GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 309 



Much, I know, has already been done towards facilitating 

 fuch an invefligation. The fuccemve labours, fir ft of Dr Moor, 

 after him of more recent grammarians, above all the elucidations 

 of the learned and acute ProfefTor of Greek in the Univerfity of 

 this City, have both opened the proper track of inquiry, 

 and cleared away much of the rubbifh, with which the jejune 

 and trifling minutia, the diflinctions without a difference and re- 

 petitions of examples without a connecting principle, introdu- 

 ced by Stephens, Hoogeveen and Vigerus, had blocked 

 up the avenues to all fuch difquifitions. The profounder re- 

 fearches of Linnep and Scheide have thrown much additional 

 light upon many particulars before involved in obfcurity, and 

 their etymological deductions, though in many inftances imper- 

 fect, contain valuable materials for analyfing the real ftructure 

 and ramifications of the Greek language *. The track being 

 once marked out, and the path in a great meafure cleared, pro- 

 grefs becomes comparatively eafy ; little more is necefTary than 

 to follow out the line where thofe who preceded appear to have 

 flopped ihort too foon. 



In analyfing the prepofitions of any language, one general 

 principle may be aflumed as certain, That to every prepofition 



one 



* The Analogic. Grccca of Linnep contains a general developement of trie fy- 

 item adopted in the Hemfterhufian fchool. This was followed by the Etymologi- 

 con Lingua Gracce, the joint production of Linnep and Scheide, in which the 

 principles of this analogy are applied for analyfing all the primitives of the Greek, 

 tongue. The merit of both mud be admitted ; both will be found worthy the at- 

 tention of any one who wifhes to inveftigate the fubjecl: of Greek analogy. From 

 the latter work, in particular, I have derived much aulftance in the prefent difqui- 

 fition, though it has frequently proved lefs fatisfa&ory than might have been ex- 

 pefted. The analyfis of the words is too general and indefinite: many of the 

 primitive roots are explained as merely denoting motion ; an idea fo vague, that 

 unlefs limited in fome fpecific mode, it could afford little aid in our progrefs to a 

 fyftematic analyfis of the principles of the language. 



