Читать книгу A Book About Words - G. F. Graham - Страница 7

Table of Contents

English words which indicate mental actions, feelings, or general abstractions, come to us from a Latin or a French source. These, though not the most numerous, comprise a very considerable portion of the English language. It must be understood that French is, in the main, composed of Latin words; and we may conveniently divide this portion of the English language into three classes:—1. Words derived directly from Latin; 2. Words derived indirectly from Latin, through a French medium; and, 3. Middle-age Latin words, i.e. those formed from a corrupt Latin by the monks of the middle ages. These last appear in French in a modified form, and come into English still further altered in their spelling and pronunciation.

I. In most cases English words of the first class are compounds or derivatives. We have not adopted the roots themselves, but use them only in composition, with some particle or preposition. For example: the Latin root ‘clude’ is never found in English as an independent word, though we have ‘exclude,’ ‘include,’ ‘preclude,’ &c. It is also to be observed that a Latin verbal root, in many cases, produces two forms in English; one containing the root of the verb itself, and the other its participial form. Thus, the above example will give us ‘exclude,’ from the Latin verb ‘excludĕre,’ and also ‘exclusion,’ ‘exclusive,’ from its participle ‘exclusus.’ If we take any one of these roots, say ‘clud’ and ‘clus’ (shut), we may find it in modern English in a great variety of forms. From the participial root (clus) come ‘clause’ (a part of a sentence shut in); ‘cloister’ (a place shut in); ‘close’ (to shut to); ‘closet’ (a small place shut up); ‘recluse,’ one shut out from the world, &c., as well as the verbs exclude, include, preclude, with their derivatives exclusion, inclusion, preclusion; the adjectives ‘exclusive,’ ‘inclusive,’ ‘preclusive,’ and the adverbs ‘exclusively,’ ‘inclusively,’ &c. These words are not often found in the vocabulary of the uneducated classes; they belong rather to the language of books, or to the set forms of eloquence, than to that of daily intercourse. We should say, in common parlance, that a boy was shut out of the room by his companions; but we should hardly say that he was excluded. In a secondary sense, however, such a word would be more properly adopted. We should say correctly, ‘that such considerations were excluded from this view of the subject,’ where we could not very well use ‘shut out.’ Again, we could not properly say that any one was ‘included’ in a dungeon; meaning that he was ‘shut in.’ Words drawn from these Latin roots have a very wide application in English, but they are confined chiefly to a mental, and are seldom used in a physical, sense. Saxon forms the basis of our language, and is used in practical and domestic matters; while our spiritual conceptions are expressed by French or Latin words.

Another well-known Latin root is ‘cide’ (from cædĕre, to slay); which corresponds in meaning with the more familiar Saxon word ‘kill.’ We have, not ‘cide,’ but ‘fratricide,’ ‘matricide,’ ‘regicide,’ ‘suicide,’ ‘parricide,’ ‘homicide,’ and ‘infanticide.’ To these may be added, ‘concise,’ ‘precise,’ ‘decision,’ ‘incision,’ &c. All the latter are derived from the participle of the same Latin verb—‘cæsus.’

Again: the root ‘sume’ (sumpt), from the Latin ‘sumĕre,’ to take, gives us ‘assume,’ ‘consume,’ ‘presume,’ with their participial derivatives, ‘assumption,’ ‘consumption,’ ‘presumption,’ ‘sumptuous,’ ‘presumptuous,’ &c.

The Latin root ‘cede’ (cess) appears in English in two forms of spelling; one, ‘cede,’ as ‘accede,’ ‘concede,’ ‘recede’; and the other, ‘ceed,’ as in ‘exceed,’ ‘proceed,’ ‘succeed.’ These also have their participial derivatives, as found in ‘excess,’ ‘success,’ ‘process,’ ‘accession,’ ‘succession,’ ‘procession.’ It will be seen that in all these cases the rule holds good. Cry is a more household, domestic word, but ‘acclaim,’ ‘declaim,’ ‘proclaim’ are used on more important occasions.

The principle of derivation by the change of an internal vowel-sound prevailed in ancient Latin as well as in Saxon. Thus, from the Latin verb ‘facĕre’ (to make or do) was formed ‘efficere’ (to effect or bring about), the a in the root being changed into an i in the derivative; and we have English words from both these sources:—fact, faculty, facility, &c., from ‘facĕre’; and defect, effect, deficient, efficient, &c., from the other form.

