this agreement as to form; since my is me-i and not me-es; but me-i is as much in the plural as me-es, which implies that me-es is by no means in the plural; for me i (my) is evidently in the singular, since it means "to me one," or "to me it." In like manner, in your books, that is, to you er book es ("to you it book it"), er, which stands in apposition to es, does not correspond with it in form, but in every other respect it does; and it is as much a plural as es is; that is, it is not by any means a plural. Hence it is as evident as any thing can possibly be, that there is not any difference whatever as to number between mon, ton, son, and mes, tes, ses; and the same may be said of ma, ta, sa, and mes, tes, ses; all these words being equally in the singular.

I shall have presently to account for the pretended plurals of notre and votre, that is, for nos and vos; but I have first to explain their singular forms.

At least notre and votre appear to be thoroughly known, and to come from the Latin words noster and vester; and on this point no grammarian or lexicographer can entertain a doubt. Yet notwithstanding how greatly notre and votre (anciently nostre and vostre) resemble noster and vester, they are not, by any means, derived from them. Indeed words, like the beings that make use of them, are, with very few exceptions, ever natives of the land to which they belong; and the learned ought to reflect seriously before they assert that a word ever

known to exist with a people, was borrowed from another language.

I can conceive that when a people may be supposed to have had no word for naming a certain thing before they had become acquainted with another people, from whom this certain thing was received, they may be allowed to have borrowed such a word, since they stood in need of it. Thus in our days there is in England a part of a man's dress called a Mackintosh; and as Frenchmen have never hitherto had such a part of dress, they have been led, on receiving it, to give it the English name. Now all the learned (there is not a single exception to be found) say that the French words main and pied have been borrowed from the Latin language; that is, from manus and pes; which is not only an error, but an egregious blunder; for it implies, when examined closely, that at the time these two words were borrowed, Frenchmen had neither hands nor feet of their own; since it were just as easy to make a whole nation change words so frequently in use as those for hand and foot, as it were in those rude times to make them all become academicians. And hence there is not in the whole world a single language that has been borrowed from another.

Nostre is composed of nos (which is equal to nous) and of être, for which I have already accounted several times. Vostre is in like manner composed of vos (which is equal to vous), and also of être. Then nostre livre means nous être livre, that is, à

And vostre

nous l'être livre, "to us the thing book." livre in like manner means vous être livre, which is the abbreviated form of à vous l'être livre, that is, "to you the thing book." The word être, in these instances, may be also very well rendered by an article or a pronoun, and we may say that nostre livre is equal to, "us the book," that is, "to us the book;" or that it is the same as, "us it book;" that is, "to us it book." But when we thus consider être, we take it in its collective sense, for we must not forget that it is composed of several words, of es, it, re, which means, "it is the thing." We may also consider it as being composed of only two words, est re, which must have first been ir est, and then er est, and finally ester or estre. As the two words er est are the original of the English word erst (formerly), we have another proof of what has been already sufficiently proved, namely, that a present time repeated was the first means to which men had recourse for indicating a past time, for er est are really equal to go go. Nor have æra and ibi, when analysed, different meanings, since the former becomes er-ea (it it), and the latter ib-i, which is also equal to it it, or go go. Then what difference is there, as to meaning, between on, ea, es, in mon, ma, mes, and this être in notre and votre? None whatever: they all equally mean it, the, or the thing.

Now as nobody will say that the word être, when used separately from nostre and vostre, is borrowed from a certain Latin pronoun or article, why should this be said when it makes a part of nostre and

vostre, since it is still the same word?

But I may be told that, as nobody ever suspected the wellknown word être to form a part of nostre and vostre, any more than it was supposed to make a part of such verbs as connaître, paraître, &c., it is not fair to accuse Frenchmen of reasoning in this illogical manner; for when they do say that nostre is from noster, this arises from their not knowing that the well-known word être enters into the composition

of nostre.

As an additional proof that nostre and vostre are not taken from noster and vester, it may be observed that Frenchmen do not say vestre or vetre, instead of vostre or votre; however, the pretended original of vostre or votre is vester, and not voster.

Now as être or estre, in nostre and vostre, make, when analysed, est-re, which may be translated by it is; so does the ter in noster make when analysed it er, which may be also translated by it is; or it may be rendered indifferently, like estre, by the thing, it, or the. Indeed the ester in vester is precisely estre, but vostre is not on this account derived from vester.

If, in this instance, borrowing had occurred on either side, it would be far more plausible to say that the Latin pronouns have been taken from the French, since être or estre exists in the latter tongue apart from every other word, and is in very frequent use, whereas it is not at all, when thus considered, to be found in Latin.

The Latin pronouns nos and vos should now be

accounted for, to the end that less difficulty may lie in my way towards showing their nature, when I shall have to consider them as French words, that is to say, as the pretended plural forms of notre and

votre.

The word nos may be analysed thus, in os, of which the meaning is, one one, or the one one. It may be also analysed thus, in o is, but the meaning is not different, since this latter form may be rendered by one one it, or it one one, or still, the one Hence the one analysis does not differ from the other but in form, for though the latter has a word more (it) than the former, this word does not name an additional idea, since it is one of those words called articles (an adjective in the positive degree).

one.

Numerous instances, in the analysis of words, have been already given, showing that in means one, or the one; so that I need not, in the present instance, make, respecting this word, any farther inquiry. But as there is still a very curious and difficult question connected with it, I intend, when I have done with the words now to be accounted for, to take particular notice of it.

Os also means one, on account of its being one of the names which the sun must have had; this great object in nature, from its appearing to be alone in the world—that is, without an equal-having been with the moon (as we have already seen) that which first gave man the idea of unity or singleBut how, it may be asked, do I know that os was a name for the sun? From its analysis

ness.