Hebrew grammarians, that the radical words of their language, from which all the others are derived, are all of them verbs, and imperfonal verbs.

It is eafy to conceive how, in the progress of language, thofe imperfonal verbs should become perfonal. Let us fuppofe, for example, that the word venit, it comes, was originally an imperfonal verb, and that it denoted, not the coming of fomething in general, as at prefent, but the coming of a particular object, fuch as the Lion. The firft favage inventors of language, we shall suppose, when they obferved the approach of this terrible animal, were accustomed to cry out to one another, venit, that is, the lion comes; and that this word thus expreffed a complete event, without the affiftance of any other. Afterwards, when, on the further progrefs of language, they had begun to give names to particular fubftances, whenever they obferved the approach of any other terrible object, they would naturally join the name of that object to the word venit, and cry out, venit urfus, venit lupus. By degrees the word venit would thus come to fignify the coming of any terri ble object, and not merely the coming of the lion. It would now, therefore, exprefs, not the coming of a particular object, but the coming of an object of a particular kind. Having become more general in its fignifica

tion, it could no longer reprefent any particu lar distinct event by itself, and without the affiftance of a noun fubftantive, which might ferve to afcertain and determine its fignifica. tion. It would now, therefore, have become a perfonal, instead of an imperfonal verb. We may easily conceive how, in the further progrefs of fociety, it might ftill grow more general in its fignification, and come to fig nify, as at prefent, the approach of any thing whatever, whether good, bad, or indifferent.

It is probably in some such manner as this, that almost all verbs have become perfonal, and that mankind have learned by degrees to split and divide almost every event into a great number of metaphyfical parts, expreffed by the different parts of speech, variously combined in the different members of every phrafe and fentence *. The fame fort of progrefs feems to have been made in the art of speaking as in the art of writing. When mankind firft began to attempt to exprefs

As the far greater part of verbs exprefs, at prefent, not an event, but the attribute of an event, and, consequently, require a fubject, or nominative case, to complete their fignification, fome grammarians, not having attended to this progrefs of nature, and being defirous to make their common rules quite univerfal, and without any exception, have infifted that all verbs required a nominative, either expreffed or understood; and have, accordingly, put themselves to the torture to find some awkward nominatives to thofe few verbs which ftill expreffing a complete event, plainly admit of none. Pluit, for example, according to San&ius, means pluvia pluit, in English, the rain rains. See Sanctii Minerva, l. 3. c. 1.

their ideas by writing, every character reprefented a whole word. But the number of words being almost infinite, the memory found itself quite loaded and oppreffed by the mul titude of characters which it was obliged to retain. Neceffity taught them, therefore, to divide words into their elements, and to invent characters which fhould reprefent, not the words themselves, but the elements of which they were compofed. In confequence of this invention, every particular word came to be represented, not by one character, but by a multitude of characters; and the expreffion of it in writing became much more intricate and complex than before. But though particular words were thus reprefented by a greater number of characters, the whole language was expreffed by a much fmaller, and about four and twenty letters were found capable of fupplying the place of that immenfe multitude of characters, which were requifite before. In the fame manner, in the beginnings of language, men feem to have attempted to exprefs every particular event, which they had occafion to take notice of, by a particular word, which expreffed at once the whole of that event. But as the number of words muft, in this cafe, have become really infinite, in confequence of the really infinite variety of events, men found themselves partly compelled by neceffity, and partly conducted by nature, to

divide every event into what may be called its metaphysical elements, and to institute words, which fhould denote not fo much the events, as the elements of which they were compofed. The expreffion of every particular event, became in this manner more intricate and complex, but the whole fyftem of the language became more coherent, more connected, more eafily retained and comprehended.

When verbs, from being originally imperfonal, had thus, by the divifion of the event into its metaphyfical elements, become perfonal, it is natural to fuppofe that they would first be made ufe of in the third perfon fingular. No verb is ever ufed imperfonally in our language, nor, fo far as I know, in any other modern tongue. But in the ancient languages, whenever any verb is used imperfonally, it is always in the third person fingular. The termination of thofe verbs, which are still always imperfonal, is conftantly the fame with that of the third perfon fingular of personal verbs. The confideration of thefe circumstances, joined to the naturalness of the thing itself, may ferve to convince us that verbs firft became perfonal in what is now called the third perfon fingular.

But as the event, or matter of fact, which is expreffed by a verb, may be affirmed either of the person who speaks, or of the person who is spoken to, as well as of fome third perfon or

object,

object, it became neceffary to fall upon fome method of expreffing these two peculiar rela`tions of the event. In the English language this is commonly done, by prefixing, what are called the perfonal pronouns, to the general word which expreffes the event affirmed. I came, you came, he or it came; in thefe phrafes the event of having come is, in the first, affirmed of the speaker; in the fecond, of the perfon spoken to; in the third, of fome other perfon, or object. The firft formers of language, it may be imagined, might have done the fame thing, and prefixing in the fame manner the two first perfonal pronouns, to the fame termination of the verb, which ex preffed the third perfon fingular, might have faid ego venit, tu venit, as well as ille or illud venit. And I make no doubt but they would have done fo, if at the time when they had first occafion to exprefs thefe relations of the verb there had been any fuch words as either ego or tu in their language. But in this early period of the language, which we are now endeavouring to describe, it is extremely im probable that any fuch words would be known. Though custom has now rendered them familiar to us, they, both of them, exprefs ideas extremely metaphyfical and abstract. The word I, for example, is a word of a very particular fpecies. Whatever fpeaks may denote itself by this perfonal pronoun. The word

VOL. V.

D