Page images
PDF
EPUB

.

tween parent and child. Where there is a strong family likeness between two individuals, we may infer connexion of some kind; but if they are of the same age, no one suspects them to be father and son. This seems to us a sufficient account of those resemblances between Latin and the Teutonic languages, which induced Mr Gilchrist to form his extravagant hypothesis as to the immediate derivation of the latter languages from the Latin. The resemblances in question are far too limited and partial to justify such a supposition; while they are just as extensive as might be expected on the supposition that all languages had a commom origin. Horne Tooke has committed an error of precisely the same kind, in deducing many of our particles immediately from nouns and verbs in the Anglo-Saxon; that is, he has assumed resemblance in form and meaning, as a sufficient ground for inferring derivation. He has too often conducted his reasoning as though the Anglo-Saxon were an underived language, instead of regarding it (like every other which now exists, or of which history affords us any trace), as formed of the materials of a yet older language, wrought into a new form and assuming a new development. Thus, for example, he deduces the preposition from, from the Anglo-Saxon noun frum,' 'beginning.' Assuming that his account of the meaning of the preposition is correct, which we think very likely, it is surely improbable that the one word was derived immediately from the other; since we find the word fram a preposition (as nearly as possible like our word) in the AngloSaxon throughout the whole period of its history. As far as we know, it is as old as frum. Does it not seem, therefore, probable, that both words have come down to us from a remoter age, and a more ancient dialect—from a root of a similar meaning to that of both words? They may very probably have had the same pedigree-perhaps the same parentage-but can hardly be parent and offspring.

We refer, then, all such words to the Anglo-Saxon as have been immediately derived from it, whatever their resemblance to Latin words; and all such words to the Latin as have been immediately derived from it, whatever their resemblance to Anglo-Saxon words, which became obsolete when that language was converted into English.

The bulk of the English language is derived from AngloSaxon, Latin, Greek, and French. Of these languages the Anglo-Saxon holds by far the most important place, whether we regard the mere number of its contributions-a most fallacious criterion in estimating the value of any element of a compound language-or, (which is a sounder one,) the sorts of words with which it has furnished us. It is very possible that, in a com

pound language like ours, the element which is the least important in weight and bulk, may exert the most powerful influence ;tending more than any other, to determine its character and to impart to it its vigour-entering into all its most idiomatic constructions, forming a part of the most familiar and frequently recurring forms of speech, and serving to express all the most ordinary thoughts and feelings.

The English language consists of about thirty-eight thousand words. This includes, of course, not only radical words, but all derivatives, except the preterites and participles of verbs; to which must be added some few terms which, though set down in the dictionaries, are either obsolete or have never ceased to be considered foreign. Of these, about twenty-three thousand, or nearly five-eighths, are of Anglo-Saxon origin. The majority of the rest, in what proportions we cannot say, are Latin and Greek; Latin, however, has the larger share.

Assuming that this calculation is accurate, for which we will not vouch, or that it approximates to accuracy, which we are quite ready to affirm, it will be seen that the Anglo-Saxon, even if we look at the mere number of words it has contributed, is our principal source of strength. Nay, were we to found our calculations upon the passages which Sharon Turner has adduced from a series of our most popular writers, and in which he has discriminated, by italics, the words of Anglo-Saxon from those of foreign origin, we should infer a much greater preponderance of the Anglo-Saxon element. Mr Turner has not set down in figures the numbers of the two classes of words contained in any of these passages. Sir James Mackintosh analysed three or four of them. We shall now give an analysis of the whole. The passages in question are from the Bible, Shakspeare, Milton, Cowley, Thomson, Addison, Spenser, Locke, Pope, Young, Swift, Robertson, Hume, Gibbon and Johnson. In five verses out of Genesis, containing one hundred and thirty words, there are only five not Saxon. In as many verses out of the Gospel of St John, containing seventy-four words, there are only two not Saxon. Of the remaining passages, that from Shakspeare contains eightyone words; of these, the words not Saxon, are thirteen; that from Milton, ninety; not Saxon, sixteen; that from Cowley, seventy-six; not Saxon, ten; that from Thomson seventyeight; not Saxon, fourteen; that from Addison seventy-nine; not Saxon, fifteen; that from Spenser seventy-two; not Saxon, fourteen; that from Locke ninety-four; not Saxon, twenty; that from Pope eighty-four; not Saxon, twenty-eight; that from Young ninety-six; not Saxon, twenty-one; that from Swift eighty-seven; in which nine only are not Saxon; that from Ro

bertson one hundred and fourteen; not Saxon, thirty-four; that from Hum: one hundred and one; not Saxon, thirty-eight; that from Gibbon eighty; not Saxon, thirty-one; that from Johnson eighty-seven; not Saxon, twenty-one. In none of these passages is the number of foreign words greater than one third; in many of them less than one-tenth. In all there are fourteen hundred and ninety-two words, of which only two hundred and ninetysix are not Saxon. If we were to take this as a criterion, the Saxon would constitute about four-fifths of the language, instead of five-eighths-or about thirty-two fortieths, instead of twenty-five fortieths. But if we are considering the mere number of words derived from the Anglo-Saxon, as compared with those derived from other sources, without any reference whatever to the relative value of the words, the criterion is by no means a fair one. For there are of course many words-such as the articles, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, etc. which must necessarily occur much oftener than others; and are, therefore, met with three or four times in the same passage. It is true, indeed, that if, dismissing the question of numbers, we consider simply the position these words occupy in the language, and that if they are repeated frequently it is only because we cannot help it; then, though their being counted over two or three times, gives us an exaggerated estimate of the number of Anglo-Saxon words, that very exaggeration is far from adequately expressing the extent to which that portion of the language prevails.

