This brief view of the subject, is sufficient to elucidate the
manner in which, according to Horne Tooke's principles, the ten
parts of speech are reduced to one. But I am, by no means, disposed
to concede, that this is the _true_ principle of classification; nor
that it is any more _philosophical_ or _rational_ than one which
allows a more practical division and arrangement of words. What has
been generally received as "philosophical grammar," appears to
possess no stronger claims to that imposing appellation than our
common, practical grammars. Query. Is not Mr. Murray's octavo
grammar more worthy the dignified title of a "Philosophical
Grammar," than Horne Tooke's "Diversions of Purley," or William S.
Cardell's treatises on language? What constitutes a _philosophical_
treatise, on this, or on any other subject? _Wherein_ is there a
display of philosophy in a speculative, etymological performance,
which attempts to develop and explain the elements and primitive
meaning of words by tracing them to their origin, _superior_ to the
philosophy employed in the development and illustration of the
principles by which we are governed in applying those words to their
legitimate purpose, namely, that of forming a correct and convenient
medium by means of which we can communicate our thoughts? Does
philosophy consist in ransacking the mouldy records of antiquity, in
order to _guess_ at the ancient construction and signification of
single words? or have such investigations, in reality, any thing to
do with _grammar_?
Admitting that all the words of our language include, in their
_original_ signification, the import of nouns or names, and yet, it
does not follow, that they _now_ possess no other powers, and, in
their combinations and connexions in sentences, are employed for no
other purpose, than _barely_ to _name objects_.
Pages:
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146