CHAPTER VII.

CHANGE OF MEANING IN SYNTAX.

We have considered, in Chapter IV., the different ways in which words change their meanings: and have remarked that change of meaning consists in the widening or narrowing of the scope or application of each word. We wish, in this chapter, to point out that these processes are not confined to words, but that whole syntactical combinations are constantly undergoing changes of meaning of a similar nature. It may be well to give at the outset an instance illustrative of such difference. Let us take the sentence, ‘The book reads like a translation.’ In this sentence the meaning which we attach to the word _book_ has developed from that attached to A.S. _bóc_, a beech tree.[42] The word _read_ has been specialised in meaning from the more primitive signification ‘to interpret.’ In the same way, _translation_ meant originally nothing more than a _transference_ of any kind, but has been specially applied to a transference of the ideas expressed by one language into those of another. Such, then, are examples of changes of meaning which have occurred in words.

But besides these changes, it is obvious that we have here a sentence in which the relation between the subject and predicate differs considerably from that which is the _usual_ one. We do not in the aforesaid sentence mean to say that the subject _book_ performs the action _reads_, but we wish to assert that the subject is of such a nature as to admit of some person performing the action in question. This usage of the subject and predicate, though, when employed circumspectly, it need cause no obscurity, yet is an exceptional usage, or, as we have elsewhere called it, an _occasional_ one. Such a construction might, however, easily spread, and become habitual or _usual_. In that case we should have to admit that the meaning of the general syntactical relation between subject and predicate connected by a verb in the active voice had widened in extent, and contracted in content. Instead of stating that the subject _does_ the action, we should now have to adapt the statement to the wider but more indefinite relation--the subject either _does or admits of_ the action. We shall have occasion to return to these and similar phrases later on.

Now let us take the phrase ‘He reads himself into the mind of his author.’ In this case we shall find that the meaning of _reads_ is the same as that which we usually attach to it; the peculiar meaning lies not in the separate words, but in the phrase taken as a whole. The particular, _occasional_ use of the accusative _himself_, together with the combination of the words, is what expresses the whole thought implied; and thus we have here an instance of a specific construction in which the force of the accusative connected with the word is different from the force of the case in more common usage. Though the application of the accusative in the way we have just mentioned must originally have been an _occasional_ one, yet the phrase, though it has indeed become specific, has become so common, that we may _in this combination_ call its meaning _usual_. We have, then, in studying change of meaning in syntactical relations, besides the classification of _occasional_ and _usual_, another _distinction_ to draw; that between (_a_) a change of meaning in a general relation, without reference to the individual terms which happen to stand in that relation (such as subject and predicate, verb and object, noun with accompanying genitive, preposition and its régime), and (_b_) a change in meaning of a case, or other syntactical relation, with regard to a specific word or expression, in connection with which it has come to express a new shade of thought. These two classifications are independent of each other, and cross one another. It is further to be noticed that, just as it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line of distinction between the _occasional_ and _usual_ in the meaning of a word, so it is impossible to always clearly formulate when the change in meaning of a syntactical relation is _general_ or _special_; nay, it would in many cases be difficult to decide whether a change of meaning in a group of words is owing to a change of meaning in the words, or in their syntactical relations. Yet it is necessary to keep the distinction in view.

Instances of these syntactical changes are common in all languages. We might take, as a simple instance, from the Latin, the syntactical change which is brought about in the relationship of the transitive verb and its accusative. Transitive verbs commonly take the accusative of the direct object; as, _Grecia capta ferum victorem cepit_. But many words not originally transitive become so when composed with a preposition; as, _accedere_, _præcellere_, _transgredi_, just as _to forego_ in English is transitive, while _to go_ is intransitive. This construction was then felt as _usual_. But besides these we find a quantity of verbs strictly intransitive employed with the accusative; as, _ambulare maria_, (to walk the seas: Cicero, de Finibus, ii. 34); _ludere Appium_ (just as we say, _to play the fool_: Cicero, ad Quint. Fratr., ii. 15); _saltare Cyclopa_ (to dance the Cyclops dance: Horace, Sat. I. v.); _stupere donum_, (Vergil); etc. It was felt that the relationship between _ambulare_ and _maria_, e.g., was closely enough related to that of _regere currum_ on the one hand, and to that of _ambulare super maria_ on the other, to enable analogy to become widely operative in extending this use. The result was that some of the constructions passed into regular usage; some stood out longer, and must always have appeared as exceptional or occasional; as, _sudare mella_ (Vergil, Eclogue iv. 30).

