Home > Authors Index > Grant Allen > Early Britain; Anglo-Saxon Britain > This page
Early Britain; Anglo-Saxon Britain, a non-fiction book by Grant Allen |
||
Chapter 18. The Anglo-Saxon Language |
||
| < Previous |
Table of content |
Next > |
|
________________________________________________
_ CHAPTER XVIII. THE ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE A description of Anglo-Saxon Britain, however brief, would not be complete without some account of the English language in its earliest and purest form. But it would be impossible within reasonable limits to give anything more than a short general statement of the relation which the old English tongue bears to the kindred Teutonic dialects, and of the main differences which mark it off from our modern simplified and modified speech. All that can be attempted here is such a broad outline as may enable the general reader to grasp the true connexion between modern English and so-called Anglo-Saxon, on the one hand, as well as between Anglo-Saxon itself and the parent Teutonic language on the other. Any full investigation of grammatical or etymological details would be beyond the scope of this little volume. The tongue spoken by the English and Saxons at the period of their invasion of Britain was an almost unmixed Low Dutch dialect. Originally derived, of course, from the primitive Aryan language, it had already undergone those changes which are summed up in what is known as Grimm's Law. The principal consonants in the old Aryan tongue had been regularly and slightly altered in certain directions; and these alterations have been carried still further in the allied High German language. Thus the original word for _father_, which closely resembled the Latin _pater_, becomes in early English or Anglo-Saxon _faeder_, and in modern High German _vater_. So, again, among the numerals, our _two_, in early English _twa_, answers to Latin _duo_ and modern High German _zwei_; while our _three_, in old English _threo_, answers to Latin _tres_, and modern High German _drei_. So far as these permutations are concerned, Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin may be regarded as most nearly resembling the primitive Aryan speech, and with them the Celtic dialects mainly agree. From these, the English varies one degree, the High German two. The following table represents the nature of such changes approximately for these three groups of languages:--
In practice, several modifications arise; for example, the law is only true for old High German, and that only approximately, but its general truth may be accepted as governing most individual cases. Judged by this standard, English forms a dialect of the Low Dutch branch of the Aryan language, together with Frisian, modern Dutch, and the Scandinavian tongues. Within the group thus restricted its affinities are closest with Frisian and old Dutch, less close with Icelandic and Danish. While the English still lived on the shores of the Baltic, it is probable that their language was perfectly intelligible to the ancestors of the people who now inhabit Holland, and who then spoke very slightly different local dialects. In other words, a single Low Dutch speech then apparently prevailed from the mouth of the Elbe to that of the Scheldt, with small local variations; and from this speech the Anglo-Saxon and the modern English have developed in one direction, while the Dutch has developed in another, the Frisian dialect long remaining intermediate between them. Scandinavian ceased, perhaps, to be intelligible to Englishmen at an earlier date, the old Icelandic being already marked off from Anglo-Saxon by strong peculiarities, while modern Danish differs even more widely from the spoken English of the present day. The relation of Anglo-Saxon to modern English is that of direct parentage, it might almost be said of absolute identity. The language of _Beowulf_ and of AElfred is not, as many people still imagine, a different language from our own; it is simply English in its earliest and most unmixed form. What we commonly call Anglo-Saxon, indeed, is more English than what we commonly call English at the present day. The first is truly English, not only in its structure and grammar, but also in the whole of its vocabulary: the second, though also truly English in its structure and grammar, contains a large number of Latin, Greek, and Romance elements in its vocabulary. Nevertheless, no break separates us from the original Low Dutch tongue spoken in the marsh lands of Sleswick. The English of _Beowulf_ grows slowly into the English of AElfred, into the English of Chaucer, into the English of Shakespeare and Milton, and into the English of Macaulay and Tennyson. Old words drop out from time to time, old grammatical forms die away or become obliterated, new names and verbs are borrowed, first from the Norman-French at the Conquest, then from the classical Greek and Latin at the Renaissance; but the continuity of the language remains unbroken, and its substance is still essentially the same as at the beginning. The Cornish, the Irish, and to some extent the Welsh, have left off speaking their native tongues, and adopted the language of the