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 our 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.*

Pronouns are the class of words most nearly related to substantive nouns; being, as the name imports, representatives, or substitutes, of nouns. 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 third person may be absent, or unknown, the distinction of gender there be

"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, than 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 insignificant, equally conspicuous; theirs much oftener sinks, as it were, the former into the latter, at fonce 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 course 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 mortises; 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 iscarcely perceivable." The Philosophy of Rhetoric, by Dr. Campbell, vol. ii. p. 412.

comes 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 an 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 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 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 masuline 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.

LECTURE IX.

STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE.--ENGLISH TONGUE.

Of 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 subtle and profound metaphysic of Language appears; and, therefore, in examining the nature and different variations of the verb, there might be room for ample discussion. But as I am sensible, that such grammatical discussions, when they are pursued far, become intricate and obscure, I shall avoid dwelling any longer on this subject than seems absolutely necessary.

The verb is so far of the same nature with the adjective, that it expresses, like it, an attribute, or property, of some person or thing. But it does more than this. For, in all verbs, in every Language, there are no less than three things implied at once;

66

the attribute of some substantive, an affirmation concerning that attribute, and time. Thus, when I say, "the sun shineth; shining is the attribute ascribed to the sun; the present time is marked; and an affirmation is included, that this property of shining belongs, at that time, to the sun. The participle shining," is merely an adjective, which denotes an attribute, or property, and also expresses time; but carries no affirmation. The infinitive mood, "to shine," may be called the name of the verb; it carries neither time nor affirmation, but simply expresses that attribute, action, or state of things, which is to be the subject of the other moods and tenses. Hence, the infinitive often carries the resemblance of a substantive noun; and, both in English and Latin, is sometimes constructed as such. Ás, "scire tuum nihil est." "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori." And, in English, in the same manner: "To write well is difficult; to speak eloquently is still more difficult." But as, through all the other tenses and moods, the affirmation runs, and is essential to them; "the sun shineth, was shining, shone, will shine, would have shone," &c., the affirmation seems to be that which chiefly distinguishes the verb from the other parts of Speech, and gives it its most conspicuous power. Hence, there can be no sentence, or complete proposition, without a verb either expressed or implied. For whenever we speak, we always mean to assert, that something is, or is not; and the word which carries this assertion or affirmation is a verb. From this sort of eminence belonging to it, this part of Speech hath received its name, verb, from the Latin, verbum, or the word, by way of distinction.

Verbs, therefore, from their importance and necessity in Speech, must have been coëval with men's first attempts towards the formation of Language: Though, indeed, it must have been the work of long time, to rear them up to that accurate and complex structure which they now possess. It seems very probable, as Dr. Smith has suggested, that the radical verb, or the first form of it, in most Languages, would be, what we now call, the Impersonal verb. "It rains; it thunders; it is light; it is agreeable; " and the like; as this is the very simplest form of the verb, and merely affirms the existence of an event, or of a state of things. By degrees, after pronouns were invented, such verbs became personal, and were branched out into all the variety of tenses and moods.

The tenses of the verb are contrived to imply the several distinctions of time. Of these I must take some notice, in order to show the admirable accuracy with which Language is constructed. We think commonly of no more than the three great divisions of time, into the past, the present, and the future: and we might imagine, that if verbs had been so contrived, as simply to express these, no more was needful. But Language proceeds with much greater subtilty. It splits time into its several moments. considers time as never standing still, but always flowing; things

I

It

past, as more or less perfectly completed; and things future, as more or less remote, by different gradations. Hence, the great variety of tenses in most Tongues.

The present may, indeed, be always considered as one indivisible point, susceptible of no variety. "I write, or I am writing; scribo." But it is not so with the past. There is no language so poor, but it hath two or three tenses to express the varieties of it. Ours hath no fewer than four. 1. A past action may be considered as left unfinished; which makes the imperfect tense, "I was writing; scribebam." 2. As just now finished. This makes the proper perfect tense, which, in English, is always expressed by the help of the auxiliary verb, "I have written." 3. It may be considered as finished some time ago; the particular time left indefinite. "I wrote; scripsi;" which may either signify, "I wrote yesterday, or I wrote a twelvemonth ago." This is what grammarians call an aörist, or indefinite past. 4. It may be considered as finished before something else, which is also past. This is the plusquam-perfect. "I had written; scripseram." I had written before I received his letter.

Here we observe, with some pleasure, that we have an advantage over the Latins, who have only three varieties upon the past time. They have no proper perfect tense, or one which distinguishes an action just now finished, from an action that was finished some time ago. In both these cases they must say "scripsi." Though there be a manifest difference in the tenses, which our Language expresses by this variation, "I have written," meaning, I have just now finished writing; and, “I wrote," meaning at some former time, since which, other things have intervened. This difference the Romans have no tense to express; and therefore, can only do it by a circumlocution.

The chief varieties in the future time are two; a simple or indefinite future: "I shall write; scribam: " and a future, relating to something else, which is also future. "I shall have written; scripsero." I shall have written before he arrives.*

Besides tenses, or the power of expressing time, verbs admit the distinction of Voices, as they are called, the active and the passive: according as the affirmation respects something that is done, or something that is suffered; "I love, or I am loved." They admit also the distinction of moods, which are designed to express the affirmation, whether active or passive, under different forms. The indicative mood, for instance, simply declares a proposition, "I write, I have written;" the imperative requires, commands, threatens, "Write thou; let him write." The subjunctive expresses the proposition under the form of a condition, or in subordination to some other thing, to which a reference is made, "I might write,

On the tenses of verbs, Mr. Harris's Hermes may be consulted, by such as desire to see them scrutinized with metaphysical accuracy; and also, the Treatise on the Origin and Progress of Language, vol. ii. p. 125.