III — Grammatica
On the Reciprocal Pronouns, and on the Reciprocal Power of the Reflective Verb
Read Before the Philological Society, March 22. 1844
The present paper is upon the reciprocal pronouns, and upon certain forms of the verb used in a reciprocal sense. It is considered that these points of language have not been put forwards with that prominence and care which their value in the solution of certain problems in philology requires. Too often the terms Reciprocal and Reflective have been made synonymous. How far this is true may be determined by the fact that the middle verbs in the Icelandic language have been called by so great a philologist as Rask reciprocal instead of reflective. This is equivalent to treating sentences like we strike ourselves, and we strike each other, as identical. Yet the language with which Rask was dealing (the Icelandic) was the one of all others wherein the difference in question required to be accurately drawn, and fully pointed out. (See Anvisning till Isländskan, pp. 281, 283.)
In all sentences containing the statement of a reciprocal or mutual action there are in reality two assertions, viz. the assertion that A strikes (or loves) B, and the assertion that B strikes (or loves) A; the action forming one, the reaction another. Hence, if the expression exactly coincided with the fact signified, there would always be two propositions. This, however, is not the habit of language. Hence arises a more compendious form of expression, giving origin to an ellipsis of a peculiar kind. Phrases like Eteocles and Polynices killed each other are elliptical for Eteocles and Polynices killed—each the other. Here the second proposition expands and explains the first, whilst the first supplies the verb to the second. Each, however, is elliptic. The first is without the object, the second without the verb. That the verb must be in the plural (or dual) number, that one of the nouns must be in the nominative case, and that the other must be objective, is self-evident from the structure of the sentence; such being the conditions of the expression of the idea. An aposiopesis takes place after a plural verb, and then there follows a clause wherein the verb is supplied from what went before.
When words equivalent to each other coalesce, and become compound; it is evident that the composition is of a very peculiar kind. Less, however, for these matters than for its value in elucidating the origin of certain deponent verbs does the expression of reciprocal action merit the notice of the philologist. In the latter part of the paper it will appear that for one branch of languages, at least, there is satisfactory evidence of a reflective form having become reciprocal, and of a reciprocal form having become deponent; this latter word being the term for those verbs whereof the meaning is active, and the form passive.
Beginning with those methods of denoting mutual action where the expression is the least explicit and unequivocal, it appears that in certain languages the reciprocal character of the verb is implied rather than expressed. Each man looked at his brother—or some equivalent clause, is the general phraseology of the Semitic languages.
More explicit than this is the use of a single pronoun (personal, possessive, or reflective) and of some adverb equivalent to the words mutually, interchangeably, &c. This is the habit of the Latin language,—Eteocles et Polynices invicem se trucidaverunt: also of the French, although not invariably, e. g. s’entr’aimer, s’entredire, s’entrebattre: also of the Mœso-Gothic—galeikái sind barnam tháim vôpjandam seina missô = ὁόμοιοί ἐισι παιδίοις τοῖς προσφωνοῦσιν ἁλλήλοις = loquentibus ad invicem.—Luc. vii. 32. Deutsche Grammatik, iv. 322, and iii. 13. The Welsh expressions are of this kind; the only difference being that the adverb coalesces with the verb, as an inseparable particle, and so forms a compound. These particles are dym, cym, or cy and ym. The former is compounded of dy, signifying iteration, and ym denoting mutual action; the latter is the Latin cum. Hence the reciprocal power of these particles is secondary: e. g. dymborthi, to aid mutually; dymddadlu, to dispute; dymgaru, to love one another; dymgoddi, to vex one another; dymgredu, to trust one another, or confide; dymguraw, to strike one another, or fight; çyçwennys, to desire mutually; cydadnabod, to know one another; cydaddawiad, to promise mutually; cydwystlaw, to pledge; cydymadrawn, to converse; cydymdaith, to accompany; ymadroddi, to discourse; ymaddaw, to promise; ymavael, to struggle; ymdaeru, to dispute, &c.
