The change of th into f, is by many people considered a very violent change, so much so that Bur nouf's ingenious iden tification of Thractona Fig. 27. with Feridún, of which more hereafter, was objected to on that ground. But we have only to look at the diagrams of th and f, to convince ourselves that the slightest movement of the lower lip towards the upper teeth would change the sound of th into f so that, in English, "nothing," as pronounced vulgarly, sounds sometimes like "nuffing.” th and f. Few people, if any, would doubt any longer that the changes of letters take place according to certain phonetic laws, though scholars may differ as to the exact application of these laws. But what has not yet been fully explained is the nature of these phonetic laws which regulate the changes of words. Why should letters change? Why should we, in modern English, say lord instead of hlâford, lady instead of hlæfdige? Why should the French say père and mère instead of pater and mater? I believe the laws which regulate these changes are entirely based on physiological grounds, and admit of no other explanation whatsoever. It is not sufficient to say that and r, or d and r, or s and r, or k and l, 1 See M. M. On Veda and Zendavesta, p. 32. Arendt, Beiträge zur Vergleichenden Sprachforschung, i. p. 425. are interchangeable. We want to know why they are interchangeable, or rather, to use more exact language, we want to know why the same word, which a Hindu pronounces with an initial d, is pronounced by a Roman with an initial 7, and so on. It must be possible to explain this physiologically, and to show, by means of diagrams, what takes place, when, instead of a d an l, instead of an ƒ a th is heard. And here we must, from the very beginning, distinguish between two processes, which, though they may take place at the same time, are nevertheless totally distinct. There is one class of phonetic changes which take place in one and the same language, or in dialects of one family of speech, and which are neither more nor less than the result of laziness. Every letter requires more or less of muscular exertion. There is a manly, sharp, and definite articulation, and there is an effeminate, vague, and indistinct utterance. The one requires a will, the other is a mere laisser-aller. The principal cause of phonetic degeneracy in language is when people shrink from the effort of articulating each consonant and vowel; when they attempt to economize their breath and their muscular energy. It is perfectly true that, for practical purposes, the shorter and easier a word, the better, as long as it conveys its meaning distinetly. Most Greek and Latin words are twice as long as they need be, and I do not mean to find fault with the Romance nations, for having simplified the labor of speaking. I only state the cause of what we must call phonetic decay, however advantageous in some respects; and I con sider that cause to be neither more nor less than want of muscular energy. If the provincial of Gaul came to say père instead of pater, it was simply because he shrank from the trouble of lifting his tongue, and pushing it against his teeth. Père required less strain on the will, and less expenditure of breath: hence it took the place of pater. So in English, night requires less expenditure of muscular energy than näght or Nacht, as pronounced in Scotland and in Germany; and hence, as people always buy in the cheapest market, night found more customers than the more expensive terms. Nearly all the changes that have taken place in the transition from Anglo-Saxon to modern English belong to this class. Thus: The same takes place in Latin or French words naturalized in English. Thus : Cf. vër Old High-German wër-alt seculum, i. e. Menschenalter. vulf, lycanthropus, werewolf, währwolf, loup-garrou(l); were-gild, manngeld, ransom. Cf. Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 480. 2 Is hlâford, as Grimm supposes, an abbreviation of hlaf-weard, and hlafdige of hlafweardige, meaning loaf-ward? The compound hlaf-ord, source of bread, is somewhat strange, considering by whom and for whom it was formed. But hlaf-weard does not occur in Anglo-Saxon documents. See Lectures on the Science of Language, 4th ed., vol. i. p. 216. There are, however, some words in English which, if compared with their originals in Anglo-Saxon, seem to have added to their bulk, and thus to violate the general principle of simplification. Thus A. S. thunor is in English thunder. Yet here, too, the change is due to laziness. It requires more exertion to withdraw the tongue from the teeth without allowing the opening of the dental contact to be heard than to slur from n on to d, and then only to the following vowel. The same expedient was found out by other languages. Thus, the Greek said andres, instead of aneres; ambrosia, instead of amrosia.1 The French genre is more difficult to pronounce than gendre; hence the English gender, with its anomalous d. Similar instances in English are, to slumber =A. S. slumerian ; embers =A. S. amyrie; cinders = cineres; humble = humilis. It was the custom of grammarians to ascribe these and similar changes to euphony, or a desire to make words agreeable to the ear. Greek, for instance, it was said, abhors two aspirates at the beginning of two successive syllables, because the repeated aspiration would offend delicate ears. If a verb in Greek, 1 In Greek, μ cannot stand before 2 and p, nor λ before p, nor v before any liquid. Hence μεσημ(ε)ρία = μεσημβρία; γαμρος = γαμβρός ; ἥμαρτον ἤμβροτον ; μορτος = Bрorós. See Mehlhorn, Griechische Grammatik, p. 51. In Tamil, nr is pronounced ndr. Caldwell, Dravidian Grammar, p. 138. = 1 beginning with an aspirate, has to be reduplicated, the first syllable takes the tenuis instead of the aspirate. Thus the in Greek forms tithemi, as dha in Sanskrit dadhami. If this was done for the sake of euphony, it would be difficult to account for many words in Greek far more inharmonious than thithemi. Such words as xowv, chthon, earth, 40óyyos, phthóggos, vowel, beginning with two aspirates, were surely more objectionable than thithēmi would have been. There is nothing to offend our ears in the Latin fefelli, from fallo, or in the Gothic reduplicated perfect haihald, from haldan, which in English is contracted into held, the A. S. being held, instead of hehold; or even in the Gothic faifahum, we caught, from fahan, to catch. There is nothing fearful in the sound of fearful, though both syllables begin with an f. But if it be objected that all these letters in Latin and Gothic are mere breaths, while the Greek x, 0, are real aspirates, we have in German such words as Pfropfenzieher, which to German ears is anything but an unpleasant sound. I believe the secret of this so-called abhorrence in Greek is nothing but laziness. An aspirate requires 1 It should be remarked that the Latin f, though not an aspirated tenuis like, but a labial flatus, seems to have had a very harsh sound. Quin. tilian, when regretting the absence in Latin of Greek ☀ and v. says, “Quæ si nostris literis (ƒ et u) scribantur, surdum quiddam et barbarum efficient, et velut in locum earum succedcut tristes et horridæ quibus Græcia caret. Nam et illa quæ est sexta nostratium (ƒ) pæne non humana voce, vel omnino non voce potius, inter discrimina dentium efflanda est; quæ etiam cum vocalem proxima accipit, quassa quodammodo, utique quoties aliquam consonantem frangit, ut in hoc ipso frangit, multo fit horridior" (xii. 10). - Cf. Bindseil, p. 237. Perf. Sing. Perf. Plur. haihait Part. Perf. Pass. haitan haihaitum |