tiple extends both to the definite and the indefinite article*;—that its DESIGN, USE, and OFFICE, are to shew that the things signified by the words to which it is prefixed (or, it may be, affixed, which is the case in some languages †) are not to be understood absolutely and independently, in the way in which we speak of them when we mention them by their bare names without an article, but relatively to some other things among which they are numbered and made either definite or indefinite, according to the particular article used ;-that it always shews this, uniformly and invariably, in every instance in which it occurs || ; — that it never shews any thing more than this; never shews how, or in what way, or to what extent, or among what other things, the thing mentioned is definite or indefinite; always leaving that to be determined by the nature and circumstances of the case, in which respect it differs materially from the demonstrative and from every other definitive word, all of which not only shew that the thing mentioned is definite, but declare more or less of the way in which it is so §;—that it may be applied *See Rev. Vol. lxii. p. 280. to + In the Chaldee and Syriac among the antient, and the Swedish and Basque, or dialect spoken in the neighbourhood of the Pyrenees, among the modern languages. (See Beauzée Gram. Générale, Vol. i. p. 313.) Even in the Greek, the article sometimes follows the noun, though it is not actually affixed to it. Thus we have in Homer, ἡμαλι των II. ii. 351.743-iii. 189.-v. 210.-vi. 345.-viii. 475.— xi. 444. and xiii. 234.—Toλ εğaλamağaı τm. Il. iv. 41. and 42. on which see Clarke's note, and compare our note (* p. 176. of our last Number) on the word some. Θεαων ταων. Π. ν. 331 and 332. Mνης ηe Twv. Odys. i. 116. In Pindar, TOTIS & Peas. Ol. ii. 140.—In Anaereon, xala xuga Tny Bowls, Od. iii. 1. 3. Hence it appears that no impropriety can be alleged against calling the article prepositive, because, as we here see, it is occasionally subjunctive. Indeed, as the Greeks have only one article in their language, we need not give that article any discriminative epithet: even the epithet definitive, though just, is useless and unnecessary. See Rev. Vol. Ixii. pp. 278. 280. 281-284. and 395, 396. See our remarks in refutation of Dr, Middleton's multifarious canons, reasons, or causes for the insertion and omission of the article, and of Mr. Veysie's demonstrative principle, and his different cases, in Rev. Vol. lxii. pp. 146-151. 159-165. 266-276. 395, 396 in. our last Number, p.166-178; and in the present Number, p. 273, 274. 279-282, and 282-285. In Vol. lxii. p. 280, we have said that the indefinite article always numbers the noun in its own class. On reconsidering the matter, however, we think that an exception must be made of one case, viz. of that in which the noun signifies any thing that is monadic, or that to all words, because no word, however definite or indefinite it may be in itself, is of such a nature that the thing signified by it cannot be numbered definitely or indefinitely among other things * ;that its UTILITY consists in its simplicity, its unbounded scope, and its conciseness, by which it enables us to ex is considered as monadic, in its own class. Thus, when we say, "If there be a God, he will assuredly reward the good and punish the wicked," a God, in this expression, is not understood to mean one among the number of Gods, but one among the number of Beings; and the hypothesis is, if there be such a Being. So again in the expression, "How glorious it is to behold a sun rise and set!" a sun does not mean one among other suns, but one among other objects of sight, or simply and more generally one among other things, such a thing as a sun. These nouns, then, though both indefinite, are numbered each out of its own class. Agreeably to what is here stated, therefore, if the word Mars be monadic, (which we believe most persons now consider it as being, though in antient mythology we find scarcely any deity without his namesake,) "a Mars" must mean an indefinite character, and not an indefinite Mars, as we supposed in Vol. lxii. p. 395.; and the difference in the meaning of the two expressions, "Thou art a Mars of malcontents," and "Thou art the Mars of malcontents," will be this, that the latter will denote a definite character described by a word (Mars,) which must here be supposed to describe no other character than the one in question, because, if it did, that character would not be definite; and the former will denote an indefinite character described by the same word, (Mars,) which here may, or may not, as it happens, describe other characters than the one in question, because that character is indefinite. Whether a descriptive word thus used with the indefinite article actually does, or does not, describe other characters besides the one in question, depends on the nature of that word, and on other circumstances of