A regular study of language has, in all civilized countries, formed a part of a liberal education. The Greeks, Romans, Italians and French successively improved their native tongues, taught them in Academies at home, and rendered them entertaining and useful to the foreign student.

The English tongue, tho later in its progress towards perfection, has attained to a considerable degree of purity, strength and elegance, and been employed, by an active and scientific nation, to record almost all the events and discoveries of ancient and modern times.

This language is the inheritance which the Americans have received from their British parents. To cultivate and adorn it, is a task reserved for men who shall understand the connection between language and logic, and form an adequate idea of the influence which a uniformity of speech may have on national attachments.

It will be readily admitted that the pleasures of reading and conversing, the advantage of accuracy in business, the necessity of clearness and precision in communicating ideas, require us to be able to speak and write our own tongue with ease and correctness. But there are more important reasons, why the language of this country should be reduced to such fixed principles, as may give its pronunciation and construction all the certainty and uniformity which any living tongue is capable of receiving.

The United States were settled by emigrants from different parts of Europe. But their descendants mostly speak the same tongue; and the intercourse among the learned of the different States, which the revolution has begun, and an American Court will perpetuate, must gradually destroy the differences of dialect which our ancestors brought from their native countries. This approximation of dialects will be certain; but without the operation of other causes than an intercourse at Court, it will be slow and partial. The body of the people, governed by habit, will still retain their respective peculiarities of speaking; and for want of schools and proper books, fall into many inaccuracies, which, incorporating with the language of the state where they live, may imperceptibly corrupt the national language. Nothing but the establishment of schools and some uniformity in the use of books, can annihilate differences in speaking and preserve the purity of the American tongue. A sameness of pronunciation is of considerable consequence in a political view; for provincial accents are disagreeable to strangers and sometimes have an unhappy effect upon the social affections. All men have local attachments, which lead them to believe their own practice to be the least exceptionable. Pride and prejudice incline men to treat the practice of their neighbors with some degree of contempt. Thus small differences in pronunciation at first excite ridicule—a habit of laughing at the singularities of strangers is followed by disrespect—and without respect friendship is a name, and social intercourse a mere ceremony.

These remarks hold equally true, with respect to individuals, to small societies and to large communities. Small causes, such as a nick-name, or a vulgar tone in speaking, have actually created a dissocial spirit between the inhabitants of the different states, which is often discoverable in private business and public deliberations. Our political harmony is therefore concerned in a uniformity of language.

As an independent nation, our honor requires us to have a system of our own, in language as well as government. Great Britain, whose children we are, and whose language we speak, should no longer be our standard; for the taste of her writers is already corrupted, and her language on the decline. But if it were not so, she is at too great a distance to be our model, and to instruct us in the principles of our own tongue.

It must be considered further, that the English is the common root or stock from which our national language will be derived. All others will gradually waste away—and within a century and a half, North America will be peopled with a hundred millions of men, all speaking the same language. Place this idea in comparison with the present and possible future bounds of the language in Europe—consider the Eastern Continent as inhabited by nations, whose knowlege and intercourse are embarrassed by differences of language; then anticipate the period when the people of one quarter of the world, will be able to associate and converse together like children of the same family.[2] Compare this prospect, which is not visionary, with the state of the English language in Europe, almost confined to an Island and to a few millions of people; then let reason and reputation decide, how far America should be dependent on a transatlantic nation, for her standard and improvements in language.

Let me add, that whatever predilection the Americans may have for their native European tongues, and particularly the British descendants for the English, yet several circumstances render a future separation of the American tongue from the English, necessary and unavoidable. The vicinity of the European nations, with the uninterrupted communication in peace, and the changes of dominion in war, are gradually assimilating their respective languages. The English with others is suffering continual alterations. America, placed at a distance from those nations, will feel, in a much less degree, the influence of the assimilating causes; at the same time, numerous local causes, such as a new country, new associations of people, new combinations of ideas in arts and science, and some intercourse with tribes wholly unknown in Europe, will introduce new words into the American tongue. These causes will produce, in a course of time, a language in North America, as different from the future language of England, as the modern Dutch, Danish and Swedish are from the German, or from one another: Like remote branches of a tree springing from the same stock; or rays of light, shot from the same center, and diverging from each other, in proportion to their distance from the point of separation.

Whether the inhabitants of America can be brought to a perfect uniformity in the pronunciation of words, it is not easy to predict; but it is certain that no attempt of the kind has been made, and an experiment, begun and pursued on the right principles, is the only way to decide the question. Schools in Great Britain have gone far towards demolishing local dialects—commerce has also had its influence—and in America these causes, operating more generally, must have a proportional effect.

In many parts of America, people at present attempt to copy the English phrases and pronunciation—an attempt that is favored by their habits, their prepossessions and the intercourse between the two countries. This attempt has, within the period of a few years, produced a multitude of changes in these particulars, especially among the leading classes of people. These changes make a difference between the language of the higher and common ranks; and indeed between the same ranks in different states; as the rage for copying the English, does not prevail equally in every part of North America.

But besides the reasons already assigned to prove this imitation absurd, there is a difficulty attending it, which will defeat the end proposed by its advocates; which is, that the English themselves have no standard of pronunciation, nor can they ever have one on the plan they propose. The Authors, who have attempted to give us a standard, make the practice of the court and stage in London the sole criterion of propriety in speaking. An attempt to establish a standard on this foundation is both unjust and idle. It is unjust, because it is abridging the nation of its rights: The general practice of a nation is the rule of propriety, and this practice should at least be consulted in so important a matter, as that of making laws for speaking. While all men are upon a footing and no singularities are accounted vulgar or ridiculous, every man enjoys perfect liberty. But when a particular set of men, in exalted stations, undertake to say, "we are the standards of propriety and elegance, and if all men do not conform to our practice, they shall be accounted vulgar and ignorant," they take a very great liberty with the rules of the language and the rights of civility.

