LIBRARY 
 
 OF THK 
 
 University of California. 
 
 GIFT OK 
 
 MRS. MARTHA E. HALLIDIE. 
 
 Class 
 
TREATISE 
 
 ox THE 
 
 ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX 
 
 OF THE 
 
 €nQlis)) JLattffuage. 
 
 ^^^r^'^'^^ SECOND EDITION. 
 
 OF, 
 
 The Rev. ALEXANDER CROMBIE, LL.D. 
 
 *♦ Ne quis tanquam parva fastidlat Grnmmatices elementa ; non quia magn% 
 *' sit operae conjcnantes a vocalibus discernere, ipsasque eas in semivocalium nu- 
 " merum, mutarumquc partiri ; sed quia interiora velut sacri hujus adeuntibus, 
 " apparebit multa rcrum subtilitas, qua non modo acuere ingcnia puerilia, 
 ^ ** eed exercere altissimam quoque eruditionem ac scicntiam possit." Qu^ntil, 
 lib I. cap. iv. 
 
 LONDON: 
 PRINTED FOR J. JOHNSON, No.7», ST. PAUL'S CHUKCH-YARIJ, 
 
 1809. 
 
FRINTED BY C. 5T0WER, 
 FATEKNOSTEK RrOW, LOKDOM. 
 

 THE 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 The success, with 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. Enquiry 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 
 Jinowledge of English grammar from the num- 
 
 b 
 
 103309 
 
IV THE PREFACE. 
 
 ber of works, already published on the sub- 
 ject, we should perhaps be prompted to infer, 
 vhat in a field so circumscribed, and at the same 
 time so often and so ably explored, no object 
 worthy of notice could have escaped attention. 
 And yet in this, as in every other art or sci- 
 ence, strict examination will convince us, 
 that, though much may have been accom- 
 plished, still much remains, to stimulate the 
 industry, and exercise the ingenuity of future 
 (enquirers. The author indeed is fully per- 
 suaded, that it is impossible to examine the 
 Ehglish 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 atten- 
 tion 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 idioms, and eluci-' 
 dated some principles, Vy^Jiich have escaped the 
 
THE PREFACE. V 
 
 observation of other grammarians, lie 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 facihtates the acquisition of every 
 other language, and that by a kno vvledge of 
 these the classical scholar is therefore materially 
 assisted in attaining a critical acquamtance 
 with his native tongue, it would argue extreme 
 perversity to deny. But that an extensive 
 knowledge of Greek and Latin is often associ- 
 ated with an imperfect and superficial acquaint- 
 ance with the principles of the English lan- 
 guage is a fact, which experience demonstrates, 
 and it would not be difficult to explain. To 
 make any tolerable progress in a classical 
 course, without acquiring a general knowledge 
 of English grammar, is indeed impossible ; yet 
 
 b2 
 
VI THE PREFACE. 
 
 to finish that course, without any correct ac- 
 quaintance 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 attaining 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. 
 
 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 perceive, 
 that he has neither copied with servility, nor 
 implicitly adopted the opinions of others ; but 
 has, in every question, exercised his own jndg- 
 
THE PREFACE. Vll 
 
 ment, in observance of that respect, which all 
 men owe to truth, and consistently, he hopes^ 
 with that deference, which is confessedly due 
 to transcendant talents. 
 
 The Treatise, he believes, contains some 
 original observations. That all of these de- 
 serve to be honoured with a favourable verdict 
 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 apprehend, 
 that some verbal inaccuracies may have escaped 
 bis attention. But, in whatever other respects 
 the diction may be faulty, he trusts at least, 
 that it is not chargeable with obscurity ; and 
 
Vlll THE PREFACE. 
 
 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. Poeti 
 
 GREENWICir^ 
 
 U July, 180^. 
 
THE 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 \ 
 
 L - 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Page 
 Of Language in general, and the English Alphabet - 1 
 
 PART I. . 
 
 Of Etymology --,-..- 17 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 Of the Noun • 22 
 
 CHAP II. 
 Of th^ Article - - - - - - . 52 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Of Pronouns - -,----70 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Of the Adjective - - - - ^ - - 8^ 
 
 CHAP, V. 
 Of the Verb , . , ^ - - - 109 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 Of the Participle - - - - -^ - .. 146 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 Of Adrerbf ^ - ^ - - . . 207 
 
X . contents; 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 Pag« 
 
 Of Prepositions . - - - - - 211 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 Of Conjunctions - - « - « - 223 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Of Interjections - 
 
 232 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Of Syntax - - - - - - - - ^34 
 
 PART III. 
 
 Critical Rcmapks and Illustrations - - - -31^ 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Language consists of intelligible signs, and 
 is the medium, by which the mind communicates 
 its thoughts. It is either articulate, or inarticu- 
 late; 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 sen- 
 sations and desires. By articulate language is un- 
 derstood a system of expression, 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 
 confined 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 rational intercourse, and the in- 
 finitely diversified ideas of an intelligent being. 
 Hence arises the necessity of an artificial, or ar- 
 ticulate language ; a necessity coeval with the ex- 
 
 B 
 
il INTRODUCTION. 
 
 istence of man in his rudest state, increasing also 
 with the enlargement of his ideas, and the im- 
 provement 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 
 knowledge could be imparted, or social inter- 
 course maintained. But, in the progress of sci- 
 ence, various methods were devised, for attaining 
 a more permanent, and more extensive vehicle of 
 thought. Of these, the earliest were, as some 
 think, picture-writing, and hieroglyphics. Visible 
 objects, and external events, were dehneated by 
 pictures, while immaterial things were emblema- 
 tically expressed by figures representative of such 
 physical objects, as bore some conceived analogy, 
 or resemblance to the thing to be expressed. 
 These figures, or devices, were termed hierogly- 
 phics*. It is obvious, however, that this medium 
 
 * Beattie seems to think that the antediluvians had an alpha. 
 bet, and that hieroglyphical was posterior to alphabetical writ- 
 ing. ^' The wisdom and simple manners of the first men," says 
 he, ^^ would iacline me to think, that they must have had aft 
 
INTRODUCTION. lU 
 
 medium of communication must not only have 
 embarrassed by its obscurity, but must have also 
 been extremely deficient in variety of expression. 
 
 At length oral language, by an effort of inge- 
 nuity, which must ever command admiration, was 
 resolved into its simple or elementary sounds, and 
 these were characterized by appropriate symbols*- 
 
 *^ alphabet; for hieroglyphic characters imply quaintncss and 
 <' witticism." In this reasoning I cannot concur. Alphabetic 
 writing is indeed simple, when known ; so also are most inven- 
 tions. But, simple and easy as it appears to ns, 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 ob- 
 '* vious." 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 pic- 
 ture-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 geniu^ 
 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 
 W^J appear, there can be no necessity for referring its introduce. 
 
 1^^ 
 
IV INTRODUCTION, 
 
 Words^ the signs of thought, came thus to be 
 represented by letters, or characters arbitrarily 
 formed, to signify the different sounds, of which 
 the words were severally composed. The simplest 
 elementary part of written language is, therefore, 
 a letter; and the elements or letters, into which 
 the words of any language may be analysed, form 
 the necessary alphabet of that language. 
 
 In the English alphabet are twenty-six letters, 
 
 A B C D E F G H IJ K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z. 
 
 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. 
 Of these there are six vowels, or letters, which 
 
 tion to divine inspipation, 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 
 communicating information by permanent signs. This was pro- 
 bably succeeded by hieroglyphical characters. How these pic, 
 tures and hieroglyphical devices would either through negli- 
 gence or a desire to abbreviate, gradually vary their form, and 
 lose their resemblance 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 re^ 
 semblance, 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 Goguet in his work, Del' Origine 
 des Loix, &c. reasonably conjectures, would arise by a partial 
 and easy analysis, a syllabic mode of denotation, which would 
 naturally introduce a literal alphabet. This conjecture musfe 
 seem highly probable, when it is considered, that both a verbal 
 and syllabic mode of notation are still practised by some Easterly? 
 juations. 
 
 4 
 
INTRODUCTION. V 
 
 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. 
 It is redundant: for of the vowels, the letters i 
 and 7/ are in sound the same : one of them there- 
 fore is unnecessary. Of the consonants, the arti- 
 culator 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 like-?- 
 wise be deemed superfluous. IV appears to me in 
 every respect the same with the vowel u (oo) and 
 is therefore* supernumerary*. The double con- 
 sonant .V might be denoted by the combination of 
 its component letters, gs, or ks. 
 
 It is to be observed also, that^, when it has the 
 soft sound, is a double consonant, and performs 
 the same office as the letter J ; each having a sound 
 compounded of the sounds of dj and the French 
 j. Thus g in general has the same sound as j in 
 join. Jj however, is not, as some have supposed, 
 resolvable into two letters, for we have no char- 
 acter to express the simple sound of the French j, 
 of which with the consonant d, the sound of the 
 English J is compounded. To resolve it into dg, 
 as some have done, is therefore an error; as the 
 
 * I am aware, that in considering the letters y and w to be the 
 same with i and u (oo) 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. 
 
VI INTRODUCTION". 
 
 soft g, 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 
 nine simple vowel souhds, for which we have only 
 six characters, two of which, as it hajbeen 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 fine, 
 the vowel i has the diphthongal sound of the let- 
 ters a e, as these are pronounced in French ; and 
 the vowel u frequently represents the diphthong 
 eu (e-oo) as fume (fe-oom). 
 
 There are, besides, four different consonants, 
 for w^hich we have no proper letters ; namely, the 
 initial consonant in the word thin, the initial con-' 
 sonant in then, the sibilating sound of sh, and the 
 final consonant (marked ng) as in the word sing. 
 
 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 j but whose sounds 
 
INTRODUCTION. VII 
 
 may be continued at pleasure, thus partaking of 
 the nature of vowels. 
 
 The nature of these consonants I proceed briefly 
 to explain. 
 
 A vowel sound may be continued at pleasure, 
 or it may be terminated, either by discontinuing 
 the vocal effort, in which case it is not articulated 
 by any consonant, as in pronouncing the vowel 
 ; 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 
 distinguishable 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, h, 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, 
 
 Tlie third position is, when the tongue is 
 
 * The mouth is not the proper organ for producing sound ; but 
 merdy the organ for raoduiating and articulating the specific 
 *punds. 
 
via INTRODUCTION. 
 
 applied to the fore teeth; and thus we pro- 
 nounce th. 
 
 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, 
 z, r, I, m 
 
 The fifth position is, when the middle part of 
 the tongue is applied to the palate, and thus we 
 pronounce ky the hard sound of ^^ (as in ga) sh^ 
 j, and ng. 
 
 In the first position we have three letters, of 
 which the most simple, and indeed the only arti- 
 culator, being absolutely mute, isj&. In the for- 
 mation 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 
 pOy we shall begin to form a guttural sound, the 
 position being still preserved; then on opeuing 
 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, therefore, 
 though justly considered as a mute, is not a per-^ 
 feet mute. 
 
INTRODUCTION. IX 
 
 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 per- 
 fect mute pi having no audible sound ; a labial 
 and liquid consonant m, capable of a continued 
 sound ; and, between these two extremes, we have 
 the letter b, somewhat audible, though different 
 from any vocal sound. 
 
 Here then are three things to be distinguished. 
 1st, The perfect mute, having no sound of any 
 kind. 2dly, The perfect consonant, having not 
 only a proper, but continued sound : and Sdlj^ 
 between these extremes we find the letter b, having 
 a proper sound, but so limited, that, in respect 
 to the perfect consonant, it may be termed a mute, 
 and in relation to the perfect mute, may be pro- 
 perly termed imperfect 
 
 In the second position, we have the lettersy* 
 and V, neither of which are perfect mutes. The 
 letter/ is formed, by having the aspiration not 
 altogether interrupted, but emitted forcibly be- 
 tween 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 
 ^, a letter standing in nearly the same relation to 
 ,y* as b and ?w, in the first position, stand to p. 
 The only difference between /' and "o is, that, in 
 the former, the compression of the teeth and under 
 lip is not so strong, as in the latter; and that the 
 
X INTRODUCTION. 
 
 former is produced by the breath only, and the 
 latter by the voice and breath combined. 
 
 The consonantyi therefore, though not a mute 
 like/?, in having the breath absolutely confined, 
 may notwithstanding be considered as such, con- 
 sistently with that principle, by which a nmte is un- 
 derstood fo be an aspiration without guttural sound. 
 
 Agreeably to the distinction already made, D 
 may be termed a perfect consonant, and/' an im- 
 perfect one, having no proper sound, though audi- 
 ble. Thus we have four distinctions in our con- 
 sonantal alphabet, namely, of perfect and imperfect 
 consonants; perfect and imperfect mutes; thus, 
 
 j& is a perfect mute, having no sound. 
 
 b an imperfect mute, having proper sound, but 
 limited^ 
 
 m a perfect consonant, having sound, and con- 
 tinued. 
 
 f an imperfect consonant, having no sound, but 
 audible. 
 
 In the third position we have th as heard in the 
 words then and Mf/?, formed by placing the tip of 
 the tongue between the teeth, and pressing it 
 against the upper teeth. The only difference be- 
 tween these articulations is, that, like/and t;, the 
 one is formed by the breath only^ and the other 
 by the breath and voice together*. 
 
 * The sound of th in thhiy is usually raarked with a stroke 
 through the h^ to distinguish it from its other sound, thus^ 
 thick. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XI 
 
 Here also may be distinguished the perfect and 
 the imperfect consonant ; for the th in thin has no 
 sound, but is audible, whereas the //? in this^ there^ 
 has a sound, and that continued. 
 
 In the fourth position there are several conson- 
 ants 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 /, havii^ neither 
 aspiration nor guttural sound. By accompanying 
 this operation of the tongue and palate with the 
 guttural sound, we shall pronounce the letter^, 
 which like b of the first position may be considered 
 as a mute, though not perfect. For, in pronounc- 
 ing ed the tongue at first gently touches the gum, 
 and is gradually pressed closer, till the sound is 
 obstructed ; whereas in pronouncing e/, the tongue 
 is at once pressed so close, that the sound is in- 
 stantly intercepted. 
 
 2dly, If the tip of the tongue be turned up to- 
 wards 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 sibi- 
 lating sound of s. If we accompany this opera- 
 tion with a guttural sound, as in b, v and th in 
 then, we shall pronounce the letter z ; the same 
 difference subsisting between s and z as between 
 y and Vj p and b^ tk and ih. 
 
XII INTRODUCTION. 
 
 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 dy 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 ghde gently over 
 the sides of the tongue, we shall pronounce the 
 letter /. Here the breadth of the tongue is con- 
 tracted, 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 con- 
 sonants. 
 
 5thly, If the aspirating passage, in the forma- 
 tion 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 apply the 
 middle or back part of the tongue to the palate, 
 we have the consonants ^, g^ sh^ji 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 
 
INTRODUCTION". xiU 
 
 letter Z: {ek). If tlie tongue be not so closely ap- 
 plied at first, and the sound be allowed to con- 
 tinue a little, we have the letter o- (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 esh. 
 
 If we apply the tongue to the palate as in pro- 
 nouncing sh^ but a little more forcibly., and ac- 
 companying it with the guttural sound, we shall 
 have the sound of the French j. Thusj is in this 
 position analogous to the letters b, v, th in the 
 first, second, and third positions, and is a simple 
 consonant ; / in English is a double consonant, 
 compounded of ^ and the French j, as in join. 
 
 If we raise the middle of the tongue to the pa- 
 late 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 position as in pronouncing 
 eg^ we shall have the articulating sound of ingy 
 for which we have no simple character. 
 
 The only remaining letter h is the note of aspi- 
 ration, formed in various positions, according to 
 the vowel with which it is combined. 
 
XIV IXTRODUCTIOir. 
 
 The characters of the several letters may be seen 
 in the following table. 
 
 Perfect Mutes. 
 
 P 
 
 Sounded, or im- 
 perfect. 
 
 B 
 
 Imperfect Con- 
 sonants. 
 
 Perfect. 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 F . ' 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 th 
 
 th the 
 
 T 
 
 D 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 Z 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 K 
 
 G 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sh 
 
 J French 
 
 
 
 
 ng 
 
INTRODUCTTOK. XV 
 
 What effect the compression of the larynx has 
 in articulation, may be seen by comparing these 
 pairs of consonants. 
 
 With compression. ^ Without compression, 
 
 B P 
 
 G K 
 
 D T 
 
 Z S 
 
 Th Th 
 
 V F 
 
 J Sh 
 
 Tliese, as Mr. Tooke observes, differ, each from 
 its partner, by a certain unnoticed and almost 
 imperceptible motion, or compression of or near 
 the larynx. This compression, he remarks, the 
 Welch never use. For instead of 
 
 I vow by God, that Jenkin iz a Wizzard. 
 
 they say, 
 I fow by Cot, that Shenkin iss a Wissart. 
 The consonants have been distributed into dif- 
 ferent 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 diph- 
 
XVI JNTRODUCTIOK. 
 
 thong, and the concurrence of three is called a 
 triphthong. 
 
 Of diphthongs there are tvventy, viz. aiy au, ea, 
 ce^ ei^ eo, euy fe, oa^ oOy ui, ay, ey, uy^ oi, oy, ou, 
 mvy ew, ow. Of the diphthongs seventeen have a 
 sound purely monophthongal ; hence they have 
 been called Improper Diphthongs. It would be 
 idle to dispute the propriety of a term almost uni- 
 versally adopted; but to call that a diphthong*, 
 whose sound is monophthongal, is an abuse of 
 language, and creates confusion. 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, 
 iezv. Of these, the first eau is sometimes pro- 
 nounced eu, as in beauty, sometimes o, as in beau ; 
 the other two have the diphthongal sound of eu. 
 

 PART L 
 
 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Of Words in general, and the Parts of Speech. 
 
 A WORD, in oral language, is either a signifi- 
 cant simple sounds or a significant combination 
 of sounds. In written language, it may be defined 
 to be a simple character, or combination of char- 
 acters, expressive of significant sound, simple or 
 compound. 
 
 A word of one syllable is called a monosyllabic; 
 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 ex- 
 ceeding 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 wordj as angelic, spiritual^ scholar. 
 
 c 
 
18 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 A compound is a word made up of two or more 
 words, as archangel, sp'tjntless, schoolman. 
 
 In examining the character of words as signifi- 
 cant of ideas, we find them reducible into classes, 
 or denominations, 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 
 philosophers and grammarians. Some have reck- 
 oned 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 
 I form, which is a most fallacious criterion, than 
 from their import or signification. One thing ap- 
 pears certain, how much soever the subject may 
 have been obscured by scholastic refinements, that 
 to assign names to objects of thought, and to ex- 
 press their properties and qualities, arc the only 
 indispensible requisites in language. If this be 
 admitted, it follows, that the noun and the verb 
 are the only parts of speech, which are essentially 
 
 * 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 form- 
 ing a sentence. Hence they were called 7a E(j.4jv^olpLl(t [^spv} m 
 Xo/y, '^ the most animated parts^of speech." The latter of 
 these philosophers 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 und appeUatiTe^ 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 19 
 
 necessary ; the former being the name of the thing 
 of which we speak, and the latter (verb, or the 
 word by way of eminence) expressing what we 
 think of it*. All other sorts of words must be 
 regarded as subsidiaries, convenient perhaps for 
 the more easy communication of thought, but by 
 no means indispensibly requisite. 
 
 Had we a distinct name for every individual 
 object of sensation or thought, language would 
 then be composed 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 indi- 
 viduals. Now, whatever mode be adopted to ren- 
 der general terms significant of individual objects, 
 or whatever auxiliaries be employed for this pur- 
 pose, the general term, with its individuating 
 word, must be regarded as a substitute for the 
 proper name. Thus, man is a general term to de- 
 note the whole of a species ; if I say, the matty 
 this man, that man, it is obvious, that the words 
 thCy thisy and that, termed definitives, serve with 
 
 * Noun, Nomen de quo loquimur. 
 Verb, Verbum seu quod loquimur. Quint, lib. I. 4. 
 Horace has been thought by some to countenance this doctriire, 
 when he says, 
 
 ^' Donee verba, quibus voces sensusq ; notarent 
 *' J^ominaquc invenere;" — -, — Lib, I. Sat. 3. 
 
 C Z 
 
20 ETYMOLOGt. 
 
 the" general term, as a substitute for the proper 
 name of the individual. 
 
 Hence it is evident, that those words, which are 
 termed definitives, how useful soever, cannot be 
 regarded as indispensable. 
 
 The pronoun is clearly a substitute for the 
 noun ; it cannot therefore be deemed essential. 
 The adjective expressing merely the property, or 
 quality in concretOy without .affirmation, may be 
 dispensed with ; the connection of a substance 
 with a quality or property being expressible by 
 the noun and the verb. Thus, *' a good man" is 
 equivalent to ** a man of, with ov join goodness.^ 
 Adverbs, which have been termed attributives of 
 the second order, are nothing but abbreviations, 
 as lierCy for in this place, bravely, iov brave like. 
 These, therefore, cannot be considered as essen- 
 tials in language. In the same manner it might 
 be shewn, that all parts of speech, noun and verb 
 excepted, are either substitutes or abbreviations, 
 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 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 21 
 
 arrange words Into a variety of diifer:\nt classes. 
 This distribution is partly arbitraiy, there being- 
 no definite or universally received principle, by 
 which to determine, what discriminative circum- 
 stances are sufficient, to entitle any species of words 
 to the distinction of a separate order. Henc^ 
 grammarians are not agreed^ concerning the num- 
 ber of these subordinate classes. But, into what- 
 ever number of denominations they may be dis- 
 tributed, 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 may be reckoned ten, Noun, Article, 
 Pronoun^ Adjective, Verb, Participle, Adverb, 
 Preposition, Conjunction, Interjection. 
 
23 ETYMOLGOy. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Of the Noun. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 NGUN (Nomen) is that part of speech, which 
 expresses the subject of discourse, or which is the 
 name of the thing spoken of^ as table, house, river. 
 
 Of Nouns there are two kinds, Proper, and 
 Appellative. 
 
 A Proper noun, or name, is the name of an in- 
 dividual, as Alexander, London, Vesuvius. 
 
 An Appellative, or Common Noun, expresses a 
 genus, or class of things, and is common or ap» 
 plicable to every individual of that class. 
 
 Nouns or Substantives (for these terms are 
 equivalent) 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 formation are termed artificial sub- 
 stantives, as, watch, house, ship. The names of 
 qualities or properties, conceived as existing by 
 themselves, or separated from the substances, to 
 which they belong, are called abstract nouns ; 
 while Adjectives, expressing these qualities as con- 
 
ETYMOLOGT, 2S 
 
 joined with their subjects, are called concretes. 
 Hard, for example, is termed the concrete, hard- 
 ness the abstract. 
 
 Nouns have also been considered as denoting 
 genera, species, and individuals. Thus mati is a 
 generic term, an Englishman a special term, and 
 George an individual. Appellative nouns being 
 employed 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 Singu- 
 lar and the Plural. The Singular is the noun in 
 its simple form, as river; the Plural is generally 
 formed by adding the letter s to the Singular, as 
 rivers. To this rule, however, there are many ex- 
 ceptions. 
 
 Nouns ending in ch, sh, ss, or .r, form their 
 plural by adding the syllable es to the singular 
 number, as church, churches, Ch hard takes s for 
 the plural termination and not es, as patriarcht 
 patriarchs; distich, distichs. 
 
 Nouns ending mf, ovfe, make their plural by 
 changing / or fe into ves, as calf, calves; knife, 
 knives. Except hoof roof grief dwarf mischief 
 handkerchief, relief , muff, ruff, cuff, snuff, stuff, 
 puff, cliff) skiff, with a few others, which in the 
 fornaation of their plurals follow the general rule. 
 
 Nouns in o impure form their plural by adding 
 
24 ETYMOLOGY, 
 
 es, as hero, heroes ; echo, echoes : those, which end m 
 pure, by adding s, a,s folio, folios. 
 
 Some nouns have their plural in en, thus following 
 the Teutonic termination, as oa:, oxen; man, men. 
 
 Some are entirely anomalous, as die, dice ; penny, 
 pence; goose, geese; sow, swine; and b?vt her msik^s 
 hrethren"^ ; 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 doubly or plural have no singular, as bowels, 
 lungs, scissars, ashes, bellows. 
 
 Nouns ending in y impure form their plural by 
 changing y into ies, as quality, qualities. 
 
 Nouns purely Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, 
 ^c. retain their original plurals. 
 
 
 Sing. 
 
 B. 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Arcanum 
 
 Arcana 
 
 Fr. 
 
 Peau 
 
 Beaux 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Erratum 
 
 Errata 
 
 Fr. 
 
 Monsieur 
 
 Messieurs, Messrs 
 
 Heb, 
 
 Cherub 
 
 Cherubim 
 
 Heb. 
 
 Seraph 
 
 Seraphim 
 
 Brethren, in scripture, is used for brothers. 
 

 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 
 Sing. 
 
 PI. 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Magus 
 
 Magi 
 
 Gr. 
 
 Phenomenon 
 
 Phenomena 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Vortex 
 
 Vortices 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Radius 
 
 Radii 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Genus 
 
 Genera 
 
 Gr. 
 
 Crisis 
 
 Crises 
 
 Gr. 
 
 Emphasis 
 
 Emphases . 
 
 Gr. 
 
 Hypothesis 
 
 Hypotheses 
 
 Lat. 
 
 Genius 
 
 Genii 
 
 25 
 
 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 
 becomes the name of more individuals than one, 
 as the two Scipios, the twelve Ccesars, It is to be 
 observed, however, that it ceases then to be, 
 strictly speaking, a proper name. 
 
 Some of those words, which have no singular 
 termination, are names of sciences, as, viaihematics^ 
 vietaphysics, politics^ ethics, pneumatics^ &c. 
 
 Of these, the term ethics is, 1 believe, consi- 
 dered as either singular or plural. 
 
 Mathematics is generally construed as plural ; 
 sometimes, however, we find it as singular. " It is 
 a great pity," says Locke, (Vol. HI. p. 427, 8vo. 
 1794.) '' Aristotle had not understood mathema- 
 ^' tics, as well as Mr. Newton, and made use of 
 ^^ U in natural philosophy." 
 
26 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 " But when mathematics/' says Mr. Harris, 
 *' instead of being apphed to this excellent pur- 
 *^ pose, 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 
 lie, '* be bird witted, that is, hath not the faculty 
 *' of attention, the mathematics gvceih a remedy 
 ** thereunto, for in thcm^ 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 instances, followed 
 his example, 
 
 ^* Thus far we have argued for the sake of argu- 
 ** ment, and opposed mctophysk to metaphysic/' 
 (Essay on Truth), 
 
 *' See Physic beg the Stagyritc's defence, 
 
 ^' See met^physick 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 principles and causes of all things 
 '* existing."' — (Encyc. Brit.) Here the word is 
 used as singular; as likewise in the following ex- 
 ample. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. S7 
 
 *' Metaphysics has been represented by painters 
 *^ and sculptors, as a woman crowned and blind- 
 ** folded, holding a sceptre in her hand, and having 
 ^* at her feet an hour glass, and a globe/' 
 
 *' Metaphysics is that science, in which are 
 *^ understood the principles of other sciences/' 
 ( Hutton. ) 
 
 In the following examples it is construed as a 
 pkiral noun. 
 
 *' Metaphysics tend only to benight the un- 
 '* derstanding, in a cloud of its own making." 
 (Knox.) 
 
 *' Here, indeed, lies the justest and most plau- 
 ^' sible objection against a considerable part of 
 *' metaphysics, that they are not properly a sci- 
 ** ence.'* (Hume. ) 
 
 The latter of these usages is the more common, 
 and more agreeable to analogy. The same obser- 
 vation is applicable to the terms politics, optics^ 
 pneumatics, and oiher 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. 
 
 Names of mental qualities seldom have a plural, 
 and perhaps it would be better in all cases to em- 
 ploy a periphrasis. Thus instead of using with 
 Hume (Vol. VH. p. 4]1.) the plural, insolences, 
 the expression, acts of insolence would be prefer- 
 able. 
 
 It is a general rule, that all names of things 
 
28 ilTYMOLOGr. 
 
 measured or weighed have no plural ; for in them, 
 not number, but quantity, is regarded ; as wheats 
 wine, oil. When we speak however of different 
 kinds, we use the plural, as the coarser xcoolSy the 
 finer oils. 
 
 Folk andyb//:^ are used indiscriminately ; but the 
 plural termination is here superfluous, the word 
 folk implying plurality. 
 
 Means is us^d both as a singular and plural 
 noun. Lowth recommends the latter usage only, 
 and admits mean 3,s the singular of m€a?]s. But 
 notwithstanding the authority of Hooker, Sidney, 
 and Shakespeare, for the expressions this mean, 
 that mean, &c. and the recommendation they re- 
 ceive from analogy, custom has so long decided in 
 fsLVouY of 77iea}is, repudiating the singular termina- 
 tion, that the other phraseology sounds harshly 
 to the ear, and is almost universally rejected. 
 
 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 proves 
 that it appeared to the translators to be inadmis- 
 sible. 
 
 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. 
 
ETYMOLOCr. 29 
 
 *' And by this means I should not doubt." 
 TVilkins'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 
 '' parliament of Ireland." Blackstone, Vol. I. p. 
 
 ** Faith is not only a means of obeying, but a 
 '' principal act of obedience," Young. 
 
 *' Eterij means was lawful for the public safety." 
 Gibbon. 
 
 That this word is also used as plural^ the most 
 inattentive English reader must have frequently 
 observed. 
 
 As a general rule for the use of it, as either 
 singular or plural, it might render the construc- 
 tion less vague, and the expression therefore less 
 ambiguous, were we to employ it as singular, 
 when the mediation or instrumentality of one thing 
 is implied, and as plural, when two or more me- 
 diating causes are referred to. 
 
 *' He was careful to observe what means zcere 
 *' 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 this means all 
 ** hope of success was lost." Here only one me- 
 
30 ETYAIOLOCr. 
 
 diating circumstance is implied, and the noun is 
 therefore used as singular. 
 
 Nexvs is likewise construed sometimes as a sin- 
 gular, and sometimes as a plural noun. The for- 
 mer usage, however, is far the more general. 
 
 '' A general joy at this glad news appeared.** 
 Cowley. 
 
 " No news so bad as this at home.** Shake^ 
 spear e, Richard III, 
 
 *' The amazing news of Charles at once was 
 ** spread.** Dry den. 
 
 ** The king was employed in his usual exercise 
 ** of besieging castles, when the news !2;«5 brought 
 ** of Henry's arrival." Swift. 
 
 *' The only news you can expect from me is 
 " news from heaven.** Gay. 
 
 '* This is all the news talked of" Pope. 
 
 Swift, Pope, Gay, with most other classic writ- 
 ers of that age, seem to have uniformly used it 
 as singular. 
 
 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 inteUigence is 
 
 4 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 31 
 
 communicatee], and as plural, wlien 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, be- 
 ing 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 
 ^^ paxjne for to write/' (Wolsey's letter to Henry 
 VIII.) It seems prabable, that this word after it 
 assumed a plural form, was more frequently used 
 as a singular, than as a plural noun. Modern 
 usage, however, seems to incline the other way. 
 A celebrated grammarian, indeed, has pronounced 
 this noun to be in all cases plural; but this as- 
 sertion might be proved erroneous by numberless 
 examples'^. 
 
 *' The pains they had taken was very great.'' 
 Clarendon. 
 
 ** Great pains has been taken." Pope. 
 
 *' No pains is taken." Ibid. 
 
 In addition to these authorities in favour of a 
 singular usage, it may be observed, that the word 
 muchy a term of quantity, not of number, is fre- 
 quently joined with it, as, 
 
 *' I found much art and pains employed." Mid- 
 dleton, 
 
 * Baker inclines also to this usage in preference to the other ; 
 but does not affirm it to be a plural noun. 
 
32 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 '* He will assemble materials with much pains." 
 Bolinghroke on history. 
 
 The word much is never joined to a plural 
 noun ; vmch labours, much papers, would be insuf- 
 ferable*. 
 
 Riches is generally now considered as a plural 
 noun; though it was formerly used either as sin* 
 gular, or plural. This substantive seems to have 
 been nothing, but the French word richesse ; and 
 therefore no more a plural, tha.vi gcfitlotesse, dis- 
 tresse, and many others of the same kind. In this 
 form we find it in Chaucer. 
 
 ^' But for ye spoken of swiche gentlenessc, 
 *' As is descended out of old richesse. 
 '' And he that ones to lore doeth his homage, 
 ^' Full often times dere bought is the richesse." 
 
 Accordingly he gives it a plural termination, 
 and uses it as a plural word. 
 
 " Thou hast dronke so much hony of swete 
 ** temporal richesses, and delices, and honours of 
 " this world." 
 
 It seems evident, then, that this word was ori- 
 ginally construed as a substantive singular, and 
 even 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 noun plural. 
 
 • Much is sometimes joined with collective nouns ; but these 
 denote number in the aggregate j thus, much coinpany.. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 53 
 
 In our tratislatiori 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. 
 
 " Rlbhes take to themselves wings, and fly away." 
 Ibid. ' 
 
 Modern usage, in like manner, inclines to the 
 plural construction ; there are a few authorities 
 however on the other side, as, 
 
 " fVas ever riches gotten by your golden me- 
 ^^ diocrities ?" Cowley, 
 
 '* The envy and jealousy, which great riches/.^ 
 *' 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 almesses, 
 
 '' This almesse shouldst thou- do of thy proper 
 " things." Chaucer, 
 
 '* These ben generally the almesses, and workes 
 ^^ of charity." Ibid. 
 
 Johnson says^ this word lias no singular. It 
 was, in truth, at first a noun singular, and after- 
 . wards^ by contraction, receiving a plural form, 
 it came to be considered by some as a noun plural. 
 Johnson would have had equal, nay, perhaps, bet- 
 ter authority for 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 ^Ims^" and other similar phraseo- 
 
34 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 logies occur in scripture. Nay, Johnson Iiim&elf 
 has cited two authorities, in which the indefinite 
 article is prefixed to it. 
 
 « My arm'd knees, 
 
 *^ Which bovv'd but in my stirrup, bend like his 
 '' That hath received an alms,*' Shakespeare, 
 
 '* The poor beggar hath a just demand of an 
 *^ ahns 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. Now it appears to me, that Johnson would 
 have avoided his error, had he attended to this 
 observation of Lowth ; and that the latter would 
 not have repudiated means as a singular, and sub- 
 stituted mea72, had he consulted authority and not 
 analogy. Jims and means are used, both as sin- 
 gular and plural nouns. 
 
 It has been observed, that many of those words, 
 which have no singular, denote things consisting 
 of two parts, and therefore have a plural termina- 
 tion. Hence the word pair is used with many of 
 them, as, " a pair of bellmos, a pair of sci^sar&, a 
 ^^pair of colours^ a pair of drawers'^ 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 35 
 
 SECT. II» 
 
 Of Genders. 
 
 WE hot only otjserve a plurality of substatices, 
 ox of things of the same sort, whence arises the 
 distinction of number ; but we distinguish also 
 another character of some substances^ which we 
 call sex. Every substance is either male, or fe- 
 male, or neither the one, nor the other. In English 
 all male animals are considered as masculine ; all 
 female animals, as feminine ; and all things inani-* 
 mate, 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. 
 
 Boy 
 
 Girl 
 
 Buck 
 
 Doe 
 
 Bull 
 
 Cow 
 
 Bullock 
 
 Heifer 
 
 Boar 
 
 Sow 
 
 Drake 
 
 Duck 
 
 Friar 
 
 Nun 
 
 
 d2 
 
f{^ 
 
 
 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Gander 
 
 Goose 
 
 Horse 
 
 Mare 
 
 Milter 
 
 Spawner 
 
 Nephew 
 
 - Niece 
 
 Ram 
 
 Ewe 
 
 Sloven 
 
 Slut 
 
 Stag 
 
 Hind 
 
 Widower 
 
 Widow 
 
 Wizard 
 
 Witch. 
 
 Sometimes the female is distinguished by the 
 termination e^^ or ia;. 
 
 Masc. 
 
 Fern. 
 
 Abbot 
 
 Abbess 
 
 Actor 
 
 Actress 
 
 Adulterer 
 
 Adulteress 
 
 Ambassador 
 
 Ambassadress 
 
 Arbiter 
 
 Arbitr6ss 
 
 Author 
 
 Authoress 
 
 Baron 
 
 Baroness 
 
 Chanter 
 
 Chantress 
 
 Count 
 
 Countess 
 
 Deacon 
 
 Deaconess 
 
 Duke 
 
 Dutchess 
 
 Elector 
 
 Electress 
 
 Emperor 
 
 Empress 
 
 Governor 
 
 Governess 
 
 Heir 
 
 Heiress 
 
 Hunter 
 
 Huntress 
 

 ETYMOLOGT. 
 
 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 
 
 Traifress 
 
 Tutor 
 
 Tutress 
 
 Tiger 
 
 Tigress 
 
 Viscount 
 
 Viscountess. 
 
 37 
 
 There are a few whose feminine ends in u', viz. 
 
 Administrator 
 Executor 
 Testator 
 Director 
 
 Administratrix 
 Executrix 
 Testatrix 
 Directrix. 
 
 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 
 destitute of se^ are in English considered as of 
 
58 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 the neuter gender; and, when we speak with 
 logical accuracy, we follow this rule. Sometimes, 
 however, hy a figure in rhetoric called personifi- 
 cation, Ave assign sex to things inanimate. Thus 
 instead of '* virtue is its own reward/' we some- 
 times say, '' virtue is /^er own reward ;' instead of 
 *■ it (the sun) rises," we say, ** he rises,'' instead 
 of " it (death) advances with h^sty steps*- we 
 3ay, " he advances/* 
 
 This figurative mode of expression, by which 
 we give life and sex to things inanimate, and em- 
 body abstract qualities, forms a singular and strik- 
 ing beauty in our language, rendering it, in this 
 respec};, 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 vivacit} 
 than 
 
 *^ The sun its orient beams had shed." 
 
 In assigning sex to things inanimate, it has 
 been supposed, that we have been guided by cer- 
 tain characters or qualities in the inanimate obr 
 jects, as bearing some resemblance to the distinc- 
 tive or characteristic qualities of male and female 
 animals. Thus, it has been said, that those inani- 
 
 ^ The gender of mors, virfus^ sol. ^ccvaroc, ccpuTr^, ^*^'0f? w;*3 
 ni)alterably fixed. 
 
rrYMOLoGT. 39 
 
 mate substances, or abstract qualities, which are 
 characterized by the attributes of giving or im- 
 parting, or which convey an idea of great strength, 
 firmness^ or energy, are mascuhne ; and that those, 
 on the contrary, which are distinguished by the 
 properties of receiving, containing, and produc- 
 ing, or which convey an idea of weakness, or 
 timidity, having more of a passive than active 
 nature, are feminine. Hence it has been observed, 
 that the sun, death, thne, the names also of great 
 rivers and mountains, are considered as mascu- 
 line ; and that the moon, a ship, the sea, miHue, 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 certainly will not bear to be rigorously exa- 
 mined; for there are not any two languages, which 
 harmonize in this respect, assigning the same sex 
 to the same inanimate objects; nor any one lan- 
 guage, in which this theory is supported by fact*. 
 Hence it is evident, that neither reason, nor na- 
 ture, has any share in the regulation of this mat- 
 ter ; and that, in assigning sex to inanimate things> 
 the determination is purely fanciful In Greek, 
 rfe^f/A is masculine; in Latin, feminine. In those 
 languages tht sun is masculine; in the Gothic, 
 German, Anglo Saxon, and some other Northern 
 
 * It seems, howcTer, to be more applicable to the English lau- - 
 ^uage, than to any other, with which I am acvjuainted. 
 
40 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 languages, it is feminine ; in Russian, it is neiiten. 
 In several of the languages of Asia, the sun i^ 
 feminine. According to our northern mythology^ 
 the sun was the wife of Tuisco. The Romans; 
 considered the winds as masculine; the Hebrews, 
 says Caramuel, represented them as nymphs. In 
 the Hebrew language, however, they were of the 
 mascuHne 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, accord- 
 ing 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 distinguished by usefulness, 
 and a certain generosity of nature, unless we be 
 acquainted with the sex, and w^ish to discriminate, 
 we always speak of this quadruped 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 timi- 
 dity, we assign to it, if we give it sex, the femi- 
 nine gender; thus, '* The hare is so timorous a, 
 *' creature, that ^^e continually listens after every 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 41 
 
 ^f noise, and will run a long v^ay on the least susr 
 ^* picion 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. 
 
 f* The elephant has joints, but not for courtesy ; 
 
 *' His legs are for necessity, not flexure." Shakespeare. 
 
 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 genden 
 
 " A cat, as she beholds the light, draws the ball 
 - of her eye small and long." Peacham on Draw ^ 
 ing. 
 
 *^ The dog is a domestic animal remarkably va- 
 '* rious in his species." 
 
 It would be easy to illustrate, b}^ more exam- 
 ples, this ascription of either male or female sex 
 to animals, when we speak of them in the species, 
 or are not acquainted with the sex of the indivi- 
 dual; 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 
 prigin, it would be of no utility at present to en- 
 quire. It may be necessary, however, to remark, 
 that, when speaking of animals, particularly those 
 pf inferior siz^, \ye frequently consider J^hem as 
 
42 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 devoid of sex. *' // 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 watch- 
 " ful, dextrous, swift, and pliable." 
 
 Before I dismiss this subject, I would request 
 the readers attention to an idiom, which seems to 
 have escaped the notice of our grammarians. It 
 frequently happens, as I have already observed, 
 that our language furnishes two distinct terms 
 for the male and the female, as, shepherd, shep- 
 herdess. It is to be observed, however, that the 
 masculine term has a general meaning, expressing 
 both male and female, and is always employed, 
 when the office, occupation, profession, &c. and 
 not the sex of the individual, is chiefly to be ex- 
 pressed ; and that the feminine term is used in 
 those cases only, when discrimination of sex is 
 indispensably necessary. This may be illustrated 
 by the following examples. If I say, ^^ The poets 
 of this age are distinguished more by correctness 
 of taste, than sublimity of conception," 1 clearly 
 include in the term poet, 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 
 }ier superior to all other writers of poetry, both 
 jnale and female. When distinction of sex is ne- 
 cessary for the sakp of perspicuity, or wher^ the 
 
HTVMOLOGY. 43 
 
 iBex 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 authoresses are engaged in 
 this work," ( Political Register .) Here the feminine 
 term is indispensable*. This subject will be 
 resumed in ** the Critical Remarks an4 Illustrati- 
 ons." 
 
 * We remark, in some instances, a similar phraseology in Greek, 
 ^nd Latin. ®sog and fisa, dens and dca^ are contradistinguished 
 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 
 piale or female ; and is frequently used when the female is de, 
 signed, if divinity in the abstract be the primary idea, without 
 iregard to the sex, thus, 
 
 'P^Ta txocA ojs-£ flsoV. Horn. II. 3. 380. 
 Here the term OsoV is applied to Venus, the character of divinity, 
 and not the distinction of sex, being the chief object of the 
 poets attention. Qso; is, therefore, to be considered as either 
 masculine or feminine. 
 
 AAAa f^ a, Aiog y aAn/aa ^so^. Soph. A j. 401. 
 MtjIs lii 8v SvjAsia 0£o;. Horn. li. 7. 
 
 Descendo, ac ducente deo, flammara inter et hostes 
 Expedior. Virg. iEn. 2. 6^32. 
 
 JTere also, deo is applied to Venus, as likewise in the following 
 x)assage, dt%m esse indiguam credidi. Plaut. Pocn. 2. 1. 10, 
 
44 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 SECT. 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 dechning or 
 falling from the nominative, which was represented 
 by a perpendicular, and thence called Casus Rec* 
 tusy or upright case, while the others were named 
 Casus obliqui, or oljlique cases. The cases, in the 
 languages of Greece and Rome, were formed by 
 varvino' the termination: and were intended to 
 express a few of the most obvious, and common 
 relations. 
 
 In English there are only three cases, nomina- 
 tive, genitive, and objective, or accusative case. 
 In substantives, the nominative case and the ob- 
 jective 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. 
 
 v/here the meaning is reversed by the interchange 
 of the nouns, the nominative or agent being knowa 
 ty its being placed before the verb ; and the 3ub^ 
 
ETYMOLOGIf* 45 
 
 ject of the action, by its following it Pronouns 
 have three cases, that is, two inflexions from th^ 
 nominative, as /, mine, me ; thou, thine, thee. 
 
 The genitive in Enghsh, by some called the 
 possessive case, is formed by adding to the nomi-^ 
 native the letter s, with an apostrophe before it^ 
 as king, 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 or possession, as the 
 king's 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 crcKvn, the tyrant^ s 
 rage, the prince's death. 
 
 The nature of the relation, which the genitive 
 expresses must, in some instances, be collected 
 from the scope of the context ; for, in English, 
 a& in most other languages, this case frequently 
 involves an ambiguity. 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 re- 
 lation, which the affection bears to its subject, or 
 that, which it bears to its object. If the latter 
 
 * H'tvoo'i; ysvsxr, : general caSe. It has been supposed by 
 some, that the Latins, mistaking the import of the Greek term, 
 called Jhis th« genitive case. See Encyc, Brit, Art, Grarum 
 mar. 
 
46 EtrMOLoor. 
 
 be the meaning intended, the ambiguity may bd 
 prevented by saying, ** love to God." 
 
 An ambiguity likewise arises from it, as express- 
 ing 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 import either the change produced by 
 Luther, or a change produced in him. The latter 
 indeed is properly the meaning, though not that, 
 which was intended by the author* lie should 
 have said, ** the reformation by Luther/^ It is 
 clear, therefore, that the relation expressed by the 
 genitive, is not uniformly the same, that the 
 phrase may be interpreted either in an active or 
 passive sense* and that the real import must be 
 eollected, not from the expression, but the con* 
 text. 
 
 Mr. Harris \ii% said, that the genitive is formed 
 to express all relations commencing from itself, 
 and offers the analysis of this case in all modern 
 languages, as a proof. That it expresses more 
 than this, both in English and Latin, and that it 
 denotes relations, not only commencing from it- 
 
 * Amor Dei denotes either amor guo Dcus amat^ or quo Deiii 
 amatur. — Reformatio Lutkeri, either qua reformavit^ or qua re- 
 furmatus est. Injuria patris, de&iderium, amiciy with many other 
 examples, which might be produced, have either an active or 
 passive sense, -jj cchi^r, Is Gss, nlH* n^HK) I'amore de Dio, 
 Paraour de Dieu, severally involve th« same ambiguity with " th« 
 love of God*" 
 
£TYMOLOCxT. 4? 
 
 self, but likewise 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, and I believe, in all 
 the modern languages of Europe. 
 
 Concerning the origin of the English genitive^ 
 grammarians and critics are not ag-reed. 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 re- 
 lation intended, 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 insig- 
 nificant terminations, for the purpose of express- 
 ing any relation, is a theory extremely improbable. 
 Numerous as the inflexions are in the Greek and 
 Latin languages, I am persuaded, that, were we 
 sufficiently acquainted with their original struc- 
 ture, we should find, that all these terminations^ 
 were at first words significant, subjoined to tlie 
 radix, and afterwards abbreviated. This opinion 
 is corroborated by the structure of the Hebrew, 
 and sotne other oriental languages, whose affixes 
 and prefixes in the formation of their cases, and 
 conjugation of their verbs we can still ascer- 
 tain, 
 
 NaW; the English genitive being formed by 
 
48^ ' iiTYMOLOGYi 
 
 annexing to the nominative the letter s, with ati 
 apostrophe, several critics, among whom is Mr. 
 Addison> dehver it as their opinion, that this ter-^ 
 mination is a contraction for the possessive pro- 
 noun his. This opinion appears to be counten- 
 anced by the examples, which occur in the Bible, 
 and Book of Common Prayer, in which, instead 
 of the English genitive, we find the nominative 
 with the possessive pronoun masculine 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 typographical 
 mistakes, 1 am fully persuaded* They occur in 
 the books now mentioned, and also in the works 
 of Bacon, Donne, and many other writers, much 
 too frequently to admit this supposition. If er^ 
 rors therefore, they are errors not of the printers^ 
 but of the authors 'themselves. 
 
 To evince the incorrectness of this phraseology^ 
 and to shew 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" iTtito '' 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 geni- 
 tive for its real origin, and observes, that its 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 49 
 
 derivation from that genitive decides the question*. 
 Hickes, in his Thesaurus, had previously dehvered 
 the same opinion. Speaking of the Anglo Saxon 
 genitive in es, he observes, " Inde in nostratium 
 '' sermone noniinum substantivorum genitivus sin- 
 '^ gularis, et nominativus pluralis exeunt in es, 
 '' vel 5/' From the introduction of the Saxons 
 into this island, to the Norman conquest, the 
 Saxon genitive was in universal use. From the 
 latter period to the time of Henry II. (1170) 
 though the EngHsh language underwent some 
 alterations, we still find the Saxon genitive. Thus 
 in a poem, entitled, " The Life of St. Margaret/' 
 in the Normanno Saxon dialect, we find the fol- 
 lowing, among other examples, **christes angles," 
 and the pronoun hyj'(his) spelled isy thus, " Theo- 
 dosius was is name.'* (See Hickes. Thes. 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'' 
 
 * 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 es, as wordy 
 •wordes ; smithy smithes. In: e Moesogothic, a kindred lan- 
 guage, the genitive ends in *, some nouns having is^ some w*, 
 and others a$^ as^ fariffanifts ; faukagagjayfaukagagjis. 
 
50 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 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 equi- 
 valent to the English genitive, is neither that 
 case, nor synonimous with it. The passage runs 
 thus, "" And ich ke J?e eu J^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- 
 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 iiistead of es, 
 t\\\\s faderis hands. 
 
 In the time of Henry the eighth \yq find in the 
 works of Sir T. More, both the^ Saxon and the 
 English orenitive: and in a letter written in 1559, 
 by Maitland, of Lethington, the English geni- 
 tive frequently occurs. Had this genitive, then, 
 been an abbreviation for the noun and the pro- 
 noun his, the use of the words separately would 
 have preceded their abbreviated form iu compo- 
 sition. This, however, was not the case. 
 
 To form the genitive plural we annex the apos- 
 trophe without the letter s, as '^eagles' wings/' 
 that is, '^ the wings of eagles'' The genitive sin- 
 gular of nouns terminating in s, is formed in the 
 
ETYMOLOGY, --51 
 
 same manner, as, righteousness' sake, or the sake of 
 righteousness. 
 
 I finish this article with observing, that there 
 are in Enghsh a few diminutive nouns, so called 
 from their expressing a small one of the kind. 
 Some of these end in kin, from a Dutch and 
 Teutonic word signifying a child, as manikin, a 
 little man, lambkin, pipkin, thomkin. *' Proper 
 names ending in kin, belonged originally to this 
 class of diminutives, ^^IFilkin, Willielmulus; Hah 
 kin, Hazvkin, Henriculus; Tomkin, Thomulus ; &*m- 
 Jcin, Peterkin, &c. 
 
 Some diminutives end in ock, as hill, hillock ,^ 
 bull, bullock ; some in el, as pike, pickrel ; cock, 
 cockrel , sack, satchel; some ining, as goose, gosling. 
 These seem to be the only legitimate ones, as pro- 
 perly belonging to our language. The rest are 
 derived from Latin, French, Italian, and have 
 various terminations. 
 
 i: 2 
 
5S ETYMOLOGY, 
 
 CHAP. IL 
 
 Of the Article, 
 
 LANGUAGE is chiefly composed of general 
 terms, most substantives being the names of ge^, 
 nera or species. When we find a number of sub- 
 stances resembling one another, in their principal 
 and most obvious quahties, 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 several of these species, resembling 
 one another in their chief properties, we refer them 
 to a higher order, to which also we assign a com- 
 mon, 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, we affix the more generic name of ani- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 53 
 
 mal*. Hence, when we use an appellative or 
 common noun, it denotes the genus or class col- 
 lectively, of which it is the name, as, 
 
 '* The proper study of mankind is man," i. c. 
 not one man, not many men, but all men. 
 
 " Metal is specifically heavier than water," i. e. 
 not this or that metal, but all metals. 
 
 But, though our words are general, all our per- 
 ceptions 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 spe- 
 cies of words, which have been called numerals, 
 that is, words denoting number. To signify unity, 
 or one of a class, our forefathers employed ae or 
 ane, as " ae man,'* ** ane ox'' When unity, or the 
 number one, as opposed to two or more, was to 
 be expressed, the emphasis 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 natur- 
 ally be unemphatical ; and hence, ae, by celerity 
 of pronunciation, would become a; and ant 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 
 
 * It must be obvious, that the terms general and universal be- 
 long not to real existences, but are merely denominations, the 
 result of intellect, generalising a number of individuals under 
 one head. 
 
