Chapter VIII · CONTAMINATION.

We have discussed, in Chapter V., the force of analogy and its effect. We have now to study a phenomenon of language which may be called ‘contamination,’ and which, though widely differing from analogy in the most characteristic instances of both, is yet so closely allied to it as to render it a difficult matter to draw any hard and fast line of demarcation between the two.

We call the process ‘contamination’ when two synonymous forms or constructions force themselves simultaneously, or at least in the very closest succession, into our consciousness, so that one part of the one replaces or, it may be, ousts a corresponding part of the other; the result being that a new form arises in which some elements of the one are confused with some elements of the other.

Thus, for instance, to take an imaginary case, a person seeing a book on the table might wish to exclaim, ‘Take that thing away!’ Just, however, as he is uttering the word thing, the consciousness that it is properly called a book forces itself upon him, and he utters the word thook. Of course such a form is a mistake, and a mistake so palpable and, indeed, so absurd that the speaker will at once correct it. Every one, however, who is in the habit of watching closely the utterances of others, and indeed of himself, will be aware that such slips of the tongue are extremely common; and it is clear that, though such formations are, in the first instance, sudden and transitory, and generally travel no further than the individual from whom they proceed, yet they may, by repetition on the part of the same individual, or, it may be, by imitation, conscious or unconscious, on the part of others, end by becoming ‘usual.’

Contamination manifests itself not merely in the form of words, but also in their syntactical combination. In the case of such a curious mixture of two words as that which we took for our example, the very grotesqueness of the result would probably bar the way to the spreading of the word, though, as we shall see, traces are to be found of cases hardly less grotesque than this. In syntactical combinations, however, the results have far more frequently proved permanent; or, in any case, the results do not commonly appear in such jarring contrast to received usage as to challenge immediate correction, and, consequently, instances can be more easily found in literature of syntactical than of verbal contamination; some cases of such contamination pass into language and become ‘usual;’ some are refused admission into normal language and are set down as the peculiarities of the individual writer or speaker, or, it may be, as his mistakes.

We saw that formation by analogy manifests itself as the alteration of one form in compliance with a rule more or less consciously abstracted from a number of examples drawn from a group to which that form does not, strictly speaking, belong. Contamination is the alteration of one form on the model of another synonymous form. The difficulty of distinguishing between the two arises from this—that the contaminating form or construction often derives additional force from being associated with other members of its group, so that it may be doubtful whether the rule or the one synonym gave the impetus to the new formation. Nevertheless, we may lay it down that for analogy we must demand a sufficient number of examples on which to base a rule; while for contamination, a single form or construction may suffice. If we bear in mind these main points of distinction, we shall commonly find no difficulty in deciding to which of the two classes we should refer any particular case.52

Among the results of contamination in single words, we must naturally expect that those have the best chance of becoming permanent which least deviate from the correct form; i.e. where the synonymous53 forms confused resembled each other, and the form due to their contamination consequently bore sufficient resemblance to both to enable it to arise repeatedly in the mouth of several speakers, and, when formed, to escape observation. Thus the word milt (the soft roe of fishes) is a substitute for milk (it appears in Swedish as mjölke); this was probably due to contamination with milt (spleen), which is a different word.54 Again, the English combination ough is due to the contamination of three distinct forms, viz., ugh (A.S. -uh), -ogh (A.S. -áh), -oogh (A.S. -óh); whilst, at the same time, the loss of the gh has affected the quality of the preceding vowel by the principle of compensation. Thus the word through should have appeared as thrugh, A.S. *ðruh (for ðurh); but it has been altered to through, as if from A.S. *ðrúh, or else to *thurgh (A.S. ðurh), which has been lengthened to thor(ou)gh.55

A.S. byrðen, ‘a load,’ became burthen, and is now burden, the change being assisted by confusion with burden (Fr. bourdon), ‘the refrain of a song.’56 The word anecdotage is a wilful contamination of anecdote + dotage, with a side glance at age (time of life), though in dotage the suffix age has no connection with the noun of same sound. Another-gaines, which was used by Sydney in his Arcadia (1580) seems to have resulted from the confusion of anotherkins (of another kind), which survives in the Whitby dialect, and anothergates (of another gate, manner). On these instances, see Murray’s Dictionary, s.v.

