The English Language Part 50

Throughout the Indo-European tribe the interrogative or relative idea is expressed by _k_, or by a modification of _k_; e.g., _qu_, _hv_, or _h_; as Sanskrit, _kas_, who; _kataras_, which of two; _katama_, which of many.--Lithuanic, _kas_, who; _koks_, of what sort; _kokelys_, how great; _kaip_, how.--Slavonic: _kto_, who, Russian and Polish; _kdo_, who, Bohemian; _kotory_, which, Russian; _kolik_, how great.--_Quot_, _qualis_, _quantus_, Latin.--[Greek: Kosos], [Greek: koios], [Greek: kote], Ionic Greek; in the other dialects, however, [Greek: poteros], [Greek: posos], &c.--Gothic: _hvas_, who, Moeso-Gothic; _huer_, Old High German; _hvaar_, which of two, Moeso-Gothic; _huedar_, Old High German; _hvem_, _hvad_, _huanne_, _huar_, Norse; _what_, _why_, _which_, _where_, &c., English.

Throughout the Indo-European tribe the demonstrative idea is expressed by _t_, or by a modification of it; as, Sanskrit, _tat_, that; _tata-ras_, such a one out of two.--Lithuanic, _tas_, he; _toks_, such; _tokelys_, so great; _taip_, so.--Slavonic, _t'_ or {256} _ta_, he; _taku_, such; _tako_, so.--_Tot_, _talis_, _tantum_, Latin.--[Greek: Tosos], [Greek: toios], [Greek: tote], Greek; _this_, _that_, _thus_, English, &c.

The two sounds in the Danish words _hvi_, _hvad_, &c., and the two sounds in the English, _what_, _when_ (Anglo-Saxon, _hwaet_, _hwaene_), account for the forms _why_ and _how_. In the first the _w_ alone, in the second the _h_ alone, is sounded. The Danish for why is _hvi_, p.r.o.nounced _vi_; in Swedish the word is _hu_.

-- 305. The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply to a few of the remaining p.r.o.nouns. For further details, see Grimm, D. G.

iii. 4.

_Same._--Wanting in Anglo-Saxon, where it was replaced by the word _ylca_, _ylce_. Probably derived from the Norse.

_Self._--In _myself_, _thyself_, _herself_, _ourselves_, _yourselves_, a substantive (or with a substantival power), and preceded by a genitive case. In _himself_ and _themselves_ an adjective (or with an adjectival power), and preceded by an accusative case. _Itself_ is equivocal, since we cannot say whether its elements are _it_ and _self_, or _its_ and _self_; the _s_ having been dropped in utterance. It is very evident that either the form like _himself_, or the form like _thyself_, is exceptionable; in other words, that the use of the word is inconsistent. As this inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxons, the history of the word gives us no elucidation. In favour of the forms like _myself_ (_self_ being a substantive), are the following facts:--

1. The plural word _selves_, a substantival, and not an adjectival form.

2. The Middle High German phrases, _min lip_, _din lip_, _my body_, _thy body_, equivalent in sense to _myself_, _thyself_.

3. The circ.u.mstance that if _self_ be dealt with as a substantive, such phrases as _my own self_, _his own great self_, &c., can be used; whereby the language is a gainer.

"Vox _self_, pluraliter _selves_, quamvis etiam p.r.o.nomen a quibusdam censeatur (quoniam ut plurimum per Latinum _ipse_ redditur), est tamen plane nomen substantivum, cui quidem vix aliquod apud Latinos substantivum respondet; proxime tamen accedet vox _persona_ vel _propria persona_, ut _my self_, _thy self_, _our selves_, _your selves_, &c. (_ego ipse_, _tu ipse_, _nos ipsi_, {257} _vos ipsi_, &c.), ad verb.u.m _mea persona_, _tua persona_, &c. Fateor tamen _himself_, _itself_, _themselves_ vulgo dici pro _his-self_, _its-self_, _theirselves_; at (interposito _own_) _his own self_, &c., _ipsius propria persona_, &c."--Wallis, c. vii.

