Introduction to the study of the history of language
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE STANDARD LANGUAGE.
In all modern civilised countries, we find, side by side with numerous dialects, a standard language, professing to stand aloof from all dialects, and to represent what may be called the classical form of the language. This standard language is in fact an abstraction, an ideal, a supreme court of language prescribing rules to be followed in the case of each language. It bears the same kind of relationship to the actual processes active in language, as a particular code of laws to the aggregate of all the cases in any district in which that code is applied; or of a definite dogmatic text-book to the religious practices and faiths of all the individuals of a community confessing the particular faith embodied in that book.
Such a standard language as we have described,--as it does not result from the various processes natural to the life of language,--necessarily differs from language in general by its fixity; wherever a change takes place in a standard language, the element of consciousness is more clearly present than in the ordinary changes of language. Not that a standard is absolutely all-foreseeing in its provisions, or can claim to decide on the entirety of the cases for which it gives the example. A code of law, in the same way, or a confession of faith, may be liable to several interpretations, and may not cover some of the cases which come under its purview. Besides this, we must always take into account the possible lack of intelligence on the part of those who ought to act up to its provisions; and, again, the feeling which must set in from time to time, that many of the provisions of the code are obsolete, owing to fresh moral or economical views which may have become current since it was drawn up. When such a feeling has set in strongly, the code is commonly altered to suit the demands of the day. Just so the standard language may, and indeed must, alter from time to time; but its alterations are, like those of the code, adopted designedly, or at all events with much more consciousness than those which set into the ordinary course of language.
This standard language is, speaking generally, the language of a certain restricted circle in an entire community--most commonly, as in England, the language of the best-educated classes. The standard language may be settled in two different ways: (1) by spoken language; (2) by written authorities. Supposing that a standard language is to result from a spoken language, it is necessary that the persons who are regarded as authorities should be in continuous and full communication with each other, in order to keep the standard as consistent as possible. Sometimes we find a particular town or district cited as speaking the language which is quoted as the standard. Thus it is common to quote Hanover, in Germany, and Tours in France, as places where the purest German and French are heard. But it is clear that, even assuming the correctness of such model towns or districts, none but the better-educated classes even of those districts can be looked upon as likely to maintain the standard language in its purity. In England, the standard language can be defined in no other way than as the language of the well-educated classes, who make it their object to speak alike, and to exclude abnormal or dialectic variations from the standard language. In France, besides the appeal to the usage of the educated, there is the further tribunal of the Academy, whose verdict is final upon all questions of literary taste and diction. In Germany, the language which must be taken as the standard language is not that of any town or district, but the purely artificial language employed on the German stage in serious drama. This language forms a very interesting and remarkable example of a standard language which is consciously maintained as the most effective medium of communication for a nation which is more divided into dialects than most other European nations. The stage language of Germany is maintained by a continuous and careful training, based on a knowledge of the science of phonetics. The objects aimed at by the actors have been twofold: in the first place, it was necessary to practise an eclecticism in the choice of their language, which should succeed in making it intelligible to the largest number of German speakers: in the next place, beauty and grace could not be left out of consideration. Hence a fixed norm had to be settled on and maintained, as it is plain that a consistent pronunciation maintained unchanged is a main factor in promoting intelligibility. Again, inconsistency in pronunciation is practically the admission of dialectical peculiarities: and such peculiarities at once suggest characterisation where none would be in place. Those points, then, in the varying dialects, were alone selected for this normal language which seemed more conducive to clearness. Sounds and intonations peculiar to any dialect were admitted into the standard language if they contributed to this result. Syllables which had come, in the course of time, to be slurred over on account of their light stress were reinstated in the integrity of their original sounds. The orthography was made to aid in the reconstruction of the pronunciation. Such studied straining after clearness must necessarily prevent the stage language from passing into a colloquial language. Its very clearness would savour of a stilted affectation. But, with all its rigidness and precision, the stage language still exercises some influence upon the sounds of the colloquial language--considerably more than that exercised by any particular dialect. But its form is to a large extent poetical; indeed, it receives much of its language ready made from the poets.
As we stated above, in the case of our own language the only normal standard that we are able to point to as the purest English is that commonly spoken among educated people. In this case it is obvious that the agreement between the different classes who aim at maintaining the norm can be at best but an imperfect one. Each class of educated men will have a tendency to fall into certain peculiarities of speech which will mark them off in some degree from all others. The language of the bar is not quite that of the army. The language of the Church differs from that of both. The language of the educated in England, however,--in other words, the language of those who aim at following the _norm_,--agrees in one respect, that in all an emancipation from _dialect_ is aimed at, and, to a large extent, attained. This result is largely owing to the fact that in England the better-educated classes are in the habit of sending their sons to be educated out of their own dialectical district, and the result is that they come into contact, at an early period of their lives, with companions whose language is characterised either by different dialectical peculiarities from their own, or by an absence of any. But even so it must always be remembered that those who speak their language in its greatest purity, _i.e._ with the greatest absence of dialectical peculiarities, are subject to the changes which mark all language and are an inseparable concomitant of its existence.
But there is another means whereby a standard or common language may become fixed, and may come to serve as the normal or ideal language of the speakers of any given language. This means is the reduction of such normal language to writing. The reduction of the standard language to writing renders it independent of those who speak it, and enables it to be transmitted unchanged to the following generations. It further permits the standard language to spread without direct intercourse. Of course, the influence of a written language upon dialects is much more powerful upon the material than upon the phonetic side. A Scotch peasant may read a page of the _Times_ every day, and, if he reads it aloud to his family, the absence of Scotticisms will act powerfully upon the younger generation, and to a certain extent upon himself. But he will probably continue to pronounce the standard language in much the same way as his native dialect.
It is possible to make strict rules for the maintenance of a written language, by adhering to the usage of definite grammars and dictionaries, or of particular authors, and admitting no other authorities. This happens when, for instance, modern Latinists aim at reproducing the style of Cicero, like Mr. Keble in his celebrated Prælectiones. But if so-called purity of style and expression be gained by this process, surely far more is lost. The author writing under such restrictions must necessarily lose much of his power of original expression, and must find himself very much cramped in his vocabulary. In fact, writing at a period when the whole character of the civilisation has changed from that of his model’s epoch, he will find himself at a loss for words to express his most common conceptions.
The fact is that a written language, in order to live and be effectual, must change with the changing times, and admit into itself words and methods of expression which have become usual among those for whom it is to serve as the model. It may maintain a conservative influence by refusing to admit such words and expressions too hastily; but it must allow of no absolute barriers to their ingress. Modern Latin, in the shape of the Romance languages, has survived, and has proved adequate to the expression of modern thought; but in its ancient form, it has died out as a living language; and the fair dream of the Humanists that the tongue of Cicero might serve as the medium of communication to all civilised Europe was destined to pass away unrealised, from the simple fact that they insisted too strongly that this tongue should be exclusively modelled upon that of Cicero himself.
A literary language which has emancipated itself from its models must, of course, become less regular as time goes on, and each individual who employs it introduces into it some of his own peculiarities of idiom. But it need not split up into varieties geographically situated, as must needs be the case under similar circumstances with spoken language. For instance, the English written in America is much more like the English written in England than is the dialect spoken in Cornwall like that spoken in Yorkshire. Sound-change, of course, under our present alphabetic system remains wholly undenoted. Inflections, word-significations, and syntax are of course exposed to change, but to a less extent than in the spoken language. Such a word as _bug_ may have retained its older significance of insect in America, and have been specialised in England; but the word is written in the same way in the two countries alike. Similarly, _will_ and _shall_ may be exchanged, or one of these used to the exclusion of the other; but they will remain spelt in the same way. Besides this, it must be remembered that the so-called classical models in any language will always continue to exert a large influence upon those who write in it; and this will always be an influence antagonistic to change.
The method whereby a standard language may best secure the greatest possible agreement over the largest possible area, and may join to this agreement the necessary adaptation to the changed circumstances of civilisation, is by keeping to the ancient models in syntax and accidence, and by allowing, at the same time, a certain freedom in the creation of new words, and in the application of new significations to old ones.
Our great national languages are at once literary and colloquial, and hence they possess a standard literary language and a standard colloquial pronunciation and vocabulary. The problem is how to keep those two languages in harmony. The colloquial language is, of the two, as we have seen, liable to change in its phonetic conditions--a change to which the written language is not so much exposed. It is therefore obvious that the more a language changes phonetically, the less will it be represented by the written language; and it is also plain that in a language like English, whose spelling is so very far from phonetic, the discrepancy between the written and spoken language may go so far that the former may cease to exert much, if any, influence upon the latter. To remedy this state of things, phonetic alphabets have been drawn up, and various reforms in spelling have been recommended from time to time, in order to bring the written into harmony with the spoken language.
The more that the natural language of each individual departs from the standard language, the more will he naturally regard the standard language as something foreign; the effect of this will often be that, as the discrepancies between his natural dialect and the standard language are more clearly felt, he will make a more conscious effort to seize and get over those differences. Thus, in the border counties of Wales, or of the Highlands, a more correct _literary_ English is spoken than in many English counties.
