On the Connexion Between the Ideas of Association and Plurality as an Influence in the Evolution of Inflection
Read Before the Philological Society. March 9, 1849
It is well-known that by referring to that part of the Deutsche Grammatik which explains those participial forms which (like y-cleped in English, and like ge-sprochen and the participles in general in German) begin with ge or y, the following doctrines respecting this same prefix may be collected:—
1. That it has certainly grown out of the fuller forms ka or ga.
2. That it has, probably, grown out of a still fuller form kam or gam.
3. That this fuller form is the Gothic equivalent of the Latin cum=with.
Such are the views respecting the form of the word in question. Respecting its meaning, the following points seem to be made out:—
1. That when prefixed to nouns (as is, not rarely, the case), it carries with it the idea of association or collection:—M. G. sinþs=a journey, ga-sinþa=a companion; O. M. G. perc=hill; ki-pirki=(ge-birge) a range of hills.
2. That it has also a frequentative power. Things which recur frequently recur with a tendency to collection or association:—M. H. G. ge-rassel=rustling; ge-rumpel=crumpling.
3. That it has also the power of expressing the possession of a quality:—
| A.-S. | Eng. | A.S. | Latin. |
| feax | hair, | ge-feax | comatus. |
| heorte | heart, | ge-heort | cordatus. |
This is because every object is associated with the object that possesses it—a sea with waves=a wavy sea.
The present writer has little doubt that the Tumali grammar of Dr. Tutshek supplies a similar (and at the same time a very intelligible) application of a particle equivalent to the Latin cum.
He believes that the Tumali word=with is what would commonly be called the sign of the plural number of the personal pronouns; just as me-cum and te-cum would become equivalents to nos and vos, if the first syllables were nominative instead of oblique, and if the preposition denoted indefinite conjunction. In such a case
mecum would mean I conjointly=we,
tecum would mean thou conjointly=ye.
Such is the illustration of the possible power of a possible combination. The reasons for thinking it to have a reality in one language at least lie in the following forms:—
1. The Tumali word for with is da.
2. The Tumali words for I, thou, and he respectively are ngi, ngo, ngu.
3. The Tumali words for we, ye, they are ngin-de, ngon-da, ngen-da respectively.
4. The Tumali substantives have no such plural. With them it is formed on a totally different principle.
5. The Tumali adjectives have no plural at all.
6. The Tumali numerals (even those which express more than unity and are, therefore, naturally plural) have a plural. When, however, it occurs, it is formed on the same principle as that of the plurals of the substantive.
7. The word da=with is, in Tumali, of a more varied application than any other particle; and that both as a pre-position and a post-position:—daura=soon (da=in, aura=neighbourhood); datom=in (with) front (face); d-ondul=roundabout (ondul=circle); dale=near (le=side), &c.
8. Prepositions, which there is every reason to believe are already compounded with da, allow even a second da, to precede the word which they govern:—daber deling=over the earth (ber=earth).
9. The ideas with me, with thee, with him, are expressed by ngi-dan, ngo-dan, and ngu-dan respectively; but the ideas of with us, with you, with them are not expressed by nginde-dan, ngonda-dan, ngenda-dan; but by peculiar words—tinem=with us; toman=with you; tenan=with them.
On the other hand, the following fact is, as far as it goes, against this view, a fact upon which others may lay more stress than the present writer. “Da admits of a very varied application. Respecting its form the following should be observed: (a.) That a may be elided when it happens to stand as a preposition before words which begin with a vowel: for instance, ardgen, ‘the valley’; dardgen, ‘in the valley’; ondul, ‘the circle’; dondul, ’round about in the circle’. (b.) It changes its a into ê, e, i, o, u, according to the vowel of the syllable before which the da is placed, or even without any regard to it. Instances of this are found in diring, dorong, &c.; further instances are, doromko, ‘into the hut’ (rom); dètum or dotum, ‘in the grave.’ (c.) As a postposition it appends an n: adgdan, ‘on the head’; aneredan, ‘on the day.’” Taking the third of these rules literally, the plural pronouns should end in dan rather than in da and de.
It is considered that over and above the light that this particular formation (if real) may throw upon the various methods by which an inflection like that of the plural number may be evolved, and more especially upon the important but neglected phænomena of the so-called inclusive and exclusive plurals, many other points of general grammar may be illustrated.