The English Language Part 46

Here, since in the Latin language there are five changes of form, whilst in English there are but _two_, there are (as far, at least, as the word _pater_ and _father_ are concerned) three more cases in Latin than in English. It does not, however, follow that because in _father_ we have but two cases, there may not be other words wherein there are more than two.

_In order to const.i.tute a case there must be a change of form._--This statement is a matter of definition. A second question, however, arises out of it; _viz._, whether _every change of form const.i.tute a case_? In the Greek language there are the words [Greek: erin] (_erin_), and [Greek: erida] (_erida_). Unlike the words _father_ and _father's_ these two words have precisely the same meaning. Each is called an accusative; and each, {236} consequently, is said to be in the same case with the other. This indicates the statement, that in order to const.i.tute a case there must be not _only a change of form_, _but also a change of meaning_. Whether such a limitation of the word be convenient, is a question for the general grammarian. At present we merely state that there _is no change of case unless there be a change of form_. Hence, in respect to the word _patribus_ (and others like it), which is sometimes translated _from fathers_, and at other times _to fathers_, we must say, not that in the one case the word is ablative and in the other dative, but that a certain case is used with a certain lat.i.tude of meaning. This remark bears on the word _her_ in English. In _her book_ the sense is that of the case currently called genitive. In _it moved her_, the sense is that of the case currently called the accusative. If we adhere, however, to what we have laid down, we must take exceptions to this mode of speaking. It is not that out of the single form _her_ we can get two cases, but that a certain form has two powers; one that of the Latin genitive, and another that of the Latin accusative.

-- 290. This leads to an interesting question, _viz._, what notions are sufficiently allied to be expressed _by_ the same form, and _in_ the same case? The word _her_, in its two senses, may, perhaps, be dealt with as a single case, because the notions conveyed by the genitive and accusative are, perhaps, sufficiently allied to be expressed by the same word. Are the notions, however, _of a mistress_, and _mistresses_, so allied? I think not; and yet in the Latin language the same form, _dominae_, expresses both.

Of _dominae_=_of a mistress_, and of _dominae_=_mistresses_, we cannot say that there is one and the same case with a lat.i.tude of meaning. The words were, perhaps, once different. And this leads to the distinction between _a real and an accidental ident.i.ty of form_.

In the language of the Anglo-Saxons the genitive cases of the words _smith_ (_smi_), _end_ (_ende_), and _day_ (_daeg_), were, respectively, _smithes_ (_smies_), _endes_, and _dayes_ (_daeges_); whilst the nominative plurals were, respectively, _smithas_ (_smias_), _endas_, and _dayas_ (_daegas_). A process of change took place, by which the vowel of the last syllable in each {237} word was ejected. The result was, that the forms of the genitive singular and the nominative plural, originally different, became one and the same; so that the ident.i.ty of the two cases is an accident.

This fact relieves the English grammarian from a difficulty. The nominative plural and the genitive singular are, in the present language of England, identical; the apostrophe in _father's_ being a mere matter of orthography.

However, there was _once_ a difference. This modifies the previous statement, which may now stand thus:--_for a change of case there must be a change of form existing or presumed_.

-- 291. _The number of our cases and the extent of language over which they spread._--In the English language there is undoubtedly a _nominative_ case.

This occurs in substantives, adjectives, and p.r.o.nouns (_father_, _good_, _he_) equally. It is found in both numbers.

_Accusative._--Some call this the objective case. The words _him_ (singular) and _them_ (plural) (whatever they may have been originally) are now true accusatives. The accusative case is found in p.r.o.nouns only.

_Thee_, _me_, _us_, and _you_ are, to a certain extent, true accusatives.

They are accusative thus far: 1. They are not derived from any other case.

2. They are distinguished from the forms _I_, _my_, &c. 3. Their meaning is accusative. Nevertheless, they are only imperfect accusatives. They have no sign of case, and are distinguished by negative characters only.

One word of English is probably a true accusative in the strict sense of the term, _viz._, the word _twain_=_two_. The _-n_ in _twai-n_ is the _-n_ in _hine_=_him_ and _hwone_=_whom_. This we see from the following inflection:--

_Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _N. and Ac._ Twa, Twegen, Twa.

