a 4s, comprehend the whole of our concrete ideas, 
r ideas of substances. We have words to repre- 
‘sent these assemblages, and words to represent sin- 
e qualities. But this does not constitute the dis- 
tinction betwixt substautives and adjectives. Both 
kinds of ideas are indiscriminate ressed by these 
two parts of . The adjective, like the substan- 
tive or noun, is the name ofan object. The circum- 
stance which constitutes its peculiarity is, that it alsocon- 
tains an intimation of the subordination of the idea ex- 
pressed by it to’the idea expressed by a noun in the 
same sentence. | Ithas in fact the same 6. rete with 
the genitive case of the noun. Sometimes these two parts 
of speech may be shown to be synonymous. The words 
« Peter's,”  Solomon’s,” “ Cicero's,” are by some called 
“genitive cases, by others adjectives of possession. The 
words “ Aristotelian” and “Ciceronian”’ are reckoned ad- 
jectives by all, and also such words as “ Roman” and 
“Grecian.” Allof these equally contain the name of a per- 
son or country, with an intimation that it is to be comect- 
ed with some other idea expressed by a noun in the sen- 
tence. We shall soon see the similarity of use betwixt 
these adjectives and such as discover less composition 
‘in their structure. We shall also see the cause of their 
sae difference. 
have asserted that the adjective by itself ex- 
“presses no idea. This opinion has arisen from the cir- 
cumstance that it supposes some other idea expressed 
by a different word. But this is in reality an addition 
to its meaning. Every ideaexpressed. by a substantive 
may also be expressed by an adjective, and vice versa. 
The idea ssed by “man” is also expressed by 
“manly ;”? and the idea expressed by the adjective 
“ ” is also expressed by the substantive “goodness.” 
erhaps it will be alleged that, when we use the 
adjective, we do not give a full representation of an 
object, but merely refer to it by mentioning’ a — 
founded on some connection with it; that the words 
Roman,” “English,” “Ciceronian,” do not imply the full 
meaning of “ Rome,” “England,” and “Cicero.” ‘In an- 
__” swerto this we mustobserve that the awn partof words 
_ inasentence are merely introduced for reference. Some- 
times, where many words are used, and many objects of 
thought mentioned, those which are mentioned on their 
own account are comparatively few, the greater part of 
the words, including the nouns employed, being mere- 
ly introduced for the sake of reference, ‘A Roman 
senator,” and ‘a senator of Rome,” mean exactly the 
same thing; therefore the ideas contained in the word 
« Rome” are also contained in the word “ Roman.” 
-» Those whose reflections are in the habit of suggest- 
ing more subtile arguments, may object that the word 
‘Rome"is a proper name, while “ Roman” expresses age~ 
‘neral quality. This, however, is the same objection in a 
different form. A part of the word “ Roman” is a proper 
name. The generality of such adjectives arises from the 
variety of occasions on which proper names may be 
used, Their application in connection with other words 
thus becomes = general, and the same thing may be said 
| of any form of a noun that implies definite connection 
_ with other words, The adjectives « Roman,” “ Gre- 
cian,” ak rench,” %) lish,” ff Alexandrian,” « Cice- 
___s-ronian,” “Foxite,” “ Pittite,” contain the names of indivi- 
_ duals, but they become general from being applicable 
to many objects. A relationship to an indivi be- 
‘comes a generic quality. 
_ There are, however, adjectives which express the pos- 
session of general qualities founded on no reference to 
“a. particular individual. These adjectives have less ap~ 
oy 
GRAMMAR, 
any. di 
415 
pearance of composition thanthosenow mentioned,andare Universal 
pti sae. an the substantive ey sary torepre- Grammar. 
sent the qualities as:separate objects. “ )”?) * bad,” 
hard,” «¢ soft,” “light,” heavy. are shorter words ple ag 
than’ goodness,” “ badness,” “ hardness,” + softness,” adjectives. 
" 4 tape fhe aueeicetal It is from the as- 
pect of words of this. sort that grammarians have 
concluded that the adjective does not express a com- 
plete idea, They are never derived from the e- 
ral name of the quality, It has been imagined that 
the ideas which such adjectives express are essential- 
ly general, that they have no corresponding objects 
possessed of an individual existence, and , that, when 
substantive nouns, such as “* goodness” and “ badness,” 
are derived from them, a forced effort is made to treat 
qualities in language as if they were substances. The 
just conclusion was not drawn, that substantives and 
adjectives, as mutually distinguished, are forms fitted for 
certain pxpaee in language, and not signs founded in 
erences in the nature of the external objects 
signified. 
The-reason of the comparative brevity of words’ sig- Reason of 
nifying general qualities, when in the form of adjectives, the simple 
has been already hinted at. Individual instances of structure of 
these qualities have no separate interest attached to °°"'* Lous 
them, and therefore the words expressing them con- vari 
tain an intimation of their annexation to some UP. to the cor- 
The names of groups, even though generic, are in the responding 
first instance so contrived as to be fitted to become substan. 
the names of leading subjects of discourse; and ever “’™ 
after merely require a proper introduction to render 
them distinctive signs for individuals. | It is ata more 
advanced period of human thought that single qualities 
become separate objects of attention, and then it is na- 
tural to create names for them by the composition of 
words previously in use, : 
The adjective, like the genitive case of the noun, is.a 
word subordinate to a noun by which it is introduced. 
Sometimes it is employed to remind us of one of the 
ideas contained in the noun, as when a poet speaks of 
« fleecy clouds,” “the azure sky” and “ verdant foliage ;” 
or when a historian, under impressions of indignation 
at any series of outrageous conduct, uses such expres- 
sions as.‘ the infamous Robespierre.” 
The most usual effect of adjectives is, to reduce with- Ultimate 
in a more limited range the application of a general effect of ad- 
term, by the addition of a circumstance which belongs Jes 
only to a limited part of the genus which that term ex- 
presses. ‘ A man” means one individual belonging to a 
certain class of beings. The words, “a good man,” re- 
present one belonging to a limited part of that class. 
An additional circumstance, attached by, means of ano- 
ther adjective, would limit the meaning still more: and 
an accumulation of adjectives of this sort is capable of 
affording a combination of sufficiently limited occur~ 
rence for any purpose of distinctive description, 
The subordination of the idea contained in the ad- Varieties in 
‘jective to the noun with which it is coupled is in some the degree 
instances less strict than in others. On some occasions oe 
the ideas expressed by these two parts of speech might the idea 
exchange places without any material alteration in the expressed 
meaning of the compound designation thus formed. by the ad- 
«A written libel’’ is equivalent to “a libellous writing ;” 4ective- 
“a false assertion,” to “an asserted falsehood.” . Al- 
though the purposes of connection in discourse require 
one of the ideas thus nearly equal in. importance to be 
expressed by a substantive noun, the choice is left to 
the option of taste and convenience. In other instances. 
in which they may be made to shift places, when,the 