54 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 class with two, three, four, &c. ; or, perhaps^, 
 more properly, these numerals may be considered 
 as abbreviations, for the repeated expression of the 
 term one. By whatever name these terms a, an 
 may be designed, it seems evident, that they were 
 originally synonimous with the name of unity, or 
 rather themselves 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 
 o/2e 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 con- 
 cerned, this opinion is, doubtless, incontroverti- 
 ble; for they each express unity : but with regard 
 to the secondary, or implied ideas, which these 
 terms convey, the difference is obvious. An ex- 
 ample 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 sub- 
 stitute the term a and say, '' Will a man be able 
 .^' to carry this burden?" Is the idea no wise 
 changed by this alteration ? I apprehend it is; for 
 the answer might naturally be, ^\ No; but a horse 
 *' will" I have here substituted a for 07ie ; the 
 converse will equally shew, that the terms are by 
 no means convertible, or strictly synonimous. Jf 
 
" ETYMOLOGY. 53 
 
 instead of sayings '* A horse, a horse, a kingdom 
 *' for a horse/' I should say, *' One horse, one 
 ** horse, one kingdom for one horse," the senti- 
 ment, 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 
 that species to every other ; in the latter, unity 
 of object seems the leading idea ; " one kingdom 
 for one horse/' In this respect, our language ap- 
 pears 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. Donnez moi un 
 livre means either, *' give me one book,'Vi. 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 Quin- 
 tilian observes* that language should be, not 
 
 * Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelli. 
 gere curandum. Inst. Lib. VIII. eap. 4. 
 
 I am inclined to think, that our language possesses a superior- 
 
56 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 such as the reader may understand, it' he will 
 take t1ie trouble to examine it carefully, but such, 
 as he cannot, even without effort, fail to compre- 
 hend. When it is asserted, therefore, that one 
 may in every case be substituted for a, without, 
 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 a, 
 termed the indefinite article, was originally iden- 
 tical with the name of unity, expressing either 
 
 ity in this respect over the Greek itself. EysvsTO av^pouTtog aitsr^ 
 aX[j^£vo$ TTapoc fa Qas 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 av^pooitog 
 ^* is here restricted to an individual by its concord Avith 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 
 interpretation to his words) because a singular verb and participle 
 singular are joined with it, he errs egregioilsly. Numberless ex- 
 amples might be produced, to evince the contrary. Job v. j\ 
 av^pooitos y&vvoiroLi xoircv, '' man, (mankind) is born unto trouble,'* 
 where the subject is joined to a verb singular, Psal. xlix. 12. 
 avSpMTtos £v ri[i7} ujv 8 (ruyrjKs, '* man being in honour abideth not." 
 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, 
 and convey an idea different from that intended by the evaR- 
 gelist ? 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 57 
 
 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 emphasis 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 unimportant to enquire. 
 To me, however, I must acknowledge, the dis- 
 tinctive name of article assigned to this word ap- 
 pears to be useless. Were emphasis to be ad- 
 mitted as the principle of classification (and I 
 see no other distinction between a and o?2e) the 
 parts of speech might be multiplied beyond num- 
 ber. 
 
 Besides the words a and an, termed indefinite 
 articles;, as not defining which of the species is 
 signified, we have also another word the, named 
 tire definite article, because it is said to point out 
 the individual object. This word, I doubt not, 
 proceeded 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 pronouns, as some have asserted, 
 
 * They are the Saxon words, this or thes^ ^* hie," hcec, 
 " hoc/' that or th(£i, " ille," ilia, " illud," which were fre- 
 quently used by the Saxons for what we term the definite arti- 
 cle, as sc?id us on thas suyn, send us into the swine. Mark v. 
 ^\, tha eodon tha miclcenan gastas on tha swyn^ " then the un- 
 '' clean spirits entered into the swine." lb. 
 
58 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 seems abundantly evident ; for they never rep re* 
 sent a noun. By some they have been called de- 
 finitives; andj though this designation be not 
 strictly consonant with their import, 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 be- 
 ing 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,'* or the first." Their office, in general, 
 seems to be, emphatically to individuate some 
 particular object, whose character was either pre- 
 viously known, or is then described; hence they 
 have also been named demonstratives. ' Under 
 which of the generally received parts of speech 
 they should be comprehended, it may be difficult 
 to determine. As, hke simple attributives, they 
 accord with nouns, frequently denoting the acci- 
 dent of place, they may be grammatically referred 
 to the class of adjectives. Their import will ap- 
 pear from a few examples : 
 
 '* That kind being, vvho is a father to the father- 
 *' kss, will recom pence thee for this." 
 
 Here ^ species is referred to, distinguished by 
 benevolence. Of this species one individual is 
 emphatically particularized: "That kind being." 
 Who? his distinctive character follows, " is a fa- 
 
 2 
 
ETVMOLOGr. 59 
 
 *"' ther to the fatherless." The concluding word 
 (this) points to something pl'eviously described* 
 
 a '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, j^et is a slave 
 *^ to superstitious fears. I would not be that man, 
 ** were a crown to tempt me.*' Here, one inde- 
 finitely of a species is mentioned, a man. The 
 subject is afterwards limited by description to one 
 of a certain character^, " who laughs at things 
 '* sacred, and is a slavg^^to superstitious fears.** 
 The word that selects aifff demonstrates the per- 
 son thus described. The word the has nearly the 
 same import; but is less emphatical. It seems to 
 bear the same analogy to tJiat, vvliich a does to 
 €ne. Hence in many cases they may be used in- 
 differently. 
 
 *' 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 
 demonstrative word illey Beatiis ille, " happy the 
 ^Mnan." 
 
 What then is the difference between the and 
 
60 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 that? To ascertain this, let us enquire 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 same spe- 
 cies. Thus, ** he was concerned in that revolu- 
 ** tion, 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 
 repeated perception, or subjects of previous con- 
 versation. 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 sec him again, I say, *' there 
 *' goes the man with the long beard." Were the 
 word that substituted for the, the same observa- 
 tion would be applicable, as in the preceding ex- 
 amples. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 61 
 
 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 
 perception. This opinion is controverted by the 
 author of the article Grammar in the Encycl. Brit- 
 tannica, Ed. who gives the following example to 
 disprove its truth. " I am in company, and find- 
 *' ing the room warm, I say to the servant, request 
 ** the gentleman in the w^indow seat (to whom I 
 ** am an entire stranger) to draw down the sash.'* 
 The example is apposite, and is sufficient to over- 
 turn the hypothesis of Mr. Harris. There can 
 be no question, but the is frequently employed 
 to denote objects of primary perception ; and 
 merely particularize, by some discriminating cir- 
 cumstance, an individual, whose character, per- 
 son, or distinctive qualities, were previously 
 unknown. In the example now quoted, that may 
 be substituted for //?e, if we say, "' who is in the 
 ** window seat f^" 
 
 4thly, The definitive article is used to distin- 
 guish 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 
 ^'bornof a woman :" the definite article therefore is 
 not employed. '' The man" would imply, that all 
 
(i^ ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 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 
 phraseology, be substituted for the article; for 
 the man^ and that man, are in this instance equi-^ 
 valent. 
 
 5thly, The definite article is often used to de- 
 note 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 accord- 
 ingly said, *' eo melior." 
 
 From the preceding examples and observations, 
 it must appear, that the definite article, and the 
 word that, though not strictly synonimous, are 
 words nearly of the same import. Their differ- 
 ence seems to be, 
 
 1st. That the article the, like a^^ must have a 
 substantive 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 the," " give me one,'' but not 
 ^' give me a.'* Here the analogy holds between a 
 and one, the and that, 
 
 fdly, As the difference between a and one seems 
 to be, that one denotes unity in contradistinction 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 63 
 
 to more, with greater emphasis than a, so the dis- 
 tinction 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 implying a contrast with 
 '* this man with this long btarci,'* the word that 
 being always emphatical and discriminative. 
 
 The opinion here offered, respecting these words,' 
 receives some corroboration from the following 
 circumstances. 
 
 In Latin ilk frequently supplies the place of our 
 definite article: ^* Thou art the man.'' 7u es illc 
 (iste) homo. 
 
 The le in French is clearly a derivative i'vomilk, 
 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, aretz terrUy earth*, haretZj ilia sen hcec 
 terra^ the earth, the letter he abbreviated from 
 hou, ille, expressing the; — f ash'i haishi heatm 
 ilk vir, "- happy the man," or that man, the /ze in 
 hke manner signifying the ov that. 
 
 It appears to me, then, that as a^ ane, when 
 not opposed to morey and therefore unemphatical. 
 
 * 
 
 ?;-)K 2fiNn. t ti^^^n n^v^. 
 
64 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 by celerity of pronunciation were changed into a, 
 an ; so that when not opposed to ihis^ 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 abbre- 
 viated. 
 
 Beside the words a, an, the^ there are others, 
 which may be considered as reducible to the same 
 class with these; such as, thisy that, any, other, 
 some, all, one, none. This and that I have already 
 considered. That they are not pronouns is evi- 
 dent, for they are never used as the representa- 
 tives of a noun, and always require to be asso^ 
 ciated with a substantive. If ever they appear 
 without this accompaniment, it will invariably be 
 found, that the expression is elliptical, some sub* 
 stantive or other being necessarily understood. 
 If I say, 'Hhis was a noble action.'' This what? 
 *' This, action." ^' This is true virtue." This 
 what ? " This practice," '' this habit,'' '* this tem- 
 " per." To what class of words I conceive them 
 to belong, has been already mentioned. 
 
 One is a word significant of upity, and cannot, 
 without manifest impropriety, be called a prono- 
 minal adjective; unless, by an abuse of all lan-^ 
 guage, we be disposed to name two, three, four, 
 pronominal adjectives. 
 
 Some is reducible to the same class, denoting 
 an indefinite, but, comparatively to 7nany, a ^mall 
 number. 
 
ETYMOLOSY. 65 
 
 Many^ few, several, are words of the same or- 
 ^er, significant of number indefinitely. 
 
 Nofie, 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 ^dp, and the Swedish 
 udda, with our English word odd, seem all to have 
 sprung from the same origin, the etymon express- 
 ing ''one separately," or, " one by itself," an- 
 sM^ering nearly to the Latin singulus. The English 
 word odd, plainly indicates its affinity to these 
 M^ords. 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."^' 
 
 * Horne Tooke appears to me to have erred, in deriving odd 
 from otu'd. His words are these ; " odd is the participle ow'd, 
 '' Thus, when we are counting by coupler, or pairs, we say, 
 *' one pair," " two pairs," &c. and '"' oncowM," "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 pair- 
 *' ing ; and we mean, " without a fellow" " unmatched." Now 
 I must own, this appears io me a very odd explanation ; for in 
 my apprehension, it leads io a conclusion, the very reverse of 
 that, which the author intends. The terra odd^ is applied to 
 the one, which stands by itself ; and not to that, which is ab- 
 sent, or ow'd, to complete the pair. If I say, '* there are three 
 '^ pairs, and an odd one," the word oc?c? refers to the single one, 
 over and above the three pairs ; and not to the one, which is 
 wanting. Yejt, Mr. Tooke refers it to the latter. His explan- 
 
 F 
 
6Q etymology. 
 
 As he in soueraine dignify is odde, 
 
 So will he in loue no parting felowes have. 
 
 Sir J. More's Works^ 
 
 Tlie same idea of singularity and separation is 
 expressed by other; which is now generally used 
 as a 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 unit^ is expressed, not in 
 the aggregate, 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 expressions of a man blessed with 
 **ease." (Atterbury). And, in using it in this 
 sense, it may be observed, in passing, that an error 
 is often committed, by employing the personal pro- 
 nouns as referring to one ; thus, '' one is apt to 
 '' exaggerate his own injuries," instead of '* one's 
 " own injuries." 
 
 ^ny, an, a, one, seem all to be nearly equivalent 
 words, and derived from one origin, I mean from 
 ane, the name of unity. Hence a, or an, and ani/ 
 
 ation 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 f resent one, of which the singu- 
 larity is predicated, and not the absent^ or ow^d one, 
 
 i 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 67 
 
 are frequently synonimous. *VA 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 de- 
 note, ^^ whatever it be y'' ^^ what you pleased "Give 
 '* me one, (ane) any, no matter which." In this 
 sense it corresponds to the Latin qukis or quili' 
 bet^, in affirmative sentences; whereas, in inter- 
 rogative or negative sentences, it corresponds to 
 qidsquam, quispiam, or ullus. The preceding obser- 
 vations it may be useful to recapitulate. 
 
 Nouns are names of genera, and not of indivi- 
 duals; our perceptions are, on the contrary, all 
 individual, not general. Hence, to denote one 
 or more individuals of a species, numerals, or 
 words significant of number, were invented. Some 
 express a precise number, as, one, two, three; 
 others number indefinitely, as, some, few, many, 
 several. Our perceptions being all individual, and 
 one being the basis of all number, the term, sig- 
 
 ** * Quitis seu quilibet affirmat ; quisquam, quispiam ullus aut 
 *^ negat aut interrogat," are the words of an ancient gram- 
 marian. It is observable also, that jn Latin ullus, any^ is a dimi- 
 nutive from unus^ one; as any in English is from ane, the name 
 of unity, as formerly used. 
 
 F 2 
 
68 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 nificant of unity, must frequently recur, in express- 
 ing 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 be- 
 coming unemphatical, would naturally be abbre- 
 viated into ^, 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 difficult to de- 
 termine. 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 appel- 
 lation, 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 ab- 
 breviations for the name of unity repeated. 
 
 It being necessary not only to express an indi- 
 vidual indefinitely of any species, but also to spe- 
 
 * As there is in nature neither genus nor species, but indivi- 
 duals only, i^e two former being purely ideas of our own crea- 
 tion, so there is in nature no such thing as number, as ivfOy 
 three, four, these being merely abbreviations for es^pressing a 
 collection of the urtits ; for units only are objects of perception. 
 Thus, instead of saying owe, one, owe, I say three. It is to be 
 remembered, however, that there is nothing in nature three'; and 
 that the term expresses one added to one, and the sum increased 
 by one, being an abbreviation invented for that purpose. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 69 
 
 cify and select some particular one, which at first 
 would probably be done, by pointing to the object, 
 ■if in sight, the words ^to and that, hence called 
 demonstratives, were employed ; the one to ex- 
 press the nearer, the other the more distant ob- 
 ject. From one of these proceeded the word the, 
 having the same relation to its original, as a or an 
 has to the name of unity. Hence the words sy- 
 nonimous with this and that, in those languages, 
 which have no definite article, are frequently em- 
 ployed, to supply its place. 
 
 The use of these terms being to express any 
 individual whatever of a class, and likewise some 
 certain or particular object; we have also the 
 words few, some, many, several, to denote a num- 
 ber indefinitely, and the Cardinal Numerals two^ 
 three, four J ^q. a precise number of individuals. 
 
70 ETYMOI^OGY. 
 
 CHAP. 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 repe- 
 tition of the names of those persons, or things, 
 would not only be tiresome, but also sometimes 
 productive of ambiguity. Besides, the name of 
 the ])erson addressed may be unknown to the 
 speaker, and the name of the speaker may be un- 
 known 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 grammaria^s, Nouns of the second or? 
 der. 
 
 When the person, who addresses, speaks of him- 
 self, the pronoun /, called the pronoun of the 
 first person, is employed instead of the name of 
 the speaker. As, '* TheXord said to Moses," '*/ 
 ** (the Lord) am the God of Abraham." 
 
 When the person addressed is the subject of 
 discourse, the pronoun, ihou^ called the pronoun 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 71 
 
 of the second person, is used instead of his name, 
 as, *' Nathan said unto David, thou (David) art 
 '' the man/' 
 
 When neither the person, who speaks, nor the 
 person addressed, but some other person, or thing, 
 is the subject of discourse, we employ the pro- 
 nouns 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 pre- 
 vent the tiresome repetition of names. It is not, 
 however, to be hence inferred, that even the re- 
 petition 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 pe- 
 culiar 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 dis- 
 tinctive circumstances, to discriminate the per- 
 son intended from others of that name; or the 
 speaker would be obliged to point to the indivi- 
 dual, if he happened to be present. Nay, though 
 the person or subject designed might be thus 
 sufficiently ascertained, it is easy to see, that the 
 phraseology would have nothing of that simpli- 
 city and energy, which accompany the Pronoun. 
 
72 ETrMOLOGY. 
 
 If in the first example, instead of saying, *' I ani 
 *' the God," we should say, "the Lord is the 
 " God ;" or in the second, instead of '' Thou art 
 'x* the man," '' David is the man;" the energy of 
 the expression would be entirely destroyed. If 
 any person, speaking of himself, should distin- 
 guish himself from others of the same name, by 
 subjoining the necess^iry discriminating circum- 
 stances, so as to 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 obscure dic- 
 tion of a common card, with the freedom, per- 
 spicuity, and vivacity of a letter. 
 
 Pronouns may be divided into Substantive and 
 Adjective; Personal, and Impersonal; Relative, and 
 Interrogative. The Personal substantive pronouns 
 are /, Thou, He, She, The Impersonal substan- 
 tive pronoun is It, 
 
 The personal substantive pronouns have three 
 cases, and are thus declined. 
 
 1st. Person Masc. and Feminine. 
 
 Sing. Plur. 
 
 Nom. I we 
 
 G>''K Mine ours 
 
 us. 
 

 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 
 2d. 
 
 Person Masc. ar 
 
 id Fern. 
 
 
 Sing. 
 
 Plur. 
 
 Nom. 
 
 Thou 
 
 ye or yga 
 
 Gen. 
 
 Thine 
 
 yours 
 
 Obj. 
 
 Thee 
 3d. Person. 
 
 MASC. 
 
 you. 
 
 Nom. 
 
 He 
 
 They 
 
 Gen. 
 
 His 
 
 Theirs 
 
 Obj. 
 
 Him ' 
 
 Them. 
 
 J 
 
 FEM. 
 
 
 Nom. 
 
 She 
 
 They 
 
 Gen. 
 
 Hers 
 
 Theirs 
 
 Obj. 
 
 Her 
 
 NEUTER. 
 IMPERS. 
 
 Them, 
 
 Nom. 
 
 It 
 
 They 
 
 Gen. 
 
 It's 
 
 Theirs 
 
 Obj. 
 
 It 
 
 Them. 
 
 73 
 
 Myy thy, our, your, their, being the represen- 
 tatives of nouns, have the essential character of 
 pronouns. Tiius, when Decius says to Cato, 
 ^'Caesar is well acquainted with your virtues/' 
 the pronoun is employed as a substitute for Catq's, 
 As they express not only the subject, but also 
 the relation of property or possession, they are by 
 
74 ETYMOLOGV. 
 
 some grammarians considered to be the genitives 
 of their respective substantive pronouns. In 
 usage, Jiowever, they are distinguished from the 
 English genitive by their incapacity to stand alone. 
 Thus we say, '^ It is the king's," ** It is your's;" 
 but we cannot say, " It is your," the presence of 
 a noun being necessary to the last expression. 
 They are, therefore, more correctly named Pro- 
 nominal Adjectives. For the purpose of denoting 
 emphatically the relation of possession or pro- 
 perty, the word own is frequently joined to them, 
 as my <ywn, 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, myself, thyself; ourselves, your- 
 selves. Theirselves is now obsolete, themsek'es, bcr 
 ing 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 explanation, which has been adopted, by most 
 grammarians, appears to me unsatisfactory, and 
 erroneous. Others have said, that the pronouns 
 of the first and second persons have no distinc- 
 tion 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 person acW 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 75 
 
 dressed, without any regard to the sex of the 
 individual. This matter seems sufficiently plain. 
 Language, to be useful, must be perspicuous and 
 intelligible, exhibiting the subject and its attrir 
 butes, with clearness and precision. If it should 
 be asked, why the pronoun of the third person 
 has three varieties, Mr. Harris would answer, 
 ^* to mark the sex.'* If it were enquired, 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 pro- 
 nouns of the first and second persons have no 
 variety of form significant of sex, because the 
 speaker, and the person addressed, are evident 
 without it. Mr. Harris, therefore, should have 
 said, that the pronouns in question have no dis- 
 tinction 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 desiG:nation. The inten-- 
 lion 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 discri^ 
 jnination of sex is generally necessary. The sex, 
 therefore, enters not as an essential, but as an 
 lexplanatory circumstance; not as ihe subject of 
 _^iscourse, but to distinguish the subject. Where 
 
76 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 the person is present^ and is either the speaker, or 
 the person addressed, discrimination of sex be- 
 comes unnecessary, the pronoun itself marking 
 the individuals. When the person, or subject of 
 discourse, is absent, the distinction 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. i 
 
 The four Personal Pronouns, /, Thou, He, and 
 She, have three cases, viz. the nominative or lead- 
 ing 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. 
 
 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 words precisely synonimous, my, according to 
 him, being used before a consonant, and mine 
 before a vowel; as, my sword, mine arm. It is 
 doubtless true, that mine and thine are sometimes 
 used as my and thy, which are not substantive pro- 
 nouns, but pronominal adjectives; but that they are 
 not precisely synonimous, or mutually convertible, 
 isobvipus : 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. Ex, 
 ** 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 sub- 
 stantive is necessary. 
 
 As my and mlne^ thy and thine, our and ours, 
 your and yours, their and theirs, are not mutually 
 convertible, they cannot be regarded as synoni- 
 mous, each with its fellow. 
 
 This 2i\\d that, which have improperly been re- 
 ferred by some to the class of pronouns, liave been 
 considered already. The former makes in the 
 plural these, the latter, those. 
 
 The relative pronouns, so called because they 
 directly relate or refer to a substantive preceding, 
 which is therefore termed the antecedent are, whOy 
 which, that. 
 
 The pronoun xcho, is of the masculine, or femi- 
 nine gender, referring to persons male, or female. 
 The pronoun which is neuter. That is common to 
 
 three ger 
 
 idcrs. 
 
 
 
 Sin^y. and Plur. 
 
 Sing, and Plur, 
 
 Nom. 
 
 Who 
 
 Which 
 
 Gen. 
 
 Whose 
 
 Whose 
 
 Obj. 
 
 \^hom 
 
 Which. 
 
 Lowth, and several other grammarians, have 
 asserted, that the pronoun zvhich admits no varia- 
 tion. Numberless examples, however, from the 
 
78 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 best authors, might be cited, to disprove this 
 assertion. Shakespeare occasionally uses whose as 
 the genitive o^ which ; and, since his time, writers 
 of the highest eminence have employed it in the 
 same 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. Fupe. 
 
 *^ A true critic is Uke 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 whichy 
 should be adopted. I have, therefore, given whose 
 as the genitive o^ which ; not only because this 
 usage is sanctioned by classical authority, but 
 likewise, because the other form of which is fre- 
 quently awkward, and inelegant. 
 
 TVho is applied to persons, that is, to animals 
 distinguished by rationality, or represented as 
 possessing it. 
 
 " The man who has no music in himself." Shakespeare, 
 
 The antecedent many being a person, is followed. 
 by who. 
 
 " A stag, who came to drink at a river, seeing 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 79 
 
 ** 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 ^Esop, inferior animals are very 
 properly denoted by the personal relative. 
 
 IVhkh is applied to things inanimate, and crea- 
 tures either dev^oid of all indications of rationality, 
 or represented as such. *' The city, which Ro- 
 *' mulus built, was called Home." Here which is 
 used^ the word city being the antecedent, to which 
 it refers. 
 
 ** The sloth, which is a creature remarkable for 
 *' inactivity, lives on leaves, and the flowers of 
 *'^ trees." Here the sloth, an animal hardly pos- 
 sessing sensation or life, is expressed by which. 
 
 The rule here given for the use of these pronouns 
 is not uniformly observed, several good writers 
 occasionally applying them indifferently to inferior 
 animals, without any determinate principle of dis- 
 crimination. 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 ideas on this subject seem 
 nearly to coincide with mine, 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 
 
80 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 children are incapable. He, therefore, disapproves 
 of Cadogan's phraseology, when he says, ** a 
 "child vvho.^* 
 
 That'll applied indiscriminately to things ani- 
 mate and inanimate, and admits no variation. 
 
 The pronouns zvho, whkh^ and that^ are some- 
 times resolvable into and he, and she^ and it. Mr. 
 Harris, indeed, has said, that the pronoun qui 
 (who) may be always resolved into et ilk, a, iid, 
 (and he, and.she, audit,) 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 m^y, there- 
 fore, 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 ^solvable into '* light is a body, and it moves 
 " with great velocity.*' Bat when the relative 
 clause limits the meaiiing of the antecedent* the 
 relative is clearly not tluis resolvable. '' Virgil 
 '* was the only epic poet, among the Romans, 
 " who can be compared to Homer." The relative 
 here restricts the meaning of the antecedent; we 
 cannot, therefore, by resolution say, ^* Virgil w^as 
 " 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 senti- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 81 
 
 ment which it conveys, accordant with the mean- 
 ing of the autlior. 
 
 The pronoun what, if not employed interroga- 
 tively, is equivalent to that zvhich; and is appli- 
 cable to inanimate things only, as, '^ I believe 
 '^ what I see/' or, ^' that which I see." 
 
 /F^flf/^ admits no variation. 
 
 The relative pronouns w/io, 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 Grammar, that they still retain their rela- 
 tive character. ** The only difference,'* says he, 
 ^' is this, that the relative refers to an antecedent, 
 ** and definite subject, and the interrogative to 
 '* something subsequent, and unknown." The 
 example, which he adduces in support of his opi- 
 nion, 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 interrogation is as much a relative, as if it 
 " had been said originally, without any interroga- 
 *' tion at all, " It was the infernal serpent, who 
 *' seduced them." Others adopt an opinion dia- 
 metrically opposite, contending that zvho and 
 zi^^icA are properly interrogatives, and that even, 
 
 G 
 
S2 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 vlien used as relatives, they still retain their inter- 
 rogative ciiaracter. This theory a few examples 
 will sufficiently illustrate. 
 
 *' The man, who ?" (which man ? ) his character 
 follows, " has no music in himseltV 
 
 "The city, which? (what city?) Romulus 
 " built was called Rome." 
 
 " Happy the man, whose cautious feet." 
 ** Happy that man, who? his (whose) can- 
 ** tious feet." 
 
 " Light is a body, which? (body) moves with 
 '' great velocity." 
 
 Of these two theories I have no hesitation in 
 adopting the former. My reasons are these. The 
 intention of language is to communicate our senr 
 timents, — to express what we think, feel, perceive, 
 or desire. Hence its general character is indica- 
 tive or assertive. " I believe," ** I wish," '* I see," 
 are affirmative sentences ; and whatever variety of 
 forms the phraseology may assume, they are all 
 strictly significant of assertion, and all resolvable 
 into the language of affirmation. *' Go," " l:each," 
 " read," are equivalent to, *' I desire you to go,'' 
 ** to teach," "to read." ** Have you finished 
 *' your task?" means, when the sentiment is fully 
 expressed, *' I desire to know, whether you have 
 " finished your task." Ellipses of this kind are 
 natural. They spring from an eagerness to impart 
 to the vehicle of our thoughts a degree of velocity, 
 suited to the promptitude, with which the mind 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 83 
 
 conceives them. Vehemence or passion, impatient 
 of delay, uniforhily resorts to I hem. The as- 
 sertive form of expression I therefore conceive to 
 be the parent, whence every other is derived, and 
 to Avhich it is reducible. If tliis he 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, ivhich, when^ 
 where, were at first used as relatives, and came af- 
 terwards, by implication, to denote interrogations. 
 Again, we know,^ that the meaning of an ex- 
 pression 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 sentence is affirmative; yet, by the 
 tone of voice, or manner of the speaker, this af- 
 firmative sentence may denote an interrogation. 
 Thus, '* he did it?" by an elevation of the voice, 
 or the mode of notation, may be rendered, equiv- 
 alent to, *^ did he do it?" " Who did it" is in hke 
 manner an affirmative clause ; but it is obvious, 
 that this form of expression, like the other now 
 adduced, may be likewise employed to denote an 
 interrogation, 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/* 
 The preceding clause, however, is sufficiently sup- 
 plied by the manner of the speaker. An ellipsis 
 of this kind seems ta.be involved in every inter- 
 rogation. If 1 say, " did he do it," it is equiva- 
 
 G % 
 
84- ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 lent to, '^ tell me, if he did it." Accordingly we 
 find, that the Latins, in such interrogations, em- 
 ployed only the latter clause ; for ^?i.( whether), 
 which is termed an interrogative, is, in fact, no- 
 thing but the Greek av, synonimous with si (if) 
 among the Latins. '* An fecit," did he do it? 
 is therefore strictly equivalent to ** si fecit/* if he 
 did it, the former clause, *■ tell me,'' being under- 
 stood, 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 whOf considered as an 
 interrogative^ and I am persuaded he will be sen- 
 sible, that he cannot form any distinct conception 
 of its import. 
 
 I am inclined therefore to think, that inter- 
 rogatives are strictly relatives; and that these re- 
 latives, by the aid of voice, gesture, or some ex- 
 planatory circumstance, answer the purpose of 
 interrogation. 
 
 In using these pronouns interrogatively, it is to 
 be observed, that who and zvkich are each applied to 
 persons, which is not the case, when they are 
 employed as relatives. This difference, however, 
 is to be observed, that, when the pronoun which 
 is used interrogatively and applied to persons, it 
 is generally, if not always, understood, that the 
 character of the individual, who is. the object of 
 enquiry, is in presence of the enquirer, or is in 
 same. degree known. fVho is more indefinite. If 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 85 
 
 I say, '' which is the man?" I mean, -''^who of 
 '' those now before me ?'' or of those, who have 
 been described? Agreeably to - this, 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. 
 " \t^hich is the man," not only imphes his exist- 
 ence, but also that the aggregate of individuals, 
 whence the selection is made, is known to me* . 
 
 fVhat is also used interrogatively, and is em- 
 ployed in introducing questions, whether the sub- 
 ject be persons, or things, as, *^ What man is that?" 
 *' What book is this?" When no substantive is 
 subjoined, it is then wholly indefinite, as, ** What 
 *' is man, that thou art mindful of him ?" When 
 we enquire, 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?" 
 aud '^ which man will dare, &c." it is obvious, that 
 the former interrogatory 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 de- 
 gree known to the enquirer. 
 
85 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 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?'' 
 
 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 rne or nehein *' none." 
 
 This word, though now generally employed, or 
 considered, as a conjunction, is in truth reducible 
 to the class of words, which we are now examining, 
 and is precisely synonimous with uter, tra, trum 
 of the Latins. " AVhether is easier to say?'* 
 Bible. 
 
 Here whether is truly a pronoun, and is the no- 
 minative to the following verb. 
 
 ^* Whether is greater, the gold or the temple?" lb. 
 In these examples, whether is precisely the same 
 with ** which of the two." It seems now to be 
 giving place to the word whiih, as the comparative, 
 when two things are compared, is often supplanted 
 by the superlative. Thus we often say, when 
 speaking of two, " which is the best," instead of 
 " whether is better.*' The Latins almost uni- 
 formly observed the distinction: 
 
 ** Uter dignior, quis dignissimus." Quint. 
 The pronoun it is used indefinitely, and applied 
 to persons or things. 
 Pr, Johnson has objected to the use of this 
 
KTYMOLOGY. 87 
 
 pronoun 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. 
 
 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, tYtt 
 subject of which is totally 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 h established 
 by universal usage, and is therefore unexception- 
 able. This being the case, there can be no im- 
 propriety 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 ox 
 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 answer, any other word to express the sub- 
 ject, than that, by which it is signified in the 
 question, would he in all cases, if not }>roductive 
 of ambiguit}^ at least less precise. '* Who is it ?*' 
 <8ays a master to his servant, hearing a voice in the 
 
88 ETYMOLOGY, 
 
 hall. "' It is the gentlemen, who called yester- 
 day/* 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 shew, that *' the gentlemen," 
 and '' the subject of enquiry,'* both being de- 
 noted by one term, are one and the same? Had 
 the master known, that it was the voice of a gen- 
 man, and that there were more than one, aiid had 
 he accordingly said, " Who are they ?'* the answer 
 would have properly been, '^ They are the gen- 
 '^ tlemen." But when the question is, *' W^ho 
 *' is it?'* I apprehend, the only apposite answer 
 is, '' It is the gentlemen, "^ the identity of the 
 terms (it being repeated) clearly evincing an iden- 
 tity of subject, in the question and in the answer; 
 in other words, that the subject of the enquiry, 
 and the subject of the answer, are one and th^ 
 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 pre- 
 cisely the same with the demonstative that, which 
 has been already explained. '' The house that you 
 ^' built, is burned," is resolvable thus, '* The 
 *V house is burned> you built that.*' 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 89 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Of the Adjective. 
 
 AN Adjective has been defined by most gram- 
 marians, to be *' that part of speech, which sig- 
 *' nifies an accident, quaUty, or property of a 
 '* thing." This definition appears to me to be 
 somewhat defective and incorrect : for the Ad- 
 jective does not express the quahty simply, but 
 the quahty, or property, as conjoined with a sub- 
 stance, or, as grammarians have termed it, m 
 concreto. Thus, wlien, we say, '* good man," 
 goodness is' the name of the qualit}^ and good is the 
 adjective expre:>sing that quahty, as conjoined 
 with the subject man. Accordingly, every ad- 
 jective is resolvable into the name of the thing 
 implied, and any term of reference or conjunction, 
 as d/; wil/i. Tims " a prudent man" is equivalent 
 to '' a man witii' or ''join prudence," or to '* a 
 " man of prudence.'' An Adjective, therefore, is 
 thatpayt of speecii, which denotes any substance 
 or attribute, not by itself, but as conjoined with 
 a subject, or pertaining to its character. This 
 conjunction is generally marked, by changing the 
 
 2 
 
90 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 termination of the simple name of the sub- 
 stantive or attribute, as fool foolish, wax xoaxen. 
 Souietimes no change is made; and the simple 
 name of the substance, or attribute is pre- 
 fixed to the name of the subject, as sea fowl, race 
 horse, corn field. In writing these, and similar ex- 
 pcessions, the conjunction is sometimes marked by 
 a hyphen, a.s sea- fozvl, river-fish^ wine-vessel. 
 
 As every Appellative denotes the whole of a 
 genus or species, the intention and effect of the 
 Adjective is, by Hmiting the generic meaning 
 of the Substantive, 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, distinguished by goodness. Here 
 jnan expresses the substance; and good the quality 
 in concreto. Sometimes, on the contrary, the 
 Substantive is the general name of the quality or 
 property ; and the Adjective modifies or deter- 
 mines its degree, as wisdoin, little xvisdom. — Let us 
 take another example. The word stone is appli- 
 cable to a whole species of substances. If I say, 
 round stone, I confine the meaning of the Substan- 
 tive to that part of the genus, which is distin- 
 guished by roundness. Here the substantive de- 
 notes the matter, or substance, in general, and 
 the Adjective limits its signification;, by expresing 
 
ETYMOLOGr, 91 
 
 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 speech by the name of Adjective Noun ; to 
 others this designation appears inadmissible. 
 The latter observe, that neither is the Adjective 
 the name of any thing, nor is it in l.nglish variable, 
 like the Substantive. They allow, that in Greek 
 and Latin, the designation in question is, in some 
 degree,, justifiable, because, though the Noun and 
 Adjective dififer essentially in office, in these lan- 
 guages, they agree in form; — but in our language 
 they deem it a singular impropriety.* 
 
 * Mr. Toolie contends, that this part of speech is properly 
 termed Adjectiye Noun, and *' that it is altogether as much the 
 ^' name of a thin^, as the Noun Substantive/' Names and de- 
 signations 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, Mhich 
 may convey to the reader or hearer an incorrect conception of 
 the thing signified, but that every terra 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 azree with him also in opi- 
 jnion, that, in a certain sense, all words are nouns or n^,mes. 
 But as this latter doctrine seems directly repugnant to the con- 
 current 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 witk this explanation, 
 
9^ . ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 I have said^ that the Adjective denotes a sub- 
 stance, quality or property, *' as pertaining/' or 
 in concreio. Novv, it is to be observed, that sub- 
 stances do not admit degrees of more or less, in 
 
 I shall briefly state the objections, which will naturally offer 
 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, 
 ^' u4 gold-ring, a brass-tube, a silk-string; here are the Sub- 
 '* stantives adjective pusita, yet names of things, and denoting 
 ^' substances." It may be contended however, that these are 
 not substantives, but adjectives, and are the same as golden^ 
 brazen, silken, lie proceeds: " If again I say, a golden ring, 
 '' a brazen tube, a silken string, do gold, and brass , and silk, 
 '' cease to be the names of things, and cease to denote substances, 
 '' because, instead of coupling them with ring, tube, and string, 
 '' by a hyphen thus - I couple them to the same words, by add- 
 *' ing 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 Jthence, but it is not the 
 name of the city, any more than belonging to Athens, can be 
 called its name. He observes ; '• If it were true, that Adjec- 
 *^' tives were not the names ofthings, there could be no attribu- 
 ^' tion by Adjectives^ for you cannot attribute nothing," This 
 conclusion may be disputed. Au Adjective may imply a sub- 
 stance, quality or property, though it is not the name of it. 
 Ccrcus, " waxen,'' implies ccra, " wax," but it is the latter 
 only which is strictly the iiame of the substance. Pertaining to 
 wax, madeofxvaxj are not surely names of the thing itself. 
 Every attributive, whether Verb or Adjective, must imply an 
 attribute; but it is not therefore the name of that attribute. 
 Juvenescif, " he waxes young," expresses an attribute, but we 
 ihould not ca]}Juv€nescit the name of the attribute. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 93 
 
 regard to their essential character. *' A wooden 
 '"^ table" cannot be more or less wooden. *' Au 
 '^ iron bar" cannot be more or less such. In these 
 cases, the Adjective, as I have already remarked, 
 
 It may be asked, what is the difference between captit homiuis. 
 " a man's head,'' and caput hitmanum, '' a human head.*' If 
 homifiisy " man's," be deemed a Noun, why should not huma. 
 num^ " human," be deemed a noun also ? It may be answered, 
 that kominis does, in fact, perform the office of an Adjective, 
 expressing not only the individual, but conjunction also; and 
 thatMfL. Wallis assigns to the English genitive the name of Ad- 
 jective. 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 man'^s but man ? for such certainly is their form, when 
 divested of those circumstances, 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 humannm^ 
 man^s nor human, can, with consistency, be called Nouns, 
 . But let Mr. Tooke's argument" be applied to the verb, the 
 lo pr,iJ-oi^ which he justly considers, as an essential part of speech. 
 *' If verbs were not the names of things, there could be no at- 
 '* tribution by verbs, for we cannot attribute nothing.'' Are 
 we then to call sapit^ vivii, hgitj names ? If so, we have no- 
 thing but names ; and to this conclusion Mr. Tooke fairly brings 
 the discussion : 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 mete 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 metaphy- 
 
94 ETYMOLOGf. 
 
 by expressing the matter, limits the form to one 
 species of substance. The same observation is ap- 
 plicable to the converse circumstance, in which 
 the form strictly limits the matter, as ** triangular 
 
 sician considers words, merely as signs of thoiiglit, while the 
 grammarian regards 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. Some- 
 times we have the name of the thing simply, as person. Some- 
 times we have an accessary idea combined with the simple sign, 
 as '^ possession,'* " conjunction," ** action,'* and so forth, as 
 personal^ personally^ personify. This accessary circumstance, 
 we have reason to believe, was originally 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 aflBx or 
 prefix. Thus friguSy frigidus, fr^g^^t ^W denote the same pri- 
 mary idea, involving the name of that quality, or of that sensa- 
 tion, which we term cvld. Frigus is the name of the thing 
 simply ; frigid us expresses the quality, in concreto^ or conjunc- 
 tion Considering, therefore, all words as names, it may b« 
 regarded as a complex name, expressing two distinct ideas, that 
 of the quality, and that of conjunction. fnge^ (the subject 
 being understood) may be regarded as a name still more com- 
 plex, involving, 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 cum fngore. According then 
 to this metaphysical view of the subject, we have, first, Nonien 
 simplex, the simple name; secondly, Nomen Adjectivum or No' 
 men duplex, the name of the thing, with that of conjunction ; 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 95 
 
 ** board." Here it is obvious, that the substance 
 limited to one form by the term triangular, can- 
 not be more or less triangular. But this is not the 
 case with qualities or properties, which may exist 
 
 thirdly, Nomen Affirmativum^ 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 cir- 
 cumstances, by which they are distinguished. The latter appears 
 to me to be the only mode, which the Grammarian, as the 
 teacher of an art, can successfully adopt. Considering the sub- 
 ject in this light, I am inclined to say with Mr. Harris, that the 
 Adjective, as implying 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 ad^ 
 jective may, in common with the noun, denote the thing, 
 they cannot strictly be called its name. To say, th?it foolish and 
 folli/ are each names of the same quality, would I apprehend, 
 lead to nothing, but perplexity 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 i?i conjunction — the inflexion being equivalent 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 marl's, 
 kings, &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 kings,, mafias, 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 noun to the adjective, and, with Wallis, call the 
 
9(> ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 in different substances, in different degrees* 
 And, as it is sometimes necessary to express the 
 existence of a quality, as greater or less in one sub- 
 stance than another, hence arises the utihty of^ 
 some form oi^ expression to denote these rela- 
 tive degrees of its existence. It is in this c^se 
 only, that the termination of the Adjective admits 
 variation ; and then it is said to be in a state of 
 comparison. 
 
 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 sevexally diversified by an infinitude of 
 gradations, which it M^ould elude the capacity of 
 any language to discriminate. To denote these 
 degrees is, therefore, utterly impracticable, as it is 
 wholly unnecessary. 
 
 genitive case an adjective j 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 assigifi the appellation of noun to the verb itself. 
 
 From this view of the subject, the reader will perceive, that 
 the whole controversy depends on the meaning which we annex 
 to the term Noun. If by thjs term we denote simply the thing 
 itself, 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 foU 
 lows, that all words may be termed names. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 97 
 
 In English, as in most other languages, we em» 
 ploy two variations, the one to denote simple ex- 
 cess, or a greater degree of the quality, than that, 
 which is expressed hy 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 hanitr.*' If I con\pare these with iron, 
 I say, ** wood is hard," " stone harder," " iron 
 '' the hardest.'* Thus, in truth, tl.ere are only 
 two degrees of comparison, viz. the Conparative 
 and the Superlative, the Positive expressing the 
 quality simply, and absolutely. 
 
 The Comparative is formed hy 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 si^ 
 ^^ soft f softest ; safe, .safest*' . 
 
 • The Saxons formed their comparative by er or ere, ar or 
 ctre, er or ur, yr, and their Superlative by ast, aste, est, ist, 
 ost, ust, yit. Now, tfT means 6e/'o?e; hence the English words 
 ereandeyjf. Thus, in Saxon, rihtwisere means "righteous 
 *' before,'*' '' just btfore,''^ or " wore thany The suffix is equi- 
 valent to the Latin jyro", and the Hebrew preposition win, signi- 
 fying also before, the only diflference 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 pj-epo, 
 sition following the.Positive stands alone. 
 
98 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 jnore, and the surperlative by 7?zost, as, 
 
 Pos. Comp. Super. 
 
 Hard More hard Most hard. 
 
 Monosyllabic Adjectives are generally compared 
 by annexing r or er, st or est ; 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. 
 
 Some form their Superlative by adding most to 
 the Comparative, as nether, nethermost ; lozver, 
 lezvermost ; itnder, undermost; others, by adding 
 ■most either to the Positive or Comparative, as 
 hind, hindmost or hifidermost ; up, upmost or upper- 
 most. From in we have inmost and innermost.* 
 
 * Up and in are now used as adverbs and prepositions. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 99 
 
 Besides this definite and direct kind of compa- 
 rison, there is another, which may be termed inde- 
 finite or indirect, expressed by the intensive words 
 too, nery, exceedingly , &c. as, too good, mry hard, 
 exceedingly great. 
 
 When the word very, ov any other of the same 
 import, is put before the Positive, it is called by 
 some writers the Superlative of eminence, to dis- 
 tinguish it from the other Superlative, which has 
 been already mentioned, and is called the Su'per- 
 lative of Comparison. Thus, very hard, is termed 
 the Superlative of eminence ; most hard, or hardest, 
 the Superlative of Comparison. 
 
 1 have said that the Comparative denotes simple 
 excess, and the Superlative the greatest. It is not; 
 however, to be hence inferred, that the Compara- 
 tive may not be employed, in expressing the same 
 pre-eminence or inferiority with the Superlative. If 
 I say, "■ Of all acquirements virtue is the mc*.t valu- 
 *' able," I may also convey the same sentimen^t, by 
 saying, *' Virtue is more valuable, than every other 
 *' acquirement." If it be asked, what then is the 
 difference between the Comparative and Superla- 
 tive ? I answer, 
 
 1st. That the Superlative expresses the abso- 
 lutely highest or lowest degree of the quality, as, 
 when we say, ^' O God most high ;" or the greatest 
 or least degree, in relation merely to the subjects 
 of comparison, thus expressing a superiority of 
 excess above the Comparative, as when I say, 
 
 h2 
 
J 00 ' ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 *' In estimating the worth of these human attain- 
 *^ ments, learning, prudence, and virtue, it cannot 
 '' be denied, that learning is valuable, that pru- 
 " dence is more valuable, but that virtue is the 
 *' most valuable.'' The Comparative expresses 
 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 con- 
 tinued 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 expressed, by 
 combining the tv/o fi''st, and marking simply the 
 excess of the third, thus, '* virtue is better than 
 '' both." 
 
 i2dly. 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 Ceesar and Cato, I say, *' Cato was 
 " the more virtuous, Caesar the more eloquent ;'* 
 or of two brothers, we say '' John was the elder." 
 
 In such cases the Superlative is sometimes em- 
 ployed, as, '' the best of the two," instead of 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 101 
 
 *' the better of the two." The former phraseology, 
 however, is more consonant to estabhshed 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 thingj 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 compared 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 Athe- 
 nians, we say, " Socrates was the wisest of the 
 Athenians;" that is, '* of," *' out of," or " of the 
 '* class of Athenians." Hence in Latin the superla- 
 tive often takes the preposition ex ( out of) to denote 
 that the object compared belongs to the order of 
 things, with which it is compared ; the Compara- 
 tive very rarely. 
 
 Now the same sentiment may be expressed by 
 the comparative ; but then the Athenians and So* 
 crates, though belonging to one species, are con- 
 ceived as opposed to each other, and referred to 
 different places, whereas the superlative refers them 
 to one common aggregate. Thus, if we employ 
 
102 ETYMOLOGT. 
 
 the comparative, we say, *' Socrates was wiser tha» 
 '* any other Athenian.'* 
 
 Agreeably to the observation now made, we 
 cannot say, '* Cicero was more eloquent than the 
 *^ Romans/' 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 com- 
 pared belong, therefore, to one class, and are not 
 two individuals, nor two aggregates, the compa- 
 rative cannot be employed, unless by placing them 
 in opposition, or referring them to different 
 places, as " Cicero was more eloquent than any 
 " other Roman/' Here the word o^/^er 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 super- 
 lative is employed, the things compared are re- 
 ferred to one aggregate ; and that when the com- 
 parative is used, they are contradistinguished by 
 a different reference. This distinction obtains 
 uniformly, unless when we compare only two in- 
 dividuals, or two classes, both referred to one 
 aggregate, as *' the elder of theCatos,'* '' of these 
 ** two nations (speaking of the Greeks and Ro- 
 /' mans) the latter were the more warhke." In 
 such examples as these, the comparative, while it re- 
 tains its own distinctive character, denoting simple 
 excess, partakes also of the nature of the superlative, 
 
ETYMOLOGY. ' 103 
 
 the objects compared being referred by the preposi- 
 tion to one and the same aggregate. But as the su- 
 perlative is always followed by of, and the compara- 
 tive, in every case except the one now mentioned, 
 followed by than^ some writers say, *' the eldest 
 *'' of the two/' " the latter were the most warhke." 
 This phraseology, however conformable to the 
 generally distinguished usage of the comparative 
 and superlative, is repugnant to the characteristic 
 power of those degrees, by which one denotes sim- 
 ple excess, while the other heightens, or lessens the 
 quality to its highest or lowest degree. 
 
 From the preceding remarks will appear the iiji- 
 prppriety 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 comparative required the terms to be con- 
 trasted by the word other. 
 
 * This phraseology is Hebraistic—^' more than allhischil- 
 " drea" is the literal translation of the original, V3D'^DD prae 
 omnibus liliis sen, magis omnibus iiliis suis.. ^ 
 
10* ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 " Adam 
 *^ The comelicst of men since born 
 '' His sops. The fairest of her daughters Eve." Milton. 
 
 '* Adam/' the antecd^dent subject of comparison^ 
 is here improperly referred to the aggregate of 
 " men since born.'' 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 iirst ; yet the preposition 
 refers them to one class. Such phraseologies as 
 these, though not ungrammatical, involve an ab- 
 surdity) and should therefore be dismissed. 
 
 Adjectives, whose signification does not admit 
 intension or remission, cannot be compared. A- 
 mong these are to be reckoned, 1st, All words 
 expressive of figure, as circular^ square, triangular, 
 perpendiaclar, 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; triangular, 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 the^ic 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 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 105 
 
 highly Improper. We should say, '* set the staff 
 " erect/' ^' make the field triangular." 
 
 2dly, All Adjectives, whose signification, in 
 their simple form, implies the highest or lowest 
 possible degree, admit not comparison, as, chief, 
 supreme, univei^sal, perfect, e.vlreme, Sec. Hume, 
 speaking of enthusiasm, says, (Essays, Vol. L 
 p. 72.) *' it begets the most extreme resolutions." 
 Extreme implies the farthest, or the greatest pos- 
 sible;- and cannot admit intension. 
 
 I am aware, that usage may be pleaded in favour 
 of "more, and most universal, more, and most perfect '' 
 This usage, however, is not such as will sanction 
 the former of these phraseologies; for good writers 
 generally avoid it. Besides, there is no necessity 
 for resorting to this mode of expression, as we 
 have an attributive appropriate to the idea intended: 
 thus, instead -of saying, ** literature is more uni- 
 *' versal in England than America," we should 
 say, *' literature is more general." It is almost^ 
 unnecessary to observe, that literature in England 
 is either universal, or it is not : if the former be 
 true, it cannot be more than universal; if the lat- 
 ter, the term is inapplicable. The word general 
 does not comprise the whole; it admits intension 
 and remission; the Adjective universal implies to- 
 talit}^ A general rule admits exceptions; a uni- 
 versal rule embraces every particular. 
 
 The expression " more perfect,*' is, in strictness 
 of speech, equally exceptionable ; usage, however, 
 
106 ' ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 has given it a sanction, which we dare hardly con- 
 trovert. It has been proposed, indeed, to avoid 
 this and similar improprieties, by giving the phra- 
 seology a negative, or indirect form. Thus, 
 instead of saying, " a time-keeper is a more per- 
 ** feet machine than a watch," it has been proposed 
 to say, ** a time-keeper is a less imperfect ma- 
 '' chine than a watch.*' This phraseology is logi- 
 cally correct, perfection being predicable of neither 
 the one thing, nor the other; it might likewise, in 
 many cases, be adopted with propriety. In the lan- 
 guage of passion, however, and in the colourings 
 of imagination, such expressions would be exani- 
 mate, and intolerable. A lover, expatiating with, 
 rapture, on the beauty and perfection of his mis- 
 tress, would hardly call her, '^ the least imperfect 
 ** of her sex'' 
 
 In all languages, indeed, examples are to be 
 found of Adjectives being compared, whose sig- 
 nification admits neither intension, nor remission. 
 It would be easy to assign several reasons for this, 
 did the discussion belong to the province of the 
 grammarian. Suffice it to say, that such phrase- 
 ologies should never be admitted, where the lan- 
 guage will furnish correct, and equally apposite, 
 expressions. 
 
 I observe also, that, as those Adjectives, whose 
 signification cannot be heightened or lessened, ad- 
 mit not comparison, so, for the same reason, they 
 exclude all intensive words. The expressions so 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 107 
 
 universal, so extreme, and such like, are therefore 
 improper. Tlie former is indeed common enough; 
 but it is easy to see, as it has been already re- 
 marked, that whatever is universal cannot be in- 
 creased or diminished : and that, what is less than 
 universal, cannot be characterized by that epithet. 
 The phrase so universal implies a gradation in uni- 
 versality, and that something is > less so than an- 
 other; which is evidently impossible. 
 
 It has been questioned, whether prior, superior, 
 ulterior, exterior, and several others, w^hich 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) previous (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 sim- 
 ply the inside, as opposed to the exterior or out- 
 side ; the anterior, '* the one before," opposed to 
 posterior, '' the one behind."* 
 
 • Mr, Grant, the author of a very valuable work on Latin 
 
108 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 I dismiss this article with observing, that the 
 signification of the positive is sometimes lessened 
 by the termination ish ; as, white, whitish ; black, 
 hlackish, Johnson remarks, that the Adjective in 
 this form may be considered as in a state of com- 
 parison ; it may properly be called a Diminutive. 
 
