GREEK PREPOSiriONS. 309 



■ Much, I know, has already been done towards facilitating 

 fucli an inveftigation. The fuccefUve labours, firft of Dr Moor, 

 after him of more recent grammarians, above all the elucidations 

 of the learned and acute Profeffor of Greek in the Univerfity of 

 this City, have both opened the proper track of inquiry, 

 and cleared away much of the rubbifh, with which the jejune 

 and trifling minutice, the diftindions without a difference and re- 

 petitions of examples without a conneding principle, introdu- 

 ced bv Stephens, Hoogeveen and Vigerus, had blocked 

 \ip the avenues to all fuch difquifitions. The profounder re- 

 fearches of Linnep and Scheide have thrown much additional 

 light upon many particulars before involved in obfcurity, and 

 their etymological dedudions, though in many inflances imper- 

 fedt, contain valuable materials for analyfing the real ftrudure 

 and ramifications of the Greek language *. The track being 

 once marked out, and the path in a great meafure cleared, pro- 

 grefs becomes comparatively eafy ; little more is neceffary than 

 to follow out the line where thofe who preceded appear to have 

 flopped fhort too foon. 



In analyfing the prepofitions of any language, one general 

 principle may be afTumed as certain, That to every prepofitioa 



one 



* The Analogia Gricca of Linnep contains a general developement of the fy. 

 ftem adopted in the Hemfterhufian fchool. This was followed by the Etymologic 

 con Liiig.uix Graca, the joint produdion of Linnep and ScHKlDE, in which the 

 principles of this analogy are applied for analyfing all the primitives of the Greek. 

 tongue. The merit of lioth mud be admitted ; both will be found worthy the at- 

 tention of any one who wifhes to inveftigate the fubjeft of Greek analogy. From 

 the latter work, in particular, I have derived much aflillance in the prefent difqui- 

 fition, though it has frequently proved lei's fatisfaftory than might have been ex- 

 pefted. The analyfis of the words is too general and iiidefinite : many of the 

 primitive roots are explained as merely denoting motion; an idea fo vague, that 

 unlefs limited in fome fpecific mode, it could afford little aid in our progrefs to a 

 fyftcmatic analyfis of the principles of the language. 