4. The fact that many persons actually say _hisself_ and _theirselves_.

_Whit._--As in the phrase _not a whit_. This enters in the compound p.r.o.nouns _aught_ and _naught_.

_One._--As in the phrase _one does so and so_. From the French _on_.

Observe that this is from the Latin _h.o.m.o_, in Old French _hom_, _om_. In the Germanic tongues _man_ is used in the same sense: _man sagt_=_one says_=_on dit_. _One_, like _self_ and _other_, is so far a substantive, that it is inflected. Gen. sing, _one's own self_: plural, _my wife and little ones are well_.

_Derived p.r.o.nouns._--_Any_, in Anglo-Saxon, _aenig_. In Old High German we have _einic_=_any_, and _einac_=_single_. In Anglo-Saxon _anega_ means _single_. In Middle High German _einec_ is always _single_. In New High German _einig_ means, 1. _a certain person_ (_quidam_), 2. _agreeing_; _einzig_, meaning _single_. In Dutch _enech_ has both meanings. This indicates the word _an_, _one_, as the root of the word in question.--Grimm, D. G. iii. 9.

_Compound p.r.o.nouns._--_Which_, as has been already stated more than once, is most incorrectly called the neuter of _who_. Instead of being a neuter, it is a compound word. The adjective _leiks_, _like_, is preserved in the Moeso-Gothic words _galeiks_, and _missaleiks_. In Old High German the form is _lih_, in Anglo-Saxon _lic_. Hence we have Moeso-Gothic, _hveleiks_; Old High German, _huelih_; Anglo-Saxon, _huilic_ and _hvilc_; Old Frisian, _hwelik_; Danish, _hvilk-en_; German, _welch_; Scotch, _whilk_; English, _which_. (Grimm, D. G., iii. 47). The same is the case with--

1. _Such._--Moeso-Gothic, _svaleiks_; Old High German, _solih_; Old Saxon, _sulic_; Anglo-Saxon, _svilc_; German, _solch_; English, _such_. (Grimm, D.

G. iii. 48). Rask's derivation of the Anglo-Saxon _swilc_ from _swa-ylc_, is exceptionable.

2. _Thilk._--An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, as _thick_, _thuck_, _theck_, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt, {258} Ritson, and Weber, from _se ylca_, is found in the following forms: Moeso-Gothic, _eleiks_; Norse, _vilikr_. (Grimm, iii. 49.)

3. _Ilk._--Found in the Scotch, and always preceded by the article; _the ilk_, or _that ilk_, meaning _the same_. In Anglo-Saxon this word is _ylca_, preceded also by the article _se ylca_, _seo ylce_, _aet ylce_. In English, as seen above, the word is replaced by _same_. In no other Gothic dialect does it occur. According to Grimm, this is no simple word, but a compound one, of which some such word as _ei_ is the first, and _lic_ the second element. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 50.)

_Aught._--In Moeso-Gothic is found the particle _aiv_, _ever_, but only in negative propositions; _ni_ (_not_) preceding it. Its Old High German form is _eo_, _io_; in Middle High German, _ie_ in New High German, _je_; in Old Saxon, _io_; in Anglo-Saxon, _a_; in Norse, _ae_. Combined with this particle the word _whit_ (_thing_) gives the following forms: Old High German, _eowiht_; Anglo-Saxon, _aviht_; Old Frisian, _awet_; English, _aught_. The word _naught_ is _aught_ preceded by the negative particle.

(Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 52.)

_Each._--The particle _gi_ enters, like the particle in the composition of p.r.o.nouns. Old High German, _eogaliher_, every one; _eocalih_, all; Middle High German, _iegelich_; New High German, _jeglich_; Anglo-Saxon, _aelc_; English, _each_; the _l_ being dropped, as in _which_ and _such_. _aelc_, as the original of the English _each_ and the Scotch _ilka,_[42] must by no means be confounded with the word _ylce_, _the same_. (Grimm, D. G. iii.

54.)

_Every_, in Old English, _everich_, _everech_, _everilk one_, is _aelc_, preceded by the particle _ever_. (Grimm, D. G. iii. 54.)

