We have an example of a similar process of formation in the word happy. This is from the Welsh hapiaw, to come, to fall out, as an event; whence hap and happen. The Latin tempus, time, furnishes other senses derived from a similar radical sense. The plural tempora signifies times, and the temples, the falls of the head. That the radical sense is to come, or rush forward, is certain, from the fact that tempestas, tempest, is from this word, tempus, or its root. In all these examples, we observe nearly the same process of forming derivatives, of similar signification. The word thank in English, and the corresponding word in Dutch and German, express gratitude, a sense of favor and obligation. What is the primary signification? We should have no direct means of determining this question, were it not for the compounds of the word in the Dutch and German. In these languages, the German abdanken, Dutch bedanken, signify to dismiss, send away, or reject. The primary sense of thank, then, is simply to send back, or return; and its moral signification, in which only it is now used, is the result of the continued appropriation of the word to that use the return of kind feelings or of expressions for favors received. a The radical sense of justice and equity, is straight as a line, or smooth and even as a surface. The opposite qualities, wrong and injustice, are expressed by words which signify a deviation from a straight line or an even surface. The printer uses the word justify in its original sense. Types justify when they are exactly of a length, and form an even surface. The word wrong, from wring, to twist, like the word perverse, from the Latin perverto, gives the true primary sense of moral evil deviation from the straight line of duty, rectitude, or divine commands. The word right in English signifies primarily straight, as a right line in mathematics. This is the Latin rectus, a participle of rego, to rule, guide, or manage. But these explanatory words do not express the radical signification, which is, to strain, to stretch; for government is restraint. Now straining, stretching, gives the sense of straight, or right. The consideration of this word right suggests the question whether the right arm of the human species is generally made stronger than the left, or whether the greater strength of the right arm, which occurs in most men, is the effect of habitual use. I am inclined to believe that generally the superior strength of the right arm proceeds from nature, rather than from use; though the dexterity of that arm may be from habitual use. Certain it is that, in some cases, the right limb is the largest; and it may be the intention of the Creator to give that arm the superiority, to enable men to apply it in sudden emergencies, when an equal strength and facility of use in both arms might delay action, by causing suspense for a moment in deliberating which hand to employ. Of the antiquity of this estimated superiority of the right arm, we have abundant evidence. It was this opinion that rendered omens on the right hand auspicious among the Romans, and inauspicious on the left hand the light or weak hand.* So in Scripture, the exertion of great power by the Almighty is expressed by the use of his right hand. * Gr. Men, to be deficient: not the hand which remains, or is left, as Tooke supposes. This preference or superior strength of the right hand, has also rendered the right side the place of honor. Of the antiquity of this preference, we have a remarkable proof in the conduct of Jacob, who, when about to bless the sons of Joseph, laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, the younger son, and his left hand upon the head of Manasseh, intending by that act to signify that the greater blessings were to attend Ephraim. But of this preference of the right hand, we have still higher evidence; for when Christ had finished the great work of redemption, he was exalted to the right hand of God; and at the final judgment, the Scriptures inform us, saints are to have seats assigned to them on the right hand of Christ, while sinners must take their places on his left hand. In the progress of language, the radical meaning of words is sometimes wholly lost or greatly obscured. The word thing is as frequently used as almost any word in the language. Yet I have never found the person, learned or unlearned, who could tell me the original sense of the word. In Saxon, thing has the general sense in which we now use the word; and also that of cause or sake. It signifies also a meeting or council. From the noun is formed the verb thingion, which signifies to meet, to plead, petition, or supplicate. In Swedish and Danish, the same word ting signifies thing, business, and court of justice; ting-dag, that is, thing-day, is court-day; and ting-bog, in Danish, that is, thing-book, is a book of records. In German, ding is a thing, sake, matter, and a court; and dingen, signifies to haggle or hire, and to go to law; and ding-stag, thing-day, is Tuesday. In Dutch, ding is thing, business; dingen, to attempt, to cheapen, to plead; and dings-dag, thing-day, is Tuesday. Various and different as these senses are, they all flow naturally from the primary sense. The signification of the primary verb or radix was to press, drive, urge; whence falling out, happening, or arriving. The latter gives the ordinary sense of thing, which is, an event, that which comes. This sense occurs very often in our version of the Scriptures, in the phrase, after these things. From the sense of pressing, urging, was derived that of petition, pleading, a court of law; a suit in court being a pressing for one's right. Hence it coincides with sake in our mother language, and the Latin sequor, whence through the French, we have suit and prosecute. Hence in German and Dutch, thing-day is Tuesday, that is court-day, the day of commencing courts - and this practice of opening courts on Tuesday has continued to this day. Now historians inform us, that Tuesday, in Saxon, was derived from tis or tiis or tiwes, the Mars of the North, answering to the Latin dies martis, the day of Mars. The explanation of this history is this: the word thing was originally thig, n being casual, as in the Latin tango, tactum. Tug, tig, is strife, contention, combat; and strife deified made the fabulous Teutonic god of war, or combat. Tuesday, then, is the day of strife, or of combat, when courts were opened for the trial of causes, or perhaps when right was sought by private combat, according to the practice of rude nations. In