FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93  
94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   >>   >|  
Through_ or _thorough_ is the Teutonic noun _thuruh_, meaning passage, gate, door. _From_ is the Anglo-Saxon noun _frum_, beginning, source, author. He came _from (beginning)_ Batavia. _If_ (formerly written _gif, give, gin_) is the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon verb _gifan_, to give. I will remain _if_ (_give_ or _grant that fact_) he will (_remain_.) _But_ comes from the Saxon verb _beon-utan_, to be-out. I informed no one _but (be-out, leave-out)_ my brother. This brief view of the subject, is sufficient to elucidate the manner in which, according to Horne Tooke's principles, the ten parts of speech are reduced to one. But I am, by no means, disposed to concede, that this is the _true_ principle of classification; nor that it is any more _philosophical_ or _rational_ than one which allows a more practical division and arrangement of words. What has been generally received as "philosophical grammar," appears to possess no stronger claims to that imposing appellation than our common, practical grammars. Query. Is not Mr. Murray's octavo grammar more worthy the dignified title of a "Philosophical Grammar," than Horne Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," or William S. Cardell's treatises on language? What constitutes a _philosophical_ treatise, on this, or on any other subject? _Wherein_ is there a display of philosophy in a speculative, etymological performance, which attempts to develop and explain the elements and primitive meaning of words by tracing them to their origin, _superior_ to the philosophy employed in the development and illustration of the principles by which we are governed in applying those words to their legitimate purpose, namely, that of forming a correct and convenient medium by means of which we can communicate our thoughts? Does philosophy consist in ransacking the mouldy records of antiquity, in order to _guess_ at the ancient construction and signification of single words? or have such investigations, in reality, any thing to do with _grammar_? Admitting that all the words of our language include, in their _original_ signification, the import of nouns or names, and yet, it does not follow, that they _now_ possess no other powers, and, in their combinations and connexions in sentences, are employed for no other purpose, than _barely_ to _name objects_. The
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93  
94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

philosophical

 

philosophy

 
grammar
 

signification

 

principles

 

subject

 

possess

 
beginning
 

meaning

 

practical


purpose

 

employed

 

remain

 
language
 
legitimate
 

display

 

constitutes

 
forming
 

correct

 

convenient


treatise
 

Teutonic

 
Wherein
 

medium

 

etymological

 

Through

 

origin

 

superior

 

tracing

 
elements

primitive

 

develop

 

applying

 
performance
 

explain

 
governed
 
attempts
 

development

 

illustration

 
speculative

mouldy

 
follow
 
include
 

original

 

import

 

powers

 

objects

 
barely
 
combinations
 

connexions