The different individual dialects of any country, _i.e._ the forms of language used by each individual, are constantly changing their position in respect to the norm, or standard written language. On the one hand, the natural changes incident to all language are always tending to alienate these from the norm; on the other, the conscious and artificial efforts made to approximate the individual language to the norm are constantly in play side by side with the other tendency. The main method whereby this conscious approximation is effected is, in the first place, the instruction given in civilised countries at school; and, in this case, the standard language, or an approximation to it, is learnt at the same time as the language of the district. But the dialect of each individual’s home cannot fail to influence largely his acquisition of the standard language. England, as before remarked, forms an exception to most other countries in this respect, that many children are brought up comparatively free from the dialect spoken in their geographical area.
But, when all is said, there remains to be taken into account the difference in each individual’s pronunciation, and his greater or less capacity for assimilating the difference between the artificial dialect and his own. These considerations will always operate as powerful solvents of the integrity of a standard language.
It must further be noticed that the stock of words and their meanings, as well as inflections and syntax of the artificial or standard language, are constantly being recruited from the natural language. Instances in point would be the different Scotch words, such as _ne’er-do-weel_, adopted into standard English. Where the same word occurs both in the natural and the artificial language, it sometimes happens that both words are preserved in the latter; sometimes with a differentiation of meaning and sometimes without; instances are _birch_, _church_, _shred_, as distinct from the Northern _birk_, _kirk_, _screed_. It will thus be seen that the colloquial language which serves as the model of each individual is itself a compromise between the strict normal language and the home dialect.
In the second place, the artificial language affects the natural language by supplying it with words and inflections in which it is deficient. Such terms would naturally be such as the artificial language is more fitted to supply. No dialect throughout Britain is free from such influence as that described.
In the third place, it should be observed that when persons speak an artificial and a natural language side by side, the use of the former spreads at the expense of the latter. The artificial language was originally confined to writing, and was employed as a means of communication with persons speaking a strange dialect. Once established as an official channel of communication, it has a tendency to spread to all literature, and gradually to private correspondence. And this is easy to understand, seeing that the young generation generally learns to read and write from written records, and that it is obviously easier to accept a form of orthography made ready to our hand than to invent a system of orthography which shall be applicable to other dialects besides one’s own.
When the artificial language has once become the fashion, then, and not till then, will the employment of dialect seem a mark of want of culture. There are many countries still in which the most educated persons are not ashamed to speak in their natural dialect. This is the case, for instance, in Switzerland and in Greece at the present day, and, to a less extent perhaps, in Scotland. It is therefore a mistake to suppose that the natural language must necessarily be deemed inferior or more vulgar than the artificial. It is, in fact, the necessity for the employment of the artificial language which causes it to be universally adopted.
We have now briefly to consider under what circumstances a common language becomes established. It seems to be certain that no common language would have arisen without some necessity for its appearance; and that necessity arose from the fact of the different dialects into which any linguistic area must naturally be split up becoming so far alienated from each other as to be reciprocally unintelligible, and, of course, the difficulty of comprehension would be greater in the case of dialects, geographically more widely separated, than in the case of those spoken by neighbouring people. Indeed, the wider the area over which a common language spreads, and the more numerous the dialects which it embraces, the more successful does it commonly turn out. Good instances of this truth are afforded by the Greek κοινή, and in that of the Latin language in its spread over the Romance-speaking areas.
We assume, then, in the first instance, the necessity felt for a common language, before such is called into existence. It is further an indispensable preliminary that a certain degree of intercourse, whether literary, commercial, or otherwise, should exist between the areas, however distant they may be, which are to partake of the common language. It might seem natural to suppose that as soon as, and whenever any certain given number of dialects had reached a certain degree of difference from each other, there would naturally be evolved a common language which would suffice for their needs. But, as a matter of fact, we do not find this to be the case. The common language sometimes develops between two or more areas possessing dialects less nearly related to each other, more readily than between similar areas linguistically nearer related, supposing that there are special circumstances to favour the development. In some cases political circumstances may effect this, as where a common dialect for Germany was called into being on the basis of a common German nationality. As a contrast to this, we may take the case of Polish and Czechish, which are, linguistically speaking, more nearly related than High and Low German, and which yet, as in the main belonging to different political areas, have no necessity for a common language, and have therefore never created one.
If a common language has once established itself in a large area, it is rare for another common language to arise for a portion only of that area. Thus a Provençal common language would be an impossibility in the face of the powerful French which has spread over the greater part of France. Again, a common language can hardly arise for any large area whose single parts have already some common language which suffices for their needs. This may be seen in the failure of the Panslavists to create a common language in an area already occupied by Polish, Servian, etc. No example of this fact can be drawn from England.
The introduction of printing is a powerful aid to the extension of a common language. Thanks to the invention of printing, a written record can quickly be communicated to a large linguistic area in the shape given to it by the author, and an impulse is likewise given to studying what is presented to readers in such an attractive and commodious guise. But it is necessary that the alphabet employed should be identical for all the people in the linguistic area in question; and, of course, the language expressed by that alphabet must be widely understood over that area.
It should further be noticed that a common language must, generally speaking, be based upon an existing dialect, and that this dialect then modifies itself to suit the demands of the different dialectic areas which demand the common language. Thus, Luther expressly tells us that he based his translation of the Bible upon the dialect of the Saxon Chancellery: Modern French is based upon the dialect of the Ile de France: Chaucer chose the London dialect as the most appropriate for his purpose. Such cases as the modern attempts to form a common language in the instance of Volapük, etc., have been but partially successful; there was no strong existing basis upon which to found them.
It must be assumed as a necessity to the success of any common language, that there are a number of persons compelled by circumstances to make themselves acquainted with one or more foreign dialects. This may be brought about by the demands of commerce, or from the fact that the persons in question are compelled to live in the foreign linguistic area, and to employ its tongue. We can see the operation of these causes in such cases as the creation of such a _lingua franca_ as Pigeon English, which arises not merely from the fact that the English and Chinese who use it as a vehicle of communication are ignorant of each other’s language, but further from the fact that the Chinese who employ it speak dialects so different as to be partially or wholly unintelligible to each other. Similar remarks hold good of the Spanish in South America,--which is learned by Italian immigrants speaking different dialects, and serves as a _lingua franca_ to them. But even when such _lingua franca_, or common language, has been formed, it is liable in its turn to further development. It may be influenced, for example, by the more perfect acquisition of the standard language on the part of those who use the dialect based upon it as a common language; as is probably the case with the Pigeon English spoken by the Japanese: or, by the adoption into the common language of an increasing number of words from the vocabulary of those who are gradually allowing their own dialects to be superseded by the common language.
Supposing, however, that a special dialect has been selected as the model for a standard language, even in civilised countries, we must not assume that it is possible to adopt it as the actual and pure model. The model dialects cannot fail to be influenced by the dialect of the special speaker or writer, and in many cases this mixture may make itself very prominent. This is especially seen, perhaps, in the case of literature which, like journals and periodicals, is intended mainly to circulate in the special dialectic area. Thus, for instance, Americanisms, Scotticisms, and Hibernicisms, are more common in the newspaper press of America, Scotland, and Ireland than in the standard literature published in those countries. Again, the dialect, on which the model or normal language was based, will, from the very nature of language, change more rapidly than the normal language itself, which must from its nature be more conservative; so that here, again, a discrepancy cannot fail to set in between the dialect and the model language. The truth of this may be well seen in the changes which have passed over the London dialect in comparatively recent times. The habit of omitting the aspirate, or, as we say, dropping the _h_, seems to be quite a recent development in English,[219] and to have spread probably at the end of the last century. Dickens’ Londoners frequently drop their aspirates: and he seems to be the first writer who makes his characters do this on a large scale. On the other hand, the _ven_ and _vy_ of his characters are hardly now heard in London.
And thus the artificial language, if it extend over a large area, becomes differentiated into dialects more or less strongly marked, in much the same way as the natural language within a particular district. Probably English is the language in which this fact can be noticed more easily and on a wider scale than in the case of any other language, from the fact that the areas of English-speaking races are so widely separated in many cases; and all isolation must tend to strengthen the power of the dialect as against the artificial language. So-called Americanisms, for instance, may be older forms of the English language retained by the American dialect and lost by the English. On the other hand, they may be new importations into the standard or model language from the colloquial language, or from some dialect. These Americanisms, again, spread to such English-speaking countries as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand more readily and quickly than they do to England. Consequently, the artificial language, in spite of its tendency to conservatism, is manifestly changing in the different English-speaking areas, although the change is not, of course, as great or as quick in its fulfilment as that which comes to pass in the development of dialects in the area of a definite territory.
It is, of course, possible to arrest to some extent the change in an artificial language by the influence of academies, who shall authoritatively decide upon the permissibility or otherwise of the use of a certain word or phrase; but under normal circumstances the involuntary development which we have spoken of is characteristic of a standard language as well as of language in general.
A single linguistic area may, under the proper conditions, develop a duality or even a plurality of standards, though instances of the entire co-ordination of two different standards are, in the history of language, very rare. The classical example for the duality of standard is offered by the linguistic conditions in Greece during the period between 250 and 50 B.C. Two types of normalised or standard language, neither of them corresponding exactly to any one folk-dialect, and each of them almost entirely uninfluenced by the other, asserted their pre-eminence over the folk-dialects in two distinct districts. The one, which we may call ‘Eastern Greek’ or the Attic κοινή, was based upon the Attic dialect; the other, which we may call ‘Western Greek,’ was based upon the Laconian. The former was the language of those political and commercial interests that centred about the Ægean; the latter, of those that centred about the Gulf of Corinth. The former represented the new cosmopolitan spirit of Hellenism, the latter the conservative and provincial spirit that had its political expression in the Achæan and Ætolian leagues.
