whether taken literally or figuratively, and the use of hood as an affix in many applications, that we have conjectured the last to be either a corruption of had, or, what seems more probable, of tudo. Another form of the same affix in German is od, and in Welsh there is edd and dod. But, whatever be the derivation of hood, it means exactly the same as tudo, ty, &c., i. e. state, condition: widowhood is being a widow; falsehood is being false, or that which is false.

Dom (thum, Ger.) seems evidently a contraction of domain or dominion: kingdom, popedom, princedom, dukedom, that which is subject to a king, &c. In such instances the affix is strictly proper; but, like other words, it was extended to more vague applications: as wisdom, freedom, &c., i. e. being wise, free; or the state of being wise, free.

Ship, schaft, Ger., has also occasioned much trouble. We have conjectured it might, as also haft, Ger., be a corruption of hafd, haupt, Ger., i. e. caput; then we have supposed it might be have; again, we have thought it might be a corruption of super; which, so far as meaning is concerned, is the most likely derivation. But, whatever be the derivation, it evidently serves the same purpose as hood, dom, tas, ty, tude, &c.: as lordship, the domain of a lord, the power, authority, dignity, &c., of a lord; worship, worthship, i. e. being worthy, or considered worthy, of honor; whence, as a verb to worship, i. e. to honor; worshipful, honorable, or considered full of worth, very worthy; courtship is the business, state, or process of courting. The preceding affixes are not much employed, and may be regarded as antique terminations; for they are hardly affixed at pleasure in the present time.

The affix of most general application is ness, niss, Ger.; which, as well as ezza, It., and esse, Fr., seems a corruption of essentia, essence. Almost any adjective can be converted into a noun by this affix: round, roundness, ritondo, ritondezza, It.; feeble, feebleness, foible, foiblesse, Fr.; noble, nobleness, noblesse, Fr. So also in Ger. finster, dark, finsterniss, darkness.

Horne Tooke seems to have fancied that the above termination was the same as ness in the names of places on the sea coast: as Sheerness, Foulness, &c.; but the latter is manifestly nose or nasus; and it would be difficult to discover any connexion between nose and the affix in question.

The affix th in connexion with nouns is considered by Mr. Tooke the same as the verbal affix eth: we have by turns supposed it might be that, or, perhaps, the, what is called definite article, or a corruption of ty. The last is rather our present opinion. But whatever be its derivation, its use is the very same as ty, ness, &c.: as, wide, width, wideness; long, longth, length, longness; true, truth, the same as verity, i. e. veritas from verus.

The affix ty, like té, Fr., ta, It., dad, Sp., is a corruption of the Latin affix tas, tat, and Greek tes; as bounty, bonté, Fr., bonta, It., bondad, Sp., bonitas from bonus, good; vanity, vanité, Fr., vanita, It., vanidad, Sp., vanitas from vanus, vain.

.

There is the same use of tude, i. e. tudo, Lat. and in the ablative tudine; which is adopted by the Italian: magnitude, magnitudine, It, magnitudo, from magnus, great.

The termination ary, contracted into ry, is properly the Latin adjective affix aris or arius: as actuary, apothecary, &c., i. e. actuarius, from actus; so cavalry, formed on † cavallus, caballus, a horse, a war-horse; rivalry, formed on rival; pleasantry, on pleasant, &c.

The terminations ment, men, mony, are evidently the same affix: fragment-um, a broken part, from frag-o, to break; document-um, that which shows, from doc-eo, to show; commandment what is commanded, from command; acumen, sharpness, or that which has a point, from acu-o, to point, make sharp; patrimonium, patrimony, what descends from a father (pater), an inheritance, &c.

This affix is frequently an adverbial termination in Italian, French, and Spanish; importunamente, It. and Sp., importunement, Fr., importunately, &c.