 Grammar, has offered some judicious obserrations on this subject 
 in vol. 25. of the Monthly Magazine. His Institutes of Latin 
 Grammar, I would recommend to the perusal of cTcry classical 
 student. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 109 
 
 CHAP. V, 
 
 Of the Ferb. 
 
 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 bounded, I stand" 
 Its essence consists in affirmation, and by this 
 property it is distinguished from every other part 
 of speech. The Adjective expresses an accident, 
 quahty, or property o^ 2i i\\mg in concreto ; that 
 is, when joined to the name of a substance, it ex- 
 presses that substance, as accompanied by some 
 attribute : in other words, it hmits a generic name, 
 confining it to that part of the kind, which pos- 
 sesses the character, which the attributive specifies ; 
 but it affirms nothing. Thus, if we say, '' a 
 " zvisc man/" which is equivalent to *' a man with,'* 
 or ** join wisdom," there is no aflirmation; an in- 
 dividual is singled from a species, under the cha- 
 racter of wisdom, but nothing is asserted of this 
 individual. If we say, '' the man is M'ise,'' there 
 is somelhing affirmed of the man, and the affirma- 
 
IJO ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 lion is expressed by is. If the attribute and the 
 assertion be combined in the expression, as in 
 Latin mr sapit, it is obvious, 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 called a verb of existence, namely, the verb 
 to he. ' This verb frequently denotes pure affirma- 
 tion, as, '' God is good;" where the verb, or co- 
 pula, 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 called it a Substantive Verb, in contra- 
 distinction to those verbs, which, with an attri- 
 bute, denote assertion, and were called by some 
 Adjective Verbs. 
 
 Sometimes it predicates pure or absolute exist- 
 ence, as** God is," that is, '' God edists.'* In the 
 following example it occurs in both senses. " We 
 *' believe that thou art, and that thou art the re- 
 *' warder of them, who diligently seek thee." 
 
 ,As Nouns denote the subjects of our discourse^ 
 so Verbs predicate their accidents, or properties. 
 Tlie former are the names of things, the latter 
 what we say concerning them. These two, there- 
 fore, must be the only essential parts of speech ; 
 for to mental communication nothing else can be 
 
ETYMOLOGY. ill 
 
 indispensably requisite, than to name the subject 
 of our thoughts, and to express our sentiments of 
 its attributes or properties. And, as the verb es- 
 sentially expresses affirmation, 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 
 Y\i^j grammarians, "oerh^ or the word, by way of emi- 
 nence. The noun, however, is unquestionably of 
 earlier origin. To assign names to surrounding 
 objects would be the first care of barbarous na- 
 tions; their next essay would be to express their 
 most common actions, or states of being. This 
 indeed is the order of nature — the progress of 
 intellect. 
 
 Mr. Tooke observes, that '* the Verb does not 
 '' imply 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 join- 
 " ing in that operation, and there can be no junc- 
 *' tion of one thing." This theory he illustrates 
 by the tense ibo, which he resolves thus : 
 English Hi #ol. Ich 
 
 Latin I Vol. O 
 
 Greek I l^ovx Ew 
 
 The first of each triad are the simple verbs, equi- 
 valent to '' go." The second are the verbs, fVol, 
 Vol, BoyX, denoting *' will." The third are the 
 pronouns of the first person. Whatever opinion 
 
 2 
 
112 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 may be formed, respecting the truth of this analy^ 
 sis, 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. 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 mlo be an 
 abbreviated suffix for ego, why do we redundantly^ 
 say ego mlo ? Now, in answer to this objection^ 
 it might be observed, were we disposed to in- 
 dulge in mere hypothesis, that -the involution of 
 the pronoun may have eluded the attention of the 
 Latins ; or, if this explanation 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 
 cxpence of strict propriety. One riling particularly 
 deserves attention, that the pronoun 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 con- 
 jectures, which m.ay be deemed vague and unsatis- 
 factory, we may appeal to a fact, which is decisive 
 of the point in question. I have already observed, 
 that in the Z^ebrew 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, ^2. Ve-ani natkatti, " and 
 
ETVMOLOGY. US 
 
 ** I have given ;" Job xix. 25. Ve ani iadahgti, 
 " and I knew;" Deut. ix. 2, attah iadahgh-ta^ 
 ve-atta shamahgh ta, ** thou knowest, and thou* 
 *^ hast heard/' In these examples, the pronoun 
 is both incorporated with the verb, and repeated 
 by itself. Whatever may be the abstract propriety 
 of this phraseology, its existence in Hebrew is suf- 
 ficient to obviate 4;he objection proposed. 
 
 Again, it may be urged, if the pronoun ego be 
 sufiixed 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, re- 
 moved. The Latin language appears to be a com- 
 mixture of Greek, and one of the Northern lan- 
 o^uao-es. This commixture will account for the 
 first person singular- sometimes ending in c?, 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-ainiy " I write," sgriobli-air, sgriobh-aidh, 
 sgriobh amoid, sgri^bh-aoidhesi, sgriob-aidsion. 
 Here, as Wliiter observes, we have something re- 
 sembling the Latin verb scribo : and it is to be re- 
 marked, that the first person singular ends in m^ 
 which the Romans most probably adopted, as one 
 of their verbal termin'ations. And could we pro- 
 secute the inquiry, and investigate the structure 
 of the Greek and Celtic Tenses tliemselves, we 
 should doubtless find, that they involve, along 
 ivith the radical word, one or more terms, express- 
 
 I 
 
il^ ETYAIOLOGT. 
 
 ing the accessary ideas of action, passion, state, 
 person, time, and so forth. The same theory, we 
 are persuaded, may be appHed to all languages^ 
 in which the Tenses are formed by variety of ter- 
 mination. 
 
 Nothing, I conceive, can be more evident, than 
 that the inflexions of Nouns and Verbs, how in- 
 
 , explicable soev^er they may now prove, were not 
 originally the result of systematic art, but were 
 
 ^ separate terms, significant of the circumstances 
 intended, and afterwards, by celerity of pronun- 
 ciation, 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, liowever, from the preceding obser- 
 vations, that the difference between the opinion 
 of this eminent philologist, 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 observes, 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 '' 1 read." In either case, the verb 
 affirms something of its nominative, v/hether that 
 nominative appear in a simple, or in a compound 
 state. Soiisetimes the affirmation is expressed by 
 a separate and appropriate sign, as iile est dives. 
 
ETYMOLOGY.' 115 
 
 *^ he IS rich :'* and the verb of existence fto be) 
 is supposed, by several critics and philologists, to 
 have been coeval with the earliest infancy of lan- 
 guage. In Englisl^, 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 Pro- 
 noun. Thus, if we say, ''my will,'* '' the chil- 
 '*■ dren's will," there is no affirmation implied, and 
 the term will is considered, as a mere name. But 
 if we say, " I will," '* the children will," it be- 
 comes invested with a different character, and 
 affirms the volition to belong to the subject. Thus 
 also, *' the hero's might,'* " the hero might," 
 *' my ken," (my knowledge or ability,) '' I ken," 
 lean, ox I am able, *' my love," '' I love." Mr. 
 Tooke observes, that, when we say, " I love," 
 there is an ellipsis of the word do. This appears to 
 me a probable opinion, though not entirely unob^ 
 jectionable. 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 ad- 
 mits the fact ; but observes, that Chaucer had less 
 occasion to use it, because, in his time, the dis- 
 tinguishing terminations of the verb still remained, 
 though they were not constantly employed. NoWj 
 I find, as Mr. Tyrwhit remarks, that Chaucer 
 seldom uses the word do as an auxiliary, even in 
 
 I 2 
 
Il6 ETYMOLOCY. 
 
 those cases, where the verb and the noun are iden- 
 tical. This circumstance might lead us to infer, 
 that the English present was derived from the 
 Saxon, by dropping the termination, as lufige, love; 
 the affirmation and the action being sufficiently 
 crbvious from the construction, and that it was 
 originally optional to say either, '' I love," or " I 
 ** do love." — Be that as it may, the assertion ex- 
 pressed by '" I do," equivalent to '' I act," appears 
 clearly to be signified by the junction of the No- 
 minative Pronoun, with the sign of action. VVhe- 
 tlier a similar contrivance obtained originally in 
 all languages, or whether a note of affirmation was 
 at first separately employed, and afterwards in- 
 volved with the persons, in the terminafions of all 
 inflected verbs, is a question, which, I apprehend, 
 it is impossible to solve. One thing is certain, 
 that it is by the Verb, and the Verb only, that we 
 can express affirmation. ♦ 
 
 As every subject of discourse must be spoken of 
 as either doing, or suffisring 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 
 discourse is doing something, as, I zcrite ; the 
 Passive V^erb, that the subject suffers, or is acted 
 upon, as, the book is burned ; and the Neuter de- 
 notes neither the one, nor the other, but expresses 
 merely the state, posture, or condition of the 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 117 
 
 subject, as unaffected by any thing else, as / sit, 
 I sleep, I stand. 
 
 Action, energy, or motion, may either be con- 
 fined to the agent, or pass from him to something 
 extrinsic. Hence Active Verbs have been divided 
 into Transitive, and Intransitive. An Active Tran- 
 sitive Verb denotes that kind -of action, by which 
 the agent affects something 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, denoting the sub- 
 ject of the action. 
 
 An Active Intransitive Verb denotes that species 
 ©faction, or energy, which passes not from the 
 agent to any thing else; that is, it expresses what 
 lias been termed immanent energy. Hence, an 
 Intransitive Verb does not admit a Noun after it, 
 there being no extrinsic subject or object affected 
 by the action. Thus, / no?, I walk, the hor^se 
 gallops, are examples of Active Intransitive Verbs* 
 
 Webster, in his Dissertations on the English 
 Language, delivers it as his opinion, that the di- 
 vision of verbs into Active, Passive, and Neuter, is 
 incorrect; and that the only accurate distribution 
 
 * Iotransiti?e Verbs sometimes are used transitively ; as, when 
 we say, '' to walk the horse," " to dance the child." They 
 also admit a Nqun of their own signification, as, " to run a 
 
 ic 
 
 race. 
 
118 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 is into Transitive and Intransitive. '* Is not a 
 " man," says be, *' passive in hearing ? yet hear- 
 '' ing 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 fo- 
 reign act. But, whether we view the matter, as a 
 question either in metaphysics, or in grammar, we 
 shall pei ceive but little impropriety, in adopting the 
 common distinction. For, though the verb to htar 
 denotes, perhaps, chiefly, that a certain impres- 
 sion is made on the mind, tlirough the auditory 
 organ, yet even here the mind is not entirely pas- 
 sive, as, were this the place for such a discussion, 
 it would be easy to prove. I see, I hear,- 1 feel, I 
 perceive, denote not only the sensation in which we 
 are passive, but also a perception, to which the 
 consent, or activity of the mind -is unquestionably 
 essential. Hence these verbs have in all languages 
 been denominated Active. But if the term Tran- 
 sitive be the only correct name, it may be asked, 
 why does Mr. Webster call this verb by that appel- 
 lation ? He would answer, I doubt not, ** because 
 *' something passes from the agent to something 
 '^ else." What then is that something which 
 passes ? I am afraid Mr. Webster would have difr 
 ficulty in answering this question, so as to justify 
 the term 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, orhp^ 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 119 
 
 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 nam.e is sufficiently correct. If the 
 point in question be metaphysically considered, it 
 would be easy to demostrate, that, though in 
 sensation the niind be passive, in perception it is 
 active. 
 
 I would here observe in passing, that there are 
 many verbs Neuter and Intransitive, which, fol- 
 lowed by a preposition, may be truly considered 
 as Active Transitive Verbs. These have been de- 
 nominated, by the learned Dr. Campbell, com- 
 pound Active Verbs. To laugh, for example, is a 
 Neuter Verb, it cannot therefore admit a passive 
 voice, as, " I am laughed." To laugh at may be 
 considered as an Active Transitive Verb ; for it 
 not only admits an orjjective case after it, in the 
 active voice, but is likewise construed as a Passive 
 Verb; as, '' I am laughed at.'* Here an obvious 
 analogy obtains between these two, and the verbs 
 video, derkko, 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 
 
120 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 'English. The only grammatical criterion in our 
 language between an Active, and a Neuter Verb, 
 is this ; if the Verb admits an objective case after 
 itj either with or without a preposition, to express 
 the subject or object of the energy, the Verb may 
 be grammatically considered as a Compound Ac- 
 tive 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 Pas- 
 sive Verb. We cannot say, she smiled hiniy or he 
 was smiled. To smile on, according to the princi- 
 ple 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- 
 dica'ble of any subject, must be predicated as 
 either past, or present, or future, every action, 
 energy, or state of being, coming under one or 
 other of these predicaments, hence arises the uti- 
 lity of Tenses, to express the times, or relative or- 
 der of their existence. In regard to the number of 
 these Tenses, necessary to render a language 
 complete, grammarians have been xSon>ewhat di- 
 vided in opinion. 
 
 * Conformably to general opinion, I here consider the Englisjj, 
 language as having a passive voice. How far this opinion ig 
 w«ll founded, shall be the subject of future inquiry. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 121 
 
 In our language we have two simple Tenses, 
 the Present and the Preterperfect. The latter 
 is generally formed by adding </ or ed to the Pre- 
 sent, as love, loved; fear, feared. That the suffix 
 here is a contraction for did, as Mr. Tooke sup- 
 poses, I can easily imagine; thus, fear, fear-did^ 
 feared, or did fear ; but the question returns, 
 whence comes the termination ed in doed, from 
 which t/iJ itself is contracted ? To this query no 
 solution has been offered. It seems'indeed to have 
 escaped the attention of the learned author*. 
 
 *' * Some," says Dr. Beattie, " will not allow any thing to be 
 '^ a Tense, but what, in one inflected word, expresses an affir- 
 '' mation 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 amaveram be a tense, why 
 *' should not amatus fueram? If I heard be a tense, I did hear^ 
 ^' / hate heard, and I shall hear, must be equally entitled ta 
 *' 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 
 at variance with itself. He admits, that " we have no cases in 
 " English, except the addition of s in the genitive," M'hence 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 
 
If 2 ETYMdLOGY. 
 
 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 vrays, 
 
 farmed in the same manner. When he asks, therefore, if ama- 
 xeram be a tenlsiei^why should not amatas fucram be a tense also ? 
 the answer on his own principles is sufficiently obvious, namely, 
 because the one is formed by inflexion, the other by combination. 
 And, I would ask, if ^zwo^'^ be a genitive case, why, according 
 to his theory, is not of a king entitled to the same appellation ? 
 I apprehend, the answer he mast give, consist^^ntly with his 
 opinion respecting cases, will sufficiently explain why amaveram, 
 and I heardf are tenses, while amatuifvcramy and / had heard, 
 are not. 
 
 Nay further, it 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 
 I 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 
 king, of a king, to or for a king, a kiiig^ O king, ui h, from^ 
 in or bi/ a king ? This surely would be to perplex, not to sim- 
 plify. 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 ex- 
 pressed by prepositions, then indeed, though they might over- 
 whelm us with the number, we should at least acknowledge the 
 consistency of their theory. But to adopt the principle of in- 
 flexion in one case, and reject it in another precisely parallel, 
 involves an inconsistency, which must excite amazement. Nil 
 fuit sic unquam imfur sibi. Why do not these gentlemen fa. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 123 
 
 they may be spoken of as diversified in their mode 
 of production. Hence arises another accident of 
 Verbs, called a Mood, expressing the mode or 
 manner of existence. These modes are, in some 
 
 TOur 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 en* 
 rich us with a first and second Aorist, and a Paulo Post Future, 
 and, if this should not suffice, they will find in Hebrew a rich 
 supply of Verbal forms. We should then have Kal and Niphhal, 
 Pihhel and Pyhhal, Hiphhiland Hophhal, Hithpahhel and Hoth- 
 pahhcl, and numerous other species and designations. What a 
 wonderful acquisition this wou;d be to our stock of moods, 
 tenses, and voices. 
 
 One of these grammarians indeed, reverencing the old maxim, 
 Est modus in rtbv.s, 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 bound- 
 ary between right and wrong, propriety and impropriety, is 
 once passed, it is extremely difficult to prescribe jimifs to the 
 transgression ; and that arbitrary distinctions, resting on no 
 other foundation than prejudice or fashion, must ever be 
 vague, questionable, and capricious. These are truths, of which, 
 I am persuaded, the author, to whom I allude, needs not to be 
 reminded. But it may be necessary to impress on his attention, 
 another truth equally incontestible, that no authority, how re« 
 spcctable soever, can sanction inconsistency ; and that great 
 names, though they may be honoured by ignorance and credu- 
 lity with the most obsequious homage, will never pass with the 
 intelligent reader, either for demonstration, or for argument. 
 This author ia defence of his theory of Cases and Tenses, 
 
^24 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 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 Indicative. The Greeks and 
 
 obseryes, " 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 pttitio pririm 
 cipii, too palpable to escape the detection of the most inat- 
 tentive reader. He proceeds. *' But in the Greek and Latin 
 '' grammars, we uniformly find, that some of the Tenses are 
 " formed by variations 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, alFects 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 shew, why, notwithstanding this occasional identity 
 of termination, six cases are admitted in all the declensions ; but 
 the subject is foreign to our present purpose. It is important, 
 however, to observe, what has 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 
 " principal, or the participle and an auxiliary, constitute a regu- 
 <^' lar Tense in the Greek and Latin languages." This, as I 
 have remarked, is a palpable petitio principii. It is to say, 
 that because amatnsfueram is a Tense, therefore, " I had been 
 *' loved" is a Tense also. The author forgets, that the pre, 
 mises must be true, to render the conclusion legitimate. He 
 forgets, that a circular argument is a mere eophism, because it 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 125 
 
 Romans expressed by inflexions the most common 
 modes of action or existence, as conditionality, 
 power, contingency, certainty, liberty, and duty. 
 In our language they are denoted by Auxiliary 
 
 Verbs, 
 
 assumes as true, what it is intended to prove. Whether amatm 
 fuerarn be, or be not, a Tense, is the very point in question ; 
 and so far ara I from admitting the affirmative as unquestionable, 
 that I contend, it has no more claim to the designation of Tense, 
 than Ecro^aai lslv(pctj; — no more claim than amandum est mihty 
 amari oportet, or amandus sum, have to be called Moods. 
 Here I must request the reader to bear in mind the necessary dis- 
 tindtion 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, zvilk a king, by a king, at a king, 
 about a king, &c. &c. ? The mode is certainly applicable, 
 whatever may be the consequences 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 laBguages." And why not ? ^ 
 Is the number of cases in English, or in 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 th« English language. This, it may be said, would 
 encumber our Grammar, and embarrass the learner. This is, 
 
125 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 The Englisli Verb has only one voice, namely, 
 the Active. Dr. Lowth, and most other gram- 
 marians, have assigned it two voices, Active and 
 Passive. Lovvth has, in this instance, not only 
 
 indeed, an argument against the expediency of the application, 
 btit not against the practicability of the principle in qiiestioM. 
 Besides, it may be asked, why does the author confine his lore 
 of simplification to eases ? 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 encum- 
 brance, 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 languagei, 
 *' which in these points do not suit the peculiar nature of our own, 
 " but differ considerably from it, we may naturally expect gram.. 
 ^^ matical schemes, that are neither perspicuous nor consistent, 
 '* and which will tend more to perplex, than inform the learner." 
 Had I been reprehending the author's own practice, I should 
 hare employed nearly the same language. How^ these observa- 
 tions, certainly judicious and correct, can be reconciled with 
 the doctrine of the writer himself, I am utterly at a loss to con- 
 ceive. His ideas of consistency and simplicity, are to me incom- 
 prehensible. He rejects prepositional cases for the sake of sim- 
 plicity, and he admits various moods and tenses, equally foreign 
 to the genius of our language, in order to avoid perplexity. 
 Surely this is not a '' consistent scheme.^' Nay, he tells ws, 
 *' that on the principle of imitating other languages, in names 
 " and forms, (I beseech the reader io mark the words,) witlioTtt 
 '' a correspondence in nature and idiom, 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 
 eljscrvation. argument surely becomes unnecessary. 
 
ETTMOLOGY. 127 
 
 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, 
 
 I have here, the reader will perceive," assailed the author's 
 doctrine merely on the ground of inconsistency. It is liable, 
 however, to objections of a more serious nature; and were I 
 not apprehensive, that I hare 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. Th« author remarks, that to take the Tenses, as they are 
 commonly received, and endeavour to ascertain their nature and 
 their diiFerences, '^ 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 ttie 
 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 oiir English grammarians, duly attentive t» 
 the simplicity of that language, whose grammar he was exhibit- 
 ing, assigned only two tenses to the Emglish Verb. He says, 
 Nos duo tantum habemus tanpora^ Frxsens et Prateritum ; 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 intro- 
 duction of names and rules foreign to the English idiom. Cur 
 hujusmodij casuum^ gcneriim, modorum, temporumque fictani et 
 in eptam plane cungenem introdvfiamus citra omnem necessitatetUy 
 aut in ipsa lingua fimdamentum^ nulla ratio suadet. And so 
 little was he aware, that th« introduction of technical names for 
 things, which have 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 confusion and perplexity, Quee 
 (iimtiUa prcecepta) a lingua nostra sunt prorsus aliena, adeoque 
 confusiunem potius et ol/scuritatem pariunt quam explicationi in* 
 sovinnt. 
 
128 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 in Verbs, those, which are not formed by inflex- 
 ion, but by the addition of Prepositions and Aux- 
 iliary Verbs, there is equal reason for rejecting a 
 Passive Voice, if it be not formed by variety of 
 termination. Were I to ask him, why he denies 
 from a king to be an Ablative Case, or / 7nay love 
 to be the Potential Mcod, 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, there can be no good reason for as- 
 signing to our language a Passive Voice, when that 
 voice is formed, not by inflexion, but by an Aux- 
 iliary Verb. Doceor is truly a Passive Voice ; but 
 / am taught cannot, without impropriety, be con- 
 sidered 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 In- 
 dicative Mood, present tense, of the verb io 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 VL(\m\t pleased to be a Passive Parti- 
 ciple or not ^for this point I shall afterwards ex- 
 amine) 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 in- 
 consistencies do our grammarians run, from a 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 129 
 
 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 
 assigning to English *Verhs no more than two 
 tenses and one mood. For, if we consider the 
 matter, not metaphysically, but grammatically, 
 and regard those only as Moods, which are diver- 
 sified by inflexion (and, as Lowth himself ob- 
 serves, as far as grammar is concerned, there can 
 be no others) we find, that our language has only 
 one Mood, and two Tenses. 
 
 This doctrine, in respect to the Cases, is very 
 generally admitted. For, though the Greeks and 
 Romans expressed the different relations by variety 
 of inflexion, which they termed Cases, it does not 
 follow, that we are to acknowledge the same num- 
 ber of cases as they had, when these relations are 
 expressed in English, not by inflexions, but by 
 prepositions, or words, significant of these rela- 
 tions. The Latins would not have acknowledged 
 absque fruct a without fruit, as forming a seventh 
 case, though they acknowledged y/-wc/2^, 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 tlie combination of words to a 
 king, or of Ablative Case to the expression from a 
 kwgj to be a palpable impropriety. Our language 
 
 K 
 
ISO ETYMOLOGY. ' 
 
 knows no such cases ; nor would an Engtishmari^ 
 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 
 termination to discriminate them ? The distinc- 
 tion of circumstances, respecting the modes of ex- 
 istence, 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 ablatvcus, or perfnii me to gOy the 
 first person singular of the Imperative Mood. If> 
 indeed, he were somewhat acquainted with Latin, 
 he might, in the true spirit of modern gramma- 
 rians, 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 o^eam in Latin. With 
 the most correct knowledge, however, of his own 
 language only, he could never be seduced into this 
 absurdity. A Httle reflection indeed might teach 
 him, that even eam in Latin is an elliptical expres- 
 sion for sine ut eam, the word eam itself denoting 
 neither intreaty, nor command. 
 
 Intruth, vve may as reasonably contend, that our 
 language has all the Tenses, which are to be 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 131 
 
 found in Greek and Latin, because, by the aid of 
 auxiliaries and definitives, we contrive to express 
 what they denoted by one word, as to contend 
 that we have a Potential, an Optative or Imperative 
 Mood, or a Passive Voice, because by auxiliaries, 
 or variety of arrangement, we can express the cir* 
 cumstances of power, liberty, duty, passion, &c* 
 No grammarian has yet gone so far as to affirm, 
 that we have in English a Paulo post future, be- 
 cause 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 uiinam legeres signifies, *' 1 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 va- 
 rieties of mood, and two voices, because by the 
 aid of auxiliary words^ and definitive terms, we 
 contrive to express 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 ca- 
 pacity of expression, is concerned, than we have 
 variety of termination to denote these different ac- 
 cessary ideas. 
 
 As the terminations of Verbs in most languages 
 are varied by Tense and Mood, so are they also 
 varied according as the subject is of the first, 
 
 k2 
 
, 1^^ ETYxMOLOGY. 
 
 second, or third person. Thus, in the only two 
 Tenses that we have, in English, namely, the 
 Present and the Preterperfect Tenses, the second 
 person singular of each is formed from the first, 
 by adding si or est, as / love^ Thou loxest, I loved, 
 Thou lovcdst ; and the third person singular of the 
 present is formed by adding^, 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 w^ith 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, imply- 
 ing possession. The others are, shall, zvill, may, 
 can, &c. I begin with the verb to be, 
 
 INDICATIVE MOOD. 
 
 Present Tense. 
 *Sing. I am Thou art He, she, or it is 
 
 Plur. We are Ye or you are They are. 
 
 * I be Thou beest He, she, or it be 
 
 We be Ye or you be They be 
 arc obsolete, unless ia the two cases hereafter mentioned. Thus, 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 133 
 
 Sino". I was 
 
 Preterite, 
 Thou wast* 
 
 Plur. We were Ye or you were 
 
 He was 
 They were. 
 
 Sing. 
 Plur. 
 
 Imperfect Conditional 
 
 I were Thou wert He were 
 
 We were Ye or you were They were. 
 
 Infinitit^e. 
 To be. 
 
 instead of saying, *^ Many there he^ that go in thereat," ^ve 
 should now say, " Many there are," . We find them however 
 used with the conjunctions if and tho-itgh ; 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." Voi^e. That this was his notion, the author had pre- 
 viously declared ; the introductory 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." 
 iwift, '* The paper, although it be written with spirit, yet 
 " would have scarce cleared a shilling." S-wift. In the two last 
 sentences, the meaning is affirmative; nothing conditional or 
 contingent being implied. 
 
 * Though the authority of Milton, Dryden, Pope, and Swift, 
 can be pleaded in favour of aerf, 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 vert to the Imperfect 
 Coa itional. 
 
134 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 It may seem inconsisteiut with the opinion, which 
 I have delivered concerning Moods, to assign an 
 Infinitive to this Verb ; and the existence of this 
 Infinitive may appear, perhaps, a sufficient refu- 
 tation 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 natural 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 do^ to be, 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 plant as the name of 
 a vegetable set in the ground. To express the act 
 of setting it, they would say, do plants that is, 
 act plant. The letters d and t being nearly allied, 
 it is easy to conceive how the word do, by a va- 
 riation very natural and common to all languages, 
 mi^'ht be changed into to \ and thus the word /o 
 prefixed to a Noun would express the correspondent 
 energy or action. 
 
 In what light then are we to consider the phrase 
 to plant, termed an Infinitive, or to what class of 
 words is it reducible ? Previously to my answer-' 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 135 
 
 ing this question, it is necessary to remind you, 
 that a Verb joined to a Noun forms a sentence ; 
 that affirmation 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 charac- 
 teristic, and it is immediately confounded with the 
 Adjective, or the Participle. It is its power of 
 predication only, which constitutes it a distinct 
 part of speech, and discriminates it from every 
 other. Firsapity 3indvir est sapiens, are equivalent 
 expressions. Cancel the assertion, and the Verb 
 is lost. The expression becomes vir sapiens^ *' a 
 *"' wise man." This opinion, I am persuaded, re- 
 quires only to be examined, to be universally 
 adopted. If this be the case, the Infinitive, which 
 affirms nothing, cannot, without impropriety, be 
 deemed a Verb. It expresses merely an action, 
 passion, or state abstractedly. Hence many gram- 
 marians 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 Sub- 
 stantive, having frequently an Adjective joined 
 with it, and subject to the government of Verbs 
 and Prepositions. This opinion has been lately con- 
 troverted by a writer of considerable eminence 
 as a Latin scholar. But, after ex.-mining the 
 memoir with attention, I take upon me to affirm, 
 that not a single example can be produced, wherein 
 the Infinitive, as used by the Greeks and Romans, 
 
 2 
 
l36 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 miglit not be supplied by the substitution of a 
 Noun. Wlierefore, admitting the established 
 principle, voces valent significatione, there cannot 
 exist a doubt, that the Infinitive, which may, in 
 all cashes, be supj)lied 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 Parti- 
 ciple^ then the Infinitive, as it can predicate no- 
 thing, and joined to a Substantive makes no sen- 
 tence, cannot therefore be deemed a Verb. When 
 I say, kgere est facile, to read is easy^ it is obvious 
 that there is only one sentence in each of these 
 expressions. But lilegcre (to read) were a Verb, 
 as w^ell as est (is) then there would be two Verbs 
 and also two affirmations, for affirmation is insepa- 
 rable 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 considering the 
 Infinitive as a distinct mood, that they entirely 
 exclude it from the appellation of Verb*. 
 
 * If (lie expression of time nith an attribute*^ be sufficient to 
 ^' make a Vc^Ij, ihe I^vrficiplc must be a Verb too, because it 
 *" signifies time also. But the essence of a Verb consisting in 
 *^ predication, wiiich is peculiar to it, and incommunicable to 
 ^' all other parts of spcedi, and these Infinitives ne?er predi- 
 ^* eating, they cannot be Vt-rbs. Again, the essence of a Noun 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 137 
 
 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 character 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 pro- 
 scribe terms, which have been long familiar to us, 
 and, by immemorial possession, 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 identical. For, if the doc- 
 trine 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 
 considered, that the present Indicative of this 
 
 ^' consisting in its so subsisting in the understanding, as that it 
 *' may be the subject of predication, and these Infinitives being 
 '' all capahJe of so subsisting, they must of necessity be nouns.'" 
 R, Johnson's Gram. Comment, 
 
JS8 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Verb was originally be as well as am ; though th6 
 former be now in a state of obsolescence, or rather 
 entirely obsolete. 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 
 
 Preterperfect. 
 
 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 Yc or you have They have 
 
 * The words did, hast^ hath, kas, kady shaliy wilty qre evi- 
 dently, as Wallis observes, contracted for doed^ havefh, haves, 
 havedy shalVst^ mWst. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 139 
 
 Preterperfect. 
 
 Sing. I had Thou hadst He had 
 
 Plur. We had Ye or you had They had. 
 
 Participles, 
 
 Present Having 
 
 Past Had. 
 
 Liberty is expressed by the Verb 
 MAY. 
 
 INDICATIVE MOOD. 
 
 Prescfit. 
 
 Sing. I may Thou niayest He may 
 
 Plur. We may Ye or you may They may.* 
 
 Preterperfect. 
 
 Sing. I might Thou mightest He might 
 Pkir. We might Ye or you might They might 
 
 * This yerb is derived from the Saxon Magan, posse, the pre- 
 «ent of which is Ic mcrg^ and the preterite Ic miht. Hence als<j 
 Jc mot, 
 
 ** F^ as the fisshe, if it be drie, 
 
 *^ Mo^ in defaute of water die." (Goxver.) 
 
J 40 ETYMOLOOy. 
 
 Power or ability is expressed by 
 
 CAN. ' 
 
 INDICATIVE M00r>. 
 
 Fresent. 
 
 Sing. I can Thou canst He can 
 
 Piur. We can Ye or you can They can.* 
 
 Frcttrperftct. 
 
 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. 
 
 fSing. I shall Thou shalt He shall 
 
 Plur. We shall Ye or you shall They shall. 
 
 ♦ This verb is derived from cunnan, scire^ posse, sapere. 
 Hence the word cunning, 
 
 f This Verb is, unquestionably, a derivative from the Saxon 
 J^ceaJ, I owe or I oughty and was originally of the same import. 
 I shall denoted " it is my duty," and was precisely synonimous 
 ■liftth debeo in Latin.- Chaucer says, *' The faith I shall to God ;'* 
 that is, S' the faith I owe to God." '« Thou shalt not kill," 
 or '• thou oughtcst not to kill/* In this sense, shall is a present 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 141 
 
 Preter perfect. 
 
 Sing. I should Thou shouldst He should ' 
 Plur. We should Ye should They should. 
 
 Tense, and denoted present duty or obligation. But, as all 
 duties and all commands, though present, in respect to their ob- 
 ligation and authority, must be future, in regard to their execu- 
 tion, so by a natural transition, observable in most languages, 
 this word, significant of present duty, came to be a note of fu- 
 ture 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 cafi does to couid, maij to mighty 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 ,«,sAAw 
 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. I 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 ?'* 
 T'hou shall love, *' I command thee to love;" '' it is permitted 
 ^' thee to love," " it will be, that thou must love.'' Shalt thorn 
 love? ** Will it be, that thou must love V '* Will it be per- 
 " mittcd thee to love ?'' He shall love. ''It will be, that he 
 *' must love." '* It is commanded that he love." Shall he 
 love? " Is it permitted him to love ?" The plural persons 
 follow the signification of the singular. 
 
14!^ ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Volition and Futurity are expressed by the Verb 
 10 will. 
 
 Present, 
 
 Sing. I will Thou wilt He will 
 
 Plur. We will . Ye or you will They will.* 
 
 I transcribe also the same author's explanation of the Verb I 
 wilL I will come; "- I am willing to come," " I am deter- 
 ^'^ mined to come. ^* Thou wilt come, *' It must be, that thou 
 *' must come," importing necessity ; ^' or it shall be, that thou 
 " shalt come,'' importing choice. Wilt thou come ? " Hast 
 *^ thou determined to come V* importing choice. He will come, 
 " He is resolyed 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 im- 
 port. 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 willan, f f//f, the 
 preterite of which is Ic wold, " . , 
 
ETYMOLOGY, * l43 
 
 Fi^eterperfect, 
 
 Sing. I would Thou wouldst He would 
 Plur, We would Ye or you would They would. 
 
 ^ Priestley and Lowth, who have in this been 
 followed by most other grammarians, call the 
 Tenses, viay, 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 affirmation ; and for these 
 two reasons. 
 
 1st. Their formation seems to indicate that they 
 are Preterites Indicative, proceeding from their 
 respective Presents, in the same manner as did 
 from do, had from have, and having therefore the 
 same unconditional meaning. Thus, / may, is 
 equivalent to, "• I am at liberty ;" I might, to '' I 
 **■ was at liberty;" lean, means ** I am able;" 
 I could, '* I was able;" I will ^ *' lam wilHng;" 
 I would, '^ I was willing." 
 
 2dly, They are used to express unconditional 
 meaning. If we say, *' This might prove fatal 
 ^' to your interest," the assertion of thepossibihty 
 of the event, is as unconditional, as absolute as, 
 '^ this may prove fatal to your interest.'' '^ This, 
 '^ if you do it, a;i// ruin your cause," is precisely 
 equivalent to, ** This, were you to do it, would 
 
144 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 '' ruin your cause," equivalent as far, at least, as 
 the unconditional affirmation of the consequence 
 of a supposed action is involved*. ** I may write 
 '* if I choose/' is not more absolute than " I 
 ** might write if I chose." If I say, "' I might 
 " have gone to the continent,*' the expression is as 
 unconditional, as, ^' I had it in my power," *^ I 
 " was at liberty to go to the continent." '' Can 
 '* you construe Lycophroti ?" *' I cannot now; 
 '* but once I could." " May you do as you 
 *^ please?" '* Not now ; but once I might.*' Is there 
 any conditionality implied in the latter clause of 
 each of these answers ? Not the least. They are 
 unconditionally assertive. The formation of these 
 
 * The preterite would is frequently employed, like the Latiti 
 pretcrimperfect tense, to. denote what is usual or customary. 
 Thus, 
 
 Quintilio siqued recitares, Corrige, sodes, 
 Hoc, aiebat, et hoc : melius te posse negares. 
 Bis terque expertum frustra ; delere jubebat. 
 
 Si defendere delictum, quam Yertere m^lles^ 
 Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanera. 
 
 Horace. 
 
 where, the verbs aiebat, jubebat, insumebat, may be translated^ 
 " hie would say," " he would desire,'' " he would spend.'* 
 Thus also in English, " 
 
 Pleas'd with my adn^iration, and the fim 
 His speech struck from me, the old man would shake 
 His years away, and act his young encounters, 
 Then having shew'd his wounds, htH sit him down. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 145 
 
 Tenses, therefore, being analogous to that of 
 Preterites Indicative, and their import in these 
 examples, as in many others, which might be ad- 
 duced, being unconditional and absolute, lam 
 inclined to consider them as Preterites Indicative, 
 agreeably to their form, and as properly uncondi- 
 tional in respect to signification. 
 
 I observe, however, that though might, couldy 
 would, should, are preterite Tenses, they are fre- 
 quently employed to denote present time*; but in 
 such examples care must be taken, that congruity 
 of Tense be preserved, and that the subsequent be 
 expressed 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 ex 
 pressed by the Preterite, and the inclination is 
 denoted by the same Tense. 
 
 Before I proceed to shew how these auxiliary 
 •Verbs are joined with others, to express the in- 
 tended accessary ideas, I shall offer a few obser- 
 vations on the Participle. 
 
 * In Latin the Imperfect Potential is frequently employed in 
 the same manner to denote present time; thus, ircm si vellem 
 expresses present liberty and inclination. And the same analogy 
 obtains in Latin ; for we say either, tu, si hie sis, aliter sentias, 
 pr tv^ si hie esses, aliter sentires. In such examples, it is in- 
 tended io 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 erents. 
 
146 KTYMOLOGY. 
 
 CHAP. VL 
 
 A PARTICIPLE is a part of speech derived 
 froH] a Verb, agreeing' with its primitive in denot- 
 ing action, being or suffering, but differing from 
 it in, this, that the Participle impHes no affirm- 
 ation* 
 
 * If it should be said, that the Participle may properly be 
 considered as a Verb, since it implies an attribute with time, I 
 would ask, .whether ff/?/r7wa/zow, the most important of all cir- 
 cumstances, and without which no communication could take 
 place, should be overlooked in our classification of words agree- 
 ably 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 t^^ 
 o{ affirynafion. 
 
 . If it should be objected, that the Participle, like the Verb, 
 governs a case, I would ask, because /ec^/o, tactio, and many 
 other Substantives, are found sometimes joined with an accusa- 
 tive 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 governmei'it of a case be deemed the criterion of a Verb, 
 what name shall we assign to those Verbs which have no regimen 
 at ail ? If any species of words is to be distinguished from an- 
 , other, the characteristic difi'erencc must surely belong, hot to 
 part only, but to the whole. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 147 
 
 There are two Participles ; the Present, ending 
 in ing, as reading; and the Perfect or Past, gene- 
 rally ending in ^or ed, as heard, loved. 
 
 The Present Participle denotes the relatively 
 present, or the contemporary continuation of an 
 3<ction, 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 iij the preceding example, denotes here 
 the continuation of a state of suffering, or being 
 acted upon; and the Verb may be considered as 
 passive. This Participle, therefore, denoting 
 either action or passion, cannot with propriety be 
 considered, as it has been by some grammarians, 
 as entirely an Active Participle. Its distinctive 
 and real character is, that in point of time it de- 
 notes the relatively present, and may therefore be 
 called the Present Participle; and, in regard to 
 action or passion, it" denotes their continuance or 
 incompletion, and may therefore be termed Im- 
 perfect In respect to time, therefore, it is pre- 
 sent; in respect to the action or state of being, 
 it is continued or imperfect. But whether it ex- 
 press action or passion, can be ascertained only by 
 inquiring, whether the.subject be acting or suffer- 
 ing; and this is a question, which judgment only 
 can decide, the Participle itself not determining, 
 the point. If we say, '' the prisoner was burning,'* 
 L 2 • 
 
148 ETYMOLOGY., 
 
 our knowledge of the subject only can enable us 
 to determine, whether the prisoner was active or 
 passive ; w hether he was employing fire to con- 
 sume, or was himself consuming by fire. 
 
 The other Participle, ending generally in ed, or 
 d, has been called by some grammarians, the 
 Passive Participle, in contradistinction to the one 
 which we have now been considering, and whJch 
 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 be, it forms the passive voice.'* If the 
 reason here assigned justify its denomination as a 
 passive Participle, there exists the same reason for, 
 calling it an Active Participle; for, with the Verb 
 to have, it forms some of the compound Tenses of 
 the active voice. The truth is, that as those gram* 
 marians have erred, who consider the Participle 
 in ing as an active Participle, when it, in fact, de- 
 notes 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 at- 
 tention will suffice to shew, 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 iiig does not 
 belong to the active voice only, but expresses 
 merely the continuation of any act, passion, or 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 149 
 
 state of being, analogy would incline us to infer» ' 
 that the Participle in ed, which denotes the com- 
 pletion of an act, or state of being, cannot belong 
 exclusively to the passive voice; and I conceive, 
 that on enquiry we shall find this to be the case. 
 If I say, *' he had concealed a poniard under his 
 ** coat,'* the Participle here wouhl be considered 
 as active. If I say, " he had a poniard concealed 
 *' under his cloaths," the i^articiple would be re- 
 garded as passive. Does not this prove, that this 
 Participle is ambiguous, that it properly belongs 
 to neither voice, and that the context, or arrange- 
 ment only can determine, whether 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 cloaths," it is impossible 
 to determine whether the Participle be active or 
 passive ; that is, whether the Verb had be here 
 merely an auxiliary Verb, or be synonimous with 
 the Verb to possess. If the former be intended, the 
 syntactical collocation is, '' she had concealed 
 *' which (dagger) under her cloaths :" if the 
 latter, the grammatical order is, *' she had which 
 '* dagger concealed :" and it requires but little 
 discernment to perceive, that ** she had concealed 
 " a dagger/* and ** had a dagger concealed," are 
 expressions by no noeans precisely equivalent. 
 
 I need not here remind the classical scholar, 
 that the Latins had two distinct forms of expres- 
 
150 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 sion, to mark this diversity; the one, quern abdide^ 
 rat, and the other, quern abdit em hahehat. The 
 latter is the phraseology of Livy, describing the 
 suicide of Lucretia. His words, if translatedi 
 '* which she had concealed," become ambiguous ; 
 for this is equally a translation of quern abdiderat. 
 It is observable also, that the phrase quern abdiderat 
 would not imply, that the dagger was in the pos- 
 session of Lucretia at the time. 
 
 The Participle in ed, therefore, I consider to be 
 perfectly analogous to the Participle in mg, and 
 used like it in either an active or a passive sense, 
 belonging therefore neither to the one voice nor 
 the other exclusively, 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 conjugJition of 
 our Verbs, many grammarians have implicitly and 
 servilely copied the Latin Grammar, transferring 
 into our language the names both of Tqnses and 
 Moods, which have formally no existence in Eng- 
 lish. I may burn, is denominated, by the author 
 of the British Grammar, the Present Subjunctive; 
 I might burn, the Imperfect Subjunctive ; 1 may 
 have burned, the Preterperfect, and so on. This 
 is directly repugnant to the simplicity of our lan- 
 suao'c, 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 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 15 i 
 
 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 
 existing in the language itself 
 
 I purpose, therefore, in exhibiting the conjuga- 
 tion of the English Verb, to give the simple 
 Tenses, as the only ones belonging to our language; 
 and then shew, how, by the aid of other words 
 combined with these, we contrive to express 
 the requisite modifications, and various accessary 
 ideas. 
 
 Indicative Present. Preter, Part, Perf, 
 Write * Wrote Written.' 
 
 Present Tense, 
 
 S. I write Thou writest 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. 
 
ii52 ETVMOLOGV. 
 
 ^' Saul, why persecutest thou me?" Bible, 
 
 ** This day begins the woe, others must end.'' ShakespeariL 
 
 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 pm- 
 " sueth.** 
 
 *^ Through tatter'd cloaths small Tices do appear; 
 
 *' Robes and furr'd gowns hide all." Shakespeare, 
 
 Preta^perfect. 
 
 S. 1 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 ttvo Tenses in our language 
 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 arc 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 ac- 
 tion ; whereas this denotes, that the action is 
 continued and imperfect. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 153 
 
 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 gene- 
 rally implies doubt or contradiction on the part of 
 the person addressed, to remove which the asser- 
 tion is enforced by the auxiliary Verb. In respect 
 to time and action, it is precisely the same with 
 I 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 in a transpositive language. Dimeperdant 
 quin te amem^ is an expression comparatively exa*- 
 nimate and insipid. 
 
 Preterite, Indefinite, and Emphatic. 
 
 S. I did write Thou didst write He^lid 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 *' 1 have 
 ** been told, that you have slighted me, and said, 
 
154: ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 '' 1 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. 
 
 Prefer. Imp. <§c. cojithiued. 
 
 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 proceed- 
 ing, or going on, at a time past either specified or 
 imphed, as, *^ I was writing wlien you called," 
 
 Preterperfect, 
 
 S. I hare Thou hast He has 
 
 P. We have You hare They hare 
 
 > written. 
 
 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 
 Participle, It signifies a perfect action either 
 newly finished, or in a time, of which there is 
 some part to elapse ; or an action whose conse- 
 quences extend to the present. In short, it clearly 
 refers to present time. This, indeed, the compo- 
 sition 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 uncouth 
 and inelegant; but, how awkward soever it may 
 appear, the Tense is unquestionably thus resolvable. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 155 
 
 ist, 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.*' 
 
 Sdly, 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 gramma- 
 rians, 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 tinie, and the 
 former rejects it. Those, who reason in this man- 
 ner, seem to me not only chargeable with a perver- 
 sion 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 Defini- 
 tive to give it precision ; but that, which of itself 
 is already definite. If, therefore, ^' I wrote," not 
 only admits, but even requires, the subjunction 
 of a defining term, or clause, to render the time 
 definite and precise, ifc cannot surely be itself a 
 definite Tense. Besides, tliey appear to me to 
 reason in this case inconsistently with their own 
 principles. For they call, / am w;riting, a definite 
 
 2 
 
156 xTYMoLoer. 
 
 Tense; and why? but because it defines thcf 
 action to be imperfect, 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 / ham written, is a definite 
 Tense, and I wrote, indefinite; or they must, 
 contrary to their own principles, cd\\ I am w)iting 
 indefinite. 
 
 Dr. Arthur Browne, in an Essay on the Greek 
 Tensest, contends, that *' I wrote," is the Perfect 
 ^ Definite, and I have written the Perfect Indefinite. 
 " Iwrote^'' says he, *' is not intelligible without 
 ** referring to some precise point of timCj e. g. 
 *•' When I was in France. Why then does Dr. 
 *' Beattie say, I 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, ^' I 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 vvrite to that man.' ' 1 have 
 '* written to him.* The sense is complete; the ex- 
 *' pression is not supposed to refer to any parti- 
 *' cular time, and does not ^lecessarily elicit any 
 
 * Here I would be understood to reason on their own princi- 
 ples; for the truth is, that eaah of these Tenses admits a definitiTe. 
 t See the Transactions of the R. I. Academy, Vol. III. 
 
/ ETYMOLOGY. 15? 
 
 *' farther enquiry. But if B answers, ' I wrote 
 *' to him/ he is of course supposed to have in his 
 ** mind a reference to some particular time, and it 
 *' naturally calls on A to ask when ? Is it not 
 *^ clear then, that / wrote refers to some particu- 
 " lar time, and cannot have been called Indefi- 
 ^' nite, as Dr. Beattie supposes, from its not 
 *' doing so ?*' 
 
 Dr. Browne's argument is chargeable with in- 
 consistency. He says, tha,t heca,\ise I /tavezerltt en 
 elicits no farther enquFry, and renders the sense 
 complete, it denotes no determinate time ; and 
 that I wrote refers to a particular time, prompting* 
 to farther enquiry. This at least I take to be 
 the scope of his reasoning; for, if it be not from 
 their occasioning, or not occasioning farther inter- 
 rogation, that he deduces his conclusion concern- 
 ing the nature of these Tenses, his iirgument 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, 1 should call it an 
 Indefinite Tense. He admits, that I wrote refers 
 to time past in general, and that it requires some 
 farther specification to render the time known, as 
 I wrote yesterday. In this case, surely it is no't 
 the term wrote, but yesterday, which defines the 
 precise time ; the Tense itself expressing nothings 
 but past time in general. 
 
 For the same reason, if, as he acknowledges. 
 
 1 
 
158 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 I have written, elicits no farther enquiry, it is an 
 argument that the sense is complete, and the time 
 sufficiently understood by the hearer. Besides, 
 is it not somewhat paradoxical to say, that a Tense, 
 which renders farther explanation unnecessary, 
 and the sense complete, thus satisfying the hearen 
 is Indefinite? and that a Tense, which does not 
 satisfy the hearer, but renders farther enquiry neces- 
 sary, is Definite ? This, to say the least, is some^ 
 what extraordinary. 
 
 The observations of Lord Monboddo on this 
 subject, are not inapplicable to the pohit in ques- 
 tion : 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 Present ? 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, ap- 
 '' pears from the tenor of the discourse. '' 1 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 tbe commencement of its contrary. Hence 
 
ETYMOLOOr. 159 
 
 this Tense has been eniployed to denote an attri- 
 bute the contrary to that, which is expressed by 
 the Verb. Thus the Latins used vi^rit, *' he hath 
 ^Mived," to denote '* he is dead;'' fidt Ilium, 
 " Troy has been,*' to signify, 7roy is no more, 
 A similar phraseology obtains in English, thus, 
 ['- I hcwe been young," is equivalent to, ** now I 
 '* am old/' 
 
 Prefer Imperfect. 
 
 S. I have been Thou hast been He has been -i 
 
 P. We have been You have been They have been j ®* 
 
 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, 
 
 S. I had Tkou hadst He had 
 
 P. We had Ye or you had They had 
 
 > wri 
 
 ritten, 
 
 This Tense denotes that an action was perfected, 
 before another action was done. 
 
 Pliisquam Pi^eterite Imperfect. 
 
 S. I had been Thou hadst been He had been -\ 
 
 P. We had been Ye had been They had been \ ^'"^*"^- 
 
 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, before another action took place. 
 
160 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 or before it was perfected, as *^ I had been writ- 
 '* ing before you arrived." 
 
 Future Indefinite, 
 
 S. I shall Thou Shalt He shall •> 
 
 P, We shall Ye or you shall They shall j ^"*®- 
 
 or 
 S. I will Thou wilt He will 
 
 P. We will Ye or you will They will 
 
 } 
 
 write. 
 
 These compound Tenses denote the futurity of 
 an action indefinitely, without any reference to its 
 completion. The meaning of the several persons 
 has been already explained. 
 
 Future, Imp. Pi^ogressive. 
 
 I shall or will be We shall or will be 
 
 Thou shalt or wilt be Ye shall or will be J* writing. 
 
 He shall or will be They shall or will be 
 
 7 . 
 
 f wril 
 
 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, 
 tvhile the latter expresses its imperfection and pro^ 
 gression. 
 
 Future Perfect, 
 
 I shall have We shall hare -^ 
 
 Thou shalt have Ye shall have t written* 
 
 He shall have They shall have | 
 
 This Tense denotes that a future action will be 
 perfected, before the commencementj or comple* 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 161 
 
 tion of another 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 con- 
 *' quered 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 observations, which may serve to illus- 
 trate the point in question. 
 
 Duration, like space, is continuous and unin- 
 terrupted. 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 philosophical 
 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 haye, 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 lias a 
 
 H 
 
162 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 have incontrovertibly proved it. But though pre- 
 sent time, philosophically speaking, has no exist- 
 ence, we find it convenient to assume a certain 
 
 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 represent it to sense, -we there-* 
 fore 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 himself what he means 
 by present time. If it be the present bbur, 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 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 re- 
 mains to be performed ? Nor is it possible to stop in this inves- 
 tigation, till present time, strictly speaking, be proved to have 
 no existence. Dk\ it exist, it must be extended ; and if extended, 
 it cannot be present ; for past and future must necessarily be in- 
 cluded 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 what- 
 ever 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. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. l63 
 
 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 pre- 
 sent 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 na^ 
 ture 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 rela- 
 tion to some conceived or assumed space ; thus it 
 may be past or future, in 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 cither, that the 
 precise time is left, undetermined, or that the ac- 
 tion specified is not signified, as either complete or 
 imperfect. Hence the controversy has been partly 
 verbal. Hence also the contending parties have 
 seemed to diifer, while, in fact, they were agreed ; 
 and, on the contrary, have seemed to accord, 
 while their opinions were, in truth, mutually re- 
 pugnant.* 
 
 Dr. Browne confines the term to action only, 
 and pleads the authority of Mr. Harris in his fa- 
 
 M 2 
 
1^4 ETYMOLOG?. 
 
 vour. It is true, indeeci 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 passage from Milton, 
 
 ^' Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth, 
 
 " Unseen, both when we wake, and when we sleep.'' 
 
 he considers '' walk''' as Indefinite, is it in regard 
 to action? No. '* It is," says he, '' because they 
 *' were walking, not at that instant only, but in- 
 " definitely, at any instant whatever." And when 
 he terms. Thou shalt not kill, an Indefinite Tense, 
 is it, because it has no reference to the completion, 
 or the imperfection of 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 com.es it, that the 
 one calls that a Definite Tense, which the other 
 term.s indefitiite? This does not look like accord- 
 ance in sentim.ent, 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;" 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 1^5 
 
 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, hecause 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 forhear to prosecute this controversy 
 further, or to point out the inaccuracies, with 
 which I apprehend many writers on this subject 
 are chargeable. I therefore proceed to re- 
 view and illustrate the doctrine of the Tenses, 
 which I have already offered. 
 