Here, as elsewhere, the levelling of the peculiarities of provincial speech in the interest of a standard language represents and corresponds to a levelling of provincial barriers in the interest of a unitary civilisation, and under the impulse of great common movements of commercial intercourse, political organisation, or religious thought, and the appearance of two areas of levelling in language betrays the existence of two areas of common commercial, political, literary, or religious interest. The division of German Protestantism into the Lutheran and Swiss wings, coupled with political distinctions, availed to maintain for a long time, even in the printed form, a Swiss standard of German, as distinguished from the so-called Modern High German.
To be distinguished from the cases of duality or plurality of standard are those of _complexity_ of standard. A portion of a linguistic area, which recognises in general outlines, or in the most essential characteristics, the common standard of the whole, may develop inside these limits a secondary standard of its own, which, in its turn, asserts itself as a unifying influence above the disparities of the popular dialects. Such is the status of the American-English, if indeed it be admitted that there be any American standard at all. The wide disagreement upon this latter much-mooted question arises largely from a failure to recognise what the true nature of a standard in language is. In the light of the preceding discussion, and by the help of the abundant available material, it cannot be difficult to reach some consistent solution of this question.
The attitude of the extremists on the one side is well represented by the dictum of Richard Grant White:[220] ‘In language whatever is peculiarly American is bad.’ In other words, the absolute test of correctness is the English standard, which is notably the usage of the educated classes in the great centre of English life. It must, however, be remarked, at the beginning of any discussion of this sort, that the question concerns not what ought to be or might best be, but what is the fact. If it be actually the fact that any considerable body of men, whose usage, be it through respect for their culture, their intelligence, or their position, or for any other reason, commands the deference of the great mass of American speakers and writers, follows so loyally the English standard as to regard as bad in language all that is peculiarly American, then it is the _fact_ that there is no such thing as an American standard in language. There is, then, only one standard English speech, and that the standard of London.
There exists, however, in America no educated or cultured class in the English sense. The educated stand nearer the people than in England. The children of the better classes are, furthermore, not so easily isolated from the influence of the dialect of their locality as in England. Certainly there exists in general no class with which the popular mind associates the idea of authority in matters of speech, nor whose speech is respected or admired as correct. The class of men most likely to be imitated and most likely to exercise an unconscious influence upon the usages of society is the intelligent mercantile class, but this is not a permanent or well-defined body. Certainly it is not a body likely to follow puristically a foreign standard of speech.
It is in part this absence of a homogeneous usage among the more intelligent and influential classes, such as undoubtedly exists in England, that occasions the apparently immoderate use of dictionaries in America as standards of orthoëpy. So various is the usage in the pronunciation even of many common words, like _quinine_, _courteous_, _envelope_, _tribune_, _route_, _suite_, _wound_, that the ear in its confusion of impressions fails to decide definitely, and recourse must be had to the dictionaries. It is most frequently in cases of doubt like these that appeal is made to the greater certainty of the English standard. It plays the part of a convenient arbiter. This differs entirely in principle from an attempt, for example, to introduce the totally non-American pronunciation of _trait_ with silent _t_ final, or of _bureau_ with accent on the second syllable.
No single district or city in America ever has been or can be generally recognised as furnishing a standard of speech. Washington is in no such sense the capital of the United States as Paris is of France; New York is not a metropolis in the sense that London is. Eastern Massachusetts, with its chief city Boston, enjoys a certain preëminence in the superior education and intelligence of its people; but its local idiom, like the general spirit of its population, is too strongly provincial to attract any imitation. In fact, nowhere in the United States have the schools and all their adjuncts made more vigorous efforts to root out the popular dialect, and nowhere does the English standard receive so full recognition. The situation furnishes a tolerably exact parallel to the rigidity of Hanoverian German, an imported standard on Low German soil, and constitutes a further illustration of the well-known orthodoxy of recent converts. The schools of Boston teach the ultra-English pronunciation of _been_ as _bīn_, while the native dialect has _běn_, and the American κοινή, has extended to general use the secondary form _bĭn_.[221]
The stage is not yet in a position to exercise any marked influence upon the language, to say nothing of furnishing a standard. The influence of the pulpit is probably greater.
But though neither the stage, an educated class, nor any given locality has availed to vindicate for itself the right of establishing a standard, it is an incontrovertible fact that, within certain limits and to a certain extent, an American standard of English does exist. There is a great number of words, of word usages, of pronunciations, of phrases, and of syntactical constructions, which have, though not recognised in English usage, a universal and well-accepted currency among the best writers and speakers of America, and rise entirely above all suspicion of provincialism. To avoid or rebuke them, or to attempt the substitution of pure English words or expressions would be only an ostentatious purism unsupported by the facts of society and the necessities of language, and would expose the would-be corrector even to ridicule and to the reproach of alienism. As has already been remarked, we are not concerned in a case like this with the ideally desirable, but solely with the existing fact. On no other basis can the existence of a standard be determined. If, for example, any one should, in deference to English usage, assume to correct an established and universally accepted American expression like _railroad car_, which a well-known poet[222] has thought worthy a place in serious verse, into its foreign equivalent _railway carriage_, it would be generally regarded as an odious affectation. The relatively few Americans who, without any sufficient reason, but in a spirit of undisguised and helpless imitation, affect to adopt English manners, usages, and dress, are as a class notably unpopular with the mass of Americans, and, as unpopular, are uninfluential. What is true of their other usages, would be in like degree of their language.
To illustrate from the vocabulary alone, there is a large and constantly increasing body of non-English words, which are used in all sections of the country, which are shunned by no class of writers or speakers, but which are universally used and esteemed as sound and normal expressions. Such are _lengthy_, _to donate_, _to loan_, _to gerrymander_, _dutiable_, _gubernatorial_, _senatorial_, _bogus_, _shoddy_, _mailable_; these are slowly penetrating into the English of England, and the path of such words is rendered plainer by their previous adoption in the British Colonies, whose linguistic history is so akin to that of America. Many words of this kind are of French, Spanish, Dutch, or Indian origin, but have been so thoroughly assimilated into the language by usage as to rank entirely with the purest English element; thus _levee_, _crevasse_, _prairie_, _canyon_, _ranch_, _stampede_, _to stampede_, _corral_, _boss_, _stoop_, _squaw_, _wigwam_, _hickory_, _racoon_, _moccasin_, _hammock_, _canoe_, _toboggan_, _hominy_, _opossum_, _terrapin_.
In determining the existence of a standard and what may belong to that standard, we are in no wise concerned with the _origin_ of words or expressions. It is not a question of origin, but a question of usage and of ‘good form.’ The observation that _to guess_, in its sense of ‘opinari,’ is found in Chaucer and Gower, contributes nothing to either side of the discussion whether there is or is not an American standard. The only question is whether _guess_, ‘opinari,’ is in universal and accepted American use. The fact is, that, though in widely extended use, it still remains dialectic, and is not a feature of the standard. The word _fall_ for _autumn_ may in isolated instances be found in English writers, and is undoubtedly with some meaning or other a good old English word, but the fact is, that, as a substitute for _autumn_, it is not ‘good form’ in England, and is in America. _Spry_, ‘active, nimble,’ is an ‘Americanism,’ because, though found in the English dialects, it is a standard word only in America. The American use of _sick_, in retaining the old English value now expressed by the modern English _ill_, vindicates rather than controverts the existence of a separate standard. Differences in the uses of words common to the two types are illustrated by the following: _lumber_, in English, ‘cumbersome material;’ in American, equivalent also to English _timber_: _tiresome_, in English, ‘dull, annoying;’ in American, ‘fatiguing,’ as ‘a tiresome day:’ _to fix_, in English (and sometimes also in American), ‘to fasten;’ in American, ‘to repair,’ ‘to arrange:’ _corn_, in English, ‘grain;’ in American, ‘maize:’ _transpire_, in English, ‘to exhale,’ ‘to become public;’ in American, ‘to occur:’ _bright_, in English, (of persons) ‘cheerful;’ in American, ‘quick of intellect.’ Cases in which the two standards use different words for the same idea or object are, Amer. _piazza_, Eng. _verandah_; Amer. _bureau_, Eng. _dressing-table_; Amer. _elevator_, Eng. _lift_; Amer. _sleigh_, Eng. _sledge_; Amer. _trunk_, Eng. _box_; Amer. _store_, Eng. _shop_; Amer. _public schools_, Eng. _national schools_; Amer. _academies_, Eng. _public schools_; Amer. _to graduate_, Eng. _to take a degree_; Amer. _student_, Eng. _undergraduate_; Amer. _druggist_, Eng. _chemist_. Amer. _mush_, Eng. _porridge_; Amer. _biscuit_, Eng. _roll_; Amer. _cracker_, Eng. _biscuit_; Amer. _candy_, or _confectionery_, Eng. _sweets_; Amer. _pitcher_, Eng. _jug_; Amer. _tidy_, Eng. _antimacassar_; Amer. _postal_, or _postal-card_, Eng. _post-card_; Amer. _city_, Eng. _town_; Amer. _fall_, Eng. _autumn_; Amer. _sick_, Eng. _ill_; Amer. _rare_ (of meat), Eng. _underdone_; Amer. _smart_, Eng. _clever_. Many articles of clothing, especially men’s clothing, have different names. Thus, Amer. _vest_, Eng. _waistcoat_; Amer. _sack-coat_, Eng. _jacket_; Amer. _pants_, Eng. _trousers_; Amer. _drawers_, Eng. _pants_; Amer. _underwear_, Eng. _underclothing_; Amer. _waist_, Eng. _body_, _bodice_; etc., etc.
