^{page 306 note *} Even this classification of words might be still farther simplified, and either the noun or the verb shewn to be the root of all language. Etymologists have differed in opinion to which of the two that place is to be assigned. It is unnecessary to enter into that question at present, though I may afterwards take occasion to point out some reasons which induce me to think, that tracing language to its first elements, we shall probably find that it is from the Verb the whole has gradually branched out.

^{page 307 note *} Though I have thus stated, what, I think, cannot be disputed, that the theory of Horne Tooke, and that of the Dutch etymologists, is essentially the same, I wish not to be understood as asserting that the one was borrowed from the other. Similar ideas may have occurred to both without any communication. The Dutch etymologists certainly claim the priority in point of time, but the praise of originality cannot upon that account be denied to either. Dr Beddoes, in a long note appended to his Observations on the Nature of Demonstrative Evidence, has taken great pains to prove the originality of Horne Tooke. This point need not be disputed; but if it was to be made a subject of controversy, it was surely unnecessary, in discussing it, to throw out, as the Doctor has done, a number of contemptuous, and by no means well-founded sarcasm, in depretiation of the labours of the Dutch etymologists, and disparagement of classical literature in general. Observations of that nature are as little adapted to add force to an argument, as to do credit to the author.

^{page 309 note *} The Analogia Græca of Linnep contains a general developement of the system adopted in the Hemsterhusian school. This was followed by the Etymologicon Linguæ Græcæ, the joint production of Linnep and Scheide, in which the principles of this analogy are applied for analysing all the primitives of the Greek tongue. The merit of both must be admitted: both will be found worthy the attention of any one who wishes to investigate the subject of Greek analogy. From the latter work, in particular, I have derived much assistance in the present disquisition, though it has, frequently proved less satisfactory than might have been expected. The analysis of the words is too general and indefinite: many of the primitive roots are explained as merely denoting motion; an idea so vague, that unless limited in some specific mode, it could afford little aid in our progress to a systematic analysis of the principles of the language.

^{page 311 note *} The root of the common Greek verb άμάω, to reap, (literally to gather together the fruits of the earth), and of the Latin verb amo, to love, originally denoting to grasp at or strive to obtain.

^{page 311 note †} Perhaps the φ thus inserted was originally the Æolic digamma; a letter common in the most ancient Greek writings, and it seems probable, pronounced not unlike the φ.

^{page 313 note *} Except in the inseparable preposition am, denoting about, a mutilation of ἀμφὶ, or rather of the original word before the φ was inserted.

^{page 315 note †} Parkhurst's idea of the derivation of this preposition from a Hebrew word signifying an answer, coincides pretty nearly with the idea here stated. The Hebrew word for an answer may probably have originally denoted a rebound.

^{page 318 note *} That ὐντὶος signifies literally in front, the following trait in the Spartan epigram, which describes the body of Thrasybulus carried back from the battle, clearly ascertains:

‘Επτὰ. πϱὸς Αϱγέιων τϱαύματα δειξάμενο;

Δειϰνὺς ἀντίϰ ѽάντα.

“having received seven wounds,—showing them all in front.”

^{page 318 note †} The Latin language is well known to be derived from the Greek; but it should always be attended to, that it is the Æolic dialect of the Greek which must be regarded as the immediate parent of the Latin. Hence many of the words transplanted from the Greek to the Latin are found to differ from the common dialect, but to resemble very closely the corresponding word in the Æolic.

^{page 319 note *} In this phrase, which occurs, ‘Εζγα χαὶ Ήμέζαι (line 725) it is plain that αντι can mean nothing but in front.

^{page 320 note *} Such phrases are frequently resolved, by supposing άντί, when it so occurs to denote comparison or contrast only: but this appears to be insufficient; for though all preference implies contrast, all contrast does not imply preference.

^{page 321 note *} Απὸ,—ἀντὶ τῶ ἄποθεν.

“Πολλὸν γὰζ ἄπο πλυνεί ἐισι πόληος.

“For the cisterns are at a great distance from the town.”

^{page 339 note *} This example is directly against Dr Moor's hypothesis, that ἐπὶ with the genitive denotes motion upon, and with the accusative, motion directed upon; here it has the latter signification with the genitive. The same thing holds in many other instances, in the best and most accurate Greek writers.

