letter 2.

In the following passage, the same writer is much more correct.

"If any one matter in it _prove_ (that is, _shall prove_) false, what do you think will become of the paper?"----Letter 8.

But the use of the future for the present is much more frequent.

"If reverence, gratitude, obedience and confidence _be_ our duty."---- Priestley, let. 7 to a Phil. Unbeliever.

"If he _have_ any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."----Same, letter 8.

The author doubtless intended these sentences to be strictly grammatical, by placing the verbs in the present tense of the subjunctive. But in the first example, _be_ is wrong even on Lowth's principles. The rule of the Bishop, with respect to the use of the indicative and subjunctive modes, is this: That when something conditional, hypothetical, or doubtful, is expressed, the verb should be in the subjunctive mode; but when the fact is certain, or taken for granted, the verb should be in the indicative. He gives for examples of the former, several passages from scripture: "If thou _be_ the son of God." Matth. iv. 3. "Tho he _slay_ me, yet will I trust in him." Job xiii. 15. "Unless he _wash_ his flesh." Lev. xxii. 6. "No power except it _were_ given from above." John xix. 11. "Whether it _were_ I or they, so we preach." 1 Cor. xv. 11. "The subjunctive in these instances," says the Bishop, "implies something contingent or doubtful; the indicative would express a more absolute and determinate sense." To illustrate the latter part of his rule, he quotes a passage from Atterbury's Sermons. "Tho he _were_ divinely inspired, and spake therefore as the oracles of God, with supreme authority; tho he _were_ endued with supernatural powers," &c. That our Savior was divinely inspired, and endued with supernatural powers, are positions that are here taken for granted, as admitting not of the least doubt; they would therefore have been better expressed in the indicative mode; "tho he _was_ divinely inspired," &c. Even on these principles, the verb in the first example from Priestley, just quoted, should have been in the indicative; for there is no doubt that reverence, gratitude, &c. _are_ our duty to the Supreme Being.

But I apprehend, that however just Lowth's distinction between the modes, may have formerly been, it is not warranted by the present idiom of the language. Indeed I cannot think the rule just. In the _first_, _fourth_ and _fifth_ examples quoted by the Bishop, the indicative might be substituted for the subjunctive, and the passages rendered more correct, according to the present practice of speaking and writing. "If thou _art_ the son of God." "No power except it _was_ given from above." "Whether it _was_ I, or they, so we preach." Every English ear must acknowlege that these expressions are more agreeable to our present practice, than those employed by the translators of the Bible, and they convey an idea of condition or doubt, as fully as the other form. But why did the translators deviate from the original? In the Greek, the verbs, in the two first examples, are in the indicative mode; and in the last, the verb is not expressed. ~Ei huios ei tou Theou~, literally, If thou _art_ the son of God. ~Ouk echeis exousian oudemian kat' emou, ei mê ên soi dedomenon anôthen~; literally, Thou hast no power (or authority) against me, except it _was_ given thee from above. In the last instance the verb is omitted; ~Eite de egô, eite ekeinoi~; Whether I or they. In these instances therefore the translators of the Bible, and Bishop Lowth have evidently mistaken the true structure of the English verbs. The translators deviated from the original Greek, in changing the modes; and the Bishop has taken their error, as the foundation of a distinction which does not exist in the language. The indicative mode is employed to express conditional ideas, more frequently than the subjunctive, even by the best English writers. Take the following examples.

"And if the same accident _is_ able to restore them to us."---- Bolingbroke, Reflec. on Exile.

"If this being, the immediate maker of the universe, _has_ not existed from all eternity, he must have derived his being and power from one who has."----Priestley, let. 4 to Phil. Unb.

"If there _is_ one, I shall make two in the company."----Merry Wives of Windsor, act 3. sc. II.

"If thou _lovest_ me then Steal forth thy father's house tomorrow night."

Midsum. Night's Dream, act 1. s. 2.

"If thou _beest_[111] Stephano, touch me and speak to me; If thou _beest_ Trinculo, come forth."

Tempest, act 2. s. 3.

"If thou _art_ any thing besides a name."

Cowley's Request.

"For if he _lives_ that hath you doen despight."

Spenser's Fairy Queen, book 2. chap. 1.

"If any one _imagines_."----Moyle.

"Why did Caligula wish that the people had but one neck, that he might strike it off at a blow, if their welfare _was_ thus reciprocal."---- Sidney on Gov. sect. 5.

"If Governments _are_ constituted."----Sidney.

"Well, keep your own heart, if silence _is_ best, Tho a woman, for once, I'll in ignorance rest."

Haley's Happy Prescription.

"If she _has_ stolen the color of her ribbons from another."----Spect. No. 4.

"If we _are_ rightly informed."----Same, No. 8.

"If she _is_ tall enough, she is wife enough."----No. 66.

"If you _are_ in such haste, how came you to forget the miscellanies?"----Swift's Letter to Mr. Tooke.

"If men's highest assurances _are_ to be believed."----Same.

Shall we say that the use of the indicative after _if_ in the foregoing examples is improper or ungrammatical? By no means. Yet the verbs express something conditional or doubtful; and therefore Lowth's rule cannot be well founded.

Let the foregoing passages be contrasted with the following.

"But if he _say_ true, there is but one government in the world that can have any thing of justice in it."----Sidney, sect. 1.

"If he _have_ any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."----Priestley, let. 8.

"But tho criticism _be_ thus his only declared aim, he will not disown," &c.---- Introd. to Elements of Criticism.

"But if a lively picture, even of a single emotion, _require_ an effort of genius, how much greater the effort to compose a passionate dialogue, with as many different tones of passion as there are speakers?"----Elements of Criticism, vol. 1. chap. 16.

"Here we must also observe, that tho THOU _be_ long in the first part of the verse, it becomes short when repeated in the second."---- Sheridan's Art of Reading.

The Scotch writers, who learn the English language grammatically, are the most particular in the use of this subjunctive form of the verb; in consequence of which their stile generally appears stiff and fettered. In all the foregoing examples, and in every instance where the affirmation respects present time, the indicative form is the most correct, and the only form that corresponds with the actual present state of the language. _If he says_, _if he has_, _if he requires_, are the true expressions universally used in speaking; and grammars should exhibit and enforce this practice, rather than amend it.

There are few or no English writers, who seem to have adhered uniformly to any rule in the use of the verbs after the conjunctions. In consequence, either of ignorance or inattention, the most correct writers have fallen into inconsistencies, even in the same sentence. This will appear by the following examples.

"If life and health enough _fall_ to my share, and I _am_ able to finish what I meditate."----Bolingbroke, let. 4, on History.

The author intended the verbs, _fall_ and _am_, to be in the present time; but this would make him write nonsense; for the events were future at the time of writing. The first part of the sentence, to make sense, must be considered as elliptical, "if life and health enough _shall_ or _should fall_ to my share;" in the last part therefore _be_ should be substituted for _am_, _if I shall be able_: This would make the whole sentence correct and consistent.

"Whether our conduct _be_ inspected, and we _are_ under a righteous government, or under no government at all."----Priestley's Pref. to Let. to a Phil. Unb.

What a confusion of modes! or rather of tenses!

"Tho THOU _be_ long, in the first part of the verse," says Sheridan, in the passage just quoted; yet soon after uses the indicative in a phrase precisely similar; "And tho it _is_ impossible to prolong the sound of this word." Can this great critic give a reason for this change of modes? Such examples serve to show at least the necessity of studying our language with more attention, than even many eminent scholars are willing to bestow.

It has been remarked by Lowth, and many other writers on this subject, that "the verb itself in the present, and the auxiliary both of the present and past imperfect times, often carry with them somewhat of a future sense."[112] Thus, _if he_ _come tomorrow_, _if he should or would come tomorrow_, carry _somewhat of a future sense_. The writer should have gone farther, and said that these expressions are in future time; for they form the English future, and belong to no other tense. This would have been the truth, and have prevented the numberless errors which have proceeded from his arranging them in the present tense of the subjunctive. Let us attend to the following passages.

"This can never happen till patriotism _flourish_ more in Britain."--Home's Sketches, book 2. s. 9.

"Pray heaven, he _prove_ so, when you come to him."----Two Gent. of Verona, act 2. s. 10.

"But if thou _linger_ in my territories."----Same, act 3. s. 2.

"Lest, growing ruinous, the building _fall_."----Same, act 5. s. 6.

"If the second _be_ pronounced thus, the verse will be degraded into hobbling prose."----Sheridan's Art of Reading.

It is needless to multiply similar passages; the same use of the verb, without the personal termination, occurs in almost every page of our best writings, and it is perfectly correct.

But will any person contend that the verbs in these passages are in the present tense? The sense is entirely future, and could not be translated into Latin or French, without employing the future tense. The expressions are elliptical, and cannot be clearly understood, without inserting _shall_ or _should_ before the verbs. This pretended present tense of the subjunctive is therefore the real future of the indicative. To confirm this remark, let us attend to some other passages.

"Tho he _slay_ me, yet will I trust in him."

"Unless he _wash_ his flesh, he shall not eat of the holy thing."

In the original Hebrew these verbs are in the future tense; and so are most similar expressions.[113]

Matth. vii. 10.--Or if he _ask_ a fish, will he give him a serpent? ~Kai ean ichthyn aitêsê mê ophin epidôsei autô?~

Rom. xiv. 15.--But if thy brother _be_ grieved with thy meat. ~Ei gar dia brôma ho adelphos sou lupeitai~.

Luke xvii. 3.--If thy brother _trespass_ against thee. ~Ean hamartêsê ho adelphos sou~. 4. And seven times in a day _turn_ again to thee. ~Kai heptakis tês hêmêras epistrepsê~.

Luke xvi. 28.--Lest they also _come_ into this place of torment. ~Mê kai autos elthôsin eis touton ton topon tês basanou~.[114]

Is not the sense of the foregoing verbs _future_? Are not the verbs in the original, either in the future tense, or in the indefinite tenses, which, in the subjunctive mode, _usually_ have the sense of the future, and perhaps _never_ the sense of the present? Why then should we consider the English verbs as in the present time? Either the translators made a mistake, and placed the verbs in a wrong tense; or Lowth and his followers have mistaken the tense, and called that present which is really future.

That the fault is, in some measure, to be ascribed to the translators, is evident from their using the same form of the verb, after a conjunction, when the original Greek is in the present of the indicative.

1 Cor. xvi. 22.--If any man _love_ not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be, &c. ~Ei tis ou philei ton Kyrion Iêsoun Christon, êtô~, &c.

1 Cor. xiv. 37.--If any man think himself a prophet. ~Ei de tis dokei prophêtês einai~. 38.--If any man _be_ ignorant, let him be ignorant still. ~Ei de tis agnoei, agnoeitô~.

In these instances, the verbs express conditional facts in the present time. In the original they are in the indicative present; and on what authority did the translators introduce a different mode in English? Can they be justified by the idioms of the language at the time when they lived? Was the subjunctive always used after a conjunction? By no means: Their own translation of other passages proves the contrary.

1 Cor. xv. 13.--And if there _is_ no resurrection of the dead. ~Ei de anastasis nekrôn ouk estin~.

Here is the present tense of the indicative used, where the fact mentioned is supposed, by the argument, to be at least doubtful. In other places the present time of the same mode is used, where the future would have been more accurate.

Prov. ii. 3, 4.--"Yea if thou _criest_ after knowlege, and _liftest_ up thy voice for understanding; if thou _seekest_ for her as for hid treasures, then shalt thou understand," &c.

What conclusion shall we draw from this state of facts? This at least may be said with safety, either that the English modes and tenses have not been ascertained and understood, or that the best of our writers have been extremely negligent.

After an attentive and accurate examination of this subject, I believe I may venture to assert, that nine times out of ten, when the pretended subjunctive form of the verb is used after a conjunction, either in the vulgar translation of the Bible, or in our best profane authors, the sense is actually future, and to render the sentences complete, it would be necessary to insert _shall_ or _should_.[115] This will be more obvious by attending to the Latin translation of the New Testament, where the future is almost always employed to express the Greek future and aorists. _Igitur si munus tuum attuleris ad altare_--If thou _bring_ thy gift to the altar; _et illic memineris_--and there _rememberest_; (what confusion of modes.) If his son _ask_ bread--_Si filius ejus_ petierit _panem_. And if the house _be_ worthy--_Et si quidem_ fuerit _domus digna_; and so throughout the whole New Testament.

Will any person pretend to say that the verbs _bring_, _ask_ and _be_, in the foregoing passages, are present time; or that _rememberest_ is not bad English? The elliptical future, _If thou be_, _if he ask_, &c. is correct English, but should by no means be confounded with the present tense, which, in English, has but one form.

I do not deny that good authors have used this form, after conjunctions, in the present time; but I deny that the genius of the language requires it, that it is agreeable to the ancient or modern elegant languages, and that it has been or is now the general practice.

With respect to the ancient practice, examples sufficient have been already produced, to show that authors have considered the present of the indicative, after conjunctions, denoting uncertainty or doubt, as at least correct; and the present practice in speaking is wholly on this side of the argument.

With respect to the Roman and Greek languages, I believe examples enough may be brought to prove, that the subjunctive mode after the conditional conjunctions or adverbs, was not generally used, except when the idea was such as we should express by _may_, _might_, _should_, _let_, or some other auxiliary before the verb. "Quid est autem, quod deos _veneremur_ propter admirationem ejus naturæ, in qua egregium nihil videmus?" "Ut, quos ratio non posset, eos ad officium religio _duceret_."--Cicero, De nat Deorum, l. I. 42. To render _veneremur_ and _duceret_ into English, _should_ may be prefixed to _adore_, and _might_ to _lead_.

At any rate, the conditional conjunctions do not all, nor generally require the subjunctive mode: "Quæ, _si_ mundus _est_ Deus, quoniam mundi partes sunt, Dei membra parim ardentia, partim refrigerata dicenda sunt."--Ibm. 1. I. 10. "_Si_ Di _possunt_ esse sine sensu," &c. The indicative after this conjunction occurs frequently in the best Roman authors.

In Greek the case is nearly the same. Several instances of the indicative after the conditional conjunction ~ei~ (if) have already been quoted from scripture; and similar instances without number may be produced from profane writers.

"~Ei oun houtôs echei, ephê, ô Kyre, ti an allo tis kreitton heuroi, ê pempein eis Persas, kai hama men didaskein autous hoti ei ti peisontai Mêdoi, eis Persas to deinon hêxei, hama de aitein pleion strateuma~;"---- Xenoph. de Cyri. Inst. l. 2. p. 80. Lond. Ed.

Here the verb ~echei~ is in the present tense of the indicative, after a conjunction denoting condition or doubt; "if the affair _is_ so--if such _is_ the true state of affairs, Cyrus, what better method _can be taken_ (~heuroi~) than to send to the Persians, and inform them that _if_ any accident _happen_ to the Medes (so we should render ~peisontai~, which is in the future) calamity will fall upon the Persians also, and let us ask for a greater force."

In French, the conditional conjunctions do not require the subjunctive mode. "Si ma prédiction _est_ fausse, vous serez libre de nous immoler dans trois jours."--Telemaque, liv. 1. "S'il _est_ vrai que vous aimiez la justice."--Liv. 4. If my prediction _is_ false--if it _is_ true--are correct modes of speaking in French. No argument therefore in favor of the use of the English subjunctive, can be drawn from the analogy of other languages.

But this subjunctive form is not agreeable to the structure of the language. It has been demonstrated that our conjunctions are mostly old Saxon verbs in the imperative mode. Let us resolve some sentences where the subjunctive form is used; for example, the passages before quoted.

"If he _have_ any knowlege of actual existence, he must be satisfied."----Priestley's Letters.

Resolved--"He have any knowlege of actual existence, (if) give that, he must be satisfied." Is this English?

"If thou be the son of God, command that these stones be made bread."----Matth. iv. 3.

Resolved--"Thou be the son God, give that, command," &c.

"Tho he slay me, yet will I trust in him."

Resolved--"He slay me, grant it, yet will I trust in him."

This is the literal construction of those sentences; the two first are present time, the last, which is future, is merely elliptical.

If therefore, _I be_, _he have_, are good English in the present tense of the indicative, the foregoing are correct expressions; if not, they are incorrect; for every such conditional sentence is resolvable into two or more declaratory phrases. Let us substitute the Latin derivative, which precisely answers to _if_, viz. _suppose_; thus, in place of "if thou be the son of God," write, "_suppose_ thou be the son of God," does not every ear acknowlege the impropriety? The only difference between the two expressions is this; _if_ is a _Saxon_ verb in the imperative mode, and _suppose_, a _Latin_ one in the same mode.

With respect to _be_, it may be said very justly, that it was anciently used after the conjunctions in almost all cases. But it must be observed also, it was used _without_ the conjunctions. Be, from the Saxon _beon_, is the true radical verb, still preserved in the German, _Ich bin_, I be, _du bist_, thou beest, in the indicative. The old English writers employed _be_ in the same mode and tense.

"O, there _be_ players that I have seen play."----Shakesp. Hamlet to the Players.

"They that _be_ drunken, are drunken in the night."----1 Thess. v. 7.

"As we _be_ slanderously reported."----Rom. iii. 8.

The common people in New England still employ _be_ in the present tense of the indicative, except in the third person. They almost universally say, _I be_, _we be_, _you be_, and _they be_. While _be_ remained the proper substantive verb in the indicative, it was very correctly employed after the conjunctions, _If he be_, _tho he be_, but when, _am_, _are_, _art_ and _is_ were substituted in the indicative, they should likewise have been employed in the subjunctive; for the latter is resolvable into the former.

From the facts produced, and the remarks made, we may draw the following conclusions; that the distinction made by grammarians between the present tense of the indicative and subjunctive mode in English, is not well founded; that it is not warranted by the construction of the language, nor by the analogy of other languages; that the expressions commonly supposed to be in the present tense of the subjunctive, are mostly in fact an elliptical form of the future in the indicative, and that the present translation of the Bible cannot be vindicated on any other supposition; that the present practice, both in speaking and writing, is generally in favor of the indicative after the conjunctions; and consequently, that the arrangement of the verbs by Lowth and his followers, is calculated to lead both foreigners and natives into error.

I have been more particular upon this article, because the Scotch writers, many of whom stand among the first authors of the British nation, follow the usual grammatical division of verbs, and thus write a stile not conformed to the present practice of speaking.

In the use of what is called the _imperfect_ tense, after the conjunctions, there is something peculiar, which has not yet been sufficiently explained. On examination it will probably be found that custom has established one singular distinction in the sense of verbs in different tenses, a knowlege of which is necessary to enable us to speak and write with precision. This distinction will readily be understood by a few examples.

A servant calls on me for a book, which his master would borrow. If I am uncertain whether I have that book or not, I reply in this manner; "If the book _is_ in my library, or if I _have_ the book, your master shall be welcome to the use of it."

But if I am certain I do not possess the book, the reply is different; "I have not the book you mention; if I _had_, it should be at your master's service."

Both these forms of speaking are correct; but the question is, what is the difference? It cannot be in _time_; for both refer to the same. The ideas both respect present time; "If I _have_ it _now_, it _shall_ be at your master's service"--"If I _had_ it _now_, it _should_ be." The distinction in the meaning is universally understood, and is simply this; the first expresses _uncertainty_; the last implies _certainty_, but in a peculiar manner; for an affirmative sentence implies a positive negation; and a negative sentence implies a positive affirmation. Thus, _if I had the book_, implies a positive denial of having it; _if I had not the book_, implies that I have it: And both speak of possessing or not possessing it at this _present_ time.

The same distinction runs thro all the verbs in the language. A man, shut up in an interior apartment, would say to his friend, "_if it rains_ you cannot go home." This would denote the speaker's uncertainty. But on coming to the door and ascertaining the fact, he would say, "_if it rain__ed_, you should not go;" or, "_if it did not rain_, you might go." Can these verbs be in _past_ time? By no means; _if it did not rain now, you could go_, is present, for the present existence of the fact prevents the man from going.

These forms of speech are established by unanimous consent in practice.

"It remaineth that they who have wives, be as tho they _had_ none, and they that weep, as tho they _wept_ not; and they that rejoice, as tho they _rejoiced_ not; and they that buy, as tho they _possessed_ not."----1 Cor. vii. 29, 30.[116]

"Nay, and the villains march wide betwixt the legs, as if they _had_ gyves on."----1 Henry IV.

"We have not these antiquities; and if _we had_ them, they would add to our uncertainty."----Bolingbroke on Hist. let. 3.

"Whereas, _had_ I (if I had) still the same woods to range in, which I once _had_, when I was a fox hunter, I should not resign my manhood for a maintenance."----Spect. No. 14.

"I confess I have not great taste for poetry; but if _I had_, I am apt to believe I should read none but Mr. Pope's."[117]---- Shenstone on Men and Manners.

Whatever these verbs may be in declaratory phrases, yet after the conditional conjunctions _if_ and _tho_, they often express present ideas, as in the foregoing examples. In such cases, this form of the verb may be denominated the _hypothetical_ present tense. This would distinguish it from the same form, when it expresses uncertainty in the past time; for this circumstance must not be passed without notice. Thus, "If he _had_ letters by the last mail," denotes the speaker's uncertainty as to a past fact or event. But, "if _he had_ a book, he would lend it," denotes a present certainty that he has it not. The times referred to are wholly distinct.

As the practice of all writers and good speakers, and even of the vulgar, is nearly uniform in the distinction here mentioned, it is needless to produce more examples for illustration. One verb however deserves a separate consideration; which is _be_. In the use of this verb in the hypothetical sense, there is a difference between good authors and common parlance; the first write _were_, but most people in conversation say, _was_. Thus,

"Every rich man has usually some sly way of jesting, which would make no great figure, _were_ he not rich."----Spect. No. 2.

"He will often argue, that if this part of our trade _were_ well cultivated, we should gain from one nation," &c.---- Same.

"_Were_ I (if I were) a father, I should take a particular care to preserve my children from these little horrors of imagination."---- Same, No. 12.

"Nor think, tho men _were_ none, That heaven would want spectators, God want praise."

Milton, P. L.

"What then he _was_, oh, _were_ your Nestor now."

Pope, Iliad, b. 7. 189.

"Yes, if the nature of a clock _were_ to speak, not strike."----Ben Johnson.

"Where the poor knave erroneously believes, If he _were_ rich, he would build churches, or Do such mad things."----Same.

_Were_, in these examples, is the same hypothetical present tense just described, having not the least reference to the past.[118] But in conversation, we generally hear _was_; "if I _was_ in his place;" "if he _was_ here _now_," &c. and I observe that modern writers are copying the general practice.

"If I _was_ not afraid of being thought to refine too much."--Boling. Refl. on Exile.

Both these forms have such authorities to support them, that neither can be considered as wholly incorrect; they are both English. But custom will eventually establish the latter, _was_, as the hypothetical form of the substantive verb. It is now almost universally used, except in books; and the tide of general practice is irresistible.

The following examples will illustrate what has been advanced.

_Present time. Affirmative._

If he _has_ or _is_--denotes uncertainty. If he _had_ or _were_ or _was_--denote certainty that he has not, or is not.

_Negative._

If he _has_ not or _is_ not--uncertainty. If he _had_ not, _were_ not or _was_ not--certainty that he has or is.

_Past time. Affirm._

If he _had_ or _was_ yesterday--uncertainty. If he _had_ have,[119] or _had_ been yesterday--certainty that he _had_ not, or _was_ not.

_Negative._

If he _had_ or _was_ not--uncertainty. If he _had_ not have, or _had_ not been--certainty that he had or was.[120]

I cannot close my remarks on the tenses of the English verb, without noticing a common error, which must have sprung from inattention, and is perhaps too general now to admit of correction. It is the use of the past tense after another verb or _that_, when the sense requires a change of tenses. Thus,

"Suppose I were to say, that to every art there _was_ a system of such various and well approved principles."----Harris.

The first part of the sentence is hypothetical, _suppose I were to say_; but the last becomes declaratory under the supposition, and therefore the form of the verb should be changed to the present, indicative, _that to every art there is a system_: For it must be remarked that when the English speak of general existence, they use the present time; as, truth _is_ great above all things; the scriptures _are_ a rule of faith; the heavens _display_ the glory of the Lord. The past or the future, in such cases, would be highly improper. Hence the absurdity of the passage just quoted; the supposition is that every art _has_ (generally--at all times) a system of principles.

"If the taxes laid by government _were_ the only ones we _had_ to pay."

The author's meaning is, "the only taxes we _have_ to pay;" and he was probably led into the mistake by not understanding the preceding hypothetical verb, _were_, which actually speaks of the present time conditionally.

The error will be more striking in the following passages.

"If an atheist would well consider the arguments in this book, he would confess there _was_ a God."

There _was_ a God! And why not confess that there _is_ a God? The writer did not consider that the first part of the sentence is _conditional_, and that the last ought to be _declaratory_ of a fact always existing.

"Two young men have made a discovery that there _was_ a God."---- Swift's Arg. against Abolishing Christianity.

A curious discovery indeed! Were the Dean still alive, he might find there _is_ a great inaccuracy in that passage of his works.

"Yet were we to use the same word, where the figure _was_ manifest, we should use the preposition _from_."----Priestley, Gram. p. 158.

Here is the same error, and the author may live to correct it.

But of all this class of mistakes, the following is the most palpable.

"I am determined to live, as if there _was_ a _future_ life."---- Hammon, quoted by Price and Priestley.

Hammon is an atheist, and it would require the same abilities to reconcile the two words _was future_, as to reconcile his principles with the common sense of mankind.[121]

The following passage, from _Gregory's Comparative View of the State and Faculties of Man_, is remarkable for this error.

"Men have been taught that they _did_ (do) God acceptable service, by abstracting themselves from all the duties they _owed_ (owe) to society; and by inflicting on themselves the severest tortures which nature can support. They have been taught that it _was_ (is) their duty," &c.

"And yet one would think that this _was_ the principal use of the study of history."----Bolingbroke on Hist. letter 3.

A similar fault occurs in one of Mrs. Thale's letters to Dr. Johnson, Aug. 9, 1775.

"--Yet I have always found the best supplement for talk _was_ writing."

So in Blackstone's Commentaries, book 1. chap. 7.

"It was observed in a former chapter, that one of the principal bulwarks of civil liberty, or, in other words, of the British constitution, _was_ the limitation of the king's prerogative."

The observation had been made in time past, but respecting a fact that exists _now_, and at all times while the British constitution exists. The sentence therefore should run thus; "it _was_ observed that one principal bulwark of civil liberty, _is_ the limitation of the king's prerogative."

No fault is more common; we every day hear such expressions as these; "If I thought it _was_ so;" "suppose I should say she _was_ handsome;" "I did not think it _was_ so late," &c. _Was_, in the first and last examples, should be the infinitive, _to be_; and in the second, the present time, _is_. Had proper attention been paid to our language, so many palpable mistakes would not have crept into practice, and into the most correct and elegant writings. Dr. Reid is perhaps the only writer who has generally avoided this error.

The Greek and Roman writers were not guilty of such mistakes. Either the varieties of inflection in their languages, or superior care in the writers, made them attentive to the nice distinctions of time. In the following passage, the translators of the Bible, by adhering closely to the original, have avoided the common error before mentioned.

"I _knew_ thee that thou art an hard man."--Matth. xxv. 24. "~Egnôn hoti sklêros ei anthrôpos~;" literally, _having known_ that thou _art_ an hard man. So also ver. 26, "Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou _knewest_ that I _reap_, where I sowed not;" "~êdeis hoti therizô~." Had these passages been translated into the careless stile of modern conversation, and even of many excellent writings, they would have stood thus--"I knew thee that thou _wast_ an hard man"--"thou knewest that I _reaped_ where I sow not." But the general character and conduct of the person mentioned in this parable, are supposed to exist at all times while he is living; and this general nature of the fact requires the verb to be in the present time. To confirm this remark let the sentences be inverted; "thou art an hard man, I knew thee to be such, or I knew it." "I reap where I sowed not, thou knewest that." This is an indubitable evidence of the accuracy of the translation.[122]

An inversion of the order of the sentence in the passages first quoted, will show the common error in a most striking light.