In this and similar instances, where the fact that the word occurs in more than one meaning is due to confusion or misconception, it is often difficult to say whether we have to deal with contamination proper, as we defined it and illustrated it by the example on page 140. There exist, however, in many languages words and forms which can be explained in no other way. Such is the O.Fr. form oreste, a contamination between orage and tempeste; and again, the O.Fr. triers seems to be a contamination between tres (trans) and rier (retro).57

The confusion was rendered easier in the case of forms which may easily pass into a grammatical paradigm. Thus, from the Italian o of sono and the perfect termination in -ro (= runt), the o was transferred to the other third person plural forms; whence such forms as old Tuscan fecérono (modern furono) are contaminations between the forms fecéro and amano.

The confusion of words belonging to the same etymological group is more common: an instance may be seen in the Italian trápano (τρύπανον), whose form seems to have been affected by traforare.58 In Old French the form doins is due to a contamination between dois and don. In Provençal, the form sisclar seems a contamination between sibilare and fistulare.59 The English yawn represents a fusion of two Anglo-Saxon forms, géonian and gánian.60 The word minnow is a contamination between M.E. menow and the O.Fr. menuise. Both of these are ultimately from the same base, min (small),61 but underwent a different development. We might add as an instance the jocular coinage squarson = Squire + Parson.

Our word ache offers a further curious illustration. There was in Anglo-Saxon a verb ácan with past tense oc, past participle acen, which gave us the verb ake (to hurt)—now erroneously spelt ache, but still correctly pronounced. The noun in Anglo-Saxon was æce, in which the k sound was palatalised into the sound of ch (in church), whilst it remained k in the verb.62 Accordingly we find still in Shakespeare the distinction between the verb ake and the noun ache (pronounced with tch as in batch, etc.). The confusion began about A.D. 1700, when the verb began to replace the noun in pronunciation, and occasionally the spelling ache was used for both noun and verb. The prevalence of this spelling at present is mainly due, it appears, to a mistaken derivation from the Gr. ἄχος;—the pronunciation to confusion, or to contamination of the noun by the verb.

We reach the borderland of ‘Analogy,’ if we do not actually enter it, in those cases where a word—under the influence of a modal group with a synonymous function—assumes a suffix or prefix whose modal significance was already expressed by the word in its simpler form. Thus it has been considered a case of contamination of the comparative worse with the modal groups of the other comparatives in er, when we find the double comparative worser. Similarly, the Latin frequentative iactare (iacio) was extended into iactitare under the influence of the modal group composed of words like volitare, etc.: again, in English, the form lesser has, as an adjective, almost entirely superseded the form less; just as, in the colloquial language of the uneducated, we find leastest by the side of least. There is, in Gothic, a superlative aftuma, beside which we, however, find even there the double superlative aftumists. This appears in Anglo-Saxon63 as æftermest, M.E. eftermeste, and in Modern English as aftermost; where the o in the last syllable is due to the mistaken idea that the whole word was a compound of most, though, as we have seen, it was really another instance of a double suffix.

