Gen. Dat. sing. pl. Nom. -a -ans -o -ins-ane -in -in -am-in sing. -ōm Accus.-an -un pl. sing. pl. sing. pl. -un (-on) -ya -yans -yo -ōns-a |-gun - 0 -ōnō -yins -yane -yen-yōnō -ōns -ōnō -un -ōnō -yin-yam -yen-yōm -ōn -om-un-ōm -ans-un (-on)-un (-on)-yan-yans -yun -yun -ōn -ōns -un-un sing. pl. sing. pl. Gothic a before n is u in Old High German, and Gothic ō before n is u, except in genitive plural, where both are ō on account of the following ō. The dative plural masculine and neuter in Old High German has ō, perhaps from absorbing n. Gothic a of nominative singular is o, Gothic ō is a in Old High German. In Old Norse in the strong declension the nominative singular of masculines and the nominative plural of masculines and feminines retain -r, corresponding to Gothic-s; and in the weak declension the nominative plural of masculines and feminines ends in -r.1 149. The adjectives belong all to the first or second declension, except a few Gothic nominatives singular belonging to the third; 2 the stem, therefore, with these exceptions, ends either in -a or -ya (111). The following is the strong first declension of adjectives in Gothic: To these endings y is prefixed in the second declension. The weak declension is the same as that of the substantive. 3 The Anglo-Saxon strong first declension is: Short monosyllabic stems have -u in nominative singular feminine; long monosyllables have it not; the other stems vary. In the second declension e, corresponding to y, is prefixed to these endings in the nominative singular of all genders and nominative plural neuter, perhaps also in nominative plural masculine, feminine. In the first declension both strong and weak a of the root, when closed to a, according to 134, is restored by e of the flexion ending. The weak declension is the same as that of the substantive.1 The Old High German strong first declension is: The second declension prefixes y to these endings. The weak declension is the same as that of the substantive.2 150. It is evident, on comparison of the strong declension of the adjective with the declension of the simple demonstrative pronoun, that the former has taken up the latter, dropping only the consonant which is the root of the pronoun, but retaining the pronominal elements, which are combined in the demonstrative with those of case and number. Moreover, the forms of the cases of the adjective in Anglo-Saxon and Old High German are deducible rather from the Gothic demonstrative or their own demonstrative than from the Gothic adjective. For the Gothic inflections of the adjective do not all agree with those of the demonstrative, but some of them rather with the inflections of the substantive. And this indicates that the pronominal declension of the adjective was a later development, and had not yet been fully carried out in Gothic. The Gothic nominative of the masculine singular, and nominative, dative, and accusative of the feminine singular, and nominative and accusative of the neuter plural, are not pronominal, but identical with the substantive. Now the vowel of the feminine stem and the s of the masculine nominative singular express a stronger reference to the substantive object which is qualified than is contained in any other of the inflections of the substantive if used with the adjective. Even the feminine vowel is not strong enough for the reference to the substantive which is drawn forth by the act of combining the adjective with it, when it is laden with the genitive relation. In the neuter singular cases also, and in the oblique cases of the masculine singular as well as in all the plural except the nominative and accusative neuter, there is a similar insufficiency in the substantive inflections to express the reference to the substantive which is drawn forth in the act of combining the adjective with it. But the nominative and accusative plural neuter are lighter, being thought simply 2 Ibid. i. p. 722-729. 1 Grimm, Gram., i. p. 732-735. as aggregates, and with them the adjective can combine without any special act of reference to them beyond what the substantive inflections involve. The special act of reference to the substantive, or of attention directed to it, is naturally expressed by pronominal elements. And the fact which this peculiar declension of the adjective reveals is, that in the Teutonic languages there is a renewed act of attention to the substantive object in thinking the adjective. While the nominal inflections were strongly thought, the sense which they involved of the substantive to which they belonged was sufficient for the expression of this reference to the substantive in the thought of the adjective. As the inflections came to be more weakly thought, they failed to signify this reference and were exchanged for the pronoun; and those failed first in which the sense of the substantive was weaker compared with the strength of the act of attention to the substantive which was involved in qualifying it in those cases with the adjective. In Anglo-Saxon and Old High German the declension of the pronoun was taken up generally by the cases of the adjective, instead of being limited to a portion of them as in Gothic. 151. This tendency to direct a special act of attention to the substantive in thinking the adjective shows a weakness of comparative thought of substantive objects. For it is because the mind cannot with sufficient strength think the substantive object comparatively with other objects which it suggests, that it has to move back from them to it and renew its attention to it in making the comparison. Hence also the imperfect thought of the adjective which appears, especially in High German, in the use of the substantive for an adjective. The uncomparative thought of the substantive which makes it unapt to be embraced in one idea with the adjective which qualifies it, causes also the adjective to lose in a great degree the sense of the substantive, when it is thought with special reference to only a part of the extension of the substantive. This happens always in the older Teutonic dialects when adjectives are thought as in a higher degree (225). For then the substantive object is thought comparatively, not with the generality of the objects denoted by the substantive, but with certain of them which have the quality. With these which have been thought first comparatively in ascribing the quality to them, another object is compared