this manner, we are all able to explain and prove important histcrical facts, which, without etymology, or the derivation, connection, and original signification of words, could not be understood. The following is another example. The words smite and slay radically signify solely to strike; but by usage, they have come to signify to kill. To slay a bargain was good English in our mother language; but we now use the phrase to strike a bargain, from the practice of ratifying agreements, by striking and shaking hands. The additional sense of killing which smite and slay have received, originated in the use of clubs and stones as the principal instruments of death, before the use of iron, and probably before the invention of bows and arrows. The practice of stoning persons to death had not ceased in the age of the apostles. But the principal instrument for killing enemies, in the first ages of the world, was the CLUB. Hence the story of Hercules, who performed mighty feats with his club. The story, when stripped of fanciful circumstances, is simply this: In rude ages, every leader of a band of soldiers or freebooters was armed with a huge club; and the stoutest and boldest fellow was elected to be chieftain. Hence we read of many persons called by the name Hercules. From this use of the club among savage tribes originated the scepter, the ensign of royalty. And it is remarkable that the shape of the scepter is nearly the same as that of many war clubs from the South Seas, which are now seen in our cabinets. I know not that this story of Hercules has ever before been explained. It is a confirmation of this explanation, that the Latin Scipio, a word of the same elements, and probably of the same origin as scepter, signifies a stick or staff. It is by a knowledge of the primary sense of words, that we are able to account for the connection of words which express very different senses. Thus the Latin cano, to sing, and caneo, to be white, are from the same radix. The radical sense is to shoot or drive, by which signification was expressed the shooting of the morning light, or in general the radiation of light, from which proceeds the sense of white; and to sing is to shoot, drive or strain forth the voice. That such is the primary sense of speaking as well as of singing, we have indisputable evidence in the Latin pello, to drive, from which is formed appello, to call, and hence, through the French, we have appeal. Hence also peal, a burst of thunder, and the sound of a bell. So, in Hebrew, the radical sense of davar, a word, is a driving. Hence it signifies also a thing, matter, business, that which arrives, like thing; also a plague or pestilence. So plague is from Latin plaga, a stroke, from driving or force, Greek nyn. So we call a severe calamity a stroke; and affliction is from Latin, fligo, to strike or dash against; English to flog. The utility of finding the radical meaning of words, is remarkably obvious in the different significations of the oriental barak. This word in Hebrew is rendered to bless and to curse. How can such opposite senses be deduced from the same primary signification? The fact presents no difficulty to a person well versed in etymology. The same word in Arabic signifies also to bless, to bend the knees, and to rain violently; also to rush, to assail. These facts show that the primary sense is to rush, or drive; that the utterance of the human voice, is a 163 Philology. driving, or pouring forth of words, and that this art has been appropriated both in a good and a bad sense, that is, to words uttered in blessing and in cursing. Perhaps in the latter use, the sense would be better expressed by railing, or reproach. The Latin precor, probably from this radix, bears a strong analogy to the oriental word. Now, in consequence of not understanding the radical sense, and the different modes of applying it, some lexicographers and translators of the Scriptures have contended that the word never expresses cursing, and of course that the word in Job. 11. 9, which, in our version, is renBless God and die.' It is dered curse, ought to be rendered bless. thus rendered in the Italian version of Diodati, and in the French version, published by the American Bible Society. But undoubtedly our English version of the word is correct. British writers on law, in consequence of mistaking the etymology of the word fee, have erected the feudal system on a false foundation. Supposing the word fee to be the same, when it signifies emolument, and when it signifies a tenure of lands, or particular estate, they have ascribed the grant of feuds to a wrong cause, and considered them as rewards for past services, when in fact, they were estates in trust, granted to secure future services. Fee, emolument, is from the Saxon fea, or feo, money, originally cattle, the German vieh; but fee, an estate, is a contraction of the Latin fides, Spanish fe. An estate in fee, was originally an estate in fide, in trust. In like manner theologians have mistaken the meaning of the Hebrew word for atonement, cafar or cofar. The similarity of this word, to the English word cover, led lexicographers and commentators to conclude these words to be radically one; that the English word was derived from the Hebrew, and that the original meaning of atonement in the Old Testament, is a cover for sins. This opinion has been strengthened by the use of the word in reference to the ark; the word, in that application, being used for pitch, or the material which was used Gen. c. XIV. for paying over the bottom and sides of the ark. But by inspecting the word in the cognate dialects, Chaldee and Arabic it will be seen that the sense of the Hebrew word is to separate, remove, or drive off: and thus in its sense of atonement, it signifies purification, the rejection of whatever defiles. Hence it is applied to the sanctuary or holy place, the altar and tabernacle. Hence the word caffer, in Arabic, is used to denote the Hottentots in Africa, who rejected or denied the religion of Mohammed. These examples will be sufficient to show the use and importance of etymology, when rightly understood and applied, But this is a field of inquiry, which is yet very imperfectly explored. Even the German philologists, who have done much for interpretation, have very limited and imperfect views of the primary signification of words, and of the manner in which that signification has been applied, in derivative senses. In my next number, I shall treat of the Orthography of the English language. New-Haven, January, 1836. |