Lectures on The Science of Language 29

Lectures on The Science of Language 29

This comparison of ploughing and rowing is of frequent occurrence in

ancient languages. The English word _plough_, the Slavonic _ploug_, has

been identified with the Sanskrit _plava_,(261) a ship, and with the Greek

_ploion_, ship. As the Aryans spoke of a ship ploughing the sea, they also

spoke of a plough sailing across the field; and thus it was that the same

names were applied to both.(262) In English dialects, _plough_ or _plow_

is still used in the general sense of waggon or conveyance.(263)

 

We might follow the offshoots of this root _ar_ still further, but the

number of words which we have examined in various languages will suffice

to show what is meant by a predicative root. In all these words _ar_ is

the radical element, all the rest is merely formative. The root _ar_ is

called a predicative root, because in whatever composition it enters, it

predicates one and the same conception, whether of the plough, or the

rudder, or the ox, or the field. Even in such a word as _artistic_, the

predicative power of the root _ar_ may still be perceived, though, of

course, as it were by means of a powerful telescope only. The Brahmans who

called themselves _ârya_ in India, were no more aware of the real origin

of this name and its connection with agricultural labor, than the artist

who now speaks of _his art_ as a divine inspiration suspects that the word

which he uses was originally applicable only to so primitive an art as

that of ploughing.

 

We shall now examine another family of words, in order to see by what

process the radical elements of words were first discovered.

 

Let us take the word _respectable_. It is a word of Latin not of Saxon,

origin, as we see by the termination _able_. In _respectabilis_ we easily

distinguish the verb _respectare_ and the termination _bilis_. We then

separate the prefix _re_, which leaves _spectare_, and we trace _spectare_

as a participial formation back to the Latin verb _spicere_ or _specere_,

meaning to see, to look. In _specere_, again, we distinguish between the

changeable termination _ere_ and the unchangeable remnant _spec_, which we

call the root. This root we expect to find in Sanskrit and the other Aryan

languages; and so we do. In Sanskrit the more usual form is _paś_, to see,

without the _s_; but _spaś_ also is found in _spaśa_, a spy, in _spashṭa_

(in _vi-spashṭa_), clear, manifest, and in the Vedic _spaś_, a guardian.

In the Teutonic family we find _spëhôn_ in Old High-German meaning to

look, to spy, to contemplate; and _spëha_, the English spy.(264) In Greek,

the root _spek_ has been changed into _skep_, which exists in _skeptomai_,

I look, I examine; from whence _skeptikos_, an examiner or inquirer, in

theological language, a sceptic; and _episkopos_, an overseer, a bishop.

Let us now examine the various ramifications of this root. Beginning with

_respectable_, we found that it originally meant a person who deserves

_respect_, _respect_ meaning _looking back_. We pass by common objects or

persons without noticing them, whereas we turn back to look again at those

which deserve our admiration, our regard, our respect. This was the

original meaning of _respect_ and _respectable_, nor need we be surprised

at this if we consider that _noble_, _nobilis_ in Latin, conveyed

originally no more than the idea of a person that deserves to be known;

for _nobilis_ stands for _gnobilis_, just as _nomen_ stands for _gnomen_,

or _natus_ for _gnatus_.

 

“With respect to” has now become almost a mere preposition. For if we say,

“With respect to this point I have no more to say,” this is the same as “I

have no more to say on this point.”

 

Again, as in looking back we single out a person, the adjective

_respective_, and the adverb _respectively_, are used almost in the same

sense as special, or singly.

 

The English _respite_ is the Norman modification of _respectus_, the

French _répit_. _Répit_ meant originally looking back, reviewing the whole

evidence. A criminal received so many days _ad respectum_, to re-examine

the case. Afterwards it was said that the prisoner had received a respit,

that is to say, had obtained a re-examination; and at last a verb was

formed, and it was said that a person had been respited.

 

As _specere_, to see, with the preposition _re_, came to mean respect, so

with the preposition _de_, down, it forms the Latin _despicere_, meaning

to look down, the English _despise_. The French _dépit_ (Old French

_despit_) means no longer contempt, though it is the Latin _despectus_,

but rather _anger_, _vexation_. _Se dépiter_ is to be vexed, to fret. “_En

dépit de lui_” is originally “angry with him,” then “in spite of him;” and

the English _spite_, _in spite of_, _spiteful_, are mere abbreviations of

_despite_, _in despite of_, _despiteful_, and have nothing whatever to do

with the spitting of cats.

 

As _de_ means down from above, so _sub_ means up from below, and this

added to _specere_, to look, gives us _suspicere_, _suspicari_, to look

up, in the sense of to suspect.(265) From it _suspicion_, _suspicious_;

and likewise the French _soupçon_, even in such phrases as “there is a

soupçon of chicory in this coffee,” meaning just a touch, just the

smallest atom of chicory.

 

As _circum_ means round about, so _circumspect_ means, of course,

cautious, careful.

 

With _in_, meaning into, _specere_ forms _inspicere_, to inspect; hence

_inspector_, _inspection_.