Some of these Latin roots are extremely prolific. For example, the Latin verb ‘tenere,’ to hold, produces a very large number of English words. In certain verbs it appears in the form ‘tain,’ as in to abstain, appertain, attain, contain, detain, maintain, obtain, pertain, retain, and sustain. To these may be added the derivatives, continent, pertinent, and impertinent; besides which, we have from the same source, ‘tenant,’ ‘tenable,’ ‘tenure,’ ‘maintenance,’ and ‘sustenance,’ &c.

Again: the root ‘duce’ (from ‘ducĕre,’ to lead) gives rise to many English derivatives. First we have (through French) the word ‘Duke,’ which originally meant the leader of an army. Then come the verbs to adduce, conduce, deduce, induce, produce, reduce, seduce, traduce, in all which the idea of leading is involved. To the same origin may be traced ductile, aqueduct, viaduct, conduct, and product, besides deduction, reduction, abduction, production, &c.—nineteen or twenty words from one root!

II. A rule has been laid down to enable us to determine whether an English word is derived directly from Latin, or filtered from Latin through French:—‘If the word comes directly from Latin, the only change it will undergo will be in the ending. Thus “actio” in Latin will be “action” in English; “innocentia” will make “innocence;” “tormentum,” “torment,” &c. But if the word comes through French, it will be more altered in its passage; it will be disturbed, not only in its ending, but also internally. Thus “populus” in Latin is “peuple” in French, and “people” in English. The Latin “thesaurus” gives the French “trésor,” and the English “treasure.” ’ This may be accepted as a general rule, but it is often impossible to determine by the outward form of a word whether we derive it directly from its primitive Latin source, or take it at second hand from the French. In most cases of doubt the probability is in favour of the French, for there are still many English words which were at first spelled, and probably pronounced, as in French, and whose orthography, and perhaps pronunciation, was afterwards reformed and brought back nearer to the Latin type. ‘Doubt’ and ‘debt’ are still pronounced with the b silent; but when first brought into English they were both written and pronounced as in French—‘doute’ and ‘dette.’ Afterwards, when it became known that they were originally derived from the Latin verbs ‘dubitare’ and ‘debere,’ the b was restored in the spelling, though the French pronunciation was retained; and the same took place with many other Romance words.

There are certain classes of English words from whose outward form we may conclude that they are of Latin (or French) origin. First, when an English noun ends in ‘tion’ preceded by a vowel, we may be pretty sure that it is either directly from Latin, or from Latin through French. Such words as ‘formation,’ ‘completion,’ ‘transition,’ ‘commotion,’ and ‘ablution,’ are derived either directly or indirectly from Latin. We never meet with this ending in words of purely Saxon origin. The termination of these was in Latin ‘tio;’ in French they appear in ‘tion;’ and in English the same ending (tion) is adopted. This Latin ending, ‘tio,’ is, however, sometimes found in French in the form son, which has thus been introduced into certain English words of this class. The Latin ‘ratio’ gave the French ‘raison’ and the English ‘reason.’ Again, ‘traditio’ in Latin became ‘trahison’ in French and ‘treason’ in English. But in many cases the French ending has not passed into English; for the words ‘declinaison,’ ‘conjugaison,’ ‘oraison,’ &c., appear in English as ‘declension,’ ‘conjugation,’ and oration, i.e. in their Latin rather than their French forms.

Another large class of originally Latin words appear in English with the ending ‘ty.’ These are all abstract nouns, which in Latin end in ‘tas.’ This final tas is expressed in French by té, and in English by ty. Thus the Latin ‘societas’ becomes in French ‘société’ and in English ‘society.’ In the same way, from the Latin ‘bonitas’ come the French ‘bonté’ and the English ‘bounty,’ &c.

In many of these cases we find two forms of the same word, each with its own meaning. One of these tends to the French, and the other to the Latin, in spelling; and it may be observed that the French has been more disturbed by contraction, abbreviation, or inversion than the Latin. For example, the two words ‘secure’ and ‘sure’ are both originally from the Latin ‘securus;’ but the former is directly from Latin, whereas the latter is from the French contracted form—‘sûr.’

Another pair of these double forms may be found in ‘hospital’ and ‘hôtel.’ The Latin ‘hospes’ signified either a ‘host’ or a guest, i.e. the entertainer or the entertained. From ‘hospitalis’ came the contracted French form ‘hôtel,’ in the sense of a house where guests or travellers are entertained, as distinguished from ‘hôpital,’ where invalids are taken care of. From the French both these words came into English, each retaining its original meaning.

