AN
AMERICAN DICTIONARY
OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE;
FIRST EDITION IN OCTAVO,
CONTAINING
THE WHOLE VOCABULARY OF THE QUARTO, WITH CORRECTIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, AND SEVERAL THOUSAND ADDITIONAL WORDS:
TO WHICH IS PREFIXED
AN INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION
ON THE
ORIGIN, HISTORY AND CONNECTION OF THE LANGUAGES OF WESTERN ASIA AND EUROPE,
WITH AN EXPLANATION
OF THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH LANGUAGES ARE FORMED.
_______________________
BY NOAH WEBSTER, LL. D.
MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN PHILADELPHIA; FELLOW OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES IN MASSACHUSETTS; MEMBER OF THE CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES; FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF NORTHERN ANTIQUARIES IN COPENHAGEN; MEMBER OF THE CONNECTICUT HISTORICAL SOCIETY; CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE HISTORICAL SOCIETIES IN MASSACHUSETTS, NEW YORK AND GEORGIA; OF THE ACADEMY OF MEDICINE IN PHILADELPHIA, AND OF THE COLOMBIAN INSTITUTE IN WASHINGTON; AND HONORARY MEMBER OF THE MICHIGAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
_______________________
GENERAL SUBJECTS OF THIS WORK.
1. ETYMOLOGIES OF ENGLISH WORDS, DEDUCED FROM AN EXAMINATION AND COMPARISON OF WORDS OF CORRESPONDING ELEMENTS IN TWENTY LANGUAGES OF ASIA AND EUROPE.
2. THE TRUE ORTHOGRAPHY OF WORDS, AS CORRECTED BY THEIR ETYMOLOGIES.
3. PRONUNCIATION EXHIBITED AND MADE OBVIOUS BY THE DIVISION OF WORDS INTO SYLLABLES, BY ACCENTUATION, BY MARKING THE SOUNDS OF THE ACCENTED VOWELS, WHEN NECESSARY, OR BY GENERAL RULES.
4. ACCURATE AND DISCRIMINATING DEFINITIONS, ILLUSTRATED, WHEN DOUBTFUL OR OBSCURE, BY EXAMPLES OF THEIR USE, SELECTED FROM RESPECTABLE AUTHORS, OR BY FAMILIAR PHRASES OF UNDISPUTED AUTHORITY.
[THIS EDITION CONTAINS A SUPPLEMENT BY THE AUTHOR, OF SEVERAL THOUSAND WORDS, AND PUBLISHED AFTER HIS DECEASE.]
_______________________
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
===================
AMHERST, MASS.
PUBLISHED BY J. S. AND C. ADAMS.
SOLD BY LITTLE & BROWN, BOSTON; LEAVITT, TROW & CO., NEW YORK; THOMAS, COWPERTHWAIT & CO.
PHILADELPHIA; BROWN & PARSONS, HARTFORD.
_____________________
1844.
__________________
Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1840,
By NOAH WEBSTER, LL. D.
In the Clerk’s Office in the District Court of Connecticut.
Sept. 1840.
__________________
ADVERTISEMENT.
__________________
	The improvements in this edition of the American Dictionary, consist chiefly in the addition of several thousand words to the vocabulary; the division of words into syllables, and in the correction of definitions in several of the sciences, which are made conformable to recent discoveries and classifications. For the latter improvements, the author is indebted chiefly to Professor Tully of the Medical College in New Haven.
	To these improvements may be added the introduction and explanation of many phrases from foreign languages, frequently used by English authors and in conversation; and also of many foreign terms used in books of Music.
	For additional words, see the end of the volume.

PREFACE.
__________________
	In the year 1783, just at the close of the Revolution, I published an elementary book for facilitating the acquisition of our vernacular tongue, and for correcting a vicious pronunciation, which prevailed extensively among the common people of this country. Soon after the publication of that work, I believe in the following year, that learned and respectable scholar, the Rev. Dr. Goodrich of Durham, one of the trustees of Yale College, suggested to me the propriety and expediency of my compiling a Dictionary, which should complete a system for the instruction of the citizens of this country in the language. At that time, I could not indulge the thought, much less the hope, of undertaking such a work; as I was neither qualified by research, nor had I the means of support, during the execution of the work, had I been disposed to undertake it. For many years, therefore, though I considered such a work as very desirable, yet it appeared to me impracticable; as I was under the necessity of devoting my time to other occupations for obtaining subsistence.
	About thirty-five years ago, I began to think of attempting the compilation of a Dictionary. I was induced to this undertaking, not more by the suggestion of friends, than by my own experience of the want of such a work, while reading modern books of science. In this pursuit, I found almost insuperable difficulties, from the want of a Dictionary, for explaining many new words, which recent discoveries in the physical sciences had introduced into use. To remedy this defect in part, I published my Compendious Dictionary in 1806; and soon after made preparations for undertaking a larger work.
	My original design did not extend to an investigation of the origin and progress of our language; much less of other languages. I limited my views to the correcting of certain errors in the best English Dictionaries, and to the supplying of words in which they are deficient. But after writing through two letters of the alphabet, I determined to change my plan. I found myself embarrassed, at every step, for want of a knowledge of the origin of words, which Johnson, Bailey, Junius, Skinner and some other authors do not afford the means of obtaining. Then laying aside my manuscripts, and all books treating of language, except Lexicons and Dictionaries, I endeavored, by a diligent comparison of words, having the same or cognate radical letters, in about twenty languages, to obtain a more correct knowledge of the primary sense of original words, of the affinities between the English and many other languages, and thus to enable myself to trace words to their source.
	I had not pursued this course more than three or four years, before I discovered that I had to unlearn a great deal that I had spent years in learning, and that it was necessary for me to go back to the first rudiments of a branch of erudition, which I had before cultivated, as I had supposed, with success.
	I spent ten years in this comparison of radical words, and in forming a Synopsis of the principal Words in twenty Languages, arranged in Classes, under their primary Elements or Letters. The result has been to open what are to me new views of language, and to unfold what appear to be the genuine principles on which these languages are constructed.
	After completing this Synopsis, I proceeded to correct what I had written of the Dictionary, and to complete the remaining part of the work. But before I had finished it, I determined on a voyage to Europe, with the view of obtaining some books and some assistance which I wanted; of learning the real state of the pronunciation of our language in England, as well as the general state of philology in that country; and of attempting to bring about some agreement or coincidence of opinions, in regard to unsettled points in pronunciation and grammatical construction. In some of these objects I failed; in others, my designs were answered.
	It is not only important, but, in a degree necessary, that the people of this country should have an American Dictionary of the English Language; for, although the body of the language is the same as in England, and it is desirable to perpetuate that sameness, yet some differences must exist. Language is the expression of ideas; and if the people of one country can not preserve an identity of ideas, they can not retain an identity of language. Now an identity of ideas depends materially upon a sameness of things or objects, with which the people of the two countries are conversant. But in no two portions of the earth, remote from each other, can such identity be found. Even physical objects must be different. But the principal differences between the people of this country and of all others, arise from different forms of government, different laws, institutions and customs. Thus the practice of hawking and hunting, the institution of heraldry, and the feudal system of England originated terms which formed, and some of which now form, a necessary part of the language of that country; but, in the United States, many of these terms are no part of our present language, — and they can not be, for the things which they express, do not exist in this country. They can be known to us only as obsolete or as foreign words. On the other hand, the institutions in this country which are new and peculiar, give rise to new terms or to new applications of old terms, unknown to the people of England; which can not be explained by them, and which will not be inserted in their Dictionaries, unless copied from ours. Thus the terms, land-office; land-warrant; location of land; consociation of churches; regent of a university; intendant of a city; plantation, selectmen, senate, congress, court, assembly, escheat, &c., are either words not belonging to the language of England, or they are applied to things in this country which do not exist in that. No person in this country will be satisfied with the English definitions of the words congress, senate and assembly, court, &c.; for although these are words used in England, yet they are applied in this country to express ideas which they do not express in that country. With our present constitutions of government, escheat can never have its feudal sense in the United States.
	But this is not all. In many cases, the nature of our governments, and of our civil institutions, requires an appropriate language in the definition of words, even when the words express the same thing, as in England. Thus the English Dictionaries inform us that a Justice is one deputed by the King to do right by way of judgment — he is a Lord by his office — Justices of the peace are appointed by the King's commission — language which is inaccurate in respect to this officer in the United States. So constitutionally is defined by Chalmers, legally, but in this country the distinction between constitution and law requires a different definition. In the United States, a plantation is a very different thing from what it is in England. The word marshal, in this country, has one important application unknown in England or in Europe.
	A great number of words in our language require to be defined in a phraseology accommodated to the condition and institutions of the people in these states, and the people of England must look to an American Dictionary for a correct understanding of such terms.
	The necessity, therefore, of a Dictionary suited to the people of the United States is obvious; and I should suppose that this fact being admitted, there could be no difference of opinion as to the time when such a work ought to be substituted for English Dictionaries.
	There are many other considerations of a public nature, which serve to justify this attempt to furnish an American Work which shall be a guide to the youth of the United States. Most of these are too obvious to require illustration.
	One consideration, however, which is dictated by my own feelings, but which I trust will meet with approbation in correspondent feelings in my fellow citizens, ought not to be passed in silence; it is this: — “The chief glory of a nation,” says Dr. Johnson, “arises from its authors.” With this opinion deeply impressed on my mind, I have the same ambition which actuated that great man, when he expressed a wish to give celebrity to Bacon, to Hooker, to Milton, and to Boyle.
	I do not indeed expect to add celebrity to the names of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull, Hamilton, Belknap, Ames, Mason, Kent, Hare, Silliman, Cleaveland, Walsh, Irving, and many other Americans distinguished by their writings or by their science; but it is with pride and satisfaction that I can place them, as authorities, on the same page with those of Boyle, Hooker, Milton, Dryden, Addison, Ray, Milner, Cowper, Davy, Thomson and Jameson.
	A life devoted to reading and to an investigation of the origin and principles of our vernacular language, and especially a particular examination of the best English Writers, with a view to a comparison of their style and phraseology, with those of the best American Writers, and with our colloquial usage, enables me to affirm with confidence, that the genuine English idiom is as well preserved by the unmixed English of this country, as it is by the best English Writers. Examples to prove this fact will be found in the Introduction to this Work. It is true, that many of our writers have neglected to cultivate taste, and the embellishments of style; but even these have written the language in its genuine idiom. In this respect, Franklin and Washington, whose language is their hereditary mother tongue, unsophisticated by modern grammar, present as pure models of genuine English, as Addison or Swift. But I may go further, and affirm, with truth, that our country has produced some of the best models of composition. The style of President Smith; of the Authors of the Federalist; of Mr. Ames; of Dr. Mason; of Mr. Harper; of Chancellor Kent; [the prose] of Mr. Barlow; of Dr. Channing; of Washington Irving; of the legal decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States; of the reports of legal decisions in some of the particular States; and many other writings; in purity, in elegance and in technical precision, is equaled only by that of the best British Authors, and surpassed by that of no English compositions of a similar kind.
	The United States commenced their existence under circumstances wholly novel and unexampled in the history of nations. They commenced with civilization, with learning, with science, with constitutions of free government, and with that best gift of God to man, the Christian religion. Their population is now equal to that of England; in arts and sciences, our citizens are very little behind the most enlightened people on earth; in some respects, they have no superiors; and our language, within two centuries, will be spoken by more people in this country than any other language on earth, except the Chinese, in Asia, and even that may not be an exception.
	It has been my aim in this work, now offered to my fellow citizens, to ascertain the true principles of the language, in its orthography and structure; to purify it from some palpable errors, and reduce the number of its anomalies, thus giving it more regularity and consistency in its forms, both of words and sentences; and in this manner, to furnish a standard of our vernacular tongue, which we shall not be ashamed to bequeath to five hundred millions of people, who are destined to occupy, and I hope, to adorn the vast territory within our jurisdiction.
	If the language can be improved in regularity, so as to be more easily acquired by our own citizens, and by foreigners, and thus be rendered a more useful instrument for the propagation of science, arts, civilization and Christianity; — if it can be rescued from the mischievous influence of sciolists, and that dabbling spirit of innovation, which is perpetually disturbing its settled usages and filling it with anomalies; — if, in short, our vernacular language can be redeemed from corruptions, and our philology and literature from degradation; it would be a source of great satisfaction to me to be one among the instruments of promoting these valuable objects. If this object can not be effected, and my wishes and hopes are to be frustrated, my labor will be lost, and this work must sink into oblivion.
	This Dictionary, like all others of the kind, must be left, in some degree, imperfect; for what individual is competent to trace to their source, and define in all their various applications, popular, scientific and technical, seventy or eighty thousand words! It satisfies my mind that I have done all that my health, my talents and my pecuniary means would enable me to accomplish. I present it to my fellow citizens, not with frigid indifference, but with my ardent wishes for their improvement and their happiness; and for the continued increase of the wealth, the learning, the moral and religious elevation of character, and the glory of my country.
	To that great and benevolent Being, who, during the preparation of this Work, has sustained a feeble constitution, amidst obstacles and toils, disappointments, infirmities and depression; — who has borne me and my manuscripts in safety across the Atlantic, and given me strength and resolution to bring the Work to a close, I would present the tribute of my most grateful acknowledgments. And if the talent which he intrusted to my care, has not been put to the most profitable use in his service, I hope it has not been “kept laid up in a napkin,” and that any misapplication of it may be graciously forgiven.  NOAH WEBSTER.
New Haven, 1840.

INTRODUCTION.

DEFINITION OF LANGUAGE.

	LANGUAGE or Speech is the utterance of articulate sounds or voices, rendered significant by usage, for the expression and communication of thoughts.
	According to this definition, language belongs exclusively to intellectual and intelligent beings, and, among terrestrial beings, to man only; for no animal on earth, except man, can pronounce words. The word language is sometimes used in a more comprehensive sense, and applied to the sounds by which irrational animals express their feelings or affections; as to the neighing of the horse, the lowing of the ox, the barking of the dog, and to the cackling and chirping of fowls; for the sounds uttered by these animals are perfectly understood by the respective species. So also language is figuratively applied to the signs by which deaf and dumb persons manifest their ideas; for these are instruments of communicating thoughts.
	But language in its proper sense, as the medium of intercourse between men, or rational beings, endowed with the faculty of uttering articulate sounds, is the subject now to be considered.
	Written language is the representation of significant sounds by letters, or characters, single or combined in words, arranged in due order, according to usage.

ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

	We read in the Scriptures, that God, when he had created man, “Blessed them; and said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea,” &c. God afterward planted a garden, and placed in it the man he had made, with a command to keep it, and to dress it; and he gave him a rule of moral conduct, in permitting him to eat the fruit of every tree in the garden, except one, the eating of which was prohibited. We further read that God brought to Adam the fowls and beasts he had made, and that Adam gave them names; and that when his female companion was made, he gave her a name. After the eating of the forbidden fruit, it is stated that God addressed Adam and Eve, reproving them for their disobedience, and pronouncing the penalties which they had incurred. In the account of these transactions, it is further related that Adam and Eve both replied to their Maker, and excused their disobedience.
	If we admit what is the literal and obvious interpretation of this narrative, that vocal sounds or words when used in these communications between God and the progenitors of the human race, it results that Adam was not only endowed with intellect for understanding his Maker, or the signification of words, but was furnished both with the faculty of speech and with speech itself, or the knowledge and use of words as signs of ideas, and this before the formation of the woman. Hence we may infer that language was bestowed on Adam, in the same manner as all his other faculties and knowledge, by supernatural power; or, in other words, was of divine origin: for supposing Adam to have had all the intellectual powers of any adult individual of the species who has since lived, we can not admit as probable, or even possible, that he should have invented and constructed even a barren language, as soon as he was created, without supernatural aid. It may indeed be doubted, whether, without such aid, men would ever have learned the use of the organs of speech, so far as to form a language. At any rate, the invention of words and the construction of a language must have been by a slow process, and must have required a much longer time than that which passed between the creation of Adam and of Eve. It is therefore probable that language, as well as the faculty of speech, was the immediate gift of God. We are not, however, to suppose the language of our first parents in paradise to have been copious, like most modern languages; or the identical language they used, to be now in existence. Many of the primitive radical words may and probably do exist in various languages: but observation teaches that languages must improve and undergo great changes as knowledge increases, and be subject to continual alterations, from other causes incident to men in society.
A brief account of the origin and progress of the principal languages, ancient and modern, that have been spoken by nations between the Ganges and the Atlantic Ocean.
	We learn from the Scriptures that Noah, who, with his family, was preserved from destruction by the Deluge, for the purpose of re-peopling the earth, had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. This fact, a little obscured by tradition, was retained by our rude German ancestors, to the age of Tacitus.
	Japheth was the eldest son; but Shem, the ancestor of the Israelites and of the writers of the Scriptures, is named first in order.
	The descendants of Shem and Ham peopled all the great plain situated north and west of the Persian Gulf, between that Gulf and the Indian Ocean on the east, and the Arabic Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea on the west, with the northern coast of Africa; comprehending Assyria, Babylonia or Chaldea, Syria, Palestine, Arabia, Egypt, and Libya. The principal languages or dialects used by these descendants, are known to us under the names of Chaldee, or Chaldaic, which is called also Aramean, Syriac, Hebrew, Arabic, Ethiopic, Samaritan, and Coptic. Of these, the Chaldee and Hebrew are no longer living languages, but they have come down to us in books: the Samaritan is probably extinct or lost in the modern languages of the country, but the language survives in a copy of the Pentateuch; the Coptic is nearly or quite extinct, and little of it remains; the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic are yet living languages, but they have suffered and are continually suffering alterations, from which no living language is exempt.
	These languages, except the Coptic, being used by the descendants of Shem, I call Shemitic, or Assyrian, in distinction from the Japhetic. As the descendants of Japheth peopled Asia Minor, the northern parts of Asia, about the Euxine and Caspian, and all Europe, their languages have, in the long period that has elapsed since their dispersion, become very numerous.
	All languages having sprung from one source, the original words from which they have been formed must have been of equal antiquity. That the Celtic and Teutonic languages in Europe are, in this sense, as old as the Chaldee and Hebrew, is a fact not only warranted by history and the common origin of Japheth and Shem, but susceptible of proof from the identity of many words yet existing in both stocks. But there is a marked difference between the Shemitic and Japhetic languages; for even when the radical words are unquestionably the same, the modifications, or infections and combinations which form the compounds, are, for the most part, different.
	As it has been made a question which of the Shemitic languages is the most ancient, and much has been written to prove it to be the Hebrew, I will state briefly my opinion on what appears to me to be one of the plainest questions in the history of nations. We have for our certain guides. in determining this question — 1st, The historical narrative of facts in the Book of Genesis; and 2d, The known and uniform progress of languages, within the period of authentic profane history.
	1. The Scripture informs us that before the dispersion, the whole earth was of one language and of one or the same speech; and that the descendants of Noah journeyed from the east, and settled on the plain of Shinar, or in Chaldea. The language used at that time, by the inhabitants of that plain, must then have been the oldest or the primitive language of man. This must have been the original Chaldee.
	2. The Scripture informs us, that in consequence of the impious attempts of the people to build a city, and a tower whose top might reach to heaven, with a view to make themselves a name and prevent their dispersion, God interposed and confounded their language, so that they could not understand each other; in consequence of which they were dispersed “from thence over the face of all the earth.”
	3. If the confusion of languages at Babel originated the differences which gave rise to the various languages of the families which separated at the dispersion, then those several languages are all of equal antiquity. Of these the Hebrew, as a distinct language, was not one; for the Hebrew nation was of posterior origin.
	4. All the words of the several great races of men, both in Asia and Europe, which are vernacular in their several languages, and unequivocally the same, are of equal antiquity, as they must have been derived from the common Chaldee stock which existed before the dispersion. The words common to the Syrians and Hebrews, could not have been borrowed from the Hebrew; for the Hebrews originated from Heber and Abram, several centuries after Syria and Egypt were populous countries. This fact is attested by the Scripture history, which declares that when Abram migrated from Chaldea,  and came into Canaan or Palestine, “the Canaanite was then in the land;” and when he returned from Egypt, “the Perizzite dwelt in the land.” These declarations, and the history of Abimelech, and of the war of four kings or chieftains with five; as also of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, prove Syria to have been at that time well peopled. The language of the inhabitants, then, must have been coeval with the nation, and long anterior to the Hebrew as a distinct dialect. It may be added, that in the early periods of the world, when no books existed, nations, living remote or distinct, never borrowed words from each other. One nation living in the midst of another, as the Hebrews did among the Egyptians, may adopt a single word, or a few words; but a family of words thus adopted, is an occurrence rarely or never known. The borrowing of words, in modern times, is almost wholly from the use of books.
	5. It is probable that some differences of language were produced by the confusion; but neither that event nor any supernatural event is necessary to account for the differences of dialect or of languages now existing. The different modern languages of the Gothic or Teutonic stock, all originated in the natural course of events; and the differences are as great between them as they are between the languages of the Shemitic stock.
	6. Soon after two races of men of a common stock have separated and placed themselves in distant countries, the language of each begins to diverge from that of the other, by various means. — 1. One tribe or nation will suffer one word to become obsolete and be forgotten; another, will suffer the loss of another; sometimes a whole family of words will be lost; at other times, a part only; at other times, a single word only of a numerous family will be retained by one nation, while another nation will retain the whole.  2. The same word will be differently applied by two distant races of men, and the difference will be so great as to obscure the original affinity.  3. Words will be compounded by two nations in a different manner, the same radical words taking a different prefix or suffix, in different languages. Thus wisdom in English is in German weisheit, [wise-head, wisehood,] from wise, weis. The English mislead is in Danish förleder, from lead, leder.  4. The pronunciation and orthography of words will often be so much changed, that the same word in two languages can not, without difficulty, be recognized as identical. No person, without a considerable attention to the changes which letters have suffered, would at once suspect or believe the English let and the French laisser to be the same word.
	7. As Abram migrated from Chaldea, he must have spoken the Chaldee language; and probably, at that time, the Syriac, Arabic and Egyptian, had not become so different, as to render it impracticable for him to converse with the inhabitants of Palestine and Egypt. But the language of Abram’s descendants, and that of the land of Shinar or the Chaldee, must, in the natural course of things, have begun to diverge soon after the separation; and the changes in each language being different, would, in the course of a few centuries, form somewhat different languages. So in the days of Hezekiah, the Syriac and Hebrew had become, in a degree, distinct languages. 2 Kings xviii. In which of these languages the greatest number of alterations were produced, we do not know; but, from the general observations I have made in my researches, it appears that the Chaldee dialect, in the use of dental letters instead of sibilants, is much the most general in the Celtic and Teutonic languages of Europe. Thus the German only has a sibilant in wasser, when the other Teutonic languages have a dental, water. I think also that there are far more words in the European languages which accord with the Chaldee or Arabic, than there are words which accord with the Hebrew. If this observation is well founded, the Hebrew must have suffered the loss of more primitive words than the other languages of the Shemitic family. This, however, is true, that all of them have lost some words, and in some cases the Hebrew retains what the others have lost.
	8. The Hebrew Scriptures are, by many centuries, the most ancient writings extant. Hence probably the strange inference, that the Hebrew is the oldest language; as if the inhabitants of Chaldea and Syria had had no language for ages before the progenitor of the Hebrews was born.
	9. The vernacular words in the Celtic and Teutonic languages of modern Europe, which are evidently the same words as still exist in the Shemitic languages, are of the same antiquity; being a part of the common language which was used on the plain of Shinar, before the dispersion.
	The descendants of Japheth peopled the northern part of Asia, and all Europe; or if some colonies from Egypt planted themselves in Greece at an early period, they or their descendants must have been merged in the mass of Japhetic population. Certain it is that the Greek language is chiefly formed on the same radical words as the Celtic and Teutonic languages.
	The Japhetic tribes of men, whose descendants peopled the south and west of Europe, were first established in the country now called Persia, or, by the natives themselves, Iran. Of this fact, the evidence now existing is decisive. The numerous words found in the Greek, Latin, Gaelic, English and the kindred tongues, which are still used in Persia, prove, beyond all question, that Persia must have been the residence of the people  whose descendants introduced into Europe the languages from which the modern languages are derived. The fact proves further, that a great body of the original Persians remained in their own country, and their descendants constitute the mass of the population at this day.
	In the early stages of society, men dwelt or migrated in families, tribes, or clans. The family of Abraham and Jacob in Asia, and the clans of the Gaels in Scotland, exhibit to us the manner in which societies and nations were originally formed. The descendants of a man settled around him, and formed a clan, or tribe, of which the government was patriarchal. Such families often migrated in a body, and often the personal characteristics of the progenitor might be distinctly traced in his descendants for many generations. In process of time, some of these families became nations; more generally, by means of wars and migrations, different tribes blended, and the distinction of families was lost.
	In rude ages, the families or tribes of men are named from some characteristic of the people; or, more generally, from the place of their residence. The Greeks gave the name of Scythia to the north of Europe and Asia, but the primitive inhabitants of the west of Europe they called , Kelts, Celts, a word signifying woods men. These were descendants from the same ancestors as the Greeks and Romans themselves, but they had pushed their migrations into Gaul, Spain and Britain. The first settlers or occupiers of these countries were driven forward by successive hords, until they were checked by the ocean; there they made their stand, and there we find their descendants at this day. These may be considered as the descendants of the earliest settlers or first inhabitants of the countries where they are found. Among these are the inhabitants of France, south of the Garonne, and those of the north of Spain, called by the Romans Aquitani and Cantabri, in more modern times Gascoigns, Basques, and Cantabrians, who still retain their native language; and in Great Britain, the Gaels in Scotland, and the natives of the north and west of Ireland, who also retain their primitive language.
	The first inhabitants of the north and west of Europe, known to the Greeks and Romans, to whom we are indebted for our earliest accounts of that region, were the Cimbri, who inhabited the peninsula of Denmark, now called Jutland, and the tribes which belonged to the Teutonic and Gothic races which were established in Germany and on both sides of the Baltic. Whether tribes of Celtic origin had overspread the latter countries before the arrival of the Gothic and Teutonic races, and all Europe had been inhabited by the Celts even to the borders of Sarmatia, has been a question much disputed by historians and antiquaries. The German and French writers generally contend that the Celts inhabited all the north of Europe, as far at least as Sarmatia; but some respectable English writers are of a different opinion. Now it is agreed that the Welsh are descendants of the Cimbri, inhabitants of Jutland; and their language bears a strong affinity to the Celtic languages which still exist; a fact that countenances the opinion of the German and French writers. But the dispute is of little moment: the Celtic, Teutonic and Gothic races being all of the Japhetic stock, migrating from Asia through Asia Minor at different times, and pursuing different courses westward. The first tribes probably sought the warm climates along the north coast of the Mediterranean, and established themselves in Greece and Italy. Others followed the course of the Danube and its subsidiary streams, till they fell upon the rivers that conducted them to the Baltic. The first inhabitants of Greece and Italy were probably of the Celtic race; but if they were, it is very evident that tribes of the Teutonic or Gothic races invaded those countries before they were civilized, and intermingled with the original inhabitants. The Pelasgi may have been among the number. This is an inference which I draw from the affinities of the Greek and Latin languages with those of Teutonic origin. The Teutonic and Gothic races impressed their language upon all the continent of Europe west of the Vistula, and from that river to the Rhine, or rather to the Seine, anterior to the conquest of Gaul by Julius Cesar. The same races invading and conquering the south of Europe, in the fourth and fifth centuries, on the downfall of the Roman empire, infused a portion of their language into the Italian and Spanish, which is still distinguishable.
	The ancient Sarmatia, including Poland and Russia, was probably peopled originally by races of men who passed into Europe by the country north of the Euxine. Their original residence was along the rivers Kur and Araxes, or on the mountains between the Euxine and Caspian. The name of the Russ or Russians is clearly recognized in the Roxolani of Pliny and Ptolemy, and possibly the ancestors of this race may have entered Europe by Asia Minor. That the Teutonic races, originally from Persia, inhabited Asia Minor, and migrated westward by that course, is evident from the names which they impressed on mountains, rivers and places. Such are the Cragus of Pliny, the Welsh and English crag; Perga in Pamphylia, now burg or bergen; Thymbreck, the name of a small stream, near the site of Troy; a word in which we recognize the English brook; it was contracted by the Greeks into Thymbrius.
	It is admitted by all gentlemen acquainted with oriental literature, that the Sanscrit, or ancient language of India, the parent of all the dialects of that great peninsula, is radically the same language or from the same stock as the Greek and Latin; the affinities between them being remarkably clear and decisive. If so, the inhabitants of India and the descendants of the Celtic and Teutonic nations are all of one family, and must have all migrated from one country after the separation of the nations of the Shemitic stock from those of the Japhetic race.
	Whether that country was Persia, or Cashmir, or a country further east, is a point not easily determined. One important inference results from this fact, that the white men of Europe and the black or tawny men of India, are direct descendants from a common ancestor.
	Of the languages of Europe, the Greek was first improved and refined, and next to that the Latin. The affinity between these languages and those of the west and north of Europe is very striking, and demonstrates their common origin. It is probable, however, that there are some words in the Greek derived from Africa, if Egyptian colonies were established in Greece, as historians inform us.
	The modern Italian, Spanish, French and Portuguese, are composed chiefly of Latin words, much altered, however, both in orthography and inflections. Perhaps nine tenths of all the words now found in those languages, are of Latin origin; being introduced by the Romans, who held Gaul in subjection five or six centuries, and Spain much longer; or being borrowed from Latin authors, since the revival of letters. All these languages, however, retain many words of Celtic origin; the primitive language not having been entirely extirpated. In some instances, the same word has been transmitted through both channels, the Celtic and the Latin, and is yet retained. Thus in French céder, and in Italian cedere, is directly from the Latin cedo; while the French congedier, and Italian congedare, are composed of the same word, with a prefix, derived from the Celtic, and retained in the Welsh gadaw, to quit, to leave, [L. concedo.) And this same verb probably appears also in quit, a word common to the Teutonic and to the Celtic languages. See Conge in the Dictionary.
	It must be observed further, that the Spanish language contains some words of African origin, introduced by the Carthaginians before the Roman conquest of Spain, or afterward by the Moors, who for several centuries, were masters of that country. It contains also some words of Gothic origin, introduced by the Goths who conquered that country, at the downfall of the Roman Empire. The French also contains some words of Teutonic origin, either from the Belgic tribes who occupied the country to the Seine at the time of Cesar’s invasion, or from the Franks who established the dynasty of the Merovingian kings in the fifth century, or from the Normans who obtained possession of the northern part of that kingdom in the tenth century, or from all these sources.
	The German, Dutch or Belgic, Anglo-Saxon, Danish and Swedish languages, are of Teutonic or Gothic origin. They are all closely allied; a great part of the words in them all being the same or from the same roots, with different prefixes or affixes. There is, however, a greater difference between the Danish and Swedish, which are of the Gothic stock, and the German and Dutch, which are of Teutonic origin, than between two languages of the same stock, as between the Danish and Swedish. The Norwegian, Icelandic, and some of the languages or dialects of Switzerland, belong to the same stock; but of these I have no particular knowledge.
	The Basque or Cantabrian in Spain; the Gaelic in the north of Scotland, and the Hiberno-Celtic or native language of Ireland, are the purest remains of the ancient Celtic. From a comparison of a vocabulary of the Gaelic and Hiberno-Celtic, I find little or no difference between them; and from a long and attentive examination of this language, and of the languages of Teutonic origin, I find less difference between them than most authors have supposed to exist.
	The Armoric or language of Brittany in the northwest angle of France, and the Cornish, in the southwest of England, are also of Celtic origin. The Cornish is now extinct; but the Armoric is a living language.
	The English, as now spoken, is a language composed of words from several others. The basis of the language is Anglo-Saxon, or, as I shall, for the sake of brevity, call it, Saxon, by which it is closely allied to the languages of Teutonic and Gothic origin on the continent. But it retains a great number of words from ancient languages of Britain, the Belgic or Lloegrian, and the Cymraeg or Welsh, particularly from the latter, and some from the Cornish. Cesar informs us that before he invaded Britain, Belgic colonies had occupied the southern coast of England; and the inhabitants of the interior, northern and western parts, were the ancestors of the present Welsh, who call themselves Cymry, and their country Cymru, a name which indicates their origin from the Cimbri, inhabitants of the modern Denmark, or Cimbric Chersonese, now Jutland.
	The modern Welsh contains many Latin words introduced by the Romans, who had possession of Britain for five hundred years. But the body of the language is probably their vernacular tongue.. It is more nearly allied to the languages of Celtic origin, than to those of the Teutonic and Gothic stock; and of this British language, the Cornish and Armoric are dialects.
	It has been commonly supposed that the Britons were nearly exterminated by the Saxons, and that the few that survived, escaped into the west of England, now Wales. It is true that many took refuge in Wales, which their descendants still retain; but it can not be true that the other parts of England were entirely depopulated. On the other hand, great numbers must have escaped slaughter, and been intermixed with their Saxon conquerors. The Welsh words, which now form no unimportant part of the English language, afford decisive evidence of this fact. It is probable, however, that these words were for a long time used only by the common people, for few of them appear in the early Saxon writers.
	The English contains also many words introduced by the Danes, who were for some time masters of England; which words are not found in the Saxon. These words prevail most in the northern counties of England; but many of them are incorporated into the body of the language.
	After the Conquest, the Norman kings endeavored to extirpate the English language, and substitute the Norman. For this purpose, it was ordained that all law proceedings and records should be in the Norman language; and hence the early records and reports of law cases came to be written in Norman. But neither royal authority, nor the influence of courts, could change the vernacular language. After an experiment of three hundred years, the law was repealed; and since that period, the English has been, for the most part, the official, as well as the common language of the nation. A few Norman words, however, remain in the English; most of them in law language.
	Since the Conquest, the English has not suffered any shock from the intermixture of conquerors with the natives of England; but the language has undergone great alterations, by the disuse of a large portion of Saxon words, and the introduction of words from the Latin and Greek languages, with some French, Italian, and Spanish words. These words have, in some instances, been borrowed by authors directly from the Latin and Greek; but most of the Latin words have been received through the medium of the French and Italian. For terms in the sciences, authors have generally resorted to the Greek; and from this source, as discoveries in science demand new terms, the vocabulary of the English language is receiving continual augmentation. We have also a few words from the German and Swedish, mostly terms in mineralogy; and commerce has introduced new commodities of foreign growth or manufacture, with their foreign names, which now make a part of our language. — Such are camphor, amber, arsenic, and many others.
	The English then is composed of,
	1st, Saxon and Danish words of Teutonic and Gothic origin.
	2nd, British or Welsh, Cornish and Armoric, which may be considered as of Celtic origin.
	3rd, Norman, a mixture of French and Gothic.
	4th, Latin, a language formed on the Celtic and Teutonic.
	5th, French, chiefly Latin corrupted, but with a mixture of Celtic.
	6th, Greek, formed on the Celtic and Teutonic, with some Coptic.
	7th, A few words directly from the Italian, Spanish, German, and other languages of the continent.
	8th, A few foreign words, introduced by commerce, or by political and literary intercourse.
	Of these, the Saxon words constitute our mother tongue; being words which our ancestors brought with them from Asia. The Danish and Welsh also are primitive words, and may be considered as a part of our vernacular language. They are of equal antiquity with the Chaldee and Syriac.

AFFINITY OF LANGUAGES.

	On comparing the structure of the different languages of the Shemitic and Japhetic stocks, we can not but be struck with the fact, that although a great number of words consisting of the same or of cognate letters, and conveying the same ideas, are found in them all; yet in the inflections, and in the manner of forming compounds and derivatives, there are remarkable differences between the two great families. In the modifications of the verb, for expressing person, time, and mode, very little resemblance is observable between them. If we could prove that the personal terminations of the verb, in the Japhetic languages, were originally pronouns, expressive of the persons, we should prove an affinity between the words of the two races in a most important particular. Some attempts of this kind have been made, but not with very satisfactory results.
	In the formation of nouns, we recognize a resemblance between the English termination th, in birth, truth, drouth, [Saxon drugothe,] warmth, &c., and the Shemitic terminations ית and ות; and the old plural termination en, retained in oxen, and the Welsh plural, ending ion, coincide nearly with the Arabic termination of the dual number ن ا an, and the regular masculine plural termination وُن‎ on, as well as with the Chaldee, Hebrew, and Syriac  ין in. And it is justly remarked by Mitford, that in the variety of plural terminations of nouns, there is a striking resemblance between the Arabic and the Welsh. There is one instance, in the modern languages of Teutonic origin, in which we find the Arabic nunnation: — this is the German and Dutch binnen, the Saxon binnan or binnon, signifying within, Hebrew and Chaldee ין ב Ar. بَيْنَ bin, without the mark of nunnation when it signifies within; but when it signifies separation, space, interval, the original sense, it is written بَيْنٌ, and pronounced, with the nunnation, like the Teutonic word binnon.
	One mode of forming nouns from verbs in the Shemitic languages is by prefixing m.  I know of no instance of this manner of formation in the Japhetic languages, except in some names which are of oriental origin. Mars is said to be from αρης, but if so, the word was undoubtedly formed in the east. So we find Morpheus, the god of sleep, to be probably formed with the prefix m, from the Ethiopic አዐረፈ aorf, to rest, to fall asleep; whence we infer that Morpheus is sleep deified.
	But as many words in all the languages of Europe and Asia are formed with prepositions, perhaps it may be found on examination, that some of these prefixes may be common to the families of both stocks, the Japhetic and the Shemitic. We find in German gemüth in Dutch gemoed, from muth, moed, mind, mood. We find mad in Saxon is gemaad; polish, the Latin polio, is in Welsh caboli; mail in Italian is both maglia and camaglia; belief in Saxon is geleaf, and in German glaube. We find that in the Shemitic languages מלא signifies to fill or be full, and we find in the Arabic كَمَلَ‎‎ kamala, has the same signification. In Syriac, ܔܠ gal signifies to remove; and ܒܔܠ kagal, signifies to wander in mind, to be delirious. In Chaldee and Syriac, דמר is to wonder, precisely the Latin demiror, which is a compound of de and miror.
	We find also that nations differ in the orthography of some initial sounds, where the words are the same. Thus the Spanish has llamar, llorar, for the Latin clamo, ploro; and the Welsh has llawr, for the English floor, llabi, a tall, lank person, coinciding with flabby, llac for slack, and the like.
	As the prepositions and prefixes, in all languages, constitute an important class of words, being used in composition to vary the sense of other parts of speech, to an almost unlimited extent, it may be useful to give them a particular consideration.
	The simple prepositions are, for the most part, verbs or participles, or derived from them; when verbs, they are the radical or primary word, sometimes varied in orthography by the addition or alteration of a single vowel, or perhaps, in some cases, by the loss of the initial consonant, or aspirate. Such are the Greek παρα, περι, κατα; the Latin con and per; the English for, which retain their original consonants. The following, of, by, in, on, un; the Latin ab, ad, pro, præ, re; the Greek απο, επι, προ, may have lost the initial or final consonants; of for hof; in for hin; ab for hab; pro for prod. In some words this loss can only be conjectured; in others, it is known or obvious. Thus the English by and be was originally big, as it is in the Saxon; and the Latin re is written also red, evidently a derivative of an Arabic verb still existing; the Latin sub and super are formed probably from the Greek ύπο, ύπερ, by the change of an aspirate into ς, or the Greek words have lost that letter. The English but in the phrase “They are all here but one,” is a participle; the Saxon butan, or buton; Dutch buiten, from buiten, to rove. Among is the Saxon gemang the verb, or the participle of gemengan, to mingle.
	In general, the primary sense of the preposition is moving, or moved. Thus to in English, and ad in Latin, primarily denote advancing toward a place or object; as in the sentence, “We are going to town.” From, of, Lat. ab, Gr.απο, denote motion from a place or object. The French près, is from the Italian presso, and this is the Latin participle pressus, pressed; hence it denotes near, close.
	In some instances prepositions are compounds, as the English before; that is, be or by fore, by the front; and the Fr. auprès, at or near.
	Prepositions, from their frequent use and from the ease with which their primary signification is modified to express differences of position, motion or relation, as occasions demand, have, in many instances, a great variety of applications; not indeed as many as lexicographers sometimes assign to them, but several different, and sometimes opposite significations; as for examples, the English for, with; the Latin con, and the Greek παρα. For, which is from the root of the Saxon faran, Gr. πορευoμαι, to pass, denotes toward, as in the phrase “A ship bound for Jamaica;” or it denotes in favor of, as “This measure is for the public benefit;” or “The present is for a friend.” But it denotes also opposition or negation, as in forbear, forgive, forbid.
	With is a verb, but has rather the sense of a participle. It is found in the Gothic with a prefix, ga-withan, to join or unite. Its primary sense then is joined, close; hence, in company; as in the sentences – “Go with him,” “Come with me.” It has the sense also of from, against, contrariety, opposition, as in withdraw, withstand, without. In Saxon it had also the sense of toward, as “with corthan,” toward the earth; also of for, denoting substitution or equivalent in exchange, as “sylan with dæges weorce,” to give for a day’s work; also of opposite, over against, as “with tha sæ,” opposite the sea.
	Con in Latin generally signifies with, toward or to, denoting closeness or union, approach, joint operation and the like, as in concurro, conjungo, congredior; but it has also the sense of against or opposition, as in contendo.
	The Greek παρα is doubtless from the root of the English fare, Saxon faran, to go, to pass. It signifies from, that is, departure – also at, to, Lat. ad; near, with, beyond, and against.
	To understand the cause of the different and apparently contrary significations, we are to attend to the primary sense. The effect of passing to a place is nearness, at, presso, près, and this may be expressed by the participle, or, in a contracted form, by the verb. The act of passing or moving toward a place, readily gives the sense of such prepositions as to, and the Latin ad, and this advance may be in favor or for the benefit of a person or thing, the primary sense of which may perhaps be best expressed by toward; “A present or a measure is toward him.” But when the advance of one thing toward another is in enmity or opposition, we express the sense by against, and this sense is especially expressed when the motion or approach is in front of a person, or intended to meet or counteract another motion. Hence the same word is often used to express both senses; the context determining which signification is intended. Thus for in English, in the sentence, “He that is not for us is against us,” denotes in favor of. But in the phrase, “for all that,” it denotes opposition. “It rains, but for all that, we will take a ride,” that is, in opposition to that, or notwithstanding the rain, we will ride.
	The Greek παρα, among other senses, signifies beyond, that is, past, and over, Hebrew עבר.
	The prepositions which are used as distinct words, are called separable prepositions, or more generally prepositions: – those which are used only in composition are called inseparable prepositions. For the sake of brevity, I give to all words or single letters, prefixed to other words in composition, the general name of prefixes.
	One of the best modes of ascertaining the true sense of a preposition, is, to examine its various uses in composition, and discover what effect it has in modifying the signification of the word to which it is prefixed.
	Prepositions, used in compounds, often suffer the loss or change of a letter, for the sake of euphony, or the ease of pronunciation. Thus ad in Latin becomes f in affero; con becomes col in colligo; the Greek παρα loses a letter in παρειμι, as does αντι in many words.
	The following sketch of the principal prepositions and prefixes in several languages of Europe, will exhibit some of the affinities of these languages, and, in a degree, illustrate the uses of this class of words.

SAXON AND GOTHIC.

	And, Saxon and Gothic, signifies against, opposite. This is the Greek αντι, and Latin ante, not borrowed from the Greek or Latin, but a native word. Examples, andstandan, to stand against, to resist; andswarian, answarian, to answer; that is, to speak again, against or in return.
	Amb, emb, ymb, usually emb, Saxon, signifying about, around; coinciding with the Latin amb, and Greek αμφι. Example, emb-faran, to go around, to walk about; embutan, about; emb, about; and butan, without. See But. Ambeht, embeht, ymbeht, office, duty; whence we have embassador. This in Gothic is andbahtei; and a bailif, minister or servant, is andbahts. The Germans have the word contracted in amt, charge, office, Dutch ampt, Danish ambt. The Gothic orthography gives rise to the question whether amb, emb, and αντι, Saxon and Gothic and, are not radically the same word; and it is very certain that the Gothic and Saxon and, is radically the same word as the Latin in, Danish ind. So in Gothic, “and wigans,” in the ways, into the highways. Luke xiv. 23. “and haimos,” per vices, through the towns. Luke ix. 6.
	This preposition, amb, is in Dutch om; in German um; in Swedish and Danish om.
	At, is a Gothic preposition and prefix, coinciding with English at, Latin ad.
	Be, in Saxon, as a preposition and prefix, is always written be, or big, answering to the English by, a preposition and be in beset. In Gothic, it is written bi, by and be, being contractions of big. The primary and principal signification is near, close; as “Stand or sit by me.” So in the word bystander. It is a prefix of extensive use in the Saxon, German, Dutch, Danish and Swedish. Its use in denoting instrumentality, may be from the sense of nearness, but more probably it is from passing like per, through, or it denotes proceeding from, like of, as “Salvation is of the Lord.”
	For, in Saxon, as in English, is a preposition and prefix of extensive use. In Saxon for signifies a going, from faran, to go, to fare. It is radically the same word as fore, in the sense of in front, before. Its primary sense is advancing; hence moving toward; hence the sense of in favor of, and that of opposition, or negation. See the preceding remarks.
	This word in German is für, but, with this orthography, the word is little used in composition. Yet the German has fürbitte, intercession or praying for; fürwort, intercession, recommendation, and a pronoun [forword;] and für-wahr, forsooth.
	In the sense of fore, the German has vor, a word of extensive use as a prefix. Thus in Saxon foreseon to foresee, is in German vorsehen. The identity of these words will not be questioned. But in German as in Dutch the preposition ver, which is the English far, and Saxon fyr, is used in composition, in words in which the Saxon and English have for. Thus forgifan, to forgive; is in German vergeben, and in Dutch vergeeven – Saxon, forgitan, to forget; German vergessen; Dutch vergeeten. Hence we see that the Saxon for, fore, fyr, the English for, fore, far, and the German für, vor and ver, are from the same radix.
	In Dutch, for and fore are represented by voor, and ver represents for and far.
	The Danish also unites for and fore, as does the Swedish.
	The French has this word in pour, and the Spanish and Portuguese in por. The latter signifies not only for, but through, as in Portuguese, “Eu passarei por França,” I will pass through France. Here we see the sense of moving. In Spanish and Portuguese this word is written also para, as if from the Greek. It is evidently the same word, probably received through a different channel from that of por. Now through is the exact sense of the Latin per; and per is the Italian preposition answering to for and por. But, what is more to the purpose, the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese word, equivalent to the English forgive, is in Spanish perdonar; in Italian perdonare, and in Portuguese perdoar; and the French is pardonner. Here then we have strong if not conclusive evidence, that for, pour, por, per, par, and para, in different languages, are all from one stock, the word being varied in dialect, or by the different families; just as we have far, as well as the Saxon fyr, and the English forth, further, from the same primitive word. We have the same word in pursue and purchase, from the French pour.
	The Greek has περαν, and παρα, probably from the same root, as well as πορευομαι, πορος.
	Ga, in Gothic, which is ge in Saxon, is a prefix of very extensive use. In Saxon, it is prefixed to a large portion of all the verbs in the language. According to Lye, it has sometimes the sense of the Latin cum; but in most words I can not discern any effect of this prefix on the signification of the simple verb. It is retained in the Danish and in some German and Dutch words, especially in the participles of verbs, and in nouns formed from them. But it is remarkable that although the Saxon is our mother tongue, we have not remaining in the language a single instance of this prefix, with the original orthography. The only remains of it are in the contraction a, as in awake, adrift, ashamed, &c, from gewæcan, awæcan; gedrifan, adrifan; gesceamian, ascamian. The letter y prefixed to verbs and participles used by Chaucer, as yberied, yblent, ybore, ydight, and a few others, is the remnant of the ge. The words yclad, and ycleped, are the last English words used in which this letter appears.
	It is possible that the first syllable of govern, from Latin guberno, Greek , may be the same prefix; or it may be the Welsh prefix go, which occurs in goberu, to work, which the Romans wrote operor. But I know not whether the first syllable of govern is a prefix or not.
	There is another word which retains this prefix corrupted, or its equivalent; this is common, which we have received from the Latin communis. This word in the Teutonic dialects is, Saxon gemæne; German gemein; Dutch gemeen; Danish gemcen; Swedish gemen. Now if this is the Latin communis, and of the identity of the last component part of the word, there can, I think, be no doubt; then the first part of the word is the Teutonic ge altered to com, or, what is more probable, com is the equivalent of ge, or ge may be a contracted and corrupted form of cum, com. In either case, we arrive at the conclusion that the Teutonic ge, and the Latin cum, are equivalent in signification.
	In, is used in the Saxon and Gothic, as in modern English. It is in German ein, Dutch and Swedish in, Danish ind, Greek εν, Latin in, French en. This is radically the same word as on and un, the German aan, Dutch aan, and Welsh an. In its original sense, it implies moving, advancing toward, and hence its use as a particle of negation or contrariety. “Eunt in urbem,” They are going to the city. “Hæc audio in te dici,” I hear these things said against you. In modern military usage, on is used in the same sense of advancing: “The army is marching on Liege.”
	Mid, in Saxon, signifies with. It is the Gothic mith, German mit, Dutch mede or met, and the Greek μετα; but not retained in English. It seems to have the same origin as mid, middle, amidst. In the Gothic it is used as a prefix.
	Miss, a prefix, is the verb miss, to deviate. It is used in Saxon, German, Dutch, Swedish and Danish, in nearly the same sense as in English. Its radical sense is to depart or wander.
	Of, is a preposition and prefix of extensive use in the Saxon, as in English. It denotes primarily, issuing, or proceeding from; hence separation, departure, and distance: in the latter sense, it is written off. It is the Latin ab, written by the early Romans af; the Greek απο, the German ab, the Dutch af; Danish and Swedish af. The Saxons often prefixed this word in cases where we use it after the verb as a modifier; as of-drifan, to drive off; as it is still used by the Germans, Dutch, Swedes and Danes. We retain it as a prefix, in offset and offspring, Saxon of-spring. As it denotes proceeding from, it is the proper sign of the genitive case; the case expressing production.
	Ofer, English over, Gothic ufar, German über, Dutch over, Danish over, Swedish ofver, is a preposition and prefix, in all the Teutonic and Gothic languages which I have examined; and in the same or similar senses. This seems to be the Greek ύπερ, from which the Latins formed super by converting the aspirate of the Greek vowel into s. This is probably the Heb. Ch. Syr. Ar. עבר,  to pass, a passing, beyond.
	On, is a Saxon preposition and prefix of very extensive use. It is obviously a different orthography of in, and it is used for in in the Saxon, as “on onginn,” in the beginning. It has also the sense we now give to on and upon, with other modifications of signification.
	In composition, on signifies into, or toward, as on-blawan, to blow in; onclifian, to adhere, to cleave to; and it is also a particle of negation, like un, as onbindan, to unbind. This on is only a different spelling of un, in Dutch on; German un, used as a word of negation. The Gothic has un and und, in the like sense, as the Danish has un; the Dutch ont. In this sense, un answers precisely to the Greek αντι, and as this is sometimes written und in Gothic, as in is written ind in Danish, there can be little doubt that in, on, un, , are all from one stock. The original word may have been han, hin, or hon; such loss of the first letter is very common; and inn, from the Ch. and Heb. חנה presents us with an example. See In and Inn in the Dictionary.
	The German has an, and the Dutch aan, in the sense of in and on.
	Oth, is a Saxon preposition and prefix, sometimes written ath and ed, and answering nearly to the Latin ad an re; as in oth-witan, contracted, to twit, to throw in the teeth. It has also the sense of from, or away, or against as in othswerian, to abjure. This preposition is obsolete, but we have the remains of it in twit, and perhaps in few other words.
	Sam, samod, a prefix. See the Danish and Swedish infra.
	To, is a preposition and prefix of extensive use in our mother tongue. It occurs as a prefix in such words as, to-bræcan, to break; to-beran, to bring or bear [ad-ferre.] We retain it in together, Saxon togædere; and in toward, Saxon toward, towardes; and in tomorrow, today, tonight. The Dutch write it too, and the Germans zu, and both nations use it extensively as a prefix. In Gothic it is written du, as in du-ginnan, to gin, that is, to begin. It would be gratifying to learn whether the Ethiopic ተ which is prefixed to many verbs, is not the remains of the same preposition.
	Un, is a Saxon prefix of extensive use, as a privative or particle of negation. See On and In.
	Under, is a Saxon preposition and prefix of considerable use, in the present English sense. The Germans write it unter, and the Dutch onder, and use it in like manner. The Danes and Swedes write it under, and use it in the same sense.
	Up, uppe, is a Saxon preposition and prefix of considerable use, in the present English sense. The Gothic has uf, in the sense of the Latin sub. The Germans write it auf and the Dutch op, the Danes op, and the Swedes up, and all use it as a prefix.
	Us, in Gothic, is a preposition and prefix. This is the German aus, and equivalent to the Latin ex. It is the Saxon ut, the English out, Dutch uit, Swedish ut, and Danish ud, dialectically varied. To this answers the Welsh ys, used in composition, but ys seems rather to be a change of the Latin ex, for the Latin expello is written in Welsh yspeliaw, and extendo is estyn.
	Wither, in Saxon, from the root of with, denotes against, or opposition. It is a prefix in Saxon, written in German wider, in Dutch weder; Danish and Swedish veder. It is obsolete, but retained in the old law term withernam, a counter-taking or distress.
	In the German language, there are some prepositions and prefixes not found in the Saxon; as,
	Ent, denoting from, out, away.
	Er, without, out or to. Danish er.
	Nach, properly nigh, as in nachbar, neighbor; but its most common signification in composition is after; as in nachgchen, to go after. This sense is easily deducible from its primary sense, which is close, near, from urging, pressing, or following. In Dutch, this word is contracted to na, as in nabuur, neighbor; nagaan, to follow. The Russ has na also, a prefix of extensive use, and probably the same word. This fact suggests the question, whether the ancestors of these great families of men bad not their residence in the same or an adjoining territory. It deserves also to be considered whether this na, is not the Shemitic נ, occurring as a prefix to verbs.
	Weg, is a prefix used in the German and Dutch. It is the Saxon, German, and Dutch weg, way; in the sense of away, or passing from, from the verb, in Saxon wægan, wegan, to carry, to weigh, English to wag, the sense of which is to move or pass; as German wegfallen, to fall off or away.
	Zer, in German, denotes separation.
	In the Gothic dialects, Danish and Swedish, fra is used as a prefix. This is the Scottish fra, English from, of which it may be a contraction.
	Fram in Swedish, and frem in Danish, is also a prefix. The primary sense is to go, or proceed, and hence it denotes moving to or toward, forth, &c. as in Danish frem-förer, to bring forth; fremkalder, to call for. But in Danish, fremmed is strange, foreign, and it is probable that the English from is from the same root, with a different application. It may be from the same stuck as the Gothic frum, origin, beginning, Latin primus, signifying to shoot forth, to extend, to pass along.
	Gien, igien, in Danish, and igen, in Swedish, is the English gain in again, against. This is a prefix in both these Gothic languages. It has the sense of the Latin re, as in igienkommer, to come back, to return; of against, as in igienkalder, to countermand, or recall; of again, as gienbinder, to bind again. This may be the Latin con.
	Mod, in Danish, and mot, emot, in Swedish, is a preposition, signifying to, toward, against, contrary, for, by, upon, out, &c.; as “mod staden,” toward the city; modstrider, to resist; modgift, an antidote; modbör, a contrary wind; modrind, the same. This is the English meet, in the Gothic orthography, motyan, to meet, whence to moot.
	O, in Swedish, is a negative or privative prefix, as in otidig, immature, in English, not tidy. It is probably a contracted word.
	Paa, in Danish, på in Swedish, is a preposition and prefix, signifying on, in, upon. Whether this is allied to be, by, and the Russ. po, I shall not undertake to determine with confidence; but it probably is the same, or from the same source.
	Samman, signifying together, and from the root of assemble, is a prefix of considerable use in both languages. It answers to the Saxon sam, samod, equivalent to the Latin con or cum. It seems to be allied to same and the Latin similis.
	Til, both in Danish and Swedish, is a prefix, and in Danish, of very extensive use. It is equivalent to the English to or toward, and signifies also at, in, on, by, and about, and in composition often has the sense of back or re, as in tilbage, backward, that is to back; but generally it retains the sense of to or onward; as in tilbyder, to offer, that is, to speak or order to; tildriver, to drive on; tilgiver, to allow, to pardon, that is, to give to, and hence to give back, to remit. This is the English till, which we use in the same sense as the Danes, but in English it always refers to time, whereas in Danish and Swedish, it refers to place. Thus we can not say, “We are going till town:” but we say, “Wait till I come, till my arrival;” literally, “Wait to I come, to my arrival;” that is, to the time of arrival. The difference is not in the sense of the preposition, but in its application.
	The Scotch retain the Danish and Swedish use of this word; no slight evidence of their origin.
	U, in Danish, the Swedish O, is a prefix, equivalent to in, and is used as a privative or negative; as in uaar, an unseasonable year; uartig, uncivil.

