Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

ack, Ihre himself has said : Quod ad orthographiam hujus particule attinet retinetur in ea Germanicum ch, quod alias, si unicum conjunctivum och exceperis ab universa lingua SuioGothica, exula e jussimus. What would Ihre have said to the claim of peculiar affiliation between his own Swedish, which has expelled the guttural ch, and a language in which one of its most eminent poets is said to be the author of a string of gutturals put together in the following shape, as if for the purpose of caricaturing its notorious propensities, and showing its utter repugnance to Scandinavian euphony. It is from Dunbar's Ballat of Our Lady.

Haile, bricht, be sicht, in hevyn on hicht!

Haile, day sterne orientale!

Our licht most richt, in clud of nycht,
Our darkness for to scale :

Haile, wicht, in sicht, puttar to flicht

Of fendis in battale!

have, from the earliest period, been distinguished for the want of certain words or particles used in the other Teutonic languages. The preposition or prefix bi, or be, is one of these. No trace of it, we believe, is to be found in any genuine Scandinavian words, though it has been partially introduced from Germany into the modern Danish and Swedish. But and ben, which, it is thought, have a tolerable claim to authenticity as Scotch words, could have no existence in any Scandinavian tongue. They correspond to the Saxon butan and binnan, and are compounds of the prefix be or bi with the words for out and in; in the same way as is done in below, before, behind, &c. Through, which appears so often in Scotch as thurch, its genuine Anglo-Saxon form, is also unknown to Scandinavian. The prefix ga, ge, is in like manner Germanic merely, and the particle a prefixed to verbs is

Haile, plicht, but sicht! Haile mekle of mycht! pure Anglo-Saxon, and unknown in

Haile, glorious Virgine, haile!

Ave maria, gratia plena !

Haile gentill nychtingale,
Way stricht, cler dicht, to wilsome wicht,
That irke bene in travale.

In fact, it is plain that the modern English has here adopted the Scandinavian character, and that the Scottish is distinguished from its sister dialect by having closely adhered to the original Saxon.

2. The Scandinavian languages have always possessed a passive or rather a middle voice, formed not by the use of auxiliaries, but by the incorporation apparently of the reflective pronoun with the terminations of the verb. This peculiarity, which is a source of great neatness of expression, is wholly unknown to any of the other Teutonic tongues, and no trace of it is to be found in the Scottish dialect.

3. The Scandinavian languages have always been distinguished from others of the Teutonic family, by their mode of dealing with the definite article, which is not prefixed, but postfixed to their nouns, and amalgamated with the termination. Thus in Danish, en mand, a man, mand-en, the man; et barn, a child, barn-et, the child. This singular contrivance, which is a disguised use of the demonstrative pronoun, is wholly unknown with us.

4. The Scandinavian languages

Icelandic. These have both been much obliterated in Scotch as well as in English; but they are to be found in enough of Scotch words to show their original existence. The conjunction when is also unknown to the Scandinavian languages-so that the first word we meet with in the oldest reputed specimen of Scotch, "Quhen Alysander, our king, was dede," gives its testimony in favour of the Saxon as opposed to the Scandinavian character of our language. The verb to make, the substantive verb to be, the adjective great, the adjective auld, and many others, all constantly found in pure Scotch, are in like manner unknown in a pure Scandinavian form, but are universal in the Germanic languages. The copulative conjunctions, the negatives and the relative pronouns, which are generally so important, as indicating the original character of a language, are all widely different in the Scandinavian languages from what they are in the Scotch, which in these respects is identical with English.

5. In Scotch, as in a dialect that contains an admixture of heterogeneous elements, we sometimes find both the Saxon and the Scandinavian form of a word, where they are mutually dis. tinct. For example, the Gothic combination of consonants zd, becomes in Saxon rd, and in Norse dd; thus, bruzds, spica, punctum, becomes in A.

