Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

those ending in th, have been traced to a very probable origin by Mr. H. Tooke: he considers them as the third persons singular of verbs. For instance; truth (anciently written troweth, trowth, trouth, and troth,) means, what one troweth, i. e. thinketh, or firmly believeth: warmth means that which warmeth: strength is that which stringeth, or maketh one strong. While, however, we agree so far with Mr. Tooke, we cannot go with him when he limits our acceptation of words to that in which they were first employed; and supposes that all the complicated, yet often definable associations, which the gradual progress of language and intellect has connected with words, are to be reduced to the standard of our forefathers. We cannot avoid expressing our belief, that he has either totally overlooked, or greatly neglected the influence of the principle of associa. tion, both in the formation of ideas, and in the connecting of them with words. It does not follow, that because the ideas connected with abstract terms are not what Mr. Locke supposed, that there are no ideas connected with them, but that they are merely contrivances of language. Several classes of abstract nouns are altogether passed over by Mr. H. Tooke; and we regret it, because he is eminently qualified to trace the origin of those terminations by which are formed the names of qualities considered as separate from those substances in which they exist. One class is formed by the addition of ness to the adjective, such as whiteness, goodness, &c. Ness is the Anglo Saxon naer, or nere, signifying nose. It is also used for promontory; as in Sheer-ness, Orford-ness, the Naze, &c. Joined to the name of a quality, it denotes that the quality is a distinguishing feature of an object; it consequently holds it up as an object of separate attention.

18. We now proceed to those changes which are made in the form of nouns, to express a change of signification; and first we shall attend to number. In speaking of the objects of thought, we have constant occasion to speak of one or more of a kind; in every language therefore we may expect to find a variation in the form or adjuncts of nouns, to denote unity or plurality. To avoid the necessity of using such adjuncts, or rather in consequence of the coalescence of them with the nouns, owing to the frequent use of them in connection with the nouns, a change of form has taken place in most cultivated languages. The Hebrew plurals are generally formed By the addi

VOL. III.

tion of p, mem, to the noun, probably be. cause was the symbol of water, and denoted collection and plurality; and in that language the coalescence has actually taken place, and occasionally undergone some corruption. Among the Chinese the plural adjunct has not yet coalesced with the noun; and they generally denote the plural by the addition of min to the singular. Supposing the coalescence of plural adjuncts to have been the origin of the changes on nouns to denote plurality of meaning, it does not necessarily follow that all plural changes were thus formed. The change of form produced by such coalescence in some cases might suggest a corresponding change in others, though the change might not be exactly similar. Hence, could we trace some of the plural changes to art, as their earliest origin, it would weigh little against the general principle. We shall, however, almost universally find, that the extension of old procedures, rather than the invention of new ones, has been the cause of almost all even of the artificial changes in language. The reason is obvions: besides the greater ease to the innovator, it would be much more intelligible to those who are to adopt his innovation. Even the philosopher judges it more proper to follow the analogies of his language, than to deviate from them where he knows such deviation would be an improvement. Except as far as is dictated by custom, and that convenience on which the custom has been founded, there is no reason why the same word unchanged should not be applicable both where one and where more are meant : why, for instance, we should not say two man, as well as one man. The plural form may be applied to two, or two hundred, or any indefinite number; now is there in the nature of the thing a more marked distinction between one and two, than between two and two hundred? In fact, were we always able to join to the noun a numeral, or some other adnoun denoting number, a plural form would be unnecessary; but it is frequently desirable to denote plurality where the number is indeterminate, or unnecessary to be specified. The Chinese drop their plural adjunct when there is another word of plurality attached to the noun. We do not go upon the same principle; but there are cases in which we make no changes to denote plurality, as twenty pound of flour, thirty sail of ships, four thousand, &c. These instances, though contrary to the prevailing analogy of our language, certainly do not oppose the gene

B b

ral principles of language; and though the neglect of the plural termination in such cases is ungrammatical, it probably savours less of vulgarity to go thus far with the multitude, than of pedantry to quit the beaten track. There are other instances, how ever, in which the use of the same word both in a singular and plural acceptation is perfectly legitimate; we say one, or twenty, deer, sheep, or swine. If there must be a form for unity as distinguished from plura lity, why not forms to denote two things, three things, &c.? There is no reason but in their inferior utility some languages have a form for duality; and by the Greeks this form was carried through their nouns, adnouns, pronouns, verbs, and participles. They had, however, no scruple in using the plural form for two things, and in making their duals agree with plurals. The fact is, the distinction between one and more than one is more useful than any farther distinction. The indefinite denotement of plurality is continually serviceable; and if we wish to specify the exact number, the addition of a numeral is a much more simple procedure than the burdening of language with a number of distinctions, which would seldom be useful, and never necessary.

