1823.] ~ 
have been bewildered thereby ; and 
therefore, without endeavouring to 
ascertain their nature from the consi- 
deration of that of their components, 
recourse was had to the dogmas of the 
schoolmen, and they were called ab- 
stvacé nouns. All their abstraction, 
however, is now feund out; it is the 
latitude in application consequent on 
the numerous objects affectible there- 
by, and theiz employment without the 
connected noun, or elliptically, (by 
Horne Tooke called abbreviation in 
construction,) having some abbreviated 
or contracted word affixed, to indicate 
connexion with something suggested 
by association, and requisite to fill up 
the construction. Regard te the man- 
ner of signification will evince, that 
they continue to signify a certain state, 
either mental or taterial; and that 
we only employ them in a manner si- 
milar to the employment of other 
names of modifications of states. 
Auy reader wishing for more illus- 
tration, will find it in Gilchrist’s 
“Philosophic Etymology,” pp. 119, 
323, 117, &e. where it is given particu- 
larly, “ that the understanding of the 
student may not get entangled among 
metaphysical cobwebs, nor lose itself 
in vacuous and indefinite phraseo- 
logy.” 
The distinction by application ap- 
pears to be also duplex, into appella- 
tive, the noun denoting the species or 
kind, as man, beast; (or the intedlec- 
tive, denoting some emotion, &c. oc- 
easionally regarded as modified,—as, 
bravery, charity, gratitude.) We no- 
tice that certain resemblances pervade 
ereation,—animated, vegetable, and 
mineral; sentient and insentient; and 
find very few substances entirely and 
absolutely different from every other 
body. ‘To these resemblances is ap- 
plied a word, significant of—not one 
alone, as connected with one object, 
but—one, as having similar formation, 
use, or employment, in every object: 
thus joint will apply to not ouly each 
part so called in one man’s body, but 
to every similar part in every animal; 
and, analogously, to the place of con- 
nection of parts in inanimate creation. 
The words denoting objects of sensa- 
tion so classed are grammatical sub- 
stantives; and, as they signify all of 
the kind, the application is obviously 
appellative. When the word thus em- 
ployed is significant of animals, the 
application, here called appellative, 
regards the kind as a whole,—the 
Dr. Skiw on some Peculiarities of Exglish Nouns. 
sol 
whole of beth sexes; hence there is no 
possibility of determining the number 
of individuals, and the sexes being 
certain, and necessarily implied, do 
not require characteristic distinction. 
This shows plainly the true import of 
St. Paul’s assertion, ‘ Christ Jesus 
came into the world to save sinners,” 
(1 Tim. i. 15.) as applicable to all man- 
kind, because all have sinned. Else 
similar assertions, like ‘‘man is born 
to trouble,” would be indefinite. And 
into common, when the substantive de- 
notes an individual of the species or 
kind,—as, a woman, a cow, a river, a 
garden, &c. ‘The occasions of man, in 
his varied relations, cause individuals 
to be regarded on account of their 
utility and services; hence, in order 
that his meaning may be understood 
by those with whom he converses, he 
has to distinguish them particularly by 
regarding their number and sex. ‘The 
idiom of our language in general, but 
not always, employs for an individual 
male the same word which is used to 
signify the kind, and varies it some 
way to signify the female of the kind, 
connecting numerical definitives when- 
ever requisite. This application is 
obviously common. 
Intellectives are mostly appellative ; 
each conception, or object of mental 
recognition, and each quality, being 
evidently individual. Many substan- 
lives are also ever appellatives,—as the 
names of diseases, drugs, food, grain, 
herbs, liquids, metals, spices, un- 
guents, &c. Proper names have oc- 
casiovally appellative application; thus 
Spence says, ‘Soon after the Anto- 
nines, all the arts declined apace at 
Rome;” and Gibbon, “ The first Cesars 
seldom showed themselves to the 
armies.” Courtesy not uufrequently 
applies to an individual, pre-eminent 
in wisdom, scionce, &c. the proper 
name of the perscn most notable for 
similar excelience. Our Henry VII. 
was called ‘‘the English Solomow;” 
and Wellington was styled “the mo- 
dern Marlborough,” till his successes 
succeeded those of the latter. On the 
same principle, we find the appclla- 
tive application introduced asa proper 
name, when Sir W. Herschel is called 
‘“‘the prince of astronomers ;” and Sir 
Hl. Davy, “the philosopher of Eng- 
land.” 
Illustration of the Propositions. 
Jer. x. 23. “*O Lord, LI know. that 
the way of man is not in himself; it is 
not in man that walketh to direct his 
steps.” 