One of the most ordinary changes brought about by relations in syntax is that due to the relationship of what is commonly called the governing word and its case. The signification, for example, borne by an accusative standing in the relation of object to a verb may cause the verb to bear a meaning more special than its ordinary meaning. Thus, in the case of such a phrase as _I beat_, it is clear that in _to beat a dog_, _to beat the enemy_, _to beat the air_, different values are attached to the meaning of the word ‘(to) beat,’ and the word thereby is narrowed in its definition and correspondingly enriched in its contents. It seems natural to examine a little more in detail the relationship borne by the cases to the word which governs them: there seems no objection to the use of the word _governs_, provided only that it be understood with due limitations; that certain particular forms are commonly devoted to the expression of certain ideas or relationships, and that the idea be not entertained that there is anything in the nature of the meanings of the words indissolubly connected with a particular form.

To deal with the _Cases_ first. It is impossible to set together the different uses of the genitive, and to draw from these by induction any certain proof of the functions which this case fulfilled in the primitive Indo-European languages. For instance, the use of the genitive when it depends on verbs seems to have nothing in common with that of the same case when connected with substantives. In the former case, for instance, in the Classical languages, we find merely a few isolated instances of the genitive regularly governed by verbs, especially those verbs which signify _ruling over_, _remembering_, _lacking_, etc. The genitive with nouns, on the other hand, seems most probably to have been used in Indo-European for the expression of any relation between two substantives, as indeed it was in classical Greek, and, to a less extent, in Latin; cf. such different usages as _Cæsaris horti_; _docendi gratia_; _reus Milonis_; _urbis instar_; _me Pompeii esse scio_ (Cicero, Fam., ii. 13); _Germanicus Ægyptum proficiscitur cognoscendæ antiquitatis_ (Tacitus, Annals, xi. 59); _hoc præmii_; _ut adhuc locorum_ (Plautus, Captivi, 382). In modern English, on the contrary, the function of the genitive in connection with substantives is greatly restricted. Many usages possible in Anglo-Saxon are at the present day obsolete; for instance, _Criste is_ ALLRE _kinge king_ (Orm., 3588), MÁDMA _mænigo_ (Beowulf, 41), _ðaer wæs_ MÁDMA _fela_ (ibid., 36), RINCA _manige_ (ibid., 729), _he_ ÐAES WÆPNES _onláh sélran sweord-frecan_ = _he lent the weapon to the brave hero_ (ibid., 1468-69), _tó gebídanne_ ÓÐRES YRFEWEARDES = _to expect another heir_ (ibid., 2453,) _he ʒef Horse_ MÁDMES _inoʒe_ (L.I. 163, Fiedler and Sachs, ii. p. 277).[43] The genitive at the present day is confined to certain characteristically special usages, and possesses several apparently independent significations. It must, however, be noticed that the true inflectional genitive in English is that which characterises the possessive case; as, _John’s hat_. In other cases in Modern English, we have commonly dropped the inflection, and are accustomed to render the genitival relation by a periphrasis with the preposition _of_. Using the word _genitive_ in this sense, we may say that the typical usages of the genitive in modern English are the possessive genitive (_the man’s brother_), the partitive genitive (_a cup of wine_), and the genitive denoting that the governing substantive is what it is in virtue of what depends upon it (_the writer of the work_). This last division falls naturally into two sub-divisions in the case of nouns of action: the _subjective_ genitive (_surly Gloster’s governance_--Shakespeare, 2 Henry VI., I. iii.) and the _objective_ genitive (_the government of the country_). These usages have survived the various original methods of the application of the genitive, and they must thus be counted amongst genuine grammatical categories.

The relation of the accusative to its governing verb resembles the relation of the genitive to its governing substantive. The most general definition of the meaning of the accusative might be that it denotes any and every kind of relation that a substantive can bear to a verb, except that of a subject to its predicate. It is, however, true that, in English, we are unable to employ it in every case to denote such relation: nor, indeed, does this use seem to have been permissible in the original Indo-European languages; though it is true that the accusative was used more freely and commonly in old Greek and Latin, for instance, than in later times: cf. such constructions as ἄπορα πόριμος (Æsch., Prom. Vinctus); _Quid tibi hanc rem tactio est?_ (Plautus, Pœnulus, V. v. 29), _humeros exsertus uterque_ (Statius, Thebais, v. 439). Hence, in considering the different uses of the accusative, we must at the very outset place those meanings side by side which have gradually become independent.

