livered down to him, and what modern Grammarians and Philofophers have adopted *. H. Yes. * "Præpofitio feu adnomen, per fe non fignificat, nifi addatur nomi"nibus."Campanella. "Multas & varias hujus partis orationis definitiones invenio. Et præ " cæteris arridet hæc.-Præpofitio eft vocula: modum quendam nominis adfignificans.". -Caramuel. "Ut omittam Particulas minores, cujufmodi funt Præpofitiones, (onjunctiones, Interjectiones, quæ nullam habent cum nominibus affinitatem.” J. C. Scaliger. de L. L. Cap. cxcII. Even Hoogeveen who clearly faw" Particulas in fua Infantia fuiffe vel verba vel nomina, vel ex nominibus formata adverbia;" yet gives the following account and Definition of them. Primam, ut reliquarum, ita Græcæ quoque linguæ originem fuiffe fimpliciffimam, ipfa natura ac ratio docent, primofque ovoμaberas nomina, quibus res; et verba, quibus actiones exprimerent, non vero Particulas instituisse, probabile eft. Certe, cum ex nominibus et verbis integra conftet oratio, quorum hæc actiones et affectiones, illa perfonas agentes et patientes indicant; Jure quæritur, an primæva lingua habuerit particulas. Non utique, neceffariam, rem exprimendi, vim habere videntur, fed adfcititiam quandam, et fententias per nomina et verba expreffas variandi, stabiliendi, infirmandi, negandi, copulandi, disjungendi, imminuendi, affirmandi, limitandi, multifque modis afficiendi: Ipfæ vero, quatenus particulæ, per fe folæ fpec-. tata, nihil fignificant.— Natura, inquam, ipfa docet, Particulis antiquiora effe nomina et verba, quia, obfervato rerum ordine, neceffe eft, res et actiones prius fuiffe natas et H. Yes. Yes. I know the errors are ancient enough, to have been long ago worn out and discarded. think that any excufe for repeating them. But I do not For a much lefs degree of understanding is neceffary to detect the erroneous principles of others, than to guard against those which may be started for the first time by our own imagination. In these matters it fhews lefs weakness of judgment, because it is more eafy, to deceive ourselves, than to be deceived by others. B. You will do well, Sir, to be particularly mindful of what you said last; and to place your strongest guard there, et expreffas, quam Particulas, quæ has vel conjungunt, vel disjungunt : priora funt jungenda jungentibus, firmanda firmantibus, limitanda limitantibus, et fic deinceps. Neque mea hæc, neque nova eft de particularum minus antiqua origine opinio: fuffragantem habeo Plutarchum ad illam quæftionem, quæ inter Platonicas poftrema eft.-" Cur Plato dixerit ora" tionem ex nominibus et verbis mifceri". Ubi ait-" Probabile effe, "homines ab initio orationem diftinguentium Particularum eguiffe." "Dicamus ergo, Particulam effe voculam, ex nomine vel verbo natam, quæ fententiæ addita, aliquam ipfi paffionem affert, et orationi adminiculo "eft, et officiofa miniftra. Miniftram voco, quia, orationi non inferta, fed: per fe pofita et folitaria, nikil fignificat." where where it may be most wanted: for you fecm fufficiently determined not to be deceived by others. And with this caution, I fhall be glad to hear your account of the Prepofition. Perhaps I fhall fave time, at least I shall fooner fatisfy myself, by asking you a few questions.-Pray how many Prepofitions are there? H. Taking the Philofophy of language as it now stands, your question is a very proper one. And yet you know, that Authors have never hitherto been agreed concerning their number. The ancient Greek Grammarians admitted only eighteen, (fix monofyllables and twelve diffyllables). The ancient Latin Grammarians above fifty *. Though the moderns, Sanctius, Scioppius, Perizonius, Voffius, and others, have endeavoured to leffen the number without fixing it t. Our countryman Wilkins thinks that thirty-fix are fufficient. * Scotus determines them to be forty-nine. † Sanctius fays," Ex numero Præpofitionum, quas Grammatici perti"naciter afferunt; aliquas fuftulimus." "There are thirty-fix Prepofitions which may, with much less equi"vocalness than is found in instituted languages, fuffice to exprefs those "various respects which are to be fignified by this kind of Particle." Part 3. Chap. 3. Girard fays, that the French language has done the business effectually with thirty-two: and that he could not, with the utmost attention, discover any more *. But the authors of the Encyclopedie [Prepofition] though they also, as well as Girard, admit only fimple Prepositions, have found in the fame language, forty-eight. And Buffier gives a lift of feventy-five; and declares that there is a great number befides, which he has not mentioned. The greater part of authors have not ventured even to talk of any particular number: and of those who have, (except in the Greek) no two authors have agreed in the Quoique les rapports determinatifs qu'on peut mettre entre les chofes " foient variés & nombreux; le langage François a trouvé l'art d'en faire "enoncer la multitude & la diverfité des nuances, par un petit nombre de mots car l'examen du detail fait avec toute l'attention dont je fuis capable, " ne m'en offre que trente deux de cette efpéce.-Il m'a paru que les dic"tionaires confondent quelquefois des Adverbes & même des Conjonctions "avec des Prepofitions.-Je ne me fuis jamais permis de ne rien avancer "fans avoir fait un examen profond & rigoreux; me fervant toujours de l'analyse & des regles de la plus exacte Logique pour refoudre mes doutes, " & tacher de prendre la parti le plus vrai. Je ne diffimulerai pourtant pas, que mes fcrupules ont été frequents: mais ma difcuffion a été attentive, & fame language. Nor has any one author attributed the fame number to any two different languages. Now this difcordance has by no means proceeded from any careleffnefs or want of diligence in Grammatifts or Lexicographers: but the truth is, that the fault lies with the Philofophers: for though they have pretended to teach others, they have none of them known themselves what the nature of a Prepofition is. And how is it poffible that Grammarians should agree, what words ought or ought not to be referred to a clafs which was not itself afcertained. Yet had any of the definitions or accounts yet given of the Prepofition and of language been juft, two confequences would immediately have followed; viz. That all men would have certainly known the precife number of Prepositions; and (unless Things, or the operations of the human mind, were different in different ages and climates) their number in all languages must have been always the fame. B. You mean then now at last, I suppose, to fix the number of real Prepofitions in our own, and therefore in all other languages. H. Very |