The English Language

CHAPTER x.x.xI.

COMPOSITION.

-- 410. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and indubitable specimens of composition. _Day-star_, _vine-yard_, _sun-beam_, _apple-tree_, _s.h.i.+p-load_, _silver-smith_, &c. The words _palpable_ and _indubitable_ have been used, because, in many cases, as will be seen hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound or not.

Now, in each of the compounds quoted above, it may be seen that it is the second word which is qualified, or defined, by the first, and that it is not the first which is qualified or defined, by the second. Of _yards_, _beams_, _trees_, _loads_, _smiths_, there may be many sorts, and, in order to determine what _particular_ sort of _yard_, _beam_, _tree_, _load_, or _smith_, may be meant, the words _vine_, _sun_, _apple_, _s.h.i.+p_, and _silver_, are prefixed. In compound words it is the _first_ term that defines or particularises the second.

-- 411. That the idea given by the word _apple-tree_ is not referable to the words _apple_ and _tree_, irrespective of the order in which they occur, may be seen by reversing the position of them. The word _tree-apple_, although not existing in the language, is as correct a word as _thorn-apple_. In _tree-apple_, the particular sort of _apple_ meant is denoted by the word _tree_, and if there were in our gardens various sorts of plants called _apples_, of which some grew along the ground and others upon trees, such a word as _tree-apple_ would be required in order to be opposed to _earth-apple_, or _ground-apple_, or some word of the kind.

In the compound words _tree-apple_ and _apple-tree_, we have the same elements differently arranged. However, as the {356} word _tree-apple_ is not current in the language, the cla.s.s of compounds indicated by it may seem to be merely imaginary. Nothing is farther from being the case. A _tree-rose_ is a rose of a particular sort. The generality of roses being on _shrubs_, this grows on a _tree_. Its peculiarity consists in this fact, and this particular character is expressed by the word _tree_ _prefixed_. A _rose-tree_ is a _tree_ of a particular sort, distinguished from _apple-trees_, and _trees_ in general (in other words, particularised or defined) by the word _rose_ _prefixed_.

A _ground-nut_ is a _nut_ particularised by growing in the ground. _A nut-ground_ is a _ground_ particularised by producing nuts.

A _finger-ring_, as distinguished from _ear-rings_, and from _rings_ in general (and so particularised), is a _ring_ for the _finger_. A _ring finger_, as distinguished from _fore-fingers_, and from _fingers_ in general (and so particularised), is a _finger_ whereon _rings_ are worn.

-- 412. At times this rule seems to be violated. The words _spitfire_ and _daredevil_ seem exceptions to it. At the first glance it seems, in the case of a _spitfire_, that what he (or she) _spits_ is _fire_; and that, in the case of a _daredevil_, what he (or she) _dares_ is the _devil_. In this case the initial words _spit_ and _dare_, are particularised by the final ones _fire_ and _devil_. The true idea, however, confirms the original rule. A _spitfire_ voids his fire by spitting. A _daredevil_, in meeting the fiend, would not shrink from him, but would defy him. A _spitfire_ is not one who spits fire, but one whose fire is _spit_. A _daredevil_ is not one who dares even the devil, but one by whom the devil is even dared.

-- 413. Of the two elements of a compound word, which is the most important?

In one sense the latter, in another sense the former. The latter word is the most _essential_; since the general idea of _trees_ must exist before it can be defined or particularised; so becoming the idea which we have in _apple-tree_, _rose-tree_, &c. The former word, however, is the most _influential_. It is by this that the original idea is qualified. The latter word is the staple original element: the former is the superadded influencing element. Compared with each {357} other, the former element is active, the latter pa.s.sive. Etymologically speaking, the former element, in English compounds, is the most important.

-- 414. Most numerous are the observations that bear upon the composition of words; _e.g._, how nouns combine with nouns, as in _sunbeam_; nouns with verbs, as in _daredevil_, &c. It is thought sufficient in the present work to be content with, 1. defining the meaning of the term composition; 2.

explaining the nature of some obscure compounds.

Composition is the joining together, _in language_, of two _different words_, and _treating the combination as a single term_. Observe the words in italics.

