mean between significa on and no signification) to ascertain the origin of language have hitherto sharing the attributes of both' (i. e. of significa- failed: nor is there the shadow of a probability tion and no signification) and conduce to link that future attempts will be more successful. them both together.' We have the following confession from one who has long made language his study, and who was at one time very sanguine that he could ascertain its origin. On this obscure subject the reader is promised nothing but brevity; for, after much toilsome enquiry and anxious reflection, the author has no satisfactory opinion to offer.--Some persons have believed that Hebrew was the first language of man, and that the Hebrew alphabet came down from heaven. This is a short cut (as Horne Tooke terms it) which saves much trouble; for on this hypothesis we have only to believe. Admitting, however, that letters are of human invention,-what is the nature of that invention? Here we possess no certain data on which to reason; for we have no authentic history of this important invention. Being wholly destitute of facts, we have nothing better than conjectures on which to form an opinion.' The author of the Etymologic Interpreter might have added, what was no doubt understood, though not expressed, that it is impossible to find out, from examining language itself, the nature of its origin. It would have helped us a little, if Mr. Harris had here told us what that middle state is, between signification and no signification! what are the attributes of no signification! and how signification and no signification can be linked bogether! Now all this may, for aught I know, De read and admired as long as there is any taste for fine writing in Britain.' But with such unlearned and vulgar philosophers, who seek not taste and elegance but truth and common sense in philosophical subjects, I believe it will never pass as a perfect example of analysis;' nor bear away the palm for acuteness of investigation and perspicuity of explication. For separated from the fine writing (which however I can no where find in the book) this is the conjunction explained by Mr. Harris. A sound significant devoid of signfication, having at the same time a kind of obscure signification; and yet having neither signification nor no signification; but a middle something between signification and no signification, sharing the attributes of signification and no signification; and linking signification and no signification together.' It is impossible for logical inconsistency to stand such a cross examination. The only thing felt by the reader is the redundancy and satiety of the confutation. Never was the extinguisher so effectually put upon the reputation of a work as by Horne Tooke on the Hermes of Harris. Twenty-two years ago it was a work of great philological celebrity; but since that time there is hardly a grammarian or philologer of any note who has ventured to eulogise it. Mr. Harris was unquestionably an elegant scholar; but on this alone, as the author of Hermes, must his claim to admiration now rest. As the philological reputation of Mr. Horne Tooke has superseded that of Mr. Harris, it will be proper to devote some attention to his cele brated work, entitled, not very happily, The Diversions of Purley; which possesses singular interest, displays much learning, acuteness, and reflection; but which is disfigured by considerable blemishes. It is too desultory and miscellaneous-too political, vituperative, sarcastic, assumptive, and dogmatical. The charm of the work would be destroyed by abridgment; but. all that is truly ad rem, or available for any philological purpose, might be comprised within a very small compass. Not a few of Mr. Horne Tooke's positions are specious or imposing rather than sound and satisfactory. As for example the following:This method of referring words immediately to God as their framer, is a short cut to escape enquiry and explanation. It saves the philosopher much trouble; but leaves mankind in much ignorance, and leads to great error.' But what ignorance can the supposed Divine origin of language perpetuate among mankind? or how can it lead to great error? Unless we can ascertain the origin of language, we are just where we were as to ignorance or error, whether we assume a Divine or a human origin. All attempts Another of Mr. Horne Tooke's specious but unsatisfactory positions is, that it is as improper to speak of a complex idea as it would be to call a constellation a complex star; and that they are not ideas, but merely terms which are general and abstract:' and that what are called the operations of the mind, are merely the operations of language.' This, which in the view of Mr. Horne Tooke is of great magnitude, he attempts to establish by a very doubtful kind of etymology. He does indeed intimate, that it is an easy matter, upon Mr. Locke's own principles, and a physical consideration of the senses and the mind, to prove the impossibility of the composition of ideas.' And accordingly also (as he likewise intimates) of abstraction, complexity, generalisation, relation, &c. of ideas. But, easy as such proof was alleged to be, he did not attempt it: nor has he given any evidence of being capable of a successful attempt of this nature. Indeed his expression betrays inconsideration: for how can any one who knows what he says, or whereof he affirms, speak