Contamination plays a far more important part in the area of syntax. It is easy to cull from the pages of authors of repute instances of anomalies which have no permanent influence on language: cf. ‘Amazed at the alteration in his manner, every sentence that he uttered increased her embarrassment’ (Miss Austen, Pride and Prejudice, ch. 43,64—a confusion between ‘She was amazed at the alteration,’ etc., and ‘Amazed as she was.’) There are many similar constructions in Shakespeare: cf. ‘Marry, that I think be young Petruchio’ (a confusion of ‘That I think is’ and ‘I think that be’—Romeo and Juliet, I. v. 133); so, again, ‘Why do I trifle thus with his despair is done to cure it’ (a confusion between ‘Why I trifle is to cure’ and ‘My trifling is done to cure,’—Lear, IV. vi. 33).65 The following are instances of syntactical contamination from various quarters:—‘Showering him with abuse and blows’ (Mary L. Booth, Translation of ‘Abdallah’ by Laboulaye, p. 4,—from ‘Showering abuse and blows upon him’ and ‘Overwhelming him with abuse and blows’). ‘Let us once again assail your ears.... What we have two nights seen.’ (Hamlet, I. i. 31), (from ‘Let us once again tell you’ and ‘Let us assail your ears with what we....’). ‘Jhone, Andrew, James, Peter, nor Paull Had few houses amang thame all’ (Sir David Lyndsay, The Monarche, Bk. III. i. 4541-42), (from ‘John, Andrew, etc. and Paul had few houses among them all’ and ‘Neither John, Andrew, etc. nor Paul had many houses’). ‘Thare ryches, rentis nor tressour That tyme, sall do thame small plesour’ (Ibid., Bk. IV., 5504-5; see Skeat, ‘Specimens,’ iii.), (from ‘Riches, rent, and treasure shall give small pleasure’ and ‘Riches, rent, nor treasure shall give much (or great or any) pleasure’). ‘What with griefe and feare my wittes were reft’ (Cf. Th. Sackville, Mirrour for Magistrates—Skeat, Specimens, iii., p. 287—stanza 18), (from ‘What with grief and what with fear my wits’ and ‘With grief and fear my wits, etc.’).

‘She was not one of those who fear to hurt her complexion’ (W. Besant, The World went very well then, ch. 26). ‘What Castilla insists’ (= What Castilla pretends + upon which Castilla insists),—Ibid. ‘If our eyes be barred that happiness’ (= If our eyes be debarred from that ... + If (to) our eyes be denied that happiness),—Comus, 343. ‘On attempting to extract the ball, the patient began to sink’ (= On attempting ... ball, the doctors saw that the patient, etc., + when the doctors attempted, ... the patient began, etc.),—Nichol and M’Cormick, p. 56. ‘I must insist, sir, you’ll make yourself easy on that head’ (She stoops to conquer, ii. 1,—a confusion between ‘I must insist upon your making yourself easy,’ and ‘I hope, or demand, that you will make, etc.’). ‘Was ever such a request to a man in his own house?’ (ibid.,—a confusion between ‘Was ever such a request made to a man?’ and ‘Did ever you hear such a request to a man?’). ‘A very troublesome fellow this, as ever I met with’ (ibid.,—A very troublesome fellow this + As troublesome a fellow as ever I met with). ‘There can be no doubt but that this latest step ... has been the immediate result of ...’ (President’s Address, Mechanical Section, British Association, Manchester;—a confusion between ‘There can be no doubt that’ and ‘It cannot be but that’). ‘I prefer to go to London rather than to Paris,’ (a confusion between ‘I prefer going (to go) to London to going to Paris,’ and ‘I would go to London rather than to Paris’).66

In many cases the contamination has become usual. We say in English, I am friends with him, from ‘I am friendly with him’ and ‘We are friends.’ The Danish popular idiom is similar: Han er gode venner med dem (He is good friends with them). Compare too, the following expressions: ‘a friend of mine;’ Fare thee well (a confusion between ‘Keep thee well’ and ‘Fare well’). On my behalf arose out of a confusion of the A.S. on healfe, ‘on the side of,’ with a second common phrase be healfe, ‘by the side of.’67 In Greek we find expressions like ὁ ἥμισυς τοῦ χρόνου, a confusion between ὁ ἥμισυς χρόνος and τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ χρόνου, etc.; in Spanish, muchas de virgines, instead of muchas virgines or mucho de virgines: in Italian, la più delle gente (Boccaccio). We have a similar instance of contamination in the case of the Latin gerund: Pœnarum solvendi tempus (Lucretius), from Pœnarum solvendarum and pœnas solvendi; nominandi istorum quam edundi erit copia (Plautus, Captivi, IV. ii. 72). Cicero, again, writes, Eorum partim in pompa partim in acie illustres esse voluerunt, in which there is a confusion between eorum pars and ii partim. Occasionally, a contamination results from the confusion of the active and passive constructions; e.g., I care na by how few may see (Burns’s song, ‘First when Maggie was my care’).

