112 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
S in the obfervations which I with to 
A offer on fome of Mr. Horne Tooke’s 
etymologies, I have not the leaft defign 
of controverting the general principles of 
his excellent fyftem, tor which I entertain 
as warm a refpect as the moft ob{fequious 
of his difciples; there is no occafion for 
me to preface them with explanations or 
apologies. _ Whatever improvements or 
whatever corrections may be made in the 
detail of the Diverfions of Purley, the en- 
tire and undifputed merit mutt for ever 
rem2in with its author, of having alone 
conferred that importance on the fcience 
_ of etymology, from which ail future difco- 
/ 
veries mult derive their value. 
T proceed to ftate a few mifcellaneous re- 
marks on fome points of his work, which 
I conceive to ftand moft ia need of farther 
inveitigation. 
By.—Mr. Tooke calls this prepofition 
the imperative of bcoz, to be; and 
explains its ufe in moft cafes by the ellip- 
fis of fome fuch word as caufe, infirument, 
&c. That fech an explanation can be 
worthy of the author of Ewa mregovre 
I am unable to reconcile with the follow- 
ing confiderations. 
1. The fuppofition of fuch an ellipfis 
is itfelf entirely gratuitous. _Mr. Tooke 
does not, and, I will venture to fay, can- 
fot, give a fingle inftance of by, in its fenfe 
of initrumentality, having been ever ex- 
prefled by a compound of the verb Je with 
{uch a word as he imagines. 
2. The fundamental principle of the 
Diverfions of Purley is, that the fignificae 
tion of every particle is to be fought in the 
diftin& meaning which originally belonged 
to it, as either anoun ora verb. And it 
is implied in every ftep of this fyftem 
that, for any verb or noun to be qualified 
to exercife the fun&tions of a prepofition, 
it mutt have a meaning expreflive not of 
abftrack but of fome fpecific exiftence or 
a&tion. Torefer the prepofition dy to fuch 
4 word as beonis to call it a word of 
no meaning. Lorefer its meaning toa 
word formerly affociated with beon, but 
of which no remnant now ‘remains, 
appears to me~ little. better. The 
fuppofition is witheut the leaf au- 
thority of faét, and the allowance of it 
mu be at the expence of the moft im- 
portant principles of Mr. Tocke’s fyfem, 
It muf be to fuppofe that of fuch two 
words by which the meaning of dy was 
originally expreffed, the only one which 
could denate any {pecific relation has been 
~ Remarks on Mr. Horne Tooke’s Etymslogies, 
[Sept. Is 
dropped and forgotten, and nothing re- 
tained but a word which can have no title 
to rank as a prepofition, but among thole 
unmeaning particles for which Mr. 
Tooke fo juftly ridicules the author of 
Hermes. But, 
3. Mr. Tooke has mifreprefented the 
meaning of dy in his attempts to trace it 
to its primitive form. The expreffions of 
agency and inftrumentality to which it is 
now principally appropriated, and which 
he chiefly labours to illuftrate, were en- 
tirely foreign to its original fignification. 
The Anglo-Saxons employed for the for- 
mer of thefe ¢pom.and of ; for the lat- 
ter puph and mio (middle, thence de- 
noting by means of): end it was only 
along with the difufe of mid that dy be- 
came invefted with fo great a fhare of the 
offices which it at prefent holds. The 
Germans, who retain their zit, ftill con- 
fine their bey within the bounds of its ori- 
ginal import. To ‘fupport himfelf dy 
labour,”’ is, *¢ fich nahren mz feiner arbeit.”” 
The original import of be or 62 chiefly 
comprehended thofe of the latin, fecundumy 
juxta, verfus. 
4. Mr. Tooke feems to confider his 
etymology of by fupported by the frequent 
correfpondence of its meaning with that 
of the prepofition with ; to which, when 
fo ufed, he affigns a fimilar derivation, 
viz. from pyppan, to be. In anfwer to 
this, I fhall only obferve that this confu- 
fion in the ufe of with and by never occur- 
red in the Anglo-Saxon—that it. took 
place only in confequence of thefe two © 
fharing between them the fun&ions of 
mio—that Mr. Tooke’s introduction of 
pyppan to explain the fignification of with 
appears, as I fhall further notice hereafter, 
without either ufe or foundation, and is 
morover liable to the fame general objec- 
tion I have already urged againft 
his derivation of dy. ‘Tothis fame ob- 
jection I fhall have further occafion 
torecur. In the meantime, let any one 
take any of Mr. Tooke’s examples of the 
ufe of by or of with, where he profefles 
to explain them by fubfituting the fimple 
imperative Je, and fay whether fuch ex- 
planation conveys to him a fingle idea of 
their ufe. % 
It may be thought that I fhouid not 
have thus contraverted Mr. Tooke’s ety- 
mology of by, without having one of my 
own to offer in its room. 
I may truly fay, however, that the de-~ 
fects of the one had ftruck me long before I 
thought of their removal by the other. 
And though this, which I offer smerely 
as 
