usage, is a circumstance that has tended to make others think too lightly of it. In regard to the first ground of prejudice, it may be true, that a knowledge of the origin and history of every word in our language (if it were attainable) would not enable us to write it with more elegance; yet it does not follow that the origin and structure of language, and of our own in particular, is not an object of liberal curiosity, and perhaps this is all that can be said for some other branches of knowledge. A complete knowledge of the theory of music will not make a good musician excellence in that art, as in the use of language, being acquired by attending to and imitating the compositions and performance of such as excel in it. Yet the theory of music is thought a liberal study, especially in those who have a practical knowledge of the art. Etymology, as discovering the origin or derivation of words, is a necessary branch of PHILOLOGY, and in this view it cannot be deemed altogether useless, while the history and structure of language are regarded as subjects worthy of the attention of philosophers. As to the second cause of prejudice against etymology, the unbounded license of conjecture indulged in it,—the fact cannot be denied. The origin of many words must for ever be a subject of conjecture, and by too hastily advancing any conceits that occur to us, we are apt to bring contempt on the whole science. Quintilian has 66 66 66 recorded some fooleries of ancient etymologists: Ingeniosè sibi visus est Cajus Granius cœlibes "dicere quasi cælites, quod onere gravissimo vacent, idque Græco argumento, 8c enim eâdem "de causâ dici affirmat. Nec ei cedit Modestius inventione, nam quia Cœlo Saturnus genitalia absciderit, hoc nomine appellatos qui uxore "careant. At L. Ælius pituitam quia petat vitam. "Sed cui non post Varonem sit venia, qui agrum, quod in eo agatur aliquid: et graculos, qui gregatim "volent, dictos, Ciceroni persuadere " voluit," &c. Lib. I. c.6. 66 66 66 There are many specimens of ingenuity not much inferior to these, in a late excellent work on English Synonymes; for example, we are told, that "HAVE, in German haben, Latin habeo, is not, improbably from the Hebrew aba, to desire, "because those who have most, desire most.” FETCH, A. Saxon fecc-ian, is traced to the Hebrew zangnack, to send for or go after. LAND is from lean and line. And " "HIND, in all probability "signifies one who is in the back ground!" The identity of words in languages so remote as the Hebrew and the Anglosaxon, when sufficiently clear, is certainly worthy of remark, were it only as a proof of the original brotherhood or relationship of mankind. But this identity must be clear indeed to be believed: and it will scarcely be thought that the identity or connexion of have and aba, fetch and zangnack, arise and Hebrew har, a mountain, is very clear; or that of many other English and Hebrew words, considered by this author, as" in all probability," connected or the same. It is to be hoped, the works of H. Tooke will have some effect in checking the license of etymological conjecture. Not a few of his etymologies, indeed, are as extravagant and ridiculous as those he ridicules; but his method is less liable to error, and deserves imitation. He has not, like some other etymologists, rambled over the whole earth for the roots of words, which we have from our Anglosaxon ancestors, but has confined himself to tongues with which ours has a manifest connexion. He has also set an example of tracing words by analogies; and of either exhibiting (as often as it can be done) the intermediate changes, where there is only an alteration or corruption of the pronunciation;-or showing that it is similar to what has happened with similar words. And though he has made more words imperatives," or past participles,” than there is sufficient reason to think so; yet there is less scope for wild conjecture in the mode of etymo * Thus most of the conjunctions are discovered to have been originally imperatives of verbs, most of the prepositions nouns, many nouns past participles, &c. The classification of words similarly formed gives a better idea of the structure of language, than can be obtained by perusing a much more ponderous etymologicon, in which the words are alphabetically arranged. In my opinion, it is by this circumstance, as much as by the great learning and ingenuity of the author, that the Diversions of Purley throw so much light upon language. logizing which he has adopted, than where, without tracing any analogy of formation or deduction, one word is said to be derived from anothernobody can tell how, but that there is some similarity of sound, and some (often far fetched) connexion of meaning. In over-rating the importance of etymology, perhaps Mr. Tooke is the greatest offender; but his high notions of the value of philological speculations cannot be regretted, since we are indebted to them for one of the most ingenious works on language that we are possessed of; I allude, in particular, to the first volume of the Diversions of Purley. The too great importance he attaches to such researches, is not, however, the only thing that has given offence in Mr. Tooke's work; its supposed (though not very obvious) tendency in favour of Materialism, has also created a prejudice against it. In the following sheets, I have imitated H. Tooke in those particulars of his plan which I have commended, as well as in endeavouring to find an appropriate meaning in the etymology, "not "merely a similar word in another language."" How far I have erred in proposing improbable conjectures, others will decide. I hope, I have * "I could be as well contented to stop at loaf in the English, as hlaf in "the Anglosaxon; for such a derivation affords no additional or ultimate "meaning. The question, with me, is still, why hlaf in the Anglosaxon? I "want a meaning, as the cause of the appellation, and not merely a similar "word in another language.”—Diversions of Purley, vol. ii. p. 156. |