to speak in the text under the verbs "skulan" and "muna." There are so many curious points connected with our verb "to owe," and its perfect "ought," and it affords so excellent an illustration of the process of transformation of these præterites, that the reader must excuse me if I lengthen this note for the purpose of discussing them.

99.66

In the first place, there is little doubt, I conceive, that the earliest meaning of " owe" was that of "agan," to own," or "have as one's own." Shakspere says―

"I am not worthy of the wealth I owe"

All's Well that Ends Well, ii. 5—

and the instances are innumerable.

In the second place, there is no doubt that "ought" is the regular "weak præterite of "owe." Thus in Henry IV. Part I. iii. 3, " He said the other day you ought him a thou"sand pounds." So in Donne's letters (Southey's Commonplace Book, i. 336), They ought the world no more." Chaucer uses "ought" impersonally—

66

"Well ought us werke."

Second Nun's Tale, 1. 15,482

but I am inclined to think that this is an imitation of the construction of such Latin words as

"oportet."

Ought" itself has thus in some sense become in English one of the promoted or transformed perfects, and acquired the present sense of duty; but it has not acquired a second weak præterite of its own, nor has it formed a present infinitive and participle. The want of these last is often very inconvenient: we cannot say," he was known to ought,” for "he was known to be bound in duty," and the original present "owe" will not express what we want.

We have no difficulty in seeing how a word which signifies that a debt of any kind, whether moral or pecuniary, has been due, may be applied to the present obligation of discharging either: but I confess that I have always felt the greatest difficulty in explaining how a verb which meant originally" to have as one's own," "to own," came to signify

to be bound to pay." Mr. Edwin Guest (Trans. of Philolog. Society, 1845, p. 157) says, "The phrases 'he owes me ten

66

66

66 6 pounds,' and 'he has ten pounds for me,' may have a "closer etymological connection than our knowledge of the "world would lead us to expect; and the use of the verb "without the dative, he owes ten pounds,' may be founded on a merely derivative meaning." I wish Mr. Guest in this passage had explained a little more clearly what the process is which he supposes to have taken place. It seems a singular state of things when the fact that a man has a thing," carries with it the notion that he "has it for some one else to whom he is bound to pay it!" Is it founded on the principle that all property is a trust; or on the Communist maxim, "La propriété c'est le vol"? or does Mr. Guest mean to imply that the modern sense of owing a debt was attached to these verbs before they acquired that of having or owning?-a supposition inconsistent with the meaning of the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon forms.

66

66

If indeed in the early times of our language Owe and "ought" were used only as in the phrase "he ought to “do it,” we might suppose that such a sentence was literally equivalent to "he had to do it," and was founded on the original sense of "have:" but it so happens that in one of the earliest relics of the English tongue-the writ or proclamation of Henry III. in 1258-the King speaks of "the "treowthe that heo us ogen "—that is, "the allegiance that

66

they (our subjects) owe to us." In the version of the same document given by Henry in his History of England (but not in Palgrave's), the præterite "ogt" further appears in the sense of our modern "ought." (Compare Latham on the English Language, p. 65; Henry's History of England, vol. viii. App. 4; Palgrave's Proofs and Illustrations, p. cccxlviii.) Again in Chaucer we find

"By God we owen fourty pounds for stones." Sompnoure's Tale, 1. 7688. According to the original meaning of "agan" and "owe," this ought to mean, we have forty pounds-they belong "to us;" whereas it really means directly the reverse, “they "belong to another." I repeat that I am unable to explain this difficulty.

(D.)

GRIMM further illustrates this singular etymology by a reference to parallel forms in the Lithuanian, Lettish, and Old Prussian. The Icelandic "skilja" corresponds with our verb 66 to skill," which has the sense of "to differ." "It "skilleth not" is used by Hooker for "it differs not" (see Todd's Johnson in v.). If I understand Grimm rightly, he conceives that the notion of mental "skill" or understanding is based on the material one of cutting in pieces or dissection, as we talk of "analysing a subject."

