of the Greek Tongue, 227 



the first error we would correct is in the mode of translating 

 it, which is constantly done by prefixing O, as if O were a 

 necessary and constant characteristic of this case. Now, it is 

 obvious from what I have said, that except in nouns masculine 

 and feminine of the second declension, where it is inflected 

 -by a breathing s postfixed, analysis will give us no part in this 

 case which can be properly rendered by the English O : for 

 example, ^wx/jares- is properly rendered simply by Socrates, as 

 Akovs [mh, Swxpares-, is, Hear me, Socrates, just as, in ordinary 

 conversation, we say, William, hear me, not O William, hear 

 me. This is the more evident, from considering, that the 

 Greeks themselves did not conceive this O to reside in their 

 vocative, inasmuch as they often prefixed it to that case, as 

 oj ^coxpocTE^, which does indeed signify O Socrates. 



The next error I would point out as having arisen from not 

 attending to the circumstance that the vocative is more pro- 

 perly the theme of the noun than the nominative, is to be 

 found in the mode in which grammarians usually account for 

 some datives plural of the third declension ; for example, they 

 say that nouns ending in sv^ form their datives plural from the 

 nominative singular, by adding i. Now, a little attention will 

 shew us that this is altogether a mistaken view of the subject, 

 being grounded solely on the mechanical addition of the letter 

 i, which, however, being properly and always the characteristic 

 of the dative case, cannot by itself communicate any thing of 

 a plural signification to the nominative singular. The true 

 view is this : these datives, as ^arnXsv-a-i, are formed directly 

 from the vocative, ^acmXev, by postfixing a and i, the <t being 

 the characteristic of the plural in all the cases of this de- 

 clension, except the genitive, and the i being the constant 

 characteristic of the dative case, so that the dative ^arnXsu-ff^i 

 is thus naturally accounted for, as also, in like manner, jSa-cx-t 

 from the vocative ^«. 



In truth, many of such errors would be avoided by first 

 analytically ascertaining the radix, and then synthetically 

 forming from thence the several inflections, according to the 

 analogy of the several declensions. Of course, the radix will 

 be analytically arrived at by taking that part of the noun 

 which is common to all the cases, that which is peculiar to 