of a physical consideration of the senses and the mind?" It is hardly possible to find any thing more futile than much of what Mr. Horne Tooke says respecting metaphysics. All his etymologies might be as certain as the greater number of them are doubtful, yet every one of his metaphysical deductions or opinions be false. True for example, may be the past participle of trow; and truth the third person singular of the indicative, yet what is called in our language truth, be some more certain and less fickle entity than that which any one troweth or thinketh. But the fact is, that the very etymology in question is as false as the opinion founded upon it, or attempted to be supported by it. There is not room, however, here to refute the metaphysical theory of Horne Tooke in a full and formal manner; but it can hardly require refutation, fo it has little to recommend it but confidence and assumption. Mr. Horne Tooke's theory of a northern origin to the languages of Europe, and his Gothic etymologies are also very doubtful: but of these more hereafter. The foregoing may suffice to direct the reader to the great authorities in our language on the subject of Philosophical Grammar. In our present article we divide the consideration of grammar into four parts. I. Treating of the General Principles of Grammar or Philology. II. Of the Parts of Speech, or Grammatic Distinctions of words. III. Of Prefixes and Affixes. IV. Of Rational Grammar of the English Language SECT. I. OF THE DERIVATION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. On this subject, to a certain extent at least, there can be but one opinion among competent judges. A great part of the English language is derived from Latin and Greek. Many words have been received directly from these languages; many have been received through the Italian, the Spanish, the Portuguese, German, Swedish, Danish, and Dutch; but the far greater proportion have come through the medium of the French. The causes of the direct entrance of learned terms are the general study of the learned languages; the facility with which such terms are applied to the various purposes of art, science, and philosophy, &c. (not to mention a very general disposition in learned men to show their learning); the application of Latin to law, physic, surgery, anatomy, botany, &c.; add to all which, the consideration that it was long almost the only written language of Europe:-to comprehend all in one sentence, Latin has for many hundreds of years been the learned language of Europe, and the terms of the learned are constantly descending into and becoming part of the common or vernacular language of every people on the face of the earth. It is on this obvious principle that we hope to prove that, if not all, nearly all that very part of our language which is most confidently received as Saxon and Gothic is, in fact, neither more nor les than a corruption of Greek and Latin. The reason why many Greek and Latin words have been adopted by us, through the medium of the Italian, is sufficiently obvious. Rome, even when her consuls and emperors were no more, was still the seat of empire: an empire of mightier sway over the minds and habits of language of the nations than ever was the power of the Cæsars. From other causes, too, Italy was the fountain of influence to all parts of Christendom; for besides the Catholic religion, with its Roman priesthood and Latin tongue, science, the productions of arts, and the arts themselves, were thence derived. It was Italy, too, that took the lead in vernacular literature: and her poets, novelists, historians, and philosophers, were as much in advance of those of other modern nations as she was in advance of the rest of Europe in arts and manufactures. of Greek and Latin words has been through the channel of the French. The causes of this are, evidently, the geographical proximity of France, and her predominant influence in politics, polite literature, and fashion; which influence has operated powerfully in Europe, and especially in Britain, ever since the reign of Charlemagne. About the commencement of our vernacular literature there was, indeed, an extraordinary importation of French terms; and the reason is obvious; for, as the French borrowed all from the Italian (which is admitted even by Voltaire), we at that period borrowed nearly all from the French. But the grand cause of the fact in question was the conquest. It is well known that William of Normandy attempted to make French the only language of England; that it was the only language spoken at court, taught in schools, employed in statutes, legal forms and pleadings, &c. &c. It has been intimated above that some of the learned words, of which so much of our language consists, were received through the medium of the Spanish. The reason of this was the political pre-eminence, and consequent predominant influence, which Spain at one time possessed. Thus we have duplicates and triplicates of many words, which we borrowed by turns from the Italians, French, and Spaniards, as they respectively happened to be in the political ascendant. But there was another cause of the influence of the Spanish: it formed a point of contact, or link of connexion, with the arts and sciences of the Saracens : hence the portion of Arabic which is found in the different languages of Europe; for knowledge has the power not only of forcing a passage from more