"There _was_ a God, two young men have made that discovery." "Men _did_ God acceptable service, by abstracting themselves, &c. they have been taught this; it _was_ their duty, they have been taught this." "The taxes we _had_ to pay to government, if these were the only ones." This will not make sense to a man who _has_ taxes _still_ to pay; the writer's _had to pay_ will not discharge the public debt. But it is unnecessary to multiply examples and arguments; the reader must be already convinced that these errors exist, and that I ought not to have been the first to notice them.

Sometimes this hypothetical tense is used with an infinitive for the future. In the following passage it seems to be correct.

"I wish I _were_ to go to the Elysian fields, when I die, and then I should not care if I _were_ to leave the world tomorrow."----Pope.

But the following are hardly vindicable.

"Suppose they _marched_ up to our mines with a numerous army, how could they subsist for want of provision."----Moyle, Diss. on the Rev. of Athens.

"If they _foraged_ in small parties."----Same.

The sense is future, and therefore _should march_, _should forage_, would have been more correct.

"I should not act the part of an impartial spectator, if I _dedicated_ the following papers to one who is not of the most consummate and acknowleged merit."----Spect. Dedic.

_If I should dedicate_, would have been more accurate.

A similar fault occurs in the following passage.

"If nature _thunder'd_ in his opening ears, And _stunn'd_ him with the music of the spheres."

Pope, Essay on Man.

If nature _should thunder_ and _stun_ him, is the meaning.

There is another article that deserves to be mentioned; which is, the use of a verb after _as_ or _than_, apparently without a nominative.

"This unlimited power is what the best legislators of all ages have endeavored to deposit in such hands, as _would preserve_ the people from rapine."----Swift, vol. 2. Contests, &c.

"_Would preserve_" seems to have no nominative, for _hands_ cannot be inserted without changing the form of the sentence; _in those hands which would preserve_.

"A hypocrite hath so many things to attend to, _as make_ his life a very perplexed and intricate thing."----Tillotson.

This mode of expression is however well established and occasions no obscurity. The truth is, _as_ is an article or relative equivalent to _that_ or _which_; and the criticisms of Lowth on the conjunctions, where he condemns the use of _as_ and _so_ in a number of instances, prove that he knew nothing about the true meaning of these words. See Diversions of Purley, page 283.

Another form of expression, peculiar to our language, is the _participial noun_, a word derived from a verb, and having the properties, both of a verb and a noun; as, "I heard of _his acquiring_ a large estate." _Acquiring_ here expresses the _act done_, the acquisition; yet governs the following objective case, _estate_. When a noun precedes the participle, it takes the sign of the possessive, "I heard of a _man's acquiring_ an estate." This is the genuin English idiom; and yet modern writers very improperly omit the sign of the possessive, as, I heard of a _man acquiring_ an estate. This omission often changes the sense of the phrase or leaves it ambiguous.

The omission of the sign of the possessive in the following example is a very great fault.

"Of a general or public act, the courts of law are bound to take notice judicially and _ex officio_, without the _statute being_ particularly pleaded."----Blackstone Comment. vol. 1. p. 86.

The preposition _without_ here governs the phrase following, which might otherwise be properly arranged thus, without _the particular pleading of the statute_, or without _pleading the statute particularly_. But as the sentence stands, there is nothing to show the true construction, or how the sentence may be resolved: _Being_ and _pleaded_ both stand as participles; whereas the construction requires that they should be considered as standing for a noun; for _without_ does not govern _statute_; _without the statute_, is not the meaning of the writer. But it governs _pleading_, or refers immediately to that idea or union of ideas, expressed by _being particularly pleaded_. As these last words represent a noun, which is immediately governed by the preposition, _without_, the word _statute_ should have the sign of the possessive, as much as any word in the genitive case, _without the statute's being particularly pleaded_; that is, without the particular pleading _of the statute_ by the parties; for in order to make grammar or sense, _statute_ must be in the possessive.

To confirm these remarks, I would just add, that when we substitute a pronoun in such cases, we always use the possessive case. Suppose the word _statute_ had been previously used, in the sentence; the writer then would have used the pronoun in the close of the sentence, thus; "without _its_ being particularly pleaded;" and I presume that no person will contend for the propriety of, "without _it_ being pleaded."

So we should say, "a judge will not proceed to try a criminal, without _his_ being present." But would it be correct to say, without _him_ being present? This mode of speaking will not, I am confident, be advocated: But unless I am mistaken, this last expression stands on a footing with the example cited, _without the statute being pleaded_. Numberless similar examples occur in those modern writers who aim at refinement of language. "If we can admit the doctrine of the _stomach having_ a general consent with the whole system."--"On account of the _system being_ too highly toned," &c. It is strange the writers of such language do not see that there are in fact two possessives in such phrases--"on account _of_ the too high toning _of_ the system," and that both should be expressed; thus, "on account _of_ the _system's_ being too high toned."

It may be questioned whether the verb _need_ may not with propriety be used in the third person singular of the indicative, present, without the usual termination of that person. Practice will at least warrant it.

"But tho the principle is to be applauded, the error cannot, and, in this enlightened age, happily _need_ not be defended."----Erskine, Orat. Temp. vol. 1. p. 95.

"Now a person _need_ but enter into himself and reflect on the operations of his own mind."----Nugent's Burlamaqui, 1. I. 9.

"Hence it was adjudged, that the use _need_ not always be executed the instant the conveyance is made."----Blackstone, Com. b. 2. chap. 20.

Numberless authorities of this kind may be produced; but we may spare the trouble, and only advert to the constant practice of speakers of every class; "he need not;" "it need not." Indeed, _he needs not_, altho grammatically correct, is so offensive to most ears, that we have little reason to expect people will be persuaded to use it.

The same may be said of _dare_; "he dare not."

_I am mistaken_, Lowth reprobates as bad English; asserting that the phrase is equivalent to _I am misunderstood_. In this criticism the Bishop _is mistaken_ most grossly. Whether the phrase is a corruption of _am mistaking_ or not, is wholly immaterial; in the sense the English have used it from time immemorial and universally, _mistaken_ is a mere adjective, signifying that one is in an error; and this sense the Bishop should have explained, and not rejected the phrase.

PARTICLES.

The same author disapproves of _to_ after _averse_; another example of his hasty decision. The practice of good writers and speakers is almost wholly in favor of _to_, and this is good authority; the propriety of the English particles depending almost solely on their use, without any reference to Latin rules. _Averse_ is an adjective, describing a certain state or quality of the mind, without regard to motion, and therefore _averse from_ is as improper as _contrary from_, _opposed from_, or _reluctant from_. Indeed in the original sense of _from_, explained by Mr. Horne Tooke, as denoting _beginning_, _averse from_ appears to be nonsense.

The following phrases are said to be faulty; _previous to_, _antecedent to_, with others of a similar nature. The criticism on these expressions must have been made on a very superficial view of the subject. In this sentence, "previous to the establishment of the new government, the resolutions of Congress could not be enforced by legal compulsory penalties;" _previous_ refers to the word _time_ or something equivalent implied, _at the time previous_, or _during the time or period, previous_ to the establishment of the new government. This is the strict grammatical resolution of the phrase; and the usual correction, _previously_, is glaringly absurd; _during the time previously to the establishment_; into such wild errors are men led by a slight view of things, or by applying the principles of one language to the construction of another.[124]

"_Agreeable to his promise_, he sent me the papers;" here _agreeable_ is correct; for it refers to the fact done; he sent me the papers, which sending was agreeable to his promise. In such cases, practice has often a better foundation than the criticisms which are designed to change it.

_According_ is usually numbered among the prepositions; but most absurdly; it is always a participle, and has always a reference to some noun or member of a sentence. "_According to his promise_, he called on me last evening." Here _according_ refers to the whole subsequent member of the sentence; "he called on me last evening, which (the whole of which facts) was _according_ to his promise." No person pretends that "_accordingly_ to his promise" is good English; yet the phrase is not more incorrect than "_agreeably_ to his promise," or "_previously_ to this event," which the modern critics and refiners of our language have recommended.

"_Who_ do you speak _to_?" "_Who_ did he marry?" are challenged as bad English; but _whom_ do you speak _to_? was never used in speaking, as I can find, and if so, is hardly English at all. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the English _who_ and the Latin _qui_, are the same word with mere variations of dialect. _Who_, in the Gothic or Teutonic, has always answered to the Latin nominative, _qui_; the dative _cui_, which was pronounced like _qui_, and the ablative _quo_; in the same manner as _whose_ has answered to _cujus_, in all genders; _whom_ to _quem_, _quam_, and _what_ to _quod_. So that _who_ did he speak _to_? _Who_ did you go _with_? were probably as good English, in ancient times, as _cui dixit?_ _Cum quo ivisti?_ in Latin. Nay, it is more than probable that _who_ was once wholly used in asking questions, even in the objective case; _who_ did he marry? until some Latin student began to suspect it bad English, because not agreeable to the Latin rules. At any rate, _whom_ do you speak _to_? is a corruption, and all the grammars that can be formed will not extend the use of the phrase beyond the walls of a college.

The foregoing criticisms will perhaps illustrate and confirm an assertion of Mr. Horne Tooke, that "Lowth has rejected much _good_ English." I should go farther and assert that he has criticized away more phrases of _good_ English, than he has corrected of _bad_. He has not only mistaken the true construction of many phrases, but he has rejected others that have been used generally by the English nation from the earliest times, and by arbitrary rules, substituted phrases that have been rarely, or never used at all. To detect such errors, and restrain the influence of such respectable names, in corrupting the true idiom of our tongue, I conceive to be the duty of every friend to American literature.

On examining the language, and comparing the practice of speaking among the yeomanry of this country, with the stile of Shakespear and Addison, I am constrained to declare that the people of America, in particular the English descendants, speak the most _pure English_ now known in the world. There is hardly a foreign idiom in their language; by which I mean, a _phrase_ that has not been used by the best English writers from the time of Chaucer. They retain a few obsolete _words_, which have been dropt by writers, probably from mere affectation, as those which are substituted are neither more melodious nor expressive. In many instances they retain correct phrases, instead of which the pretended refiners of the language have introduced those which are highly improper and absurd.

Let Englishmen take notice that when I speak of the American yeomanry, the latter are not to be compared to the illiterate peasantry of their own country. The yeomanry of this country consist of substantial independent freeholders, masters of their own persons and lords of their own soil. These men have considerable education. They not only learn to read, write and keep accounts; but a vast proportion of them read newspapers every week, and besides the Bible, which is found in all families, they read the best English sermons and treatises upon religion, ethics, geography and history; such as the works of Watts, Addison, Atterbury, Salmon, &c. In the eastern states, there are public schools sufficient to instruct every man's children, and most of the children are actually benefited by these institutions. The people of distant counties in England can hardly understand one another, so various are their dialects; but in the extent of twelve hundred miles in America, there are very few, I question whether a hundred words, except such as are used in employments wholly local, which are not universally intelligible.

But unless the rage for imitating foreign changes can be restrained, this agreeable and advantageous uniformity will be gradually destroyed. The standard writers abroad give us local practice, the momentary whims of the great, or their own arbitrary rules to direct our pronunciation; and we, the apes of fashion, submit to imitate any thing we hear and see. Sheridan has introduced or given sanction to more arbitrary and corrupt changes of pronunciation, within a few years, than had before taken place in a century; and in Perry's Dictionary, not to mention the errors in what he most arrogantly calls his "_Only sure Guide_ to the English Tongue," there are whole pages in which there are scarcely two or three words marked for a just pronunciation. There is no Dictionary yet published in Great Britain, in which so many of the analogies of the language and the just rules of pronunciation are preserved, as in the common practice of the well informed Americans, who have never consulted any foreign standard. Nor is there any grammatical treatise, except Dr. Priestley's, which has explained the real idioms of the language, as they are found in Addison's works, and which remain to this day in the American practice of speaking.

The result of the whole is, that we should adhere to our own practice and general customs, unless it can be made very obvious that such practice is wrong, and that a change will produce some considerable advantage.

FOOTNOTES:

[85] It is a dispute among grammarians, whether the interjection is a part of speech; and the question, like many others upon similar subjects, has employed more learning than common sense. The simple truth is this; the involuntary sounds produced by a sudden passion, are the language of nature which is subject only to nature's rules. They are, in some degree, similar among all nations. They do not belong to a grammatical treatise, any more than the looks of fear, surprise or any other passion. The words, ah me! oh me! are mere exclamations, as are bless me! my gracious! and numberless other sounds, which are uttered without any precise meaning, and are not reduceable to any rules.

[86] See Dr. Edwards on the Mohegan tongue. New Haven. 1788.

[87] _While_ is an old Saxon noun, signifying _time_; and it is still used in the same sense, _one while_, _all this while_. _Adown_ is of uncertain origin. The Saxon _aduna_ cannot easily be explained. _Above_ is from an old word, signifying _head_. _Among_ is from the Saxon _gemengan_ to mix. The etymology of the others is obvious.

[88] It has been remarked that _y_ and _g_ are gutturals which bear nearly the same affinity to each other as _b_ and _p_. Thus it happens that we find in old writings a _y_ in many words where _g_ is now used; as _ayen_, _ayenst_, for again, against. Thus _bayonet_ is pronounced _bagonet_.

[89] Four hundred years ago, the purest author wrote _sen_ or _sin_ which is now deemed vulgar:

"Sin thou art rightful juge, how may it be, That thou wolt soffren innocence to spill, And wicked folk to regne in prosperitee?"

Chaucer, Cant. Tales. 5234.

[90] _Out_ was originally a verb. So in the first line of the celebrated Chevy Chace,

"The Persé _owt_ of Northombarlande, And a vow to God made he," &c.

I have, in one or two instances, observed the use of it still among the lower classes of people, in this country; and I find _outed_ in some good writers, as late as Charles I.

[91] Mr. Horne remarks that the French word _mais_ was formerly used in the sense of _more_, or _bot_. The English word _more_ was formerly often spelt _mo_.

"Telle me anon withouten wordes _mo_."

Chaucer, Prol. to Cant. Tales, 810.

Is it not possible that _mo_ or _more_ and the French _mais_ may be radically the same word?

The following passage will confirm the foregoing explanation of _beutan_. It is taken from the Saxon version of the Gospels.---- Luke, chap. 1. v. 74. of the original.

"Hæt we _butan_ ege of ure feonda handa alysede, him theowrian."

This version of the Gospels was doubtless as early as the tenth or eleventh century. In Wickliff's version, made about three centuries later, the passage stands thus: "That we _without_ drede, delyvered fro the hand of oure enemyes, serve to him." Where we find _butan_ and _without_ are synonimous.

The word _bot_ or _bote_ is still retained in the law language, as _fire-bote_, _house-bote_; where it is equivalent to _enough_ or _sufficiency_.

[92] So in Mandeville's works. "And right as the schip men taken here avys here, and govern hem _be_ the lode sterre, right so don schip men bezonde the parties, _be_ the sterre of the Southe, the which apperethe not to us."

[93] The French _oui_ is said to be a derivative or participle of the verb _ouir_ to hear. The mode of assent therefore is by the word _heard_; as what you say is _heard_; a mode equally expressive with the English.

[94] It is most probable that many of the English words beginning with _wh_ are from the same original as the Latin qui, quæ, quod; and both coeval with the Greek. Qui and who; quod and what; are from the same root, and a blending of the Greek ~kai ho~ and ~kai hoti~. This supposition is strongly supported by the ancient Scotch orthography of _what_, _where_, &c. which was _quhat_, _quhar_.

[95] The termination _ly_, from _liche_, added to _adjectives_, forms the part of speech called _adverbs_; as _great_, _greatly_; _gracious_, _graciously_. But when this termination is added to a noun, it forms an adjective, as God, _Godly_; heaven, _heavenly_; and these words are also used adverbially; for they will not admit the addition of another _ly_. _Godlily_, which has been sometimes used, that is, _Godlikelike_, and other similar words, are not admissible, on any principle whatever.

[96] _Do_ and _to_ are undoubtedly from the same root; _d_ and _t_ being convertible letters.

[97] This word is not used in modern French; but its derivatives, _avitailler_, _avitaillment_, &c. are still retained.

[98] Correspondence, letter 53.

[99] Some of these articles, in other languages, have names in the singular number, as in Latin, _forceps_, pincers; _forfex_, sheers or scissors; _follis_, bellows. In French, _souflet_ is singular, and _pincettes_, plural. A _bellows_ is sometimes heard in English, and is perfectly correct.

[100] Will the same authority justify our farmers in prefixing _pair_ to a sett of _bars_, and other people, in prefixing it to _stairs_, when there are five or six of the former, and perhaps twenty of the latter? A _pair of bars_, a _pair of stairs_, in strictness of speech, are very absurd phrases; but perhaps it is better to admit such anomalies, than attempt to change universal and immemorial practice.

[101] "The _King of England's court_, toto nempe illi aggregato. The _King of England_, tamquam uni substantivo potponitur litera formativa _s_."----Wallis.

[102] Second part of the Grammatical Institute. Tit. Notes.

[103] Chaucer's Works, Glossary, p. 151.

[104] The Editor of Chaucer's Works before mentioned, remarks, "that _a_, in composition with words of Saxon original, is an abbreviation of _as_ or _of_, _at_, _on_ or _in_; and often a corruption of the prepositive particle _ge_ or _y_." According to this writer, _a_ is any thing and every thing; it has so many derivations and uses, that it has no certain derivation or meaning at all. In the phrase _a coming_, _a_ seems now to be a mere expletive; but otherwise _a_, _one_, and _an_ have the same meaning in all cases.

[105] Lowth's Introduction. Tit. verb.

[106] _Run_, like many other verbs, may be used either transitively or intransitively. Simply _to run_, is intransitive; _to run a horse_, transitive.

[107] Lowth observes a distinction between the verb _to will_, and the auxiliary, _will_; the first being regularly inflected. _I will_, _thou willest_, _he wills_, and the latter, _I will_, _thou will_, _he will_. But altho this distinction actually exists in modern practice, yet the words are, in both cases, the same--derived from the same root, and still retaining nearly the same meaning.

[108] _If I were_, _thou wert_, _he were_, in the present hypothetical tense of the subjunctive mode, are not used in the indicative.

[109] It has been before observed, that the common people have not wholly lost this pronunciation, _woll_, to this day.

[110] See the second part of the Grammatical Institute. Appendix.

[111] It must be remembered that _be_ is the old original substantive verb, and belongs to the indicative. _Am_ and _art_ are of later introduction into English.

[112] Lowth's Introduction, p. 39. Note.

[113] "The present tense in English hath often the _sense of the future_; as _when do you go out of town?_ I go tomorrow: that is, when will you, shall you go? I shall go. _If you do well_, that is, shall do well, you will be rewarded: _As soon as_, or _when you come there_; that is, shall come, turn on your right hand: With these forms of speaking, the verb is always placed in the future in Latin, Greek and Hebrew."----Bayley's Intro. to Lan. Lit. and Phil. 99.

This critical writer has explained this mode of speaking with accuracy; but it would be more correct to call this form of the verb, an _elliptical future_, than to say, _the present tense has the sense of the future_.

[114] So in the law stile. "If a man _die_ intestate;" "if a man _die_ seised of an estate in fee;" "if Titius _enfeoff_ Gaius," &c. are future; and in most such phrases used in translations from the Latin and French, the verbs in the original are future. But in law the same form is used in the present very frequently, agreeable to the ancient practice. The reason may be, the convenience and necessity of copying words and phrases with great exactness. But Blackstone, the most accurate and elegant law writer, uses the other form, "if a man _has_ heirs;" "if a good or valuable consideration _appears_;" and too often, when the sense requires the future. He generally gives _be_ its subjunctive form, as it is called, and most other verbs the indicative.

[115] In some instances, the time is present, and the ellipsis may be supplied by _may_ or some other auxiliary.

[116] In the original, the participle of the present time is employed: ~hina kai echontes gynaikas, hôs mê echontes~; and so in the other instances. The Greek is correct; "those _having_ wives as _not having_ them." The translation is agreeable enough to the English idiom; but the verbs represent the present time.

[117] A similar use of the verb occurs after _wish_; "_I wish I had_ my estate _now_ in possession;" this would be expressed in Latin. _Utinam me habere_, using the present of the infinitive, or _Utinam ut haberem_; but this Imperfect tense of the Subjunctive, both in Latin and French, is used to convey the same ideas as English verbs after if; _if I had_, _si haberem_, _si j'aurois_, and whatever may be the name annexed to this form of the verb, it cannot, in the foregoing sense, have any reference to past time.

The common phrases, _I had rather_, _he had better_, are said to be a corruption of _I would rather_, _he would better_, rapidly pronounced, _I'd rather_. I am not satisfied that this is a just account of their origin; _would_ will not supply the place of _had_ in all cases. At any rate, the phrases have become good English.

[118] The following translation of a passage in Cicero is directly in point. "Vivo tamen in ea ambitione et labore tanquam id, quod non postulo, _expectem_."----Cicero ad Quintum. 2. 15.

"I live still in such a course of ambition and fatigue, as if _I were expecting_ what I do not really desire."----Middleton, Life of Cicero, vol. 2. p. 97.

Here _tanquam expectem_ are rendered very justly, "as if I _were_ expecting;" _now_, in present time, agreeable to the original. The words carry a negative: _if I were expecting_, implying, that _I do not expect_.

[119] This tense is not admitted to be good English; yet is often used in speaking; the _have_ being contracted or corrupted into _a_, _had a written_, _if he had a received_.

[120] We have derived our substantive verb from two radical verbs; _beon_, whence come the English _be_, and the German _bist_; and _weorthan_, to be or _become_, fieri; from which probably, the Danes have their _varer_, and the English their _were_.

[121] The great source of these errors is this: Grammarians have considered _that_ as a conjunction, and supposed that "conjunctions couple like cases and modes;" a Latin rule that does not always hold in English. But Mr. Horne Tooke has clearly proved the word _that_ to be always a relative pronoun: It always relates to a word or sentence; and the reason why grammarians have called it a conjunction, may be this; they could not find any word to govern it as a relative, and therefore did not know what to do with it. But it is in fact a relative word, thus, "two men have made a discovery;" this is one assertion. What discovery? "_that_ or _this_ is the discovery;" the word _that_ carrying the force of a complete affirmation; "there _was_ a God." Here we see the absurdity of Swift's declaration and the common notions of a subjunctive mode. There is no subjunctive; in strictness of speech, all sentences are resolvable into distinct declaratory phrases. "There _is_ a God;" "two young men have discovered _that_;" so the sentence should be written to show the true construction.

[122] A passage in Dr. Middleton's Life of Cicero, is remarkably accurate; "The celebrated orator, L. Cassius, died of the same disease (the pleurisy,) which might probably be then, as I _was_ told in Rome it _is now_, the peculiar distemper of the place." _Was_ refers to time completely _past_; but _is_ declares a fact that exists generally, at all times; the verb is therefore in the present tense, or as Harris terms it,[123] the _aorist of the present_. So also in Dr. Reid's Essays, vol. 1. p. 18. "Those philosophers _held_, that there _are_ three first principles of all things;" which is correct English. "Aristotle _thought_ every object of human understanding _enters_ at first by the senses."--Page 110. The following passage is equally correct. "There is a courage depending on nerves and blood, which _was_ improved to the highest pitch among the Greeks."----Gillies, Hist. of Greece, vol. 1. p. 248. This courage is derived from the constitution of the human body; it exists therefore at _all times_; and had our author said, "there _was_ a courage depending on nerves and blood, which the Greeks _improved_ to the highest pitch," the sense would have been left imperfect. Here then we see the indefinite use of this form of the present tense; for were the verb is, in the foregoing example, limited to time _now present_, it would make the author write nonsense; it being absurd to say, "the Greeks 2000 years ago _improved_ a courage which exists only _at the present time_." So that verbs, in the _present_ tense, express facts that have an uninterrupted existence in _past_, _present_, and _future_ time.

[123] Hermes, page 123.

[124] _Previous_ may be vindicated on another principle; viz. by considering it as qualifying the whole subsequent member of the sentence. "The resolutions of Congress could not be enforced by legal penalties; this _fact_ was _previous_ to the establishment," &c. But the other is the real construction.

DISSERTATION V.

_Of the Construction of English Verse.--Pauses.--Expression.--Of reading Verse._

_Of the_ CONSTRUCTION _of_ ENGLISH VERSE.

As poetry has ever been numbered among the _fine arts_, and has employed the pens of the first geniuses in all nations, an investigation of the subject must be gratifying to readers of taste. And it must be the more agreeable, as it has been much neglected, and the nature and construction of English verse have frequently been misunderstood.

Most prosodians who have treated particularly of this subject, have been guilty of a fundamental error, in considering the movement of English verse as depending on long and short syllables, formed by long and short vowels. This hypothesis has led them into capital mistakes. The truth is, many of those syllables which are considered as _long_ in verse, are formed by the shortest vowels in the language; as _strength_, _health_, _grand_. The doctrine, that long vowels are requisite to form long syllables in poetry, is at length exploded, and the principles which regulate the movement of our verse, are explained; viz. _accent_ and _emphasis_. Every emphatical word, and every accented syllable, will form what is called in verse, a long syllable. The unaccented syllables, and unemphatical monosyllabic words, are considered as short syllables.

But there are two kinds of emphasis; a natural emphasis, which arises from the importance of the idea conveyed by a word; and an accidental emphasis, which arises from the importance of a word in a particular situation.

The first or natural emphasis belongs to all nouns, verbs, participles and adjectives, and requires no elevation of voice; as,

"Not _half_ so _swift_ the _tremb_ling _doves_ can _fly_."

The last or accidental emphasis is laid on a word when it has some particular meaning, and when the force of a sentence depends on it; this therefore requires an elevation of voice; as,

"Perdition catch my soul--but I _do_ love thee."

So far the prosody of the English language seems to be settled; but the rules laid down for the construction of verse, seem to have been imperfect and disputed.

Writers have generally supposed that our heroic verse consists of five feet, all pure Iambics, except the first foot, which they allow may be a Trochee. In consequence of this opinion, they have expunged letters from words which were necessary; and curtailed feet in such a manner as to disfigure the beauty of printing, and in many instances, destroyed the harmony of our best poetry.

The truth is, so far is our heroic verse from being confined to the Iambic measure, that it admits of eight feet, and in some instances of nine. I will not perplex my readers with a number of hard names, but proceed to explain the several feet, and show in what places of the line they are admissible.

An Iambic foot, which is the ground of English numbers, consists of two syllables, the first _short_ and the second _long_. This foot is admitted into every place of the line. Example, all Iambics.

"Wh[)e]re sl[=a]ves [)o]nce m[=o]re th[)e]ir n[=a]t[)i]ve l[=a]nd b[)e]h[=o]ld, N[)o] fi[=e]nds t[)o]rm[=e]nt, n[)o] chr[=i]sti[)a]ns th[=i]rst, f[)o]r g[=o]ld."

Pope.

The Trochee is a foot consisting of two syllables, the first _long_ and the second _short_. Example.

"_W[=a]rms_ [)i]n the sun, refreshes in the breeze, _Glows in_ the stars, and blossoms in the trees."

Pope.

The Trochee is not admissible into the second place of the line; but in the third and fourth it may have beauty, when it creates a correspondence between the sound and sense.

"Eve rightly call'd _m[=o]th[)e]r_ of all mankind."

"And staggered by the stroke, _dr[=o]ps th[)e]_ large ox."

The Spondee is a foot consisting of two long syllables. This may be used in any place of the line.

1. "_G[=o]od l[=i]fe_ be now my task, my doubts are done."

Dryden.

2. "As some _l[=o]ne mo[=u]nt_ain's monstrous growth he stood."

Pope.

But it has a greater beauty, when preceded by a Trochee.

"L[=o]ad th[)e] _t[=a]ll b[=a]rk_ and launch into the main."

