CHAPTER XX.

THE DIVISION OF THE PARTS OF SPEECH.

The division commonly adopted of the parts of speech in the Indo-European language is convenient as a classification; but it must be borne in mind that it is not logically accurate, nor is it exhaustive. It is indeed impossible to divide words into sharply defined categories, seeing that, however we may divide them, we shall find it difficult to exclude some from each category which may fairly claim to be registered under some other category or categories, basing their claim upon at least certain uses.

The accepted grammatical categories have had their form determined mainly by the consideration of three points: (1) by the meaning of each word taken by itself; (2) by its function in the sentence; (3) by its capacity for inflection, and the part it plays in word-formation.

As regards the meaning of the word, we may notice that the grammatical categories of substantive, adjective, and verb correspond to the logical categories of _substance_, _quality_, and _activity_, or, more properly, _occurrence_. But here, at the outset, we find that the substantive is not confined to the denotation of substance, as there are also substantives denoting quality and occurrence as, ‘brightness,’ a ‘rise.’ There are also verbs which denote continuous states and qualities; as, ‘to remain,’ or the Latin ‘_cande_’ = ‘to be white.’ Pronouns and numerals again have a right on the score of meaning to be separated as classes from substantives and adjectives: but these, again, must be separated from each other in their substantival as against adjectival use (e.g. _each_ as against _each man_; _Six went and six stayed_ as against _Six men, etc._; _this and that_ as against _this book and that one_), which forbids us to simply co-ordinate the classes: substantive, adjective, pronoun, numerals. And, on the other hand, it must follow that, if pronouns and numerals are to be regarded as distinct species of the noun class, the same separation must be extended to the adverb class: since _badly_, _there_, _twice_, are related to each other just as _bad_, _this_, _two_.

To come to the connecting words. The lines that define the class of the conjunctions are quite arbitrary; _where_, for instance, is called an adverb even in passages like this:[201] “_Where_, in former times, the only remedy for misgovernment real or supposed was a change of dynasty, the evil is now corrected at no greater cost than a ministerial crisis.” _As_ and _while_, again, are called conjunctions. In the simple sentence, the test usually applied to distinguish prepositions from conjunctions is case-government. But it certainly is entirely illogical to call words like _before_, _since_, _after_ prepositions when they occur in simple sentences, and to call them conjunctions when they connect sentences;--for this function is in both cases exactly the same; cf. _before my interview with you_, and _before I saw you_.

If we wished to classify words according to their function in the sentence, it might seem obvious to divide words (1) into those which can _of themselves_ form a sentence, (2) into those which can serve _as members_ of a sentence, and (3) those which can only _serve to connect_ such members.

In the first division we might, then, place the interjections, which, when isolated, are really imperfect sentences. But these also occur as members of a sentence, sometimes with and sometimes without a preposition; as, _Woe to the land! Out on thee! Oh my!_

The finite verb in its original use better fulfils the idea of a perfect sentence. But in its present use it appears--if we except the imperative--as a mere predicate attached to a subject separately denoted. And the so-called auxiliaries are mainly used as mere connecting words.

Connecting words, again, such as conjunctions and prepositions, are, as we have seen, derived from independent words by a displacement as to the appreciation of the part which a word plays in a sentence (cf. Chap. XVI., pp. 282 and 284.). Such words are _during_, _in regard to_, _notwithstanding_. And there is this further reason why they cannot be sharply distinguished from other kinds of words--that a word may be an independent member of the particular sentence to which it belongs, and yet at the same time serve to connect this with another sentence. If I say, for instance, _The man who believes this is a fool_, the _who_ is at once an independent member of the relative sentence and a connecting word between the principal and subordinate sentence. This is universally the case as regards the relative pronoun and relative adverb. It is true also of the demonstrative when this refers to the preceding or following sentence; as, _I saw a man_, _he told me_, etc. But even if this first classification as to function could be consistently carried out, any further attempt at subdivision leads us into fresh difficulties, considering that the substantive, as opposed to the adjective and verb, is the part of speech which serves as subject and object. We might, indeed, be tempted to utilize this fact as the principle of our subclassification. But we find in the first place that a substantive can also be used attributively and predicatively, like an adjective (cf. _We are men_, _We are manly_), and, on the other hand, other words may serve as the subject in such sentences as _Well begun is half ended_; _Slow and steady wins the race_; _Finished is finished_. An adjective, too, may serve as object; as, _He takes good for bad_; _Write it down, black on white_; _to make bad worse_.