Saxon brord, and in Icelandic broddr. Both of these forms are found in Scotch: braird is the point or summit of the young grain; brodd means a pointed instrument or wound. In general, however, the Scotch follows exclusively the Saxon form in such words. The Gothic huzds, thesaurus, is in Icelandic hodd, but in Scotch hurd, like the English hoard. The old Scotch reird, a voice, or sound, from the Gothic razda, assumes the Saxon form, and is thus opposed to the Icelandic rodd. The Scotch airt, meaning a point or quarter of the heavens, though with symptoms of a Celtic origin, is most probably the Saxon or Germanic form of the Icelandic oddr, cuspis, punctum, and thus corresponds to the German ort, in the phrase die vier örter des himmels. The word odd, however, as opposed to even, is a Scandinavian form of the same root, but it is as much English as Scotch. It involves the idea of a pointed surface as opposed to a plain one. oder eben spilen is given in Schmeller's excellent Bavarian dictionary as an expression now going into disuse, and ortig, as a thing that is odd or has no fellow, such as in Scotland is called orra. Horne Tooke's etymology of odd made it the past participle of the

verb to owe!

Ort

5. In another remarkable instance the Scotch has almost exclusively followed the Anglo-Saxon form. The Gothic combination nth, is dealt with differently in the Saxon and Scandinavian languages. In the Saxon the n is elided, in the Scandinavian almost

always the th. Thus anthar, Goth., alter, becomes in Saxon other, in Icelandic annar. Tunthus, Goth., dens, apparently for tanthus, becomes in Saxon toth, tooth, in Icelandic tönn. Sinths, Goth., via, vicis, is in Saxon sìth, in Icelandic sinn. Swinths is swith and swinnr. Munths is múth

and munnr. Kuntha, novi, potui, is in A.-S. cùthe, could, E., in Icelandic kunna. Kunths, notus, becomes cúth, A.-S., kunnr Icel. Kunthian, notum facere, is cýthan A.-S., kynna Icel. All of these words are found in Scottish compositions, as well as in common speech, exclusively in an AngloSaxon shape, with the elision of the n: ither, tooth, sithe, swyth, mouth, couth, kythe. Begouth, which is sufficently Scotch, is an example of th same Saxon tendency. It must have

been formed from an anomalous preterite biguntha, like kuntha, which in lower German is found in the form begonde. We may infer, however, that the Scotch derived from the Continent the term teind, which they use for the English tithe, and which forms the only deviation we at present remember from the rule we have stated.

In general, we think it may be safely asserted, that the consonantal structure of the Scottish is substantially that of the Saxon. There are some exceptions, such as starn, stella, which is nearer the Gothic stairno than the A.-S. steorra, in which the n has been assimilated to the r. But such differences are not sufficient to disturb the general rule, or to lead to any inference at variance with what we have above said.

The vowelism of the Scotch is not

altogether pure. In some instances it differs, alike from the classic A.Saxon and from the Icelandic. Thus, the diphthong, which in Icelandic is an ei, and in A.-Saxon a broad á, is uniformly in Scotch an ai or ae. Thus hám A.-S., home E., heimr Icel., is in Scotch hame; hál A.-S., whole E., heill Icel., is in Scotch hail; bán A.S., bone E., bein Icel., is in Scotch bane; and so of stone, stane; moan, mane; oak, aik; &c. In this respect the Scotch agrees with the northern dialect of England, as held up to ridicule in the Reeve's Tale in Chaucer. The same peculiarity is to be found in the old Saxon, and it is common to the modern Scandinavian dialects, and to those of Lower Germany.

In dealing with the Gothic diphthong au, the Scotch is irregular, following sometimes the original sound, as inloup, stoup, nout, in which it agrees with the Icelandic and partially with the German, but for the most part adopting the deviation into which the A.-Saxon has fallen, by converting the sound into

ea.

This is a very important point of resemblance, because fortunately it can be traced very far back. The lines on the death of Alexander enable us to say, from the rhymes which they present, that the Scotch at that early time followed the vowelism of the A.-Saxon, and not of the Icelandic. The structure of the verse shows that dead, bread, lead, by rhyming with remede must have been pronounced nearly as at present, that is, al

most as deed, breed, leed. This was, as far as we can learn, the A.-Saxon pronunciation of these words, but widely different from the Icelandic. Thus dead was in A.-S. dead, in Icelandic daudr; bread in A.-S. breád, in Icelandic braud; lead in A.-S. lead, in Icelandic laud, if such a word at all existed. In the very earliest state of our language, then, its pronunciation strikingly assimilates it to the A.Saxon, and distinguishes it both from the Gothic and from the ancient Norse.