RUSSIAN.

	Vo or ve, signifies in, at, by, and may possibly be from the same root as the English be, by. But see po.
	Za, is a prefix signifying for, on account of, by reason of, after; as in zariduyu, to envy, from vid, visage; viju, to see, Latin video; zadirayu, from deru, to tear; zamirayu, to be astonished or stupefied, from the root of Latin miror, and Russian mir, peace; miryu, to pacify, to reconcile; mirnie, pacific; zamirenie, peace, pacification; zamiriayu, to make peace; Arm. miret, to hold, to stop; the radical sense of wonder, astonishment, and of peace.
	Ko, a preposition, signifying to, toward, far.
	Na, a preposition and prefix, signifying on, upon, at, for, to, seems to be the German nach, Dutch na; as in nagrada, recompense; na, and the root of Latin gratia; nasidayu, to sit down, &c.
	Nad, a preposition, signifying above or upon.
	O, a preposition, signifying of or from, and for.
	Ob, a preposition and prefix, signifying to, on, against, about; as obncmayu, to surround, to embrace; ob and Saxon neman, to take.
	Ot, is a preposition, signifying from, and it may be the English out.
	Po, is a preposition and prefix of extensive use, signifying in, by, after, from, &c. as podayu, to give to; polagayu, to lay, to expend, employ, lay out; to tax or assess; to establish or fix; to believe or suppose; po and lay. This corresponds with English by, and the Latin has it in possideo, and a few other words. [Saxon besittan.] Pomen, remembrance, po and mens, mind.
	Rad, a preposition, signifying for, or for the love of.
	So, a preposition and prefix of extensive use, signifying with, of, from; and as a mark of comparison, it answers nearly to the English so or as.
	Y, with the sound of u, is a preposition and prefix of extensive use. It signifies near, by, at, with, as uberayu, to put in order, to adjust, to cut, to reap, to mow, to dress, French parer, Latin paro; ugoda, satisfaction; ugodnei, good, useful, English good; udol, a dale, from dol.

WELSH.

	The prefixes in the Welsh language are numerous. The following are the principal.
	Am, about, encompassing, Saxon amb, Greek αμφι.
	An. See Saxon In.
	Cy, cyd, cyv, cym, implying union, and answering to cum, con and co to Latin. Indeed cym, written also cyv, seems to be the Latin cum, and cy may be a contraction of it, like co in Latin. Ca seems also to be a prefix, as in caboli, to polish, Latin polio.
	Cyn, cynt, former, first, as if allied to begin.
	Di, negative and privative.
	Dis, negative and precise.
	Dy, iterative.
	E and ec, adversative.
	Ed and eit, denoting repetition, like re, Saxon ed, oth.
	Es, separating, like Latin ex. See ys.
	Go, extenuating, inchoative, approaching, going, denotes diminution or a less degree, like the Latin sub; as in gobrid, somewhat dear. This seems to be from the root of English go.
	Han, expressive of origination.
	Lled, partly, half.
	Oll, all.
	Rhag, before.
	Rhy, over, excessive.
	Tra, over, beyond. Latin trans.
	Try, through.
	Ym, mutual, reflective.
	Ys, denoting from, out of, separation, proceeding from, answering to the Latin ex; as yspeliano, to expel. So es, Welsh estyn, to extend.
	Most of these prepositions, when used as prefixes, are so distinct as to be known to be prefixes.
	But in some instances, the original preposition is so obscured by a loss or change of letters, as not to be obvious, nor indeed discoverable, without resorting to an ancient orthography. Thus without the aid of the Saxon orthography, we should probably not be able to detect the component parts of the English twit. But in Saxon it is written edwitan and othwitan; the preposition or prefix oth, with witan, to disallow, reproach, or cast in the teeth.
	It has been above suggested to be possible, that in the Shemitic languages, the נ in triliteral roots, may be the same prefix as the Russian na, the Dutch na, and the German nach. Let the reader attend to the following words.
	Hebrew נבט, to look, to behold, to regard. The primary sense of look, is, to reach, extend, or throw. Ch., to look; also to bud or sprout.
	Ar. نَبَطَ nabata, to spring, or issue as water; to flow out; to devise or strike out; to draw out.
	If the first letter is a prefix, the Hebrew word would accord with Latin video; the Chaldee, with video and with bud, Spanish botar, French bouton, bouter, to put, and English to pout, and French bout, end, from shooting, extending.
	Ar.‎ نَبَتَ nabatha, to bud; to germinate. See Ch. supra.
	Heb. נבל naval, to fall; to sink down; to wither; to fall off, as leaves and flowers; to act foolishly; to disgrace. Derivative, foolish; a foot; נפל nafal, Heb. Ch. Syr. Sam. to fall.
	Ch. נבל nabal, to make foul; to defile; that is, to throw or put on.
	Ar.‎ نَبَلَ nabala, to shoot, as an arrow; to drive as camels; to excel; also to die, that is, probably, to fall.
	Can there be any question, that fall, foul, and fool are this very word, without the first consonant? The Arabic without the first consonant agrees with Gr. , and the sense of falling then, is to throw one’s self down.
	Heb. נטר natar, to keep, guard, preserve, retain, observe.
	Ch., to observe; to keep; to lay up.
	Syr. and Sam. id.
	Eth. ነወረ natar, to shine.
	Ar. نَطَرَ natara, to keep; to see; to look; to attend.
	Remove the first letter, and this coincides with the Greek τηρεω.
	No person will doubt whether נמל namal, to circumcise, is formed on םול mul.
	Ch. נסר nasar, to cut; to saw. Syr. id; Lat. serra, serro.
	Ar. نَفِدَ nafida, to fade, to vanish, to perish, to be empty, to fail.
	Heb. נפח nafach, to blow, to breathe. Ch. Syr. Eth. Ar. id. from פוח, fuch, to blow.
	If the Shemitic נ in these and similar words is a prefix or the remains of a preposition, it coincides very closely with the Russ. and Dutch na, and the latter we know to be a contraction of the German nach. Now the German nach is the English nigh; for no person can doubt the identity of the German nachbar and the English neighbor.
	In the course of my investigations, I very early began to suspect that b, f, p, c, g and k, before l and r, are either casual letters, introduced by peculiar modes of pronunciation, or the remains of prepositions; most probably the latter. I had advanced far in my Dictionary, with increasing evidence of the truth of this conjecture, before I had received Owen’s Dictionary of the Welsh language. An examination of this work has confirmed my suspicions, or rather changed them into certainty.
	If we attend to the manner of articulating the letters, and the ease with which bl, br, fl, fr, pl, pr, cl, cr, gl, gr are pronounced, without an intervening vowel, even without a sheva, we shall not be surprised, that a preposition or prefix, like be, pe, pa, po, or ge, should, in a rapid pronunciation, lose its vowel, and the consonant coalesce closely with the first letter of the principal word. Thus blank, prank, might naturally be formed from belank, perank. That these words are thus formed, I do not know; but there is nothing in the composition of the words to render it improbable. Certain it is, that a vast number of words are formed with these prefixes, on other words, or the first consonant is a mere adventitious addition; for they are used with or without the first consonant. Take the following examples:
	Hiberno-Celtic, or Irish, brac or brach, the arm, is written also raigh, Welsh braiç, whence βραχιων, brachium. Braigh, the neck, Sax. hraca, Eng. rack, Gr. ραχις. Fraoch, heath, ling, brake, L. erica.
	Welsh llawr, Basque lurra, Eng. floor.
	Lat. floccus, Eng. flock or lock.
	Sax. hraccan, Eng. to reach, in vomiting.
	Sax. hracod, Eng. ragged.
	Ger. rock, Eng. frock.
	Dutch geluk, Ger. gluck, Eng. luck.
	Greek, Eolic dialect, , for , a rose.
	Latin clunis, Eng. loin, G. lende, W. clun, from llun.
	Eng. cream, Ger. rahm, Dutch room.
	Sax. hlaf, Polish chlieb, G. leib, Eng. loaf.
	Sax. hladan, Eng. to lade or load; Russ. kladu, to lay.
	Greek κλινω, Lat. clino, Sax. hlinian, hleonan, Russ klonyu, Eng. to lean.
	Greek λαγηνος, Lat. lagena, Eng. flagon.
	Sax. hrysan, Eng. to rush.
	French frapper, Eng. to rap.
	Sax. gerædian, to make ready; in Chaucer, greith, to make ready. Sax. hræd, quick; hradian, to hasten; hrædnes, Eng. readiness.
	Spanish frisar, to curl or frizzle; rizar, the same.
	Sax. gerefa, Eng. reeve, G. graf, D. graaf.
	Lat. glycyrrhiza, from the Greek; Eng. liquorice.
	But in no language have we such decisive evidence of the formation of words by prefixes, as in the Welsh.
	Take the following instances, from a much greater number that might be produced, from Owen’s Welsh Dictionary.
	Blanc, a colt, from llanc.
	Blith, milk, from lith.
	Bliant, fine linen, from lliant.
	Plad, a flat piece or plate, from llad.
	Pled, a principle of extension, from lled.
	Pledren, a bladder, from pledyr, that distends, from lled.
	Pleth, a braid, from lleth, Eng. plait.
	Plicciaw, to pluck, from llig.
	Ploc, a block, from lloc; plociaw, to block, to plug.
	Plwng, a plunge, from llwng, our vulgar lunge.
	Glwth, a glutton, from llwth.
	Glas, a blue color, verdancy, a green plat, whence Eng. glass, from llas.
	Glyd, gluten, glue, from llyd.
	Claer, clear, from llaer.
	Clav, sick, from llav.
	Clwpa, a club, a knob, from llwb.
	Clwt, a piece, a clout, from llwd, llwt.
	Clamp, a mass, a lump.
	Clawd, a thin board, from llawd.
	Cledyr, a board or shingle, whence cledrwy, lattice, from lled.
	Bran, Eng. bran, from rhan; rhanu, to rend.
	Brid, a breaking out, from rhid.
	Broç, noise, tumult, a brock, from rhoç.
	Broç, froth, foam, anger, broçi, to chafe or fret, from brwc, a boiling or ferment, from rhwc, something rough, a grunt, Gr. βρυχω.
	Bryd, what moves, impulse, mind, thought, from rhyd.
	Brys, quickness, brisiaw, to hasten, to shoot along, from rhys, Eng. to rush, and crysiaw, to hasten, from rhys, to rush. [Here is the same word rhys, with different prefixes, forming brysiaw and crysiaw. Hence W. brysg, Eng. brisk.]
	Graz, [pronounced grath,] a step, a degree, from rhaz, Lat. gradus, gradior.
	Greg, a cackling, from rheg.
	Grem, a crashing, gnash, a murmur, gremiaw, to crash or gnash, from rhem. Hence Lat. fremo, Gr. βρεμω.
	We have some instances of similar words in our own language; such are flag and lag; flap and lap; clump and lump.
	There is another class of words which are probably formed with a prefix of a different kind. I refer to words in which s precedes another consonant, as scalp, skull, slip, slide, sluggish, smoke, smooth, speed, spire, spin, stage, steep, stem, swell, spout. We find that tego, to cover, in Latin, is in Greek ζεγο; the Latin fallo, is in Greek σφαλλω. We find μαραγδος is written also σμαραγδος; and it may be inquired whether the English spin, is not from the same root as πηνη, web or woof, πηνιον, a spindle, πηνιζω, to spin. Sprout in English is in Spanish brota.
	We find the Welsh ysbrig, the English sprig, is a compound of ys, a prefix denoting issuing or proceeding from, like the Lat. ex, and brig, top, summit.
	Ysgar, a separate part, a share; ysgar, ysgaru, to divide; ysgariaw, to separate, is composed of ys and car, according to Owen; but the real root appears distinctly in the Gr. κειρω. This is the English shear, shire.
	Ysgegiaw, to shake by laying hold of the throat, to shake roughly, is a compound of ys and cegiaw, to choke, from ceg, the mouth, an entrance, a choking. This may be the English shake; Sax. sceacan.
	Ysgin, a robe made of skin; ys and cin, a spread or covering.
	Ysgodi, to shade; ysgawd, a shade; ys and cawd.
	Ysgrab, what is drawn up or puckered, a scrip; ys and crab, what shrinks. See Eng. crab, crabbed.
	Ysgravu, to scrape; ys and crav, claws, from rhav.
	Ysgreç, a scream, a shriek, ysgreçiaw, to shriek, from creç, a shriek, creçian, to shriek, from creg, cryg, hoarse, rough, from rhyg, rye, that is rough; the grain so named from its roughness. This is the English rough, Lat. raucus. Here we have the whole process of formation, from the root of rough. We retain the Welsh creçian, to shriek, in our common word, to creak, and with a formative prefix, we have shriek, and our vulgar screak. The Latin ruga, a wrinkle, Eng. rug, shrug, are probably from the same source.
	Ysgrivenu, to write, Lat. scribo, from ysgriv, a writing, from criv, a mark cut, a row of notches; criviaw, to cut, to grave; from rhiv, something that divides. Hence scrivener.
	Ysgub, a sheaf or bosom, ysgubaw, to sweep, Lat. scopæ, from cub, a collection, a heap, a cube.
	Ysgud, something that whirls; ysgudaw, to whisk or scud; from cud, celerity, flight; ysguth, ysguthaw, the same.
	Ysgwth, a push; ysgwthiaw, to push or thrust; from gwth, gwthiaw, the same; probably allied to Eng. shoot. The Welsh has ysgythu, to jet or spout, from the same root.
	Yslac, slack, loose; yslaciaw, to slacken; from llac, loose, slack, llaciaw, to slacken, from llag, slack, sluggish; allied to Eng. lag and slow.
	Yslapiaw, to slap, to flap, from yslab, what is lengthened or distended, from llab, a flag, a strip, a stroke. Llabi, a tall, lank person, a stripling, a looby, a lubber, is from the same root; llabiaw, to slap.
	Ysled, a sled, from lled, says Owen, which denotes breadth, but it is probably from the root of slide, a word probably from the same root as lled, that is, to extend, to stretch along.
	Ysmot, a patch, a spot; ysmotiaw, to spot, to dapple, from mod, Eng. mote.
	Ysmwciaw, ysmygu, to dim with smoke, from mwg, smoke. So smooth, from Welsh mwyth.
	Yspail, spoil, from pail, farina, says Owen. I should any from the root of palea, straw, refuse, that is, from the root of peel, to strip. Yspeiliota, to be pilfering.
	Yspeliaw, to expel, from pel, a ball, says Owen: but this is the Latin expello, from pello. Ball may be from the same root.
	Yspig, a spike, a spine; yspigaw, to spike; from pig, a sharp point, a pike. Hence Eng. spigot.
	Yspin, a spine, from pin, pen.
	Ysgynu, to ascend, Lat. ascendo, from cyn, first, chief, foremost. The radical sense is to shoot up.
	Yslwç, a slough, from llwc, a collection of water, a lake.
	Yspar, a spear, from pâr, a cause or principle of producing, the germ or seed of a thing, a spear. This consists of the same elements as ber, a spit, and Eng. bar, and in Italian bar is sbarra. The primary sense is to shoot, thrust, drive.
	Yspine, a finch, from pinc, gay, fine, brisk; a sprig, a finch.
	Ysplan, clear, bright; ysplana, to explain; from plan, that is parted off, a ray, a shoot, a planting, a plane; whence plant, a child; Eng., a plant; planu, to shoot, as a plant. Hence splendor, W. ysplander.
	Ysporthi, to support, from porth, a bearing, a port, passage, &c. Lat. porta, porto.
	Ystae, a stack, a heap; ystaca, a standard; from tag, a state of being stuffed or clogged.
	Ystad, a state; ystadu, to stay; from tad, that spreads, a continuity. The primary sense is to set.
	Ystain, that is spread; a stain; tin, Lat. stannum; ystaeniaw, to spread over, to stain; ystaenu, to tin, or cover with tin; from taen, a spread, a layer. Qu. is tin from spreading?
	Ystawl, a stool, from tawl, a cast or throw. The sense is to set, to throw down. Tawl is the root of deal.
	Ystor, a store, that forms a bulk, from tor, a swell, a prominence.
	Ystorm, a storm, from torm, that is stretched, but the sense is a rushing.
	Ystrym, a stream, from trym, compact, trim, that is, stretched, straight, from extending.
	Ystwmp, a stump, from twmp, a round mass, a tump.
	Yswatiaw, to squat, from yswad, a throw, or falling down, from gwad, a denial; gwadu, to deny or disown. If this deduction is correct, the sense of denial is a throwing or thrusting back; a repelling. It is so in other words.
	Yswitiaw, to chirp, twitter, from yswid, that makes a quick turn. Qu. twitter.
	In some of the foregoing words it appears evident that the Welsh prefix ys, is an alteration of the Latin ex, and the words in which this is the case, were probably borrowed from the Latin, while the Roman armies had possession of England. But there is a vast number of words, with this prefix, which are not of Latin origin; and whether ys is a native prefix in the Welsh, may be a question. One thing is certain, that s before another consonant, and coalescing with it, is, in a great number of words, a prefix.
	The modern Italian affords abundant proof of the extensive use of s, as the remains or representative of ex; as sballare, to unpack, unbale; sbarbato, beardless; sbattere, to abate; sbrancare, to pluck off branches; scaricare, to discharge; scommodare, to incommode; sconcordia, discord; scornare, to break the horns; scrostare, to pull off the crust; and a great number of others.
	Now if the same manner of forming words with this prefix has actually prevailed among the northern nations of Europe, we may rationally suppose, that many English words, and perhaps all of this class, are thus formed. Thus scatter may be formed from a root in Cd; shape, from Cb, Cf or Cp; skill, from the root of Lat. calleo; slip, from the root of Lat. labor; smart, from the root of Lat. amarus, bitter, Heb. מר; smite, from the root of Latin mitto; span, from the root of pan, to stretch; spar, from the root of bar; speak, from the root of Lat. voco; speed, from a root in Pd, perhaps Lat. peto; steal, from the root of Lat. tollo; steep, from the root of deep; stretch, from the root of reach; sweep, from the root of wipe; swan, from wan, white; swell, from the root of to well, Sax. wellan, to boil, &c. That many English and other Teutonic and Gothic words are thus formed, appears to be certain.
	These facts being admitted, let us examine a little further. In Russ, svadiba, is a wedding. Is not this formed on the root of wed, with s for a prefix ? Svara, is a quarrel. Is not this formed on the root of vary, variance, or of spar? Sverlo, is a borer; qu. bore and veru; svertivayu, to roll; qu. Lat. verto; skora, furs, peltry; qu. Fr. cuir; skot, a beast; qu. cattle; skupayu, to purchase in gross; qu. cheap, Dan. kioben, and its root; slabei, weak; qu. Lat. labor, lapsus; slagayu, to fold; qu. lay, and plico; slivayu, to pour out liquors; qu. Lat. libo; slupayu, to peel off bark or skin; qu. Lat. liber; snimayu, to take away; qu. Sax. neman, to take; snova, new; qu. Lat. novus; snig, sneig, snow, Fr. neige. The Lat. nivis is from this root, with g opened to v.  Russ. spletayu, to plait, &c.
	The Russ. prefix so, occurs in a great number of words; sobirayu, to collect or assemble, precisely the Heb. and Ch. צבר.
	It now becomes an interesting question, to determine how far any analogy exists between the languages of the Japhetic and Shemitic families in regard to prefixes. For example, in the Shemitic languages, ב is a prefix of extensive use, corresponding almost exactly with the English and Dutch by, the Saxon be, and German bei. This preposition and prefix has several senses in the Saxon which are now obsolete; but its present prevailing sense occurs in all the Shemitic languages. ברוח קרים עזה by a strong east wind. Ex. xiv. 21. Compare the following definitions of this preposition; the Sax. from Lye, and the Shemitic from Castle.
	Sax. de, e, ex, in, secus, ad, juxta, secundum, pro, per, super, propter, circa.
	Heb. Ch. Syr. in, e, ex, cum, propter, usque ad, adco ut, ad, super, per, contra, ante.
	Eth. in, per, pro, propter, cum, secundum, apud.
	Ar. in, cum, propter, per, ad, erga.
	In Numbers, xiv. 34, it signifies according to, or after; הימיס במספר, according to the number of days. This signification is now perhaps obsolete in English, but was common in the Saxon; as, “be his mægnum,” according to his strength; pro viribus suis. So “be tham mæstan,” by the most, is now expressed by, at the most.
	Now it is remarkable that this word in Hebrew, Arabic and Persic, is the preposition used in oaths, precisely as it is in English. Gen. xxii. 16, בי, By myself have I sworn. Arabic, ballah or by Allah; Persic, بخُد ا‎ bechoda, or begoda, by God, the very words now used in English. The evidence, then, is decisive, that the Shemitic prefix ב is the Teutonic be, by, bei, contracted, and this Teutonic word is certainly a contraction of big, which is used in the Saxon, especially in compound words, as in bigspell, [by-spell,] a fable; bigstandan, to stand by. This prefix, then, was in universal use by the original stock of mankind, before the dispersion; and this word alone is demonstrative proof of the common origin of the Shemitic and Teutonic languages. Now it is equally certain that this is the prefix b, and probably p, before 1 and r, in block, braigh, and a multitude of words in all the modern languages; and probably, the same letter is a prefix in many Shemitic words.
	We know that be in the Saxon bedælen, and Dutch bedeelen, is a prefix, as the simple verb is found in all the Teutonic and Gothic languages. The Hebrew and Chaldee ברל corresponds exactly in elements and in signification, with the Saxon and Dutch. Whether the first letter is a prefix in the latter languages, let the reader judge. See the word deal, which, when traced, terminates in the Welsh tawl, a cast off, a throw; separation; tawlu, to cast or throw off, to separate.
	In Chaldee, בדר badar, signifies to scatter, to disperse. The word has the same signification in the Syriac and Samaritan.
	In Ethiopic, the word with አ prefixed, signifies to wish, love, desire, and with ተ prefixed, to strive, to endeavor, and without a prefix, strife, course, race. Both these significations are from stretching, straining.
	In Arabic, نَدَرَ badera, signifies generally to hasten, to run to; but بَﺫَرَ bathara, signifies to disperse, to sow or scatter seed.
	This verb is written in Hebrew בזר, with precisely the same signification. The Arabic also has the verb with this orthography, signifying to sow, and also to beat or strike with a stick.
	Now in Syriac ܕܪ dar, signifies to strive, or struggle. Here we have the simple verb, without the prefix, with the sense of the Ethiopic, with a prefix. Supra.
	We find also the Arabic, ذَرَّ tharra, the simple verb, signifies to sprinkle.
	We find in Chaldee דרא, דרה and דרי, the simple verb, signifies to disperse; in Syriac, the same. In Arabic ذَرَأَ‎ tharau, signifies to sow, like the foregoing verb, and hence to procreate. Both this and the former verb signify also to whiten, as the hair of the head, as we say, to
sprinkle with gray hairs. The Arabic َرَأَ ‎ د‎ dara, signifies to drive, to impel, to repel, to contend, to strive; to shine, to sparkle. And here we have the literal signification of this whole class of verbs; to drive, urge, throw, send; hence to scatter, to strive, to shoot as rays of light, procreate, &c.
	The Hebrew corresponding verb is זרה or זרע, to scatter, to sow; and the word with the like orthography occurs in Ch. Syr. and Ar. This is the Latin sero. And who can doubt that ב is a prefix in the verb  בדרabove mentioned?
	In Welsh, goberu signifies to work, to operate; gober, work, operation; formed by the prefix go and per; go denoting progress toward; approach, and per rendered by Owen, that pervades, a fruit, a pear; but the real sense is to strain, to bring forth, to drive, thrust, urge, &c.
	This word, in the Armoric dialect, is written either gober or ober; in Latin operor, whence Eng. operate. The same word is in the Ethiopic, ገብረ gaber, to make, to do; አገበረ agabar, to cause to be made; ተገበረ tagabar, to work, operate, negotiate; ገባረ gabar, a maker.
	This is the Heb. and Ch. גבר, to be strong, to prevail, to establish, and as a noun, a man; Ar. جَبَرَ‎‎‎ jabara, to make strong, to heal, as a broken bone; to strengthen.
	That this Shemitic word and the Welsh and Ethiopic are all radically one, there can not be a question; and the Welsh proves indisputably that go is a prefix. This, then, is a word formed on בר or ברא. The Heb. אביר, strong, that is, strained, and אבר, a wing, that is, a shoot, are from the same root, and in Arabic أَ بَرَ‎ abara, signifies to prick, to sting, and its derivative, the extremity of a thing, a point, a needle, corresponding with the Welsh bar, a summit, a tuft, a branch, a bar, and the Welsh ber, a pike, a lance, a spit, a spear, Lat. veru; in Welsh, also, pâr, a spear, and per, a spit, are all doubtless of the same origin.
	In Syriac, ܨܒܪ tsabar, signifies to make, to work or operate. Is this the same root with a different prefix?
	The same word in Arabic, صَبَرَ tsabara, signifies to be patient, to bear, to sustain.
	We observe, that in the Teutonic and Gothic languages, the same word is used with different prefixes. Thus in our mother tongue, begin is written gynnan, the simple radical word, and aginnan, beginnan, and ongynnan; and in the Gothic, duginnan, which, in English, would be togin.
	Should it appear upon investigation, that verbs in the Assyrian languages have the same prefixes which occur in the European languages, the fact will evidence more affinity between the languages of these two stocks than has yet been known to exist.
	Let us now attend to the natural causes which may be supposed to have obscured or destroyed the identity or resemblance of languages which had a common origin.
	The affinity of words, in two or more different languages, is known by identity of letters and identity of signification; or by letters of the same organ, and a signification obviously deducible from the same sense. Letters of the same organ, as for example, b, f, p and v, are so easily converted, the one into the other, and the change is so frequent, that this circumstance seldom occasions much obscurity. The changes of signification occasion more difficulty, not so much by necessity, as because this branch of philology is less understood.

1. CHANGE OF CONSONANTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ARTICULATIONS OF THE ORGANS OF SPEECH.

	Consonants are the stamina of words. They are convertible and frequently converted into their cognates. The English word bear, represents the Latin fero and pario, and fero is the Greek φερω. The Latin ventus is wind in English; and habeo is have. The Latin dens, in Dutch, Danish and Swedish is tand; and dance in English is in German tanz.
	These changes are too familiar to require a multiplication of examples. But there are others less common and obvious, which are yet equally certain. Thus in the Gaelic or Hiberno-Celtic, m and mb are convertible with v; and in Welsh m and v are changed, even in different cases of the same word. Thus in Irish the name of the hand is written either lamh or lav, and in Welsh maen, a stone, is written also vaen. The Greek β is always pronounced as the English v, as βουλομαι, Lat. volo. English will, German wollen; and the sound of b the Greeks express by μβ.
	In the Chaldee and Hebrew, one remarkable distinction is the use of a dental letter in the former, where the latter has a sibilant. As כות cuth in Chaldee, is כושׁ cush in Hebrew; דהב, gold in Chaldaic, is זהב in Hebrew. The like change appears in the modern languages; for water, which in most of the northern languages is written with a dental, is in German written wasser; and the Latin dens, W. dant, Dutch tand, Swedish and Danish tand, is in German zahn. The like change is frequent in the Greek and Latin. Φραττω, in one dialect, is Φρασσω, in another; and the Latins often changed t of the indicative present, or infinitive, into s in the preterit and participle, as mitto, mittere, misi, missus.
	L and r, though not considered as letters of the same organ, are really such and changed the one into the other. Thus the Spaniards write blandir for brandish and escolta for escort. The Portuguese write brando for bland, and branquear, to whiten, for blanch. The Greek has Φραγελλιον for the Latin flagellum. In Europe, however, this change seems to be limited chiefly to two or three nations on the coast of the Mediterranean. L is sometimes commutable with d.
	We have a few instances of the change of g or gh into f. Thus rough is pronounced ruf, and trough, trauf.
	The Russians often change the d of a noun into the sound of j, or the compound g, in the verb formed from that noun; as lad, accord, harmony; laju, to accord or agree; bred, damage, loss; breju, to injure.
	The Italians and French have also changed a dental into a palatal letter, in many words; as Italian raggio, a ray, from Lat. radius; and ragione, reason, from ratio; Fr. manger, to eat, from Lat. mando, or manduco.
	In the south of Europe, the Greek χ has been changed, in some instances, into the Italian or Spanish z, and then by the French into s. It seems that the Spanish z has, at some former period, been pronounced as a guttural. Thus the Gr. βραχιων, Lat. brachium, the arm, is in Spanish brazo, and the Spaniards have the word from the Latin, or from the same source as the Latin and Greek, the Celtic braiç. This word, brazo, the French changed into bras, and from that we have brace and embrace. A similar change occurs in Durazzo, from Dyrrachium, and in the Spanish luz, light.
	The Teutonic nations often used h to express the power of the Greek κ, and the Latin c, as heart for καρδια, horn for cornu. Hence we find that the Saxon hlinian, hleonian or hlynian, to lean, is the Greek κλινω, Latin clino. The letter h is now dropped, and we write the word lean.
	In like manner, the Saxon hlid, which we now write lid, is from the same root as the Latin claudo, cludo, the Greek κλειδοω, which is contracted into κλειω. And in this word we may notice another fact, that the word signifies not only to shut, but to praise or celebrate, proving that this word and the Latin plaudo, are the same, with different prefixes, as laudo, and that the primary sense is to strain. This in Saxon appears in hlud, loud, hlydan, to cry out.
	In Latin, f and h have been converted, as hordeum for fordeum; and the Spaniards now write h for f, as hacer for the Latin facere; hilo for filum; herir for ferire, &c.
	The letters r and s are commutable. Thus iron in German is eisen; in D. yzer.
	The letters n and s seem also to be commutable; as in Latin pono, posui.
	The letters l and r are convertible; for the English colonel is in Spanish and Portuguese coronel, and in Armoric coronal.
	The cause of these differences is in the position of the organs in the articulations; the position being nearly but not exactly the same.

2. CHANGE OF VOWELS.

	The change of vowels is so common, as to occasion no difficulty in determining the sameness of words; indeed little or no regard is to be had to them, in ascertaining the origin and affinity of languages. In this opinion I accord with almost all writers on this subject; but I have to combat the opinion of that elegant scholar, Sir William Jones, who protests against the licentiousness of etymologists, not only in transposing letters, but in totally disregarding the vowels, and who seems to admit the common origin of words only when written with the same letters, and used in a sense precisely the same.
	I am not at all surprised at the common prejudice existing against etymology. As the subject has been treated, it is justly liable to all the objections urged against it. But it is obvious that Sir W. Jones had given very little attention to the subject, and that some of its most common and obvious principles had escaped his observation. His opinion with regard to both articulations and vowels is unequivocally erroneous, as will appear from the following list of words, taken from modern languages, and respecting the identity of which, that gentleman himself, if living, could not have the slightest doubt.

English.	Saxon.	Dutch.	German.	Swedish.	Latin.	[Fr.]	
draw, drag	dragan,	trekken,	tragen,	draga,	traho.	 	
give,	gifan,	geeven,	geben,	gifva.		 	
foot, feet,	fot, fet,	voet,	fuss,	fot,	pes, Gr. πους.	 	
hook,	hoc,	haak,	haken,	hake.		 	
day,	dag, dæg,	daag,	tag,	dag.		 	
have,	habban,	hebben,	haben,	hafva,	habeo.	avoir; ai, as, a, avons, avez, ont.	
leap,	hleapan,	loopen,	laufen,	löpa		 	
burn,	byrnan,	branden,	brennen,	brinna.		 	
will,	willan,	willen,	wollen,	willja,	volo, velle.	 	
stone,	stan,	steen,	stein,	sten.		 	
broad,	bred,	breed,	breit,	bred.		 	
earth,	eorth,	aarde	erde,	jord, Dan. iord		 	
who,	hwa,	wie,		ho, Dan. hvo.		 	
seek,	secan,	zoeken,	suchen,	sökia,	sequor	 	
bean,	bean,	boon,	bohne,	böna, Dan. önne.	 	 	

	Here are scarcely two words written with the same letters in two languages; and yet no man ever called in question their identity, on account of the difference of orthography. The diversity is equally great in almost all other words of the same original. So in the same words we often find the vowel changed, as in the Lat. facia, feci; ago, egi; sto, steti; vello, vulsi. Nothing is more certain than that the Welsh gwyz, and the English wood, are the same word, although there is one letter only common to them both. It is pronounced gooyth,	that is, g and wyth; as guard for ward. This prefixing of g to words which in English begin with w, is very common in Spanish and French. The word war in French is guerre; Sp. guerra.

3. CHANGE OR LOSS OF RADICAL LETTERS.

	There are some words, which, in certain languages, have suffered a change of a radical letter; while in others it is wholly lost. For example, word, in Danish and Swedish is ord; wort, a plant, urt; the Saxon: gear, or ger, English year, in Danish is aar, in Swedish is år, in Dutch jaar, and in German jahr.
	In the word yoke, and its affinities, we have a clear and decisive example of changes in orthography. Yoke, the Latin jugum, is from the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic זוג zug, to join, to couple; a word not found in the Hebrew. The Greeks retained the original letters in ζθγος, ζθγοω; the Latins changed the first letter to j in jugum, and inserted a casual n in jungo. From the Latin the Italians formed giogo, a yoke, and giugnere, to join; the Spaniards, yugo, a yoke, and juntar, to join; the French, joug, a yoke, and joindre, to join. In Saxon, yoke is geoc or ioc; in Dutch, juk; G. joch; Sw. ok.
	One of the most general changes that words have undergone, is the entire loss of the palatal letter g, when it is radical and final in verbs, or the opening of that articulation to a vowel or diphthong. We have examples in, the English bow, from Saxon bugan, to bend; buy, from bycgan; brow, from breg; lay, from lægan, or lecgan; say, from sægan; fair, from fæger; flail, from the German flegel, Lat. flagellum; French nier, from Lat. nego, negare.
	The same or similar changes have taken place in all the modern languages of which I have any knowledge.
	The loss and changes of radical letters in many Greek verbs deserve particular notice. We find in the Lexicons, πραγμα, πραγος, πρακτικος, are referred to πρασσω, πραττω, as the theme or root; ταγμα, to τασσω; ρητωρ, to ρεω; and φραγμα, to φρασσω. This reference, so far as it operates as a direction to the student where to find the verb to which the word belongs, and its explanation, is useful and necessary. But if the student supposes that these words are formed from the theme, so called, or the first person of the indicative mode, present tense, he is deceived. I am confident no example can be found, in any language, of the palatals γ and κ, formed from the dentals and sibilants τ and σ, nor is ρητωρ, or any similar word, formed by the addition of the dental to a verb ending in a vowel. The truth is, the last radical in ρεω is lost, in the indicative mode; and in πρασσω, πραττω, it is changed. The radical lost in ρεω is δ or θ; the original word was ρεδω or ρεθω, and the derivatives ρητωρ, ρητορικη, were formed before the radical letter was dropped in the verb. No sooner is the verb restored to its primitive form, than we recognize its connection with the Irish raidham, to speak; Saxon ræd, speech; rædan, to read; German reden, rede; Dutch raad, &c.
	The original root of πρασσω, was πραγω, πραχω, or πρακω, and from this were formed πραγμα, πρακτικος, before the last radical was changed. No sooner is the original orthography restored, than we see this to be the Teutonic verb, German brauchen, Dutch gebruiken, Danish bruger, Sw. bruka, Sax. brucan, to use, to practice, and hence the English broker.
	The same remarks are applicable to ταγμα and τασσω; φραγμα and φρασσω; αλλαγη and αλλασσω; χαρακτηρ and χαρασσω, and many other words of like formation. In all these cases, the last radical letter is to be sought in the derivatives of the verb, and in one of the past tenses particularly in an aorist. This fact affords no feeble evidence that in Greek, as in the Shemitic languages, the preterit tense or an aorist, was the radix of the verb. Κραζω, in Greek, is to cry like a crow or rook; but the last radical is changed from γ, as in the second aorist it forms κραγεις. Now in Danish, crow is krage, in Ger. krähe, in D. kraai, in Sw. kråka; a fact that demonstrates the last radical letter to be a palatal, which in English is opened to o, in crow.
	But it is not in the Greek language only that we are to seek for the primitive radical letters, nor in what is now called the root of the verb, but in the derivatives. The fact is the same in the Latin and in the English. The Latin fluctus and fluxi, can not be deduced from fluo; but the orthography of these words proves demonstrably that the original root was flugo, or fluco. So in English, sight can not be deduced from see, for no example can be found of the letter g introduced to form the participles of verbs. Sight, in Saxon gesicht, D. zigt, G. sicht, Dan. sigt, Sw. sickt, is a participle; but the verb in the infinitive, in Saxon is seon, geseon, Ger. sehen, D. zien, Dan. seer, Sw. se; in which no palatal letter is found, from which g or ch can be deduced. The truth then is, that the original verb was segan, or in Dutch zegen; the g being lost as it is in the French nier, from the Lat. nego.
	In the change of letters in the Greek verbs before mentioned, the process seems to have been from γ or κ to ξ, and then to σ and τ; πραγω, πραξω, πρασσω, πραττω. This is certainly a process which is natural and common. The Latin brachium thus became in Spanish brazo, and then in French bras; and thus in the Italian, Alexandria has become Alessandria.
	When the last radical of a Greek verb is a dental, it may not be certain whether the original letter was d, or th or t. We find the Greek verb σπαω, to draw, forms its derivatives with σ, σπασμα, σπασις; and this is probably the Armoric spaza, from which we have spay. So , , and , are evidently of the same family. It is not improbable that the original letter might have a compound sound, or it might correspond nearly to the Arabic ظ or ض, or the English dh or th, or ds, so as easily to pass into d or into s.
	It is equally clear that many Greek words have lost an initial consonant. The letter most generally lost is probably the Oriental ח, but obviously the palatals γ and κ have, in many instances, been dropped. There seems to be no question that the Greek ολος is the English whole and perhaps all. This in Welsh is oll or holl, in Saxon al or geall; and this is undoubtedly the Shemitic כל.  So the Greek ολλυμι is the Welsh colli, to lose; and ειλεω may be the English coil, Fr. cueillir.
	In like manner the Greek has, in many words, lost a labial initial, answering to the English b, f or v. The Greek ειδω is undoubtedly the Latin video; εργον is from the same root as work; ιδιος is from the root of vid, in the Latin divido, and individuus, that is, separate, and from the Arabic بَـدًّ‎ badda, to separate.
	In many instances, the Latin retained or restored the lost letter; thus hamaxa, for άμαξα; harpago for άρμονια; harmonia for ; video for ειδω.
	If the marks of breathing, called spiritus asper and spiritus lenis, now prefixed to Greek words, were intended to represent the letters lost, or to stand in the place of them, they answer this purpose very imperfectly. The spiritus asper may stand for a palatal or guttural letter, but it does not designate which letter, the ח, or the כ; much less does this or the other spiritus justly represent the labials, b, f, v or w. Whenever the Latins wrote h in the place of the Greek spiritus, we may conclude that the original letter was ח or a cognate letter; and we may conclude also that the v in video, and in divido, viduus, individuus, stands for the original labial lost in ειδω, and ιδιος. But there are many words, I apprehend, in which the lost letter is unknown, and in which the loss can not be recovered, by any marks prefixed to the words. We may well suppose that hymnus exhibits the correct written form of ύμνος; but what is there in the Greek ύφη, to lead us to consider this word as the English woof, and ύφαω, to be the same as weave? Both the Greek words have the spiritus asper.
	What proportion of Greek words have been contracted by the loss of an initial or final consonant, can not, I apprehend, be determined with any precision; at least, not in the present state of philological knowledge. It is probable the number of contracted words amounts to one fourth of all the verbs, and it may be more.
	Similar contractions have taken place in all other languages; a circumstance that embarrasses the philologist and lexicographer at every step of his researches; and which has led to innumerable mistakes in Etymology. We know that the Swedish år, and Danish aar, a year, have lost the articulation g, and that the English y in year, is the representative of g, as j is in the Dutch jaar, and German jahr: for the g is found in our mother tongue; and in a multitude of words, one language will supply the means of determining the real origin or true orthography, which can not be ascertained by another. But doubtless many changes have taken place, of which the evidence is uncertain; the chain which might conduct us to the original orthography being broken, and no means now remain of repairing the loss.
	In no language has the rejection or change of consonants served so effectually to obscure the original words as in the French. So extensive have been the changes of orthography in that language, that had not the early lexicographers indicated the loss of letters by a mark, it would be impossible now to discover the original orthography, or to trace the connection of words with other languages, in a large portion of them. And it is with regret we observe the influence of the French practice of suppressing consonants, extending itself to other countries. It is owing to the most servile obsequiousness of nations, that Basil or Basilca, the elegant name of a town in Switzerland, has been corrupted to Basle, and pronounced most barbarously Bale. The Germans are pursuing a like course in suppressing the palatal letters; a most unfortunate circumstance for the strength of the language.
	The Italians also have a disposition to reject letters when they interfere with their habits of pronunciation; and hence we see, in their language, piano, written for plano; fiore for flore; fiocco for flocco; a change that has removed a radical consonant, and thus obscured or rather destroyed the affinity between the Italian and the Latin words.
	Another difference of writing and pronouncing has been produced by the change of a sibilant letter into an aspirate; or, e converso, by the change of an aspirate into a sibilant. No person doubts whether the Latin super is the Greek ύπερ; or όμαλος is similis; or άλς is sal, salt. The latter in Welsh is halen, hal. So helyg, a willow, in Welsh, is in Latin salix. The Greek έπτα is the Latin septem, English seven. This in Persic is  هَـفـت‎ heft or haft, which approaches the Greek επτα. It has been commonly supposed, that in this case, the aspirate in Greek has been converted into an s. There are, however, strong reasons for believing that the change has been the reverse, and that s has been dropped, and its place supplied by an aspirate. The word seven is, beyond a question, the Shemitic سَبَعََ‎, שׁבע, whence שבת; Eng. sabbath; and the Gaelic sean, old, whence Latin senex; in Welsh hen, seems clearly to be the Ar. سَنَّ‎ sanna, to be old. It is then clear that in these words s is radical. It is probable, however, that the aspirate, in some cases, has been changed into s.
	It deserves to be noticed that the radix of a word is sometimes obscured, in Greek and Latin, by the loss or change of a radical letter in the nominative case. We find in Latin nepos, in the nominative, is nepotis in the genitive; honos, honoris, &c. In these changes, I suppose the letter restored in the oblique cases, to be the true radical letter. Thus adamant has been deduced by our etymologists from the Greek α negative and δαμαω, to subdue, on the supposition that the stone was named from its hardness. This is a good example of a great part of all etymological deductions; they are mere conjectures. It did not occur to the inquirer that adamas, in the nominative, becomes in the genitive adamantis; that n is radical, and that this word can not be regularly deduced from the Greek verb. Any person, by looking into a Welsh dictionary, may see the original word.
	In some words it is not easy to determine whether n before d is casual or radical. In such words as the Latin fundo, to pour, and tundo, to beat, there is reason to think the n is casual, for the preterit is formed without it, fudi, tutudi. But in other words n before d seems to be radical, and the d casual; ae in fundo, fundare, to found. For this word coincides with the Irish bun, foundation, and with the Shemitic בנה banah, to build. So the English find is in Swedish finna, and in is in Danish ind.
	Another fact of considerable consequence, is the casual sound of n given to g, which produced the effect of doubling the γ in Greek, and of occasioning the insertion of n, before g in the Latin, as also in the Teutonic and Gothic languages. Thus we see the γ is doubled in the Greek αγγελλω, and we know, in this case, how the change originated; for the original word is in the Gaelic and Irish, agalla. So γ is prefixed to another palatal or guttural letter in αγχω, ογχος, εγγιζω.
	A similar nasal sound of g probably introduced the n before g in lingo, to lick; linquo, to leave.
	We may be confident, in all cases, that n is not radical, when it is dropped in the supine and participle, as in lictum, lictus, from linquo. When n is retained in the supine and participle, there may be more reason for doubt; but in this case, the question may often be determined by the corresponding word in another language, or by some other word evidently of the same family. Thus we can have little doubt that lingo and the English lick are the same word, or that the Lat. lingua and ligula are of one family.
	This casual insertion of n in words of this class must be carefully noticed by the etymologist, or he will overlook the affinity of words which are evidently the same. We have many words in English which are written with n before a g or a k, when the ancient words in the Gothic and Teutonic languages, and some of them in the modern Danish and Swedish, are written without n. Thus sink, in Gothic is sigcwan; to think, is thagkyan. It is not improbable that the Gothic word was pronounced with the sound of n or ng, as in English. So also in sigguan, to sing; laggs, long. In a few instances we find the Swedes and Danes have the word written in both ways, as tånka, tænker and tycka, tykker, to think. But in general the Germans, Danes, Swedes and Dutch write words of this sort with ng.
	To show how important it is to know the true original orthography, I will mention one instance. In our mother tongue the word to dye, or color, is written deagan; the elements or radical letters are dg. To determine whether this and the Latin tingo are the same words, we mast first know whether n in tingo is radical or casual. This we can not know with certainty, by the form of the word itself, for the n is carried through all the tenses and forms of the verb. But by looking into the Greek, we find the word written with γ, τεγγω; and this clearly proves the alliance of the word with deagan. See Dye in the Dictionary.
	We have many English words, in which a d has been inserted before g, as in badge, budge, lodge, pledge, wedge. In all words, I believe, of this class, the d is casual, and the g following is the radical letter, as pledge from the French pleige; wedge from the Saxon wecg. The practice of inserting d in words of this sort seems to have originated in the necessity of some mode of preserving the English sound of g, which might otherwise be sounded as the French g before e. And it is for this reason we still retain and ought to retain d in alledge, abridge. In like manner the Teutonic c has been changed into the sound of ch, as Sax. wacian, wæcian, to wake, to watch; Sax. thac, thatch.
	There are some nations which, in many words, pronounce and write g before u or w; as in the French guerre, for war; guede, for woad; guetter, for wail; in Welsh, gwal, for wall; gwain, for wain; gwared, for guard, which in English is ward, Sp. guarda. In some instances, the u or w is dropped in modern writing, as in the French garenne, a warren; garde, for guard. This difference of orthography makes it difficult, in some cases, to ascertain the true radical letters.

CHANGE OF SIGNIFICATION.

