I 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2008 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/etymologysyntaxoOOcromrich 
 
U^i^il 
 
 TSC 
 
 ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX 
 
 ENGLISH LANGUAGE 
 
 EXPLAnrCD AXD ILLTiTIATED, 
 BY THE REV. ALEX, CROMBIE, 
 
 THE TUIRJ} EDITIOS, 
 
 LONDON, 
 FBIKTED FOB JOHM TATLOB^ 
 
 18S0 
 
LONDON: 
 
 rKlNTEI) BY in6MA8 D^VISOV, WHITEF IlIARS. 
 
cnf 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 TO 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The success, Avith which the principles of 
 any art or science are investigated, is gene- 
 rally proportioned to the number of those, 
 whose labours are directed to its cultivation 
 and improvement. Inquiry is necessarily 
 the parent of knowledge ; error itself, pro- 
 ceeding from discussion, leads ultimately to 
 the establishment of truth. 
 
 Were we to estimate our progress in the 
 knowledge of English grammar from the 
 number of works already published on the 
 subject, we should perhaps be prompted to 
 infer, that in a field so circumscribed, and 
 at the same time so often and so ably ex- 
 plored, no object worthy of notice could 
 have escaped attention. And yet in this, as 
 
IV PREFACE TO 
 
 in every other art or science, strict exami- 
 nation will convince us, that, though much 
 may have been accomplished, still much re- 
 mains, to stimulate the industry, and exer- 
 cise the ingenuity, of future inquirers. The 
 author indeed is fully persuaded, that it is 
 impossible to examine the English language 
 with any degree of critical accuracy, and 
 not perceive, that its syntactical principles 
 especially are yet but imperfectly illustrated, 
 and that there are many of its idioms, which 
 have entirely eluded the attention of our 
 grammarians. That these defects are all 
 supplied by the present work, the author is 
 far from having the vanity to believe. That 
 he has examined a few peculiarities, and elu- 
 cidated some principles, which have escaped 
 the observation of other grammarians, he 
 trusts the intelligent reader will remark. 
 
 The Treatise, the second edition of which 
 now solicits the notice of the public, is in- 
 tended chiefly for the improvement of those, 
 who have made some advancement in classic 
 literature. That an acquaintance with Greek 
 and Latin facilitates the acquisition of every 
 other language, and that by a knowledge of 
 
THE SECOND EDITION. V 
 
 these the classical scholar is therefore mate- 
 rially assisted in attaining a critical ac- 
 quaintance with his native tongue, it would 
 argue extreme perversitj^ to deny. But that 
 an extensive knowledge of Greek and Latin 
 is often associated with an imperfect and 
 superficial acquaintance with the principles 
 of the English language is a fact, which ex- 
 perience demonstrates, and it would not be 
 difficult to explain. To make any tolerable 
 progress in a classical course, without ac- 
 quiring a general knowledge of English 
 grammar, is indeed impossible; yet to finish 
 that course, without any correct acquaint- 
 ance with the mechanism of the English 
 language, or any critical knowledge of its 
 principles, is an occurrence neither singular 
 nor surprising. No language whatever can 
 be critically learned, but by careful study of 
 its general structure, and peculiar principles. 
 To assist the classical scholar in attainins; a 
 correct acquaintance with English grammar, 
 is the chief, though not the sole end, for 
 which the present Treatise was composed. 
 That it is, in some degree, calculated to 
 answer this purpose, the author, from its 
 reception, is willing to believe. 
 
¥1 PREFACE TO 
 
 His obligations to his predecessors in the 
 same department of literature, he feels it his 
 duty to acknowledge. He trusts at the same 
 time, that the intelligent reader will per- 
 ceive, that he has neither copied with ser- 
 vility, nor implicitly adopted the opinions 
 of others ; but has, in every question, exer- 
 cised his own judgment, in observance of 
 that respect, which all men owe to truth, and 
 consistently, he hopes, with that deference, 
 which is confessedly due to transcendent 
 talents. 
 
 The Treatise, he believes, contains some 
 original observations. That all of these de- 
 serve to be honoured with a favourable ver- 
 dict in the court of Criticism, he has neither 
 the presumption to insinuate, nor the vanity 
 to suppose. If they be found subservient 
 to the elucidation of any controverted point, 
 be the ultimate decision what it may, the 
 author will attain his aim. 
 
 The work having been composed amidst 
 the solicitudes and distractions of a laborious 
 profession, the author has reason to appre- 
 hend, that some verbal inaccuracies may 
 
THE SECOND EDITION. Vll 
 
 have escaped his attention. But, in what- 
 ever other respects the diction may be faulty, 
 he trusts at least, that it is not chargeable 
 with obscurity ; and that he may be able to 
 say, in the humble language of the poet, 
 
 " Ergo, fungar vice cotis, acutum 
 
 Reddere quae ferrum valet exsors ipsa secandi/' 
 
 Hor. Art. Poet. 
 
 Greenwich, 
 3d July, 1809. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO 
 
 THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 The following work, which has been for 
 some time out of print, having been favoured 
 with the gratifying approbation of the Rev. 
 Professor Dale, and selected by that learned 
 and worthy preceptor, as one of the text 
 books for the class of English literature in 
 the University of London, a new edition has 
 become necessary. The author's time and 
 attention having been recently devoted to 
 another publication, which was not com- 
 pleted until it became indispensable that 
 this volume should be sent to press, the only 
 additions here introduced are such as oc- 
 curred to the author while the work was pro- 
 ceeding through the hands of the printer. 
 They will be found, however, to be in num- 
 ber not inconsiderable ; and it is hoped, that 
 in quality they will be thought not unworthy 
 
X PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 of the student's attention. They consist 
 chiefly of examples of solecism and impro- 
 priety, accompanied with such critical re- 
 marks as these errors have suggested, and 
 such illustrations as they seemed to require. 
 This mode of enlargement the author has 
 preferred, persuaded of the truth of Dr. 
 Lowth's observation, that one of the most 
 successful methods of conveying instruction 
 is, " to teach what is right, by showing what 
 is wrong.'" 
 
 York Terrace, Regent's Park, 
 28th Sept. 1829. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction. 
 
 
 
 Of Language in general, and the English Alphabet 
 
 1 
 
 
 PART I. 
 
 
 Of Etymology 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 . 17 
 
 Of the Noun 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 . 21 
 
 Of the Article 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 . 52 
 
 Of the Pronoun 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 . 69 
 
 Of the Adjective 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 . 88 
 
 Of the Verb 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 . 107 
 
 Of the Participle 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 . 142 
 
 Of Adverbs 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 . 199 
 
 Of Prepositions 
 
 . 
 
 . 203 
 
Xll 
 
 Of Conjunctions 
 
 Of Interjections 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Page 
 215, 
 
 224 
 
 Op Syntax 
 
 PART 11. 
 
 226 
 
 PART III. 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Canons op Criticism 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Critical Remarks and Illustrations. 
 Sect. i. — The Noun 
 Sect. ii. — The Adjective 
 Sect. hi. — The Pronoun 
 Sect. iv. — The Verb 
 Sect. v. — The Adverb 
 Sect, vi.— The Preposition 
 Sect. vii. — The Conjunction 
 
 317 
 
 334 
 346 
 361 
 375 
 403 
 413 
 417 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 252, line 13, after than, insert a. 
 274, — 1 7, ./or son, 7-6'rtri sun. 
 284, — 1, after of, insert his. 
 284, — 29, /or participle's, rearf panicipk'tf. 
 
ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX 
 
 ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Language consists of intelligible signs, and is 
 the medium by which the mind communicates its 
 thoughts. It is either articulate or inarticulate ; 
 artificial or natural. The former is peculiar to man ; 
 the latter is common to all animals. By inarticulate 
 language, we mean those instinctive sounds, or cries, 
 by which the several tribes of inferior creatures are 
 enabled to express their sensations and desires. By 
 articulate language is understood a system of expres- 
 sion, composed of simple sounds, differently modified 
 by the organs of speech, and variously combined. 
 
 Man, like every other animal, has a natural lan- 
 guage intelligible to all of his own species. This 
 language, however, is extremely defective, being con- 
 fined entirely to the general expression of joy, grief, 
 fear, and the other passions or emotions of the mind ; 
 it is, therefore, wholly inadequate to the purposes of 
 
 B 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 rational intercourse, and the infinitely diversified ideas 
 of an intelligent being. Hence arises the necessity 
 of an artificial or articulate language ; a necessity 
 coeval with the existence of man in his rudest state, 
 increasing also with the enlargement of his ideas, and 
 the improvement of his mind. Man, therefore, was 
 formed capable of speech. Nature has furnished him 
 with the necessary organs, and with ingenuity to 
 render them subservient to his purposes. And 
 though at first his vocabulary was doubtless scanty, 
 as his wants were simple, and his exigencies few, his 
 language and his intellect would naturally keep 
 pace. As the latter improved, the former would be 
 enlarged. 
 
 Oral language, we have reason to suppose, con- 
 tinued long to be the only medium by which know- 
 ledge could be imparted, or social intercourse main- 
 tained. But, in the progress of science, various 
 methods were devised for attaining a more perma- 
 nent and more extensive vehicle of thought. Of 
 these, the earliest were, as some think, picture-writing 
 and hieroglyphics. Visible objects and external 
 events were delineated by pictures, while immaterial 
 things were emblematically expressed by figures re- 
 presentative of such physical objects as bore some 
 conceived analogy or resemblance to the thing to be 
 expressed. These figures or devices were termed 
 hieroglyphics *. It is obvious, however, that this 
 
 * Beattie seems to think that the antediluvians had an al])ha- 
 bet, and that hieroglyphical was posterior to alphabetical \vriting. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 medium of communication must not only have em* 
 barrassed by its obscurity, but must have also been 
 extremely deficient in variety of expression. . . 
 
 At length oral language, by an effort of ingenuity, 
 which must ever command admiration, was resolved 
 into its simple or elementary sounds, and these were 
 characterized by appropriate symbols *. Words, the 
 
 " The ^visdom and simple manners of the first men," says he, 
 " would incline me to think, that they must have had an alpha- 
 bet ; for hieroglyphic characters imj^ly quaintness' and witticism." 
 In this reasoning I cannot concur. Alphabetic writing is indeed 
 simple, when known ; so also are most inventions. But, simple 
 and easy as it appears to us, we have only to examine the art 
 itself, to be fully convinced, that science, genius, and industry, 
 must have been combined in inventing it. Nay, the learned 
 author himself acknowledges, " that though of easy acquisition to 
 us, it is in itself neither easy nor obvious." He even admits, '■' that 
 alphabetical writing must be so remote from the conceptions of 
 those who never heard of it, that without divine aid it would 
 seem to be unsearchable and impossible." I observe also that in 
 passing from picture-writing to hieroglyphical expression, and in 
 transferring the signs of physical to intellectual and invisible 
 objects, fanciful conceits would naturally take place. It is true 
 also that the manners of the antediluvians were simple ; but it is 
 not from prudence nor simplicity of manners, but from human 
 genius, gradually improved, that we are to expect inventions, 
 which require the greatest efforts of the human mind, 
 
 * Cicero regards the invention of alphabetic writing as an 
 evidence of the celestial character of the soul ; and many have 
 ascribed its origin to the inspiration of the Deity. To resort to 
 supernatural causes, to account for the production of any rare 
 or striking event, is repugnant to the principles of true philo- 
 sophy. And how wonderful soever the art of alphabetic writing 
 may appear, there can be no necessity for referring its introduc- 
 tion to divine inspiration, if the inventive powers of man be not 
 demonstrably unequal to the task. Picture-writing is generally 
 believed to have been the earliest mode of recording events, or 
 
 B 2 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 signs of thought, came thus to be represented by 
 letters, or characters arbitrarily formed, to signify 
 the different sounds of which the words were se- 
 verally composed. The simplest elementary part of 
 written language is, therefore, a letter; and the 
 elements or letters into which the words of any lan- 
 guage may be analysed, form the necessary alphabet 
 of that language. 
 
 In the English alphabet are twenty-six letters. 
 
 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ. 
 
 a be de fghij klmnopqrstuvwxyz. 
 
 Of these there are six vowels, or letters, which by 
 themselves make every one a perfect sound. The 
 remaining twenty are called consonants, or letters, 
 which cannot be sounded without a vowel. 
 
 This alphabet is both redundant and defective. 
 
 communicating information by permanent signs. This was pro- 
 bably succeeded by hieroglyphical characters. How these pic- 
 tures and hieroglyphical devices would, either through negligence 
 or a desire to abbreviate, gradually vary their form, and lose their 
 resem])lance to the objects which they represented, may be easily 
 conceived. Hence that association, which existed between the 
 sign and the thing signified, being founded in resemblance, would 
 in process of time be entirely dissolved. This having taken place, 
 hieroglyphical characters would naturally be converted into a 
 mere verbal denotation, representative of words and not of things. 
 Hence, as Goguot in his work, Do TOrigine des Loix, &c. reason- 
 ably conjectures, would arise by a partial and easy analysis, a 
 syllabic mode of denotation, which would naturally introduce a 
 literal alphabet. This conjecture must seem highly probable, 
 when it is considered, that both a verbal and syllabic mode of no- 
 tation are still practised by some Eastern nations. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 It is redundant : for of the vowels, the letters i and 
 y are in sound the same : one of them therefore is 
 unnecessary. Of the consonants, the articulator c 
 having sometimes the sound of k, and sometimes of 
 s, one of these must be unnecessary. Q, having in 
 all cases the sound of k, may likewise be deemed 
 superfluous. J f^ appears to me in every respect the 
 same with the vowel u {oo), and is therefore super- 
 numerary*. The double consonant x might be de- 
 noted by the combination of its component letters, 
 g's or ^s. 
 
 It is to be observed also, that g, when it has the 
 soft sound, is a double consonant, and performs the 
 same office as the letter^'; each having a sound 
 compounded of the sounds of d and the French j. 
 Thus, g in general has the same sound as^' in Join. 
 J, however, is not, as some have supposed, resolvable 
 into two letters, for we have no character to express 
 the simple sound of the French j, of which, with 
 the consonant d, the sound of the English J is com- 
 pounded. To resolve it into dg, as some have done, 
 is therefore an error ; as the soft ^>', without the aid 
 of the other consonant, is precisely identical, in respect 
 to sound, with the consonant J. The letter h is no 
 consonant ; it is merely the note of aspiration. 
 
 Our alphabet is likewise defective. There are 
 
 * I am aware, that in considering the letters 1/ and w to be the 
 same with i and u (od), I maintain an opinion, the truth of which 
 has been disputed. The reasons, however, which have been 
 assigned for rejecting it do not appear to me satisfactory. 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 nine simple vowel sounds, for which we have only 
 six characters, two of which, as it has been already 
 observed, perform the same office. The simple 
 vowel sounds are heard in these words, 
 
 Hall, hat, hate, met, mete, fin, hop, hope, but, full. 
 
 Some of these characters occasionally perform the 
 office of diphthongs. Thus, in the word jine^ the 
 vowel i has the diphthongal sound of the letters a e, 
 as these are pronounced in French ; and the vowel u 
 frequently represents the dipththong eu (e-oo) as 
 fume (fe-oom). 
 
 There are, besides, four different consonants for 
 which we have no proper letters ; namely, the initial 
 consonant in the word t/miy the initial consonant in 
 then, the sibilating sound of sh, and the final conso- 
 nant (marked ?ig), as in the word smg. 
 
 Consonants are generally divided into mutes and 
 semi-vowels. The mutes are those which entirely, 
 and at once, obstruct the sound of the vowel, and 
 prevent its continuation. These are called perfect 
 mutes. Those which do not suddenly obstruct it 
 are called imperfect mutes. 
 
 Semi-vowels are those consonants which do not 
 entirely obstruct the voice ; but whose sounds may 
 be continued at pleasure, thus partaking of the na- 
 ture of vowels. 
 
 The nature of these consonants I proceed briefly 
 to explain. 
 
 A vowel sound may be continued at pleasure, or it 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 may be terminated, either by discontinuing the vocal 
 effort, in which case it is not articulated by any con- 
 sonant, as in pronouncing the vowel o ; or by changing 
 the conformation of the mouth, or relative position of 
 the organs of speech, so that the vowel sound is lost 
 by articulation, as in pronouncing the syllable or. It 
 is to be observed also, that a vowel may be articulated, 
 not only by being terminated by a consonant, as in 
 the example now given, but likewise by introducing 
 the sound with that position of the organs, by which 
 it had, in the former case, been terminated, as in 
 pronouncing the syllable ro. 
 
 In pronouncing the consonants, there are five di- 
 stinguishable positions of the organs*. The first is 
 the application of the lips to each other, so as to close 
 the mouth. Thus are formed the consonants p, b, 
 and m. 
 
 In the second position, the under lip is applied to 
 the fore teeth of the upper jaw ; and in this manner 
 we pronounce the consonants ^ and v. 
 
 The third position is, when the tongue is applied 
 to the fore teeth ; and thus we pronounce tk. 
 
 In the fourth position we apply the fore part of 
 the tongue to the fore part of the palate, and by this 
 application we pronounce the letters t, d, s, js, r, /, n. 
 
 The fifth position is, when the middle part of the 
 tongue is applied to the palate, and thus we pro- 
 nounce k, the hard sound of g (as in ga), sh,J, and ng. 
 
 * The mouth is not the proper organ for producing sound ; but 
 merely the organ for modulating and articulating the specific 
 sounds. 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 . In the first position we have three letters, of which 
 the most simple, and indeed the only articulator, 
 being absolutely mute, is p. In the formation of 
 this letter, nothing is required but the sudden closing 
 of the mouth, and stopping the vowel sound ; or the 
 sound may be articulated by the sudden opening of 
 the lips, in order to emit the compressed sound of 
 the vowel. 
 
 Now, if instead of simply expressing the vowel 
 sound by opening the lips, in saying for example pa, 
 we shall begin to form a guttural sound, the position 
 being still preserved ; then, on opening the lips, we 
 shall pronounce the syllable ba. The guttural sound 
 is produced by a compression of the larynx, or wind- 
 pipe ; and is that kind of murmur, as Bishop Wilkins 
 expresses it, which is heard in the throat, before the 
 breath is emitted with the vocal sound. B, there- 
 fore, though justly considered as a mute, is not a 
 perfect mute. 
 
 The mouth being kept in the same position, and 
 the breath being emitted through the nostrils, the 
 letter m is produced. 
 
 In the first position, therefore, we have a perfect 
 mute /?, having no audible sound ; a labial and liquid 
 consonant in, capable of a continued sound; and 
 between these two extremes we have the letter h, 
 somewhat audible, though different from any vocal 
 sound. 
 
 Here then are three things to be distinguished. 
 1st, Tlie perfect mute, having no sound of any kind. 
 2dly, The perfect consonant, having not only a pro- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 per, but continued sound : and 3dly, Between these 
 extremes we find the letter h, having a proper sound, 
 but so limited, that, in respect to the perfect con- 
 sonant, it may be termed a mute, and in relation to 
 the perfect mute may be properly termed imperfect. 
 
 In the second position, we have the letters^and 
 V, neither of which are perfect mutes. The letter^ 
 is formed by having the aspiration not altogether 
 interrupted, but emitted forcibly between the fore 
 teeth and under lip. This is the simple articulation 
 in this position. If to this we join the guttural 
 sound, we shall have the letter v, a letter standing 
 in nearly the same relation to^ as h and m, in the 
 first position, stand to p. The only difference be- 
 tween y and V is, that, in the former, the compres- 
 sion of the teeth and under lip is not so strong as in 
 the latter; and that the former is produced by the 
 breath only, and the latter by the voice and breath 
 combined. 
 
 The consonant j^ therefore, though not a mute 
 like p, in having the breath absolutely confined, may 
 notwithstanding be considered as such, consistently 
 with that principle, by which a mute is understood 
 to be an aspiration without guttural sound. 
 
 Agreeably to the distinction already made, v may 
 be termed a perfect consonant, andean imperfect 
 one, having no proper sound, though audible. Thus 
 we have four distinctions in our consonantal alphabet, 
 namely, of perfect and imperfect consonants ; perfect 
 and imperfect mutes : thus, 
 
 }) is a perfect mute, having no sound. 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 h an imperfect mute, having proper sound, but 
 limited. 
 
 m a perfect consonant, having sound, and continued. 
 f an imperfect consonant, having no sound, but 
 audible. 
 
 In the third position we have th as heard in the 
 words then and thin, formed by placing the tip of 
 the tongue between the teeth, and pressing it against 
 the upper teeth. The only difference between these 
 articulations is, that, like ^ and v, the one is formed 
 by the breath only, and the other by the breath and 
 voice together^. 
 
 Here also may be distinguished the perfect and the 
 imperfect consonant ; for the th in thin has no sound, 
 but is audible, whereas the th in this, there, has a 
 sound, and that continued t. 
 
 In the fourth position there are several consonants 
 formed. 
 
 1st, If the breath be stopped, by applying the fore 
 part of the tongue forcibly to that part of the palate 
 which is contiguous to the fore teeth, we produce the 
 perfect mute ^,'having neither aspiration nor guttural 
 sound. By accompanying this operation of the tongue 
 and palate with the guttural sound, we shall pro- 
 nounce the letter d, which, like h of the first position, 
 may be considered as a mute, though not perfect. 
 For in pronouncing ed, the tongue at first gently 
 
 * The sound of th in ihiii, is usually marked with a stroke 
 through the h,to distinguisli it from its other sound: thus, ttiick. 
 This distinction is by sonic writers reversed. 
 
 f Hutton's Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge, 
 vol. ii. p. 688.. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 touches the gum, and is gradually pressed closer, till 
 the sound is obstructed ; whereas in pronouncing et^ 
 the tongue is at once pressed so close, that the sound 
 is instantly intercepted. 
 
 2!dly, If the tip of the tongue be turned up towards 
 the upper gum, so as not to touch it, and thus the 
 breath be cut by the sharp point of the tongue passing 
 through the narrow chink left between that and the 
 gum, we pronounce the sibilating sound of s. If we 
 accompany this operation with a guttural sound, as 
 in ^, ^?, and tli in tlieyi, we shall pronounce the letter 
 % ; the same difference subsisting between s and % as 
 betweenyand v^p and ^, tti and th, 
 
 3dly, If we make the tip of the tongue vibrate 
 rapidly between the upper and lower jaw, so as not 
 to touch the latter, and the former but gently, we 
 shall pronounce the letter r. The more closely and 
 forcibly the tongue vibrates against the upper jaw, 
 the stronger will the sound be rendered. It is formed 
 about the same distance from the teeth as the letter 
 </, or rather somewhat behind it. 
 
 4thly, If the end of the tongue be gently applied 
 to the fore part of the palate, a little behind the seat 
 of the letter d^ and somewhat before the place of r, 
 and the voice be suffered to glide gently over the 
 sides of the tongue, we shall pronounce the letter /. 
 Here the breadth of the tongue is contracted, and a 
 space left for the breath to pass from the upper to 
 the under part of the tongue, in forming this the 
 most vocal of all the consonants. 
 
 5thly, If the aspirating passage, in the formation 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of the preceding consonant, be stopped, by extending 
 the tongue to its natural breadth, so as to intercept 
 the voice, and prevent its exit by the mouth, the 
 breath emitted through the nose will give the letter n. 
 
 In the fifth position, namely, when we ai)ply the 
 middle or back part of the tongue to the palate, we 
 have the consonants A*, g^ sh, j, and ng. 
 
 If the middle of the tongue be raised, so as to press 
 closely against the roof of the mouth, and intercept 
 the voice at once, we pronounce the letter k (ek). If 
 the tongue be not so closely applied at first, and the 
 sound be allowed to continue a little, we have the 
 letter g (eg). Thus ek and eg bear the same analogy 
 to each other, as et and ed of the fourth position. If 
 the tongue be protruded towards the teeth, so as not 
 to touch them, and be kept in a position somewhat 
 flatter than in pronouncing the letter s, the voice and 
 breath passing over it through a wider chink, we shall 
 have the sound of esk. 
 
 If we apply the tongue to the palate as in pro- 
 nouncing sk, but a little more forcibly, and accom- 
 panying it with the guttural sound, we shall have 
 the sound of the French^*. Thus J is in this position 
 analogous to the letters b, v, th In the first, second, 
 and third positions, and is a simple consonant : j in 
 English is a double consonant, compounded off/ and 
 the French^*, as in join. 
 
 If we raise the middle of the tongue to the palate 
 gently, so as to permit part of the voice to issue through 
 the mouth, forcing the remainder back through the 
 nose, keeping at the same time the tongue in the same 
 
INTUODUCTION. 
 
 13 
 
 position as in pronouncing egy we shall have the ar- 
 ticulating sound of ingy for which we have no simple 
 character. 
 
 The only remaining letter h is the note of aspira- 
 tion, formed in various positions, according to the 
 vowel with which it is combined. 
 
 The characters of the several letters may be seen 
 in the following table : 
 
 Perfect Mutes. 
 
 Sounded, or 
 imperfect 
 
 Imperfect Con- 
 sonants. 
 
 Perfect. 
 
 P 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 F 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 th 
 
 ththe 
 
 T 
 
 D 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 Z 
 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 K 
 
 G 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sh 
 
 J French 
 
 
 
 
 ng 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 What effect the compression of the larynx has in 
 articulation may be seen by comparing these pairs 
 of consonants : 
 
 With compression. 
 
 B 
 
 Without compression. 
 
 p 
 
 G 
 
 K 
 
 D 
 
 T 
 
 Z 
 
 s 
 
 Th 
 
 Th 
 
 V 
 
 F 
 
 J 
 
 Sh 
 
 These, as Mr. Tooke observes, differ, each from its 
 partner, by a certain unnoticed and almost imper- 
 ceptible motion or compression of or near the larynx. 
 This compression, he remarks, the Welsh never use. 
 For instead of 
 
 I vow by God, that Jenkin is a wizard ; 
 
 they say, 
 
 I few by Cot, that Shenkin iss a wisart. 
 The consonants have been distributed into different 
 classes, according to the organs chiefly employed in 
 their formation. 
 
 The Labial are eb, ep, ef, ev. 
 Dental ed, et, eth, eth. 
 
 Palatal eg, ek, el, er, ess, esh, ez, ej. 
 
 Nasal em, en, ing. 
 
 The association of two vowels, whether the sound 
 of each be heard or not, is called a diphthong, and the 
 concurrence of three is called a triphthong. 
 
 Of diphthongs there are twenty, viz. «/, au, ea, ee, 
 ei, eo, eu, ie, oa, oo, ui, ay, cy, uy, oi, oy, ou, aw, ew, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 ow. Of the diphthongs seventeen have a sound purely 
 monophthongal ; hence they have been called im- 
 proper diphthongs. It would be idle to dispute the 
 propriety of a term almost universally adopted ; but 
 to call that a diphthong whose sound is monoph- 
 thongal is an abuse of language, and creates con- 
 fusion. The only proper diphthongs in our language 
 are eu, oi, ou, in which each vowel is distinctly heard, 
 forming together one syllable. The triphthongs are 
 three, eau, ieu, iew. Of these, the first eau is some- 
 times pronounced eu, as in beauty, sometimes o, as in 
 heau; the other two have the diphthongal sound oieu. 
 
PART L 
 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 OF WORDS IN GENERAL, AND THE PARTS OF 
 SPEECH. 
 
 A WORD, in oral language, is either a significant 
 simple sound, or a significant combination of sounds. 
 In written language, it may be defined to be a simple 
 character, or combination of characters, expressive of 
 significant sound, simple or compound. 
 
 A word of one syllable is called a monosyllable ; of 
 two syllables, a dissyllable ; a word of three syllables, 
 a trisyllable ; and a word of more than three syllables 
 is called a polysyllable. The last term, however, is 
 frequently applied to words exceeding two syllables. 
 
 Words are either derivative or primitive. 
 
 A primitive is that which is formed from no other 
 word, being itself a root, whence others spring, as 
 angel, spirit, school. 
 
 A derivative is that which is derived from some 
 other word, as angelic, spiritual, scholar. 
 
 A compound is a word made up of two or more 
 words, as archangel, spiritless, schoolman. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 17 
 
 , In examining the character of words as significant 
 of ideas, we find them reducible into classes, or de- 
 nominations, according to the offices which they 
 severally perform. These classes are generally called 
 parts of speech ; and how many of these belong to 
 language has been long a question among philoso- 
 phers and grammarians. Some have reckoned two, 
 some three, and others four; while the generality have 
 affirmed, that there are not fewer than eight, nine, or 
 ten *. This strange diversity of opinion has partly 
 arisen from a propensity to judge of the character of 
 words more from their form, which is a most falla- 
 cious criterion, than from their import or signification. 
 One thing appears certain, how much soever the 
 subject may have been obscured by scholastic refine- 
 ments, that to assign names to objects of thought, 
 and to express their properties and qualities, are the 
 only indispensable requisites in language. If this be 
 admitted, it follows, that the noun and the verb are 
 the only parts of speech which are essentially neces- 
 sary; the former being the name of the thing of 
 which we speak, and the latter verb (or the word, by 
 
 * Plato and Aristotle, when they treat of propositions, con- 
 sidered the noun and the verb as the only essential parts of speech ; 
 these, without the aid of any other word;, being capable of forming 
 a sentence. Hence they were called ra efx-^vyoTara fxepr] m Xoys, 
 '' the most animated parts of speech." The latter of these phi- 
 losophers, in his Poetics, admits four, adding to the noun and the 
 verb the article and the conjunction. The elder Stoics made five^ 
 dividing the noun into proper and appellative. 
 
 C 
 
18 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 way of eminence) expressing what we think of it *. 
 All other sorts of words must be regarded as subsidi- 
 aries, convenient perhaps for the more easy commu- 
 nication of thought, but by no means indispensably 
 requisite. 
 
 Had we a distinct name for every individual object 
 of sensation or thought, language would then be com- 
 posed purely of proper names, and thus become too 
 great a load for any memory to retain. Language, 
 therefore, must be composed of general signs, that it 
 may be remembered ; and as all our sensations and 
 perceptions are of single objects, it must also be 
 capable of denoting individuals. Now, whatever 
 mode be adopted to render general terms significant 
 of individual objects, or whatever auxiliaries be em- 
 ployed for this purpose, the general term, with its 
 individuating word, must be regarded as a substitute 
 for the proper name. Thus, ma?i is a general term 
 to denote the whole of a species ; if I say, the man, 
 this man, that man, it is obvious that the words the, 
 this, and that, termed definitives, serve, with the 
 general term, as a substitute for the proper name of 
 the individual. 
 
 * Noun, Nomen de quo loquimur. 
 Verb, Verbum seu quod loquimur. — Quifit. lib. i. 4. 
 Horace has been thought by some to countenance this doctrine, 
 when he says, 
 
 ^' Donee verba, quibus voces sensusq ; notarent, 
 Nominaque invenere." — Lib, i. Sat. 3. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 19 
 
 Hence it is evident, that those words which are 
 termed definitives, how useful soever, cannot be re- 
 garded as indispensable. 
 
 The pronoun is clearly a substitute for the noun ; 
 it cannot therefore be deemed essential. The ad- 
 jective expressing merely the property or quality ifi 
 concreto^ without affirmation, may be dispensed with ; 
 the connexion of a substance with a quality or pro- 
 perty being expressible by the noun and the verb. 
 Thus, " a good man" is equivalent to " a man of^ 
 with, or jom, goodness." Adverbs, which have been 
 termed attributives of the second order, are nothing 
 but abbreviations, as, here for in this place, bravely 
 for brave like. These, therefore, cannot be con- 
 sidered as essentials in language. In the same man- 
 ner it might be shown, that all parts of speech, noun 
 and verb excepted, are either substitutes or abbre- 
 viations, convenient indeed, but not indispensably 
 requisite. But, as there will be occasion to illustrate 
 this theory, when the generally received parts of 
 speech are severally examined, it is unnecessary to 
 enlarge on the subject at present. 
 
 Though the essential parts of speech in every 
 language are only two, the noun and the verb ; yet, 
 as there is in all languages a number of words, not 
 strictly reducible to either of these primary divisions, 
 it has been usual with grammarians to arrange words 
 into a variety of different classes. This distribution 
 is partly arbitrary, there being no definite or univer- 
 sally received principle, by which to determine, what 
 
 c 2t 
 
20 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 discriminative circumstances are sufficient to entitle 
 any species of words to the distinction of a separate 
 order. Hence grammarians are not agreed concern- 
 ing the number of these subordinate classes. But, 
 into whatever number of denominations they may be 
 distributed, it should be always remembered, that the 
 only necessary parts of speech are noun and verb ; 
 every other species of words being admitted solely for 
 despatch or ornament. The parts of speech in 
 English maybe reckoned ten, Noun, Article, Pronoun, 
 Adjective, Verb, Participle, Adverb, Preposition, 
 Conjunction, Interjection. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 21 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF THE NOUN. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 Noun (Nomen) is that part of speech which ex- 
 presses the subject of discourse, or which is the name 
 of the thing spoken of, as, tohle, house ^ river. 
 
 Of Nouns there are two kinds, proper and appel- 
 lative. 
 
 A proper noun, or name, is the name of an indi- 
 vidual, as Alexander, London, J^esuvius, 
 
 An appellative, or common noun, expresses a 
 genus, or class of things, and is common or applicable 
 to every individual of that class. 
 
 Nouns or Substantives (for these terms are equi- 
 valent) have also been divided into natural, artificial, 
 and abstract. Of the first class, man, horse, tree, are 
 examples. The names of things of our own forma- 
 tion are termed artificial substantives, 2i^,watch,house, 
 ship. The names of qualities or properties, conceived 
 as existing by themselves, or separated from the sub- 
 stances to which they belong, are called abstract nouns; 
 while Adjectives, expressing these qualities as con- 
 
22 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 joined with their subjects, are called concretes. Hard, 
 for example, is termed the concrete, hardness the 
 abstract. 
 
 Nouns have also been considered as denoting 
 genera, species, and individuals. Thus man is a 
 generic term, an Englishman a special term, and 
 George an individual. Appellative nouns being em- 
 ployed to denote genera or species, and these orders 
 comprising each many individuals, hence arises that 
 accident of a common noun, called Number, by which 
 we signify, whether one or more individuals of any 
 genus or species be intended. 
 
 In English there are two numbers, the singular 
 and the plural. The singular, expressing only one 
 of a class or genus, is the noun in its simple form, 
 as, river ; the plural, denoting more than one, is ge- 
 nerally formed by adding the letter s to the singular, 
 as, rive?\s ^, To this rule, however, there are many 
 exceptions. 
 
 Nouns ending in ch, sh, ss, or x, form their plural 
 by adding the syllable es to the singular number, as, 
 churchy churches. Ch hard takes s for the plural 
 
 * The plural number, and the genitive singular, seem to 
 have been originally formed, by adding er to the nominative sin- 
 gular, as you, you-er, your; they, they-er, their; we, wc-er, our. 
 This termination was afterwards changed into en, and then into 
 £?* or s. Tims we have still in provincial usage, thougli now 
 almost entirely obsolete, childer for the plural of child, and the 
 double plural in child-cr-en^ children, with the double genitive 
 in tvesl-cr~en, western. , 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 23 
 
 termination, and not es, as, patriaixh, patriarchs; 
 distich^ distichs. 
 
 Nouns ending in f or fe, make their plural by 
 changing f ov fe into ves^ as, calf\ calves ; hiife, 
 knives. Except hoof, roof, grief dwarf mischief 
 handkerchief relief, muff, ruff, cuff, sniff, stuff, puff, 
 cliff, skiff, with a few others, which in the formation 
 of their plurals follow the general rule. 
 
 Nouns in o impure form their plural by adding es, 
 as, hero, heroes ; echo, echoes : those which end in o 
 pure by adding s, ^% folio, folios. 
 
 Some nouns have their plural in en, thus following 
 the Teutonic termination, as, ox, oxen ; man, men. 
 
 Some are entirely anomalous, as, die, dice ; penny, 
 pence ; goose, geese ; sow, swine ; and brother makes 
 brethren*, when denoting persons of the same society 
 or profession. Die, a stamp for coining, makes dies 
 in the plural. 
 
 Index makes in the plural indexes, when it ex- 
 presses a table of contents, and indices, when it 
 denotes the exponent of an algebraic quantity. 
 
 Some are used alike in both numbers, as, hose\, 
 deer, sheep, these being either singular or plural. 
 
 Nouns expressive of whatever nature or art has 
 made double or plural have no singular, as, bowels, 
 lungs, scissors, ashes, bellows, 
 
 * Brethren, in scripture, is used for brothers. 
 t The obsolete plural occurs in the Bible. " These men were 
 bound in their hosen and hats, — Dan. iii. 21. 
 
24i 
 
 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Nouns ending in y impure form their plural by 
 changing 1/ into ies, as, quality, qualities. 
 
 Nouns purely Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, &c. 
 retain their original plurals. 
 
 
 Sing. 
 
 PI. 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Arcanum 
 
 Arcana 
 
 Fr. 
 
 Beau 
 
 Beaux 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Erratum 
 
 Errata 
 
 Fr. 
 
 Monsieur 
 
 Messieurs, Messrs 
 
 Heb. 
 
 Cherub 
 
 Cherubim 
 
 Heh. 
 
 Seraph 
 
 Seraphim 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Magus 
 
 Magi 
 
 Gr. 
 
 Phenomenon 
 
 Phenomena 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Stratum 
 
 Strata 
 
 Gr. 
 
 Automaton 
 
 Automata 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Vortex 
 
 Vortices 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Radius 
 
 Radii 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Genus 
 
 Genera 
 
 Gr. 
 
 Crisis 
 
 Crises 
 
 Gr. 
 
 Emphasis 
 
 Emphases 
 
 Gr. 
 
 Hypothesis 
 
 Hypotheses 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Genius 
 
 Genii, 
 
 when denoting aerial spirits; but when signifying 
 men of genius, or employed to express the plural of 
 that combination of mental qualities, which constitutes 
 genius, it follows the general rule. 
 
 A proper name has a plural number when it be- 
 comes the name of more individuals than one, as, the 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 25 
 
 two Scipios ; the twelve Caesars. It is to be observed, 
 however, that it ceases then to be, strictly speaking, 
 a proper name. 
 
 Some nouns have no plural. 1st. Those, which 
 denote things measured or weighed, unless when 
 they express varieties, as, sugar, sugars; wheat, 
 wheats; oil, oils; wine, wines. Here, not numbers 
 of individuals, but different species or classes, are sig- 
 nified. In this sense, the nouns are used plurally. 
 
 21d. Names of abstract, and also of moral qualities, 
 as, hardness, softness, prudence, envy, benevolence, 
 have no plural. It is to be observed, however, that 
 several nouns of this class ending in y, when they do 
 not express the quality or property in the abstract, 
 but either its varieties, or its manifestations, are used 
 plurally. Thus we say, levities, affinities, gravities, 
 &c. There may be different degrees, and different 
 exhibitions of the quality, but not a plurality. 
 
 Where displays of the mental quality are to be 
 expressed, it is better in all cases to employ a peri- 
 phrasis. Thus, instead of using with Hume (vol. 
 vii. p. 411) the plural, insolences, the expression, 
 acts of insolence, would be preferable. 
 
 Some of those words which have no singular ter- 
 mination are names of sciences, as, mathematics, 
 metaphysics, politics, ethics, pneumatics, &c. 
 
 Of these, the term ethics is, I believe, considered 
 as either singular or plural. 
 
 Mathematics is generally construed as plural; 
 
26 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 sometimes, however, we find it as singular. " It is 
 a great pity," says Locke (vol, iii. p. 427, 8vo. 1794), 
 " Aristotle had not understood mathematics, as well 
 as Mr. Newton, and made use of it in natural philo- 
 sophy." 
 
 " But when mathematics," says Mr. Harris, " in- 
 stead of being applied to this excellent purpose, are 
 used not to exemplify logic, but to supply its place, 
 no wonder, if logic pass into contempt." 
 
 Bacon improperly uses the word as singular and 
 plural in the same sentence. " If a child," says he, 
 ** be bird-witted, that is, hath not the faculty of at- 
 tention, the mathematics givetJi a remedy thereunto ; 
 for in them, if the wit be caught away but a moment, 
 one is new to begin." He likewise frequently gives 
 to some names of sciences a singular termination; 
 and Beattie, with a few others, have, in some in- 
 stances, followed his example. 
 
 " Thus far we have argued for the sake of argu- 
 ment, and opposed metaphysic to metaphysic." — Es^ 
 say on Truth, 
 
 " See physic beg the Stagyrite*s defence. 
 
 See metaphysic call for aid on sense." — Pope. 
 
 This usage, however, is not general. 
 
 Metaphysics is used both as a singular and plural 
 noun. 
 
 " Metaphysics has been defined, by a writer deeply 
 read in the ancient philosophy, ' The science of the 
 
ETYMOLOGY. ST 
 
 principles and causes of all things existing.'" — Encyc, 
 Brit, Here the word is used as singular ; as like- 
 wise in the following example : 
 
 " Metaphysics has been represented by painters 
 and sculptors as a woman crowned and blindfolded, 
 holding a sceptre in her hand, and having at her 
 feet an hour glass and a globe." 
 
 " Metaphysics is that science, in which are under- 
 stood the principles of other sciences." — Hutton. 
 
 In the following examples it is construed as a 
 plural noun. 
 
 " Metaphysics tend only to benight the under- 
 standing in a cloud of its own making." — Knox, 
 
 " Here, indeed, lies the justest and most plausible 
 objection against a considerable part of metaphysics, 
 that they are not properly a science." — Hume, 
 
 The latter of these usages is the more common, 
 and more agreeable to analogy. The same observa- 
 tion is applicable to the terms 'politics^ optics^ pneu- 
 matics, and other similar names of sciences. 
 
 " But in order to prove more fully that politics 
 admit of general truths." — Hume, 
 
 Here the term is used as plural. 
 
 Folk and Jblks are used indiscriminately ; but the 
 plural termination is here superfluous, the word Jblk 
 implying plurality. 
 
 Means is used both as a singular and plural noun. 
 Lowth recommends the latter usage only, and admits 
 inean as the singular of means. But notwithstand- 
 ing the authority of Hooker, Sidney, and Shakspeare, 
 
28 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 for the expressions this mean, that mean, &c. and 
 the recommendation they receive from analogy, 
 custom has so long decided in favour of means, re- 
 pudiating the singular termination, that it may seem, 
 perhaps, idle, as well as fastidious, to propose its dis- 
 mission. 
 
 It is likewise* observable, that the singular form of 
 this noun is not to be found in our version of the 
 Bible ; a circumstance which clearly shows,' that the 
 translators preferred the plural termination. 
 
 That the noun means has been used as a substan- 
 tive singular by some of our best writers, it would 
 be easy to prove by numberless examples. Let a 
 few suffice. 
 
 " By this means it became every man's interest, as 
 well as his duty, to prevent all crimes." — Temple, 
 vol. iii. p. 133. 
 
 " And by this means I should not doubt." 
 — Wilkins's real Character. 
 
 " He by that means preserves his superiority." 
 — Addison, 
 
 " By this means alone the greatest obstacles will 
 vanish." — Pope, 
 
 " By this means there was nothing left to the par- 
 liament of Ireland." — Blackstone, vol. i. p. 102. 
 
 '* Faith is not only a means of obeying, but a prin- 
 cipal act of obedience." — Young, 
 
 " Every means was lawful for the public safety." 
 — Gihhon, 
 
 That this word is also used as plural, the most in- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 29 
 
 attentive English reader must have frequently ob- 
 served. 
 
 As a general rule for the use of it, as either sin- 
 gular or plural, it might render the construction less 
 vague, and the expression therefore less ambiguous, 
 were we to employ it as singular, when the media- 
 tion or instrumentality of one thing is implied, and 
 as plural, when two or more mediating causes are 
 referred to. 
 
 " He w^as careful to observe what means were 
 employed by his adversaries to counteract his 
 schemes." Here means is properly joined with a 
 plural verb, several methods of counteraction being 
 signified. 
 
 " The king consented, and by ^^^* means all hope 
 of success was lost." Here only one mediating cir- 
 cumstance is implied, and the noun is therefore used 
 as singular. 
 
 While, for the sake of perspicuity, we offer this 
 general rule, we cannot but remark, that though the 
 term mean is, at present, by general usage, confined 
 to the expression of " a middle between two ex- 
 tremes," we are inclined to concur with the learned 
 Dr. Lowth, and to recommend a more extended use 
 of the noun singular. A means is a form of ex- 
 pression which, though not wholly unsupported by 
 analogy, is yet so repugnant to the general idiom of 
 our language, and seems so ill adapted to denote the 
 operation of a single cause, that we should be pleased 
 
30 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 to see it dismissed from use. If we say, " This was 
 (me of the means which he employed to effect his 
 purpose," analogy and metai)hysical propriety concur 
 in recommending a mean, or one mean, as preferable 
 to a means. News, alms, riches, pains, have been 
 used as either singular or plural ; but we never say, 
 *' one of the news," " one of the alms," " one of the 
 riches," " one of the pains," as we say " one of the 
 means;" we may, therefore, be justified, notwith- 
 standing the authority of general usage, in pro- 
 nouncing " a means" a palpable anomaly. 
 
 News is likewise construed sometimes as a sin- 
 gular, and sometimes as a plural noun. The former 
 usage, however, is far the more general. 
 
 " A general joy at this glad news appeared.'' 
 •^—Cowley. 
 
 " No news so bad as this at home." — Shdkspeare, 
 Richard III, 
 
 " The amazing news of Charles at once was 
 spread." — Dryden, 
 
 " The king was employed in his usual exercise of 
 besieging castles, when the news wa^ brought of 
 Henry's arrival." — Swift, 
 
 " The only news you can expect from me is news 
 from heaven."— Gay. 
 
 " litis is all the news talked of." — Pope, 
 
 Swift, Pope, Gay, with most other classic writers 
 of that age, seem to have uniformly used it as sin- 
 gular. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 31 
 
 A few examples occur of a plural usage. 
 
 " When Rhea heard these news." — Raleigh^ Hist, 
 World, 
 
 " Are there any news of his intimate friend ?" 
 — Smollett, 
 
 " News were brought to the queen." — Hume, 
 
 The same rule as that just now recommended in 
 regard to the noun means might perhaps be useful 
 here also, namely, to consider the word as singular 
 when only one article of intelligence is communicated, 
 and as plural when several new things are reported. 
 
 Pains is considered as either singular or plural, 
 some of our best writers using it in either way. This 
 word is evidently of French extraction, being the same 
 with peine, pains or trouble, and was originally used 
 in a singular form thus, " Which may it please your 
 highness to take the pa^/ne for to write." — JVolsey^s 
 letter to Henry VIII, It seems probable, that this 
 word, after it assumed a plural form, was more fre- 
 quently used as a singular than as a plural noun. 
 Modern usage, however, seems to incline the other 
 way. A celebrated grammarian, indeed, has pro- 
 nounced this noun to be in all cases plural ; but this 
 assertion might be proved erroneous by numberless 
 examples *. 
 
 " The pains they had taken was very great." 
 — Clarendon, 
 
 " Great pains has been taken." — Pope. 
 
 * Baker inclines also to this usage in preference to the other ; 
 but does not affirm it to be a plural noun. 
 
32 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 " No pains is taken." — Pope, 
 
 In addition to these authorities in favour of a sin- 
 gular usage, it may be observed, that the word tmich, 
 a term of quantity, not of number, is frequently joined 
 with it, as, 
 
 " I found much art and pains employed." — Mid- 
 dleton, 
 
 " He will assemble materials with much pains." 
 — Solinghrohe on History. 
 
 The word much is never joined to a plural noun ; 
 much labours^ much papers ^ would be insufferable *. 
 
 Miches is generally now considered as a plural 
 noun ; though it was formerly used either as singular 
 or plural. This substantive seems to have been no- 
 thing but the French word richesse; and therefore 
 no more a plural than gentlenesse^ distresses and 
 many others of the same kind. In this form we find 
 it in Chaucer : 
 
 " But for ye spoken of swiche gentlenesse. 
 As is descended out of old richesse. 
 And he that ones to love doeth liis homage. 
 Full often times dere bought is the richesse." 
 
 Accordingly he gives it a plural tennination, and 
 uses it as a plural word. 
 
 " Thou has dronke so much hony of swete temporal 
 richesses, and delices, and honours of this \vorld." 
 
 It seems evident, then, that this word was ori- 
 ginally construed as a substantive singular, and even 
 
 * Much is sometimes joined with collective nouns ; but these 
 denote number in the aggregate; thus, much company. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. SS 
 
 admitted a plural form. The orthography varying^ 
 and the noun singular assuming a plural termination, 
 it came in time to be considered by some as a nouil 
 plural. 
 
 In our translation of the Bible, it is construed 
 sometimes as a singular, but generally as a plural 
 noun. 
 
 ** In one hour is so great riches come to nought." 
 — Bible, 
 
 " Riches take to themselves wings, and fly away." 
 —Hid. 
 
 Modern usage, in like manner, inclines to the plural 
 construction; there are a few authorities however on 
 the other side, as, 
 
 " Was ever riches gotten by your golden medio- 
 crities ?" — Cowley, 
 
 " The envy and jealousy which great riches is 
 always attended with." — Moyle, 
 
 Alms was also originally a noun singular, being a 
 contraction of the old Norman French almesse^ the 
 plural of which was ahnesses, 
 
 " This almesse shouldst thou do of thy proper 
 things." — Chaucer, 
 
 " These ben generally the almesses and workes of 
 charity." — Ibid, 
 
 Johnson says this word has no singular. It was, 
 in truth, at first a noun singular, and afterwards, by 
 contraction, receiving a plural form, it came to be 
 considered by some as a noun plural. Johnson would 
 have had equal, nay, perhaps, better authority for 
 
 D 
 
S4 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 saying, that this word has no plural. Our translators 
 of the Bible seem to have considered it as singular. 
 " To ask an alms," " to give much alms," and other 
 similar phraseologies, occur in scripture. Nay, John- 
 son himself has cited two authorities, in which the 
 indefinite article is prefixed to it. 
 
 " . My arm'd knees. 
 
 Which bow*d but in my stirrup, bend like his 
 That hath received an alms." — Shakspeare. 
 
 " The poor beggar hath a just demand of «w alms 
 from the rich man." — Swift 
 
 Lowth objected to the phraseology, a means, for 
 this reason, that means, being a plural noun, cannot 
 admit the indefinite article, or name of unity. The 
 objection would be conclusive, if the expressions this 
 means, that means did not oppose the learned au- 
 thor's opinion, that means is a noun plural. To the 
 substantive alms, as represented by Johnson to have 
 no singular, the objection is applicable. 
 
 Thanhs is considered to be a plural novm, though 
 denoting only one expression of gratitude. It occurs 
 
 in Scripture as a substantive singular. " What thank 
 
 have ye ?" 
 
 It has been observed, that many of those words 
 
 which have no singular denote things consisting of 
 
 two parts, and therefore have a plural termination. 
 
 Hence the word pair is used with many of them, as, 
 
 " a pair of bellows, a pair of scissors, a pair of 
 
 colours, a pair of drawers,'' 
 
EtYMOLOGY. 35 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 Of Genders, 
 
 We not only observe a plurality of substances, or 
 of things of the same sort, whence arises the distinc- 
 tion of number ; but we distinguish also another cha- 
 racter of some substances, which we call sex. Every 
 substance is either male or female, or neither tHe one 
 nor the other. In English, all male animals are con- 
 sidered as masculine ; all female animals as feminine ; 
 and all things inanimate, or destitute of sex, are termed 
 neuter, as belonging neither to the male nor the female 
 sex. In this distribution we follow the order of nature ; 
 and our language is, in this respect, both simple and 
 animated. 
 
 The difference of sex is, in some cases, expressed 
 by different words, as, 
 
 Masc, 
 
 Fem. 
 
 Boy 
 
 Girl 
 
 Buck 
 
 Doe 
 
 Bull 
 
 Cow 
 
 Bullock 
 
 Heifer 
 
 Boar 
 
 Sow 
 
 Drake 
 
 Duck 
 
 Friar 
 
 Nun 
 
 Gaflfer 
 
 Gammer 
 
 Gander 
 
 Goose 
 
 d2I 
 
36 
 
 
 etymology: 
 
 Masc. 
 
 Fern. 
 
 Gelding > 
 Horse ) 
 
 Mare 
 
 Milter 
 
 Spawner 
 
 Nephew 
 
 Niece 
 
 Ram 
 
 Ewe 
 
 Sloven 
 
 Slut 
 
 Stag 
 
 Hind 
 
 Widower 
 
 Widow 
 
 Wizard 
 
 Witch. 
 
 Sometimes the female is distinguished by the ter- 
 mination ess or ix. 
 
 Masc. 
 
 Fern. 
 
 Abbot 
 
 Abbess 
 
 Actor 
 
 Actress 
 
 Adulterer 
 
 Adulteress 
 
 Ambassador 
 
 Ambassadress 
 
 Arbiter 
 
 Arbitress 
 
 Author 
 
 Authoress 
 
 Baron 
 
 Baroness 
 
 Chanter 
 
 Chantress 
 
 Count 
 
 Countess 
 
 Deacon 
 
 Deaconess 
 
 Duke 
 
 Duchess 
 
 Elector 
 
 Electress 
 
 Emperor 
 
 Empress 
 
 Governor 
 
 Governess 
 
 Heir 
 
 Heiress 
 
 Hunter 
 
 Huntress 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Mas. 
 
 Fern. 
 
 Jew 
 
 Jewess 
 
 Lion 
 
 Lioness 
 
 Marquis 
 
 Marchioness 
 
 Master 
 
 Mistress 
 
 Patron 
 
 Patroness 
 
 Prince 
 
 Princess 
 
 Peer 
 
 Peeress 
 
 Prior 
 
 Prioress 
 
 Poet 
 
 Poetess 
 
 Prophet 
 
 Prophetess 
 
 Shepherd 
 
 Shepherdess 
 
 Sorcerer 
 
 Sorceress 
 
 Traitor 
 
 Traitress 
 
 Tutor 
 
 Tutress 
 
 Tiger 
 
 Tigress 
 
 Viscount 
 
 Viscountess. 
 
 are a few whose feminine ends in h 
 
 Mas. 
 
 Fern. 
 
 Administrator 
 
 Administratrix 
 
 Executor 
 
 Executrix 
 
 Testator 
 
 Testatrix 
 
 Director 
 
 Directrix. 
 
 37 
 
 Where there is but one word to express both sexes, 
 we add another word to distinguish the sex ; as, he-^ 
 goat, she-goat; man-servant, maid-servant; cock- 
 sparrow, hen-sparrow. 
 
 It has been already observed, that all things desti- 
 tute of sex are in English considered as of the neuter 
 
38 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 gender ; and, when we speak with logical accuracy, 
 we follow this rule. Sometimes, however, by a figure 
 in rhetoric called personification, we assign sex to 
 things inanimate. Thus, instead of " virtue is its 
 own reward," we sometimes say, " virtue is her own 
 reward ;" instead of " it (the sun) rises," we say, " he 
 rises ;" instead of " it (death) advances with hasty 
 steps," we say, " he advances.'* 
 
 This figurative mode of expression, by which we 
 give life and sex to things inanimate, and embody 
 abstract qualities, forms a singular and striking 
 beauty in our language, rendering it in this respect 
 superior to the languages of Greece and Rome, neither 
 of which admitted this animated phraseology *. 
 
 When we say, 
 
 " The sun his orient beams had shed/' 
 the expression possesses infinitely more vivacity than 
 ''The sun e7* orient beams had shed." ;>^^i^i y / ^ 
 
 In assigning sex to things inanimate, it has been 
 supposed that we have been guided by certain cha- 
 racters or qualities in the inanimate objects, as 
 bearing some resemblance to the distinctive or cha- 
 racteristic qualities of male and female animals. 
 Thus, it has been said, that those inanimate sub- 
 stances, or abstract qualities, which are characterized 
 by the attributes of giving or imparting, or which 
 convey an idea of great strength, firmness, or energy, 
 
 * The gender of mors, virtus, sol, OayaTor, (ip^rri, //Xtof, \VQS 
 unalterably fixed. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 39 
 
 are masculine; and that those, on the contrary, which 
 are distinguished by the properties of receiving, con- 
 taining, and producing, or which convey an idea of 
 weakness or timidity, having more of a passive than 
 active nature, are feminine. Hence it has been ob- 
 served, that the sun, death, time, the names also of 
 great rivers and mountains, are considered as mascu- 
 line ; and that the moon, a ship, the sea, virtue, in 
 all its species, are considered as feminine. Of these 
 and such speculations it may be truly said, as the 
 learned author of them remarks himself, that they 
 are at best but ingenious conjectures. They cer- 
 tainly will not bear to be rigorously examined; for 
 there are not any two languages which harmonize in 
 this respect, assigning the same sex to the same in- 
 animate objects, nor any one language, in which this 
 theory is supported by fact ^. Hence it is evident, 
 that neither reason nor nature has any share in the 
 regulation of this matter ; and that, in assigning sex 
 to inanimate things, the determination is purely fan- 
 ciful. In Greek, death is masculine ; in Latin, femi- 
 nine. In those languages the sun is masculine ; in 
 the Gothic, German, Anglo-Saxon, and some other 
 northern languages, it is feminine ; in Russian it is 
 neuter. In several of the languages of Asia, the sun 
 is feminine. According to our northern mythology, 
 the sun was the wife of Tuisco. The Romans con- 
 
 * It seems, however, to be more applicable to the English lan- 
 guage than to any other, with which I am acquainted. 
 
■40 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 sidered the winds as masculine ; the Hebrews, says 
 Caramuel, represented them as nymphs. In the 
 Hebrew language, however, they were of the mascu- 
 line gender, as were also the sun and death. In short, 
 we know not any two languages which accord in this 
 respect, or any one language in which sex is assigned 
 to things inanimate, according to any consistent or 
 determinate rule. 
 
 In speaking of animals, whose sex is not known to 
 us, or not regarded, we assign to them gender either 
 masculine or feminine, according, as it would appear, 
 to the characteristic properties of the animal itself. In 
 speaking, for example, of the horse, a creature di- 
 stinguished by usefulness and a certain generosity of 
 nature, unless we be acquainted with the sex and 
 wish to discriminate, we always speak of this qua- 
 druped as of the male sex ; thus, 
 
 "While winter's shivering snow affects the horse 
 With frost, and makes him an uneasy course." — Creech, 
 
 In speaking of a hare, an animal noted for timidity, 
 we assign to it, if we give it sex, the feminine gender ; 
 thus, " the hare is so timorous a creature that she 
 continually listens after every noise, and will run a 
 long way on the least suspicion of danger, so that she 
 always eats in terror." 
 
 The elephant is generally considered as of the 
 masculine gender, an animal distinguished not only 
 by great strength, and superiority of size, but also by 
 sagacity, docility, and fortitude. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 41^ 
 
 " The elephant has joints, but not for courtesy ; 
 His legs are for necessity, not flexure." — Shakspeare. 
 
 To a cat we almost always assign the female sex ; 
 to a dog, on the contrary, or one of the canine species, 
 we attribute the masculine gender. 
 
 " A cat, as she beholds the light, draws the ball 
 of her eye small and long." — Peacham on Drawing, 
 
 " The dog is a domestic animal remarkably various 
 in his species." 
 
 It would be easy to illustrate, by more examples, 
 this ascription of either male or female sex to animals, 
 when we speak of them in the species, or are not ac- 
 quainted with the sex of the individual ; but these 
 now adduced will, I presume, be sufficient. 
 
 By what principle this phraseology is dictated, or 
 whether it be merely casual or arbitrary in its origin, 
 it would be of no utility at present to inquire. It 
 may be necessary, however, to remark that, when 
 speaking of animals, particularly those of inferior 
 size, we frequently consider them as devoid of sex. 
 " It is a bold and daring creature," says a certain 
 writer, speaking of a cat, " and also cruel to its 
 enemy ; and never gives over, till it has destroyed it, 
 if possible. It is also watchful, dexterous, swift, and 
 pliable." 
 
 Before I dismiss this subject, I would request the 
 reader's attention to an idiom^ which seems to have 
 escaped the notice of our grammarians. It frequently 
 happens, as I have already observed, that our lan- 
 guage furnishes two distinct terms for the male and 
 the female, as, shepherd, shepherdess. It is to be ob- 
 
4SI ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 served, however, that the masculine term has a ge- 
 neral meaning, expressing both male and female, and 
 is always employed, when the office, occupation, pro- 
 fession, &c. and not* the sex of the individual is 
 chiefly to be expressed ; and that the feminine term 
 is used in those cases only, when discrimination of 
 sex is indispensably necessary. This may be illus- 
 trated by the following examples. If I say, " The 
 poets of this age are distinguished more by correct- 
 ness of taste, than sublimity of conception," I clearly 
 include in the term ^;o(?/, both male and female 
 writers of poetry. If I say, " She is the best poetess 
 in this country," I assign her the superiority over 
 those only of her own sex. If I say, " She is the 
 best poet in this country," I pronounce her superior 
 to all other writers of poetry, both male and female. 
 " Spinning," says Lord Kames, in his Sketches, " is 
 a female occupation, and must have had a female in- 
 ventor." If he had said " a female inventress," the 
 expression would have been pleonastic. If he had 
 said *' must have had an inventress," he would not 
 have sufficiently contrasted the male and the female ; 
 he would have merely predicated the necessity of an 
 inventress. He, therefore, properly adopts the term 
 inventor as applicable to each of the sexes, limiting 
 it to the female by the appropriate term *. ^Vhen 
 
 * These observations will sufficiently explain the reason why 
 we cannot concur with Dr. Johnson in thinking that there is " an 
 impropriety in the termination/' when we say of a woman, " She 
 is a philosopher." The female termination in such examples is 
 not wanted ; it would be plt;onastic and improper. The meaning 
 is, ** She is a person given to the study of nature." If we hud 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 43 
 
 distinction of sex is necessary for the sake of per- 
 spicuity, or where the sex, rather than the general 
 idea implied by the term, is the primary object, the 
 feminine noun must be employed to express the 
 female; thus, "I hear that some autJioresses are en- 
 gaged in this work." — Political Register. Here 
 the feminine term is indispensable *. This subject 
 will be resumed in *' the Critical Remarks and Il- 
 lustrations." 
 
 been speaking of a lady devoted to philosophy, and had occasion 
 afterwards to mention her by an appellative, we should feel the 
 want of the appropriate termination j and instead of saying " the 
 philosopher," we should wish, for the sake of discrimination, to be 
 able to say, " the philosophress," or to employ some equally di- 
 stinctive term. In the example adduced by the learned lexico- 
 grapher, the female termination is superfluous ; and would inti- 
 mate a distinction of philosophic character, instead of a distinction 
 of sex, the latter being denoted by the female pronoun. 
 
 * We remark, in some instances, a similar phraseology in 
 Greek and Latin. Qeoq and 0£a, deus and dea, are contradi- 
 stinguished as in English, god and goddess ; the former of each 
 pair strictly denoting the male, and the latter the female. But 
 the former, we find, has a generical meaning, expressing '^a deity," 
 whether male or female ; and is frequently used when the female 
 is designed, if divinity in the abstract be the primary idea, with- 
 out regard to the sex, thus, 
 
 " Tov V E^rjpira^' ^A(j)poEiTr]j 
 
 'PeTa /zaX' (&rE eeoQ^—Hom, 11, 3. 380. 
 Here the term deog is applied to Venus, the character of divinity, 
 and not the distinction of sex, being the chief object of the poet's 
 attention. Qeug is, therefore, to be considered as either masculine 
 or feminine. 
 
 " 'AXXa /Li' 6. \i6q yaXdfia Oeogr—Sopk. Aj. 401. 
 " Mi/re TiQ Iv dijXeia dEog." — Ho7n. II. O. 7* 
 " Descendo, ac ducente deo, flammam inter et hostes 
 Expedior."— FeVg. jEti. 2. 632. 
 Here, also, deo is applied to Venus, as likewise in the following 
 passage, " deum esse indignam credidi." — Plant. Pccn. 2. 1. 10. 
 
M JETYMOLOGV. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 Of Cases. 
 
 '^^The third accident of a noun is case (casus, or 
 fall), so called, because ancient grammarians, " it is 
 said," represented the cases as declining or falling 
 from the nominative, which was represented by a 
 perpendicular, and thence called Casus rectus , or 
 upright case, while the others were named Casus 
 ohliqui, or oblique cases. The cases, in the lan- 
 guages of Greece and Rome, were formed by varying 
 the termination ; and were intended to express a few 
 of the most obvious and common relations. 
 
 In English there are only three cases, nominative, 
 genitive, and objective, or accusative case. In sub- 
 stantives the nominative case and the objective have, 
 like neuter nouns in Greek and Latin, the same 
 form, being distinguishable from each other by 
 nothing but their place ; thus, 
 
 Nom. Obj. 
 
 Achilles slew Hector, 
 Hector slew Achilles, 
 
 where the meaning is reversed by the interchange 
 of the nouns, the nominative or agent being known by 
 its being placed before the verb ; and the subject of 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 45 
 
 the action by its following it. Pronouns have three 
 cases, that is, two inflexions from the nominative, as, 
 /, mine, me ; thou, thine, thee. 
 
 The genitive in English, by some called the pos- 
 sessive case, is formed by adding to the nominative 
 the letter s, with an apostrophe before it, as. Icing, 
 king's. It expresses a variety of relations, and was 
 hence called by the Greeks the general case^. The 
 relation which it most commonly denotes is that of 
 property ox possession, as, the hinges crown ; and is, 
 in general, the same with that which is denoted by 
 the word of, as, the crown of the king, the rage of 
 the tyrant, the death of the prince, equivalent to the 
 king's crown, the tyrant's rage, the prince's death. 
 
 The nature of the relation which the genitive ex- 
 presses must, in some instances, be collected from the 
 scope of the context ; for, in English, as in most 
 other languages, this case frequently involves an am- 
 biguity. When I say, " neither life nor death shall 
 separate us from the love of God," it may mean, 
 either from the love which we owe to God, or the 
 love which he bears to us ; for " God's love" may 
 denote either the relation which the affection bears 
 to its subject, or that which it bears to its object. 
 If the latter be the meaning intended, the ambiguity 
 may be prevented by saying, " love to God." 
 
 An ambiguity likewise arises from it, as expressing 
 
 * liTwaiQ yEVEKYi : general case. It has been supposed by some 
 that the Latins^ mistaking the import of the Greek term^ called 
 this the genitive case. — See Encyc, Brit. Art. Grammar. 
 
46 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 either the relation of the effect to its cause, or that 
 of the accident to its subject. " A little after the 
 reformation of Luther," says Swift. This may im- 
 port either the change produced by Luther, or a 
 change produced in him. The latter indeed is pro- 
 perly the meaning, though not that which was in- 
 tended by the author. He should have said, " the 
 reformation by Luther." It is clear, therefore, that 
 the relation expressed by the genitive is not uni- 
 formly the same, that the phrase may be interpreted 
 either in an active or passive sense *, and that the 
 real import must be collected, not from the expres- 
 sion, but the context. 
 
 Mr. Harris has said, that the genitive is formed to 
 express all relations commencing from itself, and 
 offers the analysis of this case in all modern lan- 
 guages as a proof. That it expresses more than 
 this, both in English and Latin, and that it denotes 
 relations, not only commencing from itself, but like- 
 wise directed to itself, the examples already quoted 
 are sufficient to prove. Nay, were it necessary, it 
 would be easy to demonstrate, that this ambiguity in 
 the use of the genitive is not confined to these two 
 languages, but is found in Greek, Hebrew, Italian, 
 
 ■* Amor Dei denotes either afnor quo Deus amat, or qtio Dens 
 amatur. Reformatio Lutheri, either qua reformavil, or qua re- 
 Jormatus est. Injuria patris, desiderium amici, with many other 
 examples which might be produced, have either an active or pas- 
 sive sense. >/ ayairt] th Ge«, mrT» nnrj«, I'amore de Dio, I'amour 
 de Dieu, severally involve the same ambiguity witli " the love 
 of God." 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 47 
 
 and, I believe, in all the modern languages of Eu- 
 rope. 
 
 Concerning the origin of the English genitive, 
 grammarians and critics are not agreed. That the 
 cases, or nominal inflexions, in all languages were 
 originally formed by annexing to the noun in its 
 simple form a word significant of the relation in- 
 tended, is a doctrine, which, I conceive, is not only 
 approved by reason, but also attested by fact. That 
 any people, indeed, in framing their language, should 
 affix to their nouns insignificant terminations, for the 
 purpose of expressing any relation, is a theory ex- 
 tremely improbable. Numerous as the inflexions are 
 in the Greek and Latin languages, I am persuaded 
 that, were we sufficiently acquainted with their ori- 
 ginal structure, we should find that all these termi- 
 nations were at first words significant, subjoined to 
 the radix, and afterwards abbreviated. This opinion 
 is corroborated by the structure of the Hebrew, and 
 some other oriental languages, whose affixes and pre- 
 fixes, in the formation of their cases and conjugation 
 of their verbs, we can still ascertain. 
 
 Now, the English genitive being formed by an- 
 nexing to the nominative the letter s, with an apo- 
 strophe, several critics, among whom is Mr. Addison, 
 deliver it as their opinion, that this termination is a 
 contraction for the possessive pronoun his. This 
 opinion appears to be countenanced by the examples 
 which occur in the Bible, and Book of Common- 
 Prayer, in which, instead of the English genitive, we 
 
48 etymology; 
 
 find tne nominative with the possessive pronoun mas- 
 culine of the third person ; thus, " for Christ his 
 sake," "Asa his heart was perfect." Dr. Lowth 
 considers these expressions as errors either of the 
 printers or the authors. That they are not typo- 
 graphical mistakes I am fully persuaded. They 
 occur in the books now mentioned, and also in the 
 works of Bacon, Donne, and many other vn*iters, 
 much too frequently to admit this supposition. If 
 errors therefore, they are errors not of the printers, 
 but of the authors themselves. 
 
 To evince the incorrectness of this phraseology, 
 and to show that Addison's opinion is erroneous. 
 Dr. Lowth observes that, though we can resolve " the 
 king's crown" into " the king his crown," we cannot 
 resolve ''the queen's crown" into "the queen her 
 crown," or " the children's bread" into " the children 
 his bread." This fact, he observes, ought to have 
 demonstrated to Mr. Addison the incorrectness of 
 his opinion. Lowth, therefore, refers the English 
 to the Saxon genitive for its real origin, and observes, 
 that its derivation from that genitive decides the 
 question*. Hickes, in his Thesaurus^ had pre- 
 viously delivered the same opinion. Speaking of the 
 Anglo-Saxon genitive in es^ he observes, " Inde in 
 
 * Of the six declensions, to one or other of which the learned 
 Dr. Hickes conceives the inflexion of almost all the Saxon nouns 
 may be reduced, three form their genitive in cSy as, word, ivordcs ; 
 smith, smithes. In the Mcesogothic, a kindred language, the 
 genitive ends in s^ some nouns having is, some vs, and others 
 as, 2i'&,fan,fanins ; faukngagja,faukagagjis. 
 
ETYMOLOGtr. 49 
 
 nostratium sermone nominum substantivorum geni- 
 tivuS singularis, et nojuinativus pluralis exeunt in es, 
 vel s" From the introduction of the Saxons into 
 this island, to the Norman conquest, the Saxon ge- 
 nitive was in universal use. From the latter period 
 to the time of Henry II. (1170), though the English 
 language underwent some alterations, we still find 
 the Saxon genitive. Thus in a poem, entitled " The 
 Life of St. Margaret," in the Normanno-Saxon dia- 
 lect, we find the following among other examples, 
 " christes angles," and the pronoun hyy (his) spelled 
 is ; thus, " Theodosius was is name." — See Hickes, 
 Tkes, vol. i. p. 226. 
 
 Webster has asserted that, in the age of Edward 
 the Confessor (1050), he does not find the Saxon 
 genitive ; and as a proof that the pronoun his was 
 used instead of the Saxon termination, he quotes a 
 passage from a charter of Edward the Confessor, 
 where the words " bissop his land" occur, which he 
 conceives to be equivalent to " bishop's land." Now, 
 had he read but a small part of that charter, he would 
 have found the Saxon genitive ; and what he 
 imagines to be equivalent to the English genitive is 
 neither that case, nor synonymous with it. The 
 passage runs thus : " And ich ke ]>e eu )?at Alfred 
 havet iseld Gise bissop his land at Llyton;" the 
 meaning of which is, " Know that Alfred hath sold 
 to Bishop Gise his land at Lutton.'^ In the time of 
 Richard II. (1385) we find Trevisa and Chaucer 
 using the Saxon genitive. Thus, in Trevisa's trans- 
 
S& ETYMOLOGV. 
 
 lation of the Athanasian creed, we find among other 
 examples, " Godes sight." 
 
 In Gavin Douglas, who lived in the beginning of 
 the sixteenth century, we find is instead of es, thus, 
 faderis hands. 
 
 In the time of Henry the Eighth we find, in the 
 works of Sir. T. More, both the Saxon and the 
 English genitive ; and in a letter, written in 1559j 
 by Maitland of Lethington, the English genitive fre- 
 quently occurs. Had this genitive, then, been ail 
 abbreviation for the noun and the pronoun his, th^ 
 use of the words separately would have preceded their 
 abbreviated form in composition. This, however, 
 was not the case. 
 
 To form the genitive plural, we annex the apo^ 
 strophe without the letter s, as eagles' icings, 
 that is, the wings of eagles. The genitive sin- 
 gular of nouns terminating in s, is formed in the 
 same manner, as, righteousness^ sake, or, the salte of 
 righteousness. 
 
 I finish this article with observing, that there are 
 in English a few diminutive nouns, so called from 
 their expressing a small one of the kind. Some of 
 these end in Jdii, from a Dutch and Teutonic word 
 signifying a child, as, manikin, a little man, lamhkin^ 
 pipMn, thomkin. Proper names ending in kin be- 
 longed originally to this class of diminutives, as, 
 Wilkin, Willielmulus ; Halkin, Hawkin, Henri- 
 culus ; Tomkin, Thomulus ; Simkin, Peterkin, Sec. 
 
 Some diminutives end in ock, as, hilJ, hJl/ock ; bull^ 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 51 
 
 bullock; some in el, as, pike, pickrel; cock, cockrel ; 
 sack, satchel; some in ing, sls, goose, gosling. These 
 seem to be the only legitimate ones, as properly- 
 belonging to our language. The rest are derived 
 from Latin, French, Italian, and have various termi- 
 nations. 
 
 i: 21 
 
52 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF THE ARTICLE. 
 
 Language is chiefly composed of general terms, 
 most substantives being the names of genera or 
 species. When we find a number of substances re- 
 sembling one another in their principal and most 
 obvious qualities, we refer them to one species, to 
 which we assign a name common to every individual 
 of that species. In like manner, when we find se- 
 veral of these species, resembling one another in their 
 chief properties, we refer them to a higher order, to 
 which also we assign a common and more general 
 name than that, which was affixed to the inferior 
 class. Thus we assign the general name man to the 
 human species, as possessing a common form, and 
 distinguished by the common attributes of life, reason, 
 and speech. If we consider man as possessed of life 
 only, we perceive a resemblance in this respect 
 between him and other beings. To this higher class 
 or genus, the characteristic attribute of which is 
 vitality, w^e affix the more generic name of animal *. 
 
 * It must be obvious, that the terms general and universal belong 
 not to real existences, but are merely denominations, the result of 
 intellect, generalising a number of individuals under one head. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 5$ 
 
 Hence, when we use an appellative or common noun, 
 it denotes the genus or class collectively, of which it 
 is the name, as, 
 
 " The proper study of mankind is man," i. e. not 
 one man, not many men, but all men. 
 
 " Metal is specifically heavier than water," L e, not 
 this or that metal, but all metals. 
 