_In language._--A great number of our compounds, like the word _merry-making_, are divided by the sign -, or the hyphen. It is very plain that if all words _spelt_ with a hyphen were to be considered as compounds, the formation of them would be not a matter of speech, or language, but one of writing or spelling. This distinguishes compounds in language from mere printers' compounds.

_Different._--In Old High German we find the form _selp-selpo_. Here there is the junction of two words, but not the junction of two _different_ ones.

This distinguishes composition from gemination.--Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 405.

_Words._--In _father-s_, _clear-er_, _four-th_, &c., there is the addition of a letter or a syllable, and it may be even of the part of a word. There is no addition, however, of a whole word. This distinguishes composition from derivation.

_Treating the

It is in the determination of this that the accent plays an important part.

This fact was foreshadowed in the Chapter upon Accents. {358}

-- 415. The attention of the reader is drawn to the following line, slightly altered, from Churchill:--

"Then rest, my friend, _and spare_ thy precious breath."

On each of the syllables _rest_, _friend_, _spare_, _prec-_, _breath_, there is an accent. Each of these syllables must be compared with the one that precedes it; _rest_ with _then_, _friend_ with _my_, and so on throughout the line. Compared with the word _and_, the word _spare_ is not only accented, but the accent is conspicuous and prominent. There is so little on _and_, and so much on _spare_, that the disparity of accent is very manifest.

Now, if in the place of _and_, there was some other word, a word not so much accented as _spare_, but still more accented than _and_, this disparity would be diminished, and the accents of the two words might be said to be at _par_, or nearly so. As said before, the line was slightly altered from Churchill, the real reading being

Then rest, my friend, _spare, spare_ thy precious breath.--

In the true reading we actually find what had previously only been supposed. In the words _spare, spare_, the accents are nearly at _par_.

Such the difference between accent at _par_ and disparity of accent.

Good ill.u.s.trations of the parity and disparity of accent may be drawn from certain names of places. Let there be such a sentence as the following: _the lime house near the bridge north of the new port._ Compare the parity of accent on the separate words _lime_ and _house_, _bridge_ and _north_, _new_ and _port_, with the disparity of accent in the compound words _Limehouse_, _Bridgenorth_, and _Newport_. The separate words _beef steak_, where the accent is nearly at _par_, compared with the compound word _sweepstakes_, where there is a great disparity of accent, are further ill.u.s.trations of the same difference.

-- 416. The difference between a compound word and two words is greatest where the first is an adjective. This we see in comparing such terms as the following: _black bird_, meaning a _bird that is black_, with _blackbird_=the Latin _merula_; or _blue bell_, meaning a _bell that is blue_, with _bluebell_, the flower. {359} Expressions like _a sharp edged instrument_, meaning _an instrument that is sharp and has edges_, as opposed to a _sharp-edged instrument_, meaning _an instrument with sharp edges_, further exemplify this difference.

Subject to four small cla.s.ses of exceptions, it may be laid down, that, in the English language, _there is no composition unless there is either a change of form or a change of accent_.

The reader is now informed, that unless, in what has gone before, he has taken an exception to either a statement or an inference, he has either seen beyond what has been already laid down by the author, or else has read him with insufficient attention. This may be shown by drawing a distinction between a compound form and a compound idea.

In the words _a red house_, each word preserves its natural and original meaning, and the statement is _that a house is red_. By a parity of reasoning _a mad house_ should mean a _house that is mad_; and, provided that each word retain its natural meaning and its natural accent, such is the fact. Let a _house_ mean, as it often does, a _family_. Then the phrase, _a mad house_, means that the _house_, _or family_, _is mad_, just as a _red house_ means that the _house is red_. Such, however, is not the current meaning of the word. Every one knows that _a mad house_ means _a house for mad men_; in which case it is treated as a compound word, and has a marked accent on the first syllable, just as _Limehouse_ has. Now, compared with the word _red house_, meaning a house of a _red colour_, and compared with the words _mad house_, meaning a _deranged family_, the word _madhouse_, in its common sense, expresses a compound idea; as opposed to two ideas, or a double idea. The word _beef steak_ is evidently a compound idea; but, as there is no disparity of accent, it is not a compound word.

