CHAPTER XII.

ON THE INFLUENCE OF CHANGE IN FUNCTION ON ANALOGICAL FORMATION.

The careful consideration of such a form as _I breakfasted_ will lead us to understand another phase in the life history of our words, and in the development of their syntactical combinations. It is well known that the word _(to) breakfast_ is really a compound of the verb _to break_ and the noun _fast_ (ieiunium). Accordingly, we find, about the year 1400 A.D., ‘Ete and be merry, why _breke_ yee nowt your _fast_;’ in 1653, Izaak Walton wrote, ‘My purpose is to be at Hodsden before I _break_ my _fast_;’ and as late as 1808, Scott writes in his Marmion, ‘and knight and squire had _broke_ their _fast_.’[110] In these and similar cases, the words have retained their full and original meaning of ‘to put an end to fasting by eating;’ and the natural apprehension of this compound when employed as a noun was in the sense of the meal whereby this process is effected after the night’s fasting, _i.e._ the first meal taken in the day. When once the verb had thus acquired the meaning of ‘to take the first meal in the day,’ and was next applied even in cases where so little food had been taken before that meal as to be hardly worth considering a ‘meal,’ the meaning of ‘breaking the fast’ had been effaced by the new sense of _eating the first_ IMPORTANT _meal of the day_. The change of meaning, coupled with the change in function, disconnected the compound from the linguistic groups to which it had hitherto belonged, and so it came about that, after the analogy of other verbs formed from nouns, _to breakfast_ was conjugated as a weak verb. Thus, in 1679, Everard writes, _After breakfasting peaceably_; and about a century later, the word is used transitively in the sense of ‘to entertain at breakfast,’ e.g., _They will breakfast you_, or _I was breakfasted_.[111]

This and all the following examples to be discussed in this chapter illustrate the point that, in the unconscious grouping of our words into material and modal groups, it is mainly the function of the word which causes such grouping; and that a change of function, entailing, as it does, a change in the grouping, will often expose the word which has thus altered its meaning to the influence of analogy with other groups, though as long as it preserved its original meaning it stood quite apart from them. No doubt, however, similarity of form conduces also sometimes to this end. The group to which the word once belonged will then follow its own path of development, while the detached member will go on its new way.

We have a similar instance in _vouchsafe_: _The king vouches it_ SAUE (Robert of Brunne, early in fourteenth century), where we should now say: _The king vouchsafes_. The verb _to backbite_ is most probably a derivative from the compound nouns _back-biting_ (of which the earliest instance dates from 1175) and _backbitter_ (which is found as early as 1230); while in the Early English Psalter (A.D. 1300) the past tense is still formed _bac-bate_. Gower (1393) already formed the past participle _back bited_.[112] Again, the noun _browbeating_ (from ‘to beat one’s brows,’ _i.e._ ‘to lower the brows,’ ‘to frown’), found as early as 1581,[113] became, from a compound noun, a simple one with the meaning of scolding or teasing; and gave rise to a verb _to browbeat_, of which the earliest known instance dates from 1603. It is, however, doubtful whether this verb has hitherto been definitely separated from the group to which etymologically speaking it belongs. The past participle _brow-beat_ (1803; Jane Porter, Thaddeus) occurs, it is true, but the more usual form is as yet _browbeaten_.

The most ordinary results of this process are, of course, all the numerous formations from nouns that have been pressed into the service of verbs; as, _I box_, _He boxed_; _(to) dust_, _(to) soap_, _(to) dog_, etc., etc.: in the case of all which, the change of function must have preceded all forms due to analogy with the groups into which the word entered solely in consequence of that change. So, again, as long as a word has an adjectival function, and even when it is used substantively, but retains its original attributive meaning, it is, in English, not declined: as _the_ POOR _men_; _the_ POOR _ye have with you always_; _the_ BLUE _hats_. When, then, only certain individuals belonging to the class designated by the adjective have to be indicated--and not, as in the case of _the poor_,--all the individuals possessing the quality of poverty,--we resort to the addition of the word _ones_: as, _I do not like those green hats; I prefer the blue_ ONES. As soon, however, as the word loses its real signification, and passes into a proper noun, it is at once declined: as, _the Grays_, _the Pettys_, _the Quicklys_; _the Blues_, _the Liberals_, _the Conservatives_, etc.[114]

It may happen that the position of the accent aids to produce change of function, as in the case of _prófecto_ (_pró facto_), and in the very interesting case of _igitur_, which has been shown to be the enclitic form of _agitur_, originating in the common Plautine phrase (_Quḯd agitur_) _Quíd igitur_.[115]

The case is similar with the adverbial termination _-ment_ in French and _-mente_ in Italian, from the Latin _mente_. _Cruellement_ (_crudeli mente_) and _fièrement_ are intelligible formations; but _solidement_, _lourdement_, etc., are formed upon their analogy. At first applied only to adverbs of manner, the termination was transferred to adverbs of time and space; as, _anciennement_, _largement_. Our English termination _-ly_ (from _like_) is a familiar instance of the same degradation of the final syllable: cf. _godlike_, by the side of _godly_.

