Ex.-"Thieves rise by night THAT they may cut men's throats." Resol. "Thieves may cut men's throats; (for) THAT (purpose) they rise by night." After the same manner, I imagine, may all sentences be resolved (in all languages) where the Conjunction THAT (or its equivalent) is employed: and by such resolution it will always be discovered to have merely the same force and signification, and to be in fact nothing else but the very same word which in other places is called an Article or a Pronoun. -sujette à des caprices dangereux."—Voyages d'un Philosophe [Mons. Poivre]. Londres, 1769. The above heart-rending reflections which Savary makes at the sight of Egypt, and Mons. Poivre at the condition of Siam, might serve as other examples for the Conjunction in question: but I give them for the sake of their matter. And I think myself at least as well justified (I do not expect to be as well rewarded) as our late Poet Laureat; who, following passage of Milton's Comus, "And sits as safe as in a Senate house," adds this flagitious note: upon the "Not many years after this was written, MILTON'S FRIENDS shewed that the safety of a Senate house was not inviolable. But when the people turn Legislators, what place is safe against the tumults of innovation, and the insults of disobedience?" I believe our late Laureat meant not so much to cavil at Milton's expression, as to seize an impertinent opportunity of recommending himself to the powers which be, by a cowardly insult on the dead and persecuted author's memory, and on the aged, defenceless constitution of his country. A critic who should really be displeased at Milton's expression, would rather shew its impropriety by an event which had happened before it was used, than by an event which the poet could not at that time foresee. Such a critic, adverting to the 5th of November, 1605, and to the 4th of January, 1641, might more truly say-" Not many years, both before and after this was written, WARTON'S FRIENDS shewed that the safety of a Senate house was not inviolable." With equal impertinence and malignity (pages 496, 538.) has he rakeď up the ashes of Queen Caroline and Queen Elizabeth; whose private characters and inoffensive amusements were as little connected with Milton's poems, as this animadversion on Warton is with the subject I am now treating. Perhaps, after all, the concluding line of Milton's epitaph, is artfully made by Mr. Warton the concluding line also of his Notes; in order to account for his present virulence, and to soften the resentment of his readers, at the expence of his patron. B. For any thing that immediately occurs to me, this may perhaps be the case in English, where THAT is the only Conjunction of the same signification which we employ in this manner. But your last example makes me believe that this method of resolution will not take place in those languages which have different Conjunctions for this same purpose. And if so, I suspect that your whole reasoning on this subject may be without foundation. For how can you resolve the original of your last example; where (unfortunately for your notion) UT is employed, and not the neuter Article QUOD? "Ut jugulent homines surgunt de nocte latrones." I suppose you will not say that UT is the Latin neuter Article. For even Sanctius, who struggled so hard to withdraw QUOD from amongst the Conjunctions, yet still left ur amongst them without molestation.1 1 It is not at all extraordinary that UT and QUOD should be indifferently used for the same conjunctive purpose: for as UT (originally written UTI) is nothing but ori: so is QUOD (anciently written QUODDE) merely Και όττι. Quodde tuas laudes culpas, nil proficis hilum."-Lucilius. (See Note in Havercamp's and Creech's Lucretius; where QUODDE is mistakenly derived from órride.) QU, in Latin, being sounded (not as the English but as the French pronounce qu, that is) as the Greek K; Kai (by a change of the character, not of the sound) became the Latin Que (used only enclitically indeed in modern Latin). Hence Kai óTTI became in Latin Qu'otti—Quoddi—Quodde—Quod. Of which if Sanctius had been aware, he would not have attempted a distinction between UT and QUOD since the two words, though differently corrupted, are in substance and origin the same. The perpetual change of T into D, and vice versa, is so very familiar to all who have ever paid the smallest attention to Language, that I should not think it worth while to notice it in the present instance; if all the etymological canonists, whom I have seen, had not been remarkably inattentive to the organical causes of those literal changes of which they treat. Skinner (who was a Physician) in his Prolegomena Etymologica, speaking of the frequent transmutation of s into z, says very truly"Sunt sane literæ sono fere eædem." But in what does that fere consist? For s is not nearer in sound to z, than P is to B, or than T is to D, or than F is to v, or than K is to G, or than TH (→) in Thing, is to тH (Đ) in That, or than SH is to the French J. (N.B.—TH and SH are simple consonants, and should be marked by single letters. J, as the English pronounce it, is a double consonant; and should have two characters.) H.