We have indeed seen that the use of prepositions to introduce subordinate sentences is very common in English; as, _After he had begotten Seth_, etc.

The division which can be most systematically carried out is that which divides words according as they are inflected or not, and according to their mode of flection. In this way three convenient divisions may be made of nouns, verbs, and uninflected words. But even here the nominal forms of the verb, such as the infinitive, _to love_ (_amare_, _lieben_) and indeclinable substantives such as the Latin _cornu_ and the English adjectives, resist the carrying out of the division. Pronouns, again, are differently inflected from nouns, and they differ among themselves. In other languages, the system of inflection of the substantive is sometimes identical and sometimes not. It might be alleged that the formation of degrees of comparison was a decisive mark of the adjective: but even here we are met by the fact that some languages, like Sanscrit, can compare nouns and even persons of the verb;[202] and others, like Latin, can compare the substantive (cf. Plautus’ use of _oculissimus_--Curc. I. ii. 28, etc.) _amicissimus_ = ‘(my) best friend,’ etc. This usage is seen in the English word ‘top-_most_,’ which is the substantive _top_ with a double superlative ending (see Mätzner, vol. i., p. 270); the termination _most_ superseded the O.E. _m- est_, which answered to the A.S. (_e_) _mest_, derived from a positive (_e_) _ma_, which itself had a superlative signification (cf. _optumus_). Again, the very meaning of some adjectives renders them incapable of comparison; as, _wooden_, _golden_, etc.

It is, then, clear that the current division of the parts of speech, in which all these three principles of classification are more or less embodied, leads to so many cross divisions that it cannot be consistently carried out. The parts of speech cannot be sharply and neatly partitioned off into eight or nine categories. There are many necessary transitions from one class into another; these result from the general laws of change of meaning, and from analogical formations which are characteristic of language in general. If we follow out these transitions, we at the same time detect the reasons which originally suggested the division of the parts of speech.

To consider, first, the division between substantive and adjective. The formal division is based in the Indo-European languages on the capacity of the adjective of inflections of gender and comparison. In individual languages still further distinctions have arisen. Thus, for instance, the adjective in the Teutonic and Slavonic languages admits of a double, nay we may even say a triple, mode of inflection: cf. _gut_, _guter_, _der gute_; in which declensions forms occur absolutely without analogy in the substantives. In Modern High German, we have to note the existence of the two declensions (the weak and the strong). On their uses and that of the third or undeclined form of the adjective in the predicate, the most elementary German grammar will give the student all information. As for the forms of adjectival (and pronominal) declension which are distinct from the noun declension, it is necessary to go back to Anglo-Saxon, or, better still, to Gothic. It is, of course, not necessary to master these languages thoroughly in order to simply compare their systems of inflection. Seeing that in English the adjectives have no flection, the test is no longer applicable to the language in its present form; though the test of capacity for comparison applies here still. But in spite of all differentiations of form, the adjective may receive, at first ‘occasionally’ then ‘usually,’ the function of a substantive: cf. _The rich and the poor_, _old and young_, _my gallants_.[203] From this substantival adjective a pure substantive may be derived by traditional use, especially if its form becomes in any way isolated as against other forms of the adjective; as, _sir_ = Fr. _sieur_, from _seniorem_ as against _senior_. The instinct of language shows that it apprehends the adjective definitely as a substantive when it connects it with an attributive adjective; as, _the powdered pert_ (Cowper, Task); _a respected noble_, etc.: or with a genitive; as, _the blue of the sky_. In English the possessive pronoun is connected with many words, such as _like_, _better_, etc.,[204] which, if felt as adjectives, would demand other constructions. Cf. _He was your better, sir_ (Sheridan Knowles, Hunchback, III. ii.); _To consult his superiors_ (Cooper, Spy, ch. i.): _He is my senior_.

