The English Language Part 64

_vitum_; praeterite 1. s. _vissa_; 2 _vissess_; 1. pl. _vissedum_. From the form _vaist_ we see that the second singular is formed after the manner of _must_; that is, _vaist_ stands instead of _vait-t_. From the form _vissedum_ we see that the praeterite is not strong, but weak; therefore that _vissa_ is euphonic for _vista_.

In Anglo-Saxon.--_Wat_, _wast_, _witon_, _wiste_ and _wisse_, _wiston_.--Here the double forms, _wiste_ and _wisse_, verify the statement concerning the Moeso-Gothic _vissa_.

In Icelandic.--_Veit_, _veizt_, _vitum_, _vissi_. Danish _ved_, _vide_, _vidste_. Observe the form _vidste_; since, in it, the _-d_ of the root (in spelling, at least), is preserved. The _-t_ of the Anglo-Saxon _wiste_ is the _-t_, not of the root, but of the inflection.

In respect to the four forms in question, _viz._, _wit_, _wot_, _wiss_, _wist_; the first seems to be the root; the second a strong praeterite regularly formed, but used (like [Greek: oida] in Greek) with a present sense; the third a weak praeterite, of which the _-t_ has been ejected by a euphonic process, used also with a {325} present sense; the fourth is a second singular from _wiss_ after the manner of _wert_ from _were_, a second singular from _wit_ after the manner of _must_, a secondary praeterite from _wiss_, or finally, the form _wisse_, anterior to the operation of the euphonic process that ejected the _-t_.

_Do._--In the phrase _this will do_=_this will answer the purpose_, the word _do_ is wholly different from the word _do_, meaning _to act_. In the first case it is equivalent to the Latin _valere_; in the second to the Latin _facere_. Of the first the Anglo-Saxon inflection is _deah_, _dugon_, _dohte_, _dohtest_, &c. Of the second it is _do_, _do_, _dyde_, &c. I doubt whether the praeterite did_,_ as equivalent to _valebat_=_was good for_, is correct. In the phrase _it did for him_=_it finished him_, either meaning may be allowed.

In the present Danish they write _duger_, but say _duer_: as _duger et noget?_=_Is it worth anything?_ p.r.o.nounced _dooer deh note?_ This accounts for the ejection of the _g_. The Anglo-Saxon form _deah_ does the same.

In respect to the praeterite of _do_=_facio_, difficulties present themselves.

Is the word weak?--This is the view that arises from the form _did_. The participle _done_ traverses this view.

Is the word strong?--In favour of this notion we have the English participle _done_, and the praeterite second singular in Old High German _tati_. Against it are the Old Saxon _dedos_, and the Anglo-Saxon _dydest_, as second singulars.

Is there a reduplication?--If this were the case, we might a.s.sume such a form as _doan_, _daido_, for the Moeso-Gothic. This view, however, is traversed by the substantival forms _deds_, Moeso-Gothic; _tat_, Old High German; _daed_, Anglo-Saxon; which show that the second _-d_ is part of the original word.

The true nature of the form _did_ has yet to be exhibited.--See Deutsche Grammatik, i. 1041.

_Mind--mind and do so and so._--In this sentence the word _mind_ is wholly different from the noun _mind_. The Anglo-Saxon forms are _geman_, _gemanst_, _gemunon_, without the _-d_; this letter occurring only in the praeterite tense (_gemunde_, {326} _gemundon_), of which it is the sign.

_Mind_ is, then, a praeterite form with a present sense; whilst _minded_ (as in _he minded his business_) is an instance of excess of inflection; in other words, it is a praeterite formed from a praeterite.

A praeterite formed upon a praeterite may also be called a secondary praeterite; just as the word _theirs_, derived from _their_ (a case formed from a case), is called a secondary genitive.

In like manner the present form _mind_ is not a genuine present, but a praeterite with a present sense; _its form being taken as the test_.

Presents of this sort may be called transformed praeterites.

It is very evident that the praeterites most likely to become present are those of the strong cla.s.s. In the first place, the fact of their being praeterite is less marked. The word _tell_ carries with it fewer marks of its tense than the word _moved_. In the second place they can more conveniently give rise to secondary praeterites. A weak praeterite already ends in _-d_ or _-t_. If this be used as a present, a second _-d_ or _-t_ must be appended.

Hence it is that all the transposed praeterites in the Gothic tongues were, before they took the present sense, not weak, but strong. The word in question, _mind_ (from whence _minded_), is only an apparent exception to this statement.

Now the words _shall_, _can_, _owe_ (whence _aught_), _dare_, _may_, _man_ (of the Anglo-Saxon _geman_, the origin of _mind_), are, (irrespective of their other peculiarities), for certain etymological reasons, looked upon as praeterite forms with a present sense.

