The English Language
English is a member of the great Indo-European Family of languages, which is so called because it includes well-nigh all the languages of Europe and the most important of those found in India. Within this family, English belongs to the Teutonic (or Germanic) Group, which contains also German, Dutch, the Scandinavian tongues (Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish), and some others.
English of the oldest period is called either Anglo-Saxon or Old English. This was the speech of certain piratical tribes whose home was in northern Germany, on the eastern and southern shores of the North Sea, but who invaded Britain about A.D. 450, and subdued the Celtic inhabitants of the island in a series of fierce wars. The most considerable of the invading tribes were the Angles and the Saxons. Their dominion was well assured by the beginning of the seventh century, and their language, which they usually called “English” (that is, “the tongue of the Angles”), gradually spread through England and most of Scotland. In Wales, however, the native Britons have maintained their own Celtic speech to the present day; and in the Scottish Highlands, Gaelic—which is akin to Welsh and practically identical with the native language of Ireland—is still extensively used.
At the time of the invasion, the Angles and Saxons were heathen, and the Britons, who had been for four centuries under the sway of the Roman Empire, were Christians, and much more highly civilized than their conquerors. Indeed, they had adopted many features of Roman culture, and Latin was spoken to some extent, at least in the larger towns. By the end of the seventh century, however, the Anglo-Saxons also had embraced Christianity and had made remarkable advances in literature and learning. The language of the Britons exerted but slight influence upon that of the Anglo-Saxons. The Celtic words in English are few in number, and most of them were borrowed in comparatively recent times.
The Norman Conquest (1066) marks a highly significant date in the history of our language. The Normans were a Scandinavian tribe who had been in possession of Normandy (in northern France) for about a hundred and fifty years. They had abandoned their native tongue, and spoke a dialect of French. From 1066 to about the year 1400, two languages were therefore common in England,—English, which was employed by the vast majority of the people, and French, which was the language of the court and the higher orders. French, however, was never a serious rival of English for supremacy in the island. It was the speech of a class, not of the nation, and its use gradually died out, except as an accomplishment. By the time of Chaucer (who was born about 1340 and died in 1400), it was clear that the English tongue was henceforth to be regarded as the only natural language for Englishmen, whether they were of Anglo-Saxon or of Norman origin.
Still, the Norman conquest had a profound influence upon English. It is not true—though often asserted—that the multitude of French words which our language contains were derived from the Norman dialect. Comparatively few of them came into English until after 1300, when Normandy had been lost to the English crown for a hundred years. Since 1300 we have borrowed freely—not from Norman, however, but from Central (or Parisian) French, which had become the standard to which the English descendants of the Normans endeavored to conform. The effect of the Conquest, then, was not to fill English with Norman terms. It was rather to bring England into close social and literary relations with France, and thus to facilitate the adoption of words and constructions from Central French.
Further, since literature was in the middle ages dependent in the main upon private patronage, the existence of a ruling class whose interest was in French, discouraged the maintenance of any national or general standard of English composition. Every English writer had recourse to his local dialect, and one dialect was felt to be as good as another.
By 1350, however, the dialect of London and the vicinity had come, apparently, to be regarded as somewhat more elegant and polished than the others. All that was needed was the appearance of some writer of supreme genius to whom this dialect should be native. Chaucer was such a writer, for he was born in London. To be sure, Chaucer did not “make modern English.” None the less, he was a powerful agent in settling the language. Since his time, at all events, the fact of a “standard of literary usage” has been undisputed. Dialects still exist, but they are not regarded as authoritative. Educated speakers and writers of English, the world over, use the language with substantial uniformity.69
Meantime, however, the English of the Anglo-Saxons had undergone many changes before Chaucer was born. Most of its inflections had been lost, and still others have been discarded since. Further, there had been extensive borrowing from French and Latin, and this continued throughout the fourteenth century. The habit, once formed, has proved lasting. Our vocabulary has received contributions from many languages, and is still receiving them. Greek may be mentioned in particular as the source of many words, especially in the various departments of science. But French and Latin remain the chief foreign elements in English.
In the following extract from Scott, most of the words printed in Roman type are of Anglo-Saxon origin, whereas the italicized words are derived from Latin or French.
It was not until evening was nearly closed that Ivanhoe was restored to consciousness of his situation. He awoke from a broken slumber, under the confused impressions which are naturally attendant on the recovery from a state of insensibility. He was unable for some time to recall exactly to memory the circumstances which had preceded his fall in the lists, or to make out any connected chain of the events in which he had been engaged upon the yesterday. A sense of wounds and injury, joined to great weakness and exhaustion, was mingled with the recollection of blows dealt and received, of steeds rushing upon each other, overthrowing and overthrown, of shouts and clashing of arms, and all the heady tumult of a confused fight. An effort to draw aside the curtain of his couch was in some degree successful, although rendered difficult by the pain of his wound.