In some of its most characteristic features of a vocalic sort, the Scotch is faithful to the Anglo-Saxon, where the English has deviated from its original. Thus the A.-Saxon mús, hús, tún, fúl, are correctly preserved in Scotch; while the English mouse, house, town, foul, have been changed by what in Sanscrit grammar is called the guna, of which the introduction and influence in the Teutonic dialects has as yet been imperfectly traced.

The preceding observations, extending probably to a tedious length of detail, have, we trust, demonstrated the difficult, and we think the desperate, nature of any attempt to separate our Scotch dialect from its neighbour across the border, and to refer it in preference to a Scandinavian origin. The more the subject is studied, we think the more completely the delusion of Dr Jamieson's views will appear. His own book, by its very plan and title, has innocently tended to create an erroneous impression on this subject. He calls it a Dictionary of the Scottish Language. But it is in truth not a dictionary of any language. It is a dictionary only of the peculiarities of the Scottish language. It is a mere idioticon, in which half the Scottish language is entirely omitted, that half, namely, which is literally identical with English. It is further, a collection not of classical words, or of the dialect of any limited period, but of all the archaisms, provincialisms, and vulgarisms of Scottish literature or speech, for 400 years. Such a work is apt to exaggerate, in our estimation, the differences between the two languages, and undoubtedly to withdraw attention from their resemblances. But where is the evidence or ground for surmising, that at any period an Anglian translation of the Scriptures would not have been as intelligible in

Scotland, as it must all along have been since the date of authentic history; and of what countries can that be said except where the languages are identical?

With regard to the Norman Scotch, of which alone indeed we have any direct knowledge, we hold it to be utterly absurd to suppose, as Mr Ellis was led to do, that it could be framed in Scotland by influences separate and distinct from those which produced English. Nothing but a miracle could have produced, on such a hypothesis, two languages so nearly alike. The same obliteration of inflections and of genders is found in both, with just those differences which we expect to prevail in a country divided into provinces and districts. Take one common feature merely as a sample. Contrary to the analogy of all the ancient Teutonic languages, and of other modern ones, the masculine termination of the plural in s, has been adopted, both in English and in Scotch, as the sign of the plural in all genders, and in all words, with only a few exceptions, to be found alike in each of the two countries. Such a correspondence produced by accident, would be truly marvellous. When we further remember that the corresponding sign of the Scandinavian plural is not s but r, we have an additional argument against the theory we have been combating.

The Norman Scotch undoubtedly possesses some peculiarities distinguishing it from old English. But the germs of these are to be found in provincial differences of the AngloSaxon itself, of which numerous examples are collected in Hickes's chapter on what he rashly calls the Dano-Saxon dialect. These differences may partially be traceable to Scandinavian influences, but it is difficult to say to what extent; and the important observations of Raske on the subject, will guard us against too implicit an adoption of that theory. "Some of these peculiarities," he says, "being common to the Frisic and old Saxon, may safely be ascribed to that tribe of Angles which seated itself in Northumberland, and not to the Scandinavians, in whose language they are not to be found, and thus contribute to prove that the Angles were of genuine Teutonic, (Germanic,) and not of Scandinavian origin."

It is possible that in here trying to

make the rule straight, we may have bent it a little too much in the opposite direction, and may seem to have allowed the Scandinavian language and customs too little influence in Scotland. If so, let the error be cor rected, and the truth placed on a fair and stable position, by means, not of conjecture and assertion, but of tangible proof or scientific analysis. Let the words or forms that are Scandinavian be pointed out; let it be shown when they are first found in our records; and let it be proved that they are peculiar to Scandinavia, and unknown to other countries. Nothing would be more useful or interesting, and nothing is more wanted, than a historical deduction both of the Scotch and English languages; such as would show, on sound data, the various sources from which they have at different times derived the treasures of beauty and strength which they pos

sess. The task would be difficult, and is not likely to be soon undertaken; while, without its aid, there is always the risk of hasty inferences and vague impressions.