Another cause of obscurity in the affinity of languages, and one that seems to have been mostly overlooked, is, the change of the primary sense of the radical verb. In most cases, this change consists in a slight deflection, or difference of application, which has obtained among different families of the same stock. In some cases, the literal sense is lost or obscured, and the figurative only is retained, The first object, in such cases, is to find the primary or literal sense, from which the various particular applications may be easily deduced. Thus, we find in Latin, libeo, libet, or lubeo, lubet, is rendered, to please, to like; lubens, willing, glad, cheerful, pleased; libenter, lubenter, willingly, gladly, readily. What is the primary sense, the visible or physical action, from which the idea of willing is taken? I find, either by knowing the radical sense of willing, ready, in other cases, or by the predominant sense of the elements Lb, as in Lat. labor, to slide, liber, free, &c., that the primary sense is to move, incline or advance toward an object, and hence the sense of willing, ready, prompt. Now this Latin word is the English love, German lieben, liebe. “Lubet me ire,” I love to go; I am inclined to go; I go with cheerfulness; but the affinity between love and lubeo has been obscured by a slight difference of application, among the Romans and the Teutonic nations.
	Perhaps no person has suspected that the English words heat, hate, and hest in behest, are all radically the same word. But this is the fact. Sax. hatian, to heat, or be hot, and to hate; hætan, to heat and to call; hatan, to call, to order, to command; ge-hætan or ge-hatan, to grow warm, to promise, to vow; Gothic gahaitan, to call, to promise; Dutch heeten, to heat, to name, to call, bid or command; German heitzen, to heat; heissen, to call; hitzen, to heat, to hoist; Swedish hetsa, to inflame, to provoke; Danish heder, to heat, to be called. Behest, we have from the German or Swedish dialect. Heat coincides with the Latin æstus for hæstus, which is written with s, like the German. Hate coincides with the Latin odi, osus, so written for hodi, hosus, and as the Teutonic h often represents the Latin c, as in horn, cornu, the Danish orthography, heder, coincides with the Latin cito, to call. Now what is the radical sense? Most obviously to stir, agitate, rouse, raise, implying a driving or impulse; and hence in Latin æstuo, to be hot, and to rage or storm; hence to excite, and hence the sense of the Latin cito, quickly, from stirring, rousing to action. In this case hatred, as well as heat, is violent excitement. We find also in the Saxon and Gothic the sense of vowing, that is, of driving out the voice, uttering, declaring, a sense allied to calling and commanding, and to this is allied the sense of the Latin recito, to recite.
	In English, befall signifies to fall on, to happen to; in German, the same word, befallen has the like signification. But in Saxon, gefeallan signifies to fall, to rush on; while in German, gefallen signifies to please, that is, to suit, to come to one’s mind, to be agreeable. The Danish gefalder has the same signification as the German.
	We find by the Saxon, that the English reck, to care, and reckon, and the Latin rego, to rule, are all the same word, varied in orthography and application. To find the primary sense of reck, to care, we are then to examine the various derivative senses. And we need go no further than to the Latin rectus and English right, the sense of which is straight, for this sense is derived from straining, stretching. Care, then, is a straining of the mind, a stretching toward an object, coinciding with the primary sense of attention. The primary sense of reckon is to strain out sounds, to speak, tell, relate; a sense now disused.
	The Saxon carc, care, carcian, to care, to cark, is connected in origin with the Latin carcer, a prison; both from the sense of straining, whence holding or restraint.
	To prove how the primary general sense of a word may ramify into different senses, by special appropriation of the word among separate families of men proceeding from the same stock, let us observe the different senses in which leap is used by the English, and by the nations on the continent. In English, to leap is simply to spring; as, to leap a yard; to leap over a fence. But on the continent it signifies to run. Now it will be seen that this word as used by the Germans, can not always be translated by itself, that is, by the same word, into English. Take for illustration the following passage from Luther’s Version of the Scriptures: 1 Sam. xvii. 17. “Nimm für deine brüder diese epha sangen, und diese zehen brod, und lauf ins heer zu deinen brüdern;” “Take now for thy brethren an ephah of this parched corn, and these ten loaves, and leap to the camp of thy brethren.” Leap, instead of run, is good German, but bad English. There are two other words in this passage, of which a like remark may be made. The German brod, loaves, is our bread, which admits of no plural; and sangen is our singed, which we can not apply to parched corn.
	So in some of the Teutonic languages, to warp kittens or puppies, to warp eggs, is correct language, though to our ears very odd; but this is only a particular application of the primary sense, to throw. We say to lay eggs, but to lay is to throw down.
	By this comparison of the different uses and applications of a word, we are able, in most cases, to detect its original signification. And it is by this means, I apprehend, that we may arrive at a satisfactory explanation of the manner in which the same word came to have different and even opposite significations.
	It is well known, for example, that the Hebrew word ברך borak, is rendered, in our version of the Scriptures, both to bless and to curse. The propriety of the latter rendering is controverted by Parkhurst, who labors to prove, that in Kings and in Job, where it is rendered to curse, it ought to be rendered to bless; and he cites, as authorities, the ancient versions. It is true that in 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13; and in Job i. 11, and ii. 5, the Seventy have rendered the word by ευλογεω, to bless; and other ancient versions agree with the Septuagint. But let the word be rendered by bless in the following passages : “Put forth thy hand now, and touch his bone, and his flesh, and he will bless thee to thy face.” “Bless God and die.” How very absurd does such a translation appear! It shows the immense importance of understanding the true theory of language, and the primary sense of radical words. Let us then endeavor to discover, if possible, the source of the difficulty in the case here mentioned. To be enabled to arrive at the primary sense, let us examine the word in the several languages, first of the Shemitic, and then of the Japhetic stock.
	Heb. ברך, to bless; to salute, or wish a blessing to.
	2. To curse; to blaspheme.
	3. To couch or bend the knee, to kneel.
	Deriv.  A blessing, and the knee.
	Chaldee, ברך, to bless; to salute at meeting, and to bid farewell at parting.
	2. To bend the knee.
	3. To dig; to plow; to set slips of a vine or plant for propagation. — Talm. and Rabbin.
	Deriv. The knee; a blessing; a cursing; a cion; the young of fowls.
	Syriac, ܒܪܒ to fall on the knees; to fall or bow down. Judg. v. 27.
	2. To issue or proceed from. Math. xv. 19.
	3. To bless.
	Samaritan, krb, to bless.
	Ethiopic, በረከ, to bless. Deriv. the knee.
	Arabic, بَرَكَ baraka, to bend the knee; to fall on the breast, as a camel.
	2. To be firm, or fixed.
	3. To rain violently; to pour forth rain, as the clouds. Gr. βρεχω.
	4. To detract from; to traduce; to reproach or pursue with reproaches; to revile.
	5. To bless; to pray for a blessing on, to prosper; to be blessed.
	6. To hasten; to rush, as on an enemy; to assail.
	Deriv. The breast; the basin of a fountain: a fish-pond, or receptacle of water, as in Heb. and Ch.; also increase; abundance; constancy; splendor; a flash of light.
	In the latter sense, usually from بَرَقَ, Heb. and Ch. ברק baraka.
	The Arabic word supplies us with the certain means of determining the radical sense; for among other significations, it has the sense of pouring forth rain; and this is precisely the Greek βρεχω. The primary sense then is to send, throw, or drive, in a transitive sense; or in an intransitive sense, to rush, to break forth.
	To bless and to curse have the same radical sense, which is, to send or pour out words, to drive or to strain out the voice, precisely as in the Latin appello, from pello, whence peal, as of thunder or of a bell. The two senses spring from the appropriation of loud words to express particular acts. This depends on usage, like all other particular applications of one general signification. The sense in Scripture is to utter words either in a good or bad sense; to bless, to salute; or to rail, to scold, to reproach; and this very word is probably the root of reproach, as it certainly is of the Latin precor, used, like the Shemitic word, in both senses, praying and cursing, or deprecating.  It is also the same word as the English pray, It. pregare, L. precor, the same as preach, D. preeken, W. pregethu. To the same family belong the Gr. βραχω, βρυχω, βρυχαομαι, to bray, to roar, to low, Lat. rugio. Here we see that bray is the same word, applied to the voice of the ass and to breaking in a mortar, and both are radically the same word as break.
	The sense of kneeling, if radical, is to throw, and if from the noun, the sense of the noun is a throwing, a bending.
	The Chaldee sense of digging, if radical, is from thrusting in an instrument, or breaking the ground; but perhaps it is a sense derived from the name of a shoot or cion, and in reality, to set a shoot, to plant.
	The Syriac use of this word in Matth. xv. 19, is intransitive, to issue, to shoot, or break forth. So in Arabic, to rush on, to assault. The sense of firmness in Arabic is from setting, throwing down, as in kneeling; and hence the sense of breast, the fixed, firm part.
	That this word has the sense both of blessing and of cursing, or reproaching, we have demonstrative evidence in the Welsh language. Rhêg, in Welsh, is ברך, without the prefix. It signifies a sending out; utterance; a gift or present; a consigning; a ban, a curse or imprecation. Rhegu, to give; to consign; to curse. From rhêg is formed preg, a greeting, or salutation, [the very Hebrew and Chaldee word,] pregeth, a sermon, and pregethu, to preach. Here we have not only the origin of preach, but another important fact, that preg, and of course ברך, is a compound word, composed of a prefix, p or b, and rhêg. But this is not all; the Welsh greg, a cackling, gregar, to cackle, is formed with the prefix g on this same rhêg. [Dan. krage, a crow.]
	In Welsh, bregu signifies to break; brêg, a breach, a rupture. This Owen deduces from bar, but no doubt erroneously. It is from rhegu, and there is some reason to think that break is from ברך, rather than from פרק. but probably both are from one radix, with different prefixes.
	We observe one prominent sense of the Arabic بَرَكَ baraka, is to rain violently; to pour forth water, as clouds. This is precisely the Greek βρεχω; a word found in all the Teutonic and Gothic languages, but written either with or without its prefix.
	Saxon, rægn or regn, rain; regnan, to rain.
	Dutch, regen, rain; regenen, beregenen, to rain upon.
	German, regen, rain; regnen, to rain; beregnen, to rain on.
	Swedish, regna, to rain.
	Danish, regn, rain; regner, to rain.
	Saxon, racu, rain; Cimbric, rækia, id.
	Here we find that the English rain, is from the same root as the Welsh rhêg, rhegu, and the Shemitic ברך.
	Pursuing the inquiry further, we find that the Saxon recan, or reccan, [W. rhegu,] signifies to speak, to tell, to relate, to reckon, the primary sense of which last is to speak or tell; also to rule, which shows this to be the Latin rego; also to care, which is the English reck. That this is the same word as rain, we know from the Danish, in which language regner signifies both to rain and to reckon, to tell, to count or compute. In the German, the words are written a little differently; rechnen, to reckon, and regnen, to rain. So in Dutch, reckenen and regenen; but this is a fact by no means uncommon.
	Here we find that the English reckon and reck, and the Latin rego, are the same word. The primary sense is to strain, to reach, to stretch. Care, is a stretching of the mind; like attention, from the Latin tendo, and restraint is the radical sense of governing. Hence rectus, right, that is, straight, stretched.
	Hence we find that rain and the Latin regnum, reign, are radically the same word.
	Now in Saxon racan, or ræcan, is the English reach, to stretch or extend, from the same root, and probably reek, Saxon recan, reocan, to fume or smoke; for this to send off.
	I might have mentioned before, that the Chaldee בריכה, a cion or branch, is precisely the Celtic word for arm; Irish braic, or raigh; Welsh braiç; whence the Greek , the Latin brachium, whence the Spanish brazo, whence the French bras, whence the English brace. The arm is a shoot, a branch, and branch is from this root or one of the family, n being casual; branch for brach.
	On this word let it be further observed, or on  פרקor ברק, if radically different, are formed, with the prefix s, the German sprechen, to speak, sprache, speech; Dutch
sprecken, spraak; Swedish språka, språk; Danish sprog, speech; and Swedish spricka, to break; Danish sprekker. The same word with n casual is seen in spring, the breaking or opening of the winter; and here we see the origin of the marine phrase, to spring a mast, Danish springer, to burst, crack or spring. This to Swedish is written without n, spricka, to break, burst, split; but a noun of this family has h, springa, a crack, and spring, a spring, a running.
	Now let us attend to other Shemitic words consisting of cognate elements.
	Chaldee, פרך frak, to rub or scrape; to rub out or tread out, as grain from the ear or sheaf; Latin frico, frio.
	2. To collect and bind, as sheaves; perhaps English, to rake.
	3. To break or break down.
	4. To question; to doubt. In Saxon and Gothic frægnan, fragan, signifies to ask.
	Deriv. Froward; perverse. Prov. ii. 12. So in English refractory.
	This verb is not in the Hebrew; but there are two derivatives, one signifying the inner vail of the temple; so called probably from its use in breaking, that is, interrupting access, or separation, like diaphragm in English. The other derivative is rendered rigor, or cruelty; that which strains, oppresses, breaks down, or rakes, harasses.
	With this verb coincides the Irish bracaim, to break, to harrow, that is, to rake.
	Syr. ܦܪܒ, to rub, so rendered, Luke vi. 1. Lat. frico. A derivative signifies to comminute.
	Deriv. Distortion; winding; twisting. Let this be noted.
	Ar. فَرَكَ ‎ fraka, to rub, Lat. frico.
	2. To hate, as a husband or wife; to be languid, or relaxed.
	Deriv. Laxity; frangibility; friability.
	Heb. פרק, to break, burst, or rend; to break off; to separate.
	Deriv. A breaking or parting of a road.
	Ch. פרק, to break.
	2. To redeem, that is to free, separate or deliver.
	3. To explain, as a doubtful question.
	Deriv. One who ransoms or delivers; a rupture; the neck or its juncture; a joint of the fingers, &c.; the ankle; the joint of a reed; a chapter or section of a book; explanation; exposition. פרוק, a rupture, coinciding with the English broke.
	Syr. ܦܪܒ, to redeem.
	2. To depart; to remove; to separate.
	Deriv. A recess, or withdrawing; separation; liberation; redemption; safety; vertebra.
	Sam. The same as the Syriac verb.
	Ar. فَرَقَ‎ faraka, to separate; to divide; to withdraw; to disperse; [qu. Lat. spargo,] to lay open; to disclose; to cast out; to immerse.
	Deriv. Separation; distinction; distance; interval; dispersion; aurora, as we say, the break of day; also, a garment reaching to the middle of the thigh, qu. frock; also breech.
	I have placed these two words together, because I am convinced they are both of one family, or formed on the same radical word. The latter coincides exactly with the Latin frango, fregi, fractum, for n in frango is undoubtedly casual. Now in Welsh bregu, to break, would seem to be directly connected with ברך, yet doubtless bregu is the. English break, the German brechen, the Dutch breeken, &c. In truth, the three words ברך, פרך and פרק, are probably all from one primitive root, formed with different prefixes, or rather with the same prefix differently written; the different words bearing appropriate senses, among different tribes of men.
	We observe in the Chaldee word the sense of questioning. Perhaps this may be the Gothic fragan, to ask, and if so, it coincides with the Latin rago, the latter without the prefix. In the sense of break, we find, in the Greek, ρηγνυω, without a prefix.
	Most of the significations of these verbs are too obvious to need illustration. But we find in the Syriac the sense of distortion, a sense which at first appears to be remote from that of breaking or bursting asunder. But this is probably the primary sense, to strain, to stretch, a sense we retain in the phrase, to break upon the wheel; and by dropping the prefix, we have the precise word in the verb, to rack.
	Now if this is the genuine sense, we find it gives the English wreck and wrack, the Danish vrag, Sw. vrak, a wreck. In Saxon, wræcan, wrecan, is the English wreak, that is, to drive, or throw on; wrace, is an exile, a wretch. In Dan. vrager signifies to reject; Sw. vråka, to throw away; all implying a driving force, and that wreck is connected with break, is probable for another reason, that the Latin fractus, frango, forms a constituent part of naufragium, the English shipwreck, which in Danish is simply vrag.
	Now if straining, distortion, is one of the senses of this root, the English wring, wrong, Danish vrang, Sw. vrång, may be deduced from it, for undoubtedly n is not radical in these words. The Dutch has wringen, but the German drops the first letter and has ringen, both to twist or wind, and to ring or sound; the latter sense from straining or throwing, as in other cases. Without n, wring would be wrig, and wrong, wrog; wrang, wrag, Dan. vrag.
	In Greek, ρηγος is a blanket or coverlet, and connected with ρηγνυμι; that is, a spread, from stretching, or throwing over.
	We find also among the Chaldee derivatives the sense of a neck, and a joint. Now we find this word in Irish, braigh, the neck; in Greek, without the prefix, ραχις, the spine of the back; Saxon, hracca; English, the rack and, from the Greek, the rickets, from distortion.
	Coinciding with the Greek ρηγνυω, to break, we find in Welsh rhwgaw, to rend; and coinciding with ραχια, a rock, a crag, Welsh craig, and connected with these, the Saxon hracod, English ragged, that is, broken; evidently the participle of a verb of this family.
	Hence we find the senses of distortion and breaking connected in this root, in a great variety of instances.
	The Shemitic ברק, to lighten, to shine or flash, is one of this family. The sense is, to shoot or dart, to throw, as in all like cases. And under this root, the Arabic has the sense, to adorn, as a female; to make bright or shining; which gives the English prank and prink, D. pragt, G. pracht. Prance is of the same family, from leaping, starting, darting up.
	In Greek βραχυς, short, stands in the Lexicons as a primary word or root. But this is from the root of break, which is lost in Greek, unless in ρηγνυμι, without the prefix. From βραχυς, or the root of this word, the French language has abreger, to abridge; and what is less obvious, but equally certain, is, that from the same root the Latin has brevis, by sinking the palatal letter, as we do in bow, from bugan, and in lay, from lecgan; so that abridge and abbreviate, brief, are from one root.
	It should have been before mentioned that the Latin refragor signifies to resist, to strive against, to deny, whence refractory; a sense that demonstrates the primary sense to be, to strain, urge, press; and refraction, in optics, is a breaking of the direct course of rays of light by turning them; a sense coinciding with that of distortion.
	We see then that one predominant sense of break, is, to strain, to distort. Let us now examine some of the biliteral roots in rg and rk, which, if b is a prefix, must be the primary elements of all the words above mentioned.
	Ch. רגג rag, ragag, to desire, to long for. This is the Greek ορεγω, and English to reach; for desire is expressed by reaching forward, stretching the mind toward the object. 
So in Latin appeto and expeto, from peto, to move toward. This coincides nearly with the Latin rogo, to ask, and the Goth. fragnan, Sax. frægnan.
	Syr. ܪܔ, to desire; and with olaph prefixed, ܐܪܔ, to desire, or long; also to wet, or moisten; also ܪܔܐ, to moisten — Latin rigo, irrigo, to irrigate.
	Deriv. Tender, soft, fresh, from moisture or greenness. Qu. Lat. recens, a derivative.
	Here desire and irrigation are both from one root; desire is a reaching forward, and irrigation is a spreading of water.
	This root, in Hebrew ארג, signifies to weave, or connect as in texture and net-work; but the primary sense is to stretch or strain.
	In Arabic, the same verb أَرِجَ signifies to emit an agreeable smell; to breathe fragrance; radically, to throw or send out; to eject; a mere modification of the same sense. This is the Latin fragro, whence fragrant, with a prefix; but according exactly with the English reek.
	ארך in Ch. Heb. Syr. and Sam., signifies to prolong, to extend. In Ar. as in Heb. in Hiph. to delay, or retard; that is, to draw out in time.
	רגע in Heb. has been differently interpreted; indeed, it has been rendered by words of directly contrary signification. The more modern interpreters, says Castle, render it, to split, divide, separate, or break; the ancient interpreters rendered it, to stiffen, to make rigid or rough, to wrinkle or corrugate. Castle and Parkhurst, however, agree in rendering it, in some passages, to quiet, still, allay. Jer. xlvii. 6, l. 34. In Job vii. 5, our translators have rendered it broken, “My skin is broken,” [rough, or rigid.] In Job xxvi. 12, it is rendered by divide, “He divideth the sea by his power.” In Venderhooght’s Bible it is in this place rendered by commovet, he agitates the sea. The Seventy render it by κατεπαυσε, he stilled; and this is the sense which Parkhurst gives it.
	In Isaiah li. 15, and Jer. xxxi. 35, it is rendered in our version by divide. “But I am the Lord thy God, that divided the sea, whose waves roared.”
	In Vanderhooght’s Bible it is rendered in Isaiah li. 15, “I am Jehovah thy God, qui commovens mare, ut perstrepant fluctus ejus.” In Jer. xxxi. 35, “commovens mare, ut tumultuentur fluctus” — agitating or moving the sea, that the waves roar, or may roar. The passage in Isaiah is rendered by the Seventy, οτι ο Θεος σου, ο ταρασσων την θαλασσαν, και ηχων τα χθματα αθτης, “agitating the sea, and causing its waves to roar and resound.” In the French translation, the passage in Isaiah is, “qui fend la mer, et ses flots bruient:” [I] who divide the sea, and the waves roar. In Jeremiah the passage is, “qui agite la mer, et les flots en bruient:” who agitates the sea, and therefore the waves roar. In Italian, the passage in Isaiah is rendered,” che muovo il mare, e le sue onde romoreggiano.” In Jeremiah, “che commuove il mare, onde le sue onde romoreggiano:” who moveth the sea, wherefore its waves roar, or become tumultuous.
	These different renderings show the importance of understanding the literal or primary sense of words; for whatever may be the real sense in the passages above mentioned, it can not be to divide. If we are to give to vau in the following word, its usual sense of and, it is
difficult to make sense of the word רגע, by translating it, he stilleth: He stilleth the sea and its waves are tumultuous, or He stilleth the sea that the waves may roar or be agitated! This will not answer. The more rational version would be, He roughens the sea, and its waters roar; or he drives, impels it into agitation. In Ethiopic, the same word signifies to coagulate, to freeze, to become rigid; and this is undoubtedly the Latin rigeo, and with a prefix frigeo, and this signification is perhaps allied to the Lat. rugo, to wrinkle; for as a general rule, the radical sense of wrinkle is to draw, as in contract, contraho, and this seems to be the sense of rigeo. Both these words are allied to rough, which is from breaking or wrinkling. This sense would perhaps well suit the context in these two passages, as it would also that in Job vii. 5: My skin is rough.
	Now in Arabic, the general signification of רגע is to return, to repeat, to withdraw, which may be from drawing back; a different application of the original sense, to strain, stretch, or extend.
	The root רוק in Chaldee. signifies to spit, and this is probably the Latin ructo, somewhat varied in application. The same verb in Arabic رَاقَ‎ rauka, signifies to drive off, to reject; to shoot or grow long, as teeth; to strain, purify or make clear, as wine; precisely the English to rack; also to spread, and to pour out. Hebrew רק, to empty, to draw out, to attenuate or make thin; and as a noun, spittle; Syriac, to spit, to draw out, to attenuate; Samaritan, to pour out, to draw out, to extend; Ethiopic, to be fine, slender, or thin; Arabic, to be soft, tender, thin. The verb רך, has a like signification, and is perhaps from the same original root; רקע, Hebrew, to spread, stretch, extend. But, says Castle, all the ancient interpreters rendered the word, to ordain, establish, make firm; to strike, to beat, as plates of metal. But the sense is to stretch, to spread, and the beating is only the means of extending. Hence רקיע, the firmament, which agrees well with Lat. regio, an extent; in Hebrew, properly, an expanse. And to reconcile the ancient and modern interpretations of this word, let it remembered that strength and firmness are usually or always from stretching, tension.
	Now let us hear Ainsworth on the word regio. “Regio a rego quod priusquam provinciæ fierent, regiones sub regibus erant atque ab his regebantur.” How much more natural is it to deduce regio from the primary sense of rego, which is to stretch, to strain, to extend! Regio is an extent, a word of indefinite signification.
	In Chaldee and Arabic this verb signifies to mend, to repair, to make whole, from extending, spreading over, or making strong. See the root כל infra.
	We observe that רגג and רקע agree, in original signification, with the English reach, on the root of which or some of its derivatives, was formed stretch. That ברך, פרך and פרק were formed on any of the foregoing biliteral roots, we may not be able to affirm; but it is certain from the Welsh, that the first consonant of the triliteral root is a prefix, and it is certain from the Shemitic languages, that the primary sense is the same in the biliteral and triliteral roots, or that all the applications or particular significations may readily be deduced from one general signification.
	To illustrate this subject more fully, let us attend to the various applications of some other Shemitic words of extensive use.

ברא.

	Heb. ברא bara, to create. This, by most lexicographers, is given as the first signification, in all the Shemitic languages. Parkhurst says, to create; to produce into being. Gen. i. 1.
	2. To form by accretion or concretion of matter. Gen. i. 21.
	3. In Hiph. to make fat; to fatten or batten. 1 Sam. ii. 29.
	4. To do or perform something wonderful. Num. xvi. 30.
	5. In Niph. to be renewed. In Kal. to renew, in a spiritual sense. Ps. li. 12.
	Castle says,
	1. To create from nothing, or to produce something new or excellent from another thing. Gen. i. Is. xlii. 5.
	2. In Niph. to be renewed or re-created. Is. xlviii. 7.  Ps. cii. 19.
	3. To cut off; to take away; to bear away, or remove; also to select; to prepare. Josh. xvii. 15, 18. Ezek. xxiii. 47.
	Gesenius says,
	1. Strictly, to hew, to hew out. [Ar. cut, to cut out, to plane.]
	2. To form; to make; to produce. Ar. برا The order of significations is, as in the Ar. خلق galaka, to be smooth, to make smooth.  2. To plane.  3. To form, make. Gen. i. 1, 21, 27.
	1. Niph. passive of Kal. No. 2. Gen. ii. 4.
	2. To be born. Ezek. xxi. 30. Ps. cii. 18.
	Pi. ברא, the verb differently pointed; to hew, to cut down. Josh. xvii. 15, 18.
	2. To cut down with the sword; to kill. Ez. xxiii. 47.
	3. To make fat. 1 Sam. ii. 29.
	Thus far the Hebrew.
	Chal. ברא, to create. Gen. i. 1.
	2. To cut off. Is. xl. 20.
	3. To make fat; to grow sound or strong. Talm.
	Deriv. Fat; whole; sound; strong. Castle.
	Syr. ܒܪܐ, to create. Gen. i. 1. Mark xiii. 19.
	2. To remove to a distance; and Deriv. distance, distant. Castle.
	Sam. )rb, to create. Gen. i. 22. Deut. iv. 32. Castle.
	Ar. بَرََأَ, to create. Job xxxviii. 7. [qu. 4 and 6.]
	2. To be free, or guiltless, not obnoxious to punishment. Num. v. 28, 31; and xxxii. 22. Rom. vii. 6.
	3. To free; to absolve from a crime; to liberate; to dismiss; to justify. Ex. xx. 7. Num. xiv. 18.
	4. To escape; to forsake.
	5. To recover from disease; to be healed; to restore to health. Lev. xiii. 18. Josh. v. 8. Matth. iv. 23.
	6. To cleanse; to free from impurities.
	7. To abstain from.
	Deriv. Creator; free; unobnoxious; clean; empty.
	Ar. بَرَا, to create.
	2. To cut off; to hew or pare.
	3. To separate; to distinguish.
	4. To make thin.
	5. To oppose; to strive; to resist.
	 6. To provoke; to boast, or make a parade.
	7. To distribute; to disperse. Castle.
	According to Gesenius, the primary sense of the verb is to hew, to cut out, and thus to make smooth, and thus to create; and he deduces these senses in the same order as he does those of the Arabic verb, which gives the word like. But there is no ground for this opinion; and doubtless the verb originated before the use of edge tools.
	The predominant senses of this word, are, to separate, to free, to remove; as we see by the Arabic and Syriac.
	Now hewing is indeed separating, and we have the English word pare from this root; but we must seek for a signification which is more general than that of paring, or we shall not be able to account for the sense of making fat, sound, entire, and strong, nor for that of being born.
	The truth undoubtedly is, this word is of the same family with the English bear, the Latin pario, and the radical sense is to throw, to thrust, to send, to drive, to extend; hence to throw out, to produce, as applied to the birth of children or of the world. To throw or drive, is the primary sense of separation and division, that is, to drive off. The English word deal, when traced to its root, presents the same fact. See Deal. To create, is to produce or bring forth, the same sense as that of birth, applied to a different object. The sense of hewing and paring is from driving off, separation. In Syriac, we observe the general application, in removal, or departure to a distance. The sense of fattening is derivative, and allied to that of healing or making whole, sound, strong, in the Arabic; that is, preparing, bringing to a good state, or from tension, the usual primary sense of strength and power.
	To obtain a more full and satisfactory view of this subject, let us attend to the same word to the modern languages of Europe.

LATIN.

	Paro, to prepare, make ready, procure, design, &c. The radical sense of paro is probably the same as in the Shemitic languages; to produce, to bring forward. So also ready implies an advancing, and so does promptness. But the various ways of preparing a thing for use naturally give to the word, in process of time, a variety of particular significations; each of which results in bringing the thing to the state desired. The compounds of paro, are apparo, to prepare, to furnish, accouter or set out; comparo, to prepare or procure, to make equal, to compare, to join, to dress or make ready; præparo, to prepare; reparo, to repair, to create anew, to regain, to compensate; separo, to separate. Let the Latin uses of this word be compared with the same Hebrew word in Joshua xvii. 15, where it is rendered cut down. “Ascend to the wood country and cut down for thyself;” Septuagint, εκκαθαρον σεαυτω, clear for thyself. This is one mode of preparation for use. In Ezek. xxi. 19, it is rendered choose; Septuagint, διαταξεις, appoint.

ITALIAN.

	Parare, to prepare; to garnish; to adorn; to propose an occasion; to parry, or ward off, as a blow; to defend; to cover from or shelter; to repair; to teach a horse to stop, and in horsemanship, to stop; parata, a warding off, a garnishing; parato, prepared, ready, prompt, warded off or parried, shielded, defended.
	Apparare, to learn; apparato, learned, prepared; apparato, preparation, garnishment.
	Parecchio, a preparation; also equal, even [L. par;] parecchiare, to prepare; pareggiare, to make equal, to compare; apparecchiare, to prepare, to ornament or garnish, to set in order; appareggiare, to put in competition, to match, to equal.
	Comparare, to compare.
	Disparare, to forget; disparare, sparare, to unfurnish, disgarnish, to make unready; to disbowel, to separate disjoin, unpair; to discharge, as artillery.
	Imparare, to learn.
	Riparare, to repair, to restore to the first state; to repair, or resort to, or have access to; to parry, or ward off; riparo, reparation, a fort, a bank, fence, mound, remedy, shelter.

SPANISH.

	Parar, to prepare; to stop, detain, prevent; to end; to treat or use ill; to stake at cards; to point out the game, as pointers.
	Parada, a halt or stopping, end, pause; a fold for cattle; a relay, as of horses; a dam or bank; a stake or bet; a parade, or a place where troops are assembled to exercise; parado, remiss, careless, unemployed.
	Par, a pair; a peer; after-birth; the handle of a bell.
	Aparar, to stretch out the hands or skirts of a garment for receiving any thing; to dig and heap earth round plants; to close the upper and hind quarter of a shoe to the sole; to couple male and female animals; to dub as a ship.
	Aparador, a sideboard, a dresser in a kitchen, a workshop, a wardrobe; aparato, preparation, pomp, show.
	Aparear, to match; to suit one thing to another [pair.]
	Aparejo, preparation, harness, sizing of a piece of linen or board on which something is to be painted, tackle, rigging employed on board of a ship. [Apparel, parrel.]
	Comparar, to compare.
	Desparejar, to make unequal.
	Disparar, to discharge, as fire-arms.
	Amparar, to shelter; to protect. [Aragon, to sequester, as goods.]
	Emparedar; to confine or shut up.
	Reparar, to repair; to observe carefully, to consider; to mend or correct; to suspend or detain; to guard, defend, protect; to regain strength, or recover from sickness; to right the helm.
	Separar, to separate.

PORTUGUESE.

	Parar, v. i. to stop, to cease to go forward; to confine upon, to meet at the end, to touch, to be bounded; to tend, to drive at something, to aim at, to come to; to imply, involve, or comprise: “Naō posso parar com fome,” I can not bear hunger.  “Ninguem pode aqui parar,” Nobody can live or stay here. [Eng. bear.]
	Parar, v. t. to stop, to hinder from proceeding; to parry or ward off; to turn or change with regard to inclination or morals; to lay or stake as a wager. Parada, a stopping or place of stopping; a bet or wager.
	Amparar, to protect, shelter, defend, abet.
	Comparar, to compare; comprar, to buy, to procure.
	Aparar, to pare, as an apple; to mend or make a pen; to parry a blow.
	Aparelhar, to prepare, to fit, to cut out or rough hew; aparelho, tackle in a ship for hoisting things, Eng. a parrel.
	Disparar, to shoot, to discharge, as fire-arms.
	Reparar, to repair; to parry in fencing; to advert; to observe; to make amends; to retrieve; to recover; to recruit; to shelter; reparo, in fortification, defense.

FRENCH.

	Parer, to deck, adorn, trim, set off, embellish; to parry or ward off. “Parer des cuirs,” to dress leather; “Parer le pied d'un cheval,” to pare a horse’s hoof.
	Parer, v. i. to stop; paresse, idleness.
	Pari, a lay, bet or wager; parier, to bet or lay a wager.
	Appareil, preparation, furniture, train, retinue, [Eng. apparel.]  Apparaux, tackle, sails and rigging, [Eng. parrel.]
	Pair, a peer, an equal; paire, a pair; apparier, to pair, to match.
	S’emparer, to seize, to invade.
	Reparer, to repair.
	Separer, to separate.

ARMORIC.

	Para, to dress, to trim, to stop, to parry, to prepare.

RUSSIAN.

	Uberayu, to put in order, to adjust, to mow or reap, to cut, to dress, as the hair. This word has the common prefix u.

PERSIC.

	ﭘُريدَنْ poridan, to cut off.

WELSH.

	Par, something contiguous, or that is in continuity; a state of readiness or preparedness; a pair or couple; a fellow, match.
	Pâr, a cause; the essence, germ or seed of a thing; a spear.
	Para, to continue, to endure, to persevere.
	Parad, a causing; parai, that causes to be.
	Parawd, prepared, ready; parodi, to prepare.
	That all the foregoing words in the present European languages, [and several others might have been added,] are formed from one stock or radix, coinciding with the Latin paro, is a fact that admits of no question. The only doubt respecting the correctness of the whole preceding statement, is, whether the Latin paro is radically the same as the Oriental ברא; and with regard to this point, I should suppose the evidence to be convincing. Indeed there is good reason to believe that the Oriental verbs ברא, ברד, דבר, and עבר, are all formed from one primitive radix. Certain it is that the English bear comprehends both the Latin fero and pario, and the latter corresponds nearly with פרה and Eth.	ፈረየ fari, to bear.
	But admitting only what is certain. that all the foregoing European words are from one radix, we are then to seek for a primary meaning from which may be deduced the following significations; Lat. to prepare; Ital. to adorn, to parry, to stop, to defend, to repair, to learn; Span. to prepare, to stop, to lay or stake as a wager, a pair or couple; Port. to stop, to confine upon or be contiguous, to drive or aim at, to parry, to pare; Fr. to deck, to parry, to stop, to pare; Arm. to dress, to prepare, to parry; Russ. to adjust, to dress, to mow or reap; Welsh, preparedness, contiguity, a pair, a cause, to continue or endure; and several other significations.
	The various significations result from throwing, sending, driving. To separate or remove, is to drive or force apart; hence to parry, and hence to defend. Separation implies extension, a drawing out in length or time; hence the Portuguese senses of confining upon, reaching to the limit. This gives the sense of par, equal, that is, of the same extent, and hence coming to, and suiting, as in Latin convenio.
	Here let it be observed, that admitting the word par, equal, to belong to this family, as in the Welsh, we have strong reason to believe that the Shemitic דבר, to join, or fit together, to associate, whence as a noun, an associate is formed from the same root, or ברא; for in the Saxon we find not only fera, but gefera, a companion, fellow or peer; gefera, answering precisely to the Oriental word.
	The sense of betting is from throwing down, as we say, to lay a wager. The sense of stopping is from setting, fixing, or from parrying. The sense of adorning is from putting on, which is from sending, or from extension, enlargement, as we say, to set off, and hence it is allied to the sense of show, display, parade. Preparation is from producing, bringing forward, or adjusting, making right; and often implies advancing, like ready, prompt, and the latter word, prompt, from promo, to bring forth, affords a good illustration of the words derived from paro.
	The senses of cutting off, paring, and the like, require no explanation.
	The Italian disparare, and the Spanish and Portuguese disparar, to discharge fire-arms, present the original sense of the root, to send or drive. This sense gives that of the Welsh pâr, a spear, as well as a cause, or that which impels. A spear is a shoot, from the sense of thrusting; and our word spear is probably formed from the root of bar, and Welsh ber, a spit, a pike, a lance, a spear, Lat. veru. Now in Chaldee, a bar is עברא from עבר, to pass, a verb which is probably of the same family with ברא. It is further to be observed that in Italian, bar is written both barra and sbarra.
	It is observed above that ברא is the English bear and the Latin pario; but pario would seem to be the Hebrew פרה parah, to be fruitful, to bear fruit, applied plants and animals. But this word seems to denote producing in general, rather than the production of children. However this may be, it is certain that bear in English, as well as in Saxon, expresses the sense of both pario and fero in Latin. The Latin fero, and the Greek φερω, signify both to carry and to produce, as young or fruit. Pario, does not. So in the Gothic, bairan is to carry, gabairan is to carry and to produce young. In German, führen is to carry, and gebüren, to bring forth, to bear a child. In Dutch, beuren is to lift; voeren, to carry; and baaren, to bring forth, as children, to bear, to beget, to cause. Danish, bærer, to carry, to support, and to yield or produce. Sw. båra, to carry; barn, a son. Irish beirim, to bear or bring forth, and to tell or relate, like the Latin fero, whence Fr. parler, to speak.
	It appears then that the English bear, and the Saxon from which we have received it, and the Gothic and the Danish corresponding words unite, in the same orthography, the senses of two words of different orthography in other languages. I have found other examples of a similar kind. There is, therefore, solid ground to believe that all these words are from one primitive root; the different modes of writing the word, and the several appropriations, having originated in different families of the great races of men, before languages were reduced to writing; and when they came to be written, each word was written according to its usual pronunciation, and defined according to its use in each family. And by the intermixture of tribes, two or three derivatives of the same stock might have become a part of the same national language. Unquestionably the Greek φερω and φορεω, are branches of the same stock.
	We have, in the modern languages, decisive evidence that different verbs may have, and in fact have a common radix. Thus in English list and lust are different modes of writing the same word; both are united in the other Teutonic dialects. So in Latin libet and lubet; and similar instances I have found in almost every language which I have examined.
	The Latin pareo, to appear, to come to light, if not a compound word, may be of this family. Paries, a wall, if primarily a partition wall, is of the same stock. Per belongs to this family, as its signification is passing. The Sax. faran, to fare, Gr. πορευομαι, seems to be from one branch of this stock, probably עבר. See the word Pass in the Dictionary, in the derivative senses of which there are some resemblances to those of ברא.

.כפר kafar.

	This verb, says Lowth, means to cover, to cover sin, and so to expiate; and it is never used in the sense of breaking or dissolving a covenant, though that notion occurs so often in the Scriptures; nor can it be forced into this sense, but by a great deal of far-fetched reasoning. See Isaiah xxviii. 18. Lowth on Isaiah, Prelim. Diss.
	כפר says Castle, “texuit, operuit, Anglice, to cover; per metathesin, κρυπτω, κρυφη, peculiariter bitumine, sive glutinosa aliqua materia obduxit; picavit.” Gen. vi. 14.
	Parkhurst gives to this verb the sense of covering or overspreading, as primary; and deduces from it the Greek κρυπτω, and English cover and coffer. He, however, admits that in Isaiah xxviii. 18, it signifies to annul, as a covenant. He also considers the sense of atonement or expiation to be radically that of covering.
	Gesenius agrees with the English lexicographers, in assigning to this verb the primary sense of covering or overlaying, as in Gen. vi. 14. He admits that this word has the sense, in Isaiah xxviii. 18, of blotting out, obliterating. But he gives to it the sense of forgiving, in
some passages, in which our version has that of purging away. Ps. lxv. 3; and lxxix. 9. In these passages, Castle renders the word, to be merciful or propitious.
	In all these authors there is, I conceive, a radical mistake, in supposing the primary sense to be to cover, and in the opinion that this Hebrew word is the English verb to cover. A still greater mistake is in the supposition of Castle and Parkhurst, that this, by a metathesis, to gives the Greek κρυπτω.
	The English word cover comes to us through the French couvrir, from the Italian coprire, a contraction of the Latin co-operio, whence co-operius, Italian coperto, covered, Eng. covert. The Latin aperio, is to open, and operio, is to cover, both from pario, or one of the roots in Br, which has just been explained. The root in these words is per or par, and the sense is varied by prefixes; perhaps ad-pario or ab-pario and ob-pario. Now cover can have no connection with כפר, unless this latter word is a compound, with כ for a prefix. This may be the fact, but the connection, even in that case, is very remote.
	Let us see if we can gain any light upon the subject of the primary sense of כפר from the cognate languages.
	Chaldee, כפר, to deny, to reject. Prov. xxx. 9.
	2. To wipe; “She eateth and wipeth her mouth.” Prov. xxx. 20.
	3. To wash or cleanse. Matth. xxvii. 24. Castle.
	Syriac, {foreign} kafar, to deny. Gen. xviii. 15.  Luke xii. 9.
	2. To wipe, to wipe away, to annul, to abolish.  Prov. xxx. 20.  Is. xxviii. 18. Castle.
	Arabic,  كَفَرَkafara, to deny; to disbelieve; to be an infidel; to be impious; to blaspheme. Acts iii. 13, 14.  2 Pet. ii. 1, 5. Jude 15.
	2. To cover; to conceal.
	3. To expiate; to make expiation for one, and free him from crime. Castle.
	Now the senses of the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, to deny, to reject, to annul, to wipe, wash, or to cleanse by these acts, can not be deduced from covering.
	In Hebrew, the word has the sense of covering, as the ark, with bitumen or pitch, in Gen. vi. 14; that is, to smear, or pay over, as our seamen now express it. But it should be considered that the sense of covering is rarely or never primary; it is usually from the sense of putting on, which is from the sense of throwing or pressing, or it is from overspreading, which is a spreading, stretching, or throwing over; hence the derivative senses of covering and hiding. These latter senses are sometimes derived from others; but these are the most general. And in this passage of Genesis, the literal sense is probably to put on, or to rub or spread over, a sense which coincides with that of the Chaldee and Syriac, Prov. xxx. 20, though differently applied; or what is more probable, the verb, in Gen. vi. 14, is from the noun, which is the name of the substance used, as we should say, to pitch with pitch.
	The real original sense of this Shemitic verb is to remove, to separate, by thrusting away or driving off. Hence its application, in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, to denial, the rejection of God or truth. To deny or reject, is to thrust away. Hence from the Arabic caffer, an infidel, one who denies and rejects the Mohammedan religion; hence Caffraria, the southern part of Africa, the country of infidels; so called by the followers of Mohammed, just as the Christians gave the name of pagans to the inhabitants of villages [pagus,] who rejected the Christian religion.
	This signification explains the Hebrew uses of this word. Its literal sense is applied to the cleansing or purification of sacred things, as the altar. Lev. xvi. 18. In a spiritual sense, to the purification of the soul, a type of the purification by the blood of Christ; hence it is rendered atonement, or expiation. Hence, probably the sense of appeasing, Gen. xxxii. 21, Prov. xvi. 14, though this may be from removing or smoothing.
	The sense of forgiveness is from thrusting away or giving back, precisely as in the modern languages; Lat. remitto, to send back or away; forgive, to give back or away; pardon, in French, Spanish, and Italian, has a like sense, which is more clearly exhibited by the Dutch vergeeven, German vergeben; ver being the English far, to give far, to give away; hence to reject, and remember no more. The sense of give and of the French donner, is nearly the same as that of כפר. To give, is to send, to cause to pass; and so of donner.
	Now it is a question of some moment, whether the opinion that כפר is the same as the English cover, has not inclined lexicographers and commentators to render it by this word, in several passages, where the true sense is to forgive, or to purify by cleansing from sin.
	However this may be, the interpretation given above will fully disprove Lowth’s assertion, that this word is never used in the sense of breaking or annulling a covenant. So confident is the learned Bishop on this point, that he ventures to call in question the reading, Isaiah xxviii. 18; and to suppose the true word to be הפר, from פור, to break. With respect to the reading I shall offer no opinion; but if the present reading is correct, I am confident that no word in the Hebrew language is better fitted to express the sense. Your covenant with death shall be wiped away, abolished, or as in the version, annulled. And so is the rendering in the Syriac.
	If כפר is a compound word and the first letter a prefix, it may be from the same root as the Arabic عََفَرَ [sic] gafara, whose signification is to cover. But the primary sense is, to throw or put on. It signifies also, to forgive; but to forgive is to send back or away, remitto, and not to cover. And I apprehend that for want of knowing the primary sense of such verbs, the word cover has been often substituted for forgive, in the translating of this verb.

כל kal or kol.

	No. 1. Heb. כול, כל, to hold, to contain; Sw. hålla. כלכל, to hold, to sustain, to maintain, to comprehend.
	Ch. כול, to measure, that is, to ascertain the contents, or to stretch, and comprehend the whole.
	Pah. To feed, to nourish. See אכל.
	Deriv. A measure; also custom, rite, manner, probably from holding or continued practice.
	Syr. In Aph. to measure. Deriv. A measure.
	Eth. ከወለ, to follow; to go behind; Gr. ακολουθεω; that is, to hold to, or to press after.
	Deriv. The hinder part; the poop of a ship; behind. French cul.
	No. 2. Heb. כלל, to finish; to complete; to make perfect. Gr. καλος.
	כל, all; the whole; Gr. όλος, Eng. all, by the loss of the first letter; but in Welsh holl, or oll; and in Saxon al, æl, and geall.
	Ch. כלל to crown; to adorn.
	Pih. To perfect; to complete; to comprehend; to embrace.
	Deriv. Comprehending; universality; a general rule, &c.
	Syr. ܒܠـܠ, to crown. Deriv. A crown; all; every one.
	Sam. llk, as the Chaldee.
	Eth. ከለለ, the same; also, to cover.
	Ar. كَلَّ kalla, to be weary or dull; to be languid; to tire; also, to crown; to shine. Deriv. All; dullness; heaviness.
	No. 3. Heb. כלא, to hold; to restrain; to shut or confine; to check; Gr. κωλυω; Sw. hålla.
	Deriv. A place of confinement; Lat. caula.
	Ch. כלא, כלה, כלי, to hold; to restrain; also, to trust; to confide in, or rely on; to hope. (See No. 6.) Also, to finish; to perfect; also, to consume; to cause to fail.
	In Aph. To call; to cry out; to thunder; Gr. καλεω; Lat. calo; W. galw; Eng. to call; Lat. gullus, from crowing.
	Syr. ܒܠ, to hold; to restrain; to forbid; to deny.
	Deriv. all; a cork, bar or bolt.
	Sam. )lk, to hold, or restrain.
	Eth. ከልእ, to hold, restrain, or prohibit.
	Deriv. Lat. alius; a fellow, or companion.
	Ar. كلا kala, to keep; to preserve; to turn the face toward a thing and look repeatedly. So in English, to behold. Also, to come to the end, as of life; also, to feed, to devour food; also, to abound in pasture; also, to hinder, or detain; also, to look attentively; also, to sprout; also, to take upon a pledge, or upon trust; supra, Chaldee. (See No. 6.)
	No. 4. Heb כלה, to finish; to consume; to bring to naught; to waste; to fail. (See No. 8.)
	No. 5. Ch. אכל, to eat; to consume; also, to take; to hold; to contain. In Aph. to feed; to give food; also, to call; to thunder; to roar, or bellow; also, to publish; to accuse; to defame.
	Heb. to eat; to consume.
	Sam. lk), to eat.
	Syr. ܐܒܠ, to publish; to divulge, as a crime; to accuse.
	Eth. አከለ, to suffice, as we say, it is well, Lat. valeo; also, to be or exist; that is, to be held, or to be fixed or permanent, to continue.
	Ar. to eat; to devour; to corrode; Lat. helluo.
	No. 6. Ar. وَكَلَ wakala, to trust; to commit to another in confidence. (See No. 3.)
	Eth. ወከለ wakal, with a prefix; to trust, as above.
	No. 7. Heb. יכל, to be able; to prevail; Lat. calleo; W. gallu; Eng. could.
	No. 8. Ch. עכל, to digest; to consume. (No. 5.)
	Ar. عَكَلَ, to collect; to tie; to bind; to unite; also, to divide, impel, or compel. This is the primary sense of the word, or rather of this root; to press; to strain; to urge, or impel; also, to extend. These verbs are different modifications of one radix; and hence the English hold, call, hollow, heal, hale; the Latin calo, caulis, calleo, callus; Greek κολλα, καλος or καλλος; and a multitude of words in all the modern languages of Europe.
	The sense of holding, restraining, forbidding, hindering, and keeping, are too obvious to need any explanation. They are from straining. To this sense is nearly allied the sense of measuring, or ascertaining what is held or contained. That which is contained is all, the whole that is comprehended, from the sense of extension.
	The signification of finishing or perfecting, seems, in a good sense, to be from that of soundness; a sense which is from stretching or strength. Or it may be from coming to the end, like finish and achieve, or from shutting, closing. And the sense of consuming, wasting, failing, may be from bringing to an end. In Latin, to consume is to take all; and possibly this may be the sense of this verb. But the Arabic sense of failure would seem rather to be from holding, stopping, or coming to an end.
	The sense of eating may be from consuming, or taking apart, but from some of the derivatives of No. 5, I am inclined to think the primary sense is to feed, to crowd, to stuff; the primary sense of the root applied to this particular act; for under the Chaldee root we find words which signify the nut of a species of oak, the Gr. αχυλος and a collection or crowd of people, [Gr. οχλος,] both of which are from collecting or pressing together.
	The sense of seeing and looking is from reaching or casting and striking, or from holding or fixing the eye on.
	The sense of trusting seems also to be that of holding to or resting on. The English hold in behold is from this root.
	The sense of calling, roaring, and thunder, is from impelling the voice or sound; a pressing, driving, or straining, applied to sound; like the Latin appello, from pello. Hence the sense of publishing, accusing, and defaming.
	The sense of sprouting, in the Arabic, is a shooting or pushing out, as in other cases; Lat. caulis.
	The sense of ability, power, strength, in No. 7, is from straining, stretching, or holding, as in other words of the like sense. Hence Lat. calleo, to be skilled, and to be hard, callus.
	On this root כל is probably formed סכל, a word differently pointed in the Hebrew and Chaldee. This word signifies in Hebrew, to pervert, to err, to be foolish or infatuated, to act foolishly.
	In Chaldee, to understand, know, or consider; to look or behold; to cause to understand; Rabbinic, to be ignorant; whence its derivatives, knowledge, wisdom, ignorance. These different significations may result from the different effects of the prefix on the original verb.
	In Syr. ܣܒܠ (the same word) signifies to be foolish, or mad; to cause to know, or to give understanding; to observe; to search or know thoroughly; to ask or seek to understand; to discern or distinguish; also to err, to sin, to be foolish, or perverse.
	In Sam. the same word signifies to look, and to be accustomed. See Castell. col. 2523.
	That שכל is formed on the same root with a different prefix, is obvious and certain, from the correspondence of significations. This word in Hebrew signifies to understand, or know; to cause to understand; to be wise, or to act wisely; corresponding with the Ch. סכל above; and being a mere dialectical orthography of the word. It signifies also, to deprive, strip, bereave; and to waste, scatter and destroy; also, to cast, as fruit or offspring; also, to prosper.
	Ch. to understand, and Ch. שכלל, to complete, to finish; also, to found, to lay the foundation. This is כלל with ש prefixed.
	Syr. to found, to finish, to adorn.
	Ar. شَكَلَ shakala, to bind under the belly; to gird; to bind the feet; to fetter; to shackle; to form, or fashion; to be dubious, obscure, and intricate; to agree, suit or answer to; to be like; to have a beautiful form; to know, perceive, or comprehend; to hesitate; to be ignorant. Derivative, a shackle. See Castell. col. 3750.
	To this root Castle refers the English skill; and it is certain the words correspond both in elements and in sense. Now in the Gothic and Teutonic languages, the verbs corresponding to these Shemitic verbs, signify in Saxon, scylan, to separate, to distinguish; Icelandic and Swedish, skilia, to divide, separate, sever; whence shield, that which separates, and hence defends; D. scheelen, to differ; schillen, to peel, or pare; whence scale and shell. To this root our lexicographers refer skill. The prefix in this word would seem to have the force of a negative, like L. ex. Now is it possible to suppose that these words can be formed from a common root?
	The sense of sin and folly is probably from wandering, deviating, as in delirium; and this is only a modification of the primary sense of כל, to stretch or extend; that is, departure, separation. Or the ש has, in these senses, the force of a negative.
	The sense of knowing, understanding, is usually or always from taking, holding, or extending to; as we say, I take your meaning. In this application these words would seem to be directly from the Eth. and Ch. כהל, to be able; the Latin calleo, to be hard, and to know or be well skilled. That this word כהל is from the same root as כלל, כלא, כלה, we know by the Samaritan lhk, which signifies all, and which is a mere dialectical spelling of the Heb, and Ch. כל.
	The sense of depriving and wasting, in the Hebrew, is from separation, the sense of the Gothic and Teutonic words; but it is to be noticed that this sense seems to imply throwing, as one mode of parting, and this is also the direct act of founding, laying the foundation.
	When we turn our attention to the Arabic, new affinities are disclosed. The first definition is, to bind, to gird, to shackle, and hence the English word. The radical sense of bind is to strain, the sense of hold. And here we arrive at the origin and primary sense of shall, should; Saxon scealan, to be obliged; that is, to be bound or constrained. Hence we see why the words scale, shell and shall, are all written alike in Saxon, sceal; for scale and shell are from peeling, or covering, binding.
	From this verb the Saxon has scyld, a crime, or guilt, Lat. scelus, and scyld, a shield. The German has the same word in schuld, guilt, culpability, debt; Dutch, schuld; Danish skulde, should, and scyld, a debt, a fault, a crime; Sw. skuld, the same. This word scyld, skuld, and schuld, is the English should, the preterit of the verb shall; and it is the word used in the Saxon, German, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Swiss Lord’s Prayer, to express what is rendered in English debts; forgive us our debts. Here we see the primary sense of the word is to be held, or bound; hence, liable. The English word guilt may be from the same root, without a prefix; but whether it is or not, we observe the word expresses more than the English word debt, trespass or offense; it comprehends the sense of
fault, or sin, with that of being held, or liable to answer or to punishment. Debt, in the modern use of the word, implies the latter, but not the former; trespass and offense imply the sin; but not the liability to answer. We have no English word that includes both senses, except guilt, and this seems to be hardly adequate to express the full sense of scyld.
	To account for the various significations of the same word, in different languages, and often in the same language, it is necessary to find the primary action expressed by the root; and in compound words it is necessary to observe or ascertain the different effects produced on the original word by the prefixes. Thus the verb inculpo in Low Latin signifies to excuse; but some modern writers use inculpate in a directly different sense; that is, to blame.
	In like manner impartible has two different significations; that may be imparted; and in law, not partible, or divisible. Such is the fact also with impassionate. I am persuaded a vast number of instances of similar diversities in the application of prefixes, may be found in the Shemitic languages; and this will account for differences which otherwise seem utterly irreconcilable.
	We find in our mother tongue, that the same word signifies to heal, and to conceal, Lat. celo; Saxon hæl, health; hælan, helan, to heal, to conceal; ge-hælen, and ge-helen, to heal, and to conceal; Old English hele. Hence we see that the English heal and the Latin celo are the same word differently applied, but from a common signification, which is to make strong or fast, or to hold, from the sense of pressing. Or perhaps the Latin celo may have this sense of holding, restraining; and heal may rather be from making perfect. No. 2, supra.
	We may now also see the radical sense of holy; Saxon hal and ge-hal, whole, sound, safe; halig, holy; halgian, to hallow. If this word contains the sense of separation, or driving off, like Latin sacer, as it may, it is from shutting, confining, or restraining intercourse. But I am inclined to believe the primary sense of holy is sound, entire, coinciding with the radical sense of heal.

Clod, Laudo, Claudo.

	In Welsh, clod is praise, from llod, a forcible utterance. This is the English loud, and Lat. laudo, which, with a prefix, becomes plaudo. In Welsh, llodi signifies to reach out, to crave, from the radical sense of llod, to thrust out or extend; but according to Owen, llodi is from llawd, which signifies a shooting out, or a going onward, productiveness, a lad, and as an adjective, tending forward, craving, lewd; llodig, craving, brimming; llodineb, lewdness. Now, beyond all question, these words are the Chaldee, Syriac, Hebrew, and Samaritan ילר, to beget; to bring forth; to cause to be born; and as a noun, a child of either sex, a lad. The Arabians and Ethiopians use vau or waw, where the Hebrews use yod. The Arabic corresponding word is وَلَدَ walada, the Ethiopic ወለደ walad, to beget, to bring forth.
	But this is not all. In Greek, the verb κλειω, a contraction of κλειδοω, signifies to praise, to celebrate. Here we have precisely the Welsh llod above, corresponding with the Latin laudo and plaudo. But the same Greek word κλειω, κλεδοω, signifies to shut or make fast. This is the Latin cludo, claudo. The Saxons used h for the Greek κ and the Latin c; and with these words accords the Saxon hlid, a cover; English, a lid; that which shuts or makes fast. That these words are all from one root, is a fact, apparent beyond any reasonable doubt; nor is there the least difficulty in ascertaining the affinity, for the radical sense, to reach forward, to thrust, to strain, solves the whole mystery. To thrust, gives the sense of begetting and producing; to strain or throw out the voice, gives the sense of praise; and to thrust or press together, gives the sense of closing and making fast. In this manner, words, which at first view appear to have no connection, will, when pursued through different languages, assimilate and unite, not only without forced analogies, but in defiance of all preconceived opinions; and the reluctant mind is at last compelled to admit their identity.
	There is another set of words whose derivation from the same root is very certain, though perhaps less obvious. These are the Danish slutter, to shut, close, conclude, finish, determine; slutter, a key-keeper, a jailer; Swedish sluta, claudere, obserare, to shut, or shut up, or end; slott, a castle; D. sleutel, a key; slot, a lock, a castle, a conclusion; sluiten, to shut, lock, close, stop, conclude; G. schloss, a lock; schliessen, to close, conclude, finish, fetter, shackle; schleuse, a sluice; D. sluis, id. Eng. sluice, that is, which shuts or fastens; Low Latin, exclusa. See Spelman’s Glossary. These words are unequivocally formed from the root of claudo, clausi, by the prefix s, just as the Welsh yslac, slack, loose, is formed on llac, and yspeiliaw, on yspail, spoil, and this on the root of peel. We observe all the Teutonic dialects use the dental t, as the final radical, except the German. The Latins use both the dental and a sibilant, claudo, clausi, clausus.
	If the Danish lyd, sound, Sw. lyda, to sound, is the same word as English loud, these words belong to this family.