Especially instructive it is to note how special activities, particularly those of more modern development, have found themselves in England and America separate vocabularies. Let us take for illustration the language of railways and railway travel: compare Amer. _locomotive_, Eng. _engine_ (also American); Amer. _engineer_, Eng. _driver_; Amer. _fireman_, Eng. _stoker_ (limited in America to steamships); Amer. _conductor_, Eng. _guard_; Amer. _baggage-car_, Eng. _van_; Amer. _railroad_, Eng. _railway_; Amer. _car_, Eng. _carriage_; Amer. _cars_ (as ‘to get off the cars’), Eng. _train_ (also American); Amer. _track_, Eng. _line_; Amer. _to switch_, Eng. _to shunt_; Amer. _switch_, Eng. _point_; Amer. _to buy one’s ticket_ (not unknown in England), Eng. _to book_; Amer. _freight-train_, Eng. _goods-train_; Amer. _depot_ (pronounced de̅e̅´po), Eng. _station_ (gaining ground in America); Amer. _baggage_, Eng. _luggage_; Amer. _trunk_, Eng. _box_; Amer. _to check_, Eng. _to register_; Amer. _horse-car_, Eng. _tram_ or _tram-car_; Amer. _horse-car track_, Eng. _tramway_. The Americans adhere to a nautical figure, and speak of ‘getting _aboard_ the cars.’
American political life has developed also a vocabulary of its own. Some of these words have gained a limited currency in England, but are mostly felt still to be importations. Such political Americanisms are _caucus_, _stump_, _to stump_, _filibuster_, _federalist_, _senatorial_, _gubernatorial_, _copperheads_, _knownothings_, _carpetbaggers_, _mass-meeting_, _buncombe_, _to gerrymander_, _to lobby_, _mileage_ (as a money-allowance for travelling), _wire-puller_, etc.
Many words have received derived or special meanings which have become established in general and unquestioned usage: thus, _locality_, ‘a place;’ _notions_, ‘small wares;’ _clearing_, ‘a cleared place in the forest;’ _squatter_, ‘one who settles on another’s land;’ whereas in Australia the latter word has developed into the special meaning of one who rents a large area of government land on which to depasture sheep.
Vastly more important for our purpose than these mere differences of vocabulary are those differences in phrases and turns of expression, which, as subtler and less noticeable to the ordinary hearer and reader, are less open to superficial imitation. Compare American _quarter of five_ with English _quarter to five_ (also American, but less common than the former); Amer. _lives on West Street_, Eng. _lives in West Street_; Amer. _sick abed_, Eng. _ill in bed_; Amer. _that’s entirely too_, Eng. _that’s much too_; Amer. _back and forth_, Eng. _to and fro_; Amer. _there’s nothing to him_, Eng. _there’s nothing in him_; Amer. _named after_, Eng. _named for_ (also American); Amer. _it don’t amount to anything_, Eng. _come to_; Amer. _fill teeth_, Eng. _stop teeth_; Amer. _walking_; _lying around_, Eng. _walking about_; Amer. _are you through?_ Eng. _have you finished?_ Amer. _that’s too bad_, Eng. _what a pity_ (also American); Amer. _as soon as_ (also Eng.), Eng. _directly_ (‘directly he arrives’), Amer. _right away_, Eng. _directly_, _straight away_; Amer. _once in a while_, Eng. _now and then_; Amer. _quite a while_, Eng. _some time_; Amer. _go to town_, or _go into the city_, Eng. _go up_; Amer. _takes much pleasure in accepting_, Eng. _has much pleasure_; Amer. _have a good time_, Eng. _to enjoy one’s self_ (also American).
It is not totally without significance that American usage has established and confirmed a standard of orthography that is in some few points divergent from the English: thus _honor_, _honour_; _wagon_, _waggon_; _check_, _cheque_; _traveler_, _traveller_; _center_, _centre_; _by-law_, _bye-law_; _jewelry_, _jewellery_, etc.
Much that in English usage is approved and standard sounds to American ears strange and outlandish. The English use of _nasty_, for example, is to the American, with whom it implies the quintessence of dirtiness, distinctly abhorrent and all but disgusting: even more may be said of the semi-colloquialisms _knocked up_, ‘tired,’ and _screwed_, ‘intoxicated;’ while, e.g., _haberdasher_ and _purveyor_ are as good as foreign words.
The possession of a common literature holds the two languages strongly together, and assures a narrow limit to the possibilities of divergence. It is only within this limit that the American standard exists. Freedom of trade and intercourse, that has come with the building of railways and especially since the close of the civil war, is rapidly replacing the local idioms with a normal type of speech, and it is upon the common usage in the chief centres and along the chief avenues of commercial activity and national life that this normal type is based. It corresponds to no one of the local dialects, but stands above them all; it corresponds in the main with the English standard, but maintains a limited independence within the scope of certain modern and special activities of American life.
INDEX
_The numbers refer to the pages._
A
À (Fr.), 237
A (indefinite article), 183
Aau, aautch, (interjection,) 163
Ablaut. See _Gradation_.
About, 336
Absente (preposition), 210
Abstract _v._ concrete, 45, 52; sentences, 98
Academy, 390
Accent, effect of, 208, 338; vacillation of, in loan-words, 388. See also _Stress_.
Accusativus, meaning of the word, 392; general force of, 128, 130; ‘free,’ 129; ‘attached,’ 129; ‘cognate,’ 129; of space, 129; of time, 129; predicative, 130; of direction, 130, 308; after compound verbs, 131; accusative with infinitive, 215, 281; accusative with infinitive after _licet_, 292; verbs with double, 281
Acetum (Lat.), 31
Ach (Ger.), 32
Ache (substantive and verb), 144
Action of the human mind conscious and unconscious. See _Mind_.
Açvas (Sans.), 65
Adder, 283
Adjective, general category of, 343; used as substantive, 207, 348; denoting action with dependent case, 355; used with adverbial force, 359; French, in _f_, 39; theory to explain origin of, variable, 239; as psychological predicate, 274; as psychological subject, 274; predicatival (gramm.), 280; as grammatical predicate, 290; indefinite, 104. See also _Substantive_.
Adverbs, origin of, 358; in _e_ (A.S.), 224; adverbial genitives, 175, 177; adverbial expressions, 176; adverbial _s_, 216; without corresponding adjective, 360; some developed in meaning independently of corresponding adjective, 180; _v._ conjunctions, 344
Æftermest, 145
Æschylus _v._ Aischulos, 390
After: ‘I am after going,’ 392
Aftermost, 145
Aftumists (Goth.), 145
Agan, 11
Aged, agèd, 236
Aïeuls, aïeux (Fr.), 235
Aigin (Goth.), 189
Aiws (Goth.), 201
Albeit, 211
Alderman, 319
Alopecy, 390
Alphabet, origin of, 368; imperfect, 5, 366; phonetic, 370
Also, as, 236
Altogether, 325
Always, 325
Amant (Fr.), 232
Amends, 250
American usages and vocabulary contrasted with English, 416
Amicissimus, 347
Amid (adverb), 358
Anagramme (Fr.), gender, 245
Analogy, 11, ch. v.; ‘false,’ 83; produces normal as well as abnormal forms, 83; combined with original creation, 165; influence on spelling, 378; influence of change in function on, ch. xii.; _v._ phonetic development, 182
Analysis. See _Grammatical_, and _Sentence_.
And, copulative combinations with, 328
Anecdotage, 143
Anothergaines, 143
Ἀπὸ κοινοῦ, 305
Aposiopesis, 312
Appas, appâts, (Fr.), 235
Apposition, source of concord, 300. See also _Relative clause_.
Ardeo (Lat.), 211
Arm, 65, 193
Article, pleonastic use of, 156; omitted in prepositional phrases, 176
As, 236, 274, 344; ‘as good as,’ 335
Ascian, axian, 38
Ass, 62
Assiette (Fr.), 388
Assimilation, 35, 38; of final and initial consonants, 337
Association between memory pictures of sound and of position, its nature, 26
Attacher, attaquer, (Fr.), 232
Attributes, degraded predicates, 114; predicative, 117; in the vocative, 298
Auburn, 57
Auger, 318, 338
Autrui (Fr.), 251
Awfully, 180
B
Babble, 212
Backbite, 206
Backslide, 333
Bahuvrîhi compounds, 339
Bait, 49
Ball, 57
Band (Ger.), 234, 235
Bandog, 317, 338
Bang, 163
Bank (Ger.), 235
Bar, 56
Barley-corn, 66
Barn, 317
Bask, 266
Baudet (Fr.), 67
Bay, 57, 62
Be (verb), as copula, 279
Beast, 243
Become--make, 265
Bed, 66
Before, 344
Beggar, 179
Behalf, on my, 148
Bein (Ger.), 68
Belfry, 197
Belly, 66
Berstan (A.S.), 88
Bescheiden-beschieden (Ger.), 232
Best, 35
Biche (Fr.), 388
Billy-ruffan, 198
Birch-birk, 403
Bird, 38, 63
Bishop-dom, -ric, 317, 338
Bitter, 57
Blackguard, 337
Blae, 57
Blavo (Span.), 57
Blood, 58
Blue, 57
Board, 49
Bogus, 414
Bond-bondage, 196
Boom, 163
Boss, 415
Botany and its terms applied to express relationship of languages, 13
Bound, 194
Bourgogne, 274
Bourn, 38
Böse (Ger.), 237
Both ... and, 282
Box, 48
Bracci, braccia, 235
Breadth, 182
Breakfast, 205
Brebis (Fr.), (gender), 244
Brid, 38
Bridal, 317
Bride, 38
Bridegroom, 317
Bright, 416
Brimstone, 320
Brock, 65
Bron (Dutch), brunnen (Ger.), 38
Broom, 49
Brother, 173, 235
Bug, 401
Bull, 49
Bur, 339
Burgher, 64
Burn, 38
Burst, 88
Burthen, 143
Busk, 266
Butler, 64, note
Butter (verb), 65
Butterfly, 329
By, 139
Bye-law, 50
C
Cackle, 165
Cadedis (Gasc.), 162
Call, construction of to, 288
Can (verb), 28, 275
Canadian French, 382
Canoe, 415
Canon, 49
Cantata, 231
Canyon, 415
Caput (Lat.), 66
Car (Fr.), 214
Carelessness of utterance, 8
Carousal, 196
Cases, 127. See under various names of cases.
