ΕΠΕΑ ΠΤΕΡΟΕΝΤΑ, &c.

CHAP. VI.

OF THE WORD THAT.

B.

BUT befides the Articles ❝ properly and strictly so called,” I think Mr. Harris and other Grammarians fay that there are some words which, according to the different manner of using them, are fometimes Articles and fometimes Pronouns: and that it is difficult to determine to which class they ought to be referred *.

H. They

"It must be confeffed indeed that all these words do not always appear as Pronouns. When they ftand by themselves and represent fome Noun, (as when we fay-THIS is virtue, or dunlinws, Give me THAT) then are they Pronouns. But when they are affociated to fome Noun, (as when we fay-THIS babit is virtue, or daxlixws, THAT man defrauded me) then as they supply not the place of a Noun, but only ferve to ascertain one, they fall rather into the fpecies of Definitives or Articles. That there is indeed a near relation between Pronouns and Articles, the old gramma, "rians have all acknowledged; and fome words it has been doubtful to "which clafs to refer. The beft rule to diftinguish them is this.-The << genuine

M

They do fo.

H.

And by fo doing, fufficiently instruct us (if we will but use our common fenfe) what value we ought to put upon fuch claffes and fuch definitions.

B.

Can you give us any general rule by which to distinguish when they are of the one fort, and when of the other?

H.

Let them give the rule who thus confound together the Manner of fignification of words, and the Abbreviations in their Construction: than which no two things in Language are more diftinct, or ought to be more carefully distinguished. I do not allow that Any words change their nature in this manner, fo as to belong fometimes to one Part of Speech, and fometimes to another, from the different ways of using them. I never could perceive any fuch fluctuation in any word whatever though I know it is a general charge brought erroneously against words of

genuine Pronoun always ftands by itfelf, affuming the power of a noun, "and fupplying its place.-The genuine Article never ftands by itself, but appears at all times affociated to fomething elfe, requiring a noun for its fupport, as much as Attributives or Adjectives."

46

HERMES, Book I. Chap. V.

almoft

almost every denomination *. But it appears to me to be all, Error: arifing from the false measure which has been taken of almost every fort of words. Whilft the words themselves appear to me to continue faithfully and steadily attached, each to the standard under which it was originally inlisted.

But I defire to wave this matter for the prefent; because I think it will be cleared up by what is to follow concerning the other forts of words: at least, if that should not convince you, I shall be able more easily to fatisfy you on this head hereafter.

B.

I would not willingly put you out of your own way, and am contented to wait for the explanation of many things till you shall arrive at the place which you may think proper for it. But really what you have now advanced feems to me so very extraordinary and contrary to fact, as well as to the uniform declaration of all Grammarians; that you must excuse me, if, before we proceed any farther, I mention to you one instance.

* «Certains mots font Adverbes, Prepofitions, & Conjonctions en même temps: & repondent ainfi au même temps à diverfes parties d'oraison "felon que la grammaire les emploie diverfement."

And fo fay all other Grammarians.

BUFFIER, Art. 150.

M 2

Mr.

Mr. Harris and other Grammarians fay that the word THAT, is fometimes an Article and fometimes a Pronoun. However I do not defire an explanation of that [point]: because I see how you will easily reconcile that [difference], by a fubauditur or an abbreviation of Construction: and I agree with you there. But what will you do with the Conjunction THAT?

Is not this a very confiderable and manifest fluctuation and difference of fignification in the fame word? Has the Conjunction THAT, any the smallest correspondence or fimilarity of fignification with THAT, the Article, or Pronoun ?

H

In my opinion the word THAT (call it as you please, either Article, or Pronoun, or Conjunction) retains always one and the fame fignification. Unnoticed abbreviation in construction and difference of pofition have caused this appearance of fluctuation; and mifled the Grammarians of all languages both antient and modern: for in all they make the fame mistake. Pray, answer me a question. Is it not ftrange and improper that we fhould, without any reafon or neceffity, employ in English the fame word for two different meanings and purposes?

B.

I think it wrong: and I fee no reason for it, but many reasons against it.

H.

Well! Then is it not more strange that this fame impropriety, in this fame case should run through ALL languages? And that they should ALL use an Article, without any reason, unneceffarily, and improperly, for this fame Conjunction; with which it has, as you fay, no correfpondence nor fimilarity of fignification?

B..

If they do fo it is ftrange..

H

They certainly do; as you will eafily find by inquiry. Now does not the uniformity and univerfality of this fuppofed mistake, and unneceffary impropriety, in languages which have no connexion with each other, naturally lead us to fufpect that this ufage of the Article may perhaps be neither mistaken nor improper? But that the mistake may lie only with us, who do not understand it?

B..

No doubt what you have faid, if true, would afford ground for fufpicion..