 

With _ad_, towards, _specere_ becomes _adspicere_, to look at a thing.

Hence _adspectus_, the aspect, the look or appearance of things.

 

So with _pro_, forward, _specere_ became _prospicere_; and gave rise to

such words as _prospectus_, as it were a look out, _prospective_, &c. With

_con_, with, _spicere_ forms _conspicere_, to see together, _conspectus_,

_conspicuous_. We saw before in _respectable_, that a new word _spectare_

is formed from the participle of _spicere_. This, with the preposition

_ex_, out, gives us the Latin _expectare_, the English _to expect_, to

look out; with its derivatives.

 

_Auspicious_ is another word which contains our root as the second of its

component elements. The Latin _auspicium_ stands for _avispicium_, and

meant the looking out for certain birds which were considered to be of

good or bad omen to the success of any public or private act. Hence

_auspicious_, in the sense of lucky. _Haru-spex_ was the name given to a

person who foretold the future from the inspection of the entrails of

animals.

 

Again, from _specere_, _speculum_ was formed, in the sense of

looking-glass, or any other means of looking at oneself; and from it

_speculari_, the English _to speculate_, _speculative_, &c.

 

But there are many more offshoots of this one root. Thus, the Latin

_speculum_, looking-glass, became _specchio_ in Italian; and the same

word, though in a roundabout way, came into French as the adjective

_espiègle_, waggish. The origin of this French word is curious. There

exists in German a famous cycle of stories, mostly tricks, played by a

half-historical, half-mythical character of the name of _Eulenspiegel_, or

_Owl-glass_. These stories were translated into French, and the hero was

known at first by the name of _Ulespiègle_, which name, contracted

afterwards into _Espiègle_, became a general name for every wag.

 

As the French borrowed not only from Latin, but likewise from the Teutonic

languages, we meet there side by side with the derivatives of the Latin

_specere_, the old High-German, _spëhôn_, slightly disguised as _épier_,

to spy, the Italian _spiare_. The German word for a spy was _spëha_, and

this appears in old French as _espie_, in modern French as _espion_.

 

One of the most prolific branches of the same root is the Latin _species_.

Whether we take _species_ in the sense of a perennial succession of

similar individuals in continual generations (_Jussieu_), or look upon it

as existing only as a category of thought (_Agassiz_), _species_ was

intended originally as the literal translation of the Greek _eidos_ as

opposed to _genos_, or _genus_. The Greeks classified things originally

according to _kind_ and _form_, and though these terms were afterwards

technically defined by Aristotle, their etymological meaning is in reality

the most appropriate. Things may be classified either because they are of

the same _genus_ or _kind_, that is to say, because they had the same

origin; this gives us a genealogical classification: or they can be

classified because they have the same appearance, _eidos_, or _form_,

without claiming for them a common origin; and this gives us a

morphological classification. It was, however, in the Aristotelian, and

not in its etymological sense, that the Greek _eidos_ was rendered in

Latin by _species_, meaning the subdivision of a genus, the class of a

family. Hence the French _espèce_, a kind; the English _special_, in the

sense of particular as opposed to general. There is little of the root

_spaś_, to see, left in a _special train_, or a _special messenger_; yet

the connection, though not apparent, can be restored with perfect

certainty. We frequently hear the __EXPRESSION__ _to specify_. A man specifies

his grievances. What does it mean? The mediæval Latin _specificus_ is a

literal translation of the Greek _eidopoios_. This means what makes or

constitutes an _eidos_ or species. Now, in classification, what

constitutes a species is that particular quality which, superadded to

other qualities, shared in common by all the members of a genus,

distinguishes one class from all other classes. Thus the specific

character which distinguishes man from all other animals, is reason or

language. Specific, therefore, assumed the sense of _distinguishing_ or

_distinct_, and the verb _to specify_ conveyed the meaning of enumerating

distinctly, or one by one. I finish with the French _épicier_, a

respectable grocer, but originally a man who sold drugs. The different

kinds of drugs which the apothecary had to sell, were spoken of, with a

certain learned air, as _species_, not as drugs in general, but as

peculiar drugs and special medicines. Hence the chymist or apothecary is

still called _Speziale_ in Italian, his shop _spezieria_.(266) In French

_species_, which regularly became _espèce_, assumed a new form to express

drugs, namely _épices_; the English _spices_, the German _spezereien_.

Hence the famous _pain d’épices_, gingerbread nuts, and _épicier_, a

grocer. If you try for a moment to trace _spicy_, or _a well-spiced_

article, back to the simple root _specere_, to look, you will understand

that marvellous power of language which out of a few simple elements has

created a variety of names hardly surpassed by the unbounded variety of

nature herself.(267)

 

I say “out of a few simple elements,” for the number of what we call full

predicative roots, such as _ar_, to plough, or _spaś_, to look, is indeed

small.

 

A root is necessarily monosyllabic. Roots consisting of more than one

syllable can always be proved to be derivative roots, and even among

monosyllabic roots it is necessary to distinguish between primitive,

secondary, and tertiary roots.

 

A. Primitive roots are those which consist—