English has also adopted a good many Scandinavian words, though they form no such proportion of its vocabulary as French or Latin. Danish and Norwegian pirates began to harry the coast in the eighth century. Permanent settlements followed, as well as wars of conquest, and for about thirty years (1013–1042) a Danish family occupied the English throne. These events explain the Scandinavian element in our language.
Despite the freedom with which English has adopted words from abroad, it is still essentially a Germanic speech. Its structure is still the native structure. The borrowings have enriched its vocabulary, but have had comparatively little effect upon its syntax. The foreign words have been naturalized, and their presence in no wise interferes with the unity and general consistency of the English language. It is a strange error to regard English as a combination of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French. As for the loss or decay of inflections, that is not due to a mixture of dialects. It is a natural tendency, which may be seen, for example, in Dutch and Danish, though there was no Norman Conquest in Holland or Denmark. The loss, indeed, is really a gain, for it is progress in the direction of simplicity.
The Anglo-Saxon or Old English Period comes down to about a century, or a century and a half, after the Norman Conquest. Its extreme limit may be set at 1200. The period from 1200 to 1500 is usually known as the Middle English Period. From 1500 to the present time may be regarded as the Modern Period, though within these boundaries English has changed enormously in pronunciation and in vocabulary, very largely in syntax, and to some extent in inflection. The almost complete abandonment of the subjunctive in common speech is one of the latest of these changes. This, too, is in the direction of simplicity.
The people of Great Britain have long been famous as travellers, explorers, and colonizers. Their language, once the dialect (or dialects) of a handful of Germanic adventurers, has spread to all parts of the world, so that now it is not merely the language of England, but, to a considerable extent, that of Scotland, Ireland, North America, India, Australasia, and South Africa. In this vast area, numerous varieties of pronunciation and of idiom of course occur, but, on the whole, the uniformity of the language is surprisingly well preserved.
Footnotes
1 For a brief history of the English language, see p. 316.
3 In this book, well-established colloquial idioms or constructions are mentioned from time to time, but always with a note as to their actual status in the language.
4 In this book, several old forms and constructions which the student is constantly encountering in the English classics are treated in their proper places,—always with an indication of their difference from the modern standard.
5 In the technical language of grammar an adjective is said to describe a substantive when it describes the object which the substantive denotes.
6 Definitive adjectives are often called limiting adjectives. All adjectives, however, limit, even those that also describe.
7 The usual brief definition of a verb is, “A verb is a word which asserts.” But this definition in strictness applies only to verbs in declarative sentences.
8 For full inflection see pp. 300–301.
9 Compound complex sentences are also called complex compound sentences. For further treatment of such sentences, see pp. 187, 190, 215–216.
10 Vixen is really formed from fox (compare the German Füchsin from Fuchs).
11 Halo, memento, zero also form a plural in es (haloes, etc.).
12 This list is intended for reference.
13 The English word animalcule (plural animalcules) is preferable. The plural animalculæ is erroneous.
14 Messrs. is an abbreviation of the French messieurs.
15 When such nouns as chemistry refer to textbooks, they may be used in the plural: as,—“Bring your chemistries to-morrow.”
16 This section is intended chiefly for reference.
17 Note the ambiguity to the ear though not to the eye.
18 The only exception is in reflexive action, where the object is a compound personal pronoun (“Charles deceived himself”). See § 126.
19 The pupil should not “supply nouns” in such sentences as these. For example, it is unscientific to expand the first sentence into “This [morning] is a fine morning,” and then to parse this as an adjective. It is even more objectionable to expand the fifth sentence by inserting thing or the like after this. The plan of “supplying” unexpressed words (as being “understood”) tends to confuse real distinctions of language, and should never be resorted to when it can be avoided.
20 The negative not (§ 190, 4) is merely a shortened form of naught.
21 Because of their use as connectives, relative pronouns are sometimes called conjunctive pronouns.
22 For indirect questions, see § 441.
23 In some of these cases the comparative and superlative are really different words from the positive.
24 The four classes are not absolute, for the same adverb may be used in different senses and thus belong to different classes. Sometimes, too, there is room for difference of opinion. Thus in the fourth and fifth examples under 1, terribly and surprisingly are equivalent to “in a terrible (or surprising) manner,” and therefore are classified as adverbs of manner; but they may also be regarded as adverbs of degree.
