ee ee 
wae 
496 
moon furs round its axis,” the word 
turn is neuter; adding ‘*that he fheuld 
perhaps make it a queftion, which was 
the more ancient kind, the.verb ative or 
the verb neuter.”” Such verbs I confider 
to be aétive and reflective. Moon ‘and 
fpring, though inanimate fubjects, under- 
go a fort of perfonification, and are fo 
- generally underfiocd to be vetted with a 
felf influencing power, that it is unnecef- 
fary to always particularize themfelves, as 
theo!) je€ts on which that power is exerted. 
The fame kind of phrafeology obtains in 
other languages; as, in French, they fay, 
“‘Les jours commencent a falonger:” 
*¢the days begin to lengthen.”’ In Spanith, 
“6 Se acaba la rina,” ‘‘ the quarrel énds:” 
and in beth, the fun fets,’” ‘Se pone el 
fol;*’ “*Le foieil fe couche.” 
The ve:b real is likewife changed into 
a neuter, by J hnfon, by adding the word 
away to it. I ftole away,” ie. “I 
went off privately; but here again myp- 
felf is the obje&, though it was unnecef- 
{ary to mention it; in the fame manner as 
we fay in colloquial language ‘‘I took 
my/lelf off or away.’ The truth is, that 
even thoie verbs which are neuter and in- 
tranfitive, may, with the afliftance of a 
prepofition, be changed into active tranfi- 
tive verbs, as, ‘‘I laugh at a man;” 
‘the man is laughed at.” ‘TI agree to 
a propolal ;” ‘‘ the propofal is agreed to.”” 
€¢ Foriune fmiled gn him;” “he was 
fmiled on by fortune.” Such verbs, the 
Tearned Dr. Campbell denominated com- 
pound ative verbs. 
Thefe remarks poffefs no intrinfic im- 
portance; but, as they are intended for 
the corre.-icn of what, I am inclined to 
believe, is 2 miltake, they have fome little 
claim to inferticn in any {pare corner of 
your much-refpected Miiceliany. 
One remark more, to mention a very 
common, though it may be deemed a very 
trivial, error, m orthography: the word 
plumb, infead of plum, a fruit. Few of 
your readers necd to be infurmed that 
plumb is derived tiom piumbum, lead; a 
commodity, which, although it belongs to 
the mineral kingcom, and may have fome 
relation to fome individuals of the animal 
kingdom, is entirely excluded from the 
vegetable creation, . Iam, Sir, 
Crcouch- nd, Yours, &c, 
May 4, 1805. - GB SA 
E 5 ——— a 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIRyi 
~ RESPECTABLE correfpondent, 
in the latt number ef the Monthly 
Magazine, objects to the definition of 
Repl, to Obfervations on Murray’s Engljfb Grammar. {June 1, 
accent, given by Murray, in his * Eng- 
lif Grammar,’’.on the ground that it is 
not confitent with the etymology of the 
word, or does not accord with the fignifi- 
cation it formerly denoted. Confidering 
this objeciton to have arifen partly from 
overfight, I do not doubt that the author 
would be pleafed to have it pointed out. 
We have the authority both of Waiker 
and Sheridan, that accent, when wled to 
direct the pronunciation of /igle words 
(and the mark we call accent is never 
ufed for any other purpofe in Englifh), 
means nothing more than a peculiar mede 
of diftinguihhing one fyllable from the 
reft* ; and that when refriéted to this 
fenfe, as in our dictionaries, it is not re- 
ferred to tune, but to time; to quantity, 
not quality; to, the mere equable or pre- 
Cipitate motion of the voice, not to the 
variation of notes and inflexions. Now, 
it is very evident, from the firft paragraph, 
under the bead Profody, in Murray’s 
Grammar, where the fubje&t is treated, 
that accent is confidered as diftingt from 
tone, and merely as a mode to regulate 
the quantity of our fyllables. ‘* Pro- 
fody,’’ fays the author, ** cenfitts of two 
parts: the former teaches the true pro- 
nunciation of words, comprifing accent, 
quantity, emphafis, ; au‘e, and fove; and 
the latter, the laws of verfification¢+.”’ 
The definition offered by your corre- 
fpondent may be very correét, fo far as it 
regards the nature of accent in the ancient 
Janguages; but its truth may be queftion- 
ed when applied tothe term, as commonly 
ufed and underftood in our language. If 
accent with us means the raifing or depref- 
fing of the tone of the voice, it may be 
afked, whether this tone is uniformly the 
fame in all words, or is it fometimes va- 
rited ? If ic be.not uniform, how are we 
to difcover its changes? We have only 
one accentual mark adopted in our lan= 
guage, and it could fearcely have been 
intended that. this fhould denote dif- 
ferent tones of the voice. With as much 
* Accent, with them (the ancients) fig- 
nified certain inflexions of the voice, or notes 
annexed to certain fyllables, Of thefe they 
had three in general ufe, which were deno- 
minated accents, and the term ufed in the 
plural number. ‘The term, with us, has 
no reference to 
or mufical notes, but only means a peculiar 
manner ef diftinguifhing one fyllable of a 
word from the reft, denominated by us ac= 
cent, and the term, for that reafon, ufed by 
us in the fingular number,”——LeZures on Elo= 
cutjomy quartoed. p. 41. - 
> Tenth edition, p. 190 
reafon 
inflexions of the voice, 