There are many adjectives in all languages which are completely transformed, such as _sir_ (cf. supra); _priest_ (a shortened form of what in French appears as _prêtre_, older form _prestre_ (cf. Dutch _priester_), all from Greek _presbuteros_, ‘older,’ the comparative of _presbus_, ‘old’); _fiend_, M.E. _fend_, A.S. _féond_, ‘an enemy,’ originally the present participle of the verb _féon_, ‘to hate;’ _friend_, M.E. _frend_, A.S. _freónd_, originally present participle of _fréon_, ‘to love;’ etc.

The transformation of a substantive into an adjective is less familiar, and perhaps more interesting. In the process, we disregard some parts of the meaning of the substantive, excluding from that meaning first and foremost the meaning of substance, so that only the qualities attaching to the substance remain in view. This transformation virtually occurs as an occasional use whenever a substantive is employed as predicate or attribute: _a king’s cloak_ (for _a royal cloak_); _He is an ass_, etc. A substantive in apposition approaches the nature of an adjective, especially when it is used to denote a class; and, again, more especially when the combination is abnormal and metaphorical: cf. _a virgin fortress_; _a maiden over_; _boy-competitors_; _turkey-cock_, _hen-sparrow_; _a house-maid_;[205] _music-vows_ (Hamlet, III. i.) Sometimes an adverb which can strictly speaking be connected with an adjective only, is joined to the substantive, and serves to mark its adjectival nature. Thus we often hear such expressions as _He is ass enough, idiot enough_; _More fool you_, etc.

In other cases, again, such as _twenty thousand troops were taken prisoner_, the word _prisoner_ shows by its absence of inflection that it is apprehended as an adjective.

It might be thought practicable to draw another distinction that would hold good as between substantive and adjective. The adjective, it might be alleged, denotes a simple quality, the substantive connotes a group of qualities. In such a word as _blue_, we have the one broad idea of one colour fairly defined and commonly understood within certain definite limits. In the meaning of, e.g., _rose_, we embrace all the qualities which go to make up our conception of _flower_ in general, and the _special flower_ which we call _rose_ in particular. And no doubt the definition may be considered in the main correct. But the distinction cannot be consistently maintained throughout. For instance, there are many adjectives which cannot be said to indicate really one quality only. Such are most adjectives in _like_ or _ly_ (_warlike_, _manly_, etc.); and, on the other hand, substantives are again and again used so as to denote one quality and only one. The transition from the denotation of a simple quality to that of a group of qualities is effected by the use _in a special sense_ of a substantival adjective; as, ‘the blacks,’ for ‘the negroes’ = ‘a radical,’ ‘a conservative.’ When once such usage has been started, there is no necessity for the train of thought, which led the first employer to specialise the word, to be present in the consciousness of other speakers. Directly the word has come to be so specialised, and the train of thought which led to its specialisation has been forgotten, the word stands isolated as an independent substantive.

