rassment: for, at one time, a derivation from the Saxon must correct present usage; at another, a more recondite examiner would be able to show, that, in the points contested, neither the Saxon, nor present usage, is consistent with the Gothic or Teutonic, from which the Saxon itself was derived. There would, indeed, be no boundary to these remote and obscure derivations; and we should have no decisions upon which we could rest with satisfaction Etymology, when it is guided by judgment, and proper limits are set to it, certainly merits great attention: it is then highly conducive to perspicuous and accurate language. But the suggestions of fancy, or the far-fetched discoveries of learning, should not be allowed to supersede the dictates of common sense, sound criticism, and rational improvement. Ancient usage is not the test by which the correctness of modern language is to be tried. The origin of things is certainly a proper and gratifying subject of inquiry; and it is particularly curious and pleasing to trace the words of our language to their remote sources. This pleasure should, however, be confined to speculation. It should not lead us to invert the proper order of things, and to determine the propriety of our present words and forms of expression, by the practice of distant, and comparatively rude ages. On the important subject of the standard of language, we concur entirely with the learned and judicious Dr. Campbell, who, in his "Philosophy of Rhetoric," says, "The standard of language, is reputable, national, and present use." In confirmation of our views, in this discussion, we give the following quotation, from the celebrated Walker, author of the "Critical Pronouncing Dictionary." "As our language (says he) has departed from its Saxon parent, in a thousand instances, I know not why we should encumber it, by preserv ing Saxon peculiarities, when such improvements as naturally arise in the cultivation of letters, enable us to class words in a clearer and more analogical manner." The sentiments of the Eclectic Reviewers on the subject in question, are also well worthy of insertion. "What (say they) would have become of the French language, if its grammarians and lexicog raphers had employed their labour and time, in reducing it to the state in which it was left by the Franks, and other barbarous conquerors of ancient Gaul? Yet such appears to us to be the object of several recent treatises on our own lanWe are called to reject the refinements, by which our elegant writers of the last century have recommended the English tongue to universal esteem; and to return to the barbarous phraseology of our Saxon ancestors."* Felectic Review, May, 1908. At the same time that we object to the laws, which the antiquarian in language would impose upon us, we must enter our protest against those authors, who are too fond of innovations and particularly against those ingenious writers on grammar, who wish to alter its long-established terms, and to give many of its parts new definitions, and a new arrangement. These novelties, which we think are so productive of confusion, and so unnecessary, are not likely, in our opinion, to acquire that reputable and general adoption, which is essential to the establishment of literary experiments. On all occasions, they who endeavour to improve our language, should observe a happy medium between too great, and too little reverence for the usages of ancient times. In words, as fashions, the same rule will hold, Be not the first by whom the new are tried, Pope's Essay on Criticism. See the observations on this subject, pages 29, 30, and 58, 59. SECTION II. A sketch of the steps by which the English Language has risen to its present state of refinement. BEFORE We conclude the subject of derivation, it will probably be gratifying to the curious scholar, to be informed of some particulars respecting the origin of the English language, and the various nations to which it is indebted for the copiousness, elegance, and refinement, which it has now attained. "When the ancient Britons were so harassed and oppressed by the invasion of their northern neighbours, the Scots and Picts, that their situation was truly miserable, they sent an embassy (about the middle of the fifth century) to the Saxons, a warlike people inhabiting the north of Germany, with solicitations for speedy relief. The Saxons accordingly came over to Britain, and were successful in repelling the incursions of the Scots and Picts: but seeing the weak and defenceless state of the Britons, they resolved to take advantage of it; and at length established themselves in the greater part of South Britain, after having dispossessed the original inhabitants. From these barbarians, who founded several petty kingdoms in this island, and introduced their own laws, language, and manners, is derived the groundwork of the English language; which, even in its present state of cultivation, and notwithstanding the successive augmentations and improvements, which it has received through various channels, displays very conspicuous traces of its Saxon original. The Saxons did not long remain in quiet possession of the kingdom; for before the middle of the ninth century, the Danes, a hardy and adventurous nation, who had long infested the northern seas with their piracies, began to ravage the English coasts. Their first attempts, were, in general, attended with such success, that they were encouraged to a renewal of their ravages; till, at length, in the beginning of the eleventh century, they made themselves masters of the greater part of England. Though the period, during which these invaders occupied the English throne, was very short, not greatly exceeding half a century, it is highly probable that some change was introduced by them, into the language spoken by those whom they had subdued: but this change cannot be supposed to have been very considerable, as the Danish and Saxon languages arose from one common source, the Gothic being the parent of both. The next conquerers of this kingdom, after the Danes, were the Normans, who, in the year 1066, introduced their leader William, to