Similar Free eBooks. Filter by An Introduction to English Morphology Words and Their Structure The Secret Life of Words: English Words and Their Origins. English Words: History and Structure is concerned primarily with the isbn eBook (NetLibrary) .. and the structure of English words. English Words: History and Structure is concerned primarily with the learned vocabulary of English, the words borrowed from the classical languages. It surveys.

English Words History And Structure Ebook

Language:English, Portuguese, Hindi
Published (Last):09.02.2016
ePub File Size:24.89 MB
PDF File Size:17.73 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration needed]
Uploaded by: JOELLE

'This text is very accessible to all levels of reader. Stockwell and Minkova assume no knowledge of linguistics or linguistic terminology, and they explain all. Paperback, eBook It surveys the historical events that define the layers of vocabulary in English, introduces English Words: History and Structure is suitable both for undergraduates and those with a more casual interest in the subject. curiosity about English words and about the nature of language in general, of topics, including the structure of words, the meaning of words, how Francis or Routledge's collection of thousands of eBooks please go to Note in passing that three major periods are distinguished in the history of the.

The result was a language of unsurpassed richness and beauty, which, however, defies all rules. To the Elizabethans it seemed as if almost any word could be used in any grammatical relation—adverbs for verbs, for nouns or adjectives, nouns and adjectives for verbs and adverbs.

Thus, as Dr. The end of this period of Tudor English and the beginning of modern English coincides with the appearance of a Revised Version of the English Bible, published in In the earlier part of the XVIIth Century the borrowing of learned words, especially from the Latin, though now also to a certain extent direct from the Greek, went on apace.

Indeed, by now the English had adopted far more new material than it could assimilate; and at the Restoration, when a new ideal of language prevailed, and speech tended more towards the easy elegance of a cultivated man of fashion, the vocabulary was sifted, and many of these cumbrous and tremendous terms of XVIth and XVIIth Century thought and theology fell into disuse. With the Restoration also came a new wave of French influence. Charles II and his Court had lived long in France; French fashions were supreme at the English Court, polite speech and literature was once more fitted with French expressions; and it became now, as we have seen, the custom not to naturalize these borrowed words, but to preserve as much as possible their native [75] pronunciation.

The structure of the English sentence, moreover, was modified owing to French influence; and the stately and splendid old English prose, with its rolling sentences and involved clauses of dogmatic assertion or inspired metaphor, gave place to a more and more concise, easy, and limpid statement, without the eagle-high flights of the old English, but also without its cumbersomeness, awkwardness, and obscurity.

With the Romantic Movement, however, at the end of the XVIIIth and the beginning of the XIXth Century, and with also the increased historical sense and interest in the past, many of these old words were revived; and we are probably now much nearer to Chaucer, not only in our understanding of his age, but also in our comprehension of his [76] language, than our ancestors were at the time when Dryden and his contemporaries found it almost incomprehensible without special study.

Indeed, the fifty years between the death of Shakespeare and the Restoration created a much wider gulf between the courtiers of Charles II and those of Elizabeth than the three hundred years which divide us from that period, and Shakespeare and Spenser are much more easily comprehended by us than by the men of letters who were born not many years after the death of these great poets.

Besides the shifting of the English vocabulary and the extinction of superfluous words, another and more subtle process has been steadily going on, and has done much to enrich our language. Owing to its varied sources our language was, as we have seen, provided with a great number of synonyms—words of different form, but expressing the same meaning.

But this superfluity of terms was soon turned to a good use by the ever vigilant Genius of the Language; little by little slightly different meanings began to attach themselves to these different words; each gradually asserted for itself its separate [77] sphere of expression, from which the others were excluded; until often two words which could originally be used indifferently have come to have quite separate and distinct meanings.

Often, however, the two words are derived from the same language, as ingenuous and ingenious , invent and discover , astrology and astronomy , and many others. Or one word with two different spellings, both of which were used indifferently, has become two distinct words, each of which appropriates a part of the original meaning.

Thus our word human was generally spelt humane till the beginning of the XVIIIth Century, though human occasionally appeared. Then, however, the distinction between what men are, and what they ought to be, arose, and human was adopted for the first, and the old spelling humane for the other [78] idea. So divers and diverse were originally the same word, and not distinguished in spelling till the XVIIth Century; and the distinctions between corps and corpse , cloths and clothes , flour and flower were not established before quite modern times.

