[115]Botser that Virgil standisbutcompare.—Gawin Douglass.[116]Anoccurs frequently forifin the earliest English writers. Bacon frequently uses it in this sense. “Fortune is to be honoured and respected,anit be but for her daughters, Confidence and Reputation.” “And certainly it is the nature of extreme self-lovers, as they will set their house on fire,anit were, but to roast their eggs.”—Bacon’s Essays, Civ. and Mor.In the folio edition, printed in 1740, it is improperly spelledand.Anforifis still retained in our address to royalty,An ’t please your majesty: and in Scotland is in general use.[117]The correctness of most of these, and several other of Tooke’s etymologies, has been disputed, in a learned and ingenious article in the Quarterly Review (No. 108). In many of the critic’s animadversions it is impossible not to concur; but we do not agree with him, when he rejects the derivation ofiffrom the Anglo-Saxon verbgifan, “to give;” nor do we consider that Jamieson’s argument, to which he refers, is such as to justify the critic’s conclusion. The distinction betweenbotandbuthe confidently pronounces to be “a mere chimera,” and maintains thatbutis in every instancebe utan, “be out,” without corresponding to the Latin wordssed,vero,autem,sine. It must be acknowledged that Tooke’s derivation is erroneous, there being no such Anglo-Saxon verb as “botan,” of whichbotcould be the imperative. But we agree with Dr. Jamieson in thinking, whatever may be the etymology, thatbutandbotare originally distinct words. Indeed, it appears to us, that the reasoning of the critic is neither correct, nor quite consistent with itself. We do not considerbutforbotto be discriminative; nor can we allow, that, ifbutbe equivalent tosed,se,sine, implying separation, it can also be equivalent toautem, “moreover,” to whichbotcorresponds, implying adjection, or subjunction. Nor can we admit, that the synonymous wordsmais(French),maar(Dutch),ma(Italian), imply preference, as the critic affirms, but something to be added, corresponding with what has been previously said.[118]The critic to whom we have alluded in the preceding note contends, thatexceptcannot be an imperative, “because it has no subject; and that a verb could not be employed, in any language that distinguishes the different persons, without a gross violation of idiom.” He considers the word to be an abbreviated participle. The correctness of this opinion I am disposed to question. In our Anglo-Saxon translation, the termexceptis rendered bybuton, which is no participle; moreover, to place the participle perfect before the noun, the clause being absolute, is irreconcilable with the idiom of our language. “‘All were involved in this affair, except one;’ that is,” says Webster, who seems divided between the imperative and the participle, “‘one excepted.’” Now “one excepted,” and “excepting one,” are perfectly consonant with analogy; but “excepted one” is sanctioned by no authority. I am inclined to think that our translators, without regarding the Latin or the Icelandic idiom, to which the reviewer refers, used the wordexceptas an imperative, without a subject. He denies, however, that it can be so employed. He surely will not deny, that usage warrants us in saying, “His arguments, take them as here exhibited, amount to nothing.” The use of the imperative, infinitive, and participles, in an absolute sense, or without a subject, is a common idiom in our language, and recommends itself, as shall be afterwards shown, by some peculiar advantages.[119]This phraseology has been censured by Buchanan and the author of the British Grammar; but, as I apprehend, without the shadow of authority. To ask a question with a principal verb, asburns he, the latter affirms to be a barbarism. To disprove the assertion, I shall only, in addition to the one quoted from Macbeth, produce these examples. “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?”—Bible.“Died he not in bed?”—Shakspeare.“Or flies the javelin swifter to its mark?”—Ib.“And live there men who slight immortal fame?”—Pope.[120]Our translators, as the judicious critic last quoted observes, have totally enervated the strength of the original, which runs thus,ἔπεσε, ἔπεσε, Βαβυλὼν ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη, and which they have rendered, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city.”[121]The ellipsis of the copulative, in such examples, was termed by the ancientsasyndeton; and this deviation from the established rules of syntax they referred to a grammatical figure termedsyllepsis indirecta, or “indirect comprehension of several singulars under one plural,” opposed to thesyllepsis directa, or that expressed by a copulative.[122]It is sometimes used forevery, and applied to more than two.[123]In the vulgar translation of the Bible, this mode of expression frequently occurs, thus, “I am thy exceeding great reward.” “I will make thee exceeding fruitful.”Wallis’s admission of this phraseology proves it to have been good English when he wrote, or that, in his opinion at least, it was unobjectionable. His translation ofvir summe sapiens, is “a man exceeding wise.” This, and similar modes of expression, appear to have been in his time very common, thus,“Although he wasexceeding wealthy.”—Peers.“He was moreover extraordinary courteous.”—Ibid.“The Athenians were extreme apprehensive of his growing power.”—Tully.And in our version of the Bible we find a few such expressions as the following: “The house I am to build, shall bewonderfulgreat.”Addison likewise often uses the phrase “exceeding great;” and Swift, less pardonably, writes “extreme unwilling,” “extreme good.”[124]We say, indeed, “Messrs. Thomson;” but we seldom or never say, “the two Messrs. Thomson,” but “the two Mr. Thomsons.”[125]Horne 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.[126]See Johnson’s Comm. p. 351, and Seyer on the Latin Verb, p. 174. To the arguments there offered, many others might be added.[127]The propriety of this collocation of thenegativewill be more evident, if we attend to the two very different meanings of the wordbut. According to the former construction of the sentence,butis the imperative ofbeutan, “to be out,” and is synonymous withunlessorexcept; thus, “but with the approbation,” orexceptwith the approbation. According to the latter construction, it is properlybot, the imperative ofbotan, “to add.” Thus, “he was honoured not with (i.e.exclude or except) this reward, but (add) with the approbation of the people.”[128]It is to be observed that a different collocation is sometimes admissible without any risk of ambiguity, especially when the clause is negative. Thus we may say, “His thoughts were entertained with not only,”i.e.“with not one thing,” viz. “the joys” with which he was surrounded; or, “not only with the joys; but (botoradd) a noble gratitude and divine pleasure.”Usage in common conversation, and in familiar language, inclines to this arrangement, and many of our best writers frequently adopt it.