19. In every department of knowledge we are concerned with individuals; and though for the purposes of communication general terms are not only convenient, but absolutely necessary, some contrivances are requisite to designate individuals, or less general classes of individuals. This is done by means of adnouns, or by stating some connection between what is denoted by the noun and some other substance or quality. The latter is accomplished by juxtaposition, by prepositions, or by equivalent changes in the word connected. The last is called inflection, and the word so changed is called a case of the noun. In English we have only one inflection of the noun, and two of the pronoun. Persons who think that the procedures of every language must be accommodated to the grammar of the Greek and Latin, strenuously contend for an equal number of cases with their's. If case mean a change in the word, to denote connection with other words, then the plan of our language cannot be accommodated to that of the Latin: if of a man, to a man, &c. be considered as cases, there is certainly no reason why the same appellation should not be given to every noun to which a preposition is prefixed, and then we shall have above thirty cases. It is fortunate for the

speculator, that, in this and other instances, language will not bend to the contrivances of the technical grammarian: for his wish to reduce every process to an agreement with a standard which prejudice only can deem perfect would, if successful, materially increase the difficulties of grammatical investigation. The variation of our nouns is confined to the denotement of one relation, that of property or possession; and it is therefore with great propriety called the possessive case. The appellation genitive case is sometimes applied to it; but the force of the Greek and Latin genitive is to denote relation in general, though capable of specific application, and is exactly equivalent to a noun preceded by of. The pos sessive case of a noun is not equivalent to the noun preceded by of, except where the latter has the specific force of belonging to. It may in all cases be represented by of, with the noun following; but the latter mode of expression cannot in many instances be represented by the possessive case. The French, Spanish, and Italian languages have no cases of nouns: the German has changes to express what we denote by of and to; but these changes are not carried through all the nouns. The Latin and Greek languages have still more variations, which they carry through all their variable parts of speech, except the verbs. The arrangement of these variations is the work of art; and the appellations of case, or fullen, and declension, or bending from, appear to have gone upon this principle: the word from which the cases are formed was represented by a perpendicular line, and the cases by lines declining or falling from it. For the sake of convenience, the nominative and vocative are denominated cases; and from the above contrivance the nominative was termed the upright case, and the other cases were termed oblique. The nominative is the name itself. The vocative, or case of calling, has its origin in those changes in the pronunciation which arise from the mode of utterance in calling to a person: it is a corruption, or an abbreviation of the nominative. We have already spoken of the force of the genitive; we shall only add here, that we have in English one procedure exactly corresponding to it in force, though not so universally applied, viz. juxtaposition. This is a very simple and intelligible procedure. To connect the terms is a satisfactory expression of the connection of the things signified and in this procedure, as in the genitive, the kind of connection is left to be

inferred; as in the expressions iron ore, iron chain, iron heat, China orange, house door, &c. The theoretical distinction between the dative and accusative does not appear to be clearly marked; but the general force of the former is to denote acquisition, and of the latter to designate the word as the object of the action of verbs and their derivatives. As to the ablative, there is scarcely room for doubt that it is merely a variation of the dative form, where indeed it has a form distinct from it. Probably, in consequence of the ellipsis of a preposition, this form has by degrees become the denotement of the cause, manner, or instrument of an action; and this is now the primary force of the case when unattended by prepositions. The changes which are made to denote connection have been formed by prefixing or affixing letters to the words themselves; and they might have been arbitrary, or gradually produced by the coalescence of words or abbreviations of words. The latter hypothesis is in every respect so very probable, that nothing seems requisite to prove it to have been the general procedure of language; but to shew that it has actually occurred in some instances. It has been for some time the prevailing opinion among philosophical philologists, and it has acquired great support from the discoveries of Mr. H. Tooke. He states it without any limit, in the following manner: "All those common terminations, in any language, of which all nouns or verbs in that language equally partake (under the notion of declension or conjugation) are themselves separate words, with distinct meanings; which are therefore added to the different nouns or verbs, because those additional meanings are intended to be added occasionally to all those nouns or verbs. These terminations are all explicable, and ought to be explained." In fact, the progress of the coalescence has been detected in some of the most refined instances of it; and in many cases to which system has not reached the coalescence is universally allowed. In the two principal cases of the Greek noun, in some at least of its forms of inflection, the origin of the change has been traced; and all the cases of the Hebrew noun are obviously formed by prefixing (instead of affixing, as in the Greek) significant words. The grammarian does not indeed allow that the changes of the Hebrew noun are cases; but such arbitrary distinctions serve only to render obscurity more obscure. In the

French, au and du are indisputaby abbreviations of á le and de le: we can trace their corruption, and we are not obliged to suppose greater corruptions in more disputable instances. What is the origin of the pos sessive termination of our nouns is very uncertain. It is obviously the corresponding Anglo Saxon termination; but what is the origin of that? We may hope to receive light upon this point, when the third part of "Epea Pteroenta" is laid before the public.