^{page 340 note *} Perhaps, in this and similar phrases, there is a reference to the secondary sense of, ὲπω “to handle or work upon,—hence to manage;—the same seems to hold in such expressions as ὁ ἐπί πόλιος, the governor of the city,” — “he who “is so placed—that the object handled or managed by him is the city.”

^{page 340 note †} Some observations on this subject have been thrown into an Appendix, being too long for a note.

^{page 345 note *} After, though the common, is not the universal sense of μετὰ with the accusative; sometimes, with this case, it signifies the same as with the dative, Βάχτζον ἄν αυτῷ μςτὰ χεἵζας, (Herodian), “he had a staff between his hands.”

^{page 351 note *} This, I believe, however, is a mode of expression not very common.

^{page 351 note †} “Duas significationes contrarias patitur,” says Vigerus, “supra et infra,” but does not attempt by any explanation to reconcile this apparent contradiction.

^{page 355 note *} Thus,—“This may do for once, but not for ever,”—“cause once,—or cause “ever,” would give hardly any sense. “It is good for nothing,”—what meaning could here be assigned to—“cause, nothing ?” “He is tall for his age,”— “cause, his age,” would denote something quite different from what is intended. “For a good harvest, a good summer is necessary,”—.“cause, a good harvest,” would completely invert the meaning, making the effect the cause. “He lived “there for twenty years,”—“cause, twenty years,” would be unintelligible. In these instances, taking for to mean object placed before, ox object in view, the sense is obvious. The same may be said of such phrases as the fol wing: “He is a “good man for ought I know,”—“he is a good man,—object, or put in objection, “ought I know,” an easy and plain resolution; whereas, “cause, ought I know,” would be extremely forced, if not altogether unmeaning.

^{page 367 note *} Dr Moor supposes, for instance, that the following distinction in the use of the prepositions, with the different cases, may be regarded as constant and certain. With the genitive, he thinks, that the peculiar relation denoted by the preposition is represented as in a state of rest or continued junction with the object: with the accusative, as in a state of tendency towards: with the dative, as in a state of junction under some particular modification. Thus, he says, επι with the genitive denotes rest or situation upon; with the accusative, motion directed upon; with the dative, some particular mode in which one object may be said to be upon another. He applies the same theory to ὐπὸ, and some of the other prepositions governing different cases. But many examples might be brought in direct opposition to this theory. Thus, in Thucydides, ἐπι Θζαχῆ ςζατείχν πάζχσχειυάζετυι, he prepares an “expedition,—directed upon or against Thrace.” Έπὶ ΈΑιγυπτδ ρέειν, “to flow to “wards Egypt.” In Homer we find,

——ὄμτω μοὶ ἐυχλείη εἴη επη ὐνθζώπδς.

“So may my same be established or exist among men,—resting upon or among “men.” In like manner, we find ὑπὸ with the genitive denoting tendency under.

Ίχάνε ὑπὸ Πеιάμοιο Quint. Smyrn.

“He comes towards the presence,—or under the view of Priam.” The same preposition occurs with the accusative very frequently, denoting rest or situation under. Κατχχζύπτὲι ὑπὸ τὴν θύζαν, (Herod.) “he conceals it, resting under of “behind the door.” —— χατιεχεῖντο

—— χατιεχεῖντο ὄδε ὑπε ἀυτον. Lucian.

“They sat down,—the one resting or situate under him.” These examples, and many more might be produced, seem to prove the fallacy of the ingenious Professor's theory, and show that the Greeks were by no means so philosophically accurate in the use of their prepositions as he supposed.

^{page 375 note *} I Do not here enter at all into the dispute about the origin of the Greek language from the Hebrew, through the medium of the old Pelasgic. In saft, such a derivation does not affect the structure of the language as complete within itfelf; for this derivation, if real, was not partial, but total: it was not the engrasting of parts upon a language already formed, but a transplantation of the whole, in its native form; fo that not only the branches, but the roots, with all their natural ramifications, were carried to, and established in, a new and somewhat different foil. In reasoning, therefore, on the structure of the language, the Greek may justly be reckoned an original language, forming its roots within itself; and the other words from thefe roots, by a regular progression.