This principle of a divided meaning is also seen in ‘persecute’ and ‘pursue,’ the latter of which was known in English before we became acquainted with the former. ‘Pursue’ is from the French ‘poursuivre,’ and is used in the general sense of following after eagerly. ‘Persecute,’ from the Latin ‘persecutus,’ the participle of ‘persĕqui,’ is distinguished from ‘pursue’ by the meaning of ‘to follow after with an intent to injure.’

Two other words of this class are ‘superficies’ and ‘surface.’ The former is pure Latin; and is compounded of ‘super,’ ‘upon,’ and ‘facies,’ a face. But this word is only used in a scientific or mathematical sense; whereas ‘surface’ has a more general signification, and means whatever we can see of the outside of any material substance.

We find a similar difference of meaning, as well as form, between ‘potion’ and ‘poison.’ Both these came originally from the Latin ‘potare,’ to drink. The former is the direct Latin, the latter the French form, and both are now English. But the second denotes a species of the first; for ‘poison,’ as is well known, is that species of ‘potion’ which destroys life.

This power of dividing a word into two meanings is not peculiar to English; for many instances of it may be found in German, French, and Italian. But it is of great advantage. It has the effect of providing a large number of terms to express shades of thought by slight differences of meaning, and it thus materially assists in making language a more perfect exponent of human thought.

The following list exhibits some of these double forms:—

outer	utter		nib	neb
morrow	morn		person	parson
lance	launch		beacon	beckon
wine	vine		to	too
wind	vent (peg)		tone	tune
wise	guise		discreet	discrete
why	how		sauce	souse
wagon	wain		scatter	shatter
deploy	display		stick	stitch
cattle	chattels		cap	cape
cross	cruise		quell	kill
milk	milch		glass	glaze
make	match		grass	graze
metal	mettle		&c.	&c.

III. The third division of this class consists of Low Latin, or, as they are sometimes called, ‘monkish Latin’ words. These have their origin in classical Latin; but they are all corruptions of that language, and were formed at a time when it had fallen into decay. To this division belong such English words as ‘chance,’ ‘esquire,’ ‘ewer’, ‘forest,’ ‘justle,’ ‘manage,’ ‘noise,’ ‘noon,’ ‘pillage,’ ‘rear,’ &c. In all these we may recognise a Latin origin, though the words themselves were unknown to the ancient Romans.

From the Greek verb ‘βάλλειν,’ to cast, probably came the Italian ‘ballo,’ the French ‘bal,’ and the English ‘ball.’ Playing at ball was, in the middle ages, often associated with singing and dancing. Hence the Romance word ‘ballare,’ and the Old Spanish ‘ballar,’ which both meant ‘to sing.’ The French ‘ballade’ and the English ‘ballad’ may be thus accounted for. Apropos of ‘ball,’ it may be here noted that the word ‘bull,’ as in the ‘Pope’s bull,’ is derived from ‘bulla,’ the Latin for ‘ball.’ It was the custom, in the middle ages, after writing any document or letter, to affix to it a seal in the form of a ‘ball,’ so that the Pope’s ‘bull’ really means the Pope’s ‘ball.’

Our word ‘chance’ was in old French ‘chéance,’ from ‘cheoir.’ These are all from the Latin verb ‘cadĕre,’ to fall (out) or happen. The French adjective ‘méchant’ is derived from the old participle ‘més-chéant,’ from ‘més-choir,’ to fall out badly or unluckily. We have not adopted this adjective, but our noun ‘mischance’ may be traced to this source.

A curious case of a modern term derived from compound Latin roots may be found in our word ‘squire.’ This is made up of the Latin ‘scutum,’ a shield, and ‘fero,’ I bear. Hence ‘scutifer,’ a middle-age word, meant a shield-bearer, i.e. one who attended on the knight, and carried his shield. In old French, ‘scutifer’ was softened into ‘escuyer,’ or ‘écuyer;’ and it afterwards appeared in English as ‘esquire,’ or ‘squire.’

The old French for ‘water’ was ‘aigue,’ from the Latin ‘aqua.’ From this was formed the word ‘aiguière,’ a water-vessel; and this is the origin of our English word ‘ewer,’as in ‘cream-ewer.’

