ページの画像
PDF
ePub

his whole learning and labour: and the instance in which he ap pears 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 either 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 IF: for he adds, that 'our corrupted Ir has always the signification of the English imperative give; and no other. p. 103.

pro

The only proof of these assertions, which Mr. H. T. has duced, is, that Gawin Douglas, a Scotch poet of the sixteenth century, wrote GIF, sometimes, for 1F. It may be asked, what evidence is this of the practice of the Maso-Goths or AngloSaxons? Certainly none. But, could his system have derived any support from writings in those languages? We shall endeavour to shew what might have been done.

1

[ocr errors]

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 imperative of the Gothic verb GIFAN: 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 communicated 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 1F, is certain; and that our conjunction is derived from theirs, we have no doubt: but Mr. H. T. should have shewn, that they

used

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 himn 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. T.'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, a sense nearly the same; that is of exclusion, not of addition; as the examples cited by our author, though with a different design, suffice to demon

strate.

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 simply 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.

A a

this

this and the preceding head, are 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. 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. T.'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 every 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 Verb 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. Is 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 1-a (from the antient Ew or the modern E;) In the Latin verb I-re; and in the English verb To-Hie, or to Hi, (a. s. higan;) the Infinitive terminations Eve 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 I; and in the English Hie or Hi. These verbs, you see, are the same, with the same meaning, in the three languages; and differ only by our aspirate.

In the Greek βουλομαι or (as antiently) βουλ-εω, or βουλω, βουλ only is the verb; and ομαι, or EW, 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 Ibo stand in the three languages; inverting only our common order of speech,-Ich, Wol, Hie, or Hi, to suit that of the Greek and Latin;

English, Hi, Wol, Ich.
They who have noticed

Latin, I. Vol, O. Greek, 1, Βουλ, εω.
that where we employ a w, the Latin em-

A a 2

ploys

ploys a v; and where the Latin employs a v, the Greek uses a (as Aaßid, BEOTTEσiavos, &c.); will see at once, that Wol, Vol, Boul, are one and the same word. And the progress to Ibo is not very circuitous nor unnatural. It is Iboul, Ibou, bo. The termination Bo (for Bouλew) may therefore well be applied to denote the future time of the Latin verbs; since its meaning is I Woll (or Will.) So it is, Amaboul, Amabou, Amalo, &c. Part II. p. 432-434.

Here, we confess, the author has puzzled us. We cannot decide whether he is imposing on others, or on himself. We are inclined to think it impossible for him to have forgotten, that the first person does not, in every tense of the verb eo, end in o! What representative of ego, or of ich, can he find in ibam? why should the b represent Box, and wool, in the future tense, when it cannot have that sense in the imperfect?

So flagrant an imposition as this, throws no slight suspicion on the integrity of the rest of this singular performance; and tempts us to conclude, that Mr. H. T.'s well-known talent at hum-bug, after having failed of success on the political stage, and been excluded from the Church, the Bar, and the Senate, is now exerted, with more auspicious omens, on philological topics. His method, and his style, certainly give colour to such a supposition. The former bids defiance to systematical investigation the latter is so paradoxical, as to render his book a string of conundrums, which are often very equivocal, and sometimes incapable of solution.

Leaving this problem to the mature consideration of the public, we would remark, that to accomplish the object which he proposed, to an extent which might establish a new basis of grammatical arrangement, appears, from the nature of language, to be impracticable. In the instances of that and if, we have shewn, that the manner of signification,' which the author pretends to explain from writers of two or four centuries old, was the same, at the earliest periods to which the Gothic and Saxon languages can be traced, as it is at the present day. That he would have succeeded better, had he been more versed in those languages, and others of similar origin, is likely. Adequate information might have preserved him from many gross mistakes: but we apprehend, that, if he really aimed at truth, it would have compelled him altogether to relinquish his hypothesis. Yet, whatever was the design, and much as he has failed in the execution, of his work, it has an indisputable claim to the merits of labour, ingenuity and acuteness and, if used with due judgement and precaution, it may be applied to valuable purposes. For this effect, however, his book must be considered as having no reference beyond the fourteenth century: and even those abbreviations in the manner of signification

« 前へ次へ »