the case. In the example produced above, where God was the descriptive word, it cannot, according to the Christian ideas, describe any other Being than the one to whom it is applied. In the example in which Mars is the descriptive word, that word is not, though it might be, applied to any other character than the one mentioned; and in the following example from Prior's parody of Boileau's Ode on the taking of Namur, the descriptive word Hercules not only may be, but is in fact, applied to many characters besides the individual who is the nominative to the singular verb: "Each was a Hercules, you tell us." It is applied to every soldier in the garrison. Thus it appears that it is by the nature and circumstances of the case that we must judge whether a noun be numbered in or out of its own class, not only when the article is definite, but when it is indefinite likewise; the latter article never shewing any thing more than that the noun is numbered indefinitely, as the former never shews any thing more than that it is numbered definitely. See our observations, pp. 276-279. of this Number. press press our ideas on an infinite variety of occasions, in many of them with great beauty, and in all of them with sufficient precision to make ourselves clearly understood without multiplying names and descriptions, not only in cases in which we do not want to discriminate between individuals having many properties in common (to prevent which multiplication is the use of genus and species,) but in cases likewise in which we do want to make such discrimination; which we can often do so as to answer all our purposes, and sometimes so as to save a tedious circumlocution, by merely declaring whether, in the given circumstances, we understand the thing mentioned definitely or indefinitely* ;- and lastly, that its nature, its principle, its design and office, its uniformity, its simplicity, its range, its application, and its utility, are the SAME IN ALL LANGUAGES in which it exists t And * See Rev. Vol. Ixii. pp. 279, 280. 281-284, and our last Number, note * pp. 170-173, and p. 173, 174. + See Rev. Vol. lxii. p. 159. and also p. 163, 164. of our last Number. [See this mark of reference to this note in note* p.168. of our last Review.] We know not any language except the English, which has an indefinite article, properly so called; that is, which has a separate word appropriated to this purpose without being applied to any other. The Arabians, however, in their Nunnation, have a contrivance which appears to us to have been invented originally to supply the place of an indefinite article. The vowel-termination Damma seems to have been intended to express the thing signified by the noun in the nomi native case, absolutely; and the Nunnation, or, as the Arabians call it, Tanuino, (i.e. the little Nun, from Nuin the diminutive of the letter Nun, with the inseparable particle Ta prefixed; which prefix is probably nothing more than the last letter of the Hebrew particle N, the original perhaps of the Greek and the English the see Rev. Vol. lxii. p. 283. and the latter half of note p. 167. of our last Number) seems to have been added to express the same thing inde finitely. Thus, we think, j was originally designed by the Arabian Masorites (if we may so call the inventors of their vowel points to express man absolutely; and express a man indefinitely whence we see a reason for their dropping the Nunnation whenever they prefix the definite article to the word, or make it de finite in any other way; and for their saying the man, God's servant, &c. without the Nunnation. And now we most sincerely hope, as we doubt not that our readers hope also, that the Land of Articles, like the Land of Promise, may have "rest for forty years,”—at least. * A few This contrivance, supposing it to be rightly represented, possesses an advantage, in one respect, over our indefinite article; viz. that the Nunnation is annexed alike both to plural and to singular nouns, and serves to mark the indefiniteness of the former as well as of the latter, whereas our indefinite article is confined to nouns in the singular number. This restriction probably originated in our indefinite article having been derived from the Saxon numeral for one; independ ently of which circumstance, and of custom, which has given its sanction to the restriction, there seems to be no more reason for confining the indefinite than for confining the definite article to nouns in the singular number. The word some, which we use to denote the indefiniteness of plural nouns, is not so well adapted to the purpose as the article would be; because, being more specific, and marking not only the indefiniteness of the nouns, but, as appears from what we have said of the word, (see note* p. 176, 177. last Review,) also pointing out the particular mode and manner of that indefiniteness, it is not so completely indefinite as a mere article, and its application