Chapter II (2)

36. +Losses of English from the Incoming of Norman-French.+-- (iii) When once a way was made for the entrance of French words into our English language, the immigrations were rapid and numerous. Hence there were many changes both in the grammar and in the vocabulary of English from the year 1100, the year in which we may suppose those Englishmen who were living at the date of the battle of Hastings had died out. These changes were more or less rapid, according to circumstances. But perhaps the most rapid and remarkable change took place in the lifetime of William Caxton, the great printer, who was born in 1410. In his preface to his translation of the ‘Æneid’ of Virgil, which he published in 1490, when he was eighty years of age, he says that he cannot understand old books that were written when he was a boy-- that “the olde Englysshe is more lyke to dutche than englysshe,” and that “our langage now vsed varyeth ferre from that whiche was vsed and spoken when I was borne. For we Englysshemen ben borne ynder the domynacyon of the mone [moon], which is neuer stedfaste, but euer wauerynge, wexynge one season, and waneth and dycreaseth another season.” This as regards time. --But he has the same complaint to make as regards place. “Comyn englysshe that is spoken in one shyre varyeth from another.” And he tells an odd story in illustration of this fact. He tells about certain merchants who were in a ship “in Tamyse” (on the Thames), who were bound for Zealand, but were wind-stayed at the Foreland, and took it into their heads to go on shore there. One of the merchants, whose name was Sheffelde, a mercer, entered a house, “and axed for mete, and specyally he axyd after eggys.” But the “goode-wyf” replied that she “coude speke no frenshe.” The merchant, who was a steady Englishman, lost his temper, “for he also coude speke no frenshe, but wolde have hadde eggys; and she understode hym not.” Fortunately, a friend happened to join him in the house, and he acted as interpreter. The friend said that “he wolde have eyren; then the goode wyf sayde that she understod hym wel.” And then the simple-minded but much-perplexed Caxton goes on to say: “Loo! what sholde a man in thyse dayes now wryte, eggës or eyren?” Such were the difficulties that beset printers and writers in the close of the fifteenth century.

37. +Latin of the Fourth Period.+-- (i) This contribution differs very essentially in character from the last. The Norman-French contribution was a gift from a people to a people-- from living beings to living beings; this new contribution was rather a conveyance of words from books to books, and it never influenced-- in any great degree-- the +spoken language+ of the English people. The ear and the mouth carried the Norman-French words into our language; the eye, the pen, and the printing-press were the instruments that brought in the Latin words of the Fourth Period. The Norman-French words that came in took and kept their place in the spoken language of the masses of the people; the Latin words that we received in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries kept their place in the written or printed language of books, of scholars, and of literary men. These new Latin words came in with the +Revival of Learning+, which is also called the +Renascence+.

The Turks attacked and took Constantinople in the year +1453+; and the great Greek and Latin scholars who lived in that city hurriedly packed up their priceless manuscripts and books, and fled to all parts of Italy, Germany, France, and even into England. The loss of the East became the gain of the West. These scholars became teachers; they taught the Greek and Roman classics to eager and earnest learners; and thus a new impulse was given to the study of the great masterpieces of human thought and literary style. And so it came to pass in course of time that every one who wished to become an educated man studied the literature of Greece and Rome. Even women took to the study. Lady Jane Grey was a good Greek and Latin scholar; and so was Queen Elizabeth. From this time began an enormous importation of Latin words into our language. Being imported by the eye and the pen, they suffered little or no change; the spirit of the people did not influence them in the least-- neither the organs of speech nor the ear affected either the pronunciation or the spelling of them. If we look down the columns of any English dictionary, we shall find these later Latin words in hundreds. _Opinionem_ became +opinion+; _factionem_, +faction+; _orationem_, +oration+; _pungentem_ passed over in the form of +pungent+ (though we had _poignant_ already from the French); _pauperem_ came in as +pauper+; and _separatum_ became +separate+.

