If, after dinner, I say to a servant, "Wine," he infers, that I wish him to bring me wine; but all this is not said. If I say, Bring some wine, he, in like manner, understands, that I wish him to bring me wine; but all that is expressed, is the name of the action, and of the object of the action. In fact, as much is done by inference, as by actual expression, in every branch of language, for thought is too quick to be wholly transmitted by words.
It is generally conceded, that the termination of our verbs, est, eth, s, ed, and, also, of the other parts of speech, were originally separate words of distinct meaning; and that, although they have been contracted, and, by the refinement of language, have been made to coalesce with the words in connexion with which they are employed, yet, in their present character of terminations, they retain their primitive meaning and force. To denote that a verbal name was employed as a verb, the Saxons affixed to it a verbalizing adjunct; thus, the (to take, hold) was the noun-state of the verb; and when they used it as a verb, they added the termination an; thus, thean. The termination added, was a sign that affirmation was intended. The same procedure has been adopted, and, in many instances, is still practised, in our language. An, originally affixed to our verbs, in the progress of refinement, was changed to en, and finally dropped. A few centuries ago, the plural number of our verbs was denoted by the termination, en; thus, they weren, they loven; but, as these terminations do not supersede the necessity of expressing the subject of affirmation, as is the case in the Latin and Greek verbs, they have been laid aside, as unnecessary excrescences. For the same reason, we might, without any disparagement to the language, dispense with the terminations of our verbs in the singular.
In support of the position, that these terminations were once separate words, we can trace many of them to their origin. To denote the feminine gender of some nouns, we affix ess; as, heiress, instructress. Ess is a contraction of the Hebrew noun essa, a female. Of our verbs, the termination est is a contraction of doest, eth, of doeth, s of does. We say, thou dost or doest love; or thou lovest; i.e. love-dost, or love-doest. Some believe these terminations to be contractions of havest, haveth, has. We affix ed, a contraction of dede, to the present tense of verbs to denote that the action named is dede, did, doed, or done.
To and do from the Gothic noun taui, signifying act or effect, are, according to Horne Tooke, nearly alike in meaning and force; and when the custom of affixing some more ancient verbalizing adjunct, began to be dropped, its place and meaning were generally supplied by prefixing one of these. When I say, "I am going to walk," the verbal or affirmative force is conveyed by the use of to, meaning the same as do; and walk is employed merely as a verbal name; that is, I assert that I shall do the act which I name by the word walk, or the act of walking.
Perhaps such speculations as these will prove to be more curious than profitable. If it be made clearly to appear, that, on scientific principles, whenever the verbal name is unaccompanied by a verbalizing adjunct, it is in the noun-state, and does not express affirmation, still this theory would be very inconvenient in practice.
I shall resume this subject in Lecture XI.
QUESTIONS ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.
What has usually been the object of philosophical investigations of language? (page 32.)—Do the syntactical dependances and connexions of words depend on their original import?—Is the power of association and custom efficient in changing the radical meaning of some words?—Have words intrinsically a signification of their own; or is their meaning inferential; i.e. such as custom has assigned to them? (page 38.)—On what fact is based the true, philosophical principle of classification?—Define philosophical grammar.—Which is supposed to be the original part of speech?—How were the others formed from that?—How many parts of speech may be recognised in a scientific development and arrangement of the principles of our language?—Name them.—What testimony have we that many things do not act? (page 43.)—Repeat some of the arguments in favor of, and against, the principle which regards all verbs as active.—In what moods are verbs used in their noun-state? (page 48.)—Give examples.—What is said of the terminations est, eth, s, and en, and of the words to and do?