The termination age, seems in some instances the augmentive accio, It., i. e. ar, Lat. ; as villagio, It., village, the augmentive form of villa; viaggio, It., voyage of via, a way, a journey; personaggio, It., personage of persona, person, foliage, feuillage, Fr., of feuille, Fr., or foglia, It., folium, a leaf.

In the modern Italian, accio has become a contemptuous augmentive; but, as it remains in the form of aggio, it is either neutrologistic or eulogistic.

In such instances as the following age is simply a connective or possessive affix; and seems to be a corruption of ac, ic, ag, or ig, already noticed, under simple adjectives: personage, vicarage, poundage, tonnage, &c. In all such cases, age, as explained under simple connective affixes, merely means of, connected with, belonging to: parsonage house is the house of a parson; parsonage benefice is the benefice of a parson; poundage custom, charge, rate, &c., is equivalent to per pound; patronage is the power or agency of a patron.

A numerous class of verbal nouns, derived from the Latin, terminate in ation, acion, asion, etion, esion, ition, icion, ision, otion, osion, ution, usion. In Italian these terminations are atione, acione, &c., being the form of what is called the ablative singular of the Latin. When the modern Latin, i. e. the Italian, discontinued the ancient cases, it retained this as the only singular termination, for no other reason, perhaps, than its agreeable sound. With us, the French, and the Spaniards, the final e is dropped: thus, commend, commendation, commendazione, It.; complete, completion; compose, composition, composicion, Sp., composizione, It.; confuse, confusion, confusione, It.

With few exceptions, the French and the English are the same: the Italian differs from them in having the final e and z, instead of t: Spanish has generally e instead of t.

The last-mentioned nouns are formed on what is called the supine. Thus, factum, to make or do; factio, ablative factione, a making or doing, occasum, to fall or happen, occasio, ablative

occasione, a happening; intrusum, to intrude, intrusio, ablative intrusione, an intruding or intrusion.

It is evident that all such words are of the same nature as our verbal nouns, terminating in ing, i. e. participles put substantively; auditio is the same, as hearing; visio, visione, vision, seeing. There can in general be no necessity, therefore, for explanation to such words, when the verbs have been explained from which they are derived.

As these verbal nouns follow the spelling of the supine or participle, they occasion some orthographic embarrassment to mere English scholars; for whose sake it would have been well, perhaps, if one consonant had been adhered to in naturalising such words. There is no difficulty with those verbs and adjectives which we have from the Latin supine or participle: as, communicate, communication; promote, promotion; profuse, profusion; pollute, pollution; contrite, contrition; profess, profession. Of those verbs which have d, the nouns have s; deride, derision; protrude, protrusion: but those which assume another syllable terminate in ation; as commend, commendation, from commendatum.

Nouns terminating in ant and ent are Latin participles: as, servant from servo; patent, from pateo, &c. In these, and in nouns generally adopted entire from the Latin, we, as well as our neighbours, have what is in that language called the ablative case.

The termination or changed into er, ar, and in French eur, is generally applied to indicate an agent: Creator, he who creates; lover, one that loves; liar, one that lies; beggar, one that begs; amator, amateur, Fr. a lover. In Latin, or, like os, is merely a masculine sign or affix: as amor, love, as well as amator, lover, honor or honos. The French have changed or into eur, when an agent is indicated, and into our when agency, state, quality, &c., are indicated; and Johnson has followed in this, as in several other instances, the French mode of spelling; as, labour, honour, favour, instead of labor, honor, favor.

The termination ist, adopted from Greek, answers exactly to er, i. e. or, from the Latin: as, reformer or reformist; etymologer or etymologist; One of these seems more fit and graceful in some connexions than the other: er, having been longer and more generally used, does better in connexion with vernacular words: reformer is better than reformist; but etymologist seems better than etymologer; geographer again seems more graceful than geographist. Much in all such cases depends on custom ; which has mighty sway over our mental and moral habitudes.

The adjective affix an, or ian, is employed in connexion with many nouns ending in ic, to form a new noun indicating an agent: as, from music, musician; logic, logician; optics, optician; metaphysics, metaphysician.

