« 前へ次へ »
derived from this Scandinavian practice. The Greek, the MæsoGothic, and the Anglo-Saxon, had the definitive article, and no other; except whatever distinguishes a singular froin à plural noun, is to be called an article. The want of a definitive article in the Latin, was a gross defect: and is likely to remain an unaccountable one, till the ground-work of that language (which we suspect to be neither Gothic nor Greek, but Sclavonic) can be fully ascertained.
All modern Teutonic languages have the definitive article: and all, except our own, use their first cardinal numeral as an indefinitive article. Some of them (the French and Portuguese for instance) have the advantage of being able to use it in the plural, as well as in the singular number. Our word an, signified in the Anglo-Saxon, the number one; but was not used in that language as an article. When it is followed by a word begining with a consonant, the nis dropped, euphoniæ gratia ; as the French sink the n, of their article un, by rendering the vowel nasal, in that position. We apprehend that the use of an indefinite article was introduced into our language by the Norinan conquest, notwithstanding a Saxon word was adopted for the purpose: and we would recommend this hint to Mr. H. T. as a clue by which he may probably trace to their real origin, many of the abbreviations, which he has cited from writers of the fourteenth and following centuries, though they are not to be found in the Gothic or the Anglo-Saxon. It may relieve him from the glaring absurdity of asserting, that they were ' so used in discourse, at the same time that he does not know them to þave been employed by Anglo-Saxon writers.' Part 1. p. 171. We give him credit, nevertheless, for his frank confession in this solitary instance; and only regret, that he did not acknowledge its, general application to his etymologies from that language and the Gothic. No proof has he ever brought forward, that either Goths or Şaxons used his abbreviations in the senses which he has assigned to them. The whole depends on his bare assertion, or his having no doubt,' that it was so: but we own ourselves unable to place so strong a confidence in his inferences, or in his testimony, as to be satisfied with either, when unsupported by a single witness among the crowd that might have been summoned on the cause.
The author bas strangely coupled the Article and the INTERJECTION in the same chapter: but as he has not undertaken to shew that the latter is either noun or verb, we proceed with him, immediately, to the CONJUNCTION: especially as it affords a fair opportunity of trying the validity of his system, and of estimating the ineans of which he has availed himself for its support, To prove that conjunctions are merely obsolete nouns and verbs,, he seems to have exerted, if not to have exhausted,
.. his whole learning and labour : and the instance in which he appears to have been more successful than in any other, is that of the conjunction if. In order, therefore, to give his hypothesis the utmost advantage that he can require, we select this, as its strongest point of defence; and although his statement of it has so long been public, we prefer to quote his own words.
• The truth of the matter is, that if is merely a Verb. It is merely the imperative of the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon verb GIFAN. And in those languages, as well as in the English formerly, this supposed Conjunction was pronounced and written as the common imperative purely Gif.' Part I. p. 102. ; Here is no want of perspicuity or precision. The word if
(anciently written gif) is plainly asserted to be the Imperative of the verb GIFAN, both in the Gothic and the Anglo-Saxon languages; and it is as plainly denied to be a Conjunction, in tither of those languages. It is merely a verb,' merely the imperative, in both of them. In order, however, to support the author's hypothesis, it must follow, that in both these languages, the imperative gif was used in the same manner as we use the supposed Conjunction ip: for he adds, that 'our corrupted ir has always the signification of the English imperative give; and no other.' p. 103.
The only proof of these assertions, which Mr. H. T. has produced, is, that Gawin Douglas, a Scotch poet of the sixteenth century, wrote GIF, sometimes, for if. It may be asked, what eviçence is this of the practice of the Mæso-Goths or AngloSaxons? Certainly none. But, could his system have derived any support from writings in those languages? We shall endeavour to shew what mighi have been done.
