GRAMMAR. 



tallical or far-fetched etymology, when I have placed before 

 you at one view the words employed to fignify the fame idea 

 ill thofe languages to which our's has the neareft affinity." 

 After doing\his, he adds, '' Though it is not in Afia or its 

 confines that we arc to feck fur the origin of this part of our 

 language, yet is it worth noticing here, that the Greek, to 

 v/hich?he Gothic has in many particulars a confiderable.re- 

 leinblance, employs the word Bvcc for door." All this is very 

 Specious, and being confidently advanced, it has the afpeft of 

 truth, though it be mifreprefentation. The prepofition through 

 exills, as Mr.Tooke has fiicwn, in all the collateral languages; 

 and it m.ay be obferved, what he has not, that there is a 

 guttural annexed to the word in all. Thus in Englilh through, 

 Anglo-Saxon thiin//j or thiir/i, Gothic thir/j, German iliirrh, 

 Teiitonic durac or dunih, &c. Thjs uniformity in retaining 

 agiittural, (hews tliat a guttural was an original part of the 

 word. And it is no other than the Hebrew -| ~|-|, thiri, 

 rOi.'d, pnjt!g<', which has given birth not only to tiiis prepofi- 

 tion, but to a multitude of other words in all languages. 

 He came through Greece, he came, Greece being the road, a 

 pajfagc- of his coming. The genial fun warm.s through the air; 

 the genial fun -^-arms ; the medium o\- pnffage by which it does 

 this, is the air. Wc fliall only addon this fubjeS, that the 

 prepofitions down, math, beneath, exHl in the Arabic, with 

 little or no variation, and in tlie fame fenfe ; while among is 

 the Perfian w.eenn, in the midjl, the fame with the Celtic mewn. 

 Li the Hindooitanic it is founded with a nafal guttural, as if 

 written meng, and by the fame analogy that jnif/ became i7«;/W; 

 bei>e, above ; Lout, about ; meng became among. The corre- 

 fponding word in Hebrew is t';^, bin or beat, u-hich meansyf- 

 paration, dijiinaion, an idea the very rcverfe of that contained 

 in mengnn, to mix, from which Mr. Tooke derives it.. From 

 figm^ymg fcpai-alion, it came to fignify the interval between 

 tuo things feparated, and hence the Hebrew bin (or written 

 with the nitnnation binon) is the parent of the Anglo-Saxon 

 iinnon, between, luithin. The Greek ttf^Si', to overturn, is in 

 Latin -verto, to turn, which the Anglo-Saxons have iurther 

 corrupted into iveard-an, to turn to. Hence, in the form of 

 ward it came to fignify the objcdl to which the attention is 

 diretled ; &s eajjward, i. e. eajl prnfpeS. We add only the 

 genealogy oi o-ver, Anglo-Saxon ofer ; Greek ir.;^; He- 

 brew "1 T J,', ober, to pafs over. 



■ We have already obferved, that Mr.Tooke'sdefcription of 

 the nature and ufe of prepofitions belongs more properly to 

 the conjunctions. But wc ought rather to fay that it belongs 

 to neither. Prepofitions exprefs the relation of things, and 

 thofe relations are the fame, v^hether things or .the complex 

 names of things are few or many : and the nccefiity of pivpo- 

 Jitions arifes not from the impoihbility of having a diftinc"t 

 tomplex terra for each diiFerent collcdtion of ideas, but from 

 the neceffity of thofe ideas we have of things and their opera- 

 tions. It is therefore utterly erroneous to fay, that the prepo- 

 fition is em^doyed to fupply the place of complex terms. On 

 the other hand, the conjunftions fcrve topropofe or to com- 

 pare OBr ideas, to combine or to k-parate them : and this ufe is 

 entirely independent of the number or variety of c'implex 

 terms. If the complex terms of a language be few, they can- 

 not be fo fev/ as not to need being feparated; and if ihcy be 

 ever fo numerous, they cannot be fo numerous as not to 

 need being joined in coinpofition. Indeed what Mr. Tooke 

 fays on this fubjeft is indillini't, inappropriate, and even nuga- 

 tory: thougli fonie fuhfequcnt grammarians have gravely 

 copied his reafoning as oracular wifdom. 