The first distinction which we must remark in the use of the accusative is that between the _free_ accusative, or accusative which is independent of the nature of the verb which it follows,--as, _to buy a hat_,--and the _attached_ accusative, which is connected with a few verbs only by a close tie, and in each case with a restricted signification,--as, _to blow a gale_, _to row a race_. The free accusative is more freely used in English than in French or German; many of the relations which in those languages are expressed by the genitive and dative are in English expressed by the case under consideration.

One of the original usages of the _free_ accusative was the expression of an extension _over space and time_; and in this case, it is not always found with verbs. We have in Latin, _Cæsar tridui iter processit_ (Cæsar, Bell. Gallic., i. 38); _Unguem non oportet discedere_ (Cicero, ad Att., xiii. 20): and, in English, such uses as _To write of victories next year_ (Butler, Hudibras, II., III., 173); _My troublous dream this night_ (Henry VI., Part II., Act. II., ii.); where the dative was usual in Anglo-Saxon (see Koch, ii., p. 94; Mason, p. 147). As instances of the _attached_ accusative, we must especially consider the accusative of such substantives as are ETYMOLOGICALLY CONNECTED with the verb; as, _to fight a hard fight_; _to see a strange sight_; _sangas ic singe_ (Ps. xxvi. 7).[44] This ‘cognate accusative’ most probably furnishes the cue to such constructions as _Come and trip it as you go_, where _it_ seems to replace some noun, as, e.g., _tripping_. Once established, this use of _it_ instead of a cognate noun in the accusative, would easily be extended to cases like _to foot it_ for _to dance a dance_, where the use of the verb _to foot_ is but an ‘occasional’ one, and apparently too unusual to admit of the formation of the noun _footing_ in the sense of _dance_. We must, then, suppose that the word _it_ stands for a _dance_, i.e. for an accusative not cognate with the verb actually used, but with another and synonymous verb. The use of the accusative of towns in Latin, in answer to the question _Whither?_--as, _Ire Romam_, _Tarentum_, etc., further illustrates the _attached_ accusative with which we may compare expressions in English, as _to go west_; _flying south_, etc.

The usage, now common in English, whereby a predicative adjective is connected with an intransitive verb seems to be of later origin. Cf. _to cry one’s eyes red_; _to wash one’s forehead cool_; _to eat one’s-self full_; _to dance one’s-self tired_; _to shout one’s-self hoarse_. In these cases the predicatival force of the accusative must be regarded as a widening of the signification. No doubt, however, special factors must have aided to bring this construction into use: such as the survival of the memory of the general signification of the accusative, as representing the goal of the verbal action; and, again, the analogy of such cases as _to shoot a man dead_; _to buy a man free_; _to strike a man dumb_; _to beat black and blue_;--where the accusative serves to define the verb, and indeed, almost enters into composition with it, as it in fact actually does in many cases in German, like _tot schlagen_; cf. the English _dumb-foundered_. There are a large number of colloquial phrases which are similar,[45] such as _to talk a person’s head off_; _to worm one’s-self into another’s confidence_; _to read one’s-self into an author_; _to laugh a man down_, etc.

There is, next, the case of the accusative after _compound_ verbs, where the simple verbs are intransitive or govern a different kind of accusative from that taken by the verb when compounded. Such are _circumdare_ and _præcellere_ in Latin, and, in English, _to forego_, _to underrate_, _to withstand_, _to outlast_; or, A.S. _ofer-swimman_, _forestandan_, etc.; e.g., (hé) _oferswam sioleða bigong_--_He swam across the sea_ (Beowulf, 2368): _Wið ord and wið ecge ingang forstód_--_He withstood entrance against sword and spear_ (ibid., 1550).[46] These are on the border line of ‘free’ and ‘attached’ accusatives.

There are certain verbs composed with certain prefixes which, in virtue of their composition, receive a transitive force; as, _belabour_, _begrudge_, _bewitch_, _belie_, _befleck_, etc., and which, in some cases, receive in addition the power of adopting a different kind of object, generally calling in the aid of metaphor to extend their meaning; as, _embody_, _encompass_, _enthral_, _overrule_.

