Tooke produced of these positions, form one of the most curious grammatical speculations that have yet been given to the world: Nor do I know of any one which is entitled, in a greater degree, to the praise of originality. Bishop Wilkins, indeed, (as Tooke candidly acknowledged,) had, more than a century before, foretold great discoveries in this branch of grammar; but what he has said is so very general, that it does not detract in the least from the merit of the writer by whom the prediction was verified.1 Of all the authors I have looked into, prior to Mr. Tooke, Court de Gebelin approaches nearest to the truth. In some passages he appears to have been on the point of anticipating Tooke's brilliant discovery; particularly in his observations on the conjunction que. "Les grammairiens ont supposé que nous avions dans notre langue un grand nombre de que différens; qu'il y en avoit de conjonctifs, de comparatifs, d'exclamatifs : ils ont encore reconnu un que et un qui relatifs, absolument différens de tous ceux-là, puisque ces premiers sont indéclinables, et que ceux-ci se déclinent, sur-tout dans la langue Latine. "Mais comme la déclinabilité n'est qu'un accessoire, elle ne peut être un motif suffisant pour regarder tous ces que, même les relatifs comme des mots différens. Disons donc qu'il n'en existe qu'un seul, qui offre toujours le même sens, cette valeur déterminative qui constitue la conjonction que: en ramenant ainsi tous ces que à cet unique principe, leur explication qui parut toujours si embarrassée et si peu satisfaisante, devient de la plus grande simplicité et de la plus grande clarté,"2 On perusing, however, with attention the explanations which follow, we perceive that this learned writer has completely missed Mr. Tooke's idea; and that, when he seems prepared to pursue the right road, he suddenly strikes off into a most unpromising bye-path of his own. So completely do the two routes diverge, that while Tooke resolves the conjunction que into the relative of the same name, Court de 1 Letter to Mr. Dunning, p. 21. Monde Primitif, vol. ii. p. 336. Gebelin attempts to resolve the relative into the conjunction. For example: "Le livre que vous m'avez envoyé est très-intéressant. "L'auteur que vous citez est un excellent juge sur cet objet." These sentences he resolves thus: "Vous m'avez envoyé un livre, et je trouve que ce livre est très-intéressant: Vous citez un auteur, et je trouve que cet auteur est un excellent juge sur l'objet en question.' "1 After expressing myself in so high terms with respect to the merits of Tooke's grammatical speculations, I think it necessary to add, that the author himself does not appear to me to have formed a very accurate or just idea of the nature and import of his own discoveries. The leading inference which he always deduces from them is, that the common arrangements of the parts of speech in the writings of grammarians are inaccurate and unphilosophical; and that they must contribute greatly to retard the progress of students in the acquisition of particular languages; whereas, in point of fact, Tooke's speculations do not relate in the least to the analysis of a language after it attains to a state of maturity, but to the progressive steps by which it advances to that state. They are speculations not of a metaphysical, but of a purely philological nature; belonging to that particular species of disquisition which I have elsewhere called theoretical or conjectural history. In a word, they are speculations precisely similar to those contained in Mr. Smith's dissertation, and may be justly regarded as a 1 Monde Primitif, vol. ii. p. 338. The second volume cî Court de Gebelin's work, containing the Grammaire Universelle, was published in 1774. Horne Tooke's Letter to Mr. Dunning was published in 1778. The mention of this last date recalls to my recollection a fact, which, in justice to myself, I cannot forbear to notice; that the extraordinary grammatical merits of the letter to Mr. Dunning were pointed out a few months after its publication in a course of lectures on Moral Philosophy, which (at a very early period of my life, and while still Professor of Mathematics) I delivered in the University of Edinburgh, during the absence of Dr. Ferguson in North America. I record this trifling circumstance, as I have been most unjustly accused of having spoken lightly of Mr. Tooke's literary merits in one of my former publications."-[To wit, Philosophical Essays, infra Works, vol. v.] supplement to that essay.1 To prove that conjunctions are a derivative part of speech, and that, at first, their place was supplied by words which were confessedly pronouns and articles, does not prove that they ought not to be considered as a separate part of speech at present; any more than Mr. Smith's theory with respect to the gradual transformation of proper names into appellatives, implies that proper names and appellatives are now radically and essentially the same; or, than the employment of substantives to supply the place of adjectives, (which Mr. Tooke himself tells us is one of the signs. of an imperfect language,) proves that there is no difference. between these two parts of speech in such tongues as the Greek, the Latin, or the English.2 1 Biographical Memoirs of Smith, Robertson, and Reid, p. 46, et seq. [Infra, vol. ix.] As the book referred to in the foregoing note may not have fallen in the way of some of the readers of this volume, I beg leave to copy from it one or two paragraphs, which I flatter myself will throw considerable light on the scope of the preceding observations. "In examining the history of mankind, as well