toks, such; tokelys, so great; taip, so.-Slavonic, t, or ta, he; taku, such; tako, so.-Tot, talis, tantum, Latin.-Tooos, rotos, TÓTE, Greek; this, that, thus, English, &c.

The two sounds in the Danish words hvi, hvad, &c., and the two sounds in the English, what, when (Anglo-Saxon, hwat, hwane), account for the forms why and how. In the first the w alone, in the second the h alone, is sounded. The Danish for why is hvi, pronounced vi; in Swedish the word is hu

The following remarks (some of them not strictly etymological) apply to a few of the remaining pronouns. For further details, see GRIMM, D. G. iii. 4.

Same. Wanting in Anglo-Saxon, where it was replaced by the word ylca, ylce. Probably derived from the Norse.

Self-In myself, thyself, herself, ourselves, yourselves, a substantive (or with a substantival power), and preceded by a genitive case. In himself and themselves an adjective (or with an adjectival power), and preceded by an accusative case. Itself is equivocal, since we cannot say whether its elements are it and self, or its and self; the s having been dropped in utterance. It is very evident that either the form like himself, or the form like thyself, is exceptionable; in other words, that the use of the word is inconsistent. As this inconsistency is as old as the Anglo-Saxons, the history of the word gives us no elucidation. In favour of the forms like myself (self being a substantive), are the following facts :—

1. The plural word selves, a substantival, and not an adjectival form.

2. The Middle High-German phrases, min lip, dîn lip, my body, thy body, equivalent in sense to myself, thyself.

3. The circumstance that if self be dealt with as a substantive, such phrases as my own self, his own great self, &c. can be used; whereby the language is a gainer.

"Vox self, pluraliter selves, quamvis etiam pronomen a quibusdam censeatur (quoniam ut plurimum per Latinum ipse redditur), est tamen plane nomen substantivum, cui quidem vix aliquod apud Latinos substantivum respondet; proxime tamen accedet vox persona vel propria persona, ut my self, thy self, our selves, your selves, &c. (ego ipse, tu ipse, nos ipsi, vos

ipsi, &c.), ad verbum mea persona, tua persona, &c. Fateor tamen himself, itself, themselves, vulgo dici pro his-self, its-self, theirselves; at (interposito own) his own self, &c., ipsius propria persona," &c.-WALLIS, C. vii.

4. The fact that many persons actually say hisself and theirselves.

Whit.-As in the phrase not a whit. This enters in the compound pronouns aught and naught.

One. As in the phrase one does so and so. From the French on. Observe that this is from the Latin homo, in Old French hom, om. In the Germanic tongues man is used in the same sense: man sagt=one says on dit. One, like self and other, is so far a substantive, that it is inflected. Gen. sing. one's own self: plural, my wife and little ones are well.

In

Derived pronouns.-Any, in Anglo-Saxon, anig. In Old High-German we have einîcany, and einac = single. Anglo-Saxon anega means single. In Middle High-German einec is always single. In New High-German einig means, 1. a certain person (quidam), 2. agreeing; einzig meaning single. In Dutch énech has both meanings. This indicates the word án, one, as the root of the word in question.—GRIMM, D. G. iii. 9.

Compound pronouns.—Which, as has been already stated more than once, is most incorrectly called the neuter of who. Instead of being a neuter, it is a compound word. The adjective leiks, like, is preserved in the Moso-Gothic words galeiks, and missaleiks. In Old High-German the form is lih, in Anglo-Saxon lic. Hence we have Moso-Gothic, hvéleiks; Old High-German, huëlih; Anglo-Saxon, huilic and hvile; Old Frisian, hwelik; Danish, hvilk-en; German, welch; Scotch, whilk; English, which. (GRIMM, D. G. iii. 47.) The same is the case with

1. Such.-Moso-Gothic, svaleiks; Old High-German, sólíh; Old Saxon, sulic; Anglo-Saxon, svilc; German, solch; English, such. (GRIMM, D. G. iii. 48.) Rask's derivation of the Anglo-Saxon swilc from swa-ylc, is exceptionable.

2. Thilk. An old English word, found in the provincial dialects, as thick, thuck, theck, and hastily derived by Tyrwhitt, Ritson, and Weber, from së ylca, is found in the following

forms: Moso-Gothic, péleiks; Norse, þvilikr. (GRIMM, iii. 49.)

3. Ilk.-Found in the Scotch, and always preceded by the article; the ilk, or that ilk, meaning the same. In AngloSaxon this word is ylca, preceded also by the article se ylca, seó ylce, pat ylce. In English, as seen above, the word is replaced by same. In no other Gothic dialect does it occur. According to Grimm, this is no simple word, but a compound one, of which some such word as ei is the first, and lic the second element. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 50.)

