being is o (the sun), which, from the is having been dropped, became os.

This short notice of os will also suffice for the present; but, like the word in, it deserves a more detailed account, and I shall, a little farther on, refer to it again.

Now as ego, the singular of nos, becomes when analysed eg-o, which means the one for does eg not here differ in meaning from the English word the- and as a plural number was in the beginning named by the repetition of a singular, as we have already seen, hence it is very reasonable that nos, the plural of ego, should literally mean one one, or the one one. Then nos is a contraction of inos.

Ego may be also analysed thus: eg io; but the meaning will not be different, since this literally makes, it the one. The most ancient form for the first person singular, must have been io. Even the eg in ego becomes, when closely examined, io, to which a word meaning height or pre-eminence was added, as we shall see in the account to be given of g.

By thus giving to each of these words (in-os) a separate meaning, we consider them in their earliest state, that is, when every word named by itself an idea; for were they to be viewed otherwise, it might be said that they meant only the one, and this would be to regard in as not naming an idea apart from os, but as filling the place of one of those words called articles.

We have now to find out-and for this we shall see the necessity presently -- how nos - how nos was first

formed; for by the view just taken of it, we have only seen of what it is composed. Then how did men, in this instance, first say, one one? Did they begin thus, in o (one one)? or thus, in os (one one)? or thus, in o is (one one is, or it)? Of course the form in o was first chosen, it being the most simple, and requiring the least number of letters; and of this we may be convinced by seeing what form nos bore when in another situation. Thus an analysis of the word nobis (which makes in o be is, that is, no-be-is, and which means, us be it, that is, to us be it, in other words, it is to us, it belongs to us,) shows us that men first said in o (one, one), and that this became by contraction no. Then to no they afterwards added is, thus, is no, which meant the thing we, the being (named) we, or the we.

As an inquiry made respecting is, when in such a situation as it here holds, cannot but give rise to many observations, I must also delay the notice I have to take of it until I come to consider the words in and os.

As we thus discover that nos was in the beginning in o, and that these two words became no, we are, when considering nos as a French word, that is, as the pretended plural of notre, to analyse it thus: no-is (to us it); then nos livres will, when analysed, be no-is livre es, or no is livre, "is to us the book book," or "to us it book it," the it which precedes the word book being in this instance the same as the, and the it which follows the word book being a substitute for this word.

Hence we plainly see that the word nos is not the plural number of notre; for as this latter word is composed of nos être, "the thing to us," (we are not in this instance to consider nostre more minutely,) so is nos also composed of two words (no-is), meaning, "the thing to us." 'the thing to us." But might there be in this case a plural number? There might, and with great propriety. Thus if the French said, noles livres instead of nos livres, noles would be a plural number, since when analysed it becomes no-il-es, of which the meaning is, "to us IT IT," that is, "to us them." Then noles livres would mean, "to us them (namely) books;" that is, " to us it it (namely) book book." Thus we see that the article or pronoun les is composed of il es, or, as it might also be, of il is. Here I may be told that if this be true, la must be also a plural number, since when analysed it will be il ea, which may also mean it it, and consequently them. But in this instance there is only one thing referred to, and which is, the earth, for il ea literally means, "that spot, that place," ea being the first name for earth, and which name still exists in the Saxon language. Hence there is no difference between la called a French article, and là (there) called a French adverb of place. Even so is it in English, since this word there becomes when analysed the ere, but which ought to be written the ear, that is, "the earth, the place." For ear (that is, ea ir) must have been formed from ir having preceded ea (when it

meant the), and having afterwards fallen behind it, thus making with ea one word (ear), and meaning earth. I have already observed that the th at the end of earth is also another article (namely, the), which, like ir, fell also behind. An analysis of the three words, place, flat, and plat—the latter being the French of flat-confirms this statement with regard to la and ea, since these words become, when analysed, ip il ea is (on the earth is); if là it (the ground it-il ea having here become one word); ip il ea it (on the ground it).

But what, every body will ask to know, does ea itself mean when analysed? In these two letters there are three words, and yet there is no ellipsis. They become when analysed e-o-i, of which the exact meaning is, "the round one." I hope the reader will pardon these digressions, but I cannot avoid them, the many ideas to which every word gives birth being too important to be passed over. Ea enters also into the composition of the word man, since the analysis of this word is im ea in, which may be explained in various ways as to form, and be made to have several meanings, without any one of them being in contradiction to the others. The two words ea in are literally earth in or earthern, and as im means the life (iv), as we shall see hereafter, hence man literally means, "the life in earth;" that is, of earth. Im-ea-in mean also him earth in, that is, "him of earth;" or when we make these three words take this order in im ea-and such must have been their primitive state—the meaning is, "the live earth" (iv iv ea).

Man may be also analysed thus: im-o-i-in, which four words mean "the round one in," that is, "the round one of," "of the round one," "of the earth." The name Adam differs in meaning very little from man ; it may be analysed variously, but its meaning will be still the same ea id am. Here am means the first life, just as it means still the first person in English; and it must in the beginning have preceded ea id, which two words mean earth had, that is, earthly, earth of; but as the id is here the same word which has been already explained in the account given of eu in French and u and ivi in Latin, the very literal meaning of ea id is, earth once, that is, to earth once, and this is the meaning of earthern, earthly, or earth of.

Then when Adam stands thus, am ea id, "the first life earth had," and when we give here a more detailed analysis of am, that is, when we make it ea im, we shall have, ea im ea id; and as the three words im ea id imply the thing done or finished, the four words, ea im ea id, must mean, earth made, that is, of earth made. Hence, the real orthography of made is mead.

I shall have occasion to give, farther on, other accounts of man, Adam, &c., which, without contradicting any of those given above, will, however, differ from them very considerably.

Having digressed thus far, I cannot here omit noticing the word woman; it becomes when analysed an wom, that is, a womb, or the womb; for this b at the end of womb must have in the begin