THE 
MONTHLY MAGAZINE. 

Weviccbas [ULy, 196 


ORIGINAL COMMUNICATIONS. 
ETYMOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SUR 7) 4 | 
ORE aétive occupations have, I be- 
AVE lieve, finally diverted me from a de- 
fien, which I long cherifhed, and to which, 
atter Mr. Tooke’s labours, | fancied my- 
_ felf equal—the defign was fuch an ana- 
lyfis of our language as feems to me to 
conftitute the effence of grammar. Thofe 
who have not made the trial, will be fur- 
prifed to find how little difficulty there is 
in reducing our abftraét words to a fen- 
ble or objective fignification: I do not fay, 
to their primary fignification ; for prece- 
dence may give rife to frivolous difputes 
here, as in other nice cafes. 
You will perhaps indulge me with room 
to exemplify my manner of proceeding. 
We have a remarkable clafs of moun fub- 
fiantives, as they are called by the gram- 
marian; though, according to the meta- 
phyfician, they are mere attributes or qua- 
lities; that is, they cannot ftand by them- 
felves, but are fupported by fubftances. 
The words I mean are good-ne/s, great- 
nefi, and their fellows. We have fimilar 
words, ending in -bead. Onbed, in old 
Englith, is wuity (one-bead). 1t will not, 
i prefume, be denied that head (caput) 1s 
here ufed in compofition. Now, inthe 
other cafe, I fufpeét, that it is part of the 
head which is ufed; the wofe, nefs, nex, 
French. Both words have been indiffe- 
rently employed to mark the points of land, 
that are or have been confpicuous. Will 
not this geographical analogy be admitted 
as a firong confirmation of my opinion ? 
If nefs be any part of the body, what part 
elfe can we imagine it to be, whether we 
regard found or fituation? There exifts 
an etymological, as truly as a moral fenfe; 
and thofe who have acquired the former, 
will feel by how very natural a tranfition 
MONTHLY Mac. No. VI. 
two fuch eminent membersiof the body 
natural, as the head and nofe, came to de- 
note abftract qualities. —I conjeCture, that 
thing or ding will prove to mean fome 
ftriking object in one of its fixed corporeal 
fenfes. 
2. his analyfis, carried to its utmoft 
extent, would conftirute a reformed dic- 
tionary. Every perion apprehends the 
metaphorical ufe of a term the better for 
knowing its original meaning; and how. 
invariably have di€tionary-makers diffe- 
vered the foul of a word from its body ! 
Thus, /prte and /pit (the culinary unple- 
ment) are clearly the fame word. ‘To 
Spite a perfon is to run a fpit into his mind. 
The very metaphor, I think, occurs not 
infrequently in the poetry afcribed to king 
David; and Shakf{peare makes Hamlet 
refolve to ‘ {peak daggers.” 
To confolidate HEED (care, caution} 
with HEAD, may appear too bold an ad- 
venture, even in etymology. The diife= 
rence, however, in {pelling is of no accounts 
the prefent orthography being modern. I 
think, both words are fpelled alike, by fome 
old writers, bede. In ufe, there obtains fufh - 
cient fimilarity, atthe prefentmoment. J do 
not HEED (head) that. I donot MIND that. 
We fay, be puts a thing to HEART 3 and, 
had it been ftamped by ufage, heart would 
have paffed juft as currently as head for 
one of ourverbs. JDO NOT HEART that. 
Certain languages have it fu, or very nearly 
as every {cholar knows. 
3. The fubftantive verb, am (obf. com) 
be (obf. bec) is, probably, fome mode of mo- 
tion or appearance ; and, if traced higher, 
may turn out fome animal, whofe mode of 
motion is ftriking. To waék (incedo), to 
emerge (evado), to ecfif? (ftand out), are, 
in Latin, perpetually fynonimous with /o de. 
In Greek, wv Ze is the felf-fame word as to — 
20, though fplit by grammarians and lexi- 
cographers. 
3. Ls ‘ies ee: 
