VIII. And here, at our first fetting out, fomewhat LECT. curious occurs. The individual objects which furround us, are infinite in number. A favage, wherever he looked, beheld forests and nouns. Nothing is more difficult, than to afcertain the precife fteps by which men proceeded in the formation of Language. Names for objects muft, doubtless, have arifen in the most early stages of Speech. But, it is probable, as the learned Author of the Treatife, On the Origin and Progrefs of Language, has shown (vol. i. p. 371. 395,), that, among feveral favage tribes, fome of the first articulate founds that were formed, denoted a whole fentence rather than the name of a particular object; conveying fome information, or expreffing fome defires or fears, fuited to the circumftances in which that tribe was placed, or relating to the business they had moft frequent occafion to carry on; as, the lion is coming, the river is fwelling, &c. Many of their first words, it is likewife probable, were not fimple fubftantive nouns, but fubftantives, accompanied with fome of those attributes, in conjunction with which they were most frequently accustomed to behold them; as, the great bear, the little hut, the wound made by the hatchet, &c. Of all which, the Author produces inftances from feveral of the American Languages; and it is, undoubtedly, fuitable to the natural courfe of the operations of the human mind, thus to begin with particulars the most obvious to fenfe, and to proceed, from thefe, to more general expreffions. He likewise observes, that the words of those primitive tongues are far from being, as we might fuppofe them, rude and short, and crowded with confonants; but, on the contrary, are, for the most part, long words, and full of vowels. This is the confequence of their being formed upon the natural founds which the voice utters with moft eafe, a little varied and diftinguished by articulation; and he shows this to hold, in fact, among most of the bar barous Languages which are known. VOL. I. N. trees. LECT. VIII. trees. To give separate names to every one of thofe trees, would have been an endless and impracticable undertaking. His first object was, to give a name to that particular tree, whofe fruit relieved his hunger, or whose fhade protected him from the fun. But obferving, that though other trees were diftinguished from this by peculiar qualities of fize or appearance, yet, that they also agreed and resembled one another, in certain common qualities, fuch as fpringing from a root, and bearing branches and leaves, he formed, in his mind, fome general idea of thofe common qualities, and ranging all that poffeffed them under one clafs of objects, he called that whole clafs, a tree. Longer experience taught him to fubdivide this genus into the feveral species of oak, pine, ash, and the reft, according as his obfervation extended to the feveral qualities in which thefe trees agreed or differed. BUT, ftill, he made ufe only of general terms in Speech. For the oak, the pine, and the afh, were names of whole claffes of objects; each of which included an immense number of undistinguished individuals. Here then, it appears, that though the formation of abstract, or general conceptions, is fuppofed to be a difficult operation of the mind; fuch conceptions must have entered into the very firft formation of Language. For, if we ex cept VII. cept only the proper names of perfons, fuch as LECT. Cæfar, John, Peter, all the other fubftantive nouns which we employ in discourse, are the names, not of individual objects, but of very extenfive genera, or fpecies of objects; as, man, lion, house, river, &c. We are not, however, to imagine, that this invention of general, or abstract terms, requires any great exertion of metaphyfical capacity: For, by whatever steps the mind proceeds in it, it is certain, that, when men have once obferved resemblances among objects, they are naturally inclined to call all those which resemble one another, by one common name; and of course, to clafs them under one fpecies. We may daily observe this practised by children, in their first attempts towards acquiring Language. But now, after Language had proceeded as far as I have defcribed, the notification which it made of objects was ftill very imperfect: For, when one mentioned to another, in difcourse, any fubftantive noun; such as, man, lion, or tree, how was it to be known which man, which lion, or which tree he meant, among the many comprehended under one name? Here occurs a very curious, and a very useful contrivance for fpecifying the individual object intended, by means of that part of Speech called the Article. LECT. VIII. THE force of the Article confifts, in pointing, or fingling out from the common mafs, the individual of which we mean to speak. In English, we have two Articles, a and the; a is more general and unlimited; the more definite and fpecial. A is much the fame with one, and marks only any one individual of a fpecies; that individual being either unknown, or left undetermined; as, a lion, a king. The, which poffeffes more properly the force of the Article, afcertains fome known or determined individual of the fpecies; as, the lion, the king. ARTICLES are words of great ufe in Speech. In fome Languages, however, they are not found. The Greeks have but one Article, то, To, which answers to our definite, or proper Article, the. They have no word which anfwers to our Article a; but they fupply its place by the abfence of their Article: Thus, Bartheus fignifies, a king; Barihus, the king. The Latins have no Article. In the room of it, they employ pronouns, as, hic, ille, ifte, for pointing out the objects which they want to diftinguish. "Nofter fermo," fays Quinctilian, articulos non defiderat, ideoque in "alias partes orationis fparguntur." This, however, appears to me a defect in the Latin tongue; as Articles contribute much to the clearness and precifion of Language. IN VI.I. In order to illuftrate this, remark, what LECT. difference there is in the meaning of the following expreffions in English, depending wholly on the different employment of the Articles: "The fon of a king-The fon of "the king-A fon of the king's." Each of ner, these three phrafes has an entirely different BESIDES this quality of being particularised by the Article, three affections belong to fubftantive N 3 |