On Definitions. 239 
degree of precision is attained, and much ambiguity obviously avoid- 
ed. Anearer approach is made to that which forms the object of 
all language, an accurate transmission of thought. When the same 
form of expression is invariably used to denote the same idea, then 
the idea itself becomes uniformly connected with that expression, 
and is presented with readiness and perspicuity to the mind of the 
auditor. Doubt, hesitation and uncertainty, are excluded from 
his conception of the thing expressed. But every deviation from 
that uniform mode of expression, from whatever cause it arises, is 
followed by doubt and uncertainty, the effects which we wish, above 
others to avoid, and which, in fact, render our attempts to convey 
information nugatory. 
Having thus ascertained the manner in which these definitions are 
formed, let the imperfections that have hitherto attended them, be 
next considered. ile we admire the beneficence of the Deity in 
enabling man to make these distinctions, we cannot avoid being sur- 
prised at the egregious folly of man, on account of the capriciousness 
with which he has carried them into effect. 
To begin with one of the plainest examples, the distinction be- 
tween the singular and plural numbers, is most clearly understood, 
and well defined ; yet there is no language in the known world, an- 
cient or modern, in which it is expressed in one uniform manner. 
The modern languages are on the whole, more uniform than the 
ancient, yet even in them — are many exceptions. That “there 
is no rule without exceptions,” seems to be a maxim invented by 
grammarians, and principally applicable to theirs only; for it has 
nothing to do with the exact sciences, and ‘very little with the phys- 
ical ones. The plural number is pretty generally formed in English 
and French by the addition of the letters. The latter does not 
pronounce it, and there are numerous exceptions in both. e an- 
cient languages are less uniform. It is a remarkable fact, though it 
hardly belongs to the present subject, that the oldest languages in 
Europe, appear to have formed their plurals in two - by the 
change of a vowel, or by the addition of an s. The modern Italian 
appears to have adopted the former method, the French and Eng- 
lish, the latter. 
It is to be observed, that the irregularity here caaaatne of, is 
not in the definition itself, which is abundantly clear and explicit ; 
but in the varying terms which are adopted for its expression. A 
language which would always express the plural number in the same 