The converse process is not uncommon; in which, out of a group of qualities, a single one is dwelt on and the rest are left out of consideration: such are, for instance, the names of colours; as, _lilac_, _rose_, _mulberry_, etc., used adjectivally. From this use the adjectives with specialised meanings, derived from substantives, we may gather that _adjectives_, i.e. _terms for simple qualities, arose out of terms for groups of qualities_, i.e. _substantives_. The process must have been from the very beginning that the speaker singled out one notion from a group and dwelt on it, passing over the others bound up in the group. In fact, the speaker must, at a very early stage, have used words in a figurative sense. In such expressions as _That man is a bear_, _That woman is a vixen_ (as, indeed, when we say _bearish_ or _vixenish_), we are ascribing to him or her only some one particular characteristic of the whole number of characteristics of the thing which the substantive indicates when used in its usual sense. The distinction between noun and verb might seem, at first sight, to be well marked both by the diversity of forms which characterise these separate parts of speech, and by the diversity of functions which they severally fulfil. But in English, we are at once met by the fact that we have numerous verbs which are identical in form with nouns, and in many cases are actually nouns employed as verbs; as, _to lord it_, _to walk_, _to dog_, _to run_: while we constantly see the process going on before our eyes, of the transference of a noun into the category of verbs; as, _to chair a man_, _to table a motion_. How near they may approach in function may be seen from sentences like _I looked at the show_, and _I had a look at the show_. No doubt it maybe said that verbs have certain formal characteristics, which distinguish the verb from the noun, such as personal terminations, distinctions between voices, and forms to denote mood and tense. But, in the first place, these forms have, to a great extent, disappeared in English, with its other inflections; and, in the second place, even in the most highly inflected languages we find verbs defective in some of these characteristics, and thereby approaching in form to nouns: cf. the Italian _bisogna andare_ (= ‘I need to go’) as against _Che bisogna andare_ (‘What need to go?’). While, again in nouns, forms occur defective in case and gender-signs; as, _cornu_, ‘horn;’ _genu_, ‘knee;’ etc. Further, in the Slavonic languages, we actually find the verb in the past tense agreeing in gender with its subject; as, _Tui jelala_, ‘Thou (feminine) didst wish,’ etc. Lastly, the differentiation of the construction of the two parts of speech is anything but sharply marked, as we may see in cases where a substantive actually takes the case which would naturally be taken by the verb with which it is connected: _Seeing her is to love her_; _Hearing him recite that poem is enough to draw tears from the eyes_.

Even in highly inflected languages, like Latin and Greek, the personal endings, commonly regarded as the special formal characteristic of the verb, have no place in the participles and infinitives.

Again, such an expression as _Rex es_, ‘Thou art king,’ is identical in meaning with _Regnas_, ‘Thou rulest;’ so that the verbal termination, as such, need not serve to mark any distinction of meaning between the verb and the adjective or substantive used predicatively.

If we say that it is of the essence of the verb to describe a mere transient process limited by time, while the adjective or substantive denotes a permanent quality, we must observe that the adjective may describe a transient quality; as, _dirty_, _pale_: while verbs may be used to describe states; as, _to glow_, cf. _candere_ = to be white.

The participle must be regarded as partaking of the nature of the verb as well as of that of the adjective. The peculiarity of the participle, as compared with the adjective, is that it enables us to express an occurrence or event attributively; as, _They, looking, saw_. We must look upon adjectives as the older formation of the two, and indeed we must suppose that adjectives had been completely developed before participles could take their rise at all.

The characteristic difference between the participle and the so-called verbal adjective is that the participle, unlike the adjective, is capable of denoting tense; as, τύψας (= ‘having struck’). The participle, when standing as an attribute to a noun, partakes of the construction of a noun (_i.e._ substantive or adjective); as, _Vir captus est_ (‘The man is caught’). But it may depart from the character of a noun by departing from such nominal construction, and striking out a new path of its own.

Thus, in _He has taken her_, _He has slept_, we have a use of the participle quite unlike the use of the adjective. No doubt it is true that such a phrase as _He has taken her_ signified originally _He has or holds her as one taken_; cf. _Cura intentos habebat Romanos_, (Liv., xxvi. 1), but we do not now apprehend the construction thus. In French, the transition from the general adjectival into the special participial construction is clearer: _J’ai vu les dames_, ‘I have seen the ladies;’ but _Je les ai vues_, ‘I have seen (fem. plur.) them,’ and _les dames que j’ai vues_, ‘the ladies that I have seen (fem. plur).’ In Italian, we say _Ho vedute_ (fem. plur.) _le donne_ = ‘I have seen the ladies,’ as well as _Ho veduto le donne_ (masc. or genderless sing.). In Spanish, all inflection in the case of periphrases formed with ‘haber’ is abolished; it is as correct to write _la carta que he escrito_ = ‘the letter which I have written,’ as to say _He escrito una carta_ = ‘I have written a letter.’ On the other hand, in periphrases made with _tener_ (_to hold_, used as auxiliary like to have), a later introduction into the language, the inflection is always retained; in _tengo escrita una carta_, = ‘I have written (fem.) a letter (fem.)’ it is as imperative to observe the concord of gender as in _Las cartas que tengo escritas_ = ‘The letters which I have written.’