 The present time 'being, as I have already ob- 
 served, 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 arbitrary conception 
 
 * 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 applica- 
 ble; for that the verb denotes simple affirmation with time ; or, 
 ' if applicable, that the Tense is, contrary to his opinion, in<fe- 
 finite, the idea of completion or imperfection being entirely 
 excluded. 
 
166 .ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 the mind, the Tense of 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 Defi- 
 niti^^e 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 sub- 
 ject of affirmation, without any reference to either 
 of these states. In English, to denote the conti- 
 nuation of the action, we employ the present or 
 imperfect Participle; and to denote its completion, 
 we use the Preterite or Perfect Participle. When 
 neither is impHed, the Tenses, significant of the 
 three divisions of time, without any regard to the 
 action as . complete or imperfect, are uniformly 
 employed. 
 
 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 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 1^7 
 
 tlie completion, or the progress of tlte action, ami 
 in this respect are definite. 
 
 Its progress, 
 I am writing 
 I was writing 
 I shall be writing. 
 
 Its perfection, as, 
 I have written 
 I had written 
 I shall have written. 
 
 I write 1 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 cir- 
 cumstances only, either expressed or understood, 
 which can determine what part of the present time 
 is implied. When Pope 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 df the letter, 
 with which the writing is understood to be con- 
 temporary ? If you and I should see a person 
 writing, and either of us should saj^, *' he writes," 
 the proposition would be particular^ and time 
 present with the speaker's observation would be 
 
168 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 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, ncTcr to heayen go," 
 
 M^hat renders the two first prepositions 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 circumstances of the speaker. Nay, does it 
 not frequently happen, that we must subjoin the 
 word now to this Tense, in order to define the point 
 of timer*. Did the Tense of itself note the precise 
 time, this definitive would, in no case, be neces- 
 sary. If I say, *' apples are ripe," the proposition 
 considered, independently on adventitious circum- 
 stances, 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 ; 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 wi^iting'' This Tense also is indefinite 
 in respect to time. It derives its character as a 
 Tense from the verb am, which implies affirmation 
 
ETYMOLOGY* 169 
 
 vvith time, either fiow, generally, or always, Mr. 
 Harris calls it the present Definite, as 1 have al- 
 ready remarked ; and in regard to action it is 
 clearly definite. It is this, and this only, which 
 distinguishes it from the other Present, I write, the 
 latter having no reference to the perfection or im- 
 perfection of the action ; while / am writing de- 
 notesjts continuation. Hence it is, that the lat- yi^fa 
 ter is employed, to express propositions generally 
 or universally true, the idea of perfection or inconi- 
 pletion being, in such casev excluded. Thus we 
 say, The wicked Jlee, when God pursucth ; but not^ 
 as I conceive with equal propriety, the wicked are 
 fieeing, when God is pursuing, 
 
 1 ham written. 
 
 As / am 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 ex- 
 tend to the present time. As a Tense, it derives 
 its character from the Tense / have, significant of 
 present time ; while the perfection of the action is 
 denoted by the perfect Participle. But, as I have 
 shewn that every Tense significant of present time 
 must be, in regard to time, indefinite, so this 
 Tense, compounded of the present Tense 1 have, 
 must, in this respect, be therefore indefinite. 
 
 Lowth, Priestley, Beattie, Harris, and several 
 others have assigned it the name of the Preterite 
 
170 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Definite, and / wrote they have termed the Pre- 
 terite Indefinite. Browne, and one or two others, 
 have reversed this denomination. Now, that I 
 wrote does not of itself define what part of past 
 time is specified, appears to me very evident. This 
 is, indeed, admitted hy those, who contend for 
 the definite nature of this Tense. Why then do 
 they call it a Definite Tense? hecause, 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 can- 
 not say, *' I have written yesterday.-" Now, as I 
 remarked before, this appears to me a perversion 
 of language; for we do not denominate that term 
 definite, which requires a definitive to render it 
 precise. Why have the terms /^e, 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 1 I concur, 
 therefore, with the author of the article *^ Aorist/' 
 in the ^' Nouvelle Encyclopedic," when he ridicules 
 a Mr. Demandre for giving the character of Defi- 
 nite to a Tense, v/hich marks past time indefinitely. 
 This certainly is a perversion of terms. 
 
 *' When we make use of the Auxiliary Verb/' 
 says Dr. Priestley, '^ we have no idea of any cer- 
 **_tain portion of time intervening between the 
 *' time of action, and the time of speaking of it ; 
 " the time of action being some period, that ex- 
 ** tends to the present, as, * I have this year. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 171 
 
 *' this morning, written/ spoken in the same 
 ** year, the same morning; whereas^ speaking of 
 *' an action done in a period past, we use the pre- 
 '* terite Tense, and say, ' I wrote,' intimating, 
 '* that a certain portion of time is past, between 
 " the time of action and th€ time of speaking of it/' 
 To the same purpose nearly are the words of the 
 author of the article *' Grammar,'* in the Encyclo- 
 pedia Britan. '' / have written," says he, '* is 
 " always joined with a portion of time, which 
 ** includes the present rwtv or instant ; for other- 
 *' wise it could not signify, as it always does, the 
 *' present possession of the finishing of an action. 
 *' But the aorist, which signifies no such possess- 
 '* ion, is as constantly joined with a portion of 
 ** past time, which excludes the present 7iow or 
 *' mstaftt. Thus we say, ' / han:e zvrltten a letter 
 ^' this day,' * this w^eek, &c.' but Iwrote 2i\t\XQv 
 *' yesterday ; and to interchange these expressions 
 *' would be improper." 
 
 The explanation which these grammarians have 
 given of the Tense / have written^ appears to me 
 perfectly correct ; and I would add, that, though 
 the interval 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 ex- 
 tended to the present time, should conceive no 
 time to have intervened, this Tense is uniformly 
 employed. 
 
 That the aorist excludes the present instant, is 
 
172 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 equally true; but that it is incapable of being 
 joined, as the latter of these grammarians sup- 
 poses, to a portion 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, '' I 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. r 
 
 What then, it may be asked, is the difference 
 between this, and the tense, which is termed the 
 Preterite Definite ? I shall endeavour to explain it, 
 though, in doing this, I may be chargeable with 
 repetition. 
 
 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," I possess (now) the finished 
 action 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. 
 " 1 have this week written several letters." '' Ihave 
 '* now the perfection of writing several letters, 
 '\ finished this week*." 
 
 ♦ These phraseologies, as the, author last quoted justly ob. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 173 
 
 Again : When an action has been done long 
 ago, but the mind is still in possession of its con- 
 sequences, these having been extended to the 
 present time, unconscious, or regardless of the 
 interval between the time of acting, and the time 
 of speaking, we use the Auiliary Verb. Thus, **I, 
 " like others, have, in my youth, trifled with my 
 '* health, and old age > now prematurely assails 
 " me." In all these cases, there is a clear refer- 
 ence 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 hwve 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 of speaking of it; the action is repre- 
 sented 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 
 
 -serves, are harsh to the ear, and appear exceedingly awkward ; 
 but a little attention will suffice to shew, that they correctly 
 exhibit the ideas implied by the Tense, which we have at present 
 under consideration. 
 
174 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 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 between the time of 
 action, and the time of speaking of it, and that these 
 times shall not appear to be continuous. 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 em- 
 ploys the Auxiliary Verb. When he says, *' 1 have 
 ** been dining to-day at lord Mountjoy's, and am 
 '^ come home to study," he, in like manner, con- 
 nects 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* 1 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 no-wise connected with the 
 time of his writing, or conceived as continuous to 
 the date of his letter. If he had said, ^^ \X. 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. 
 
 * See Eiicyc. Brit. Art. Grammar, 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 175 
 
 / wrote I was writing I had writte?!. 
 
 The first of these, as a Tense, has been ah'eady 
 explained ; it remains, therefore, to enquire, whe- 
 ther it be definite or indefinite, in respect to action, 
 
 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 
 imperfection, and therefore, in regard to action, 
 indefinite. This seems to be the character of the 
 Tenses, 1 zvrite^ I wrote, I shalt xvrite. 
 
 '' Mr. Harris," says Browne, " truly calls I wrote 
 ** and 1 write indefinites, although the man who 
 *' wroteyhaswritteUy that is, the action is perfected, 
 *^ and the man who writesy is writing, that is, the 
 " action is imperfect; but the perfection and im- 
 ** perfection, though it be implied, not being ex- 
 '* pressed, not being brought into view (to do 
 ** which the auxiliary verb is necessary) nor in- 
 *' tended to be so, such tenses are properlycalled 
 *' indefinites/' 
 
 Though I am persuaded, that Harris and 
 Browne, though they concur in designing certain 
 Tenses Indefinite, are, in principle, by no means 
 agreed, yet the observations of the latter, when he 
 confines the terms to action, appear to me incon- 
 trovertible. I would only remark, that it is not 
 the presence of the auxiliary, as Browne conceives, 
 which is necessary to denote the completion of the 
 
17^ ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 action, but the introduction of the Perfect Parti- 
 ciple. Nay, 1 am persuaded, that, as it is the 
 Participle in ing^ and this only, which denotes the 
 progression or continuation of the action, this cir- 
 cumstance in every other phraseology being infer- 
 red, not expressed, so I am equally convinced, 
 that it is the Perfect Participle only, which 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. 
 According 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 1 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 pos- 
 sible variations, and if these be expressed by the 
 second and third classes, it follows, that, if there 
 be any precise distinction between these and the 
 first class, or unless the latter be wholly supernu- 
 merary, it differs in this from the second and 
 third, that while they express, either that the ac- 
 tion is progressive, or that it is complete, the first 
 has no reference to its perfection or imperfection. 
 
 / was writing. 
 This Tense, like I ijorote^ is, in point of time, 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 177 
 
 indefinite; 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. 
 
 1 had written. 
 
 This, as a Tense, derives its character from the 
 Preterite of the Verb to hwve, implying past pos- 
 session. Had being an aorist, this Tense, in re- 
 gard to time, must therefore be indefinite. In re- 
 spect to action, it is definite, implying that tire 
 action was finished. As the aorist expresses time 
 past, and by inference the perfection of the action, 
 while the latter circumstance is additionally de- 
 noted by the Participle, this compound Tense is 
 employed to denote, that an action was perfected, 
 before another action or events now also past, took 
 place. 
 
 The character of the remaining Tenses seems 
 to require no farther explanation. I proceed there- 
 fore to consider, how we express interrogations, 
 commands, necessity, power, liberty, will, and 
 some other accessary circumstances. 
 
 An interrogation is expressed by placing the 
 nominative after the concordant person o'i the 
 Tense ; thus, '' Thou comest," is an affirmation ; 
 " Comest thou?" is an interrogation. If the 
 Tense be compound, the nominative is placed after 
 the auxiliary, as, '' Dost thou come?" '' likst 
 'V thou heard ?" 
 
178 ETYMOLOGY » 
 
 A commanci, exliortation, or intreaty, is ex- 
 pressed, by placing the pronoun of the second per- 
 son 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, be, kt% By the 
 
 * T consider, that no language, grammatically examined, has 
 inore cases, tenses, or moods, than are formed by inflexion. 
 But, if any^erson 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 Interrog- 
 ative Mood, adopting also the Precative, the Requisitive, the 
 Optative, the Hortative, &c. together with the various cases in 
 IfJouns, and Tenser in Verbs, which are formed by Prepositions 
 and auxiliary Verbs ; I should only apprehend, that language 
 would fail hira 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 in. 
 '' Stan fit/, improve your time J forgive us om^ 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 indicative. Every possible form 
 of speech can do nothing, but express the sentiment of the 
 speaker, his desire, his wish, his sensation, 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 speaker, what he 
 desires, wishes, feels, thinks, and so forth. No one sur^Ijr 
 -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," 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 179 
 
 help of the word lei, which is equivalent to 
 '* permit thou," or '^ permit ye," we express the 
 persons of the Latin and Greek imperatives; thus, 
 let me^ let us, let him, let them, write. 
 
 Present Necessity/ is denoted by the Verb must, 
 thus, 
 
 I must Thou must He must •> .^ ^ 
 
 We must Ye must They must > 
 
 This Verb having only one Tense, namely, the 
 Present, past necessity is expressed by the Preter- 
 ite Definite of the Verb, significant of the thing- 
 necessary, as, 
 
 I must have Thou must have, &c. ■> ., ^ 
 
 c written. 
 
 We must have Ye must have, &c. 3 
 
 Present Liberty, 
 I may Thou mayest He may 1^^\^q 
 We may Ye may They may i 
 
 t"hat in Greek and Latin they arc rendered indifferently, either 
 hy ov (^ovsvasiSy or |u,7j cpovsvs ; 7ion occides, or ne occidito ? If 
 then we say, " kill thou," will it be contended, that, though 
 the prohibition implies an affirmation of the speakefj the com- 
 mand does not ? The expression, I conceive to be strictly equi- 
 valent to " thou shalt kill," '^ thou art ordered to kill.'' Hence 
 ave and jubeo te avere, are deemed expressions of the same im- 
 *port. 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. 
 
 * This verb is derived from the Saxon verb Ic most, ego dcbeo. 
 N 2 
 
180 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Past Liberty, 
 
 I might Thou mightest He might "> , • 
 We might Ye might They might 5 
 
 On 
 
 1 might have Thou mightst have, &c. -^ ^^\^^^^ 
 We might have Ye might have, &c. 3 
 
 Frese72t Ability, 
 
 I can Thou canst He can 1 .. - 
 
 __ > write. 
 
 VV e can Ye can They can > 
 
 Past Ability. 
 1 could Thou couldst He could 
 We could Ye could They can 
 
 > write. 
 
 Or, 
 
 >W] 
 
 I could have Thou couldst have, Sec. . ..^^ 
 
 ' > written. 
 
 We could have Ye could have, &c. 
 
 Couldf the Preterite of the Verb cati, expressing 
 past power or abihty, is, like the Tense might of 
 the Verb may, frequently employed to denote pre- 
 sent time.' Of their denoting past time, the fol- 
 lowing 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 
 <:ould being frequently used in conjunction with 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 181 
 
 Other Verbs, to express present time, past liberty 
 and ability are generally denoted by the latter 
 phraseology; thus, ''I might have written," '* I 
 *' could have written." Some farther observations^, 
 respecting 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. 
 
 \to write. 
 
 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 5 written. 
 
 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 Defi- 
 nite of the following Verb. 
 
 Having shewn, how most of the common acces- 
 sary circumstances are signified in our language, 
 I proceed to explain, how we express the circum- 
 stance of suffering, or being acted upon. 
 
 The manner of denoting this in EngHsh is sim- 
 ple and easy. All that is necessary is, to join the 
 Verb to be with the Present Participle, if the state 
 of suffering be imperfect or proceeding; and with 
 the Perfect Participle, if it be complete; thus, 
 
 lam Thou art He is 1 ,^^^^,,^ 
 
 We are Ye are They are 3 
 
182 ETYMOLOGy. 
 
 Preterite, 
 
 I was Thou wast He was ^ ^,\i^^n^ 
 
 We were Ye were They were 3 
 
 I have been I had been I shall be 
 I may be I might be I could be 
 
 > wri 
 
 ritten, 
 
 If the state be imperfect, the Participle in ing must 
 be substituted; thus. 
 
 The house is buildin 
 
 g 
 
 The house was building V Progressive. 
 
 The house shall be building} 
 
 The house is built . "j 
 
 The house was built > Perfect. 
 
 The house shall be built \ 
 
 Neuter Verbs, expressing neither action nor 
 passion, admit, without altering their signification, 
 either phraseology ; thus, / have arisen, or / am 
 arisen ; I was come, or 1 had come, 
 
 I conclude this part of the subject with a few 
 observations concerning the Subjunctive or Poten- 
 tial Mood. 
 
 Various disputes have arisen respecting the ex- 
 istence 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 Po- 
 tential Mood properly so called, appears to me un- 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 183 
 
 questionable. Amarem signifies ability or liberty*, 
 involving the Verbs possum and Ucet, and may 
 therefore be termed a Potential Mood; but in 
 English these accessary circumstances are denoted 
 by the Preterites of the Verbs mai/ and can ; as, 
 I might or could love. 
 
 That there is no Subjunctive Mood we have, I 
 conceive, equal authority to ausert. If I say in 
 Latin, cum cepisset, '* when he had taken," the 
 Verb is strictly in the Subjunctive Mood ; for, 
 were not the Verb subjoined to cumy it must have 
 taken the Indicative form ; but I hesitate not to 
 assert, that no example can be produced in Eng- 
 lish, where the Indicative 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 mto were because subjoined to Moe^o^/?; for 
 though is joined to the Indicative Mood, when the 
 sentiment requires it; the Verb therefore is not in 
 the Subjunctive Mood. 
 
 In respect to what has been denominated the 
 Conditional Form of the Verb, I observe, that the 
 existence of this form appears to me highly ques- 
 tionable. My reasons are these. 
 
 * It belongs not to my province to enquire how amarem came 
 to signify I might or could hve, 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 / might, could, 
 wouldf or should love, implying ?icef, possum, volo, debeo* S'jc 
 Johnson's Comment, 
 
J 84 ETYMOLOOr. 
 
 1st. Several of our grammarians have not men- 
 tioned it; among these are the celebrated Dr; 
 Wallis and the author of the British Grammar. 
 
 2dly. 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 acknow- 
 ledged by himself to be so stiff and so harsh, that I 
 am inclined to regard them rather as anomahes, 
 than as constituting an authority for a general rule. 
 
 4thly. If then this form be, agreeably to the 
 opinions of Lowth and Johnson, confined to the 
 present 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, / love, 
 thou love, he love, Sec. Now as this is, in fact, 
 the radical form of the verb, or what may be 
 deemed the infinitive, as following an auxiliary, 
 it forms a presumption, that it is truly an infinitive 
 mood, the auxiliary being suppressed. 
 
 The opinion here given will, I think, be cour 
 firmed by the following examples. 
 
 '* If he say so, it is well," i. e. '' jf he shall 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 185 
 
 '* Though he slay mc, yet will I trust in him/* 
 (Bible) i. e. ** though he should slay.'* 
 
 "Though thou detain me, I will not eat/* 
 (Ibid.) i. e. '* shouldst detain nrie." 
 
 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." 
 
 *' If he ask a fish^ will he give him a serpent?'* 
 {Ibid.) i.e. 'Mf he shall ask." 
 
 There are a few examples in the use of the aux- 
 iliaries do and have, in which, when ihe ellipsis is 
 supplied, the expression appears somewhat uncouth; 
 but I am persuaded, that a little attention will 
 shew, that these examples form no exception to 
 this theory. 
 
 '* If noNV 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 uni- 
 versally admitted that the auxiliary is suppressed 
 thus, *' if thou shalt or wilt prosper my way.*' 
 Again, when we say, " if thou do it, I shall be 
 " displeased," it is equally evident that the auxili- 
 ary 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 
 
186 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 thus, '' if thou (shalt) do prosper my way." 
 The same observations are applicable to Shake- 
 speare's phraseology, when he says, *' if thou do 
 '' pardon, whosoever pray." Again ; when Ham- 
 let s^ays, ** if damned custom have not braz'd it so,' 
 it is obvious that the auxiliary verb may is under- 
 stood ; for if the expression be cleared of the nega- 
 tive, the insertion of the auxiHary creates no un- 
 couthness; thus, ** if damned custom may have 
 */ braz'd it so." 
 
 I am therefore incHned to think, that the Con- 
 ditional form, unless in the verb to ^e,* has no 
 existence in our language. 
 
 Though this be not strictly the proper place, I 
 would beg the reader's attention to a few additi- 
 onal observations. 
 
 Many writers of classic eminence express future 
 and contingent events by the Present Tense Indi- 
 cative. In colloquial language, or where the other 
 form would render the expression stiff and awk- 
 ward, this practice cannot justly be reprehended. 
 But, where this is not the case, the proper form 
 in which the note of cpntingency or futurity is 
 either expressed or understood, is certainly pre- 
 ferable. Thus, 
 
 '^If thou neglectest, or doesc unwillingly,, what 
 '' I command thee, I will rack thee with old 
 
 * Why this verb forms an exception, it would be easy to 
 explain. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 187 
 
 ^* cramps. {Shakespeare,) Better, I think, *' if 
 " thou shalt neglect, or do." 
 
 '* If any member absents huiiself, he shall for- 
 ^' feit a penny for the use of the club/' {Spectato7\) 
 Better, ** if any member absent, or shall absent.*' 
 
 '* If the stage becomes a nursery of folly and 
 *' impertinence, I shall not be afraid to animadvert 
 '* upon it." {Spectator.) Preferably thus, ** if 
 *^ the stage become, 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 uncertain, whether I hav^e it or not, I an- 
 swer, " if the book be in my library, or if I 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 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 raiii 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. 
 
 * See Webster's. Dissertations, p. ^Q3. 
 
188 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 *' Nay, and the villains march wide between the 
 '^ legs, as if they had gyves on;'* {Shakespeare.) 
 where, as if they had, implies that '* they had not." 
 
 In the same manner, if I say, ** I Nvill go, if I 
 " can," my ability is expressed as uncertain, and 
 its dependent event left undetermined. But, if I 
 say, *' I would go, if I could," my inability is ex- 
 pressly implied, and the dependent event excluded. 
 Thus also, when it is said, ** if I may, I will ac- 
 " company you to the theatre,'* the liberty is ex- 
 pressed 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 
 inverted, thus, '* if I had the book,'' or ** had I 
 '^ the book." *' Were I Alexander," said Parme- 
 nio, ** I would accept this offer," or '^ if I were 
 " Alexander, I would accept." /Fere is frequently 
 xx^td iox xvould be, ^nd had for tvould ha've, as, '' it 
 ** were injustice to deny the execution of the law 
 ** to any individual," that is, *' it would be injust- 
 ** ice." *' Many acts, which had been blameable 
 " in a peaceable government, were employed to 
 ** detect conspiracies," where had is put for would 
 have*. (Hume's History ofl^ngland) 
 
 * A similar phraseology in the use of the pluperfect Indicative 
 for the same tense subjunctive, obtains in Latin, as, 
 
 Impulerat ferro Ar^olicas fcedare latejbras. Vircii. 
 
ETTMOLOGY. 189 
 
 Ambiguity is frequently created by confounding 
 feet with hypothesis, or making no distinction 
 between dubitative and assertive phraseologies.. 
 Thus, if we employ such expressions as these, " if 
 '' thou knewest,*' '* though he was learned,*' 
 not only to express the certainty of a fact, but 
 likewise to denote a mere hypothesis as opposed to 
 fact, we necessarily render the expression ambigu- 
 ous. It is by thus confounding things totally dis- 
 tinct, that writers have been betrayed not into 
 ambiguity only, but even into palpable errors. 
 In evidence of this, I give the following example. 
 " Though he were divinely inspired, and spoke 
 ** therefore as the oracles of God, with supreme 
 '* authority ; though he were endowed with super- 
 *' natural powers, and could, therefore, have con- 
 ** firmed the trutli of what he asserted by miracles ; 
 *' yet, in compliance with the way, in which hu- 
 " man nature and reasonable creatures are usually 
 *' wrought upon, he reasoned.*' {Atterhury's 
 Sermons.) 
 
 Here the writer expresses the inspiration and the 
 supernatural powers of Jesus, not as properties or 
 virtues, which he really did possess, but v/hich, 
 though not possessing them, he might be supposed 
 to possess. Now, as his intention was to ascribe 
 these virtues to Jesus, as truly belonging to him, 
 he should have employed the Indicative ^orm was, 
 and notee^ere, as in the following sentence, '* though 
 '^ he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor.'' 
 
190 ETYMOLOOr. 
 
 *^ 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 Indica- 
 tive form without 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 judgment 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 
 impropriety, omitted. '* Then hear thou in hea- 
 ^' ven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of 
 '^ thy people Israel, that thou teach them the good 
 *' way wherein they should walk." (lb.) In this 
 example the suppression of the Auxihary Verb is 
 somewhat unfavourable 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 affecta- 
 tion should be particularly avoided. Where there 
 is no manifest danger of misconception, the use of 
 the assertive, for the dubitative form, is far pre- 
 ferable to those starched and pedantic phraseolo* 
 gies, which some writers are fond of exhibiting. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 191 
 
 For this reason, such expressions as the following 
 appear to me highly offensive; ** if thou have 
 '' determined we must submit," ** unless he have 
 ** consented, 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 consider 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 
 ify when the affirmation is unconditional, will 
 often serve to prevent ambiguity*. Thus, Mdien 
 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 iirst 
 clause, taken by itself, leaves the meaning some- 
 what 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. 
 
I9£ 
 
 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 IRREGULAR VERBS. 
 
 THE general rule for the formation of the Pre- 
 terite Tense, and the Perfect Participle, is to add 
 to the Present the syllable ed, if the Verb end with 
 a consonant, or d, if it end with a vowel, as, 
 
 Turn, Turned, Turned ; Love, Loved, Loved. 
 
 Verbs, which depart from this rule, are called 
 Irregular, of which I believe the subsequent enu- 
 meration to be nearly complete*. 
 
 Present, 
 
 Abide 
 Am 
 Arise 
 Awake 
 
 Preterite. 
 
 Abode 
 Was 
 Arose 
 Awoke R 
 
 Bear to bring forth Bore or Bare 
 Bear, to carry Bore or Bare 
 Beat Beat 
 
 Begin 
 
 Began 
 
 Perf, Participle, 
 Abode 
 Been 
 Arisen 
 Awaked 
 fBorn 
 Borne 
 Beaten 
 Begun . 
 
 * Where r is added, the Verb follows also the general rule, 
 t Some have excluded bore as the preterite of this Verb. We 
 hayc sufficient authority, -however, for admitting it ; thus, 
 
 *' By marrying hecjwho bore me." Dryden. 
 

 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 ly? 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite. 
 
 Perf. 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 
 
 f Bitten, Bit 
 
 Bleed 
 
 Bled 
 
 Bled 
 
 BIqw 
 
 Blew 
 
 Blown 
 
 Break 
 
 Broke or BrakeJ 
 
 Broken 
 
 Breed 
 
 Bred 
 
 Bred 
 
 Bring 
 
 Brought 
 
 Brought 
 
 Build 
 
 Built R 
 
 § Built R 
 
 Burst 
 
 Burst 
 
 Burst 
 
 Buy 
 
 Bought 
 
 Bought 
 
 Bake 
 
 Baked 
 
 Baken n 
 
 Can 
 
 Could 
 
 " 
 
 Cast 
 
 Cast 
 
 Cast 
 
 Catch 
 
 Caught R 
 
 Caught R 
 
 * Beholden is obsolescent. 
 
 '' t So liept the diamond and the rogue was bit.'* Pope» 
 
 " There was lately a young gentleman, bit to the bone.** 
 Tatler. 
 
 X Brake seems now obsolescent. 
 
 § Though Johnson has not admitted the regular form of the 
 Participle in this Verb, I think there is sufficient authority fot 
 concurring with Lowth, in receiTing builded as the Participlej 
 as well as Guilty though it be not In such general use. 
 
 o 
 
194 
 
 Present. 
 Chide 
 Choose 
 
 ETYIHOLOGY. 
 
 Preterite, 
 Chid 
 Chose 
 
 Cleave, to stick Clave r 
 
 or adhere 
 Cleave, to split Clove, or clave, 
 
 or cleft 
 Clino^ Cluno; 
 
 Climb Clomb r* 
 
 Clothe Clad Rf 
 
 Come Came 
 
 Cost Cost 
 
 Crow Crew r 
 
 Creep Crept 
 
 Cut Cut 
 
 Dare, to venture Durst r 
 Dare, to challenge is regular 
 Deal Dealt R 
 
 Dig Dug R 
 
 Do Did 
 
 Draw Drew 
 
 Drive Drove 
 
 Drink Drank 
 
 Dwell Dwelt R 
 
 Eat Ate 
 
 Fall Fell 
 
 Perf. Participle. 
 Chidden 
 Chosen 
 Cleaved 
 
 Cloven, or 
 
 Cleft 
 Clung 
 Climbed 
 Clad R 
 Come 
 Cost 
 Crowed 
 Crept 
 Cut 
 Dared 
 
 Dealt R 
 
 Dug R 
 
 Done 
 
 Drawn 
 
 Driven 
 
 Drunk 
 
 Dwelt R 
 
 Eaten 
 
 Fallen 
 
 * Lowtli has given clomb as the preterite of climb. I can 
 find, however, no authority later than Spencer, and am inclined 
 to think it is now obsolete. 
 
 * The irregular Preterite dad is obsolescent. 
 

 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 195 
 
 Present. 
 Feed 
 
 Preterite, 
 Fed 
 
 Perf. Participle. 
 Fed 
 
 Feel 
 
 Felt 
 
 Felt 
 
 Fight 
 Find 
 
 Fought 
 Found 
 
 Fought 
 Found 
 
 Flee 
 
 Fled 
 
 Fled 
 
 FJie 
 
 Flew 
 
 Flown 
 
 Fling 
 
 Flung 
 
 Flung 
 
 Forsake 
 
 Forsook 
 
 Forsaken 
 
 Freeze 
 
 Froze 
 
 Frozen 
 
 Freight 
 
 Freighted 
 
 Freighted or 
 
 Get 
 
 Gat, or Got 
 
 * Fraught 
 Gotten, or Got 
 
 Gild 
 
 Gild R 
 
 Gilt R 
 
 Gird 
 
 Girt R 
 
 Girt R 
 
 Give 
 
 Gave 
 
 Given 
 
 Go 
 
 Went 
 
 Gone 
 
 Grave 
 
 Graved 
 
 Graven r 
 
 Grind 
 
 Ground 
 
 Ground 
 
 Grow 
 
 Grew 
 
 Grown 
 
 Have 
 
 Had 
 
 Had 
 
 fHang 
 
 Hung R 
 
 Hung R 
 
 * Fraught is more properly an Adjective than Participle, 
 -f This Verb, Lowth says, when employed as an Active Verb, 
 ^* may, perhaps, most properly be used in the regular form." 
 Here the learned author appears to me, if he be not chargeable 
 with error, to have expressed his meaning incorrectly ; for it 
 cannot be disputed, that the irregular form of this Verb is fre- 
 quently, and with unquestionable propriety, used in an active 
 jense. Thus we say, " thcservanthun^ the scales in the cellar;" 
 and passively, "• the scales were hung by the servant." I should 
 
 o 2 
 
im 
 
 :^Pir-3idto&f. 
 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite. 
 
 Per/. Participle, 
 
 Hear 
 
 Heard 
 
 Heard 
 
 Heave 
 
 Hove 11* 
 
 Hoven r 
 
 Help 
 
 Helped 
 
 Holpen Rf 
 
 Hew 
 
 Hewed 
 
 Hewn R 
 
 Hide 
 
 Hid 
 
 JHidden, or Hid 
 
 Hit 
 
 Hit 
 
 Hit 
 
 Hold 
 
 Held 
 
 §Holden, or Held 
 
 Hurt 
 
 Hurt 
 
 Hurt 
 
 Knit 
 
 Knit, or knitted 
 
 Knit, or knitted 
 
 Know 
 
 Knew 
 
 Known 
 
 Lade 
 
 Laded 
 
 Laden II 
 
 Lay 
 
 Laid 
 
 Laidf 
 
 Lead 
 
 Led 
 
 Led 
 
 Leave 
 
 Left 
 
 Left 
 
 Lend 
 
 Lent 
 
 Lent 
 
 therefore, rather say, that, when this Verb denotes suspension, 
 for the purpose of destroying life, the regular form is far pre- 
 ferable. 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 obsoles- 
 cent, if not obsolete. It belonged to the Verb to holpy 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 
 preferable. 
 
 §i?oMert is not in general use; and is chiefly employed hy 
 attorneys. 4 
 
 il Laden, Vik.Q fraught, may be deemed an Adjective. 
 
 H Priestley, I apprehc^tl, has erred in giving lain, as th« 
 Participle of this Verb. 
 

 ETYMOLOGy. 1^^ 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite, Perf. Participle, 
 
 Let 
 
 Let 
 
 Let 
 
 Lie, to lie down Lay 
 
 Lien, or Lain* 
 
 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 
 
 
 Meet 
 
 Met 
 
 Met 
 
 Mo\r 
 
 Mowed 
 
 Mown r:|: 
 
 Must 
 
 
 
 Pay 
 
 Paid 
 
 Paid 
 
 Put 
 
 ^ Put 
 
 Put 
 
 Quit 
 
 Quit, or 
 
 Quifted§Quit 
 
 Read 
 
 Read 
 
 Read 
 
 Rend 
 
 Rent 
 
 Rent 
 
 Ride 
 
 Rode, 01 
 
 Rid IIRid, or Ridden 
 
 * hkn^ 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 Soipe grammarians liaye rejected 7i^ It can plead, however, 
 colloquial usage in its favour, and even other authority. '' I lit 
 " my pipe with the paper." Addison, 
 
 X With Priestley andLowth, I have given this Verb a regular 
 Participle; for which, I believe, there is sufficient authority, 
 without adducing the example of Shakespeare. Most other gram- 
 imarjians have rejected it, 
 
 § ClmttdX^ far more generally used as the Preterite than ^m?V. 
 II P;-iestley has rejected rvl^ and Murray riddcriy as the Par- 
 
198 
 
 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 
 Present. 
 
 Freteriie. 
 
 Perf, Participh, 
 
 Rid 
 
 Rid 
 
 Rid 
 
 Ring 
 
 Rang, or Rung 
 
 Rung 
 
 Rise 
 
 Rose 
 
 Risen 
 
 Rive 
 
 Rived 
 
 Riven 
 
 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 * 
 
 Shape 
 
 Shaped 
 
 Shapen r 
 
 Shave 
 
 Shaved 
 
 Shaven b 
 
 Shear 
 
 Shore 
 
 Shorn 
 
 Shed 
 
 Shed 
 
 Shed 
 
 Shine 
 
 Shone r 
 
 Shone r 
 
 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 conju- 
 gate, with Priestley, ride, rode, ridden. 
 
 * 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 Parti- 
 ciple, '* A sly and constant knave, not be shaked/' {^hake" 
 speare.) and one as the Preterite, " They shaked their heads. *^ 
 Psal. cxi. 25. 
 

 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 199 
 
 Present. 
 
 Pretej^ite, 
 
 Perf. Partkipk. 
 
 Shew 
 
 Shewed 
 
 Shewn 
 
 Show 
 
 Showed 
 
 Shown 
 
 Shoe 
 
 Shod 
 
 Shod 
 
 Shall 
 
 Should 
 
 
 Shoot 
 
 Shot 
 
 Shot 
 
 Shrink 
 
 *Shrank, orShrun 
 
 k Shrunk 
 
 Shred 
 
 Shred 
 
 Shred 
 
 Shut 
 
 Shut 
 
 Shut 
 
 Sing 
 
 tSang, or Sung 
 
 Sung 
 
 Sink 
 
 Sank, or Sunk 
 
 Sunk . 
 
 Sit 
 
 Sat 
 
 :j:Sitten or Sat 
 
 Slay 
 
 Slew' 
 
 Slain 
 
 Sleep 
 
 Slept 
 
 Slept 
 
 * Of these preterites, the latter is now more generally used. 
 Our translators of the Bible used the former. 
 
 t A. Murray has rejected sung as the Preterite, and L. Mur- 
 ray has rejected ^«W|f. 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. Laud 
 able 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.'' (Belshanis Hist.) 
 
 " And he would gladly, for the sake of dispatch, have called 
 " together the same parliament, which had sitten under his 
 '« father.'' Hume^ Vol. VI. p. 199. 
 
 Respecting the preterites which have a or w, as slang, or 
 slujigy sank, or sunk^ it would be better, were the former only 
 to be used, as the Preterite and Participle would thus be dis, 
 «riixuQ%ted. 
 
goo 
 
 ETyMOLOey* 
 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite, 
 
 Perf. Participle. 
 
 Slide 
 
 Slid 
 
 Slidden 
 
 Sling 
 
 Slang, or Slung 
 
 Slung 
 
 Slink 
 
 Slank, or Slunk 
 
 Slunk 
 
 Slit 
 
 Slit II 
 
 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 Sprun] 
 
 0' 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 -ji 
 Strowed y 
 
 
 Strovv 
 
 StrowU 
 
 Swear 
 
 Swore, or S ware 
 
 Sworn 
 
 Sweat 
 
 Sweat 
 
 Swea^ 
 

 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 §01 
 
 Present. 
 
 Preterite. 
 
 Perf. Participle. 
 
 Swell 
 
 Swelled 
 
 Swelled, or 
 Swollen 
 
 Swim 
 
 Swam, or Swum 
 
 Swum 
 
 Swing 
 
 Swang 
 
 Svvung 
 
 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 
 
 Troddea 
 
 Wax 
 
 Waxed 
 
 Wax^n E 
 
 Wear 
 
 Wore 
 
 Worn 
 
 Weave 
 
 Wove 
 
 Woven 
 
 Weep 
 
 Wept 
 
 Wept 
 
 Will 
 
 Would 
 
 - 
 
 Win 
 
 Won 
 
 Won 
 
 Wind 
 
 W^ound Rf 
 
 Wound 
 
 * Pope has used the regular form of the Preterite ; 
 
 ^' In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease, 
 " Sprung the rank weed, and thriv'd with large increase**' 
 
 on Crit. 
 
 Horsley, with one or two other writers, have employed th« 
 regular Participle. 
 
 t Pope, and our translators of the Bible, have used winded 
 4s the Preterite. The other form, however, is in far more ge- 
 neral use. 
 
202 
 
 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 
 Present 
 
 Preterite. 
 
 Perf. Participle. 
 
 Work 
 
 Wrought R 
 
 Wrought R 
 
 Wring 
 
 Wrung R 
 
 Wrung 
 
 Write 
 
 Wrote 
 
 nVritten 
 
 Writhe 
 
 Writhed ' 
 
 Writhen 
 
 * Wrote^ as the Participle, is generally disused, and like- 
 wise tcrit. 
 
STYMOLOGY. * £03 
 
 DEFECTIVE VERBS. 
 
 THESE, as Lowth observes, are generally not 
 only defective, but also irregular, and are chiefly 
 Auxiliary Verbs, 
 
 Present, 
 
 Prett 
 
 Must 
 
 
 
 May 
 
 
 Might 
 
 Quoth 
 
 
 Quotb 
 
 Can 
 
 
 Could 
 
 Shall 
 
 
 Should 
 
 *Wit, or 
 
 Wot 
 
 Wot 
 
 tWiU 
 
 
 Would 
 
 :|:Wis 
 
 
 Wist 
 
 Perf. Participle^ 
 
 "^Ought 
 
 * Wit is now confined to the phrase to wit, or to be known. 
 It; is an abbreviation from the Anglo Saxon Verb pitan, 
 to know. 
 
 f This Verb, as an auxiliary, is inflexible ; thus we say, *Mie 
 ^' will go ;'' and " he wills to go.^' 
 
 X This verb, which signifies '' to think," or *^ to imagine,'* is 
 now obsolete. 
 
 § 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 
 
£04 ETYMOLOGV, 
 
 debt. ^' Apprehending the occasion, I will add a continuance 
 ^' to that happy motion, and besides give you some tribute of 
 ^* the loYC and duty, I long have ought you/* Spelman, 
 
 *' This blood, which men by treason sought 
 
 *' That followed. Sir, which to myself I ought." Dry dm. 
 
 It is now used in the present tense only ; and, when past duty 
 ©r 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. Debeo 
 Itgere^ Debui 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 oifght have both a present 
 and past signification, and, in proof of this, he adduces the fol- 
 lowing examples : ''I must own, that I am to blam^.'^ ''He 
 '' must have been mistaken." '' Speaking things, which they 
 '' ought not." i* These ought ye to have done." — This is truly 
 a strange, and, I verily believe, a singular opinion. Its inac- 
 curacy 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 hj 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 dvty are expressed as either present, past, or fu- 
 -ture, 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 con- 
 trary, the two verbs must and ought having only the Present 
 Tense, we are obliged to note the past time^ by employing the 
 Preterite Tense of the subsequent verb. Thus, Me ire oportet, 
 5* I ought to go," " I ipust^o." Me ire oportuit, ** I ought 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 205 
 
 ^^ 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 signified by must and not by *' have gone.'* 
 
 In the time of Wallis, the term must^ as a Preterite Tense, 
 was almost obsolete. '' AliquandOy he remarks, sed rarius in 
 *' proettrito dicilur.'^ And when it was employed as a preterite, 
 it was followed by the Present Tense. This verb in Geriiian, 
 has, I understand, a Preterite Tense. 
 
 OF IMPERSONAL VERBS. 
 
 THE distinctive chamcter of Impersonal Verbs 
 has been a subject of endless dispute among gram- 
 marians. 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 per- 
 sons; 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 cer- 
 tain person, as the subject, can be prefixed. But 
 with the discussion of this question^ as it respects 
 the learned languages^ the English grammarian has 
 no concern. I proceed, therefore, to observe, that 
 Impersonal Verbs, as the name imports, are those, 
 vi^hich do not admit a person as their nominative. 
 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 
 
206 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 few Impersonal Verbs. To this denomination, 
 however, may certainly be referred, it behoveth, 
 it irketh, equivalent to it is the duty, it is painfully 
 •wearisome. That the former of tliese verbs was 
 once used personally, we have sufficient evidence; 
 and it is not improbable, 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 behovest, tie behoves, or 
 we irk, ye irk, they irk. 
 
 There are one or two others, which have been 
 considered as Impersonal Verbs, in which the per- 
 sonal pronoun in the objective case is prefixed to 
 the third person singular of the verb, as methinks, 
 methought, meseems, meseemed; analogous to the 
 Latin expressions me pcemtet, me penituit. You 
 thinketh, him liketh, him seemeth, liave long been 
 entirely obsolete. Meseems and meseemed occxxv in 
 Sidney, Spenser, and other contemporary writers ; 
 but are now universally disused. Addison some- 
 times says methoughts, contrary, I conceive, to all 
 analogy. 
 
JCTYMOLOGY. 207 
 
 CHAP, VII 
 
 Of Adverbs, 
 
 AN Adverb is that part of speech, which is 
 joined to a Verb, Adjective, or other Adverb, 
 to express some circumstance, quahty, degree, 
 or manner of its signification ; and hence Ad- 
 verbs have been termed Attributives 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 infe- 
 '^ rior class of them, which denote the attributes 
 *' only of attributes. If I say, Cicero was elo- 
 '* quent, I ascribe to him the attribute of elo- 
 '* quence simply and absolutely; if I say, he was 
 '* exceedingly eloquent, I affirm an eminent de- 
 *' gree of eloquence, the Adverb exceedingly de- 
 *' noting that degree.'* If I say, 'Mie died, fight- 
 '* m^ bravely iov his country," the word bravely 
 here added to the verb denotes the manner of the 
 action. An Adverb is, therefore, a word joined 
 
20S ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 to a verb, or any attributive, to denote some mo* 
 dification, degree, or circumstance, of the ex- 
 pressed attribute. 
 
 Adverbs have been divided into a variety of 
 classes^ according to their signification. Some of 
 those which denote 
 
 Quality^ simply are. Well, ill, bravely, prudently, 
 softly, with innumerable others 
 formed from Adjectives and Parti- 
 ciples. 
 Ctrtainty or -^Verily, truly, undoubtedly, yea. 
 
 Affirmation 3 yes, certainly. 
 Contingence Perhaps, peradventure, perchance. 
 Negation Nay, no, not, nowise. 
 
 E.vplaining Namely. 
 Separation Apart, separately, asunder. 
 
 Conjunction Together, generally, universally. 
 Indication Lo. 
 
 Interrogation Why, wherefore, when, how. 
 £.rce55 or Pre- -^ Very, exceedingly, too, raore, 
 
 eminefice S better, worse, best, worst. 
 Defect Almost, nearly, less, least. 
 
 Preference Rather, chiefly, especially. 
 
 Likeness or -) 
 
 Equality jSo, thus, as, equally. 
 
 UnUkeness or -^ 
 Intqmlity ] Else, otherwise. 
 
 Abatement or 
 
 Gradaiion 
 
 > Piecemeal; scarcely, hardly 
 
JETYMOLOGY. 209 
 
 To or in a Place Here, there, where. 
 
 To aplace, only, Hither, thither, whithen 
 
 Towards a Place Hitherward, thitherward, wither- 
 
 ward. 
 From a Place Hence, thence, whence. 
 Time present Now, to-day^ 
 
 rYesterday, before, heretofore, al- 
 ^ \ ready, hitherto, lately. 
 
 J To-morrow, hereafter, presently, 
 ^ \ immediately, afterwards. 
 
 Repetition of "> 
 
 Times indef: 3^^^'"^ ^^^^^™' frequently. 
 I>efi7iitely Once, twice, thrice, again. 
 Order First, secondly, thirdly, &c. 
 
 Quantity Much, little, enough, sufficiently. 
 
 On enquiring into the meaning and etymology 
 of Adverbs, it will appear, that most of them are 
 abbreviations, or contractions for two or more 
 words. Thus hramly, or *' in a brave manner,'' 
 is probably derived by abbreviation from brave- 
 like, wisely from wise-like, happily from happy-like*, 
 Mr. Tooke, indeed, has proved, as I conceive, 
 incontrovertibly, that most of them are either 
 corruptions of other words, or abbreviations of 
 phrases, or of sentences. One thing is certain, 
 
 * Denominativa terminantur in lie vel lice^ ut -Pejilic, Tirilis, 
 •jelic legitimus, foelic marinus piplic muliebris, &c. Hanc ter- 
 tninationem hodie mutavimus ia like Tel ly ut in godlike y el godly. 
 Hickesii Thes. 
 
^10 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 that the Adverb is not an indispensible 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. 
 
 ^ * 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 (oU 
 lowing Adverbs. It would be better, however, were the dis,. 
 tinction observed. The French use ici for here and hither^ let 
 for there and thither, ou for tohere and whither. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 211 
 
 CHAP. VIIL 
 
 Of Prepositions. 
 
 A PREPOSITION has been defined to be, 
 *' that Part of Speech, which shews 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 as- 
 sociate of themselves. He has, therefore, com- 
 pared them to pegs or pins, whicli 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 in- 
 genious author now quoted has, in defence of it, 
 involved himself in palpable contradictions, it be- 
 comes matter of surprise, that it should have so 
 long received from grammarians an almost univer- 
 sal and implicit assent. This furnishes one of 
 many examples, how easily error may be imposed 
 and propagated, by the autlrority of a great name. 
 But, though error may be repeatedly transmitted 
 
 p2 
 
212 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 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, pre- 
 positions are significant of ideas, and that, as far 
 as import is concerned, they do not form a dis- 
 tinct species of words. 
 
 It is not, indeed, easy to imagine, that men, in 
 the formation of any language, would invent 
 words insignificant, and to which, singly, they 
 attached no determinate idea ; especially, when it 
 is considered, that, in every stage of their exist- 
 ence, 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 enlarge- 
 ment, and, while these demands on their invention 
 were incessantly recurring, that 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, 
 transfuse 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. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 2J3 
 
 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 hghts, 
 however, I purpose to consider them. 
 
 The name of preposition has been assigned to 
 them, because they generally precede their regi- 
 men, or the word, which they govern. What 
 number of these words ancient and modern lan- 
 guages contain, has been much disputed ; some 
 grammarians determining 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 understood ; for, in the other 
 parts of speech. Noun, Adjective, and Verb, the 
 discriminative circumstances are so evident, that 
 no doubt can arise concerning their classification. 
 
 That most of our English Prepositions have 
 signification per se, and form no distinct species 
 of words, Mr. Tooke has produced incontrovert- 
 ible evidence ; nor is it to be doubted, that a per- 
 fect acquaintance with the Northern languages 
 would convince us, that all of them are abbrevia- 
 tions, corruptions, or combinations of other words. 
 A few of Mr. Tooke's examples, I shall now pre- 
 sent to the reader. 
 
 Above, from the Anglo Saxon ufa, high ; hence 
 hufan, oh bufan hove, above. 
 
 With, from wlthan to join, of which, with is the 
 
214 ETYMOLOGY* 
 
 imperative ; thus a house with a party 
 wall, a house, join a party wall ; or it is 
 sometimes the imperative of wyrthan to 
 be; hence by and with are often synoni- 
 mous, the former being derived from 
 beon to be. 
 . Without, from the Saxon preposition withutan, 
 extra, sine, which is properly the Impe- 
 rative of the verb wyrthan-utan, ** to be 
 " out." Withutan, beiitan, ** without/' 
 *' be out," or *' but." The Saxon pre- 
 position occurs frequently in the writings 
 of Chaucer, and is still used in Scottish 
 poetry.* 
 fFrom, is simply the Anglo- saxon and Gothic 
 noun fi'um, '* beginning," *' source," 
 
 * For blithesome Sir John Barleycorn 
 Had sae allur'd them i' the morn,- 
 That, what \vi' drams, and mony a horn. 
 
 And reaming bicker, 
 The ferly is, uithoute7i scorn, 
 They wauk'd sae sicker. 
 
 Mai/ne^s Siller Gun, 
 
 This animated little poem will be read with no common pleasure 
 by every admirer of the Scottish muse. In felicity of description, 
 the author is not inferior to Burns, while in delicacy of humour 
 he may claim the superiority. 
 
 t it is possible, that the Greek uiroy and the Latin ab derived 
 from it, had their origin in ji< pater, principium^ ** author," 
 or *' principle of existence,'* 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 215 
 
 ' \. " origin ;" thus, Ffgs came from Tur- 
 key ; that is. Figs came; ** the source," 
 or *' beginning/' Turkey, to which is 
 opposed the word 
 To, the same originally as do, signifying finish- 
 ing or completion ; thus, " Figs camey>ow 
 *' Turkey to England," ** the beginning, 
 *' OT source," Turkey; *' the finishing 
 *' or end," England. 
 Beneath, is the imperative be, compounded with 
 the noun neatk, of the same import with 
 neden in Dutch, ned in Danish, tnedere 
 in German, and nedre, or neder in Swe- 
 dish, signifying the lower place ; hence 
 the astronomical term Nadir Opposed to 
 Zenith. Hence also, nether and nether* 
 most. 
 Between, '' Be twain,'' or '' be two." 
 Before, ^ 
 
 Behind, /imperative be, and the nouns fore, 
 Beside, ^ hind, side, low. 
 Below, y 
 Under, i. e. on neder. 
 
 Beyond, Imperative be, and the participle past 
 goned of the verb gan^ to go, as, '* beyond 
 *' the place," i. e. '* be passed the place." 
 Among, from gemong, the preterperfect of the 
 verb mengan to mix, used as a participle, 
 and signifying *' mixed." 
 Many other examples might be produced from 
 
216 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 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 
 insignificant, belong to the class of Nouns or 
 Verbs, either single or compounded. 
 
 Besides, if prepositions denote relations, as Har- 
 ris admits, it is surely absurd to suppose, that 
 they have no meaning; for the relation, whether 
 of propinquity, contiguity, approach, or regress. 
 Sec. may be expressed, and apprehended by the 
 mind, though the objects, between which the re- 
 lation subsists, be not specified. If I hear the 
 word with, I naturally conceive the idea of cost- 
 junction ; the reverse takes place, when I hear 
 mthaut. 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 soldier with a musquet;" but 
 the mere association was before sufficiently ex- 
 pressed, and clearly apprehended. - Again, if a 
 person say, " he threw a glass under,** t have in- 
 stantly an idea of a glass, and of inferiority of 
 place, conceiving a glass removed into a situation 
 lower than something else. To ascertain that 
 something, I ask, under what f and the answer 
 may be, under the table. Now, if under had no 
 meaning, this question would be insignificant, or 
 rather impossible. 
 