Castra (Lat.), 250
Categories in grammar, 3; artificial, 7; psychological and grammatical, ch. xv.; how arrived at, 343
Caterwaul, 320
Causatives, 265
Cause (Fr.), 232
Causes of change in language, how they operate, 8; of sound-change, 34
_Ch_ in French loan-words from Latin, 387
Chaire, chaise, (Fr.), 233
Champagne, campaign, 389
Change in language, causes of, 8; classification of, 11; change in meaning, 10, ch. iv.; change in function, influence on analogical formation, ch. xii.; change in function does not always entail change in form, 210. See also _Sound-change_, _Meaning_, _Usage_, _Differentiation_, _Development_.
Chaperon, 385
Cherry, 86
Chess, 383
Chiefly, mainly, 237
Child’s language, 60; how acquired, 36; its influence, 17
Chinee, 86
Chit-chat, 164
Chose (Fr.), 232
Church--kirk, 403
Classes and species, nothing but abstractions, 14
Classification, when and how far rational, 14
Clean, 57
Climate, influence of, 8
Cloths, clothes, 235
Coach, 49
Cock, 57
Collective nouns, 247
Color, colour, 389
Combination of ideas, the means whereby language expresses, 92
Comparative, formation of, 79, 199; double, 154; for positive, 154; and superlative in German, 334; ditto in Sanscrit, 346, note.
Comparison of development of language with that of species, how far correct, 13; how far incorrect, 16
Complex sentences, 119
Component parts of ‘derived words’ not present in their original form, 341
Composition, illustrated and classified, 316
Compound verbs in Latin and German, 275
Compounds, originally significant part of, assumes form of derivative, 197; one language separates what another regards as, 321; no phonetic demarcation possible between syntactical groups and, 322; criterion, 323, 334; ditto for inflected languages, 327; dvandva, 329; develop in meaning without the simplex being affected, 329; influence of isolation on formation of, 331; compounds followed by word dependent on part of, only, 335; phonetic isolation, effect on formation of, 335
Compare (Ital.), 38
Concord, ch. xvii.; not expressed, 292; variation of, 293; whence arisen, 299; spreads beyond proper area, 299; absence of, in elliptical sentences, 306
Concrete. See _Abstract_.
Conjunctions, 344, 361, 363
Connection between successive cases of sound-utterance only psychical, 26
Connecting words, do they form a distinct grammatical category? 279. See also _Link-words_.
Connotation _v._ denotation, 350
Considering (preposition), 210, 362
Constructio πρὸς σύνεσιν, 241
Contamination, ch. viii.; difference between, and formation by analogy, 141; in words, 141; in syntax, 145; doubtful example of, 275
Contents of a word, ‘material’ _v._ ‘formal’ or ‘modal,’ 74
Convergence of forms of different function causes that difference to be overlooked, 204
Cool, 28, 31
Co-ordination _v._ subordination, 283
Cope, 193
Copula, 271; number of, with predicate in plural, 293; psychological, more extensive than grammatical, 272. See also _Connecting words_ and _Be_.
Copulative combinations, 327; compounds, 329
Copy (in Chaucer), 59
Corn, 63, 415
Corral, 415
Correlation of ideas, 74
Corvus, 44 note
Could, 379
Cows, kine, 235
Cowslip, 317
Crack, 165
Crackle, 165
Crane, 11, 44, 56
Cray-fish, 197
Creation, original, ch. ix., 10
Crevasse, 415
Crimp, 161
Critique (Fr.), 234
Crocodilus (Lat.), 38
Crown, 57
Crumple, 161
Cubit, 66
Cup, 65
Cupboard, 337
Cur (Lat.), 213
D
Daisy, 318
Dans (Fr.), 237
Darkling, 216
Dash, 163
Dative, 129; predicative, 287; with infinitive in Latin and Greek, 291
Dawn, 172
Day, 171, 378
Debt, 379
Declension, history of, in Teutonic, 200. See also _Phonetic development_.
Dedans (Fr.), 237
Demonstrative, irregular concord of, 296
Demori (Lat.), 211
Denotation _v._ connotation, 350
Deperio (Lat.), 211
Deponent verbs, 265
Derivation of our words, 218, 321
Derselbe (Ger.), 321
Descent, meaning of the term and influence of, in language, 15; difference between linguistic and physical, 16
Determinant, various functions of, 116
Development, of language, ch. i., its essence, 9; of meaning in primary and derivative, 179; effect of phonetic development on, 181. See also _Meaning_.
Diadème (Fr.), 245
Dialects, origin of, 18; difficulty of classification, 18; criterion for distinction of, 22. See also _Language_.
Die--kill, 265
Differentiation, of language, ch. ii.; of one language into more than one, more accurate statement, 15; why not greater than actually it is found to be, 16; tendency to, and that to unification, not successive, 22; of meaning, ch. xiv.; in form, coinciding with differentiation in function, 189
Ding-dong, 164
Direction, indication of, 308
Displacement of usage, 9; in etymological grouping, ch. xiii.; in syntactical distribution, ch. xvi.
Dissimilation, 38
Dogme (Fr.), 245
Doins (O.Fr.), 144
Doleo, with accusative and infinitive, 215
Doff, 320
Don, 320
Donate, 414
Donkey, 57
Double genders, 234
Doublets, 230, 389
Doubt (verb), 211
Douce, 393
Dour, 393
Drab, 57
Drink, drench, 265
Drudo, 388
Dubitative mood, expressed by future tense, 261
During, 345
Dutiable, 414
Dvandva, compounds, 329
E
Each, 320
Eáge (A.S.), 84
Eatable, 390
Economy, of expression, ch. xviii.; of effort, 8
Ee-sound, formation of, 31
Either, or, 282
Elder, 193
Elements of speech-utterance, we are generally unconscious of, 27
Erila (O.H.G.), eller (M.H.G.), 38
Ell, 66
Elliptical sentences, 302; in how far correctly so called, 308
Else, 176, 358
Emphase (Fr.), 388
En (Fr.), 237
Enfold, 333
Énigme (Fr.), 245
Enjoy, 67
Entwine, 333
Environment, influence of, on development of language, 15
Épigramme (Fr.), 245
Ere, 363
Erkenntniss (Ger.), 234
Erle (Ger.), 38
Ernstlich, ernsthaft, (Ger.), 237
Été (Fr.), 85, 244
Etiquette, 385
Etymological grouping, influences on spelling, 378. See also _Grouping_.
Ever, 47
Evolution. See _Comparison_.
Examen (Lat.), 49
Executive, 28
Execution, 28
Expatiate, 59
Extravagant, 59
Eye, 65
Ezzih (O.H.G.), 38
Ἥμισυς. Ὁ ἥμισυς τοῦ χρόνου, 148
F
F, 10, 32
Facility of utterance, 34
Façon (Fr.), 231
Fadrein (Goth.), 249
Faith, 61
Falconer, 64
Fall (autumn), 415
Fall--lie, 258; fall--fell, 265
Fare thee well, 148
Fashion, 231
Father, 71, 173
Fatherhood, 241
Feather, 66
Feckless, 393
Fiend, 349
Feodor (Russ.), 10
Filth, 182
Find, 67
Finfi (O.H.G.), 38
First utterances not reproduceable at will, 167
Fish, 63
Fix, 415
Fizz, 163
Flos (Rom. lang.), 244
Fluobra (O.H.G.), 38
Folks, 248
Foot, 56, 66, 86, 181, 189
Foreign influence, effect of, 7
Forget-me-not, 321
Forgetive, 60
Forlorn, 174, 186
Form, 56
Formal contents of a word, 74
Formal groups, 76
Formation of new groups, ch. xi.
Fortnight, 319
Foudre (Fr.), 234
Fowl, 63
Fox, 57
Fräulein (Ger.), 242
Frequentative verbs, 160
Friend, 349; “I am friends with him,” 148
Frôfor (A.S.), 38
Fromage (Fr.), 67
Frugi (Lat.), 210
Fruit, 62
Frumentum (Lat.), 62
Fulhans (Goth.), 189
Furlong, 319, 338
Future tense, 260; formation of, in French and in Latin, 341. See also _Tense_.