_Either._--Old High German, _eogahuedar_; Middle High German, _iegeweder_; Anglo-Saxon, _aeghvaer_, _aeger_; Old Frisian, _eider_.

_Neither._--The same, with the negative article prefixed. _Neither_ : _either_ :: _naught_ : _aught_.

_Other_, _whether_.--These words, although derived forms, being simpler than some that have preceded, might fairly {259} have been dealt with before. They make, however, a transition from the present to the succeeding chapter, and so find a place here.

A. _First_, it may be stated of them that the idea which they express is not that _of one out of many_, but that of _one out of two_.

1. In Sanskrit there are two forms, ^a) _kataras_, the same word as _whether_, meaning _which out of two_; ^b) _katamas_, _which out of many_.

So also _ekateras_, _one out of two_; _ekatamas_, _one out of many_. In Greek, the Ionic form [Greek: koteros] ([Greek: poteros]); in Latin, _uter_, _neuter_, _alter_; and in Moeso-Gothic, _hvathar_, have the same form and the same meaning.

2. In the Scandinavian language the word _anden_, Dano-Saxon _annar_, Iceland corresponds to the English word _second_, and not the German _zweite:_ e. g., _Karl den Anden_, _Charles the Second_. Now _anthar_ is the older form of _other_.

B. _Secondly_, it may be stated of them, that the termination _-er_ is the same termination that we find in the comparative degree.

1. The idea expressed by the comparative degree is the comparison, not of _many_, but of _two_ things; _this is better than that_.

2. In all the Indo-European languages where there are p.r.o.nouns in _-ter_, there is also a comparative degree in _-ter_. See next chapter.

3. As the Sanskrit form _kataras_ corresponds with the comparative degree, where there is the comparison of _two things with each other_; so the word _katamas_ is a superlative form; and in the superlative degree lies the comparison of _many_ things with each other.

Hence _other_ and _whether_ (to which may be added _either_ and _neither_) are p.r.o.nouns with the comparative form.

_Other_ has the additional peculiarity of possessing the plural form _others_. Hence, like _self_, it is, in the strictest sense, a substantival p.r.o.noun.

{260}

CHAPTER IX.

ON CERTAIN FORMS IN -ER.

-- 306. Preparatory to the consideration of the degrees of comparison, it is necessary to make some remarks upon a certain cla.s.s of words, which, with considerable differences of signification, all agree in one fact, viz., all terminate in _-er_, or _t-er_.

1. Certain p.r.o.nouns, as _ei-th-er_, _n-ei-th-er_, _whe-th-er_, _o-th-er_.

2. Certain prepositions and adverbs, as _ov-er_, _und-er_, _af-t-er_.

3. Certain adjectives, with the form of the comparative, but the power of the positive degree; as _upp-er_, _und-er_, _inn-er_, _out-er_, _hind-er_.

4. All adjectives of the comparative degree; as _wis-er_, _strong-er_, _bett-er_, &c.

Now what is the idea common to all these words, expressed by the sign _-er_, and connecting the four divisions into one cla.s.s? It is not the mere idea of comparison; although it is the comparative degree, to the expression of which the affix in question is more particularly applied.

Bopp, who has best generalised the view of these forms, considers the fundamental idea to be that of _duality_. In the comparative degree we have a relation between one object and _some_ other object like it, or a relation between two single elements of comparison: _A is wiser than B_. In the superlative degree we have a relation between one object and _all_ others like it, or a relation between one single and one complex element of comparison: _A is wiser than B, C, D_, &c.

"As in comparatives a relation between _two_, and in superlatives a relation between _many_, lies at the bottom, it is {261} natural that their suffixes should be transferred to other words, whose chief notion is individualised through that of duality or plurality."--Vergleichende Grammatik, -- 292, Eastwick's and Wilson's Translation.

The most important proofs of the view adduced by Bopp are,--

1. The Sanskrit forms _kataras_=_which of two persons?_ a comparative form; _katamas_=_which of more than two persons?_ a superlative form. Similarly, _ekataras_=_one of two persons_; _ekatamas_=_one of more than two persons_.