Sometimes an inaccuracy arises owing to the idea of a word which might have been used displacing the word which actually was used by the writer. Thus, for instance, the idea of the inhabitants displaces that of the town or the country: cf. Θεμιστοκλῆς φεύγει ἐς Κέρκυραν, ὢν αὐτὼν εὐεργέτης (Thuc., 1. 136): Auditæ legationes quorum (Tacitus, Annals, iii. 63). Cf. The revolt of the Netherlands (for the Netherlanders) from Spain; ‘That faction (for the partisans) in England who most powerfully opposed his pretensions’ (Mrs. Macaulay.)68 Here belongs the pleonastic use of pronouns, common in English: cf. ‘I bemoan Lord Carlisle, for whom, although I have never seen him, and he may never have heard of me, I have a sort of personal liking for him’ (Miss Mitford, Letters and Life, 2nd Series, 1872, vol. ii., p. 160).69 In Latin and Greek we often find the relative referring to a possessive pronoun, as if the personal pronoun had preceded: cf. Laudare fortunas meas qui natum haberem (Terence, And., I. i. 69);70 Τῆς ἐμῆς ἐπεισόδου, ὃν μήτ’ ὀκνεῖτε (‘The approach of me whom neither fear ye’—Sophocles, Œd. Col., 730).

We have next to note confusions of the comparative and superlative manner of expression, resulting in combinations like ‘Hi ceterorum Britannorum fugacissimi’ (Tacitus, Agricola). Cf. ‘The climate of Pau is perhaps the most genial and the best suited to invalids of any other spot in France’ (Murray, Summer in Pyrenees, vol. i., p. 131). ‘Mr. Stanley was the only one of his predecessors who slaughtered the natives of the region he passed through’ (London Examiner, Feb. 16, 1878, p. 204).71

A case of contamination sometimes results from the idea of the past time rising into memory simultaneously with that of present time: cf., in Latin, the use of iamdudum when joined to the imperative; as iamdudum sumite pœnas (Vergil, Æneid, ii. 103),—a confusion between iam sumite pœnas and sumite pœnas iamdudum meritas, i.e. between the thoughts ‘pray take’ and ‘you should long ago have taken.’ Cf. Those dispositions that of late transform you from what you rightly are (Lear, I. iv. 242), and He is ready to cry all the day; cf., also, such instances in Latin as Idem Atlas generat and Cratera antiquum quem dat Sidonia Dido (Vergil, Æneid, ix. 266), where the effect of the action once performed is intended to be brought out by the use of the present.

We often find in English an interrogation with the infinitive, where we should expect a finite verb; as, I do not know what to do; where we should rather have expected I do not know what I should do. This construction seems a confusion between cases in which the infinitive was directly dependent on the verb without any interrogative, as, Scit dicere (He can say); Il sait dire: and such constructions as What to say? I do not know. Other instances are Shelley, like Byron, knew early what it was to love (Medwin’s Memoirs of Byron, p. 9); How have I then with whom to hold converse (Milton); then sought where to lie hid (ibid.); hath not where to lay his head. This construction is common in the Romance languages; as in French,—je ne sais quel parti prendre; Italian,—non ho che dire; Spanish,—non tengo con quien hablar; Latin,—rogatus ecquid haberet super ea re dicere (Aul. Gellius, iii. 1).

Another form of syntactical contamination is when an interrogative sentence is made dependent on a verb, and, at the same time, the subject of this interrogative sentence is made the verb’s nominal object; as, I know thee who thou art: You hear the learned Bellario what he writes (Merchant of Venice, IV. i. 167): cf., also, Lear, I. i. 272. This usage is common in Latin; as, Nosti Marcellum quam tardus sit (Cicero): in Italian an instance occurs in tu’l saprai bene chi è (Boccaccio).

Similarly, we have cases in which the subject of an objective clause introduced by that becomes a nominal object of the principal verb; as, All saw him, that he was among the prophets: so, too, the object of some subordinate clause may be also object of the main verb; e.g., They demanded £400, which she knew not how to pay.