enlightened into less enlightened nations, but also of taking with it the very terins in which it happens to be contained. The fact is, words and thoughts are so mutually adapted that translation is always difficult, and often impossible; so that it is less from choice thar. necessity that a people, poor in arts and sciences, borrow not only the improvements, but, to a certain extent, the language of their richer, i. e. more intellectual, more literary, and more philosophical neighbours: thus the nations of Europe, during the middle or dark ages, borrowed largely from the Saracens and the Greeks; thus the Celts, the Goths, the Sarmatians, and even the Persians, the Arabians, &c. &c., borrowed largely, for many ages, from the Greeks and Romans. These were the Backwoods-men of Grecian influence and the Roman empire : and, if those stationary and unimprovable animals, the naked savages of Indiana, already speak a corrupt English (or Yankee), it cannot surely be thought incredible that the venerable Gothic (whose origin, Mr. Horne Tooke says, is buried in the deepest antiquity) should prove, after all, with very little if any exception, a corruption of Greek and Latin. SECT. II.-THE ANGLO-SAXON AND GOTHIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CON SIDERED. It is not without some reluctance that the au It has been intimated that the greatest influx thor approaches this question; because he has to L... of the other. GRAMMAR. controvert the opinions of Mr. Horne Tooke, for We had once intended to collect in this place But the Herculean argument for the Northern Origin is the darkness of its deep antiquity. We can trace (Mr. Horne Tooke avers) the origin of the Latin and the Greek; but that of the Gothic is involved in darkness and buried in the deepest antiquity. But is not the origin of all the languages of all the uncivilised and half-civilised tribes of the earth sufficiently buried in darkness entitle them to the same honor? Why should the Anglo-Saxon or Gothic monopolise all this The fact is as well established as any histori- The fair inference seems to be, that as the Gothic, or, say at once, Saxon literature (and the writings of men in the present age who know not how to spell their own name are as worthy of such a dignified appellation), originated in Greek and Latin, so did a great proportion of the words composing it. Such has always been the case; for a rude and illiterate people as naturally borbours as they borrow their improvements and row words from their civilised and literate neigharts and sciences, or as the poor beg from the rich: and the inverse process supposed is as absurd as the idea of the rich borrowing food and raiment from the poorest paupers that exist in The only question, indeed, with unprejudiced their neighbourhood or live on their bounty. enquirers, is likely to be concerning not the reality but the amount of Saxon derivation from the learned languages. This may not be easily ascertained with perfect accuracy; but, from the very nature of the operating causes or influencing circumstances, it must have been very considerable: and in reply to all Horne Tooke's witticisms, about the Goths not waiting for others to come and put words in their mouth, it is sufficient to remark, that they would naturally adopt in process of time new foreign terms for many of their old vernacular ideas, (for such is the process with all people similarly circumstanced), and that with the multitude of ideas which literature introduced among them, they would adopt, to a veyed to them, partly from choice, and partly wide extent, the terms in which they were confrom necessity. This is the history of all the living languages of the earth; not merely of such as are most rude, unformed, and imperfect (and what can well partake more of these attributes than the scrap of Gothic contained in Codex Argenteus, or even the Saxon of the eighth and ninth centuries?) but of those which are most improved, and most firmly fixed by authoritative rules, established principles, and admitted stand ards. New terms and modes of speech are constantly displacing the old. Custom, the sovereign arbiter of language, is as capricious as tyrannical; and time is the greatest of all innovators.' The only argument of Mr. Horne Tooke intrinsically deserving refutation, is that which he attempts to erect on the evidence of etymology; and on this he evidently relies with much confidence. He puts the question-When two different languages have the same words, how are we to ascertain which of them borrowed from the other? This is not a very satisfactory mode of putting the question, for two languages might have the same words without either borrowing from the other, as both might have derived them from a common origin. But his manner of replying to the question is still less satisfactory. Etymology is to decide. So far good; but what kind of etymology? Here the advocate of the northern origin (to use his own words) takes a short cut which saves much trouble, but leaves us in much ignorance; for, instead of proofs, he contents himself with assumptions, as if the business were settled by merely asserting that a certain word is a Gothic verb or noun, without even attempting to give us any further information. As to the instances which he gives of Gothic and Saxon words, whence corresponding Latin and Greek words must have been derived, it is difficult to conceive