 But, though our words are general, all our percep- 
 tions are individual, having single existences for their 
 objects. It is often necessary, however, to express 
 two, three, or more of these individual existences ; 
 and hence arises the use of that species of words 
 which have been called numerals, that is, words de- 
 noting number. To signify unity or one of a class, 
 our forefathers employed ae or ane, as, (le man^ 
 ane ox. When unity, or the number one, as op- 
 posed to two or more, was to be expressed, the em- 
 phasis would naturally be laid on the word significant 
 of unity ; and when unity was not so much the object 
 as the species or kind, the term expressive of unity 
 would naturally be unemphatical ; and hence ae^ by 
 celerity of pronunciation, would become a, and ane 
 be shortened into an. These words a and an are 
 now termed indefinite articles ; it is clear, however, 
 that they are truly numerals, belonging to the same 
 class with two, three, four, &c. ; or, perhaps more 
 properly, these numerals may be considered as abbre- 
 viations, for the repeated expression of the term one. 
 By whatever name these terms «, an, may be de- 
 signed, it seems evident that they were originally 
 
54 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 synonymous with the name of unity, or rather them- 
 selves names of unity, emphasis only distinguishing, 
 whether unity or the species were chiefly intended. 
 Hence a and an cannot be joined with a plural noun. 
 Some grammarians, indeed, have asserted that in 
 every example where a or an occurs, the term one 
 may be substituted in its stead, without in the least 
 degree injuring the sense. As far as the primary 
 idea denoted by these words is concerned, this opi- 
 nion is doubtless incontrovertible, for they each ex- 
 press unity; but with regard to the secondary or 
 implied ideas, which these terms convey, the differ- 
 ence is obvious. An example will illustrate this: 
 If I say, " Will one man be able to carry this burden 
 so far ?" I evidently oppose one to more ; and the 
 answer might be, "No ; but two men will." Let us 
 substitute the term «, and say, " Will a man be able 
 to carry this burden ?" Is the idea nowise changed 
 by this alteration ? I apprehend it is ; for the answer 
 might naturally be, " No ; but a horse will." I have 
 here substituted «, for one ; the converse will equally 
 show that the terms are by no means mutually con- 
 vertible, or strictly synonymous. If, instead of saying 
 ** A horse, a horse, a kingdom for a horse," I should 
 say "One horse, one horse, one kingdom for one 
 horse," the sentiment, I conceive, would not be 
 strictly the same. In both expressions the species is 
 named, and in both one of that species is demanded ; 
 but with this difference, that in the former the name 
 of the species is the emphatic word, and it opposes 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 55 
 
 that species to every other ; in the latter, unity of 
 ohject seems the leading idea, *' one kingdom for 
 one horse." In this respect, our language appears to 
 me to have a decided superiority over those languages, 
 where one word performs the office of what we term 
 an article, and at the same time denotes the idea of 
 unity. Donne% moi un livre means either **give me 
 one book," L e, not two or more books ; or " give me 
 a book," that is, " a book, not something else ; a book, 
 not a pen," for example. 
 
 , I acknowledge that, in oral language, emphasis 
 may serve to discriminate the sentiments, and pre-, 
 vent ambiguity. But emphasis is addressed to the 
 ear only, not to the eye ; it can, therefore, be of no 
 service in written language. It is true also, that by 
 attending to the context error may often be avoided ; 
 but let it be remembered, as Quintilian observes^, 
 
 * Noil ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere 
 curandum. — Inst. lib. viii. cap. 4. 
 
 I am inclined to think that our language possesses a superiority 
 in this respect over the Greek itself. l^yepsTo avOpwiroQ aire- 
 '^aXfjieyog* napa r« Oea may signify either " man in the species, or 
 an individual, was sent from God." The author of the article 
 Grammar, in the Encyc. Brit, observes, " that the word avQpioiroQ 
 is here restricted to an individual by its concord with the verb 
 and the participle." If he mean by this that the term must be 
 significant of only one individual (and I can annex no other in- 
 terpretation to his words), because a singular verb and participle 
 singular are joined with it, he errs egregiously. Numberless ex- 
 amples might be produced to evince the contrary. Job, v. 7- 
 avdpioTTOQ yEvvarai kottu), " man (mankind) is born unto trouble :" 
 where the subject is joined to a verb singular, Psal. xlix. 12. 
 upOpojTTOQ Ev TifAv wv H avvi]KEj " mau being in honour abideth not." 
 
5& ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 that language should be, not such as the reader may 
 understand if he will take the trouble to examine it 
 carefully, but such as he cannot even without effort 
 fail to comprehend. When it is asserted, therefore, 
 that one may in every case be substituted for a, with- 
 out in the least degree injuring the expression, the 
 position appears to me erroneous and false. What- 
 ever creates ambiguity, whether with respect to the 
 primary or secondary ideas annexed to words, in 
 some degree, without question, violates the sense. 
 
 It seems, therefore, undeniable that the word «, 
 termed the indefinite article, was originally identical 
 with the name of unity, expressing either one of any 
 species, as opposed to more of that species, or one of 
 this kind, as opposed to one of that. Whether the 
 distinction of its noting one or unity, with less em- 
 phasis than the appropriate name of unity, should 
 entitle it to be referred to a different class of words 
 from the numeral one, and called an article, it is un- 
 important to inquire. To me, however, I must ac- 
 knowledge the distinctive name of article assigned to 
 this word appears to be useless. Were emphasis to 
 be admitted as the principle of classification (and I 
 see no other distinction between a and owe), the 
 parts of speech might be multiplied beyond number. 
 
 Besides the words a and aw, termed indefinite 
 
 Here also man for mankind is joined with a participle and verb 
 singular. And here it may be pertinently asked, would not the 
 term one for a in the first example somewhat alter the meaning, 
 gild convey an idea different from that intended by the evangelist ? 
 
ETYMOLOGY^ 57 
 
 articles, as not defining which of the species is sig- 
 nified, we have also another word, the, named the 
 definite article, because it is said to point out the 
 individual object. This word, I doubt not, pro- 
 ceeded from the word this or that, much in the same 
 manner as a and an from ae and ane. To what class 
 of words this and that should be referred has been 
 a subject of controversy ^. That they are not pro- 
 nouns, as some have asserted, seems abundantly evi- 
 dent; for they never represent a noun. By some 
 they have been called definitives ; and, though this 
 designation be not strictly consonant with their im- 
 port, it is perhaps the least exceptionable. When 
 opposed to each other, they appear to be reducible to 
 that species of words termed adjectives of order ; the 
 only difference between them and ordinal numerals 
 being this, that the former express the arrangement 
 in relation to two objects, the latter in relation to a 
 series. This means " the nearer," " the latter," or 
 " the second ;" that, " the more remote," " the former," 
 
 * They are the Saxon words this or thes, ^' hie/' hoec, " hoc/' 
 that or thcBt, " ille," ilia, " illud/' which were frequently used by 
 the Saxons for what we term the definite article, as, send us on 
 Ihas swyn, "send us into the swine." Mark, v. 21. tha eodon tha 
 unclcenan gastas on tha srvyn, " then the unclean spirits entered 
 into the swine." 
 
 The Saxon definitives are se, seo, thcet, for the three genders 
 severally ; and tha in the plural, expressing the or those, as, thcet 
 gode seed, the good seed. Thcet is also joined to masculine and 
 feminine nouns, as, thcet wif, the woman ; thcet folc, the people. 
 Thoe (pronounced they) still obtains in Scotland, as, " thae men" 
 for " these men." 
 
58 etymology; 
 
 or " the first.*' Their office, in general, seems to be 
 emphatically to individuate some particular object, 
 whose character was either previously known, or is 
 then described ; hence they have also been named 
 demonstratives. Under which of the generally re- 
 ceived parts of speech they should be comprehended 
 it may be difficult to determine. As, like simple 
 attributives, they accord with nouns, frequently de- 
 noting the accident of place, they may be gramma- 
 tically referred to the class of adjectives. Their im- 
 port will appear from a few examples : 
 
 " That kind being, who is a father to the father- 
 less, will recompense thee for this." 
 
 Here a species is referred to, distinguished by 
 benevolence. Of this species one individual is em- 
 phatically particularized : " That kind being." Who ? 
 his distinctive cTiaracter follows, " is a father to the 
 fatherless." The concluding word, this, points to 
 something previously described. 
 
 « 'Twas idly done 
 
 To tell him of another world ; for wits 
 Knew better ; and the only good on earth 
 Was pleasure ; not to follow that was sin." 
 
 Here the word that refers with emphasis to a thing 
 previously specified, namely, pleasure. 
 
 " It is no uncommon thing to find a man who 
 laughs at every thing sacred, yet is a slave to super- 
 stitious fears. I would not be that man, were a 
 crown to tempt me." Here one indefinitely of a 
 species is mentioned, a man. The subject is after- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. $9- 
 
 wards limited by description to one of a certain cha- 
 racter, " who laughs at things sacred, and is a slave 
 to superstitious fears." The word that selects and 
 demonstrates the person thus described. The word 
 the has nearly the same import ; but is less empha- 
 tical. It seems to bear the same analogy to that 
 which a does to one. Hence in many cases they may 
 be used indifferently. 
 
 " Happy the man whose cautious feet shun the 
 broad way that sinners go." 
 
 Here, " happy that man" would express the same 
 idea. The Latins accordingly employed the demon- 
 strative word ille ; heatus ille, " happy the man." 
 
 What then is the difference between tJie and that? 
 To ascertain this, let us inquire, in what cases the is 
 employed, and whether that can be substituted in its 
 stead. 
 
 The word the is employed, 
 
 1st, When we express an object of eminence or 
 notoriety, or the only one of a kind, in which we are 
 interested, as, " the king," when we mean " the king 
 of England." " He was concerned in bringing about 
 the revolution," when we mean the revolution in 
 this country. " Virgil copied the Grecian bard," or 
 " Homer." " I am going to the city," when I mean 
 " London." In none of these cases can we substitute 
 that for the, without laying a particular emphasis on 
 the subject, and implying that its character is there 
 described in contradistinction to some other of the 
 
60 i:tymology. 
 
 same species. Thus, " he was concerned in that 
 revolution, which was accomplished by the English 
 barons." " He copied that Grecian bard, who disputes 
 the claim of antiquity with Homer." 
 
 2dly, We employ it in expressing objects of re- 
 peated perception, or subjects of previous conversa- 
 tion. I borrow an example from Harris. If I see, 
 for the first time, a man with a long beard, I say, 
 " there goes a man with a long beard." If I see him 
 again, I say, "there goes the man with the long beard." 
 Were the word that substituted for tlie^ the same ob- 
 servation would be applicable as in the preceding 
 examples. 
 
 3dly, Mr. Harris has said, that the article a is 
 used to express objects of primary perception, and 
 the employed to denote those only of secondary per- 
 ception. This opinion is controverted by the author of 
 the article Grammar in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 
 Ed. 3d, who gives the following example to disprove 
 its truth. " I am in company, and finding the room 
 warm, I say to the servant, request the gentleman in 
 the window seat (to whom I am an entire stranger) 
 to draw down the sash." The example is apposite, 
 and is sufficient to overturn the hypothesis of Mr. 
 Harris. There can be no question but the is fre- 
 quently employed to denote objects of primary per- 
 ception ; and merely particularize, by some discrimi- 
 nating circumstance, an individual whose character, 
 person, or distinctive qualities, were previously un- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 61 
 
 known. In the example now quoted, that may be 
 substituted for the, if we say, " who is in the window 
 seat?" 
 
 4thly, The definite article is used to distinguish 
 the explicative from the determinative sense. In 
 the former case it is rarely employed ; in the latter it 
 should never be omitted, unless when something still 
 more definite supplies its place. " Man, who is born 
 of a woman, is of few days and full of trouble." Here 
 the relative clause is explicative, and not restrictive ; 
 all men being " born of a woman :" the definite article 
 therefore is not employed. " The man" would imply 
 that all men are not thus born; and would confine 
 the predicating clause to those who are. In the latter 
 sense, that may, without any alteration in the phrase- 
 ology, be substituted for the article ; for the man, and 
 that man, are in this instance equivalent, 
 
 5thly, The definite article is often used to denote 
 the measure of excess. '' The more you study, the 
 more learned you will become :" that is, " by how 
 much the more you study, by so much the more 
 learned you will become." " The wiser, the better," 
 ** that (by that) wiser, that (by that) better." There 
 also that and the may be considered as equivalent ; 
 and the Latins accordingly said " eo melior." 
 
 From the preceding examples and observations it 
 must appear, that the definite article, and the word 
 that, though not strictly synonymous, are words nearly 
 of the same import. Their difference seems to be, 
 
 1st, That the article the, like a, must have a sub- 
 
691 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 stantive conjoined with it ; whereas that^ like one, may 
 have it understood. Speaking of books, I may select 
 one and say, " give me that^^ but not "give me ihef 
 " give me ow^," but not " give me «." Here the 
 analogy holds between a and one, the and thaL 
 
 2dly, As the difference between a and one seems 
 to be, that one denotes unity in contradistinction to 
 more, with greater emphasis than «, so the distinction 
 in general between the and that is, that the latter 
 marks the object more emphatically than the former, 
 being indirectly opposed to this, I cannot say, " there 
 goes that man with that long beard," without imply- 
 ing a contrast with " this man with this long beard," 
 the word that being always emphatical and discrimi- 
 native. 
 
 The opinion here offered, respecting these words, 
 receives some corroboration from the following cir- 
 cumstances: / j//j Iji'/^'^^' 
 
 In Latin ille frequently supplies the place of our 
 definite article. " Thou art the man.*' Tti es ille 
 (iste) homo. 
 
 The le in French is clearly a derivative from ille, 
 of which the former syllable il expresses he, and the 
 latter denotes that unemphatically, serving as the 
 definite article. From the same source also proceed 
 the Italian articles il, lo, la. 
 
 In Hebrew, in like manner, our definite article is 
 expressed by the prefix of the pronoun ille; thus, 
 aret& terra, " earth * ;'* haret%, ilia seu hoec terra. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 63 
 
 "the earth," the letter he abbreviated from hou^ ille, ex- 
 pressing the ; — ^ ashfi haish, heatus ille vivy " happy 
 the man," or " that man," the he in like manner sig- 
 nifying the or that. 
 
 It appears to me then, that as ae, ane, when not 
 opposed to more, and therefore unemphatical, by 
 celerity of pronunciation were changed into a, an ; 
 so that, when not opposed to this, or when it was 
 unemphatical, was shortened to the. Hence, the 
 words termed articles seem to be the name of unity, 
 and the demonstrative word that abbreviated. 
 
 Besides the words a, an, the, there are others 
 which may be considered as reducible to the same 
 class with these ; such as this, that, any, other, some, 
 all, one, none. This and that I have already con- 
 sidered. That they are not pronouns is evident, for 
 they are never used as the representatives of a noun, 
 and always require to be associated with a substantive. 
 If ever they appear without this accompaniment, it 
 will invariably be found that the expression is ellip- 
 tical, some substantive or other being necessarily un- 
 derstood. If I say " this was a noble action." This 
 what ? " This action." " This is true virtue." This 
 what ? " This practice," " this habit," " this temper." 
 To what class of words I conceive them to belong 
 has been already mentioned. 
 
 One is a word significant of unity, and cannot, 
 without manifest impropriety, be called a pronominal 
 
64 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 adjective ; unless, by an abuse of all language, we be 
 disposed to name two, three, four, pronominal ad- 
 jectives. 
 
 Some is reducible to the same class, denoting an 
 indefinite, but comparatively to mamj, a small number. 
 
 Many, few, several, are words of the same order, 
 significant of number indefinitely. 
 
 None, or not one, implies the negation of all 
 number, exclusive even of unity itself. 
 
 Other, which is improperly considered by some as a 
 pronoun, is the Saxon o^er coming from o^^e. The 
 Arabic ahd, the Hebrew had, or ahad, the Saxon 
 o^^e, the Teutonic odo, and the Swedish udda, with 
 our English word odd, seem all to have sprung from 
 the same origin, the etymon expressing " one sepa^ 
 rately," or " one by itself," answering nearly to the 
 Latin singulus. The English word odd plainly 
 indicates its affinity to these words. We say, " He 
 is an odd character," or " singular character." " He 
 had some odd ones," that is, " some separate from 
 the rest," not paired, or connected with them, 
 "single*." 
 
 " As he in soueraine dignity is odde. 
 
 So will he in louc no parting felowes have." 
 
 Sir T. More's Works. 
 
 * Home Tooke appears to me to have erred in deriving odd 
 from OTv'd. His words are these : " Odd is the participle otv'd. 
 Thus, when we are counting by couples or pairs, we say, ' one 
 pair,' ' two pairs,' &c. and ' one ow'd,' ' two ow'd,' to make 
 up another pair. It has the same meaning when we say, ' an 
 odd man,' ^ an odd action/ it still relates to pairing ; and we 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 65 
 
 The same idea of singularity and separation is ex- 
 pressed by other ; which is now generally used as v^ 
 comparative, and followed by than. 
 
 Other is sometimes used substantively, and has 
 then a plural number, as, " Let others serve whom 
 they will : as for me and my house, we will serve the 
 Lord." The word one has a plural number when 
 an assemblage of units is expressed, not in the ag- 
 gregate, but individually ; and then it is used as a 
 substantive, as, " I saw a great many fine ones." It 
 is also used indefinitely, in the same sense with the 
 French on, as, '* one would imagine these to be exr 
 pressions of a man blessed with ease." — Atterhury. 
 And, in using it in this sense, it may be observed, in 
 passing, that an error is often committed, by employ^ 
 ing the personal pronouns as referring to one ; thus, 
 ** one is apt to exaggerate his own injuries," instead 
 of " one's own injuries." It is sometimes, though 
 rarely, used as referring to a plural noun. ** The 
 Romans and the Carthaginians now took the field ; 
 
 mean ' without a fellow,' ' unmatched.' " Now, I must own, 
 this appears to me a very odd explanation ; for, in my apprehen- 
 sion, it leads to a conclusion, the very reverse of that, which the 
 author intends. The term odd is applied to the one which stands 
 by itself, and not to that which is absent, or ow'd, to complete the 
 pair. If I say, " there are three pairs, and an odd one," the 
 word odd refers to the single one, over and above the three pairs, 
 and not to the one which is wanting ; yet, Mr. Tooke refers it to 
 the latter. His explanation seems at once unnatural and absurd. 
 Had he substituted, according to his own etymology, add for and, 
 saying, " three pairs, add an ow'd one," he must, I think, have 
 perceived its inaccuracy. It is the odd and present one^ of which 
 the singularity is predicated, and not the absent or ow'd one. 
 
 F 
 
66 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 the one ambitious of conquest, and the others in self- 
 defence." This mode of expression is objectionable. 
 We should rather say, " the former" and *' the 
 latter." 
 
 Anyy an^ a, one, seem all to be nearly equivalent 
 words, and derived from one origin, I mean from ane, 
 the name of unity. Hence «, or an, and any, are 
 frequently synonymous. " A considerate man would 
 have acted differently ;" that is, " any considerate 
 man." Hence also, like one, it is opposed to none, as, 
 " have you a book (any book) which you can lend 
 me?" " None ; my books are in the country ; nor, if 
 they were here, have I any (or one) which would suit 
 you." From expressing one indefinitely, like a or 
 an, it came, by an easy and natural transition, to 
 denote " whatever it he^^ " what you please ^^ '* Give 
 me one (ane), any, no matter which." In this sense 
 it corresponds to the Latin quivis or quilibet* in 
 affirmative sentences; whereas, in interrogative or 
 negative sentences, it corresponds to quisquam, quis- 
 piam, or ullus. The preceding observations it may 
 be useful to recapitulate. 
 
 Nouns are names of genera, and not of individuals ; 
 our perceptions are, on the contrary, all individual, 
 not general. Hence, to denote one or more individuals 
 
 * " Quivis seu quilibet affirmat ; qmsqnhm^ quispiam ullus aut 
 negat aut interrogat," are the words of an ancient grammarian. 
 It is observable also, that in Latin, ullus, any, is a diminutive from 
 unus, one ; as ani/ in English is from ar.e, the name of unity, as 
 formerly used. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 67 
 
 of a species, numerals, or words significant of number, 
 were invented. Some express a precise number, as, 
 onCy two, three ; others number indefinitely, as, some, 
 Jew, many, several. Our perceptions being all indi- 
 vidual, and one being the basis of all number, the 
 term significant of unity must frequently recur in 
 expressing our sentiments. To denote this idea our 
 forefathers employed ae, ane. In the progress of 
 language, where unity was not to be expressed, as 
 opposed to two or more, the terms, thus becoming 
 unemphatical, would naturally be abbreviated into 
 a, an. These latter, therefore, are the offspring of 
 the names of unity, and belong to the class of words 
 named cardinal numerals. To what part of speech 
 these are reducible (if they can be reduced to any) it 
 is difiicult to determine. In some languages they 
 have the form of adjectives ; but, if their meaning 
 be considered, it is clear that they have no claim to 
 this appellation, as they express no accident, quality, 
 or property whatever. In fact, they appear to be a 
 species of words totally different in character from 
 any of the parts of speech generally received ; all of 
 them, except the first of the series, being abbreviations 
 for the name of unity repeated. 
 
 It being necessary not only to express an individual 
 indefinitely of any species, but also to specify and 
 select some particular one, which at first would pro- 
 bably be done by pointing to the object, if in sight, 
 the words this and that, hence called demonstratives, 
 were employed ; the one to ex})ress the nearer, the 
 
 F 2 
 
68 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Other the more distant object. From one of these 
 proceeded the word ihe^ having the same relation to 
 its original as a or an has to the name of unity. 
 Hence the words synonymous with this and that^ in 
 those languages which have no definite article, are 
 frequently employed to supply its place. 
 
 The use of these terms being to express any indi- 
 vidual whatever of a class, and likewise some certain 
 or particular object ; we have also the words few^ 
 some, many, several, to denote a number indefinitely, 
 and the cardinal numerals two, three, four, &c. a pre- 
 cise number of individuals. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 69 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF PRONOUNS. 
 
 Whether we speak of things present, or of things 
 absent, of ourselves, or of others, and to whomsoever 
 we address our discourse, the repetition of the names 
 of those persons or things would not only be tiresome, 
 but also sometimes productive of ambiguity. Besides, 
 the name of the person addressed may be unknown 
 to the speaker, and the name of the speaker may be 
 unknown to the person addressed. Hence appears 
 the utility of pronouns, words, as the etymology of 
 the term denotes, supplying the place of nouns. 
 They have therefore been denominated by some 
 grammarians, nouns of the second order. 
 
 When the person who addresses speaks of himself, 
 the pronoun /, called the pronoun of the first person, 
 is employed instead of the name of the speaker, as, 
 "^ The Lord said to Moses, / (the Lord) am the God 
 of Abraham." 
 
 When the person addressed is the subject of dis- 
 course, the pronoun thou, called the pronoun of the 
 second person, is used instead of his name, as, " Na- 
 than said unto David, tho?i (David) art the man." 
 
 When neither the person who speaks, nor the 
 person addressed, but some other person or thing is 
 
70 ETYMOI.OGY. 
 
 the subject of discourse, we employ the pronouns of 
 the third person, namely, he^ she, it; as, " When 
 Jesus saw the multitude, he (Jesus) had compassion 
 on them." 
 
 I have said that pronouns are employed to prevent 
 the tiresome repetition of names. It is not, however, 
 to be hence inferred, that even the repetition of the 
 name would, in all cases, answer the same purpose, 
 or denote the subject with the same precision as the 
 pronoun. For, as there is hardly any name, strictly 
 speaking, proper or peculiar to one individual, the 
 employment of a name, belonging to more persons 
 than one, would not so clearly specify or individuate 
 the object as the appropriate pronoun. Hence it 
 would often be necessary to subjoin to the name some 
 distinctive circumstances, to discriminate the person 
 intended from others of that name ; or the speaker 
 would be obliged to point to the individual, if he 
 happened to be present. Nay, though the person or 
 subject designed might be thus sufficiently ascer- 
 tained, it is easy to see that the phraseology would 
 have nothing of that simplicity and energy which 
 accompany the pronoun. If, in the first example, 
 instead of saying, " I am the God," we should say, 
 " The Lord is the God;" or in the second, instead 
 of ** Thou art the man," " David is the man," the 
 energy of the expression would be entirely destroyed. 
 If any person, speaking of himself, should distinguish 
 himself from others of the same name, by subjoining 
 the necessary discriminating circumstances, so as tQ 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 71 
 
 leave no doubt in the mind of the hearer, it is obvious 
 that this phraseology would not only be inelegant, 
 but also feeble and unimpressive. To be convinced 
 of the truth of this observation, it is only necessary 
 to compare the exanimate, stiff, and frequently ob- 
 scure diction of a common card, with the freedom, 
 perspicuity, and vivacity of a letter. 
 
 Pronouns may be divided into substantive and ad- 
 jective, personal and impersonal, relative and inter- 
 rogative. The personal substantive pronouns are /, 
 thouy he, she. The impersonal substantive pronoun 
 is it. 
 
 The personal substantive pronouns have three 
 cases, and are thus declined : 
 
 First Person, Masc, and Fern, 
 
 
 Sing. 
 
 Plur. 
 
 Nom, 
 
 I* 
 
 We 
 
 Gen, 
 
 Mine 
 
 Ours 
 
 Ob;, 
 
 Me 
 
 Us 
 
 * In Anglo-Saxon ic, in German ich, in Greek eyia, in Latin 
 ego. Mr. Webb delivered it as his opinion, that the pronoun of 
 the first person was derived from the Hebrev^ ech or ach, one, 
 used by apocope for achad or ahad; he added '^ oned" or " united." 
 It is doubtless true, that ech occurs in one or two passages for 
 one : see Ezek. xviii. 10. and Ps. xlix. 8. ; in which latter passage 
 it is rendered in our translation, brother, and by R. Jonah, one; 
 but we apprehend that this fact will by no means justify his con- 
 clusion. And as he considered that the pronoun of the first per- 
 son radically denoted one, he imagined that the pronoun of the 
 second person came from the numeral duo, du, tu, thu. Now, it 
 must be granted that there is an obvious resemblance between ic 
 and ech, and also between duo, tu, and thu ; but were we to draw 
 
w 
 
 ETYMOLOGr, 
 
 Second Person, Masc, and Fern. 
 
 Sing. Plur. 
 
 Norn. Thou * Ye or you 
 
 Gen. Thine Yours 
 
 Ob^. Thee You. 
 
 Nom, 
 
 Gen. 
 
 ObJ. 
 
 Nom. 
 
 Gen. 
 
 Ohj. 
 
 any conclusion from this similarity, it would be the reverse of 
 that which the author has deduced. It seems quite preposterous 
 to suppose, that the necessity for expressing a number would pre- 
 sent itself, before that of discriminating between the person speak- 
 ing and the person addressed. The rude savage could not converse 
 with his fellow without some sign of this distinction; and if 
 visible signs (as is probable) would be first adopted, we may rea- 
 sonably presume, on several grounds, that these would soon give 
 place to audible expressions. 
 
 The pronoun ic is in Saxon declined thus : 
 
 Sing, Nom. Ic Gen. Min Dat. Me Ace. Me 
 
 Plur. Nom. We Gen. Ure Dat. Us Ace. Us. 
 
 * The pronoun of the second person is thus declined : 
 Sing. Nom. Thu Gen. Thin Dat. The Ace. The 
 
 Plur. Nom. Ge (hard) Gen. Eower Dat. and Ace. Eow. 
 
 t The Anglo-Saxon he is declined thus : 
 
 Si?ig. Nom. He Gen. His Dat. and Ace. Him. 
 
 J Si?igfNom. Heo Gen. Hire Dat. Hire Ace. Hi. 
 
 Third Person. 
 
 
 Masc. 
 
 
 Het 
 
 They 
 
 His 
 
 Theirs 
 
 Him 
 
 Them. 
 
 Fern. 
 
 
 She* 
 
 They 
 
 Hers 
 
 Theirs 
 
 Her 
 
 Them. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 
 Third Person. 
 
 
 Neuter. 
 
 
 Impersonal. 
 
 
 Sing. 
 
 Plur. 
 
 It^ 
 
 Theyt 
 
 Its 
 
 Theirs 
 
 It 
 
 Them. 
 
 73 
 
 Nom, 
 
 Gen. 
 
 Ok;. 
 
 My, thy, our, your, their, being the representatives 
 of nouns, have the essential character of pronouns. 
 Thus, when Decius says to Cato, " Caesar is well ac- 
 quainted with your virtues," the pronoun is employed 
 as a substitute for Cato's. As they express not only 
 the subject, but also the relation of property or pos- 
 session, they are by some grammarians considered to 
 be the genitives of their respective substantive pro- 
 nouns. In usage, however, they are distinguished 
 from the English genitive by their incapacity to 
 stand alone. Thus we say, " It is the king's," " It 
 is yours;" but we cannot say "It is your," the pre- 
 sence of a noun being necessary to the last expression. 
 They are, therefore, more correctly named prono- 
 minal adjectives. For the purpose of denoting em- 
 phatically the relation of possession or property, the 
 word own is frequently joined to them, as, my own, 
 thy own, our own. And to mark the person with 
 emphasis, they are compounded with the word self; 
 in Saxon, sylf; from the Gothic silba, ipse: thus, 
 
 * This pronoun is from the Anglo-Saxon hyt or hii^ "it" or 
 "that." 
 
 \ In Anglo-Saxon hi, in Teutonic die. 
 
74 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 myself, thyself; ourselves, yourselves, Theirselves 
 is now obsolete, themselves being used in its stead. 
 
 The pronouns of the first and second persons are 
 either masculine or feminine. The reason is, says 
 Mr. Harris, because the sex of the speaker and of 
 the person addressed is generally obvious. This ex- 
 planation, which has been adopted by most gram- 
 marians, appears to me unsatisfactory and erroneous. 
 Others have said that the pronouns of the first and 
 second persons have no distinction of sex, because all 
 distinction of this kind is foreign to the intention of 
 the speaker, who, when he uses the pronoun /, means 
 the person who speaks, be it man or woman ; and 
 when he employs the pronoun thou, means the per- 
 son addressed, without any regard to the sex of the 
 individual. This matter seems sufficiently plain. 
 Language, to be useful, must be perspicuous and in- 
 telligible, exhibiting the subject and its attributes 
 with clearness and precision. If it should be asked 
 why the pronoun of the third person has three va^ 
 rieties, Mr. Harris would answer, " to mark the sex." 
 If it were inquired whence arises the necessity of 
 marking the sex, he would answer, and very justly, 
 " in order to ascertain the subject of discourse." It is 
 obvious, therefore, that to note the sex is not the 
 primary object, and that the principal aim of the 
 speaker is to discriminate and mark the subject. 
 The pronouns of the first and second persons have 
 no variety of form significant of sex, because the 
 speaker and the person addressed are evident without 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 75 
 
 it. Mr. Harris, therefore, should have said that the 
 pronouns in question have no distinction of gender, 
 not because the sex of the speaker and of the person 
 addressed, but because the persons themselves are in 
 general obvious without the aid of sexual designation. 
 The intention of the speaker is not to denote the sex, 
 but the person spoken of, whether male or female ; 
 to ascertain which person, if absent, the discrimi- 
 nation of sex is generally necessary. The sex, there- 
 fore, enters not as an essential, but as an explanatory 
 circumstance ; not as the subject of discourse, but to 
 distinguish the subject. Where the person is present 
 and is either the speaker or the person addressed, 
 discrimination of sex becomes unnecessary, the pro- 
 noun itself marking the individuals. When the 
 person or subject of discourse is absent, the distinc- 
 tion of sex serves frequently to determine the subject. 
 Hence the pronoun of the third person has three 
 varieties, he for the masculine, she for the feminine, 
 and it for the neuter. 
 
 The four personal pronouns, /, thou, he, and she, 
 have three cases, viz. the nominative or leading case, 
 expressing the principal subject, and preceding the 
 verb ; the genitive case, whose form and office have 
 been already defined ; and the objective, accusative, 
 or following case (for it has obtained these three 
 names), expressing the object to which the energy is 
 directed, or the subject acted upon. This case follows 
 the verb. 
 
76 12TYMOLOGY. 
 
 Mine, thine, hers, theirs, his, yours, ours, are truly 
 pronouns in the possessive or genitive case. Johnson 
 has indeed said that my and mine are vs^ords precisely 
 synonymous, my, according to him, being used before 
 a consonant, and mine before a vowel ; as, my sivord, 
 mine arm. It is doubtless true that mine and thine 
 are sometimes used as my and thy, which are not 
 substantive pronouns but pronominal adjectives ; but 
 that they are not precisely synonymous or mutually 
 convertible, is obvious ; for my and thy cannot be 
 used for mine and thine, though mine and thine, as 
 has been observed, may be used for my and thy. 
 Example: "Whose book is this?" I cannot answer, 
 " it is my," but " it is mine." We may indeed say 
 ** it is my book ;" but the addition of the substantive 
 is necessary. 
 
 As my and mine, thy and thine, our and ours, your 
 and yours, their and theirs, are not mutually con- 
 vertible, they cannot be regarded as synonymous each 
 with its fellow. 
 
 This and that, which have improperly been re- 
 ferred by some to the class of pronouns, have been 
 considered already. The former makes in the plural 
 these, the latter tJiose, 
 
 The relative pronouns, so called because they 
 directly relate or refer to a substantive preceding, 
 which is therefore termed the antecedent, are, who, 
 which, that. 
 
 The pronoun who is of the masculine or feminine 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 77 
 
 gender, referring to persons, male or female. The 
 pronoun which is neuter. That is common to the 
 three genders. 
 
 Sing, and Plur. Sing, and Plur. 
 
 Nom. Who * Which 
 
 Gen. Whose Whose 
 
 Ohj. Whom Which. 
 
 Lowth, and several other grammarians, have as- 
 serted, that the pronoun which admits no variation. 
 Numberless examples, however, from the best authors 
 might be cited to disprove this assertion. Shak- 
 speare occasionally uses whose as the genitive of 
 which; and, since his time, writers of the highest 
 eminence have employed it in the sanae manner. 
 
 " Of man's first disobedience, and the fruit 
 Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste/' — Milton. 
 
 " The lights and shades, whose well accorded strife 
 Gives all the strength and colour of our life." — Pope. 
 
 " A true critic is like a dog at a feast, whose 
 thoughts and stomach are wholly set on what the 
 guests fling away."- — Swift 
 
 This usage is favourable to conciseness, and can very 
 seldom create ambiguity. Where obscurity indeed 
 is apprehended, the periphrasis, of which^ should 
 be adopted. I have, therefore, given whose as the 
 
 * In Anglo-Saxon, hwa, hua ; Gen. hwaes ; Dat. hwam ; 
 Ace. hweene, hwone. Also hwile, whence, says Hickes, pro- 
 ceeded which, the letter / being elided. 
 
78 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 genitive of which; not only because this usage is 
 sanctioned by classical authority, but likewise, because 
 the other form, of which, is frequently awkward and 
 inelegant. 
 
 Who is applied to persons, that is, to animals di- 
 stinguished by rationality, or represented as possess- 
 ing it. 
 
 "The man who has no music in himself." — Shakspeare. 
 
 The antecedent man, being a person, is followed 
 by who. 
 
 " A stag, who came to drink at a river, seeing his 
 own image in the clear stream, said thus to himself." 
 
 Here the stag is represented as possessing reason 
 and speech, and therefore the pronoun who is em- 
 ployed. In mythological writings in general, such 
 as the Fables of jEsop, inferior animals are very pro- 
 perly denoted by the personal relative. 
 
 Which is applied to things inanimate, and crea- 
 tures either devoid of all indications of rationality, 
 or represented as such. ** The city, which Romulus 
 built, was called Rome." Here which is used, the 
 word city being the antecedent, to which it refers. 
 
 " The sloth, which is a creature remarkable for in- 
 activity, lives on leaves and the flowers of trees." 
 Here the sloth, an animal hardly possessing sensation 
 or life, is expressed by which. 
 
 The rule here given for the use of these pronouns 
 is not uniformly observed, several good writers oc- 
 casionally applying them indifferently to inferior ani- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 79 
 
 mals, without any determinate principle of discrimi- 
 nation. It would be better, however, were this rule 
 universally followed ; and if such modes of expression 
 as *' frequented by that fowl, whom nature has 
 taught," were entirely repudiated. 
 
 Priestley, whose doctrine on this subject seems 
 nearly to coincide with ours, has even objected to the 
 application of the pronoun who to children, because 
 this pronoun conveys an idea of persons possessing 
 reason and reflection, of which mere children are in- 
 capable. He, therefore, disapproves of Cadogan's 
 phraseology, when he says, "a child who." 
 
 That is applied indiscriminately to things animate 
 and inanimate, and admits no variation. 
 
 The pronouns who, which, and that, are sometimes 
 resolvable into and he, and she, and it Mr. Harris, 
 indeed, has said, that the pronoun qui (who) may be 
 always resolved into et ille, a, ud, (and he, and she, 
 and it.) This opinion, however, is not perfectly 
 correct ; for it is thus resolvable in those examples 
 only, in which the relative clause does not limit or 
 modify the meaning of the antecedent. If I say, 
 " Man who is born of a woman is of few days and 
 full of trouble," the relative clause is not restrictive ; 
 I may, therefore, resolve the pronoun, and say, " Man 
 is of few days, and he is born of woman." " Light 
 is a body, which moves with great velocity," is re- 
 solvable into " Light is a body, and it moves with 
 great velocity." But when the relative clause limits 
 the meaning of the antecedent, the relative is clearly 
 
80 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 not thus resolvable. " Virgil was the only epic poetj 
 among the Romans, who can be compared to Homer." 
 The signification of the antecedent is here restricted by 
 the relative clause; we cannot, therefore, by reso- 
 lution say, " Virgil was the only epic poet among the 
 Romans, and he can be compared to Homer ;" for the 
 former of these propositions is not true, nor is the 
 sentiment, which it conveys, accordant with the mean- 
 ing of the author. 7 ^^^ ^ ' ' ''- 
 
 The pronoun whaU if not employed interrogatively, 
 is equivalent to that which ; and is applicable to in- 
 animate things only, as, " I believe what I see," or, 
 "that which I see." 
 
 What admits no variation. 
 
 The relative pronouns who, which, are often used 
 interrogatively, and are, therefore, in such cases 
 considered as interrogatives. When thus employed, 
 it is the opinion of the author of the British Gram-p 
 mar, that they still retain their relative character. 
 " The only difference," says he, " is this, that the re- 
 lative refers to an antecedent and definite subject, 
 and the interrogative to something subsequent and 
 unknown." The example which he adduces in 
 support of his opinion is the following : " Who first 
 seduced them to that foul revolt ?" " The very 
 question," says he, " supposes a seducer, to which, 
 though unknown, the pronoun who has a reference." 
 Answer, " The infernal serpent." He continues. 
 " Here, in the answer, we have the subject, which was 
 indefinite, ascertained ; so that the who in the inter- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 81 
 
 rogation is as much a relative, as if it had been said 
 originally, without any interrogation at all, " It was 
 the infernal serpent who seduced them." Others 
 adopt an opinion diametrically opposite, contending 
 that who and which are properly interrogatives, and 
 that even, when used as relatives, they still retain their 
 interrogative character. This theory a few examples 
 will sufficiently illustrate. 
 
 " The man, who ?" (which man ?) his character 
 follows, " has no music in himself." 
 
 "The city, which? (what city?) Romulus built 
 was called Rome." 
 
 " Happy the man, whose cautious feet." 
 
 " Happy that man, who ? his (whose) cautious 
 feet." 
 
 " Light is a body, which ? (body) moves with great 
 velocity." 
 
 Of these two theories I have no hesitation in adopt- 
 ing the former. My reasons are these. The intention 
 of language is to communicate our sentiments ; to ex- 
 press what we think, feel, perceive, or desire. Hence 
 its general character is indicative or assertive. " I 
 believe," " I wish," " I see," are affirmative sentences ; 
 and whatever variety of forms the phraseology may as- 
 sume, they are all strictly significant of assertion, and 
 all resolvable into the language of affirmation. " Go," 
 " teach," " read," are equivalent to, " I desire you to 
 go," "to teach," "to read.'* "Have you finished 
 your task ?" means, when the sentiment is fully ex- 
 pressed, " I desire to know, whether you have finished 
 
 G 
 
Sai ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 your task." Ellipses of this kind are natural. They 
 spring from an eagerness to impart to the vehicle of our 
 thoughts a degree of celerity, suited to the prompti- 
 tude, with which the mind conceives them. Vehe- 
 mence or passion, impatient of delay, uniformly resorts 
 to them. The assertive form of expression I therefore 
 conceive to be the parent, whence every other is de- 
 rived, and to which it is reducible. If this be the 
 case, no interrogative, conceived purely as such, can 
 claim so early an origin as definite or affirmative terms. 
 Hence we may conclude, that who, which, when, where, 
 were at first used as relatives, and came afterwards, by 
 implication, to denote interrogations. 
 
 Again, we know that the meaning of an expression 
 is frequently collected, not so much from the strict 
 import of the terms, as from the tone or manner, in 
 which it is delivered. If I say, " he did it," the sen- 
 tence is affirmative; yet, by the tone of voice or manner 
 of the speaker, this affirmative sentence may denote an 
 interrogation. Thus, " he did it ?" by an elevation of 
 the voice, or the mode of notation, may be rendered 
 equivalent to '*did he do it?" "Who did it" is 
 in like manner an affirmative clause ; but it is obvious 
 that this form of expression, like the other now ad- 
 duced, may be likewise employed to denote an inter- 
 rogation, thus, "Who did it?" And it is evident, 
 that, if the ellipsis be supplied, the sentence would 
 read thus, " I want to know who did it T The pre- 
 ceding clause, however, is sufficiently supplied by the 
 manner of the speaker. An ellipsis of this kind seems 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 83 
 
 to be involved in every interrogation. If I say, " did 
 he do it ?" it is equivalent to " tell me, if he did it ?" 
 Accordingly we find that the Latins, in such inter- 
 rogations, employed only the latter clause; for an 
 (whether), which is termed an interrogative, is, in 
 fact, nothing but the Greek av, synonymous with si 
 (if) among the Latins. " Anfecitr did he do it ? is 
 therefore strictly equivalent to " si fecit y' if he did it, 
 the former clause, " tell me," being understood, and 
 its import supplied by the manner of the speaker, or 
 the mode of notation. 
 
 Besides, let any person ask himself what idea he 
 annexes to the word who, considered as an interroga- 
 tive, and I am persuaded he will be sensible that he 
 cannot form any distinct conception of its import. 
 
 I am inclined therefore to think that interrogatives 
 are strictly relatives ; and that these relatives, by the 
 aid of voice, gesture, or some explanatory circumstance, 
 answer the purpose of interrogation. 
 
 In using these pronouns interrogatively, it is to 
 be observed, that who and which are each applied to 
 persons, which is not the case when they are employed 
 as relatives. This difference, however, is to be ob- 
 served, that when the pronoun which is used inter- 
 rogatively and applied to persons, it is generally, if 
 not always, understood that the character of the in- 
 dividual, who is the object of inquiry, is in presence 
 of the inquirer, or is in some degree known. Who 
 is more ipdefinite. If I say, *' which is the man?" I 
 mean ** who of those now before me ?" or of those 
 
 G 2! 
 
B4 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 who have been described ? Agreeably to this notion, 
 we say, " which of the two,'* not " who of the two,'* 
 was guilty of this crime ? 
 
 If I say, ** who is the man that will dare to affirm ?" 
 it implies that I am entirely a stranger to him, and 
 that I even doubt his existence. " Which is the man ?" 
 not only implies his existence, but also that the ag- 
 gregate of individuals, whence the selection is made, 
 is known to me. 
 
 What is also used interrogatively, and is em- 
 ployed in introducing questions, whether the subject 
 be persons or things, as, " What man is that ?" 
 " What book is this ?" When no substantive is sub- 
 joined, it is then wholly indefinite, as " What is man, 
 that thou art mindful of him ?" When we inquire, 
 therefore, into the character of any person, and not for 
 the individual himself, it is to be remembered, that 
 we employ this pronoun, and not who or which. 
 
 There seems to be the same difference between who 
 and what definite, as between who and which. If I 
 say, " what man will dare to affirm this ?" and " which 
 man will dare ?" &c., it is obvious that the former in- 
 terrogatory is more indefinite than the latter, the one 
 implying a total ignorance of the individual, and some 
 doubt of his existence ; the other, that he is one of a 
 number in some degree known to the inquirer. 
 
 When any defining clause is subjoined, either may 
 be used, as " What, or which man among you, having 
 a hundred sheep, and losing one, would not leave the 
 ninety and nine ?" 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 85 
 
 The pronoun whether is equivalent to " which of 
 the two." It is the Teutonic word wether^ bearing 
 the same relation to wer, " who" or " which," as either 
 does to ein^ " one," and neither, newether^ to nie or 
 nehein^ " none." 
 
 This word, though now generally employed or con- 
 sidered as a conjunction, is in truth reducible to the 
 class of words which we are now examining, and is 
 precisely synonymous with titer, tra, trum, of the 
 Latins. *' Whether is easier to say ?" — Sihle. 
 
 Here whether is truly a pronoun, and is the nomi- 
 native to the following verb. 
 
 " Whether is greater, the gold or the temple ?" — 
 Ibid. 
 
 In these examples, whether is precisely the same 
 with " which of the two." It seems now to be giving 
 place to the word which, as the comparative, when two 
 things are compared, is often supplanted by the super- 
 lative. Thus we often say, when speaking of two, 
 " which is the best," instead of " whether is better." 
 The Latins almost uniformly observed the distinction : 
 — " Uter dignior, quis dignissimus." — Quint, 
 
 The pronoun it is used indefinitely, and applied to 
 persons or things. 
 
 Dr. Johnson has objected to the use of this pronoim 
 in those examples, wherein the pronouns of the first 
 or second persons are employed; and Dr. Lowth has 
 censured it, when referring to a plural number, as in 
 the following example : 
 
 " 'Tis these, that give the great Atrides spoils." — Pope. 
 
86 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 I concur, however, with the learned author of the 
 Philosophy of Rhetoric, who regards the objections 
 of these critics as, in this instance, of no weight. For 
 when a question is asked, the subject of which is to- 
 tally unknown, there must be some indefinite word 
 employed to denote the subject of the interrogation. 
 The word which we use for this purpose is it, as, 
 " Who is it ?" " What is it?" This phraseology is 
 established by universal usage, and is therefore unex- 
 ceptionable. This being the case, there can be no 
 impropriety in repeating in the answer the indefinite 
 term employed in the question. We may therefore 
 reply, " It is I," " It is he," " It is she." 
 
 Now, if the term be admitted in questions and 
 answers where the subject may be either male or 
 female, and of the first, second, or third person, it 
 surely is admissible in those cases also where the 
 subject is in the plural number. Nay, to use in the 
 atiswer any other word to express the subject than 
 that, by which it is signified in the question, would 
 be in all cases, if not productive of ambiguity, at 
 least less precise. " Who is it ?" says a master to 
 his servant, hearing a voice in the hall. " It is the 
 gentlemen who called yesterday,'* replies the servant. 
 Who sees not that " they are the gentlemen" would 
 be an answer less accordant with the terms of the 
 question, and would less clearly show that " the gen- 
 tlemen," and " the subject of inquiry," both being 
 denoted by one term, are one and the same ? Had 
 the master known, that it was the voice of a gentle- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 87 
 
 man, and that there were more than one, and had he 
 accordingly said, " Who are they?" the answer 
 would have properly been " They are the gentlemen." 
 But when the question is *' Who is it?" I appre- 
 hend the only apposite answer is, " It is the gentle- 
 men," the identity of the terms (it being repeated) 
 clearly evincing an identity of subject in the ques- 
 tion and in the answer ; in other words, that the 
 subject of the inquiry, and the subject of the answer, 
 are one and the same. 
 
 I conclude with observing, that, though I have 
 here considered the word that as a pronoun, there 
 can be no question, that in its import it is precisely 
 the same with the demonstrative that, which has 
 been already explained. '' The house that you 
 built is burned," is resolvable thus, " The house is 
 burned, you built that." 
 
88 ETYMOLOGY- 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 OF THE ADJECTIVE. 
 
 An adjective has been defined by most gramma- 
 rians to be " that part of speech which signifies an 
 accident, quality, or property of a thing." This de- 
 finition appears to me to be somewhat defective and 
 incorrect: for the adjective does not express the 
 quality simply, but the quality, or property, as con- 
 joined with a substance; or, as grammarians have 
 termed it, in concreto. Thus, when we say " good 
 man," goodness is the name of the quality, and^ooc? 
 is the adjective expressing that quality, as conjoined 
 with the subject man. Accordingly, every adjective 
 is resolvable into the name of the thing implied, and 
 any term of reference or conjunction, as of, with. 
 Thus " a prudent man" is equivalent to "a man 
 with" or '*join prudence," or to "a man of pru- 
 dence." An adjective, therefore, is that part of 
 speech which denotes any substance or attribute, not 
 by itself, but as conjoined with a subject, or pertain- 
 ing to its character. This conjunction is generally 
 marked by changing the termination of the simple 
 name of the substantive or attribute, as,Jbol, foolish^ 
 waXy waxen. Sometimes no change is made ; and 
 the simple name of the substance, or attribute, is 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 89 
 
 prefixed to the name of the subject, as, sea fowl, race 
 horse, cornfield. In writing these, and similar ex- 
 pressions, the conjunction is sometimes marked by a 
 hyphen, as sea-fowl, river fish, wine-vessel. 
 
 As every appellative denotes the whole of a genus 
 or species, the intention and effect of the adjective 
 is, by limiting the generic meaning of the substan- 
 tive, to specify what part of the genus or species is 
 the subject of discourse. If I say *' man,'^ the term 
 is universal : it embraces the species. If I say ** a 
 man," the expression is indefinite, being applicable 
 to any individual of the kind. If I say " a good 
 man," I confine the term to an individual distin- 
 guished by goodness. Here man expresses the sub- 
 stance ; and good the quality in concreto. Some- 
 times, on the contrary, the substantive is the general 
 name of the quality or property ; and the adjective 
 modifies or determines its degree, as, wisdom, little 
 wisdom. Let us take another example. The word 
 stone is applicable to a whole species of substances. 
 If I say round stone, I confine the meaning of the 
 substantive to that part of the genus, which is distin- 
 guished by roundness. Here the substantive denotes 
 the matter, or substance, in general, and the adjec- 
 tive limits its signification, by expressing the form. 
 Sometimes the converse takes place, as golden globe. 
 Here the substantive is the generic name of a certain 
 figure ; and the adjective, by expressing the matter, 
 confines that figure to the substance of gold. 
 
 Some grammarians have denominated this part of 
 
90 ETYMOLOGY; 
 
 Speech by the name of adjective noun ; to others this 
 designation appears inadmissible. The latter ob- 
 serve, that neither is the adjective the name of any 
 thing, nor is it in English variable, like the substan- 
 tive. They allow, that in Greek and Latin, the de- 
 signation in question is, in some degree, justifiable, 
 because, though the noun and adjective differ essen- 
 tially in office, in these languages, they agree in 
 form ; but in our language they deem it a singular 
 impropriety ^. 
 
 * Mr. Tooke contends, that this part of speech is properly 
 termed adjective noun, and " that it is altogetlier as much the 
 name of a thing, as the noun substantive." Names and designa- 
 tions necessarily influence our conceptions of the things, which 
 they represent. It is therefore desirable, that in every art or 
 science, not only should no term be employed, which may convey 
 to the reader or hearer an incorrect conception of the thing signi- 
 fied, but that every term should assist him in forming a just idea 
 of the object, which it expresses. Now, I concur with Mr. Tooke 
 in thinking, that the adjective is by no means a necessary part of 
 speech. I agree with him also in opinion, that, in a certain 
 sense, all words are nouns or names. But, as this latter doctrine 
 seems directly repugnant to the concurrent theories of critics and 
 grammarians, it is necessary to explain, in what sense the opinion 
 of Mr. Tooke requires to be understood ; and in presenting the 
 reader with this explanation, I shall briefly state the objections 
 which will naturally off'er themselves against the justness of this 
 theory. " Gold, and brass, and silk, is each of them," says Mr. 
 Tooke, " the name of a thing, and denotes a substance. If, then, 
 I say, a gold-ring, a brass-tube, a silk-string ; here are the sub- 
 stantives adjective posita, yet names of things, and denoting sub- 
 stances." It may be contended, however, that these are not sub- 
 stantives, but adjectives, and are the same as golden, brazen, 
 silken. He proceeds: "If again I say, a golden ring, a brazen 
 tube, a silken string, do gold, and brass, and silk, cease to be tlie 
 names of things, and cease to denote substances, because, instead 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 91 
 
 I have said, that the adjective denotes a substance, 
 quality, or property, " as pertaining," or in concreto, 
 
 of coupling them with W«g, tuhcj and stringj by a hyphen thus (-) 
 I couple them to the same words, by adding the termination en ?" 
 It may be answered, they do not cease to imply the substances, 
 but they are no longer names of those substances. Hard implies 
 hardness, but it is not the name of that quality. Atheniensis 
 implies Athence, but it is not the name of the city, any more than 
 helongmg to Athens can be called its name. He observes : " If 
 it were true, that adjectives were not the names of things, there 
 could be no attribution by adjectives ; for you cannot attribute 
 nothing." This conclusion may be disputed. An adjective may 
 imply a substance, quality, or property, though it is not the name 
 of it. CereuSf " waxen," implies ce?'a, " wax," but it is the lat- 
 ter only which is strictly the name of the substance. Pertaining 
 to wax, made of wax, are not surely names of the thing it- 
 self. Every attributive, whether verb or adjective, must imply 
 an attribute ; but it is not therefore the name of that attribute. 
 Juvetiescit, " he waxes young," expresses an attribute, but we 
 should not C2\\juvenescit the name of the attribute. 
 
 It may be asked, what is the difference between caput hominis, 
 "a man's head," and caput humanum, "a human head." If 
 hominis, " man's," be deemed a noun, why should not humanum, 
 "human," be deemed a noun also? It may be answered, that 
 hominis does, in fact, perform the office of an adjective, expressing 
 not only the individual, but conjunction also : and that Mr. Wallis 
 assigns to the English genitive the name of adjective. Besides, 
 does not Mr. Tooke himself maintain "that case, gender, and 
 number, are no parts of the noun ?" and does it not hence follow, 
 that the real nouns are not hominis but homo, not mans but man ? 
 for such certainly is their form when divested of those circum- 
 stances, which, according to Mr. Tooke, make no part of them. 
 If the doctrine, therefore, of the learned author be correct, and if 
 the real noun exclude gender, case, and number, as any part of it, 
 neither hominis nor humanum, man's nor human, can, with con- 
 sistency, be called nouns. 
 
 But let Mr. Tooke's argument be applied to the verb, the to 
 prjfxa, which he justly considers as an essential part of speech. 
 '* If verbs were not the names of things, there could be no attri- 
 
92 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Now, it is to be observed, that substances do not ad- 
 mit degrees of more or less^ in regard to their essen- 
 
 bution by verbs, for we cannot attribute nothing.'' Are we then 
 to call sa'pity mvity legit, names ? If so, we have nothing but 
 names ; and to this conclusion Mr. Tooke fairly brings the dis- 
 cussion : for he says, that all words are names. 
 
 Having thus submitted to the reader the doctrine of this saga- 
 cious critic, with the objections, which naturally present them- 
 selves, I proceed to observe, that the controversy appears to me to 
 be, in a great degree, a mere verbal dispute. It is agreed on both 
 sides, that the adjective expresses a substance, quality, or property; 
 but, while it is affirmed by some critics, it is denied by others, that 
 it is the name of the thing signified. The metaphysician consi- 
 ders words merely as signs of thought, while the grammarian re- 
 gards chiefly their changes by inflexion : and hence arises that 
 perplexity, in which the classification of words has been, and still 
 continues to be, involved. Now, it is evident that every word 
 must be the sign of some sensation, idea, or perception. It must 
 express some substance or some attribute: and in this sense all 
 words may be regarded as names. Sometimes we have the name 
 of the thing simply, as person. Sometimes we have an accessary 
 idea combined with the simple sign, as " possession," " conjunc- 
 tion," " action," and so forth, as personal, personally, persotiify. 
 This accessary circumstance, we have reason to believe, was ori- 
 ginally denoted by a distinct word, significant of the idea intended; 
 and that this word was, in the progress of language, abbreviated 
 and incorporated with the primary term, in the form of what we 
 now term an affix or prefix. Thus frig2is,frigidus,Jriget, all 
 denote the same primary idea, involving the name of that quality, 
 or of that sensation, which we term cold. Frigus is the name of 
 the thing simply ; frigidus expresses the quality, in concreto, or 
 conjunction. Considering, therefore, all words as names, it may 
 be regarded as a complex name, expressing two distinct ideas, that 
 of the quality, and that of conjunction. Friget (the subject being 
 understood) may be regarded as a name still more complex, in- 
 volving, first, the name of the quality ; secondly, the name of 
 conjunction; thirdly, the sign of affirmation, as either expressed 
 by an appropriate name, or constructively implied, equivalent to 
 the three words, est cumjrigore. According then to this meta- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 9^ 
 
 tial character. ** A wooden table" cannot be more or 
 less wooden. " An iron bar" cannot be more or less 
 
 physical view of the subject, we have, first, nomen simplex, the 
 simple name ; secondly, nomen adjeciivum or nomen duplex, the 
 name of the thing, with that of conjunction ; thirdly, nomen affir- 
 mativum, the name of the thing affirmed to be conjoined. 
 
 The simple question now is, whether all words, not even the 
 verb excepted, should be called nouns ; or whether we shall assign 
 them such appellations as may indicate the leading circumstances, 
 by which they are distinguished. The latter appears tb me to 
 be the only mode which the grammarian, as the teacher of an 
 art, can successfully adopt. Considering the subject in this light, 
 I am inclined to say with Mr. Harris, that the adjective, as im- 
 plying some substance or attribute, not per se, but in conjunction, 
 or as pertaining, is more nearly allied to the verb than to the 
 noun; and that though the verb and the adjective may, in 
 common with the noun, denote the thing, they cannot strictly be 
 called its name. To say that foolish dindi folly are each names 
 of the same quality would, I apprehend, lead to nothing but per- 
 plexity and error. 
 
 It is true, if we are to confine the term noun to the simple 
 name of the subject, we shall exclude the genitive singular from 
 all right to this appellation ; for it denotes, not the subject 
 simply, but the subject in conjunction — the inflexion being equi- 
 valent to " belonging to." This indeed is an inconsistency, which 
 can in no way be removed, unless by adopting the opinion of 
 Wallis, who assigns no cases to English nouns, and considers 
 man's, king's, &c. to be adjectives. And were we to adopt Mr. 
 Tooke's definition of our adjective, and say, '^ It is the name of a 
 thing which is directed to be joined to another name of a thing," 
 it will follow, that king's, mans, are adjectives. In short, if 
 the question be confined to the English language, we must, in 
 order to remove all inconsistency, either deny the appellation of 
 nomi to the adjective, and, with Wallis, call the genitive case an 
 adjective; or we must first call man's, king's, &c. adjectives; 
 secondly, we must term happy, extravagant, mercenary, &c. 
 nouns, though they are not names ; and thirdly, we must assign 
 the appellation of noun to the verb itself. 
 
 From this view of the subject the reader will perceive that the 
 
94 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 such. In these cases, the adjective, as I have already 
 remarked, by expressing the matter, limits the form 
 to one species of substance. The same observation is 
 applicable to the converse circumstance, in which the 
 form strictly limits the matter, as " triangular board." 
 Here it is obvious, that the substance limited to one 
 form by the term triangular^ cannot be more or less 
 triangular. But this is not the case with qualities or 
 properties, which may exist in different substances, 
 in different degrees. And, as it is sometimes neces- 
 sary to express the existence of a quality, as greater 
 or less in one substance than another, hence arises 
 the utility of some form of expression to denote these 
 relative degrees of its existence. It is in this case 
 only, that the termination of the adjective admits 
 variation ; and then it is said to be in a state of com- 
 parison. 
 
 In all qualities susceptible of intension or remis- 
 sion, the number of degrees, from the lowest to the 
 highest, may be accounted infinite. Hardness, for 
 example, gravity, magnitude, genius, wisdom, folly, 
 are severally diversified by an infinitude of gradations, 
 which it would elude the capacity of any language 
 
 whole controversy depends on the meaning, \vhich we annex to 
 the term noun. If by this term we denote simply the thing it<elf, 
 without any accessary circumstance, then nothing can be called a 
 noun but the name in its simple form. If to the term noun we 
 assign a more extensive signification, as implying not only the 
 thing itself simply and absolutely, but also any accessary idea, 
 as, conjunction, action, passion, and so forth, then it follows, that 
 all words may be termed names. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 95 
 
 to discriminate. To denote these degrees is, there- 
 fore, utterly impracticable as it is wholly unneces- 
 sary. 
 
 In English, as in most other languages, we em- 
 ploy two variations : the one to denote simple excess, 
 or a greater degree of the quality than that, which is 
 expressed by the adjective itself; and the other to 
 denote the greatest excess. Thus, if I compare wood 
 with stone, as possessing the quality of hardness, I 
 say, " wood is hard," " stone is harder." If I com- 
 pare these with iron, I say, " wood is hard," " stone 
 harder," " iron the hardest." Thus, in truth, there 
 are only two degrees of comparison, viz. the com- 
 parative and the superlative, the positive expressing 
 the quality simply and absolutely. 
 
 The comparative is formed by adding er to the 
 positive, if it end with a consonant ; or the letter r, 
 if it end with a vowel ; as, soft, softer ; safe, safer. 
 
 The superlative is formed by adding est, or st, as, 
 soft, softest; safe, safest*. 
 
 * The Saxons formed their comparative by er or ere, ar or cere, 
 er, or, ur, yr, and their superlative by ast, aste, est, ist, ost, list, 
 yst. Now cer means before ; hence the English words ere and 
 erst. Thus, in Saxon, rihtwiseremQoxis ^^ righteous before," *' just 
 before," or "more than." The suffix is equivalent to the Latin prev, 
 and the Hebrew preposition inin, signifying also before, the only 
 difference being this, that what is a suffix to the Saxon adjective 
 is in Hebrew a prefix to the consequent subject of comparison, 
 and that in Latin the preposition following the positive stands 
 alone. 
 
 Mr. Bosworth, in his " Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar," 
 a work displaying sound philological principles, has remarked, 
 that the Gothic superlative in ista bears an obvious resemblance 
 to some of the Greek superlatives, as dpf^og, /caX\(<?oc, /Spa^i^oc. 
 
96 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Some adjectives are compared irregularly, as, 
 
 Pos. 
 
 
 Comp. 
 
 Super. 
 
 Good 
 
 
 Better 
 
 Best 
 
 Bad or 
 
 Evil 
 
 Worse 
 
 Worst 
 
 Little 
 
 
 Less 
 
 Least 
 
 Much 
 
 
 More 
 
 Most 
 
 Many 
 
 
 More 
 
 Most 
 
 Near 
 
 
 Nearer 
 
 Nearest or next 
 
 Late 
 
 
 Later 
 
 Latest or last. 
 
 The comparative degree is frequently expressed by 
 the word more, and the superlative by most, as, 
 
 Pos, Comp. Super. 
 
 Hard More hard Most hard. 
 
 Monosyllabic adjectives are generally compared by 
 annexing r or^r, storest; adjectives of two or more 
 syllables by more and most, as, strong, stronger, 
 strongest; certain, more certain, most certain. 
 
 Dissyllabic adjectives in y form an exception to 
 this rule, as, happy, happier, happiest. 
 
 Adjectives of two syllables ending in le, after a 
 mute, are also excepted, as, able, abler, ablest. 
 
 Euphony seems here to be generally consulted, and 
 the ear may be allowed perhaps to furnish the best 
 rule. 
 
 Some form their superlative by adding most to the 
 comparative, 2i% nether, nethermost; lower, lowermost; 
 under, undermost: others by adding most either to 
 the positive or comparative, as, hind, hindmost or 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 97 
 
 hindermost; up, upmost or uppermost. From in 
 we have inmost and innermost *. 
 
 Besides this definite and direct kind of comparison, 
 there is another, which may be termed indefinite or 
 indirect, expressed by the intensive words too, very, 
 exceedingly, &c. as too good, very hard, exceedingly 
 great. 
 
 When the word very, or any other of the same 
 import, is put before the positive, it is called by some 
 writers the superlative of eminence, to distinguish it 
 from the other superlative, which has been already 
 mentioned, and is called the superlative of comparison. 
 Thus, very hard h termed the superlative of eminence; 
 most hard, or hardest, the superlative of comparison. 
 
 I have said that the comparative denotes simple 
 excess, and the superlative the greatest. It is not, 
 however, to be hence inferred, that the comparative 
 may not be employed in expressing the same pre- 
 eminence or inferiority with the superlative. If I 
 say, " Of all acquirements virtue is the most valu- 
 able," I may also convey the same sentiment by 
 saying, " Virtue is more valuable than every other 
 acquirement." If it be asked, what then is the dif- 
 ference between the comparative and superlative? 
 I answer, 
 
 1st. That the superlative expresses the absolutely 
 highest or lowest degree of the quality, as, when we 
 say, " O God most high ;" or the greatest or least 
 
 * Up and in are now used as adverbs and prepositions. 
 
 H 
 
98 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 degree, in relation merely to the subjects of compa- 
 rison, thus expressing a superiority of excess above 
 the comparative, as when I say, " In estimating the 
 worth of these human attainments, learning, pru- 
 dence, and virtue, it cannot be denied that learning 
 is valuable, that prudence is more valuable, but that 
 virtue is the most valuable." The comparative ex- 
 presses merely simple excess, but never the highest 
 or lowest degree of the quality. This distinction is, 
 perhaps, the most precise, and the most worthy of 
 attention. 
 
 I observe, however, that the sentiment in the last 
 example may be expressed by the comparative, but 
 not simply, or by itself ; thus, " Learning is valuable, 
 prudence more valuable, and virtue more valuable 
 still," the word still implying a continued gradation. 
 Were this word suppressed, the sentence would imply 
 that prudence and virtue are each more valuable than 
 learning, but would assert no superiority of virtue to 
 prudence. The same sentiment may likewise be ex- 
 pressed by combining the two first, and marking 
 simply the excess of the third, thus, " virtue is better 
 than both." 
 
 2!dly. When we express the superiority or infe- 
 riority of one of two things, or of two aggregates, we 
 almost always use the comparative. Thus, speaking 
 of Caesar and Cato, I say, " Cato was the more vir- 
 tuous, Caesar the more eloquent;" or of two brothers, 
 we say " John was the elder.** 
 
 In such cases the superlative is sometimes em- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 99 
 
 ployed, as, " the best of the two," instead of " the 
 better of the two/' The former phraseology, how- 
 ever, is more consonant to established usage, and is 
 in every case to be preferred. " Whether is it easier 
 to say, ' take up thy bed and walk,' or to say, * thy 
 sins are forgiven thee,' that is, which of the two is 
 easier," not "easiest," the simple excess of one thing 
 above another being here denoted. 
 
 3dly. When we use the superlative, we always 
 compare one thing, or an aggregate number of things, 
 with the class to which they belong, or to which we 
 refer them ; whereas, when we use the comparative, 
 except in the case just mentioned, the things com- 
 pared either belong, or are conceived as belonging, 
 to different classes, being placed in opposition to 
 each other. Thus, in comparing Socrates, who was 
 an Athenian, with the other Athenians, we say, "So- 
 crates was the wisest of the Athenians;" that is, 
 " of," " out of," or " of the class of Athenians." 
 Hence in Latin the superlative often takes the pre- 
 position ex (out of) to denote that the object corn- 
 pared belongs to the order of things, with which it 
 is compared ; the comparative very rarely. 
 
 Now the same sentiment may be expressed by tjfie 
 comparative ; but then the Athenians and Socrates, 
 though belonging to one species, are conceived 
 as mutually opposed, and referred to different 
 places, whereas the superlative refers them to one 
 common aggregate. Thus, if we employ the com- 
 
 H 2 
 
100 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 parative, we say, " Socrates was wiser than any other 
 Athenian." 
 
 Agreeably to the observation now made, we can- 
 not say, " Cicero was more eloquent than the Ro- 
 mans," or " than any Roman ;" because Cicero was 
 himself a Roman, one of the class with which he is 
 compared, and could not therefore be more eloquent 
 than himself. As the objects compared belong, 
 therefore, to one class, and are not two individuals, 
 nor two aggregates, the comparative cannot be em- 
 ployed, unless by placing them in opposition, or. re- 
 ferring them to different places, as " Cicero was more 
 eloquent, than any other Roman." Here the word 
 other denotes that opposition, that diversity of place 
 or species, which in all cases, but the one^ already 
 mentioned, is essentially implied in the use of the 
 comparative. 
 
 I have observed already, that when the superlative 
 is employed, the things compared are referred to one 
 aggregate ; and that when the comparative is used, 
 they are contradistinguished by a different reference. 
 This distinction obtains uniformly, unless when we 
 compare only two individuals, or two classes, both 
 referred to one aggregate, as '* the elder of the Catos,'' 
 " of these two nations (speaking of the Greeks and 
 Romans) the latter were the more warlike." In such 
 examples as these, the comparative, while it retains 
 its own distinctive character, denoting simple excess, 
 partakes also of the nature of the sui)erlative, Ikt 
 
ETYMOLOGY. ^^^I^P 
 
 objects compared being referred by the preposition 
 to one and the same aggregate. But as the super- 
 lative is always followed by of^ and the comparative, 
 in every case except the one now mentioned, followed 
 by than^ some writers say, " the eldest of the two," 
 " the latter were the most warlike." This phraseology, 
 however conformable to the generally distinguished 
 usage of the comparative and superlative, is repug- 
 nant to the characteristic power of those degrees, by 
 which one denotes simple excess, while the other 
 heightens or lessens the quality to its highest or 
 lowest degree. 
 
 From the preceding remarks will appear the im- 
 propriety of saying, " Jacob loved Joseph more than 
 all his children *." Joseph being one of his children, 
 the sentiment expressed involves an absurdity : it 
 should be " more than all his other children." " In 
 the beginning of the 16th century, Spain is said to 
 have possessed a thousand merchant ships, a number 
 probably far superior to that of any nation in Europe 
 in that age." (Robertson's America.) It should be, 
 " that of any other nation in Europe :'* for Spain, 
 being one of the European nations, she could not 
 possess a number superior to her own. The compa- 
 rative required the terms to be contrasted by the 
 word other, 
 
 * This phraseology is Hebraistic — " more than all his children" 
 is the literal translation of the original, V3D-V3D prae omnibus 
 fiUis, sen, magis omnibus filiis suis. 
 
102 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 . " Adam 
 The comeliest of men since born 
 His sons. The fairest of her daughters Eve." — Miltori. 
 
 " Adam," the antecedent subject of comparison, is 
 here improperly referred to the aggregate of " men 
 since born*1' To this aggregate he cannot be said to 
 belong, not having been " born," nor being reducible 
 to the class of " his own sons." Eve also is referred 
 to a species, of which she was no part. In neither 
 of these comparisons can the second term include the 
 first ; yet the preposition refers them to one class. 
 Such phraseologies as these, though not ungram- 
 matical, involve an absurdity, and should therefore 
 be dismissed. 
 
 Adjectives, whose signification does not admit in- 
 tension or remission, cannot be compared. Among 
 these are to be reckoned, 1st, All words expressive of 
 figure, as circular, square, triangular, periiendiculary 
 straight ; for it is obvious, that if a body or figure 
 be triangular, or square, or circular, it cannot be more 
 or less so. It is either circular or not circular; tri- 
 angular, or not triangular ; straight, or not straight. 
 If the affirmative be the case, gradation from more or 
 less, or conversely, is impossible ; if the negative be 
 true, then the attributes, denoted by these adjectives, 
 do not belong to it ; and therefore the epithets circular, 
 triangular, straight, &;c. are inapplicable. Hence 
 such expressions as these, ** place the staff more erect," 
 •*make the field more triangular," are highly im- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 103 
 
 proper. We should say, ** set the staff erect," ** make 
 the field triangular." 
 
 Sldly, All adjectives, whose signification, in their 
 simple form, implies the highest or lowest possible 
 degree, admit not comparison, as, chiefs supreme^ 
 universal^ perfect, extreme^ &c. Hume, speaking 
 of enthusiasm, says (Essays, vol. i. p. 72.) ** it be- 
 gets the most extreme resolutions.*' Extreme im- 
 plies the farthest, or the greatest possible ; and cannot 
 admit intension. 
 
 I am aware that usage may be pleaded in favour 
 of " more^ and most universal, more, and most per- 
 Ject^^ This usage, however, is not such as will 
 sanction the former of these phraseologies ; for good 
 vrriters generally avoid it. Besides, there is no ne- 
 cessity for resorting to this mode of expression, as 
 we have an attributive appropriate to the idea in- 
 tended : thus, instead of saying, " literature is more 
 universal in England than America," we should say, 
 " literature is more general." It is almost unnecessary 
 to observe, that literature in England is either uni- 
 versal, or it is not : if the former be true, it cannot be 
 more than universal ; if the latter, the term is inap- 
 plicable. The word general does not comprise the 
 whole ; it admits intension and remission \ the ad- 
 jective universal implies totality. A general rule 
 admits exceptions; a universal rule embraces every 
 particular. 
 
 The expression " more perfect'' is, in strictness of 
 speech, equally exceptionable ; usage, however, has 
 
104 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 given it a sanction, which we dare hardly controvert. 
 It has been proposed, indeed, to avoid this and similar 
 improprieties, by giving the phraseology a negative, 
 or indirect form. Thus, instead of saying, " a time- 
 keeper is a more perfect machine t^an a watch," it 
 has been proposed to say, " a time-keeper is a less 
 imperfect machine than a watch/* This phraseology 
 is logically correct, perfection being predicable of 
 neither the one thing nor the other; it might like- 
 wise, in many cases, be adopted with propriety. In 
 the language of passion, however, and in the colour- 
 ings of imagination, such expressions would be exani- 
 mate and intolerable. A lover, expatiating with rap- 
 ture on the beauty and perfection of his mistress, 
 would hardly call her, " the least imperfect of her 
 sex,^^ 
 
 In all languages, indeed, examples are to be found 
 of adjectives being compared, whose signification 
 admits neither intension nor remission. It would be 
 easy to assign several reasons for this, did the dis- 
 cussion belong to the province of the grammarian *. 
 Suffice it to say, that such phraseologies should never 
 be admitted, where the language will furnish correct, 
 and equally apposite, expressions. 
 
 I observe also, that as those adjectives, whose signi- 
 fication cannot be heightened or lessened, admit not 
 
 * See a valuable little volume on English Grammar, by Mr. 
 Grant. The " Institutes of Latin Grammar," by the same 
 author, we would recommend to the attention of every classical 
 student. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 105 
 
 comparison, so, for the same reason, they exclude all 
 intensive words. The expressions so universal, so 
 extreme, and such like, are therefore improper. The 
 former is indeed common enough ; but it is easy to 
 see, as it has been already remarked, that whatever is 
 universal cannot be increased or diminished ; and that 
 what is less than universal, cannot be characterized 
 by that epithet. The phrase so universal implies a 
 gradation in universality, and that something is less 
 so than another ; which is evidently impossible. 
 
 It has been questioned, whether prior ^ superior, 
 ulterior, exterior, and several others, which have the 
 form of the Latin comparative, should be deemed 
 comparatives. I am inclined to think, they ought 
 not, for these reasons, 1st, They have not the form 
 of the English comparative ; 2dly, They are never 
 followed by than, which uniformly accompanies the 
 English comparative, when the subjects are opposed 
 to each other, or referred to different classes ; 3dly, 
 It is not to be conceived, that every adjective, which 
 implies comparison, is therefore a comparative or 
 superlative, otherwise preferable (better than) pre- 
 vious (prior to) might be deemed comparatives; 4thly, 
 Many of these have truly a positive meaning, not 
 implying an excess of the quality, but merely the 
 quality, as opposed to its contrary. The interior 
 means simply the inside, as opposed to the exterior 
 or outside; the anterior, '' the one before,' ' opposed 
 to posterior, " the one behind." 
 
 I dismiss this article with observing, that the signi- 
 
106 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 fication of the positive is sometimes lessened by the 
 termination ish ; as, white, whitish ; blacky blackish. 
 Johnson remarks, that the adjective in this form may 
 be considered as in a state of comparison ; it may 
 properly be called a diminutive. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 107 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 OF THE VERB. 
 