An ‘attached’ accusative, or one properly attached adverbially, in a defining and qualifying sense,[47] to one definite individual verb, has, as a rule, only one single meaning, limited by use. But sometimes we find that in this case, too, several applications have set in; such may have been in some cases original, and in others due to the fact that the one ‘usual’ signification has extended by ‘occasional’ transgression. Take such cases as _to blow a gale_, _to blow a sail_, _to strike a blow_; _to strike a man_, _to strike terror_; _to run a race_, _to run a man down_; _to stone a man_, _to stone cherries_; _pacing the ground_, _the morrice pacings_; _to keep a man from harm_, _to keep harm from a man_; _to stick a man with a knife_, _to stick a stamp_; and in Latin, _defendere aliquem ab ardore solis_, _defendere ardorem solis ab aliquo_; _prohibere calamitatem a provincia_, _prohibere provinciam calamitate_; _mutare equum mercede_, _mutare mercedem equo_. So, too, in Greek: ἀρκεῖν τινα ἀπὸ κινδύνου; ἀρκεῖν κίνδυνον ἀπό τινος.

Poetry has a strong tendency to aid such ‘occasional’ constructions to become ‘usual:’ for it is a part of the technique of poetry to produce strong impressions by using its material in a fresh and striking way: thus we find in Latin, _vina cadis onerare_ (Vergil, Æneid, i. 199: a variation for _cados vinis_); _liberare obsidionem_ (Livy, xxvi. 8), instead of _liberare urbem obsidione_; _vina coronant_ (Vergil, Æneid, iii. 526) instead of _pocula vinis coronant_: δάκρυα τέγγειν = ‘to stain tears,’ instead of ‘to stain with tears’ (Pindar): αἷμα δεύειν = ‘to stain blood,’ instead of ‘to stain with blood’ (Sophocles). Thus, in English, we have _The Attic warbler pours her throat_ (Gray); _to languish a drop of blood a day_ (Shakespeare, Cymbeline, I. ii.) The relation expressed by the accusative may in itself be more than a single one; and thus the connection of a single verb with several accusatives to express different ideas is quite natural.

It seems hardly true to state that the Indo-European prepositions governed any particular case. The case which followed the preposition was actually referred to the verb; the general meaning of the verb was still felt and was merely specialised by the preposition; whence it comes that the same preposition is followed by different cases, each bearing its own special meaning. The Greek language offers good examples of this, and seems to stand nearer the original state, as far as usage goes. Take, for instance, a preposition like πάρα. Its general meaning may be defined as ‘from:’ when followed by the genitive it signifies ‘proceeding from;’ when followed by the accusative, ‘to,’ reference to the source not being overlooked: similarly with κατά, μετά, etc. In English, more than in most European languages, the tendency has been to multiply the use of prepositions, and to employ them independently of any feeling for the case. The case has thus become more and more independent of the preposition: the connection of the latter with the case has become merely matter of custom; and the consciousness of the original signification of the case has become fainter. With regard to the Latin prepositions which govern one case only (like _ex_, _ab_), or which govern more than one without affecting the sense (like _tenus_), the employment of the case is merely traditional, and no value can be attached to it. Between the absolute fixity of the one use and the original freedom of the other use stands the employment of _in_, _sub_, and _super_, sometimes with the ablative, sometimes with the accusative, but with different meanings for the respective cases.

The changes that have appeared in Syntax in the case of prepositions are very well exemplified in English, in which language their use has so greatly spread, and plays such an important part. They were, in the first place, prefixed to the verb, which they qualified adverbially,[48] forming, in fact, a compound with it; as, ‘to _over_take,’ ‘_over_reach,’ ‘_over_look.’ They were next detached from the verb, but not prefixed to the noun; as, ‘to take _over_,’ ‘to reach _over_,’ ‘to look _over_;’ and the difference in meaning between these three pairs of phrases will show us how the preposition came to lose memory of the proper signification of the case. In a later stage still, they appear prefixed to nouns, and serve to particularise the relations of actions to things--relations which, in the inflected state of language, were expressed by the case endings of nouns; cf. _Bigstandað me strange genéatas_ (Cædmon) = ‘Stout vassals bystand me;’ _He heom stód wið_ (Layamon) = ‘He them stood against;’ or _Again the false paiens the Christens stode he by_ (P. Langtoft) = ‘Against the false pagans the Christians he stood by;’ _i.e._ ‘He stood by the Christians.’

