A Handbook of the English Language-- 178. In its widest signification, etymology takes cognizance _of the changes of the form of words_. However, as the etymology that compares the forms _fathers_ and _father_ is different from the etymology that compares _father_ and _pater_, we have, of etymology, two sorts: one dealing with the changes of form that words undergo in one and the same language (_father_, _fathers_), the other dealing with the changes that words undergo in pa.s.sing from one language to another (_pater_, _father_).
The first of these sorts may be called etymology in the limited sense of the word, or the etymology of the grammarian. In this case it is opposed to orthoepy, orthography, syntax, and the other parts of grammar. This is the etymology of the ensuing pages.
The second may be called etymology in the wide sense of the word, _historical_ etymology, or _comparative_ etymology.
-- 179. It must be again repeated that the two sorts of etymology agree in one point, viz., in taking cognizance of the _changes of forms that words undergo_. Whether the change arise from grammatical reasons, as _father_, _fathers_, or from a change of language taking place in the lapse of time, as _pater_, _father_, is a matter of indifference.
In the Latin _pater_, and in the English _father_, we have one of two things, either two words descended or derived from each other, or two words descended or derived from a common original source.
In _fathers_ we have a formation deduced from the radical word _father_.
With these preliminaries we may understand Dr. Johnson's explanation of the word etymology.
"ETYMOLOGY, n. s. (_etymologia_, Lat.) ?t??? (_etymos_) _true, and_ ?????
(_logos_) _a word_.
"1. _The descent or derivation of a word from its original; the deduction of formations from the radical word; the a.n.a.lysis of compounds into primitives._
"2. _The part of grammar which delivers the inflections of nouns and verbs."_
CHAPTER II
ON GENDER.
-- 180. How far is there such a thing as _gender_ in the English language?
This depends upon the meaning that we attach to the word.
In the Latin language we have the words _taurus_ = _bull_, and _vacca_ = _cow_. Here the natural distinction of _s.e.x_ is expressed by _wholly_ different words. With this we have corresponding modes of expression in English: e.g.,
_Male._ _Female._ | _Male._ _Female._ | Bachelor Spinster. | Horse Mare.
Boar Sow. | Ram Ewe.
Boy Girl. | Son Daughter.
Brother Sister. | Uncle Aunt.
Buck Doe. | Father Mother, &c.
The mode, however, of expressing different s.e.xes by _wholly_ different words is not a matter of _gender_. The words _boy_ and _girl_ bear no _etymological_ relation to each other; neither being derived from the other, nor in any way connected with it.
-- 181. Neither are words like _c.o.c.k-sparrow_, _man-servant_, _he-goat_, &c., as compared with _hen-sparrow_, _maid-servant_, _she-goat_, &c., specimens of _gender_. Here a difference of s.e.x is indicated by the addition of a fresh term, from which is formed a compound word.
-- 182. In the Latin words _genitrix_ = _a mother_, and _genitor_ = _a father_, we have a nearer approach to _gender_. Here the difference of s.e.x is expressed by a difference of termination; the words _genitor_ and _genitrix_ being in a true etymological relation, i.e., either derived from each other, or from some common source. With this we have, in English corresponding modes of expression: e.g.
_Male._ _Female._ | _Male._ _Female._ | Actor Actress. | Lion Lioness.
Arbiter Arbitress. | Peer Peeress.
Baron Baroness. | Poet Poetess.
Benefactor Benefactress. | Sorcerer Sorceress.
Count Countess. | Songster Songstress.
Duke d.u.c.h.ess. | Tiger Tigress.
-- 183. This, however, in strict grammatical language, is an approach to gender rather than _gender_ itself; the difference from true grammatical gender being as follows:--
Let the Latin words _genitor_ and _genitrix_ be declined:--
_Sing. Nom._ Genitor Genitrix.
_Gen._ Genitor-is Genitric-is.
_Dat._ Genitor-i Genitric-i.
_Acc._ Genitor-em Genitric-em.
_Voc._ Genitor Genitrix.
_Plur. Nom._ Genitor-es Genitric-es.
_Gen._ Genitor-um Genitric-um.
_Dat._ Genitor-ibus Genitric-ibus.
_Acc._ Genitor-es Genitric-es.
_Voc._ Genitor-es Genitric-es.
The syllables in italics are the signs of the cases and numbers. Now those signs are the same in each word, the difference of meaning (or s.e.x) not affecting them.
-- 184. Contrast, however, with the words _genitor_ and _genitrix_ the words _domina_ = _a mistress_, and _dominus_ = _a master_.
_Sing. Nom._ Domin-a Domin-us.
_Gen._ Domin-ae Domin-i.
_Dat._ Domin-ae Domin-o.
_Acc._ Domin-am Domin-um.
_Voc._ Domin-a Domin-e.
_Plur. Nom._ Domin-ae Domin-i.
_Gen._ Domin-arum Domin-orum.
_Dat._ Domin-abus Domin-is.
_Acc._ Domin-as Domin-os.
_Voc._ Domin-ae Domin-i.
Here the letters in italics, or the signs of the cases and numbers, are different; the difference being brought about by the difference of gender.
Now it is very evident that, if _genitrix_ be a specimen of gender, _domina_ is something more.
-- 185. It may be laid down as a sort of definition, that _there is no gender where there is no affection of the declension_: consequently, that, although we have, in English, words corresponding to _genitrix_ and _genitor_, we have no true genders until we find words corresponding to _dominus_ and _domina_.
-- 186. The second element in the notion of gender, although I will not venture to call it an essential one, is the following:--In the words _domina_ and _dominus_, _mistress_ and _master_, there is a _natural_ distinction of s.e.x; the one being masculine, or male, the other feminine, or female. In the words _sword_ and _lance_ there is _no natural_ distinction of s.e.x. Notwithstanding this, the word _hasta_, in Latin, is as much of the feminine gender as _domina_, whilst _gladius_ = _a sword_ is, like _dominus_, a masculine noun. From this we see that, in languages wherein there are true genders, a fict.i.tious or conventional s.e.x is attributed even to inanimate objects; in other words, _s.e.x_ is a natural distinction, _gender_ a grammatical one.
-- 187. In -- 185 it is written, that "although we have, in English, words corresponding to _genitrix_ and _genitor_, we have no true genders until we find _words corresponding to dominus_ and _domina_."--The sentence was intentionally worded with caution. Words like _dominus_ and _domina_, that is, words where the declension is affected by the s.e.x, _are_ to be found _even in English_.
The p.r.o.noun _him_, from the Anglo-Saxon and English _he_, as compared with the p.r.o.noun _her_, from the Anglo-Saxon _heo_, is affected in its declension by the difference of s.e.x, and is a true, though fragmentary, specimen of gender. The same is the case with the form _his_ as compared with _her_.
The p.r.o.noun _it_ (originally _hit_), as compared with _he_, is a specimen of gender.
The relative _what_, as compared with the masculine _who_, is a specimen of gender.
The forms _it_ (for _hit_) and _he_ are as much genders as _hoc_ and _hic_, and the forms _hoc_ and _hic_ are as much genders as _bonum_ and _bonus_.
-- 188. The formation of the neuter gender by the addition of -t, in words like _wha-t_, _i-t_, and _tha-t_, occurs in other languages. The -t in _tha-t_ is the -d in _istu-d_, Latin, and the -t in _ta-t_, Sanskrit.