But an attempt to fix a standard on the practice of any particular class of people is highly absurd: As a friend of mine once observed, it is like fixing a light house on a floating island. It is an attempt to fix that which is in itself variable; at least it must be variable so long as it is supposed that a local practice has no standard but a local practice; that is, no standard but itself. While this doctrine is believed, it will be impossible for a nation to follow as fast as the standard changes—for if the gentlemen at court constitute a standard, they are above it themselves, and their practice must shift with their passions and their whims.

But this is not all. If the practice of a few men in the capital is to be the standard, a knowlege of this must be communicated to the whole nation. Who shall do this? An able compiler perhaps attempts to give this practice in a dictionary; but it is probable that the pronunciation, even at court, or on the stage, is not uniform. The compiler therefore must follow his particular friends and patrons; in which case he is sure to be opposed and the authority of his standard called in question; or he must give two pronunciations as the standard, which leaves the student in the same uncertainty as it found him. Both these events have actually taken place in England, with respect to the most approved standards; and of course no one is universally followed.

Besides, if language must vary, like fashions, at the caprice of a court, we must have our standard dictionaries republished, with the fashionable pronunciation, at least once in five years; otherwise a gentleman in the country will become intolerably vulgar, by not being in a situation to adopt the fashion of the day. The new editions of them will supersede the old, and we shall have our pronunciation to relearn, with the polite alterations, which are generally corruptions.

Such are the consequences of attempting to make a local practice the standard of language in a nation. The attempt must keep the language in perpetual fluctuation, and the learner in uncertainty.

If a standard therefore cannot be fixed on local and variable custom, on what shall it be fixed? If the most eminent speakers are not to direct our practice, where shall we look for a guide? The answer is extremely easy; the rules of the language itself, and the general practice of the nation, constitute propriety in speaking. If we examin the structure of any language, we shall find a certain principle of analogy running through the whole. We shall find in English that similar combinations of letters have usually the same pronunciation; and that words, having the same terminating syllable, generally have the accent at the same distance from that termination. These principles of analogy were not the result of design—they must have been the effect of accident, or that tendency which all men feel towards uniformity.[3] But the principles, when established, are productive of great convenience, and become an authority superior to the arbitrary decisions of any man or class of men. There is one exception only to this remark: When a deviation from analogy has become the universal practice of a nation, it then takes place of all rules and becomes the standard of propriety.

The two points therefore, which I conceive to be the basis of a standard in speaking, are these; universal undisputed practice, and the principle of analogy. Universal practice is generally, perhaps always, a rule of propriety; and in disputed points, where people differ in opinion and practice, analogy should always decide the controversy.

These are authorities to which all men will submit—they are superior to the opinions and caprices of the great, and to the negligence and ignorance of the multitude. The authority of individuals is always liable to be called in question—but the unanimous consent of a nation, and a fixed principle interwoven with the very construction of a language, coeval and coextensive with it, are like the common laws of a land, or the immutable rules of morality, the propriety of which every man, however refractory, is forced to acknowlege, and to which most men will readily submit. Fashion is usually the child of caprice and the being of a day; principles of propriety are founded in the very nature of things, and remain unmoved and unchanged, amidst all the fluctuations of human affairs and the revolutions of time.

It must be confessed that languages are changing, from age to age, in proportion to improvements in science. Words, as Horace observes, are like leaves of trees; the old ones are dropping off and new ones growing. These changes are the necessary consequence of changes in customs, the introduction of new arts, and new ideas in the sciences. Still the body of a language and its general rules remain for ages the same, and the new words usually conform to these rules; otherwise they stand as exceptions, which are not to overthrow the principle of analogy already established.

But when a language has arrived at a certain stage of improvement, it must be stationary or become retrograde; for improvements in science either cease, or become slow and too inconsiderable to affect materially the tone of a language. This stage of improvement is the period when a nation abounds with writers of the first class, both for abilities and taste. This period in England commenced with the age of Queen Elizabeth and ended with the reign of George II. It would have been fortunate for the language, had the stile of writing and the pronunciation of words been fixed, as they stood in the reign of Queen Anne and her successor. Few improvements have been made since that time; but innumerable corruptions in pronunciation have been introduced by Garrick, and in stile, by Johnson, Gibbon and their imitators.[4]

The great Sidney wrote in a pure stile; yet the best models of purity and elegance, are the works of Sir William Temple, Dr. Middleton, Lord Bolingbroke, Mr. Addison and Dean Swift. But a little inferior to these, are the writings of Mr. Pope, Sir Richard Steele, Dr. Arbuthnot, with some of their cotemporaries. Sir William Blackstone has given the law stile all the elegance and precision of which it is capable. Dr. Price and Dr. Priestley write with purity, and Sir William Jones seems to have copied the ease, simplicity and elegance of Middleton and Addison.

