A Handbook of the English Language, Robert Gordon Latham [some good books to read txt] 📗

superlative, nyhst, nehst. Observe, in the Anglo-Saxon positive and superlative, the absence of the r. This shows that the English positive near is the Anglo-Saxon comparative nearre, and that in the secondary comparative nearer, we have an excess of expression. It may be, however, that the r in near is a mere point of orthography, and that it is not pronounced; since, in the English language the words father and farther are, for the most part, pronounced alike.

§ 252. Farther.—Anglo-Saxon feor, fyrre, fyrrest. The th seems euphonic, inserted by the same process that gives the δ in ἀνδρὸς, from ἀνὴρ = man.

Further.—Confounded with farther, although in reality from a different word, fore. Old High German, furdir; New High German, der vordere; Anglo-Saxon, fyrðre.

§ 253. Former.—A comparative formed from the superlative; forma being such. Consequently, an instance of excess of expression, combined with irregularity.

§ 254. In Mœso-Gothic spêdists means last, and spêdiza = later. Of the word spêdists two views may be taken. According to one it is the positive degree with the addition of st; according to the other, it is the comparative degree with the addition only of t. Now, Grimm and others lay down as a rule, that the superlative is formed, not directly from the positive, but indirectly through the comparative.

With the exception of worse and less, all the English comparatives end in -r: yet no superlative ends in -rt, the form being, not wise, wiser, wisert, but wise, wiser, wisest. This fact, without invalidating the notion just laid down, gives additional importance to the comparative forms in s; since it is from these, before they have changed to r, that we must suppose the superlatives to have been derived. The theory being admitted, we can, by approximation, determine the comparative antiquity of the superlative degree. It was introduced after the establishment of the comparative, and before the change of -s into -r.

CHAPTER XI.

THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE.

§ 255. The Anglo-Saxon word for first was for-m-a.

The root was for = the Latin præ, the Greek προ, and being the same combination which occurs in fore, fore-m-ost, &c.

The m was the Anglo-Saxon sign of the superlative degree.

It is the m in the Latin words pri-m-us, inti-m-us, exti-m-us, ulti-m-us, &c.

It occurs even in the Gothic tongues; in other words, besides for-m-a.

In short, m is an old sign of the superlative degree; probably older than the usual form, -st, discussed in § 254. This has some important applications.

§ 256. Former.—This is a remarkable word: it is a comparative derived from the Anglo-Saxon superlative, and its analysis is for-m-er, with excess of inflexion.

§ 257. Nea-r-est.—Here the r is no part of the original root, as may be seen in § 251. It has grown out of -ah pronounced as the a in father. The true forms are positive, neah; comparative, neah-er; superlative, neah-est. Such, to a certain extent, is really the case.

§ 258. Next.—The superlative of nigh, contracted from nigh-est. The Anglo-Saxon forms were neah, nyh-st, neh-st, nyh-ste. In Anglo-Saxon the letter h was pronounced strongly, and sounded like g or k. This fact is still shown in the spelling; as nigh. In the word next this sound is preserved, slightly changed into that of k; next = nek-st.

§ 259. Upmost, &c.—The common statement concerning words like upmost is, that they are compound words, formed by the addition of the word most: this, however, is more than doubtful.

The Anglo-Saxon language presents us with the following forms:—

Anglo-Saxon. English. Innema (inn-ema), Inmost (in-m-ost). Ûtema (ût-ma), Outmost (out-m-ost). Siðema (sið-ema), Latest. Lætema (læt-ema), Latest. Niðema (nið-ema), Nethermost (neth-er-m-ost). Forma (for-ma), Foremost (fore-m-ost). Æftema (aft-ema), Aftermost (aft-er-m-ost). Ufema (uf-ema), Upmost (up-m-ost). Hindema (hind-ema), Hindmost (hind-m-ost). Midema (mid-ema), Midmost (mid-m-ost).

Now the words in question show at once, that, as far as they are concerned, the m that appears in the last syllable of each has nothing to do with the word most.

From the words in question there was formed, in Anglo-Saxon, a regular superlative form in the usual manner; viz., by the addition of -st; as æfte-m-est, fyr-m-est, læte-m-est, sið-m-est, yfe-m-est, ute-m-est, inne-m-est.

Hence, in the present English, the different parts of the syllable most (in words like upmost) come from different quarters. The m is the m in the Anglo-Saxon words innema, &c.; whilst the -st is the common sign of the superlative. Hence, in separating such words as midmost into its component parts, we should write

Mid-m-ost not mid-most. Ut-m-ost — ut-most. Up-m-ost — up-most. Fore-m-ost — fore-most. In-m-ost — in-most. Hind-m-ost — hind-most. Out-m-ost — out-most.