any reason whatever, save that the former are found in Gothic and Saxon letters and spelling. There are but few Gothic admirers that can deserve the honor of being noticed in connexion with the author of the Diversions of Purley; but this seems the proper place for saying a few words about the utility of Saxon literature, especially as there appears some disposition to exalt it into undue importance. A Saxon professor in one of our most renowned seats of learning has employed very laudatory strains on the subject; to one or two of which it will suffice to apply the test of criticism, if, indeed, it be fair thus to try the soundness of panegyrical orations. The Anglo-Saxon,' the learned professor affirms, is one of those ancient languages to which we may successfully refer in our enquiries how language has been constructed.' This is a most comfortable assurance, pregnant with hope and anticipation as the doctrine of Horne Tooke; but, if equally barren of results, it will only tantalize our fond desires. The sober truth is, that Anglo-Saxon is availaable for etymologic purposes in studying the English language, but not half so available as German, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, old English, Scottish, Greek, and Latin. The reason is obvious; such was the illiterateness of even the Saxon literati, that they knew not how to depict to the eye their own barbarous sounds. Hence the caprices of Saxon orthography, as they are leniently termed by the candid and enlightened author of the Anglo-Saxon history. To have a true idea of these caprices, (more properly rude essays at spelling), we have only to compare them with the literary attempts of our most unlettered mechanics or laborers who can barely read and write. Their orthography and composition and that of the Saxons will be found remarkably similar. This may displease the lovers of Saxon literature, and all lovers are apt to be offended when freedoms are taken with the objects of their affections; but our apology must be, that we have no wish to offend, and the ruling principle of our sentimentality is, Rien n'est beau que le vrai. The present language of Englishmen,' says the Saxon scholar above alluded to, is not that heterogeneous compound which some imagine, compiled from the jarring and corrupted elements of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, and Italian; but (but what? completely Anglo-Saxon in its whole derivation, having none but pure Gothic words in its whole vocabulary!) completely Anglo-Saxon in its whole idiom and construction.' We may well exclaim fie upon but; for it brings forth a most irrelevant conclusion. A zealous Frenchman might exclaim,-The present language of Frenchmen is not that corruption of Latin which some imagine, but completely French in its whole idiom and construction: and thus might Spanish and Italian professors reason for the idiomatic antiquity of their language. Specimens of the present English have been selected for the purpose of showing what a great number of pure Saxon words they contain; but we think it can be proved that most, if not all, of these very Saxon words are as really Greek and Latin, as those which are admitted to be adopted from these languages. The sole difference is, that the words given as Saxon were adopted at a much earlier and ruder period, and, therefore, are more changed, contracted, and disguised. This is an opinion not hastily adopted (for it was reluctantly admitted, being forced upon the understanding of the author in opposition to his faith in the Northern Origin), but slowly and cautiously formed, after much enquiry and long deliberation. If this opinion can be established, if it can be satisfactorily shown that all, or nearly all, the words of the English language are merely Greek and Latin terms, in learning which so much time is spent in youth; the result will surely be far more important than tracing them up to the darkness of Gothic antiquity, which is as void of pleasing association as of useful instruction. SECT III.-VERBAL CONTRACTION, OR ABBREVIATION CONSIDERED. Here three general rules may be laid down. 1. The more illiterate any people are, the more do they contract their words; and the illiterate part of a community always shorten their words more than the educated portion of society. Thus the language of the Franks abounds with more violent contractions of Latin than does that of the Italians, the modern masters and teachers of Europe. The language of the Saxons is characterised by more verbal contraction than the old English in the time of Chaucer, and the English of his period has more of the same character than when our language first began to be fixed by established rules and uniform polite usage: and thus, also, the language of the vulgar is remarkable for violent contractions. as, gemman, for gentleman; a'nt, for are not; fudge, for fiction; fib, for fable: to which may be added such words as the following, though yet tolerated in familiar or jocular discourse; ca'nt, sha'nt, wont, for cannot, shall not, will not; rant, for rodomontade; rum, for romantic; chum, for comrade, &c. &c. Had these and all such words descended to us from the venerable antiquity of Saxon literature, they would, in all probability, have possessed, if not dignity, at least respectability; but, being vulgar upstarts of recent times, they can never rise to the classic title of good expressions, or to the honor of polite usage. 