The English Language Part 73

As to the word _than_, the conjunction of comparison, it is a variety of _then_; the notions of _order_, _sequence_, and _comparison_ being allied.

_This is good_: _then_ (or _next in order_) _that is good_, is an expression sufficiently similar to _this is better than that_ to have given rise to it.

{378}

CHAPTER x.x.xVI.

PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS.

-- 442. _Prepositions._--Prepositions, as such, are wholly unsusceptible of inflection. Other parts of speech, in a state of inflection, may be used with a prepositional sense. This, however, is not an inflection of prepositions.

No word is ever made a preposition by the addition of a derivational[59]

element. If it were not for this, the practical cla.s.sification of the prepositions, in respect to their form, would coincide with that of the adverbs. As it is, there are only the prepositions of deflection, and the absolute prepositions. On another principle of division there are the simple prepositions (_in_, _on_, &c.), and the complex prepositions (_upon_, _roundabout_, _across_).

The prepositions of deflection, when simple, originate chiefly in adverbs, as _up_, _down_, _within_, _without_, unless, indeed, we change the a.s.sertion, and say that the words in point (and the others like them) are adverbs originating in prepositions. The absence of characteristic terminations renders these decisions difficult.

The prepositions of deflection, when complex, originate chiefly in nouns, accompanied by an absolute preposition; as _instead of_ of substantival, _between_ of adjectival origin.

The absolute prepositions, in the English language, are _in_, _on_, _of_, _at_, _up_, _by_, _to_, _for_, _from_, _till_, _with_, _through_.

-- 443. _Conjunctions._--Conjunctions, like prepositions, are wholly unsusceptible of inflection. Like prepositions they {379} are never made by means of a derivational element. Like prepositions they are either simple (as _and_, _if_), or complex (as _also_, _nevertheless_).

The conjunctions of deflection originate chiefly in imperative moods (as _all_ save _one_, _all_ except _one_); participles used like the ablative absolute in Latin (as _all_ saving _one_, _all_ excepting _one_); adverbs (as _so_); prepositions (as _for_); and relative neuters (as _that_).

The absolute conjunctions in the English language are _and_, _or_, _but_, _if_.

-- 444. _Yes, no._--Although _not_ may be reduced to an adverb, _nor_ to a conjunction, and _none_ to a noun, these two words (the direct affirmative, and the direct negative) are referable to none of the current parts of speech. Accurate grammar places them in a cla.s.s by themselves.

-- 445. _Particles._--The word particle is a collective term for all those parts of speech that are _naturally_ unsusceptible of inflection; comprising, 1, interjections; 2, direct affirmatives; 3, direct negatives; 4, absolute conjunctions; 5, absolute prepositions; 6, adverbs unsusceptible of degrees of comparison; 7, inseparable prefixes.

{380}

CHAPTER x.x.xVII.

ON THE GRAMMATICAL POSITION OF THE WORDS MINE AND THINE.

-- 446. The inflection of p.r.o.nouns has its natural peculiarities in language; it has also its natural difficulties in philology. These occur not in one language in particular, but in all generally. The most common peculiarity in the grammar of p.r.o.nouns is the fact of what may be called their _convertibility_. Of this _convertibility_ the following statements serve as ill.u.s.tration:--

1. _Of case._--In our own language the words _my_ and _thy_, although at present possessives, were previously datives, and, earlier still, accusatives. Again, the accusative _you_ replaces the nominative _ye_, and _vice versa_.

2. _Of number._--The words _thou_ and _thee_ are, except in the mouths of Quakers, obsolete. The plural forms, _ye_ and _you_, have replaced them.

3. _Of person._--Laying aside the habit of the Germans and other nations, of using the third person plural for the second singular (as in expressions like _wie befinden sie sich_ = _how do they find themselves?_ instead of _how do you find yourself?_) the Greek language gives us examples of interchange in the way of persons in the promiscuous use of [Greek: nin, min, sphe], and [Greek: heautou]; whilst _sich_ and _sik_ are used with a similar lat.i.tude in the Middle High German and Scandinavian.

4. _Of cla.s.s._--The demonstrative p.r.o.nouns become

_a._ Personal p.r.o.nouns.

_b._ Relative p.r.o.nouns.

_c._ Articles.

The reflective p.r.o.noun often becomes reciprocal. {381}

These statements are made for the sake of ill.u.s.trating, not of exhausting, the subject. It follows, however, as an inference from them, that the cla.s.sification of p.r.o.nouns is complicated. Even if we knew the original power and derivation of every form of every p.r.o.noun in a language, it would be far from an easy matter to determine therefrom the paradigm that they should take in grammar. To place a word according to its power in a late stage of language might confuse the study of an early stage. To say that because a word was once in a given cla.s.s, it should always be so, would be to deny that in the present English _they_, _these_, and _she_ are personal p.r.o.nouns at all.

The two tests, then, of the grammatical place of a p.r.o.noun, its _present power_ and its _original power_, are often conflicting.

In the English language the point of most importance in this department of grammar is the place of forms like _mine_ and _thine_; in other words, of the forms in _-n_. Are they genitive cases of a personal p.r.o.noun, as _mei_ and _tui_ are supposed to be in Latin, or are they possessive p.r.o.nouns like _meus_ and _tuus_?