3. "The mountain goats _c[=a]me b[=o]und_ing o'er the lawn."

4. "He spoke, and speaking in _pr[=o]ud tr[=i]_umph spread, The long contended honors of her head."

Pope.

5. "Singed are his brows, the scorching lids _gr[=o]w bl[=a]ck_."

Pope.

The Pyrrhic is a foot of two short syllables; it is graceful in the first and fourth places, and is admissible into the second and third.

1. "_N[)o]r [)i]n_ the helpless orphan dread a foe."

Pope.

2. ----"On they move, Indis_s[)o]l[)u]_bly firm."----Milton.

3. "The two extremes appear like man and wife, Coupled togeth_[)e]r f[)o]r_ the sake of strife."

Churchill.

But this foot is most graceful in the fourth place.

"The dying gales that pant _[)u]p[)o]n_ the trees."

"To farthest shores the ambrosial spirit flies, Sweet to the world and grate_f[)u]l t[)o]_ the skies."

The Amphibrach is a foot of three syllables, the first and third short, and the second long. It is used in heroic verse only when we take the liberty to add a short syllable to a line.

"The piece you say is incorrect, _wh[)y] t[=a]ke [)i]t_, I'm all submission, what you'd have _[)i]t, m[=a]ke [)i]t_."

This foot is hardly admissible in the solemn or sublime stile. Pope has indeed admitted it into his Essay on Man:

"What can ennoble sots or slaves [)o]r c[=o]w[)a]rds, Alas! not all the blood of all th[)e] H[=o]w[)a]rds."

Again:

"To sigh for ribbands, if thou art s[)o] s[=i]ll[)y], Mark how they grace Lord Umbra or S[)i]r B[=i]ll[)y]."

But these lines are of the high burlesque kind, and in this stile the Amphibrach closes lines with great beauty.

The Tribrach is a foot of three syllables, all short; and it may be used in the third and fourth places.

"And rolls impet_[)u]o[)u]s t[)o]_ the subject plain."

Or thus:

"And thunders down impet_[)u]o[)u]s t[)o]_ the plain."

The Dactyl, a foot of three syllables, the first long and the two last short, is used principally in the first place in the line.

"_F[=u]r[)i]o[)u]s_ he spoke, the angry chief replied."

"_M[=u]rm[)u]r[)i]ng_, and with him fled the shades of night."

The Anapæst, a foot consisting of three syllables, the two first short and the last long, is admissible into every place of the line.

"C[)a]n [)a] b[=o]s[)o]m s[)o] g[=e]ntl[)e] r[)e]m[=a]in, Unmoved when her Corydon sighs? Will a nymph that is fond of the plains, These plains and these valleys despise? Dear regions of silence and shade, Soft scenes of contentment and ease, Where I could have pleasingly stay'd, If ought in her absence could please."

The trissyllabic feet have suffered most by the general ignorance of critics; most of them have been mutilated by apostrophes, in order to reduce them to the Iambic measure.

Thus in the line before repeated,

"_Murmuring_, and with him fled the shades of night,"

we find the word in the copy reduced to two syllables, _murm'ring_, and the beauty of the Dactyl is destroyed.

Thus in the following:

"On every side with shadowy squadrons deep,"

by apostrophizing _every_ and _shadowy_, the line loses its harmony. The same remark applies to the following:

"And hosts infuriate shake the shudd'ring plain."

"But fashion so directs, and moderns raise On fashion's _mould'ring_ base, their transient praise."

Churchill.

Poetic lines which abound with these trissyllabic feet, are the most flowing and melodious of any in the language; and yet the poets themselves, or their printers, murder them with numberless unnecessary contractions.

It requires but little judgement and an ear indifferently accurate, to distinguish the contractions which are necessary, from those which are needless and injurious to the versification. In the following passage we find examples of both.

"She went from op'ra, park, assembly, play, To morning walks and pray'rs three times a day; To part her time 'twixt reading and bohea, To muse and spill her solitary tea; Or o'er cold coffee trifle with the spoon, Count the slow clock, and dine exact at noon; Divert her eyes with pictures in the fire, Hum half a tune, tell stories to the 'squire; Up to her godly garret after sev'n, There starve and pray, for that's the way to heav'n."

Pope's Epistles.

Here _e_ in _opera_ ought not to be apostrophized, for such a contraction reduces an Amphibrachic foot to an Iambic. The words _prayers_, _seven_ and _heaven_ need not the apostrophe of _e_; for it makes no difference in the pronunciation. But the contraction of _over_ and _betwixt_ is necessary; for without it the measure would be imperfect.

PAUSES.

Having explained the several kinds of feet, and shown in what places of a verse they may be used, I proceed to another important article, the pauses. Of these there are two kinds, the _cesural_ pause, which divides the line into two equal or unequal parts; and the _final_ pause which closes the verse. These pauses are called _musical_, because their sole end is the melody of verse.

The pauses which mark the sense, and for this reason are denominated _sentential_, are the same in verse as in prose. They are marked by the usual stops, a comma, a semicolon, a colon, or a period, as the sense requires, and need no particular explanation.

The cesural pause is not essential to verse, for the shorter kinds of measure are without it; but it improves both the melody and the harmony.

Melody in music is derived from a succession of sounds; harmony from different sounds in concord. A single voice can produce melody; a union of voices is necessary to form harmony. In this sense harmony cannot be applied to verse, because poetry is recited by a single voice. But harmony may be used in a figurative sense, to express the effect produced by observing the proportion which the members of verse bear to each other.[125]

The cesural pause may be placed in any part of the verse; but has the finest effect upon the melody, when placed after the second or third foot, or in the middle of the third. After the second:

"In what retreat, inglorious and unknown, Did genius sleep, when dulness seized the throne."

After the third:

"O say what stranger cause, yet unexplored, Could make a gentle belle reject a lord?"

In the middle of the third:

"Great are his perils, in this stormy time, Who rashly ventures, on a sea of rhime."

In these examples we find a great degree of melody, but not in all the same degree. In comparing the divisions of verse, we experience the most pleasure in viewing those which are equal; hence those verses which have the pause in the middle of the third foot, which is the middle of the verse, are the most melodious. Such is the third example above.

In lines where the pause is placed after the second foot, we perceive a smaller degree of melody, for the divisions are not equal; one containing four syllables, the other six, as in the first example.

But the melody in this example, is much superior to that of the verses which have the cesural pause after the third foot; for this obvious reason: When the pause bounds the second foot, the latter part of the verse is the greatest, and leaves the most forcible impression upon the mind; but when the pause is at the end of the third foot, the order is reversed. We are fond of proceeding from small to great, and a climax in sound, pleases the ear in the same manner as a climax in sense delights the mind. Such is the first example.

It must be observed further, that when the cesural pause falls after the second and third feet, both the final and cesural pauses are on accented syllables; whereas when the cesural pause falls in the middle of the third foot, this is on a weak syllable, and the final pause, on an accented syllable. This variety in the latter, is another cause of the superior pleasure we derive from verses divided into equal portions.

The pause may fall in the middle of the fourth foot; as,

"Let favor speak for others, worth for me;"

but the melody, in this case, is almost lost. At the close of the first foot, the pause has a more agreeable effect.

"That's vile, should we a parent's fault adore, And err, because our fathers err'd before?"

In the middle of the second foot, the pause may be used, but produces little melody.

"And who but wishes to invert the laws Of order, sins against the eternal cause."

Harmony is produced by a proportion between the members of the same verse, or between the members of different verses. Example.

"Thy forests, Windsor, and thy green retreats, At once the monarch's, and the muse's seats, Invite my lays. Be present sylvan maids, Unlock your springs, and open all your shades."

Here we observe, the pause in the first couplet, is in the middle of the third foot; both verses are in this respect similar. In the last couplet, the pause falls after the second foot. In each couplet separately considered, there is a uniformity; but when one is compared with the other, there is a diversity. This variety produces a pleasing effect.[126] The variety is further encreased, when the first lines of several succeeding couplets are uniform as to themselves, and different from the last lines, which are also uniform as to themselves. Churchill, speaking of reason, lord chief justice in the court of man, has the following lines.

"Equally form'd to rule, in age and youth, The friend of virtue, and the guide to youth; To _her_ I bow, whose sacred power I feel; To _her_ decision, make my last appeal; Condemn'd by _her_, applauding worlds in vain Should tempt me to take up my pen again; By _her_ absolv'd, the course I'll still pursue; If _Reason_'s for me, _God_ is for me too."

The first line of three of these couplets, has the pause after the second foot; in this consists their similarity. The last line in three of them, has the pause in the middle of the third foot; they are uniform as to themselves, but different from the foregoing lines. This passage, which on the whole is very beautiful, suffers much by the sixth line, which is not verse, but rather hobbling prose.[127]

The foregoing remarks are sufficient to illustrate the use and advantages of the cesural pause.

The final pause marks the close of a line or verse, whether there is a pause in the sense or not. Sentential pauses should be marked by a variation of tone; but the final pause, when the close of one line is intimately connected with the beginning of the next, should be merely a suspension of the voice without elevation or depression. Thus:

"Of man's first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our woe," &c.

When these lines are read without a pause after the words _fruit_ and _taste_, they degenerate into prose. Indeed in many instances, particularly in blank verse, the final pause is the only circumstance which distinguishes verse from prose.

EXPRESSION.

One article more in the construction of verse deserves our observation, which is _Expression_. Expression consists in such a choice and distribution of poetic feet as are best adapted to the subject, and best calculated to impress sentiments upon the mind. Those poetic feet, which end in an accented syllable, are the most forcible. Hence the Iambic measure is best adapted to solemn and sublime subjects. This is the measure of the Epic, of poems on grave moral subjects, of elegies, &c. The Spondee, a foot of two long syllables, when admitted into the Iambic measure, adds much to the solemnity of the movement.

"While the clear sun, rejoicing still to rise, In pomp _rolls round_ immeasurable skies."

Dwight.

The Dactyl, _rolls round_, expresses beautifully the majesty of the sun in his course.

It is a general rule, that the more important syllables there are in a passage, whether of prose or verse, the more heavy is the stile. For example:

"A past, vamp'd, future, old, reviv'd new piece."

"Men, bearded, bald, cowl'd, uncowl'd, shod, unshod."

Such lines are destitute of melody and are admissible only when they suit the sound to the sense. In the high burlesque stile, of which kind is Pope's Dunciad, they give the sentiment an ironical air of importance, and from this circumstance derive a beauty. On the other hand, a large proportion of unaccented syllables or particles, deprives language of energy; and it is this circumstance principally which in prose constitutes the difference between the grave historical, and the familiar stile. The greatest number of long syllables ever admitted into a heroic verse, is seven, as in the foregoing; the smallest number is three.

"Or to a s[=a]d var[=i]ety of w[=o]e."

The Trochaic measure, in which every foot closes with a weak syllable, is well calculated for lively subjects.

"Softly sweet in Lydian measures Soon he sooth'd his soul to pleasures; War he sung is toil and trouble, Honor but an empty bubble," &c.

The Anapæstic measure, in which there are two short syllables to one long, is best adapted to express the impetuosity of passion or action. Shenstone has used it to great advantage, in his inimitable pastoral ballad. It describes beautifully the strong and lively emotions which agitate the lover, and his anxiety to please, which continually hurries him from one object and one exertion to another.

"I have found out a gift for my fair, I have found where the wood pigeons breed; Yet let me that plunder forbear, She will say 'twas a barbarous deed. For he ne'er could prove true, she averr'd, Who could rob a poor bird of her young: And I lov'd her the more when I heard Such tenderness fall from her tongue."

The Amphibrachic measure, in which there is a long syllable between two short ones, is best adapted to lively comic subjects; as in Addison's Rosamond.

"Since conjugal passion Has come into fashion, And marriage so blest on the throne is, Like Venus I'll shine, Be fond and be fine, And Sir Trusty shall be my Adonis."

Such a measure gives sentiment a ludicrous air, and consequently is ill adapted to serious subjects.

Great art may be used by a poet in choosing words and feet adapted to his subject. Take the following specimen.

"Now here, now there, the warriors fall; amain Groans murmur, armor sounds, and shouts convulse the plain."

The feet in the last line are happily chosen. The slow Spondee, in the beginning of the verse, fixes the mind upon the dismal scene of woe; the solemnity is heightened by the pauses in the middle of the second and at the end of the third foot. But when the poet comes to shake the plains, he closes the line with three forcible Iambics.

Of a similar beauty take the following example.

"She all night long, her amorous descant sung."

The poet here designs to describe the length of the night, and the music of the Nightingale's song. The first he does by two slow Spondees, and the last by four very rapid syllables.

The following lines, from Gray's Elegy, written in a country church yard, are distinguished by a happy choice of words.

"For who, to dumb forgetfulness a prey, This pleasing anxious being e'er resign'd? Left the warm precincts of the cheerful day, Nor cast one _longing lingering_ look behind?"

The words _longing_ and _lingering_ express most forcibly the reluctance with which mankind quit this state of existence.

Pope has many beauties of this kind.

"And grace and reason, sense and virtue split, With all the rash dexterity of wit."

The mute consonants, with which these lines end, express the idea of _rending asunder_, with great energy and effect. The words _rash_ and _dexterity_ are also judiciously chosen.

In describing the delicate sensations of the most refined love, he is remarkable for his choice of smooth flowing words. There are some passages in his Eloisa and Abelard, which are extended to considerable length, without a single mute consonant or harsh word.

_Of_ READING VERSE.

With respect to the art of reading verse, we can lay down but a few simple rules; but these may perhaps be useful.

1. Words should be pronounced as they are in prose and in conversation; for reading is but rehearsing another's conversation.

2. The emphasis should be observed as in prose. The voice should bound from accent to accent, and no stress should be laid on little unimportant words, nor on weak syllables.

3. The sentential pauses should be observed as in prose; these are not affected by the kind of writing, being regulated entirely by the sense. But as the cesural and final pauses are designed to encrease the melody of verse, the strictest attention must be paid to them in reading. They mark a suspension of voice without rising or falling.

To read prose well it is necessary to understand what is read; and to read poetry well, it is further necessary to understand the structure of verse. For want of this knowlege, most people read all verse like the Iambic measure. The following are pure Iambics.

"Above how high progressive life may go! Around how wide, how deep extend below!"

It is so easy to lay an accent on every second syllable, that any school boy can read this measure with tolerable propriety. But the misfortune is, that when a habit of reading this kind of meter is once formed, persons do not vary their manner to suit other measures. Thus in reciting the following line,

"Load _the_ tall _bark_, and launch in_to_ the main,"

many people would lay the accent on every second syllable; and thus read, our poetry becomes the most monotonous and ridiculous of all poetry in the world.

Let the following line be repeated without its pauses, and it loses its principal beauty.

"Bold, as a hero,, as a virgin, mild."

So in the following.

"Reason, the card,, but passion, is the gale."

"From storms, a shelter,, and from heat, a shade."

The harmony is, in all these instances, improved much by the semipauses, and at the same time the sense is more clearly understood.

Considering the difficulty of reading verse, I am not surprised to find but few who are proficients in this art. A knowlege of the structure of verse, of the several kinds of feet, of the nature and use of the final, the cesural and the semicesural pauses, is essential to a graceful manner of reading poetry; and even this, without the best examples, will hardly effect the purpose. It is for this reason, that children should not be permitted to read poetry of the more difficult kind, without the best examples for them to imitate. They frequently contract, in early life, either a monotony or a sing song cant, which, when grown into a habit, is seldom ever eradicated.

FOOTNOTES:

[125] Sheridan's Art of Reading.

[126] Sheridan.

[127] Churchill has improved English versification, but was sometimes too incorrect. It is a remark of some writer, "That the greatest geniuses are seldom correct," and the remark is not without foundation. Homer, Shakespear, and Milton, were perhaps the greatest geniuses that ever lived, and they were certainly guilty of the greatest faults. Virgil and Pope were much inferior in point of genius, but excelled in accuracy. Churchill had genius, but his contempt of rules made him sometimes indulge a too great latitude of expression.

NOTES,

HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL.

[A], page 42, Text.

The author of the "Specimen of an Etymological Vocabulary," asserts that "the Celtic was demonstrably the origin of the Greek and Latin; of most, if not all the languages of Europe; of part of Africa and the two Tartaries."

Mons. Gebelin, who has, with great industry, investigated the origin of the European languages, is of opinion that the Celtic was spoken from the borders of the Hellespont to the ocean, and from Troy to Cape Finisterre and Ireland. "La langue Celtique, dans son sens le plus extendu, est la langue que parlerent les premiers habitans de l'Europe, depuis les rives de l'Hellespont & de la Mer Egée, jusques a celle de l'Ocean; depuis le cap Sigée aux portes de Troie, jusques au cap de Finisterre en Portugal, ou jusques en Irelande."----Dis. Prelim. art. 2.

From this language, he says, sprung the Greek or Pelasgic, prior to Hesiod and Homer--the Latin or that of Numa--the Etruscan, spoken in a considerable part of Italy--the Thracian, spoken on the Danube, from the Euxine to the Adriatic sea, which was the same as the Phrygian--the Teutonic or German, spoken from the Vistula to the Rhine--the Gaulish, spoken on the Alps, in Italy, on this side the Po, and from the Rhine to the Ocean, including France, the Low Countries, Switzerland, Alemain, and the two Bretagnes--also the Cantabrian, or ancient language of Spain--in short, the Runic, spoken in the North, Denmark, Sweden, &c.

The only pure remains of this primitive Celtic, the same author supposes, are found in Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany in France, where the people still speak dialects of a language which is proved to be the ancient British.

"Separes ainsi du reste de l'univers, ces debris des anciens Celtes ont conservé leurs anciens usages, & parlent une langue qui n'a aucun rapport a celles des peuples qui les ont subjugués, & qui s'est partagée en trois dialectes, le Gallois, le Cornouaillien, & le Bas Breton; dialectes qui ont entr'eux le plus grand rapport, & qui sont incontestablement les precieux restes de l'ancienne langue des Celtes ou des Gaulois."----Dis. Prelim.

"Separated from the rest of the world, these remains of the ancient Celts have preserved their ancient customs, and speak a language which _has no agreement with those of their conquerors_, and which is divided into three dialects, the Welsh, the Cornish, and the Armoric--dialects which have a close affinity with each other, and which are, beyond dispute, the precious remains of the ancient Celtic or Gaulish language."[128]

In this passage the author seems to contradict what he had just before advanced, that the Celtic was the primitive language of Europe, from which sprung the Gothic or German. Now the Franks, Normans and Saxons, who subdued Gaul and Britain, spoke dialects of the Gothic; consequently there must have been, upon our author's own hypothesis, some agreement between the ancient Celtic and the more modern languages of the Goths, Saxons, and other northern conquerors of the Celtic nations. This agreement will appear, when I come to collate a number of words in the different languages.

Many learned men have attempted to prove that the Northern Goths and Teutones, and the Celts who lived in Gaul and Britain, were originally the same people. Mons. Mallet, the celebrated historian, has composed his "Introduction to the History of Denmark" upon this hypothesis. His translator is of a different opinion, and has generally substituted the English word "Gothic" for the "Celtique" of the original. In a preface to his translation, he endeavors to confute the opinion of Mons. Mallet, Cluverius, Pellutier and others, and prove that the Gothic and Celtique nations were _ab origine_ two distinct races of men. Great erudition is displayed on both sides of the question, and those who have a taste for enquiries of this kind, will receive much satisfaction and improvement, in reading what these authors have written upon the subject.

After a close examination, I freely declare myself an advocate for the opinion of Mons. Mallet, Lhuyd, and Pellutier, who suppose the Celts and Goths to be descended from the same original stock. The separation however must have been very early, and probably as early as the first age after the flood. To say that the Gothic and Celtique languages have _no affinity_, would be to contradict the most positive proofs; yet the affinity is very small--discoverable only in a few words.

The modern English, Danish, Swedish and German are all unquestionably derived from the same language; they have been spoken by distinct tribes, probably not two thousand years, and almost one half of that period, the sounds have been in some measure fixed by written characters, yet the languages are become so different as to be unintelligible, each to those who speak the other. But, suppose two languages separated from the parent tongue, two thousand years earlier, and to be spoken, thro the whole of that time, by rude nations, unacquainted with writing, and perpetually roving in forests, changing their residence, and liable to petty conquests, and it is natural to think their affinity must become extremely obscure. This seems to have been the fact with respect to the Gothic and Celtic tongues. The common parent of both was the Phenician or Hebrew. This assertion is not made on the sole authority of Moses; profane history and etymology furnish strong arguments to prove the truth of the scripture account of the manner in which the world was peopled from one flock or family. Of these two ancient languages, the Celtic or British comes the nearest to the Hebrew, for which perhaps substantial reasons will be assigned. The Gothic bears a greater affinity to the Greek and Roman, as being derived through the ancient Ionic or Pelasgic, from the Phenician.

Lhuyd, a celebrated and profound antiquary, remarks, Arch. Brit. page 35. "It is a common error in etymology to endeavor the deriving all the radical words of our western European languages from the Latin and Greek; or indeed to derive constantly the primitives of any one language from any particular tongue. When we do this, we seem to forget that all have been subject to alterations; and that the greater and more polite any nation is, the more subject, (partly for improvement, and partly out of a luxurious wantonness) to new model their language. We must therefore necessarily allow, that whatever nations were of the neighborhood and of one common origin with the Greeks and Latins, when they began to distinguish themselves for politeness, they must have preserved their languages (which could differ from theirs only in dialects) much better than they; and consequently no absurdity to suppose a great many words of the language, spoken by the old aborigines, the Osci, the Læstrigones, the Ausonians, Ænotrians, Umbrians and Sabines, out of which the Latin was composed, to have been better preserved in the Celtic than in the Roman. "Lingua Hetrusca, Phrygia, Celtica (says the learned Stiernhelm) affines sunt omnes; ex uno fonte derivatæ. Nec Græca longe distat, Japheticæ sunt omnes; ergo et ipsa Latina. Non igitur mirium est innumera vocabula dictarum Linguarum communia esse cum Latinis." And that being granted, it must also be allowed that the Celtic (as well as all other languages) has been best preserved by such of their colonies, as, from the situation of their country, have been the least subject to foreign invasions. Whence it proceeds that we always find the ancient languages are best retained in mountains and islands."

The result of this doctrine is, that the primitive Celtic was preserved, in greatest purity, in Britain, before the Roman and Saxon conquests, and since those periods, in Wales and Cornwall. Hence the affinity between the Hebrew and British, which will afterward appear.

Wallis remarks that it is doubtful whether many words in the English and German languages are derived from the Latin, or the Latin from the Teutonic, or whether all were derived from the same stock. "Multas autem voces, quæ nobis cum Germanis fere sunt communes, dubium est an prisci olim Teutones a Latinis, an hi ab illis, aut denique utrique ab eodem commune fonte, acceperint."----Gram. Cap. 14.

But I presume that history, as well as etymology, will go far in solving the doubt, and incline us to believe that the Teutonic, Greek and Latin were all children of the same parent tongue.

We first hear of men in the mild climate of Asia Minor, and about the head of the Mediterranean. Soon after the flood, the inhabitants began to migrate into distant countries. Some of them went northward and settled in Bactriania and Hyrcania, thence extending westward along the shores of the Caspian sea into Armenia. From these Asiatic colonies, sprung the Scythians and the numerous tribes that afterwards covered the territory of modern Russia, Sweden and Denmark. The different tribes or hordes of these people were called Cimbri, (perhaps from Gomer) Galli, Umbri, &c. and settled the northern parts of Europe as far as the Rhine.

The northern Greek countries, Thrace and Mysia, were peopled by the descendants of Tiras or Thiras, a son of Japhet. The whole country from Thrace to Peloponnesus was inhabited by the posterity of Javan and Cittim; indeed Ionia, the ancient name of Greece, seems to be derived from Javan, _J_ or _I_ being anciently pronounced as liquid _i_, or _y_ consonant, and as it is still pronounced in the German _ja_, _yaw_. These settlements were made long before the Pelasgic migrations into Greece, which happened at least 2000 years before Christ. The original language of Greece was called _Ionic_, from _Javan_ or _Ion_. The Pelasgi were probably Phenicians; and ancient historians relate that they carried letters into Greece; but these must have been in a very rude state, so early after their invention;[129] nor do we find that they were ever much used; at least no records or inscriptions, in these characters, are mentioned by the Greek historians.

Cadmus introduced the Phenician letters into Greece 1494 years before Christ. These letters were introduced with some difficulty, and both Cadmus and his followers were obliged to adopt the _Ionic_ or original Japhetic language, which was afterwards written in his Phenician characters.

The Greeks, at different periods, sent colonies into distant parts of the country. These settled in Thrace, Macedon, on the banks of the Euxine, in Asia Minor, in Italy, Sicily and on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. This Ionic or Japhetic language was therefore the root of the Greek and Latin. It was also the root of the Gothic language, spoken in the north of Europe; and from which, after the revolution of ages, the shocks of war, and the improvements in science, no less than seven or eight different languages are derived.[130]

Profane history therefore warrants us in asserting that the Greek, Roman, and all the modern languages of the north of Europe, and the English, among the rest, had a common stock. But history alone would not silence our objections to this theory, were it not incontestibly proved by a number of radical words, common to all, which are not yet lost in the changes of time. Etymology therefore furnishes a demonstration of what is related in history. When one sees the words ~ginôskô~ and ~gnoô~ in Greek, _nosco_, and anciently, _gnosco_ in Latin, and _know_ in English, conveying the same idea, he is led to suspect that one nation borrowed the word from another. But when did the English borrow this word? The word was used by the Saxons, long before they could have had any knowlege of Greek or Roman authors. It furnishes therefore a strong presumption that all the streams came from the same fountain. But when we examin further, and find many, perhaps a hundred words or more, common to all these languages, the evidence of their common origin becomes irresistible. This in fact is the case.

The authors then who have labored to prove the Greek and Latin Languages to be derived from the _Celtic_, mistake the truth. The _Celtic_ was not _prior_ to the Greek and Latin, but a branch of the _same stock_; that is, cotemporary with those languages.

This Japhetic language, I take to be coeval with the Phenician or Hebrew; and there are some Hebrew words in the English language, which must have been derived thro the Saxon or Teutonic. But the old British, as I before remarked, retained the greatest affinity to the Hebrew. The reason which appears probable, has been already assigned; the Celts and Britons in the west of Europe, remained, till the times of Julius Cæsar, less disturbed by wars and revolutions, than the inhabitants of Asia, Egypt and Greece.

But I am inclined to believe further, that the descent of the Britons from the first Japhetic tribes that settled in Greece, was more direct, than thro the Gomerians or Cimbri, who travelled northward along the shores of the Baltic. I suspect that very ancient colonies settled on the shores of the Mediterranean, in Italy and Spain, and thence found their way to Gaul and Britain, before the northern tribes arrived thro Germany and Belgium. This would account for the affinity between the Hebrew language and the Welsh. The opinion however is not well supported by historical facts, and the ancient name of the British language, _Cymraeg_, denoting its descent from the _Cimbric_ is a weighty objection.[131]

It is certain however that Carthage was settled by Phenicians, about 900 years before Christ. Greek colonies went thither in the following century, and not long after they settled at Marseilles in Gaul. The people therefore on both shores of the Mediterranean were descended from the same stock as the northern nations.

Accordingly we are not surprized to find some radical words nearly the same in all the existing languages of Europe. See Jackson's Chronological Antiquities, vol. 3, with Lhuyd, Geblin, and others.

To illustrate what I have advanced, respecting the first peopling of the world, and the derivation of most European languages from one mother tongue, I will here insert some remarks from Rowland's Mona Antiqua Restaurata, p. 261, with a table of words, evidently of Hebrew original.

"_A_ TABLE, _shewing the Affinity and near Resemblance, both in Sound and Signification, of many Words of the Ancient Languages of Europe with the Original Hebrew Tongue_.

