Philosophy of Language. 1 27 



light/' he has done more to explain the whole 

 theory of language than any, or than all his prede- 

 cessors. He seems at length, indeed, to have ter- 

 minated the dispute, and to have dispelled the 

 darkness which, for so many ages, had rested on 

 the subject. 



The leading doctrine of Mr. Tooke is, that there 

 are only two necessary parts of speech, viz. the 

 Noun and the Verb, and that all other words, whe- 

 ther adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, &:c. are to 

 be considered as corruptions or abbreviations of 

 these two; and, of course, that the latter classes of 

 words, instead of being in themselves, as both 

 Mr. Harris and Lord Monboddo had taught, 

 mere unmeaning sounds, might be traced to a dis- 

 tinct and sensible signification.^ In dividing all 

 words into two grand classes, Mr. Tooke agrees 

 with the plan which Lord Monboddo adopted 

 from Plato and Aristotle; but with respect to 

 the remaining details of his system he is original, 

 and presents a much more consistent and philoso- 

 phical view of the subject than any preceding 

 writer. In a few small particulars also, the doc- 

 trines of the Diversions of Purley had been antici- 

 pated by the learned Dutch etymologists before 

 mentioned ; but the points of coincidence between 

 them are so few and unimportant as to take away 

 nothing material from Mr. Tooke of the honour 

 of oriffinalitv.' 



O J 



I The author of Ersa Ur^Ocvloc lately published the first volume, of 

 a new ami enlarged edition of his work, intended to consist of three vols. 

 4to. It is to be regretted, however, that instead of bringing new sup- 

 port to his theory, or pursuing the investigation further than he had be- 

 fore carried it, he has filled up the additional space which the enlargement 

 of his plan afforded him, with nothing more than caustic strictures an the 

 writings of his opponents, and unseasonable exhibitions of his political 

 opinions. Mr. Tooke and Dr. Beddoes, in their respective styles of 

 writing, bear a strong resemblance to each other. It is not improbable 

 that the latter has made the great philologist his model. They have both 

 great merit in their way; but it is to be hoped that in several a -.tributes of 

 their composition they will have few imitators. 