dominant Teuton; but there never was a time when Englishmen left off speaking Anglo-Saxon and took to English, Norman-French, or any other form of speech whatsoever. An illustration may serve to render clearer this fundamental and important distinction. If at the present day a body of Englishmen were to settle in China, they might learn and use the Chinese names for many native plants, animals, and manufactured articles; but however many of such words they adopted into their vocabulary, their language would still remain essentially English. A visitor from England would have to learn a number of unfamiliar words, but he would not have to learn a new language. If, on the other hand, a body of Frenchmen were to settle in a neighbouring Chinese province, and to adopt exactly the same Chinese words, their language would still remain essentially French. The dialects of the two settlements would contain many words in common, but neither of them would be a Chinese dialect on that account. Just so, English since the Norman Conquest has grafted many foreign words upon the native stock; but it still remains at bottom the same language as in the days of Eadgar. Nevertheless, Anglo-Saxon differs so far in externals from modern English, that it is now necessary to learn it systematically with grammar and dictionary, in somewhat the same manner as one would learn a foreign tongue. Most of the words, indeed, are more or less familiar, at least so far as their roots are concerned; but the inflexions of the nouns and verbs are far more complicated than those now in use: and many obsolete forms occur even in the vocabulary. On the other hand the idioms closely resemble those still in use; and even where a root has now dropped out of use, its meaning is often immediately suggested by the cognate High German word, or by some archaic form preserved for us in Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Milton, as well as by occasional survival in the Lowland Scotch and other local dialects. English in its early form was an inflexional language; that is to say, the mutual relations of nouns and of verbs were chiefly expressed, not by means of particles, such as _of_, _to_, _by_, and so forth, but by means of modifications either in the termination or in the body of the root itself. The nouns were declined much as in Greek and Latin; the verbs were conjugated in somewhat the same way as in modern French. Every noun had gender expressed in its form. The following examples will give a sufficient idea of the commoner forms of declension in the classical West Saxon of the time of AElfred. The pronunciation has already been briefly explained in the preface.
This is the commonest declension for masculine nouns, and it has fixed the normal plural for the modern English.
All these are for masculine nouns. The commonest feminine declension is as follows:--
Of neuters there are two principal declensions. The first has the plural in _u_; the second leaves it unchanged.
Hence our "collective" plurals, such as _fish_, _deer_, _sheep_, and _trout_. There is also a weak declension, much the same for all three genders, of which the masculine form runs as follows:--
Adjectives are declined throughout, as in Latin, through all the cases (including an instrumental), numbers, and genders. The demonstrative pronoun or definite article _se_ (the) may stand as an example.
Verbs are conjugated about as fully as in Latin. There are two principal forms: strong verbs, which form their preterite by vowel modification, as _binde_, pret. _band_; and weak verbs, which form it by the addition of _ode_ or _de_ to the root, as _lufige_, pret. _lufode_; _hire_, pret. _hirde_. The present and preterite of the first form are as follows:--
Both the grammatical forms and still more the orthography vary much from time to time, from place to place, and even from writer to writer. The forms used in this work are for the most part those employed by West Saxons in the age of AElfred. A few examples of the language as written at three periods will enable the reader to form some idea of its relation to the existing type. The first passage cited is from King AElfred's translation of Orosius; but it consists of the opening lines of a paragraph inserted by the king himself from his own materials, and so affords an excellent illustration of his style in original English prose. The reader is recommended to compare it word for word with the parallel slightly modernised version, bearing in mind the inflexional terminations.
