The English Language Part 54

CHAPTER XIII.

ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.

-- 331. The remarks at the close of the last chapter but one indicated the fact that superlative forms were found beyond the superlative degree. The present chapter shows that they are certainly found in some, and possibly in all of the ordinal numbers.

_First._--In Moeso-Gothic, _fruma_, _frumist_; in Anglo-Saxon, _forma_, _fyrmest_; in Old High German, _vurist_; in Old Norse, _fyrst_; in New High German, _erst_. In all these words, whether in _m_, in _mst_, or in _st_, there is a superlative form. The same is the case with _pratamas_, Sanskrit; _fratemas_, Zend; [Greek: protos], Greek; _primus_, Latin; _primas_, Lithuanic. Considering that, _compared with the other ordinals_, the ordinal of _one_ is a sort of superlative, this is not at all surprising.

Between the words _one_ and _first_ there is no etymological relation. This is the case in most languages. _Unus_, _primus_, [Greek: heis], [Greek: protos], &c.

-- 332. _Second._--Between this word and its cardinal, _two_, there is no etymological connexion. This is the case in many, if not in most, languages. In Latin the cardinal is _duo_, and the ordinal _secundus_, a gerund of _sequor_, and meaning _the following_. In Anglo-Saxon the form was _se oer_=_the other_. In the present German, the ordinal is _zweite_, a word etymologically connected with the cardinal _zwei_=_two_.

Old High German, _andar_; Old Saxon, _othar_; Old Frisian, _other_; Middle Dutch, _ander_. In all these words we have the comparative form _-ter_; and considering that, _compared with the word first_, the word _second_ is a sort of {278} comparative, there is nothing in the circ.u.mstance to surprise us. The Greek forms [Greek: deuteros] and [Greek: heteros], the Latin _alter_, and the Lithuanic _antras_, are the same.

-- 333. With the third ordinal number begin difficulties: 1. in respect to their form; 2. in respect to the idea conveyed by them.

1. Comparing _third_, _fourth_, _fifth_, &c., with _three_, _four_, and _five_, the formation of the ordinal from the cardinal form may seem simply to consist in the addition of _d_ or _th_. Such, however, is far from being the case.

2. Arguing from the nature of the first two ordinals, namely, the words _first_ and _second_, of which one has been called a superlative and the other a comparative, it may seem a simple matter to a.s.sociate, in regard to the rest, the idea of ordinalism with the idea of comparison. A plain distinction, however, will show that the case of the first two ordinals is peculiar. _First_ is a superlative, not as compared with its cardinal, _one_, but as compared with the other numerals. _Second_, or _other_, is a comparative, not as compared with its cardinal, _two_, but as compared with the numeral _one_. Now it is very evident, that, if the other ordinals be either comparatives or superlatives, they must be so, not as compared with one another, but as compared with their respective cardinals. _Sixth_, to be anything like a superlative, must be so when compared with _six_.

-- 334. Now there are, in etymology, two ways of determining the affinity of ideas. The first is the metaphysical, the second the empirical, method.

_This is better than that_, is a sentence which the pure metaphysician may deal with. He may first determine that there is in it the idea of comparison; and next that the comparison is the comparison between _two_ objects, and no more than two. This idea he may compare with others. He may determine, that, with a sentence like _this is one and that is the other_, it has something in common; since both a.s.sert something concerning _one out of two objects_. Upon this connexion in sense he is at liberty to reason.

He is at liberty to conceive that in certain languages words expressive {279} of allied ideas may also be allied in form. Whether such be really the case, he leaves to etymologists to decide.

The pure etymologist proceeds differently. He a.s.sumes the connexion in meaning from the connexion in form. All that he at first observes is, that words like _other_ and _better_ have one and the same termination. For this ident.i.ty he attempts to give a reason, and finds that he can best account for it by presuming some affinity in sense. Whether there be such an affinity, he leaves to the metaphysician to decide. This is the empirical method.

At times the two methods coincide, and ideas evidently allied are expressed by forms evidently allied.