The Latin termination ura, in French and English ure, frequently occurs: as creature from create; picture from pictum, pingo to paint.

The Latin termination tia is changed into ice, ce, cy: as mal-us, malitia, malice; frequens,

frequent, frequentia, frequency; prævalentia, prevalence.

The Greek termination ism, is frequently ap pended to words which are not of Greek extraction: as, Calvinism, the doctrinal system of Calvin; Gallicism, a Gallic or French idiom; vulgarism, a vulgar expression; truism, an obvious or a trite, true remark.

Many verbal nouns (nouns formed from verbs) terminate in ence, i. e. entia, Lat.; as, providence, contracted into prudence, foreseeing, providing, taking care of; credence, believing; precedence, preceding, &c. All such words answer exactly to our own participles employed as nouns; as, hearing, seeing, smelling.

We have noticed age as properly an augmentive in such words as village, personage, &c.: on (one, It.), oon, is also an augmentive: as, matron, patron, matrona, patronus; formed on mater, pater; saloon, salon, Fr., salone, It., a great hall, from sala, It., salle, Fr., corruption of aula, a hall. This Latin affix, which is eulogistic as well as augmentive, seeins to be a contraction of bonus: thus, pater-bonus; mater-bona.

We, like the French, have not any vernacular augmentive affix of nouns such words as village, salon, &c., were borrowed in the compound state from the Italians.

Most of the diminutive affixes of nouns are now obsolete, though they yet remain as inseparable terminations in many words.

The Latin diminutive affix is uncul contracted into cul, ull, ul, ell, el, &c., and in Italian ello, in Spanish uelo, illo: as particula, particle (from pars, part-is), a small part; morsiuncula, contracted into morsel (from morsus, a bite), a little bite, a snap; bestiola, corrupted into beetle, a little beast or creature; sedicula, contracted into sedile (from sedes a seat), corrupted into saddle, settle, scool. Thus a great number of words terminating in l or le are properly diminutives: many of them have been adopted directly from the Latin; many have been received through the French or Italian.

The above affix, uncul, seems a contraction of uncialis, of an inch, of the magnitude of an inch; which is equivalent to small, little.

The Italian has two other diminutives, viz. etto (ette, Fr., et, Eng., ito, Sp.) and ino; which are found in many words: as pocket, diminutive of poke, pouch, poche, Fr.; ballot, ballotte, Fr., pallotta, It., of ball, balle, Fr., palla, It.; bullet, boulet, Fr., of boule, Fr., another form of balle : kitten, gattino, It., diminutive of cat, gatto, It., French.

The French formerly employed the diminutives at pleasure like the Italians and Spaniards, but they have long disused them; and this of course is a subject of boasting with Voltaire, in reply to the Italian critics who accused the French of having no diminutives. We had them formerly, says Voltaire; but they possessed not sufficient dignity for the noble language of the Bourdaloues and Massillons!!

It will, perhaps, flatter the French to remark that we probably discontinued the use of diminutives, because they set us the example.

Most of the diminutive terminations which we have traceable to the Italian, were derived through the French.

stead of a difficult kind of syntactic propriety; for, with the former, the writer or speaker is enabled to direct his whole consideration to the justness of his thoughts and the meaning of his words; but a complicated syntax distracts his attention; and, having to accomplish the two operations of good sense and good grammar at one and the same moment, the consequence frequently is, that both are badly performed. We sometimes find good sense expressed in bad grammar; and we often find good grammar garnishing bad sense; nay, even bad composition is often dressed up in good grammar; and composition essentially good often appears in faulty

grammar.