In this passage it is easy to see that the variations which make it into modern English are for the most part of a very simple kind. Some of the words are absolutely identical, as _his_, _on_, _he_, _and_, _land_, or _north_. Others, though differences of spelling mask the likeness, are practically the same, as _sae_, _saede_, _cwaeth_, _thaet_, _lang_, for which we now write _sea_, _said_, _quoth_, _that_, _long_. A few have undergone contraction or alteration, as _hlaford_, now _lord_, _cyning_, now _king_, and _steorbord_, now _starboard_. _Stow_, a place, is now obsolete, except in local names; _styccemaelum_, stickmeal, has been Normanised into _piecemeal_. In other cases new terminations have been substituted for old ones; _huntath_ and _fiscath_ are now replaced by _hunting_ and _fishing_; while _hunta_ has been superseded by _hunter_. Only six words in the passage have died out wholly: _buan_, to abide (_bude_); _swithe_, very; _wician_, to dwell; _cirr_, an occasion; _fandian_, to enquire (connected with _find_); and _baecbord_, port, which still survives in French from Norman sources. _Daeg_, day, and _aenig_, any, show how existing English has softened the final _g_ into a _y_. But the main difference which separates the modern passage from its ancient prototype is the consistent dropping of the grammatical inflexions in _hlaforde_, _AElfrede_, _ealra_, _feawum_, and _fandian_, where we now say, _to his lord_, _of all_, _in few_, and _to enquire_. The next passage, from the old English epic of _Beowulf_, shows the language in another aspect. Here, as in all poetry, archaic forms abound, and the syntax is intentionally involved. It is written in the old alliterative rhythm, described in the next chapter:--
Or, to translate more prosaically:-- "Beowulf, the son of Ecgtheow, addressed the meeting. See, son of Healfdene, Prince of the Scyldings; we have joyfully brought thee this gift from the sea which thou beholdest, for a proof of our valour. I obtained it with difficulty, gloriously, fighting beneath the waves: I dared the task with great toil. Evenly was the battle decreed, but that a god afforded me his protection." In this short passage, many of the words are now obsolete: for example, _mathelian_, to address an assembly (_concionari_); _lac_, a gift; _wig_, war; _guth_, battle; and _leod_, a prince. _Ge-digde_, _ge-nethde_, and _ge-twaefed_ have the now obsolete particle _ge_-, which bears much the same sense as in High German. On the other hand, _bearn_, a bairn; _sunu_, a son; _sae_, sea; _tacen_, a token; _waeter_, water; and _weorc_, work, still survive: as do the verbs _to bring_, _to look_, and _to shield_. _Lust_, pleasure, whence _lustum_, joyfully, has now restricted its meaning in modern English, but retains its original sense in High German. A few lines from the "Chronicle" under the year 1137, during the reign of Stephen, will give an example of Anglo-Saxon in its later and corrupt form, caught in the act of passing into Chaucerian English:--
The following passage from AElfric's Life of King Oswold, in the best period of early English prose, may perhaps be intelligible to modern readers by the aid of a few explanatory notes only. _Mid_ means _with_; while _with_ itself still bears only the meaning of _against_:-- "AEfter tham the Augustinus to Englalande becom, waes sum aethele cyning, Oswold ge-haten [_hight_ or _called_], on North-hymbra-lande, ge-lyfed swithe on God. Se ferde [went] on his iugothe [youth] fram his freondum and magum [relations] to Scotlande on sae, and thaer sona wearth ge-fullod [baptised], and his ge-feran [companions] samod the mid him sithedon [journeyed]. Betwux tham wearth of-slagen [off-slain] Eadwine his eam [uncle], North-hymbra cyning, on Crist ge-lyfed, fram Brytta cyninge, Ceadwalla ge-ciged [called, named], and twegen his aefter-gengan binnan twam gearum [years]; and se Ceadwalla sloh and to sceame tucode tha North-hymbran leode [people] aefter heora hlafordes fylle, oth thaet [until] Oswold se eadiga his yfelnysse adwaescte [extinguished]. Oswold him com to, and him cenlice [boldly] with feaht mid lytlum werode [troop], ac his geleafa [belief] hine ge-trymde [encouraged], and Crist him ge-fylste [helped] to his feonda [fiends, enemies] slege." It will be noticed in every case that the syntactical arrangement of the words in the sentences follows as a whole the rule that the governed word precedes the governing, as in Latin or High German, not _vice versa_, as in modern English. A brief list will show the principal modifications undergone by nouns in the process of modernisation. _Stan_, stone; _snaw_, snow; _ban_, bone. _Craeft_, craft; _staef_, staff; _baec_, back. _Weg_, way; _daeg_, day; _naegel_, nail; _fugol_, fowl. _Gear_, year; _geong_, young. _Finger_, finger; _winter_, winter; _ford_, ford. _AEfen_, even; _morgen_, morn. _Monath_, month; _heofon_, heaven; _heafod_, head. _Fot_, foot; _toth_, tooth; _boc_, book; _freond_, friend. _Modor_, mother; _faeder_, father; _dohtor_, daughter. _Sunu_, son; _wudu_, wood; _caru_, care; _denu_, dene (valley). _Scip_, ship; _cild_, child; _ceorl_, churl; _cynn_, kin; _ceald_, cold. Wherever a word has not become wholly obsolete, or assumed a new termination, (_e.g._, _gifu_, gift; _morgen_, morn-ing), it usually follows one or other of these analogies. The changes which the English language, as a whole, has undergone in passing from its earlier to its later form, may best be considered under the two heads of form and matter. As regards form or structure, the language has been simplified in three separate ways. First, the nouns and adjectives have for the most part lost their inflexions, at least so far as the cases are concerned. Secondly, the nouns have also lost their gender. And thirdly, the verbs have been simplified in conjugation, weak preterites being often substituted for strong ones, and differential