[129]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.[130]Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere, curandum.[131]In this and similar examples, the wordonlyhas been generally considered as an adjective, equivalent tosolus. Thus, if we say,ille solum erat dives, it means, “he was only rich,” or “he was nothing but rich.” If we say,ille solus erat dives, it means, “he only,” or “he alone was rich.” In the latter example, the wordonlyhas been termed an adjective. It is from the equivalence of the wordsonlyandalone, in such examples as the latter, that several writers have employed them, as if, in all cases, synonymous. They are by no means, however, of the same import. Thus, if we say, “virtue alone is true nobility,” it means “virtue singly, or by itself, is true nobility;” if we say, “virtue only is true nobility,” it implies that nothing but virtue is true nobility. The expressions, therefore, are not 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 termfirst, as equivalent either toprimusorprimum; and also to the position of many other words, which are used adjectively and adverbially. The classical scholar needs not to be informed, thatAnnibal primus, andAnnibal primum—Alpes transiit, are not expressions mutually convertible.[132]Addison, Pope, Swift, Steele, and Johnson, very generally place the adverb before the attributive, to which it refers, and very often also, before the substantive. “What he said, was only to commend my prudence.”—Addison.“He did not pretend to extirpate French music, but only to cultivate and civilise it.”—Addison.“I was only scribbling.”—Johnson.“Not only the thought, but the language is majestic.”—Addison.“Known only to those, who enjoy.”—Johnson.“Lay the blame only on themselves.”—Johnson.“Witty only by the help of speech.”—Steele.Our translators of the Bible have almost uniformly observed the same collocation in respect to the predicate; but have, with few or no deviations, preferred a different arrangement in regard to the subject, placing the adverb after, and not before it. It is in conformity to their practice, that we have recommended the rule here given. From the following examples, to which many more might be added, it will appear that when the adverb referred to a sentence, they made it the introductory word; when it affected an attributive, they placed the adverb before it; and when it referred to a substantive, or the name of a subject, they put the adverb after it. “Only take heed to thyself.” “Only he shall not go in unto the vail.” “Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi.” ... “The thoughts of his heart are only evil.” “Thou shalt be only oppressed.” “They might only touch the hem of his garment.” ... “None followed David, but Judah only.” “He only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave.” “Against thee only have I sinned.” “Take nothing for your journey, but a staff only.” “David did that only which was right.” “They only shall be delivered.” “This only have I found.” “If in this life only we have hope.”[133]In colloquial language, but chiefly among the vulgar, prepositions are prefixed to verbs indicative.[134]“Est vetus, atque probus, centum qui perficit annos.Quid? qui deperiit minor uno mense, vel anno;Inter quos referendus erit? veteresne poetas,An quos et præsens et postera respuet ætas?Iste quidem veteres inter ponetur honestè,Qui vel mense brevi, vel toto est junior anno.Utor permisso, caudæque pilos ut equinæPaulatim vello; et demo unum, demo etiam unum;Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi,Qui redit ad fastos.”Horace, Ep. I. Lib. 2.[135]The Saxon word isawiht, contractedauht,aliquid.[136]We have remarked the same violation of common sense, as occurring in Cicero, oftener than once. “Alium alio nequiorem.”—Ep. Fam.“Aliam alia jucundiorem.”—Att.[137]Deprehendat, quæ barbara, quæ impropria, quæ contra legem loquendi composita.—Quintil.lib. i. cap. 5.[138]In conformity to the example of most of our grammarians, I have employed the termetymologyin the title of this work, and wherever else it occurs, as denoting that part of grammar, which teaches the inflection of words. In its primitive acceptation, it means an exposition of their derivation, and is still employed in that sense, as well as in the signification in which it is here used. Some writers have preferred the termanalogyto express the doctrine of inflection. If the principle of analogy or similitude were confined to inflection, the designation might be proper; but, as this principle extends to the concord, the government, and the collocation, generally termed thesyntaxof words, it cannot be considered an appropriate name for that part of grammar, which teaches merely inflection or verbal termination. Analogy is the leading principle, on which every grammatical rule is founded; and those, who have employed the term for etymology, it would be easy to show, have not been observant of strict consistency.[139]The reader is requested to observe, that under “solecism,” I have included several phraseologies, which, though not consistent with syntactical propriety, may be justly called by the softer name of “inaccuracies.”[140]See Canon I.,p. 229.[141]We perceive intuitively the error of Milton, when he calls Adam “the comeliest of men since born,” Eve also “the fairest of her daughters,” and we laugh, perhaps, when the Cork 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 species, though it passes frequently unnoticed. Seep. 74.[142]It has been already offered as the opinion of the writer, (seep. 47,) that the English wordotheris the Saxonoðeꞃ, and that this word with the Arabicahd, the Hebrewhadorahad, the Saxonoððe, the Teutonicodo, the Swedishudda, and probably the Latinaut, have all sprung from the same source, or that one of these is the parent of the rest, denotingunusorsingulus, “one,” or “one by itself.” Of the origin of the Saxonother, Lye has hazarded no opinion. It appears to me to be a comparative fromoððe. To those who have carefully examined, and have approved the theory of Mr. Tooke, it will furnish no valid objection against this opinion, that the wordoððeis uniformly found in Saxon, signifyingaut. Such can have little or no difficulty in perceiving, not only from the similarity of the elements, but from the affinity in point of sense, thathad,ahd,aut,oððe, oðeꞃ,other,or, are all members of one and the same family.[143]In French the article and the adjectives admitting a plural termination, the expression “les uns et les autres” joined to a plural verb is in perfect consistence with analogy. So also, in Latin, areutriqueandalteri, referring to a plurality. Butunuswas never in this sense used as a plural.[144]“Utrumque fecisse, dicimus, si et hic et ille fecerit divisim; ambos fecisse dicimus, si duo conjunctim aliquid fecerint.”—Stephan.This distinction, however, as the learned critic acknowledges, is not uniformly observed.