the other parts of Speech, by the help of the particular etymology of each refpective language. By fuch means alone can we clear away the obscurity and errors in which Grammarians and Philosophers have been involved by the corruption of fome common words, and the useful Abbreviations of Conftruction. And at the fame time we shall get rid of that farrago of useless distinctions into Conjunctive, Adjunctive, Disjunctive, Subdisjunctive, Copulative, Negative copulative *, Continuative, Subcontinuative, Pofitive, Suppofitive, Cafual, Collective, Effective, Approbative, Difcretive, Ablative, Prefumptive, Abnegative, Completive, Augmentative, Alternative, Hypothetical, Extenfive, Periodical, Motival, Conclufive, Explicative, Tranfitive, Interrogative, Comparative, Diminutive, Preventive, Adequate Preventive, Adverfative, Conditional, Sufpenfive, Illative, Conductive, Declarative, &c. &c. &c. which explain nothing; and (as most other technical terms aré abused) serve only to throw a veil over the ignorance of those who employ them t.. Non, Non, non minus disjungit, quam Nec, Nec. Quanquam neu"trum ego Disjunctivum appello, fed copulatibum potius negativum." Ariftarchus Anti-Bentleianus. Pars fecunda. Pag. 12.. † Technical terms are not invariably abused to cover the ignorance only of those who employ them. In matters of law, politicks, and Government, they are more frequently abused in attempting to impose upon the ignorance of others; and to cover the injustice and knavery of those who employ them. B. You B. You mean, then, by what you have faid, flatly to contradict Mr. Harris's definition of a Conjunction; which he says, is—“ a Part of Speech devoid of fignification itself, "but fo formed as to help fignification, by making two or "more fignificant fentences to be one fignificant fentence." H. I have the lefs fcruple to do that, because Mr. Harris makes no fcruple to contradict himself. For he afterwards acknowledges that fome of them" have a kind of ob"fcure fignification when taken alone; and appear in "Grammar, like Zoophytes in nature, a kind of middle "Beings of amphibious character; which, by sharing the "attributes of the higher and the lower, conduce to link "the whole together." Now I suppose it is impoffible to convey a Nothing in a more ingenious manner. How much fuperior is this to * These Zoophytes have made a wonderful impreffion on Lord Monboddo. I believe (for I furely have not counted them) that he has used the allufion at least twenty times in his progrefs of language; and feems to be always hunting after extremes merely for the fake of introducing them. But they have been so often placed between two ftools, that it is no wonder they hould at last come to the ground. the oracular Saw of another learned author on Language (typified by Shakespeare in Sir Topaz *) who, amongst much other intelligence of equal importance, tells us with a very folemn face, and afcribes it to Plato, that—" Every "man that opines, muft opine fomething: the subject of opinion therefore is not nothing." But the fairest way to Lord Monboddo is to give you the whole paffage. "It was not therefore without reafon that Plato faid that the fubject of opinion was neither the rod, or the "thing itself, nor was it the Toun ov, or nothing; but "fomething betwixt these two. This may appear at first "fight a little mysterious, and difficult to be understood; but, like other things of that kind in Plato, when "examined to the bottom, it has a very clear meaning, and "As *« As the old Hermit of Prague, that never faw pen and ink, very "wittily faid to a niece of king Gorbodúc,-That that is, is: So I being "Mafter Parfon, am Mafter Parfon. For what is that, but that? And is, "*. but is ?" Twelfth Night, A&t IV. Scene 3. John Lily's Sir Tophas monboddizes in the fame manner. "Sir Tophas. Why foole, a poet is as much as one fhould fay-a poet." Endimion, Act I. Scene 3.1 explains "explains the nature of opinion very well*: FOR, as he " fays, Every man that opines, must opine fomething; "the subject of opinion therefore is not nothing. At the "fame time it is not the thing itself, but something be"twixt the two †.” His Lordship, you fee, has explained it * Lucinde. Qu'eft ce que c'eft que ce galimatias? Frontin. Ce galimatias! Vous n'y comprenez donc rien? Lucinde. Non, en verité. Frontin. Ma foi, ni moi non plus je vais pourtant vous l'expliquer f vous voulez. Lucinde. Comment m' expliquer ce que tu ne comprends pas ? Frontin. Oh! Dame, J'ai fait mes études, moi. L'amant de lui-meme. Rouffeau, Scene xiii. † Origin and Progrefs of Language, Vol. I. p. 100. " Il poffede "l'antiquité, comme on le peut voir par les belles remarques qu'il a faites. << Sans lui nous ne fçaurions pas que dans la ville d'Athenes les enfans pleuroient quand on leur donnoit le fouet.-Nous devons cette decouverte " à fa profonde erudition." But his lordship's philofophical writings are full of information, explanations and obfervations of equal importance. Vol. I. p. 136, he informs us, that-Porphyry, the greatest philofopher as well as beft writer of his age, "relates that crows and magpies and parrots were taught in his time not only to imitate human speech, but to attend to what was told them and to remember it; and many of them, fays he, have learned to inform against those whom they faw doing any mischief in the house. And he "himself tamed a partridge that he found somewhere about Carthage to "fuch a degree, that it not only played and fondled with him, but anfwered "him when he spoke to it in a voice different from that in which the partridges call one another: but was fo well bred, that it never made " this ་་ 9 it very clearly; and no doubt must have sweated much to get thus to the bottom. But Mr. Harris has the advantage of a Simile over this gentleman: and though Similies appear with most beauty "this noife but when it was fpoken to. And he maintains, that all animals "who have sense and memory are capable of reason: and this is not only "his opinion, but that of the Pythagoreans, the greatest philofophers in "my opinion that ever exifted, next to the masters of their mafter, I mean "the Egyptian priests. And befides the Pythagoreans, Plato, Aristotle, Empedocles, and Democritus, were of the fame opinion. One thing « cannot be denied, that their natures may be very much improved by use " and instruction, by which they may be made to do things that are really "wonderful and far exceeding their natural power of instinct."-So far we " are obliged to the greatest of all philofophers that ever exifted. And thus far the judgment of the extract can alone be called in question. Now for the farther confirmation of this doctrine by their illuftrious difciple."There is a man in England at prefent, who has practifed more upon them " and with greater fuccefs than any body living:"—(I suspect his lordship means the owner of the learned Pig)-" and he fays, as I am informed,"(Ay, Right, my lord, Be cautious how you take an affertion so important as this, upon your own authority! Well, He fays? What?)-"That, if "they lived long enough, and pains fufficient were taken upon them,"(Well, what then?)—" it is impoffible to fay to what lengths fome of them might be carried.” Now if this, and such stuff as this, be Philofophy; and that too, of the greatest philofophers that ever exifted; I do most humbly intreat your lordship, if you ftill continue obftinate to difcard Mr. Locke, that I may have my Tom Thumb again. For this philofophy gives to my mind as much difguft, though not fo much indignation, as your friend and admirer Lord Mansfield's LAW. |