 From the examples given, I trust, the younj| 
 
ETYMOLOGY, 217 
 
 reader sufficiently understands the difference be- 
 tween the doctrine of Harris on this subject, and 
 that of Home Tooke ; nay, I think, he must per- 
 ceive, that the former is merely a theory, while 
 the latter is supported by reason and fact. The 
 syntax of our prepositions will he afterwards ex- 
 plained. I shall only observe at present, that the 
 words, which are in English considered as prepo- 
 sitions^ and joined to the objective case, are these, 
 
 Above 
 About 
 After 
 Against 
 
 Among y 
 t 3 
 
 Amongs 
 
 Amid 
 
 Amidst 
 
 Around 
 
 Round 
 
 At 
 
 Between 
 
 Betwixt 
 
 Beyond 
 
 Before 
 
 Behind 
 
 Beneath 
 
 Below 
 
 Beside 
 
 By 
 ?9f 
 
 Froip 
 
 In 
 
 Into 
 
 Near 1 
 
 Nigh > 
 
 Of 
 
 Off 
 
 Over 
 
 On 1 
 
 Upon J 
 
 Through 
 
 Till 1 
 
 Until J 
 
 To 
 
 Toward 
 
 Towards 
 
 Under 
 
 Up 
 
 With 
 
 Within 
 
 Without 
 
 } 
 
i^lS ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Some of these, though they are commonly joined 
 to an objective case, and may therefore be deemed 
 Prepositions, are, notwithstanding, of an equivocal 
 character, resembling the Latin Adverbs procul 
 and prope, which govern a case by the ellipsis of 
 a preposition. Thus we say, '* near the house" 
 and *' near to the house," '' nigh the park,** and 
 *' nigh Ho the park/' '' off the table" and '' off 
 ''from the table." 
 
 Several are used as adverbs, and also as prepo- 
 sitions, no ellipsis being involved, as till, until, 
 after, before. 
 
 There are certain particles, which are never 
 found single or uncompounded, and have there- » 
 fore been termed Inseparable Prepositions. Those 
 purely English are, «, be, fore, mis, un. The im- 
 port of these, and of a few separable prepositions 
 when prefixed to other words, I proceed to explain. 
 ji, signifies on or in, as, a foot, a shore, that is, 
 en foot, on shore. Webster contends, that 
 it was originally the same with one. 
 Be, signifies about, as, bestir, besprinkle, that is,^ 
 stirabout; 2iho for ox before, as, bespeak, 
 that is, speak for or before. 
 For, denies, as, bid, forbid, seek, forsake, i. e. 
 
 bid, not bid, seek, not seek. 
 Fore, signifies before, as, see, foresee, that is, 
 
 see beforehand. 
 Mis, denotes defect or error, as, take, mistake. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 2l9 
 
 or take wi^ongly ; deed, misdeed, tliat is, 
 a wrong or eml deed. 
 Oxier, denotes eminence or superiority, as, comey 
 (wercome; also excess, as, hasty, over 
 hasty, or too hasty. 
 Out, signifies excess or superiority, as, do, out do, 
 run, out run, that is, ** to surpass in 
 '' running." 
 Un, before an adjective, denotes negation, or 
 privation, 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 
 '^ affirmation." 
 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, zvithstand, that 
 
 is, '' stand against, or resist." 
 The Latin prepositions used in the composition 
 of English words are these, ab or abs, ad, ante, con, 
 circum, contra, de, di, dis, e or ea', ea:tra, in, inter, 
 intro, ob, per, post, pros, pro, prceter, re, retro, se, 
 sub, subter, super., trans. 
 
 A, ab, abs, signify /row2 or away, as, to abstract, 
 
 that is, *' to draw away." 
 Ad, signifies to or at, as, to adhere, that is, ** to 
 " stick to." 
 
220 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 AntCy means before, as, antecedent, that is, ^' go- 
 '* ing before/' 
 
 Chxuniy round, about, as, ci?rumna>vigate, or 
 '* sail round." 
 
 Co?2, G?;??, Co, Col, signify together, as, convoke, 
 or ^' call together," co-operate, or "work 
 " together," colleague, "joined together." 
 
 Contra, against, as, contradict, or " speak against." 
 
 Z)e, signifies cfoa;/?, as, deject, or ■* throw down." 
 
 J)f, &, asunder, as, distract, or *' draw asunder." 
 
 JE, Ex, out of , as, egress, or *' going out,'* e/ec/, 
 or *^ throw out," exclude, or ''shutout.** 
 
 Extra, beyojid, as, extraordinary, or " beyond 
 ** the ordinary or usual course." 
 
 J^, before an adjective, hke w?2, denotes priva- 
 tion, 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." 
 
 O^, denotes opposition, as, obstacle, that is, 
 '' something standing in opposition/' 
 ' ''an impediment." 
 
 Per^ through or thoroughly, as, perfect, or 
 '' thoroughly done," to perforate, or 
 ^* to bore through." 
 
 Fost, after, as, postscript, or " written after," 
 that is, after the letter. 
 
 Pm, Z>e/(?r^, as, prefix, or " fix before." 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 221 
 
 Pro, Forth, OX fonvards, as, promote, or *' move 
 
 *' forwards.'* 
 Prceter, past, or beyond, as, preternatural, or 
 
 ** beyond the course of nature." 
 Re, again, or ^^cA:, as, retake^ or " take back./' 
 Retro, backzoards, as, retrograde, or ** going 
 
 *' backwards.'' 
 ♦Se, apart, or without, as, jfo secrete, '* to put 
 
 ^' aside/' or '* to hide," secure, ^* without 
 
 " care or apprehension." 
 Subter, under, as, subterjluous, or *' flowing 
 
 ^' under." 
 Super, above, or ot;er, 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 com- 
 pounded with English words, are, a, amphi, anti, 
 hyper, hypo, meta, peri, 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 covenan- 
 
 *' ters," *' an enemy to the jacobins." 
 Hyper, over and above, as, hypercritical^ or 
 
 *' over," that is, ** too critical." 
 
2S2 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Hypo, under, implying concealment, or disguise, 
 
 as, hypocrite, " one dissembling his real 
 
 " character." 
 Meta, denotes change or transmutation, as, to 
 
 metamorphose, or '* to change the shape." 
 Peri, round about, as, periphrasis, that is, " cir- 
 
 *' cumlocution." 
 Syn, together, as, synod, '' a meeting," or 
 
 '^ comm^iogQthtv," sympathy, or '*feel- 
 
 *' ing together." 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 223 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 Of Conjunctions, 
 
 A CONJUNCTION has been defined to be 
 *• that part of speech, which connects words and 
 " sentences together." 
 
 Mr. Ruddiman, and several other grammarians;, 
 have asserted, that Conjunctions nev^r connect 
 words, but sentences. This is evidently a mis- 
 take : for, if I say, *' a man of wisdom and virtue 
 '^ is a perfect character," it imphes not '* that a 
 *^ man of wisdom is a perfect character, and a 
 *^ man of virtue a perfect character," but '-' a man 
 ** who combines wisdom and virtue." The far- 
 ther discussion of this question, however, I sha4l 
 at present postpone, as it will forrp a subject of 
 future enquiry. 
 
 Conjunctions have been distributed according 
 to their significations, into different classes. 
 
 Copulative, And, Also, But, (Bot.) 
 
 Disjunctive, Either, Or. 
 
 Concessive, Though, Although, Albeit, Yet 
 
 Adversative, But, However. 
 
224 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Ea:cluswe, Neither, Nor. 
 
 Carnal, For, That, Because, Since. 
 
 Illative, Therefore, Wherefore, Thefi, 
 
 Conditional y If. 
 
 Eixeptive, Unless, 
 
 This distribution of the Conjunctions I have 
 given, in conformity to general usage, that the 
 reader may be acquainted with the common terms, 
 l)y which Conjunctions have been denominated, if 
 these terms should occur to him in course of read- 
 ing. In respect to the real import, and genuine 
 character of these words, I decidedly adopt 
 the theory of Mr. Tooke, which considers Con- 
 junctions as no distinct species of words, but as 
 belonging to the class of Attributives, or as ab- 
 breviations for two or more significant words. 
 
 Agreeably to his theory. And, is an abbrevia- 
 tion for anad, the imperative of ananad, " to add," 
 or '* to accumulate," as, '^ Two and two make 
 ''four;" that is, *' Two, add two, make four.'* 
 
 Either is evidently 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 Mgther, equivalent to 
 uterque ^' each.*** 
 
 * That the Saxon word ctgther signified each, is sufficiently 
 evident from a variety of examples ; and the Adjective either has 
 continued to be used in that sense by reputable writers. Lowth, 
 ■vfhoy I apprehend, did not advert to its primitive signification; 
 
 4 
 
• ETYMOLOGY. ^25' 
 
 Or is a contraction for othe7\ a Saxon and 
 English Adjective equivalent to alias or alter, and 
 denotes diversity, either of name ar of subject. 
 Hence or is sometimes a perfect Disjunctive, 
 as when it expresses contrariety, or opposi- 
 tion of things; and sometimes a Subdi^junctive, 
 
 * 
 
 when it denotes simply a diversity in name. Thus, 
 when we say^ i^ It is either ev^en or odd,*' or is a 
 perfect Disjunctive, the two. attributives being di- 
 rectly contrary, and admitting no medium. If I 
 say, '^ Paris or Alexander;" (these being name* 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 Expli- 
 cative> as it serves to define, the meaning of the 
 preceding term, or as it expresses the equivalence 
 of two terms. The Latins expressed the former by 
 autf ml, and the latter hy seu or she. In the fol- 
 lowing sentence both Conjunctions are exemplified, 
 '' Give mQ 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;" i. e. *' Give me 
 '^ not one of the two, poverty — nor, i. c. not the 
 '' otller, riches." 
 
 condems the use of it as ecj^uivalent 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. 
 
 a 
 
226 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 Though is tlie same as thof, an imperative from 
 thafan, to allow, and is in some parts of the coun- 
 try pronounced thof; as, '' Tliough he should 
 '' speak truth, I would not helieve him;" i. e. 
 " allow or grant, wliat ? he should speak truth," 
 or '' allo'.v his speaking truth, I would not be- 
 *^ lieve him." 
 
 But, from heutan, the imperative of heon utcm, 
 to be cutf is the same as without or unless, there 
 being no difference between these in respect to 
 meaning. Grammarians, however, in conformity 
 to the distinction between 7nsi and sijie, have 
 called dut a Conjunction, and without a Preposi- 
 tion. But, therefore, being a word signifying ex- 
 ception or exclusion, I have not termed it an 
 *' Adversative," as most grammarians have, but 
 an ** Exceptive.'* In this sense it is synonimous 
 with prater, preterquam, or nisi ; thus, *' I saw no 
 .** body, but John," i.e. " unless," or ** except 
 '' John." 
 
 But, from Lot, the imperative of t^o/fl'w, to hot 
 or superadd, has a very diiferent meaning. This 
 word was originally written bat, and was thus dis- 
 tinguished from but*. They are now written alike, 
 which tends to create confusion. Tiie meaning of 
 this word is, '' add," or '' moreover." This in- 
 terpretation is confirmed by the probable deriva- 
 tion, and meaning of synonimous words in other 
 
 * Bat sec that Virgil standis bui compare. Gauin Donglass. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 22? 
 
 languages. Thus, . the French wz^/,y (but) is from 
 rnajus or magis, ^' more/' or '* in addition;" the 
 Itahan w^j the Spanish mas, and the Dutch maar 
 are from the same etymon, signifying "more/* 
 And it is not improbable, that adslt (be it present, 
 or be it added) by contraction became ast and at ; 
 thus adsit, adst, ast, at. In this sense, hut is py- 
 -^ nonimous with at, autem, cceicrum^ ''moreover/' 
 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 addition of something ; for hotan 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 
 'V.Ididconfess"^ Richard IL 
 
 *' Add ( this), ere Ilast received," 
 
 When hut means he out, or without, it should^, 
 says Mr. Tooke, be preceded by a negative; thus, 
 instead of saying, '' 1 saw but John/' w^iich 
 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 ex- 
 '* eluded." This, observes the ingenious author, 
 is one of the most faulty ellipses in our language, 
 and could never have obtained, but through the 
 
228 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 utter ignorance of the meaning of the ^vord hut 
 (hot). 
 
 Yet, from the imperative of ^^-e/^w, '* to get." 
 Still, from stell or steall, the imperative ofstel- 
 Ian, ponere, '' to suppose." 
 
 Home Tooke observing that these words, like 
 if and mi^, are synonimous, accounts for their 
 equivalence, by supposing them to be derived 
 from verbs of the same import. His mode of de- 
 rivation, however, appears at first hearing to be 
 incorrect, the meaning of the Conjunctions hav- 
 ing little or no affinity to that of the Verbs. Mr. 
 Tooke himself does not seem perfectly satisfied 
 Avith its truth. Both these Conjunctions are syno- 
 nimous with. " notwithstanding," '' nevertheless," 
 terms, the obvious meaning of which does not 
 accord with Verbs denoting ** to get," or *' to 
 '* suppose." 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 
 
 * 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, a7i it be but for her daughters, Confi- 
 *' dence and Reputation." *' And certainly it is the nature of 
 '^ extreme self-Iorers, as they will set their house on fire, mi it 
 '^ were, but to roast their eggs.'' (Bacon's Essays, Civ. & Mor.) 
 In the folio edition, printed in 1740, it is improperly spelled 
 and. An for if is, still retained in our address to royalty, An'^t 
 please your Majesty ; and in Scotland is in general use. 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 229 
 
 *' {licet if a ess€t)he was modest ;*' where the general 
 incompatibihty between learning and modesty is 
 conceived, not expressed, tlie expression denoting 
 merely the combination of the qualities in the indi- 
 ' vidua! mentioned. Notwithstanding indirectly 
 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 learried, he was modest/* 
 which is equivalent to, *' he was learned, yet 
 (this granted) he was modest." Hence many re- 
 peat the concessive term, and say, though he ** was 
 '' learned, yet he was modest.'* 
 
 Unless. There can be no doubt that this Ex- 
 ceptive Conjunction is properly ojiles, the impera- 
 tive of the Verb orJe^flfw, to dismiss ; thus, *' you 
 '* cannot be saved, unless yon believe;'* i. e. *'dis- 
 *^ miss your believing, 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, ojilesan or lesan, signifying '' dis- 
 *^ missed;'' as, '' Young men should take care to 
 *' avoid bad company, lest their morals be coj-- 
 *' rupted, and their reputation ruined;" that is, ' 
 ^' Young men should take care to avoid bad com- 
 
S30 ETYMOLOGY. 
 
 ** paiiy, lest (this being dismissed, or omitted) 
 *' their morals be corrupted," &c. 
 
 That, is evidently in all cases an Adjective, or> 
 as some consider it, a Demonstrative Pronoun ; 
 as, '-' They say, thai the king is arrived ;" — ''They 
 " say that (thing)— the king is arrived." 
 
 Whether, is an Adjective, denoting *' which of 
 '' two;'' thus, ''Whether he live ardie;*' that is, 
 '' Which of the \.\no things, he live, or die." 
 
 As, is the sanf?e with es, a German article mean- 
 ing 2V, that, or which. 
 
 So, is Sa or So, a Gothic article of the same 
 import. 
 
 These few examples will serve to explain Mr. 
 Tooke's theory on this subject; and I am per- 
 suaded, that, the further we investigate the ety- 
 mology and real import of Conjunctions, fhe more 
 probable it will appear, that they are all nouns or 
 attributives, some belonging to kindred languages, 
 and others compounds or abbreviations in our own. 
 I am persuaded also, that, from a general review 
 of th?s subject, it must be evident, that Adverbs, 
 Prepositions, and Conjunctions, form no distinct 
 species of words, and that' they are all reducible 
 to the class either of Nouns or Attjributives, if 
 their original character and real import be consi- 
 dered. But, as many of them are deriv^ed from 
 obsolete words in our own language, or from words 
 iu kindred languages, the radical meanings of 
 which afe, therefore, either obscure, or generally 
 
£TYMOLOGT. 231 
 
 unknown ; and as the syntactical use of several of 
 them has undergone a change, it can he no impro- 
 priety, nay it is even convenient, to regard them 
 not in their original character, hut their jwesent 
 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 onlesan, to dismiss, that verb belonging to a 
 different language, would serve only to perplex, 
 and to confound. For this reason, though I per- 
 fectly concur with Mr. Tooke, as to the proper and 
 original import of these words, I have distributed 
 them under tbe customary heads of Prepositions, 
 Adverbs, and ConjunctioQs, 
 
23^ 
 
 ETYMOLOGY, 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Of Interjections. 
 
 AN Interjection has been defined to be, '' that 
 '' part of speech, whicli denotes some affection or 
 '^ emotion of the mind." It is clearly not a neces- 
 sary part of speech ; for, as Tooke observes^ lur 
 terjections are not to be found in books of History, 
 Philosophy or Religion: they occur in novels 
 only, or dramatic compositions. Some of these 
 are entirely instinctive and mechanical, as ha ka 
 ha, .sounds common to all men, when agitated with 
 laughter. These physical emissions 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 arr 
 ticulation, but by the accompanying voice or 
 gesture. Grief, for example, is expressed in Eng- 
 lish by the word ah ! or oh ! ; in Latin by oi ei, 
 and in Greek by oi oi ai ai. Here the sounds are not 
 instinctive, or purely mechanical, as in laughing • 
 but the accompanying tone of voice, which is the 
 same in all mei), under the influence of the same 
 emotion, indicates clearly the feehng or passion of 
 
ETYMOLOGY. 933 
 
 the speaker. Others, which have been deemed 
 Interjections, are, in truth, verbs or nouns, em- 
 ployed in the rapidity of thought and expression, 
 and under the influence of strong emotion, to de- 
 note, what would othervyise require more words to 
 express; a,s st7'a?ige / for it is strange; adieu, for 
 J recommend you to God; shame^ for it is shame ^ 
 welcome J for 7/0 u are welcome. 
 
 The words, which have been c nsidered by our 
 English grammarians as Interjections, are the 
 following, expressive of 
 
 1 . Joy, as Hey, lo. 
 
 2. Griefy Ah, alas, alack. 
 
 3. JVonder, Vah ! hah ! aha ! 
 
 4. Aversion^ Tush, pish, pshaw, fob, fie, pugh, 
 
 5. Laughter, Ha ha ha. 
 
 p. Desire of attention, Hark, lo, halloo, hem, 
 hip. 
 
 7. Languor^ Heigh ho, , 
 
 8. Desire of silence, Hush, l^ist, mum, 
 
 9. Deliberation, Hum. 
 10. Exultation, Huzza. 
 IL Fain, O ! ho ! 
 
 12. Taking leave. Adieu. 
 }3. Greeti?7g, Welcome. 
 
PART II 
 
 of 
 
 SYNTAX 
 
 Syntax is the arrangement of words in sen- 
 tences or phrases, agreeably to established 
 usage, OF 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 fi- 
 nite verb, as, ''Alexander the great is said to have 
 *•' wept.'' 
 
 A complex sentence consists of two or more 
 members, as, ** Alexander, when he had con- 
 " quered the world, is said to hav^e wept, because 
 ** there v/ere not other worlds to subdue." 
 
 Complex sentences are divided into members; 
 and these, if complex, are subdived into clauses, 
 as, '' The ox knoweth his owner | and the ass his 
 " master's crib |1 but Israel doth not know | my 
 *' people doth not consider." This complex sen- 
 tence has two members, each ofwhicji contains 
 two clauses. 
 
SYNTAX. 235- 
 
 When a member of a complex sentence is simple, 
 ft is called indifferently a member, or a clause ; as, 
 ** I have called; but ye have refused." The two 
 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 nof wintered at 
 ** Capua, by which circumstance his troops were 
 *' enervated, but had, on the contrary, after the 
 *^ battle of Cannse, 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 sentetjce, 
 otherwise tlie sentence is incomplete. The follow- 
 ing is an example of a loose sentence. *' One 
 ^' party had given tlieir whole attention, during 
 ^^ several years, to the project of enriching them- 
 '* selves, and impoverishing the rest of the nation ; 
 *' and by tliese and other means of establishing 
 ** their dominion, under . the government, and 
 " with the favour of a family, who were foreigners : 
 *' and therefore-mJo;bt believe, thev were established 
 " on the throne, by the good will and strength of 
 ** this party alone.'* In this sentence you may 
 stop at the words themsehesy natloiz, dominmiy gO' 
 wernment, or foreigntrs ; and these pauses will 
 Sjcverally complete the construction, and conclude 
 
95G SYNTAX. 
 
 perfect sentences. Thus in a period, the depend- 
 ence of the members is reciprocal; in a loose sen- 
 tence, the preceding are not necessarily dependent 
 on the subsequent members ; vvhereas the following 
 entirely depend on those, which are antecedent. 
 The former possesses more strength, and greater 
 majesty ; hence it is adapted to the graver sub- 
 jects of history, philosophy, 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 subjects of tales, dia- 
 logues, 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 number and person. 
 
 Government is the power, which one word hath 
 over another in determining its state ; thus, '^^ he 
 " w^ounded us/' In this sentence, wounded h an 
 Active Transitive Verb, and governs the Pronoun 
 in the objective case. '- 
 
[ SYNTAX. ' 237 
 
 CHAP. T. 
 
 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 singular, 
 and of the third person. 
 
 Note 1. The Nominative to a Verb is known 
 by putting the question, Who? or What ? to the 
 Verb; as, I read ; Who reads? Ans. /. 
 
 Note 2. The Infinitive often supplies the place 
 of a Nominative to a Verb ; thus, '* To excel in 
 ^' every laudable pursuit should be the aim of 
 *' everyone." What should be the aim? Ans. 
 " To excel." 
 
 Note 3. A Verb is frequently construed with 
 a whole clause as its Nominative ; thus, *' His 
 " being at enmity with Caesar was the cause of 
 *' perpetual discord ;" where, his being at enmity, 
 the subject of the affirmation, forms the Nomina- 
 tive to the Verb. 
 
--S SYNTAX. 
 
 Note 4. The Nominative, when the Verb ex- 
 presses command or entreaty, is often suppressed, 
 as, *' speak" for *' speak thou/' " honour the king" 
 for '- honour ye the king." 
 
 Note 5. The Nominative generally precedes 
 the Verb, and is, in some examples, known by 
 nothing, but its place. This arrangement, how- 
 ever, is sometimes altered, and the Verb placed 
 before the Nominative. 
 
 1st. Where the sentence is interrogative, as, 
 '* Does wealth make men happy ?'* Here the No- 
 minative wealth follows the Auxiliary: *' wealth 
 " does'' would denote affirmation. ** Stands 
 '*" Scotland where it did ?" Here also the Nomi- 
 native follows the Verb, to denote interrogation*. 
 2dly. In expressing commands or requests, as, 
 ''go thou/* " read ye/' 
 
 Sdly. When a supposition is elliptically ex- 
 pressed, the conditional particle if being under- 
 stood; as, " Were I Alexander," said Parmenio, 
 *' I would accept the offer," where '* were I*' is 
 equivalent to *' if I were." 
 
 * This phraseology has been censured by Buchanan and the 
 author of the British Grammar ; but, as I apprehtvrrd, without 
 the shadow of authority. To ask a question with a principal 
 V€ff;b, as, burns he^ the latter affirms to be a barbarism. To 
 (HsproYG the assertion, I shall only, in addition to the one 
 quoted from Macbeth, produce these examples — -^^ Simon, sou 
 *' of Jonas, lovestfhou me V {Bible.)—'-' Died he not in bed ?" 
 {Shaki'speare.)^^^ Or flies the javelin swifter to its mark ?'' (Id.) 
 ** And live there men, who slight immortal fame?'* {Pope.) 
 
SYNTAX. 239 
 
 4tlily. 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 acquire- 
 '' ment/' This arrangement 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 Nomi- 
 native energetically follows the Verb, as, ** Great 
 '* is Diana of the Ephesians." Alter the arrange- 
 ment, saying, '' Diana of the Ephesians is great," 
 and you efface the signature of impetuosity, and 
 render the expression 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 exclama- 
 tion into a cold aphorism. "Fallen, fallen is Ba- 
 *' bylon, that great city.'* The energy of the last 
 expression arises partly, I acknowledge, from the 
 epijeuiis or reduplication*. 
 
 Cthly. The Auxiliary Verb is placed before the 
 
 * Our translators, as the judicious critic last quoted observes, 
 have totally enervated the strength of the original, which runs 
 thus, ETTscrs, ^TtcTs. Bxt-JK-Jjv tJ itoXi; -^ iLEyaJkr^^ and which they 
 have rendered, *' Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city." 
 
S40 syntax; 
 
 Nominative^ when the sentence or member begins 
 with 7ior or 7ieither, 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 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 connection with other parts of the 
 sentence. *' Hence appears the impossibility, that 
 *' this undertaking should be carried on in a mo- 
 narchy." Impossibility being here in sense closely 
 connected with the following words, this arrange- 
 ment is preferable to that in the original. Hume 
 says, '' Hence the impossibility 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 sin- 
 gular Verb, as, '^ Mathematics is a useful study/' 
 This observation, however, is not justified by ge- 
 neral usage, reputable writers being in this case 
 much divided. ( See p. 25. ) 
 
 This Rule of Concord of a Verb with its Nomi- 
 native is violated in such expressions as these, 
 "" you was present,'' ^^ you was pleased to observe/^ 
 You is plural, whether it refer to only one indivi- 
 dual, or to more ; and ought therefore to be joined 
 
SYNTAX. 241 
 
 With a plural Verb. It is no argument to say, 
 that when we address a single person, we should 
 u»e a Verb singular; for were this plea admissible, 
 we ought to say, ** you wast^" for wast is the se- 
 cond 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." 
 
 Ri;l^ IL 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 collect- 
 ively subjects of discourse, they require a 
 plural Verb, and plural representatives, as, 
 
 " Cato and Cicero were learned men ; and 
 " they loved their country.'* 
 
 Note 1. It was customary with the writers of 
 antiquity, when the Substantives were nearly syno^ 
 ninious, to employ a Verb singular, 2^% mens, ?^atio 
 et consilium in scnibus est, '' understanding, reason 
 *' and prudence is in old men.*' In imitation of 
 these, some English authors have, in similar in- 
 stances, employed a Verb singular. I concur, 
 however, with L. Murray in disapproving this 
 phraseology. For either the terms are synonimous, 
 or they are not. If their equivalence be admitted, 
 all but one are redundant, and there is only one 
 subject of discourse; only one term should there- 
 
2.*^ SYNTAX. 
 
 fore be retained, and a Verb singular be joined 
 with it. If they be not equivalent, there are a 
 many distinct ideas, as there are terms, and a plu- 
 rality of subjects require a plural Verb. 
 
 Note.^, It isnot necessary, that tlie subjects 
 of discourse be connected, or associated by (Con- 
 junctions: it is sufficient, if the terms form a plu- 
 rality of subjects to a common predicate, whether 
 with, or without any connexive word, as, *' Honour, 
 " justice, religion itself, were derided and blas- 
 '* phemed by these profligate wretches*." In this 
 example the copulative is omitted. " The King, 
 " with the Lords and Commons, constitute an 
 " excellent form of government.'* Here the con- 
 nexive word is not a Conjunction but a Preposi- 
 tion ; and though the Lords and Commons be pro- 
 perly in the objective case, and the King therefore 
 the only Nominative to the Verb, yet as the three 
 subjects collectively' constitute the govermuent, 
 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 ancient and modern languages : 
 in some cases indeed it seems preferable to the 
 syntactical form of expression. 
 
 • 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 tp a grammatical figure termed 
 syllepsis indirecta^ or " indirect comprehension of several singu«» 
 *' lars under one plural,'* opposed* to the ^^^/cfww directa, or 
 that expressed by a copulative. 
 
SYNTAX. 243 
 
 Note 3. Where comparison is expressed or im- 
 plied, and not combination, the Verb should be 
 singular; thus, *' Caesar, as well as Cicero, was 
 ** remarkable for eloquence.'* 
 
 Note 4. When the Nominatives are of diiferent 
 persons, the first person is preferred to the second, 
 and the jecond to the third. In other words, / 
 dnd ijmiy 1 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 i^ersona-l inflexion : it can be useful only 
 in determining, what Pronoun should be the re- 
 presentative of the tern^s collectively, as, " he and 
 ** I shared it between us.'* 
 
 Note 5. 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 pre- 
 cisely adopt the arrangement of the Latins ; for 
 though, like them, we place the pronoun of the 
 second person before that of the third, we mo^ 
 destly place the pronoun of the first person after 
 those of the second and third. Thus, where a 
 Roman would say, si tu et Tullia valetis, ego et 
 Cicero valemuSy we should say, *' If you and Tullia 
 " are well, Cicero and I are well." 
 
 Rule III, When of twd or more sub- 
 
244 SYNTAX. 
 
 stantives singular, one exclusively is the sub- 
 ject of discourse, a verb singular is required, 
 as, '* John, James, or Andrew intends to ac- 
 '' company you ;" that is, one of the three, 
 but not more than one. 
 
 Rule IV. Nouns of number, or collective 
 nounS) may have a singular or plural verb, thus, 
 
 " 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. 7'hus it seems 
 harsh and unnatural to say, '^ In France the pea- 
 ** santry goes barefoot, and the middle sort makes 
 ^' use of wooden shoes." It would be better to 
 say, /' the peasantry go'' — ^' the middle sort male," 
 because the idea is thai of number. On the con- 
 trary, there is something incongruous and unna- 
 tural in these expressions, '^ The court of Rome 
 '^ were not without solicitude — The house of com- 
 '' mons were of small weight — Stephen's part\^ 
 ** were entirely broken up." Hume. 
 
 Rule V. The Adjectives this and that 
 'agree with their substantives in number, as. 
 
SYNTAX. 
 
 245 
 
 This man These men 
 
 That woman Those women 
 
 All other Adjectives are inflexible, as. 
 
 Good man Good men. 
 
 Note 1. The Substantive, with which the Ad- 
 jective is connected, is ascertained by putting the 
 question, who, or what? to the Adjejtive, as,' 
 ** a ripe apple." What is ripe? Ars. '* the apple." 
 
 Note 2. Every Adjective has a substantive, 
 cither expressed or understood, as, " the just shall 
 '* live by faith," i e. *' the just man," ''few were 
 ^* present,'* i. e. *' few persons.' 
 
 Note 3. The Adjective is generally placed im- 
 mediately before the Substantive, as, *' a learned 
 ** man,'* '' a chaste woman." 
 
 E.rc. 1. When the Adjective is closely con- 
 nected with some other word, by which its mean- 
 ing is modified or explained, as, '* a man loyal to. 
 '' his prince," where the attributive loi/al is closely 
 connected with the following words. 
 
 Edc. 2. When the verb to be expresses simple 
 affirmation, as, '' thou art good ;*' or when «iny. 
 other verb serves as a mere copula to unite tiiC. 
 predicate with its subject, as, " he seems coura- 
 *' geous," " it looks strange.'* 
 
 Ea:c. 5. For the sake of harmony, as, '* Hail, 
 *' bard divine." 
 
246 SYNTAX. 
 
 EcVC, 4. When there are more Adjectives than 
 one connected v/ith the suhstantive, as, '• a man 
 *' wise, valiant, and good." 
 
 EdX. 5. Adjectives denoting dimension are put 
 after tlie Substantive, as, *' a wall ten feet high." 
 
 Note 3. 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, take eithtr^ that is, '^ the one or the other, but 
 '^ not both." Both is a plural Adjective, and tie- 
 notes the two collectively. 
 
 Note 4. Every is an Adjective singular, ap- 
 plied 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 
 forming one aggregate, as, every txceheyears^ i. e. 
 ** every period of twelve years." 
 
 Note 5. 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 6. Much is an Adjective of quantity, and 
 of the singular number, as, *' much fruit.'* Many 
 an Adjective of number, and therefore plural, as, 
 "many men.'' This word, however, is sometimes 
 construed with a nqun singular, as, 
 
 *^ Many a poor man's son wppld ha^e Iain still." Shakespeare. 
 * It is som'etimes used for exeryy and applied to mere than two. 
 
SYNTAX. 247 
 
 Note 7. More, as the comparative of much, is 
 singular, denoting a greater quantity; as the 
 comparative of mani/, it is plural, and signifies a 
 greater number, as, more fi^uit, or *' a greater 
 ** quantity," more men, or *' a greater number.** 
 
 Note 8. Enough is an Adjective singular, and 
 denotes quantity, as, ** bread enough;" enow de- 
 notes number, as, " books enow.'* 
 
 Note 9. Adjectives are sometimes improperly 
 used for Adverbs, as, indifferent well, extreme had, 
 for indifferently welly extremely bad. An example 
 of this error is also found in the following sentence, 
 " He was interrogated relative to that circum- 
 ** stance." 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 
 expressions 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, excessive 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 
 
243 SYNTAX. 
 
 <* Strength was exceeding great/* may not the e>c* 
 pression be considered as elliptical, the word ex- 
 ceeding being construed as a participle, thus, '* his 
 *^ strength M^as exceeding," or '^ surpassing great 
 ^' strength/' that is, ** his strength exceeded 
 •' great strength^." So Shakespeare says, '^itwas 
 *' passing strange," i. e. " it was more than 
 *' strange," or '^ it surpassed strange." I admit, 
 at the same time, that exceedingly strongs exceedingly 
 good, are the preferable phraseologies. 
 
 * 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 bcet^ 
 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 ex- 
 pression, appear to have been |n his time very common, thus, 
 
 '• Although he was exceeding wealthy," Peers, 
 *' He was moreover extraordinary courteous." (lb.) 
 
 '* The jVthenians were extreme apprehensive of his groning 
 *^ power.** TuUie, 
 
 And in our version of the Bible we find a few such expression* 
 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,'^ '^ ex^ 
 <* tjreme good/' 
 
SYNTAX. 249 
 
 Rule VI. The article a or an, is joined to 
 nouns of the singular number only, or nouns 
 denoting a pluraUty of things in one aggre^ 
 gate, as, 
 
 A man An army A thousand A few. 
 
 Note 1. To distinguish between tlie use of a 
 and ally it is usually given as a general rule, that 
 a be placed before consonants, and li aspirated, and 
 an before vowels, and h not aspirated, as, a table, 
 a haty an oak. an heir. This rule is defective, for 
 we say,' a youths a yeoman, a woman, a eunuch, 
 Sheridan, therefore, in his Freface to Swift, has 
 very properly remarked, that all words beginning 
 with u, when it has the diphthongal sound of ew, 
 should be preceded by a not an. In addition to 
 this it may be observed, that a is admitted before 
 the simple sound of w, followed by another vowel 
 sound, as, such a 07ie, a woman. 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 ew, in whatsoever manner that sound may 
 be noted, as, a use, a eunuch, a youth, and uni- 
 formly before 1/ and z£^. 
 
 Note ^l. A IS employed to express one indivi- 
 dual of a species without determining who or 
 
250 ' SYNTAX. 
 
 which; the denotes some particular individual or 
 individuals. 
 
 Noted. The indefinite article, though generally 
 placed before the Adjective^ as, ''a good man/' is 
 put after the Adjective such; and where these 
 words of comparison occur, aSj so, too, hozv, its 
 place is between the Adjective and Substantive, 
 tluis, " 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 like- 
 wise placed before the Adjective, as *^ the great 
 '* king.'* All is the only Adjective, which pre- 
 cedes the article. ^* All the servants," *' all the 
 '^ money/' 
 
 Note 4. Pronouns and proper names do not 
 admit the definite article, themselves sufficiently 
 determining the subject of discourse; thus we 
 cannot say, ike i, the Alexander, If we employ 
 the definite a.r tic le with a proper name, an ellipsis 
 is inivolv:ed; thus, if 1 say, he commands the Ccesdr, 
 I mean, he commands the ship called " Caesar/' 
 
 Note 5. The definite article is used to distin- 
 guish the explicative from the determinative sense. 
 The oinission of the article, when the sense js re- 
 stricted, creates ambiguity. For this reason the 
 following sentence is faulty ; " All words, which 
 *' are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of 
 ^* mistake." (Bolingbroke.) Here the clause, 
 *' which are signs of complex ideas," is not ex- 
 plicative, but restrictive ; for all words are. not 
 
SYNTAX, 251 
 
 signs of complex ideas. It should, therefore, be, 
 *' all the/' or ** all those words, which are signs 
 *' of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake." 
 
 *' In all cases of prescription, the universal prac- 
 ** tice 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." Erskiiie on the Rights of 
 Juries. This sentence is chargeable at once vvith 
 ambiguity and error. In the first phice, it is 
 doubtful, whether a regard to this analogy go- 
 verns the directions of the jndge, or is to rule the 
 decision of the jury. 2dly. By the omission of the 
 definite article, or the word those before the ante- 
 cedent, he has rendered the relative clause expli^ 
 rative, instead of being restrictive. For, as all 
 incorporeal rights are not abolished, lie should 
 have said, *' against those incorporeal rights." 
 
 There are certain cases, indeed, in which the 
 antecedent clause admits the definite article, though 
 the relative clause be not restrictive, thus, 
 
 '' Blest are th^. pure, whose hearts arc cleaa 
 " 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 Hmit the meaning of the 
 
95^ SYNTAX. 
 
 antecedent terms, and yet they admit the definite 
 article. In all examples, therefore, like these, 
 where the explanatory meaning admits the articl?;, 
 it is necessary, for the sake of perspicuity, to mark 
 the determinative sense by the emphatic vvords 
 that or those. Thus had the clause been determi- 
 native 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 
 characterized by several qualities. For example, 
 if I should say, '* the red and blue vestments were 
 " most admired," it may be doubtful, whether I 
 rncan, that the union of red and blue in the same 
 vestments was 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 vest- 
 *■ ments 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, 
 ** vestments," characterized by two qualities, 
 *' redness'' and " blueness," as combined in the 
 subject. Here the subject is one ; its qualities are 
 
SYNTAX. ^53 
 
 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 ecclesi-* 
 '* astical and secular powers concurred in this 
 *' measure,*' the expression is ambiguous, as far 
 as language can render it such. The rea<ler's 
 knowledge, as Dr. Campbell observes, may pre- 
 vent his mistaking it; but, if such modes of ex- 
 pression be admitted, where the sense is clear, 
 they may inadvertently be imitated in cases, where 
 the meaning would be obscure, if not entirely mis- 
 understood. The error might have been avoided, 
 either by repeating the substantive, or by sub- 
 joining 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 ecclesiastical powers, and the secular 
 *' powers," or better *' the ecclesiastical powers, 
 *' and the secular,*' or " the ecclesiastical, and the 
 *' secular powers." The repetition of the article 
 shews, that the second adjective is not an additi- 
 onal epithet to the same subject, but belongs to a 
 subject totally difierent, though expressed by the 
 same generic name. '' The Lords sj)i ritual and 
 •* temporal," is a phraseology objectionable on the 
 same principle, though now so long sanctioned by 
 usage, that we dare hardly question its propriety. 
 
254 SYNTAX. 
 
 The subjects are different, though they have bat 
 one generic name. It should, therefore, be, " the 
 *' spiritual, and the temporal Lords." 
 
 On the contrary, when two or more Adjectives 
 belong 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 shew, whether both Ad- 
 jectives belong to tlie same thing, or to different 
 things having the same generic name. '' Like 
 ** an householder, who bringeth out of bis trea- 
 '* sure things new and old." This arrangement 
 is faulty : both epithets cannot belong to the same 
 subject. It should be, '' new things and old." 
 
 If both Adjectives belong to one and the same 
 Subject, the Substantive ought either to precede 
 both Adjectives, or to follow both, the article 
 being uniforndy omitted before the second Adjec- 
 tive, whether prefixed to the Substantive before 
 thefirst, orsuj)pressed. If, on the contrary, they 
 belong to different subjects, with the same name, 
 tbe Substantive ought to follow thefirst Adjective, 
 and may be either repeated 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 
 
SYNTAX. 255 
 
 indefinite article, in some instances, nearly re- 
 verses 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 7iot at all. Locke 
 says, " I leave him to reconcile these contradic- 
 *' tions, which may be plentifully found in hira 
 '* by any one, who reads with but a little atten- 
 ** tion." Here, on the contrary, where t]).e inde- 
 finite 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 find it;" fezo is opposed to many. Thus 
 also, ** J/r/wy are called, but /ea; are chosen." But 
 when it is said, " Tarry a few days, till thy bro- 
 ** ther's fury turil," a fezv is here equivalent to 
 some, not as opposed to iJiani/, but as opposed to 
 not none. If we say, *'j^a' 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 number as not 
 unworthy of attention, or as equal at least, if not 
 superior to expectation. In short, if the article 
 bfe 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, era negative import. 
 
'266 stNtAx. 
 
 Notes. The indefinite article has, sotnetintics^ 
 the meaning of €ve?y 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." Hudihras* 
 
 that is, " every year/* 
 
 iV^<?^e 9. There is a particular use of this articlCi 
 which merits attention, as ambiguity may thus, 
 in many cases, be avoided. In denoting compa- 
 rison, when the article is suppressed before the 
 second term, the latter, though it may be an ap* 
 pellative^ assumes the character of an attributive, 
 and becomes the predicate of the subject, or first 
 term. If, on the contrary, the second term be 
 prefaced with the article, it continues an appella- 
 tive, and forms the other subject of comparison* 
 In the former case, the subject, as possessing dif- 
 ferent quahties in various degrees, is compared 
 "with itself; in the latter, it is compared with some- 
 thing 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 pps- 
 
 ' sesses the qualities, which form thenaol^yer, ^ia 
 
 ' 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, there- 
 
SYNTAX. 257 
 
 ,fore, retains the character of an appellative, and 
 forms the second subject of coniparisoo. 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." These two phraseologies are frequently 
 confounded, which seldom fails to create am- 
 biguity. Baker erroneously considers them as 
 •equivalent, and prefers that, in which the article 
 is omitted before the second substantive. 
 
 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 and predicate. For this reason, the fol- 
 lowing sentence appears to nie faulty. *' The 
 " apostle James, the son of Zebedee, and the 
 '* brother of St. John, would be declared the 
 *' apostle of the Britons.'* Htnry's History of 
 Britain, It should be rather, ** and brother of 
 *' St. John." Wh^n a diversity of persons, 0x^2^ 
 change of subject is intended to be expressed, the 
 definite article is necessarily employed, as, '' Cin- 
 ** cinnatus the Dictator, and the Master of Horse, 
 '' ifiarched against the iEqui." The definite article 
 before the latter appellative, marks the diversity of 
 subject, and clearly shews fhat two persons are 
 designed. Were the article omitted, the expression 
 
 s 
 
95S SYNTAX. 
 
 would imply, that the Dictator, and the Master 
 of Horse, were one and the same individual. 
 
 Rule VIL Substantives signifying the 
 same thing agree in case, thus, *' I, George 
 '' the third, king of Great Britain, defender 
 " of the faith." The words /, George, king, 
 defender, are all considered as the nominative 
 case. *^ The chief of the princes, he who 
 '* defied the bravest of the enemy, was assas- 
 " sinated 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." 
 " He was the son of the Rev. Dr. West, per- 
 " haps Aim, who published Pindar at Oxford." 
 f Johnsons Life of West. J 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 I. As proper itames are, by the trope an- 
 tonomasia, frequently used for appellatives, as 
 when we say, " the Socrates of the present age/' 
 where Socrates is epuivalent to, ** the wisest man," 
 so also appellatives have frequently the meaning, 
 
SYNTAX. --^^ 
 
 and force of attributives. Thus, if we say, '' lie 
 " is a soldier," it means either, that he is by pro- 
 fession a soldier, or that he possesses all the qual- 
 ities of a military man, whether professionally a 
 soldier, or not. According to the former accepta- 
 tion of the term, it is a mere appellative; agreea- 
 bly^ 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 txvo miss Thomsons'' Analogy, Pr. Priestley 
 observes, would plead in favour of another con- 
 struction, and lead us to sa}^, the two misses Thom- 
 son, the two misses Louisa Howard, '' for if the 
 '^ ellipsis were supplied, we should say, the two 
 *' young ladies of the name of Thomson, and this 
 *' construction, he adds, he has somewhere met 
 '' with." 
 
 The latter form of expression, it is true, occasi- 
 onally occurs ; but general usage, and, I am rather 
 inclined to think, analogy likewise, decide in fa- 
 vour of the former; for, with a few exceptions, 
 and these not parallel to the examples now given* 
 we almost uniformly, in complex names, confine 
 the inflexion to the last substantive. Some proofs 
 
 * Wc say, indeed, '' Messrs. Thomson;" but Tve seldom or 
 never say, " the two Messrs. Thomson," but •' the two Mr, 
 ^' Thomsons.'' 
 
 s 2 
 
260 SYNTAX. 
 
 of this we shall afterwards have an opportunity of 
 offering. I would also observ^e, in passing, that 
 ellipsis and analogy are different principles, and 
 should be carefully distinguished. . 
 
 Rule VIII. One Substantive governs an- 
 other, signifying a different thing, in the 
 genitive, as. 
 
 The tyrant's rage. The apostle's feet. 
 
 Nott 1. This rule takes place, when property, 
 possession, or the general relation, by which one 
 thing appertains to another, is implied. 
 
 Note 2. Substantives govern not only nouns, 
 but likewise pronouns, as, '* its strength," *' his 
 " reward." 
 
 Note 3. 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 4. The latter, or governing substantive, 
 is frequently understood, as, *' the king will come 
 '' to St. James's ro-morrow," that is, ** St. .James's 
 *' palace." *' I found him at the stationer's," that 
 
SYNTAX. 261 . 
 
 is, *' the stationer's shop," or " the stationer's 
 ** house." 
 
 Note 5. 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 Ri- 
 " chard'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 unac- 
 quainted with the history of these patriarchs might 
 be at a loss to determine, whether ** the patriarch 
 " Abraham," '^ the patriarch Isaac," and *' the 
 *' posterity of Jacob," were carried captive; in 
 other words, whether there be three subjects of 
 discourse, namely, Abraham, Isaac, and the pos- 
 ferity of Jacob, or only one subject, the posterity 
 of these patriarchs. Nor will the insertion of the 
 preposition in all cases prevent the ambiguity. For, 
 in the example before us, were the word ^* de- 
 '* scendants" substituted for *' posterity," and the 
 phrase to proceed thus, '^ the descendants or 
 *' Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," an ignorant 
 
262 SYNTAX. 
 
 reader might be led to suppose, that not one gene- 
 ration 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 mentioned. If we say, ** the common 
 ** posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were 
 '* carried captive to Babylon," all ambiguity of 
 expression is prevented. 
 
 Instead also of saying, ^' John, WilHam, and 
 "** Richard's house," I should prefer '* a house be- 
 " longing in common to John, William, and Ri- 
 " chard." This expression, though laborious and 
 lieavy, is preferable to the inelegance and harsh- 
 ness of three inflected substantives, while it re- 
 moves the ambiguity, which might in some cases 
 le occasioned by withholding the inflexion from 
 the two first substantives. Where neatness and 
 perspicuity cannot possibly be combined, it will 
 not be questioned which we ought to prefer. I 
 observe also, that though such phraseologies as 
 this, '^ John's, William's, and Richard's houses" 
 1)6 perfectly consonant with syntactical propriety, 
 and strictly analogous to the established phrase- 
 ology, ** 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 mean- 
 ** ing may be) to John, William, and Richard." 
 
SYNTAX. ,2j6d 
 
 Note 6, When a name is complex, that is, 
 consisting of more terms than one, the last only 
 admits the sign of the genitive, as, Julius Caesar's 
 ** Commentaries," '* John the Baptist's head," 
 *' forHerodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife." 
 
 Note 7. When a short explanatory term is sab- 
 joined to a name, it matters Httle, to which the 
 inflexion be annexed, as, ** I left the parcel at Mr. 
 ** Johnson, the bookseller's," or '* at Mr. John- 
 *' son'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 book- 
 *' seller, a worthy man, and an old friend." In 
 the same manner we slK>uld 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 8. In some cases, we employ both the 
 genitive, and a preposition, as, '' this is a friend 
 " of the king's," elliptically, for *' this is a friend 
 *' of the king's friends." We say also, '' tliis is a 
 " friend of the king." These forms of expression, 
 however, though in many cases equivalent, some- 
 times imply different ideas. Thus, if 1 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." 
 
204" SYNTAX, 
 
 As the double genitive involves an ellipsis, and 
 implies part of a whole, or one of a plurality of 
 subjects, I think the use of it should be avoided, 
 unless in cases, where this plurality may be im- 
 plied. Thus we may say^ '' a kinsman of the trai- 
 '' tor's waited on him yesterday," it being implied, 
 that the traitor had several or many kinsmen. 
 The expression is equivalent 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 9. The recurrence -of the analytical ex- 
 pression, and likewise of the simple genitive, 
 should be carefully avoided. Thus, there is some- 
 thing inelegant and offensive in the following 
 sentence, '' the severity of the distress of the sou 
 *' of the king touched the nation." Much better, 
 <* the severe distress of the king's son touched the 
 '' nation." 
 
 Note 10. There is sometimes an abrupt vulgarity, 
 or uncouthness, in the use of the simple genitive. 
 Thus, in '' the army'? name," '' the commons* 
 '' vote," '' the lords' house," expressions of Mr. 
 Hume, there is a rnanifesl want of dignity and of 
 elegance. Much better, ',' the name of the army, " 
 '^ the vote of the commons," '' the house of lords." 
 
SYNTAX. 265 
 
 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 mascuUne, and his agrees with 
 it in gender and number. " He addressed you 
 " and me, and desired us to follow him,'' 
 where us 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 num- 
 ber, 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 impu- 
 *' nity, proved his destruction." Here the 
 antecedent vice not being a person, the pro- 
 noun which, of the neuter gender, is there- 
 fore employed. " The rivers, which 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. 
 
 . Note 1. The relative should be placed as near 
 
£66 SYNTAX. 
 
 as possible to the antecedent, otherwise ambiguity 
 is sometimes occasioned. 
 
 Note. 2. 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 arbitrary. If we say, *' I am the 
 " man, who commands you," the relative clause, 
 with the antecedent W2a?z, form the predicate ; and 
 the sentence is equivalent to "' I am your com- 
 ** mander." If we say, " I am the man, who 
 *' command you/' the man simply is the predicate, 
 and I who command you the subject ; thus, '' I who 
 ** command you," or '' I your commander am the 
 '•'man." This error, sufficiently obvious to every 
 discerning reader, I pointed out in the former 
 edition of this Treatise. Murray's rule, as it stood, 
 is clearly repugnant to perspicuity, and syntac- 
 tical correctness. 
 
 In the last edition of his Grammar, and, I be- 
 lieve, in every edition posterior to the publication 
 ©f '' Tlie Etymology and Syntax," the rule is 
 altered ; but whether from a disinclination to ex- 
 punge a rule, which he had once delivered,— a dis- 
 inclination perhaps accompanied with a belief, that 
 it might be corrected with little prejudice to its 
 ©riginal form, or from what other motive he has 
 
SYNTAX. 267 
 
 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 perspicuity. He says, 
 '* When the relative is preceded by two Nomina- 
 " tives of different persons, it may 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, w^e 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 repetition, or with extreme 
 inattention to correctness and precision. For 
 what would our rule imply ? Clearly nothing 
 more, than that the Adjective is capable of agree- 
 ing 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 
 optional. ^ Now, is it not certain, that the Adjec- 
 tive 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 
 representative it is in the relative clause. There isi 
 nothing arbitrary in either the one, or the other. 
 
258 SYNTAX. 
 
 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 ante- 
 cedent. But why this apparent contrariety ? Why 
 is that represented as arbitrary, which is determined 
 by the sense ? This, however, is not the only ob- 
 jection ; for it may be affirmed, without hesitation, 
 that the rule, thus considered, is completely su- 
 perfluous. For the learner has been already told, 
 that the Relative agrees with the antecedent in 
 gender, number, and person. And can the an- 
 tecedent be any other than that, which the sense 
 indicates ? And what does this rule teach ? Pre- 
 cisely the same thing. The rule, therefore, is 
 either calculated to mislead by representing as ar- 
 bitrary what is fixed and determinate, or it is 
 purely a rule of supererogation. As it stood origin- 
 ally, it gave some new information; but that in- 
 formation 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 an- 
 tecedent; 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 al- 
 ready knows. In the examples just now adduced, 
 the termination of the verb, by indicating the per- 
 son of the relative, clearly'shews the antecedent; 
 
SYNTAX, 269 
 
 but where the substantives are of the same person, 
 and the verb cannot therefore by its termination 
 indicate the antecedent^, ambiguity should be pre- 
 chided by the mode of arrangement. Thus, *' He is 
 '' the hero, who did it," and '' He, who did it, is the 
 ** hero.'* In the former, /^e is the subject, and the 
 hero who did it the predicate ; and in the latter, 
 he who did it is the subject, and the hero the pre- 
 dicate. 
 
 Note 3. The Relative, instead of referring to 
 any particular word, as its antecedent, sometimes 
 refers to a whole clause, thus, '' the bill was re- 
 ^' jected by the lords, which excited no small 
 " degree of jealousy and discontent," that is, 
 ** which thing," namely, the rejection of the bilL 
 
 Note 4. The pronoun of the third person is 
 •often suppressed, when no particular emphasis is 
 implied, as, ** whosoever committeth sin, is the 
 ^' servant of sin/' In this example, he the ante- 
 cedent to who, and nominative to is, is un- 
 derstood. 
 
 Rule X. If no nominative intervene be- 
 tween the relative and the Verb, the relative 
 shall be the nominative to the Verb, as, ''*So- 
 ^' lomon, who was the son of David, built 
 " the temple of Jerusalem/' Here who is the 
 nominative to the Verb was. 
 
