Page images


ning gone before it thus, bewom (the womb), and this accounts for this word being still pronounced as if written without the b. The word


which makes when analysed iv-o-iv, or vie o vie, or iv o vie, means all life; for here o may either signify life, or be equivalent to all, from its being the name of the

If we allow o to be for life, iv o vie, or vie o vie will mean“ the life life.” From the womb being the place of generation, this meaning of all life is very appropriate as applied to such a word. Then from womb and woman being the same word, it must follow that woman means “all life,” which meaning is also appropriate, since she is the mother of all mankind.

The correctness of this account of the name woman is proved by an analysis of the same word in other languages. Thus fæmina must have first been ina fæm, ina being here what the word an is in woman, or what the French word une is in une femme. Hence the French word femme, which ought to be written foem, or (which were still more correct, as we shall see presently,) fam, is a much more ancient word than foemina, and hence it is not derived from this latter word, but it is this word itself in its primitive state. Now when we analyse this ancient word foem, we have iv-oim, for f is here the same as v, and this is for iv or vie, which is equal to the life or thing, as I have often shown, and the e in foem ( foem), might just as well be i; then if we take from iv oim the word iv (the), we have the radical part alone remaining in oim; and

if we here sound the oi as we do in the French word oi-seau (a bird), that is, as if written wa in English, oim will become wam, which is no other than womb. Now the m, as we shall see when accounting for this letter in the alphabet, is here equal to iv, vie, or if; then supposing we were to write oim, oi if, and still pronounce the oi as above, what shall we have for oi if but waif, which is no other but wife, and which many persons do really pronounce as if written waife or woife? just as many persons pronounce the English pronoun I as if written oï, (that is, in two syllables,) rather than as if written ai or aye.

As the b is also used frequently for the f, if instead of waif we write waib, what shall we have but the German word for wife, which is written weib? The Saxon word for womb, pamb (wamb), is, when we consider that the Saxon w is the same as an f, evidently fam be, that is, woman be, the being woman; and this French word femme ought to be written fam, as it is

pronounced. The form of this word (fam), when analysed, is foim; that is, when we consider the letter a alone, to the formation of which I have thus already openly hinted several times; but the following observation must put every body in the way of discovering the original of this letter. When instead of foemina we write fæmina, what do we do? We make the o and the e become one letter. Then if we make the o and the i in foimina, which is more correct than foemina, become one letter, what shall we have but fam-ina ? Then what is

proves that the

the letter a ? This foim (the analysis of fam) becomes itself, when analysed, if oim, or iv oim, in which iv is for the, and oim, when we give to oi the sound of wa, is for wam, and this is evidently wom (wom-be).

What does all this prove? That woman and womb are but one and the same word, which we clearly see when we make the two words an and be, with which woman and womb (wombe) end, precede as they must have primitively done these words ; as, for instance, an wom, be wom. But what else does all this prove ? That the several words woman, womb, foemina, femme, wife, weib, and wamb, are all radically the same; that is, not derived from one another, but all one and the same word.

The reader will please to remember, that those observations on man, woman, Adam, &c., have risen out of an explanation given of the word la, which, though composed of il ea, is not a plural number, since il refers, like a word called an article, to ea, which here means earth in general, and becomes definite or limited from its juncture with il. Such is the origin of the two words, or to speak more correctly, of the one word la or . Thus we see that nos, that is, no is, is no more a plural number than notre or nostre, that is, nos être. But how are we to account for nous, which is the French of the Latin nos? Very easily. We know that this nos was first no, then when it had this form some men attached os to it instead of is, so that it became noos instead of nois ; and as the o is a letter which is not so easily

dropped as i is, hence noos never became nos in French, but it has been erroneously written nous, and this accounts for oo and ou being equal in sound. But what difference is there as to meaning between os and is ? None; and hence it is that these two words, which belong to those called pronouns or articles, might, when the word nous was yet only no, have been used with it indifferently by the same persons; just as any body may now employ the words it and that indifferently; as when we say, it is it, or it is THAT.

This account of nos will apply to vos, the supposed plural of votre, it being in like manner the contraction of vo-is, and consequently no more a plural than vos-etre ; but though what has been said of the formation of nos will apply to vos, yet something may be said respecting the formation of vos, which will not at all apply to nos. The latter has had but two forms; at first no, this being the contraction of in o (one one), and then nos, this being the contraction of no is (we it, or we that); but vos must have had three forms: at first i i (one one), which two words, from their having coalesced, became one letter (u), and this was also, as we have seen, written v. When this letter had acquired this short sound, men must have begun to make it refer to single objects, and hence it became with time equal to one i, and so meant one go, or one thing, or which is still equal, one being or one life. But how, it may be asked, can I prove this statement to be correct? From knowing that i meant one, and that one one

was a plural number. But I have another means of proving the correctness of this statement; it is that an instance exists in Latin of u or v being for vos, and this is shown in the analysis of vester, which is for v-ester (vos-ester), the word ester being here what être or estre is in French, and the single v being in like manner equal to the French word vous, or the Latin word vos. Hence, when i i became shortened to u or v, and that it was generally made to refer to only one thing, an o was used with it to signify one one, or several persons, and after this it took the word is, just as the word no did. I said when accounting for nos (in-o-is), that here in stands for one; but as the letter i did, without the n, stand for one also, it is now difficult to discover what first led men to add still another letter to this i, since they did not, by their doing so, intend to name an additional idea, but to express the same thing over again. This apparent singularity must have happened in the following manner : the letter n, as here formed, is, like the u (which is nothing more than an n turned up), composed of a double i, and hence it is the letter u in another situation. Now as the u did, from its being composed of a double i, stand for two, men saw there was a necessity, when this compound character was made to signify only one, to give it on many occasions a different sound, in order to avoid the confusion that might otherwise arise. Hence when u meant one, and that there was a probability of its meaning being then mistaken, it received a nasal sound ; and

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »