The English Language Part 44

5. The termination _-str_, as in _webster_, _songster_, and _baxter_, was originally a feminine affix. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon,

Sangere, _a male singer_ } { Sangestre, _a female singer_.

Bacere, _a male baker_ } { Bacestre, _a female baker_.

Fielere, _a male fiddler_ } were { Fielstre, _a female fiddler_.

Vebbere, _a male weaver_ } opposed { Vebbestre, _a female weaver_.

Raedere, _a male reader_ } to { Raedestre, _a female reader_.

Seamere, _a male seamer_ } { Seamestre, _a female seamer_.

The same is the case in the present Dutch of Holland: _e.g._, _spookster_=_a female fortune-teller_; _bakster_=_a {223} baking-woman_; _waschster_=_a washerwoman_. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p. 339.) The word _spinster_ still retains its original feminine force.

6. The words _songstress_ and _seamstress_, besides being, as far as concerns the intermixture of languages, in the predicament of _shepherdess_, have, moreover, a double feminine termination; 1st. _-str_, of Germanic, 2nd. _-ess_, of cla.s.sical, origin.

7. In the word _heroine_ we have a Greek termination, just as _-ix_ is a Latin, and _-inn_ a German one. It must not, however, be considered as derived from _hero_, by any process of the English language, but be dealt with as a separate importation from the Greek language.

8. The form _deaconess_ is not wholly unexceptionable; since the termination _-ess_ is of Latin, the root _deacon_ of Greek origin: this Greek origin being rendered all the more conspicuous by the spelling, _deacon_ (from _diaconos_), as compared with the Latin _deca.n.u.s_.

9. The circ.u.mstance of _prince_ ending in the sound of _s_, works a change in the accent of the word. As _s_ is the final letter, it is necessary, in forming the plural number, and the genitive case, to add, not the simple letter _s_, as in _peers_, _priests_, &c., but the syllable _-es_. This makes the plural number and genitive case the same as the feminine form.

Hence the feminine form is accented _princess_, while _peeress_, _priestess_, &c., carry the accent on the first syllable. _Princess_ is remarkable as being the only word in English where the accent lies on the subordinate syllable.

10. It is uncertain whether _kit_, as compared with _cat_, be a feminine form or a diminutive form; in other words, whether it mean a _female cat_ or a _young cat_.--See the Chapter on the Diminutives.

11. _Goose_, _gander_.--One peculiarity in this pair of words has already been indicated. In the older forms of the word _goose_, such as [Greek: chen], Greek; _anser_, Latin; _gans_, German, as well as in the derived form _gander_, we have the proofs that, originally, there belonged to the word the sound of the letter _n_. In the forms [Greek: odous], [Greek: odontos], Greek; _dens_, _dentis_, Latin; _zahn_, {224} German; _tooth_, English, we find the a.n.a.logy that accounts for the ejection of the _n_, and the lengthening of the vowel preceding. With respect, however, to the _d_ in _gander_, it is not easy to say whether it is inserted in one word or omitted in the other. Neither can we give the precise power of the _-er_.

The following forms (taken from Grimm, iii. p. 341) occur in the different Gothic dialects. _Gans_, fem.; _ganazzo_, masc., Old High German--_gos_, f.; _gandra_, m., Anglo-Saxon--_gas_, Icelandic, f.; _gaas_, Danish, f.; _ga.s.si_, Icelandic, m.; _ga.s.se_, Danish, m.--_ganser_, _ganserer_, _gansart_, _ganserich_, _gander_, masculine forms in different New German dialects.

12. Observe, the form _ganserich_ has a masculine termination. The word _tauberich_, in provincial New German, has the same form and the same power. It denotes a _male dove_; _taube_, in German, signifying a _dove_.