The erroneous system on which Dr Jamieson's book to a great extent proceeds, is certainly adverse to any claims which may be advanced for its high authority as a work of scientific philology. But this deduction from its merits leaves it still what we wished at first to represent it, and what it will always be considered—a faithful reflection of national manners and customs, and a vast and valuable storehouse of information, for illustrating an important subdivision of that common language of our countrymen, which may justly be called, in reference to its structure and its produc. tions, the richest and the noblest form of speech that the world has yet witnessed.

LINES UPON LETTERS.

BY B. SIMMONS.

"In his last hours, as he opened a note which his servant brought to him, he said, 'An odd thougsht trikes me; we shall receive no letters in the grave.'"-BOSWELL's Life of Johnson.

YES-'mid the unutterable dread

With which both Flesh and Spirit shrink,
When the stern Angel of the Dead
Impels us to the Future's brink—
While all is hurry, doubt, dismay,
Life's footing crumbling fast away,
And sins, long silent, dark and fell,
Across the memory flitting yell,
Even then that Sage's transient thought
Some pangs at least the soul can save,
For be what may our awful lot,

No letters reach us in the grave.

Letters from Home-we're spared at last
A longing, lingering watch to keep,
And when th' expected post is past

And brings them not, to shrink and weep,
And count how many hours remain
Before that post comes round again :
Or bitterer still to break the seals,
Sick for the love no line reveals,
Striving to wrest cold Duty's words
To heart-born tenderness and truth,
As if existence' shatter'd chords

Could yield the music of our youth!
A Patron's letters ;-never more

To feel them mock our honest pride,
With all the bard denounced of yore-
The curse" in suing long to bide.”*

"Full little knowest thou that hast not tryed

What hell it is in sueing long to byde," &c.-SPENCER.

Never again to know th' intense
And feverish anguish of suspense,
When the cool, final, brief reply,
As yet unopen'd, meets the eye-
One moment more-and all we dread
May whelm us like a drowning wave;
Our doom-hope, health, and fortune fled-
To drift in darkness to the grave.

No letters there!-not even the small
Rose-scented one that dared not come
By day, but stole at evening's fall,

When every tell-tale breeze was dumb,
Asking the soul's dark gates of sin
To let the Writer's image in.

How, when that tiny billet came,

Our breath heaved thick, our blood grew flame,
As swift we started to assume

The muffling cloak and secret knife,
And glided down the glen's long gloom,
Though Danger dogg'd our life!

No letters in the grave.

We're free

From Friendship's smooth effusions there,
From Him in whose fidelity

As in a jewel-casket rare,

The heart was wont in every shock

Its secret thoughts, like gems, to lock-
The supple knave, who, when dismay
And outcry howl'd around our way,
And most our errors ask'd a guide
Was then himself the first to fly,
And leave us, plunder'd, to the wide
Remorseless tempest thund'ring by.
The grave!-when once that goal is won,
Ye lesser agonies adieu !

The daily letter from the dun

The monthly admonition too,

From Hood or North, regretting much
Our pen grows palsied in its touch,
Or begging henceforth to decline
Our famous things in Dickens' line:
Their reign is o'er, those Kings of men,

True sons of Tonson and of Cave

No brief epistles need we pen,

Subscribed" Impransus" *—in the grave.

And Thou-immortal Moralist!

To whom my idlesse owes this rhyme

Though unto thee no more exist

The clouds, tear-fraught, of earthly time,

Oh, 'midst the prate of modern fools,

Whose envious spite, by pigmy rules,

Would dare thy mighty miud to span,

And underrate its giant plan,

Could'st thou but mark what strength to bear,
What tameless power, what purpose brave,
Some Few still learn from thy career,

'Twould soothe thee, even beyond the grave.

"I am, Sir, yours, Impransus, SAML. JOHNSON," the expressive signature to one of Johnson's letters (during his early struggles) to Cave.-See Boswell's Life, edited by the Right Hon. JOHN WILSON CROKER, vol. i. p. 107.

« ZurückWeiter »