At times the connexion between the ideas is evident; but the connexion between the forms obscure: and _vice versa_. Oftener, however, the case is as it is with the subjects of the present chapter. Are the ideas of ordinalism in number, and of superlativeness in degree, allied? The metaphysical view, taken by itself, gives us but unsatisfactory evidence; whilst the empirical view, taken by itself, does the same. The two views, however, taken together, give us evidence of the kind called c.u.mulative, which is weak or strong according to its degree.

Compared with _three_, _four_, &c., all the ordinals are formed by the addition of _th_, or _t_; and _th_, __, _t_, or _d_, is the ordinal sign, not only in English, but in the other Gothic languages. But, as stated before, this is not the whole of the question.

The letter _t_ is found, with a similar power, 1. In Latin, as in _tertius_, _quartus_, _quintus_, _s.e.xtus_; 2. Greek, as in [Greek: tritos]

(_tritos_), [Greek: tetartos] (_tetartos_), [Greek: pemptos] (_pemptos_), [Greek: hektos] (_hectos_), [Greek: ennatos] (_ennatos_), [Greek: dekatos]

(_dekatos_); 3. Sanskrit, as in _tritiyas_, _['c]atu['r]tas_, _shasht'as_=_third_, _fourth_, _sixth_; 4. In Zend, as in _thrityas_=_the third_, _haptathas_=_the seventh_; 5. In Lithuanic, as _ketwirtas_=_fourth_, _penktas_=_fifth_, _szesztas_=_sixth_; 6. In Old Slavonic, as in _cetvertyi_=_fourth_, _pjatyi_=_fifth_, _shestyi_=_sixth_, _devjatyi_=_ninth_, _desjatyi_=_tenth_. Speaking more generally, it is found, with a similar force, throughout the Indo-European stock.

The following forms indicate a fresh train of reasoning. {280} The Greek [Greek: hepta] (_hepta_), and Icelandic _sjau_, have been compared with the Latin _septem_ and the Anglo-Saxon _seofon_. In the Greek and Icelandic there is the absence, in the Latin and Anglo-Saxon the presence, of a final liquid (_m_ or _n_).

Again, the Greek forms [Greek: ennea] (_ennea_), and the Icelandic _niu_=_nine_, have been compared with the Latin _novem_ and the Gothic _nigun_.

Thirdly, the Greek [Greek: deka] (_deka_), and the Icelandic _tiu_, have been compared with the Latin _decem_ and the Gothic _tihun_=_ten_.

These three examples indicate the same circ.u.mstance; _viz._ that the _m_ or _n_, in _seven_, _nine_, and _ten_, is no part of the original word.

-- 335. The following hypotheses account for these phenomena; _viz._ that the termination of the ordinals is the superlative termination _-tam_: that in some words, like the Latin _septimus,_ the whole form is preserved; that in some, as in [Greek: tetartos]=_fourth_, the _t_ only remains; and that in others, as in _decimus_, the _m_ alone remains. Finally, that in _seven_, _nine_, and _ten_, the final liquid, although now belonging to the cardinal, was once the characteristic of the ordinal number. For a fuller exhibition of these views, see Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 640.

{281}

CHAPTER XIV.

THE ARTICLES.

-- 336. In the generality of grammars the definite article _the_, and the indefinite article _an_, are the very first parts of speech that are considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite article. In the former language they say [Greek: aner tis]=_a certain man_: in the Latin the words _filius patris_ mean equally _the son of the father_, _a son of a father_, _a son of the father_, or _the son of a father_. In Moeso-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the indefinite article; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a different word from what occurs in English. In these the Greek [Greek: tis]

is expressed by the Gothic root _sum_.

Now, as it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the words _some man_, _a certain man_, and _a man_, are, there or thereabouts, the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and Moeso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the argument, be fairly said that the words _sum_ and [Greek: tis] are p.r.o.nouns with a certain sense, and that _a_ and _an_ are no more; consequently, that in Greek the indefinite article is [Greek: tis], in Moeso-Gothic _sum_, and in English _a_ or _an_,

A distinction, however, may be made. In the expression [Greek: aner tis]

(_anaer tis_)=_a certain man_, or _a man_, and in the expression _sum mann_, the words _sum_ and [Greek: tis] preserve their natural and original meaning; whilst in _a man_ and _an ox_ the words _a_ and _an_ are used in a secondary sense. These words, as is currently known, are one and the same, the _n_, in the form _a_, being ejected through a euphonic process. They are, moreover, the same words with the numeral _one_; {282} Anglo-Saxon, _an_; Scotch, _ane_. Now, between the words _a man_ and _one man_, there is a difference in meaning; the first expression being the most indefinite.