In _ganserich_ and _tauberich_, we find preserved the termination _-rich_ (or _-rik_), with a masculine power. Of this termination we have a remnant, in English, preserved in the curious word _drake_. To _duck_ the word _drake_ has no etymological relation whatsoever. It is derived from a word with which it has but one letter in common; _viz._ the Latin _anas_=_a duck_. Of this the root is _anat-_, as seen in the genitive case _anatis_.

In Old High German we find the form _anetrekho_=_a drake_; in provincial New High German there is _enterich_ and _antrecht_, from whence come the English and Low German form _drake_. (Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. p.

341.)

13. _Peac.o.c.k_, _peahen_, _bridegroom_.--In these compounds, it is not the words _pea_ and _bride_ that are rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of _c.o.c.k_, _hen_, and _groom_, but it is the words _c.o.c.k_, _hen_, and _groom_ that are modified by prefixing _pea_ and _bride_. For an appreciation of this distinction, see the Chapter on Composition.

{225}

CHAPTER III.

THE NUMBERS.

-- 280. In the Greek language the word _pataer_ signifies a father, speaking of _one_, whilst _patere_ signifies _two fathers_, speaking of a pair, and thirdly, _pateres_ signifies _fathers_, speaking of any number beyond two.

The three words, _pataer_, _patere_, and _pateres_, are said to be in different numbers, the difference of meaning being expressed by a difference of form. These numbers have names. The number that speaks of _one_ is the singular, the number that speaks of _two_ is the _dual_ (from the Latin word _duo_=_two_), and the number that speaks of _more than two_ is the _plural_.

All languages have numbers, but all languages have not them to the same extent. The Hebrew has a dual, but it is restricted to nouns only (in Greek being extended to verbs). It has, moreover, this peculiarity; it applies, for the most part, only to things which are naturally double, as _the two eyes_, _the two hands_, &c. The Latin has no dual number at all, except the natural dual in the words _ambo_ and _duo_.

-- 281. The question presents itself,--to what extent have we numbers in English? Like the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, we have a singular and a plural. Like the Latin, and unlike the Greek and Hebrew, we have no dual.

-- Different from the question, to what degree have we numbers? is the question,--over what extent of our language have we numbers? This distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who said _typto_=_I beat_, _typteton_=_ye two beat_, _typtomen_=_we beat_, had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns; while the Hebrew dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual {226} number is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew.

There is no dual in the present English. It has been seen, however, that in the Anglo-Saxon there _was_ a dual. But the Anglo-Saxon dual, being restricted to the personal p.r.o.nouns (_wit_=_we two_; _git_=_ye two_), was not co-extensive with the Greek dual.

There is no dual in the present German. In the ancient German there was one.

In the present Danish and Swedish there is no dual. In the Old Norse and in the present Icelandic a dual number is to be found.

From this we learn that the dual number is one of those inflections that languages drop as they become modern.

The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins say, _bonus pater_=_a good father_; _boni patres_=_good fathers_. In the Latin, the adjective _bonus_ changes its form with the change of number of the substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the substantives and p.r.o.nouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon there were plural forms for the adjectives.

For the forms _selves_ and _others_, see the Syntax. For the present, it is sufficient to foreshadow a remark which will be made on the word _self_, _viz._ that whether it be a p.r.o.noun, a substantive, or an adjective, is a disputed point.

Words like _wheat_, _pitch_, _gold_, &c., where the idea is naturally singular; words like _bellows_, _scissors_, _lungs_, &c., where the idea is naturally plural; and words like _deer_, _sheep_, where the same form serves for the singular and plural, inasmuch as there takes place no change of form, are not under the province of etymology.

