PRINCIPLES OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE. 99 



« 



As every constituent item of language is the product of a series of changes, 

 working themselves out in history, the method of linguistic investigation must 

 be historical. To understand the structure and character of speech, and to 

 penetrate to its origin, we must follow backward the modifying processes to 

 which it has been subjected, endoavoring to understand the influences which have 

 produced and governed them. This can be done to but small extent by means 

 of contemporary records.- We must call to our aid the art of etymological 

 analysis. On etymology, the tracing out of the history of individual words, is 

 founded the whole science of language. To illustrate the methods of etymolo- 

 gizing, and to bring to light some of its results, by simple and characteristic 

 examples, is the object of this second lecture. 



Let us look first at evidence showing the composite nature of words. We 

 are all the time putting together two words to form a compound ; as, Jear- 

 inspiring, god-like, Iwuse-top, and so on. But the extent to which language is 

 the result of such composition is apparent only on deeper study. Fearful is 

 as clear a compound, on reflection, a,s fear-inspiring ; yet ful is, to our appre- 

 hension, a kind of sufiix, forming a large class of adjectives from nouns, like 

 the suffix ous, (in peril-ous, riot-ous, &c. ;) and its independent origin and 

 meaning are but dimly present to the mind of one who uses the adjectives. 

 Fearless and its like are not less evident compounds ; but the less here is not 

 our word less, but the altered form of an older word, meaning " loose, free." 

 Again : ly, in godly, brutherly, &c., is of yet obscurer origin, and we deem it 

 merely a suflix ; but a study of the other forms of our language, or a compari- 

 son of kindred Germanic dialects now spoken, shows it to be descended from 

 the adjective like, which has been used in all the languages of our family as 

 an adjective-forming suffix ; Ave alone have given it the further and now re- 

 motely derived office of adverbial suffix, employable at will to convert any 

 adjective into an adverb. The d of such words as I loved, I hated, is proved 

 by the form it wears in the oldest Germanic tongues to be a relic of the past 

 tense did : I loved is originally 1 love did. Such and whick were once so-like- 

 and v^io-like, and so on. The same is the case in the Latin part of our lan- 

 guage, and even in its oldest and most essential constituents. The ble or pie 

 0^ double, triple, and so 'on, is the root jylic, meaning "bend, fold;" trijjle is 

 the precise etymological equivalent of threefold. The two letters of am, which 

 seems as simple a word as aught can be, are relics of two elements : one, the 

 root as, meaning "be;" the other, the pronoun mi, meaning " me, I;" am 

 stands for as-mi, " be-I." The third person, is, has lost the whole of a second 

 ^lement, ti, which it once possessed, and of which at least the t is left in nearly 

 fll the kindred languages ; compare German ist, Latin est, Greek esti, Sanscrit 

 asti, &c. 



With few exceptions, all the words of our language admit of such analysis, 

 which discovers in them at least two elements : one radical, containing the 

 fundamental idea ; the other formal, indicating its restriction, application, or 

 relation. This is, in fact, the normal constitution of a word ; it contains a root 

 and a suffix or prefix, or both, or more than one of both. Thus, inapplicabili- 

 ties contains two prefixes and three suffixes, all clustered about the root plic, 

 " bend ;" and it is, as it were, the fusion and integration of the phrase " nume 

 rous conditions of not being able to bend or fit to something." 



Our examples show that word-analysis is, at least in part, only the retracing 

 of a previous synthesis. We are as sure of the actuality of the process of com- 

 t bination by which these words were formed as if it had all gone on under our 

 own eyes. There would have been no such suffixes as ful, less, ly, &c., if 

 there had not been before in the language the independent words full, loose, 

 like, &c. No small part of the formative elements of our language can thus 

 be proved descended from independent words ; if a considerable part do not 

 admit like proof, we are not authorized to suppose that their history is different 



