The Substantives, The foreign Adjectives. | The Substantives, The foreign Adjectives.

The adoption of such words as these, was indeed a benefit and an improvement of our language; which however would have been much better and more properly obtained by adjectiving our own words. For, as the matter now stands, when a poor foreigner has learned all the names of things in the English tongue, he must go to other languages for a multitude

With the Christian religion were very early introduced to our ancestors the Greek words, Church, Parish, People, Alms: which they corrupted and used as substantives, a long time before they wanted them in an adjectived state. When the latter time arrived, they were incapable of adjectiving these words themselves, and were therefore forced to seek them in the original language. Hence the Adjectives are not so corrupt as the Substantives. And hence the strange appearance of Eleemosynary, a word of seven syllables, as the Adjective of the monosyllable Alms; which itself became such by successive corruptions of Exenpoovn, long before its Adjective was required: having successively exhibited itself as Almosine, Almosie, Almose, Almes, and finally Als whilst in the French language it appeared as Almosine, Almosne, Aumosne, Aumône.

of the adjectived names of the same things. And even an unlearned native can never understand the meaning of one quarter of that which is called his native tongue.

F.-You have not all this while taken any notice of the account given of the Adjective by Messrs. de Port Royal. And I wonder at it the more; because I know they have always been especial favourites of yours.

H.-They likewise make Substance and Accident the foundation of the difference between Substantive and Adjective: and that, I think, I have already sufficiently confuted.

F-True. But they acknowledge that this distinction is not observed in languages at present. They only affirm that it was originally the cause of the difference.' But they say, that, after this had been done by the first Framers of language, Men did not stop there, but proceeded further; and signified both Substance and Accident indifferently (as we see all languages now do) either by Substantives or Adjectives; sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other.

H. If this distinction between Substance and Accident does not cause the difference between our Substantives and Adjectives, why is it now proposed to us as such?

F-Aye, But this was originally the cause.

H.-Was it indeed? Pray, When? Where? In the remains of what rude language is any trace of this to be found? I assert hardily, in none. I maintain that it was not originally,

1

"Les objets de nos pensées sont ou les choses, ce qu'on appelle ordinairement Substance; ou la manière des choses, ce qu'on appelle Accident. Et il y a cette différence entre les choses ou les Substances, et la manière des choses ou des Accidents; que les Substances subsistent par elles-mêmes, au lieu que les Accidents ne sont que par les Substances. C'est ce qui a fait la principale différence entre les mots qui signifient les objets des pensées. Car ceux qui signifient les Substances ont été appellés Noms Substantifs; et ceux qui signifient les Accidents, en marquant le sujet auquel ces accidents conviennent, Noms Adjectifs. Voilà la première Origine des noms Substantifs et Adjectifs. Mais on n'en est pas demeuré là: et il se trouve qu'on ne s'est pas tant arrêté à la signification, qu'à la manière de signifier. Car, parceque la Substance est ce qui subsiste par soi-même, on a appellé Noms Substantifs tous ceux qui subsistent par eux-mêmes dans le discours encore même qu'ils signifient des Accidents. Et au contraire, on a appellé Adjectifs ceux-mêmes qui signifient des Substances, lorsque par leur manière de signifier ils doivent être joints à d'autres noms dans le discours."

or at any time, the cause of the difference between Substantive and Adjective in any language. But they say, men did not stop there; but proceeded further. Proceeded! To do what? Why, to do directly the contrary. Can this be called Proceeding? What a wretched abuse of words is this; and what gross shifting; in order to appear to give a solution of what they did not understand! However, by this proceeding, you see we must abandon totally their first Criterion. For it now turns out, that Adjectives are indifferently the signs both of Substantives and Accidents: and Substantives are indifferently the signs both of Accidents and Substances. So that we are now just where we were, without any Criterion at all: for the progress has destroyed the Criterion. The original cause of the distinction and the progress of it, operate together like the signs plus and minus, leaving nothing to our quotient of knowledge.

However, let that pass. It is only so much time thrown away in appearing learned. Come, Let us now, if you please, have some Criterion which they will stand by. What now do they lay down as the real difference between an Adjective and a Substantive?

1

F. The real remaining difference, according to them, is, that a Substantive has but one signification: it is the sign of that which it signifies, i. e. that which you understand by it; and no more. But an Adjective has two significations: It is not only the sign of that which you understand by it, and which they call its distinct signification; but it is also the sign of something which you do not, and never can understand by it alone and this last they call its confused signification.

:

H.-Confused! You understand them, I suppose, to mean, like Mr. Harris, an obscure signification.

F.-Yes, an obscure signification. But you must remember that, though this signification is confused, it is the most direct. And that the distinct signification is the most indirect.

1 "Ce qui fait qu'un Nom ne peut subsister par soi-même, est, quand outre sa signification distincte, il en a encore une confuse; qu'on peut appeller Connotation. Cette connotation fait l'Adjectif.”