38. +Latin of the Fourth Period.+-- (ii) This went on to such an extent in the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, that one writer says of those who spoke and wrote this Latinised English, “If some of their mothers were alive, they were not able to tell what they say.” And Sir Thomas Browne (1605-1682) remarks: “If elegancy (= the use of Latin words) still proceedeth, and English pens maintain that stream we have of late observed to flow from many, we shall, within a few years, be fain to learn Latin to understand English, and a work will prove of equal facility in either.” Mr Alexander Gill, an eminent schoolmaster, and the then head-master of St Paul’s School, where, among his other pupils, he taught John Milton, wrote a book in 1619 on the English language; and, among other remarks, he says: “O harsh lips! I now hear all around me such words as _common_, _vices_, _envy_, _malice_; even _virtue_, _study_, _justice_, _pity_, _mercy_, _compassion_, _profit_, _commodity_, _colour_, _grace_, _favour_, _acceptance_. But whither, I pray, in all the world, have you banished those words which our forefathers used for these new-fangled ones? Are our words to be executed like our citizens?” And he calls this fashion of using Latin words “the new mange in our speaking and writing.” But the fashion went on growing; and even uneducated people thought it a clever thing to use a Latin instead of a good English word. Samuel Rowlands, a writer in the seventeenth century, ridicules this affectation in a few lines of verse. He pretends that he was out walking on the highroad, and met a countryman who wanted to know what o’clock it was, and whether he was on the right way to the town or village he was making for. The writer saw at once that he was a simple bumpkin; and, when he heard that he had lost his way, he turned up his nose at the poor fellow, and ordered him to be off at once. Here are the lines:--

“As on the way I itinerated,
A rural person I obviated,
Interrogating time’s transitation,
And of the passage demonstration.
My apprehension did ingenious scan
That he was merely a simplician;
So, when I saw he was extravagánt,
Unto the óbscure vulgar consonánt,
I bade him vanish most promiscuously,
And not contaminate my company.”

39. +Latin of the Fourth Period.+-- (iii) What happened in the case of the Norman-French contribution, happened also in this. The language became saturated with these new Latin words, until it became satiated, then, as it were, disgusted, and would take no more. Hundreds of

“Long-tailed words in _osity_ and _ation_”

crowded into the English language; but many of them were doomed to speedy expulsion. Thus words like _discerptibility_, _supervacaneousness_, _septentrionality_, _ludibundness_ (love of sport), came in in crowds. The verb _intenerate_ tried to turn out _soften_; and _deturpate_ to take the place of _defile_. But good writers, like Bacon and Raleigh, took care to avoid the use of such terms, and to employ only those Latin words which gave them the power to indicate a new idea-- a new meaning or a new shade of meaning. And when we come to the eighteenth century, we find that a writer like Addison would have shuddered at the very mention of such “inkhorn terms.”

40. +Eye-Latin and Ear-Latin.+-- (i) One slight influence produced by this spread of devotion to classical Latin-- to the Latin of Cicero and Livy, of Horace and Virgil-- was to alter the spelling of French words. We had already received-- through the ear-- the French words _assaute_, _aventure_, _defaut_, _dette_, _vitaille_, and others. But when our scholars became accustomed to the book-form of these words in Latin books, they gradually altered them-- for the eye and ear-- into _assault_, _adventure_, _default_, _debt_, and _victuals_. They went further. A large number of Latin words that already existed in the language in their Norman-French form (for we must not forget that French is Latin “with the ends bitten off”-- changed by being spoken peculiarly and heard imperfectly) were reintroduced in their original Latin form. Thus we had +caitiff+ from the Normans; but we reintroduced it in the shape of +captive+, which comes almost unaltered from the Latin _captivum_. +Feat+ we had from the Normans; but the Latin _factum_, which provided the word, presented us with a second form of it in the word +fact+. Such words might be called +Ear-Latin+ and +Eye-Latin+; +Mouth-Latin+ and +Book-Latin+; +Spoken Latin+ and +Written Latin+; or Latin at second-hand and Latin at first-hand.