 A VERB has been defined to be " that part of speech, 
 which signifies to be, to do, or to suffer ;" or more 
 correctly, " that part of speech, which predicates some 
 action, passion, or state of its subject," as, "I strike," 
 " I am wounded," " I stand." Its essence consists in 
 affirmation, and by this property it is distinguished 
 from every other part of speech. The adjective ex- 
 presses an accident, quality, or property of a thing 
 in concreto ; that is, when joined to the name of a 
 substance, it expresses that substance, as accom- 
 panied by some attribute : in other words, it limits a 
 generic name, confining it to that part of the kind, 
 which possesses the character, which the attributive 
 specifies ; but it affirms nothing. Thus, if we say, 
 " a wise man,'* which is equivalent to " a man with," 
 or "join wisdom," there is no affirmation ; an indivi- 
 dual is singled from a species, under the character of 
 wisdom, but nothing is asserted of this individual. 
 If we say, "the man is wise,'' there is something 
 affirmed of the man, and the affimation is expressed 
 by is. If the attribute and the assertion be combined 
 in the expression, as in Latin vir sapit, it is obvious 
 
108 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 that the essence of the verb consists, not in denoting 
 the attribute wisdom, but in affirming that quality, 
 as belonging to the subject ; for, if you cancel the 
 assertion, the verb is immediately converted into an 
 adjective, and the expression becomes vir sapiens, a 
 wise man. 
 
 The simplest of all verbs is that which the Greeks 
 call a verb of existence, namely, the verb to he. This 
 verb frequently denotes pure affirmation, as, " God is 
 good ;" where the verb, or copula, as it has been termed, 
 serves to predicate of the Deity, the attribute denoted 
 by the following word. Hence, as it expresses mere 
 affirmation, the Latins call it a substantive verb, in 
 contradistinction to those verbs which, with an attri- 
 bute, denote assertion, and were called by some gram- 
 marians adjective verbs. 
 
 Sometimes it predicates pure or absolute existence, 
 as, " God is," that is, " God exists'* In the following 
 example it occurs in both senses. " We believe that 
 thou art, and that thou art the rewarder of them, who 
 diligently seek thee." 
 
 As nouns denote the subjects of our discourse, so 
 verbs predicate their accidents, or properties. The 
 former are the names of things, the latter what we 
 say concerning them. These two, therefore, must be 
 the only essential parts of speech ; for to mental com- 
 munication nothing else can be indispensably requisite, 
 than to name the subject of our thoughts, and to ex- 
 press our sentiments of its attributes or properties. 
 And, as the verb essentially expresses affirmation, 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 109 
 
 without which there could be no communication of 
 sentiment, it has been hence considered as the principal 
 part of speech, and was therefore called, by the ancient 
 grammarians, verb, or the word, by way of eminence. 
 The noun, however, is unquestionably of earlier origin. 
 To assign names to surrounding objects would be a 
 matter of the first necessity : the next step would be 
 to express their most common actions, or states of 
 being. This indeed is the order of nature — the pro- 
 gress of intellect. 
 
 Mr. Tooke observes, that " the verb does not im- 
 ply any assertion, and that no single word can." 
 " Till one single thing," says he, " can be found to 
 be a couple, one single word cannot make an assertion 
 or affirmation ; for there is joining in that operation, 
 and there can be no junction of one thing." This 
 theory he illustrates by the tense ibo, which he re- 
 solves thus : 
 
 English Hi^ Wol. Ich 
 
 Latin I Vol. O 
 
 Greek I BofX E^y. 
 
 The first of each triad are the simple verbs, equiva- 
 lent to go. The second are the verbs Wol, Vol, Bot;X, 
 denoting will. The third are the pronouns of the 
 first person. Whatever opinion may be formed re- 
 specting the truth of this analysis, its ingenuity will not 
 be questioned. There are two objections, however, by 
 which its justness may possibly be controverted. The 
 first is, if the personal pronouns are contained, as Mr. 
 
 * I 3 hi., hie, " to go," he considers to be from I-evai, the Greek 
 verb; and hence to be derived the Latin verb /-r^, " to go," ^Hohie." 
 
110 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Tooke says, in the Greek and Latin terminations of 
 the three persons of their verbs, why is the pronoun 
 repeated with the verb ? If the o in volo be an ab- 
 breviated suffix for ego, why do we redundantly say 
 ego volo ? Now, in answer to this objection, it might be 
 observed, were we disposed to indulge in mere hypo- 
 thesis, that the involution of the pronoun may have 
 eluded the attention of the Latins ; or, if this ex- 
 planation should be deemed too improbable, it may 
 be supposed that usage, against whose decree there 
 is no appeal, may have established the repetition of 
 the pronoun at the expense of strict propriety. One 
 thing particularly deserves attention, that the pro- 
 noun was seldom or never used, unless in cases where 
 emphasis was implied, or an antithesis of persons was 
 to be strongly marked. But without resorting to 
 conjectures, which may be deemed vague and un- 
 satisfactory, we may appeal to a fact which is decisive 
 of the point in question. I have already observed, 
 that in the Hebrew language we can distinctly mark 
 the pronouns suffixed to the verb ; yet we find the 
 Hebrew writers repeating the pronouns even in cases 
 where no emphasis is intended. Thus, in Gen. xlviii. 
 22. Ve-ani nathatti, ** and I have given ;" Job xix. 
 25. Ve ani iadahgii, " and I knew ;" Deut. ix. 2. 
 attah iadahgh'ta, ve-atta shamahgh ta, " thou know- 
 est, and thou hast heard." In tbese examples, the 
 pronoun is both incorporated with the verb and re- 
 peated by itself Whatevei^ may be the abstract 
 propriety of this phraseology, its existence in Hebrew 
 is sufficient to obviate the objection proposed. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. Ill 
 
 Again, it may be urged, if the pronoun ego be suf- 
 fixed to the verb, why do not all the tenses in the 
 first person singular end in o ? This second objection 
 may also be partly, if not entirely, removed. The 
 Latin language appears to be a commixture of Greek 
 and one of the northern languages. This commix- 
 ture will account for the first person singular some- 
 times ending in o in imitation of the Greeks, and at 
 other times in m^ in imitation of the Celts. The 
 present tense of the Gaelic, a dialect of the Celtic, 
 proceeds thus : sgriohh-aim, " I write," sgriobh-air, 
 sgriobh-aidh, sgriobh-amoid, sgriobh-aoidhesi, sgriob- 
 aidsion. Here, as Whiter observes, we have some- 
 thing resembling the Latin verb scribo : and it is to 
 be remarked, that the first person singular ends in 
 m, which the Romans most probably adopted as one 
 of their verbal terminations. And could we prose- 
 cute the inquiry, and investigate the structure of the 
 Greek and Celtic tenses themselves, we should doubt- 
 less find, that they involve, along with the radical 
 word, one or more terms expressing the accessary 
 ideas of action, passion, state, person, time, and so 
 forth. The same theory, we are persuaded, may be 
 applied to all languages in which the tenses are 
 formed by variety of termination. 
 
 Nothing, I conceive, can be more evident, than 
 that the inflexions of nouns and verbs, how inexpli- 
 cable soever they may now prove, were not originally 
 the result of systematic art, but were separate terms, 
 significant of the circumstances intended, and after- 
 
112 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 wards, by celerity of pronunciation, coalesced with 
 the words of which they now form the terminations. 
 It has been observed, that the essence of the verb 
 consists in affirmation. This theory, I have remarked, 
 is controverted by Mr. Tooke. It must be obvious, 
 however, from the preceding observations, that the 
 difference between the opinion of this eminent phi- 
 lologist, and that which is here delivered, is more 
 apparent than real. For Mr. Tooke will not deny, 
 that an affirmation is implied in ibo ; he merely ob- 
 serves, that every assertion requires " a couple of 
 terms." Now it is of little moment to the point in 
 question whether the two terms be incorporated in 
 one, as in lego, or remain separate, as " I read." In 
 either case the verb affirms something of its nomina- 
 tive, whether that nominative appear in a simple, or 
 in a compound state. Sometimes the affirmation is 
 expressed by a separate and appropriate sign, as ille 
 est dives, " he is rich :" and the verb of existence (fo 
 he) is supposed, by several critics and philologists, to 
 have been coeval with the earliest infancy of language. 
 In English, the affirmation, and also the action, are 
 frequently denoted, simply by the junction of the 
 name of the attribute with the nominative of the 
 subject, whether noun or pronoun. Thus, if we say, 
 " my will," " the children's will," there is no affirma- 
 tion implied, and the term will is considered as a 
 mere name. But if we say, " I will,'* " the children 
 will," it becomes invested with a different character, 
 and affirms the volition to belong to the subject. Thus 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 113 
 
 also, "the hero's might," "the hero might," "my 
 ken" (my knowledge or ability), '*I ken," I can, or 
 I am able; "my love," "I love.'' Mr. Tooke ob- 
 serves, that when we say " I love,'' there is an ellipsis 
 of the word do. This appears to me a probable 
 opinion, though not entirely unobjectionable. For 
 though we find the auxiliary more frequently used 
 in old English than in modern compositions, yet it 
 does not occur so frequently as, according to this 
 hypothesis, we should naturally expect. Mr. Tooke 
 indeed admits the fact ; but observes, that Chaucer 
 had less occasion to use it, because in his time the 
 distinguishing terminations of the verb still remained, 
 though they were not constantly employed. Now 
 I find, as Mr. Tyrwhit remarks, that Chaucer seldom 
 uses the word do as an auxiliary, even in those cases 
 where the verb and the noun are identical. This 
 circumstance might lead us to infer that the English 
 present was derived from the Saxon, by dropping the 
 termination, as ic lufige, 1 love; the affirmation and 
 the action being sufficiently obvious from the con- 
 struction, and that it was originally optional to say 
 either " I love," or " I do love." Be that as it may, 
 the assertion expressed by " I do," equivalent to ** I 
 act," appears clearly to be signified by the junction 
 of the nominative pronoun with the sign of action. 
 Whether a note of affirmation was at first separately 
 employed, and afterwards involved in the verbal ter- 
 mination, or whether the affirmation be merely in- 
 ferred and not signified, this is certain, that it is by 
 
 I 
 
114 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 the verb, and the verb only, that we can express 
 affirmation. 
 
 As every subject of discourse must be spoken of as 
 either doing or suffering something, either acting or 
 acted upon ; or as neither doing nor suffering ; hence 
 verbs have been divided by all grammarians into 
 active, passive, and neuter. 
 
 The verb active denotes that the subject of dis- 
 course is doing something, as, / write ; the passive 
 verb, that the subject suffers, or is acted upon, as, 
 the book is burned ; and the neuter denotes neither 
 the one nor the other, but expresses merely the state, 
 posture, or condition of the subject, as unaffected by 
 any thing else, as. / sit, I sleep, I stand. 
 
 Action, energy, or motion may either be confined 
 to the agent, or pass from him to something extrinsic. 
 Hence active verbs have been divided into transitive 
 and intransitive. An active transitive verb denotes 
 that kind of action by which the agent affects some- 
 thing foreign to himself, or which passes from the 
 agent to something without him, as, to beat a drum, 
 to whip a horse, to kill a dog. Beat, whip, kill, are 
 active transitive verbs ; and it is the characteristic of 
 these verbs that they admit a noun after them, de- 
 noting the subject of the action. 
 
 An active intransitive verb denotes that species of 
 action or energy, which passes not from the agent to 
 any thing else ; that is, it expresses what has been 
 termed immanent energy. Hence an intransitive 
 verb does not admit a noun after it, there being no 
 
ETYMOLOGY. IIS 
 
 extrinsic subject or object affected by the action. 
 Thus, I run, I walk, the horse gallops, are examples 
 of active intransitive verbs *. 
 
 Webster, in his Dissertations on the Etiglish Lan- 
 guage, delivers it as his opinion, that the division of 
 verbs into active, passive, and neuter is incorrect ; 
 and that the only accurate distribution is into tran- 
 sitive and intransitive. " Is not a man," says he, 
 " passive in hearing ? yet hearing is called an active 
 verb." 
 
 It is doubtless true, that to hear, and many other 
 verbs, commonly called active, denote chiefly, perhaps, 
 the effect of an extrinsic or foreign act. But whether 
 we view the matter as a question either in meta- 
 physics or in grammar, we shall perceive but little 
 impropriety in adopting the common distinction. 
 For, though the verb to hear denotes, perhaps, chiefly, 
 that a certain impression is made on the mind, 
 through the auditory organ, yet even here the mind 
 is not entirely passive, as, were this the plafce for such 
 a discussion, it would be easy to prove. / see, I 
 hear, I feel, I perceive, denote not only the sen- 
 sation in which we are passive, but also a perception, 
 to which the consent or activity of the mind is un- 
 questionably essential. Hence these verbs have, in 
 all languages, been denominated active. But if the 
 term transitive be the only correct name, it may be 
 
 * Intransitive verbs sometimes are used transitively, as, when 
 we say, " to walk the horse," " to dance the child." They also 
 admit a noun of their own signification, as, " to run a race." 
 
 I 'Z 
 
116 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 asked, why does Mr. Webster call this verb by that 
 appellation ? He would answer, I doubt not, " be- 
 cause something passes from the agent to something 
 else." What then is that something which passes? 
 I am afraid Mr. Webster would have difficulty in 
 answering this question, so as to justify the terra 
 transitive, without admitting the verb to be active. 
 For, if it be not an act, an energy, or some operation 
 of the mind, what is it, or how can it pass from one 
 to another? The truth is, this objection of Mr. 
 Webster to the term active in such cases, is founded 
 neither on metaphysical nor grammatical principles; 
 for, by an active transitive verb is meant, that which 
 admits a noun as its regimen ; and, for the purposes 
 of grammar, this name is sufficiently correct. If 
 the point in question be metaphysically considered, 
 it would be easy to demonstrate that, though in 
 sensation the mind be passive, in perception it is 
 active. 
 
 I would here observe, in passing, that there are 
 many verbs neuter and intransitive, which, followed 
 by a preposition, may be truly considered as active 
 transitive verbs. These have been denominated, by 
 the learned Dr. Campbell, compound active verbs. 
 To laugh, for example, is a neuter verb ; it cannot 
 therefore admit a passive voice, as, " / am laughed,^ 
 To laugh at may be considered as an active transitive 
 verb ; for it not only admits an objective case after 
 it, in the active voice, but is likewise construed as 
 a passive verb, as, " / am laughed aV^ Here an 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 117 
 
 obvious analogy obtains between these two and the 
 verbs rideo, derideo, in Latin ; the former of which 
 is a neuter, and the latter an active verb. Nor, as 
 the same ingenious writer observes, does it matter 
 whether the preposition be prefixed to the simple 
 verb, as in Latin, in order to form the active verb, or 
 be put after, and detached, as is the case in English. 
 The only grammatical criterion in our language be- 
 tween an active and a neuter verb is this ; if the verb 
 admits an objective case after it, either with or with- 
 out a preposition, to express the subject or object of 
 the energy, the verb may be grammatically considered 
 as a compound active verb ; for thus construed it has 
 a passive voice. If the verb does not thus admit an 
 objective case, it must be considered grammatically 
 as neuter or intransitive, and has no passive voice. 
 To smile is a neuter verb ; it cannot, therefore, be 
 followed by an objective case, nor be construed as a 
 passive verb. We cannot say, she smiled Jiim, or he 
 was smiled. To smile on, according to the principle 
 now proposed, is a compound active verb ; we therefore 
 say, she smiled on him. He was smiled on hy fortune 
 in every undertaking*. 
 
 As all things exist in time, and whatever is pre- 
 dicable of any subject must be predicated as either 
 past, present, or future, every action, energy, or state 
 of being, coming under one or other of these predi- 
 
 * Conformably to general opinion I here consider the English 
 language as having a passive voice. How far this opinion is well 
 founded shall be the subject of future inquiry. 
 
118 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 car^ients, hence arises the utility of tenses, to express 
 the times, or relative order of their existence. In 
 regard to the number of these tenses *, necessary to 
 render a language complete, grammarians have been 
 somewhat divided in opinion. 
 
 In our language we have two simple tenses, the 
 present and the preterperfect t. The latter is ge- 
 
 * Mr. Bosworth seems to think, that the word tense is derived 
 from the Latin tensus, '' used to denote that extension or in- 
 flexion of the word, by which diiFerence in time is implied, or 
 difference in action is signified." I am rather inclined to consider 
 it as derived from the French terns or tempSj and that from 
 tempns. 
 
 t " Some," says Dr. Beattie, " will not allow any thing to be 
 a tense, but what, in one inflected word, expresses an affirmation 
 with time ; for, that those parts of the verb are not properly 
 called tenses, which assume that appearance, by means of auxiliary 
 words. At this rate, in English, we should have two tenses only, 
 the present and the past in the active verb, and in the passive no 
 tenses at all. But this is a needless nicety ; and, if adopted, 
 would introduce confusion into the grammatical art. If ama veram 
 be a tense, why should not amatusfueram ? If / heard be a 
 tense, / did hear, I have heard, and / shall hear, must be equally 
 entitled to that appellation." 
 
 How simplicity can introduce confusion I am unable to com- 
 prehend, unless we are to affirm that the introduction of Greek 
 and Latin names, to express nonentities in our language, is ne- 
 cessary to illustrate the grammar, and simplify the study of the 
 language to the English scholar. But the author's theory seems 
 Ht variance with itself. He admits, that " we have no cases in 
 English, except the addition of s in the genitive," whence we 
 may infer, that he considers inflexion as essential to a case. 
 Now, if those only be cases, which are formed by inflexion, 
 those only should, grammatically, be deemed tenses, which are 
 formed in the same manner. When he asks, therefore, if ama- 
 veram be a tense, why should not amatusfueram be a tense also? 
 the answer on his own principles is sufficiently obvious, namely, 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 119 
 
 nerally formed by adding d os: ed to the present, as, 
 love, loved; fear, feared. That the suffix here is a 
 
 because the one is formed by inflexion, the other by combination. 
 And, I would ask, if kings be a genitive case, why, according 
 to his theory, is not of a king entitled to the same appellation ? 
 I apprehend the answer he must gi^^e, consistently with his 
 opinion respecting cases, will sufficiently explain why amaveram, 
 and / heard^ are tenses, while amatus fueram^ and / had heard, 
 are not. 
 
 Nay further, if it be needless nicety to admit those only as 
 tenses, which are formed by inflexion, is it not equally a needless 
 nicety to admit those cases only, which are formed by varying 
 the termination ? And if confusion be introduced by denying 
 / had heard to be a tense, why does not the learned author sim- 
 plify the doctrine of English nouns, by giving them six cases, a 
 kingy of a king, to or for a king, a king, king, with, from, in 
 or bj/ a king? This surely would be to perplex, not to simplify. 
 In short, the inconsistency of those grammarians, who deny that 
 to be a case, which is not formed by inflexion, yet would load us 
 with moods and tenses, not formed by change of termination, is 
 so palpable, as to require neither illustration nor argument to 
 expose it. If these authors would admit, that we have as many 
 cases in English, as there exist relations expressed by prepositions, 
 then, indeed, though they might overwhelm us with the number, 
 we should at least acknowledge the consistency of their theory. 
 But to adopt the principle of inflexion in one case, and reject it 
 in another, precisely parallel, involves an inconsistency which 
 must excite amazement. Nilfuit sic unquam impar sibi. Why 
 do not these gentlemen favour us with a dual number^ with a 
 middle voice, and with an optative mood ? Nay, as they are so 
 fond of tenses, as to lament, that we rob them of all but two, 
 why do they not enrich us with a first and second aorist, and a 
 paulo post future ? and, if this should not sufiice, they will find in 
 Hebrew a rich supply of verbal forms. We should then have kal 
 and niphhal, pihhel and pyhhal, hiphhil and hophhal, hithpahhel 
 and hothpahhel, and numerous other species and designations. 
 What a wonderful acquisition this would be to our stock of moods, 
 tenses, and voices ! 
 
120 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 contraction for did, as Mr. Tooke supposes, I can 
 easily imagine ; thus, fear, fear-did, feared, or did 
 
 One of these grammarians, indeed, reverencing the old maxim 
 est modus in rebus, observes, that " it is necessary to set bounds 
 to this business, so as not to occasion obscurity and perplexity, 
 when we mean to be simple and perspicuous." This is so far 
 good ; because, though it vindicates the impropriety, it modestly 
 would confine it within decent bounds. But surely it cannot be 
 necessary to remind this writer, that when the boundary between 
 right and wrong, propriety and impropriety, is once passed, it is 
 extremely difficult to prescribe limits to the transgression ; and 
 that arbitrary distinctions, resting on no other foundation than 
 prejudice or fashion, must ever be vague, questionable, and ca- 
 pricious. These are truths of which, I am persuaded, the au- 
 thor to whom I allude needs not to be reminded. But it may be 
 necessary to impress on his attention another truth equally in- 
 contestable, that no authority, how respectable soever, can sanc- 
 tion inconsistency ; and that great names, though they may be 
 honoured by ignorance and credulity with the most obsequious 
 homage, will never pass with the intelligent reader, either for 
 demonstration or for argument. This author, in defence of his 
 theory of cases and tenses, observes, " that the proper form of a 
 tense, in the Greek and Latin languages, is certainly that which 
 it has in the grammars of these languages." On what evidence 
 is this assumption founded ? Here is exhibited a petilio prin^ 
 cipii, too palpable to escape the detection of the most inattentive 
 reader. He proceeds. " But in the Greek and Latin grammars 
 we uniformly find that some of the tenses are formed by varia- 
 tions of the principal verb, and others by the addition of helping 
 verbs." It is answered that the admission of these forms in 
 Greek and Latin grammars, is a question of mere expediency, 
 and nowise affects the doctrine, for which we contend, any more 
 than the admission of six cases in all the Latin declensions affects 
 the doctrine of cases ; though in no one declension have all the 
 cases dissimilar terminations. This position it would be easy to 
 demonstrate : it would be easy likewise to show why, notwith- 
 standing this occasional identity of termination, six cases are ad» 
 niitted in all the declensions ; but the subject is foreign to our 
 present purpose. It is important, however, to. observe, what has 
 
ETYMOLOGV. lOt 
 
 fear ; but the question returns, whence comes the 
 termination ed in doed, from which did itself is con- 
 escaped the notice of the author^ that the principle, on which the 
 admission just mentioned may be expedient in a Latin grammar, 
 has no existence whatever in the English language. 
 
 '' It is therefore/' he continues, " indisputable, that the prin- 
 cipal, or the participle, and an auxiliary, constitute a regular tense 
 in the Greek and Latin languages." This, as I have remarked, 
 is a palpable petitio principii. It is to say, that because amatus 
 fueram is a tense, therefore, "I had been loved" is a tense also. 
 The author forgets, that the premises must be true, to render the 
 conclusion legitimate. He forgets, that a circular argument is a 
 mere sophism, because it assumes as true, what it is intended to 
 prove. Whether amatus fueram be or be not a tense, is the very 
 point in question ; and so far am I from admitting the affirmative 
 as unquestionable, that I contend, it has no more claim to the 
 designation of tense, than effopai reTvtfxog — no more claim than 
 amandiim est mihi, amari oportet, or amandus sum, have to be 
 called moods. Here I must request the reader to bear in mind 
 the necessary distinction between the grammar of a language, and 
 its capacity of expression. 
 
 In answer to the objection of inconsistency, in admitting tenses, 
 where there is no inflexion, yet rejecting cases, where there is no 
 change of termination, the author says, '* that such a mode of 
 declension cannot apply to our language." But why can it not 
 apply ? Why not give as English cases, to a king, of a king from 
 a king, with a king, by a king, at a king, about a king, &c. &c. ? 
 The mode is certainly applicable, whatever may be the conse- 
 quences of that application. A case surely is as easily formed by 
 a noun and preposition, as a tense by a participle and auxiliary. 
 But, the author observes, "the English language would then 
 have a much greater number of cases, than the Greek and Latin 
 languages." And why not ? Is the number of cases in English, 
 or any other language, to be limited by the number in Greek or 
 Latin ? or does the author mean to say, that there is any peculiar 
 propriety in the number five or six ? The author, to be consistent 
 with himself, ought to acknowledge as many cases, as there are 
 prepositions to be found in the English language. This, it may 
 be said, woul4eucumber our grammar, and embarrass the learner. 
 
12^ ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 tracted. This query seems to have escaped the at- 
 tention of the learned author *. 
 
 This is, indeed, an argument against the expediency of the appli- 
 cation, but not against the practicability of the principle in ques* 
 tion. Besides, it may be asked, why does the author confine his 
 love of simplification to cases ? Why not extend it to tenses also ? 
 Why maintain, that inflexion only makes a case, and that a tense 
 is formed without inflexion ? Why dismiss one encumbrance, 
 and admit another ? 
 
 The author observes, that " from grammarians, who form their 
 ideas and make their decisions respecting this part of grammar, 
 on the principles and construction of languages, which in these 
 points do not suit the peculiar nature of our own, but diflfer con- 
 siderably from it, we may naturally expect grammatical schemes 
 that are neither perspicuous nor consistent, and which will tend 
 more to perplex than inform the learner." Had I been repre- 
 hending the author's own practice, I should have employed nearly 
 the same language. How these observations, certainly judicious 
 and correct, can be reconciled with the doctrine of the writer 
 himself, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. His ideas of con- 
 sistency and simplicity are to me incomprehensible. He rejects 
 prepositional cases for the sake of simplicity, and he admits va- 
 rious moods and tenses, equally foreign to the genius of our lan- 
 guage, in order to avoid perplexity. Surely this is not a '' con- 
 sistent scheme." Nay, he tells us, " that on the principle of 
 imitating other languages in names and forms (I beseech the 
 reader to mark the words), without a correspondence in nature 
 
 * Mr. Gilchrist, in his " Philosophic Etymology," represents 
 the terminations ath, eik, ad, ed, et, ew, an, as conjunctives, equi- 
 valent to the sign +, denoting add, or join, (see p. 162). In 
 another part of the same work, he considers did to be do doubled, 
 as dedi from the Latin do, which he believes to be the very same 
 word with our do. Repetition, he observes, is a mode of express- 
 ing complete action. Hence we have do, do-ed, dede, did, in 
 English. This explanation is ingenious, and furnishes a probable 
 account of the origin of the word did, which he remarks was for- 
 merly spelled dede. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 123 
 
 Actions and states of being may be predicated 
 as either certain or contingent, free or necessary, 
 possible or impossible, obligatory or optional ; in 
 short, as they may take place in a variety of ways, 
 
 and idionij we might adopt a number of declensions, as well as a 
 variety of cases for English substantives : but," he adds, '^ this 
 variety does not at all correspond with the idiom of our language." 
 After this observation, argument surely becomes unnecessary. 
 
 I have here, the reader will perceive, assailed the author's doc- 
 trine merely on the ground of inconsistency. It is liable, how- 
 ever, to objections of a more serious nature ; and were I not 
 apprehensive that I have already exhausted the patience of the 
 reader, I should now proceed to state these objections. There is 
 one observation, however, which I feel it necessary to make. The 
 author remarks, that to take the tenses as they are commonly re- 
 ceived, and endeavour to ascertain their nature and their differ- 
 ences, " is a much more useful exercise, as well as a more proper, 
 for a work of this kind, than to raise, as might be easily raised, 
 new theories on the subject." If the author by this intends to 
 insinuate that our doctrine is new, he errs egregiously. For 
 Wallis, one of the oldest, and certainly one of the best of our 
 English grammarians, duly attentive to the simplicity of that 
 language whose grammar he was exhibiting, assigned only two 
 tenses to the English verb. He says Nos duo tantu?n habemus 
 lempora, Pnesens et Prceteritum ; and on this simple principle his 
 explanation of the verb proceeds. In the preface to his grammar, 
 he censures his few predecessors for violating the simplicity of 
 the English language, by the introduction of names and rules 
 foreign to the English idiom. Cur hujus modi, casuum, generunij 
 modorum, temporumque Jictam et in epiam plane congeriem intro^ 
 ducamus citra omnem necessitaiem, aut in ipsa lingua funda- 
 mentum, nulla ratio suadet. And so little was he aware that the 
 introduction of technical names for things, whichhave no existence, 
 facilitates the acquisition of any art or science, that he affirms it 
 in regard to the subject before us to be the cause of great con- 
 fusion and perplexity. Qm« (inutilia prceceptaj a lingua nostra 
 sunt prorsus aliena, adeoque confusionem potius et ohscuritatem 
 pariunt, quam explicationi inserviunt. 
 
124 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 they may be spoken of, as diversified in their modes 
 of production. Hence arises another accident of 
 verbs, called a mood, expressing the mode or manner 
 of existence. These modes are, in some languages, 
 partly expressed by inflexions, partly by auxiliary 
 verbs, or words significant of the modal diversity. In 
 English there is only one mood, namely, the indi- 
 cative. The Greeks and Romans expressed by in- 
 flexions the most common modes of action or exist- 
 ence, as conditionality, power, contingency, certainty, 
 liberty, and duty. In our language they are denoted 
 by auxiliary verbs. 
 
 The English verb has only one voice, namely, the 
 active. Dr. Lowth, and most other grammarians, 
 have assigned it two voices, active and passive. 
 Lowth has, in this instance, not only violated the 
 simplicity of our language, but has also advanced an 
 opinion inconsistent with his own principles. For, if 
 he has justly excluded from the number of cases in 
 nouns, and moods in verbs, those which are not formed 
 by inflexion but by the addition of prepositions and 
 auxiliary verbs, there is equal reason for rejecting a 
 passive voice, if it be not formed by variety of ter- 
 mination. Were I to ask him why he denies Jrom a 
 hing to be an ablative case, or / mmj love to be the 
 potential mood, he would answer, and very truly, 
 that those only can be justly regarded as cases or 
 moods which, by a different form of the noun or 
 verb, express a different relation or a different 
 mode of existence. If this answer be satisfactory, 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 125 
 
 there can be no good reason for assigning to our 
 language a passive voice, when that voice is formed 
 not by inflexion, but by an auxiliary verb. Doceor 
 is truly a passive voice ; but / am taught cannot, 
 without impropriety, be considered as such. Besides, 
 as it is justly observed by Dr. Ash, our author, when 
 he parses the clause " I am well pleased," tells us 
 that am is the indicative mood, present tense, of the 
 verb to be ; and pleased^ the passive participle of the 
 verb to please. Now, in parsing, every word should 
 be considered as a distinct part of speech ; whether, 
 therefore, we SL^mii pleased to be a passive participle 
 or not (for this point I shall afterwards examine), it 
 is obvious that on the principle now laid down, and 
 acknowledged by Dr. Lowth, am pleased is not a 
 present passive, nor has the author himself parsed it 
 in this manner. Into such inconsistencies do our 
 grammarians run, from a propensity to force the 
 grammar of our language into a conformity with the 
 structure of Greek and Latin. 
 
 The same reasoning will also account for ^my as* 
 signing to English verbs no more than, two tenses and 
 one mood. For, if we consider the matter not meta- 
 physically but grammatically, and regard those only 
 as moods which are diversified by inflexion (and, as 
 Lowth himself observes, as far as grammar is con- 
 cerned, there can be no others), we find that our lan- 
 guage has only one mood and two tenses. 
 
 This doctrine, in respect to the cases, is very gene- 
 rally admitted. For, though the Greeks and Romans 
 
126 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 expressed the different relations by variety of in- 
 flexion, which they termed cases, it does not follow 
 that we are to acknowledge the same number of cases 
 as they had, when these relations are expressed in 
 English, not by inflexions, but by prepositions or 
 words significant of these relations. The Latins 
 would not have acknowledged absque friictu^ without 
 fruit, as forming a seventh case, though they acknow- 
 ledged fructUy by fruit, as making an ablative or 
 sixth case. And why ? because the latter only was 
 formed by inflexion. For this reason, I consider 
 giving the name of dative case to the combination 
 of words to a king, or of ablative case to the ex- 
 pression from a Mng, to be a palpable impropriety. 
 Our language knows no such cases ; nor would an 
 Englishman, unacquainted with Greek or Latin, ever 
 dream of these cases, though perfectly master of his 
 own language. 
 
 In the same manner it may be asked, what could 
 lead him to distinguish a diversity of moods, or a 
 plurality of voices, where there is no variety of ter- 
 mination to discriminate them ? The distinction of 
 circumstances, respecting the modes of existence, he 
 expresses by words significant of these accidents; 
 but he would no more dream of giving these forms 
 of expression the name of moods, than he would be 
 disposed to call from a king by the name of casus 
 ahlativus, or permit me to go the first person sin- 
 gular of the imperative mood. If, indeed, he were 
 somewhat acquainted with Latin, he might, in the 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 1217 
 
 true spirit of modern grammarians, contend that let 
 me go, or permit me to go, is truly the first person 
 singular of the imperative mood ; assigning as a 
 reason for this assertion, that such is the designation 
 of earn in Latin. With the most correct knowledge, 
 however, of his own language only, he could never 
 be seduced into this absurdity. A little reflection 
 indeed might teach him, that even earn in Latin is 
 an elliptical expression for sine ut earn, the word ea7n 
 itself denoting neither entreaty nor command. 
 
 In truth, we may as reasonably contend that our 
 language has all the tenses which are to be found in 
 Greek and Latin, becavise, by the aid of auxiliaries 
 and definitives, we contrive to express what they de- 
 noted by one word, as to contend that we have a 
 potential, an optative or imperative mood, or a pas- 
 sive voice ; because by auxiliaries or variety of 
 arrangement we can express the circumstances of 
 power, liberty, duty, passion, &c. No grammarian 
 has yet gone so far as to affirm that we have in 
 English 2i paulo post futm^e, because our language, 
 by definitives or auxiliaries, is capable of expressing 
 that time. Or, what should we think of that person's 
 discernment, who should contend that the Latins had 
 an optative mood because utinam legeres signifies 
 ** I wish you would read." It is equally absurd to 
 say that we have an imperfect, preterpluperfect, or 
 future tenses ; or that we have all the Greek varieties 
 of mood, and two voices, because by the aid of auxi- 
 liary words and definitive terms we contrive to ex- 
 
128 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 press these accidents, times, or states of being. I 
 consider, therefore, that we have no more cases, 
 moods, tenses, or voices in our language, as far as its 
 grammar, not its capacity of expression, is con- 
 cerned, than we have variety of termination to denote 
 these different accessary ideas. 
 
 As the terminations of verbs in most languages 
 are varied by tense and mood, so ^re they also varied 
 according as the subject is of the first, second, or 
 third person. Thus, in the only two tenses that we 
 have in English, namely, the present and the preter- 
 perfect tenses, the second person singular of each is 
 formed from the first, by adding st or est, as / love, 
 thou loves t, I loved, thou lovedst ; and the third per- 
 son singular of the present is formed by adding s, or 
 the syllable eth or th to the first, as love, loves, or 
 loveth, read, reads, or readeth. These are the only 
 variations which our verbs admit, in concordance 
 with the person of the nominative singular. The 
 three persons plural are always the same with the 
 first person singular. 
 
 Before I proceed to the conjugation of verbs in 
 general, I shall first explain the manner in which 
 the auxiliaries are conjugated. Of these the most 
 extensively useful is the verb to he, denoting simple 
 affirmation, or expressing existence. The next is 
 that which signifies action, namely, the verb to do. 
 The third is the verb to have, implying possession. 
 Tlie others are, shall, will, may, can, &c. I begin 
 with the verb to he. 
 
ETYMOLOGY, 129 
 
 Indicative Mood, 
 
 Present Tense. 
 
 * Sing, I am Thou art He, she, or it is 
 
 Plur, We are Ye or you are They are. 
 
 Preterite, 
 
 Sing, I was Thou wastt He was 
 
 Plur, We were Ye or you were They were. 
 
 * I be Thou beest He, she, or it be 
 
 We be Ye or you be They be 
 
 from the Saxon, 
 Ic beo Thu beest He beeth 
 
 are obsolete, unless followed by a concessive term. Thus, in- 
 stead of saying, " Many there be, that go in thereat," we should 
 now say, " JMany there are." For " to whom all hearts he 
 open," we should now write, "to whom all hearts are open." 
 We find them however used with the conjunctions if and 
 though; thus, "If this be my notion of a great part of that 
 high science, divinity, you will be so civil, as to imagine, I 
 lay no mighty stress upon the rest." — Pope. That this 
 was his notion the author had previously declared; the in- 
 troductory clause, therefore, is clearly affirmative, and is the 
 same as if he had said, "As this is my notion." " Although she 
 he abundantly grateful to all her protectors, yet I observe your 
 name most often in her mouth." — Swift. " The paper, although 
 it he written with spirit, yet Would have scarce cleared a shil- 
 ling."— /S/yj/?. In the two last sentences the meaning is affirm- 
 ative ; nothing conditional or contingent being implied. 
 
 In the following examples, it expri^es doubt or contingency. 
 " If thou be the son of God, cast thyself down ;" i. e. " shouldst 
 be." " If I be in difficulty, I will ask your aid ;" i. e. " If I 
 should be." 
 
 t Though the authority of Milton, Dryden, Pope, and Swift, 
 can be pleaded in favour of wert, as the second person singular 
 of this tense, I am inclined to agree with Lowth, that in con- 
 formity to analogy, as well as the practice of the best ancient 
 writers, it would be better to confine rvert to the imperfect con- 
 ditional. 
 
 K 
 
130 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Imperfect Conditional. 
 
 Sing, I were Thou wert He were 
 
 Plur. We were Ye or you were They were. 
 
 Injinitive. 
 To be. 
 
 It may seem inconsistent with the opinion which 
 I have delivered concerning moods, to assign an in- 
 finitive to this verb ; and the existence of this infini- 
 tive may appear, perhaps, a sufficient refutation of 
 that opinion. I shall, therefore, briefly repeat what 
 I have said, and offer a few additional observations. 
 
 I have remarked that the first care of men, in a 
 rude and infant state, would be to assign names to 
 surrounding objects ; and that the noun, in the na- 
 tural order of things, must have been the first part 
 of speech. Their inventive powers would next be 
 employed to express the most common energies or 
 states of being, such as are denoted by the verbs to 
 doy to he, to suffer. Hence, by the help of these 
 combined with a noun, they might express the energy 
 or state of that thing, of which the noun was the 
 name. Thus, I shall suppose, that they assigned 
 the word plants as the name of a vegetable set in the 
 ground. To express the act of setting it, they would 
 say, do plant, that is, act plant. The letters d and t 
 being nearly allied, it is easy to conceive how the 
 word do, by a variation very natural and common to 
 all languages, might be changed into to; and thus 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 131 
 
 the word to prefixed to a noun would express the 
 correspondent energy or action. 
 
 In what light then are we to consider the phrase 
 to plants termed an infinitive, or to what class of 
 words is it reducible ? Previously to my answering 
 this question, it is necessary to remind the reader, that 
 a verb joined to a noun forms a sentence ; that af-^ 
 firmation is essential to the character of a verb ; and 
 that, for this reason, and this only, it has been pre- 
 eminently distinguished by the name of verb, or the 
 word. Destroy this characteristic, and it is imme- 
 diately confounded with the adjective, or the par- 
 ticiple. It is its power of predication only, which 
 constitutes it a distinct part of speech, and discrimi- 
 nates it from every other. Vir sapit, and vir est 
 sapiens, are equivalent expressions. Cancel the as- 
 sertion, and the verb is lost. The expression be- 
 comes vir sapiens, " a wise man." This opinion, I 
 am persuaded, requires only to be examined to be 
 universally adopted. If this be the case, the infi- 
 nitive, which affirms nothing, cannot, without im- 
 propriety, be deemed a verb. It expresses merely an 
 action, passion, or state abstractedly. Hence many 
 grammarians have justly considered it as no part of 
 the verb ; and, in the languages of Greece and Rome, 
 the infinitive was employed like a common substan- 
 tive, having frequently an adjective joined with it, 
 and subject to the government of verbs and prepo- 
 sitions. This opinion has been lately controverted 
 by a writer of considerable eminence as a Latin 
 
 K 2! 
 
1S2 ETYMOLOGY; 
 
 scholar. But, after examining the memoir with at- 
 tention, I take upon me to affirm that not a single 
 example can be produced wherein the infinitive, as 
 used by the Greeks and Romans, might not be sup- 
 plied by the substitution of a noun. Wherefore, 
 admitting the established principle, voces valent sig- 
 mficatione, there cannot exist a doubt that the infi- 
 nitive, which may in all cases be supplied by a noun, 
 has itself the real character of a noun. And, if the 
 essence of a verb consist in predication, and not, as 
 some think, in implying time in conjunction with an 
 attribute, which is the characteristic of a participle, 
 then the infinitive, as it can predicate nothing, and 
 joined to a substantive makes no sentence, cannot 
 therefore be deemed a verb. When I say, legere est 
 facile^ " to read is easy," it is obvious that there is only 
 one sentence in each of these expressions. But if 
 legere (to read) were a verb as well as est (is), then 
 there would be two verbs and also two affirmations, 
 for affirmation is inseparable from a verb. I remark 
 also, that the verbal noun lectio (reading) substituted 
 for legere (to read) would precisely express the same 
 sentiment. For these reasons I concur decidedly 
 with those grammarians who are so far from consi- 
 dering the infinitive as a distinct mood, that they 
 entirely exclude it from the appellation of verb *. 
 
 * If the expression of time with an attribute " be sufficient to 
 make a verb, the participle must be a verb too, because it signifies 
 time also. But the essence of a verb consisting in predication, 
 which is peculiar to it, and incommunicable to all other parts of 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 133 
 
 ' It may be asked, what then is it to be called ? In 
 answer to this query, I observe, that it matters little 
 what designation be assigned to it, provided its cha- 
 racter and office be fully understood. The ancient 
 Latin grammarians, as Priscian informs us, termed 
 it properly enough, nomen verhi, " The noun or 
 name of the verb." To proscribe terms, which have 
 been long familiar to us, and, by immemorial pos- 
 session, have gained an establishment, is always a 
 difficult, and frequently an ungracious task. I shall 
 therefore retain its usual name, having sufficiently 
 guarded the reader against a misconception of its 
 character. 
 
 Now, in our language, the infinitive has not even 
 the distinction arising from termination, to entitle it 
 to be ranked in the number of moods; its form being 
 the same with that of the present tense, and probably, 
 both in its termination and its prefix, originally iden- 
 tical. For, if the doctrine just proposed be correct, 
 the word do was put before each. To this rule the 
 English language furnishes only one exception, namely, 
 the verb of existence, in which the present indicative 
 is am, whereas the infinitive is to be. This, however, 
 can scarcely be deemed an exception, when it is con- 
 sidered, that the present indicative of this verb was 
 
 speech, and these infinitives never predicating, they cannot be 
 verbs. Again, the essence of a noun consisting in its so subsisting 
 in the understanding, as that it may be the subject of predication, 
 and these infinitives being all capable of so subsisting, they must 
 of necessity be nouns." — R. Johnsons Gram, Comment. 
 
134 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 originally he as well as am ; though the former be 
 now in a state of obsolescence, or rather entirely ob- 
 solete. At the same time, as this is the only verb in 
 which the infinitive differs in form from the present of 
 the indicative, I have judged it necessary to note the 
 exception, and assign the infinitive. 
 
 Present part Being 
 
 Past part. Been * . 
 
 TO DO. 
 
 Indicative Mood, 
 
 Present. 
 Sing. I do Thou doest or dost He doeth, doth or 
 Plur. We do Ye or you do They do. [does 
 
 * The variety of form which this verb assumes, clearly sho\vs 
 that it has proceeded from different sources. 
 
 Am is from the Anglo-Saxon eo?n, and is from the Anglo-Saxon 
 i^s or is : and these have been supposed to have come from the 
 Greek eifii, eig. 
 
 The derivation of are is doubtful. It may, perhaps, have pro- 
 ceeded directly from er or erum of the Islandic verb, denoting " to 
 be." By Mr. Gilchrist it is considered as " the same with the in- 
 tuitive termination arcj ere, ire." Mr. Webb conjectured, that it 
 might have some relation to the Greek sap, spring. Both these 
 explanations appear to us somewhat fanciful. 
 
 Art is from the Anglo-Saxon eart. " Tliou eart," thou art. 
 
 Was is evidently the Anglo-Saxon rvces, and wast, rvert, pro- 
 bably from the Franco- Theatisc, jvarst ; and were from the An- 
 glo-Saxon wcere^ wcercm. 
 
 Be is from the Anglo-Saxon Ic beo, I am, which, with the Gaelic 
 verb bi, to be, Mr. Webb considered to be derived from Bioc, life, 
 as tlie Latin^wi from fvu), to grow. This conjecture he supports 
 by several pertinent quotations. See Mr. Bosworth's " Element* 
 of Anglo-Saxon Grammar," p. 164. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 135 
 
 Preter perfect. 
 Sing. I did Thou didst He, she, or it, did* 
 
 Plur, We did Ye or you did They did. 
 
 Participles. 
 
 Present Doing 
 
 Past Done. 
 
 TO HAVE. 
 
 Indicative Mood. 
 
 Present. 
 Sing. I have Thou hast He hath or has 
 
 Plur. We have Ye or you have They have. 
 
 Preter perfect. 
 Sitig. I had Thou hadst He had 
 
 Plur. We had Ye or you had They had. 
 
 Participles. 
 
 Present Having 
 
 Pa^t Had. 
 
 Liberty is expressed by the verb 
 
 MAY. 
 
 Indicative Mood. 
 
 Present. 
 Sing. I may Thou mayest He may 
 
 Plur. We may Ye or you may They may f. 
 
 * The words did, hasty hath, has, had, shall, wilt, are evidently, 
 as Wallis observes, contracted for doed, haveth, haves, haved, 
 shall' st, will' St. 
 
 t This verb is derived from the Saxon Magan, posse, the pre- 
 
136 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Preter perfect. 
 
 Sing. I might Thou mightest He might 
 Plur, We might Ye or you might They might. 
 
 Power or ability is expressed by 
 
 CAN. 
 
 Indicative Mood. 
 
 Present. 
 
 Sing, I can Thou canst He can 
 
 Plur. We can Ye or you can They can *. 
 
 Prefer perfect. 
 Sing. I could Thou couldst He could 
 
 Plur, We could Ye or you could They could. 
 
 Futurition and duty are expressed by the verb 
 shall, but not each in the three persons. 
 
 Indicative Mood. 
 
 Present, 
 
 iSing. I shall Thou shalt He shall 
 
 Plur, We shall Ye or you shall They shall. 
 
 sent of which is Ic mag, and the preterite Ic mikt. Hence also 
 Ic mot. 
 
 " For as the fisshe, if it be drie, 
 Mote in defaute of water die." — Gower. 
 
 * This verb is derived from cunnan, scire, jjosse, sapere. 
 Hence is derived the verb, " to ken," or " to know ;" or more 
 probably, indeed, they-were one and the same word ; hence, also, 
 the word cunning. " To ken" is still used in Scotland ; and in 
 the expression of Shakspeare, " I ken them from afar," is er- 
 roneously considered by some critics to mean, " I see them." 
 
 t This verb is^ unquestionably, a derivative from the Saxon 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 137 
 
 Preterperfect. 
 
 Sing, I should Thou shouldst He should 
 Plur, We should Ye should They should. 
 
 rceal, / owe or / ought, and was originally of the same import. 
 / shall denoted " it is my duty," and was precisely synonymous 
 with debeo in Latin. Chaucer says, " The faith I shall to God;" 
 that is, •^'^the faith I owe to God." '^Thou shalt not kill/' or 
 '^ thou oughtest not to kill." In this sense, shall is a present 
 tense, and denoted present duty or obligation. But, as all duties 
 and all commands, though present, in respect to their obligation 
 and authority, must be future, in regard to their execution, so by 
 a natural transition, observable in most languages, this word, 
 significant of present duty, came to be a note of future time. I 
 have considered it however as a present tense ; 1st, because it 
 originally denoted present time ; 2dly, because it still retains the 
 form of a present, preserving thus the same analogy to should 
 that can does to could, may to might, will to would ; and 3dly, 
 because it is no singular thing to have a verb in the present tense, 
 expressive of future time, commencing from the present moment ; 
 for such precisely is the Greek verb ixeXku) futurus sum. Nay, 
 the verb will denotes present inclination, yet in some of its 
 persons, like shall, expresses futurition. I have considered, 
 therefore, the verb shall as a present tense, of which should is the 
 preterperfect. 
 
 Johnson's explanation of the meaning of this verb is so per- 
 spicuous, that as foreigners are apt to mistake its use, I shall 
 here transcribe his words. / shall love, **it will be so that I 
 must love," " I am resolved to love.'* Shall I love ? " will it 
 be permitted me to love ?" '^ Will it be that I must love ?" Thou 
 shalt love, " I command thee to love ;" " it is permitted thee to 
 love," " it will be, that thou must love." Shalt thou love ? 
 " Will it be, that thou must love }" '^ Will it be permitted thee 
 to love ?" He shall love. " It will be, that he must love." " It 
 is commanded that he love." Shall he love ? " It is permitted, 
 him to love .''" The plural persons follow the signification of the 
 singular. 
 
 I transcribe also the same author's explanation of the verb / 
 will. I will come ; " I am willing to come," " I am determined 
 
138 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Volition and futurity are expressed by the verb to 
 will. 
 
 
 PresenL 
 
 
 Sing, I will 
 
 Thou wilt 
 
 He will 
 
 Plur, We will 
 
 Ye or you will 
 
 Preter perfect. 
 
 They will *. 
 
 Sing. I would 
 
 Thou wouldst 
 
 He would 
 
 Plur. We would Ye or you would They would. 
 
 Priestley and Lowth, who have in this been fol- 
 lowed by most other grammarians, call the tenses, 
 
 to come." Thou wilt come. " It must be, that thou must come," 
 importing necessity ; *' or it shall be, that thou shalt come," im- 
 porting choice. Wilt thou come ? " Hast thou determined to 
 come ?" importing choice. He will come. " He is resolved to 
 come ;'* or " it must be, that he must come," importing choice 
 or necessity. 
 
 Brightland's short rule may be of some service, in assisting 
 foreigners to distinguish the use of these two verbs. It is this : 
 
 " In the first person simply shall foretels : 
 In will a threat, or else a promise, dwells ; 
 Shall in the second and the third does threat ; 
 Will simply then foretels the future feat." 
 
 In addition to these directions for the use of shall and will, it 
 is to be observed, that, when the second and third persons are 
 represented as the subjects of their own expressions, or their own 
 thoughts, shall foretels, as in the first person, thus, " he says he 
 shall be a loser by this bargain." ''Do you suppose you shall 
 go ?" " He hoped he should recover," and " he hoped he would 
 recover," are expressions of different import. In the former, the 
 two pronouns necessarily refer to the same person ; in the latter, 
 they do not. 
 
 * This verb is derived from the Saxon verb wiUan, telle, the 
 preterite of wliich is Ic wold. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 139 
 
 mayy can, shall^ will, absolute tenses ; might, could, 
 should, would, conditional. That might, could, 
 should, would, frequently imply conditionality there 
 can be no question; but I am persuaded that the 
 proper character of these tenses is unconditional af- 
 firmation, and for these two reasons : 
 
 1st. Their formation seems to indicate that they 
 are preterites indicative, proceeding from their re- 
 spective presents, in the same manner as did from do, 
 had from have, and having therefore the same un- 
 conditional meaning. Thus, / 7nay, is equivalent to, 
 " I am at liberty ;" / might, to " I was at liberty ;" 
 / can, means " I am able ;" / could, " I was able ;" 
 / will, " I am willing f I would, " I was willing." 
 
 2!dly. They are used to express unconditional 
 meaning. If we say, " This might prove fatal to 
 your interest," the assertion of the possibility of the 
 event is as unconditional, as absolute, as, " this may 
 prove fatal to your interest." " This, if you do it, 
 will ruin your cause," is precisely equivalent to, 
 " This, were you to do it, would ruin your cause," 
 equivalent as far, at least, as the unconditional affirma- 
 tion of the consequence of a supposed action is in- 
 volved*. "I may write, if I choose," is not more 
 
 * The preterite would is frequently employed, like the Latin 
 preterimperfect tense, to denote what is usual or customary. 
 Thus, 
 
 Quintilio siquid recitares, Corrige, sodes. 
 Hoc, aiebat, et hoc : melius te posse negares. 
 Bis tcrquc expcrtum frustru; delerc jubebat. 
 
140 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 absolute than " I might write, if I chose." If I 
 say, " I might have gone to the continent," the ex- 
 pression is as unconditional, as, " I had it in my 
 power," " I was at liberty to go to the continent." 
 " Can you construe Lycophron ?" " I cannot now ; 
 but once I could P " May you do as you please?" 
 **" Not now ; but once I might^' Is there any con- 
 ditionality implied in the latter clause of each of 
 these answers ? Not the least. They are uncondi- 
 tionally assertive. The formation of these tenses, 
 therefore, being analogous to that of preterites indi- 
 cative, and their import in these examples, as in 
 many others, which might be adduced, being uncon- 
 ditional and absolute, I am inclined to consider them 
 as preterites indicative, agreeably to their form, and 
 as properly unconditional in respect to signification. 
 I observe, however, that though might, could, 
 woidd, should, are preterite tenses, they are fre- 
 quently employed to denote present time * ; but in 
 
 Si defendere delictum, quam vertere malles. 
 Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem. 
 
 Horace. 
 
 where, the verbs aiebat, jubebat, insumebat, may be translated, 
 '/ he would say," " he would desire," " he woidd spend." Thus 
 also in English, 
 
 Pleas'd with my admiration, and the fire 
 His speech struck from me, the old man would shake 
 His years away, and act his young encounters, 
 Then having show'd his wounds, he'd sit him down. 
 
 * In Latin the imperfect potential is frequently employed in 
 the same manner to denote present time ; thus, iron si vclictn, 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 141 
 
 such examples care must be taken that congruity of 
 tense be preserved, and that the subsequent be ex- 
 pressed in the same tense with the antecedent verb. 
 Thus I say, " I may go if I choose," where the liberty 
 and inclination are each expressed as present, or " I 
 might go if I chose," where, though present time be 
 implied, the liberty is expressed by the preterite, 
 and the inclination is denoted by the same tense. 
 
 Before I proceed to show how these auxiliary verbs 
 are joined with others, to express the intended ac- 
 cessary ideas, I shall offer a few observations on the 
 participle. 
 
 expresses present liberty and inclination. And the same analogy 
 obtains in Latin ; for we say either^ tu, si hie sis, aliter sentias, 
 or tu, si hie esses, aliter sentires. In such examples, it is intended 
 to signify either the coexistence of two circumstances, or the one 
 as the immediate consequence of the other. An identity of tense, 
 therefore, best expresses contemporary events. 
 
142 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 A PARTICIPLE is a part of speech derived from a 
 verb, agreeing with its primitive in denoting action, 
 being, or suffering, but differing from it in this, that 
 the participle implies no affirmation *. 
 
 There are two participles, the present, ending in 
 ing, as reading t ; and the perfect or past, generally 
 ending in d or ed^ as heard, loved, 
 
 * If it should be saidj that the participle may properly be con- 
 sidered as a verb, since it implies an attribute with time, I would 
 ask, whether affirmation, the most important of all circumstances, 
 and without which no communication could take place, should be 
 overlooked in our classification of words agreeably to their import, 
 or the offices which they perform. If the verb and participle be 
 referred to one class, the principal part of speech which has been 
 pre-eminently distinguished by the name of verb, or the word, is 
 degraded from its rank, and confounded with a species of words 
 which are not even necessary to the communication of thought. 
 Surely, if any circumstance can entitle any sort of words to a 
 distinct reference, it is that of affirmation. 
 
 If it should be objected that the participle, like the verb, go- 
 verns a case, I would ask, because lectio, tactio, and many other 
 substantives are found sometimes joined with an accusative case, 
 were they ever on this account considered as verbs ? Besides, if 
 the government of a case be urged as an argument, what becomes 
 of those participles which govern no case ? Nay, if the govern- 
 ment of a case be deemed the criterion of a verb, what name shall 
 we assign to those verbs which have no regimen at all? If any 
 species of words is to be distinguished from another, the charac- 
 teristic difference must surely belong, not to part only, but to the 
 whole. 
 
 t The termination ing is from the Anglo-Saxon ande^ cende, 
 ende, ind, oiide, unde, ynde, and corresponds to the termination of 
 the Latin gerunds in andiim and endum, expressing continuation, 
 Amandum, Lufiande, Loving. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 143 
 
 The present participle denotes the relatively pre- 
 sent, or the contemporary continuation of an action, 
 or state of being. If we say, " James was building 
 the house," the participle expresses the continuation 
 of the action, and the verb may be considered as 
 active. If we say, " the house was building, when 
 the wall fell," the participle, the same as in the pre- 
 ceding example, denotes here the continuation of a 
 state of suffering, or being acted upon ; and the verb 
 may be considered as passive. This participle, there- 
 fore, denoting either action or passion, cannot with 
 propriety be considered, as it has been by some gram- 
 marians, as entirely an active participle. Its distinc- 
 tive and real character is, that in point of time it 
 denotes the relatively present, and may therefore be 
 called the present participle ; and, in regard to action 
 or passion, it denotes their continuance or incom- 
 pletion, and may therefore be termed imperfect. In 
 respect to time, therefore, it is present ; in respect to 
 the action or state of being, it is continued or im- 
 perfect. But whether it express action or passion 
 can be ascertained only by inquiring, whether the 
 subject be acting or suffering ; and this is a question, 
 which judgment only can decide, the participle itself 
 not determining the point. If we say, " the prisoner 
 was burning," our knowledge of the subject only can 
 enable us to determine whether the prisoner was 
 active or passive ; whether he was employing fire to 
 consume, or was himself consuming by fire. 
 
 The other participle, ending generally in ed or d. 
 
144 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 has been called by some grammarians the passive 
 participle, in contradistinction to the one which we 
 have now been considering, and which they have 
 termed the active participle. *' This participle has been 
 so called," says the author of the British Grammar, 
 " because, joined with the verb to he, it forms the pas- 
 sive voice." If the reason here assigned justify its deno- 
 mination as a passive participle, there exists the same 
 reason for calling it an active participle ; for, with the 
 verb/o have, it forms some of the compound tenses of the 
 active voice. The truth is, that, as those grammarians 
 have erred, who consider the participle in ing as an 
 active participle, when it in fact denotes either action 
 or passion, so those on the other hand commit a 
 similar mistake, who regard the participle in ed as 
 purely passive. A little attention will suffice to show, 
 that it belongs to neither the one voice, nor the other 
 peculiarly ; and that it denotes merely completion or 
 perfection, in contradistinction to the other participle, 
 which expresses imperfection or continuation. If it 
 be true, indeed, that the participle in ing does not 
 belong to the active voice only, but expresses merely 
 the continuation of any act, passion, or state of being, 
 analogy would incline us to infer, that the par.ticiple 
 in ed, which denotes the completion of an act or state 
 of being, cannot belong exclusively to the passive 
 voice ; and I conceive, that on inquiry we shall find 
 this to be the case. If I say, " he had concealed a 
 poniard under his coat," the participle here would 
 be considered as active. If I say, " he had a poniard 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 145 
 
 concealed under his clothes," the participle would be 
 regarded as passive. Does not this prove that this 
 participle is ambiguous, that it properly belongs to 
 neither voice, and that the context only or the arrange- 
 ment can determine, vy^hether it denote the perfection 
 of an action, or the completion of a passion or state 
 of being? When I say, "Lucretia stabbed herself 
 with a dagger, which she had concealed under her 
 clothes," it is impossible to ascertain whether the 
 participle be active or passive, that is, whether the 
 verb had be here merely an auxiliary verb, or be 
 synonymous with the verb to possess. If the former 
 be intended, the syntactical collocation is, " she had 
 concealed which (dagger) under her clothes :" if the 
 latter, the grammatical order is, " she had which 
 dagger concealed :" and it requires but little discern- 
 ment to perceive that " she had concealed a dagger," 
 and " had a dagger concealed," are expressions by no 
 means precisely equivalent. 
 
 I need not here remind the classical scholar, that 
 the Latins had two distinct forms of expression, to 
 mark this diversity ; the one, quern ahdiderat, and 
 the other, quern ahditum Jiabebat. The latter is the 
 phraseology of Livy, describing the suicide of Lucretia. 
 His words, if translated, " which she had concealed," 
 become ambiguous ; for this is equally a translation 
 of quern ahdiderat. It is observable also, that the 
 phrase quern ahdiderat would not imply, that the 
 dagger was in the possession of Lucretia at the time. 
 
 The participle in ed, therefore, I consider to be 
 
 L 
 
146 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 perfectly analogous to the participle in ing, and used 
 Hke it in either an active or a passive sense, belonging 
 therefore neither to the one voice nor the other ex- 
 clusively, but denoting the completion of an action 
 or state of being, while the participle in ing denotes 
 its continuation. 
 
 In exhibiting a paradigm of the conjugation of our 
 verbs, many grammarians have implicitly and ser- 
 vilely copied the Latin grammar, transferring into 
 our language the names both of tenses and moods, 
 vv^hich have formally no existence in English. " I 
 may burn," is denominated, by the author of the 
 British Grammar, the present subjunctive; " I might 
 burn," the imperfect subjunctive ; " I may have 
 burned," the preterperfect, and so on. This is di- 
 rectly repugnant to the simplicity of our language, 
 and is, in truth, as absurd as it would be to call '' we 
 two love," the dual number of the present tense ; or 
 " he shall soon be buried," a " paulo post future." 
 Were this principle carried its full length, we should 
 have all the tenses, moods, and numbers, which are 
 to be found in Greek or Latin. It appears to me, 
 that nothing but prejudice or affectation could have 
 prompted our English grammarians to desert the 
 simple structure of their own language, and wantonly 
 to perplex it with technical terms, for things not ex- 
 isting in the language itself. 
 
 I purpose, therefore, in exhibiting the conjugation 
 of the English verb, to give the simple tenses, as the 
 only ones belonging to our language ; and then show 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 147 
 
 how, by the aid of other words combined with these, 
 we contrive to express the requisite modifications, 
 and various accessary ideas. 
 
 Indicative Prese?it. Preter. Part. Perf. 
 
 Write Wrote Written. 
 
 Present Tense, 
 S, I write Thou writes t He writes or writeth. 
 P. We write Ye or you write They write. 
 
 This tense is by some grammarians called the present 
 indefinite ; while by others it is considered as either 
 definite or indefinite. When it expresses an action 
 now present, it is termed the present definite, as, 
 
 ** I write this after a severe illness." — Pope's 
 Letters. 
 
 " Saul, why persecutest thou me T^^-JBible, 
 
 " This day begins the woe, others must end." — Shakspeare. 
 
 If the proposition expressed be general, or true at all 
 times, this tense is then termed the present indefinite ; 
 as, ** The wicked flee when God pursueth." 
 
 " Through tatter'd clothes small vices do appear ; 
 Robes and furr'd gowns hide all." — Shakspeare. 
 
 Preterperfecf. 
 
 S. I wrote Thou wrotest He wrote. 
 
 P. We wrote Ye or you wrote They wrote. 
 
 ' This tense is indefinite, no particular past time 
 being implied. 
 
 These are the only two tenses in our language 
 
 L 2 
 
148 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 formed by varying the termination ; the only two 
 tenses, therefore, which properly belong to it. 
 
 Present Progressive^ or continued. 
 S, I am writing Thou art writing He is writing. 
 P. We are writing You are writing They are writing. 
 
 This tense denotes a present action proceeding. 
 In regard to time, it has been termed definite ; and, 
 in respect to action, it differs from the other present 
 in this, that the former has no reference either to the 
 perfection or imperfection of the action ; whereas 
 this denotes that the action is continued and im- 
 perfect. 
 
 Present Emphatic. 
 
 S. I do write Thou dost write He doth or does write. 
 
 P. We do write Ye or you do write They do write. 
 
 This form of the verb is emphatic, and generally 
 implies doubt or contradiction on the part of the 
 person addressed, to remove which the assertion is 
 enforced by the auxiliary verb. In respect to time 
 and action, it is precisely the same with / write 
 
 "You cannot dread an honourable death.'* 
 
 "I do dread it.'* 
 
 " Excellent wretch ! perdition seize my soul, but 
 I do love thee." 
 
 Cancel the auxiliary verb, and the expression 
 becomes feeble and spiritless. This is one of those 
 phraseologies, which it would be impossible to render 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 149 
 
 in a transpositive language. Di me perdant, quin 
 te amem, is an expression comparatively exanimate 
 and insipid. 
 
 Preterite, Indefinite, and Emphatic. 
 
 S, I did write Thou didst write He did write. 
 P. We did write You did write They did write. 
 
 as, " This to me in dreadful secrecy impart they did." 
 The emphasis here, however, may partly arise from 
 the inverted collocation. The following example is 
 therefore more apposite. " I have been told, that 
 you have slighted me, and said, I feared to face my 
 enemy. You surely did not wrong me thus ?" " I 
 did say so." 
 
 This tense is indefinite, in respect both to the time, 
 and the completion of the action. 
 
 Preter, Imp, 8^c. continued. 
 
 Sing. I was writing Thou wast writing He was writing. 
 Plur. We were writing Ye were writing They were writing. 
 
 This tense denotes that an action was proceeding, 
 or going on, at a time past either specified or implied, 
 as, " I was writing, when you called." 
 
 Preterperfect. 
 
 Sing, I have Thou hast He has i . 
 
 Plur. We have You have They have J 
 
 This tense expresses time as past, and the action 
 as perfect. It is compounded of the present tense 
 of the verb denoting possession, and the perfect par- 
 
156 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 ticiple. It signifies a perfect action either newly 
 finished, or in a time, of which there is some part to 
 elapse, or an action whose consequences extend to the 
 present. In short, it clearly refers to present time. 
 This, indeed, the composition of the tense manifestly 
 evinces. Thus, " I have written a letter," means, 
 *' I possess at present the finished action of writing a 
 letter." This phraseology, I acknowledge, seems un- 
 couth and inelegant ; but, how awkward soever it may 
 appear, the tense is unquestionably thus resolvable. 
 
 1st, It expresses an action newly finished, as, " I 
 understand that a messenger has arrived from Paris," 
 that is, ** newly," or "just now," arrived. 
 
 2dly, An action done in a space of time, part of 
 which is yet to elapse, as, " it has rained all this 
 week," " We have seen strange things this century." 
 
 3dly, An action perfected some time ago, but 
 whose consequences extend to the present time ; 
 as, " I have wasted my time, and now suffer for my 
 folly." 
 
 This tense has been termed, by some grammarians, 
 the perfect indefinite, and " I wrote," the perfect 
 definite. The argument, which they offer for this 
 denomination is, that the latter admits a definitive, 
 to specify the precise time, and the former rejects it. 
 Those, who reason in this manner, seem to me not 
 only chargeable with a perversion of terms, but also 
 to disprove their own theory. For what is meant 
 by a definite term ? Not surely that which admits or 
 requires a definitive to give it precision ; but that, 
 which of itself is already definite. If, therefore, " I 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 151 
 
 wrote," not only admits, but even requires the sub- 
 junction of a defining term or clause to render the 
 time definite and precise, it cannot surely be itself a 
 definite tense. Besides they appear to me to reason 
 in this case inconsistently with their own principles. 
 For they call, / am writing, a definite tense ; and 
 why ? but because it defines the action to be imper- 
 fect, or the time to be relatively present *. But if 
 they reason here, as they do in respect to the preterite 
 tenses, they ought to call this an indefinite tense, 
 because it admits not a definitive clause. They must, 
 therefore, either acknowledge that / have written^ 
 is a definite tense, and / wrote, indefinite ; or they 
 must, contrary to their own principles, call / am 
 writing indefinite. 
 
 Dr. Arthur Browne, in an Essay on the Greek 
 Tenses t, contends, that / wrote is the perfect de- 
 finite, and / have written the perfect indefinite. " / 
 wrote,'' says he, " is not intelligible without referring 
 to some precise point of time, e. g. When I was in 
 France. Why then does Dr. Beattie say / wrote is 
 indefinite, because it refers to no particular past 
 time ? No : it is indefinite because the verb in that 
 tense does not define, whether the action be complete, 
 or not complete. And why does he say, / have 
 written is definite in respect of time ; for it refers to 
 no particular time at which the event happened? 
 Put this example ; A says to B, 'I wish you would 
 
 * Here T would be understood to reason on their own principles; 
 for the truth is, that each of these tenses admits a definitive, 
 t See the Transaclions of the Royal Irish Academy, vol. iii. 
 
152 ETYMOLOGlf. 
 
 write to that man.' ' / have written to him' The 
 sense is complete ; the expression is not supposed to 
 refer to any particular time, and does not necessarily 
 elicit any farther inquiry. But if B answers, '/ 
 wrote to him^ he is of course supposed to have in his 
 mind a reference to some particular time, and it na- 
 turally calls on A to ask when ? Is it not clear then 
 that / wrote refers to some particular time, and can- 
 not have been called indefinite, as Dr. Beattie sup- 
 poses, from its not doing so ?" 
 
 Dr. Browne's argument is chargeable with incon- 
 sistency. He says, that because / have written elicits 
 no farther inquiry, and renders the sense complete, 
 it denotes no determinate time ; and that / wrote 
 refers to a particular time, prompting to farther 
 inquiry. This at least I take to be the scope of his 
 reasoning ; for, if it be not from their occasioning, or 
 not occasioning farther interrogation, that he deduces 
 his conclusion concerning the nature of these tenses, 
 his argument seems nothing but pure assertion. 
 Now, so far from calling that a definite tense, which 
 necessarily requires, as he himself states, a defining 
 clause to specify the point of time, I should call it 
 an indefinite tense. He admits that / wrote refers 
 to time past in general, and that it requires some 
 farther specification to render the time known, as / 
 wrote yesterday. In this case, surely it is not the 
 term wrote, but yesterday, which defines the precise 
 time ; the tense itself expressing nothing but past 
 time in general. 
 
 For the same reason if, as he acknowledges, / have 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 153 
 
 written elicits no farther inquiry, it is an argument 
 that the sense is complete, and the time sufficiently- 
 understood by the hearer. Besides, is it not some- 
 what paradoxical to say that a tense, which renders 
 farther explanation unnecessary, and the sense com- 
 plete, thus satisfying the hearer, is indefinite? and 
 that a tense which does not satisfy the hearer, but 
 renders farther inquiry necessary, is definite ? This, 
 to say the least, is somewhat extraordinary. 
 
 The observations of Lord Monboddo on this sub- 
 ject are not inapplicable to the point in question : I 
 shall therefore transcribe them. 
 
 " There are actions,'' says he, " which end in 
 energy, and produce no work which remains after 
 them. What shall we say of such actions ? cannot 
 we say I have danced a dance, taken a walk, &c. and 
 how can such actions be said in any sense to be pre- 
 sent ? My answer is, that the consequences of such 
 actions, respecting the speaker, or some other person 
 or thing, are present, and what these consequences 
 are appears from the tenor of the discourse. * I have 
 taken a walk, and am much better for it.' * I have 
 danced a dance, and am inclined to dance no more.' *' 
 
 The order of nature being maintained, as Mr. 
 Harris observes, by a succession of contrarieties, the 
 termination of one state of things naturally implies 
 the commencement of its contrary. Hence this tense 
 has been employed to denote an attribute the con- 
 trary to that, which is expressed by the verb. Thus 
 the Latins used vixit, " he hath lived,' to denote " he 
 
154 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 is dead :" fait Iliiim, " Troy has been," to signify 
 Troy is no more, A similar phraseology obtains in 
 English, thus, " I have been young" is equivalent to 
 *' now I am old." 
 
 Preter Imperfect. 
 Sing. I have been Thou hast been He has been ^ 
 Plur. We have been You have been They have been \ 
 
 This tense, in respect to time, is the same as the last, 
 but implies the imperfection of the action, and denotes 
 its progression, 
 
 Preter Pluperfect. 
 Sing, I had Thou hadst He had 
 
 Plur. We had Ye or you had They had 
 
 written. 
 
 This tense denotes that an action was perfected be- 
 fore another action was done. 
 
 Plusquam Preterite Imperfect. 
 Sing. I had been Thou hadst been He had been ^ 
 Plur. We had been Ye had been They had been S ^^^^ "^^ 
 
 This tense, in respect to time, is more than past, and 
 in respect to action is imperfect. It denotes that an 
 action was going on, or in a state of progression, be- 
 fore another action took place, or before it was per- 
 fected, as, " I had been writing before you arrived." 
 
 Future Indejinite. 
 Sing. I shall Thou shalt He shaU 
 
 Plur. We shall Ye or you shall They shall 
 
 OR 
 
 Sing. I will Thou wilt He will 
 
 Plur. We will Ye or you will Tlicy will 
 
 write. 
 
 write. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 155 
 
 These compound tenses denote the futurity of an 
 action indefinitely, without any reference to its com- 
 pletion. The meaning of the several persons has been 
 already explained. 
 
 Future, Imp. Progressive. 
 
 I shall or will be We shall or will be -| 
 
 Thou shalt or wilt be Ye shall or will be L -writing. 
 
 He shall or will be They shall or will be J 
 
 This tense agrees with the former in respect to 
 time, but differs from it in this, that the former has 
 no reference to the completion of the action, while 
 the latter expresses its imperfection and progression. 
 
 Future Perfect. 
 
 I shall have We shall have J 
 
 Thou shalt have Ye shall have > written. 
 
 He shall have They shall have ^ 
 
 This tense denotes that a future action will be per- 
 fected, before the commencement or completion of an- 
 other action, or before a certain future time ; as, " before 
 you can have an answer, I shall have written a second 
 letter." " By the time he shall have arrived, you 
 will have conquered every difficulty." In short, it 
 denotes, that at some future time an action will be 
 perfected. 
 
 As it has been a subject of great controversy among 
 grammarians,' what tenses should be called definite 
 and what indefinite, I shall now offer a few observa- 
 tions which may serve to illustrate the point in ques- 
 tion. 
 
156 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Duration, like space, is continuous and uninter- 
 rupted. It is divisible in idea only. It is past or 
 future, merely in respect to some intermediate point, 
 which the mind fixes as the limit between the one 
 and the other. Present time, in truth, does not exist 
 any more than a mathematical line can have breadth, 
 or a mathematical point be composed of parts. This 
 position has, indeed, been controverted by Dr. Beattie ; 
 but, in my judgment, without the shadow of philo- 
 sophical argument ^. Harris, Reid, and several others, 
 
 * Dr. Beattie observes, " that the fundamental error of those 
 philosophers, who deny the existence of present time is, that they 
 suppose the present instant to have, like a geometrical point, 
 neither parts nor magnitude. But as nothing is, in respect of 
 our senses, a geometrical point (for whatever we see or touch must 
 of necessity have magnitude), so neither is the present, or any 
 other instant, wholly unextended." His argument amounts to 
 this, that as a mathematical point is not an object of sense, nor 
 has any real existence, so neither has a metaphysical instant. It 
 is granted. They are each ideal. But does this prove the author's 
 position, that philosophers have erred in asserting their similarity .?* 
 or does it evince that no analogy subsists between them } Quite 
 the reverse. The truth is, a geometrical point is purely ideal ; 
 it is necessary to the truth of mathematical demonstration, that 
 it be conceived to have no parts. Finding it convenient to repre- 
 sent it to sense, we therefore give it magnitude. A metaphysical 
 instant, or present time, is in like manner ideal ; but we find it 
 convenient to assume as present an extended space. The doctor 
 observes, that sense perceives nothing but what is present. It is 
 true ; but it should be remembered that not time, but objects 
 which exist in time, are perceived by the senses. It may enable 
 a person to form a correct idea of this matter, if he will ask him- 
 self, what he means by present time. If it be the present hour, 
 is it not obvious that part of it is past, and part of it future ? If 
 it be the present minute, it is equally clear, that the whole of it 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 157 
 
 have incontrovertibly proved it. But though present 
 time, philosophically speaking, has no existence, we 
 find it convenient to assume a certain portion of the 
 past and the future, as intermediate spaces between 
 these extremes, and to consider these spaces as present; 
 for example, the present day, the present week, the 
 present year, the present century, though part of 
 these several periods be past, and part to come. We 
 speak of them, however, as present, as " this month," 
 " this year," " this day." Time being thus in its 
 nature continuous, and past and future being merely 
 relative terms, some portion or point of time being 
 conceived where the one begins and the other ends, 
 it is obvious that all tenses indicative of any of these 
 two general divisions must denote relative time, that 
 is, time past or future, in relation to some conceived 
 or assumed space ; thus it may be past or future, in 
 
 cannot be present at once. Nay, if it be the present vibration of 
 the pendulum, is it not obvious that part of it is performed, and 
 part of it remains to be performed ? Nor is it possible to stop in 
 this investigation, till present time, strictly speaking, be proved 
 to have no existence. Did it exist, it must be extended ; and if 
 extended, it cannot be present, for past and future must neces- 
 sarily be included in it. If it should be answered, that this 
 proves time, like matter, infinitely divisible, and that the most 
 tedious process will still leave something capable of division, I 
 reply, that as whatever may be left in the one case must be 
 figure and not a point, so the remainder, in the other, must be a 
 portion of extended time, how minute soever, and not an instant. 
 The process, therefore, must be continued, till we arrive in idea 
 at a point and an instant, incapable of division, being not made 
 up of parts. 
 
