where it may be moft wanted: for you feem fufficiently determined not to be deceived by others. And with this caution, I shall be glad to hear your account of the Prepofition. Perhaps I fhall fave time, at least I fhall 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 wither: fixing it +.

Our countryman Wilkins thinks that thirty-fix are sufficient t.

* Scotus determines them to be forty-nine.

† Sanctius says,—" 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 inftituted languages, fuffice to express thofe various refpects 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 alfo, as well as Girard, admit only fimple Prepofitions, 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 choses " 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 espèce.-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, & "mon travail opiniatre." Vrais Principes, Difc. x1. fame

Q q

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 careleffness or want of diligence in Grammatists 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 fhould agree, what words ought or ought not to be referred to a clafs which was not itself ascertained. 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 Prepositions in our own, and therefore in all other languages.

H. Very

H..

Very far from it. I mean on the contrary to account for their variety. And I will venture to lay it down as a rule, that, of different languages, the leaft corrupt will have the fewest Prepofitions: and, in the fame language, the best etymologists will acknowledge the fewest. And (if you are not already aware of it) I hope the reason of the rule will appear in the sequel.

*

There is not, for instance, (as far as I am aware) a prepofition in any language, answering directly to the French prepofition CHEZ Yet does it by no means follow, that the modern French do therefore employ any operation of the mind, or put their minds into any posture different from their ancestors or from other nations; but only that

In the fame manner Temoin and Moyennant are prepofitions peculiar alfo to the French, but which require no explanation: because the Substantive Temoin, and the Participle Moyennant, are not confined to their prepofitive employment alone (or, as in the Latin it is termed, put abfolutely), but are ufed upon all other common occafions where thofe denominations are wanted; and their fignification is therefore evident. MOIENING was antiently used in English." At whose inftigacion and fliring I (Robert Copland) have me

applied, Moiening the helpe of God, to reduce and tranflate it." (See Ames's Hiftory of Printing; or fee Percy's Reliques, Vol. II. p. 273.) Had the use of this word continued in our language, it would certainly have been ranked amongst the prepofitions; and we fhould confequently have been confidered as exerting one operation of the mind more than we do at prefent,

there happens not to be in any other language a fimilar corruption of fome word corresponding precisely with CHEZ. Which is merely a corruption of the Italian fubftantive CASA: in the fame manner as Chofe is from Cofa; or as Cheval,

Though the bulk of the French language is manifeftly a corrupt derivation from the Italian, yet, as Scaliger obferved of the Romans-" Aliqui autem, inter quos Varro, etiam malignè eruerunt omnia è Latinis, Græ"cifque fuas origines invidere :" So have the French, in all former times, fhewn a narrow jealousy and envy towards Italy, its authors, and language: to which however they originally owe every thing valuable which they poffefs. From this spirit Henri Eftiene, De la precellence du langage François, (a book of ill-founded vanity, blind prejudice and partiality) afferts that the Italians have taken-" la bande des mots qu'on appelle indeclinables; "comme font Adverbes, Conjonctions, & autres particules" from the French: and amongst others he mentions, fe, fe non, che, ma, and Senza. But I fhall hereafter have occafion to fhew clearly the injuftice of Henry Eftiene to the Italian language, when I come to compare the respective advantages and disadvantages of the modern languages of Europe, and whence they flow. In the mean time it may not perhaps be improper to offer a general rule, by which (when applicable) all etymological difputants ought to be determined, whether fuch determination be favourable or adverse to their national vanity and prejudice. Viz. That where different languages ufe the fame or a fimilar particle, that language ought to be confidered as its legitimate parent, in which the true meaning of the word can be found, and where its use is as common and familiar as that of any other verbs and fubftantives.

A mo.e modern author (and therefore lefs excufable) Bergier, Elemens frimitifs des langues, having first abfurdly imagined what is contradicted by all experience, viz.-" A mefure que les langues fe font eloignées de leur "ource primitive, les mots ont reçu de nouveaux accroiffements: plus elles