[145]“The truth is, thatasis also an article; and however and whenever used in English, means the same asit, orthat, orwhich. In the German, where it still evidently retains its original signification and use, (assoalso does,) it is writtenes.”—Tooke’s Diversions.[146]The error here involved suggests a few observations, which it may be useful to offer, 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 verb, as its name imports, denotes, that the subject is doing something. Johnson, however, in his Dictionary, gives every active verb the designation ofneuter, unless followed by an objective case, that is, unless the object or subject of the action be expressed. In the following instances, for example, he considers the verbs as neuter. “’T is sure, that Henryreads;” “so Idrank; and she made the camelsdrinkalso;” “if youplantwhere savages are;” “the prieststeachfor hire;” “nor feel him where hestruck;” “they thatsowin tears, shallreapin 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 inaccuracy, and tends to introduce perplexity and confusion. The verb surely does not the less denote action, because it expresses it absolutely, or because the subject acted upon is not particularly specified. In the examples now quoted, can it be questioned, when we sayhe struck, thathewas active; or when we say,they that sow shall reap, will it be affirmed thattheyare not active? This would be to confound distinctions not merely acknowledged in theory, and adopted in definition, but also founded in the very nature of things. This matter, I conceive, may be shortly explained, and very easily 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 anything else, as,I walk,I run. Transitive verbs are such as denote that the action passes from the agent to something acted upon, as, “Hector wounded him,” “Cain slew his brother.” But the subject to which the energy passes, may not always be expressed; the verb, however, is not the less active. Whether we say, “the drummer beats his drum,” or “the drummer beats every day,” it surely will not be contended, that there is less of action implied in the one case than in the other. The reader, then, is requested to observe, that it is not necessary to the active transitive verb, that the subject acted upon should be expressed. The active verb may predicate of its subject merely the action generally and absolutely, as, “he reads in the morning, and writes in the evening;” or with the action may be expressed the subject or object, as, “he reads Homer in the morning, and writes letters in the evening;” or the object or subject may be implied, and not expressed, as, “the drummer beats at night,” namely, his drum. But in all these cases the verb is equally active.[147]In justice to this respectable sect, it is incumbent on me to observe, that the Quakers are not Deists, nor does their religious creed approach to Deism.[148]A similar ambiguity sometimes occurs in Latin by the indiscriminate use ofquod. This may be prevented by employingquoniamwhen the succeeding member of the sentence expresses the cause of the preceding subject. Thus, “Nec consilium eo minus erat firmum, quoniam secretum cum perpaucis adhuc erat communicatum,” where theeorefers to a preceding circumstance. “Nec consilium eo minus erat firmum, quod” where theeorefers to the subsequent clause. The former phraseology affirms, the latter denies, the influence of the circumstance subjoined.[149]In our penal statutes, which should be precisely worded, because they are literally interpreted, much ambiguity frequently arises from the loose and incorrect manner in which this conjunction is used.[150]The issue of a question, respecting a contested election at Rochester in 1820, depended on the construction of this designation, “a peer, or lord of parliament.”[151]The superior ductility of the Greek, above every other language, must appear from its singular aptitude to form new words by composition or derivation, so as immediately to communicate any new idea. Hence the names of most of our modern discoveries and inventions are of Greek extraction. Thus we have the terms “microscope,” “telegraph,” “panorama,” “odometer,” and many others.[152]“Cui lecta potenter erit res,Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucidus ordo.Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.”Hor. de Art. Poet.
[115]Botser that Virgil standisbutcompare.—Gawin Douglass.
[115]Botser that Virgil standisbutcompare.—Gawin Douglass.
[116]Anoccurs frequently forifin the earliest English writers. Bacon frequently uses it in this sense. “Fortune is to be honoured and respected,anit be but for her daughters, Confidence and Reputation.” “And certainly it is the nature of extreme self-lovers, as they will set their house on fire,anit were, but to roast their eggs.”—Bacon’s Essays, Civ. and Mor.In the folio edition, printed in 1740, it is improperly spelledand.Anforifis still retained in our address to royalty,An ’t please your majesty: and in Scotland is in general use.
[116]Anoccurs frequently forifin the earliest English writers. Bacon frequently uses it in this sense. “Fortune is to be honoured and respected,anit be but for her daughters, Confidence and Reputation.” “And certainly it is the nature of extreme self-lovers, as they will set their house on fire,anit were, but to roast their eggs.”—Bacon’s Essays, Civ. and Mor.In the folio edition, printed in 1740, it is improperly spelledand.Anforifis still retained in our address to royalty,An ’t please your majesty: and in Scotland is in general use.
[117]The correctness of most of these, and several other of Tooke’s etymologies, has been disputed, in a learned and ingenious article in the Quarterly Review (No. 108). In many of the critic’s animadversions it is impossible not to concur; but we do not agree with him, when he rejects the derivation ofiffrom the Anglo-Saxon verbgifan, “to give;” nor do we consider that Jamieson’s argument, to which he refers, is such as to justify the critic’s conclusion. The distinction betweenbotandbuthe confidently pronounces to be “a mere chimera,” and maintains thatbutis in every instancebe utan, “be out,” without corresponding to the Latin wordssed,vero,autem,sine. It must be acknowledged that Tooke’s derivation is erroneous, there being no such Anglo-Saxon verb as “botan,” of whichbotcould be the imperative. But we agree with Dr. Jamieson in thinking, whatever may be the etymology, thatbutandbotare originally distinct words. Indeed, it appears to us, that the reasoning of the critic is neither correct, nor quite consistent with itself. We do not considerbutforbotto be discriminative; nor can we allow, that, ifbutbe equivalent tosed,se,sine, implying separation, it can also be equivalent toautem, “moreover,” to whichbotcorresponds, implying adjection, or subjunction. Nor can we admit, that the synonymous wordsmais(French),maar(Dutch),ma(Italian), imply preference, as the critic affirms, but something to be added, corresponding with what has been previously said.
