The ilrft ftep in the formation of acijoftives is abjlrad'ion ; 

 the mind being led to conceive of tiie quality independent 



thins 



of 



g, lu coniequtnce oi perceiving it in 



dijferent 



of the 



things. The frequent recurrence of the quality, wliich is 

 one and the fame, and therefore remembered, while the fub- 

 ■flances which prefeat it are numerous and fucceffive, and 

 therefore forgotten, greatly facilitates our abftraA concep- 

 tions. A fnnilar facihty, as we have already obferved, is 

 afforded by the independent ufe of words to exprefs quali- 

 ties. The dependence of adjeftives on the principle of ab- 

 llratlion is evident from one circumftance. Like is a very 

 abllraft quality ; and the union of this word with nouns 

 is one copious fource of adjeftives in moft languages of 

 which we have any knowledge. 



The next ftcp in the formation of adjeflives is affoc'iathn. 

 Tliis principle is fo powerful and inflantaneous, that it 

 changes the nature of a word, in confequence of its con- 

 neClion with other words, and of our previous experi- 

 ence. Thus, "the ladies _/(zn themfelves'' — "The plumy 

 people eye the falhng verdure.'' Becaufe we have expe- 

 rienced the middle term of a fimple direct propofition to 

 be always a -verb, we inilantly, in the above examples, con- 

 clude \.\aX.fan and eye do not here denote the things ufually 

 jiKant by thcni, but the operations of thofe things ; that is, 

 affociation and experience convert the naxm^fan and eye into 

 verbs, without any thing to aid er indicate that converiron 

 but affociation fuggefled by the collocation. This conver- 

 fijn of a noun into a verb by fimple experience, ilhiifrates 

 the converfion of a noun into an adjedtive. We place a 

 word hgnifying a quality before a word denoting a fub- 

 ilimce ; and as we uniformly find that qualities belong to 

 the things which th?y qualify, and firft aft upon our percep- 

 tions, we inilantly infer from the collocation that the lirll 

 fcxprefles an attribute of the fecond ; and this attribution 

 is not indicated by the termination of the attributive, but 

 an iiiferente of the mind founded on experience. The tcr- 

 Eiination en fignifying to be added is a conceit of this gram- 

 marian, and has no foundation in truth : for it is the Greek 

 participial termination in on, borrowed by the Goths. The 

 formation of language did not require fnch petty, circuit- 

 ous contrivances ; but points to the broad and hmple prin- 

 ciples of abllraftion and affociation as the copious fources of 

 all its phenomena. 



From this it appears, that a peculiarity of termination is 

 not neceffary to form an adjective, the collocation beinn- fuf- 

 iieient to afcertain its charader as fuch. An adjective may 

 liave the fame ending with any other noun, or with the very 

 noun from which it was derived ; and it has this identity 

 of termination in Greek and Latin, and yet no ambigu- 

 ity arifes as to its nature and ufe. The inference, which 

 vve inftantly, and we may fay, imperceptibly, draw from the 

 ju.xtapoj'uion in our own tongue, and from the fimilarity of 

 terminations in the claffical tongues, is an unerring guide in 

 thel'e relpedls. And this is the reafon why, in abarbarous 

 language, it is poflible that the name of a quality may be 

 alwai-s the fame with the name of the thing to which that 

 quality belongs, and yet abound v.ith adjedfives, i. e. abound 

 wilh nouns converted into adjeftives by juxtapofition. Y\nd 

 this is all that can be meant by the teltimoay of Dr. Ed- 

 wards, in regard to the language of the Mohegans. If there 

 exifted a language which had no verbs, but nonns converted 

 (as in the above inftance of fan and eye) into verbs without 

 any variation of termination, a perfon who did nut underiland 

 the nature of the human mind, and who had been accuilom- 

 i:d to clafllfy words only by their endings, might fay of that 

 language, that it had no ■verbs. 