The word _self_ was originally an adjective meaning in Anglo-Saxon and Middle-English ‘the same,’ and declined in apposition with the noun or personal pronoun to which it was attached to mark emphasis. It then stood in the same case, number, and gender, _he selfe_, _his selfes_, _him selfum_, _hine selfne_, etc., gen. and dat. sing. fem. _hyre selfre_, etc. The history of the development from this usage to our present one is not quite clear; but we should remember that the terminations of the adjective were among the first to wear off completely, or at least to become confused and indistinct; and, further, that the accusative of the personal pronouns, was at an early date merged into the dative. We thus obtain the following schematic declension:--

SINGULAR.

Nom. _I self_ _thou self_ _he_, _she_, _it self_ Gen. _my self_ _thy self_ _his_, _her_, _his self_ Acc. } Dat. } _me self_ _thee self_ _him_, _her_, _him self_

PLURAL.

Nom. _they selve_ Gen. _their selve_ Acc. } _them selve_ Dat. }

Now, if we bear in mind that in these combinations the accent fell upon the word _self_ (or _selve_), and that consequently the proclitic forms _my_, _me_, and _thy_, _thee_, in the genitive and dative had the same sound respectively,--and, further, that in the feminine of the third person singular (_herself_), these two cases were also alike,--it does not seem strange (1) that these two cases (genitive and dative) became confused, and (2) that the word _self_ became a noun, as exemplified in such phrases as _I said it to herself_. Once having changed its function, the word assumed the flection of the new group to which its new function had attached it, and a plural form, as of a noun, arose--_themselves_, _ourselves_, _theirselves_.[116] When once a single form served in three (genitive, dative, accusative) of the four cases, it not unnaturally succeeded in ousting the last, and succeeded all the more easily as _I self_ was, of course, wrong, if _self_ was a noun.

It is not, however, an invariable rule that the new associations into which a word enters in consequence of its change of function entail a change of form in the word. In Latin the word _frugi_ was originally the dative case of a word _frux_, gen. _frugis_, meaning _fruit_, _profit_, _advantage_; and is actually employed by Plautus, with the full consciousness of its origin, in the phrase _bonæ frugi esse_ (Asin., III. iii. 12). In fact, this use is exactly parallel to the use of _usui_ in _bono usui estis nulli_, in Plautus, Curculio, l. 499; but in this case, _usui_, owing to its frequent occurrence, preserved the memory of its origin fresh. Cicero, however, treats _frugi_ simply as an indeclinable adjective: _Homines et satis fortes et satis plane frugi et sobrii_ (In Verrem, v. 27). Instances are also frequent where a change in meaning brings about a change in syntactical construction. Thus, for instance, in Latin we find that the nominative _quisque_ is coupled with the reflective pronoun in the plural almost in the signification of _singulatim_.[117] In Plautus we find _præsente testibus_ (Amphitruo, II. ii. 203), and, in Afranius and Terence, _absente nobis_ (Eunuchus, IV. iii. 7); in these cases the participles approach the characteristics of prepositions. A similar development gave to the present participle _considering_ its present prepositional force. _Macte_ is used similarly. _Age!_ in Latin is used as generally as _Come!_ in English, irrespective of the number of persons addressed; _cave_ is used in the same way. _Paucis_ is used for ‘a little’ in _ausculta paucis_ (Terence, Andria, 536). _Hélas_ is used in French by women equally as by men; φέρε, ἰδού, in Old Greek, are addressed to either one or many persons indifferently. In the same way, in late Greek, ὤφελον and ὤφελε were employed simply as conjunctions, without any consideration of number or person, the original construction having been Ὀλέσθαι ὤφελον τῇδ’ ἡμέρᾳ = ‘Would that _I_ had perished on that day!’ In English _albeit_ is used simply as a conjunction, and _may be_, in the sense of perhaps, is showing a tendency to fuse into one word, as it is actually written in American conversational language _mebbe_.

