« AnteriorContinuar »
rchange and media e the limi of the la 57 tad es
mutilatel ards of
clear, and connects it regularly and THAIRH and DAURO are placed
closely with the Latin id. It is pos- before him. The non-identity, indeed, mere mate sible that the Anglo-Saxon hit, which becomes more probable when we find al list is aspirated, is no corruption of ITA, the words still separated from each the past but an offshoot from a separate yet other in the earliest form of our lanliz connected stem; but even here, the guage, and at a backward distance of Is To theory that hit is the past participle 1400 years. There is not a vestige artlepel of hætan, which makes hæten, is be- of authority for holding the case to be yond measure extravagant.
different in Anglo-Saxon, where dur, od sts
Having noticed some of Tooke's or duru, is a door, and thurh, through e ar di speculations on pronouns and conjunc- --words still divided from each other ne pas tions, let us take a sample of his dis- by a barrier of distinction which as yet Sms coveries in the class of prepositions. we have not found to be over-passed.
The first example we shall take is But then the Greek Juga is called de: the preposition through. The fallacy into play ; and it is said, and said corti: Ti of our philologer's doctrine on this rectly, that Juga is the Gothic and Eng. is THE head has been already exposed by lish door, while Suçc resembles through the Gile other writers; but we must take leave and that therefore door and through to say a few words yet on the subject. must be the same.
The question, It is not worth while to extract the however, always returns—if they are the Bapte passage, which is long and confused, the same, why are they different? How
but we shall give the substance. It have they kept asunder in the Teutonic contains a precious jumble, which we languages so long and so steadily, if must try somewhat to set right. they are such near relations; or ra
The proposition maintained by therif, as Tooke says, they are the same Tooke is, that through is no other individual ? Further, we have not yet
than “ the Gothic substantive DAU. found in Greek that Juga meansthrough, om the cente RO, or the Teutonic substantive or that the word for through in Greek Acontent thuruh.” We pass over this Teu. resembles Jugue. Perhaps, as door,
tonic substantive, with which we have when traced into Greek, becomes Jueth, not the pleasure of being acquainted, which is something different, the other and we then come to this allegation word through, if traced in the same that the English through is the Gothic way, may also become equally differDAURO, a door. Why this is said ent; and thus the Greek for door and rather than that the English through for through be as wide apart as the is the English door, we don't perceive Gothic, the Saxon, or the English. except to show off the writer's know- And so, substantially, it is ; because, ledge of Gothic. What advance have although we have no preposition in we made by removing the field of en.
Greek which connects itself with quiry to that venerable dialect? If through, we have many words in that we say that in English through is door, language which indicate penetration, we just make a gratuitous assertion, or permeation, and which are obvious which carries no conviction along cognates of through. Now, how are with it. Well, then, in Gothic how these words characterised ? By a gę? does it stand ? 'DAURO or DAUR Not so—but by ts. Thus, Tipew, Titpaw, is the Gothic for door, while THAIRH giteworc, &c.; and, in connexion with is the Gothic for through. Are we these words, and the Sanserit root tr-, to any nearer our point? Not an inch. pass over, we probably possess the Latin
as little be denied that trans. It matters litile, therefore, that THAIRH is the root of through, as door, in passing into Greek, becomes that DAUR, or DAURO, if Tooke Grga with an aspirate, if through or its will have it so, is the root of door ; and cognates, in undergoing the same proTHAIRH and DAURO are as wide cess, does not retain but loses the asasunder as their English relatives. It pirate, and diverges into a different is idem per idem. Had we got into a sound, still preserving the separation. pure and primitive language, where we have thus two parallel lines, of the streams had converged into one which one, when it enters the terrifountain, we should have made some tory of the ancient languages, deviates progress. But here is nothing of the towards the direction of the other ; kind; and the obstinate unbeliever in but that other does not remain sta the identity of through and door, while tionary or coalesce with its antagonist
, stated in English, is as hard of faith, but retreats to another position equally or perhaps harder, when the Gothic distant as before. The parallelism is
are not Totes
the pas ne pa bo
ppears ble of
re lär mig
thus still preserved, and their common and not aware that the Gothic form origin as far as ever from being esta of the preposition to is DU? If he blished. There is a shift in the strata, was aware of this fact, why not atbut each bed is still distinct and differ- tempt to explain his grounds for holdent from its neighbour. We may in. ing that DU was the same word as fer from these facts what is truly the T'AUID? If he was not aware of case, that certain consonants, in pass. it, what shall we say to his scholar. ing from Greek to Gothic, undergo a ship? The derivation is every way certain change, but even in that change absurd. the same relative distance of different Again, he tells us, “I imagine also words is preserved in violate ; nor are that oF (in the Gothic and Anglowe entitled to infer identity in distin- Saxon AF and af) is a fragment of the guishable words, till we find those Gothic and Anglo-Saxon AFARA, words identified in some one language posteritas, &c., afora, proles.” “ That proceeding on a regular and consistent it is a noun-substantive," &c. This is system.