G
G (A.S.), becomes _y_ or _w_, 172
Gafulgins (Goth.), 189
Gallows, 250
Gas (Dutch), 158
Gash, 161
Gaudeo, with accusative and infinitive, 215
Gender, grammatical, recognised by concord, 239; originally probably corresponded with natural, 240; differentiation of, 234; change of, 242; follows that of allied groups, 244; remaining traces of, in English, 245; double, 234
Genealogical terms applied to relationship between languages, 13
Genitive, meaning of the word, 392; the case, 127, 129; partitive, 134; subjective and objective, 174-175; isolation of meaning of, 177, 323; with infinitive in Greek, 291; old genitive singular feminine, 323
Gens (Fr.), 241, 248
Gentlemanlike, 212
Γέρανος, 44, note
German silver, 330
Gerrymander, 414
Gerund, construction of, in Latin, 148; or verbal nouns as present participle, 215
Gerundive, sometimes active in meaning, 264
Gesicht (Ger.), 235
Gesticulation, 302
Gesture-language, 166
Gew-gaw, 164
Gh, 35
Ghostly, 61
Glass, glare, 188
Glorioso (Ital.), 38
Gnat, 35
Go, 57
Go-betweens, 326
Good-bye, 162, 321
Good-natured, 212
Goose, 56
Gospel, 319
Gossip, 337
Gradation of vowel-sound, effect of, on development of meaning, 181
Grain, 44
Grammars, all incomplete, 6; historical, comparative, descriptive, their province, 1; deal in abstractions, 2; draw lines of demarcation where historian of language traces connection, 9
Grammatical analysis _v._ logical analysis, 268
---- categories, how arrived at, 343
---- and psychological categories, ch. xv.
---- relations and logical relations not sharply separated, 12
---- rules, their nature, 12
---- system inadequate, 7, 270
Grave, 193
Green, 144
Greenland, 326
Groundsel, 318
Groups, of ideas in the mind, 3, 73, 76; modal and material, 76, 170, 178; formation of new, ch. xi.; changes in, 171. See also _Phonetic Development_, _Syntax_, and _Numerals_.
Grouping, mainly governed by function of the words, 206; displacement in etymological, ch. xiii. See also _Inflection_.
Γρύς, 44, note
Gubernatorial, 414
Guerre, 388
Guess, 415
Gypsy dialects, 391
H
Hab’ und Gut (Ger.), 327
Hale, 192
Hallelujah, 163
Halibut, 319
Hammock, 415
Hand, 58 (Ger.), 202
Handiwork, 318
Harrow, 162
Head, 56, 65, 66
Headlong, 216
Health, 182
Hear, 59
Heart, 65
Helter-skelter, 164
Hemel (Dutch), 235
Hercules _v._ Heracles, 390
Hereabouts, 216
Hickory, 415
Hide, 194
Hie, hier (Ger.), 184
Higgledy-piggledy, 164
High-spirited, 212
History of language, its task, 4, 9
Historic present, 257
Hláfmesse (A.S.), 43
Hoarhound, 319
Hole, 193
Hominy, 415
Homographs, 193, note
Homophones, 193, note
Honor _v._ honour, 389
Horn, 70
Horreo, with accusative and infinitive, 215
Horse, 71
Hosannah, 163
Hotch-potch, 164
House, 43, 46
Humility, 61
Hungersnot (Ger.), 325
Hurly-burly, 164
Hurrah, 163
Hurtle, 161
Hussy, 318
I
I, a diphthong, 28
Ideal, ideell, 389
Ideas, groups of, 73
Idioms translated or borrowed, 392
Igitur (Lat.), 208
Il (Fr.), sentences beginning with (neut.), number of the verb, 295
Ill, sick, 237; in compounds, 334
Imitation, tendency to, 8
Impersonal verbs, have they a subject, 101
Impertinent, 49
Impossible, 35
Income, 28
Indefatigable, 38
Indefinite adjectives and pronouns, 104
Individual peculiarities, 5; their effect, 8; only the individual has real existence, species and classes are abstractions, 14; consciousness as to change in language, 8
Infinitive, case of nomen actionis, 356; used as noun, 357; active, passive and neuter, 264; of exclamation in Latin, 312
Infitias ire, with accusative and infinitive, 215
Inflection, 93; origin of, ch. xix.; influence of phonetic development on new grouping in, 198; convergence of systems of, in three degrees, 200; terminations of, in loan-words, 391
Influence, of one language on syntax in another, 391
“---- over,” 213
Insect, 61
Instead of, 362
Interjections, 16, 345; psychological predicates, 166
Interjectional phrases, 100
Interrogative pronouns and adverbs, 104
Intonation in Chinese and Scandinavian, 94
Intransitive verb passive, 265
Invoice, 250
Inwards, 176, 216
Ipse (Lat.), 212
Irnan (A.S.), 38
Isolation and unification, ch. x.; formal and material, 178; syntactical, 177; semasiological, criterion for compound, 323; four ways of effecting, 323; syntactical and formal, contributes to form compounds, 331; phonetic, has same effect, 335
It, for cognate accusative, 130
“It is ... who,” 273
J
Jackanapes, Jack-a-lantern, 328
Jactito (Lat.), 145
Jamdudum (Lat.), 149
Jiminy, 162
K
K, sounds of, 32
Kaladrius (M.H.G.), 39
Κατ’ ἐξοχήν, 53, 63
Keen, 28, 31
Keeper, 179
Κέραμος, 244
Kill--die, 265
Kingdom, 338
Kinsman, 331
Kiss-me-quick, 321
Κισσός, 244
Kit-kat, 164
Klein (Ger.), 49
Kleinheit, kleinigkeit (Ger.), 236
Knecht (Ger.), 35
Knight, 35
Know, 35; --learn, 258
Κύανος, 244
Κυπάρισσος (Mod. Gk.), 245
L
Laden (Ger.), 235
Lady, 318
Lady-day, 323
Lammas, 43, 318
Lance-knight, 197
Language, first production of, without thought of communication, 166; when can it be said to exist, 168; have animals got it, 168; of each individual the parallel of individual plant in Botany, 13; difficulty of observation of any given state of, 6; but incomplete expression of thought, 71, 302; language and writing, ch. xxi.; changes in, 8; of two kinds, 24; ‘a language alters,’ two meanings of this phrase, 36; a further development of dialect, 21; ‘regular’ _v._ ‘irregular,’ 78. See also _Standard Language_ and _Speech_.
Lasso, 415
Last, 35
Laws of sound-change, are they absolute, 39; meaning of the term, 40
Lay, 193
Learn--know, 258
Leastest, 145
Length, 182
Lengthy, 414
Leoman, 337
Lesser, 85, 145
Letters (Dutch), 235
Lettre (Fr.), 250
Levee, 415
Li (Russ.), 214
Lie--fall, 258
Linguistic form, influence of, 391
Link-words, 93. See also _Connecting words_.
Liquorice, 198
Literary language, 23. See also _Standard language_.
Loan (verb), 414
Loan-words, causes of adoption, 384; often at first superfluous 227, 231; for technical terms, 392; borrowed from dialects 227; the same from two different dialects, 389; borrowed from language in which they are already loan-words, 389; two distinct kinds of changes in, 387; retaining their inflection, 391; their suffixes, 390
Locus (Lat.), 234
Long measure, 321
Lumber, 415
Lump (Ger.), 234
Lose (verb), 186
M
Mailable, 414
Mainly, chiefly, 237
Make, become, 265
Malheureux (Fr.), 321
Man, 181, 189
Man-o’-war, 321, 331
Μάραθος, 244
Marble, 38
Marter, 38
Mash, 161
Match, 48
Materials, names of, 251
Material contents of a word, 74
Matter groups, 76
Maurgins (Goth.), 188
Maybe, 211, 321
Mead, meadow, 87
Mean, 48
Meaning, of same word never identical in the mind of two speakers, 51; change of, chs. iv., xiv.; narrowing and widening, 43; transference of, is ‘occasional’ or ‘usual,’ 44; test for occasional or usual, 59; occasional, does not always include all the elements of usual, 57; how specialised, 56; test for independence of derived, 50; if inaccurately conceived how corrected, 61; of existing word encroached upon, 237; change of, in syntax, 70, and ch. vii.; change of, affects construction of verbs in Latin, 211. See also _Development, Compound_.
Membra, membri, (Lat.), 235
Mémoire (Fr.), 234
Memory pictures, their nature and growth, 33; of sound and of position, 25; alone connect the several utterances of the same sound by the same speaker, 33; we are unconscious of their existence, 27; unstable and shifting, 35; their development, 168
Mer (Fr.), 244
Metaphorical expressions, 57
Metathesis, 37
Métier (Fr.), 32
Midriff, 319
Migration of tribes, effect on language, 22
Mildew, 318
Milt, 142
Mind, conscious and unconscious action of the human, 3
Mine, 215
Minnow, 144
Minuit (Fr.), 244
Mixture in language, ch. xxii.; two meanings of this expression, 381; how it arises, 381
Mobile, movable, 237
Moccasin, 415
Modal contents of a word, 74; modal groups, 76
Mood and tense, 261; potential, 260
Moon, 43
More, 85
Mother, 173
Mouse, 86, 181
Movements of vocal organs, control of, 30
Murderous, 390
N
N, displacement of, 283
Name, various constructions of the noun, 289
Nanu (Sans.), 214
Ne (Lat.), 214
Νεανίας, 245
Near, 362
Neck, 66
Needs, 176
Negation, pleonastic, 154
Negative particle after verbs of denying, 155
---- sentences, 102
Neighbour, 319, 339
Neuheit, neuigkeit (Ger.), 236
Nevertheless, 321, 335
Newfoundland, 322, 326
News, 250
Newt, 283
Nickname, 283
Nigh, 362
Night, 35
Nightingale, 318
Nightmare, 318
Noce (Fr.), 250
Nomen (Lat.), construction of, 289
---- actionis, 355; inexpressive of voice, 262
---- agentis with dependent case, 355. See also _Noun_.
