LECT. IX. It had all the three requifites, which I have mentioned, as neceflary for this purpofe. It joined to thefe the graceful variety of its different dialects; and thereby readily affined every fort of character which an author could wish, from the moft fimple. and most familiar, up to the moft majeftic. The Latin, though a very beautiful language, is inferior, in this relpect, to the Greek. It has more of a fixed character of ftatelinefs and gravity. It is alway's firm and mafculine in the tenor of its found; and is fupported by a certain fenatorial dignity, of which it is difficult for a writer to diveft it wholly, on on any occafion. Among the modern tongues, the Italian poffeffes a great deal more of this flexibility than the French. By its copioufnefs, its freedom of arrangement, and the great beauty and harmony of its founds, it fuits itself very happily to moft fubjects, either in profe or in poetry; is capable of the auguft and the ftrong, as well as the tender; and feems to be, on the whole, the moft perfect of all the modern dialects which have arifen out of the ruins of the ancient. Our own language, though not equal to the Italian in flexibility, yet is not deftitute of a confiderable degree of this quality. If any one will confider the diverfity of style which appears in fome of our claffics; that great difference of manner, for inftance, which is marked by the ftyle of lord Shaftesbury, and that of dean Swift; he will fee, in our tongue, fuch a circle of expreffion, fuch a power of accommodation to the different tafte of writers, as redounds. not a little to its honour. What the English has been moft taxed with, is its deficiency in harmony of found. But though every native is apt to be partial to the founds of his own language, and may, therefore, be fufpected of not being a fair judge in this point; yet, I imagine, there are evident grounds on which it may be fhown, that this charge against our tongue has been carried too far. The melody of our verfification, its power of fupporting poetical numbers, without any affiftance from rhyme, is alone a fufficient proof that our language is far from being unmufical. Our verfe is, after the Italian, the most diverfified and harmonious of any of the modern dialects; unquestionably far beyond the French verfe, in variety, fweetnefs, and melody. Mr. Sheridan has fhown, in his lectures, that we abound more in vowel and diphthong founds, than moft languages; and thefe, too, fo divided into long and fhort, as to afford a proper diversity in the quantity of our fyllables. Our confonants, he obferves, which appear fo crowded to the eye on paper, often form combinations, not difagreeable to the ear in pronouncing; and in particular, the objection which has been made to the frequent recurrence of the hiffing confonants in our language, is unjust and ill-founded. For, it has not been attended to, that very commonly, and in the final fyllables especially, this letter lofes altogether the hiffing found, and is transformed into a z, which is one of the founds on which the ear refts with pleafure; as in has, thefe, thofe, loves, hears, and innumerable more, where, though the letters be retained in writing, it has really the power of z, not of the common s. After all, however, it must be admitted, that fmoothnefs, or beauty of found, is not one of the diftinguishing properties of the English tongue. Though not incapable of being formed into melodious arrangements, yet strength and expreffiveness, more than grace, form its character. We incline, in general, to a fhort pronunciation of our words, and have fhortened the quantity of most of those which we borrow from the Latin, as orator, Spectacle, theatre, liberty, and fuch like. Agreeable to this, is a remarkable peculiarity of English pronun ciation, the throwing the accent farther back, that is, nearer the beginning of the word, than is done by any other nation. In Greek and Latin, no word is accented farther back than the third fyllable from C the end, or what is called the antepenult. But, in English, we have many words accented on the fourth, fome on the fifth fyllable from the end, as memorable, conveniency, ambulatory, profitableness. → The general effect of this practice of haftening the accent, or placing it fo near the beginning of a word, is to give a brisk and a fpirited, but at the fame time a rapid and hurried, and not very mufical, tone to the whole pronunciation of a people. The English tongue poffeffes, undoubtedly, this property, that it is the most fimple in its form and construction, of all the European dialects. It is free from all intricacy of cafes, declenfions, moods, and tenfes. Its words are fubject to fewer variations from their original form, than thofe of any other language. Its