A Handbook of the English Language Part 41

-- 337. _Was_ is defective, except in the praeterite tense, where it is found both in the indicative and conjunctive.

_Indicative._ | _Conjunctive._ _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._ 1. Was Were. | 1. Were Were.

2. Wast Were. | 2. Wert Were.

3. Was Were. | 3. Were Were.

In the older stages of the Gothic languages the word had both a full conjugation and a regular one. In Anglo-Saxon it had an infinitive, a participle present, and a participle past. In Mso-Gothic it was inflected throughout with -s; as _visa_, _vas_, _vesum_, _visans_. In that language it has the power of the Latin _maneo_ = _to remain_. The r first appears in the Old High German, _wisu_, _was_, _warumes_, _wesaner_. In Norse the s _entirely_ disappears, and the word is inflected with r throughout; _vera_, _var_, _vorum_, &c.

-- 338. _Be_ is inflected in Anglo-Saxon throughout the present tense, both indicative and subjunctive. It is found also as an infinitive, _beon_; as a gerund, _to beonne_; and as a participle, _beonde_; in the present English its inflection is as follows:

_Present._ _Conjunctive._ | _Imperative._ _Sing._ _Plur._ | _Sing._ _Plur._ Be Be. | -- -- -- -- | Be Be Be Be | -- -- _Infin._ To be. _Pres. P._ Being. _Past. Part._ Been.

-- 339. The line in Milton beginning _If thou beest he_--(P. L. b. ii.), leads to the notion that the antiquated form _beest_ is not indicative, but conjunctive. Such, however, is not the case: _byst_ in Anglo-Saxon is indicative, the conjunctive form being _beo_. _And every thing that pretty bin_ (Cymbeline).--Here the word _bin_ is the conjunctive plural, in Anglo-Saxon _beon_; so that the words _every thing_ are to be considered equivalent to the plural form _all things_. The phrase in Latin would stand thus, _quotquot pulchra sint_; in Greek, thus, ? ?? ???a ?. The _indicative_ plural is, in Anglo-Saxon, not _beon_, but _beo_ and _beo_.

-- 340. In the "Deutsche Grammatik" it is stated that the Anglo-Saxon forms _beo_, _bist_, _bi_, _beo_, or _beo_, have not a present but a _future_ sense; that whilst _am_ means _I am_, _beo_ means _I shall be_; and that in the older languages it is only where the form _am_ is not found that _be_ has the power of a present form. The same root occurs in the Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues with the same power; as, _esmi_ = _I am_; _busu_ = _I shall be_, Lithuanic. _Esmu_ = _I am_; _buhshu_ = _I shall be_, Livonic.--_Jesm_ = _I am_; _budu_ = _I shall be_, Slavonic.--_Gsem_ = _I am_; _budu_ = _I shall be_, Bohemian. This, however, proves, not that there is in Anglo-Saxon a future tense, but that the word _beo_ has a future sense. There is no fresh tense where there is no fresh form.

The following is a specimen of the future power of _beon_ in Anglo-Saxon:--_"Hi ne _beo_ na cilde, solice, on domesdaege, ac _beo_ swa micele menn swa swa hi migton beon gif hi full weoxon on gewunlicre ylde."_--aelfric's Homilies. "They _will not be_ children, forsooth, on Domesday, but _will be_ as much (so muckle) men as they might be if they were full grown (waxen) in customary age."

-- 341. Now, if we consider the word _beon_ like the word _weoran_ (see -- 343) to mean not so much _to be_ as to _become_, we get an element of the idea of futurity. Things which are _becoming anything_ have yet something further to either do or suffer. Again, from the idea of futurity we get the idea of contingency, and this explains the subjunctive power of _be_. In English we often say _may_ for _shall_, and the same was done in Anglo-Saxon.

-- 342. _Am_.--Of this form it should be stated that the letter -m is no part of the original word. It is the sign of the first person, just as it is in _Greek_, and several other languages.

It should also be stated, that although the fact be obscured, and although the changes be insufficiently accounted for, the forms _am_, _art_, _are_, and _is_, are not, like _am_ and _was_, parts of different words, but forms of one and the same word; in other terms, that, although between _am_ and _be_ there is no etymological connexion, there is one between _am_ and _is_. This we collect from the comparison of the Indo-European languages.

1. 2. 3.

Sanskrit _Asmi_ _Asi_ _Asti_.

Zend _Ahmi_ _Asi_ _Ashti_.

Greek ??? ??? ?st?.

Latin _Sum_ _Es_ _Est_.

Lithuanic _Esmi_ _Essi_ _Esti_.

Old Slavonic _Yesmy_ _Yesi_ _Yesty_.

Mso-Gothic _Im_ _Is_ _Ist_.

Old Saxon -- [63]_Is_ _Ist_.

Anglo-Saxon _Eom_ _Eart_ _Is_.

Icelandic _Em_ _Ert_ _Er_.

English _Am_ _Art_ _Is_.

-- 343. _Worth_.--In the following lines of Scott, the word _worth_ = _is_, and is a fragment of the regular Anglo-Saxon verb _weoran_ = _to be_, or _to become_; German _werden_.

Woe _worth_ the chase, woe _worth_ the day, That cost thy life, my gallant grey.--_Lady of the Lake._

CHAPTER XXIX.

THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE.