therefore is less general and less extensive. None of the Arabic grammars that we have seen give the foregoing explanation of the Nunnation: but we invite those who are conversant with the language, to consider whether it has not a solid foundation in the nature of Arabic punctuation. If it has, it ought, in future, to be noticed in the grammars. In most of the languages of modern Europe, the same word is employed to denote the numeral one and the indefinite article a; in consequence of which, those languages are, in this instance, exposed to all the ambiguity which arises from using one word in a variety of senses, and to other inconveniences. (See Rev. Vol. Ix. p. 283. note, and also note* page 168 of our last Number.) In English, o ambiguity occurs whether we say, "There is a God," or "There is one God:" every reader understands the first as a decla ration of the existence, and the second as a declaration of the unity, of the Deity-but, in French, if we say "Il y a un Dieu,” the double meaning of un renders it doubtful which of the two declarations is intended; and if we say Ti n'y a qu'un Dieu," a doubt still remains, from the same cause, whether we mean to assert the unity of the Deity, or the proposition that there is but a God," or, in other words, the tenet of " seeing God in all things;" which come enthusiasts have carried to such a pitch of extravagance as to deify every object around them. Custom, it may be said, has appropri ated the first of these French expressions to signify the existence, and the second to signify the unity of God. True: but this shews that the ambiguity of the word in subjects us to the necessity of learning a particular, singular, and arbitrary castom in addition to the general import and meaning of the words of the language, before we can under- · stand the phrases in question; and if these particular customs were REV. MARCH, 1812. but A few errors of the Press escaped correction in the beginning of this article, in our last Number, viz. P. 170, note, 1. 23. the final letters of the second and fourth words of the Arabic quotation should have been in each case a Lam instead of a Dal. — In P. 175. l. 15. from bott. for 1752, read 1572; 1. 11. from bott. for av, read μuwva; and last line but one, fornor,' read or: the word either being understood.-P. 178. 1. 4. for nor,' read not. ART. but sufficiently multiplied, they would reduce all alphabetical writing to a level with the arbitrary notation of the Chinese; so that the whole of a man's life would not enable him to acquire a tolerable, knowlege of his own language. Notwithstanding this, Mons. Beauzée could not see the difference between the numerical use of the word un in the phrase Il n'y a qu'un Dieu, and its articular use in the phrase, Un sujet doit obéir à son prince." Je ne conçois pas comment un ne marque pas toujours un," says he in his Grammaire générale. (Vol. i. p. 390. 8vo. 1767.) He had said just before (p. 386.) that the French word son has three different meanings; that it signifies his, and sound, and bran. Had any one here retorted on him, "Je ne conçois pas comment son né marque pas toujours son," we think that, if the retort had not shewn him the difference between the numeral un and the article un, and the weakness of his reasoning (p. 391.) to prove their identity, it would at least have convinced him that there was no great wisdom in his sage remark. Du Marsais has collected several instances (which may be seen at P. 350. of the second part of his Logique et principes de Grammaire, printed in two vols. 12mo. Paris, 1769, after his death, or better and more accurately cited in the Encyclopédie, p. 726. col. 2. Vol. i. Paris, 1751, fol. published in his life-time,) in which he thinks that the Latins have used their word unus in the sense of the French un, when it corresponds to our indefinite article:-but, in all of these, something more is intended by unus than is expressed by the article a, or the French un. The Latin word is designed to convey an idea either of unity, singularity, certainty, or uniformity, or of something remarkable, extraordinary, or gnique in its kind; to which if the reader does not attend he loses a part of the writer's meaning. It denotes something much more definite than the article a does, and comes nearer to the English expression, the one.' Similar instances might be collected from the Greek; such, for example, as ushio iv, (Matth. v. ·41.) Juxny pixv, (Id. xxi. 19.) pix Tan, (Id. xxvi. 69.) adagio év, (John vi. 9.) T, (James iv. 13.) o: ayyss, (or as, as Griesbach has it, Rev. viii. 13.) Φωνήν μία», (Ib. ix. 13.) εις αγγελος, (Ib. xviii. 21.) ένα αγγελον, (Ib. xix. 17.) in all of which our translators have rendered the numeral by the indefinite article. In the following passages, is expprios, (Matth. viii. 19.) and x xnga, (Mark xii. 42.) they have translated it "a certain," which would have better suited some of the former instances, |