ENGLISH ETYMOLOGY.* "THE greatest care has been taken to express
the meanings in the simplest language, a feature in respect to which this Dictionary will bear favourable comparison with any similar work. The primary meaning in every possible case has also been so expressed as to make the word suggest its own meaning, a feature of no small importance in teaching, if only in the matter of memory.
"Special attention has been paid to the definitions of the Scien- tific and Technical terms, which will be found fully abreast of the present state of science, while they are expressed in the simplest. language.
"The Etymological part of the work has been prepared with the greatest care, and will be found to embody the very latest- researches into this most interesting subject. The derivation of every word (so far as has been discovered) is given, each word being traced back, step by step, to its ultimate source, and the meaning of each foreign word distinctly told."
Truly Mr. Donald's trumpeter must be dead ! We can only bow the head before so magnificent an instructor, and wait meekly for the words of wisdom he may condescend to shower upon us- Praise him we dare not, for it would be but bathos to that by which he has anticipated us ; and how can we summon up courage to blame one who is fully abreast of the present state of science, and uses such simple language that his book will bear favourable com- parison in this respect with any similar work? But we may gain self-confidence by first criticizing the physical aspect of the book, for which only the Messrs. Chambers are responsible. By the use of a thin but white and strong paper, nearly 600 pages are bound into a.
volume not thicker than most school dictionaries ; and the quantity of matter contained in each double-columned page is really mar- vellous, whatever the type might be ; but the type, though small,.
is so sharp and clean that few young eyes, and perhaps not very many old ones, will have any complaint on this score. The variety of type is also judiciously managed, so as to be a help to the mind as well as the eye. The dictionary is therefore unexceptionable in its get-up ; and will undoubtedly secure the wide sale for which it is evidently intended.
But this examination of its external features has carried us past. Mr. Donald's awe-inspiring promises in the preface to Mr. Donald's. performances in the book, and we will therefore, after all, attempt, some estimate of his work.
It is not merely an etymological, but also a general dictionary of our language. Perhaps it would satisfy our requirements.
better if the etymological aim were not so prominent. The pro- uuuciation and acceutuation of each word are exhibited well and clearly ; and seeing that in the immense majority of cases there is a consensus of opinion among educated people on these points, the dictionary may be generally safely trusted. Still,. when we find that the author treats as long the vowel of the prefix
be (in begin, beneath, betray, that of the prefix de in deny, demonstrate, demonstrable (though not in demonstration), and the second e of benefice, benefit, our confidence is certainly shaken.
Mr. Donald appears to adopt the principle that the vowel that. ends a syllable must be long. A falser one can scarcely be imagined,
for the English tongue, which has words like Si, J, hie, begad),, distinguished by this very shortness from too, ah, by. Be is pro- nounced alike in begad and beneath ; nor can the slightest difference be detected in the vowels of belie, deny. The vowel of both pre- fixes is absolutely the same, and identical with that of to, a, and be. Mr. Donald has been forced to abandon his principle (if thats was his principle) in astray, athirst ; but if there, why not in beneath ?
The definitions are generally pertinent and concise, and expressed perhaps " in the simplest language," though we hardly think that the meaning of "many" is made clearer by "comprising a great or mixed number of individuals ; not few ; numerous." But that is a word which no English man or child will require to seek in a. dictionary, and we could excuse the omission of all definition in such a case. The brothers Grimm, in their great German dictionary, deliberately adopted the system of not defining (or only defining by one and the very simplest equivalent, in Latin where there was no simpler German word) words which every one must know ; and we think their judgment wise, if only on the principle that some * Chamberis Etymological Dictionary of the Englieh Language. Edited by Jame$ Donald. Loudon and Edinburgh; N. tind B. Chambers. 1807. axiom must be assumed at starting, and that we must not reason in a circle. If many be defined by numerous, by what shall we define numerous? We hope our scientific friends may find their words "fully abreast of the present state of science ;" but we think the botanist would desire something more definite of the maple than that it is " a tree of several species, from one of which, the rock maple, sugar is made." A little "Webster," price one shilling, tells us the generic name, acer. The definitions of oak, beech, are constructed on the same model ; only that in the latter instance the valuable means of identification is afforded— that its nuts were "formerly eaten by man, now only by pigs." But definition is closely bound to etymology. Where the etymon is absolutely certain, that furnishes the original meaning, from which the later ones can be easily aucl clearly deduced in their order of development. Where the etymon is absolutely unknown, the lexicographer cannot safely go further back, in his definitions, than the earliest known use and force of the word. In these two cases he is not likely to stumble. But in the intervening space, where some obscurity hangs over the origin, or else over the exact mode or order of formation of the word, his tact is severely tried. If for the definition he relies on a doubtful etymon, all his deduc- tions may be mistaken ; if he rejects an etymon which ought to be adopted, his definitions present only half the truth. Mr. Donald relies at least enough on the etymology, and we must, therefore, now speak of this, the prominent feature of his book.
