Concerning this, it may be said that it is deficient in an essential point. It does not show how the participle past is collective. Undoubtedly it may be said that every such participle is in the condition of words like _ge-feax_ and _ge-heort_; _i. e._, that they imply an association between the object and the action or state. But this does not seem to be Grimm's view; he rather suggests that the _ge-_ may have been a prefix to verbs in general, originally attached to all their forms, but finally abandoned everywhere except in the case of the participle. The theory of this prefix has yet to assume a satisfactory form. * * * * * {355} CHAPTER XXXI. COMPOSITION. s. 410. In the following words, amongst many others, we have palpable and indubitable specimens of composition. _Day-star_, _vine-yard_, _sun-beam_, _apple-tree_, _ship-load_, _silver-smith_, &c. The words _palpable_ and _indubitable_ have been used, because, in many cases, as will be seen hereafter, it is difficult to determine whether a word be a true compound or not. Now, in each of the compounds quoted above, it may be seen that it is the second word which is qualified, or defined, by the first, and that it is not the first which is qualified or defined, by the second. Of _yards_, _beams_, _trees_, _loads_, _smiths_, there may be many sorts, and, in order to determine what _particular_ sort of _yard_, _beam_, _tree_, _load_, or _smith_, may be meant, the words _vine_, _sun_, _apple_, _ship_, and _silver_, are prefixed. In compound words it is the _first_ term that defines or particularises the second. s. 411. That the idea given by the word _apple-tree_ is not referable to the words _apple_ and _tree_, irrespective of the order in which they occur, may be seen by reversing the position of them. The word _tree-apple_, although not existing in the language, is as correct a word as _thorn-apple_. In _tree-apple_, the particular sort of _apple_ meant is denoted by the word _tree_, and if there were in our gardens various sorts of plants called _apples_, of which some grew along the ground and others upon trees, such a word as _tree-apple_ would be required in order to be opposed to _earth-apple_, or _ground-apple_, or some word of the kind. In the compound words _tree-apple_ and _apple-tree_, we have the same elements differently arranged. However, as the {356} word _tree-apple_ is not current in the language, the class of compounds indicated by it may seem to be merely imaginary. Nothing is farther from being the case. A _tree-rose_ is a rose of a particular sort. The generality of roses being on _shrubs_, this grows on a _tree_. Its peculiarity consists in this fact, and this particular character is expressed by the word _tree_ _prefixed_. A _rose-tree_ is a _tree_ of a particular sort, distinguished from _apple-trees_, and _trees_ in general (in other words, particularised or defined) by the word _rose_ _prefixed_.