These are obvious distinctions, which we can all understand at once, although the exact process which produces them remains, like so much in language, somewhat mysterious and unknown.

But, as we have seen in the development of grammatical distinctions, the Genius of the Language is often extremely subtle and delicate in its analysis, so subtle that although we feel instinctively the discriminations that it makes, we cannot, without some effort, understand the distinctions of thought on which they are based. Often, indeed, our usage will be right when the reason we give for it is entirely mistaken. The human mind, half-consciously aware of infinite shades of thought and feeling which it wishes to express, chooses with admirable discrimination, though by no deliberate act, among the materials provided for it by historical causes or mere accidents of spelling, [79] differing forms to express its inner meaning; stamps them with the peculiar shade it wishes to express, and uses them for its delicate purposes; and thus with admirable but unforeseen design, finds a beautiful and appropriate and subtle clothing for its thought.

Free eBooks for English Learners

Distinctions and nice discriminations of this kind are continually arising and attempting to establish themselves in the language, and we can all witness now the struggle going on to define the usages of the three adjectives Scots , Scottish , and Scotch.

Another distinction now tending to establish itself is between the terminations of agent-nouns in er and or. We speak of sailor , but of a boat being a good sailer ; of a respecter of persons, but an inspector of nuisances; or a projector , and the rejecter who opposes him. Here, again, the distinction is a somewhat subtle one, the agent-noun in or implying a trade or profession or habitual function, while that in er has no such special meaning. It is in instances of this kind, in the variations of our own speech, and that of others, that the study of words enables us to observe in little the processes and somewhat mysterious workings of those forces to which are due the perpetual change and development of national ways and usages and institutions.

It is not merely by borrowing from abroad, or by discriminations between already existing words, that our vocabulary is increased. New words can easily be created in English, and are being created almost every day; and a large part of our speech is made up of terms we have formed for ourselves out of old and familiar material.

One of the simplest ways of forming a new word is that of making compounds, the joining together of two or more separate terms to make a third.

This method of making words was very commonly employed in Greek, but was rare in classical Latin, as it is rare in French. In German it is extremely common, where almost any words can be joined together, and compounds are formed, often of enormous length. In the facility of forming compounds, English stands between the French and German; the richness of old English in this respect has been modified by [82] French and Latin influence; and here, as in vocabulary, English is partly Teutonic and partly French.

The most common of our English compounds are those in which two nouns are joined together, the second expressing a general meaning, which is somehow modified or limited by the first. Thus, to take modern instances, a railway is a way formed by rails, a steamboat is a boat propelled by steam, a school board is a board which controls schools, a board school is one of the schools managed by that board. We have also in English a curious kind of compound verb, where an adverb is used with a verb without actual union, as to give up , to break out , etc.

In this kind of formation the XIXth Century was especially rich, and gave birth to many such modern expressions as to boil down , to go under , to hang on , to back down , to own up , to take over , to run across. Verbs of this kind, though often colloquial, add an idiomatic power to the language, and enable it to express many fine distinctions of thought and meaning.

On the whole, however, the formation of new compounds is not of enormous importance to modern English; and the language has certainly lost some of its original power in this respect. Compounds, moreover, tend to die out more quickly than other words; the Genius of the Language seems to prefer a simple term for a simple notion; and a word made up of two others, each of which vividly suggests a separate idea, is apt to seem awkward to us unless we can conveniently forget the original meanings.

Word-composition [84] really belongs to an earlier stage of language, where the object of speech was to appeal to the imagination and feelings rather than to the intellect; and we find, perhaps, the most vivid and idiomatic of English compounds in words of abuse and contempt like lickspittle , skinflint , swillpot , spitfire.

The excitement of passion heats more readily than anything else the crucible of language in which is fused, ready for coining, the material for new words; and the abusive epithets of a language are always among its most picturesque and most imaginative words. For the poets also, who, like the vituperators, make their appeal to feeling and imagination, this method of making words is most valuable; and, being allowed great freedom in this respect, they have, by their beautiful and audacious compounds, added some of the most exquisite and expressive phrases to the English language.

The commonest way of making new words is by what is called derivation. We are all familiar with this method by which a prefix or suffix is added to an already existing word, as coolness is formed by adding the suffix ness to cool , or in distrust dis is prefixed to trust.