But how few of the modern writers have pursued the same manner of writing? Johnson's stile is a mixture of Latin and English; an intolerable composition of Latinity, affected smoothness, scholastic accuracy and roundness of periods. The benefits derived from his morality and his erudition, will hardly counterbalance the mischief done by his manner of writing. The names of a Robertson, a Hume, a Home and a Blair, almost silence criticism; but I must repeat what a very learned Scotch gentleman once acknowleged to me, "that the Scotch writers are not models of the pure English stile." Their stile is generally stiff, sometimes very awkward, and not always correct.[5] Robertson labors his stile and sometimes introduces a word merely for the sake of rounding a period. Hume has borrowed French idioms without number; in other respects he has given an excellent model of historical stile. Lord Kaims' manner is stiff; and Dr Blair, whose stile is less exceptionable in these particulars, has however introduced, into his writings, several foreign idioms and ungrammatical phrases. The Scotch writers now stand almost the first for erudition; but perhaps no man can write a foreign language with genuin purity.

Gibbon's harmony of prose is calculated to delight our ears; but it is difficult to comprehend his meaning and the chain of his ideas, as fast as we naturally read; and almost impossible to recollect them, at any subsequent period. Perspicuity, the first requisite in stile, is sometimes sacrificed to melody; the mind of a reader is constantly dazzled by a glare of ornament, or charmed from the subject by the music of the language. As he is one of the first, it is hoped he may be the last, to attempt the gratification of our ears, at the expense of our understanding.

Such however is the taste of the age; simplicity of stile is neglected for ornament, and sense is sacrificed to sound.[6]

Altho stile, or the choice of words and manner of arranging them, may be necessarily liable to change, yet it does not follow that pronunciation and orthography cannot be rendered in a great measure permanent. An orthography, in which there would be a perfect correspondence between the spelling and pronunciation, would go very far towards effecting this desireable object. The Greek language suffered little or no change in these particulars, for about a thousand years; and the Roman was in a great degree fixed for several centuries.

Rapid changes of language proceed from violent causes; but these causes cannot be supposed to exist in North America. It is contrary to all rational calculation, that the United States will ever be conquered by any one nation, speaking a different language from that of the country. Removed from the danger of corruption by conquest, our language can change only with the slow operation of the causes before-mentioned and the progress of arts and sciences, unless the folly of imitating our parent country should continue to govern us, and lead us into endless innovation. This folly however will lose its influence gradually, as our particular habits of respect for that country shall wear away, and our amor patriÆ acquire strength and inspire us with a suitable respect for our own national character.

We have therefore the fairest opportunity of establishing a national language, and of giving it uniformity and perspicuity, in North America, that ever presented itself to mankind. Now is the time to begin the plan. The minds of the Americans are roused by the events of a revolution; the necessity of organizing the political body and of forming constitutions of government that shall secure freedom and property, has called all the faculties of the mind into exertion; and the danger of losing the benefits of independence, has disposed every man to embrace any scheme that shall tend, in its future operation, to reconcile the people of America to each other, and weaken the prejudices which oppose a cordial union.

My design, in these dissertations, is critically to investigate the rules of pronunciation in our language; to examin the past and present practice of the English, both in the pronunciation of words and construction of sentences; to exhibit the principal differences between the practice in England and America, and the differences in the several parts of America, with a view to reconcile them on the principles of universal practice and analogy. I have no system of my own to offer; my sole design is to explain what I suppose to be authorities, superior to all private opinions, and to examin local dialects by those authorities.

Most writers upon this subject have split upon one rock: They lay down certain rules, arbitrary perhaps or drawn from the principles of other languages, and then condemn all English phrases which do not coincide with those rules. They seem not to consider that grammar is formed on language, and not language on grammar. Instead of examining to find what the English language is, they endeavor to show what it ought to be according to their rules. It is for this reason that some of the criticisms of the most celebrated philologers are so far from being just, that they tend to overthrow the rules, and corrupt the true idiom, of the English tongue. Several examples of this will appear in the course of these Dissertations.

To learn the English language in its purity, it is necessary to examin and compare the best authors from Chaucer to the present time. In executing the following work, the most approved compilations have been consulted, and the opinions of the learned authors considered as respectable, not as decisive, authorities. The language itself has been examined with great industry, with a view to discover and defend its principles on the best grounds, analogies in structure, and immemorial usage. I have had recourse to the works of authors who wrote prior to Chaucer, and have even borrowed some light upon this subject, from the early ages of Gothic ignorance. Believing, with the author of "Diversions of Purley," that the peculiar structure of our language is Saxon, and that its principles can be discovered only in its Teutonic original, it has been my business, as far as the materials in my possession would permit, to compare the English with the other branches of the same stock, particularly the German and the Danish. These researches have thrown light upon the meaning and construction of particular phrases, and enabled me to vindicate some expressions in the language which are often used, but generally condemned by grammarians.

My knowlege of the practice of speaking in different parts of America, is derived from personal observation. My knowlege of the past and present state of the language in England, is taken from the writers who have treated expressly of the subject.[7] The authorities necessary to prove particular points will be quoted, as occasion shall require.

The talk of examining words cannot be agreeable to a writer, nor can his criticisms be very entertaining to the reader. Yet this talk I have imposed upon myself; for I believe it the only method to correct common mistakes. A general rule may be sufficient for a classical scholar, who makes it his business to apply the rule to all cases: But most readers must have their particular errors laid before their eyes, or they will not discover them.

To offer to correct the mistakes of others, is also a hazardous task, and commonly exposes a man to abuse and ill will. To avoid this I can only say, that my motives for the undertaking were not local nor personal; my enquiries are for truth, and my criticisms, it is hoped, will be marked with candor.

But before I proceed to explain the principles of pronunciation, it is necessary to give a sketch of the history of our language from the earliest times, and endeavor to discover from what sources it is derived.