"For the better understanding of the parallels of this following table, it is to be observed, that letters of one and the same organ are of common use in the pronunciation of words of different languages--as for example, _M_, _B_, _V_, _F_, _P_, are labials: _T_, _D_, _S_, are dentals: _G_, _Ch_, _H_, _K_, _C_, are gutturals--and therefore if the Hebrew word or sound begins with, or is made of, any one of the labials, any of the rest of the same organ will answer it in the derivative languages. The same is to be observed in using the dental and the guttural letters. For in tracing out the origin of words, we are more to regard the sound of them than their literal form and composition; wherein we find words very often, by the humors and fancy of people, transposed and altered from their native sounds, and yet in their signification they very well fit their original patterns. I shall only exemplify in the letters _M_, _B_, and _V_, which are of one organ, that is, are formed by one instrument, the lip; and therefore are promiscuously used the one for the other, in pronouncing words of one language in another. The Hebrew _B_ is generally pronounced as a _V_ consonant. And the Irish also, most commonly in the middle of a word, pronounce _M_ as a _V_; as we find the ancient Britons to have made use of _V_, or rather _F_, which they pronounce as _V_, for _M_ and _B_ in many Latin words; as,

LATIN. BRITISH.

_Animal_ _Anifail_ _Turma_ _Tyrfa_ _Terminus_ _Terfyn_ _Calamus_ _Calaf_ _Primus_ _Prif_ _Amnis_ _Afon_ _Arma_ _Arfau_ _Firmus_ _Ffyrf_ _Monumentum_ _Monfent_ _Firmomentum_ _Ffurfafen_ _Lamentor_ _Llefain_ _Elementum_ _Eifen_ _Memorare_ _Myfyrio_ _Hyems_ _Gauaf_ _Clamare_ _Llafaru_ _Numerus_ _Nifer_ _Columna_ _Colofn_ _Gemelli_ _Gefeill_ _Roma_ _Rhufain_ _Scribo_ _Scrifenu_ _Liber_ _Llyfr_ _Remus_ _Rhwyf_ _Domo_ _Dofi_ _Rebello_ _Rhyfela_ _Pluma_ _Pluf_ _Catamanus_ _Cadfan_ _Dimetæ_ _Dyfed_ _Lima_ _Llif_ _Lamina_ _Llafn_, &c.

"We are not to wonder at this analogy of sounds in the primitive distinction of languages. For before the use of writing, which has established the correct form of words, people were only guided by the ear in taking the sound of words, and they pronounced and uttered them again as the organs of their voice were best fitted for it; and it happening that the aptitude and disposition of those organs, peculiar to some people and countries, were various (as we find to this day some nations cannot shape their voice to express all the sounds of another's tongue,) it accordingly affected and inclined some parties of people to speak the same consonants harder or softer, to utter the same vowels broader or narrower, longer or shorter, as they found themselves best disposed to do. And thereupon custom prevailing with particular sets of people, to continue the use of such different pronunciation as they affected, the words so varied came at length to take on them different forms, and to be esteemed and taken as parts of different languages, tho in their origin they were one and the same.[132]

_Hebrew._ _Derivatives._ _English._

Auch Awch _Brit._ The edge of a sword Even Maen A stone Agam Lagam _Corn._ A pool or lake _or_ Leagam Ivah Deis-yfu _Br._ To desire Auor Awyr Lightened air Ano Yno Then Achei Achau Brethren or kindred Aedenei Gwadnau The soles of the feet Calal Cyllell To wound or pierce Domen Tomen Muck or dung Gehel ---- Coal Sâl Sâl _Br._ Vile or of no account Kadal Gadael To forsake or desist Aggan Angeion _Greek_ A vessel or earthen pot Alaph 'Alpho[=o] To find Bama Bo[=o]mòs An altar Hag Agios Holy Hadar {Cadair _Br._ Honor or reverence {Katha _Irish_ Hia Y hi _Br._ She Goph Corph A body, corpse Deraich {Braich An arm {Raich Dad Diden _Br._ The dug or udder Ager Aggero _Lat._ To heap together Elah -Illi, illæ They, _masc. & fem._ Angil Axilla The arm pit Dapsh Daps Cheer or dainties Hen En! ecce! Lo! behold! Phar Phér[=o] _Greek_ To bear or carry Harabon Arrhabon A pawn or pledge Phalat Phulátt[=o] To keep or defend Pathah Peíth[=o] To persuade Gab Gibbus _Lat._ Bent or crooked Dur Duro To endure Laish Lis _Greek_ A lion Deka Dek[=o] To bite Ephach Ophis A serpent Dath Deddf _Br._ A law Denah Dyna This, that, there it is Hissah {Ys taw Be silent {Distaw Cala Claf To be sick Clei Cleas _Irish_ Jewels, ornaments Devar Deveirim To speak Ein Ynys _Br._ Island Hama {Aman _Armor._ {Ymenyn _Br._ Butter {Im _Irish_ Ivo Nava His enemy Beala Mealam To be wasted Vock {Vacuus _Lat._ Empty {Gwâc _Br._ Aita Ydyw Is, or are Bar Bar _Irish_ Son Bareh Bara _Br._ Meat, or victuals Beram Verùm _Lat._ But, nevertheless Beth Bwth _Br._ A house, booth Se She _Irish_ He, or him Gaha Iachau _Br._ To heal, or cure Gad Càd An army Boten Potten _Br._ The belly Gever Gwr A man Hada Ed[=o] _Greek_ To cherish Boa Bá[=o] To come Aniah Anía Sadness Charath Charâtt[=o] To insculp Maas Misé[=o] I hate Semain Semaín[=o] I shew Aaz 'Aix A goat Aleth Alaeth _Br._ A curse Elil Ellylly Idol Allun Llwyn A grove of oaks Amunath Amynedd Constancy Ap Wep Face Itho Iddo With him Atun Odyn A furnace Atha Aeth Went, or came Ische Yssu To burn Emaeth Ymaith From him Barach Parch To esteem, or bless Gobah Coppa The top Geven Cefn A ridge, or back Gedad Gwiwdod Excellency Gaiaph Cau To shut, or inclose Evil ---- Evil Beasch ---- Base To babble, cabal; and hablar in Spanish, to Babel ---- speak; Lat. fabula; Fr. fariboles, idle talk Baroth ---- Broth Gaah ---- Gay Dum ---- Dumb Dusch ---- To dash Hebisch ---- To abash Hua ---- He, _masc. gend._ Haras ---- To harass Chittah ---- Wheat Mesurah ---- A measure Sahap ---- To sweep Charath ---- To write Saar ---- A shower Aanna ---- To annoy Phæer ---- Fair Pheret ---- A part, or portion Phærek ---- Fierce Eretz ---- Earth; Sax. hertha Sad ---- Side Spor ---- A sparrow Kinneh ---- A cane Kera ---- To cry Shekel ---- Skill Rechus ---- Riches Kre ---- A crow Pasa ---- To pass Halal ---- A hole Catat ---- To cut Ragez ---- To rage Ragal ---- To rail, or detract Maguur Magwyr Habitation Madhevi Myddfai Distempers Doroth Toreth Generations, encrease Dal Tal Tall and high Havah Y fu Was, or has been Mahalac Malc A pathway, or a balk Hilo Heulo Shining. _Apollo, Sol._ Tor {Toar _Irish._ {Terfyn _Br._ A boundary, or limit Siu Syw Resplendent Achalas Achles Defence, Achilles {Machno Places of defence of old Machaneh {_and_ in the co. of Montgomery. {Mechain Penmachno Chorau Crau Holes Choresh Cors _Br._ A place full of small wood or reeds Nodah Nodi To make known, or note Jadha {Addef To know {'Oída _Greek_ Hathorath Athrawiaeth _Br._ Discipline Jch Eich Your, or your own Jared I wared Descended Cha Chwi You Jain Gwîn Wine Toledouth Tylwyth Generations Lus Llyfu To go away, or avoid Caolath Colled A loss Hounil Ynnill Gain Jester Ystyr Consideration Jadadh Gwahodd To invite Cafodoth Cyfoeth Honours, or wealth Cis Cîst A chest Bar {Far _Lat._ {Bara _Br._ Bread corn Shevah ---- Seven Dakar ---- A dagger Hinnek ---- To hang Shelet ---- A shield Hever ---- Over, or above Shibbar ---- To shiver, or quake Jiled ---- [133]A child Choebel ---- A cable Parak ---- To break Gannaf ---- A knave, or a thief Coll ---- All Hannah ---- To annoy, or hurt Eth {Etos _Greek_ {Ætas _Lat._ A year, or age San Coena A supper Nabal Nebulo A churl Mot Motus _Lat._ Motion Bath Batos _Greek_ A thorn Eden Edone Pleasure Kolah Klei[=o] To praise Sas Ses A moth Phac Phake Lentil Skopac Scop[=o] To speculate Jounec Jevangc _Br._ A suckling Hamohad Ammod Covenant Parad Pared A partition Keren Corn A horn Kefel Cefail The armpit Me-Ab Mâb Son, or from a father Luung Llyngcu To swallow Temutha Difetha Destruction Ceremluach Cromlech A sacrificing stone Hamule Aml Plenty, or store Mah? Mae? What? where? how? Magal Maglu To betray Makel Magl A staff Meria Mêr Fat, or marrow Mout Mudo To remove Meth Methu To die, or fail Mar Maer A lord Marad Brad [134]Rebellion Nafe Nef Joyful Taphilu Taflu To cast Hanes Hanes To signify Nevath Neuadd Habitation Jissal Isel _or_ Iselu To throw down Naoaph Nwyf Lust Nadu Nadu They moan Sethar Sathru To throw under feet Heber Aber A ford, or passage Nucchu Nychu Being smitten Nuu Nhwy They, or those Naodhad Nodded To escape Gadah Gadaw _Br._ To pass by Niued Niweid To spoil Goloth Golwyth Burnt offerings Mohal Moel Top of a hill Galas Glwys Pleasant Hasem Asen A rib, or bone Garevath Gwarth Shame Taphug Diffyg Want, or defect Phoreth Ffrwyth Fruit, or effect Pach Bach A crooked stick Pinnouth Pennaeth Chief, or uppermost Phinnah Ffynnu To prosper Path Peth A part or portion Philegesh Ffiloges A concubine Caton Cwttyn Short and little Cir Caer A walled town Reith Rhîth Appearance Tireneh Trîn To feed and look after Ragah Rhwygo To tear, rag Rasah Râs _and_ Rhâd Grace, or good will Semen Saim Fat, or oil Saraph Sarph A serpent Sac Sâch A [135]sack Phuk {Ffûg Disguise {Fucus _Lat._ Phærek Ferocia Fierceness Pinnah Pinna Battlement Pigger Piger fuit Lazy Naca Neco To slay Ad Ad Unto Nut Nuto To nod Darag Trech[=o] _Greek_ To run to, or come at Bala Palai Some time ago Hannak {'Agch[=o] To strangle {Tagu _Br._ Naar Nearos _Greek_ New or lately Agab 'Agapa[=o] To love Pacha Pege _Greek_ A fountain Parash Phras[=o] To declare, phrase Kol Kalè[=o] _G._ Galw _B._ To call Mashal Basileu[=o] _Greek_ To reign Shareka Syrinx A syringe Bekarim Pecora _Lat._ Cattle Ahel Aula A hall Carpas Carbasus Fine linen, or lawn Æsh Æstes _La._ Tês _Br._ Heat, or hot weather Gibar Guberno _Lat._ To govern Parah Vireo To look green Ki Quia Wherefore Olam Olim Of old Golem Glomus A clew of thread Amam Ymam Mother, mamma Coaphar Gwobr Reward Cala Caula _Lat._ A sheepfold Sarch Serch _Br._ Lustful Goliath Glwth A bed Pathehen Puttain A whore Burgad Bwrgais A burgess Terag Drwg Bad, or evil Dasgar Dysgl A dish Shiovang Sionge Honorable Anas Annos To instigate Tam Dim Nothing Pherch Y ferch A daughter Tetuva Edifar Penitent Leamor Ar lafar Saying Casas Ceisio To search Cark Carchar To bind; _Lat._ carcer Kam Cammu To bend Caffa Cyff A beam Cevel Ar gyfyl Near Dumga Dammeg A simile Tor Tarw A bull; _Lat._ taurus _and_ Sor Turna Teyrn A prince, tyrant Manos Myddyn A mountain Malas Melys Sweet Palac Plygu To fold Banc Mainc A bench Malal Malu To grind Marak Marc A note Cadif Gwadu To tell a lie Tohum Eyfn Depth Colar Coler A neck band, collar Corontha Coron A crown Berek Brêg A breach Bagad Bagad A great many Arach Arogli To smell Nagash Yn agos To approach Ciliah Ceilliau Stones Gevr Cawr A giant Kec Cêg A mouth Kun Cwyno To lament Natsar Dinystr Destruction, or ruin Pinnah Pinagl Pinnacle Mahalal Mawl _or_ Moli To praise Hedel Hoedl Life Halal Haul Sun Gavel Gafael Tenure Lashadd Glasaidd Blueish Gerem Grym, grymmus Bony or strong Masac Cym-myscu To mingle Gana Canu To sing; Lat. cano Celimah Calumnia _Lat._ Reproach Netz Nisus Endeavor Ptsel Psile[=o] To make bear Shushan Souson Lilly Shecan Scene[=o] To dwell in tabernacles Kalal Gwael _Br._ Vile Taffi Diffoddi To extinguish Tselem Delw An image Hoberi Obry Men over against Aen-adon Anudon Disclaiming God, or perjury

Here are about fifty English words, which, from their near resemblance to the Hebrew, both in sound and signification, must have been borrowed from the latter in modern ages, or been preserved thro successive generations from Heber to the present times. But they could not have been introduced into English in modern ages, for many of them are found in the other branches of the Gothic, the German, Danish and Swedish; and it can be proved that they existed in the original Gothic or northern language. For example, our word _earth_ is found in Hebrew, and in all the dialects of the Gothic. Hebrew, _ert_ or _ertz_; Welsh, _d'aira_; Greek, _éra_; Latin, _terra_; Gothic, _airthai_; ancient German, _erth_ or _herth_; Saxon, _eartho_; Low Dutch, _aerden_; High Dutch, erden; Swiss, erden; Scotch, airth; Norwegian or Norse, _iorden_; Danish, _iorden_; Swedish, _iordenne_; Irelandic, _iordu_. In the pronunciation of these words there is little difference, except such as is common to the several languages. The ancients aspirated their words more frequently than the moderns; hence the old Germans pronounced the word with _h_, as appears by a passage in Tacitus, De Mor. Germ. 40. "Nec quidquam notabile in singulis, nisi quod in commune _Herthum_, id est _terram_, matrem colunt."--The modern nations of the north generally write and pronounce _d_ where we write _th_; as _erden_; and the _i_ of the Norwegians answers to our _e_ or _y_, so that _iorden_ is pronounced _yorden_; and it is remarkable that many of the common English people still pronounce _earth_, _yerth_.

The Hebrew _turna_ is found in the British _teyrn_, signifying a prince or ruler. This word is the root of the Greek _turannos_, the Latin _tyrannus_, the British _dyrnas_, a kingdom or jurisdiction, which is still preserved in the modern Welsh _deyrnas_; and we see the word in the name of the celebrated British commander, _Vortighern_. Our word tyrant is derived from it, but it is always used in a bad sense.

In the Hebrew _rechus_ or _rekus_, we have the origin of the English _rich_, _riches_, and the termination_ rick_ in bishop-_rick_, and anciently, in king-_rick_; the word originally denoting _landed property_, in which wealth was supposed to consist, and afterwards _jurisdiction_. From the same word are derived the Anglo Saxon _ryc_; the Franco Theotisc, _rihhi_; the Cimbric, _rickie_; the ancient Irish or Gaedhlig, _riogda_; the Low Dutch, _rijcke_; the Frisic, _rick_; the German, _reich_; the Swiss, _rijch_; the Danish, _rige_; the Norwegian, _riga_; the Swedish, _ricke_; the French, _riche_, and the Spanish, _riccos_, a general name for nobility, or wealthy proprietors of land.

The word _Caer_ seems to have been a very ancient name for a city or town. We probably see this word in a great number of Welsh names, _Carmarthen_, _Carnarvon_, _Carlisle_, &c. This word seems also to be the origin of _Cairo_, in Egypt; _Carthage_ or town of the horse;[136] the _cirthe_ of the Numidians, and the _Caere_ of the Etruscan. "Inde Turnus Rutilique, diffisi rebus, ad florentes Etruscorum opes Mezentiumque eorum regem, confugiunt; qui _Caere_, opulento tum oppido imperitans--haud gravatim socia arma Rutulis junxit."--Liv. lib. 1. 2. Here we hear of the word before the foundation of Rome.

But the affinity between the Hebrew and British is much more obvious, than that between the Hebrew and English. There are about one hundred and eighty British words in the foregoing table, which are clearly the same as the Hebrew; and there is no way to account for the fact, but by supposing them to be all derived from the same primitive tongue.

The resemblance between the Welsh, Latin and English may be observed in the following.

_Welsh._ _Latin._ _English._

Y'sgol schola school Y'spelio spolio spoil Y'sprid spiritus spirit Y'stad status state Y'stod stadium _furlong_

The old Britons however might have borrowed these words from the Romans, during their government of the Island; as the English did many of theirs at a later period.

The same remark will not apply to the following:

_Welsh._ _Latin._ _Irish._ _English._

Guin vinum fin wine Guyl vigilæ feil watch Gur vir fearr man Guynt ventus wind Gual vallum wall _Armoric_. Gosper vesper feaskor guespor _Eng._ Guedhar weather Guerth virtus worth Guylht wild

In this table, we see the different nations begin the same word with a different consonant. The ancient Latin _v_ was pronounced as our _w_; vinum, _winum_; hence the English _wine_. So in the following:

_Latin._ _English._

Via way Venio, ventum went Vellus wool Vespa wasp Volvo wallow Volo will[137]

That the Welsh should pronounce _gu_, where we pronounce _w_, may seem strange; yet such is the fact, and an anatomist will readily assign the reason. The French, in the same manner, use _g_ where we write and pronounce _w_.

_English._ _French._

War guerre Warrant garrant Ward gard Wise guise Wile guile Wage gage Wicket guicket William Guillaum Wales Gales, Gaul, Gallia[138]

A number at least of the words in the foregoing tables, must have existed in the several languages from the earliest times; and therefore must have been derived from the same stock.

In the following words, we trace the common origin of the Greek and Gothic languages.

_Greek._ _English._

Kardia} Kear } heart Ki[=o] hie Kale[=o] hail, call Koilas hollow K[=e]das heed, care Kerdas hire Keras horn, herald Axine ax Ophrun frown Pur fire Platus plate Xeras fear Mignu[=o] mingle Eile[=o] heal, hail Kair[=o] cheer Gonu knee Knix gnat Z[=e]te[=o] seek

The reader will find no difficulty in believing these words to be from the same root, when he is told that the Greeks and the northern nations of Europe pronounced with a strong guttural aspirate; and that _k_ among the Greeks was often a mere aspirate, like _h_. Thus the Romans often pronounced _c_; for which reason that letter is often omitted, and _h_ substituted in modern English. _Curro_ and _hurry_ are the same word; and so are _cornu_ and _horn_; _Carolus_ and _Harold_.

_Greek._ _Latin._ _English._

'Oinos vinum wine Dama[=o] domo tame Zeugos jugum yoke Upper super upper Gno[=o]} nosco } know Ginosko} cognosco}

Some old people still pronounce the _k_ in _know_.

In the following, the Welsh differ from the Greek in the prepositives or initial mutes; but they are clearly from the same root.

_Greek._ _Latin._ _English._

Stoma saman mouth Ikanos digon sufficient Ark[=e] d'erke beginning Air[=o] d'uyrey arise Platun lhydon broad Papyrun bruyn rushes Trek[=o] rhedeg run Petalon dalen loaf[139]

In the following words, the Welsh are nearer the Greek than the Latin; yet all came from one stock.

_Greek._ _Welsh._ _Latin._ _English._

Helios heil sol sun Hypnos hyn, heppian somnus sleep Halon halen sal salt Hamolos hamal similis like Bounos ban mons mountain Kleas klad. _Cornish_, klas laus praise Pepto pobo coquo cook Hyle hely sylva woods Krios kor aries ram

These words are incontestibly the same, with mere dialectical variations. All are branches of the same stock, yet neither can claim the honor of being that stock.

But the most curious etymological analysis ever exhibited perhaps in any language, is that found in Gebelin's works. Take the following specimens.

In the primitive language (of Europe) the monosyllable _tar_, _ter_, _tor_ or _tro_, for it appeared under these forms, signified _force_. It was composed of _t_ and _ar_ or _d'ar_, _roughness_, _rapidity_. Hence _tar_ expressed the idea of force, with the collateral ideas of violence, rigor, grandeur, &c. From _tar_ are derived, _taurus_, a bull; _torrent_, _target_, _trunk_, _truncare_, to cut off; _terror_, _trepan_, _tare_, _detriment_, _trancher_, to cut; _retrench_; _tardus_, _tardy_, _retard_, _tergum_, because things heavy, that require force, were carried upon the back; _intrigue_, for it implies difficulties; _trop_, too much, _troop_, _ter_, _trois_, which originally signified a multitude; for many savage nations have names only for the three first numbers; _tierce_, _tres_, very; _tresses_, a braid or plait of hair in three divisions; _triangle_, _tribunal_, _tribe_, _attribute_, _contribute_, &c. _trident_, _trillion_, _trio_, _trinity_, _entre_, _enter_, taken from a relation of three objects, _one_ between _two_, makes a _third_; hence _internal_, _external_, _travers_, across; _tradition_, passing from one to another; _traffic_, _trahir_, to draw; _traitor_, _trepidation_, _intrepid_. From _tra_, between, and _es_, it is, came the Celtic, _treh_, a narrow pass, a _strait_, _strict_, Fr. _etroit_, _astringent_, _detroit_, strait; _distress_, _strength_. The compounds are numerous. _Intrinsic_, _entrails_, _introduce_, _extraneous_, _extravagant_, _transcendent_, _transfer_, _transform_, _transgress_, _transact_, _translate_, _transmit_, _transmigrate_, _transmutation_, &c.

_Paltroon_ is from _pollex_, a _thumb_, and _truncare_, to cut off; for cowards use to cut their thumbs to avoid service.

+TEM+.

_Tem_ signified river, water. Hence _tempero_ in Latin signified to _plunge into water_. We to this day say to _temper iron or steel_. _To temper_, is to moderate. From this root come _temperance_, _temperature_, and a numerous catalogue of other words. The river Thames derives its name from the same root.

+VA+, _to go_, _radical_.

From _va_, the Celtic root, we find a multitude of branches in Greek, Latin, English and French. It is an _onomatope_, a word borrowed from the sound of our feet in walking. Its derivatives are, _wade_, _evade_, _evasion_, _invade_, _invasion_, _venio_, Lat. and _venir_, Fr. to come; _venia_ and _venial_,[140] _adventure_, _avenue_, _convenio_, _convenience_, _convention_, _covenant_ perhaps, _contravene_, _intervene_, _invent_, _prevent_, _province_,[141] _advance_, _via_, _way_, _voyage_, _convoy_, _convey_, _obviate_, _vex_, _invective_, _vein_, a way for the blood; _voiture_, Fr. for a load to carry; _evitare_, Lat. to shun; _inevitable_.

To these derivatives, I will just add a comparative view of the verbs _have_ and _be_ in several languages.

+HAVE+.

_English._ _Latin._ _French._ _Germ._ _Spanish._ _Portuguese._

I have habeo ai[142] habe he éy Thou hast habes as hast as has He has habet a hat as ha We have habemus avons haben avemos hamos, avemos You have habetis avez habet aveis éys, evéys They have habent ont haben an ham

_The Substantive Verb_ +BE+.

_English._ _Latin._ _French._ _Germ._ _Spanish._ _Portuguese._

I am, be sum suis bin estoy & soy sou, estou Thou art, beest es es bist estas, eres es, estas He is, be est est est-es está, es he, esta We are, be sumus sommes sind estamos, somos somos, estamos You are, be estis êtes seyd estais, sois soys, estoys They are, be sunt sont sind estan, son sam, estam

It is indisputable that _have_, in all these languages, is from the same root. But there seem to have been anciently two substantive verbs, or perhaps three, from which modern nations have borrowed; viz, the Greek ~einai~ or ~eimi~, or the Latin _esse_, from which most of the foregoing are derived; the Teutonic _beon_, whence the Germans have their _bin_ and _bist_, and the English their _be_ and _beest_; and an old Gothic or Teutonic word, _weorthan_, whence the Danes have derived their _voerer_, and the English and Germans their _were_ and _werden_. In the old English phrase, "woe _worth_ the day," we see the same verb.

Having stated my reasons and authorities for believing all the European languages descended from one parent tongue, I will here subjoin the Lord's Prayer in several languages of Celtic and Gothic origin. The affinity between all the branches of the Gothic is very visible; the affinity likewise between all the branches of the Celtic is very obvious, except the ancient Irish. The Cantabrian and Lapland tongues have little resemblance to either of the stocks or their branches.

+GOTHIC.+ | | +------------------------------+------------------------------+ | | | | | | 1. OLD SAXON, 2. FRANCIC, 3. CIMBRIC, or ANGLO-SAXON. or FRANCO-THEOTISC. or OLD ICELANDIC. | | | | | | | {1. ENGLISH. +--1. GERMAN, +--1. ICELANDIC. +--{2. BROAD, | or HIGH DUTCH (proper.) +--2. NORWEGIAN, | or Lowland SCOTCH. +--2. GERMAN | or NORSE. | | of SWABIA. +--3. DANISH. | {3. BELGIC, +--3. SWISS. +--4. SWEDISH. +--{ or LOW DUTCH (proper.) | {4. FRISIC, | { or Friezeland Tongue.

Very little affinity is discoverable between the original Gothic and Celtic or their derivatives; yet this is not a proof that they were _ab origine_ distinct languages; for the words in this prayer are few, and it has been proved that there are many words common to both those ancient tongues.

+_CELTIC._+ | +----------------+--------------------+ | | +------------+-----------+ | | | | 1. _The Ancient_ 2. _The Ancient_ 3. _The Ancient_ _GAULISH._ _BRITISH._ _IRISH._ | | | | | | _No Language fully_ +--1. _WELSH._ +--1. _IRISH._ _derived from this is_ +--2. _AMORICAN,_ +--2. _ERSE, or_ _now extant, unless it_ | _or Bas Bretagne._ | _Highland Scotch._ _be the AMORICAN,_ +--3. _CORNISH._ +--3. _MANKS, or a Language_ _which yet the best_ | _of the Isle of Man._ _authorities derive_ _from the Ancient_ _British, or_ _CYMRAEG._

SPECIMENS _of the_ GOTHIC LANGUAGES.

The ancient _Gothic_ of _Ulphilas_.

Atta unsar thu in himinam. 1. Veihnai namo thein. 2. Quimai thiudinassus theins. 3. Vairthai vilja theins, sue in himina, jah ana airthai. 4. Hlaif unsarana thana sinteinan gif uns himmadaga. 5. Jah aflet uns thatei sculans sijaima sua sue jah veis afletam thaim skulam unsaraim. 6. Jah ni bringais uns in fraistubnjai. 7. Ak lausei uns af thamma ubilin. Amen.

[From Chamberlayn's _Oratio Dominica in diversas omnium fere Gentium Linguas versa, &c._]

_The_ ANCIENT LANGUAGES _derived from the_ GOTHIC.

I.

_Anglo Saxon._

Uren Fader, thic arth in heofnas. 1. Sie gehalgud thin noma. 2. To cymeth thin ryc. 3. Sie thin willa sue is in heofnas, and in eortho. 4. Uren hlaf oferwistlic sel us to daeg. 5. And forgefe us scylda urna, sue we forgefan scyldgum urum. 6. And no inlead usig in custnung. 7. Ah gefriguiichfrom ftie. Amen.

[From Chamberlayn, p. 56]

II.

