7804. } 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, . 
CONTRIBUTOR to the Monthly 
Magazine for laft month, has ta- 
voured the readers of that valuable work 
with his remarks on a peculiarity or 
idiom of our language, which, in his opt- 
nion, has efcaped the. penetration of every 
writer on Englifh grammar, After in- 
forming us, that, when two fubflantives 
come together in the fame cafe, and not 
in oppofition, one aéts the part of an ad- 
jective, he adds—** This is one of the 
commoneft modes of fpeech in Englith; 
yet I know no grammarian that has no- 
ticed it.”” 
This peculiarity is, indeed, a common 
mode of {peech; but, I apprehend, the 
writer of the-article in quettion is mif- 
taken in fuppofing that none of our gram- 
marians have remarked it: in proof of 
which, Ibeg leave to refer him to Mur- 
ray’s ‘¢ Englith Grammar,”’ eighth edit, * 
p- 140, where he will find the following 
note, which I take the liberty of infert- 
ing here for the information of the reader. 
“<¢ Sometimes the fubftantive becomes a 
kind of adje&tive, and has another fub- 
ftantive joined to it by a hyphen: as, 
a fea-fih; a filver-tankard; a maho- 
gany-table; an adje&tive-pronoun. The 
hyphen is not always ufed, but may be dif- 
penfed with, in cafes where the affociation 
has been long eftablifbed, ond is become fa- 
miliar. In {ome of thefe inftances, the 
two words coalefce: as, Icehoule; ink- 
horn; Yorkthire.”’ 
This note, I believe, includes every 
inftance of a noun’s being ufed for an ad- 
jective, and placed before another noun ; 
and it appears that, in many cafes, the 
effociation is become fo familiar, as not 
to require the hyphen. This then ac- 
counts for fuch combinations, as, ‘* gold 
waich, county politicks, houfe lamb,” 
&c. where the words, gold, county, boufe, 
are truly adjeGtives. Alfo, when feveral 
nouns are ufed ina like conftruction, they 
are allowed to have the force and import 
of an adjeétive 5 as, “¢ Church of England 
difcipline :’” though in farfing fuch a 
phrafe as this, it would be better to give 
the fentence another turn. ‘ 
Hence it appears to be a prominent 
feature in Englifh nouns to become ad- 
jestives ; and as fuch, to be prefixed to 
other nouns: and this is an idiom which 
renders our tonsue more foicible and ex- 
preflive; for without it, fuch a phrafe, 
* The ninth edition of this excellent work 
has been lately printed. 
MonTHLY Mac. No, 116. 
Remarks on Englifh Grammar. 521 
as §€ Church of England difcipline,”” 
would be exprefled by periphra/is, the ef- 
fect of which is to Joad and enfeeble 
{peech. : 
Your Correfpondent has introduced his 
criticifm with remarking, that Horne 
Tooke has treated the common divifions 
of {peech as abfurd and ridiculous. The 
learned author of the ‘ Diverfions of 
Parl:y,”’ has indeed proved that there are 
but two xeceffary forts of words, the zou 
and the verb, and that all other common- 
ly received divifions are mere abbrevia- 
tions, invented to increafe the rapidity of 
{peech: and to confirm this very ingeni- 
ous fyftem, he has traced the roots of moft 
of our adverbs, prepofitions, and conjunc- 
tions, to either nouns or verbs, At the 
fame time, he allows that, in the fri 
fenfe of the term, both the zeceffary words 
and the abbreviations are ‘* parts of 
fpeech,” becaufe they are all uleful in 
language, and each has adifferent manner 
of fignification. | 
Whatever be the origin of our adverbs, 
prepofitions, and conjunciions, no one will 
deny that they act a different part in lan- 
guage, from the noun or the verb ; and, as 
fuch, deferve a feparate claffification in 
our grammars. Moreover, as no art can 
be properly taught (if taught at all) with~ 
out being fubjecied, in fome degree, tothe 
rules of analyiis ; the divifion of words 
into eight, nine, or ten parts of fprech, 
is extremely ufeful, and well calculated 
to facilitate the ftudy of language. 
I remain, &c. 
Hitchin, 1804. Ps 
- 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, | 
RESUMING that your Magazine 
fhould ve open to liberal difcuffion, 
I venture to offer a few obfervations upon 
a paper in your Magazine for March, ene 
titled, ‘* Confiderations on the Ceffion of 
Louiliana, by France, to the United 
States, and its probable Confequences not 
only to thofe Nations, but to Spain and 
Britain.’ | 
Your Correfpondent begins with an 
axiom, than which he fays none is more 
felf-evident, viz. “* That the ceffion of 
Leufana wil, at no very ditiant period, 
transfer the ftewardfhip cf the South 
American Government into other hands, 
and caufe a very extraordinary, if not a 
total, alteration in the fyftems and rela. 
tive fate of politics of almoft every Eu- 
ropean nation; while the United States 
are inextricably drawn into the vortex of 
European politics,” 
ts Having 