as in examining the phenomena of the material world, when we cannot trace the process by which an event has been produced, it is often of importance to be able to show how it may have been produced by natural causes. Thus, although it is impossible to determine with certainty what the steps were by which any particular language was formed, yet if we can show, from the known principles of human nature, how all its various parts might gradually have arisen, the mind is not only to a certain degree satisfied, but a check is given to that indolent philosophy which refers to a miracle whatever appearances, both in the natural and moral worlds, it is unable explain. to "I shall only observe farther on this head, that when different theoretical histories are proposed by different writers of the progress of the human mind in any one line of exertion, these theories are not always to be understood as standing in opposition to each other. If the progress delineated in all of them be plausible, it is possible, at least, that they may all have been realized; for human affairs never exhibit, in any two instances, a perfect uniformity. But whether they have been realized or no, is often a question of little consequence. In most cases, it is of more importance to ascertain the progress that is most simple, than the progress that is most agreeable to fact; for, paradoxical as the proposition may appear, it is cer OF THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF LANGUAGE. PART II. In the sequel of Mr. Smith's dissertation he treats of compounded languages, and of the circumstances in which their genius differs from that of languages which are simple and original. In prosecuting this subject, his remarks are so much less open to criticism than in the former part of his theory, that I shall do little more, in what follows, than offer a short summary of his leading positions, accompanied with some additional illustrations of my own. From the observations made by Mr. Smith in the first part of his Essay, it follows that original languages can scarcely fail to be very complicated in their declensions and conjugations; a circumstance which adds much to the difficulty of studying them as a branch of education, but which would not be felt by those who were accustomed to speak them from their infancy. When, however, different nations came to mingle together, in consequence of conquest or migration, the necessity of acquiring each other's languages would naturally lead them to exert their ingenuity in simplifying the study as much as possible, by whatever shifts the language would afford. Hence, the gradual substitution, in the languages of modern Europe, of prepositions instead of declensions, and of the substantive and possessive verbs instead of conjugations. This observation Mr. Smith has illustrated most ingeniously and happily. "A Lombard who was attempting to speak Latin, would naturally supply his ignorance of declensions by the use of prepositions, and if he wanted to express that such a person was a citizen of Rome, or a benefactor to Rome, if he happened not tainly true, that the real progress is not always the most natural. It may have been determined by particular accidents, which are not likely again to occur, and which cannot be considered as forming any part of that general provision which nature has made for the improvement of the race."-Biographical Memoirs of Smith, Robertson, and Reid. Edin. 1811, pp. 48, 49, 53, 54. to be acquainted with the genitive and dative cases of the word Roma, would naturally express himself by prefixing the prepositions ad and de to the nominative; and, instead of Romæ, would say ad Roma, and de Roma. Al Roma and di Roma, accordingly, is the manner in which the present Italians, the descendants of the ancient Lombards and Romans, express this and all other similar relations. And, in this manner, prepositions seem to have been introduced in the room of the ancient declensions. The same alteration has been produced upon the Greek language, since [and long before] the taking of Constantinople by the Turks. "A similar expedient enables men, in the situation abovementioned, to get rid of almost the whole intricacy of their conjugations. There is in every language a verb, known by the name of the substantive verb; in Latin, sum; in English, I am. This verb denotes not the existence of any particular event, but existence in general. It is, upon this account, the most abstract and metaphysical of all verbs; and, consequently, could by no means be a word of early invention. When it came to be invented, however, as it had all the tenses and moods of any other verb, by being joined with the passive participle, it was capable of supplying the place of the whole passive voice, and of rendering this part of their conjugations as simple and uniform as the use of prepositions had rendered their declensions. A Lombard, who wanted to say, I am loved, but could not recollect the word amor, naturally endeavoured to supply his ignorance, by saying, ego sum amatus. Io sono amato, is at this day the Italian expression, which corresponds to the English phrase above-mentioned. "There is another verb, which, in the same manner, runs through all languages, and which is distinguished by the name of the possessive verb; in Latin, habeo; in English, I have. This verb, likewise, denotes an event of an extremely abstract and metaphysical nature; and, consequently, cannot be supposed to have been a word of the earliest invention. When it came to be invented, however, by being applied to the passive participle, it was capable of supplying a great part of the active |