this fenfe the ufe of fs is not only popu- 
Har, but fan&tioned by moft refpeCable 
authorities. But, when it is ufed in what 
is called its fecondary fignification (which 
3s not fo common), of detriment, or inju- 
vy, the fame quality as is ufually con- 
tained in its derivative prejudicial, then 
both the fubftantive and the adjeétive are 
always followed by fo. 
The prepofition muft be varied likewife 
according to the fenfe. Thus, “we 
prevail ov, or perfuade, a friend; “ we 
prevail over, or overcome, an enemy.” 
s¢The work confifts of many volumes.” 
*€ Virtue confilts iz obedience.” ‘** The 
man is confiftent wth himfelf.”’ ‘* He 
accufed them for betraying the Dutch.” 
For, in this inftance, has been repeatedly 
eondemned, and of fubftituted for it; a 
correction not without reafon, if for was 
originaliy intended as equivalent in im- 
port too/; but certainly we may fay, ‘¢ he. 
accufed them, for betraying the Dutch, 
of treachery,’’ in which for denotes the 
efficient caufe or motive to the acculation, 
and of applies to the effect arifiag from 
the betraying, viz, treachery, the fubject 
of accufation. Upon the fame principle, 
Dryden has been blamed for faying, 
*© Ovid, whom you accule for luxuriancy 
of verfe 3 but in this likewife for may 
denote the caufe of accufation ; in which 
cafe the meaning is not different from 
that of the more ufual form of expreflion, 
*¢ Ovid, whom you blame for luxuriancy 
of verfe.”” Concerning -the prepofition 
that fhould follow averfe, and averfon, 
there have been many difputes. Bifhop 
Lowth, foliowing the commen rule, fays, 
*‘ that the noun averfion requires from 
after it, and does nct properly admit #, 
Sor, or towards.” Dr. Johnfon is of the 
fame opinion. But, notwithfianding thefe 
great authorities, and although from has 
become rather common lately, ¢o fill 
maintains its ground aniong many re{pec- 
table writers, to whom its ufe, appears 
more natural and lefs pedantic than that 
of its adverfary. It is true, the verb 
avert is always followed by from ; but it 
is hardly ever ufed figuratively. Averfe 
is nearly equivalent to relud?ant, or con- 
trary to, and averfiou te diflike, both de- 
Noting operations of the mind. And 
there cannot be much ereater impropriety 
in faying ‘* averfe fo,” than in the ex- 
preffions “ prejudicial to,” ** fubfervient 
to,” ** prefer above,” and ‘ to,” as well 
as ** before,” and many others, in which 
the refpective fignifications of the prepo- 
fition in compofition, and of zo, have as 
hittle tendency to correfpond or coalefce. 
Thus : “Tam averfe (or turned from) to 
fucha purpeie.”? © Tam fubfervient (or 
Engl Propofitions. 
f March 1, 
ferving under) to fuch a purpofe.” «FE 
am prejudicial (or judging befcre) to fuch 
a purpofe.” ‘I have an averfon (ised, 
aturning from, i.e., putting, by a meé- 
tonymy, the caule inttead of the.effeét or 
external fign,—a diflike) to fucha thing.” 
Doubileis the particle zo, in this inftance, 
conneéts the diflike, or the method of -in- 
dicating that affection, and the thing dif- 
liked, more clofely than can be effected by 
from. In the fame manner, although we 
may ‘‘ fympathize wth a friend,’’ (ufing 
with as correfponding to, or with, the 
Greek prepofition in compofition) ‘here is 
no great impropriety in fhewing ** fympa- 
thy. (or compaffion) fo a perfon in dif- 
trefs.” We may likewife have our ‘ an- 
tipathies againft or toa thing.” The fact 
is, that the particle ¢o feems in Englifh a 
general copula, or connecting word, de- 
noting tendency, or rather extent. By 
means of it we can fhew love, hatred, 
friendfhip, indifference, and) paffions of 
the moit difcordant and complicated na- 
ture, and be averfe and adverfe, ¢@ a per- 
fon. And if ¢o be not allowed to perform 
this, its ufual and natural .fervice, we 
may in time he compelled to ‘* fubmit ua#- 
der,” and thew ** fubmiffion wader,” grieve 
ances, ‘* before which we cannot be fup- 
pofed to have any predeliétion,”’ and 
© againft which we may beafraid to thew 
oppofition or contradiction.”” As to the 
ule of the particle for, we are allowed te 
entertain “ efteem, regard, contempt, and 
affection, and why not averfion? for a 
perfon.”” A fimilar phrafcology obtains 
likewife in other languages which receive 
this. word from the Latin. Thus, the 
French fay, “ J'ai une grande averfion 
pour, ou a, (for or fo) cette maniere de 
vivre.” The Spaniards fay, “* Tengo 
una averfion grande a (to) efte modo de 
vivir.’ And in Latin, although the ufu- 
al regimen of aver/us is an ablative with 
a or ab, it is found tollowed by the dative, . 
correfponding with the Englifh fo ; and ~ 
Cicero ufcs the expreffion, “* averhflimo 
in me (to or towards me) animo fuit.”” _ 
Hence it may appear, upon the whole, 
that no general rule can be laid down fer 
afcertaining the appropriate prepofition im 
all inftances, but that in fome we may be 
regulated by analogy, in fome we muf 
be guided by the fenfe, in others by the 
genius and idiom of the Englifh lan- 
guage, and in many inftances by cuftom 
or approved ufage, the fovereign arbitrefs 
in all living languages, with whom, it is 
faid, 
Arbitrium eft, et jus, et norma loquendi. 
Tam, Sir, your’s, &c. 
| 95s 
Crouch-End, December 10, 1805. 
2 For 
