Imágenes de página

the sea, where the fall of water is very considerable, About Delly, it does not begin till the end of June, and the fall of rain is greatly inferior to what is felt at Calcutta or Bombay. In the north of the Punjaub, near the hills, it exceeds tbat of Dellv: but in the South of the Punjaub, distant both from the sea and the hills, very little rain falls. The countries under the hills of Cashmeere, and those under Hindoo Coosh, (Pukhlee, Boonere, and Swaut,) have all their share of the rains, but they diminish as we go west, and at Swaut are reduced to a month of clouds, with occasional showers. In the same month (the end of July and begipning of August) the monsoon appears in some clouds and showers at Peshawer, and in the Bungush and Khuttuk countries. It is still less felt in the valley of the Caubul river, where it does not extend beyond Lughmaun; but in Bajeoura and Punjeora, under the southern projection, in the part of the Caufir country, which is situated on the top of the same projection, and in Teera, situated in the angle formed by Tukhti Solimaun and its eastern branches, the southwest monsoon is heavy, and forms the principal rains of the year. There is rain in this season in the coun· try of the Jaujees and Torees, which probably is brought from the north by the eddy in the winds; but I have not information enough to enable me to conjecture whether that which falls in Bunnoo and the neighbouring countries is to be ascribed to this cause, or to the regular monsoon from the south-west.

The regular monsoon is felt as far west as the utmost boundary of Mekraun: it is not easy to fix its limits · on the north-west with precision, but I have no ac

counts of it beyond a line drawn through the northern part of the table land of Kelaut, and the northern parts of Shoraubuk, of Pisheen, and of Zhobe, to the source of the Koorum; it falls, however, in very different quantities in the various countries south-east of that line. The clouds pass with little obstruction over Lower Sind, but rain more plentifully in Upper Sind and Domaun, where these rains, though not heavy, **are the principal ones in the year. On the sea-coast of Luss and Mekraun, on the other hand, they are arrested by the mountains, and the monsoon resembles

that of India. In Seweestaun the monsoon is probably the same as in Upper Sind and Domaun: in Boree it is only about a month of cloudy and showery weather: it is probably less in Zhobe: and in the other countries within the line it only appears in showers, more precarious as we advance towards the nortb.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE POCKET MAGAZINE. ABSURDITIES OF THE FRENCH LANGUAGE.* SIR,-Although you have expressed your wish, that the controversy on the subject of the French Language should end, as both parties, you say, have been heard; yet, I have too great a reliance on your candour, to suppose you will refuse admission to my reply to your two correspondents, L. G. and C. J. L. in your December Magazine, the latter of whom, at least, has attacked me with as much virulence, as if the subject had been one of personal feeling.

I am the more inclined to imagine that you will grant me this indulgence, because you will recognise it to be a rule in logic, that after the reply to a position, the rejoinder should be heard ; a practice adopted in courts of justice, wherein the first counsel is allowed the liberty of replying to the objections of the second; and the matter is then left to the summing-up of the judge, and the decision of the jury. On this footing, I am willing to place the argument; consi. dering you, Sir, as that judge, and your numerous readers as the jury: and pledging myself, that should you even be inclined to prolong the controversy, by the admission of any further communications from my two opponents, I will leave them masters of the field, as I do not conceive the subject of sufficient importance to occupy any further portion of your interesting miscellany.

Let me likewise add, as a further reason for being again heard, that I have two opponents to encounter

* A due regard to impartiality compels us to give insertion to this reply; but we beg leave to apprize our correspondents that we shall not print any more letters upon the subject. Two or three communications, which we have received, must therefore be excluded.-ED.

single-handed ; and with such fearfulodds, lought at least to be placed on an equal footing with my antagonists.

Yon see, Sir, I am not inclined to treat the matter very seriously; and moreover, I hope, without any great effort, to be able to command my temper sufficiently to enter into the subject with coolness and moderation; a Socratic sort of feeling, which, I am sorry to say, Č.J. L. does not seem very highly to possess : for while I admit that the communication of L. G. appears to have been written with those sentiments of politeness and good-temper which characterise his country, and should feel pleasure in having my errors corrected by so mild a disputant, I am rather at a loss to imagine what could provoke the invectives of the former gentleman, who has certainly mistaken vehemence for sense, and acrimony for argument; and while he accuses me of ignorance and illiberality, almost descends, himself, to personality and abuse.

