Is the Verb, 1. "Dictio variabilis, quæ significat actionem aut passionem." Or, 2. "Dictio variabilis per modos." Or, 3. "Quod adsignificat tempus sine casu." Or, 6. “Pars orationis præcipua sine casu." Or, 8. "Nihil significans, et quasi nexus et copula, ut verba alia quasi animaret.” Or, 9. "Un mot déclinable indéterminatif." Or, 10. "Un mot qui présente à l'esprit un être indéterminé, désigné seulement par l'idée générale de l'existence sous une rélation à une modification." Or, 11. H—A truce, a truce.—I know you are not serious in laying this trash before me: for you could never yet for a moment bear a negative or a quasi in a definition. I perceive whither you would lead me; but I am not in the humour at present to discuss with you the meaning of Mr. Harris's—“ Whatever a thing may Be, it must first of necessity Be, before it can possibly Be any thing ELSE." With which precious jargon he commences his account of the Verb. No, No. We will leave off here for the present. It is true that my evening is now fully come, and the night fast approaching; yet, if we shall have a tolerably lengthened twilight, we may still perhaps find time enough for a further conversation on this subject: And finally, (if the times will bear it) to apply this system of Language to all the different systems of Metaphysical (i. e. verbal) Imposture. THE END. IT would be worse than superfluous in me even to hint to you why none of the reasons given for over-ruling my Exception are satisfactory to my mind. But there is something very curious in the precedent of the King and Lawley, which, I am persuaded, neither those who took the Exception, nor perhaps the Judges who decided that case (though the reason they gave destroys the effect of the precedent towards me), nor the Judge who quoted it, were aware of. As it is intirely out of the line of the profession, and its novelty may perhaps afford you some entertainment; as it is an offering worthy your acceptance, and cannot be presented to you by any other hand, I entreat your forgiveness for laying it before you. The precedent of that supposed omission is produced to justify a real omission in the information against me: when indeed there was NO omission in the information against Lawley. But the Averment said to be omitted, was, not only substantially, but literally made. "The exception taken was, that it was not positively averred that Crooke was indicted; it was only laid that she sciens that Crooke had been indicted and was to be tried for forgery, did so and so." "She knowing that Crooke had been indicted for forgery, did so and so." That is, literally thus, -"Crooke had been indicted for forgery," (there is the averment literally made)" She, knowing that, did so and so." Such, Sir, is, in all cases, the unsuspected construction, not only in our own but in every language in the world, where the conjunction THAT (or some equivalent word) is employed. I speak it confidently, because I know (and, with Lord Monboddo's permission, a priori) that it must be so; and I have likewise tried it in a great variety of languages, antient as well as modern, Asiatic as well as European. I am very well aware, Sir, that, should I stop here, what I have now advanced would seem very puerile; and a mere quibbling trick or play upon words; founded upon the fortuitous similarity of sound between THAT the article or pronoun, as it is called, and THAT the conjunction : between which two, though they have the same sound, it is universally imagined that there is not any the smallest correspondence or similarity of signification. But I deny that any words change their nature in this manner, so as to belong sometimes to one part of speech and sometimes to another, from the different manner of using them. I never could perceive any such fluctuation in any word whatever though I know it is a general charge brought erroneously against words of almost every denomination. But it is all error; arising from the false measure which has been taken of almost every sort of words; whilst the words themselves continue faithfully and steadily attached, each to the standard under which it was originally enlisted. As the word THAT does, which, however used and employed, and however named and classed, always retains one and the same signification. Unnoticed abbreviation in construction, and difference of position, have caused this appearance of fluctuation; and (since the time of the elder Stoics) have misled the grammarians and philosophers of all languages both antient and modern: for in all they make the same mistake. If I should ask any of these gentlemen, whether it is not strange and improper that we should, without any reason or necessity, employ in English the same word for two different meanings and purposes ; would he not readily acknowledge that it was wrong, and that he could see no reason for it, but many reasons