41. +Eye-Latin and Ear-Latin.+-- (ii) This coming in of the same word by two different doors-- by the Eye and by the Ear-- has given rise to the phenomenon of +Doublets+. The following is a list of +Latin Doublets+; and it will be noticed that Latin1 stands for Latin at first-hand-- from books; and Latin2 for Latin at second-hand-- through the Norman-French.

LATIN DOUBLETS OR DUPLICATES.

LATIN. LATIN1. LATIN2.

Antecessorem Antecessor Ancestor.
Benedictionem Benediction Benison.
Cadentia (Low Lat. noun) Cadence Chance.
Captivum Captive Caitiff.
Conceptionem Conception Conceit.
Consuetudinem Consuetude {Custom.
{Costume.
Cophinum Coffin Coffer.
Corpus (a body) Corpse Corps.
Debitum (something owed) Debit Debt.
Defectum (something wanting) Defect Defeat.
Dilatāre Dilate Delay.
Exemplum Example Sample.
Fabrĭca (a workshop) Fabric Forge.
Factionem Faction Fashion.
Factum Fact Feat.
Fidelitatem Fidelity Fealty.
Fragilem Fragile Frail.
Gentīlis Gentile Gentle.
(belonging to a _gens_ or family)
Historia History Story.
Hospitale Hospital Hotel.
Lectionem Lection Lesson.
Legalem Legal Loyal.
Magister Master Mr.
Majorem (greater) Major Mayor.
Maledictionem Malediction Malison.
Moneta Mint Money.
Nutrimentum Nutriment Nourishment.
Orationem Oration Orison (a prayer).
Paganum Pagan Payne (a proper name).
(a dweller in a _pagus_ or country district)
Particulam (a little part) Particle Parcel.
Pauperem Pauper Poor.
Penitentiam Penitence Penance.
Persecutum Persecute Pursue.
Potionem (a draught) Potion Poison.
Pungentem Pungent Poignant.
Quietum Quiet Coy.
Radius Radius Ray.
Regālem Regal Royal.
Respectum Respect Respite.
Securum Secure Sure.
Seniorem Senior Sir.
Separatum Separate Sever.
Species Species Spice.
Statum State Estate.
Tractum Tract Trait.
Traditionem Tradition Treason.
Zelosum Zealous Jealous.

42. +Remarks on the above Table.+ --The word +benison+, a blessing, may be contrasted with its opposite, +malison+, a curse. --+Cadence+ is the falling of sounds; +chance+ the befalling of events. --A +caitiff+ was at first a _captive_-- then a person who made no proper defence, but _allowed_ himself to be taken captive. --A +corps+ is a _body_ of troops. --The word +sample+ is found, in older English, in the form of +ensample+. --A +feat+ of arms is a deed or +fact+ of arms, _par excellence_. --To understand how +fragile+ became +frail+, we must pronounce the +g+ hard, and notice how the hard guttural falls easily away-- as in our own native words _flail_ and _hail_, which formerly contained a hard +g+. --A +major+ is a _greater_ captain; a +mayor+ is a greater _magistrate_. --A +magister+ means a _bigger man_-- as opposed to a +minister+ (from _minus_), a smaller man. --+Moneta+ was the name given to a stamped coin, because these coins were first struck in the temple of Juno Moneta, Juno the Adviser or the Warner. (From the same root-- +mon+-- come _monition_, _admonition_; _monitor_; _admonish_.) --Shakespeare uses the word +orison+ freely for _prayer_, as in the address of Hamlet to Ophelia, where he says, “Nymph, in thy orisons, be all my sins remembered!” --+Poor+ comes to us from an Old French word _poure_; the newer French is _pauvre_. --To understand the vanishing of the +g+ sound in _poignant_, we must remember that the Romans sounded it always hard. --+Sever+ we get through _separate_, because +p+ and +v+ are both labials, and therefore easily interchangeable. --+Treason+-- with its +s+ instead of +ti+-- may be compared with +benison+, +malison+, +orison+, +poison+, and +reason+.