Hence comes the difference between the English and the Moeso-Gothic expressions. In the one the word _sum_ has a natural, in the other the word _an_ has a secondary power.

The same reasoning applies to the word _the_. Compared with _a man_, the words _the man_ are very definite. Compared, however, with the words _that man_, they are the contrary. Now, just as _an_ and _a_ have arisen out of the numeral _one_, so has _the_ arisen out of the demonstrative p.r.o.noun _aet_, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in Anglo-Saxon there was a form _e_, undeclined, and common to all the cases of all the numbers.

In no language in its oldest stage is there ever a word giving, in its primary sense, the ideas of _a_ and _the_. As tongues become modern, some noun with a _similar_ sense is used to express them. In the course of time a change of form takes place, corresponding to the change of meaning; _e. g._, _one_ becomes _an_, and afterwards a. Then it is that articles become looked upon as separate parts of speech, and are dealt with accordingly. No invalidation of this statement is drawn from the Greek language. Although the first page of the etymology gives us [Greek: ho], [Greek: he], [Greek: to] (_ho_, _hae_, _to_), as the definite articles, the corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that, in the oldest stage of the language, [Greek: ho] (_ho_)=_the_, had the power of [Greek: houtos]

(_howtos_)=_this_.

The origin of the articles seems uniform. In German _ein_, in Danish _en_, stand to _one_ in the same relation that _an_ does. The French _un_, Italian and Spanish _uno_, are similarly related to _unus_=_one_.

And as, in English _the_, in German _der_, in Danish _den_, come from the demonstrative p.r.o.nouns, so in the cla.s.sical languages are the French _le_, the Italian _il_ and _lo_, and the Spanish _el_, derived from the Latin demonstrative, _ille_.

In his Outlines of Logic, the present writer has given reasons for considering the word _no_ (as in _no man_) an article.

That _the_, in expressions like _all the more_, _all the better_, &c., is no article, has already been shown.

{283}

CHAPTER XV.

DIMINUTIVES, AUGMENTATIVES, AND PATRONYMICS.

-- 337. Compared with the words _lamb_, _man_, and _hill_, the words _lambkin_, _mannikin_, and _hillock_ convey the idea of comparative smallness or diminution. Now, as the word _hillock_=_a little hill_ differs in form from _hill_ we have in English a series of diminutive forms, or diminutives.

The English diminutives may be arranged according to a variety of principles. Amongst others:

1. _According to their form._--The word _hillock_ is derived from _hill_, by the addition of a syllable. The word _tip_ is derived from _top_, by the change of a vowel.

2. _According to their meaning._--In the word _hillock_ there is the simple expression of comparative smallness in size. In the word _doggie_ for _dog_, _la.s.sie_ for _la.s.s_, the addition of the _-ie_ makes the word not so much a diminutive as a term of tenderness or endearment. The idea of smallness, accompanied, perhaps, with that of neatness, generally carries with it the idea of approbation. The word _clean_ in English, means, in German, _little_=_kleine_. The feeling of protection which is extended to small objects engenders the notion of endearment. In Middle High German we have _vaterln_=_little father_, _mutterln_=_little mother_. In Middle High German there is the diminutive _sunneln_; and the French _soleil_ is from the Latin form _solillus_. In Slavonic the word _slunze_=_sun_ is a diminutive form.

The Greek word [Greek: meiosis] (_meiosis_) means diminution; the Greek word [Greek: hupokorisma] means an endearing expression. Hence we get names for the two kinds of diminutives; _viz._, the term _meiotic_ for the true diminutives, and the term _hypocoristic_ for the diminutives of endearment.--Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 664. {284}

3. _According to their historical origin._--The syllable _-ock_, as in _hillock_, is of Anglo-Saxon and Gothic origin. The _-et_, as in _lancet_, is of French and cla.s.sical origin.