The form, which is at once current, full, and unequivocal, is the one that occurs in our own, and in the generality of languages. Herein there are two nouns (generally pronouns), and the construction is of the kind exhibited above—ἁλλήλους, each other, einander, l’un l’autre, &c.
Sometimes the two nouns remain separate, each preserving its independent form. This is the case in most of the languages derived from the Latin, in several of the Slavonic and Lithuanic dialects, and in (amongst others) the Old Norse, the Swedish, and the Danish,—l’un l’autre, French; uno otro, Span.; geden druheho, Bohemian; ieden drugiego, Polish; wiens wienâ, Lith.; weens ohtru, Lettish; hvert annan (masc.), hvert annat (neut.) Old Norse. See D. G. iii. 84.
Sometimes the two nouns coalesce, and form words to which it would be a mere refinement to deny the name of compounds: this is the case with the Greek—ἁλλήλον, ἁλλήλοις, ἁλλήλους.
Sometimes it is doubtful whether the phrase consist of a compound word or a pair of words. This occurs where, from the want of inflection, the form of the first word is the same in composition as it would have been out of it. Such is the case with our own language: each-other, one-another.
Throughout the mass of languages in general the details of the expression in question coincide; both subject and object are almost always expressed by pronouns, and these pronouns are much the same throughout. One, or some word equivalent, generally denotes the subject. Other, or some word equivalent, generally denotes the object, e. g. they struck one another. The varieties of expression may be collected from the following sketch:—
1. a. The subject is expressed by one, or some word equivalent, in most of the languages derived from the Latin, in several of the Slavonic dialects, in Lithuanic and Lettish, in Armenian, in German, in English, and doubtlessly in many other languages—l’un l’autre, Fr.; uno otro, Sp.; ieden drugiego, Polish; wiens wienâ, Lith.; weens ohtru, Lett.; me mæants, Armenian; einander, Germ.; one another, Engl.
b. By each, or some equivalent term, in English, Dutch, and the Scandinavian languages—each other, English; elkander, Dutch; hverandre, Icelandic, Danish, Swedish.
c. By this, or some equivalent term, in Swedish and Danish (hinanden); in Lithuanic (kitts kittâ), and in Lettish (zitts zittu).
d. By other, or some equivalent term, in Greek and Armenian; ἁλλήλους, irærats.
e. By man, used in an indefinite sense and compounded with lik in Dutch, malkander (mal-lik manlik).
f. By a term equivalent to mate or fellow in Laplandic—gòim gòimeme.—Rask, ‘Lappisk Sproglære,’ p. 102. Stockfleth, ‘Grammatik,’ p. 109.
2. a. In the expression of the object the current term is other or some equivalent word. Of this the use is even more constant than that of one expressive of the subject—l’un l’autre, French; uno otro, Spanish; ἁλλήλους, Greek; geden druheho, Bohemian; ieden drugiego, Polish; weens ohtru, Lettish; irærats, Armenian; einander, German; each other, one another, English.
b. In Lithuanic the term in use is one; as, wiens wienâ. The same is the case for a second form in the Armenian mimœan.
c. In Laplandic it is denoted in the same as the subject; as gòim gòimeme.
Undoubtedly there are other varieties of this general method of expression. Upon those already exhibited a few remarks, however, may be made.
1. In respect to languages like the French, Spanish, &c., where the two nouns, instead of coalescing, remain separate, each retaining its inflection, it is clear that they possess a greater amount of perspicuity; inasmuch as (to say nothing of the distinction of gender) the subject can be used in the singular number when the mutual action of two persons (i. e. of one upon another) is spoken of, and in the plural when we signify that of more than two; e. g. ils (i. e. A and B) se battaient—l’un l’autre: but ils (A, B, C and D,) se battaient—les uns les autres. This degree of perspicuity might be attained in English and other allied languages by reducing to practice the difference between the words each and one; in which case we might say A and B struck one another, but A, B and C struck each other. In the Scandinavian languages this distinction is real; where hinanden is equivalent to l’un l’autre, French; uno otro, Spanish: whilst hverandre expresses les uns les autres, French; unos otros, Spanish. The same is the case in the Laplandic.—See Rask’s Lappisk Sproglære, p. 102.
