Immagini della pagina

459. In consequence of the luxuriant declension of the numerals in Sanskrit, I have followed the authority of Bopp's Grammar for the 'theme' in each case; that is to say, the part of the word which is present or implied in each of the various forms under which it appears in literature.


1 For dakan.

* For weno-diha. Michel Breal, Grammairt Comparee par Bopp, Tome

P- 233

460. It is in the Ordinal numbers that the numeral more particularly assumes the adjectival character. We retain all the Ordinals in their Saxon form except two, namely, first and second. First rose into its place from the dialects; but second was borrowed from the French—a solitary instance among the Numerals, properly so called. The Saxon word in its place was Other, a word which has now a pronominal value only. It had this pronominal value in ancient times, in the Old High German andar and in the Mcesogothic anthar. This equivocal use it doubtless was which caused our adoption in this single case of a French Ordinal. The Germans also have discarded anber from the numerical function probably for the same reason; and they have made a new Ordinal for that place after the prevalent type, ber jrccitc.

461. Adverbial numerals are such as once, twice, thrice, four times, &c, where it is to be observed that the difference

of adverbial form between the first three numerals and their successors is of a piece with the fact that these three were and others were not, or at last not in an equal degree, declinable in Saxon. It is generally found in languages that the earlier numerals are the more liable to flexion. The adverbs once, twice, thrice, are in fact genitival forms under a frenchified orthography. In the Ormulum they are spelt thus, aness, iwiyss, thriyss. But even when divested of their French garb, they do not prove to be old Saxon forms. In Saxon times the genitive was not used for this purpose: there was indeed an adverbial Anes (genitive of An, one) but it meant ' at one,' 'of one accord.' For once, twice, thrice, the Saxon was one, tuwa, thriwa. But although our forms are not ancient, their distinctness from the rest of their series is founded upon an ancient distinction. For in the correponding Saxon series there was a like transition: the next terms were feower sitSon, fif siSon, &c.

The numerals have been inserted in this place as a sort of appendix to the nounal group, because of their manifest affinity to that group. At the same time, enough has been said to indicate that they have a several character of their own, and that it would be unphilological to let them be absorbed into any class of words whatever.

That this is the proper place for the numerals we conclude not only from their assimilation to the nounal group on the one hand, but also from certain traces of affinity which they bear to the pronouns on the other.



462. We now cross the greatest chasm in language—the chasm which separates the Presentives from the Symbolics. So profoundly has this separation been felt by philologers, that some would even regard these two spheres of speech as radically and originally distinct from each other. The consideration of this theory would lead us beyond the track of the present treatise. It is only noticed here as a testimony to the greatness of the distinction between Nouns and Pronouns.

How far they were originally distinct and independent of each other, is a question for minute etymological investigation, and cannot be settled either one way or the other by the measure of current distinctions. It is plain that the most widely severed functions may be discharged by words which have been radically identical.

Professor Miiller has in his Lectures (Second Series, 1864) given an excellent illustration of the way in which the one class of words may be transplanted into the place of the other. 'The pronoun of the first person in Cochin-Chinese is not a pronoun, but means "servant." / love is expressed in that civil language by servant loves' If the word servant in this case is not a pronoun, it is at least in a fair way of becoming so. Already in English 'your humble servant,'.


when used playfully as a substitute for /, is a pronoun; as much so as your Honour, your Lordship, your Grace, your Highness,your Majesty. That all these have passed, or at least are passing, into the region of the symbolic, there can be little doubt. And these recent instances of the transference enable us to conceive how all pronouns may possibly have been generated from nouns.

463. The wide difference between nouns and pronouns is equally certain, whatever may become of any etymological theory, inasmuch as it is a difference which depends not upon origin, but upon function. It is not our earliest impression when we first consider a butterfly, that it is a transformed caterpiller; and when we have discovered their identity of origin, we have in no wise removed their difference of function. Although we know that the caterpiller and the butterfly are the same individual, this does not a whit alter the fact that they are two widely different things, and in very different conditions of existence. Should it ever become capable of proof that all the pronouns had sprung from presentive roots, this would not invalidate the statement, that in passing from nouns to pronouns we traverse a wide gulf, and one which can hardly be overrated as the great central valley dividing the two main formations of which language is composed (227).

These two great hemispheres of language, which we designate as the Presentive and the Symbolic, which Bopp calls the Verbal and the Pronominal, may with equal propriety and greater brevity be simply called Nouns and Pronouns, for in fact every other part of speech branches out of these two. Of all the parts of speech hitherto noticed, it is the general quality (putting aside a few marked exceptions, such as the symbol verb to be and the auxiliaries) that they are presentive. Of all the parts of speech which remain to be

« IndietroContinua »