Nominative, in predicate, 290; with infinitive, 290, 291; stands instead of pure stem or ‘absolute case,’ 289, 292
None, 320
Nonne (Lat.), 214
Nostril, 339
Notwithstanding, 345
Noun as predicate, its case, 290; used as verb, 207, 351. See also _Substantive_.
Nul (Fr.), 155
Number, 247 (see also _Plural_, _Singular_, _There_); referring to abstracta, 250; ‘neuter,’ corresponding to neuter gender, 251, 253. See also _Quisque_.
Numerals, 252, 344, 393; ordinals, 326
Nursery language, 164
O
Object, grammatical, origin of, 112
Occasional meaning, 44
Octo (Lat.), 35
Oddity, 390
Œils, yeux, (Fr.), 235
Of, off, 363
Of mine, 215; of in adverbial expressions, 176
Offal, 334
Office (Fr.), 234
Offset, 334
Once, 358
One and all, 328
Onomatopoiesis, 160
Onset, 333
Onslaught, 333
Opossum, 415
Optative, expressed by future tense, 261
Orange, 283
Orchard, 318
Oreste (O.Fr.), 143
Origin of language, conditions of creation not different from those of historic development, 11, 157
Original creation, ch. ix.; nature of, 158; conditions of, 159; combined with analogical formation, 165
Ὄρνις, 63
Οὐκ οῦν, 214
Output, 334
Outrance, à, (Fr.), 385
Overflow, 333
Overlook, 133
Overreach, 133
Overtake, 133
Owe, 11
P
P, 32; p, pf, 387
Pagan, 49
Paille (Fr.), 234
Pale, 193
Palliolum (Lat.), 38
Palsangguné (Fr.), 162
Par (Fr.), 214
Παρά, 133
Parataxis, 121
Participles, 353; present, 137, 179, 263; agreement of, when used as predicate, 295; ‘misrelated,’ 137; participial constructions, 138. See also _Tense_.
Parts of speech, ch. xv.; see also under names of.
Passive, 204, 277; of intransitive, verbs, 265; formation of, 266; in Scandinavian, 211; when acknowledged in formal grammar, 265; and active voice differ only syntactically but express the same actual relation, 262. See also _Voice_.
Past tense. See under _Tense_.
Pastime, 388
Pauser, 64
Pea, 86
Pein (Ger.), 387
Pen, 66
Pensioner, 64
People, 248
Pereo (Lat.), 211
Period of construction and of decay, 342; of roots, 158
Periphrastic “It is ... who,” 273
Person, vacillation in use of, with copula, 294
Personal terminations, probable origin of, 300
Pfeffer (Ger.), 387
Pfingsten (Ger.), 387
Phonetic science, 29; compensations, 36, note; alphabet, 5, 370; spelling, 27, 366
---- development of word-groups, 182; causes convergence of same cases in different systems of declension, 201; of different cases in same system, 202; formation of new modal groups, 198; confluence of forms, two effects of, 192; differentiation, its effect on development of meaning, 181; change influences formation of compounds, 335. See also _Compounds_.
Phrases, entire, coalesce into a compound word, 321
Physical organs, their linguistic action, 4
---- phenomena of linguistic activity, 5
Pig, 62
Pin, 50
Place-names, 56, 64, 330
Πλάτανος (Mod. Gk.), 245
Pleonasm, 153; in negation, 154; pleonastic article, 156
Plume (Fr.), 49
Plupart (Fr.), 298
Pluperfect tense formation in Latin, 341
Plural, formation, 79; with force of singular, 249; and singular mixed in one sentence, 287, 293. See also _Number_.
Poetry, rich in synonyms, 228; Icelandic, 228
Poisonous, 390
Point, 57
Politique (Fr.), 234
Popular etymology, 10, 195, 386
Portuguee is correct, 86
Positive for comparative, 154
Post, 48, 50
Potential mood, 260
Poulterer, 64
Præsente (as preposition), 210
Præterito-præsentia, 258
Prairie, 415
Preach, predict, 389
Predicate, logical, psychological, grammatical, 95; grammatical and logical when identical, 268; often distinguished by stress, 272; by inverted construction, 273; psychological alone expressed, 311; in negative sentences, 273; grammatical, often no more than copula, 279; extension of, 114; in plural after copula in singular, 293; _vice versâ_, 294; participle as, concord of, 295; in concord with apposition instead of with subject, 295, with noun compared with subject, 296, with genitive dependent on subject, 298; in relative clause agreeing with the noun which it qualifies instead of relative pronoun which is subject, 297. See also _Subject_.
Predicatival attribute, case of, 290
Prefix _be_, 131
Preliminary statement of psychological subject, 274
Prepositions, 210, 361; Latin, 133; Greek, 133, 183; German, 213; ‘personal,’ in Welsh, 277; verbs compound with, 275; post position of, 275; pleonastic use of, 153, 277; do prepositions ‘govern’ cases, 132
Prepositional phrases, 176
Present. See _Tense_.
Priest, 349, 389; priester (Dutch), 387
Printing, influence of, 406
Prior, 38
Privy councillor, 329
Prófecto, (Lat.), 208
Pronoun, 344; interrogative, 104, 272; demonstrative, 272; relative, 272; ditto, omitted, 115; indefinite, 104; personal, declension of, 202; reflective, 209
Proper names, 46, 63
Proportion in analogical formation, 79
Prove, probe, 389
Provide, 236
Psychological and grammatical categories, ch. xv.
Psychical organisms, their importance, 4; how observable, 6; the only permanent element in speech, 26
Puns, 48
Pursuer, persecutor, prosecutor, 237
Purvey, 236
Q
Quagmire, 337
Quarter-sessions rose, 198
Quatre-vingts (Fr.), 393
Questions, rhetorical, 107; different forms of, 105
Quin (Lat.), 213
Quinque (Lat.), 38
Quisque (Lat.), singular with verb in plural, 251
R
Racoon, 415
Radical (Fr.), 49
Ranch, 415
Real, reell, 389
Rear, 181
Receipt, 379
Recreant, 49
Reign, 379
Relative, relation, (substantive), 226
Relative pronoun, 296; omitted, 115, 277 note, 305. See also _Predicate_.
Repetition of subject. See _Subject_.
Republic, 212
Respect, 236
Rhythm, 379
Rhone (gender in Ger.), 244
Riddle, 86
Righteous, 197
Rinnan (A.S.), 38
Ritter (Ger.), 180, 234
Roots, 165; so-called period of, 158
Roundabouts, 326
Rosary, 69
Rumple, 161
Run, 38
S
Sachant (Fr.), 232
Sail, 58
Sake, 194
Sandhi, 337
Sanglier (Fr.), 67
Savant (Fr.), 232
Scales, 250
Scandinavian intonation, 94
Schème (Fr.), 245
Schlecht, böse, (Ger.), 67, 237
Science of language, 2
Scholar, 64
Scot-free, 319
Sea-horse, 330
Secure, 136
See (Ger.), 234
See-saw, 164
Seethe, sodden, 186
Sehr (Ger.), 67
Self, as suffix, 208, 321
Senatorial, 414
Sennight, 319
Sentence, definition of, 92; consisting of one word, 98; without verb, 280, 309; consists usually of two parts, 268; extension of simple, 108; when psychologically simple, 269; complex, 119; grammatically simple but logically complex, 270; _vice versâ_, 282; main and subordinate, with common element, 306; that cannot be analysed, 285; of demand, 102; negative, 102; interrogatory (two kinds of), 103; of surprise, 106; and phrases coalesce into compound-words, 321
Sentir (Fr.), 136
Separate, sever, 236
Serra, serro, (Portug.), 236
Serviceable, useful, 237
Sessions, 250
Set, sit, 265
Settle, 194
Sever, separate, 236
Shade, 45, 87
Shallop, 383
Shallow, 233
Shambles, 250
Shamefaced, 197
Shay, 86
Shed, 194
Sheer, 194
Sheet, 56
Shoal, 233
Shoddy, 414
Shop, 180
Shoulder, 66
Shred, 403
Sick, 237, 415
Siesta, 231
Silly, 97
Since, 139, 363
Sing-song, 164
Singular with force of plural, 248. See also _Plural_ and _Number_.
Sir, 349
Sirloin, 197
Sisclar (provençal), 144
Sit, set, 265
Skatte-ter (Dan.), 235
Slap, slip, slop, 161, 163
Sloop, 383
Slight, 67
Smash, 161
Snip, snap, 164
Sodden, 186
Soixante-dix (Fr.), 393
Solidarity, 392
Sore, 67
Sort (Fr.), 244
Sound, 48, 195
Sounds of a language and their representation in writing, 5 (see also _Phonetic_, _Writing_, _Spelling_); not easily influenced by dialects, 393
Sound-change, 10, ch. iii., or sound-shifting in Teutonic, 19 (see also _Verner’s law_); causes of, 34; rate of, 37; laws of, are they absolute, 39; and sound interchange, 39; two effects of, 191; effect of, on grouping of words, 171
Sound utterance, connection between successive cases of, only psychical, 26. See also _Speech_.