Cradle.

	Another example. The English word cradle, Saxon cradel, is in Welsh cryd, a rocking, a shaking, a cradle. In Welsh, the verbs crydu, crydiaw, crydian, signify to shake, to tremble. These correspond to the Irish creatham, to shake; Greek κραδαω, to shake, to swing. The Welsh verbs are by Owen deduced from rhyd, which signifies a moving. Now רעד in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Ethiopic, signifies to shake or tremble. The same word in Arabic, رَعَدَ, signifies to thunder; to impress terror; to tremble; to shake. This coincides with the Latin rudo, to roar, to bray; and we know from the voice of the ass, that roughness or shaking is an ingredient in the sense of this word. We know it also from rudis, one of the affinities of rudo. There is also in Arabic, رَادَ, which is rendered to run hither and thither; to move one way and the other; to tremble; to shake. In Hebrew הרד signifies to tremble or shake, and to palpitate; in Syriac and Eth. to rub or scrape. This connects the word directly with cradle, through the Hebrew; and through the Syriac, with the Latin rado. Here again we find the sense of roughness or grating. Then turning to the Welsh, we find grydiaw, which signifies to utter a rough sound; to shout, hoop or scream grydwst, a murmur, from gryd, a shout or hoop, and this from rhyd, the word above mentioned; so that crydu, to shake, whence cradle, is from the same root as grydiaw, to shout, and this is the Italian gridare; Sp. and Port. gritar; Saxon grædan; Swedish gråta; Danish græder; Dutch kryten; German greiten. This word in French is contracted, by the omission of the last radical, into crier for crider; whence, probably, we have cry, W. cri. Hence we find that the sense of cry is to utter a rough sound; and this is connected with the braying of the ass, with shaking, trembling, and with roaring, murmuring, and thunder. The connection in this example, is so marked as to preclude all hesitation as to the identity of the words.
	The Shemitic roots גרד, חרט, חרת, and קרד, all, in some of the languages of that stock, coincide in sense and elements with the English grate, French gratter; and if the first letter is a prefix, they would seem to unite with the Latin rαdo. But this is a point I would not under-take to determine.
	One fact more. The Welsh cri, above mentioned, signifies a cry; and as an adjective, rough, raw. Now this coincides with the Latin crudus, in sense; and crudus with the Welsh cryd, above mentioned.
	The Dan. brygger, Eng. to brew, are probably connected with break, with freckle, and with rough. So under this root, the Welsh grediaw, signifies to heat, scorch, parch, whence greidyll, a griddle, from graid, that shoots in rays, heat, ardency, from gra, that shoots, or rises, as the nap or frieze of cloth. The latter is probably a contracted word, of the same family, but not the root, as Owen supposes. But the radical sense implies a shaking, agitation and roughness.

Meet, Mete, Measure.

	Saxon. — Mætan, to put, to place; Fr. mettre, It. mettere, Sp. and Port. meter, Lat. mitto.
	Mætan, metan, to find, to meet, or meet with; to paint; to dream; to measure, to mete, Lat. metior, metor, Gr. μετδεω, μετδον, Lat. mensus, with a casual n, that is, mesus, Fr. mésure.
	Ametan, gemetan, to meet, to find, to measure.
	Gemeting, gemetung, a meeting.
	Gemet, gemete, fit, suitable, Eng. meet; also, painted or portrayed.
	Gemetegan, gemetian, to moderate; gemetlic, moderate, modest.
	Mete, measure, mode, Lat. modius, modus.
	Meter, measure in verse, meter [not metre.]
	Metere, an inventor, a painter.
	Mæte, middling [mediocris,] modest, moderate.
	Mot, gemot, a meeting, a council.
	Witena-gemot, a council of wise men.
	Motian, to meet, especially for debate. Eng. to moot.
	Gothic. — Motyan, gamotyan, to meet, to find.
	Mota, a place for the receipt of toll or customs.
	Dutch. — Ontmoelen, to meet, to encounter.
	Meeten, and toemeeten, to measure.
	Meeter, a measurer.
	Gemoeten, to meet; gemoet, a meeting.
	German. — Mass, measure, meter; masse, moderation.
	Messen, vermessen, to measure; messer, a measurer.
	Gemäss, measure; also conformable, suitable; Eng. meet, suitable; German gemässigt, temperate, moderate.
	Swedish. — Möta, to meet, to fall on, to come to, to happen. [This is the sense of finding.]
	Möte, a meeting.
	Mot, and emot, toward, against; as in motstå, to stand against, to resist.
	Mäta, to measure; mätt, measure, meter, mode.
	Måttelig, moderate, middling, frugal, temperate.
	Mätta, to be sufficient, to satisfy, to cloy.
	Danish. — Möder, to meet, to convene; möde or mode, a meeting; mod, contrary, opposite, against, to, toward, for, on, by, aside, abreast, as in modsetter, to set against, to oppose; modsiger, to say against, to contradict; modvind, a contrary wind.
	Moed, moden, ripe, mellow, mature. [Qu. Lat. mitis.]
	Mode, manner, fashion. [Probably from the Latin.]
	Maade, measure, form, style of writing, way, mode, manner, fashion. [This is the native Danish word corresponding to the Lat. modus.]
	Maadelig, moderate, temperate.
	Mæt, enough, sufficient; mætter, to satisfy, or sate, to glut.
	From the same root are the G. mit, D. met, mede, Sw. and Dan. med, Gr. μετα, signifying with.
	By the first signification of the Saxon mætan, or metan, we find that this word, which is the English meet is also the French mettre, and Let. mitto, the sense of which is to throw or send, to put, to lay. Meet is only a modification of the same sense, to come to, to fall, to reach, hence to find; as we say, to fall on.
	The sense of painting or portraying is peculiar to the Saxon. I am not confident that this sense is from finding; but we observe that metere is rendered an inventor and a painter. The sense of paint, then, may be to find out, to devise or contrive.
	The sense of dreaming is also peculiar to the Saxon. The sense may be to devise or imagine, or it may be to rove, as in some other words of like signification. If so, this sense will accord with the Syriacܡܕ , infra.
	The other significations present no difficulty. To meet, is to come to, to reach in proceeding or in extending; hence to find. The primary sense of measure is to extend, to stretch to the full length or size of a thing.
	Meet, fit, suitable, like par, peer, pair, is from extending or reaching to. So suit is from the Latin sequor, through the French, to follow, to press or reach toward. See par. under ברא, supra.
	The English meet and mete appear to be from the Saxon dialect, but moot from the Gothic.
	Let it be remarked that the Saxon meet and mete, are united in the same orthography; and in the Dutch the orthography is not very different; ontmoeten, gemoeten, to meet, and meeten, to measure. Not so in the other languages.
	In German, mass is measure, and messen, to measure; but the sense of meet does not occur. Yet that mass is the same word as meet, fit, varied only in dialect, appears from this, that gemäss, with a prefix, is suitable, answering to the English meet.
	The Swedish and Danish words follow the Gothic orthography; Swedish möta, to meet, to fall on, to come to, to happen. These significations give the sense of finding, and are closely allied to the senses of the Arabic verb مَدَّ madda, infra.
	The Danish verb is möder, to meet, but in both the Swedish and Danish, the sense of measure is expressed by a different orthography. Sw. mäta, to measure; mått, measure; Dan. maade, measure, mode. In these two languages we find also the sense of sufficiency, and
to satisfy. See infra, the Ar. مَدَّ and Heb. and Ch. מצא.
	But in these Gothic dialects, there is one application of meeting, which deserves more particular notice. In Swedish, mot and emot is a preposition of the same signification as the English against. It is rendered toward, against. So in Danish, mod is contrary, opposite, against, to, toward, by, aside, abreast. This preposition is the simple verb, without any addition of letters, prefix or suffix. We hence learn that the sense of such prepositions is a meeting or coming to, which gives the sense of to or toward; but when one meets another in front, it gives the sense of opposition, or contrary direction. This coming to or meeting, may be for a friendly purpose, and hence in one’s favor, like for in English. Thus in Danish, “Guds godhed mod os,” God’s goodness or mercy toward us. In other cases, mod signifies against, and implies counteraction or opposition; as modgift, an antidote; modgang, adversity. So for in English signifies toward, or in favor of; and also opposition and negation, as in forbid.
	In the Danish we find moed, moden, ripe, mature. We shall see this sense in the Chaldee מטא. The sense is to reach, extend, or come to.
	The Latin modus, is from this root, and, by its orthography, it seems to have been received from the Gothic race. The sense is measure, limit, from extending, or comprehending. This then becomes the radix of many wards which express limitation or restraint, as moderate, modest, modify; a sense directly contrary to that of the radical verb.
	This leads us a step further. In Saxon, Gothic, and other northern languages, mod, moed, signifies mind, courage, spirit, anger, whence English moody. The primary sense is an advancing or rushing forward, which expresses mind or intention, that is, a setting or stretching forward, and also spirit, animation, heat, and lastly, anger. So the Latin animus, gives rise to animosity; and the Greek μενος, mind, signifies also, strength, force, vehemence, and anger. Mania is from the same radical sense.
	Let us now connect this root or these roots, with the Shemitic languages.
	In Hebrew and Chaldee, מדד signifies to measure; מד, a measure. This coincides with the Latin metior, and Gr.μετρεω, as well as with the Saxon, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, which all write the word with a dental, but the German is mass.
	In Syriac, ܡܕ mad, signifies to escape, to get free, that is, to depart, a modification of the sense of extending in the Arabic. A derivative in Syriac signifies a duty, toll or tribute; and we have seen in the Gothic, that mota is a toll-house. It may be from measuring, that is, a portion, or perhaps income.
	This word in Arabic, مَدَّ madda, signifies,
	1. To stretch or extend, to draw out, to make or be long, to delay or give time, to forbear, to bring forth. To extend is the radical sense of measure.
	2. To separate, or throw off or out; to secern, secrete, or discharge. Hence to become matter or sanies, to produce pus, to maturate. Here we have the origin of the word matter, in the sense of pus. It is an excretion, from throwing out, separating, freeing, discharging. Here we have the sense of the Latin mitto, emitto.
	3. To assist, to supply. This sense is probably from coming to, that is, to approach or visit. “I was sick, and ye visited me. I was in prison, and ye came to me.” Matth. xxv.
	This application coincides with the English meet, but particularly with the Swedish and Danish sense of the word.
	4. To make thin, to attenuate; probably from stretching.
	Among the Arabic nouns formed under this root, we find a measure, or modius, showing that this verb is the same as the Chaldee and Hebrew; we find also matter or pus, and lenity. Qu. Lat. mitis.
	In Chaldee, מטא or מטה signifies to come to, to happen, to reach, [to meet,] to be ripe or mature, to cause to come, to bring or produce. The first sense gives that of finding, and the latter gives that of maturing, and we observe that matter, or pus, is from the Arabic مَدَّ madda, and the sense of mature, from the Chaldee is מטא mita. Yet in the use of maturate, from the Latin maturo, we connect the words, for to maturate is to ripen, and to generate matter.
	In Syriac, this verb signifies the same as the Chaldee, to come to; and also to be strong, to prevail, that is, to strain or stretch, the radical sense of power.
	In Hebrew, מצא has the sense of the foregoing verb in the Chaldee, to find, to come to, to happen.
	In Chaldee, this verb signifies to find, and to be strong, to prevail; hence both in Hebrew and Chaldee, to be sufficient. Here we see the Danish and Swedish mætter, and mätta, to be sufficient. This is also meet, dialectically varied.
	In Syriac, also, this verb signifies to be strong or powerful; also in Pah. to bring or press out, to defecate, which sense unites this word with the Heb. מצה, to press, to squeeze. In Ethiopic, this verb signifies to come, to happen, to cause to come, to bring in, to bring forth. Now it is evident that מצא, and the Chaldee מטא, are dialectical forms of the same word, the former coinciding with the German mass in orthography, but with the other languages in signification.
	In Chaldee, מצע signifies the middle, and as a verb, to set in the middle, to pass the middle; in Syriac, to be divided in the middle. Qu. Is not this a branch of the family of meet?
	In Chaldee, אמד amad, to measure, is evidently from מד, with a prefix or formative א. This word, in Syriac, signifies, like the simple verb, to escape, to be liberated. In Pael, to liberate.
	In Arabic, this verb أَمِدَ amida, signifies to be terminated, to end, whence the noun, an end, limit, termination, Latin meta; which, Ainsworth informs us, signifies, in a metaphorical sense, a limit. The fact is the reverse; this is its primary and literal sense, and that of a pillar and goal are particular appropriations of that sense.
	In Hebrew, גמד signifies a cubit, a measure of length.
	The same in the Rabbinic, from מד, with a prefix.
	In Chaldee, this verb signifies to be contracted, to shrink.
	Is not this sense from מד, measure, modus, a limit, or a drawing?
	That the Shemitic words, מדד, מטא, מצא and אמד, are words of the same stock with meet, mete, Lat. metior, there can be no doubt; but it is not easy to understand why the different significations of meeting and measuring, should be united in one word, in the Saxon language, when they are expressed by very different words in the Shemitic, and in most of the Teutonic languages. We know, indeed, that in German a sibilant letter is often used, in words which are written with a dental in all the other kindred languages. But in this case the German mass, measure, must coincide with מד, as must the Swedish mäta, and Dan. maade, and the Saxon metan, Dutch gemoeten, Goth. motyan, Sw. möta, Dan. möder, with the Chaldee מטא, but not with the word מצא.
	It may not be impossible nor improbable that all these words are from one stock or radix, and that the different orthographies and applications are dialectical changes of that root, introduced among different families or races of men, before languages were reduced to writing.
	In the Latin mensus, from metior, the n is probably casual, the original being mesus, as in the French measure. I have reason to think there are many instances of this insertion of n before d and s.
	From this exhibition of words and their significations, we may fairly infer the common origin of the following words: Lat. mitto, French mettre, English meet, to come to, meet, fit, and mete, to measure, Lat. metior, metor, Gr. μετρον, μετρεω, Lat. mensura, Fr. mésure, Eng. measure, Lat. modus, mode, Sax. and Goth. mod, mind, anger, whence moody, Eng. moot, Lat. maturus, mature, and Eng. matter.
	In Welsh, madu signifies to cause to proceed; to send, [Lat. mitto;] to suffer to go off; to render productive; to become beneficial; and mâd signifies what proceeds or goes forward, hence what is good; and mad, the adjective, signifies proceeding, advancing, progressive, good or beneficial. This word then affords a clear proof of the radical sense of good. We have like evidence in the English better, best, and in prosperity, which is from the Greek προσφερω, to advance.
	In Welsh also we find madrez, matter, pus; madru, to dissolve, to putrefy, to become pus. That these words are from the same root as the Arabic مَدًَّ supra, I think to be very obvious; and here we observe that the Welsh have one important sense derived from the root, that of good, which occurs in none of the other languages. But the primary sense is the same as that of the other significations, to go forward, to advance; hence to promote interest or happiness. Here we have undeniable evidence that the sense of good, Welsh mad, and the  sense of matter, pus, proceed from the same radix.

LEGO.

	The Greek λεγω is rendered, to speak or say; to tell, count, or number; to gather, collect, or choose; to discourse; and to lie down. This last definition shows that this word is the English lie and lay; and from this application, doubtless, the Latins had their lectus, a bed, that is, a spread, a lay.
	The Latin lego, the same verb, is rendered, to gather; to choose; to read; to steal, or collect by stealing; and the phrase, legere oram, signifies to coast, to sail along a coast; legere vela, is to furl the sails; legere halitum, to take breath; legere littus, to sail close to the shore; legere milites, to enlist or muster soldiers; legere pugno, to strike, perhaps to lay on with the fist.
	It would seem, at first view, that such various significations can not proceed from one radix. But the fact that they do is indubitable. The primary sense of the root must be to throw, strain or extend, which in this, as in almost all cases, gives the sense of speaking. The sense of collecting, choosing, gathering, is from throwing, or drawing out, or separating by some such act; or from throwing together. The sense of lying down is, probably, from throwing one’s self down. The sense of reading, in Latin, is the same as that of speaking, in the Greek, unless it may be from collecting, that is, separating the letters, and uniting them in syllables and words; for in the primitive mode of writing, diacritical points were not used. But probably the sense of reading is the same as in speaking.
	The phrases legere oram, legere littus, in Latin, may coincide with that of our seamen, to stretch or lay, along the shore or coast, or to hug the land; especially if this word lay in Sanscrit, signifies to cling, as I have seen it stated in some author, but for which I can not vouch. If this sense is attached to the word, it proves it closely allied to the L. ligo, to bind.
	That the sense of throwing, or driving, is contained in this word, is certain from its derivatives. Thus, in Greek, απολεγω signifies to select, to collect; and also to reject, to repudiate, and to forbid; which imply throwing, thrusting away.
	Now, if throwing, sending, or driving, is the primary sense, then the Latin lego, to read, and lego, legare, to send, are radically the same word; the inflections of the verb being varied, arbitrarily, to designate the distinct applications, just as in pello, appello, appellere, to drive, and appello, appellare, to call.
	And here it may be worth a moment’s consideration, whether several words with prefixes, such as slay, flog, and the Latin plico, W. plygu, are not formed on the root of lay, that is, lag or lak. The sense of slay, Sax. slagan, slæan, is properly to strike, to beat; hence in Saxon, “Hig slogon heora wedd,” they slew their league, or contract; that is, they struck a bargain. It signifies also to throw, as to slag one into prison; also to fall; to set or lay. The sense of killing is derivative from that of striking, a striking down.
	Flog, Lat. fligo, signifies, primarily, to rush, drive, strike, Eng. to lick; and if formed on the root of lay, is precisely the popular phrase, to lay on.
	If plico is formed with a prefix on lay or its root, it must have been originally pelico, that is, belico, belay. Then to fold, would be to lay on or close; to lay one part to another. Now this word is the Welsh plygu, to fold, which Owen makes to be a compound of py and lly. The latter word must be a contraction of llyg.
	We know that the word reply is from the French repliquer, the Latin replico. Now, to reply, is not to fold back, but to send back, to throw back, as words, or an answer; and this gives the precise sense of lay, to throw, to send, which must be the sense of the radical word.
	It is no inconsiderable evidence of the truth of my conjecture, that we constantly use the phrase to lay on, or lay to, as synonymous with ply, a word belonging to this family. To pledge, another of this family, is to lay down, to deposit; and the primary sense of play, Saxon plegan, Dan. leger, Sw. leka, is to strike or drive.
	In Welsh, lluçiaw signifies to throw, fling, cast, or dart; to pelt; to drift; from lluç, a darting, a flash, glance, or sudden throw; hence lluçed, lightning. Llug signifies also, that breaks, or begins to open, a gleam, a breaking out in blotches; the plague. Llwg signifies also, that is apt to break out, that is bright, a tumor, eruption. These words coincide with English light, Lat. luceo; the primary sense of which is to throw, shoot, or dart; and these words all contain the elements of flog and fling.
	In Welsh, llyçu signifies to fall flat, to lie extended, or to squat. This is evidently allied to lay and lie.
	These senses agree also with that of luck, to fall, or come suddenly; that is, to rush or drive along.
	In Russ. vlagayu is to lay, or put in; equivalent to the German einlegen.
	The Latin fluo is contracted from flugo; and the radical sense of flow is the same as that of light. So the river Aar, in Europe, is doubtless from the same source as the Oriental אור, to shine, whence air. And נהר, which, in Hebrew, signifies to flow as water, as well as to shine, chiefly signifies in Chaldee and Syriac, to shine.
	To show the great importance, or rather the absolute necessity, of ascertaining the primary sense of words, in order to obtain clear ideas of the sense of ancient authors, more particularly of difficult passages in dead languages, let the reader attend to the following remarks.
	In commenting on certain parts of Isaiah xxviii, Lowth observes in his Preliminary Dissertation, the difficulty of determining the meaning of הזה, in verse 15th. In our version, as in others, it is rendered agreement; but, says Lowth, “the word means no such thing in any part of the Bible, except in the 18th verse following; nor can the lexicographers give any satisfactory account of the word in this sense.” Yet he agrees with Vitringa, that in these passages it must have this signification. The difficulty, it seems, has arisen from not understanding the primary sense of seeing, for the verb generally signifies to see; and as a noun the word signifies sight, vision; and so it is rendered in the Latin version annexed to Vanderhooght’s Bible. The Seventy, render it by συνθηκη, a covenant or league; and they are followed by the moderns. “Nous avons intelligence avec le sepulchre:” French. “Noi habbiam fatta lega col sepulcro:” Italian of Diodati.
	Parkhurst understands the word to signify, to fasten, to settle, and he cites 2 Sam. xx. 9, ההז, “Joab took Amasa by the beard.” Here the sense is obvious; and from this and other passages, we may infer with certainty, that the radical sense is to reach to, or to seize, hold, or fix. If the sense is to reach to, then it accords with covenant, conveniens, coming to; if the sense is to fix, or fasten, then it agrees with league, Lat. ligo, and with pact, pactum, from pango, to make fast; all from the sense of extension, stretching, straining. Hence the meaning of חזה the breast; that is, the firm, fixed, strong part. And if the English gaze is the same word, which is not improbable, this determines the appropriate sense of seeing in this word, to be to fix, or to look or reach with the eye fixed.
	But we have other and decisive evidence of the primary signification of this word in the obvious, undisputed meaning of אחז, the same word with a prefix, which signifies to catch, or lay hold on; to seize; hence behind, following, as if attached to; and hence drawing out in time, to delay.
	Now it is not improbable that the Arabic حَازَ hauza, may be a word of the same stock; and this signifies, among other senses, to collect, contract or draw together, to accumulate, to have intercourse or commerce with another. The latter sense would give nearly the signification of the Hebrew word.
	Lexicographers are often embarrassed to account for the different signification of words that are evidently derived from the same root. Thus, in Hebrew, שור is rendered to sing; to look, behold, or observe; and to rule; and its derivatives, a ruler, a wall, the navel-string, a chain or necklace, &c. How can a word signify to rule, and to sing, and to look? Nothing can be more easy or natural. The sense is, in both cases, to stretch or strain, to reach. To sing is to strain the voice; to rule is to restrain men; and to see is to reach, or to hold in view.
	In Latin, sero signifies to sow, to plant, to beget, to spread; consero, to sow; and to close or join; desero, to leave off, to desert; assero, to plant by or near, and to assert, affirm, and pronounce; dissero, to discourse; insero, to insert, to implant; resero, to unlock, to open, to disclose. Desero, to desert, Ainsworth says, is a compound of de and sero, “ut sit desertum quod non seritur nec colitur.” And dissero he supposes must be a metaphorical use of the word. Now, on the principles I have unfolded, nothing is easier than an explanation of these words. The sense of sero is to throw, to thrust; its literal sense is applied to sowing and planting; consero is to thrust or drive together; desero is to throw from; assero is to throw in words, or to throw out, as in appello; dissero is to throw words or arguments, with the sense of spreading, expatiating; insero is to throw or thrust in; resero is to throw or drive from, hence to unlock or open.
	It is by resorting to the primary idea of words, that we are able to explain applications, apparently, or in fact, diverse and even contrary. A very common example of this contrariety occurs in words which signify to guard or defend. For instance, the Latin arceo signifies to drive off, and to protect, secure, hold, restrain, or keep from departing or escaping, two senses directly opposite. This is extremely natural; for arceo signifies to thrust off, repel, drive back; and this act defends the person or object attacked. Or if we suppose the sense of straining to be anterior to that of repulsion, which is not improbable, then the act of straining or holding produces both effects; to repel or stop what advances to assault, and protect what is inclosed or assaulted. The words guard and warren present a similar application of the primary idea; and all languages which I have examined, furnish a multitude of similar examples.
	These examples illustrate the utility of extensive researches in language; as all cognate languages throw light on each other; one language often retaining the radical meaning of a word which the others have lost. Who, for instance, that is acquainted only with the English use of the verb to have, would suspect that this word and happen are radically one, and that the primary sense is to fall or rush, hence to fall on and seize? Yet nothing is more certain. In the Spanish language the senses of both verbs are retained in haber; and the Welsh hapiaw gives us the true original signification.
	In like manner the primary sense of venio in Latin, can not be certainly determined, without resorting to other words, and to kindred languages. In Latin, the word signifies to come or arrive; but in Spanish, venida, from venir, the Latin venio, signifies not only a coming or arrival, but an attack in fencing. Venio coincides in origin with the English find; Saxon findan; German and Dutch finden, to find, to fall or light on; Danish finder; Swedish finna, to find, to discover, to meet, to strike against, [offendere.] The primary sense of venio, then, is not merely to come or arrive, but to rush or move with a driving force; and this sense is applicable to coming or going.
	That the primary sense is to fall or rush, we have evidence in the Latin ventus, and English wind, both from the root of this verb. We have still further evidence in the word venom, which in Welsh is gwenwyn; gwen, white, and gwyn, rage, smart, whence gwynt, wind. Venom is that which frets or excites a raging pain. Hence we may infer that Latin venor, to hunt, to chase, is of the same family; and so is venia, leave, or leave to depart, or a departure, a leaving, coinciding in signification with leave.
	The latter word, venia, proves another fact, that the primary sense of venio is, in general, to move in any direction, and that the Latin sense, to come, is a particular appropriation of that sense.
	In ascertaining the primary sense of words, it is often useful or necessary to recur to the derivatives. Thus the Latin lædo is rendered to hurt; but, by adverting to allido, elido, and collido, we find that the original signification is to strike, hit, or dash against. Hurt, then, is the secondary sense; the effect of the primary action expressed by the verb.
	So the Latin rapio, to seize, does not give the sense of rapidus, rapid; but the sense of the latter proves the primary sense of rapio to be to rush, and in its application, to rush on and seize.
	These examples will be sufficient to show how little the affinities of language have been understood. Men have been generally satisfied with a knowledge of the appropriate sense of words, without examining from what visible or physical action, or primary sense, that particular application has been derived. Hence the obscurity that still rests on the theory of language. It has been supposed that each word, particularly each verb, has an original specific sense, or application, distinct from every other verb. We find, however, on a close examination and comparison of the same word in different languages, that the fact is directly the reverse; that a verb expressing some action, in a general sense, gives rise to various appropriate senses, or particular applications. And in the course of my researches, I have been struck with the similarity of manner in which different nations have appropriated derivative and figurative senses. For example, all nations, as far as my researches extend, agree in expressing the sense of justice and right, by straightness, and sin, iniquity, wrong, by a deviation from a straight line or course. Equally remarkable is the simplicity of the analogies in language, and the small number of radical significations; so small indeed, that I am persuaded the primary sense of all the verbs in any language, may be expressed by thirty or forty words.
	We can not, at this period of the world, determine, in all cases, which words are primitive, and which are derivative; nor whether the verb or the noun is the original word. Mons. Gebelin, in his Monde Primitif, maintains that the noun is the root of all other words. Never was a greater mistake. That some nouns may have been formed before the verbs with which they are connected, is possible; but as languages are now constructed, it is demonstrably certain, that the verb is the radix or stock from which have sprung most of the nouns, adjectives, and other parts of speech belonging to each family. This is the result of all my researches into the origin of languages. We find, indeed, that many modern verbs are formed on nouns; as to practice from practice; but the noun is derived from a Greek verb. So we use wrong as a verb, from the adjective wrong; but the latter is primarily a participle of the verb to wring. Indeed a large part of all nouns were originally participles or adjectives, and the things which they denote were named from their qualities. So pard, pardus, is from ברד barad, hail; and the animal so named from his spots, as if sprinkled with hail, from the sense of separation or scattering. Crape, the Fr. crêpe, is from crêper, to crisp. Sight signifies, primarily, seen; it being the participle of seon, contracted from sigan. Draught is the participle of draw, that which is drawn, or the act of drawing; thought is the participle of think.
	As the verb is the principal radix of other words, and as the proper province of this part of speech is to express action, almost all the modifications of the primary sense of the verb may be comprehended in one word, to move.
	The principal varieties of motion or action, may be expressed by the following verbs.
	1. To drive, throw, thrust, send, urge, press.
	2. To set, fix, lay. But these are usually from thrusting, or throwing down.
	3. To strain, stretch, draw; whence holding, binding, strength, power, and often health.
	4. To turn, wind, roll, wander.
	5. To flow, to blow, to rush.
	6. To open, part, split, separate, remove, scatter. See No. 16.
	7. To swell, distend, expand, spread.
	8. To stir, shake, agitate, rouse, excite.
	9. To shoot, as a plant; to grow; allied to No. 1.
	10. To break, or burst; allied sometimes to No. 3.
	11. To lift, raise, elevate; allied to No. 9.
	12. To flee, withdraw, escape; to fly; often allied to No. 1.
	13. To rage; to burn; allied to Nos. 7 and 8.
	14. To fall; to fail; whence fading, dying, &c.
	15. To approach, come, arrive, attend, reach. This is usually the sense of gaining. No. 34.
	16. To go, walk, pass, advance; allied to No. 6.
	17. To seize, take, hold; sometimes allied to No. 31.
	18. To strike; to beat; allied to No. 1.
	19. To swing; to vibrate. No. 29.
	20. To lean; to incline; allied to the sense of wandering, or departing.
	21. To rub, scratch, scrape; often connected with driving, and with roughness.
	22. To swim; to float.
	23. To stop, cease, rest; sometimes at least, from straining, holding, fastening.
	24. To creep; to crawl; sometimes connected with scraping.
	25. To peel, to strip, whence spoiling.
	26. To leap, to spring; allied to Nos. 9 and 1.
	27. To bring, bear, carry; in some instances connected with producing, throwing out.
	28. To sweep.
	29. To hang. No. 19.
	30. To shrink, or contract; that is, to draw. See No. 3.
	31. To run; to rush forward; allied to No. 1.
	32. To put on or together; to unite; allied to Nos. 1 and 3.
	33. To knit, to weave.
	34. To gain, to win, to get. See No. 15.
	These and a few more verbs express the literal sense of all the primary roots. But it must be remarked that all the foregoing significations are not distinct. So far from it, that the whole may be brought under the signification of a very few words. The English words to
send, throw, thrust, strain, stretch, draw, drive, urge, press, embrace the primary sense of a great part of all the verbs in every language which I have examined. Indeed it must be so for the verb is certainly the root of most words; and the verb expresses motion, which always implies the application of force.
	Even the verbs which signify to hold or stop, in most instances at least, if not in all, denote, primarily, to strain or restrain by exertion of force; and to lie is, primarily, to throw down, to lay one’s self down. So that intransitive verbs are rarely exceptions to the general remark above made, that all verbs primarily express motion or exertion of force. The substantive verb has more claims to be an exception than any other; for this usually denotes, I think, permanence or continued being; but the primary sense of this verb may perhaps be to set or fix; and verbs having this sense often express extension in time or duration. So τεινω in Greek, is to stretch, but the same word teneo in Latin, is to hold; hence continuance.
	Let us now attend to the radical sense of some of the most common verbs.
	Speaking, calling, crying, praying, utterance of sounds is usually from the sense of driving or straining. Thus in Latin, appello and compello, though of a different conjugation from pello, depello, impello, are from the same root; and although the Latin repello does not signify to recall, yet the corresponding word in Italian, rappellare and the French rappeler, signify to recall, and hence the English repeal. Hence also peal, either of a bell or of thunder. This is the Greek βαλλω, and probably παλλω is from the same root. The sense of striking is found in the Greek verb, and so it is in the Latin loquor, English clock. But in general, speaking, in all its modifications is the straining, driving, or impulse of sounds. Sometimes the sense coincides more exactly with that of breaking or bursting.
	Singing is a driving or straining of the voice; and we apply strain to a passage of music, and to a course of speaking.
	I am not confident that I can refer the sensation of hearing to any visible action. Possibly it may sometimes be from striking, hitting, touching. But we observe that hear is connected in origin with ear, as the Latin audio is with the Greek ους, ωτος, the ear; whence it appears probable that the verb to hear, is formed from the name of the ear, and the ear is from some verb which signifies to shoot or extend, for it signifies a limb.
	The primary sense of seeing, is commonly to extend to, to reach; as it were, to reach with the eye. Hence the use of behold, for the radical sense of hold is to strain; and hence its signification in beholden, held, bound, obligated. See the verb See in the Dictionary.
	The sense of look may be somewhat different from that of see. It appears, in some instances, to have for its primary signification, to send, throw, cast; that is, to send or cast the eye or sight.
	The primary sense of feeling is to touch, hit, or strike; and probably this is the sense of taste.
	Wonder and astonishment are usually expressed by some word that signifies to stop or hold. Hence the Latin miror, to wonder, is the Armoric miret, to stop, hold, hinder; coinciding with the English moor, and Spanish amarrar, to moor, as a ship.
	To begin is to come, or fall on; to thrust on. We have a familiar example in the Latin incipio, in and capio; for capio is primarily to fall or rush on and seize. See Begin in the Dictionary.
	Attempt is expressed by straining, stretching, as in Latin tento. See Assay and Essay.
	Power, strength, and the corresponding verb, to be able, are usually expressed by straining, stretching, and this is the radical sense of ruling or governing. Of this the Latin rego is an example, which gives rectus, right, that is, stretched, straight.
	Care, as has been stated, is usually from straining, that is, a tension of the mind.
	Thinking is expressed by setting. To think is to set or fix or hold in the mind. It approaches to the sense of suppose, Latin suppono.
	And under this word, let us consider the various applications of the Latin puto. The simple verb puto is rendered to prune, lop or dress, as vines, that is, according to Ainsworth, putum, i. e. purum reddo, purgo, by which I understand him to mean, that putum is either a change of purum, or used for it; a most improbable supposition, for the radical letters t and r are not commutable. Puto is rendered also, to make even, clear, adjust, or cast up accounts; also to think or consider; to suppose; to debate. Its compounds are amputo, to cut off, prune, amputate, to remove; computo, to compute, to reckon, to think or deem; disputo, to make clear, to adjust or settle, to dispute or debate, to reason; imputo, to impute, to ascribe or lay to, to place to account; reputo, to consider, to revolve, to reckon up, to impute. The Latin deputo signifies to think, judge or esteem, to account or reckon, and to prune; but the Italian deputare, Spanish diputar, and French deputer, from the Latin word; all signify to send. How can the sense of think, and that of lop or prune, be deduced from a common root or radical sense? We find the solution of this question in the verb to depute. The primary sense is to throw, thrust or send, or to set or lay, which is from throwing, driving. To prune is to separate, remove, or drive off; to force off; to think is a setting in the mind; to compute is to throw or put together, either in the mind or in numbers; to dispute is to throw against or apart, like debate, to beat from; to impute is to throw or put to or on; and to repute is to think or throw in the mind repeatedly. To amputate is to separate by cutting round. Puto then in Latin is from the same root, probably, as the English put, or the same word differently applied; and also the Dutch pooten, to plant; poot, a paw, a twig or shoot, Gr. φυτον, &c.
	In attempting to discover the primary sense of words, we are to carry our reflections back to the primitive state of mankind, and consider how rude men would effect their purposes, before the invention or use of the instruments which the moderns employ. The English verb to cut, signifies, ordinarily, to separate with an edged tool; and we are apt to consider this as the chief and original sense. But if so, how can cut, the stroke of a whip, which is a legitimate sense of the word, be deduced from the act of severing by an edged tool? We have, in this popular use of the word, a clew to guide us to the primary sense, which is, to drive, urge, press, and applied to the arm, to strike. But we have better evidence. In the popular practice of speaking in New England, it is not uncommon to hear one person call to another when running, and say, Cut on, cut on; that is, hurry, run faster, drive, press on; probably from striking a beast which one rides on. This is the original sense of the word. Hence we see that this verb is the Latin cædo, to strike, to cut down, somewhat differently applied, and cado, to fall, is only a modified sense of the same root, and the compounds incido, to cut, and incido, to fall on, are of one family. To cut is, therefore, primarily, to strike, or drive; and to cut off, if applied to the severing of bodies, before edged tools were used, was to force off, or to strike off; hence the sense of separating in the phrase to cut off a retreat or communication.
	So the Latin carpo is the English carve, originally to separate by plucking, pulling, seizing and tearing, afterwards, by cutting.
	Asking is usually expressed by the sense of pressing, urging. We have a clear proof of this in the Latin peto and its compounds. This verb signifies, primarily, to rush, to drive at, to assault; and this sense, in Dictionaries, ought to stand first in the order of definitions. We have the force of the original in the words impetus and impetuous. So the Latin rogo coincides in elements with reach.
	The act of understanding is expressed by reaching or taking, holding, sustaining; the sense of comprehend, and of understand. We have a popular phrase which well expresses this sense, “I take your meaning or your idea.” So in German, begreifen, to begripe, to apprehend.
	Knowing seems to have the same radical sense as understanding.
	Pain, grief, distress, and the like affections, are usually expressed by pressure or straining. Affliction is from striking.
	Joy, mirth, and the like affections, are from the sense of rousing, exciting, lively action.
	Covering, and the like actions, are from spreading over or cutting off, interruption.
	Hiding is from covering or from withdrawing, departure; or concealment may be from withholding, restraining, suppressing, or making fast, as in the Latin celo.
	Heat usually implies excitement; but as the effect of heat as well as of cold is sometimes to contract, I think both are sometimes from the same radix. Thus cold and the Lat. caleo, to be warm, and callus and calleo, to be hard, have all the same elementary letters, and I suppose them all to be from one root, the sense of which is, to draw, strain, shrink, contract. I am the more inclined to this opinion, for these words coincide with calleo; to be strong or able, to know; a sense that implies straining and holding.
	Hope is probably from reaching forward. We express strong desire by longing, reaching toward.
	Earnestness, boldness, daring, peril, promptness, readiness, willingness, love and favor, are expressed by advancing or inclining.
	Light is often expressed by opening, or the shooting of rays, radiation; and probably in many cases, the original word was applied to the dawn of day in the morning. Whiteness is often connected in origin with light. We have an instance of this in the Latin caneo, to shine and to be white.
	And that the primary sense of this word is to shoot, to radiate, that is, to throw out or off, we have evidence in the verb cano, to sing, whence canto, the sense of which is retained in our popular use of cant; to cant a stone; to cant over a cask; give the thing a cant; for all these words are from one stock.
	The Latin virtus, the English worth, is from the root of vireo, to grow, that is, to stretch forward, to shoot; hence the original sense is strength, a sense we retain in its application to the qualities of plants. Hence the Latin sense of virtus is bravery, coinciding with the sense of boldness, a projecting forward.
	Pride is from swelling or elevation, the primary sense of some other words nearly allied to it.
	Fear is usually from shrinking or from shaking, trembling; or sometimes, perhaps, from striking, a being struck, as with surprise.
	Holiness and sacredness are sometimes expressed by separation, as from common things. The Teutonic word holy, however, seems to be from the sense of soundness, entireness.
	Faith and belief seem to imply a resting on, or a leaving. It is certain that the English belief is a compound of the prefix be and leaf, leave, permission. To believe one, then, is to leave with him, to rest or suffer to rest with him, and hence not to dispute, contend or deny.
	Color may be from spreading over or putting on; but in some instances the primary sense is to dip. See Dye and Tinge.
	Spots are from the sense of separating or from sprinkling, dispersion.
	The radical sense of making is to press, drive, or force. We use make in its true literal sense, in the phrases, Make your horse draw, Make your servant do what you wish.
	Feeding is from the sense of pressing, crowding, stuffing, that is, from driving or thrusting. Eating seems to have a somewhat different sense.
	Drinking is from drawing, or from wetting, plunging. Drench and drink are radically one word.
	Anger, and the like violent passions, imply excitement, or violent action. Hence their connection with burning or inflammation, the usual sense of which is raging or violent commotion.
	Agreement, harmony, are usually from meeting, or union, or from extending; reaching to.
	Dwelling, abiding, are from the sense of throwing or setting down, or resting, or from stretching; as we see by the Latin continuo, from teneo, Gr. τεινω, to extend.
	Guarding and defending are from roots that signify to stop, or to cut off; or more generally, from the sense of driving off, a repelling or striking back. In some cases perhaps from holding.
	Opposition is usually expressed by meeting, and hence the prepositions which express opposition. Thus the Danish prepositions mod, Swedish mot or emot, against, contrary, is the English word to meet.
	Words which express spirit, denote, primarily, breath, air, wind, the radical sense of which is to flow, move or rush. Hence the connection between spirit and courage, animus, animosus; hence passion, animosity. So in Greek φρενιτις, frenzy, is from φρην, the mind, or rather from its primary sense, a moving or rushing.
	So in our mother tongue, mod is mind or spirit; whence mood, in English, and Saxon modig, moody, angry. Hence mind in the sense of purpose, its primary signification is a setting forward, as intention is from intendo, to stretch, to strain, the sense that ought to stand first in a Dictionary.
	Reproach, chiding, rebuke, are from the sense of scolding, or throwing out words with violence.
	Sin is generally from the sense of deviating, wandering, as is the practice of lewdness.
	Right, justice, equity, are from the sense of stretching, making straight, or from laying, making smooth.
	Falsehood is from falling, failing, or from deviation, wandering, drawing aside.
	The primary sense of strange and foreign, is distant, and from some verb signifying to depart. Wild and fierce are from a like sense.
	Vaiu, vanity, wane, and kindred words, are from exhausting, drawing out, or from departing, withdrawing, falling away.
	Paleness is usually from failure, a departure of color.
	Glory is from opening, expanding, display, or making clear.
	Binding, making fast or close, is from pressure, or straining.
	Writing is from scratching, engraving, the sense of all primitive words which express this act.
	A crowd, a mass, a wood, &c., are from collecting or pressing, or some allied signification.
	Vapor, steam, smoke, are usually from verbs which signify to exhale or throw off.
	Stepping seems to be from opening, expanding, stretching. Thus passus in Latin is from pando, to open, but this agrees in origin with pateo, and with the Greek πατεω. Gradus in Latin coincides with the Welsh rhawd, a way, and this, when traced to its root, terminates in
the Oriental רד, רדה, Chaldee, to open, stretch or expand; in Syriac, ܪܕܐ radah, to go, to pass. Walking may be sometimes from a like source; but the word walk signifies, primarily, to roll, press, work and full, as a hat, whence walker signifies a fuller.
	Softness and weakness are usually named from yielding, bending, withdrawing, as is relaxation. Softness, however, is sometimes connected with smoothness, and perhaps with moisture.
	Sweetness seems to have for its primary sense, either softness or smoothness.
	Roughness is from sharp points, wrinkling or breaking; and acidity is from sharpness or pungency, and nearly allied to roughness.
	Death is expressed by falling or departure; life, by fixedness or continuance, or from animation, excitement.
	Selling is, primarily, a passing or transfer. Sellan in Saxon, signifies to give, as well as to sell.
	A coast or border is usually the extreme point, from extending.
	Law is from setting, establishing.
	The primary sense of son, daughter, offspring, is usually a shoot, or as we say, issue. Hence in Hebrew בנ ben, signifies both a son, a cion, a branch, and the young of other animals. A son, says Parkhurst, is from בנה banah, to build; and hence he infers that a son is so called, because he builds up or continues his father’s house or family. But if so, how does the word apply to a branch, or an arrow? What do these build up? The mistake of this author, and of others, proceeds from their not understanding the original meaning of the verb, which is not to erect, or elevate, but to throw, to set, to found; and this verb is probably retained in our word found. A son is that which is thrown or shot out; a cion or branch is the same, an offset, one an offset of the human body, the other of a plant, and an arrow is that which is shot or thrown. Hence, probably, the Hebrew אבנ eben or even, a stone, W. maen or vaen, that which is set, so named from its compactness or hardness. And in Arabic أَنَبَ [sic] abana, signifies to think, Lat. opinor, that is, to set in the mind.
	Few and small are senses often expressed by the same word. Thus, although few in English expresses merely a small number, yet the same word in French, peu, and in the Italian, poco, signifies little in quantity, as well as few in number.
	Cause is from the sense of urging, pressing, impelling. Hence it well expresses that which produces an effect: and hence it is peculiarly expressive of that by which a man seeks to obtain a claim in law. A cause in court is properly a pressing for right, like action from ago; and prosecution from the Latin sequor, which is our word seek. Hence the Latin accuso, to accuse, to throw upon, to press or load with a charge. The Saxon saca, contention, suit in law, is synonymous with cause, and from the root of seek, sequor. It is the English sake.
	The word thing is nearly synonymous with cause and sake. See Thing in the Dictionary.
	The primary sense of time, luck, chance, fortune, is to fall, to come, to arrive, to happen. Tide, time and season, have a like original sense. Tide in Saxon is time, not a flow of the sea, the latter being a secondary and modern application of the word. This primary signification of time will unfold to us what I formerly could not understand, and what I could find no person to explain, that is, why the Latin tempora should signify times and the temples. It seems that tempora are the falls of the head. Hence, also, we understand why tempest is naturally deducible from tempus, as the primary sense is to fall, to rush. Hence tempestivus, seasonable, that comes in good time. Season has a like sense.
	Hence, also, we are led to understand, what has seemed inexplicable, how the French heureux, lucky, happy, can be regularly deduced from heure, an hour.  We find that in Greek and Latin the primary sense of hour is time, and time is a coming, a falling, a happening, like the English luck, and hence the sense of lucky; hence fortunate and happy. The word fortunate is precisely of the same character.
	The primary sense of the Shemitic דבר davar, or thavar, corresponds almost precisely with that of cause and thing in English, that is, to strain, urge, drive, fall or rush. Hence it signifies to speak, and in Ch. and Syr. to lead, to direct, to govern. As a noun, it signifies a word, that which is uttered; a thing, cause or matter, that is, that which happens or falls, like event from evenio; also a plague, or great calamity, that is, that which falls or comes on man or beast, like plague, a stroke or affliction, from striking. And it may be observed, that if the first letter is a prefix answering to the Gothic du, Saxon and English to, in the Saxon todrifan, to drive, then the root בר coincides exactly with the Welsh peri, to command, which is retained in composition in the Lat. impero. Indeed if the first syllable of guberno is a prefix, the root of this word may be the same. The object, however, for which this word is here mentioned, is chiefly to show the uniformity which men have observed in expressing their ideas; making use of the same, visible physical action to represent the operations of the mind and moral ideas.
	Silence, deafness, dumbness, are from stopping, holding, or making fast.
	War is from the sense of striving, driving, struggling.
	Good is generally from enlarging, or advancing, like prosperous.
	Evil is from wandering departing, or sometimes from softness, weakness, flowing or fluxibility, as is the case with the Latin malum, from the Welsh mall.
	The primary sense of the names of natural and material objects can not always be ascertained. The reasons are obvious. Some of these names are detached branches of a family of words which no longer form a part of our language; the verb and all the derivatives, except a single name, being extinct, or found only in some remote country. Others of these names have suffered such changes of orthography, that it is difficult or impossible to ascertain the primary or radical letters, and of course the family to which they belong. Numerous examples of such words occur in English, as in every other language.
But from such facts as have occurred to me in my researches, I may venture to affirm with confidence, that most names of natural objects are taken from some obvious quality or action, or some supposed quality of the thing; or from the particular action or operation by which it is produced. Thus tumors are named from pushing, or swelling; and redness, or red, seems, in some instances at least, to be named from eruptions on the body. The human body is named from shaping, that is, setting, fixing, or extending, and hence sometimes, the general name of the human race. The arm is a shoot, a push, as is the branch of a tree. A board, a table, a floor, is from spreading, or expanding, extending. Skin and bark are from peeling, stripping, &c.
	The names of particular animals and plants can not always be traced to their source; but as far as I have been able to discover their origin, I find animals to be generally named from some striking characteristic of external appearance, from the voice, from habits of life, or from their office. There is reason for believing that the Greek ςρουθος and Latin struthio, or ostrich, is from the same root as the English strut, the strutter; the primary sense of which root is, to stretch, which explains all the senses of the Greek and Latin words of this family. It is certain that the crow is named from its cry, and the leopard from his spots.
	Thus plants were named from their qualities: some from their form, others from their color, others from their effects, others from the place of their growth. The English root, Lat. radix, is only a particular application of rod and ray, radius; that is, a shoot. Spurge is, undoubtedly, from the root of the Latin purgo.
	There is reason to think that many names of plants were originally adjectives, expressing their qualities, or the name was a compound, used for the same purpose, one part of which has been dropped, and the other remaining as the name of the plant. Thus pine, pinus, is from pin, pinna, penna; for in Welsh pin is a pin and a pen or style for writing, and pinbren is a pine-tree. The tree then was named from its leaf.
	Fir has a similar origin and signification.
	It is probable or rather certain that some natural objects, as plants and minerals, received their names from their supposed qualities; as in ages of ignorance and superstition, men might ascribe effects to them, by mistake. The whole history of magic and enchantment leads us to this conclusion.
	Minerals are, in many instances, named from their obvious qualities, as gold from its yellowness, and iron from its hardness. The names can, in some cases, be traced to their original, as that of gold and of the Latin ferrum; but many of them are not easily ascertained. Indeed the greatest part of the specific names of animals, plants and minerals, appear to be obscure. Some of them appear to have no connection with any family of words in our language, and many of them are derived to us from Asia, and from roots which can be found only, if found at all, in the Asiatic languages.
	These observations and explanations will be sufficient to show the importance of developing, as far as possible, the origin of words, and of comparing the different uses of the same word in different languages, in order to understand either the philosophy of speech, or the real force and signification of words in their practical application.
	If it should be found to be true, that many of the Shemitic verbs are formed with prefixes, like those of the European languages, this may lead to new illustrations of the original languages of the Scriptures. In order to determine this fact, it will be useful to examine whether the Chaldee and Hebrew ב is not often a prefix answering to be in the Teutonic languages; whether נ and ב are not prefixes answering to the ga and ge of the Gothic and Teutonic; whether ד, ט and ת, and ז, a dialectical form of ט, do not coincide with the Gothic du, the Saxon to, the Dutch toe, and the German zu; whether נ does not answer to the Russ. and Dutch na, the German nach; and whether ם and ש do not answer to s, sh and sch in the modern English and German.
	If many of the Shemitic triliteral verbs are compound, it follows that the primary radix has not been detected. At any rate, I have no hesitation in affirming that the primary sense of many of the roots in the Shemitic languages, that sense which is almost indispensable to an understanding of many obscure passages in the Scriptures, has been hitherto overlooked or mistaken. In order fully to comprehend many uses of the words, it will be necessary to compare them with the uses of the words of the same family in the modern languages, and this comparison must be far more extensive than any hitherto made, and conducted on principles which have not been before duly appreciated and applied.
	I have introduced the foregoing comparative view of the several significations of the same word in different languages, not merely to illustrate the general principles of language, but with a special reference to an explanation of the etymologies which occur in this work. Should my Synopsis ever be published, the learned inquirer might pursue the subject at his pleasure.

	The results of the foregoing remarks and illustrations may be thus recapitulated.
	1. The nations which now constitute the distinct families or races of Japheth and Shem, are descendants of the common family which inhabited the plain of Shinar before the dispersion.
	2. The families at the dispersion retained a large proportion of the words which were in common use before that event, and the same were conveyed to their posterity. In the course of time, some of these words were dropped by one family or tribe, and some by another, till very few of them are retained in their original form and signification, by all the nations which have sprung from the main stock. A few of them, however, are still found in all or nearly all the languages which I have examined, bearing nearly the same signification and easily recognized as identical.
	3. Although few of the primitive words can now be recognized as existing in all the languages, yet as we better understand the changes which have been made in the orthography and signification of the same radical words, the more affinities are discovered; and particularly, when we understand the primary sense, we find this to unite words whose appropriate or customary significations appear to have no connection.
	4. A great number of the primitive radical words are found in compounds, formed in different languages, with different affixes and prefixes, which obscure the affinity. Thus veritas in Latin, is wahrheit in German; the first syllable in each is the same word, the last different. In other instances, both difference of orthography, of formation and of application, concur to obscure the affinity of words. Thus, the English word strong is in Danish streng, signifying stern, severe, rigid, strict; and strenghed, [stronghood,] is severity, rigor, strictness. Now n in these words is not radical; remove this letter and we have strog, streg, which coincide with the Latin stringo, strictus; and these words are found to be from the same radix, which signifies to draw, to strain, to stretch.
	5. It appears that b, p and f are often prefixes, either the remains of prepositions, or casual additions to words, introduced by peculiar modes of pronunciation, which prefixes now precede consonants, with which they readily coalesce in pronunciation, as l and r, forming triliteral words on biliteral roots; as in block from lloc, or lock; play, Saxon plegan, from leg or lek, Swedish leka, Dan. leger; flow, Lat. fluo, from lug, or luc, which appears in light, lux, luceo, and in lug, a river, retained in Lugdunum.
	6. It appears also, that c or k and g, are often prefixes before the same consonants, l and r, as in Lat. clunis, Eng. loin; W. clod, praise, from llod, Latin laus, laudo; German gluck, English luck; Lat. gratia, W. rhad.
	7. It appears also, that s is a prefix in a vast number of words, as in speed, spoil, swell, sweep; and it is very evident that st are prefixed to many words whose original, radical, initial consonant was r, as in straight, strict, strong, stretch, from the root of right, rectus, reach, and in stride, from the root of the Latin gradior, W. rhaz.
	If these inferences are just, as I am persuaded they are, it follows that there is a more near resemblance and a much closer affinity between the languages of Europe and of Western Asia, than has hitherto been supposed to exist. It follows also, that some of the most important principles or rudiments of language have hitherto escaped observation, and that philology is yet in its infancy. Should this prove, on further examination, to be the state of philology, it is reserved for future investigators to examine the original languages of the Scriptures on new principles, which may serve to illustrate some obscure and difficult passages, not hitherto explained to the general satisfaction of critics and commentators.
	lf any persons should be disposed to doubt or contradict these facts, let them first consider that my conclusions are not hasty opinions, formed on isolated facts; but that they have been forced upon me, in opposition to all my former habits of thinking, by a series of successive proofs and accumulating evidence, during a long course of investigation, in which I have compared most of the radical words, in more than twenty languages, twice, and some of them three times.
	No part of my researches has given me more trouble or solicitude than that of arriving at the precise radical signification of moral ideas; such, for example, as hope, love, favor, faith. Nor has it been with much less labor that I have obtained a clear knowledge of some of our physical actions. It is literally true that I have sometimes had a word under consideration for two or three years, before I could satisfy my own mind as to the primary signification. That I have succeeded at last, in every instance, can hardly be supposed–yet, in most cases, I am perfectly satisfied with the results of my researches.