20. Gender is a distinction of substantives, as denoting males or females, or neither. The names of males are said to be of the masculine gender; the names of females, of the feminine gender; and all other names are said to be of the neuter, that is, of neither gender. The purposes even of accurate communication do not in all cases require any denotement of gender, and accordingly we find many words which are common to both sexes. The English and the pure Persian appear to be the only languages which observe the natural distinction in the division of nouns. We denote difference of sex, either by a change of appellation, or by a change on the word itself, or by a significant adjunct. In addition to its greater philosophical accuracy, the procedure of our language enables us to mark with greater perspicuity and force the personification of inanimate substances or abstract qualities. In the earliest languages there is no distinction of gender further than into masculine and feminine, and the reason is obvious; for the principle of animation appears to the uncultivated mind to pervade all nature. In the more cultivated languages in which a third class is admitted, the arrangement seems to have been the work of art. The foundation was laid in the natural distinction of sex; by degrees those terminations which most frequently occurred in the respective divisions were made the characteristics of those divisions, and nouns of similar terminations were arranged under them, without respect to the original ground of distinction. We must not be surprized to find, that languages derived from those, in which the distinctions of nature had given way to the divisions of art, should leave nature altogether; and we accordingly find, that in those modern European languages which are derived from the Latin, gender is little more than a mere grammatical distinction of nouns into two classes, called masculine and feminine.

II. Of the Adnoun.

21. We apply the term adnoun to those single words which are added to nouns to vary their comprehension, or to vary or determine their extension. Those which affect the former object are called adjectires; those which effect the latter we call restrictives. It is not, perhaps, in all cases, easy to say to which of these classes an adnoun should be referred, because the two objects are not always distinguishable; but in general those which denote qualities are adjectives, and those which denote situation, possession, or number are restrictives.

22. The adjective is exactly equivalent to a noun connected with another noun by means of juxtaposition, or of a preposition, or of corresponding flexion. E. g. A gol den cup is the same with a gold cup, or a cup of gold; a prudent man is the same as a man of prudence, or vir prudentiæ. It has been already observed, that the Greek and Latin genitive, our preposition of, and juxtaposition, are all equivalent procedures, though custom has produced a variety in the mode of their application: we now add, that the adjective is another equivalent; and further, that the connection denoted by the adjective is equally indefinite with the others. E. g. A healthy colour is a colour caused by health; a healthy exercise is exercise causing health. And the use of all these procedures is the same, to particularize the general term, by connecting with the qualities which are included under it some quality which the general term does not include. In many instances, to denote that the name of a quality is used thus in connection with some other name, that is, in fact, that it is used as an adjective, certain terminations are employed significant of such connexion; and Mr. H. Tooke in forms us, that those by which the simple adjectives are formed, viz. en, ed, and ig (our modern y) convey, all three, the designation that the names to which they are annexed are to be joined to some other names; and this by their own intrinsic meaning, for they signify gire, add, join. “So the adjectives wooden and woollen," he continues, convey precisely the same ideas, are the names of the same things, denote the same substances, as the substantives wood and wool: and the termination en only puts them in a condition to be joined to some other substances, or rather gives us notice to expect some other substances to which they are to be joined."

66

23. Most languages which admit of inflection carry it through their adjectives as well as nouns. In some, the adjective is varied to express difference in the gender, number, and case of the connected noun. Where great liberty of inversion is desirable, these variations are convenient, because they point out with what noun the adjective is connected: where juxtaposition ascertains this they are unnecessary, since they make no change in the signification of the adjective. The signification of the adjective wise, e. g. is unchanged, whether it be applied to one man or woman, or to twenty men or women; whether its substantive be stated singly, or conjoined with others, as the names of the parents, place of abode, &c. of those to whom it is applied. The French always place the adjective close to its noun, yet they make changes on it to denote the gender of the connected noun. This is always unnecessary; but sometimes it contributes to elegance, by preventing an aukward circumlocution.