The prepofitions and conjunftions in .Englifh exifl in the 

 Anglo-Saxon and Gothic. But this circumllance Mr. Tooke 

 has kept out of iight. He knew it would appear ftrange 

 U> deduce words of this kind frora verbs nad noiias in.the pa- 



rent tongue, while the very fanse words exifted in that tongue 

 coeval, and in many inftances antecedent to the nouns and 

 verbs reprefented to be their origin. But whence came 

 thofe conjunftions and prepofitions to the northern language ! 

 We have anticipated this quellion by proofs from faft. Thefe 

 branches of the northern tongue, as the northern tongue it- 

 felf has done, originated in the oriental languages. The 

 ftruclure of thofe languages is fuch, that the verb is the 

 leading part cf fpeech, and not only the fubordinale parts, 

 but even the noun is derived from it. This doftrine is in- 

 culcated and fupported b,y the mod e.\tenfive and obvious 

 analogies, and taught in the popular grammar, fo that no 

 learner, who has made any progrefs in them, can be igno- 

 rant of the true origin whence thofe particles including ad- 

 verbs, prepofitions, and conjunctions, are derived. The- 

 verbs, from fignifying in the Afiatic dlalefts the actions of 

 things, degenerated to exprels the relations and conneLlions ot 

 thofe things ; and with fome neceflary variations incidental 

 to founds, palled into Greek, Latin, and other tongues, jii 

 the form of prepofitions and coiijunClions ; and they were 

 thence propagated, with ftill farther corruptions, into the 

 Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, and other European dialefts. Lofing 

 much of their primary forms, and changed in fignificatioii, 

 European grammarians foon confidered them as dillinft parts- 

 of fpeech. And much uncertainty, confufion, and obfcu- 

 rity, hung for ages on the fubied, till Mr. Tooke role and 

 diflipated the mill, by afferting their true origin to be nouns, 

 and verbs. This he acknowleges, or rather boafts to have 

 been a mere eonjeSure at firfl ; and it has this fmgular fate, 

 that, while the conjecture itielf is perfe£lly ju't, almoil 

 every inflance alleged to fupport it is erroneous and futile. 

 Having no acquaintance with the oriental tongues, and fcem- 

 ingly little accjuaintance with Greek and Latin, but. endowed 

 with a powerful mind, as we conceive, under fome wrong 

 biaffes, and actuated by a dcfire of opening new paths of {'pe- 

 culation, he boldly imputes the dignity of an ancient and in- 

 dependent language to oral corruptions, chiefly made by a 

 barbarous people, fo late as the dark ages.' On fome of 

 thefe corruptions he lays his hands, and holds them forth to 

 the p'.iblic as the parents of thole words v\hich long exifted 

 antecedently to thole corruptions. This wc believe to be a 

 jull: repreieutation of the queflion, and our readers will hence 

 be able to appreciate the merits of his fyftem. The follow- 

 ing is the table of genealogy, which he gives of the leading 

 conjnnftioiis. 



We will briefly examine thefe. Skinner, before Mr. H* 

 Tooke, has derived _ej/^ from the Anglo-Saxon ^j/n«, dare; 

 an<l perhaps this very word is the foundation of his theory, 

 though he has not mentioned (and he may have forgotten) 

 the circumllance which gave birth to his conjedlure. , It is, 

 however, important to obi'erve, that the ufe oi gif, as a prepo- 

 fition, is not of a late origin : for the Anglo-Saxons ufed it 

 in that fenfe, and derived it in common with the verb gifart 

 feora.lhe Hebrew, Arabic, and Perfinn word p^, haph, the 



^a!m 