In German we find expressions like _Heb hinten über sich das glas_, ‘Raise your glass high’ (Uhland, Volkslieder) instead of _über dich_. In the same way we find in Latin _suo loco_, etc.; and in Latin law formulæ, _Si sui juris sumus_, where we should expect _Si nostri juris sumus_ (_i.e._ ‘If we stand in our own rights’). In Old Norse a middle and passive is formed by the aid of a reflective _-sik_ (sese), which is, of course, properly applicable to the third person only: it appears later as _-st_; thus, _at kalla_, ‘to call;’ _at kallast_, ‘to be called.’ In the same way, we have in English the words _(to) bask_ and _(to) busk_,[118] where the proper meaning of the termination has so completely died out that it is possible to write _busk ye_. The passive is similarly formed in the Slavonic languages.

Again, change of meaning influences the construction in the case of numerous verbs in Latin, which are properly intransitive, but are used as transitives. Such are _perire_,[119] _deperire_; _demori_, used in the sense of ‘to be mortally enamoured of;’ _stupere_, ‘to marvel at;’ _ardere_, ‘to love with fire:’ the last-mentioned two words approximate in sense to _mirari_ and _amare_ respectively, and hence the instinct of language employs them in the same government.

The verb _to doubt_, in the etymological signification of hesitating between two beliefs, was, and is still constructed with _whether_. If, however, Spenser (Faëry Queene) says--

‘That makes them doubt their wits be not their aine,’

it is because the word is employed in this case, as indeed it frequently is in Shakespeare, in the sense of ‘to fear.’

The verb _to babble_, originally used intransitively, means _to prattle_ or _to chatter_. When, however, it is employed in the sense of ‘to speak foolish words.’ or of ‘to reveal by talking,’ it is used with an object in the accusative case, and a passive is formed of it; e.g., _Griefs too sacred to be babbled to the world_. Again, compound words, as long as they are felt as such by the speakers, are naturally treated as such; cf. the Latin word _respublica_, which, though we write it as a single word, was declined in both its parts, _respublica_, _reipublicæ_, etc. But, when it had once become an indivisible unit--when the form _république_ in French, or the English word _republic_, was formed with its various meanings, all closely resembling, but not identical with, that of the original compound, the word came to be treated after the analogy of other nouns, and the same derivatives are formed from it as from a simple form; cf. _republican_, etc. This fact is, again, instanced by such forms as _high-spirited_ (high-spirit + ed, and not high + spirited), _gentleman-like_ (gentleman + like, not gentle + manlike), _good-natured_ (goodnature + ed, not good + natured).

Similarly, the Latin compound _i_ (a demonstrative pronoun) + _pse_ was at first declined as _eumpse_ (_e.g._, Plautus, Truc., I. ii. 64), _eampse_, _eopse_, _eapse_, etc., all which forms are found in Plautus.[120] When, however, the word came to be looked on as a simple word, it was declined as such: _ipsum_, _ipsam_, _ipso_, _ipsa_, etc.

In German there are many instances of words compounded with adverbs of place which are specially instructive as to the way in which a word may become detached from its previous use by a change of meaning. For instance, in modern German the usage is to say _wirken_ AUF _etwas_, and not IN _etwas_, which was the usage even in the last century. In the same way, we speak of influence _over_ as much as of influence _on_, showing that we have forgotten the significance of _in_.[121]

The word _welcome_ in such phrases as _I made them welcome_ is employed as an adjective, as, indeed, it is commonly apprehended to be. It was originally a substantive, and was derived from the infinitive mood of the verb, its meaning being _pleasure-comer_. The word is popularly supposed to derive from _well_ and _come_; but the first element in the compound is really related to _will_--the true sense being the _will-comer_, i.e. _he who comes to please another’s will_. (Cf. Ger. _willkommen_.) The change in meaning seems due to Scandinavian influence, for in the Scandinavian languages the word is _really_ composed of the adjective _well_ and the past participle _come_; cf. Danish _velkommen_ (welcome).[122]

The expression _Quin conscendimus equos_ (Livy, i. 57) is properly _Why do we not mount our horses?_ but is understood as _Let us mount our horses_; and in accordance with such usage _quin_ may take after it an imperative, as _quin age_; or a hortative subjunctive, as _quin experiamur_? The sense of _cur_ in some cases approximates to that of _quod_; and hence we find the word followed by a similar construction, in Horace, Ep. I. 8. 9;--_irascar amicis, Cur me funesto properent arcere veterno_. The O.Fr. _car_ underwent a similar change. Derived from _quare_ it meant, in the first instance, _then_; as, _Cumpainz Rolond, l’oliphant_ KAR _sunez_ (Chanson de Roland), i.e. _Compagnon Roland sonnez_ DONC _l’oliphant_;[123] it next came to be used like _que_ or _parceque_ after phrases like _la raison est_; and it then comes to be used with the conditional and imperative in the sense of _utinam_ (_cf._ Diez, iii. 214).

