182 
LANG 
from the Greeks, is evident from the exaft refemblance 
of the terminations of the cafes throughout the three fimi- 
Sar declenfions. In nouns of the firft declenfion, the re¬ 
femblance is too palpable to Hand in need of illuftration. 
In the fecond, the Greek genitive is p». In Latin the o is 
thrown out, and the termination becomes i. In the an¬ 
cient Greek, the founds of i and v differed very little ; 
therefore the Latins ufed i inftead of v. The Latin dative 
ends in o, which is the Greek dative, throwing away i 
fubfcriptum, which was but faintly founded in that lan¬ 
guage. 
No genuine Greek word ended in or m. The Hel¬ 
lenes feemed to have abhorred that bellowing liquid; it is, 
however, certain that they imported it from the eaff, as 
■well as the other letters, and that they employed it in every 
other capacity, except in that of clofing words. In the 
termination of flexions, they changed it into v. The La¬ 
tins retained m, which had been imported to them as a 
terminating letter at an era before the Greek language had 
undergone its laft refinement. Hence the Latin acculative 
in um, inftead of the Greek or. The vocative cafe, we 
imagine, was in this declenfion originally like the nomi¬ 
native. The Latins have no dual number, probably be- 
caufe the Asolian dialect, from which they copied, had 
none. The third declenfions in both languages are fo ex¬ 
actly parallel, thatit would befuperfluousfo compare them. 
The Latins have no articles, which is certainly a defect 
in their language. The Pelafgic, from which they copi¬ 
ed, had not adopted that word in the demonftrative fenfe. 
Homer indeed feldom ufes it; and the probability is, that 
the more early Greek ufed itlefs frequently, at leaft in the 
fenfe above-mentioned. Thus in Latin, when I fay, Video 
hominem, it is impoffible to find out by the bare words 
whether the word hominem intimates a rnan, or the man : 
whereas in Greek it would be BAe7 ru av^asrov, I fee a man ; 
BAe 7ra Toy 1 fee the man. Hence the firlt expref- 
fion is indefinite, and the fecond definite. 
The fubftantive-verb /um in Latin feems to be partly 
formed from the Greek, and partly not. Some of the per- 
fons of the prefent tenfe have a near refemblance to the 
Greek verb ew or ei^i, while others vary widely from that 
archetype. The imperfect prseterite and praeterperfect have 
nothing common with the Greek verb, and cannot, we 
think, be forced into an alliance with it. The future ero 
was of old efo, and is indeed genuine Greek. Upon the 
whole, in our apprehenfion, the Latin fubftantive-verb 
more nearly refembles the Perfian verb hejlen than that of 
any other language we are acquainted with. From what 
exemplar the Latin verbs were derived, is not, we think, 
eafily afcertained. We know that attempts have been 
made to deduce them all from the VEolic Greek, and that 
the Romans themfelves were extremely fond of this chi¬ 
mera; but the alrnoft numberlefs irregularities, both in the 
formation and conjugation of their verbs, induce us to 
believe that only a part of them were formed upon that 
model. We are apt to think that the terminations in bam, 
has, bat, bamus, See. are produced by their union with a 
fragment of forne obfolete verb, which is now wholly loft. 
In the verb amo, e.g. we are fure that the radix am is the 
Hebrew word mother ; but how am-abam, am-abo, am-arem, 
were fabricated, and connected with the radical am, is not 
fo eafily determined. That Latin verbs are compofed of 
an inflexible radix and another flexible verb, as well as 
she Greek, cannot be doubted ; but what this flexible 
auxiliary was, we think, cannot now be clearly afcertain¬ 
ed. It is not altogether improbable that fuel) parts of 
the verbs as deviate from the Greek archetype were fup- 
plied by fragments of the verb ha, which pervades all the 
branches of the Gothic language, and has, we think, pro¬ 
duced the Latin verb habeo. When the Greeks began to 
etymologize, they feldom overpaffed the verge of their 
own language; the Latins purfued nearly the lame courfe. 
If their own language prefented a plaufible etymology, 
they embraced it; if not, they immediately had recourfe 
to the Greek ; and this was the extent of their etymolo- 
U A G E. 
gical refeaches. Cicero, Quintilian, Feftus, &c. and even 
Varro, the molt learned of all the Romans, flop here; all 
beyond is either doubt or impenetrable darkuefs. 
