent clause may be joined to the principal, either by simple juxtaposition, or by means of a connecting particle, or lastly by a word including the force of a connective particle. Instances of the first are. The ship he commanded was wrecked, and, The man that (i. e. that man) loves wisdom shall find her: in both of which the dependent clause is connected in that natural manner, which is frequently adopted in our simple language to express commection injdeas; and in the same manner the early Greek writers employ their definite article for their relative. As an instance of the second kind we may adduce this mode of expression; A man if he do not love truth cannot be virtuous; in which the dependent clause is joined by a connective, though of a less general kind than what is implied in the relative. This last mode is the most general, and on the whole the most useful, because most general and least ambiguous. Without venturing to assert that who essentially differs in its original signification from that, it certainly does now include more signification; and that additional signification we think to be what is expressed by and, so that, Every man who loves truth hates falsehood, means, Every man and he loves truth, hates falsehood, i. e. as Mr. H. Tooke has shewn us, Every man and (this circumstance) he loves truth, &c. IV. Of the Verb.

29. As we do not profess to consider the theory of grammar in general, we have not much occasion to enlarge respecting this important sort of words; for our lan. guage, simple in most of itsP. is here almost at the verge of simplicity. Some languages have a great variety of changes in the form of the verb, to denote the subject of affirmation, and the mode and time in which the affirmation is to be taken: we have only four, and of those three are, to say the least, is no way necessary. We have already said enough respecting the nature of the verb ($ 10.) to render it unnecessary to recur again to that point, and we shall here direct the

VOL. VI.

attention of our readers to the modes of signification assumed by the English verb; only repeating, that the verb is a word, which, when preceded by a noun or pronoun, or by what may be represented by it, expresses affirmation. In English and in other languages, words appropriated to express affirmation are often used without any such force: in such cases it might in some respects be more scientific to cease to give them the appellation of verbs, but it would be inconvenient in practice, and we prefer speaking of them as in the noun-state of the verb; so in the expressions, Eat this, and He dares not eat it, eat is in the noun-state. 30. To denote that a name was appropriated to be used as a verb, our ancestors added a distinguishing termination, like all other common terminations, almost certainly significant in its original state. Why that was dropped does not appear: but since it was dropped, the verb in many instances ceases to have any thing in its form to distinguish it from the noun, and in a great variety of instances it is used exactly as a noun. It is true, it is generally, when in the noun-state, preceded by the particle to ; but in most instances to is used in its most customary sense, and in the few instances in which it seems to have merely the force of the Anglo-Saxon termination, it has a sense equally accordant with the original force the word. Mr. H. Tooke has shewn that to (as well as do, which is certainly the same word,) is a particle of a Gothic substantive, signifying act, effect, and we presume object; now when we say, I am. going to walk, to shows that walk (which is still the name of an action) is the object of my going : but when we say, To walk is healthful, to designates the word following as the name of an action, and the expression means the act (viz.) walk is healthful. We must, however, admit, that the use of to before the noun. state of verbs does not seem to be in every case consistent with its meaning; but such cases may fairly be referred to the general tendency there is to lose sight of the original force of words, in the stress laid on them in particular cases, or in the mode of their . employment in particular cases; and hence by degrees to extend the employment of them to similar cases, without reference to their primary signification. 31. The infinitive mood, as it is commonly called, is the verb, divested of its peculiar force, viz. of affirmation, and uncompounded with those words which render it expressive of person, number, &c. H

and in the modern languages of time; but is seems erroneous to consider this as the fundamental form of the verb, where it has any distinguishing termination : it is then the noun-state of the word with a termination added to it, to show that it is to be emplove," as a verb. Thus in the Anglo-Saxon &ean, 8e is the fundamental form of the verb, and Ax is the verbalising adjunct. Now as the imperative form of the verb is nothing more or less than the simple verbal name, unattended with the inference of affirmation this may be considered as the fundamental form : and in the Latin, in particular, the variations of flexion are traced with the greatest advantage from this source. But without enlarging on this point, with which our language in the present state of it has no concern, we must repeat, that the imperative form of the verb is merely the nounstate, or verbal name; and that command, entreaty, &c. supposed to be conveyed by it, are merely the inference of custom. If I say to a servant, Bread, it is understood that I wish him to bring me bread, but it is not said: if I say, Bring some bread, in like manner it is understood, that I wish him to bring me bread, but all that is expressed is the name of the action, and the object of the action. It has, indeed, been supposed, that an affirmation is understood, as, I desire you to bring some bread : but this supposition is rather to show, that bring, &c. in such situations, are verbs, than to show the actual procedure. The fact is, full as much is done by inference, as by actual expression, in every branch of language, and even as it is, thought is too quick for words. Admitting the justness of this account of the imperative mood, we need not be surprised at the plan adopted by the Greek writers, of using the infinitive instead of it; nor need we resort to a sub-auditor, in order to show the ground of this use, or to complete the grammatical construction. And it may be considered as confirmatory of it, that the Hebrew imperative is the same with the radical form of the verb in its several conjugations, excepting Niphal, where it is the same as the infinitive. 32. When the verbal energy is referred to past time, a change is made in the form of nearly all our English verbs: the greater proportion of them added to the nounstate. Whether this alteration was originally intended to refer the meaning of the verb to past time, or that the change had a different object, and the reference has been gradually formed in consequence