Thus, if we take the old English word cloud , we find a verb formed from it, to becloud , adjectives in cloudy , clouding , clouded , an adverb in cloudily , a substantive in clouding , an abstract noun in cloudiness , and a diminutive in cloudlet. Or [86] if a word like critic is borrowed, and finds a soil favourable to its development, it soon puts forth various parts of speech, an adjective critical , an adverb critically , substantives abstract and concrete, in criticalness and criticism , and a verb in criticize , which in its turn begets a noun and adjective in criticizing , and another agent-noun in criticizer.

A full list of the affixes in English will be found in any book of English philology or grammar, with their history and the rules, as far as there are definite rules, for their correct usage.

They can be divided into two classes—those of native and those of foreign origin. The most ancient of our derivative words, the small handful from the rich Anglo-Saxon vocabulary which has survived, are all, of course, formed from native affixes, and many of these affixes, ness , less , ful , ly , y , etc. But when in the XIIIth Century a large number of French words were borrowed, a great many of these brought with them their derivatives, formed on French or Latin models, and, as Mr.

We form adjectives, too, in al , ous , ose , ese , ary , able , etc. These French suffixes are for the most part derived from the Latin; ard , however, in coward , etc.

It is often maintained by the purists of language that these borrowed affixes should only be used for foreign words, that for our own native words only our native machinery should be employed.

Letters continually [88] appear in the newspapers denouncing this or that new formation as a hybrid, and begging all respectable people to help in casting it out from the language. There is, no doubt, a certain truth in the point of view; and the linguistic sense of all of us would be rightly shocked by such an adjective as fishic or fishous for fishy , or such a noun as dampment for dampness. But a little examination of the linguistic usage will show that no such rule can be absolutely enforced.

Latin borrowed Greek affixes, French borrowed them from German, and freely used them in forming new French words; many of our noblest old English words, as atonement , amazement , forbearance , fulfilment , goddess , etc. And when we wish to form a noun out of French or Latin adjectives ending in ous , we generally employ our native ness for the purpose, as in consciousness , covetousness , etc.

The foreign prefix re has been completely naturalized, and used again and again with native words, and the modern [89] anti and pro are added to English words with little consideration of their foreign birth, and one of our suffixes, ical , is itself a hybrid, combined out of Greek and Latin elements. The established usage of the language, stated in general terms, seems to be that foreign affixes, that have no equivalent in English, are often thoroughly naturalized and used with English words; and that this, too, sometimes happens when the foreign affix is simpler and more convenient than our native one, as the Latin re has replaced the old again , which we find in the old verb to again-download and other similar words.

When, also, borrowed words have become thoroughly naturalized and popular, and they are then treated as if they were natives— cream , for instance, comes to us ultimately from the Greek, but it has been so long at home, and seems so like an old English word, that it would be insufferable pedantry to form an adjective like creamic from it. So the correct incertain , ingrateful , illimited , have been replaced by the hybrids uncertain , ungrateful , unlimited , and schemer has taken the place of the older and more correct schemist.

This change has been rightly claimed as an instance of the unconscious exercise of a linguistic instinct by the English people; it has not been brought about by the efforts of learned men, but by the choice of the people at large, and is one of the manifestations of the Genius of the Language, which, in its capricious way, dislikes at times the incongruity in words composed of diverse elements.

This tendency, with the modern and more diffused study of language, has grown stronger in the XIXth Century, and with the exception [91] of thoroughly naturalized affixes like al , ize , ism , ist , etc. Since, however, such words abound in languages like late Latin and French, on which so much of English is modelled, and since many of our most beautiful old words are hybrids, and there was, indeed, no objection to them in the greatest periods of English, and our great poets and writers like Shakespeare and Milton have freely coined them, it is possible that a wider knowledge of the history of the language will modify this feeling, and they will in the future be judged, not by abstract principles, but each one on its merits.

Another curious thing about these affixes, due to the inscrutable working of the Genius of the Language, is the way in which some of them live and remain productive, while others, for some mysterious reason, fall into disuse and perish. Th , for instance, which was so freely employed to form nouns, as in health , wealth , etc. So, too, the prefix for corresponding to the still active German ver which we find in so many old words like forbid , forgo , forgive , forlorn , is now, in spite of its great usefulness, quite obsolete; and if we take many of our oldest suffixes such as dom , ship , some , etc.

