Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER VI.

DYNAMIC CHANGE.

CHI. VI.

Dynamic change to be briefly considered

in order to distinguish its results from those of phonetic change.

I HAVE already said that it is not my intention to describe the construction of language. Phonetic change, according to my view, is due to the corruption of language: and now that we have ascertained what were the probable sounds, which, modified in different ways, became the frame-work of the different languages of the Indo-European stock, I might pass on at once to investigate those changes which mark the Graeco-Italian division. But I think it necessary first to give a few examples of Dynamic change; because without knowing something of the operation of the formative principle in language it is difficult, and sometimes almost impossible, to keep its results distinct from the mere corruptions produced by the destructive principle. This confusion is only possible among the vowels; the consonants are unaffected by dynamic change: and there is not much fear of confusion in languages where the vowel-system is almost perfect: in such languages the vowels in the main vary each in its own scale; for example, from a root whose vowel is a, a derivative is rarely formed with the vowel i, as is the case, e.g. where ππоs is formed from AK: and the diphthongs are preserved uninjured, so that the different steps of vowel-modification can be kept distinct from each other: and such a language is the Greek. But this is far from being the case with the Latin. That has neither retained its diphthongs, nor kept the vowel-scales with anything like regu

larity. Therefore in treating of the most complex vowelsystem of the Latin, it is necessary to give some clue by which to distinguish between those variations which were primarily the result of design and those which arose from indolence in articulation. It seems best to do this here, first, because the changes due to this principle are much fewer and simpler, and a knowledge of them will clear the way for the better understanding of the more complex problems of phonetic change; secondly, because the principle of growth must have originally preceded the principle of decay. I have already briefly sketched the general formative system of language—the process by which a root grew into a base. That growth is by accretions from without, and is always easily distinguishable from the processes of phonetic change. I now propose to describe some of the methods by which a root could be modified from within; not how e.g. the root π could by adding a formative suffix become πιθ-ανο- and πιθανο- grow into πιθανός and πιθανότης and πιθανόω; but how by mere modification of existing elements Te could become Teɩ0: because it might be supposed that this change of ɩ into e was of the same character as that of a into e, or e into . I ought however to say here that in the opinion of some scholars there was originally no difference between the two kinds. I believe that there was; but I will consider the question at the end of the chapter, after I have described the process.

CH, VI.

tion, and

Vowel-In

tensifica

Now the two principal methods of this modification of The princia root, without introducing any new element, are Redupli-thods Recation and Vowel-Intensification. At first sight it might duplicaappear as though reduplication must be called an external modification. Undoubtedly a further syllable is added to the word: but absolutely no new element is added: μapμαίρω (which is for μαρ-μαρ-ψω) introduces no new idea to modify the old one; the old one is but expressed twice over, till it gets a new association.

It is true that from the nature of Reduplication there

P. E.

11

tion :

CH. VI.

possibly

isation.

is not much likelihood of its results being confused with those of phonetic change, except in the case of roots which begin with a vowel. But these two methods of strengthening the root are so closely connected, that it is hardly possible to treat of the one satisfactorily without the other. This is not the case with a third method, called nasalisaalso Nasal- tion, by which e.g. fid became fi-n-d-o, and √λa, xa-v0-áv-w. This variation of sound seems at first sight to bear so exact an analogy to the strengthening of the vowel already mentioned: e.g. as Til: Teil :: fid : find— and this use of the nasal is so exactly in accordance with the view already given of its origin, that it was primarily a mere thickening of another sound, not itself a distinct sound-that we might see no reason for any hesitation in adding nasalisation to the methods already mentioned of strengthening the simple root. But when we examine more closely we shall see so much irregularity in the position of the nasal both in Sanskrit, in Greek, and in Latin, that we cannot help feeling some doubt whether after all it was not primarily a verbal suffix, which afterwards in certain cases slipped inside the root. Thus, for example, though we have scindo in Latin from skid, yet in Greek we have σκίδνη-μι, and σκεδάννυ-μι: is the n in the Latin form the remnant of an affix na or nu which has been displaced? This is quite possible. I think it cannot be denied that there has been some displacement. But the opposite view is also possible: that from the endeavour to avoid the massing of consonantal sound late in the word, which was unsuited to the peculiar liquidity of the Greek language, the n in Okivd was passed on; that σκινδ-μι became σκιδνα-μι, the new vowel being essential to sound the n, if indeed it did not exist as a connecting vowel before the transposition. The lengthening of the second syllable may have been caused by the accent having at one time fallen upon it. We have then to decide which is the most probable of these two possible hypotheses: by the first the nasal is something which had no doubt

