23G 



IPebruary, 



Tho principles upon wliich tbo interpretation of such words depends belongs 

 to Logic and not to grammar. Some of them may grammatically be taken either 

 for substantives or adjectives, as Trigonaspis. But is is plain that the author here 

 meant to refer to the triangular scutelhim which is an attribute of the insect. 

 Hence the word is to be taken as an adjective. To call such an insect a triangular 

 shield, would be far fetched, and inappropriate. Similarly if there bo any genus 

 named Chalchanna (better than Chalcarma), it must be taken as a substantia 

 used metaphorically, " Brazen-chariot," — which includes the whole subject. For 

 to speak of an insect as having a hrazen chariot, or brazen- charioted, like one of 

 Homer's heroes, verges upon absurdity. And herein fails Mr. Dunning's analogy 

 between Chalcharma and Acanthosoma, both formed alike, grammatically ; that 

 logically, tho former contains the subject by a metaphor, while the latter does not, 

 i. e. it is an adjective. 



3. Mr. Dunning says (p. 184) 



[If Micrornix had been applied to a genus of birds, Mr. Marshall's 

 Dipsocoris argument would have run thus : — " Micrornix = little-bird, a 

 compound noun substantive, which, therefore, must have some gender or 

 other ; it takes its gender from the subject (bird) ; the word involves both 

 subject and predicate ; the subject is a bird, whereof it is predicated that 

 it is little." If, iiistead of a genus of birds, the name were given to a 

 genus of moths — as, in fact, the name Omix has been — then, as a moth is 

 not a bird, the argument would be that " in Micrornix the subject is not 

 contained, but understood ; of this subject it is predicated that it is like 

 a little bird ; bird is not the subject, but part of the predicate." The 

 result is, that as the name of a bird Micrornix is a substantive, with a 

 gender of its own — as the name of a moth, Micrornix is an adjective, 

 depending for its gender on some imaginary substantive understood !] 



I am afraid that the above passage involves a fallacy, which leads in one case 

 to a wrong conclusion. The error lies in the statement that if Micrornix be used 

 as the name of a moth, then, because a moth is not a bird, Micrornix does not 

 contain the subject, i. e. is not a substantive. The fact is that tho word Micrornix, 

 whether used of a bird or a moth, contains the subject equally, — in the former case 

 literally, and in the latter metaphorically. See above, paragraph 2, A. b. I submit 

 then that wo have in the above passage an ingenious mixture of two syllogisms, in 

 each of which orntic bears a diflferent sense; (I) Literally, PircZ; and (2) Meta- 

 phorically, Moth. Exhibiting these syllogisms separately, as follows, we obtain for 

 each a just conclusion : — 



Micrornix (Bird) is a substantive. 



Every substantive contains its own 

 subject. 



Therefore Micrornix contains its own 

 subject, 



viz. Bird. 



Micrornix (Moth) is a substantive. 



Every substantive contains its own 

 subject. 



Therefore Micrornix contains its own 

 subject, 



viz. Moth. 



The form Micromis would be preferable, as omix is only a dialectic variation, 

 and comparatively unusual. 



4. — Acanthothorax and Uropteryx are adjectives, whoso gender, as remarked by 

 Mr. Dunning, is not shewn by their termination. Tho nomenclator in this case 



