Page images
PDF
EPUB

Here concluded the search after the different sorts of words, or parts of speech, from the difference of things: for none other apparently rational, acknowledged, or accepted difference has been suggested.

According to this system, it was necessary that all sorts of words should belong to one of these four classes. For words being the signs of things, their sorts must necessarily follow the sorts of the things signified. And there being no more than four differences of things, there could be but four parts of speech. The difficulty and controversy now was, to determine to which of these four classes each word belonged. In the attempting of which, succeeding Grammarians could neither satisfy themselves nor others: for they soon discovered some words so stubborn, that no sophistry nor violence could by any means reduce them to any one of these classes. However, by this attempt and dispute they became better acquainted with the differences of words, though they could not account for them; and they found the old system deficient, though they knew not how to supply its defects. They seem therefore to have reversed the method of proceeding from things to signs, pursued by the philosophers; and, still allowing the principle, (viz., that there must be as many sorts of words as of things,) they travelled backwards, and sought for the things from the signs: adopting the converse of the principle; namely, that there must be as many differences of things as of signs. Misled therefore by the useful contrivances of language, they supposed many imaginary differences of things: and thus added greatly to the number of parts of speech, and in consequence to the errors of philosophy.

Add to this, that the greater and more laborious part of Grammarians (to whose genius it is always more obvious to remark a multitude of effects than to trace out one cause) confined themselves merely to notice the differences observable in words, without any regard to the things signified.

From this time the number of parts of speech has been variously reckoned: you will find different Grammarians contending for more than thirty. But most of those who admitted the fewest, acknowledged eight. This was long a favourite number; and has been kept to by many who yet did not include the same parts to make up that number. For those who re

jected the article reckoned eight: and those who did not allow the interjection still reckoned eight. But what sort of difference in words should entitle them to hold a separate rank by themselves, has not to this moment been settled.

B.-You seem to forget, that it is some time since words have been no longer allowed to be the signs of things. Modern Grammarians acknowledge them to be (as indeed Aristotle called them, ovμẞoλa Talŋuaтwv) the signs of ideas at the same time denying the other assertion of Aristotle, that ideas are the likenesses of things.' And this has made a great alteration in the manner of accounting for the differences of words.

H.-That has not much mended the matter. No doubt this alteration approached so far nearer to the truth; but the nature of Language has not been much better understood by it. For Grammarians have since pursued just the same method with mind, as had before been done with things. The different operations of the mind are to account now for what the different things were to account before: and when they are not found sufficiently numerous for the purpose, it is only supposing an imaginary operation or two, and the difficulties are for the time shuffled over. So that the very same game has been played over again with ideas, which was before played with things. No satisfaction, no agreement has been obtained. But all has been dispute, diversity, and darkness. Insomuch that many of the most learned and judicious Grammarians, disgusted with absurdity and contradictions, have prudently contented themselves with remarking the differences of words, and have left the causes of language to shift for themselves.

B. That the methods of accounting for Language remain to this day various, uncertain, and unsatisfactory, cannot be denied. But you have said nothing yet to clear up the paradox you set out with; nor a single word to unfold to us by what means you suppose Hermes has blinded Philosophy.

H.-I imagine that it is, in some measure, with the vehicle of our thoughts as with the vehicles for our bodies. Necessity produced both. The first carriage for men was no doubt invented to transport the bodies of those who from infirmity, or

1 Εστι μεν ουν τα εν τη φωνη των εν τη ψυχη παθηματων συμβολα—και ὧν ταυτα ὁμοιωματα, πραγματα.—Aristot. de Interpretat.

otherwise, could not move themselves: But should any one, desirous of understanding the purpose and meaning of all the parts of our modern elegant carriages, attempt to explain them upon this one principle alone, viz.-That they were necessary for conveyance; he would find himself wofully puzzled to account for the wheels, the seats, the springs, the blinds, the glasses, the lining, &c. Not to mention the mere ornamental parts of gilding, varnish, &c.

Abbreviations are the wheels of language, the wings of Mercury. And, though we might be dragged along without them, it would be with much difficulty, very heavily and tediously.

There is nothing more admirable nor more useful than the invention of signs: at the same time there is nothing more productive of error when we neglect to observe their complication. Into what blunders, and consequently into what disputes and difficulties, might not the excellent art of Short-hand writing' (practised almost exclusively by the English) lead foreign philosophers; who, not knowing that we had any other alphabet, should suppose each mark to be the sign of a single sound! If they were very laborious and very learned indeed, it is likely they would write as many volumes on the subject, and with as much bitterness against each other, as Grammarians have done from the same sort of mistake concerning Language: until perhaps it should be suggested to them, that there may be not only

"The art of Short-hand is, in its kind, an ingenious device, and of considerable usefulness, applicable to any language, much wondered at by travellers that have seen the experience of it in England: and yet, though it be above threescore years since it was first invented, it is not to this day (for aught I can learn) brought into common practice in any other nation."-Wilkins, Epist. Dedicatory. Essay towards a Real

Character.