-- 344. The present participle, called also the active participle and the participle in -ing, is formed from the original word by adding -ing; as, _move_, _moving_. In the older languages the termination was more marked, being -nd. Like the Latin participle in -ns, it was originally declined.

The Mso-Gothic and Old High German forms are _habands_ and _hapenter_ = _having_, respectively. The -s in the one language, and the -er in the other, are the signs of the case and gender. In the Old Saxon and Anglo-Saxon the forms are -and and -ande; as _bindand_, _bindande_ = _binding_. In all the Norse languages, ancient and modern, the -d is preserved. So it is in the Old Lowland Scotch, and in many of the modern provincial dialects of England, where _strikand_, _goand_, is said for _striking_, _going_. In Staffords.h.i.+re, where the -ing is p.r.o.nounced -ingg, there is a fuller sound than that of the current English. In Old English the form in -nd is predominant, in Middle English the use fluctuates, and in New English the termination -ing is universal. In the Scotch of the modern writers we find the form -in.

The rising sun o'er Galston muirs Wi' glorious light was glintin'; The hares were hirplin' down the furs, The lav'rocks they were chantin'.--BURNS' _Holy Fair_.

-- 345. It has often been remarked that the participle is used in many languages as a substantive. This is true in Greek,

? p??ss?? = _the actor_, when a male.

? p?a.s.s??sa = _the actor_, when a female.

?? p??tt?? = _the active principle of a thing_.

But it is also stated, that, in the English language, the participle is used as a substantive in a greater degree than elsewhere, and that it is used in several cases and in both numbers, e.g.,

_Rising_ early is healthy, There is health _in rising_ early.

This is the advantage _of rising_ early.

The _risings_ in the North, &c.

Some acute remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, in the Introduction to his edition of Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," modify this view. According to these, the -ing in words like _rising_ is not the -ing of the present participle; neither has it originated in the Anglo-Saxon -end. It is rather the -ing in words like _morning_; which is anything but a participle of the non-existent verb _morn_, and which has originated in the Anglo-Saxon substantival termination -ung. Upon this Rask writes as follows:--"_Gitsung_, _gewilnung_ = _desire_; _swutelung_ = _manifestation_; _claensung_ = _a cleansing_; _sceawung_ = _view_, _contemplation_; _eor-beofung_ = _an earthquake_; _gesomnung_ = _an a.s.sembly_. This termination is chiefly used in forming substantives from verbs of the first cla.s.s in -ian; as _halgung_ = _consecration_, from _halgian_ = _to consecrate_. These verbs are all feminine."--"Anglo-Saxon Grammar," p. 107.

Now, whatever may be the theory of the origin of the termination -ing in old phrases like _rising early is healthy_, it cannot apply to expressions of recent introduction. Here the direct origin in -ung is out of the question.

The view, then, that remains to be taken of the forms in question is this:

1. That the older forms in -ing are substantival in origin, and = the Anglo-Saxon -ung.

2. That the latter ones are _irregularly_ participial, and have been formed on a false a.n.a.logy.

CHAPTER x.x.x.

THE PAST PARTICIPLE.

-- 346. A. _The participle in_ -EN.--In the Anglo-Saxon this participle was declined like the adjectives. Like the adjectives, it is, in the present English, undeclined.

In Anglo-Saxon it always ended in -en, as _sungen_, _funden_, _bunden_. In English this -en is often wanting, as _found_, _bound_; the word _bounden_ being antiquated.

Words where the -en is wanting may be viewed in two lights; 1, they may be looked upon as participles that have lost their termination; 2, they may be considered as praeterites with a participial sense.

-- 347. _Drank_, _drunk_, _drunken_.--With all words wherein the vowel of the plural differs from that of the singular, the participle takes the plural form. To say _I have drunk_, is to use an ambiguous expression; since _drunk_ may be either a participle _minus_ its termination, or a praeterite with a participial sense. To say _I have drank_, is to use a praeterite for a participle. To say _I have drunken_, is to use an unexceptional form.

In all words with a double form, as _spake_ and _spoke_, _brake_ and _broke_, _clave_ and _clove_, the participle follows the form in o, as _spoken_, _broken_, _cloven_. _Spaken_, _braken_, _claven_ are impossible forms. There are degrees in laxity of language, and to say _the spear is broke_ is better than to say _the spear is brake_.

-- 348. As a general rule, we find the participle in -en wherever the praeterite is strong; indeed, the participle in -en may be called the strong participle, or the participle of the strong conjugation. Still the two forms do not always coincide. In _mow_, _mowed_, _mown_, _sow_, _sowed_, _sown_; and several other words, we find the participle strong, and the praeterite weak. I remember no instances of the converse. This is only another way of saying that the praeterite has a greater tendency to pa.s.s from strong to weak than the participle.

-- 349. In the Latin language the change from s to r, and _vice versa_, is very common. We have the double forms _arbor_ and _arbos_, _honor_ and _honos_, &c. Of this change we have a few specimens in English. The words _rear_ and _raise_, as compared with each other, are examples. In Anglo-Saxon a few words undergo a similar change in the plural number of the strong praeterites.

Ceose, _I choose_; ceas, _I chose_; curon, _we chose_; gecoren, _chosen_.

Forleose, _I lose_; forleas, _I lost_; forluron, _we lost_; forloren, _lost_.

Hreose, _I rush_; hreas, _I rushed_; hruron, _we rushed_; gehroren, _rushed_.