GRAMMAR. 



cncc to thcJiiJF^nifaonJ, and thus reprefentcd as fomcthing 

 dilliud from thcra, and not included under them. Thus 

 {iflPT ^'"'> '" Hebrew, and he in Englifli, were, as we (hall 

 prefcntly fee, but the article ; and fo c, ouio.-, ix.um;, butc? in 

 Greek, and hie, ilk, is, ipfe, in Latin, are all a fpecies of reftric- 

 tive or definitive adjectives, agreeing with the defined noini 

 expreffed or implied. As the firft and fecond perfons i-epre- 

 fcnt two individuals in peculiar circumftances, they comj-re- 

 hend no other noun under them ; whereas tlie third perfon 

 is only in general a fubjeft of difcourfe, and therefore^ it 

 comprehends any noun in the language, excepting the firll 

 and fecond : accordingly every fubjccf or agent in every lan- 

 cruan-e is the third perfon fingular and plural, except {-our, /, 

 7hoii° tue, and j'f, or their equivalents. The firft and fecond 

 perfon, we have fcen, exclude tlie idea of fex, whereas it is 



■ a charafter often ncceffary to be marked in the fubjcCl 

 or ao-ent : for this reafon pronouns of the third perfon have 

 the triple diftindlion of mafculine, feminine, and neuter. 



All the three perfons admit the plural number, as each is 

 capable of reprefenting numbers. In our own tongue /, we, 

 thou, you or yf ; he, Jhe, it, they. Here it may be obferved 

 that y; is a corruption of you or you abbreviated ; and as 

 this abbreviation naturally takes place in the nominative or 

 vocative, when the perfons addrelied are called ; and as it 

 is neceflarv to be diiliucf when expreffing tlie addrefled per- 

 fons as aftetted by a verb, ye is ufed with propriety only in 

 the nominative or vocative, and_}'OK in the accufative. Men of 

 rank, beinn- ufu;dly furroundcd with attendants, it became a 

 con-.pliment to addrefs a perfon as fuch ; in the fame manner 

 as in Greek, « -t^i aiiscuoy,lhofe around Priam, was a refpect- 

 ful way of delignating Priam. Hence in common dilcourfe 

 we ufe you for thou ; and on fuch occafions the verb alfo 

 fiiould be in the plural ; as j'Om were and not you -was. But this 

 compnnientary llyle is not applied to the Supreme Being, 

 who is always addreiled by thou, from a regard, probably, to 

 his unity, numbers being not able to add to his dignity or 

 greatnefs. The regal llyle lue has refpeft to the king's 

 <;ounl"ellors, who arc fuppofed to advife the fubjeft of dif- 

 courfe, and who are refponfible for it. With regard to the 



. third perfon, though it be convenient to mark the gender, it 

 is not effential : for the plural they is made to reprefent men, 

 women, and things, without any inconvenience or ambiguity. 

 The perfonal pronouns, contrary to the analogy of nouns, 

 have each three terminations, or three variations, to denote 

 cafes. This is owing to their being derived from the Greek 

 and Latin, with their refpeftive inflexions. Their genitive, 

 dropping the primary fenfe of beginning, has uniformly the 

 fecondary fenfe of pojejfwii. Hence it is called, in our 

 tongue, not improperly, the p^Jjefl've cafe. 



In Hebrew, Arabic, and Perilan, the perfonal pronouns 

 arc converted into adjedlives, by being annexed to nouns, 

 vvhich, from their pofition, are called affixes. In this ftate 

 they are fomewhat abbreviated and changed : but however 

 changed when connetled with nouns, they are always adjec- 

 tives, but retain their perfonality when affixed to verbs. 

 In our ov.'n tongue the perlonal pronouns are changed into 

 adjeftives from the genitive or poifeflive cafe : as mine, my ; 

 tJjlne, thy ; hers, ours, yours, theirs ; her, our, your, their. Thus 

 formed, they are properly called pronominal flc//r5/'ivj— adjec- 

 tives, as qualifying nouns, and pronominal, as derived from 

 the perlonal pronouns. His mull be confidcred, by coa- 

 lefcence, as an adjective of this kind, through the genij 

 tive he's. Thefe pronominal adjetlives, as derived from the 

 frenitive, may be refolved into the fignifix;ation of that cafe :• 

 as my of me ; thy of thee; his of- him, though feldom in 

 t KngUfh ufed in their perfonal form.: ; The reafon is, that 

 .our tongue has a Iliong proper.fity to convert nouns into 

 8 



adjeftives by juxtapofition, and thus to ufe then\ for tlie 

 fake of brevity, inflead <.f the -genitive: as when we fay 

 Jtlk-Jlring for firing of Jill:, and gold-ring for ring cf gold. 

