384 Observations on Language. 



to exactness of thought, and to perspicuity, and preci- 

 sion, of language. 



The number of Prepositions in our language is much 

 greater than that, in both the Latin and Greek tongues. 

 I do not know this number exactly ; but it is not far 

 from fifty. As the whole use of prepositions is to ex- 

 press with exactness the relations between objects ; this 

 multiplication of them is another remarkable proof of 

 the same attention, on the part of those, by whom it is 

 spoken. 



Both the Greeks and Uomans were sensible of the im- 

 perfection, with which relations were expressed by the 

 terminations of their Nouns ; and therefore adopted a 

 considerable number of prepositions, to aid themselves 

 in expressing these relations more perfectly. But this 

 imperfection is much more strongly visible in a single 

 example. B}'^ the ablative case in the Latin language 

 were customarily denoted the several relations, which 

 we express by the prepositions at^ by ^ from, in, on, -with. 

 What a degree of ambiguity is involved in this single 

 fact: especially when we remember, that it is applica- 

 ble to every noun : and how perfectly is this ambiguity 

 precluded by the use of these prepositions ? I know 

 there are men, who, either from taste or the affectation 

 of it, or from the preference of impression" to truth, 

 would willingly decline the advantages, accruing from 

 this and other similar sources to the intellect ; and rest 

 satisfied with the superiour neatness of a language, rest- 

 ing its meaning on terminations. With these men I 

 shall not enter into a controversy ; but shall content my- 

 self with merely saying, that, in my own view, reason 

 is more valuable than passion and imagination ; clear- 

 ness of thought, than impression ; and perspicuity and 

 precision of style, than beauty. 



The vast multiplication of Ccvjuncticns in our lan- 

 guage, for the purpose of expressing with exactness the 

 connections, and dependencies, of thought, is another 

 proof, that the same object was strongly in view; and a 

 part of the same design. These, if I mistake not, are 

 more numerous in our language than in both of the 

 others. 



For these reasons it seems probable, that this change 