It is an admitted fact, that the just end of argument is to elicit truth. If I advance a false position, and my antagonist disprove it, I should gain no reputation by persisting in my error ; while my own consciousness of that error, and my self-conviction that the opinion of others is against 'me, must prove such obstinacy the result, of weakness and pride.--I trust, I am li. beral enough to acknowledge my own misconceptions, if such misconceptions are pointed out with moderation and candour; but there is an innate self-pride, which all, more or less, partake of, and which pronounces the acknowledgment of error (though convinced of such error) to be a degradation, when it is endeavoured to extort such acknowledgment, by invective and abuse. No man, Mr. Editor, (io use a vulgar phrase, which, I. trust, you and your readers will pardon) chooses to be bullied out of his opinion. But Mr. C. J. L. must not hence infer, that he has convinced me, and imagine that the manner only of such conviction has induced me to reply. I hope to be able satisfactorily to prove, that my judgment on the subject of the Absurdities of the French Lanquage, has not been hastily formed, but has been founded on conviction and common sense.

I shall now briefly recapitulate the heads of my objections to the French language, including the remarks of my opponents thereon, and adding such counter-remarks as I conceive the argument will justify.

First. I asserted that “ the French sacrificed sense to sound;" and quoted, as an instance, a masculine pronoun adjective being made to agree with a feminine substantive, (viz. MON absence, instead of MA absence) for no other reason, than because the colli. sion of the two vowels would'he offensive to the ear. How is this disproved ? L. G. passes it over by pleading the sanction of custom, and the necessity of pleasing the ear. Custom may and does justify absurdity; but it will ever remain absurdity, notwithstanding; and as to the latter reason, it is the very one that I stated myself; but is it a satisfactory one?-The answer of C. J. L. on this point is weaker still. He evades the question altogether, and recriminates upon the English language, which I never vindicated, or even placed in comparison, and which could therefore have no connection whatever with the point at issue. This is a curious sort of defence, and reminds me of that kind of self-justification, by which persons imagine their own faults extenuated, because they are not worse than their neighbours.

Second. My next objection was their assigning genders to inanimate objects. Something like a reason is offered by L. G.; but it will not bear the test of examination. He says, neuter is no gender. Granted; but it forms a distinction between animate and inanimate objects, founded on common sense; and which distinction, the French language does not possess, and is so far, at least, deficient in propriety. "He goes on to say, that “ the words, masculine and feminine, figuratively mean bold, strong or stronger, soft or softer, weaker, effeminate, &c. and that the French use them in that sense.” 'Let him apply this reasoning to the words I have quoted (Vol. II. p. 139.) viz.

Pelle (shovel), fem. Fourgon (poker), masc.” and what distinctions of strength or weakness, softness or hardness, can he find between the two objects ? and which hé ought to find, to prove his arguments true. What difference can there exist between them?--But I do not rest the absurdity of this reasoning on these solitary instances; L. Go's experience must convince him they are so numerous, that to quote a very small proportion would extend the argument beyond all reasonable limits.-But what does my other antagonist, C. J. L. advance in vindication of this "absurdity ?" He says, “two genders with rules are not peculiar to the French language ;” which is no reason at all; and is of the same tenor with his reply to the first objection, viz. that the French language is justified because other languages possess the same faults;”—an absurd way of arguing, too palpably gross, to impose on the weak intellect of a child.

Third. My third objection was their use of two negatives to express one.-In my construction of the sentence to illustrate this “ absurdity,C.J. L. is kind enough to detect an error in the arrangement of the words, and which I am candid enough to acknowledge; but I hope that he, on the other hand, will confess that this objection, so far from being fatal to this part of the argument, does not at all impeach the truth of my assertion; for although the words should be differently placed, there are yet two negatives, and these negatives are “ used to express one." Let us hear how this contradiction is justified.-L. G. has here again the advantage of his coadjutor, in point of sense. He says, it is necessary to form a distinction between nouns and adverbs, which might otherwise be reciprocally mistaken for each other. I will acknowledge the justice of this reasoning as far as it goes; but it will not form a vindication of the phrase I have quoted, nor of a variety of others which will suggest themselves to any person at all acquainted with the French language: if a double negative is necessary in the instances he has mentioned, let it be confined to those instances, and the justification will countenance the apparent 'absurdity.-C. J. L. with his uşual perspicuity, says, that “ne, without its complement, is but part of a negative," a piece of information not quite important enough to merit my thanks; as I have not sufficient sagacity to discera that it forms any answer to the objection.

Fourth. Objection 4, the absurdity of using a t in

« AnteriorContinuar »