HISTORY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

The first correct accounts we have of Britain were given by Julius Cesar, who invaded and conquered the southern parts of the island, about fifty four years before the Christian era.[8] Tacitus, in his Life of Julius Agricola, has described the natives of the island, and given it as his opinion, that they came from Gaul (now France.) The inhabitants of Caledonia, now Scotland, in the color of their hair and size of their limbs, resembled the Germans. Some appearances in the people of the more southern parts of the island, and their position with respect to Spain, indicated their descent from the ancient Iberi. But those who inhabited the shores, opposite to France, resembled the Gauls, in their religious ceremonies, their courage, and particularly in their language: "Sermo haud multum diversus."[10]

It is an uncontroverted point, that the primitive language of Britain was the same as that of Gaul.[11] This language was denominated the Celtic, from the CeltÆ, or KeltÆ, a famous tribe of people that inhabited Gaul. Many writers suppose the Celtic to have been the primitive elementary language, from which most, or all the present languages of Europe, and some of the languages of Asia and Africa, are derived. Some authors go so far as to assert that the Greek and Roman may be traced to the same source. To prove this opinion well founded, they endeavor to discover an affinity between these languages, by analizing words in each, and tracing them to the same elements or monosyllabic roots. In this they have succeeded so far as to discover a great number of words, which, with small dialectical variations, are common to the Greek and Latin and to most of the living languages of Europe. Perhaps these radicals, common to all languages of which we have any knowlege, were sufficient to form a simple language, adequate to the purposes of speech among rude nations.[A]

But as the first inhabitants of the earth had, for many ages, no method of fixing sounds, or very imperfect methods, their language must have been liable to considerable mutations, even when they lived and conversed together. But after they had separated from each other, by extending their settlements into distant regions, and an intercourse between the colonies had ceased, their languages must have in a great measure lost their affinity to each other. The radical words, common to all, must have assumed dialectical distinctions, and new objects and inventions, peculiar to the different tribes, must have originated new terms among each, to which the others were strangers. Different nations would advance, by very different degrees of rapidity, to a state of civilization, and as words multiply with ideas, one language would become more copious than another, as well as more regular and polished. In the course of many centuries, these causes would obscure the common radicals, and make such accessions of new words to each dialect, as to form them all into distinct languages. An uncivilized people have occasion for few words; perhaps five or six hundred would answer all their purposes. And if we should thoroughly examin any of the present languages of the world, we should probably find that the roots of the most copious do not amount to more than that number. The Greek, it is said, may be traced to about three or four hundred radical words. These roots or elementary words are usually monosyllables, and mostly names of sensible objects. By applying these names figuratively, savages make them answer the purpose of expressing other ideas, and by combining them in an almost infinite variety of ways, civilized nations form copious and elegant languages.

Thus it happens that in the existing languages of Europe, there are many words evidently the same; the orthography and pronunciation do not exactly coincide in all the countries where they are used; yet the resemblance is obvious in these particulars; and with respect to their meaning, there is such an affinity, as to demonstrate that the nations, in whose languages they are found, all sprung from the same parents.

The primitive language of Europe probably retained its original form and purity in the West, much later than on the borders of Asia;[12] for the Gauls and Britons had made less advances in knowlege, than the eastern nations, and had probably suffered fewer shocks from war and conquest. The Greeks first formed an elegant language out of the barbarous dialects spoken on the borders of the Egean Sea. The Romans afterwards did the same in Italy, and gradually changed the languages of the countries which they conquered, by introducing their own. It was the policy of the Roman state to make subjects, rather than slaves, of their conquered nations; and the introduction of their own tongue among them was considered as a necessary step towards removing prejudices, facilitating an intercourse with their provinces, and reconciling distant nations to the Roman government.

Julius Cesar found the Gauls and Britons at peace, united by a similarity of manners and language, and by a sameness of interest. His conquest of their countries made some inroads upon their language. But altho the Romans had possession of these countries more than four hundred years, during which time Roman garrisons were stationed in Gaul and Britain, the young men of both countries were drafted into the Roman service, and many British youth went to Rome for an education, still the native Celtic language remained without material alteration. It is obvious indeed that many of the higher classes of people were acquainted with Latin, and there are traces of that language still found among the Welsh, the descendants of the ancient Britons. But the body of the people, either for want of opportunity to learn the Latin, or thro an inveterate hatred of their conquerors, continued wedded to their native tongue. This would have still been the language of France and England, had it not suffered more violent shocks, than by the Roman conquests.

But in the fifth century, the southern parts of Europe began to be alarmed by the invasion of the Goths, Vandals, Huns and other fierce barbarians from the North. For three centuries, all the fertile provinces of the Roman empire were ravaged by these hardy invaders, the most of whom settled in the countries which they conquered.

These nations, mixing with the natives of the country where they settled, changed or corrupted the primitive language. From the jargon of Celtic and Roman, blended with the language of the Franks, Normans, Burgundians, &c. sprung the modern French. From the mixture of Latin, with the language of the Huns, Lombards, &c. sprung the present Italian. From a similar composition of Latin, with the language of the Visigoths and other northern tribes, and some remains of the Moorish language, left in Spain by the Saracens, are formed the modern Spanish and Portuguese.

In the general desolation, occasioned by these conquests, the island of Britain did not escape. The Saxons, a tribe of northern nations, which inhabited the country now called Denmark, or the shores of the Baltic, now within the Empire of Germany, invaded Britain, soon after the Roman legions had been called home to defend the Empire against other tribes of barbarians. It is said the Saxons were at first invited to assist the Britons against the inroads of the Picts or Scots, and that having defeated the invaders, they were tempted, by the fertility of the soil, to remain in the island, and afterwards took possession of it for themselves.