Restricting ourselves, however, for the present to the mere question of numbers, any statement as to the degree in which the Anglo-Saxon predominates, grounded on a collation of passages cited from any number of writers, can be at best only an approximation to the truth; not only for the reasons already assigned, but from the great differences in the habits and education of authors, as well as from the very nature of the subjects treated. There are some topics, those, for example, more particularly connected with abstract science, in which comparatively little Anglo-Saxon can be employed, while there are others in which we could scarcely employ any thing else. The calculations in question, however, afford a fair criterion of the proportion in which the different elements of the language are found in the writings of our best authors; and perhaps it may be stated as a general truth, that in our most idiomatic writers, there is about one-tenth of the words not Anglo-Saxon; in our least, about one-third.

We are inclined to think that the statement we have given of the number of Anglo-Saxon words in the language is not very erroneous, from the following circumstances:-Mr Turner tells us that of the Anglo-Saxon, as written in the time of Alfred, about

VOL. LXX. NO. CXLI.

P

a fifth has become obsolete. If we are to include in the portion retained, all derivatives, however altered in form or modified in meaning, we think this statement is quite correct.

Now, in Bosworth's Anglo-Saxon Lexicon, there are from twenty-five thousand to twenty-eight thousand words, counting, of course, compound words as well as roots. Though this work may not contain all the words which a more careful collation of the MSS. still lying in our Public Libraries might be expected to disclose, it must contain nearly all. Supposing one-fifth of these obsolete, there would remain nearly the numbers already stated. So much for the question of numbers.

If we look not merely at the numbers of the words which the Anglo-Saxon has contributed to the English, but to the kinds of words, as well as to the share it has had in its formation and development, we shall at once see that there is no comparison between the importance of this, and that of any other element.

In the first place, English grammar is almost exclusively occupied with what is of Anglo-Saxon origin. Our chief peculiarities of structure and of idiom, are essentially Anglo-Saxon, while almost all the classes of words, which it is the office of grammar to investigate, are derived from that language. And though these peculiarities of structure may occupy little space, and these words be very few compared with those to be found in Johnson's Dictionary, they enter most vitally into the constitution of the language, and bear a most important part in shaping and determining its characters. Thus, what few inflections we have, are all Anglo-Saxon. The English genitive, the general modes of forming the plural of nouns, and the terminations by which we express the comparative and superlative of adjectives, er and est; the inflections of the pronouns; and the second and third persons, present and imperfect, of the verbs; of the preterites and participles of the verbs, whether regular or irregular, and the most frequent termination of our adverbs (ly) are all Anglo-Saxon. The nouns, too, derived from Latin and Greek, receive the Anglo-Saxon terminations of the genitive and the plural, while the preterites and participles of verbs derived from the same sources, take the Anglo-Saxon inflections. As to the parts of speech-those which occur most frequently and are individually of most importance, are almost wholly Saxon. Such are our articles and definitives generally: as a, an, the, this, that, these, those, many, few, some, one, none; the adjectives, whose comparatives and superlatives are irregularly formed, and which (for reasons on which it would be irrelevant to speculate here) are in every language amongst the most ancient, comprehensive in meading, and extensively used; the separate words more and

most, by which we as often express the forms of comparison as by distinct terminations; all our pronouns, personal, possessive, relative, and interrogative; nearly every one of our so-called irregular verbs, including all the auxiliaries, have, be, shall, will may, can, must, by which we express the force of the principal varieties of mood and tense; all the adverbs most frequently employed, and the prepositions and conjunctions almost without exception.

Secondly, The names of the greater part of the objects of sense, in other words, the terms which occur most frequently in discourse, or which recall the most vivid conceptions, are AngloSaxon. Thus, for example, the names of the most striking objects in visible nature, of the chief agencies at work there, and of the changes which pass over it, are Anglo-Saxon. This language has given names to the heavenly bodies, sun, moon, stars; to three out of the four elements, earth, fire, water, three of the four seasons, spring, summer, winter; and indeed to all the natural divisions of time except one; as day, night, morning, evening, twilight, noon, midday, midnight, sunrise, sunset; some of which are amongst the most poetical terms we have. To the same language we are indebted for the names of light, heat, cold, frost, rain, snow, hail, sleet, thunder, lightning; as well as of almost all those objects which form the component parts of the beautiful in external scenery, as sea and land, hill and dale, wood and stream, &c. The same may be said of all those productions of the animal and vegetable kingdoms which form the most frequent subjects of observation or discourse, or which are invested with the most pleasing and poetic associations; of the constituent parts or visible qualities of organized or unorganized beings, especially of the members of the human body, and of the larger animals. Anglo-Saxon has also furnished us with that numerous and always vivid class of words which denote the cries, postures, and motions of animated existence. These are amongst the most energetic that any language can supply; for the same reason that words expressive of individual objects are always stronger than general terms. It is a sound and universal maxim of rhetoric, that the more abstract the term is, the less vivid-the more special, the more vivid. Now, almost all the words which are expressive of these specialities of posture and bodily action are the purest Saxon; such as-to sit, to stand, to lie, to run, to walk, to leap, to stagger, to slip, to slide, to stride, to glide, to yawn, to gape, to wink, to thrust, to fly, to swim, to creep, to crawl, to spring, to spurn, &c. If all this be true, we need not be surprised at the fact, that in the descriptions of external nature, whether by prose writers or by poets,

« PreviousContinue »