_Franco Theotisc._

Fater unser thu thar bist in himile. 1. Si geheilagot thin namo. 2. Queme thin rihhi. 3. Si thin willo, so her in himile ist o si her in erdu. 4. Unsar brot tagalihhaz gib uns huitu. 5. Inti furlaz uns nusara sculdi so uuir furlazames unsaron sculdigon. 6. Inti ni gileitest unsih in costunga. 7. Uzouh arlosi unsi fon ubile. Amen.

[From Chamberlayn, p. 61.]

III.

_Cimbric_, or old _Icelandic_.

Fader uor, som est i himlum. 1. Halgad warde thit nama. 2. Tilkomme thitt rikie. 3. Skie thin vilie, so som i himmalam, so och po iordannè. 4. Wort dachlicha brodh gif os i dagh. 5. Ogh forlat os uora skuldar, so som ogh vi forlate them os skildighe are. 6. Ogh inled os ikkie i fretalsam. 7. Utan frels os ifra ondo. Amen.

[From Chamberlayn, p. 54]

SPECIMENS _of the_ CELTIC LANGUAGES.

--> I am not able to produce any specimen of the _Celtic_, at least any version of the Lord's Prayer, which can be opposed in point of antiquity to the _Gothic _specimen from _Ulphilas_, who flourished A.D. 365.--As the _Celts_ were settled in these countries long before the _Goths_, and were exposed to various revolutions before their arrival, their language has, as might be expected, undergone greater and earlier changes than the _Gothic_; so that no specimen of the old original _Celtic_ is I believe, now to be found.

_The_ ANCIENT LANGUAGES _derived from the_ CELTIC.

I.

_Anc. Gaulish_.

Of this language I cannot find any specimen which can be depended on.

II.

_Cambrian_, or _Ancient British_.

_Eyen Taad_ _rhuvn wyt yn y neofoedodd._ 1. _Santeiddier_ _yr henvu tau._ 2. _Devedy dyrnas dau_. 3. _Guneler dy wollys_ _ar ryddayar megis ag_ _yn y nefi._ 4. _Eyn bara_ _beunyddvul dyro inni_ _heddivu_. 5. _Ammaddeu_ _ynny eyn deledion_, _megis ag i maddevu in_ _deledvvir ninaw._ 6. _Agna thowys ni in_ _brofedigaeth_. 7. _Namyn_ _myn gwared ni rhag_ _drug. Amen_.

[From Chamberl. p. 47.]

III.

_Ancient Irish_, or _Gaedhlig_.

_Our Narme ata_ _ar neamb_. 1. _Beanich_ _a tainin._ 2. _Go_ _diga de riogda_. 3. _Go denta du hoill air_ _talm in marte ar neamb._ 4. _Tabair deim_ _aniugh ar naran_ _limbali_. 5. _Augus_ _mai duin ar fiach_ _amhail maamhia_ _ar fiacha_. 6. _Naleig_ _sin amaribh_. 7. _Ach_ _saarsa sin o olch_. _Amen_.

[From Dr. Anth. Raymond's Introduction to the History of Ireland, p. 2, 3, &c.][143]

SPECIMENS _of the_ GOTHIC LANGUAGES.

I. MODERN LANGUAGES _derived from the_ OLD SAXON.

I.

_English._

Our Father, which art in heaven. 1. Hallowed be thy name. 2. Thy kingdom come. 3. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. 4. Give us this day, our daily bread. 5. And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. 6. And lead us not into temptation. 7. But deliver us from evil. Amen.

[From the English Testament.]

II.

_Broad Scotch._

Ure Fader, whilk art in hevin. 1. Hallouit be thy naim. 2. Thy kingdum cum. 3. Thy wull be dun in airth, as it is in hevin. 4. Gie uss this day ure daily breid. 5. And forgive uss ure debts, ass we forgien ure debtouris. 6. And leid uss na' into temptation. 7. Bot deliver uss frae evil. Amen.

[From a Scotch Gentleman.]

III.

_Low Dutch_, or _Belgic_.

Onse Vader, die daer zijt in de hemelen. 1. Uwen naem worde gheheylight. 2. U rijcke kome. 3. Uwen wille gheschiede op der aerden, gelijck in den hemel. 4. Onse dagelijck broodt gheest ons heden. 5. Ende vergheeft ons onse schulden, ghelijck wy oock onse schuldenaren vergeven. 6. Ende en leyt ons niet in Versoeckinge. 7. Maer verlost ons vanden boosen. Amen.

[From the New Test. in Dutch.]

IV.

_Frisic_, or _Friezeland Tongue_.

Ws Haita duu deritu biste yne hymil. 1. Dyn name wird heiligt. 2. Dyn rick tokomme. 3. Dyn wille moet schoen, opt yrtyck as yne hymile. 4. Ws dielix bræ jov ws jwed. 5. In verjou ws, ws schylden, as vejac ws schyldnirs. 6. In lied ws nact in versieking. 7. Din fry ws vin it quæd. Amen.

[From Chamberlayn, p. 68.]

SPECIMENS _of the_ CELTIC LANGUAGES.

II. MODERN LANGUAGES _derived from the_ ANCIENT BRITISH, _or_ CYMRAEG.

I.

_Welsh_, or _Cymraeg_.

_Ein Tâd, yr hwn wyt yn y nefoedd. 1. Sanctieddier dy Enw. 2. Deved dy deyrnas. 3. Bydaed dy ewyllys ar y ddaiar megis y mae yn y nefoedd. 4. Dyro i ni heddyw ein bara beunyddiol. 5. A madde ini ein dyledion fel y maddeuwn ni i'n dyledwyr. 6. Ag nag arwain ni i brofedigaeth. 7. Eithr gwared ni rhag drwg. Amen._

[Communicated by a Gentleman of Jesus College, Oxon.]

II. _Armoric_, or Language of _Britanny_ in France.

_Hon Tad, pehudij sou en efaou. 1. Da hanou bezet sanctifiet. 2. Devet aornomp da rouantelaez. 3. Da eol bezet graet en douar, eual maz eon en euf. 4. Ró dimp hyziou hon bara pemdeziec. 5. Pardon dimp hon pechedou, eual ma pardonomp da nep pegant ezomp offanczet. 6. Ha na dilaes quet a hanomp en temptation. 7. Hoguen hon diliur diouz drouc. Amen._

[From Chamberlayn, p. 51.]

III.

_Cornish._

_Ny Taz, ez yn neau. 1. Bonegas yw tha hanaw. 2. Tha gwlakoth doaz. 3. Tha bonagath bogweez en nore pocoragen neau. 4. Roe thenyen dythma gon dyth bara givians. 5. Ny gan rabn weary cara ny givians mens. 6. O cabin ledia ny nara idn tentation. 7. Buz dilver ny thart doeg. Amen._

[From Chamberlayn, p. 50.]

SPECIMENS _of the_ GOTHIC LANGUAGES.

II. MODERN LANGUAGES _derived from the_ ANCIENT GERMAN, _or_ FRANCIC, &c.

I.

_High Dutch_, (proper.)

Unser Vater in dem Himmel. 1. Dein name werde geheiliget. 2. Dein reich komme. 3. Dein wille geschehe auf erden, wie im himmel. 4. Unser taeglich brodt gib uns heute. 5. Und vergib uns unsere schulden, wie wir unsern schuldigern vergeben. 6. Und fuehre uns nicht in Versuchung. 7. Sondern erloese uns von dem vbel. Amen.

[From the common German New Testament, printed at London, 12 mo.]

II.

_High Dutch_ of the _Suevian Dialect_.

Fatter ausar dear du bischt em hemmal. 1. Gehoyleget wearde dain nam. 2. Zuakomme dain reych. 3. Dain will gschea uff earda as em hemmal. 4. Ausar deglich braud gib as huyt. 5. Und fergiab as ausre schulda, wia wiar fergeaba ausarn schuldigearn. 6. Und fuar as net ind fersuaching. 7. Sondern erlais as fom ibal. Amen.

[From Chamberlayn's Oratio Dominica, p. 64.]

III.

The _Swiss Language_.

Vatter unser, der du bist in himlen. 1. Geheyligt werd dyn nam. 2. Rukumm uns dijn rijch. 3. Dyn will geschahe, wie im himmel, also auch uff erden. 4. Gib uns hut unser taglich brot. 5. Und vergib uns unsere schulden, wie anch wir vergaben unsern schulderen. 6. Und fuhr uns nicht in versuchnyss. 7. Sunder erlos uns von dem bosen. Amen.

[From Chamberlayn, p. 65.]

SPECIMENS _of the_ CELTIC LANGUAGES.

III. MODERN LANGUAGES _derived from the_ ANCIENT IRISH.

I.

_Irish_, or _Gaidhlig_.

_Ar nathair atá ar neamh. 1. Naomhthar hainm. 2. Tigeadh do riaghachd. 3. Deuntar do thoil ar an ttalámh, mar do nithear ar neamh. 4. Ar naràn laéathamhail tabhair dhúinn a niu. 5. Agus maith dhúinn ar bhfiacha, mar mhaithmidne dar bhféitheamhnuibh fein. 6. Agus na léig sinn a ccathughadh. 7. Achd sáor sinn o olc. Amen._

[From Bishop Bedel's Irish Bible. Lond. 1690. 8 vo.]

II.

_Erse_, or _Gaidhlig Albannaich_.

_Ar n' Athair ata air neamh. 1. Gu naomhaichear t tinm. 2. Tigeadh do rioghachd. 3. Deanthar do thoil air an ta amh mar a nithear air neamb. 4. Tabhair dhuinn an diu ar n aran laitheill. 5. Agus maith dhuinn ar fiacha amhuill mar mhaithmid d'ar luehd-fiach-aibh.[144] 6. Agus na leig am buaireadh sinn. 7. Ach saor sinn o olc. Amen._

[From the New Testament in the Erse Language.]

III.

_Manks_, or Language of the _Isle of Man_.

_Ayr ain, t'ayns niau. 1. Casherick dy row dt'ennym. 2. Dy jig dty reeriaught. 3. Dt'aigney dy row jeant er y thalao, myr te ayns niau. 4. Cur d oin nyn arran jiu as gaghlaa. 5. As leih dooin nyn loghtyn, nyr ta shin leih dauesyn tu jannoo loghtyn nyn' oc. 6. As ny leeid shin ayns miolagh. 7. Agh livrey shin veih olk. Amen._

[From the Liturgy in Manks, printed at London, 1765. 8 vo.]

SPECIMENS _of the_ GOTHIC LANGUAGES.

III. MODERN LANGUAGES _derived from the_ ANCIENT SCANDINAVIAN, _or_ ICELANDIC, _called (by some writers)_ CIMBRIC, _or_ CIMBRO GOTHIC.

I.

_Icelandic._

Fader vor thu som ert a himnum. 1. Helgest thitt nafn. 2. Tilkome thitt riike. 3. Verde thinn vilie, so a jordu, sem a himne. 4. Gieff thu oss i dag vort daglegt braud. 5. Og fiergieff oss vorar skulder, so sem vier fierergiefum vorum skuldinautum. 6. Og inleid oss ecke i freistne. 7. Heldr frelsa thu oss fra illu. Amen.

[From Chamberlayn, p. 70.]

II.

_Norwegian_, or _Norse_.

Wor Fader du som est y himmelen. 1. Gehailiget woare dit nafn. 2. Tilkomma os riga dit. 3. Din wilia geskia paa iorden, som handt er udi himmelen. 4. Giff oss y tag wort dagliga brouta. 5. Och forlaet os wort skioldt, som wy forlata wora skioldon. 6. Och lad os icke homma voi fristelse. 7. Man frals os fra onet. Amen.

[From Chamberlayn, p. 71.]

III.

_Danish._

Vor Fader i himmelen. 1. Helligt vorde dit navn. 2. Tilkomme dit rige. 3. Vorde din villie, paa iorden som i himmelen. 4. Giff oss i dag vort daglige bred. 5. Oc forlad oss vor skyld, som wi forlade vore skyldener. 6. Oc leede oss icke i fristelse. 7. Men frels os fra ont. Amen.

[From Chamberlayn, p. 70.]

IV.

_Swedish._

Fader war som ast i himmelen. 3. Helgat warde titt nampn. 2. Till komme titt ricke. 3. Skei tin willie saa paa lordenne, som i himmelen. 4. Wart dagliga brod giff oss i dagh. 5. Och forlat os wara skulder sa som ock wi forlaten them oss skildege aro. 6. Och inleed oss icke i frestelse. 7. Ut an frals oss i fra ondo. Amen.

[From Chamberlayn, p. 70.]

SPECIMENS _of the_ FINN _and_ LAPLAND TONGUES.

I.

The _Finn_ Language.

_Isa meidan joca olet taiwassa. 1. Pyhitetty olcon sinum nimes. 2. Lahes tulcon sinum waldacundas. 3. Olcon sinun tahtos niin maase cuin taiwasa. 4. Anna meile tanapaiwana meidan joca paiwainen leipam. 5. Sa anna meille meidan syndim andexi nuncuin mekin andex annam meidan welwottistem. 6. Ja ala johdata meita kiusauxen. 7. Mutta paasta meita pahasta. Amen._

[From Chamberlayn, p. 82.]

II.

The _Lapland_ Tongue.

_Atka mijam juco lee almensisne. 1. Ailis ziaddai tu nam. 2. Zweigubatta tu ryki. 3. Ziaddus tu willio. naukuchte almesne nau ei edna mannal. 4. Wadde mijai udni mijan fært pæfwen laibebm. 5. Jah andagasloite mi jemijan suddoid, naukuchte mije andagasloitebt kudi mije welgogas lien. 6. Jah sissalaidi mijabni. 7. Æle tocko kæckzællebma pahast. Amen._

[From Chamberlayn, p. 83.]

* * * * *

_A_ SPECIMEN _of the_ CANTABRIAN _or_ BISCAYAN LANGUAGE, _still preserved in_ SPAIN.

The _Basque_.

_Gure Aita kerutéan caréna. 1. Erabilbedi sainduqui çure jcena. 2. Ethorbedi çure eressuma. 3. Eguinbedi çure borondatea çerú an becala turre'an ore. 4. Emandieçagucu egun gure egunorozco oguia. 5. Eta barkhadietcatgutçu gure çorrac gucere gure coidunei barkhatcendiotçaguten becala. 6. Eta ezgaitçatcu utc tentacionétan erortcerat. 7. Aitcitic beguiragaitcatçu gaite gucietaric. Halabiz._

[From Chamberlayn, p. 44.]

Here we find many of the same words, with small variations, in all the languages of Teutonic origin. It is however observable that the English have softened some words, by omitting the gutturals. Thus _gehalgud_ in the Anglo-Saxon; _geheiliget_ in the German; _gheheylight_ in the Belgic; and _geheyligt_ in the Swiss, are softened into _hallowed_ in English; _taeglich_ and _dagelijcht_ become _daily_. Similar omissions run thro the language. Thus _nagel_, _hagel_ have become in English _nail_ and _hail_. The _gh_ in _might_, _night_ are still pronounced by the Scotch; but the English say _mite_, _nite_.[145]

The affinity between the ancient British, the modern Welsh, and the Armoric, is very obvious; but in the latter, we find a few Latin or French words--_pardon_, _peichdon_, _deliur_, which we should naturally expect from the vicinity of Britanny to the French language.

I have been at the pains to examin a great number of radical words in the Danish, and find the most of them, amounting to more than four hundred, very little different from the English. Where the English write _w_, the Danes write _v_; _vind_ for _wind_. Where the English write _c_ hard, the Danes, with more judgement, write _k_; _klover_, _kan_, _kommer_, for _cleave_, _can_, _come_. Where the English write _wh_, the Danes, with propriety, write _hv_, _v_ having the sound of _w_; as _hvad_, _hvi_, _hval_; _what_, _why_, _whole_.

The words, common to the Danish and English, are mostly monosyllables.

As a corroborating proof of the Eastern origin of the Goths, authors produce the resemblance between their religious opinions and the notions of the Magi. The Scandinavian mythology is preserved in the EDDA, written by Snorro Sturleson, an Icelander, a learned judge and first magistrate in the 12th century.

In this there are many notions which seem to bear a great analogy to the doctrines revealed in the Bible.

It is represented in the Edda, that before creation, "all was one vast abyss;" an idea not unlike the scripture account of what we usually call _chaos_.--"That _Surtur_, the black, shall come at the end of the world, vanquish the gods and give up the universe to the flames"--a crude notion of the conflagration.--"That _Ymer_ the first man or great giant, slept and fell into a sweat, and from the pit of his left arm were born male and female;" this has some resemblance to the scripture account of the creation of the woman--"That the sons of _Bore_ slew the giant _Ymer_, and all the giants of the frost were drowned, except Bengelmer, who was saved in his bark;" in which notion we observe some tradition of the deluge.

The opinion that the world will be destroyed by fire seems to have been universal among the Gothic nations. The descriptions of that catastrophe resemble those of the Stoics and of the ancient Magi and Zoroaster, from whom the idea was probably taken. These descriptions all agree with the scripture representation of that event in the material circumstances.

The doctrine of a future state, or of a renovation of the world, was part of the Gothic system. It was taught by Zamolxis, the celebrated Druid of the Getæ and Scythians.---- Herod. Lib. 4. § 95.

In this same Edda, we also find the origin of some customs still remaining among the descendants of the northern nations. The drinking of bumpers is not an invention of modern bacchanals; it is mentioned, fable 25, of the Edda, where it is said Thor challenged one to a drinking match.

The custom of hanging up bushes on Christmas eve is derived probably from the superstitious veneration paid to the Misseltoe by the Scandinavians.

Indeed the festival of Christmas was grafted upon an ancient pagan feast, celebrated at the winter solstice, in honour of the sun and to render the new year propitious. It answered to the Roman Saturnalia, and was probably of as high an origin. The night on which it was observed was called _Mother Night_, as that which produced the rest; and the feast itself was called by the Goths _Iuul_.--See Mallet's North. Antiq. vol. 1. p. 130. Hence the old word _yeul_ or _yule_ for Christmas; a word that is still used, or at least has been used till within a century in Scotland and the north of England. "Yule," says that learned antiquary, Cowel, "in the north parts of England, is used by the country people as the name of the feast of our Lord's nativity, usually termed _Christmas_. The sports used at Christmas, called Christmas Gamboles, they stile _Yule Games_. _Yule_ is the proper Scotch word for Christmas."----Cowel's Law Dictionary, tit. Yule. The Parliament passed an act for discharging the _Yule Vacance_, which was repealed after the union by stat. George I. cap. 8. The feast was celebrated from time immemorial among the Romans and Goths; the Christians changed its object and name; tho such is the force of custom, that the Gothic name existed in Scotland till lately, and perhaps still exists among the lower ranks of people.

From the northern nations also we have the names of the days of the week; or at least of some of them. The ancient Goths devoted particular days to particular deities.

TUESDAY was _Tyrsdag_, from Tyr the God of bravery. It is in the Danish, _Tyrsdag_, and in the Swedish _Tisdag_.

WEDNESDAY is _Woden'sdag_, from _Woden_, a celebrated warrior deified. In Icelandic, it is _Wonsdag_; in Swedish, _Odinsdag_; in Dutch, _Woensdag_; in Anglo Saxon, _Wodensdag_.

THURSDAY is from _Thor_, god of the air. In Danish it is _Thorsdag_; in Swedish _Torsdag_.

FRIDAY is from _Frea_, the earth and goddess of love, answering to the Venus of the Greeks. In some languages it is called _Freytag_.---- See Mallet's North. Antiquities.

I will just add, it is a weighty argument in favor of the truth of the Scripture history, and of the opinion here advanced of the common origin of languages, that in all the ancient and modern European alphabets, the letters are of a similar figure and power, and arranged nearly in the same order.[146] The true Greek letters were only the Cadmean letters reversed: This reversal took place early in Greece, when the ancient Phenician and Hebrew order of writing from right to left, was changed for the modern order, which is from left to right. The Hebrew or Phenician Alphabet was clearly the parent of the Greek, Roman and Gothic.

[B], page 52.

The reader will please to accept the following specimen, which will convey an idea of the whole.

_Punic._

Yth al o nim ua lonuth! sicorathissi me com syth chim lach chunyth mum ys tyal myethi barii im schi.

_Irish._

Iath all o nimh uath lonnaithe! socruidhse me com sith chimi lach chuinigh! muini istoil miocht beiridh iar mo scith.

_English._

Omnipotent, much dreaded Deity of this country! asswage my troubled mind! Thou, the support of feeble captives! being now exhausted with fatigue, of thy free will, guide me to my children.

In this example the affinity between the Punic and Irish is striking; and the same runs thro the whole speech.

That Ireland received colonies from Spain or Carthage is probable from other circumstances. The Irish historians say their ancestors received letters from the Phenicians; and the Irish language was called _Bearni Feni_, the Phenician tongue. _Cadiz_ in Spain was first settled by Phenicians; and _cadas_ in Irish signifies _friendship_.

The Irish seems to be a compound of _Celtic_ and _Punic_; and if Ireland was peopled originally from Carthage, and received colonies from thence, the event must have been subsequent to the first Punic war; for this was the period when the Carthaginians adopted the Roman letters, and there is no inscription in Ireland in the Phenician character.

The Hebrew was the root of the Phenician and the Punic. The Maltese is evidently a branch of the Punic; for it approaches nearer to the Hebrew and Chaldaic, than to the Arabic. For this assertion we have the authority of _M. Maius_, professor of the Greek and oriental languages in the Ludovician university of Giessen, who had his accounts from _Ribier_, a missionary Jesuit and native of Malta. This fact will account for the correspondence between the Irish and the Maltese, in several particulars. In Maltese, _Alla_ signifies _God_; in Irish, _All_ is _mighty_. _Baol_ in Maltese, and _Bel_ or _Bal_ in Irish, signify _Chief Deity_ or _Sun_. In Maltese, _ordu_ is _end_ or _summit_; in Irish, _ard_, _arda_, are _hill_, _high_. These words are probably from the same root as the Latin _arduus_, and the English _hard_, implying labor. _Bandla_ in Maltese, is _a cord_; in Irish, _bann_ is suspension. In Maltese, _gala_ is the sail of a ship; and in Irish, _gal_ is a gale of wind. These Maltese words are taken from a Punica Maltese Dictionary, annexed to a treatise, Della lingua Punica presentamente usitate da Maltese, by G. Pietro Francisco Agius de Solandas.

There is also a correspondence between the Irish and Punic, in the variation of their nouns, as may be observed in the following example.

_Punic._ _Irish._

Nom. A dar, the house an dae, the house, &c. Gen. Mit a dar, of the house mend na dae Dat. La dar, with or to the house la dae Acc. A dar, the house an dae Voc. Ya dar, O house a dae Abl. Fa dar, with or by the house fa dae

In several particulars the Irish bears a close affinity to the Hebrew and Greek. It was the custom with the Hebrews, and it still remains with them, to face the east in the act of devotion. From this practice it proceeded, that the same word which signified _right hand_, signified also _south_; the same with _left hand_ and _north_; _before_ and _east_; _behind_ and _west_. This is the case also in the Irish language.

_Hebrew._ _Irish._

Jamin,[147] right hand, south deas, the same Smol, left hand, north thuaidh, the same Achor, behind, west tar, the same Cedem, before, east oir and oithear, the same, or rising sun. Latin, oriens

That the Greeks had an intercourse with the islands of Britain and Ireland, or sent colonies thither, is not impossible; and Dr. Todd, not many years ago, discovered, at Colchester, in Essex, an altar dedicated to the Tyrian Hercules, with an inscription in Greek capitals,

~HÊRAKLÊS TYREO DEIO DOKA ARCHIERIA~.

There is a place in Ireland called _Airchil_. And it is a remarkable fact, that some fragments of old Irish laws, which, for a long time, puzzled the antiquaries of the nation, are found to be written in a very ancient language, and in the manner which the Greeks called _Boustrophedon_; that is, from right to left, and from left to right, in the manner that oxen plow. This was supposed to be an improvement on the Hebrew and Phenician order of writing all the lines from right to left, which Cadmus introduced into Greece. This manner of writing in Greece was prior to Homer, and if the Irish copied from the Greeks, which is not impossible, the fact would prove a very early settlement of Ireland by Greek colonies or their descendants. See Leland's Hist. of Ireland, Prelim. Dis.

All these circumstances corroborate the opinion that the Celts came originally from the east, and formed settlements on the shores of the Mediterranean and Atlantic. The affinity between the Phenician, the Punic, the Maltese, the Irish and the British languages, discoverable in a great number of words, makes it probable, that after colonies were settled at Carthage and at Cadiz, some commercial intercourse was carried on between them and the nations at the head of the Mediterranean, and that an emigration from Spain might people Ireland before any settlements had been made there by the Gauls or Britons. It is however more probable that the Punic words in the Irish language might have been introduced into that island by subsequent colonization. At any rate, from the Hebrew, Chaldaic, or Phenician, or the common root of these languages, proceeded the Punic, the Maltese, the Iberian or Spanish, the Gaulish, the British, and the Irish. The order I have mentioned is obvious and natural; and history furnishes us with some facts to strengthen the supposition.

[C], page 58.

Bishop Hickes, in his Saxon Grammar, which is a vast treasure of valuable learning, has preserved a specimen of the language and of the opinions of the English respecting it, in an extract from a manuscript of one Ranulphus Higdenus, _de Incolarum linguis_, translated by John Trevisa in 1385, and the ninth of Richard II. Trevisa's stile bears some affinity to that of Chaucer, with whom he was cotemporary.

"As it is knowne how meny maner peple beeth in this land: There beeth also so many dyvers longages and tongues. Nathless, Walschemen and Scotts, that hath nought medled with other nations, holdeth wel nyh his firste langage and speeche: But yif the Scottes that were sometime considerat and woned with the Picts draw somewhat after hir[148] speeche: But yif the Flemynges that woneth in the weste side of Wales haveth left her strange speeche and speketh Sexon like now. Also Englishmen, they had from the begynnynge thre maner speeche, northerne, sowtherne, and middel speeche in the middle of the lande, as they come of the maner peple of Germania. Nathless by comyxtion and mellynge[149]; first with Danes and afterwards with Normans, in meny the contray langage is apayred[150] and som useth strong wlafferynge,[4] chiterynge,[4] hartynge[4] and gartynge,[4] grisbayting;[151] this apayryng[152] of the burthe of the tunge is because of tweie thinges: oon is for children in scole, agenst the usage and maner of all other nations, beeth compelled for to leve hire owne langage, and for to consture hir lessons and here[153] thinges in Frenche and so they haveth sethe[154] Normans came firste into England. Also gentilmen children beeth taught to speke Frenche from the tyme that they beeth rokked in hire cradle and conneth[155] speke and play with a childes brache and uplandissche men[156] will likne hymself to gentilmen and fondeth[157] with the greet besynesse for to speke Frenche for to be told of. [Trevisa, the translator remarks here--"This maner was moche used to, for first deth,[158] and is sithe[159] sum del[160] changed. For John Cornwaile, a maister of grammer, changed the lore[161] in grammer scole and construction of Frenche into Englishe. And Richard Peneriche lerned the manere techynge of him as other men, of Penriche. So that now the yere of our Lorde a thousand thre hundred and four score and fyve and of the second king Richard after the conquest, nyne; and alle the grammar scoles of England children lerneth Frenche and construeth and lerneth an Englishe and haveth thereby advantage in oon side, and disadvantage in another side. Here[162] advantage is that they lerneth hir grammer in lasse tyme, than children were wonned to doo. Disadvantage is, that now children of grammer scole conneth na more Frenche than can hir _lift heele_,[163] and that is harme for hem an they schulle[164] passe the see and travaille in strange londes and in many other places. Also gentilmen haveth now moche left for to teche here children Frenche."] _Ranulphus_.--Hit seemeth a great wonder how Englishe men and her[165] own longage and tongue is so dyverse of sown in this oon ilande, and the longage of Normandie is comlynge[166] of another lande and hath oon maner soun among all men that speketh hit arigt in England. [Trevisa's remark--"Nevertheless there is as many diverse maner Frenche in the reeme[167] of France, as is dyvers maner Englishe in the reeme of England."] _R_. Also of the aforesaid Saxon tonge that is deled[168] athree and is abide scarceliche[169] with few uplandishe men, is great wonder. For men of the est with men of the west is as it were under the same partie of hevene accordeth more in sownynge of speeche than men of the north with men of the south. Therefore it is that Mercii, that beeth men of myddel England, as it were, parteners of the endes, understandeth bettrie the side longages than northerne and southerne understandeth either other. All the longage of the Northumbers and specialliche at York, is so scharp, slitting and frotynge and unschape that the southerne men may that longage unnethe[170] understande. I trow that is because that they beeth nyh to strange men and nations, that speketh strongliche, and also because the kinges of Englande woneth[171] alway fer[172] from that contray, for they beeth more turned to the south contray, and yif they goeth to the northe contray, they goeth with great helpe and strengthe. The cause why they beeth more in the southe contray than in the northe, for it may be better corn londe, more peple, more noble cities, and more profitable havenes."[173]

On this passage we may make the following remarks:

1. That the third person singular of the verb is invariably used with _plural_ as well as singular nouns; _they_ _beeth_, _haveth_. Whereas in Chaucer and Mandeville the same person ends generally in _en_; _they seyn_ for _they say_.

