200 oi 
To the Edtior of the Monthly Magaxzine. 
OSL R 
Y the infertion of Anti-Sinboron’s 
remarks on my former letter, you 
have given them an importance, which, 
elfewhere, I fhould not have theught 
they pofleffed. And as they include a 
challenge, which I do not feel myfelf at 
liberty torefufe, 1 beg you will indulge 
me with a few words in reply. With 
refpeét to the language in which my op- 
ponent couches his cbjeétions, I would, 
for his benefit, hint, that the frequent 
recurrence of contemptuous phrafés, are 
ever confidered, by thofe, whofe good 
opinion alone we are equally defirous to 
poffefs, as props to fupport feeble rea- 
foning, not as aids to corroborate the 
- firong. 
The fam of Anti-Sinboron’s objec- 
tions to what I have advanced on compa- 
ratives, is contained in his affertion, that 
“6 there 1s no adjective which does noi ex- 
prefs fome determinate and prectfe qualily :” 
and on this we are fairly at idue. But 
the burthen of proof hes neceflarily on 
my adverfary. Mathematicians have fur- 
nifhed us with definitions of thofe modes 
of figure /jvare and round: now, if Anti- 
Sinboron will alfo define, or, in other 
words, inform us what is the “ precife’’ 
and “ determinate’ import of the terms 
long and /bort, 1 will embrace the * dread- 
ful aliernative [11" of univerfally expel- 
ling comparatives from language; or, 
fubmit to what I yet deem the incorreét 
language of daily ufe, and fay—* this 
ring is rounder than that—that glafs is 
more full this.” Surely it is the extreme 
of abfurdity to affirm, that thofe quali- 
ties (4:2) and /ozw, tor inftance) are ‘¢ pre- 
cife’’ and ‘“¢ determinate ;’? which mutt 
not only vary with every different kind 
of fubjeéts to which they are applied, 
but are even differently applied to the 
fame fubjeG?, according to the infinite va- 
riety of opinions and taftes. The Welch 
mountains are efteemed fublimely lofty, 
by him who has lived only in the low 
lands of Suffolk. But the refident of 
the Alps would defpife them, as low and 
diminutive. The manemeuntain in Lil- 
liput, was a Lilliputian in Brobdignag.— 
But, 
‘6 Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel >” 
Anti-Sinboron’s remarks, however, 
are chiefly direéted againft the utility of 
verbal criticifm, as a ftudy. Lrefpeét your 
fheets too much to attempt anfwering 
his affertions in detail, for he has con- 
trived to engraft palpable abfurdities 
Ox Comparatives. 
-upon obvious. truifms. 
[ March, 
Whilftt I admit 
that language is intended for general ufe, 
I cannot allow, that the meaning of 
words was fuggefted by ‘ common 
fenfe,’’ that is common perception, un- 
lefS it was a fenfe miraculoufly imparted, 
hike the tranflation of the Septuagint to 
the Seventy. On the contrary, I muk 
confider language as purely artificial : 
and in its prefent flate of refinement, to 
be governed, as other arts are, by rules 
fuggefted by thofe who have devoted their 
attention to the ftudy of them. Phyfic 
is a benefit to all ; yet all are not, there- 
fore, phyficians. My obfervations on 
comparatives were intended to be merel 
illuitrative of the important rule, that 
we fhould {crupuloufly parfe every word 
we ufe, and if it add not to the fenfe, or 
be ufed in a fenfe different from its ge- 
neral fignification, that we fheuld then 
ceafe to employ it. Though I agree, 
therefore, with Anti-Sinboron, that it 
would be foolifh for any one to employ 
‘the word good, where others ufe dad; 
yet, 1f, notwithftandine good and bad. 
bore their prefent fignification, the ab- 
ftraét term goodne/s was, through fafhion 
or accident, generally ufed as the fub- 
fiantive of dad, \fhould think 1% right 
to attempt the correétion of this viola- 
tion of analogy, which muft tend te 
produce in all minds, a great confufion ot 
ideas. Leftit fhould-be thought I have 
produced, by way of example, an error 
too extravagant to be tolerated, I wil} 
notice a fimilar abufe of the words /pec- 
fies: OSC. 
The logical diftinétions of genus, fpe- 
cies, and individual. and their deriva- 
tives, general, {pecific, and particular, 
are certainly well known. Yet we hear, 
conftantly, at the fenate, fome honourable 
gentleman requeft his adverfary, not to 
dwell in generals, but to bring fome /pe- 
cific charges, or fpecify fome faéts, &c. 
when it is certain, the orator does not 
with for the /pecres of the faét, but for 
the particular fa&t itfelf. 
However, for what ** particular’ lofes 
dy the ufurpation of ‘ /pecific,” it is more 
than compenfated by an encroachment, on 
its part, upon a word with which it has 
no obvious connection. The politician 
takes up the paper of the day, and find- 
ing the mail is not yet arrived, tells his 
friend, that it contains nothing %¢ parsz- 
cular,” when he means, that it has no- 
thing important. 
The claim which is often made, on 
part of cuffom, to be fole regulator of 
language, is, hke that of moit tyrants, 
very 
s 
tne 