Progress and Changes of the English Language.
	It has been already observed that the mother tongue of the English is the Anglo-Saxon. The following are specimens of that language as it was spoken or written in England before the Norman conquest. The first is from the Saxon Chronicle. The original is in one column, and the literal translation in the other. The English words in italics are Saxon words, The number of these will show how large a proportion of the words is retained in the present English.

An. DCCCXCI. Her for se here east, and Earnulf cyning gefeaht with thæm ræde-here ær tha scipu comon, mid East-Francum, and Seaxum, and Bægerum, and hine geflymde. And thry Scottas cwomon to Ælfrede cyninge on anum bate, butan ælcum gerethum, of Hibernia; and thonon hi hi bestælon, forthon the hi woldon for Godes lufan on eltheodinesse bion, hy ne rohton hwær.	An. 891.  Here [this year] fared the army east, and Earnulf, the king, fought with the calvary [ride army] ere the ships come, with the East-Franes, and Saxons, and Bavarians, and put them to flight. And three Scots come to Ælfred, the king, in a [an] boat, without any rowers, from Hibernia, and thence they privately withdrew [bestole] because that they would, for God’s love be [or live] in a state of pilgrimage, they should not be anxious — [reck, care] where.	
Se bat wæs geworht of thriddan healfre hyde, the hie on foron, and hi namon med him that hie hæfdon to seofon nihtum mete, and tha comon hie ymb seofon niht, to londe on Cornwealum, and foran tha sona to Ælfrede cyninge.	The boat was wrought of two hides and a half [third half hide,] in which they fared [came] and they took with them that they had for seven nights meat, and they come about the seventh night, to land in Cornwall, and fared [went] soon to Ælfred, the king.	

	The following specimen is from the Anglo-Saxon version of Orosius, supposed to be made by King Alfred.

Ohthere sæde his hlaforde, Ælfrede kyninge, thæt he ealra North-manna north mest bude. He cwæth that he bude on thæm lande northeweardum with tha west sæ. He sæde theat thæt land sy swythe north thanon; ac hit is eall west buton on feawum stowum sticce mælum wiciath Finnas, on huntathe on wintra, and on sumera on fiscothe be there sæ. He sæde thæt he æt sumum cyrre wolde fandiam hu lange thæt land north right læge.	Octhere told [said] his lord, king Alfred, that he lived north most of all the north men. He quoth that he dwelt in the [them] land northward, opposite [with] the west sea. He said though, that that land is due north from thence, and that it is all waste except [but] in a few places [stows] where the Finns for the most part dwell, for hunting in winter, and in summer for fishing in that sea, [by the sea.] He said that he, at some time, would find how long that land lay right north.	

Laws of King Æthelbert.

Gif Cyning his leode to him gehatah, and heom mon thær yfel gedo, II bote and cyning L. scillinga.

Gif in Cyninges tune man mannan ofsleah, L. scill. gebete.	If the King shall call [cite] his people to him, and any one [man] shall there do evil, let double compensation be made, and fifty schillings to the King.

If in the King’s town a man slay a man, let him compensate [boot] with fifty shillings.	
Gif on Eorles tune man mannan ofsleath, XII scil. gebete.	If in an Earl’s town one man slayeth another man, let him pay twelve shillings for reparation.	
Gif man thone man ofslæhth, XX scil. gebete.	If man [any one] slayeth any man, let him compensate with twenty shillings.	
Gif thuman (of a slæth) XX scil. Gif thuman nægl of weordeth III scil. gebete. Gif man scytefinger (of a slæhth,) IV scil. gebete. Gif man gold-finger (of a slæhth,) VI scil. gebete. Gif man thon litlan finger (of a slæhth) XI scil. gebete.	If the thumb shall be cut off, twenty shillings. If the thumb nail shall be cut off, three shillings shall be the compensation. If any one [off slayeth, striketh off,] cutteth off the fore finger, [shoot finger,] let him compensate with eight shillings. If any one cutteth of the middle finger, let him pay four shillings. If any one cutteth off the gold finger, [ring finger,] let him pay six shillings. If any one cutteth off the little finger, let him pay eleven shillings.	

Laws of King Eadgar.

We læreth tha æle cristen man his bearn to cristendome geornlicc wænige and him pater noster and credon tæce.	We order (or instruct) that each christian man earnestly accustom [wean] his children to christianity, [Christendom,] and teach him the Pater Noster and Creed.	
We læreth that preost ne beo hunta ne hafecere ne tæflere; ac plegge on his bocum swa his hade gebirath.	We direct that a priest be not a hunter, nor hawker, nor a gamester; but that he apply to his books, as it becomes his order.	

	We observe by these extracts that rather more than half the Saxon Words have been lost, and now form no part of our language.
	This language, with some words introduced by the Danes, continued to be used by the English, till the Norman conquest. After that event; great numbers of Saxon words went into disuse, not suddenly, but gradually, and French and Latin words were continually added to the language, till it began to assume its present form, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Yet the writings of Gower and Chaucer can not now be fully understood without a glossary.
	But it was not in the loss of native Saxon words and the accession of French and Latin words alone, that the change of our language consisted. Most important alterations were made in the sounds of the vowels. It is probable, if not certain, that our first vowel a had usually or always the broad sound, as we now pronounce it in fall, or in some words perhaps the Italian sound, as it is now called, and as we pronounce it in ask. The sound of e was probably nearly the same as it is in French and Italian, and in the northern languages on the continent of Europe; which is nearly that of a in favor. The Saxon sound of i was probably the same as it is still on the Continent, the sound of ee or long e. The sound of u was that of our present oo, French ou, the sound it still has in Italian, and in most countries on the European continent. It is probable that the change of the sound of u happened in consequence of the prevalence of the French pronunciation after the conquest; for the present sound of u may be considered as intermediate, between the full sound of oo, or French ou, and the French sound of u.
	These changes, and the various sounds given to the same character, now serve to perplex foreigners, when learning English; and tend, in no small degree, to retard or limit the extension of our language. This is an unfortunate circumstance, not only in obstructing the progress of science, but of Christianity.
	The principal changes in the articulations are the use of k for c, as in look for locian; the loss of h before l, as in loaf from hlaf, lot for hlot, lean for hlinian; and the entire loss of the prefix ge or ga, as in deal for ge-dælan, deem for ge-deman; and of to as a prefix, as in to-helpan, to help; to-dailan to deal. In no instance do we feel more sensibly the change of sounds in the vowels, than in that of i, which in French, Spanish, and Italian, is e long; for in consequence of this, persons who are not acquainted with these foreign languages, mispronounce such words as marino, Messina, Lima, giving to i its English sound, when in fact the words are to be pronounced marceno, Messeena, Leema.
	In grammatical structure the language has suffered considerable alterations. In our mother tongue, nouns were varied to form cases, somewhat as in Latin. This declension of nouns has entirely ceased, except in the possessive or genitive case, in which an apostrophe before s has been substituted for the regular Saxon termination es. Some of our pronouns retain their declensions, somewhat varied. The plural termination in en has been dropped, in a number of words, and the regular plural termination been substituted, as houses for housen.
	In most cases, the Saxon termination of the infinitive mode of verbs has been dropped, and for gifan we now write, to give. The variations of the verb, in the several persons, have been materially changed. Thus for the Saxon– 
	Ic lufige, Thu lufast, He lufath.
	We lufiath, Ge lufiath, Hi lufiath.
we now write–
	I love, Thou lovest, He loveth or loves.
	We love, Ye love, They love.

	In the Saxon plural, however, we see the origin of the vulgar practice, still retained in some parts of England and of this country. We loves, they loves, which are contractions of lufiath.
	In the substantive verb, our common people universally, and most persons of better education, unless they have rejected their traditionary language, retain the Gothic dialect, in the past tense.
	I was, Thou wast, He was.
	We was, Ye was, They was.

	However people may be ridiculed for this language, it is of genuine origin, as old as the Saxon word were. In Gothic the past tense runs thus–
	Ik was, Thu wast, Is was.
	Weis wesum, Yus wesuth, Eis wesun.

	In the present tense of the substantive verb, our common people use ā’nt, as in this phrase: “he ā’nt present.” This is evidently a contraction of the Swedish and Danish är, er, present indicative singular of the substantive verb vara or værer, to be, which we retain in are and were. In Swedish, han är, and in Danish, han er, he is. Hence he er not or ar not, contracted into he a’nt or e’nt.
	These facts serve to show how far the Gothic dialect has been infused into the English language.
	It would be tedious, and to most readers uninteresting, to recite all the changes in the forms of words or the structure of sentences which have taken place since the Norman conquest. Since the invention of printing, changes in the language have been less rapid than before; but no art nor effort can completely arrest alterations in a living language. The distinguished writers in the age of Queen Elizabeth, improved the language, but could not give it stability. Many words then in common use are now obsolete, or have suffered a change of signification. In the period between Queen Elizabeth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, the language was improved in grammar, orthography, and style. The writers in the reign of Queen Anne and of George I, brought the language nearly to perfection; and if any improvement has since been made, it is in the style or diction, by a better selection of words, and the use of terms in science and philosophy with more precision.
	In regard to grammatical construction, the language, for half a century past, has, in my apprehension, been suffering deterioration, at least as far as regards its written form. This change may be attributed chiefly to the influence of the learned Bishop Lowth, whose Grammar made its appearance nearly seventy years ago. I refer particularly to his form of the verb, which was adjusted to the practice of writers in the age of Queen Elizabeth, instead of the practice of authors in the age of William and Mary, Queen Anne, and George I. Hence he gives for the form of the verb in the subjunctive mode, after the words which express a condition, if, though, &c. I love, thou love, he love, observing in a note, that in the subjunctive mode, the event being spoken of under a condition or supposition, or in the form of a wish, and therefore doubtful and contingent, the verb itself in the present, and the auxiliary both of the present and past imperfect times, often carry with them somewhat of a future sense; as, “If he come to-morrow, I may speak to him” — “If he should come, I should speak to him.” This is true; but for that very reason, this form of the verb belongs to the future tense, or should be arranged as such in Grammars. If he come, would be in Latin si venerit, in the subjunctive future.
	But the learned author has entirely overlooked the important distinction between an event or fact, of uncertain existence in the present time, and which is mentioned under the condition of present existence, and a future contingent event. “If the mail that has arrived contains a letter for me, I shall soon receive it,” is a phrase that refers to the present time, and expresses an uncertainty in my mind, respecting the fact. “If the mail contain a letter for me,” refers to a future time, that is, “If the mail of to-morrow contain [shall or should contain] a letter for me.” The first event, conditional or hypothetical, should be expressed by the indicative mode, and the latter by the subjunctive future. The Saxon form of the verb, if he slay, if he go, is evidently a contingent future, and is so used in the laws.
	This distinction, one of the most important in the language, has been so totally overlooked, that no provision has been made for it in British Grammars; nor is the distinction expressed by the form of the verb, as used by a great part of the best writers. On the other hand, they continually use one form of the verb to express both senses. The fact is the same in the common version of the Scriptures. If he go, if he speak, sometimes express a present conditional tense, and sometimes a contingent future. In general this subjunctive form of the verb in Scripture, expresses future time. “If he thus say, I have no delight in thee,” expresses a future contingent event. 2 Sam. xv. 26. “If iniquity be in thine hand, put it far away,” expresses a fact, under a condition, in the present time. Job xi. 14.
	In many instances the translators have deviated from the original, in using the subjunctive form of the English verb to express what in Greek is expressed in the indicative. Thus Matthew iv. 6. Ει υίος ει του Θεου, If thou be [art] the son of God.
	Ch. v. 29 and 30. Ει δε ό οφθαλμος σου ό δεξιος σκανδαλιξει σε, If thy right eye offend [offendeth] thee; Ει ή δεξια σου χειρ σκανδαλιξει σι, If thy right hand offend [offendeth] thee.
	So also in chapter xviii. 8 and 9.
	Ch. xii. 26. Ει ο Σατανας τον Σαταναν εκβαλλει, If Satan cast [casteth] out Satan.
	Ch. xix. 10. Ει ούτως εςιν ή αιτια του ανθρωπου μετα της γυναικος, If the case of the man be [is] so with his wife.
	Ch. xxii. 45. Ει ουν Δαβιδ καλει διαφθειρεται, If David then call [calleth] him Lord.
	2 Cor. iv. 16. Ει ο εξω ήμων ανθρωπος διαφθειρεται, Though our outward man perish [perishes, or is perishing.]
	In all these passages, the English verb, in the subjunctive, properly expresses a conditional, contingent or hypothetical future tense, contrary to the sense of the original, except in the last passage cited, where the apostle evidently speaks of the perishing of the outward man as a fact admitted, which renders the translation still more improper.
	Let us now attend to the following passages.
	Matthew 9. Η τις εςιν εξ ύμων ανθρωπος ον εαν αιτηοη ο υίος αυτου αρτον, Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask [shall ask] bread, will he give him a stone?
	Και εαν ιχθυν αιτηοη, If he ask [shall ask] a fish, will he give him a serpent?
	Here the original tense is varied to express a future or hypothetical event, yet the verb in English is in the same tense as in the first class of examples; and what renders the version more objectionable is, that the verb in the first clause does not correspond with that in the second clause. There is no possible way of making good English of the translation but by supposing the verb in the first clause ask, to be in the future tense. So it would be in Latin, and so it is, “si petierit.” If thy son shall ask (or should ask) a fish, will he give (or would he give) him a serpent?
	This fault runs through the whole English version of the Scriptures, and a distinction of tenses clearly marked in the original languages, is generally neglected in the translation.
	Now the most unlettered man in this country would express the sense in English, with the same marked distinction of tenses, which appears in the Greek. If thou art the son of God; if thy right eye offends thee; if the case of the man is such; if David calls him Lord: or, if the sense is understood to be future and contingent, if thy son shall ask bread, or if he should ask bread, would be the uniform language of any of the common people of our country. There would not, probably, be a single exception, unless in the use of the substantive verb, which is often used in the subjunctive form. And the most unlettered man would use the corresponding verbs in the two clauses, if he shall ask, will he give; or, if he should ask, would he give. The use of the verb in all similar phrases, is perfectly well settled in this country, and perfectly uniform among the higher and lower classes of men; unless when the practice has been varied by the influence of Grammars, in which the conjugation of the verb is according to the antiquated practice of the age of Elizabeth.
	1 Tim. v. 4. Ει δε τις χηρα τεκνα η εκγονα εχει, If any widow have [has] children or nephews.
	Verse 8. Ει δε τις των ιδιων και μαλιςα των οικειων ου προνοει, If any provide [provideth] not for his own, and especially for those of his own house.
	This subjunctive form of the verb, if he be; if he have; if he go; if he say; if thou write; whether thou see; though he fall, which was generally used by the writers of the sixteenth century, was in a great measure discarded before the time of Addison. Whether this change was in consequence of the prevalence of colloquial usage over grammar rules, or because discerning men perceived the impropriety and inconsistency of the language of books, I pretend not to determine. Certain it is, that Locke, Watts, Addison, Pope, and other authors of the first distinction, who adorned the close of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century, generally used the indicative mode to express condition, uncertainty, and hypothesis in the present and past tenses. Thus Locke writes — “If these two prepositions are by nature imprinted.”  “If principles are innate.” “ If any person hath never examined this notion.” “Whether that substance thinks or no.” “If the soul doth think in sleep.” “If one considers well these men’s way of speaking.” “ If he does not reflect.” “Unless that notion produces a constant train of successive ideas.” “If your lordship means.” Such is the language of Locke.
	Now, what is remarkable, the learned Dr. Lowth, the very author who has, by his Grammar, done much to sanction the subjunctive form of the verb, in such cases, often uses the indicative in his own writings. “If he does not carefully attend to this — if this pleasure arises from the shape of the composition — if this is not firmly and well established.” These verbs are in contradiction of his own principles.	On Isaiah. Prelim. Diss.
	Addison. “If the reader has a mind to see a father of the same stamp.”  “If exercise throws off all superfluities — if it clears the vessels — if it dissipates a growing distemper.” Such is the language of Addison, the most elegant writer of the genuine English idiom in the nation.
	“If the thief is poor — if it obliges me to be conversant with scenes of wretchedness.” Wilberforce.
	“If America is not to be conquered.” Lord Chatham.
	“If we are to be satisfied with assertions.” “If it gives blind confidence to any executive government.” “ If such an opinion has gone forth.” “If our conduct has been marked with vigor and wisdom.” Fox.
	“If my bodily strength is equal to the task.” “A negro, if he works for himself and not for a master, will do double the work.” “If there is any aggravation of our guilt.” “If their conduct displays no true wisdom.” “The honorable gentleman may, if he chooses, have the
journals read again.” “Whether this is a sufficient tie to unite them.” “If this measure comes recommended.” “If there exists a country which contains the means of protection.” Pitt.
	“If the prudence of reserve and decorum dictates silence.” “If an assembly is viciously or feebly composed.” “If any persons are to make good deficiencies.” “If the King of the French has really deserved these murderous attempts.” “If this representation of M. Necker was false.” “Whether the system, if it deserves the name.” “The politician looks for a power that our workmen call a purchase, and if he finds the power.” “ If he feels as men commonly feel.” Burke.
	“If climate has such an effect on mankind.” “If the effects of climate are casual.” Coxe’s Russ.
	“If he finds his collection too small.” “If he thinks his judgment not sufficiently enlightened.” “Whether it leads to truth.” “If he warns others against his own failings.” This is generally the language of Johnson.
	In regard to this distinguished author, I would observe that, except the substantive verb, there is in his Rambler but a single instance of the subjunctive form of the verb in conditional sentences. In all other cases the use of the indicative is uniform.
	Such also is the language of the most distinguished men in the United States, particularly of those who wrote their native language as they received it from tradition, and before grammars had made any impression on its genuine construction.
	“The prince that acquires new territory, if he finds it vacant.” “If we are industrious we shall never starve.” “If one has more corn than he can consume, and another has less.” Such is the language of Franklin.
	“If any persons thus qualified are to be found.” “If it is thought proper.” “ If the Congress does not choose to point out the particular regiment.” “If I am rightly informed.” “If the army has not removed.” “If a proposition has not been made.” Such is the language of Washington.
	“If any philosopher pretends.” “If he has food for the present day.” “If a revelation is not impossible.” “If the Christian system contains a real communication to mankind,” “If the former of these facts opposes our reception of the miraculous history of the gospel.” “If the preceding reflections are just.” Such is the language of the late President Smith.
	“If any government deems the introduction of foreigners or their merchandise injurious.” “Unless he violates the law of nations.” “If a person has a settlement in a hostile country.” “If he resides in a belligerent country.” “If a foreign consul carries on trade as a merchant.” Such is the language of the ex-Chancellor Kent.
	But neither the authors here mentioned, nor most others, even the most distinguished for erudition, are uniform and consistent with themselves in the use of the tenses. In one sentence we find the indicative used, “If it is to be discovered only by the experiment.” “ If other indications are to be found.” In the next sentence, “If to miscarry in an attempt be a proof of having mistaken the direction of genius.” Johnson.
	“If the former be refined — if those virtues are accompanied with equal abilities.” Gibbon.
	“If love reward him, or if vengeance strike.” Cowper.
	“Or if it does not brand him to the last.” Cowper.
	“If he is a pagan — if endeavors are used — if the person hath a liberal education — if man be subject to these miseries.” Milner.
	The following expressions occur in Pope’s Preface to Homer’s Iliad, in the compass of thirteen lines.
	“If he has given a regular catalogue of an army.”
	“If he has funeral games for Patroclus.”
	“If Ulysses visit the shades.”
	“If he be detained from his return.”
	“If Achilles be absent.”
	“If he gives his hero a suit of celestial armor.”
	I recollect one English author only, who has been careful to avoid this inconsistency; this is Gregory, who, in his Economy of Nature, has uniformly used the indicative form of the verb in conditional sentences of this kind.
	The like inconsistency occurs in almost all American writings. “If moral disposition lie here.” “If preference necessarily involves the knowledge of obligation.” “If the proposition is true.” “If the proposition be confirmed.” “If he refutes any thing.”
	In a pamphlet now before me, there are no less than fifty of these inconsistencies in the compass of ninety pages; and three of them in one sentence.
	How, in this case, is a foreigner to understand the author? and how can such sentences be translated into another language without a deviation from the original?
	The propriety of using the indicative form of the verb to express a present or past event conditionally, does not rest solely on usage; it is most correct upon principle. It is well known that most of the words which are used to introduce a condition or hypothesis, and called, most improperly, conjunctions, are verbs, having not the least affinity to the class of words used to connect sentences. If is the Saxon gif, give, having lost its first letter; if for the ancient gif. Though is also a verb now obsolete, except in the imperative mode. Now let us analyze this conditional tense of the verb. “If the man knows his true interest, he will avoid a quarrel.” Here is an omission of the word that after if. The true original phrase was, “If that the man knows his true interest, he will avoid a quarrel” — that is, give that [admit the fact which is expressed in the following clause,] the man knows his true interest, then the consequence follows, he will avoid a quarrel. That in this sentence is a relative or demonstrative substitute for the following clause. This will more plainly appear by transposing the clauses. “The man knows his true interest; give that [admit that;] he will then avoid a quarrel.” Now let the subjunctive form be used. “The man know his true interest; give that; he will avoid a quarrel.”
	Here the impropriety of this form of the verb appears in a strong light. It will appear more clearly by the use of other words of equivalent signification. Grant the man know his true interest, he will avoid a quarrel. Allow the man know his true interest. Suppose the man know his true interest. We never use the subjunctive form after the three last verbs which introduce the condition. Though is sometimes followed by the indicative; sometimes by the subjunctive; but it ought always to be followed by the indicative, for it supposes the fact to be given; and so does admit, when used in hypothetical sentences. Admit that the man knows his interest. We have then decisive proof that the use of the indicative form of the verb after if, when it expresses a conditional event in present time, is most correct; indeed it is the only correct form. This remark is equally applicable to the past tense conditional.
	The language of Addison, Johnson, and other distinguished writers of the last century, in the use of the indicative, is therefore, more correct than the language of the writers in the age of Elizabeth; and their practice is principally the common usage of our country at this day.
	I have, therefore, constructed a Grammar on this usage; bringing down the standard of writing a century and a half later than Bishop Lowth. I have done this, first, on the authority of strict analogical principles, as above stated; secondly, on the authority of the best usage of that cluster of distinguished writers who adorned the beginning of the last century; and, thirdly, on the authority of universal colloquial practice, which I consider as the real and only genuine language. I repeat this remark, that general and respectable usage in speaking, is the genuine or legitimate language of a country, to which the written language ought to be conformed. Language is that which is uttered by the tongue, and if men do not write the language as it is spoken by the great body of respectable people, they do not write the real language. Now, in colloquial usage, the subjunctive form of the verb, in conditional sentences, is rarely used, and perhaps never, except when the substantive verb is employed. Our students are taught in school the subjunctive form, if thou have, if he come, &c., and some of them continue, in after life, to write in that manner; but in the course of more than forty years, I have not known three men who have ventured to use that form of the verb in conversation. We toil in school to learn a language which we dare not introduce into conversation, but which the force of custom compels us to abandon. In this respect, the present study of grammar is worse than useless.
	This colloquial custom accords with other languages. The French say and write s'il est, if he is. The Latins often used the same form, “si quid est in me ingenii, judices;” but the use of the Latin subjunctive depends on certain other words which precede; as “cum sit civis,” as he is a citizen, or, since he is a citizen; and the present tense is often used to express what we express by an auxiliary. That the Greeks used the indicative to express a conditional present tease, we have seen by citations above.
	By this arrangement of the verb, the indicative form after if and other verbs introducing a condition or hypothesis, may be used uniformly to express a fact or event under a condition or supposition, either in the present or past tenses; the speaker being uncertain respecting the fact, or representing it as doubtful.
	“If the man is honest, he will return what he has borrowed.” “If the ship has arrived, we shall be informed of it to-morrow.” “ If the bill was presented, it was doubtless paid.” “If the law has been passed, we are precluded from further opposition.”
	On the other hand, when it is intended to speak of a future contingent event, I would always use the auxiliaries that are proper for the purpose. “If it shall or should rain to-morrow, we shall not ride to town.” I would never use the subjunctive form, if it rain, in prose; and in poetry, only from necessity, as an abridged phrase, for if it shall or should rain. In this manner the distinction between the tenses, which are now constantly confounded, may be preserved and made obvious, both to natives and foreigners.
	The effect of the study of Lowth’s principles, which has been greatly extended by the popularity of Murray’s Grammar, has been to introduce or establish a form of the verb in writing, which is obsolete in colloquial language; to fill our books with a confusion of tenses, and thus to keep the language unsettled. Nothing can be more perplexing to the student, than every where to meet with discrepancies between rules and practice.
	There is another erroneous manner of writing, common to the best authors in the language, which seems to have escaped notice. This is, to connect a verb in the past tense with a preceding one in the same tense, when the latter verb is intended to express a very different time from the former. Thus, “Then Manasseh knew that the Lord, he was God.” 2 Chron. xxxiii. 13.
	The Latins, in this case, would probably have used the infinitive; “Manasseh novit Jehovam Deum esse.” In English we ought to write and say, “Manasseh knew Jehovah to be God,” or, “Manasseh knew that Jehovah he is God.” In most similar cases the use of the infinitive in English is as elegant as in Latin. But there are many cases where the infinitive can not be used. We can not use it after say; “he said him to be a good man,” is not English; though “he declared, or affirmed, or believed him to be a good man,” is elegant.
	In order to understand the impropriety of the common mode of using the latter verb, as in the example above cited, it may be remarked, that the present tense is that which is used to express what exists at all times. Thus we say, God is or exists, whenever we speak of his permanent existence; we say, Gold is yellow or ductile; iron is a most valuable metal; it is not convertible into silver; plants and animals are very distinct living beings. We do not say, Gold was yellow; iron was a valuable metal; for we mean to express permanent qualities. Hence, in the passage cited from Chronicles, the first verb knew, referring to a fact past, is correct; but the last, which is intended to express the permanent being or character of God, should be in the infinitive or the indicative present tense. The following are examples of correct language: “His master had taught him that happiness consists in virtue.” Anacharsis, ii. 120.
	“Sabellius, who openly taught that there is but one person in the Godhead.” Encyclopedia.
	“Our Savior taught that eternal death is the proper punishment of sin.” Emmons.
	But very different is the following: “Having believed for many years, that water was [is] an elastic fluid.” The following would be still better: “Having believed water to be an elastic fluid.”
	So the following: “We know not the use of the epidermis of shells. Some authors have supposed that it secured [secures] the shells from being covered with vermes.” Edin. Encyc.
	“It was just remarked, that marine fossils did not [do not] comprise vegetable remains.” Ib.
	“If my readers will turn their thoughts back on their old friends, they will find it difficult to call a single man to remembrance who appeared to know that life was short [is short,] till he was about to lose it.” Rambler, No. 71.
	“They considered the body as a hydraulic machine, and the fluids as passing through a series of chimical changes; forgetting that animation was [is] its essential characteristic.” Darwin.
	“It was declared by Pompey, that if the Commonwealth was [should be] violated, he could stamp with his foot and raise an army out of the ground.” Rambler, No. 10.
	In the foregoing sentence, the past tense is used for the future contingent.
	“It was affirmed in the last discourse, that much of the honorable practice of the world rested [rests] on the substratum of selfishness; that society was [is] held together, in the exercise of its relative virtues, mainly by the tie of reciprocal advantage; that a man’s own interest bound [binds] him to all those average equities which obtained [obtain] in the neighborhood around him; and in which if he proved [should prove] himself glaringly deficient, lie would be abandoned by the respect, and the confidence, and the good will of the people with whom he had [might have, or should have] to do.” Chalmer’s Com. Dis. 4.
	“In the last discourse, I observed that love constituted [constitutes] the whole moral character of God.” Dwight’s Theology.
	“And he said, Nay, father Abraham; but if one went [shall or should go] to them from the dead, they will repent And he said to him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose [shall or should rise] from the dead.” Luke xvi. 30, 31.
	“Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the state legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant, but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens, against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people.”
	Let any man attempt to resolve the foregoing sentence, if he can, or render it into another language.
	“Cicero vindicated the truth, and inculcated the value of the precept, that nothing was [is] truly useful which was [is] not honest.”
	“He undertook to show that justice was [is] of perpetual obligation.”
	“The author concedes much of his argument, and admits that the sea was [is] susceptible of dominion.” [Better still; he admits the sea to be susceptible of dominion.]
	“A nation would be condemned by the impartial voice of mankind, if it voluntarily went [should go] to war, on a claim of which it doubted [should doubt] the legality.”
	“The Supreme Court observed that they were not at liberty to depart from the rule, whatever doubt might have been entertained, if the case was [had been] entirely new.”
	“He held that the law of nations prohibited [prohibits] the use of poisoned arms.”
	“He insisted that the laws of war gave [give] no other power over a captive than to keep him safely.”
	“The general principle on the subject is, that, if a commander makes a compact with the enemy, and it be of such a nature that the power to make it could be reasonably implied from the nature of the trust, it would be valid and binding, though he abused his trust.” Let any man translate this sentence into another language; if he can, without reducing the verbs to some consistency.
	“Congress have declared by law, that the United States were [are] entitled to priority of payment over private creditors, in cases of insolvency.”
	“The Supreme Court decided, that the acts of Congress, giving that general priority to the United States, were [are] constitutional.”
	“It was admitted that the government of the United States was [is] one of enumerated powers.”
	“From his past designs and administrations, we could never argue at all to those which were future.” [This is an odd combination of words.]
	“Jesus knowing that the father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God and went to God.” John xiii. 3.
	“Alexander dispatched Eumenes with three hundred horse to two free cities — with assurance that if they submitted and received him [should or would submit and receive] as a friend, no evil should befall them.”
	“The apostle knew that the present season was [is] the only time allowed for this preparation.”
	“What would be the real effect of that overpowering evidence which our adversaries required [should require] in a revelation, it is difficult to foretell.”
	“It could not otherwise have been known that the word had [has] this meaning.”
	“I told him if he went [should go] to-morrow, I would go with him.”
	This fault occurs in our hearing every hour in the day.
	A like fault prevails in other languages; indeed the English may have been led into it by reading foreign authors. “Mais on a remarqué avec raison, que l'espace conchoidal était infini.” Lunier. It has been remarked with reason, that the conchoidal space was [is] infinite.
	But whatever may be the practice of other nations, there would be no difficulty in correcting such improprieties in our own language, if as much attention were given to the study of its true principles, as is given to other subjects of literature and science. But if in this particular, there is a British or American author who writes his vernacular language correctly, his writings have not fallen under my inspection.
	There is another fault very common among English writers, though it is less frequent in the United States; this is the conversion of an intransitive verb into a passive one. It is surprising that an error of this kind should have gained such an established use, in some foreign languages, as to be incurable. Barbarous nations may indeed form languages; but it should be the business of civilized men to purify their language from barbarisms.
	In the transitive verb, there is an agent that performs some action on an object, or in some way affects it. When this verb becomes passive, the agent and the object change places in the sentence. Thus, John loves Peter, is transitive, but Peter is loved by John, is passive. In the intransitive verb the case is different; for the action is limited to the agent; and when it is stated that a thing is done, there is no agent by which it is done. I perish, is intransitive; I am perished, is the passive form; but the latter neither expresses nor implies an agent by which I perish.
	This fault occurs frequently in the common version of the Scriptures.
	“Yea, whereto might the strength of their hands profit me, in whom old age was [had] perished.” Job xxx. 2.
	“Their memorial is [has] perished with them.” Ps. ix. 6.
	“The heathen are [have] perished out of this land.” Ps. x. 16.
	“Israel is [has] fled before the Philistines.” 1 Sam. iv. 17.
	“David is [has] fed.” 2 Sam. xix. 9.
	“The days were [had] not expired.” 1 Sam. xviii.
	“And when the year was [had] expired.” 2 Chron. xxvi. 10.
	“I only am [have] escaped alone to tell thee.” Job i. 15.
	“And it came to pass, when he was [had] returned.” Luke xix. 15.
	Return is sometimes a transitive verb, and sometimes intransitive. When a sum of borrowed money is returned, the phrase is correct, for this is the passive form of a transitive verb. But when a man is returned, we may ask, who has returned him? In this case, the man returns by his own act, and he can not be said to be returned.
	“He found the Empress was [had] departed.” Coxe.
	“They were [had] arrived within three days’ journey of the spice country.” Gibbon, Ch. i. Note.
	“Neither Charles nor Diocletian were [had] arrived at a very advanced period of life.” Ib. Ch. xiii.
	“The posterity of so many gods and heroes was [had] fallen into the most abject state.” Ib. Ch. ii.
	“Silver was [had] grown more common.” Ib.
	“He was [had] risen from the dead, and was [had] just ascended to heaven.” Milner, i. 20.
	“Hearing that they were [had] arrived.” Ib. 211.
	“Claudius — vexed because his wife was [had] become a Christian.” Ib. 274.
	“Does not the reader see how much we are [have] already departed from Christian simplicity?” Ib. 299.
	“My age is [has] departed.” Isaiah xxxviii. 12.
	“The man out of whom the demons were [had] departed.” Luke viii. 35.
	“Workmen were [had] arrived to assist them.” Mitford.
“A body of Athenian horse was [had] just arrived.” Ib.
	This fault is common in Mitford’s History of Greece. In the writings of Roscoe, which are more elegant, it occurs, but less frequently.
	“The time limited for the reception of the cardinal was expired.” Roscoe, Leo X.
	“He inquired whether the report was true, that a legate was arrived.” Ib. L. Med.
	“The nation being [having] once more got into a course of borrowing.” Price on Liberty.
	“When he was [had] retired to his tent.” Coxe’s Russ.
	“He was [had] not yet arrived.” Ib.
	The intransitive verb grow is constantly used by the English as a transitive verb, as, to grow wheat. This is never used in the northern states, unless by persons who have adopted it recently from the English.
	It seems almost incredible that such errors should continue, to this time, to disfigure the language of the most distinguished writers, and that they should escape animadversion. The practice has evidently been borrowed from the French or Italian; but surely no lover of correctness can excuse such violation of the best established principles in our language.
	This fault occurs in a few instances, in the writings of the best American authors, as in the writings of Ames and Hamilton. It is, however, very rare, either in books or colloquial usage. Even our common people are remarkably accurate in using the auxiliary have with the participles of intransitive verbs. They always, I believe, say, a ship has arrived, a plant has perished, the enemy had fled, the price had fallen, the corn has or had grown, the time has expired, the man has returned, the vessel had departed. Such also is the language of our most eminent writers.
	“The Generals Gates and Sullivan have both arrived.” Washington’s Letters.
	“The Indians of the village had fled.” B. Trumbull.
	“Our Tom has grown a sturdy boy.” Progress of Dullness.
	“Our patriots have fallen.” Discourse of D. Webster, Aug. 1826.
	“Our commissary had not arrived.” Ellicott.
	The exceptions to this correct practice are chiefly in the use of the participles of come and go. It is very common to hear the expressions, he is come or is gone, in which case the participle seems to take the character of an adjective; although in most instances, the regular form of expression, he has come or has gone, is to be preferred. So dead, originally a participle, is used only as an adjective; and deceased and departed are often used in the like manner. We say, a deceased or departed friend; but it should be remarked that the original expression was, our friend has deceased, or has departed this life; and this phraseology, by an easy but heedless transition, became is deceased or is departed. In general, however, the conversion of an intransitive verb or form of expression into the passive form, is very rare among the people of New England.
	There is a grammatical error running through the writings of so respectable a writer as Mitford, which ought not to be passed unnoticed; as it seems to be borrowed from the French language, whose idioms are different from the English, but which the English are too apt to follow. This fault is, in using the preterit or perfect tense, instead of the past tense indefinite, usually called, most improperly, the imperfect. Take the following sentences for examples. “The conduct of Pelopidas toward Arcadia and its minister at the Persian court — has scarcely been the result of mere caprice or resentment.” The verb here ought to be was.
	“The oration [of Isocrates] has been [was] a favorite of Dionysius of Halicarnassus.”
	This form of expressing the time would be good in French, but is very bad in English. And it may be here remarked, that the tense he was, he arrived, he wrote, is not properly named imperfect. These verbs, and all verbs of this form denote actions finished or perfect, as “In six days God created the heaven and the earth.” Imperfect or unfinished action is expressed in English in this manner, he was reading, they were writing. The error of calling the former tense imperfect, has probably proceeded from a servile adoption of the Latin names of the tenses, without considering the difference of application.
	There are some errors in all the English Grammars, that have been derived to us from antiquity. Such is the arrangement of that among the conjunctions, like the Greek οτι, and the Latin ut. Και μακαρια ή πιςευσασα, οτι εςαι τελειωσις τοις λελαλημενοις αθτη παρα Κυριου. And blessed is she who believed that there shall be a performance of the things which were told her from the Lord. Luke i. 45. In our version, οτι is rendered for, but most erroneously. The true meaning and character of οτι will best appear, by a transposition of the clauses of the verse: “There shall be a performance of the things told her from the Lord; blessed or happy is she who believed that.” Here οτι, that, appears to be what it really is, a relative or substitute for the whole clause in Greek succeeding it. So in Luke xxii. 18. Λεγω γαρ ύμιν οτι ου μη πιω, &c. I say to you that I will not drink. I will not drink, I say to you that. It is the same in Latin, “Dico enim vobis quod non bibam.”. Quod is here a relative governed by dico, and referring to the following clause of the sentence.
	So also Matthew ix. 28. Πιςευετε δυναμαι τουτο ποιησαι; Do ye believe that I am able to do this? I am able to do this, do ye believe that?
	This error runs through all Grammars, Greek, Latin, French, English, &c. But how such an obvious fact, that the word that and its corresponding words in other languages, refer to the clause of a sentence, should escape observation, age after age, it is not easy to explain. How could it be supposed that a word is a junction which does not join words or sentences? That
is used, in the passages cited, not to unite two sentences, but to continue the same sentence by an additional clause.
	The relative, when referring to a sentence or the clause of a sentence, is not varied, for a variation of case is not wanted.
	So notwithstanding and provided in English, and pourvu que in French, are called conjunctions, but most improperly; as they are participles, and when called conjunctions, they always form, with a word, clause or sentence, the case absolute or independent. Thus, “It rains, but notwithstanding that, [it rains,] I must go to town.” That fact (it rains) not opposing or preventing me, that is, in opposition to that, I must go to town; hoc non obstante.
	“I will ride, provided you will accompany me.” That is, I will ride, the fact, you will accompany me, being provided.
	Such is the structure of these sentences. See my Philosophical and Practical Grammar. It is the same in French, pourvu que, that being provided, que referring to the following clause.
	There are other points in grammar equally faulty. Not only in English grammar, but in the grammars of other languages, men stumble at the threshold, and teach their children to stumble. In no language whatever can there be a part of speech properly called an article. There is no word or class of words that falls within the signification of article, a joint, or that can otherwise than arbitrarily be brought under that denomination. The definitive words called articles, are all adjectives or pronouns. When they are used with nouns, they are adjectives, modifying the signification of the nouns, like other adjectives; for this is their proper office. When they stand alone, they are pronouns, or substitutes for nouns. Thus hic, ille, ipse, in Latin, when used with nouns expressed, are adjectives; hic homo, this man; ille homo, that man. When they stand alone, hic, ille, they stand in the place of nouns. The fact is the same in other languages.
	The English the is an adjective, which, for distinction, I call a definitive adjective, and for brevity, a definitive, as it defines the person or thing to which it refers, or rather designates a particular person or thing. But why this should be selected as the only definitive in our language, is very strange; when obviously this and that are more exactly definitive, designating more precisely a particular person or thing than the. These words answer to the Latin hic and ille, which were always used by the Romans, when they had occasion to specify definite persons or things.
	As to the English an or a, which is called in grammars the indefinite article, there are two great mistakes. A being considered as the original word, it is said to become an before a vowel. The fact is directly the reverse. An is the original word, and this is contracted to a by dropping the n before a consonant.
	But an is merely the Saxon orthography of one, un, unus, an adjective found in nearly all the languages of Europe, and expressing a single person or thing. It is merely a word of number, and no more an article than two, three, four, and every other number in the language. Take the following examples.
	Bring me an orange from the basket; that is, any one of the number.
	Bring me two oranges from the basket; that is, any two of the number.
	Bring me three oranges from the basket; that is, any three of the number; and so on to any number ad infinitum.
	When thus used, an, two, three, are all indefinite; that is, they are used with nouns which are indefinite, or expressing things not particularly designated. But this is not owing to the essential character of the adjectives, an, one, two, three; for any of them may be used with definite nouns; and an is continually thus used.
	“I will be an adversary to thine adversaries.”
	“The angel stood for an adversary against Balaam.”
	“Make this fellow return, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us.”
	“Rezon — was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon.”
	“And he spake a parable to them to this end.”
	“And there was a widow in that city.”
	“And seeing the multitude, he went up into a mountain.”
	“I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee.”
	“Thou art a God ready to pardon.”
	Now let any of these phrases be tested by the common definition of an or a, “that it is used in a vague sense, to point out one single thing of the kind; in other respects indeterminate.” 	Lowth.
	“I will be an adversary to thine adversaries;” that is, “I will be any adversary, one of the kind, but vague or indeterminate.”
	“Rezon was an adversary to Israel;” that is, in a vague sense any adversary, indeterminate.
	“And he spake a parable to them;” that is, any parable, indeterminate.
	“Thou art a God ready to pardon;” that is, any God, one of the kind, in a vague sense, indeterminate!
	If it should be said, the noun is rendered determinate, by other words in the sentence, and not by an or a, this may be and generally is true; but this shows that an does not give to the noun its character of definiteness or indefiniteness; it always retains its proper signification, which is one, and nothing more; and it is used indifferently before nouns definite or indefinite.
	This mistake of the character of an is found in other languages; but I was gratified to find a French Grammar in Paris, recommended by the Institute, the author of which had discarded the indefinite article.
	In English, an or a is, for the most part, entirely useless. Used with a noun in the singular number, it serves no purpose, except that which the form of the word in the singular number, is intended to answer. It expresses unity only, and this is the province of the singular number. Were it not for habit, “Give me orange,” would express the sense of “give me an orange,” with precision and certainty. In this respect the Latin language has the advantage over the English. But the use of such a short word is not very inconvenient, and the usage can not be changed. Other languages are subject to the same inconvenience; even the definite articles, or definitives, in Greek and in French, are very often useless, and were it not for usage, would be improper.

ORTHOGRAPHY.

