H. Yes indeed is it, and in three letters. But those three letters contain three words; two verbs and a pronoun.

All those common terminations, in any language, of which all nouns or verbs in that language equally partake (under the notion of declension or conjugation) are themselves separate words with distinct meanings which are therefore added to the dif ferent nouns or verbs, because those additional meanings are intended to be added occasionally to all those nouns or verbs. These terminations are all explicable, and ought all to be explained; or there will be no end of such fantastical writers as this Mr. Harris, who takes fustian for philosophy.

In the Greek verb I-war (from the antient Ew or the modern E:) In the Latin verb I-re; and in the English verb to-hie, or to hi, (A. s. hizan;) the infinitive terminations was and re make no more part of the Greek and Latin verbs, than the infinitive prefix to makes a part of the English verb hie or hi. The pure and simple verbs, without any suffix or prefix, are in the Greek I (or E;) in the Latin 1; and in the English hie or hi. These verbs, you see, are the same, with the same meaning, in the three languages; and differ only by our aspirate.

In the Greek βουλομαι or (as anciently) βουλ-εω, οι βουλω, βουλ only is the verb; and ομαι, or έω, is a common removeable suffix, with a separate meaning of its own. So in the Latin vol-o, vol is the verb; and o a common removeable suffix, with a separate meaning. And the meaning of Ew in the one, and

per

in the other, I take to be Eyw, Ego: for I fectly concur with Dr. Gregory Sharpe and others, that the personal pronouns are contained in the Greek and Latin terminations of the three persons of their verbs. Our old English ich or ig (which we now pronounce I) is not far removed from

ego.

Where we now use will, our old English verb was wol; which is the pure verb without prefix or suffix.

Thus then will this assertion ibo stand in the three languages: inverting only our common order of speech,.... Ich, wol, hie or hi, to suit that of the Greek and Latin;

They who have noticed that where we employ a w, the Latin employs a v; and where the Latin employs a v, the Greek uses a B (as Aaßid, BeσTEσiavos, &c.); will see at once, that wol, vol, boul, are one and the same word. And the And the progress to ibo is not very circuitous nor unnatural. iboul, ibou, ibo. The termination bo (for BouλsC) may therefore well be applied to denote the future time of the Latin verbs; since its meaning is I woll (or will). So it is, amaboul, amabou, amabo, &c.(")

It is

(1) When Varchi undertook to shew that the Italian language had more tenses than the Greek and Latin; Castelvetro objected that the Italian had no future tense, as the Latin had....." Con"ciossiacosachè la lingua nostra manchi d'un tempo principale, "cio è del futuro, nol potendo significare con una voce simplice: “ma convenendo che lo significhi con una composta; cio è con

But let us, if you please, confine ourselves at present to Mr. Harris. He says...." Take away "the assertion from the verb Tpape, writeth, and "there remains the participle Пpapwv, writing." This is too clumsy to deserve the name of legerdemain. Take away and eth from Tpap and εt Γραφει writeth, and there remain only гpap and writ: which are indeed the pure verbs: and a man must be perfectly blind not to see that they are all which remain, until Harris whips in the other terminations w and ing. But let us wilfully shut our eyes and pass over this clumsy trick of his : how will he now destroy the participle, as he before destroyed the verb; and so get on to his adjective? He cannot. He does not even attempt it. Nor can he ever arrive at an adjective through a verb.

"lo 'nfinito del verbo e col presente del verbo ho: come amare "ho, amare hai, amare ha," &c.

Castelvetro accounts very properly for the Italian future tense amerò, amerai, amera, (and so he might for sarò, &c. i. e. essere, ho, &c.) But it seems to me extraordinary that he should have supposed it possible that the Latin, or any other language, could, by the simple verb alone, signify the additional circumstances of manner, time, &c. without additional sounds or words to signify the added circumstances: and that he should imagine that the distinguishing terminations in any language were not also added words; but that they sprouted out from the verb as from their parent stock. If it were so; how would he account for the very different fruit borne by the same plant, in the same soil, at different times? Anciently the Romans said audi-bo: then audi-am: now udir-ò, i. e.

time.

In гpap and writ there is neither assertion nor And if there had been, as Harris supposed, an assertion implied by those words; it must, by his own doctrine, have been implied by the terminations and eth: for by removing and eth, he says, he takes away the assertion and thereby destroys the verb.

Again, if in Tpapwv and writing there had been any determination of time; it must have been in the terminations wv and ing. By the taking away of which terminations, he would, if he could (by following his former process) have destroyed the participle and arrived at an adjective, without any denotation of time. But here his process failed him and he has given us no adjective, by destroying the participles papwv and writing.

F. Though there can be no assertion without a verb; I am not, with Mr. Harris, ready to contend that there can be an assertion by the verb alone. But I have always hitherto believed, and still continue to believe, that time is denoted both by verbs and participles.

H. If you are satisfied concerning the adjective, I will willingly proceed with you to an examination of the latter point. If not, continue in your present belief; that we may not confound our subjects.

F. You have always expressed a high opinion of Richard Johnson: and, in what you condemn, Lowth has only followed his directions.

R. Johnson says...." It had been better in the "enumeration of the parts of speech, to have made, "the substantive and the adjective two distinct

parts of speech: and to have comprehended the participle under the adjective. For the substan❝tive and the adjective are two very different parts "of speech." And again,...." The question is, "whether the adjective be a noun, or name of a "thing; that is, whether it be equally so with the "substantive. Now I suppose nobody will say "the adjective is equally, or as much the name of a thing, as the substantive. The substantive repre"sents all that is essential to the nature of the thing: "as homo, or man, represents animal rationale, or a "rational living creature. But bonus, good, repre"sents only an accidental quality; which, though "morally necessary is not naturally so, but merely "accidental. So that though a man may be called good and therefore good, in some sense, may be "said to be his name; yet it is not equally or as "much his name, as man. This last representing "all that is essential to his nature; the other only "what is accidental."

Ben. Jonson, whom you likewise esteem, followed the opinion of Frischlinus; that the distinction between substantive and adjective arises from the latter's being common to three genders....." For a "substantive is a noun of one only gender, or (at "the most) of two. And an adjective is a noun of "three genders, being always infinite."

And some grammarians have said that an adjective only connotes, and means nothing by itself.

66

"Nel modo che l'accidente s'appoggia alla sustanza, l'aggiuntivo s'appoggia al sustantivo." ...." E come l'accidente non quo star senza la