Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

For, in the first place, by our constant use of prepositions for expressing the relations of things, we have filled language with a multitude of those little words, which are eternally occurring in eve ry sentence, and may be thought thereby to have encumbered speech, by an addition of terms; and by rendering it more prolix, to have enervated its force. In the second place, we have certainly rendered the sound of language less agreeable to the ear, by depriving it of that variety and sweetness, which arose from the length of words, and the change of terminations occasioned by the cases in the Greek and Latin. But, in the third place, the most material disadvantage is, that, by this abolition of cases, and by a similar alteration, of which I am to speak in the next lecture, in the conjugation of verbs, we have deprived ourselves of that liberty of transposition in the arrangement of words, which the ancient languages enjoyed.

In the ancient tongues, as I formerly observed, the different terminations, produced by declension and conjugation, pointed out the reference of the several words of a sentence to one another, without the aid of juxtaposition; suffered them to be placed, without ambiguity, in whatever order was most suited to give force to the meaning, or harmony to the sound. But now, having none of those marks of relation incorporated with the words themselves, we have no other way left us, of showing what words in a sentence are most closely connected in meaning, than that of placing them close by one another in the period. The meaning of the sentence is brought out in separate members and portions; it is broken down and divided: whereas the structure of the Greek and Roman sentences, by the government of their nouns and verbs, presented the meaning so interwoven and compounded in all its parts, as to make us perceive it in one united view. The closing words of the period ascertained the relation of each member to another; and all that ought to be connected in one idea, appeared connected in the expression. Hence, more brevity, more vivacity, more force. That luggage of particles, (as an ingenious author happily expresses it), which we are obliged always to carry along with us, both clogs style, and enfeebles sentiment.*

"The various terminations of the same word, whether verb or noun, are always conceived to be more intimately connected with the term which they serve to lengthen, han the additional, detached, and in themselves insignificant particles, which we are obliged to employ as connectives to our significant words. Our method gives almost the same exposure to the one as to the other, making the significant parts, and the in significant, equally conspicuous; theirs much oftener sinks, as it were, the former into the latter, at once preserving their use and hiding their weakness. Our modern languages may, in this respect, be compared to the art of the carpenter in its rudest state; when the union of the materials employed by the artisan, could be effected only by the help of those external and coarse implements, pins, nails, and cramps. The ancient languages resemble the same art in its most improved state, after the invention of dovetail joints, grooves, and mortices; when thus all the principal junctions are effected, by forming properly the extremities or terminations of the pieces to be joined. For, by means of these, the union of the parts is rendered closer, while that by which that union is produced, is scarcely perceivable." The Philosophy of Rhetoric, by Dr. Campbell, vol. ii. p. 412.

Pronouns are the class of words most nearly related to substantive nouns; being, as the name imports, representatives, or substitutes, I, thou, he, she, and it, are no other than an abridged way of naming the persons, or objects, with which we have immediate intercourse, or to which we are obliged frequently to refer in discourse. Accordingly, they are subject to the same modifications with substantive nouns, of number, gender, and case. Only, with respect to gender, we may observe, that the pronouns of the first and second person, as they are called, I and thou, do not appear to have had the distinctions of gender given them in any language; for this plain reason, that, as they always refer to persons who are present to each other when they speak, their sex must appear, and therefore needs not be marked by a masculine or feminine pronoun. But, as the

person may be absent, or unknown, the distinction of gender there becomes necessary; and accordingly, in English, it hath all the three genders belonging to it; he, she, it. As to cases, even those languages which have dropped them in substantive nouns, sometimes retain more of them in pronouns, for the sake of the greater readiness in expressing relations; as pronouns are words of such frequent occurrence in discourse. In English, most of our grammarians hold the personal pronouns to have two cases, besides the nominative; a genitive, and accusative; I, mine, me; thou, thine, thee; he, his, him; who, whose, whom.

In the first stage of speech, it is probable that the places of those pronouns were supplied by pointing to the object when present, and naming it, when absent. For one can hardly think that pronouns were of early invention; as they are words of such a particular and artificial nature. I, thou, he, it, it is to be observed, are not names peculiar to any single object, but so very general, that they may be applied to all persons, or objects, whatever, in certain circumstances. It, is the most general term that can possibly be conceived, as it may stand for any one thing in the universe, of which we speak. At the same time, these pronouns have this quality, that in the circumstances in which they are applied, they never denote more than one precise individual; which they ascertain and specify, much in the same manner as is done by the article. So that pronouns are, at once, the most general, and the most particular words in language. They are commonly the most irregular and troublesome words to the learner, in the grammar of all tongues; as being the words most in common use, and subjected thereby to the greatest varieties.