43. +Conclusions from the above Table.+-- If we examine the table on page 231 with care, we shall come to several undeniable conclusions. (i) First, the words which come to us direct from Latin are found more in books than in everyday speech. (ii) Secondly, they are longer. The reason is that the words that have come through French have been worn down by the careless pronunciation of many generations-- by that desire for ease in the pronouncing of words which characterises all languages, and have at last been compelled to take that form which was least difficult to pronounce. (iii) Thirdly, the two sets of words have, in each case, either (_a_) very different meanings, or (_b_) different shades of meaning. There is no likeness of meaning in _cadence_ and _chance_, except the common meaning of _fall_ which belongs to the root from which they both spring. And the different shades of meaning between +history+ and +story+, between +regal+ and +royal+, between +persecute+ and +pursue+, are also quite plainly marked, and are of the greatest use in composition.

44. +Latin Triplets.+-- Still more remarkable is the fact that there are in our language words that have made three appearances-- one through Latin, one through Norman-French, and one through ordinary French. These seem to live quietly side by side in the language; and no one asks by what claim they are here. They are useful: that is enough. These triplets are-- +regal+, +royal+, and +real+; +legal+, +loyal+, and +leal+; +fidelity+, +faithfulness+,[8] and +fealty+. The adjective real we no longer possess in the sense of _royal_, but Chaucer uses it; and it still exists in the noun +real-m+. +Leal+ is most used in Scotland, where it has a settled abode in the well-known phrase “the land o’ the leal.”

[Footnote 8: The word _faith_ is a true French word with an
English ending-- the ending +th+. Hence it is a hybrid. The old
French word was _fei_-- from the Latin _fidem_; and the ending
+th+ was added to make it look more like _truth_, _wealth_,
_health_, and other purely English words.]

45. +Greek Doublets.+-- The same double introduction, which we noticed in the case of Latin words, takes place in regard to Greek words. It seems to have been forgotten that our English forms of them had been already given us by St Augustine and the Church, and a newer form of each was reintroduced. The following are a few examples:--

GREEK. OLDER FORM. LATER FORM.

Adamanta[9] (the untameable) Diamond Adamant.
Balsamon Balm Balsam.
Blasphēmein (to speak ill of) Blame Blaspheme.
Cheirourgon[9] Chirurgeon Surgeon.
(a worker with the hand)
Dactŭlon (a finger) Date (the fruit) Dactyl.
Phantasia Fancy Phantasy.
Phantasma (an appearance) Phantom Phantasm.
Presbuteron (an elder) Priest Presbyter.
Paralysis Palsy Paralysis.
Scandălon Slander Scandal.

[Footnote 9: The accusative or objective case is given in all
these words.]

It may be remarked of the word _fancy_, that, in Shakespeare’s time, it meant _love_ or _imagination_--

“Tell me, where is _fancy_ bred,
Or in the heart, or in the head?”

It is now restricted to mean a lighter and less serious kind of imagination. Thus we say that Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ is a work of imagination; but that Moore’s ‘Lalla Rookh’ is a product of the poet’s fancy.

46. +Characteristics of the Two Elements of English.+-- If we keep our attention fixed on the two chief elements in our language-- the English element and the Latin element-- the Teutonic and the Romance-- we shall find some striking qualities manifest themselves. We have already said that whole sentences can be made containing only English words, while it is impossible to do this with Latin or other foreign words. Let us take two passages-- one from a daily newspaper, and the other from Shakespeare:--

(i) “We find the _functions_ of such an _official_ _defined_ in the
_Act_. He is to be a _legally_ _qualified_ _medical_ _practitioner_
of skill and _experience_, to _inspect_ and _report_ _periodically_
on the _sanitary_ _condition_ of town or _district_; to _ascertain_
the _existence_ of _diseases_, more _especially_ _epidemics_
_increasing_ the _rates_ of _mortality_, and to _point_ out the
_existence_ of any _nuisances_ or other _local_ _causes_, which are
likely to _originate_ and _maintain_ such _diseases_, and
_injuriously_ _affect_ the health of the _inhabitants_ of such town
or _district_; to take _cognisance_ of the _existence_ of any
_contagious_ _disease_, and to point out the most _efficacious_
_means_ for the _ventilation_ of _chapels_, _schools_, _registered_
_lodging_-houses, and other _public_ buildings.”

