A Handbook of the English Language - Robert Gordon Latham (if you liked this book .txt) 📗
- Author: Robert Gordon Latham
- Performer: -
Book online «A Handbook of the English Language - Robert Gordon Latham (if you liked this book .txt) 📗». Author Robert Gordon Latham
Now, in Anglo-Saxon, with a great number of verbs such a plural inflection not only actually takes place, but takes place most regularly. It takes place, however, in the past tense only. And this is the case in all the Gothic languages as well as in Anglo-Saxon. Amongst the rest, in—
Mœso-Gothic.
Skáin, I shone; skinum, we shone. Gab, I gave; gêbum, we gave. Smáit, I smote; smitum, we smote. At, I ete; étum, we ete. Káus, I chose; kusum, we chose. Stal, I stole; stélum, we stole. Láug, I lied; lugum, we lied. Qvam, I came; qyêmum, we came.Anglo-Saxon.
Arn, I ran; urnon, we run. Dranc, I drank; druncon, we drunk. Ongan, I began; ongunnon, we begun. Sanc, I sank; suncon, we sunk. Span, I span; spunnon, we spun. Sprang, I sprang; sprungon, we sprung. Sang, I sang; sungon, we sung. Swam, I swam; swummon, we swum. Swang, I swang; swungon, we swung. Rang, I rang; rungon, we rung.From these examples the reader has himself drawn his inference; viz. that words like
Began, begun. Sank, sunk. Ran, run. Swam, swum. Span, spun. Rang, rung. Sang, sung. Bat, bit. Swang, swung. Smote, smit. Sprang, sprung. Drank, drunk, &c.,generally called double forms of the past tense, were originally different numbers of the same tense, the forms in a, as swam, being singular, and the forms in u, as swum, plural.
CHAPTER XXI.ON MOODS.
§ 291. The Anglo-Saxon infinitive has already been considered.
Between the second plural imperative, and the second plural indicative, speak ye, and ye speak, there is no difference of form.
Between the second singular imperative speak, and the second singular indicative, speakest, there is a difference in form.
Still, as the imperative form speak is distinguished from the indicative form speakest by the negation of a character rather than by the possession of one, it cannot be said that there is in English any imperative mood.
§ 292. If he speak, as opposed to if he speaks, is characterized by a negative sign only, and consequently is no true example of a subjunctive. Be, as opposed to am, in the sentence if it be so, is a fresh word used in a limited sense, and consequently no true example of a subjunctive. It is a different word altogether, and is only the subjunctive of am, in the way puss is the vocative of cat.
The only true subjunctive inflection in the English language is that of were and wert, as opposed to the indicative forms was and wast.
Indicative. Subjunctive. Singular. Singular. Plural. 1. I was. If I were. If we were. 2. Thou wast. If thou wert. If ye were. 3. He was. If he were. If they were. CHAPTER XXII.ON TENSES IN GENERAL.
§ 293. The nature of tenses in general is best exhibited by reference to the Greek; since in that language they are more numerous, and more strongly marked than elsewhere.
I strike, I struck.—Of these words, the first implies an action taking place at the time of speaking, the second marks an action that has already taken place.
These two notions of present and of past time, being expressed by a change of form, are true tenses. If there were no change of form, there would be no change of tense. They are the only true tenses in our language. In I was beating, I have beaten, I had beaten, and I shall beat, a difference of time is expressed; but as it is expressed by a combination of words, and not by a change of form, no true tenses are constituted.
§ 294. In Greek the case is different. Τύπτω (typtô) = I beat; ἔτυπτον (etypton) = I was beating; τύψω (typsô) = I shall beat; ἔτυψα (etypsa) = I beat; τέτυφα (tetyfa) = I have beaten; ἐτετύφειν (etetyfein) = I had beaten. In these words we have, of the same mood, the same voice, and the same conjugation, six different tenses; whereas, in English, there are but two. The forms τέτυφα and ἔτυψα are so strongly marked, that we recognise them wheresoever they occur. The first is formed by a reduplication of the initial τ, and, consequently, may be called the reduplicate form. As a tense it is called the perfect. In the form ἔτυψα an ε is prefixed, and an σ is added. In the allied language of Italy the ε disappears, whilst the σ (s) remains. Ἔτυψα is said to be an aorist tense. Scripsi is to scribo as ἔτυψα is to τύπτω.
§ 295. Now in the Latin language a confusion takes place between these two tenses. Both forms exist. They are used, however, indiscriminately. The aorist form has, besides its own, the sense of the perfect. The perfect has, besides its own, the sense of the aorist. In the following pair of quotations, vixi, the aorist form, is translated I have lived, while tetigit, the perfect form, is translated he touched.