Adjectives, or terms of quality, such as, great, little, black, white, yours, ours, are the plainest and simplest of all that class of words which are termed attributive. They are found in all languages; and, in all languages, must have been very early invented; as objects could not be distinguished from one another, nor any intercourse be carried on concerning them, till once names were given to their different qualities.

I have nothing to observe in relation to them, except that singularity which attends them in the Greek and Latin, of having the same form given them with substantive nouns; being declined, like

them, by cases, and subjected to the like distinctions of number and gender. Hence it has happened, that grammarians have made them to belong to the same part of speech, and divided the noun into substantive and adjective; an arrangement founded more on attention to the external form of words, than to their nature and force. For adjectives or terms of quality, have not, by their nature, the least resemblance to substantive nouns, as they never express any thing which can possibly subsist by itself; which is the very essence of the substantive noun. They are, indeed, more akin to verbs, which, like them, express the attribute of some substance.

It may, at first view, appear somewhat odd and fantastic, that adjectives should, in the ancient languages, have assumed so much of the form of substantives; since neither number, nor gender, nor cases, nor relations, have any thing to do, in a proper sense, with mere qualities, such as good or great, soft or hard. And yet bonus, and magnus, and tener, have their singular and plural, their masculine and feminine, their genitives and datives, like any of the names of substances, or persons. But this can be accounted for from the genius of those tongues. They avoided, as much as possible, considering qualities separately, or in the abstract. They made them a part, or appendage, of the substance which they served to distinguish they made the adjective depend on its substantive, and resemble it in termination, in number, and gender, in order that the two might coalesce the more intimately, and be joined in the form of expression, as they were in the nature of things. The liberty of transposition, too, which those languages indulged, required such a method as this to be followed. For allowing the related words of a sentence to be placed at a distance from each other, it required the relation of adjectives to their proper substantives to be pointed out, by such similar circumstances of form and termination, as, according to the grammatical style, should show their concordance. When I say in English, the "Beautiful wife of a brave man," the juxtaposition of the words prevents all ambiguity. But when I say in Latin, "Formosa fortis viri uxor;" it is only the agreement, in gender, number, and case, of the adjective "formosa," which is the first word of the sentence, with the substantive "uxor," which is the last word that declares the meaning.

QUESTIONS.

AFTER having given an account of more to be regretted? How does the the rise and progress of language, to attention of the French and English what does our author proceed? Of the to this subject compare? What has structure of language, and of its com- lately been attempted; and how have parison with other sciences, what is they succeeded? What is not our auremarked? Why is it apt to be slighted thor's purpose; and why not? Of what by superficial thinkers? To the igno- does he propose to give a general view; rance of what was then inculcated, and how? What is the first thing to what is to be attributed? On what he considered? Of the essential parts have few authors written with philo- of speech in all languages, what is obsophical accuracy; and what is still served? How is this remark illustrated;

and hence, what follows? What is the names of living creatures; and theremost simple and comprehensive division fore, what follows? To what ought of the parts of speech? How are these all other substantive nouns belong; respectively classed? Of the common and what is it meant to imply? With grammatical division of speech into respect to this distribution, what has eight parts, what is observed; and obtained? How is this remark illustrawhy? Why, then, will it be better to ted? What examples are given? Of make use of these known terms, than this assignation of sex to inanimate of any others? With what are we na- objects, what is remarked? What is turally led to begin; and why? What observed of the gender of inanimate here occurs; and why? A savage, be objects in the Greek and Latin lanholding trees in every direction, found guages? How do the French and what to be an impracticable underta- Italian tongues differ from them in this king? What was his first object? By respect? In the latter, how is the genwhat was he led to form, in his mind, der of nouns designated? In the Engsome general ideas of the common lish language, what peculiarity obqualities of all trees? What did longer tains? What are the marks of the experience teach him? To what disad-three genders; and when is it used? vantage was he still subject; and why? In this respect, what advantage has Hence, then, what appears evident? the English language over all others, How is this illustrated? What, howe- the Chinese excepted? What does the ver, are we not to imagine; and why genius of it permit? What example not? Where is this daily practised? of illustration is given? By this means, Why was the notification which language made of objects, still very imperfect? Here, what useful and very curious contrivance occurs? In what does the force of the article consist? In English, how many articles have we? Define them. A, is much the same with what, and what does it mark? Of the article the, what is observed? What article, only, have the Greeks, and to what does it answer? How do they supply the place of our article a? How is this illustrated? As the Latins had no article, how did they supply its place? Why does this appear to be a defect in the Latin tongue? How is Having discussed gender, to what this illustrated? Of each of these does our author next proceed? To unphrases, what is remarked? Of "filius derstand what case signifies, what is regis," what is observed; and to ex-it necessary to observe? What would plain in which of these senses it is to be they find of little use? Of the relation understood, what is necessary? To il- which objects bear to one another, what lustrate the force and importance of the is observed; and what follows? But, article, what further examples are in its earliest periods, what was necesgiven? Of showing what, does our au- sary; and hence, what cases were thor gladly lay hold of any opportuni- found? What, then, is the proper idea ty? What other affections belong to of cases in declension? What evidence substantive nouns? How does number have we that all languages do not agree distinguish them? Of this distinction in this mode of expression? How do what is said; and why must it have modern tongues express the relations been coeval with the very infancy of language? For the greater facility of expressing it, by what has it, in all languages been marked? In what languages do we find a dual number; and how may its origin be accounted for? Of gender, what is remarked? Why is it, in its proper sense, confined to the

