7rt GRAMMA R. 
Tnin*- tlie fwdden emotions of the foul. Thefe are called 
interji’EHons, and are more or lefs numerous according to 
ilie natuie of the language itfeli. 
Thus, it is ealy to perceive, that grammar is built 
upon nine kinds of words, of which the origin is from 
nature ill'elf. They are called the parts offpeech, be- 
caufe there can be no word uttered but mud belong to 
one or other of the fpecies or kinds we have explained 
above.” 
Our readers will readily perceive the imperfeftions 
of the above (yftem ; namely, the making nouns of num¬ 
ber a feparate pan of fpcecli, and omitting to notice 
tlic artkk. Ancl this leads us to remark, that Mr. Horne 
I'ooke admits of only three parts of Ipeech, of which 
the fiVd is the article, the other two are the noun and the 
verb ; he conlidcrs all other words as corruptions or ab¬ 
breviations of the two lad. 
Our common divifion of fpeech into eight parts ; 
nouns, pronouns, verbs, participles, abverbs, prcpofi- 
t ons, conjunctions, and interjcct'.ons, is not very logi¬ 
cal, as it compiel'icnds, under the general term ot nouns, 
both fubdantives and adjectives, which are parts ot 
fpeech generically and elfentially diltinft ; while it 
makes a feparate part of fpeech of participles, which 
are no other than verbal adjectives, fl he article, alfo, 
is an efTential part of fpeech, at lead in the modern lan¬ 
guages. However, as thefe are the terms to which our 
ears have been mod familiariled, and, as an exact logical 
divifion is of no great confequence to our^Dicfent pur- 
pofe, it w ill be better to make ufe ot thefe known terms 
than of any other. 
Of the parts of SPEECH. 
We are naturally led to begin with the confideration 
of SUBSTANTIVE NOUNS, which are the foundation of 
all grammar, and may be confidered as the mod ancient 
part of fpeech. I'he more common opinion, however, 
is in favour of verbs; but aOTuredly, as foon as men 
had got beyond fimple interjedtions, or exclamations of 
paflicn, and began to communicate themfelves by dif- 
courfe, they would be under a necedity of aiiigning 
names to the objects they faw around them. Nouns 
then are all thole words by wliich objects or fubltances 
are denominated, and which didinguilh them from one 
another, without marking cither quantity, quality, ac¬ 
tion, or relation. The fubdantive or noun is the name 
of the thing fpoken of, and in Greek and Latin is called 
name-, for it is ovoyca, in the one, and noinen in the other ; 
and if in Englilh vve had called it the name rather than 
the noun, the appellation would have been more proper. 
■:Men could not fpeak of themfelves or of any thing 
elf'e, without having names for themfelves and the va¬ 
rious objeCbs with which they are furrounded. But the 
diverJity of objeCfs is fo great, that had each individual 
a didinCt and proper name, it would be impollible for 
the mod tenacious memory, during the couife of the 
longed life, to retain even the nouns of the narrowed 
language. J t has therefore been found expedient, when 
a number of things refemble each other in fome impor¬ 
tant particulars, to arrange them all under one fpecies; 
to which is given a name that belongs equally to the 
whole fpecies, and to each individual comprehended 
under it. Thus the word man denotes a fpecies of ani¬ 
mals, and is equally applicable to every liumau being : 
the word horje denotes another fpecies of animals, and is 
etjually applicable to every individual of that fpecies of 
quadrupeds. We find, however, that there are Ibme 
qualities in which feveral fpecies refemble each other; 
and therefore we refer them to a higher order called a 
genus, to which we give a.name that is equally appli¬ 
cable to every fpecies and every individual compre- 
liended under it. Thus, men and horfes, and all living 
things on cartli, refemble each other in this refpetf, 
that they liave life. We refer them therefore to the 
genus called animal ; and this word belongs' to every 
fpecies of animals, and to each i.Tdivldiial animal. It 
is almofl: needlefs to obferve, that the words genar and 
fpecies are here taken in the logical fenfe, and not as we 
employ them when treating upon the divifions of na¬ 
tural hiflory. 