Vixi, et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi;
Et nunc magna mei sub terras ibis imago.—Æn. iv.
Ut primum alatis tetigit magalia plantis.—Æn. iv.
§ 296. When a difference of form has ceased to express a difference of meaning, it has become superfluous. This is the case with the two forms in question. One of them may be dispensed with; and the consequence is, that, although in the Latin language both the perfect and the aorist forms are found, they are, with few exceptions, never found in the same word. Wherever there is the perfect, the aorist is wanting, and vice versâ. The two ideas I have struck and I struck are merged into the notion of past time in general, and are expressed by one of two forms, sometimes by that of the Greek perfect, and sometimes by that of the Greek aorist. On account of this the grammarians have cut down the number of Latin tenses to five; forms like cucurri and vixi being dealt with as one and the same tense. The true view is, that in curro the aorist form is replaced by the perfect, and in vixi the perfect form is replaced by the aorist.
§ 297. In the present English there is no undoubted perfect or reduplicate form. The form moved corresponds in meaning not with τέτυφα and momordi, but with ἔτυψα and vixi. Its sense is that of ἔτυψα, and not that of τέτυφα. The notion given by τέτυφα we express by the circumlocution I have beaten. We have no such form as bebeat or memove. In the Mœso-Gothic, however, there was a true reduplicate form; in other words, a perfect tense as well as an aorist. It is by the possession of this form that the verbs of the first six conjugations are characterized.
Mœso-Gothic. English. Mœso-Gothic. English. 1st. Falþa, I fold Fáifalþ, I have folded, or I folded. Halda, I feed Háihald, I have fed, or I fed. Haha, I hang Háihah, I have hanged, or I hanged. 2nd. Háita, I call Háiháit, I have called, or I called. Láika, I play Láiláik, I have played, or I played. 3rd. Hláupa, I run Hláiláup, I have run, or I ran. 4th. Slêpa, I sleep Sáizlêp, I have slept, or I slept. 5th. Láia, I laugh Láilô, I have laughed, or I laught. Sáija, I sow Sáisô, I have sown, or I sowed. 6th. Grêta, I weep Gáigrôt, I have wept, or I wept. Téka, I touch Táitôk, I have touched, or I touched.In Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, the perfect forms have, besides their own, an aorist sense, and vice versâ.
In Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, few (if any) words are found in both forms.
In Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, the two forms are dealt with as a single tense; láilô being called the præterite of láia, and svôr the præterite of svara. The true view, however, is that in Mœso-Gothic, as in Latin, there are two past tenses, each having a certain latitude of meaning, and each, in certain words, replacing the other.
The reduplicate form, in other words, the perfect tense, is current in none of the Gothic languages except the Mœso-Gothic. A trace of it is said to be found in the Anglo-Saxon of the seventh century in the word heht, which is considered to be hê-ht, the Mœso-Gothic háiháit, vocavi. Did from do is also considered to be a reduplicate form.
§ 298. In the English language the tense corresponding with the Greek aorist and the Latin forms like vixi, is formed after two modes; 1, as in fell, sang, and took, from fall, sing, and take, by changing the vowel of the present: 2, as in moved and wept, from move and weep, by the addition of -d or -t; the -d or -t not being found in the original word, but being a fresh element added to it. In forms, on the contrary, like sang and fell, no addition being made, no new element appears. The vowel, indeed, is changed, but nothing is added. Verbs, then, of the first sort, may be said to form their præterites out of themselves; whilst verbs of the second sort require something from without. To speak in a metaphor, words like sang and fell are comparatively independent. Be this as it may, the German grammarians call the tenses formed by a change of vowel the strong tenses, the strong verbs, the strong conjugation, or the strong order; and those formed by the addition of d or t, the weak tenses, the weak verbs, the weak conjugation, or the weak order. Bound, spoke, gave, lay, &c., are strong; moved, favoured, instructed, &c., are weak.
CHAPTER XXIII.THE STRONG TENSES.
§ 299. The strong præterites are formed from the present by changing the vowel, as sing, sang; speak, spoke.
In Anglo-Saxon, several præterites change, in their plural, the vowel of their singular; as
Ic sang, I sang. We sungon, we sung. þu sunge, thou sungest. Ge sungon, ye sung. He sang, he sang. Hi sungon, they sung.The bearing of this fact upon the præterites has already been indicated. In a great number of words we have a double form, as ran and run, sang and sung, drank and drunk, &c. One of these forms is derived from the singular, and the other from the plural.
In cases where but one form is preserved, that form is not necessarily the singular; indeed, it is often the plural;—e.g., Ic fand, I found, we fundon, we found, are the Anglo-Saxon forms. Now the present word found comes, not from the singular fand, but from the plural fundon; although in
Comments (0)