The English Language

Besides this, _make_ is similarly used in Old English.--_But men make draw the branch thereof, and beren him to be graffed at Babyloyne._--Sir J.

Mandeville.

-- 477. _The figure zeugma._--_They wear a garment like that of the Scythians, but a language peculiar to themselves._--The verb, naturally applying to _garment_ only, is here used to govern _language_. This is called in Greek, _zeugma_ (junction).

-- 478. _My paternal home was made desolate, and he himself was sacrificed._--The sense of this is plain; _he_ means _my father_. Yet no such substantive as _father_ has gone before. It is supplied, however, from the word _paternal_. The sense indicated by _paternal_ gives us a subject to which _he_ can refer. In other words, the word _he_ is understood, according to what is indicated, rather than according to what is expressed.

This figure in Greek is called _pros to semainomenon_ (_according to the thing indicated_). {398}

-- 479. _Apposition._--_Caesar, the Roman emperor, invades Britain._--Here the words _Roman emperor_ explain, or define, the word _Caesar_; and the sentence, filled up, might stand, _Caesar, that is, the Roman emperor_, &c.

Again, the words _Roman emperor_ might be wholly ejected; or, if not ejected, they might be thrown into a parenthesis. The practical bearing of this fact is exhibited by changing the form of the sentence, and inserting the conjunction _and_. In this case, instead of one person, two are spoken of, and the verb _invades_ must be changed from the singular to the plural.

Now the words _Roman emperor_ are said to be in apposition to _Caesar_. They const.i.tute, not an additional idea, but an explanation of the original one.

They are, as it were, _laid alongside_ (_appositi_) _of_ the word _Caesar_.

Cases of doubtful number, wherein two substantives precede a verb, and wherein it is uncertain whether the verb should be singular or plural, are decided by determining whether the substantives be in apposition or the contrary. No matter how many nouns there may be, as long as it can be shown that they are in apposition, the verb is in the singular number.

-- 480. _Collectiveness as opposed to plurality._--In sentences like _the meeting_ was _large_, _the mult.i.tude_ pursue _pleasure_, _meeting_, and _mult.i.tude_ are each collective nouns; that is, although they present the idea of a single object, that object consists of a plurality of individuals. Hence, _pursue_ is put in the plural number. To say, however, _the meeting were large_ would sound improper. The number of the verb that shall accompany a collective noun depends upon whether the idea of the multiplicity of individuals, or that of the unity of the aggregate, shall predominate.

_Sand and salt and a ma.s.s of iron is easier to bear than a man without understanding._--Let _sand and salt and a ma.s.s of iron_ be dealt with as a series of things the aggregate of which forms a mixture, and the expression is allowable.

_The king and the lords and commons_ forms _an excellent frame of government_.--Here the expression is doubtful. Subst.i.tute _with_ for the first _and_, and there is no doubt as to the propriety of the singular form _is_. {399}

-- 481. _The reduction of complex forms to simple ones._--Take, for instance, the current ill.u.s.tration, viz., _the-king-of-Saxony's army_.--Here the a.s.sertion is, not that the army belongs to _Saxony_, but that it belongs to the _king of Saxony_; which words must, for the sake of taking a true view of the construction, be dealt with as a single word in the possessive case. Here two cases are dealt with as one; and a complex term is treated as a single word.

The same reasoning applies to phrases like _the two king Williams_. If we say _the two kings William_, we must account

-- 482. _True notion of the part of speech in use._--In _he is gone_, the word _gone_ must be considered as equivalent to _absent_; that is, as an adjective. Otherwise the expression is as incorrect as the expression _she is eloped_. Strong participles are adjectival oftener than weak ones; their form being common to many adjectives.

_True notion of the original form._--In the phrase _I must speak_, the word _speak_ is an infinitive. In the phrase _I am forced to speak_, the word _speak_ is (in the present English) an infinitive also. In one case, however, it is preceded by _to_; whilst in the other, the particle _to_ is absent. The reason for this lies in the original difference of form.

_Speak_ - _to_=the Anglo-Saxon _sprecan_, a simple infinitive; _to speak_, or _speak + to_=the Anglo-Saxon _to sprecanne_, an infinitive in the dative case.

-- 483. _Convertibility._--In the English language, the greater part of the words may, as far as their form is concerned, be one part of speech as well as another. Thus the combinations _s-a-n-th_, or _f-r-e-n-k_, if they existed at all, might exist as either nouns or verbs, as either substantives or adjectives, as conjunctions, adverbs, or prepositions. This is not the case in the Greek language. There, if a word be a substantive, it will probably end in _-s_, if an infinitive verb, in _-ein_, &c. The bearings of this difference between languages like the English and languages like the Greek will soon appear.

