words, which are eternally occurring in every fentence, and may be thought thereby to have encumbered fpeech, by an addition of terms; and by ren dering it more prolix, to have enervated its force. In the fecond place, we have certainly rendered the found of language lefs agreeable to the ear, by depriving it of that variety and fweetnefs, which arofe from the length of words, and the change of terminations, occafioned by the cafes in the Greek and Latin. But, in the third place, the most material disadvantage is, that, by this abolition of cafes, and by a fimilar alteration, of which I am to speak in the next lecture, in the conjugation of verbs, we have deprived ourfelves of that liberty of tranfpofition in the arrangement of words, which the ancient languages enjoyed.

In the ancient tongues, as I formerly obferved, the different terminations produced by declenfion and conjugation, pointed out the reference of the feveral words of a fentence to one another, without the aid of juxtapofition; fuffered them to be placed, without ambiguity, in whatever order was most fuited to give force to the meaning, or harmony to the found. But now, having none of those marks of relation incorporated with the words themselves, we have no other way left us, of fhowing what words in a fentence are moft clofely connected in meaning, than that of placing them clofe by one another in the period. The meaning of the fentence is brought out in feparate members and portions; it is broken down and divided. Whereas the structure of the Greek and Roman fentences, by the government of their nouns and verbs, pre fented the meaning fo interwoven and compounded in all its parts, as to make us perceive it in one united view. The clofing words of the period af certained the relation of each member to another; and all that ought to be connected in our idea, ap

peared connected in the expreffion. Hence, more brevity, more vivacity, more force. That luggage of particles (as an ingenious author happily expreffes it), which we are obliged always to carry along with us, both clogs ftyle, and enfeebles fentiment*.

Pronouns are the clafs of words moft nearly related to fubftantive nouns; being, as the name imports, reprefentatives, or fubftitutes, of nouns. I, thou, he, she, and it, are no other than an abridged way of naming the perfons, or objects, with which we have immediate intercourfe, or to which we are obliged frequently to refer in difcourfe. Accordingly, they are fubject to the fame modifications with fubftantive nouns, of number, gender, and cafe. Only, with respect to gender, we may obferve, that the pronouns of the firft and fecond perfon, as they are called, and thou, do not appear to have had the diftinctions of gender given them in any language; for this plain reafon, that,

"The various terminations of the fame word, whether verb or noun, are always conceived to be more intimately connected with the term which they ferve to lengthen, than the additional, detached, and in themfelves infignificant particles, which we are obliged to employ as connectives to our fignifi cant words. Our method gives almoft the fame expofure to the one as to the other, making the fignificant parts, and the infignificant, equally confpicuous; theirs, much oftener finks, as it were, the former into the latter, at once preferving their ufe, and hiding their weaknefs. Our modern languages may, in this refpect, be compared to the art of the carpenter in its rudeft ftate; when the union of the materials, employed by the artifan, could be effected only by the help of thofe external and coarfe implements, pins, nails, and cramps. The ancient languages refemble the fame art in its moft improved state, after the invention of dovetail joints, grooves, and mortices; when thus all the principal junctions are effected, by forming, properly, the extremities, or terminations, of the pieces to be joined. For, by means of thefe, the union of the parts is rendered clofer; while that by which that union is produced, is fcarcely perceivable." The philofophy of rhetoric, by dr. Campbell, vol. ii. p. 412.

as they always refer to perfons who are prefent to each other when they fpeak, their fex muft appear, and therefore needs not be marked by a masculine or feminine pronoun. But, as the third perfon may be abfent, or unknown, the diftinction of gender there becomes neceffary; and accordingly in Englifh, it hath all the three genders belonging to it; he, fhe, it. As to cafes; even thofe languages which have dropped them in fubftantive nouns, fometimes retain more of them in pronouns, for the fake of the greater readiness in expreffing relations; as pronouns are words of fuch frequent occurrence in difcourfe. In English, moft of our grammarians hold the perfonal pronouns to have two cafes, befides the nominative; a genitive, and an accufative : I, mine, me ;—thou, thine, thee;-he, his, him ;— who, whofe, whom.

In the first stage of speech, it is probable that the places of those pronouns were supplied by pointing to the object when prefent, and naming it when abfent. For one can hardly think, that pronouns were of early invention; as they are words of fuch a particular and artificial nature. I, thou, he, it, it is to be obferved, are not names peculiar to any fingle object, but fo very general, that they may be applied to all perfons, or objects, whatever, in certain circumstances. It, is the most general term that can poffibly be conceived, as it may ftand for any one thing in the univerfe of which we fpeak. At the fame time, these pronouns have this quality, that, in the circumftances in which they are applied, they never denote more than one precife individual; which they afcertain, and fpecify, much in the fame manner as is done by the article. So that pronouns are, at once, the most general, and the most particular words in language. They are commonly the most irregular and troublefome words to the learner, in the grammar of all tongues; as being

the words most in common use, and fubjected there. by to the greatest varieties.

Adjectives, or terms of quality, fuch as, great, little, black, white, yours, ours, are the plaineft and simplest of all that clafs of words which are termed attributive. They are found in all languages; and, in all languages, muft have been very early invented; as objects could not be diftinguished from one another, nor any intercourse be carried on concerning them, till once names were given to their dif ferent qualities.

I have nothing to obferve in relation to them, except that fingularity which attends them in the Greek and Latin, of having the fame form given them with fubftantive nouns; being declined, like them, by cafes, and fubjected to the like diftinétions of number and gender. Hence it has happened, that grammarians have made them to belong to the fame part of fpeech, and divided the noun into fubftantive and adjective; an arrangement founded more on attention to the external form of words, than to their nature and force. For adjectives, or terms of quality, have not, by their nature, the least resemblance to fubftantive nouns ; as they never express any thing which can poffibly fubfift by itself; which is the very effence of the fubftantive noun. They are, indeed, more akin to verbs, which, like them, exprefs the attribute of fome fubftance.

It may, at firft view, appear fomewhat odd and 'fantastic, that adjectives fhould in the ancient languages, have affumed fo much the form of fubftantives; fince neither number, nor gender, nor cafes, nor relations, have any thing to do in a proper fenfe, with mere qualities, fuch as, good or great, foft or hard. And yet bonus, and magnus, and tener, have their fingular and plural, their mafculine and feminine, their genitives and datives, like any of the names of fubftances, or perfons. But this caù

be accounted for, from the genius of thofe tongues. They avoided, as much as poffible, confidering qualities feparately, or in the abftract. They made them a part, or appendage of the fubftance which they ferved to diftinguifh; they made the adjective depend on its fubftantive, and resemble it in termination, in number, and gender, in order that the two might coalefce the more intimately, and be joined in the form of expreffion, as they were in the nature of things. The liberty of tranfpofition, too, which those languages indulged, required fuch a method as this to be followed. For, allowing the related words of a fentence to be placed at a dif tance from each other, it required the relation of adjectives to their proper fubftantives to be pointed out, by fuch fimilar circumstances of form and termination, as, according to the grammatical style, fhould fhow their concordance. When I fay, in English, the "beautiful wife of a brave man," the juxtaposition of the words prevents all ambiguity. "But when I fay, in Latin, "Formofa fortis viri uxor ;" it is only the agreement, in gender, number, and cafe, of the adjective "formofa," which is the first word of the fentence, with the fubftantive uxor," which is the last word, that declares the meaning.