66

Our English word "kill" has, I conceive, no connection with "skila," but represents the A. S. "cwellan" or "cwæl"lan," ," "to quell." In a note Grimm adds that the proper meaning of the German "schelten" is "to charge another "with a debt." Particular persons seem to have been employed to do this publicly to the debtor (compare Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, ss. 613, 953). Their duty would be to declare to the slayer, on the part of the kindred of the slain, that he was called on to pay the "wergeld." "Jemanden quit schelten" is quoted by Adelung (Wörterbuch, in. v.) as an obsolete and provincial idiom for declaring a man free from a debt; but Adelung himself inclines rather to consider "schelten "" as a frequentative form of "schellen," "to make a noise or ringing sound," than as connected with "schuld." Grimm's researches, however, are probably of more weight than this conjecture. I ought in passing to observe that if Grimm is right in the origin which he assigns to "skulan," all apparent relation in form and in meaning between "sollen," ¿péλλw, ¿peiλw, debeo, voll, &c., will turn out to be purely accidental, and not, as Fr. Thiersch supposes possible, founded on the notion of fulfilling a duty. (See his Homerische Gramm. § 232; compare Philolog. Museum, vol. i. p. 419.) Indeed, independently of Grimm's argument based on the analogy of "dulgs" and other words, the presence in all the earlier forms of this verb of the k or c after the s is very much against the etymological relationship of "sollen," "voll," -péλw, the "sollo" of Festus, and their cognate words. The connection of "dulgs" with the modern German "dolch," a dagger, is questionable. (See Adelung, Wörterbuch, in v.)

(E.)

I OUGHT to notice some observations of Mr. Guest on the origin of a Scotch idiom, with which I am unable to agree. That gentleman points out (Trans. of Philolog. Society, vol. ii. pp. 151, 225) that the verb-substantive "is" was formerly in particular cases employed with all three persons, as for instance

CHAUCER'S Miller's Tale, 1. 4043.

"And therefore is I come and eke Allein."

Ibid., 1. 4029.

He also observes that Chaucer puts these phrases into the mouth of a person speaking a northern dialect:

66

"Of a town were they born that hight Strother,

"Fer in the north I cannot telle where."

Tyrwhitt's note on this is- "There is a Struther or Strauther "in the shire of Fife "-meaning, I presume, Anstruther. Mr. Guest then goes on to say,-"This use of 'is' may "have originated in that confusion of forms which often distinguishes a mixed or broken dialect, or it may be a rem"nant of an earlier and simpler grammar than our literature "has handed down to us." The first of these causes is probable enough, but with regard to the second I believe that an earlier grammar would be little likely to be more simple. So far as our knowledge extends, all analogy goes to show that languages drop forms and inflections instead of acquiring them.

In a subsequent paper the same writer (p. 225) gives some examples of what he considers the future sense of “is” with all persons, which I cannot think are really such—one instance is from Rob Roy :

"Aweel, aweel," said the Baillie, "we'se let that be a passover." So from Tim Bobbin,' and therefore Lancashire :—

"I'se think on it."

Until I fell in with Mr. Guest's conjecture, I always conceived the Scotch abbreviations "I'se," "we'se," to be nothing

case.

more than corruptions of "I sall," "we sall," for "shall," the liquid at the end being slurred over, as is frequently the It is quite true that in the West of Scotland, especially it appears in Renfrew, "is" is commonly used with all three persons; but there it is employed for "am" and "art," as a present tense (see Jameson, Dict. in v. "is"). When Andrew Fairservice says, "I'se warrant," I take "warrant " to be the verb, and the sentence to mean, "I shall warrant." Mr. Guest would make “is” equivalent to "I shall be ;" and "warrant" would be the substantive; but if so, what is to be said of the following speech of the same worthy, "I'se "be caution the warst stickler that ever stickit a sermon out ower the Tweed yonder, wad lay a ghaist twice as fast as "him, wi' his holy water and his idolatrous trinkets." If "I'se" represents "I shall," then this construction is explicable; but if it stands for "I shall be," then the second verb-substantive "be" would seem inadmissible.

66

(F.)

CICERO supplies a good example of this formation in his pathetic and indignant letter to Atticus (ix. 10), where he says of Pompey, "Ita sullaturit animus ejus et proscripturit "diu." Does not the difference in the quantity of the u make the connection between the desiderative verbs and the

future participle very doubtful? The latter is probably allied to the noun of the agent in or, ōris, and the feminine in ūra; like factor, ōris, factūra (see Bopp, ConjugationsSystem der Sanscrit Sprache, s. 26). The supine, which is in fact a verbal substantive retaining its governing power, is closely connected with all these forms.

66

Now it is singular that all the desideratives should be formed in the fourth conjugation, and it has often occurred to me (as it has done no doubt to others) that they are really formed by combining the supine with eo," "ire;" just as Tacitus uses the phrase "ultum ivit" (Ann. iv. 73), or "raptum ire" (Hist. ii. 6). In this way "esurire" would be esum ire." Again, the analogy of the future passive infinitive formed with "iri" and the supine is favourable to

66