This divided use hath place sometimes in single words, sometimes in construction, and sometimes in arrangement. In all such cases there is scope for choice; and it belongs, without question, to the critical art, to lay down the principles, by which in doubtful cases, our choice should be directed.

There are, indeed, some differences in single words, which ought still to be retained. They are a kind of synonymas, and afford a little variety, without occasioning any inconvenience whatever *. In argument too, it certainly holds, that various manners suit various styles, as various styles suit various subjects, and various sorts of composition. For this reason, unless when some obscurity, ambiguity, or inelegance is created, no disposition of words which hath obtained the public approbation, ought to be altogether rejected. In construction the case is somewhat different. Purity, perspicuity, and elegance generally require, that in this there be the strictest uniformity. Yet differences here are not only allowable, but even convenient when attended with correspondent differences in the application. Thus the verb to found, when used literally, is more properly followed by the preposition on, as, "The house was found"ed on a rock;" in the metaphorical application, it is often better with in, as in this sentence, "They main"tained, that dominion is founded in grace." Both sentences would be badly expressed, if these prepositions were transposed, though there are perhaps cases wherein either would be good. In those instances, therefore, of divided use, which give scope for option, the following canons are humbly proposed, in order to assist us in assigning the preference. Let it, in the mean time, be remembered, as a point always presupposed, that the authorities on the opposite sides are equal, or nearly so. When those of one side greatly preponderate, it is in vain to oppose the prevailing usage. Custom, when wavering, may be swayed, but when reluctant, will

❤Such are, subterranean and subterraneous, homogeneal and homogeneous, authentic and authentical, isle and island, mount and mountain, clime and climate, near and nigh, betwixt and between, amongst and among, amidst and amid. Nor do I see any hurt that would ensue from adding nowise and noway to the number,

not be forced. And in this department a person never effects so little, as when he attempts too much*.

Canon the First.

The first canon, then, shall be, When use is divided as to any particular word or phrase, and the expression used by one part hath been pre-occupied, or is in any instance susceptible of a different signification, and the expression employed by the other part never admits a different sense, both perspicuity and variety require, that the form of expression which is in every instance strictly univocal, be preferred.

For this reason aught, signifying any thing, is preferable to ought, which is one of our defective verbs: by consequence, meaning consequently, is preferable to of consequence; as this expression is often employed to de note momentous or important. In the preposition to ward and towards, and the adverbs forward and for wards, backward and backwards, the two forms are used indiscriminately. But as the first form in all these is also an adjective, it is better to confine the particles to the second. Custom, too, seems at present to lean this way. Besides and beside serve both as conjunctions and as prepositions +. There appears some tendency at present to assign to each a separate province. This tendency ought to be humoured by employing only the former as the conjunction, the latter as the preposi tion.

This principle likewise leads me to prefer extempo

For this reason it is to no purpose with Johnson to pronounce the word news a plural, (whatever it might have been in the days of Sydney and Raleigh), since custom hath evidently determined otherwise. Nor is the observation on the letter [s] in his Dictionary well founded, that "it seems to be established as a rule, that no noun singular should end with [s] single;" the words alms, amends, summons, sous, genius, chorus, and several others, show the contrary. For the same reason the words averse and aversion, are more properly construed with to than with from. The examples in favour of the latter preposition, are beyond comparison out-numbered by those in favour of the former. The argument from etymology is here of no value, being taken from the use of another language. It by the same rule we were to regulate all nouns and verbs of Latin original, our present syntax would be overturned. It is more conformable to English analogy with to; the words dislike and hatred, nearly synonymous, are thus construed.

+ These nearly correspond to the conjunction præterea, and the preposition præter in Latin.