[117]The correctness of most of these, and several other of Tooke’s etymologies, has been disputed, in a learned and ingenious article in the Quarterly Review (No. 108). In many of the critic’s animadversions it is impossible not to concur; but we do not agree with him, when he rejects the derivation ofiffrom the Anglo-Saxon verbgifan, “to give;” nor do we consider that Jamieson’s argument, to which he refers, is such as to justify the critic’s conclusion. The distinction betweenbotandbuthe confidently pronounces to be “a mere chimera,” and maintains thatbutis in every instancebe utan, “be out,” without corresponding to the Latin wordssed,vero,autem,sine. It must be acknowledged that Tooke’s derivation is erroneous, there being no such Anglo-Saxon verb as “botan,” of whichbotcould be the imperative. But we agree with Dr. Jamieson in thinking, whatever may be the etymology, thatbutandbotare originally distinct words. Indeed, it appears to us, that the reasoning of the critic is neither correct, nor quite consistent with itself. We do not considerbutforbotto be discriminative; nor can we allow, that, ifbutbe equivalent tosed,se,sine, implying separation, it can also be equivalent toautem, “moreover,” to whichbotcorresponds, implying adjection, or subjunction. Nor can we admit, that the synonymous wordsmais(French),maar(Dutch),ma(Italian), imply preference, as the critic affirms, but something to be added, corresponding with what has been previously said.
[118]The critic to whom we have alluded in the preceding note contends, thatexceptcannot be an imperative, “because it has no subject; and that a verb could not be employed, in any language that distinguishes the different persons, without a gross violation of idiom.” He considers the word to be an abbreviated participle. The correctness of this opinion I am disposed to question. In our Anglo-Saxon translation, the termexceptis rendered bybuton, which is no participle; moreover, to place the participle perfect before the noun, the clause being absolute, is irreconcilable with the idiom of our language. “‘All were involved in this affair, except one;’ that is,” says Webster, who seems divided between the imperative and the participle, “‘one excepted.’” Now “one excepted,” and “excepting one,” are perfectly consonant with analogy; but “excepted one” is sanctioned by no authority. I am inclined to think that our translators, without regarding the Latin or the Icelandic idiom, to which the reviewer refers, used the wordexceptas an imperative, without a subject. He denies, however, that it can be so employed. He surely will not deny, that usage warrants us in saying, “His arguments, take them as here exhibited, amount to nothing.” The use of the imperative, infinitive, and participles, in an absolute sense, or without a subject, is a common idiom in our language, and recommends itself, as shall be afterwards shown, by some peculiar advantages.
[118]The critic to whom we have alluded in the preceding note contends, thatexceptcannot be an imperative, “because it has no subject; and that a verb could not be employed, in any language that distinguishes the different persons, without a gross violation of idiom.” He considers the word to be an abbreviated participle. The correctness of this opinion I am disposed to question. In our Anglo-Saxon translation, the termexceptis rendered bybuton, which is no participle; moreover, to place the participle perfect before the noun, the clause being absolute, is irreconcilable with the idiom of our language. “‘All were involved in this affair, except one;’ that is,” says Webster, who seems divided between the imperative and the participle, “‘one excepted.’” Now “one excepted,” and “excepting one,” are perfectly consonant with analogy; but “excepted one” is sanctioned by no authority. I am inclined to think that our translators, without regarding the Latin or the Icelandic idiom, to which the reviewer refers, used the wordexceptas an imperative, without a subject. He denies, however, that it can be so employed. He surely will not deny, that usage warrants us in saying, “His arguments, take them as here exhibited, amount to nothing.” The use of the imperative, infinitive, and participles, in an absolute sense, or without a subject, is a common idiom in our language, and recommends itself, as shall be afterwards shown, by some peculiar advantages.
[119]This phraseology has been censured by Buchanan and the author of the British Grammar; but, as I apprehend, without the shadow of authority. To ask a question with a principal verb, asburns he, the latter affirms to be a barbarism. To disprove the assertion, I shall only, in addition to the one quoted from Macbeth, produce these examples. “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?”—Bible.“Died he not in bed?”—Shakspeare.“Or flies the javelin swifter to its mark?”—Ib.“And live there men who slight immortal fame?”—Pope.
[119]This phraseology has been censured by Buchanan and the author of the British Grammar; but, as I apprehend, without the shadow of authority. To ask a question with a principal verb, asburns he, the latter affirms to be a barbarism. To disprove the assertion, I shall only, in addition to the one quoted from Macbeth, produce these examples. “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?”—Bible.“Died he not in bed?”—Shakspeare.“Or flies the javelin swifter to its mark?”—Ib.“And live there men who slight immortal fame?”—Pope.
[120]Our translators, as the judicious critic last quoted observes, have totally enervated the strength of the original, which runs thus,ἔπεσε, ἔπεσε, Βαβυλὼν ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη, and which they have rendered, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city.”
[120]Our translators, as the judicious critic last quoted observes, have totally enervated the strength of the original, which runs thus,ἔπεσε, ἔπεσε, Βαβυλὼν ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη, and which they have rendered, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city.”
[121]The ellipsis of the copulative, in such examples, was termed by the ancientsasyndeton; and this deviation from the established rules of syntax they referred to a grammatical figure termedsyllepsis indirecta, or “indirect comprehension of several singulars under one plural,” opposed to thesyllepsis directa, or that expressed by a copulative.
[121]The ellipsis of the copulative, in such examples, was termed by the ancientsasyndeton; and this deviation from the established rules of syntax they referred to a grammatical figure termedsyllepsis indirecta, or “indirect comprehension of several singulars under one plural,” opposed to thesyllepsis directa, or that expressed by a copulative.
[122]It is sometimes used forevery, and applied to more than two.
[122]It is sometimes used forevery, and applied to more than two.