The same third person was used for the imperative, by the best English writers,

"And soft take me in your armes twey, For love of God, and hearkeneth what I sey."

Chaucer, Knight's Tale, 2783.

"And at certyn houres, they seyn to certyn offices, _maketh pees_;" that is, _make peace_.--Mandeville, p. 281.

2. That _yif_ is used for _if_; a proof that _if_ is a verb, a contraction of _gif_ or _yif_ (for they were used promiscuously) the imperative of _gifan_, to give.[174]

3. That the subjunctive form of verbs was not used after _if_; _and yif they goeth to the northe contray_.

4. That there were three principal dialects in the English; the _northern_, which was corrupted by the Scots and Picts, and from which the present Yorkshire language is derived; the _middle_, which came from Germany and retained its primitive purity, and is the true parent of modern English; and the _southern_, by which is meant, either the language of the southern parts which was corrupted by an intercourse with foreigners; or what is more probable, the language spoken in Devonshire, and on the borders of Cornwall, which was mixed with the old British, and is now almost unintelligible.

5. That the conquests of the Danes and Normans had corrupted the pure language of the Saxons.

6. That this corruption proceeded principally from the teaching of French in schools.

7. That country people, (uplandish men) imitated the practice of the polite, and learnt French, as many do now, _to be told of_.

8. That Cornwail and others, in Trevisa's time, had begun to reform this practice.

9. That French had almost banished the native Saxon from the polite part of the nation, and that the _uplandish_ or western people alone retained it uncorrupted.

10. That the kings of England resided principally in the southern parts of the kingdom, where the land was most fertile, best cultivated, most populous, and most advantageous for commerce.

[D], page 59.

Chaucer's particular patron was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. He married Philippa, the sister of Lady Swinford, who before her marriage and after her husband's death, was one of the Duke's family.

"Grete well _Chaucer_ when you mete-- Of dittees and of songes glade, The which he----made The londe fulfilled is over all."

Gower.

Gower is said to have been Chaucer's preceptor.

"My maister _Chaucer_--chiefe poet of Bretayne Whom all this lond should of right preferre, Sith of our language he was _the lode starre_, That made first to dystylle and rayne The gold dew dropys of speche and eloquence Into our tungue through his excellence."

Lydgate.

Chaucer's merit in improving the English language is celebrated by other poets of his time--Occleve, Douglas and Dunbar. They call him the _floure of eloquence_, the _fader in science_, and the _firste fynder of our fayre langage_.

He died in 1400.

It must however be remarked that Chaucer did not import foreign words, so much as introduce them into books and give them currency in writing. It must further be observed that when I speak of the incorporation of Latin words with the English, I would not be understood to mean that words were taken directly from the Roman tongue and anglicised. On the other hand, they mostly came thro the channel of the Norman or Provençal French; and perhaps we may call them with propriety _French_ words; for they had lost much of their Roman form among the Gauls, Franks and Normans.

The most correct account I have seen of the state of the language in the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, is in the first volume of Bell's edition of Chaucer.

We have the authority of Ingulphus, a historian of credit, for alleging that the French began to be fashionable in England, before the conquest. Edward the Confessor resided many years in Normandy, and imbibed a predilection for the French manners and language. On his accession to the throne of England, in 1043, he promoted many of his Norman favorites to the first dignities in the kingdom; under the influence of the king and his friends, the English began to imitate the French fashions.

But the conquest in 1066, completed the change. The court of William consisted principally of foreigners who could speak no language but French. Most of the high offices and rich livings in the kingdom were filled with Normans, and the castles which, by order of the conqueror, were built in different parts of the country, were garrisoned by foreign soldiers, in whom the king might most safely confide.[175] Public business was transacted in the French, and it became dishonorable or a mark of low breeding, not to understand that language. Indeed under the first reigns after the conquest, it was a disgrace to be called an _Englishman_. In this depressed state of the English, their language could not fail to be neglected by the polite part of the nation.

But as the body of the nation did not understand French, there must have been a constant effort to root it out and establish the English. The latter however gained ground slowly during the two first centuries of the revolution. But in the reign of king John, Normandy, which had been united with England under the Norman princes, was taken by the French, 1205, and thus separated from the British dominions. In the next reign (Henry III.) some regulations were made between the two kingdoms, by which the subjects of either were rendered incapable of holding lands in the other. These events must have restrained, in some degree, the intercourse between the two kingdoms, and given the English an opportunity to assume their own native character and importance. In this reign the English began to value themselves upon their birth, and a knowlege of the English language was a recommendation, tho not a requisite, in a candidate for a benefice.

It appears also by the passage of Higden before quoted, that the practice of construing Latin into French, in the schools, had closed before his time. This, with the other causes before assigned, contributed to root out the French, and make the English reputable; and in the reign of Edward III. produced the act, mentioned in the text, in favor of the English. This act did not produce a total change of practice at once; for we find the proceedings in parliament were published in French for sixty years after the pleas in courts were ordered to be in English, and the statutes continued in French about 120 years after the act, till the first of Richard III.

It may be observed that the royal assent to bills was in some instances given in English during the reign of Henry VI. _Be it ordained as it is asked: Be it as it is axed._[176] But the royal assent is now declared in French.

[E], page 66 and 34.

Sir William Temple's stile, tho easy and flowing, is too diffuse: Every page of his abounds with tautologies. Take the following specimen from the first page that presents itself on opening his third volume.

"Upon the survey of these dispositions in mankind and these conditions of government, it seems much more reasonable to pity than to envy the _fortunes_ and _dignities_ of princes or _great_ ministers of _state_; and to _lessen_ and _excuse_ their _venial_ faults, or at least their misfortunes, rather than to _encrease_ and _make them worse_ by _ill colors_ and _representations_."----Of Pop. Dis.

_Fortunes_ and _dignities_ might have been better expressed by _elevated rank_ or _high stations_; _great_ is superfluous, and so are _lessen_ and _make them worse_, and either _colors_ or _representations_ might have been omitted.

"The first safety of _princes_ and _states_ lies in avoiding all _councils_ or _designs_ of innovation, in _ancient_ and _established forms_ and _laws_, especially those concerning liberty, property and religion (which are the possessions men will ever have most at heart;) and thereby leaving the channel of _known_ and _common_ justice _clear_ and _undisturbed_." Several words might here be retrenched, and yet leave the author's meaning more precise and intelligible. This is the principal fault in Temple's stile.

"But men, accustomed to the free and vagrant life of hunters, are incapable of regular application to labor; and consider agriculture as a _secondary_ and _inferior_ occupation."--Robertson's Hist. Amer. book 4.

Supposing _secondary_ and _inferior_ not to be exactly synonimous, in this sentence one would have answered the purpose.

"_Agriculture_, even when the strength of man is seconded by that of the animals _which he has subjected to the yoke_, and his power augmented by _the use of the various instruments with which_ the discovery of metals has furnished him, is still _a work_ of great labor."--The same.

This sentence is very exceptionable. Is _agriculture, a work?_ Can so _definite_ a term be applied to such a _general_ idea? But what a group of useless words follow! It was not sufficient to say, _the strength of man seconded by that of animals_, but the kinds of animals must be specified; viz. such as _he has subjected to the yoke_; when every person knows that other animals are never used; and consequently the author's idea would have been sufficiently explicit without that specification. In the subsequent clause, the words, _his power augmented by the use of the various instruments of metal_, would have been explicit; for the _discovery of metals_ must have been implied. Such expletive words load the mind with a chain of particular ideas which are not essential to the discourse.

"--And if any one of these prognostics is deemed unfavorable, they instantly abandon the pursuit of _those_ measures, _on which they are most eagerly bent_."--The same.

Here is an awkward conclusion of the period, and ascribeable to a too nice regard for grammatical rules. _They are most eagerly bent on_, would perhaps have been better; but a different construction would have been still less exceptionable. There is however a greater fault in the construction. By employing _those_ and _most eagerly_, the idea is, that savages, on the appearance of unfavorable omens, would abandon _those_ measures _only_, on which they are _most eagerly_ bent, and not others that they might be pursuing with less earnestness. Why could not the author have said in plain English--"they instantly abandon any measure they are pursuing."

This writer's stile likewise abounds with synonims; as _strengthen_ and _confirm_, _quicken_ and _animate_; when one term would fully express the meaning. "Strong liquors _awake_ a savage from his _torpid state_--_give a brisker motion to his spirits_, and _enliven_ him more thoroughly than either dancing or gaming."--Book. 4. What a needless repetition of the same idea! The author is also very liberal in the use of _all_--"_all_ the _transports_ and _frenzy_ of intoxication."--"War, which between extensive kingdoms, is carried on with little animosity, is prosecuted by small tribes, with _all_ the rancor of a private quarrel."

In short, the stile of Dr. Robertson, the great, the philosophic historian, is too labored. The mind of the reader is kept constantly engaged in attending to the structure of the periods; it is fatigued with words and drawn from the chain of events.

The stile of Kaims, tho not easy and flowing, is precise, and generally accurate. The stile of Blair's Lectures is less correct than that of his Sermons; but at the same time, less formal in the structure of the periods.

These remarks, the reader will observe, respect stile only; for the merit of Robertson, as a judicious and faithful historian; and of Kaims and Blair, as critics, is above praise or censure.

In no particular is the false taste of the English more obvious, than in the promiscuous encomiums they have bestowed on Gibbon, as a historian. His work is not properly a "_History_ of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire;" but a "Poetico-Historical Description of certain Persons and Events, embellished with suitable imagery and episodes, designed to show the author's talent in selecting words, as well as to delight the ears of his readers." In short, his history should be entitled, "A Display of Words;" except some chapters which are excellent commentaries on the history of the Roman Empire.

The general fault of this author is, he takes more pains to form his sentences, than to collect, arrange and express the facts in an easy and perspicuous manner. In consequence of attending to ornament, he seems to forget that he is writing for the _information_ of his reader, and when he ought to _instruct_ the _mind_, he is only _pleasing_ the _ear_. Fully possessed of his subject, he describes things and events in general terms or figurative language, which leave upon the mind a faint evanescent impression of some indeterminate idea; so that the reader, not obtaining a clear precise knowlege of the facts, finds it difficult to understand, and impossible to recollect, the author's meaning. Let a man read his volumes with the most laborious attention, and he will find at the close that he can give very little account of the "Roman Empire;" but he will remember perfectly that Gibbon is a most elegant writer.

History is capable of very little embellishment; _tropes_ and _figures_ are the proper instruments of _eloquence_ and _declamation_; _facts_ only are the subjects of _history_. Reflections of the author are admitted; but these should not be frequent; for the reader claims a right to his own opinions. The justness of the historian's remarks may be called in question--facts only are incontestible. The plain narrative of the Scripture historians, and of Herodotus, with their dialogues and digressions, is as far superior, considered as pure history, to the affected glaring brilliancy of stile and manner, which runs thro Gibbon's writings, as truth is to fiction; or the vermillion blush of nature and innocence, to the artificial daubings of fashion. The first never fails to affect the heart--the last can only dazzle the senses.

Another fault in Gibbon's manner of writing, is, the use of _epithets_ or _titles_ instead of _names_. "The Cæsar, the conqueror of the east, the protector of the church, the country of the Cæsars, the son of Leda," and innumerable similar appellations are employed, instead of the real names of the persons and places; and frequently at such a distance from any mention of the name, that the reader is obliged to turn over a leaf and look for an explanation. Many of the epithets are new; custom has not made us familiar with them; they have never been substituted, by common consent, for the true names; the reader is therefore surprized with unexpected appellations, and constantly interrupted to find the persons or things to which they belong.

I am not about to write a lengthy criticism on this author's history; a few passages only will be selected as proofs of what I have advanced. "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," vol. 3, oct. chap. 17: In explaining the motives of the Emperors for removing the seat of government from Rome to the East, the author says--"_Rome_ was insensibly confounded with the dependent kingdoms which had once acknowleged her supremacy; and _the country of the Cæsars_ was viewed with cold indifference by a martial prince, born in the neighborhood of the Danube, educated in the courts and armies of Asia, and invested with the _purple_ by the legions of Britain." By the author's beginning one part of the sentence with _Rome_, and the other with _the country of the Cæsars_, the reader is led to think two different places are intended, for he has not a suspicion of a tautology; or at least he supposes the author uses _the country of the Cæsars_ in a more extensive sense than _Rome_. He therefore looks back and reads perhaps half a page with a closer attention, and finds that the writer is speaking of the _seat of empire_, and therefore can mean the _city of Rome_ only. After this trouble he is displeased that the author has employed _five words_ to swell and adorn his period. This however is not the only difficulty in understanding the author. Who is the _martial prince_? In the preceding sentence, Dioclesian is mentioned, as withdrawing from Rome; and in the sentence following, Constantine is said to visit Rome but seldom. The reader then is left to collect the author's meaning, by the circumstances of the birth, education and election of this martial prince. If he is possessed of these facts already, he may go on without much trouble.

The author's affectation of using _the purple_ for the crown or imperial dignity, is so obvious by numberless repetitions of the word, as to be perfectly ridiculous.

"In the choice of an advantageous situation, he preferred the confines of Europe and Asia; to curb, _with a powerful arm_, the barbarians who dwelt between the Danube and Tanais; to watch, _with an eye of jealousy_, the conduct of the Persian monarch." Here the members of the sentence in Italics, are altogether superfluous; the author wanted to inform his reader, that Dioclesian designed to curb the barbarians and watch the Persian monarch; for which purpose he chose a favorable situation; but it was wholly immaterial to the subject to relate in what manner or degree, the emperor meant to exert his arm or his jealousy. Nay more, these are circumstances which are not reduceable to any certainty, and of which the writer and the reader can have no precise idea.

"With these views, Dioclesian had selected and embellished the _residence of Nicomedia_."--Is Nicomedia a princess, whose residence the emperor selected and embellished? This is the most obvious meaning of the sentence. But Nicomedia, we learn from other passages, was a city, the _residence_ itself of the emperor. Yet the author could not tell us this in a few plain words, without spoiling the harmony of the phrase; he chose therefore to leave it obscure and ungrammatical.

"--But the memory of Dioclesian was justly abhorred by the _Protector of the Church_; and _Constantine_ was not insensible to the ambition of founding a city, which might perpetuate the glory of his own name." Who is the _protector of the church_? By Constantine's being mentioned immediately after, one would think he cannot be the person intended; yet on examination, this is found to be the case. But why this separate appellation? It seems the author meant by it to convey this idea; That Dioclesian was a persecutor of the church, therefore his memory was abhorred by Constantine who was its protector; the _cause_ of _Constantine_'s _abhorrence_ is implied, and meant to be unfolded to the reader, in a single epithet. Is this history? I must have the liberty to think that such _terseness_ of stile, notwithstanding the authorities of Tacitus and Gibbon, is a gross corruption and a capital fault.

In description, our author often indulges a figurative poetical manner, highly improper.

"The figure of the imperial city (Constantinople) may be represented under that of an unequal triangle. The obtuse point, which advances towards the east, and the shores of Asia, meets and repels the waves of the Thracian Bosphorus." Here the author soars on poetic wings, and we behold the _obtuse point_ of a _triangle_, _marching_ eastward, _attacking_ and _repulsing_ its _foes_, the _waves_ of the Bosphorus; in the next line, the author sinks from the heights of Parnassus, and creeps on the plain of _simple narrative_--"The northern side of the city is bounded by the harbor."

"On these banks, tradition long preserved the memory of the sylvan reign of Amycus, who defied the _son of Leda_ to the combat of the Cestus." The author takes it for granted that his reader is acquainted with all the ancient fables of Greece and Rome. Such _allusions_ to facts or fables make a wretched figure in _sober history_.[177]

The author, after the manner of the poets, admits episodes into his descriptions, by way of variety and embellishment. He begins a description of Constantinople; to do justice to the city, he must describe its situation; he therefore gives an account of the Thracian Bosphorus, the Propontus and Hellespont, interspersed with ancient fables, and adorned with poetical imagery. When he arrives at the mouth of the Hellespont, his fancy leads him to the seat of ancient Troy, and he cannot pass it, without telling us from Homer, where the Grecian armies were encamped; where the flanks of the army were guarded by Agamemnon's bravest chiefs; where Achilles and his myrmidons occupied a promontory; where Ajax pitched his tent; and where his tomb was erected after his death. After indulging his fancy on this memorable field of heroic actions, he is _qualified_ to describe Constantinople.

But it is needless to multiply examples; for similar faults occur in almost every page. Most men, who have read this history, perceive a difficulty in understanding it; yet few have attempted to find the reason; and hardly a man has dared to censure the stile and manner.

To what cause then shall we ascribe the almost unanimous consent of the English and Americans, in lavishing praises upon Gibbon's history? In some measure doubtless to the greatness of the attempt, and the want of an English history which should unfold the series of events which connects ancient and modern times. The man who should light a lamp, to illuminate the dark period of time from the 5th to the 15th century, would deserve immortal honors. The attempt is great; it is noble; it is meritorious. Gibbon appears to have been faithful, laborious, and perhaps impartial. It is his stile and manner only I am censuring; for these are exceedingly faulty. For proof of this I appeal to a single fact, which I have never heard contradicted; that a man who would comprehend Gibbon, must read with painful attention, and after all receive little improvement.

The encomiums of his countrymen proceed from false taste; a taste for superfluous ornament. Men are disposed to lessen the trouble of reading, and to spare the labor of examining into the causes and consequences of events. They choose to please their eyes and ears, rather than feed the mind. Hence the rage for _abridgements_, and a display of rhetorical embellishments. Hence the eclat with which "Millot's Elements of General History," is received in the world. This work is no more than an _Index to General History_; or a recapitulation of the principal events. It is calculated for two classes of people; for those who, having read history in the original writers, want to revise their studies, without a repetition of their first labors; and for those who have but little time to employ in reading, and expect only a general and superficial knowlege of history.[178] But a man who would know the minute springs of action; the remote and collateral, as well as the direct causes and consequences of events; and the nice shades of character which distinguish eminent men, with a view to draw rules from living examples; such a man must pass by abridgements as trash; he must have recourse to the original writers, or to collections of authentic papers. Indeed a collection of all the material official papers, arranged in the order of time, however dry and unentertaining to most readers, is really the _best_, and the _only authentic_ history of a country. The philosopher and statesman, who wish to substitute fact for opinion, will generally suspect human testimony; but repose full confidence in the evidence of papers, which have been the original instruments of public transactions, and recorded by public authority.

These strictures are contrary to the opinions of most men, especially as they regard the stile of the authors mentioned. Yet they are written with a full conviction of their being well founded. They proceed from an earnest desire of arresting the progress of false taste in writing, and of seeing my countrymen called back to nature and truth.

POSTSCRIPT.

The foregoing remarks were written before I had seen the opinions of that judicious and elegant writer, East Apthorp, M. A. vicar of Croydon, on the same history. The following passage is too directly in point to be omitted. It is in his "Second Letter on the Study of History."

"I was disappointed in my expectations of instruction from this book (Gibbon's History) when I discerned that the author had adopted that entertaining but superficial manner of writing history, which was first introduced by the Abbe de Vertot, whose History of the Revolutions in the Government of the Roman Republic, is one of those agreeable and seducing models which never fail of producing a multitude of imitations. There is, in this way of writing, merit enough to recommend it to such readers, and such writers, as propose to themselves no higher aim, than an elegant literary amusement: It piques their curiosity, while it gratifies their indolence. The historian has the advantage, in this way, of passing over such events and institutions as, however essential to the science of history, are less adapted to shine in the recital. By suppressing facts and violating chronology; by selecting the most pleasing incidents and placing them in a striking point of view, by the coloring and drapery of stile and composition, the imagination is gratified with a gaudy spectacle of triumphs and revolutions passing in review before it; while the rapid succession of great events affords a transient delight, without leaving useful and lasting impressions either on the memory or judgement; or fixing those principles which ought to be the result of historic information.

"Nor is it the worst consequence of this slight and modish way of compiling history, that it affords to supine and unreflecting readers a barren entertainment, to fill up the vacant hours of indolence and dissipation. The historian who gives himself the privilege of mutilating and selecting, and arranging at discretion the records of past ages, has full scope to obtrude on his careless readers any system that suits with his preconceived opinions or particular views in writing."--"The only legitimate study of history is in _original historians_."

The same writer complains of a decline of literature in Great Britain, fixing the "settlement that followed the revolution," as the era of true science and greatness. He remarks that the "aim of modern writers seems to be to furnish their readers with fugitive amusement, and that ancient literature is become rather the ornament of our libraries, than the accomplishment of our minds; being supplanted by the modish productions which are daily read and forgotten."

[F], page 76.

For proof of what I have advanced respecting the sound of c in Rome, I would observe, that the genitive case of the first declension in Latin anciently ended in _ai_, which was probably copied from the Greeks; for it is very evident the Latin _æ_ in later writers, was the true representative of the Greek _ai_. Thus _Mousai_ in Greek was translated into the Roman tongue, _musæ_. Now _c_ before _ai_ had the sound of _k_; for where the Romans wrote _cæ_ the Greeks wrote _kai_. Thus _musica_, _musicæ_ in the first declension must have been pronounced _musika_, _musikai_, not _musisee_, as we now pronounce the _æ_.

As a further proof, we may appeal to the laws of the Roman poetry, by which dipthongs were always long, having the sound of two vowels combined.

But a decisive proof that _c_ before the vowels _a_, _o_, _u_ and the dipthongs, had the power of _k_, is that the Greeks always translated the _c_ in _kappa_. They wrote Cæsar, _Kaisaros_, &c.

In confirmation of which I may add, that the Germans, among whom the word _Cæsar_ became common to all emperors, and now signifies _emperor_, spell it _Kaisar_; and in the pronunciation they preserve the true Roman sound of _Cæsar_.[179]

That the Roman _c_ before _e_ and _i_ had the force of _ch_ or _tsh_, is probable from the present practice of the Italians, who would be the most likely to retain the pure Roman pronunciation. In modern Italian _ce_, _ci_ are pronounced _che_, _chi_; as _dolcemente_, _Cicero_, pronounced _dolchemente_, _Chichero_.

In this opinion I am supported by Dr. Middleton, who seems to have been thoroughly versed in Roman literature. It may gratify the learned reader to see his own words. _De Lat. Liter. pron. differ._

"Ante vocales _a_, _o_, _v_[180] eundem olim sonum habuisse ac hodie habet certissimum est: qualem autem ante reliquas _e_ et _i_, diphthongosque _æ_, _oe_, _ev_ habuerit, haud ita convenit. Angli illam Gallique etiam, haud ab _s_ distinguunt, in Coena, Cæsar, Ceres, cinis, &c. at in iisdem Itali, quod Romanos etiam fecisse olim existimo, eum huic literæ sonum tribuunt, quo nos _ch_ efferimus, in vocibus nostris, _cheek_, _cherry_, _cheap_, &c. itaque pronunciant Cicero, uti nos Chichester, chicheley, &c. ita tamen ac si ante _c_, cum in medio vocis sequatur vocalem, litera t leviter admodum et subobscure sonanda interponeretur; ut _Citcero_, Chitchester, quam pronuntiandi rationem expressisse plane sculptor quidam videtur, qui in inscriptione veteri contra orthographiæ regulas, _t_ ante _c_ interposuit in nomine _Vrbitcius_."

He observes however that Lipsius ridicules this opinion, and contends that _c_ had in all cases the force of _k_. This the Doctor ascribes to his partiality for the pronunciation of his countrymen, the Germans, which, he says, has often led him into errors. For altho _k_ before _a_, _o_, _u_ used frequently to be written for _c_, as _Karcer_ for _Carcer_, yet it never took the place of _c_ before _e_ and _i_; we never find _Karker_ for _Carcer_.

But that _c_ had the sound of our _ch_, is probable from another fact: In old inscriptions it is found that _c_ was often used for _t_ before _i_; _condicio_ for _conditio_, _palacium_ for _palatium_. Now _ch_ in English have a compound sound, which begins with that of _t_, and hence _ti_ and _ci_ in English have taken the sound of _ch_ or _sh_. It is evident therefore that _c_ before _i_ had a great affinity to _ti_; an affinity which is still preserved in the Italian language. These circumstances give us reason to believe that _ci_ and _ti_ in _condicio_ and _palatium_, were both pronounced _chi_, _condichio_, _palachium_. This sound of _ci_ agrees perfectly well with the Saxon sound in _cild_, pronounced _child_; _cele_, now pronounced _chill_, as I have remarked above; text, page 72.

[G], page 82.

I shall not enter into a particular discussion of the question, whether _h_ is a mark of _sound_ or not. By its convertibility with _k_ and _c_ in the ancient languages, we have reason to conclude that it once had a guttural sound, and the pronunciation of some northern nations of Europe confirms the opinion. But it appears in modern English to have no sound by itself; it however affects, in some degree, the sound of the vowel to which it is prefixed, by previously opening the mouth wider than is necessary to articulate the vowel. Thus in _hand_ we hear no sound but of _and_; yet in pronouncing _hand_ we open the throat wider, and emit the breath with violence before we begin the sound, which makes an obvious difference in pronouncing the words _and_ and _hand_; and perhaps this distinction is perceiveable as far as the words can be heard. The same may be said of _th_ in _think_.

The instance of a man who lost a dinner by telling his servant to _eat_ it, when he meant to tell him to _heat_ it, affords a useful lesson to those who are disposed to treat the letter _h_ with too much neglect.

[H], page 85.

That _i_ short is the same sound as _ee_ we have the authority of one of the first and best English grammarians. "Hunc sonum, (ee) quoties correptus est, Angli per _i_ breve, exprimunt; quum vero producitur, scribunt ut plurimum per _ee_, non raro tamen per _ie_; vel etiam per _ea_; ut, _sit_, _fit_, _feel_, _fill_, _fiend_, _near_," &c.---- Wallis, Gram. Sect. 2.

Ash confirms the opinion. "_Ee_ has one sound, as in _see_, _thee_, and coincides with the narrow _i_."--Gram. Diss. pref. to his Dic.

Kenrick's arrangement of the _long_ and _short_ vowels is exactly similar to mine.

Sheridan entertains a different opinion respecting the short _i_ and _e_. He considers them as distinct vowels, incapable of prolongation. Rhet. Gram. pref. to his Dict. page 16. In this he differs from most other writers upon the subject, who have attended to the philosophical distinctions of sounds. This appears to be an inaccuracy in his distribution of the vowels; altho it cannot affect the practice of speaking.

