FOOTNOTES:

It will not be disputed that Sheridan and Scott have very faithfully published the present pronunciation of the English court and theater. But if we may consult the rules of our language and consider them as of any authority; if we may rely on the opinions of Kenrick and the reviewers; if we may credit the best informed people who have travelled in Great Britain, this practice is modern and local, and considered, by the judicious and impartial, even of the English nation, as a gross corruption of the pure pronunciation.

Such errors and innovations should not be imitated, because they are found in authors of reputation. The works of suchauthors should rather be considered as lights to prevent our falling upon the rocks of error. There is no more propriety in our imitating the practice of the English theater, because it is described by the celebrated Sheridan, than there is in introducing the manners of Rochester or the principles of Bolingbroke, because these were eminent characters; or than there is in copying the vices of a Shylock, a Lovelace, or a Richard III. because they are well described by the masterly pens of Shakespear and Richardson. So far as the correctness and propriety of speech are considered as important, it is of as much consequence to oppose the introduction of that practice in this country, as it is to resist the corruption of morals, which ever attends the wealthy and luxurious stage of national refinements.

Had Sheridan adhered to his own rules and to the principle of analogy; had he given the world a consistent scheme of pronunciation, which would not have had, for its unstable basis, the fickle practice of a changeable court, he would have done infinite service to the language: Men of science, who wish to preserve the regular construction of the language, would haverejoiced to find such a respectable authority on the side of propriety; and the illiterate copiers of fashion must have rejected faults in speaking, which they could not defend.[83]

The corruption however has taken such deep root in England, that there is little probability it will ever be eradicated. The practice must there prevail, and gradually change the whole structure of the Latin derivatives. Such is the force of custom, in a nation where all fashionable people are drawn to a point, that the current of opinion is irresistible; individuals must fall into the stream and be borne away by its violence; except perhaps a few philosophers, whose fortitude may enable them to hold their station, and whose sense of propriety may remain, when their power of opposition has ceased.

But our detached situation, local and political, gives us thepower, while pride, policy, and a regard for propriety and uniformity among ourselves, should inspire us with adisposition, to oppose innovations, which have not utility for their object.

We shall find it difficult to convince Englishmen that a corrupt taste prevails in the British nation. Foreigners view the Americans with a degree of contempt; they laugh at our manners, pity our ignorance, and as far as example and derision can go, obtrude upon us the customs of their native countries. But in borrowing from other nations, we should be exceedingly cautious to separate their virtues from their vices; their useful improvements from their false refinements. Stile and taste, in all nations, undergo the same revolutions, the same progress from purity to corruption, as manners and government; and in England the pronunciation of the language has shared the same fate. The Augustan era is past, and whether the nation perceive and acknowlege the truth or not, the world, as impartial spectators, observe and lament the declension of taste and science.

The nation can do little more than read the works and admire the beauties of the original authors, who have adorned the preceding ages. A few, ambitious of fame, or driven by necessity, croud their names into the catalogue of writers, by imitating some celebrated model, or by compiling from the productions of genius. Nothing marks more strongly the declension of genius in England, than the multitude of plays, farces, novels and other catchpenny pieces, which swell the list of modern publications; and that host of compilers, who, in the rage for selecting beauties and abridging the labor of reading, disfigure the works of the purest writers in the nation. Cicero did not waste his talents in barely reading and selecting the beauties of Demosthenes; and in the days of Addison, the beauties of Milton, Locke and Shakespear were to be found only intheir works. But taste is corrupted by luxury; utility is forgotten in pleasure; genius is buried in dissipation, or prostituted to exalt and to damn contending factions, and to amuse the idle debauchees that surround a licentious stage.[84]

These are the reasons why we should not adopt promiscuously their taste, their opinions, their manners. Customs, habits, andlanguage, as well as government should be national. America should have herowndistinct from all the world. Such is the policy of other nations, and such must beourpolicy, before the states can be either independent or respectable. To copy foreign manners implicitly, is to reverse the order of things, and begin our political existence with the corruptions and vices which have marked the declining glories of other republics.

