V, On the Origin and Proper Use of the wore? Argument. By J.W. Donaldson, 1).D. 



late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 



{_Read November 28, 1859-] 



Cambridge Philosophers, like the Cambridge whigs of the old epigram, "admit no force 

 but argument." It cannot therefore be considered altogether inappropriate, if tiie Cambridge 

 Philosophical Society is invited to consider as a special question the proper value of the word, 

 which expresses the essential characteristic of all our proceedings. For if we do not succeed 

 in producing at least "an argument" in favour of the theories which we propound in this 

 room, we are not likely to stand justified either to ourselves or to our brethren on the conti- 

 nent, whose suffrages also we seek to obtain. 



As the discussion on which I propose to enter, will carry us from philology to logic and 

 rhetoric, and will touch upon English lexicography, it will not pass lightly over the surface ; 

 but I will endeavour to make it as little tedious as possible. 



The true analysis of the verb arguo has long been known to Latin etymologers. It is a 

 notorious fact that the prefix ar very often represents the preposition ad. Thus we have 

 arvocare, arvehere, arfari, arvolare, &c. for advocare, advehere, adfari, advolare, &c. ; we 

 have arcubice tot accubiw, arbiter from adbitere; we have a double instance of the change 

 from d to r in arcesso and accerso compared with the original form ad-ced-so = accedere 

 sino {VarronianikS, p. 352); even by itself the preposition ad is sometimes written ar, as in 

 Plautus, Truculentus, ii. 2, J7: ar me advenis; and we have the same change in other words, 

 as in auris by the side of audio, and meridie for medii die. There cannot then be any 

 doubt that arguo is a verb compounded with ad. But there is no simple verb corresponding 

 to the second part of the compound as it stands, and it has long been seen that the verb 

 involved is gruo, which is not found as a simple form, but appears in the familiar compounds 

 eon-gruo and in-gruo. The omission of the r is due to the form of the prefix, and there are 

 many instances in which an r has dropt out after another consonant, when there is, as in ar-gruo, 

 a clashing rhotacism. Thus we have crebesco for crebresco, and prcestig ice ior prcestrigioi ; and 

 the name of Cambridge is an example in point, for the original form of the name was Grantan. 

 brycga, which was softened through Gram-bridge into Cam-bridge, so that the river Cam itself 

 has derived its designation from the mutilated compound. But although there is no novelty 

 in this analysis of arguo, the true meaning of the verb, especially with reference to its parti- 

 ciple argutus, has never been indicated. For those wlio have seen in it the verb gruo have 

 been contented to regard this form as merely ruo with a guttural prefix. Now this suppo- 

 sition is set aside not only by the form ohrtitus compared with argutus, but also by the impossi- 

 bility of accounting for the meanings of argutus by any reference to those of ruo. It appears 

 to me that gruo should be compared with the Greek Kpovw, according to the principle that k 



