stance from Shakespeare'; where both AN and IF are used in the same line. "He cannot flatter, He! An honest mind and plain: he must speak Truth: Where, if AN was a contraction of AND IF; AN and IF should rather change places. H.—I can no more agree with Dr. S. Johnson than you do. A part of one word only, employed to shew that another word is compounded with it, would indeed be a curious method of con-traction. Though even this account of it would serve my purpose. But the truth will serve it better: and therefore I thank you for your difficulty. It is a fresh proof, and a very strong one in my favour. AN is also a Verb, and may very well supply the place of IF; it being nothing else but the Imperative of the Anglo-Saxon verb Anan, which likewise means to Give, or to Grant. B.-It seems indeed to be so. But, if so, how can it ever be made to signify AS IF? For which also, as well as for And if, Johnson says AN is a con-traction2. H.-It never signifies As if: nor is ever a contraction of them. B.-Johnson however advances Addison's authority for it. My next pretty correspondent, like Shakespeare's Lion in Pyramus and Thisbe, roars AN it were any nightingale." H.-If Addison had so written, I should answer roundly, that he had written false English. But he never did so write. He only quoted it in mirth and ridicule, as the author wrote it. And Johnson, an Editor of Shakespeare, ought to have known and observed it. And then, instead of Addison's or even Shakespeare's authority, from whom the expression is borrowed; he should have quoted Bottom's, the Weaver: whose language corresponds with the character Shakespeare has given him, 1 Lear, act 2. scene 6. 2 This arbitrary method of contraction is very useful to an idle or ignorant expositor. It will suit any thing. S. Johnson also says "AN'T, a contraction for And it; or rather And if it; as-An't please you-that is, And if it please you." It is merely-AN it please you. "The shallow'st thickskull of that barren sort, viz. That work for Bread upon Athenian Stalls'." "I will aggravate my voice so (says Bottom) that I will roar you as gently as any sucking Dove: I will roar you AN 'twere any nightingale." If Johnson is satisfied with such authority as this, for the different signification and propriety of English words, he will find enough of it amongst the clowns in all our comedies; and Master Bottom in particular in this very sentence will furnish him with many new meanings. But, I believe, Johnson will not find AN used for As if, either seriously or clownishly, in any other part of Addison or Shakespeare; except in this speech of Bottom, and in another of Hostess Quickly—“ He made a finer end, and went away AN it had been any Christom child", " B.-In English then, it seems, these two words which have been called conditional Conjunctions (and whose force and manner of signification, as well as of all the others, we are directed by Mr. Locke to search after in "the several views, postures, stands, turns, limitations, and exceptions, and several other thoughts of the mind, for which we have either none or very deficient names") are, according to you, merely the original Imperatives of the verbs to Give or to Grant. Now let me understand you. I do not mean to divert you into an etymological explanation of each particular word of other languages, or even of the English, and so to change our conversation from a philosophical inquiry concerning the nature of Language in general, into the particular business of a polyglot Lexicon. But, as you have said that your principles will apply universally, I desire to know whether you mean that the conditional conjunctions of all other languages are likewise to be found, like IF and AN, in the original Imperatives of some of their own or derived verbs, meaning to Give? H.-No. If that was my opinion, I know you are ready instantly to confute it by the Conditionals of the Greek and Latin and Irish, the French, Italian, Spanish, Portugueze and 1 Midsummer Night's Dream, act 3. scene 2. 2 Ibid. act 1. scene 2. 3 Henry V. act 2. scene 3. In many other Languages. But I mean, that those words which are called conditional conjunctions, are to be accounted for in ALL languages in the same manner as I have accounted for IF and AN. Not indeed that they must all mean precisely as these two do,-Give and Grant; but some word equivalent : Such as,-Be it, Suppose, Allow, Permit, Put, Suffer, &c. Which meaning is to be sought for from the particular etymology of each respective language, not from some un-named and un-known "Turns, Stands, Postures, &c. of the mind." short, to put this matter out of doubt, I mean to discard all supposed mystery, not only about these Conditionals, but about all those words also which Mr. Harris and others distinguish from Prepositions, and call Conjunctions of Sentences. I deny them to be a separate sort of words or Part of Speech by themselves. For they have not a separate manner of signification: although they are not devoid of signification. And the particular signification of each must be sought for from amongst the other parts of Speech, by the help of the particular etymology of each respective language. By such means alone can we clear away the obscurity and errors in which Grammarians and Philosophers have been involved by the corruption of some common words, and the useful Abbreviations of Construction. And at the same time we shall get rid of that farrago of useless distinctions into Conjunctive, Adjunctive, Disjunctive, Subdisjunctive, Copulative, Negative copulative', Continuative, Subcontinuative, Positive, Suppositive, Casual, Collective, Effective, Approbative, Discretive, Ablative, Presumptive, Abnegative, Completive, Augmentative, Alternative, Hypothetical, Extensive, Periodical, Motival, Conclusive, Explicative, Transitive, Interrogative, Comparative, Diminutive, Preventive, Adequate Preventive, Adversative, Conditional, Suspensive, Illative, Conductive, Declarative, &c. &c. &c., which explain nothing; and (as most other technical terms are abused) serve only to throw a veil over the ignorance of those who employ them3. 