GRAMMAR. 
seemed necessary, in order to do justice to our subject, 
that oF the common Rees 
th ts, as well as 
jst views which 
‘no vague ‘or lexi 
uniformity + the deft 
‘nite combinations of certain material qualities, is in no 
3 eprived of its solidity or interest, though we 
a. decline to admit the: is of'a substratum. The 
i is will assist: our ‘physical, as 
, our ical studies. It: will :relieve us 
from the embarrassment of the understanding which 
found in a detached state. Those who are unpracti 
in the accurate exercise of thou; and have led 
‘by words, have, in the outset of their: physical 
uiries, found it difficult to conceive that a body 
which is felt yet not seen, as the air, has an ‘existence 
ly teal As other matter. The sight also 
considered li which implies an object of ‘sight un- 
accom ied by any object of cmeitien on'this account 
more di it_to be understood than earth, stones, and 
other substances 
jects, and much less for a distinction inthe kind of 
by which such objects should be expressed. This 
is the same conclusion to which srerdendlecbeeksoatiolp 
the history of nouns. We find that the same kinds of 
ideas are designated by them as by adjectives. 
ral If the distinction betwixt nouns’ and other parts of 
speech cannot be founded on the place which the ob-« 
d 
oun, jects expressed by them occupy in’ nature, it must rest 
entirely on the’ manner ‘in which'they are introduced 
with relation to the other words with which they are 
conjoined. It depends on the rank which the word 
occupies in a: sentence, and which the thought excit~ 
ed by it is intended: to occupy in that mental series 
4 ich we wish to produce. 
iry How; then, ‘are we to define the noun so as to dis« 
n this tinguish itfrom’ the other of speech? Shall we, 
. ith Mr Tooke, consider it as the “‘ mere:name of an 
idea?” » Shall we consider the verb: as a part of speech 
more complicated in its nature, by containing *‘some cir 
eumstance in addition tothe name of anidea?” And shall 
we be induced to extend a similar character of compli- 
_ cation, in a smaller degrees: a ? This mode 
of pro ing might at ‘a usible. But, on 
ee eeieat reflection, we shall fulahenns word, not even 
a substantive noun, exists as the mere name of an idea, 
that there is always a demonstration of some further 
definite use to which it is to be applied. This we know 
to beithe purpose of the variations called cases... Even: 
the nominative case has a peculiarity which does not 
consist in the want of any such demonstration.. The 
syllable us: in dominus, denoting the: nominative case, 
informs, us that; the noun is to. be connected with a 
verb of assertion.. The genitive case, and all the others 
in like manner point out some definite use of the noun. 
If we separate these terminations, and consider them 
as distinct signs, and regard the radical syllables as 
containing the essence of the noun, (as in this ex- 
ample the syllables domin,) we shall still retain the 
name of the idea, but we shall have ing to distin- 
guish the noun from the other parts of speech. If a 
899 
verb is deprived of all the parts which are intended to 
connect the idea which it with the other 
ideas expressed in a sentence, we shall, in like manner, 
retain the mere name of an obj In domin we have 
the radical syllables of the verb dominor, as well as of 
the noun dominus. 
Taking the noun with all the terminations incident 
to it, we might still be supposed desirous of giving it a 
definition. In its different forms we have'a variety of 
uses to which it is applied. With these in our view, 
we may now ask, what circumstance is common to 
them all, which does not belong. to the same etymon 
in the form of a verb. It will not be easy to give a 
formal definition of this. It appears to us to con- 
sist. in the degree of ‘conspicuousness which the word 
has in a sentence, and the ascendant interest which 
the'idea expressed’ by it is‘ intended to have in the 
mind of the person addressed. The noun is a name 
for the central object of interest. When we come to 
consider'the different cases, it will be made to a 
that they refer us to degrees of importance different 
from one another; but they all agree in expressin 
ideas nearer to the central object than those pnent 
by the other parts of 3 or, at least, this will be 
shewn to be their original destination. This may seem 
avery imperfect definition of a particular part of speech : 
it expresses, however, nothing’ but what is true ; and 
the same truth will be more fully developed in other 
instances, as we proceed with the discussion of the va- 
rious kinds of words. Although no formal definition 
has now been given of the noun, the pirpose of a defi- 
nition is ultimately answered when it is described by 
means of a comparison with other words, the only ob- 
jects from which it requires to be distinguished. 
When no*termination is affixed to the radical sign, 
the distinction betwixt its application as a noun and as 
a verb is designated by its mode of connection with 
other words in the sentence, When the general idea 
expressed by the word “love” is exhibited’as the chief 
object of interest, “love” isa noun, and the purposes of 
speech require it in that use to be conn with some 
sort of verb, as “love is a pleasing emotion.” It is 
thus fully distinguished from the verb “love,” which 
is known to'be a verb from having a noun connected 
with it as introductory. In such sentences as, “I love,” 
‘© you love,” “ they: love,” the subject of discourse is 
always denoted by a substantive noun. Other substan- 
tive nouns may indeed be introduced as subordinate to 
that which signifies the subject chiefly spoken of. ‘The 
differences of these relations will be afterwards attend- 
ed:to. In the mean time we shall regard this general 
purpose as giving origin to that res upiesiia Inthe 
noun the name of the idea has alse greater latitude in 
the uses to which it is applied. “It is a sign by means 
of which the same idea may, in the progress of discourse, 
be represented repeatedly, and in a great variety of as- 
pects. ; 
Seer. II. Concrete and Abstract Nouns. 
Nouns are either concrete or ‘abstract. A concrete 
noun signifies a congeries of qualities habitually pre- 
sented together in nature.. An abstract noun signifies 
a quality separately conceived. 
he words “ man,” “ woman,” * wood,” ‘ stone,” 
Universal 
Graminar, 
An attempt 
to describe 
the nature 
of the noun, 
Nature of 
“house,” city,” are ‘examples’ of concrete nouns, concrete 
They are the same that have been considered by — 
marians and metaphysicians as the names of substan- 
ces, that is, of substrata possessing definite qualities. 
The qualities and the substances have been supposed to 
nouns. 
