The  only  thing  we  have  to  guide  our  judgment  is
our  linguistic  instinct.  Thus,  our  linguistic  instinct  at
once  denotes  as  compounds  combinations  in  which
there  is  isolation  of  meaning,  such  as  dceges  eage,  geaces
sure,  ivitena-gemot.  In  the  passage:  'sume  synt  yr{>
lingas,  sume  scephyrdas,  sume  oxanhyrdas'  (quoted  from
Archbishop  Aelfric's  Colloquy,  WW  90,9)  we  likewise
feel  that  oxanhyrdas  must  be  a  compound.  And  it  can
be  nothing  else  than  this  instinct  that  has  induced  edit-
ors of  texts  and  lexicographers  to  put  a  hyphen  be-
tween the  members  in,  for  instance,  byri-weard,  bytte-hlid,
helle-hcefta,  pdpan-hdd.
But  our  linguistic  instinct  cannot  tell  us  anything
as  to  the  degree  of  stability  of  such  compunds;  for,
as  for  the  most  part  it  depends  upon  currency  whether
reflexion  on  the  special  sense-units  is  present  or  not,
and,  as  in  all  cases  when  a  word  is  sparingly  recorded
we  are  unable  to  form  an  opinion  as  to  its  currency,
we  are  in  most  cases  not  in  a  position  to  decide  whether
the  combinations  in  question  have  really  grown  into  the
state  of  compound,  or  if  they  are  only  what  Brugmann
terms  'werdende  Composita'  (Grundr.  II:  4).  Thus,  if  some
poet  called  the  sun  dceges  steorra,  it  was  no  compound,
although  there  was  isolation  of  sense,  but  dceges  eage
apparently  was  a  popularly  current  appellation  of  that
beautiful  little  flower  which,  like  an  eye,  opens  and
closes  with  the  daylight.
