ings of another. The natural courtesy of the Normans led to the creation of a fund of words applicable to this purpose, for which the energetic and too often rough expressions of the Saxons were totally unsuited.

3. MODERN FRENCH.-From this offspring of the ancient Norman our authors have, at different periods, taken many useful words; which, either with very slight changes in their spelling or without any modification at all, have, after a time, by common consent, become incorporated into the language. A taste for French expressions as well as French opinions has from time to time prevailed in England, and of course led to the introduction of many foreign terms from this source; whence, also, numerous additions have been made through the medium of trade, many fabrics which owe their invention to the artists of France having come into general use and retained their foreign names,

4. LATIN.-Under this head must be classed those elements which have come directly from the Latin, and not through the medium of any other tongue. Between the two classes it is not always easy to draw a dividing line, particularly in the case of the later derivatives. The earliest additions from this source (if we except proper names and a few military terms, introduced into the original vernacular of Britain during the period of Roman supremacy, and thence received and naturalized at a later date by the Saxons) were ecclesiastical words, such as monk, saint, cloister, mass, and the like, necessarily employed wherever the Church of Rome carried its doctrines, institutions, and ritual. Next follow the Latinisms introduced in the thirteenth century, at which time a taste for classical studies began to revive in England as well as elsewhere. Thenceforth, as necessity required,

What is said of the additions from modern French? Through what medium have they mostly been received?

Into what two classes are the Latin elements of our language divided? Is it easy to distinguish between them? What additions were made from this source during the period of Roman supremacy? What Latin terms were next introduced? Give examples. What Latinisms next followed? Towards the close

occasional additions were made from the same source, especially by theological and scientific writers; until, towards the close of the eighteenth century, Johnson and his imitators, having coined largely from Latin roots and naturalized a variety of classical idioms, succeeded in making their high-sounding derivatives fashionable, at the expense of the less pretending Saxon.

It has been questioned by those who compare the simplicity of Addison with the pompousness of Hume and Gibbon, whether this wholesale Latinizing was any improvement to our language and literature; if, however, it resulted in no other advantage, it has at least secured us an array of synonymes (that is, words that have the same or a similar signification) unequalled by those of any other modern language.

5. CELTIC.-Next in importance are the Celtic elements, some of which were introduced into our language at or shortly after the period of its first formation, while others have been added in modern times, either by antiquarians or in conseof intercourse with the Welsh and Irish. As examples of the latter, may be mentioned the words tartan, plaid, flannel, &c. The former class may be arranged under two subdivisions:

quence

I. Those elements which came directly from the Celtic itself; embracing a great number of geographical names, such as Thames, Kent, &c., as well as a variety of common nouns in every-day use, among which are bran, darn, flaw, gruel, mop, tackle, &c.

II. Such as originated in the Celtic, yet were received into

English, not directly from that tongue, but through the medium of Latin or Norman French, into which they had previously found their way.

of the eighteenth century, what taste became fashionable? How does the style of Addison compare with that of Hume and Gibbon? What question has been raised with regard to this wholesale Latinizing? What great advantage has resulted from it?

What elements are next in importance? When were the Celtic additions introduced? What is the first class into which the ancient elements are divided? Give examples. What, the second? How have Celtic words found their way into English in modern times?

6. GREEK. To this language we are indebted largely for scientific terms, but little or none for words of every-day life. The elements thus derived are all of recent addition. If we except the words phenomenon, criterion, automaton, and a few others, they have all been introduced within the last hundred and fifty years. New discoveries of science having rendered an enlargement of our technical nomenclature necessary, recourse was had to the Greek as affording the greatest advantages for this purpose. Hence our numerous words ending in logy and graphy, and their derivatives.

7. MISCELLANEOUS ELEMENTS.-Under this head fall the few isolated words added from time to time, through the medium of business, or as occasion has required, from eastern and North American dialects, or the modern tongues of Europe not before alluded to.

Dr. Latham, in his “Handbook ”, p. 56, furnishes us with a variety of examples:

ITALIAN, virtuoso.

RUSSIAN, Czar.

TURKISH, Coffee, bashaw, scimitar.