FOOTNOTES:[61]Misused.[62]Kenrick, who was not guided solely by the fashion of the day, but paid some regard to the regular construction of the language.[63]Sheridan has repeated with approbation, a celebrated saying of Dean Swift, who was a stickler for analogy, in pronouncingwindlikemind,bind, with the first sound ofi. The Dean's argument was, "I have a great mi2nd to fi2nd why you pronounce that wordwi2nd." I would beg leave to ask this gentleman, who directs us to saywoond, if any good reason can befoondwhy hesoondsthat wordwoond; and whether he expects a rational people, will beboondto follow theroondof court improprieties? We acknowlege thatwi2ndis a deviation from analogy and a corruption; but who pronounces it otherwise? Practice was almost wholly against Swift, and in America at least, it is as generally in favor of the analogy ofwound. A partial or local practice, may be brought to support analogy, but should be no authority in destroying it.[64]Government,management, retain also the accent of their primitives; and the nounstestament,compliment, &c. form another analogy.[65]It is regretted that the adjectives,indissoluble,irreparablewere derived immediately from the Latin,indissolubilis,irreparabilis, and not from the English verbs,dissolve,repair. Yetdissolvable,indissolvable,repairableandirrepairable, are better words thanindissoluble,reparable,irreparable. They not only preserve the analogy, but they are more purely English words; and I have been witness to a circumstance which alone ought to determine their excellence and give them currency: People of ordinary education have found difficulty in understanding such derivatives asirreparable,indissoluble; but the moment the wordsirrepairable,indissolveableare pronounced, they are led to the meaning by a previous acquaintance with the wordsrepairanddissolve. Numberless examples of this will occur to a person of observation, sufficient to make him abhor and reject the pedantry of authors, who have labored to strip their native tongue of its primitive English dress, and load it with fantastic ornaments.[66]Flexionresolved into its proper letters would befleksion, that isflekshun; andfleks-yunwould give the same sound.[67]To an ignorance of the laws of versification, we must ascribe the unwarrantable contraction ofwatery,wonderous, &c. intowatry,wondrous.[68]Rhetorical Grammar, prefixed to his Dictionary, page 32. London, 1773.[69]Rhet. Gram. 33.[70]His grammar was written in Latin, in the reign of Charles IId. The work is so scarce, that I have never been able to find but a single copy. The author was one of the founders of the Royal Society.[71]This sound ofu, foreigners will nearly obtain, by attempting to pronounce the dipthongiu; that is, the narrowibeforeuorw; (as in the Spanish wordciudad, a city.) Yet the sound (ofu) is not exactly the same, altho it approaches very near to it; for the sound ofiuis compound; whereas theuof the English and French is a simple sound.[72]Lowth condemns such a phrase as, "the introducing ane" and says it should be, "the introducingofane." This is but one instance of a great number, in which he has rejectedgoodEnglish. In this situation,introducingis a participial noun; it may take an article before it, like any other noun, and yet govern an objective, like any transitive verb. This is the idiom of the language: but in most cases, the writer may use or omitof, at pleasure.[73]I must except that reason, which is always an invincible argument with weak people, viz. "It is the practice of some great men." This common argument, which is unanswerable, will also prove the propriety of imitating all the polite and detestable vices of the great, which are now unknown to thelittle vulgarof this country.[74]Ash observes, that "in unaccented, short and insignificant syllables, the sounds of the five vowels are nearly coincident. It must be a nice ear that can distinguish the difference of sound in the concluding syllable of the following words, altar, alter, manor, murmur, satyr."——Gram. Diff. pref. to Dic. p. 1.[75]For my part I cannot discover the euphony; and tho the contrary mode be reprobated, as vulgar, by certain mighty fine speakers, I think it more conformable to the general scheme of English pronunciation; for tho in order to make the word but two syllables,tiandtemay be required to be converted intoch, or theiandeintoy, when the preceding syllable is marked with the accute accent as inquestion,minion,courteous, and the like; there seems to be little reason, when the grave accent precedes thet, as innature,creature, for converting thetintoch; and not much more for joining thetto the first syllable and introducing theybefore the second, asnat-yure. Why thetwhen followed by neitherinore, is to take the form ofch, I cannot conceive: It is, in my opinion, a species of affectation that should be discountenanced.—— Kenrick Rhet. Gram. page 32. Dic.[76]Well might Mr. Sheridan assert, that "Such indeed is the state of our written language, that the darkest hieroglyphics, or most difficult cyphers which the art of man has hitherto invented, were not better calculated to conceal the sentiments of those who used them, from all who had not the key, than the state of our spelling is to conceal the true pronunciation of our words, from all, except a few well educated natives." Rhet. Gram. p. 22. Dic. But if these well educated natives would pronounce words as they ought, one half the language at least would be regular. The Latin derivatives are mostly regular to the educated and uneducated of America; and it is to be hoped that the modern hieroglyphical obscurity will forever be confined toa few well educated nativesin Great Britain.[77]"Quem penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi." Horace.——"Nothing," says Kenrick, "has contributed more to the adulteration of living languages, than the too extensive acceptation of Horace's rule in favor of custom. Custom is undoubtedly the rule of present practice; but there would be no end in following the variations daily introduced by caprice. Alterations may sometimes be useful—may be necessary; but they should be made in a manner conformable to the genius and construction of the language. Modus est in rebus. Extremes in this, as in all other cases, are hurtful. We ought by no means to shut the door against the improvements of our language; but it were well that some criterion were established to distinguish between improvement and innovation."——Rhet. Gram. page 6, Dict.[78]See a learned "Dissertation on the influence of opinions on language and of language on opinions, which gained the prize of the Prussian Royal Academy in 1759. By Mr. Michaelis, court councellor to his Britannic Majesty, and director of the Royal Society of Gottingen."[79]The vulgar thus by imitation err,As oft the learn'd by being singular.So much they scorn the croud, that if the throng,By chance go right, they purposely go wrong.Pope.[80]There are many people, and perhaps the most of them in the capital towns, that have learnt a few common place words, such asforchin,nachur,virchueand half a dozen others, which they repeat on all occasions; but being ignorant of the extent of the practice, they are, in pronouncing most words, as vulgar as ever.[81]It should be remarked that the late President of Pennsylvania, the Governor of New Jersey, and the President of New York college, who are distinguished for erudition and accuracy, have not adopted the English pronunciation.[82]Not between different nations, but in the same nation. The manners and fashions of each nation should arise out of their circumstances, their age, their improvements in commerce and agriculture.[83]Sheridan, as an improver of the language, stands among the first writers of the British nation, and deservedly. His Lectures on Elocution and on Reading, his Treatises on Education, and for the most part his Rhetorical Grammar, are excellent and almost unexceptionable performances. In these, he encountered practice and prejudices, when they were found repugnant to obvious rules of propriety. But in his Dictionary he seems to have left his only defensible ground,propriety, in pursuit of that phantom,fashion. He deserted his own principles, as the Reviewers observe: and where he has done this, every rational man should desert hisstandard.[84]From this description must be excepted some arts which have for their object, the pleasures of sense and imagination; as music and painting; and sciences which depend on fixed principles, and not on opinion, as mathematics and philosophy. The former flourish in the last stages of national refinement, and the latter are always proceeding towards perfection, by discoveries and experiment. Criticism also flourishes in Great Britain: Men read and judge accurately, when original writers cease to adorn the sciences. Correct writers precede just criticism.

