A Handbook of the English LanguageThe present chapter, then showing the relation of the English to the Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the _general_ relation of a modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; and so are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the ancient Greek.
-- 97. Contrasted with the English, the Anglo-Saxon has (among others) the following differences.
NOUNS.
1. _Gender._--In Anglo-Saxon there were three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter. With _adjectives_ each gender had its peculiar declension. With _substantives_ also there were appropriate terminations, though only to a certain degree.
2. The definite article varied with the gender of its substantive; _aet eage_, the eye; _se steorra_, the star; _seo tunge_, the tongue.
3. _Number._--The plural form in -en (as in _oxen_), rare in English, was common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole declension; e.g., _eagan_, eyes; _steorran_, stars; _tungan_, tongues.
Besides this, the Anglo-Saxons had forms in -u and -a as _ricu_, kingdoms; _gifa_, gifts. The termination -s, current in the present English, was confined to a single gender and to a single declension, as _endas_, ends; _dagas_, days; _smias_, smiths.
4. _Case._--Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least three; viz., the nominative, dative, genitive. With the p.r.o.nouns and adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words an ablative or instrumental one. _Smi_, a smith; _smie_, to a smith; _smies_, of a smith. Plural, _smias_, smiths; _smium_, to smiths; _smia_, of smiths: _he_, he; _hine_, him; _him_, to him; _his_, his; _se_, the; _a_, the; _y_, with the; _am_, to the; _aes_, of the.
5. _Declension._--In _Anglo-Saxon_ it was necessary to determine the declension of a substantive. There was the weak, or simple declension for words ending in a vowel (as, _eage_, _steorra_, _tunga_), and the strong declension for words ending in a consonant (_smi_, _spraec_, _leaf_). The letters i and u were dealt with as semivowels, semi-vowels being dealt with as consonants; so that words like _sunu_ and _gifu_ belonged to the same declension as _smi_ and _spr?c_.
6. _Definite and indefinite form of adjectives._--In Anglo-Saxon each adjective had two forms, one _definite_ and one _indefinite_. There is nothing of this kind in English. We say _a good sword_, and _the good sword_ equally. In Anglo-Saxon, however, the first combination would be _se G.o.de sweord_, the second _an G.o.d sweord_, the definite form being distinguished from the indefinite by the addition of a vowel.
7. _p.r.o.nouns personal._--The Anglo-Saxon language had for the first two persons a _dual_ number; inflected as follows:
_1st Person._ _2nd Person._ _Nom._ Wit _We two_ _Nom._ Git _Ye two_ _Acc._ Unc _Us two_ _Acc._ Ince _You two_ _Gen._ Uncer _Of us two_ _Gen._ Incer _Of you two._
Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative p.r.o.nouns, as well as the numerals _twa_ and _reo_, had a fuller declension than they have at present.
VERBS.
8. _Mood._--The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with one exception[41]) differs from the indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon considerably different from the indicative.
_Indicative Mood._
_Pres. Sing._ 1. Lufige. _Plur._ 1. } 2. Lufast. 2. } Lufia.
3. Lufa. 3. }
_Subjunctive Mood._
_Pres. Sing._ 1. } _Plur._ 1. } 2. } Lufige 2. } Lufion.
3. } 3. }
The Saxon infinitive ended in -an (_lufian_), and besides this there was a so-called gerundial form, _to lufigenne_.
Besides these there were considerable differences in respect to particular words; but of these no notice is taken; the object being to indicate the differences between the _ancient_ and _modern_ stages of a language in respect to _grammatical structure_.
9. To bring about these changes a certain amount _of time_ is, of course, necessary; a condition which suggests the difficult question as to the _rate_ at which languages change. This is different for different languages; but as the investigation belongs to _general_ philology rather than to the particular history of the English language, it finds no place here.
-- 98. The extent, however, to which external causes may accelerate or r.e.t.a.r.d philological changes, is _not_ foreign to our subject; the influence of the Norman Conquest, upon the previous Anglo-Saxon foundation, being a problem of some difficulty.
At the first glance it seems to have been considerable, especially in the way of simplifying the grammar. Yet the accuracy of this view is by no means unequivocal. The reasons against it are as follows:
a. In Friesland no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Frisian, as compared with the ancient, is nearly as simple in its grammatical structure, as the English is when compared with the Anglo-Saxon.
b. In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Danish and Swedish, as compared with the Old Norse, are nearly as simple in their grammatical structure, as the English is, when compared with the Anglo-Saxon.
The question requires more investigation than it has met with.
An extract from Mr. Hallam's "History of Literature" closes the present section, and introduces the next.
"Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to determine the commencement of the English language; not so much, as in those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to p.r.o.nounce why it should pa.s.s for a separate language, rather than a modification or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage, and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:--1. By contracting and otherwise modifying the p.r.o.nunciation and orthography of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think, can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pa.s.s for the latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which is to cover everything from A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1250."--Chapter i. 47.
-- 99. This shows that by the middle of the 12th century, the Anglo-Saxon of the standard Anglo-Saxon authors, had undergone such a change as to induce the scholars of the present ago to denominate it, not Saxon, but Semi-Saxon. It had ceased to be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become English.
Some, amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon are,
1. The subst.i.tution of -an for -as, in the plural of substantives, _munucan_ for _munucas_ (_monks_); and, conversely, the subst.i.tution of -s for -n, as _steorres_ for _steorran_ (_stars_).
2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels, _aet ylc_ for _aet ylce_; _sone_ for _sunu_; _name_ for _nama_; _dages_ for _dagas_.
3. The subst.i.tution of -n for -m in the dative case, _hwilon_ for _hwilum_.
4. The ejection of the -n of the infinitive mood, _c.u.mme_ for _c.u.man_ (_to come_), _nemne_ for _nemnen_ (_to name_).
5. The ejection of -en in the participle pa.s.sive, _I-hote_ for _gehaten_ (_called_, _hight_).
6. The gerundial termination -enne, superseded by the infinitive termination -en; as _to lufian_ for _to lufienne_, or _lufigenne_.
7. The subst.i.tution of -en for -a in the persons plural of verbs; _hi clepen_ (_they call_) for _hi clypia_, &c.
The preponderance (not the occasional occurrence) of forms like those above const.i.tute _Semi-Saxon_ in contradistinction to standard Saxon, cla.s.sical Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon proper.
-- 100. _Old English stage._--Further changes convert Semi-Saxon into Old English. Some, amongst others, are the following:--
1. The ejection of the dative plural termination -um, and the subst.i.tution of the preposition to and the plural sign -s; as _to smiths_ for _smium_.
Of the dative singular the -e is retained (_ende_, _worde_); but it is by no means certain that, although recognized in writing, it was equally recognized in p.r.o.nunciation also.
2. The ejection of -es in the genitive singular whenever the preposition _of_ came before it; _G.o.des love_ (_G.o.d's love_), but the _love of G.o.d_, and not the _love of G.o.des_.
3. The syllable -es as a sign of the genitive case extended to all genders and to all declensions; _heart's_ for _heortan_; _sun's_ for _sunnan_.
4. The same in respect to the plural number; _sterres_ for _steorran_; _sons_ for _suna_.
5. The ejection of -na in the genitive plural; as _of tunges_ for _tungena_.
6. The use of the word _the_, as an article, instead of _se_, &c.
The _preponderance_ of the forms above (and not their mere occasional occurrence) const.i.tutes _Old English_ in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
-- 101. In the Old English the following forms predominate.
1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative p.r.o.noun, or definite article; _an_, _enne_, _aere_, _am_;--in contradistinction to the Middle English.