2. An analysis of such an expression as they praise one another’s (or each other’s) conduct, will show the lax character of certain forms in the Swedish. Of the two pronouns it is only the latter that appears in an oblique case, and this necessarily; hence the Swedish form hvarsannars is illogical. It is precisely what one’s another’s would be in English, or ἄλλων ἄλλων for ἁλλήλων in Greek. The same applies to the M. H. G. einen anderen. D. G. iii. 83.
3. The term expressive of the object appears in three forms, viz. preceded by the definite article (l’un l’autre), by the indefinite article (one another), and finally, standing alone (each other, einander). Of these three forms the first is best suited for expressing the reciprocal action of two persons (one out of two struck the other); whilst the second or third is fittest for signifying the reciprocal action of more than two (one out of many struck, and was struck by, some other).
The third general method of expressing mutual or reciprocal action is by the use of some particular form of the verb. In two, and probably more, of the African languages (the Woloff and Bechuana) this takes place. In the Turkish there is also a reciprocal form: as sui-mek, to love; baki-mek, to look; sui-sh-mek, to love one another; baki-sh-mek, to look at one another; su-il-mek, to be loved; sui-sh-il-mek, to be loved mutually.—David’s Turkish Grammar.
The fourth form of expression gives the fact alluded to at the beginning of the paper: viz. an instrument of criticism in investigating the origin of certain deponent verbs. In all languages there is a certain number of verbs denoting actions, reciprocal or mutual to the agents. Such are the words embrace, converse, strive against, wrestle, fight, rival, meet, and several more. There are also other words where the existence of two parties is essential to the idea conveyed, and where the notion, if not that of reciprocal action, is akin to it; viz. reproach, compromise, approach, &c. Now in certain languages (the Latin and Greek) some of these verbs have a passive form; i. e. they are deponents,—loquor, colloquor, luctor, reluctor, amplector, suavior, osculor, suspicor, Latin; φιλοτιμέομαι, φιλοφρονέομαι, μάχομαι, διαλέγομαι, ἁλέομαι, διαλύομαι, ἁμείβομαι &c., Greek. Hence arises the hypothesis, that it is to their reciprocal power on the one hand, and to the connexion between the passive, reflective and reciprocal forms on the other, that these verbs owe their deponent character. The fact essential to the probability of this hypothesis is the connexion between the reflective forms and the reciprocal ones.
Now for one branch of languages this can be shown most satisfactorily. In Icelandic the middle voice is formed from the active by the addition of the reflective pronoun, mik, me, sik, him or self. Hence it is known by the terminations mc and sc, and by certain modifications of these affixes, viz. st, s, z, mz, ms. In the oldest stage of the language the reflective power of the middle voice, to the exclusion of a passive sense, is most constant: e. g. hann var nafnadr=he had the name given him; hann nefnist=he gave as his name, or named himself. It was only when the origin of the middle form became indistinct that its sense became either passive or deponent; as it generally is in the modern tongues of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Now in the modern Scandinavian languages we have, on the one hand, certain deponent forms expressive of reciprocal action; whilst on the other we have, even in the very earliest stages of the Old Norse, middle or reflective forms used in a reciprocal sense. Of some of these, examples will be given: but the proof of their sense being reciprocal will not be equally conclusive in all. Some may perhaps be looked on as deponents (ættust, beriast, skiliast, mödast); whilst others may be explained away by the assumption of a passive construction (fundoz=they were found, not they found each other). Whatever may be the case with the words taken from the middle and modern stages of the language, this cannot be entertained in regard to the examples drawn from the oldest Norse composition, the Edda of Sæmund. For this reason the extracts from thence are marked Edd. Sæm., and of these (and these alone) the writer has attempted to make the list exhaustive. The translations in Latin and Danish are those of the different editors.
1. Ættust, fought each other.
2. Beriaz, strike each other.
brödur muno beriaz.
fratres invicem pugnabunt.
Voluspa, 41. Edd. Sæm.
This word is used in almost every page of the Sagas as a deponent signifying to fight: also in the Feroic dialect.