[61]Misused.

[62]Kenrick, who was not guided solely by the fashion of the day, but paid some regard to the regular construction of the language.

[63]Sheridan has repeated with approbation, a celebrated saying of Dean Swift, who was a stickler for analogy, in pronouncingwindlikemind,bind, with the first sound ofi. The Dean's argument was, "I have a great mi2nd to fi2nd why you pronounce that wordwi2nd." I would beg leave to ask this gentleman, who directs us to saywoond, if any good reason can befoondwhy hesoondsthat wordwoond; and whether he expects a rational people, will beboondto follow theroondof court improprieties? We acknowlege thatwi2ndis a deviation from analogy and a corruption; but who pronounces it otherwise? Practice was almost wholly against Swift, and in America at least, it is as generally in favor of the analogy ofwound. A partial or local practice, may be brought to support analogy, but should be no authority in destroying it.

[64]Government,management, retain also the accent of their primitives; and the nounstestament,compliment, &c. form another analogy.

[65]It is regretted that the adjectives,indissoluble,irreparablewere derived immediately from the Latin,indissolubilis,irreparabilis, and not from the English verbs,dissolve,repair. Yetdissolvable,indissolvable,repairableandirrepairable, are better words thanindissoluble,reparable,irreparable. They not only preserve the analogy, but they are more purely English words; and I have been witness to a circumstance which alone ought to determine their excellence and give them currency: People of ordinary education have found difficulty in understanding such derivatives asirreparable,indissoluble; but the moment the wordsirrepairable,indissolveableare pronounced, they are led to the meaning by a previous acquaintance with the wordsrepairanddissolve. Numberless examples of this will occur to a person of observation, sufficient to make him abhor and reject the pedantry of authors, who have labored to strip their native tongue of its primitive English dress, and load it with fantastic ornaments.

[66]Flexionresolved into its proper letters would befleksion, that isflekshun; andfleks-yunwould give the same sound.

[67]To an ignorance of the laws of versification, we must ascribe the unwarrantable contraction ofwatery,wonderous, &c. intowatry,wondrous.

[68]Rhetorical Grammar, prefixed to his Dictionary, page 32. London, 1773.

[69]Rhet. Gram. 33.

[70]His grammar was written in Latin, in the reign of Charles IId. The work is so scarce, that I have never been able to find but a single copy. The author was one of the founders of the Royal Society.

[71]This sound ofu, foreigners will nearly obtain, by attempting to pronounce the dipthongiu; that is, the narrowibeforeuorw; (as in the Spanish wordciudad, a city.) Yet the sound (ofu) is not exactly the same, altho it approaches very near to it; for the sound ofiuis compound; whereas theuof the English and French is a simple sound.

[72]Lowth condemns such a phrase as, "the introducing ane" and says it should be, "the introducingofane." This is but one instance of a great number, in which he has rejectedgoodEnglish. In this situation,introducingis a participial noun; it may take an article before it, like any other noun, and yet govern an objective, like any transitive verb. This is the idiom of the language: but in most cases, the writer may use or omitof, at pleasure.

[73]I must except that reason, which is always an invincible argument with weak people, viz. "It is the practice of some great men." This common argument, which is unanswerable, will also prove the propriety of imitating all the polite and detestable vices of the great, which are now unknown to thelittle vulgarof this country.

[74]Ash observes, that "in unaccented, short and insignificant syllables, the sounds of the five vowels are nearly coincident. It must be a nice ear that can distinguish the difference of sound in the concluding syllable of the following words, altar, alter, manor, murmur, satyr."——Gram. Diff. pref. to Dic. p. 1.

[75]For my part I cannot discover the euphony; and tho the contrary mode be reprobated, as vulgar, by certain mighty fine speakers, I think it more conformable to the general scheme of English pronunciation; for tho in order to make the word but two syllables,tiandtemay be required to be converted intoch, or theiandeintoy, when the preceding syllable is marked with the accute accent as inquestion,minion,courteous, and the like; there seems to be little reason, when the grave accent precedes thet, as innature,creature, for converting thetintoch; and not much more for joining thetto the first syllable and introducing theybefore the second, asnat-yure. Why thetwhen followed by neitherinore, is to take the form ofch, I cannot conceive: It is, in my opinion, a species of affectation that should be discountenanced.—— Kenrick Rhet. Gram. page 32. Dic.

