"Shall" and "Will"

"was no longer a mere sinking of a language which had ceased to hold sway; but essential forms were stripped off, or violently shattered, often because they were really misunderstood. Still, at the same time, it was necessary to substitute for such "forms some means for maintaining unity of speech among the population; and this had to be done "from the elements immediately at hand, which were often ignorantly combined. Amidst all changes, however, there remained alive in the

sinking language the essential principle of its "structure-the clear distinction between the no"tion of things and their relations, and the craving "for means to express this distinction which the "habit of ages had stamped on the mind of the people. The impress of this feeling clung to

every fragment of the language, and it would not "have been effaced if the nations themselves had "been unconscious of its existence. It depended,

however, on each of these to pick out the ele"ments on which the principle depended-to dis"entangle and recombine them. The phænomena

presented by the Romance languages, which thus, "in countries far removed from one another, sur"prise us by striking coincidences in detail, can only be explained in one way, and that is by assuming an uniformity of principle in their change, based on one and the same instinctive feeling for language, working with a mothertongue, whose grammatical structure at any rate "remained one and the same, and in the main unimpaired. Particular forms disappeared, but the

"essential principle of form in the abstract still "lived on and shed its influence over each new

Now nothing affords a better illustration of these remarks than the fact with which we are now concerned-the mode in which a future was independently organized in all the Romance languages.

The particular forms of the Latin future, as it existed in the ordinary conjugations, had sunk; but the instinct of language caused the void to be felt. A Latin idiom was caught up to supply its place. In the great majority of cases this idiom was one and the same. But the habit of inflecting the verb itself the synthetic principle—still lived and ultimately prevailed; so that in the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Provençal, the auxiliary verb ended by becoming a suffix, combining with

111 I must observe that the principle involved in this extract has a direct bearing on the question of classical education, if it be only in reference to its influence on our own language. Since the invention of printing a language is moulded and its standard is maintained mainly by its literature.

Popular speech and popular writing are sure to exercise great control, and they will operate entirely in what may be called an "analytic" direction. The safeguard against excess on this side which is afforded by the classical education of polished and cultivated writers is on this account all the more important, as balancing the tendency to drop a system of grammatical forms. The real excellence of a language, as far as its structure is concerned, would appear to consist in its blending in due proportion the precision and convenience of the analytic with the conciseness and force of the synthetic character. I trust the habit of "telegraphic" communication may not re-act on the structure of modern languages; if it operates strongly in this direction we shall approach more and more nearly to the structure of Chinese.

the root, and forming by inflection a new and regular future tense.

On the other hand, in the languages of the Teutonic stock, in which the force of this synthetic principle did not prevail in the same degree, no such amalgamation of the auxiliary with the principal verb-no formation of an inflected future—has taken place. The result is that the Germans are left with "werden," and we are obliged to do the best we can with "shall" and "will." I think it has been shown, however, that the English application of these two verbs, though it may be difficult to acquire and preserve incorrupt, is neither inexplicable or irrational in its origin, nor deficient in force and precision in its use.

APPENDIX.

(A.)

In the sentence of Cicero (Ep. ix. 15), “Nam mihi scito jam "à regibus allatas esse litteras, quibus mihi gratias agant, quòd se meâ sententiâ reges appellaverim," the reflexive pronoun is used, because the dependent sentence is placed in the mouth of the persons addressing Cicero, and is in fact a quotation (compare Zumpt, Lat. Gramm. § 550, n. 1). The case is, however, a remarkable one, inasmuch as the quotation is in an oblique form, and the use of the first person, "appellaverim," seems inconsistent with a reflexive pronoun in the third. In Cornelius Nepos (Themistocles, c. 8), "Domino navis, qui sit aperit, multa pollicitus si se conservâsset," we could not translate "se" by "himself," because our reflexive pronoun would relate to the subject of the verb conservasset." The principle is in fact the same as in the passage of Cicero.

The sentence of Livy (L. i. c. 54) is as follows: (Sextus Tarquinius) "è suis unum sciscitatum Romam ad patrem "mittit quidnam se facere vellet, quandoquidem ut omnia unus Gabiis posset, ei Dii dedissent." Zumpt assumes that the common usage would require "sibi ;" but I believe that the proper mode of translating this passage is to refer "ei" to the father-Sextus meant, according to Livy, to imply that everything was at his father's disposal. I conceive that the father, not Sextus, is the subject of the verb “posset.” If this be so, the pronouns would appear perfectly regular, and the sense is somewhat different.

The following sentence of Cæsar is again remarkable :"Responderunt (scil. Sicambri) Populi R. imperium Rhenum "finire: si se invito Germanos in Galliam transire non

“æquum existimaret, cur sui quidquam esse imperii aut “potestatis trans Rhenum postularet" (L. iv. c. 16). The Sicambri, in whose mouth the sentence is placed, are supposed to be remonstrating with Cæsar himself, to whom "se" and "sui" relate, as the immediate nominative of “existi“maret” and “postularet,” as well as the narrator who quotes the speech. I am far from pretending to explain all the anomalies and difficulties which appear to exist in certain cases with regard to the Latin reflexive pronoun. In this case the idiom probably depends on the fact that Cæsar himself is the professed narrator or writer.

Professor Key (Latin Gr. p. 219) refers to the speech of Ariovistus (Cæsar, de B. G. i. 36), and very justly says that in it "there is much freedom in the use of these pronouns." The whole speech is in an oblique form: in the passage about the middle, "Magnam Cæsarem injuriam facere, qui suo adventu vectigalia sibi deteriora faceret," suo points to the immediate subject of the subordinate verb, sibi, I suppose, to the speaker. So again towards the end, "neminem sibi nisi "sua pernicie contendisse,” sibi and suá refer to different perIt may be said indeed that "suâ pernicie" is a sort of adverbial formula, irrespective of person. The same kind of explanation might be applied to the "per-se" and "inter-se" quoted by Professor Key from Cicero, as well as to the phrases "suo-nomine" and "suo-jure;" but in truth the difficulty of arriving at any certain rule remains much as it was before.

sons.

In the passage of Cicero, De Orat., lib. i. c. 54, “Quod quum interrogatus Socrates esset, respondit, sese meruisse, "ut amplissimis honoribus et præmiis decoraretur, et ut ei "victus quotidianus in Prytaneo publice præberetur," "sese' and "ei" clearly refer to the same person-Socrates; nor do I find in Orelli (vol. i. p. 245) any various reading. Compare Zumpt as above; Diez, Romanische Gramm., b. iii. s. 54.

Another instance presents itself in the first Philippic, c. 10 :—“ Ut—hujus tamen diei vocem testem reipublicæ relinquam meæ perpetuæ erga se voluntatis." I see no clear reason for the use of se here.

« Înapoi Continuă »

Cărți

"Shall" and "Will": Or, Two Chapters on Future Auxiliary Verbs: to which are ...