as having the quality in a higher degree. Such double comparison was not in old times readily performed by Teutonic habits of thought. It consequently engrossed. the mental energy; and the general substantive was almost lost sight of in the double comparison. The substantive idea having been thus dropped, the adjective was thought not by comparison with a general, but as an apposition (Def. 5); so that it got somewhat of the nature of a substantive. But its attributive part was so strong, that its substance was weakly thought, and could not enter into the connections in which it stood without a special act of attention directed to it. The formation was the same for an adjective thus passing into a substantive as for a substantive which well-nigh passed into an adjective, on account of the special strength of the attributive part affecting the substance (Def. 4) almost as if it qualified the latter1 (144). In other words, the adjective, which expressed a quality as in a higher degree, was declined in the weak declension. But in the later dialects, as Middle and New High German, comparative thought had become easier from exercise, and the strong declension came to be admissible for the comparative degree.2 In all the dialects the superlative degree might have the strong declension,2 because in thinking it the second act of comparison is lighter, being with all the objects denoted by the substantive, and having the quality; for this differs little from the first act of comparison with the generality of objects denoted by the substantive. Other adjective stems which attract thought from the general substantive idea, fixing it on particular substantive objects to which they refer, are those which express identity, as same, self, also the present participle (192), the ordinal numerals, and certain others, many of them compounds. And with these all, at least in Gothic, the substantive is replaced by a part of its extension with which the adjective becomes an apposition (Def. 5), and, losing the comparative thought of the substantive, is weak in its sense of substance, and needs the arthritic element to form its connections, so that they are declined with the weak declension. The Gothic present participle, however, in the masculine gender often becomes a substantive of strong declension, by virtue of its strong masculine substance (144), especially in the nominative singular; and this takes place also in High German and Anglo-Saxon, but not in Old Norse. In the later dialects, the compound and other adjectives last mentioned, originally of weak declension, have either died out, or become substantives.3 In contrast to these adjectives of the weak declension, are those which, on account of their strong objective reference to the substantive, have always a strong sense of its substance (Def. 4), and therefore the strong declension. These are, in Old Teutonic, the adjective pronoun, and the adjectives of measurement, namely, all, enough, half, middle, full, and the cardinal numbers.4 With regard to adjectives in general, the original rule was, the definite article brought with it the weak inflection of the attributive adjective; without the definite article, the adjective, attributive, or predicative had the strong form.5 The article fixed attention on the limitation of the substantive by the adjective. The substantive in its own general meaning was weakened; and the only substantive object which was thought was that which had the attribute denoted by the adjective. This took the place in the adjective of its sense of the general substantive, and became in the adjective the substance of an apposition, weakened by the attributive nature of the idea, and consequently referred to arthritically in the weak declension. With the personal pronouns also the adjective was thought with an object limited to what possessed the quality; and a similar limitation of the substantive which was qualified by an adjective was effected by this and that, and later by possessive pronouns, by the indefinite article, by many, all, and each, so that after these the adjective was used in the weak form. 1 Grimm, Gram., iv. p. 512. 2 Ibid. i. p. 756; iii. p. 566. VOL. II. 3 Ibid. iv. p 519-524. 6 Ibid. iv. p. 587.. 152. In the formation of the comparative degree the original ending iyans or iyas is contracted to is or as, which in Gothic has become iz or ōz; and the feminine in Gothic and Old Norse, as in Sanskrit, takes ī, which in Gothic is ei. Perhaps in Gothic -iz- was taken by those adjectives with which as more simple the comparative element coalesced more easily. Derived and compound adjectives took -ōz. The superlative is formed by -ist. The forms in Anglo-Saxon are, comparative -r, superlative -est, -ost; 2 in Old High German,, comparative -ir, -er, -ōr, superlative ist. Old High German forms the feminine comparative in -a, to which the Anglo-Saxon, though not identical, corresponds.3 153. The first three cardinal numerals are declined as adjectives of three genders, the second and third being plural. Those for 4 and 9 are found declined in Gothic, those for 4, 7, and 9 in Anglo-Saxon, those from 4 to 9 in Old High German, all plural, both in the masculine and in the neuter; those for 10 to 19 in Gothic and Old High German, only that for 12 in Anglo-Saxon, are declined as plural substantives masculine; those for 20, 30, 40, and 50 are formed in Gothic with the masculine substantive -tigus (decas), which is regularly declined; the Gothic for 60 is wanting, but those for 70, 80, 90, 100, are formed with the neuter substantive -tehund (decas) and declined, the plural of 100 being abridged to hunda. In the other languages the multiples of 10 from 20 to 100 correspond to -tig, and are not declined except in Old Norse. The multiples of 100 correspond to -hund, and are not declined. Old Saxon has for 100 hundered or hunderod, Old Norse hundradh, Middle High German hundert. Old Norse has also -ræd in the numerals for 07 to 120, siræd seventy, attrad eighty, &c.1 Gothic Ousundi is a feminine substantive singular, and is declined; so also Old Norse Ousund, which, however, afterwards became neuter; in High German and Anglo-Saxon it was neuter, and in the latter was declined.5 154. The personal pronouns are declined as fellows: Third person nominative singular and plural wanting; singular and plural genitive seina, dative sis, accusative sik; dual wanting. |