[123]In the vulgar translation of the Bible, this mode of expression frequently occurs, thus, “I am thy exceeding great reward.” “I will make thee exceeding fruitful.”Wallis’s admission of this phraseology proves it to have been good English when he wrote, or that, in his opinion at least, it was unobjectionable. His translation ofvir summe sapiens, is “a man exceeding wise.” This, and similar modes of expression, appear to have been in his time very common, thus,“Although he wasexceeding wealthy.”—Peers.“He was moreover extraordinary courteous.”—Ibid.“The Athenians were extreme apprehensive of his growing power.”—Tully.And in our version of the Bible we find a few such expressions as the following: “The house I am to build, shall bewonderfulgreat.”Addison likewise often uses the phrase “exceeding great;” and Swift, less pardonably, writes “extreme unwilling,” “extreme good.”
[123]In the vulgar translation of the Bible, this mode of expression frequently occurs, thus, “I am thy exceeding great reward.” “I will make thee exceeding fruitful.”
Wallis’s admission of this phraseology proves it to have been good English when he wrote, or that, in his opinion at least, it was unobjectionable. His translation ofvir summe sapiens, is “a man exceeding wise.” This, and similar modes of expression, appear to have been in his time very common, thus,
“Although he wasexceeding wealthy.”—Peers.
“He was moreover extraordinary courteous.”—Ibid.
“The Athenians were extreme apprehensive of his growing power.”—Tully.
And in our version of the Bible we find a few such expressions as the following: “The house I am to build, shall bewonderfulgreat.”
Addison likewise often uses the phrase “exceeding great;” and Swift, less pardonably, writes “extreme unwilling,” “extreme good.”
[124]We say, indeed, “Messrs. Thomson;” but we seldom or never say, “the two Messrs. Thomson,” but “the two Mr. Thomsons.”
[124]We say, indeed, “Messrs. Thomson;” but we seldom or never say, “the two Messrs. Thomson,” but “the two Mr. Thomsons.”
[125]Horne 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.
[125]Horne 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.
[126]See Johnson’s Comm. p. 351, and Seyer on the Latin Verb, p. 174. To the arguments there offered, many others might be added.
[126]See Johnson’s Comm. p. 351, and Seyer on the Latin Verb, p. 174. To the arguments there offered, many others might be added.
[127]The propriety of this collocation of thenegativewill be more evident, if we attend to the two very different meanings of the wordbut. According to the former construction of the sentence,butis the imperative ofbeutan, “to be out,” and is synonymous withunlessorexcept; thus, “but with the approbation,” orexceptwith the approbation. According to the latter construction, it is properlybot, the imperative ofbotan, “to add.” Thus, “he was honoured not with (i.e.exclude or except) this reward, but (add) with the approbation of the people.”
[127]The propriety of this collocation of thenegativewill be more evident, if we attend to the two very different meanings of the wordbut. According to the former construction of the sentence,butis the imperative ofbeutan, “to be out,” and is synonymous withunlessorexcept; thus, “but with the approbation,” orexceptwith the approbation. According to the latter construction, it is properlybot, the imperative ofbotan, “to add.” Thus, “he was honoured not with (i.e.exclude or except) this reward, but (add) with the approbation of the people.”
[128]It is to be observed that a different collocation is sometimes admissible without any risk of ambiguity, especially when the clause is negative. Thus we may say, “His thoughts were entertained with not only,”i.e.“with not one thing,” viz. “the joys” with which he was surrounded; or, “not only with the joys; but (botoradd) a noble gratitude and divine pleasure.”Usage in common conversation, and in familiar language, inclines to this arrangement, and many of our best writers frequently adopt it.
[128]It is to be observed that a different collocation is sometimes admissible without any risk of ambiguity, especially when the clause is negative. Thus we may say, “His thoughts were entertained with not only,”i.e.“with not one thing,” viz. “the joys” with which he was surrounded; or, “not only with the joys; but (botoradd) a noble gratitude and divine pleasure.”
Usage in common conversation, and in familiar language, inclines to this arrangement, and many of our best writers frequently adopt it.
[129]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.
[129]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.
[130]Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere, curandum.
[130]Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere, curandum.
[131]In this and similar examples, the wordonlyhas been generally considered as an adjective, equivalent tosolus. Thus, if we say,ille solum erat dives, it means, “he was only rich,” or “he was nothing but rich.” If we say,ille solus erat dives, it means, “he only,” or “he alone was rich.” In the latter example, the wordonlyhas been termed an adjective. It is from the equivalence of the wordsonlyandalone, in such examples as the latter, that several writers have employed them, as if, in all cases, synonymous. They are by no means, however, of the same import. Thus, if we say, “virtue alone is true nobility,” it means “virtue singly, or by itself, is true nobility;” if we say, “virtue only is true nobility,” it implies that nothing but virtue is true nobility. The expressions, therefore, are not 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 termfirst, as equivalent either toprimusorprimum; and also to the position of many other words, which are used adjectively and adverbially. The classical scholar needs not to be informed, thatAnnibal primus, andAnnibal primum—Alpes transiit, are not expressions mutually convertible.
[131]In this and similar examples, the wordonlyhas been generally considered as an adjective, equivalent tosolus. Thus, if we say,ille solum erat dives, it means, “he was only rich,” or “he was nothing but rich.” If we say,ille solus erat dives, it means, “he only,” or “he alone was rich.” In the latter example, the wordonlyhas been termed an adjective. It is from the equivalence of the wordsonlyandalone, in such examples as the latter, that several writers have employed them, as if, in all cases, synonymous. They are by no means, however, of the same import. Thus, if we say, “virtue alone is true nobility,” it means “virtue singly, or by itself, is true nobility;” if we say, “virtue only is true nobility,” it implies that nothing but virtue is true nobility. The expressions, therefore, are not equivalent. Both sentiments are conveyed in the following passage:
... “Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus.”—Juvenal, Sat. viii.
... “Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus.”—Juvenal, Sat. viii.
... “Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus.”—Juvenal, Sat. viii.
The same observations are applicable to the collocation of the numeral termfirst, as equivalent either toprimusorprimum; and also to the position of many other words, which are used adjectively and adverbially. The classical scholar needs not to be informed, thatAnnibal primus, andAnnibal primum—Alpes transiit, are not expressions mutually convertible.
