[ 369 ] 



APPENDIX. 



IN the outfet of the Inquiry, it was obferved, that the Greek 

 language is a language of regular ftrudiure, forming its roots 

 within itfelf. Following out this idea, I have, in different parts 

 of the inveftigation, had recourfe to the line of cognates and de- 

 rivatives, as the fureft aids for condudling us to the radical fenfe 

 of a word, where the immediate root appeared to have fallen in- 

 to difufe, or the fignification had diverged confiderably from the 

 primitive idea. The grounds upon which I have thus proceed- 

 ed, may require elucidation. 



The regular fyftem of Greek analogy upon which I have red- 

 ed fo much, though a<Sually, I am perfuaded, founded in na- 

 ture and in truth, has been rejedled by many, and even treated 

 with ridicule by fome, no mean proficients in the language. The 

 fanciful notions which a few zealous enthufiafts for the perfec- 

 tion of the Greek tongue have engrafted on the general theory, 

 and the imperfedl manner in which even its more temperate ad- 

 vocates feem to have underftood or explained it, have drawn up- 

 on the fyftem a degree of difcredit, which, if fairly examined, it 

 will hardly, I think, be found to merit. Hemsterhuis and his 

 fcholars, who appear to have firft developed it, were deficient as 

 well in tracing this analogy through the minuter ramifications 



3 B 2 of 