	From the period of the first Saxon writings, our language has been suffering changes in orthography. The first writers, having no guide but the ear, followed each his own judgment or fancy; and hence a great portion of Saxon words are written with different letters, by different authors; most of them are written two or three different ways, and some of them fifteen or twenty. To this day the orthography of some classes of words is not entirely settled; and in others it is settled in a manner to confound the learner, and mislead him into a false pronunciation. Nothing can be more disreputable to the literary character of a nation, than the history of English orthography, unless it is that of orthoepy.
	1. The Saxon diphthong æ, which probably had a specific and uniform sound or combination of sounds, has been discarded and ea generally substituted in its place, as bræth, breath. Now ea thus united have not a uniform sound, and of course they are no certain guide to pronunciation. In some instances, where the Saxon spelling was not uniform, the modern orthography follows the most anomalous and difficult, instead of that which is regular. Thus the Saxons wrote fæther and fether, more generally the latter, and the moderns write feather.
	2. The letter g in Saxon words, has, in many English words, been sunk in pronunciation, and either wholly lost, or it is now represented by y or w. Thus dæg, or dag, has become day; gear is year, bugan is bow, and fæger is fair.
	3. The Saxons, who adopted the Roman alphabet with a few alterations, used c with its close sound like that of k. Thus lic, like; locian, to look. But after the Norman conquest, c before e, i, and y, took the sound of s: hence arose the necessity of changing this letter in words and syllables, where it was necessary to retain the sound of k before these vowels. Thus the Saxon licean, pronounced originally likean, becomes, with our present sound of c before e, lisean; and locian becomes losian. To remedy this evil, our ancestors introduced k from the Greek, writing it generally after c, as in lick, stick, though in some instances, omitting c, as in like and look. Hence in all monosyllables in which a syllable beginning with e or i is added to the word, as in the past time and participles of verbs, we use k in the place of the Saxon c, as in licked, licking.
	Our early writers attempted to extend this addition to words introduced from the Latin and Greek, in which no such reason exists for the use of k. Thus they wrote publick, musick, rhetorick. In these and similar words the Latins used c for the Greek κ, as musicus, for μουσικος and the early English writers took both letters, the Roman c and Greek κ. This was absurd enough; but they never proceeded so far as to carry the absurdity through the derivatives; never writing publickation, musickal, rhetorickal, catholickism, skeptickism, stoickism. After a long struggle with the force of authority, good sense has nearly banished this pedantic orthography from use; and all words of this kind now appear, in most of our
public acts and elegant writings, in their proper simplicity; public, publication, music, musical.
	4. In many words, formerly ending in ie, these letters have been discarded from the singular number, and y substituted. Thus remedie, memorie, are now written remedy, memory. But what is very singular, the plural of these words retains the ie, with the addition of s, as in remedies. This anomaly, however, creates no great inconvenience, except that it has been extended by negligent writers to words ending in ey, as in attornies. But words ending in ey properly make the plural by simply taking s, as in surveys, attorneys. The same rule applies to verbs when an s is added, as in conveys.
	5. In a vast number of words the vowel e has been discarded as useless; as in eggs for egges; certain for certaine; empress for empresse; goodness for goodnesse. This is an improvement, as the e has no sound in modern pronunciation. But here again we meet with a surprising inconsistency; for the same reason which justifies this omission, would justify and require the omission of e final in motive, pensive, juvenile, genuine, sanguine, doctrine, examine, determine, and a multitude of others. The introduction of e, in most words of these classes, was at first wrong, as it could not plead any authority in the originals; but the retaining of it is unjustifiable, as the letter is not merely useless, but, in very numerous classes of words it leads to a false pronunciation. Many of the most respectable English authors, a century ago or more, omitted e in such words as examin, determin, famin, ductil, fertil, definit, &c., but these improvements were afterwards rejected, to the great injury of orthography. In like manner, a final e is inserted in words of modern coinage, as in alumine, chlorine, chloride, oxyde, &c., without the least necessity or propriety.
	6. A similar fate has attended the attempt to anglicize the orthography of another class of words, which we have received from the French. At a very early period, the words chambre, desastre, desordre, chartre, monstre, tendre, tigre, entre, fievre, diametre, arbitre, nombre, and others, were reduced to the English form of spelling; chamber, disaster, disorder, charter, monster, tender, tiger, enter, fever, diameter, arbiter, number. At a later
period, Sir Isaac Newton, Camden, Selden, Milton, Whitaker, Prideaux, Hook, Whiston, Bryant, and other authors of the first character, attempted to carry through this reformation, writing scepter, center, sepulcher. But this improvement was arrested, and a few words of this class retain their French orthography; such are metre, mitre, nitre, spectre, sceptre, theatre, sepulchre, and sometimes centre. It is remarkable that a nation distinguished for erudition, should thus reject improvements, and retain anomalies, in opposition to all the convenience of uniformity. I am glad that so respectable a writer as Mitford has discarded this innovation, and uniformly written center, scepter, theater, sepulcher. In the present instance, want of uniformity is not the only evil. The present orthography has introduced an awkward mode of writing the derivatives, for example, centred, sceptred, sepulchred; whereas Milton and Pope wrote these words as regular derivations of center, scepter, sepulcher: thus, “sceptered king.” So Coxe, in his Travels, “The principal wealth of the church is centered in the monasteries.” This is correct.
	7. Soon after the revival of letters in Europe, English writers began to borrow words from the French and Italian; and usually with some little alteration of the orthography. Thus they wrote authour, embassadour, predecessdur, ancestour, successour; using our for the Latin termination or, and the French eur, and writing similar words in like manner, though not of Latin or French original. What motive could induce them to write these words, and errour, honour, favour, inferiour, &c., in this manner, following neither the Latin nor the French, I can not conceive. But this orthography continued down to the seventeenth century, when the u began to be rejected from certain words of this class, and at the beginning of the last century, many of these words were written, ancestor, author, error, &c., as they are now written. But favor, honor, labor, candor, ardor, terror, vigor, inferior, superior, and a few others, were
written with u, and Johnson introduced this orthography into his Dictionary. Nothing in language is more mischievous than the mistakes of a great man. It is not easy to understand why a man, whose professed object was to reduce the language to some regularity, should write author without u, and errour and honour with it! That he should write labour with u, and laborious without it! Vigour with u, and vigorous, invigorate, without it! Inferiour, superiour, with u, but inferiority and superiority, without it! Strange as it is, this inconsistency runs through his work, and his authority has been the means of continuing it, among his admirers, to this day.
	In this country, most of our best writers have rejected the u from all words of this class, and reduced the whole to uniformity. This is a desirable event; every rejection of an anomaly being a valuable improvement, which sound judgment approves, and the love of regularity will vindicate and maintain.
	8. There is another class of words, the orthography of which is not uniform nor fully settled, such as take the termination able to form an adjective. Thus Johnson writes proveable with e, but approvable and reprovable, without it. So moveable, but immovable and removable; tameable, but blamable, censurable, desirable, excusable; saleable, but ratable.
	With like inconsistency Walker and Chalmers write daub with u, and bedawb with w, deviating in this instance from Johnson. Chalmers writes abridgement and judgement with e, but acknowledgment without it. Walker writes these words without e, but adds it to lodgement. I have reduced all words of this kind to uniformity.
	9. Johnson writes octoedrical; Chalmers octoedral; Sheridan, Walker and Jones follow Johnson; but Jones has octahedron, which is not in the other Dictionaries. The Greek, in words of this kind, is inconsistent, for οκτω is changed, in compound words, to οκτα. 
I have followed the Greek compounds, and have inserted h, which I consider as almost indispensable in the English orthography, as octahedron.
	10. Johnson introduced instructer, in the place of instructor, in opposition to every authority which he has himself adduced to exemplify his definitions; Denham, Milton, Roscommon, Locke, Addison, Rogers, and the common version of the Scriptures. But what is more singular, this orthography, instructer, is contrary to his own practice; at least, in four editions of his Rambler which I have examined, the word is uniformly written instructor. The fact is the same with visitor.
	This is a point of little importance in itself; but when instructor had been from time immemorial the established orthography, why unsettle the practice? I have in this word and in visitor adhered to the old orthography. There is not a particle of reason for altering instructor and visitor, which would not apply to collector; cultivator, objector, projector, and a hundred other words of similar termination.
	11. Most of these and some other inconsistencies have been of long continuance. But there are others of more recent date, which admit of no apology, as they are changes from right to wrong. Such is the change of the correct orthography of defense, expense, offense, pretense, and recompense, by substituting c for s as in defence. This change was probably made or encouraged by printers, for the sake of avoiding the use of the old long s; but since this has been discarded, that reason no longer exists. The orthography, defense, &c., is justified, not only by the Latin originals, but by the rule of uniformity; for the derivatives are always written with s, defensive, extensive, offensive, pretension, recompensing.
	12. No less improper was the change of sceptic into skeptic. In favor of this innovation, it is alleged that the word is from the Greek σκεπτικος. True; but is not scene derived from the Greek σκηνη, and scepter from σκηπτρον, and ascetic from ασκητικος, and ocean from ωκεανος? Are not all these words in exact analogy with each other, in their original orthography? Were they not formerly analogous in the English orthography? Why violate this analogy? Why introduce an anomaly? Such innovations, by dividing opinions and introducing
discrepancies in practice, in classes of words of like formation, have a mischievous effect, by keeping the language in perpetual fluctuation. But as usage inclines to the use of k in this class of words, I have adopted it.
	13. In like manner, dispatch, which had, from time immemorial, been written with i, was changed into despatch, on the wonderful discovery that the word is derived from the French depêcher. But why change one vowel and not the other? If we must follow the French, why not write despech, or depech? And why was this innovation limited to a single word? Why not carry the change through this whole class of words, and give us the benefit of uniformity? Is not disaster from the French desastre? Is not discharge from decharger? Is not disarm from desarmer? Is not disobey from desobeir? Is not disoblige from desobliger? Is not disorder from desordre? The prefix dis is more properly English than de, though both are used with propriety. But dispatch was the established orthography; why then disturb the practice? Why select a single word from the whole class, and introduce a change which creates uncertainty where none had existed for ages, without the smallest benefit to indemnify us for the perplexity and discordance occasioned by the innovation? Now let it be observed that Johnson himself wrote dispatch; for this orthography, occurs twice under Send in his Dictionary, and five times under Speed.
	It is gratifying to observe the stern good sense of the English nation, presenting a firm resistance to such innovations. Blackstone, Paley, Coxe, Milner, Scott and Mitford, uniformly use the old and genuine orthography of instructor, visitor, and dispatch.
	14. The omission of one l in befall, install, installment, recall, enthrall, &c., is by no means to be vindicated; as by custom, the two letters ll, serve as a guide to the true pronunciation, that of broad a or aw. According to the established rules of English pronunciation, the letter a in instalment would have the sound it has in balance; it is therefore expedient to retain both letters in all words of this class.
	15. It is an established rule, in the English language, that monosyllabic verbs ending in a single consonant, not preceded by a long vowel, and other verbs ending in a single accented consonant, and of course not preceded by a long vowel, double the final consonant, in all the derivatives, which are formed by a termination beginning with a vowel. Thus, fit, blot, bar, when they take the terminations ed, eth, ing, are written fitted, fitteth, fitting; blotted, blotteth, blotting; barred, barreth, barring. Abet, compel, form the like derivatives; abetted, abetteth, abetting; compelled, compelleth, compelling. The reason of this rule is, that without this duplication of the last consonant, the vowel of the primitive word would, in the derivative, be naturally pronounced wrong, that is, with its long sound; fited, bloting, bared, compeled. Hence we see the reason why verbs, having the long sound of a vowel, do not double the last consonant, as feared, repealed, repeated.
	The converse of this rule is, that verbs ending in a single consonant, but having the accent on the first syllable, or on a syllable preceding the last, ought not to double the final consonant in the derivatives. Thus, limit, labor, charter, clatter, pardon, deliver, hinder, have for their derivatives, limited, laboreth, chartered, pardoning, delivering, hinderest. But, strange as it may seem, the rule is wholly neglected and violated in numerous words of this class. Thus we observe, in all authors, ballotting, bevelling, levelled, travelled, cancelled, revelling, rivalling, worshipped, worshipper, apparelled, embowelled, libelling, and many others, in which the last consonant is doubled, in opposition to one of the oldest and best established rules in the language. Perry, in his Dictionary, lays down the rule for guidance, but has not been careful, in all cases, to observe it. I have endeavored to reduce these classes of words to a regular and uniform orthography. In like manner, nouns formed from such verbs are written with a single consonant, as jeweler, traveler, worshiper, for the purpose of establishing a general rule, to which there may be no exception. What should we say to a man who should write audittor, alterrer, barterrer, banterrer, gardenner, laborrer? Yet no good reason can be assigned why the final consonant should not be doubled in these words as well as in jeweller, traveller, enameller. The truth is, the syllable to be added to the original word is the usual termination er or or, and nothing more.
	Not less remarkable is the practice of doubling the last consonant in equalled, equalling, but not in the verb equalize. And to add to the inconsistency, the last consonant is sometimes doubled in tranquillize, a word in exact analogy with equalize.
	A singular instance of inattention to analogy or uniformity, occurs in the formation of certain words from the Greek. Thus in anatomy, bronchotomy, cacophony, euphony, lithotomy, and others, the final vowel of the Greek original is represented in English by y, which makes a syllable. But in epitome, catastrophe, hyperbole, and many others, the final vowel of the Greek is represented by e, which, in words of English origin, rarely or never makes a syllable at the end of a word. The consequence is, that the last two syllables are liable to be pronounced in one, tome, phe, bole. Such a departure from analogy is very inconvenient. Besides, if the letter y closed the words in the singular number, the plural would be regularly formed by changing y into ies.
	A like fault is observable in the spelling of certain derivatives ending in er. In barometer, hygrometer, thermometer, and all similar derivatives, the Greek μετρον gives meter, in English, while in English books the word is written metre, like the French word. The French are consistent, for they write the word in the same manner, both when single and in composition. Such discrepancies in the English language are little honorable to English philologists.
	In the use of the prefixes en, em, in, im, there is not uniformity nor settled usage. The French changed the Latin in into en or em, and English authors have adopted one or the other, without regard to any settled rule. Johnson’s Dictionary has done something toward reducing the number of discrepancies of this kind; but some changes have, since his time, been introduced. I have, in most words, followed his orthography; but, in a few instances, have adopted the more modern usage; as indorse and insure, with their derivatives, according to prevailing mercantile practice.
	In the use of the prefix un, many changes have taken place within the last century or two, and the use of in has been substituted for un; as inaccessible for unaccessible. The inquirer will observe that I have, under each word, noticed this change.
	In the use of the termination ize, the English books are all at variance with each other; and no lexicographer is consistent with himself. Hence we every day see authorise and authorize, apostatise and apostatize, temporise and temporize. As this termination from the Greek or Latin, has a definite signification, to make, I have adopted the rule to write it uniformly ize, when it is from either of those languages; as in legalize, to make legal. The French write the termination ise, and this has led to the English discrepancies.
	In other cases, when the French ise does not proceed from the Latin ize, I have retained the original orthography of words from the French; as in enterprise, advise, surprise. This is a distinction of some importance.
	In many cases, when a false orthography has been long established, I have noticed the fact, without making any alteration in the common spelling.
	In a few words, I have followed Milton, Dryden, Pope, and other authors of the Augustan age, who were more correct than more modern writers; as they followed the etymology, from which later writers have deviated, sometimes by mistake in taking the word from the French, instead of the Saxon.
	In a few instances, I have discarded English innovations, which are evidently mere blunders. Such are comptroller, furlough, redoubt, which convert the words into absolute nonsense. The words disannul, unloose and gangue, fall under the like condemnation. No lexicographer, knowing the proper origin of these words, can be justified in giving support to such outrageous deviations from etymology. They are a reproach to the literature of the nation.
	The negligence of the English in giving currency to such errors, hardly admits of an apology. Philology has indeed been neglected during a century and a half; it is not cultivated, to any extent, in the universities and schools; or it is studied in very superficial writers. Indeed in etymology there is no accurate scholarship, either in England, France, or Germany. No author, whose works have come under my observation, has explored the wide field of my researches; none has traced words to their primary source, and discovered the radical signification, with the manner in which derivative senses have been drawn from the radical signification, and moral ideas have been expressed by words denoting physical action or properties. The discoveries on this subject constitute an era in philology, and it is hoped that the advantage gained will be pursued.
	If men of adult years do not choose to examine the subject of orthography, and correct their own practice, their children, learning the language as corrected, will become familiar with the true orthography, and familiarity and habit will lend support to truth and uniformity.
	There are many words in the language containing superfluous letters, especially in the terminating syllable. Thus, one s in the syllables less and ness, at the end of words, is useless; one l in gill, rill, sill, dull; one f in cliff, bluff, are superfluous; but in such words no alteration is made.
	The rule for adding two consonants of a sort should be, to add two letters to the original word, when they are both wanted in the derivatives. Thus fil would give the sound of fill; but this being a verb, the two letters are required in the past tense and participles, filled, filling. So in the adjective stiff, the second letter is wanted in stiffen, otherwise a person would be apt to pronounce the word sti-fen.
	But in some words the terminating consonant is doubled, not only without necessity or use, but in opposition to propriety. Plaintiff is the French plaintif; pontiff is the French pontife; and no possible reason can be assigned for adding an f to the original word, any more than for adding the same letter to brief and relief. And what is worse, the letter is doubled in pontiff, the original, and then omitted in all the derivatives, pontificate, pontifical, &c.
	In like manner, the vowel e is added to a multitude of words, in which it is not pronounced, and is worse than useless, as it often misleads the learner in the pronunciation. 
If the final e were omitted in juvenil, volatil, the pronunciation could not be mistaken; but as the preceding vowel is sometimes long and sometimes short in the terminating syllables, ile, ine, ite, the final e serves only to perplex the learner. In such words, however, no alteration is made.
	In the terminating syllable ive, the final e is worse than useless, as the i is always short, iv, and the addition of a e contravenes the general rule, that the vowel followed by a consonant and e final, is generally long, as in mate, mote, mute, dissipate. When I was young, the popular pronunciation of ive was īve, with the i long. The general use of my Spelling Book has nearly banished that pronunciation, and the orthography is not altered.
	Our modern writers seem to delight in this useless addition of e final; as they annex it to words without reason or authority. This fault occurs frequently in words borrowed from foreign languages, in which the letter is not found in the original language. One would suppose that good taste alone ought to correct this error.
	With regard to words which recent discoveries have introduced into the sciences, there may be some apology for differences of orthography, as writers have not established usage for a guide. Hence we find oxyd is written also oxide and oxyde; oxygen and hydrogen are written also oxigene, oxygene and hydrogene. Sulphate, nitrate, &c., are written also sulphat, nitrat.
	In this case what course is the lexicographer to pursue? Shall he adopt the method by which Walker attempts to settle pronunciation, and cite authorities in favor of each mode of spelling? Then the result is, so many names appear on one side, and so many on the other. But who, it may be asked, will undertake to graduate the scale by which the weight of authorities is to be determined? Numbers will not always decide questions of this sort to the satisfaction of the public.
	In this case I have determined to conform the orthography to established English analogies; the only authority from which there can be no legitimate appeal. Now no rule in orthography is better established, than that which we have adopted from the Latin language, of representing the Greek upsilon by the letter y. In the orthography of oxygen and hydrogen, from οξυς and ύδωρ, this rule has been observed; and why should oxyd be an exception?
	With regard to sulphate, nitrate, and other names of that class of compounds, I consider the final e as essential to the words, to prevent a false pronunciation; the vowel a having its first sound as in fate, though slightly pronounced.
	The word chimistry has undergone two or three changes, according to fancy or to conjectural etymology. Men have blundered about the plainest thing imaginable; for to determine its true orthography, nothing was necessary but to open an Arabic lexicon. The inhabitants of the South of Europe, who introduced the word, doubtless knew its origin, and wrote it correctly with i, not with y or e; and had the English been contented to take it as they found it, the orthography would have been correct and uniform.
	In introducing words from other languages, it is desirable that the orthography should be conformed, as nearly as may be, to established English analogies. For this reason I have written maneuver, reconnoiter, as English words; and pronounce aiddecamp, as an English, word, with English pronunciation and a regular plural termination. So also rendezvous.
	The word talc is ill-formed. The original word on the continent of Europe is talk or talg; and the change of k into c is not merely needless, but worse, for it precludes the use of the regular adjective, talcy. Hence we see the adjective used is talcose, an awkward compound of a Teutonic word with a Latin termination. This word should be written talk or talck, which would admit regular derivatives, talcky, talckiness. In like manner, zinc, if written zink, would admit the regular adjective, zinky, as written by Kirwan.
	In botany, as the sexual system of the celebrated Swedish naturalist is now generally received, it seems proper to make the new terms, by which the classes and orders of plants are designated, a part of our language. Hitherto these names have not been anglicized; but from the technical terms, English and American writers have begun to form adjectives which are at variance with the analogies of our language. We see in books such words as hexandrous, monogamous, polygamous and syngenesious. The writers who use these words seem not to be aware of the importance of pursuing settled rules in the coining of words, as uniformity aids both in learning and in recollecting new names. The regular mode of forming adjectives from nouns ending in a or ia, is to add n to the noun, not ous. So we form Italian from Italia; American from America. In some cases, the termination ic is used, but rarely or never ous; or if it is, it is an anomaly.
	To arrest, if possible, the progress of these irregularities, and at the same time to make the more important botanical terms really English, by giving them appropriate English terminations, and further to abridge the language of description, I have ventured to anglicize the names of all the classes and orders, and insert them in this work.
	Thus from monandria, the name of the class containing plants with flowers having one stamen, I form monander, the name of an individual plant of that character. From monogynia, the name of the order containing plants with flowers which have one pistil, I form monogyn, [pronounced monojyn,] to express an individual plant of that order. The adjectives are formed from the nouns with regular English terminations; monandrian, monogynian, syngenesian, diecian, monecian, &c.
	In describing a plant technically, according to this nomenclature, instead of saying, it is of the class monandria and order monogynia, the botanist will call it a monogynian monander, a digynian pentander, a trigynian octander, a pentandrian diadelph. These terms designate the class and order as perfectly as the use of the Latin technical names: and in this manner we unite, in our botanical language, technical precision with brevity, correctness and elegance.
	It is with no small regret that I see new terms formed, without a due regard to regular English analogies. New terms are often necessary, or at least very useful; but they ought to be coined according to the settled principles of the language. A neglect of these principles is observable in the word systematize, which, not being borrowed from the Greek, ought to follow the general rule of English formation, in agreement with legalize, modernize, civilize, animalize, and others, and be written systemize. This is the more important, as the derivatives systemizing, systemization, are of more easy utterance than those of systematize, and particularly the noun systematization.
	I observe in modern works on natural history, the words crustaceology and testaceology; terms that are intended to designate the science of different kinds of shells, from crustacea, testacea. But who can countenance the use of such words? Where do we find another instance of similar terms formed from adjectives? Why should we violate an established principle in coining words of this family? Besides, who can endure the derivatives, crustaceological, testaceological, and much less the adverbs, if they should ever be wanted? I have not admitted these anomalous words into this vocabulary; but have inserted the proper words, crustalogy, testalogy, which are regularly formed, like mineralogy.
	On this head I would subjoin a remark or two on the mode of writing Indian names of rivers, mountains and places in America, which we have adopted.
	The French were the first Europeans who explored the country between the great lakes and the Gulf of Mexico, and of course, the first to commit to writing the Indian names which occurred to them in their travels. In doing this, they attempted to express the sounds in letters, according to the French manner of pronunciation. Hence it happened that they wrote ch, where we should have written sh, had we first reduced those names to writing. Thus we have Chenango, Michigan, and Michillimackinac, in the French orthography. And as the French have no w in their language, they could not express the proper sound of the first syllable of Wabash, Wisconsin, Wachita, otherwise than by writing them Ouabache, Ouisconsin, Ouachita, and Missoori in French is Missouri. All this is very proper for a Frenchmen, for the letters used express the true sounds of the words. But in English, the letters used lead to a false pronunciation, and for this reason, should not be used in English compositions. It is to be deeply regretted that our language is thus doomed to be a heterogeneous medley of English and foreign languages; as the same letters representing different sounds, in different languages, serve to embarrass the reader who understands only his own.
	The irregularities in the English orthography have always been a subject of deep regret, and several attempts have been made to banish them from the language. The first attempt of this kind was made by Sir Thomas Smith, Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth; another was made by Dr. Gill, a celebrated master of St. Paul’s School, in London; another by Charles Butler; several attempts were made in the reign of Charles I.; an attempt was made by Elphinstone, in the last century; and lastly, another effort was made by Dr. Franklin. The latter gentleman compiled a Dictionary on his scheme of reform, and procured types to be cast, which he offered to me, with a view to engage me to prosecute his design. This offer I declined to accept; for I was then, and am still convinced, that the scheme of introducing new characters into the language, is neither practicable nor expedient. Any attempt of this kind must certainly fail of success.
	But that some scheme for expressing the distinct sounds of our letters by visible marks, ought to be adopted, is a point about which there ought to be, and I trust there can be, but one opinion. That such a scheme is practicable as well as expedient, I should presume to be equally evident. Such is the state of our written language, that our own citizens never become masters of orthography, without great difficulty and labor; and a great part of them never learn to spell words with correctness. In addition to this, the present orthography of some classes of words leads to a false pronunciation.
	In regard to the acquisition of our language by foreigners, the evil of our irregular orthography is extensive, beyond what is generally known or conceived. While the French and Italians have had the wisdom and the policy to refine and improve their respective languages, and render them almost the common languages of all well-bred people in Europe; the English language, clothed in a barbarous orthography, is never learned by a foreigner but from necessity; and the most copious language to Europe, embodying an uncommon mass of science and erudition, is thus very limited in its usefulness. And to complete the mischief, the progress of arts, science, and Christianity among the heathen, and other rude or unevangelized nations, is most sensibly retarded by the difficulties of mastering an irregular orthography.
	The mode of ascertaining the proper pronunciation of words by marks, points, and trifling alterations of the present characters, seems to be the only one which can be reduced to practice. This mode, resembling the use of points in the Hebrew, has been adopted by some of the nations on the Continent; and I have pursued it, to a certain extent, in designating distinctions in the sounds of letters, in this work. The scheme I have invented is not considered as perfect; but it will accomplish some important purposes, by removing the most numerous classes of anomalies. With this scheme, the visible characters of the language will present to the eye of a reader the true sounds of words; and the scheme itself is so simple, that it may be learned in a few moments. To complete a scheme of this kind, a few other alterations would be necessary, but such as would not materially change the orthography, or occasion the least difficulty to the learner or reader.
	After these alterations, there would remain a few words whose anomalies may be considered as incorrigible, such as know, gnaw, rough, &c., which may be collected into tables and easily learned, and all the other irregularities may be so classed under general rules, as to be learned with very little labor.
	The adoption of this or any other scheme for removing the obstacles which the English orthography presents to learners of the language, must depend on public opinion. The plan I have adopted for representing the sounds of letters by marks and points, in this work, is intended to answer two purposes. First, to supersede the necessity of writing and printing the words a second time, in an orthography adapted to express their pronunciation. The latter method pursued by the English orthoepists, as applicable to most words, is, I think, not only unnecessary, but very inexpedient. The second purpose is, to exhibit to my fellow citizens the outline of a scheme for removing the difficulties of our irregular orthography, without the use of new characters; a scheme simple, easy of acquisition, and sufficient to answer all the more important purposes of a regular orthography.
	Note. — In the formation of the plural number of nouns ending in ance, ancy; ence, ency; the general rules are to be observed. When the letter e terminates the word, the letter s only is to be added; as in compliance, compliances; but if the letter y terminates the word, this letter is omitted, and ies are added; as in discrepancy, discrepancies; dependency, dependencies. In some cases, the same word is sometimes written with e, and sometimes with y; in which cases the word admits of either form of the plural termination.

PRONUNCIATION.

	As our language has been derived from various sources, and little or no systematic effort has been made to reduce the orthography to any regularity, the pronunciation of the language is subject to numerous anomalies. Each of our vowels has several different sounds; and some of the consonants represent very different articulations of the organs. That part of the language which we have received from the Latin, is easily subjected to a few general rules of pronunciation. The same is the fact with most of the derivatives from the Greek. Many words of French origin retain their French orthography, which leads to a very erroneous pronunciation in English; and a large portion of our monosyllabic words of Saxon origin are extremely irregular both in orthography and pronunciation.
	If we can judge, with tolerable certainty, from the versification of Chaucer, the pronunciation of words must have been, in many respects, different in his age, from that of the present day; particularly in making a distinct syllabic of e final, and of the termination ed. But no effort was probably ever made to settle the pronunciation of words, till the last century. In England, which was settled by various nations, there are numerous dialects or diversities of language still retained by the great mass of the population.
	The first settlers of New England were almost all of English origin, and coming from different parts of England, they brought with them some diversities of language. But in the infancy of the settlements, the people lived in towns adjacent or near to each other, for mutual aid and protection from the natives: and the male inhabitants of the first generation frequently assembled for the purpose of worship or for government. By the influence of these and other causes, particularly by that of common schools, the differences of language among our citizens have been gradually lost; so that in this part of the United States, there can hardly be said to exist a difference of dialect.
	It is to be remarked further, that the first ministers of the gospel, who migrated to this country, had been educated at the English universities, and brought with them all the learning usually acquired in those institutions, and the English language as it was then spoken. The influence of these men, who were greatly venerated, probably had no small effect in extinguishing differences of speech.
	Hence it has happened that the traditional pronunciation of the language of well-educated people has been nearly the same in both countries, to this day. Among the common people, whose pronunciation in all countries is more or less corrupt, the diversities in this country are far less numerous than in England.
	About sixty or seventy years ago, Thomas Sheridan, an Irish gentleman, who had been the pupil of an intimate friend of Dean Swift, attempted to reduce the pronunciation of English words to some system, and to introduce it into popular use. His analysis of the English vowels is very critical, and in this respect, there has been little improvement by later writers, though I think none of them are perfectly correct. But in the application of his principles, he failed of his object. Either he was not well acquainted with the best English pronunciation, or he had a disposition to introduce into use some peculiarities which the English did not relish. The principal objection made to his scheme is, that he gives to s the sound of sh, in sudorific, superb, and other words where s is followed by u long. These he pronounces shoodorific, shooperb, shooperfluity, &c. This pronunciation of s corresponding to the Shemitic שׂ, he probably learnt in Ireland, for in the Irish branch of the Celtic, s has often the sound of sh. Thus sean, old, is pronounced shean. This pronunciation was no sooner published, than condemned and rejected by the English.
	Another most extraordinary innovation of Sheridan was, his rejection of the Italian sound of a, as in father, calm, ask, from every word in the language. Thus his notation gives to a in bar, the same sound as in barren, barrel, bat; to a in father, pass, mass, pant, the same sound as in fat, passion, massacre, pan, fancy. Such a gross deviation from established English usage was of course condemned and rejected.
	In his pronunciation of ti and ci, before a vowel, as in partiality, omniscience, Sheridan is more correct than Walker, as he is in some other words; such, for example, as bench, tench, book, took, and others of the same classes.
	Sheridan also contributed very much to propagate the change of tu into chu, or tshu; as in natshur, cultshur, virtshue. This innovation was vindicated on the supposed fact, that the letter u has the sound of yu; and natyur, cultyur, virtyue, in a rapid enunciation, become natshur, &c. And to this day, this error respecting the sound of u is received in England as truth. But the fact is otherwise, and if not, it does not justify the practice; for in usage, u is short in nature, culture, as in tun; so that on the principles of Sheridan himself, this letter can have no effect on the preceding articulation.
	This innovation, however, has prevailed to a considerable extent, although Sheridan subjected the change of tu to no rules. He is consistent in applying this change equally to tu, whether the accent follows the t or not. If tu is to be changed to tshu, in future, and perpetual, it ought to undergo the same change in futurity, and perpetuity; and Sheridan, in pronouncing tutor, tutelage, tumult, as if written tshootor, tshootelage, tshoomult, is certainly consistent, though wrong in fact. In other words, however, Sheridan is inconsistent with himself; for he pronounces multitshood, rectitshood, servitshood, while habitude, beatitude, certitude, decrepitude, gratitude, &c., retain the proper sound of t.
	Walker’s rule for changing tu to chu, only when the accent precedes, is entirely arbitrary, and evidently made by him to suit his own practice. It has, however, the good effect of reducing the chus, and removing the outrageous anomalies of tshootor, tshoomult, &c.
	There are many other words which Sheridan has marked for a pronunciation, which is not according to good usage, and which the later orthoepists have corrected. In general, however, it may be asserted that his notation does not warrant a tenth part as many deviations from the present respectable usage in England, as Walker’s; yet as his Dictionary was republished in this country, it had no small effect in corrupting the pronunciation of some classes of words, and the effects of its influence are not yet extinct. What the precise effect of Sheridan’s scheme of pronunciation was in England, I am not able to determine. But I have had information from the late venerable Dr. Johnson, of Stratford, and from the late Dr. Hubbard, of New Haven, who were in England between the year 1765 and the revolution, that about that period, the change of t into chu had not taken place, to any extent. It began to prevail on the stage and among the younger barristers and members of parliament, before Dr. Johnson left England, just before the war with America; and Sheridan’s Dictionary, published soon after, undoubtedly contributed to extend the innovation. This change presents a new obstacle to the acquisition of a language, whose anomalies were before frightfully formidable and perplexing. The favorers of innovation seem not to reflect on the immense convenience of a correct notation of sounds in a language, by its proper characters; the utility of uniformity and permanence in that notation; and the extensive evil of destroying or impairing the use of alphabetical writing. The man who perverts or changes the established sound of a single letter, especially of a consonant, does an injury to that language, and to the community using it, which fifty men of the same talents can never repair.
	In a few years after the publication of Sheridan’s Dictionary, appeared Walker’s, the author of which introduces the work to the public with the following remarks on the labors of his predecessors.
	“Among those writers who deserve the first praise on this subject, is Mr. Elphinstone, who, in his Principles of the English Language, has reduced the chaos to a system, and laid the foundation of a just and regular pronunciation. But this gentleman, by treating his subject with an affected obscurity, and by absurdly endeavoring to alter the whole orthography of the language, has unfortunately lost his credit with the public, for the part of his labors which entitles him to the highest praise.”
	“After him, Dr. Kenrick contributed a portion of improvement, by his Rhetorical Dictionary; but he has rendered his Dictionary extremely imperfect, by entirely omitting a great number of words of doubtful and difficult pronunciation; those very words for which a Dictionary of this kind would naturally be consulted.” [Let it be noted, that the same objection lies in full force against Sheridan, Walker, and Jones.]
	“To him succeeded Mr. Sheridan, who not only divided the words into syllables, and placed figures over the vowels, as Dr. Kenrick had done, but by spelling these syllables as they are pronounced, seemed to complete the idea of a Pronouncing Dictionary, and to leave but little expectation of improvement. It must be confessed that his Dictionary is generally superior to every thing that preceded it, and his method of conveying the sound of words by spelling them as they are pronounced, is highly rational and useful. But here sincerity obliges me to stop. The numerous instances I have given of impropriety, inconsistency, and want of acquaintance with the analogies of the language, sufficiently show how imperfect I think his Dictionary is, upon the whole, and what ample room was left for attempting another, that might better answer the purpose of a guide to pronunciation.”
	“The last writer on this subject is Mr. Nares, who, in his Elements of Orthoepy, has shown a clearness of method, and an extent of observation, which deserve the highest encomiums. But be seems, on many occasions, to have mistaken the best usage, and to have paid too little attention to the first principles of pronunciation.”
	Soon after the publication of Walker’s Dictionary, appeared the Dictionary of Stephen Jones, who undertakes to correct the errors of Sheridan and Walker. This author objects to Sheridan, that he has not introduced the Italian sound of a [as in father,] in a single instance, and that Walker has been too sparing in the use of it. He objects that Sheridan has not, by any peculiar marks, pointed out the sound of oi or oy, as in noise and cloy; and that Walker has given distinct marks of pronunciation to the diphthong ou, which are terrific to the learner, and not well calculated to express the exact sound. He considers it as no trivial error in Walker’s system, that he uses the long e in place of the short y, which gives to asperity, for example, the ludicrous sound of aspereetee. He notices also as a fault in Walker’s scheme, that he makes no difference in the sound of oo in tool, tooth, and in look, took.
	In all these particulars, except that of oi and oy, I think every man who understands genuine English, will accord with Jones. From careful observation, while in England, I know that Jones’s notation is far more correct than that of Sheridan or Walker; and, except in two or three classes of words, his pronunciation is exactly that which I uniformly heard in England, and nearly the same as that of well-educated gentlemen in New England.
	A few years after the appearance of Jones’s Dictionary, William Perry published a Pronouncing Dictionary, in which an attempt is made to indicate the sounds of the letters by certain arbitrary marks. In this work, the author has rejected most of the peculiarities of Sheridan, Walker, and Jones, and given the language nearly as it was spoken, before those authors undertook to regulate the pronunciation. This author’s manner of designating the sounds of the letters is too complex for convenience, but his pronunciation is nearer to the actual usage in England, than that of either of his predecessors before mentioned. His orthography also is more correct, according to present usage, than that of his predecessors.
	During the year 1823, appeared the Dictionary of R. S. Jameson, of Lincoln’s Inn, intended to combine the merits of the most popular Dictionaries, and to correct the false pronunciation of Walker, whose notation in some classes of words, he entirely rejects. He condemns, as a slovenly enunciation, the sound given to d, which, before i and u, Walker directs, in certain words, to be pronounced like j. He rejects also his notation ch, or tsh, in congratulation, flatulent, natural, and all similar words. He rejects also the affected pronunciation of Sheridan and Walker, in such words as guide and kind. Most of the other errors of Walker he copies, as he does his antiquated orthography.
	The English orthoepists have analyzed, and in general have well defined or described, the sounds and appropriate uses of the letters of the alphabet. Sheridan’s analysis, which appeared a few years before Walker’s, is for the most part, correct; but in describing the sounds of what may be called the diphthongal vowel i; I think he has erred, in making it to consist of the broad a or aw and e. He admits, indeed, that the voice does not rest on the sound aw, but he contends that the mouth is opened to the same degree of aperture, and is in the same position, as if it were going to sound aw; but before the voice can get a passage to the lips, the under jaw is drawn up to the position for sounding e. On this it is justly remarked by Walker, that aw and e are precisely the component elements of the diphthong oi and oy. If the aw is pronounced, I would add, then i and oy must be pronounced exactly alike; and if aw is not pronounced, then it is not a component part of the diphthongal vowel i.
	Walker contends that this diphthong i, is composed of the sound of the Italian a, as in father, and the sound of e. If so, he must have given to a a very different sound from that which we are accustomed to give it. But this is a mistake; that sound of a is no more heard in i, than the sound of aw. The sound of i in fight, mind, time, idle, is not faweght, mawend, tawem, awedle; nor is it fàeght, màend, tàem, àedle. Let any man utter the aw or the Italian a before the e, and he will instantly perceive the error, and reject both definitions, as leading to a false pronunciation. The truth is, the mouth, in uttering i, is not opened so wide as in uttering aw or à; the initial sound is not that of aw or à; nor is it possible, by any characters we possess, to express the true sound on paper. The initial sound is not formed so deep in the throat as aw or à; the position of the organs is nearly, yet not exactly the same. The true sound can be learned only by the ear.
	Equally inaccurate is the definition of the diphthongal u, or long u; which these writers alledge to consist of the sounds of e and oo or yu. It has this sound, indeed, in certain words, as in unite, union, and others; but this is a departure from the proper sound of this character, as heard in cube, abuse, durable, human, jury. These words are not pronounced keoob, abeoose, deoorable, heooman, jeoory. The effort to introduce this affected pronunciation is of most mischievous tendency. The sound of e is not heard in the proper enunciation of the English u, and for that reason it should not be so stated on paper, nor named yu; as the error naturally leads to a corrupt pronunciation.  Dr. Kenrick remarks, that we might as well prefix y to the other vowels, as to u, and pronounce them ya, ye, yi, yo.
	But this is not the whole evil; this analysis of u has led orthoepists to give to our first or long u, two distinct sounds, or rather to make a diphthong and a vowel of this single letter. Thus they make it a diphthong in almost all situations, except after r, where they make it a vowel equivalent to oo or the French ou. They represent u as being equivalent to ew that is, e and oo, in cube, tube, duty, confusion, endure, pronounced kewbe, tewbe, dewty, confewsion, endewre; but in brute, fruit, rude, intrude, ruby, they make u equivalent to oo; thus, broote, froot, roode, introode, rooby.
	I know not where this affectation originated; it first appeared in Sheridan’s Dictionary, but it is a most unfounded distinction, and a most mischievous error. No such distinction was known to Dr. Johnson; he gives the long u but one sound, as in confusion; and no such distinction is observed among good speakers generally, either in this country or in England. I was particularly attentive to the public speakers in England, in regard to this point, and was happy to find that very few of them made the distinction here mentioned. In that country, as in this, the long u has a uniform sound after all the consonants.
	The source of the error in this, as in another case to be mentioned hereafter, may be an inattention to the manner in which the articulations affect the vowels which follow them. To understand this, it will be necessary or useful to examine the anatomical formation of articulate sounds.
	“An articulate sound,” says Lowth, “ is the sound of the human voice, formed by the organs of speech. A vowel is a simple articulate sound.”
	These definitions seem not to be sufficiently accurate. Articulation, in human speech, is the jointing, juncture, or closing of the organs, which precedes and follows the vowels or open sounds, and which partially or totally intercepts the voice. A vowel or vocal sound is formed simply by opening the mouth. Thus in sounding a or o, the mouth is opened in a particular manner, but without any articulation or closing of the organs. In strictness, therefore, a simple vowel is not an articulate sound, as Lowth supposes; and it is certain that many irrational animals, without the power of articulation, do utter vowel sounds with great distinctness.
	An articulate sound, then, is, properly, a sound preceded or followed, or both, by an articulation or junction of the organs. Thus ba, ab, and bad, are articulate sounds; the vowel being begun or closed, with a junction of the lips, interrupting the voice, in ba and ab; and in bad, the vocal sound being preceded by one articulation and followed by another. The power of articulation constitutes the great difference between men and brutes; the latter being unable to articulate, can utter only vocal sounds. The imperfect articulations of the parrot and some other animals, form no exception that deserves notice.
	I give the name articulation, to the act of joining the organs, and to the character or letter which represents the junction. In the latter sense, the word is equivalent to consonant; and articulation may be considered the preferable term, as it expresses the fact of closing the organs.
	Human speech, then, consists of vocal sounds separated and modified by articulations of the organs. We open the mouth in a particular manner, to utter a vowel; we then close the organs, interrupt that sound, and open the organs to utter a second vowel; and continue this opening and closing, to the end of the word. This process is carried on with surprising rapidity.
	Now in passing from an articulation or close position, to an open position for uttering a vowel, it happens often that a very slight sound of e is uttered so as to be perceptible to the ear, either before or after the utterance of the proper vowel. This is remarkably the case with the long vowels preceding r, for such is the nature of that letter, that bare, mire, more, parent, apparent, &e., can not well be pronounced without a slight sound of e, between the long vowel and the consonant. Thus the words above named are pronounced nearly baer, mier, moer, paerent, appaerent, and bare, mire, really form two syllables, though they are considered to be monosyllables.
	A like case, though less obvious, occurs in uttering u, particularly after the labial and palatal articulations. In passing from the articulations, eb, eg, em, ep, or pe, to the sound of u, as in mute and pure, we are apt, insensibly, to utter a slight sound of e; and this utterance, which proceeds from the particular situation of the organs, has been mistaken for the first component sound of the diphthongal u. The same cause has given rise to the pronunciation of e before the vowel in such words as guide, guard, kind, guise. This is precisely similar to the vulgar pronunciation of cow, gown, county, town, &c., that is, keow, geown, keounty, teown; a pronunciation formerly common in New England, and not yet wholly extinct. This vicious pronunciation, in all words of this kind, whether countenanced by men of low life or of fashionable life, ought to be carefully avoided; as the slender sound of e, in such cases, gives a feebleness to the words utterly inconsistent with that full, open, and manly enunciation which is essential to eloquence.
	The genuine sound of u long, detached from the influence of consonants, is the same in all the words above specified; and the reason why it has been made a distinct vowel after r, as in rude [rood,] is, that the organs are open before the sound commences; whereas when it follows most of our consonants, the sound is commenced immediately after an articulation, or close position of the organs, as in mutable and infusion. For this reason, u has more distinctly its diphthongal sound after labials and palatals, than after r; but this accidental circumstance should not be the ground of radical distinctions, equivalent to the sounds of different letters.
	There is, in Walker’s analysis of the alphabet, an error peculiar to himself. This is, in making a distinction between the short i when it is followed by a consonant, and when it is not; as in ability. In this case, he calls the first i, in abil, short; but the second he calls open, and equivalent to e in equal. (See Principles 107, 544.) He also makes the unaccented y at the end of a syllable, precisely like the first sound of e in me, meter. Ability, then, written according to his principles, would be abileetee. Never was a grosser mistake. The sound of i and y in unaccented syllables, whether followed by an articulation or not, is always the short sound of e long, that is, e shortened; the same sound in quality or kind, but not in quantity. To prove this fact, nothing is necessary but an attention to the manner in which the words little and tiny are pronounced, when they are made emphatical by utterance. They are, then, pronounced leetle, teeny — and this we hear every day, not only among children, but often among adults. In this change of pronunciation, there is nothing more than a prolongation of the sound of i, which, in the syllables, lit, tin, is short, in leetle, teeny, is long.
	In consequence of this mistake, Walker has uniformly made a different notation of i when accented, and followed by a consonant in the same syllable, and when it stands alone in the syllable and unaccented. Thus to the first i in ability he assigns a different sound from that of the second; and in article, he gives to i the sound of e long, arteecle; but in articular, articulate, he gives it the short sound, tik. It is in consequence of this mistake, that he has throughout his Dictionary assigned to i and y unaccented, and to y unaccented terminating words, the sound of e long; an error, which, it is ascertained by actual enumeration, extends to more than eleven thousand vowels or syllables; an error, which, if carried to the full extent of his principles, would subvert all the rules of English versification. Jones and Perry have corrected this error in their notations, throughout the language.
	If it should be said that Walker did not intend to direct y in this case, to be pronounced as e long, but that his notation is intended only to mark the quality of the sound; it may be replied, he either intended the sound to be that of e long, according to his express direction, or he did not. If he did, his notation is not according to any good practice, either in England or the United States, and by changing a short vowel into a long one, his notation would subvert the rules of metrical composition. If he did not, his notation is adapted to mislead the learner, and it does mislead learners, wherever his book is strictly followed. In truth, this notation is generally condemned in England, and universally rejected in practice.
	In the notation of sounds, there is a mistake and inconsistency in all the orthoepists, which deserves notice, not on account of its practical importance so much, as to expose an error in syllabication or the division of words into syllables, which has been maintained by all writers in Great Britain, from time immemorial. The rule is, that “a single consonant between two vowels, must be joined to the latter syllable.” According to this rule, habit, baron, tenet, are to be divided thus, ha-bit, ba-ron, te-net.
	This rule is wholly arbitrary, and has for ages retarded and rendered difficult the acquisition of the language by children. How is it possible that men of discernment should support a rule, that in thousands of words makes it necessary to break a syllable, detaching one of the letters essential to it, and giving it a place in the next? In the words above mentioned, hab, bar, ten, are distinct syllables, which can not be divided without violence. In many words, as in these, this syllable is the radix of the word; the other syllable being formative or adventitious. But where this is not the case, convenience requires that syllables should, if possible, be kept entire; and in all cases, the division of syllables should, as far as possible, be such as to lead the learner to a just pronunciation.
	As in our language the long and short vowels are not distinguished by differences of character, when we see a single consonant between vowels, we can not determine, from the preceding vowel character, whether the sound is long or short. A stranger to the language knows not whether to pronounce habit, ha-bit or hab-it, till he is instructed in the customary pronunciation. It was probably to avoid this inconvenience, that our ancestors wrote two consonants instead of one in a great number of words, as in banner, dinner. In this respect, however, there is no uniformity in English; as we have generally retained the orthography of the languages from which we have received the words, as in tutor, rigor, silent, and the like.
	Now it should be observed that although we often see the consonant doubled, as in banner, yet no more than one articulation in these cases, is ever used in speaking. We close the organs but once between the first and second syllable, nor is it possible to use both the letters n, without pronouncing ban, then intermitting the voice entirely, opening the organs and closing them a second time. Hence in all cases, when the same consonant is written twice between vowels, as in banner, dinner, better, one of them only is represented by an articulation of the organs, the other is useless, except that it prevents any mistake as to the sound of the preceding vowel.
	In the notation of all the orthoepists, there is inconsistency, at least, if not error. If they intend to express the true pronunciation by using the precise letters necessary for the purpose, they all err. For instance, they write barˊrun for barˊon, when one articulation only is, or possibly can be, used; so also ballance, biggot, biggamy, mellon, mettaphor, mellody. This is not only useless, for the use of the accent after the consonant, as barˊon, balˊance, bigˊot, melˊon, &c., completely answers the purpose of determining the pronunciation; but it is contradictory to their own practice in a vast number of cases. Thus they write one consonant only in civil, civic, rivet; and Walker writes kollonade, doubling l, but kolony, kolonise, with a single l. This want of system is observable in all the books which are offered to the public as standards of orthoepy.
	A still greater fault, because it may lead to innumerable practical errors, consists in the notation of unaccented syllables. In this particular, there is error and discrepancy in the schemes of the orthoepists, which shows the utter impossibility of carrying them into effect. The final y unaccented, Walker makes to be e long, as I have before observed; while Sheridan, Jones, and Perry, make it equivalent to short i, or at least, give it a short sound, according to universal practice. Walker pronounces the last vowel in natural and national, as a short; Sheridan, as e short, naturel; Jones, as u short, naturul. Sheridan’s notation may be a mistake, for he gives to al in national, the sound of ul. In the adjective, deliberate, Walker and Jones give a in the last syllable its proper long sound; and Sheridan, the sound of e short, deliberet. Dignitary is pronounced by Sheridan dignitery, and Walker and Jones give to a its short sound, as in at. The terminating syllable ness is pronounced by Walker and Jones nes, by Sheridan nis as blessednes, blessednis. The same difference exists in their notation of less; Sheridan pronouncing it lis, as in blamelis, and Walker and Jones giving e its proper sound. These differences, and many others, run through their works, and appear in a large portion of all the words in the language.
	Now it is probable that all these gentlemen pronounced these words alike, or so nearly alike that no difference would be noticed by a bystander. The mischief of these notations is, that attempts are made to express minute distinctions or shades of sounds, so to speak, which can not be represented to the eye by characters. A great part of the notations must, necessarily, be inaccurate, and for this reason, the notation of the vowels in unaccented syllables should not be attempted. From a careful attention to this subject, I am persuaded that all such notations are useless, and many of them mischievous, as they lead to a wrong pronunciation. In no case can the true pronunciation of words in a language be accurately and completely expressed on paper; it can be caught only by the ear, and by practice. No attempt has ever been made to mark the pronunciation of all the vowels, in any other language; and in our language it is worse than useless.
	As Walker’s pronunciation has been represented to the people of this country as the standard, I shall confine my remarks chiefly to his work, with a view to ascertain its merits, and correct any erroneous impressions which have been received from such representations.
	1. The first class of words which I shall mention, is that in which a has what is called, its Italian sound, as we pronounce it in father, psalm, calm. From a hasty enumeration of words of this class, I find there are two or three hundred in number, in which Walker gives to a its short sound, as in fat, bat, fancy, when, in fact, the most respectable usage in England, as well as in the United States, gives that letter its Italian sound. This error Jones and Perry have corrected. To be correct in this class of words, we have only to retain the customary pronunciation of the northern States.
	2. The notation of the sound of oo by Walker, is wrong in most or all the words in which oo are followed by k, and in some others. Notwithstanding the distinction between the long and short sound of oo is clear, and well established in a great number of words, yet he assigns the short sound to eight words only, viz. wool, wood, good, hood, foot, stood, understood, and withstood. (Prin. 307.) It seems inconceivable that a man, bred or resident in London, should assign to oo in book, cook, took, and other like words, the same sound as in cool, boom, boot, food. Jones and Perry have corrected this notation, and given the pronunciation according to good usage, and just according to our customary pronunciation. While in England, I did not hear a single word of this class pronounced according to Walker’s notation.
	3. To the letters ch in bench, bunch, clinch, drench, inch, tench, wrench, and many other words, Walker gives the French sound, that is, the sound of sh, instead of ch, as bensh, insh, &c. It would seem by this and other examples of wrong notation, that the author had been accustomed to some local peculiarities, either in London, where all kinds of dialects are heard, or in some other place. In this instance, he gives to these words a pronunciation different from that of other orthoepists, and one which I have never heard, either in England or in this country. His notation is palpably wrong, as our customary pronunciation is universally correct.
	4. It has been already remarked, that Walker’s notation of the sound of i and y short, in unaccented syllables, which he directs to be pronounced like e long, in me, mete, is contrary to all good usage, and is rejected by every other orthoepist, except Jameson. Walker admits i to be short, when followed by a consonant in the same syllable. Thus the first i in ability is short, but the second i and the y are long e, abileetee. Now observe the consequence. In the plural, abilities, according to his rule, must be pronounced abileeteez; but the word is never thus pronounced; universally it is pronounced abilitiz; the last vowel sound is, in practice, immediately followed by a consonant, and by his own rule, must be short. Then the result is, y in ability is long e, but ie in the plural, is short i. And for this change of sound, no provision is made in Walker’s scheme, nor in any other that I have ever seen.
	5. In the analysis of the sounds of our letters, Walker alledges the diphthong ou, ow, to consist of the broad a, or aw, and the Italian sound of u. According to his scheme, about, abound, round, now, vow, are to be pronounced abawut, abawund, rawund, nawu, vawu. But who ever heard this pronunciation? The fact is not so; the broad sound of a is not the initial sound of this diphthong; it is not commenced as deep in the throat, or with the same aperture as aw; it is a sound that can be learned only by the ear. The pronunciation of this diphthong is uniform in both countries.
	6. In noting the sound of the unaccented vowels, and those which have the secondary accent, there are mistakes without number, in all the schemes which I have seen, and one continued series of differences between the orthoepists. The following is a specimen.

Sheridan.		Walker.		Jones.
Deliverense,	Deliveranse,	Deliveranse.
Dignytery,		Dignetare,		Dignytary.
Anser,		Ansur,		Ansur.
Assembledzh,	Assembladje,	Assembladzhe.
Averaje,		Averaje,		Averedzh.
Barrin,		Barren,		Barren.
Penal,		Penal,		Penul.
Pennens,		Pennanse,		Pennunse.
Pennytenshel,	Pennetenshal,	Pennytenshul.
Pennytensherry,	Pennetenshare,	Pennytenshary.
Persunidzh,	Persunidje,		Persunedje.
Proksymet,		Proksemat,		Proksymet.
Proflyget,		Proflegat,		Proflyget.
Pennetrent,		Pennetrant,		Pennetrant.
Akkuzaturry,	Akkuzatore,	Akkuzatory.
Akkrymunny,	Akkremone,	Akkrymunny.
Allymunny,	Allemunne,	Allymunny.
Seremunny,	Seremone,		Serymony.

	I take no notice of the different letters by which these writers express the same sound, one using e where another uses y, but of the different sounds which they give to the vowels in the second, third, or last syllable. Now, I appeal to any person who has a tolerably correct ear, whether it is the sound of a that is uttered by good speakers, or any speakers, in deliverance and dignitary? Is it the sound of a that we bear in the last syllable of penance, penetrant, and assemblage? Do we hear in the last syllable of profligate, the short a, as in fat? So far from it, that a public speaker, who should utter the sound of a so that it should be distinctly recognized in any polite audience, would expose himself to ridicule. The sound of the last vowel approaches to that of e or u and the notation of Sheridan is nearest the truth. But any notation is worse than useless; for without it, there would be no difference in customary pronunciation.
	To show the utter impracticability of expressing the unaccented vowels, in all cases, with precision, let the reader observe Walker’s notation of a in the word moderate, and its derivatives. In the adjective and verb, the a is long, as in fate; in moderately and moderateness it is short, as in fat. This is certainly incorrect notation; no good speaker ever pronounces these words moderatly, moderatness. In addition to this, the a in the verb to moderate, is more distinctly pronounced than it is in the adjective, in which it has rather the sound of e short, moderet; at least the sound is more nearly that of e than of a. And this distinction of sound, between letters in the same word, when an adjective, and when a verb, occurs in a multitude of cases; a distinction for which no provision is made in any system of orthoepy that I have seen, and one which must be left to the cognizance of the ear alone.
	There is another class of vowel sounds that comprise too many inaccuracies to be overlooked. This is the class in which the first syllable has an unaccented e, as in debate. In all words of this kind, Walker directs the letter e to have its long sound, as in me, mete. Then,
become, bedeck, begin, debate, debar, declare, elect, legitimate, mechanic, medicinal, memorial, necessity, peculiar, petition, rebuke, recant, relate, secure, select, velocity, &c., are to be pronounced beecome, beedeck, beegin, deebate, deebar, deeclare, eelect, leegitimate, meechanic, meedicinal, meemorial, neecessity, peeculiar, peetition, reebuke, reecant, reelate, seecure, seelect, veelocity, &c.
	According to this notation, the first vowel e in evil, even, and in event, is to have the same sound, being all marked with the same figure. Now, let me ask, where a speaker can be found who pronounces these words in this manner? Who ever heard of such a pronunciation? This notation is erroneous and mischievous, as it is inconsistent with the regular accent, which carries the stress of voice forward to the next syllable, and must, necessarily, leave the first vowel with the feeble sound of short i or y. This short sound is that which we always hear in such words.
	The like error occurs in Walker’s notation of i in direct, diminish, and many other words. Walker himself, under despatch, calls the sound of e the short i; but under rule 107, says this sound of i can not be properly said to be short, as it is not closed by a consonant; yet it has half its diphthongal sound, the sound of e!! This reason that i or e is not short, because the sound is not closed by a consonant, is entirely groundless, and contradicted by the universal pronunciation of thousands of English words. To direct such words to be pronounced deerect, deeminish, is inexcusable. This error corresponds with that specified under No. 4, supra.
	Thus, there is neither uniformity nor consistency among the orthoepists, in the notation of the unaccented vowels; and it is hardly possible there should be, for many of the sounds are so slight, in ordinary pronunciation, that it is almost impossible for the ear to recognize the distinctions, and absolutely impossible to express them on paper. In truth, as Dr. Ash remarks, in a dissertation prefixed to his Dictionary, the sounds of the five vowels, in unaccented, short, and insignificant syllables, are nearly coincident; and it must be a nice ear that can distinguish the difference of sound in the concluding syllable of altar, alter, manor, murmur, satyr. It is for this reason that the notation of such vowels at all savors of hypercritical fastidiousness, and by aiming at too much nicety and exactness, tends only to generate doubts and multiply differences of opinion. If the accent is laid on the proper syllable, and the vowel of that syllable correctly pronounced, the true pronunciation of the word will follow of course; at least the pronunciation is more likely to be right than wrong, and no mistake will occur, which shall be an object of notice.
	Nor can I approve the practice of writing all words in different characters, to express their pronunciation, as if their proper letters were so many hieroglyphics, requiring interpretation. A great part of English words have an orthography sufficiently regular, and so well adapted to express the true pronunciation, that a few general rules only are wanted as a guide to the learner.
	7. Another error of notation, in most of the English books, is that of the vowel in the first syllable of circle, circumstance, and many other words, the first syllable of which Sheridan first, and afterwards Walker and Jones, directed to be pronounced ser. This pronunciation I have never heard either in England or in this country. Perry’s notation makes the syllable sur, according to all the usage with which I am acquainted.
	8. Another objection to the books offered as standards of pronunciation, particularly to the Dictionaries of Sheridan and Walker, is that the rules are inconsistent, or the execution of the work is inconsistent with the rules. Thus Walker lays it down as a rule, (No. 357,) that c after the accent, and followed by ea, ia, ie, io, or eous, takes the sound of sh, as in ocean, social, Phocion, saponaceous which are pronounced as if written oshean, sosheal, Phosheon, saponasheous. But in the Dictionary, the author departs from the rule, and directs these words to be pronounced as if written oshun, soshal, saponashus. So also in gracious, ancient, especial, provincial, tenacious, rapacious, and I know not how many others, the
author departs from his own rule; so that either his rule or his practice must be wrong.
	And here it may be proper to notice a mistake of the author, which has led to an erroneous notation in a great number of words. The mistake is, that he assigns to c and t before the vowels ea, ia, ie, eo, and io, the sound of sh. Thus in ocean, he considers c as pronounced like sh; and in partial, he considers the sound of sh as proceeding from t only. Now the truth is, that the sound of sh in these and in all similar cases, results from the combination of c, t, or s, with the following vowel; that is, from the rapid enunciation and blending of the two letters. Then the sound of the first vowel being blended with c or t, it ought not to be repeated and form a distinct syllable. To make three syllables of ocean, is to use the vowel e twice. In most cases, all the orthoepists agree in pronouncing these combinations correctly in dissyllables, and primitive words; as oshun, grashus, tenashus, parshal, substanshal, nashun, relashun, preshus, and the like. But in a number of words that are primitive in our language, Walker and Jones depart from this rule; for although they pronounce conscience in two syllables, conshense, yet they pronounce nescience and prescience in three, neshyense, preshyense. So also when they make tial one syllable in the primitive word, they make two syllables of these letters in the derivatives; partial is parshal, but partiality is parsheality. Thus one error has led to another, and a large part of all words of this kind are mispronounced. Sheridan and Perry, in this respect, are consistent and correct; making one syllable only of cia, cie, cio, tia, tio, both in primitives and derivatives, throughout the language. A single line of poetry ought to settle this point for ever.
	Expatiate free o’er all this scene of man.	Pope.
	9. A remarkable instance of inconsistency occurs in the following words. Armature, aperture, breviature, feature, &c., Walker pronounces armatshure, apertshure, breviatshure, overtshure; but forfeiture is forfeetyure, and judicature, ligature, literature, miniature, nunciature, portraiture, prefecture, quadrature, signature, are pronounced as here written. Can any reason be possibly assigned for such inconsistency?
	10. Obedience and its family of words, Walker pronounces obejeence, obejeent, obejeently; but disobedience, disobedient, as here written. Expedient is either as here written, or expejeent; but expedience without the alternative. Why this inconsistency?
	11. Obdurate, obduracy, are marked to be pronounced obdurate or objurate, obduracy or objuracy; but objurately, objurateness, without an alternative. In these last words occurs another error, the a in the third syllable is made short, as if pronounced rat; a deviation from all good usage.
	This notation of obdurate is inconsistent also with that of indurate, and with that of obdure; an inconsistency which appears to have no plausible pretext.
	The conversion of d into j before i is rejected, I believe, in all words, by Jones, Perry, and Jameson, and before u is rejected by Perry and Jameson, and in many words by Jones. It is a departure from orthography wholly inexcusable.
	12. Walker (Principles No. 92,) lays it down as a rule, that when a is preceded by the gutturals hard g or c, [he should have said palatals,] it is, in polite pronunciation, softened by the intervention of a sound like e, so that card, cart, guard, regard, are pronounced like keard, keart, gheard, regheard. Now it is remarkable that in the vocabulary or dictionary, the author has departed from his rule, for in not one of the foregoing words, except guard, nor in a multitude of other word which fall within the rule, has he directed this sound of e before the following vowel. Had he conformed to his own rule, he must have perverted the pronunciation of car, carbuncle, care, carcass, cardinal, cargo, garden, garter, discard, and a long list of other words, too long to be here enumerated. The English orthoepists now confine this prepositive sound of e to guard, guaranty, guardian, guile, kind, and a few others. The probable origin of this fault has been already assigned, in treating of the letter u. It is an affected pronunciation, which Nares calls “a monster, peculiar to the stage.” Indeed this slender sound of e before another vowel, is wholly incompatible with that manly enunciation which is peculiarly suited to the genius of the language. Perry and Jameson have rejected it.
	13. In the first edition of Walker’s Dictionary, the author, under the word tripod, observes, that “all words of two syllables, with the accent on the first, and having one consonant between two vowels, ought to have the vowel in the first syllable long.” But this was too rash, for such words as cemˊent, desˊert, prefˊace, presˊent, profˊit, rebˊel, tropˊic, and a multitude of others, stand, in the author’s book, in direct opposition to his own rule. In a subsequent edition, the author, or some other person, has qualified the rule by an exception in favor of settled usage. This exception destroys the value of the rule; and indeed there is, and there can be, no rule applicable to words of this class. The pronunciation of the first vowel can be known only by the usage.
	14. The derivatives of nation and ratio, Walker and Jones pronounce nashˊonal, rashˊonal. If this should be defended on the ground of the shortening power of the antepenultimate accent, then let me ask why we have not noshˊonal from notion, devoshˊonal from devotion, probashˊoner from probation, stashˊonary from station? Why make rules and not apply them? Why indulge such palpable inconsistencies and multiply anomalies?
	15. Possess is, by the English orthoepists, pronounced pozzess; but why not, then, pronounce assess, assist, assassin, consession, obsession, with the sound of z? Can any good reason be assigned for making possess an exception to the pronunciation of this class of words? This utterance of sounds through the nose is always disagreeable to the ear, and should be restricted to words in which usage is established. Good taste should rather induce a limitation, than an extension of this practice. This remark applies also to some words beginning with dis, in which Walker goes beyond other orthoepists in giving to s this nasal sound.
	16. Walker lays it down as a fact, that u has the sound of e and oo or yu. This is true in many words, as in union, unite, unanimity, &c. Hence, according to his principle, u in these words is to be pronounced yunion, yunite, without the letter y prefixed. Yet he writes these and similar words with y, yunion, which, upon his principles, would prefix yu to the sound of yu, and the pronunciation would be yuyunite, or eooyunite. But his notation of this sound of u is not uniform; for he writes disunion and disunite without y, though it must be as proper in the compound as in the simple word. The same inconsistency occurs between use, written, yuse, yuze, and disuse, disuze.
	17. There is a fault in Walker’s notation of o, when it has the sound of oo, the French ou. In the Key, he marks o, when it has this sound, with the figure 2, and gives move as an example. Then according to his Key, o alone when thus marked, sounds as oo. But in the Vocabulary, he thus marks both vowels in book, look, boot, and all similar words. Then according to his notation, each of the vowels has the sound of oo, and book, look, are to be pronounced boo-ook, loo-ook. He certainly did not intend this; but such is precisely his direction, or the result of his notation; and a foreigner, without counter-direction, must be led into this pronunciation.
	The same fault occurs in his notation of ee, as in meet and seek.
	18. Volume, Walker and Jones pronounce volyume; why not then change column into colyum? Will it be said that in volume the u is long? This is not the fact; at least I never heard it thus pronounced either in England or America; it is always short in common usage, and so marked by Perry.
	19. Ink, uncle, concord, concourse, concubine; are pronounced by Walker, ingk, ungkl, kongkord, kongkorse, kongkubine; and these odious vulgarisms are offered for our adoption. There can be no apology for such attempts to corrupt our language.
	20. The words bravery, finery, knavery, nicety, scenery, slavery, are by Walker, and the other orthoepists, pronounced in three syllables, and imagery in four; the final e of the primitive word being detached from it, and uttered with r, as a distinct syllable. Why savagery has escaped the same fate, I do not know. It is obvious that in negligent practice, these words have often been thus pronounced. But the most correct pronunciation retains the original word entire in the derivative, the slight sound of e before r, no more constituting a syllable, than it does in more and mire. Take the following examples.