We are willing to subscribe to the motto assumed by Lindley Murray, from the lectures of Dr. Blair: They who are learning to compose and arrange their sentences with accuracy and order, are learning at the same time to think with accuracy and order;' as also to another sentence of the same rhetorician: The study of arranging and expressing our thoughts with propriety, teaches to think as well as to speak accurately. But how are we to understand accuracy and propriety in all such propositions? If they mean what is commonly called grammatic propriety and accuracy, such as saying, thou lovest, instead of thou love; we were, instead of we was, &c.; there is just as little connexion between such etiquette and learning to think accurately, or to express thought accurately, as there is between learning to bow, and learning to reason. Logical accuracy of expression is of the highest importance; and this is the proper object of rational grammar: but this is so far from being identical with arbitrary grammar, that the one is often at variance with the other.

The reader is now sufficiently aware of the true character of arbitrary grammar. It was not dictated by reason, and therefore cannot be referred to any rational principles. But though we wish to see it discarded by a general disuse of all anomalies and unmeaning terminations, and changes of verbs and pronouns, yet such reform must be effected (if ever effected) by the influential members of the literary world. All others must be content with established usage. They must endeavour to speak and write grammatically, merely to avoid the imputation of ignorance and illiterateness.

For the use of those who must prudently comply with the prescribed etiquette, or established manner, we shall endeavour to present it in as intelligible a form, and in as small a compass, as possible.

SECT. I.-THE CUSTOMARY GRAMMAR OF PRO

NOUNS.

The words called pronouns are, I, me, thou, thee, he, him, she, her, it, we, us, you or ye, they, them, who, whom, which, this, these, that, those.

There can be no mistake respecting the meaning of these words, with any persons who have heard them pronounced a few times in the common course of speech: I is perceived to indicate the same person as me, thou as thee, he as him, &c.; but as these double forms of the same

words had necessarily, in Latin, different uses, the English grammatists thought a similar diversity proper in the English language; and they have succeeded in making a useless and embarrassing distinction an essential part of grammar. Grammatic propriety, as to the pronouns, may be included in the following particulars:

:

These we will range in two classes1. I, thou, he, she, who, we, they. 2. Me, thee, him, her, whom, us, them [Ye or you, it, which, that, this, &c., are not included in the above enumeration; because, fortunately, they have but one form.]

Those of the first class are called by grammarians nominatives, or are said to be in the nominative case: those in the second class are called objectives, or are said to be in the objective case; but we shall, for the sake of intelligibleness, call the one (I, thou, he, she, &c.) the first form; and the other (me, thee, him, &c.) the second form of the pronoun. There is a peculiar manner of employing the pronouns, for which it is not easy to give any rule perfectly accurate. The nearest approach to accuracy seems this: when any one of the words, commonly called pronouns, is employed to indicate an agent, it is put in the first form; and when it is employed to indicate an object of some action, it is put in the second form. Thus: I love thee; thou lovest me; he loves her; she loves him; they love us; we love them; the man whom she loves is the person who loves her. These are all examples of proper grammar, and when inverted they present instances of improper grammar: Me love thou; thee lovest I; him loves she; her loves he; them love me; us love they; the man who her loves is the person whom loves she.

Another approximation to accuracy, as a general rule, might be put thus:-When the pronoun stands before the verb it is put in the first form; when it stands after the verb it is put in the second form; as, I see them, they see us, &c. This is the usual, but not the invariable, order of composition in the English language, and therefore the above would not hold as a universal rule; for, in such instances as the following, the second form of the pronoun, or what is called the objective case, stands before the verb: whom seek ye? he whom ye seek. Here, in both cases, whom is the object of the verb seek, though it stands before it. Nor is the other imperfect rule less objectionable, viz. when the pronoun denotes an agent, it is in the first form or nominative case, and when it denotes the object of an action, it is in the second form or what is called the passive, instead of the active objective case; for, by employing the verb in voice, the grammatic relation of agent and object is wholly changed, as is evident in the following examples :-Thou art loved by me; I am loved by thee; she is loved by him : not thee art loved by I, &c.

It is impossible to give accurate and adequate rules concerning that which can never be reduced to rational principles; for 'what reason did not dictate, reason can never explain.'

Perhaps the most unobjectionable rule that can be given is the following:-A pronoun is