Mr. Brand*/ Obfcrvations on the Latin Terms ufcd In Nat, H:Jl. 71 



muft be admitted: but it is here contended, that it does not on 

 this account alone follow that they are fo. This is proved from the 

 practice of the ancient grammarians in the invention of technical 

 terms, in conj unci ion with the authority of Tully. 



Firft, the ufe of a Latin primitive or derivative, in a fenfe in which 

 it does not occur in any pure Roman writer, is not neceflariiy an 

 impropriety, technically fo called ; for if a confiderable variation 

 from fuch an eftablifhed fenfe were fo> the very grammatical terms 

 of the Roman writers would fall under that cenfure, as for inftance 

 (arlkulus). an article, (yerbum) a verb. When thefe terms were fir ft 

 ufed by grammarians, there was a great variation from their pre- 

 eftablifhed fenfe, and their primary fignifications — a joint, a word. 



It is likewife certain, that if grammar had not been reduced into 

 an art among the Romans, thefe terms would not have been now 

 found in their technical fenfes in their writings. And if a writer 

 of this age, having reduced the art into a fyftem, had prefented the 

 world with the firft Latin Grammar, and had given the fame names, 

 verbum, articulus, to the fame things, his offence againft pure latinity, 

 or the pre-eftablifhed good ufe of thofe words, would have been of 

 the fame magnitude as that of the original Latin grammarians, and 

 no more ; the fame innovations in a language, living or dead, 

 being of equal quality : yet the charge againft the propriety of the 

 terms ufed by fuch a writer, would be the fame in kind as that 

 brought againft the natural hiftorians; but it mu ft have fallen to 

 the ground — nor would it have been in degree lefs ftrong ; for bolder 

 extenfions in the fenfe of Latin terms, are not, that I recollect, to 

 be found in the Lexicon of our technical language. Thefe fafti- 

 dious grammatical exceptions are, in principle, exceptions both to 

 the art and the philofophy of grammar. If the naturalifts err in 

 this point, they err with the grammatical fathers (cum fatribus). 



3 Secondly, 