------/-------/ _Abl. and Dat._ Twam, Tw['ae]m.

_Gen._ Twegra, Twega.

Although nominative as well as accusative, I have little doubt as to the original character of _twegen_ being accusative. The {238} _-n_ is by no means radical; besides which, it _is_ the sign of an accusative case, and is _not_ the sign of a nominative.

_Note._--The words _him_ and _them_ are true accusatives in even a less degree than _thee_, _me_, _us_, and _you_. The Anglo-Saxon equivalents to the Latin words _eos_ and _illos_ were _hi_ (or _hig_) and _a_ (or _aege_); in other words, the sign of the accusative was other than the sound of _-m_. The case which _really_ ended in _-m_ was the so-called dative; so that the Anglo-Saxon forms _him_ (or _heom_) and _am_=the Latin _iis_ and _illis_.

This fact explains the meaning of the words, _whatever they may have been originally_, in a preceding sentence. It also indicates a fresh element in the criticism and nomenclature of the grammarian; _viz._, the extent to which the _history_ of a form regulates its position as an inflection.

_Dative._--In the antiquated word _whilom_ (_at times_), we have a remnant of the old dative in _-m_. The _sense_ of the word is adverbial; its form, however, is that of a dative case.

_Genitive._--Some call this the possessive case. It is found in substantives and p.r.o.nouns (_father's_, _his_), but not in adjectives. It is formed like the nominative plural, by the addition of the lene sibilant (_father_, _fathers_; _buck_, _bucks_); or if the word end in _s_, by that of _es_ (_boxes_, _judges_, &c.) It is found in both numbers: _the men's hearts_; _the children's bread_. In the plural number, however, it is rare; so rare, indeed, that wherever the plural ends in _s_ (as it almost always does), there is no genitive. If it were not so, we should have such words as _fatherses_, _foxeses_, _princesseses_, &c.

_Instrumental._--The following extracts from Rask's Anglo-Saxon Grammar, teach us that there exist in the present English two powers of the word spelt _t-h-e_, or of the so-called definite article.

"The demonstrative p.r.o.nouns are _aet_, _se_, _seo_ (_id_, _is_, _ea_), which are also used for the article; and _is_, _es_, _eos_ (_hoc_, _hic_, _haec_). They are thus declined:-- {239}

_Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Neut._ _Masc._ _Fem._ _Sing. N._ aet se seo is es eos.

_A._ aet one a is isne as.

----/----/ -----/-----/ _Abl._ ['ae]re ise isse.

_D._ am ['ae]re isum isse.

_G._ aes ['ae]re ises isse.

--------/-------/ --------/--------/ _Plur. N. and A._ a as.

_Abl. and D._ am isum.

_G._ ara issa.

"The indeclinable _e_ is often used instead of _aet_, _se_, _seo_, in all cases, but especially with a relative signification, and, in later times, as an article. Hence the English article _the_.

"_y_ seems justly to be received as a proper _ablativus instrumenti_, as it occurs often in this character, even in the masculine gender; as, _mid y ae_=_with that oath_ (Inae Reges, 53). And in the same place in the dative, _on ['ae]m ae_=_in that oath_."--Pp. 56, 57.

Hence the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon __ is one word; the _the_ that has originated out of the Anglo-Saxon _e_, another.

The latter is the common article: the former the _the_ in expressions like _all the more_, _all the better_=_more by all that_, _better by all that_, and the Latin phrases _eo majus_, _eo melius_.

That _why_ is in the same case with the instrumental _the_ (=_y_) may be seen from the following Anglo-Saxon inflection of the interrogative p.r.o.noun:--

_Neut._ _Masc._ _N._ Hwaet Hwa.

_A._ Hwaet Hwone (hwaene).

------/------/ _Abl._ _Hwi_ _D._ Hwam (hwae'm) _G._ Hwaes.

Hence, then, in _the_ and _why_ we have instrumental ablatives, or, simply, _instrumentals_.

-- 292. _The determination of cases._--How do we determine cases? In other words, why do we call _him_ and _them_ {240} accusatives rather than datives or genitives? By one of two means; _viz._, either by the sense or the form.