24. The qualities denoted by adjectives, may, in general, vary in degree: some, as dimensions and weight, may be measured with accuracy; and the comparative degree of some qualities, at least of heat and cold, can be ascertained with precision. Many, however, are incapable of exact measurement; and the cases in which the exact degree of the quality cannot be ascertained, are few in comparison with those in which it is unnecessary. When we use terms to express a greater or less degree of a quality, we may either make a direct and particular reference to the degree in which it is possessed by other objects, or use them without such reference. In the former case, we are said to compare the qualities; and variations of the adjective, to express this comparison, are called degrees of compurison. The difference between the comparative and superlative in our language, consists in the manner of construction merely, and not in the degree of the quality: thus, Solomon was wiser than any other king of Israel, is the same as, "Solomon was the wisest of the kings of Israel.” The comparative is used, when we speak of an object as distinct from those with which we compare it; the superlative, when it is spoken of as one of those with which we compare it. Man is the noblest of animals, but not the noblest of the brute creation, otherwise he must be one of the brute creation: he is nobler than the brutes, but not than all animals, or he must be nobler

than himself. The custom of our language makes one distinction between the comparative and superlative, which does not coincide with this grand distinction. We use the comparative with the force of the superlative when we speak of two; as, he is the wiser of the two, and the wisest of any greater number. This is not an unjustifiable usage; but it has no particular foundation in the force of the comparative and superlative.

Few of the modern European languages vary the words themselves to express comparison. The French, e. g. express by plus and le plus, what we express by more and most; or (what is obviously equivalent, though custom limits their use to particular cases) by the terminations er and est. What is the meaning of these terminations? is a natural question: the answer is not so easy. It appears, however, very probable, that er is nothing more or less than the word which we still use in the form ere, signifying before; and, that wiser signifies wise before. Now, as has been well remarked by Mr. Dalton, then and than are the same in origin and signification: hence, wiser than I, is exactly represented by, wise before then I, i. e. wise before, then (that is, next in order) I. This derivation, if correct, explains the ground of the peculiarity above-stated, in the use of the comparative: he is the wiser of the two, means simply, he is wise before (the other) of the two. It might be conjectured, that the superlative termination est, is an abbreviation of most annexed to an adjective, in the same manner as in topmost, undermost, &c.; but Mr. H. Tooke has shewn, that more is merely mo-er, and most, mo-est, which leaves the origin of the terminations er and est as it was found.

25. Those adnouns which, without expressing qualities, vary or determine the extent of the signification of the nouns to which they belong, we call restrictives. Some restrictives are, by the custom of our language, applicable to singular nouns only; as one, a or an, another, this, that, each, every, &c.; others to plural nouns only; as two, three, these, those, other, few, all, &c.; but most restrictives, like all adjectives, are applicable to both singular and plural nouns. Of the restrictives, two are called articles, the and an, which last is abbreviated into a before consonants, h when pronounced, u long as in use, and one. An is simply another form of the numeral one, still used in North Britain under the form ane; and in the French, the numeral and

the article corresponding to one, are the same. But though an and one have the same origin and primary signification, there is occasionally an obvious difference in the mode of their employment. This difference is well expressed by Dr. Crombie: “If, instead of saying, 'A horse, a horse, a kingdom for a horse,' I should say, 'One horse, one horse, one kingdom for one horse,' the sentiment, I conceive, would not be strictly the same. In both expressions, the species is named, and in both, one of that species is demanded; but with this difference, that, in the former, the name of the species is the emphatic word, and it opposes that species to every other; in the latter, unity of object seems the leading idea." An is called the indefinite article, because it leaves undetermined what one individual is meant; the determines the application of the noun to some particular individual, and hence it is termed, the definite article. It has the same primary signification with that; but they vary in the mode of their employment, the former never being employed without a noun, the latter having its noun frequently understood; and farther, that is more emphatic than the: these, however, are the refinements of language, and have no foundation in the origin of words. Mr. H. Tooke considers that as the past participle, and the as the imperative mood, of the verb Dean to get, to take, to assume: and the, he observes, may very well supply the place of the corresponding Anglo-Saxon article re, which is the imperative of reon to see; for it answers the same purpose in discourse to say, see man, or take man. We really like the import of our forefathers' article so much better than that of our own, that we shall cheerfully give up the for se, unless it should appear, that the and that have their origin in some verb signifying to point at. Of that large class of restrictives called numerals, the origin of some may be traced; and as we wish to give our readers some insight into the labours of Mr. H. Tooke, we shall mention his derivation of words in this class. It is in the highest degree probable, that all numeration was originally performed by the fingers, the actual resort of the ignorant for the number of the fingers is still the ut most extent of numeration. The bands doubled, closed, or shut in, may therefore well be denominated ten (the past participle of týnan to enclose, to shut in), for therein you have closed all numèration; and if you want more, you must begin again,

;

« AnteriorContinuar »