-You are not to expect from me that I should, in this place, account etymologically for the different words which some languages (for there are others beside the Latin) may sometimes borrow and employ in this manner instead of their own common Article. But if you should hereafter exact it, I shall not refuse the undertaking: although it is not the easiest part of Etymology: for Abbreviation and Corruption are always busiest with the words which are most frequently in use. Letters, like soldiers, being very apt to desert and drop off in a long march, and especially if their passage happens to lie near the confines of an enemy's country.' Yet I doubt not For these seven couple of simple consonants, viz. differ each from its partner, by no variation whatever of articulation; but singly by a certain unnoticed and almost imperceptible motion or compression of or near the Larynx; which causes what Wilkins calls some kind of murmure." This compression the Welch never use. So that when a Welchman, instead of "I vow, by God, Đat Jenkin iz a Wizzard,” he articulates in every other respect exactly as we do; but omits the compression nine times in this sentence. And for failing in this one point only, changes seven of our consonants: for we owe seven additional letters (i. e., seven additional sounds in our language) solely to the addition of this one compression to seven different articulations. 1 "Nous avons déjà dit, que l'altération du dérivé augmentoit à mesure que le temps l'éloignoit du primitif; et nous avons ajoutétoutes choses d'ailleurs égales-parceque la quantité de cette altération dépend aussi du cours que ce mot a dans le public. Il s'use, pour ainsi dire, en passant dans un plus grand nombre de bouches, sur tout dans la bouche du peuple et la rapidité de cette circulation équivaut à une plus longue durée. Les noms des Saints et les noms de baptême les plus communs, en sont un exemple. Les mots qui reviennent le plus souvent dans les langues, tels que les verbes étre, faire, vouloir, aller, et tous ceux qui servent à lier les autres mots dans le discours, sont sujets à de plus grandes altérations. Ce sont ceux qui ont le plus be that, with this clue, you will yourself be able, upon inquiry, to account as easily (and in the same manner) for the use of all the others, as I know you can for UT; which is merely the Greek neuter Article oτ, adopted for this conjunctive purpose by the Latins, and by them originally written UTI: the o being changed into u, from that propensity which both the antient Romans had, and the modern Italians still have, upon many occasions, to pronounce even their own o like an u. Of which I need not produce any instances." The Resolution therefore of the original will be like that of the translation; "Latrones jugulent homines (Aɩ) órɩ surgunt de nocte." soin d'être fixes par la langue écrite."-Encyclopédie (Etymologie) par M. De Brosses. 1 "UTI est mutata órı."-J. C. Scaliger de Causis L. L. cap. 173. So in the antient form of self-devotion. "VTEI. EGO. AXIM. PRAI. ME. FORMIDINEM. METOM. QUE. OMNIOM. DIRAS. SIC. VTEI. VERBEIS. NONCOPASO. ITA. PRO. REPOPLICA. POPOLI. ROMANI. QUIRITIOM. VITAM. SALUTEM. QUE. MEAM. LEGIONES. AUXSILIA. QUE. HOSTIOM. MEOM. DIVEIS. MANEBOUS. TELLOURI. QUE. DEVOVEO." So in the laws of Numa, and in the twelve tables, and in all antient inscriptions, o is perpetually found where the modern Latin uses U. And it is but reasonable to suppose, that the pronunciation preceded the change of the orthography. * "Quant à la voyelle u pour ce qu'ils (les Italiens) l'aiment fort, ainsi que nous cognoissons par ces mots Ufficio, Ubrigato, &c. je pense bien qu'ils la respectent plus que les autres."-Henri Estiene, de la Précell. de la L. F. 4 "L'o o a stretta amicizia coll' v, usandosi in molte voci scambievolmente."-Menage, Cambiamenti delle Lettere, page 16. Menage quotes Quinctilian, Festus, Velius Longus, Victorinus, Cassiodorus, Servius, Priscian, Virgil, Jul. Cæs. Scaliger. "La v par che prevalesse ne' primi tempi e piu remoti, quando i Latini, memori della Eolica origine, o imitando gli Umbri e gli Êtruschi, literam v pro o efferebant:* e pronunziavano Funtes, Frundes, Acherunte, Humones, e simili.† Quindi Ovidio, avendo detto che una volta il nome di Orione era Urion, soggiugne-perdidit antiquum litera prima sonum.‡ Ne' tempi posteriori si andò all' altro estremo; e all'antica lettera fu sostituita quasi sempre la o, come vedesi in Novios Plautios, e in altre Voci della tavola seconda. Prisciano ne dà per ragione: quia multis Italiæ populis v in usu non erat, sed e contrario utebantur o§ dicendosi verbigrazia, Colpa, Exsoles, per Culpa, Exules, &c."||-Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, tom. i. pag. 124. *Fest. vid. Orcus. † Quinct. 1. 4. + Fast. v. E B. You have extricated yourself pretty well out of this scrape with UT. And perhaps have done prudently, to decline the same sort of explanation in those other languages which, as well as the Latin, have likewise a double Conjunction for this purpose, not quite so easily accounted for, because not ready derived to your hands. But I have not yet done with the English for though your method of resolution will answer with most sentences, yet I doubt much whether it will with all. I think there is one usage of the conjunction THAT which it will not explain. H.-Produce an instance. B.-The instances are common enough. But I chuse to take one from your favourite Sad Shepherd: in hopes that the difficulty it may cause you will abate something of your extreme partiality for that piece. Which, though it be -"such wool As from mere English flocks his Muse could pull," you have always contended obstinately, with its author, is "I wonder he can move! that he's not fixed! So again in Shakespeare,1 How will you bring out the Article THAT, when two Conjunctions (for I must still call THAT a Conjunction, till all my scruples are satisfied) come in this manner together? ADVERTISEMENT. I PRESUME my readers to be acquainted with French, Latin, Italian and Greek; which are unfortunately the usual boundaries of an English scholar's acquisition. On this supposition, a friend of mine lamented that, in my Letter to Mr. Dunning, I had not confined myself to the common English character for the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic derivations. |