proper use of conjunctions, prepositions, and those relative pronouns, which serve the same purpose of connecting different parts of discourse.

Having thus briefly considered the structure of language in general, we will now enter more particularly into an examination of our ownlanguage.

The English, which was spoken after the Norman conquest, and continues to be spoken now, is a mixture of the ancient Saxon and the Norman French, together with such new and foreign words, as commerce and learning have, in a succession of ages, gradually introduced. From the influx of so many streams, from a junction of so many dissimilar parts, it naturally follows, that the English, like every compounded language, must be somewhat irregular. We cannot expect from it that complete analogy in structure, which may be found in those simpler languages, which were formed within themselves, and built on one foundation. Hence our syntax is short, since there are few marks in the words themselves which show their relation to each other, or point out either their concordance or their government in a sentence. But, if these be disadvantages in a compound language, they are balanced by the advantages which attend it, particularly by the number and variety of words by which such a language is commonly enriched. Few languages are more copious than the English. grave subjects, especially, historical, critical, political, and moral, no complaint can justly be made of the barrenness of our tongue. We are rich too in the language of poetry; our poetical style differs widely from prose, not with respect to numbers only, but in the very words themselves; which proves what a com

In all

What is the English language?-Why is it irregular ?-What cannot we expect from it?-What is said of our syntax?-By what are these disadvantages balanced?-Said of its copiousness?-Of its character in all grave subjects?-How is it in respect to poetry? -What does this prove?-How are we in comparison with the

pass and variety of words we can select and employ, suited to different occasions. Herein we are infinitely superior to the French, whose poetical language, if it were not distinguished by rhyme, would not be known to differ from their ordinary prose. Their language, however, surpasses ours in expressing whatever is delicate, gay, and amusing. It is, perhaps, the happiest language for conversation in the known world; but for the higher subjects of composition, the English is justly considered as far superior to it. The flexibility of a language, or its power of becoming either grave and strong, or easy and flowing, or tender and gentle, or pompous and magnificent, as occasions require, is a quality of great importance in speaking and writing. This depends on the copiousness of a language; the different arrangements of which its words are susceptible; and the variety and beauty of the sounds of its words. The Greek possessed these requisites in a higher degree than any other language. It superadded the graceful variety of its different dialects, and thereby readily assumed every kind of character an author could wish, from the most simple and familiar, to the most majestic. The Latin, though very beautiful, is inferior in this respect to the Greek. It has more of a fixed character of stateliness and gravity; and is supported by a certain senatorial dignity, of which it is difficult for a writer to divest it. Among modern tongues the Italian possesses much more flexibility than the French; and seems to be on the whole the most perfect of all the modern dialects which have arisen out of the ruins of the ancient. Our language, though unequal to the Italian in flexibility, is not destitute of a considerable

French? Why?-In what does the French language surpass the English? In what is the English superior?

What is said of the flexibility of a language?-What does this depend on?-What is said of the Greek in respect to these requisites? -What of the Latin ?-Of the Italian?-Of our language?

degree of this quality. Whoever considers the diversity of style in some of our best writers, will discover in our tongue such a circle of expressions, such a power of accommodation to the various tastes of men, as redounds much to its honour.

Our language has been thought to be very deficient in harmony of sound; yet the melody of its versification, its power of supporting poetical numbers, without the assistance of rhyme, is a sufficient proof, that it is far from being unharmonious. Even the hissing sound, of which it has been accused, obtains less frequently than has been suspected. For in many words, and in the final syllables especially, the letters has the sound of z, which is one of the sounds on which the ear rests with pleasure; as in has, these, loves, hears, &c.

It must, however, be admitted, that smoothness is not the distinguishing property of the. English tongue. Strength and expressiveness, rather than grace and melody, constitute its character. It possesses also the property of being the most simple of all the European dialects in its form and construction. It is free from the intricacy of cases, declensions, modes, and tenses. Its words are subject to fewer variations from their original form, than those of any other language. Its nouns have no distinction of gender, except what is made by nature; and but.one variation in case. Its adjectives admit no change, except what expresses the degree of comparison. Its verbs, instead of the varieties of ancient conjugation, admit only four or five changes in termination. A few prepositions and auxiliary verbs effect all the purposes of significancy: while the principal words for the most part preserve

What has our language been thought deficient in ?-What is a sufficient proof that it is not so?-What is said of the hissing sound of which it has been accused?

What, however, must be admitted ?-What constitutes its character? What does it also possess?-What is it free from?--What is said of its words?-Nouns?-Adjectives ?-Verbs?--Preposi

their form unaltered. Hence our language acquires a simplicity and facility, which are the cause of its being frequently written and spoken with inaccuracy. We imagine that a competent skill in it may be acquired without any study; and that in a syntax so narrow and limited as ours, there is nothing which requires attention. But the fundamental rules of syn. tax are common to the English and to the ancient tongues; and regard to them is absolutely requisite for writing or speaking with propriety.

Whatever be the advantages or defects of our language, it certainly deserves, in the highest degree, our study and attention. The Greeks and Romans in the meridian of their glory, bestowed the highest cultivation on the respective languages. The French and Italians have employed much study upon theirs; and their example is worthy of imitation. For, whatever knowledge may be gained by the study of other languages, it can never be communicated with advantage, unless by those who can write and speak their own language with propriety. Let the matter of an author be ever so good and useful, his compositions will always suffer in the public esteem, if his expression be deficient in purity or propriety. At the same time, the attainment of a correct and elegant style is an object which demands application and labour. If any one suppose he can catch it merely by the ear, or acquire it by a hasty perusal of some of our good authors, he will be much disappointed. The many grammatical errors, the many impure expressions,

tions and auxiliary verbs?-Hence what does our language ac quire?-What do we imagine?-Is this so?

What does our language deserve ?-What did the Greeks and Romans do?-What have the French and Italians done?-Why is their example worthy of imitation ?-Upon what ground is an author in danger of suffering in the public esteem ?-What is necessary to attain a correct and elegant style ?-Can it be caught by the ear merely, or by the hasty perusal of some good authors ?-What demonstrate the necessity of a careful study of our language?

which are found in authors who are far from being contemptible, demonstrate that a careful study of our language is previously requisite for writing it with propriety, purity, and elegance.

STYLE, PERSPICUITY, AND PRECISION.

STYLE is the peculiar manner in which a man expresses his thoughts by words. It is a picture of the ideas in his mind, and of the order in which they there exist.

The qualities of a good style may be ranged under two heads, perspicuity and ornament. It will readily be admitted, that perspicuity is the fundamental quality of a good style. Without this the brightest ornaments only glimmer through the dark, and perplex instead of pleasing the reader. If we be forced to follow a writer with much care; to pause, and to read over his sentences a second time, in order to understand them fully, he will not please us long. Men are too indolent to relish so much labour.-Though they may pretend to admire an author's depth, after they have discovered his meaning, they will seldom be inclined to look a second time into his book.

Perspicuity requires attention, first to single words and phrases, and then to the construction of sentences. When considered with respect to words and phrases, it requires these three qualities, purity, propriety, and precision.

What is the subject of this lecture?

What is style?

How may the qualities of a good style be ranged?-When will not a writer please us long?-What will follow?

What does perspicuity require ?-What is said of purity and propriety?-What is purity ?-What is propriety?