CHAPTER V

SUFFIXES AND THE THEORY OF ADAPTATION

As stated in the introductory chapter, it has been the primary object of this paper to examine certain word-building suffixes for the purpose of finding out, if possible, what the force of the suffixes themselves is, and how the nouns formed with them get their meaning. The material presented has, it is hoped, shown that these nouns are capable of wide semantic variation, the influencing elements being the verb stem and context (the former exerting greater influence than the latter); also that these suffixes overlap with other suffixes in forming words of identical semantic content to such an extent that they cannot be said to have any sort of fundamental meaning whatever. This is the significance of our investigation in so far as semantics is concerned.

But it is possible also to connect our results with another question, the entire solution of which will doubtless never be possible, at least not soon; _viz._, the theory of the origin of inflection. Nothing but mere suggestion can be made in this direction from the conclusions of this study; the field will need much wider working-over before any thing definite can be asserted.

Of the two chief explanations of the origin of inflection, one, the theory of adaptation, as held at the present time, answers the question by saying that “inflectional endings are not essentially different from word-building suffixes, but are rather to be regarded as word-building suffixes in a new rôle and partially systematized into paradigms. Inflection comes at the point--wherever in the long course of development that point may be--where the endings of two or more different forms of a word begin to be felt to be the carriers of relations of case, or of mode and tense, to a certain extent independently of stem and context. It is therefore not properly a matter of forms, but of meanings, and that theory which accounts for the meanings and for their association with forms explains inflection, whether it accounts for the forms or not.”[188]

In other words, inflectional forms got their meanings in a manner similar to that we have illustrated in the case of our nouns.

(1.) The apparent definiteness that case-endings have does depend largely on their stem-meaning. Many of the functional distinctions of case can be made only by the meaning of the nouns, _e. g._, in “gladiis pugnatum est”, Caes. B. G. 1, 52; “uno tempore omnibus locis pugnatur,” B. G. 7, 84; “pugnatum continenter horis quinque vario certamine,” B. C. 1, 46, we have five ablatives, expressing instrument, time when, duration of time, manner, and place, only because the words in the ablative are capable of these meanings. Just so, we saw that our nouns got their general meaning of instrument, place, result of action, etc., because their verb stems were such as to admit of such meaning.

(2.) While our nouns naturally get an important part of their meaning from the verb stem, yet they derive great specialization of meaning from some element in the context. It is very probable, too, that originally our so-called inflectional system was in reality only a large number of undifferentiated forms which, by a process of centralization and adaptation, and influenced by the associations in which they were used, acquired their present meaning.

(3.) The variety and overlapping of suffixes may also be paralleled by case-endings; for example, in both the first and second declensions the same form serves for the dative and ablative plural, while there is another form for the other declensions. The genitive singular, and nominative and accusative plural of the fourth declension are alike in form. In the historical language, the genitive singular, dative singular, and nominative plural of the first declension have become identical in form. Other similar comparisons might be drawn to illustrate the similarity in meaning of forms with different endings, and from the verb as well as the noun. The very fact that we have five declensions and four conjugations, with many variations inside the system and irregularities outside, goes to show that it is not real system that we have here, but the survival of an original mass of undifferentiated forms, which through a long period of development have acquired their present inflectional meaning.

The parallel suggested here is put forth merely as a suggestion; all we can say is, that it is possible that inflectional forms did get their meaning in some such way as the nouns treated in this paper got theirs. More evidence will be necessary for establishing this theory, if it can be established at all.