158 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 respect to the present hour, the present day, the 
 present week. 
 
 Again. The term indefinite is applicable either to 
 time or to action. It may, therefore, be the predicate 
 of a tense, denoting either that the precise time is 
 left undetermined, or that the action specified is not 
 signified, as either complete or imperfect. Hence the 
 controversy has been partly verbal. Hence also the 
 contending parties have seemed to differ, v^hile, in 
 fact, they were agreed ; and, on the contrary, have 
 seemed to accord, while their opinions were, in truth, 
 mutually repugnant. 
 
 Dr. Browne confines the term to action only, and 
 pleads the authority of Mr. Harris in his favour. It 
 is true, indeed, that Mr. Harris calls those tenses 
 definite, which denote the beginning, the middle, or 
 the perfection of an action ; but it is obvious, from 
 the most superficial examination of his theory, that 
 he denominates the tenses definite or indefinite, not 
 in respect to action, but to time. When, in the pas- 
 sage from Milton, 
 
 " Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth, 
 Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep," 
 
 he considers " waW as indefinite, is it in regard to 
 action ? No. " It is7' says he, " because they were 
 walking, not at that instant only, but indefinitely, at 
 any instant whatever." And when he terms Thoti 
 shalt not hill an indefinite tense, is it because it has 
 no reference to the completion or the imperfection of 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 159 
 
 the action? No ; it is " because," says he, " this means 
 no particular future time, but is extended indefinitely 
 to every part of time." Besides, if Mr. Harris's and 
 Dr. Browne's ideas coincide, how comes it that the 
 one calls that a definite tense, which the other terms 
 indefinite? This does not look like accordance in 
 sentiment, or in the application of terms. Yet the 
 tenses in such examples as these, 
 
 " The wicked flee when God pursueth ;" 
 
 " Ad poenitendum properat, cito qui judicat ;" 
 
 " God is good ;" " Two and two are four ;" 
 
 which Harris and Beattie properly call indefinite, 
 Browne terms definite. Nay, he denominates them 
 thus for the very reason, for which the others call 
 them indefinite, namely, because the sentiments are 
 always true, and the time of their existence never 
 perfectly past. So far in respect to Mr. Harris's 
 authority in favour of Browne, when he confines the 
 terms definite and indefinite to action only*. 
 
 But I forbear to prosecute this controversy further, 
 or to point out the inaccuracies with which I appre- 
 
 * When we say^ God is good, I would ask Dr. Browne whether 
 the verb be definite or indefinite, whether it denote perfection or 
 imperfection, or have no reference to either. It appears to me, 
 that neither of the terms is in his sense applicable ; for that the 
 verb denotes simple affirmation with time ; or, if applicable, that 
 the tense is, contrary to his opinion, indefinite, the idea of com- 
 pletion or imperfection being entirely excluded. 
 
160 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 hend many writers on this subject are chargeable. 
 I therefore proceed to review and illustrate the doc- 
 trine of the tenses, which I have already offered. 
 
 The present time being, as I have already observed, 
 an assumed space, and of no definite extent, as it may 
 be either the present minute, the present hour, the 
 present month, the present year, all of which consist 
 of parts, it follows that, as the present time is itself 
 indefinite, having no real existence, but being an ar- 
 bitrary conception of the mind, the tense significant of 
 that time must be also indefinite. This, I conceive, 
 must be sufficiently evident. Hence the present tense 
 not only admits, but frequently requires the definitive 
 now to limit the interval between past and future, or 
 to note the precise point of time. 
 
 Time past and time future are conceived as infi- 
 nitely more extended than the present. The tenses, 
 therefore, significant of these two grand divisions of 
 time, are also necessarily indefinite. 
 
 Again, an action may be expressed, either as 
 finished, or as proceeding ; or it may be the subject 
 of affirmation, without any reference to either of 
 these states. In English, to denote the continuation 
 of the action we employ the present or imperfect par- 
 ticiple ; and to denote its completion we use the pre- 
 terite or perfect participle. When neither is implied, 
 the tenses, significant of the three divisions of time, 
 without any regard to the action as complete or im- 
 perfect, are uniformly employed. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. l6l 
 
 The tenses, therefore, indefinite as to time and 
 action are these ; 
 
 The Present I write 
 The Preterite I wrote 
 The Future I shall write. 
 
 The six following compound tenses are equally 
 indefinite in point of time ; but they denote either 
 the completion, or the progress of the action, and in 
 this respect are definite. 
 
 Its prog^^ess, 
 I am writing 
 I was writing 
 1 shall be writing. 
 
 Its 'perfection^ as 
 
 I have written 
 
 I had written 
 
 I shall have written. 
 
 I write I am writing I have written. 
 
 The first is indefinite as to time and action. If I 
 say, " I write," it is impossible to ascertain by the 
 mere expression, whether be signified, " I write now," 
 " I write daily," or, " I am a writer in general." It 
 is the concomitant circumstances only, either ex- 
 pressed or understood, which can determine, what 
 part of the present time is implied. When Pope 
 
 M 
 
162 ETYMOI.OOy. 
 
 introduces a letter to lady M. W. Montague, with 
 these words, " I write this after a severe illness," is 
 it the tense which marks the time, or is it not the 
 date of the letter, with which the writing is under- 
 stood to be contemporary ? If you and I should see 
 a person writing, and either of us should say, " he 
 writes," the proposition would be particular, and 
 time present with the speaker's observation would be 
 understood : but, is it not evident, that it is not the 
 tense, which defines the present now, but the obvious 
 circumstance of the person's writing at the time? 
 And when the king, in Hamlet, says, 
 
 " My words fly up^ my thoughts remain below : 
 Words, without thoughts, never to heaven go/* 
 
 what renders the two first propositions particular, or 
 confines the tenses to the time then present, while 
 the last proposition is universally true, and the tense 
 indefinite? Nothing, I conceive, but the cir- 
 cumstances of the speaker. Nay, does it not fre- 
 quently happen, that we must subjoin the word now 
 to this tense, in order to define the point of time ? 
 Did the tense of itself note the precise time, this de- 
 finitive would in no case be necessary. If I say, 
 " apples are ripe," the proposition considered, inde- 
 pendently on adventitious circumstances, is general 
 and indefinite. The time may be defined by adding 
 a specific clause, as, " in the month of October ;" or, 
 if nothing be subjoined, the ellipsis is supplied either 
 by the previous conversation, or in some other way, 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 163 
 
 and the hearer understands, " are now ripe." This 
 tense, therefore, I consider as indefinite in point of 
 time. That it is indefinite in regard to action, there 
 can be no question. 
 
 " I am ivritingJ'* This tense also is indefinite in 
 respect to time. It derives its character as a tense 
 from the verb am, which implies affirmation with 
 time, either now, generally, or always. Mr. Harris 
 calls it the present definite, as I have already re- 
 marked ; and in regard to action it is clearly definite. 
 It is this, and this only, which distinguishes it from 
 the other present, / write, the latter having no re- 
 ference to the perfection or imperfection of the 
 action, while / am writing denotes its continuation. 
 Hence it is, that the latter is employed to express 
 propositions generally or universally true, the idea of 
 perfection or incompletion being, in such cases, ex- 
 cluded. Thus we say, The wicked flee, when God 
 pursueth ; but not, as I conceive with equal propriety, 
 the wicked are fleeing, when God is pursuing. 
 
 I have written. 
 
 As / a7n writing denotes the present continuation 
 of an action, so / have written expresses an action 
 completed in a time supposed to be continued to the 
 present, or an action, whose consequences extend to 
 the present time. As a tense, it derives its character 
 from the tense I have, significant of present time; 
 while the perfection of the action is denoted by the 
 perfect participle. But as I have shown that every 
 
 M 2 
 
164 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 tense significant of present time must be, in regard to 
 time, indefinite, so this tense, compounded of the 
 present tense / have, must, in this respect, be there- 
 fore indefinite. 
 
 Lowth, Priestley, Beattie, Harris, and several 
 others have assigned it the name of the preterite de- 
 finite, and I wrote they have termed the preterite 
 indefinite. Browne, and one or two others, have re- 
 versed this denomination. Now, that / wrote does 
 not of itself define what part of past time is specified, 
 appears to me very evident. This is, indeed, ad- 
 mitted by those, who contend for the definite nature 
 of this tense. Why then do they call it a definite 
 tense ? because, they say, it admits a definitive term, 
 by the aid of which it expresses the precise time, as, 
 " I wrote yesterday," " a week ago," *' last month ;" 
 whereas we cannot say, *' I have written yesterday." 
 Now, as I remarked before, this appears to me a per- 
 version of language ; for we do not denominate that 
 term definite^ which requires a definitive to render it 
 precise. Why have the terms the, this, that, been 
 called definitives ? Is it because they admit a de- 
 fining term ? or is it not because they limit or define 
 the import of general terms? I concur, therefore, 
 with the author of the article " Aorist," in the 
 " Nouvelle Encyclopedie," when he ridicules a Mr. 
 Demandre for giving the character of definite to a 
 tense, which marks past time indefinitely. This cer- 
 tainly is a perversion of terms. 
 
 "When we make use of the auxiliary verb," says 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 165 
 
 Dr. Priestley, " we have no idea of any certain 
 portion of time intervening between the time of 
 action, and the time of speaking of it ; the time of 
 action being some period that extends to the present, 
 as, * I have this year, this morning, written,' spoken 
 in the same year, the same morning; whereas, 
 speaking of an action done in a period past, we use 
 the preterite tense, and say, ' I wrote,' intimating, 
 that a certain portion of time is past, between the 
 time of action and the time of speaking of it." 
 To the same purpose nearly are the words of the 
 author of the article " Grammar," in the " Encyclo- 
 pedia Britannica." " / have written'^ says he, " is 
 always joined with a portion of time, which includes 
 the present now or instant; for otherwise it could not 
 signify, as it always does, the present possession of 
 the finishing of an action. But the aorist, which 
 signifies no such possession, is as constantly joined 
 with a portion of past time, which excludes the 
 present now or instant. Thus we say, ' / have 
 written a letter this day,' 'this week,' &c. but I 
 wrote a letter yesterday ; and to interchange these 
 expressions would be improper." 
 
 The explanation which these grammarians have 
 given of the tense I have written, appears to me per- 
 fectly correct, and I would add, that, though the in- 
 terval between the time of action and the time of 
 speaking of it may be considerable ; yet, if the 
 mind, in consequence of the effect's being extended to 
 the present time, should conceive no time to have in- 
 tervened, this tense is uniformly employed. 
 
166 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 That the aorist excludes the present instant is 
 equally true ; but that it is incapable of being joined, 
 as the latter of these grammarians supposes, to a por- 
 tion of time, part of which is not yet elapsed, is an 
 assertion by no means correct ; for I can say, " I 
 wrote to-day,'* or " this day," as well as " / have 
 written,"' " I dined to-day," says Swift, " with Mr. 
 Secretary St. John." " I took some good walks in 
 the park to-day." '* I walked purely to-day about 
 the park." " I was this morning with Mr. Secretary 
 about some business." Numberless other examples 
 might be produced in which this tense is joined with 
 a portion of time not wholly elapsed. 
 
 What then, it may be asked, is the difference be- 
 tween this and the tense, which is termed the pre- 
 terite definite? I shall endeavour to explain it, 
 though, in doing this, I may be chargeable with I'e- 
 petition. 
 
 When an action is done in a time continuous to 
 the present instant, we employ the auxiliary verb. 
 Thus on finishing a letter I say, *' I have written 
 my letter," / possess (now) the finished actioji of 
 writing a letter. 
 
 Again. When an action is done in a space of 
 time which the mind assumes as present, or when we 
 express our immediate possession of things done in 
 that space, we use the auxiliary verb. " I have 
 this week written several letters." ** / have now the 
 2jerfection of writing several letters, finished this 
 week *." 
 
 * TJiese i)hrascologios, as the author last quoted justly observes. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 167 
 
 Again : When an action has been done long ago, 
 but the mind is still in possession of its consequences, 
 these having been extended to the present time, un- 
 conscious, or regardless of the interval betvsreen the 
 time of acting, and the time of speaking, we use the 
 auxiliary verb. Thus, " I, like others, have, in my 
 youth, trifled v^ith my health, and old age now pre- 
 maturely assails me." In all these cases, there is a 
 clear reference to present time. / have must imply 
 present possession, and that the action either as 
 finished or proceeding is present to the speaker. 
 This must be admitted, unless we suppose, that the 
 term have has no appropriate or determinate meaning. 
 
 On the other hand, the aorist excludes all idea of 
 the present instant. It supposes an interval to have 
 elapsed between the time of the action, and the time 
 r- of speaking of it ; the action is represented as leaving 
 nothing behind it, which the mind conceives to have 
 any relation to its present circumstances, as, " three 
 days ago I lodged in the Strand." 
 
 But, though it unquestionably excludes the present 
 instant, or the moment of speaking, which the verb 
 have embraces, yet it does not exclude that portion 
 of present time, which is represented as passing. All 
 that is necessary to the use of this tense is, that the 
 present now be excluded, that an interval have elapsed 
 
 are harsh to the ear, and appear exceedingly awkward ; but a little 
 attention will suffice to show, that they correctly exhibit the ideas 
 implied by the tense, which we have at present undet considera- 
 tion. 
 
168 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 between the time of action, and the time of speaking 
 of it, and that these times shall not appear to be con- 
 tinuous. When Swift says, " it has snowed terribly 
 all night, and is vengeance cold," it is to be observed, 
 that though the former of these events took place in 
 a time making no part of the day then passing, yet 
 its effects extended to that day; he therefore employs 
 the auxiliary verb. When he says, " I have been 
 dining to-day at Lord Mountjoy's, and am come 
 home to study," he, in like manner, connects the two 
 circumstances as continuous. 
 
 But, when he says, " it snowed all this morning, 
 and was some inches thick in three or four hours," 
 it is to be observed that, contrary to the opinion of 
 the author * I have quoted, he joins the aorist with 
 a portion of time then conceived as present or passing, 
 but the circumstances, which had taken place, were 
 nowise connected with the time of his writing, or 
 conceived as continuous to the date of his letter. If 
 he had said, " it has snowed all this morning, and is 
 now two inches thick," the two times would have 
 appeared as continuous, their events being connected 
 as cause and effect. 
 
 / wrote I was writing I had written* 
 
 The first of these, as a tense, has been already ex- 
 plained ; it remains, therefore, to inquire, whether 
 it be definite or indefinite, in respect to action. 
 
 * See Eiicyc. Brit. Art. Grammar. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 169 
 
 I observe then, that a tense may frequently, by 
 inference, denote the perfection of an action, and 
 thus appear to be definite ; though, in its real import, 
 it be significant neither of completion nor imperfec- 
 tion, and therefore, in regard to action, is indefinite. 
 This seems to be the character of the tenses, / writCy 
 I wrote, I shall write, 
 
 " Mr. Harris," says Browne, "truly calls I wrote 
 and / write indefinites, although the man who wrote, 
 has written, that is, the action is perfected, and the 
 man who writes, is writing, that is, the action is im- 
 perfect ; but the perfection and imperfection, though 
 it be implied, not being expressed, not being brought 
 into view (to do which the auxiliary verb is necessary), 
 nor intended to be so, such tenses are properly called 
 indefinites." 
 
 Though I am persuaded that Harris and Browne, 
 though they concur in designing certain tenses inde- 
 finite, are in principle by no means agreed, yet the 
 observations of the latter, when he confines the terms 
 to action, appear to me incontrovertible. I would 
 only remark, that it is not the presence of the auxi- 
 liary, as Browne conceives, which is necessary to 
 denote the completion of the action, but the intro- 
 duction of the perfect participle. Nay, I am per- 
 suaded, that, as it is the participle in ing, and this 
 only, which denotes the progression or continuation 
 of the action, this circumstance in every other phrase- 
 ology being inferred, not expressed, so I am equally 
 convinced, that it is the perfect participle only, which 
 
170 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 denotes the completion of the action ; and that, if any 
 tense, not compounded of this participle, express the 
 same idea, it is by inference, and not directly. Ac- 
 cording to this view of the matter, a clear and simple 
 analogy subsists among the tenses ; thus, 
 
 First class. Second. Third. 
 
 I write I am writing I have written 
 
 I wrote I was writing I had written 
 
 I shall write I shall be writing I shall have written. 
 
 Now, if the progression or the perfection of an 
 action, as present, past, or future, be all the possible 
 variations, and if these be expressed by the second 
 and third classes, it follows that, if there be any pre- 
 cise distinction between these and the first class, or 
 unless the latter be wholly supernumerary, it differs 
 in this from the second and third, that while they 
 express, either that the action is progressive, or that 
 it is complete, the first has no reference to its per- 
 fection or imperfection. 
 
 / was writing. 
 
 This tense, like / wrote, is, in point of time, inde- 
 finite; but, in respect to action, it is definite. It 
 denotes that an action was proceeding in a time past, 
 which time must be defined by some circumstance 
 expressed or understood. 
 
 / had written. 
 This, as a tense, derives its character from the 
 preterite of the verb to have, implying past posses- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 171 
 
 sion. Had being an aorist, this tense, in regard to 
 time, must therefore be indefinite. In respect to 
 action it is definite, implying, that the action was 
 finished. As the aorist expresses time past, and by 
 inference the perfection of the action, while the latter 
 circumstance is additionally denoted by the participle, 
 this compound tense is employed to denote, that an 
 action was perfected before another action or event, 
 now also past, took place. 
 
 The character of the remaining tenses seems to 
 require no farther explanation. I proceed therefore 
 to consider how we express interrogations, commands, 
 necessity, power, liberty, will, and some other acces- 
 sary circumstances. 
 
 An interrogation is expressed by placing the no- 
 minative after the concordant person of the tense ; 
 thus, " Thou comes t" is an affirmation ; " Comest 
 thou?" is an interrogation. If the tense be com- 
 pound, the nominative is placed after the auxiliary, 
 as, " Dost thou come ?" " Hast thou heard ?" 
 
 A command, exhortation, or entreaty, is expressed 
 by placing the pronoun of the second person after the 
 simple form of the verb ; as. 
 
 Write thou Write ye 
 
 or or 
 
 Do thou write Do ye write : 
 
 and sometimes by the verb simply, the person being 
 understood; as, write, run, he, let*. By the help 
 
 * I consider that no language, grammatically examined, has 
 
172 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 of the word let^ which is equivalent to " permit 
 thou," or " permit ye," we express the persons of the 
 Latin and Greek imperatives ; thus, let me^ let uSy 
 let him^ let them, write, 
 
 more cases, tenses, or moods, than are formed by inflexion. But, 
 if any person be inclined to call these forms of expression by the 
 name of imperative mood, I have no objection. Only let him be 
 consistent, and call "Dost thou love.-*" an interrogative mood, 
 adopting also the precative, the requisitive, the optative, the hor- 
 tative, &c. together with the various cases in nouns, and tenses 
 in verbs, which are formed by prepositions and auxiliary verbs ; 
 I should only apprehend, that language would fail him to assign 
 them names. 
 
 If it should be asked, " agreeably to your doctrine of the verb, 
 as implying affirmation, what part of speech would you make the 
 verbs in the following sentences, Depart instantly, improve your 
 time, forgive us our sins ? Will it be said that the verbs in 
 these phrases are assertions ?" I should answer that all moods, 
 metaphysically considered, are, in my apprehension, equally indi- 
 cative. Every possible form of speech can do nothing, but ex- 
 press the sentiment of the speaker, his desire, his wish, his sen- 
 sation, his perception, his belief, &c. Whatever form, therefore, 
 the expression may assume, it must be resolvable into assertion ; 
 and must be considered as expressing, in the person of the sj)eaker, 
 what he desires, wishes, feels, thinks, and so forth. No one 
 surely will deny, that "thou oughtest not to kill," "thou shalt 
 not kill," " thou art forbidden to kill," are affirmations. And 
 are not these expressions so nearly equivalent to "do not kill," 
 that in Greek and Latin they are rendered indiflferently either by 
 ov (l>ovev(T£ig, or yuj; ^ovct>£ ; non occideSy or ne occidito ? If then 
 we say, " kill thou," will it be contended that, though the prohi- 
 bition implies an affirmation of the speaker, the command does 
 not ? The expression I conceive to be strictly equivalent to 
 " thou shalt kill," " thou art ordered to kill." Hence ave and 
 jubeo te avere, are deemed expressions of the same import. If 
 the question be examined grammatically, or as a subject of pure 
 grammar, I am inclined to think that where there is no variety 
 of termination, there cannot be established a diversity of mood. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 173 
 
 Present necessity is denoted by the verb must, 
 thus, 
 
 I must Thou must He must 
 
 We must Ye must They must 
 
 (write*, 
 
 This verb having only one tense, namely, the pre- 
 sent, jo«*^ necessity is expressed by the preterite de- 
 finite of the verb, significant of the thing neces- 
 sary, as, 
 
 I must have Thou must have, &c.l 
 
 TTT .1 ^r , o J. written. 
 
 We must have Ye must have, &c. J 
 
 Present Liberty. 
 
 I may Thou mayest He may 1 
 
 \ii7 ^T mi > write. 
 
 We may Ye may They may J 
 
 Past Liberty. 
 I might Thou mightest He might ^ 
 
 } 
 
 We might Ye might They might 
 
 Or, 
 
 I might have Thou mightest have, &c."| 
 We might have Ye might have, &c. J 
 
 Present Ability. 
 
 } 
 
 I can Thou canst He can ^ 
 
 We can Ye can They can ^ 
 
 Past Ability. 
 
 I could Thou couldst He could 
 
 We could Ye could They could 
 
 [ write. 
 
 * This verb is derived from the Saxon verb Ic most, ego debeo. 
 
174 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Or, 
 
 I could have Thou couldst have, &c. , 
 
 /-written. 
 We could have Ye could have, &c. 
 
 I 
 
 Could, the preterite of the verb can, expressing 
 past power or ability, is, like the tense might of the 
 verb may, frequently employed to denote present 
 time. Of their denoting past time the following 
 may serve as examples. 
 
 " Can you construe Lycophron now ? No ; but 
 once I could." 
 
 " May you speak your sentiments freely ? No ; 
 but once I might." 
 
 That they likewise denote present time, I have 
 already adduced sufficient evidence. Might and 
 could, being frequently used in conjunction with 
 other verbs, to express present time, past liberty and 
 ability are generally denoted by the latter phrase- 
 ology ; thus, " I might have written," " I could 
 have written." Some farther observations respect- 
 ing the nature of these tenses I purpose to make, 
 when I come to consider what has been termed the 
 subjunctive or conjunctive mood. 
 
 Present Duty or Obligation, 
 
 I ought Thou oughtest He ought ') 
 We ought Ye ought They ought ) 
 
 Past Duty. 
 I ought Thou oughtest He ought ^ to have 
 We ought Ye ought They ought ) written. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 175 
 
 The same is expressed by the verb should. Ought 
 being now always considered as a present tense, past 
 duty is expressed by taking the preterite definite of 
 the following verb. 
 
 Having shown how most of the common accessary 
 circumstances are signified in our language, I pro- 
 ceed to explain how we express the circumstance of 
 suffering, or being acted upon. 
 
 The manner of denoting this in English is simple 
 and easy. All that is necessary is to join the verb 
 to &^with the present participle, if the state of suffer- 
 ing be imperfect or proceeding ; and with the per- 
 fect participle, if it be complete ; thus. 
 
 } 
 
 written. 
 
 I am Thou art He is 
 
 We are Ye are They are 
 
 Vreierite. 
 
 I was Thou wast He was > 
 
 wr Tr rr.1. S> written. 
 
 We were Ye were They were ) 
 
 I have been I had been I shall be ") 
 I may be I might be I could be J 
 
 If the state be imperfect, the participle in ing must 
 l3e substituted ; thus. 
 
 The house is building '\ 
 
 The house was building > Progressive. 
 
 The house shall be building j 
 
176 ETYMOLOGY 
 
 The house is built 
 
 The house was built Y Perfect. 
 
 The house shall be built 
 
 1 
 
 Neuter verbs, expressing neither action nor passion, 
 admit, without altering their signification, either 
 phraseology ; thus, / have arisen^ or / am arisen ; 
 I was come, or / had come. 
 
 I conclude this part of the subject with a few ob- 
 servations concerning the subjunctive or potential 
 mood. 
 
 Various disputes have arisen respecting the exist- 
 ence and the use of this mood ; nor is there, perhaps, 
 any other point in grammar, on which respectable 
 authorities are so much divided. 
 
 That there is not in English, as in Latin, a poten- 
 tial mood properly so called, appears to me unques- 
 tionable. Amarem signifies ability or liberty *, in- 
 volving the verbs possum and licet, and may therefore 
 be termed a potential mood ; but in English these 
 accessary circumstances are denoted by the preterites 
 of the verbs may and can ; as, / might or could love. 
 
 That there is no subjunctive mood we have, I con- 
 ceive, equal authority to assert. If I say in Latin, 
 cum cepisset, " when he had taken," the verb is 
 
 * It belongs not to my province to inquire, how amarem came 
 to signify / might or could love, or whether it be strictly in the 
 potential or the subjunctive mood. I here take it for granted 
 that amarem does, without an ellipsis, signify, / mighty could, 
 7vould, or should love, implying licet, possum, volo, debeo. — See 
 Johnson's Comment. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. . 177 
 
 Strictly in the subjunctive mode; for, were not the 
 verb subjoined to cum, it must have taken the indi- 
 cative form ; but I hesitate not to assert, that no ex- 
 ample can be produced in English, where the indi- 
 cative form is altered merely because the verb is 
 preceded by some conjunctive particle. If we say, 
 " though he were rich, he would not despise the poor," 
 was is not here turned into we7^e because subjoined 
 to though; for though is joined to the indicative 
 mood, when the sentiment requires it ; the verb there- 
 fore is not in the subjunctive mood. 
 
 In respect to what has been denominated the con- 
 ditional form of the verb, I observe, that the existence 
 of this form appears to me highly questionable. My 
 reasons are these. 
 
 1st, Several of our grammarians have not men- 
 tioned it ; among these are the celebrated Dr. Wallis, 
 and the author of the British Grammar. 
 
 2!dly, Those, who admit it, are not agreed con- 
 cerning its extent. Lowth and Johnson confine it 
 to the present tense, while Priestley extends it to the 
 preterite. 
 
 3dly, The example, which Priestley adduces of the 
 conditional preterite, if thou drew^ with a few others, 
 which might be mentioned, are acknowledged by 
 himself to be so stiff and so harsh, that I am inclined 
 to regard them rather as anomalies, than as consti- 
 tuting an authority for a general rule. 
 
 4thly, If then this form be, agreeably to the opi- 
 nions of Lowth and Johnson, confined to the present 
 
 N 
 
178 etymology; 
 
 tense, I must say that I have not been able to find 
 a single example, in which the present conditional, 
 as it is termed, is any thing but an ellipsis of the 
 auxiliary verb. 
 
 5thly, Those who admit this mood, make it nothing 
 but the plural number of the correspondent indicative 
 tense without variation ; as, Hove, thou love^ he love, 
 &c. Now as this is, in fact, the radical form of the 
 verb, or what may be deemed the infinitive, as fol- 
 lowing an auxiliary, it forms a presumption, that it 
 is truly an infinitive mood, the auxiliary being sup- 
 pressed. 
 
 The opinion here given will, I think, be confirmed 
 by the following examples. 
 
 " If he say so, it is well," L e, " if he shall say so." 
 
 ** Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him," 
 (Bible) L e, " though he should slay." 
 
 " Though thou detain me, I will not eat," (Ibid.) 
 i, e. " shouldst detain me." 
 
 " If thy brother trespass against thee," (Ibid.) i. e, 
 " should trespass." 
 
 " Though he fall, he shall not utterly be cast down," 
 (Ibid.) i. e. " though he should fall." 
 
 " Remember, that thou keep holy the sabbath day," 
 (Ibid,) i, e» " thou shouldst keep." 
 
 There area few examples in the use of the auxiliaries 
 do and have, in which, when the ellipsis is supplied, 
 the expression appears somewhat uncouth ; but I am 
 persuaded, that a little attention will show, that these 
 examples form no exception to this theory. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 179 
 
 " If now thou do prosper my way." — Bible. It is 
 here obvious, that the event supposed was future ; the 
 appropriate term, therefore, to express that idea, is 
 either shall or will. If the phrase were, " if thou 
 prosper my way," it would be universally admitted 
 that the auxiliary is suppressed thus, '* if thou shalt 
 or wilt prosper my way." Again, when v/e say, " if 
 thou do it, I shall be displeased," it is equally evident 
 that the auxiliary is understood thus, " if thou shalt 
 do it." Now, if these examples be duly considered, 
 and if the import of the verb to do, as formerly ex. 
 plained, be remembered, I think it will appear that 
 the expression is elliptical, and truly proceeds thus, 
 " if thou (shalt) do prosper my way." The same 
 observations are applicable to Shakspeare's phrase- 
 ology, when he says, " if thou do pardon, whosoever 
 pray." Again ; when Hamlet says, " if damned custom 
 have not brazed it so," it is obvious that the auxiliary 
 verb may is understood ; for, if the expression be cleared 
 of the negative, the insertion of the auxiliary creates 
 no uncouthness; thus, "if damned custom may have 
 brazed it so." 
 
 I am therefore inclined to think, that the condi- 
 tional form, unless in the verb to he *, has no existence 
 in our language. 
 
 Though this be not strictly the proper place, I 
 would beg the reader's attention to a few additional 
 observations. 
 
 * Why this verb forms an exception, it would be easy to explain. 
 
 • N 21 • 
 
180 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Many writers of classic eminence express future 
 and contingent events by the present tense indicative. 
 In colloquial language, or where the other form would 
 render the expression stiff and awkward, this practice 
 cannot justly be reprehended. But where this is not 
 the case, the proper form, in which the note of con- 
 tingency or futurity is either expressed or understood, 
 is certainly preferable. Thus, 
 
 " If thou neglectest, or doest unwillingly, what I 
 command thee, I will rack thee with old cramps." — 
 Shakspeare. Better, I think, " if thou shalt neglect 
 or do." 
 
 " If any member absents himself, he shall forfeit a 
 penny for the use of the club." — Spectator, Better, 
 " if any member absent, or shall absent.'* 
 
 " If the stage becomes a nursery of folly and im- 
 pertinence, I shall not be afraid to animadvert upon 
 it." — Spectator, Preferably thus, " if the stage be- 
 come, or shall become." 
 
 I observe also, that there is something peculiar and 
 deserving attention in the use of the preterite tense *, 
 To illustrate the remark, I shall take the following 
 case. A servant calls on me for a book ; if I am un- 
 certain whether I have it or not, I answer, " if the 
 book he in my library, or if / have the book, your 
 master shall be welcome to it :" but, if I am certain 
 that I have not the book, I say, *' if the book were 
 in my library, or if I had the book, it should be at 
 
 * See Webster's Dissertations, p. 263. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 181 
 
 your master's service." Here it is obvious, that when 
 we use the present tense, it implies uncertainty of the 
 fact; and when we use the preterite, it implies a 
 negation of its existence. Thus also, a person at 
 night would say to his friend, '* if it rain, you shall 
 not go," being uncertain at the time whether it did 
 or did not rain ; but if, on looking out, he perceived 
 it did not rain, he would then say, " if it rained^ you 
 should not go," intimating that it did not rain. 
 
 "Nay, and the villains march wide between the 
 legs, as if they had gyves on." — Shakspeare. Where 
 as if they had implies that " they had not." 
 
 In the same manner, if I say, " I will go, if I can," 
 my ability is expressed as uncertain, and its de- 
 pendent event left undetermined. But if I say, " I 
 would go, if I could," my inability is expressly im- 
 plied, and the dependent event excluded. Thus also, 
 when it is said, " if I may, I will accompany you to 
 the theatre," the liberty is expressed as doubtful ; 
 but when it is said, " if I might, I would accompany 
 you," the liberty is represented as not existing. 
 
 In thus expressing the negation of the attribute, 
 the conjunction is often omitted, and the order in- 
 verted ; thus, " if I had the book," or " had I the 
 book." " Were I Alexander," said Parmenio, ** I 
 would accept this offer," or " if I were Alexander I 
 would accept." Were is frequently used for would 
 he, and had for would have ; as, " it we?^e injustice 
 to deny the execution of the law to any individual," 
 that is, " it would be injustice." " Many acts, which 
 
182 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 had been blameable in a peaceable government, were 
 employed to detect conspiracies ;" where Jmd is put 
 for would have*, — Huine's History of England. 
 
 Ambiguity is frequently created by confounding 
 fact with hypothesis, or making no distinction be- 
 tween dubitative and assertive phraseologies. Thus, 
 if we employ such expressions as these, " if thou 
 knewest," "though he was learned," not only to ex- 
 press the certainty of a fact, but likewise to denote a 
 mere hypothesis as opposed to fact, we necessarily 
 render the expression ambiguous. It is by thus con- 
 founding things totally distinct, that writers have 
 been betrayed not into ambiguity only, but even into 
 palpable errors. In evidence of this, I give the fol- 
 lowing example : " Though he were divinely inspired, 
 and spoke therefore as the oracles of God, with su- 
 preme authority ; though he were endowed with 
 supernatural powers, and could, therefore, have con- 
 firmed the truth of what he asserted by miracles ; 
 yet, in compliance with the ^ay in which human 
 nature and reasonable creatures are usually wrought 
 upon, he reasoned." — Atterburifs Sermons. 
 
 Here the writer expresses the inspiration and the 
 supernatural powers of Jesus, not as properties or 
 virtues which he really did possess, but which, though 
 not possessing them, he might be supposed to possess. 
 Now, as his intention was to ascribe these virtues to 
 
 * A similar phraseology in the use of the pluperfect indicative 
 for the same tense subjunctive, obtains in Latin, as, 
 
 " Inipulerat ferro Argolicas foedare latebras." — Virgil. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 183 
 
 Jesus, as truly belonging to him, he should have em- 
 ployed the indicative form was, and not were, as in 
 the following sentence : " though he was rich, yet 
 for our sakes he became poor." "Though he were 
 rich," would imply the non-existence of the attribute, 
 in other words, " that he was not rich/' 
 
 A very little attention would serve to prevent these 
 ambiguities and errors. If the attribute be conceived 
 as unconditionally certain, the indicative form with- 
 out ellipsis must be employed, as, " I teach," " I had 
 taught," " I shall teach." If futurity, hypothesis, or 
 uncertainty, be intended, with the concessive term, 
 the auxiliary may be either expressed or understood, 
 as perspicuity may require, and the taste and judg- 
 ment of the writer may dictate ; thus, " if any man 
 teach strange doctrines, he shall be severely rebuked." 
 — Bible, In the former clause, the auxiliary verb 
 shall is unnecessary, and is therefore, without im- 
 propriety, omitted. " Then hear thou in heaven, 
 and forgive the sin of thy servants and of thy people 
 Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein 
 they should walk." — Ibid. In this example the sup- 
 pression of the auxiliary verb is somewhat unfavour- 
 able to perspicuity, and renders the clause stiff and 
 awkward. It would be better, I think, " thou mayest 
 teach them the good way." Harshness indeed, and 
 the appearance of affectation, should be particularly 
 avoided. Where there is no manifest danger of mis- 
 conception, the use of the assertive for the dubitative 
 form is far preferable to those starched and pedantic 
 
184 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 phraseologies which soiiie writers are fond of exhi- 
 biting. For this reason, such expressions as the fol- 
 lowing appear to me highly offensive : " if thou have 
 determined, we must submit," " unless he have con- 
 sented, the writing will be void," " if this have been 
 the seat of their original formation," " unless thou 
 shall speak, we cannot determine." The last I con- 
 sider as truly ungrammatical. In such cases, if the 
 dubitative phraseology should appear to be preferable, 
 the stiffness and affectation here reprehended may 
 frequently be prevented by inserting the note of 
 doubt or contingency. 
 
 I observe farther, that the substitution of as for if 
 when the affirmation is unconditional, will often serve 
 to prevent ambiguity*. Thus, when the ant in the 
 fable says to the grasshopper who had trifled away 
 the summer in singing, " if you sung in summer, 
 dance in winter," as the first clause, taken by itself, 
 leaves the meaning somewhat ambiguous, " as you 
 sung'* would be the better expression. 
 
 * The Latins used si in both cases : and though their poets did 
 not attend to this distinction, their prose writers generally ob- 
 served it, by joining si for quoniam with the indicative mood. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 185 
 
 IRREGULAR VERBS. 
 
 The general rule for the formation of the prete- 
 rite tense, and the perfect participle, is to add to the 
 present the syllable ed, if the verb end with a con- 
 sonant, or d^ if it end with a vowel, as, 
 
 Turn, Turned, Turned ; Love, Loved, Loved. 
 
 Verbs, which depart from this rule, are called irre- 
 gular, of which I believe the subsequent enumeration 
 to be nearly complete *. 
 
 Present. 
 
 Abide 
 
 Am 
 
 Arise 
 
 Awake 
 
 Bake 
 
 Preterite. 
 Abode 
 Was 
 Arose 
 Awoke R 
 Baked 
 
 Bear,to bring forthBore or Bare 
 Bear, to carry Bore or Bare 
 Beat Beat 
 
 Begin Began 
 
 Become Became 
 
 Perfect Participle. 
 
 Abode 
 
 Been 
 
 Arisen 
 
 Awaked 
 
 Baken n 
 
 Bornt 
 
 Borne 
 
 Beaten 
 
 Begun 
 
 Become 
 
 * Where r is added^ the verb follows also the general rule, 
 t Some have excluded bore as the preterite of this verb. We 
 have sufficient authority, however, for admitting it ; thus, 
 
 " By marrying her who bore me." — Dryden. 
 
IW 
 
 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite, 
 
 Perfect Participle. 
 
 Behold 
 
 Beheld 
 
 Beheld or be- 
 holden * 
 
 Bend 
 
 Bent R 
 
 Bent R 
 
 Bereave 
 
 Bereft R 
 
 Bereft R 
 
 Beseech 
 
 Besought 
 
 Besought 
 
 Bid 
 
 Bade or Bid 
 
 Bidden 
 
 Bind 
 
 Bound 
 
 Bound 
 
 Bite 
 
 Bit 
 
 Bitten, Bit t 
 
 Bleed 
 
 Bled 
 
 Bled 
 
 Blow 
 
 Blew 
 
 Blown 
 
 Break 
 
 Broke or Brake 
 
 Broken f 
 
 Breed 
 
 Bred 
 
 Bred 
 
 Bring 
 
 Brought 
 
 Brought 
 
 Build 
 
 Built R 
 
 Built R § 
 
 Burst 
 
 Burst 
 
 Burst 
 
 Buy 
 
 Bought 
 
 Bought 
 
 Can 
 
 Could 
 
 
 Cast 
 
 Cast 
 
 Cast 
 
 Catch 
 
 Caught R 
 
 Caught R 
 
 Chide 
 
 Chid 11 
 
 Chidden 
 
 Choose 
 
 Chose 
 
 Chosen 
 
 * Beholden is obsolescent in this sense. 
 
 t " So kept the diamond, and the rogue was bit." — Popk. 
 
 " There was lately a young gentleman bit to the bone." — 
 Tatleb. 
 
 X Brake seems now obsolescent. 
 
 § Though Johnson has not admitted the regular form of the 
 participle in this verb, I tliink there is sufficient authority for 
 concurring with Lowth in receiving buildcd as the participle as 
 well as built, though it be not in such general use. 
 
 II Chode, whicli occurs twice in the Bible, is now obsolete. 
 

 
 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 18 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite. 
 
 Perfect Participle. 
 
 Cleave, 
 
 to stick 
 
 Clave R 
 
 Cleaved 
 
 or adhere 
 
 
 
 Cleave, 
 
 to split 
 
 Clove, or clave, 
 or cleft 
 
 Cloven, or Cleft 
 
 Cling 
 
 
 Clung 
 
 Clung 
 
 Climb 
 
 
 Clomb R ^ 
 
 Climbed 
 
 Clothe 
 
 
 Clad R t 
 
 CladR 
 
 Come 
 
 
 Came 
 
 Come 
 
 Cost 
 
 
 Cost 
 
 Cost 
 
 Crow 
 
 
 Crew R 
 
 Crowed 
 
 Creep 
 
 
 Crept 
 
 Crept 
 
 Cut 
 
 
 Cut 
 
 Cut 
 
 Dare, to venture 
 
 : Durst R 
 
 Dared 
 
 Dare, tc 
 
 I challenge, is regular 
 
 
 Deal 
 
 
 Dealt R 
 
 Dealt R 
 
 Dig 
 
 
 Dug R 
 
 Dug R 
 
 Do 
 
 
 Did 
 
 Done 
 
 Draw 
 
 
 Drew 
 
 Drawn 
 
 Drive 
 
 
 Drove 
 
 Driven 
 
 Drink 
 
 
 Drank 
 
 Drunk 
 
 Dwell 
 
 
 Dwelt R 
 
 Dwelt R 
 
 Eat 
 
 
 Ate 
 
 Eaten 
 
 Fall 
 
 
 Fell 
 
 Fallen 
 
 Feed 
 
 
 Fed 
 
 Fed 
 
 Feel 
 
 
 Felt 
 
 Felt 
 
 * Lowth has given cloinb as the preterite of climb. I can find, 
 however, no authority later than Spenser, and am inclined to 
 think it is now obsolete. 
 
 f The irregular preterite clad is obsolescent. 
 
188 
 Present. 
 
 Fight 
 
 Find 
 
 Flee 
 
 Flie 
 
 Fling 
 
 Forget 
 
 Forgo * 
 
 Forsake 
 
 Freeze 
 
 Freight 
 
 Get 
 
 Gild 
 
 Gird 
 
 Give 
 
 Go 
 
 Grave 
 
 Grind 
 
 Grow 
 
 Have 
 
 Hangt 
 
 * I know no example in which the preterite, which analogically 
 would he for went, is to be found. It may be here remarked that 
 this verb, in violation of analogy, is generally spelled^bre^o, as 
 if it meant " to go before." This is equally improper as it would 
 be to write forebidjforesake J foreswear, for forbid, forsake, for- 
 swear, 
 
 t Fraught is more properly an adjective than participle. 
 
 J This verb, Lowth says, when employed as an active verb, 
 " may, perhaps, most properly be used in the reguhir form." 
 Here the learned author appears to me, if lie be not chargeable 
 
 ETYMOLOGY, 
 
 
 Preterite, 
 
 Perfect Participle. 
 
 Fought 
 
 Fought 
 
 Found 
 
 Found 
 
 Fled 
 
 Fled 
 
 Flew 
 
 Flown 
 
 Flung 
 
 Flung 
 
 Forgot 
 
 Forgotten 
 
 
 Forgone 
 
 Forsook 
 
 Forsaken 
 
 Froze 
 
 Frozen 
 
 Freighted 
 
 Freighted or 
 
 
 Fraught t 
 
 Gat, or Got 
 
 Gotten, or Got 
 
 GildR 
 
 GiltR 
 
 GirtR 
 
 Girt R 
 
 Gave 
 
 Given 
 
 Went 
 
 Gone 
 
 Graved 
 
 Graven r 
 
 Ground 
 
 Ground 
 
 Grew 
 
 Grown 
 
 Had 
 
 Had 
 
 Hung R 
 
 Hung R 
 

 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 189 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite. 
 
 Perfect Participle. 
 
 Hear 
 
 Heard 
 
 Heard 
 
 Heave 
 
 Hove "^ R 
 
 Hoven u 
 
 Help 
 
 Helped 
 
 Holpen t R 
 
 Hew 
 
 Hewed 
 
 HewnR 
 
 Hide 
 
 Hid 
 
 Hidden t, or Hid 
 
 Hit 
 
 Hit 
 
 Hit 
 
 Hold 
 
 Held 
 
 Holden§,orHeld 
 
 Hurt 
 
 Hurt 
 
 Hurt 
 
 Keep 
 
 Kept 
 
 Kept 
 
 Kneel 
 
 Knelt 
 
 Knelt 
 
 Knit 
 
 Knit, or knitted 
 
 Knit, or Knitted 
 
 Know 
 
 Knew 
 
 Known 
 
 Lade 
 
 Laded 
 
 Laden || 
 
 with error, to have expressed his meaning incorrectly ; for it can- 
 not be disputed that the irregular form of this verb is frequently, 
 and with unquestionable propriety, used in an active sense. Thus 
 we say, " the servant hung the scales in the cellar ;" and pas- 
 sively, " the scales were hung by the servant." I should, there- 
 fore, rather say that, when this verb denotes suspension, for the 
 purpose of destroying life, the regular form is far preferable. 
 Thus, " the man was hanged," not " hung." 
 
 * The irregular preterite and participle of this verb are em- 
 ployed in sea language ; but the latter rarely. 
 
 t Lowth has given holpen as the participle ; it is now obso- 
 lescent, if not obsolete. It belonged to the verb to holp, which 
 has been long out of use. 
 
 X Several grammarians have rejected hid as a participle. It 
 rests, however, on unquestionable authority ; but hidden is pre- 
 ferable. 
 
 § Holden, which was some years ago obsolescent, is now re- 
 turning into more general use. 
 
 II Laden, like fraught, may be deemed an adjective. 
 
190 
 
 ETYMOLOGY, 
 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite. 
 
 Perfect Participle. 
 
 Lay 
 
 Laid 
 
 
 Laid* 
 
 Lead 
 
 Led 
 
 
 Led 
 
 Leave 
 
 Left 
 
 
 Left 
 
 Lend 
 
 Lent 
 
 
 Lent 
 
 Let 
 
 Let 
 
 
 Let 
 
 Lie, to lie down 
 
 Lay 
 
 
 Lien, or Laint 
 
 Lift 
 
 Lifted, 01 
 
 •Lift 
 
 Lifted, or Lift 
 
 Light 
 
 Lighted, 
 
 or Litt Lighted, or Lit 
 
 Load 
 
 Loaded 
 
 
 Loaden,or Loaded 
 
 Lose 
 
 Lost 
 
 
 Lost 
 
 Make 
 
 Made 
 
 
 Made 
 
 May 
 
 Might 
 
 
 
 Mean 
 
 Meant R 
 
 
 Meant R 
 
 Meet 
 
 Met 
 
 
 Met 
 
 Mow 
 
 Mncf 
 
 Mowed 
 
 
 Mown § R 
 
 Pay 
 
 Paid 
 
 
 Paid 
 
 Put 
 
 Put 
 
 
 Put 
 
 * Priestley, I apprehend, has erred in giving lain as the par- 
 ticiple of this verb. ^ 
 ^ t Lien, though not so generally used as lain, is not destitute 
 of unexceptionable authority. I have, therefore, with Johnson 
 and Lowth, given it as the participle. Murray has omitted it. 
 
 t Some grammarians have rejected lit. It can plead, however, 
 colloquial usage in its favour, and even other authority. " I lit 
 my pipe with the paper." — Addison. 
 
 § With Priestley and Lowth, I have given this verb a regular 
 participle; for which, I believe, there is sufficient authority, 
 without adducing the example of Shakspeare. Most other gram- 
 marians have rejected it. 
 

 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 191 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite. 
 
 Perfect Participle. 
 
 Quit 
 
 Quit, or ' 
 
 Quitted 
 
 * Quit 
 
 Read 
 
 Read 
 
 
 Read 
 
 Rend 
 
 Rent 
 
 
 Rent 
 
 Ride 
 
 Rode, or 
 
 Rid 
 
 Ridt, or Ridden 
 
 Rid 
 
 Rid 
 
 
 Rid 
 
 Ring 
 
 Rang, or 
 
 Rung 
 
 Rung 
 
 Rise 
 
 Rose 
 
 
 Risen 
 
 Rive 
 
 Rived 
 
 
 Riven 
 
 Rot 
 
 Rotted 
 
 
 Rotten R 
 
 Run 
 
 Ran 
 
 
 Run 
 
 Saw 
 
 Sawed 
 
 
 Sawn R 
 
 Say 
 
 Said 
 
 
 Said 
 
 See 
 
 Saw 
 
 
 Seen 
 
 Seek 
 
 Sought 
 
 
 Sought 
 
 Seethe 
 
 Seethed, 
 
 or Sod 
 
 Sodden 
 
 Sell 
 
 Sold 
 
 
 Sold 
 
 Send 
 
 Sent 
 
 
 Sent 
 
 Set 
 
 Set 
 
 
 Set 
 
 Shake 
 
 Shook 
 
 
 Shaken t 
 
 * Quitted is far more generally used as the preterite than quit. 
 
 f Priestley has rejected rid, and Murray ridden, as the par- 
 ticiple, while Johnson makes rid the preterite of ride. As rid is 
 the present and preterite of another verb, it would, perhaps, be 
 better to dismiss it entirely from the verb to ride, and conjugate, 
 with Priestley, ride, rode, ridden. 
 
 X Story, in his grammar, has most unwarrantably asserted, 
 that the participle of this verb should be shaked. This word is 
 certainly obsolete, and, I apprehend, was never in general use. 
 I have been able to find only one example of shaked as the par- 
 ticiple, " A sly and constant knave, not to be shaked." — Shak- 
 speare. And two as the preterite, ^^ They shaked their heads."— 
 Psal. cxi. 25. " I shaked my head." — Steele, Spectator, No. IV. 
 
19d 
 
 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Present. 
 Shall 
 Shape 
 Shave 
 Shear 
 Shed 
 Shine 
 Shew 
 Show 
 Shoe 
 Shoot 
 Shrink 
 Shred 
 Shut 
 Sing 
 Sink 
 Sit 
 
 Preterite. Perfect Participle. 
 Should 
 
 Shaped Shapen R 
 
 Shaved Shaven R 
 
 Shore Shorn 
 
 Shed Shed 
 
 Shone R Shone R 
 
 Shewed Shewn 
 
 Showed Shown 
 
 Shod Shod 
 
 Shot Shot 
 Shrank * or Shrunk Shrunk 
 
 Shred Shred 
 
 Shut Shut 
 
 Sang t, or Sung Sung 
 
 Sank, or Sunk Sunk 
 
 Sat Sittent, or Sat 
 
 • Of these preterites, the latter is now more generally used. 
 Our translators of the Bible used the former. 
 
 i" A. Murray has rejected sung as the preterite, and L. Mur- 
 ray has rejected sang. Each preterite, however, rests on good 
 authority. 
 
 The same observation may be made respecting sank and sunk. 
 
 X Sitten, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable 
 attempts, however, have been made to restore it. "To have 
 sitten on the heads of the apostles." — Middleton. 
 
 ' Soon after the termination of this business, the parliament, 
 which had now sitten three years, &c." — Belsham's Hist. 
 
 " And he would gladly, for the sake of dispatch, have called 
 together the same parliament, which had sitten under his father." 
 Hume, vol. VL p. 199. 
 
 Respecting the preterites which have a or m, as slang, or slung ^ 
 sank, or sunk, it would be better were the former only to be used, 
 as the preterite and participle would thus be discriminated. 
 

 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 15 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite, 
 
 Perfect Participle, 
 
 Slay 
 
 Slew 
 
 Slain 
 
 Sleep 
 
 Slept 
 
 Slept 
 
 Slide 
 
 Slid 
 
 Slidden 
 
 Sling 
 
 Slang, or Slung 
 
 Slung 
 
 Slink 
 
 Slank, or Slunk 
 
 Slunk 
 
 Slit 
 
 SlitR 
 
 Slit, or Slitted 
 
 Smite 
 
 Smote 
 
 Smitten 
 
 Sow 
 
 Sowed 
 
 Sown R 
 
 Speak 
 
 Spoke, or Spake 
 
 Spoken 
 
 Speed 
 
 Sped 
 
 Sped 
 
 Spend 
 
 Spent 
 
 Spent 
 
 Spill 
 
 Spilt R 
 
 Spilt R 
 
 Spin 
 
 Spun, or Span 
 
 Spun 
 
 Spit 
 
 Spat, or Spit 
 
 Spitten, or Spit 
 
 Split 
 
 Split, or Splitted Split, Splitted 
 
 Spread 
 
 Spread 
 
 Spread 
 
 Spring 
 
 Sprang,or Sprung Sprung 
 
 Stand 
 
 Stood 
 
 Stood 
 
 Steal 
 
 Stole 
 
 Stolen 
 
 Stick 
 
 Stuck 
 
 Stuck 
 
 Sting 
 
 Stung 
 
 Stung 
 
 Stink 
 
 Stank, or Stunk 
 
 Stunk 
 
 Stride 
 
 Strode, or Strid 
 
 Stridden 
 
 Strike 
 
 Struck 
 
 Struck, or 
 Stricken 
 
 String 
 
 Strung 
 
 Strung 
 
 Strive 
 
 Strove 
 
 Striven 
 
 Strew, or 
 
 Strewed, or | 
 Strowed J 
 
 Strown 
 
 Strow 
 
 
194 
 
 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite. 
 
 Perfect Participle. 
 
 Swear 
 
 Swore, or Sware 
 
 Sworn 
 
 Sweat 
 
 Sweat 
 
 Sweat 
 
 Sweep 
 
 Swept 
 
 Swept 
 
 Swell 
 
 Swelled 
 
 Swelled, or 
 Swollen 
 
 Swim 
 
 Swam, or Swum Swum 
 
 Swing 
 
 Swang 
 
 Swung 
 
 Take 
 
 Took 
 
 Taken 
 
 Teach 
 
 Taught 
 
 Taught 
 
 Tear 
 
 Tore, or Tare 
 
 Torn 
 
 Tell 
 
 Told 
 
 Told 
 
 Think 
 
 Thought 
 
 Thought 
 
 Thrive 
 
 Throve * 
 
 Thriven 
 
 Throw 
 
 Threw 
 
 Thrown 
 
 Thrust 
 
 Thrust 
 
 Thrust 
 
 Tread 
 
 Trod 
 
 Trodden 
 
 Wax 
 
 Waxed 
 
 Waxen R 
 
 Wash 
 
 Washed 
 
 Washed t 
 
 Wear 
 
 Wore 
 
 Worn 
 
 Weave 
 
 Wove 
 
 Woven 
 
 Weep 
 
 Wept 
 
 Wept 
 
 * Pope has used the regular form of the preterite : 
 
 " In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease. 
 Sprung the rank weed, and thrived with large increase/' 
 
 Essay on Crit. 
 
 Horsley, with one or two other writers, have employed the re- 
 gular participle. 
 
 -j- Washen seems obsolescent, if not obsolete. The compound 
 unwashen occurs in our translation of the Bible. 
 

 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 ly 
 
 Present 
 
 Preterite, 
 
 Perfect Participle. 
 
 Will 
 
 Would 
 
 
 Win 
 
 Won 
 
 Won 
 
 Wind 
 
 Wound n ^ 
 
 Wound 
 
 Work 
 
 Wrought R 
 
 Wrought R 
 
 Wring 
 
 Wrung R 
 
 Wrung 
 
 Write 
 
 Wrote 
 
 Written! 
 
 Writhe 
 
 Writhed 
 
 Writhen 
 
 DEFECTIVE VERBS. 
 
 These, as Lowth observes, are generally not only 
 defective but also irregular, and are chiefly auxiliary 
 verbs. 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite. 
 
 Perfect Participle. 
 
 Must 
 
 
 
 May 
 
 Might 
 
 
 Quoth 
 
 Quoth 
 
 
 Can 
 
 Could 
 
 
 Shall 
 
 Should 
 
 
 Witt, or Wot 
 
 Wot 
 
 
 * Pope, and our translators of the Bible, have used winded as 
 the preterite. The other form, however, is in far more general 
 use. 
 
 f Wrote, as the participle, is generally disused, and likewise 
 writ. The latter was used as a preterite by Pope, Swift, and 
 other writers of the same period. 
 
 X Wit is now confined to the phrase to wit, or namely. It 
 is an abbreviation from the Anglo-Saxon verb pitan, to know 
 
 o 2 
 
196 
 
 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 
 Presejil. 
 
 Preterite. 
 
 Perfect Participle. 
 
 Will=^ 
 
 Would 
 
 
 Wist 
 
 Wist 
 
 
 Ought t 
 
 
 
 * This verb^ as an auxiliary, is inflexible ; thus we say, ^' he 
 will go," and " lie wills to go." 
 
 t This verb, which signifies " to think," or " to imagine," is now 
 obsolete. 
 
 X This verb is now used as significant of present duty. It was 
 originally the preterite, and- the perfect participle of the verb to 
 owe ; and is corruptedly used in Scotland still to express a past 
 debt. " Apprehending the occasion, I will add a continuance to 
 that happy motion, and besides give you some tribute of the love 
 and duty I long have ought you." — Spelman. 
 
 " This blood, which men by treason sought 
 That followed, sir, which to myself I ought." — Dryden. 
 
 It is now used in the present tense only ; and, whon past duty 
 or obligation is to be signified, we note, as I formerly mentioned, 
 the past time by the preterite tense of the subsequent verb ; thus, 
 " I ought to read," " I ought to have read." The classical 
 scholar knows that the reverse takes place in Latin. Deheo 
 legere, dchui legere. Cicero, however, though very rarely in- 
 deed, uses the preterite of the infinitive, after the preterite tense 
 of this verb. 
 
 Murray has told us, that must and ought have both a present 
 and past signification, and, in proof of this, he adduces the follow- 
 ing examples : — " I must own, that I am to blame." " He must 
 have been mistaken." " Speaking things, which they ought not." 
 *' These ought ye to have done." This is truly a strange, and, I 
 verily believe, a singular opinion. Its inaccuracy is so manifest, 
 that every reader of discernment must intuitively perceive it. The 
 opinion itself, indeed, is not more surprising, than the ground, on 
 which it is maintained by the author. It surely requires but a 
 moderate portion of sagacity to perceive, that the past time, in 
 the second and fourth examples, is not denoted by must and ought, 
 but by the expressions, " have been," and " have done." In Latin, 
 as I have just observed, necessity and duty are expressed jis either 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 197 
 
 OF IMPERSONAL VERBS. 
 
 The distinctive character of impersonal verbs has 
 been a subject of endless dispute among grammarians. 
 Some deny their existence in the learned languages, 
 and others as positively assert it. Some define them 
 to be verbs devoid of the two first persons ; but this 
 definition is evidently incorrect : for, as Perizonius and 
 Frischlinus observe, this may be a reason for calling 
 them defective, but not for naming them impersonal 
 verbs. Others have defined them to be verbs, to 
 which no certain person, as the subject, can be pre- 
 fixed. But with the discussion of this question, as it 
 respects the learned languages, the English gram- 
 marian has no concern. I proceed, therefore, to ob- 
 serve, that impersonal verbs, as the name imports, 
 are those which do not admit a person as their no- 
 present, past, or future, the verbs denoting these having the three 
 correspondent tenses ; and the object of the necessity or duty is 
 expressed as contemporary, or relatively present. In English, on 
 the contrary, the two verbs must and ought having only the present 
 tense, we are obliged to note the past time by employing the pre- 
 terite tense of the subsequent verb. Thus, Me ire oportet, " I 
 ought to go," '' I must go." Me ire oportuit, " I ought to have 
 gone," " I must have gone." As well may it be affirmed, that 
 the past time is denoted by ire and not oportuit, as that it is sig- 
 nified by must and not by " have gone." 
 
 In the time of Wallis, the term inust, as a preterite tense, 
 was almost obsolete. " Aliquando" he remarks, " sed rarius in 
 prcBlerito dicitur." And when it was employed as a preterite, it 
 was followed by the present tense. This verb in German has, I 
 understand, a preterite tense. 
 
198 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 minative. Their real character seems to be, that they 
 assert the existence of some action or state, but refer 
 it to no particular subject. In English we have very- 
 few impersonal verbs. To this denomination, how- 
 ever, may certainly be referred, it hehoveth^ it irketh, 
 equivalent to, it is the duty^ it is painfully wearisome* 
 That the former of these verbs was once used person- 
 ally, we have sufficient evidence ; and it is not impro- 
 bable that the latter also was so employed, though I 
 have not been able to find an example of its junction 
 with a person. They are now invariably used as 
 impersonal verbs. We cannot say, / behove, thou 
 hehovesti he behoves; we irk, ye irk, they irk. 
 
 There are one or two others, which have been con- 
 sidered as impersonal verbs, in which the personal 
 pronoun in the objective case is prefixed to the third 
 person singular of the verb, as, methinks, methought, 
 meseems, meseemed ; analogous to the Latin expres- 
 sions me poenitet, me penituit. You thinketh, him 
 liketh, him seemeth, have long been entirely obsolete. 
 Meseems and meseemed occur in Sidney, Spenser, 
 and other contemporary writers ; but are now univer- 
 sally disused. Addison sometimes says metlwughts, 
 contrary, I conceive, to all analogy. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 199 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 OF ADVEKBS. 
 
 An adverb is that part of speech, which is joined 
 to a verb, adjective, or other adverb, to express some 
 circumstance, quality, degree, or manner of its signi- 
 fication ; and hence adverbs have been termed attri- 
 butives of the second order. 
 
 " As the attributives hitherto mentioned," says Mr. 
 Harris, " viz. adjective and verb, denote the attributes 
 of substances, so there is an inferior class of them, 
 which denote the attributes only of attributes. If I 
 say, ' Cicero was eloquent,' I ascribe to him the attri- 
 bute of eloquence simply and absolutely ; if I say, ' he 
 was exceedingly eloquent,' I affirm an eminent degree 
 of eloquence, the adverb exceedingly denoting that 
 degree. If I say, ' he died, fighting bravely for his 
 country,' the word bravely here added to the verb 
 denotes the manner of the action." An adverb is, 
 therefore, a word joined to a verb, or any attributive, 
 to denote some modification, degree, or circumstance, 
 of the expressed attribute. 
 
 Adverbs have been divided into a variety of classes, 
 according to their signification. Some of those which 
 denote 
 
200 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Quality^ simply are, Well, ill, bravely, prudently, 
 softly, with innumerable others formed 
 from adjectives and participles. 
 Certainty or "^Verily, truly, undoubtedly, yea, yes. 
 
 Affirmation } certainly. 
 Contingence Perhaps, peradventure, perchance. 
 Negation Nay, no, not, nowise. 
 
 Explaining Namely. 
 
 Separation Apart, separately, asunder. 
 
 Conjunction Together, generally, universally. 
 
 Indication Lo. 
 
 Interrogation Why, wherefore, when, how. 
 Excess or Pr^-^ Very, exceedingly, too, more, better, 
 
 eminence } worse, best, worst. 
 Defect Almost, nearly, less, least. 
 
 Preference Rather, chiefly, especially. 
 
 Likeness ox l^ .1 
 
 Equality S^' *"'' ^'' ''I'^'^y- 
 JJnliheness or 
 
 Inequality 
 
 Abatement or ") _^. 
 
 ^ , . rriecemeal, scarcely, hardly. 
 
 To or in a place Here, there, where. 
 To a place y only. Hither, thither, whither. 
 Towards a place Hitherward, thitherward, whither- 
 ward. 
 From a place Hence, thence, whence. 
 Time present Now, to-day. 
 
 r Yesterday, before, heretofore, al- 
 " \ ready, hitherto, lately. 
 
 rElse, otherwise. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 201 
 
 r To-morrow, hereafter, presently, 
 \ immediately, afterwards. 
 
 • .7^ > Often, seldom, frequently. 
 times znde/, } 
 
 Definitely Once, twice, thrice, again. 
 
 Order First*, secondly, thirdly, &c. 
 
 Quantity Much, little, enough, sufficiently. 
 
 On inquiring into the meaning and etymology of 
 adverbs, it will appear, that most of them are abbre- 
 viations or contractions for two or more words. Thus, 
 bravely, or " in a brave manner," is probably derived 
 by abbreviation from hrave-like, wisely from wise-like, 
 happily from happy 4ike t. Mr. Tooke, indeed, has 
 
 * Firstly is used by some writers. 
 
 t Denominativa terminantur in lie vel lice, ut pejUic, virilis, 
 selic legitimiis, j^oelic marinus pijzlic muliebris, &c. Hanc ter- 
 minationem hodie mutavimus in like vel ly ut in godlike vel godly. 
 Hickesii Thes. 
 
 The correctness of this explanation has been controverted by 
 Mr. Gilchrist, who contends that, though it may answer in some 
 cases, it wiU fail " in nine times out of ten." In the expressions 
 '' weekly wages," '^ daily labour," " yearly income," he observes, 
 that the meaning cannot be, " wages like a week," *Mabour like 
 a day," " income like a year." He rejects, therefore, this expla- 
 nation, and considers the termination lie to be the same with lig 
 in the Latin verb ligo, " to tie," or ''join," and to have the same 
 effect as other conjunctive particles, as, ''a friendly part," "a 
 friend's part," " yearly produce," " year's produce." Though a 
 copious induction of examples justifies us in refusing our assent 
 to Mr. Gilchrist's exaggerated statement, that the derivation pro- 
 posed by Hickes will fail in nine cases out of ten, we candidly 
 acknowledge; that in many instances it is inadmissible; and that 
 Mr. Gilchrist's suggestion is ingenious, though it will be found, 
 we apprehend, opposed by the same objection, as he urges against 
 
202 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 proved, as I conceive, incontrovertibly, that most of 
 them are either corruptions of other words, or abbre- 
 viations of phrases or of sentences. One thing is 
 certain, that the adverb is not an indispensable part 
 of speech, as it serves merely to express in one word 
 what perhaps would otherwise require two or more 
 words. Thus, 
 
 Where * denotes In what place 
 
 Here 
 
 In this place 
 
 There 
 
 In that place 
 
 Whither 
 
 To what place 
 
 Hither 
 
 To this place 
 
 Thither 
 
 To that place. 
 
 Hickes's explanation. Nor does it appear to us, that Mr. Gil- 
 christ's argument subverts the doctrine generally received. The 
 termination may have been originally what Hickes supposed, and 
 the principle of analogy may, in time, have introduced similar 
 compositions, when this meaning of the termination ceased to be 
 regarded. Thus the term candidly, which we have just now used, 
 was probably introduced, in conformity to analogy, with no refer- 
 ence whatever to the meaning of the termination. It may be here 
 also observed, that the import of this term seems inexplicable, on 
 the hypothesis that ly is a mere term of conjunction. 
 
 * These three adverbs, denoting motion or rest in a place, are 
 frequently employed by us, in imitation of the French, to denote 
 motion to a place, in the same sense with the three following ad- 
 verbs. It would be better, however, were the distinction observed. 
 The French use ici for here and hither, lb, for there and thither , 
 ou for where and whither. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 203^ 
 
 CHAPTER VIIL 
 
 OF PREPOSITIONS. 
 
 A PREPOSITION has been defined to be " that part 
 of speech which shows the relation that one thing 
 bears to another." According to Mr. Harris, it is a 
 part of speech, devoid itself of signification, but so 
 formed, as to unite words that are significant, and that 
 refuse to unite or associate of themselves. He has, 
 therefore, compared them to pegs or pins, which serve 
 to unite those parts of the building, which would not, 
 by their own nature, incorporate or coalesce. When 
 one considers the formidable objections, which present 
 themselves to this theory, and that the ingenious 
 author now quoted has, in defence of it, involved 
 himself in palpable contradictions, it becomes matter 
 of surprise, that it should have so long received from 
 grammarians an almost universal and implicit assent. 
 This furnishes one of many examples, how easily 
 error may be imposed and propagated by the autho-* 
 rity of a great name. But, though error may be re- 
 peatedly transmitted from age to age, unsuspected 
 and unquestioned, it cannot be perpetuated. Mr. 
 Home Tooke has assailed this theory by irresistible 
 arguments, and demonstrated, that in our language at 
 least, prepositions are significant of ideas, and that, as 
 
SI4 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 far as import is concerned, they do not form a distinct 
 species of words. 
 
 It is not, indeed, easy to imagine, that men, in the 
 formation of any language, would invent words insig- 
 nificant, and to which, singly, they attached no deter- 
 minate idea ; especially when it is considered, that, 
 in every stage of their existence, from rudeness to 
 civilization, new words would perpetually be wanting 
 to express new ideas. It is not, therefore, probable 
 that, while they were under the necessity of framing 
 new words, to answer the exigences of mental en- 
 largement, and, while these demands on their in- 
 vention were incessantly recurring, they would, in 
 addition to this, encumber themselves with the idle 
 and unnecessary task of forming new words to express 
 nothing. 
 
 But, in truth, Harris himself yields the point, when 
 he says, that prepositions, when compounded, trans- 
 fuse something of their meaning into the compound; 
 for they cannot transfuse what they do not contain, 
 nor impart what they do not possess. They must, 
 therefore, be themselves significant words. 
 
 But it is not so much their meaning, with which 
 the grammarian is concerned, as their syntactical 
 character, their capacity of affecting other words, or 
 being affected by them. In both these lights, how- 
 ever, I purpose to consider them. 
 • The name of preposition has been assigned to 
 them, because they generally precede their regimen, 
 or the word which they govern. What number of 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 205 
 
 these words ancient and modern languages contain, 
 has been much disputed ; some grammarians deter- 
 mining a greater and some a less number. This, 
 indeed, of itself affords a conclusive proof, that the 
 character of these words has not been clearly under- 
 stood ; for, in the other parts of speech, noun, ad- 
 jective, and verb, the discriminative circumstances 
 are so evident, that no doubt can arise concerning 
 their classification. 
 
 That most of our English prepositions have signi- 
 fication per se, and form no distinct species of words, 
 Mr. Tooke has produced incontrovertible evidence; 
 nor is it to be doubted, that a perfect acquaintance 
 with the Northern languages would convince us, that 
 all of them are abbreviations, corruptions, or combi- 
 nations of other words. A few of Mr. Tooke's ex- 
 amples I shall now present to the reader. 
 
 Above, from the Anglo-Saxon ufa, high ; hence 
 hufan, on hufan, hove, above. 
 
 With, from withan to join, of which with is the im- 
 perative ; thus, " a house with a party wall,'' 
 " a house,^'om a party wall ;" or it is sometimes 
 the imperative oiwyrthan, "to be;" hence, hy 
 and with are often synonymous, the former 
 being derived from heon, " to be." 
 
 Without, from the Saxon preposition withutan, 
 extra, sine, which is properly the imperative 
 of the verb wyrthan-utan, " to be out." With- 
 
206 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 utan^ heutan, " without," " be out," or " but." 
 The Saxon preposition occurs frequently in 
 the writings of Chaucer, and is still used in 
 Scottish poetry ^. 
 
 JFromf, is simply the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic 
 noun frum, '* beginning," " source," " ori- 
 gin ;" thus, " Figs came^o/?^ Turkey ;" that 
 is, Figs came ; " the source" or " beginning," 
 Turkey, to which is opposed the word 
 
 Tb, the same originally as do^ signifying finish- 
 ing or completion; thus, "Figs came Jrom 
 Turkey to England ;" *' the beginning," or 
 " source," Turkey ; " the finishing," or 
 " end," England. 
 
 * For blithesome Sir John Barleycorn 
 Had sae allur'd them i' the morn. 
 That, what wi* drams, and mony a horn. 
 
 And reaming bicker. 
 The ferly is, withouten scorn. 
 They wauk'd sae sicker. 
 
 Mayne's Siller Gun. 
 
 This animated little poem will be read with no common pleasure 
 by every admirer of the Scottish muse. In felicity of descrip- 
 tion the author is not inferior to Burns, while in delicacy of hu- 
 mour he may claim the superiority. 
 
 This preposition is supposed by Mr. Gilchrist to be derived 
 from forth, or rather to be a different form of that word. See 
 his " Philosophic Etymology," a work exhibiting considerable 
 ingenuity and philological knowledge, combined with many fanci- 
 ful and unphilosophical opinions. 
 
 t It is possible that the Greek otto, and the Latin ab derived 
 from it,^ had their origin in ^« pater, imncipium, " author," or 
 " principle of existence." 
 
ETYMOLOGY. £07 
 
 Beneath^ is the imperative he^ compounded with 
 the noun neath^ of the same import with 
 neden in Dutch, ned in Danish, niedere in 
 German, and nedre or neder in Swedish, 
 signifying the lower place ; hence the astro- 
 nomical term Nadir opposed to Zenith, 
 Hence also nether and nethermost. 
 Between, " be twain,"" be two," or " be separated *." 
 Before, -v 
 
 Behind, /imperative he, and the nouns fore. 
 Beside, ( hind, side, low. 
 Below, •' 
 Under, i. e. on neder. 
 
 Beyond, imperative he, and the participle past 
 gonedoiilnQxeichgan, "to go;" as, "beyond 
 the place," i. e. " be passed the place." 
 Among, fiomgemong,the preterperfect of the verb 
 mengan, to mix, used as a participle, and 
 signifying ''mixed.'* 
 Many other examples might be produced from 
 Tooke's ingenious illustration of his theory; but 
 those, which I have now offered, suffice to prove, that 
 our prepositions, so far from being words insigni- 
 ficant, belong to the class of nouns or verbs either 
 single or compounded. 
 
 Besides, if prepositions denote relations, as Harris 
 admits, it is surely absurd to suppose, that they have 
 no meaning ; for the relation, whether of propinquity, 
 
 * The verbj " to twin/' is stiU used in Scotland for ^^ to part/' 
 or " separate." 
 
208 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 contiguity, approach, or regress, &c. may be expressed, 
 and apprehended by the mind, though the objects 
 between which the relation subsists be not specified. 
 If I hear the word with, I naturally conceive the idea 
 of conjunction ; the reverse takes place when I hear 
 without. If it be said a soldier with, I have the idea 
 of a soldier associated with something else, which 
 association is denoted by with. What is conjoined to 
 him I know not, till the object be specified, as, " a sol- 
 dier with a musquet ;" but the mere association was be- 
 fore sufficiently expressed, and clearly apprehended. 
 Again, if a person say, *' he threw a glass under ^^^ I 
 have instantly an idea of a glass, and of inferiority 
 of place, conceiving a glass removed into a situation 
 lower than something else. To ascertain that some- 
 thing, I ask, under what? and the answer may be, 
 under the table. Now, if under had no meaning, 
 this question would be insignificant, or rather im- 
 possible. 
 
 From the examples given, I trust, the young 
 reader sufficiently understands the difference between 
 the doctrine of Harris on this subject, and that of 
 Home Tooke ; nay, I think, he must perceive, that 
 the former is merely a theory, while the latter is 
 supported by reason and fact. The syntax of our 
 prepositions will be afterwards explained. I shall 
 only observe at present, that the words, which are 
 in English considered as prepositions, and joined to 
 the objective case, are these : 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Above 
 
 Into 
 
 About 
 
 Near 1 
 Nigh J 
 
 After 
 
 Against 
 
 Of 
 
 Among ) 
 Amongst J 
 
 Off 
 
 Over 
 
 Amid \ 
 Amidst J 
 
 On 1^ 
 
 Upon 3 
 
 Around ) 
 Round ) 
 
 Since 
 
 Through ) 
 Throughout ) 
 
 At 
 
 Between ') 
 Betwixt ) 
 
 Till 1^ 
 Until) 
 
 Beyond 
 
 To > 
 
 Unto) 
 
 Before 
 
 Behind 
 
 Toward > 
 Towards > 
 
 Beneath 
 
 Below 
 
 Under | 
 
 Beside 
 
 Underneath 5 
 
 By 
 
 Up 
 
 Down 
 
 With 
 
 For 
 
 Within 
 
 From 
 
 Without 
 
 In 
 
 
 209 
 
 Some of these, though they are commonly joined to 
 an objective case, and may therefore be deemed pre- 
 positions, are, notwithstanding, of an equivocal cha- 
 racter, resembling the Latin adverbs jyrocul and 
 
 P 
 
210 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 prope, which govern a case by the ellipsis of a pre- 
 position. Thus we say, " near the house" and " near 
 to the house," " nigh the park" and " nigh to the 
 park," ** off the table" and " o^from the table." 
 
