SECOND SECTION.

THE DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

Phonetics has to do with the body of the word according to its material nature. The Doctrine of forms considers the word according to its notional nature and its destination within speech, as conditioned or partly conditioned by the form of the word, and as a part of speech.

1) We distinguish different parts of speech, or classes of words, which are named according to their predominant destination in the sentence, while they are not precluded from occasionally interchanging their functions in the sentence.

The parts of speech are divided into Nouns, Verbs and Particles.

a) The noun names or denotes objects given in external reality (concrete objects), or imagined analogously to these (abstract objects), and the qualities inherent in them, which by their form or meaning indicate their attributive reference to the objects.

Objects are denoted by substantives, the qualities formally referred to them by adjectives.

If the object is not named, but merely denoted by a word passing for a sign pointing back or away to an object, either a person or a thing, this representative word is termed a substantive pronoun.

If the object is determined attributively, not according to a quality inherent in itself according to its nature, but extrinsically, that is, quantitatively, or demonstratively in the amplest sense of the word, this is effected by a numeral, an adjective pronoun or an article.

b) The Verb, or time-word, the essential word of the predicate, whereby a judgment is accomplished, serves in the sentence to express the activity of the subject, which falls in the sphere of Time, as the subject with its qualities is originally imagined in the sphere of space.

c) The remaining parts of speech are called particles, which, although commonly of small outward compass, are not of small import in speech, but essentially contribute to determine the character of the tongue. They are divided into words of circumstance, or, adverbs; words of relation, of prepositions; connecting words, or, conjunctions; and sounds of emotion, or, interjections.

The adverb serves essentially to determine the verb more particularly, with reference to the space, the time, the manner, and the cause and aim of the action. Its further functions in

r

the sentence flow from this its original destination. The preposition stands in an essential relation to the substantive, and determines, in the same aspects as the adverb, the more general character of the case more nearly and closely, as, in the absense of case-inflection, it undertakes the function of such inflection. The conjunction is the means of expressing the relation of the sentences to one another, coming, apparently, out of the sentence, although in fact acting as an adverb or a preposition. The interjection had the meaning of a subjective utterance of emotion, or of an affection, without any notional definiteness, and stands, in fact, outside of the sentence, although it may appear as the unconcious abbreviation of a sentence.

This characterising of the parts of spech considers them according to their more general syntactical relations within speech. In the aspects of their form and of their original nature, as determinable thereby, the doctrine of forms has to develop them further, as syntax has to set forth their more particular destinations and their partial interchange among each other.

The more ancient tongues, as well as those generally which have preserved their inflective forms more complete than the English, distinguish nouns and verbs, as parts of speech capable of inflection, from particles, as forms incapable of inflection. This distinction is in English no longer completely applicable, nouns being in great part to be reckoned among the parts of speech incapable of inflection, unless we confound the substitution of case prepositions, (like of and to) for cases with the notion of inflection. But only the change of the body of the word by additional sounds or syllables can be called inflection, whereby the part of speech, without change of its notional determination, enters into distinct relations within the sentence. 2) Another aspect in which the parts of speech are to be considered in the doctrine of forms is the change of the body of a word, produced by derivation and composition.

Under the name of a root we comprehend the similar constituents of a larger or smaller number of words, in which a change or variation, or a dimming of the vowel, as well as a change of consonants, conditioned or explainable physiologically is certainly not excluded. All words belonging to the same root leade us to the conclusion of their original notional connection. The image of a root, with a meaning permeating all its stems and ramifications, is, however, solely of theoretic value. No root as such appears in speech; there every word appears as a definite part of speech, whose radical abstract meaning is separated and individualized, even when the radical sounds alone apparently constitute a word.

The simple word proceeding from the root may, as such, be augmented by inflective forms. The unaltered part is then the stem. That even derivative words may be capable of inflection, is readily to be understood, and we call the verbal body, amplified materially and more closely determined notionally, the

stem of the word, as distinct from the inflective termination. We commonly term both the fundamental form.

a) When the stem is amplified by means of sounds or syllables, so that distinct notions and parts of speech arise, these further formed stems are called derivative words.

b) But when to a selfstanding word of any sort another, or even more than one more word is added, so that these words coalesce into one phonetic and notional whole, compound words arise. The task of the doctrine of forms is accordingly to represent the single parts of speech in the aspect of their capacity or incapacity of inflection, as well as the doctrine of the derivation and composition of words.

I. The Parts of Speech and their inflective forms. A) The Noun.

I. The Substantive.

The noun substantive denotes externally real, sensuously perceivable, or concrete objects, which are primarily apprehended as existing in space, and are therefore Persons, or Things.

It further serves to denote the notions of qualities, actions or beings, gained through the action of thinking, and which, as abstract objects, are imagined analogously to things sensuously perceivable, and are employed as subjects or objects in the sentence.

The limit between concrete and abstract substantives is hard to draw, since the perceivable, such as sound, noise, smell, light &c., may in their origin be conceived as the utterance of an activity, and, in regard to the subject apprehending, appear sensuously perceivable. Thus abstract substantives, denoting an action, are often used to signify the sensuously perceivable result, as in drawing, painting, embroidery; and the action is even put for the material in which it is effected. The abstract term even becomes the term for an individual to whom an abstract quality belongs: compare Majesty, Highness, instead of Prince, and so on. In these regards ancient and modern tongues agree; in the last-named the English goes, however, further than Highdutch. Thus youth (Anglosaxon geógud, juventus) denotes not only youth abstractly and collectively (see under c), but also the individual in the youthful age; witness (Anglosaxon vitness, testimonium) testimony and the person bearing it, compare témoin testimonium; acquaintance, personal knowledge, abstractly and collectively, and the person known, relation; the affinity and the person related, compare Anglosaxon sibb, consanguinitas, cognatus; fairy, formerly abstractly fayry (see HALLIWELL sv.), French féerie, stands now in the place of the otherwise more usual fay.

