ii. Such forms, where phonetic development brought about merely a close

resemblance without producing perfect similarity, and where, as a next step, one or other of the set of words underwent some change more or less violent in consequence of its supposed connection with the rest, are peculiarly instructive, proving as they do the confusion which arose in the minds of the speakers who thus combined what was distinct and unconnected. In these cases we have entered upon the domain of ‘popular etymology,’ to which we have already incidentally alluded.

It does not, however, always follow that the supposed connection in meaning--in other words, the coalescence of elements of different origin into a single material group, brings about the further change in form; at this period nothing but the linguistic consciousness of the speaker can decide whether the ‘popular etymology’ is or has been at work. Of course, as long as the etymology of the different words in the set is clearly understood by the speaker, there can be no question as to the connection, but when one or more of the members of the set is no longer understood in its historical bearings, it is possible for a new grouping to arise.

Let us take, as an instance, the word _carousal_. This bore originally the sense which it bears in the Parisian name of the _Place du Carrousel_, viz. a tournament or festival. It was confused with the word _carouse_ (Ger. _gar-aus_ = properly ‘quite out,’ _i.e._ ‘empty your glasses’); and at present our word _carousal_ represents both. The Anglo-Saxon word _bonda_ meant a boor, or householder. His tenure appears expressed in Low Latin by the word _bondagium_, and it is only to a supposed, but wholly erroneous connection with _bond_ and the verb _to bind_, that our present word _bondage_ owes its sense of _servitude_.

The Fr. _sursis_ gave us, before its final _s_ had ceased to be pronounced, our verb _surcease_, which most speakers now look on as a compound of _cease_ (Fr. _cesser_).[99] _Wiseacre_, really derived through the Dutch from the Ger. _wízago_ (A.S. _witega_, ‘a prophet’), was already, while on its way to England, misunderstood in Holland, and taken to be a compound of _wise_. In Dutch, a verb _wys-seggen_ and a noun _wys-segger_ (‘to speak wisely’ and ‘a wise sayer’) were formed, and modern German as well possesses the word _weissagen_, ‘to prophesy.’ This _wys-segger_, when it reached England, could no longer be understood as a derivative from the verb _secgan_, which in English had already lost its guttural and had become _(to) say_; and thus popular etymology altered the second part of the supposed compound into the meaningless _acre_. The Fr. _surlonge_, the piece of meat ‘upon the loin’ (Lat. _super_, Fr. _sur_, and Lat. *_lumbea_, from _lumbus_, Fr. _longe_), became in English the _surloyn_ in the time of Henry VI. This was no longer understood; the word was accepted as a compound with the word _sir_, and thus the fable was invented of the ‘merry monarch’ knighting the loin.[100] The _berfroit_ or _belefreit_ of Old French is of German origin, and signifies a watchtower. The word had ceased to be understood, and its origin was forgotten; but, as many towers contained a bell or a peal of bells, a supposed connection with these bells caused the word to be changed into _belfry_. The spelling is affected in _sovereign_, where the _g_ is due to a supposed connection with _to reign_ (_régner_, _regnare_); the real derivation being from _soverain_ (_superaneum_), and the word being correctly spelt _sovran_ by Milton. Further instances are _lance-knight_ (= _lanz-knecht_ = _landes knecht_ = ‘the _knight_, _i.e._ the _man_-of the _land_,’ ‘the servant of his country’); _cray-fish_ (= _écrévisse_); _shamefaced_ (really _shamefast_, like _steadfast_), etc.

In other cases of rarer occurrence than those which we have discussed, a significant part of a compound assumes the form of a mere derivative. This has occurred in the case of the word _righteous_, taken to be a derivative from some French adjective in _-eux_, Lat. _-osus_, though really due to _right-wise_, a compound like _otherwise_. It is natural that Proper nouns, where there is no connection or only a fanciful one between the word and its meaning, should be more liable to such transformations than others; so the _Rose des quatre saisons_ appears as the _quarter-sessions rose_, the _asparagus_ appears as _sparrow grass_, the ship _Bellerophon_ becomes the _Billy ruffan_,[101] the _Pteroessa_, the _tearing hisser_. We may perhaps add here a word like _liquorice_, which, though the name, rightly understood, is descriptive, has become a mere proper noun. Originally from _liquiritia_, itself a corrupt form of _glykyrrhiza_ = ‘a sweet root,’ it has, as its spelling shows, become connected with _liquor_,[102] while those who deemed this impossible preferred to explain the word as connected with _to lick_.[103]

II. Important, then, as the part played by phonetic development is in bringing about the formation of new material-groups, it has made its influence felt more widely still in the modal grouping of the various systems of inflection.

