approaching the point from which we set out. Thus come on is no longer a call to approach, but simply a note of encouragement, as in Exodus i. 10, where both Luther and De Wette express it by the interjection wohlan; and Miles Coverdale has simply Vp. In Genesis xi. the same cry is three times rendered by Goe to. 585. Keeping a sort of company with the verb TO BE, there is found in all the great languages a verb which signifies to come to be, to get to be. This is in Greek yíveola, in Latin fieri, in French devenir, and in German werden-symbol-verbs of great mark each in its own language. In our native tongue the old word was weordan, the analogue of the German werden, but we gradually lost it; and now we retain only a relic of it in the imperative or subjunctive worth, as in the expression, 'Woe worth the day.' Instead of this weordan we have qualified a new word for its place, a compound of the verb come, namely become. In early times the sense of coming was dominant in this word. In the Saxon Gospels, Luke ii. 38, 'theos thære tide becumende' answers to our 'she coming-in that instant.' Even as late as Shakspeare this sense was still vigorous; as Riu. But Madam, where is Warwicke then become? In our days where and become will not construe together, because the latter has lost all signification of locality. Either we should ask 'Where is Warwick gone to?' or 'What is become of Warwick?' In short, the word has been thoroughly symbolised, and so qualified to take the place of our lost verb weordan. And here again, as in so many other places, we have followed the French. It is the French devenir that we give expression to (nay, that we mimic) in our modern verb become. to. This is however a matter of only superficial importance so far as syntax is concerned. What does it matter whether a certain function is discharged by weorðan or by devenir? it is functions and not roots that structural philology attends In so far as we construe our become differently from the construction of the old worðan, so far is the change structural, and no further. Broadly speaking, the analogues of this become have a general resemblance of construction in all the great languages, so that the fact of our having changed our word under French tuition is a matter of small structural consideration. 586. Now we come to a symbol-verb of a peculiarly insular character, namely, the auxiliary DO. And in touching this verb, let us first dispose of that use which is common to us with French, and even, though less markedly, with other languages. I mean that use in which it figures as a representative or vicegerent for any antecedent verb : A wise man will make better use of an idle pamphlet, then a fool will do of sacred Scripture.-John Milton, Areopagitica. The auxiliary use is different. It sprang from the French faire, as in faire faire, 'to cause a thing to be done.' And, at first, even in English, its action was just the same as is that of the auxiliary faire to this day in French. Thus 'dede translate' meant not the same as our 'did translate,' but 'caused to be translated.' At length it became a symbolic expression of tense, both in affirmative and negative sentences. This is its peculiarly English function. The following quotations exhibit these two uses in combination :— I delybered in myself to translate it in to our maternal tonge / And whan I so had achyeued [achieved] the sayd translacion / I dyde doo set in enprynte a certeyn nombre of theym / Which anone were depesshed and solde.-William Caxton, The Game of the Chesse, A.D. 1474; Preface. My lord Abbot of Westmynster did do shewe to me late certayn euydences wryton in old Englisshe, for to reduce it into Englisshe now vsid, &c.— William Caxton, Æneidos, Prologue (Blaydes' Life of Caxton, vol. i. p. 66). But now it has dropped half its function, for it is not used with the affirmative verb unless something more than the ordinary force of assertion is required. The affirmative and negative verb therefore are thus declined: AFFIRMATVIE. I wish. I wished. Go. If I go. If I went. NEGATIVE. I do not wish. I did not wish. Do not go. If I do not go. If I did not go. Thus we see the affirmative side is clear of this auxiliary :But natural selection only weeds, and does not plant.-J. B. Mozley, Essays, ii. 397. And yet the affirmative will also take it when antithesis provokes energy : True fortitude of the understanding consists in not suffering what we do know to be disturbed by what we do not know.-William Paley, Natural Theology. Apart from emphasis, it is confined to the negative proposition, and to interrogations: Where did you go? What do you think? Apart then from emphasis, and speaking only of the quiet and gentle use of this auxiliary, we may exhibit its presence and its absence in three sentences : Butler rested the proof f religion on Analogy. But in the earlier usage it went even with the gentlest affirmatives, and this usage still holds in provincial dialects, as in the following from the Dorset poems: Where wide and slow The stream did flow, And flags did grow and lightly flee, Whilst clack clack clack from hour to hour Did go the mill by cloty Stour. How thoroughly this is an auxiliary of the modern language, and how recently it ascertained its own final place and function, may be seen from the following quotation, wherein Spenser, a contemporary of Shakspeare, yokes did with a verb in the preterite Astond he stood, and up his heare did hove. The Faery Queene, i. 2. 31. At present this auxiliary is not used to form indicative tenses of the verb to be, but we find it so used in the Ballads and Romances. Thus in Eger and Grime: Gryme sayd, 'how farr haue wee to that citye Line 758. However, we retain the use of this auxiliary in the Imperative mood of the verb to be; as 'Do be good,' 'Don't be surprised.' 587. Thus we have added do, did to our auxiliaries, and this is an insular acquisition, as are also get, got, will, would. The great bulk of the auxiliaries of our language are ancestral, and they will be found to correspond to the verbal modes of expression which are used in German and the other dialects of the Gothic stock. I speak of such auxiliaries as shall, should, may, might, can, could, let. These auxiliaries are characteristic of our family of languages. An example or two will suffice to indicate how greatly we are in a state of contrast with the Romanesque tongues on this feature. 588. There is yet another feature in the symbolism surrounding the verb, in which the English use is in accordance with the Gothic languages, and at variance with the Romanesque. This is in regard to those adverbs which in the Romanesque languages have the habit of prefixing themselves inseparably to their verbs. The equivalents of these are not always, but for the most part, separate or at least separable in English and German and the Gothic languages generally. This will be readily understood by the help of a few examples of this contrast between French and English. They are taken from Randle Cotgrave, 1611: Abboyer, to barke or bay at. Decourir, to run down. Descrier, to cry down. Entrecouper, to cut between. Parservir, to serve thoroughly. Proteler, to shift off. Pourvoir, to provide for. Rebouillir, to boil once more. Rebouler, to bowle againe. |