[76]Well might Mr. Sheridan assert, that "Such indeed is the state of our written language, that the darkest hieroglyphics, or most difficult cyphers which the art of man has hitherto invented, were not better calculated to conceal the sentiments of those who used them, from all who had not the key, than the state of our spelling is to conceal the true pronunciation of our words, from all, except a few well educated natives." Rhet. Gram. p. 22. Dic. But if these well educated natives would pronounce words as they ought, one half the language at least would be regular. The Latin derivatives are mostly regular to the educated and uneducated of America; and it is to be hoped that the modern hieroglyphical obscurity will forever be confined toa few well educated nativesin Great Britain.

[77]"Quem penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi." Horace.——"Nothing," says Kenrick, "has contributed more to the adulteration of living languages, than the too extensive acceptation of Horace's rule in favor of custom. Custom is undoubtedly the rule of present practice; but there would be no end in following the variations daily introduced by caprice. Alterations may sometimes be useful—may be necessary; but they should be made in a manner conformable to the genius and construction of the language. Modus est in rebus. Extremes in this, as in all other cases, are hurtful. We ought by no means to shut the door against the improvements of our language; but it were well that some criterion were established to distinguish between improvement and innovation."——Rhet. Gram. page 6, Dict.

[78]See a learned "Dissertation on the influence of opinions on language and of language on opinions, which gained the prize of the Prussian Royal Academy in 1759. By Mr. Michaelis, court councellor to his Britannic Majesty, and director of the Royal Society of Gottingen."

[79]The vulgar thus by imitation err,As oft the learn'd by being singular.So much they scorn the croud, that if the throng,By chance go right, they purposely go wrong.Pope.

[79]

The vulgar thus by imitation err,As oft the learn'd by being singular.So much they scorn the croud, that if the throng,By chance go right, they purposely go wrong.

Pope.

[80]There are many people, and perhaps the most of them in the capital towns, that have learnt a few common place words, such asforchin,nachur,virchueand half a dozen others, which they repeat on all occasions; but being ignorant of the extent of the practice, they are, in pronouncing most words, as vulgar as ever.

[81]It should be remarked that the late President of Pennsylvania, the Governor of New Jersey, and the President of New York college, who are distinguished for erudition and accuracy, have not adopted the English pronunciation.

[82]Not between different nations, but in the same nation. The manners and fashions of each nation should arise out of their circumstances, their age, their improvements in commerce and agriculture.

[83]Sheridan, as an improver of the language, stands among the first writers of the British nation, and deservedly. His Lectures on Elocution and on Reading, his Treatises on Education, and for the most part his Rhetorical Grammar, are excellent and almost unexceptionable performances. In these, he encountered practice and prejudices, when they were found repugnant to obvious rules of propriety. But in his Dictionary he seems to have left his only defensible ground,propriety, in pursuit of that phantom,fashion. He deserted his own principles, as the Reviewers observe: and where he has done this, every rational man should desert hisstandard.

[84]From this description must be excepted some arts which have for their object, the pleasures of sense and imagination; as music and painting; and sciences which depend on fixed principles, and not on opinion, as mathematics and philosophy. The former flourish in the last stages of national refinement, and the latter are always proceeding towards perfection, by discoveries and experiment. Criticism also flourishes in Great Britain: Men read and judge accurately, when original writers cease to adorn the sciences. Correct writers precede just criticism.

Of the Formation of Language.—Horne Tooke's theory of the Particles.—Examination of particular Phrases.

Havingdiscussed the subject of pronunciation very largely in the two preceding Dissertations, I shall now examin theuse of words in the construction of sentences.

Several writers of eminence have attempted to explain the origin, progress and structure of languages, and have handled the subject with great ingenuity and profound learning; as Harris, Smith, Beatie, Blair, Condillac, and others. But thediscovery of the true theory of the construction of language, seems to have been reserved for Mr. Horne Tooke, author of the "Diversions of Purley." In this treatise, however exceptionable may be particular instances of the writer's spirit and manner, the principles on which the formation of languages depends, are unfolded and demonstrated by an etymological analysis of the Saxon or Gothic origin of the English particles. From the proofs which this writer produces, and from various other circumstances, it appears probable, that thenounor substantive is the principal part of speech, and from which most words are originally derived.

The invention and progress of articulate sounds must have been extremely slow. Rude savages have originally no method of conveying ideas, but by looks, signs, and those inarticulate sounds, called by grammarians,Interjections. These are probably the first beginnings of language. They are produced by the passions, and are perhaps very little superior, in point of articulation or significancy, to the sounds which express the wants of the brutes.[85]

But the first sounds, which, by being often repeated, would become articulate, would be those which savages use to convey their ideas of certain visible objects, which first employ their attention. These sounds, by constant application to the same things, would gradually become thenamesof those objects, and thus acquire a permanent signification. In this manner, rivers, mountains, trees, and such animals as afford food for savages, would first acquire names; and next to them, such other objects as can be noticed or perceived by the senses. Those names which are given to ideas calledabstractandcomplex, or, to speak more correctly, those names which express a combination of ideas, are invented much later in the progress of language. Such are the words, faith, hope, virtue, genius, &c.