3. Bregþaz, interchange.
orþom at bregþaz.
verba commutare.
Helga-Qviþa Hundlingsbana, i. 41. ii. 26. Edd. Sæm.
4. Drepiz, kill one another.
finnuz þeir báder daudir—— en ecki vapn höfþu þeir nema bitlana af hestinum, ok þat hygia menn at þeir (Alrek and Eirek) hafi drepiz þar med. Sva segir Ðiodolfr.; “Drepaz kvádu.”—Heimskringla. Ynglinga-Saga, p. 23.
The brothers were found dead—and no weapons had they except the bits of their horses, and men think they (Alrek and Eirek) had killed each other therewith. So says Thiodolf.: “They said that they killed each other.”
5. Um-faþmaz, embrace each other. See Atla-Quiþa hin Grænslenzko, 42.—Edd. Sæm.
6. Földes, fell in with each other.—Om morgonet effter földes wy in Kobenhaffn.—Norwegian Letters in 1531, A. D. See Samlingar til det Norske Folks Sprog og Historie, I. 2. 70. The morning after we fell in with each other in Copenhagen.
7. Funduz, found each other, met. See Vafþrudnis-mal 17.—Sigurd-Quiþ. i. 6. Edd. Sæm.—Fareyingar-Saga, p. 44. Ðeir funduz is rendered de fandt hverandre=they found each other, in Haldorsen’s Lexic. Island.
ef iþ Gymer finniz.
if you and Gymer meet.
Harbards-l: 24. Edd. Sæm.
8. Gættuz, consult each other. See Voluspa, 6. 9. 21. 23. Edd. Sæm.
9. Glediaz, rejoice each other.
vapnom ok vádom
skulo vinir glediaz,
þæt er á sialfom sæmst:
vidr-géfendr ok endi gefendr
erost lengst vinir
ef þat biþr at verþa vel.
Rigsmal. 41.
armis ac vestibus
amici mutuo se delectent,
queîs in ipso (datore) forent conspicua:
pretium renumerantes et remunerantes
inter se diutissime sunt amici
si negotium feliciter se dat.
The middle form and reciprocal sense of erost is remarkable in this passage.
10. Hauggvaz, hack each other, fight.
allir Einheriar
Oþins túnom i
hauggvaz hverian dag.
all the Einheriar
in Odin’s towns
hack each other every day.
Vafþrudnis-Mal. 41. Edd. Sæm.
ef þeir högvaz orþom á.
si se maledictis invicem insectentur.
Sig-Qvið. ii. 1. Edd. Sæm.
11. Hættaz, cease.
hættomc hættingi.
cessemus utrinque a minaciis.
Harbardslióð, 51. Edd. Sæm.
Such is the translation of the editors, although the reciprocal power is not unequivocal.
12. Hittaz, hit upon each other, meet. Hittoz, Voluspa, 7. Hittomk, Hadding-skata, 22. Hittaz, Solar-l: 82. Edd. Sæm. Hittust, Ol. Trygv. Sag. p. 90. Hittuz oc beriaz, Heimskringla, Saga Halfd. Svart. p. 4. Hittuz, Yngl. Sag. p. 42. alibi passim þeir hittu is rendered, in Bjorn Haldorsen’s Islandic Lexicon, de traf hinanden, they hit upon each other.
13. Kiempis, fight each other, gaar udi gaarden oc kiempis, oc nelegger hver hinanden, goes out in the house and fight each the other, and each knocks down the other.
Such is the translation by Resenius, in modern Danish, of the following extract from Snorro’s Edda, p. 34.—Ganga ut i gardinn og beriast, og fellar huor annar. Here the construction is not, they fell (or knock down) each the other, but each fells the other; since fellar and nelegger are singular forms.
14. Mælast, talk to each other, converse. Talast, ditto.
Mæliz þu. Vafþrudnismal, 9.
melomc i sessi saman=colloquamur sedentes. ib. 19. Edd. Sæm.
mælast þeir vid, ádr þeir skiliast, at þeir mundi þar finnast þa,—Fóstbrædra-Saga, p. 7.
they said to each other before they parted from each other that they should meet each other there.