-- 282. The current rule is, that the plural number is formed from the singular by adding _s_, as _father_, _fathers_. {227} However, if the reader will revert to the Section upon the sharp and flat Mutes, where it is stated that mutes of different degrees of sharpness and flatness cannot come together in the same syllable, he will find occasion to take to the current rule a verbal exception. The letter added to the word _father_, making it _fathers_, is _s_ to the eye only. To the ear it is _z_. The word sounds _fatherz_. If the _s_ retained its sound, the spelling would be _fatherce_. In _stags_, _lads_, &c., the sound is _stagz_, _ladz_. The rule, then, for the formation of the English plurals, rigorously expressed, is as follows.--_The plural is formed from the singular, by adding to words ending in a vowel, a liquid or flat mute, the flat lene sibilant (z); and to words ending in a sharp mute, the sharp lene sibilant (s): e.g._ (the _sound_ of the word being expressed), _pea_, _peaz_; _tree_, _treez_; _day_, _dayz_; _hill_, _hillz_; _hen_, _henz_; _gig_, _gigz_; _trap_, _traps_; _pit_, _pits_; _stack_, _stacks_. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary.

I. In the case of words ending in _b_, _v_, _d_, the _th_ in _thine_=, or _g_, a change either of the final flat consonant, or of the sharp _s_ affixed, was not a matter of choice, but of necessity; the combinations _abs_, _avs_, _ads_, _as_, _ags_, being unp.r.o.nounceable. See the Section on the Law of Accommodation.

II. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second (_aps_, _afs_, _ats_, _as_, _asks_), or the second to the first (_abz_, _avz_, _az_, _agz_), is determined by the habit of the particular language in question; and, with a few apparent exceptions (mark the word _apparent_), it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not _vice versa_.

III. Such combinations as _peas_, _trees_, _hills_, _hens_, &c. (the _s_ preserving its original power, and being sounded as if written _peace_, _treece_, _hillce_, _hence_), being p.r.o.nounceable, the change from _s_ to _z_, in words so ending, is _not_ a matter determined by the necessity of the case, but by the habit of the English language.

IV. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in _s_, but in _z_, the original addition was not _z_, but _s_. This we {228} infer from three facts: 1. From the spelling; 2. from the fact of the sound of _z_ being either rare or non-existent in Anglo-Saxon; 3. from the sufficiency of the causes to bring about the change.

It may now be seen that some slight variations in the form of our plurals are either mere points of orthography, or else capable of being explained on very simple euphonic principles.

-- 283. _Boxes, churches, judges, lashes, kisses, blazes, princes._--Here there is the addition, not of the mere letter _s_, but of the syllable _-es_. As _s_ cannot be immediately added to _s_, the intervention of a vowel becomes necessary; and that all the words whose plural is formed in _-es_ really end either in the sounds of _s_, or in the allied sounds of _z_, _sh_, or _zh_, may be seen by a.n.a.lysis; since _x_=_ks_, _ch_=_tsh_, and _j_ or _ge_=_dzh_, whilst _ce_, in _prince_, is a mere point of orthography for _s_.

_Monarchs, heresiarchs._--Here the _ch_ equals not _tsh_, but _k_, so that there is no need of being told that they do not follow the a.n.a.logy of _church_, &c.

_Cargoes, echoes._--From _cargo_ and _echo_, with the addition of _e_; an orthographical expedient for the sake of denoting the length of the vowel _o_.

_Beauty, beauties; key, keys._--Like the word _cargoes_, &c., these forms are points, not of etymology, but of orthography.

-- 284. "A few _apparent_ exceptions."--These words are taken from Observation II. in the present section. The apparent exceptions to the rule there laid down are the words _loaf_, _wife_, and a few others, whose plural is not sounded _loafs_, _wifs_ (_loafce_, _wifce_), but _loavz_, _wivz_ (written _loaves_, _wives_). Here it seems as if _z_ had been added to the singular; and, contrary to rule, the final letter of the original word been accommodated to the _z_, instead of the _z_ being accommodated to the final syllable of the word, and so becoming _s_. It is, however, very probable that instead of the plural form being changed, it is the singular that has been modified. In the Anglo-Saxon the _f_ at the end of words (as in the present Swedish) had the power of _v_. In the allied language the words in point are spelt with the _flat_ mute, as _weib_, _laub_, _kalb_, _halb_, _stab_, {229} German. The same is the case with _leaf_, _leaves_; _calf_, _calves_; _half_, _halves_; _staff_, _staves_; _beef_, _beeves_: this last word being Anglo-Norman.