"Short-hand, an art, as I have been told, known only in England." -Locke on Education.

In the Courier de l'Europe, No. 41. November 20, 1787, is the following article:

"Le Sieur Coulon de Thevenot a eu l'honneur de présenter au roi sa méthode d'écrire aussi vîte que l'on parle, approuvée par l'Académie Royale des Sciences, et dont Sa Majesté a daigné accepter la dédicace. On sait que les Anglois sont depuis très-long temps en possession d'une pareille méthode adaptée à leur langage, et qu'elle leur est devenue extrêmement commode et utile pour recueillir avec beaucoup de précision les discours publics: la méthode du Sieur Coulon doit donc être trèsavantageux à la langue Françoise."

signs of sounds; but again, for the sake of abbreviation, signs of those signs, one under another in a continued progression.

B.-I think I begin to comprehend you. You mean to say that the errors of Grammarians have arisen from supposing all words to be immediately either the signs of things or the signs of ideas; whereas in fact many words are merely abbreviations employed for despatch, and are the signs of other words. And that these are the artificial wings of Mercury, by means of which the Argus eyes of philosophy have been cheated.

H.-It is my meaning.

B.-Well. We can only judge of your opinion after we have heard how you maintain it. Proceed, and strip him of his wings. They seem easy enough to be taken off: for it strikes me now, after what you have said, that they are indeed put on in a peculiar manner, and do not, like those of other winged deities, make a part of his body. You have only to loose the strings from his feet, and take off his cap. Come— Let us see what sort of figure he will make without them.

H.-The first aim of Language was to communicate our thoughts; the second to do it with dispatch. (I mean intirely to disregard whatever additions or alterations have been made for the sake of beauty, or ornament, ease, gracefulness, or pleasure.) The difficulties and disputes concerning Language have arisen almost intirely from neglecting the consideration of the latter purpose of speech: which, though subordinate to the former, is almost as necessary in the commerce of mankind, and has a much greater share in accounting for the different sorts of words.1 Words have been called winged; and they well deserve that name, when their abbreviations are compared with the progress which speech could make without these inven

1 M. Le Président de Brosses, in his excellent treatise De la Formation mechanique des Langues, tom. 2. says "On ne parle que pour être entendu. Le plus grand avantage d'une langue est d'être claire. Tous les procédés de Grammaire ne devroient aller qu'à ce but." And again.

:

"Le vulgaire et les philosophes n'ont d'autre but en parlant que de s'expliquer clairement." Art. 160. Pour le vulgaire, he should have added-et promptement. And indeed he is afterwards well aware of this for Art. 173, he says, "L'esprit humain veut aller vîte dans son opération; plus empressé de s'exprimer promptement, que curieux de s'exprimer avec une justesse exacte et réfléchie. S'il n'a pas l'instrument qu'il faudroit employer, il se sert de celui qu'il a tout prêt."

tions; but, compared with the rapidity of thought, they have not the smallest claim to that title. Philosophers have calculated the difference of velocity between sound and light but who will attempt to calculate the difference between speech and thought! What wonder then that the invention of all ages should have been upon the stretch to add such wings to their conversation as might enable it, if possible, to keep pace in some measure with their minds.-Hence chiefly the variety of words.

Abbreviations are employed in language three ways:

1. In terms.

2. In sorts of words.

3. In construction.

Mr. Locke's Essay is the best guide to the first; and numberless are the authors who have given particular explanations of the last. The second only I take for my province at present; because I believe it has hitherto escaped the proper notice of all.

CHAPTER II.

SOME CONSIDERATION OF MR. LOCKE'S ESSAY.

B. I CANNOT recollect one word of Mr. Locke's that corresponds at all with any thing that you have said. The third Book of his Essay is indeed expressly written—“ On the Nature, Use, and Signification of Language." But there is nothing in it concerning abbreviations.

H.-I consider the whole of Mr. Locke's Essay as a philosophical account of the first sort of abbreviations in Language. B. Whatever you may think of it, it is certain, not only from the title, but from his own declaration, that Mr. Locke did not intend or consider it as such: for he says-“ When I first began this discourse of the Understanding, and a good while after, I had not the least thought that any consideration of words was at all necessary to it."1

1

Perhaps it was for mankind a lucky mistake (for it was a mistake) which Mr. Locke made when he called his book, An Essay on Human Understanding. For some part of the inestimable benefit of that book

« PreviousContinue »