S44 On the Dertvation and Nature of Englifh Prepofitions. [May 1, 
ear and heart lefs at prefent, or in ages 
to' come, than when firft compofed. 
Should this contribute to, advance fuch 
a defgn, I thall indeed rejoice : that. it 
has been written. Your’s, &c. 
Bury, Cave. Lorrt. 
3d of April, 1807. 7 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N No. 155, p. 235, of the Monthly 
Magazine, I find certain obferva- 
tions on the etymology and nature of 
prepofitions. Thee, it appears, are in- 
tended to militate, in fome refpecis, 
againit the juftly admired, and almott 
univerfally adopted theory of the learned 
Mr. H. Tooke; but, it feems to me, 
that, as far, at leatt, as the writer has 
thought fit to develope his own or his 
friend’s ideas, they are neither fatisfac- 
tory in themfelves, nor explanatory of 
the author’s fyftem. ‘In attacxing Mr. 
‘Tooke’s theory, it does not avail, merely 
to ftate a few particular derivations in 
which philologuits may differ, but it is 
incumbent upon the aflailant to fhew 
in, what effential parts that theory or 
fyitem is, as a whole, unfounded or erro- 
neous. Mr. Payne’s remarks are con- 
fined to two heads, the derivation of 
by, and the general objeét or intent of 
prepofitions, 
““N. Salmon”, he fays, “ has endea- 
voured to prove that in many circum- 
ftances, by derives its name from words 
that do not merely denote ewzfience, 
but which actually fignify operating, 
creating, &c.; and that it appears as a 
forerunner to whoever or whatever is 
caufing, has been caufing, or will be 
caufing, any thing to happen; for exam- 
ple, Darius was vanquifhed by Alex- 
ander: i. e. Darius was vanquithed : 
(the) Operator (of this ftate of Darius 
was) ALEXANDER”. 
It would, I am convinced, afford great 
fatisfaétion ‘to your readers and corre= 
fpondents, if Mr. P. would plainly ftate, 
through your Magazine, that origin of 
by, according to which it actually fignifies, 
inttead of merely implying, operation, 
creation, and the like, fince many of your 
readers have not an opportunity of per- 
ufing, nor, perhaps, an inclination to 
purchafe, philological treatifes, which 
are often very expenfive. According ‘to 
Mr. Tooke, by denotes only ezzfience, 
and, by implicatien or inference, primary 
agency or caufation. In conformity 
with this derivation, we find it generally 
applied to the primary caufe or doer of 
- 
“ 
an action, or to words confidered as fuch; 
as “ Darius was vanguifhed by Alex- 
ander”. The fubject naturally denotes 
the fuiferer, the predicate, the nature of 
the fuffering, and by points out the er- 
afience of that whith the mind will na- 
turally fuggett, as explanatory of the 
fublidiary circumfiance of the affirma- 
tion, the firft caufe of the fuffering. 
The prepofition with has two deriva- 
tions; one of which, like that of by, de- 
notes ewxiftence; and hence, in many 
inftances, we find this with ufed in the 
fame way as by, but generally with re- 
ference to the fecondary caufe, or inftru- 
ment; as “ He was killed 6y him with a 
{word”; i, e. be he the primary caufe or 
agent, be a fword the-infirument or fe- 
condary caufe; the origin, wmport, and 
ufe of the one prepofition undoubtedly 
tending to corroborate thofe of the other. 
In. both equally, the infirumentality 
arifes trom inference and the nature of | 
things, and not from the intrinfic mean- 
ing of the prepofitions employed, Ac- 
cording to the other derivation, -it de- 
notes joim or conrcomtancy; as “ He 
went with me”; i e. jorn me. This ex- 
planation of by .and with feems fo na- 
tural, and fo fatisfaétory, that I mutt 
continue to acquiefce in it, as [ fuppofe 
the majority of your readers will, till 
Mr. P. favours the public with. ftronger 
objections to it, than thofe which he has 
as yet communicated through your Ma- 
gazine. 
I am fully aware of the difficulty which 
exilts, to prove with what degree of truth 
or propriety,. certain remote efymons are 
affigned to many words in our language. 
Yet, in general, the preference will na- 
turally be given to that derivation which 
prefents to us fuch a_/ingle leading fenfe 
or clue, as may the beft explain the va- 
rious meanings which we are accuftomed 
to attach to many Englifh words. ‘This, 
Mr. 1. Tooke’s theory, be it right, or be 
it wrong, effects in a moft wonderful 
degree; and this is not the leaft reafon 
which conciliates to his fyftem perfons 
not thoroughly acquainted with the va- 
rious languages which he has rendered 
fubfervient to his etymological labours, 
and, therefore, not fully competent to 
decide upon the juftice of all his deriva- 
tions. | 
To the new fervice or intent of pre- 
pofitions, as explained by Mr. P., or 
rather Mr. Salmon, I feel as little in- 
clined to affent. j ; 
“« Prepofitions”’, fays he, “ are merely 
ufed to avoid quefiions likely to, be eB 
2 the 
