Qti GRAMMAR 
declenfion by cafes. Let us, fifft, confider what cafes 
figiiify. In order to underftand this, it is necelTary to 
obl'erve, that, after men liad given names to external 
objefts, had particularized them by means of the arti¬ 
cle, and dillinguilhed them by number and gender, ftill 
their language remained extremely imperfetb, kill they 
had devifed fome method of exprefling the relations 
which tliofe objefts bore one towards another. They 
would find it of little ufe to have a name for man, lion, 
tree, river, without being able, at the lame time, to 
fignify how thefe ftood with refpeft to each other; 
whether as approaching to, receding from, joined with, 
and the like. Indeed, the relations which objedts bear 
to one another are immenfely numerous; and there¬ 
fore, to devife names for them all muft have been among 
the lad and mod difficult refinements of language. But, 
in its mod. early periods, it was abfolutely necedary to 
exprefs, in fome way or other, fuch relations as were 
mod’ important, and as occurred mod frequently in com¬ 
mon fpeech. Hence the genitive, dative, and ablative, 
cafes of nouns, which exprefs the noun itlelf, together 
with thofe relations, of, to, with, from, and by ; the rela¬ 
tions which we have the mod frequent occahon to men¬ 
tion. The proper idea then of cafes in declenfion, is 
no other titan an expreffion of the date, or relation, 
which one cbjedl bears to another, denoted by fome va¬ 
riation made upon the name of th.at objeft ; mod com¬ 
monly in tlie final letters, and by fome languages in the 
initial. Ail languages, Itovvever, do not agree in this 
mode of expreffion. The Greek, Latin, and leveral 
other languages, ufe declenfion. The Englidi, French, 
and Italian, do not; or, at mod, ufe it very imperteidly. 
In place of the variations of cafes, the modern tongues 
exprefs the relations of objefls, by lueans of the words 
called prepodtions, witich denote thole relations, pre¬ 
fixed to tlie name of the objedb. Enghlh nouns have no 
cafe whatever, except a fort of genitive, commonly 
formed by the addition of the letter s to the noun ; as 
when we fay “Dryden’s poems,” meaning tlie poems of 
Dryden. Our perfonal pronouns have alfo a cafe, which 
anfwers to the accufative of the Latin: 1 , me, — he, him ,-— 
zvho, whom. There is notliing, then, or at lead very lit. 
tie, in the grammar of our language, which correlponds 
to declenfion in the ancient languages. 
Two quedions,. rel'pedbing this fubjedb, may be put. 
Fird, Which of thefe methods of expreffing relations, 
whether that by declenfion, or that by prepofitions, was 
the mod ancient ufage in language ? And next. Which 
of tliem has the bed effedt? Both methods, it is plain, are 
the fame as to the fenfe, and difi'er only in iorm. For 
the fignificancy of the Roman language would not have 
been altered, though the nouns, like ours,, had been 
without cafes, provided they had employed prepofitions; 
and though, to exprefs a difciple of Plato, they had 
laid, Dijcipulus de Plato, like the modern Italians, in 
place of Dijcipulus Platonis. Now, with refpedl to the 
antiquity of cafes, although they may, on fird view, 
feem to conditute a more artificial method than the 
other,, of denoting relations, yet there are drong rea- 
fons for thinking that this was the earlied method prac- 
tifed by men. We find, in fadt, that declenfions and 
cafes are tiled in mod of what are- called the mother 
longues, or original languages, as well as in the Greek 
and Latin. And a very natural and fatisfying account 
can be given why this ufage fhould have early obtained. 
Relations are the mod abdradl and metaphyfical ideas 
of any which men haveoccalion to form, when they are 
confidered by themfelves, and feparated from the re¬ 
lated object. It would puzzle any man, as has been 
well oblerved by an author on this fubjedt, to give a 
didindt account of what is meant by fucli a word as of, 
or from, when it dands by itfelf, and to explain all that 
may be included under it. The fird rude inventors of 
language, therefore, would not, for a long while, arrive 
at luclx general terms. In place of conddering any re¬ 
lation in the abdradl, and devifing a name for it; they 
would mucli more eafily conceive it in conjundtion witli 
a particular objedl ; and they would exprefs their con¬ 
ceptions of it, by varying tlie name of that objedl through 
all the different cafes ; hominis, of a man ; homini, to a 
man ; homine, with a man, &c. 
