study; and hence what follows? Thus, hieroglyphics; and for what purpose? what has been shown; and for what How does it appear that this is certaindoes it lay a foundation? From what ly a mistake? What does the nature has been said in this, and the preceding of the invention plainly show it to have lecture, what appears evident? In the been? After alphabetical writing was successive changes which language has introduced into Egypt, for what pur undergone, what, also, is evident? In pose did the priests still employ hierothis respect, what does the progress of glyphical characters? Who found hielanguage resemble? How is this illustra-roglyphical writing in this state; and ted? What were the characteristics of what was the consequence? As wriearly language, and to what have they ting advanced from pictures to hieroall gradually given place? How do glyphics, from these latter to what did it the modern and ancient characters of advance? Where was this kind of wrilanguage compare? In its ancient ting practised? What method did they state, to what was it most favourable; contrive to give information, or comand to what is it most favourable in municate their thoughts to one anits modern? Having finished his ac- other? Where are these characters at count of the progress of speech, to what present used? As the Chinese have no does our author next proceed; and alphabet of letters, howare their words what does he say of it? Next to speech, composed; and what is the consewhat is the most useful art that men quence? To what must the number of possess? As it is plainly an improve- these characters correspond? How ment upon speech, what necessarily many of them are they said to have? follows? Of what only did men at first What time does it require to learn to think; and what did they afterwards read and to write them correctly; and devise? Of what two sorts are written to what does this subject learning? In characters? What are examples of the what manner, is it probable, the Chiformer; and of the latter? What nese proceeded in forming these chawere, doubtless, the first essay towards racters? What reason have we for bewriting; and why? For what purposes lieving this to have been the case? would those methods soon be employ- What instance of this sort of writing ed? How is this illustrated? Where do have we in Europe; and whence did we find this method to have prevailed; we derive it? Of these figures, what is and at what time? The memory of observed; and accordingly, what fol what did the Mexicans transmit by his-lows? As far as we have advanced, torical pictures? Of these records, and what has not appeared? Of what we of the nations who had no other, what have hitherto seen, what is observed; is remarked? What only could pic- and what examples are given? Of tures delineate; and what could they what did men at length become sensinot do? To supply, in some degree, ble? How did they begin to consider this defect, what, in process of time, that much advantage would be gainarose; and how may they be consider-ed? On what did they reflect? Of the ed? In what do hieroglyphics consist? same simple sounds, what is remarked? What examples are given? What ad- Of what did they therefore bethink vantage had hieroglyphics over pic-themselves? In this new progress, tures? What did pictures delineate? what was the first step; and what is What did hieroglyphics paint; and said of it? How was the number of how? Among the Mexicans, what characters in writing reduced to a were found? Where was this kind of much smaller compass than the numwriting most studied, and brought to a regular art? In hieroglyphics, what was conveyed? By what were they governed in forming them? How is this remark illustrated? What did they sometimes join together; and what example is given? Why was this sort of writing enigmatical and confused, and a very imperfect vehicle of know'edge of any kind ?

Who, has it been imagined, invented
M

ber of words in the language? Still, of the number of characters, what is observed? At length, by some happy genius, what was effected? By being reduced to this simplicity, to what was the art of writing brought? Of the author of this sublime discovery, what is observed? What appears, from the books of Moses? What is the tradition among the ancients; and with whom was he contemporary? Of the Phœni

cians, what is said; and what infer-[ subject concluded? What advantages ence follows? In that country, to have writing above speech? Why is it what had the favourite study of hiero- more extensive; and why more per. glyphics directed much attention; and manent? What advantage does it of them, what is known? Accordingly, likewise afford; and why? But, alto whom does Plato attribute the in- though these are the advantages of vention of letters? Of what nation was written language, yet what must we not Cadmus, originally? How, is it proba- forget? Repeat the succeeding remarks, ble, these characters were introduced on the advantages of spoken language. to the Phoenicians? How many letters Hence, what follows?

ANALYSIS.

1. Arrangement.

did the alphabet of Cadmus contain;
and how were the rest added? What
is it curious to observe? Of the Roman
alphabet, what is said; and of the
Greek, what do all the learned observe?
How will the Greek and Hebrew cha-
racters appear nearly the same? What
amounts to a demonstration that they
were all originally derived from the
same source; and how was this inven-
tion received? How were the letters
originally written; and where did this 2.
method obtain? What method was
adopted by the Greeks? Of this me-
thod, what specimens remain ; and how
long did it continue? At length, what
method prevailed; and why? What
were at first employed for purposes of
writing; and what several improve-
ments succeeded? When was paper
invented? Thus, an account of what 3.
has been given; and with what is the|

A. The origin of arrangement.
B. Arrangement of the Greek and
Latin languages.

c. Arrangement of modern lan-
guages.

a. Necessarily limited.
Writing.