Suppose that in the English language there were ten thousand dative cases and as many accusatives. Suppose, also, that all the dative cases ended in _-m_, and all the accusatives in some other letter. It is very evident that, whatever might be the meaning of the words _him_ and _them_ their form would be dative. In this case the meaning being accusative, and the form dative, we should doubt which test to take.

My own opinion is, that it would be convenient to determine cases by the _form_ of the word _alone_; so that, even if a word had a dative sense only once, where it had an accusative sense ten thousand times, such a word should be said to be in the dative case. Now, as stated above, the words _him_ and _them_ (to which we may add _whom_) were once dative cases; _-m_ in Anglo-Saxon being the sign of the dative case. In the time of the Anglo-Saxons their sense coincided with their form. At present they are dative forms with an accusative meaning. Still, as the word _give_ takes after it a dative case, we have, even now, in the sentence, _give it him_, _give it them_, remnants of the old dative sense. To say _give it to him_, _to them_, is unnecessary and pedantic: neither do I object to the expression, _whom shall I give it_? If ever the _formal_ test become generally recognised and consistently adhered to, _him_, _them_, and _whom_ will be called datives with a lat.i.tude of meaning; and then the only true and unequivocal accusatives in the English language will be the forms _you_, _thee_, _us_, _me_, and _twain_.

_My_, an accusative form (_meh_, _me_, _mec_), has now a genitive sense.

The same may be said of _thy_.

_Me_, originally an accusative form (both _me_ and _my_ can grow out of _mec_ and _meh_), had, even with the Anglo-Saxons, a dative sense. _Give it me_ is correct English. The same may be said of _thee_.

_Him_, a dative form, has now an accusative sense.

_Her._--For this word, as well as for further details on _me_ and _my_, see the Chapters on the Personal and Demonstrative p.r.o.nouns. {241}

-- 293. When all traces of the original dative signification are effaced, and when all the dative cases in a language are similarly affected, an accusative case may be said to have originated out of a dative.

-- 294. Thus far the question has been concerning the immediate origin of cases: their remote origin is a different matter.

The word _um_ occurs in Icelandic. In Danish and Swedish it is _om_; in the Germanic languages _omme_, _umbi_, _umpi_, _ymbe_, and also _um_. Its meaning is _at_, _on_, _about_. The word _whilom_ is the substantive _while_=_a time_ or _pause_ (Dan. _hvile_=_to rest_), with the addition of the preposition _om_. That the particular dative form in _om_ has arisen out of the noun _plus_ the preposition is a safe a.s.sertion. I am not prepared, however, to account for the formation of all the cases in this manner.

-- 295. _a.n.a.lysis of cases._--In the word _children's_ we are enabled to separate the word into three parts. 1. The root _child_. 2. The plural signs _r_ and _en_. 3. The sign of the genitive case, _s_. In this case the word is said to be a.n.a.lysed, since we not only take it to pieces, but also give the respective powers of each of its elements; stating which denotes the case, and which the number. Although it is too much to say that the a.n.a.lysis of every case of every number can be thus effected, it ought always to be attempted.

-- 296. _The true nature of the genitive form in s._--It is a common notion that the genitive form _father's_ is contracted from _father his_. The expression in our liturgy, _for Jesus Christ his sake_, which is merely a pleonastic one, is the only foundation for this a.s.sertion. As the idea, however, is not only one of the commonest, but also one of the greatest errors in etymology, the following three statements are given for the sake of contradiction to it.

1. The expression the _Queen's Majesty_ is not capable of being reduced to the _Queen his Majesty_.

2. In the form _his_ itself, the _s_ has precisely the power that it has in _father's_, &c. Now _his_ cannot be said to arise out of _he_ + _his_.

3. In all the languages of the vast Indo-European tribe, except the Celtic, the genitive ends in _s_, just as it does in {242} English; so that even if the words _father his_ would account for the English word _father's_, it would not account for the Sanskrit genitive _pad-as_, of a foot; the Zend _dughdhar-s_, of a daughter; the Lithuanic _dugter-s_; the Greek [Greek: odont-os]; the Latin _dent-is_, &c.

For further remarks upon the English genitive, see the Cambridge Philological Museum, vol. ii. p. 246.