But, though this method of declenfion was, probably, 
the only method which men employed at fird, for de- 
noting relations, yet, in progrefs of time, many other 
relations being obferved, befides thofe which are digni¬ 
fied by the cafes of nouns, and men alfo becoming more 
capable of general and metaphyfical ideas, feparate 
names were gradually invented for all the relations 
which occurred, forming that part of fpeech which we 
now call prepofitions. Prepofitions being once intro- 
-duced, they were found to be capable of fupplying the 
place of cafes, by being prefixed to the nominative of 
the noun. Flence, it came to pafs that, as nations were 
intermixed by migrations and conqueds, and were 
obliged to learn and adopt tlie languages of one an¬ 
other, prepofitions fupplanted the uie of cafes and dc- 
cleniions. When the Italian tongue, for iiidance, fprung 
out of the Roman, it was found more cafy and iimple, 
by the Gothic nations, to accommodate a few prepofi- 
tions to the nominative of every noun, and to fay, di 
Roma, a I Roma, di Carthago, al Carthago, than to remem¬ 
ber all the variety of terminations, Roma, Romam, Car- 
thaginis, Carihaginem, which the ufe of declenfions re¬ 
quired in the ancient nouns. By this progrefs we can 
give a natural account how nouns, in our modern tongues, 
come to be fo void of declenfion; a progrefs which is 
fully illudrated in Dr. Adam Smith’s ingenious Dilfer- 
tation on the Formation of Languages. 
With regard to the other quedion on this fubjefit, 
V/Jiicli of thefe two methods is of the greated utility 
and beatity ? we fliall find advantages and difad vantages 
to be balanced on both fides. There is no doubt that, 
by abolifhing cafes, we have rendered the drudltire of 
modern languages more finiple. We have difembar- 
ralfed it of all the intricacy which arofe from the dif¬ 
ferent forms of declenfion, of which the Romans had 
no fewer than five ; and from ail the irregularities in 
thel'e feveral declenfions. We have thereby rendered 
our languages more eafy to be acquired, and lefs fubjedt 
to the perplexity of rules. But, though the fimplicity 
and eale of language be great and edimable advantages, 
yet there are alfo Inch difadvantages attending the mo¬ 
dern method, as leave the balance, on the whole, doubt¬ 
ful, or rather incline it to the fide of antiquity. For,, 
in the firll place, by our conftant ufe of prepofitions for 
expreffing tlie relations of things, we have filled lan¬ 
guage with a multitude of thofe little words, wiiich are 
eternally occurring in every lenience, and may be thought 
thereby to have encumbered fpeech, by an addition of 
terms ; and by rendering it more prolix, to have ener¬ 
vated its force. In the fecond place, we have certainly 
rendered the found of language lefs agreeable to the 
ear, by depriving it of that variety and fweetnels, which 
arofe from the length of words, and the change of ter¬ 
minations, occafioned by the cafes in the Greek and La¬ 
tin. But, m the third place, the molt material difad- 
vantage is, that, by this alolicion of cafes, and by a 
fimilar alteration in the conjugation of verbs, we have 
deprived ourlelves of that liberty of tranfpofition in 
the arrangement of words, whicn the ancient languages 
enjoyed. 
Pronouns are the clafs of words molt nearly related 
to fubftantive nouns; being, as the name imports, re- 
prefentatives, or lubllitutes, of nouns. I, thou, he, Jhe, 
and it, are no otticr than an abridged way of naming 
the perlons, or cbjetts,,with wiiicii we have immediate 
intercomle, or to wtiich we are obliged frequently to 
refer in dilcoiirfe. In communicating thoughts, a per- 
fon mull either fpeak of himleif, of tlie perfoa to vylioni 
he is Ipeaking, or of fome other perfons or things. The 
word 