Division of written characters.
A. Signs of things.

a. Pictures.

b. Hieroglyphical characters. c. Arbitrary marks. B. Signs for words.

a. The alphabet of syllables. b. Alphabetical characters. Comparative advantages of speech and writing.

LECTURE VIII.

STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE.

AFTER having given an account of the rise and progress of language, I proceed to treat of its structure, or of general grammar. The structure of language is extremely artificial; and there are few sciences in which a deeper, or more refined logic is employed, than in grammar. It is apt to be slighted by superficial thinkers as be longing to those rudiments of knowledge, which were inculcated upon us in our earliest youth. But what was then inculcated before we could comprehend its principles, would abundantly repay our study in maturer years; and to the ignorance of it, must be attributed many of those fundamental defects which appear in writing.

Few authors have written with philosophical accuracy on the principles of general grammar; and what is more to be regretted, fewer still have thought of applying those principles to the English language. While the French tongue has long been an object of attention to many able and ingenious writers of that nation, who have considered its construction, and determined its propriety with great accuracy, the genius and grammar of the English, to the reproach of the country, have not been studied with equal care, or

ascertained with the same precision. Attempts have been made, indeed, of late, towards supplying this defect; and some able writers have entered on the subject; but much remains yet to be done.

I do not propose to give any system, either of grammar in general, or of English grammar in particular. A minute discussion of the niceties of language would carry us too much off from other objects, which demand our attention in the course of lectures. But

I

propose to give a general view of the chief principles relating to this subject, in observations on the several parts of which speech or language is composed; remarking, as I go along, the peculiarities of our own tongue. After which, I shall make some more particular remarks on the genius of the English language.

The first thing to be considered is, the division of the several parts of speech. The essential parts of speech are the same in all languages. There must always be some words which denote the names of objects, or mark the subject of discourse; other words, which denote the qualities of those objects, and express what we affirm concerning them; and other words, which point out their connexions and relations. Hence, substantives, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, prepositions, and conjunctions, must necessarily be found in all languages. The most simple and comprehensive division of the parts of speech is, into substantives, attributives, and connectives.* Substantives are all the words which express the names of objects, or the subjects of discourse; attributives, are all the words which express any attribute, property, or action of the former; connectives, are what express the connexions, relations, and dependencies, which take place among them. The common grammatical division of speech into eight parts; nouns, pronouns, verbs, participles, adverbs, prepositions, interjections, and conjunctions, is not very logical, as might be easily shown; as it comprehends, under the general term of nouns, both substantives and adjectives, which are parts of speech generically and essentially distinct; while it makes a separate part of speech of participles, which are no other than verbal adjectives. However, as these are the terms to which our ears have been most familiarized, and, as an exact logical division is of no great consequence to our present purpose, it will be better to make use of these known terms than of any other.

We are naturally led to begin with the consideration of substan tive nouns, which are the foundation of all grammar, and may be considered as the most ancient part of speech. For, assuredly, as soon as men had got beyond simple interjections, or exclamations of

* Quintilian informs us, that this was the most ancient division. "Tum videbit quot "et quæ sunt partes orationis. Quanquam de numero parum convenit. Veteres "enim, quorum fuerant Aristoteles atque Theodictes, verba modo, et nomina, et con"vinctiones tradiderunt. Videlicet, quod in verbis vim sermonis, in nominibus mate "riam, (quia alterum est quod loquimur, alterum de quo loquimur) in convinctionibus "autem complexum eorum esse judicarunt; quas conjunctiones a plerisque dici scio; "sed hæc videtur ex ouderμa magis propria translatio. Paulatim a philosophicis a maximè a stoicis, auctus est numerus; ac primùm convinctionibus articuli adjecti; post præpositiones; nominibus, appellatio, deinde pronomen; deinde mistum verbo participin; ipsis verbis, adverbia." Lib. i. cap. iv.

passion, and began to communicate themselves by discourse, they would be under a necessity of assigning names to the objects they saw around them, which, in grammatical language, is called the invention of substantive nouns.* And here, at our first setting out, somewhat curious occurs. The individual objects which surround us, are infinite in number. A savage, wherever he looked, beheld forests and trees. To give separate names to every one of those trees, would have been an endless and impracticable undertaking. His first object was to give a name to that particular tree, whose fruit relieved his hunger, or whose shade protected him from the But observing, that though other trees were distinguished from this by peculiar qualities of size or appearance, yet that they also agreed and resembled one another, in certain common qualities, such as springing from a root, and bearing branches and leaves, he formed in his mind some general idea of those common qualities, and ranging all that possessed them under one class of objects, he called that whole class, a tree. Longer experience taught him to subdivide this genus into the several species of oak, pine, ash, and the rest, according as his observation extended to the several qualities in which these trees agreed or differed.

sun.