 The Greek and Latin do not abound with the fame analogy, 

 and therefore frequently ufe the perfenal pronoun in the 

 genitive as equivalent to the pronominal adjertives. 



The reciprocal or reflex pronounyj^'is added to thefe pro- 

 nominal adjectives : as myflf, thyfdf, &c. The third periop. 

 fingular and plural by analogy.fliould be his-seJfiixA ihcirfelivs : 

 but in order to humour the ear or the organs of fpeech, 

 thefe are changed into him/elf :ind themfehes. Self means an 

 individual in oppofition to another, and is derived from the 

 Latin folus, alone, through the medium of the Anglo-Saxon 

 foUis, foul, Anglo-Saxon yJi/r'Ayi/y.- hence -Aio foul, which 

 means that part of man in which confilts the vital principle in 

 oppofition to the body : oivn, often ufeJ to precede feif, is a 

 conniption of the Anglo-Saxon ogen, which by the mlertioii 

 of the letter g, after the analogy of that language, is bor- 

 rowed from the Latin unus. O-jntfelf, therefore, is onefelf. 



Mr. Harris gives the following account of that fpecies of 

 adjefti\<?s called de/initives or articles : " The vifible and indi- 

 vidual fubftances of nature are infinitely more numerous 

 than for each to admit a particular name. To fupply this 

 defeft, when any individual occurs, which either wants a 

 proper name, or whofe proper name is not known, we 

 afcertain it as well as we can, by referring it to its fpecies ; or 

 if the fpecies be unknown, then at leall to fome genus. For 

 example, a certain objeft occurs with a head and limbs, and 

 appearing to poilefs the power of felf-moticn and fenfation : 

 if \%c know it not as an individual, we refer it to its proper 

 fpecies, and call it dog, or hrrfe, or lion, or the like. If none 

 of thefe names fit, we go to the genus, and c.iU it animal." 



" But this is not enough : the thing at which we are look- 

 ing is neither a fpecies nor a genus. What is it then ? An in- 

 dividual. Of what kind ? Known or unknown ? Seen now 

 for the firfi; time, or feen before, and now remembered ? It 

 is here we fhall difcover the ufe of the two articles a and 

 the. A refpeCls our primary perceptions, and defines indi- 

 viduals as unknown : the refpecls our fecondary perception, 

 and denotes individuals as known. To explain by an exam- 

 ple : I fee an obje<3; pafs by, which I never faw till now. 

 What do I fay ? There goes a beggar with a long beard. 

 The man departs, and ' returns a week after. What do I 

 fav tlien ? There goes the beggar with the long beard. The 

 article only is changed, the reft remains unaltered. Yet 

 mark the force of this apparently minute change. The indi- 

 vidual, once itague, is now recognized as fomething known, 

 and that merely by the efficacy of this latter article, which 

 tacitly infinuates a kind of previous acquaintance, by re- 

 ferring the prefent perception to a like perception already 

 paft. 



" The truth is, the articles a and the are both of them 

 definitives, as they circumfcribe the latitude af genera and 

 fpecies, by reducing them for the niofl part to denote in- 

 dividuals. The difference between them, however, is this ; 

 tlie article a leaves the individual h(e\{ unafcertained, whereas 

 the article the afcertains the individual alio, and is for that 

 reafon the more accurate definitive of the two.' 



We give this t^atement as that of an eminent grammarian, 

 without fubfcribing to it as jufl in all refpecls. It is not, we 

 conceive, true, to fay that the individual defined by a is always 

 unafcerlained ; nor does the necclTarily imply a previous 

 acquaintance, by referring the prefent perception to a 

 like perception already paft. And we cannot help obferv. 

 ing that, -if Mr. Harris and other writers on the fulijeft had 

 traced thefe words to their fources, and thus alcertained their 

 primary meaning, their readers would have been more inform - 