Old words can be, and often are revived, but when an affix perishes it seems as if no effort can restore to it its old life. Which, then, of these instruments of verbal machinery are still living? A collection of the most important XIXth Century coinages will show that out of our great wealth of native suffixes but a few are still active, while almost all our good old prefixes have fallen out of use. Y is still, of course, used, as in such modern words as plucky , prosy ; we still form adverbs with ly , as brilliantly , enjoyably , and adjectives in less or ful or ish or ing , as companionless , and tactful , and amateurish , exciting , appalling , etc.

The most living of all our native suffixes [93] is the old ness for abstract nouns; boastfulness , blandness , absent-mindedness , are all XIXth Century words, and ness has also been freely added to words of Latin origin, as astuteness , saintliness. This suffix has almost entirely taken the place of ship , as gladness for gladship , cleanness for cleanship ; and ship , which has given us such beautiful words in the past as friendship , worship , fellowship , is almost dead now, chairmanship being, perhaps, the only current word formed from it in the XIXth Century.

The Latin suffixes in English show much more vitality. Probably the most common of them in XIXth Century formations is the use of the suffix al for forming adjectives or nouns.

Preferential , exceptional , medieval , are, with many others, XIXth Century words; phenomenal is a hybrid of Greek and Latin, and the nouns betrothal and betrayal are compounds of Latin and English. Other adjectives [94] are freely formed with ous , as malarious , hilarious , flirtatious ; with ive , as competitive , introspective ; less frequently with ary , as documentary and rudimentary. Ation and ment are the commonest Latin suffixes for forming nouns, as centralization , mystification , enactment , bewilderment , and there are many new nouns ending in ability as conceivability , reliability , etc.

The Latin prefix re is employed more than ever; multi , which was not common till the middle of the XVIIth Century, is much used now; counter is also living; intra has become popular, pre and non are much used, and quite recently pro as a prefix has sprung into sudden popularity, as in pro-Boer , pro-Russian , etc.

The French age , as in breakage , cleavage , acreage ; and esque , derived through French from the Teutonic ish , and used in such words as Dantesque, [95] omanesque , are still living. But by far the most active of our affixes are Greek in origin. The suffixes ic , ism , ist , istic and ize , and crat and cracy , are fairly modern additions to the language, and obviously suited to the XIXth Century, with its development of abstract thought, and its gigantic growth of theories, creeds, doctrines, systems.

With them also, to differentiate more nicely between various shades of thought, we find, principally in the XIXth Century, a great use is also made of Greek prefixes like hyper , pseudo , archi , neo , besides a great number of prefixes used in more strictly scientific terms like dia , meta , proto , etc.

Of all these ism is the most productive; it came to us through the French, who had adopted it from Latin; and as early as a few words from the French, like baptism , make their appearance in English. By the XVIth Century ism became a living element in our language; and since then it has rapidly grown in popularity, until in the XIXth Century more new words were formed from it than from any other affix, and practically all the old English suffixes once used in its place have, with [96] the exception of ness , been swallowed up and superseded by it.

It is now used, not only in modern words of Greek origin, like hypnotism , and still more in Latin words like pauperism , conservatism , commercialism , but also for words from other sources, as feudalism , Brahminism , etc. This is also true of agent-nouns in ist as in the XIXth Century scientist , opportunist , collectivist ; of adjectives in ic Byronic , idyllic , etc. The XVIIth Century gave us one or two instances of curious hybrid verbs formed with the Latin prefix de and the Greek suffix ize , as decanonize , decardinalize ; but since the period of the French Revolution gave birth to the verb demoralize , words of this formation have become extremely popular in French and English, and our modern vocabulary abounds in verbs like dechristianize , decentralize , deodorize , demagnetize , etc.

This short account of the decay of our English methods of word-formation, and the invasion of foreign affixes, which seem, like the foreign weeds in English rivers, to be checking our native growths, can hardly be [97] very cheerful reading for a lover of the old English language; and he cannot but regret the disappearance of many of those vivid syllables to which we owe in the past so many of our most expressive words.

Modern English

But as elsewhere in modern language, where reason and imagination are at war, imagination must give way to the claims of the intellect. Modern language is for purposes of use, not beauty, and these abstract terms in ism , ist , and ize , dull and dreary and impossible for his purposes as the poet finds them, are yet indispensable for the hard thinking of science, and of social and political theory. There are other ways of forming new words, not by addition, but by taking away one or more of the syllables or letters of which they are composed.

