had gained) have been much divided in their opinions; whether we fhould praise or cenfure thofe who, by adopting a great number of foreign words and incorporating them into the old Anglofaxon language, have by degrees produced the modern English. Whilft fome have called this Enriching, others have called it Deforming the original language of our ancestors: which thefe latter affirm to have been fufficiently adapted to compofition to have expreffed with equal advantage, propriety and precifion, by words from its own fource, all that we can now do by our foreign helps. But in their declamations (for they cannot be called arguments) on this fubject, it is evident that, on both fides, they confined themfelves to the confideration merely of complex terms, and never dreamed of the abbreviations in the manner of fignification of words. Which latter has however been a much more abundant caufe of borrowing foreign words than the former. And indeed it is true that almost all the complex terms (merely as fuch) which we have adopted from other languages, might be, and many of them were, better expreffed in the Anglofaxon :-I mean, better for an Anglofaxon: because more intelligible to him, and more homogeneous with the reft of his language. Yet I am of opinion (but on different ground from any taken by the declaimers on either fide) that thofe, who by thus borrowing have produced our present English speech, deferve from us, but in a very different degree, both thanks and cenfure. Great thanks, in that they have introduced into the English fome most useful abbreviations in manner of fignification; which the Anglofaxon, as well as all the other Northern languages wanted: and some cenfure, in that they have done this incompleatly, and in an improper manner, The fact certainly is, that our predeceffors did not themselves know what they were doing; any more than their fucceffors feem to have known hitherto the real importance and benefit of what has been done. And of this the Grammars and Philosophy both of antients and moderns are a sufficient proof. An overfight much to be deplored: for I am ftrongly perfuaded (and I think I have good reafon to be fo) that had the Greek and Latin Grammarians known and explained the nature and intrinfic value of the riches of their own language, neither would their defcendants have loft any of thofe advantages, nor would the languages of Europe have been at this day in the corrupt and deficient ftate in which we, more and less, find them. For thofe languages which have borrowed these abbreviations, would have avoided the partiality and patchwork, as well as the corruptions and improprieties with which they now abound; and thofe living languages of Europe which still want these advantages wholly, would long ere this have intirely fupplied their defects. F. It seems to me that you rather exaggerate the importance of these abbreviations. Can it be of fuch mighty confequence to gain a little time in communication? H. Even that is important. But it refts not there. A short, close, and compact method of speech, anfwers the purpose of a map upon a reduced scale: it affift's greatly the comprehenfion of our understanding: and, in general reasoning, frequently enables us, at one glance, to take in very numerous and diftant important relations and conclufions, which would otherwise totally Uuu totally escape us. But this objection comes to me with an ill grace from you, who have expreffed fuch frequent nausea and difguft at the any-lengthian Lord with his numerous ftrings, that excellent political fwimmer; whofe tedious reafons, you have often complained, are as-"two graines of wheat hid in 66 two bufhels of chaffe." And here, if you please, we will conclude our difcuffion for the prefent. F. No. If you finish thus, you will leave me much unfatisfied; nor fhall I think myself fairly treated by you. You have told me that a Verb is (as every word also muft be) a Noun ; but you added, that it is alfo fomething more : and that the title of Verb was given to it, on account of that diftinguishing something more than the mere nouns convey. You have then proceeded to the fimple Verb adjectived, and to the different adjectived Moods, and to the different adjectived Tenfes of the verb. But you have not all the while explained to me what you mean by the naked fimple Verb unadjectived. Nor have you uttered a fingle fyllable concerning that fomething which the naked verb unattended by Mood, Tenfe, Number, Perfon, and Gender, (which laft alfo fome languages add to it) fignifies More or Befides the mere Noun. What is the Verb? What is that peculiar differential circumstance which, added to the definition of a Noun, conftiftutes the Verb? Is the Verb, 1. "Dictio variabilis, quæ fignificat actionem "aut paffionem." Or, 2. "Dictio variabilis per modos." Or, 3. "Quod adfignificat tempus fine cafu." Or, 4." Quod agere, pati, vel effe, fignificat." Or, 5. "Nota rei fub tempore." Or, 6." Pars orationis præcipua fine cafu,” Or, 7. "An Affertion." Or, 8. "Nihil fignificans, et quafi nexus et copula, ut verba "alia quafi animaret." Or, 9. "Un mot declinable indeterminatif." Or, 10. “Un mot qui prefente à l'efprit un être indeterminé, defigné feulement par l'idée generale de l' existence "fous une relation à une modification." Or, 11. H. A truce, à truce.-I know you are not serious in laying this trafh before me for you could never yet for a moment bear a negative or a quafi in a definition. I perceive whither you would lead me; but I am not in the humour at prefent to difcufs with you the meaning of Mr. Harris's-" Whatever a thing may Be, it muft firft of neceffity Be, before it can poffibly "Be any thing ELSE." With which precious jargon he com 66 mences his account of the Verb. No, No. We will leave off |