Yngvi ok Bera satu ok töluduz vidr.—Heimskr. Yngl. S. p. 24.
Griss mælti; hverír ero þessir menn er sva tulast vid bliðliga? Avàldi svarar; þa er Hallfreydr Ottarson ok Kolfinna dóthir min. Ol. Trygyv. Saga, p. 152. Griss said, who are these persons who talk together so blithely? Avaldi answers, they are Halfrid Ottarson and Kolfinna my daughter. Talast is similarly used in Feroic. Kvödust, bespoke each other, occurs in the same sense—þat var einn dag at Brand ok Finbogi fundust ok kvödust blídliga.—Vatnsdæla-Sag. p. 16.
15. Mettæst, meet each other, meet.
Kungen aff Ffranchriche, kungen aff England, oc kungen aff Schottland skule motes til Chalis.—Letter from Bergen in 1531, from Samlinger til det Norske Folks Sprog og Historie, i. 2. p. 53. The king of France, the king of England, and the king of Scotland should meet each other at Calais.
Throughout the Danish, Swedish and Feroic, this verb is used as a deponent.
16. Rekaz, vex each other.
gumnar margir
erosc gagn-hollir,
enn at virþi rekaz.
Rigsmal. 32. Edd. Sæm.
multi homines
sunt inter se admodum benevoli,
sed tamen mutuo se (vel) in convivio exagitant.
17. Sakaz, accuse each other, recriminate.
at vit mynim siafrum sacaz,
ut nos ipsi mutuo insectemur.
Hamdis-Mal. 28.
ef viþ einir scolom
sáryrþom sacaz.
si nobis duobus usu veniat
amarulentis dicteriis invicem
nos lacessere.
Ægis-drecka, 5.
sculoþ inni her
sáryrþom sacaz.
Ibid. 19. Edd. Sæm.
18. Saz, looked at each other.
saz i augv
fadir ok módir.
Rigsmal. 24.
they looked at each other in the eyes, father and mother.
19. Sættaz, settle between each other, reconcile.—Atla-Mal. 45. Edd. Sæm.
Komu vinir þveggia þvi vid, at þeir sættuz, ok lögdu konungar stefnu med sér, ok hittuz ok gérdo frit mellum sin.—Heimsk. Yngling-S. 42.
There came friends of both in order that they should be reconciled, and the kings sent messages between them, and met and made peace between them.—Also Vatnsd. S. p. 16.
20. Seljas, to give to each other.
seldz eiþa.
Sig. Qv. iii. 1. Edd. Sæm.
juramenta dederunt inter se.
21. Sendaz, send, or let pass between each other.
sato samtýnis,
senduz fár-hugi,
henduz heipt-yrþi
hvarki sér undi.
Atla-Mal. 85.
They sat in the same town (dwelling),
They sent between each other danger-thoughts,
They fetched between each other hate-words,
Not either way did they love each other.
Here, over and above the use of senduz and henduz, ser is equivalent to hinanden.
22. Skiliaz, part from each other.
Skiliumz.
Solar-Lioð. 82.
Skiliaz.
Sigurd-Qviþ. i. 24.
Skiliomc.
Ibid. 53. Edd. Sæm.
Vit sjiljiast, we two part—
Occurs in the poem Brinilda (st. 109) in the Feroic dialect. In Danish and Swedish the word is deponent.
23. Skiptust, interchange.
Ðeir skiptust mörgum giöfum vid um vetrinn—Vatns-dæla-S. 10. they made interchanges with each other with many gifts for the winter.
Also in the Feroic.
24. Strujast, strike one another, fight. Feroic.
og mötast tair, og strujast avlaji lanji.—Fareying-Sag. 18. Feroic text.
ok mætast þeir, ok berjast mjök leingi.—Icelandish text.
de mödtes og strede meget længe imod hinanden.—Danish text.
they met and fought long against each other.
at e vilde vid gjordust stålbröir, og strujast ikkji longur.—Feroic text, p. 21.
at við gerðimst fèlagar, en berjumst eigi leingr.—Icelandic text.
at vi skulle blive Stalbröde og ikke slaaes længer—Danish text.
that we should become comrades and not fight longer.