But, still, he made use only of general terms in speech. For the oak, the pine, and the ash, were names of whole classes of objects; each of which included an immense number of undistinguished individuals. Here then it appears, that though the formation of abstract, or general conceptions, is supposed to be a difficult operation of the mind; such conceptions must have entered into the very first formation of language. For, if we except only the proper names of persons, such as Cæsar, John, Peter, all the other substantive nouns which we employ in discourse, are the names, not

*I do not mean to assert, that among all nations, the first invented words were simple and regular substantive nouns. Nothing is more difficult than to ascertain the precise steps in which men proceeded in the formation of language. Names for objects must, doubtless, have arisen in the most early stages of speech. But, it is probable, as the learned author of the Treatise on the Origin and Progress of Language, has shown, (vol. i. p. 371, 395,) that, among several savage tribes, some of the first articulate sounds that were formed, denoted a whole sentence, rather than the name of a particular object; conveying some information, or expressing some desires or fears suited to the circumstances in which that tribe was placed, or relating to the business they had mos frequent occasion to carry on; as, the lion is coming, the river is swelling, &c. Many of their first words, it is likewise probable, were not simple substantive nouns, but substantives, accompanied with some of those attributes, in conjunction with which they were most frequently accustomed to behold them; as, the great bear, the little hut, the wound made by the hatchet, &c. Of all which, the author produces instances from several of the American languages; and it is, undoubtedly, suitable to the natural course of the operations of the human mind, thus to begin with particulars the most obvious to sense, and to proceed, from these, to more general expressions. He likewise observes, that the words of those primitive tongues are far from being, as we might suppose them, rude and short, and crowded with consonants; but, on the contrary, are, for the most part, long words, and full of vowels.

This is the consequence of their being formed upon the natural sounds which the voice utters with most ease, a little varied and distinguished by articulation: and he shows this to hold, in fact, among most of the barbarous languages which are known.

of individual objects, but of very extensive genera, or species of objects; as man, lion, house, river, &c. We are not, however, to imagine that this invention of general, or abstract terms, requires any great exertion of metaphysical capacity: for, by whatever steps the mind proceeds in it, it is certain that, when men have once observed resemblances among objects, they are naturally inclined to call all those which resemble one another, by one common name; and, of course, to class them under one species. We may daily observe this practised by children in their first attempts towards acquiring language.

But now, after language had proceeded as far as I have described, the notification which it made of objects was still very imperfect: for, when one mentioned to another in discourse, any substantive noun, such as, man, lion, or tree, how was it to be known which man, which lion, or which tree, he meant, among the many comprehended under one name? Here occurs a very curious, and a very useful contrivance for specifying the individual object intended, by means of that part of speech called the article.

The force of the article consists in pointing or singling out from the common mass, the individual of which we mean to speak. In English we have two articles, a and the ; a is more general and unlimited; the more definite and special. A is much the same with one, and marks only any one individual of a species; that individual being either unknown or left undetermined; as, a lion, a king.— The, which possesses more properly the force of the article, ascertains some known or determined individual of the species; as, the lion, the king.

Articles are words of great use in speech. In some languages, however, they are not found. The Greeks have but one article,

o, which answers to our definite, or proper article, the. They have no word which answers to our article a, but they supply its place by the absence of their article: Thus, Badiλsus signifies a king; Bachus, the king. The Latins have no article. In the room ¿ of it, they employ pronouns; as, hic, ille, iste, for pointing out the objects which they want to distinguish. "Noster sermo," says Quintilian, "articulos non desiderat, ideoque in alias partes ora"tionis sparguntur." This, however, appears to me a defect in the Latin tongue: as articles contribute much to the clearness and precision of language.

In order to illustrate this, remark what difference there is in the meaning of the following expressions in English, depending wholly on the different employment of the articles; "the son of a king. "The son of the king. A son of the king's." Each of these three phrases has an entirely different meaning, which I need not explain, because any one who understands the language, conceives it clearly at first hearing, through the different application of the articles a and the. Whereas, in Latin, "filius regis," is wholly undetermined; and to explain, in which of these three senses it is to be understood, for it may bear any of them, a circumlocution of several words