bold, at least; and we shall also call The words door and through are it convincing, when we find any one in no language the same in their ini- who can believe that the Latin pretial consonant, except in the modern position post is a fragment of posteriLow German, where the apparent tas. Does the blindest etymologist assimilation arises from the accident not see that AF is not the remnant but that those dialects, in their existing the origin of the Gothic AFARA, or form, have lost the dental aspirate, AFAR, succession; and is itself a or th, and are thus unable to keep Teutonic form of the Greek árò, and up the distinction which intrinsically the Latin ab. belongs to the words in question. Proceeding now to nouns and adjecIn the High German, the words are tives, we find them almost all referred not confounded; as durch and thür by Mr Tooke to the participles or
where, however, the th is merely a other parts of verbs. Let us examine mode of writing t) are as much di- a few of his most striking examples. vided as through and door. Tooke It is a common theory of Tooke's himself adverts to the interchange of to designate nouns as the past partithe letters in German and English, ciples of connected verbs, which verbs though he mistakes in supposing that are themselves derived from those very the German thür takes the place of nouns. Thus deal is said to be the the English through. But he has not past participle of the verb DAILYAN, the sense to see the legitimate con- (Gothic,) dalan, (Anglo-Saxon,) to diclusion, that when, amidst all these vide. It is perfectly certain that turnings and shiftings, the two words, DAILS, the Gothic for a part or though often changing places with share, is not the derivative, but the each other, keep still as distinct as oil primitive of the verb DAIL-YAN, and water, there must be an inherent, to deal or make into shares: and deal is as there is undoubtedly an immemo- just as much its past participle as rial, diversity in their origin. pars is the past participle of partior.
Tooke refers to the Oriental lan. There are throughout the work innuguages; but, without entering further merable instances of this gross error. on this field, we may affirm that they But it is an equally common tenwill serve his purpose as ill as the dency of this great grammarian's to Germanic.
designate nouns as the past participles To take another instance-we of verbs with which they have no are told by Tooke that “ the prepo- earthly connexion. We shall give a sition To (in Dutch written TOE and few instances at random. Some of TOT, a little nearer to the original,) them stand little in need of comment, is the Gothic substantive TAUI or Knight, we are told, is “the past TAUHTS, i, e. act, effect, result, participle of cnythan, to knit, nectere, consummation ; which Gothic sub- alligare, attacher."- "Knight is cnyt, stantive is indeed itself no other than un attaché !" the past participle TAUID " Wench is the past participle of TAUIDS, of the verb TAUYAN, wincian, to wink; i. e. one that is agere.
And what is done, is termi- winked at !!” nated, ended, finished.”
