GRAMMAR. 



ei in one paragraph, than thej' othcrwifc (rould by the moll 

 elaborate trcatifc. 



The article a is in truth the numeral adjeftive 'u in Greek, 

 xmus in Latin, c:n, an, an-, i:i Anglo-Saxon : and the import 

 of it prccifely correfponds with its original lignification of 

 onf. ul book is one book ; a man is one man. Hence we 

 may learn with certainty the foUmving particulars. That it 

 is enveloping the word in myltcry to call it an article, inftead 

 of calhncr it by the more appropriate name o{ numeral adjsdkv. 



ihian or thegan, lo tah;. But thcfe dt-finitivei txijl in that 

 language, and why fhoiild he attempt to derive them from anV 

 word, when they are already formed and employed in tLe 

 fame fenfe ? He fccms to have been aware of this Objection. 

 And he adds, vol. ii. p. 60, "7/;<'(oiir article, as it is 

 called) is the imperative of the fame vurb thean, which may 

 very well fupply the place of tliecorrcl'pondent Anglo-Saxon 

 article fe, which is the imperative of feon, videre. For 

 _ _ _ _ . it anfwcrs the fame purpofe in difcourfe to hr—fu man, or 



or d-fimli'vs. That as it means one it cannot be prefixed to plural tai- man." The Engliih tale, and the AnglolSaxon tte-ca, 

 .._i,i-, .i.„i u. »...„„ ... ii„»i..„ i,.,r. Tu.. which tiiis writer would lead us to regard as a primitive- 

 northern word, is only the Greek c-=x'^; la aecef>! — 'I'aie tbis^ 

 therefore, means, receive this. 



Light is the medium of fight, and hence, in the mod an- 

 cient languages, the word fignifying light gave birth to verbs 

 lignifying lojle. Tims the Hebrew (Xi;;, Isa, pronounced 



nouns, unlefa tliofe nouns be taken in a collective fenfc. That 

 the ufual rule, a becomes an before a vowel, (hould be juft re- 

 vjrfed in order to be true. •' yln becomes a before a con- 

 fonant.'' That the equivalent of the article n exills in Greek 

 and in Latin, but is rejected as ulelels in thofe languages ; and 

 that the frequent ufe of it in Englifti and other modern lan- 



guage is fo far from being ncceifar)-, that it is an incumbrance in Arabic thao, but in Pedian/-f(7, light, is tlie parent of the 



iJ L- II LI I Anglo-Saxonyr-5« and our_/(-c, which accords with t!;e Perfian 



pronunciation, and alfo of the Anglo-Saxon article fe or fee, 

 or, as we found it, conformably to the Arabic, the. It 13 

 remarkable tl-e article h in Greek is founded entirely on the 

 fame principle, though derived from a very different word For 

 its original appears to have been the Hebrew article ^, which 

 probably was founded hu or ho (hort, and which is but an 

 abbrenation of j«{n, ha. ■ Now the ufe of this lall confifts iu 



itiid inelegance. I fee man would be as intelligible as when 

 we fay / fee n irMn ; and they read Loot, as definite, as they 

 re.i.ia iooi ; and this, from the nature of the cafe, ^ull as in 

 I.aiin, video hominem, legunt Hhnia, where uruim would be 

 bo:h unaeceffary and inelegant. I'he Englifh /fee man, and 

 the Latin vicLo hominem, are both equally indefinite in- 

 themfelves ; but they are fufficiently limited by the nature 

 of our perception, and by previous experience. " The inde- 



finite article," fays the author of the treatife on Gram'- direding the attention to an objeA, and anfwers to <-n or rfrr 

 mar in the Encyclop. Britannica, "is much lefs ufeful in Latin, and ^(Z'lW in Our own tongue. And as tiie nccef- 



thnn the other ; and therefore the Greek and Hebrew Ian 

 guages have it not, though they both have a definite article. 

 In languages, of which the nouns, adicdlivcs, and verbs liave 

 inflexion, no niillakc can anl'e from tlie want of the indefi- 

 nite article ; becaufe it can always be known by the termina- 

 tions of the noun and the verb, and by the whole circum- 

 ilaiices predicated of the noun, whether a whole fpecies or one 

 indi'.-idual be intended. But this is not tlie cr.fe in Englifh. 

