Connecting words, again, such as conjunctions and prepositions, are, as we have seen, derived from independent words by a displacement as to the appreciation of the part which a word plays in a sentence (cf. Chap. XVI., pp. 282 and 284.). Such words are during, in regard to, notwithstanding. And there is this further reason why they cannot be sharply distinguished from other kinds of words—that a word may be an independent member of the particular sentence to which it belongs, and yet at the same time serve to connect this with another sentence. If I say, for instance, The man who believes this is a fool, the who is at once an independent member of the relative sentence and a connecting word between the principal and subordinate sentence. This is universally the case as regards the relative pronoun and relative adverb. It is true also of the demonstrative when this refers to the preceding or following sentence; as, I saw a man, he told me, etc. But even if this first classification as to function could be consistently carried out, any further attempt at subdivision leads us into fresh difficulties, considering that the substantive, as opposed to the adjective and verb, is the part of speech which serves as subject and object. We might, indeed, be tempted to utilize this fact as the principle of our subclassification. But we find in the first place that a substantive can also be used attributively and predicatively, like an adjective (cf. We are men, We are manly), and, on the other hand, other words may serve as the subject in such sentences as Well begun is half ended; Slow and steady wins the race; Finished is finished. An adjective, too, may serve as object; as, He takes good for bad; Write it down, black on white; to make bad worse.
We have indeed seen that the use of prepositions to introduce subordinate sentences is very common in English; as, After he had begotten Seth, etc.
The division which can be most systematically carried out is that which divides words according as they are inflected or not, and according to their mode of flection. In this way three convenient divisions may be made of nouns, verbs, and uninflected words. But even here the nominal forms of the verb, such as the infinitive, to love (amare, lieben) and indeclinable substantives such as the Latin cornu and the English adjectives, resist the carrying out of the division. Pronouns, again, are differently inflected from nouns, and they differ among themselves. In other languages, the system of inflection of the substantive is sometimes identical and sometimes not. It might be alleged that the formation of degrees of comparison was a decisive mark of the adjective: but even here we are met by the fact that some languages, like Sanscrit, can compare nouns and even persons of the verb;[202] and others, like Latin, can compare the substantive (cf. Plautus’ use of oculissimus—Curc. I. ii. 28, etc.) amicissimus = ‘(my) best friend,’ etc. This usage is seen in the English word ‘top-most,’ which is the substantive top with a double superlative ending (see Mätzner, vol. i., p. 270); the termination most superseded the O.E. m- est, which answered to the A.S. (e) mest, derived from a positive (e) ma, which itself had a superlative signification (cf. optumus). Again, the very meaning of some adjectives renders them incapable of comparison; as, wooden, golden, etc.
It is, then, clear that the current division of the parts of speech, in which all these three principles of classification are more or less embodied, leads to so many cross divisions that it cannot be consistently carried out. The parts of speech cannot be sharply and neatly partitioned off into eight or nine categories. There are many necessary transitions from one class into another; these result from the general laws of change of meaning, and from analogical formations which are characteristic of language in general. If we follow out these transitions, we at the same time detect the reasons which originally suggested the division of the parts of speech.
To consider, first, the division between substantive and adjective. The formal division is based in the Indo-European languages on the capacity of the adjective of inflections of gender and comparison. In individual languages still further distinctions have arisen. Thus, for instance, the adjective in the Teutonic and Slavonic languages admits of a double, nay we may even say a triple, mode of inflection: cf. gut, guter, der gute; in which declensions forms occur absolutely without analogy in the substantives. In Modern High German, we have to note the existence of the two declensions (the weak and the strong). On their uses and that of the third or undeclined form of the adjective in the predicate, the most elementary German grammar will give the student all information. As for the forms of adjectival (and pronominal) declension which are distinct from the noun declension, it is necessary to go back to Anglo-Saxon, or, better still, to Gothic. It is, of course, not necessary to master these languages thoroughly in order to simply compare their systems of inflection. Seeing that in English the adjectives have no flection, the test is no longer applicable to the language in its present form; though the test of capacity for comparison applies here still. But in spite of all differentiations of form, the adjective may receive, at first ‘occasionally’ then ‘usually,’ the function of a substantive: cf. The rich and the poor, old and young, my gallants.[203] From this substantival adjective a pure substantive may be derived by traditional use, especially if its form becomes in any way isolated as against other forms of the adjective; as, sir = Fr. sieur, from seniorem as against senior. The instinct of language shows that it apprehends the adjective definitely as a substantive when it connects it with an attributive adjective; as, the powdered pert (Cowper, Task); a respected noble, etc.: or with a genitive; as, the blue of the sky. In English the possessive pronoun is connected with many words, such as like, better, etc.,[204] which, if felt as adjectives, would demand other constructions. Cf. He was your better, sir (Sheridan Knowles, Hunchback, III. ii.); To consult his superiors (Cooper, Spy, ch. i.): He is my senior.