Here, again, two cases should be distinguished: (1) when forms which have had identical functions come to coincide: (2) when such coincidence occurs in the case of forms that have had different functions.

1. The cancelling of diversities in form or in inflection when such inflection indicated no difference in function must obviously on the whole be set down as a gain to language: simplicity is gained thereby without any loss in clearness. This gain, however, is only effected when the abolition is complete; should the abolition be partial only, simplification may be gained at the expense of a new confusion.

We have an example of such a complete process of cancelling in the terminations _er_ and _est_ in the comparative and superlative of adjectives. In Gothic the comparative was formed either with the suffix _iz_ or _ôz_, the superlative with _ist_ or with _ōst_; and, except, indeed, that the forms in _iz_ and _ist_ were more common than those in _ôz_ and _ôst_, and that the latter are found only with stems in _a_, no rule can be given for their occurrence. Thus _mānags_ (an _a_ stem) has in its comparative _managiz-a_, superlative _managists_; _alðeis_ (_ja_ stem) _alðiza_, _alðists_; _hardus_ (_u_ stem), _hardiza_, _hardists_; but _frôðs_, _frôdôza_, _frôdôsts_; _arms_, _armôza_, _armôsts_.[104] In Old High German there was a similar uncertainty. Here the _z_ of Gothic appeared as _r_ in the comparatives,[105] and while _salîg_ has for its comparative _salîgôro_ and its superlative _salîgôsto_, we find _(h)reini_, _(h)reiniro_, _(h)reinisto_.[106] In Anglo-Saxon we find already but a single termination for the comparative, viz. _ra_; but the two forms of superlative are still extant in _ost_ and _est_; _earm_, _earmra_, _earmost_; _heard_, _heardra_, _heardost_; but _eald_, _ieldra_ (with _umlaut_ or modified vowel),[107] _ieldest_. Our forms _hard_, _harder_, _hardest_; _old_, _older_, _oldest_; _silly_, _sillier_, _silliest_, etc., are clearly a further step in the right direction of simplicity in system.

The convergence is, however, not always complete: sometimes it happens that two systems coincide; and this coincidence may be (1) in ALL FORMS but only in SOME WORDS belonging to each system; or, again, (2) it may manifest itself in ALL WORDS but only in SOME FORMS; and, lastly, this coincidence may affect (3) only SOME WORDS in SOME FORMS of two converging systems.

In the case of (1) the convergence is complete and irrevocable, and words which formerly belonged to one system have simply parted company with it, and have definitely joined the other to which they were assimilated. In the cases, however, of (2) and (3), confusion must arise, and further development must be looked for. We find a good illustration of this confusion and of its development in the history of the Teutonic declensions. In the case of these, as of other Indo-European languages, the declensions differed as the stems of the words terminated in a consonant or a vowel; and amongst the latter, again, we must draw distinctions between the declension of stems in _a_, (_o_), _i_, and _u_. In the _a_ declension, again, a subdivision arose for _pure a_, _ja_, _wa_, and _long ā_ stems. These different terminations of the stems are, for instance, clearly preserved in Gothic dat. and acc. plur. _dags_, _dagam_, _dagans_; _gasts_, _gastim_, _gastins_; _sunus_, _sunum_, _sununs_; and (with Gothic _ō_ instead of _ā_) _gibā_, _gibōm_, _gibōs_. In the oldest forms of Scandinavian, the so-called Ur-Norse, also, we find the vowels preserved in the nominative singular, _holingar_, _erilar_, etc., _gastir_, _staldir_, etc., _haukoður_, _warur_:[108] but even in these, the oldest forms of the Teutonic dialects accessible to us, the various systems were confused; and it is the study of Comparative Grammar that we have to thank for the distinction between the different classes; and, again, it is only owing to the light shed on the subject by the comparison with Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit cognates, that we are enabled in some instances to decide to which of these classes any given word belongs. The ‘wearing down’ of the various terminations produced here identity, elsewhere close resemblance of many cases in many words, while in other cases the influence of the preceding letter made itself felt, and a difference in declension arose for the _a_ stems: this difference depending on whether the _a_ was preceded by a consonant _i_ (_j_) or _w_. Where phonetic development had caused some of the cases to agree, other cases soon followed suit, and thus we find, for instance, that even in Gothic the entire singular of _i_ declension has already become identical with that of the _a_ stems:--

_a_ stem. _i_ stem. Sing. Nom. _dags_ _balgs_ Gen. _dagis_ _balgis_ Dat. _daga_ _balga_ Acc. _dag_ _balg_ Voc. _dag_ _balg_ Plur. Nom. _dagôs_ _balgeis_ Gen. _dagê_ _balgê_ Dat. _dagam_ _balgim_ Acc. _dagans_ _balgins_.