Now, if we take up the common grammars of the English language _as it is_, we find, that, whilst _my_ and _thy_ are dealt with as genitive cases, _mine_ and _thine_ are considered adjectives. In the Anglo-Saxon grammars, however, _min_ and _in_, the older forms of _mine_ and _thine_, are treated as genitives; of which _my_ and _thy_ have been dealt with as abbreviated forms, and that by respectable scholars.

Now, to prove from the syntax of the older English that in many cases the two forms were convertible, and to answer that the words in question are _either_ genitive cases or adjectives, is lax philology; since the real question is, _which of the two is the primary, and which the secondary meaning?_

-- 447. The _a priori_ view of the likelihood of words like _mine_ and _thine_ being genitive cases, must be determined by the comparison of three series of facts.

1. The ideas expressed by the genitive case, with particular reference to the two preponderating notions of possession and part.i.tion. {382}

2. The circ.u.mstance of the particular notion of possession being, in the case of the personal p.r.o.nouns of the two first persons singular, generally expressed by a form undoubtedly adjectival.

3. The extent to which the idea of part.i.tion becomes merged in that of possession, and _vice versa_.

-- 448. _The ideas of possession and part.i.tion as expressed by genitive forms._--If we take a hundred genitive cases, and observe their construction, we shall find, that, with a vast majority of them, the meaning is reducible to one of two heads; _viz._, the idea of possession or the idea of part.i.tion.

Compared with these two powers all the others are inconsiderable, both in number and importance; and if, as in the Greek and Latin languages, they take up a large s.p.a.ce in the grammars, it is from their exceptional character rather than from their normal genitival signification.

Again, if both the ideas of possession and part.i.tion may, and in many cases must be, reduced to the more general idea of relation, this is a point of grammatical phraseology by no means affecting the practical and special bearings of the present division.

-- 449. _The adjectival expression of the idea of possession._--All the world over, a property is a possession; and _persons_, at least, may be said to be the owners of their attributes. Whatever may be the nature of words like _mine_ and _thine_, the adjectival character of their Latin equivalents, _meus_ and _tuus_, is undoubted.

_The ideas of part.i.tion and possession merge into one another._--_A man's spade is the_ possession _of a man; a man's hand is the_ part _of a man._ Nevertheless, when a man uses his hand as the instrument of his will, the idea which arises from the fact of its being _part_ of his body is merged in the idea of the possessorship which arises from the feeling of ownership or mastery which is evinced in its subservience and application. Without following the refinements to which the further investigation of these questions would lead us, it is sufficient to suggest that the preponderance of the two allied ideas of part.i.tion and possession is often determined by the {383} personality or the non-personality of the subject, and that, when the subject is a person, the idea is chiefly possessive; when a thing, part.i.tive--_caput fluvii_=_the head, which is a part, of a river_; _caput Toli_=_the head, which is the possession, of Tolus_.

But as persons may be degraded to the rank of things, and as things may, by personification, be elevated to the level of persons, this distinction, although real, may become apparently invalid. In phrases like a _tributary to the Tiber_--_the criminal lost his eye_--_this field belongs to that parish_--the ideas of possessorship and part.i.tion, as allied ideas subordinate to the idea of relationship in general, verify the interchange.

-- 450. These observations should bring us to the fact that there are two ideas which, more than any other, determine the evolution of a genitive case--the idea of part.i.tion and the idea of possession; _and that genitive cases are likely to be evolved just in proportion as there is a necessity for the expression of these two ideas_.--Let this be applied to the question of the a priori probability of the evolution of a genitive case to the p.r.o.nouns of the first and second persons of the singular number.

-- 451. _The idea of _possession_, and its likelihood of determining the evolution of a genitive form to the p.r.o.nouns of the first and second person singular._ --It is less likely to do so with such p.r.o.nouns than with other words, inasmuch as it is less necessary. It has been before observed, that the practice of most languages shows a tendency to express the relation by adjectival forms--_meus_, _tuus_.

An objection against the conclusiveness of this argument will be mentioned in the sequel.

-- 452. _The idea of _part.i.tion_, and its likelihood of determining the evolution of a genitive form, &c._--Less than with other words.

A personal p.r.o.noun of the _singular_ number is the name of a unity, and, as such, the name of an object far less likely to be separated into parts than the name of a collection. Phrases like, _some of them_, _one of you_, _many of us_, _any of them_, _few of us_, &c., have no a.n.a.logues in the singular number, such as _one of me_, _a few of thee_, &c. The part.i.tive words that can {384} combine with singular p.r.o.nouns are comparatively few; _viz._, _half_, _quarter_, _part_, &c.: and they can all combine equally with plurals--_half of us_, _a quarter of them_, _a part of you_, _a portion of us_. The part.i.tion of a singular object with a p.r.o.nominal name is of rare occurrence in language.

This last statement proves something more than appears at first sight. It proves that no argument in favour of the so-called _singular_ genitives, like _mine_ and _thine_, can be drawn from the admission (if made) of the existence of the true plural genitives _ou-r_, _you-r_, _thei-r_. The two ideas are not in the same predicament. We can say, _one of ten_, or _ten of twenty_; but we cannot say _one of one_--_Waes hira Matheus sum_=_Matthew was one of them_; Andreas--_Your noither_=_neither of you_; Amis and Ameloun--from Mr. Guest: _Her eyder_=_either of them_; Octavian.--Besides this, the form of the two numbers are neither identical, nor equally genitival; as may be seen by contrasting _mi-n_ and _thi-n_ with _ou-r_ and _you-r_.