"Il ne faut pas conclure que les Adjectifs signifient plus directement la forme que le sujet; comme si la signification la plus distincte

H.-So then it appears at last, that the distinguishing Criterion of an Adjective is this obscure signification: for a clear, distinct signification the Adjective has in common with the Substantive." Blanc signifie la Blancheur d'une manière aussi distincte que le mot même de Blancheur."

Now is it necessary here, in order to shew the absurdity of this account, to repeat again that an obscure (i. e. an unknown signification) is not any signification? Besides, there is a gross mistake made between an adjected and an adjective word: that is, between a word laid close to another word, and a word which may lye close to another word. Let me ask you, How is it with any Adjective taken by itself? Till it is joined to some other word, can you possibly discover what you call its confused meaning? Blanc has its distinct meaning when mentioned by itself; and it is then an Adjective. But what you call its confused meaning can never appear till it is adjected: and is then shewn only and altogether by the word to which it is adjected. For, if it were otherwise, it would follow, that the same word White must be, at the same time, the sign of Horse and House and Man, and every thing else to which the Adjective White may at any time be added. And, what is still more, the Substantives themselves would at once be stripped of their rank and definition, of being the signs of ideas; and would become the mere lights to make visible the confused and obscure signification of the Adjectives.

But surely I need say no more concerning the Adjective: or take up your time with combating its signification in recto and in obliquo.

As little notice do the dull Modificatives of Buffier1 deserve;

étoit aussi la plus directe. Car, au contraire, il est certain qu'ils signifient le sujet directement, et comme parlent les grammairiens, In Recto, quoique plus confusement: et qu'ils ne signifient la forme qu'indirectement, et comme ils parlent encore, In Obliquo, quoique plus distinctement. Ainsi, Blanc, candidus, signifie directement ce qui a de la Blancheur, habens candorem; mais d'une manière fort confuse ne marquant en particulier aucune des choses qui peuvent avoir de la blancheur. il ne signifie qu'indirectement la blancheur; mais d'une manière aussi distincte que le mot même de Blancheur, candor."

1

Et

"Ils sont dits Noms Adjectifs, quand les objets sont considérés comme revêtus de quelques qualités; parce qu'ils ajoutent une qualité

or the gay Lacqueys of the pleasant Abbé Girard: who, after providing his Substantive with Running Footmen to announce his approach (in the Article) could do no less for a word of such importance than furnish him, when occasion offered, with a numerous train in livery to support the eclat of his appearance.1

If, in what I have said of the Adjective, I have expressed myself clearly and satisfactorily; you will easily observe that Adjectives, though convenient abbreviations, are not necessary to language; and are therefore not ranked by me amongst the Parts of Speech. And perhaps you will perceive in the misapprehension of this useful and simple contrivance of

à l'objet. Mais, au fond, l'objet n'est bien désigné que par les Nomas Substantifs, qui par cet endroit, sont proprement les seuls Noms. Au fond, les Adjectifs sont de vrais Modificatifs des noms; mais nous les regardons ici comme des noms, en tant qu'ils représentent moins une qualité ou circonstance de l'objet, que l'objet même en tant que revêtu de cette qualité ou circonstance.

"C'est une sorte de subtilité que nous indiquons pour prévenir celles qu'on pourroit nous objecter. N'omettons pas une réflexion importante: savoir, qu'un Nom Adjectif devient souvent Substantif. En effet, sa nature étant d'exprimer la qualité d'un objet, si cette qualité est le sujet même dont on parle, alors selon notre principe générale ce sera un Nom Substantif.

"On demande, si le nom de Roi est Substantif ou Adjectif? Il est l'un et l'autre selon l'emploi qu'on en fait.

"Au reste, tous les noms qui d'eux-mêmes sont Adjectifs, ne sont pas censez tels dans l'usage commun de la grammaire; qui depend en ce point, comme en une infinité d'autres, d'un usage arbitraire. Car elle n'appelle ordinairement Adjectifs, que ceux qui sans changer, ou sans presque changer d'inflexions et de terminaison, se joignent indifféremment à des noms substantifs de divers genres; c'est à dire à des noms qui reçoivent avant eux la particule Le, ou la particule La, &c.

Au contraire les mots Roi, Magistrat, &c. ne sont jamais censez Adjectifs dans l'usage de la grammaire; quoiqu'ils le soient en effet très souvent."

"Les Adjectifs ne sont destinés qu'à un service subalterne, consistant à qualifier les dénominations. Ils sont du cortège des Substantifs, en portent les Livrées, et servent à leurs décorations. Voilà pourquoi on leur a donné le nom d'Adjectifs, qu'annonce un personnage de la suite d'un autre. Cependant quoique placés dès leur origine dans l'état de dépendance et de soumission, ils ne laissent pas que d'être par leurs couleurs et par leur magnificence une des plus brillantes parties de la parole, un champ fertile pour la poësie, une ressource délicate pour les grands orateurs, et le point capital des mediocres."