Page images

the others could not be used. It is, moreover, by means of these, and of articles, which are nearly allied to them, that “ language, though in itself only significant of general ideas, is brought down to denote that infinitude of particulars which are for ever arising, and ceasing to be.” But more of this hereafter, in a proper place.

As to the three orders of pronouns already mentioned, they may be called prepositive, as may, indeed, all substantives, because they are capable of introducing or leading a sentence, without having reference to any thing previous. But besides those there is another pronoun, (in Greek òs, őOTISC in Latin, Qui ; in English, Who, Which, That,) a pronoun having a character peculiar to itself, the nature of which may be explained as follows.

Suppose I was to say, “Light is a body, Light moves with great celerity.” These would apparently be two distinct sentences. Suppose, instead of the second light, I were to place the prepositive pronoun it, and say, Light is a body; it moves with great celerity; the sentences would still be distinct and two. But if I add a connective, (as for example an and,) saying, Light is a body, and it moves with great celerity; I then by connexion make the two into one, as by cementing many stones I make one wall.

Now it is in the united powers of a connective and another pronoun, that we may see the force and character of the pronoun here treated. Thus, therefore, if in the place of and it, we substitute that, or which, saying Light is a body, which moves with great celerity; the sentence still retains its unity and perfection, and becomes if possible more compact than before. We may, with just reason, therefore, call this pronoun the subjunctive, because it cannot (like the prepositive) introduce an original sentence, but only serves to subjoin one to some other which is previous."

duced together, and made to cooperate to © The Greeks, it must be confessed, call the same end.

this pronoun υποτακτικόν άρθρον, “the subSometimes, by virtue of deitis, the pro- junctive article.” Yet, as it should seem, noun of the third person stands for the this is but an improper appellation. A polfirst.

lonius, when he compares it to the apotakQuod si militibus parces, erit hic quoque Tikdv, or true “prepositive article,” not only Miles.

confesses it to differ, as being expressed by That is, “ I also will be a soldier."

a different word, and having a different Tibul. 1. ii. el. 6. v. 7. See Vulpius. place in every sentence ; but in syntax, he It may be observed, too, that even in adds, it is wholly different. De Syntax, l. i. epistolary correspondence, and indeed in c. 43. p. 9). Theodore Gaza acknowledges all kinds of writing, where the pronouns I the same, and therefore adds, 80ev on kal and you make their appearance, there is a o kupíws av ein ápopov tautí: “for these sort of implied presence, which they are reasons this (meaning the subjunctive) cansupposed to indicate, though the parties are, not properly be an article." And just before in fact, at ever so grea

a distance. And he says, κυρίως γε μην άρθρον το προτακhence the rise of that distinction in Apol- TIKÓV: “ however, properly speaking, it is lonius, tàs mer twy opewv elvai deittis, the prepositive is the article.” Gram. τάς δε του νου, “ that some indications are Introd. I. iv. The Latins, therefore, have ocular, and some are niental.” De Syntaxi, undoubtedly done better in ranging it with 104,

the pronouns.

Lii. c. 3.

The application of this subjunctive, like the other pronouns, is universal. It may be the substitute of all kinds of substantives, natural, artificial, or abstract; as well as general, special, or particular. We may say, the animal, which, &c.; the man, whom, &c.; the ship, which, &c.; Alexander, who, &c.; Bucephalus, that, &c.; virtue, which, &c. &c.

Nay, it may even be the substitute of all the other pronouns, and is of course, therefore, expressive of all three


Thus we say, I, who now read, have near finished this chapter; thou, who now readest; he, who now readeth, &c. &c.

And thus is this subjunctive truly a pronoun from its substitution, there being no substantive existing, in whose place it may not stand. At the same time, it is essentially distinguished from the other pronouns by this peculiar, that it is not only a substitute, but withal a connective.

Hence we see why the pronoun here cedent noun, which is capable of being apmentioned is always necessarily the part of plied to many subjects, and by connecting some complex sentence, which sentence to it a new sentence, of necessity assumes contains, either expressed or understood, a new verb also. And hence it is that the two verbs and two nominatives.

words, the gramınarian came, who disThus in that verse of Horace,

coursed,' form in power nearly the same Qui metuens vivit, liber mihi non erit sentence, as if we were to say, 'the gramunquam.

marian came, and discoursed."" Apoll. de Ile non erit liber is one sentence, qui me- Syntaxi, 1. i. c. 43. p. 92. See also an intuens vivit is another. Ille and qui are genious French treatise, called Grammaire the two nominatives, erit and vivit the two Generale et Raisonnée, c. 9. verbs, and so in all other instances.