 In that language the ad;edtives having no variation with re- 

 fp^Ct to gender and number, and the tenfes of the verbs 

 being for th? ir.oil part the fame in both numbers, it might 

 be often doubtful, had we not the indefinite article, whether 

 the fpecific name was intendjd to exprefs the whole fpecies 

 or only one individual.' All this reafomng, however, ap- 

 pears to us fallacious, and only (hews that even a wife and 

 able man, fuch as the writer of this article certainly is, will 

 readily think that necefiary and ufefid to which he has been 

 siccuftomed, and therefore will feldom be at a lofs for foirie 

 plaufible reafons to juilify it. In truth, the inflexions of 

 adjectives and verbs in the learned languages alluded to, 

 have no influence whatever in defining the extent of the ge- 

 neral term, but ferve merely to ihevv- that they qualify that jed intended ; but therellridion of llie' fpecific or general 



fary coniequencc of looking upon a thing is to fee it, as 

 dillinguiflied from other things, hence n in Hebrew, i ia 

 Greek, the in Englifn, from' fignifying to perceive, through 

 the medium of hgiit, came to iignifyan cftect of perception, 

 namely, <he diftinctiun or oppofition which the thing fo feco 

 has to other things which may be related to it. 



From this account we may gather the following particulars 

 refpedling the natuie-aixi ufe of the definitive article. It% 

 primar)-' force confiils merely in direfting the cjf or the CT//rn- 

 ion to an objecl ; and the definitive power alligned tp it is 

 rather an eflVtt of the fight where the ob;ecl is prefent, or 

 of the miiid in dr.^wing the neceiTary inference, where the 

 object is previoudy defcribed or fpecified. If this account 

 be jull, the aflertion of Mr.'Tooke, that the article, in com- 

 bination witha general term, is a mere fubilitute for a parti- 

 cular term, (fee vol. i. p. 69 ) is erroneous. The -article is" 

 only an /Wf.i- ; having indicated the thing intended it does no 

 more : the eye or the mind does the reft, and the general 

 term is defined or made particular, by being brought under 

 immediate infpeftion. It is necefiary ta fubi^in tlie general' 

 terrn to the article, becaufe it is necefl"ary to fpecifv tlie ob- 



term, and depend upon it. The very example adduced by 

 this writer (he-.vs the fallacy of his realoning : Eyr-iro aZ-i^x^o; 

 a.Tr;rx>fj.!nc ':rx^ Stou i' oovia Ix^nn;. Here avjfsT^; as clearly 

 denotes not the whole ffiecies, but an ir.dividiiali as if- it A«as 

 written si; a-,Spi-ro.:, and that not becaufe of the fiiigular cor- 

 refpondence of lyr.^rc, nor from the temiitiation of az-sr^V^"'- 

 Of this there is an evident proof; !>e»'to and r-.-craXfuto; would 

 be dill the fame, though di-jc-^Tro r had a fjecific or colleftive 

 .fenfe. Bat the individual fenfe of the noun appears from 

 the nature of ihe cafe, from the context, and efpecially frpm 

 the claufe, -whofe name a-.7j John: and thefe circumftaiice«, 

 wliich fjiiHcientlv define it in Greek, would be fuiBcient to 



noun to that individual objeA is a confeqiitnce of the article, 

 rather than a power beloi.ging to it. The article therefore 

 cannot be a mere fubftitute, to do that which is done by an- 

 other principle, namely, the ej-e or the mind. 



The article fervesas an index to fpecify an obje£l hitlierta 

 unhiown, as well as one previouily known ; and thus Mr. 

 Harris's dillinction, that a refpeCt* our primary perception,, 

 and denotes individuals as unknown ; /A? refpefts our fccon- 

 dary perception, and denotes individuals ajinsa-n, i? unfound- 

 ed. Tlie index indeed may be direded to a pall event or ob- 

 jeA, thus to E-.ake it the lubjecl of infpedlion a fecond time. 

 In this view Mr. Harris's pofition is true, but the ufe of the 



'le- 



idefine it in Englifh, were it written " Man was fent from mticle is far more general, and by no means confined to fuch> 



cafes. 



The article /^^ is the fame in origin, and often in ufe tlie 



fame with ihat, a: d indeed in the nglo-Saxon thai is only tlie 



neuter gendorof //^t- ;and Mr.Tooke ought to Ravemade this re- 



' Mr. Toeke derives the and that from the Anglo-Saxon terb mark iiillciid of reprefenting each as iudep eo^eat of the other. 



Thi 



God whofe name was John." It is impolTible to feel in this 

 ai y ambiguity ; and the exprefSon fecms uncouth only be- 

 caufe we have been accuflomed to the ufe of a man was -fent 

 .from God, &c. 



