Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

192

C. 15. knows no more of the Greek than what is contained in the common grammars and dictionaries; but it will not surprise those who have studied univerfal grammar, and have a more general knowledge of languages and particularly those who are acquainted with the Hebrew, and other oriental languages, will think this scheme of derivation not at all extraordinary; for it feems now to be a point agreed among all the learned in the Hebrew, that the roots of it are all verbs; and if it be true that there is fuch a connection, as I fuppofe, betwixt the Hebrew and the Greek, it is natural to believe that the fyftems of the two languages fhould agree in this fundamental point, however much they differ in other particulars.

may

a

But how far is this etymology to be carried? We have feen that verbs, as well as nouns, are derived from verbs. Where then fhall we ftop, and by what rule fhall we determine that fuch verb is the radical verb, and that the etymology goes no further? This is a matter of most curious fpeculation; and I have formed a fyftem upon this fubject, by which I derive the whole Greek language

guage from combinations in duads of the C. 15. with the other five vowels a, e, i, o, u,

[ocr errors]

the always being laft; fo that aw, iw, iw, ow, va, are the radical founds from which the whole Greek language, various and copious as it is, may be deduced. Thefe duads are themselves roots properly fo called, that is, words fignificant; and with the addition of other vowels prefixed, and of confonants, each in its order, form all the roots of the language. But as the explaining this hypothefis, and answering the objections which naturally occur to it, would lead me into a greater detail of the structure of a particular language, than is fuitable to a work upon univerfal grammar, I have thrown what I have to say upon the subject into a differtation by itfelf, annexed to this volume, which the reader learned in the Greek language may read if he think proper. I will therefore proceed to a more noble, as well as more curious fpeculation, of which I gave a hint in the beginning of this work, namely, to inquire, whether words can in any fenfe be faid to be natural expreffions

• See Differtation 1.

VOL. II.

Bb

of

C. 15.

of ideas, or whether they be not merely artificial figns, and from inftitution, not from nature.

[blocks in formation]

Whether words are by nature fignificant, or only by inflitution.-The arguments ftated upon both fides.-Conclufion, That the pri mitive words of a language have not any natural refemblance to the things expreffed by them, but in perfect languages were framed with a view to derivation and inflection.

IN

C. 16. N all languages of art, there is a certain number of words, for the fignification

of which we can account, I mean derivatives; and the more perfect a language is,

the

greater number there is of thefe, and the fewer roots. In the preceding chapter I have faid, that the Greek language is fo perfect in this refpect, that its etymology may be carried back to five duads of vowels, which are roots themselves, and

by

by compofition with other vowels, and C. 16. with fingle confonants, form all the roots of the language. With refpect therefore to far the greater part of this language, we are able to give a rational account of the fignification of the words; but the question now before us is, Whether the etymology can be carried any further back, and whether any fatisfying account can be given, why those roots fignify the things they are ufed to denote, and no other; or whether they are not to be confidered as figns of arbitrary institution?

Upon this fo curious fubject, there is nothing to be found in any antient author, fo far as I know, except what Plato has left us in the Cratylus, and what we have from an author not fo well known, viz. Ammonius Hermeias, a philofopher of later times, in his commentary upon Ariftotle's book of Interpretation. But, this laft author has done little more than to ftate the question, and explain the terms of it. There is a modern author that has enlarged a great deal more upon the fubject, I mean the French author of the Mechanism of Language, but from whom

• Fel. 28.

C. 16. I confefs I have not received much in

ftruction. It is therefore from Plato only that I have got any lights upon this fubject, who has certainly faid a great many ingenious things upon it; and as the Ha❤ licarnaffian informs us *, has the merit of being the first that treated the fubject of etymology.

In this dialogue he introduces two perfonages, Cratylus, from whom the dialogue has its name, and Hermogenes, who differed very much in their opinions; Cratylus maintaining, that the names of things are all from nature, (and this we are told by Ammonius, in the above-quoted paffage, and by Proclus in the commentary which is afcribed to him upon this dialogue †, was the opinion of Heraclitus the philofopher);

• Περὶ συνθέσεως.

This commentary is not printed; but I had the ufe of a manufcript of it from the college of Glafgow. It is one of thofe manufcripts that was brought not long ago from a religious houfe upon Mount Athos, by Mr Afquieu, an English gentleman of learning and curiofity. It is not written by Proclus himself, but appears to have been taken down, either from his mouth, or rather, I think, compofed from memory, by one of his scholars, who feems to have been a Christian. It is, I think, a

« ZurückWeiter »