It is unnecessary, and perhaps impossible, to describe the whole process of the formation of languages; but we may reason from the nature of things that thenecessaryparts of speech would be the first formed; and it is very evident from etymology that all the others are derived from these, either by abbreviation or combination. The necessary parts of speech are thenounandverb; and perhaps we may add thearticle. Pronouns are not necessary, but from their utility, must be a very early invention.

That the noun and verb are the only parts of speech, absolutely necessary for a communication of ideas among rude nations, will be obvious to any person who considers their manner of life, and the small number of their necessary ideas. Their employments are war and hunting; and indeed some tribes are so situated as to have no occupation but that of procuring subsistence. How few must be the ideas of a people, whose sole employment is to catch fish, and take wild beasts for food! Such nations, and even some much farther advanced towards civilization, use few or no prepositions, adverbs and conjunctions, in their intercourse with each other,and very few adjectives. Some tribes of savages in America use no adjectives at all; but express qualities by a particular form of the verb; or rather blend the affirmation and quality into one word.[86]They have, it is said, some connecting words in their own languages, some of which have advanced towards copiousness and variety. But when they attempt to speak English, they use nouns and verbs long before they obtain any knowlege of the particles. They speak in this manner, go, way—— sun, shine—— tree, fall—— give, Uncas, rum; with great deliberation and a short pause between the words. They omit the connectives and the abbreviations, which may be called the "wings of Mercury." Thus it is evident, that, among such nations, a few nouns and verbs will answer the purposes of language.

Many of this kind of expressions remain in the English language to this day.Go awayis the savage phrase with the articlea, derived perhaps fromone, or what is more probable, added merely to express the sound, made in the transition from one word to the other, for if we attend to themanner in which we pronounce these or two similar words, we shall observe that we involuntarily form the sound expressed byaoraw. In some such manner are formedastray,awhile,adown,aground,ashore,above,abaft,among, and many others. They are usually called adverbs and prepositions; but they are neither more nor less than nouns or verbs, with the prefixa.[87]That all the words called adverbs and prepositions, are derived in like manner, from the principal parts of language, the noun and verb, is not demonstrable; but thatmostof them are so derived, etymology clearly proves.

This theory derives great strength from analizing the words calledconjunctions. It will perhaps surprize those who have not attended to this subject, to hear it asserted, that the little conjunctionif, is averbinthe Imperative Mode. That this is the fact can no more be controverted than any point of history, or any truth that our senses present to the mind.Ifis radically the same word asgive; it was in the Saxon Infinitive,gifan, and in the Imperative, like other Saxon verbs, lost thean; being writtengif. This is the word in its purity; but in different dialects of the same radical tongue, we find it writtengife,giff,gi,yf,yef, andyeve. Chaucer usedyinstead ofg.[88]

"Unto the devil rough and blake of heweYeveI thy body and my panne also."

Freres Tale, 7204.

But the true Imperative isgif, as in the Sad Shepherd. Act 2. Sc. 2.

——"My largesseHath lotted her to be your brother's mistressGifshe can be reclaimed;gifnot, his prey."

This is the origin of the conjunctionif; and it answers, in sense and derivation to the Latinsi, which is but a contraction ofsit. Thus what we denominate the Subjunctivemode is resolvable into the Indicative. "Ifye love me, ye will keep my commandments," is resolvable in this manner; "Give, (give the following fact, or suppose it) ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." Or thus, "Ye love me, give that, ye will keep my commandments." But on this I shall be more particular when I come to speak of errors in the use of verbs.

Anis still vulgarly used in the sense ofif. "Anplease your honor," is the usual address of servants to their masters in England; tho it is lost in New England. But a word derived from the same root, is still retained; viz. the Saxonanan, to give; which is sometimes pronouncednan, and sometimesanan. It is used forwhat, orwhat do you say; as when a person speaks to another, the second person not hearing distinctly, replies,nan, oranan; that is,giveorrepeatwhat you said. This is ridiculed as a gross vulgarism; and it is indeed obsolete except among common people; but is strictly correct, and if persons deride the use of the word, it proves at least that they do not understand its meaning.

Unless,lestandelse, are all derivatives of the old Saxon verblesan,to dismiss, which we preserve in the wordlease, and its compounds. So far are these words from being conjunctions, that they are, in fact, verbs in the Imperative mode; and this explanation serves further to lay open the curious structure of our language. For example:

"Unless ye believe ye shall not understand," may be thus resolved; "Ye believe;dismiss(that fact) ye shall not understand." Or thus, "Dismissye believe, (that circumstance being away) ye shall not understand." Thus by analizing the sentence we find no Subjunctive mode; but merely the Indicative and Imperative.

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry," is resolvable in the same manner: "Kiss the Son,dismiss(that) he will be angry."Elseis used nearly in the same sense, as in Chaucer, Freres Tale, 7240:

"Axe him thyself, if thou not trowest me,Orellesstint a while and thou shalt see."

