1807.) 
ater, which of two, the former from is, or 
its. neuter vender, ty, the latter from 
eregoss anid, in the same way, alder (quasi 
ETEL0G Erdos) one of two, or the other, and 
céler, the other, perhaps xas Erégos. Thus, 
also, ia French aun, one, auélre, the other 
and in Spanish uno, oue, otro, the other. 
That all these may not be, strictly, com- 
paratives; and that they may not all be 
followed by than, or a construction equi 
valent to that in which than makes a 
part, is no conclusive testimony against 
the general etymological nature which I 
feel inclined to attribute to them. For, 
although we do not, in English, sav 
‘alter than,” as we do “rather than,” 
ean is as little doubt that after 18 as 
much an Aneglo-saxon comparative formed 
from aft,a word still retained among our 
sailors, as that rather is the comparative 
‘of rath or rathe, a positive wich is now 
deemed obsolete. Perhaps, a similar 
remark is applicable to the definitives 
either and neither, words referring to one 
of two. Other and else are often used in 
a similar sense; and both are erroneously 
denominated, by some grammarians, pro- 
nouns. Else is said, by the learned Horne 
Tooke, to be the imperative ales of the 
verb alesan, dimittere ; yet I cannot help 
seeing some resemblance between it and 
the Latin alius, which is said to be de- 
rived from the Greek aararcs. But, while 
else is, I believe, always followed, in En- 
glish, by. but, bhiekbiadd instances in Latin 
in which alius, though no comparative, 
has a construction bearing a faint resem- 
blance to that of comparatives; as Neve 
putes alium sapiente bonogue beatum—Hor. 
“Do not think any one else but, or, 
“* Think not any other than a wise man 
happy.” The French too construe their 
autre as they woulda comparative; thus 
Tout autre que lui,” “any other than 
he.” The Spaniards also sometimes con- 
strue their ofre, as they do their compa- 
Taiives; as El rey no tiene ofra mira, 
que cl bien publico,”” “the king has no 
other view than the public good.” Upon 
the whole, although [ may have failed in 
my endeavours to ascertain the real na- 
‘ture of the word ofher, I can assure 
““Scrutator,” that, if we ‘are to be regu- 
lated by usage, approved usage, which 
we have been so often told is the arbi- 
ter of living languages, it is proper to 
use than after other, just as if it were a 
comparative, and not but, which is often 
‘erroneously used, even after compara- 
“tives instead of than; ex. gr. “No 
.-Seoner was the cry of the infant heard but 
al 
Nature and Position of the word other. 221 
(than) the old man rushed into the 
room.” Martinus Scrib.’ 1 shall make 
but one remark more on this subject, and 
that is, in regard to the position of other. 
Its usual place is before the noun which 
it defines. Yet, we now, as formerly, 
meet with such expressions as ‘ without 
fee or reward other than;” “No one 
other than he.” Whether such an aré 
rangement be proper, or conducive ta 
perspicuity, [shall not pretend to deter- 
mine ; but it certainly does not much con- 
tribute to harmony. —‘* Scrutator” has, 
he says, looked into Murray, without 
receiving the information which he want~ 
ed, in regard to other. This is not sur-= 
prising. He there found other charac- 
terised as a pronoun; and, indeed, most 
English grammarians and lexicographers, 
whose works T have perused, have, with 
the exception of Dr. Crombie and Mr. 
Dalton, greatly misrepreseoted the nature 
of English definitives. Pronouns have 
astonishingly multiplied in their hands, 
some, any, aught, else, former, &c. being 
introduced into this class. Indeed, they 
seem to consider no difference as exist~ 
ing among pronouns, adjectives, and de= 
finitives ; “aud whenever they fell in with 
a queer ‘kind of a word which they did 
not know how to dispose of rightly, for 
all such they made pronouns the general 
depot. Whether oot they did right in 
acting thus, it is foreign from the present 
purpose to ‘discuss at large; but that such 
is the case, is unquestionable. 
One word more; in regard to “the. 
principles of an art of short memory,” (is 
not shot rather an inappropriate e€pi- 
thet?) as it is named in page 105, [ must 
be allowed to mention, that, many years 
ago, I heard it explained exactiy in the 
same way as ‘Common Sense” has so 
clearly done it, by the late learned Dr. 
Beattie, who said: that the art was very 
ancient, and added; that, from the e@ir- - 
ctimstance ‘of orators associating ‘their 
adeas with place, in order to aid their re= 
collection, originated the method of di- 
viding a discourse into * the first place,’ 
“the second place,” and so on. I see 
the full propriety of the sensible remarks 
made by “Common Sense;” and feel 
convinced, in coincidence with his Opi= 
nion, that, if any Frenchman should 
claim the merit of this invention, none 
bat such as are deficient not only in me- 
mory, but in understanding too, will 
yield the smallest credit to his arrogant 
pretensions, Your's, &c. 
Crouch-Hnd, Sept.3,1807. J. Grant. 
Le 
iY 
| 
| 
