A Handbook of the English LanguageNow _me_ and _better_ may be said to make good the defectiveness of _I_ and _good_; and _I_ and _good_ may be said to replace the forms wanting in _me_ and _better_. This gives us the principle of _compensation_. To introduce a new term, _I_ and _me_, _good_ and _better_, may be said to be _complementary_ to each other.
What applies to nouns applies to verbs also. _Go_ and _went_ are not irregularities. _Go_ is defective in the past tense. _Went_ is without a present. The two words, however, compensate their mutual deficiencies, and are complementary to each other.
The distinction between defectiveness and irregularity, is the first instrument of criticism for coming to true views concerning the proportion of the regular and irregular verbs.
-- 324. The second instrument of criticism in determining the irregular verbs, is the meaning that we attach to the term.
It is very evident that it is in the power of the grammarian to raise the number of etymological irregularities to any amount, by narrowing the definition of the word _irregular_; in other words, by framing an exclusive rule. The current rule of the common grammarians is that the praeterite is formed _by the addition of_ -t, or -d, or -ed; a position sufficiently exclusive; since it proscribes not only the whole cla.s.s of strong verbs, but also words like _bent_ and _sent_, where -t exists, but where it does not exist as _an addition_. The regular forms, it may be said, should be _bended_ and _sended_.
Exclusive, however, as the rule in question is, it is plain that it might be made more so. The regular forms might, by the _fiat_ of a rule, be restricted to those in -d. In this case words like _wept_ and _burnt_ would be added to the already numerous list of irregulars.
Finally, a further limitation might be made, by laying down as a rule that no word was regular, unless it ended in -ed.
-- 325. Thus much concerning the modes of making rules exclusive, and, consequently, of raising the amount of irregularities. This is the last art that the philosophic grammarian is ambitious of acquiring. True etymology _reduces_ irregularity; and that by making the rules of grammar, not exclusive, but general. _The quantum of irregularity is in the inverse proportion to the generality of our rules._ In language itself there is no irregularity. The word itself is only another name for our ignorance of the processes that change words; and, as irregularity is in the direct proportion to the exclusiveness of our rules, the exclusiveness of our rules is in the direct proportion to our ignorance of etymological processes.
-- 326. The explanation of some fresh terms will lead us towards the definition of the word _irregular_.
_Vital and obsolete processes._--The word _moved_ is formed from _move_, by the addition of -d. The addition of -d is the process by which the present form is rendered praeterite. The word _fell_ is formed from _fall_, by changing a into e. The change of vowel is the process by which the present form is rendered praeterite. Of the two processes the result is the same. In what respect do they differ?
For the sake of ill.u.s.tration, let a new word be introduced into the language. Let a praeterite tense of it be formed. This praeterite would be formed, not by changing the vowel, but by adding -d. No _new_ verb ever takes a strong praeterite. The like takes place with nouns. No _new_ substantive would form its plural, like _oxen_ or _geese_, by adding -en, or by changing the vowel. It would rather, like _fathers_ and _horses_, add the lene sibilant.
Now, the processes that change _fall_, _ox_ and _goose_ into _fell_, _oxen_, and _geese_, inasmuch as they cease to operate on the language in its present stage, are _obsolete_ processes; whilst those that change _move_ into _moved_, and _horse_ into _horses_, operating on the language in its present stage, are _vital_ processes.
A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all words whose forms could not be accounted for by the vital processes. Such a definition would make all the strong verbs irregular.
The very fact of so natural a cla.s.s as that of the strong verbs being reduced to the condition of irregulars, invalidates such a definition as this.
-- 327. _Processes of necessity as opposed to processes of habit._--The combinations -pd, -fd, -kd, -sd, and some others, are unp.r.o.nounceable.
Hence words like _step_, _quaff_, _back_, _kiss_, &c., take after them the sound of -t; _stept_, _quafft_, &c., being their praeterites, instead of _stepd_, _quaffd_. Here the change from -d to -t is a matter of necessity.
It is not so with words like _weep_, and _wept_, &c. Here the change of vowel is not necessary. _Weept_ might have been said if the habit of the language had permitted.
A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all words whose natural form was modified by any euphonic process whatever. In this case _stept_ (modified by a process of necessity), and _wept_ (modified by a process of habit), would be equally irregular.
A less limited definition might account words regular as long as the process by which they are deflected from their natural form was a process of necessity. Those, however, which were modified by a process of habit it would cla.s.s with the irregulars.
Definitions thus limited arise from ignorance of euphonic processes, or rather from an ignorance of the generality of their operation.
-- 328. _Ordinary processes as opposed to extraordinary processes._--The whole scheme of language is a.n.a.logical. A new word introduced into a language takes the forms of its cases or tenses, &c., from the forms of the cases or tenses, &c., of the old words. The a.n.a.logy is extended. Now few forms (if any) are so unique as not to have some others corresponding with them; and few processes of change are so unique as not to affect more words than one. The forms _wept_, and _slept_, correspond with each other. They are brought about by the same process: viz., by the shortening of the vowel in _weep_ and _sleep_. The a.n.a.logy of _weep_ is extended to _sleep_, and _vice versa_. Changing our expression, a common influence affects both words. The alteration itself is the leading fact. The extent of its influence is an instrument of cla.s.sification. When processes affect a considerable number of words, they may be called _ordinary_ processes; as opposed to _extraordinary_ processes, which affect one or few words.