In O.Fr. the word _par_ (Latin _per_) was used for _much_. It took this sense from its use in combinations like _perficere_, _perraro_, etc., but it was detached from the verb, and was habitually used in O.Fr. in such combinations as _par fut proz_ = _il fut très preux_; and in some cases coupled with other adverbs, like _moult_ and _tant_; as, _tant par fut bels_ = _il était si beau_, literally _tant beaucoup_ (Chanson de Roland). The phrase survives in _par trop_[124].

The Greek οὐκ οῦν, originally _not therefore_, like the Latin _nonne_, serves to introduce a question expecting an affirmative answer. It then comes to be used to introduce direct positive assertions; thus, οὐκοῦν ἐλευθερία ἡμᾶς μένει; from meaning ‘Does not, then, freedom await us?’ comes to mean simply ‘Therefore freedom awaits us.’ The word _nanu_ in Sanskrit has gone through a similar development. _Ne_ in Latin, properly the interrogative particle, comes to be used as the correlative of _an_:--_faciatne an non faciat_; or even _faciat, necne_. Similarly, in Russian, the interrogative particle _li_ comes to be used as the correlative of _ili_ (or); as _ugodno-li vam eto?_ (‘Is this agreeable to you?’); but we then get combinations like _dyélaet-li, ili ne dyélaet_ (‘whether he does it or no’).

The accusative with an infinitive could originally only stand in connection with a transitive verb as long as the accusative of the subject was regarded as the object of the finite verb, as _audio te venire_; but the accusative and infinitive came to be regarded as a dependent sentence with the accusative as its subject, and then we find the construction after words like _gaudeo_, _horreo_ (Livy, xxxiv. 4. 3), _doleo_ (Horace, Odes, iv. 4. 62), etc., which can properly speaking take no accusative of the object connected with them; as _gaudere_, _dolere_, _infitias ire_; nay, we find it after combinations such as _spem habeo_, etc. The accusative and infinitive construction then passes into sentences which depend on another accusative and infinitive, as (1) into relative sentences loosely connected; e.g. _mundum censent regi numine Deorum--ex quo illud natura consequi_ (Cic. de Fin., iii. 19, § 64): (2) into sentences of comparison; e.g. _ut feras quasdam nulla mitescere arte sic immitem ejus viri animum esse_ (Livy, xxxiii. 45): (3) into indirect questions; e.g. _quid sese inter pacatos facere, cur in Italiam non revehi_ (Livy, xxviii. 24);[125] (4) into temporal and causal sentences; e.g. _crimina vitanda esse, quia vitari metus non posse_ (Seneca, Epist., 97. 13). A similar extension of the use is found in Greek.

The possessive cases _mine_, _thine_, _his_, _her_, _its_, _our_, _your_, _their_ have passed into the category of adjectives, as in the case of _Shall I not take mine ease in mine inn?_ (1 Henry IV., III. iii. 93). The instinct of language regarded _mine_, _thine_, etc., as the equivalents of _of me_, _of thee_, etc.; and marked the function by the addition of the possessive preposition _of_, as in _this inn of mine_. Thus, again, a gerund like _killing_,[126] from having the same form as the participle, can be used in expressions like _the killing a man_, instead of _the killing of a man_.

We not only find that the word which changes its function undergoes the consequent changes in form or in syntax, but it also often happens that, owing to functional changes participated in by a certain group of words, such a group becomes detached, and thereby gains independence enough to influence other words that have cognate meanings. There are in Old English, as in German, many adverbs which are in their origin the genitives singular of strong masculine and neuter substantives, such as _dæges_ (_by day_); but the origin of the termination has been forgotten, and the _s_ has come to be looked upon as a merely adverbial termination. Consequently we find the adverb _nihtes_ (_by night_), though _niht_ is really feminine, and its genitive case is properly _nihte_. Similar formations are _hereabouts_, _inwards_, _othergates_ (Shakespeare, Twelfth Night, V. i. 198), _towards_, _whereabouts_, etc. In the same way, the genitive plural of Anglo-Saxon substantives in _-ung_ (later _-ing_) could be used adverbially; as,--_án-ung-a_, _án-ing-a_, (altogether), genitive plural of _ân-ung_, a substantive formed from _án_ (one): after this analogy others were formed: as, _hedling_, afterwards altered to _headlong_; _darkling_, etc.