And the words _should_, _could_, _aught_, _dared_ (or _durst_), _must_, _wist_, _might_, _mind_, are, for certain etymological reasons, looked upon as secondary praeterites.

This fact alters our view of the form _minded_. Instead of being a secondary praeterite, it is a tertiary one. _Geman_ (the apparent present) being dealt with as a strong praeterite with a present sense, _mind_ (from the Anglo-Saxon _gemunde_) is the secondary praeterite, and _minded_ (from the English _mind_) is a tertiary praeterite. To a.n.a.lyse the word, the {327} praeterite is first formed by the vowel _a_, then by the addition of _-d_, and, thirdly, by the termination _-ed_; _man_, _mind_, _minded_.

The proof of this we collect from the second persons singular, Moeso-Gothic. The second singular praeterite of the strong cla.s.s is _-t_; of the weak cla.s.s, _-es_; of the present, both weak and strong, _-s_. Now the second singular of the words in point is _skal-t_, _kan-t_, _aih-t_, _dar-t?_ _mag-t_, _man-t_, respectively.--Deutsche Grammatik, i. 852.

Besides this, in Anglo-Saxon, the plural forms are those of the strong praeterites. See Rask, p. 79.

_Yode._--The obsolete praeterite of _go_, now replaced by _went_, the praeterite of _wend_. Regular, except that the initial _g_ has become _y_.

{328}

CHAPTER XXV.

ON CONJUGATION.

-- 383. The current statement respecting verbs like _sing_ and _fall_, &c., is that they are irregular. How far this is the case may be seen from a review of the twelve cla.s.ses in Moeso-Gothic, where the change of the vowel is subject to fewer irregularities than elsewhere. In the first six conjugations the praeterite is replaced by a perfect tense. Consequently, there is a reduplication. Of these the fifth and sixth superadd to the reduplication a change of the vowel.

_Present._ _Past.[55]_ _Past Participle._ _Sing._ _Plural._

1. Salta Saisalt Saisaltum Saltans _Leap._ 2. Haita Haihait Haihaitum Haitans _Call._ 3. Hlaupa Hlailaup Hlailaupum Hlaupans _Run._ 4. Slepa Saizlep Saislepum Slepans _Sleep._ 5. Laia Lailo Lailoum Lailans _Laugh._ 6. Greta Gaigrot Gaigrotum Gretans _Weep._ 7. Svara Svor Svorum Svarans _Swear._ 8. Greipa Graip Gripum Gripans _Gripe._ 9. Biuda Bau Budum Budans _Offer._ 10. Giba Gab Geb.u.m Gibans _Give._ 11. Stila Stal Stelum Stulans _Stole._ 12. Rinna Rann Runnum Runnans _Run._

Exhibited in a tabular form, the changes of the vowels in Moeso-Gothic are as follows:--

_Prs._ _Pst. S._ _Pst. Pl._ _Part._ 1. a a a a 2. ai ai ai ai 3. au au au au 4. e e e e {329} 5. ai o o a 6. e o o e 7. a o o a 8. ei ai i i 9. iu au u u 10. i a e i 11. i a e u 12. i a u u

-- 384. Such is the arrangement of the strong verbs in Moeso-Gothic, with which the arrangement of the strong verbs in the other Gothic languages may or may not coincide.

For a full and perfect coincidence three things are necessary:--1. the coincidence of form; 2. the coincidence of distribution; 3. the coincidence of order.

1. _Coincidence of form._.--Compared with the Moeso-Gothic _rinna_, _rann_, _runnum_, _runnans_, the Old High German inflection coincides most rigidly; _e.g._, _rinnu_, _ran_, _runnumes_, _runnane_. The vowel is the same in the two languages, and it is similarly changed in each. It is very evident that this might be otherwise. The Moeso-Gothic _i_ might have become _e_, or the _u_ might have become _o_. In this case, the formula for the two languages would not have been the same. Instead of _i, a, u, u_ (see the tabular arrangement), serving for the Old High German as well as the Moeso-Gothic, the formula would have been, for the Moeso-Gothic, _i, a, u, u_, and for the Old High German _e, a, u, u_, or _i, a, o, o_. The forms in this latter case would have been equivalent, but not the same.

2. _Coincidence of distribution._--A given number of words in the Moeso-Gothic form their praeterites by changing _i_ into _a_; in other words, a given number of verbs in Moeso-Gothic are inflected like _rinna_ and _rann_. The same is the case with the Old High German. Now if these words are the same in the two languages, the Moeso-Gothic and the Old High German (as far as the agreement extends) coincide in the distribution of their verbs; that is, the same words are arranged in the same cla.s.s, or (changing the phrase) are distributed alike.

3. _Coincidence of order._--The conjugation to which the Moeso-Gothic words _rinna_ and _rann_ belong is the twelfth. The same is the case in Old High German. It might, {330} however, have been the case that in Old High German the cla.s.s corresponding with the twelfth in Moeso-Gothic was the first, second, third, or any other.