Thus the old adverb darkling seems like an adjective formed on a supposed verb to darkle , and from this supposition such [98] a verb arose. Husht , which was originally an exclamation like whist!

But to the process which has given us in recent times such words as cab , photo , cycle , bus , we owe the older words size , from assize , sport , from disport ; and the dignified consols , from consolidated annuities , has lost almost all traces of the mutilation which it has so recently undergone. Names of places are also a fruitful source of new words, for the Genius of the Language, when it has a gap in its vocabulary to fill, is apt to seize on any material ready to its hand.

Worsted is from Worstead, a village near Norwich, and canter is, of course, an abbreviation of Canterbury. Persons also have sometimes [99] the good or bad luck to add their names to the language. Tawdry is from the Anglo-Saxon Saint Audrey, who was famous for her splendid attire; the names of an English earl and a Scotch murderer are preserved in sandwich , and the verb to burke ; and the English word which in recent times has been most widely adopted into other languages is from the patronymic of an Irish landlord, Captain Boycott.

From fictitious characters come quixotic , dryasdust , the verbs to hector and to pander , while pamphlet is from the name of a character in a XIIth Century comedy. But many of our commonest and most familiar terms cannot be explained by any of the above methods, and have, as far as is known, no etymology in the true sense of the word. This history of all living languages shows the continual appearance of new terms, which cannot be traced to any familiar root or previously existing formation.

Among words of this kind which appear in the Anglo-Saxon period are dog and curse ; while such common words as girl and boy , lad and lass , pig , and fog and cut appear in the XIIIth and [] XIVth Centuries. None of these words can be traced with any certainty to words of previous formation. In the XIXth Century rollicking and the verb to loaf have appeared in England, while rowdy , bogus , boom , and blizzard are of equally obscure American formation.

How to Learn Italian with E-books

The same process has been going on in foreign languages, and many of our words of this class are borrowed from abroad. Risk and brave and bronze seem to be of Italian origin, while flute , frown , and gorgeous , and the XIXth Century rococo have apparently arisen on French soil. These new words were a considerable difficulty to the older philologists, who believed that all new words were descended from ancient roots, formed in times beyond the ken of history, when our ancestors possessed the root-creating faculty—a pure productive energy, which their descendants, it was believed, had long since lost.

It is one of the discoveries, however, of more recent philology that this faculty is by no means lost; [] that wherever language finds itself in its natural state, new words appear—words which have all the character of fresh-created roots, and which soon take their place side by side with terms of long descent, and are used, like them, for the formation of derivatives and compounds.

This imitation of natural sounds by human speech can never be an absolute imitation, although some of the cries of birds and animals have almost the character of articulate speech; and in words like cuckoo and miaow we do approach something like perfect representation.

But direct imitations of this kind are rare, and for the most part the sounds of nature have to be translated into articulate sounds which do not imitate them, but which suggest them to the mind. This symbolism of sounds, the suggestive power of various combinations of vowels and consonants, has never been very carefully studied, but certain associations or suggestions may be briefly stated.

It is obvious, for instance, that long vowels suggest a slower movement than the shorter vowels, and that vowels which we pronounce by opening the mouth convey the idea of more massive objects; while those which are formed by nearly closing the lips suggest more slight movements or more slender objects. Thus dong is deeper in sound than ding , clank than clink , and chip [] is a slighter action than that described by chop.

More subtle are the suggestions provided by consonants; thus for some reason there are a number of words beginning with qu which express the idea of shaking or trembling, as quiver , quaver , and quagmire.

The combination bl suggests impetus, and generally the use of the breath, as blow , blast , blab , blubber ; fl impetus with some kind of clumsy movement, as flounder , flop , flump ; from the combination gr we get words like grumble , which express something of the same meaning as groan , grunt , grunch , grudge , and the modern word of military origin to grouse.

From scr we get a number of words expressing the sense of loud outcry, as scream , screech , screek , scrike. The comparison of smack and smash , clap and clash will show this difference.

Words ending [] in mp , like bump , dump , slump , thump , convey the sense of a duller and heavier sound, stopped in silence but more slowly.

