1792» on personal pronoum. 269 



For example, we more readily say, yames''s handi 

 than yames's self, for a very obvious reason, viz. be- 

 cause the phrase fames'' s hand, is, when taken alto- 

 gether, only one noun ; the definitive fames'' s, being 

 only necefsary to identify the word hand. But the 

 ■whole individual is clearly exprefsed by the single 

 word James alone ; and therefore the word self is 

 here unnecefsary, unlefs where some particular con- 

 trast is implied, or a particular emphasis be givea 

 to the phrase. 



These considerations, with others that are suffi- 

 ciently obvious in pursuing this mode of reasoning, 

 satisfy me, that t'ac -woxci self Is a noun, in the stric- 

 test sense of the word, and Ihould be ranked in the 

 same clafs with the word hand ; but that, as it ex- 

 prefses the object generally, the defining noun alone, 

 can, on many occasions, denote the idea, without 

 obliging us to repeat this particular word ; but that 

 this definitive must always be accompanied by the 

 particular object it serves to identify, when a partis 

 cuLar part or member only is exprefsed. Where 

 We wifti to exprefs that general idea, without appro- 

 priating it to particulars, w^ can equally make use 

 of either of these words as a nominative to a verb, 

 without being accompanied by any sort of definitive :. 

 Thus, 



" A hand is the most useful member of the humaa 

 body ;" or, " Self, is ever interesting to man." 



We have seen above the reason why those nouns 

 that serve to denote particular parts or members of 

 bodies, are usually defined by the nomial definitive ; 

 as also why the general word self, so often afsumes 

 the pronomial definitive iu ls,nguage. It now only 