[132]Addison, Pope, Swift, Steele, and Johnson, very generally place the adverb before the attributive, to which it refers, and very often also, before the substantive. “What he said, was only to commend my prudence.”—Addison.“He did not pretend to extirpate French music, but only to cultivate and civilise it.”—Addison.“I was only scribbling.”—Johnson.“Not only the thought, but the language is majestic.”—Addison.“Known only to those, who enjoy.”—Johnson.“Lay the blame only on themselves.”—Johnson.“Witty only by the help of speech.”—Steele.Our translators of the Bible have almost uniformly observed the same collocation in respect to the predicate; but have, with few or no deviations, preferred a different arrangement in regard to the subject, placing the adverb after, and not before it. It is in conformity to their practice, that we have recommended the rule here given. From the following examples, to which many more might be added, it will appear that when the adverb referred to a sentence, they made it the introductory word; when it affected an attributive, they placed the adverb before it; and when it referred to a substantive, or the name of a subject, they put the adverb after it. “Only take heed to thyself.” “Only he shall not go in unto the vail.” “Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi.” ... “The thoughts of his heart are only evil.” “Thou shalt be only oppressed.” “They might only touch the hem of his garment.” ... “None followed David, but Judah only.” “He only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave.” “Against thee only have I sinned.” “Take nothing for your journey, but a staff only.” “David did that only which was right.” “They only shall be delivered.” “This only have I found.” “If in this life only we have hope.”
[132]Addison, Pope, Swift, Steele, and Johnson, very generally place the adverb before the attributive, to which it refers, and very often also, before the substantive. “What he said, was only to commend my prudence.”—Addison.“He did not pretend to extirpate French music, but only to cultivate and civilise it.”—Addison.“I was only scribbling.”—Johnson.“Not only the thought, but the language is majestic.”—Addison.“Known only to those, who enjoy.”—Johnson.“Lay the blame only on themselves.”—Johnson.“Witty only by the help of speech.”—Steele.
Our translators of the Bible have almost uniformly observed the same collocation in respect to the predicate; but have, with few or no deviations, preferred a different arrangement in regard to the subject, placing the adverb after, and not before it. It is in conformity to their practice, that we have recommended the rule here given. From the following examples, to which many more might be added, it will appear that when the adverb referred to a sentence, they made it the introductory word; when it affected an attributive, they placed the adverb before it; and when it referred to a substantive, or the name of a subject, they put the adverb after it. “Only take heed to thyself.” “Only he shall not go in unto the vail.” “Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi.” ... “The thoughts of his heart are only evil.” “Thou shalt be only oppressed.” “They might only touch the hem of his garment.” ... “None followed David, but Judah only.” “He only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave.” “Against thee only have I sinned.” “Take nothing for your journey, but a staff only.” “David did that only which was right.” “They only shall be delivered.” “This only have I found.” “If in this life only we have hope.”
[133]In colloquial language, but chiefly among the vulgar, prepositions are prefixed to verbs indicative.
[133]In colloquial language, but chiefly among the vulgar, prepositions are prefixed to verbs indicative.
[134]“Est vetus, atque probus, centum qui perficit annos.Quid? qui deperiit minor uno mense, vel anno;Inter quos referendus erit? veteresne poetas,An quos et præsens et postera respuet ætas?Iste quidem veteres inter ponetur honestè,Qui vel mense brevi, vel toto est junior anno.Utor permisso, caudæque pilos ut equinæPaulatim vello; et demo unum, demo etiam unum;Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi,Qui redit ad fastos.”Horace, Ep. I. Lib. 2.
[134]
“Est vetus, atque probus, centum qui perficit annos.Quid? qui deperiit minor uno mense, vel anno;Inter quos referendus erit? veteresne poetas,An quos et præsens et postera respuet ætas?Iste quidem veteres inter ponetur honestè,Qui vel mense brevi, vel toto est junior anno.Utor permisso, caudæque pilos ut equinæPaulatim vello; et demo unum, demo etiam unum;Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi,Qui redit ad fastos.”Horace, Ep. I. Lib. 2.
“Est vetus, atque probus, centum qui perficit annos.Quid? qui deperiit minor uno mense, vel anno;Inter quos referendus erit? veteresne poetas,An quos et præsens et postera respuet ætas?Iste quidem veteres inter ponetur honestè,Qui vel mense brevi, vel toto est junior anno.Utor permisso, caudæque pilos ut equinæPaulatim vello; et demo unum, demo etiam unum;Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi,Qui redit ad fastos.”Horace, Ep. I. Lib. 2.
“Est vetus, atque probus, centum qui perficit annos.
Quid? qui deperiit minor uno mense, vel anno;
Inter quos referendus erit? veteresne poetas,
An quos et præsens et postera respuet ætas?
Iste quidem veteres inter ponetur honestè,
Qui vel mense brevi, vel toto est junior anno.
Utor permisso, caudæque pilos ut equinæ
Paulatim vello; et demo unum, demo etiam unum;
Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi,
Qui redit ad fastos.”
Horace, Ep. I. Lib. 2.
[135]The Saxon word isawiht, contractedauht,aliquid.
[135]The Saxon word isawiht, contractedauht,aliquid.
[136]We have remarked the same violation of common sense, as occurring in Cicero, oftener than once. “Alium alio nequiorem.”—Ep. Fam.“Aliam alia jucundiorem.”—Att.
[136]We have remarked the same violation of common sense, as occurring in Cicero, oftener than once. “Alium alio nequiorem.”—Ep. Fam.“Aliam alia jucundiorem.”—Att.
[137]Deprehendat, quæ barbara, quæ impropria, quæ contra legem loquendi composita.—Quintil.lib. i. cap. 5.
[137]Deprehendat, quæ barbara, quæ impropria, quæ contra legem loquendi composita.—Quintil.lib. i. cap. 5.