w

of an appropriation similar to what we spoke of, respecting the objective form of pronouns, we have yet to learn; but there seems little room to doubt but that all the common changes which have taken place in the verbs of all languages, whether to denote time, person, number, or mode of signification, have been formed in consequence of the coalescence of words of appropriate signification ; and though the gradual refinements of language may have greatly varied the associations of words from what they originally possessed, yet that these changes were originally found sufficient to answer their respective purposes. In some cases, the contrivances adopted can be traced even yet; and from the new turn which has lately been given to etymological investigation, we may expect other discoveries respecting the causes or origin of particular flexions : the future of the French verb is nothing more than the infinitive of the verb, with the present tense of avoir following it : thus, blimer-ai is ai blamer, and je blåmerai means I have to blame, which mode of expression is in our own language used with a future force; the leading distinction between the past and future tense of the Hebrew verb is, that in the former the verb is placed before the fragment of the Fo forming the person, and in the atter after it, as one would suppose to indicate that the verbal denotement is in one case past, in the other case future. 33. Similar observations may be made respecting the persons of verbs. In the Hebrew they are formed, as one would expect, by the coalescence of syllables, which are still acknowledged as pronouns: the same plan has doubtless been adopted in the Latin and Greek verbs, and in some few cases it can be traced with mush probability. In our own language there are additions made to the verb, in both the past and present form, when thou is the subject of affirmation, and in the resent, when any singular word, excepting I and thou, is the subject. We are not aware of any advantage derived from these changes (and the same remark may be applied to the French verb;) for they do not supersede the necessity of expressing the subject of affirmation, as in the case of Latin and Greek verbs; but probably in their original import they contained in them the subject of affirmation, unless indeed they were different dialects of the verb, which by degrees were appropriated to particular subjects. 34. The variations in the Greek and Latin verbs, which denote time and manner of signification, are supplied in English by other verbs, which, from their employment, are called auxiliary, or helping verbs: these are, be, do, have, shall, will, may, and can, which admit of the variations of other verbs, and must and let, which are unvaried. 110 in its present use is merely emphatic; and assists in producing a discrimination which cannot be denoted in other languages; but from its general resemblance to the other auxiliaries, we have mentioned it among them. It is obviously the same word, both in appearance and in force, with the word, do, when not employed as an auxiliary. Shall signifies ove, and was formerly used as a simple verb. Will we use at present as a simple verb. These two words are employed as the principal denotements of future time; and though their original signification has in some degree yielded to that with which custom has invested them, the former is usually to be traced. .May signifies to be able. Can signifies to know, to ken, and thence to be able. These words are all employed as auxiliaries, in their pastas well as present tenses. JMust signifies to be obliged. Let is the noun-state imperative of to let, signifying to permit. Have, as an auxiliary, has the same force with the simple verb; it means to possess. How this meaning is preserved in the complex expression, I have loved, or similar cases, we shall see in what will be said respecting the particile. p 35. We have an abbreviated mode of expression in English, which has given some trouble to the grammarian, but is now pretty well understood, the subjunctive mode, or future contingent form. This arises from the omission of the future auxiliary shall or will, after words which render the affirmation contingent: thus, instead of saying, If thou shalt or shouldst tove, we may say, If thou love. In all other cases in which affirmation is made, we say the verb is in the indicative mood. On this mood we have only to make one remark, respecting the interrogative employment of it. In interrogations we may simply state the thing, or the assertion respecting which we require information, leaving our wishes to be inferred by the reader from the connection, or some word or mark of interrogation, or by the hearer, from a variation of our tone; or, which is certainly preferable, we may make such a change in the order of the words as may leave our meaning out of doubt. This is effected in our own language by putting the subject after the verb: §. this is not

to be considered as making any change on the mode of its signification, but merely as indicating to the eye or ear the wish of the speaker to gain information respecting the affirmation.