fubftantives have no diftinction of gender, except what nature has made, and but one variation in cafe. Its adjectives admit of no change at all, except what expresses the degree of compari fon. Its verbs, inftead of running through all the varieties of ancient conjugation, fuffer no more than four or five changes in termination. By the help of a few prepofitions and auxiliary verbs, all the purposes of fignificancy in meaning are accomplifhed; while the words for the most part, preferve their form unchanged. The disadvantages in point of elegance, brevity, and force, which follow from this structure of our language, I have before pointed out. But, at the fame time, it must be admitted, that fuch a ftructure contributes to facility. It renders the acquifition of our language lefs laborious, the arrangement of our words more plain and obvious, the rules of our fyntax fewer and more fimple. I agree, indeed, with dr. Lowth (preface to his grammar), in thinking that the fimplicity and facility of our language occafion its being frequently written and fpoken with lefs accuracy. It was neceffary to study languages, which were of a more complex and artificial form, with greater care. The marks of gender and cafe, the varieties of conjugation and declenfion, the multiplied rules of fyntax, were all to be attended to in fpecch. Hence language became more an object of art. It was reduced into form; a standard was established; and any departures from the standard became confpicuous. Whereas, among us, language is hardly confidered as an object of grammatical rule. We take it for granted, that a competent skill in it may be acquired without any study; and that, in a fyntax fo narrow and confined as ours, there is nothing which demands attention. Hence arifes the habit of writing in a loose and inaccurate manner. I admit that no grammatical rules have fufficient authority to controul the firm and established ufage of language. Established cuftom, in fpeaking and writing, is the standard to which we muft at last refort for determining every controverted point in language and style. But it will not follow from this, that grammatical rules are fuperfeded as ufelefs. In every language, which has been in any degree cultivated, there prevails a certain ftructure and analogy of parts, which is understood to give foundation to the moft reputable ufage of fpeech; and which, in all cafes, when ufage is loofe or dubious, poffeffes confiderable authority. In every language, there are rules of fyntax which must be inviolably obferved, by all who would either write or fpeak with any propriety. For fyntax is no other than that arrangement of words, in a fentence, which renders the meaning of each word, and the relation of all the words to one another the most clear and intelligible. All the rules of Latin fyntax, it is true, cannot be applied to our language. Many of these rules arofe from the particular form of their language, which occafioned verbs or prepofitions to govern, fome the genitive, fome the datiye, fome thel ac cufative or ablative cafe. But, abftracting from these peculiarities, it is to be always remembered, that the chief and fundamental rules of fyntax are. common to the English as well as the Latin tongue; and indeed, belong equally to all languages. For, in all languages, the parts which compofe fpeech are effentially the fame; fubftantives, adjectives, verbs, and connecting particles: and wherever thefe parts of speech are found, there are certain neceflary relations among them, which regulate their fyntax, or the place which they ought to poffefs in a fentence Thus, in English, juft as much as in Latin, the ad jective must, by pofition, be made to agree with! its fubftantive; and the verb must agree with its nominative in perfon and number; becaufe, from the nature of things, a word,, which expreffes either a quality or an action, muft correfpond as closely as poffible with the name of that thing whofe quality, or whofe action, it expreffes. Two or more fubftantives, joined by a copulative, must always require the verbs, or pronouns to which they refer to be placed in the plural number; otherwife, their common relation to thefe verbs or pronouns is not pointed out. An active verb muft, in every lan guage, govern the accufative; that is, clearly point out fome fübftantiye noun, as the object to which its action is directed. A relative pronoun muft, in every form of speech, agree with its antecedent in gender, number, and perfon; and conjunctions, or connecting particles, ought always to couple like cafes and moods, that is, ought to join words which are of the fame form and ftate with each other. P mention these as a few examplifications of that, fundamental regard to fyntax, which, even in fuch a lan |
