On Definitions. 239 



degree of precision is attained, and much ambiguity obviously avoid- 

 ed. A nearer approach is made to that which forms the object of 

 all language, an accurate transmission of thought. When the same 

 form of expression is invariably used to denote the same idea, then 

 the idea itself becomes uniformly connected with that expression, 

 and is presented with readiness and perspicuity to the mind of the 

 auditor. Doubt, hesitation and uncertainty, are excluded from 

 his conception of the thing expressed. But every deviation from 

 that uniform mode of expression, from whatever cause it arises, is 

 followed by doubt and uncertainty, the effects which we wish, above 

 others to avoid, and which, in fact, render our attempts to convey 

 information nugatory. 



Having thus ascertained the manner in which these definitions are 

 formed, let the imperfections that have hitherto attended them, be 

 next considered. While we admire the beneficence of the Deity in 

 enabling man to make these distinctions, we cannot avoid being sur- 

 prised at the egregious folly of man, on account of the capriciousness 

 with which he has carried them into effect. 



To begin with one of the plainest examples, the distinction be- 

 tween the singular and plural numbers, is most clearly understood, 

 and well defined ; y^t there is no language in the known world, an- 

 cient or modern, in which it is expressed in one uniform manner. 

 The modern languages are on the whole, more uniform than the 

 ancient, yet even in them there are many exceptions. That "there 

 is no rule without exceptions," seems to be a maxim invented by 

 grammarians, and principally applicable to theirs only ; for it has 

 nothing.to do with the exact sciences, and very little with the phys- 

 ical ones. The plural rmmber is pretty generally formed in English 

 and French by the addition of the letter s. The latter does not 

 pronounce it, and there are numerous exceptions in both. The an- 

 cient languages are less uniform. It is a remarkable fact, though it 

 hardly belongs to the present subject, that the oldest languages in 

 Europe, appear to have formed their plurals in two ways, by the 

 change of a vowel, or by the addition of an s. The modern Italian 

 appears to have adopted the former method, the French and Eng- 

 lish, the latter. 



It is to be observed, that the irregularity here complained of, is 

 not in the definition itself, which is abundantly clear and explicit ; 

 but in the varying terms which are adopted for its expression. A 

 language which would always express the plural number in the same 