The Latins, in their structure of this The following passage from Apollonius subjunctive, seem to have well represented (though somewhat corrupt in more places its compound nature of part pronoun and than one) will serve to shew whence the part connective, in forming their qui and above speculations are taken. TO ÚROTAKTI- quis from que and is, or (if we go with κόν άρθρον επί δημα ίδιον φέρεται, συνδε- Scaliger to the Greek) from και and oς, deuévov od rîs åvapopas To TPOKEZuévy Kal and d. Scal. de Caus. Ling. Lat. c. 127. ονόματι και εντεύθεν απλούν λόγον ου Homer also expresses the force of this Traplotável kard Thu dúo Amudtwy subjunctive, pronoun or article, by help of σύνταξιν (λέγω την εν τω ονόματι, και the prepositive and a connective, exactly την εν αυτώ τω άρθρω) όπερ πάλιν παρεί- consonant to the theory here established. πετο τα ΚΑΙ συνδέσμο. Κοινόν μέν (lege See Iliad, Λ. ver. 270, 553. Ν. 571. Π. 54, TO KAI γάρ κοινόν μεν) παρελάμβανε το 157, 158. όνομα το προκείμενον, σύμπλεκον δε έτερον e Before we quit this subject, it may not λόγον πάντως και έτερον δήμα παρελάμ- be improper to remark, that in the Greek βανε, και ούτω το, παρεγένετο ο γραμματι- and Latin tongues the two principal prokds, ds diedegdto, duvduel toy airdy dro- nouns, that is to say, the first and second τελεί τού (fors, τω) και γραμματικός παρε- person, the ego and the to, are implied in γένετο, και διελεξάτο. “ The subjunctive the very form of the verb itself, ypáow, article (that is, the pronoun here men- ypápers, scribo, scribis,) and are for that tioned) is applied to a verb of its own, and reason never expressed, unless it be to mark yet is connected withal to the antecedent a contradistinction ; such as in Virgil,

Hence it can never serve to con- Nos patriam fugimus ; tu, Tityre, lentus stitute a simple sentence, by reason of the in umbra syntax of the two verbs; I mean, that which Formosam resonare doces, &c. respects the noun or antecedent, and that This, however, is true with respect only to which respects the article or relative. The the casus rectus, or nominitive of these prosame, too, follows as to the conjunction nouns, but not with respect to their oblique and. This copulative assumes the ante- cases, which must always be added, because


And now to conclude what we have said concerning substantives. All substantives are either primary or secondary ; that is to say, according to a language more familiar and known, are either nouns or pronouns. The nouns denote substances, and those either natural, artificial, or abstract. They moreover denote things either general, or special, or particular. The pronouns, their substitutes, are either prepositive or subjunctive. The prepositive is distinguished into three orders, called the first, the second, and the third person. The subjunctive includes the powers of all those three, having superadded, as of its own, the peculiar force of a connective.

Having done with substantives, we now proceed to attributives.



ATTRIBUTIVES are all those principal words, that denote attributes, considered as attributes. Such, for example, are the words black, white, great, little, wise, eloquent, writeth, wrote, writing, &c.3 though we see the ego in amo, and the tu quired the name of dykArtikal, that is, “leanin amas, we see not the te or me in amating or inclining pronouns." The Greeks, or amant.

too, had in the first person, tuoù, èuol, čuè, Yet even these oblique cases appear in a for contradistinctives, and you, uol, uè, for different manner, according as they mark enclitics. And hence it was that Apolcontradistinction, or not. If they contra- lonius contended, that in the passage above distinguish, then are they commonly placed quoted from the first Iliad, we should read at the beginning of the sentence, or at least taida 8' èuol, for waida uol, on account before the verb, or leading substantive. of the contradistinction which there occurs Thus Virgil:

between the Grecians and Chryses. See Quid Thesea, magnum Apoll. de Syntaxi, l. i. c. 3. p. 20; 1. ii. c. Quid memorem Alciden? Et mi genus ab 2. p. 102, 103. Jove summo.

This diversity between the contradisThus Homer:

tinctive pronouns and the enclitic, is not Υμν μέν θεοί δoιεν .

unknown even to the English tongue. Παιδα δέ ΜΟΙ λύσατε φίλην. . 'IA. A. When we say, Give me content, the me in Where the tuin and the wol stand, as con- this case is a perfect enclitic. But when we tradistinguished, and both have precedence say, Give me content, Give him his thouof their respective verbs, the juiv even sands, the me and him are no enclitics, leading the whole sentence. In other in- but as they stand in opposition, assume an stances, these pronouns commonly take their accent of their own, and so become the true place behind the verb, as may be seen in opdotovovuéval. examples everywhere obvious. The Greek, See before, p. 128. language went further still. When the & In the above list of words are included oblique case of these pronouns happened to what grammarians called adjectives, verbs, contradistinguish, they assumed a peculiar and participles, inasmuch as all of them accent of their own, which gave them the equally denote the attributes of substance. τιame of ορθοτονουμέναι, or pronouns up- Hence it is, that as they are all from their rightly accented.” When they marked no very nature the predicates in a proposition, such opposition, they not only took their (being all predicated of some subject or sub place behind the verb, but even gave it stance, Snow is white, Cicero writeth, &c.) their accent, and (as it were) inclined hence I say the appellation pñua or verb is themselves upon it. And hence they ac- employed by logicians in an extended sense to denote them all. Thus Ammonius, ex- casion, is very pertinent to the present plaining the reason why Aristotle in his Non declinatio, sed proprietas excutienda tract De Interpretatione calls devkds a est significationis. Lib. ii. p. 576. And in verb, tells us, não ay pwvhu, katnyopot- another place he says, Non similitudo de μενον όρον εν προτασει ποιούσαν, ρήμα clinationis omnimodo conjungit vel discernit Kansio tai, “ that every sound articulate, partes orationis inter se, sed vis ipsius sigthat forms the predicate in a proposition, is nificationis. Lib. xiii. p. 970. called a verb," p. 24. edit. Ven. Priscian's See Metaphys. Aristot. I. 8. c. 7. edit observation, though made on another oc- Du-Vall.