The foundation of Mr. Tooke's error, is the circiunftance 



GRAMMAR 



that mofl 

 nouns in i 

 mind in the conltruftion of 1; 



adjeftives were originally nouns. .As they were 

 nouns in their origin, and as he rejefted the operations of the 

 conltruftion of language, he inferred with con- 

 fidence, that they were nouns yM, thus confounding in o;ie 

 promifcuous mafs our ideas of qualities, and our ideas of 

 things; yet, notwithilanding this confufion, he writes thus : 

 " If in what I have faid of the adjeftive, I have expreffcd 

 myfelf cleariy and fatisfaftorily ; you will eafily obferve that 

 adjettives, though convenient abbreviations, are not necejary 

 to language ; and, therefore, are not ranked by me amongll 

 the parts of fpecch ; and, perhaps you will perceive, in tlie 

 mifapprehcnfion of this ufeful and fimple contrivance of lan- 

 guage, one of the foundations of thofe heaps of falfe phi- 

 lofophy and obfcure (becaufe miftaten) metaphvfie with 

 which we have been bewildered.'' 



Adjeaives, as expreffing not things, but their qualities, 

 cannot, in flrift propriety, have any gender; but, as in Greek 

 and Latin, they have the fame terminations with nouns, they 

 are faid to be mafculine, feminine, or neuter, merelv as thcv 

 have mafcuhne, feminine, or neuter terminations. 



In moll languages, adjeftives vary their endings to corrc- 

 fpond with the plural form of nouns ; in Englifli they hav<? 

 no fuch variation, nor is it neceffary, fince qualities are not 

 fufcoptible of numerical diftinCfion, being the fame, vvhethor 

 applied to one or to many. 



There is, however, one variation which adjeftives have in 

 all languages, namely, the variatien to exp.-efs the three de- 

 grees of comparifon. The qualities of things differ in dif- 

 ferent objeas, and they muil be expreffed with augmentation. 

 or diminution, as they are compared v%ilh others more or lofs 

 iiitenfe. 



When a quality is expreiTed without reference to any other, 

 the adjettive is then faid to be in \.\\ii pofitive deoree. When 

 expreded with reference to the fame qu.nlitv or to another 

 more or lefs intenfe, it is faid to be in the ' ccmtarath-e de- 

 gree ; and when in the higheft or loweft degree of all, it is 

 m thc/«/..-T/,;//i./f. Different languages have different wavy 

 of forming the comparative and fuperiative ; but in ahnoif 

 all, both thefc degrees are derived by certain fvliablcs added 

 to the poiitive : the adjective itfelf, by being thus hn^thni J, 

 IS made to correfpond with tlie augmentation in fenfc, which 

 the quality acquires by companion. The mode of cxprcfT. 

 mg the degrees of qualities being only t^vo, and tlicrefore 

 very general and impeitect, while the qualities themfelves 

 vary in endlefs gradations, a more adequate mctliod is ufcU 

 by having recourfe to thofe attributes of an inferior order! 

 called adverbs, as much good, tolerably good, exceedinrrh good, 

 more good, mojl good. ^J^ 



As it is not our objea to detail the minute rules of gram- 

 mar in our own tongue, ;ve (hall conclude this part of the fub- 

 jea with one or two obfervations on the three degrees of com- 

 parifon. The pofitive degree, though not implying an imme- 

 diatc companion with the fame quality in a liigher or lower 

 degree, often conveys a relative or eon./^anitii-e^des. ; and fo.- 

 this reafon may, by the afhllance of a pvepofition, be made 

 to exprefs the comparative or fuperiative degree, as " BlefTcd 

 among women, ;. e. the moff blclfed of women." And 

 this_ relative or comparative idea, imphcd in the pofitive, is the 

 rea.on why the politive has fomethues after it the cafe which 

 IS ufed alter the c(;mparative. On the other hand, the com- 

 parative and fuperiative are ufed in a pofitive fenfe, or ufed 

 to exprefs a high degree without any immediate objea of 

 companfon. Thus Virgil fpeaks of Venus : " Triflior et 

 laerymis oculos fuffufa niteiiteE."-r;7,ft>.r, more fad than 

 iilual, /. e. very fad. This is more ufual in the fuperiative 

 degree, vir doa'ifimus, a very learned man. The comjjaraiive 

 18 ukd with propnety only when tivo thing.s are compared ; 



the 