But whatever was the first cause of their leaving their native country, it is certain, that numerous bodies of adventurers, at different times, went over and seated themselves in the island. They did not cease till they had possessed themselves of all the fertile and cultivated parts of England. The universality of the conquest is demonstrated by the total change of language; there being no more affinity between the Saxon or English, and the ancient British, than between any two languages of Europe.

The British however was not lost. The brave inhabitants, who survived the liberty of their country, and could not brook the idea of living with their conquerors, retired to the countries within the mountains on the west of the island, now called Wales and Cornwall, where they maintained their independence for many centuries, and where their language is still preserved. The Welsh and the Cornish therefore are the purest remains of the primitive Celtic language.

To these we may add the Armoric, or language of the Bas Breton, on the coast of France; the inhabitants of which are genuin descendants of the old Britons. The time and occasion of this settlement in France are not certain. Perhaps a body of Britons were driven thither by the Saxon conquest of England; or what is more probable, as it is a tradition among the people, the Armoricans are the posterity of some British soldiers, who had been in the Roman army when it was called to Italy to defend the empire, and on their return, being informed that the Saxons had taken possession of their native country, seated themselves on the opposite coast of France.[13]

But whatever was the cause of the settlement, the language of the people is the old British or Celtic; for altho they must have been separated from their countrymen about twelve or fourteen hundred years, yet there is such an affinity still between the Welsh and the Armoric, that the Welsh soldiers, who passed thro Brittany in a late war,[14] could converse familiarly with the inhabitants. If any other proof than this were necessary to convince the reader, we might mention the name of this province, Brittany, and produce a long catalogue of Armoric words, collated with the Welsh and Cornish.

One would think that the Irish, by reason of their vicinity to England, would have spoken the same language; yet it is found that the old Irish tongue has very little affinity with the Welsh. Sir William Temple asserts[15] that the Erse, or Caledonian language, and the old Irish, which are radically the same, and spoken also on the Isle of Man, have no affinity with any other language now spoken. But the celebrated Lluyd and others, who have been more critical in their investigations of this subject, maintain that the Irish has a real affinity with the Cambrian or British. They further show that many names of places in S. Britain, the meaning of which is lost in the Welsh, can be explained only by words now extant in the Irish and Erse. This is a sufficient proof of a common origin.[16]

But on this point historians are divided in opinion. Some suppose that the north of Ireland was first peopled by emigrations from Scotland, and the sameness of their language renders this opinion probable. But whence do the Scots derive their origin? The most probable account of the settlement of Scotland is, that it was peopled from Norway or some other northern country, by a tribe of those nations that went under the general denomination of Scythians; for Scot and Scythian are from the same root.

There are writers, however, who contend that Ireland must have been settled from Spain, for there are many Spanish words found in the language of the country. But the number of these is too inconsiderable to render the argument conclusive.

Within a few years, an attempt has been made to trace the origin of the Irish nation, to the Carthaginians. The author of a small work, entitled "An Essay on the Antiquities of Ireland," has examined, in a play of Plautus, the Punic speech which has the marks of being the genuin language of Carthage, and has collated it with the ancient Irish. In this speech there is a surprising affinity between the languages.[B]

But without running into a field of conjecture, it is sufficient for my purpose to observe, that the Irish, the Erse, and the language spoken on the Isle of Man, are indisputably the same, and must have been very ancient: That the Welsh, the Cornish, and the Armoric are now a distinct language, and unquestionably the remains of the Celtic, or that language which was common to Gaul and Britain, when they were invaded by Julius Cesar. The Irish and the British may be as distinct as the Hebrew and the British, and yet a critical etymologist may discover in both, common radicals enough to convince him that both are the offspring of the same parent.

Hitherto our researches have thrown but little light upon the present English language. For the substance of this we must look to the Saxon branch of the Teutonic.[17]

The Teutones and Goths or GetÆ were the nations that inhabited the north of Europe. They were in a rude state and had no historical records by which their descent could be ascertained. They however had a class of men under the denomination of Scalds or Bards, whose business it was to recount in verse the illustrious actions of their heroes, and to preserve their traditions. These Scalds all agree that their ancestors came from the east;[18] and it is well known also that Herodotus mentions the Germans as a Persian people.[19] It is probable that they extended their settlements gradually, or were driven from Asia by the Roman invasions under Pompey, during the reign of Mithridates, and under the conduct of Odin, their hero and lawgiver, established themselves on the shores of the Baltic.

From these nations proceeded those fierce and numerous warriors, who, under different leaders invaded and subdued all the southern parts of Europe; changed the government, the manners and the language of the primitive inhabitants, and gave them their present complexion. The Saxons, who inhabited the northern parts of Germany, or Denmark, were the tribe that conquered England, and introduced a language and a form of government, the principles of which are still existent among their descendants, both in England and America. This happened in the fifth and sixth centuries.

Our language is therefore derived from the same stock as the German, the Dutch, the Danish, the Swedish, and the Swiss. Of all these branches, the German is perhaps the principal, and that which has suffered the least by the violence of conquest or the changes of time. Between this and the pure English, there is a close affinity, as may be observed by any person indifferently well acquainted with both.

From the establishment of the Saxons in England, to the Norman conquest, the language of the country suffered but little variation. The invasions of the Danes and their government of the kingdom, during a short period, could not but affect the language, yet not materially, as the island suffered a change of masters, rather than of people or laws; and indeed the Danes themselves spoke a dialect of the Saxon language.

