Greek kal-os, kal-e, kal-on, when not referred to a substantive, is equivalent to he fair, she fair, it fair; and the Latin bon-us, bon-a, bon-um, is he good, she good, it good. Neither kal nor hon were ever written without their pronominal terminations; and kale gyne, a fair woman, bonus vir, a good man, would, if strictly analyzed, be she fair woman, he good man. Although the adjectives of modern English do not vary in their terminations by reason of the gender, yet, being the descendants of languages that possessed such variations, they will, from that as well as other circumstances, be often found, even in the monosyllabic forms, to be compound words. It is the same with all the other parts of speech: thus, the derivatives pious, serious, anxious, &c. have retained the masculine affix of the Latins; while the Gothic fidwor, four, and twalif, twelve ; the Saxon hafoc, a hawk, and dagian, to dawn, with a multitude of others, have been compressed into monosyllables. Stripping a word of its apparent affixes, until it be left a single syllable, will not always reduce it to its utmost simplicity: a contracted compound will, in many cases, remain, which may not only defy further analysis, but whose existence may be even unsuspected. We must, therefore, consider those intractable remnants as the roots of our language, on the same principle that the chemist classes among simple bodies all such as resist his power of further decomposition; leaving to his successors the hope of discoveries which he himself has sought in vain.

Nouns and verbs, being the names of things and actions, represent two species of existence. The former denominate objects that occupy certain portions of SPACE, and the latter such appearances as fill successive portions of DURATION. Place is any specific part of Space as Time is of Duration. Things exist in place, and actions in time. However abstruse we may suppose these terms to be, they originate (and must necessarily do so) in the language of ordinary life. This is not the place for their complete explanation, but we shall just remark, generally, that space is a compound from pace, a step, and that the Latin synonyme, spatium, was any area that might be traversed,-in particular, a raceground. The German spazieren is, simply, to walk. Duration is from the Latin durare, to last, or continue; that is, to hold together, without being broken or destroyed. It is the indefinite application of the words Space and Duration that seems metaphysical. It is the attempt to consider them as unbounded in extent, while we, ourselves, are beings wholly circumscribed by place and time. This mode of generalizing, however, is indispensable to the communication of thought. The separation of qualities from substances, and of actions from agents, although impossible in nature, constitutes a great part of the machinery of language. By such means, we form ABSTRACT Nouns, or names of nonentities, the fairy materials with which are reared the conflicting fabrics of METAPHYSICS.

1

We have said that Nouns and Verbs denominate THINGS and ACTIONS; but these are general names, arising from similar sources, equivalent in their origin, but differing in their application. Thing, in contradistinction to Action, is equivalent to BEING. Being is a personified adjective, the present participle of the verb To Be. Be and By were, in the Saxon and old English, of indiscriminate orthography, and their meaning is the same, excepting that the latter spelling is now used in the literal signification. By is at the side of, and, when applied as a verb, (To BE,) is to stand beside one: an idea scarcely in the least degree differing from To EXIST, which is a compound of the Latin ex, out, and sisto, or sto, I stand. What are termed substantive verbs, in all languages, originate in a similar manner with the verb To Be. Id erat, in Latin, il etait, in French, and it was, in English, all assert that something of which we were speaking stood, or lay, at some past time, in some particular place; but the expression is general, for what the thing was, and when or where it was to be found is left to be explained by other parts of the sentence.

THING, like BEING, is obviously of participial origin. The German thun, and the Gothic taujan, signify to do, and DOINGS is equivalent to things, when those things are conceived to be successive. ACTION (or acting,) is a participial noun, from the verb to act, (Latin agere). Do and To (Gothic du,) are merely varied orthographies. To is similar to be or by. It is one thing placed to or beside another. To, Too, and Two, in old English, are written indiscriminately, and are all equivalent to the Latin ad, and the English at, which are similarly connected with the verb To Acr. The fact is, that the placing of things together, or in succession, embraces the whole province of names, as it constitutes the whole of the business of human life. To THINK is to produce things,-THOUGHTS (thinks,) by the power of IMAGINATION, or Image-making.

PLURALS OF NOUNS.

All increase, whether of bulk or quantity, arises from the junction of things to one another. TO MAKE, Saxon macian, is to add to the collection of things,to the ma, mow, or heap. It is from sources of this kind that we have all our syllabic affixes that express either the plural of nouns, or the energy of verbs. They are general marks of addition, or increase, and therefore the number is indeterminate. The successive existence of the same (or rather similar) action, is expressed by the number of times that it is repeated, while the mind contemplates the number of things by the places which they fill. In this view, times

f

and number are synonymous. The French fois, which signifies time in this usage, is from faire, to make.

The particle CE, anciently spelt Es, forms a termination in several words, and has this signification of time. Thus once, twice, and thrice, are equivalent to one time, two times, and three times; and, when these numerals are extended, we use the word times, as four times, five times, &c. The Germans express once, twice, &c. by einmal, zweimal, &c. the word mal in their language having the power of the French fois, and our TURN, or time, applied to the repetition of an event. The varied spelling of ce and es is of no moment, for, as we formerly had ones, twies, and thries, marking the addition of es to one, twie, and thrie, so we now have some of our plurals, as dice, mice, and pence, ending in ce. It, therefore, appears that ce, or es, is synonymous with time, in its numeral signification; and, as added to one, two, or three, it expresses how many of these things, or actions, are exhibited; so, if employed in simple connexion with the name of a thing, it denotes a number of such things, leaving the extent indefinite.

