GRAMMAR. 
those ending in th, have been traced to a 
very probable origin by Mr. H. Tooke : be 
considers them as the third persons singular 
of verbs. For instance ; truth (anciently 
written troweth, trowth, trouth, and troth,) 
means, what one troweth, i, e. thinketb, or 
firmly believeth : warmth means that which 
warmeth: strength is that which stringeth, 
or maketh one strong. While, however, we 
agree so far with Mr. Tooke, we cannot go 
with him when he limits our acceptation of 
words to that in which they were first em- 
ployed ; and supposes that all the compli- 
cated, yet often definable associations, which 
the gradual progress of language and intel- 
lect has connected with words, are to be re- 
duced to the standard of our forefathers. We 
cannot avoid expressing our belief, that he has 
either totally overlooked, or greatly neglect- 
ed the influence of the principle of associa- 
tion, both in the formation of ideas, and in 
the connecting of them with words. It does 
not follow, that because the ideas connected 
with abstract terms are not what Mr. Locke 
supposed, that there are no ideas connected 
with them, but that they are merely contri- 
vances of language. Several classes of ab- 
stract nouns are altogether passed over by 
Mr. H. Tooke; and we regret it, because 
he is eminently qualified to trace the origin 
of those terminations by which are formed 
the names of qualities considered as separate 
from those substances in which they exist. 
One class is formed by the addition of ness 
to the adjective, such as whiteness, goodness, 
&c. Ness is the Anglo Saxon liaep, or 
nepe, signifying nose. It is also used for 
promontory ; as in Sheer-ness, Orford-ness, 
the Naze, &c. Joined to the name of a 
quality, it denotes that the quality is a dis- 
tinguishing feature of an object ; it conse- 
quently holds it up as an object of separate 
attention. 
18 . We now proceed to those changes- 
which are made in the form of nouns, to 
express a change of signification ; and first 
we shall attend to number. In speaking of 
the objects of thought, we have constant 
occasion to speak of one or more of a kind ; 
in every language therefore we may expect 
to find a variation in the form or adjuncts 
of nouns, to denote unity or plurality. To 
avoid the necessity of using such adjuncts, 
or rather in consequence of the coalescence 
of them with the nouns, owing to the fre- 
quent use of them in connection with the 
nouns, a change of form has taken place in 
most cultivated languages. The Hebrew 
plurals are generally formed by the addi- 
VOL. III. 
tion of d, mem, to the noun, probably be- 
cause a was the symbol (if water, and de- 
noted collection and plurality ; and in that/ 
language the coalescence has actually takefi 
place, and occasionally undergone some 
corruption. Among the Chinese the plural 
adjunct has not yet coalesced with the 
noun ; and they generally denote the plural 
by the addition of min to the singular. Sup- 
posing the coalescence of plural adjuncts to 
have been the origin of the changes on 
nouns to denote plurality of meaning, it 
does not necessarily follow that all plural 
changes were thus formed. The change of 
form produced by such coalescence in some 
cases might suggest a corresponding change 
hi others, though the change might not be 
exactly similar. Hence, could we trace 
some of the plural changes to art, as their 
earliest origin, it would weigh little against 
the general principle. We shall, however, 
almost universally find, that the extension 
of old procedures, rather than the invention 
of new ones, has been the cause of almost 
all even of the artificial changes in language. 
The reason is obvious : besides the greater 
ease to the innovator, it would be much 
more intelligible to those who are to adopt' 
his innovation. Even the philosopher judges 
it more proper to follow the analogies cf 
his language, than to deviate from then} 
where he knows such deviation would be 
an improvement. Except as far as is dic- 
tated by custom, and that convenience on 
which the custom has been founded, there 
is no reason why the same word unchanged 
should not be applicable both where one and 
where more are meant : why, for instance, we 
should not say two man, as well as one man. 
The plural form may be applied to tw o, or 
two hundred, or any indefinite number; 
now is there in the nature of the thing a 
more marked distinction between one and 
two, than between two and two hundred ? 
In fact, were we always able to join to the 
noun a numeral, or some other adnoun de- 
noting number, a plural form Would be un- 
necessary ; but it is frequently desirable to 
denote plurality where the number is inde- 
terminate, or unnecessary to be specified. 
The Chinese drop their plural adjunct when 
there is another word of plurality attached 
to the noun. We do not go upon the same 
principle ; but there are cases in which we 
make no changes to denote plurality, as 
twenty pound of flour, thirty sail of ships, 
four thousand, &c. These instances, thougli 
contrary to the prevailing analogy of ouv 
language, certainly do not oppose the eene- 
B b 