The sound of the Roman _i_, it is agreed on all hands, was that of the English _ee_. It retains that sound still in the Italian, French and Spanish, which are immediately derived from the Latin. It had its long and short sounds in Latin; as in _vidi_, _homini_; the first pronounced _veedee_, and the last _homini_, as we now pronounce _i_ in _fill_. The French preserve the long sound, and lay it down as a general rule, that _i_ is pronounced like the English _ee_: Yet in discourse they actually shorten the sound, and in _sentimens_, _ressentiment_, &c. pronounce _i_ as we do in _civil_. In the French _motif_, _i_ is long like _ee_; in this and all similar terminations, we shorten the sound, _motiv_. Mr. Sheridan, in this particular, is evidently singular and probably wrong.

That _e_ in _let_ is but the short abrupt sound of _a_ in _late_, is not so clear; but to me is evident. There is little or no difference in the position of the organs with which we pronounce both vowels. The Roman, Italian, Spanish and French _e_ is considered as the representative of the English _a_ in _late_, _made_; and yet in common discourse, it is shortened into the sound of _e_ in _let_, _men_: Witness, _legere_, _avec_, _emmené_, _bueno_, _entendido_: We observe the same in English; for _said_, _any_, _many_, which are pronounced _sed_, _enny_, _menny_, exhibit the same vowel or short _a_; the _e_ being the abrupt sound of _ai_ in _said_. I must therefore differ from Mr. Sheridan, and still believe that _e_ in _let_, and _i_ in _fit_, are capable of prolongation. Children, when, instead of a comparison, they would express the superlative by an emphasis, say _leetle_ instead of _little_; which is a mere prolongation of _i_ short.

Mr. Sheridan, in my opinion, is guilty of an error of greater consequence, in marking the two qualities of sound in _bard_ and _bad_ with the same figure. He distinguishes the different qualities of sound in _pool_ and _full_, and in _not_ and _naught_; and why he should omit the distinction of sound in _bard_ and _bad_, _ask_ and _man_, is to me inconceiveable. The last distinction is as obvious as the others which he has marked; and the defect of his scheme must lead a foreigner into mistakes. His scheme is singular; Kenrick, Perry and Burn all make a distinction in the time of pronouncing _a_ in _ask_ and _at_; and even Scott, who copies Sheridan's pronunciation almost implicitly, still makes the same distinction.

[I], page 87.

"Non multum differt hic sonus (w) ab Anglorum _oo_; Gallorum _ou_, Germanorum _u_ pingui, rapidissime pronunciatis; adeoque a quibusdam pro vocali fuit habita, _cum tamen revera consona sit_, quanquam ipsi vocali admodum sit affinis."----Wallis.

"It is indeed on the celerity of utterance, that all the difference, in many cases, between consonants and vowels depends; as in _w_ and _y_, in English; which, being discharged quickly, perform the office of consonants, in giving form only to the succeeding vowel; but when protracted or drawled out, acquire a tone and become the vocal _oo_ and _ee_."----Kenrick, Rhet. Gram. p. 4.

Perry has adopted this opinion and contends warmly that _w_ is a consonant. If _w_ is a vowel, says he, then _wool_, _wolf_, will be pronounced _oo-ool_, _oo-olf_, or _ool_, _olf_. I am sensible that in the beginning of words, _w_ has not precisely the power of _oo_; but it is not clear from this fact that it has the properties of a consonant. Place a vowel before _w_, as, _ow_, and there is no compression of the lips or other parts of the mouth, to obstruct the sound, as there is produced by _b_ or _m_, in _eb_ and _em_.

In opposition to the authorities mentioned, Sheridan ranks _w_ among the vowels, and supposes it to form dipthongs with the other vowels, as in _well_, _will_, &c. It appears to me to be a letter rather of an ambiguous nature, of which we have others in the language.

[J], page 88.

It has been remarked that by old authors _y_ was often used for _g_; _yeve_ for _give_; _foryete_ for _forget_.---- Chaucer, Knight's Tale, 1884.

I have observed that some foreigners pronounce _year_, in the same manner nearly as they do _ear_; and _yeast_ is commonly pronounced _east_. This pronunciation would easily lead a man into the supposition that _y_ is merely _ee_ short. But the pronunciation is vicious.

I observe also that Mr. Sheridan says, "_ye_ has the sound of _e_ long in _ye_; of _a_ long in _yea_; of _e_ long in _year_, _yean_; and of _e_ short in _yearn_, _yell_, &c." This confirms my opinion, and is a proof that he does not pronounce _y_ at all.

If _y_ has the sound of _e_ in _year_, then _e_ has _no_ sound, or there are in the word, _two_ sounds of _e_, which no person will undertake to assert. The dispute however is easily settled. I have learnt by attending to the conversation of well bred Englishmen, that they do not pronounce _y_ at all in _year_ and many other words. They say _ear_, _e_, for _year_, _ye_; and the sound of _e_, they erroneously suppose to be that of _y_. In America, _y_ has in these words, the consonant sound it has in _young_; and the English pronunciation must in this instance be faulty.

[K], page 103.

"Now the harmony of prose arises from the same principle with that which constitutes the harmony of verse; viz. numbers; or such a disposition of the words as throws them into just metrical feet, but very different from those which constitute any species of verse."--Essay on the Power of Numbers, &c. page 4. Introd.

"A good stile is both _expressive_ and _harmonious_. The former depends on the happy choice of the words to convey our ideas; the other on the happy choice of numbers in the disposition of the words. The language of some is expressive, but unharmonious; that is, the writer's words strongly convey his sentiments, but the order in which they are placed creates a sound unpleasant to the ear. The stile of others is harmonious but not expressive; where the periods are well turned and the numbers well adapted, but the sense obscure. The former satisfies the mind, but offends the ear; the latter gratifies the ear, but disgusts the mind. A good stile entertains and pleases both," &c---- Ibm. 2d. Part, page 17.

The author proceeds to illustrate his doctrines by showing in what the harmony of prose consists. He remarks that the words should in some degree be an echo to the sense, in prose as well as verse.

He proceeds--"Every sentence may be conceived as divisible into distinct and separate clauses; every clause, where there is an apparent cessation of the voice, should always end with a generous foot; and all the preceding numbers be so intermixt, that the short ones be duly qualified by the succeeding long ones; reserving the best and most harmonious number for the cadence."

To show how much depends on the proper arrangement of words, he quotes the following instance--"A divine, speaking of the Trinity, hath this expression--It is a mystery which we firmly believe the truth of, and humbly adore the depth of." Here the language is expressive, but not harmonious; not merely because the clauses end with the particle _of_, but because they abound with feeble numbers, _Pyrrhics_ and _Trochees_. Let us change the disposition of the feet--"It is a mystery, the truth of which we firmly believe, and the depths of which we humbly adore." The difference in the melody is very perceiveable. The force and music of the last disposition is increased by the Iambics and Anapæsts.

The most forceable feet, and those best adapted to sublime and serious subjects, are those which contain the most long syllables, or end in a long syllable; as the Iambic, the Spondee, the Anapæst. The weak feet are those which have the most short syllables or end in a short syllable; as the Pyrrhic, the Trochee, the Tribrach.

The want of proper measures, or a mixture of weak and strong syllables, is very remarkable in a passage of the Declaration of Independence. "We must therefore acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, _enemies in war_, _[)i]n p[=e]ace_, _fri[=e]nds_." The three last syllables form, if any thing, a Bacchic; the first syllable, short, and the two others, long. But in a just pronunciation, the foot is necessarily broken by a pause after _peace_. This interruption, and the two long syllables, render the close of the sentence extremely heavy. The period is concise and expressive, as it stands; but the arrangement might be much more harmonious--"O[)u]r [=e]n[)e]m[)i]es [)i]n w[=a]r; [)i]n p[=e]ace, o[)u]r fri[=e]nds." Here the measure and melody are perfect; the period closing with three Iambics, preceded by a Pyrrhic.

[L], page 111.

In a Scotch Ballad, called _Edom o Gordon_, we find the word _dreips_ for _drops_.

"--And clear, clear was hir zellow hair Whereon the reid bluid _dreips_."

But it was often spelt _drap_, agreeable to the pronunciation. See Edward. Rel. An. Poet. 53.

The dialect in America is peculiar to the descendants of the Scotch Irish.

[M], page 111.

Mought is the past time or participle of an old Saxon verb _mowe_ or _mowen_, _to be able_. It answered to the _posse_ of the Romans, and the _pouvoir_ of the French. This verb occurs frequently in Chaucer.

"But that science is so fer us beforne, We _mowen_ not, altho we had it sworne, It overtake, it slit away so fast, It _wol_ us maken beggers at the last."

Cant. Tales, l. 16, 148, Bell's edit.

"To _mowen_ such a knight done live or die."----Troil. and Cres. 2. 1594. That is, _to be able_ to make such a knight live or die.

"And _mought_ I hope to winne thy love, Ne more his tonge could saye."

Sir Cauline, an old Ballad, l. 163.

"The thought they herd a woman wepe, But her they _mought_ not se."

Adam Bell, &c. part 3. l. 2. in Rel. of An. Poet.

"So _mought_ thou now in these refined lays Delight the dainty ears of higher powers. And so _mought_ they in their deep scanning skill, Allow and grace our Collen's flowing quill."

Spenser, Hobbynall.

There seem to have been among our Saxon ancestors two verbs of nearly or exactly the same signification, _may_ and _might_; and _mowe_ and _mought_. There is some reason to think they were not synonimous; that _may_ was used to express _possibility_, as _I may go next week_; and _mowe_ to express _power_, as _they mowen go_, they are able to go. But it is not certain that such a distinction ever existed. The Germans use _moegen_, in the infinitive; _mag_, in the indic. pres. _mæge_, in the subj. pres. in the imperfect of the ind. _mochte_; and in the imp. of the subj. _mæchte_. The English use _may_ and _might_ solely in their writing; but _mought_ is still pronounced in some parts of America.

_Holpe_ or _holp_ was not obsolete when the Bible was last translated, in the reign of king James; for it occurs in several places in that translation. It occurs frequently in old authors.

"Unkindly they slew him, that _holp_ them oft at nede."

Skelton El. on Earl of Northum. l. 47.

In Virginia it is pronounced _hope_. "Shall I hope you, Sir."

But we must look among the New England common people for ancient English phrases; for they have been 160 years sequestered in some measure from the world, and their language has not suffered material changes from their first settlement to the present time. Hence most of the phrases, used by Shakespear, Congreve, and other writers who have described English manners and recorded the language of all classes of people, are still heard in the common discourse of the New England yeomanry.

The verb _be_, in the indicative, present tense, which Lowth observes is almost obsolete in England, is still used after the ancient manner, I _be_, we _be_, you _be_, they _be_. The old plural _housen_ is still used for houses. The old verb _wol_ for will, and pronounced _wool_, is not yet fallen into disuse. This was the verb principally used in Chaucer's time, and it now lives in the purest branch of the Teutonic, the German.

For many years, I had supposed the word _dern_ in the sense of _great_ or _severe_, was local in New England. Perhaps it may not now be used any where else; but it was once a common English word. Chaucer uses it in the sense of _secret_, _earnest_, &c.

"This clerk was cleped Hende Nicholas Of _derne_ love he could and of solas."

Mil. Tale, l. 3200.

"Ye mosten be ful _derne_ as in this case."

Ibm. 3297.

The word is in common use in New England and pronounced _darn_. It has not however the sense it had formerly; it is now used as an adverb to qualify an adjective, as _darn sweet_; denoting a great degree of the quality.

The New England people preserve the ancient use of _there_ and _here_ after a word or sentence, designating the _place where_; as _this here_, _that there_. It is called vulgar in English; and indeed the addition of _here_ or _there_ is generally tautological. It is however an ancient practice; and the French retain it in the pure elegant language of their country; _ce pays là_, _celui là_, _cet homme ici_; where we observe this difference only between the French and English idioms, that in French, the adverb follows the noun, _that country there_, _this man here_; whereas in English, the adverb precedes the noun, _that there country_, _this here man_. This form of speech seems to have been coeval with the primitive Saxon, otherwise it would not have prevailed so generally among the common people.

It has been before remarked that the word _ax_ for _ask_ was used in England, and even in the royal assent to acts of parliament, down to the reign of Henry VI.

"And to her husband bad hire for to sey If that he _axed_ after Nicholas."----

Chau. Mil. Tale, 3412.

"This _axeth_ haste and of an hastif thing Men may not preche and maken tarying."

Ibm. 3545.

This word to _ax_ is still frequent in New England.

I no not know whether our American sportsmen use the word, _ferret_, in the sense of driving animals from their lurking places. But the word is used in some parts of New England, and applied figuratively to many transactions in life. So in Congreve:

"Where is this apocryphal elder? I'll _ferret_ him."----Old Bach, act 4, fc. 21.

Sometimes, but rarely, we hear the old imperative of the Saxon _thafian_, now pronounced _thof_. But it is generally pronounced as it is written, _tho_. It is remarked by Horne, that _thof_ is still frequent among the common people of England.

_Gin_ or _gyn_ for _given_ is still used in America; as Bishop Wilkins remarks, it is in the North of England.

_Without_, in the sense of _unless_, is as frequent as any word in the language, and even among the learned. It is commonly accounted inelegant, and writers have lately substituted _unless_: But I do not see the propriety of discarding _without_, for its meaning is exactly the same as that of _unless_. It is demonstrated that they are both the imperatives of old verbs. _Without_, is _be out_, _be away_; and _unless_ is _dismiss_, or _be apart_. Instead of the imperative Chaucer generally uses the participle, _withouten_, _being out_.

The best writers use _without_ in the sense of _unless_.

"--And if he can't be cured _without_ I suck the poison from his wounds, I'm afraid he won't recover his senses, till I lose mine."---- Cong. Love for Love, act 4. sc. 3.

"'Twere better for him, you had not been his confessor in that affair, _without_ you could have kept his counsel closer."----Cong. Way of the World, act, 3. sc. 7.

The best speakers use the word in this manner, in common discourse, and I must think, with propriety.

_Peek_ is also used corruptedly for _peep_. By a similar change of the last consonant, _chirk_ is used for _chirp_, _to make a cheerful noise_. This word is wholly lost, except in New England. It is there used for _comfortably_, _bravely_, _cheerful_; as when one enquires about a sick person, it is said, he is _chirk_. _Chirp_ is still used to express the singing of birds, but the _chirk_ of New England is not understood, and therefore derided. Four hundred years ago it was a polite term.

"and kisseth hire swete, and _chirketh_ as a sparwe With his lippes."----

Chaucer, Somp. Tale, 7386.

In the following it is used for a disagreeable noise.

"All full of _chirking_ was that sory place."

Knight's Tale, 2006.

"And al so ful eke of _chirkings_ And of many other wirkings."

House of Fame, 858.

_Shet_ for _shut_ is now become vulgar; yet this is the true original orthography and pronunciation. It is from the Saxon _scitten_, and I believe was always spelt _shette_ or _shet_, till after Chaucer's time, for he was a correct writer in his age, and always spelt it in that manner.

"Voideth your man and let him be thereout, And _shet_ the dore."----

Chau. Yem. Tale, 16, 605.

"And his maister _shette_ the dore anon."

Ibm. 16, 610.

And in a variety of other places. This word is almost universally pronounced _shet_ among all classes of people, not only in New England, but in Great Britain and the southern states of America. How the spelling came to be changed, is not known; but it was certainly a corruption.

_An_ for _if_ is seen in most old authors. It remains among the common people, both in England and America. "_An_ please your honor;" that is, "_if_ your honor please." In New England, the phrases in which it occurs most frequently are, "Let him go, _an_ he will;" "Go, _an_ you will;" and others of a similar kind.

_Because_ and _becase_ were used promiscuously by our ancestors. _Becase_ is found in some ancient writings, tho not so frequently as _because_. In New England, we frequently hear _becase_ to this day. It is pronounced _becaze_. It is a compound of _be_ and _cause_ or _case_; both of these words with the verb _be_ make good English; but _becase_ is vulgar.

The vulgar pronunciation of _such_ is _sich_. This is but a small deviation from the ancient elegant pronunciation, which was _swich_ or _swiche_, as the word is spelt in Chaucer. Such is the force of national practice: And altho the country people in New England, sometimes drawl their words in speaking, and, like their brethren, often make false concord, yet their idiom is purely Saxon or English; and in a vast number of instances, they have adhered to the true phrases, where people, who despise their plain manners, have run into error. Thus they say, "a man is going _by_," and not _going past_, which is nonsense: They say, "I _purpose_ to go," and not _propose_ to go, which is not good English. They say, "a ship _lies_ in harbor," not _lays_, which is a modern corruption. They say, "I _have_ done," and never "I _am_ done," which is nonsense. They say, "it was _on_ Monday evening," not "_of_ a Monday evening," which is an error. They never use the absurd phrases "_expect it was_;" and "the ship will sail in _all_ next week." They never say "he is home," but always, "at home." They use the old phrase, "it is half _after_ six o'clock," which is more correct than _half past six_. They say, if a person is not in health, he is _sick_. The modern English laugh at them, because the English say a man is _ill_; and confine sick to express the idea of a nausea in the stomach. The English are wrong, and the New England people use the word in its true sense, which extends to all bodily disorders, as it is used by the pure English writers. _Ill_ is a contraction of _evil_; and denotes a moral disorder. Its application to bodily complaints is a modern practice, and its meaning figurative. So that whatever improprieties may have crept into their practice of speaking, they actually preserve more of the genuin idiom of the English tongue, than many of the modern fine speakers who set up for standards.

[N], page 120.

The letters _ch_ in Roman answered nearly to the Greek _ki_ or _chi_; for _c_ had the sound of _k_, at least before _a_, _o_, _u_. _Ch_ or _kh_ was therefore the proper combination for the Greek letter; which had the sound of _k_ followed by an aspirate. This combination was copied into our language; and perhaps the aspirate was once pronounced, like the Irish guttural in _Cochran_. But when the aspirate was lost, _k_ became the proper representative of the sound. It is wished, that in all the derivatives from the ancient languages, where this character occurs, _k_ might be substituted for _ch_; that persons unacquainted with etymology, might not mistake and give _ch_ its English sound.

FOOTNOTES:

[128] It is said that the Celtic has a great affinity with the oriental languages. "Magnam certe cum linguis orientalibus affinitatem retinet, ut notant Dr. J. Davies passim in Dictionario suo Cambro Britannico, et Samuel Bochartus in sua Geographica sacra."----Wallis, Gram.

[129] The invention of letters is ascribed to Taaut or Theuth, the son of _Misraim_, soon after the flood.

[130] I strongly suspect that the primitive language of the north of Europe was the root of the Sclavonic, still retained in Russia, Poland, Hungary, &c. and that the Gothic was introduced at a later period.

[131] This objection however may be obviated by Lluyd's supposition, mentioned in the note, page 50, that the primitive inhabitants of Britain were denominated Guydelians, and the Cymri or Welsh were another branch of the Celtic Cimbri, who came from the North, settled in Britain and gave name to the language.

[132] It is commonly observed, that different climates, airs and aliments, do very much diversify the tone of the parts and muscles of human bodies; on some of which the modulation of the voice much depends. The peculiar moisture of one country, the drought of another (other causes from food, &c. concurring) extend or contract, swell or attenuate, the organs of the voice, that the sound made thereby is rendered either shrill or hoarse, soft or hard, plain or lisping, in proportion to that contraction or extension. And hence it is, that the Chinese and Tartars have some sounds in their language, that Europeans can scarcely imitate: And it is well known in Europe itself, that an Englishman is not able agreeably to converse with a stranger, even in one and the same Latin; nay, even in England, it is noted by Mr. Camden and Dr. Fuller, that the natives of Carleton Curlew in Leicestershire, by a certain peculiarity of the place, have the turn of their voice very different from those of the neighboring villages.

[133] _JILD Teka_, thou art my son. Psalm ii. 7.

[134] _MEREDUTH_ is the same with _Merad_, a British name.

[135] It has this sound in most of the ancient tongues.

[136] The armorial ensign of Carthage was a _horse_.

[137] It is remarkable that the Germans pronounce this word _wollen_, and _woll_, like the Roman _volo_, pronounced _wolo_. Many old people in America retain this pronunciation to this day; I _woll_, or _wool_, for _will_.

The Roman pronunciation of _v_ is still preserved in England and America; _veal_, weal; _vessel_, wessel; and _w_ is often changed into _v_ or _f_; _wine_, vine, or even fine.

The Romans often pronounced _t_ where we use _d_; as _traho_, draw.

[138] In teaching English to a Spaniard, I found that in attempting to pronounce words beginning with _w_, he invariably began with the sound of _gu_; _well_, he would pronounce _guell_.

[139] This word is found in most of the branches of the Gothic.

[140] Allusive to the ancient custom of pardoning by giving permission to depart.

[141] Frontier settlement; so called, because the Romans _passed thro_ this territory, in going to or from Rome.

[142] The French and Spanish rarely or never aspirate an _h_; and in this word they have omitted it mostly in writing.

[143] The above specimen of the ancient Irish is judged to be a thousand years old. See O'Conner's Dissertation on the History of Ireland. Dublin, 1766, 8 vo.

[144] Feichneinibh.

[145] "Hunc sonum (gh) Anglos in vocibus _light_, _might_, &c. olim protulisse sentio; at nunc dierum, quamvis scripturam retineant, sonum tamen fera penitus omittunt. Boreales tamen, presertim Scoti, fere adhuc retinent seu potius ipsius loco sonum _b_ substituunt."----Wallis.

[146] The Runic excepted. The Runic letters were sixteen in number, and introduced very early into the North; but they went into disuse about the tenth or eleventh century.

[147] _BENJAMIN is son of the right hand._

[148] Their.

[149] Mixture; an old French word, now written _melange_.

[150] corrupted.

[151] These words represent barbarity and roughness in speaking.

[152] Corruption of the native tongue.

[153] hear

[154] since

[155] know. The Germans preserve the verb _koennen_, to be able. The pronouns _hir_ and _hire_ for _their_, still remain in the German _ihr_.

[156] Country-people, so called from, their living on the mountains or high lands; hence _outlandish_.

[157] attempt with eagerness.

[158] time.

[159] _sithe_ is the origin of _since_.

[160] _Del_ signifies a _part_ or division; it is from the verb _dæler_ to divide, and the root of the English word _deal_. _Dæler_ is preserved in the Danish.

[161] learning.

[162] their.

[163] In the original these words are obscure.

[164] This is from the verb _sollen_, implying obligation, duty.

[165] their.

[166] foreign; Lat. _advena_.

[167] realm.

[168] divided.

[169] Scarcely.

[170] hardly.

[171] dwelleth.

[172] far.

[173] I find in an "Essay on the language and versification of Chaucer" prefixed to Bell's edition of his works, part of this extract copied from a Harlein manuscript, said to be more correct than the manuscript from which Dr. Hickes copied it. But on comparing the extracts in both, I find none but verbal differences; the sense of both is the same.

[174] In a charter of Edward III. dated 1348, _yeven_ is used for _given_. _Yave_ for _gave_ is used by Chaucer.--Knight's Tale, line 2737. "And _yave_ hem giftes after his degree." In a charter of Edward the Confessor, _gif_ is used in its Saxon purity. In the same charter, _Bissop his land_, is used for a genitive. The Scotch wrote _z_ for _y_; _zit_ for _yet_; _zeres_ for _years_.--Douglass. I do not find, at this period, the true Saxon genitive in use: The _Bissop his land_, is deemed an error. This mode of speaking has however prevailed, till within a few years, and still has its advocates. But it is certain the Saxons had a proper termination for the genitive or possessive, which is preserved in the two first declensions of the German.

Example of the declension of nouns among the Saxons.

A WORD.

_Sing._ _Plu._

Nom. Word word Gen. Wordes worda Dat. Worde wordum Acc. Word word Voc. Eala thu word eala ge word Abl. Worde wordum

Hickes Sax. Gram.

[175] CUSTODES in castellis strenuos viros ex Gallis collocavit, et opulenta beneficia, pro quibus labores et pericula libenter tolerâ rent, distribuit.--Orderic. Vital. lib. 4.

[176] The word _ax_ for _ask_ is not a modern corruption. It was an ancient dialect, and not vulgar.

[177] So Gillies, in his Hist. of Greece, chap. II. talks about the death of the "_friend_ of Achilles;" but leaves the reader to discover the person--not having once mentioned the name of _Patroclus_. I would observe further that such appellations as the _son of Leda_ are borrowed from the Greek; but wholly improper in our language. The Greeks had a distinct ending of the name of the father to signify son or descendants; as _Heraclidæ_. This form of the noun was known and had a definite meaning in Greece; but in English the idiom is awkward and embarrassing.

[178] Readers of the last description are the most numerous.

[179] _Czar_, the Russian appellation or Emperor, is a contraction of _Cæsar_. It is pronounced in the Russian, _char_ or _tshar_.

[180] In ancient inscription, and the early Roman authors, _v_ was written _u_, and pronounced _oo_ or _w_. The following extracts from the laws of Romulus, &c. will give the reader an idea of the early orthography of the Latin tongue:--

1 DEOS patrios colunto: externas superstitiones aut fabulas ne admiscento.

3 NOCTURNA sacrificia peruigiliaque amouentor.

8 VXOR farreatione viro iuncta, in sacra et bona eius venito--ius deuortendi ne esto.

13 SI pater filiom ter venumduit, filius a patre liber esto.

_A law of Numa._

5 QUI terminum exarasit, ipsus et boues sacrei sunto.

_A law of Tullius Hostillius._

2 NATI trigemini, donicum puberes esunt, de publico aluntor.

_APPENDIX._

AN

ESSAY

_On the_ NECESSITY, ADVANTAGES _and_ PRACTICABILITY _of_ REFORMING _the_ MODE _of_ SPELLING, _and of_ RENDERING _the_ ORTHOGRAPHY _of_ WORDS CORRESPONDENT _to the_ PRONUNCIATION.

It has been observed by all writers on the English language, that the orthography or spelling of words is very irregular; the same letters often representing different sounds, and the same sounds often expressed by different letters. For this irregularity, two principal causes may be assigned:

1. The changes to which the pronunciation of a language is liable, from the progress of science and civilization.

2. The mixture of different languages, occasioned by revolutions in England, or by a predilection of the learned, for words of foreign growth and ancient origin.

To the first cause, may be ascribed the difference between the spelling and pronunciation of Saxon words. The northern nations of Europe originally spoke much in gutturals. This is evident from the number of aspirates and guttural letters, which still remain in the orthography of words derived from those nations; and from the modern pronunciation of the collateral branches of the Teutonic, the Dutch, Scotch and German. Thus _k_ before _n_ was once pronounced; as in _knave_, _know_; the _gh_ in _might_, _though_, _daughter_, and other similar words; the _g_ in _reign_, _feign_, &c.

But as savages proceed in forming languages, they lose the guttural sounds, in some measure, and adopt the use of labials, and the more open vowels. The ease of speaking facilitates this progress, and the pronunciation of words is softened, in proportion to a national refinement of manners. This will account for the difference between the ancient and modern languages of France, Spain and Italy; and for the difference between the soft pronunciation of the present languages of those countries, and the more harsh and guttural pronunciation of the northern inhabitants of Europe.

In this progress, the English have lost the sounds of most of the guttural letters. The _k_ before _n_ in _know_, the _g_ in _reign_, and in many other words, are become mute in practice; and the _gh_ is softened into the sound of _f_, as in _laugh_, or is silent, as in _brought_.