Another regular mark of plurality is EN, as in oxen, brethren, children, &c. This termination was formerly much more common than now, as housen for houses; eyen for eyes; foxen for foxes, &c. The affix en, in the ordinary acceptation of time, is also found in several words :-for example, when and then are evidently from the Saxon hwa and theo, joined to the syllable en, and signify what time and that time. Besides, the French en, equivalent to our in, implies time, as will be explained when treating of in as a preposition. Thus the plural affixes, es and en, are apparently derived from a similar source; but, whatever be their origin, their meaning, in both cases, is the same, that is, Number, or Increase, without any particular limitation.

There are some anomalies in English plurals. A few are literally adopted from other languages, and preserve their original form; such as errata and phenomena, from erratum and phenomenon; while others form their plural in the middle of the word, adding a separate termination to both numbers, as man and men; tooth and teeth; foot and feet; but all these will be better explained as they occur in the Dictionary. In the mean time, we may observe of es, that the e is now left out wherever the word will admit of contracting the syllable. Thus we have skins, bells, and chairs, as the plurals of skin, bell, and chair; but, when the nouns end in the sound of s, or so as an s cannot be easily incorporated with its concluding syllable, the es is added, and therefore box, kiss, sash, and church, become boxes, kisses, sashes, and churches. Nouns terminating in ƒ make their plural in ves, as calf and calves; loaf and loaves, &c.; and those in o add es, as negro, negroes; potato, potatoes.

OF GENITIVES.

When we wish to express that one person or thing belongs to another, it may be done, either by stating the fact in a circumlocutary manner, or by adding es or is (or s as a contraction,) to the name of the owner:-Thus, Alexander's house signifies the house of, or belonging to, Alexander; and God's grace is the grace of God. Anciently it was Godis, or Godes, for the syllable was never contracted; and the only apparent reason for the contraction seems to be to distinguish it from the plural. This termination has been the subject of much discussion, and, on that account, deserves particular attention.

There is,

The Latin

A noun or thing may be in different states or situations. It may be the agent or the patient; the possessor or the receiver. In the Greek, Latin, Saxon, and German tongues, some of these situations are termed CASES, and are expressed by additions to the noun, instead of by separate words and phrases. Of these the English noun has only the mark of possession above-mentioned, which is, therefore, called the POSSESSIVE CASE, and sometimes the GENITIVE, because of its resemblance to that case in the Greek and Latin declensions. however, in modern English, a distinction in extent, if not in kind. genitive marks the connexion, in general, of one noun with another it denotes that the one is the origin, or genitive of the other, from whatever circumstance it may arise. Thus timor Dei, the fear of God, is a fear originating from God. It is to God that we are to look for its source, but the person who is subject to the feeling is left to be discovered from the other parts of the sentence; and it is only on the ground of the attributes ascribed to the Divinity that we recognize the impossibility of its being applicable to Him. When we say "The fear of Casar was great," we obviously assert that Cæsar was much under the influence of fear. When we add, "among his enemies," we render the patient doubtful, it being uncertain whether his enemies or himself were subjected to the impression of dread. But, when we say, "The fear of Cæsar was so great that his enemies became an easy conquest," the passion is transferred, without ambiguity, to the hearts of his opposers.

The signification of the particle or may elucidate this account of the genitive. It is the same with the adverb OFF, and denotes that what we speak of is taken from, or is a part separated from something else. It is the Saxon af, and does not differ from the Latin ab. Its primary use is behind, as opposite to before, and hence our AFTER, as well as the phrase FORE and AFT. By a figurative manner of speech, common to all languages, fore and after are employed to denote cause and consequence, origin and offspring. Thus FROM, or frum, (de

6

rived from fore,) in the Saxon, signifies beginning, author, or source, and, in this sense, is used by us as a preposition; while the Gothic afar expresses after, and also posterity. Or, therefore, is sprung, risen, or made FROM, and is easily assumed as synonymous with belonging to or concerning.

Though two words may, abstractedly, have different and even opposite significations, yet they may, also, in certain situations, be taken indiscriminately for one another. Thus, "I received money of him," and "I received money from him," have the same meaning. In the former case, the money is asserted to come from the giver; in the latter he is mentioned as the origin of the gift. In the same manner, the place of the genitive terminations may be supplied by the word of, though this preposition may differ in its literal meaning from such affixes. Genitives, then, are compound words having the nature of adjectives, and express that a thing is connected in some manner or other with the noun to which the termination is joined. The origin of the different signs, though various, may nevertheless be expressive of the same idea, and many of our adjectives are, evidently, the genitives of an earlier structure of our tongue. Those who wish to trace from probability, where certainty is denied, may compare the is or 's with the syllable ous, to be explained in a succeeding part of this Introduction. It will be found that "righteous men," "men of right," and "right's men," do not materially differ; and a similar contraction of s from ous may be observed in the adverbs afterwards, backwards, forwards, &c. All the Gothic genitives were terminated by s: the Saxon, for the most part, by es or AN ; and the latter is still added to words to form nouns and adjectives of a possessive signification, as partizan, belonging to a party; human, belonging to man; Alexandrian, belonging to Alexander; Egyptian, belonging to Egypt, &c. The French use en separately to express the same idea, always Englished by of (it, him, her, or them,) and denoting that one thing is of or belonging to another. In this sense it assimilates with the affix EN in golden, silken, wooden, &c. which are real genitives. On the whole, it appears that this genitive affix was the same with the active syllable which constituted the Gothic verbs; and, when connecting nouns, it specified that the one proceeded, or was formed, or made from the other. Words in IN or INE, as Matin, Alexandrine, and Serpentine, and those fashionables in ANA, as Johnsoniana, &c. may be traced to a similar source. The latter is the adjective Johnsonian, with a, the Latin plural, affixed, and signifies Johnsonian things, or anecdotes concerning, or belonging to, Johnson. ANA is principally used in the titles of books that record the memorable sayings of persons of wit and learning, and is similar to what we term Table-talk.

In the English language, the juxtaposition of nouns is, of itself, a sufficient