have adopted a less simple form. The High German is nein; the Anglo-Saxon na, which is our English по. Nein is compounded of ni-ein, just as non in Latin was from ne unum ; nenum is quoted by Nonius Marcellus from Lucillius and Varro, and it occurs in Lucretius 30 without the final m. Grimm supposes unum to have been aenum,31 and compares pœna, punio-mania-munio-pomorium—murus. Vos

sius admits this derivation of non, but conjectures that nenum may be from vn-ov. He then derives from nenum the French nenil and the Dutch neen! In Latin this compound non became the principal negative in conjunction with the verb. In German nein is only the answer to a question. In our own language and in German, not and nicht have usurped the place of the simple negative ne, which we find in Chaucer, and which gave much greater flexibility to the language from its position before the verb.

32

Our own negative no, which enters into the composition of not, is satisfactorily shown by Grimm to consist of ne, and the Anglo-Saxon á, ever or always. The Gothic form of this was ai33 (compare Greek as; Latin ævum), and niaiv meant never. The Old High German used êo and io, whence nieô, neó, nio;

30 iii. 200, iv. 716. Scaliger would read, "nenu expetet" for nemo expetet." Ter. Eunuch, i. 1. 7, ad Varron. p. 222.

31 See Hesychius, οἰνίζειν τὸ μονάζειν κατὰ γλῶσσαν.

32 These two words are the same, and both mean nothing. The variations are, Old High German, nêowiht, niowicht, nieht. Middle High German, nicht, niht. Modern High German, nicht. Anglo-Saxon, nâviht, nâuht, nauht. English, nought, not. Grimm, iii. 64, 721.

33 Grimm, iii. 140, 67.

K

66

any

and in composition neôman, neôwiht, no-man, nothing. When therefore we say "no one," it is originally the same phrase as the vulgarism never a one.' Never itself is compounded with the dative, as Grimm supposes, of a lost substantive afer, ever, derived from av, Gothic aiv. I am not aware of traces in English of the Anglo-Saxon ne se34 answering to their affirmative ge se; so that since the extinction of nay in common conversation, no is our only negative answer to subjective questions. There may be a question raised with regard to the origin of our nay or nai, and of the following suppositions I hardly know which is most probable: first, that ay is the Saxon â, ever, which seems likely from the reasons stated above, and that nay is that word with the negative prefixed, and therefore originally the same as no-the former perhaps being formed by the written language, the latter by the usual change of the broad á into o, as ác, oak, bán, bone; or, secondly, that nay is the Gothic negative nê, and unconnected with the affirmative particle which it resembles. It may be worth while perhaps to return for a moment to the distinction of Sir Thomas More, now that we have in some degree considered the origin of the particles which he speaks of. The difference asserted by him to exist is this-yea and nay are the proper answers to the questions in which no negative is inserted, or when the opinion of the speaker is not declared; yes and no to those in which, by expressing the negative, the question is equivalent

34 Rask, p. 133. Grimm, iii. 766.

to or implies an assertion on the part of him who proposes it. Gese and nese would apply more fitly to the case where a previous assertion is made, than to one where nothing has been pronounced before; and we find nese used in this manner, equivalent to "it is not so.' 66 John vii. 12: sumæ cwæbon, he ys gód, odre cwædon, ne se." But nevertheless I doubt very much whether the distinction that More upholds existed in AngloSaxon; at least in John xxi. 5 we find it disregarded in the case of ne se: "cwede ge hæbbe ge sufoll? Hig andswarodon hym, ne se." It may however have grown up after this period, and yet be not the less grounded on a real difference in the words. The better way will be to go through the passages in the New Testament, in which the words nay, yea, and yes occur, and compare in each case the translation of Wiclif and of Tyndal. To begin with that in which Tyndal is attacked by More: John i. 21, "Art thou that prophet?" is answered by nay in Wiclif's translation, no in Tyndal, and no in our authorised version. John xxi. 5, "Children have ye any meat?" in Wiclif nai, Tyndal no, our version no. Luke xii. 51, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth?" is answered by nay in all these translations, and in the Anglo-Saxon by

ne.

The same is the case with the affirmative questions. Luke xiii. 3-5, Rom. iii. 9, "Are we better then than they?" in Wiclif the reply is nai, in Tyndal and the modern version no; but in the 27th verse of the same chapter all use nay. In Cranmer's Bible, Haggai ii. 12, an affirmative ques

tion is answered by no. In Coverdale's and in our version, the negative question (Zech. iv. 5), "Knowest thou not what these be?" is replied to by no. It is clear, I think, from these instances, that the distinction was practically gone in Henry VIII.'s time, however More might wish to renew it to disparage his opponent. But it is singular that whereas in the later translations, no and nay seem used indifferently, in no one of these cases of affirmative questions does no occur in Wiclif. Unfortunately I do not know of any negative question answered by a negative particle in the New Testament. If such an instance should be pointed out, and Wiclif there used no, it would be pretty well decided that he acknowledged the usage.

With yea and yes there is not so much difficulty. In Matt. ix. 28, xiii. 51, Acts v. 8, xxii. 27 (all affirmative questions), yea is used by Wiclif, by Tyndal, and by our own version; whereas in Rom. iii. 29, "Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles?" yes is the answer in all these translations. I am aware that the number of instances I have cited is too small to form a complete induction; but I trust that some other person, whose reading in the older writers is more extensive than my own, may point out such others as may decide the question. As it is, it seems as if there was some foundation for More's rule, though it had ceased to be strictly observed. At any rate, trifling as such speculations are, one or two points may have been recalled to the reader's mind in these few

pages, bearing on the striking words of Archdeacon Hare:

66 6

6

"It is time to give over the barbarian cry that "we have nothing to do with the Greeks and "Romans. We, too, it ought to be our boast, are 'sprung of Earth's first blood;' we, too, belong to "that race which has brought forth almost every great act and every wise thought whereby man "has adorned and enlightened his birthplace; and "our speech is the title-deed of our descent from "it."-Phil. Mus., vol. ii. P. 212.

66

II. OBSERVATIONS ON THE PROVINCIAL WORD "SONGLE."

IN the Glossary of Provincial Words used in Herefordshire, published in 1839, the following observation is made by the editor, p. 121:-" A few words inserted in the list in Duncumb's Topography of Herefordshire have been omitted as not being known to be now current. For the same reason the word 'shackle,' which is said by Grose to mean stubble in Herefordshire, and the word 'Songal,' or 'Songle,' which is explained in Bailey's Dictionary (1735) to mean a handful of gleaned corn, in Herefordshire, have been omitted."

I had assisted in collecting materials for this Glossary, and after it was printed I obtained from a friend of my own (the Rev. William Hopton, of Bishop's Frome, near Bromyard, in Herefordshire) some account of the word "Songle," as then