against it? Well, then, is it not more strange, that this same impropriety, in this same case, should run through ALL languages; and that they should ALL use an Article, without any reason, unnecessarily, and improperly, for this same Conjunction; with which it has, as is pretended, no correspondence nor similarity of signification? Yet this is certainly done in ALL languages; as any one may easily find by inquiry. Now does not the uniformity and universality of this supposed mistake and unnecessary impropriety (in languages which have no connexion with each other) naturally lead us to suspect that this usage of the article may perhaps be neither mistaken nor improper; but that the mistake may lie only with us, who do not understand it? I will make use of the leisure which Imprisonment affords me, to examine a few Instances; and, still keeping the same signification of the sentences, shew, by a resolution of their construction, the truth of my assertion. EXAMPLE. "I wish you to believe THAT I would not wilfully hurt a fly." RESOLUTION. "I would not wilfully hurt a fly, I wish you to believe THAT" (assertion). EXAMPLE. "You say THAT the same arm which when contracted can lift when extended to its utmost reach will not be able to raise You mean THAT we should never forget our situation, and THAT We should be prudently contented to do good within our sphere, where it can have an effect: and THAT we should not be misled, even by a virtuous benevolence and public spirit, to waste ourselves in fruitless efforts beyond our power of influence." RESOLUTION. when extended : you say THAT. We "The same arm which when contracted can lift to its utmost reach will not be able to raise should never forget our situation; you mean THAT. And we should be contented to do good within our own sphere, where it can have an effect; you mean THAT. And we should not be misled even by a virtuous benevolence and public spirit to waste ourselves in fruitless efforts beyond our power of influence; you mean THAT.” EXAMPLE. "They who have well considered THAT kingdoms rise or fall, and THAT their inhabitants are happy or miserable, not so much from any local or accidental advantages or disadvantages; but accordingly as they are well or ill governed; may best determine how far a virtuous mind can be neutral in politics." RESOLUTION. Kingdoms rise or fall, not so much from any local or accidental advantages or disadvantages, but accordingly as they are well or ill governed; they who have considered THAT (maxim) may best determine how far a virtuous mind can be neutral in politics. And the inhabitants of kingdoms are happy or miserable not so much from any local or accidental advantages or disadvantages, but accordingly as they are well or ill governed; they who have considered THAT, may best determine how far a virtuous mind can be neutral in politics." EXAMPLE. "Thieves rise by night, THAT they may cut men's throats." RESOLUTION. "Thieves may cut men's throats, (for) THAT (purpose) they rise by night." After the same manner may all sentences be resolved, where the supposed 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 an Article. And this is not the case in English alone, where THAT is the only conjunction of the same signification which we employ in this manner; but this same method of resolution takes place in those languages also which have different conjunctions for this same purpose: for the original of my last example (where UT is employed, and not the Latin neuter article QUOD,) will be resolved in the same manner. "Ur jugulent homines surgunt de nocte latrones." For though Sanctius, who struggled so hard to withdraw QUOD from amongst the conjunctions, still left UT amongst them without molestation; yet is UT no other than the Greek article or, 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 (A) dri surgunt de nocte." I shall not at this time stop here to account etymologically for the different words which some other languages (for there are others beside the Latin) employ in this manner instead of their own article: though, if it were exacted from me, I believe I should 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. Perhaps it may be thought that, though this method of resolution will answer with most sentences, yet that there is one usage of the conjunction THAT which it will not explain. I mean in such instances as this: IF THAT the King Have any way your good deserts forgot, He bids you name your griefs." How are we to bring out the article THAT, when two conjunctions, as it often happens, come in this manner together? The truth of the matter is that IF is merely a Verb. It is merely the imperative mood of the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon verbs PIKAN, 1 "Quant à la voyelle u, pource 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."-Henry Estiene, de la Précellence du langage François. |