In this passage, all the words in italics are either Latin or Greek. But, if the purely English words were left out, the sentence would fall into ruins-- would become a mere rubbish-heap of words. It is the small particles that give life and motion to each sentence. They are the joints and hinges on which the whole sentence moves. --Let us now look at a passage from Shakespeare. It is from the speech of Macbeth, after he has made up his mind to murder Duncan:--

(ii) “Go bid thy _mistress_, when my drink is ready,
She strike upon the bell. Get thee to bed!--
Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come! let me clutch thee!
--I have thee not; and yet I see thee still.”

In this passage there is only one Latin (or French) word-- the word _mistress_. If Shakespeare had used the word +lady+, the passage would have been entirely English. --The passage from the newspaper deals with large +generalisations+; that from Shakespeare with individual +acts+ and +feelings+-- with things that come +home+ “to the business and bosom” of man as man. Every master of the English language understands well the art of mingling the two elements-- so as to obtain a fine effect; and none better than writers like Shakespeare, Milton, Gray, and Tennyson. Shakespeare makes Antony say of Cleopatra:--

“Age cannot wither her; nor _custom_ stale
Her infinite _variety_.”

Here the French (or Latin) words _custom_ and _variety_ form a vivid contrast to the English verb _stale_, throw up its meaning and colour, and give it greater prominence. --Milton makes Eve say:--

“I thither went
With _inexperienc’d_ thought, and laid me down
On the green bank, to look into the _clear_
Smooth _lake_, that to me seem’d another sky.”

Here the words _inexperienced_ and _clear_ give variety to the sameness of the English words. --Gray, in the Elegy, has this verse:--

“The breezy call of _incense_-breathing morn,
The swallow twittering from the straw-built shed,
The cock’s shrill _clarion_ or the _echoing_ horn,
No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed.”

Here _incense_, _clarion_, and _echoing_ give a vivid colouring to the plainer hues of the homely English phrases. --Tennyson, in the Lotos-Eaters, vi., writes:--

“Dear is the _memory_ of our wedded lives,
And dear the last _embraces_ of our wives
And their warm tears: but all hath _suffer’d_ _change_;
For _surely_ now our household hearths are cold:
Our sons _inherit_ us: our looks are _strange_:
And we should come like ghosts to _trouble_ _joy_.”

Most powerful is the introduction of the French words _suffered change_, _inherit_, _strange_, and _trouble joy_; for they give with painful force the contrast of the present state of desolation with the homely rest and happiness of the old abode, the love of the loving wives, the faithfulness of the stalwart sons.

47. +English and other Doublets.+-- We have already seen how, by the presentation of the same word at two different doors-- the door of Latin and the door of French-- we are in possession of a considerable number of doublets. But this phenomenon is not limited to Latin and French-- is not solely due to the contributions we receive from these languages. We find it also +within+ English itself; and causes of the most different description bring about the same results. For various reasons, the English language is very rich in doublets. It possesses nearly five hundred pairs of such words. The language is all the richer for having them, as it is thereby enabled to give fuller and clearer expression to the different shades and delicate varieties of meaning in the mind.

48. +The sources of doublets+ are various. But five different causes seem chiefly to have operated in producing them. They are due to differences of +pronunciation+; to differences in +spelling+; to +contractions+ for convenience in daily speech; to differences in +dialects+; and to the fact that many of them come from +different languages+. Let us look at a few examples of each. At bottom, however, all these differences will be found to resolve themselves into +differences of pronunciation+. They are either differences in the pronunciation of the same word by different tribes, or by men in different counties, who speak different dialects; or by men of different nations.

49. +Differences in Pronunciation.+-- From this source we have +parson+ and +person+ (the parson being the _person_ or representative of the Church); +sop+ and +soup+; +task+ and +tax+ (the +sk+ has here become +ks+); +thread+ and +thrid+; +ticket+ and +etiquette+; +sauce+ and +souse+ (to steep in brine); +squall+ and +squeal+.