That is, "If thou dost not believe me, ask him thyself, ordismissing(omitting that) wait and thou shalt be convinced."

Though, ortho, commonly called a conjunction, is also a verb in the Imperative Mode. It is from the verbthafianorthafigan, which, in the Saxon, signified tograntorallow. The word in its purity isthaforthof; and so it is pronounced by many of the common people in England, and by some in America.

"Thohe slay me, yet will I trust in him," may be thus explained; "Allow(suppose) he should slay me, yet will I trust in him." That this is the true sense oftho, is evident from another fact. The old writers usedalgifeforalthough; and its meaning must be nearly the same.

"——Whose pere is hard to find,AlgifeEngland and France were thorow saught."

Rel. An. Poet. 115.

Sinceis merely a participle of the old verbseon, to see. In ancient authors we find it variously written; assith,sithence,sin,sithen, &c. and the common people in New England still pronounce itsin,senorsence. Of all these,sinorsen, which is so much ridiculed as vulgar, comes nearest to the originalseen.[89]This explanationofsinceunfolds the true theory of languages, and proves that all words are originally derived from those which are first used to express ideas of sensible objects. Mankind, instead of that abstract sense which we annex tosince, if we have any idea at all when we use it, originally said,seen the sun rose, it has become warm; that is, after the sun rose, or that circumstance beingseenorpast. We use the same word now, with a little variation; but the etymology is lost to most people, who still employ the word for a precise purpose, intelligible to their hearers.

Buthas two distinct meanings, and two different roots. This is evident to any person who attends to the manner of using the word. We say, "But to proceed;" that is,moreorfurther. We say also, "All left the room,butone;" that is, except one. These two significations, which are constantly and insensibly annexed to the word, will perhaps explain all its uses; but cannot be well accounted for, without supposing it to have two etymologies. Happily the early writers furnish us with themeans of solving the difficulty. Gawen Douglass the poet, was cotemporary with Chaucer, or lived near his time, was Bishop of Dunkeld in Scotland, and probably wrote the language in the purity of his age and country. As the Scots in the Low Lands, are descendants of the Saxons, in common with the English, and from their local situation, have been less exposed to revolutions, they have preserved more of the Saxon idiom and orthography than their southern brethren. In Douglass we find two different words to express the two different meanings, which we now annex to one; viz.botandbut. The first is used in the sense ofmore,furtheroraddition; and the last in the sense ofexceptortake away.

"Botthy work shall endure in laude and glorie,Butspot or falt condigne eterne memorie."

The first Mr. Horne derives frombotan,to boot, to give more; from which our English wordboot, which is now for the most part confined to jockeys, is also derived; and the other frombe utan,[90]to be out or away. That these etymologies are justis probable, both from old writings and from the present distinct uses of the wordbut. This word therefore is the blending or corruption ofbotandbeut, the Imperatives of two Saxon verbs,botanandbeutan.[91]

Andis probably a contraction ofanan, to give, the verb before mentioned; andad, the root of the verbadd, and signifyingseriesorremainder.An ad, give the remainder.

The wordwith, commonly called a preposition, is likewise a verb. It is from the Saxonwithan, to join; or more probably fromwyrth, to be, or the Germanwerden, devenir, to be. The reason for this latter conjecture, is that we have preserved the Imperative ofwyrthorwerden, in this ancient phrase, "woeworththe day;" that is, woe be to the day. The German verb, in its inflections, makeswirstandwurde; and is undoubtedly from the same root as the Danishværer, to be. But whetherwithhas its origin inwithan, to join, or inwerden, to be, its sense will be nearly the same; it will still convey the idea of connection. This will plainly appear to any person who considers, thatbyis merely a corruption ofbe, from the old verbbeon; and that this word is still used to express connection or nearness; "He livesbyme;" "He wentbyme;" that is, he livesbeme.

This verbbewas formerly used in this phrase;be my faith, be my troth; that is,by my faith, as in Chevy Chace.[92]We still find the same verb in a multitude of compounds,be-come,be-yond,be-tween,be-side,be-fore. Thus we see what are calledprepositions, are mere combinations or corruptions of verbs; they are not a primitive part of language, and if we resolve this phrase,he went beyond me, we shall find it composed of these words,he went,be,gone,me;yondbeing nothing but the participle ofgo.

Will my grammatical readers believe me, when I assert that the affirmationyea, oryes, is a verb? That it is so, is undeniable. The Englishyea,yes, and the Germanja, pronouncedyaw, are derived from a verb in the Imperative Mode; or rather, they are but corruptions ofaye, the Imperative of the Frenchavoir, to have. The pure wordaye, is still used in English. The affirmationyeaoryes, ishave, an expression of assent,have what you say.[93]

That all the words, calledadverbs, are abbreviations or combinations of nouns, verbs and adjectives, cannot perhaps be proved; for it is extremely difficult to trace the little words,when,then,there,here, &c. to their true origin.[94]But excepting a few, the whole class of words, denominatedadverbs, can be resolved into other parts of speech. The terminationly, which forms a large proportion of these words, is derived from the Saxonliche,like.