Conversely: it is possible for the participle to gradually recur to a purely nominal character. Bearing in mind our definition of the participle, we may say that this recurrence has taken place as soon as the present participle is used for the _lasting_ activity; as when we talk about _a knowing man_: and as soon as the perfect participle comes to be used to express the result of the activity; as, _a lost chance_. The more such participle is employed in a specialised meaning--as, for instance, metaphorically,--the more speedily and thoroughly will the transformation become accomplished; as in such cases as _striking_, _charming_, _elevated_, _drunken_, _agèd_, _learnèd_, _crabbèd_, _doggèd_, etc. Nay, such words may even combine with another, after the laws of verbal construction: as in the case of _high-flying_, _well-wishing_, _flesh-eating_, _new-born_, _well-educated_.

The participle, again, like other adjectives, may become a substantive, e.g. _the anointed_; and the substantival participle, like the adjectival, may either denote a momentary activity (or, rather, an activity limited as to time), _e.g._ the _patient_, _i.e._ the _suffering one_, or a state, _e.g._ the _regent_ = the _ruling one_ = the _ruler_. It may, indeed, entirely lose its verbal nature, as, _friend_, _fiend_, i.e. the _loving one_, the _hating one_, etc.

The nomen agentis, resembling in this respect the participle, may denote either a momentary or a lasting activity; as, _the doer_ = ‘he who _does_;’ _the dancer_ (if = ‘he who is wont to dance,’ _e.g._, as his profession). In the former application it remains closely connected with the verb; and there is no reason, except custom, why it should not, like the participle, take an object, just like the verb; in fact, that it should not be correct to say _the teacher the boy_ for ‘he who teaches the boy,’ just as it is possible to say _the school-teacher_. We actually do find in Latin, _dator divitias_, ‘giver riches (acc. plur.)’ = ‘he who gives riches;’ _justa orator_ (Plautus, Amphyt., 34), ‘the just things (acc. neut. plur.) orator or speaker’ = ‘he who speaks just things.’

In Shakespeare, we find _and all is semblative a woman’s part_ (Twelfth Night, I. iv.), where an adjective, _semblative_, is similarly construed with a verbal force; the sentence being equivalent to ‘and all resembles that which we might expect in a woman.’ On the other hand, the nomen agentis, when denoting lasting activity, may separate more and more from the verb, and thus finally lose its special character, as noun indicating a ‘doer,’ e.g., _owner_, _actor_, _father_ (lit. ‘he who feeds or who protects;’ from a root which means either _to nourish_ or _to protect_).

The transition from verb to noun is again seen in nomina actionis, like _transportation_, _liberation_. These may also approximate to the verbal construction; as, _My transportation from England to Ireland_ (‘I was transported from England to Ireland’); _pearl fishery_ (‘the fishing for pearls’). Here, again, the notion of a lasting activity inherent in the substantive tends to make the original idea of a nomen actionis grow faint; and the connotation of a lasting condition sets in. And, again, the more that metaphorical and other unusual or special usages attach to the word, the more does such word become isolated as against its original use, cf. _position_, _transportation_, _conviction_, _goings-on_. It may, indeed, become so far isolated as to lose all connection with the verb, as in _reckoning_, in the sense of an account; cf. _addition_, in French, in the same meaning (cf. the French expression for ‘Waiter! the bill, please,’ _Garçon! l’addition s’il vous plaît!_)

The infinitive is really a case of the noun of action, and must originally have been constructed in accordance with the usage in force at the time for the syntactical combination of the corresponding verb with other nouns. But, in order that it may be felt as a true infinitive, its mode of construction must no longer be felt as it originally must have been felt; it must, in fact, have become isolated in its employment, and such isolation became then the basis of further development. But the infinitive having thus developed, reverts in many cases to the character of a noun: its want of inflection, however, always has a tendency to prevent this; and, accordingly, the most common cases in which it appears as a substantive are as subject or object. In sentences like ‘not to have been dipped in Lethe’s Lake Could save the son of Thetis from _to die_’ (Spenser, Faëry Queen); ‘Have is have’ (Shakespeare, King John, I. i.); ‘I list not prophecy’ (Winter’s Tale, IV. i. 26); ‘I learn to ride,’ etc., it seems certain that the infinitive is constructed after the analogy of a noun; but in such constructions as _I let him speak_, _I hear him walk_, it is hardly apprehended as so constructed by the instinct of language of the present day.