We sometimes find the partitive use of the genitive replaced by apposition. The simplest and most natural example of this is where the apposition is made up of several members which are collectively the equivalent of the substantive to which they are appended; for instance, ‘They went, one to the right, the other to the left;’ ‘Postero die terrestrem navalemque exercitum, non instructos modo, sed hos decurrentes, classem in portu, simulacrum et ipsam edentem navalis pugnæ ostendit’ (Livy, xxix. 22). ‘Duæ filiæ harum, altera occisa, altera capta est’ (Cæsar, Bell. Gallic., i. 53); ‘Diversa cornua, dextrum ad castra Sammitium, lævum ad urbem tendit’ (Livy, x. 41); ‘Capti ab Iugurtha, pars in crucem acti, pars bestiis objecti sunt’ (Sall., Iug.). But the same appositional construction appears when the whole apposition represents only a part of the expression or phrase of which it is the expansion; as, ‘Volsci maxima pars cæsi,’ (Livy): ‘Cetera multitudo decimus quisque ad supplicium lecti’ (Livy); ‘Nostri ceciderunt tres’ (Cæsar); ‘My arrival, although an only son, unseen for four years, was unable to discompose, etc.’ (Scott, Rob Roy, i.); ‘Tuum, hominis simplicis, pectus vidimus’ (Cicero, Phil., ii. 43). This is also the case where the subject is expressed only by the personal termination of the verb; as, ‘Plerique meminimus’ (Livy); ‘Simoni adesse me quis nuntiate’ = ‘Tell Simo, one or the other of you!’ (Plautus). Similarly, in the case of the designation of materials, we find an apposition taking the place of the partitive genitive; thus we find, in Latin, ‘aliquid id genus’ for ‘something of that kind;’ ‘Scis me antea orationes aut aliquid id genus solitum scribere’ (Cicero, Att., xiii. 12);’ Pascuntur omne genus objecto frumento maxime ordeo’ (Varro, de Re Rustica, iii. 6);[49] ‘arma magnus numerus’ (Livy). Thus, ‘He gained the sur-addition Leonatus’ (Shakespeare, Cymbeline, I. i.).

This more simple and primitive appositional construction is very common in modern German; as, _ein stück brot_, _ein glas wasser_: in Middle High German it was rarer; in modern Scotch it is common in such instances as _a wee bit body_, _a curran days_ (a number of days): it was common in Anglo-Saxon; as, ‘scóp him Heort naman’ (Beowulf, 78); _Emme broðer ðe queene_ (Robert of Gloucester); _The Duke of Burgoys, Edmonde sonne_ (Wa., i. 87); _David Kingdom_ (R. of G., i. 7.):[50] and is found in Chaucer,--_Gif us a busshel whet or malt or reye_ (Canterbury Tales, 7328); _half a quarter otes_ (ibid., 7545): and has survived even in modern English, in such cases as _The Tyrol passes_ (Coleridge, Picc., i. 10); _Through Solway sands, through Tarras moss_ (Scott, Lay of Last Minstrel, i. 21). We must regard this method of apposition as the most primitive in language; the two words in apposition are simply placed side by side like two Chinese roots, and must be looked upon as the simple stems without any inflection.

Even the subject of a verb may deviate from previous usage in the way whereby it denotes a relation: cf. such phrases as _The cistern is running dry_; _The roof drips with water_; _The trees drop honey_. Thus we can say, _The river is running over_; _The wood is resonant with song_; _The window will not shut_; _The fire will not draw_; _The kettle boils_; _This sample tastes bad_; _The hall thick swarming now with complicated monsters_ (Milton): in Italian, _Le vie correvano sangue_ (Malespini): in Spanish, _Corrieron sangue los rios_: _Sudare mella_ (Vergil, Ecl. iv., 30); cf. also, the use of _sapere_, in Latin, in such cases as _cum sapimus patruos_ (Persius, Sat. i., 11); _sentir_, in French, as _Cela sent la guerre_. In these cases we should expect the subject and object to be inverted.

A similar departure from ordinary usage occurs in the case of what we commonly speak of as ‘transferred’ epithets; _i.e._ adjectives referring to merely indirect relations with the substantive to which they are attached. Such are expressions like _wicked ways_; _quiet hours_; _in ambitious Latin_ (Carlyle, Past and Present, ii. 2); _the blest abodes_ (Pope, Essay on Man, iii. 259). Many of these linguistic licences have become quite usual, and it is forgotten that the epithet attached to the word does not strictly fit it: thus we speak quite commonly of _the happy event_, _a joyful surprise_, _happy hours_, _a learned treatise_, _an intoxicated condition_, _in a foolish manner_, _a gay supper_, _a bright prospect_, etc.; and we can even say, _He gives us an unhealthy impression_, _a stingy gift_, etc. The word _secure_ in English, like _sûr_ in French, refers in the first instance to a person who need not be anxious; in the second place, to a thing or person about whom no one need be anxious. Thus we can say, _I am safe in saying that he is safe_. As soon as these freer combinations are apprehended as an ordinary epithet applied to its substantive, we may state that a change in word-meaning has occurred.