270 SYNTAX. 
 
 Rule XI. But, if a nominative intervene 
 between the relative and the Verb, the relative 
 shall be under the government of the preposi- 
 tion going before, or the noun or verb follow- 
 ing, 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 th@ antecedent, and ar- 
 rano-ino: the clause in the natural order, thus, 
 '' the city, which is called Rome, was founded by 
 *' Romulus/' i. e. " the city, which city is called 
 ** Rome." The antecedent repeated is the nomina- 
 tive to the verb is, which therefore agrees with it in 
 case. *' 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 
 
SYNTAX. ^7^ 
 
 ^ees, that is, it is in the same case, in which the 
 antecedent would be put, if a^c^ain 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 w^hom,'* an expression analogous to, 
 " David loved him," or *^ David loved which So- 
 '* lomon." Many solecisms in the construction of 
 the relative would be easily avoided, by a littl'e 
 attention to the natural arrangement. It is to l>e 
 observed, however, that, though the personal 
 pronouns, when under the government of a verb, 
 may either ])recede or follow it, the relative in the 
 same state of government must invariably go be- 
 fore it. 
 
 Note% - The relatives K'/?a and which are often 
 understood, especially in colloquial languag*e, 
 'VThe friend, I visited yesterday, is dead to-day," 
 i. e. " the friend, whom I visited yesterday, is 
 '' dead to-day." 
 
 Note 3. There are a few cases, which seem to 
 exclude the use of the pronouns who and which, 
 and to require the use of that, 
 
 1st. After superlatives, the \mM\oun that is ge- 
 nerally used, as, *'The wisest man, that ever 
 ** lived, is liable to error/' 
 
 2dly, After the word same^ that is generally 
 used, as, ** he is the same man, that you saw yes- 
 ** terday." But, if a preposition should precede 
 
272 SYNTAX. 
 
 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 re- 
 niaikal)le, 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." 
 
 Sdly, That is used after who, taken .interroga- 
 tively, as, '' Who, that has the spirit of a man, 
 *' would suffer himself to he thus degraded ?" 
 
 4th ly, Whrii persons and things are referred to, 
 as, *' the men and things y 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 Substantives have no objective 
 case, the subject or object of the energy or affec- 
 tion is distinguished by its place, which is after 
 the verb, as, *' Achilles slew Hector," where 
 Achillesy the agent, precedes, and Hector, the 
 subject of the action, follows the verb. Reverse 
 this order, and the meaning is reversed, as, 
 '» "Hector slew Achilles." Where the proper ar- 
 
SYNTAX. 273 
 
 rangement is not observed, ambiguity or miscon- 
 struction 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 httle attention would 
 have prevented the ambiguity. If the sire ad- 
 dressed the son, the line should run thus, 
 
 '' And thus his son the fervent sire address'd.'' 
 
 If the son addressed the site, 
 
 ^' And thus the son his fervent sire address'd." 
 
 Note 2. 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." 
 
 Notes, The objective case should not, if pos- 
 sible, be separated from its verb. This rule is vi- 
 olated in the following sentence: ** Becket could 
 '* not better discover, than by attacking so pow- 
 *^ erful an interest, his resolution to maintain, &c.'* 
 (Hume. ) The regimen is here unnecessarily, and 
 very inelegantly, separated from its verb. 
 
 Rule XIL Verbs signifying to ask, teach, 
 offer, promise, pay, tell, allow, deny, and 
 some others of like signification, are some- 
 
 T 
 
274 SYNTAX. 
 
 tiroes, especially in colloquial language, fol- 
 lowed in the passive voice by an objective case. 
 
 Note, This rule seems t® have escaped the at- 
 tention of all our English grammarians, except 
 Priestley, who observes, " that in some famihar 
 '' phrases, the subject and object of our affirmation 
 ** seem to be transposed." This idiom, except in a 
 very few instances, is not to be found in Latin, though 
 it occurs pretty often in Greek: it therefore particu- 
 larly merits the attention of the junior Latin scholar, 
 lest in his Anglo-Latin translations, it should be- 
 tray him into an egregious solecism. *' He allowed 
 ** me great liberty," turned passively, in concur- 
 rence with the Latin idiom, '/ great liberty was 
 *^ allowed me." But we say also in English, " I 
 ** was allowed great Hberty." *'He promised (to) 
 ^' me a ship in five days,*' passively, '* a ship was 
 ^ *' promised me," and " I was promised /jer in five 
 " days." '* She would not accept the jewels, 
 '' though they were offered to her by her mother," 
 or " thx)ugh she was offered them by her mother." 
 
 Rule XIIL The Verb to he has the same 
 case after it, as it has before it, thus denoting 
 that the subjects are identical, or that the one 
 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 
 
SYNTAX. 275 
 
 Verb, the nominative case he therefore follows 
 the Verb. In the latter, it is the regimen of 
 the Verb believed, the Verb to he is therefore 
 followed by the objective case. 
 
 Noie 1. This rule is violated in such examples 
 as ** it is me/' ** it was him," '* I believed it to be 
 *' he/* *' 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. 
 
 Noie 2. The verb to be is called by Logicians 
 the copula, as connecting the subject with the pre- 
 dicate. Thus, when we say, ** he is wise/' " they 
 *' are learned," he and the^ are the subjects ; wise 
 and leaimed the predicates. Now, it particularly 
 deserves the attention of the classical scholar, that 
 in English almost any verb may be used as a 
 copula. This circumstance is the more worthy of 
 his notice, as a conformity to the Latin idiom may 
 lead him to reject expressions, which are unexcep- 
 tionable, 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 
 
 * Home Tooke observes, that Lowth 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. 
 
 T 2 
 
276 SYNTAX. 
 
 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 Eng- 
 lish, and that all these expressions are perfectly 
 analogous. 
 
 Rule XIV. 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 % 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, not- 
 withstanding, a different meaning, and cannot be 
 resolved like it, into " I read learning,'* in such 
 examples, asTooke justly observes, the preposition 
 for denoting the object, and equivalent to pour 
 in French, is understood, as, ** I read for to learn.'* 
 Our southern neighbours, indeed, in these ex- 
 amples, nev^r omit the causal term ; and Trusler 
 hgs not improperly observed, that, when the verb 
 does not express the certain and immediate effect, 
 
SYNTAX. 277 
 
 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, feel, let, are not followed by the sign of the 
 infinitive, as, '' He bade me go," ** I sa\v him 
 ^^doit." 
 
 Note 4. Nouns, Adjectives, and Participles, 
 are often followed by an infinitive, as, '' your 
 ^* desire to improve will ultimately contribute to 
 *' your happiness/' " 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 pri- 
 mary idea expressed by the subsequent verb, is 
 intended to be signified, it should then be put in 
 the present tense: but when the idea of perfection 
 or completion is combined with the primary idea, 
 the subsequent verb should have that form, which 
 is termed the Perfect of the Infinitive. Or, per- 
 haps, this rule may, more intelligibly to the scholar, 
 though less correctly, be thus expressed, that 
 when the action or state, denoted by the subse- 
 quent verb, is contemporary with that of the pri- 
 mary verb, then the secondary verb must be put 
 in the present tense ; but when action or state is /£ 
 
 .JU.- 
 
278 SYNTAX. 
 
 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 di- 
 vided on this subject. But when nothing but 
 usage can be pleaded in favour of one phraseology, 
 and when reason concurs with usage to recom- 
 mend another, it will not be questioned that the 
 latter deserves the preference. Thus, we should 
 say, " I expected to see you," and not " I ex- 
 *' pected 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 
 assertion, that the paper, on which 1 write, ex- 
 isted as an object of my perception, previously to 
 iny perceiving it. Agreeably to the second form 
 of the rule here given, we find that tlie Latins very 
 generally used the present of the Infinitive, to ex- 
 press an action or state contemporary witb the at- 
 tribute of the primary verb. Thus dixit me scrihere, 
 ** he said that I wrote,'' or *' was writing," that 
 
SYNTAX. 279 
 
 is, at the time of his saying so, Diaii 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 contemporary actions or states are to be 
 signified, but may also be sometimes employed, 
 where the secondary verb denotes something pos- 
 terior to what is implied by tlie 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 preferred the latter, as, 
 den egavi t se dare, (Plant.) Jusjurandum poUicitus 
 est dare. (Id.) '* He refused to give," '' he pro- 
 *' mised to give," or ^' he promised giving,'* the 
 secondary verb expressing the act simply, and 
 the time being necessarily implied. 
 
280 SYNTAX. 
 
 Note 6. The infinitive mood is sometimes used 
 in an absolute or independent sense, as, ** to 
 *' speak the truth, we are all liable to error." 
 *^' Not to trespass on your time, I will briefly ex- 
 *' plain the whole affair," that is, '* that I may 
 ^* speak,'' '* that I may not trespass." 
 
 Rule XV. 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," i. 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 imper- 
 fect participle of a Transitive Verb is not preceded 
 by the definite article, it properly governs the 
 objective case, and is analogous to the Latin ge- 
 rund, as, '* much advantage will be derived from 
 ** observing this rule;" in which example, thi^ 
 rule is the regimen of the participle obsermng; and 
 that, when the definite article precedes the parti- 
 ciple, it becomes then a pure noun, and, therefore, 
 cannot have the regimen of a verb. He therefore 
 condemns this expression, " by the sending them 
 *' the light of thy holy sphit." Some of our 
 grammarians consider Lowth; in this instance, as 
 
SYNTAX. 281 
 
 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 enquiry, the first and most pertinent 
 question 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 
 hot violate this rule. Were it necessary, indeed, 
 after this concession, it would be easy to evince, 
 that not only our translators of the Bible, whose 
 authority surely is of great weight, but also other 
 writers of the highest eminence employ the phrase- 
 ology, which he condems. 
 
 Again : does the distinction, which he wishes 
 to establish, favour perspicuity ? The very re- 
 verse appears to me to be the case; for he admits 
 an identity of sense in two distinct phraseologies, 
 which are, incontestably, in many instances, sus- 
 ceptible of different meanings. And, though this 
 ambiguity may not beJnvolved 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 
 and the Preposition after it, or by the pmission of 
 both ; in other words, that these phraseologies 
 are 'equivalent. Thus, according to him, we may 
 
282 SYNTAX. 
 
 say either, *' by sending his Son into the world," or 
 " by the sending qfh'xs Son," Here, perhaps, the 
 meaning is sufficiently clear, whichsoever of these 
 forms of expression be adopted. But let us take 
 another example, as, *' he expressed the pleasure 
 *' he had, in hearing the philosopher." Now, ac- 
 cording to Lowth, we may also say, " he ex- 
 '^ pressed the pleasure he had, in the hearing of 
 '* the philosoper/' Is there no difference of sen- 
 timent here? Are these expressions equivalent -^ 
 The contrary must be obvious to the most inat- 
 tentive reader. According to the former phraseo- 
 logy, the philosopher was heard; he is represented 
 as passive ; agreeably to the latter, he was active — 
 he heard. 
 
 Again ; '' When the Lord saw it, lie abhorred 
 '^ them, because of the provoking of his sons and 
 '' daughters." Our translators have correctly ex- 
 hibited the sentiment. The sons and daughters 
 had given offence ; they had provoked the Deity. 
 But, if Lowth's opinion be correct, the expression 
 might be, *' because of j)rovoking his sons and 
 *' daughters;" a phrase, which evidently conveys 
 a very different idea. 
 
 Again; when it is said, " at the bearing of the 
 *' ear, they will believe," is this expression con- 
 vertible, 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 
 
SYNTAX. 283 
 
 import, are by no means equivalent. It appears 
 then, that perspicuity is not consulted by adopt- 
 ing this rule. 
 
 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 inca- 
 pable of any regimen. Nov/, as the author rea- 
 sons from one language to another, we may per- 
 tinently ask, is not the Latin gerund a noun, a 
 verbal substantive, not only having the form, and 
 the inflexions of a noun, but governed hke 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, 
 w^hich Scioppius, Vossius, with some other gram- 
 marians, 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 literature, the verbal nouns in 
 io governed an accusative, like the verbs whence 
 they were derived. Quid tibi curaiio est hanc 7xm, 
 is one example from Plautus out of many, which 
 might be produced*. That the Supines also were, 
 in truth, substantives admitting a regimen, is 
 
 * See Johnson's Comra. p. 352, and Seyer on the Latin 
 Verb, p. 174. To the arguments thpre offered, many others 
 might be added. 
 
284 SYNTAX. 
 
 equally clear : Difficile dictu was originally difficile 
 in dictu ; and misit oratum opem, misit ad oratum 
 opem. Nor can the structure of the Future Infini- 
 tive Passive be so satisfactorily resolved, notwith- 
 standing a few repugnant examples, as on this 
 supposition : Dixit Hbros ledum iri is resolved into 
 dixit iid) iri ad lectum libroSy where lihros\% the 
 regimen of the verbal noun ledum. 
 
 Thus it is evident, that the Latin Gerunds, Su- 
 pines, 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 
 dvvelt 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 nei- 
 ther sanctioned by general usage, nor friendly to 
 perspicuity ; while the violation of it is perfectly 
 reconcileable 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 
 LowtlVs argument, and the impropriety of his rule 
 
SYNTAX. 285 
 
 as establishing an identity of meaning, where a 
 difference must exist^ I would submit to the can- 
 did and judicious critic the following remarks. 
 
 The Participle in ing has either an active, or pas* 
 sive signification ; its import must, therefore, be 
 determined by the judgment of the reader, or by 
 explanatory adjections. Whatever, then, is cal- 
 culated to remove all misconstruction, and to 
 render its import clear and unequivocal, merits 
 attention. Consistently, then, M-ith some of the 
 examples already adduced, lam inclined to suggest, 
 that, when the noun, connected with the parti- 
 ciple, is active or doing something, the preposition 
 should be inserted, as, ^' in the hearing of the 
 *^ philosopher," that is, the philosopher hearmg ; 
 and that, when the noun represents the subject of 
 an action, or what is suffering, the preposition 
 should be omitted, as *' in hearing the philoso- 
 " pher," ov the philosophei^ being heard. An atten- 
 tion 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 difference, that he considers them as 
 equivalent, and I as diametrically opposite. I ob- 
 serve likewise, that, though I prefer the suppres- 
 sion of the article, when the participle is not fol- 
 lowed by of, and its insertion, when it is followed 
 by the preposition, it is not, because I perceive 
 any impropriety in the other phraseology, but 
 
^86 SYNTAX. 
 
 because, since the publication of Lo\vth*s Gram- 
 ip.ar, it has been less employed ; and because also 
 il 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 proper verb, 
 as, " 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 his are in the genitive case, governed 
 by the participles observing 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 cen- 
 sured, though, in truth, precisely analogous to 
 the one now exemplified ; *' Much depends on the 
 *' rule's being obser/ed, and error will he the con- 
 *^ sequence 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, tuxuX being neglected, are not nouns, nor 
 '^ can you supply the place of the possessive case 
 
SYNTAX. S87 
 
 *"' by the preposition of^ before the noun or 
 ** pronoun." 
 
 I concur with Dr. Campbell, who has examined 
 this objection, in tliinking, that the expression is 
 not only sanctioned by good usage, but is also 
 agreeable to analogy, and preventive of circumlo- 
 cution. 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 phraseology, would, with equal 
 force, conclude against another mode oF expres- 
 sion, which he himself approves. For he would 
 have no objection to say, " Much depends on his 
 *' observing the rule, and error will be the con- 
 ** sequence 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 pos- 
 sessive case, by the preposition (?/ before the noun 
 or pronoun. This is true; for it would not be 
 English to say, *' Much depends on the being ob- 
 " served of the rule; and error will be the conse- 
 *' quence of the being neglected of it." But will 
 bis own approved phraseology 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 
 
288 SYNTAX. 
 
 sentence the author alluded to would have 
 approved. 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 fre- 
 *' quently/' 
 
 The author's argument^ then, if it prove any 
 thing, proves too much ; it cannot, therefore, have 
 any weight. 
 
 In additioH to these observations, I would re- 
 mark, that the writer's argument involves another 
 inconsistency. He admits, that the Participle in 
 W2g" may be thui^ construed; for he approves the 
 phrases, " his observing the rule/' and '*his neg- 
 ** lecting it." Why then does he reject '* his 
 *' being*' and ^' its being;" for the past or perfect 
 participles observed and neglected have no share in 
 the government, i^ule^s and ifs being under the 
 regimen of the Participle m 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 
 principle similar to that, the absurdity of which we 
 have been attempting to expose, have discarded a 
 phraseology, which appears unobjectionable, and 
 substituted one, which seems less correct. Many 
 writers, instead of saying, *'his being smitten with 
 *' the love of Orestilla was the cause of his mur- 
 *' dering his son,'' would say, "he being smitten 
 
SYNTAX. S89 
 
 '^ witli 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 he he; whereas 
 the meaning is, that not //e, but his being smitten, 
 was the cause of his ipurder. 
 
 '^ This jealousy accounts for Hall charging the 
 '* duke of Gloucester with the murder of prince 
 "' Edward." '^ This," says Mr. Baker '^ very justly, 
 *' is in my opinion a very uncouth way of speak- 
 '^ ing, though much used by ignorant people, and 
 *^ often affected by those, who are not ignorant." 
 The writer should have said, '* for Hall's charg- 
 *' ing." ^' His words being applicable to the com- 
 *' mon mistake of ourao-e induce me to transcribe 
 *' them." Here I agree with the same writer in 
 thinking, that it would be better to consider tt/or<f^ 
 as in the genitive case plural, governed by the par- 
 ticiple, as Hall's in the preceding example, and 
 join his words' being applicable, equivalent to the 
 applicability of his words, with the verb singular; 
 thus, ** his words' being applicable 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 phraseo- 
 logy^ which in many cases conveys not the in- 
 
 u 
 
^90 SYNTAX. 
 
 tended idea. For, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, 
 '' What think you of my horse's running to-day?" 
 it is iniphed, that the horse did actually run. If it 
 is said, ^' What think you of my horse running to- 
 '* day?' it is intended to ask, whetlier it be pro- 
 per for my horse to run to-day. This distinction, 
 though frequently neglected, deserves attention; 
 for it is obvious, that andiiguity may arise from 
 using the latter only of these phraseologies, to 
 express both meanings. 
 
 JS'otc 4. This participle is sometimes used abso- 
 lutely, in the same "manner as tlie infinitive mood ; 
 as, ''This conduct, viewing it in the most favour- 
 *^ able light, reflects discredit on his character.'" 
 Here the participle is made absolute, and is equi- 
 valent 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 perfective 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 u)ay confess." 
 
 Rule XVL 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. Tliis rule will be perfectly understood 
 bv the classical scholar, when we "Say, that the 
 
SVNTAX. *^ 291 
 
 a])solute 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 /^e/zzo-, 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.'* 
 
 Rule XVII. Prepositions are joined with 
 the objective case, or govern nouns and pro- 
 nouns in the accusative, as, " he ran to me," 
 " he was loved by us.'* 
 
 Note 1. This rule is violated in such expres- 
 sions as these, '' Who servest thou under .^'* '' Who 
 *' do you speak to?" for the syntactical arrange- 
 ment is, *' '*' thou servest under who?** ''thou 
 *' speakest to who?" instead of " under whom?'* 
 *' to whom ?" 
 
 Note £. The preposition is frequently separated 
 from its regimen, as, ''Horace is an author, whom 
 " I am much delighted with, " i c. " wiih whom 
 " I am much delighted.'* 
 
 Notes, The prepositions /(3 and y(?r are often 
 understood, as, " he gave me a book," " he told 
 
 u 2 
 
9-9^ , SYNTAX. 
 
 '•^ me the news ;" i. e. '* he gave to me/' *' he told 
 *\ to me," 
 
 Lowth has, indeed, observed, that, in such 
 examples, the pronouns vie, theCt Sec. may be 
 considered to be in the dative case, as, in truth, 
 they are in Saxon tlie datives of their respective 
 pronouns, and in their form include to, as, /* woe 
 *' is me." This phrase, he observes, is pure Saxon, 
 the same as ''^ vvae is me,'Vin which me is a dative 
 case. 
 
 Note 4. The preposition in, on, for and f7'om, 
 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 next month," 'Mn last year." We 
 say also, '' He was banished England," i. e. ''from 
 '' England." 
 
 Note 5. The preposition is improperly omitted 
 in the following line of Pope's, 
 
 ** And Yirgins smiPd at what they blush'd before." 
 
 It should be, according to the rules of syntax, 
 '' smird at what they blush'd at before," both 
 verbs requiring at after them, thus, *' they smil'd 
 '* at that, at which they blush VI before." 
 
 Note 6. Prepositions should be placed as near 
 as possible to each of the words, whose relation 
 they express. The following sentence from Hume 
 
SYNTAX. 293 
 
 is, in tills respect, faulty; '^ The ignorance of the 
 '' age in mechanical arts, rendered the progress 
 *' very slow of this new invention." It should he, 
 '' the progress of this ne^v invention." The fol- 
 lowing sentence from Johnson, is, for the same 
 reason, chargeahle with faulty arrangement: ^'The 
 '' country first dawned, that illuminated the 
 '' world, and beyond which the arts cannot be 
 *' traced of civil society, or domestic life." (Ras- 
 selas.) 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 conformable to the strict 
 meaning of the words, as well as to Priestley's own 
 rale, than that, which the latter recommends ; 
 thus, *^ capable of either, (i.e. of the one or of the 
 ^' other) intension, or remission." 
 
 Rule XVIII. Adverbs have no government. 
 
 Note 1. They are sometimes improperly used 
 
-9^ SV^NTAX, 
 
 for Adjectives, as, '' After those wars, of which 
 '^ they hoped for a soon and prosperous issue." 
 (Sidney.) " A soon issue" is not Enghsh ; an ad- 
 verb 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 do not 
 suit the idiom of our language, " the then niinistry" 
 for '* theministry of that time;" ** the above dis^ 
 *' coarse" for ^* the preceding discourse." 
 
 Note 2. They are sometimes used like subr 
 stantives, as '' a little while*' for "■ in a little time/' 
 or " for a little time." ''Worthwhile/' "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 A. 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 many soever.*' **^ Who will not hearken 
 '* to the voice of the charmer, charming wetter so 
 '* sweetly/' It should be, ''ever so sweetly ;*'i. e. 
 ** how ever 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 in- 
 
SYNTAX. 295 
 
 tending 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 English idiom. ** His government gave 
 *' courage to the English barons to carry farther 
 '' their opposition." ( Flume. J It would be better, 
 ** to carry tbeir 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 ;" l)etter *' the 
 " realm forever." 
 
 Note 7. The adverb is generally placed between 
 the auxiliary verb, and the participle, as, '* this is 
 '^ perfectly understood." When there are more 
 auxiliaries than one, tjie 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 arrangement, and, I think, with great 
 propriety ; as, ** this will be perfectly urderstood," 
 where the adverb follows both auxiharies. The 
 place of the adverb may, in general, be ascer- 
 tained, by considering what word it is intended 
 to qualify : and, in the last example, it should be 
 closely connected with understood. ]]ut more on 
 this subject in tlic following note. 
 
 Note "6. The Adverb, as it name imports, is 
 
296 SYNTAX. 
 
 generally placed close to the word, wliich it nioi 
 diiies or affects : its force, therefore, very much 
 depends upon its position. Inattention to the pro- 
 per 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 honoured 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 ar- 
 rangement the sentiment is correctly exhibited— 
 the two subjects, reward and approbation, are per- 
 spicuously contrasted, and while the former is ne- 
 gatived, the latter is affirmed*. 
 
 * The propriety of this collocation of the negative will bq 
 more evident, if we attend to the two very different meanings of 
 the word but. According to the former construction of the 
 sentence, but is the imperative of beutan '' to be out,'' and is sy- 
 nonimons with unless or except ; thus, " but with the approba- 
 ^< tion," OT except with the approbation. According to Oie 
 latter construction, it is properly bot, the imperative of ^o^aw, 
 *' to add." Thus, " he was honoured not with {i. e. exclude or 
 «* except) this reward, but (add) with the approbation of the 
 f' people.'* 
 
SYNTAX. 297 
 
 Note 9. Lowtli observes, that '* the Adverb 
 '* should be for the most part placed before ad- 
 '* jectives, and after verbs;" thus, '' he was ex- 
 •' cessively modest," ^Mie fought bravely/' This 
 is, indeed, the general arrangement ; but it ad- 
 mits 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 imphes/ 
 and before the Attributive. In the following 
 sentence of Steele's, the collocation is faulty. 
 '^ The bridegroom sits with an aspect, which in- 
 '^ timates his thoughts were not only entertained 
 *' with the jo}'^, wnth which he was surrounded, 
 *^ but also with a noble gratitude, ^nd divine 
 *' pleasure." This collocation of the two adverbs 
 implies, that his thoughts were something more 
 than entertained : whereas it is the author's inten- 
 tion to say, that his thoughts were entertained 
 with something more than joys. The sentence, 
 therefore, should proceed thus. '^ The bridegroom 
 " sits with an aspect, which intimates, that his 
 *^ thou2:hts were entertained not onlv with the 
 *' joys, with which he was surrounded, but also 
 ** with a noble gratitude and divine pleasure".* 
 
 * The clause, as it appears in the origimal^ may be thus exhi- 
 bited by way of illustration, *' his thoughts were not only {i. c, 
 not simply, not merely, not in one state, viz) entertained,'* 
 clearly implying, that something else was to be predicated con- 
 
208 SYNTAX. 
 
 When Adfrisoii says, (N^ 412) *^ By greatness 
 ** I do not only mean tlie bulk of any single ob- 
 " ject, but the largeness of a whole view," the 
 question naturally occurs, what does he more than 
 mean? It is evident^ that, agreeably to this ar- 
 rangement, the Adverb refers to /we^fw, exclusively 
 of all other attributes or actions, and being prefaced 
 [)y a negative, implies, *' that he does something 
 *' more than mean." In this criticism I concur 
 with Blair, who has expressed his disapprobation 
 of this an'angement. 
 
 Had he, as the same author observes, placed the 
 Adverb after bulk, it would have still heen wrong. 
 For if he had said^ '' I do not mean the bulk only," 
 then the Adverb, following a Noun Substantive, 
 must refer to it, exclusively of every other, and, 
 the clause heing negative, the question would be, 
 what does he mean, more than the bulk? Is it the 
 colour, the heauty, or what else? 
 
 Now, as Mr. Addison intended to say, that he 
 did not mean one thing, the word only should have 
 followed the name of that thing, whether its de- 
 signation was simple, or complex. He should 
 therefore have said, *' the bulk of any single object 
 *' only, but the largeness of a whole view.'' Ac- 
 cording to this arrangement, the word only refers, 
 
 ceniing them. Corrected, it may be explained thus, '^ his 
 '* thoughts were entertained with not only (not one thing, viz.) 
 '' the joys, with which he was surrounded, but (bot or add) also 
 with a noble gratitude and difiue pleasure." . 
 
SYNTAX. ^99 
 
 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 follows, *' the largeness of a 
 " whole view." 
 
 1 have said, this word should follow the Noun, 
 or Pronoun, and precede the Attributive. Perspi- 
 cuity seems to require this arrangement, and cor- 
 rect writers generally observe it. " The perfidious 
 *^ voice of flattery reminded him," says Gibbon, 
 ** that by exploits of the same nature, by the de- 
 *^ feat of the Nemean lion, and the slaughter of the 
 '* wild boar of Erymanthus, the Grecian Hercules 
 " had acquired a place among the Gods, and an 
 *' immortal memory among men." *^ ^'/'^j/ orili/ 
 " forgot to observe, that, in the first ages of so- 
 " ciety, a successful war against savage animals 
 ** is one of the most beneficial labours of heroism." 
 In the beginning of the latter sentence, the Ad- 
 verb ow/y is misplaced. As it stands, the meaning 
 IS, that they were the only persons who forgot: 
 it should be, *' 0}ii^ 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 gentle- 
 man had paid to hrm on his translation of Homer, 
 he acquaints him, that he should be ashamed to 
 attem])t returning these compliments ; one thuig, 
 
 d 
 
300 SYNTAX. 
 
 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 therefore are, *' I should be 
 '* ashamed to offer at saying any of those civil 
 '^ things, in return to your obliging 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 Ad- 
 verb, as it precedes the Pronoun, does not refer to 
 it ; and that Mr. Pope's collocation of it is per- 
 fectly correct, to express the sentiment which he 
 intended. Had he said, '' I only,'* the Adverb 
 would have referred to the Pronoun, and im|)lied, 
 that he was the only person, who valued. Had lie 
 intended to say, that he merely entertained an 
 esteem for him, but could not manifest it, then 
 the presence of the Auxiliary would have been ne- 
 cessary, and he would have expressed himself thus, 
 '^ 1 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 
 opposed 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," 
 
SYNtAX. 30 L 
 
 for example, or any other acquirement. As a vio- 
 lation of this rule, I adduce also the following ex- 
 pression of a reviewer. *' We only discharge our 
 " duty to the public ;" a declaration, which, 
 strictly interpreted, means, " we are the only per- 
 " sons, who discharge." It should be, *' we do 
 '^ only (one thing) discharge our duty,'' for the 
 writer intended to say, that he did nothing, but 
 discharge his duty to the public*. In justification 
 of such inaccuracies, it is impertinent to plead, 
 that a little attention will prevent misconception. 
 It is the business of every author to guard his reader 
 from the possibility of misconstruction, and to ren- 
 der that attention to the language unnecessary. 
 QuintiHan's maxim cannot be too often repeated 
 to thosC; who, by such apologies, attempt to de- 
 fend any ambiguityf. 
 
 The following sentence is justly censured by 
 Blair, and also by Baker in his ** Remarks." 
 *' Theism,*' says Shaftesbury, *' can only be op- 
 " posed 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 
 
 * 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. 
 
 t Non ut intelligere possit, scd ne ominio possit non iatelli- 
 gere, turandum. 
 
50^ - SYNTAX. ^ ' 
 
 inclined, however, to differ from both ; and think, 
 that the sentence should run thus, " Theism can 
 *< be opposed to Polytlieism only, or Atheism:'* 
 where the Adverb only refers to the Noun imme- 
 diately 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 Adverb may be placed either before or 
 after the Substantive, to which it refers, then pre- 
 cision becomes impossible, and we may say, "■ he 
 *' 07ilijy'* or'* only //e,'* to express the same senti- 
 ment; which collocations, I have already shewn, 
 denote ideas materially different. But, if there be 
 a definite and precise rule for the position of this 
 word, and if the sense be different according to 
 the collocation of the Adverb, then I think it will 
 appear, that it ought to be subjoined to the Substan- 
 tive or Pronoun, to which it refers ; and this opi- 
 nion 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 con- 
 tend, that the word only, should be placed after 
 the bulk of a wigle object f If the Adverb then be, 
 in this example, rightly placed after the Substan- 
 tive, 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. 
 
SYNTAX. 303 
 
 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, 
 notwithstanding, be perfectly clear; and, perhaps, 
 Blair's collocation, in the last exam])le, may be 
 adduced as an instance. But, were such apologies 
 for the violation of rules admissible, there is no 
 rule which might not be violated, or rather no rule 
 could possibly be established. Without precision, 
 language, even in its most improved state, defect- 
 ive, can never be rendered a fit instrument of in- 
 vention, or a sure and faithful vehicle of thought. 
 And, though a deviation from established and 
 correct phraseology may, in some cases, be pro- 
 ductive of neither ambiguity nor obscurity, the 
 same deviation admitted, by such precedent, in 
 other examples, may be productiv^e of both. It is 
 not our business, as I have already observed, to 
 prescribe what may be perspicuous in some cases, 
 but what must be intelligible in all ; not what ar- 
 rangement may, by the help of the context, or the 
 reader's sagacity, be understood, but what cannot 
 in any instance be misapprehenderl. 
 
 The sentence, as it stands in Shaftesburv, im- 
 piles, that theism is capable of nothing, but of being 
 opposed to polytheism, or atheism, "Theism can 
 *' only, (one thing namely) be opposed to poly- 
 *' theism or atheism;" where it is evident that o/i/y 
 
SOL SYNTAX. 
 
 refers to be 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 attribu- 
 tive, to which it refers. Hence the question natu- 
 rally 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 unlij has been gene- 
 rally considered as an adjective, equivalent to solus. Thus, if 
 we say, ille solum erat divcsj it means, " he was only rich," or 
 '' he was nothing but rich," If wc say, '' ille solus crat 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, synonlmous. They arc 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 (rue nobility. The expressions, therefore, are not 
 equivalent. 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 
 numeral term Jirst, as equivalent either to primus^ or pri?num'; 
 and also to the position of many other words, which are used 
 adjcctively, and adverbially. The classical scholar needs not to 
 be informed, ihdit A nnibal primus^ and Annibal primum — Alpes 
 fransiit^ are not convertible expressions. 
 
iSYNTAX. 30.5 
 
 Note 9. Adverbs, as Lowth observes, are ge- 
 iieraliy placed before the adjective, to which they 
 refer. This rule, however, admits a few excep- 
 tions. 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 fre- 
 quently, 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 re- 
 commended by that rule, by which the substan- 
 tive and adjective should be placed in juxta posi- 
 tion, or as near as possible to each other. The lat- 
 ter is defended by the principle, that the qualifying 
 adverb should be placed close to the adjective, 
 whose signification it modifies. This coUocation 
 is generally, however, pronounced a Scotticism ; 
 but it is not peculiar to Scotch writers. 
 
 Rule XIX. Conjunctions have no go- 
 vernment. 
 
 Note 1. In giving this rule, I differ from all 
 other grammarians, who have erroneously, as I 
 conceive, assigned them a regimen. Some con- 
 junctions, says Lowth, govern the indicative, and 
 some the subjunctive mood. This I affirm with- 
 
 X 
 
36(? SVNfAxT. 
 
 oiit hesitation to be a great mistake ; for not ^ 
 single example, I venture to assert, can be pro- 
 duced, in which the verb is divested of its indica- 
 tive form, in consequence of its being subjoined to 
 any conjunction. The Latins had a form of the 
 verb, which they properly enough denominated 
 the Subjunctive mood ; because, where the mean- 
 ing v/as unconditionally assertive/ they employed 
 this form, if the clause was preceded by some par-- 
 ticular conjunctive, or adverbial term. Thus, 
 when they said, adeo benevohis erat, ut omnes eum 
 amarent, '* he Vv'as so benevolent, that all men loved 
 ** him," though the assertion, in the latter clause, 
 be evidently unconditional, as the English shews, 
 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, 
 conditionality, or contingency is implied, the 
 mood should be subjunctive ; if certainty, or some- 
 thing determinate and absolute be signified, the 
 verb should be indicative. . Now surely, if the 
 setise require a form different from the indicative, 
 the verb cannot be said to be under the govern- 
 ment of the. conjunction ; for the verb assumes that 
 form, not because preceded by th^ conjunctive 
 term, or because it is under its government, but 
 because the seiu^imcnt to be expressed requires that 
 phraseology. Whether the conditional, or what 
 Lowth t^rms the subjunctive, be a distinct form 
 
SYNTAX. 307 
 
 bf the verb, or only an elliptical mode of expres- 
 sion, we have already inquired. See p. 135. 
 
 Note 2. Mr. Harris says, that the chief differ- 
 ence between prepositions and conjunctions is, 
 that the former couple words, and the latter sen- 
 tences. This opinion is erroneous ; for conjunc- 
 tions 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, in- 
 deed, do not couple at all, in that sense at least, 
 in which grammarians have understood the term, 
 Mr. Topke seems to have incontestably proved. 
 That they sometimes couple sentences, or that in- 
 stances may be produced, in which Harris's defi- 
 nition 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 s^y, 
 '^ two and two are four." Are two four, and two 
 four? '^ A B, B c, atid c a form a triangle." Is 
 A B a triangle ? or b c ? or c a? ** John and 
 '' Mary are a handsome couple." Is John a couple? 
 and Mary a couple? The common theory, there- 
 fore, is false ; nor is it to be doubted, that con* 
 junctions are, in respect to signification, and were 
 
 X 2 
 
308 SYNTAX. 
 
 originally in regard to their regimen, verbs, or 
 words compounded of nouns and attributives. In 
 explaining them, however, I divided them, as the 
 reader may remember, into the several classes, of 
 Adversative, Concessive, Conditional, 8cc. 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 ac- 
 quainted not only with their present use, but also 
 with their primitive character. 
 
 How these words were degraded from their ori- 
 ginal rank, and deemed insignificant, while some, 
 perhaps, lost their syntactical power, is a matter, 
 I conceive, of no difficult enquir}''. For, when 
 the verbs, to which any of these words belonged, 
 became obsolete, the words themselves, thus sepa- 
 rated from their parent stock, and stripped of that 
 consequence and authority, w^hich they thence 
 derived, their extraction becoming daily more du- 
 bious, and their original value more obscure, sunk 
 by degrees into inferior note, and at last dwindled 
 into comparative insignificance. Besides, many 
 of them, doubtless, were transplanted into our lan- 
 guage without the radices; their etymology, 
 therefore, being little known, their primitive cha- 
 
SYNTAX. 309 
 
 racter, and real import, would soon be involved 
 in increasing darkness. 
 
 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 gene- 
 rally sucli, as, though perhaps sufficiently conver- 
 sant in Greek and Latin, were entirely unac- 
 quainted with the Northern languages. Ac- 
 customed, therefore, to render the conjunctions 
 and prepositions in Greek or Latin, by synonimous 
 English words, and unacquainted 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 synonimous Latin terms. Nay, this has 
 been so much the case, that we have ascribed an 
 ambiguous character to several English words, rcr 
 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 dif- 
 ferent orders. That the word whether has uni- 
 formly, 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, raim^ and sometimes 
 to uier^ grammarians and lexicographers have ac- 
 (Cpunted it both a conjunction, and a pronoup. 
 
310 SYNTAX. 
 
 Utrum in Latin has shared the same fate. So far, 
 indeed, has this spirit been carried, that we will 
 not admit except y according, concerning, respectingy 
 with many similar terms, to be verbs or participles, 
 because prceter, secundum, dc, are prepositions. 
 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 
 Conjunctions were originally Verbs, or Nouns, or 
 compounds of these, Tooke has, in my judgment, 
 incdntrovertibly 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 transitive 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 evidence. 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 ad- 
 mired, these words, when their origin became ob- 
 scure, would, as I have remarked, be divested of 
 their primitivevcharacter, and be considered as 
 belonging to those classes, to which the synoni- 
 mous Latin words were referred. Hence their re- 
 gimen would likewise undergo a change. It would 
 appear awkward and vicious to say now, '* I saw 
 
SYNTAX. 3\l 
 
 ^^ no body but he;" it is not improbable, how- 
 ever, 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 gramma- 
 tical researches. Oqe thing, however, is certain, 
 that several words, which were originally employed 
 as Prepositions or Conjunctions indifferently, have 
 now acquired a more fixed character, and are used 
 but seldom in a double capacity. Of this the 
 word without is an example. Thus, it was not un- 
 usual to say, ** without you go, I will not," where 
 the term of exclusion, though in truth a preposi- 
 tion prefixed to a clause, was considered as a con- 
 junction synonimous \vii\\ ii'isL This usage, unles§ 
 in conversation, is now almost entirely relin- 
 quished ; and the term zvitJwut is now generally 
 employed as a preposition, being prefixed to single 
 words. It is likewise certain, that, in respect to 
 signification, there is no difference between con- 
 junctions and prepositions, uide neminem 7iisi eum, 
 is equivalent to, tidi neminem proeter eum. In like 
 manner, '' I saw no body but him,"' is synonimous 
 with ** I saw no body beside }\\m ;" in which ex- 
 amples, the conjunctions nisi and 5ut are perfectly 
 synonimous with prceter anrl beside, which are 
 ,termed prepositions. 
 
 It may be asked, if then Prepositions and Con- 
 jmictions be alike Verbs, or Nouns, or com- 
 pounds of these, and if many Prepositions and 
 
312 SYNTAX. 
 
 and Conjunctions be, in point of meaning, identic 
 cal, what forms the ground of distinction between 
 them ? It is simply this, that the former are pre- 
 fixed to single words only, as Nouns and Pro- 
 'nouns, or to clauses involving an Infinitive Mood*, 
 the Infinitive being strictly the name of the Verb; 
 and that they have a regimen ; while the latter are 
 prefixed to clauses, and have no regimen. This is 
 the only distiiiction between Prepositions and 
 Conjunctions, as discriminated in modern use. 
 Their original character is sufficiently estabUshed 
 by Mr. Tooke. 
 
 I have said, that some of these words have, in 
 our language, an ambiguous character, being em- 
 ployed both as Prepositions and Conjunctions. Of 
 this, the word than is an example. Priestley seems 
 to consider it as a Preposition, and pleads in favour 
 of the following expression, *' you are taller than 
 '* him," not '' taller than he." '' Since -it is al- 
 ** lowed," says the Doctor, '* that the oblique case 
 •^ should follow Prepositions, and since the com- 
 *' parative degree of an Adjective, and the parti- 
 ^' cle tha7i, have certainly between them the force 
 " of a Preposition, expressing the relation of one 
 *' word to another, they ought to require the ob- 
 ^' lique case of the Pronoun following, so that, 
 *' greater than me, will be ^npre grammatical than 
 
 ♦ In colloquial language, but chiefly among the Tulgar, Pre- 
 positions are prefixed to Verbs Indicative 
 
SYNTAX. 313 
 
 ^' greater than I" Here I cannot concur with the 
 learned author. The same argument would prove, 
 ^Siat 7najor qitam me, would be more grammatical 
 thB.vi major quam ego ; a conclusion, which is op- 
 posed by universal authority. The truth is, than 
 must be either a Conjunction, or a Preposition, or 
 both. If a Conjunction, it can have no govern- 
 ment, any more than the Latin quam ; unless we 
 confound the distinction, which has been just now 
 explained, and is universally admitted, namely, 
 that Conjunctions are distinguished from Preposi- 
 tions, by their having no government. If it be a 
 Preposition, no argument is necessary to prove, 
 that it may be joined with an objective case; for 
 such is the distinguishing character of Prepositions. 
 Ifit be either a Preposition, or a Conjunction, it 
 follows, that it may be construed cither with, or 
 without a regimen. Lowth, with greater propri- 
 ety, considers it as a Conjunction ; and Campbell, 
 •in his '* Rhetoric,'' recommends tliis usage, 'as the 
 only means of preventing that ambiguity, which 
 necessarily arisps from the employment of this 
 word, as a Preposition only. ^For, if we use it as 
 a Preposition, 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 Conjunction, 
 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 lat- 
 
314 SYNTAX^ 
 
 ter, we say, '* I love you better than he ;'* i. e. 
 *' than he loves you/- Whatever may have been 
 the original character, or Syntax of this word, 
 since usage is now divided, some writers employ^ 
 ing it as a Conjunction, and others as a Preposi- 
 tion, the grammarian may, consistently with his 
 duty, plead for that usage only, which prevents 
 ambiguity. 
 
 The rule here recommended is generally vio- 
 lated, when than is joined with the relative Pro- 
 noun, as, " Alfred, than whom a greater king 
 *' never reigned." *^ Beelzebub, than whom, Sa- 
 '* tan excepted, none higher sat." Salmon has 
 attempted to account for this almost universal 
 phraseology, by saying, that the expression is 
 elliptical, being the same as, ^* than compared with 
 ^' whom." This explanation is forced, and unna- 
 tural. It is likewise unnecessary. The simple fact 
 is, that the word than was formerly used as a Pre- 
 position, and, I believe, more fi'equently than it 
 is now. Hence, doubtless, arose this phraseology 
 
 Rule XX. Derivatives are generally con- 
 strued like their Primitives ; as, " it was a 
 *' happy thing for this country, that the Pre^ 
 " tender was defeated;" or '^ happily /b/- this 
 '^ country thp Pretender was defeated," Thus 
 also, '' to compare with,'' and '^ in comparison 
 " with riches." — " To depend o/z," and his 
 ^f dependence on the court." 
 
SYN.TAX. 315 
 
 Rule XXI. One negative destroys another ; 
 or two negatives are equivalent to an affirma* 
 tive; 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 ren- 
 der the negation stronger. 
 
 NoU 2. This rule is violated in such examples 
 as this, '* Nor is dapger ever apprehended in such 
 *' a government, no more than we commonly ap- 
 ** prehend danger from thunder or earthquakes." 
 It should be, any more. 
 
 Rule XXII. Interjections are joined with 
 the objective case of the pronoun of the first 
 person, and with the nominative of the pro- 
 noun of the second, as, *' ah me," '^ oh me," 
 [' ah thou WTCtch^" " O thou, who dwellest," 
 
31G 
 
 CRITICAL REMARKS. 
 
 PART III. 
 
 CHAP^.L 
 
 Having explained and illustrated the Etymo* 
 logy and Syntax of the English language, as fully 
 as the limits, which I have prescribed to myself, 
 will permit, I would now request the reader's at- 
 tention to some additional observations. 
 
 The Grammar of every language is merely a 
 compilation of those general principles, or rules, 
 agreeably to which that language is spoken. When 
 I say, a compilation of rules, I would not be un- 
 derstood to mean, that the rules are first esta- 
 blished, and the language afterwards modelled in 
 conformity to these. The very reverse is the case ; 
 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 dissimilarities, 
 his province is to deduce and explain the general 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. SI? 
 
 principles, and the particular formSj agreeably to 
 which the sptakers of that language express them- 
 selves. The philosopher does not determine, by 
 what laws the physical and moral world should be 
 governed ; but, by the careful observation, and 
 accurate comparison of the various phenomena 
 presented to his view, he deduces and ascertains 
 the general principles; by which the system is re- 
 gulated. The province of the grammarian seems 
 precisely similar. He is a mere digester and com- 
 piler, explaining what are the modes of speeci, 
 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 quern penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma lo- 
 quendi. If it were now the practice to say, *' I 
 ** loves," instead of '' I love," the former phraseo- 
 logy 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 rein^ quce 
 est) br^iter enarrat ; non ut ex regula jus sumatur, 
 sed ex jure, quod est, regula fiat. Paul. Leg, I, 
 de Reg. Jur. 
 
 Having said thus much to prevent misconcep- 
 tion, and to define the proper province of the 
 grammarian, I proceed to observe, that this usage, 
 
 4 
 
318 CRITICAL REMARK'S 
 
 which gives law to language, in order to establiati 
 its authority, or to entitle its suffrage to our as- 
 sent, must be, in the first place, reputable. 
 
 The vulgar in this, as in every other country, 
 are, from their want of education, necessarily il- 
 literate. Their native language is known to them 
 no farther, than is requisite for the most common 
 purposes of life. Their ideas are few, and con- 
 sequently 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 provincial, or local 
 authority. Hence the language of the vulgar, in 
 one province, is sometimes hardly intelligible in 
 another. Add to this, that debarred by their oc- 
 cupations from study, or generally averse to liter- 
 ary pursuits, they are necessarily strangers to the 
 scientific improvements of a cultivated mind; and 
 are therefore entirely unacquainted with that dic- 
 tion, which concerns the higher attainments of 
 life. Ignorant of any general principles respecting 
 language, to which they may appeal ; unable to 
 discriminate between right and wrong; prone 
 therefore to adopt whatever usage casual circum- 
 stances may present ; it is no wonder, if the lan- 
 guage of the vulgar be a mixture of incongruity 
 and error, neithei^ perfectly consistent with itself^ 
 lior to themselves universally intelligible. Their 
 
A^b ILLUSTRATIONS. S19 
 
 usage, therefore, is not the standard, to which we 
 must appeal for decisive authority ; a usage so dis- 
 cordant and various, that we may justly apply to 
 it the words of a celebrated critic, 
 
 Bellua multorum es capitum ; nam quid sequar aut quern ? 
 
 The question then is, what is reputable usage? 
 On this subject philologists have been divided. 
 Dr. Campbell appears to me to decide judiciously, 
 Avhen he says, that J;he 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 usage, he appeals 
 to a standard less equivocal, than if he had substi- 
 tuted the authority of good writers ; for, as he 
 justly observes, there may be various opinions re- 
 specting 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 intrin- 
 sic merit ( though these go generally 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 accom- 
 panied with a talent for communicating it : hence 
 tlie sentiment may be confessedly valuable, while 
 the language is regarded as of no authoritv. 
 
S20 CRITICAL REMAtlKS 
 
 This usage must be, in the second \A2ice,7iati6nal. 
 It must not be confined to this, or that province ; 
 it must not be the usage of this, or that district, 
 the peculiarities of which are always ridiculous, 
 and frequently unintelligible beyond its own limits; 
 but it must be the general language of the country> 
 intelligible every where, aod in no place ridicu- 
 lous. And, though the variety of dialects may 
 collectively form a greater number of authorities, 
 than national usage can boast, taken singly they 
 are much fewer. Those, to use Campbell's appo- 
 site simihtude^ who deviate from the beaten road, 
 may be incomparably more numerous, 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 tra- 
 vel in the king's highway. 
 
 In the third place, this usage must be presefit 
 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 
 defined, or by what boundary is it limited ? In 
 short, how far m'ay 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 Ad- 
 ilison ? 
 
 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 
 
AND ILLUSTRATION!^. 321 
 
 a greater latitude than prose; and,' therefore, a- 
 word, which, in prose, we should reject as a bar- 
 barism, may, with strict propriety, be admitted in 
 verse. Here also there are limits which must not 
 be passed ; and, perhaps, any word, which cannot 
 plead the authority of Milton, or of any contem- 
 porary 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. 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 
 <7wc7aif in his days*. One thing, however^ is cer- 
 tain, that, though it be difficult to fix a precise 
 limit, -where the authority of precedent termi- 
 nates, and legislative usage commences, or to de- 
 fine with precision the age of map, it must be ac- 
 knowledged, that there are limits, in respect to 
 
 * Est vetus, atqueprobus, centum qui perficit annos, 
 Quid ? qui deperiit uno mense vel anno ; 
 Inter quos referendus erit ? veteresne poetas^ 
 An quos et pra^sens, ct postera respuat cetas ? 
 Ille quidem veteres inter ponetur honestc, 
 Qui vel mense brevi, yel toto est junior anno, 
 Utor permisso, caudo^^ue! pilos ut equinse 
 Paullatim vello ; et demo unura, demo etiam unuta 
 Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis aCerti, 
 Qui redit ad fasto^. Horace^ Ep. I. Lib. 2, 
 
 Y 
 
522 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 usage, which we must not overleap, as ther^ is a 
 certain term, which the life of man cannot surpass. 
 As there is a period, heyond which precedent in 
 language ceases to have authority; so, on the 
 contrary, the usage of the present day is not im- 
 plicitly to be adopted. Mankind are fond of no- 
 velty^ and there is a fashion in language, as there 
 is in dress. Whim, vanity, and affectation, de- 
 light in creating new words. Of these, the far 
 greater part soon sink into contempt. They figure 
 for a little, like ephemeral productions, in tales, 
 novels, and fugitive papers; and are shortly con- 
 signed to degradation, and oblivion. Now, to 
 adopt every new-fangled upstart at its birth, would 
 argue not taste, nor judgment, but cliildish le- 
 vity, and caprice. On the contrary, if any of 
 these should maintain its ground, and receive the 
 sanction of reputable usage, to reject it, in this 
 case, would be to xesist that authority, to which 
 every critic and grammarian must bow with sub- 
 mission. The term mob^ 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 diction- 
 aries, accordingly, it was omitted ; and in others 
 stigmatized as a barbarism. ll-Jias now obtained 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 a permanent establishment, and is justly admitted 
 by every lexicographer. 
 
 In words, 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. 
 
 Popes Essay on Criticism. 
 
 In short, in this, as in every other question on 
 this subject, perspicuity should be our guide. If 
 the subject be art or science, or if the composition 
 be intended for literary men, then a greater la- 
 titude 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 composition designed for ordi- 
 nary readers, the rule now given, not to employ a 
 word, which has been disused 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, natiotialj and present. It hap- 
 pens, however, that '' good usage*' is not always 
 uniform in her decisions, and that unquestionable 
 authorities are found for different modes of ex- 
 pression. In such cases, the following Canons, 
 proposed by the same author, will be of consider- 
 able service, in enabling tlie reader to decide, to 
 which phraseology the preference is due. These 
 
 Y 2 
 
324 eRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 canons I shall give, nearly in the words of tlie 
 author; and illustrate them, as I proceed, by a 
 few apposite expressions, partly his, and partly 
 my own. 
 
 Canon I. When 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, azight^'foY ** any thing" is bet- 
 ter than ought ; scarcely^ as an adverb, better tliaij, 
 scarce; by consequence is preferable to of conse* 
 quence, whicb signifies also ** of importance ;" and 
 exceedingly » as an adverb, is preferable to exceeding. 
 