originally a meaning1, but which had probably long ceased to have that meaning, and had come to be merely a part of the machinery of grammar: by the second it was a sound which retained its dynamic character probably till after the separation of the nations. I incline to the latter view; a further argument for which is the fact that in Sanskrit and Greek this nasal is found principally in the present tense and those immediately connected with it: and the same thing is true of those roots which are strengthened by raising the vowel to a higher step in the scale: this harmony seems to bring the two phenomena under the same head: the meaning of the fact will be explained afterwards. Though this rule is not observed in Latin, yet there are traces of its having been so once: thus we have fra-n-go but fregi, fractum (¿ýyvvμi, pńkw, рηктós): then the strengthened stem began to supersede the other, partly as in pungo, pupugi, but punctum, wholly as in iungo, iunxi, iunctum. This argument however loses something of its force from its being applicable to other verbs which have their present strengthened by undoubted formative suffixes, e.g. ya, as кaíw (for κaƑ-yo-μı), where the future is kavσw (for кaƑ-ow), and the second aorist ἐκά(F)ην with no trace of the suffix; or slo, as βόσκω and pasco, where the suffix is also confined to the present. But the nasal is also found occasionally in the perfect stem, where no formative suffix is ever found: e.g. in πέπονθα (from παθ), in κέκλαγγα (from κλαγ): these

seem quite analogous to πέποιθα οι κέκευθα. The nasal is likewise found in some nouns as in πένθος by πάθος, βένOos beside Bálos; but these may be merely phonetic varieties, and as such they are explained by Curtius2: but we find στρόμβος apparently from στραφ, and θάμβος from θαπ, and others which seem analogous to λοιβή, λeîpus, &c., which are instances of dynamic change. Now

[blocks in formation]

CH. VI.

CH. VI.

in the perfects it is certainly inconceivable that the nasal should be a part of a suffix: and though it is possible that πένθος was originally παθ-νos, it is eminently improbable.

It is this use of the nasal, in analogy with recognised dynamic methods, combined with the improbability in most cases of its being a suffix, that is the main argument for nasalisation being included under the head of Dynamic change. But in the absence of positive certainty as to the nature of the nasal sound, I shall not describe the usage of it further, confining my attention to the two. other undoubted methods of strengthening the simple

root.

Reduplication the

Oldest and simplest method.

Reduplication.

This is probably the earliest, certainly the most natural, method of expressing greater intensity of feeling. But for this very reason, because it is the earliest, the traces of it in Greek and Latin are smaller than those of the other more refined and subtle methods of producing the same result, which have gradually superseded it. These traces are, as might be expected, most common in words which are obviously immediately onomatopoetic: e.g. åλaλá¿w—ululo, &c. And indeed the greater number of examples adduced by Prof. Pott' to prove the wide extent of this principle are derived from the Tartaric or Oceanic speeches. In the ever-varying languages of savages, based almost entirely on conscious onomatopoeia, Reduplication is almost the only method employed to of this de- strengthen the expression of an idea. Thousands of examples are given by Pott. So also with children; every one must have observed how naturally they form a lan

Evidence

rived from

the language of savages

and of children.

1 In his book called Doppelung als eines der wichtigsten Bildungsmittel der Sprache, in which the question is treated in the most thoroughgoing and most unreadable way.

« PreviousContinue »