Languages which possess declined articles possess exceptional facilities for thus approximating the infinitive to a noun, as the Greek τὸ φιλεῖν, τοῦ φιλεῖν, etc. (= ‘the “to love”--of the _to-love_,’ etc.): cf. such instances as the English _Have is have_ (Shakespeare, King John, I. i.); _Mother, what does ‘marry’ mean?_ (Longfellow); _Him booteth not resist_ (Spenser, Faëry Queen, I. iii. 20.) And similarly the German _das lieben_ (‘the “to-love”’); French _mon pouvoir_ (‘my “to-be-able”’). In Latin, the same approximation is rendered possible by the demonstrative pronouns; as, _totum hoc philosophari_ (Cicero), ‘all this “to-philosophise;”’ _Inhibere illud tuum_ (ibid.), (‘that “to-prohibit” of yours’). Modern High German and the Romance languages have gone so far as to employ the infinitive as the equivalent to a noun pure and simple, even in respect of inflection; as, _Meines sterbens_ (= ‘of my “to-die”’); _Mein hier-bleiben_ (= ‘my “here-remain,”’ _i.e._, ‘my remaining here’). In the Romance languages, the process is rendered easier by the abolition of case-difference; cf. _mon savoir-faire_ (= ‘my “to know--to-do”’ = ‘my cleverness of management’). Old French and Provençal actually invest the infinitive with the _s_ of the nominative case--_Li plorers ne t’i vaut rien_: ‘The “to-weep” not to thee there avails anything’ = ‘It avails thee nothing to weep’ (cf. Mätzner, iii., pp. 1-2).

It is possible for the verbal construction to be maintained in many cases, even in spite of the use of the article. For instance, ὸ σκοπεῖν τῖ πράγματα (lit. = ‘the “to-see” the matters.’).

The oldest adverbs seem to be mainly in their origin crystallised cases of nouns (adjectival or substantival), in some cases of which they are the result of the combination of a preposition with its case. Thus, in English, we have the genitive suffix appearing in _else_ (formerly _elles_, the genitive of a root _el_ or _al_, meaning ‘other’), _once_ (= ‘ones’), _twice needs_. _Much_ and _little_ were datives, _miclum_ and _lytlum_; cf. _whilom_ (= hwílum.)

Thus, in Latin, many adverbs are derived from the accusative--as, _primum_, ‘first;’ _multum_, ‘much;’ _foras_, ‘abroad;’ _alias_, ‘at another time;’ _facile_, ‘easily;’ _recens_, ‘freshly:’ from the locative--as, _partim_, ‘partly;’ or the ablative, as _falso_, ‘falsely;’ _recta_, ‘by the right way;’ _sponte_, ‘voluntarily.’ The following are instances of the combination of a preposition with its regime: _amid_ (= _on-middum_), _withal_, _together_, _anon_; French, _amont_, _aval_ (= prep. _a_ (‘at’) _mont_, ‘mountain,’ and _val_, ‘dale’ = _upwards_, and _downwards_).

This formation of adverbs leads us to suspect that the original method of forming them will also probably have been from nouns; and that as some of them may have proceeded from nouns before the development of inflections, in such cases merely the stem form, pure and simple, was employed to express adverbs. Thus such expressions as _to speak true_, _to entreat evil_, will represent the oldest types of adverbs.

The adverb stands in close relationship to the adjective. It bears a relation to the verb and to the adjective as well, analogous to that borne by an attributive adjective to a substantive; thus _He stepped lightly_ is analogous to _His steps were light_; and _That is absolutely true_ to _The truth of that is absolute_. This analogy manifests itself, among other instances, in this--that an adverb may, generally speaking, be formed from any adjective at will.

