GRAMMAR. 



sort of the ignorant ; for the number of 

 the fingers is still the utmost extent of 

 numeration. The hands doubled, closed, 

 or shut in, may therefore well be denomi- 

 nated ten (the past particle ot tyann to 

 enclose, to shut in) for therein you have 

 closed all numeration; and if you want 

 more, you must begin again, ten and one, 

 ten and two, &c. to ttoaintens, when you 

 must begin again as before. Score is the 

 past particle of r '! 1 *" to shear, to sepa- 

 rate ; and means separated parcels or tal- 

 leys. The ordinal numbers, as they ai-e 

 called, are formed like the abstract nouns 

 in eth : fifth, sixth, tenth, &c. is the unit 

 which five-eth, six-eth, ten-eth, i. e. makes 

 up the number Jwe, six, ten, &.c. The 

 ordinal numerals are .obviously abbrevia- 

 tions of expression, for one, and one, 

 and one, &c. ; and we need not be sur- 

 prised, as they are continually used, and 

 were so originally, without any noun 

 following them, to find them occa- 

 sionally receiving the variations of the 

 noun. 



III. Of the Pronoun. 



26. So much has already been said re- 

 specting the force of the pronoun, that it 

 is unnecessary to enlarge upon it here. 

 Mr. H. Tooke's derivation of it must how- 

 ever be stated, as it shows what have 

 been the actual procedures of language in 

 the formation of one of our pronouns, 

 *and gives an insight into the probable 

 origin of the rest. It, formerly written 

 hit and het, is the past participle of the 

 verb frAJTVVn to nam8 i an< ^ therefore 

 nteans the person or persons, thing or 

 thin gs named, or afore said: and accord- 

 ingly was applied by all our old writers 

 indifferently to plural and to singular 

 nouns. We do not know whether a simi- 

 lar opinion, as to the origin of pronouns, 

 has been before laid before the public, 

 but the philosophical Greek professor of 

 Glasgow, (whose prelections have often 

 anticipated Mr. H. Tooke) long ago tleliv- 

 ered*it as his opinion, that some, at least, 

 of the pronouns are participles ; and, if 

 we mistake not, traced the origin of eya, 

 and ipse, as follows. Ey&>, in the more 

 ancient dialect of Greece, was g/&y. 

 which is an obvious abbreviation or cor- 

 ruption of Ay<yy ; so that tya (whence 

 the Latin and other languages have their 

 first person) signifies the speaking per- 

 son. Ipse is the Latin past participle from 

 sTra ; and though this verb is not to be 

 found in Latin writers, those who know 



how much the Latin is a dialect of the 

 Greek, will not feel this a material diffi- 

 culty : on this derivation, ipse signifies the 

 said person, 8cc. These speculations 

 might be advantageously extended, would 

 our limits permit ; but sufficient has been 

 said to show, that these words are not of 

 that unintelligible nature which has been 

 usually supposed. 



27. Respecting the inflection of pro- 

 nouns, the same general principles are 

 applicable, as respecting that of nouns. 

 His is obviously he's; and whatever be 

 the origin of the possessive termination 

 of the noun, it has the same origin here. 

 Mine, thine, and hern and theim, still re- 

 tained in some of our dialects, have* ap- 

 parently the same origin as -wooden, -wool- 

 len, &c. The objective form is merely a 

 grammatical appropriation of one of the 

 forms of the pronouns to a particular pur- 

 pose ; and we siill find that her, among 

 the vulgar, is commonly employed, as the 

 subject of verbs, instead of she. 



28. Though we see no reason to give 

 the appellation pronoun to those words 

 which are called adjective pronouns, (and 

 accordingly we class them as restrictives,) 

 yet there is one word of peculiar import- 

 ance, which seems properly a pronoun, 

 tnd to which some attention is necessary, 

 viz. the relative. We have already ob- 

 served several of the contrivances of lan- 

 guage to particularize general terms ; 

 another is, to restrict or explain the gene- 

 ral term by means of a dependant sen- 

 tence connected with it by a relative. 

 We will first consider what the relative 

 performs, and then how it performs it. 

 Take the following examples; every 

 man, who loves truth, abhors falsehood ; 

 and John, who loves truth, hates false- 

 hood. If the relative clause had been 

 omitted in the former sentence, the re- 

 maining assertion would have been false ; 

 here then it is restrictive : in the second 

 it is merely explanatory, and in such 

 cases, so far from being necessary, may 

 even destroy the unity and force of the 

 sentence. To explain the subject of 

 discourse, and to restrict its signification, 

 are the two offices of the relative. If the 

 custom of language allowed it, precisely 

 the same purpose mightbe answered by an 

 adjective or participle connected with the 

 term, as, every man loving truth, &c. and 

 it might seem useless to introduce a new 

 procedure ; but the utility of the present 

 plan is obvious, when we consider the 

 immense number of new words which 

 must be introduced to supply the place 

 of the relative; and further, that it ena- 



