It is evident, that the Chinese characters, like hieroglyphics, are signs of things, and not of words. For we are told, that the Japanese, the Tonquinese, and the Coreans, who speak different languages from each other, and from the inhabitants of China, use, however, the same written characters with them, and thus correspond intelligibly with one another in writing, though mutually ignorant of each other's language. Our arithmetical figures, 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. are an example of this sort of writing. They have no dependence on words; each figure represents the number for which it stands; and consequently is equally understood by all nations, who have agreed in the use of these figures.

The first step, to remedy the imperfection, the ambiguity, and the tediousness of each of the methods of communication which have been mentioned, was the invention of signs, which should stand not directly for things, but for the words by which things were named and distinguished. An alphabet of syllables seems to have been invented previously to an alphabet of letters. Such a one is said to be retained at this day in Ethiopia, and some countries of India. But at best it must have been imperfect and ineffectual; since the number of characters, being very considerable, must have rendered both reading and writing very complex and laborious.

To whom we are indebted for the sublime and refined discovery of letters is not determined. They were brought into Greece by Cadmus the Phenician, who, according to Sir Isaac Newton's Chronology, was contemporary with king David. His alphabet

What is evident in respect to the Chinese characters ?-What reasons are assigned for this ?-What is an example of this sort of writing?-What is said of them?

What was the first step to remedy the imperfection, &c. of this method?-Where is it still retained?-What is said of it?

Is it known who discovered letters ?-By whom were they brought into Greece?-Who was he contemporary with ?-How

contained only sixteen letters. The rest were after wards added, according as signs for proper sounds were found to be wanting. The Phenician, Hebrew, Greek, and Roman alphabets agree so much in the figure, names, and arrangement of the letters, as amounts to demonstration, that they were derived originally from the same source.

The ancient order of writing was from the right hand to the left. This method, as appears from some very old inscriptions, prevailed even among the Greeks. They afterwards used to write their lines alternately from the right to the left, and from the left to the right. The inscription on the famous Sigean monument is a specimen of this mode of writing, which continued till the days of Solon, the celebrated legislator of Athens. At length, the motion from the left hand to the right, being found more natural and convenient, this order of writing was adopted by all the nations of Europe.

Writing was first exhibited on pillars and tables of stone; afterward on plates of the softer metals. As it became more common, the leaves and bark of certain trees were used in some countries; and in others, tablets of, wood covered with a thin coat of soft wax, on which the impression was made with a stylus of iron. Parchment, made of the hides of animals, was an invention of later times. Paper was not invented before the fourteenth century.

many letters did his alphabet contain ?-How were the rest added? -What is said of the Phenician, Hebrew, Greek, and Roman alphabets?

What was the ancient order of writing ?-Among whom did this method prevail?-How did they afterward write ?-Where is there a specimen of this mode of writing?

At length what was found more natural and convenient ?-By whom was this order adopted?-How was writing first exhibited? -How afterward ?-How when it became more common ?-What was invented in later times?-When was paper invented?

LECTURE VIII.

STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE.

THE common division of speech into eight parts, nouns, pronouns, verbs, participles, adverbs, prepositions, interjections, and conjunctions, is not very accurate; since under the general term of nouns it comprehends both substantives and adjectives, which are parts of speech essentially distinct. Yet, as we are most accustomed to this division, and, as logical exactness is not necessary to our present design, we shall adopt these terms, which habit has made familiar to us.

Substantive nouns are the foundation of grammar, and the most ancient part of speech. When men had advanced beyond simple interjections or exclamations of passion, and had begun to communicate their ideas to each other, they would be obliged to assign names to objects, by which they were surrounded. Wherever a savage looked, he beheld forests and trees. To distinguish each by a separate name would have been endless. Their common qualities, such as springing from a root, and bearing banches and leaves, would suggest a general idea and a general name. The genus, tree, was afterwards subdivided into its several species of oak, elm, ash, &c. upon experience and observation.

Still, however, only general terms were used in speech. For oak, elm, and ash, were names of whole classes of objects, each of which comprehended an immense number of undistinguished individuals. Thus, when the nouns man, lion, or tree, were men

What is the subject of this lecture?

What is said of the common division of speech ?-Why does the author adopt these terms?-What are substantive nouns ?-How did they originate?-What gave rise to that part of speech called the article?

tioned in conversation, it could not be known, which man, lion, or tree, was meant among the multitude, comprehended under one name. Hence arose a very useful contrivance for determining the individual object intended, by means of that part of speech called the article. In English, we have two articles, a and the; a is more general, the more definite. The Greeks had but one, which agrees with our definite article the. They supplied the place of our article a, by the absence of their article; thus Anthropos signifies a man, O Anthropos the man. Latins had no article; but in the room of it used the pronouns, hic, ille, iste. This however seems a defect in their language; since articles certainly contribute much to perspicuity and precision.

The

To perceive the truth of this remark, observe the different imports of the following expressions: "The son of a king, the son of the king, a son of the king's." Each of these three phrases has a separate meaning, too obvious to be misunderstood. But, in Latin, "filius regis," is entirely undetermined; it may bear either of the three senses mentioned.

Beside this quality of being defined by the article, three affections belong to nouns; number, gender, and case, which deserve to be considered.

NUMBER, as it makes a noun significant of one or more, is singular or plural; a distinction found in all tongues, which must have been coeval with the origin of language, since there were few things, which men had more frequent necessity of expressing, than the distinction between one and more. In the Hebrew, Greek, and some other ancient languages, we

What are the English articles ?-How many had the Greeks? -How did they supply the place of our article a ?-Had the Latins an article ?-What did they use in the room of it ?-Is this a defect in their language, and why?

How

may we perceive the truth of this remark ?-What belongs to nouns ?

What is number?-In what languages do we find a dual num

find not only a plural, but a dual number; the origin of which may very naturally be accounted for, as separate terms of numbering were yet undiscovered, and one, two, and many were all, or at least the principal numeral distinctions which men at first had any occasion to make.

GENDER, which is founded on the distinction of the two sexes, can with propriety be applied to the names of living creatures only. All other nouns ought to be of the neuter gender. Yet in most languages the same distinction is applied to a great number of inanimate objects. Thus, in the Latin tongue, ensis, a sword, is masculine; sagitta, an arrow, is feminine; and this assignation of sex to inanimate objects, often appears entirely capricious. In the Greek and Latin, however, all inanimate objects are not distributed into masculine and feminine; but many of them are classed, where all ought to be, under the neuter gender; as saxum, a rock; mare, the sea. But in the French and Italian tongues, the neuter gender is wholly unknown; all their names of inanimate objects being put upon the same footing with those of living creatures, and distributed without reserve into masculine and feminine. In the English language, all nouns, literally used, that are not names of living creatures, are neuter; and ours is, perhaps, the only tongue, except the Chinese, which is said to resemble it in this particular, in which the distinction of gender is philosophically applied.

CASE denotes the state or relation, which one object bears to another, by some variation of the name of that object; generally in the final letters, and by some languages in the initial. All tongues, however,

ber?-How may this be accounted for?

To what only should gender be applied?-What should all other nouns be?-Yet how is it in most languages ?-Example.-How is it in the Greek and Latin ?-How in the French and Italian ?-How in the English?

What does case denote ?-Do all tongues agree in this mode of