V. Of the Participle.

36. Participles are formed from verbs, generally by the addition of terminations, originally without doubt expressive, but now ceasing to have in themselves considered any force. What their original force was will probably be shewn us in future conversations at Purley; their present force is all into which we can as yet enter. Those participles which are formed by the addition of ing to the noun-state of the verb express a continued state of the verbal denotement; and as it is frequently implied that what is meant by the verb is being continued at some time referred to, they are called present participles. Those which are formed by the addition of ed or en to the noun-state, or by some change in the characteristic letters of the verb, usually denote the completed state of what is meant by the verb: hence they are called perfect participles, or sometimes, with less propriety, past or passive participles. There does not seem to be any material difficulty attending the employment of these words, except in the case where a perfect participle is employed after the verb have, as I have learned my lesson. It has been supposed that this means, I possess the finished act of learning my lesson : we think it more probable that it means, I possess my lesson in that state which is called learned ; in which case it is exactly equivalent to the Latin habere, followed by a participle in agreement with a noun. We readily admit that by, I have learned it, there is an inference brought into view, which is not by, I have it learned ; but it seems to be merely the inference of custom, not resulting from any essential difference in the mode of expression.

VI. Of the Adverb.

37. We have already given a general account of the class of words called adverbs. Those to which our definition will apply, and to which alone the term should be appropriated, are principally adnouns, with or without nouns connected with them; others are prepositions with nouns following them ; and the remainder are participles. . . The chief class of adverbs are those which end in ly; which termination is an abbreviation of the adnoun now spelt like, which is still frequently used by our northern neighbours as we use ly; thus, for icisely, they say wiselike. Of this class, a large proportion are formed by adding ly to adnouns; another set by adding the termination to nouns, as manly, early, (from aen, morning) &c.: and these last are also used as adnouns. .1bed, aboard, ashore, &c.; and perchance, perhaps, are prepositions with nouns; , a signifying on, in, or at, and per being the Latin preposition. Why, how, &c. seem to be restrictives, their nouns being understood; as, why signifying what, cause or reason being understood ; how signifying which, way or manner being understood. Several adverbs, besides those before mentioned ending in ly, are used either as adnouns or adverbs ; such as well, ill, much, worse, better, &c.; in all such cases it must be remembered, that not the manner of signification, but merely the manner of employment, is changed. On the origin of most of those adverbs, which are less obviously formed from other sorts of words, Mr. H. Tooke has thrown great light; some of his derivations we may briefly state, but our limits will not allow of our doing more. The following are past participles of AngloSaxon verbs: ago signifying gone (time;) adrift signifies driven; asunder means separated ; fain, rejoiced, lief, beloved; astray, strayed or scattered. JVeeds is needis, used parenthetically. Belike is by lykke, by chance. ...Aloft is on or in lift, i. e. the air, clouds, &c. mo, a heap ; and is merely the diminutive of this word; passing through the gradual changes of mokel, mykel, mochil, muchel (still used in Scotland,) moche, much. Rather is the comparative of rath, swift. Quickly is quicklike, cpic, a past participle signifying enlivened; and it means in a (ifelike or lively manner. Very is merely the French adjective vrai, anciently written veray, from the Latin verus. Some words, usually classed with adverbs, seem to have no common link of union with the genuine adverb; such are yes, aye, yea, and no : indeed Mr. H. Tooke speaks of this class of words as the common sink and repository of all heterogeneous, unknown corruptions. .dye, or

yea, is the imperative of a verb of nor. thern extraction, and means have it; and wes is ay-es, have that. J\'ot )a genuine adverb) and no, its derivative, have their origin in the word from which arise the Dutch woode, node, wo, meaning averse, unwisiing.

[ocr errors]