 Several are used as adverbs, and also as preposi- 
 tions, no ellipsis being involved, as, tilly until, afteVy 
 before. 
 
 There are certain particles, which are never found 
 single or uncompounded, and have therefore been 
 termed inseparable prepositions. Those purely En- 
 glish are, a, he, fore, mis, un. The import of these, 
 and of a few separable prepositions when prefixed to 
 other words, I proceed to explain. 
 
 A J signifies on or in, as, afoot, a sJiore, that is, 07i 
 foot, on shore, Webster contends, that it 
 was originally the same with one, 
 Se, signifies about, as, bestir, besprinkle, that is, 
 stir about ; also for or before, as, bespeak, 
 that is, speahfor, or before. 
 For, denies, or deprives, as, bid, forbid, seek, for- 
 sake, i. e. bid, bid not; seek, not seek, 
 Fore^ signifies before, as, see, foresee, that is, see 
 
 beforehand. 
 Mis, denotes defect or error, as, take, mistake, o 
 take wrongly; deed, misdeed, that is, a 
 wrong or evil deed. 
 Over, denotes eminence or superiority, as, cmne, 
 overcofne ; also excess, as, hasty, over hasty, 
 or too hasty. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 2tll 
 
 Oiit, signifies excess or superiority, as, do, outdo, 
 run, oiitrun, that is, " to surpass in 
 running." 
 
 Uriy before an adjective, denotes negation, or pri- 
 vation, as, worthy, unworthy, or " not 
 worthy." Before verbs it denotes the 
 undoing or the destroying of the energy 
 or act, expressed by the verb, as, say, 
 unsay, that is, " affirm," retract the " af- 
 firmation." 
 
 Up, denotes motion upwards, as, start, upstart, 
 rest in a higher place, as, hold, uphold; 
 sometimes subversion, as, set, upset. 
 
 With, signifies against, as, stand, withstand, that 
 is, " stand against, or resist." 
 
 The Latin prepositions used in the composition 
 of English words are these, ah or ahs, ad, ante, con, 
 circum, contra, de, di, dis, e or ex, extra, in, inter, 
 intro, oh, per, post, prce, pro, prceter, re, retro, se, 
 suh, suhter, super, trans, 
 
 A, ah, ahs, signify ^ow or away, as, to ahstract, 
 that is, " to draw away." 
 
 Ad, signifies to or at, as, to adhere, that is, " to 
 stick to." 
 
 Ante, means hefore, as, antecedent, that is, " going 
 before." 
 
 Circum, round, about, as, circumnavigaie, or " sail 
 round." 
 
 Con, com, co, col, signify together, as, convoke, 
 
 P 21 
 
212 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 or ** call together," co-operate, or " work 
 together," colleague, "joined together." 
 Contra, against, as, contradict, or " speak against." 
 JDe, signifies down, as, deject, or "throw down." 
 Di, dis, asunder, as, distract, or " draw asunder.*' 
 E, ex, out of, as, egress, or " going out," eject, 
 
 or "throw out," exclude, or " shut out." 
 Extra, beyond, as extraordinary, or "beyond 
 
 the ordinary or usual course." 
 In, before an adjective, like un^ denotes privation, 
 as, active, inactive, or " not active ;" before 
 a verb, it has its simple meaning. 
 Inter, between, as, intervene, or " come between," 
 
 interpose, or " put between." 
 Intro, to within, as, introduce, or ** lead in." 
 Ob, denotes opposition, as, obstacle, that is, " some- 
 thing standing in opposition," " an impe- 
 diment." 
 Per, through, or thoroughly, as, perfect, or " tho- 
 roughly done," to perforate, or " to bore 
 through." 
 Post, after, as, postscript, or " written after,'* that 
 
 is, after the letter. 
 Pr(B, before, as, prefix, or " fix before." 
 Pro, forth, or forwards, as, profnofe, or "move 
 
 forwards." 
 Prieter, past, or beyond, k^, preternatural, or " be- 
 yond the course of nature." 
 Re, again, or back, as, retahe, or " take back." 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 213 
 
 Retro, hackwards, as, retrograde, or ** going back- 
 wards." 
 
 Se, apart, or without, as, to secrete, " to put aside," 
 or " to hide," secur'e, " without care or ap- 
 prehension." 
 
 Suhter, under, as, suhterfluous, or " flowing under." 
 
 Super, above, or over, as, superscribe, or " write 
 above, or over." 
 
 Trans, over, from one place to another, as, trans- 
 port, that is, " carry over." 
 
 The Greek prepositions and particles compounded 
 with English words are, a, amphi, anti, hyper, hypo, 
 meta, p)cri, syn, 
 
 A, signifies privation, as, anonymous, or " with- 
 out a name." 
 
 Amphi, both, or the two, as, amphibious, " having 
 both lives," that is, " on land and on water." 
 
 Anti, against, as, anti-covenanter, anti-jacobin, 
 that is, " an opponent of the covenanters," 
 " an enemy to the jacobins." 
 
 Hyper, over and above, as, hypercritical, or " over," 
 that is, " too critical." 
 
 Hypo, under, implying concealment or disguise, 
 as, hypocrite, " one dissembling his real cha- 
 racter." 
 
 Meta denotes change or transmutation, as, to meta- 
 morphose, or " to change the shape." 
 
 Para denotes sometimes propinquity or similarity, 
 and sometimes contrariety. It is equivalent 
 to the Latin i^xin^juxta and prccier, as, " to 
 
2I14 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 paraphrase," '^(x>^cc(p^cc^eiv,juxta alterius ora^ 
 tionem loqui ; "to speak the meaning of 
 another." Paradox, " beyond," or *' con- 
 trary to, general opinion," or " common belief.'* 
 
 Periy round about, as, periphrasis, that is, " cir- 
 cumlocution." 
 
 Syn, together, as, synod, " a meeting," or '* coming 
 together,'' sympathy, or " feeling together.'* 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 215 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 OF CONJUNCTIONS. 
 
 A CONJUNCTION has been defined to be " that 
 part of speech which connects words and sentences 
 together." 
 
 Mr. Ruddirnan, and several other grammarians, 
 have asserted, that conjunctions never connect words, 
 but sentences. This is evidently a mistake ; for if 
 I say, "a man of wisdom and virtue is a perfect cha- 
 racter," it implies not " that a man of wisdom is a 
 perfect character, and a man of virtue a perfect cha- 
 racter,'* but " a man who combines wisdom and vir- 
 tue." The farther discussion of this question, how- 
 ever, I shall at present postpone, as it will form a 
 subject of future inquiry. 
 
 Conjunctions have been distributed, according to 
 their significations, into different classes : 
 
 Copulative, And, also, but (hot). 
 
 Disjunctive, Either, or. 
 
 Concessive, Though, although, albeit, yet. 
 
 Adversative, But, however. 
 
 Exclusive, Neither, nor. 
 
 Causal, For, that, because, since. 
 
216 ETYMOLOGY. ' 
 
 Illative, Therefore, wherefore, then. 
 
 Conditional, If. 
 Excej)tive, Unless. 
 
 This distribution of the conjunctions I have given, 
 in conformity to general usage, that the reader may 
 be acquainted with the common terms by which 
 conjunctions have been denominated, if these terms 
 should occur to him in the course of reading. In 
 respect to the real import, and genuine character of 
 these words, I decidedly adopt the theory of Mr. 
 Tooke, which considers conjunctions as no distinct 
 species of words, but as belonging to the class of 
 attributives, or as abbreviations for two or more sig- 
 nificant words. 
 
 Agreeably to his theory, and is an abbreviation 
 for ariad, the imperative of ananad, " to add," or 
 *'to accumulate;" as, "two and two make four;'* 
 that is, " two, add two, make four." Either is evi- 
 dently an adjective expressive of " one of two ;" thus, 
 "it is either day or night," that is, '^ one of the two, 
 day or night.'' It is derived from the Saxon cegther, 
 equivalent to uterque, "each*." 
 
 * That the Saxon word oegther signified eachy is sufficiently 
 evident from a variety of examples ; and the adjective either has 
 continued to be used in that sense by reputable writers. Lowth, 
 who, I apprehend, did not advert to its primitive signification, 
 'condemns the use of it as equivalent to each : and notwithstanding 
 its original import, I agree with him in thinking, that it is much 
 better to confine its meaning to " one of two." The reason will 
 be assigned hereafter. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 217 
 
 Or is a contraction for othe7\ a Saxon and English 
 adjective equivalent to alius or alter, and denotes 
 diversity, either of name or of subject. Hence or is 
 sometimes a perfect disjunctive, as when it expresses 
 contrariety or opposition of things ; and sometimes a 
 subdisjunctive, when it denotes simply a diversity in 
 name. Thus, when we say, '* It is either even or 
 odd," or is a perfect disjunctive, the two attributives 
 being directly contrary, and admitting no medium. 
 If I say, " Paris or Alexander ;" (these being names 
 of the same individual) or if I say, " Gravity or 
 weight," " Logic, or the art of reasoning," or in these 
 examples is a subdisjunctive or an explicative, as it 
 serves to define the meaning of the preceding term, 
 or as it expresses the equivalence of two terms. The 
 Latins express the former by aiit, vel^ and the latter 
 by sen or sive. In the following sentence both con- 
 junctions are exemplified, " Give me either the black 
 or the white ;" i, e, " Give me one of the two — the 
 black — other, the white." 
 
 To these are opposed neither, nor, as, " Give me 
 neither poverty nor riches ;" ^. e, " Give me not one 
 of the two, poverty — nor, i. e, not the other, riches." 
 
 Though is the same as thaf, an imperative from 
 thafan, to allow, and is in some parts of the country 
 pronounced thof; as, " Though he should speak truth, 
 I would not believe him ;" i. e, "allow or grant, what? 
 he should speak truth,'* or *' allow his speaking truth, 
 I would not believe him." 
 
 Hut, from beutan, the imperative of heon utan, to 
 
218 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 he out, is the same as without or unless, there being 
 no difference between these in respect to meaning. 
 Grammarians, however, in conformity to the distinc- 
 tion between nisi and sine, have called hut a conjunc- 
 tion, and without a preposition. But, therefore, being 
 a word signifying exception or exclusion, I have not 
 termed it an " adversative," as most grammarians have, 
 but an " exceptive." In this sense it is synonymous 
 with prceter, preterquam, or nisi ; thus, " I saw no- 
 body but John," i. e, " unless," or " except John." 
 
 But, from hot, the imperative of hotan, to hoot or 
 superadd,, has a very different meaning. This word 
 was originally written hot, and was thus distinguished 
 from hut *. They are now written alike, which tends 
 to create confusion. The meaning of this word is, 
 " add," or " moreover." This interpretation is con- 
 firmed by the probable derivation and meaning of 
 synonymous words in other languages. Thus, the 
 French mais (but) is from majus or magis, "more," 
 or " in addition ;" the Italian ma, the Spanish mas, 
 and the Dutch maar, are from the same etymon, sig- 
 nifying " more." And it is not improbable, that adsit 
 (be it present, or be it added) by contraction became 
 ast and at ; thus, adsit, adst, ast, at* In this sense, 
 hut is synonymous with at, autem, cceterum, " more- 
 over," or " in addition." 
 
 It is justly observed by Mr. Tooke, that hot or hut 
 allays or mitigates a good or a bad precedent, by the 
 
 * Bot scr thut Virgil staiidis hxil compare. — Gawin Douglass. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 219 
 
 addition of something; (ovbotan means "to superadd," 
 " to supply," "to atone for," " to compensate," " to 
 add something more," " to make amends," or " make 
 up deficiency." Thus, 
 
 " Once did I lay an ambush for your life, 
 A trespass, that doth vex my grieved soul. 
 But (bot) ere I last received the sacrament 
 I did confess" Richard II. 
 
 " Add (this) ere I last received." 
 
 When but means be out, or without, it should, 
 says Mr. Tooke, be preceded by a negative ; thus, 
 instead of saying, " I saw but John," which means, 
 " I saw John be out," we should say, '* I saw none 
 but John," i. e. *' none, John be out," or " had John 
 been out," or "John being excluded." This, ob- 
 serves the ingenious author, is one of the most faulty 
 ellipses in our language, and could never have ob- 
 tained, but through the utter ignorance of the mean- 
 ing of the word but (bot). 
 
 Yet, from the imperative oi getan, "to get." 
 
 Still, from stell or steall, the imperative of stellan, 
 ponerey " to suppose." 
 
 Home Tooke observing that these words, like if 
 and an *, are synonymous, accounts for their equival- 
 
 * An occurs frequently for if in the earliest English writers. 
 Bacon frequently uses it in this sense. " Fortune is to be ho- 
 noured and respected, ara it be but for her daughters. Confidence 
 and Reputation." " And certainly it is the nature of extreme 
 self-lovers, as they will set their house on fire, a7i it were, but to 
 
220 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 ence by supposing them to be derived from verbs of 
 the same import. His mode of derivation, however, 
 appears at first hearing to be incorrect, the meaning 
 of the conjunctions having little or no affinity to that 
 of the verbs. Mr. Tooke himself does not seem per- 
 fectly satisfied with its truth. Both these conjunc- 
 tions are synonymous with " notwithstanding," " ne- 
 vertheless," terms, the obvious meaning of which does 
 not accord with verbs denoting " to get," or " to sup- 
 pose." I am inclined, however, to think that Tooke's 
 conjecture is founded in truth. If I say, " he was 
 learned, yet modest," it may be expressed, " he was 
 learned, notwithstanding this, or this being granted, 
 even thus, or be it so {licet ita esset) he was modest ;" 
 where the general incompatibility between learning 
 and modesty is conceived, not expressed, the expres- 
 sion denoting merely the combination of the qualities 
 jn the individual mentioned. Notwithstanding in- 
 directly marks the repugnance, by signifying that the 
 one quality did not prevent the co-existence of the 
 other ; yet or still supposes the incompatibility to be 
 sufficiently known. This derivation is rendered the 
 more probable, as the word though (thof^ grant) 
 may be substituted to express the same idea, as 
 " though (grant) he was learned, he was modest," 
 
 roast their cg'^."— Bacon's Essays, Civ. and Mor. In the folio 
 edition, printed in 1740, it is improperly spelled and. An for if 
 is still retained in our address to royalty. Ant please t/our ina'^ 
 jesty : and in Scotland is in general use. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 221 
 
 which is equivalent to /' he was learned, yet (this 
 granted) he was modest." Hence many repeat the 
 concessive term, and say, " though he was learned, 
 yet he was modest.'' 
 
 Unless. There can be no doubt that this excep- 
 tive conjunction is properly onles, the imperative of 
 the verb onlesan, to dismiss ; thus, " you cannot be 
 saved unless you believe ;" L e, " dismiss your be- 
 lieving, and you cannot be saved," or " you cannot 
 be saved, your believing being dismissed." 
 
 Lest is contracted for lesed, the participle of the 
 same verb, onlesan or lesan^ signifying " dismissed ;" 
 as, '' Young men should take care to avoid bad com- 
 pany, lest their morals be corrupted, and their repu- 
 tation ruined ;" that is, " Young men should take 
 care to avoid bad company, lest (this being dismissed, 
 or omitted) their morals be corrupted," &c. 
 
 Thath evidently in all cases an adjective, or, as 
 some consider it, a demonstrative pronoun ; as, " They 
 say, that the king is arrived ;" " They say that (thing) 
 the king is arrived." 
 
 Whether is an adjective, denoting " which of two;" 
 thus, " Whether he live or die ;" that is, " Which of 
 the two things, he live, or die." 
 
 As is the same with es, a German article meaning 
 ity that, or which. 
 
 So is sa or so, a Gothic article of the same import. 
 
 Than, which Mr. Tooke does not seem to have 
 noticed, is supposed to be a compound of the defini- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 tive tha, and the additive termination en^ thus, tha en, 
 tJuenne, then, and now spelled than. 
 
 These few examples will serve to explain Mr. 
 Tooke's theory on this subject ; and I am persuaded, 
 that the further we investigate the etymology and 
 real import of conjunctions, the more probable it will 
 appear that they are all nouns or attributives, some 
 belonging to kindred languages, and others com- 
 pounds or abbreviations in our own. I am persuaded 
 also, that from a general review of this subject, it 
 must be evident that adverbs, prepositions, and con- 
 jimctions, form no distinct species of words, and 
 that they are all reducible to the class either of nouns 
 or attributives, if their original character and real 
 import be considered. But, as many of them are de- 
 rived from obsolete words in our own language, or from 
 words in kindred languages, the radical meanings of 
 which are, therefore, either obscure, or generally un- 
 known ; and as the syntactical use of several of them 
 has undergone a change, it can be no impropriety, 
 nay, it is even convenient, to regard them not in 
 their original character, but their present use. When 
 the radical word still remains, the case is different. 
 Thus except is by some considered as a preposition ; 
 but as the verb to except is still in use, except may, 
 and indeed should, be considered as the imperative 
 of the verb. But in parsing, to say that the word 
 unless is the imperative of the verb onlesany to dis- 
 miss, that verb belonging to a different language, 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 22S 
 
 would serve only to perplex and to confound. For this 
 reason, though I perfectly concur with Mr. Tooke as 
 to the proper and original import of these words, I 
 have distributed them under the customary heads of 
 prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions. 
 
224 ETYMOLOGV. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 OF INTERJECTIONS. 
 
 An interjection has been defined to be, " that part 
 of speech which denotes some affection or emotion of 
 the mind." It is clearly not a necessary part of 
 speech ; for, as Tooke observes, interjections are not 
 to be found in books of history, philosophy, or reli- 
 gion : they occur in novels only, or dramatic com- 
 positions. Some of these are entirely instinctive and 
 mechanical, as, ha ! ha ! ha ! sounds common to all men, 
 when agitated with laughter. These physical emis- 
 sions of sound have no more claim to be called parts 
 of speech than the neighing of a horse, or the lowing 
 of a cow. There are others which seem arbitrary, 
 and are expressive of some emotion, not simply by 
 the articulation, but by the accompanying voice or 
 gesture. Grief, for example, is expressed in English 
 by the word ah ! or oh ! in Latin by oi, ei ! and in 
 Greek by o/, oh a/, ai ! Here the sounds are not instinc- 
 tive, or purely mechanical, as in laughing ; but the 
 accompanying tone of voice, which is the same in all 
 men, under the influence of the same emotion, in- 
 dicates clearly the feeling or passion of the speaker. 
 Others, which have been deemed interjections, are, in 
 truth, verbs or nouns, employed in the rapidity of 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 225 
 
 thought and expression, and under the influence of 
 strong emotion, to denote, what would otherwise re- 
 quire more words to express ; as, strange ! for it is 
 strange ; adieu, for I recommend you to God; shame, 
 for it is shame ; welcome, for you are welcome. 
 
 The words, which have been considered by our En- 
 glish, grammarians as interjections, are the following, 
 expressive of 
 
 1. Joy, as Hey, lo. 
 
 2. Grief, Ah, alas, alack. 
 
 3. Wonder, Vah! hah! aha! 
 
 4. Aversion, Tush, pish, pshaw, fob, fie, pugh. 
 
 5. Laughter, Ha, ha, ha. 
 
 6. Desire of attention. Hark, lo, halloo, hem, hip. 
 
 7. Languor, Heigh ho. 
 
 8. Desire of silence. Hush, hist, mum. 
 
 9. Deliberation, Hum. 
 
 10. Exultation, Huzza. 
 
 11. Pain, O! ho! 
 
 12. Taking leave. Adieu. 
 
 13. Greeting, Welcome. 
 
PART II. 
 
 SYNTAX 
 
 Syntax is the arrangement of words in sentences 
 or phrases, agreeably to established usage, or to the 
 received rules of concord and government. 
 
 Sentences are either simple or complex. 
 
 A simple sentence consists of only one member, 
 containing therefore but one subject, and one finite 
 verb, as, " Alexander the Great is said to have wept." 
 
 A complex sentence consists of two or more mem- 
 bers, as, ** Alexander, when he had conquered the 
 world, is said to have wept, because there were not 
 other worlds to subdue." 
 
 Complex sentences are divided into members ; and 
 these, if complex, are subdivided into clauses, as, "The 
 ox knoweth his owner | and the ass his master's crib || 
 but Israel doth not know [ my people doth not con- 
 sider." This complex sentence has two members, each 
 of which contains two clauses. 
 
 When a member of a complex sentence is simple, 
 it is called indifferently a member, or a clause ; as, 
 ** I have called ; but ye have refused." The two 
 
SYNTAX. 227 
 
 parts, into which this sentence divides itself, are termed 
 each either a member or a clause. 
 
 When a complex sentence is so framed, that the 
 meaning is suspended till the whole be finished^ it is 
 called a period ; otherwise the sentence is said to be 
 loose. The following sentence is an example of a 
 period : " If Hannibal had not wintered at Capua, 
 by which circumstance his troops were enervated, 
 but had, on the contrary, after the battle of Cannae, 
 proceeded to Rome, it is not improbable that the 
 great city would have fallen." 
 
 The criterion of a period is, that you cannot stop 
 before you reach the end of the sentence, otherwise 
 the sentence is incomplete. The following is an 
 example of a loose sentence. '* One party had given 
 th^ir whole attention, during several years, to the 
 project of enriching themselves, and impoverishing 
 the rest of the nation ; and by these and other means 
 of establishing their dominion, under the government, 
 and with the favour of a family, who were foreign- 
 ers : and therefore might believe, they were esta- 
 blished on the throne, by the good-will and strength 
 of this party alone." In this sentence you may stop 
 at the words themselves, nation, dominion, govern^ 
 ment, ox foreigners ; and these pauses will severally 
 complete the construction, and conclude perfect sen- 
 tences. Thus in a period, the dependence of the 
 members is reciprocal ; in a loose sentence, the pre- 
 ceding are not necessarily dependent on the subse- 
 quent members ; whereas the following entirely de- 
 
 Ci2 
 
228 SYNTAX. 
 
 pend on those which are antecedent. The former 
 possesses more strength, and greater majesty ; hence 
 it is adapted to the graver subjects of history, phi- 
 losophy, and religion. The latter is less artificial, 
 and approaches nearer to the style of conversation ; 
 hence it is suited to the gayer and more familiar sub- 
 jects of tales, dialogues, and epistolary correspondence. 
 
 Concord is the agreement of one word with an- 
 other, in case, gender, number, or person ; thus, ** I 
 love." Here / is the pronoun singular of the first 
 person, and the verb is likewise in the first person, 
 and singular number ; they agree therefore in num- 
 ber and person. 
 
 Government is the power, which one word hath 
 over another in determining its state ; thus, " he 
 wounded us." In this sentence, wounded is an active 
 transitive verb, and governs the pronoun in the ob- 
 jective ease. 
 
SYNTAX. 229 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF CONCORD. 
 
 Rule I. — A verb agrees with its nomina- 
 tive in number and person, as, 
 
 We teach 
 He learns 
 
 where we and teach are each plural, and of 
 the first person ; he and learns are each sin- 
 gular, and of the third person. 
 
 Note 1. — This rule is violated in such examples 
 as these, " I likes," " thou loves," " he need," " you 
 was." In reference to the last example, the reader 
 should observe, that you is plural, whether it relate 
 to only one individual or to more, and ought therefore 
 to be joined with a plural verb. It is no argument 
 to say, that when we address a single person, we 
 should use a verb singular ; for were this plea ad- 
 missible, we ought to say, " you wast," for wast is 
 the second person singular, and not " you was," for 
 was is the first or third. Besides, no one says, " you 
 is," or " you art," but " you are." 
 
 Note 2. — The nominative to a verb is known by 
 putting the question, Who ? or What ? to the verb, 
 as, I read ; Who reads? Ans. /. 
 
 Note 3. — The infinitive often supplies the place 
 of a nominative to a verb, thus, '* To excel in every 
 
230 SYNTAX. 
 
 laudable pursuit should be the aim of every one." 
 What should be the aim ? Ans. " To excel." 
 
 Note 4. — As^ considered now, as a conjunction, 
 but being, in its primitive signification, equivalent 
 to iU that, or which, likewise supplies the place of 
 a nominative, thus, " As far as regards his interest, he 
 will be sufficiently careful not to offend." Some 
 grammarians suppose it to be understood. 
 
 Note 5. — A verb is frequently construed with a 
 whole clause as its nominative, thus, " His being at 
 enmity with Caesar was the cause of perpetual dis- 
 cord;'* where, his being at enmity, the subject of 
 the affirmation, forms the nominative to the verb. 
 
 Note 6. — The nominative, when the verb expresses 
 command or entreaty, is often suppressed, as, " speak" 
 for "speak thou," "honour the king" for "honour 
 ye the king." 
 
 Note 7. — A noun singular, used for a plural, is 
 joined to a plural verb, as, " Ten sail of the line 
 were descried at a distance." It has been already 
 observed, that the plural termination is sometimes 
 suppressed, as, " ten thousand," " three brace," 
 " four pair." 
 
 Note 8. — Priestley has said, that, when the particle 
 there is prefixed to a verb singular, a plural noun 
 may follow, " without a very sensible impropriety." 
 But, if there be an impropriety at all, why should 
 the phraseology be adopted ? His example is this, 
 " There necessarily follows from thence these plain 
 and unquestionable consequences." Nothing, we ap- 
 prehend, can justify this violation of analogy. It should 
 
SYNTAX. 231 
 
 be, " follow." Would Dr. Priestley have said, " There 
 is men who never reason?" 
 
 ^ote 9. — The nominative generally precedes the 
 verb, and is, in some examples, known by nothing 
 but its place. This arrangement, however, is some- 
 times altered, and the verb placed before the nomi- 
 native. 
 
 1st, Where the sentence is interrogative, as, 
 " Does wealth make men happy ?" Here the nomi- 
 native wealth follows the auxiliary : " wealth does*' 
 would denote affirmation. " Stands Scotland where 
 it did ?" Here also the nominative follows the verb, 
 to denote interrogation *. 
 
 2!dly, In expressing commands or requests, as, "go 
 thou," " read ye." 
 
 3dly, When a supposition is elliptically expressed, 
 the conditional particle if being understood, as, 
 ** Were I Alexander," said Parmenio, " I would ac- 
 cept the offer," where ** were I" is equivalent to " if 
 I were." 
 
 4thly, After the introductory word there, as, 
 
 " There was a man sent by God, whose name was 
 
 John." " There are many who have the wisdom to 
 
 prefer virtue to every other acquirement." This ar- 
 
 * This phraseology has been censured by Buchanan and the 
 author of the British Grammar ; but, as I apprehend, without 
 the shadow of authority. To ask a question with a principal 
 verb, as, burns he, the latter affirms to be a barbarism. To dis- 
 prove the assertion, I shall only, in addition to the one quoted 
 from Macbeth, produce these examples. " Simon, son of Jonas, 
 lovest thou me ?" — Bible. " Died he not in bed ?" — Shakspeare. 
 "Or flies the javelin swifter to its mark?" — lb. '' And live 
 there men who slight immortal fame ?" — Pope. 
 
232 SYNTAX. 
 
 rangement is preferable to " a man was sent," ** many 
 are," &c. ; and, as a general rule, I observe, that this 
 collocation is not only proper but requisite, when a 
 sentiment of importance is to be introduced to the 
 hearer's particular attention. 
 
 5thly, When the speaker is under the influence 
 of vehement emotion, or when vivacity and force are 
 to be imparted to the expression, the nominative 
 energetically follows the verb, as, " Great is Diana of 
 the Ephesians." Alter the arrangement, saying, 
 ** Diana of the Ephesians is great," and you efface 
 the signature of impetuosity, and render the ex- 
 pression frigid and unaffecting. ** Blessed is he, that 
 Cometh in the name of the Lord." " He is blessed" 
 would convert, as Campbell judiciously observes, a 
 fervid exclamation into a cold aphorism. " Fallen, 
 fallen is Babylon, that great city." The energy of 
 the last expression arises partly, I acknowledge, from 
 the epijeuxis or reduplication *. 
 
 6thly, The auxiliary verb is placed before the no- 
 minative, when the sentence or member begins with 
 7ior or neither y as, ** Nor did we doubt that rectitude 
 of conduct would eventually prove itself the best 
 policy." Thus also is placed the principal verb, as, 
 ** Nor left he in the city a soul alive." 
 
 Besides the cases now enumerated, in which the 
 verb should precede the nominative, there are several 
 
 * Our translators, as the judicious critic last quoted observes, 
 have totally enervated the strength of the original, which runs 
 thus, ETrecFEy etze(te \\at>v\it}v >/ 7ro\(<; >/ fiEyaXrj, and which they 
 have rendered, " Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city." 
 
SYNTAX. 233 
 
 others not easily reducible to any precise rule. In 
 general, however, it may be remarked, that the place 
 of the nominative depends, in some degree, on its 
 connexion with other parts of the sentence. '* Hence 
 appears the impossibility, that this undertaking 
 should be carried on in a monarchy." Impossibility 
 being here in sense closely connected with the fol- 
 lowing words, this arrangement is preferable to that 
 in the original. Hume says, " Hence the impos- 
 sibility appears, that this undertaking should be 
 carried on in a monarchy." 
 
 Priestley has said, that nouns, whose form is plural, 
 but signification singular, require a singular verb, 
 as, " Mathematics is a useful study." This observa- 
 tion, however, is not justified by general usage, re- 
 putable writers being in this case much divided. (See 
 p. 26.) 
 
 Rule II. — Two or more substantives sin- 
 gular, denoting different things, being equi- 
 valent to a plural, take a plural verb : or, 
 when two or more substantives singular are 
 collectively subjects of discourse, they require 
 a plural verb, and plural representatives, as, 
 ^' Cato and Cicero wtre learned men ; and 
 they loved their country.'' 
 
 Note 1. — This rule is violated in such examples 
 as this, " I do not think, that leisure of life and tran- 
 quillity of mind, which fortune and your own wisdom 
 has given you, could be better employed." — Swift, 
 
234 SYNTAX. 
 
 Note 2. — It was customary with the writers of 
 antiquity, when the substantives were nearly synony- 
 mous, to employ a verb singular, as, mens^ ratio et 
 consilium in senibus est, " understanding, reason, and 
 prudence is in old men.'^ In imitation of these, some 
 English authors have, in similar instances, employed 
 a verb singular. I concur, however, with L. Murray 
 in disapproving this phraseology. For either the 
 terms are synonymous, or they are not. If their equi- 
 valence be admitted, all but one are redundant, and 
 there is only one subject of discourse ; only one term 
 should therefore be retained, and a verb singular be 
 joined with it. If they be not equivalent, there are 
 as many distinct ideas as there are terms, and a plu- 
 rality of subjects require a plural verb. 
 
 This observation, however, requires some limitation. 
 It occasionally happens that one subject is represented 
 by two names, neither of which singly would express 
 it with sufficient strength. In such cases, the two 
 nouns 7nay take a verb singular ; and if the noun 
 singular should be in juxtaposition with the verb, 
 the singular number should he used ; as, " Why is 
 dust and ashes proud ?" —Ecclesiasticus, chap. 10. 
 
 Note 3. — In such expressions as the following, it 
 has been doubted, whether the verb should be in the 
 singular, or in the plural number : " Every officer 
 and soldier claim a superiority in regard to other in- 
 dividuals." — JDe Lolnie on the British Constitution. 
 Here, I conceive, the phraseology is correct. Such an 
 expression as "every officer and soldier claims*' might 
 signify one individual under two different desig- 
 
SYNTAX. 235 
 
 nations. Whether we should say ** Every officer, and 
 every soldier, claim," is a point more particularly 
 questioned. We often hear correct speakers say in 
 common conversation, " Every clergyman, and every 
 physician, is by education a gentleman ;" and there 
 seems to be more ease, as well as more precision, in 
 this, than in the other mode of expression. It is un- 
 questionably, however, more agreeable to analogy 
 to say " are gentlemen." 
 
 Note 4. — It is not necessary, that the subjects of 
 discourse be connected, or associated by conjunctions: 
 it is sufficient, if the terms form a plurality of sub- 
 jects to a common predicate, whether with or with- 
 out any connexive word, as, " Honour, justice, religion 
 itself, were derided and blasphemed by these pro- 
 fligate wretches*." In this example the copulative 
 is omitted. "The king, with the lords and com- 
 mons, constitute an excellent form of government." 
 Here the connexive word is not a conjunction but a 
 preposition ; and though the lords and commons be 
 properly in the objective case, and the Mug therefore 
 the only nominative to the verb, yet as the three 
 subjects collectively constitute the government, the 
 verb without impropriety is put in the plural number. 
 This phraseology, though not strictly consonant with 
 the rules of concord, frequently obtains both in an- 
 
 * The ellipsis of the copulative, in such examples, was termed 
 by the ancients asyndeton; and this deviation from the established 
 rules of syntax they referred to a grammatical figure termed 
 syllepsis indirecta, or '*^ indirect comprehension of several singu- 
 lars under one plural/' opposed to the syllepsis direcla, or that 
 expressed by a copulative. 
 
236 SYNTAX. 
 
 cient and modern languages : in some cases indeed 
 it seems preferable to the syntactical form of ex- 
 pression. 
 
 Note 5.-— Where comparison is expressed or im- 
 plied, and not combination, the verb should be 
 singular ; thus, " Caesar, as well as Cicero, was re- 
 markable for eloquence." 
 
 As she laughed out, until her back. 
 
 As well as sides, mas like to crack." — Hudibras. 
 
 Note 6. — ^When the nominatives are of different 
 persons, the first person is preferred to the second, 
 and the second to the third. In other words, / and 
 you, I and he, are sylleptically the same as we ; you 
 and he the same as ye. This observation, however, 
 is scarcely necessary, as the verb plural admits no 
 personal inflexion: it can be useful only in deter- 
 mining what pronoun should be the representative of 
 the terms collectively, as, " he and I shared it be- 
 tween w*." 
 
 Note 7. — In the learned languages the pronoun 
 of the first person is deemed more worthy than that 
 of the second, and the second than that of the third ; 
 and hence arises the syllepsis of persons which obtains 
 in Greek and Latin. But, though we admit the 
 figure in English, we do not precisely adopt the ar- 
 rangement of the Latins ; for though, like them, we 
 place the pronoun of the second person before that of 
 the third, we modestly place the pronoun of the first 
 person after those of the second and third. Thus, 
 
SYNTAX. 237 
 
 where a Roman would say, si tu et Tullia valetis, 
 ego et Cicero valemus, we should say, ** If you and 
 Tullia are well, Cicero and I are well." 
 
 Rule III. — When of two or more sub- 
 stantives singular, one exclusively is the 
 subject of discourse, a verb singular is re- 
 quired, as, " John, James, or Andrew, in- 
 tends to accompany you ;" that is, one of 
 the three, but not more than one. 
 
 Note. — When the predicate is to be applied to the 
 different subjects, though they be disjoined by the 
 conjunction, they may be followed by a plural verb. 
 " Neither you, nor I, are in fault." This is the usual 
 form of expression. If we consider neither in its 
 proper character, as a pronoun, we should say, " nei- 
 ther you, nor I, is in fault ;" neither being the nomi- 
 native to the verb. The former, however, is the 
 common phraseology, and is analogous to the Latin 
 idiom. *' Quando nee gnatus, nee hie, mihi quicquam 
 obtemperant." — Ter, Hec. " Id neque ego, neque 
 tu, fecimus." — Id, " Num Lselius, aut qui Duxit 
 ab oppressa meritum Carthagine nomen, Ingenio 
 offensi ?" — Hot, 
 
 Rule IV. — Nouns of number, orcollective 
 nouns, may have a singular or plural verb, 
 thus. 
 
238 SYNTAX. 
 
 " My people do not consider/', 
 " My people does not consider/' 
 
 This licence, however, as Priestley observes, is not 
 entirely arbitrary. If the term immediately suggest 
 the idea of number, the verb is preferably made 
 plural ; but, if it suggest the idea of a whole or unity, 
 it should be singular. Thus it seems harsh and un- 
 natural to say, " In France the peasantry goes bare- 
 foot, and the middle sort makes use of wooden shoes." 
 It would be better to say, " the peasantry^©" — " the 
 middle sort make ;" because the idea is that of num- 
 ber. On the contrary, there is something incongruous 
 and unnatural in these expressions, " The court of 
 Rome were not without solicitude — The house of 
 commons were of small weight — Stephen's party were 
 entirely broken up." — Hume, 
 
 Rule V. — The adjectives this and that 
 agree with their substantives in number, as, 
 
 This man These men 
 
 That woman Those zmmen 
 
 All other adjectives are inflexible, as, 
 
 Good man Good men. 
 
 Note 1. — This rule is violated in such expressions 
 as these, which too frequently occur, " These kind of 
 people." " Those sort of goods." 
 
 Note 2. — The substantive, with which the mljec- 
 
SYNTAX. 2S9 
 
 tive is connected, is ascertained by putting the ques- 
 tion, who, or what ? to the adjective, as, " a ripe 
 apple." What is ripe ? Ans. " the apple." 
 
 N^ote S. — Every adjective has a substantive, either 
 expressed or understood, as, " the just shall live by 
 faith," L e. " the just man," " few were present," i, e. 
 " few persons/' 
 
 ^ote 4. — The adjective is generally placed imme- 
 diately before the substantive, as, "a learned man," 
 " a chaste woman." 
 
 JSxe. 1 . — When the adjective is closely connected 
 with some other word, by which its meaning is mo- 
 dified or explained, as, ^' a man loyal to his prince," 
 where the attributive loi/al is closely connected with 
 the following words. 
 
 Exc. 2. — When the verb to he expresses simple 
 affirmation, as, ** thou art good ;" or when any other 
 verb serves as a mere copula to unite the predicate 
 with its subject, as, " he seems courageous," " it looks 
 strange." 
 
 Exc, 3. — For the sake of harmony, as, "Hail! bard 
 divine." 
 
 Exc, 4. — When there are more adjectives than 
 one connected with the substantive, as, " a man wise, 
 valiant, and good." 
 
 JSxc. 5.— Adjectives denoting extent, whether of 
 space or of time, are put after the clause expressing 
 the measure, as, " a wall ten feet high," ** a child 
 three years old," " a speech an hour long." 
 
2140 SYNTAX. 
 
 Note 5. — It has been doubted, whether the cardinal 
 should precede or follow the ordinal numeral. Atter- 
 bury says, in one of his letters to Pope, " Not but 
 that the four first lines are good." We conceive the 
 expression to be quite correct, though the other form, 
 namely, " the first four," be often employed to denote 
 the same conception. There is no contrast intended 
 between these four and any other four, otherwise he 
 should have said, *' The first four." 
 
 Note 6. — Each is employed to denote two things 
 taken separately, and is therefore used as singular *. 
 Either is also singular, and implies only one of two ; 
 as, taJee either, that is, " the one or the other, but not 
 both." Both is a plural adjective, and denotes the 
 two collectively. 
 
 Note 7. — Every is an adjective singular, applied 
 to more than two subjects taken individually, and 
 comprehends them all. It is sometimes joined to a 
 plural noun, when the things are conceived as form- 
 ing one aggregate, as, every twelve years, i. e. " every 
 period of twelve years." 
 
 Note 8. — All is an adjective either singular or 
 plural, denoting the whole, whether quantity or 
 number, as, " all men are mortal.'* " Six days shalt 
 thou labour and do all thy work." 
 
 Note 9. — Much is an adjective of quantity, and 
 of the singular niunber, as, " much fruit." Many 
 
 * It is sometimes used for every, and applied to more than two. 
 
SYNTAX. S41 
 
 an adjective of number, and therefore plural, aS) 
 "many men." This word, however, is sometimes 
 construed with a noun singular, as, 
 
 " Many a poor man's son would have lain still." — Shakspeare. 
 
 Note 10 — More, as the comparative of much, is 
 singular, denoting a greater quantity ; as the com- 
 parative of many, it is plural, and signifies a greater 
 number, as, more fruit, or "a greater quantity,'* 
 more men, or '*a greater number." 
 
 Note 11. — Enough is an adjective singular, and 
 denotes quantity, as '* bread enough ;" enow denotes 
 number, as, " books enow." 
 
 Note 12. — The correlative word to the adjective 
 such, is as and not who. There is an impropriety in 
 saying, with Mr. Addison, " Such, who are lovers of 
 mankind," instead of " Such as," or " Those who." 
 
 Note 13. — The superlative degree is followed by 
 of, and also the comparative, when selection is im- 
 plied, as, " Hector was the bravest of the Trojans.*' 
 " Africanus was the greater of the (two) Scipios." 
 When opposition is signified, the comparative is fol- 
 lowed by than, as, " Wisdom is better than wealth." 
 
 Note 14. — There is an ambiguity in the adjective 
 no, against which it is necessary to guard, and which 
 Priestley seems to think that it is impossible to avoid 
 in any language. Thus, if we say, " No laws are 
 better than the English," it may mean either, that 
 the absence of all law is better than the English 
 laws, or that no code of jurisprudence is superior to 
 
 R 
 
242 SYNTAX. 
 
 the English. If the latter be the meaning intended, 
 the ambiguity is removed by saying, " There are no 
 laws better than the English," If the former is the 
 sentiment to be expressed, we might say, " The ab- 
 sence of all law is preferable to the English system." 
 
 Note 15. — Adjectives are sometimes improperly 
 used for adverbs, as indifferent well, extreme had, for 
 indifferently well, extremely had. An example of 
 this error is also found in the following sentence. 
 " He was interrogated relative to that circumstance." 
 Relative is an adjective, and must have a substantive 
 expressed or understood ; the question is then, what, 
 or who was relative ? The answer, according to the 
 rules of construction, should be he. This however is 
 not the meaning. The word ought to be relatively. 
 
 I am somewhat, however, inclined to think, that 
 our grammarians have been hypercritical, if not 
 chargeable with error, in condemning such expres- 
 sions as these, exceeding great, exceeding strong. 
 This phraseology, I apprehend, has been reprobated, 
 partly because not conformable to the Latin idiom, 
 and partly because such expressions as these, exces- 
 sive good, extreme dear, excellent well, are justly 
 repudiated. Neither of these, however, can be deemed 
 a sufficient reason for condemning this phraseology. 
 For when it is said, " His strength was exceeding 
 great,'* may not the expression be considered as 
 elliptical, the word exceeding being construed as a 
 participle, thus, " his strength was exceeding," or 
 ** surpassing great strength," that is, "his strength 
 
SYNTAX. 243 
 
 exceeded great strength *." So Shakspeare says, 
 "it was passing strange," i. e, "it was more than 
 strange," or "it surpassed strange." I admit, at 
 the same time, that exceedingly strong, exceedingly 
 good, are the preferable phraseologies. 
 
 Rule VI. — The article a or an is joined 
 to nouns of the singular number only, or 
 nouns denoting a plurality of things in one 
 aggregate, as, 
 
 A man An army A thousand A few. 
 
 * In the vulgar translation of the Bible, this mode of expres- 
 sion frequently occurs, thus, 
 
 " I am thy exceeding great reward." 
 " I will make thee exceeding fruitful." 
 
 Wallis's admission of this phraseology proves it to have been 
 good English, when he wrote, or that, in his opinion at least, it 
 was unobjectionable. His translation of vir summe sapiens, is, 
 " a man exceeding wise." This, and similar, modes of expression, 
 appear to have been in his time very common, thus, 
 
 " Although he was exceeding wealthy." — Peers. 
 " He was moreover extraordinary courteous." — Ibid. 
 
 " The Athenians were extreme apprehensive of his growing 
 power." — Tullie. 
 
 And in our version of the Bible we find a few such expressions 
 as the following : 
 
 " The house, I am to build, shall be wonderful great." 
 
 Addison likewise often uses the phrase " exceeding great," and 
 Swift, less pardonably, writes "extreme unwilling," "extreme 
 good." 
 
 R 2! 
 
iu 
 
 SYNTAX, 
 
 N^ote 1. — To distinguish between the use of a 
 and an, it is usually given as a general rule that a 
 be placed before consonants and h aspirated, and an 
 before vowels and k not aspirated, as, a table, a hat 
 an oak, an heir. This rule is defective, for we say, 
 a youth, a yeoman, a woman, a eunuch, Sheridan, 
 therefore, in his Preface to Swift, has very properly 
 remarked that all words beginning with u, when it 
 has the diphthongal sound of eu, should be preceded 
 by a not an. In addition to this it may be observed, 
 that a is admitted before the simple sound of u, fol- 
 lowed by another vowel sound, as, such a one, a wo- 
 man. If the sound of one be analysed, we shall find 
 it resolvable into oo-un or won, as some writers on 
 pronunciation have expressed it, and woman into oo- 
 umman, I would also add, that a is used before the 
 diphthongal sound of eu, in whatsoever manner that 
 sound may be noted, as, a use, a eunuch, a youth, 
 and uniformly before y and w. 
 
 Note 2. — A is employed to express one individual 
 of a species without determining who or which ; the 
 denotes some particular individual or individuals ; 
 thus, " a book" means any book, " the book" some 
 particular book ; and when both articles are omitted 
 the whole class is signified, as, " man is born unto 
 trouble," i. e, " all men." Hobbes errs against this 
 rule when he says, " God Almighty has given reason 
 to a man, to be a light unto him." The article 
 should be suppressed. Pope commits a similar error 
 when he writes, 
 
SYNTAX. 245 
 
 " Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel." 
 It is not any wheel, that he meant to express, but a 
 known instrument of torture, or " the wheel." 
 
 The article a serves to distinguish between two sub- 
 jects compared with each other, and two subjects com- 
 pared with a third, " He is the author of two works 
 of a different character." If the writer meant to say 
 that he was the author of two works of a different 
 character from that of one previously mentioned, the 
 expression would be correct. But he intended to 
 signify a dissimilarity between the two productions. 
 He should, therefore, have omitted the article, and 
 said, "of different character, or of different characters." 
 
 Note 3. — The indefinite article, though generally 
 placed before the adjective, as, " a good man," is put 
 after the adjective mich; and where these words of 
 comparison occur, as, so, too, JioWi its place is be- 
 tween the adjective and substantive, thus, " such a 
 gift is too small a reward for so great a service." 
 When the order is inverted, this rule is not observed, 
 as, "a reward so small," " a service so great." The 
 definite article is likewise placed before the adjective, 
 as, " the great king." All is the only adjective 
 which precedes the article. ** All the servants," " all 
 the money." 
 
 Note 4. — Pronouns and proper names do not ad- 
 mit the definite article, themselves sufficiently deter- 
 mining the subject of discourse ; thus we cannot say, 
 the /, the Alexander, If we employ the definite 
 
246 , SYNTAX. 
 
 article with a proper name, an ellipsis is involved ; 
 thus, if I say, he commands the Ccesar, I mean, he 
 commands the ship called " Caesar." 
 
 Note 5. — The definite article is used to distinguish 
 the explicative from the determinative sense. The 
 omission of the article, when the sense is restricted, 
 creates ambiguity. For this reason the following 
 sentence is faulty ; " All words, which are signs of 
 complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake." — Boling- 
 broke. Here the clause, '* which are signs of com- 
 plex ideas," is not explicative, but restrictive ; for all 
 words are not signs of complex ideas. It should, 
 therefore, be " all the," or " all those words, which 
 are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mis- 
 take." 
 
 " In all cases of prescription, the universal practice 
 of judges is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute 
 of Limitations, to decide against incorporeal rights, 
 which for many years have been relinquished." — 
 Erskine on the Rights of Juries, This sentence is 
 chargeable at once with ambiguity and error. In the 
 first place, it is doubtful whether a regard to this 
 analogy governs the directions of the judge, or is to 
 rule the decision of the jury. 2dly, By the omission 
 of the definite article, or the word those before the 
 antecedent, he has rendered the relative clause expli- 
 cative, instead of being restrictive. For, as all in- 
 corporeal rights are not abolished, he should have 
 said, " against those incorporeal rights." 
 
SYNTAX. 247 
 
 There are certain cases, indeed, in which the ante- 
 cedent clause admits the definite article, though the 
 relative clause be not restrictive, thus, 
 
 " Blest are the pure, whose hearts are clean 
 From the defiling power of sin." 
 
 Here the relative clause is merely explanatory, yet 
 the antecedent admits the article. Thus also, in the 
 following sentence, " my goodness extendeth not to 
 thee, but to the saints, and the excellent ones, in 
 whom is all my delight." The relative clause is not 
 intended to limit the meaning of the antecedent 
 terms, and yet they admit the definite article. In 
 all examples, therefore, like these, where the explana- 
 tory meaning admits the article, it is necessary, for 
 the sake of perspicuity, to mark the determinative 
 sense by the emphatic words that or those. Thus 
 had the clause been determinative in the latter of 
 these examples, it would have been necessary to say, 
 ^* those saints, and those excellent ones, in whom is 
 my delight/' 
 
 Note 6. — The definite article is likewise used to 
 distinguish between things which are individually 
 different, but have one generic name, and things 
 which are, in truth, one and the same, but are cha- 
 racterized by several qualities. For example, if I 
 should say, " the red and blue vestments were most 
 admired," it may be doubtful whether I mean that 
 the union of red and blue in the same vestments was 
 
248 SYNTAX. 
 
 most admired, or that the red and the blue vestments 
 were both more admired than the rest. In strictness 
 of speech, the former is the only proper meaning of 
 the words, though the latter sentiment be often thus 
 expressed. If the latter be intended, we should say, 
 " the red vestments and the blue," or " the red and 
 the blue vestments," where the article is repeated. 
 If I say, " the red and blue vestments," it is obvious 
 that only one subject is expressed, namely, " vest- 
 ments," characterized by two qualities, " redness" and 
 *' blueness," as combined in the subject. Here the 
 subject is one; its qualities are plural. If I say, 
 " the red vestments and the blue," or " the red and 
 the blue vestments," the subjects are plural, expressed, 
 however, by one generic name, vestments. 
 
 In the same manner, if we say, " the ecclesiastical 
 and secular powers concurred in this measure," the 
 expression is ambiguous, as far as language can ren- 
 der it such. The reader's knowledge, as Dr. Camp- 
 bell observes, may prevent his mistaking it ; but, if 
 such modes of expression be admitted, where the sense 
 is clear, they may inadvertently be imitated in cases, 
 where the meaning would be obscure, if not entirely 
 misunderstood. The error might have been avoided, 
 either by repeating the substantive, or by subjoining 
 the substantive to the first adjective, and prefixing 
 the articles to both adjectives; or by placing the 
 substantives after both adjectives, the article being 
 prefixed in the same manner ; thus, " the ecclesiasti- 
 cal powers, and the secular powers," or better " the 
 
SYNTAX. 249 
 
 ecclesiastical powers, and the secular," or " the eccle- 
 siastical, and the secular powers." The repetition of 
 the article shows, that the second adjective is not an 
 additional epithet to the same subject, but belongs 
 to a subject totally different, though expressed by the 
 same generic name. " The lords spiritual and tem- 
 poral," is a phraseology objectionable on the same 
 principle, though now so long sanctioned by usage, 
 that we dare hardly question its propriety. The 
 subjects are different, though they have but one 
 generic name. It should therefore be, ** the spiritual 
 and the temporal lords." 
 
 On the contrary, when two or more adjectives be- 
 long as epithets to one and the same thing, the other 
 arrangement is to be preferred. Thus, "the high 
 and mighty states." Here both epithets belong to 
 one subject. " The states high and mighty," would 
 convey the same idea. 
 
 Where the article is not used, the place of the 
 substantive ought to show, whether both adjectives 
 belong to the same thing, or to different things 
 having the same generic name. " Like an house- 
 holder, who bringeth out of his treasure things new 
 and old." This arrangement is faulty; both epi- 
 thets cannot belong to the same subject. It should 
 be, " new things and old." 
 
 If both adjectives belong to one and the same sub- 
 ject, the substantive ought either to precede both 
 adjectives, or to follow both, the article being uni- 
 formly omitted before the second adjective, whether 
 
25a SYNTAX. 
 
 prefixed to the substantive before the first, or sup- 
 pressed. If, on the contrary, they belong to different 
 subjects, with the same name, the substantive ought 
 to follow the first adjective, and may be either re- 
 peated after the second, or understood ; or it should 
 follow both adjectives, the article being prefixed to 
 each of them. 
 
 Note 7. — The omission, or the insertion of the 
 indefinite article, in some instances, nearly reverses 
 the meaning ; thus, 
 
 " Ah, little think the gay, licentious proud." — Thomson. 
 
 Here little is equivalent to " not much," or rather by 
 a common trope it denotes not at all. Locke says, 
 " I leave him to reconcile these contradictions, which 
 may be plentifully found in him by any one, who 
 reads with but a little attention." Here, on the con- 
 trary, where the indefinite article is inserted, " a 
 little" means " not none," or " some." 
 
 In like manner, when it is said, " Strait is the 
 gate, and narrow is the way, and few there be that 
 findit:"^z(? is opposed to many. Thus also, ^^Many 
 are called, hut few are chosen." But when it is said, 
 " Tarry a few days, till thy brother's fury turn," a 
 Jew is here equivalent to some, not as opposed to 
 many, but as opposed to not none. If we say, ^^few 
 accompanied the prince," we seem to diminish the 
 number, and represent it as inconsiderable, as if we 
 said, " not many," or " fewer than expectation :" if we 
 say, a few, we seem to amplify ; — we represent the 
 
SYNTAX. 251 
 
 number as not unworthy of attention, or as equal, at 
 least, if not superior to expectation. In short, if the 
 article be inserted, the clause is equivalent to a double 
 negative, and thus it serves to amplify ; if the article 
 be suppressed, the expression has either a diminutive 
 or a negative import. 
 
 Note 8. — The indefinite article has, sometimes, 
 the meaning of every or each ; thus, " they cost five 
 shillings a dozen," that is, *' every dozen." 
 
 *' What makes all doctrines plain and clear? 
 About two hundred pounds a year." — Hudibras. 
 
 that is, " every year." 
 
 Note 9. — There is a particular use of this article, 
 which merits attention, as ambiguity may thus, in 
 many cases, be avoided. In denoting comparison, 
 when the article is suppressed before the second term, 
 the latter, though it may be an appellative, assumes 
 the character of an attributive, and becomes the pre- 
 dicate of the subject, or first term. If, on the con- 
 trary, the second term be prefaced with the article* 
 it continues an appellative, and forms the other sub- 
 ject of comparison. In the former case, the subject, 
 as possessing different qualities in various degrees, is 
 compared with itself; in the latter, it is compared 
 with something else. 
 
 Thus, if we say, ** he is a better soldier than 
 scholar," the article is suppressed before the second 
 term, and the expression is equivalent to, '*he is 
 more warlike than learned," or ** he possesses the 
 
252 SYNTAX. 
 
 qualities, which form the soldier, in a greater degree 
 than those, which constitute the scholar." If we say, 
 "he would make a better soldier, than a scholar," 
 here the article is prefixed to the second term ; this 
 term, therefore, retains the character of an appellative, 
 and forms the second subject of comparison. The 
 meaning accordingly is, " he would make a better 
 soldier, than a scholar would make ;" that is, " he 
 has more of the constituent qualities of a soldier, 
 than are to be found in any literary man." 
 
 Pope commits a similar error, when, in one of his 
 letters to Atterbury, he says, " You thought me not 
 a worse man, than poet." This strictly means " a 
 worse man than a poet is ;" whereas he intended to 
 say, that his moral qualities were not inferior to his 
 poetical genius. He should have said, " a worse man, 
 than poet." 
 
 These two phraseologies are frequently confounded, 
 which seldom fails to create ambiguity. Baker erro- 
 neously considers them as equivalent, and prefers that, 
 in which the article is omitted before the second sub- 
 stantive. When there are two subjects with one 
 predicate, the article should be inserted ; but when 
 there is one subject with two predicates, it should 
 be omitted. 
 
 Note 10. — Perspicuity in like manner requires, 
 that, when an additional epithet or description of 
 the same subject is intended, the definite article 
 should not be employed. It is by an attention to 
 this rule, that we clearly distinguish between subject 
 
SYNTAX. 253 
 
 and predicate. For this reason, the following sen- 
 tence appears to me faulty : " The apostle James, 
 the son of Zebedee, and the brother of St. John, 
 would be declared the apostle of the Britons." — 
 Henry's Histonj of Britain, It should be rather, 
 " and brother of St, John." When a diversity of 
 persons, or a change of subject is intended to be ex- 
 pressed, the definite article is necessarily employed, 
 as, " Cincinnatus the dictator, and the master of 
 horse, marched against the jEqui." The definite 
 article before the latter appellative marks the di- 
 versity of subject, and clearly shows that two persons 
 are designed. Were the article omitted, the expression 
 would imply, that the dictator, and the master of 
 horse, were one and the same individual. 
 
 Rule VII. — Substantives signifying the 
 same thing agree in case, thus, " I, George 
 the Third, king of Great Britain, defender 
 of the faith.'' The words J, George, king^ 
 defender, are all considered as the nominative 
 case. " The chief of the princes, he who de- 
 fied the bravest of the enemy, was assassi- 
 nated by a dastardly villain :'' where the 
 pronoun he agrees in case with the preceding 
 term chief This rule, however, may be 
 deemed unnecessary, as all such expressions 
 are elliptical ; thus, '^ the chief of the princes 
 was assassinated,'' " he was assassinated." 
 
254 SYNTAX. 
 
 " He was the son of the Rev. Dr. West, per- 
 haps him who published Pindar at Oxford.'' 
 — Johnsons Life of West, That is, " the son 
 of him.'' Were the pronoun in the nomi- 
 native case, it would refer to the son, and not 
 the father, and thus convey a very different 
 meaning. 
 
 Note 1. — As proper names are, by the trope anto- 
 nomasia, frequently used for appellatives, as when 
 we say, "the Socrates of the present age," where 
 Socrates is equivalent to " the wisest man," so also 
 appellatives have frequently the meaning and force 
 of attributives. Thus, if we say, " he is a soldier," 
 it means either that he is by profession a soldier, or 
 that he possesses all the qualities of a military man, 
 whether professionally a soldier or not. According 
 to the former acceptation of the term, it is a mere 
 appellative ; agreeably to the latter, it has the force 
 of an attributive. 
 
 Note 2. — Two or more substantives in concord- 
 ance, and forming one complex name, or a name and 
 title, have the plural termination annexed to the last 
 only, as, " the two miss Louisa Howards, the two 
 miss Thomsons'^ Analogy, Dr. Priestley observes, 
 would plead in favour of another construction, and 
 lead us to say, the two misses Thomson ^ the two 
 misses Louisa Howard; " for, if the ellipsis were 
 supplied, we should say, the two young ladies of the 
 
SYNTAX. 0^55 
 
 name of Thomson, and this construction, he adds, he 
 has somewhere met with." 
 
 The latter form of expression, it is true, occasionally 
 occurs ; but general usage, and, I am rather inclined 
 to think, analogy likewise, decide in favour of the 
 former ; for, with a few exceptions, and these not 
 parallel to the examples now given *, we almost uni- 
 formly, in complex names, confine the inflexion to 
 the last substantive. Some proofs of this we shall 
 afterwards have an opportunity of offering. I would 
 also observe, in passing, that ellipsis and analogy are 
 different principles, and should be carefully distin- 
 guished. 
 
 Rule VIII. — One substantive governs 
 another, signifying a different thing, in the 
 genitive, as, 
 
 The tyrant's rage. The apostle's feet. 
 
 N^ote 1. — This rule takes place when property, 
 possession, or the general relation, by which one 
 thing appertains to another, is implied. 
 
 ^ote 2. — It may be considered as violated in such 
 examples as these, " Longinus his Treatise on the 
 Sublime." — Addison. " Christ his sake." — Common 
 Prayer, 
 
 * We say, indeed, " Messrs. Thomson ;" but we seldom or 
 never say, '^tlie two Messrs. Thomson/' but "the two Mr. 
 Thomsons." 
 
256 SYNTAX. 
 
 ^ote 3. — Substantives govern not only nouns, 
 but likewise pronouns, as, " its strength," " his re- 
 ward." 
 
 Note 4. — This case is generally resolvable into the 
 objective with the preposition of, as, " the king's 
 sceptre," or " the sceptre of the king ;" " his head," 
 or, " the head of him." I have said generally^ for 
 it is not always thus resolvable. For example, the 
 Christian sabbath is sometimes named " the Lord's 
 day," but " the day of the Lord" conveys a different 
 idea, and denotes "the day of judgment." 
 
 Note 5. — The latter, or governing substantive, is 
 frequently understood, as, " the king will come to St. 
 James's to-morrow," that is, " St. James's palace." 
 " I found him at the stationer's," that is, " the sta- 
 tioner's shop," or " the stationer's house." 
 
 Note 6. — ^When a single subject is expressed as 
 the common property of two or more persons, the last 
 only takes the sign of the genitive, as, " this is John, 
 William, and Richard's house," that is, " this is the 
 house of John, William, and Richard." But, when 
 several subjects are implied, as severally belonging 
 to various individuals, the names of the individuals 
 are all expressed in the genitive case, as, " these are 
 John's, William's, and Richard's houses." In such 
 examples as these, the use of the genitive involves an 
 ambiguity, which it is sometimes difficult to prevent. 
 Thus, if we say, agreeably to the first observation in 
 this note, " Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's posterity 
 " were carried captive to Babylon," one unacquainted 
 
SYNTAX. 257 
 
 with the history of these patriarchs might be at a 
 a loss to determine whether " the patriarch Abra- 
 ham," " the patriarch Isaac," and " the posterity of 
 Jacob," were carried captive ; in other words, whe- 
 ther there be three subjects of discourse, namely, 
 Abraham, Isaac, and the posterity of Jacob, or only 
 one subject, the posterity of these patriarchs. Nor 
 will the insertion of the preposition in all cases pre- 
 vent the ambiguity. For, in the example before us, 
 were the word " descendants" substituted for " pos- 
 terity," and the phrase to proceed thus, " the de- 
 scendants of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," an 
 ignorant reader might be led to suppose that not one 
 generation of descendants, but three distinct genera- 
 tions of these three individuals were carried into 
 captivity. If we say, " the posterity of Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob," the expression appears to me liable 
 to the same misconstruction with the one first men-, 
 tioned. If we say, *' the common posterity of Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, and Jacob, were carried captive to Baby- 
 lon," all ambiguity of expression is prevented. 
 
 Instead also of saying, " John, William, and Ri- 
 chard's house," I should prefer " a house belonging 
 in common to John, William, and Richard." This 
 expression, though laborious and heavy, is preferable 
 to the inelegance and harshness of three inflected 
 substantives, while it removes the ambiguity, which 
 might in some cases be occasioned by withholding 
 the inflexion from the two first substantives. Where 
 neatness and perspicuity cannot possibly be com- 
 
258 SYNTAX. 
 
 bined, it will not be questioned which we ought to 
 prefer. I observe also, that though such phrase- 
 ologies as this, " John's, William's, and Richard's 
 houses," be perfectly consonant with syntactical pro- 
 priety, and strictly analogous to ^he established 
 phraseology, " his, Richard's, and my houses," yet, 
 as there appears something uncouth in the former 
 expression, it would be better to say, " the houses 
 belonging in common, or severally (as the meaning 
 may be) to John, William, and Richard." 
 
 Note 7. — When a name is complex, that is, con- 
 sisting of more terms than one, the last only admits 
 the sign of the genitive, as, " Julius Caesar's Com- 
 mentaries," " John the Baptist's head," " for Hero- 
 dias' sake, his brother Philip's wife." 
 
 Note 8. — ^When a short explanatory term is sub- 
 joined to a name, it matters little to which the in- 
 flexion be annexed, as, " I left the parcel at Mr. 
 Johnson, the bookseller's," or " at Mr. Johnson's, 
 the bookseller." But, if the explanatory term be 
 complex, or if there are more explanatory terms than 
 one, the sign of the genitive must be affixed to the 
 name, or first substantive, thus, " I left the book at 
 Johnson's, a respectable bookseller, a worthy man, 
 and an old friend." In the same manner we should 
 say, " this psalm is David's, the king, priest, and 
 prophet of the people," and not " this psalm is David, 
 the king, priest, and prophet of the people's." 
 
 Note 9. — In some cases we employ both the geni- 
 tive and a preposition, as, " this is a friend of the 
 
SYNTAX. 259 
 
 king*s/' elliptically, for *' this is a friend of the king's 
 friends." We say also, " this is a friend of the king." 
 These forms of expression, however, though in many 
 cases equivalent, sometimes imply different ideas. 
 Thus, if I say, " this is a picture of my friend," it 
 means, " this is an image, likeness, or representation 
 of my friend." If I say, *' this is a picture of my 
 friend's," it means, " this picture belongs to my 
 friend." 
 
 As the double genitive involves an ellipsis, and 
 implies part of a whole, or one of a plurality of sub- 
 jects, I think the use of it should be avoided, unless 
 in cases where this plurality may be implied. Thus 
 we may say, " a kinsman of the traitor's waited on 
 him yesterday," it being implied that the traitor had 
 several or many kinsmen. The expression is equi- 
 valent to ** a kinsman of the traitor's kinsmen." But, 
 if the subject possessed were singular, or the only one 
 of the kind, I should recommend the use of the simple 
 genitive ; thus, if he had only one house, I should 
 say, " this is the house of the traitor," or " this is 
 the traitor's house ;" but not " this is a house of the 
 traitor's." 
 
 Note 10. — The recurrence of the analytical ex- 
 pression, and likewise of the simple genitive, should 
 be carefully avoided. Thus, there is something in- 
 elegant and offensive in the following sentence, " the 
 severity of the distress of the son of the king touched 
 the nation." Much better, " the severe distress of 
 the king's son touched the nation." 
 
 s 2 
 
260 SYNTAX. 
 
 Note 11 There is sometimes an abrupt vul- 
 garity, or uncouthness, in the use of the simple geni- 
 tive. Thus, in " the army's name," " the commons' 
 vote,'* " the lords' house," expressions of Mr. Hume, 
 there is a manifest want of dignity and of elegance. 
 Much better, " the name of the army," " the vote 
 of the commons," " the house of lords." 
 
 Rule IX. — Pronouns agree with their an- 
 tecedents, or the nouns which they represent, 
 in gender, number, and person, as, " They 
 respected Cato and his party," where Cato 
 is singular and masculine, and hk agrees with 
 it in gender and number. '' He addressed 
 you and me, and desired U8 to follow him,"' 
 where U8 sylleptically represents the two per- 
 sons. " Thou, who writest.'' Here the an- 
 tecedent thou being a person, the relative 
 who not which is employed. The antecedent 
 also being of the second person, and singular 
 number, the relative is considered as of the 
 same character, and is therefore followed by 
 the verb in the second person and singular 
 number. '' Vice, which no man practises 
 with impunity, proved his destruction.'" 
 Here the antecedent vice not being a person, 
 the pronoun which^ of the neuter gender, is 
 therefore employed. " The rivers, which 
 
SYNTAX. 261 
 
 flow into the sea." Here also the antecedent 
 not being a person, the relative is which. It 
 is also considered as in the plural number ; 
 and, as all substantives are joined to the third 
 person, which, the representative of rivers, is 
 joined to the third person plural of the verb. 
 
 N'ote 1. — This rule is transgressed in the following 
 examples : " Beware of false prophets, which come to 
 you in sheep's clothing." " The fruit tree bearing 
 fruit after his kind." " There was indeed in our 
 destinies such a conformity, as seldom is found in that 
 of two persons in the same age." Here that^ refer- 
 ring to destinies, is put for those. " The crown had 
 it in their power to give such rewards as they thought 
 proper." — Parliamentary Debates. 
 
 Note 2. — The relative should be placed as near as 
 possible to the antecedent, otherwise ambiguity is 
 sometimes occasioned. 
 
 Note 3. — In the earlier editions of Murray's 
 Grammar, we find the following rule. " When the 
 relative is preceded by two nominatives of different 
 persons, it may agree in person with either, as, * I 
 am the man who commands you,' or ' I am the 
 man who command you.' " The rule here given 
 is erroneous. The construction is by no means ar- 
 bitrary. If we say, ** I am the man who commands 
 you," the relative clause, with the antecedent man, 
 form the predicate ; and the sentence is equivalent to 
 " I am your commander." If we say, " I am the man 
 
262 SYNTAX. 
 
 who command you," the man simply is the predi- 
 cate, and / who command you the subject ; thus, " I 
 who command you," or ** I your commander am the 
 man." This error, sufficiently obvious to every dis- 
 cerning reader, I pointed out in the former edition of 
 this Treatise. Murray's rule, as it stood, is clearly 
 repugnant to perspicuity, and syntactical correctness. 
 In the last edition of his Grammar, and, I believe, 
 in every edition posterior to the publication of ** The 
 Etymology and Syntax," the rule is altered; but 
 whether from a disinclination to expunge a rule, 
 which he had once delivered, — a disinclination per- 
 haps accompanied with a belief, that it might be 
 corrected with little prejudice to its original form, or 
 from what other motive he has left it in its present 
 state, I will not presume to determine; but in the 
 alteration, which he has introduced, he appears to 
 me to have consulted neither usefulness nor perspi- 
 cuity. He says, " When the relative is preceded by 
 two nominatives of different persons, it maxj agree in 
 person with either." So far he has transcribed the 
 former rule ; but he adds, " according to the sense." 
 Now it cannot be questioned, and the learner needs 
 not to be informed, that the relative may agree with 
 either. If, after having taught the learner, that a 
 Latin adjective must agree with its substantive, we 
 were to add, as a distinct rule, that it may agree with 
 either of two substantives, according to the sense, I 
 apprehend, we should be chargeable with vain repeti- 
 tion, or with extreme inattention to correctness and 
 
SYNTAX. 263 
 
 precision. For what would our rule imply ? Clearly 
 nothing more, than that the adjective is capable of 
 agreeing with the substantive to which it belongs ; 
 and of this capacity no scholar, who had learned to 
 decline an adjective, could possibly be ignorant ; or 
 it might convey some idea, that the concord is op- 
 tional. Now, is it not certain, that the adjective 
 must agree with its proper substantive, namely, that 
 whose meaning it is intended to modify, and no 
 other ? The relative, in like manner, must agree 
 with that antecedent, and that only, whose repre- 
 sentative it is in the relative clause. There is nothing 
 arbitrary in either the one case, or the other. 
 
 Perhaps it may be answered that, though the 
 former part of the altered rule leaves the concord as 
 it first stood, discretionary, the latter confines the 
 agreement of the relative to its proper antecedent. 
 But why this apparent contrariety? Why is that 
 represented as arbitrary, which is determined by the 
 sense ? This, however, is not the only objection ; 
 for it may be affirmed, without hesitation, that the 
 rule, thus considered, is completely superfluous. For 
 the learner has been already told, that the relative 
 agrees with the antecedent in gender, number, and 
 person. And can the antecedent be any other, than 
 that which the sense indicates ? And what does this 
 rule teach ? Precisely the same thing. The rule, 
 therefore, is either calculated to mislead by repre- 
 senting as arbitrary what is fixed and determinate, 
 or it is purely a rule of supererogation. As it stood 
 
264 ' SYNTAX. 
 
 originally it gave some new information ; but that 
 information was erroneous : as it stands now, it is 
 either indefinite, or it is useless. 
 
 The scholar may require an admonition, when 
 there are two antecedents of different persons, to be 
 careful in referring the relative to its proper ante- 
 cedent ; but to tell him that it may agree with the 
 one, or the other, according to the sense, is to tell 
 him nothing, or tell him that, which he already 
 knows. In the examples just now adduced, the ter- 
 mination of the verb, by indicating the person of the 
 relative, clearly shows the antecedent ; but, where the 
 substantives are of the same person, and the verb 
 cannot therefore by its termination indicate the ante- 
 cedent, ambiguity should be precluded by the mode 
 of arrangement. Thus, " He is the hero who did 
 it," and " He who did it is the hero." In the former, 
 he is the subject, and the hero who did it the pre- 
 dicate ; and in the latter, he who did it is the sub- 
 ject, and the hero the predicate. 
 
 ISlote 4. — The relative, instead of referring to any 
 particular word as its antecedent, sometimes refers 
 to a whole clause, thus, " the bill was rejected by the 
 lords, which excited no small degree of jealousy and 
 discontent," that is, " which thing," namely, the re- 
 jection of the bill. 
 
 ISlote 5. — The antecedent pronoun of the third 
 person is often suppressed, when no particular em- 
 phasis is implied ; as, " Who steals my purse, steals 
 trash,'' i. c, '' he," or " the man, who." " Whom he 
 
SYNTAX. 265 
 
 would he slew ; whom he would he kept," Bible ; 
 i, e. " Those whom he would." " Whosoever com- 
 mitteth sin, is the servant of sin.'* In this example 
 the antecedent he, and nominative to the principal 
 verb, is understood. 
 
 Priestley has remarked that the pronouns whoever 
 and whosoever have sometimes a double construction. 
 He gives the two following examples. " Elizabeth 
 publicly threatened that she would have the head of 
 whoever had advised it." — Hume, " He offered a 
 great recompense to whomsoever would help him to 
 a sight of him." — Hume, Though the learned au- 
 thor seems to admit both these modes of construction, 
 we apprehend, that only one of them is grammatical. 
 It has been just now observed that the antecedent is 
 often understood to the relative who, and to the com- 
 pounds whoever and whosoever. If the antecedent 
 be supplied, it will be found that the construction is 
 not arbitrary, as Priestley supposes, but definite and 
 fixed. The first sentence is correct. "She would 
 have the head of him, or them, whoever had advised," 
 the relative being the nominative to the verb. " He 
 offered a great recompense to him, or them, whoso- 
 ever should help him." Whomsoever is a solecism : 
 though close to the preposition to, it is not under its 
 government. (See the following rules,} 
 
 Rule X. — If no nominative intervene be- 
 tween the relative and the verb, the relative 
 shall be the nominative to the verb, as, 
 
266 SYNTAX. 
 
 " Solomon, who was the son of David, built 
 the temple of Jerusalem/^ Here who is the 
 nominative to the verb was. 
 
 Rule XI. — But, if a nominative inter- 
 vene between the relative and the verb, the 
 relative shall be under the government of the 
 preposition going before, or the noun or verb 
 following, as, '' God, whom we worship, is 
 the Lord, by whose gift we live, and by whom 
 all things were made/' In the first relative 
 clause, where we is the intervening nomina- 
 tive, the relative is in the objective case, and 
 governed by the verb following: in the second 
 clause, where the intervening nominative is 
 likewise we, the relative is in the genitive 
 case, and governed by the noun following, 
 thus, " by whose gift,'' or " by the gift of 
 whom/' and in the third clause, where things 
 is the intervening nominative, the relative is 
 in the objective case, and governed by the 
 preposition. 
 
 Note 1. — The case of the relative may always be 
 ascertained by repeating the antecedent, and ar- 
 ranging the clause in the natural order, thus, " the 
 city, which is called Rome, was founded by Romu- 
 lus," L e, " the city, which city is called Rome." The 
 
SYNTAX. 267 
 
 antecedent repeated is the nominative to the verb is, 
 which therefore agrees with it in ease. " God, who 
 sees all things, will punish the wicked," i, e. " God, 
 which God sees all things,'* the .relative therefore is 
 the nominative to the verb sees, that is, it is in the 
 same case in which the antecedent would be put, if 
 again expressed. " Solomon, whom David loved, 
 was the wisest of princes." Here, if we arrange the 
 relative clause in the natural order, beginning with 
 the nominative and the verb, it will run thus, " David 
 loved whom," an expression analogous to "David 
 loved him," or " David loved which Solomon." Many 
 solecisms in the construction of the relative would be 
 easily avoided, by a little attention to the natural 
 arrangement. Thus instead of committing the error 
 involved in the following examples, " The philosopher, 
 who he saw to be a man of profound knowledge," 
 " 'Twas my brother, who you met with," " I was a 
 stranger to the person, who I spoke to," we should 
 be led by the natural order to the correct phrase- 
 ology ; " he saw whom," " you met with whom," " I 
 spoke to whom." It is to be observed, however, that, 
 though the personal pronouns, when under the go- 
 vernment of a verb, may either precede or follow it, 
 the relative in the same state of government must in- 
 variably go before it. 
 