rary as an adjective to extempore, which is properly an adverb, and ought, for the sake of precision, to be restrained to that use. It is only of late that this last term begins to be employed adjectively. Thus we say, with equal propriety, an extemporary prayer, an extemporary sermon, and, he prays extempore, he preaches extempore. I know not how Dr Priestley hath happened to mention the term extemporary, in a way which would make one think he considered it as a word peculiar to Mr Hume. The word hath evidently been in good use for a longer time than one thinks of searching back in quest of authorities, and remains in good use to this day. By the same rule we ought to prefer scarcely as an adverb to scarce, which is an adjective; and exceedingly, as an adverb, to exceeding, which is a participle. For the same reason also I am inclined to prefer that use, which makes ye invariably the nominative plural of the personal pronoun thou, and you the accusative, when applied to actual plurality. When used for the singular number, custom hath determined that it shall be you in both cases. This renders the distinction rather more important, as for the most part it would show directly whether one or more were addressed; a point in which we are often liable to mistake in all modern languages. From the like principle, in those verbs which have for the participle passive both the preterite form and one peculiar, the peculiar form ought to have the preference. Thus, I have gotten, I have hidden, I have spoken, are better than I have got, I have hid, I have spoke. From the same principle I think ate is preferable in the preterite tense, and eaten in the participle, to eat, which is the constant form of the present, though sometimes also used for both the others.

But though in this judgment concerning the participles, I agree entirely with all our approved modern grammarians, I can by no means concur with some of them in their manner of supporting it. "We should be

Yet I should prefer, "I have held, helped, melted," to "I have holden, holpen, "molten," these last participles being now obsolete. Holden is indeed still used when we speak formally of courts or public meetings.

"immediately shocked," says one of the best of them *, "at I have knew, 1 have saw, I have gave, &c. but our ears are grown familiar with I have wrote, I have drank, I have bore, &c. which are altogether as bar"barous." Nothing can be more inconsistent, in my opinion, with the very first principles of grammar, than what is here advanced. This ingenious gentleman surely will not pretend, that there is a barbarism in every word which serves for preterite and participle both, else the far greater part of the preterites and participles of our tongue are barbarous. If not, what renders many of them, such as loved, hated, sent, brought, good English when employed either way? I know no answer that can be given, but custom; that is, in other words, our ears are familiarised to them by frequent use. And what was ever meant by a barbarism in speech, but that which shocks us by violating the constant usage in speaking or in writing? If so, to be equally barbarous, and to be equally shocking, are synonymous; whereas to be barbarous, and to be in familiar use, are a contradiction in terms. Yet in this manner does our author often express himself. "No authority," says he in another place, "is sufficient to justify so manifest a solecism." No man needed less to be informed, that authority is every thing in language, and that it is the want of it alone that constitutes both the barbarism and the solecism.

Canon the Second.

The second canon is, In doubtful cases regard ought to be had in our decisions to the analogy of the language.

For this reason I prefer contemporary to cotemporary. The general use in words compounded with the inseparable proposition con, is to retain the (n) before a consonant, and to expunge it before a vowel or an (h) mute. Thus we say condisciple, conjuncture, concomi

* Lowth's Introduction to English Grammar.

EE

tant; but co-equal, co-eternal, co-incide, co-heir. I know but one exception, which is co-partner. But in dubious cases we ought to follow the rule, and not the exception. If by the former canon the adverbs backwards and forwards are preferable to backward and forward; by this canon, from the principle of analogy, afterwards and homewards should be preferred to afterward and homeward. Of the two adverbs thereabout and thereabouts, compounded of the particle there and the proposition, the former alone is analogical, there being no such word in the language as abouts. The same holds of hereabout and whereabout. In the verbs to dare and to need, many say, in the third person present singular, dare and need, as "he need not go; he dare not do it." Others say, dares and needs. As the first usage is exceedingly irregular, hardly any thing less than uniform practice could authorise it. This rule supplies us with another reason for preferring scarcely and exceedingly as adverbs to scarce and exceeding. The phrases Would to God, and Would God, can both plead the authority of custom; but the latter is strictly analogical, the former is not. It is an established idiom in the English tongue, that any of the auxiliaries might, could, would, should, did, and had, with the nominative subjoined, should express sometimes a supposition, sometimes a wish: which of the two it expresses in any instance, is easily discovered from the context. Thus the expression," Would he but ask it of me," denotes either, "If he would, or I wish "that he would but ask it of me.' Would God then, is properly, I wish that God would, or, O that God would. The other expression it is impossible to reconcile to analogy in any way.* For a like reason the phrase ever so, as when we say, "though he were ever so good," is preferable to never so. In both these decisions I subscribe to the judgment of Dr Johnson. Of the two phrases in no wise in three words, and nowise in one, the

What has given rise to it is evidently the French Plut a Dieu, of the same import. But it has not been adverted to (so servile commonly are imitators), that the verb plaire is impersonal, and regularly construed with the preposition a neither of which is the case with the English will and would.