« PoprzedniaDalej »
So much for the first consonant of aπav- and omni-. 'I next take in hand the vowel or vowels; and have to notice the Latin habit of having an o where allied tongues have an a. This change in the case of Greek and Latin words was the more to be expected, as the Eolic dialect already felt the tendency, changing the prep. ava, the adv. avw, the noun στρατος to ον, ονω, στροτος ; and the Holic dialect is precisely that dialect of the Greek tongue with which the Latin has the closest affinity. Accordingly Sapa-ew appears in Latin as doma-re. It was upon this principle that I was long ago led to identify the Latin om-itto with the Greek av-inμi; not that I wish to tear omitto altogether from mitto and its compounds, for I hold mit of mitto to be substantially one with it of iter and i of ire, while on the other hand I would also connect the of eμ 'I go' with the i of inμɩ ‘I let go.' Again, the belief in this connection between avinui and omitto confirmed me in the further belief of the identity of the root syllables of av-ep- and hom-on, the more as both these nouns have a claim to an initial digamma, this letter belonging to av-np on the authority of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and the Ital. uomo justifying a similar assertion in behalf of homo; while the German also, according to Grimm, in one of its dialects once wrote wan sagt, where the ordinary phrase is man sagt; and we again, imitating the habit, still pronounce a w in our one says.
Again, Oapovs is one with the Lat. fortis; Sax, the essential syllable of διδασκω, appears as doc in doceo ; μαλ of the Gk. μαλακος and μαλασσω appears to have signifed 'beat,' and so by beating make soft,' but in the Latin words of this stock we find for the most part an o, as in molere, mulcare, i.e. molicare or molucare, mordere, mola, mortarium, and mollis, which Niebuhr unduly connects with mobilis and moueo.
Many years ago I ventured upon the bold doctrine, and
tendency of a labial mute to pass into an m before an n, as haven is in Swed. hamn. Accordingly I find our adv. even appearing in that language as jamn, our verbs to leave and to rive, as lemna and remna, and with these I must include somna 'to sleep' by the side of söfva 'to put to sleep,' for this Swedish somna is no loanword from the Latin. Let me further add from our own island the Latin Damnonii by the side of our Devon.
I still adhere to it, that as the Latin bellum 'war' superseded an older duellum, as we know historically, so this duellum had co-existed with an old guellum or guerrum, virtually one with the Ital. guerra, which, as a Tuscan word, has preserved the guttural, while the softer dialects of more Southern Italy had already in classical times preferred first a d and then a b. On similar grounds I held that bonus through duonus had originated in a theoretic guonus, and so was of the same stock with our good, the change of the n with d having its precise parallel in food by the side of the Latin penus and penum of like meaning, and mood (as used of the mind) by the side of mens and μevos. I have since satisfied myself that, as I have already stated, bonus is a decapitated word, standing for obon-us. I now identify this obon- with the Gk. aya0-, standing for ayav. If this be true, we have again a pair of o's in Latin corresponding to a pair of a's in Greek.
But the love of Latin for an o in place of an a is also well seen in a comparison of Latin words with those of the Teutonic family, for example in the German, as collum hals, corilus hasel, folles balgen, hom-o mann, hostis gast, longus lang, nox nacht, molere mal-men, ob aft, oc of oculus, and ach of acht achten, odium hass, rogare fragen, rota rad, sop of sopor and schlaf. On the whole then I conclude that a form arаv not only might, but ought to have for its Latin analogue omon, or omn, as seen in omnis.
I have so far said nothing on the ultimate origin of the two words; and here I am bound not to neglect as hitherto the asperate of åπаv, which no doubt represents an earlier σ, at least in some dialect, possibly a in another. On the other hand, I discard from view the syllable av, which can only be a suffix of secondary power like the αλ of μεγαλη, the n of magnus, the p of μakрos; all of which suffixes I hold to be substantially the same, with the meaning of diminution, although this meaning must soon have disappeared, when the simpler forms passed out of use. Looking then to the first syllable alone for the root, am I to give a preference to the car of the Greek or to the som of the Latin, or to an
intermediate sam, which retains the vowel of the one, and the nasal labial of the other? I am disposed to award the preference to the last, sam, relying upon the feeling of those who would connect ȧwas with the Greek adv. ȧpa; but at the same holding that the ȧr of the former is identical with the ȧu of the latter. The Latin of course has the same root in sim-plex áπλovs, in simul, or, as Plautus wrote the word, sem-ul or sem-ol, in the adv. sem-el, in semper, in sing-uli, in sin-cerus, in sim-itu. Nor need we be surprised at the substitution of a weak vowel, i or e, in these words. In sem-el and semper the law of 'umlaut' affords a sufficient explanation; and indeed the ul of simul and singuli must have been preceded by a form el, as in Siculi from Zuceλoi, oculus from ocelus, witness ocellus. Further the a reappears in the Fr. sanglier from singularis (sc. aper). The connection of ideas between 'one' and a 'whole'1 seems to me too evident to call for illustration, but we have it shown in the Latin una 'together,' in our own union; while the German zusammen 'together,' sammeln 'to collect,' exhibit the notion of a whole in words which proceed from the very root before us. So, too, the Latin adv. semper, with its meaning 'always.' Greek adverb árak, Pott, it is said, derives from á and παγ of πηγνυμι ; but I cannot see how any one can fail to see that it is a compression of άπ-ak-is, which bears comparison with du-AK-IS, тρI-AK-IS, Tоλλ-aк-is, in which the s is the same suffix that appears in dis (for dus), Tp-is, the Lat. bis (for duis), our own twice, thrice, and with some corruption in on-ce. Nay, the Latin semel itself has probably superseded an older semel-is, much as facul, vigil, stand for facilis, vigilis, and ter quater for ter-is quater-is, for the liquids r and 7 seem to have a strange power of destroying a following sibilant. The aк of aπ-ak-is, dv-ak-is, etc., I hold to be diminutival, just as I hold el of semel to have the same power. But this explanation of ȧπ-ağ again leaves áπ (=sam) for the root.