"And as an angel heavenlichshe sung."

Chaucer, Cant. Tales, 1057.

We have in a few words retained the original pronunciation, asGodlike; but in strictness of speech, there is no difference betweenGodlikeandGodly.[95]

Notwithstanding it is evident that conjunctions, prepositions, and adverbs are not original and necessary parts of speech, yet as species of abbreviations, or compound terms to express assemblages of ideas, they may be considered as very useful, and as great improvements in language. Every person, even without the least knowlege of etymology, acquires a habit of annexing a certain idea, or certain number of ideas tounless,lest,yes,between, and the other particles; he uses them with precision, and makes himself understood by his hearers or readers. These words enable him to communicate his ideas with greater facility and expedition, than he could by mere names and affirmations. They have lost the distinguishing characteristics of verbs, person, time, and inflection. It is therefore convenient for grammatical purposes, to assign them distinct places and give them names, according to their particular uses. Such of these old verbs as exhibit some connection between the members of a discourse, may be properly denominatedconjunctions. Others, that are used to show certain relationsbetween words and are generally prefixed to them, may be well calledprepositions. A third species, which are employed to qualify the sense of other words, may, from their position and uses in a discourse, be denominatedadverbs. But the foregoing investigation is necessary to unfold the true principles on which language is constructed, and the philosophical enquirer is referred for a more general view of the subject, to Mr. Horne Tooke'sDiversions of Purley.

Theverborwordis so called by way of eminence; the ancient grammarians having considered it as the principal part of speech. Thenounis however entitled to the precedence; it is of equal importance in language, and undoubtedly claims priority of origin. Philosophy might teach us that thenamesof a few visible objects would be first formed by barbarous men, and afterwards the words which express the most common actions. But with respect to names of abstract ideas, as they are usually called, they not only precede the formation of the verbs which represent the action, but it often happens that the same word is used, with a prefix to denote the action of the object to which the name isgiven. For example,loveandfearare the names of certain passions or affections of the mind. To express the action or exertion of these affections, we have not invented distinct terms; but custom has for this purpose prefixed the worddoorto, which, in its primitive sense, isto act,move, ormake.[96]Thus Ido love, ordo fear, are merely, Iact, love, oract, fear; andto loveandto fearin the Infinitive, areact, love, andact, fear.

To confirm these remarks, let it be considered that formerlydoanddidwere almost invariably used with the verb; asI do fear,he did love; and the omission of these words in affirmative declarations is of a modern date. They are still preserved in particular modes of expression; as in the negative and interrogative forms, and in emphatical assertions.

The present hypothesis will derive additional strength from another circumstance. Grammarians allege that the termination of the regular preterit tense,ed, is a corruption ofdid. If so, it seems to have been originally optional, either toplace the worddid, which expressed theactionof the object, before or after thename. Thus,he feared, is resolvable intohe fear did, and must be a blending of the words in a hasty pronunciation. But it was also a practice to sayhe did fear, which arrangement is not yet lost nor obscured; but in no case are both these forms used,he did feared; a presumptive evidence of the truth of the opinion, thatedis a contraction ofdid. Indeed I see no objection to the opinion but this, that it is not easy on this supposition, to account for the formation ofdidfromdo. Ifdidis itself a contraction ofdoed, the regular preterit, which is probable, whence comesedin this word? To deriveedin other words fromdidis easy and natural; but this leaves us short of the primary cause or principle, and consequently in suspense, as to the truth of the opinion. Yet whatever may be the true derivation of the regular ending of the past time and perfect participle of English verbs, the use ofdo,didandtobefore the verb, is a strong evidence, that at least one class of affirmations are formed by the help ofnames, with a prefix to denote the action of the objects expressed by the names.I fear, therefore, is a phrase, composed of the pronounI, and the nounfear; and the affirmation,contained in the phrase, is derived from the single circumstance of the position of the name afterI.I fearis a modern substitute forI do fear; that is,I act, fear; all originally and strictlynouns. But by a habit of uniting the personal nameIwith the name of the passionfear, we instantly recognize an affirmation that the passion is exerted; anddo, the primitive name ofact, has become superfluous.

Having made these few remarks on the formation of our language, I shall proceed to examin the criticisms of grammarians on certain phrases, and endeavor to settle some points of controversy with respect to the use of words; and also to detect some inaccuracies which prevail in practice.

Writers upon the subject of propriety in our language, have objected to the use ofmeans, with the articleaand the definitive pronouns singular,thisandthat.The objection made is, that as this word ends ins, it must be plural, and cannot be joined in construction with words in the singular. This objection supposes that all nouns ending withsare plural; but this would perhaps prove too much, and make it necessary to consider all nouns,notending ins, as singular, which cannot be true, even on the principles of those who bring the objection. The supposition in both cases would be equally well founded.

It appears to me however, that the sense of the word, and particularly the universal practice of the English nation, ought to have induced the critical grammarian, who wished to reduce the language to some certainty, to suppress the objection. The wordmeans, applied to a single instrument of action, or cause, conveys asingleidea; and I presume, was generally used for this purpose, till Bishop Lowth questioned the propriety of the practice; at leastmeanis scarcely used as a noun, in any author from Chaucer to Lowth. On the contrary, the best writers have usedmeanseither in the singular or plural number, according as they had occasion to express by it an idea of one cause or more.