But the conquest by William, the Norman, in 1066, introduced important changes into the language, as well as the government of the English nation. William was followed by multitudes of his countrymen; these formed his court, and filled the rich livings, temporal and ecclesiastical, which were forfeited or left vacant by the death of their former possessors who were slain in the battle of Hastings. The language of the conquerors, which was a mixture of Latin and Norman, immediately became fashionable at Court, and was used in all legislative and judicial proceedings. It continued to be the polite and law language of the nation about three centuries; when, in the thirty sixth year of Edward III.[20] an act of parliament was passed, ordaining that in future all pleas in courts should be made in English and recorded in Latin. In the preamble to this act, the reason assigned for making it is, "that the people of the realm did not understand French."[21]

This proves that the Norman French was spoken only by the nobility, who were mostly of Norman extraction, and by the higher orders of men in office, at court, or in the cities. The body of the people, defendants of the Saxons, still retained their primitive tongue.[22] During this period, when French was the polite, and Saxon the vulgar language of the English, the Latin was also understood by the learned, who were mostly the regular and secular clergy. On the revival of literature in Europe, Latin was studied with classical correctness, and the number and excellence of the Greek and Roman authors, with the elegance of the languages, have recommended them to the attention of succeeding generations. The records of parliament and of judicial proceedings were kept in Latin, from the thirty sixth of Edward III. to the fourth of George II.[23] when, by act of parliament, the English was ordered to be the language of the English laws and public records. Of these three languages, the Saxon, the Norman French and the Latin, our present English is composed.

The incorporation of the Roman and other foreign tongues with the English, took place principally under the first Norman kings. It was attended with some difficulty, and Chaucer has been censured by his cotemporaries for introducing cartloads of French words into his writings.[24]

Language is the effect of necessity, and when a nation has a language which is competent to all their purposes of communicating ideas, they will not embrace new words and phrases. This is the reason why the yeomanry of the English nation have never adopted the improvements of the English tongue. The Saxon was competent to most of the purposes of an agricultural people; and the class of men who have not advanced beyond that state, which in fact makes the body of the nation, at least in America, seldom use any words except those of Saxon original.

But as men proceed in the progress of society, their ideas multiply, and new words are necessary to express them. They must therefore either invent words, or combine those before used into compounds, or borrow words of suitable import from a foreign language. The latter method was principally pursued by the English. The learned of the nation spoke and wrote Latin, which had been the language of a polite and improved nation, and consequently abounds with terms in the various arts and sciences. When the English found their native tongue deficient, they had recourse to the Roman or Greek, where they were immediately supplied with words, expressive of their new ideas, and easily conforming to the genius of the English language.

The English retained its Saxon appearance till the twelfth century.[C] From this period to Chaucer, who wrote in the reign of Edward III. about the year 1360 or 70, the changes were slow and gradual. Chaucer was a man of a very liberal education; well versed in the Greek and Roman authors; and his mind had been improved by his travels. His genius and acquirements led him to stray from the common stile of writing, and enrich his verse with the elegance of the ProvenÇal language, at that time the most polished in Europe.[25] His abilities, his reputation and his influence at court, enabled him, in opposition to his adversaries, to introduce many beauties and much energy into our language.[D]

From Chaucer to Addison our language was progressively refined, and enriched with a variety of words, adequate to all its uses among a people highly improved. The French language has furnished us with military terms; the Dutch with sea phrases; the Greek and Roman with words proper to form and polish the poetical, historical and rhetorical stiles, and with terms in mathematics, philosophy and physic; the modern Italian has supplied us with terms in music, painting and sculpture; and in the Saxon, the ground-work of the whole, the yeomanry find all the words for which they have any use in domestic life or in the agricultural and most simple mechanical employments.

In this progress, the language has not only been enriched with a copious supply of words, but the accent of words has generally been established in such a manner as to render pronunciation melodious. The spoken language is also softened, by an omission of the harsh and guttural sounds which originally belonged to the language, and which are still retained by the Germans, Scotch and Dutch. At the same time, it is not, like the French, enervated by a loss of consonants. It holds a mean between the harshness of the German, and the feebleness of the French. It has more smoothness and fluency than the northern languages, and less music in its vocal sounds, than the Spanish and Italian. As the English have attempted every branch of science, and generally proceeded farther in their improvements than other nations, so their language is proportionably copious and expressive.

REMARKS.

Having given this general history and the present state of the language, I proceed to some remarks that naturally result from the subject.

1. The primitive language of the English nation was the Saxon, and the words derived from that, now constitute the ground-work of modern English. Hence all the rules of inflection, and most of the rules of construction, are Saxon. The plural terminations of nouns, the variations of the pronouns, the endings which mark the comparison of adjectives, and the inflections of the verbs, are wholly of Teutonic origin. For this reason, the rules of grammatical construction and the propriety of particular phrases, can be ascertained only by the ancient Saxon, and the modern English writings. The Greek and Roman languages were constructed on different principles, which circumstance has not been sufficiently attended to, by those who have attempted to compile English Grammars. The consequence is, that false principles have been introduced and taught as the rules of the English language, by which means very eminent writers have been led into mistakes.

2. It has been remarked that the common people, descendants of the Saxons, use principally words derived from the native language of their ancestors, with few derivatives from the foreign tongues, for which they have no occasion. This fact suggests the impropriety of writing sermons, or other discourses designed for general use, in the elevated English stile. To adapt a stile to common capacities, the language should consist, as much as possible, of Saxon words, or of Latin and French derivatives which are introduced into familiar discourse. The modern taste for introducing uncommon words into writings, for rounding periods, and rising into what is falsely called the elegant and sublime stile, has had an unhappy effect in rendering language obscure or unintelligible.[26]

3. The number and perfection of the languages from which the English is collected, must account for its copiousness and the multitude of synonimous words with which it abounds.