 For the same reason, to purpose, for '* to in-' 
 **" tend," is better than to propose, which signifies 
 also *' to lay before,*' or ^' submit to consider- 
 "• ation;" mid proposal, 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 EucAkVs proposition," and **^he re- 
 '' jected the pivposal of his friend/' 
 
 Agreeably also to this canon, disposal, in com- 
 mon language, when a gra»t, or giving away, is 
 denoted, or when the management of any thing is 
 
 • The Saxon word is atviht^ contracted auht^ aJiquid.* 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 8^6 
 
 to be expressed, is preferable lo disposition, which 
 signifies also arrangement, and Ukewise temper of 
 mind, ** To speak contemptuouslij of a person/' 
 is better than '' to speak contewptibly/' the latter 
 term meaning generally, *^ in a contemptible man- 
 *' ner," or "in a manner worthy of contempt,'' 
 whereas the former is univocal, and denotes disre- 
 spectfully, or ** in a manner significant ofcon- 
 *-' tempt." 
 
 For the, same reason, obvious for '* evident," is 
 better ihRn apparent, which means also '' seeming," 
 as opposed to *' real." 
 
 The term primitive, as equivalent to original, is 
 preferable to primary. The latter ts synonimous 
 \N\\h principal, and is oj)poscd \o secondary \ the 
 former is equivalent to onV/A^//, and is opposed to 
 derivative, or acquired. I shall illustrate this dis- 
 tinction by a few examples. The -words false Iiood 
 and Zee 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 /o murder, agree also in their primary ideas, 
 both denoting " the deprivation of life;" but they 
 dififerin their secondary, the former implying no 
 moral turpitude, tlae latter denoting an immoral 
 act: From these examples it will appear, that 
 
3^6' CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 primary/ denotes *' what is principal or chief," as 
 opposed to *' secondary/' or ** subordinate." 
 
 Primitite 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 
 primitivt meaning of words may be very different ; 
 these terms, therefore, ought to be duly discri- 
 minated. 
 
 Intension for '* the act of stretching or strain- 
 *' ing/' is for the same reason, preferable to inten^- 
 tion, which signifies also *' purpose," or ^* design." 
 ** I am mistaken,*' is frequently used to denote 
 '* I misunderstand," or *' I am in error; but as 
 this expression may also signify, *^ I am misunder- 
 *' stood," it is better to say, '* I mistake." 
 
 Canon II. In doubtfid 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, '* ?V needs,'' " he dares " 
 *' whether he will or not,'' are better than " he 
 '* needy'' '* he dare," " whether he zvill or no." 
 The last of the three phraseologies, here recom-. 
 mended, Priestley thinks exceptionable. To me, 
 as to Campbell, the ellipsis appears evident ; thus. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 327 
 
 ^ whether he will, or will not/' hence "will not" 
 seems the only analogical expression. 
 
 Canon til. When expressions are in other re- 
 spects equal, that should be preferred, which is 
 most agreeable to the ear. This requires no il- 
 lustration. 
 
 Canon IV. When none of the preceding rule* 
 takes place, regard should be had to simplicity. 
 On this ground, " accept," "approve," *' admit," 
 are preferable to ** accept of/' ** approve of/* 
 *' admit of." 
 
 1 have already observed, that no expression, or 
 mode of speech, can be justified, which is not 
 sanctioned by usage. The converse, however, 
 does not follow, that every phraseology, sancti- 
 oned by usage, should be retained ; and, in such 
 cases, custom may properly be checked by Criti- 
 cism, whose province it is, not only to remon- 
 strate against the introduction of any word or 
 phraseology, which may be either unnecessary, 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 ex- 
 ercising this authority, she cannot pretend to de- 
 grade instantly any phraseology, which she may 
 
328 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 deem objectionable ; but she may, by repeated re- 
 monstrances, gradually cancel it. Her decisions 
 in such cases may be properly regulated by the 
 following canon§, as delivered by the same author. 
 
 Canon I. All words and phrases, particularly 
 harsh, and not absolutely necessary, should be 
 dismissed, as, '* shametacedness/' '' unsuccessful- 
 *^ ness,'* *' wrongheadedness." 
 
 Canon II. When the etymology plainly points 
 to a different sigiiification, from what the word 
 bears, propriety and simplicity require its dismis- 
 sion. For example, the word "beholden/* taken 
 for /* obliged," or the verb '* to unloose," for ** to 
 *' loose," or '' untie," 3hould be rejected. 
 
 Canon III. When words becopie obsolete, or 
 are never used, but in particular phrases, they 
 should be repudiated ; as they give the style an air 
 of vulgarity and cant, while their genrral disuse 
 renders them obscure. Of these, *' lief," **dint," 
 ** whit," V* moot,*' ^' pro and con," furnish ex- 
 amples, as, ^' I had as lief go," " by dint of ar- 
 '* gument," '* not a whit better," " a moot point," 
 *' it was argued pro and con.'" These phraseolo- 
 gies are vulgar, and savour too much of cant, to 
 be admitted in good writing. 
 
 Canon IV. All words and phrases, which ana- 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 329 
 
 lysed grammatically include a solecism, should be 
 dismissed, as, '* I had rather go.*' Tlie 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, I'd being erroneously 
 conceived to be contracted for I had, instead of a 
 contraction for / ?e?6>z^/r/. TJiis is the opinion of 
 Campbell, and to this opinion I expressed my as- 
 sent, 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 insufficient grounds. In 
 the phrases adduced by Campbell, such as, *' I'd 
 '' go," VTd rather stay," we can readily perceive 
 the probability that Vd is a contraction for " I 
 f^ would." But in such expressions as ** I had like 
 ** to have been caught," which occur not only in 
 jcolloquial language, but also in authors of consi- 
 derable name, it is impossible to achnit Canijdn IPs 
 explanation. I must observe also, that the j)hra- 
 scology, which he censures, occurs in some of our 
 earliest writers, and is so frequently found in Poi)e 
 and Swift, that one is tempted to infer, notwith- 
 standing its solecistic appearance, that it is genu- 
 ine Ejighsh. It is ditKicult however, nay perhaps 
 impossible, to reconcile it to analogy. Were I to 
 offer conjecture on the subject, I should be in- 
 clined to say, that in such phrases as, *' I had go," 
 I had is by a grammatical figure very common in 
 
^^0 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 English, put for / would have^ or 1 xvould possess, 
 and that the simple name of the act or state, by an 
 elHpsis perhaps of the verbal sign is subjoined, as 
 the object wished, no regard ' being liad to the 
 completion of the action; in the same manner, as 
 we say, I would have gojie, when we wish the ac- 
 tion perfected. But, by wliatever authority this 
 phraseology may be recommended, and in what- 
 ever way it may be reconciled to the rules of syn- 
 tax, it has so much the appearance of solecism, that 
 I decidedly prefer with Campbell the unexception- 
 able form of expression, / would. The phrase / 
 had like appears to me utterly irreconcileable with 
 any principle of analogy. 
 
 Canon V, All expressions, which, according 
 to the established rules of the language, either 
 b^ve no meaning, or involve a contradiction, or, 
 ficcording 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, 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 331 
 
 ** 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 
 following 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 expression every one was prettier than an- 
 other, therefore b was also prettier than a. Such 
 absurdities as this ought surely to be banished 
 from every language. 
 
 Of those, which have httle or no moaning, 
 Campbell has given as examples, '^ currying fa- 
 *' vour,'* ** 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 recom- 
 mend to the reader's attentive perusal. 
 
 I proceed to observe, that to write any lan- 
 guage 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 
 Visage has annexed to them. 
 
332 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 Grammatical purity, therefore, may be viplated 
 in three ways. 
 
 1st. The words may not be EngHsh. This er- 
 ror is called Barbarism. 
 
 2dly, 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 Lexicog- 
 raphy, by admitting new words, as, ^' volupty," 
 *' connexity," " majestatic," or by using obsolete 
 words, as, '^uneath/' *'erst;" or an offence against 
 Etymology, by improper inflexion, as ** teached," 
 for '^ taught,'* '' oxes/' for*' oxen.'* 
 
 The Solecism is an offence against the rules of 
 syntax, as, ** I reads/' ^' you was." 
 
 The Impropriety is an offence against Lexi- 
 cography, by mistaking the meaning of words, 
 or phrases. 
 
 A Solecism is regarded by grammarians as a 
 much greater offence, th^n either of the others; 
 because it betrays a greater ignorance of the prin- 
 ciples of the language. Rhetorically considered, 
 it is deemed a less trespass; for the rhetorician 
 and grammarian estimate the magnitude of errors 
 
 * Deprehendat, quae barbara, quas impropria, quae contra le- 
 gem loqucndi composita. Quintil, lib, i. cap. 5. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. S33 
 
 by different standards ; the former enquiring only, 
 how far any error militates against the great pur- 
 pose of Iiis art— persuasion ; the latter, how far it 
 betrays an ignorance of the principles' of gram- 
 mar. Hence with the former, obscurity is the 
 greatest trespass ; with the latter^ solecism, and 
 that species of barbarism, which violates the rules 
 of Etymology, 
 
S34 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 CHAR IL 
 
 HAVING, in the preceding chapter, explained 
 the nature of that usage, which gives law to lan- 
 guage; and having proposed a few rules, for the 
 student's direction in cases, where usage is divided, 
 and also where hq* authority may be justly ques- 
 tioned, and checked by criticism, I intend, in 
 the following pages, to present the young reader 
 with a copious exemplification of the three gene- 
 ral species of error against grammatical purity, 
 arranging the examples in the order of the Parts 
 of Speech. 
 
 * SECT. i. 
 
 The Noun, 
 
 BARBARISM. I 
 
 " 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 accep- 
 *' tion of this word, I shall testify by one evidence." 
 
Ajm ILLUSTRATIONS. 335 
 
 (Hammoiicl. ) Acception is obsolete, it ought to 
 be acceptation, 
 
 ** Were the workmen to enter into a contrary 
 ** combination of the same kind, not to accept of 
 ** a certain wage." (Wealth of Nations. ) fVage 
 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 Ims not, I believe, been used 
 as a substantive, since the days of Shakespeare, 
 and may be deemed obsolete. The plural nuptials 
 is the proper word. 
 
 *' He shewed that he had a full comprehension 
 '^ of the whole of the plan, and of the judicious 
 '* adaption of the parts to the whole.'* (Slieridan's 
 Life of Swift. ) Adaption is obsolescent, if not ob- 
 solete : Adaptation is the proper term. AdaptioM 
 is frequently employed by Swift, from whom She- 
 ridan 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 synonimous with *'un- 
 "^ grateful;'' but ^* ungrate," as a substantive, is 
 truly barbarous. 
 
 ** The Deity dwelleth between the cherubims." 
 The Hebrews form the plural of masculines by 
 sidcVmg im ; \^' cherubims,"- therefore, is a double 
 
^^6 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 plural. *' Seraphims," for the same reason, is 
 faulty. The singular of these words being *' che* 
 *' rub," and *' seraph/* the plural is either ** che- 
 *' rubs,'* and '' seraphs/' or '' cherubim/' ahd 
 '' seraphim/' Milton has uniformly avoided this 
 mistake, which circumstance Addison, in his cri- 
 ticisms on that author, has overlooked ; nay, he 
 has, even with Milton*s correct usage before him, 
 committed the error. *' The zeal of ihesei^aphim/* 
 says he *' breaks forth in a becoming warmth of 
 *' sentiments and expressions, as the character 
 ** which is given of //iw," &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 
 *' virtuoso's, about a cabinet of medals, descant- 
 '^ ing upon the value, the rarity, and authentical- 
 ** ness of the several pieces.'* Jiit/ientkalness, 
 though used by Addison, is obsolescent, and may, 
 perhaps, be deemed a barbarism. It may be pro- 
 perly 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 Scotti- 
 cism, being almost peculiar to the northern parts 
 of the island. Johnson, however, did not dis- 
 claim it. ** A young student from the inns of 
 "' court, who has often attacked the curate of his 
 '' father's parish, with such arguments, as hrs 
 ** arcquaintances could furnish." ( Rambler, ) We 
 
AXD ILLUSTRATIONS. S^ 
 
 find it also in Steele ; thus, '' she pays every body 
 *■* their own, and yet makes daily new acquaint- 
 *' ances." (Tatler, No. 109.) 
 
 '' The bellowses were broken/' The noun, as 
 here inflected, is barbarous. ** Bellows" is a plu- 
 ral 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 vio- 
 lation of that rule, by which one substantive go- 
 verns another in the genitive. It should be, '^ Ho- 
 *' race'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 no- 
 minative plural. 
 
 '* They have of late, 'tis true, reformed, in some 
 ** measure, the gouty joints and darning work of 
 " whereunto's, wherehy's, thereof'Sy therewitlCs^ 
 '^ and the rest of this kind." {Shaftesbury,) Here 
 also the genitive singular is improperly used for 
 
 • The reader is requested to observe, that under '^ solecism,'* 
 1 have included several phraseologies, M'hich, though not con» 
 sistent with syntactical propriety, may be justly called by the 
 softer name of " inaccuracies." 
 
338 CRITICAL REMARKlS 
 
 the objective case plural. It should be, wherewP 
 toSf whereby s, thcreofs, therewiths, 
 
 ''Both those people, acute and inquisitive to 
 '^ excess, corrupted the sciences." Adams's His- 
 tory of England. 
 
 *' Two rival peoples, the JevTs and the SaiVian- 
 '^ tans, have preserved separate exemplars of it." 
 (Geddes's Preface to his Translatmi of the Bible.) 
 The former of these passages involves a palpable 
 error, the word '' people," here equivalent to ««- 
 tiojL and in the singular number, being joined 
 M'ith both, or '^ the two," a term of plurality. . In 
 the latter^ this error is avoided, the noun berng 
 employed in the plural number. This usage, how^ 
 ever, though sanctioned by the authority of our 
 translators of the Bible in two passages, seems now 
 to be obsolete. States, tribes, nations, appear to 
 be preferabk. 
 
 *' I bought a scissars,'* ** I want a tongs," ^' It 
 " is a tattered colours," involve a palpaple sole-* 
 cism, the term significant of unity being joined 
 wi-th a plural word. It should be, ** a pair of scis- 
 '* sars," *' a pair of tongs," ^* a pair of colours." 
 
 " They tell us, that the fashion of j-umbhng 
 '* fifty things together in a dish, was at first in- 
 *' troduced, in compliance to a depraved and de- 
 *' bauched appetite." {Swift.) 
 
 *^ We say, comply with,'' therefore, by Rulg 
 xvii, *' in compliance with" is the analogical 
 
A^D ILLUSTRATIONS. 339 
 
 ferm of expression, and has the sanction of clas- 
 sical usage. 
 
 " The fortitude of a man, who brings his will to 
 '* the obedience of his reason." {Steele.) Analogy 
 requires *' obedience to/' We say, obedient to 
 command: the person obeying is expressed in the 
 genitive^ or with the preposition of ; and the per- 
 son 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 '' at- 
 *' tention," are Verbal Nouns, derived from " at- 
 " tend.'* 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, agreeably toRulexvir, 
 in the same manner as the verb. Thus, ^' he gives 
 '* attention to his studies.'* But when ** to attend'* 
 signifies '' to wait on,*' or ^^ be present at," it is 
 followed by on^ upon, or at, and is sometimes used 
 without the preposition. 
 
 Thus, '* if any minister refused to admit a lec- 
 *' lurer recommended to hini, he was required to 
 *' artend upon the committee.** {Clarendon.) 
 
 *^He attended at the consecration with becom- 
 *' ing gravity.** (Hume.) In this sense the Verbal 
 Noun is '' attendance," and construed like the 
 verb, when it bears this signification. In the sen- 
 tence, therefore, last quoted, syntax requires, 
 
 z 2 
 
o40 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 either '' attendance at'* or " attention to." The 
 latter conveys the meaning of the original, 
 
 IMPROPRIETY. 
 
 "■ The observation of the Sabbath is a duty in- 
 '* cumbent on every Christian." It should be, 
 " the observance." 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 no- 
 '' tice," the noun is " observation." 
 
 The word *"' construction," serves as the Verbal 
 Noun of two verbs, '' to construe,'* and ** to con- 
 '' struct," the former of which is purely a gram- 
 matical term. Hence we say, '* the construction 
 '' of a sentence,*' and "the construction of a 
 '* house;'* but we cannot say, '' construct a sen- 
 *' tence," or '^ to construe a house.'* " To con- 
 *' strue a sentence," is frequently used in English 
 to denote *' interpreting a sentence.*' Though 
 this usage be, perhaps, too firmly established to 
 admit alteration, 1 think the word ^' interpret," 
 *' translate,** or ^' explain,'* which are employed 
 in Scotland, would be preferable. For, agreeably 
 to the present usage, the verb *' to construe" has 
 two significations, whence ambiguity may fre- 
 quently arise, the one implying much the same as 
 analysis^ or resolution^ the other spithesis, or com^ 
 /;o,9zV/o;2, two ideas directly contrary. The ambi- 
 guity has been avoided by Blair, who uses the verb 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 341 
 
 ^' to construct/' when the framing of a sentence 
 is intended. This usage, however, is, I believe, 
 not known in England, and has been deemed a 
 Scotticism. 
 
 " They make such acquirement?, as fit them far 
 '* useful avocations/* {Staunton's 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," 
 '* employment," *' business," "occupation,'* and 
 by the former is meant whatever withdraws, dis- 
 tracts, 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." (^Henry's History of Britain.) The 
 term supplication is in our language confined to 
 what Johnson calls " petitionary wordiip," and 
 always implies request, intreaty, or petition. The 
 Latin term supplicatio has a more extensiv^e mean- 
 ing, and likewise supplicium, each denoting not 
 only prayer, strictly so called, but also thanks- 
 giving. The latter of these should have been em- 
 ployed by the author. 
 
 ^' Our pleasures are purer, when consecrated by 
 '* nations, and cherished by the greatest genii 
 " among men." {BlackweWs Mythology.) Genii 
 mcd,ns sprits. (See p. 25.) Tt ought to be geni- 
 
342 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 I have already remarked, (See p. 43.) that, when 
 the primary idea imphed in the mascvdine and 
 feminine terms is the chief ohject of attention, and 
 when the sex does not enter as a matter of consi- 
 deration, the mascuhne 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 pro- 
 per. 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 fit subject for a poem, — a sentiment mani- 
 festly false. There is no incongruity between the 
 subject and poetry, but between the subject and 
 female delicacy. We ought, therefore, to say, 
 *' as a poetess, she ought not to choQse for her 
 '' theme the story of Abelard." 
 
 '' It y/as 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 synonimous with 
 the fashionable, but grossly perverted term, ho- 
 nour : it is, therefore, improperly applied to 
 thy-igs. It should be, '' the truth of this story.'' 
 The former denotes moral, and the la,tter physical 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 343 
 
 truth. We therefore say, '' tlie truth," or '' verity 
 " of the relation, or thing told," and *' the veracity 
 '* 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, ** trait^ du poeme epique.'' 
 Poem denotes the work or thing composed ; ** the 
 '' art of making,*' which is here intended, is 
 termed poesi/. 
 
 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 suffi- 
 ** cient to acquit this system at the tribunal of 
 *' reason." {Bolingbroke. ) *^ Sophism," is pro- 
 perly defined by Johnson, '' a fallacious argu- 
 ** ment;" sophistry means ** fallacious reasoning," 
 or " unsound argumentation." The author should 
 have said, *' all the sophistry," or " all the so- 
 '* phisms.'* 
 
 '* The Greek is, doubtless, a language much 
 ** superior in riches, harmony, and variety to the 
 ** Latin." {Campbell's Rhet.) As the properti^i 
 or qualities of the languages are here particularly 
 compared, I apprehend, that the abstract " rich 
 '■ ness" would be a more apposite term. ** Riches'' 
 properly denotes *^ the things possessed," or ** what 
 ^' constitutes the opulence of the owner;'' ** rich- 
 ** ness" denotes the state, quality, or property of 
 
344 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 the individual, as possessed of these. The latter, 
 therefore, appears to me the more appropriate term. 
 
 '* The negligence of this leaves us exposed to an 
 *' uncommon levity in our usual conversation/' 
 {Spectator.^ It ought to be, '' The neglect." 
 ** Negligence" implies a habit; -^ neglect" ex- 
 presses an act. 
 
 " For I am of opinion, that it is better a Ian- 
 '^ guage should not be wholly perfect, than it 
 ** should be perpetually 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 simpHcity of style, for 
 *' affected refinements, such as 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 ir^ 
 this sense is obsolete, or at least nearly out of use; 
 it should ht 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.) 
 Disposal, for reasons already assigned* is much 
 better. 
 
 * See Canon I, p. ?4l. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 345 
 
 '^ The conscience of approving one's self a bene- 
 ?* factor to mankind, is the noblest recompence for 
 ** being so." Conscience is the faculty, by which 
 we judge our own conduct. It is here improperly 
 vised for *' consciousness," or thp pe-rception of 
 ^ what passes within ourselves. 
 
 ** If reason were as plenty, as blackberries, I 
 *' would give no man a reason on compulsion." 
 {Shakespeare.) Here ple7iti/, a substantive, is im- 
 properly used ^ox plentiful, 
 
 ** I have the Dublin copy of Gibbon's History." 
 This is a Scotticism, for Duhim edition ; and so 
 palpable, 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 de- 
 *' scription of their policy and laws is so inaccu- 
 '' rate and contradictory, that it is difficult to 
 *' delineate the form of their constitution with 
 *^ any precision." I should here prefer the appro- 
 priate and univocal term poUty, which denotes 
 merely the form of government; policy means 
 rather wisdom or prudence, or the art ofgovernino-, 
 which may exist, where there is no settled polity. 
 
 " A letter, relative to certain calumnies and 
 ** misrepresentations, which have appeared in the 
 *' Edinburgh Review, with an exposition of the 
 ^* ignorance of the new critical junto." — Here, 
 
346 CHITICAI, REMAT?KS 
 
 agreeably to Canon 1 (see p. 241.) I should prefer 
 exposure, as being a word strictly univocal. It 
 Avould conduce to perspicuity, were we to consider 
 exposition as the verbal noun of expound, and con- 
 fine it entirely to explanation, and exposure as the 
 verbal noun of expose, signifying the act of set- 
 ting out, or the state of being set out, or e?vposed. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 The Adjective. 
 
 BARBARISM. 
 
 *' Instead of an able man, you desire to have 
 " him an insignificant wrangler, opiniatre in dis- 
 " course, and priding himself on contradicting 
 *' others." {Locke,) Opiniatre \% a barbarism ; it 
 should be opinio7iative, 
 
 ^' And study'd lines, and fictions circles draw." Prior. 
 
 The word 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. ) Crimi- 
 nous is a barbarism. 
 
 ^* Which, even in the most overly view, will 
 ** appear incompatible with any sort of music.'' 
 {Kaimes's Elements.) Overly is a Scotticism; in 
 England it is now obsolete. The proper term is 
 cursory or superficial. 
 
 "- Steele, the rogue, has done the impudentest 
 
348 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 '* thing in the world." {Swift.) The clissyllabic 
 adjective impudent has no superlative. 
 
 '* Callisthenes, the philosopher, that followed 
 '^ Alexander's court, and hated the king, being 
 ^* asked, how one should become the famousest 
 " man in the worlds, answered, by taking away 
 ** him that is/' (Bacon's jlpophth.) The superla^ 
 tive here, as in the preceding example, is a barbar 
 rism ; it should be, ** most famous.*' 
 
 SOLECISM. 
 
 ** I do not hke 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. 
 
 ** The landlord was quite unfurnished of every 
 ** kind of provision." (Sheridan's Life of Swift,) 
 We say, '* to furnish s^^V/?," not '* to furnish of 
 Furnished and unfurnished 2iXQ construed in the same 
 manner. It should be, " unfurnished with.'^ 
 
 ^' A child of four years old was thus cruelly de^ 
 *' serted by its parents.'' The error here involved 
 frequently 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 ex- 
 pression, namely, *' a child of four years of age," 
 or *' of the age of four years," and '' a child four 
 ** years old/' The preposition of is requisite in 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. , 349 
 
 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, con- 
 sistently, they ought to say, *' a child four years 
 '' old." 
 
 '* This account is very different to what I told 
 *' you." '^ I found your affairs had been managed 
 '' in a different manner, tlum what I advised." 
 Both these phraseologies are faulty. It should be 
 in each, *' different /rowz." The verb " to differ" 
 is construed with from before the second object of 
 disparity; the adjective therefore should (by Rule 
 XVII.) be construed in the same manner. 
 
 " Tliese words have the same sense of those 
 " others." Scwie should be followed with as, with, 
 or the relatives, who, which, that. It ought, there- 
 fore, to be, *' as those," or " with those," or ^' have 
 " the sense of those others." 
 
 *^ Besides, those, whose teeth are too rotten to 
 "' bite, archest, 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 best from the word qualified^ makes 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 absurdly referred at once to 
 the same, and to a different aggregate, the word 
 
SSO CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 o/* referring- it to the species, to which it belongs^ 
 and the word othej^s referring it to a different spe- 
 cies. The sentence, therefore, involves an ab- 
 surdity : either the word others should be expunged, 
 when the sentence will 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 bet- 
 ** ter 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 tu- 
 '* tor for a single pupil, is, perhaps, of all others, 
 ** the least eligible mode of giving literary in- 
 ** struction," {Barrow on Education,) without mak- 
 ing that previous discrimination, which the word 
 others implies, we commit an error. But we may 
 say with propriety, '' I prefer the mode of educa- 
 '* tion adopted in our public schools ; and of all 
 '* other modes to engage a private tutor appears to 
 *"* me the least eli2:ible." 
 
 '&' 
 
 * We perceiTe 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 
 almanack-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 specieSj though it 
 passes frequently unnoticed. 
 
AXD ILLUSTRATIONS. 351 
 
 IMPROPRIETY. 
 
 '' Tiicy could easier get them by heart, and re- 
 '^ tain them in memory/* {Adams's History of 
 England.) Here the adjective is improperly used 
 £or the adverb; it ought to be '* more easily." 
 
 *' Thus much, 1 think, is sufficient to serve, by 
 '* way of address, to my patrons, the true modern 
 *' critics, and may very well atone for my past si- 
 '■ lence, as well as for that, which I am like to ob- 
 *' serve for the future/' {Swift.) Like, or '' simi- 
 *' lar," is here improperly used for //Mj/, a word 
 in signification nearly synonimous with probable. 
 We say, '* he is hkely 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 improperly used for the adverb, denoting " in an 
 ** unseemly manner." Unseemlily not being m 
 use, the word indecently should be substituted, 
 
 ^' The Romans had no other subsistence, but 
 *' the scanty pillage of a few farms." Other h re- 
 dundant; it should be, '' no subsistence but," or, 
 '' no other subsistence than.'' In the Saxon lan- 
 guage, and the earlier English writers, the word 
 otlmr is not uniformly followed by than, but some 
 times with but, before, save, e.vcept^% thus, Mark 
 
 * It has been already offered as the opinion of the writer^ 
 (Seep. 65,) that the English word other is the Saxon -o^cP, and 
 
352 CRITICAL REMARKS. 
 
 xii. 32, " thser an God is, and nis other butan him," 
 thus rendered in 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 Addison, Swift, and other 
 contemporary writers. Usage, however, seems of 
 late to have decided almost universally in favour 
 of tha?2. This decision is not only consistent with 
 analogy, if the word othe?^ is to be deemed a com- 
 parative, but niay also, in some cases, be subser-- 
 vieht to perspicuity. No other but, no other be^ 
 side, no other except, are equivalent expressions^ 
 and do not perhaps convey precisely the same idea 
 with 7ione but, no other than. Thus, if we take an 
 example similar to Baker's, and suppose a person 
 
 that this word with the Arabic ahd. the Hebrew had or aliadj 
 the Saxon o^^e, the Teutonic orfo, the Svvedifjh wc/i/a, and pro* 
 bably the Latin cut, have all sprung from the same source^ or 
 that one of these is the parent of the rest, deiioting unus or sin* 
 gulusy *' OTiCy" or *' one by itself.'^ Of the origin of the Saxon 
 other. Lye has hazarded no opinion. It appears to me to be a 
 comparative from c^^e. To those who have carefully examined^ 
 and have approved the theory of Mr. Tool:c, it will furnish no 
 talid objection agaipst this opinion, that t/is word ois^o is uni- 
 formly found in Saxon, signifying aut. Such can have little or 
 no difficulty in perceiving, not only froiii the similarity of the 
 elements, but from the affinity in point of sense, that had, ahd, 
 aut, oJSXe, oXepj other^ or^ are all members of one and the same 
 family. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 353 
 
 fo say, '* A called on me this morning," b asks, 
 ^' No one else?" " No other," answers a, *'but 
 '' my stationer/' Here the expression, as Baker 
 remarks, seems strictly proper, the "words no othe7\ 
 having a reference tp a. Bljt if the stationer had 
 been the only visitor, he should say, '* none but/' 
 or ** no other thrm the stationer called on me this 
 ** morning/' This is the opinion of Baker. The 
 distinction, which he wishes to establish, is suf- 
 ficiently evident ; but that it is warranted by strict 
 analysis, I do not mean to affirm. 
 
 '' He ha$ eaten no bread, nor drunk no water 
 '^ these two days." No is here improperly used 
 for ani/y two negatives making an affirmative : it 
 should be, ^' nor drupk any water." 
 
 *' The servant must have an imdeniable charac- 
 '* ter." Uiideniable is equivalent to incontrovert- 
 ible, or *? not admitting dispute." An ''undeiiia- 
 *^ bje character,'- therefore, means, a character, 
 which cannot be denied or disputed, whether good 
 or bad : it should be, '* unexceptionable.'' 
 , ^VButyou are too wise to propose to yourselves 
 ^* an object, inadequate to your strength." (JVat- 
 son's Hist, pf Philip III.) Inadequate means '*fall- 
 ^' ing short of due proportion/' and is here im- 
 properly used i^i a sense, nearly the reverse. It 
 should be, " to which your strength is inade- 
 '* quate/' or^ *' superior to your strength." 
 
 *' I received a letter tp-day from our mutual 
 
 friend/' It should be, '' pur common friend/' 
 aa 
 
 ii 
 
554 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 Mutual implies reciprocation; and is to be used, 
 only when intercourse is signified, between the two 
 persons spoken of. Now, there is no reciproca- 
 tion between the person speaking, and the person 
 addressed, though there be a mutual friendship 
 between each of them, and the correspondent al- 
 luded to. Again; mutual is a term inapplicable to 
 inore than two. Now, if a be a friend to b, and 
 also to c; there subsists a mutual friendship be- 
 tween A and B, and between a and c : and a is the 
 common friend of b and c. 
 
 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 
 measurement, from the basement to the top, and 
 also the lowest in regard to position, the inferi- 
 ority being occasioned by declivity. Now it ap- 
 pears to me, that when we refer to dimension, wc 
 should say, lowest or highest ; and when we 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 mas- 
 ** ters." {Swift,) It should be, *' it was owing," 
 or, "it is ascribable." The author had previously 
 been speaking of the first instructors of mankind, 
 and questioning their claim to the title of sages. 
 To say, then, that their right to this title, or that 
 the appellation itself, ** was due more to ignorance 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 385 
 
 ^' than to knowledge," is manifestly improper. 
 Johnson has justly observed, that the word due is 
 rarely used as equivalent to occasioned by. 
 
 '^ Risible/* ** ludicrous,*' and ^M'idlculous/* are 
 frequently confounded. Risible denotes merely 
 the capacity of laughing, and is applied to animals 
 having the faculty of laughter, as, '' man is a ri- 
 " sible 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. 
 
 ** That this was the cause of the disaster, was 
 *' apparent to all." Apparent is sometimes used 
 in this sense. The word, however, is equivocal, 
 as \t denotes seeming, opposed to real ; and obvious^ 
 opposed to doubtjul or obscure. ** I consider the 
 *^ difference between him and the two authors 
 " above mentioned, as more apparent than real." 
 {Campbell.) Here apparent is opposed to real; 
 and to this sense it would be right to confine it, 
 as thus all ambiguity would be effectually pre- 
 vented. '' But there soon appeared very appa- 
 '^ rent reasons for Jameses partiality." {Goldsmith.) 
 Obvious, or evident, would unquestionably be pre- 
 ferable. 
 
 ^' How seldom, then, does it happen, that the 
 " mind does not find itself in similar circum- 
 *' stances.^ Very rare indeed." {Tr^uslers Preface 
 to Synon,) The adjective rare is here improperly 
 
 AA SI 
 
5j6 - CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 used for the adverb. As the question, indeed, is 
 adverbially proposed, it is somewhat surprising, 
 that the author should answer adjectively — It ought 
 to be, *' Very rarely." 
 
 *' No man had ever less friends, and more ene- 
 '' mies." Less refers to quantity, fewer to num- 
 ber; it should be, ''/ezse/'eT friends.'' 
 
 The adjectives agreeable^ suitable^ conformable, 
 independent, consistent, relative, pf^vioiis, antecedent, 
 and many others, are often used, where their se- 
 veral derivative adverbs would be more properly 
 employed; as, *' he lives agreeable to nature,'' 
 " lie wrote to me previous to his coming to town/' 
 '* tolerable good," ^' he acted conformable \o his 
 *' promise." It is worthy of remark, however, 
 that the idiom of our language is not repugnant to 
 some of these phras^eologies, 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 expression is deemed unobjec- 
 tionable ; but is not according a Participle, or, 
 perhaps, here, more properly, a Participial? " He 
 " acted contrary to nature'' is also considered as 
 faultless; but is not contrary an Adjective ? Were 
 we to reason on abstract principles, or to adopt 
 what is deemed the preferable phraseology, we 
 should say, ** contrarily" and '' accordingly to 
 '^^ nature." This, however, is'not the case. '' Con- 
 •^' trary to nature," '* according to nature," and 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. * 3.57 
 
 Tllaiiy similar phraseologies, are admitted as good : 
 why, then, is '' conformable to nature," an ex- 
 pression perfectly analogous, so se^^er-ely con- 
 demned ? Johnson has, indeed, uselessly enough 
 in my opinion, called Gccarding a Prepositions- 
 fearful, hovvTver, of error, he adds, it is properly 
 a Participle, for it is followed by to. According is 
 alwaysa Participle, as mucli as ^^reei;?^, andean 
 he nothing else. Because .secundum in Latin is 
 termed a Preposition, hence some have referred 
 according to the same species of words. With equal 
 propriety might in the pozver of be deemed a Prepo- 
 sition, because penes in Latin is so denominated. 
 Now, if *' he acted contrary to nature" and ^' ac- 
 '^ cording to nature" be deemed unexceptionable 
 expressions, with many others of the same kind, 
 which might be adduced, it follows that, " he 
 ** acted agreeable," ''conformable," '.' suitable to 
 ^' nature,'' may plead in their favour these analo- 
 gous phraseologies. I offer these observations, in 
 order to shew, .that, misled by abstract reasonings, 
 or by the servile imitation of another language, we 
 some-times hastily condemn^ as altogether inad- 
 n"wssible, modes of expression, .which are not re- 
 pugnant to our vernacular idiom. — I would not, 
 however, be understood to mean, that the Adverb 
 is not, in these cases, much to be preferred, when 
 it can be employed consistently with good usage. 
 For, if we say, " he acts agreeable to the laws of 
 *' r^aspn^" the question is, who or what is agreeg.- 
 
358 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 able ? the answer, according to the strict con- 
 struction of the sentence, is he; but it is not he^ 
 but his mode of actings of which the accordance is 
 predicated ; agreeably is, therefore, the preferable 
 term. 
 
 I observe also, that wherever the Adjective is 
 employed to modify the meaning of another Ad- 
 jective, it becomes particularly exceptionable, and 
 can scarcely, indeed, plead aught in its favour, 
 as, *' iiulifTerent good,'' '' tolerable strong," iu-^ 
 stead of ** indifferently good," and *' tolerably 
 *• strong." The following phraseology is ex- 
 tremely inelegant, and is scarcely admissible on 
 any principle of analogy. *^ Immediately conse- 
 ^' quent to the victory, Drogheda was invested." 
 (Belsham'^ History.) What was consequent? 
 Grammatically *^ Drogheda." 
 
 '* No other person, beside my brother, visited 
 ** me to-day.** Here the speaker means to say, 
 that no |)erson, beside his brother, visited him 
 to-day ; but his expression implies t\vo exceptions 
 from nonl^y the terms other and beside each imply- 
 ing one, and can, therefore, be correct on this 
 supposition only, that some one beside his brother 
 had visited him. It should be rather, *' no per- 
 ** son beside.'' 
 
 ■' The old man had, ' some fifty years ago, been 
 ^^ np mean performer on the vielle." {Slerne,) 
 This phraseology appears to me very objection- 
 able \ and can be proper in no case, except when 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 359 
 
 the date of the period is to be expressed as uncer- 
 tain. The word some shoukl be cancelled. 
 
 " Brutus and Aruns killed one another.*' It 
 should be, '* each other:" ** one another" is ap- 
 plied to more than two. 
 
 " It argued the most extreme vanity." {Hume) 
 Ei'ti^eme 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." J7m- 
 ^ersal is here improperly used for general. The 
 meaning of the latter admits intension and remis- 
 sion, and may, therefore, be compared. The 
 former is an Adjective, whose signification cannot 
 be heightened 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. *^* Pupe, 
 
 Human and humane, as Dr. Campbell observes, 
 arc sometimes confouaded. The former properly 
 means ** belonging to man;" the latter ** kind 
 *' and compassionate;" humanly, therefore, is 
 improperly, in the couplet now quoted, used for 
 humanely. 
 
360 - CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 SECT. iir. 
 The Fronoun. 
 
 BARBARISM. 
 
 Pronouns ab so few in number, and so simple, 
 that this species of erroi*, in respect to them, can 
 scarcely occur. To this class, however, may, 
 perhaps, be reduced such as hisn^ htr'n, ourn, 
 your'riy their'n, for his own, her oxvn, our own, &c, 
 t)T for his one, her one, &c. 
 
 sole'cism. 
 
 '* Who calls?" '' 'Tis me." this is a violatiori 
 of 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.*' {Szvift.) Man-- 
 kind is a collective noun, and is uniformly consi- 
 dered as plural; his, therefore, is a gross solecism. 
 
 *' By this institution, each legion, to whom % 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. S&\ 
 
 *^ certain portion of auxiliaries was allotted, con» 
 " taiiied within itself every species of lighter 
 '* troops, and of missile weapons/' (Gibbon.) Ii 
 ought to be, to which— rthe Prououn itself, wliich 
 follows^ referring to a Noun of the neuter gender. 
 To whom and its'elf 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 ungramma- 
 tical. Each implying *' one of two/' or every one 
 singly of more than two, requires the relative to 
 "be considered as plural; yet the antecedent /;^rf, 
 to which it refers, is singular. It should be '' all 
 *' parts of female dress.'* 
 
 *' He was ignorant, the pi'ofane historian, of the 
 '* testimony, which he is compelled to give. 
 ( Gibbons Decline of the Roman Empire. ) 
 
 The youth and inexperience of the prince, he 
 
 was otily fifteen years of age, declined a perilous 
 " encounter." 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 //e by apposition, it should have immediately 
 followed the pronoun. If it be designed emphati- 
 cally, and ironically, to mark the character of tlie 
 historian, it should have been thrown into the 
 form of a parenthetic exclamation. In the latter 
 sentence a phraseology occurs, which, not with- 
 
 
562 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 standing its frequency in Gibbon, is extremely 
 awkward and inelegant. The fault may be cor- 
 rected either by throwing the age of the prince into 
 a parenthesis, or preferably, by the substitution 
 of who for he, 
 
 '* That faction in England, who most power-- 
 " fully opposed his arbitrary pretensions." {Ma- 
 coulay.) 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 meta- 
 *' physicians, 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 
 *' active governors, whom Ireland had enjoyed 
 " for several years." Hume, 
 
 In the two first of these passages, which is im^ 
 properly applied to persons ; in the last, the author 
 has ^voided this impropriety, and used whom. The 
 Pronoun that, however, is much preferable to 
 whOj or which, after a superlative. 
 
 *' Such of the Morescoes might remain, who 
 ** demeaned themselves as Christians.'' {IVatsoii's, 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIOXS. 565 
 
 Life of Philip III. ) Such is here improperly fol- 
 lowed by xvho instead o^ as, Tlie correlative terms 
 are thosCj who, and such, as. 
 
 *' It is hard to be conceived, that a set of men 
 '* could ever be chosen by their cotemporaries, to 
 '* have divine honours paid to them, \\hile nume- 
 " rous persons were alive, who knew their imper- 
 '^ fections, and who themselves, or their iinme- 
 '* diate ancestors, might have as fair a pretence, 
 ** and come in competition witii them/' {Pri- 
 deauv*s Connections.) The identity of subject, in 
 the relative clauses of this sentence, requires the 
 repetition 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 pronoun whom should not be under 
 the government of the verb '* would say," having 
 no connection with it ; but should be a nominative 
 to the verb " passed ;' thus, *' who, you woald 
 ** say, passed their afternoons." 
 
 ** By these means, that religious princess be- 
 *' came acquainted with Athenais, whom she found 
 ** was the most accomplished woman of her age." 
 IVhojn, for the reason already assigned, should be 
 who, being tl«e nominative' to the verb was. If it' 
 were intended to be a regimen to the verb found, 
 the sentence should proceet} (bus, *' whom she 
 ♦' found to be/' 
 
a 
 
 ei 
 
 564 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 *' Solomon was the wisest maiij him only ex- 
 
 '' cepted, 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 so- 
 ciety, they are pests to mankind." Here the 
 "\/ verb are has two^ nominatives, zvho and thej/, each 
 ^ representing the same subjects of discourse. One 
 
 of them is redundant; and by the use of both, tha 
 expression becomes solecistical, there being no 
 verb, to which the relative who can be a nomi- 
 native. 
 
 ** My banks, they are furnish'd with bees,'* 
 
 is faulty for the same reason, though here, per- 
 haps, 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 notsuflPer them to be violated." Which is 
 neither a regimen, nor a nominativ-e, to any verb ; 
 the sentence, therefore, is ungrammatical— 77fe»i 
 is redundant. 
 
 *' Whom do men say that I 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 lan- 
 guage, to arrange the words in the natural order. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 36*5 
 
 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 whom, 
 the relative being under the government of the 
 preposition, 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, 
 thus, *^ whom she knew," or '- she knew whom to 
 '' be dead." 
 
 " Than whom, Satam except, none higher sat." Milton. 
 
 ^' The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud, 
 '' With deeper sable blots the silver flood." Fope, 
 
 This phraseology I have already examined. lu 
 answer to Mr. Baker's reasons for condemning the 
 phrase, *' than whom,'* Story's observations be^ 
 tray, as I conceive, extreme ignorance, and re- 
 quire correction. ^' The English," says he, *' is 
 '' strictly good ; for the relative whom is not in 
 '^ the same case with sluice, (which is the nomi- 
 '' native to the verb blots) but referring to its ante- 
 *' cedent, the king of dykes, is very properly in the 
 *■ objective case, even though the personal pror 
 ^- v\Q\mhe, if substituted in its place, would be in 
 " the nominativ^e.^' 
 
S66 CRITICAL REMAUk^ 
 
 If Mr. Story conceives, that the relative liiust 
 agree with its antecedent in case, he labours under 
 an egregious mistake. Every page of English 
 evinces the contrary. Yet, such must be his opi- 
 nion, or his argument means nothing; for the 
 only reason, which he offers for w/w??i, is, that its 
 antecedent is in the objective case. Besides, if 
 /^^;2 a'^o;72 be admissible, nay proper, he will have 
 difficulty in assigning a good reason, why it should 
 not be ajso, tha}i 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 nominative to 
 the verb, or is governed by it, or by the preposition 
 understood. The sentence proceeds thus, '* 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 v&.Vy 
 and not the sign of a person ; for it is said to be 
 another name fox prudence and economy. Not the 
 person, but the word, is said to be significant of 
 this quality. The pronoun, therefore, should be 
 which, not who. The sentence, however, even thus 
 corrected, would be inelegant. Better thus> 
 " Queen Ehzabeth, whose name was but another 
 *' word for prudence and economy." 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIOtfS. 367 
 
 ** Be not diverted from thy duty by any idle 
 ^ reflections, the silly world may make upon you." 
 Consistency requires either ^' your duty,'' or " upon 
 ** thee/' Thy and your, a singular and a plural 
 pronoun, each addressed to the same individual. 
 
 are incongruous. 
 
 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 flat- 
 *' terers, for these only devour the dead, those the 
 " living." The pronoun this always refers to the 
 nearer object, that to the more remote. This dis- 
 tinction is heu-e reversed. It should be, '* those 
 *' (crows) devour the dead; these (flatterers) the 
 " living." I observe also, in passing, that those 
 adjectives, whose mode of comparison is irregular, 
 are not compared by more and most. It ought to 
 be, *' it is better." 
 
 *^ Each of the sexes should keep within its pro- 
 ** per bounds, and content themselves with the 
 ** advantages of their particular districts." {Addi- 
 son.) Here the pronoun does not agree with the 
 word, to which it refers, the word each being sin- 
 gular ; whereas themselves and their are plural. It 
 should be, itself, 
 
 A similar error occurs in the following sentence. 
 ** Some of our principal public schools have each 
 ** a grammar of their own." JBan^ow on Education^ 
 It ought to be, *^each a grammar of ?V^ own," The 
 
S6S CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 expression is elliptical, for *' schools have, each 
 " (has) a grammar of its own." Thus we say, 
 Simeon and Levi took each man his sword^ xioi their 
 szvords. * Gen. xxxiv. 25. 
 //^ / *' Let each esteemx)ther better than themselves. '•' 
 ' (Bible.) For the reason just given, it ought to be 
 himself, 
 
 '' I wonder, that such a valiant hero as you, 
 *' should trifle away your time in making war 
 ** upon women.'- (Essay an the JVritings of Pope ) 
 Here the pronoun disagrees in person with the noun, 
 to which it refers, hero being of the third person, 
 and your of the second. The connection 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." 
 
 ** 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.'' 
 
 '* The treaty he concluded can only be consi- 
 ** dered as a temporary submission, and of which 
 ** he took no care to secure the continuance of it," 
 The redundancy of the words o/* 2V, renders the 
 sentence somewhat ungrammatical. It should run 
 thuS; '' the treaty he concluded can only be coR* 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 369 
 
 <• sidered as a temporary 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 an in French, and cannot be repre- 
 sented by any pronoun. It must, therefore, be 
 repeated, thus, *' unless one be very cautious, oiie 
 *' will bp liable to be deceived." 
 
 IMPROPRIETy. 
 
 " Give me them books/* Here the substantive 
 pronoun is used adjeclively, instead of the demon- 
 strative those or these. The substantive pronouns, 
 which are, strictly speaking*, the only pronouns, 
 cannot be construed as adjectives, agreeing with 
 substantives. We cannot say, ** it book,** ^' ihcy 
 " 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.'* 
 (fVatsons 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 fertility by 
 " the measure jf its inundation." (Gibbon,) It 
 has been already observed, that the Saxon word 
 ceuthei^ signifies eachy as Cren. vii. 2. *' Clean ani- 
 ^' mals thou shalt take by sevens of each kind/' 
 
370 ' CUiriGAL REMaH'KS^:- 
 
 (F.ythres yecyndes. The English word either is 
 sonietimcs 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 ple^ase," and as it is generally employed in 
 tliat sense, perspicuity requires^ that it be strictly 
 confined to tins signification. For, if cither be 
 used equivocally, it must, in many cases, be ut- 
 terl}' impossible far human ingenuity to ascertain, 
 vvhetb.er only '' one of two," or *' both" be in- 
 tended. In such expressions, for example, as '^ take 
 *' either side," '' the general ordered his troops to 
 •^ march on eitlier bank/* how is the reader or 
 hearer to divine, whether both sides, hothhanks^ or 
 onlij one be signified? By employing each to ex- 
 press " both," taken individually, and either to 
 denote '* one of the two," all ambiguity is removed. 
 
 ''The bishop of Clogher intends to call on you 
 '* thiis morning, as well as your humble servant, 
 *• in my return from Chapel Izzard." {Addisori to 
 Su'ift.) After the writer has spoken of himself ia 
 the tliird -person, there is an impropriety in em- 
 ploying the pronoun of the .first. Mucli better 
 '' in his return." 
 
 *' The ends of a divine and human legislator are 
 *' vastly different." {JVarburton.) From this sen- 
 ten-ee it would seem, that there is only one subject 
 oF discourse, the ends belonging to one individual, 
 a iuti)2C ojid human tegislator. The author intended 
 to express two different subjects, namtly, '' the 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 371 
 
 '* objects of a divine/' and *' the objects of a hii- 
 ** man legislator.*' The demonstrative those is 
 omitted. It should be, *^ the ends of a divine, and 
 *' those of a human legislator, are vastly different." 
 . This error consists in defect, or an improper ellip- 
 sis of the pronoun : in the following sentence the 
 error is redundancy. " They both met on a trial 
 '* of skill." Both means '' they two," as ambo in 
 I^atin is equivalent to" oi duo." It should, there- 
 fore, {}e, ** 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 im^ 
 *' plying to whom ; so th^t the word equal has no- 
 *' thing, to which 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 like- 
 ** wise is equal to c." Thus Mr. Baker. Now, it 
 appears to me, tliat, wjjen he admits the expres- 
 sion, *' are both equal," as significant of the equal- 
 ity of each, he admits a phraseology, which does 
 not strictly convey that idea. For if we say, '* a 
 *' and Bare both equal," it seems tome to imply, 
 that the two individuals are possessed of two at- 
 tributes or qualities, and in this sense only, as I 
 conceive, is this phraseology correct. Thus we 
 may say, with strict propriety, " a and b are both 
 
 B B 2 
 
572 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 ** equal in strength, and superior in judgment^ 
 ** to their contemporaries." Or it may denote, that 
 *' they two together/* namely, a and b, are 
 '' equal to c singly." In the former case, both is 
 necessarily follovved by and, which is in Latin ren- 
 dered by et. Thus *' a and b are the two things, 
 *^ (both) equal m strength, and (add) superior in 
 ^' judgme7it to their contemporaries.** In the latter 
 case, it is equivalent to ambo, expressing two col- 
 lectively, 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 ambigu- 
 ous term, denoting either " the two collectively," 
 or ^' the two separately," and that many exampleal 
 of the latter usage may be adduced. But that 
 surely cannot be deemed a correct or appropiate 
 term, which, in its strict signification, conveys 
 an idea, different from that intended by the 
 speaker ; or which leaves the sentiment in obscu- 
 rity, and the reader in doubt. The word each, 
 substituted for both, renders the expression clear 
 and precise, thus, '' a and b are each equal lo c 
 ^' in strength*." 
 
 An error the reverse of this occurs in the fol- 
 lowing sentence. " This proves, that the date of 
 '* each letter must have been nearly coincident." 
 
 • '^ Utrumque fecisse dicimus, si et hie & ille fecerit divisim ; 
 *' ambos fecisse dicimus, si duo conjunctim aliquid fecerint.'' 
 Stephan. This distinction, however, as the learned critic ac- 
 knowledges, is not uniformly observed. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATION'S. 373 
 
 Coincident with what ? Not surely with itself; 
 nor can the date of each letter be coincident with 
 €ach other. It should be, *' that the dates of both 
 '* letters must have been nearly coincident.'* 
 
 *' It's great cruelty to torture a poor dumb ani^ 
 '' mal." Better, 'Tis, in order to distinguish the 
 ^contraction from the genitive singular of the pro- 
 iioun it, 
 
 '* Neither lady Haversham, nor miss Mildmay, 
 " will ever believe, but what I have been entirely 
 *' to blame." The pronoun zvhat, equivalent to 
 that which, is here improperly used for that. 
 The converse of this error occurs in the following 
 passages. 
 
 " That all our doings may be ordered by thy 
 governance, 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 dis- 
 *' tributive justice." {Hobbes,) *' To consider ad- 
 " visedly of that is moved." {Bacon.) This usage 
 is now obsolete. The clauses should therefore 
 proceed thus, *^todo always what," or ''that, 
 *' which is righteous." *' According to what," or 
 ^' that, which a man hath." . 
 
574 CtllTICAL REMARltS 
 
 • SECT. IV. 
 
 The Verb, 
 
 BARBARISM. 
 
 ** Thus did the French ambassadors with gri?ai 
 *' shevy 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. 
 
 *^ Do villainy do ; since you profess to 
 
 '' Like workmen, I*U example you with thievery.'' 
 
 Shakespeare. 
 
 '^ The verb " to example/* as equivalent to the 
 phrasC; *' to set an example," is obsolete ; and when 
 used for *' to exemplify," may be deemed obsoles- 
 cent. *' 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 de- 
 '* desired me not to let the. prophecy be published, 
 *' for fear of angering the queen/' (JSwift.) The 
 verb *' to anger," is almost obsolete. In Seot*- 
 land, 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 Pqpe ; since 
 
AND, ILLUSTRATIONS. ^75 
 
 their time it appears to have been gradually falling 
 into disuse. * 
 
 "Shall we once more go to fight against our 
 *' brethren, or sliall we surcease r" {Geddes^ 
 V Transl.) The verb '^ to surcease," is obsolete. 
 
