amabo. It is obvious, that a language, like the Greek and Latin, which can thus comprehend in one word the meaning of two or three words, must have some advantages over those which are not so comprehensive. Perhaps, indeed, it may not be more perspicuous; but in the arrangement of words, and consequently in harmony and energy, as well as in conciseness, it may be much more elegant.

SECTION 12.

Theory respecting the Inflections of language.

In our modern verbs and nouns, says Dr. Beattie, the variety of auxiliary words, is much greater than in the language of Greece or Rome. The northern nations, who overturned the Roman empire, and established themselves in the conquered provinces, being an unlettered race of men, would not take the trouble, either to impart their own language to the Romans, or to learn theirs with any degree of exactness: but, blending words and idioms of their own with Latin words inaccurately acquired, or imperfectly remembered, and finding it too great a labour to master all the inflections of that language, fell upon a simpler, though less elegant, artifice, of supplying the place of cases, moods, and tenses, with one or more auxiliary words, joined to nouns, verbs, and participles. And hence, in the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and French languages, the greater part of the words are Latin; (for the conquered were more in number than the conquerors ;) but so disguised are those words, by the mixture of northern idioms, and by the slovenly expedient now hinted at, as to have become at once like the Latin, and very different from it.-The ancient Greek, compared with the modern, is found to have undergone alterations somewhat similar, but not so

great. For with the northern invaders the Greeks were never so thoroughly incorporated, as were the Europeans of the West: and, when conquered by the Turks, they maintained their religion, and so preserved their language from total depravation, though they could not prevent its debasement.

On many topics, it is easier to propose than to solve difficulties; and to ask questions, than to answer them. What is hinted in the last paragraph, may be thought to account for the multitude of auxiliary words that belong to the verbs and nouns of modern Europe. But, for the multitude of Inflections, that are found in the nouns and verbs of the ancient languages, how are we to account? Why did not the Greeks and Romans abound in auxiliary words as much as we?

Was it because their languages, like regular towns and fortifications, were made by men of learning; who planned them before they existed, with a view to the renown of the poets, philosophers, and orators, who were to compose in them, as well as to the convenience of the people, who were to speak them: while the modern tongues, like poor villages that extend their bounds irregularly, are the rude work of a barbarous people, who, without looking before or behind them, on the right hand, or on the left, threw their coarse materials together, with no other view, than just to answer the exigency of the present hour?-This theory is agreeable to the ideas of some learned authors. But if we pay any regard to history, or believe that human exertions are proportioned to human abilities, and that the Greeks and Romans were like other men, we cannot acquiesce in it.

They who first spoke Greek and Latin were certainly not less ignorant, nor less savage, than were those moderns, among whom arose the Italian, the Spanish, the French, and the English languages. If these last

were formed gradually, and without plan or method, why should we believe, that the Classic tongues were otherwise formed? Are they more regular than the modern? In some respects they may be so; and it is allowed that they are more elegant: for, of two towns that are built without a plan, it is not difficult to imagine, that the one may be more convenient and more beautiful than the other. But every polite tongue has its own rules; and the English that is according to rule, is not less regular than the Greek that is according to rule; and a deviation from the established use of the language, is as much an irregularity in the one as in the other: nor are the modes of the Greek tongue more uniform in Xenophon and Plato, or of the Latin in Cicero and Cæsar, than those of the English are in Addison and Swift, or those of the French in Rollin, Vertot, and Fenelon.

But why should the Inflections of language be considered, as a proof of refinement and art, and the substitution of auxiliary words, as the work of chance and of barbarism? Nay, what evidence can be brought to show, that the Inflections of the Classic tongues were not originally formed out of obsolete auxiliary words prefixed, or subjoined, to nouns and verbs, or otherwise incorporated with their radical letters? Some learned men are of opinion, that this was actually the case. And though the matter does not now admit of a direct proof, the analogy of other languages, ancient as well as modern, gives plausibility to the conjecture.

The inflections of Hebrew nouns and verbs may, upon this principle, be accounted for. The cases of the former, are marked by a change made in the beginning of the word; and this change is nothing more than a contracted preposition prefixed, answering to the English of, to, from as if, instead of animal, of animal, to animal, from animal, we were to pronounce and write animal, fanimal, tanimal, franimal; which, if we were ac

customed to speak so, would be as intelligible to us, as animal, animalis, animali, were to the Romans.Of the Hebrew verb, in like manner, the persons are marked by contracted pronouns subjoined or prefixed to the radical letters. Thus, masar, he delivered; masartha, thou deliveredst, from masar, the root, and atha, thou; masarthi, I delivered, from masar, and aothi, me, &c. And in Erse, a very ancient species of Celtic, most of the inflections of the nouns and verbs may, if I am not misinformed, be analysed in a way

somewhat similar.

If the English, and other modern tongues, had been spoken for ages before they were written, (which we have reason to think was the case with the Greek and Latin,) it is probable that many of our auxiliaries would have been shortened and softened; and at length incorporated with the radical words, so as to assume the form of initial or final inflections. For it is while they are only spoken and not written, that languages are most liable to alterations of this kind; as they become, in some degree, stationary from the time they begin to be visible in writing. But we know that writing was practised in many, and perhaps in most European nations, previously to the very existence of the modern languages: from which we may infer, that attempts would be made to write those languages almost as soon as to speak them. And if thus our auxiliary words were kept dintinct in the beginning, and marked as such by our first writers, it is no wonder that they should have remained distinct ever since.

1

Had the Greek and Latin tongues been ascertained by writing, at as early a period of their existence, their fate would perhaps have been similar; and their inflections might now, like those of the Hebrew, have been easily analysed; and found to be auxiliary words shortened and softened by colloquial use, and gradually

incorporated with the radical part of the original nouns and verbs. But it was the misfortune of the modern languages, (if it can be called a misfortune,) that their form was, in some measure, fixed before it became so complete as it might have been; that without passing through the intermediate stages of childhood and youth, they rose at once (if I may so speak) from infancy to premature manhood: and in regard to the Classic tongues, it was a fortunate circumstance, that their growth advanced more gradually, and that their form was not established by writing, till after it had been variously rounded and moulded by the casual pronunciation of successive ages. Hence, if there be any truth in these conjectures, (for they lay claim to no higher character,) it will follow that the Greek and Latin tongues are for this reason peculiarly elegant, because they who first spoke them were long in a savage state; and that the modern languages are for this reason less elegant, because the nations among whom they took their rise, were not savage. This looks very like a paradox. And yet, is it not more probable, than any thing which can be advanced in favour of that contrary supposition, adopted by some learned men, that the Classic tongues were planned by philosophers, and the modern languages jumbled rudely into form by barbarians?

The preceding theory of Dr. Beattie, though modestly offered by him as conjecture only, appears to be well founded, and entitled to considerable respect and attention. It is a curious discussion; and well adapted to lead the student to critical reflections, and to further inquiries, respecting the nature and origin of the Inflections of language.