There are many adjectives in all languages which are completely transformed, such as sir (cf. supra); priest (a shortened form of what in French appears as prêtre, older form prestre (cf. Dutch priester), all from Greek presbuteros, ‘older,’ the comparative of presbus, ‘old’); fiend, M.E. fend, A.S. féond, ‘an enemy,’ originally the present participle of the verb féon, ‘to hate;’ friend, M.E. frend, A.S. freónd, originally present participle of fréon, ‘to love;’ etc.
The transformation of a substantive into an adjective is less familiar, and perhaps more interesting. In the process, we disregard some parts of the meaning of the substantive, excluding from that meaning first and foremost the meaning of substance, so that only the qualities attaching to the substance remain in view. This transformation virtually occurs as an occasional use whenever a substantive is employed as predicate or attribute: a king’s cloak (for a royal cloak); He is an ass, etc. A substantive in apposition approaches the nature of an adjective, especially when it is used to denote a class; and, again, more especially when the combination is abnormal and metaphorical: cf. a virgin fortress; a maiden over; boy-competitors; turkey-cock, hen-sparrow; a house-maid;[205] music-vows (Hamlet, III. i.) Sometimes an adverb which can strictly speaking be connected with an adjective only, is joined to the substantive, and serves to mark its adjectival nature. Thus we often hear such expressions as He is ass enough, idiot enough; More fool you, etc.
In other cases, again, such as twenty thousand troops were taken prisoner, the word prisoner shows by its absence of inflection that it is apprehended as an adjective.
It might be thought practicable to draw another distinction that would hold good as between substantive and adjective. The adjective, it might be alleged, denotes a simple quality, the substantive connotes a group of qualities. In such a word as blue, we have the one broad idea of one colour fairly defined and commonly understood within certain definite limits. In the meaning of, e.g., rose, we embrace all the qualities which go to make up our conception of flower in general, and the special flower which we call rose in particular. And no doubt the definition may be considered in the main correct. But the distinction cannot be consistently maintained throughout. For instance, there are many adjectives which cannot be said to indicate really one quality only. Such are most adjectives in like or ly (warlike, manly, etc.); and, on the other hand, substantives are again and again used so as to denote one quality and only one. The transition from the denotation of a simple quality to that of a group of qualities is effected by the use in a special sense of a substantival adjective; as, ‘the blacks,’ for ‘the negroes’ = ‘a radical,’ ‘a conservative.’ When once such usage has been started, there is no necessity for the train of thought, which led the first employer to specialise the word, to be present in the consciousness of other speakers. Directly the word has come to be so specialised, and the train of thought which led to its specialisation has been forgotten, the word stands isolated as an independent substantive.
The converse process is not uncommon; in which, out of a group of qualities, a single one is dwelt on and the rest are left out of consideration: such are, for instance, the names of colours; as, lilac, rose, mulberry, etc., used adjectivally. From this use the adjectives with specialised meanings, derived from substantives, we may gather that adjectives, i.e. terms for simple qualities, arose out of terms for groups of qualities, i.e. substantives. The process must have been from the very beginning that the speaker singled out one notion from a group and dwelt on it, passing over the others bound up in the group. In fact, the speaker must, at a very early stage, have used words in a figurative sense. In such expressions as That man is a bear, That woman is a vixen (as, indeed, when we say bearish or vixenish), we are ascribing to him or her only some one particular characteristic of the whole number of characteristics of the thing which the substantive indicates when used in its usual sense. The distinction between noun and verb might seem, at first sight, to be well marked both by the diversity of forms which characterise these separate parts of speech, and by the diversity of functions which they severally fulfil. But in English, we are at once met by the fact that we have numerous verbs which are identical in form with nouns, and in many cases are actually nouns employed as verbs; as, to lord it, to walk, to dog, to run: while we constantly see the process going on before our eyes, of the transference of a noun into the category of verbs; as, to chair a man, to table a motion. How near they may approach in function may be seen from sentences like I looked at the show, and I had a look at the show. No doubt it maybe said that verbs have certain formal characteristics, which distinguish the verb from the noun, such as personal terminations, distinctions between voices, and forms to denote mood and tense. But, in the first place, these forms have, to a great extent, disappeared in English, with its other inflections; and, in the second place, even in the most highly inflected languages we find verbs defective in some of these characteristics, and thereby approaching in form to nouns: cf. the Italian bisogna andare (= ‘I need to go’) as against Che bisogna andare (‘What need to go?’). While, again in nouns, forms occur defective in case and gender-signs; as, cornu, ‘horn;’ genu, ‘knee;’ etc. Further, in the Slavonic languages, we actually find the verb in the past tense agreeing in gender with its subject; as, Tui jelala, ‘Thou (feminine) didst wish,’ etc. Lastly, the differentiation of the construction of the two parts of speech is anything but sharply marked, as we may see in cases where a substantive actually takes the case which would naturally be taken by the verb with which it is connected: Seeing her is to love her; Hearing him recite that poem is enough to draw tears from the eyes.