Semasiological Possibilities 9781607246152, 1607246155

Citation preview

Semasiological Possibilities

A n a l e c t a Gorgiana

333 Series Editor George Anton Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and

short

monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utili2ed by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

Semasiological Possibilities

Francis Wood

gorgia? press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-615-2

ISSN 1935-6854

Extract from The American Journal of Philology 19,20 (1898,1899)

Printed in the LTnited States of America

III.—SEMASIOLOGICAL THESIS :

POSSIBILITIES.

Difference in meaning is of itself no bar to connecting words.

If the principle underlying the semasiological development of any word is to be brought to light, it must be by coming at the original meaning of the root and discovering, if possible, the figure of speech involved in its growth. Where the literal meaning is preserved, the task is comparatively easy. If, then, we find an abstract word, we naturally look about for some corresponding concrete term, in the same language or related languages. Quite possibly, in our search, we hit upon two or more concrete words which seem not at all related to each other in meaning. But if they are phonetic equivalents, we should try to trace them to a common origin. For in most cases phonetic equivalents are identical, and difference in meaning no ground for separating them. Suppose, to illustrate this point, a community shut off from all others has in its vocabulary but two hundred words. W h a t will be the result ? Each of these words will be used to express many ideas. One of these words, we will say, is 'strike.' What an endless variety of meanings may arise from this ! Even in our copious language we have for this one verb thirty-four distinct uses, as defined by Webster. Each of these significations is capable of further development, as may be easily shown. To give just one or two of these. If 'strike' in our supposed community stands for all kinds of striking, gentle as well as violent, 'strike' could mean 'stroke, caress, treat kindly, love'; or 'strike, stroke, smear, defile'; or 'strike, beat, maltreat, hate'; or 'strike, afflict, distress.' These are only a few of the almost numberless meanings which may spring from this word. This is exactly what has taken place in the I.E. tongues. I do not mean, of course, to limit the primitive vocables to two hundred, but they were certainly few. Each of these, therefore, must have developed in this same extensive manner, so that the same idea came to be expressed in various ways. In the 'ursprache' there was only a beginning of this growth: in the

SEMASIOLOGICAL

POSSIBILITIES.

41

separate dialects it continued with ever-increasing luxuriance. Consequently, in different languages, we may find, and should expect to find, words coming from the same root yet differing from each other as widely as 'love' and 'hate,' 'haughty' and ' humble.' If this be the case, and I do not see how any one can withhold assent to this thesis, how, then, shall we proceed when we find words whose roots are phonetically alike, but whose meanings are widely divergent? W e should not attempt to derive one meaning from the other, but each from an original. Etymologists often assume that words change in meaning. They are forced to this conclusion because words which are evidently related have, in different dialects, meanings that are diametrically opposed. Their conclusions are wrong because their premises are not well taken. It must be remembered that words were originally names of concrete things or descriptions of actions. These may be used figuratively, and thus introduce meanings quite distinct from each other, though easily derivable from the original. Or an adjective may be used actively or passively, as Eng. fearful 'terrible' or 'timid.' Aside from this words do not change. It is not always possible to connect the various meanings that a word may have, since it is often difficult to find out the original force. But the proper method here, as in tracing phonetic changes, is to discover the common source of development. The usual method is to assume that, in a given number of meanings, this one or that is the original. It possibly may be, but the method is entirely wrong. When we compare any set of words, as Skt.pita, Gk. nariip, Goth, fadar, etc., we do not assume that any one language has preserved the original form without change ; nor should we, in comparing meanings, make a like assumption. Before the fifth edition of his Et. Wtb., Kluge seemed doubtful of the connection between N.H.G. dreist, O.S. thrlsti and Lat. trlstis, although the words are phonetically the same. Now these words contain the element trl-, which is also in Lat. tri-tus 'rubbed, bruised, trodden,' trl-bulum 'threshing sledge.' This tr-i- is an enlargement of the root ter- in Lat. terd and many others. From this root, then, O.S. thrlsti 'bold' is an active adjective meaning primarily 'oppressing, beating'; while Lat. trlstis ' s a d ' is passive with the original meaning 'oppressed, depressed, down-trodden.' But Lat. trlstis is also active in the sense 'stern, harsh, severe,' a natural outgrowth of'oppressive.'