 Note 2. — The relatives who and which are often 
 understood, especially in colloquial language. " The 
 friend I visited yesterday is dead to-day," i, e, " the 
 friend whom I visited yesterday is dead to-day." 
 
268 SYNTAX. 
 
 Note 3. — There are a few cases, which are consi- 
 dered by some distinguished critics and grammarians, 
 as requiring the use of that in preference to the pro- 
 nouns who and which, 
 
 1st, After superlatives the pronoun that is gene- 
 rally used, as, ** The wisest man, that ever lived, is 
 liable to error." 
 
 Sdly, After the word same^ that is generally used, 
 as, " he is the same man, that you saw yesterday." 
 But, if a preposition should precede the relative, one 
 of the other two pronouns must be employed, the 
 pronoun that not admitting a preposition prefixed to 
 it, as, " he is the same man, with whom you were 
 acquainted." It is remarkable, however, that, when 
 the arrangement is somewhat changed, the word that 
 admits the preposition, as, " he is the same man, that 
 you were acquainted with." 
 
 3dly, That is used after who^ taken interrogatively, 
 as, " Who, that has the spirit of a man, would suffer 
 himself to be thus degraded ?" 
 
 4thly, When persons and things are referred to, 
 as, " the men and things^ that he hath studied, have 
 not contributed to the improvement of his morals." 
 
 Rule XII. — An active transitive verb go- 
 verns the accusative or objective case, as, 
 
 " He teaches me/' 
 " We honour him.'' 
 
 Note 1. — As examples of transgression against 
 
SYNTAX. 269 
 
 this rule, we may adduce the following : " Who do I 
 love so much?" — Shalespeare. ** Who should I 
 meet the other day, but my old friend ?" — Spectator. 
 " Those, who he thought true to his party." — Cla^ 
 rendon. 
 
 Note 2. — As substantives have no objective case, 
 the subject or object of the energy or affection is di- 
 stinguished by its place, which is after the verb, as, 
 " Achilles slew Hector," where Achilles, the agent, 
 precedes, and Hector, the subject of the action, fol- 
 lows the verb. Reverse this order, and the meaning 
 is reversed, as, " Hector slew Achilles." Where the 
 proper arrangement is not observed, ambiguity or 
 misconstruction is frequently produced. Thus, when 
 Pope says, Odyss. xix. 
 
 "And thus the son the fervent sire address'd/' 
 
 it may be asked, did the son address the sire, or the 
 sire address the son ? A little attention would have 
 prevented the ambiguity. If the sire addressed the 
 son, the line should run thus, 
 
 ''And thus his son the fervent sire address'd." 
 
 If the son addressed the sire, 
 
 " And thus the son his fervent sire address'd." 
 
 Note 3. — An active intransitive verb sometimes 
 governs the objective case of a noun, of the same or 
 a kindred signification, as, " Let us run the race, 
 which is set before us." " If any man see his brother 
 
270 SYNTAX. 
 
 sin a sin, which is not unto death." — Bible. The latter 
 verb, however, though thus used, must not be employed 
 in a transitive sense. It is an error, therefore, to say, 
 "What have I sinned?" — Bible. It should be 
 " How?" or " In what?" Some intransitive verbs also, 
 when used in a reflex sense, are joined to an objective 
 case, as, " Then having shown his wounds, he'd sit him 
 down." — Home's Douglas, This is a poetic licence, 
 which, in a prose writer, would not be tolerated, 
 unless in colloquial and very familiar language. 
 
 Note 4. — The objective case should not, if possible, 
 be separated from its verb. This rule is violated in 
 the following sentence : " Becket could not better 
 discover, than by attacking so powerful an interest, 
 his resolution to maintain," &c. — Hume, The re- 
 gimen is here unnecessarily, and very inelegantly, 
 separated from its verb. 
 
 Rule XIII. — Verbs signifying to ask, 
 teach, offer, promise, pay, tell, allow, deny, 
 and some others of like signification, are 
 sometimes, especially in colloquial language, 
 followed in the passive voice by an objective 
 case. 
 
 Note 1. — This rule seems to have escaped the 
 attention of all our English grammarians, except 
 Priestley, who observes, " that in some familiar 
 phrases, the subject and object of our affirmation 
 seem to be transposed." This idiom, except in a 
 
SYNTAX. 271 
 
 very few instances, is not to be found in Latin, 
 though it occurs pretty often in Greek : it therefore 
 particularly merits the attention of the junior Latin 
 scholar, lest in his Anglo-Latin translations it should 
 betray him into an egregious solecism. " He allowed 
 me great liberty," turned passively, in concurrence 
 with the Latin idiom, " great liberty was allowed 
 me." But we say also in English, " I was allowed 
 great liberty." *' He promised (to) me a ship in five 
 days," passively, " a ship was promised me," and " I 
 was promised her in five days." " She would not 
 accept the jewels, though they were offered to her by 
 her mother," or " though she was offered them by her 
 mother." 
 
 Note 2. — After verbs o^ giving, telling, sending, 
 promising, offerings and others of like signification, 
 the thing is very generally placed before the person. 
 In the time of Swift and Addison^this rule was not 
 uniformly observed. We find authors of that period 
 saying indiscriminately, " Give it us," and " Give us 
 it ;" " Tell him it," and " Tell it him ;" « He pro- 
 mised me it," and " He promised it me." In Scot- 
 land these two modes of expression still obtain. In 
 England they are now reduced under one general 
 rule. We say, " Give it me," '* Tell it him," " He 
 sent it us." 
 
 Rule XIV. — The verb to be has the same 
 case after it as it has before it, thus denoting 
 that the subjects are identical, or that the one 
 
272 SYNTAX. 
 
 term is the predicate of the other, as, " It is 
 he,'' "you believed it to be him." In the 
 former example, it is the nominative to the 
 verb, the nominative case he therefore follows 
 the verb. In the latter, it is the regimen of 
 the verb believed^ the verb to be is therefore 
 followed by the objective case. 
 
 Note 1. — This rule is violated in such examples 
 as " it is me,'' " it was him,'^ " I believed it to be A^," 
 ^^whom do men say that I am ?" In the last example, 
 the natural arrangement is, "men say that I am whom," 
 where, contrary to the rule, the nominative / precedes, 
 and the objective case whom follows the verb. 
 
 Note 2. — Priestley has asked, " Who would not 
 say, ' If it be me,' rather than ' If it be I ?' " Our 
 ears are certainly more familiar with the former than 
 with the latter phraseology, and those, who consult 
 the ear only, may prefer it : but, where no advantage 
 is gained by a departure from analogy, every devia- 
 tion is at once idle and reprehensible. 
 
 JSIote 3. — The verb to he is called by logicians the 
 copula, as connecting the subject with the predicate. 
 Thus, when we say, " he is wise," " they are learned," 
 he and they are the subjects ; wise and learned the 
 predicates. Now, it particularly deserves the atten- 
 tion of the classical scholar, that in English almost 
 any verb may be used as a copula. This circum- 
 stance is the more worthy of his notice, as a conformity 
 
SYNTAX. ^73 
 
 to the Latin idiom may lead him to reject expres- 
 sions, which are unexceptionable, and to adopt others 
 not strictly correct *. Thus we say, " it tastes good," 
 *' he strikes hard," "I remember right," "he feels 
 sick/' "we came late," " they rise early," "he drinks 
 deep." I am aware that the words late, early, are 
 in such examples considered as adverbs. It appears 
 to me they are adjectives, — that the idiom is truly 
 English, and that all these expressions are perfectly 
 analogous. 
 
 Rule XV. — When two verbs come to- 
 gether, the attribute signified by the one verb 
 being the subject or object of the action, 
 energy, or affection expressed by the other, 
 the former is governed in the infinitive mood, 
 as, " he taught me to read,'' " I know him 
 to be." 
 
 Note 1. — The infinitive thus frequently supplies 
 the place of an objective case after the verb, as it 
 often stands for a nominative before it, as, " he loves 
 to study,*' or " he loves study." 
 
 Note 2. — In such examples as, " I read to learn," 
 where the latter phrase, though in the same form as 
 to study, in the preceding example, has, notwith- 
 standing, a different meaning, and cannot be resolved 
 like it into " I read learning," in such examples, as 
 
 * Home Tooke observes, that Lowtli has rejected much good 
 English : and it is to be apprehended, that the classical scholar 
 is too prone to condemn in his own language whatever accords 
 not with the Latin idiom. 
 
SI74 SYNTAX. 
 
 Tooke justly observes, the preposition ^r denoting 
 the object, and equivalent to pour in French, is vin- 
 derstoood, as, " I read for to learn." Our southern 
 neighbours, indeed, in these examples, never omit 
 the causal term ; and Trusler has not improperly ob- 
 served, that, when the verb does not express the cer- 
 tain and immediate effect, but something remote and 
 contingent, the words in order to, which are nearly 
 equivalent to for, may be pertinently introduced, as, 
 " in order to acquire fame, men encounter the greatest 
 dangers." 
 
 Note 3. — The verbs to bid, dare, need, make, see^ 
 hear, foel, let, are not followed by the sign of the 
 infinitive, as, " He bade me go," " I saw him do it." 
 It is to be observed, however, that in the language of 
 scripture the verb " to make " is often followed by 
 to, as, " He maketb his son to rise." The verb " to 
 dare," for " to challenge," or " to defy," is also con- 
 strued with to, " 1 dare thee but to breathe upon my 
 love." — Shakspeare, 
 
 Note 4. — Nouns, adjectives, and participles, are 
 often followed by an infinitive, as, " your desire to 
 improve will ultimately contribute to your happi- 
 ness." " Good men are desirous to do good." 
 
 Note 5. — As the proper tense of the subsequent 
 or secondary verb has, in certain cases, been a subject 
 of dispute, it may be necessary to observe, that, when 
 the simple attribute, or merely the primary idea ex- 
 pressed by the subsequent verb, is intended to be 
 signified, it should then be put in the present tense : 
 
SYNTAX. 275 
 
 but when the idea of perfection or completion is com- 
 bined with the primary idea, the subsequent verb 
 should have that form, which is termed the perfect 
 of the infinitive. Or, perhaps, this rule may, more 
 intelligibly to the scholar, though less correctly, be 
 thus expressed, that when the action or state, de- 
 noted by the subsequent verb, is contemporary with 
 that of the primary verb, then the secondary verb 
 must be put in the present tense ; but when action 
 or state is prior to that expressed by the secondary 
 verb, the latter must be put in the preterite tense. 
 Usage, indeed, and the opinions of grammarians, are 
 divided on this subject. But when nothing but 
 usage can be pleaded in favour of one phraseology, 
 and when reason concurs with usage to recommend 
 another, it will not be questioned that the latter de- 
 serves the preference. Thus, we should say, " I ex- 
 pected to see you," and not " I expected to have seen 
 you ;'^ because either the expectation and the seeing 
 must be regarded as contemporary, or the former 
 must be considered as prior to the latter. But why, 
 it may be asked, must the seeing be considered as 
 contemporary with the expectation? Might not the 
 former have been anterior to the latter? This is 
 certainly possible ; I may see a friend before I expect 
 him. But though the sight, abstractly considered, 
 may precede the expectation, it cannot possibly, as 
 an object of expectation, be prior to it. The idea 
 involves absurdity, equal and analogous to the asser- 
 tion, that the paper, on which I write, existed as an 
 
 T 2 
 
276 SYNTAX. 
 
 object of my perception, previously to my perceiving 
 it. Agreeably to the second form of the rule here 
 given, we find that the Latins very generally used 
 the present of the infinitive, to express an action or 
 state contemporary with the attribute of the primary 
 verb. Thus, dixit me scrihere, " he said that I 
 wrote," or " was writing," that is, at the time of his 
 saying so. Dixit me scripsisse, " he said that I had 
 written." 
 
 I have observed, that, when the simple attribute 
 denoted by the subsequent verb is implied, we should 
 use the present of the infinitive. This phraseology 
 should not only be used in all cases, where contem- 
 porary actions or states are to be signified, but may 
 also be sometimes employed, where the secondary verb 
 denotes something posterior to what is implied by the 
 first. For though in no instance, where the simple 
 action or state is to be expressed, should we use the 
 sign of past or future time, yet for obvious reasons 
 we may, and often do employ the present infinitive, 
 or simple name, to denote what is future, when the 
 primary verb necessarily implies the futurity of its 
 object. Thus, instead of saying, " he promised that 
 he would pay," where the constructive sign of futurity 
 is used, to denote the posteriority of the payment, 
 we often say, *' he promised to pay," employing the 
 present tense, synonimous with the simple name, as, 
 •* he promised payment." The Latins also, though 
 they almost universally, unless in colloquial language, 
 preferred the former mode of expression, sometimes 
 
SYNTAX, 277 
 
 adopted the latter, as, denegamt se dare, — Plant 
 Jusjurandum pollicitus est dare, — Id, "He refused 
 to give," " he promised to give," or " he promised 
 giving," the secondary verb expressing the act simply, 
 and the time being necessarily implied. 
 
 Note 6. — The infinitive mood is sometimes used 
 an an absolute or independent sense, as, " to speak 
 the truth, we are all liable to error." " Not to tres- 
 pass on your time, I will briefly explain the whole 
 affair," that is, " that I may speak," " that 1 may not 
 trespass." 
 
 Rule XVI. — Participles are construed as 
 the verbs, to which they belong, as, 
 
 " Teaching us to deny ungodliness.'* 
 
 Note 1. — The imperfect participle is frequently 
 used like a substantive, and is, in such examples, of 
 the same import with the infinitive of the verb; as, 
 " they love reading," L e, " they love to read." In 
 some examples it becomes a real noun, and has a 
 plural number, as, the outgoings of the morning. 
 
 Note 2. — Lowth contends that, when the imperfect 
 participle of a transitive verb is not preceded by the 
 definite article, it properly governs the objective case, 
 and is analogous to the Latin gerund, as, " much ad- 
 vantage will be derived from observing this rule ;" in 
 which example, this rule is the regimen of the par- 
 ticiple observing ; and that, when the definite article 
 precedes the participle, it becomes then a pure noun, 
 and, therefore, cannot have the regimen of a verb. 
 
^78 SYNTAX. 
 
 He therefore condemns this expression, "by the 
 sending them the light of thy holy spirit." Some 
 of our grammarians consider Lowth, in this instance, 
 as fastidiously critical ; but to me he appears charge- 
 able with error. Let us examine the reasons, which 
 the author adduces in support of his opinion. 
 
 In this inquiry, the first and most pertinent ques- 
 tion is, does usage justify the opinion of the author? 
 He acknowledges the contrary : he even admits that 
 there is not a single writer, who does not violate this 
 rule. Were it necessary, indeed, after this concession, 
 it would be easy to evince, that not only our trans- 
 lators of the Bible, whose authority surely is of great 
 weight, but also other writers of the highest eminence, 
 employ the phraseology which he condemns. 
 
 Again. Does the distinction, which he wishes to 
 establish, favour perspicuity ? The very reverse ap- 
 pears to me to be the case ; for he admits an identity 
 of sense in two distinct phraseologies, which are, in- 
 eontestably, in many instances, susceptible of different 
 meanings. And, though this ambiguity may not be in- 
 volved in every example, we have surely good reason for 
 repudiating a phraseology which may, in any instance, 
 be liable to misconstruction. We are to prescribe, 
 not what may be perspicuous in some instances, but 
 what must be intelligible in all. 
 
 Lowth says, that we may express the sentiment, 
 either by inserting the article before the participle 
 a-nd the preposition after it, or by the omission of 
 both ; in other words, that these phraseologies are 
 equivalent. Thus, according to him, we may say 
 
SYNTAX. 279 
 
 either, '* hy sending his Son into the world," or " by 
 the sending o/" his Son." Here, perhaps, the meaning 
 is sufficiently clear, whichsoever of these forms of 
 expression be adopted. But let us take another ex- 
 ample, as, "he expressed the pleasure he had, in 
 hearing the philosopher." Now, according to Lowth, 
 we may also say, "he expressed the pleasure he had, 
 in the hearing of the philosopher." Is there no differ- 
 ence of sentiment here ? Are these expressions equi* 
 valent ? The contrary must be obvious to the most 
 inattentive reader. According to the former phrase- 
 ology, the philosopher was heard ; he is represented 
 as passive ; agreeably to the latter, he was active — 
 he heard. 
 
 Again. " When the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, 
 because of the provoking of his sons and daughters." 
 Our translators have correctly exhibited the sentiment. 
 The sons and daughters had given offence ; they had 
 provoked the Deity. But, if Lowth's opinion be cor- 
 rect, the expression might be.. " because of provoking 
 his sons and daughters ;" a phrase which evidently 
 conveys a very different idea. 
 
 Again. When it is said, "at the hearing of the 
 ear, they will believe," is this expression convertible, 
 without violating the sense, into, " at hearing the ear 
 they will believe ?" Many more examples might be 
 produced to prove, that these phraseologies, which 
 Lowth considers of the same import, are by no means 
 equivalent. It appears then, that perspicuity is not 
 consulted by adopting this rule. 
 
880 SYNTAX. 
 
 Again. He considers the participle, with a pre- 
 position before it, as correspondent to the Latin 
 gerund, and therefore governing an objective case ; 
 but the participle preceded by an article, he considers 
 as a substantive, and therefore incapable of any regi- 
 men. Now, as the author reasons from one language 
 to another, we may pertinently ask, is not the Latin 
 gerund a noun, a verbal substantive, not only having 
 the form, and the inflexions of a noun, but governed 
 like it, by nouns, adjectives, verbs, and prepositions, 
 itself likewise governing the case of its verb ? This 
 position, were this the place for it, we could easily 
 prove, notwithstanding the objections, which Sciop- 
 pius, Vossius, with some other grammarians, have 
 alleged against it. Nay, whatever theory be adopted 
 respecting the nature of the gerund, there cannot 
 exist a doubt, that, in the early ages of Roman lite- 
 rature, the verbal nouns in io governed an accusative, 
 like the verbs whence they were derived. Quid tihi 
 curatio est hanc rem, is one example from Plautus 
 out of many, which might be produced *. That the 
 supines also were, in truth, substantives admitting a 
 regimen, is equally clear : Difficile dictu was originally 
 difficile in dictu ; and misit oratum opem, misit ad 
 oratum opem. Nor can the structure of the future 
 infinitive passive be so satisfactorily resolved, not- 
 withstanding a few repugnant examples, as on this 
 
 * See Johnson's Comm. p. 352, and Seyer on the Latin 
 Verb, p. 174. To the arguments there offered, many others 
 flight be added. 
 
SYNTAX. 281 
 
 supposition : Dixit libros lectum iri is resolved into 
 dixit (id) iri ad lectum lihros, where lihros is the 
 regimen of the verbal noun lectum. 
 
 Thus it is evident, that the Latin gerunds, supines, 
 and verbal nouns in io, though in form and inflexion 
 substantives, governed an accusative case. It matters 
 not, indeed, to the point in question, what was the 
 practice of the ancients in this respect ; nor should I, 
 therefore, have dwelt so long on this subject, did I 
 not conceive, that the very authority, to which Dr. 
 Lowth seems to appeal, militates against him; and 
 that the very language, to which in this, as in most 
 other cases, he strives to assimilate ours, had nouns 
 governing cases, like the verbs from which they came. 
 
 From the preceding observations, I think it must 
 appear, that the rule, given by Dr. Lowth, is neither 
 sanctioned by general usage, nor friendly to perspi- 
 cuity ; while the violation of it is perfectly recon- 
 cileable with the practice of the Roman writers, if 
 their authority can, in this question, be deemed of 
 any value. 
 
 Having attempted to prove the invalidity of 
 Lowth's argument, and the impropriety of his rule, 
 as establishing an identity of meaning, where a dif- 
 ference must exist, I would submit to the candid and 
 judicious critic the following remarks. 
 
 The participle in ing has either an active or passive 
 signification; its import must, therefore, be determined 
 by the judgment of the reader, or by explanatory ad- 
 jections. Whatever, then, is calculated to remove all 
 
282 SYNTAX. 
 
 misconstruction, and to render its import clear and 
 unequivocal, merits attention. Consistently, then, 
 with some of the examples already adduced, I am in- 
 clined to suggest, that, when the noun, connected 
 with the participle, is active or doing something, the 
 preposition should be inserted, as, " in the hearing of 
 the philosopher," that is, the philosopher hearing; 
 and that, when the noun represents the subject of an 
 action, or what is suffering, the preposition should be 
 omitted, as, "in hearing the philosopher," or the 
 philosopher being heard. An attention to this rule 
 will, I conceive, in most cases prevent ambiguity. 
 
 If it should be said, that I have admitted Lowth's 
 phraseologies, I answer, it is true ; but with this dif- 
 ference, that he considers them as equivalent, and I 
 as diametrically opposite. I observe, likewise, . that, 
 though I prefer the suppression of the article when 
 the participle is not followed by of, and its insertion, 
 when it is followed by the preposition, it is not be- 
 cause I perceive any impropriety in the other phrase- 
 ology, but because, since the publication of Lowth's 
 Grammar, it has been less employed; and because 
 also it less forcibly marks the distinction, which I 
 have recommended. That it has the sanction of 
 good authority, is unquestionable ; and that it is not 
 inconsistent with analogy will still further appear 
 from the following note. 
 
 Note 3. — The participle in ing is construed like a 
 noun, governing the genitive case, and, at the same 
 time, having the regimen of its proi)er verb, as, 
 
SYNTAX. 283 
 
 " Much depends on Richard's observing the rule, and 
 error will be the consequence of his neglecting it." 
 In this example, the words Richard's and Jiis are in 
 the genitive case, governed by the participles observ- 
 ing ^and neglecting, while these participles, having 
 here every character of a noun, admit the objective 
 case. This form of expression has been received as 
 unexceptionable ; the following phraseology, however, 
 has been censured, though, in truth, precisely ana- 
 logous to the one now exemplified ; " Much depends 
 on the rule's being observed, and error will be the 
 consequence of its being neglected." " Here," said 
 a certain writer, " is a noun with a pronoun repre- 
 senting it, each in the possessive case, that is, under 
 the government of another noun, but without any 
 other noun to govern it; for being observed, and 
 being neglected, are not nouns, nor can you supply 
 the place of the possessive case by the preposition of, 
 before the noun or pronoun." 
 
 I concur with Dr. Campbell, who has examined 
 this objection, in thinking, that the expression is not 
 only sanctioned by good usage, but is also agreeable 
 to analogy, and preventive of circumlocution. The 
 objector, indeed, does not seem to have been aware, 
 that his opinion is at variance with itself; and that 
 the reason, which he assigns for rejecting this phrase- 
 ology, would, with equal force, conclude against 
 another mode of expression, which he himself ap- 
 proves. For he would have no objection to say, 
 " Much depends on his observing the rule, and error 
 
284 SYNTAX. 
 
 will be the consequence of neglecting it." Now let 
 us try, whether this sentence be not liable to the 
 same objection as the other. In the former, he says, 
 you cannot possibly supply the place of the posses- 
 sive case, by the preposition of before the noun or 
 pronoun. This is true ; for it would not be English 
 to say, " Much depends on the being observed of the 
 rule ; and error will be the consequence of the being 
 neglected of it." But will his own approved phrase- 
 ology admit this ? Let us see ; " Much depends on 
 the observing of him of the rule, and error will be 
 the consequence of the neglecting of him of it." 
 Were the example simpler, the argument would be 
 equally strong ; as, " Much depends on your pupil's 
 composing, but more on his reading frequently." 
 This sentence the author alluded to would have ap- 
 proved. Let us try if it can be resolved by of, 
 " Much depends on the composing of your pupil, but 
 more on the reading of him frequently." 
 
 The author's argument, then, if it prove any thing, 
 proves too much ; it cannot, therefore, have any 
 weight. 
 
 In addition to these observations, I would remark, 
 that the writer's argument involves another incon- 
 sistency. He admits, that the participle in itig may 
 be thus construed ; for he approves the phrases, 
 " his observing the rule," and " his neglecting it.*' 
 Why then does he reject "his being" and "its being?" 
 for the past or perfect participle's observed and neg- 
 lected have no share in the government, ruk's and 
 
SYNTAX. S85 
 
 it*s being under the regimen of the participle in ing. 
 In fact, then, the phrase seems no more objectionable 
 than ** his being a great man did not make him 
 a happy man ;" which our author would admit to be 
 wholly unexceptionable. 
 
 Some late writers, reasoning doubtless on a prin- 
 ciple similar to that, the absurdity of which we have 
 been attempting to expose, have discarded a phrase- 
 ology which appears unobjectionable, and substituted 
 one which seems less correct. Many writers, instead 
 of saying, " his being smitten with the love of Ores- 
 tilla was the cause of his murdering his son," would 
 say, '* he being smitten with the love of Orestilla was 
 the cause." This seems to me an idle affectation of 
 the Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode 
 of expression, and less consonant with the genius of 
 our language. For, ask what was the cause ; and, 
 according to this phraseology, the answer must be 
 he; whereas the meaning is, that not he, but his 
 being smitten, was the cause of his murder. 
 
 " This jealousy accounts for Hall charging the 
 Duke of Gloucester with the murder of Prince Ed- 
 ward." " This," says Mr. Baker, " very justly, is, 
 in my opinion, a very uncouth way of speaking, 
 though much used by ignorant people, and often af- 
 fected by those who are not ignorant." The writer 
 should have said, **for Hall's charging." "His 
 words being applicable to the common mistake of 
 our age induce me to transcribe them." Here I 
 
286 srKTAX. 
 
 agree with the same writer in thinking, that it would 
 be better to consider words as in the genitive case 
 plural, governed by the participle, as HalVs in the 
 preceding example, and join his words* being appli- 
 cable, equivalent to the applicability of his words, 
 with the verb singular ; thus, " his words' being ap- 
 plicable to the common mistake of our age, induces 
 me to transcribe them." A ridiculous partiality in 
 favour of the Latin idiom, which in this case is not 
 so correct as our own, not exhibiting the sentiment 
 with equal precision, has given birth to this phrase- 
 ology, which in many cases conveys not the intended 
 idea. For, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, " What 
 think you of my horse's running to-day ?" it is im- 
 plied, that the horse did actually run. If it is said, 
 " What think you of my horse running to-day ?" it 
 is intended to ask, whether it be proper for my horse 
 to nm to-day. This distinction, though frequently 
 neglected, deserves attention ; for it is obvious, that 
 ambiguity may arise from using the latter only of 
 these phraseologies, to express both meanings. 
 
 Note 4. — This participle is sometimes used abso- 
 lutely, in the same manner as the infinitive mood, as, 
 " This conduct, viewing it in the most favourable 
 light, reflects discredit on his character.'' Here the 
 participle is made absolute, and is equivalent to the 
 infinitive in that state, as, '* to view it in the most 
 favourable light." Both these modes of expression 
 are resolvable, either by the hypothetical, or the per- 
 
SYNTAX. 287 
 
 fective conjunctions ; thus, " if we view it in the most 
 favourable light." *' To confess the truth, I have 
 no merit in the case ;" i, e, " that I may confess." 
 
 Rule XVIL — A noun or pronoun joined 
 to a participle, its case being dependent on 
 no word in the sentence, is put in the nomi- 
 native. 
 
 Note 1. — This rule will be perfectly understood 
 by the classical scholar, when we say, that the abso- 
 lute case in English is the nominative. Thus, "We 
 being exceedingly tossed the next day, they lightened 
 the ship." The pronoun of the first person, joined 
 to the participle heing\ is neither the nominative to 
 any verb, nor is it connected with any word, of which 
 it can be the regimen. It is therefore put in the 
 nominative case. 
 
 Note '2. — This rule is violated in such examples 
 as the following, " Solomon made as wise proverbs 
 as any body has done, him only excepted, who was a 
 much wiser man than Solomon." — Tillotson. 
 
 " For only in destroying I find ease 
 
 To my relentless thoughts ; and, him destroyed 
 Or won to what may work his utter loss. 
 For whom all this was made, all this will soon 
 Follow."— Mz7/o«. 
 
 This seems to be the only example in which the 
 poet has transgressed this rule; and in several in- 
 
288 SYNTAX. 
 
 stances, in which he has observed it, Bentley would 
 erroneously substitute the objective case. 
 
 Rule XVIII. — Prepositions are joined 
 with the objective case, or govern nouns 
 and pronouns in the accusative, as, " he ran 
 to me,'* '' he was loved by us.'' 
 
 Note 1. — This rule is violated in such expressions 
 as these, "Who servest thou under?" "Who do 
 you speak to ?" for the syntactical arrangement is, 
 " thou servest under who?" " thou speakest to who ?" 
 instead of " under whom ?" " to whom ?" 
 
 Note 2. — The preposition is frequently separated 
 from its regimen, as, " Horace is an author, whom I 
 am much delighted with," i, e. " with whom I am 
 much delighted." 
 
 Note 3. — The prepositions to and j^r are often 
 understood, as, " he gave me a book," " he told me 
 the news :" L e. " he gave to me," ** he told to me." 
 
 Lowth has, indeed, observed, that in such exam- 
 ples, the pronouns me, thee, &c. may be considered 
 to be in the dative case, as, in truth, they are in 
 Saxon the datives of their respective pronouns, and 
 in their form include to, as, " woe is to me." This 
 phrase, he observes, is pure Saxon, the same as ** wae 
 is me," in which me is a dative case. 
 
 The preposition hy is also, in a few colloquial ex- 
 pressions, omitted, as, " he went across the bridge," 
 
SYNTAX. 289 
 
 ** he crossed the bridge," for " he crossed (the river) 
 by the bridge." 
 
 Note 4. — A preposition, following a verb, consti- 
 tuting with it what has been termed a compound 
 active verb, is sometimes suppressed. We say, " he 
 hoped for a reward," " you wondered at his courage." 
 Addison, Steele, and Johnson, with several other re- 
 putable writers, say, " It is to be hoped," instead of 
 "to be hoped for ;" and Johnson very generally says, 
 " It is not to be wondered," for " not to be wondered 
 at." The latter form of expression seems to have 
 been adopted, in order to avoid the abrupt and inele- 
 gant conclusion of the clause, especially when fol- 
 lowed by the word that. 
 
 Note 5. — The prepositions in, on, for and from, are 
 often understood before nouns of time and place ; 
 thus, " this day," " next month," '* last year," are 
 often used elliptically for, " on this day," ** in jiext 
 month," " in last year." We say also, " He was 
 banished England," i, e. "from England." 
 
 Care, however, should be taken that the omission 
 create no ambiguity. If we say, " He was deaf some 
 years before he died," referring to a temporary deaf- 
 ness, and a point of time at which it occurred, the 
 expression is not improper, though the meaning 
 might be more clearly expressed ; but, if v>^e intend 
 to signify a continued deafness, we ought to say 
 " for," or *' during some years." 
 
 Note 6. — The preposition is improperly omitted 
 in the following line of Pope's : 
 
 u 
 
290 SYNTAX. 
 
 " And virgins smiled at what they blush'd before." 
 
 It should be, according to the rules of syntax, " smiled 
 at what they blushed at before," both verbs requiring 
 at after them, thus, " they smiled at that, at which 
 they blushed before." 
 
 Note 7. — Prepositions should be placed as near as 
 possible to each of the words, whose relation they ex- 
 press. The following sentence from Hume is, in 
 this respect, faulty : " The ignorance of the age in 
 mechanical arts, rendered the progress very slow of 
 this new invention." It should be, " the progress of 
 this new invention." The following sentence from 
 Johnson is, for the same reason, chargeable with faulty 
 arrangement: ** The country first dawned, that illu- 
 minated the world, and beyond which the arts cannot 
 be traced of civil society or domestic life." — Rasselas. 
 It should be, " the arts of civil society or domestic life 
 cannot be traced." Priestley has censured the following 
 clause from Harris, " being in no sense capable of either 
 intension or remission." If it be considered, however, 
 that the word either properly means " the one or the 
 other,"and in truth denotes the subject, being, therefore, 
 in strict propriety the regimen of the preposition, the 
 arrangement of Harris, though now not so common 
 as the other, will not appear exceptionable. Nay, 
 whatever may be the future decision of usage, that 
 great arbitress of all language (for at present she is 
 divided), Harris's arrangement seems more conform- 
 able to the strict meaning of the words, as well as to 
 
SYNTAX. 2191 
 
 Priestley's own rule, than that, which the latter re- 
 commends ; thus, " capable of either {i, e, of the one 
 or of the other), intension, or remission." 
 
 Rule XIX. — Adverbs have no govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Note 1. — They are sometimes improperly used 
 for adjectives, as, " After those wars, of which they 
 hoped for a soon and prosperous issue." — Sidney. 
 " A soon issue" is not English ; an adverb cannot 
 agree with a substantive ; it should be " a speedy 
 and prosperous issue." Such expressions likewise as 
 the following, though not destitute of authority, are 
 exceedingly inelegant, and irreconcileable with ana- 
 logy : " the then ministry," for '* the ministry of 
 that time;" *' the above discourse," for " the pre- 
 ceding discourse." 
 
 Note 2. — They are sometimes used like substan- 
 tives, as, '* a little while," for *' in a little time," or 
 "for a little time." "Worth while," "some how," 
 " any how," " any where," are examples of the same 
 kind. 
 
 Note 3. — The adverbs whence, thence, hence, are 
 equivalent to " from which place," " from that place," 
 "from this place ;" from whence, from thence, from 
 hence, are therefore chargeable with redundancy. 
 
 Note 4. — Never is sometimes erroneously used for 
 ever, as, '* they might be extirpated, were they never 
 so many." It should be, " ever so many," i» e. " how 
 
 u 2 
 
292 SYNTAX. 
 
 "many soever." " Who will not hearken to the voice 
 of the charmer, charming never so sweetly.'* It should 
 be, " ever so sweetly ;" i, e, " however sweetly," or 
 " how sweetly soever." 
 
 Note 5. — Ever is likewise sometimes improperly 
 used for never, as, "I seldom or ever see him now." 
 It should be, " seldom or never" the speaker intending 
 to say, " that rarely, or rather at no time, does he see 
 him now ;" not " rarely," or "at any time." 
 
 Note 6. — Priestley remarks, that the French always 
 place their adverbs immediately after their verbs, 
 which order, he observes, by no means suits the En- 
 glish idiom. ** His government gave courage to the 
 English barons to carry farther their opposition." — 
 Hume, It would be better, " to carry their opposition 
 farther.'' " Edward obtained a dispensation from his 
 oath, which the barons had compelled Gaveston to 
 take, that he would abjure for ever the realm ;" better 
 " the realm for ever." 
 
 Note 7. — The adverb is generally placed between 
 the auxiliary verb and the participle, as, " this is 
 perfectly understood." When there are more auxili- 
 aries than one, the same author observes, that the 
 adverb should be placed after the first. This rule, 
 however, is by no means universally followed ; for 
 many of our. best writers employ a different arrange- 
 ment, and, I think, with great propriety ; as, *' this 
 will be perfectly understood," where the adverb fol- 
 lows both auxiliaries. The place of the adverb may, 
 in general, be ascertained, by considering what word 
 
SYNTAX. 2!93 
 
 it is intended to qualify : and, in the last example, 
 it should be closely connected with understood. But 
 more on this subject in the following note. 
 
 Note 8. — The adverb, as its name imports, is gene- 
 rally placed close to the word, which it modifies or 
 affects : its force, therefore, very much depends upon 
 its position. Inattention to the proper collocation of 
 adverbs is frequently the cause of much obscurity 
 and misconception. To this inattention we may 
 ascribe the ambiguity in the following sentence : 
 " He was not honoured with this reward, but with 
 the approbation of the people." This sentence may 
 imply, either that he was honoured with this reward, 
 not without the approbation of the people ; or that 
 he was not honoured with this reward, but was ho- 
 noured with the approbation of the people. The 
 latter is the meaning intended. It should therefore 
 be, " he was honoured, not with this reward, but with 
 the approbation of the people." By this arrangement 
 the sentiment is correctly exhibited — the two sub- 
 jects, reward and approbation, are perspicuously con- 
 trasted, and while the former is negatived, the latter 
 is affirmed*. 
 
 * The propriety of this collocation of the negative will be more 
 evident, if we attend to the two very different meanings of the 
 word but. According to the former construction of the sentence, 
 hut is the imperative of beutan, " to be out," and is synonymous 
 with u?iless or except ; thus, " but with the approbation," or eX' 
 cept with the approbation. According to the latter construction, 
 it is properly hot, the imperative of botan, '^ to add." Thus, *' he 
 was honoured not with (i. e. exclude or except) this reward, but 
 (add) with the approbation of the people." 
 
294 SYNTAX. 
 
 Note 9. — Lowth observes that " the adverb should 
 be for the most part placed before adjectives, and 
 after verbs ;" thus, " he was excessively modest," 
 ** he fought bravely.'* This is, indeed, the general 
 arrangement; but it admits many exceptions. In 
 no case are writers so apt to err as in the position of 
 the word only. Its place, in my opinion, is after the 
 substantive to which it refers, or which it exclusively 
 implies, and before the attributive. In the following 
 sentence of Steele's, the collocation is faulty. " The 
 bridegroom sits with an aspect which intimates his 
 thoughts were not only entertained with the joys 
 with which he was surrounded, but also with a noble 
 gratitude, and divine pleasure." This collocation of 
 the two adverbs implies that his thoughts were some- 
 thing more than entertained : whereas it is the au- 
 thor's intention to say, that his thoughts were enter- 
 tained with something more than joys. The sen- 
 tence, therefore, should proceed thus. " The bride- 
 groom sits with an aspect, which intimates, that his 
 thoughts were entertained not with the joys only, 
 with which he was surrounded, but also with a noble 
 gratitude and divine pleasure *." 
 
 * It is to be observed that a different collocation is sometimes 
 admissible without any risk of ambiguity, especially when the 
 clause is negative. Thus we may say, " His thoughts were en- 
 tertained with not only/' i. e. " with not one thing," viz. " the 
 joys" with which he was surrounded ; or, " not only with the 
 joys; but {hot or add) a noble gratitude and divine pleasure." 
 
 Usage in common conversation, and in familiar language, 
 inclines to this arrangement, and many of our bes^t writers fre- 
 quently adopt it. 
 
SYNTAX. 295 
 
 When Addison says {Spec, No. 412), "By greatness 
 I do not only mean the bulk of any single object, but 
 the largeness of a whole view," the question natu- 
 rally occurs, what does he more than mean ? It is 
 evident that, agreeably to this arrangement, the 
 adverb refers to mean, exclusively of all other attri- 
 butes or actions, and being prefaced by a negative, 
 implies " that he does something more than mean." 
 In this criticism I concur with Blair, who has ex- 
 pressed his disapprobation of this arrangement. 
 
 Had he, as the same author observes, placed the 
 adverb after hulk, it woul4 have still been wrong. 
 For if he had said, " \ do not mean the bulk only," 
 then the adverb, following a noun substantive, must 
 refer to it exclusively of every other, and the clause 
 being negative, the question would be, what does he 
 mean more than the bulk ? Is it the colour, the 
 beauty, or what else ? 
 
 Now, as Mr. Addison intended to say that he did 
 not mean one thing, the word only should have fol- 
 lowed the name of that thing, whether its designa- 
 tion was simple or complex. He should, therefore, 
 have said, " the bulk of any single object only, but 
 the largeness of a whole view." According to this 
 arrangement, the word only refers, as it ought, to 
 " the bulk of any single object'' as one idea ; and the 
 question occurs, what does he mean more than the 
 bulk of any single object ? to which the answer fol- 
 lows, " the largeness of a whole view." It may, how- 
 ever, at the same time be observed that, consistently 
 
296 SYNTAX. 
 
 with the practice of some of our best writers, who 
 place the adverb before its subject, there seems no 
 impropriety here in saying, ** I do not mean only," 
 i. e. " one thing," " the bulk of a single object, but 
 the largeness of a whole view." 
 
 " The perfidious voice of flattery reminded him," 
 says Gibbon, " that by exploits of the same nature, 
 by the defeat of the Nemean lion, and the slaughter 
 of the wild boar of Erymanthus, the Grecian Her- 
 cules had acquired a place among the gods, and an 
 immortal memory among men." " They only for- 
 got to observe that, in the first ages of society, a suc- 
 cessful war against savage animals is one of the most 
 beneficial labours of heroism." In the beginning of 
 the latter sentence the adverb only is misplaced. As 
 it stands the meaning is that they were the only per- 
 sons who forgot: it should be " only they forgot to 
 observe ;" i. e, " one thing they forgot," namely, " to 
 observe." To this erroneous collocation in Gibbon, 
 I shall oppose a similar example from Pope, in which 
 the adverb is correctly placed. In a letter to Hughes, 
 speaking of the compliments which this gentleman 
 had paid to him on his translation of Homer, he ac- 
 quaints him, that he should be ashamed to attempt 
 returning these compliments ; one thing, however, he 
 would observe, namely, that he esteemed Mr. Hughes 
 too much not to be pleased with the compliments, 
 which he had received from him. His words, there- 
 fore, are, " I should be ashamed to offer at saying 
 any of those civil things, in return to your obliging 
 
SYNTAX. 297 
 
 compliments, in regard to my translation of Homer : 
 only I have too great a value for you not to be 
 pleased with them ;" where the word only introduces 
 the clause, and is equivalent to " one thing is true," 
 or " thus much (tantum), I say, I have too great a 
 value," &c. Here it is obvious that the adverb, as it 
 precedes the pronoun, does not refer to it ; and that 
 Mr. Pope's collocation of it is perfectly correct, to ex- 
 press the sentiment, which he intended. Had he 
 said, " I only," the adverb would have referred to 
 the pronoun, and implied that he was the only per- 
 son who valued. Had he intended to say, that he 
 merelv entertained an esteem for him, but could not 
 manifest it, then the presence of the auxiliary would 
 have been necessary, and he would have expressed 
 himself thus, " I do only entertain too great an esteem 
 for you ;" that is, "I do only (one thing) entertain 
 too great an esteem." Had he said, " I have only 
 too great a value for you," it would be properly op- 
 posed to, *' and not too little." Had he said, " I 
 have too great a value only," then value would be 
 contrasted with some other sentiment, as when one 
 says, he ** has wealth only, but not virtue, '^ for ex- 
 ample, or any other acquirement. As a violation of 
 this rule, I adduce also the following expression of a 
 reviewer. ** We only discharge our duty to the 
 public ;" a declaration which, strictly interpreted, 
 means " we are the only persons who discharge." It 
 should be, " we do only (one thing) discharge our 
 duty," for the writer intended to say, that he did no- 
 
298 SYNTAX. 
 
 thing but discharge his duty to the public*. In 
 justification of such inaccuracies, it is impertinent to 
 plead, that a little attention will prevent misconcep- 
 tion. It is the business of every author to guard his 
 reader, as far as the language in which he writes will 
 permit, from .the possibility of misconstruction, and 
 to render that attention to the language unnecessary, 
 Quintilian's maxim cannot be too often repeated to 
 those who, by such apologies, attempt to defend any 
 avoidable ambiguity t. 
 
 The following sentence is justly censured by Blair, 
 and also by Baker, in his " Remarks." " Theism," 
 says Shaftesbury, *' can only be opposed to polytheism 
 or atheism." He ought to have said, observes Baker, 
 "Theism can be opposed only to polytheism or 
 atheism." Dr. Blair concurs in opinion with the 
 remarker. I am inclined, however, to differ from 
 both ; and think, that the sentence should run thus: 
 " Theism can be opposed to polytheism only, or 
 atheism ;" where the adverb only refers to the noun 
 immediately preceding, and is understood to the other, 
 implying, that these two systems of belief are the only 
 creeds to which theism can be opposed. If this be 
 not the proper arrangement, it is obvious, that no 
 definite rule can be given on the subject. For, if 
 
 * The omission of the auxiliary in such examples tends much 
 to produce ambiguity : for, as the adverb, when placed between 
 the noun and the attributive, may qualify either the former or 
 the latter, perspicuity requires the insertion of the auxiliary. 
 
 i Non ut intelligere possit, sed nc omnino possit non iutelligere, 
 curandum. 
 
SYNTAX. 299 
 
 the adverb may be placed either before or after the 
 substantive, to which it refers, then precision becomes 
 impossible, and we may say, " he onhj^^ or *' only 
 he,^* to express the same sentiment ; which colloca- 
 tions, I have already shown, denote ideas materially 
 different. But, if there be a definite and precise rule 
 for the position of this word, and if the sense be dif- 
 ferent, according to the collocation of the adverb, 
 then I think it will appear, that it ought to be sub- 
 joined to the substantive or pronoun, to which it re- 
 fers ; and this opinion is supported by the authority 
 of Blair himself, in the examples which I have just 
 now adduced. For why, unless on this principle, 
 does he contend that the word only should be placed 
 after the hulk of a single object ? If the adverb 
 then be, in this example, rightly placed after the 
 substantive, or complex name, to which it refers, it 
 ought to have the same position assigned to it in 
 every similar instance. That the adverb, in the last 
 example, refers to *' polytheism," there can be no 
 question ; it should therefore follow, and not pre- 
 cede it. 
 
 I am well aware, that many examples may be 
 produced, wherein, with an arrangement different 
 from that here recommended, the sense would, not- 
 withstanding, be perfectly clear ; and, perhaps, Blair's 
 collocation, in the last example, may be adduced as 
 an instance. But when a rule, conducive to perspi- 
 cuity, is once established, every unnecessary deviation 
 
300 SYNTAX. 
 
 from it should be studiously avoided, or, at least, not 
 wantonly adopted. 
 
 The sentence, as it stands in Shaftesbury, implies, 
 that theism is capable of nothing, but of being op- 
 posed to polytheism, or atheism: "Theism can only, 
 (one thing namely) be opposed to polytheism or 
 atheism ;" where it is evident that only refers to he 
 opposed^ agreeably to the rule now given. In the 
 same manner, if I say, ** he was only great," it is 
 implied, that he was nothing but great, the adverb 
 being placed before the attributive, to which it refers. 
 Hence the question naturally is, what was he not 
 besides ? The answer may be, ** not good," " not 
 wise," " not learned." Were the adverb placed after 
 the pronoun, it would imply, that " he was the only 
 person who was great *." 
 
 * In this, and similar examples, the word only has been gene- 
 rally considered as an adjective, equivalent to solus. Thus, if 
 we say, ille solum erat dives, it means, " he was only rich," or 
 '• he was nothing but rich." If we say, ille solus erat dives, 
 it means, ''he only," or ''he alone was rich." In the latter 
 example, the word only has been termed an adjective. It is from 
 the equivalence of the words only and alone, in such examples as 
 the latter, that several writers have employed them, as if, in all 
 cases, synonymous. They are, by no means, however, of the 
 same import. Thus, if we say, " virtue alone is true nobility/' 
 it means, " virtue singly, or by itself, is true nobility ;" if we 
 say, " virtue only is true nobility," it implies, that nothing but 
 virtue is true nobility. The expressions, therefore, are not equi- 
 valent. Both sentiments are conveyed in the following passage : 
 
 Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus. — Juvenal^ Sat. viii. 
 
 The same observations are applicable to the collocation of the nur 
 
SYNTAX. 301 
 
 I am perfectly aware, that the rule here given will 
 not, in all cases, preclude ambiguity ; but whenever 
 it becomes doubtful, whether the adverb is intended 
 to affect the preceding substantive, or the following 
 attributive, a different form of expression may be 
 adopted, and the use of the auxiliary, along with the 
 principal verb, will, in many instances, ensure per- 
 spicuity. This expedient, however, cannot always 
 be employed. If we say, " The manufacturer only 
 was prosperous," it may be uncertain, whether the 
 adverb is to restrict the predicate " prosperous" to 
 the manufacturer, implying, that he was the only 
 prosperous man, or to the verb expressing past time, 
 signifying that he was then, but is not now prosper- 
 ous. If the former be the meaning intended, we 
 may say, " he was the only prosperous man ;" if the 
 latter, we may say, "the manufacturer was once," 
 or "was then, the only prosperous man." 
 
 It would have contributed much to perspicuity, if 
 authors had adopted one uniform practice, placing the 
 adverb constantly, either before or after its subject, 
 whether a substantive or an attributive *. But, 
 
 meral term^^r*^, as equivalent either to primus or primum ; and 
 also to the position of many other words, which are used ad- 
 jectively and adverbially. The classical scholar needs not to be 
 informed, that Annibal primus, and Annibal primum — Alpes 
 transiit, are not expressions mutually convertible. 
 . * Addison, Pope, Swift, Steele, and Johnson very generally 
 place the adverb before the attributive, to which it refers, and 
 very often also before the substantive. " What he said, was only 
 to commend my prudence." — Addison. '^ He did not pretend to 
 extirpate French music, but only to cultivate and civilise it."— 
 
302 SYNTAX. 
 
 where usage is so divided, and where the adoption of 
 a new and general rule would be now liable to insu- 
 perable objections, all that can be successfully at- 
 tempted is, in accommodation to existing circumstances, 
 to reduce the evil within narrow limits, if we cannot, 
 by any precise rule, entirely remove it. With this 
 view we would recommend, that, when the adverb 
 refers not to a word, but to a sentence or clause, it be 
 placed at the beginning of that sentence or clause ; 
 where it refers to a predicate, it precede the predi- 
 cating term ; and when it has a reference to a subject, 
 it follow its name or description. An observation, 
 
 Addison. " I was only scribbling." — Johnson. " Not only the 
 thought, but the language is majestic." — Addison. " Known only 
 to those, who enjoy." — Johnson. " Lay the blame only on them- 
 selves."— ^/o^w*o«. *^ Witty only by the help of speech." — Steele. 
 Our translators of the Bible have almost uniformly observed 
 the same collocation in respect to the predicate ; but have, with 
 few or no deviations, preferred a different arrangement in regard 
 to the subject, placing the adverb after, and not before it. It is 
 in conformity to their practice, that we have recommended the 
 rule here given. From the following examples, to which many 
 more plight be added, it will appear, that when the adverb re- 
 ferred to a sentence, they made it the introductory word ; when it 
 affected an attributive, they placed the adverb before it ; and when 
 it referred to a substantive, or the name of a subject, they put 
 the adverb after it. " Only take heed to thyself." " Only he 
 shall not go in unto the vail." " Only thou shalt not number the 
 tribe of Levi.*' .... " The thoughts of his heart are only evil." 
 " Thou shalt be only oppressed." " They might only touch the 
 hem of his garment." . . . . " None followed David, but Judah 
 only." " He only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave." " Against 
 thee only have I sinned." " Take nothing for your journey, but 
 a staff only." '^ David did that only, which was right. ' " They 
 only shall be delivered." " This only have I found." " If in 
 this life only we have hope." 
 
SYNTAX. 303 
 
 however, already made, may be here repeated, namely, 
 that in the last case, a different collocation may often be 
 adopted without the risk of ambiguity, and even with 
 advantage to the structure of the sentence. 
 
 Note 10. — Adverbs, as Lowth observes, are generally 
 placed before the adjective to which they refer. This 
 rule, however, admits a few exceptions. The adverb 
 enough is always placed after its adjective, as, " the 
 reward was small enough." The proper position of 
 this adverb, indeed, seems to be immediately after 
 the adjective ; it is frequently, however, placed at 
 some distance from it, as, "a large house enough." 
 Usage is, indeed, somewhat divided on this point, Mr, 
 Baker, and a few others, pleading for the following 
 arrangement, " a large enough house." The former 
 collocation, however, seems far the more general ; and 
 is recommended by that rule, by which the substan- 
 tive and adjective should be placed in juxta-position^ 
 or as near as possible to each other. The latter is 
 defended by the principle, that the qualifying adverb 
 should be placed close to the adjective, whose signi- 
 fication it modifies. This collocation is generally, 
 however, pronounced a Scotticism ; but it is not pe- 
 culiar to Scotch writers. 
 
 Rule XX. — Conjunctions have no go- 
 vernment. 
 
 Note 1. — In giving this rule, I differ from all other 
 grammarians, who have erroneously, as 1 conceive. 
 
304 SYNTAX. 
 
 assigned them a regimen. Some conjunctions, says 
 Lowth, govern the indicative, and some the subjunc- 
 tive mood. This I affirm without hesitation to be a 
 great mistake ; for not a single example, I venture to 
 assert, can be produced, in which the verb is divested 
 of its indicative form, in consequence of its being sub- 
 joined to any conjunction. The Latins had a form 
 of the verb, which they properly enough denominated 
 the subjunctive mood; because, where the meaning 
 was unconditionally assertive, they employed this 
 form, if the clause was preceded by some particular 
 conjunctive or adverbial term. Thus, when they 
 said, acleo henevolus erat, ut omnes eum amarent, 
 " he was so benevolent, that all men loved him," 
 though the assertion, in the latter clause, be evidently 
 unconditional, as the English shows, they changed 
 the indicative into another form, because the verb is 
 preceded by the conjunction ut No similar example 
 can be produced in English. 
 
 Lowth informs us, that, when hypothesis, condi- 
 tionality, or contingency is implied, the mood should 
 be subjunctive ; if certainty, or something determi- 
 nate and absolute be signified, the verb should be 
 indicative. Now surely, if the sense require a form 
 different from the indicative, the verb cannot be said 
 to be under the government of the conjunction ; for 
 the verb assumes that form, not because preceded by 
 the conjunctive term, or because it is under its go- 
 vernment, but because the sentiment to be expressed 
 requires that phraseology. Whether the conditional. 
 
SYNTAX. 305 
 
 or what Lowth terms the subjunctive, be a distinct 
 form of the verb, or only an elliptical mode of ex- 
 pression, we have already inquired. See p. 177. 
 
 Note 2. — Mr. Harris says, that the chief difference 
 between prepositions and conjunctions is, that the 
 former couple words, and the latter sentences. This 
 opinion is erroneous ; for conjunctions frequently 
 couple words, as in the following example : " A man 
 of wisdom and virtue is a perfect character." Here 
 it is not implied, that " a man of wisdom is a perfect 
 character ; but a man of wisdom combined with virtue, 
 or a man of wisdom and virtue." That conjunctions, 
 indeed, do not couple at all, in that sense at least, in 
 which grammarians have understood the term, Mr. 
 Tooke seems to have iacontestably proved. That 
 they sometimes couple sentences, or that instances 
 may be produced, in which Harris's definition will 
 appear correct, the following example will serve as an 
 evidence. " You, and I, and John rode to town," i. e, 
 "you rode," " and I rode," ** and John rode." But 
 to assert, that this is their distinctive property, is to 
 affirm what may be disproved by numberless examples. 
 If we say, " two and two are four." Are two four, 
 and two four ? " A B, B C, and C A, form a tri- 
 angle." Is AB a triangle? or BC? or CA? 
 " John and Mary are a handsome couple." Is John 
 a couple ? and Mary a couple ? The common theory, 
 therefore, is false ; nor is it to be doubted, that con- 
 junctions are, in respect to signification, and were 
 originally in regard to their regimen, verbs, or words 
 
 X 
 
306 SYNTAX. 
 
 compounded of nouns and attributives. In explain- 
 ing them, however, I divided them, as the reader 
 may remember, into the several classes of adversa- 
 tive, concessive, conditional, &c. This I did, not 
 only in conformity to general usage, and that he 
 might not be a stranger to the names assigned to 
 them ; but likewise for this reason, that, though they 
 originally formed no distinct species of words, but 
 were either verbs, or compounds of nouns and verbs, 
 they have now assumed another character, and are 
 construed in a different manner. It is necessary, 
 however, that he should be acquainted not only with 
 their present use, but also with their primitive im- 
 port, and classification. 
 
 How these words were degraded from their original 
 rank, and deemed insignificant, while some, perhaps, 
 lost their syntactical power, is a matter, I conceive, 
 of no difficult inquiry. For, when the verbs, to 
 which any of these words belonged, became obso- 
 lete, the words themselves, thus separated from their 
 parent stock, and stripped of that consequence and 
 authority, which they thence derived, their extraction 
 becoming daily more dubious, and their original value 
 more obscure, sunk by degrees into inferior note, and 
 at last dwindled into comparative insignificance. Be- 
 sides, many of them, doubtless, were transplanted into 
 our language without the radices; their etymology, 
 therefore, being little known, their primitive cha- 
 racter, and real import, would soon be involved in 
 increasing darkness. 
 
SYNTAX. 307 
 
 It is to be considered also, that those, who have 
 dispensed the laws of grammar in our language, or 
 assumed the office of critics, have been generally 
 such as, though perhaps sufficiently conversant in 
 Greek and Latin, were entirely unacquainted with 
 the northern languages. Accustomed, therefore, to 
 render the conjunctions and prepositions in Greek or 
 Latin, by synonymous English words, and unac- 
 quainted with the true character of these vernacular 
 terms, their etymons being obsolete, or having never 
 been used in our language, it is easy to conceive how 
 they would naturally assign to the English words the 
 same character and the same name, which were 
 affixed to the synonymous Latin terms. Nay, this 
 has been so much the case, that we have ascribed an 
 ambiguous character to several English words, re- 
 ferring them now to one class, then to another, merely 
 because they agree in signification with certain Greek 
 and Latin terms, which have been severally referred 
 by classical grammarians to different orders. That 
 the word whether has uniformly, in our language, 
 the same import, and the same character, denoting 
 " which of the two," there can be no doubt ; yet, 
 because this word answers sometimes to an, anne^ 
 num, and sometimes to uter, grammarians and lexi- 
 cographers have accounted it both a conjunction and 
 a pronoun. Utrum in Latin has shared the same 
 fate. So far, indeed, has this spirit been carried, 
 that we will not admit except, according, concern- 
 ing^ respecting, with many similar terms, to be verbs 
 
 X 2 
 
308 SYNTAX. 
 
 or participles, because prceter, secundum, de, are pre- 
 positions. It is from this propensity to assimilate 
 ours with the Latin language, that all these errors 
 have arisen. 
 
 That the words now termed prepositions and con- 
 junctions were originally verbs, or nouns, or com- 
 pounds of these, Tooke has, in my judgment, incon- 
 trovertibly proved. This being admitted, it appears 
 to me highly probable, that they were primitively 
 construed as such, joined either with the nominative 
 or the objective case, as the verbs had either a tran- 
 sitive or intransitive meaning ; and that they were 
 followed by either single words, or clauses. This, 
 however, is merely conjecture, founded indeed in the 
 nature of the words, but not supported by any evi- 
 dence. In process of time, in consequence of that 
 assimilation, which naturally takes place between a 
 living language and a dead one, much read, much 
 written, and much admired, these words, when their 
 origin became obscure, would, as I have remarked, 
 be divested of their primitive character, and be con- 
 sidered as belonging to those classes, to which the 
 synonymous Latin words were referred. Hence their 
 regimen would likewise undergo a change. It would 
 appear awkward and vicious to say now, " I saw no- 
 body but he ;" it is not improbable, however, that 
 the mode of expression was originally, " I saw no- 
 body, be out he," i e. " he be out." But I am now 
 indulging in conjecture, the very error which chiefly 
 has misled us in our grammatical researches. One 
 
SYNTAX. 309 
 
 thing, however, is certain, that several words, which 
 were originally employed as prepositions or conjunc- 
 tions indifferently, have now acquired a more fixed 
 character, and are used but seldom in a double capa- 
 city. Of this the word without is an example. Thus, 
 it was not unusual to say, " without you go, I will 
 not," where the term of exclusion, though in truth a 
 preposition prefixed to a clause, was considered as a 
 conjunction synonymous with nisi. This usage, un- 
 less in conversation, is now almost entirely relin- 
 quished ; and the term without is now generally em- 
 ployed as a preposition, being prefixed to single words. 
 It is likewise certain that in respect to signification 
 * there is no difference between conjunctions and pre- 
 positions, vide neminem nisi eum, is equivalent to 
 vidi neminem prceter eum. In like manner, " I 
 saw nobody but him," is synonymous with " I saw 
 nobody beside him ;" in which examples the con- 
 junctions nisi and but are perfectly synonymous with 
 prceter and beside, which are termed prepositions. 
 
 It may be asked, if then prepositions and conjunc- 
 tions be alike verbs, or nouns, or compounds of these, 
 and if many prepositions and conjunctions be in point 
 of meaning identical, what forms the ground of di- 
 stinction between them ? It is simply this, that the 
 former are prefixed to single words only, as nouns 
 and pronouns, or to clauses involving an infinitive 
 mood*, the infinitive being strictly the name of the 
 
 * In colloquial language^ but chiefly among the vulgar, prepo- 
 sitions are prefixed to verbs indicative. 
 
31jQt , SYNTAX. 
 
 verb ; and that they have a regimen ; while the lat- 
 ter are prefixed to clauses, and have no regimen. 
 This is the only distinction between prepositions and 
 conjunctions as discriminated in modern use. Their 
 original character is sufficiently established by Mr. 
 Tooke. 
 
 I have said that some of these words have, in our 
 language, an ambiguous character, being employed 
 both as prepositions and conjunctions. Of this the 
 word than is an example. Priestley seems to con- 
 sider it as a preposition, and pleads in favour of the 
 following expression, '* you are taller than him," not 
 " taller than he." " Since it is allowed," says the 
 doctor, " that the oblique case should follow preposi* * 
 tions, and since the comparative degree of an adjec- 
 tive, and the particle than, have certainly between 
 them the force of a preposition, expressing the re- 
 lation of one word to another, they ought to require 
 the oblique case of the pronoun following, so that, 
 greater than me will be more grammatical than 
 greater than /." Here I cannot concur with the 
 learned author. The same argument would prove 
 that major quam me, would be more grammatical 
 than major quam ego ; a conclusion which is opposed 
 by universal authority. The truth is tha?i must be 
 either a conjunction, or a preposition, or both. If a 
 conjunction, it can have no government, any more 
 than the Latin quam ; unless we confound the di- 
 stinction which has been just now explained, and is 
 universally admitted, namely, that conjunctions are 
 
SYNTAX. 311 
 
 distinguished from prepositions, by their having no 
 government. If it be a preposition, no argument is 
 necessary to prove that it may be joined with an ob- 
 jective case ; for such is the distinguishing character 
 of prepositions. If it be either a preposition, or a 
 conjunction, it follows, that it may be construed either 
 with or without a regimen. Lowth, with greater 
 propriety, considers it as a conjunction ; and Camp- 
 bell, in his " Rhetoric," recommends this usage as 
 the only means of preventing that ambiguity, which 
 necessarily arises from the employment of this word 
 as a preposition only. For, if we use it as a preposi- 
 tion, we should say, " I love you better than him," 
 whether it be meant ** I love you better than I love 
 him," or " I love you better than he does." By using 
 it as a conjuction, the ambiguity is prevented. For, 
 if the former sentiment be implied, we say, " I love you 
 better than him ;" i. e, " than I love him ;" if the 
 latter, we say, ** I love you better than he ;" L e, 
 *' than he loves you." Whatever may have been the 
 original character or syntax of this word, since usage 
 is now divided, some writers employing it as a con- 
 junction, and others as a preposition, the grammarian 
 may, consistently with his duty, plead for that usage 
 only, which prevents ambiguity. 
 
 The rule here recommended is generally violated 
 when than is joined with the relative pronoun, as, 
 " Alfred, than whom a greater king never reigned." 
 " Beelzebub, than whom, Satan excepted, none higher 
 sat." Salmon has attempted to account for this al- 
 
312 SYNTAX. 
 
 most universal phraseology, by saying, that the ex- 
 pression is elliptical, being the same as, " than com- 
 pared with whom." This explanation is forced and 
 imnatural. It is likewise unnecessary. The simple 
 fact is, that the word than was formerly used as a 
 preposition, and, I believe, more frequently than it is 
 now. Hence, doubtless, arose this phraseology. 
 
 Rule XXI. — Derivatives are generally 
 construed like their primitives; as, " it was 
 a happy thing^br this country, that the Pre- 
 tender was defeated ;" or "happily /or this 
 country the Pretender was defeated." Thus 
 also, "to compare with^" and "in compari- 
 son xmth riches.'' — " To depend on^" and his 
 " dependence on the court.'' 
 
 Rule XXII. — One negative destroys an- 
 other; or two negatives are equivalent to an 
 affirmative; as, " nor have I no money, which 
 I can spare;'' that is, " I have money, which 
 I can spare." — " Nor was the king unac- 
 quainted with his designs ;" that is, "he was 
 acquainted." 
 
 Note 1. — Here our language accords with the Latin. 
 In Greek and French, two negatives render the ne- 
 gation stronger. 
 
 Note 2, — This rule is violated in such examples as 
 this, " Nor is danger ever apprehended in such a go« 
 
SYNTAX. 318 
 
 vernment, no more than we commonly apprehend 
 danger from thunder or earthquakes." It should be, 
 any more. 
 
 Rule XXIII. — Interjections are joined 
 with the objective case of the pronoun of 
 the first person, and with the nominative of 
 the pronoun of the second, as, " ah me,'^ 
 " oh me," '^ ah thou wretch,'' '' O thou who 
 dwellest.'' 
 
 Syntax being that part of grammar, which teaches 
 rules not only for the concord and government, but 
 also for the order of words in clauses and sentences, 
 I shall subjoin the few following brief directions for 
 the guidance of the scholar, respecting arrangement. 
 
 1st, The collocation should never invert the na- 
 tural order of events, or violate the principles of 
 reason and metaphysical propriety. It is obvious, 
 for example, that no person can write, who cannot 
 read. The ability to do the former necessarily im- 
 plies a capacity to do the latter. It is preposterous, 
 therefore, to say with Addison, " There will be few 
 in the next generation, who will not at least be able 
 to write and read." He should have said, " to read 
 and write." '* He was the son of a mother, who had 
 nursed him with maternal tenderness, and had born 
 him in an hour of the deepest affliction." The na- 
 tural order of events should have dictated the reverse 
 
314 SYNTAX. 
 
 arrangement. There would be a manifest impro- 
 priety in saying "Our father is well, and alive;'* 
 the former state necessarily implying the latter. In 
 the following passage, however, it is perhaps ex- 
 cusable, the answers particularly corresponding to 
 the questions. Joseph says to his brothers, " Is your 
 father well ? The old man, of whom ye spake, is 
 he yet alive?" They answer, "Thy servant, our 
 father, is in good health ; he is yet alive." This 
 error was termed by the ancient grammarians hyste- 
 ron proteron ; and though not so palpably, as in the 
 preceding examples, it occurs much more frequently, 
 than an inattentive reader is apt to imagine. 
 
 2d, The English language admits but few in- 
 flexions, and therefore little or no room for variety 
 of arrangement. The connexion of one word with 
 another is not to be perceived, as in Greek and Latin, 
 by correspondence of termination, but by relative po- 
 sition. This renders it indispensably necessary, that 
 those words, which are intimately related by sense 
 one to another, should be closely connected by collo- 
 cation. " The cunning of Hannibal was too powerful 
 for the Pergamenians, who by the same kind of stra- 
 tagem had frequently obtained great victories at 
 land." The relative here, by its position, must be 
 understood as referring to the Pergamenians ; whereas 
 it is intended to refer to Hannibal. The relative 
 clause therefore should have followed the name of 
 the Carthaginian. " His picture, in distemper, of 
 calumny, borrowed from the description of one 
 
SYNTAX. 315 
 
 painted by Apelles, was supposed to be a satire on 
 that cardinal." — Walpole, The error here is ob- 
 vious. He should have said, " His picture of ca- 
 lumny." " It is folly to pretend to arm ourselves 
 against the accidents of life, by heaping up treasures, 
 which nothing can protect us against, but the good 
 providence of our heavenly Father." — Sherlock, Here 
 the grammatical antecedent is treasures; but it is 
 intended to be accidents. The relative is removed 
 from its proper subject. 
 
 3d, As the converse of the preceding rule, it may 
 be observed, that those words should be separated, 
 which in juxta-position may, at first sight, or first 
 hearing, possibly convey a meaning, which the 
 speaker or writer does not intend. " I like a well- 
 bred man, who is never disposed to mortify or to 
 ofiend, praised both sorts of food." As the two in- 
 troductory words are capable of two meanings, would 
 it not be better to say, " Like a well bred man . . . 
 I praised both sorts of food." I am aware, that the 
 other collocation is preferable, where a particular 
 stress is to be laid on the principal subject ; but am- 
 biguity is an error, which should be studiously 
 avoided, and the meaning should not be left to the 
 determination of a comma. 
 
 4th, From the preceding rules, it follows as a 
 corollary, that no clause should be so placed in a 
 sentence, as to be referable either to what precedes, 
 or what follows. " The knight, seeing his habitation 
 reduced to so small a compass, and himself in a 
 
316 SYNTAX. 
 
 manner shut out of his own house, on the death of 
 his mother, ordered all the apartments to be flung 
 open." The clause in italics is ambiguously place^i. 
 
 5th, When each of two arrangements is equally- 
 favourable to perspicuity, and equally consistent with 
 metaphysical propriety, that should be preferred 
 which is the more agreeable to the ear. 
 
 6th, Harsh and abrupt cadences should be avoided ; 
 and in elevated style, the clauses should swell towards 
 the close of the sentence. This latter rule, however, 
 which requires some limitations, belongs to the pro- 
 vince of the rhetorician, rather than to that of the 
 grammarian. 
 
CRITICAL REMARKS. 317 
 
 PART III. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Having explained and illustrated the etymology 
 and syntax of the English language, as fully as the 
 limits, which I have prescribed to myself, will per- 
 mit, I would now request the reader's attention to 
 some additional observations. 
 
 The grammar of every language is merely a com- 
 pilation of those general principles, or rules, agree- 
 ably to which that language is spoken. When I say, 
 a compilation of rules, I would not be understood to 
 mean, that the rules are first established, and the 
 language afterwards modelled in conformity to these. 
 The very reverse is the fact; language is antecedent 
 to grammar. Words are framed and combined to 
 express sentiment, before the grammarian can enter 
 on his province. His sole business is, not to dictate 
 forms of speech, or to prescribe law to our modes of 
 expression ; but, by observing the modes previously 
 established, by remarking their similarities and dis- 
 similarities, his province is to deduce and explain the 
 general principles, and the particular forms, agreeably 
 to which the speakers of that language express them- 
 
31S CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 selves. The philosopher does not determine, by what 
 laws the physical and moral world should be go- 
 venied ; but, by the careful observation, and accurate 
 comparison of the various phenomena presented to 
 his view, he deduces and ascertains the general prin- 
 ciples, by which the system is regulated. The pro- 
 vince of the grammarian seems precisely similar. He 
 is a mere digester and compiler, explaining w hat are 
 the modes of speech, not dictating what they should 
 be. He can neither assign to any word a meaning 
 different from that, which custom has annexed to it ; 
 nor can he alter a phraseology, to which universal 
 suffrage has given its sanction. Usage is, in this 
 case, law ; usage quem penes arhitrium esty etjus et 
 norma loquendi. If it were now the practice to say, 
 " I loves," instead of " I love," the former phrase- 
 ology would rest on the same firm ground, on which 
 the latter now stands ; and " I love" would be as much 
 a violation of the rules of grammar, or, which is the 
 same thing, of established usage, as ** I loves" is at 
 present. Regula est, quce rem, quce est, breviter 
 enarrat; non ut ex regulajus sumatur, sed ex jure, 
 quod est, regulafiat. — Paid. Leg, 1, de Reg, Jur, 
 
 Having said thus much to prevent misconception, 
 and to define the proper province of the grammarian, 
 I proceed to observe, that this usage, which gives law 
 to language, in order to establish its authority, or to 
 entitle its suffrage to our assent, must be, in the first 
 place, rejmtahle. 
 
 The vulgar in this, as in every other country, are. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 319 
 
 from their want of education, necessarily illiterate. 
 Their native language is known to them no farther, 
 ^han is requisite for the most common purposes of 
 life. Their ideas are few, and consequently their 
 stock of words poor and scanty. Nay, their poverty, 
 in this respect, is not their only evil. Their narrow 
 competence they abuse and pervert. Some words 
 they misapply, others they corrupt ; while many are 
 employed by them, which have no sanction, but pro- 
 vincial or local authority. Hence the language of 
 the vulgar, in one province, is sometimes hardly in- 
 telligible in another. Add to this, that debarred by 
 their occupations from study, or generally averse to 
 literary pursuits, they are necessarily strangers to 
 the scientific improvements of a cultivated mind ; 
 and are therefore entirely unacquainted with that 
 diction, which concerns the higher attainments of 
 life. Ignorant of any general principles respecting 
 language, to which they may appeal ; unable to dis- 
 criminate between right and wrong ; prone therefore 
 to adopt whatever usage casual circumstances may 
 present ; it is no wonder, if the language of the vulgar 
 be a mixture of incongruity and error, neither perfectly 
 consistent with itself, nor to themselves universally 
 intelligible. Their usage, therefore, is not the 
 standard, to which we must appeal for decisive au- 
 thority ; a usage so discordant and various, that we 
 may justly apply to it the words of a celebrated 
 critic, 
 
 Bellua multorum es capituin ; nam quid sequar, aut quern ? 
 
320 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 The question then is, what is reputable usage ? 
 On this subject philologists have been divided. Dr. 
 Campbell appears to me to decide judiciously, when 
 he says, that the usage, to which we must appeal, is 
 not that of the court, or of great men, nor even of 
 authors of profound science, but of those, whose works 
 are esteemed by the public, and who may, therefore, 
 be denominated reputable authors. By referring to 
 their practice, he appeals to a standard less equivocal, 
 than if he had resorted to the authority of good 
 writers; for, as he justly observes, there may be 
 various opinions respecting the merits of authors, 
 when there may be no disagreement concerning the 
 rank, which they hold in the estimation of the 
 public ; and, because it is the esteem of the public, 
 and not their intrinsic merit (though these go gene- 
 rally hand in hand), that raises them to distinction, 
 and stamps a value on their language. Besides, it is 
 to be observed, that consummate knowledge is not 
 always accompanied with a talent for communicating 
 it : hence the sentiment may be confessedly valuable, 
 while the language is regarded as of no authority. 
 
 This usage must be, in the second place, national. 
 It must not be confined to this or that province ; it 
 must not be the usage of this or that district, the pe- 
 culiarities of which are always ridiculous, and fre- 
 quently unintelligible beyond its own limits ; but it 
 must be the general language of the coimtry, intel- 
 ligible every where, and in no place ridiculous. And, 
 though the variety of dialects may collectively form 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 321 
 
 a greater number of authorities than national usage 
 can boast, taken singly they are much fewer. Those, 
 to use Campbell's apposite similitude, who deviate 
 from the beaten road, may be incomparably more nu- 
 merous than those who travel in it ; yet, into whatever 
 number of by-paths the former may be divided, there 
 may not be found in any one of these tracks so many, 
 as travel in the king's highway. 
 
 In the third place, this usage must be present. 
 Here it may be asked, what is meant by present 
 usage? Is it the usage of the present year, the 
 present age, or the present century ? How is it de- 
 fined, or by what boundary is it limited ? In short, 
 how far may we revert in search of decisive authority ? 
 may we go back, for example, as far as Chaucer, or 
 must we stop at the age of Addison ? 
 
 In determining this matter, the same learned and 
 judicious critic observes, that regard must be had 
 to the species of composition, and the nature of the 
 subject. Poetry is properly allowed a greater lati- 
 tude than prose ; and, therefore, a word, which in 
 prose we should reject as a barbarism, may, with 
 strict propriety, be admitted in verse. Here also 
 there are limits which must not be passed ; and, per- 
 haps, any word, which cannot plead the authority of 
 Milton, or of any contemporary or later poet, may be 
 justly regarded as obsolete. In prose, no word, unless 
 the subject be art or science, should be employed, 
 which has been disused for a period greater than the 
 age of man. This is the judgment of the same critic. 
 