This suggestive power is due partly to direct imitation of natural sounds, but more to the movements of the vocal organs, and their analogy with the movements we wish to describe; an explosive sound describes an explosive movement, as in blast or blow , while a sound suddenly stopped suggests a stopped movement, and a prolonged sound a movement that is prolonged also.

But probably these analogies are mainly formed by association; a common word established in the language describes a sound or action, and its sound comes to be connected with the thing that it describes.

Other words are formed on its model, and finally the expressive power of the sound, suggesting as it does so many other words of similar meaning, becomes a part of the unconscious inheritance of those who use the same form of speech. Laudanum was perhaps an arbitrary term made by Paracelsus, and ogre is found without known antecedents, in the writings of one of the earliest of French fairy-tale writers.

Manufacturers and inventors have sometimes, as we all know too well, adopted this method of naming their wares; and to them we owe at least one useful word formed by this process—the word kodak , which has been borrowed from English into several foreign languages. A still more curious class of new words are those in which two or more terms are combined, or, as it were, telescoped into one; this is an old process in language, and verbs like to don do on or to doff do off are examples of it in its simplest form.

Other words supposed to have been formed by this process are flurry , from flaw and hurry ; lunch , from [] lump and hunch ; while flaunt is perhaps combined out of fly , flout , and vaunt.

Lewis Carroll amused himself by creating words of this kind, and has thus added at least two words to the English language— chortle , probably formed by suggestions of chuckle and snort , and galumph , out of gallop and triumphant.

About Words, Meaning and Vocabulary

In a large number of our new words, however, it is difficult to define the definite associations or analyze the elements that give them their expressive meaning. They seem to be creations of the most vital faculty in language, the sense of its inherent and natural fitness of the name with the thing.

The old words bluff , queer , and lounge are examples of this process, which, in the XVIIIth Century, gave us cantankerous and humbug , and several other similar words. Sometimes a word possesses a vague, undefined expressiveness, which seems capable of embodying various meanings, and words of this kind have been employed for different purposes before their final use is settled.

Thus conundrum , which probably originated in Oxford or Cambridge as a piece of jocular dog-Latin, was first the appellation of an odd person, then used by Ben Jonson for [] a whim, then for a pun, and finally settled down to its present meaning at the end of the XVIIIth Century.

The old word roly-poly has acquired in the course of its history the following meanings: When Dr. And yet a little study of the history of literature will show us that the most admired writers of the past took a very different attitude towards popular creations of this kind, and that words like rowdy , bogus , boom , and rollicking , at which we boggle, would have had no terrors for the greatest of our old poets.

Spenser and Shakespeare, for instance, adopted at once the then recent and probably Irish expression hubbub. Other words of a similar character— bang and bluster , flare and freak , huddle and bustle —were all apparently of XVIth Century origin, and all appear in the writings of Spenser, Shakespeare, or Milton.

Every time a new word is added to the language, either by borrowing, composition, or derivation, it is due, of course, to the action, conscious or unconscious, of some one person. Words do not grow out of the soil, or fall on us from heaven; they are made by individuals; and it would be extremely interesting if we could always find out who it was who made them. But, of course, for the great majority of new words, even those created in the present day, such knowledge is unattainable.

They are first, perhaps, suggested in conversation, when the speaker probably does not know that he is making a new word; but the fancy of the hearers is struck, they spread the new expression till it becomes fashionable; and if it corresponds to some real need, and [] gives a name to some idea or sentiment unnamed or badly named before, it has some slight chance of living.

We witness, almost every day, the growth of new words in popular slang, and the process by which slang is created is really much the same as that which creates language, and many of our respectable terms have a slang origin.

When, however, we come to learned, as opposed to popular words, the case is somewhat different. These for the most part make their first appearance in writing, and some of them are deliberate formations, whose authors have left on record the date and occasion of their creation.

Our words quality and moral are descended from Latin words made by Cicero to translate terms used by Aristotle; deity is from a creation of St.

The next three chapters deal with the mechanisms by which words were borrowed from Latin and Greek. This builds on their introduction to morphology, and also introduces some basic phonetic notions concerned with the sounds of English, before covering the interaction of phonology and morphology. Stockwell and Minkova discuss in detail how and why the sounds of the language change when words, or parts of words, combine to form new ones. In the following chapter, we are shown how words from the same root may hardly resemble one another at all.

