trovertible bafis of found and deep reafoning, To liften ta them, we should suppose that an affembly of the wisest inhabitants of the earth had been collected together; who, after confidering all the various and abftrufe relations, &c. which might require to be expreffed, had, with "metaphysical abftraction and profound difcernment," adapted particular words to denote fuch relations, &c. :-but it never feems to have occurred to the recollection of thefe gentlemen, that to have fettled all their difficulties, the original "inventors of speech" muft previously have been endowed with the faculty of talking. "Inventors of fpeech"! It is a curious phrafe: nor does our author talk lefs curioufly, when he informs us that the defign of fpeech was to promote an interchange of thoughts.' Really and was not this produced without defign; or did men enter into any plan or fixed agreement on the fubject.— In like manner, we hear of rules; as if they were prior to speech; as if these were firft laid down, and then fpeech adapted to them; and thus the first formation of language' becomes, as it appears, a definite and well-confidered matter. We learn too, that from the invention of nouns, or names, it was natural to proceed to the confideration of a word that might affirm fomething of the perfons or things intimated by the fubftantive.' Hence the verb.-It was evident, alfo, we are told, that the verb fhould agree in number with the noun: - but how was this evidence known to the original inventors? That it now does agree, is in confequence of rules which have been fince established: but what is the meaning of number? why fhould run be of a higher number than runs and yet be at other times of the fame number: I run; they run: of what number is run?-So again with respect to perfon, the change in the verb does not feem neceflary, as is here aflerted, to perfpicuity; that is, in all cafes where the nominative is expreffed feparately from the verb:-e. g. I run, thou runneft, he runs:-is this more perfpicuous than-we run, ye run, they run? There are feveral other affertions on this subject of philofophical grammar, which are equally, and even more, controvertible: but we avoid entering deeply into the subject at prefent.

Mr. Coote next proceeds to treat on orthography; and here, as indeed in every other part of his book, we find much which is copied, without acknowlegment, from Dr. Lowth. One piece of intelligence is, however, his own: at leaft, we do not recollect to have met with it before. It is, that the letters 1, m, n, and r, are called liquids, from their production of a greater moisture in the mouth in the act of pronunciation, than is occafioned by the other letters'!

In endeavouring to eftablish a proper mode of pronouncing letters and words, the author gives fome rules which convey no inftruction, and others which are not founded in juftice. What information will the learner derive from being told that the letter has an obfcure found, as nature'? or again, that 'a is pronounced long, like the diphthong ai'; and that the diphthong ai is pronounced like the long a'?

In many inftances, his pronunciation is inelegant and vulgar; as when he gives fanction to dropping the found of a in the last fyllable of marriage, carriage, &c.-thus, marrige, carrige: fo likewife the ai is faid to have an obfcure found in .again, waiflcoat, (that is, we fuppofe, agen, wefcoat;) and he obferves that in fome words the found of oi almoft finks into a

long i; as appoint, join, (appint, jine !); that the u is filent in conquer; for inftance, Cæfar conker'd Pompey! fo likewife the / is filent in talk, fhould; thus, tauk, fhoud! and fin the word of is pronounced like v: He was tauking ou you!

The fecond book treats on etymology; and if its contents were to be diftributed among thofe from whom they are borrowed, we apprehend that but little would remain for our author's fhare. For fome parts there would probably be no claimants: few perfons, except the writer, would diftinguish that Gray's expreffion, "full many a gem," &c. is different in fenfe from "many gems:" nor is it quite evident that a includes the fignification of each, in the following phrases; five pounds a year; five fhillings a man, &c. Why does it fignify each? it may as well fignify per. May there not be an ellipfis five pounds in a year; five fhillings to a man.-On the fubject of gender in nouns, it is mentioned, as a defect in our language, that those words which do not point out any gender, or which may belong to either, have no difference of termination to express the fex to which they are applied: thus friend, neighbour, fervant, &c. are ufed indifferently for males and females but furely if we wish to refer to the fex, the reference is eafily made by adding the word male, or female; and is not this better than having a difference of termination, by which we could never refer to both fexes indefinitely?

In difcuffing the nature of the pronoun, we meet with such divifions, and fubdivifions, that we cannot avoid remarking, with regret, how much need there is of fimplification in grammar, as well as in moft other sciences. Can any thing be imagined more unneceflary, (to use the tendereft term,) than to make a feparate clafs of indeterminate pronouns, all of which, too, are adjectives? as for inftance, fome, other, any, one, all, fuch, &c. As well might it be afferted, that good, bad, indifferent, kind, and indeed every adjective in the language, was an indeterminate pronoun.

Respecting

Refpecting verbs, we have many remarks by which we gain little improvement. Among others, we are told that the verb to run approaches more to an active verb than to fiand does, because it implies action: but this is not what grammarians mean by active; they are not talking of motion in the perfon mentioned; and whether a man flies, runs, walks, ftands, or lies, the verbs, which affirm the flate in which he is, are all, in a grammatical fenfe, equally neuter. In the fame inaccurate manner, we learn that will, in the first perfon, exprelles an inclination, or a menace, as, we will punish :'-certainly! or a motion, we will walk; or a grieving, we will cry; or a rejoicing, we will laugh, &c.! Thus it frequently happens with writers on grammar: they enumerate a hundred different meanings for the fame word, when perhaps ninety-nine of thofe meanings arife from the context,-from other expreffions joined with it, and not from the word itfelf.