When a word stands by itself, with no other corresponding to it, we confess our ignorance, and say that it is affected by an extraordinary process, by a process peculiar to itself, or by a process to which we know nothing similar.
A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all words affected by extraordinary processes; the rest being considered regular.
-- 329. _Positive processes as opposed to ambiguous processes._--The words _wept_ and _slept_ are similarly affected. Each is changed from _weep_ and _sleep_ respectively; and we know that the process which affects the one is the process that affects the other also. Here there is a positive process.
Reference is now made to words of a different sort. The nature of the word _worse_ has been explained in the Chapter on the Comparative Degree. There the form is accounted for in two ways, of which only one can be the true one. Of the two processes, each might equally have brought about the present form. Which of the two it was, we are unable to say. Here the process is _ambiguous_.
A definition of the word _irregular_ might be so framed as to include all words affected by ambiguous processes.
-- 330. _Normal processes as opposed to processes of confusion._--Let a certain word come under cla.s.s A. Let all words under cla.s.s A be similarly affected. Let a given word come under cla.s.s A. This word will be affected even as the rest of cla.s.s A is affected. The process affecting, and the change resulting, will be normal, regular, or a.n.a.logical.
Let, however, a word, instead of really coming under cla.s.s A, only _appear_ to do so. Let it be dealt with accordingly. The a.n.a.logy then is a false one. The principle of imitation is a wrong one. The process affecting is a process of confusion.
Examples of this (a few amongst many) are words like _songstress_, _theirs_, _minded_, where the words _songstr-_, _their-_, _mind-_, are dealt with as roots, which they are not.
Ambiguous processes, extraordinary processes, processes of confusion--each, or all of these, are legitimate reasons for calling words irregular. The practice of etymologists will determine what definition is most convenient.
With extraordinary processes we know nothing about the word. With ambiguous processes we are unable to make a choice. With processes of confusion we see the a.n.a.logy, but, at the same time, see that it is a false one.
-- 331. _Could_.--With all persons who p.r.o.nounce the l this word is truly irregular. The Anglo-Saxon form is _cue_. The l is inserted by a process of confusion.
_Can_, _cunne_, _canst_, _cunnon_, _cunnan_, _cue_, _cuon_, _cu_--such are the remaining forms in Anglo-Saxon. None of them account for the l. The presence of the l makes the word _could_ irregular. No reference to the allied languages accounts for it.
Notwithstanding this, the presence of the l is accounted for. In _would_ and _should_ the l has a proper place. It is part of the original words, _will_ and _shall_. A false a.n.a.logy looked upon _could_ in the same light.
Hence a true irregularity; _provided that the _L_ be p.r.o.nounced_.
The L, however, is p.r.o.nounced by few, and that only in pursuance with the spelling. This reduces the word _could_ to an irregularity, not of language, but only of orthography.
That the mere ejection of the -n in _can_, and that the mere lengthening of the vowel, are not irregularities, we learn from a knowledge of the processes that convert the Greek ?d??t?? (_odontos_) into ?d??? (_odows_).
-- 332. The verb _quoth_ is truly defective. It is found in only one tense, one number, and one person. It is the third person singular of the praeterite tense. It has the further peculiarity of preceding its p.r.o.noun.
Instead of saying _he quoth_, we say _quoth he_. In Anglo-Saxon, however, it was not defective. It was found in the other tenses, in the other number, and in other moods. _Ic cwee_, _u cwyst_, _he cwy_; _ic cwae_, _u cwaee_, _he cwae_, _we cwaedon_, _ge cwaedon_, _hi cwaedon_; imperative, _cwe_; participle, _gecweden_. In the Scandinavian it is current in all its forms. There, however, it means, not _to speak_ but to _sing_. As far as its conjugation goes, it is strong. As far as its cla.s.s goes, it follows the form of _speak_, _spoke_. Like _speak_, its Anglo-Saxon form is in ae, as _cwae_. Like one of the forms of _speak_, its English form is in o, as _quoth_, _spoke_.
-- 333. The principle that gives us the truest views of the structure of language is that which considers no word irregular unless it be affected by either an _ambiguous_ process, or by a _process of confusion_. The words affected by _extraordinary processes_ form a provisional cla.s.s, which a future increase of our etymological knowledge may show to be regular.
_Worse_ and _could_ are the fairest specimens of our irregulars. Yet even _could_ is only an irregularity in the written language. The printer makes it, and the printer can take it away. Hence the cla.s.s, instead of filling pages, is exceedingly limited.
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE IMPERSONAL VERBS.
-- 334. In _me-seems_, and _me-thinks_, the _me_ is dative rather than accusative, and = _mihi_ and ?? rather than _me_ and e.
-- 335. In _me-listeth_, the _me_ is accusative rather than dative, and = _me_ and e rather than _mihi_ and ??.
For the explanation of this difference see _Syntax_, Chapter XXI.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE VERB SUBSTANTIVE.
-- 336. The verb substantive is generally dealt with as an _irregular_ verb.
This is inaccurate. The true notion is that the idea of _being_ or _existing_ is expressed by four different verbs, each of which is defective in some of its parts. The parts, however, that are wanting in one verb, are made up by the inflections of one of the others. There is, for example, no praeterite of the verb _am_, and no present of the verb _was_. The absence, however, of the present form of _was_ is made up by the word _am_, and the absence of the praeterite form of _am_ is made up by the word _was_.