The words demented, admonish, and mnemonic, for example, are all connected etymologically to the root morpheme men meaning 'think' or 'warn'. On the other hand, we are warned to be cautious about words that look as if they are closely related, as the resemblance is occasionally the result of historical accident.

Chapter 9 is entitled "Semantic Change and Semantic Guesswork". The authors introduce the ideas of homophony, polysemy, homonymy, homography. These are used respectively to describe different words that sound alike, words with multiple meanings, words that sound alike but have different meanings and origins, and different words that are spelled alike. Two questions are considered in this section: what forces in our society or thinking bring about semantic change; and how do these changes affect the lexicon?

In answering these, the following mechanisms of change are described: analogy using a word in a figurative sense , metonymy naming one thing as another , narrowing changing to a more specific meaning , generalisation changing to a less specific meaning , amelioration increasing in social status , and perjoration decreasing in social status.

Pronunciation and stress rules are the focus of the final chapter. Rules for stress placement in English are notoriously complex, and stress very often shifts when a word is borrowed into the language. Stockwell and Minkova discuss some rules for predicting when and how these changes takes place. In the late s, a consortium formed to develop the Open eBook format as a way for authors and publishers to provide a single source-document which many book-reading software and hardware platforms could handle.

Focused on portability, Open eBook as defined required subsets of XHTML and CSS ; a set of multimedia formats others could be used, but there must also be a fallback in one of the required formats , and an XML schema for a "manifest", to list the components of a given e-book, identify a table of contents, cover art, and so on.

Google Books has converted many public domain works to this open format. Unofficial and occasionally unauthorized catalogs of books became available on the web, and sites devoted to e-books began disseminating information about e-books to the public. Consumer e-book publishing market are controlled by the "Big Five". Libraries began providing free e-books to the public in through their websites and associated services, [37] although the e-books were primarily scholarly, technical or professional in nature, and could not be downloaded.

In , libraries began offering free downloadable popular fiction and non-fiction e-books to the public, launching an E-book lending model that worked much more successfully for public libraries.

National Library of Medicine has for many years provided PubMed , a nearly-exhaustive bibliography of medical literature. In early , NLM started PubMed Central , which provides full-text e-book versions of many medical journal articles and books, through cooperation with scholars and publishers in the field.

English Words: History and Structure

Pubmed Central now provides archiving and access to over 4. However, some publishers and authors have not endorsed the concept of electronic publishing , citing issues with user demand, copyright piracy and challenges with proprietary devices and systems. This survey found significant barriers to conducting interlibrary loan for e-books. Mellon Foundation. This means the library does not own the electronic text but that they can circulate it either for a certain period of time or for a certain number of check outs, or both.

When a library downloads an e-book license, the cost is at least three times what it would be for a personal consumer. However, some studies have found the opposite effect for example, Hilton and Wikey [49] Archival storage[ edit ] The Internet Archive and Open Library offer more than six million fully accessible public domain e-books. Project Gutenberg has over 52, freely available public domain e-books.

Dedicated hardware readers and mobile software[ edit ] See also: Comparison of e-book readers The BEBook e-reader An e-reader , also called an e-book reader or e-book device, is a mobile electronic device that is designed primarily for the purpose of reading e-books and digital periodicals. An e-reader is similar in form, but more limited in purpose than a tablet.

In comparison to tablets, many e-readers are better than tablets for reading because they are more portable, have better readability in sunlight and have longer battery life. Roberto Busa begins planning the Index Thomisticus.

Hart types the US Declaration of Independence into a computer to create the first e-book available on the Internet and launches Project Gutenberg in order to create electronic copies of more books.

This vast amount of data could be fit into something the size of a large paperback book, with updates received over the "Sub-Etha".The flooding of the English vocabulary with French words began, as we have seen, in the XIIIth Century, and reached very large proportions in the century that followed. This is followed by an explanation of historical influences on the early vocabulary of English, including Celtic, Latin, and Continental loanwords, Scandinavian invasions of Britain in the Middle Ages, and the Norman Conquest of You can use this book in a classroom, with a tutor, or on your own.

For if we do not change our adjectives or possessive pronouns for the plural, and say his hat and his hats, why should we change this and that into these and those in the same [18] positions? I love the Cambridge layout, with clear explanations on one side of the page, and related exercises on the other.