2. Longer words and syllables contract (whilst language is unfixed) into shorter, and the longer the word, the greater the contraction. Thus polysyllables become monosyllables, and monosyllables frequently shorten into a single letter: as auditus contracted into udito, It.; ouï, Fr. Ego contracted into ‡eck, ‡ ick, ‡ ich,‡ic, then I, je, Fr.; io, It.; yo, Sp. Habeo, contracted into ho, It.; he, Sp.; ai, Fr., &c. &c. Such is the process of every living language on the face of the earth until checked by grammatic authority, which is late in coming into existence, and not till long after the lawless anarchy of custom has committed strange etymologic outrages in mutilating and disfiguring the monuments of classic antiquity. These disfigurations are the true Gothic origin of the modern languages: and even the Italians, those modern Latins, consider themselves indebted for their language to the Lombards. The contractions in question are made in every possible manner; sometimes the beginning and sometimes the termination of words is cut off, and sometimes the middle is thrust out and the two extremes compressed into the closest possible contact; especially by the French, who, next to the Anglo-Saxons, have been guilty of the greatest etymologic havoc. The following ancient and modern names of places are presented as instances of the process of verbal contraction above indicated. The oldest form is put first. much abbreviated in common speech: as Cirencester pronounced sister, &c. From this, as well as from all the foregoing examples, it plainly appears not only that long words are contracted into shorter forms, but that the longer the name, the greater the contraction; as in all cases the more difficult and unmanageable a word is, the greater is its corruption in process of time. The following instances are taken almost at random. Eleemosyna, alms; episcopos, bishop (abispo, Sp.; vescovo, It.; evêque, Fr.; such are the caprices of etymology!) presbyter, priest; oblitero, bluther, blur, blot; collect, cull; coil (cueillir, Fr., &c.); bull (as Irish bull), blunder, contraction of balena a terra, It., balana ad terram, a long-established expression; seacalf, seal; despicatus, despite, spite; succumb, sink; secure, sure; semino, sow; sluice from seclusus; count, contraction of computo; come, commeo; chair, cathedra; round, rotundus; sedate, sad, &c. Such instances might be multiplied indennitely. We merely subjoin a few examples of proper names. Benjamin, Ben; Robert, Rob, Bob; Joseph, Joe; Juliana, Jill; Timothy, Tim; Richard, Rick, Dick; Edward, Ned; William, Will, Bill; Henry, Harry, Hal; Alexander, Ellick; Thomas, Tom; Margaret, Meg, Peg; Elizabeth, Eliza, Bet, Ress, Betty, &c.; Sarah, Sally; Maria, Mary, Molly, Moll, Poll, &c. &c. Some of these contracted forms belong to the lower orders of the vocabulary, like all those called flash or cant terms; but others have all the dignity of polite usage. What has thus happened to proper names, also happened in former times to common nouns and to all words; and is still their fate in the language of the vulgar, and in the Saxon-like literature of the uneducated members of society. SECT. IV. OF VERBAL CORRUPTIONS. These are in many respects identical with verbal contraction; but there are many changes of words from their original form which could not be included under that denomination; and, therefore, a few separate remarks may be applied to them here. Acarnania, now Carnia; Aciris, Acri; Adranum, Aderno; nona, Nona; Enus, In; Agrigentum, Gergenti; Aletium, Lecci; Alexandria, Scanderia; Alexandrium, Scandalia; Aluta, Alth; Ambiana, Amiens; Amisia, Emse; Amisus, Amid; Amphipolis, Emboli; Antipolis, 1. Words that are new, strange, and unusual Antibe; Aqua Sextiæ, Aix; Arelatum, Arles; (as all foreign terms are when first imported and Arsenariaria, Arzen; Ateste, Este; Agusta, adapted both to the ear and the mouth) are Aosta; Augustodunum, Autun; Auximum, most liable to be corrupted or changed from their Osimo; Barathra, Brata; Borbetomagnus, Worms; original form. There is an idiom in the sounds Cabilonum, Challon; Cæsar Augusta, Saragossa; and in the pronunciation of every people, as well Ligeris, Loire; Maandrus, Madre; Matrona, as in their phraseology; and they naturally bring Marne; Metaurus, Marro; Magantiacum, Mentz; the sounds and pronunciation and words of other Rhodanus, Rhone; Thessalonica, Salonichi; languages (when introduced among them) to Garienus, Yar; Eboracum, York; Castellum, their own idiom or manner. The French (as Cassel; Conimbrica, Coimbra; Damascus, Damas; Forum Julii, Friuli; Lugdunum, Lyons; Novesium, Neus; Noviodunum, Noyon; Telo Martius, Toulon; Tridentum, Trent, &c. &c. These instances, besides answering the immediate purpose, serve also to exemplify nearly all the usual alphabetical interchanges and transmutations. It may be observed, that many names of places whose orthography has been fixed, are the Greeks did before them) do so professedly and systematically; and all people, however unintentionally, do so to a considerable extent. Hence the reason why words adopted from other languages are often so much disguised, like foreigners in the costume of the country, that their original features can hardly be recog nised. Who would suppose, for instance, that our yes, yeu, ay, are the French oui? There is not a single letter the same. The same thing |