At present, it is sufficient to say that a word, {400} originally one part of speech (_e.g._ a noun), may become another (_e.g._ a verb). This may be called the convertibility of words.

There is an etymological convertibility, and a syntactic convertibility; and although, in some cases, the line of demarcation is not easily drawn between them, the distinction is intelligible and convenient.

-- 484. _Etymological convertibility._--The words _then_ and _than_, now adverbs or conjunctions, were once cases: in other words, they have been converted from one part of speech to another. Or, they may even be said to be cases, at the present moment; although only in an historical point of view. For the practice of language, they are not only adverbs or conjunctions, but they are adverbs or conjunctions exclusively.

-- 485. _Syntactic convertibility._--The combination _to err_, is at this moment an infinitive verb. Nevertheless it can be used as the equivalent to the substantive _error_.

_To err is human_=_error is human_. Now this is an instance of syntactic conversion. Of the two meanings, there is no doubt as to which is the primary one; which primary meaning is part and parcel of the language at this moment.

The infinitive, when used as a substantive, can be used in a singular form only.

_To err_=_error_; but we have no such form as _to errs_=_errors_. Nor is it wanted. The infinitive, in a substantival sense, always conveys a general statement, so that even when singular, it has a plural power; just as _man is mortal_=_men are mortal_.

-- 486. _The adjective used as a substantive._--Of these, we have examples in expressions like the _blacks of Africa_--_the bitters and sweets of life_--_all fours were put to the ground_. These are true instances of conversion, and are proved to be so by the fact of their taking a plural form.

_Let the blind lead the blind_ is not an instance of conversion. The word _blind_ in both instances remains an adjective, and is shown to remain so by its being uninflected.

-- 487. _Uninflected parts of speech, used as substantive._--When King Richard III. says, _none of your ifs_, he uses the word _if_ as a substantive=_expressions of doubt_. {401}

So in the expression _one long now_, the word _now_=_present time_.

-- 488. The convertibility of words in English is very great; and it is so because the structure of the language favours it. As few words have any peculiar signs expressive of their being particular parts of speech, interchange is easy, and conversion follows the logical a.s.sociation of ideas unimpeded.

_The convertibility of words is in the inverse ratio to the amount of their inflection._

{402}

CHAPTER II.

SYNTAX OF SUBSTANTIVES.

-- 489. The phenomena of convertibility have been already explained.

The remaining points connected with the syntax of substantives, are chiefly points of either ellipsis, or apposition.

_Ellipsis of substantives._--The historical view of phrases, like _Rundell and Bridge's_, _St. Pauls'_, &c., shows that this ellipsis is common to the English and the other Gothic languages. Furthermore, it shows that it is met with in languages not of the Gothic stock; and, finally, that the cla.s.s of words to which it applies, is, there or thereabouts, the same generally.

A. 1. The words most commonly understood, are _house_ and _family_, or words reducible to them. In Latin, _Dianae_=_aedem Dianae_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262.

2. _Country, retinue._--Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 262.

3. _Son_, _daughter_, _wife_, _widow_.--Deutsche Grammatik, iv.

262.--[Greek: Neleus Kodrou], Greek.

B. The following phrases are referable to a different cla.s.s of relations--

1. _Right and left_--supply _hand_. This is, probably, a real ellipsis. The words _right_ and _left_, have not yet become true substantives; inasmuch as they have no plural forms. In this respect, they stand in contrast with _bitter_ and _sweet_; inasmuch as we can say _he has tasted both the bitters and sweets of life_. Nevertheless, the expression can be refined on.

2. _All fours._--_To go on all fours._ No ellipsis. The word _fours_, is a true substantive, as proved by its existence as a plural.

From expressions like [Greek: poterion psuchrou] (Matt. xiv. 51), {403} from the Greek, and _perfundit gelido_ (understand _latice_), from the Latin, we find that the present ellipsis was used with greater lat.i.tude in the cla.s.sical languages than our own.

-- 490. _Proper names can only be used in the singular number._--This is a rule of logic, rather than of grammar. When we say _the four Georges_, _the Pitts and Camdens_, &c., the words that thus take a plural form, have ceased to be proper names. They either mean--

1. The persons called _George_, &c.

2. Or, persons so like _George_, that they may be considered as identical.

-- 491. _Collocation._--In the present English, the genitive case always precedes the noun by which it is governed--_the man's hat_=_hominis pileus_; never _the hat man's_=_pileus hominis_.