[138]In conformity to the example of most of our grammarians, I have employed the termetymologyin the title of this work, and wherever else it occurs, as denoting that part of grammar, which teaches the inflection of words. In its primitive acceptation, it means an exposition of their derivation, and is still employed in that sense, as well as in the signification in which it is here used. Some writers have preferred the termanalogyto express the doctrine of inflection. If the principle of analogy or similitude were confined to inflection, the designation might be proper; but, as this principle extends to the concord, the government, and the collocation, generally termed thesyntaxof words, it cannot be considered an appropriate name for that part of grammar, which teaches merely inflection or verbal termination. Analogy is the leading principle, on which every grammatical rule is founded; and those, who have employed the term for etymology, it would be easy to show, have not been observant of strict consistency.
[138]In conformity to the example of most of our grammarians, I have employed the termetymologyin the title of this work, and wherever else it occurs, as denoting that part of grammar, which teaches the inflection of words. In its primitive acceptation, it means an exposition of their derivation, and is still employed in that sense, as well as in the signification in which it is here used. Some writers have preferred the termanalogyto express the doctrine of inflection. If the principle of analogy or similitude were confined to inflection, the designation might be proper; but, as this principle extends to the concord, the government, and the collocation, generally termed thesyntaxof words, it cannot be considered an appropriate name for that part of grammar, which teaches merely inflection or verbal termination. Analogy is the leading principle, on which every grammatical rule is founded; and those, who have employed the term for etymology, it would be easy to show, have not been observant of strict consistency.
[139]The reader is requested to observe, that under “solecism,” I have included several phraseologies, which, though not consistent with syntactical propriety, may be justly called by the softer name of “inaccuracies.”
[139]The reader is requested to observe, that under “solecism,” I have included several phraseologies, which, though not consistent with syntactical propriety, may be justly called by the softer name of “inaccuracies.”
[140]See Canon I.,p. 229.
[140]See Canon I.,p. 229.
[141]We perceive intuitively the error of Milton, when he calls Adam “the comeliest of men since born,” Eve also “the fairest of her daughters,” and we laugh, perhaps, when the Cork 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 species, though it passes frequently unnoticed. Seep. 74.
[141]We perceive intuitively the error of Milton, when he calls Adam “the comeliest of men since born,” Eve also “the fairest of her daughters,” and we laugh, perhaps, when the Cork 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 species, though it passes frequently unnoticed. Seep. 74.
[142]It has been already offered as the opinion of the writer, (seep. 47,) that the English wordotheris the Saxonoðeꞃ, and that this word with the Arabicahd, the Hebrewhadorahad, the Saxonoððe, the Teutonicodo, the Swedishudda, and probably the Latinaut, have all sprung from the same source, or that one of these is the parent of the rest, denotingunusorsingulus, “one,” or “one by itself.” Of the origin of the Saxonother, Lye has hazarded no opinion. It appears to me to be a comparative fromoððe. To those who have carefully examined, and have approved the theory of Mr. Tooke, it will furnish no valid objection against this opinion, that the wordoððeis uniformly found in Saxon, signifyingaut. Such can have little or no difficulty in perceiving, not only from the similarity of the elements, but from the affinity in point of sense, thathad,ahd,aut,oððe, oðeꞃ,other,or, are all members of one and the same family.
[142]It has been already offered as the opinion of the writer, (seep. 47,) that the English wordotheris the Saxonoðeꞃ, and that this word with the Arabicahd, the Hebrewhadorahad, the Saxonoððe, the Teutonicodo, the Swedishudda, and probably the Latinaut, have all sprung from the same source, or that one of these is the parent of the rest, denotingunusorsingulus, “one,” or “one by itself.” Of the origin of the Saxonother, Lye has hazarded no opinion. It appears to me to be a comparative fromoððe. To those who have carefully examined, and have approved the theory of Mr. Tooke, it will furnish no valid objection against this opinion, that the wordoððeis uniformly found in Saxon, signifyingaut. Such can have little or no difficulty in perceiving, not only from the similarity of the elements, but from the affinity in point of sense, thathad,ahd,aut,oððe, oðeꞃ,other,or, are all members of one and the same family.
[143]In French the article and the adjectives admitting a plural termination, the expression “les uns et les autres” joined to a plural verb is in perfect consistence with analogy. So also, in Latin, areutriqueandalteri, referring to a plurality. Butunuswas never in this sense used as a plural.
[143]In French the article and the adjectives admitting a plural termination, the expression “les uns et les autres” joined to a plural verb is in perfect consistence with analogy. So also, in Latin, areutriqueandalteri, referring to a plurality. Butunuswas never in this sense used as a plural.
[144]“Utrumque fecisse, dicimus, si et hic et ille fecerit divisim; ambos fecisse dicimus, si duo conjunctim aliquid fecerint.”—Stephan.This distinction, however, as the learned critic acknowledges, is not uniformly observed.
[144]“Utrumque fecisse, dicimus, si et hic et ille fecerit divisim; ambos fecisse dicimus, si duo conjunctim aliquid fecerint.”—Stephan.This distinction, however, as the learned critic acknowledges, is not uniformly observed.
[145]“The truth is, thatasis also an article; and however and whenever used in English, means the same asit, orthat, orwhich. In the German, where it still evidently retains its original signification and use, (assoalso does,) it is writtenes.”—Tooke’s Diversions.
[145]“The truth is, thatasis also an article; and however and whenever used in English, means the same asit, orthat, orwhich. In the German, where it still evidently retains its original signification and use, (assoalso does,) it is writtenes.”—Tooke’s Diversions.