Sovereign, 197, 379
Sparrow-grass, 198
Species and classes nothing but abstractions, 14
Speech, 5; elements of, utterance, 24; of intermediate districts, 21
Spelling, English, 27, 367, 368; French, 27; German, 367; Sanscrit, 367; advantages of fixed, 374; influence of analogy on, 378. See also _Writing_.
Spem habeo, with accusative and infinitive, 215
Spiritual, 61, 389
Spry, 415
Square, 389
Squaw, 415
Squarson, 144
Squash, 161
Squire, esquire, 234
Stage, influence on standard language, 397, 413
Stan (A.S.), 84
Stamp, 62
Stampede, 415
Stand, 57; --step, 258
Standard language, ch. xxiii.; what is it, 395; how fixed, 396; in English, 397; in Germany, 396 (see also _Stage_); American, 410; complexity of, 410; influence of, 4; action and reaction between, and individual dialects, 402; conditions required to create need of, 405; two standards for each language, 401; develops by borrowing from natural language, 403; even standard language, will break up into dialects, 408
Steht, es--nicht dafür, (Ger.), 392
Step, stand, 258
Stile, 193
Stoop, 415
Straightways, 176
Stress, on psychological predicate, 96, 272; in compound words, 322. See also _Accent_.
Stupeo (Lat.), 211
Subject, logical, grammatical, psychological, 95; grammatical and logical, when identical, 268; how indicated originally, 96, by emphasis, 273, by inverted construction, 97, 273; precedence of, in consciousness of speaker, 97; subject and predicate not the same for speaker and hearer, 100; differently conceived by different speakers or hearers, 271; preliminary statement of psychological, 274; repetition of, 300; subject in singular with verb in plural, 286. See also _Predicate_.
Subordination _v._ co-ordination, 283
Substantive, 343; how distinguished from adjective, 347; used as adjective, 349. See also _Noun_.
Suegra (Span.), 245
Suffixes: origin of, 338; in loan-words, 390; applied to syntactical groups, 326; able, 219; ard, 390; ate, ation, 220; ble, 219; dom, 91, 236; ed, 212, 319 (note), 333; in weak verbs, 380; er, 64; er, est, 199; ery, 390; ful, 91, 223; hood, 236; ian, 390, 391; ing, 137, 178; ism, 391; ist, 390; le, 160; less, 223; ling, long, in adverbs, 216; ly, 208, 340; μα, gender of derivatives in Romance languages, 245; ment (Fr.), 208; ness, 224, 236; no, 188; o (It. third person plural), 143; ough, 142; s, 79; self, 208; some, 91; tas (Lat.), té (Fr.), 85; th, 178; tion, 222 note; tism, 86; waru (A.S.), 249; y, 91
Sultana, 390
Superfluity, how it arises, 226; how obviated, 227, 229
Superlative for comparative, 154
Sûr (Fr.), 136
Surcease, 196
Synecdoche, 58, 68
Synonyms, 226; in poetry, 228
Synovya (Russ.), 236
Syntax, fundamental facts of, ch. vi.; change of meaning in, ch. vii.; of one language influencing that of another, 391; syntactical distribution, displacement of, ch. xvi.; syntactical groups with suffixes, 326; syntactical co-ordination expressive apart from the meaning of the co-ordinated words, 323
T
T, sounds of, 32; in Latin _t_ or _z_ in German, 387
Tail, 66
Taper, 388
Technical terms, loan-words for, 392
Tense, 253; origin of, expression, 256; logically complete scheme of, 253; deviations from the same, 256; tenses in Hebrew, 259; tense relation often expressed by different verbs, 258; compound tenses, 259; tense absolute, 255, 258; present, for future, 256, 257, 260; ditto for past, 257; historic present, 257; past for future, 256, note; past for present, 257; past tense and past participle, 88; future, 260; tense and mood, 259, 261; formation of, in French and Latin verbs, 341
Terrapin, 415
Th, two sounds of, 28
Than, then, 236
That, 248, 283, 363
Theodore, 10
There, sentences beginning with, number of the verb, 295
Thing, 10
ðiudans (Goth.), 188
Though, 35, 139, 143
ðyrl (A.S.), 339
Tiber (gender in Ger.), 244
Tick-tack, 164
Till, 152, 362
Tiresome, 415
Tittle-tattle, 164
Titmouse, 319
Tobacconist, 86
Toboggan, 415
Tongue, 56
Tooth, 181, 189
Topmost, 347
Touaille (Fr.), 388
Towards, 216
Train, 56, 57
Transferred epithets, 136
Translations, 51
Transpire, 67, 415
Trapano (Ital.), 144
Travail, 235
Triers (O.Fr.), 143
Tuesday, 318
Turtur (Lat.), 38
Twice, 358
Twilight, 319
U
U, formation of oo-sound, 31
Ugh, 163
Umlaut, effect of, on development of meaning, 181
Un (Fr.), sound of, 183
Unawares, 176
Unco’, 394
Understand, 67
Undertaker, 179
Underwriter, 334
Unification, in declension, 186; in verbs, 187; direction of, 188; order of, 186; three rules, 186, 187; sometimes disadvantageous, 191. See also _Differentiation_.
Uniformity, advantage of, 191
Until, 152
Unwalkative, 60
Upstairs, 325
Upwards, 176
Usage, displacement of, 9, 17; occasional _v._ usual, 45
Use, 237
Useful, serviceable, 237
Usher, 64, and note
Usual _v._ occasional meaning, 44
Usui (Lat.), 210
V
Vaaban (Dan.), 235
Val (Fr.), 244
Valeur (Fr.), 85
Veal, 388
Verb, 265, 343, 352; in Latin, construction of, 211; compound with adverb, 333; derived from French, 196; with two accusatives, 288; of incomplete predication, 281
Verdorben, verderbt (Ger.), 236
Verner’s law, 172, 185
Villain, 49
Vocabulary, American _v._ English, 416
Vocal organs, we are unconscious of their action, 29; control of their movements, 30
Vogel (Dutch), 235
Voice, 261; passive, 261; middle, 265-267; not expressed or implied in nomen actionis, 264; distinction of, purely syntactical, 262. See also _Passive_.
Voile, 250.
Vouchsafe, 206
Vowels, formation of, 31.
W
Wairilos (Goth.), 38
Was (in Slavo-Ger.), 393
Was, were, 185
Wealth, 182
Weary, 223
Wednesday, 318
Wegs (Goth.), 201
Weil (Ger.), 139
Weiss, ich (Ger.), 257
Welcome, 213
Weleras (A.S.), 38
Well, 193
Welladay, 162
Werden (Ger.), 315
Werwolf, 318
Where, 344
Whereabouts, 216
While, 139, 344
Whole, 193, 379
Wigwam, 415
Will-o’-the-wisp, 321
Wirken auf (Ger.), 213
Wiseacre, 196
With, 323
Withstand, 323
Words, reproduced from memory _or_ formed by analogy, 217; word-formation, rise of, ch. xix.; a word consists of unbroken series of sounds, 27; division of sentence into, 81, 182; ditto in child’s consciousness, 80; now considered simple may have been compounds, 342
Works, 250
World, 318
Wormwood, 320
Worser, 145
Writing, 27; and language, ch. xxi.; in how far can it represent speech, 366; written language, influence of, on standard, 399
X
X, two sounds of, 28
Y
Yawn, 144
Yeoman, 318
You, ye, 88
Z
Ziegel (Ger.), 387
Zounds, 162
Zufrieden (Ger.), 325
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.
A Catalogue of Works
IN
GENERAL LITERATURE
PUBLISHED BY
MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
_Issue the undermentioned Lists of their Publications, which may be had post free on application_:--
1. MONTHLY LIST OF NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS.
2. QUARTERLY LIST OF ANNOUNCEMENTS AND NEW WORKS.
3. NOTES ON BOOKS; BEING AN ANALYSIS OF THE WORKS PUBLISHED DURING EACH QUARTER.
4. CATALOGUE OF SCIENTIFIC WORKS.
5. CATALOGUE OF MEDICAL AND SURGICAL WORKS.
6. CATALOGUE OF SCHOOL BOOKS AND EDUCATIONAL WORKS.
7. CATALOGUE OF BOOKS FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND PUPIL TEACHERS.
8. CATALOGUE OF THEOLOGICAL WORKS BY DIVINES AND MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
9. CATALOGUE OF WORKS IN GENERAL LITERATURE.
=ABBEY and OVERTON.--The English Church in the Eighteenth Century.= By CHARLES J. ABBEY and JOHN H. OVERTON. Cr. 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._
=ABBOTT.--Hellenica.= A Collection of Essays on Greek Poetry, Philosophy, History, and Religion. Edited by EVELYN ABBOTT, M.A. LL.D. Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford. 8vo. 16_s._
=ABBOTT (Evelyn, M.A. LL.D.)--Works by.=
=A Skeleton Outline of Greek History.= Chronologically Arranged. Crown 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._
=A History of Greece.= In Two Parts.