However, previously to these, and to every other possible attribute, whatever a thing may be, whether black or white, square or round, wise or eloquent, writing or thinking, it must first of necessity exist, before it can possibly be any thing else. For existence may be considered as an universal genus, to which all things of all kinds are at all times to be referred. The verbs, therefore, which denote it, claim precedence of all others, as being essential to the very being of every proposition, in which they may still be found, either expressed, or by implication; expressed, as when we say, The sun is bright ; by implication, as when we say, The sun rises, which means, when resolved, The sun is rising."

The verbs, is, groweth, becometh, est, fit, úzápxel ésti, πέλει, γίγνεται, are all of them used to express this general genus. The Latins have called them verba substantica," verbs substantive,” but the Greeks öňuata útrapktikà, “ verbs of existence ;” a name more apt, as being of greater latitude, and comprehending equally as well attribute, as substance. The principal of those verbs, and which we shall particularly here consider, is the verb éoti, est, is.

Now all existence is either absolute or qualified: absolute, as when we say, B is; qualified, as when we say, B is an animal ; B is black, is round, &c.

With respect to this difference, the verb is can by itself express absolute existence, but never the qualified, without subjoining the particular form, because the forms of existence being in number infinite, if the particular form be not expressed, we cannot know which is intended. And hence it follows, that when is only serves to subjoin some such form, it has little more force than that of a mere assertion. It is under the same character, that it becomes a latent part in every other verb, by expressing that assertion which is one of their essentials. Thus, as was observed just before, riseth means, is rising ; writeth, is writing.

Again : as to existence in general, it is either mutable, or immutable: mutable, as in the objects of sensation; immutable, as in the objects of intellection and science. Now mutable objects exist all in time, and admit the several distinctions of present, past, and future. But immutable objects know no such distinctions, but rather stand opposed to all things temporary.

And hence two different significations of the substantive verb is, according as it denotes mutable, or immutable being.

For example, if we say, This orange is ripe, is meaneth, that it existeth so now at this present, in opposition to past time, when it was green, and to future time, when it will be rotten.

But if we say, The diameter of the square is incommensurable with its side, we do not intend by is, that it is incommensurable now, having been formerly commensurable, or being to become so hereafter; on the contrary, we intend that perfection of existence to which time and its distinctions are utterly unknown. It is under the same meaning we employ this verb, when we say, Truth is, or, God is. The opposition is not of time present to other times, but of necessary existence to all temporary existence whatever. And so much for verbs of existence, commonly called verbs substantive.

We are now to descend to the common herd of attributives, such as black and white, to write, to speak, to walk, &c.; among which, when compared and opposed to each other, one of the most eminent distinctions appears to be this. Some, by being joined to a proper substantive, make, without further help, a perfect assertive sentence; while the rest, though otherwise perfect, are in this respect deficient.

To explain by an example. When we say, Cicero eloquent, Cicero wise, these are imperfect sentences, though they denote a substance and an attribute. The reason is, that they want an assertion, to shew that such attribute appertains to such substance. We must therefore call in the help of an assertion elsewhere, an is, or a was, to complete the sentence, saying, Cicero is wise, Cicero was eloquent. On the contrary, when we say, Cicero writeth, Cicero walketh, in instances like these there is no such occasion, because the words writeth and walketh imply in their own form not an attribute only, but an assertion likewise. Hence it is they may be resolved, the one into is and writing, the other into is and walking.

Now all those attributives which have this complex power of denoting both an attribute and an assertion, make that species of words which grammarians call verbs. If we resolve this complex power into its distinct parts, and take the attribute alone without the assertion, then have we participles. All other attributives, besides the two species before, are included together in the general name of adjectives.

Cum enim dicimus, Deus est, non eum significat, tale est, tanquam si dicamus, dicimus nunc esse, sed tantum in substan- nunc est. Quare cum dicimus esse, ut tia esse, ut hoc ad immutabilitatem potius substantiam designemus, simpliciter est adsubstantiæ, quam ad tempus aliquod refer- dimus ; cum vero ita ut aliquid præsens atur. Si autem dicimus, dies est, ad nullam significetur, secundum tempus. Boeth, in diei substantiam pertinet, nisi tantum ad lib. de Interpr. p. 307. See also Plat. Tim. temporis constitutionem ; hoc enim, quod p. 37, 38. edit. Serrani.

« PreviousContinue »