 '^ And they and he, upon this incorpora4ion and 
 *' institution, and onyng of themsclf into a realnic, 
 '' ordaynyd,'* &c. (Fortescue.J Here we have 
 the participle 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 sync, 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 impotencye." (lb.) It has 
 been already observed, that the verb 7nai/ is derived 
 from the Saxon msdgsin posse (See p. 139) From 
 the passage before us it appears, that in the time 
 ofFortescue (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 ten^ie with the word 
 shall, the sign of tlie infinitive being suppressed. 
 ** Wherthorough the parlements schall may do 
 *' more good in amoneth.'* (lb.) that is, '* shall 
 '* be able to do." 
 
 '* Wherefor al, that he dothe ozvltk to be 
 ** referryed to his kingdom." (lb.) The verb to 
 §zv€, as- expressive of duty, is now obsolete. It 
 
376 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 has been supplanted by ought , formerly its pre- 
 terite 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' ^ 
 History of Britain.) *' Admitting the charges 
 ** against the delinquents to be fully proven." 
 (Belsham's History.) Proven is now obsolete, 
 having given place to the regular participle. It is 
 still, however, used in Scotland, and is therefore 
 deemed a Scotticism. 
 
 SOLECISM. 
 
 *' You was busy, wheri I called." Here a pro-* 
 noun plural is joined with a verb in the singular 
 number. It should be, *' you were." 
 
 " This is one of those highwaymen, that was 
 '* condemned last sessions." According to the 
 grammatical construction of this sentence, '' one 
 " of those highwaymen" is the predicate; for the 
 syntactical arrangement is, " This (highwayman), 
 ** that was condemned last sessions, is one of those 
 " highwaymen." But this is not the meanings 
 which this sentence is in general intended to con- 
 vey: for it is usally Employed to denote, that se- 
 veral highwaymen were condemned, and that this 
 is one of them. The sentence, therefore, thus 
 u ciCi stood, is ungrammatlcal ; for the antece- 
 dcirt is, in this cas€, not one, but highwaymen. 
 The relative, therefore, being plural, should be 
 
And iLLUSTRATioNs. S77 
 
 joined with a plural verb, thus, ** This is one of 
 '' those highwaymen, that were condemned last 
 ^* sessions. " 
 
 ** I had went to Lisbon, before you knew, that 
 '* I had arrived iu England." This is an egregious 
 solecism, the auxiliary verb had, which requires 
 the perfect participle, being here joined with tlie 
 preterite tense. It should be, *' I had gone." 
 
 *^ 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 consider - 
 *' able city." Here the verb amounted has no no- 
 minative. To render the sentence grammatical, 
 it should be, '' that they amounted," or " as 
 ■*' amounted to a considerable city." 
 
 " It requires more logic, than you possess, to 
 ** make a man to believe, that prodigahty is not a 
 ^' vice." After the verb '' to make," the si^n of 
 
 + 
 
 
378 cuniCAL remarks 
 
 the infinitive should be omitted. See Rule iiii. 
 Note 3. 
 
 '' He dare not/' " he need not," may be justly 
 pronounced 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 Jly, compounded 
 with oter. It should bC;, " overflowed," the parti- 
 ciple of ** overflow." 
 
 ^' They that sin rebuke before all." The pro- 
 noun, which should be the regimen of the verb 
 rebuke, is here put in the nominative case. It 
 should, therefore, be theni. The natural order is, 
 ^' rebuke them that sin." 
 
 *' There are principles innate in man^, which 
 *^ ever have, and ever will incline him to this of- 
 *' fence." 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 substitut- 
 ** ing the manners of Persia to those of Rome, 
 ** he was actuated by vanity." (Gibbon,) *' Suh- 
 ** stitute /o," is a, Latinism. It should be, '* sub- 
 *' stitute/or." 
 
 '* 1 had rather live in forty Irelands, than under 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 379 
 
 "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.*' {Watso7i'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 scaf- 
 ^' folds, or had fled into foreign parts." {Hcnri/s 
 Hist.) This sentence is ungrammatical. The 
 word nobles ]o\ned to the participle having must be 
 regarded as put absolutely, and tlierefore to the 
 verb ^^c? there is strictly no nominative. But, even 
 were a nominative introduced, the structure of the 
 sentence would be still highly objectionable, the 
 two last clauses "having been killed/* and ** they 
 '* had fled,*' being utterly discordant one with the 
 other. The primary irea to be expressed is the 
 fewness of the nobilily ; this forms the subject of the 
 principal clause. — There are two reasons to be as- 
 signed for tliis fewness, thdr destruction and their 
 flight ; these form the subjex^s of the two subordi- 
 nate clauses. Between these two, therefore, there 
 should be the strictest congruity ; and in this re- 
 

 SSO CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 gpect the sentence is faulty. It ought to proceed 
 either thus, '' The iiobihty 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 bat- 
 ** ties, or on scaffolds, or had fled into foreign 
 
 parts;" or thus, *' all the nobles having been 
 " killed, or having fled/' The latter form is the 
 preferable. 
 
 " He neglected to profit of this occurrence." 
 This phraseology occurs frequently in Hume. '* To 
 '^ profit of/' is a gallicism ; it ought to be, '' to 
 ** profit b^ 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 per- 
 son congratulated should be in the objective case 
 governed by the verb; the subject is preceded by 
 the preposition 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 Ireland." (Szvifrs Sacr. Test.) 
 
 In' these examples the verb *' to arrive/' is fol- 
 lowed by to instead of at, an error, which should 
 be carefully avoided. Good writers never con- 
 strue it with the preposition significant of motion 
 or progression concluded, but with those preposi- 
 tions, which denote propinquity or inclusion. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 381 
 
 namely, at or in. Hence also to join this verb, 
 with adverbs, expressive of motion 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 spread- 
 ** eth 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 per^ 
 son of the verbs following, '' maketh," " spread- 
 " eth;" but the pronoun of the first person, my^ 
 self, 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 ^xq 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 indis^ 
 pensibly requisite. The sentence, therefore, should 
 conclude thus, "" that spreadeth abroad the earth 
 ** by himself." I f?wj/5e//^ be retained, the pronoun 
 1 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.'' Popr. 
 
389 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 The antecedent to the pronoun zvho is the pro- 
 noun of the second person singular. The relative, 
 therefore, being of the same person, should be 
 joined to the second person singular of the verb, 
 namely, '* confinedst.*' 
 
 *' The executive directory, to prove, that they 
 '* will not reject any means of reconciliation, de- 
 " dares," &c. (Bdshams Hist.) The- nominative 
 is here joined to a verb singular, and at the same 
 time represented hy a pronoun plural. Hie error 
 may be corrected, either by the substitution off/ 
 for ihey, or declare instead of declares. 
 
 " These friendly admonitions of Swift, though 
 ** they might sometimes produce good elfects, in 
 " particular cases, when properly timed, yet 
 •' could they do hut little towards eradicating 
 ** faults." {Slieridan.) The nominative admoni- 
 tions is connected with no verb, the pronoun thei/y 
 being the nominative to the verb could. The sen- 
 tence, therefore, is ungrammatical ; nor can the 
 figure hyperhaton be here pleaded in excuse, as the 
 simplicity and shortness of the sentence 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.'* (jBo- 
 lingbroke.) Has being merely a part of a coin- 
 ppund tense, conveys no precise meaning without 
 the rest of the tense. When joined, then, to the 
 participle, here belonging to the three aux^iliaries. 
 
 J ^ 1 :3SJ /■'■•- 
 
 A f- 
 
 4ic 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. S83 
 
 the sentence proceeds thus, *' This dedication may 
 ** serve for almost any book, that has pubhshed." 
 It ought to be '* has been/' *' is/' or " shall be 
 '* published/* The following sentence is charge- 
 able 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.'* 
 
 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 now, being obviously admissible, points to 
 present time, and necessarily excludes the preterite 
 tense. Pope says, *' 'T was twenty years.'* When? 
 not surely in some part of the past time, but at the 
 time of writing. 
 
 *' It wer^e well for the insurgents, and fortunate 
 " for the king, if the blood, that was now shed, 
 " had been thought a sufficient expiation for of- 
 ■* fence.*' {Goldsjniih^) '* It were/* \yhich is 
 
BS4i CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 equivalent to *' it would be,'* is evidently ineon- 
 gruous 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/' 
 
 *' If you please to employ your thoughts on that 
 ** subject, you would easily conceive the miser- 
 ** able condition, many of lis are in/' {Steele.) 
 Here there is obviously an incongruity of tense. 
 It should be either, ** if you please to employ, 
 *' you zvUl conceive," or ** if it pleased you to em- 
 ** ploy, yon zeotcld conceive.'' 
 
 ^' James used to compare him to a cat, who 9.I- 
 ** ways fell upon her legs/' {Adams Hist, of Eng^ 
 land.) Here, the latter clause, which is intended 
 to predicate an attribute of the species, expresses 
 simply a particular 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 falls upon her legs." 
 
 *' This is the last time, I shall ever go to Lon- 
 *' don/' This mode of expression, though very 
 common, is certainly in. proper after the person is 
 gone, and can be proper only before he sets out. 
 The French speak correctl}^ when they say, '^ la 
 '^ derniere fois que je vais," i. e. the last time of 
 my gping. We ought to say, *' this is the last 
 *' time, I shall be in London/* 
 
 *' He accordingly draws out his forces, and pfifers 
 *^ battle to Hlerp, who immediately accepted it/* 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 385 
 
 Consistency requires, that the last verb be in the 
 same tense with the preceding verbs. The actions 
 are described as present ; the language is graph- 
 ical, and that which has been properly enough de-^ 
 nominated the " historical 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," 
 ** 1 intended to have written." The preterite time 
 is expressed by the tenses " expected,'' '' intended ;" 
 and, how far back soever that expectation or in- 
 tention may be referred, the seeing or writing 
 must be considered as contemporary, or as soon 
 to follow; but cannot, without absurdity, be con- 
 sidered as anterior. It should be, *' I expected 
 ^f to see," *' I intended to write." Priestley, in 
 defending the other phraseology, appears to me to 
 have greatly erred, the expression implying a ma- 
 nifest impossibility/ The "action, represented as 
 the object of an expectation, or intention, and, 
 therefore, in respect to these, necessarily future, 
 cannot surely, without gross absurdity, be exhi> 
 bited as past, or antecedent to these. 
 
 " Fierce as he mov'd, his silver shafts resound." Pope, 
 
 Much better, '' Fierce as he moves." Congrulty 
 of tense is thus p reiser ved : and there is, besides, a 
 
 c c 
 
386 ' CllITICAL REMARKS 
 
 peculiar beauty in employing the Present, a beauty, 
 . of which the Preterite is wholly incapable. The 
 former imparts vivacity to the expression ; it pre- 
 sents the action, with graphical effect, to the mind 
 of the reader; and thus, by rendering him a spec- 
 tator 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 map 
 *' said unto him; Lord, that I might receive my 
 '^ sight.'' It ought to be, '* that I may receive 
 '* my sight," / 2^7// being understood ; thus, *' I 
 " will, tliat I may receive my sight," where the 
 present wish, and the attainment of it, are pro- 
 perly represented as contemporary. 
 
 ^' These things have I spoken unto you, that 
 " your joy might be full." Better, " that your 
 '' joy may be full." 
 
 ^' If an atheist would peruke the volume of na^- 
 '' ture, he v/ould 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 ifrefine- 
 
 *' rnent was nothing, as if faculties were nothing, 
 '' as if virtue was nothing, as if all that wassweet- 
 '^ est, and all that was highest in human nature, 
 '' was an idle shew," {Godwins Life of Chaucer.) 
 This sentence errs at once against elegance and ac- 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 387 
 
 curacy. The former offence may be partly cor- 
 rected, by substituting the conditional for the in- 
 dicative tense, in the hypothetical clauses. But 
 the author's principal error consists in converting 
 a general proposition into a particular fact, by re- 
 presenting that as past, which is always present 
 and immutable. The sentence should proceed thus. 
 *' Impresses us with a feeling, as if refinement- 
 ^' were nothing, as if faculties were nothing, ^§ 
 '' if virtue were nothing, as if all that is sweetest, 
 ^' and all that is highest in human nature, were an 
 ** idle shew.*' 
 
 *' Tom has wit epough to make him a pleasant 
 ^f companion, was it polished by good manners." 
 As th6 latter clause is intended to be purely hypo- 
 thetical, the verb should not be in the indicative 
 inood. ** fFe?x it polished," is the proper ex- 
 pression. 
 
 '' He understood the language of Balnibarbi, al- 
 " though it were different from that of this island.'- 
 (Swift's Voyage to Laputa. ) From the phraseology 
 here employed, the reader might naturally infer, 
 that the language of the island, and that of Balni- 
 barbi, were identical ; for a concessive term, as I 
 have already said, when joined to what is called the 
 conjunctive form of the verb, implies pure hypothe- 
 sis, as contrary to fact; or, in other words, im- 
 plies a negation of the attribute expressed. The 
 author'?; intention was to signify, that the Ian- 
 
 cc ^ 
 
588 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 guages were not the same. He should, therefore, 
 have said, *' although it was difFererit/' 
 
 '' The circumstances were as follows.*' Several 
 grammarians and critics have approved this 
 phraseology ; I am inclined, however, to con- 
 cur with those, who prefer " as follow/' To jus- 
 tify the former mode of expression, the verb must 
 be considered as impersonal. This, I own, ap- 
 pears to me a very questionable solution of the difr 
 ficulty ; for I am convinced, that we have no rm^- 
 personal verbs in English, but such as are uni- 
 formly preceded by it. We frequently, indeed, 
 meet with sentences, where verbs occur w^ithout 
 a nominative and in the singular number. These 
 are, by some, considered as impersonal verbs, to 
 which the nominative it is understood. I appre- 
 hend, however, that, on strict enquiry, some on? 
 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 thest? 
 words has been obliterated and lost, that we have 
 found it necessary to enquire for another nomina^ 
 tive. Thus, if the word as be equivalent to it, 
 that, or which"^, then it is obvious, that, when w^ 
 
 ^' • The truth is, that as is also an article ; and however and 
 " whenever used in English, means the same as it^ o» that^. or 
 <' which. In the German, where it still evidently retains its 
 <^ original signification and use (a-s so also does) it is written c^," 
 Tgoke's Diversions. 
 
AND iLLUSTRAtIOi!^S. 389 
 
 say, '* the circumstances wqvq as follows^'* there is 
 no real ellipsis of the nominative involved, nor, 
 therefore, any ground for asserting the imperson- 
 ality of the verh, in order to explain the syntax^ 
 or construction of ihe phrase ; for the word as, 
 equivalent to //, 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 argument in favour of '* as follows," resting 
 on the supposed impersonality of the verb, and the 
 suppression of the pronoun, is entirely unfounded. 
 1^ as then be the nominative to the verb, and be 
 synonimous with it, that, or which ^ it is of im- 
 portance to determine, whether ^5 be a singular, 
 or a plural word ; or whether it be either the one, 
 or the 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 singular or plural, 
 and synonimous with it, that, or which, I conceive 
 that, when it refers to a plural antecedent, it nmst, 
 like which, be considered as plural, and joined to 
 a plural verb. Now, it is surely more consonant 
 with analogy to say, *^ the circumstances vvere, 
 '' whi^h ioWow,*' thaxi it follows, or that follows. 
 Besides, when the demonstrative suck precedes, 
 
390 CRITlCAt ftEiyiARKS 
 
 and is joined to a plural noun, it is universally ad- 
 mitted, that as must then be followed by a plural 
 verb. If so, the construction of the word as can- 
 not, I apprehend, be in the least degree effected, 
 by the ellipsis pf the correlative term. Let u§ noy 
 heat thos^, who adopt the contrary opinion. 
 
 Baker prefers the verb singular, and remarks, 
 *' that there are instances in our language of verbs 
 ** in the third persoti without a nominative case, 
 '' as, ' he censures her, so far as regards.*/* — In an- 
 swer 10 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. ^3ut I am per- 
 suaded, no person who has examiped the theory 
 of Mr. Tooke, can entertain a doubt respecting 
 the original and real character of this word. N^y, 
 if we investigate the true and primitive import of 
 the correspondent Latin terms ut and utiy we shall 
 find, that these, which are termed adverbs, are, 
 in fact, the pronouns ^7* oT, and that quod (anci- 
 ently written qiiodde) is nothing else than xai o??/, 
 which, like our word that, is sometimes called a 
 ^conjunction, and sometimes a pronoun. Why the 
 original character and real import of the word as 
 have teen completely merged in the name of ad- 
 verb, while the word that has been assigned the 
 double character of pronoun and conjunction, it 
 would be easy to shew, if the discussion were es- 
 sential to the 'question before us. But in answer 
 
A^D ILLUSTRATIONS. 391 
 
 to Baker's remark, it is sufficient to observe, that 
 as means properly it, that^ or xvhkh. 
 
 Campbell adopts the opinion of Baker. ''When 
 *' a verb/' says he, *' is used io^.personally, it 
 '' ought undoubtedly to be in the singular num- 
 *^ ber, whether the neuter pronoun be expressed, 
 '^ or understood.'' But a question naturally 
 arises, whence has the author learned, that the 
 verb is^mpersonal. Tliere appears to n^e to be no 
 more impersonality in the verb, when Vv^e say, " it 
 *' is as follows/' than when we say, '* it is such, as 
 *' follows," or " they are such, as folloAV.'' If as 
 be admitted as the nominative in t\vo of these ex- 
 amples, I can perceive no reason for rejecting it in 
 the third. But liere hes, as will presently 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 
 Hi or uti is deemed in Latin ; and he therefore im- 
 mediately recurs to ellipsis. 
 
 '' For this reason,'' (that is, because the verb 
 is impersonal,) he proceeds to observe, " analogy 
 '* as well as usae-e favour this mode of expression," _ /a,tm 
 '^ The conditions of the agreement xcere as folloxvs, 
 *' 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 
 nominative, and that this nominative shall be ex- 
 pressed, unless its presence in some prei:eding 
 
-^^2 CRiTiCAL REMARklg 
 
 clause shall render the repetition of it unnecessary. 
 But how is it consonant with anah/gy, that no no- 
 minative shall appear ; or that the supposed nomi- 
 native shall not he found in any part of the sen- 
 tence ? This surely is repugnant to analogy. 
 
 '' A few late writers,'* he observes, " have in- 
 ** considerately 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. 1 must observe likewise, that, from the 
 tnauner, in vvhich the author expresses himself, 
 one would naturally infer, that a ^tw writers, 
 either contemporary, or immediately 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 pub- 
 lication of '' the Philosophy of Rhetoric," used 
 the plural form. '' The most eminent of the ken- 
 " nel," says Steele, '* are bloodhounds, which lead 
 " the van, and are «5 follow.'* (Tatler, No. 6^.) 
 <* The words were, as follow:' (Id. Tatler, No. 
 104.) '* The words are as follow/ (Addison, 
 Spectator No. 513.) 
 
 "For the same reason," (continues he, ^till 
 J)resuming the verb to be impersonal) we ought 
 to say, '* / shall consider his cotsiaxs so far only, 
 " as concerns myfritnd's conduct^ not concev7i. " *' It 
 '' is manifest,'' he observes, " that the word con- 
 '' ditiSns in the first case, and censures in the 5e- 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 393 
 
 *^ cond, cannot serve as nominatives/' This ob- 
 servation demonstrates, that the author's argu- 
 ment is founded in his ignorance of the real cha- 
 racter of the word as. The most extraordinary part 
 of his reasoning follows. " But," says he, *^ifwe 
 *' give either sentence another turn, and instead 
 '* of as, say such as, the verb is no longer imper- 
 '^ sonal. The pronoun such- is the nominative, 
 *' 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 an- 
 tecedent correlative term such can have no con- 
 Dection whatever 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, per sever ant ia fuit tanta, quantus erit 
 furor. Is est, quern dicimus. Talis est, qualem essa 
 credit is. like erant conditiones, quce sequuntur, the 
 antecedent correlative terms tanta, is, talis, illcs, 
 have no connection whatever with the verbs in the 
 subsequent clause, erit, dicimus, odditis, sequun- 
 tur. The truth of this observation must be suffi- 
 ciently obvious to every classical scholar. 
 
 But to illustrate the extreme inaccuracy of the 
 learned author's opinion, let us change the corre^ 
 lative terms, and say, '* I will consider those cen- 
 *^ sures only, which concern my friend." In this 
 (leatenc^, \\ will not be questioned; that those and 
 
394- CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 censures are in the objective case, under the go- 
 vernment 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 neces- 
 sary, the example in question to be thus rendered 
 in Latin, eas tantumi^eprehensiones perpendam, quce 
 ad amicicm meum attinent. Now, what should we 
 think of his classical attainments, who should 
 contend, that eas or reprehensiones is the nomina* 
 tive to the verb? If we revert then to the origin 
 iial terms, and say, *' I will consider such of his 
 " censures, as concern my friend," by what rule 
 of grammar, 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 censures ? And are we, contrary to every^ 
 principle of English grammar, to represent the ob-p 
 ject or subject after an active verb,, as in the no- 
 minative case ? The absurdity is too miOnstrous 
 for a moment's consideration. The very argu- 
 ment, therefore, by which the author defends his 
 doctrine, is founded in error, and involves an abr 
 surdity. Murray, as usual, adopts the opinion of 
 Campbell. 
 
 If it should be enquired, how as an adverb or a' 
 conjunctive particle, can be the nominative to a 
 verb, it may be answered, that, to whatever ordQ^ 
 
ANt> ILLUSTRATIOJfS. S^S 
 
 bfVords 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 be 
 a nominative to a verb. It is of little moment, 
 by what designation it be called, if its chai^acter 
 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 permit me 
 to illustrate the principle, that th6se, who disap- 
 prove the verb singular in the examples in question, 
 may notwithstanding admit it, in such expressions 
 as, so far as^ so lo?ig as, and all similar phraseo- 
 logies. 
 
 '* To illustrate, and often to correct him, I have 
 " meditated Tacitus,, examined Suetonius, and 
 *' consulted the following moderns." {Gibbon.) 
 To meditate, when a regimen is assigned to it, as 
 here, means to plot, to contuxie, as, " he meditated 
 ** desip-ns atrainst the state." When it sio-nifies 
 to ponder, or to reflect seriously, it should be fol- 
 lowed by the preposition on, as, " he meditates on 
 '' the law of God, day and night." 
 
 IMPROP^.IETY'. 
 
 " They form a procession to proceed the- palan^ 
 *' quin of the ambassador." (Anderson's Embassy 
 
S95 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 to China.) Here the' verb ^o proceed or go for- 
 ward, is improperly used for to precede, or to go 
 before. 
 
 '^ It lays on the table; it laid on the table." 
 This error is very common, and should be care- 
 fully avoided. The verb to lay is an active verb; 
 to lie is a neuter verb. When the subject of dis* 
 course 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 expres- 
 sions as thesCj " he lays in bed," ^' he laid in bed," 
 a question naturally occurs. What does he lay ? 
 What did he lay ? This question demonstrates 
 the impropriety of the expressions. The error has 
 Originated, partly in an aiFected delicacy, rejecting 
 the verb *' to lie," as being synonimous 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 preterite tense; thus, '' lay,'' 
 '' laid," '' laid ;" '' lie," '' lay,'' '' 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 
 definite is, I believe, confined to Scotland, where. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 597 
 
 in colloquial language, it is very common. The 
 Scots employ it in those cases, in which an Engr 
 lishman uses either the preterite indefinite, or the 
 verb signifying necessity. Thus, in the preceding 
 instance, an EngUshman 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 synonimous, than amare and 
 *' diligere.'' (lb.) This error occurs frequently in 
 Blair. In the former example it should he shall, 
 and in the latter should, (See p. 141.) 
 
 An error, the reverse of this, occurs in the folr 
 lomng 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 sigriify mere futurity ; instead of which, he has 
 expressed a command. 
 
 " He rose the price of bread last week.'' Her^ 
 rosCy the preterite of the neuter verb to rise, and, 
 therefore, unsusceptible of a regimen, is ungram- 
 matically joined with an objective case, instead of 
 7msid, the preterite of the active verb to raise. 
 This error, therefore, involves a solecism, as well 
 ^s an impropriety. 
 
 *' Docs the price of bread raise this week?*' This 
 ^rror is the converse of the former, the active 
 
598 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 verb being here used, instead of the neuter. The 
 question. What does it raise? shews the impropriety 
 of the expression. It ought to be, ^' Does the price 
 ** of bread rise this week?'' These verbs, hke the 
 verb to lay, and to Ik^ are very often confounded 
 in vulgar use. 
 
 " It w^ould be injurious to thp chalfacter of prince 
 ■* Maurice, to suppose, that he would demean 
 *' himself so, far, as to be concerned in those ano- 
 - nymous pamphlets."' (/^^/^ow'^ Philip III,) Here 
 fhe verb *' to demean," which signifies ** to be- 
 '* have," is used as equivalent to the verb '^ to 
 • ■ debase," or *' to degrade." This impropriety is 
 now, I believe, almost entirely cotifined to Scot- 
 land ; it has, therefore, been ranked in the num- 
 ber of Scotticisms. '^ I demean myself" is equi- 
 valent 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/' Watson's 
 Philip IlL 
 
 .*' Considera:ble arrears being now resting t6 the' 
 '' sokliers." {Watson's Philip III.) '' Resting," 
 which is'' equivalent to, '' being quiet," or '*■ re- 
 f maining," is, in the sense, in which it is here 
 employed, a rank Scotticism : it should be, *' due," 
 
 owing/' 
 
 '* The reason will be accounted for hereafter." 
 (Wa7'burton,) Accounttdfor is here improperly 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 399 
 
 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 considerably from these instances." 
 (Biackstone.) The verb to diffei' is a neuter verb, 
 and cannot admit a regimen. The author has im- 
 properly used it in an active sense, for '' to make 
 '' to differ." It should be, '' by which it differs," 
 or *' which makes it differ considerably from these 
 " instances.'"* 
 
 * The error here involved suggests a few observations, which 
 it may be useful to oflfer, concerning the distinctive character of 
 active and neuter verbs. A neuter verb has been defined to be 
 that, which denotes neither doing, nor suffering. An active vftrb, 
 as its name imports, denotes, that the subject is doing something. 
 Johnson, however, in his dictionary, gives every active verl) 
 the designation of wew^er, 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 verbf 
 as neuter. '' 'Tis sufc, that Henry ?e«(/5 ;" " so I drank; and 
 '* she made the camels drink also;" " if you plant, where 
 <' savages are;'* " the priests teach for hire;'' " nor feel him, 
 " where he struck ;'' '^ they that^oty in tears, shall reap in joy.'" 
 These are a few out of numberless examples, which might be 
 produced. Indeed, Johnson'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 inaccu- 
 racy, and tends to introduce perplexity and confusion. The 
 yerh. surely does not the less denote action, becauae it expresses 
 it absolutely, or because the subject acted upon is not particu- 
 jiarly specified. In the examples now quoted, can it be ques- 
 
400 . CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 ** In order to have this project reduced to pracr 
 *' tice, there seems to want nothing more, than 
 " to put those in TBind," &c. (Swift) Here, 
 '/ to want,'* that is, *' to need,** ** to require,^* is 
 improperly used for ^' to be wanting/* " to be rer 
 
 tioned, when we say, he siruck, that he was active ; or when we 
 say, thei/y that sow, shall reap, will it be affirmed, that thei/ are 
 not active? This would be (o confound distinctions notmerelj 
 acknowledged in theory, and adopted in definition, but also 
 founded in the very nature of things. This matter, J conceive, 
 may be shortly explained, and very easily understood. 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 Intransitive. The latter is 
 that, which denotes immanent action, or that which does not 
 pass from the agent to any thing else, as lualk, I run. Tran- 
 sitive verbs are such, as denote that the action passes from th* 
 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 observe, that 
 it is not necess^y to the Active Transitive verb, that the sub- 
 ject acted upon should be expressed. The Active verb may pre- 
 dicate of its subject merely, the action generally and absolutely, 
 as, " he reads in the morning, and writes in the evening ;" or 
 >vith the action may be expressed the subject or object, as, "' ha 
 f* reads Homer in the morning, and writes letters in the even- 
 " ing ;" or the object or subject may be iinplied, and not ex- 
 pressed, as, " the drummer beats at night," namely, his drum. 
 But in all these cases, the verb is equally active. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS.' 401 
 
 " quired,'* *' 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. Johnson, 
 likewise, in one or two passages, has adopted tlie 
 same usage, thus, *' there had never wanted writ- 
 ers 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 attention, and which 1 do not recollect 
 to have seen remarked by any of our grammarians. 
 In the languages of antiquity, the distinction be- 
 tween active and passive was strictly observed ; 
 but in English the active is frequently employed 
 for the passive voice. Of this remarkable idiom 
 numberless examples might be produced ; but the 
 few following will suffice. Thus we say, [\ the 
 ** sentence reads ill,*' " the wine drinks hdivshy^' 
 " the grass cuts easily," *' the apples eat hard/\ 
 ^' the drum beats to arms," "the metal zvorks well." 
 In these examples, the subject clearly is acted 
 upon ; the verb, therefore, must be considered, as 
 ^ having a passive signification. . It is almost unne- 
 cessary to observe, that this phraseology should 
 be avoided, whenever it is likely to create ambi- 
 guity. 
 
 *' Lead me forth in thy truth, and learn me. " 
 
 D D 
 
402 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 ( 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 C. Prayer.) 
 " He had prevented the hour, because we might 
 ** have the whole day before us.*' (Bacon.) The 
 verb to prtveuty 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 
 '' concerned.'' {Watson's Philip IL) 
 
 *' 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 exam- 
 ple 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.) 
 
 i'-^ 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 403 
 
 *' The last is the most simple, and the most per- 
 *' feet, as being conform to the nature of know- 
 " ledge." [Hutton*s hivestigation, Vol. i. p. 643.) 
 Conform here used for conformable, is, in this sense, 
 deemed a Scotticism. 
 
 SECT, v^ 
 
 The Adverb. 
 
 "BARBARISM. 
 
 " Friendship, a rare thing in princes, more 
 " rare between princes, that so holily was ob- 
 " served, to the last of those two excellent men.*' 
 (Sidney on Government.) Holily is obsolete. 
 
 ** Enquire, what be the stones, that do easiliest 
 •' melt." (Bacon.) The adverb easily is not com- 
 pared, (see p. 98. ) Easiliest is, therefore, a bar- 
 barism. 
 
 *^ Their wonder, that any man so near Jerusa- 
 *' lem, should be a stranger to what had passed 
 ^' there, their acknowledgment to one they met 
 •* accidently, that they believed in this prophet?" 
 3cc. {Guardian.) Steele has here used acaWewf/j^, 
 for accidentally. The former is a barbarism, and 
 its derivation repugnant to analogy. 
 
 D D 2 
 
 \ 
 
"^04 * CRITIGAL REMARKS 
 
 *' Uneath may she endure the flinty street, 
 '^ To tread them with her tender feeling feet." 
 
 Shakespeare. 
 
 Uneath is now obsolete, and may therefore be 
 deemed a barbarism. 
 
 '* In northern clime, a varrous knight 
 
 " Did whilom kill his bear in fight, 
 
 *' And wound a fiddler.'' Hudihras. 
 
 iniilom is now entirely disused. The adverbs 
 whiler€j erst, and perhaps also «?20;?, may be ranked 
 in the class of barbarisms. 
 
 ** And this attention gives ease to the person, 
 *' because the clothes appear uustudily graceful." 
 Wollstonecrafts Original Stories. The word iinstu- 
 dily is barbarous, and its mode of derivation con- 
 trary to analogy. 
 
 SOLECISM. 
 
 '* Use a little wine for thy stomach-s sake, and 
 " thine often infirmities." Often, an adverb, is 
 here improperly used as an adjective, in accord- 
 ance 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 ex- 
 ample^ the adverb " soonest'' is used as an ad- 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 405 
 
 jective ; for the coniiection is, *' soonest root/' and 
 *' deepest root/' Now, we cannot say, ''soon root," 
 .*' tlie former term being incapable of qualiTying 
 the latter; nor can we, therefore, say, ''soonest 
 *' root." It ono'bt to be, '' the earhest and the 
 ** deepest root.'' 
 
 ''After these wars, of which tliey l)ope for a 
 ** soon and prosperous issue." Soon issue is an- 
 other example of the same error. 
 
 '' Hish)rdship inveighed, with severity, against 
 '' the conduct of the then ministry." Here then,^ 
 the adverb equivalent to at that time, is solecisti- 
 cally employed as an adjective, agreeing with 
 mi7iist7y. This error seems to gain ground; it 
 should therefore be vigilantly opposed, and care- 
 fully avoided. 'VThe ministry of that time" would 
 be correct 
 
 IMPROPRIETY. 
 
 "By letters, dated the third of May, we learn 
 '* that the West-India fleet arrived safely." Here 
 ^^/j/ is improperly used for 5^t\ 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 attention to the manner 
 
406 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 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 acci- 
 dents* We should therefore say, '* that the West- 
 '' India fleet arrived safe." — In disapproving the 
 expression, " he arrived safely,*' I concur with 
 Baker; but the judicious reader will perceive, that 
 my reason for reprehending it, does n^t 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 apprehended in the circum- 
 ** stance of arriving ? The danger 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 received her 
 " diamonds safely." It should be, ^* she received 
 ** her diamonds safe." 
 
 Errors like the one, on which I have now ani* 
 madverted, frequently arise from a desire to avoid 
 the opposite mistake; I mean, the improper us# 
 of the adjective for the adverb. (See Syntax, Rule 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS^. 407 
 
 V. Note 9.) Hence many, when they employ 
 such phraseologies, as I have here exemplified, 
 conceive, that they express themselves with the 
 strictest accuracy, thus verifying the poet's ob- 
 servation, 
 
 «' In vitium ducit culpa; fuga, si caret arte.*' 
 
 In order to avoid this error, it should be remem- 
 bered, that many English verbs, while ihey 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 demands 
 the particular attention of the classical scholar. 
 For, though an acquaintance with the learned lan- 
 guages will not seduce him into an improper use 
 of an adjective for the adverb, it may, as in the 
 example now before us, betray him into the con- 
 verse 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 adjec- 
 tives. When it is said, for example, '' it goes hard," 
 Johnson considers hard, as an adverb. Yet when 
 we say, *' it goes contrary," he considers cYw/r^?;^ 
 as an adjective. There appears to me to 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. 
 
4Q8 -CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 Nay, I might venture to assert, that no person, 
 who had studied the principles of the EngHsh lan- 
 guage, and that only, would pronounce the one 
 to be an adverb, and theother 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 ar- 
 /* gued respecting the fact," *' he lives according 
 -' to nature,*' is there not something extremely 
 arbitrary and unphilosophical, in calling concern- 
 ing a preposition, according a preposition, fol- 
 lowed by to, but properly a participle, and respect- 
 ing a participle ? Are not all the three participles ? 
 Yet Johnson has classed them, as I have now men- 
 tioned. 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 therefore 
 revert to our primary observation, in which 
 we cautioned the reader against the improper use 
 of the adjective for the adverb. It should be re- 
 membered, that, when it is intended to predicate 
 something of the subject, beside the attribute of 
 the verb, the adjective should he employed ; but, 
 when it is intended to express merely some modi- 
 fication of the attribute of the verb, we should 
 then use the adverb. The difference may be illus- 
 trated by the following examples. When Gusta- 
 vus says to his troops, "your limbs tread vigorous, 
 ^^ aufl your breasts beat high," he predicates with 
 the act of treading their physical strength; but 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 409 
 
 liad he said, '' your limbs tread vigorously," it 
 would merely modify their treading, and express 
 an act, not a constitutional habit. The same dis- 
 tinction may be made between saying with Ar- 
 nold us in the same play, "• the tear rolls graceful 
 '* down his visage," and *' the tear rolls grace- 
 ** fully." 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 appearance 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 
 '* manner." It should be, '' the manner of it is 
 /' this," or '' this is the manner of it." 
 
 " It is equally the same." EqwiUy is here re- 
 dundant : it ought to be, *' it is the same." 
 
 *^ Whenever 1 call on him, he always enquires 
 /' for you.'' H hcncvn^ means, " at what time 
 ■' soever," *' always when," or '* as often as/' 
 ^ alzvciyf>', t h e re fo r e, i s r e f 1 u n d a n t . 
 
 ^'They will not listen to the voice of the charmer, 
 - charm he never so wisely.'* Never is here im- 
 properly used for ever. It ought to be, ** charm 
 
410 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 *^ he ever so wisely ;" that is, " however 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/' {Stew- 
 art'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 ambiguous; for the sentence may im- 
 ply, either that he gained the supremacy, some 
 years after he was released from prison, that period 
 being left indeterminate ; or that some years after 
 a time previously mentioned, he was released from 
 prison, and attained the chief power. The latter 
 being the author's meaning, it ought to be, **some 
 '* years afterwards ^elng released from prison." 
 Another ambiguity is here involved by improper ar- 
 rangement ; for, as the sentence stands, it is some- 
 what doubtful, whether his consummate know- 
 ledge was the cause of his releasement, or the cause 
 of his elevation. This error, however, belongs more 
 to the rhetorician, than the grammarian. The French 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIOXS. 411 
 
 term this ambiguity, '' construction louche," or a 
 squinting construction. 
 
 The following error consists in wrong colloca- 
 tion. '* The Celteberi in Spain borrowed that name 
 " from the Ccltae and Iberi, from whom they were 
 '* jointly descended." Jointly, with whom? It 
 should be, *'' from whom (the Celtac and Iberi) 
 '* jointly they were descended." 
 
 *' And the Quakers seem to approach nearly the 
 ** only regular body of Deists in the universe, the 
 ** literati, or the disciples of Confucius in China." 
 (Hume*s Essays) The adverb nearly, which is 
 synonimous with almost, is here improperly used 
 for near*. It should be, approach near, 
 
 *' This is the Leviathan, from whence the terri- 
 *^ ble 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." 
 ^Dryd.) Here a similar impropriety is involved. 
 It should be hence, 
 
 ^^ E'er we can offer our complaints, 
 ^' Behold him present with his aid." 
 
 E*er a contraction for eve?\ which is synonimous 
 with always, and also at any time, is here impro- 
 perly used for ere or before, 
 
 * In justice to this respectable sect, it is incumbent on me to 
 observe, that the Quakers are not Deists, nor does their religi- 
 ous creed approach to Deism. s 
 
419 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 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 begin- 
 
 , *^ning, or ever the earth was." (lb.) 
 
 *' And, as there is now never a woman in Eng- 
 *' land:, 1 hope, I may talk of women without of- 
 " fence/' Steele, 
 
 '* He spake never a word." Bible, 
 This usage of the word *^ never," is now, I be- 
 lieve, entirely confined to the vulgar. > 
 
 ** As for conflagrations, and great droughts, 
 *' they do not merely dispeople and destroy." ( Ba- 
 con.) Merely is here used, as it is uniformly by 
 Bacon, and very frequently by Shakespeare, for 
 entirely. In this sense it is obsolete ; and 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," con- 
 veying a sentiment, very different from what the 
 author intended, 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 The Preposition. 
 
 SOLECISM. 
 
 '* Who do you speak to ?" Here the preposition 
 is joined with the nominative, instead of the ob- 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 413 
 
 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 T, of this matter, some 
 " days ago.'' It should be, ^^ to you, and TTze;'* 
 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 " 
 
 tShakespeare. 
 
 It ought to be, *'on Hastings, you, and me,*' the 
 pronouns being under the government of the pre- 
 position understood. 
 
 IMPROPRIETV. 
 
 ^' If policy can prevail upon force." {Addison. ) 
 Here upon is improperly used for ovc}\ To prtvail 
 oUj is '' to persuade ;"' to prevail ovcr^ is *' to over- 
 *' come." '^^ 
 
 " I have set down the names of several gentle- 
 *' men, who have been robbed in Dubhn streets, 
 *' for these three years past." (Swift.) It should 
 be, ** within these three years past." Swift's ex- 
 pression implies, as Baker observes, that these 
 gentlemen had been robbed during the whole three 
 " years. 
 
 *' Ye blind guides," who strain at a gnat, and 
 ^^ swallow a camel." In this sentence, the prepo- 
 sition at is very improperly used for out. it should 
 
414 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 be, "strain out a gnat^ that is, exclude it from 
 the liquor by straining. 
 
 '* The greatest masters of critical learning differ 
 '* among one another." {Spectator.) If the el- 
 lipsis be supplied, the sentence proceeds thus; 
 ** The greatest masters of critical learning differ, 
 *' one differs among another." Here the preposi- 
 tion among, which implies a number, or a plural- 
 ity, is joined to a term significant of unity. It 
 ought to be, " from one another:" that is, ** one 
 '* from another,'" or '* differ among themselves." 
 
 ** I intended to wait of you this morning." The 
 preposition o/is here improperly used for on. We 
 say to xoait on, not to wait of. 
 
 '' He knows nothing o« it." This is a vile vul- 
 garism for '* he knows nothing of\t,** 
 
 *' To this he made no other answer, than by a 
 *^ low bow.'' What was the answer? " a low bow,'' 
 purely, and not " by a low bow.'* The preposi- 
 tion is redundant. 
 
 '* He is now much altered to the better." To is 
 here improperly used instead offor. *' Altered to 
 '* the better'* may, I believe, be deemed a Scot- 
 ticism. It ought to be, '* he is altered for the 
 ^* better." 
 
 " There is no need for your assistance.'* It 
 should be, *^ o/your assistance." We say, '* occa- 
 " sion for," and " need of" ^eed for may like- 
 wise be pronounced a Scotticism, as, I believe. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 415 
 
 this phraseology is seldom, or never used by Eng- 
 glish writers. 
 
 -^* For^ what chiefly deters the sons of science 
 " and philosophy from reading the Bible, and pro- 
 " fiting of that lecture, but the stumbling-block 
 ** of absolute inspiration." (Geddes, ) ** To profit 
 '*' of" is a Gallicism ; it should be, '* profiting by/* 
 
 SECT. VII. 
 
 Tke Cmjunctlon. 
 
 SOLECISM. 
 
 *' A SYSTEM of theology, involving such ab- 
 '* surdities, can be maintained, I think, by no ra- 
 " tional man, much less by so learned a man as 
 *' him." Conjunctions 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 understood. 
 
 *' Tell the cardinal, that I understand poetry 
 " better than him." (Smollet.) According to the 
 grammatical construction of the latter clause, it 
 means, *^ I understand poetry better, than I un- 
 *' derstand him." This^ however, is not the sen- 
 timent, which the writer intepded to convey. The 
 clause should proceed thus, '* I understand poetry 
 " better, than he;** that is, " than he understands it." 
 
416 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 Those, who contend for the use of tlia?i as a pre- 
 position, and justify the phraseology, which is 
 here censured, must at least admit, that to con- 
 strue if/fdrw, as a preposition, creates ambiguity. 
 Thus, when it is said, *' you think him handsomer 
 '' than me," it would be impossible to determine, 
 whether the- meaning is, '' you think him hand- 
 ** somer, than I think him/' or "you think him 
 '* handsomer, than you think me." 
 
 '^ The vSun, 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 
 nominative case, or, to speak more correctly, the 
 pronoun of the first person, which should be a re- 
 gimen to the verb understood, being here in the 
 ^lominative case. Thus, '' let thee," and *'let I, 
 *' my fair one, dwell," instead of 'Met 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 tis is very properly in the 
 objective case, after the verb let ; I and thou should 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 417 
 
 therefore be in the same case, according to Rulfe 
 vii of Syntax. The expression is in fact elliptical, 
 and when completed proceeds thus, " Let us make 
 *' a covenant; let me and thee make." 
 , ** Though he Avere a son, yet learned he obe- 
 *' dience by the things, which he suffered/' The 
 first clause is intended to express a fact, not a hy- 
 pothesis ; the verb, therefore, should be in the in- 
 dicative mood. Conjunctions have no govern- 
 ment, cither of cases, or moods. 
 
 IMPROPRIETY. 
 
 *' If in case he come, all will be well.'' If and 
 in case are synonimous, the one meaning *' sup- 
 ^* pose," and the other, ''on the supposition." One 
 of them, therefore, is redundant. 
 
 '' The reason of my desiring to see you was, 
 *' because 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 ruslved into the room." 
 {Mart'mus Scrib.) The comparative is liere im- 
 properly followed by hut, instead of than, 
 
 ** Scarce had the spirit of laws made its appear- 
 '' ance, than it was attacked." Than is employed 
 after comparatives only, and the word other. It 
 ought to be *' scarce," or, for reasons formerly 
 
 E E 
 
4l8 Critical REMARks 
 
 given, ^' scarcely had the spirit of laws made it§ 
 *' appearance, w/ten it was attacked," or ** no 
 '* sooner — than." 
 
 '* The resolution ^vas not the less fixed, that thd 
 *' secret was as yet communicated to very few, 
 '* either in the French or English court/' This 
 passage from Fiume T have not been able to find. 
 Priestley observes, that it involves a Ciallicisni, the 
 word that being used instead of w*. If the mean- 
 ing intended be, that some circumstances, pre- 
 viously 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 se- 
 cret 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 eM'ect, or 
 produced nochangeof the previous determination. 
 In other words, *' the less fixed that," implies that 
 the subject of the foiL)W^iug clause did not afiect 
 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 examples, the definite article may refer 
 eitlier to the antecedent, or the subsequent clause^ 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 419 
 
 the distinctfon, here specified, should, for the 
 sake of perspicuity, be carefully observed*. 
 
 His donatiou was the more acceptable, that 
 *' it was given without solicitation." That the 
 word that is frequently used for ^ec^w.fe cannot be 
 questioned ; thus, '' I am glad, that you have re- 
 '' turned safe," that is, ** because you have re- 
 '* turned 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 sub- 
 joined was the cause of the preceding one. The 
 use o^ that in such examples is accounted a Scot- 
 ticism; it should, therefore, be, '^ his donation 
 *' was the more acceptable, as'' or ^' because it was 
 *' given without solicitation." 
 
 '' His arguments on this occasion had, it may 
 
 * A similar ambiguity sometimes oc/urs in Latin by the indis- 
 criminate use of quod. This may be prevented by employing 
 quoniam when the succeeding member of the sentence expresses 
 the cause of the preceding subject. Thus, f' Nee consilium eo 
 *' 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 phra- 
 seology affirms, the latter denies the influence of the circumstance 
 subjoined 3 
 
 EE 2 
 
*20 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 *' be presumed, the greater weight/ that he hkd 
 ■' never himself entered within the walls of a play- 
 ^* house." {Stewarfs Life of Robertson. ) 
 
 " A mortification, the more severe, that the 
 " joint authority of the Archduke and the Infanta^ 
 *' governed the Austrian Netherlands." (r/?6»???^o/2',y 
 continuation of Watsons History. ) 
 
 These sentences are chargeable with the same 
 error. 
 
 '' Will it be believed, that the four Gospels are 
 '^ as old, or even older than tradition?'* {Boling- 
 broke.) Here there is a faulty omission of the par- 
 ticle corresponding to ^^; for the positive, and 
 comparative, cannot be followed by the same con- 
 junction. It ought to be, '^ as old as, or even 
 *' older than tradition?'* or, perhaps, better, *' as 
 *' old as tradition, or even older ?" 
 
 " The books were to have been sold as this day.'' 
 This is a most oifensive vulgarism. The conjunc- 
 tion as can have no regimen; nor can it be pro- 
 perly 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 charge- 
 able with the same error. Construed strictly, it is, 
 '* he must have arrived at Paris as, or in like man- 
 ** ner as, he arrived yesterday." 
 
 '^ The duke had not behaved with that loyalty, 
 *' as he ought to have done.'* Propriety of cor- 
 respondence here requires zviih that to be followed 
 
AND ILLUSTRAT105CS. 421 
 
 by mth which instead of as. The sentence, evTii 
 thus corrected, would be still inelegant and clumsy. 
 '^ The duke had not behaved with becoming loy- 
 *' alty," would be much better. 
 
 " In the order as they lie in his preHice.'* 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.*' 
 ( Beatlie. ) 
 
 ** Men come not to the knowledge of which 
 '** are thought innate, till they come to the use of 
 *' reason; nor then neither/' {Locke) 
 
 In old English two negatives denied ; hence, 
 perhaps, this phraseology originated. Johnson 
 remarks, that the use o^ neither, after a negative^ 
 and at the end of a sentence, though not gramma- 
 tical, renders the expression more emphatic. Ana- 
 logy, however, is decidedly in favour of the affirm- 
 ative term; I, therefore, prefer the word '^either." 
 Were Johnson's argument admitted, such expres- 
 -sions as these, " I forbade you not to go." *^I 
 ** won't suffer no such thing." " He would not 
 *' have none of my assistance," might, 1 appre- 
 hend, be justified on the same principle. Those, 
 who employ them, doubtless, believe them to be 
 more emphatic, than if they included a single 
 
 negative. 
 
 '' This I am the rather disposed to do, that it 
 ** will serve to illustrate the principles above laid 
 
4^'i CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 " down/* (Campbell on Rhetoric.) This sentence 
 involves an error, on which I have aheadv anir 
 Piadverted> '' The rather ' should be followed by 
 asy not that, 
 
 *' This is another use, that in my opinion con- 
 *' tributes rather to make a man learned than wise; 
 ** and is neither capable of pleasing the under- 
 ^^ standing or imagination." Lowth justly ob- 
 serves, that or is here improperly used for nor^ 
 the correlative words htmg neither nor. In addir 
 tion to this observation, 1 remark, that the word 
 neither' is erroneously placed. To render this col- 
 location of the conjunction correct, there should 
 be anotlier attributive opposed to the word '* ca- 
 '* pable,** as, ** neither capable of pleasing the 
 *' understanding, nor calculated to gratify the 
 '' imagination." But, as the author intended to 
 exclude two subjects, these should have been con- 
 trasted by the exclusive conjunctions, thus, " is 
 ■' capable of pleasing neither the understandings 
 '* iidr the imagination,'* 
 
 Having now endeavoured to explain and illus- 
 trate the Etymology and Syntax of the Eng- 
 lish language, I cannot dismiss the subject, 
 without earnestly recommending to the clas- 
 sical student, to cultivate a critical acquaintance 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 423 
 
 \vitb his native tongue. It is an egregious, but 
 common error, to imagine, that a perfect know- 
 ledge of Greek and Latin precludes the necessity 
 of studying the principles of English gramman 
 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 know- 
 ledge of Greek and Latin, which are now dead 
 languages, to be superficially acquainted with his 
 native tongue, in which he must tliink, and speak, 
 and write. 
 
 The superiority of Greek and Latin over the 
 Engli.'ih 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 
 unaccompanied with softness, with elegance, or 
 with majesty. It must be granted also, that the 
 Greets is, perhaps, a more copious, and is cer- 
 tainly a more ductile*, and tractable language. 
 
 * The superior ductility of the Greek, above every other lan- 
 guage, musr appear from itssingilar a^)litude to form new words 
 by composition or derivation, so us immediately to communicate 
 any new idea. Hence the names of most of our modern disco- 
 veries and inventions arc of Greek extraction. Thus? we hare 
 
424 CRITICAL REMARKS 
 
 But though, in these respects, the English be in» 
 ferior to the languages of Greece and Rome; yet, 
 in preciseness of expression, diversity of sound, 
 facility of communication, and variety of phrase, 
 it may claim the pre-eminence. It would be easy 
 to evince tlie truth of this assertion, did the limits, 
 which I have prescribed to myself, permit. The 
 fact is, ihat analogous languages almost necessa- 
 rily 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 as- 
 perities, and soften its harshness. 
 
 As a farther inducement to the study of the 
 English language, I vvould 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, deliver* 
 liis sentiments with ease and perspicuity*; so it is 
 i^qually certain, that, as language is not only the 
 
 the terms ^' microscope,'' " telegraph,'* '* panorama," ** odo. 
 *' meter,'' and many others. 
 
 * Cui lecta potenter erit res, 
 
 Nee facundia deseret hunc, ncc lucidus ordo. 
 
 Yerbaq[ue proTisam rem. non iuvita sequentur. Hor, d»^ 
 4rt, Poet. 
 
AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 425 
 
 vehicle of thought, hut also an instrument of in- 
 vention, 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 niin(!. As we 
 estimate a man, not by his garb, but by his in- 
 tellectual 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 
 studiously observed ; '* curam ergo verborum, 
 '* rerum volo esse solicitudinem." Inst. Orat, 
 Lib. viii. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 Printed by C Stower, 
 Paternoster Row, London. 
 
 F F 
 
Published by Joseph Johnson, in St, Paul's Church 
 Yard, in one large volume ^vo, price 7s. in 
 boards, 
 
 AN ESSAY 
 
 ON 
 
 PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY, 
 
 By the RcT. ALEXANDER CROMBIE, LL.Di 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00. ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 MAR 26 1937 
 
 NOV 181937 
 
 APR 25 m^ 
 
 urn iJO '40 
 
 10 196811! 
 
 WT'iT' 
 
 Din JJN27'68-2Pil! 
 
 LD 21-100m-8,'34