	Of marble stone was cut
	An altar carv’d with cunning imagery.		Spenser.

	When in those oratories might you see
	Rich carvings, portraitures, and imagery.	Dryden.

	Your gift shall two large goblets be
	Of silver, wrought with curious imagery. 	Dryden.

	What can thy imagery of sorrow mean?		Prior.

	Pronounced in four syllables, imagery, in these lines, makes a syllable too much, and injures the measure, and in the last example utterly destroys it. The true pronunciation of Spenser, Dryden, and Prior, is the same as it always has been in my elementary books.
	21. Formerly, the words puissance, puissant, had the accent on the second syllable; although the poets seem, in some instances, to have blended the four first letters into one syllable. But the modern change of the accent to the first syllable, is not in accordance with English analogies, and it impairs the measure of many lines of poetry, in which these words occur. In the adverb puissantly, it has a very bad effect.
	The foregoing observations extend to whole classes of words, in which the genuine pronunciation has been changed, unsettled, and perverted. It would be inconsistent with the limited nature of this Introduction, to enter into an examination of every particular word of disputable pronunciation. It seems to be inexpedient and useless to bestow, as Walker has done, half a page or a page, on a single word, in attempting to settle some trifling point, or, in many cases, to settle a point that, in this country, has never been disputed.
	To give a brief statement of the errors, diversities, and contradictions of the principal schemes of orthoepy which have been offered to the public, within the last half century, two classes of words only will be sufficient as specimens.
	The following lists are not complete, but they comprehend the greatest number of words in their respective classes. The dates at the head of the columns, designate the year when the Dictionaries in my possession were published, indicating nearly, but not exactly, the origin of each scheme. In the orthography, I have given the letters used by each author, in the syllable which contains the difference of pronunciation; in the others, I have followed the common orthography.

Sheridan,	Walker,	Jones,	Perry,	Jameson,	
1784	1794	1798	1805	1827	
Abbrévyature,	Abbréveatshure,	Abbréviature,	Abbrevˊiature,	Abbréveature.	
Accentuate,	Accentshuate,	Accentuate,	Accentuate,	Accentuate.	
Accentuation,	Accentshuation,	Accentuation,	Accentuation,	Accentuation.	
Actual,	Actshual,	Actual,	Actual,	Actual.	
Actuate, &c.	Actshuate,	Actuate,	Actuate,	Actuate.	
Admikstshur,	Admikstshure,	Admixture,	Admixture,	Admixture.	
Adventual,	Adventshual,	Adventual,	Adventual,	Adventual.	
Adventshur,	Adventshure,	Adventure,	Adventure,	Adventure.	
Agriculture,	Agricultshure,	Agriculture,	Agriculture,	Agriculture.	
Aperture,	Apertshure,	Aperture,	Aperture,	Aperture.	
Arkitektshur,	Architectshure,	Architectshure,	Architecture,	Architecture.	
Armature,	Armatshure,	Armature,	Armature.	 	
Artuate,	Artshuate,	Artuate.		 	
Attaintshur,	Attaintshure,	Attainture,	Attainture.	 	
Aventshur,	Aventshure,	Aventure,		Aventure.	
Befortune,	Befortshune,	Befortune,	Befortune,	Befortune.	
Bountyus,	Bountcheous,	Bounteous,	Bounteous,	Bounteous.	
Calenture,	Calentshure,	Calenture,	Calenture,	Calenture.	
Capitulate,	Capitulate,	Capitulate,	Capitulate,	Capitulate.	
Capsular,	Capshular,	Capshular,	Capsular,	Capsular.	
Captshur,	Captshure,	Captshur,	Capture,	Capture.	
Cartulary,	Cartshulary,	Cartulary,	Cartulary,	Cartulary.	
Celature,	Celatshure,	Celatshure,	Celature,	Celature.	
Cinctshur,	Cinctshure,	Cincture,	Cincture,	Cingkture.	
Claushur,	Clauzhure,	Clauzhure,	Clauzhure,	Clauzhur.	
Commensurate,	Commenshurate,	Commenshurate,	Commensurate,	Commensurate.	
Commutual,	Commutshual,	Commutshual,	Commutual,	Commutual.	
Compactshur,	Compactshure,	Compacture,	Compacture,	Compacture.	
Compostshur,	Compostshure,	Compostshure,	Composture.	 	
Concretshur,	Concretshure,	Concretshure,	Concreture,	Concreture.	
Congratulate,	Congratshulate,	Congratulate,	Congratulate,	Congratulate.	
Conjectshur,	Conjectshure,	Conjectur,	Conjecture,	Conjecture.	
Conjunctshur,	Conjunctshure,	Conjunctur,	Conjuncture,	Conjunkture.	
Connatural,	Connatshural,	Connatshural,	Connatural,	Connatural.	
Constituent,	Constitshuent,	Constituent,	Constituent,	Constituent.	
Constructshur,	Constructshure,	Constructure,	Constructure,	Constructure.	
Contextshur	Contextshure,	Contextshure,	Contexture,	Contexture.	
Conventual,	Conventshual,	Conventual,	Conventual,	Conventual.	
Counternatural,	Counternatshural,	Counternatural,	Counternatural.	 	
Courtshus,	Courtsheous,	Courteous,	Curtcheous,	Courteous.	
Creatshur,	Cretshure,	Creatshure,	Creature,	Creture.	
Cultshur,	Cultshure,	Culture,	Culture,	Culture.	
Debentshur,	Debentshure,	Debenture,	Debenture,	Debenture.	
Decoctshur,	Decoctshure,	Decocture,	Decocture,	Decocture.	
Defeatshur,	Defeatshure,	Defeature,	Defeature.	 	
Dejectshur,	Dejectshure,	Dejecture,	Dejecture,	Dejecture.	
Departshur,	Departshure,	Departshure,	Departure,	Departure.	
Dictatshur,	Dictatshure,	Dictature,		Dictature.	
Discomfitshur,	Discomfityure,	Discomfityure,	Discomfiture,	Discomfiture.	
Discourtshus,	Discourtshus,	Discourteous,	Discurcheous,	Discourteous.	
Disnaturalize,	Disnatshuralize,	Disnaturalize,	Disnaturalize,	Disnaturalize.	
Disnatshured,	Disnatshured,	Disnatshured,	Disnatured.	 	
Divestshur,	Divestshure,	Divestshure,	Divesture,	Divesture.	
Dutyus,	Duteous or Dutsheous,	Duteous,	Duteous,	Duteous.	
Effectual,	Effectshual,	Effectual,	Effectual,	Effectual.	
Enraptshur,	Enraptshure,	Enraptshure,	Enrapture,	Enrapture.	
Estuary,	Estshuary,	Estuary,	Estuary,	Estuary.	
Estuate,	Estshuate,	Estuate,	Estuate,	Estuate.	
Eventual,	Eventshual,	Eventual,	Eventual,	Eventual.	
Expostulate,	Expostshulate,	Expostulate,	Expostulate,	Expostulate.	
Factshur,	Factshure,	Facture,	Facture,	Facture.	
Fastuous,	Fastshuous,	Fastshuous,	Fastuous,	 	
Featshur,	Featshure,	Featshure,	Feature,	Feteyer.	
Fistula,	Fistshula,	Fistshula,	Fistula,	Fistula.	
Flatulence,	Flatshulence,	Flatulence,	Flatulence,	Flatulence.	
Flatuous,	Flatshuous,	Flatuous,	Flatuous.	 	
Fluctuate,	Fluctshuate,	Fluctuate,	Fluctuate,	Fluctuate.	
Fortune,	Fortshune,	Fortshune,	Fortune,	Fortune.	
Fractshur,	Fractshure,	Fractshure,	Fracture,	Fracture.	
Fructuous,	Fructshuous,	Fructuous,	Fructuous,	Fructuous.	
Futshur,	Futshure,	Futshur,	Future,	Futyure.	
Garnitshur,	Garnitshure,	Garniture,	Garniture,	Garniture.	
Gestshur,	Gestshure,	Gestshure,	Gesture,	Gesture.	
Gratulate,	Gratshulate,	Gratulate,	Gratulate,	Gratulate.	
Guttural,	Guttshural,	Guttural,	Guttural,	Guttural.	
Habitual,	Habitshual,	Habitual,	Habitual,	Habitual.	
Horticultshur,	Horticultshure,	Horticulture,	Horticulture,	Horticulture.	
Hortulan,	Hortshulan,	Hortulan,	Hortulan,	Hortulan.	
Illnatshur,	Illnatshure,	Illnatshure,	Illnature,	Illnatyur.	
Immenshurable,	Immenshurable,	Immenshurable,	Immenshurable,	Immensurable.	
Impetuous,	Impetshuous,	Impetshuous,	Impetuous,	Impetuous.	
Importunate,	Importshunate,	Importshunate,	Importunate,	Importunate.	
Impostshur,	Impostshure,	Impostshure,	Imposture,	Impostyur.	
Incestuous,	Incestshuous,	Incestshuous,	Incestuous,	Incestuous.	
Indentshur,	Indentshure,	Indentshure,	Indenture,	Indentyur.	
Ineffectual,	Ineffectshual,	Ineffectshual,	Ineffectual,	Ineffectual.	
Infatuate,	Infatshuate,	Infatuate,	Infatuate,	Infatuate.	
Insculptshur,	Insculptshure,	Insculptshure,	Insculpture,	Insculptyur.	
Insular,	Inshular,	Insular,	Insular,	Insular.	
Insulated,	Inshulated,	Insulated,	Insulated,	Insulated.	
Intellectual,	Intellectshual,	Intellectshual,	Intellectual,	Intellectual.	
Jointshur,	Jointshure,	Jointure,	Jointure,	Jointyur.	
Junctshur,	Junktshure,	Junctshure,	Juncture,	Junctyur.	
Lectshur,	Lectshure,	Lectshure,	Lecture,	Lectyur.	
Legislatshur,	Legislatshure,	Legislature,	Legislature,	Legislatyur.	
Mantua,	Mantshua,	Mantua,	Mantua,	Mantua.	
Manufactshur,	Manufactshure,	Manufactshure,	Manufacture,	Manufactyur.	
Maturate,	Matshurate,	Matshurate,	Maturate,	Maturate.	
Menshurable,	Menshurable,	Menshurable,	Mensurable,	Mensurable.	
Meteor,	Meteor or Metsheor,	Meteor,	Meteor,	Meteor.	
Misfortshun,	Misfortshune,	Misfortshune,	Misfortune,	Misfortune.	
Mixtshur,	Mixtshure,	Mixtshure,	Mixture,	Mixtyur.	
Moistshur,	Moistshure,	Moistshure,	Moisture,	Moistyur.	
Morshur,	Morshure,	Morshure,	Morshure.	 	
Mutshual,	Mutshual,	Mutshual,	Mutual,	Mutual.	
Natshur,	Natshure,	Natshur,	Natchure	Nateyur.	
Natshural,	Natshural,	Nattshural,	Natural,	Natural.	
Noctshuary,	Noctshuary,	Noctuary,	Noctuary,	Noctuary.	
Nurtshur,	Nurtshure,	Nurtshure,	Nurture,	Nurtyur.	
Overtshur,	Overtshure,	Overture,	Overture,	Overture.	
Paintshur,	Paintshure,	Paintshure,	Painture.	 	
Pastshur,	Pastshure,	Pastshure,	Pasture,	Pastyur.	
Peninshula	Peninshula,	Peninshula,	Peninsula,	Peninsula.	
Periostshum	Periostshum,	Periosteum,	Periosteum,	Periosteum.	
Perpetshual,	Perpetshual,	Perpetshual,	Perpetual,	Perpetual.	
Perpetshuity,	Perpetuity,	Perpetuity,	Perpetuity,	Perpetuity.	
Pictshur,	Pictshure,	Pictshur,	Picture,	Pictyur.	
Piteous,	Pitcheous,	Piteous,	Piteous,	Piteous.	
Plentshus,	Plentshus,	Plenteous,	Plenteous,	Plenteous.	
Postshur,	Postshure,	Postshure,	Posture,	Postyur.	
Postshulate,	Postshulate,	Postshulate,	Postulate,	Postulate.	
Presumptuous,	Prezumtshuous,	Prezumtshuous,	Presumptuous,	Presumptuous.	
Projectshur,	Projectshure,	Projectshure,	Projecture,	Projecture.	
Promptshur,	Promptshure,	Promptshure,	Prompture,	Promptyur.	
Punctshual,	Punctshual,	Punctual,	Punctual,	Pungtual.	
Punctshur,	Punctshure,	Punctshure,	Puncture,	Pungktyur.	
Pustshul,	Pustshule,	Pustshule,	Pustule,	Pustule.	
Raptshur,	Raptshure,	Raptshur,	Rapture,	Raptyur.	
Recapittshulate,	Recapittshulate,	Recapittshulate,	Recapitulate,	Recapitulate.	
Ritshual,	Ritshual,	Ritshual,	Ritual,	Ritual.	
Ruptshur,	Ruptshure,	Ruptshure,	Rupture,	Ruptyur.	
Sanctshuary,	Sanctshuary,	Sanctuary,	Sanctuary,	Sangktuary.	
Satshurate,	Satshurate,	Satshurate,	Saturate,	Saturate.	
Scriptshur,	Scriptshure,	Scriptshure,	Scripture,	Scriptyur.	
Sculptshur,	Sculptshure,	Sculptshure,	Sculpture,	Sculptyur.	
Septshuagint,	Septshuagint,	Septuagint,	Septuagint,	Septuagint.	
Sittshuate,	Sittshuate,	Situate,	Situate,	Situate.	
Spirittshual,	Spirittshual,	Spirittshual,	Spiritual,	Spiritual.	
Sportshul,	Sportshule,	Sportshule.		 	
Stattshuary,	Stattshuary,	Stattshuary,	Statuary,	Statuary.	
Stattshu,	Stattshu,	Stattshu,	Statu,	Statu.	
Stattshur,	Stattshure,	Stattshure,	Stature,	Statyur.	
Stattshut,	Stattshute,	Stattshute,	Statute,	Statute.	
Strictshur,	Strictshure,	Strictshure,	Stricture,	Strictyur.	
Structshur,	Structshure,	Structshure,	Structure,	Structyur.	
Sumptshuous,	Sumptshuous,	Sumtshuous,	Sumptuous,	Sumptuous.	
Shootshur,	Sutshure,	Sutshure,	Suture,	Suteyur.	
Tarantshula,	Tarantshula,	Tarantshula,	Tarantula,	Tarantula.	
Tempestuous,	Tempestshuous,	Tempestshuous,	Tempestuous,	Tempestuous.	
Tenshur,	Tenshure,	Tenshure,	Tenshur,	Tenshur.	
Textshuary,	Textshuary,	Textshuary,	Textuary,	Textuary.	
Textshur,	Textshure,	Textshure,	Texture,	Textyur.	
Tinctshur,	Tinctshure,	Tinctshure,	Tincture,	Tingktyur.	
Titshular,	Tittshular,	Titshular,	Titular,	Titular.	
Tortshur,	Tortshure,	Tortshure,	Torture,	Tortyur.	
Tortshuous,	Tortshuous,	Tortshuous,	Tortuous,	Tortuous.	
Tritshuration,	Tritshuration,	Tritshuration,	Triturate,	Trituration.	
Tshoomultshuous,	Tumultshuous,	Tumultshuous,	Tumultuous,	Tumultuous.	
Unctshuous,	Ungktshuous,	Unctuous,	Unctuous,	Ungktuous.	
Unstattshutable,	Unstattshutable,	Unstattshutable,	Unstatutable.	 	
Vestshur,	Vestshure,	Vestshure,	Vesture,	Vestyur.	
Ventshur,	Ventshure,	Ventshure,	Venture,	Ventyur.	
Veolentchelo,	Veolentshelo,	Veolonchelo,	Violoncello,	Veolontsello.	
Vertshu,	Vertshu,	Vertshu,	Virtue,	Virtu.	
Vitshuline,	Vitshuline,	Vitshuline,	Vituline.	 	
Voluptshuous,	Voluptshuous,	Voluptshuous,	Voluptuous,	Voluptuous.	
Vultshur,	Vultshure,	Vultshure,	Vulture,	Vultyur.	
Waftshur,	Waftshure,	Waftshure.	Wafture.	 	

	This table of words may, perhaps, be thought a burlesque on English orthoepy. It certainly presents a phenomenon altogether novel in the history of language.
	Of these five authorities, the notation of Perry, with the exception of a few words ending in ure, is most nearly accordant to the present usage in England, as far as my observations, while in that country, extended. That of Walker is by far the most remote from that usage. From an actual enumeration of the syllables in certain classes of words in which the vowel is erroneously pronounced, in Walker’s scheme, I have ascertained that the number amounts to more than twelve thousand, without including several classes of unaccented syllables, which would swell the number by some thousands. Of this whole number, I did not, while in England, hear one vowel pronounced according to Walker’s notation. The zeal manifested in this country, to make his pronunciation a standard, is absolute infatuation, as, if adopted in its full extent, it would introduce many differences in the pronunciation of words in the two countries, in which sameness now exists; and even the attempt, should it not be successful, must multiply discordancies and distract opinions, and thus place the desired uniformity at a greater distance than ever. Fortunately, Walker’s pronunciation has never been generally received in England, and where it has been received, we see, by Jameson’s Dictionary, that it is becoming unpopular and obsolete. Walker’s pronunciation of several classes of words, is also condemned by Jones and Knowles.
	We observe in the following list, that the three first of these orthoepists have no rule by which their pronunciation is regulated. Hence the want of uniformity in words of like orthography. See bounteous, courteous, duteous, and plenteous. Why should plenteous be reduced to two syllables, when bounteous is pronounced in three? And what reason can be assigned for the different notation of capitulate and recapitulate?
	A remarkable instance of inconsistency in Walker’s notation, occurs in words of more syllables than two, ending in ture. Thus we find ture converted into chure [tshure] in
Abbreviatshure.	Compastshure.	Dejectshure.
Admixtshure.	Compostshure.	Departshure.
Adventshure.	Concretshure.	Dictatshure.
Agricultshure.	Conjectshure.	Divestshure.
Apertshure.	Conjunctshure.	Impostshure.
Attaintshure.	Contextshure.	Indentshure.
Aventshure.	Debentshure.	Overtshure.
Celatshure.		Decoctshure.	Projectshure.
Calentshure.	Defeatshure.
	But in the following words the terminating syllable remains unaltered.
Illiterature.		Literature.		Prelature.
Intemperature.	Miniature.		Quadrature.
Investiture.		Nunciature.	Serrature.
Judicature.		Nutriture.		Signature.
Ligature.		Prefecture.		Temperature.
Limature.
	In this class of words, Sheridan and Jones are also inconsistent with themselves, though not to the same extent as Walker. Perry and Jameson retain, in all these words, the true orthography and pronunciation. In these words also, Walker gives to u, in the last syllable, its first or long sound; but this is an inaccurate notation; the sound, in actual usage, is that of short u, at least so far as my observation extends, either in England or the United States.
	In the following classes of words, as pronounced by Walker, there is either error or inconsistency, or both.

Assidjuous.	Obejeence.	
Commodious or commojeus.	Obejeent.	
Credjulous.	Obduracy or objuracy.	
Dividual or dividjual.	Obdurate or objurate.	
Fastidious or fastidjeous.	Occidjuus.	
Gradient or grajeent.	Odium or ojeum.	
Gradual or gradjual.	Ojus or ojeus.	
Guardian or guarjean.	Ordeal or orjeal.	
Hideus or hidjeus.	Penjulous.	
Immediacy or immejeasy.	Penjulum.	
Incendiary or incenjeary.	Predial or prejeal.	
Individual or individjual.	Prelujeus.	
Ingrejent [for ingredient.]	Presidjeal.	
Insidious or insidjeus.	Procejure.	
Intermedial or intermejeal.	Quotijean.	
Invidious or invidjeus.	Radiate or rajeate.	
Mediocrity or mejeocrity.	Radiant or rajeant.	
Medium or mejeum.	Radius or rajeus.	
Melodious or melojeus.	Rezidjual.	
Meridian or meridjean.	Sardius or sarjeus.	
Modulate or modjulate.	Sedulous or sedjulous.	
Nidjulation.	Studious or stujeus.	
Nodjule.	Tedious or tejeus.	
Noctidyal or noctidjeal.	 	

	It would seem that, in a large part of these words, we may take our choice, either to retain the proper sound of d, or to convert it into that of j. This choice certainly makes an odd kind of standard. But why mediate should retain the sound of d, while immediacy and medium suffer a change; or why radiate should be given in the alternative, radiate or rajeate, while irradiate and irradiance are not subjected to any change; or why obedience should be changed into obejeence, and disobedience remain unchanged, I am not able to conjecture.
	These classes of words exhibit a specimen of the modern orthoepy, so called, of our language; it is indeed a brief and imperfect specimen, for I have ascertained by actual enumeration, that a catalogue of all the differences of notation in these authors, would comprehend about one third of all the words in their vocabularies. Amidst this mass of errors and contradictions, our consolation is, that the good sense of the English nation, a learned and respectable people, is triumphing over the follies and caprices of fashion, and frowning on this most mischievous spirit of innovation.
	In proportion as the importance of settled usages and of preserving inviolate the proper sounds of letters, as the true and only safe landmarks of pronunciation, shall be appreciated by an enlightened people, just in that proportion will all attempts of affected speakers to innovate upon such established usages, be reprobated and resisted.
	The intentions of the men who have undertaken to give a standard of pronunciation, have, unquestionably, been upright and sincere; but facts have proved that instead of good, they have, on the whole, done harm; for instead of reducing the pronunciation of words to uniformity, they have, to a considerable extent, unsettled it, and multiplied differences. The whole process of these attempts, from Sheridan’s first publication, is within my memory; and I am confident that, whatever has been the effect of these attempts in Great Britain, the result of them in the United States, has been to multiply greatly the diversities of pronunciation. And such is the present state of the authorities, offered as standards, that it is impossible, from books, to gain a correct knowledge of what is the general usage. If I had no other means of knowing this general usage, than the English books, I should be utterly unable to ascertain it, and should give up the attempt as hopeless.
	Some of the differences of notation in the several books, may be rather apparent than real; but with all due allowance for this imperfection of the schemes, I am persuaded that there are ten differences among these orthoepists, where there is one in the actual pronunciation of respectable people in England and the United States; and in most of them the notation, if strictly followed, will lead to ten differences of pronunciation, where one only now exists in the actual practice of the two countries.
	This effect of multiplying doubts and diversities, has resulted from very obvious causes.
	1. The limited acquaintance of orthoepists with the general usage, and their taking the pronunciation of London, or some dialect or local practice in that city, for the best usage. The propagation of such a dialectical or peculiar practice, would of course disturb the uniformity of any other practice in other parts of England or in this country.
	2. The difficulty or rather impracticability of representing sounds, and nice distinctions of sound, on paper; especially in unaccented syllables.
	3. The partiality of authors for the practice of particular speakers, either stage players or others, which would lead them to denominate that the best practice which had been adopted by their favorites.
	4. A spirit of fastidious hypercriticism, which has led writers to make minute distinctions, that are liable to be disputed, and which tend only to perplex the inquirer, and generate uncertainty or diversity, where no essential difference had previously existed in practice. This spirit is continually producing new books and new schemes of orthoepy, and every additional book serves only to increase the difficulty of uniting opinions and establishing uniformity.
	This view of the subject is probably the most favorable that can be presented. The real fact seems to be this; these men have taken for the standard, what they were pleased to call the best usage, which, in many cases, is a local usage or some favorite peculiarity of particular speakers, at least if they have had any authority at all; or they have given the pronunciation which happened to please their fancy, though not authorized by usage. In this manner they have attempted to bend the common usage to their particular fancies.
	It has been in this manner, by presenting to the public local or particular practice, or mere innovation, for a standard, instead of general or national usage, that the authors above mentioned have unsettled the pronunciation of many words, and multiplied diversities of practice. These attempts to obtrude local usage on the public, and bend to it the general or national usage, are the boldest assumptions of authority in language that the history of literature has ever exhibited. In England, however, these pretensions to direct the pronunciation of the nation, have less effect than they have in the United States, for this obvious reason, that in England pronunciation is regulated almost exclusively by the practice of the higher classes of society, and not by books; hence, if books do not exhibit the customary pronunciation, the falsity of notation is easily detected, and the work which offers it is neglected. But in this country, where the people resort chiefly to books for rules of pronunciation, a false notation of sounds operates as a deception, and misleads the inquirer. How long the citizens of this country will submit to these impositions, time only can determine.
	The English language, when pronounced according to the genuine composition of its words, is a nervous, masculine language, well adapted to popular eloquence; and it is not improbable that there may be some connection between this manly character of the language and the freedom of the British and American constitutions. They may, perhaps, act and react upon each other mutually, as cause and effect, and each contribute to the preservation of the other. At the same time, the language is, by no means, incapable of poetical sweetness and melody. The attempts to refine upon the pronunciation, within the last half century, have, in my opinion, added nothing to its smoothness and sweetness, but have very much impaired its strength of expression as well as its regularity. The attempts to banish the Italian sound of a, and to introduce the sound of e before i and u, as in kind, guard, duty, &c., ought to be resisted, as injurious to the manly character of the genuine English pronunciation.
	In order to produce and preserve a tolerable degree of uniformity, and the genuine purity of our language, two things appear to be indispensable, viz.
	1. To reject the practice of noting the sounds of the vowels in the unaccented syllables. Let any man, in genteel society or in public, pronounce the distinct sound of a in the last syllable of important, or the distinct sound of e in the terminations less and ness, as in hopeless, happiness, and he would pass for a most inelegant speaker. Indeed, so different is the slight sound of a great part of the unaccented vowels, in elegant pronunciation, from that which is directed in books of orthoepy, that no man can possibly acquire the nicer distinction of sounds, by means of books; distinctions which no characters yet invented can express. Elegant pronunciation can be learned only by the ear. The French and Italians, whose languages are so popular in Europe, have never attempted to teach the sounds of their letters by a system of notation, embracing the finer sounds of the vowels.
	2. To preserve purity and uniformity in pronunciation, it is necessary to banish from use all books which change the orthography of words, to adapt the pronunciation to the fashion of the day. The scheme now pursued, is the most mischievous project for corrupting the language, that human ingenuity ever devised. By removing the landmarks of language, all the fences which can secure the purity and regularity of the language from unlicensed depredations without end are demolished, the chief use and value of alphabetical writing are destroyed, and every thing is given to chance and to caprice.
	In determining the pronunciation of words in this work, I have availed myself of the most respectable English authorities, as well as of my own personal observations in both countries, and of the observations of American gentlemen of erudition, who have visited England. In selecting from a mass of contradictory authorities, I may not, in all cases, have adopted the best pronunciation; but I have spared no pains to execute this part of the work with fidelity.
	In general, the rules I have prescribed to myself are these.  1. The usage of respectable people in England and the United States, when identical in the two countries, settled and undisputed. This rule comprehends most of the words in the language.  2. When usage is unsettled or uncertain, I have adjusted the pronunciation to the regular, established analogies of the language, as far as these can be definitely ascertained; having, however, in accentuation, sonic regard to euphony, or the prosaic melody which proceeds from a due succession of accented and unaccented syllables.
	There are some words, differently pronounced by respectable people, in which no decisive reasons appear, for preferring one mode of pronouncing them to another; either might be adopted, without any injury to melody or analogy. I see no particular reason why patˊent should have its first vowel short, and maˊtron, paˊtron, and paˊtriot, the first vowel long. Much less do I approve the reasons assigned for making the a short in matˊronal, and not in maˊtronly, or short in patˊronal, and not in paˊtroness. The reasons assigned by Walker, appear to me to be absolute trifling. The rule of uniformity is paramount to every other, excepting that of general, undisputed custom; and when the practice is unsettled, it seems to be the duty of the lexicographer to be guided by that rule, for his authority may lead to the uniformity desired.
	In a few instances, the common usage of a great and respectable portion of the people of this country accords with the analogies of the language, but not with the modern notation of English orthoepists. In such cases, it seems expedient and proper to retain our own usage. To renounce a practice confessedly regular, for one confessedly anomalous, out of respect to foreign usage, would hardly be consistent with the dignity of lexicography. When we have principle on our side, let us adhere to it. The time can not be distant, when the population of this vast country will throw off their leading-strings, and walk in their own strength; and the more we can raise the credit and authority of principle over the caprices of fashion and innovation, the nearer we approach to uniformity and stability in practice.
	It is difficult, if not impracticable, to reconcile the opinions of a nation, in regard to every point, either of orthography or pronunciation. Every attempt that has yet been made in regard to the English language, has served only to increase the difficulty; and as a gentleman remarked to me in London, a convention of learned men could not effect the object, for no two men would think alike on the subject.
	The language of a nation is the common property of the people, and no individual has a right to make inroads upon its principles. As it is the medium of communication between men, it is important that the same written words and the same oral sounds to express the same ideas, should be used by the whole nation. When any man, therefore, attempts to change the established orthography or pronunciation, except to correct palpable errors and produce uniformity, by recalling wanderers into the pale of regular analogies, he offers an indignity to the nation. No local practice, however respectable, will justify the attempt. There is great dignity as well as propriety, in respecting the universal and long established usages of a nation.
	With these views of the subject, I feel myself bound to reject all modern innovations, which violate the established principles and analogies of the language, and destroy or impair the value of alphabetical writing. I have, therefore, endeavored to present to my fellow citizens the English language in its genuine purity, as we have received the inheritance from our ancestors, without removing a landmark. If the language is fatally destined to be corrupted, I will not be an instrument of the mischief.

ETYMOLOGY.

	Irregular as is the orthography of the English language, and unsettled or corrupt as is the pronunciation, there is nothing either in English or in any other language of which I have any knowledge, which exhibits so strikingly the low state of philology, as the etymological deductions of words, or the history of their origin, affinities, and primary signification. To enable the young inquirer to estimate the erudition, correctness, or negligence of writers on this subject, and to awaken more attention to this branch of learning, I will state briefly the results of my researches, and the opinions which I have been compelled to form on the merits of the principal treatises on this subject. And if these opinions or this statement should be charged to egotism, or my over-weening confidence in the success of my own investigations, my apology is, that I have suffered so much myself by a misplaced confidence in the erudition of writers; I have so often embraced errors which it has cost me more labor to unlearn than to learn; that if I can prevent my fellow-citizens, who have a taste for this study, from being subjected to the same evils, I shall think the advantage obtained, more than a balance for any unmerited imputation.
	The first example of etymology which I shall mention, is that of Josephus, the historian of the Jews, who informs his readers, that the first man “was called Adam, which, in the Hebrew tongue, signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth.” Here is a mistake proceeding from a mere resemblance of words; it being certain that Adam no more signifies red earth, than it does red cedar. This mistake is connected with another, that Adam was the proper name of the first man, an individual; whereas the word is the generic name of the human species, and like man in English, signifies form, shape, image, expressing distinctively the characteristic eminence or distinction of form of the human race. This fact explains the use of the plural pronoun, in the account of the creation of the species. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,” &c. Gen. i. 26. It is evident, also, that the words used in relation to the species, the image, the likeness of God, have reference, not only to their intellectual and moral faculties, but also to their external form; and so the Apostle interprets the words, 1 Cor. xi. 7. Not that God has any bodily shape of which man can be the image, but that man has a superior or super-excellent form, corresponding to his intellectual powers, and distinguishing him from all other animals. Now the mistake of Josephus has infected the Christian world for eighteen hundred years, and the mistake, with erroneous inferences from it, enters into the most recently published systems of theology.
	Among the most celebrated authors of antiquity, who have written on the subject of language, is Varro, who has left a treatise De Lingua Latina. On this author’s learning, Cicero, Quinctilian, and Augustine have bestowed the most unbounded praises. He is pronounced to have been vir egregius; eruditissimus Romanorum; peritissimus linguæ Latinæ et omnis antiquitatis, sine ulla dubitatione, doctissimus. He was, doubtless, a man of uncommon erudition for the age in which he lived; and his etymological treatise may be consulted with advantage, by persons who have knowledge enough of this subject to separate the certain or probable from the improbable and conjectural. But it is certain from what remains of his treatise, that his knowledge of the origin of words did not extend beyond the most obvious facts and principles. Thus he deduces initium from ineo; exitus from exeo; victoria from vinco. All this is well; and we have reason to think him correct, in deducing vellus, fleece, from vellere, to pluck, as, doubtless, fleeces were plucked from sheep, before the use of shears. And we have reason to believe him when he informs us that imber was originally written himber that hircus was written by the Sabines fircus, and hædus, fedus.
	Very different must be our opinion of the following etymologies.
	Pater, says Varro, is from patefacio; ager cultus is so called because in it seeds coalesce or unite with the earth; referring ager, perhaps, to the root of agger, or the Greek αγειρω. Campus, he says, was so named because fruits were first gathered from the open field, deducing the word from capio. Next to this, were the hills, colles, so named colendo, from colo, because these were cultivated next to the open plain. That land or field which appeared to be the foundation of cattle and money, was called fundus, or it was so called because it pours forth [fundat] annual crops. He deduces cogitare from cogendo; concilium from cogitatione; cura from burning cor, the heart; volo from voluntas, and a volatu, a flying, because the mind flies instantly whither it will. How low must have been the state of philology, when such improbable conjectures as these could attract the encomiums before mentioned, from Cicero and Quinctilian!
	The reader will find many things in Isidore and Priscian, worthy of his attention, though much of what their works contain, is now so familiar to scholars of moderate attainments, as scarcely to repay the labor of perusal. But he who learns that Isidore makes oratio, a compound of oris ratio; nomen, a contraction of notamen; and that he derives verbum from verberato aere, will hardly think it worth his labor to pursue his researches into that author’s works. Nor will he be disposed to relish Priscian’s deduction of litera from legilitera, because a letter affords the means of reading, or from lituro, to obliterate, because the ancients used to write on wax tables, and afterwards to obliterate what they had written.
	Vossius wrote a folio on the etymology of Latin words; but from repeated examinations of his book, I am persuaded that most of his deductions are far-fetched, conjectural, and fanciful; many of them are certainly erroneous.
	Menage and Minshew I have not consulted; chiefly because from such extracts as I have seen, from their writings, I am certain that little reliance can be placed on their opinions, except in cases too plain to be mistaken.
	Junius and Skinner, the authorities for most of the etymologies of Bailey and Johnson, are sufficiently correct in referring English words to the language from which they are immediately derived, especially when the orthography is too plain to be mistaken. They inform us that father is from the Saxon fæder, that drop is from the Saxon droppan, that picket is from the French piquet, and the like. So Johnson informs us that accent is from the Latin accentus, and accept from the French accepter, Latin accipio. All this is well, but it can hardly be called etymology, or the deduction of words from their originals.
	Whiter, in his Etymologicon Magnum, the first volume only of which I have perused, began his work on a good plan, that of bringing together words of the same or of cognate radical letters, and in pursuance of his plan, he has collected many real affinities. But he has destroyed the value of his work by mistaking the radical sense of many words, and by confounding words of different elements.
	Jamieson, in his Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language, has collected the affinities of words in that language, particularly words of Gothic and Teutonic origin, with industry, and probably with judgment, and a good degree of accuracy. In some instances, I think, he has departed from correct principles of etymology, and mistaken facts, and he, as well as Whiter, falls very short of truth in a most important particular, a clear understanding of the primary sense of words. Jamieson’s Dictionary, however, contains a valuable addition to our stock of etymological materials.
	To Horne Tooke are we indebted for the first explanation of certain indeclinable words, called conjunctions and prepositions; and for this let him have all merited praise. But his researches were very limited, and he has fallen into most material errors, particularly in his second volume. I have made no use of his writings in this work.
	The Hermes of Harris, according to Dr. Lowth, “is the most beautiful and perfect example of analysis, that has been exhibited since the days of Aristotle.” This, in my opinion, is not the character of the work, which, for the most part, consists of passages from the works of Aristotle, Ammonius, Apollonius, Priscian, and other grammarians. It is little more than a collection of the opinions of the ancient writers on philology, whose metaphysical subtilties rather obscure than illustrate the subject. To show how easily men may be misled by metaphysics, when applied to the plainest subject imaginable, take the following example from the Hermes.
	“A respects our primary perception, and denotes individuals as unknown; the respects our secondary perception, and denotes individuals as known.” [This is nearly a literal translation of a passage in Priscian, lib. 17.]
	To illustrate the truth of this observation, the author gives the following example. “There goes a beggar with a long beard” — indicating that the man had not been seen before; and, therefore, a denotes the primary perception. A week after the man returns, and I say, “There goes the beggar with the long beard;” the article the here indicating the secondary perception, that is, that the man had been seen before. All this is very well. But let us try the rule by other examples, and see whether it is universal, or whether it is the peculiar and proper office of an or a to denote primary perception.
	“The article a,” says Harris, “leaves the individual unascertained.” Let us examine this position.
	“But Peter took him, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.” Now, according to Harris, a here denotes the primary perception, and the individual is unascertained. That is, this man is one I have never seen before.
	“He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Whether a, in this sentence, denotes first perception, I can not determine; but sure I am the individual is not left unascertained.
	A. B. says to me, “I have lately dismissed an old servant, who has lived with me for thirty years.” Here an may present a primary perception to the hearer, but not so to the speaker. To both, the individual must be well ascertained.
	It appears, then, that this definition of an or a is incorrect, and the pains of these metaphysical writers who form such perfect analyses of language, is little better than learned trifling. On testing the real character of an or a by usage and facts, we find it is merely the adjective one, in its Saxon orthography, and that its sole use is to denote one, whether the individual is known or unknown, definite or indefinite.
	Again, Harris translates and adopts the definition which Aristotle has given of a conjunction. “An articulate sound or part of speech devoid of signification by itself, but so formed as to help signification, by making two or more significant sentences to be one significant sentence.”
	This is so far from being true, that some of the conjunctions are verbs, equivalent to join, unite, or add, in the imperative mode. In like manner, the prepositions called inseparable, and used as prefixes, are all significant per se, although by custom, they sometimes lose their appropriate use. For example, re, which denotes repetition, has lost its use in recommend, which is equivalent to commend, without the sense of repetition. But still it has ordinarily an appropriate sense, which is perfectly understood, even when first prefixed to a word. Let any person prefix this word to pronounce for the first time, and direct a boy fourteen years old to repronounce his oration, and he would perfectly well understand the direction.
	Bryant, the author of “An Analysis of Ancient Mythology,” whose works I should love to read, if I could have confidence in his opinions, has given to the public a history of the Cuthites or descendants of Ham, a race of bold adventurers, who, as he supposes, made expeditions by sea and land, introducing arts, founding cities, and corrupting religion by the propagation of Sabianism. For proof of his opinions, he relies very much on etymology and the signification of names. Two or three examples of his deductions will be sufficient to show his manner of proof. Ham or Cham, signifying heat and the sun, he deduces from חמס, to be hot, to heat. So far he may be correct. But he goes on to deduce from this root, also, as Castle had done before him, the Greek κανμα, heat, not considering that this is from καιω, to burn, in which m is not radical, but probably s is the radical consonant, as this occurs in the derivatives. Καυμα has no connection with Ham. From Cam or Cham he then deduces the Latin camera, Gr. καμαρα, an arched roof or vault, whence our chamber, though it is not easy to discover the connection between this word and heat; and from the same root he deduces Camillus, Camilla, and many other words, without any support for his opinions, but a mere similarity of orthography in the first syllable. In all this he is certainly wrong.
	The Greek Θεος, God, he supposes, most unwarrantably, to be formed from the Egyptian Theuth or Thoth, Mercury.
	The sun he supposes to have been styled El-uc; El [ήλιος] and uc or och, a title of honor among the Babylonians. This word, says Bryant, the Greeks changed into λυκος, [a wolf,] and hence the Latin lux, luceo. A strange conjecture this, not to call it by a harsher name. Now, if Bryant had examined the Teutonic dialects, and the Welsh, he would have seen his mistake; for the Saxon leoht, liht, Dutch and German licht, are from the common root of the Welsh llug, a shooting or gleaming, lluciaw, to throw, lluc, a darting or flashing, the root of luceo; a simple root, that can have no connection with El-uc.
	Excepting Faber’s work on the Cabiri, I have seen scarcely a book in any language, which exhibits so little etymological knowledge, with such a series of erroneous or fanciful deductions, as Bryant’s Analysis. Drummond’s Origines abounds with etymological deductions of a similar character.
	Gebelin, a French writer, in his Monde Primitif, has bestowed much labor in developing the origin and signification of words; but a large part of his labor has produced no valuable effect. His whole system is founded on a mistake, that the noun is the root of all other words.
	Of all the writers on etymology, whose works I have read or consulted, Spelman and Lluyd are almost the only ones, in whose deductions much confidence can be placed. I do not name Camden, Hickes, Selden, and Gibson, as their etymological inquiries, though generally judiciously conducted, were very limited. This is true, also, in some degree, of Spelman and Lluyd; but the researches of Spelman into the origin of law terms, and words of the middle ages, have generally produced very satisfactory results. From the limited nature of the designs of Spelman and Lluyd, errors may have occasionally escaped them; but they are few, and very pardonable.
	I know of no work in any language, in which words have been generally traced to their original signification, with even tolerable correctness. In a few instances, this signification is too obvious to be mistaken; but in most instances, the ablest etymologist is liable to be misled by first appearances, and the want of extensive investigations. I have been often misled myself, by these means, and have been obliged to change my opinions, as I have advanced in my inquiries. Hence the tendency of my researches has been very much to increase my caution in referring words to their originals; and such, I am persuaded, will be the result of all critical and judicious investigations into the history and affinities of language.
	A principal source of mistakes on this subject, is a disregard of the identity of the radical consonants, and a licentious blending and confounding of words, whose elementary letters are not commutable. Another source of error is an unwarrantable license in prefixing or inserting letters, for the purpose of producing an identity or resemblance of orthography; a fault very justly opposed by Sir William Jones.
	The learned Dr. Good, in his Book of Nature, Lecture IX. of the second series, suggests it to be probable that both papa and father, issued from the Hebrew source, אב, אבא, אבת. He then fearlessly ventures to affirm, that there is scarcely a language or dialect in the world, polished or barbarous, in which the same idea is not expressed by the radical of one or the other of these terms. True, the letter א is found in most words of this signification; although our knowledge of languages is too limited to warrant such a broad assertion. But the attempt to deduce all words signifying father, from the Hebrew, must certainly fail; for we know from history, that a great part of Asia and of Europe was inhabited before the existence of the Hebrew nation. Besides, a large portion of the European population have no word for father, which can be rationally deduced from אב. The Welsh tâd, whence our daddy, the Gothic atta, Irish aithair, Basque aita, and Laponnic atki, can not be formed from the Hebrew word, the letter d and t not being commutable with b. One would suppose that a learned physiologist could not fail to assign the true cause of the similarity of words, bearing the sense of father and mother, among the nations of the earth. The truth is, the sound of a is very easy, and probably the easiest for children, being formed by simply opening the mouth, without any exertion of the organs to modulate the sound. So, also, the articulations b, m, and d or t, being natural and easy, will generally enter into the first words formed by children. The labials are formed by simply closing the lips, and the dentals, by placing the tongue against the root of the upper teeth; the position which it naturally occupies in a healthy child. From these circumstances, we may fairly infer, a priori, that such words as ab, aba, papa, tad, mamma, must be the first words uttered by children. Indeed, were the whole human race to lose their present names for father, mother, and nurse, similar names would be formed by a great portion of mankind, without any communication between different nations.
	The author further observes, that the generic terms for the Deity are chiefly the three following, Al or Allah, Theus or Deus, and God. “Besides these, there is scarcely a term of any kind, by which the Deity is designated, in any part of the world, whether among civilized or savage men. Yet these proceed from the same common quarter of the globe.” True; men, and of course words, all came from a common quarter of the globe. But it so happens, that these three terms must have originated among different families, or from different sources, for they are all formed with different radicals, and can have had no connection with a common radix. But it happens, also, that not one of these terms, as far as I can learn, exists among the Slavonic nations, who compose a large portion of all the population of Europe, and whose name of God is Bog, a word radically distinct from all which the author has mentioned.
	The author proceeds to say, “that the more common etymon for death, among all nations, is mor, mort, or mut.” But if either of these terms for death, is a native word among the great Gothic, Teutonic, and Slavonic families, which constitute the half or two thirds of all the inhabitants of Europe, I have not been able to find it. Besides, mor and mut are words radically distinct, and thus originated in different families.
	“Sir,” says the author, “is, in our language, the common title of respect; and the same term is employed in the same sense throughout every quarter of the globe. In the Sanscrit and Persian, it means the organ of the head itself.” He finds the word in Arabia, Turkey, in Greek, among the Peruvians in South America, in Germany, Holland, and the contiguous countries. In some of the languages of these countries I have found no such word; but if it exists, the author’s inference, that the name of the head gave rise to this term of respect, (for this is what I understand him to mean,) is totally unfounded; and equally fanciful and unfounded is his supposition, that, by the loss of h from sher, the pronoun her, and the German herr, lord, are to be deduced from sir. In all this it is demonstrably certain there is no truth or even semblance of reality.
	Man, the author deduces from the Hebrew מנה, to discern or discriminate, [a sense I do not find in the Lexicons,] and hence he infers that the radical idea of man is that of a thinking or a reasonable being. With this word he connects Menu, Menes, Minos, and μινος, mens, mind; a sweeping inference made at random, from a similarity of orthography, without a distant conception of the true primary meaning of either of these words. But what is worse, he appears, if I do not mistake his meaning, to connect with these words the tane, tanato, or tangi, of the Sandwich Isles; words which are formed with a radical initial consonant, not convertible with m, and most certainly unconnected with man. See the words father, man, and sir, in the Dictionary.
	The author offers some other etymologies and affinities equally remote from truth, and even from probability.
	The governing principles of etymology are, first, the identity of radical letters, or a coincidence of cognates, in different languages; no affinity being admissible, except among words whose primary consonants are articulations of the same organs, as B, F, M, P, V and W; or as D, T, Th and S; or as G, C close, K and Q; R, L and D. Some exceptions to this rule must be admitted, but not without collateral evidence of the change, or some evidence that is too clear to be reasonably rejected.
	Second. Words in different languages are not to be considered as proceeding from the same radix, unless they have the same signification, or one closely allied to it, or naturally deducible from it. And on this point, much knowledge of the primary sense of words, and of the manner in which collateral senses have sprung from one radical idea, is necessary to secure the inquirer from mistakes. A competent knowledge of this branch of etymology can not be obtained from any one, or from two or three languages. It is almost literally true, that in examining more than twenty languages, I have found each language to throw some light on every other.
	That the reader may have more clear and distinct ideas of what is intended by commutable letters, and the principles by which etymological deductions are to be regulated, it may be remarked that commutable or interchangeable letters are letters of the same organs; that is, letters or articulations formed by the same parts of the mouth. Thus, b, m and p, are formed immediately by the lips, the position of which is slightly varied to make the distinction between these letters. F and v are formed by the lips, but with the aid of the upper teeth. Now the difference of the jointings of the organs to utter these letters is so small, that it is easy for men in utterance, to slide from one form into another.
	The following examples will illustrate this subject.
		Labial letters commuted for other labials.
	English bear, Lat. fero, pario, G. φιρω, φορεω, D. voeren, G. führen.
	Here is the same word written in different languages, with five different initial letters.
		German wahr, true, L. verus.
		Celtic lamh, lav, the hand, Goth. lofa.
		L. guberno, Fr. gouverner, Eng. govern.
	Dental letters commuted for other dentals.
		Eng. dew, G. thau.
		Eng. good, G. gut.
		Eng. dare, Gr. θαρρεω.
		Eng. day, G. tag.
		Eng. thank, D. danken.
		Eng. brother, D. broeder.
	Palatal letters commuted for other palatals.
		Eng. call, W. galw, Gr. καλεω.
		Eng. get, It. cattare.
		Greek χειμα, L. hiems, winter.
	Dentals converted into sibilants.
		Eng. water, G. wasser.
		Lat. dens, a tooth, G. zahn.
		Eng. let, Fr. laisser.
		Ch. כות, Heb. כרש.
		Sax. tid, time, G. zeit.
	Change of linguals.
		Eng. escort, Sp. and Port. escolta.
		Fr. blanc, white, Port. branco.
	Change of f into h.
		Sp. habla for Lat. fabula; haz for facies, face; hacer for facio.
	It is believed that n and s are sometimes convertible; as in Latin pono, posui, and also r and s, as in English iron, German isen.
	Letters formed by different organs are not commutable; hence we are not to admit a radical word beginning or ending with b, f, or v, to be the same as a word beginning or ending with g, d, t, r, or s; nor a word whose radical letters are m, n, to be the same as one whose elements are r, d, or s, t. If such words are in any case the same, they must have suffered some anomalous changes; changes which are very unusual, and which are never to be admitted without the clearest evidence.
	When this work was in the press, I first obtained a sight of a “History of the European Languages,” by the late Dr. Alexander Murray, Professor of Oriental Languages in the University of Edinburgh.
	From a hasty perusal of the first volume, I find this learned professor studied the European languages with much attention and profit. He has gone further into the origin and formation of languages, than any author whose works I have read; and his writings unfold many valuable principles and facts. But he formed a theory which he attempted to support, in my opinion, with little success: at least, on his principles, all the usual rules of etymology are transgressed, and all distinction between words of different radical letters is abandoned. According to his theory, nine words are the foundations of language, viz. ag, wag, hwag, bag, or bwag, [of which fag and pag are softer varieties,] dwag, thwag, or twag, gwag, or cwag, lag, and hlag, mag, nag, and hnag, rag, and hrag, swag. “By the help of these nine words and their compounds, all the European languages have been formed.” These are the author’s words.
	To make out his scheme, he joins ag, having, to wag, move, and forms a diminutive, wagag, to move a little or often. With ba, hear or bring, and la, hold, wagaba signifies, literally, move-bearing, and wagla is move-having. Then wagaba contracted into wabba, to wave, to weave, and wagla into wala, to turn. From dag, to wet, bedew, comes damp; from ceag, to chew, comes champ; fal, joined, wrought together, from fag, to work, to join; hwal and hal, to hold, and turn, from hwag; bat from bagd or bagt; bigt, a bite, from bigt; bladder from blag; modera, mother, the producer, from magd, produced; bottom from bogd, a stump, root, or foundation; field from fagd; earth from airtha, acertha, from acer, aker, ager; field, an uncultivated plain, from fag, to make to fall.
	It seems that in order to maintain his theory, it was necessary to make it appear that g formed a part of all original words, and that this letter has, in modern words, been dropped. The author then introduces this letter into words where it never had any place, such as field, earth, bat, &c. The author’s work presents one of the most singular medleys of truth and error, of sound observation and visionary opinions, that has ever fallen under my notice.
	On the same principles he must have inserted the letter g in bear, fero, pario, ברא; in bend, found, tame, δαμαω, domo; in dream, wander, turn, &c.; and supposed them to have been originally beager, fegro, pagrio, בגרא, begnd, fougnd, tagme, δαγμαω, dogmo, dreagm, wagnder, tugrn, &c.
	Now on such a principle as this, we might deduce any word in the language from any other word, or from any root that could be imagined. In short, all such theories are the produce of wild conjecture, and they serve no purpose but to confound the student, and bring the study of etymology into contempt.

ACCENTUATION.

