Introduction to the study of the history of language

by Herbert A. Strong; Willem Sijbrand Logeman; Benjamin Ide Wheeler

We have already pointed out how the adjective and the noun entered into composition, and seen how, even in many combinations which we are not yet accustomed to look upon as fused into one, derivatives show that this fusion has at least partly been accomplished. Such are the many forms in ed, like black-eyed, etc., which are derived from the groups black eye, etc., and cannot be looked upon as compounds of black + eyed. We do not speak of an eyed person, for one who has eyes: cf. left-handed, self-willed, one-handed, etc.

In English, especially in Scottish dialects, many adverbs which commonly follow the verb, are occasionally made to precede it; as, to uplift, to backslide, etc. We may gather that in such forms no composition strictly so called has as yet set in, from the fact that the order is frequently transposed, as in sliding back, to lift up, etc. On the other hand, the fact that the words are joined in writing shows that the whole has begun to be apprehended as a unity.

In the case of most of these combinations we can trace the commencement of an isolation, which proves that the linguistic sense is ceasing to apprehend the elements as distinct. For instance, in English the old prepositional adverbs cannot be used independently and freely to form new combinations at will, but are confined to a definite group of combinations. Thus we can say, enfold and entwine: but not enthrow, for throw in. We can talk of onset, and onslaught, but not of on-run: of overflow, but not of over-pour. In many cases this isolation has led to a special development of meaning, and the word becomes still more definitely a compound; cf. such words as inroad, after-birth, offset, over-coat. From the union of the verb with the adverb, there arise nominal derivatives in which the sense is yet more specialised, such as offset, output, offal, under-writer.

An adverb derived from an adjective sometimes fuses with the nominal forms of the verb. The first impulse to this fusion is often given by the metaphorical application of one part of the compound: cf. deep-feeling, far-reaching, high-flying. The combination becomes even closer when the first part retains a meaning which has become unusual to it in general. For instance, in such a combination as ill-favoured, ill retains a trace of the time when it could be used as synonymous with bad.

In German, the comparative and superlative forms are actually used, showing the completeness of the fusion; as, der tieffühlendste Geist (Goethe), (lit. = ‘deep-feelingest ghost,’ i.e. ‘spirit’).

There are a few combinations of verbal-forms with an object accusative, which similarly occupy an intermediate position between the compound and the syntactic group; such as laughter-provoking, wrath-stirring, fire-spitting. No sharp line can be drawn between these instances of spontaneous and natural fusion, and the analogical formations coined by the poets; as sea-encompassed, storm-tossed, etc.

Again, and even in English, where the application of the inflected comparative and superlative is of so very limited application, it is the use of the comparative or superlative which affords a test as to the degree of fusion. It is, of course, possible to analyse most laughter-provoking, as provoking much laughter. But few would adopt such an explanation in a sentence like This is the most fire-spitting speech I ever heard.

Besides this, there are many verbal combinations which must be apprehended as compounds, from the fact that they represent a single notion only; such as with regard to, as soon as possible, forasmuch as, seeing that, none the less,—which must be considered to stand on the same footing as notwithstanding, nevertheless. This fusion is sometimes accompanied by a displacement of the psychological conception as to the parts of the sentence, whereby the natural mode of construction is altered, and the combination performs a new function, and becomes practically a different part of speech. For instance, we commonly hear I as good as promised it to them, where ‘as good as’ is nearly equivalent to ‘almost,’ and is construed like that adverb. We even meet with sentences like unclassified and prize-cattle, where a member of a compound is placed on the same footing as an independent word. Moreover, the first, or determinant member of the compound may be followed by determinants, as if it were itself independent; thus Milton can write hopeless to circumvent us; fearless to be overmatched: as if it had been ‘without hope to circumvent us;’ ‘having no fear to be overmatched.’ All this shows over and over again how completely impossible it is to draw the line between syntactical groups and compounds.

In this manner, then, syntactical isolation favours the fusion of a group into a compound. In our discussion of the form Jackanapes, we had already an instance how phonetic changes may have the same effect. This we shall now investigate and illustrate rather more in detail.

Though it would be impossible to prove the fact historically, it seems involved in the nature of the case that, for the most part, such phonetic changes at first arose in EVERY case of such closer and more intimate syntactical union; that they were re-adjusted and re-equalised later on, and were only preserved in groupings which, as a consequence of development of meaning, had become so far fused into one whole as to be capable of resisting the re-adjusting tendencies.