The want of aorilts or indefinite tenfes feems to us a 
palpable defett in the Latin language. The ufe of thefe 
among the Greeks enabled the writer to exprefs the fpe- 
ciric variations of time with more accuracy and precifion 
than the Latins, who never attempted to fpecify them by 
any other tenfes but the imperfect and plu-perfe£t. In¬ 
deed we fttould imagine, that both the Greeks and Latins 
were much inferior to the Englilh in this refpeft. The 
Latin word lego, for example, may be tranflated into En- 
glifli three different ways: ift, I read; 2d, I do read; 3d, 
I am reading. 
The Latins, in reducing verbs to their four conjuga¬ 
tions, formed their inflexions in a very irregular manner. 
Many verbs of the firft clafs infleCt their prseterite and 
fupine like thofe of the fecond: thus domo, inftead of giv¬ 
ing avi and atum, has ui and itura, like monui and monilum. 
Again, not a few verbs of the third conjugation have ivi 
and ilum, as if they belonged to the fourth; e.g . peto, pe - 
tivi, petitum. Then, feme verbs have io in the prefent, ivi 
in the praeterite, and itura in the fupine, while, contrary 
to the rules of analogy, they in reality belong to the third : 
fuch are lupio, cuptvi, cupitum, cupere, See. Some verbs of 
the fecond conjugation have their prseterite and fupine as 
if they belonged to the third ; thus, jubeo, jv/Ji, juj/um, ju~ 
here-, augco, auxi, auclum, augere. Some verbs, which are 
actually of the fourth conjugation, have their praeterite 
and fupine as if they were of the third ; thus fentio, JenJi, 
Jertfum,/entire ; haurio, hau/i, kait/um, haurire. Sec. If thefe 
are not manifeft irregularities, we cannot fay what deferves 
the name. The fa ft feems to ftand thus: The Romans 
were originally a banditti of robbers, bankrupts, runaway 
flaves, fiiepherds, liufbandmen, and peafants of the molt 
unpolifhed character. They were engaged in perpetual 
broils and quarrels at home, and feldom enjoyed repofe 
abroad. Their profeffion was robbery and plunder. Like 
Ifhmael, their hands were againft every man, and every 
man’s hand againft them. In fuch a ftate of fociety no 
time was left for cultivating the fciences. Accordingly 
the arts of war and government were their foie profeffion. 
This is fo true, that their own poet characterizes them in 
the following manner: Excudunt alii/pirantia mollius ara, ISc. 
Another blemifti in the Latin tongue is occafioned by its 
wanting a participle of the prseterite tenle in the aCtive voice. 
This defedt is perpetually felt, and is the caufe of an awk¬ 
ward circumlocution wherever it happens to prefent it- 
felf. Another palpable defeft arifes from the want of a 
participle of the prefent paffive. This again mull produce 
an inconvenience upon many occafions, as will be obvi¬ 
ous to every Latin ftudent alrnoft every moment. The 
Latin gerunds form another unnatural anomaly. Every 
Latin fcholar knows that thofe words are nothing but the 
neuters of the participles of the future paffive. The fa¬ 
bricators of the Latin tongue, however, elevated them 
from their primary condition, giving them upon many 
occafions an active fignification. Another inconvenience, 
perhaps more feverely felt than any of the preceding, arifes 
from the want of the ufe of the prefent participle of the 
verb /um. Every body know's what a convenience is de¬ 
rived from the frequent ufe of the participle uv in Greek; 
and indeed it appears to us fomewhat furprifing that the 
Latins neglected to introduce the participle ens into their 
language. In this we believe they are fingular. Here 
again a circumlocution becomes neceffary in fuch a cafe 
as the following : “ The fenate, being at Rome, palled a 
decree.” Inftead of faying, Senatus, ens Roma, legem tulit, 
we are obliged to fay. Cum fenatus Roma ejfet, £ 3 c. If the 
words ens or exi/ens had been adopted, as in the Greek, 
this odious circumlocution would have been avoided. 
Many other defefts of the like kind will occur to every 
perfon who Ihall choofie to fearch for them, and thofe in 
the molt approved claffical authors. In fliort, whoever 
will take the trouble to compare the ftrufture of the Greek 
and 
