Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

pronoun in those examples, wherein the pronouns of the first or second persons are employed; and Dr. Lowth has censured it, when referring to a plural number; as, in the following example,

"Tis these, that give the great Atrides spoils."

Pope.

I concur, however, with the learned author of "The Philosophy of Rhetoric," who regards the objections of these critics, as, in this instance, of no weight. For, when a question is asked, the subject of which is totally unknown, there must be some indefinite word employed, to denote the subject of the interrogation. The word, which we use for this purpose, is it, as, "Who is it?" "What is it?" This phraseology is established by universal usage, and is therefore unexceptionable. This being the case, there can be no impropriety in repeating in the answer the indefinite term employed in the question. We may therefore reply, "It is I," "It is he," "It is she."

Now, if the term be admitted in questions and answers, where the subject may be either male or female, and of the first, second, or third person, it surely is admissible in those cases also, where the subject is in the plural number. Nay, to use, in the answer, any other word to express the subject, than that, by which it is signified in the question, would be in all cases, if not productive of ambiguity, at least less precise. “ Who is it?" says a master to his servant, hearing a voice in the

[ocr errors]

hall. "It is the gentlemen, who called yester day," replies the servant. Who sees not, that they are the gentlemen," would be an answer less accordant with the terms of the question, and would less clearly shew, that "the gentlemen," and the subject of enquiry," both being denoted by one term, are one and the same? Had the master known, that it was the voice of a genman, and that there were more than one, and had he accordingly said, "Who are they?" the answer would have properly been, They are the gen"tlemen." But when the question is, "is it?" I apprehend, the only apposite answer is, "It is the gentlemen," the identity of the terms (it being repeated) clearly evincing an identity of subject, in the question and in the answer; in other words, that the subject of the enquiry, and the subject of the answer, are one and the

same.

"Who

I conclude with observing, that though I have here considered the word that as a pronoun, there can be no question, that in its import it is precisely the same with the demonstative that, which has been already explained. "The house that you "built, is burned," is resolvable thus, "The "house is burned, you built that."

CHAP. IV.

Of the Adjective.

AN Adjective has been defined by most grammarians, to be "that part of speech, which sig"nifies an accident, quality, or property of a

thing." This definition appears to me to be somewhat defective and incorrect: for the Adjective does not express the quality simply, but the quality, or property, as conjoined with a substance, or, as grammarians have termed it, in concreto. Thus, when we say, "good man," goodness is the name of the quality, and good is the adjective expressing that quality, as conjoined with the subject man. Accordingly, every adjective is resolvable into the name of the thing implied, and any term of reference or conjunction, as of, with. Thus "a prudent man" is equivalent to a man with" or "join prudence," or to" a man of prudence." An Adjective, therefore, is that part of speech, which denotes any substance or attribute, not by itself, but as conjoined with a subject, or pertaining to its character. This conjunction is generally marked, by changing the

[ocr errors]

termination of the simple name of the substantive or attribute, as fool foolish, wax waxen. Sometimes no change is made; and the simple name of the substance, or attribute is pre

fixed to the name of the subject, as sea fowl, race horse, corn field. In writing these, and similar expressions, the conjunction is sometimes marked by hyphen, as sea-fowl, river-fish, wine-vessel.

66

As every Appellative denotes the whole of a genus or species, the intention and effect of the Adjective is, by limiting the generic meaning of the Substantive, to specify, what part of the genus or species is the subject of discourse. If I say man," the term is universal: it embraces the species. If I say "a man," the expression is indefinite, being applicable to any individual of the kind. If I say "a good man," I confine the term to an individual, distinguished by goodness. Here man expresses the substance; and good the quality in concreto. Sometimes, on the contrary, the Substantive is the general name of the quality or property; and the Adjective modifies or determines its degree, as wisdom, little wisdom.-Let us take another example. The word stone is applicable to a whole species of substances. If I say, round stone, I confine the meaning of the Substantive to that part of the genus, which is distinguished by roundness. Here the substantive denotes the matter, or substance, in general, and the Adjective limits its signification, by expresing

the form. Sometimes the converse takes place, as golden globe. Here the Substantive is the generic name of a certain figure; and the Adjective, by expressing the matter, confines that figure to the substance of gold.

Some grammarians have denominated this part of speech by the name of Adjective Noun; to others this desiguation appears inadmissible. The latter observe, that neither is the Adjective the name of any thing, nor is it in English variable, like the Substantive. They allow, that in Greek and Latin, the designation in question is, in some degree, justifiable, because, though the Noun and Adjective differ essentially in office, in these languages, they agree in form;-but in our language they deem it a singular impropriety.*

* Mr. Tooke contends, that this part of speech is properly termed Adjective Noun, and "that it is altogether as much the "name of a thing, as the Noun Substantive." Names and designations necessarily influence our conceptions of the things, which they represent. It is therefore desirable, that in every art or science, not only should no term be employed, which may convey to the reader or hearer an incorrect conception of the thing signified, but that every term should assist him, in forming a just idea of the object, which it expresses. Now, I concur with Mr. Tooke in thinking, that the Adjective is by no means a necessary part of speech. I agree with him also in opinion, that, in a certain sense, all words are nouns or names. But as this latter doctrine seems directly repugnant to the concurrent theories of Critics and Grammarians, it is necessary to explain, in what sense the opinion of Mr. Tooke requires to be understood; and in presenting the reader with this explanation,

« AnteriorContinua »