Ulphilas, in his Gothic version of Romans xii. 20., thus distinguishes the conjunction if, from the imperative; give. "If (GABAI) thine enemy hunger, give (GIF) him food; if (GABAI) he thirst, give (Gif) him drink. Hence it is evident, that gif was the imperalize of the Gothic verb giran: but it is equally so, that it was not used for our conjunction IF; for which, the proper term was GABAI. It is, therefore, demonstrated, that, in the Gothic language, our supposed. conjunction was NOT written as the common imperative, purely gif. As to the manner in which it was pronounced by the Goths, four hundred years ago, and at fourteen hundred miles distance, we know not how it was cominunicated to our author : neither can we conceive, that, even by a Gaelic metamorphosis, GABAI could be pronounced " purely gif.' · That the Anglo-Saxons used gif precisely as we do if, is certain;' and that our conjunction is derived from theirs, we have no doubt : but Mr. H. T. should have shewn, that they
used Gif also as an imperative, in order to justify his statement and to support his system. That they never did so, we will not assert; because it is difficult to prove an universal negative. Any of our readers, however, who can refer to Lye’s Dictionary, may observe, that no authorised imperative is assigned by him to the Saxon verb GIFAN ; and in the Lord's prayer, ‘give us, this day,' &c. is expressed by the imperative of the synonymous verb sylan; from which our term sell is deduced. The AngloSaxons, seem, therefore, to have distinguished, as carefully as the Goths, between the imperative and the conjunction, which, nevertheless, our author maintains to have been written and pronounced, purely the same. We alledge these trite instances, because no symptom appears in Mr. H. To's volumes, of any information on the Saxon or Gothic languages, that is not comprised between the covers of the book to which we have referred. We shall willingly relinquish the argument that is here suggested, if he can cite authorities for the Saxon imperative gif: but even if he could do this, the use of the Gothic conjunction GABAI, would alone invalidate what he has advanced on the subject.
In another instance of this kind, we suspect that he has invented, not merely a mood, but a whole verb, to answer the purpose which he had in view. He asserts the conjunction BUT, to be the imperative of an Anglo-Saxon verb, which he calls botan, and explains as signifying to add. He will oblige us by referring to any place where such a verb is to be found. It appears probable, that our ancestors had some verb similar to the Gothic BOTGAN, which signified to profit or avail. The word BUT, however, whether used as a conjunction or a preposition, has evidently, as Skinner remarked, à senser nearly the same; that is of exclusion, not of addition; as the examples cited by our author, though with a different design, suffice to demonstrate.
Passing on to the PREPOSITIONS, we think that Mr. H. T.no where appears to greater advantage, than in reducing to one simple sense, the word from ; to which Dr. Johnson had assigned a needless multiplicity of meanings. We cannot however account, except from a spirit of contradiction, for his rejection of the derivation which Johnson had assigned to this word. It is certainly no other than the Gothic and Saxon preposition FRAM: and we are the more surprised at his asserting it to be siinply the noun FRUM (Beginning, Origin,' &c.) as he might have contrived an imperative for the Saxon verbs, framan, framian, (to proceed) with at least as much propriety as for GIFAN. - On this class of words, we shall only add, that it is one of those which the author considers to be undoubtedly necessary, although abbreviations: and that many of his observations under VOL. II. Аа
this and the preceding head, arc intitled, notwithstanding the errors with which they are interspersed, to the same commendation, that we have given to his chapter on participles.
The ADVERB, he characterizes in expressions that have often occurred forcibly to our recollection, while wading through the trash in which he has buried the useful parts of his work. He terms this class of words, “a common sink and repository of all heterogeneous and unknown corruptions. ib. p. 353. That large proportion, notwithstanding, of this ill-sorted collection, which may be justly called Adverbs, might be advantageously separated from the irregular Particles with which they have hitherto been confounded; and it would then deserve the rank which Mr. Harris has assigned to the whole. We agree with Mr. H. T. that the termination Ly, which is common to a numerous branch of this family, and to several adjectives, is only a contraction of our word like; or rather of the Saxon lic, which had the same meaning ; but when he says, that, the termination remains more pure in the German, in which it is written lich, &c.' (p. 460.) we are obliged to dissent. The German word for like, is gleich, of which, lich is no very pure representative.