We find in English such phrases as ‘Such of the Moriscoes might remain WHO demeaned themselves as Christians’ (Watson’s Life of Philip III.)72 We find in common use such phrases as such as I saw side by side with the same which I saw, or that I saw. Bacon writes such which must go before; and Shakespeare, Thou speakest to SUCH a man THAT is no fleering tell-tale (Julius Cæsar, I. iii). So Fuller: Oft-times SUCH WHO are built four stories high are observed to have little in their cockloft. In Latin, we similarly find idem followed by ut, as in eadem sunt iniustitia ut si in suam rem aliena convertant. In English, again, we find sentences like— ‘But scarce were they hidden away, I declare, Than the giant came in with a curious air’ (Tom Hood, Junr., Fairy Realm, p. 87); It is said that nothing was so teasing to Lord Erskine THAN being constantly addressed by his second title of Baron Clackmannan (Sir H. Bulwer, Historical Characters, vol. ii., p. 186, Cobbett). We say ‘each time when’ and ‘each time that’ (similarly, in French we find ‘au temps où,’ and, at an earlier period, ‘au temps que’); ‘the rather because,’ as well as ‘the rather that.’

In English we frequently find constructions like ‘Mac Ian, while putting on his clothes, was shot through the head’ (Macaulay, History of England, vii., p. 24); ‘I wrote an epitaph for my wife though still living’ (Goldsmith, Vicar of Wakefield, ii.). In these cases, the predicatival attribute has the same function as a dependent sentence introduced by a conjunction; and consequently the circumstance described is rendered more exact by the placing of certain conjunctions before the simple adjective. So, in French, we say, Je le fis quoique obligé; and, in Italian, benchè costretto. Similarly, in Latin, many conjunctions are placed before the ablative absolute; cf. quamvis iniqua pace, honeste tamen viverent (Cicero): etsi aliquo accepto detrimento (Cæsar).

Conversely, the fact that dependent sentences and prepositional determinants may have the same function, causes prepositions to be used to introduce dependent sentences. This use is especially common in English: cf. Except a man be born (St. John iii. 5); For I cannot flatter thee in pride (Shakespeare, 2 Henry VI., I. iii); After he had begotten Seth (Genesis); sometimes this usage extends to cases where the strict written language hesitates to accept it as usual; as, ‘without they were ordered’ (Marryat); ‘I hate him for he is a Christian, but more for that—he lends’ (Merchant of Venice, I. iii. 43). Till and until are specially common in this use. Indeed, the prepositional use of these words has almost died out in Modern English, but is frequent in the literature of the Elizabethan age; cf. Shakespeare, ‘From the first corse till he that died to-day’ (Hamlet, I. ii. 105), where he should, strictly speaking, be him. Other instances are quoted by Abbott, § 184. It must, however, be particularly noticed that the constructions for that, after that, etc., may be used instead of for, after, when these words are used as conjunctions. A preposition also stands before indirect questions: cf. ‘at the idea of how sorry she would be’ (Marryat): ‘the daily quarrels about who shall squander most’ (Gay).

The result of contamination in syntax is often a pleonasm. Thus, in Latin, we frequently meet with several particles expressive of similarity; as, pariter hoc fit atque ut alia facta sunt (Plautus): and, again, we find expressions like quasi si; nisi si.73 Thus, in English, we meet with the common but incorrect expression like as if. We can connect a preposition either with a substantive or with a governing verb: we can say, the place I am in, or, the place in which I am. The two even occur in combination: cf. That fair FOR which love groaned FOR (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, I. v., chorus), and, In what enormity is Marcus poor in...? (Coriolanus, II. i. 18). Nay, we often find such expressions as of our general’s (Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, I. i. 1), instead of of our general or our general’s; ‘If one may give that epithet to any opinion of a father’s’ (Scott, Rob Roy, ch. ii.); ‘He is likewise a rival of mine, that is my other self’s’ (Sheridan): cf. also the common pleonasm of ours. Sometimes, to adverbs of place—themselves denoting the direction whence—is added a preposition with a similar meaning; as, from henceforth (Luke v. 10): cf. ‘I went from thence on to Edinburgh’ (Life of George Grote, ch. ii., p. 187).