To give the nearer, further, and ultimate sources of a word in regular order is certainly the right principle. In English we should thus cite first the oldest English form, then the Anglo- Saxon, then the Gothic. But where shall we place the collateral languages ? It may be as interesting to know the Danish or the Middle High German as the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of an English word ; yet if inserted in the same list with the Anglo-Saxon, it will appear as if it were a link of the same chain, which is not the case. And there will inevitably be cases where the Anglo-Saxon fails us altogether, and we can consequently show no etymon, but only affinities in collateral languages; but how shall these words, when once inserted in the etymological brackets, be shown to be only suggestive affinities? Mr. Donald does not seem to have felt these difficulties. He treats etymology in a rough-and-ready way, scenting relationship between words cleverly enough, but not caring to distinguish too nicely between parentage and affinity, nor to exhibit the observance of certain laws in the formation, so as to place his etymology on a really scientific basis. Thus, although the grosser absurdities of the old dictionaries are replaced by something more like common sense, the method is not essentially different. Is it necessary at the present day to observe that you may amuse yourself till doomsday with comparing single words in two languages without doing any good, because you will not dis- cover a principle? But regard the languages as organisms, and dissect each for itself first, and then compare inflections with inflections, vowel-changes with vowel-changes, roots with roots, and you may very soon light on marvellous general truths ; and when once you have a general truth, you can apply it yet further, to cases still obscure. We are not surprised, however, that Mr. Donald's etymology has not arrived at this scientific stage, when we look through his list of authorities on etymology, and find none of the great German triad, Bopp's Comparative Gram- mar, Grimm's German Grammar, l'ott's Investigations; nor even the name of Rask, who spread the study of Anglo-Saxon among ourselves. But Mr. Donald is not true to his principle of arrange- ment, for he says of hart :—" Ger. kirsch, A.-S. heort, L. cervus, Gr. keraos—keras, a horn." The Anglo-Saxon form should of course stand first ; the German hirsch is only collaterally allied. This article also affords a good example of the little real know- ledge that can be conveyed in such concise etymological diction- aries. As the words stand, they seem to mean that hirsch is the modern pronunciation for the older heort ; that for the older cervus, this for the older ;week, which means horned, and comes from xipac, a horn. But all these assertions (except the last, deriving stepak from zipoq) are false; the words are formed col- laterally, though probably from a common root, to which we come nearest in xipac. Under " Girl " we are told ;—" Prob. A.-S. ceorl, Ger. karl, a fellow, formerly applied to children of both sexes." Grimm's laws of the permutation of letters would have preserved Mr. Donald from risking so absurd a guess as this. The German k, or Anglo-Saxon c, never appears in English as g, and this very word does exist in English as churl. Let us hope that our girls are not churls, nor our churls girls ! But what we look to an etymological dictionary to furnish, and what nothing else can furnish half so well, is the discrimination of the words according to their origin. This is of constant prac- tical utility, as it prevents the wrong usage of words. Spectrum, nebula, diagnosis, Koran, Islam, depot, table dilate, fresco, oratorio are not English, but borrowed words. Strictly speaking, such words have no place in an English dictionary at all, but should be relegated to a technological glossary, where the strang- est bedfellows would come together. Though admitted for prac- tical convenience in an English dictionary, they should be care- fully distinguished from English words, by being noted as French, Latin, &e. ; and the etymology should be left to be decided in dictionaries of those languages. Words can never be truly regarded as naturalized which retain the foreign inflexion where- English has a native one to substitute ; thus, :peen-can is Latin, spectre, English ; fresco, oratorio, Italian ; fresh, oratory, English_ But among truly English words there are sharp distinctions of origin, which we find rather washed out than rendered clear by Mr. Donald. Any one moderately conversant with German and Danish, or other representatives of the German and Scandinavian. families of language, knows how strikingly, notwithstanding a. large common vocabulary, they differ in a large number of words. The Anglo-Saxon, if we allow for some slight in- filtration of Northern words, is strictly a German tongue. But English is not strictly a German tongue, and not strictly the direct descendant of the Anglo-Saxon. Where the German and Scandinavian diverge most characteristically, English often sides. with the latter, and exhibits no trace of the German equivalent, and this in the most obviously old and native words. Thus, G. froh, D. glad, E. glud ; G. hut, D. hat, E. hat ; G. stadt, D. by, E. by (in names, Grims-by, &c.); G. retfen, D. kalde, E. to. call ; G. &tuna., D. trte, E. tree ; D. svend, E. swain ; D. at, E. at. Now it is quite as feasible thus to discriminate from the Saxon elements of our language these Scandinavian elements—whether introduced by the Angles and Jutes (Goths) who are said to have the Saxons, or by the later Norse and Danish in- vaders—as it is to separate from both the Celtic and the French contributions; and it is a work of even greater interest at the present day, when Scandinavian and Germanic prejudices are too. liable to rush into internecine feud, so that men like Mr. Pike (in. his work on the Origin of the English) in the heat of their Mimeo- Germanism find no comfort but in declaring us Celts, Danes, any- thing rather than Saxon Germans ! Surely, again, the words: which we retain from the old British Celtic tongue should be separated with equal care. A list of these was drawn up by the, late Mr. Garnett ; and we are glad to find the Welsh equivalents of these generally cited ; but as an Anglo-Saxon equivalent is often also given, the reader is not helped to the determination. from which of these rival sources the English word is really drawn. Thus, our final judgment is that the book presents many creditable, and perhaps no positively discreditable features ; but that it is to be regretted that so good an opportunity was not. embraced for doing much more, and marking al.positive advance in. the study of our language.
Previous page