=

A further organic. division of substantives is that into names of sorts, proper names, collective names and names of materials.

We can regard there as, on the one hand, distinct classes of substantives, while on the other hand they pass in part into one another. We may likewise regard them as sorts of concrete substantives, while abstract substantives may also partially take their place.

a) Names of sorts is the term for those substantives which denote, according to their notion, objects which are to be apprehended as individuals of a sort or kind. Concrete objects are of course mostly of this sort; yet even abstractions, such as virtue, vice, bias, sickness &c., so far as they are individualized or imagined as appearing as manifold, may become names of sorts. b) Proper names are those substantives whereby persons or other objects are denoted, not according to their notion, but in an extrinsic, conventional manner, without their essence or quality needing be touched. They mostly arise out of concrete names of sorts, but also out of abstract names. But by several objects having the same proper name, the notion of a sort does not on the contrary arise; but, if the proper name is employed metaphorically, in remembrance of the characteristic qualities of the person or thing bearing it, the proper name becomes the name of a sort, as Nero represents the notion of a tyrant.

c) Collective names comprise a number of single objects under one total image, when the image of the individual beings recedes, as in forest, army. If these totalities are apprehended as manifold in number they appear as names of sorts: forests, armies; a thick forest, a formidable army. So far as abstract substantives can be regarded as terms for the common nature or activity of individuals, they frequently assume the character of collective names, as, Priesthood, Knighthood, Christendom, Mankind, Clergy.

d) Names of materials are substantives absolutely denoting the homogeneous matter or mass of which objects consist. They must be regarded as names of sorts, when the matter is separated by distinct qualities or localities, as, black earth, white glass; or, when they denote objects prepared from a material, as, a glass, = a drinking vessel.

The character of the substantive in these respects has an influence upon its inflective forms.

Declination of the substantive in general.

As regards, in the first place, the fundamental form of the English substantive, as opposed to its inflective terminations, we must draw a distinction between the Anglosaxon and the Romance elements in genuine English words of this class, to which we oppose words subsequently introduced and not assimilated to the great majority.

The substantives of Anglosaxon origin, attach themselves in their English form essentially to the Anglosaxon nominative of the singular of simple as well as of derivative substantives. The simple or derivative form of the substantive, common to the Anglosaxon cases, is mostly presented in them. We disregard here the rejection of the vowels of formation e, a, u, o as well as the partial substitution

of the mute e, and also the annexing of an inorganic e, which we have mentioned above. Derivative forms have seldom suffered a loss in consonants, as dross, Anglosaxon dros-n, game, Anglosaxon gam-en; mill, Anglosaxon myl-en; anvil, Anglosaxon anfil-t; seal, Anglosaxon seol-h, but also seol, syl; mare, Anglosaxon mer-ihe, but also mere, myre, and some others. The u in the nominative, arising form a derivative v, has sometimes been thrown off, as in meal, Anglosaxon mël-u, -eves; ale, eal-u, -eves and others. Forms of this very sort (which in Anglosaxon have also o instead of u in the nominative singular) prove that English was wont to adhere primarily to the form of the substantive prominent in the nominative. Rarely has any other form become the standard; this is however the case in breech, commonly, breeches, Old-English breek (MAUNDEV.) and breech (IB.) (compare the Anglosaxon nomin. singul. broc, in the genitive, as in the nominative and accusative plural brêc), in which the ee of the plural seems transferred to the singular; as also in the plural brethren, the vowel of the dative singular appears; compare the nominative singular brôdor, dative brêder, whereas everywhere else ô is found.

In regard to the substantives borrowed from the Old-French we find the same course pursued in English as the French early began to take. Old-French had to a great extent suffered the stem of Latin words appearing in the oblique cases to become the standard for the form of substantives, where it did not appear in the nominative; (compare maison, Latin mansion-is &c., nuit, Latin noct-is &c., citet, Latin civitat-is &c.); but alongside of these, particularly with masculines, the nominative (and vocative) of the singular, distinguished from the other cases by a subjoined s or r, mostly according to the analogy of the second Latin declension, but also of the other forms with s in the nominative, whereby a preceding consonant was often excluded (compare coc cos [Modern-French coq], fils fix [filius], clo, clou clox [clavus]). The Old-French also preserved a long time distinct forms for the nominative of the singular and for the other cases, quens, cuens (comes), and conte (comitis &c.); enfes (infans) and enfant (infant-is &c.); sires (senior with s) and signeur, signour &c. (senior-is &c.), bers (baro, with s) and baron (baron-is &c.) and others. But, as even Old-French puts the forms of the French oblique case in the place of the nominative, and Modern-French has almost wholly lost the forms with the letter 8 in the nominative singular, and, where preserved, uses them for all cases (compare fils, filius), English has adopted the oblique case of the French as the fundamental form of the substantive. Compare host, Old-French os, osz, oz ost, host; ray, Old-French rais rai; glutton, Old-French gloz, glous, gluz-glouton, gluton; baron, Old-French bers - baron; emperor, Old-French empereres - empereor; traitor, Old-French trahitres, traistres traitor, trahitour &c. Even where forms like virge, virgine stand alongside of each other without distinction of case, English has chosen the oblique form: virgin (virgin-is). Remnants of the letter s of formation in the nominative are rare as, in fitz (fils, fix, fiz).

The inflective forms of the substantives which have remained