 Y 
 
CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 Against this answer, indeed, it is possible to raise a 
 thousand cavils ; and, perhaps, we shall be reminded 
 of the poet's strictures on the term ancient in his 
 days *. One thing, however, is certain, that, though 
 it be difficult to fix a precise limit, where the autho- 
 rity of precedent terminates, and legislative iisage 
 commences, or to define with precision the age of 
 man, it must be acknowledged, that there are limits, 
 in respect to usage, which we must not overleap, as 
 there is a certain term, which the life of man cannot 
 surpass. 
 
 As there is a period, beyond which precedent in 
 language ceases to have authority ; so, on the con- 
 trary, the usage of the present day is not implicitly 
 to be adopted. Mankind are fond of novelty ; and 
 there is a fashion in language, as there is in dress. 
 Whim, vanity, and affectation, delight in creating 
 new words. Of these, the far greater part soon sink 
 into contempt. They figure for a little, like ephe- 
 meral productions, in tales, novels, and fugitive 
 papers ; and are shortly consigned to degradation 
 and oblivion. Now, to adopt every new-fangled 
 
 * Est vetus, atque probus, centum qui perficit annos. 
 Quid ? qui deperiit uno mense vel anno ; 
 Inter quos referendus erit ? veteresne poetas. 
 An quos et praesens, et postera respuat autas ? 
 Ille quidem veteres inter ponetur honeste. 
 Qui vel mense brevi, vel toto est junior anno. 
 Utor permisso, caudeeque pilos ut equinae 
 Paullatim vello j et demo unum^ demo etiam unum 
 Dum cadat elusus ratione mentis acervi. 
 Qui redit ad fastos. Horace, Ep. I. Lib. 2. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 323 
 
 upstart at its birth, would argue not taste, nor judg- 
 ment, but childish fondness for singularity and novelty. 
 On the contrary, if any of these should maintain its 
 ground, and receive the sanction of reputable usage, to 
 reject it, in this case, vrould be to resist that authority, 
 to which every critic and grammarian must bow with 
 submission. The term moh, for example, was, at its 
 introduction, zealously opposed by Dean Swift. His 
 resistance, however, was ineffectual ; and to reject it 
 now would betray prudish affectation, and fruitless 
 perversity. The word inimical, previously to the 
 American war, could, I believe, plead, in its favour, 
 only one authority. In some dictionaries, accordingly, 
 it was omitted ; and in others stigmatized as a bar- 
 barism. It has now obtained a permanent establish- 
 ment, and is justly admitted by every lexicographer. 
 
 '' In wordsj as fashions, the same rule will hold ; 
 Alike fantastic, if too new or old : 
 Be not the first, by whom the new are tried, 
 
 . Nor yet the last to lay the old aside" 
 
 Pope's Essay o?i Criticism. 
 
 In short, in this, as in every other question on this 
 subject, perspicuity should be our guide. If the sub- 
 ject be art or science, or if the composition be in- 
 tended for literary men, then a greater latitude may 
 be allowed, as the reader is supposed to be master of 
 the language, in all its varieties. But, if the subject 
 be accommodated to common capacity, and the com- 
 position designed for ordinary readers, the rule now 
 given, not to employ a word, which has been disused 
 
324 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 for a period greater than the age of man, will be 
 deemed, I conceive, rational and necessary. 
 
 The usage, then, which gives law to language, and 
 which is generally denominated " good usage," must 
 be reputable, national, and present. It happens, 
 however, that " good usage" is not always uniform 
 in her decisions, and that unquestionable authorities 
 are found for different modes of expression. In such 
 cases, the following canons, proposed by the same 
 author, will be of considerable service, in enabling 
 the reader to decide, to which phraseology the pre- 
 ference is due. These canons I shall give, nearly in 
 the words of the author ; and illustrate them, as I 
 proceed, by a few apposite examples, partly his, and 
 partly my own. 
 
 Canon I. — When the usage is divided, as to any 
 particular words or phrases, and when one of the 
 expressions is susceptible of a different meaning, 
 while the other admits only one signification, the 
 expression, which is strictly univocal, should be 
 preferred. 
 
 For this reason, aught^ for '* any thing" is better 
 than ought; scarcely, 2ls an adverb, better than scarce; 
 hy consequence is preferable to oj' consequence, which 
 signifies also " of importance ;'* and exceedingly, as 
 an adverb, is preferable to exceeding. 
 
 For the same reason, to purpose, for " to intend," 
 
 * The Saxon word is arviht, contracted auht^ aliquid. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 is better than to propose^ which signifies also " to 
 lay before," or " submit to consideration ;" and joro- 
 posal, for " a thing offered or proposed," is better 
 than "proposition," which denotes also "a position," 
 or the "affirmation of any principle or maxim." 
 Thus we say, "he demonstrated Euclid's jo/'ojoo,s2V«ow," 
 and " he rejected the proposal of his friend." 
 
 Agreeably also to this canon, disposal, in common 
 language, when a grant, or giving away, is denoted, 
 or when the management of any thing is to be ex- 
 pressed, is preferable to disposition, which signifies 
 also arrangement, and likewise temper of mind; and 
 exposure, as the verbal noun from expose, is better 
 than exposition, the verbal noun of expound. We 
 should say, '* the exposure of a fault," and " the ex- 
 position of a text." The analogous words composure, 
 from compose, and composition, from compound, or com- 
 pose, have been suffered to retain their distinct signi- 
 fications. " To speak contemptuously of a person," is 
 better than " to speak contemptibly^^ the latter term 
 meaning generally, " in a contemptible manner," or 
 "in a manner worthy of contempt, "whereas the former 
 is uni vocal, and denotes disrespectfully, or "in a man- 
 ner significant of contempt.'' 
 
 For the same reason, ohmous for "evident," is 
 better than apparent, which means also " seeming," 
 as opposed to " real." 
 
 The term primitive, as equivalent to original, is 
 preferable to primary. The latter is synonymous 
 with principal, and is opposed to secondary ; the 
 
S2l6 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 former is equivalent to original^ and is opposed to 
 derivative, or acquired, I shall illustrate this di- 
 stinction by a few examples. The words Jalsekood 
 and lie agree in expressing the same primary idea, 
 namely, ''contrariety to fact;" but they differ in 
 their secondary ideas, the former implying simply 
 " inconsistency with physical truth,'* the latter being 
 a term of reproach, expressing " a wilful breach of 
 veracity, or of moral truth," To kill, and to murder, 
 agree also in their primary ideas, both denoting " the 
 deprivation of life ;" but they differ in their secondary, 
 the former implying no moral turpitude, the latter 
 denoting an immoral act. From these examples it 
 will appear, that primary/ denotes " what is principal 
 or chief," as opposed to "secondary," or "subordinate." 
 
 Primitive is equivalent to original ; thus we say, 
 the primitive meaning of the word villain, was " a 
 nearer tenant to the lord of the manor ;" custom has 
 altered its signification, and it now denotes " a wicked 
 fellow." Thus the primary and the primitive 
 meaning of words may be very different; these terms, 
 therefore, ought to be duly discriminated. 
 
 Intension for " the act of stretching or straining," 
 is, for the same reason, preferable to intention, which 
 signifies also " purpose," or ** design." *' I am mis- 
 taken," is frequently used to denote " I misunder- 
 stand," or " I am in error ;" but as this expression 
 may also signify, " I am misvmderstood,'' it is better 
 to say, " I mistake." 
 
 This canon I would earnestly recommend to the 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 327 
 
 observance of every writer, who is solicitous to exclude 
 all unnecessary ambiguity, but more emphatically to 
 my junior readers, who are peculiarly prone to the 
 violation of this rule, misled by false notions of ele- 
 gance and dignity. There prevails at present a foolish 
 and ridiculous, not to say absurd, disposition in some 
 writers to prefer in every instance, with no discrimi- 
 nation, long to short words. They seem to entertain 
 an inveterate antipathy to monosyllabic terms ; and 
 disdaining whatever savours of Saxon origin, are in- 
 cessantly searching after the sesquipedalia verba 
 of Greek or Latin extraction, with no regard what- 
 ever to precision and perspicuity. Thus many words, 
 which cannot be dismissed without detriment to the 
 language, are falling into disuse, and their places 
 supplied by equivocal and less appropriate terms. 
 
 Canon II. — In doubtful cases analogy should be 
 regarded. 
 
 For this reason, contemporary is better than co- 
 temporary, con being used before a consonant, and 
 CO before a vowel ; as, concomitant, coeval. 
 
 For the same reason, " it needs,'' " he dares,'' 
 " whether he will or not,'' are better than " he need," 
 ^^ he dare," " tvhether he will or no" The last of 
 the three phraseologies, here recommended, Priestley 
 thinks exceptionable. To me, as to Campbell, the 
 ellipsis appears evident ; thus, *' whether he will, or 
 will not:" hence " will not" seems the only analogical 
 expression. 
 
328 CRITICAL REMAllKS 
 
 Canon III. — When expressions are in other re- 
 spects equal, that should be preferred, which is most 
 agreeable to the ear. This requires no illustration. 
 
 Canon IV. — When none of the preceding rules 
 takes place, regard should be had to simplicity. On 
 this ground, "accept," *' approve/' "admit," are 
 preferable to ** accept of," "approve of," "admit of." 
 
 I have already observed, that no expression, or 
 mode of speech, can be justified, which is not sanc- 
 tioned by usage. The converse, however, does not 
 follow, that every phraseology, sanctioned by usage, 
 should be retained ; and, in such cases, custom may 
 properly be checked by criticism, whose province it 
 is, not only to remonstrate against the introduction 
 of any word or phraseology, which may be either un- 
 necessary or contrary to analogy, but also to extrude 
 whatever is reprehensible, though in general use. It 
 is by this exercise of her prerogative, that languages 
 are gradually refined and improved ; and, were this 
 denied, language would soon become stationary, or 
 more probably would hasten to decline. In exercis- 
 ing this authority, she cannot pretend to degrade in- 
 stantly any phraseology, which she may deem objec- 
 tionable; but she may, by repeated remonstrances, 
 gradually effect its dismission. Her decisions in such 
 cases may be properly regulated by the following 
 canons, as delivered by the same author. 
 
 Canon I. — All words and phrases, particularly 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 329 
 
 harsh, and not absolutely necessary, should be dis- 
 missed, as, " shamefacedness," " unsuccessfulness," 
 " wrongheadedness." 
 
 Canon II. — When the etymology plainly points 
 to a different signification from what the word bears, 
 propriety and simplicity require its dismission. For 
 example, the word " beholden," taken for " obliged,'' 
 or the verb " to unloose," for " to loose," or *' untie," 
 should be rejected. 
 
 Canon III. — When words become obsolete, or 
 are never used, but in particular phrases, they should 
 be repudiated ; as they give the style an air of vul- 
 garity and cant, when their general disuse renders 
 them obscure. Of these, " lief," '' dint," " whit," 
 " moot," " pro and con," furnish examples, as, " I 
 had as lief go," " by dint of argument," " not a whit 
 better," "a moot point," "it was argued pro and 
 con." These phraseologies are vulgar, and savour 
 too much of cant, to be admitted in good writing. 
 
 Canon IV. — ^All words and phrases, which ana- 
 lysed grammatically include a solecism, should be 
 dismissed, as, " I had rather go." The expression 
 should be, ** I would," or "I'd rather go;" and from 
 the latter, the solecism " I had go," seems by mistake 
 to have arisen, Td being erroneously conceived to be 
 contracted for / had, instead of a contraction for I 
 would. This is the opinion of Campbell, and to this 
 
330 . CUITICAL REMARKS 
 
 opinion I expressed my assent, in the former edition 
 of this Treatise. I acknowledge, however, that it 
 now appears to me not strictly correct; and that 
 Webster has not questioned its accuracy on insuf- 
 ficient grounds. In the phrases adduced by Campbell, 
 such as, " I'd go," " I'd rather stay," we can readily 
 perceive the probability that Fd is a contraction for 
 " I would." But in such expressions as " I had like 
 to have been caught," which occur not only in collo- 
 quial language, but also in authors of considerable 
 name, it is impossible to admit Campbell's explana- 
 tion. I must observe also, that the phraseology, 
 which he censures, occurs in some of our earliest 
 writers, and is so frequently found in Pope and Swift, 
 that one is tempted to infer, notwithstanding its sole- 
 cistic appearance, that it is genuine English. It is 
 difficult, however, nay perhaps impossible, to recon- 
 cile it to analogy. Were I to offer conjecture on the 
 subject, I should be inclined to say, that in such 
 phrases as " I had go," / had is by a grammatical 
 figure very common in English, put for I would have, 
 or 1 would pos,sess, and that the simple name of the 
 act or state, by an ellipsis perhaps of the verbal sign, 
 is subjoined, as the object wished, no regard being 
 had to the completion of the action ; in the same 
 manner as we say, I would have gone, when we wish 
 the action perfected. But, by whatever authority 
 this phraseology may be recommended, and in what- 
 ever way it may be reconciled to the rules of syntax, 
 it has so much the appearance of solecism, that 1 de- 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 331 
 
 cidedly prefer with Campbell the unexceptionable 
 form of expression, / would. The phrase / had like 
 appears to me utterly irreconeileable with any prin- 
 ciple of analogy. 
 
 Canon V. — All expressions, which, according to 
 the established rules of the language, either have no 
 meaning, or involve a contradiction, or, according to 
 the fair construction of the words, convey a meaning 
 different from the intention of the speaker, should be 
 dismissed. Thus, when a person says, ** he sings a 
 good song," the words strictly imply that " the song 
 is good," whereas the speaker means to say, " he 
 sings well." In like manner, when it is said, " this 
 is the best part he acts," the sentence, according to 
 the strict interpretation of the words, expresses an 
 opinion, not of his manner of acting, but of the part 
 or character which he acts. It should be, " he acts 
 this part best," or "this is the part which he acts 
 best." " He plays a good fiddle," for " he plays well 
 on the fiddle," is, for the same reason, objectionable. 
 
 Of expressions involving a contradiction, the fol- 
 lowing will serve as an example. ** There were four 
 ladies in company, every one prettier than another." 
 This is impossible. If A was prettier than B, B 
 must have been less pretty than A ; but by the ex- 
 pression every one was prettier than another, there- 
 fore B was also prettier than A. Such absurdities 
 as this ought surely to be banished from every lan- 
 guage. 
 
 Of those, which have little or no meaning, Camp- 
 
332 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 bell has given as examples, " currying favour," 
 "having a month's mind," "shooting at rovers." 
 Such modes of expression, he justly calls trash, the 
 disgrace of any language. 
 
 These canons I have extracted from " Campbell on 
 Rhetoric," a book which I would recommend to the 
 reader's attentive perusal. 
 
 I proceed to observe, that to write any language 
 with grammatical purity, implies these three things. 
 
 1st, That the words be all of that language. 
 
 2dly, That they be construed and arranged, ac- 
 cording to the rules of syntax in that language. 
 
 3dly, That they be employed in that sense, which 
 usage has annexed to them. 
 
 Grammatical purity, therefore, may be violated in 
 three w^ays. 
 
 1st, The words may not be English. This error 
 is called barbarism. 
 
 Sidly, Their construction may be contrary to the 
 English idiom. This error is termed solecism. 
 
 3dly, They may be used in a sense different from 
 their established acceptation. This error is named 
 impropriety *. 
 
 The barbarism is an offence against lexicography, 
 by admitting new words, as, " volupty," " connexity," 
 " majestatic," or by using obsolete words, as, " un- 
 eath," ** erst ;" or an offence against etymology, by 
 improper inflexion, as " teached," for " taught," 
 " oxes," for " oxen." 
 
 * Deprehendat, quae barbara, quae impropria, quae contra legem 
 loquendi composita. — Quinlil. lib. i. cap. 5. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS, 333 
 
 The solecism is an offence against the rules of 
 syntax, as, " I reads," " you was.'* 
 
 The impropriety is an offence against lexicography, 
 by mistaking the meaning of words or phrases. 
 
 A solecism is regarded by grammarians as a much 
 greater offence than either of the others ; because it 
 betrays a greater ignorance of the principles of the 
 language. Rhetorically considered, it is deemed a 
 less trespass ; for the rhetorician and grammarian 
 estimate the magnitude of errors by different stand- 
 ards ; the former inquiring only how far any error 
 militates against the great purpose of his art — per- 
 suasion ; the latter, how far it betrays an ignorance 
 of the principles of grammar. Hence with the former, 
 obscurity is the greatest trespass ; with the latter, 
 solecism, and that species of barbarism which violates 
 the rules of etymology *. 
 
 * In conformity to the example of most of our grammarians, 
 I have employed the term etymology in the title of this work, and 
 wherever else it occurs, as denoting that part of grampnar, which 
 teaches the inflection of words. In its primitive acceptation, it 
 means an exposition of their derivation, and is still employed in 
 that sense, as well as in the signification, in which it is here used. 
 Some writers have preferred the term analogy to express the 
 doctrine of inflection. If the principle of analogy or similitude 
 were confined to inflection, the designation might be proper ; but, 
 as this principle extends to the concord, the government, and the 
 collocation, generally termed, the syntax of words, it cannot be 
 considered an appropriate name for that part of grammar, which 
 teaches merely inflection, or verbal termination. Analogy is the 
 leading principle, on which every grammatical rule is founded; 
 and those, who have employed the term for etymology, it would 
 be easy to show, have not been observant of strict consistency. 
 
334 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Having, in the preceding chapter, explained the 
 nature of that usage which gives law to language ; 
 and having proposed a few rules for the student's di- 
 rection in cases where usage is divided, and also 
 where her authority may be justly questioned, and 
 checked by criticism ; I intend, in the following pages, 
 to present the young reader with a copious exempli- 
 fication of the three general species of error against 
 grammatical purity, arranging the examples in the 
 order of the parts of speech. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 THE NOUN. 
 
 BARBARIS3I. 
 
 " I RODE in a one horse chay." It ought to be 
 ** a one horse chaise." There is no such word as 
 chay, 
 
 ** That this has been the true and proper accepfion 
 of this word, I shall testify by one evidence." — Ham^ 
 mond, Acception is obsolete, it ought to be accept^ 
 ation. 
 
 " Were the workmen to enter into a contrary com- 
 bination of the same kind, not to accept of a certain 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 335 
 
 wage." — Wealth of Nations. Wage is obsolete; 
 the plural only is used. 
 
 " Their alliance was sealed by the nuptial of 
 Henry, with the daughter of the Italian prince." — • 
 Gibbon. Nuptial has not, I believe, been used as a 
 substantive since the days of Shakspeare, and may be 
 deemed obsolete. The plural nuptials is the proper 
 word. 
 
 " He showed that he had a full comprehension of 
 the whole of the plan, and of the judicious adaption 
 of the parts to the whole." — Sheridan's Life of Swift. 
 Adaption is obsolescent, if not obsolete : adaptation 
 is the proper term. Adaption is frequently em- 
 ployed by Swift, from whom Sheridan seems to have 
 copied it. 
 
 " Which even his brother modernists them- 
 selves, like ungrates, whisper so loud that it reaches 
 up to the very garret I am now writing in." — Swift. 
 " Ungrate" is a barbarism. " Ingrate" is to be found 
 in some of our English poets as an adjective, and 
 synonymous with " ungrateful ;" but " ungrate," as a 
 substantive, is truly barbarous. Almost equally ob- 
 jectionable is Steele's use of stupid as a substantive 
 plural. '^ Thou art no longer to drudge in raising 
 the mirth of stupids." — Spectator, No. 468. And 
 also oi ignorant, *' The ignorants of the lower order." 
 ---Ibid. 
 
 Pope also says, in one of his letters, " We are 
 curious impertinents in the case of futurity." This 
 employment of the adjective as a noun substantive^ 
 
336 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 though never sanctioned by general use, is now pro- 
 perly avoided by our most reputable writers. It tends 
 to confusion, where distinction is necessary. 
 
 " The Deity dwelleth between the cherubims." 
 The Hebrews form the plural of masculines by add- 
 ing im; " cherubims," therefore, is a double plural. 
 " Seraphim s," for the same reason, is faulty. The 
 singular of these words being " cherub" and " seraph," 
 the plural is either " cherubs" and " seraphs," or 
 " cherubim" and ** seraphim." Milton has uniformly 
 avoided this mistake, which circumstance Addison, 
 in his criticisms on that author, has overlooked ; nay, 
 he has, even with Milton's correct usage before him, 
 committed the error. "' The zeal of the seraphim,'* 
 says he, " breaks forth in a becoming warmth of sen- 
 timents and expressions, as the character which is 
 given of Jiim,'' &c. Here " seraphim," a plural noun, 
 is used as singular. It should be, " the zeal of the 
 seraph." 
 
 " Nothing can be more pleasant than to see vir- 
 tuosoes about a cabinet of medals, descanting upon 
 the value, the rarity, and authenticalness of the se- 
 veral pieces." Authenticalness, though used by Ad- 
 dison, is obsolescent, and may, perhaps, be deemed a 
 barbarism. It may be properly dismissed, as a harsh 
 and unnecessary term. 
 
 " He broke off with Lady Gifford, one of his oldest 
 acquaintances in life." — Sheridan's Life of Swift. 
 Acquaintances is now deemed a Scotticism, being 
 almost peculiar to the northern parts of the island. 
 
AKD ILLUSTRATIONS. 337 
 
 Johnson, however, did not disclaim it. " A young 
 student from the inns of court, who has often attacked 
 the curate of his father's parish, with such arguments 
 as his acquaintances could furnish." — JRambler. We 
 find it also in Steele ; thus, " she pays every body 
 their own, and yet makes daily new acquaintances." 
 —Tatler, No. 109. 
 
 " I am sure, that the farmeress at Bevis would feel 
 emotions of vanity .... if she knew you gave her the 
 character of a reasonable woman." — Lord Peter- 
 borrow to Pope, This, I believe, is the only passage 
 in which farmeress is to be found ; but, though it 
 may therefore be pronounced a barbarism, the author 
 could not have expressed himself so clearly and so 
 concisely, in any other way. We every now and then, 
 as Johnson observes, feel the want of a feminine ter- 
 mination. 
 
 " The bellowses were broken." The noun, as here 
 inflected, is barbarous. " Bellows" is a plural word, 
 denoting a single instrument, though consisting of 
 two parts. There is, therefore, no such word as 
 " bellowses." 
 
 SOLECISM *. 
 
 " I have read Horace Art of Poetry." This ex- 
 pression may be deemed solecistical, being a violation 
 
 * The reader is requested to observe^ that under " solecism," 
 I have included several phraseologies^ which, though not con- 
 sistent with syntactical propriety, may be justly called by the 
 softer name of " inaccuracies." 
 
338 CRITICAL KEMARKS 
 
 of that rule, by which one substantive governs an- 
 other in the genitive. It should be, " Horace's Art 
 of Poetry." " These are ladies ruffles," " this is the 
 kings picture," are errors of the same kind, for 
 '* ladies' ruffles," " the king's picture." 
 
 ** These three great genius's flourished at the 
 same time." Here "genius's," the genitive sin- 
 gular, is improperly used for *' geniuses," the nomi- 
 native plural. 
 
 "They have of late, 'tis true, reformed, in some 
 measure, the gouty joints and darning w^ork oiwhere- 
 untds, whereby' s, thereof s, therewith' s, and the rest 
 of this kind." — Shaftesbury. Here also the genitive 
 singular is improperly used for the objective case 
 plural. It should be, whereuntoSy ivherebys, there- 
 ofsy therewiths. 
 
 " Both those people, acute and inquisitive to ex- 
 cess, corrupted the sciences." — Adams's History of 
 England, 
 
 " Two rival peoples, the Jews and the Samaritans, 
 have preserved separate exemplars of it." — Geddes^s 
 Preface to his Translation of the Bible. The former 
 of these passages involves a palpable error, the word 
 " people," here equivalent to nation, and in the sin- 
 gular number, being joined with both, or "the two," 
 a term of plurality. In the latter, this error is 
 avoided, the noun being employed in the plural 
 number. This usage, however, though sanctioned 
 by the authority of our translators of the Bible in 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 339 
 
 two passages, seems now to be obsolete. States, 
 tribes, nations, appear to be preferable. 
 
 " I bought a scissars/' " I want a tongs," " It is 
 a tattered colours," involve a palpable solecism, the 
 term significant of unity being joined with a plural 
 word. It should be, " a pair of scissars," " a pair of 
 tongs," " a pair of colours." 
 
 " They tell us, that the fashion of jumbling fifty 
 things together in a dish was at first introduced, in 
 compliance to a depraved and debauched appetite." 
 —Swift. 
 
 We say, " comply with," therefore, by Rule xvii. 
 " in compliance with" is the analogical form of ex- 
 pression, and has the sanction of classical usage. 
 
 " The fortitude of a man, who brings his will to 
 the obedience of his reason." — Steele, Analogy re- 
 quires " obedience to." We say, obedient to com- 
 mand: the person obeying is expressed in the geni- 
 tive, or with the preposition of; and the person or 
 thing obeyed with the preposition to, as, " a servant's 
 obedience," or " the obedience of a servant to the 
 orders of his master." 
 
 " Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to 
 doctrine." — Bible. "Attendance" and "attention" 
 are verbal nouns, derived from *' attend." When the 
 verb signifies "to regard," or "to fix the mind upon," 
 it is followed by to, as, " he attends to his studies," 
 and the verbal noun is " attention," construed, agree- 
 ably to Rule xvii. in the same manner as the verb. 
 
 z 2 
 
340 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 Thus, " he gives attention to his studies." But when 
 *' to attend" signifies " to wait on," or " be present 
 at," it is followed by o/^, upon, or at, and is some- 
 times used without the preposition. 
 
 Thus, "if any minister refused to admit a lecturer 
 recommended to him, he was required to attend upon 
 the committee." — Clarendon. 
 
 " He attended at the consecration with becoming 
 gravity.'' — Hume, In this sense the verbal noun 
 is " attendance," and construed like the verb, when 
 it bears this signification. In the sentence, there- 
 fore, last quoted, syntax requires, either " attendance 
 at" or *' attention to." The latter conveys the mean- 
 ing of the original. 
 
 IMPROPRIETY. 
 
 *' The observation of the Sabbath is a duty incum- 
 bent on every Christian.'' It should be, " the ob- 
 servance." Both substantives are derived from the 
 verb " to observe." When the verb means " to keep,*' 
 or " obey," the verbal noun is " observance ;" when 
 ** to remark," or " to notice," the noun is " ob- 
 servation." 
 
 " They make such acquirements, as fit them for 
 useful avocations." — Stauntoris Embassy to China, 
 
 The word avocation is frequently, as in the ex- 
 ample before us, confounded with vocation. By the 
 latter is clearly signified "calling," "trade," "em- 
 ployment," " business," *' occupation," and by the 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 341 
 
 former is meant whatever withdraws, distracts, or 
 diverts us from that business. No two words can 
 be more distinct ; yet we often see them confounded. 
 
 ** A supplication of twenty days was decreed to his 
 honour." — Henrifs History of Britain, The term 
 supplication is in our language confined to what 
 Johnson calls " petitionary worship," and always im- 
 plies request, entreaty, or petition. The Latin term 
 supplicatio has a more extensive meaning, and like- 
 wise supplicium, each denoting not only prayer, 
 strictly so called, but also thanksgiving. The latter 
 of these should have been employed by the author. 
 
 "Our pleasures are purer, when consecrated by 
 nations, and cherished by the greatest genii among 
 men." — BlackwelVs Mythology. Genii means spirits. 
 (See p. 24.) It ought to be geniuses. 
 
 I have already remarked (see p. 42), that, when the 
 primary idea implied in the masculine and feminine 
 terms, is the chief object of attention, and when the 
 sex does not enter as a matter of consideration, the 
 masculine term should be employed, even when the 
 female is signified. Thus, the Monthly Reviewer, 
 in giving a critique on the poems of Mrs. Grant, says, 
 in allusion to that lady, " such is the poet's request." 
 This is strictly proper. He considers her merely as 
 a writer of poetry. But, were we to say, " as a poet 
 she ought not to choose for her theme the story of 
 Abelard," we should be chargeable with error. For 
 this would imply, that the story of Abelard is not a 
 
342 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 fit subject for a poem, — a sentiment manifestly false. 
 There is no incongruity between the subject and 
 poetry, but between the subject and female deli- 
 cacy. We ought, therefore, to say, " as a poetess, 
 she ought not to choose for her theme the story of 
 Abelard." 
 
 " It was impossible not to suspect the veracity of 
 this story." " Veracity" is applicable to persons only, 
 and properly denotes that moral quality or property, 
 which consists in speaking truth, being in its import 
 nearly synonymous with the fashionable, but grossly 
 perverted term, honour : it is, therefore, improperly 
 applied to things. It should be " the truth of this 
 story." The former denotes moral, and the latter 
 physical truth. We therefore say "the truth" or 
 "verity of the relation or thing told," and "the vera- 
 city of the relater." 
 
 Pope has entitled a small dissertation, prefixed to 
 his translation of the Iliad, " A View of the Epic 
 Poem," misled, it is probable, by Bossu's title of a 
 similar work, " Traite du Poeme Epique." Poem 
 denotes the work or thing composed ; " the art of 
 making," which is here intended, is termed poesy. 
 
 An error similar to this occurs in the following 
 passage : " I apprehend that all the sophism which 
 has been or can be employed, will not be sufficient to 
 acquit this system at the tribunal of reason." — Bol- 
 ingbrohe. " Sophism" is properly defined by John- 
 son, " a fallacious argument ;" sophistry means " fal- 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 343 
 
 lacious reasoning," or ** unsound argumentation." 
 The author should have said " all the sophistry," or 
 " all the sophisms." 
 
 ** The Greek is, doubtless, a language much superior 
 in riches, harmony, and variety to the Latin." — Camp- 
 helVs Rhet. As the properties or qualities of the 
 languages are here particularly compared, I appre- 
 hend, that the abstract " richness" would be a more 
 apposite term. " Riches" properly denotes " the 
 things possessed," or " what constitutes the opulence 
 of the owner;" ** richness" denotes the state, qua- 
 lity, or property of the individual, as possessed of 
 these. The latter, therefore, appears to me the more 
 appropriate term. 
 
 " He felt himself compelled to acknowledge the 
 justice of my remark." Tina justness would, agree- 
 ably to Canon 1st, be the preferable word, the former 
 term being conlfined to persons, and the latter to 
 things. 
 
 " The negligence of this leaves us exposed to an 
 uncommon levity in our usual conversation." — Spec- 
 tator, It ought to be " The neglect." " Negli- 
 gence" implies a habit ; " neglect" expresses an act. 
 
 ** For I am of opinion that it is better a language 
 should not be wholly perfect, than it should be per- 
 petually changing; and we must give over at one 
 time, or at length infallibly change for the worse ; 
 as the Romans did when they began to quit their 
 simplicity of style for affected refinements, such as 
 
344 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 we meet with in Tacitus, and other authors, which 
 ended, by degrees, in many barbarities." Barbarity, 
 in this sense, is obsolescent. The univocal term, 
 barbarism^ is much preferable. 
 
 Gibbon, speaking of the priest, says, " to obtain 
 the acceptation of this guide to salvation, you must 
 faithfully pay him tythes." Acceptation in this 
 sense is obsolete, or at least nearly out of use: it 
 should he favour or acceptance. 
 
 " She ought to lessen the extravagant power of 
 the duke and duchess, by taking the disposition of 
 employments into her own hands." — Swift, Dis- 
 posal, for reasons already assigned '', is much better. 
 
 " The conscience of approving one's self a bene- 
 factor to mankind, is the noblest recompense for being 
 so." Conscience is the faculty by which we judge 
 our own conduct. It is here improperly used for 
 ** consciousness," or the perception of what passes 
 within ourselves. 
 
 " If reason were as plenty as blackberries, I would 
 give no man a reason on compulsion." — Shakspeare. 
 Here plenty, a substantive, is improperly used for 
 plentiful. 
 
 " It had a prodigious quantity of windows." — 
 Spence's Excursions, It should be number. This 
 error frequently occurs in common conversation. 
 We hear of " a quantity of people," of " a quantity 
 
 * See Canon I, p. 324. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 345 
 
 of troops," " a quantity of boys and girls," just as if 
 they were to be measured by the bushel, or weighed 
 in the balance. 
 
 " I have the Dublin copy of Gibbon's History/' 
 This is a Scotticism for Dublin edition ; and so pal- 
 pable, that I should not have mentioned it, were it 
 not found in authors of no contemptible merit. 
 
 Robertson, when speaking of the Mexican form of 
 government (Book viith), says, " but the description 
 of their policy and laws is so inaccurate and contra- 
 dictory, that it is difficult to delineate the form of 
 their constitution with any precision." I should here 
 prefer the appropriate and univocal term polity^ which 
 denotes merely the form of government ; policy means 
 rather wisdom or prudence, or the art of governing, 
 which may exist where there is no settled polity. 
 
 " A letter relative to certain calumnies and mis- 
 representations which have appeared in the Edin- 
 burgh Review, with an exposition of the ignorance 
 of the new critical junto." — Here, agreeably to 
 Canon I {see p. 3^4.), I should prefer exposure, as 
 being a word strictly univocal. It would conduce to 
 perspicuity were we to consider exposition as the 
 verbal noun of expound, and confine it entirely to 
 explanation, and exposure as the verbal noun of ex- 
 pose, signifying the act of setting out, or the state of 
 being set out or exposed. 
 
346 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 SECTION II. 
 THE ADJECTIVE. 
 
 BARBARISM. 
 
 " Instead of an able man, you desire to have 
 him an insignificant wrangler, opiniatre in discourse, 
 and priding himself on contradicting others." — 
 LocJee, Opiniatre is a barbarism; it should be 
 opinionative. 
 
 " And studied linesj and fictions circles draw." — Prior. 
 
 The vfoxA fictions is of Prior's own coining; it is 
 barbarous. 
 
 ** The punishment that belongs to that great and 
 criminous guilt is the forfeiture of his right and 
 claim to all mercies." — Hammond, Criminous is a 
 barbarism. 
 
 " Which, even in the most overly view, will ap- 
 pear incompatible with any sort of music." — Karnes's 
 Elements, Overly is a Scotticism ; in England it 
 is now obsolete. The proper term is cursory or 
 superficial, 
 
 " Who should believe, that a man should be a 
 doctor for the cure of bursten children ?" — Steele, 
 The participle hursten is now obsolete. 
 
 ** Callisthenes, the philosopher, that followed Alex- 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 347 
 
 ander's court, and hated the king, being asked, how 
 one should become the famousest man in the world, 
 answered, by taking away him that is." — JBacoris 
 j4j)ophth. The superlative is a barbarism ; it should 
 be, " most famous." 
 
 SOLECISM. 
 
 "I do not like these kind of men." Here the 
 plural word these is joined to a noun singular; it 
 should be, '" this kind." " Those sort," " these kind 
 of things," are gross solecisms. 
 
 *' Neither do I see it is any crime, farther than ill 
 manners, to differ in opinion from the majority of 
 either, or both houses ; and that ill manners I have 
 often been guilty of." — Swiff s Examiner, Here is 
 another egregious solecism. He should have said, 
 " those ill manners," or " that species of ill manners.'' 
 
 " The landlord was quite unfurnished of every kind 
 of provision." — Sheridan's Life of Swift, We say, 
 *' to furnish with,'' not " to furnish of" Furnished 
 and unfurnished are construed in the same manner. 
 It should be, ** unfurnished with," 
 
 " A child of four years old was thus cruelly de- 
 serted by its parents." This form of expression fre- 
 quently occurs, and is an egregious solecism. It 
 should be, "a child four years old," or " aged four 
 years," not ** of four years." Those who employ this 
 incorrect phraseology, seem misled by confounding 
 two very different modes of expression, namely, " a 
 
348 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 child of four years of age," or " of the age of four 
 years," and *' a child four years old." The preposi- 
 tion qf'i^ requisite in the two first of these forms, but 
 inadmissible in the third. They would not say, " I 
 am of four years old," but " I am four years old ;" 
 hence, consistently, they ought to say, " a child four 
 years old." ** At ten years old, I was put to a 
 grammar school." — Steele, Grammatically this is, 
 " I old at ten years." 
 
 " This account is very different to what I told 
 you." " I found your affairs had been managed in 
 a different manner than what I advised." Both these 
 phraseologies are faulty. It should be in each, " dif- 
 ferent fromJ^ The verb " to differ" is construed 
 wiih.J'rom before the second object of disparity ; the 
 adjective therefore should (by Rule xvii.) be construed 
 in the same manner. 
 
 " These words have the same sense of those others." 
 Same should be followed with as, with, or the rela- 
 tives whoy which, that. It ought, therefore, to be, 
 " as those," or " with those," or " have thfe sense of 
 those others." 
 
 " I shall ever depend on your constant friendship, 
 kind memory, and good offices, though I were never 
 to see or hear the effects of them, like the trust we 
 have in benevolent spirits, who, though we never see 
 or hear them, we think are constantly serving and 
 praying for us." — Pope's Letters to Atterhury. Like 
 can have no grammatical reference to any word in the 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 349 
 
 sentence but J, and this reference is absurd. He 
 should have said/" as, ox just as, we trust in benevo- 
 lent spirits." 
 
 " This gentleman rallies the best of any man I 
 know." — Addison, The superlative must be fol- 
 lowed by of, the preposition implying out o/*a plu- 
 rality, expressed either by a collective noun, or a 
 plural number. But here we have a selection de- 
 noted by of, and the selection to be made out of one. 
 This is absurd. It should be, " better than any other" 
 — ^the best of all men — "I know ;" '• this gentleman, 
 of all my acquaintance, rallies the best ;" or " of all 
 my acquaintance, there is no one, who rallies so well, 
 as this gentleman." 
 
 " Besides, those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, 
 are best, of all others, qualified to revenge that defect 
 with their breath." — Preface to A Tale of a Tub, 
 
 " Here," says Sheridan, " the disjunction of the 
 word Z>^^^ from the v^ ox A qualified mdke^ the sentence 
 uncouth, which would run better thus, * are, of all 
 others, best qualified.' '' So far Mr. Sheridan is right ; 
 but he has left uncorrected a very common error. 
 The antecedent subject of comparison is here ab- 
 surdly referred at once to the same, and to a different 
 aggregate, the word o/'referring it to others, to which 
 it is opposed, and to which therefore it cannot, with- 
 out a contradiction, be said to belong. The sentence, 
 therefore, involves an absurdity : either the word 
 others should be expunged, when the sentence will 
 
350 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 run thus, " Those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, 
 are, of all, best qualified to revenge that defect," or, 
 if the word others be retained, the clause should be, 
 " are better qualified than all others *.'' 
 
 The phraseology here censured, is admissible in 
 those cases only where a previous comparison has 
 been made. If we say, " To engage a private tutor 
 for a single pupil, is, perhaps, of all others, the least 
 eligible mode of giving literary instruction,* {Harrow 
 on Education), without making that previous discri- 
 mination, which the word others implies, we commit 
 an error. But we may say with propriety, " I prefer 
 the mode of education adopted in our public schools ; 
 and of all other modes to engage a private tutor ap- 
 pears to me the least eligible." 
 
 IMPROPRIETY. 
 
 ** They could easier get them by heart, and retain 
 them in memory." — Adamses History of Kngland, 
 Here the adjective is improperly used for the ad- 
 verb; it ought to be "more easily." Swift commits 
 a similar error, when he says, " Ned explained his 
 text so full and clear," for " so fully and clearly." 
 
 * We perceive intuitively the error of Milton, when he calls 
 Adam "the comeliest of men since born," Eve also '^ the fairest 
 of her daughters," and we laugh, perhaps, when the Cork alma- 
 nack-maker gravely tells us, " that the principal republics in 
 Europe, are Venice, Holland, and America ;" yet the error here 
 reprehended is precisely of the same species, though it passes fre- 
 quently unnoticed. See p. 101. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 351 
 
 " Thus much, I think, is sufficient to serve, by way 
 of address, to my patrons, the true modern critics, 
 and may very well atone for my past silence, as well 
 as for that, which I am like to observe for the future." 
 — Swift Like, or similar, is here improperly used 
 for likely, a word in signification nearly synonymous 
 with probable. We say, " he is likely to do it," or 
 " it is probable he will do it." 
 
 " Charity vaunteth not itself, doth not behave itself 
 unseemly." Here the adjective unseemly is impro- 
 perly used for the adverb, denoting "in an unseemly 
 manner." Unseemlily not being in use, the word 
 indecently should be substituted. 
 
 " The Romans had no other subsistence but the 
 scanty pillage of a few farms." Other is redundant ; 
 it should be, "no subsistence but,'' or "no other 
 subsistence than." In the Saxon language, and the 
 earlier English writers, the word other is not uni- 
 formly followed by than, but sometimes with but, 
 before, save, except *, thus, Mark, xii. 32, " thaer an 
 God is, and nis other butan him," thus rendered in 
 
 * It has been already offered as the opinion of the writer, (See 
 p. Qb,) that the English word other is the Saxon o^ep, and that 
 this word with the Arabic ahd, the Hebrew had or ahad, the 
 Saxon ois^e, the Teutonic odo, the Swedish udda, and probably 
 the Latin aut, have all sprung from the same source, or that 
 one of these is the parent of the rest, denoting unus or singulus, 
 " one," or " one by itself," Of the origin of the Saxon other. 
 Lye has hazarded no opinion. It appears to me to be a compara- 
 tive from o^^e. To those who have carefully examined, and have 
 
352 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 the Bishops' Translation, ** there is one God, and 
 there is none but he," and in the common version, 
 " none other but he." In the book of Common 
 Prayer we have, "thou shalt have no other gods, but 
 me ;" and the same form of expression occurs in Ad- 
 dison, Swift, and other contemporary writers. Usage, 
 however, seems of late to have decided almost uni- 
 versally in favour of than. This decision is not only 
 consistent with analogy, if the word other is to be 
 deemed a comparative, but may also, in some cases, 
 be subservient to perspicuity. No other hut, no other 
 beside, no other except, are equivalent expressions, 
 and do not perhaps convey precisely the same idea 
 with none but, no other than. Thus, if we take an 
 example similar to Baker's, and suppose a person to 
 say, " A called on me this morning," B asks, " No 
 one else ?" " No other," answers A, " but my sta- 
 tioner." Here the expression, as Baker remarks, 
 seems strictly proper, the words no other having a 
 reference to A. But if the stationer had been the 
 only visitor, he should say, " none but," or " no other 
 than the stationer called on me this morning." This 
 is the opinion of Baker. The distinction, which he 
 wishes to establish, is sufficiently evident ; but that 
 
 approved the theory of Mr. Tooke, it will furnish no valid objec- 
 tion against this opinion, that the word o^^e is uniformly found 
 in Saxon, signifying aut. Such can have little or no difficulty in 
 perceiving, not only from the similarity of the elements, but from 
 the affinity in point of sense, that had, ahd, aut^ o**e, o^ep, other^ 
 or, are all members of one and the same family. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 353 
 
 it is warranted by strict analysis, I do not mean to 
 affirm. 
 
 " He has eaten no bread, nor drunk no water, these 
 two days." No is here improperly used for any, two 
 negatives making an affirmative : it should be, " nor 
 drunk any water." 
 
 " The servant must have an undeniable character*" 
 Undeniable is equivalent to incontrovertible, or *' not 
 admitting dispute." An " undeniable character," 
 therefore, means, a character which cannot be denied 
 or disputed, whether good or bad : it should be, 
 ^* unexceptionable." 
 
 " But you are too wise to propose to yourselves an 
 object, inadequate to your strength." — Watson^ s 
 Hist, of Philip III, Inadequate means ** falling 
 short of due proportion," and is here improperly used 
 in a sense nearly the reverse. It should be, " to 
 which your strength is inadequate," or, " superior to 
 your strength," 
 
 " I received a letter to-day from our mutual friend." 
 I concur with Baker in considering this expression 
 to be incorrect^ a may be a friend to B and also to 
 c, and is therefore a friend common to both ; but 
 not their mutual friend : for ^his implies reciprocity 
 between two individuals, or two parties. The indi- 
 viduals may be mutually friends ; but one cannot be 
 the mutual friend of the other. Locke more pro- 
 perly says, " I esteem the memory of ovu* common 
 friend." This is, doubtless, the correct expression ; 
 but, as the term common may denote '' ordinary," or 
 
 A A 
 
S54 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 " not uncommon," the word mutual, though not pro^ 
 per, may, perhaps, as Baker observes, be tolerated. 
 
 The superlatives lowest and lowermost^ highest 
 and uppermost^ appear to me to be frequently con- 
 founded. Thus we say, " the lowest house in the 
 street," when we mean the lowest in respect to mea- 
 surement, from the basement to the top, and also 
 the lowest in regard to position, the inferiority being 
 occasioned by declivity. Now it appears to me, that 
 when we refer to dimension, we should say, lowest 
 or highest; and when w^e refer to site or situation, 
 we ought to say, lowermost or uppermost, 
 
 " It was due, perhaps, more to the ignorance of 
 the scholars, than to the knowledge of the masters." 
 — Swift, It should be rather, " it was owing," or " it 
 is ascribable." The author had previously been speak- 
 ing of the first instructors of mankind, and ques- 
 tioning their claim to the title of sages. To say, 
 then, that their right to this title, or that the appel- 
 lation itself, " was due more to ignorance than to 
 knowledge," is manifestly improper. Swift, how^- 
 ever, was not singular in using the adjective in this 
 sense. Steele, and some other contemporary writers, 
 employed it in the same acceptation. ** The cala- 
 mities of children are due to the negligence of the 
 parents." — Spectator, No, 431. It is now seldom or 
 never employed as equivalent to " owing to," or " oc- 
 casioned by." 
 
 " Risible," " ludicrous," and " ridiculous," are fre- 
 quently confounded. Risible denotes merely the 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. . 355 
 
 capacity of laughing, and is applied to animals having 
 the faculty of laughter, as, " man is a risible creature." 
 Ludicrous is applicable to things exciting laughter 
 simply ; ridiculous to things exciting laughter with 
 contempt. The tricks of a monkey are ludicrous, 
 the whimsies of superstition are ridiculous, ** The 
 measure of the mid stream for salmon among our 
 forefathers is not less risible." — Karnes's Sketches. 
 He should have said " ridiculous." 
 
 We have already expressed our doubt of the propriety 
 of using the numeral adjective one, as referring to a 
 plurality of individuals, denoted by a plural noun. See 
 p. Q5. There is something which is not only strange to 
 the ear, but also strikes us as ungrammatical, in saying *, 
 '' The Greeks and the Trojans continued the contest ; 
 the one were favoured by Juno, the other by Venus." 
 At the same time, it must be acknowledged, that 
 there seems to be an inconsistency in questioning 
 this phraseology, and yet retaining some others, 
 which appear to be analogous to it, and can plead in 
 their defence reputable usage. We say, " The Ro- 
 mans and the Carthaginians contended with each 
 other," and '*The English, the Dutch, and the 
 Spaniards disputed, one with another, the sovereignty 
 of the sea." Here each and one clearly refer to a 
 plurality, expressed by a noun plural. A similar 
 
 * In French the article and the adjectives admitting a plural 
 termination^ the expression " les uns et les autres" joined to a 
 plural verb is in perfect consistence with analogy. So also^ in 
 Latin, are utrique and alteri, referring to a plurality. But imus 
 was never in this sense used as a plural. 
 
 A A 2 
 
856 CRITICAL KEMAUKS 
 
 example occurs in the following sentence : " As'the 
 greatest part of mankind are more affected by things, 
 which strike the senses, than by excellencies, that are 
 discovered by reason arid thought, they form very 
 erroneous judgments, when they compare one with 
 the other." — Guardian. If we inquire, what one? 
 we find the answer to be " things." Here is a mani- 
 fest incongruity, which might have been prevented, 
 by saying, " one subject with the other," or " when 
 they compare them together." As this construction 
 of one, referring to a noun plural, seems irreconcile- 
 able with the notion of unity, and may be avoided, 
 it becomes a question, whether this phraseology 
 ought to be imitated. The subject, as far as I know, 
 has not been considered by any of our grammarians. 
 
 " That this was the cause of the disaster, was ap- 
 parent to all." Apparent is sometimes used in this 
 sense. The word, however, is equivocal, as it denotes 
 seeming, opposed to real; and obvious, opposed to 
 doubtful or obscure, *' I consider the difference be- 
 tween him and the two authors above mentioned, as 
 more apparent than real." — Campbell. Here appa- 
 rent is opposed to real; and to this sense it would 
 be right to confine it, as thtis all ambiguity would 
 be effectually prevented. ** But there soon appeared 
 very apparent reasons for James's partiality." — 
 Goldsmith, Obvious, or evident, would unquestion- 
 ably be preferable. 
 
 " How seldom, then, does it happen, that the mind 
 does not find itself in similar circumstances ? Very 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 357 
 
 rare indeed." — Trusler's Preface to Synon. The 
 adjective rare is here improperly used for the adverb. 
 As the question, indeed, is adverbially proposed, it 
 is somewhat surprising, that the author should an- 
 swer adjectively : it ought to be, " very rarely." 
 
 " No man had ever less friends, and more enemies.'* 
 Less refers to quantity, Jewer to number; it should 
 be, "Jewer friends." 
 
 " The mind may insensibly fall off from this relish 
 of virtuous actions, and by degrees exchange that 
 pleasure, which it takes in the performance of its 
 duty, for delights of a much more inferior and un- 
 profitable nature." — Addison. Inferior implies com- 
 parison, but it is grammatically a positive. When 
 one thing is, in any respect, lower than another, we 
 say, "it is inferior to it ;" and if a third thing were 
 still lower, we should say, " it is still more inferior." 
 But the author is comparing only two subjects ; he 
 should therefore have said, " of a much inferior, and 
 more unprofitable nature." The expression " more 
 preferable," is for the same reason faulty, unless 
 when two degrees of excess are implied. 
 
 The adjectives agreeable, suitable, conformable, 
 independent, consistent, relative, previous, ante- 
 cedent, and many others, are often used, where their 
 several derivative adverbs would be more properly 
 employed ; as, " he lives agreeable to nature," " he 
 wrote to me previous to his coming to town," " toler- 
 able good," ** he acted conformable to his promise." 
 It is worthy of remark, however, that the idiom of 
 
358 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 our language is not repugnant to some of these 
 phraseologies ; a circumstance which many of our 
 grammarians have overlooked, if we may judge from 
 the severity, with which they have condemned them. 
 If I say, " he acted according to nature," the expres- 
 sion is deemed unobjectionable ; but is not according 
 a participle, or, perhaps, here more properly a par- 
 ticipial f ** He acted contrary to nature" is also 
 considered as faultless ; but is not contrarxj an ad- 
 jective ? Were we to reason on abstract principles, 
 or to adopt what is deemed the preferable phrase- 
 ology, we should say, " contrarily" and " accordingly 
 to nature." This, however, is not the case. " Con- 
 trary to nature," " according to nature," and many 
 similar phraseologies, are admitted as good: why, 
 then, is " conformable to nature," an expression per- 
 fectly analogous, so severely condemned ? Johnson 
 ha«, indeed, uselessly enough in my opinion, called 
 according a preposition ; fearful, however, of error, 
 he adds, it is properly a participle, for it is followed 
 by to» According is always a participle, as much as 
 agreeing^ and can be nothing else. Because secun- 
 dum in Latin is termed a preposition, hence some 
 have referred according to the same species of words. 
 With equal propriety might in the power of be 
 deemed a preposition, because jo^w^* in Latin is so 
 denominated. Now, if " he acted contrary to na- 
 ture" and "according to nature" be deemed unex- 
 ceptionable expressions, with many others of the 
 same kind, which might be adduced, it follows that, 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 359 
 
 "he acted agreeable," "conformable," "suitable to 
 nature," may plead in their favour these analogous 
 phraseologies. I offer these observations, in order to 
 show that, misled by abstract reasonings, or by the 
 servile imitation of another language, we sometimes 
 hastily condemn, as altogether inadmissible, modes 
 of expression, which are not repugnant to our ver- 
 nacular idiom. I would not, however, be under- 
 stood to mean, that the adverb is not, in these cases, 
 much to be preferred, when it can be employed con- 
 sistently with good usage. For, if we say, " he acts 
 agreeable to the laws of reason," the question is, who 
 or what is agreeable ? the answer, according to the 
 strict construction of the sentence, is he ; but it is 
 not he, but his mode of acting, of which the accord- 
 ance is predicated ; agreeably is, therefore, the pre- 
 ferable term. 
 
 I observe also, that, wherever the adjective is em- 
 ployed to modify the meaning of another adjective, 
 it becomes particularly exceptionable, and can scarcely, 
 indeed, plead aught in its favour, as, " indifferent 
 good," " tolerable strong," instead of " indifferently 
 good," and "tolerably strong." The following phrase- 
 ology is extremely inelegant, and is scarcely admis- 
 sible on any principle of analogy. *' Immediately 
 consequent to the victory, Drogheda was invested." 
 — Belsham^s History, What was consequent? 
 Grammatically " Drogheda." 
 
 " No other person,, beside my brother, visited me 
 to-day." Here the speaker means to say that no 
 
S60 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 person, beside his brother, visited him to-day ; but 
 his expression implies two exceptions from none^ the 
 terms other and beside each implying one, and can, 
 therefore, be correct on this supposition only, that 
 some one beside his brother had visited him. It 
 should be rather, ** no person beside." 
 
 " The old man had, some fifty years ago, been iio 
 mean performer on the vielle." — Sterne. This phrase- 
 ology appears to me very objectionable; and can be 
 proper in no case, except when the date of the period 
 is to be expressed as uncertain. The word some 
 ohould be cancelled. We may say, ** I was absent 
 some days," because the period is indefinite ; but to 
 say, " I was absent some five days," either involves an 
 incongruity, representing a period as at once definite 
 and indefinite ; or denotes " some five days or other," 
 a meaning which the expression is rarely intended to 
 signify. 
 
 " Brutus and Aruns killed one another." It should 
 be, " each other :" " one another" is applied to more 
 than two. " The one the other" would be correct, 
 though inelegant. 
 
 " It argued the most extreme vanity.*' — Hume, 
 Extreme is derived from a Latin superlative, and 
 denotes ** the farthest," or " greatest possible :" it 
 cannot, therefore, be compared. 
 
 *' Of all vices pride is the most universal." Uni- 
 versal is here improperly used for general. The 
 meaning of the latter admits intension and remis- 
 sion, and may, therefore, be compared. The former 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. S6l 
 
 is an adjective, whose signification cannot be height- 
 ened or lessened; it therefore rejects all intensive 
 and diminutive words, as, so, more, less, least, most. 
 The expression should be, " Of all vices pride is the 
 most general." 
 
 " Tho' learn'd, well bred ; and tho' well bred, sincere : 
 Modestly bold, and humanly severe." — Pope. 
 
 Human and humane, as Dr. Campbell observes, are 
 sometimes confounded. The former properly means 
 " belonging to man ;" the latter, " kind and com- 
 passionate :" humanly, therefore, is improperly, in the 
 couplet now quoted, used for humanely. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 THE PRONOUN. 
 
 BARBARISM. 
 
 Pronouns are so few in number, and so simple, 
 that this species of error, in respect to them, can 
 scarcely occur. To this class, however, may perhaps 
 be reduced such as, his*n, hefn, our'n, your*n, their^n, 
 for Ms own, her own, our own, &c. or for his one, her 
 one, &c. 
 
 SOLECISM. 
 
 ** Who calls ?" " 'Tis me." This is a violation of 
 
362 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 that rule, by which the verb to he has the same case 
 after it, that it has before it. It should be, " It is I." 
 
 " You were the quarrel," says Petulant in " The 
 Way of the World." Millamant answers, " Me !" For 
 the reason just given, it should be " /." 
 
 " Spare thou them, O God, which confess their 
 faults." As the relative refers to persons, it should 
 be who, 
 
 " Nor is mankind so much to blame, in his choice 
 thus determining him." — Swift, Manhind is a col- 
 lective noun, and is uniformly considered as plural ; 
 Ms^ therefore, is a gross solecism. 
 
 " By this institution, each legion, to whom a cer- 
 tain portion of auxiliaries was allotted, contained 
 within itself every species of lighter troops, and of 
 missile weapons." — Gihhon, It ought to be, to which 
 — ^the pronoun itself, which follows, referring to a 
 noun of the neuter gender. To whom and itself 
 cannot each agree with one common antecedent. 
 
 " The seeming importance given to every part of 
 female dress, each of which is committed to the care 
 of a different sylph." — Essay on the Writings of 
 Pope, This sentence is ungrammatical. Each im- 
 plying " one of two," or " every one singly of more 
 than two," requires the correlative to be considered as 
 plural ; yet the antecedent part, to which it refers, is 
 singular. It should be, " all parts of female dress." 
 
 " To be sold the stock of Mr. Smith, left off busi- 
 ness." This is an ungrammatical and very offensive 
 vulgarism. The verb left off, as Baker observes, has 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 363 
 
 no subject, to which it can grammatically belong. It 
 should be, "who has left off," or "leaving off busi- 
 ness." " A. B. lieutenant, vice C. D. resigned." 
 Here is a similar error. Is C. D. resigned ? or is it 
 the office which has been resigned? An excessive 
 love of brevity gives occasion to such solecisms. 
 
 " He was ignorant, the profane historian, of the 
 testimony, which he is compelled to give." — Gibbon's 
 Decline of the Roman Empire, 
 
 " The youth and inexperience of the prince, he 
 was only fifteen years of age, declined a perilous en- 
 counter." — lb. 
 
 In the former sentence, the historian appears neither 
 as the nominative, nor the regimen to any verb. If 
 it be intended to agree with he by apposition, it 
 should have immediately followed the pronoun. If 
 it be designed emphatically, and ironically, to mark 
 the character of the historian, it should have been 
 thrown into the form of a parenthetic exclamation. 
 In the latter sentence a phraseology occurs, which, 
 notwithstanding its frequency in Gibbon, is extremely 
 awkward and inelegant. The fault may be corrected 
 either by throwing the age of the prince into a paren- 
 thesis, or, preferably, by the substitution oiwho for he, 
 
 " Fare thee well " is a phraseology which, though 
 sanctioned by the authority of a celebrated poet, and 
 also by other writers, involves a solecism. The verb 
 is intransitive, and its imperative \^fare thou. No 
 one would say, " I fare me well," *' we fare us well." 
 
 " That faction in England, who most powerfully 
 
364 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 opposed his arbitrary pretensions." — Macaulay, It 
 ought rather to be, ** that faction in England, which'' 
 It is justly observed by Priestley, " that a term, which 
 only implies the idea of persons, and expresses them 
 by some circumstance or epithet, will hardly authorize 
 the use of who,^^ 
 
 " He was certainly one of the most acute metaphy- 
 sicians, one of the deepest philosophers, and one of 
 the best critics, and most learned divines, which 
 modern times have produced." — Keith on the Life 
 and Writings of Campbell, 
 
 " Moses was the mildest of all men, which were 
 then on the face of the earth." — Geddes. 
 
 " Lord Sidney was one of the wisest, and most ac- 
 tive governors, whom Ireland had enjoyed for several 
 years." — Hume, 
 
 In the two first of these passages, which is impro- 
 perly applied to persons ; in the last, the author has 
 avoided this impropriety, and used whom. The pro- 
 noun that, however, is much preferable to who, or 
 which, after a superlative. 
 
 " Such of the Morescoes might remain, who de- 
 meaned themselves as Christians." — Watson's Life 
 of Philip HI. Such is here improperly followed by 
 who instead of as. The correlative terms are those, 
 who, and suck as, 
 
 ** It is hard to be conceived, that a set of men could 
 ever be chosen by their contemporaries, to have divine 
 honours paid to them, while numerous persons were 
 alive, who knew their imperfections, and who them- 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 365 
 
 selves, or their immediate ancestors, might have as 
 fair a pretence, and come in competition with them." 
 — Prideanx's Connexions, The identity of subject, in 
 the relative clauses of this sentence, requires the re- 
 petition of the same pronoun. It should be, " who 
 themselves, or whose immediate ancestors." 
 
 " If you were here, you would find three or four in 
 the parlour, after dinner, whom, you would say, past 
 their afternoons very agreeably." — Swift The pro- 
 noun whom should not be under the government of 
 the verb would say, having no connexion with it ; 
 but should be a nominative to the verb passed; 
 thus, " who, you would say, passed their afternoons." 
 
 " By these means, that religious princess became 
 acquainted with Athenais, whom she found was the 
 most accomplished woman of her age." Whom^ for 
 the reason already assigned, should be wJio, being the 
 nominative to the verb was. If it were intended to 
 be a regimen to the Yerh found , the sentence should 
 proceed thus, "whom she found to be." 
 
 " Solomon was the wisest man, him only excepted, 
 who was much greater and wiser than Solomon." In 
 English the absolute case is the nominative; it should, 
 therefore, be, "he only excepted." 
 
 " Who, instead of being useful members of society, 
 they are pests to mankind." Here the verb are has 
 two nominatives, who and they, each representing 
 the same subjects of discourse. One of them is re- 
 dundant ; and by the use of both, the expression be- 
 
366 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 comes solecistical, there being no verb to which the 
 relative wJio can be a nominative. 
 
 *'My banks, they are furnish'd with bees/' 
 
 is faulty for the same reason, though here, perhaps, 
 the poetic licence may be pleaded in excuse. 
 
 " It is against the laws of the realm, which, as 
 they are preserved and maintained by your majesty's 
 authority, so we assure ourselves, you will not suffer 
 them to be violated." Which is neither a regimen 
 nor a nominative to any verb ; the sentence, therefore, 
 is ungrammatical — Them is redundant. 
 
 ''Whom do men say that \ am?" The relative 
 is here in the objective case, though there be no word 
 in the sentence by which it can be governed. In 
 such inverted sentences, it is a good rule for those, 
 who are not well acquainted with the language, to 
 arrange the words in the natural order, beginning 
 with the nominative and the verb, thus, " men say, 
 that I am who," a sentence precisely analogous to 
 " men say, that I am he," the verb requiring the 
 same case after it, as before it. Hence it is obvious, 
 that it should be, " Who do men say that I am ?" 
 
 "Who do you speak to?" It ought to be whoniy 
 the relative being under the government of the pre- 
 position, thus, " To whom do you speak ?" 
 
 " Who she knew to be dead." — Henry's Hist, of 
 Britain, Here also the relative should be in the 
 objective case, under the government of the verb, 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 367 
 
 thus, " whom she knew," or " she knew whom to be 
 dead." 
 
 " Than whom^ Satan except;, none higher sat." — Milton, 
 
 " The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud. 
 With deeper sable blots the silver flood." — Pope. 
 
 This phraseology I have already examined. In an- 
 swer to Mr. Baker's reasons for condemning the 
 phrase, " than whom," Story's observations betray, as 
 I conceive, extreme ignorance, and require correction. 
 " The English," says he, " is strictly good ; for the 
 relative whom is not in the same case with sluice, 
 (which is the nominative to the verb Mots) but re- 
 ferring to its antecedent, tJie king of dykes^ is very 
 properly in the objective case, even though the per- 
 sonal pronoun he, if substituted in its place, would be 
 in the nominative." 
 
 If Mr. Story conceives, that the relative must agrefe 
 with its antecedent in case, he labours under an egre- 
 gious mistake. Every page of English evinces the 
 contrary. Yet, such must be his opinion, or his ar- 
 gument means nothing ; for the only reason, which 
 he offers for whom, is, that its antecedent is in the 
 objective case. Besides, if than whom be admissible, 
 nay proper, he will have difficulty in assigning a good 
 reason, why it should not be also than him. But 
 Mr. Story should have known, that, when two nouns 
 are coupled by a conjunction, the latter term is not 
 governed by the conjunction, but is either the nomi- 
 native to the verb, or is governed by it, or by the pre- 
 
368 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 position understood. The sentence proceeds thuJl, 
 " no sluice of mud blots with deeper sable, than he or 
 who blots." 
 
 " It is no wonder if such a man did not shine at 
 the court of Queen Elizabeth, who was but another 
 name for prudence and economy.*' — Hume, The 
 word Elizabeth, as represented in the latter clause, 
 is here a mere word, nuda vox, and not the sign of a 
 person ; for it is said to be another name for prudence 
 and economy. Not the person, but the word, is said 
 to be significant of this quality. The pronoun, there- 
 fore, should be which, not who. The sentence, how- 
 ever, even thus corrected, would be inelegant. Better 
 thus, " Queen Elizabeth, whose name was but another 
 word for prudence and economy." 
 
 " Be not diverted from thy duty by any idle re- 
 flections the silly world may make upon you." Con- 
 sistency requires either "«/owrduty," or "upon thee.^' 
 Thy and your, a singular and a plural pronoun, 
 each addressed to the same individual, are incon- 
 gruous. 
 
 A similar error occurs in the following passage : 
 " I pray you, tarry all night, lodge here, that thy heart 
 may be merry." — Bible, 
 
 " It is more good to fall among crows than flatterers, 
 for these only devour the dead, those the living." The 
 pronoun this always refers to the nearer object, that 
 to the more remote. This distinction is here re- 
 versed. It should be, "those (crows) devour the 
 dead ; these (flatterers) the living/' I observe also. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. S69 
 
 in passing, that those adjectives, whose mode of com- 
 parison is irregular, are not compared by rnoi^e and 
 most It ought to be, "it is better." 
 
 "It is surprising, that this people, so happy in 
 invention, have never penetrated beyond the elements 
 of geometry." It should be has, this people being 
 in the singular number. We may say, " people have," 
 the noun being collective, but not " this people have," 
 
 " I and you love reading." This is a Latinism, 
 and not accordant with our mode of arrangement. 
 Wolsey was right, when he said " Ego, et rex mens ;" 
 but in English we reverse the order. It should be, 
 *'you and I." We say also, "he and I," '*they and 
 I," You always precedes. 
 
 " Each of the sexes should keep within its proper 
 bounds, and content themselves with the advantages 
 of their particular districts." — Addison, Here the 
 pronoun does not agree with the word to which it 
 refers, the word each being singular ; whereas them- 
 selves and their are plural. It should be, itself and its, 
 
 A similar error occurs in the following sentence : 
 " Some of our principal public schools have each a 
 grammar of their own." — Barrow on, JEducation. It 
 ought to be, " each a grammar of its own." The 
 expression is elliptical, for " schools have, each (has) 
 a grammar of its own." Thus we say, " Simeon and 
 Levi took each man his sword,'' not their swords. 
 — Gen. xxxiv, 25. 
 
 " Let each esteem other better than themselves." — 
 Bible, For the reason just given, it ought to be himself. 
 
 15 B 
 
370 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 " So likewise shall my heavenly father do also unto 
 you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his 
 brother their trespasses." — Bible. Here is a manifest 
 solecism, the pronoun their referring to ** his brother," 
 a singular subject. 
 
 " I wonder that such a valiant hero as you should 
 trifle away your time in making war upon women." 
 — Essay on the Writings of Pope, Here the pro- 
 noun disagrees in person with the noun, to which it 
 refers, hero being of the third person, and your of 
 the second. The connexion is, " I wonder that such 
 a valiant hero should trifle away his time." 
 
 " The venison, which I received yesterday, and was 
 a present from my friend," &c. Which is here in 
 the objective case, and cannot properly be understood 
 as the nominative to the verb was : better, therefore, 
 ** and which was a present." The following sentence 
 is still more faulty : " it was happy for them, that 
 the storm, in which they were, and was so very 
 severe, lasted but a short time." This is ungram- 
 matical, the verb " was" having no nominative. It 
 should be, " which was." 
 
 "There is not a sovereign state in Europe, but 
 keeps a body of regular troops in their pay." This 
 expression, to say the least of it, is inelegant and 
 awkward. Better, " its pay." " Is any nation sen- 
 sible of the lowness of their own manners?" — Karnes, 
 Nation is here improperly construed as both singular 
 and plural. It should be rather " its own." 
 
 ** The treaty he concluded can only be considered 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 371 
 
 as a temporary submission, and of which he took no 
 care to secure the continuance of it." — Dtyden. The 
 redundancy of the words of it, renders the sentence 
 somewhat ungrammatical. It should run thus, " the 
 treaty he concluded can only be considered as a tem- 
 porary submission, of which he took no care to secure 
 the continuance." 
 
 An improper reference occurs in the following sen- 
 tence : " Unless one be very cautious, he will be liable 
 to be deceived." One here answers to the indefinite 
 word on in French, and cannot be represented by any 
 pronoun. It must, therefore, be repeated, thus, "unless 
 one be very cautious, one vrill be liable to be deceived." 
 
 IMPROPRIETY. 
 
 " Give me them books." Here the substantive 
 pronoun is used adjectively, instead of the demon- 
 strative those or these. The substantive pronouns, 
 which are, strictly speaking, the only pronouns, can- 
 not be construed as adjectives agreeing with substan- 
 tives. We cannot say, " it book," " they books," 
 " them books," but " this" or " that book," " these" 
 or " those books." The former phraseology may be 
 deemed solecistical. 
 
 " Great numbers were killed on either side." — 
 Watson's Philip III. " The Nile flows down the 
 country above five hundred miles from the tropic of 
 Cancer, and marks on either side the extent of fer- 
 tility by the measure of its inundation." — Gihhon, 
 
 It has been already observed, that the Saxon word 
 ceyther signifies each, as Gen. vii. 2. " Clean animals 
 
 B B 2 
 
372 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 thou shalt take by sevens of each kind," a^ythres 
 yecyndes. The English word either is sometimes used 
 in the same sense. But, as this is the only word in our 
 language, by which we can express " one of two," " which 
 of the two you please," and as it is generally employed 
 •in that sense, perspicuity requires, that it be strictly 
 confined to this signification. For, if either be used 
 equivocally, it must, in many cases, be utterly impos- 
 sible for human ingenuity to ascertain, whether only 
 "one of two," or " both" be intended. In such ex- 
 pressions, for example, as " take either side," " the 
 general ordered his troops to march on either bank," 
 how is the reader or hearer to divine, whether both 
 sides, both banks, or only one be signified ? By em- 
 ploying each to express "both," taken individually, 
 and either to denote " one of the two," all ambiguity 
 is removed. 
 
 "The Bishop ofClogher intends to call on you 
 this morning, as well as your humble servant, in my 
 return from Chapel Izzard." — Addison to Swift, 
 After the writer has spoken of himself in the third 
 person, there is an impropriety in employing the pro- 
 noun of the first. Much better "in his return." 
 
 "The ends of a divine and human legislator are 
 vastly different." — Warburton. From this sentence 
 it would seem, that there is only one subject of dis- 
 course, the ends belonging to one individual, a divine 
 and human legislator. The author intended to ex- 
 jpress two different subjects, namely, " the objects of 
 a divine," and "the objects of a human legislator." 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS SfB 
 
 The demonstrative those is omitted. It should be, 
 " the ends of a divine, and those of a human legi^ 
 latoT, are vastly different." This error consists in 
 defect, or an improper ellipsis of the pronoun : in the 
 following sentence the error is redundancy. "They 
 both met on a trial of skill." J^of^ means " they 
 two," as ambo in Latin is equivalent to " ot duo'' 
 It should therefore be, " both met on a trial of skill," 
 " These two men (A and B) are both equal in 
 strength." This, says Baker, is nonsense ; for these 
 words signify only, that A is equal in strength, and 
 B equal in strength, without implying to whom; 
 so that the word equal has nothing to whicli it refers. 
 "A and B," says he, "are equal in strength," is 
 sense ; this means, that they are equal to each 
 other. " A and B are both equal in strength to C," 
 is likewise sense. It signifies, that A is equal to C, 
 and that B likewise is equal to C. Thus Mr. Baker. 
 Now, it appears to me, that, when he admits the ex^- 
 pression, " are both equal," as significant of the 
 equality of each, he admits a phraseology, which does 
 not strictly convey that idea. For if we say, "A and B 
 are both equal," it seems to me to imply, that the two 
 individuals are possessed of two attributes or qualities, 
 one of which is here expressed; and in this sense only, 
 as I conceive, is this phraseology correct. Thus we may 
 say, with strict propriety, " A and B are both equal in 
 strength, and superior in judgment, to their contempo- 
 raries." Or it may denote, that '' they two together, 
 namely, A and B, are equal to C singly.' ' In the former 
 case, hoth is necessarily followed by and^ which is in 
 
374 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 Latin rendered hyet. Thus "A and Bare the two things, 
 (both) equal in strength, and (add) superior in judg- 
 ment to their contemporaries." In the latter case, it 
 is equivalent to amho, expressing two collectively, as, 
 " they two together are equal to C, but not separately//* 
 I am aware, that the word both in English, like ambo 
 in Latin, is an ambiguous term, denoting either " the 
 two collectively," or " the two separately," and that 
 many examples of the latter usage may be adduced. 
 But that surely cannot be deemed a correct or appro- 
 priate term, which, in its strict signification, conveys 
 an idea, different from that intended by the speaker; 
 or which leaves the sentiment in obscurity, and the 
 reader in doubt. The word each, substituted for 
 both, renders the expression clear and precise, thus, 
 " A and B are each equal to C in strength *." 
 
 An error the reverse of this occurs in the following 
 sentence. " This proves, that the date of each letter 
 must have been nearly coincident." Coincident with 
 what ? Not surely with itself ; nor can the date of 
 each letter be coincident with each other. It should 
 be, " that the dates of both letters must have been 
 nearly coincident with each other." 
 
 " It's great cruelty to torture a poor dumb animal." 
 Better, 'Tis, in order to distinguish the contraction 
 from the genitive singular of the pronoun it, 
 
 ** Neither Lady Haversham, nor Miss Mildmay, 
 
 * " Utnimque fecisse, dicimus, si et hie et ille fecerit divisim ; 
 ambos fecisse dicirnus, si duo corijimctim aliquid fecerint." — 
 Stephan. This distinction, however, as the learned critic ac- 
 knowledges, is not uniformly observed. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 375 
 
 will ever believe, but what I have been entirely to 
 blame." The pronoun what, equivalent to that which, 
 is here improperly used for that This mode of ex- 
 pression still obtains among the lower orders of the 
 people, and is not confined to them in the northern 
 parts of the island. It should be " that I have been." 
 The converse of this error occurs in the following 
 passages. 
 
 " That all our doings may be ordered by thy go- 
 vernance, to do always that is righteous in thy sight." 
 — Book of Common Prayer, 
 
 ** For, if there be first a willing mind, it is ac- 
 cepted, according to that a man hath." — Bible, 
 
 The pronouns it and that were formerly used as 
 including the relative. " This submission is it im- 
 plieth them all." " This is it men mean by distri- 
 butive justice." — Hohhes, " To consider advisedly 
 of that is moved." — Bacon, This usage is now 
 obsolete. The clauses should therefore proceed thus, 
 " to do always what," or " that, which is righteous." 
 *' According to what," or " that, which a man hath." 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 THE VERB. 
 
 BARBARISM. 
 
 "Thus did the French ambassadors, with great 
 show, of their king's affection, and many sugared 
 words, seek to addulce all matters between the two 
 kings." — Bacon, The verb '* to addulce" is obsolete. 
 
i*t6 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 " Do villany, do ; since you profess to 
 Like workmen, I*H example you with thievery." 
 
 Shakspeare. 
 
 The verb " to example," as equivalent to the phrase, 
 " to set an example," is obsolete ; and when used for 
 " to exemplify," may be deemed obsolescent. " The 
 proof whereof," says Spencer, in his State of Ireland^ 
 " I saw sufficiently exampled ;" better " exemplified." 
 
 ** I called at noon at Mrs. Masham's, who desired 
 me not to let the prophecy be published, for fear of 
 angering the queen." — Swift. The verb " to anger" 
 is almost obsolete. In Scotland, and in the northern 
 part of England, it is still colloquially used ; but in 
 written language, of respectable authority, it now 
 rarely occurs. I have met with it once or twice in 
 Swift and Pope ; since their time it appears to have 
 been gradually falling into disuse. 
 
 ^* Shall we once more go to fight against our bre- 
 thren, or shall we surcease?" — Gedde^s Transl. 
 The verb ** to surcease" is obsolete. 
 
 " And they and he, upon this incorporation and 
 institution, and onyng of themself into a realme, or- 
 daynyd," &c. — Fortescue. Here we have the parti- 
 ciple of the verb "to one," now obsolete, for "to unite." 
 