Now a coincidence of form, a coincidence of distribution, and a coincidence of order, in all the cla.s.ses of all the Gothic languages, is more than can be expected. If such were the case, the tenses would be identical throughout.

Coincidence of form is infringed upon by the simple tendency of sounds to change. _Hilpa_ in Moeso-Gothic is _helpe_ in Anglo-Saxon: _hulpans_ in Moeso-Gothic is _holfaner_ in Old High German, and _holpen_ in Anglo-Saxon.

A change, however, of this sort is insufficient to affect the arrangement.

_Helpan_, in Anglo-Saxon, is placed in the same cla.s.s with _spinnan_; and all that can be said is, that the Moeso-Gothic _i_ is, in Anglo-Saxon, represented not by _i_ exclusively, but sometimes by _i_ and sometimes by _[)e]_.

Coincidence of distribution is of great etymological importance. A word may in one stage of a language take the form of one conjugation, and in another that of another. The word _climban_ is, in Anglo-Saxon, placed in the same conjugation with _drincan_, &c. For this there was a reason; _viz._, the fact of the _i_ being short. For the _i_ being short there was a reason also. The _b_ preceded the vowel _a_, and consequently was sounded. This was the case whether the word was divided _clim-ban_ or _climb-an_. _An_, however, was no part of the original word, but only the sign of the infinitive mood. As such it became ejected. The letter _b_ then came at the end of the word; but as the combination _mb_, followed by nothing was unstable, _b_ was soon lost in p.r.o.nunciation. Now _b_ being lost, the vowel which was once short became lengthened, or rather it became the sound of the diphthong _ei_; so that the word was no longer called _cl[)i]mb_, but _clime_. Now the words that follow the a.n.a.logy of _spin_, _span_ ,&c. (and consequently const.i.tute the twelfth cla.s.s), do so, not because the vowel is _i_, but because it is a short _i_; and when the _i_ is sounded like a diphthong, the praeterite is formed differently. The Anglo-Saxon praeterite of _climban_ was sounded _cl[)o]mm_, and rhymed to _from_; the English praeterite (when strong) of {331} _climb_ is sounded _cl[=o]mbe_, rhyming to _roam_. The word _climb_, which was once cla.s.sed with _spin_ and _sing_, is now to be cla.s.sed with _arise_ and _smite_; in other words, it is distributed differently.

Coincidence in the order of the cla.s.ses is violated when a cla.s.s which was (for instance) the third in one language becomes, in another language the fourth, &c. In Moeso-Gothic the cla.s.s containing the words _smeita_, _smait_, _smitum_, _smitans_, is the eighth. This is a natural place for it. In the cla.s.s preceding it, the vowel is the same in both numbers. In the cla.s.ses that follow it, the vowel is changed in the plural. The number of cla.s.ses that in Moeso-Gothic change the vowel is five; _viz._, the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth. Of these the eighth is the first. The cla.s.ses where the change in question takes place form a natural subdivision, of which the eighth cla.s.s stands at the head. Now in Anglo-Saxon the vowel is not changed so much as in the Moeso-Gothic. In words like _choose_, _give_, and _steal_, the vowel remains unaltered in the plural. In Moeso-Gothic, however, these words are, respectively, of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh cla.s.ses. It is not till we get to the eleventh that the Anglo-Saxon plurals take a fresh vowel. As the presence or absence of a change of vowel naturally regulates the order of the cla.s.ses, the eighth cla.s.s in Moeso-Gothic becomes the eleventh in Anglo-Saxon. If it were not so, the cla.s.ses where a change took place in the plural would be separated from each other.

The later the stage of the language, the less complete the coincidence in the cla.s.ses.

Of the present arrangement, the twelfth cla.s.s coincides most throughout the Gothic languages.

In the word _climb_, a reason was given for its having changed from the twelfth cla.s.s to the eleventh cla.s.s. This, in the present state of our knowledge, cannot always be done.

These statements are made lest the reader should expect to find between the English and the Anglo-Saxon cla.s.sification anything more than a partial coincidence. A detailed exhibition of the English conjugations would form a work of {332} itself. Moreover, the present cla.s.ses of the strong verbs must, to a great degree, be considered as provisional.

Observe, that it is the _cla.s.ses_ of the strong verbs that are provisional.

With the great divisions into weak and strong, the case is far otherwise.

The general a.s.sertions which will be made in p. 333, respecting the strong conjugation, show most cogently that the division is a natural one.

-- 385. Preliminary, however, to making them, the reader's attention is directed to the following list of verbs. In the present English they all form the praeterite in _-d_ or _-t_; in Anglo-Saxon, they all form it by a change of the vowel. In other words they are weak verbs that were once strong.

_Praeterites._