"Bythis means, it became every man's interest, as well as his duty to prevent all crimes."——Temple, Works, vol. 3. p. 133.

"And bythis meansI should not doubt," &c.—— Wilkins Real Character, book 1.

"And finding themselves bythis meansto be safe."——Sidney on Gov. chap. 3. sect. 36.

"For he hopeth bythis meansto acquit himself."——Rawley's Sylva Sylvarum.

"And bythat meansthey lost their barrier."——Moyle on the Lacedem. Gov.

"Clodius was now quæstor and bythat meansa senator."——Middleton L. of Cic. vol. 1. p. 261.

"Bythis meanshowever, there was nothing left to the Parliament of Ireland."——Blackstone's Com. vol. 1. p. 102.

In this manner was the word used by the elegant writers in Queen Anne's reign.

But we have not only the authority of almost every good writer in the language, for this use ofmeansin the singular as well as plural number, but we have theauthority of almost unanimous national practice in speaking. It is rare to hearmeanused as a noun, and by those only who are fettered by the arbitrary rules of grammarians. I question whether the word, in the singular form, has obtained such an establishment, as to be entitled to a place among the English nouns. The use of it appears like pedantry. No man, whatever may be his rank and abilities, has a right to reject a mode of speech, established by immemorial usage and universal consent. Grammars should be formed onpractice; for practice determines what a language is. I do not mean alocalpractice, for this would subject us to perpetual variety and instability; butnationalorgeneralpractice. The latter, it has been remarked, is the standard of propriety, to which all local idioms and private opinions should be sacrificed. The business of a grammarian is not to examin whether or not national practice is founded on philosophical principles; but toascertainthe national practice, that the learner may be able to weed from his own any local peculiarities or false idioms.

Ifthis meansanda meansare now, and have immemorially been, used by good authors and the nation in general, neither Johnson, Lowth, nor any other person, however learned, has a right to say that the phrases are notgood English. That this is the fact, every person may satisfy himself, by consulting the good authors and observing the universal practice in discourse.

Besides, the general practice of a nation is not easily changed, and the only effect that an attempt to reform it can produce, is, to makemanypeople doubtful, cautious, and consequently uneasy; to render afewridiculous and pedantic by following nice criticisms in the face of customary propriety; and to introduce a distinction between the learned and unlearned, which serves only to create difficulties for both.

Dr. Priestley is the only writer upon this subject who seems to have been guided by just principles. He observes, with great propriety, that "Grammarians have leaned too much to the analogies of the Latin language, contrary to our mode of speaking and to the analogies of other languages, more like our own. It must be allowed, that the custom of speaking, is the original and only just standard of any language." Pref. to Gram. page 9. His criticisms are exceedingly judicious, and are entitled to the consideration of the student, in preference to those of Lowth, or any other English author. He considersmeansas belonging "to that class of words which do not change their termination on account of number." It is used in both numbers,a means, orthese means, with equal propriety.

To the same class of words belongpains,news, and perhaps some others. Every person who has read good English authors, or lived where the language is spoken in purity, must have observed that the wordpainsis usually preceded bymuch, and followed by a verb in the singular number;much pains was taken. If the word is a plural noun, it should neither be followed by a singular verb, nor preceded bymuch; for we never prefixmuchto plurals. The most untutored ear would be offended atmuch papers,much labors. But do we not always saymuch pains? Do we ever saymany pains weretaken? I confess I never yet heard or saw the expression. Yet Lowth contends thatpainsis plural. This criticism upon the word is an authority invindication of an erroneous practice of using it with a plural verb, even when it is preceded bymuch. So in Sheridan's Art of Reading, we observe these words; "If somuch pains werethought necessary among them," &c. Temple indulges the same mistake; "I know howmuch pains have beentaken to deduce the wordsBaroandfeudumfrom the Latin and Greek, and even from the Hebrew and Egyptian tongue." Works, vol. 3. p. 365.

Might not these writers have used,much sheep were killed, with the same propriety?

The sense of the wordpainsdoes not require that we should consider it as a plural; for it signifieslabororfatigue, in contradistinction to those uneasy sensations, each of which singly is called apain, and to express a number of whichpainsis used as a plural. On the other hand we have the authority of general practice for uniting with itmuch, which can in no case be used with a plural, and also a verb in the singular number.

—"And takenmuch painsso to proportion the powers of the several magistrates."——Sidney on Gov. sect. I.

"I foundmuch artandpainsemployed."——Middleton.

"He will assemble materials withmuch pains."——Bolling. on Hist. letter 4.

"As to our own language, several persons have takenmuch painsabout the orthography of it."——Wilkins Real Char. book I. chap. 5.

There are a few instances in which good authors have considerednewsas a plural; as

"From all regions where the bestnews aremade."——B. Johnson, Staple of News.

"And seal the news and issuethem."——The same.

But can an English ear relish this affected correctness? Hear the language of Cowley and Shakespear, who wrote as the nation spoke:

Back to Index Next