_Pence._--The peculiarity of this word consists in having a _flat_ liquid followed by the sharp sibilant _s_ (spelt _ce_), contrary to the rule given above. In the first place, it is a contracted form from _pennies_; in the second place, its sense is collective rather than plural; in the third place, the use of the sharp sibilant lene distinguishes it from _lens_, sounded _lenz_. That its sense is collective rather than plural (a distinction to which the reader's attention is directed), we learn from the word _sixpence_, which, compared with _sixpences_, is no plural, but a singular form.

_Dice._--In respect to its form, peculiar for the reason that _pence_ is peculiar. We find the sound of _s_ after a vowel, where that of _z_ is expected. This distinguishes _dice_ for play, from _dies_ (_diez_) for coining. _Dice_, perhaps, like _pence_, is collective rather than plural.

In _geese_, _lice_, and _mice_, we have, apparently, the same phenomenon as in _dice_, viz., a sharp sibilant (_s_) where a _flat_ one (_z_) is expected. The _s_, however, in these words is not the sign of the plural, but the last letter of the original word.

_Alms._--This is no true plural form. The _s_ belongs to the original word, Anglo-Saxon, _aelmesse_; Greek, [Greek: eleemosune]; just as the _s_ in _goose_ does. How far the word, although a true singular in its form, may have a collective signification, and require its verb to be plural, is a point not of etymology, but of syntax. The same is the case with the word _riches_, from the French _richesse_. In _riches_ the last syllable being sounded as _ez_, increases its liability to pa.s.s for a plural.

_News_, _means_, _pains._--These, the reverse of _alms_ and _riches_, are true plural forms. How far, in sense, they are singular is a point not of etymology, but of syntax.

_Mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _politics_, _ethics_, _optics_, _physics._--The following is an exhibition of my hypothesis respecting these words, to which I invite the reader's criticism. All the words in point are of Greek origin, and all are derived from a Greek adjective. Each is the name of some department of {230} study, of some art, or of some science. As the words are Greek, so also are the sciences which they denote, either of Greek origin, or else such as flourished in Greece. Let the arts and sciences of Greece be expressed, in Greek, rather by a substantive and an adjective combined, than by a simple substantive; for instance, let it be the habit of the language to say _the musical art_, rather than _music_. Let the Greek for _art_ be a word in the feminine gender; _e.g._, [Greek: techne] (_tekhnae_), so that the _musical art_ be [Greek: he mousike techne] (_hae mousikae tekhnae_). Let, in the progress of language (as was actually the case in Greece), the article and substantive be omitted, so that, for the _musical art_, or for _music_, there stand only the feminine adjective, [Greek: mousike]. Let there be, upon a given art or science, a series of books, or treatises; the Greek for _book_, or _treatise_, being a neuter substantive, [Greek: biblion] (_biblion_). Let the substantive meaning _treatise_ be, in the course of language, omitted, so that whilst the science of physics is called [Greek: phusike]

(_fysikae_), _physic_, from [Greek: he phusike techne], a series of treatises (or even chapters) upon the science shall be called [Greek: phusika] (_fysika_) or physics. Now all this was what happened in Greece.

The science was denoted by a feminine adjective singular, as [Greek: phusike] (_fysicae_), and the treatises upon it, by the neuter adjective plural, as [Greek: phusika] (_fysica_). The treatises of Aristotle are generally so named. To apply this, I conceive, that in the middle ages a science of Greek origin might have its name drawn from two sources, viz., from the name of the art or science, or from the name of the books wherein it was treated. In the first case it had a singular form, as _physic_, _logic_; in the second place a plural form, as _mathematics_, _metaphysics_, _optics_.