ARABIC, admiral, assassin, alchemy, alcohol, and a variety of words beginning with the Arabian article al.

PERSIAN, turban, caravan.

HINDOO, calico, chintz, curry, lac.

MALAY, bantam, gamboge, rattan, sago.

CHINESE, nankeen, tea, and its varieties, bohea, hyson, &c.

N. AMERICAN INDIAN, squaw, wigwam.

§31. From what has been stated, however, with regard to the numerical proportion of the elements composing our language, no correct idea can be formed respecting their relative importance. Some words, for instance (and this is the

What terms do we owe to the Greek language? When were they introduced? Within this period, what has called for an enlargement of our scientific vocabulary? What terminations in English indicate Greek origin?

How have a variety of miscellaneous elements crept into our language? Give examples from the Italian; Russian; Turkish; Arabic; Persian; Hindoo; Malay; Chinese; North American Indian dialects.

§ 31. From what has been stated with regard to their number, can a correct idea be formed of the relative importance of the elements that compose our lan

case with many of our Saxon derivatives) are constantly recurring, while the use of others is rare and limited to certain styles or subjects. To determine what part of our language, as commonly written, is really Saxon, various passages from the authorized version of the Scriptures and from standard writers of different eras have been analyzed. The result, as given in Turner's Anglo-Saxons, shows that, when the words were classified under the languages from which they were respectively derived, more than four-fifths of the whole were found to be of Saxon origin. The individual passages compared were found to differ widely from each other as regards their proportion of foreign elements. The translators of the Bible wrote by far the purest Saxon, only of their words being derived from other sources; of Swift's words, are not Saxon; of Milton's, ; of Shakspeare's, ; of Spenser's, Addison's, and Thomson's, about ; of Johnson's, ; of Pope's and Hume's, ; of Gibbon's, much more than §.

LESSON X.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

§32. BEFORE proceeding to consider the different classes of words, and the parts they respectively perform in a sentence, we may with advantage look at our language as a whole, and observe its leading characteristics.

Derived, as we have seen, from so many different sources, each of which has contributed some of its own peculiar fea

guage? Why not? To arrive at a knowledge of this, what has been done? What proportion of all the words employed is found to be of Saxon origin? Who are ascertained to have written the purest Saxon? What proportion of their words is derived from other sources? Of Swift's words, what part is not Saxon? Of Milton's? Shakspeare's? Spenser's, Addison's, and Thomson's? Johnson's? Pope's and Hume's? Gibbon's?

§32. What follows from the fact that English has been derived from so many

""

tures, it naturally follows that English, like every other compounded language, is full of irregularities. We must not ex pect entire consistency in its parts, or that complete analogy of structure which is found in simpler tongues that have been built on but one foundation. Our words, naturalized from widely different dialects, “straggle,” as Blair says, "asunder from each other, and do not coalesce so naturally in the structure of a sentence as the words in the Greek and Roman tongues. Our orthography is anomalous; the same combination of letters may be pronounced in half a dozen different ways: * and our syntactical constructions are so arbitrary that it often perplexes the best grammarians to account for them. We have introduced foreign idioms and modes of construction; and our sentences too often look like patchwork, composed of divers pieces, handsome enough in themselves, but of such different colors and qualities that the eye can not help being struck with the variety in passing from one to another.

Composite languages, however, have advantages as well as drawbacks. The very variety alluded to above is preferable to sameness, and often imparts vivacity to what might otherwise seem monotonous and dull. Such tongues, moreover, are generally enriched with copious vocabularies; and particularly is this true of English, whose abundance of historical, political, moral, and philosophical terms, leaves little to be desired by the writer. Nor are we less amply provided with distinct and peculiar poetical terms. With us poetry differs from prose, not only in having a certain arrangement

plough.

For example, ough in through, though, cough, tough, lough, hiccough,

different sources? What must we not expect? What says Blair respecting our words? What is the character of our orthography? Give an example. What is said of our sentences?

What advantage, on the other hand, do composite languages possess? With what are such tongues generally enriched? With what kind of terms are we amply provided? In English, how does poetry differ from prose? Whose writ