The adjective differs formally from the adverb in this, that the adjective, commonly speaking, admits of inflection, and hence of agreement with the substantive. In English, where this test is absent, it is difficult for the instinct of language to draw a sharp line between the two, as in _to speak loud_, _to speak low_. It is difficult, in English, to maintain that there is any real difference between the use of _good_ in _good-natured_ and the same word in _he is good_; or the use of _well_ in _he is well dressed_, and in _he is well_.

Again, many adverbs in different languages resemble adjectives in this, that, when joined to another adverb, they take an adjectival inflection. Thus, in French, it is correct to say ‘_toute_ pure,’ ‘_toutes_ pures’ = ‘entire, (fem. sing.) pure,’ ‘entire (fem. plur.) pure (fem. plur.);’ both = ‘entirely pure,’ ‘quite pure:’ in Italian, _tutta livida_ = ‘all (fem. sing.) livid’ = ‘quite livid:’ in Spanish, _todos desnudos_ = ‘all (masc. plur.) nude’ = ‘quite naked.’

There are many cases in which an attributive adjective is employed convertibly with an adverb; cf. _Hispania postrema perdomita est_ = ‘Spain LAST (fem. sing.) was conquered,’ for ‘AT LAST’ (Livy, xxviii. 12); _Il arrive toujours le dernier_, ‘He always comes last;’ _Il est mort content_ = ‘He died happy.’ Compare also these two usages--_De ces deux sœurs la cadette est celle qui est le plus aimée_, ‘Of these two sisters the younger is the one who is the (neut.) more loved (fem. sing.);’ or _la plus aimée_, ‘the (fem.) more loved (fem.)’ (Acad.)[206]

Adjectives used in connection with nouns signifying the agent or the action are used in a way hardly to be distinguished from an adverbial use; as, _a good story_, _a good story-teller_, _an old bookseller_. In English, owing to its lack of inflections, an ambiguity may arise in such cases as the last cited; we might apply the word _old_ to the man who sells the books, as well as to the books themselves. The common custom in English is to shun ambiguity by the use of the hyphen; as, _an old-book seller_. But English attempts likewise to remove the ambiguity by maintaining the adverb for one case, after the analogy of the construction with the verb--as, _an early riser_, _a timely arrival_, etc.--though this distinction is not consistently carried out.

The resemblance of adjectives and adverbs produces uncertainty in the meaning to be attached to certain adjectives; the adjective, when attached to a noun, may be conceived of as referring either to the person, or as referring to one of his qualities; thus, _a bad coachman_ may either mean ‘a wicked coachman,’ or ‘a coachman looked upon as bad in the quality of his driving.’ In the latter case, the adjective is used in the special sense acquired by the adverb; as, _he drives badly_.

It is natural, then, as the adjective and the adverb so generally exist in pairs, that we should feel the need of possessing both parts of speech for all cases. There are, however, many adverbs which are derived from no adjective, and which thus have no adjective parallel to them. In this case we are compelled to employ the adverb with the function of the adjective, as in ‘He is _there_,’ ‘He is _up_,’ ‘The door is _to_,’ ‘Heaven is _above_;’ in which cases the instinct of language apprehends the construction as identical with that found in such phrases as _He is active_, _The door is open_, etc. Again, in such sentences as _the mountain yonder_, _the enemy there_, _the drive hither_, the adverb marks its difference from the adjective by its position in the sentence. But this rule is not consistently observed; there are cases in English where the adverb is inserted between the article and its substantive; as, _on the hither-side_, _the above discourse_, _the then monarch_, and more extensively in the vulgar _that there mountain_, _this here book_, where the adjectival adverbs are pleonastic.

Just as, _e.g._, in Latin, we find the adverb used in _sic sum_ (‘so I am’), _Ego hunc esse aliter credidi_,[207] ‘I him to be otherwise believed’ = ‘I thought he was a different kind of man;’ so we find in English _While this scene was passing in the cabin of the man, one quite otherwise_ (i.e. _different_) _was passing in the halls of the master_ (Mrs. Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, i. 43), in which, and other similar constructions, the adverb again has all the functions of an adjective.