As a consequence of this, numerous words which cognate languages prove to belong to the _i_ declension are nevertheless entirely declined like _a_ stems in Gothic; and even in the very few Gothic texts which we possess, and though these are derived from one source only, we meet with words evidencing the fact that Ulfilas himself (or, it may be, his copyist) was sometimes confused as to the declension usually followed by some word in his own language. Thus, in case of _wêgs_ (a wave), we find norm plur. _wêgôs_, but dat. plur. _wêgim_; so too, the dat. plur. of _aiws_ is _aiwam_, while the accus. is _aiwins_. In Old High German the coincidence in termination between these two schemes goes further, and extends over _all cases_; but since--in such words as had _a_, _o_, or _u_, in the preceding syllable--_umlaut_ had been produced in the plural by the _i_ of the stem, only those words whose stem vowel would not admit of _umlaut_ or _modification_ became throughout identical with the _a_ declension. Where the reverse was the case, the words naturally remained distinct in the plural, and a further development arose; viz. that this _umlaut_ in the plural began to be regarded as a sign of that number, and to be used for the purpose of marking it even in words whose etymology afforded no justification for the change, _e.g._ in _hand_, _hände_, which word originally belonged to the _u_ declension. See also our remarks in Chapter V. pp. 87 and foll.

2. So far, in every case which we have discussed, we have had to do with similarity arising from phonetic development of forms with identical functions: one or more cases of one system _converged_ with the same cases in another system. Often, however, this same phonetic development creates a similarity between forms which were originally distinct and served distinct purposes; and we have a good instance of this in our personal pronouns, and one which is instructive as to the consequences of this phenomenon:--

The Gothic _ik_ _meina_ _mis_ _mik_ _ðu_ _ðeina_ _ðus_ _ðuk_ _weis_ _unsara_ _uns_ _uns_ _jus_ _izwara_ _izwis_ _izwis_

already shows no difference in the forms of accusative and dative plural; but in Anglo-Saxon we find that a further stage has been reached:--

In _ic_ _mín_ _mé_ _mé_ _ðú_ _ðín_ _ðé_ _ðé_ _wé_ _úser_ _ús_ _ús_ _gé_ _eówer_ _eów_ _eów_

we see (though separate forms for accusative still occur) that dative and accusative have become identical _throughout_, and so it is in the modern language with--

_I_ _mine_ _me_ _thou_ _thine_ _thee_ _we_ _our_ _us_ _ye_ (_you_) _your_ _you_

The double form of the nominative _ye_ (_you_), and more especially the history of the pronoun for the third person, illustrate one of the consequences of such coincidence, viz. that the language-producing community becomes accustomed to use the same form for certain sets of functions, and transfers this similarity to cases which it would not reach--or, at least, has not yet reached--by the aid of phonetic development alone. Let us consider first the pronoun of the third person. In Anglo-Saxon we find--

Sing. Masc. Fem. Neuter. Nom. _hé_ _heó_ _hit_ Gen. _his_ _hire_ _his_ Dat. _him_ _hire_ _him_ Acc. _hine_ _hí_ _hit_.

The forms which we now use for the plural are derived from a different stem,[109] which in Anglo-Saxon gave us the following plural for all three genders:--

Nom. _ðá_ Gen. _ðára_, or _ðǽra_ Dat. _ðǽm_ Acc. _ðá_

and here we find distinct forms for dative and accusative, the latter of which has now disappeared, so that here, too (as in the case of the other personal pronouns), we use one form only (the original dative form) for both dative and accusative. But we have only reached this stage after a period of confusion and uncertainty, during which the historically correct form of the accusative and the new form (that of the old dative) strove for permanence.

It is the very marked difference between _ic_ (_I_) and _me_ (accus.), _ðu_ (_thou_) and _ðe_, _we_ and _us_, which has protected the members of these pairs from becoming identical in form, notwithstanding the important fact that such a process had long since identified the nominative and accusative of all nouns and adjectives. To this influence, indeed, _ye_ and _you_ (both of which, when unemphatic, become _ye_, where _e_ is pronounced as in _the_ before a consonant) have succumbed.

Not only in this way, moreover, does such convergence of forms with different functions show its effect: it also causes the ordinary speaker to lose sight of such difference in function altogether. As students of Latin, and especially teachers of that language, know by sad experience, it is extremely hard for the untrained English mind to realise the function of the accusative case; and the difference between this case and the dative may be fairly described as non-existent for the Englishman who has not learnt it from the study of other languages. This, again, influences syntax, so that a phrase like _I showed him the room_ can be turned in the passive into _The room was shown (to) him_, etc., or _He was shown the room_, etc.