The active form occurs in the same dialect:
tajr struija nú langji.
18.
25. Truasc, trust each other.
vel mættern þæir truazc.
För Skirnis. Edd. Sæm.
26. Unnaz. See Veittaz.
27. Vegiz, attack each other.
vilcat ec at iþ reiþir vegiz.
Ægisdrecka 18. Edd. Sæm.
I will not that ye two angry attack each other.
28. Veittaz, contract mutually.
þav Helgi ok Svava veittuz varar, ok unnoz forþo mikit=Helgius et Svava pactum sponsalitium inter se contraxerunt, et alter alterum mirifice amarunt.—Haddingia-Sk. between 29 and 30.
29. Verpaz, throw between each other.
urpuz á orþom.
Atl.-M. 39. Edd. Sæm.
verba inter se jaciebant.
Such is a portion of the examples that prove the reciprocal power of the reflective or middle verb in the language of Scandinavia; and that, during all its stages and in each of its derived dialects. It cannot be doubted that to this circumstance certain verbs in Danish and Swedish owe their deponent form: viz. vi slåss, we fight (strike one another); vi brottas, we wrestle; vi omgass, we have intercourse with; vi mötas, we meet, Swedish; vi slaaes, we fight; vi skilles, we part; vi mödes, we meet, Danish. In the latest Swedish grammar, by C. L. Daae, this reciprocal (vekselvirkende) power is recognized and exhibited. See Udsigt over det Svenske Sprogs Grammatik. Christiana, 1837. The same is the Molbech’s Danske Ordbog in vv. skilles, slaaes, mödes.
Next to the Norse languages the French affords the best instances of the reciprocal power of the reflective verb; as se battre, s’aimer, s’entendre, se quéreller, se reconcilier, se disputer, and other words of less frequent occurrence.
Ces enfans s’aimaient, s’adoraient, se sont jetés à mes pieds en pleurant.—Les Inséparables, A. 1. S. 1.
Les Républics Italiens acharnés à se détruire.—Pardessus II. 65.
This has been recognized by an old grammarian, Restaut, who insists upon the use of the adverb entre, in order to avoid the ambiguity of such phrases as “vous vous dites des injures;” “nous nous écrivons souvent;” “Pierre et Antoine se louent à tout moment.”
By a writer in the Museum Criticum the reciprocal power of the Greek middle has been indicated. For the classical languages the question has not met with the proper investigation. Passages where the sense is at least as reciprocal as in the line
Χεῖρος τ’ ἁλλήλων λαβήτην καὶ μιστώσαντο.—Il. vi. 233,
must be numerous.
In the Dutch language the use of zich for elkander is a peculiarity of the Guelderland and Overyssel dialects; as “zij hebt zich eslagen,” for “zij hebben elkander geslagen.” See Opmerkingen omtrent den Gelderschen Tongval, in Taalkundig Magazijn ii. 14. p. 403.
Of the use of ser for hinanden or hverandre, when uncombined with the verb, we have, amongst other, the following example in the Icelandic version of the Paradise Lost:—
Ef frá tilsyndar-
punkti hleyptu ser
planetur fram,
ok mættust miklum gny
ó midjum himni.
B. 6.
Similar to this are the phrases vi se os igjen, we see us (each other) again, in Danish, and wir sehen uns wieder, in German. Examples from the M. H. G. are given in the D. G. iv. The Turkish sign of the reciprocal verb is identical with the demonstrative pronoun, i. e. ش. This may possibly indicate a connection between the two forms.
Other points upon the subject in hand may be collected from the Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 13. 82; iv. 454. Here the adverbial character of the M. H. G. einander for einandern, the omission of ein, as in anander for an einander, and the omission (real or supposed) of ander in “wider ein=wider einander,” are measures of the laxity of language caused by the peculiarity of the combination in question. At present it is sufficient to repeat the statement, that for one group of languages at least there is satisfactory proof of certain deponents having originally been reciprocal, and of certain reciprocal expressions having originally been reflective.