The vernacular for a crepitus But was Tooke a Gothic scholar, tris, " a very innocent word,” is the
same as fared, or gone; “ the past Anglo-Saxon verb ge-icon. fcan, addere, participle of faren, to fare or go!!!” adjicere, augere, jungere, gives us the
- Blind-blined, blin'd, is the.past English verb to ich (now commonly writparticiple of the Old English verb ten to eke.) Ge-ican, by the change of to blin, (Anglo-Saxon blinnan,) to the characteristic i to o, gives us the past stop.” Then follow various unneces- tense and past participle geoc, which (by sary quotations to prove that there is, our accustomed substitution of Y for g)
now write YOK or YOKE.”. or once was, such a word as blin.
P. 450. Now, in this last derivation, there are
or two things requiring correc. This is altogether very bad. He tion; but, in noticing them, it is ne- has again been misled by the Anglocessary to premise, that as the adjec- Saxon g, which, in the word geoc, retive BLINDS is a genuine Gothic presents a proper y, and has nothing word, we shall have done little to. to do with the prefix ge. If he had wards its elucidation unless we can had the Gothic before him, he would explain it on Gothic data. We ob- have seen there the primitive word
YUK, a yoke, the cognate of the 1. That there is no such simple Latin jugum, and Greek (suyos, (as verb as blinnan, the original being well as of the Sanscrit yuj,) and as LINNAN, which appears in Gothic different from ge-ican or ycan, which in the form of another compound, AF- is a derivative of the Gothic AUKAN, LINNAN, cessare. B-linnan, in to eke, as jungo is from augeo. We Anglo-Saxon, is a contraction of be- pass over the other blunders in gramlinnan; but such a form does not oc- mar in this passage with a remark, cur in the Gothic language, and would that the identification of the past tense scarcely be congenial to its character. and past participle is a proof of great If there were any corresponding Gothic and fundamental ignorance. word, we should probably find it rather Take some other instances ad aper. as GA-LINNAN, from which it would turam :be absurd to derive BLINDS.
“ LEWD- LAY - Lewd, in Anglo2. Blind cannot be the past parti. Saxon Læwed, is almost equivalent to ciple of blinnan, even if such an ori- wicked ; " " it means misled, led astray, ginal verb would explain it in Gothic deluded,” &c.—Lew'd is the past particias well as in Anglo-Saxon. The
ple, and lay is the past tense, and therefore verb pointed at, whatever is its form, past participle (!) of the Anglo-Saxon is conjugated strong, and the past verb lawan, prodere, tradere, to delude, participle would be BLUNNANS in to mislead. Lewd, in its modern applicaGothic, as it is blunnen in Anglo- tion, is confined to those who are betrayed Saxon, with either of which it would or misled by one particular passion; it be quite gratuitous to identify the ad- was anciently applied to the profanum vuljective BLINDS, blind.
gus at large, too often misled through 3. The joint result of these two ignorance.”—P. 292. views is, that Tooke asserts the Gothic
This would really have been inexadjective BLINDS to be the participle cusable in any other man than Tooke, LUNNANS, or GA-LUNNANS, who, forgetting in active life the diswhich it cannot be, except under a tinction between a clerk and a laysystem by which any one thing may man, may be forgiven for not remembe proved to be any other.
bering about it in etymology. Of the same character and quality It is obvious from this passage itself is the etymology given from Tooke's that Tooke connected lewd with leod, interleaved copy of his own book, that and thought them past participles of good is ge-owed, or the past participle lawan. But was he ignorant that
Execrable as this is upon its Leod, the name for a people or nation, own showing, it appears, when fully was a great and honourable word, difinvestigated, to be still more detest- fused widely among the Teutonictribes, able. If any past participle of the and incapable of being derived from the Saxon verb to owe were formed with
mean source to which this foolish man the prefix, it would be ge-agen, which ascribes it? A name for a people, sigis but a poor etymology for god, good. nifying deluded, is not likely to be
Tooke, however, is fond of filling imposed in any circumstances, either up words with the prefix ge. Thus, by the agents or the patients of the
YOKE is the past participle of the delusion. But our German ancestors
were, of all men, too free and too and gyrwan is the derivative to make proud to assume or suffer a name that ready. bore the badge of slavery and dis- 2. We deny yard, a measure, to grace on its face. The true etymo- have any connexion with yare or logy of leod is obscure—some deriving gyrwan, it from the Gothic LIUDAN, cres- 3. We admit yard and garden to be cere, which is the most probable root connected with gyrdan, but deny them -some from a su Digos, and some from to be past participles. haos, to which it corresponds in mean. On some of these words we have a ing. Its signification, of coarse or ig- further explanation to offer. norant, is entirely secondary, and The English garden, or yard, is dearising from the contrast of the man- rived from a Gothic word, which apners of the people with the superior pears in two forms, with two different morals and education of the clergy. shades of meaning. GARDS is in Lay is obviously a direct derivative Ulphilas a frequent expression for a from the Latin laicus.
