On Figurative Language. 85 
youred to free language from these shackles. 
From the:evident inconvenience and confusion 
arising from a multiplicity of objects bemg 
denoted by one name, facility and clearness of 
conimunication required that they should, as 
speedily as: possible, appropriate distinct names 
to every individual object, as far as practi- 
cable. Thus, if the word knave meant prima- 
 vily a labouring man ora servant, but cane 
gradually to sigmfy a man basely dishonest, 
from the prevailing character of that.class of 
people in: fornzer times, this would clearly be a 
transfered er figurative meaning; and if the 
word. kxave happened in time to be entirely 
discontmued in its primary or proper meaning, 
the figurative one would appear and»come to 
be cdnsidered as its: proper meaning. © For 
which reason, every word thus appropriated, 
became, as it) were, divested of ats figurative 
imeanmg, and had a proper character of its 
own ;°so thatit could not be applied to any 
other ‘ebject, not even to that for which it 
originally: stood, without again-sustaining a 
figurative: character. -Knave, in the sense of 
servant; is 2Ow an improper meaning, and the 
transferred ‘sense of 'a vtan buscly dishonest, 
must be regarded as its pr on extr afigurative 
acceptation. | , 
To exemplify this: By another’ instanicé : : If 