42

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF

PHILOLOGY.

It is plain to see, therefore, that the idea ' s a d ' did not develop from 'bold,' nor 'bold' from ' s a d ' ; but both from a common source. Another example given by Kluge, which offers as little difficulty, is M.H.G. tapfer 'fest, gedrungen, voll, gewichtig, bedeutend,' and later 'tapfer'; O.H.G. tapfar' schwer, wichtig, gewichtig '; Du. dapper ' tapfer, viel'; Eng. dapper; O.N. dapr ' traurig.' With these are further compared O.S1. dobli 'stark, tiichtig,' debulu 'dick,' dobru 'schon, gut.' A l l these meanings may originate from the idea 'press down, be heavy upon,' as Noreen, Urg. Lautl. 232, indicates. Here, as in O.S. thristi, Lat. trlstis, some forms were active and others passive in use. 'Pressure' implies 'weight,' hence 'importance, strength, bravery,' etc. It also implies 'weight, heaviness,' and hence 'sadness.' This explains O.N. dapr 'sad,' which, to Kluge, seems so strange a development of meaning. It would be more strange if the meaning ' s a d ' had not developed in some one of the dialects. It surely ought not to seem strange to find O.N. dapr ' s a d ' related to O.H.G. tapfar 1 heavy.' T o one who speaks English, in which ' h e a v y ' may be synonymous with 'sad,' this is a most natural change. These two ideas are repeatedly brought together in other languages, as will be shown below. The examples given below are intended to illustrate the principles here urged, and will, it is hoped, prove that the etymologist's first task is to find a phonetic equivalent. For in that way, if any, the etymon sought will be found. 1.—a. Goth, bugjan, O.S. buggian, O.E. bycgan ' b u y ' have troubled the etymologists to explain, simply because, instead of looking for a phonetic equivalent only, they have been hampered in their search by their attempt to find a word of the same or similar meaning. Find first the phonetic equivalent, and the meaning will take care of itself. This is the case here. Goth. bugjan is closely related to us-baugjan 'to clean out.' Under the latter word may be found in Uhlenbeck's Et. Wtb., A v . buj' l a y off, cleanse,' bujem acc. 'cleansing,' azo-buj- 'freeing from distress,' buxli- 'a freeing, saving,' baoxtar- 'rescuer.' Here, then, we have the connecting meaning. Goth, bugjan ' b u y ' was primarily 'to free, release, redeem.' T h e same development occurs in the root leu- 'loose.' Compare Goth, lun 'ransom,' us-luneins 'redemption,' us-lausjan 'to deliver, erl'osen,' Lat. luo 'to pay, pay for,' Gk. Xia 'loose, release,' \iopai 'redeem, ransom.'

SEMASIOLOGICAL

POSSIBILITIES.

43

Goth, us-baugjan 'to clean out, sweep out,' Av. buj- 'cleanse' represent a development but slightly different. (Compare again Lat. lud 'cleanse, purge.') These words have been further connected with Goth, biugan 'to bend,' so that bugjan and -baugjan would properly mean 'to cause to bend or yield' and hence 'to release.' It is a remarkable coincidence that Eng. buy has returned to this original meaning in certain phrases. Notice these definitions given in Webster: " T o buy off. (a) To influence to compliance; to cause to bend or yield by some consideration ; as, to buy off conscience. (b) To detach by a consideration given; as, to buy off one from a party." This I believe to be the correct explanation of Goth, bugjan. However, it is possible to connect it with the same root in a different way. Goth. bugja