house. Thus, in the third chapter of In the following etymologies there Mark, v. 25, YABAI GÅRDS is a more than usual mixture of truth WITHRA SIK GA-DAIL YADA, with error :
NI MAG STANDAN SA GARDS 6 YARE
YAINS. “ If a house against itself - YARD - Are the
is divided, that house may not stand." participles of the Anglo-Saxon verb gyrwan, gyriun, to prepare; and it is formed GARDA, the other form of the word, in the accustomed manner by changing
seems confined to the simple meaning the characteristic letter y to a. YARE
of an enclosure. Thus, John x, 1, means prepared."
SAEI INN NI ATGAGGITH “A YARD, to mete or to measure
THAIRH DAUR IN GARDAN with, (before any certain extent was de- LAMBE, &c. SAH HLIFTUS IST. signated by the word,) was called a met- " He who goeth not in through the geurd, or mete-gyrd, (Auglo-Saxon,) or door to the yard or fold of the lambs, mete-yard, i. e. something prepared to &c., he is a thief.” But GARDS mete or to measure with, This was its and GARDA are truly the same general name ; and that prepared exten- word, and mean an enclosure, whether sion might be formed of any proper ma- built upon or not; and accordingly terials. When it was of wood, it was we meet with the Gothic AURTI. formerly called a YARD-WAND, GARDS, a garden, literally an herbà wand prepared for the purpose. By yard or wort-yard, and the origin of common use, when we talk of mensura
our orch-yard. tion, we now omit the preceding word GARDS and GARDA are the mete, and the subsequent wand; and say Gothic forms of hortus and Xoptos, &s singly a YARD.” In connexion with this passage, we
well as of the cognate chors, or cors, insert the following :--
a poultry-yard, sheep-fold, or other
enclosure for animals. Chors, again, “YARD-ĜARDEN.---- Yard, in the is probably the origin of the word Anglo-Saxon geard, is the past tense, and court, which we derive from the therefore (again !) past pa ole of the Romance languages; so that court and verb gyrdan, cingere, to gird, to surround, yard are truly the same word dressed to enclose : and it is therefore applicable in the costume of different countries. to any inclosed place, as court-YARD, It should be added that these words, church-YARD, &c.
though no past participles, “ GARDEN is the same past tense, rectly connected with the Gothic verb with the addition of the participial termi- GAIRDAN, to enclose or encircle
, I say it is the same, because which is conjugated the Anglo-Saxon g is pronounced indif- GARD, GAURDANS, and from ferently either as our g or y.”-P. 508. which our English gird and girdle On these explanations we have to
are obtained. remark :
It has, till lately, been believed by 1. That we admit the connexion be- many etymologists that yard, a rod or
gyrwan; but deny the measure, Anglo-Saxon gerd, German former to be a past participle. If we gerte, was the same word as yard, an mistake not, the past participle of gyr- enclosure, Anglo-Saxon geard, Gerwar is ge-gyrwed. Yare, we allege, corresponds to the primitive gearo, ready, that Tooke thought it a past participle
man garte, garten; and we have seen
I of gyrwan, to prepare. But all this third person singular of nyrwan, coarctare, seems now disproved by the discovery constringere,” (narroweth.) of the Gothic word in one of the Ul- “ Month," from moon, the period in philean fragments. The word there which that planet moneth or completeth
answering to the word yard, a rod, is its orbit.” ! GAZDS, in reference to which it is
- That unit which fiv-eth, six
Sixth, to mention that the Gothic S
eth, nin-eth, ten-eth, twentyproper
Ninth, or Z in certain positions, is in the
eth, &c., or which maketh
Tenth, up the number five, six, nine, younger dialects changed into R. Thus AUSO, auris, becomes ear ;
ten, twenty, &c." !!! | HAUSYAN, audire, becomes hear ;
“ Mouth,” it is said, is the Gothic becomes ore; BASI, bacca,
“(MATYITH,) that which eateth, becomes berry; HUZD, thesaurus, the third person of the indicative of becomes hoard, &c. The same change
MATYAN, metian, edere." was common in the progress of lan
What says Ulphilas to this, for he
should have known ? MUNTHS guage, both in Latin and Greek, as labos, labor; Jagoen, Jaggew; Tais,
or MUNTH is his word for mouth.