1 "Non, Non, non minus disjungit, quam Nec, Nec. Quanquam neutrum ego Disjunctivum appello, sed copulativum potius negativum."Aristarchus Anti-Bentleianus. Pars secunda. Pag. 12. 2 Technical terms are not invariably abused to cover the ignorance only of those who employ them. In matters of law, politicks, and Government, they are more frequently abused in attempting to impose B.-You mean, then, by what you have said, flatly to contradict Mr. Harris's definition of a Conjunction; which he says, is-" a Part of Speech devoid of signification itself, but so formed as to help signification, by making two or more significant sentences to be one significant sentence." H.-I have the less scruple to do that, because Mr. Harris makes no scruple to contradict himself. For he afterwards acknowledges that some of them-" have a kind of obscure signification when taken alone; and appear in Grammar, like Zoophytes' in nature, a kind of middle Beings of amphibious character; which, by sharing the attributes of the higher and the lower, conduce to link the whole together." Now I suppose it is impossible to convey a Nothing in a more ingenious manner. How much superior is this to the oracular Saw of another learned author on Language (typified by Shakespeare in Sir Topaz) who, amongst much other intelligence of equal importance, tells us with a very solemn face, and ascribes it to Plato, that-" Every man that opines, must opine something: the subject of opinion therefore is not nothing." But the fairest way to Lord Monboddo is to give you the whole passage. "It was not therefore without reason that Plato said that the subject of opinion was neither the To ov, or the thing itself, nor was it the To un ov, or nothing; but something betwixt these two. This may appear at first sight a little mysterious, upon the ignorance of others; and to cover the injustice and knavery of those who employ them. 1 These Zoophytes have made a wonderful impression on Lord Monboddo. I believe (for I surely have not counted them) that he has used the allusion at least twenty times in his Progress of Language; and seems to be always hunting after extremes merely for the sake of introducing them. But they have been so often placed between two stools, that it is no wonder they should at last come to the ground. 2 "As the old Hermit of Prague, that never saw pen and ink, very wittily said to a niece of king Gorboduc,―That that is, is: So I being Master Parson, am Master Parson. For what is that, but that? And is, but is ?"-Twelfth Night, act 4. scene 3. John Lily's Sir Tophas monboddizes in the same manner. "Sir Tophas. Doest thou not know what a poet is? Epiton. No. Sir Tophas. Why, foole, a poet is as much as one should say-a poet."-Endimion, act 1. scene 3. and difficult to be understood; but, like other things of that kind in Plato, when examined to the bottom, it has a very clear meaning, and explains the nature of opinion very well': FOR, as he says, Every man that opines, must opine something; the subject of opinion therefore is not nothing. At the same time it is not the thing itself, but something betwixt the two." His "Lucinde. Qu'est-ce que c'est que ce galimatias? Frontin. Ce galimatias! Vous n'y comprenez donc rien? Lucinde. Non, en vérité. Frontin. Ma foi, ni moi non plus : je vais pourtant vous l'expliquer si vous voulez. Lucinde. Comment m'expliquer ce que tu ne comprends pas? Frontin. Oh! Dame, j'ai fait mes études, moi."-L'Amant de luimeme. (Rousseau,) scene 13. 2 Origin and Progress of Language, vol. 1. p. 100. "Il possède l'antiquité, comme on le peut voir par les belles remarques qu'il a faites. Sans lui nous ne sçaurions pas que dans la ville d'Athènes les enfans pleuroient quand on leur donnoit le fouet.-Nous devons cette découverte à sa profonde érudition." But his lordship's philosophical writings are full of information, explanations and observations of equal importance. Vol. 1. p. 136, he informs us, that-Porphyry, the greatest philosopher as well as best writer of his age, "relates that crows and magpies and parrots were taught in his time not only to imitate human speech, but to attend to what was told them and to remember it; and many of them, says he, have learned to inform against those whom they saw doing any mischief in the house. And he himself tamed a partridge that he found somewhere about Carthage to such a degree, that it not only played and fondled with him, but answered him when he spoke to it in a voice different from that in which the partridges call one another: but was so well bred, that it never made this noise but when it was spoken to. And he maintains, that all animals who have sense and memory are capable of reason: and this is not only his opinion, but that of the Pythagoreans, the greatest philosophers in my opinion that ever existed, next to the masters of their master, I mean the Egyptian priests. And besides the Pythagoreans, Plato, Aristotle, Empedocles, and Democritus, were of the same opinion. One thing cannot be denied, that their natures may be very much improved by use and instruction, by which they may be made to do things that are really wonderful and far exceeding their natural power of instinct."-So far we are obliged to the greatest of all philosophers that ever existed. And thus far the judgment of the extract can alone be called in question. Now for the further confirmation of this doctrine by their illustrious disciple." There is a man in England at present, who has practised more upon them and with greater success than any body living:"-(I suspect his Lordship means the owner of the learned Pig)" and he says, as I am informed,"-(Ay, Right, my lord, Be cautious how you take an assertion so important as this, upon your |