1 The Latin as (assis) is habitually used with the notion of a whole,' heres ex asse; and yet it is the origin of the French as in l'as de pique, our ace of spades. Nay, this Latin noun as is but the analogue of the Greek ovos, the 'one' on dice, just as as of the sb. as-inus represents ov of the Greek ovos of like meaning. Thus the Latin as is identical with our numeral one.
2 Απλους is probably for ἁπ-πλους.
But the Latin and Greek languages have each of them yet another adjective of like power, viz. sōlus and óλos, which, but for the difference of quantity in the vowel, one would at once be ready to identify. If really identical, we must give precedence to the Latin word, if only because the passage from long to short vowels is more in accordance with the habit of language than the converse. This adj. solus is another example of the close union between the ideas of 'one' and 'all.' In its ordinary sense of 'alone' it already unites the two ideas, for the very word by which we so translate it, like the Germ. all-ein, combines in itself the two English adjectives all and But the word carries with it more distinctly the notion of 'all and every' in the compounds sollicitus (or solicitus) 'all roused,' sollers of universal skill, sollemnis annual ; and sollus itself is given by Festus as an equivalent in the Oscan dialect for the Latin totus. But the long vowel of sõlus claims an especial attention; and I first ask the Latin sol 6 sun' whether it can assist me. This word is of course of the same stock with the Greek λos; but lexicographers are satisfied with the vague remark that sol, λos, our sun, are but varieties of the Skr. sura. The connection of all these words I admit, but I ask careful etymologists not to leave out of view the fuller forms-the Greek neλtos and the Gothic sául, both of which must be more genuine than the contracted Skr. sūra; and seem to imply that the liquid, whether l, n, or r, is no part of the true root.
Thus instructed, I proceed to consider whether our adj. sōlus may not owe the length of its vowel to contraction; and when I call to mind that by the side of the Latin series umesco, umor, umidus, there stands a second series, uvesco, uvor, uvidus, of all but the same meaning, the question naturally arises whether our root sam or som may not have given origin to an adj. sărṛlus or sovilus, both of which would readily pass into sōlus. Of course in my theoretic savilus (a Greek would have written σaƑ-aλos) all that follows the first three letters is of little value, and indeed corresponds in power to the av of ἁπαν, much as, to repeat the case, αλ of μεγαλη to in or 'n of magnus; and most probably the two suffixes were one, for
in diminutival words such interchange of r, l, and n, is common, as in G. degen, E. dagger; G. stopfel, E. stopper; G. himmel, E. heaven.
And this interchange of liquids in the suffix leads me to compare my theoretic omoni-, or rather omonic- (cf. molliculus by the side of molli-), with our English every, or, as old authors preferred to write, everich. Here the substitution of a v in place of m is what we have already seen to be a law between Latin and English, as amnis and Avon, amalus and evil. Again, the weak vowels of the English every also agree with what is seen in the comparison of the last pair just quoted.
Finally, let me place by the side of the Latin sõlus 'all' words whose connection with it needs little in confirmation, as the Welsh holl 'every one' (so Lat. sal 'salt' and sen of senex appear in Welsh as hal and hen), Eng. and G. all, Gk. oλos, which somewhat startles one by its short vowel, but such abbreviation was due probably to the busy life of Athens, where many words with a mere o have for their representatives in the other dialects forms with the diphthong ov; and indeed, in modern Greek, ouλos, written with a non-pronounced asperate, has outlived the Attic oxos. The Lat. salvus 'whole,' 'sound,' and the S. sarwa 'all,' have no doubt in their first syllable what is seen in sol of solus, but this must be the result of compression from a form like savil.
V.-THE HISTORY OF THE "TH" IN ENGLISH. By HENRY SWEET, ESQ.
THE formation of the sound represented by th in English will be best understood from Mr. Bell's description in his "Visible Speech." "The front-mixed divided' consonant has its centre check at the tip of the tongue, and its apertures between the edges of the flattened point and the teeth or the upper gum;-the front of the tongue having considerable convexity within the arch of the palate." As I shall frequently have occasion to refer to the analogous lip-divided