Is this the same as MATYITH? puer; quæso, quæro, &c. According to this rule, then, the Gothic GAZDS But the Gothic MUNTH is the is the same with the Saxon gerd. Anglo-Saxon muth and the English GAZDS is used by Ulphilas in the mouth. It would have been just as very peculiar sense of a pointed insiru- good if Tooke had said, that mouth ment or sting. The passage is in the was that which muncheth. First Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. xv.
Again “ Tooth, (TAUYITH, verse 55—HWAR IST GAZDS Gothic,) that which tuggeth !-the THEINS, DAUTHU ? " Where
third person singular of the indicais thy sting, O Death?”
tive of TAUYAN, (Gothic,) teoAn examination of old authorities gan, (Anglo-Saxon,) to tug.” will, we believe, show that yard is
Blunder upon blunder! In the first primarily applied to a tapering or place, TAUYAN is not the verb to pointed rod, and obvious illustrations tug. TAU. YAN means to perform. will occur of its being used in the
TIUHAN is the word. to tug or sense of the Greek
draw, and is a cognate of the Latin κεντρον, stimulus,
ducere. the word which Ulphilas translates by
But, in the second place, GAZDS. We have no doubt, there. tooth has nothing to do with either fore, that GAZDS and gerd or yard MUNTHS gives mouth, so the Go.
TAUYAN TIUHAN. As are the same words; and from the same source we derive the verb gird,
thic l'UNTHUS gives tooth. TUNso often used in middle English in the THUS, it is needless to say, is no sense of stinging, cutting, or lashing. verb or part of a verb; it is a masIt is further probable that GAZDS
culine noun, declined something like is the origin of gad in gad.fly, &c., fructus, and a near relation of the Laif this word has come to us from a
tin dens. When dens shall be shown Scandinavian dialect. Goad, though ducere, then tooth will be found to
to be the third personal singular of running into somewhat of the same meaning, is quite a different word.
answer to tuggeth; but not till then. Finally, it would appear that the
In the same way we are told that Gothic GAZDS, while it has produced
all abstract nouns ending in th, are the English yard, is itself identical the third persons singular of verbs. with the Latin hasta, according to the true is most falsely stated to be that
Truth is that which one troweth, as principle of permutation established by Rask and Grimm, in the same way deareth or hurteth, from derian, An
which is trowed. Dearth is that which as hortus becomes GARDS, and hostis, GASTS. The different meanings glo-Saxon, to hurt, (a totally different of hasta and yard may be compared., origin of dearth.) Length, breadth,
word from Deore, carus, which is the
worst part of Tooke's work is that in which he at- the third persons singular of the indi
width, depth, height, are respectively tempts to explain the origin of nouns ending in th. These, it seems, are
catives of lengian, extendere ; bradan, all the third persons singular of so
dilatare; wadan, procedere ; dippan, many verbs!
submergere; hæfan, extollere. Now,
a word as to these doctrines, in refer. North, i, e, nyrweth or nyrwth, the ence particularly to abstract nouns.
About the very