In treating on conjunctions, prepofitions, &c. Mr. Coote brings forward many etymological conjectures, of which the greater part, if not the whole, is borrowed from Mr. Horne Tooke. He does not, however, rely implicitly on the opinion of this gentleman; though, in differing from his authority, he leaves us fometimes at a lofs for his own meaning. Mr. Tooke has afferted that "left for lefed (as bleft for bleffed,) is nothing but the paft of lefan, dimittere; and with the article that (either expreffed or underflood) means no more than hoc dimiffo, or quo dimiffo." Mr. Coote apparently mistakes the fenfe of these words; and the fentence, by which he attempts to fhew the meaning of left, is indeed a curious one: He will perform it, left it may be prejudicial.'-Is this HE in his fenfes, or not? will he perform a thing, left the performance may be prejudicial? that is, he will do hurt, left he may do hurt. There is nonfenfe in the terms; and therefore to inquire into their original meaning would be ridiculous. How far Mr. Tooke's derivation may, in this cafe, be juft, we will not decide: it frequently happens, however, that many of our most common words, which must have been in daily and hourly use among the first speakers of the language, are faid to be derived from other words not fo common and neceflary, and of which they are pretended to be a part: thus of is, by Mr. Tooke, fuppofed to be a fragment of the Gothic afara, pofterity; and that it always implies confequence, offspring, &c. It feems here as if the etymologift began at the tail inflead of the head. Suppose, for instance, we were to derive our of, or off, from offSpring, calling offspring the original word, which, being divided, left us our common of, fhould we not talk nonsense? Is not of the parent word? As well might it be urged that de is a fragment of the Latin defcendens; or poft, of pofteritas, &c.

Much

Much confufion arifes in the ufe of our prepofitions, from the inaccuracy of writers, who affign to the fame word a variety of meanings: it feems indeed moft probable, that all our prepofitions, conjunctions, and perhaps all our other words, had one fimple meaning, which was only diverfified by the other terms added to them. In tracing the fignification of words, Mr. Coote fhews no precifion nor exactnefs: thus up,' we are told, fignifies motion towards the top: as, he WENT up' what confufion is this! Neither does on neceffarily relate to the fituation of a perfon or thing, confidered as higher than another, or as placed on the upper part of another." The hat is on my head, though I may be ftanding on my head; and the fhoes are on my feet, whether my feet are on the ground or in the air: I am on 'Change, without being higher than the 'Change: there is a charming painting on the cieling, but not above it; and a fly can crawl on the under part of a globe, &c. In fact, on feems to have no relation to situation, !confidered as higher or lower: it may be on the upper fide, or

on the lower fide; on the infide, or on the outfide, &c. If he had attended to what he has faid of off, he might have more clearly explained on: off is oppofed to on, and refers to dif tance or feparation: but does it point out fituation as being downward? He went off the ftage.-Where?-Up ftairs into the gallery. So alfo, before is faid to relate to time, to place, to order as well as place, to preference, &c.;' and the fame language is held with refpect to behind, about, between, and other words, too tirefome to enumerate. The fact, we repeat it, is, that thefe prepofitions have a fingle meaning, which relates to time, or to place, or to order, or to preference, or to whatever elfe you pleafe; and this relation depends. not on the prepofition, but on the words joined with it.

The remaining part of the volume, which treats of syntax and profody, poffefles nothing fufficiently new or remarkable to call for our farther attention.

Our account of Mr. Pickbourn's Differtation on the

English Verb is intended for our next Review.

0.

ART. XVII. A Letter from Mr. Burke to a Member of the National Affembly; in Anfwer to fome Objections to his Book on French Affairs. 8vo. pp. 74. zs. Printed in Paris; reprinted in London for Dodfley. 1791.

A

WISE man, when his fentiments and affertions are controverted by numerous and refpectable opponents, finds cause for hefitation; and even when he does not fee fufficient reafon

to

10

to change his opinions, he commonly moderates the ardour of his confidence, or, at least, qualifies and foftens the vehemence of his language. On the poffeffion of fuch wifdom, we are forry that we cannot compliment Mr. Burke. He has been affailed by a hoft of opponents, most of them of no mean prowess. Among all that have paffed in review before us, we do not recollect one that could be justly ftyled contemptible; and many of them have certainly been his fuperiors in argument, however they might fall fhort of him in eloquence. Yet we do not find that the intemperance of his zeal is at all cool ed, nor the violence of his invective in any wife abated.

The objections to which Mr. B. replies, are few, and of no great weight. They are fo general, that they might be urged with as much propriety against any other writer on that fide of the question, as against himself. "It would have been better not to interfere at all in the madness of the times, but to leave democratic folly to correct itself by its excefs." "To point out the inconfiftencies of the National Affembly, and of those who have taken the lead in the revolution, is only to teach them how to amend their errors, and to affist them in perpetuating their tyranny." "To espouse the cause of injured and infulted royalty, in the prefent height of popular phrenzy, is only to draw down upon it a greater weight of odium, and perhaps to provoke affaffination." "To expose the evils of any fituation, without fuggefting a remedy, is ufeless and improper." Such flender and unappropriated objections as these, require no long nor laboured reply. Mr. Burke accordingly bestows but a very few fentences on the refutation of them. His arguments are like Gratian's two grains of wheat hidden in two bushels of chaff: but the torrent of digreffion, declamation, and voluble abuse, which accompanies them, is like the ftream of which the filly ruftic waited in vain to fee the end: At ille labitur et labetur in omne volubilis ævum.

In his former Letter, Mr. B. left but few white spots in the abettors of the French revolution; now they are daubed all over. None are fo black as they are! They have not only violated every public and political, but every private and moral duty alfo. Not contented with diffolving all the obligations between magiftrate and people, they ftudiously labour to poifon, corrupt, and deftroy, the domeftic relations of parent and child, preceptor and pupil. They inculcate vice to children fyftematically, pure, and unadulterated. Or if they dash the cup with any thing that has the taste of virtue, they do it only to render the deadly potion more palatable. They make even virtue a pander to vice.' They teach the people, that the debauchers of virgins, almoft in the arms of their parents, may