Aught.-In Moso-Gothic is found the particle aiv, ever, but only in negative propositions; ni (not) preceding it. Its Old High-German form is éo, io; in Middle High-German, ie; in New High-German, je; in Old Saxon, io; in Anglo-Saxon, á; in Norse, aæ. Combined with this particle the word whit (thing) gives the following forms: Old High-German, éowiht ; Anglo-Saxon, áviht; Old Frisian, dwet; English, aught. The word naught is aught preceded by the negative particle. (Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 52.)

Each. The particle gi enters, like the particle, in the composition of pronouns. Old High-German, éogalther, every one; éocalih, all; Middle High-German, iegelich; New HighGerman, jeglich; Anglo-Saxon, alc; English, each; the l being dropped, as in which and such. Elc, as the original of the English each and the Scotch ilka,* must by no means be confounded with the word ylce, the same. (GRIMM, D. G. iii. 54.)

Every, in Old English, everich, everech, everilk one, is ælc, preceded by the particle ever. (GRIMM, D. G. iii. 54.)

Either. Old High-German, éogahuëdar; Middle HighGerman, iegewëder; Anglo-Saxon, æghväðer, æyðer; Old Frisian, eider.

Neither. The same, with the negative article prefixed. Neither either naught: aught.

* Different from ilk.

CHAPTER XVII.

THE ARTICLES.

§ 368. In the generality of grammars the definite article the, and the indefinite article an, are the very first parts of speech that are considered. This is exceptionable. So far are they from being essential to language, that, in many dialects, they are wholly wanting. In Greek there is no indefinite, in Latin there is neither an indefinite nor a definite article. In the former language they say ȧvýp Tis=a certain man: in the Latin the words filius patris mean equally the son of the father, a son of a father, a son of the father, or the son of a father. In Moso-Gothic and in Old Norse, there is an equal absence of the indefinite article; or, at any rate, if there be one at all, it is a different word from what occurs in English. In these the Greek Tiç is expressed by the Gothic root sum.

Now, as it is very evident that, as far as the sense is concerned, the words some man, a certain man, and a man, are, there or thereabouts, the same, an exception may be taken to the statement that in Greek and Moso-Gothic there is no indefinite article. It may, in the present state of the argument, be fairly said that the words sum and is are pronouns with a certain sense, and that a and an are no more; consequently, that in Greek the indefinite atticle is in Moso-Gothic sum, and in English a or an.

τις,

A distinction, however, may be made. In the expression ȧvýρ Tɩs (anær tis) =a certain man, or a man, and in the expression sum mann, the words sum and riç preserve their natural and original meaning: whilst in a man and an ox the words a and an are used in a secondary sense. These words, as is currently known, are one and the same, the n, in the form a, being ejected through a euphonic process.

They are, moreover, the same words with the numeral one; Anglo-Saxon, a'n; Scotch, ane. Now, between the words a man and one man, there is a difference in meaning; the first expression being the most indefinite. Hence comes the difference between the English and the Moso-Gothic expressions. In the one word sum has a natural, in the other the word an has a secondary power.

The same reasoning applies to the word the. Compared with a man, the words the man are very definite. Compared, however, with the words that man, they are the contrary. Now, just as an and a have arisen out of the numeral one, so has the arisen out of the demonstrative pronoun þæt, or at least from some common root. It will be remembered that in Anglo-Saxon there was a form þe, undeclined, and common to all the cases of all the numbers.

In no language in its oldest stage is there ever a word giving, in its primary sense, the ideas of a and the. As tongues become modern, some noun with a similar sense is used to express them. In the course of time a change of form takes place, corresponding to the change of meaning; e. g. one becomes an, and afterwards a. Then it is that articles become looked upon as separate parts of speech, and are dealt with accordingly. No invalidation of this statement is drawn from the Greek language. Although the first page of the etymology gives us ó, ǹ, rò (ho, hæ, to), as the definite articles, the corresponding page in the syntax informs us, that in the oldest stage of the language, & (ho) the, had the power of ouros (howtos) =this.

The origin of the articles seems uniform. In German ein, in Danish en, stand to one in the same relation that an does. The French un, Italian and Spanish uno, are similarly related

to unus one.

And as, in English the, in German der, in Danish den, come from the demonstrative pronouns, so in the classical languages are the French le, the Italian il and lo, and the Spanish el, derived from the Latin demonstrative, ille.

In his Outlines of Logic, the present writer has given reasons for considering the word no (as in no man) an article.