GRAMMAR. 



verb j eylan, to divide, to make a difference, 

 to discern ; and it signifies that faculty by 

 which things are properly divided or se- 

 parated one from another. Sorrow is the 

 past participle of pyp pan, to vex,to cause 

 mischief to, and is the general name for 

 any thing by which one is vexed, grieved, 

 or mischieved. Wrath is the past partici- 

 ple of ypifcan^o writ/te. Heat is the past 

 participle ofbgetan,^ make Lot. Doom is 

 the past participle of beman, to judge, to 

 decree. 



17. Anotherclass of abstract nouns, viz. 

 those ending in th, have been traced to a 

 very probable origin by Mr. H. Tooke : 

 he considers them as the third persons 

 singular of verbs. For instance: truth, 

 (anciently written troweth, trowth, trouth, 

 and troth,) means, what one troweth, i. e. 

 thinketh, or firmly believeth ; warmth 

 means that which warmeth,- strength is that 

 which ftriniretJi, or maketh one strong. 

 While, however, we agree so far with Mr. 

 Tooke, we cannot go with him when he 

 limits our acception of words to that in 

 which they were first employed; and sup- 

 poses that all the complicated, yet often 

 definable, associations, which the gradual 

 progress of language and intellect has con- 

 nected with words, are to be reduced to 

 the standard of our forefathers. We can- 

 not avoid expressing our belief, that he 

 has either totally overlooked, or greatly 

 neglected, the influence of the principle 

 of association, both in the formation of 

 ideas, and in the connecting of them with 

 words. It does not follow that, because 

 the ideas connected with abstract terms 

 are not what Mr. Locke supposed, that 

 there are no ideas connected with them, 

 but that they are merely contrivances of 

 language. Several classes of abstract 

 nouns are altogether passed over by Mr. 

 H. Tooke ; and we regret it, because he 

 is eminently qualified to trace the origin 

 of those terminations by which are form- 

 ed the names of qualities, considered as 

 separate from those substances in which 

 they exist. One class is formed by the 

 addition of ness to the adjective, such as 

 whiteness, goodness, &c. JVess is the Anglo- 

 Saxon ne af, or nepe, signify ing nose. It 

 is also used for promontory.- as in Sheer-ness, 

 Orford-ness, the JVaze, Stc. Joined to the 

 name of a quality, it denotes that the qua- 

 lity is a distinguishing feature of an ob- 

 ject; it consequently holds it upas an 

 object of separate attention. 



18. We now proceed to those changes 

 which are made in the form of nouns to 

 express a change of signification ; and 

 first we shall attend to number. In speak- 



ing of the objects of thought, we have 

 constant occasion to speak of one or more 

 of a kind ; in every language therefore we 

 may expect to find a variation in the form 

 of adjuncts of nouns, to denote unity or 

 plurality. To avoid the necessity of using 

 such adjuncts, or rather in consequence of 

 the coalescence of them with the nouns, 

 owing to the frequent use of them in con- 

 nection with the nouns, a change of form 

 has taken place in most cultivated lan- 

 guages. The Hebrew plurals are gene- 

 rally formed by the addition of o, mem, to 

 the noun, probably because Q was the 

 symbol of water, and denoted collection 

 and pluralty ; and in that language the 

 coalescence has actually taken place, and 

 occasionally undergone some corruption. 

 Among the Chinese the plural adjunct has 

 not yet coalesced with the noun; and they 

 generally denote the plural by the addi- 

 tion of win to the singular. Supposing 

 the coalescence ofplural adjuncts to have 

 been the origin of the changes on nouns 

 to denote plurality of meaning, it does not 

 necessarily follow that all plural changes 

 were thus formed. The change of form 

 produced by such coalescence in some 

 cases might suggest a corresponding 

 change in others, though the change 

 inigiit not be exactly similar. Hence, 

 could we trace some of the plural changes 

 to art, as their earliest origin, it would 

 weigh little against the general principle. 

 We shall, however, almost universally 

 find, that the extension of old procedures, 

 rather than the invention of new ones, has 

 been the cause of almost all even of the 

 artificial changes in language. The rea- 

 son is obvious: besides the greater ease 

 to the innovator, it would be much more 

 intelligible to those who are to adopt his 

 innovation. Even the philosopher judges 

 it more proper to follow the analogies of 

 his language, than to deviate from them, 

 where he knows such deviation would be 

 an improvement. Except as far as is dic- 

 tated by custom, and that convenience on 

 which the custom hasbeen founded, there 

 is no reason why the same word unchang- 

 ed should not be applicable both where 

 one and where more are meant : why, for 

 instance, we should not say two man, as 

 well as one man. The plural form may be 

 applied to two, or two hundred, or any 

 indefinite number; now is there in the 

 nature of the thing a more marked dis- 

 tinction between one and two, thaii be- 

 tween two and two hundred? In fiict, 

 were we always able to join to the noun 

 a numeral, or some other adnoun denot- 

 ing number, a plural form would be un- 

 necessary ; but it is frequently desirable 

 to denote plurality, where the number if 