what have we it in our power to do; and how? Of this advantage, what is further observed; and why? What instances are mentioned? In English, how can we avoid this difficulty? What deserves further to be remarked? Where is the foundation of this rule imagined to be laid? Thus, according to him, to what substantive nouns, used figuratively, do we give the masculine gender; and to what the feminine? Upon these principles, of what does he take notice? What does Mr. Harris further imagine? Why does this appear doubtful?

of objects? What case only, have English nouns; and how is it formed? What, in our language answers to the accusative case in Latin? What is there not, then, in our language? What two questions, therefore, concerning this subject, may be put? Of both methods, what is remarked; and why? Which

what are they more akin? What may, at first view, appear somewhat odd and fantastic; and why? How can this be accounted for? What did they avoid; and what did they make them? On what did they make the adjective depend; and why? What did the liberty of transposition require, and for what reason? How is this illustrated?

was the earliest method practised by | pronouns, what is remarked? In English, men? Where do we, in fact, find that what cases have pronouns? How is it declensions and cases are used? What probable the places of pronouns were natural account can be given, why this suppliea, in the first stage of speech; and usage should have early obtained? why? Of I, thou, he, and it, what is to be What has been well observed, by our observed? Of it, what is remarked; and author, on this subject? What infe- why? What other quality have these rence, therefore, follows? How would pronouns; so that what follows? Why they most naturally conceive the rela-are they troublesome to the learner? Of tions of a thing; and how would they adjectives, what is remarked? Where express their conceptions of it? How are they found; and why must they were separate names invented, to ex- have been early invented? What, only, press the relations which occurred; and is to be observed, in relation to them? what are they called? Prepositions be- Hence, what has happened; and on ing once introduced, how were they what is this arrangement founded? found to be capable of supplying the Why have not adjectives the least replace of cases; and hence, what came semblance to substantive nouns? To to pass? How is this illustrated? By this progress, of what can we give a natural account? With regard to the other question on this subject, what shall we find? What effect has been produced, by the abolition of cases? Of what have we disembarrassed it; and how have we thereby rendered it? Notwithstanding these advantages, yet what disadvantages, in the first place, leave the balance inclining to the side of antiquity? What in the second The parts of Speech. place? But, in the third place, what is I. Articles. the most material disadvantage? In the ancient tongues, what did the different terminations point out; and how did it suffer them to be placed? In expressing relations, what method only have we now left? How's the meaning of a sentence brought cut? How did the structure of the Greek and Roman sentences express their meaning? How was the relation of each member ascertained; and hence, what was produced? What are pronouns? Of them, what is remarked; and accordingly, to what are they subject? Why have not I and thou had the distinctions of gender given to them in any language? Why is the distinction of gender necessary in the third person? Of the cases of

ANALYSIS.

A. The indefinite article.
B. The definite article.

c. The importance of the article
illustrated.

2. Substantive nouns.

A. Number.

B. Gender.

a. Its philosophical application.

b. Mr. Harris's Theory.

c. Case.

a. Its signification.
b. Its variations.

3. Pronouns.

(a.) By declension. (b.) By prepositions.

A. Their origin. 4. Adjectives.

LECTURE IX.

STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE.-ENGLISH TONGUE. Or the whole class of words that are called attributive, indeed, of all the parts of speech, the most complex, by far, is the verb. It is chiefly in this part of speech, that the subtile and profound metaphysic of language appears; and, therefore, in examining the nature and different variations of the verb, there might be room for

« AnteriorContinuar »