	Accent is the more forcible utterance of a particular syllable of a word, by which it is distinguished from the others. The accented syllable of a word serves, therefore, as a kind of resting place or support of the voice, which passes over the unaccented syllables with more rapidity and a less distinct utterance.
	Accent is of two kinds, or rather of two degrees of force, primary and secondary. Words of one syllable can have no accent. Words of two syllables have the primary accent only. Words of three and four syllables may have the primary and secondary accent; but many of them have no secondary accent that deserves notice; such are dignity, enemy, annuity, fidelity. In words of four, five, or more syllables, a secondary accent is often essential to a clear, distinct articulation of the several syllables. Thus heterogeneous can not be well uttered without two accented syllables; the fourth syllable receiving the principal stress of the voice, and the first clearly distinguished by more forcible utterance than the second, third, fifth, and sixth.
	The accent of most English words has been long established; and, evidently, it has been determined by the natural ease of speaking, without the aid of rules or instruction. If any man should ask, why we lay the accent of such words as elocution, meditation, relation, congratulation, on the last syllable except one; the answer is, that such accentuation renders the pronunciation more easy to the organs of speech, and more agreeable to the ear, than the accentuation of any other syllable. The ease of speaking, and a kind of prosaic melody, resulting from a due proportion of accented and unaccented syllables, which enables the speaker to bound with ease from one accented syllable to another, without omitting those which are unaccented, are the two great principles by which the accentuation of words has been regulated. And it is to be extremely regretted that these principles should, in any instances, be neglected, or forced to yield to arbitrary reasons of derivation, or to a pedantic affectation of foreign pronunciation. When we know that the great mass of a nation naturally fall into a particular manner of pronouncing a word, without any rule or instruction, we may rely upon this tendency as a pretty certain indication that their accentuation is according to the analogies of the language, by which their habits of speaking have been formed; and this tendency can not be opposed without doing violence to those analogies and to national habits.
	Thus, formerly, the word horizon was universally accented on the first syllable, and this accentuation was according to the settled analogy of the language. But the early poets had a fancy for conforming the English to the Greek pronunciation, and accented the second syllable; the orthoepists followed them; and now we have this forced, unnatural pronunciation of the learned, in collision with the regular, analogous, popular pronunciation. By this affectation of the Greek accent, the flowing smoothness of the word is entirely lost.
	In like manner, an imitation of the French pronunciation of confesseur and successeur, led the early poets to accent the English words on the first syllable, in violation of analogy and euphony; and some orthoepists affect to follow them; but public usage frowns on this affectation, and rejects their authority.
	There are many words in the English language, indeed a large part of the whole number, which can not be reduced under any general rule of accentuation, as the exceptions to any rule formed will be nearly as numerous as the words which the rule embraces. And, in most instances, we shall find in the structure of the words, satisfactory reasons for the difference of pronunciation.

DISSYLLABLES.

	No general rule can be given for the accentuation of words of two syllables. It is, however, worth observing, that when the same word is both a noun, or an adjective and a verb, it happens, in many instances, that the noun or adjective has the accent on the first syllable, and the verb on the last. Instances of which we have in abˊsent, to absentˊ; conˊcert, to concertˊ; exˊport, to expórt. The reason is, the preterit and participles of the verbs require to have the same syllable accented as the verb; but if the first syllable of the preterit and participles were to be accented, it would be difficult to pronounce the words, as may be perceived by attempting to pronounce abˊsenting, conˊcerted, conˊducted, with the accent on the first syllable.
	In a few instances, the word has a different accent when a noun, from that which it has when an adjective; as Auˊgust, augustˊ; gallantˊ, galˊlant.

TRISYLLABLES.

	Words of three syllables, derived from dissyllables, usually retain the accent of their primitives. Thus,
	Póet, póetess; pleasˊant, pleasˊantly; grácious, gráciously; reláte, reláted; poliˊte, poliˊtest.
	In like manner, words of four syllables, formed from dissyllables, generally retain the accent of the primitives; as in collectˊible, from collectˊ, serˊviceable, from serˊvice.
	In all cases, the preterit and participles of verbs retain the accent of the verbs.
	Words ending in tion, sion, tian, cious, tious, cial, cian, tial, tiate, tient, cient, have the accent on the syllable preceding that termination; as motion, Christian, precious, erudition, patient, &c.
	Words of more than two syllables, ending in ty, have, for the most part, the accent on the antepenult; as gratuity, propriety, prosperity, insensibility.
	Trisyllables ending in ment, for the most part, have the accent on the first syllable, as compliment, detriment; but to this rule there are many exceptions, and particularly nouns formed from verbs, as amendment, commandment.
	Words with the following terminations, have the accent on the last syllable except two, or antēpenult:
	 — fluous, as superˊfluous, mellifˊluous.
	 — ferous, as baccifˊerous, argentifˊerous.
	 — fluent, as circumˊfluent.
	 — cracy, as democˊracy, theocˊracy.
	 — gonal, as diagˊonal, sexagˊonal.
	 — gony, as cosmogˊony, theogˊony.
	 — machy, as logomˊachy, theomˊachy.
	 — loquy, as obˊloquy, ventrilˊoquy.
	 — mathy, as of polymˊathy.
	 — meter, as baromˊeter, hygromeˊter
	 — nomy, as econˊomy, astronˊomy.
	 — ogy, as philolˊogy, cosmolˊogy.
	 — pathy, as apˊathy, antipˊathy.
	 — phony, as euˊphony, symˊphony.
	 — parous, as ovipˊarous, vivipˊarous.
	 — scopy, as deuterosˊcopy, aerosˊcopy.
	 — strophe, as aposˊtrophe, catasˊtrophe.
	 — vomous, as ignivˊomous.
	 — vorous, as carnivˊorous, graminivˊorous.
	 — tomy, as anatˊomy, lithotˊomy.
	 — raphy, as geogˊraphy, orthogˊraphy.
	Compound words, as book-case, ink-stand, pen-knife, note-book, usually have a slight accent, that is, one syllable is distinguished by some stress of voice; but as the other syllable is significant by itself, it is uttered with more distinctness than the syllables of other words which are wholly unaccented. And in some words there are two accents, one on each component part of the word, which are barely distinguishable. Thus in legislative, legislator, legislature, the accent on the first syllable can hardly be distinguished from that on the third; and if a speaker were to lay the primary accent on the third syllable, his pronunciation would hardly be noticed as a singularity. Indeed there are some compound words, in which there is so little distinction of accent, that it is deemed unnecessary to mark either syllable or part of the word as accented.
	As to a great part of English words, their accent must be learned from dictionaries, elementary books, or practice. There is no method of classification, by which they can be brought under a few simple general rules, to be easily retained by the memory; and attempts to effect this object must only burden the memory, and perplex the learner.
	The differences in the accentuation of words, either in books or in usage, are not very numerous. In this respect, the language is tolerably well settled, except in a few words. Among these are acceptable, commendable, confessor, successor, receptacle, receptory, deceptory, refragable, dyspepsy, which the orthoepists incline to accent on the first syllable. But with regard to most of these words, their accentuation is contrary to common usage, and with regard to all of them, it ought to be rejected. The ease of pronunciation requires the accent to be on the second syllable, and no effort to remove it can ever succeed.
	The words accessory, desultory, exemplary, and peremptory, would all have the accent on the second syllable, were it not very difficult, with this accent, to articulate the three last syllables of the derivatives, accessorily, desultorily, exemplarily, peremptorily. It is for this reason, that the primary accent is laid on the first syllable, and then a secondary accent on the third enables the speaker to articulate distinctly and with tolerable ease the last syllables. If the primary accent is laid on the second syllable, there can be no secondary accent. Yet the natural accent of the primitives being on the second syllable of the three first, and the derivatives little used, we find good speakers often lay the accent on the second syllable; nor is it easy to change the practice.
	This circumstance of regarding the pronunciation of derivative words, in settling the accent, has been either wholly overlooked, or not sufficiently observed in practice. Hence the orthoepists accent the second syllable of the verbs alternate, demonstrate, contemplate, compensate, extirpate, confiscate, expurgate. Notwithstanding all authorities, however, such is the tendency to consult ease and melody in utterance, that many respectable speakers lay the accent of these and similar words on the first syllable. The reason of this is obvious, although, perhaps, it never occurs to the speakers themselves. It is that when the accent is laid on the second syllable, the two last syllables of the participles, alternˊating, demonˊstrating, compenˊsated, &c., are either pronounced with difficulty, being wholly unaccented, or they are disgustingly feeble. How very difficult it is to utter distinctly the words alternating, demonstrating, &c., with the accent on the second syllable; the organs being compelled to change their position, and form three, four, five, or six articulations in an instant, to utter the two last syllables! But place the primary accent on the first syllable, and a secondary one on the third, and the voice resting on these, the speaker is enabled to bound with ease from syllable to syllable, and utter the whole word distinctly, without effort, alˊternating, demˊonstrating.
	In extirpate, compensate, and confiscate, the accent on the second syllable leaves the last syllable of the participle most miserably weak. What a feeble line is this of Pope:

Each seeming ill compenˊsated of course.

	This evil is remedied by placing the primary accent on the first syllable, and a secondary one on the third; comˊpensated; comˊpensating; exˊtirpating; exˊtirpated; conˊfiscating; conˊfiscated; the full sound of a giving due strength to the last syllables.
	It is further to be observed that there are some words which, in poetry and prose, must be differently accented, as the accent has been transferred by usage from one syllable to another within the two last centuries. Nares enumerates more than a hundred words, whose accent has been thus changed since the age of Shakspeare. Of this class of words are aspect, process, sojourn, convex, contest, retinue, converse, the noun horizon, which Milton accents on the second syllable, and acceptable, which he accents on the first, as he does attribute and contribute. But the accent of all these words has been changed; the seven first have the accent indisputably on the first syllable; the two last, on the second syllable; and although some difference of opinion may exist, as to the accentuation of horizon and acceptable, yet the common, popular practice of accenting horizon on the first, and acceptable on the second, is according to regular analogies, and can not well be altered. Nor ought it to be; the poetic accent, in both, is harsh and unnatural. This difference of accent is a slight inconvenience; but custom is the arbiter in language; and when well settled and general, there is no appeal from its decisions; the inconvenience admits of no remedy.

Of Johnson’s Dictionary, and of the manner in which the following work is executed.

	Dr. Johnson was one of the greatest men that the English nation has ever produced; and when the exhibition of truth depended on his own gigantic powers of intellect, he seldom erred. But in the compilation of his Dictionary, he manifested a great defect of research, by means of which he often fell into mistakes; and no errors are so dangerous as those of great men. The authority created by the general excellence of their works, gives a sanction to their very mistakes, and represses that spirit of inquiry which would investigate the truth, and subvert the errors of inferior men. It seems to be owing to this cause chiefly, that the most obvious mistakes of Johnson’s Dictionary have remained to this day uncorrected, and still continue to disfigure the improved editions of the work recently published.
	In like manner, the opinions of this author, when wrong, have a weight of authority that renders them extremely mischievous. The sentiment contained in this single line,

Quid te exempta juvat spinis de pluribus una?

is of this kind; that we are to make no corrections, because we can not complete the reformation; a sentiment that sets itself in direct opposition to all improvement in science, literature, and morals; a sentiment, which, if it had been always an efficacious principle of human conduct, would have condemned, not only our language, but our manners and our knowledge, to everlasting rudeness. And hence, whenever a proposition is made to correct the orthography of our language, it is instantly repelled with the opinion and ipse dixit of Johnson. Thus, while the nations on the European continent have purified their languages, and reduced the orthography to a good degree of regularity, our enemies of reform contend most strenuously for retaining the anomalies of the language, even to the very rags and tatters of barbarism. But what is more extraordinary, the very persons who thus struggle against the smallest improvement of the orthography, are the most ready to innovate in the pronunciation, and will, at any time, adopt a change that fashion may introduce, though it may infringe the regularity of the language, multiply anomalies, and increase the difficulty of learning it. Nay, they will not only innovate themselves, but will use their influence to propagate the change, by deriding those who resist it, and who strive to retain the resemblance between the written and spoken language.
	A considerable part of Johnson’s Dictionary is, however, well executed; and when his definitions are correct, and his arrangement judicious, it seems to be expedient to follow him. It would be mere affectation or folly to alter what can not be improved.

	The principal faults in Johnson’s Dictionary are,
	1. The want of a great number of well authorized words belonging to the language. This defect has been, in part, supplied by Mason, but his supplemental list is still imperfect, even in common words, and still more defective from the omission of terms of science.
	2. Another great fault that remains uncorrected, is the manner of noting the accented syllable; the accent being laid uniformly on the vowel, whether it closes the syllable or not. Thus the accent is laid on e in teˊnant as well as in teˊacher, and the inquirer can not know from the accent, whether the vowel is long or short. It is surprising that such a notation should still be retained in that work.
	3. It is considered as a material fault, that in some classes of words, Johnson’s orthography is either not correct upon principle, or not uniform in the class. Thus he writes heedlessly, with ss, but carelesly, with one s; defence, with c, but defensible, defensive, with s; rigour, inferiour, with u, but rigorous, inferiority, without it; publick, authentick, with k, but publication, authenticate, without it; and so of many other words of the same classes.
	4. The omission of the participles or most of them, is no small defect, as many of them, by use, have become proper adjectives, and require distinct definitions. The additions of this kind in this work are very numerous. It is also useful both to natives and foreigners, to be able, by opening a dictionary, to know when the final consonant of a verb is doubled in the participle.
	5. The want of due discrimination in the definitions of words that are nearly synonymous, or sometimes really synonymous, at other times not, is a fault in all the dictionaries of our language, which I have seen. Permeate, says Johnson, signifies to pass through; and Permeable, such as may be passed through. But we pass through a door or gate; although we do not permeate it, or say that it is permeable. Obedience, says Johnson, is obsequiousness, but this is rarely the present sense of the word; so far from it, that obedience is always honorable, and obsequiousness usually implies meanness. Peculation, says Johnson, is robbery of the public, theft of public money. But as robbery and theft are now understood, it is neither. Inaccuracies of this kind are very numerous.
	6. There are in Johnson’s Dictionary some palpable mistakes in orthography, such as comptroller, furlough, redoubt, and some; others, there being no such legitimate words in the language. In other instances, the author mistook the true origin of words, and has erred in the orthography, as in chymistry and diocess.
	7. The mistakes in etymology are numerous; and the whole scheme of deducing words from their original is extremely imperfect.
	8. The manner of defining words in Johnson, as in all other dictionaries, is susceptible of improvement. In a great part of the more important words, and particularly verbs, lexicographers, either from negligence or want of knowledge, have inverted the true order, or have disregarded all order in the definitions. There is a primary sense of every word, from which all the other have proceeded; and whenever this can be discovered, this sense should stand first in order. Thus the primary sense of make is to force or compel; but this in Johnson’s Dictionary is the fifteenth definition; and this sense of facio in Ainsworth, the nineteenth.
	9. One of the most objectionable parts of Johnson’s Dictionary, in my opinion, is the great number of passages cited from authors, to exemplify his definitions. Most English words are so familiarly and perfectly understood, and the sense of them so little liable to be called in question, that they may be safely left to rest on the authority of the lexicographer, without examples. Who needs extracts from three authors, Knolles, Milton, and Berkeley, to prove or illustrate the literal meaning of hand? Who needs extracts from Shakspeare, Bacon, South, and Dryden, to prove hammer to be a legitimate English word, and to signify an instrument for driving nails? So under household, we find seven passages and nearly thirty lines employed to exemplify the plain interpretation, a family living together.
	In most cases, one example is sufficient to illustrate the meaning of a word; and this is not absolutely necessary, except in cases where the signification is a deviation from the plain, literal sense, a particular application of the term; or in a case where the sense of the word may be doubtful and of questionable authority. Numerous citations serve to swell the size of a Dictionary, without any adequate advantage. But this is not the only objection to Johnson’s exemplifications. Many of the passages are taken from authors now little read, or not at all; whose style is now antiquated, and by no means furnishing proper models for students of the present age.
	In the execution of this work, I have pursued a course somewhat different; not, however, without fortifying my own opinion with that of other gentlemen, in whose judgment I have confidence. In many cases, where the sense of a word is plain and indisputable, I have omitted to cite any authority. I have done the same in many instances, where the sense of a word is wholly obsolete and the definition useful only to the antiquary. In some instances, definitions are given without authority, merely because I had neglected to note the author, or had lost the reference. In such cases, I must stand responsible for the correctness of the definition. In all such cases however, I have endeavored to be faithful to the duty of a lexicographer; and if, in any instance, a mistake has escaped me, I shall be happy to have it suggested, that it may be corrected.
	In general, I have illustrated the significations of words, and proved them to be legitimate, by a short passage from some respectable author, often abridged from the whole passage cited by Jonhson. In many cases, I have given brief sentences of my own; using the phrases or sentences in which the word most frequently occurs, and often presenting some important maxim or sentiment in religion, morality, law, or civil policy. Under words which occur in the Scriptures, I have often cited passages from our common version, not only to illustrate the scriptural or theological sense, but even the ordinary significations of the words. These passages are short, plain, appropriate, and familiar to most readers. In a few cases, where the sense of a word is disputed, I have departed from the general plan, and cited a number of authorities.
	In the admission of words of recent origin into a Dictionary, a lexicographer has to encounter many difficulties; as it is not easy, in all cases, to determine whether a word is so far authorized as to be considered legitimate. Some writers indulge a licentiousness in coining words, which good sense would wish to repress. At the same time, it would not be judicious to reject all new terms; as these are often necessary to express new ideas; and the progress of improvement in arts and science would be retarded, by denying a place in dictionaries to terms given to things newly discovered. But the lexicographer is not answerable for the bad use of the privilege of coining new words. It seems to be his duty to insert and explain all words which are used by respectable writers or speakers, whether the words are destined to be received into general and permanent use or not. The future use must depend on public taste, or the utility of the words; circumstances which are not within the lexicographer’s control.
	Lexicographers are sometimes censured for inserting in their vocabularies vulgar words, and terms of art, known only to particular artisans. That this practice may be carried too far, is admitted; but it is to be remarked that, in general, vulgar words are the oldest and best authorized words in language; and their use is as necessary to the classes of people who use them, as elegant words are to the statesman and the poet. It may be added, that such words are often particularly useful to the lexicographer, in furnishing him with the primary sense, which is no where to be found but in popular use. In this work I have not gone quite so far as Johnson has done, in admitting vulgar words. Some of them are too low to deserve notice.
	The catalogue of obsolete words in Johnson, has been considerably augmented by Mason. I have, though somewhat reluctantly, inserted nearly the whole catalogue, which, I presume, amounts to seven or eight, and perhaps, to ten thousand words. Most of these may be useful to the antiquary; but to the great mass of readers they are useless.
	I have, also, inserted many words which are local in England; being retained from the different languages that have been spoken in that country, but which are no more a part of our present language in the United States, than so many Lapland words. These, however, occur in books which treat of agriculture and the arts; books which are occasionally read in this country.
	Law-terms, which are no part of the proper language of the United States, and never can be, as the things they express do not exist in this country, are, however, retained, as it is necessary that the gentlemen of the bar should understand them; and it will be time to dismiss them from books, when they are obsolete in practice.
	As to Americanisms, so called, I have not been able to find many words, in respectable use, which can be so denominated. These I have admitted and noted as peculiar to this country. I have fully ascertained that most of the new words charged to the coinage of this country, were first used in England.
	In exhibiting the origin and affinities of English words, I have usually placed first in order the corresponding word, in the language from or through which we have received it; then the corresponding words in the languages of the same family or race; then the corresponding word in the languages of other families. Thus, for example, the word break we have from our Saxon ancestors; I, therefore, give the Saxon word first; then the same word in the other Teutonic and Gothic languages; then the Celtic words; then the Latin; and, lastly, the Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Arabic. This order is not followed in every instance, even of vernacular words, but it is the more general course I have pursued. When there can be no rational doubt respecting the radical identity of words, I have inserted them without any expression of uncertainty. When there appears to be any reason to question that identity, I have mentioned the probability only of an affinity, or inserted a query, to invite further investigation. Yet I am aware that many things, which, in my view, are not doubtful, will appear so to persons not versed in this subject, and who do not at once see the chain of evidence which has led me to my inferences. For this there is no remedy but further investigation.
	In regard to words which have been introduced into the language in modern days, I have generally referred them to the language from which the English immediately received them. A great part of these are from the Latin, through the French; sometimes, probably, through the Italian or Spanish. In some instances, however, the order is reversed; indeed, it can not always be known from which language the words have been received, nor is it a matter of any consequence.
	One circumstance, however, deserves to be particularly noticed; that when I refer a vernacular word to the corresponding word in one of the Shemitic languages, I would not have it understood that the English word was derived or borrowed from that Oriental word. For example, I have given the Shemitic פרק as the verb corresponding with the English break, that is, the same word to those languages; not intending by this that our ancestors borrowed or received that word from the Chaldeans, Hebrews, or other Shemitic nation. This is not the fact. It would be just as correct for the compiler of a Chaldee or Hebrew Lexicon, to derive פרק from the English break or German brechen. So when I deduce coin, through the French, Spanish, or Italian, from the Arabic قَانَ, I do not consider the word as borrowed from the Arabic, but as proceeding from a common radix. With regard to vernacular words, in any European language, such deduction is always incorrect. Yet errors of this kind abound in every book I have seen, which treats of this subject. The truth is, all vernacular words in the languages of Europe are as old as the same words in Asia; and when the same words are found in the Shemitic and Japhetic languages, it is almost demonstrably certain that these words were in use before the dispersion; the nations of both families have them from the common stock, and the words, like the families of men which use them, are to be considered as of the same antiquity.
	When, therefore, I state the words of another language as corresponding with vernacular words in the English, they are offered as affinities, or the same word varied dialectically, perhaps, in orthography or signification, but words from the same root as the English. Thus under the word bright, I state the Saxon word, and then the corresponding word in the Ethiopic, the participle of a verb; not that our ancestors borrowed the word from the Ethiopians, but that the verb from which bright was derived, though lost in the Saxon, is still retained in the Ethiopic. This fact proves that the ancestors of the Saxons once used the verb, but suffered it to go into disuse, substituting shine, scinan, in its place.
	It is much to be regretted that British authors and travelers admit into their writings foreign words, without confirming them, in orthography, to regular English analogies. It is owing to this disregard of the purity and regular form of orthography in English, that we are perplexed with such words as burlesque, soup, group, tour, corps, depot, suite, pacha, ennui, and many others. In this respect, modern writers manifest less taste than the writers of former centuries, who, when they borrowed foreign words, wrote them in conformity to English analogies. This practice of blending with the English many words of an orthography, which in our language is anomalous, is very embarrassing to readers who know only their vernacular tongue, and often introduces an odious difference between the pronunciation of different classes of people; an evil more sensibly felt in this country than in Great Britain, where differences of rank exist: in short, it multiplies the irregularities of a language, already so deformed by them as to render it nearly impracticable for our own citizens ever to overcome the difficulties of its orthography; irregularities which foreigners deem a reproach to the taste of a literary nation.
	Where is the good sense which should dictate a manly firmness in preserving the regular analogies and purity of the language? Where is there a due attachment to uniformity, which constitutes the principal beauty and excellence of a language, and, beyond all other means, facilitates its acquisition? I would not refuse to admit foreign words into the language, if necessary or useful; but I would treat them as our laws treat aliens; I would compel them to submit to the formalities of naturalization, before they should be admitted to the rights of citizenship; I would convert them into English words, or reject them. Nor would I permit the same word to be written and pronounced in two different ways, one English, the other French. The French suite in English is suit, whether it signifies a set of clothes, or of apartments, or of armor, or of attendants.
	In the orthography of certain classes of words, I have aimed at uniformity; but I have not proceeded so far in this desirable reformation of the common spelling, as my own wishes and strict propriety might dictate. Thus, if vicious from the Latin vitium, is written with c, the verb vitiate should regularly be written with the same letter, and we have precedents in the words appreciate and depreciate, from the Latin pretium. In like manner, expatiate should be conformed to the orthography of spacious; exceed, proceed, and succeed, should follow the analogy of concede, intercede, and recede. These are points of minor importance, but far from being unimportant.
	In writing the termination of such verbs as civilize, legalize, modernize, there is a diversity which may be corrected without inconvenience. We indeed have some of the verbs of this class from the French, in which language iser is the termination; but most of them we have borrowed directly from the Latin or Greek, or, perhaps, from the Spanish or Italian, or they are of our own coinage. As the termination ize is conformable to the Greek original; as it has a definite meaning, and as it expresses the true pronunciation in English, it seems expedient to reduce the whole class to a uniformity of orthography.
	Enterprise, devise, comprise, revise, compromise, and surprise, belong to a different class, and retain the orthography of their originals.
	There is a fact respecting the pronunciation of gn in cognizance and recognizance, which seems to have escaped observation; this is, that g was introduced to express a nasal sound, as in the French gn, or Spanish ñ, but not for the purpose of being pronounced as g. It is probable that the Latins changed con before nosco, into cog, for this reason; and it may be inferred from the modern pronunciation of these words, that the Greeks omitted or softened the sound of γ in γιγνωσκω and γιγνομαι. However this may be, the old pronunciation of the words was undoubtedly consuance, or conizance, recognizance, and hence in the old writers on law, the letter g was omitted. Indeed, there is a harshness in the pronunciation of g in these words, that offends the organs both of the speaker and hearer, and which well justifies the pronunciation of the old lawyers; a pronunciation which we frequently hear at this day among gentlemen of the bar.
	Whether the Latins pronounced the letter g in such words as benignus, condignus, malignus, it is of no moment for us to determine. In our mode of writing benign, condign, malign, the sound of g must be dropped; but it is resumed in the derivatives, benignity, condignity, malignity: so in design, designate; resign, resignation.
	In noting the obsolete words, which amount to some thousands, I may have committed mistakes; for words obsolete in one part of the British dominions, or in some part of the United States, may be words in common use in some other part of such dominions, not within my knowledge. The rule I have generally observed, has been to note as obsolete such words as I have not heard in colloquial practice, and which I have not found in any writer of the last century. The notation of such words as are disused, may be of use to our own youth, and still more to foreigners, who learn our language.
	Under the head of etymology, in hooks, the reader will observe references to another work, for a more full explanation or view of the affinities of the words under which these references occur. These are references to a Synopsis of the principal uncompounded words in twenty languages; a work that is not published, and it is uncertain whether it will ever be published. But if it should be, these references will be useful to the philologist, and I thought it expedient to insert them.

_____________________

ENGLISH ALPHABET.

	Language or speech consists of human voices or articulate sounds, intended to communicate thoughts or ideas from one person to another.
	Articulate voices are those which are formed by closing and opening the organs of speech; the lips, the tongue, the teeth, &c. An articulation is a jointing or closing of the organs, as in pronouncing ab, ed, op, un, at, eth, ag, eng.
	Articulate sounds of the human voice are represented by letters or characters written, painted, engraved, or panted. A letter, or letters in combination, form syllables and words, which are the symbols of ideas.
	To letters, syllables, and words, are annexed certain sounds, which, being uttered by the organs of speech, communicate ideas, through the instrumentality of the ears. When letters and words are written, painted, engraved, or printed, they communicate thoughts, through the instrumentality of the eyes.
	In order to the communication of thoughts or opinions correctly, from one person to another, it is essential that both persons should annex the same sounds to the same letters and words; or that the letters and words used, should be symbols of the same thoughts, to both persons. This identity of sounds and symbols, constitutes a particular language, the instrument of social intercourse in a nation.
	In the English language, the letters are twenty-six; representing sounds, simple or compound; or modifying such sounds.
	Letters are of two kinds, vowels and consonants.
	Vowels are vocal sounds, uttered by opening the mouth or organs of speech, without a contact of the parts of the mouth. The sound of a perfect vowel may be prolonged at pleasure, without altering the position of the organs. Such is the first or long sound of a, e, o.
	The vowels in the English are six; a, e, i, o, u, y. But i and u are not always simple vowels; and y is sometimes used as a consonant. These letters also represent different sounds; a circumstance which creates much difficulty in learning the language.
	The broadest or deepest vowel sound is that of a in fall, au in aught, aw in law. This sound requires the largest opening of the mouth. A less opening of the organs gives the sound of the Italian a, as in father, ask, last, mast. A still smaller opening gives the sound of a in fate, make; and a still smaller, gives the sound of e in mete, feet. The first sound of o, as in note, is made by a circular position of the lips; and with a less circular opening of the lips, we utter the sound of oo in tool.
	The first or long sound of i is compound, as in pine; so is the first sound of u in due, suit, tribunal. These sounds can not be exactly expressed or described in writing.
	The first or long sound of each vowel is exemplified in the following words:
	a in make, name.
	e in me, mete.
	i in pine, bind.
	o in note, hold.
	u in duty, true.
	y in dry, defy.

	The short sound of each vowel may be exemplified in the following words:
	a in mat, ban.
	e in bet, men.
	i in bit, pin.
	o in not, boss.
	u in dun, must.
	y in pity, duty.

	The vowel a has a third sound, called broad, as in ball, all, walk. The same sound is expressed by au in taught, and by aw in saw. This sound is shortened in what, quadrant, quality.
	The vowel e has the sound of long a in a few words, as in prey, survey, their.
	The letter i retains its French sound, that of the English long e, in some words which we have received from the French language; as in pique, marine, machine.
	The vowel o, in a few words, has the sound of oo, the French ou; as in move, prove, lose. This sound of oo is shortened in book, look. In a few words o has the sound of u short, as in dove, love.
	The first sound of y, as in dry, is the same as that of i in pine; and its short sound in glory, pity, is the same as that of i in pin, brisk. This short sound of i and y is, properly, the short sound of e long. Hence little, when the first vowel is prolonged, becomes leetle. Hence been is pronounced bin.
	The short e in let, is nearly, but not precisely the short sound of a in late.
	The vowel u, in some words, has the sound of oo in book, as in pull, full, put.
	The letter u, in some words, is pronounced yu, in which case it is anomalous, representing both a consonant and a vowel. This pronunciation occurs in words which begin with u, forming a syllable by itself; as in unite, union, unanimous; and before r, as in failure, measure, insure, and in a few other cases.
	Some English writers alledge that the proper sound of u is yu. This is a great mistake; the true sound is nearly eu, but these letters do not express its exact sound.
	The letter w has its form and its name from the union of two v’s, in old books; v being called yu. This name is ill-chosen, and not adapted to express its sound. This letter is, properly, a vowel, with the sound of oo, French ou, but shortened in pronunciation, as in dwell, pronounced dooelˊ.
	Two vowels rapidly pronounced in one syllable, constitute a diphthong; as oi in join; oy in joy; ou in sound; and ow in vow.
	Two vowels in succession, when one only is pronounced, do not form a diphthong. In my books I follow Sheridan, and denominate such vowels a digraph; that is, double written. Such are the following, ai, ay, au, aw, ea, ee, ei, eu, ew, ey, ie, ou, ui.

	Consonants are the letters which represent the articulations of the organs. The letters of this sort, in the English language, are the following, in large and small characters : B, b; C, c; D, d; F, f; G, g; H, h; J, j , K, k; L, l; M, m; N, n; P, p; Q, q; R, r; S, s; T, t; V, v; X, x; Z, z.
	The articulations or jointings made by these letters, may be learned from the following syllables: ab, ad, af, ag, aj, ak, al, am, an, ap, aq, ar, as, at, av, ax, az. Observe the point of contact in the organs which stops the sound.
	The letters b, f, p, m, v, represent the articulations of the lips, and are called labials, or lip-letters.
	The consonants d, t, l, n, and th, represent the jointings of the tongue and the upper teeth, or gum in which the teeth are inserted. For this reason they are denominated dentals, or tooth-letters.
	The consonants close c, close g, k, and q, represent the articulations of the lower part of the tongue and upper part of the mouth, or palate: hence they are called palatals, or palate-letters.
	The consonants s and z, represent the position of the end of the tongue near the upper teeth; and when pronounced, the breath issues or is driven out between the tongue and teeth, with a hissing; hence these letters are called sibilants, or hissing-letters. The letter c before e, i, and y, is precisely equivalent to s.
	The letter r is uttered with a jar or vibration of the end of the tongue, near the upper teeth.
	The letters j and x represent each two sounds; those of j may be expressed by dj, and those of x by ks. The consonant g before e, i, and y, is, in many words, the exact equivalent of j.
	The close articulations interrupt all distinct sound; such are k, p, and t, as in ak, ap, at. These are called mutes. B and d are mutes, but less close.
	C and g are close articulations at the end of syllables, as in public, rag. At the beginning of syllables, they are close before a, o, and u, as in can, cot, cud; gap, go, gun. But before e, i, and y, c is equivalent to s, as in cedar, city, cycle; and g is sometimes close, as in gift and sometimes compound, as in general, ginger.
	The consonants which represent articulations not close, are f, l, m, n, r, s, v, z; as in the syllables, ef, el, em, en, er, es, ev, ez.
	H represents a breathing, and is denominated aspirate.
	There are in English, four articulations, for which there are no single characters; but they are represented by ch, sh, th, and ng.
	The sound of ch, as in church, cheer, may be represented by tsh.
	The sound of sh occurs in shine, shall. It is precisely equivalent to the French ch.
	Th are aspirated in think, throne; but vocal in that, thou.
	The sound of ng is simple, and occurs in sing, thing, in which the articulation is not close. But in finger, linger, longer, the articulation is more close. Orthoepists have represented the pronunciation of the latter words as doubling the articulation; thus,  fing-ger. But this is a mistake; there is but one articulation; nor is possible to pronounce two consonants between two vowels, without two articulations; two closings and openings of the organs. Banˊer and banˊner are pronounced alike, with one articulation. Thus consonants may be doubled in writing, but they are not doubled in pronunciation.
	Orthoepists represent, that in the combination nk, in ink, bank, n has the sound of ng. This is a mistake. The sound of ng is nasal, the articulation being less close than nk. If the n in such words had the sound of ng, then ink would have a nasal sound, ing, preceding k; but this is not the fact; on the other hand, the close articulation k, stops all sound. Walker, then, in representing bank, brink, as being pronounced bangk, bringk, entirely mistakes the fact.
	Note. — In this work, the diphthongs of foreign words, from which anglicized words are derived, are rejected; as in economy, edematous, atheneum, maneuver, pean. The diphthongs æ and œ are of difficult formation in writing, and of no use in English words.

Rules for Pronunciation, and Explanations of the manner of designating sounds in this work.

	The first or long sound of the vowels is designated by a horizontal mark over the vowel, thus, ā, ē, ī, ō, ū, ȳ. But the necessity of this mark is superseded in words and syllables ending in e, after a single consonant, as in fate, mete, rite, note, mute, in which the first vowel is long, and the final e is silent. So also in the last syllables of colonnade, fortitude, antipode, suicide, proselyte, consecrate, and others of similar formation.
	The first sound of a vowel is also indicated by the mark of accent immediately after the vowel, as in faˊvor, ceˊdar, viˊtal, gloˊry, truˊly, cyˊcle.
	The second or short sound of a single vowel is indicated by one or more consonants terminating the word or syllable, as in ban, band, pen, bend, pin, flint, not, plot, sun, must, cyst, withstand, descend, rotund.
	The short sound is also indicated by the mark of accent immediately after a single consonant, as in salˊary, enˊergy, inˊfamy, botˊany, husˊband, symˊbol.
	The third or broad sound of a is designated by two points under the vowel; thus, b{a with sub-diaeresis}ll, bro{a with sub-diaeresis}d. But the necessity of these points is superseded by a general rule, that in most words in which a is followed by ld, lk, ll, as in bald, balk, fall; the letter a has its broad sound.
	This broad sound occurs in the digraphs au and aw; as in taught, law.
	When this broad a is shortened, the sound is indicated by a single point under a; as in whạt, quạdrant.
	The fourth or Italian sound of a is designated by two points over the letter; thus, bär, mäst, fäther.
	The letter e, having the sound of a long, has a mark under the letter; as in pr{e with macron below}, conv{e with macron below}y.
	The letter i, when it has the sound of e long, has two points over the letter; thus, fatїgue, marїine.
	The letters i and o, when they have the sound of u short, have a curving mark; thus, bŭrd, dŏve.
	The vowel o has, in a few words, the sound of oo, French ou, which is indicated by two dots over the letter; thus, möve, löse. This sound, when shortened, is designated by two points under the vowel; thus, bọọk, lọọk, bṳsh, fṳll.
	The two letters oo, without points, have the sound of the French ou; as in fool, room.
	The digraphs ai, ay, always have the sound of the first or long a, unless otherwise marked.
	The digraphs ea, ee, ei, ie, always have the sound of the first or long e, unless otherwise marked.
	In all cases, when one vowel of a digraph is marked, that vowel has the sound designated by the mark, and the other is quiescent; thus, upbrāid, arrāyed, brēed, decēit, siēge, appēar, cōurse, flōat, bro{a with sub-diaeresis}d, v{e with sub-macron}in, shōw.
	By marking the vowel o, in the digraphs ou and ow, the digraph is distinguished from the diphthong; thus, in sōurce, ou are a digraph; but in sour they are a diphthong; and bōw, a weapon, is distinguished from bow, to bend.
	Thus ou and ow, without a mark, are always diphthongs.
	The digraphs eu, ew, and ui, have the sound of the first u; as in feud, brew, bruise. The writers who attempt to give u and ew after r, the sound of oo, as in is rude, brew, [rood, broo,] encourage an affected pronunciation. In all such words, u and ew have the proper
sound of u in duty, tumult, lucid, both in this country and in the general usage in England. Some persons affect to pronounce the letters e and w distinctly e and oo; but this affectation was condemned by Wallis, as early as the reign of Charles II.
	The vowel i, in the termination ive, is always short; as in motive, relative, pronounced motiv, relativ.
	The peculiar articulation of the letter r, renders it necessary to utter a slight sound of e short, between a vowel and that letter. Thus, bare, mere, mire, more, mure, are pronounced baer, meer, mier, moer, muer; so in parent, apparent, pronounced nearly paerent, appaerent. 
This necessity makes a slight variation in the sound of a, but too inconsiderable to deserve a particular mark of distinction.
	The accented syllable is designated by this mark ˊ at the end; as in laˊbor, gloˊry, tenˊor, amendˊ, detˊriment, withdrawˊ, avowˊ, destroyˊ, renewˊ.
	After syllables having two or more consonants followed by e quiescent, or a diphthong, the accent has no effect upon the vowel; as in dislodgeˊ, rejoiceˊ.
	In many cases, the mark over the vowel designates both the sound of the vowel and the accented syllable; as in abrāde, upbrāid, dedūce, besiēge.
	The letters ch, in words from the French, are pronounced as sh, and over the letter c is a mark; thus, čhaise, pronounced shāyz.
	The letters ce, ci, and ti, before a vowel, often blend into the sound of sh. Thus, ocean, Phocion, motion, are pronounced oˊshun, Phoˊshun, moˊshun. Hence, ceous, cious, tious, blend into the syllable, shus; as in cetaceous, gracious, factious, pronounced cetaˊshus, graˊshus, facˊshus.
	The termination sion, after a consonant, is pronounced shun; concession is pronounced conceshˊun. But after a vowel, it is pronounced zhun; diffusion is pronounced diffuˊzhun.
	The termination tion, in most words, is pronounced shun, after a vowel or consonant; nation, affection, are pronounced naˊshun, affecˊshun.
	In a few words, tian, tion, are pronounced chun; as in Christian, bastion. Egyptian is an exception; Egypshun.
	Sier are pronounced zher, or zhur, in braˊsier, oˊsier.
	When two accents occur after e or i, and before ci and ti, they indicate that the preceding syllable ends with the pronunciation of sh. Thus, preˊˊcious, viˊˊtiate, are pronounced preshˊous, vishˊate; the ci and ti blending into the sound of sh. [The 2009 renovated edition of NW 1844 does not use these double accents. – DJB]
	In such words as pronunciation, euphony seems to require that cia should be uttered in two syllables, pro-nun-ci-aˊ-tion, to prevent the repetition of the sound of sh; pronunshashun.

	Dr. Ash remarks, that the different vowels, in unaccented syllables, are pronounced alike or nearly so. Thus, in the words altar, alter, manner, manor, murmur, all the vowels of the last syllables have the same sound. Hence it is useless to mark the unaccented vowels; their sounds being too obscure and indistinct to be defined, or to be distinguished by marks. The nice distinctions between them, if any exist, are to be acquired only by usage and good taste.
	The letters gh, in most English words, are quiescent. In the following, they are pronounced like f; cough, chough, clough, enough, hough, laugh, rough, slough, tough, trough.
	H after r, is mute; as in rhetoric.
	G and k before n, are mute; as in gnaw, knave.
	W before r, is mute; as in wrest, wrong.
	In a few words, h after w, is pronounced before it; as in what, which.
	In the termination en, e is usually mute; as in broken, pronounced brokn.
	The final e is mute after l, in the following syllables; ble, cle, dle, fle, gle, kle, ple, tle, zle.
	B after m, is mute; as in dumb.
	L is mute before k; as in walk; before m; as in calm; and before f; as in half, calf.
	N is mute after m; as in hymn.
	Ph are always pronounced like f; as in, philosophy; but they are silent in phthisic, pronounced tizzic.
	P is mute before s; as in psalm; and before t; as in ptyalism, Ptolemy.
	In the terminating syllable of adjectives, ous, the letter o is always silent.
	The unaccented y, at the end of words, is short, like i in pin, pit; as in glory, probity. In the plural of such words, ies are pronounced iz; as glories, pronounced gloriz.
	But y, in monosyllables, has its first sound, as in dry, my; and in verbs the same sound occurs in the inflections; as in fly, flies; try, tries; pronounced flīze, trīze.
	In the termination fy, the y has its first sound; as in fortify. So also i in the last syllable of fortifies.
	S has its proper sound after f, p, k, t, and th aspirate; as in chiefs, caps, franks, pits, deaths.
	S has the sound of z after b, d, g, gh, l, m, n, r, s and ss, z, v, aw, ay, ew, ey, ow, oy, sh, ng, th vocal, ch, oe, ie, and after c followed by e final; as in robs, robes, races, rods, rides, rags, rages, toils, dreams, sighs, rains, bars, waves, roses, passes, mazes, laws, days, news, preys, vows, joys, brushes, sings, breathes, churches, foes, flies.
	S before m has the sound of z; as in spasm, baptism.
	The letter z, in Welsh words, is pronounced as the vocal th, in that, thou.
	In many cases, a word, the better to express the pronunciation, is written a second time, in the letters most proper for the purpose. In this case, the pronunciation of the radical word is to be observed in the derivatives, unless otherwise noted. Thus, bright is written brīte, to show the pronunciation; and this pronunciation is to be observed in its derivatives, brightness, brightly.
Pointed Letters.

Ā, ā, as in fate.	Ō, ō, long, as in note.	
A[with sub-diaeresis], a [with sub-diaeresis], broad, as in fall.	Ö, ö, like oo, as in move.	
Ạ, ạ, as in what.	Ū, long, as in tune.	
Ä, ä, Italian, as in father.	Ṳ, as in pull.	
Ē, ē, as in mete, meet.	C[with a stroke through it], as k.	
E[with sub-macron], e[with sub-macron], first a, as in prey.	Ġ, as j.	
Ī, ī, long, as in pine.	ČH, as sh.	
Ï, ï, e long, as in fatigue.	C[with a stroke through it]H, as k.	
Ŏ, ŏ, short u, as in dove.	ŦH, vocal, as in that.	
Ĭ, ĭ, short u, as in bird.	 	

	The letter u, it has been remarked, has the sound of yu in words in which this letter forms a syllable by itself; as in u-nit, u-nanimous, u-biquity, u-surp, and in some monosyllables; as in use, pronounced yuse.
	An attempt to extend this sound to u after d, as in gradual, credulous, has resulted in changing the sound of d to that of dj; and gradual becomes gradjual or grajual; credulous is changed to credjulous or crejulous. But this pronunciation of Walker is severely condemned by Jameson and Knowles. So also Walker’s butsheus for beauteous; plentshus for plenteous, are condemned and discarded. The same fate attends Walker’s ingrejent for ingredient, and other words of a like orthography.
	The present practice is to give to u the sound of yu, in such words as nature, feature, rapture; which are pronounced nat-yur, feat-yur, rapt-yur. This practice seems to have been adopted to avoid the common corruption of a change of t into tsh, as in natshur, a pronunciation condemned by the latest orthoepists.
	But in words of more syllables than two, this pronunciation of u as yu, in the last syllable, as in caricature, literature, judicature, is not to be commended.
	The termination ed, in the past tense, and participles of verbs, retains the vowel e, in this vocabulary, for showing the proper orthography, especially to foreigners; but in the customary pronunciation, this vowel is omitted, except after d and t. Thus abandoned, delivered, charmed, are pronounced abandond, deliverd, charmd. This rule extends to all cases, except to some formal uses of particular words, or to occasional uses of some words in verse.
	After d and t this termination ed is, from necessity, pronounced as a distinct syllable; as in abraded, hated.

ABBREVIATIONS EXPLAINED.

_____________________

a.	stands 	for 	adjective.	Eth.	stands	for	Ethiopic.	
adv.	“	“	adverb.	Fr.	“	“	French.	
con.	“	“ 	connective, or conjunction.	G. or Ger.	“	“	German.	
exclam.	“.	“	exclamation, or interjection.	Gr.	“	“	Greek.	
n.	“	“	name, or noun.	Goth.	“	“	Gothic.	
obs.	“	“	obsolete.	Heb.	“	“	Hebrew.	
prep.	“	“	preposition.	Ice.	“	“	Icelandic.	
pp.	“	“	participle passive, and perfect.	Ir.	“	“	Irish and Gaelic.	
ppr.	“	“	participle of the present tense.	It.	“	“	Italian.	
pret.	“	“	preterit.	Lat. or L.	“	“	Latin.	
pron.	“	“	pronoun.	Per.	“	“	Persic, or Persian.	
v. i.	“	“	verb intransitive.	Port.	“	“	Portuguese.	
v. t.	“	“	verb transitive.	Russ.	“	“	Russian.	
 				Sam.	“	“	Samaritan.	
Ar.	“	“	Arabic.	Sans.	“	“	Sanscrit.	
Arm.	“	“	Armoric.	Sax.	“	“	Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon.	
Ch.	“	“	Chaldee.	Sp.	“	“	Spanish.	
Corn.	“	“	Cornish.	Sw.	“	“	Swedish.	
Dan.	“	“	Danish.	Syr.	“	“	Syriac.	
D.	“	“	Dutch, or Belgic.	W.	“	“	Welsh.	
Eng.	“	“	English, or England.	 	 	 	 	

ALPHABETS.

_____________________

Hebrew & Samaritan.			Arabic.			       Syriac.
 	 	 	Names.	 	final.	medial.	initial.	Names.	 	final.	medial.	initial.	
Aleph	א	)	Elif	ا	ـا	ـا	ا	Olaph	ܐ	ـܐ	ـܐـ	ܐـ	
Beth	ב	b	Be	ﺏ	ـب	ـبـ	بـ‎	Beth	ܒ	ـܒ	ـܒـ	ܒـ	
Gimel	ג	g	Jim	ﺝ	ـج	ـجـ	جـ	Gomal	ܔ	ܔ	ܔ	ܔـ	
Daleth	ד	d	Dal	ﺩ	ـد‎	ـد‎	ﺩ	Dolath	ܕ	ـܕ	ـܕ	ܕ	
 	 	 	Dhaal	ﺫ	ـذ	ـذ	ﺫ	 	 	 	 	 	
He	ה	h	He	ﻩ‎	ـه	ـهـ	هـ	He	ܗ	ـܗ	ـܗ	ܗ	
Vau	ו	w	Wau	ﻭ	ـو	ـو	ﻭ	Vau	ܘ	ـܘ	ـܘ	ܘ	
Zain	ז	z	Ze	ﺯ‎	ـز	ـز	ﺯ‎	Zain	ܙ	ـܙ	ـܙ	ܙ	
Cheth	ח	x	Ha	ﺡ	ـح	ـحـ	حـ	Heth	ܚ	ـܚ	ـܚـ	ܚ	
 	 	 	Kha	ﺥ	ـخ	ـخـ	خـ	 	 	 	 	 	
Teth	ט	+	Ta	ﻁ	ـط	ـطـ	طـ	Teth	ܛ	ܛ	ܛ	ܛ	
 	 	 	Tha	ﻅ	ـظ	ـظـ	ظـ	 	 	 	 	 	
Yod	י	y	Ye	ﻱ	ـي	ـيـ	يـ	Yud	ܝ	ـܝ	ـܝـ	ܝ	
Caph	כ	k	Kef	ﻙ	ـك	ـكـ	كـ	Coph	—	—	—	ܒ	
 	ך	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Lamed	ל	l	Lam	ﻝ	ـل	ـلـ	لـ	Lomad	ܠ	ـܠ	ܠـ	ܠـ	
Mem	מ	m	Mim	ﻡ	ـم	ـمـ	مـ	Mim	ܡ	ـܡ	ـܡـ	ܡـ	
 	ם	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Nun	נ	n	Nun	ن	ـن	ـنـ‎	نـ‎	Nun	ܢ	ـܢ	ـܢـ	ܢـ	
 	ן	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Samech	ס	s	wanting	-	-	-	-	Semcath	ܣ	ـܣ	ـܣـ	ܣـ	
Ain	ע	(	Ain	ﻉ	ـع	ـعـ	عـ	Ee	ܥ	ـܥ	ܥـ	ܥـ	
 	 	 	Gain	ﻍ	ـغ	ـغـ	غـ	 	 	 	 	 	
Phe	פ	p	Fe	ف	ـف	ـفـ	فـ‎	Pe	ܦ	ـܦ	ـܦـ	ܦـ	
 	ף	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Tzaddi	צ	c	Tsad	ﺹ	ـص	ـصـ	صـ	Tsode	ܨ	ـܨ	ـܨ	ܨ	
 	ץ	 	Dhad	ﺽ	ـض	ـضـ	ضـ	 	 	 	 	 	
Koph	ק	q	Kaf	ﻕ	ـق	ـقـ	قـ	Kuph	ܩ	ـܩ	ـܩـ	ܩـ	
Resch	ר	r	Re	ﺭ	ـر	ـر	ﺭ	Rish	ܪ	ـܪ	ـܪ	ܪ	
Sin	שׂ	#	Sin	ﺱ	ـس	ـسـ	سـ	 	 	 	 	 	
Shin	שׁ	 	Shin	ﺵ	ـش	ـشـ	شـ	Shin	ܫ	ـܫ	ـܫـ	ܫـ	
Thau	ת	t	Te	ﺕ	ـت	ـتـ	تـ	Tau	ܬ	ܙܬ	ܙܬ	ܬ	
 	 	 	The	ﺙ	ـث	ـثـ	ثـ	 	 	 	 	 	

The Arabic vowels are only three, viz. Fatha َ  a, e. Kesra  ِ e, i. Dhamma ُ   o, u.
The diacritical signs are Jesm  ْ or quiescent Sheva; Teshdid  ّ or Dagesh forte; Hamza ُ  placed over Elif when radical.
Nunnation or double final vowels, ً  ٍ   ٌ  showing that they are to be pronounced an, en, or in, on, or un.
The Persians use the Arabic alphabet, with the addition of Pe ﭘ; Che ﭼ; Ghaf –— [ﮔ]; and Zhe ژ.

ETHIOPIC ALPHABET.

 	Short.	 	 	Long.	 	 	 	
Alph 	አ a	ኡ u	ኢ i	ኣ a	ኤ e	እ y	ኦ o	
Bet	በ ba	ቡ bu	ቢ bi	ባ ba	ቤ be	ብ by	ቦ bo	
Gemel	ገ ga	ጉ gu	ጊ gi	ጋ ga	ጌ ge 	ግ gy	ጎ go	
Den 	ደ da	ዱ du	ዲ di	ዳ da	ዴ de	ድ dy 	ዶ do	
Hoi	ሀ ha	ሁ hu	ሂ hi	ሃ ha	ሄ he	ህ hy	ሆ ho	
Waw 	ወ wa	ዉ wu 	ዊ wi 	ዋ wa	ዌ we 	ው wy	ዎ wo	
Zai	ዘ za	ዙ zu	ዚ zi 	ዛ za	ዜ ze	ዝ zy	ዞ zo	
Haut	ሐ ha 	ሑ hu	ሒ hi	ሓ ha 	ሔ he 	ሕ hy	ሖ ho	
Hharm 	ኀ ha	ኁ hu	ኂ hi	ኃ ha	ኄ he	ኅ hy	ኆ ho	
Tait	ጠ tha 	ጡ thu 	ጢ thi 	ጣ tha 	ጤ the 	ጥ thy 	ጦ tho	
Yaman 	የ ya	ዩ yu 	ዪ yi	ያ ya	ዬ ye	ይ yy	ዮ yo	
Quaf	ከ ka	ኩ ku	ኪ ki	ካ ka	ኬ ke	ክ ky	ኮ ko	
Lawi 	ለ la	ሉ lu	ሊ li	ላ la	ሌ le	ል ly	ሎ lo	
Mai 	መ ma	ሙ mu 	ሚ mi 	ማ ma 	ሜ me	ም my 	ሞ mo	
Nahas 	ነ na	ኑ nu	ኒ ni	ና na	ኔ ne	ን ny	ኖ no	
Saut	ሠ sa	ሡ su	ሢ si	ሣ sa	ሤ se	ሥ sy	ሦ so	
Ain	ዐ a	ዑ u	ዒ i	ዓ a	ዔ e	ዕ y	ዖ o	
Af	ፈ fa	ፉ fu	ፊ fi	ፋ fa	ፌ fe	ፍ fy	ፎ fo	
Pait	ጰ pa	ጱ pu	ጲ pi	ጳ pa 	ጴ pe	ጵ py	ጶ po	
Psa	ፐ pa	ፑ pu	ፒ pi	ፓ pa	ፔ pe	ፕ py	ፖ po	
Zadai	ጸ za	ጹ zu	ጺ zi	ጻ za	ጼ ze	ጽ zy	ጾ zo	
Zappi 	ፀ zza 	ፁ zzu 	ፂ zzi	ፃ zza 	ፄ zze 	ፅ zzy	ፆ zzo	
Kaf 	ቀ ka	ቁ ku	ቂ ki	ቃ ka 	ቄ ke	ቅ ky	ቆ ko	
Rees 	ረ ra	ሩ ru	ሪ ri	ራ ra	ሬ re	ር ry	ሮ ro	
Saat	ሰ sa	ሱ su	ሲ si	ሳ sa	ሴ se	ስ sy	ሶ so	
Tawi 	ተ ta	ቱ tu 	ቲ ti 	ታ ta	ቴ te	ት ty	ቶ to	

Note. — In the foregoing alphabets, the order of the Arabic and Ethiopic letters is conformed to that of the Chaldee and Hebrew. The reader will observe two or three defects, which are owing to the imperfection of the fonts of type.