VII. Of the Connective.

39. The precise nature of the words usually denominated conjunctions and prepositions was very little known, and not generally even suspected, till the blication of the “Diversions of Purey:” since that time, though philologists do not seem willing to admit, in all cases, the correctness of Mr. H. Tooke's derivations, yet his general principle is, we suppose, universally considered as completely established. Before his discoveries, it was the common opinion respecting the conjunction, that it is “a part of speech void of signification itself, but so formed as to help signification, by making two or more significant sentences to be one significant sentence;” and respecting the preposition, that it is “a part of speech, devoid itself of signification, but so formed as to unite two words that are significant, and that refuse to coalesce or unite of themselves.” Our limits will not allow us to enter here into the arguments against these definitions, and the doctrine on which they are founded, nor indeed is it necessary; for, like the doctrine of instincts in mental philosophy, it solely depends on an appeal to ignorance, and falls to the ground, when a probable account is given of those procedures, which it is supposed to explain. The distinction between prepositions and conjunctions we consider as merely technical, referring to the grammatical usage of employing the objective form of pronouns after the former, and not after the latter, unless there be some word understood which requires it: for it will be obvious to any one, that some conjunctions are still used “to unite words” as well as sentences, and that some prepositions are still used to unite sentences. The general principle before referred to is, “that all those words, which are usually termed conjunctions or prepositions, are the abbreviations or corruptions of nouns or verbs, and are still employed with a sense (directly) referable to that which they bore when in the acknowledged form of nouns or verbs.” We believe this to be a correct statement of Mr. Tooke's theory ; to adapt it to our own arrangements, we must include our adjectives under the term nouns, and our participles under the term verbs: and in addition to this remark, which is merely verbal, we must add, that in some instances this great philologist appears to have too much overlooked a procedure which meets us in various stages of language, viz. that among the ideas connected with a word, that which was originally of primary importance becomes, by accidental circumstances in the mode of application, secondary only, and sometimes by degrees is altogether lost from the view of the mind, giving place to others, with which, from some cause or other, the word has been associated. 40. We now proceed to lay before our readers some specimens of the derivations and explanations given by Mr. H. Tooke. That is frequently termed a conjunction; it is sometimes termed a pronoun; we class it with the restrictives: but under whatever name it is known, its use and signification is the same. The differences supposed to be perceived in them arise simply from unnoticed ellipses or abbreviations of construction. If it be remembered that that was originally applicable to nouns of both numbers, no difficulty will be found by any intelligent reader in analysing sentences in which it occurs as a pronoun: in cases where it is used as a conjunction, the following analyses will serve as a sufficient clue. “I wish you to believe that I would not hurt a fly.” Resolution; I would not hurt a fly, I wish you to believe that (assertion.) “Thieves rise by night that they may cut men's throats.” Resolution: Thieves may cut men's throats, (for) that (purpose) they rise by night. If (formerly written gif) is merely the imperative of the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon verb gifan, to give. In Scotland and the northern counties of England gin is used in place of f; and gin is merely the past participle given abbreviated. Hence, “I will read if (or gin) you will listen, means, give (or this given) that you will listen, I will read : and it cannot be unknown to the classical reader, that the imperative da is used in exactly the same manner. An, now nearly obsolete, is the imp. of anan, to grant. Useless (formerly sometimes written onles) is the imp. of onlesan, to send away. From alesan comes the imperative else; and from lesan the past participle lest ; both verbs meaning the same with ontesan. From the same source come less and least, the privative termination less, the verbs loosen, loose, lessen, &c. Yet is the imperative of getan, to get ; and still, of stillan, to put. Though (in some counties still pronounced thaf, thof) is the imperative of thaftan, to allow or grant. But is now corruptly employed for two words, bot and but, bot is the imperative for botan, to boot, to add, in order to supply a deficiency; but, of been-utan, to be-out, and has

the same signification as without. But properly requires a negative in construction with it, as I saw none but him ; but it is often omitted, as, I saw but two plants. Without is the imp. of wyrthan-utan, to be out. And as the imp. of anan-ad, to heap, or add. Formerly four different sets of words were used where now since is used, and it is now taken four ways: 1. For siththan, sithence, or seen and thenceforwards, as, It has not been done since the reign of John. 2. For syne, sene, or seen; as, Did George II. live before or since that example 3. For seand, seeing, seeing as, or seeing that ; as, I should labour for truth, since no effort is lost. 4. For siththe, sith, seen-as, or seen-that; as, Since death in the end takes from all. Sithence and sith were in good use till the time of the Stuarts. So and as are articles meaning the same as, it, that, or which. As he sows, so he will reap, with the ellipses supplied, is, (In) what (manner) he sows, (in) that he will reap, or even without supplying them, What he sows, that he will reap. 41. Prepositions, to use the ideas of Mr. Tooke, are necessary in language, because it is impossible to have a distinct complex term for each different collection of ideas which we have occasion to put together in discourse. By the aid of prepositions, complex terms are prevented from being indefinitely numerous, and are used only for those collections of ideas which we have most occasion to use. This end is thus answered; we either take that complex term which includes the greatest number, though not all of the ideas we would communicate, or else that which includes "all and the fewest more ; and then by the help of the preposition we either make up the deficiency in the one case, or retrench the superfluity in the other: so, a house with a party wall; a house without a roof. Other relations are declared by prepositions; but they have all meanings of their own, and are constantly used according to those meanings. With is the imperative of withan, to join : sometimes of wyrthan, to be ; in which case it is exactly the same with by. Through or thorough is the Gothic substantive dauro, or the Teutonic thi:ruh, and like them means door, gate, passage; so, through the air, is, passage the air, or the air being the passage or medium. From is the Anglo-Saxon noun frum, beginning, source, author. Of this word Harris Produces three examples, which he considers as proving that it is used in three different relations, viz. detached relation, quiescence, and motion, the last

« AnteriorContinuar »