 " For it is no power to may alien, and put awaye ; 
 but it is a power to may have, and kepe to himself. 
 So it is no power to may syne, and to do ill, or to 
 may be syke, or wex old, or that a man may hurt 
 himself; for all thees powers comyne of im potency e." 
 . — /Z>. It has been already observed, that the verb 
 tnmj is derived from the Saxon maegan, posse. — Se0 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. S77 
 
 p. 135. From the passage before us it appears, that 
 in the time of Fortescue (anno 1440) the infinitive 
 " to may," for " to be able," was in use. It has now 
 been long obsolete. In the following passage, it forms 
 what is called a compound tense with the word shall, 
 the sign of the infinitive being suppressed. " Wher- 
 thorough the parlements schall may do more good 
 in a" moneth." — lb. That is, " shall be able to do." 
 
 " Wherefor al, that he dothe owith to be referryed 
 to his kingdom." — Ih, The verb to owe, as expressive 
 of duty, is now obsolete. It has been supplanted by 
 ought, formerly its preterite tense, and now used as 
 a present. We should now say, "ought to be referred.'* 
 
 " Both these articles were unquestionably true, and 
 could easily have been proven." — Henry's History of 
 Britain. " Admitting the charges against the de- 
 linquents to be fully proven." — Selsham's History. 
 Proven is now obsolete, having given place to the 
 regular participle. It is still, however, used in Scot- 
 land, and is therefore deemed a Scotticism. 
 
 ** Meth oughts I returned to the great hall, where 
 I had been the morning before." Methoughts is bar- 
 barous, and also violates analogy, the third person 
 being thought, and not thoughts, 
 
 SOLECISM. 
 
 " You was busy, when I called." Here a pronoun 
 plural is joined with a verb in the singular number. 
 It should be, " you were." 
 
 " The keeping good company, even the best, is but 
 a less shameful art of losing time. What we here 
 call science and study are little better." What is 
 
378 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 equivalent to that which. It should be is, and not 
 are; thus, "that, which we call ... is little better." 
 " This is one of those highwaymen, that was con- 
 demned last sessions." According to the grammatical 
 construction of this sentence, " one of those highway- 
 men" is the predicate ; for the syntactical arrange- 
 ment is, ** This (highwayman), that was condemned 
 last sessions, is one of those highwaymen." But this 
 is not the meaning, which this sentence is in general 
 intended to convey : for it is usually employed to 
 denote, that several highwaymen were condemned, 
 and that this is one of them. The sentence, there- 
 fore, thus understood, is ungrammatical ; for the an- 
 tecedent is, in this case, not one, but highwaymen. 
 The relative, therefore, being plural, should be joined 
 with a plural verb, thus, " This is one of those high- 
 waymen, that were condemned last sessions." 
 
 " I had went to Lisbon, before you knew, that I 
 had arrived in England." This is an egregious sole- 
 cism, the auxiliary verb had, which requires the per- 
 fect participle, being here joined with the preterite 
 tense. It should be, " I had gone." 
 
 " He would not fall the trees this season." The 
 verb " to fall" is intransitive, and cannot therefore be 
 followed by an objective case, denoting a thing acted 
 upon. It should be, " he would not fell." 
 
 "Let him know, that I shall be over in spring, 
 and that by all means he sells the horses." — Swift, 
 Here we have in the latter clause a thing expressed, 
 as done or doing, for a thing commanded. It should 
 be, "that he should sell;" or elliptically, "that he sell." 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 379 
 
 " It is very probable, that neither of these are the 
 meaning of the text." Neither, means " not the one, 
 nor the other," denoting the exclusion of each of two 
 things. It should, therefore, be, "neither is the 
 meaning of the text." 
 
 "He was a man, whose vices were very great, 
 and had the art to conceal them from the eyes of the 
 public." According to the grammatical construction 
 of this sentence, vices understood is the nominative 
 to the verb had ; thus, " whose vices were very great, 
 and whose vices had the art to conceal them." It 
 should be, " and who had the art to conceal them." 
 
 " At the foot of this hill was soon built such a 
 number of houses, that amounted, to a considerable 
 city." Here the verb amounted has no nominative. 
 To render the sentence grammatical, it should be, 
 ** that they amounted," or " as amounted to a con- 
 siderable city." 
 
 " It requires more logic, than you possess, to make 
 a man to believe, that prodigality is not a vice." 
 After the verb " to make," the sign of the infini- 
 tive should be omitted. See Mule xiii. note 3. 
 
 " He dare not," " he need not," may be justly pro- 
 nounced solecisms, for " he dares," " he needs." 
 
 " How do your pulse beat ?" Pulse is a noun 
 singular, and is here ungrammatically joined with a 
 verb plural. It should be, "how does your pulse beat?" 
 
 " The river had overflown its banks." Overflown 
 is the participle of the verb to fly, compounded with 
 over. It should be " overflowed," the participle of 
 " overflow." 
 
380 CRITICAL RtiMARKS 
 
 ^' They that sin rebuke before all." The pronoun, 
 which should be the regimen of the verb rebuke, is 
 here put in the nominative case. It should, there^ 
 fore, be them. The natural order is, " rebuke them^ 
 that sin." : 
 
 " There are principles innate in man, which eVer 
 have, and ever will incline him to this offence." If 
 the ellipsis be supplied, the sentence will be found to 
 be ungrammatical ; thus, " which ever have incline,'^ 
 and " ever will incline." It should be, " which ever 
 have inclined, and ever will incline." 
 
 " Nor is it easy to conceive that, in substituting 
 the manners of Persia to those of Rome, he was ac- 
 tuated by vanity." — Gibbon. " Substitute to'' is a 
 Latinism. It should be, " substitute j^r." 
 
 ** I had rather live in forty Irelands, than under 
 the frequent disquiets of hearing, that you are out of 
 order." — Swiff s Letters, " You had better return 
 home without delay." In both these examples would 
 is far preferable, thus, " I would rather live," " you 
 would better return," or " you would do better to 
 return." 
 
 " That he had much rather be no king at all, than 
 have heretics for his subjects." — Watson's Philip II, 
 Here is involved the same error. It should be, " he 
 would." 
 
 " The nobility of England consisted only of one 
 duke, four earls, one viscount, and twenty-nine 
 barons, all the nobles of the Lancastrian party having 
 been either killed in battles, or on scaffolds, or had 
 fled into foreign parts." — Henry's Histonj. This 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 381 
 
 sentence is uhgrammatical. The word nobles joined 
 to the participle having must be regarded as put ab- 
 solutely, and therefore to the verb ^«^ there is strictly 
 no nominative. But, even were a nominative intro- 
 duced, the structure of the sentence would be still 
 highly objectionable, the two last clauses "having 
 been killed," and " they had fled," being utterly dis- 
 cordant one with the other. The primary idea to be 
 expressed is the fewness of the nohility ; this forms 
 the subject of the principal clause. There are two 
 reasons to be assigned for this fewness, their destruc- 
 tion and their flight; these form the subjects of the 
 two subordinate clauses. Between these two, there- 
 fore, there should be the strictest congruity ; and in 
 this respect the sentence is faulty. It ought to pro- 
 ceed either thus, " The nobility of England consisted 
 only of one duke, four earls, one viscount, and twenty- 
 nine barons ; for all the nobles of the Lancastrian 
 party had either been killed in battles, or on scaffolds, 
 or had fled into foreign parts;" or thus, *' all the 
 nobles having been killed, or having fled." The lat- 
 ter is the preferable form. 
 
 " He neglected to profit of this occurrence." This 
 phraseology occurs frequently in Hume. " To pro- 
 fit of," is a Gallicism; it ought to be, " to profit % 
 this occurrence." 
 
 " The people of England may congratulate to 
 themselves, that the nature of our government, and 
 the clemency of our king, secure us." — Dry den. 
 " Congratulate to," is a Latinism. The person con- 
 gratulated should be m the objective case governed 
 
382 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 by the verb ; the subject is preceded by the prepo- 
 sition on, as, " I congratulate you on your arrival." 
 
 " You will arrive to London before the coach." 
 
 " A priest newly arrived to the north-west parts 
 of Ixelsm^r—Swiffs Sacr. Test 
 
 In these examples the verb " to arrive," is followed 
 by to, instead of at, an error which should be care- 
 fully avoided. Good writers never construe it with 
 the preposition significant of motion or progression 
 concluded, but with those prepositions which denote 
 propinquity or inclusion, namely, at or in. Hence 
 also to join this verb with adverbs, expressive of mo- 
 tion to, or towards a place, is improper. We should 
 say, "he arrived here, there, where, not hither, 
 thither, whither''' 
 
 " I am the Lord that maketh all things, that 
 stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth the 
 earth abroad by myself." According to the structure 
 of the second and third clauses of this sentence the 
 Lord is the antecedent to that, which is, therefore, 
 properly joined with the third person of the verbs 
 following, " maketh," " spreadeth ;" but the pronoun 
 of the first person, myself, in the last clause, does not 
 accord with this structure ; for as we cannot say, " he 
 spreadeth the earth by myself," there being only one 
 agent implied, and where he and myself vltq supposed 
 to allude to one person, so we cannot say, " that (Lord) 
 spreadeth the earth by myself," but "by himself," 
 an identity of person being indispensably requisite. 
 The sentence, therefore, should conclude thus, " that 
 spreadeth abroad the earth by himself." If myself 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. SS3 
 
 be retained, the pronoun / must be considered as the 
 antecedent, and the sentence will then run thus: 
 " I am the Lord, that make all things, that stretch 
 forth the heavens alone, that spread abroad the earth 
 by myself,' 
 
 " Thou great first cause, least understood. 
 Who all my sense confin'd. 
 To know but this, that thou art good. 
 And that myself am blind." — Pojje. 
 
 The antecedent to the pronoun who is the pronoun 
 of the second person singular. The relative, there- 
 fore, being of the same person, should be joined to 
 the second person singular of the verb, namely, " coii- 
 finedst." 
 
 " The executive directory, to prove that they will 
 not reject any means of reconciliation, declares," &c. 
 — Belsha7n's Hist. The nominative is here joined 
 to a verb singular, and at the same time represented 
 by a pronoun plural. The error may be corrected 
 either by the substitution of it for they, or declare 
 instead of declares, 
 
 " These friendly admonitions of Swift, though they 
 might sometimes produce good effects, in particular 
 cases, when properly timed, yet could they do but 
 little towards eradicating faults." — Sheridan, The 
 nominative admonitions is connected with no verb, 
 the pronoun they being the nominative to the verb 
 could. The sentence, therefore, is ungrammatical ; 
 nor can the figure hyperhaton be here pleaded in 
 excuse, as the simplicity and shortness of the sentence 
 
384 CRITICAL REMAUKS 
 
 render it unnecessary. They in the third clause 
 should be suppressed. 
 
 " This dedication may serve for almost any book, 
 that has, is, or shall be published." — Bolinghroke. 
 Has being merely a part of a compound tense, conveys 
 no precise meaning without the rest of the tense. 
 When joined, then, to the participle, here belonging 
 to the three auxiliaries, the sentence proceeds thus, 
 " This dedication may serve for almost any book, 
 that has published." , It ought to be " has been," 
 "is," or " shall be published." The following sen- 
 tence is chargeable with an error of the same kind. 
 
 " This part of knowledge has been always growing, 
 and will do so, till the subject be exhausted." Do 
 what? The auxiliary cannot refer to been, for the 
 substantive verb, or verb of existence, does not imply 
 action, nor can we say, " do growing." It ought to 
 be, " has been growing, and will still be so." 
 
 " All that can be now urged, is the reason of the 
 thing, and this I shall do." — Warhurton. Here is 
 a similar incongruity. He should have said, " and 
 this shall be done." 
 
 Some of the preceding errors, with those which 
 follow under this head, may be denominated rather 
 inaccuracies, than solecisms. 
 
 " 'Twas twenty years and more, that I have known 
 him," says Pope to Gay, speaking of Congreve's 
 death. It ought to be, " It is twenty years and 
 more," the period concluding with the present time, 
 or the time then present. He might have said, " It 
 is now twenty years," where the adverb noiv, being 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 385 
 
 obviously admissible, points to present time, and ne- 
 cessarily excludes the preterite tense. Pope says, 
 " 'Tvvas twenty years." When ? not surely in some 
 part of the past time, but at the time of writing. 
 
 " It were well for the insurgents, and fortunate for 
 the king, if the blood, that was now shed, had been 
 thought a sufficient expiation for the offence." — Gold- 
 smith, " It w^ere," which is equivalent to " it would 
 be," is evidently incongruous with the following 
 tense, " had been thought." It ought to be, as he 
 was speaking of past time, " it would have been," or 
 "it had been, well for the insurgents." 
 
 " Wa,s man like his Creator in wisdom and good- 
 ness, I should be for allowing this great model." — 
 Addison, This form of expression cannot be pro- 
 nounced entirely repugnant to analogy, the preterite 
 of the auxiliary " to have" being used in a similar 
 sense. But the verb " to be" having a mood appro- 
 priate to the expression of conditionality, the author 
 should have said, " Were man like his Creator." 
 
 " If you please to employ your thoughts on that 
 subject, you would easily conceive the miserable 
 condition many of us are in." — Steele, Here there 
 is obviously an incongruity of tense. It should be 
 either, " if you please to employ, you will conceive," 
 or " if it pleased you to employ, you would conceive." 
 
 " James used to compare him to a cat, who always 
 fell upon her legs." — Adam's Hist, of England, 
 Here, the latter clause, which is intended to predicate 
 an attribute of the species, expresses simply a parti- 
 
 c c- 
 
386 CRITICAL REMAKKS 
 
 cular fact ; in other words, what is intended to be 
 signified as equally true of all, is here limited to one of 
 the kind. It should be, " always Jails upon her legs." 
 
 " This is the last time I shall ever go to London." 
 This mode of expression, though very common, is 
 certainly improper after the person is gone, and can be 
 proper only before he sets out. The French speak 
 correctly when they say, "la derniere fois que je vais," 
 ^. e, the last time of my going. We ought to say, 
 " this is the last time I shall be in London." 
 
 " He accordingly draws out his forces, and offers 
 battle to Hiero, who immediately accepted it." Con- 
 sistency requires, that the last verb be in the same 
 tense with the preceding verbs. The actions are 
 described as present ; the language is graphical, and 
 that, which has been properly enough denominated 
 the **1iistorical tense" should not be employed. It 
 ought to be, " who immediately accepts it." 
 
 " I have lost this game, though I thought I should 
 have won it." It ought to be, " though I thought 
 I should win it." This is an error of the same kind, 
 as, " I expected to have seen you," " I intended to 
 have written." The preterite time is expressed by 
 the tenses " expected," " intended ;" and, how far 
 back soever that expectation or intention may be re- 
 ferred, the seeing or writing must be considered as 
 contemporary, or as soon to follow ; but cannot, with- 
 out absurdity, be considered as anterior. It should 
 be, " I expected to see," " I intended to write." 
 Priestley, in defending the other pliraseology, appears 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 387 
 
 to me to have greatly erred, the expression implying 
 a manifest impossibility. The action, represented as 
 the object of an expectation or intention, and there- 
 fore, in respect to these, necessarily future, cannot 
 surely, without gross absurdity, be exhibited as past, 
 or antecedent to these. In the following passage 
 the error seems altogether indefensible. '* The most 
 uncultivated Asiatics discover that sensibility, which, 
 from their situation on the globe, we should expect 
 them to have felt." — Rohertso7i*s History of America. 
 The author expresses himself, as if he referred to a 
 past sensation, while the introductory verb shows, 
 that he alludes to a general fact. The incongruity is 
 obvious. He should have said, "expect them to feel." 
 
 '' Fierce as he moved, his silver shafts resound." — Pope. 
 
 Much better, " Fierce as he moves." Congruity of 
 tense is thus preserved ; and there is, besides, a pe- 
 culiar beauty in employing the present, a beauty, of 
 which the preterite is wholly incapable. The former 
 imparts vivacity to the expression ; it presents the 
 action, with graphical effect, to the mind of the 
 reader; and thus, by rendering him a spectator of 
 the scene, impresses the imagination, and rouses the 
 feelings with greater energy. Compared to the latter, 
 it is like the pencil of the artist to the pen of the 
 historian. 
 
 " Jesus answering said unto him, what wilt thou, 
 that I should do unto thee ?" The blind man said 
 unto him : " Lord, that 1 might receive my sight." 
 
 c c 2 
 
388 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 It ought to be, "that I may receive my sight," / 
 will being understood ; thus, " I will, that I may 
 receive my sight," where the present wish, and the 
 attainment of it, are properly represented as con- 
 temporary. 
 
 " These things have I spoken unto you, that your 
 joy might be full." Better, " that your joy may be 
 full/' 
 
 " If an atheist would peruse the volume of nature, 
 he would confess, that there was a God." Universal, 
 or abstract truths, require the present tense; it should 
 be, " that there is a God." 
 
 " impresses us with a feeling, as if refine- 
 ment was nothing, as if faculties were nothing, as 
 if virtue was nothing, as if all that was sweetest, and 
 all that was highest in human nature, was an idle 
 show." — Godwin^ s Life of Chaucer, This sentence 
 errs at once against elegance and accuracy. The 
 former offence may be partly corrected, by substi- 
 tuting the conditional for the indicative tense, in the 
 hypothetical clauses. But the author's principal 
 error consists in converting a general proposition 
 into a particular fact, by representing that as past, 
 which is always present and immutable. The sen- 
 tence should proceed thus : " Impresses us with a 
 feeling, as if refinement were nothing, as if faculties 
 were nothing, as if virtue were nothing, as if all that 
 is sweetest, and all that is highest in human nature, 
 were an idle show." 
 
 A similar error occurs in this i)assage : " He pro- 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 389 
 
 ceeded to demonstrate, that death ivas not an evil ;*' 
 and also in this, " I have frequently been assured by 
 great ministers, that politics were nothing, but com- 
 mon sense." 
 
 *' Tom has wit enough to make him a pleasant 
 companion, was it polished by good manners." As 
 the latter clause is intended to be purely hypothetical, 
 the verb should not be in the indicative mood. 
 <t Jf^ere it polished," is the proper expression. 
 
 '* He understood the language of Balnibarbi, 
 although it were different from that of this island." 
 — Swiff s Voyage to Laputa, From the phraseology 
 here employed, the reader might naturally infer, that 
 the language of the island, and that of Balnibarbi, 
 were identical ; for a concessive term, as I have 
 already said, when joined to what is called the con- 
 junctive form of the verb, implies pure hypothesis, 
 as contrary to fact; or, in other words, implies a 
 negation of the attribute expressed. The author's 
 intention was to signify, that the languages were 
 not the same. He should, therefore, have said, 
 " although it ivas different." 
 
 " The circumstances were as follows." Several 
 grammarians and critics have approved this phrase- 
 ology ; I am inclined, however, to concur with those, 
 who prefer " as follow." To justify the former mode 
 of expression, the verb must be considered as imper- 
 sonal. This, I own, appears to me a very question- 
 able solution of the difficulty ; for I am convinced, 
 that we have no impersonal verbs in English, but 
 such as are uniformly preceded by it. We frequently, 
 
390 CRITICAL UEMARKS 
 
 indeed, meet with sentences, where verbs occur with- 
 out a nominative, and in the singular number. These 
 are, by some, considered as impersonal verbs, to which 
 the nominative it is understood. I apprehend, how- 
 ever, that, on strict inquiry, some one or other of 
 the preceding words, which are now considered as 
 conjunctions, adverbs, or particles, was originally the 
 nominative ; and that it is only since the primitive 
 and real character of these words has been obliterated 
 and lost, that we have found it necessary to inquire 
 for another nominative. Thus, if the word as be 
 equivalent to it, that, or which^, then it is obvious, 
 that, when we say, "the circumstances were as fol- 
 lows,''^ there is no real ellipsis of the nominative in- 
 volved, nor, therefore, any ground for asserting the 
 impersonality of the verb, in order to explain the 
 syntax, or construction of the phrase ; for the word 
 as, equivalent to it, that, or which, is the true nomi- 
 native. It is evident, then, that this solution of the 
 difficulty must be rejected as false ; and that the ar- 
 gument in favour of "as follows," resting on the 
 supposed impersonality of the verb, and the sup- 
 pression f the pronoun, is entirely unfounded. 
 
 If as then be the nominative to the verb, and be 
 synonymous with it, that, or which, it is of import- 
 ance to determ ne, whether as he sl singular, or a 
 plural word ; or whether it be either the one, or the 
 
 * " The truth is, that as ivS also an article ; and however and 
 whenever used in English, means the same as i7, oi* that, or which. 
 In the German, where it still evidently retains its original sig- 
 nification and use (as so also does) it is written es." — Tooke's 
 Diversions. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 391 
 
 Other. That it is construed as singular, there can be 
 no doubt. We say, "his insensibility is such, as excites 
 our detestation." That it is also joined to a verb 
 plural is equally certain, thus, " his manners are 
 such as are universally pleasing." In the former 
 example, such as is equivalent to that which, and in 
 the latter to those which. If as, then, be either sin- 
 gular or plural, and synonymous with it, that, or 
 which, I conceive that, when it refers to a plural an- 
 tecedent, it must, like which, be considered as plural, 
 and joined to a plural verb. Now, it is surely more 
 consonant with analogy to say, " the circumstances 
 were, which follow," than it follows, or that follows. 
 Besides, when the demonstrative such precedes, ^nd 
 is joined to a plural noun, it is universally admitted, 
 that as must then be followed by a plural verb. If 
 so, the construction of the w^ord as cannot, I appre- 
 hend, be in the least degree affected, by the ellipsis 
 of the correlative term. Let us now hear those who 
 adopt the contrary opinion. 
 
 Baker prefers the verb singular, and remarks, 
 " that there are instances in our language of verbs 
 in the third person without a nominative case, as, 
 ' he censures her, so far as regards.' " In answer to 
 this it may be observed, that, if the word as is to be 
 considered in no other light, than as a conjunctive 
 particle, it is certainly true, that the verb regards 
 has no nominative. But I am persuaded, no person 
 who has examined the theory of Mr. Tooke, can en- 
 tertain a doubt respecting the original and real cha- 
 racter of this word. Nay, if we investigate the true 
 
392 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 and primitive import of the correspondent Latin 
 terms ut and uti, we shall find, that these, which are 
 termed adverbs, are, in fact, the pronouns oV/, or , 
 and that quod (anciently WTitten quodde) is nothing 
 else than 9cai om, which, like our word that, is some- 
 times called a conjimction, and sometimes a pronoun. 
 Why the original character and real import of the 
 word as have been completely merged in the name 
 of adverb, while the word that has been assigned the 
 double character of pronoun and conjunction, it 
 would be easy to show, if the discussion were es- 
 sential to the question before us. But in answer to 
 Baker's remark, it is sufficient to observe, that as 
 means properly it, that, or which, 
 
 Campbell adopts the opinion of Baker. " When 
 a verb," says he, " is used impersonally, it ought 
 undoubtedly to be in the singular number, whether 
 the neuter pronoun be expressed, or understood." 
 But a question naturally arises, whence has the 
 author learned that the verb is impersonal? There 
 appears to me to be no more impersonality in the 
 verb, when we say, " it is as follows," than when we 
 say, "it is such, as follows,** or "they are such, as 
 follow." If as be admitted as the nominative in two 
 of these examples, I can perceive no reason for re- 
 jecting it in the third. But here lies, as will pre- 
 sently appear, the author's great error. Unacquainted 
 with the true meaning of the word as, he conceived 
 it as incapable of becoming a nominative to a verb, 
 as, ut or uti is deemed in Latin ; and he therefore 
 immediately recurs to ellipsis. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 393 
 
 " For this reason" (that is, because the verb is im- 
 personal), he proceeds to observe, " analogy as well as 
 usage favour this mode of expression, The conditions 
 of the agreement were as follows, and not as follow ^ 
 
 How analogy favours this mode of expression, I 
 am utterly at a loss to conceive. The general rule 
 surely is, that to every verb there shall be a nomina- 
 tive, and that this nominative shall be expressed, 
 unless its presence in some preceding clause shall 
 render the repetition of it unnecessary. But how is 
 it consonant with analogy, that no nominative shall 
 appear ; or that the supposed nominative shall not 
 be found in any part of the sentence ? This surely 
 is repugnant to analogy. 
 
 " A few late writers," he observes, " have incon- 
 siderately adopted this last form (as follow) through 
 a mistake of the construction." But, if the verb be 
 not impersonal, the error is his, not theirs. I must 
 observe likewise, that from the manner, in which the 
 author expresses himself, one would naturally infer, 
 that a few writers, either contemporary, or imme- 
 diately preceding his own time, had inconsiderately 
 introduced a solecism into our language. When he 
 offered this observation, he surely was not aware that 
 Steele and Addison, nearly seventy years before the 
 publication of " The Philosophy of Rhetoric," used 
 the plural form. " The most eminent of the ken- 
 nel," says Steele, " are blood hounds, which lead the 
 van, and are as follow J^ — Tatler, No. 62. "The 
 words were as follow'' — Ihid. No. 104. *' The words 
 are as follow, ^^ — Addison, Spectator, No. 513, 
 
394 CRITICAL KEMARKS 
 
 " For the same reason," continues he, still pre- 
 suming the verb to be impersonal, " we ought to say, 
 / shall consider Ms censures so far only, as con- 
 cerns my Jriend's conduct, not concern. It is 
 manifest," he observes, " that the word conditions in 
 the first case, and censures in the second, cannot 
 serve as nominatives." This observation demon-r 
 strates that the author's argument is founded in his 
 ignorance of the real character of the word as. The 
 most extraordinary part of his reasoning follows. 
 " But," says he, "if we give either sentence another 
 turn, and instead of as, say such as, the verb is no 
 longer impersonal. The pronoun such is the nomi- 
 native, whose number is determined by its antecedent. 
 Thus we must say, they were such as follow ; such 
 of his censures only, as concern my friend,^' This 
 is truly an extraordinary assertion. The antecedent 
 correlative term such can have no connexion what- 
 ever with the subsequent verb, but must agree with 
 the principal subject of discourse. Not only does 
 analogy require this, but the usage of every language 
 with which I am acquainted. If we say, perse- 
 verantiafuit tanta, quantus erat furor. Is est, quern 
 dicimus. Talis est, qualem esse creditis. like 
 erant conditiones, quce sequuntur, the antecedent 
 correlative terms tanta, is, talis, illce, have no con- 
 nexion whatever with the verbs in the subsequent 
 clause, erat, dicimus, creditis, sequuntur. The truth 
 of this observation must be sufficiently obvious to 
 every classical scholar. 
 
 But to illustrate the extreme inaccuracy of the 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 395 
 
 learned author's opinion, let us change the correlative 
 terms, and say, " I will consider those censures only, 
 which concern my friend." In this sentence it will 
 not be questioned that those and censures are in the 
 objective case, under the government of the verb. 
 And can it be doubted, if we say, " I will consider 
 such censures," that censures with its concordant 
 adjective are in the same case ? It is impossible, I 
 conceive, to make this plainer ; but we shall suppose, 
 for the sake of illustration, if this should yet be 
 deemed necessary, the example in question to be thus 
 rendered in Latin, eas tantum reprehension es per- 
 pendam^ quce ad amicum meum attinent. Now, what 
 should we think of his classical attainments who 
 should contend that eas or reprehensiones is the no- 
 minative to the verb ? If we revert then to the ori- 
 ginal terms, and say, " I will consider such of his 
 censures as concern my friend,'' by what rule of gram- 
 mar, by what principle of analysis, can we suppose 
 such to be the nominative to the verb ? For let me 
 ask, what is he to consider ? Is it not such cen- 
 sures ? And are we, contrary to every principle of 
 English grammar, to represent the object or subject 
 after an active verb, as in the nominative case ? The 
 absurdity is too monstrous for a moment's consider- 
 ation. The very argument, therefore, by which the 
 author defends his doctrine is founded in error, and 
 involves an absurdity. Murray, as usual, adopts the 
 opinion of Campbell. 
 
 If it should be inquired how as^ an adverb or a 
 conjunctive particle, can be the nominative to a verb, 
 
396 CRITICAX REMARKS 
 
 it may be answered, that to whatever order of words 
 we reduce this term, it Was evidently at first what we 
 denominate a pronoun ; and that it still so far retains 
 its primitive character as to supply the place of a no- 
 minative. It is of little moment by what designation 
 it be called, if its character and real import are well 
 understood, any more than it can be of consequence 
 whether we call that a conjunction or a pronoun, 
 provided we know, that it is truly and essentially the 
 same word in the same meaning wherever it occurs. 
 I would observe also, though my limits will not per- 
 mit me to illustrate the principle, that those, who dis- 
 approve the verb singular in the examples in ques- 
 tion, may notwithstanding admit it in such expres- 
 sions as so Jar as, so long as, and all similar phrase- 
 ologies. 
 
 " To illustrate, and often to correct him, I have 
 meditated Tacitus, examined Suetonius, and con- 
 sulted the following moderns." — Gibbon, To me- 
 ditate, when a regimen is assigned to it, as here, 
 means to plot, to contrive, as " he meditated designs 
 against the state." When it signifies to ponder, or 
 to reflect seriously, it should be followed by the pre- 
 position on, as *' he meditates on the law of God day 
 and night." 
 
 IMPROPRIETY. 
 
 " They form a procession to proceed the palanquin 
 of the ambassador." — Anderson's Embassy to China. 
 Here the verb to proceed, or go for ward, is impro- 
 perly used for to jwecede, or to go before. 
 
 *'He waved the subject of his greatness." — Dryden, 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 597 
 
 "To wave" is properly " to move loosely/' and should 
 be distinguished from '* to waive," i. e, " to leave" 
 or "to turn from." — See Skinner's Etym, 
 
 " It lays on the table ; it laid on the table." This 
 error is very common, and should be carefully avoided. 
 The verb to lay is an active verb ; to lie is a neuter 
 verb. When the subject of discourse is active, the 
 former is to be used ; when the subject is neither 
 active nor passive, the latter ought to be employed. 
 Thus, " he lays down the book," " he laid down the 
 book," where the nominative expresses an agent, or 
 a person acting. " The book lies there," " the book 
 lay there," where the nominative expresses something, 
 neither active, nor passive. When we hear such ex- 
 pressions as these, " he lays in bed," " he laid in bed," 
 a question naturally occurs, what does he lay ? what 
 did he lay? This question demonstrates the im- 
 propriety of the expressions. The error has origin- 
 ated, partly in an affected delicacy, rejecting the verb 
 **to lie," as being synonymous with the verb "to tell 
 a falsehood wilfully," and partly from the identity of 
 the one verb in the present with the other in the pre- 
 terite tense; thus, " %," 'Maid," "laid;" "lie," 
 " %," " lain." 
 
 " The child was overlain." The participle, for the 
 reason now given, should be overlaid, 
 
 " It has been my brother you saw in the theatre, 
 and not my cousin." This use of the preterite defi- 
 nite is, I believe, confined to Scotland, where, in col- 
 loquial language, it is very common. The Scots 
 
398 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 employ it in those cases, in which an Englishman 
 uses either the preterite indefinite, or the verb signi- 
 fying necessity. Thus, in the preceding instance, an 
 Englishman would say, "it must have been my brother, 
 you saw in the theatre." 
 
 " Without having attended to this, we will be at a 
 loss in understanding several passages in the classics." 
 — Blair's Lectures. " In the Latin language, there 
 are no two words we would more readily take to be 
 synonymous, than amare and diligere.'' — lb. This 
 error occurs frequently in Blair. In the former ex- 
 ample it should be shall, and in the latter should, 
 (See p. 137). 
 
 An error, the reverse of this, occurs in the following 
 passage. " There is not a girl in town, but let her 
 have her will, in going to a mask, and she shall dress 
 like a shepherdess." — Spectator, No. 9. It should 
 be, she will. The author intended to signify mere 
 futurity ; instead of which he has expressed a com- 
 mand. 
 
 *' He rose the price of bread last week." Here 
 rose, the preterite of the neuter verb to rise, and, 
 therefore, unsusceptible of a regimen, is ungramma- 
 tically joined with an objective case, instead of raised, 
 the preterite of the active verb to raise. This error, 
 therefore, involves a solecism, as well as an impro- 
 priety. 
 
 *'Does the price of bread raise this week?" This 
 error is the converse of the former, the active verb 
 being here used instead of the neuter. Tiie ques- 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 399 
 
 tion, What does it raise ? shows the impropriety of 
 the expression. It ought to be, " Does the price of 
 bread rise this week ?" These verbs, like the verb 
 to lay and to lie, are very often confounded in vulgar 
 use. 
 
 " It would be injurious to the character of prince 
 Maurice, to suppose, that he would demean himself 
 so far, as to be concerned in those anonymous pam 
 phlets." — Watsons Philip III, Here the verb to 
 demean, which signifies " to behave," is used as equi- 
 valent to the verb to debase, or " to degrade." This 
 impropriety is now, I believe, almost entirely con- 
 fined to Scotland ; it has, therefore, been ranked in 
 the number of Scotticisms. " " I demean myself" is 
 equivalent to " I behave myself;" and in this sense 
 the author last quoted has, in another passage, very 
 properly used it. " Such of the Morescoes might 
 remain, who, for any considerable time, demeaned 
 themselves as Christians." — Ibid. 
 
 ** Considerable arrears being now resting to the 
 soldiers." — Ibid, " Resting," which is equivalent 
 to "being quiet," or "remaining," is, in the sense 
 in which it is here employed, a rank Scotticism: it 
 should be, " due," or " owing." 
 
 " The reason will be accounted for hereafter." — 
 JVarburton, Accountedjbr is here improperly used 
 for assigned. ** To account for a reason," is " to 
 account for an account." 
 
 '' But no evidence is admitted in the house of lords, 
 this being a distinct jurisdiction, which differs it con- 
 
400 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 siderably from these instances." — IBlackstone. The 
 verb to differ is a neuter verb, and cannot admit a 
 regimen. The author has improperly used it in an 
 active sense, for " to make to differ." It should be, 
 " by which it differs," or, " which makes it differ con- 
 siderably from these instances *." 
 
 * The error here involved suggests a few observations, which it 
 may be useful to offer, concerning the distinctive character of ac- 
 tive and neuter verbs. A neuter verb has been defined to be 
 that, which denotes neither doing nor suffering. An active verb, 
 as its name imports, denotes, that the subject is doing something. 
 Johnson, however, in his Dictionary, gives every active verb the 
 designation of neuter^ unless followed by an objective case, that 
 is, unless the object or subject of the action be expressed. In the 
 following instances, for example, he considers the verbs as neuter. 
 " 'Tis sure, that Henry reads ;" " so I drank ; and she made the 
 camels dr'inh also ;" " if you jylant where savages are ;" " the 
 priests teach for hire;" '^ nor feel him where he struck /" "they 
 that sow in tears, shall reap in joy." These are a few out of 
 numberless examples, which might be produced. Indeed, John- 
 son's idea seems to be, as has been just now observed, that the 
 verb must be regarded as neuter, unless followed by an objective 
 case. This is certainly a great inaccuracy, and tends to introduce 
 perplexity and confusion. The verb surely does not the less de- 
 note action, because it expresses it absolutely, or because the sub- 
 ject acted upon is not particularly specified. In the examples 
 now quoted, can it be questioned, when we say he struck, that he 
 was active ; or when we say, they that sow shall reap, will it be 
 affirmed that they are not active ? This would be to confound 
 distinctions not merely acknowledged in theory, and adopted in 
 definition, but also founded in the very nature of things. This 
 matter, I conceive, may be shortly explained, and very easily un- 
 derstood. It is admitted by every grammarian, that an active 
 verb denotes, that the subject is acting, and that a neuter verb 
 signifies, that the subject is neither doing nor suffering. Now, 
 of active verbs there are two kinds, transitive and intran- 
 sitive. The latter is tliat which denotes immanent action, or 
 that which does not pass from the agent to any thing else, as / 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 401 
 
 *' In order to have this project reduced to practice, 
 there seems to want nothing more, than to put those 
 in mind," &c. — Swift, Here, " to want," that is, 
 ** to need," " to require," is improperly used for " to 
 be wanting," " to be required," " to be wanted." It 
 should be, " there seems to be nothing wanting." 
 The verb to want was frequently employed by Pope 
 and Swift in the sense, in which we here find it. John- 
 son, likewise, in one or two passages, has adopted the 
 same usage, thus, " there had never wanted writers 
 to talk occasionally of Arcadia and Strephon." — Life 
 of Phillips. But in this sense it may now be deemed 
 obsolescent, if not entirely obsolete. 
 
 The reader will here permit me to observe, that 
 there is an idiom in our language, respecting the use 
 of active for passive verbs, which seems worthy of at- 
 tention, and which I do not recollect to have seen 
 
 walk, I run. Transitive verbs are such as denote that the action 
 passes from the agent to something acted upon, as, " Hector 
 wounded him," " Cain slew his brother." But the subject to 
 which the energy passes, may not always be expressed ; the verb, 
 however, is not the less active. Whether we say, '' the drummer 
 beats his drum," or '^ the drummer beats every day," it surely 
 will not be contended, that there is less of action implied in the 
 one case than in the other. The reader then is requested to ob- 
 serve, that it is not necessary to the active transitive verb, that 
 the subject acted upon should be expressed. The active verb 
 may predicate of its subject merely the action generally and ab- 
 solutely, as, " he reads in the morning, and writes in the even- 
 ing ;" or with the action may be expressed the subject or object, 
 as, '^ he reads Homer in the morning, and writes letters in the 
 evening;" or the object or subject may be implied, and not ex- 
 pressed, as, " the drummer beats at night," namely, his drum. 
 But in all these cases, the verb is equally active. 
 
 1> D 
 
402 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 remarked by any of our grammarians. In the lan- 
 guages of antiquity, the distinction between active 
 and passive was strictly observed ; but in English 
 the active is frequently employed for the passive 
 voice. Of this remarkable idiom numberless ex- 
 amples might be produced; but the few following 
 will suffice. Thus we say, "the sentence reads ill," 
 " the wine drinks harsh," " the grass cuts easily," 
 " the apples eat hard," " the drum heats to arms," 
 "the metal works well." In these examples, the 
 subject clearly is acted upon ; the verb, therefore, 
 must be considered as having a passive signification; 
 It is almost unnecessary to observe, that this phrase- 
 ology should be avoided, whenever it is likely to create 
 ambiguity. 
 
 " Lead me forth in thy truth, and learn me." — 
 Book of Common Prayer, Psal. xxv. The verb to 
 learn formerly denoted, either " to teach," or " to 
 acquire knowledge." In the former sense it is now 
 obsolete. It should therefore be, " lead me forth in 
 thy truth, and teach me." 
 
 " Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings by thy most 
 gracious favour." — Book of Common Prayer. " He 
 had prevented the hour, because we might have the 
 w hole day before us." — Bacon. The verb to prevent, 
 as signifying "to go before," or "come before," is now 
 obsolete. 
 
 " There was no longer any doubt, that the king 
 was determined to wreck his resentment on all con- 
 cerned."— Watso7i\s Philip II. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 403 
 
 " They not only wrecked their vengeance on the 
 living, but on the ashes of dead heretics." — Henry'* s 
 Britain, 
 
 Here the verb to wreck, or " to destroy, by dashing 
 on rocks," is improperly used for " to wreak," or " to 
 discharge." In the last example the adverbs not only 
 are improperly placed. It should be, " they wreaked 
 their vengeance not only," &c. 
 
 " We outrun our present income^ not doubting to 
 disburse ourselves out of the profits of some future 
 plan." — Addison, "To disburse," or "to expend 
 money," is here improperly used for "to reimburse," 
 or " to repay." 
 
 " And wrought a great miracle conform to that of 
 the apostles." — Bacon, 
 
 " The last is the most simple, and the most perfect, 
 as being conform to the nature of knowledge." — 
 HuttorCs Investigation, vol. i. p. 643. Conform^ 
 here used for conformable, is, in this sense, deemed a 
 Scotticism. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 THE ADVERB. 
 
 BARBARISM. 
 
 " Friendship, a rare thing in princes, more rare 
 between princes, that so holily was observed, to the 
 
 D D 2 
 
404 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 last of those two excellent men." — Sidney on Go- 
 vernment. Holily is obsolete. 
 
 " Enquire, what be the stones, that do easiliest 
 melt." — Bacon. The adverb easily is not compared, 
 — see p. 96. Easiliest is, therefore, a barbarism. 
 
 " Their wonder, that any man so near Jerusalem, 
 should be a stranger to what had passed there, their 
 acknowledgment to one they met accidently, that 
 they believed in this prophet," &c. — Guardian, 
 Steele has here used accidently^ for accidentally. 
 The former is a barbarism, and its derivation is re- 
 pugnant to analogy. 
 
 " Uneath may she endure the flinty street. 
 To tread them with her tender feeling feet." 
 
 Shakspeare. 
 
 Uneath is now obsolete, and may therefore be deemed 
 a barbarism. 
 
 " In northern clime, a val'rous knight 
 Did whilom kill his bear in fight. 
 And wound a fiddler." — Hudihras. 
 
 Whilom is now entirely disused. The adverbs 
 whilere, erst, and perhaps also a7ion, may be ranked 
 in the class of barbarisms. 
 
 " And this attention gives ease to the person, be- 
 cause the clothes appear unstudily graceful." — Woll- 
 stonecrqffs Original Stories. The word unstudily 
 is barbarous, and its mode of derivation contrary to 
 analogy. 
 
 SOLECISM. 
 
 " Use a little wine for thv stomach's sake, and 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 405 
 
 thine often infirmities." Often, an adverb, is here 
 improperly used as an adjective, in accordance with 
 the substantive " infirmities." It ought to be " thy 
 frequent infirmities." 
 
 " We may cast in such seeds and principles, as we 
 judge most likely to take soonest and deepest root." 
 Here, as in the preceding example, the adverb 
 " soonest" is used as an adjective ; for the connexion 
 is '* soonest root," and " deepest root." Now, we 
 cannot say " soon root," the former term being in- 
 capable of qualifying the latter ; nor can we, there- 
 fore, say " soonest YooV It ought to be " the earliest 
 and the deepest root." 
 
 " After these wars, of which they hope for a soon 
 and prosperous issue." Soon issue is another ex- 
 ample of the same error. 
 
 " His lordship inveighed, with severity, against the 
 conduct of the then ministry." Here then, the ad- 
 verb equivalent to at that time, is solecistically em- 
 ployed as an adjective, agreeing with ministry/. This 
 error seems to gain ground ; it should therefore be 
 vigilantly opposed, and carefully avoided. " The 
 ministry of that time" would be correct. 
 
 " He tells them, that the time should come, that 
 the temple should be graced with the presence of the 
 Messias." Here that is incorrectly used for when^ 
 i, e, "at which time the temple should be graced." 
 
 IMPROPRIETY. 
 
 " By letters, dated the third of May, we learn that 
 
406 CRITICAL REMx\RKS 
 
 the West India fleet arrived safely." Here safely is 
 improperly used for safe. The adverb is equivalent 
 to " in a safe manner ;" and when it is said, " that 
 the fleet arrived safely, ^^ it signifies that the manner 
 of the arrival, rather than the fleet itself, was safe or 
 free from accident. If I say " he carried the parcel 
 as safely as possible," it implies merely his great at- 
 tention to the manner of carrying it ; but this does 
 not infallibly exclude accident ; for I may add, " but 
 he unluckily fell," or " he was unfortunately thrown 
 down, and the glass was broken." But if I say, 
 " he carried it as safe as possible," or, " he carried it 
 safe," it implies that it came safe, or escaped all ac- 
 cidents. We should, therefore, say " that the West 
 India fleet arrived safe.' In disapproving the ex- 
 pression, " he arrived safely ^^^ I concur with Baker; 
 but the judicious reader will perceive, that my reason 
 for reprehending it, does not entirely coincide with 
 his. The author's words are these : " If a man says, 
 that he arrived safely, or in a safe manner, he seems 
 to suppose, that there is danger of some mischance in 
 arriving. But what danger is there to be appre- 
 hended in the circumstance of arriving ? The dan- 
 ger is only during the journey, or voyage ; in the 
 arrival there is none at all. The proper way of 
 speaking is, therefore, ' I arrived safe,' that is, 'having 
 escaped all the dangers of the passage.' " 
 
 " The poor woman carried them to the person to 
 whom they were directed ; and when Lady Cathcart 
 recovered her liberty, she receivecl her diamonds 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 407 
 
 safely." It should be, ** she received her diamonds 
 safe." 
 
 Errors like the one on which J have now animad- 
 verted, frequently arise from a desire to avoid the 
 opposite mistake ; I mean the improper use of the 
 adjective for the adverb. — See Syntax, Rule V: 
 Note 15. Hence many, when they employ such 
 phraseologies as I have here exemplified, conceive 
 that they express themselves with the strictest accu7 
 racy, thus verifying the poet's observation, 
 
 *^^ In vitiura ducit culpae fuga, si caret arte." 
 
 In order to avoid this error, it should be remem- 
 bered, that many English verbs, while they affirm 
 some action, passion, or state of the subject, fre- 
 quently serve as a copula, connecting the subject 
 with another predicate. This is one of those idioms, 
 in the grammar of our language, which demand the 
 particular attention of the classical scholar. For, 
 though an acquaintance with the learned languages 
 will not seduce him into an improper use of an ad- 
 jective for the adverb, it may, as in the example now 
 before us, betray him into the converse error. And 
 I am inclined to think, that from a propensity almost 
 irresistible in the classical scholar to assimilate our 
 language with the Latin tongue, our lexicographers 
 have designated many of our words as adverbs, which 
 are strictly adjectives. When it is said, for example, 
 " it goes hard,' Johnson considers hard as an adverb. 
 Yet when we say, '' it goes contrary,"' he considers 
 
408 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 contrary as an adjective. There appears to me io 
 be more of caprice than of reason, more of prejudice 
 than of truth, in this classification. Both words, I 
 am persuaded, belong to one and the same species. 
 Nay, I might venture to assert, that no person, who 
 had studied the principles of the English language, 
 and of that only, would pronounce the one to be an ad- 
 verb, and the other an adjective. It is to be observed, 
 likewise, that we have the regular adverb hardly to 
 express the manner. When we say, ** he reasoned 
 concerning the rule," " we argued respecting the 
 fact," " he lives according to nature," is there not 
 something extremely arbitrary and unphilosophical, 
 in calling concerning a preposition, according a pre- 
 position, followed by /o, but properly a participle, 
 and respecting a participle ? Are not all the three 
 participles ? Yet Johnson has classed them, as I have 
 now mentioned. But the farther illustration of this 
 subject would lead us into a field much too large for 
 the limits of the present treatise. We must there- 
 fore revert to our primary observation, in which we 
 cautioned the reader against the improper use of the 
 adjective for the adverb. It should be remembered 
 that, when it is intended to predicate something of 
 the subject, beside the attribute of the verb, the ad- 
 jective should be employed ; but, when it is intended 
 to express merely some modification of the attribute 
 of the verb, we should then use the adverb. The 
 difference may be illustrated by the following ex- 
 amples. When Gustavus says to his troops, ** your 
 
AND IIiLUSTRATIONS. 409 
 
 limbs tread vigorous and your breasts beat high," he 
 predicates with the act of treading their physical 
 strength ; but had he said, " your limbs tread vigor- 
 ously," it vrould merely modify their treading, and 
 express an act, not a constitutional habit. The same 
 distinction may be made between saying with Ar- 
 noldus in the same play, " the tear rolls graceful 
 down his visage," and " the tear rolls gracefully." 
 The former predicates grace of the tear itself, the 
 latter merely of its rolling. When we say, " he 
 looks sly," we mean he has the look or the appear- 
 ance of being a sly man ; when it is said, " he looks 
 slyly," we signify that he assumes a sly look. When 
 we say ** it tastes good," we affirm that the subject 
 is of a good quality, whether the taste be pleasant or 
 unpleasant ; if we say " it tastes well," we affirm the 
 taste of it to be pleasant. 
 
 " The manner of it is thus." The adverb thus 
 means " in this manner." The expression, there- 
 fore, amounts to " the manner of it is in this man- 
 ner." It should be " the manner of it is this," or 
 " this is the manner of it." *' This much is certain." 
 Better, " Thus much," or " so much." 
 
 " It is a long time since I have been devoted to 
 your interest." Since properly means " from the 
 time when," and not " during which time." The 
 expression might be construed into a meaning the 
 reverse of that which is intended, implying that the 
 attachment had ceased for a long time. It should 
 be " it is a long time since I became devoted," or 
 
410 CRITICiVL REMARKS 
 
 " it is a long time, that I have beeu devoted to your 
 interest." 
 
 " It is equally the same." Equally is here redun- 
 dant ; it ought to be, '* it is the same." 
 
 " Whenever I call on him, he always inquires for 
 you." Whenever means, " at what time soever," 
 "always when," or " as often as ;" always, therefore, 
 is redundant. 
 
 ** They will not listen to the voice of the charmer, 
 charm he never so wisely." Never is here improperly 
 used for ever. It ought to be, " charm he ever so 
 wisely ;" that is, " hmvever wisely,^' or " how wisely 
 soever, he may charm." 
 
 ** And even in those characteristical portraits, on 
 which he has lavished all the decorations of his style, 
 he is seldom or ever misled." — Stewart's Life of 
 Robertson, This error is the converse of the former. 
 It ought to be, " seldom or never;" that is, "seldom, 
 or at no time." '* Seldom or ever" is equivalent to 
 '* seldom or always," or to " seldom or at any time," 
 expressions evidently improper. 
 
 "Some years after being released from prison, by 
 reason of his consummate knowledge of civil law, and 
 military affairs, he was soon exalted to the supreme 
 power." The first clause of this sentence is ambi- 
 guous ; for the sentence may imply, either that he 
 gained the supremacy, some years after he was re- 
 leased from prison, that period being left indetermi- 
 nate; or that some years after a time previously 
 mentioned, he was released from prison, and attained 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 411. 
 
 the chief power. The latter being the author's mean- 
 ing, it ought to be, " some years afterwards being 
 released from prison." Another ambiguity is here 
 involved by improper arrangement ; for, as the sen- 
 tence stands, it is somewhat doubtful, whether his 
 consummate knowledge was the cause of his release- 
 ment, or the cause of his elevation. This error, how- 
 ever, belongs more to the rhetorician, than the gram- 
 marian. The French term this ambiguity, *' con- 
 struction louche," or a squinting construction. 
 
 The following error consists in wrong collocation : 
 " The Celteberi in Spain borrowed that name from 
 the Celtae and Iberi, from whom they were jointly 
 descended.'' Jointly, with whom? It should be, 
 " from whom (the Celtae and Iberi) jointly they were 
 descended." 
 
 '* And the Quakers seem to approach nearly the 
 only regular body of Deists in the universe, the lite- 
 rati, or the disciples of Confucius in China." — Rumens 
 Essays. The adverb nearly, which is synonymous 
 with almost, is here improperly used for near^. It 
 should be^ approach near, 
 
 " This is the Leviathan, from whence the terrible 
 wits of our age are said to borrow their weapons." — 
 Swift, From is here redundant; whence^ denoting 
 " from which place." 
 
 " An ancient author prophesies from hence." — 
 
 * In justice to this respectable sect, it is incumbent on me to 
 observe, that the Quakers are not Deists, nor does their religious 
 creed approach to Deism. 
 
412 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 Dryden. Here a similar impropriety is involved. 
 It should be hence, 
 
 " E'er we can offer our complaints. 
 Behold him present with his^aid." 
 
 EeVy a contraction for ever^ which is synonymous 
 with always^ and also at any time, is here improperly 
 used for ere or before. 
 
 In the two following passages, there appears to 
 me to be a similar error : " Or ever the silver cord 
 be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken." — Bible, 
 " I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, 
 or ever the earth was." — Ibid. 
 
 " And, as there is now never a woman in England, 
 I hope, I may talk of women without offence." — 
 Steele, 
 
 " He spake never a word." — Bible, 
 
 This usage of the word " never," is now, I believe, 
 entirely confined to the vulgar. 
 
 "As for conflagrations and great droughts, they 
 do not merely dispeople and destroy." — Bacon, 
 Merely is here used, as it is uniformly by Bacon, 
 and very frequently by Shakspeare, for entirely. In 
 this sense it is obsolete ; and it now signifies purely, 
 simply, only, nothing more than. From inattention 
 to this, the passage, now quoted, has been corrupted 
 in several editions. They have it, " do not merely 
 dispeople, but destroy," conveying a sentiment, very 
 different from what the author intended. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 413 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 THE PREPOSITION. 
 
 SOLECISM. 
 
 "Who do you speak to?" Here the preposition 
 is joined with the nominative, instead of the ob- 
 jective case. It should be, "whom do you speak to?" 
 or " to whom do you speak ?" To who is a solecism. 
 
 " He talked to you and I, of this matter, some 
 days ago." It should be, " to you and me ;" that is, 
 " to you, and to me." 
 
 " Now Margaret's curse is fallen upon our heads. 
 When she exclaim'd on Hastings, you and I." 
 
 Shahspeare. 
 
 It ought to be, " on Hastings, you and w^," the 
 pronouns being under the government of the pre- 
 position understood. 
 
 " Neither do I think', that any thing could be 
 more entertaining, than the story of it exactly told, 
 with such observations, and in such a spirit, style, 
 and manner, as you alone are capable of performing 
 it." This sentence is extremely faulty. *' To per- 
 form a story" is not English; and the relative clause 
 is ungrammatical, the preposition being omitted. It 
 should be " performing it in," which would be gram- 
 matically correct, but inelegant, as well as improper. 
 
414 CRITICAL HEMARKS 
 
 It would be better expressed thus, " in that spirit, 
 style, and manner, in which you alone are capable 
 of narrating it." 
 
 ** Notwithstanding of the numerous panegyrics on 
 the ancient English liberty." — Hume^s Essays, The 
 error here in the use of the preposition after notwith- 
 standing^ is, I believe, peculiar to Scotland. Not- 
 withstanding h a compound word of the same import 
 as not preventing. The grammatical construction 
 therefore is, ** the numerous panegyrics notwith- 
 standing," that is, "not hindering," the noun and 
 the participle being in the absolute case. O/* renders 
 the expression solecistical. 
 
 IMPROPRIETY. 
 
 " If policy can prevail upon force." — Addison. 
 Here upon is improperly used for over. To prevail 
 on, is " to persuade ;" to prevail over, is " to over- 
 come." 
 
 ** I have set down the names of several gentlemen, 
 who have been robbed in Dublin streets, for these 
 three years past." — Swift. It should be, ** within 
 these three years past." Swift's expression implies, 
 as Baker observes, that these gentlemen had been 
 robbed during the whole three years. 
 
 '* Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat, and swal- 
 low a camel." In this sentence, the preposition at 
 is very improperly used for out. It should be, ** strain 
 out a gnat ;" that is, exclude it from the liquor by 
 straining. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 415 
 
 " I have several times inquired of you without any 
 satisfaction." — Pope. We say " inquire of," when 
 we ask a question; and ** inquire for," or "after," 
 when we desire to know the circumstances, in which 
 any object is placed. He should have employed the 
 latter expression. 
 
 " The greatest masters of critical learning differ 
 among one another." — Spectator. If the ellipsis be 
 supplied, the sentence proceeds thus : " The greatest 
 masters of critical learning differ, one differs among 
 another." Here the preposition among, which im- 
 plies a number, or a plurality, is joined to a term 
 significant of unity. It ought to be, " from one an- 
 other ;" that is, " one from another,^' or " differ among 
 themselves." 
 
 " I intended to wait of yon this morning." The 
 preposition of is here improperly used for on. We 
 say to wait on, not to wait of. 
 
 " He knows nothing on it." This is a vile vul- 
 garism for " he knows nothing qf\t.** 
 
 " He is now much altered to the better." To is 
 here improperly used instead oi for. " Altered to 
 the better," may, I believe, be deemed a Scotticism. 
 It ought to be, "he is ajtered for the better." 
 
 Ambiguity is sometimes produced by putting the 
 preposition in an improper place. " A clergyman is, 
 by the militia act, exempted from both serving and 
 contributing." This, though intended to express a 
 different meaning, strictly implies, that he is not 
 obliged both to serve and to contribute, but does not 
 
416 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 exclude his liability to do the one, or the other. If 
 we say, " he is exempted both from serving and con- 
 tributing," we express an exemption from both. 
 
 " Such of my readers, as have a taste of fine 
 writing." — Addison^ s SpecL " To have a taste of a 
 thing," is "to feel how it affects the sensitive or per- 
 ceptive faculty ;" " to have a taste for a thing" is "to 
 relish its agreeable qualities ;" " to have a taste in a 
 thing," which is the expression used by Addison in 
 the same paper, is " to have a discriminative judg- 
 ment in examining the object." The first expression 
 is incorrect, as not conveying his meaning. 
 
 Swift, speaking of Marlborough's dismission from 
 the queen's ministry, as a bad requital of his public 
 services, says, " If a stranger should hear these 
 furious outcries of ingratitude against our general, 
 he would be apt to inquire," &c. One would 
 naturally conclude from the author's expression, 
 that Marlborough, and not the nation, was charged 
 with ingratitude. He should have said, "ingrati- 
 tude towards our general." 
 
 In the use of prepositions, a distinction is properly 
 made between their literal and figurative meaning. 
 " Wit," says Shakspeare, " depends on dilatory time." 
 Here the verb is employed figuratively, and the idea 
 involved in the primitive meaning is dismissed. 
 
 " From gilded roofs depending lamps display.*' — Dryden. 
 
 Here the verb is used in its literal acceptation, de- 
 noting " to hang," and is followed, therefore, hyfrom. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 417 
 
 To the same purpose it has been remarked by 
 Campbell, that the verb " to found," used literally, 
 is followed by on preferably to in, as, " the house 
 was founded on a rock ;" but, when employed meta- 
 phorically, is better followed by in, as, " dominion is 
 founded in grace." 
 
 " There is no need^r your assistance." It should 
 be, "o/*your assistance." We say, " occasion yor," 
 and " need oJT Need for may likewise be pro- 
 nounced a Scotticism, as, I believe, this phraseology 
 is seldom or never used by English writers. 
 
 " For, what chiefly deters the sons of science and 
 philosophy from reading the Bible, and profiting of 
 that lecture, but the stumbling-block of absolute in- 
 spiration ?" — Geddes. " To profit of" is a Gallicism ; 
 it should be, " profiting by." 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 THE CONJUNCTION. 
 
 I 
 
 SOLECISM, 
 
 " A SYSTEM of theology, involving such absurdi- 
 ties, can be maintained, I think, by no rational man, 
 much less by so learned a man as him." Conjunc- 
 tions having no government, the word as ought not 
 to be joined with an objective case. It should be, 
 "so learned a man as he,^ the verb is being under- 
 stood, 
 
 E E 
 
418 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 ** Tell the cardinal, Ihat I understand poetry better 
 than him." — Smollet. According to the grammatical 
 construction of the latter clause, it means, " I under- 
 stand poetry better, than I understand him." This, 
 however, is not the sentiment which the writer in- 
 tended to convey. The clause should proceed thus, 
 :«' I understand poetry better than he ;" that is, " than 
 he understands it." Those, who contend for the use 
 oi than as a preposition, and justify the phraseology 
 which is here censured, must at least admit, that to 
 construe than^ as a preposition, creates ambiguity. 
 Thus, when it is said, " you think him handsomer 
 than me,'' it would be impossible to determine whe- 
 ther the meaning is, " you think him handsomer than 
 I think him," or " you think him handsomer than 
 you think me." 
 
 " There is nothing more pleases mankind, as to 
 have others to admire and praise their performances, 
 though they are never so trivial." Here there are 
 two errors. The comparative more is followed by 
 as, instead of than; and the adverb never is im- 
 properly used for ever, " How trivial so ever." It 
 should be, " There is nothing that pleases mankind 
 more, than," &c. 
 
 Conjunctions having no government, the scholar, 
 desirous to avoid error, should carefully observe, 
 whether the predicate be applicable to the two sub- 
 jects, connected by the conjunction, or to speak more 
 generally, whether the two nouns be dependent on 
 the same verb or preposition, expressed or under- 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 419 
 
 stood. " The lover got a woman of greater fortune 
 than her he had missed." — Addison^ Guardian, 
 This sentence, if not acknowledged to be ungram- 
 matical, is at least inelegant. The pronoun should 
 have been introduced. If than be considered as 
 having the power of a preposition, the charge of so- 
 lecism is precluded ; but if than be a conjunction, he 
 should have said, " than she, whom he had missed." 
 For, as Lowth observes, there is no ellipsis of the 
 verb got, so that the pronoun her cannot be under 
 its government. The meaning is not, " The lover 
 got a woman of greater fortune, than he got her, 
 whom he missed," for this would be a contradiction, 
 but ** of greater fortune, than she was." In like 
 manner in the following passage : 
 
 '* Nor hope to be myself less miserable. 
 By what I seek, but others to make 
 Such as /." — Milton. 
 
 Bentley says, that it should be me. We concur 
 with Dr. Lowth in rejecting this correction, and ap- 
 proving the expression of Milton. There is no ellipsis 
 of the verb make; others and / are not under the 
 government of the same word. The meaning is not 
 " to make others such, as to make me," but such as 
 " I «»^," the substantive verb being understood. 
 
 In the following passage, on the contrary, the 
 ellipsis seems evident, " I found none so fit as him to 
 be set in opposition to the father of the renowned 
 city of Rome." It has been contended, that the 
 
 E E 2 
 
420 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 author should have said, "as he," and not " as him;" 
 but it appears to me, that the verb found is under- 
 stood in the secondary clause, and that the expres- 
 sion is correct, the sense being, " I found none so fit, 
 as I found him." 
 
 In the following passage the two subjects belong 
 to the same verb. 
 
 " The sun, upon the calmest sea. 
 Appears not half so bright as thee." — Prior. 
 
 It ought to be, ** as thou ;" that is, " as thou ap- 
 pearest." 
 
 *' For ever in this humble cell. 
 Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell." 
 
 The second line of the couplet is ungrammatical, 
 the conjunction connecting an objective with a nomi- 
 native case, or, to speak more correctly, the pronoun 
 of the first person, which should be a regimen to the 
 verb understood, being here in the nominative case. 
 Thus, " let thee," and " let I, my fair one, dwell," 
 instead of " let thee, and let me." 
 
 " Let us make a covenant, I and thou." — Bible. 
 The error here, though similar, does not come under 
 precisely the same predicament with the former. The 
 pronoun us is very properly in the objective case, 
 after the verb let; I and thou should therefore be in 
 the same case, according to Rule vii. of Syntax. The 
 expression is in fact elliptical, and when completed 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 421 
 
 proceeds thus, " Let us make a covenant ; let me and 
 thee make." 
 
 " Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience 
 by the things which he suffered." The first clause is 
 intended to express a fact, not a hypothesis ; the verb, 
 therefore, should be in the indicative mood. Con- 
 junctions have no government, either of cases or 
 moods. 
 
 IMPROPRIETY. 
 
 ** If in case he come, all will be well." If and in 
 case are synonymous, the one meaning " suppose," 
 and the other, " on the supposition." One of them, 
 therefore, is redundant. 
 
 " The reason of my desiring to see you was, be- 
 cause I wanted to talk with you." Because means 
 " by reason ;" the expression, therefore, is chargeable 
 with redundancy. It should be, " that I wanted to 
 talk with you." 
 
 " No sooner was the cry of the infant heard, but 
 the old gentleman rushed into the room." — Martinus 
 Scrih, The comparative is here improperly followed 
 by hut, instead of than, 
 
 " Scarce had the Spirit of Laws made its appearance, 
 than it was attacked." Than is employed after com- 
 paratives only, and the word other. It ought to be 
 " scarce," or, for reasons formerly given, " scarcely 
 had the Spirit of Laws made its appearance, when it 
 was attacked," or " no sooner — than." 
 
 " The resolution was not the less fixed, that the 
 
42^ CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 secret was as yet comirmiiicated to very few, either 
 in the French or English court." This passage 
 from Hume I have not been able to find. Priestley 
 observes, that it involves a Gallicism, the word that 
 being used instead of as. If the meaning intended 
 be, that some circumstances, previously mentioned, 
 had not shaken the resolution, because the secret 
 was as yet known to few, then Priestley's observation 
 is correct ; and the word as should be substituted for 
 that, to express the cause of the firmness. But, if 
 the author intended to say, that the very partial 
 discovery of the secret had not shaken the resolution, 
 the clause is then perfectly correct. According to 
 the former phraseology, the circumstance subjoined 
 operated as a cause, preventing the resolution from 
 being shaken : according to the latter, it had no effect, 
 or produced no change of the previous determination^ 
 In other words, " the less fixed that," implies that 
 the subject of the following clause did not affect that 
 of the preceding; "the less fixed as"" denotes, that 
 the latter circumstance contributed to the production 
 of the former. As it is obvious, that, in such ex- 
 amples, the definite article may refer either to the 
 antecedent^ or the subsequent clause, the distinction, 
 here specified, should, for the sake of perspicuity, be 
 carefully observed *. 
 
 * A similar ambiguity sometimes occurs in Latin by the indis- 
 criminate use of quod. This may be prevented by em2)loying 
 quoninm when the succeeding member of the sentence expresses 
 the cause oj^the j)receding subject. Thus, " Nee consilium eo 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 4f2t3 
 
 " His donation was the more acceptable, that it 
 was given without solicitation." That the word that 
 is frequently used for because cannot be questioned ; 
 thus, " I am glad that you have returned safe," that 
 is, " because you have returned safe." 
 
 '' 'Tis not that I love you less 
 Than when before your feet I lay." — Waller. 
 
 Here that is equivalent to because, English writers, 
 however, after a comparative employ as or because ^ to 
 denote, that the circumstance subjoined was the cause 
 of the preceding one. The use of that in such ex- 
 amples is accounted a Scotticism ; it should, therefore, 
 be, "his donation was the more acceptable, «*" or 
 " because it was given without solicitation." 
 
 " His arguments on this occasion had, it may be 
 presumed, the greater weight, that he had never 
 himself entered within the walls of a playhouse." — 
 Stewarts Life of Robertson, 
 
 " A mortification, the more severe, that the joint 
 authority of the archduke and the infanta governed 
 the Austrian Netherlands." — Thomsons continua- 
 tion of Watson's History. 
 
 These sentences are chargeable with the same 
 error. 
 
 minus erat firmum, quoniam secretum cum perpaucis adhuc erat 
 communicatum," where the eo refers to a preceding circumstance 
 "Nee consilium eo minus erat firmum quod," where the eo refers 
 to the subsequent clause. The former phraseology affirms, the 
 latter denies, the infhience of the circumstance subjoined. 
 
424 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 " On the east and west sides it (America) is washed 
 by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans." — Robertson, 
 This mode of expression is incorrect ; and, though to 
 the geographer intelligible, it strictly conveys a con- 
 ception not intended by the author. The copulative 
 joins the two sides, which ought to be separated ; and 
 combines the two seas, instead of the two facts, im- 
 plying, that both sides are \vashed by the same two 
 oceans. It should be rather, " On the east side it is 
 washed by the Atlantic, and on the west (is washed) 
 by the Pacific ocean." 
 
 " Will it be believed, that the four Gospels are as 
 old, or even older than tradition?" — Bolinghroke. 
 Here there is a faulty omission of the particle corre- 
 sponding to as; for the positive and comparative 
 cannot be followed by the same conjunction. It 
 ought to be " as old as, or even older than, tradi- 
 tion;" or, perhaps, better, " as old as tradition, or 
 even older." 
 
 " The books were to have been sold as this day." 
 This is a most offensive vulgarism. The conjunction 
 as can have no regimen ; nor can it be properly used 
 as equivalent to on. It ought to be ** sold this day, 
 or on this day." 
 
 " It is supposed, that he must have arrived at 
 Paris as yesterday." This sentence is chargeable 
 with the same error. Construed strictly, it is, " he 
 must have arrived at Paris as, or in like manner as, 
 he arrived yesterday." 
 
 " The duke had not behaved with that loyalty, as 
 
AND ILLUSTIIATIONS. 425 
 
 he ought to have done." Propriety of correspond- 
 ence here requires with that to be followed by with 
 which, instead of as. The sentence, even thus cor- 
 rected, would be still inelegant and clumsy. '* The 
 duke had not behaved with becoming loyalty," would 
 be much better. 
 
 " In the order as they lie in his preface." This 
 involves a similar impropriety. It should be, " in 
 order as," or " in the order, in which they lie in his 
 preface." 
 
 '* No ; this is not always the case neither." — 
 Beattie, 
 
 " Men come not to the knowledge of ideas which 
 are thought innate, till they come to the use of rea- 
 son ; nor then neither." — Locke, 
 
 In old English two negatives denied; hence, 
 perhaps, this phraseology originated. Johnson re- 
 marks, that the use of neither, after a negative, and 
 at the end of a sentence, though not grammatical, 
 renders the expression more emphatic. Analogy, 
 however, is decidedly in favour of the affirmative 
 term ; I, therefore, prefer the word " either." Were 
 Johnson's argument admitted, such expressions as 
 these, " I forbade you not to go ;" " I won't suffer 
 no such thing ;" '* He would not have none of my 
 assistance," might, I apprehend, be justified on the 
 same principle. Those who employ them, doubtless, 
 believe them to be more emphatic, than if they in- 
 cluded a single negative. 
 
426 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 ** This I am the rather disposed to do, that it will 
 serve to illustrate the principles above laid down." 
 — Camphell on Rhetoric. This sentence involves an 
 error, on which I have already animadverted, " The 
 rather^' should be followed by as^ not that. 
 
 " This is another use, that in my opinion contri- 
 butes rather to make a man learned than wise ; and 
 is neither capable of pleasing the understanding or 
 imagination." Lowth justly observes, that or is here 
 improperly used for nor, the correlative words being 
 neither, nor. In addition to this observation, I re- 
 mark, that the word neither is erroneously placed. 
 To render this collocation of the conjunction correct, 
 there should be another attributive opposed to the 
 word " capable," as, " neither capable of pleasing the 
 understanding, nor calculated to gratify the imagina- 
 tion." But, as the author intended to exclude two 
 subjects, these should have been contrasted by the 
 exclusive conjunctions, thus, " is capable of pleasing 
 neither the understanding, nor the imagination." 
 
 A similar error occurs in the following sentence : 
 " Adversity both taught you to think and reason." — 
 Steele, The conjunction, which is, in truth, the 
 adjective both, is improperly placed. It should be, 
 " taught you both," i, e. the two things, " to think 
 and reason." 
 
 It has been already observed, that the conjunction 
 or is used disjunctively and subdisjunctively, some- 
 times denoting a diversity of things, and sometimes 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 427 
 
 merely a difference of names. Hence often arises 
 ambiguity, where the utmost precision of expression 
 is necessary'^. When Ruddiman delivers it as a 
 rule, that '' verbal adjectives, or such as signify an 
 affection of the mind, require the genitive," I have 
 known the scholar at a loss to understand, whether 
 there be two distinct classes of adjectives here in- 
 tended, or one class under two designations. The 
 ambiguity might here be avoided, by using mid or 
 with instead of or. It may also be prevented in 
 many cases, by more forcibly marking the distinction 
 by the use of either. Thus, if we say, " whosoever 
 shall cause, or occasion a disturbance," it may be 
 doubtful, whether the latter of the two verbs be not 
 designed as explanatory of the former, they, though 
 their meanings be distinct, being often used as syno- 
 nymous terms. If we say, *' shall either cause or 
 occasion," all doubt is removed. Sometimes ambi- 
 guity may be precluded either by the insertion, or 
 the omission, of the article. Thus, if we say, " a 
 peer, or lord of parliament t," meaning to designate 
 only one individual, or one order, the expression is 
 correct. But, if it be intended to signify two indivi- 
 duals, every peer not being a lord of parliament, and 
 
 * In our penal statutes, which should be precisely worded, be- 
 cause they are literally interpreted, much ambiguity frequently 
 arises from the loose and incorrect manner, in which this conjunc- 
 tion is used. 
 
 t The issue of a question, respecting a contested election at 
 Rochester, in 1820, depended on the construction of this desig- 
 nation, " a peer, or lord of parliament." 
 
4181^ CRITICAL IIEMAIIKS 
 
 every lord of parliament not being a peer, we should 
 say, " a peer, or a lord of parliament," or " either a 
 peer, or lord of parliament." 
 
 Having now endeavoured to explain and illustrate 
 the etymology and syntax of the English language, 
 I cannot dismiss the subject, without earnestly re- 
 . commending to the classical student to cultivate a 
 critical acquaintance with his native tongue. It is 
 an egregious, but common error, to imagine, that a 
 perfect knowledge of Greek and Latin precludes the 
 necessity of studying the principles of English 
 grammar. The structure of the ancient, and that of 
 modern languages, are very dissimilar. Nay, the 
 peculiar idioms of any language, how like soever in 
 its general principles to any other, must be learned 
 by study, and an attentive perusal of the best writers 
 in that language. Nor can any imputation be more 
 reproachful to the proficient in classical literature, 
 than, with a critical knowledge of Greek and Latin, 
 which are now dead languages, to be superficially 
 acquainted with his native tongue, in which he must 
 think, and speak, and write. 
 
 The superiority of Greek and Latin over the 
 English language in respect of harmony, graceful 
 dignity, conciseness, and fluency, will be readily 
 admitted. Our language is, comparatively, harsh 
 and abrupt. It possesses strength, indeed ; but un- 
 accompanied with softness, with elegance, or with 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 4219 
 
 majesty. It must be granted also, that the Greek 
 is, perhaps, a more copious, and is certainly a more 
 ductile* and tractable language. But, though in 
 these respects, the English be inferior to the lan- 
 guages of Greece and Rome, yet in preciseness of 
 expression, diversity of sound, facility of communi- 
 cation, and variety of phrase, it may claim the pre- 
 eminence. It would be easy to evince the truth of 
 this assertion, did the limits, which I have prescribed 
 to myself, permit. The fact is, that analogous lan- 
 guages almost necessarily possess a superiority in 
 these respects over those, which are transpositive. 
 
 It is to be remembered also, that our language is 
 susceptible of high improvement ; and, though its 
 abrupt and rugged nature cannot be entirely changed, 
 much may be done to smooth its asperities and soften 
 its harshness. 
 
 As a farther inducement to the study of the En- 
 glish language, I would assure the young reader, 
 that a due attention to accuracy of diction is highly 
 conducive to correctness of thought. For, as it is 
 generally true, that he, whose conceptions are clear, 
 and who is master of his subject, delivers his senti- 
 
 * The superior ductility of the Greek, above every other lan- 
 guage, must appear from its singular aptitude to form new words 
 by composition or derivation, so as immediately to communicate 
 any new idea. Hence the names of most of our modern disco- 
 veries and inventions are of Gree^ extraction. Thus we have the 
 terms " microscope," " telegraph/' '' panorama," " odometer,'' 
 and many others. 
 
4S0 CRITICAL REMARKS, ETC. 
 
 ments with ease and perspicuity * ; so it is equally 
 certain, that, as language is not only the vehicle of 
 thought, but also an instrument of invention, if we 
 desire to attain a habit of conceiving clearly and 
 thinking correctly, we must learn to speak and write 
 with accuracy and precision. 
 
 It must, at the same time, be remembered, that to 
 give our chief attention to mere phraseology, or to 
 be more solicitous about the accuracy of the diction 
 than the value of the sentiment, is a sure indication 
 of a nerveless and vacant mind. As we estimate a 
 man, not by his garb, but by his intellectual and 
 moral worth, so it is the sentiment itself, not the 
 dress in which it is exhibited, that determines its 
 character, and our opinion of its author. 
 
 " True expression, like th' unchanging sun, 
 Clears and improves whate'er it shines upon ; 
 It gilds all objects, hut it alters none.'' — Pope. 
 
 In short, the precept of Quintilian should be stu- 
 diously observed ; " curam ergo verborum, rerum 
 volo esse solicitudinem." — Inst Or at lib. viii. 
 
 * " Cui lecta potenter erit res, 
 Nee facundia deseret hunc, nee lucidus ordo. 
 
 " Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur." 
 
 Hor. de Art. Poet. 
 
 I 
 
 THE END. 
 
 ^ 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PHIKTED «Y THOMAS DAVISOK, W II I TEF R1AR9. 
 
 J* 
 
^^^Mm 
 
 ^^ '^^ 
 
 
I 
 
 ^^w^' 
 
 i2W/iiA2