INDEX OF WORDS

acetabulum, 26

additamentum, 18, 32

adiumentum, 18, 45

adminiculum, 27

alimentum, 13, 47

allevamentum, 20, 47

ammentum, 13

antepagmentum, 16

argumentum, 20, 36

armamentum, 13

armentum, 14, 49

atramentum, 18

auctoramentum, 20

baculum, 27

blandimentum, 21, 45

caementum, 11, 49

calceamentum, 14, 47

cenaculum, 29, 50

coagmentum, 16

cognomentum, 23

complementum, 21

conciliabulum, 25, 39

condimentum, 16

conventiculum, 29, 40

cruciamentum, 18, 47

cubiculum, 29

cunabulum, 26

curriculum, 30, 50

dehonestamentum, 19, 33

delectamentum, 11, 33

delenimentum, 18

deliramentum, 19

dentifrangibulum, 25

deridiculum, 30, 33

desidiabulum, 26

detrimentum, 19

deverticulum, 29, 50

documentum, 21, 33, 36, 46

emolumentum, 19

everriculum, 27, 33

exorabulum, 25

experimentum, 23, 36, 45

explementum, 21

ferculum, 27, 51

ferramentum, 17

firmamentum, 22, 36, 46

formamentum, 20, 46

fragmentum, 11, 33

frumentum, 15

fundamentum, 16, 33, 46

gubernaculum, 27

hibernaculum, 29

hortamentum, 22, 33, 47

hostimentum, 21

ientaculum, 30

impedimentum, 16

inanimentum, 19

incerniculum, 27, 51

incitamentum, 21, 33, 34

incunabulum, 26

infundibulum, 24

instrumentum, 14, 37

integumentum, 14, 33, 35

intertrimentum, 19

invitamentum, 21, 34, 47

irritamentum, 21, 34, 44

iugumentum, 15

iumentum, 15

latibulum, 25, 39, 49

laxamentum, 19

levamentum, 22, 45

libamentum, 15

libramentum, 22

lineamentum, 23

lomentum, 15

lutamentum, 12

medicamentum, 13, 45

mendicabulum, 26

miraculum, 30

molimentum, 23, 45

momentum, 20, 45

monumentum, 14, 35

munimentum, 48

nidamentum, 17

nucifrangibulum, 25

nutrimentum, 16, 48

oblectamentum, 22, 48

omentum, 16

operculum, 28

operimentum, 13, 48

opprobramentum, 22

oraculum, 31, 40

oramentum, 23

ornamentum, 14, 33, 37, 48

pabulum, 25, 39

patibulum, 24

pavimentum, 12

periculum, 30, 41

perpendiculum, 28

piaculum, 28, 41

pigmentum, 16

poculum, 28

praepedimentum, 22

propugnaculum, 29, 33

prostibulum, 26

pulpamentum, 17

ramentum, 11

receptaculum, 29

redimiculum, 28

retinaculum, 28

rutabulum, 24

saeculum, 30

saepimentum, 14

salsamentum, 17

sarculum, 28

sarmentum, 12, 49

scitamentum, 18

sessibulum, 25, 50

sicilimentum, 12

sincipitamentum, 18

spectaculum, 30, 41, 51

spiraculum, 28, 51

stabilimentum, 14

stabulum, 25, 33, 40, 50

sternumentum, 23

stramentum, 11, 38, 44

subligaculum, 28

suffimentum, 13

supplementum, 15

tabernaculum, 29

tegumentum, 13, 35, 49

temperamentum, 20

termentum, 20

testamentum, 12

tinnimentum, 23, 49

tintinnabulum, 24

tormentum, 15, 38

turbamentum, 22

turibulum, 26

umbraculum, 30, 41

vehiculum, 29, 42

venabulum, 25

vestibulum, 25

vestimentum, 15, 39, 49

vocabulum, 25, 40, 50

FOOTNOTES:

[181] Cf. Morris, _Principles and Methods in Latin Syntax_, p. 65. It must be noted, however, that this is only one direction in which semantic development takes place. The opposite (decrease of connotation) is also observable as a definite line of semantic development.

[182] This is one of four _-mentum_ words which occur first in Sallust. The others are hortamentum, irritamentum, turbamentum. Norden mentions the use of _-mentum_ words as a peculiarity of Sallust’s style (Gercke und Norden. _Einleitung in die Alt. Wiss._ I. 578), but with the exception of these four words, which occur, moreover, only once each in this author, the examples scarcely justify the statement.

[183] Cf. Festus, p. 38: conciliabulum dicitur locus, ubi in concilium venitur.

[184] Cf. Walde, who gives as the etymology of this word, ver(o)-stabulum, in which *uer = “door”.

[185] See Mommsen, _Röm. Gesch._ Bk. I, Ch. XV.

[186] Only those _-culum_ words were examined which were not diminutives. Some of the words formed with this suffix do have diminutive meaning, but for a diminutive to be formed on a verb stem is impossible.

[187] Cf. Varro, _Lingua Latina_, 5, Art. 162.

[188] See the article by Professors Oertel and Morris on _The Nature and Origin of Indo-European Inflection_, Harvard Class. Stud., Vol. XVI, p. 89.

END OF VOLUME ONE

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS HUMANISTIC STUDIES

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:

This text contains Greek phrases in several places and numerous words and phrases in Latin. Greek and Latin passages have been rendered as they appear in the original publication. No attempt has been made to make corrections.

Obvious punctuation errors have been repaired. Occasional missing commas have been left unchanged. Identifyable inconsistencies in punctuation in headings, footnotes, index, and bibliography have been repaired.

Variations in hyphenation and spelling, particularly in the use of accent marks, have, for the most part, been left unchanged. If it was clear from the predominance of occurrences that the difference was due to a typo and not the intent of the author, the correction was made. However, the variations were frequently the result of references or quotes from different sources and therefor the variations were left as found. For instance, the reader will find the following variations left as found in the original: Bocca-dell’-Verità also appears as Bocca-dell’-Verita; Marriage à la Mode sometimes appears as Marriage a la Mode; both Lévy-Bruhl and Levy-Bruhl are used; De Vulgari Eloquio is also spelled De Vulgario Eloquio; The Rival Queans is also given as The Rival Queens.

Spelling of non-dialect wording in the text was made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; if no predominant preference was found, or if there is only one occurrence of the word, spelling was not changed.

Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced quotation marks repaired.

The original text has duplicate words in several places. For example, Page 308 ... “is only the the extension, on Latin soil”; Page 146 ... “matter to each each other”. These have been rendered as found without correction.

Because of the propensity in this text for quotations starting and ending in the middle of a sentence, ellipsis have been rendered as found in the text with no assumptions made as to the ending of sentences within quotations. Ellipsis that are obviously errors have been standardized to common usage. In several places within the English text and in the Latin phrases, periods have apparently been used to represent missing letters in a word or name. These have been rendered as found in the original.

There are several typographical errors in sequential numbering in the Appendix for section 3, the paper on Browning and Italian Arts and Artists. On page 253, the section shown in the original as “IV. Pippa Passes.” should be numbered “III.” if properly sequenced. On page 258, the section shown in the original as “XX. Pacchiarotto and How He Worked in Distemper.” should be numbered “XXIV.” if properly sequenced. On page 257, under “XX. The Ring and the Book”, the numbering skips for “8” to “10”, leaving out “9”. All these have been repaired.

In the Appendix for section 3, the paper on Browning and Italian Arts and Artists, some of the Roman Numerals are in parenthesis. About a third of them have the period inside the parenthesis [i.e. (III.)] and about 2/3 have the period outside the parenthesis [i.e. (III).]. No attempt has been made to standardize these. They have been left as found in the original text.