3 5 6 DISQUISITIONS on the 



origin of it may be found in the word fore j and upon examina- 

 tion I think it will be found, that for in Englifh, and too in 

 Greek, and pro in Latin, as well as the German vor or far, means, 

 in its radical fenfe, pofition before ; with this difference only, that 

 in Latin, Englifh, and German, the word denoting the fore ob- 

 ject generally follows the prepofition, but in Greek precedes it. 

 In Englifh, therefore, the prepofition for may be always taken as 

 meaning fimply objetl. Subftitute objetl in all the phrafes in 

 which the author of the Diver/tons of Parley has put caufe as the 

 meaning of for, and it is eafy to obferve how naturally and ex- 

 actly the fentences may be refolved. 



Ugos is evidently a prepofition of very extenfive application, 

 and in invefligating its original meaning, a variety of opinions 

 have prevailed. Dr Moor refolved it into <rgo and «?, and fup- 

 pofed that it denoted properly in the fore f pace of Scheide 

 afcribes to it a meaning fomewhat fimilar, deducing it from t«- 

 go$, before. Both thefe derivations, however, are unfatisfadtory. 

 In fome of the modes in which n-gog is ufed, the idea of before 

 may indeed be traced ; but, in others, it cannot, I think, with- 

 out the mofl violent ftraining, be difcovered. It will be necef- 

 fary, therefore, to look out for a different origin, and one carry- 

 ing with it an'idea more confonant to the fignification and ufes 

 of the prepofition. This, I think, can only be found in the 



noun 



ing could here be afugned to — " caufe, nothing ?" " He is tall for his age,"— 

 " caufe, his age," would denote fomething quite different from what is intended. 

 " For a good harveft, a good fummer is neceffary," — * caufe, a good harveft," 

 would completely invert the meaning, making the effect the caufe. " He lived 

 " thereybr twenty years," — " caufe, twenty years," would be unintelligible. In 

 thefe inftances, takingybr to mean objetl placed before, or objetl in view, the fenfe 

 is obvious. The fame may be faid of fuch phrafes as the fol wing : " He is a 

 " good manybr ought I know," — " he is a good man, — objetl, or put in objection, 

 " ought I know," an eafy and plain refolution ; whereas, " caufe, ought I know," 

 would be extremely forced, if not altogether unmeaning. 