Other instances of pleonasms arising from syntactical contamination are: ‘He saw that the reason why witchcraft was ridiculed was because it was a phase of the miraculous, etc.’ (Lecky, History of Rationalism, vol. i., p. 126); ‘The reason why Socrates was condemned to death was on account of his unpopularity’ Times, February 27, 1871).74

Double comparatives and superlatives pleonastically resulting from syntactical contamination are not unusual in English: cf. ‘Farmers find it far more profitable to sell their milk wholesale rather than to retail it’ (Fawcett, Pauperism, ch. vi., p. 237): ‘Still it was on the whole more satisfactory to his feeling to take the directest means of seeing Dorothea rather than to use any device,’ etc. (Middlemarch, vol. iii., bk. vi., ch. lxii., p. 365). Thus we have in Shakespeare, more kinder, more corrupter, and most unkindest (Julius Cæsar, III. ii. 187); and thy most worst (Winter’s Tale, III. ii. 180). In poetry, again, we find adjectives with a superlative sense compared; as, perfectest, chiefest (Shakespeare), extremest (Milton), more perfect (English Bible), lonelier (Longfellow).75

In Latin and Greek, we find the comparative where we should expect the positive; as, ante alios immanior omnes (Vergil, Æneid, iv.); αἱρετώτερον εἶναι τὸν καλὸν θάνατον ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ βίου (Xenophon). In Scotch it is usual to say He is quite better again for He is quite well again. We find the positive where we should expect the comparative, as in St. Mark ix. 43; Καλόν σοι ἐστί ... ἤ (It is good for thee than, etc.). We also find the superlative used where the comparative would be regular: cf. Theocritus, xv. 139: Ἕκτωρ, Ἑκάβας ὁ γεραίτατος εἴκατι παίδων.76

Pleonasm arising from contamination occurs most extensively in the case of negations. Cf. ‘There was no character created by him into which life and reality were not thrown with such vividness that the thing written did not seem to his readers the thing actually done’ (Forster’s Life of Dickens, vol. ii., ch. ix., p. 181). In older stages of English, as of German and French, this usage was very common. Cf. Parceque la langue française cort parmi le monde est la plus délitable à lire et à oir que nulle autre (Martin da Canale);77 Wird das hindern können, dass man sie nicht schlachtet? (Schiller). In Chaucer and Shakespeare the use of the double negative is common: First he denied you had in him no right (Comedy of Errors, IV. ii. 7). You may deny that you were not the cause (Richard III., I. iii. 90).78 With this we may compare the redundant negative in Greek after verbs of denying: οὐκ ἀπαρνοῦμαι τὸ μή; and, in Latin, non dubito quin: cf. also the use of the double negative in Plautus, neque illud haud objiciet mihi (Epid., V. i. 5). In these cases a negative appears with an infinitive where the main verb itself contains a quasi-negatival force: numerous instances may be found in Shakespeare; cf. Forbade the boy he should not pass those grounds (Pas. Pilgrim, 9).

So we find a contamination of the two constructions: ‘not—and not’ and ‘neither—not’ in cases like Shakespeare’s ‘Be not proud, nor brag not of thy might’ (Venus and Adonis, 113), = Be not ... and brag not + neither be ... nor brag.

Compare also, ‘I cannot choose one nor refuse none’ = I cannot choose one and I can (or may) refuse none + I can neither choose one nor refuse one.79

A pleonastic negation occurs in French and other languages after words signifying ‘without:’ cf. Mätzner, Fr. Gr., § 165: Sans NUL égard pour nos scrupules (Béranger); Elle ne voyait aucun être souffrant sans que son visage N’exprimât la peine qu’elle en ressentait (Bernardin de St. Pierre).80 A curious pleonasm of the article occurs in the following sentence: No stronger and stranger A figure is described in the modern history of England (Justin McCarthy, History of our own Times, vol. i., ch. ii., p. 31); a contamination between There was not a stronger figure, and No stronger figure.

NOTE TO PAGE 148.

A very interesting and useful little book has been published by Professor Nichol and M’Cormick on English Composition. It came too late into our hands for us to make use of the many instructive and often amusing examples it contains. We subjoin one (from p. 76).

‘The curses of Mr. A. B., like chickens, will come home to roost against him’ (a contamination of ‘will be brought up against him,’ and ‘will come home to roost’).

Contaminations will account for many irregularities noted by the authors.