THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO- $33. The relation of the present English to the AngloSaxon is that of a Modern language to an Ancient one, the words Modern and Ancient being used in a defined and technical sense. Smisum, the Da Let the word Smiðum illustrate this. tive Plural of Smit, is equivalent in meaning to the English to Smiths, or to the Latin Fabris. Smiðum, however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a Substantive, and nothing more), while its English equivalent is two words (i. e., a Substantive with the addition of a Preposition). The letter s in Smiths shows that the word is plural. The -um in Smiðum does this and something more. It is the sign of the Dative Case Plural. The -um in Smiðum is the part of a word. The proposition to is a separate word with an independent existence. Smiðum is the radical syllable Smið, plus the subordinate inflectional syllable -um, the sign of the Dative Case. To Smiths is the substantive Smiths, plus the Preposition. to, equivalent in power to the sign of a Dative Case, but different from it in form. As far, then, as the word just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English thus: It expresses a certain idea by a modification of the form of the root, whereas the Modern English denotes the same idea by the addition of a Preposition. The Saxon form is an inflection. In English it is superseded by a combination of words. The same part that is played by the Preposition with nouns, is played by the Auxiliaries (have, be, &c.) with Verbs. The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement. (1.) The earlier the stage of a given language, the greater the amount of its inflectional forms; and the later the stage of a given language, the smaller the amount of them. (2.) As languages become Modern, they substitute Prepositions and Auxiliary Verbs for Cases and Tenses. (3.) The amount of inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of Prepositions and Auxiliary Verbs. (4.) In the course of time languages drop their inflection, and substitute in their stead circumlocutions by means of Prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place. (5.) Giving two modes of expression, the one inflectional (Smiðum), the other circumlocutional (to Smiths), we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second to a late stage of language. The present chapter, then, showing the relation of the English to the Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the general relation of a modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian to the Old Norse; so the modern Dutch of Holland to a dialect closely akin to the Old Frisian; so also the modern High German to the Maso-Gothic; so, moreover, among the languages of a different stock, are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese, and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the ancient Greek. As contrasted with the English, but contrasted with it only in those points where the ancient tongue is compared with the modern one, the Anglo-Saxon has the following differences: Of Gender.-In Anglo-Saxon there are three Genders: the Masculine, the Feminine, and the Neuter. With Adjectives, each gender has its peculiar declension; with Substantives there are also appropriate terminations, but only to a certain degree; e. g., of words ending in a (Nama, a Name; Cuma, a Guest), it may be stated that they are always masculine; of words in u (Sunu, a Son; Gifu, a Gift), that they are never neuter; in other words, that they are always either Masculine or Feminine. The Definite article varies with the gender of its substantive: paet Eage, the Eye; se Steorra, the Star; seo Tunge, the Tongue. Of Number. The plural form in -en (as in oxen), rare in English, was common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regu lar termination of a whole declension; e. g., Eagan, Eyes; Steorran, Stars; Tungen, Tongues. Besides this, the Anglo Saxons had forms in -u and -a; as, Ricu, Kingdoms; Gifa, Gifts. The termination -s, current in the present English, was confined to a single gender, and to a single declension; as, Endas, Ends; Dagas, Days; Smiðas, Smiths. Of Case. Of these the Saxons had for their substantives at least three; viz., the Nominative, Dative, and Genitive. With the Pronouns and Adjectives there was a true áccusative form, and with a few especial words an ablative or instrumental one. Smis, a Smith; Smide, to a Smith; Smides, of a Smith. Plural, Smiðas, Smiths; Smiðum, to Smiths; Smiða, of Smiths.-He, He; Hine, Him; Him, to Him; His, His. Se, the; pa, the; by, with the; pam, to the; paes, of the. Of Declension.-In Anglo-Saxon it is necessary to determine the termination of a substantive. There is the Weak or Simple Declension for words ending in a vowel (as Eage, Steorra, Tunga), and the Strong or Complex declension for words ending in a consonant (Smið, Spraéc, Leáf). The letters i and u are dealt with as semi-vowels, semi-vowels being dealt with as consonants; so that words like Sunu and Gifu belong to the same declension as Smið and Spraéc. The Anglo-Saxon inflection of the Participles Present is remarkable. With the exception of the form of the Genitive Plural Definite (which, instead of -ena, is -ra), they follow the declension of the adjectives. From the masculine substantives formed from them, and denoting the agent, they may be distinguished by a difference of Inflection. Pronouns Personal. Of the Pronominal Inflection in Saxon the character may be gathered from the chapter upon Pronouns. At present it may be stated that, like the MœsoGothic and Icelandic, the Anglo-Saxon language possessed, for the two first persons, a Dual number, inflected as fol Besides this, the Demonstrative, Possessive, and Relative pronouns, as well as the numerals Twa and preò, had a fuller declension than they have at present. VERBS. Mode. The Subjunctive Mode, that in the present English (with the exception of the Conjugation of the Verb Substantive) differs from the Indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon inflected as follows: The Saxon Infinitive ended in -an (Lufian), and was so far declined as to give a so-called gerundial form, to Lufigenne. Tense. In regard to tense, the Anglo-Saxon coincided with the English. The present language has two tenses, the Present and the Past; the Saxon had no more. The past tense the modern English forms either by addition (Love, Loved), or by change (Fall, Fell). So did the Anglo-Saxons. It Number and Person.-In the present English the termination -eth is antiquated. In Anglo-Saxon it was the only form recognized. In English the Plural Number (indicative as well as subjunctive) has no distinguishing inflection. was not so in Anglo-Saxon. There, although the persons were identical in form, the numbers were distinguished by the termination a for the indicative, and -n for the subjunctive. Such are the chief points in the Declension of Nouns and the Conjugation of Verbs that give a difference of character between the Ancient Anglo-Saxon and the Modern English; and it has already been stated that the differences between the new and the old German, the Dutch and the Frisian, the Italian, &c., and the Latin, the Romaic and the Greek, &c., are similar. § 34. How far can the rate of change in a given language be accelerated by outward circumstances? This question bears immediately upon the history of the English language. The grammar of the current idiom, compared with that of the Anglo-Saxons, is simplified. How far was this simplification of the grammar promoted by the Norman Conquest? The current views exaggerate the influence of the Norman Conquest and of French connections. The remark of Mr. Price in his Preface to Warton, acceded to by Mr. Hallam in his Introduction to the Literature of Europe, is, that every one of the other Low Germanic languages (affected by nothing corresponding to the Norman Conquest) displays the same simplification of grammar as the Anglo-Saxon (affected by the Norman Conquest) displays. Confirmatory of this remark, it may be added that, compared with the Icelandic, the Danish and Swedish do the same. "Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to determine the commencement of the English language; not so much, as in those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We should probably experience a similar difficulty if we knew equally well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh or eighth centuries; for when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce why it should pass for a separate language rather than a modification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage, and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English: 1. By contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the introduction of French |