terminations largely lost. On the other hand, the plural of nouns is still distinguished from the singular by its termination in _s_, which is derived from the first declension of Anglo-Saxon nouns, not as is often asserted, from the Norman-French usage. In other words, all plurals have been assimilated to this the commonest model; just as in French they have been assimilated to the final _s_ of the third declension in Latin. A few plurals of the other types still survive, such as _men_, _geese_, _mice_, _sheep_, _deer_, _oxen_, _children_ and (dialectically) _peasen_. To make up for this loss of inflexions, the language now employs a larger number of particles, and to some extent, of auxiliaries. Instead of _wines_, we now say _of a friend_; instead of _wine_, we now say _to a friend_; and instead of _winum_, we now say _to friends_. English, in short, has almost ceased to be inflexional and has become analytic. As regards matter or vocabulary, the language has lost in certain directions, and gained in others. It has lost many old Teutonic roots, such as _wig_, war; _rice_, kingdom; _tungol_, light; with their derivatives, _wigend_, warrior; _rixian_, to rule; _tungol-witega_, astrologer; and so forth. The relative number of such losses to the survivals may be roughly gauged from the passages quoted above. On the other hand, the language has gained by the incorporation of many Romance words, shortly after the Norman Conquest, such as _place_, _voice_, _judge_, _war_, and _royal_. Some of these have entirely superseded native old English words. Thus the Norman-French _uncle_, _aunt_, _cousin_, _nephew_, and _niece_, have wholly ousted their Anglo-Saxon equivalents. In other instances the Romance words have enriched the language with symbols for really new ideas. This is still more strikingly the case with the direct importations from the classical Greek and Latin which began at the period of the Renaissance. Such words usually refer either to abstract conceptions for which the English language had no suitable expression, or to the accurate terminology of the advanced sciences. In every-day conversation our vocabulary is almost entirely English; in speaking or writing upon philosophical or scientific subjects it is largely intermixed with Romance and Graeco-Latin elements. On the whole, though it is to be regretted that many strong, vigorous or poetical old Teutonic roots should have been allowed to fall into disuse, it may safely be asserted that our gains have far more than outbalanced our losses in this respect. It must never be forgotten, however, that the whole framework of our language still remains, in every case, purely English--that is to say, Anglo-Saxon or Low Dutch--however many foreign elements may happen to enter into its vocabulary. We can frame many sentences without using one word of Romance or classical origin: we cannot frame a single sentence without using words of English origin. The Authorised Version of the Bible, "The Pilgrim's Progress," and such poems as Tennyson's "Dora," consist almost entirely of Teutonic elements. Even when the vocabulary is largely classical, as in Johnson's "Rasselas" and some parts of "Paradise Lost," the grammatical structure, the prepositions, the pronouns, the auxiliary verbs, and the connecting particles, are all necessarily and purely English. Two examples will suffice to make this principle perfectly clear. In the first, which is the most familiar quotation from Shakespeare, all the words of foreign origin have been printed in italics:--
On the other hand, we may take the following passage from Mr. Herbert Spencer as a specimen of the largely Latinised vocabulary needed for expressing the exact ideas of science or philosophy. Here also borrowed words are printed in italics:-- "The _constitution_ which we _assign_ to this _etherial medium_, however, like the _constitution_ we _assign_ to _solid substance_, is _necessarily_ an _abstract_ of the _impressions received_ from _tangible_ bodies. The _opposition_ to _pressure_ which a _tangible_ body _offers_ to us is not shown in one _direction_ only, but in all _directions_; and so likewise is its _tenacity_. _Suppose countless lines radiating_ from its _centre_ on every side, and it _resists_ along each of these _lines_ and _coheres_ along each of these _lines_. Hence the _constitution_ of those _ultimate units_ through the _instrumentality_ of which _phenomena_ are _interpreted_. Be they _atoms_ of _ponderable matter_ or _molecules_ of _ether_, the _properties_ we _conceive_ them to _possess_ are nothing else than these _perceptible properties idealised_." In this case, out of 122 words we find no less than 46 are of foreign origin. Though this large proportion sufficiently shows the amount of our indebtedness to the classical languages for our abstract or specialised scientific terms, the absolutely indisputable nature of the English substratum remains clearly evident. The tongue which we use to-day is enriched by valuable loan words from many separate sources; but it is still as it has always been, English and nothing else. It is the self-same speech with the tongue of the Sleswick pirates and the West Saxon over-lords. _ |
||