To this practice of softening the sounds of letters, or wholly suppressing those which are harsh and disagreeable, may be added a popular tendency to abbreviate words of common use. Thus _Southwark_, by a habit of quick pronunciation, is become _Suthark_; _Worcester_ and _Leicester_, are become _Wooster_ and _Lester_; _business_, _bizness_; _colonel_, _curnel_; _cannot_, _will not_, _cant_, _wont_.[181] In this manner the final _e_ is not heard in many modern words, in which it formerly made a syllable. The words _clothes_, _cares_, and most others of the same kind, were formerly pronounced in two syllables.[182]

Of the other cause of irregularity in the spelling of our language, I have treated sufficiently in the first Dissertation. It is here necessary only to remark, that when words have been introduced from a foreign language into the English, they have generally retained the orthography of the original, however ill adapted to express the English pronunciation. Thus _fatigue_, _marine_, _chaise_, retain their French dress, while, to represent the true pronunciation in English, they should be spelt _fateeg_, _mareen_, _shaze_. Thus thro an ambition to exhibit the etymology of words, the English, in _Philip_, _physic_, _character_, _chorus_, and other Greek derivatives, preserve the representatives of the original ~Ph~ and ~Ch~; yet these words are pronounced, and ought ever to have been spelt, _Fillip_, _fyzzic_ or _fizzic_, _karacter_, _korus_.[183]

But such is the state of our language. The pronunciation of the words which are strictly _English_, has been gradually changing for ages, and since the revival of science in Europe, the language has received a vast accession of words from other languages, many of which retain an orthography very ill suited to exhibit the true pronunciation.

The question now occurs; ought the Americans to retain these faults which produce innumerable in conveniencies in the acquisition and use of the language, or ought they at once to reform these abuses, and introduce order and regularity into the orthography of the AMERICAN TONGUE?

Let us consider this subject with some attention.

Several attempts were formerly made in England to rectify the orthography of the language.[184] But I apprehend their schemes failed of success, rather on account of their intrinsic difficulties, than on account of any necessary impracticability of a reform. It was proposed, in most of these schemes, not merely to throw out superfluous and silent letters, but to introduce a number of new characters. Any attempt on such a plan must undoubtedly prove unsuccessful. It is not to be expected that an orthography, perfectly regular and simple, such as would be formed by a "Synod of Grammarians on principles of science," will ever be substituted for that confused mode of spelling which is now established. But it is apprehended that great improvements may be made, and an orthography almost regular, or such as shall obviate most of the present difficulties which occur in learning our language, may be introduced and established with little trouble and opposition.

The principal alterations, necessary to render our orthography sufficiently regular and easy, are these:

1. The omission of all superfluous or silent letters; as _a_ in _bread_. Thus _bread_, _head_, _give_, _breast_, _built_, _meant_, _realm_, _friend_, would be spelt, _bred_, _hed_, _giv_, _brest_, _bilt_, _ment_, _relm_, _frend_. Would this alteration produce any inconvenience, any embarrassment or expense? By no means. On the other hand, it would lessen the trouble of writing, and much more, of learning the language; it would reduce the true pronunciation to a certainty; and while it would assist foreigners and our own children in acquiring the language, it would render the pronunciation uniform, in different parts of the country, and almost prevent the possibility of changes.

2. A substitution of a character that has a certain definite sound, for one that is more vague and indeterminate. Thus by putting _ee_ instead of _ea_ or _ie_, the words _mean_, _near_, _speak_, _grieve_, _zeal_, would become _meen_, _neer_, _speek_, _greev_, _zeel_. This alteration could not occasion a moment's trouble; at the same time it would prevent a doubt respecting the pronunciation; whereas the _ea_ and _ie_ having different sounds, may give a learner much difficulty. Thus _greef_ should be substituted for _grief_; _kee_ for _key_; _beleev_ for _believe_; _laf_ for _laugh_; _dawter_ for _daughter_; _plow_ for _plough_; _tuf_ for _tough_; _proov_ for _prove_; _blud_ for _blood_; and _draft_ for _draught_. In this manner _ch_ in Greek derivatives, should be changed into _k_; for the English _ch_ has a soft sound, as in _cherish_; but _k_ always a hard sound. Therefore _character_, _chorus_, _cholic_, _architecture_, should be written _karacter_, _korus_, _kolic_, _arkitecture_; and were they thus written, no person could mistake their true pronunciation.

Thus _ch_ in French derivatives should be changed into sh; _machine_, _chaise_, _chevalier_, should be written _masheen_, _shaze_, _shevaleer_; and _pique_, _tour_, _oblique_, should be written _peek_, _toor_, _obleek_.

3. A trifling alteration in a character, or the addition of a point would distinguish different sounds, without the substitution of a new character. Thus a very small stroke across _th_ would distinguish its two sounds. A point over a vowel, in this manner, _[.a]_ or _[.e]_, or _[.i]_, might answer all the purposes of different letters. And for the dipthong _ow_, let the two letters be united by a small stroke, or both engraven on the same piece of metal, with the left hand line of the _w_ united to the _o_.

These, with a few other inconsiderable alterations, would answer every purpose, and render the orthography sufficiently correct and regular.

The advantages to be derived from these alterations are numerous, great and permanent.

1. The simplicity of the orthography would facilitate the learning of the language. It is now the work of years for children to learn to spell; and after all, the business is rarely accomplished. A few men, who are bred to some business that requires constant exercise in writing, finally learn to spell most words without hesitation; but most people remain, all their lives, imperfect masters of spelling, and liable to make mistakes, whenever they take up a pen to write a short note. Nay, many people, even of education and fashion, never attempt to write a letter, without frequently consulting a dictionary.

But with the proposed orthography, a child would learn to spell, without trouble, in a very short time, and the orthography being very regular, he would ever afterwards find it difficult to make a mistake. It would, in that case, be as difficult to spell _wrong_, as it is now to spell _right_.

Besides this advantage, foreigners would be able to acquire the pronunciation of English, which is now so difficult and embarrassing, that they are either wholly discouraged on the first attempt, or obliged, after many years labor, to rest contented with an imperfect knowlege of the subject.

2. A correct orthography would render the pronunciation of the language, as uniform as the spelling in books. A general uniformity thro the United States, would be the event of such a reformation as I am here recommending. All persons, of every rank, would speak with some degree of precision and uniformity.[185] Such a uniformity in these states is very desireable; it would remove prejudice, and conciliate mutual affection and respect.

3. Such a reform would diminish the number of letters about one sixteenth or eighteenth. This would save a page in eighteen; and a saving of an eighteenth in the expense of books, is an advantage that should not be overlooked.

4. But a capital advantage of this reform in these states would be, that it would make a difference between the English orthography and the American. This will startle those who have not attended to the subject; but I am confident that such an event is an object of vast political consequence. For,

The alteration, however small, would encourage the publication of books in our own country. It would render it, in some measure, necessary that all books should be printed in America. The English would never copy our orthography for their own use; and consequently the same impressions of books would not answer for both countries. The inhabitants of the present generation would read the English impressions; but posterity, being taught a different spelling, would prefer the American orthography.

Besides this, a _national language_ is a band of _national union_. Every engine should be employed to render the people of this country _national_; to call their attachments home to their own country; and to inspire them with the pride of national character. However they may boast of Independence, and the freedom of their government, yet their _opinions_ are not sufficiently independent; an astonishing respect for the arts and literature of their parent country, and a blind imitation of its manners, are still prevalent among the Americans. Thus an habitual respect for another country, deserved indeed and once laudable, turns their attention from their own interests, and prevents their respecting themselves.

OBJECTIONS.

1. "This reform of the Alphabet would oblige people to relearn the language, or it could not be introduced."

But the alterations proposed are so few and so simple, that an hour's attention would enable any person to read the new orthography with facility; and a week's practice would render it so familiar, that a person would write it without hesitation or mistake. Would this small inconvenience prevent its adoption? Would not the numerous national and literary advantages, resulting from the change, induce Americans to make so inconsiderable a sacrifice of time and attention? I am persuaded they would.

But it would not be necessary that men advanced beyond the middle stage of life, should be at the pains to learn the proposed orthography. They would, without inconvenience, continue to use the present. They would read the _new_ orthography, without difficulty; but they would write in the _old_. To men thus advanced, and even to the present generation in general, if they should not wish to trouble themselves with a change, the reformation would be almost a matter of indifference. It would be sufficient that children should be taught the new orthography, and that as fast as they come upon the stage, they should be furnished with books in the American spelling. The progress of printing would be proportioned to the demand for books among the rising generation. This progressive introduction of the scheme would be extremely easy; children would learn the proposed orthography more easily than they would the old; and the present generation would not be troubled with the change; so that none but the obstinate and capricious could raise objections or make any opposition. The change would be so inconsiderable, and made on such simple principles, that a column in each newspaper, printed in the new spelling, would in six months, familiarize most people to the change, show the advantages of it, and imperceptibly remove their objections. The only steps necessary to ensure success in the attempt to introduce this reform, would be, a resolution of Congress, ordering all their acts to be engrossed in the new orthography, and recommending the plan to the several universities in America; and also a resolution of the universities to encourage and support it. The printers would begin the reformation by publishing short paragraphs and small tracts in the new orthography; school books would first be published in the same; curiosity would excite attention to it, and men would be gradually reconciled to the plan.

2. "This change would render our present books useless."

This objection is, in some measure, answered under the foregoing head. The truth is, it would not have this effect. The difference of orthography would not render books printed in one, illegible to persons acquainted only with the other. The difference would not be so great as between the orthography of Chaucer, and of the present age; yet Chaucer's works are still read with ease.

3. "This reformation would injure the language by obscuring etymology."

This objection is unfounded. In general, it is not true that the change would obscure etymology; in a few instances, it might; but it would rather restore the etymology of many words; and if it were true that the change would obscure it, this would be no objection to the reformation.

It will perhaps surprize my readers to be told that, in many particular words, the modern spelling is less correct than the ancient. Yet this is a truth that reflects dishonor on our modern refiners of the language. Chaucer, four hundred years ago, wrote _bilder_ for _builder_; _dedly_ for _deadly_; _ernest_ for _earnest_; _erly_ for _early_; _brest_ for _breast_; _hed_ for _head_; and certainly his spelling was the most agreeable to the pronunciation.[186] Sidney wrote _bin_, _examin_, _sutable_, with perfect propriety. Dr. Middleton wrote _explane_, _genuin_, _revele_, which is the most easy and correct orthography of such words; and also _luster_, _theater_, for _lustre_, _theatre_. In these and many other instances, the modern spelling is a corruption; so that allowing many improvements to have been made in orthography, within a century or two, we must acknowlege also that many corruptions have been introduced.

In answer to the objection, that a change of orthography would obscure etymology, I would remark, that the etymology of most words is already lost, even to the learned; and to the unlearned, etymology is never known. Where is the man that can trace back our English words to the elementary radicals? In a few instances, the student has been able to reach the primitive roots of words; but I presume the radicals of one tenth of the words in our language, have never yet been discovered, even by Junius, Skinner, or any other etymologist. Any man may look into Johnson or Ash, and find that _flesh_ is derived from the Saxon _floce_; _child_ from _cild_; _flood_ from _flod_; _lad_ from _leode_; and _loaf_ from _laf_ or _hlaf_. But this discovery will answer no other purpose, than to show, that within a few hundred years, the spelling of some words has been a little changed: We should still be at a vast distance from the primitive roots.

In many instances indeed etymology will assist the learned in understanding the composition and true sense of a word; and it throws much light upon the progress of language. But the true sense of a complex term is not always, nor generally, to be learnt from the sense of the primitives or elementary words. The current meaning of a word depends on its use in a nation. This true sense is to be obtained by attending to good authors, to dictionaries and to practice, rather than to derivation. The former _must_ be _right_; the latter _may_ lead us into _error_.

But to prove of how little consequence a knowlege of etymology is to most people, let me mention a few words. The word _sincere_ is derived from the Latin, _sine cera_, without wax; and thus it came to denote _purity of mind_. I am confident that not a man in a thousand ever suspected this to be the origin of the word; yet all men, that have any knowlege of our language, use the word in its true sense, and understand its customary meaning, as well as Junius did, or any other etymologist.

_Yea_ or _yes_ is derived from the imperative of a verb, _avoir_ to have, as the word is now spelt. It signifies therefore _have_, or _possess_, or _take_ what you ask. But does this explication assist us in using the word? And does not every countryman who labors in the field, understand and use the word with as much precision as the profoundest philosophers?

The word _temper_ is derived from an old root, _tem_, which signified _water_. It was borrowed from the act of _cooling_, or moderating heat. Hence the meaning of _temperate_, _temperance_, and all the ramifications of the original stock. But does this help us to the modern current sense of these words? By no means. It leads us to understand the formation of languages, and in what manner an idea of a visible action gives rise to a correspondent abstract idea; or rather, how a word, from a literal and direct sense, may be applied to express a variety of figurative and collateral ideas. Yet the customary sense of the word is known by practice, and as well understood by an illiterate man of tolerable capacity, as by men of science.

The word _always_ is compounded of _all_ and _ways_; it had originally no reference to time; and the etymology or composition of the word would only lead us into error. The true meaning of words is that which a nation in general annex to them. Etymology therefore is of no use but to the learned; and for them it will still be preserved, so far as it is now understood, in dictionaries and other books that treat of this particular subject.

4. "The distinction between words of different meanings and similar sound would be destroyed."

"That distinction," to answer in the words of the great Franklin, "is already destroyed in pronunciation." Does not every man pronounce _all_ and _awl_ precisely alike? And does the sameness of sound ever lead a hearer into a mistake? Does not the construction render the distinction easy and intelligible, the moment the words of the sentence are heard? Is the word _knew_ ever mistaken for _new_, even in the rapidity of pronouncing an animated oration? Was _peace_ ever mistaken for _piece_; _pray_ for _prey_; _flour_ for _flower_? Never, I presume, is this similarity of sound the occasion of mistakes.

If therefore an identity of _sound_, even in rapid speaking, produces no inconvenience, how much less would an identity of _spelling_, when the eye would have leisure to survey the construction? But experience, the criterion of truth, which has removed the objection in the first case, will also assist us in forming our opinion in the last.

There are many words in our language which, with the _same orthography_, have _two_ or more _distinct meanings_. The word _wind_, whether it signifies _to move round_, or _air in motion_, has the _same spelling_; it exhibits no distinction to the _eye_ of a silent reader; and yet its meaning is never mistaken. The construction shows at sight in which sense the word is to be understood. _Hail_ is used as an expression of joy, or to signify frozen drops of water, falling from the clouds. _Rear_ is to raise up, or it signifies the hinder part of an army. _Lot_ signifies fortune or destiny; a plat of ground; or a certain proportion or share; and yet does this diversity, this contrariety of meanings ever occasion the least difficulty in the ordinary language of books? It cannot be maintained. This diversity is found in all languages;[187] and altho it may be considered as a defect, and occasion some trouble for foreign learners, yet to natives it produces no sensible inconvenience.

5. "It is idle to conform the orthography of words to the pronunciation, because the latter is continually changing."

This is one of Dr. Johnson's objections, and it is very unworthy of his judgement. So far is this circumstance from being a real objection, that it is alone a sufficient reason for the change of spelling. On his principle of _fixing the orthography_, while the _pronunciation is changing_, any _spoken language_ must, in time, lose all relation to the _written language_; that is, the sounds of words would have no affinity with the letters that compose them. In some instances, this is now the case; and no mortal would suspect from the spelling, that _neighbour_, _wrought_, are pronounced _nabur_, _rawt_. On this principle, Dr. Johnson ought to have gone back some centuries, and given us, in his dictionary, the primitive Saxon orthography, _wol_ for _will_; _ydilnesse_ for _idleness_; _eyen_ for _eyes_; _eche_ for _each_, &c. Nay, he should have gone as far as possible into antiquity, and, regardless of the changes of pronunciation, given us the primitive radical language in its purity. Happily for the language, that doctrine did not prevail till his time; the spelling of words changed with the pronunciation; to these changes we are indebted for numberless improvements; and it is hoped that the progress of them, in conformity with the national practice of speaking, will not be obstructed by the erroneous opinion, even of Dr. Johnson. How much more rational is the opinion of Dr. Franklin, who says, "the orthography of our language began to be fixed too soon." If the pronunciation must vary, from age to age, (and some trifling changes of language will always be taking place) common sense would dictate a correspondent change of spelling. Admit Johnson's principles; take his pedantic orthography for the standard; let it be closely adhered to in future; and the slow changes in the pronunciation of our national tongue, will in time make as great a difference between our _written_ and _spoken_ language, as there is between the pronunciation of the present English and German. The _spelling_ will be no more a guide to the pronunciation, than the orthography of the German or Greek. This event is actually taking place, in consequence of the stupid opinion, advanced by Johnson and other writers, and generally embraced by the nation.

All these objections appear to me of very inconsiderable weight, when opposed to the great, substantial and permanent advantages to be derived from a regular national orthography.

Sensible I am how much easier it is to _propose_ improvements, than to _introduce_ them. Every thing _new_ starts the idea of difficulty; and yet it is often mere novelty that excites the appearance; for on a slight examination of the proposal, the difficulty vanishes. When we firmly _believe_ a scheme to be practicable, the work is _half_ accomplished. We are more frequently deterred by fear from making an attack, than repulsed in the encounter.

Habit also is opposed to changes; for it renders even our errors dear to us. Having surmounted all difficulties in childhood, we forget the labor, the fatigue, and the perplexity we suffered in the attempt, and imagin the progress of our studies to have been smooth and easy.[188] What seems intrinsically right, is so merely thro habit.

Indolence is another obstacle to improvements. The most arduous task a reformer has to execute, is to make people _think_; to rouse them from that lethargy, which, like the mantle of sleep, covers them in repose and contentment.

But America is in a situation the most favorable for great reformations; and the present time is, in a singular degree, auspicious. The minds of men in this country have been awakened. New scenes have been, for many years, presenting new occasions for exertion; unexpected distresses have called forth the powers of invention; and the application of new expedients has demanded every possible exercise of wisdom and talents. Attention is roused; the mind expanded; and the intellectual faculties invigorated. Here men are prepared to receive improvements, which would be rejected by nations, whose habits have not been shaken by similar events.

_Now_ is the time, and _this_ the country, in which we may expect success, in attempting changes favorable to language, science and government. Delay, in the plan here proposed, may be fatal; under a tranquil general government, the minds of men may again sink into indolence; a national acquiescence in error will follow; and posterity be doomed to struggle with difficulties, which time and accident will perpetually multiply.

Let us then seize the present moment, and establish a _national language_, as well as a national government. Let us remember that there is a certain respect due to the opinions of other nations. As an independent people, our reputation abroad demands that, in all things, we should be federal; be _national_; for if we do not respect _ourselves_, we may be assured that _other nations_ will not respect us. In short, let it be impressed upon the mind of every American, that to neglect the means of commanding respect abroad, is treason against the character and dignity of a brave independent people.

To excite the more attention to this subject, I will here subjoin what Dr. Franklin has done and written to effect a reform in our mode of spelling. This sage philosopher has suffered nothing useful to escape his notice. He very early discovered the difficulties that attend the learning of our language; and with his usual ingenuity, invented a plan to obviate them. If any objection can be made to his scheme,[189] it is the substitution of _new_ characters, for _th_, _sh_, _ng_, &c. whereas a small stroke, connecting the letters, would answer all the purposes of new characters; as these combinations would thus become single letters, with precise definite sounds and suitable names.

A specimen of the Doctor's spelling cannot be here given, as I have not the proper types;[190] but the arguments in favor of a reformed mode of spelling shall be given in his own words.

_Copy of a Letter from Miss S----, to Dr._ FRANKLIN, _who had sent her his Scheme of a Reformed Alphabet. Dated, Kensington (England) Sept. 26, 1768._

DEAR SIR,

I have transcribed your alphabet, &c. which I think might be of service to those who wish to acquire an accurate pronunciation, if that could be fixed; but I see many inconveniences, as well as difficulties, that would attend the bringing your letters and orthography into common use. All our etymologies would be lost; consequently we could not ascertain the meaning of many words; the distinction too between words of _different meaning_ and _similar_ sound would be useless,[191] unless we living writers publish new editions. In short, I believe we must let people spell on in their old way, and (as we find it easiest) do the same ourselves.---- With ease and with sincerity I can, in the old way, subscribe myself,

Dear Sir,

Your faithful and affectionate Servant,

M. S.

_Dr. Franklin._

_Dr._ FRANKLIN'S _Answer to Miss S----._

DEAR MADAM,

The objection you make to rectifying our alphabet, "that it will be attended with inconveniences and difficulties," is a very natural one; for it always occurs when any reformation is proposed, whether in religion, government, laws, and even down as low as roads and wheel carriages. The true question then is not, whether there will be no difficulties or inconveniences; but whether the difficulties may not be surmounted; and whether the conveniences will not, on the whole, be greater than the inconveniences. In this case, the difficulties are only in the beginning of the practice; when they are once overcome, the advantages are lasting. To either you or me, who spell well in the present mode, I imagine the difficulty of changing that mode for the new, is not so great, but that we might perfectly get over it in a week's writing. As to those who do not spell well, if the two difficulties are compared, viz. that of teaching them true spelling in the present mode, and that of teaching them the new alphabet and the new spelling according to it, I am confident that the latter would be by far the least. They naturally fall into the new method already, as much as the imperfection of their alphabet will admit of; their present _bad_ spelling is only bad, because contrary to the present _bad_ rules; under the new rules it would be _good_.[192] The difficulty of learning to spell well in the old way is so great, that few attain it; thousands and thousands writing on to old age, without ever being able to acquire it. It is besides, a difficulty continually increasing;[193] as the sound gradually varies more and more from the spelling; and to foreigners it makes the learning to pronounce our language, as written in our books, almost impossible.

Now as to the inconveniences you mention: The first is, "that all our etymologies would be lost; consequently we could not ascertain the meaning of many words." Etymologies are at present very uncertain; but such as they are, the old books still preserve them, and etymologists would there find them. Words in the course of time, change their meaning, as well as their spelling and pronunciation; and we do not look to etymologies for their present meanings. If I should call a man a _knave_ and a _villain_, he would hardly be satisfied with my telling him, that one of the words originally signified a _lad_ or _servant_, and the other an under _plowman_, or the inhabitant of a village. It is from present usage only, the meaning of words is to be determined.

Your second inconvenience is, "the distinction between words of different meaning and similar sound would be destroyed." That distinction is already destroyed in pronouncing them; and we rely on the sense alone of the sentence to ascertain which of the several words, similar in sound, we intend. If this is sufficient in the rapidity of discourse, it will be much more so in written sentences, which may be read leisurely, and attended to more particularly in case of difficulty, than we can attend to a past sentence, while the speaker is hurrying us along with new ones.

Your third inconvenience is, "that all the books already written would be useless." This inconvenience would only come on gradually in a course of ages. I and you and other now living readers would hardly forget the use of them. People would long learn to read the old writing, tho they practised the new. And the inconvenience is not greater than what has actually happened in a similar case in Italy. Formerly its inhabitants all spoke and wrote Latin; as the language changed, the spelling followed it. It is true that at present, a mere unlearned Italian cannot read the Latin books, tho they are still read and understood by many. But if the spelling had never been changed, he would now have found it much more difficult to read and write his own language;[194] for written words would have had no relation to sounds; they would only have stood for things; so that if he would express in writing the idea he has when he sounds the word _Vescovo_, he must use the letters _Episcopus_.[195]

In short, whatever the difficulties and inconveniences now are, they will be more easily surmounted now, than hereafter; and some time or other it must be done, or our writing will become the same with the Chinese, as to the difficulty of learning and using it. And it would already have been such, if we had continued the Saxon spelling and writing used by our forefathers.

I am, my dear friend,

Your's affectionately,

B. FRANKLIN.

_London, Craven Street, Sept. 28, 1768._

FOOTNOTES:

[181] _Wont_ is strictly a contraction of _woll not_, as the word was anciently pronounced.

[182] "_Ta-ke_, _ma-ke_, _o-ne_, _bo-ne_, _sto-ne_, _wil-le_, &c. dissyllaba olim fuerunt, quæ nunc habenter pro monosyllabis."----Wallis.

[183] The words _number_, _chamber_, and many others in English are from the French _nombre_, _chambre_, &c. Why was the spelling changed? or rather why is the spelling of _lustre_, _metre_, _theatre_, _not_ changed? The cases are precisely similar. The Englishman who first wrote _number_ for _nombre_, had no greater authority to make the change, than any modern writer has to spell _lustre_, _metre_ in a similar manner, _luster_, _meter_. The change in the first instance was a valuable one; it conformed the spelling to the pronunciation, and I have taken the liberty, in all my writings, to pursue the principle in _luster_, _meter_, _miser_, _theater_, _sepulcher_, &c.

[184] The first by Sir Thomas Smith, secretary of state to Queen Elizabeth: Another by Dr. Gill, a celebrated master of St. Paul's school in London: Another by Mr. Charles Butler, who went so far as to print his book in his proposed orthography: Several in the time of Charles the first; and in the present age, Mr. Elphinstone has published a treatise in a very ridiculous orthography.

[185] I once heard Dr. Franklin remark, "that those people spell best, who do not know how to spell;" that is, they spell as their ears dictate, without being guided by rules, and thus fall into a regular orthography.

[186] In Chaucer's life, prefixed to the edition of his works 1602, I find _move_ and _prove_ spelt almost correctly, _moove_ and _proove_.

[187] In the Roman language _liber_ had four or five different meanings; it signified _free_, _the inward bark of a tree_, _a book_, sometimes _an epistle_, and also _generous_.

[188] Thus most people suppose the present mode of spelling to be really the _easiest_ and _best_. This opinion is derived from habit; the new mode of spelling proposed would save three fourths of the labor now bestowed in learning to write our language. A child would learn to spell as well in one year, as he can now in four. This is not a supposition--it is an assertion capable of proof; and yet people, never knowing, or having forgot the labor of learning, suppose the present mode to be the easiest. No person, but one who has taught children, has any idea of the difficulty of learning to spell and pronounce our language in its present form.

[189] See his Miscellaneous Works, p. 470. Ed. Lond. 1779.

[190] This indefatigable gentleman, amidst all his other employments, public and private, has compiled a Dictionary on his scheme of a Reform, and procured types to be cast for printing it. He thinks himself too old to pursue the plan; but has honored me with the offer of the manuscript and types, and expressed a strong desire that I should undertake the task. Whether this project, so deeply interesting to this country, will ever be effected; or whether it will be defeated by indolence and prejudice, remains for my countrymen to determine.

[191] This lady overlooked the other side of the question; viz. that by a reform of the spelling, words now spelt alike and pronounced differently, would be distinguished by their letters; for the nouns _abuse_ and _use_ would be distinguished from the verbs, which would be spelt _abuze_, _yuze_; and so in many instances. See the answer below.

[192] This remark of the Doctor is very just and obvious. A countryman writes _aker_ or _akur_ for _acre_; yet the countryman is _right_, as the word _ought_ to be spelt; and we laugh at him only because _we_ are accustomed to be _wrong_.

[193] This is a fact of vast consequence.

[194] That is, if the language had retained the old _Roman_ spelling, and been pronounced as the modern _Italian_. This is a fair state of facts, and a complete answer, to all objections to a reform of spelling.

[195] In the same ridiculous manner, as _we_ write, _rough_, _still_, _neighbor_, _wrong_, _tongue_, _true_, _rhetoric_, &c. and yet pronounce the words, _ruf_, _stil_, _nabur_, _rong_, _tung_, _tru_, _retoric_.

Transcriber's Notes:

Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

Simple typographical and spelling errors were corrected. The double commas occurring three times on p. 311 & 312 appear to be intentional.

In DISSERTATION V the author was inconsistent in the use of italics in the minor headings--most of the time the language was italicized but when there were two or more languages then the language name was in standard font and the articles, conjunctions etc. were italicized. The usage was changed so that languages were always italicized and the other words were unitalicized.

Italics words are denoted by _underscores_.

Bold words are denoted by =equals=.

Gespert font is denoted by +plus signs+.

Greek text has been transliterated and enclosed in ~tildes~.

Hand pointing right is denoted by -->

Symbols for Diacritical Marks Encountered in the Text.

In the table below, the "x" represents a letter with a diacritical mark.

DIACRITICAL MARK SAMPLE ABOVE BELOW macron (straight line) ¯ [=x] [x=] 1 dot · [.x] [x.] acute accent (aigu) ´ ['x] [x'] breve (u-shaped symbol) ∪ [)x] [x)] tilde ˜ [~x] [x~] numbers 2 [2x] [x2]