A Handbook of the English Language-- 189. In the Mso-Gothic and Scandinavian, the _adjectives_ form the neuters in -t, in Old High German in -z (ts), and in Modem German in -s (derived from -z)--Mso-Gothic, _blind-ata_; Icel., _blind-t_; Old High German, _plint-ez_, M. G. _blind-es_ = _caec-um_.
_Caution._--_Which_, is _not_ the neuter of _who_.
-- 190. Just as there are in English fragments of a gender modifying the declension, so are there, also, fragments of the second element of gender; viz., the attribution of s.e.x to objects naturally dest.i.tute of it. _The sun in _his_ glory_, _the moon in _her_ wane_, are examples of this. A sailor calls his ship _she_. A husbandman, according to Mr. Cobbett, does the same with his _plough_ and working implements:--"In speaking of a _ship_ we say _she_ and _her_. And you know that our country-folks in Hampshire call almost every thing _he_ or _she_. It is curious to observe that country labourers give the feminine appellation to those things only which are more closely identified with themselves, and by the qualities or conditions of which their own efforts, and their character as workmen, are affected. The mower calls his _scythe_ a _she_, the ploughman calls his _plough_ a _she_; but a p.r.o.ng, or a shovel, or a harrow, which pa.s.ses promiscuously from hand to hand, and which is appropriated to no particular labourer, is called a _he_."--"English Grammar," Letter v.
-- 191. Now, although Mr. Cobbett's statements may account for a sailor calling his ship _she_, they will not account for the custom of giving to the sun a masculine, and to the moon a feminine, p.r.o.noun, as is done in the expressions quoted in the last section; still less will it account for the circ.u.mstance of the Germans reversing the gender, and making the _sun_ feminine, and the _moon_ masculine.
-- 192. Let there be a period in the history of a language wherein the _sun_ and _moon_ are dealt with, not as inanimate ma.s.ses of matter, but as animated divinities. Let there, in other words, be a time when dead things are personified, and when there is a _mythology_. Let an object like the _sun_ be deemed a _male_, and an object like the _moon_, a _female_, deity.
We may then understand the origin of certain genders.
The Germans say the _sun in _her_ glory_; the _moon in _his_ wane_. This difference between the usage of the two languages, like so many others, is explained by the influence of the cla.s.sical languages upon the English.--"_Mundilfori had two children; a son, Mani (Moon), and a daughter, Sol (Sun)._"--Such is an extract out of an Icelandic mythological work, viz., the prose Edda. In the cla.s.sical languages, however, _Phbus_ and _Sol_ are masculine, and _Luna_ and _Diana_ feminine. Hence it is that, although in Anglo-Saxon and Old-Saxon the _sun_ is _feminine_, it is in English _masculine_.
_Philosophy_, _charity_, &c., or the names of abstract qualities personified, take a conventional s.e.x, and are feminine from their being feminine in Latin.
As in all these words there is no change of form, the consideration of them is a point of rhetoric, rather than of etymology.
-- 193. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to miscellaneous remarks upon the true and apparent genders of the English language.
1. With the false genders like _baron_, _baroness_, it is a general rule that the feminine form is derived from the masculine, and not the masculine from the feminine; as _peer_, _peeress_. The words _widower_, _gander_, and _drake_ are exceptions. For the word _wizard_, from _witch_, see the section on augmentative forms.
2. The termination -ess, in which so large a portion of our feminine substantives terminate, is not of Saxon but of cla.s.sical origin, being derived from the termination -ix, _genitrix_.
3. The words _shepherdess_, _huntress_, and _hostess_ are faulty; the radical part of the word being Germanic, and the secondary part cla.s.sical: indeed, in strict English Grammar, the termination -ess has no place at all. It is a cla.s.sic, not a Gothic, element.
4. The termination -inn, is current in German, as the equivalent to -ess, and as a feminine affix (_freund_ = _a friend_; _freundinn_ = _a female friend_). In English it occurs only in a fragmentary form;--e.g., in _vixen_, a true feminine derivative from _fox_ = _fuchsinn_, German.
_Bruin_ = _the bear_, may be either a female form, as in Old High German _pero_ = _a he-bear_, _pirinn_ = _a she-bear_; or it may be the Norse form _bjorn_ = _a bear_, male or female.
_Caution._--Words like _margravine_ and _landgravine_ prove nothing, being scarcely naturalised.
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_ } were { Bacestre, _a female baker_.
Fielere, _a male fiddler_ } opposed { Fielstre, _a female fiddler_.
Vebbere, _a male weaver_ } to { Vebbestre, _a female weaver_.
Raedere, _a male reader_ } { 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_; _baxster_ = _a baking-woman_; _waschster_ = _a washerwoman_. 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 _deaconness_ 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. _Goose, gander_.--One peculiarity in this pair of words has already been indicated. In the older forms of the word _goose_, such as ???, 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 ?d???, ?d??t??, Greek; _dens_, _dentis_, Latin; _zahn_, 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 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.
10. 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_.
11. _Peac.o.c.k_, _peahen_.--In these compounds, it is not the word _pea_ that is rendered masculine or feminine by the addition of _c.o.c.k_ and _hen_, but it is the words _c.o.c.k_ and _hen_ that are modified by prefixing _pea_.
CHAPTER III.
THE NUMBERS.
-- 194. In the Greek language the word _pataer_ signifies a _father_, denoting _one_, whilst _patere_ signifies _two fathers_, denoting 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. 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, except the _natural_ one in the words _ambo_ and _duo_.
-- 195. 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.
-- 196. 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 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.
-- 197. 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.
-- 198. Respecting the formation of the plural, the current rule is, that it is formed from the singular by adding s, as _father_, _fathers_. This, however, is by no means a true expression. The letter s 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, though somewhat lengthily 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_.
-- 199. Upon the formation of the English plural some further remarks are necessary.
a. 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.
b. Whether the first of the two mutes should be accommodated to the second (aps, afs, ats, as, aks), or the second to the first (abz, avz, adz, az, agz), is determined by _the habit of the particular language_ in question; and, with a few _apparent_ exceptions it is the rule of the English language to accommodate the second sound to the first, and not _vice versa_.
c. 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.
d. Although the vast majority of our plurals ends, not in s, but in z, the original addition was not z, but s. This we 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.
-- 200. _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.