When language had proceeded thus far, the notifica¬ 
tion which it made of objefls was dill very imperfeft; 
for, wlien one mentioned to another, in difeourfe, any 
fubdantive noun ; fuel) us, man, lion, or tree, how was 
it to be known which m.m, which lion, or whicii tree, 
he meant, among the many com^trehen.ded under one 
name ? Here occurs a very curious and a very ufeful 
contrivance for fpecifying the individual objett intended, 
by means of that part of fpeech called ihz article. 
Tlie force of \.\\z artkk confids in pointing or fingling 
out from the common mafs the individual of which we 
mean to fpeak. In Englidi vve havetv/o articles, a and 
the: a is more general and unlimited; the more defl^iife 
and fpecial. A is mucli tlic fame with one, and marks 
only any one individual of a fpecies; tiiat individual 
being either unknown, or left undetermined ; as, a lion, 
a king. The, which podefies more properly the force of 
the article, afeertains fome known or determined indi¬ 
vidual of the fpecies ; <is, the lion, the king. 
Articles are words of great ufe in fpeech. In fome 
languages, however, they are not found. The Grec-ks 
have but one article, o n to, vvhicli anfwers to our defi¬ 
nite or proper article, the. They have no vyord which 
anfwers to our article ; but they fupply its place by 
the prefence of their article : thus, jJatriAev? dgnifies, 
a king; o the king. Tlie Latins have no ar¬ 
ticle. In the room of it, they employ pronouns, as, 
hie, ilk, ijie, for pointing out the objects which tSey 
want to didinguifh. This, however, appears to be a 
dcfebl in the Larin tongue ; as articles contribute much 
to the clearneis and precilion of language. 
* In order to illudrate this, remark what difference 
there is in the meaning of the following expreflions in 
Elnglilh, depending wholly on the different employment 
of the articles : “The fon of a king—The (on of the 
king—A fon of the king’s.” Each of tJiele three 
phrales has an entirely different meaning, which we 
need not explain, becaufe any one who uiiderftands the 
language conceives it clearly at firfl hearing, through tfie 
different application of the articles a and the. Whereas, 
in Latin, Jilius regis is wholly undetermined ; and to ex¬ 
plain in which of thefe three fenfes it is to be under¬ 
flood, (for it may bear any of them,) a circumlocution 
of feveral words muff be iifed. In the fame manner, 
“Are you a king ^—Are you king ?” are queffions 
of quite feparate import ; which, however, art; con¬ 
founded together in the Latin phrafe, Efne tu rex? 
“ Thou art a man,” is a very general and harinlefs po- 
fition ; but, “ Thou art the man,” is an affertion, capa¬ 
ble, we know, of ftriking terror and remorfe into the 
heart. Thefe obfervations illuffrate the force and im¬ 
portance of articles. 
Belides this quality of being particularifed by the ar¬ 
ticle, three afi'eftions belong to fubffantive nouns, num¬ 
ber, gender, and cafe, wliich require our confideration. 
Number diftinguiflies them as one, or many, of the 
fame kind, called the Jingular and plural ; a diffindlion 
found in all languages, and which muff, indeed, have 
been coeval with the very infancy of language ; as 
there were few tilings whicli men liad more frequent oc- 
caffon to exprefs, tiian the difference between one and 
many. For the greater facility of expreffing it, it has, 
in ail languages, been marked by fome variation made 
upon the fubffantive noun ; as we fee, in Englilh, our 
plural is coiumonly formed by the addition of tlie letter 
s. In the iTebrew, Greek, and fome other ancient lan¬ 
guages, we find, not only a plural, but a dual, number; 
the rife of which may very naturally be accounted for, 
from feparate terms of numbering not being yet in¬ 
vented, and one, two, aiid many, being ail, or at ieaff 
the 
