222 Mr. Sankey on the Analysis and Structure 



effect of committing it to writing would have been constantly 

 to correct those aberrations from the simplicity of the original 

 speech, which a faulty pronunciation was continually tending 

 to introduce. We may exemplify this by our own language, 

 wherein we find throughout its dialectic varieties, as of Cum- 

 berland, Yorkshire, Somersetshire, &c., several inflections which, 

 however commonly used in those counties, have never yet 

 been able to make their way into our written speech. Thus, 

 iq the north-west of England, it is not unusual to coalesce the 

 definite article the with the noun, whenever this latter com- 

 mences with a vocalic sound : thus, instead of The egg, they 

 say, T'egg, instead of The ham, T'am, instead of The wine, 

 T'wine ; which inflection (as it really is) might well be con- 

 sidered, by the grammatical distributors of the parts of speech, 

 as '* a definite case of the noun." In like manner, even in 

 ordinary conversation, inflections are frequently found to pre- 

 vail, which yet are not tolerated in the written language ; for 

 instance, can't, sha'n''t, wouldn't, couldn't, shouldn't, don*t, 

 &c., which, had they not been rejected from the propriety of 

 good writing, might fairly claim a place in the grammatical 

 arrangement of the English tongue, as constituting what might 

 be called a distinct negative mood. Now, it is obvious that such 

 as these, and the dialectic inflections above noticed, have not 

 been the result of a high degree of refinement, but are rather 

 justly considered as barbarisms. 



Seeing, therefore, that the inflecting of speech arises (as is 

 well known to philologists) from the combination, or, as it 

 were, synthesis of words, or particles of words, it is obvious 

 that direct analysis may decompose, to use an expression bor- 

 rowed from the chemist, the combined word again into its con- 

 stituent parts. It is manifest, however, that when we have 

 resolved any word into its more immediate constituents, we 

 are not, therefore, to consider ourselves as having arrived at its 

 most elementary forms, but, by the re-application of the principle 

 of analysis to the constituent parts themselves, we are to 

 ascertain whether they may not be further resolved into parts 

 still more elementary ; following herein, also, the example of 

 the chemist, who, when he has decomposed a salt, for example, 

 into its base and salifiable principle, does not thereupon sus- 



