A Handbook of the English LanguageLatham, R. G. (Robert Gordon)
History
A Handbook of the English Language
Latham, R. G. (Robert Gordon)
English language -- Grammar; English language -- History
Innema (inn-ema), Inmost (in-m-ost).
Ûtema (ût-ma), Outmost (out-m-ost).
Siðema (sið-ema), Latest.
Lætema (læt-ema), Latest.
Niðema (nið-ema), Nethermost (neth-er-m-ost).
Forma (for-ma), Foremost (fore-m-ost).
Æftema (aft-ema), Aftermost (aft-er-m-ost).
Ufema (uf-ema), Upmost (up-m-ost).
Hindema (hind-ema), Hindmost (hind-m-ost).
Midema (mid-ema), Midmost (mid-m-ost).
Now the words in question show at once, that, as far as they are concerned,
the m that appears in the last syllable of each has nothing to do with the
word _most_.
From the words in question there was formed, in Anglo-Saxon, a regular
superlative form in the usual manner; viz., by the addition of -st; as
_æfte-m-est_, _fyr-m-est_, _læte-m-est_, _sið-m-est_, _yfe-m-est_,
_ute-m-est_, _inne-m-est_.
Hence, in the present English, the different parts of the syllable _most_
(in words like _upmost_) come from different quarters. The m is the m in
the Anglo-Saxon words _innema_, &c.; whilst the -st is the common sign of
the superlative. Hence, in separating such words as _midmost_ into its
component parts, we should write
Mid-m-ost _not_ mid-most.
Ut-m-ost -- ut-most.
Up-m-ost -- up-most.
Fore-m-ost -- fore-most.
In-m-ost -- in-most.
Hind-m-ost -- hind-most.
Out-m-ost -- out-most.
§ 260. In certain words, however, the syllable _m-ost_ is added to a word
already ending in -er; that is, already marked with the sign of the
comparative degree.
Neth-er-m-ost. Hind-er-m-ost.
Utt-er-m-ost. Out-er-m-ost.
Upp-er-m-ost. Inn-er-m-ost.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XII.
THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.
§ 261. Generally speaking, the greater part of the cardinal numbers are
undeclined. As far as _number_ goes, this is necessary.
_One_ is naturally and exclusively _singular_.
_Two_ is naturally _dual_.
The rest are naturally and exclusively _plural_.
As to the inflection of gender and case, there is no reason why all the
numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin _unus, una, unum_,
_unius_. It is a mere habit of our language that they are not so in
English.
* * * * *
CHAPTER XIII.
THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.
§ 262. By referring to § 259, we see that -m was an early sign of the
superlative degree. This bears upon the numerals _seven_, _nine_, and
_ten_.
These are _cardinal_ numbers. Nevertheless, the present chapter is the
proper place for noticing them.
There is good reason for believing that the final -n is no part of the
original root. Thus,--
a. _Sev-en_ = the Latin _sept-em_, where the -m is equivalent to the -n.
But in the Greek ἑπτὰ, and the Scandinavian _syv_, and _sju_, neither -n
nor -m occur.
b. _Ni-ne_.--This same applies here. The Latin form is _nov-em_; but the
Greek and Norse are ἐννέα and _niu_.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account