We have had repeated occasions of remarking that the VERB, as well as the PRONOUN, has hitherto been professedly excluded from our author's discussion ; we think, very improperly. The form of the second part, like that of the first, is, colloquial. 'In the latter, however, Sir Francis Burdett appears as Mr. H.To's only grammatical and political coadjutor-par nobile fratrum ! To his remonstrances on the omission of the verb, we, nevertheless, implicitly subscribe; and we quote them from the close of this volume, to shew what has been, and what has not been, suggested on the subject.
“ You have told me that a Verb is (as evēry word also must be) a Noun ; but you added, that it is also something more : and that the title of Verb was given to it, on account of that distinguishing something more than the mere nouns convey. You have then proceeded to the simple Verl adjected, and to the different adjected Moods, and to the different adjectived Tenses of the verb. But you have not all the while explained to me what you mean by the naked simple Verb unadjectived. Nor have you uttered a single syllable concerning that something which the naked verb unattended by Mood, Tense, Number, Person, and Gender, (which last also some languages add to it) signifies More or Besides the mere Noun. Part II. p. 514. Mr. H. T. obstinately refuses to gratify his friend's curiosity.
No, No,' he says " We will leave off here for the present. It is true that my evening is now fully come, and the night fast approaching; yet, if we shall have a tolerably lengthened twilight, we may still perhaps
find time enough for a farther conversation on this subject: And, finally, (if the times will bear it) to apply this system of Language to all the different systems of Metaphysical (i. e. verbal) Imposture.' Part II. p. 516.
If, at the proposed adjournment, he traces the verb according to a specimen, which, under a different head, he has given in his second volume, he will indeed fulfil his promise, of applying this system of language to one system of verbal imposture. Of this, we shall give our readers opportunity to form their own judgement.
* The Verb does not denote any Time ; nor does it imply any Assertion. No single word can. Till one single thing can be found to be a couple, one single word cannot make an Assertion or an Ad-firmation : for there is joining in that operation ; and there can be no junction, of one thing. . . F. Js not the Latin Ibo an assertion ?
H. Yes, indeed is it, and in three letters. But those three letters contain three words; two verbs and a pronoun.
All those common terminations, in any language, of which all Nouns or Verbs in that language equally partake (under the notion of declension or conjugation) are themselves separate words with distinct meanings : which are therefore added to the different nouns or verbs, because those additional meanings are intended to be added occasionally to all those nouns or verbs. These terminations are all explicable, and ought all to be explained ; or there will be no end of such fantastical writers as this Mr. Harris, who takes fustian for philosophy.
In the Greek verb l-Eyes (from the antient Ew or the modern Esun;) In the Latin verb I-re; and in the English verb To-Hie, or to Hi, (A. S. higan;) the Infinitive terminations xvxı and re make no more part of the Greek and Latin verbs, than the Infinitive prefex To makes a part of the English verb Hie or Hi. The pure and simple verbs, without any suffix or prefix, are in the Greek I (or E! ;) in the Latin 1; and in the English Hie or Hi. These verbs, you see, are the same, with the same meaning, in the three languages; and differ only by our aspirate.
In the Greek βουλ-ομαι Or (as antiently) βουλ-εω, or βουλω, βουλ only is the verb; and qual, or sw, is a common removeable suffix, with a separate meaning of its own. So in the Latin Vol-o, Vol is the verb; and o a common removeable suffix; with a separate meaning. And the meaning of Ew in the one, and O in the other, I take to be Eyw Ego: for I perfectly concur with Dr. Gregory Sharpe and others, that the personal pronouns are contained in the Greek and Latin terminations of the three persons or their verbs. Our old English Ich or Ig (which we now pronounce I) is not far removed from Ego,
Where we now use Will, our old English verb was Wol; which is the pure verb without prefix or suffix.
Thus then will this Assertion Ilo stand in the three languages; inverting only our common order of speech, Ich, Wol, Hie, or Hi, to suit that of the Greek and Latin ;
English, Hi, Wol, Ich. Latin, I. Vol, O. Greek, I, Bova, sw.