§ 260. In certain words, however, the syllable m-ost is added to a word already ending in -er; that is, already marked with the sign of the comparative degree.

Neth-er-m-ost. Hind-er-m-ost. Utt-er-m-ost. Out-er-m-ost. Upp-er-m-ost. Inn-er-m-ost.

CHAPTER XII.

THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.

§ 261. Generally speaking, the greater part of the cardinal numbers are undeclined. As far as number goes, this is necessary.

One is naturally and exclusively singular.

Two is naturally dual.

The rest are naturally and exclusively plural.

As to the inflection of gender and case, there is no reason why all the numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin unus, una, unum, unius. It is a mere habit of our language that they are not so in English.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.

§ 262. By referring to § 259, we see that -m was an early sign of the superlative degree. This bears upon the numerals seven, nine, and ten.

These are cardinal numbers. Nevertheless, the present chapter is the proper place for noticing them.

There is good reason for believing that the final -n is no part of the original root. Thus,—

a. Sev-en = the Latin sept-em, where the -m is equivalent to the -n. But in the Greek ἑπτὰ, and the Scandinavian syv, and sju, neither -n nor -m occur.

b. Ni-ne.—This same applies here. The Latin form is nov-em; but the Greek and Norse are ἐννέα and niu.

c. Ten.—The older form is ti-h-un, in Latin de-c-em. The English -n is the Latin -m. Nevertheless, in the Greek and Norse the forms are δέκα and tuo.

§ 263. What explains this? The following hypothesis. Some of the best German authorities believe, that the -m, expressive of the superlative degree, was also used to denote the ordinal character (ordinality) of the numerals; so that the -m- in deci-m-us, was the -m- in ulti-m-us and exti-m-us. This is the first step in the explanation.

§ 264. The next is, to suppose that certain cardinal numerals have taken and retained the ordinal form; these being the—

Latin. English. Greek. Norse. Sept-em, sev-en, as opposed to the ἑπτὰ, sjau. Nov-em, ni-ne, "          " ἐννέα, níu. Dec-em, te-n, "          " δέκα, tíu.

I give no opinion as to the accuracy or erroneousness of this view.

§ 265. Thir-teen, &c., is three with ten added, or 3 + 10.

§ 266. Thir-ty, &c., is three tens (three decades), or 3 × 10. In Mœso-Gothic we find the -ty in the fuller form tig = δέκ-ας in Greek.

CHAPTER XIV.

THE ARTICLES.

§ 267. In the generality of grammars the definite article the, and the indefinite article an, are the very first parts of speech that are considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite article. In the former language they say ἀνήρ τις = a certain man: in the latter the words filius patris mean equally the son of the father, a son of a father, a son of the father, or the son of a father. In Mœso-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the indefinite article; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a different word from what occurs in English. In these the Greek τις is expressed by the Gothic root sum.

Now, since it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the words some man, a certain man, and a man, are much the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and Mœso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the argument, be fairly said that the words sum and τις are pronouns with a certain sense, and that a and an are no more; consequently, that in Greek the indefinite article is τις, in Mœso-Gothic sum, and in English a or an.

A distinction, however, may be made. In the expression ἀνήρ τις (anær tis) = a certain man, or a man, and in the expression sum mann, the words sum and τις preserve their natural and original meaning; whilst in a man and an ox the words a and an are used in a secondary sense. These words, as is currently known, are one and the same, the n, in the form a, being ejected through a euphonic process. They are, moreover, the same words with the numeral one; Anglo-Saxon, án; Scotch, ane. Now, between the words a man and one man, there is a difference in meaning; the first expression being the most indefinite. Hence comes the difference between the English and Mœso-Gothic expressions. In the one the word sum has a natural, in the other, the word an has a secondary power.

The same reasoning applies to the word the. Compared with a man, the words the man are very definite. Compared, however, with the words that man, they are the contrary. Now, just as an and a have arisen out of the numeral one, so has the arisen out of the demonstrative pronoun þæt, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in Anglo-Saxon there was a form þe, undeclined, and common to all the cases of all the numbers.

In no language in its oldest stage is there ever a word giving, in its primary sense, the ideas of a and the. As tongues become modern, some noun with a similar sense is used to express them. In the course of time a change of form takes place, corresponding to the change of meaning; e.g., one becomes an, and afterwards a. Then it is that articles become looked upon as separate parts of speech, and are dealt with accordingly. No invalidation of this statement is drawn from the Greek language. Although the first page of the etymology gives us ὁ, ἡ, τὸ (ho, hæ, to), as the definite articles, the corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that, in the oldest stage of the language, ὁ (ho) = the, had the power of οὗτος (howtos) = this.

The origin of the articles seems uniform. In German ein, in Danish en, stand to one in the same relation that an does. The French un,