A primitive unmixed language rarely contains two words of the same signification. On the contrary, rude nations often use one word to express several ideas, which have some resemblance or analogy to each other, in the constitution of things.

From the poverty of a language proceed repetitions of the same word, to express an idea with particular force, or in the superlative degree. Hence the Hebraisms, as they are called, of the Bible; to rejoice with joy; to fear with great fear. This mode of speaking is frequent among all nations whose languages are imperfect.

But the English, on the other hand, abounds with synonimous terms, so that a repetition of words is generally unnecessary, even when there is a necessity of repeating the idea in the same sentence.

This copiousness, while it affords great advantages to a judicious writer, may also be abused, and become the cause of a prolix verbose stile. Instances of this fault occur in almost every author; it is one of the greatest, as well as most frequent faults in writing, and yet has scarcely been censured by critics.[27]

There are indeed but few instances in which two or three words express precisely the same idea; but there are many instances of words conveying nearly the same sense, which are thrown together by careless writers without the least occasion. Take for example a passage of Mr. Addison's Cato:

Pure and limpid are here too nearly synonimous to be applied to the same object. The same objection lies to the use of "foul with stains." Between working clear and refining, there is perhaps no difference in idea: And the arrangement in the second line is objectionable, for the consequence is placed before the cause; rushing torrents being the consequence of descending rains. Such an assemblage of synonimous words clogs and enfeebles the expression, and fatigues the mind of the reader. Writers of an inferior class are particularly fond of crowding together epithets. If they would describe a man they hate, he is a low, vile, mean, despicable, contemptible fellow. If they would describe a man of an amiable character, he is the most kind, humane, loving, tender, affectionate being imaginable. Epithets, so liberally bestowed, confuse our ideas and leave the mind without any distinct knowlege of the character.[E]

To a copiousness of language, on the other hand, may be ascribed the decline of action in speaking, and the want of animation. When nations have but few words to express their ideas, they have recourse to figures, to significant tones, looks and gestures, to supply the defect. Hence the figurative language of the Orientals of antiquity; hence the imagery of the Caledonian Bard;[28] the bold metaphorical language of the American natives, and the expressive tones and gesticulations that attend their speaking.

To this cause also must we ascribe the music of the Greek language, and the action which accompanied the rehearsals on the stage. What was the effect of necessity at first, became afterwards a matter of art. This was the origin of the pantomime. Modern operas are also an imitation of the ancient musical rehearsals of the theater.[29]

But as languages become rich and furnish words for communicating every idea, action must naturally cease. Men will not give themselves the pain of exerting their limbs and body to make themselves understood, when a bare opening of their lips will answer the purpose. This may be assigned as one principal cause of the decline of eloquence in modern ages, particularly among the English.

To the same cause, in part, may we ascribe the difference in the French and English manner of speaking. It is a common observation, that the French use more action and are more animated in conversation, than the English. The cause usually assigned, is, the natural vivacity of the French nation; which appears to me not satisfactory; for the Germans, who resemble the French, in some degree, in their manner of speaking, are nevertheless a more grave people than the English.

I suspect that the difference may in part be thus accounted for. The French, tho by no means a barren language, wants words to express many ideas, for which the English is provided. For example, the English has two forms for the future tense of verbs; shall and will; each of which has a distinct meaning. Shall expresses event in the first person, and promise, command or threatning in the second and third. Will, in the first person, promises; in the second and third, foretells. The French has no such distinction. The phrase je lui payerai, the only form of the future, cannot convey such distinct meanings, as promise and event, unless accompanied with some expressive tone or gesture. A Frenchman therefore, to express the force of the English, I will pay, must supply the want of a distinct word by action, or have recourse to a circumlocution. The same remark holds with respect to would and should, which, in a variety of combinations, retain distinct significations.

The French has properly but one word, plume, for the three English words, feather, en and quill. Its verbs have not such a variety of combinations to express the precise time of an action as the English. J'ecris is the only phrase for the English, I write and I am writing, which have distinct uses; and I do not know whether there is any phrase used in French which will exactly correspond with the English phrases answering to the inceptive verb of the Romans, I am going to write, or, am about writing.[30]

This solution of a difficulty, which has occurred to many people, in comparing the manners of the English and French, may not be the true one; but it appears rational. Other causes also have a material influence upon eloquence, particularly the form of government and the state of society. In these respects England and France may not be so favorable to the cultivation of oratory, as were the republics of Greece and Rome. But if a free government is the best soil for the growth of eloquence, why should it flourish in France rather than in England, which is said to be the fact with respect to pulpit eloquence? The genius of the nation may have its effect; but it is presumed, the state of the language may be considered as an auxiliary cause, if not a principal.

From the foregoing history of the language, we learn the causes of its incorrect orthography. The Saxon characters, some of which were Roman, both in shape and power, while others were peculiar to the language, continued in use till the fourteenth century. These were afterwards laid aside for the Old English characters, as they are usually called; which were introduced with the art of printing from Germany,[31] and continued in use, till within a century. But both the Saxon and German letters were much inferior to the Roman in the simplicity and elegance of their form; for which reason most of the European nations have rejected their primitive characters and adopted the Roman.[32]

In changing the characters of an alphabet, as well as in expressing the sounds of one language by letters of an other, some difficulty will often arise from the want of a perfect correspondence between the true sounds of letters in both. Altho there is, and must be, a great uniformity in the articulate sounds of all men, yet there are also differences peculiar to each nation, which others have not proper characters to express.