50. +Differences in Spelling.+-- +To+ and +too+ are the same word-- one being used as a preposition, the other as an adverb; +of+ and +off+, +from+ and +fro+, are only different spellings, which represent different functions or uses of the same word; +onion+ and +union+ are the same word. An +union+[10] comes from the Latin +unus+, one, and it meant a large single pearl-- a unique jewel; the word was then applied to the plant, the head of which is of a pearl-shape.

[Footnote 10: In Hamlet v. 2. 283, Shakespeare makes the King say--

“The King shall drink to Hamlet’s better breath;
And in the cup an union shall he throw.”]

51. +Contractions.+-- Contraction has been a pretty fruitful source of doublets in English. A long word has a syllable or two cut off; or two or three are compressed into one. Thus +example+ has become +sample+; +alone+ appears also as +lone+; +amend+ has been shortened into +mend+; +defend+ has been cut down into +fend+ (as in +fender+); +manœuvre+ has been contracted into +manure+ (both meaning originally to work with the hand); +madam+ becomes +’m+ in +yes ’m+[11]; and +presbyter+ has been squeezed down into +priest+.[12] Other examples of contraction are: +capital+ and +cattle+; +chirurgeon+ (a worker with the hand) and +surgeon+; +cholera+ and +choler+ (from chŏlos, the Greek word for _bile_); +disport+ and +sport+; +estate+ and +state+; +esquire+ and +squire+; +Egyptian+ and +gipsy+; +emmet+ and +ant+; +gammon+ and +game+; +grandfather+ and +gaffer+; +grandmother+ and +gammer+; +iota+ (the Greek letter +i+) and +jot+; +maximum+ and +maxim+; +mobile+ and +mob+; +mosquito+ and +musket+; +papa+ and +pope+; +periwig+ and +wig+; +poesy+ and +posy+; +procurator+ and +proctor+; +shallop+ and +sloop+; +unity+ and +unit+. It is quite evident that the above pairs of words, although in reality one, have very different meanings and uses.

[Footnote 11: Professor Max Müller gives this as the most
remarkable instance of cutting down. The Latin _mea domina_ became
in French _madame_; in English _ma’am_; and, in the language of
servants, _’m_.]

[Footnote 12: Milton says, in one of his sonnets--

“New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large.”

From the etymological point of view, the truth is just the other
way about. _Priest_ is old _Presbyter_ writ small.]

52. +Difference of English Dialects.+-- Another source of doublets is to be found in the dialects of the English language. Almost every county in England has its own dialect; but three main dialects stand out with great prominence in our older literature, and these are the +Northern+, the +Midland+, and the +Southern+. The grammar of these dialects[13] was different; their pronunciation of words was different-- and this has given rise to a splitting of one word into two. In the North, we find a hard +c+, as in the _caster_ of +Lancaster+; in the Midlands, a soft +c+, as in +Leicester+; in the South, a +ch+, as in +Winchester+. We shall find similar differences of hardness and softness in ordinary words. Thus we find +kirk+ and +church+; +canker+ and +cancer+; +canal+ and +channel+; +deck+ and +thatch+; +drill+ and +thrill+; +fan+ and +van+ (in a winnowing-machine); +fitch+ and +vetch+; +hale+ and +whole+; +mash+ and +mess+; +naught+, +nought+, and +not+; +pike+, +peak+, and +beak+; +poke+ and +pouch+; +quid+ (a piece of tobacco for chewing) and +cud+ (which means the thing _chewed_); +reave+ and +rob+; +ridge+ and +rig+; +scabby+ and +shabby+; +scar+ and +share+; +screech+ and +shriek+; +shirt+ and +skirt+; +shuffle+ and +scuffle+; +spray+ and +sprig+; +wain+ and +waggon+-- and other pairs. All of these are but different modes of pronouncing the same word in different parts of England; but the genius of the language has taken advantage of these different +ways of pronouncing+ to make different +words+ out of them, and to give them different functions, meanings, and uses.

[Footnote 13: See p. 242.]