a w. I also then stated that the final syllable (rack) of this word ought to be ac or ak, and that it means, when analysed, a house, though I did not at the time show how this happens.

I am now going to make amends for this deficiency, and beg to apprise the reader that as the present inquiry is an important one, there is every necessity for supporting whatever I advance during its progress, by a critical analysis of the principal words to which I shall be obliged to refer. This latter circumstance I mention in order to account for the digressions which I foresee are in such a case inevitable. The reader must by this time have discovered how the letter a was first formed, and he must for this reason know that the word ac becomes, when analysed, oi-ic, and that the primitive order of these two words must have been ic-oi, of which the general meanings are "the round one,' "the great one,' ," "the high one," &c. As men had in the beginning but a few syllables to name all their ideas by, they were thus obliged to allow the same letter to have various meanings; but then there is nothing in this irrational, for as one thing may have several properties, so may a letter have different powers. Thus every body can conceive that as the O named the sun, it might mean high, round, or one, since men have always allowed the sun to have, besides its other properties, these three qualities. Hence we are, in the analysing of words, to observe well, when a letter or word offers thus several meanings, which is the one that can with

greatest safety be applied. The surest guide, when there is on such occasions any doubt, is to see how the same idea is named by a different people; and no more is required for doing this than an acquaintance with the characters of the language we wish to consult. Then let us, on the present occasion, see how man's habitation was named in other languages, in order to discover, if possible, the exact meaning of ac in barrack.

Bian in the ancient Saxon language meant habitation, and this word makes, when analysed, bi-oin, that is, the one, the thing one; and if we make these two words change places, the meaning will not be different, since in this case they will make oin-bi, that is, one thing. From this it would appear that by ic-oi (the analysis of ac) is simply meant the one, oi being here taken collectively. We have already had many instances of two vowels being thus employed for naming a single idea. We know, for instance, that even these two letters mean the single individual I, as in audio, accipio, &c. Then so far the analysis of both these words is the same as to signification; and we see that ac, once a name for a house, has also another form, that of ca; and such it must have first been, since ic oi (the analysis of ca), from its literally meaning the thing one, is a more natural construction than one the thing, the latter being the literal meaning of oi ic, the analysis of ac. Now what difference is there as to meaning between the Saxon word for a habitation (bian) and the French word bien, as when we say,

mon bien (my substance, property, or wealth)? There is none whatever; for both words have, when analysed, the same meaning. Thus bien makes ib ien; and as we have already accounted for the termination ien, we know that this means the one. Even bien may, without causing the least change in its meaning, be analysed ib ian. Hence bian and bien make one and the same word; and as we know very well what bien means, we are led to the right understanding of bian also, and consequently we discover the exact idea which men first had in this instance of a house. We see that it was the same word they had for property; and this explains why this word is still in the French language used in this sense; whilst in English it means, when thus referring to one's substance, all that a man possesses in the world, as I have already shown in another part of this work* (vol. i. p. 194.).

* As I perceive on returning to page 194. that this word has not been sufficiently developed, I beg here to supply what I consider still necessary to observe respecting it. When we say, "John's property is very considerable," every body allows that by property is here meant all the property belonging to John. But when we say, "This book is John's property," all the dictionaries ever printed assert that property in such an instance has no longer the same meaning, and that it does not now mean "all things belonging to John,” but only one single thing, namely, a book. Now as this word is still used in the sense of possession, is written and pronounced in the same manner, and is preceded by the same word as before (namely, John's), it must appear very extraordinary that it should differ in its meaning, and especially to such a degree. If we take another word, such as house, for instance, and use it in a similar manner, that is, put it in two similar situations, we dare not assert that it varies in meaning so, or that it varies at all. Thus if we say, "John's house is very considerable," or "This is John's house," nobody can suppose that the word house has here, on account of its different situations, undergone the least change

Now as bian is a compound word, that is, as it is composed of bi and an, of which only one can be the radical word for habitation, it is very requisite to know which of these two words was the radical one. This research leads to very important discoveries belonging to the present inquiry. After a short examination of bi and an, it is easy to perceive that the former is the real word for habitation, and that they both have this meaning: "property (to) one," that is, "The property belonging to one." And as the word man, without analysing it so minutely as I have already done (see vol. ii. p. 11.), makes im an (the one), bian means the habitation to man. Thus we perceive that it was not enough to know from the analysis of bian the meaning of each word separately considered, but that we should know the exact relation they bear to each other. If we allow the two words bi-an to change places, as an bi, the meaning will not on this account change, since they may even so imply, to man the habitation; but this is not their natural order.

as to meaning. Then why should the word property, when so employed, change any more than house? Hence this word does not change, but it ever has in the English language when used in this sense, that is, when it implies possession, one and the same meaning, and this is, all things. Hence, when it seems to mean but one thing, there is ever this ellipsis," a part of," so that "This book is John's property," means, "This book is [a part of] John's property." This error arose from our not having hitherto known that words have four degrees of comparison; and this arose from our not having known what a word is, and this again from our entire ignorance of the nature of the human mind. I was here going to analyse the word property, but I perceive so many important discoveries rising out of it, that I cannot think of doing so yet.

Thus, from knowing that bi, which might as well be written by or bye, is another name for man's home, we discover what we never knew before, the meaning of good bye: we perceive that it is not a corruption of good be with you, as has been supposed, but that it literally means, good home, that is, good home to you, "A safe journey home to you ;" and this is as logical as to say, "A good journey to you,” or "Good day to you." Now as good bye cannot mean a safe journey back, we should never employ it when addressing a person who is leaving his home, but when he is going thither. From our having always had about as clear an idea of the meaning of this word bye as a parrot must have of its name, we have used it in every way. Our idea of the preposition by is just as clear as that of bye in goodbye has been; yet no word can be more frequently used than by; and how extraordinary it must appear that all the wit of man cannot tell what it means. The same word in French (par) is equally unknown, for no Frenchman living can tell what idea he has of it; and for a very good reason, which is, that he has no idea at all, or if one of any kind, it must be of a most confused description, that is, such as no human ingenuity can define. Yet there is no difference whatever between by the preposition and bi in bian, for which I have just accounted, and hence it is equal to one of those words called pronouns, or to the verb to be, or to

the verb to go. This is clearly proved by an analysis of the French word par, which makes ip ea ir,