Such licence occurs in the case of the participles and nouns in _-ing_ even more than in that of adjectives; thus we can say, _in a dismantled state_ (Dickens, Pickwick, 2); _a smiling answer_; _this consummation of drunken folly_ (Scott, Rob Roy, 12); _a dazzling prospect_; _the selling price_; _the dying day_; _a parting glass_; _writing materials_; _sleeping compartment_; _dining room_; _singing lesson_; _falling sickness_; _waking moments_; _the ravished hours_ (Parnell, Hesiod, 225). So, too, we speak of _a talented man_; cf. also the common French expressions, _thé dansant_, _café chantant_. Tacitus has such uses as _Muciano volentia rescripsere_ (Hist., iii. 52) for _volenti_, _etc._

We may probably compare with this use that of the so-called ‘misrelated participle,’ a freely attached predicatival attribute, which is indeed condemned as ungrammatical and careless, but which still occurs very commonly in even the best authors. Cf. ‘When _gone_ we all regarded each other for some minutes with confusion’ (Goldsmith, Vicar of Wakefield, 13);

‘Thus _repulsed_, our final hope Is flat despair’

(Milton, Paradise Lost, ii. 142);

‘_Amazed_ at the alteration in his manner, every sentence that he uttered increased her embarrassment’ (Miss Austin, Pride and Prejudice, ch. xliii.).[51] We are, indeed, accustomed to say that in this case we must supply a subject, and that the full expression would be ‘Amazed _as she was_,’ in the last instance cited. But if we use such an expression as ‘a _pitying_ tear,’ we might maintain as well that it is necessary to explain this as, ‘with a tear, shed in sign of his pity.’ The fact is, that these loosely appended predicatival attributes answer to a need felt in language, just as much as such words as _regarding_, _during_, _vu que_, _instar_, supply a requirement in the prepositional category.

In the case of participial constructions, the participle expresses formally the time-relation in which the condition or action denoted by the participle stands to the finite verb. Thus, ‘_Being frightened_ he runs away’ expresses formally nothing more than the temporal relation between the fright and what follows it. It is, however, possible to understand different relations as implied by this participle; thus there would, in this instance, be a connection of cause and effect. There are many cases in which, were we to extend the participial construction into a separate sentence, we should have to employ different conjunctions; sometimes those denoting the reason,--as, ‘_Since_ he was frightened he ran away;’ sometimes we should have to employ such conjunctions as denote an opposition,--as, ‘Notwithstanding that;’ thus, supposing that the sentence in question ran, ‘Being frightened he did _not_ run away,’ this would naturally be broken up into ‘_Notwithstanding_ that he was frightened, he did not run away.’ Sometimes, again, the participle expresses a condition, as in such common cases as ‘_Failing_ an heir, the property passes to the crown.’

Still it is unnecessary to assert that the participle, as such, denotes these different meanings--such as cause, condition, opposition, etc. These relations are only accidental and _occasional_. When, however, we have dependent sentences introduced _by a temporal conjunction_, like _quum_, _since_, the accidental relation of this conjunction to the governing sentence may come to attach itself and become permanent; in this case, the conjunction will experience a change of syntactical meaning. Take the case of _since_, formed by the adverbial genitive suffix _es_, from _sin_ = _sithen_ (from _sið_, _þ̱am_, after that). _While_, again, from meaning ‘the time that’ (a thing occurred,) has come to denote ‘in spite of the fact that,’ in such phrases as ‘_While_ you pretend that you love me, you act as though you did not.’ In the case of the modern German _weil_, the temporal signification has completely disappeared; and in the same way prepositions, such as _through_ and _by_, which possess strictly speaking a local or temporal meaning, pass into a causal meaning.

The instances given above may serve to show the way in which changes are constantly occurring in syntax, and will aid in pointing out how language is constantly aiming at supplying, in an economical fashion, its needs as they successively present themselves.