Prepositions and conjunctions as link-words or connecting elements took their origin from independent words through a displacement of the distribution. Prepositions were once adverbs, serving to denote more closely the direction of the verbal action; as, ‘to go _in_,’ ‘to carry _off_,’ ‘to throw _up_,’ ‘to fall _down_.’ They then became displaced, _i.e._ detached from the verb, and came to belong to the noun, furthering the disappearance of its case-endings and assuming their office.

To stamp a word as ‘connecting word,’ this displacement must have become customary and general. For, in their occasional usage, the most various parts of speech may serve as connecting words. The functions of the adverb, as such, have been sufficiently illustrated. It is thus only where such adverbs are with a certain regularity, or preferably, used as link-words, that they begin to be felt as prepositions or conjunctions. But even then, notwithstanding such syntactical development, the word can still be used independently in its former function, and it remains impossible to definitely range it in any particular class. This only becomes rational and feasible when the word has become obsolete in its original usage.

We may accordingly define a preposition as a link-word which may be followed by any substantive in some of its case-forms where this combination is no longer syntactically parallel to that between noun or verb and the word in its original independent sense. Accepting this definition, we shall not explain _considering_, in such a sentence as _considering everything he has done very well_, as a preposition, because its construction is that of the verb _to consider_. When we come to _instead of_ it is different. _Stead_, A.S. _stede_, meant ‘a place;’ and _in the stead of the man_ would have been a perfectly natural construction, the genitive case showing the independence of the noun: but whether the genitive is still felt as a genitive depends on the question whether we think of _instead_ as a compound of the preposition _in_ with the noun _stead_. As soon as we cease to feel it as such, we do not think of the genitive as regularly depending on the preceding substantive, and the preposition is created. No doubt the instance which we have given proves that the instinct of language is vacillating; we still find _in his stead_ looked upon as somewhat archaic indeed, but still current English. In some cases the isolation has become looser, and in others it has become absolute. The word _nigh_ (A.S. _neáh_, M.E. _neigh_, as in ‘neighbour’) was originally an adverb, and identical in meaning with the word _near_ (A.S. _néar_, the comparative degree of _néah_). But we do not think of _nigh_ and _near_ as connected. The word _till_ is still more peculiar. It is, properly speaking, a case of A.S. _tíli_, a noun (cf. Germ. _Ziel_, Gothic _tils_) meaning ‘aim’ or ‘goal,’ whence the idea of _towards_ developed. _Off_ and _of_ are not thought of as connected, and yet they are the same word. In this case the relationship becomes obscured, owing to divergency in the development of signification. In other cases the isolation of the word is due to the disappearance of the old method of construction in which it was used. Thus _since_, M.E. _sithens_, is from _síððen_ = A.S. _síððan_, which is itself a construction for _síððan_, put for _síððam_, ‘after that.’ Here the _ðam_ is the dative case masculine of the demonstrative pronoun used as a relative; it answers exactly to the N.H.G. _seit dem_; cf. _ni ðanaseiðs_ (Ulphilas, Mark ii. 14) + ‘no more.’ In the same way, the word _ere_ is a comparative form derived from A.S. _ǽr_, ‘soon.’

The origin and rise of the conjunctions may, like that of the prepositions, be followed historically. Many of them arise from adverbs or pronouns in their function as connective words, as we have discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. These words, then, are already connecting-words ere they become established as conjunctions pure and simple. All depends thus upon the linguistic consciousness of the speaker, whether he will consider them as still pronoun or adverb, or as real conjunction, and this consciousness, again, is largely dependent upon the degree to which the word in question has been etymologically obscured.

We have seen how the demonstrative _that_ has become a conjunction, and can easily realise how to some extent in many others, such as _because_, _in case_, etc., though no demonstrative word proper has entered into their composition, the relation of the noun which forms their second part to what follows is of a demonstrative kind.

Prepositions and conjunctions are more clearly distinguishable in such languages, as, _e.g._, German, where the flection of noun and adjective, or the absence of flection, shows whether the word is used as the one or the other. In English, this test has disappeared. But even in highly inflected tongues this test is not applicable in cases where a preposition is used before an indeclinable word or combination of words. And that such difference could not arise before the flection had arisen, is self-evident.