the possession of the English throne. This prince, soon after his accession, endeavoured to bring his own language (the Norman-French) into use among his new subjects; but his efforts were not very successful, as the Saxons entertained a great antipathy to these haughty foreigners. In process of time, however, many Norman words and phrases were incorporated into the Saxon language: but its general form and construction still remained the same. From the Conquest to the Reformation, the languages continued to receive occasional accessions of foreign words, till it acquired such a degree of expression and strength, as to ren der it susceptible of that polish, which it has received from writers of taste and genius, in the last and present centuries. During this period, the learned have enriched it with many significant expressions, drawn from the treasures of Greek and Roman literature; the ingenious and the fashionable have imported occasional supplies of French, Spanish, Italian, and German words, gleaned during their foreign excursions; and the connexions which we maintain, through the medium of government and commerce, with many remote nations, have made some additions to our native vocabulary. In this manner did the ancient language of the Anglo-Saxons proceed, through the various stages of innovation, and the VOL. I. 20 several gradations of refinement, to the formation of the present English tongue. A language which has been so much indebted to others, both ancient and modern, must of course be very copious and expressive. In these respects, perhaps it may be brought into competition with any now spoken in the world. No Englishman has had reason to complain, since our tongue has reached its present degree of excellence, that his ideas could not be adequately expressed, or clothed in a suitable dress. No author has been under the necessity of writing in a foreign language, on account of its superiority to our own. Whether we open the volumes of our divines, philosophers, historians, or artists, we shall find that they abound with all the terms necessary to communicate their observations and discoveries, and give to their readers the most ample views of their respective subjects. Hence it appears, that our language is sufficient for all topics, and that it can give proper and adequate expression to variety of argument, delicacy of taste, and fervour of genius. That it has suflicient copiousness to communicate to mankind every action, event, invention, and observation, in a full, clear, and elegant manner, may be proved by an appeal to the authors, who are at present held in the greatest esteem.” CHAPTER XII. NUMBER AND VARIETY OF WORDS-THEIR EXSIGNIFICATION-ARBITRARY TENSIVE SIGNS "THOUGH the number of elementary sounds is not great in any language, the variety of possible words, that may be formed by combining them, is, in every tongue, so great, as almost to exceed computation, and much more than sufficient to express "all the varieties of human thought. But the real words, even of the most copious language, may without difficulty be numbered; for a good dictionary comprehends them all, or nearly the whole of them. In the English tongue, after deducting proper names, and the inflections of our verbs and nouns, they do not exceed forty thousand. We must not, however, estimate the number of our ideas, by that of our words: the former being beyond comparison more numerous and diversified than the latter. Many thoughts we express, not by particular terms appropriated to each, but by a periphrasis, or combination of terms, which, under different forms of arrangement and connexion, may be applied to a great variety of different purposes; and many thoughts are communicated in tropes and figures; and many may sometimes be signified by one and the same word. There are few terms in language, that have not more than one meaning; some have several, and some a great number. In how many different ways, and to how many different purposes, may the verbs do, lie, lay, and take, for example, be applied! Johnson's Dictionary will show this, and much more of the same kind; and leave the reader equally astonished at the acuteness of the lexicographer, and at the complex nature and use of certain minute parts of human speech. Even of our prepositions, one has upwards of twelve, one more than twenty, and one not fewer than thirty different meanings. And yet, when we understand a language, we are not sensible of any perplexity arising from these circumstances; all ambiguities of sense, being, in a correct style, prevented by a right arrangement of the words, and other artifices of composition. Words derive their meaning from the consent and practice of those who use them. There is no necessary connexion between words and ideas. The association between the sign and the thing signified, is purely arbitrary. If we were to contrive a new language, we might make any articulate sound the sign of any idea: there would be no impropriety in calling oxen men, or rational beings by the name of oxen. But where a language is already formed, they who speak it must use words in the customary sense. By doing otherwise, they incur the charge, either of affectation, if they mean only to be remarkable, or of falsehood, if they mean to deceive. To speak as others speak, is one of those tacit obligations, annexed to the condition of living in society, which we are bound in conscience to fulfil, though we have never ratified them by any express promise; because, if they were disregarded, society would be impossible, and human happiness at an end. It is true, that, in a book of science founded on definition, words may be used in any sense, provided their meaning be explained. In this case there is no falsehood, because there is no intention to deceive. But, even in this case, if the common analogies of language were violated, the author would be justly blamed, for giving unnecessary trouble to his readers, and for endeavouring capriciously to abrogate a custom, which universal use had rendered more respectable, as well as more convenient, than any other which he could substitute in its room." |