Its sense is compound; its form is not compound, but double. This indicates the objection antic.i.p.ated, which is this: _viz._, that a definition, which would exclude such a word as _beef steak_ from the list of compounds, is, for that very reason, exceptionable. I answer to this, that the term in question is a compound idea, and not a compound form; in other words, that it is a compound in logic, but not a compound in etymology. {360} Now etymology, taking cognisance of forms only, has nothing to do with ideas, except so far as they influence forms.

Such is the commentary upon the words, "_treating the combination as a single term_;" in other words, such the difference between a compound word and two words. The rule, being repeated, stands (subject to the four cla.s.ses of exceptions) thus: _There is no true composition without either a change of form or a change of accent._ As I wish to be clear upon this point, I shall ill.u.s.trate the statement by its application.

The word _tree-rose_ is often p.r.o.nounced _tree rose_; that is, with the accent at _par_. It is compound in the one case; it is two words in the other.

The words _mountain ash_ and _mountain height_ are generally (perhaps always) p.r.o.nounced with an equal accent on the syllables _mount-_ and _ash_, _mount-_ and _height_, respectively. In this case the word _mountain_ must be dealt with as an adjective, and the words considered as two. The word _mountain wave_ is often p.r.o.nounced with a visible diminution of accent on the last syllable. In this case there is a disparity of accent, and the word is compound.

-- 417. The following quotation indicates a further cause of perplexity in determining between compound words and two words:--

1.

A wet sheet and a blowing gale, A breeze that follows fast; That fills the white and swelling sail, And bends the _gallant mast_.

ALLAN CUNNINGHAM.

2.

Britannia needs no bulwarks, No towers along the steep; Her march is o'er the _mountain-wave_, Her home is on the deep.

THOMAS CAMPBELL.

To speak first of the word (or words) _gallant mast_. If _gallant_ mean _brave_, there are _two words_. If the words be two, there {361} is a stronger accent on _mast_. If the accent on _mast_ be stronger, the rhyme with _fast_ is more complete; in other words, the metre favours the notion of the words being considered as _two_. _Gallant-mast_, however, is a compound word, with an especial nautical meaning. In this case the accent is stronger on _gal-_ and weaker on _-mast_. This, however, is not the state of things that the metre favours. The same applies to _mountain wave_. The same person who in prose would throw a stronger accent on _mount-_ and a weaker one on _wave_ (so dealing with the word as a compound), might, in poetry, make the words _two_, by giving to the last syllable a parity of accent.

The following quotation from Ben Jonson may be read in two ways; and the accent may vary with the reading.

1.

Lay thy bow of pearl apart, And thy _silver s.h.i.+ning_ quiver.

2.

Lay thy bow of pearl apart, And thy _silver-s.h.i.+ning_ quiver.

_Cynthia's Revels._

-- 418. _On certain words wherein the fact of their being compound is obscured._--Composition is the addition of a word to a word, derivation is the addition of letters or syllables to a word. In a compound form each element has a separate and independent existence; in a derived form, only one of the elements has such. Now it is very possible that in an older stage of a language two words may exist, may be put together, and may so form a compound; at the time in point each word having a separate and independent existence: whilst, in a later stage of language, only one of these words may have a separate and independent existence, the other having become obsolete. In this case a compound word would take the appearance of a derived one, since but one of its elements could be exhibited as a separate and independent word. Such is the case with, amongst others, the word _bishopric_. In the present language the word _ric_ has no separate and independent existence. For all this, the word {362} is a true compound, since, in Anglo-Saxon, we have the noun _rice_ as a separate, independent word, signifying _kingdom_ or domain.

Again, without becoming obsolete, a word may alter its form. This is the case with most of our adjectives in _-ly_. At present they appear derivative; their termination _-ly_ having no separate and independent existence. The older language, however, shows that they are compounds; since _-ly_ is nothing else than _-lic_, Anglo-Saxon; _-lih_, Old High German; _-leiks_, Moeso-Gothic;=_like_, or _similis_, and equally with it an independent separate word.

For the following words a separate independent root is presumed rather than shown. It is presumed, however, on grounds that satisfy the etymologist.