25 Many comparatives and superlatives in er and est that are no longer allowable in prose are still used in poetry.
26 Many grammarians regard is and the noun or adjective that follows it (is money, etc.) as the simple predicate; but the nomenclature here adopted is equally scientific and more convenient.
27 The word tense is simply an English form of the French word for time.
28 The past tense is often called the preterite (from a Latin word meaning “gone by”). Preterite is in some ways a better name for the tense than past, since both the perfect and the pluperfect tenses also refer to past time.
29 Silent final e is not counted as an ending.
30 Notice also the change from v to f before t.
31 The ending ed indicates tense, not person or number.
32 The second person singular is often given as “Thou walkest or You walk,” but it is simpler to regard You walk in this use as a plural in a singular sense (§ 224).
33 This rule is not absolute. Sometimes the distinction is unimportant, and the feeling of the moment often determines the number of the verb.
37 So I could have struck, etc.
38 For the so-called infinitive clause, in which the infinitive has a subject of a peculiar kind, see §§ 324–328.
39 After verbs of wishing, etc., they express purpose (§ 403); after verbs of believing, etc., they are in indirect discourse (§ 431).
40 The only exceptions are trifling differences in spelling.
41 Coördinate conjunctions are also called coördinating, and subordinate conjunctions are also called subordinating.
42 Compare the exclamatory sentence (§ 3) and the exclamatory nominative (§ 88, 4).
43 Including clauses of manner and degree (§§ 428–429).
44 By “if-clause” is meant the protasis, whatever the conjunction.
45 Clauses introduced by as are often called clauses of manner.
46 Such sentences are elliptical in origin. Thus, “The man acts as if he were crazy” is equivalent to “The man acts as [he would act] if he were crazy.” But it is not necessary to supply the ellipsis in analyzing.
47 In analyzing, the direct quotation may be regarded as the object of the verb of saying, etc. (or the subject, if that verb is passive); and if it forms a complete sentence, this may be analyzed as if it stood by itself. It is not proper to regard the direct quotation as a subordinate clause.
49 Instead of compound complex, the term complex compound is often used. The terms are synonymous, both meaning “compound in general structure, but complex in one or more members.”
50 Or parse the nominatives according to the models in § 112.
51 For exercises in the use of the comparative and the superlative, see pp. 249–250, 252.
52 The omission of a form from the list, then, does not necessarily indicate that it is wrong or even objectionable. There is considerable diversity of usage with regard to the strong verbs, and to state the facts at length would take much space. An attempt to include archaic, poetical, and rare forms in the same list with the usual modern forms is sure to mislead the pupil. Hence the list here presented is confined to forms about whose correctness there can be no difference of opinion. Archaic and poetical tense-forms are treated later (pp. 297–299).
53 Born is used only in the passive sense of “born into the world.”
54 The adjective form is bereaved: as, “The bereaved father.”
55 Cleave, “to adhere,” has cleaved in both the past tense and the past participle, and also an archaic past form clave.
56 The archaic participle gotten is used in the compounds begotten and forgotten, and as an adjective (“ill-gotten gains”). Many good speakers also use it instead of the past participle got, but got is the accepted modern form.
57 Hanged is used only of execution by hanging.
58 Usage varies with the context. We say, “The crew hove the cargo overboard,” but NOT “She hove a sigh.”
59 Load has loaded in both the past tense and the past participle. Laden is sometimes used as the past participle of load.
60 Lie, “to tell a falsehood,” has lied in both the past tense and the past participle.
61 So both light, “to kindle,” and light, “to alight.” The verb alight has usually alighted in both the past tense and the past participle.
62 Seethe, intransitive, has usually seethed in both the past tense and the past participle. It is in rather common literary use.
63 Stricken is also used as a participle in a figurative sense. Thus we say, “The community was stricken with pestilence,”—but “The dog was struck with a stick.”
64 It is a remnant of the old past plural. In Anglo-Saxon the principal parts of begin were: present, beginne; past, began; past plural, begunnon; past participle, begunnen.
65 The adjectives are usually pronounced blessèd, cursèd. Compare also the adjective accursèd.
66 Both forms are in good use.
67 Both forms are in good use. The adjective is pronounced learnèd.
68 The main rules of punctuation are well fixed and depend on important distinctions in sentence structure and consequently in thought. In detail, however, there is much variety of usage, and care should be taken not to insist on such uniformity in the pupils’ practice as is not found in the printed books which they use. If young writers can be induced to indicate the ends of their sentences properly, much has been accomplished.
69 It is not meant, of course, that an American or Australian of the present day should exert himself to imitate the speech of a modern Londoner. The point is, that what we now call “English” is, in most respects, the direct descendant of the London dialect of the fourteenth century.