Part 7 (1/2)

he would answer _Yea_ He observes the sa used after negative, the latter after all other questions This distinction became obsolete soon after Sir Thomas More,(209) and it must have become obsolete before phrases such as _Yes Sir_ and _Yes Madam_ could have assumed their stereotyped character

But there is still ained frolo-Saxon, the same as the German _Ja_, and it therefore reveals the fact that the white masters of the American slaves who crossed the Atlantic after the time of Chaucer, had crossed the Channel at an earlier period after leaving the continental fatherland of the Angles and Saxons The words _Sir_ and _Madam_ tell us still more

They are Norlo-Saxons of Britain by Norman conquerors They tell us inally a Teutonic dialect, closely allied to Anglo-Saxon, and in that dialect words such as _Sir_ and _Mada up We may conclude therefore that, previous to the Norman conquest, the Teutonic North stay in one of the Roe of the Roman Provincials

We may now trace back the Nornize in this a corruption of the Latin _Mea doed into _domna_, _donna_, and _dame_, and the same word _Dame_ was also used as a masculine in the sense of lord, as a corruption of _Do as ecclesiastical seigneur under the bishop, was called a _vidame_, as the Vidame of Chartres, &c The French interjection _Dalish, but it simply means Lord!

_Dame-Dieu_ in old French is Lord God A derivative of _Domina_, mistress, was _dominicella_, which became _Demoiselle_ and _Damsel_ The masculine _Dame_ for _Domino_, Lord, was afterwards replaced by the Latin _Senior_, a translation of the German _elder_ This word _elder_ was a title of honor, and we have it still both in _alderlish _Earl_, the Norse _Jarl_, a corruption of the A-S

_ealdor_ This title _Senior_, inally _older_, was but rarely(210) applied to ladies as a title of honor _Senior_ was changed into _Seigneur_, _Seigneur_ into _Sieur_, and _Sieur_ soon dwindled down to _Sir_

Thus we see how in two short phrases, such as _Yesr_ and _Yeseneral destruction of books, such as took place in China under the E-ti (213 B C), should sweep away all historical docue, even in its most depraved state, would preserve the secrets of the past, and would tell future generations of the horations of their ancestors fro at first to find the same name, _the East Indies_ and _the West Indies_, at the two extrerations; but these very na They tell us how the Teutonic race, theof all the ave the name of _West Indies_ to the country which in their world-coined to be India itself; how they discovered their uished between the East Indies and West Indies; how they planted new states in the west, and regenerated the effete kingdoms in the east; how they preached Christianity, and at last practised it by abolishi+ng slavery of body andthe slaves of West-Indian landholders, and the slaves of Brahreeted at last the very ho out on their discovery of the world All this, and even e The very name of India has a story to tell, for India is not a native name We have it from the Romans, the Romans from the Greeks, the Greeks from the Persians And why from the Persians? Because it is only in Persian that an initial s is changed into _h_, which initial _h_ was as usual dropped in Greek It is only in Persian that the country of the _Sindhu_ (_sindhu_ is the Sanskrit name for _river_), or of the _seven sindhus_, could have been called _Hindia_ or _India_ instead of _Sindia_

Unless the followers of Zoroaster had pronounced every _s_ like _h_, we should never have heard of the West Indies!

We have thus seen by an irowth of language, and we shall now better understand why it must be laid down as a funda in language as merely formal, till every attee back to their original and substantial prototypes We are accusto theof words But words can be h in the present state of our science it would be too rainal independent words, so le letter was left, that we may well lay it down as a rule that all forinally substantial Suppose English had never been written down before the tihman What should we make of such a form as _nadistou_,(211) instead of _ne hadst thou_? _Ne rechi_ instead of _I reck not_? _Al o'm_ in Dorsetshi+re is _all of them_ _I midden_ is _I es which Sanskrit had undergone before it was reduced to writing, must have been more considerable by far than e see in these dialects

Let us now look to es such as French and Italian

Most of the graed by phonetic corruption Thus _j'aio amo_, _tu aiinally a final _t_ in French _il aiain in such phrases as _aime-t-il?_ Thus the French imperfect corresponds to the Latin imperfect, the Parfait defini to the Latin perfect But what about the French future? There is no similarity between _ara up, as it were, within the recollection of ht of history Now, did the ter? or did soether to invent this new tere themselves to use it instead of the old termination _bo_? Certainly not We see first of all that in all the Roes the terminations of the future are identical with the auxiliary verb _to have_(212) In French you find-

j'ai and je chanter-ai nous avons and nous chanterons

tu as and tu chanter-as vous avez and vous chanterez

il a and il chanter-a ils ont and ils chanteront

But besides this, we actually find in Spanish and Provencal the apparent termination of the future used as an independent word and not yet joined to the infinitive We find in Spanish, instead of ”_lo hare_,” I shall do it, the more primitive form _hacer lo he_; _ie_, _facere id habeo_ We find in Provencal, _dir vos ai_ instead of _je vous dirai_; _dir vos em_ instead of _nous vous dirons_ There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Roinally a compound of the auxiliary verb _to have_ with an infinitive; and _I have to say_, easily took theof _I shall say_

Here, then, we see clearly how grammatical forrammatical forms He has no idea, unless he is a scholar, that the terminations of his futures are identical with the auxiliary verb _avoir_ The Roman had no suspicion that _amabo_ was a compound; but it can be proved to contain an auxiliary verb as clearly as the French future The Latin future was destroyed by means of phonetic corruption When the final letters lost their distinct pronunciation it became impossible to keep the imperfect _amabam_ separate from the future _aeneration, for the use of _habeo_ with an infinitive is found in Latin, in such expressions as _habeo dicere_, I have to say, which would ilide into I shall say(213) In fact, wherever we look we see that, the future is expressed by lish _I shall_ and _thou wilt_, which inally _I am bound_ and _thou intendest_ In Gerinally to go, to turn towards In ive In Rou the future _veng a vegnir_, I shall co, is equivalent to ”I have just said” The French _je vais dire_ is alo to say The Dorsetshi+re, ”I be gwain to goo a-picken stuones,” is another case in point Nor is there any doubt that in the Latin _bo_ of _amabo_ we have the old auxiliary _bhu_, to be, and in the Greek future in s?, the old auxiliary _as_, to be(214)

We now go back another step, and ask the question which we asked many tie as that from _I love_ to _I loved_? As we have learnt in the lo-Saxon, and is closely related to continental Saxon and Gothic, we look at once to the Gothic imperfect in order to see whether it has preserved any traces of the original compound; for, after e have seen in the previous cases, we are no doubt prepared to find here, too, grammatical terminations mere remnants of independent words

In Gothic there is a verb _nasjan_, to nourish Its preterite is as follows:-

Singular Dual Plural

nas-i-da nas-i-dedu nas-i-dedum

nas-i-des nas-i-detuts nas-i-dedu

nas-i-da -- nas-i-dedun

The subjunctive of the preterite:

Singular Dual Plural

nas-i-dedjau nas-i-dedeiva nas-i-dedeima

nas-i-dedeis nas-i-dedeits nas-i-dedei

nas-i-dedi -- nas-i-dedeina

This is reduced in Anglo-Saxon to:

Singular Plural