the labors of those distinguished philologists who had previously
occupied the field of grammatical science, is nothing but error and
folly, will doubtless meet the neglect and contempt justly merited
by such consummate vanity and unblushing pedantry. Fortunately for
those who employ our language as their vehicle of mental conference,
custom will not yield to the speculative theories of the visionary.
If it would, improvement in English literature would soon be at an
end, and we should be tamely conducted back to the Vandalic age.

As the use of what is commonly called the philosophy of language, is
evidently misapplied by those who make it the test of _grammatical
certainty_, it may not be amiss to offer a few considerations with a
view to expose the fallacy of so vague a criterion.

All reasoning and investigation which depend on the philosophy of
language for an ultimate result, must be conducted _a posteriori_.
Its office, according to the ordinary mode of treating the subject,
is to trace language to its origin, not for the purpose of
determining and fixing grammatical associations and dependances,
such as the agreement, government, and mutual relations of words,
but in order to analyze combinations with a view to develop the
first principles of the language, and arrive at the primitive
meaning of words. Now, it is presumed, that no one who has paid
critical attention to the subject, will contend, that the original
import of single words, has any relation to the syntactical
dependances and connexions of words in general;--to gain a knowledge
of which, is the leading object of the student in grammar. And,
furthermore, I challenge those who have indulged in such useless
vagaries, to show by what process, with their own systems, they can
communicate a practical knowledge of grammar. I venture to predict,
that, if they make the attempt, they will find their systems more
splendid in theory, than useful in practice.

Again, it cannot rationally be contended, that the radical meaning
has any efficiency in controlling the signification which, by the
power of association, custom has assigned to many words;--a
signification _essentially different_ from the original import. Were
this the case, and were the language now to be taught and understood
in compliance with the original import