[146]The error here involved suggests a few observations, which it may be useful to offer, 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 verb, as its name imports, denotes, that the subject is doing something. Johnson, however, in his Dictionary, gives every active verb the designation ofneuter, unless followed by an objective case, that is, unless the object or subject of the action be expressed. In the following instances, for example, he considers the verbs as neuter. “’T is sure, that Henryreads;” “so Idrank; and she made the camelsdrinkalso;” “if youplantwhere savages are;” “the prieststeachfor hire;” “nor feel him where hestruck;” “they thatsowin tears, shallreapin 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 inaccuracy, and tends to introduce perplexity and confusion. The verb surely does not the less denote action, because it expresses it absolutely, or because the subject acted upon is not particularly specified. In the examples now quoted, can it be questioned, when we sayhe struck, thathewas active; or when we say,they that sow shall reap, will it be affirmed thattheyare not active? This would be to confound distinctions not merely acknowledged in theory, and adopted in definition, but also founded in the very nature of things. This matter, I conceive, may be shortly explained, and very easily 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 anything else, as,I walk,I run. Transitive verbs are such as denote that the action passes from the agent to something acted upon, as, “Hector wounded him,” “Cain slew his brother.” But the subject to which the energy passes, may not always be expressed; the verb, however, is not the less active. Whether we say, “the drummer beats his drum,” or “the drummer beats every day,” it surely will not be contended, that there is less of action implied in the one case than in the other. The reader, then, is requested to observe, that it is not necessary to the active transitive verb, that the subject acted upon should be expressed. The active verb may predicate of its subject merely the action generally and absolutely, as, “he reads in the morning, and writes in the evening;” or with the action may be expressed the subject or object, as, “he reads Homer in the morning, and writes letters in the evening;” or the object or subject may be implied, and not expressed, as, “the drummer beats at night,” namely, his drum. But in all these cases the verb is equally active.
[146]The error here involved suggests a few observations, which it may be useful to offer, 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 verb, as its name imports, denotes, that the subject is doing something. Johnson, however, in his Dictionary, gives every active verb the designation ofneuter, unless followed by an objective case, that is, unless the object or subject of the action be expressed. In the following instances, for example, he considers the verbs as neuter. “’T is sure, that Henryreads;” “so Idrank; and she made the camelsdrinkalso;” “if youplantwhere savages are;” “the prieststeachfor hire;” “nor feel him where hestruck;” “they thatsowin tears, shallreapin 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 inaccuracy, and tends to introduce perplexity and confusion. The verb surely does not the less denote action, because it expresses it absolutely, or because the subject acted upon is not particularly specified. In the examples now quoted, can it be questioned, when we sayhe struck, thathewas active; or when we say,they that sow shall reap, will it be affirmed thattheyare not active? This would be to confound distinctions not merely acknowledged in theory, and adopted in definition, but also founded in the very nature of things. This matter, I conceive, may be shortly explained, and very easily 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 anything else, as,I walk,I run. Transitive verbs are such as denote that the action passes from the agent to something acted upon, as, “Hector wounded him,” “Cain slew his brother.” But the subject to which the energy passes, may not always be expressed; the verb, however, is not the less active. Whether we say, “the drummer beats his drum,” or “the drummer beats every day,” it surely will not be contended, that there is less of action implied in the one case than in the other. The reader, then, is requested to observe, that it is not necessary to the active transitive verb, that the subject acted upon should be expressed. The active verb may predicate of its subject merely the action generally and absolutely, as, “he reads in the morning, and writes in the evening;” or with the action may be expressed the subject or object, as, “he reads Homer in the morning, and writes letters in the evening;” or the object or subject may be implied, and not expressed, as, “the drummer beats at night,” namely, his drum. But in all these cases the verb is equally active.
[147]In justice to this respectable sect, it is incumbent on me to observe, that the Quakers are not Deists, nor does their religious creed approach to Deism.
[147]In justice to this respectable sect, it is incumbent on me to observe, that the Quakers are not Deists, nor does their religious creed approach to Deism.
[148]A similar ambiguity sometimes occurs in Latin by the indiscriminate use ofquod. This may be prevented by employingquoniamwhen the succeeding member of the sentence expresses the cause of the preceding subject. Thus, “Nec consilium eo minus erat firmum, quoniam secretum cum perpaucis adhuc erat communicatum,” where theeorefers to a preceding circumstance. “Nec consilium eo minus erat firmum, quod” where theeorefers to the subsequent clause. The former phraseology affirms, the latter denies, the influence of the circumstance subjoined.
[148]A similar ambiguity sometimes occurs in Latin by the indiscriminate use ofquod. This may be prevented by employingquoniamwhen the succeeding member of the sentence expresses the cause of the preceding subject. Thus, “Nec consilium eo minus erat firmum, quoniam secretum cum perpaucis adhuc erat communicatum,” where theeorefers to a preceding circumstance. “Nec consilium eo minus erat firmum, quod” where theeorefers to the subsequent clause. The former phraseology affirms, the latter denies, the influence of the circumstance subjoined.
[149]In our penal statutes, which should be precisely worded, because they are literally interpreted, much ambiguity frequently arises from the loose and incorrect manner in which this conjunction is used.
[149]In our penal statutes, which should be precisely worded, because they are literally interpreted, much ambiguity frequently arises from the loose and incorrect manner in which this conjunction is used.
[150]The issue of a question, respecting a contested election at Rochester in 1820, depended on the construction of this designation, “a peer, or lord of parliament.”
[150]The issue of a question, respecting a contested election at Rochester in 1820, depended on the construction of this designation, “a peer, or lord of parliament.”
[151]The superior ductility of the Greek, above every other language, must appear from its singular aptitude to form new words by composition or derivation, so as immediately to communicate any new idea. Hence the names of most of our modern discoveries and inventions are of Greek extraction. Thus we have the terms “microscope,” “telegraph,” “panorama,” “odometer,” and many others.
[151]The superior ductility of the Greek, above every other language, must appear from its singular aptitude to form new words by composition or derivation, so as immediately to communicate any new idea. Hence the names of most of our modern discoveries and inventions are of Greek extraction. Thus we have the terms “microscope,” “telegraph,” “panorama,” “odometer,” and many others.
[152]“Cui lecta potenter erit res,Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucidus ordo.Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.”Hor. de Art. Poet.
[152]
“Cui lecta potenter erit res,Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucidus ordo.Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.”Hor. de Art. Poet.
“Cui lecta potenter erit res,Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucidus ordo.Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.”Hor. de Art. Poet.
“Cui lecta potenter erit res,Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucidus ordo.
“Cui lecta potenter erit res,
Nec facundia deseret hunc, nec lucidus ordo.
Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.”Hor. de Art. Poet.
Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.”
Hor. de Art. Poet.