Thus the Romans, when they would express the sound of the Greek ? and of ?, for want of suitable characters, wrote th and ch. We conclude from this circumstance, that the Greek sound of the former was that of t followed by an aspirate, and the latter, that of k with an aspirate. Yet it is very probable that the sounds were guttural in Greek, and not exactly represented by the Latin combinations th and ch.

Thus two Saxon characters are represented in modern English, by the Latin combination th, as in think, thou. These Saxon characters were single letters and had distinct powers. We preserve the distinction of sounds to this day, but are subject to the inconvenience of having no mark by which the eye can discern that distinction.

On the other hand, sh was usually written by the Saxons sc, as sceaft, shaft; sceam, shame; sceal, shall. What was the pronunciation of sc cannot be determined; but it is evident that each letter had a distinct sound. It is most probable that before a, o, and u, sc were pronounced sk, or c might have had the force of ch in choose. It is very clear that c had this sound before e and i; for the Saxon words in which ch now precede e or i, were formerly spelt with c only; as child from the Saxon cild; chill from cele; chink from cinnon, to gape; chick from cicen. If therefore c before e and i had the force of ch, sceaft must have been pronounced scheaft, which would easily be softened down and contracted into shaft.

But whatever was the sound of sc in the Saxon, the sound derived from it is now simple, and has no single character to represent it in our language; for the proper sounds of s and h combined, do not form the sound which we invariably annex to sh. By not retaining the primitive Saxon c after s, we have probably lost the pronunciation and introduced an irregularity.

It is not certain however that a change of the alphabet was prior to the change of pronunciation; for the latter might have produced the former. But the effect is certain; we have a simple sound without a proper character, which is always an imperfection.[33]

We have therefore in English the two sounds of th, the aspirate in think, and the vocal in this, both of which are simple consonant sounds, peculiar to the language, and derived from two single characters. Each ought still to be represented by a distinct single letter. Sh, on the other hand, express a simple sound, derived from two separate Saxon consonants, which must have been originally pronounced as two letters. These irregularities must have been partly owing to a change of alphabet.[34]

Other irregularities have been occasioned by an injudicious application of the letters of one alphabet to the sounds of another language.

The Roman c some writers suppose was hard, like k, before all the vowels and diphthongs. It certainly was so before all except e and i; where, there is reason to suppose, it had the sound of ch or ts. It is very evident that it had not the sound of s, which we now annex to it in civil, cellar. When the Roman alphabet, therefore, took place of the primitive English characters, the Greek k should have been always written before a, o, u, as in cat, cord, cup; and s before e and i. Or c should have been called ke, limited to one sound, and always used instead of k. If our ancestors had retained the Roman pronunciation of c before e and i, they would probably have spelt cera, civilis, chera, chivilis,[35] ch having its English sound of tsh, as in charm. But if they pronounced these words as we do, they should have substituted s, sera, sivilis. In short, they should have limited every character to one sound; in which case, one of the three letters, c, k, s, would have been entirely omitted as useless. This would have delivered us from a large class of difficulties.

Whether the ph and ch, in Greek derivatives, were originally introduced into English, because our ancestors preserved the aspirate; or whether the h was retained merely to show the etymology of words, it is not easy to decide. The probability is, that these letters were never aspirated in English, but that ph has ever been pronounced f, and ch generally k; as in Philip, chorus. It is probable however that the Romans, from whom the English borrowed their characters, preserved the aspirate; for they very scrupulously retained the h after p and c; and they attempted to copy exactly the Greek pronunciation.[36] They borrowed all words in ph, ch and th from the Greeks. We have preserved the characters, but have mostly lost the aspirate; ph has invariably the sound of f; ch, in Greek derivatives, generally that of k; and th has become the representative of two simple consonants. With this change of pronunciation, the orthography should have changed; philosophy should now be written filosofy; and chorus, korus; th might become a single character and be called Eth.[F]

But it was the fate of our language to be shaken by violent revolutions, and abandoned to accident or the caprice of unskillful heads. The operation of imperceptible causes, common to all languages, in all ages, has also been gradually changing the spelling and pronunciation.

In Chaucer's time, the infinitive mode and plural number of verbs, in the present tense, ended often in en; as loven, for to love or they love. But loveth was sometimes used in the plural, and n began to be omitted in the infinitive. The French termination esse, as in Goddesse, richesse, was used, and the final e was often pronounced. The plural number of nouns usually ended in es, as houndes; and in the same manner terminated the genitive case. Nouns now ending in y, ended then in ie, as storie; y was still prefixed to participles, as ybent; and y was often used where we now write g, as yeve for give.

From that period the orthography was still varying, at least in some particulars, till the beginning of the present century. The group of eminent writers who were cotemporary with Swift, gave great stability to the spelling; yet some good authorities differ from them in several points. Johnson, who has been usually followed by succeeding compilers of dictionaries, preserves the u in honour, favour, and similar words; as also the final k in publick, &c. Ash, followed by many writers, very properly restores these words to the Roman spelling, by omitting the u and k. Excepting these particulars, the orthography of our language is nearly fixed.

The pronunciation has been neglected till a few years ago; when Sheridan and Kenrick, with several compilers of less note, attempted to give us a standard. Unluckily they have all made the attempt on false principles; and will, if followed, multiply the anomalies, which already deform the language and embarrass the learner.[37]

The language, is composed of a variety of materials, and it requires some labor to adjust the parts and reduce them to order.

To accomplish this purpose, we must search for such principles of analogy as still exist in its construction, and make them the pillars of a regular system. Where such principles cannot be found, let us examin the opinions of the learned, and the practice of the nations which speak the pure English, that we may determine by the weight of authority, the common law of language, those questions which do not come within any established rules.