Of the same class is the word ‘forest.’ This did not exist in ancient Latin, but sprang up in later ages. The monks made the word ‘foresta’ out of the Latin ‘foras,’ abroad, or out of doors; the same root which produced the English words ‘foreign,’ and ‘foreigner,’ one who comes from abroad. The monkish Latin form was ‘foresta,’ the French ‘forêt,’ and the English ‘forest.’

Under this head may be also placed ‘comfort’ and ‘courage.’ The former of these is well known to be peculiarly English, and there is no word in any of the continental languages which exactly translates it. True, the French are beginning to use the word ‘comfortáble;’ but it may be fairly doubted whether it realises with them the same idea as with us. It has evidently a Latin element; and the second syllable is, no doubt, derived from the Latin ‘fortis,’ strong. So that, what ‘comforts’ would, in the first instance, probably mean, what strengthens, and would especially apply to ‘creature-comforts’—food or drink, which strengthens the body. Afterwards it would be used in a secondary and more extended sense.

The Italian word ‘coraggio’ is derived from ‘core,’ as the French ‘courage’ comes from ‘cœur;’ both these being originally from the Latin ‘cor,’ the heart. From French the word ‘courage’ has passed into English, where the spelling is the same, though it is somewhat differently pronounced. But neither ‘comfort’ nor ‘courage’ is found in classical Latin.

The word ‘contrada’ in Italian and Provençal came into French in the form ‘contrée,’ and into English as ‘country.’ It is derived from the Latin preposition ‘contra,’ against; and means, properly, the part of the land which lies over—against—us. But the word is altogether of modern manufacture. (Compare the German ‘Gegenstand,’ where the meaning is precisely the same.)

The Latin preposition ‘juxta’ has given rise to several words, both French and English, which did not exist in ancient Latin. The French ‘joust,’ a combat in which the antagonists rushed at, or pushed close to, one another, is one of these. Also ‘ajouter,’ to add or put one thing close to another. From these we have, in English, the adverb ‘just,’ as in the phrase ‘just now,’ i.e. close to the present time; and also the verb ‘to adjust,’ i.e. to place things close to each other. ‘To justle,’ or ‘jostle,’ is a frequentative verb, formed from the above adverb ‘just.’

The word ‘danger’ is composed of two Latin roots: ‘damn-um,’ loss, and ‘ger-o,’ I bear; these produced the Low Latin word ‘domigerium.’ This was afterwards corrupted and softened into the French ‘danger,’ and in that form passed into English.

Our word ‘manage’ is from the Latin ‘manus,’ a hand, through the French ‘main.’ There was a Low Latin word, ‘managerium,’ which meant occupation or actual possession, in the sense of holding in the hand. Thence the word was transferred to the furniture requisite for the occupation of a house, and, in the shape of the French ‘ménage,’ to the household of the occupier. The identity of this word with the English ‘manage’ may be seen in the expression ‘bon mesnagier,’ one who understands how to conduct a household—a good manager.

From the Latin ‘manēre,’ to remain, or dwell, are derived the French ‘maison’ and the corresponding English ‘mansion;’ and from the same source come the English words ‘manse,’ the clergyman’s dwelling-house, and ‘manor,’ the lord’s dwelling-house.

From ‘minutus,’ the Latin participle of the verb ‘minuo,’ come the English adjective ‘minúte’ and the noun ‘mínute.’ Properly ‘minuto primo’ was, in Italian, the first division of the hour; ‘minuto secondo’ was the second, and ‘minuto terzo’ the third division; which is, in French, ‘tierce,’ i.e. the sixtieth part of a second. The English word ‘mite’ is only a contraction of minute—it is a minute insect; and a ‘minuet’ is a dance with short steps.

‘Noisome’ and ‘annoy’ are derived from the Latin ‘nocēre,’ to hurt or injure; whence it may be conjectured also comes ‘noise,’ as being something that annoys, as a stir, wrangle, or brawl.

The word ‘peel’ means the rind of fruit or the bark of a stick. This is from the Latin ‘pellis,’ skin, from which comes the French ‘peau.’ The radical sense of this word is, that which is stripped off, or pilled. ‘Pillage’ is a derivative of ‘pill,’ or ‘peel.’ It means a collection of things stripped off, or plundered.

The English word ‘palm’ (of the hand) is from the Greek παλάμη, through the Latin ‘palma.’ A certain tree is called a palm because of its broad spreading leaves, which resemble the palm of the hand; and a palmer was formerly a pilgrim carrying a palm-branch in his hand, in sign of his expedition to the Holy Land.