not customary, but I believe it would be intelligible to those whose reading has not been confined wholly to modern English: The peace has oned has oned many that the war had twained or twinned: it is indeed merely the true English manner of saying, the peace has united many that the war had divided.

If the connectives have the above origin, then ath, eth, &c. is resolvable into achd (Heb. and Ethiop. for one); in confirmation of which ichd is, united, or as explained by Buxtorf, adunatus fuit-unà, simul. The connexion between xa, que, eek, eke, ic, ego, &c. and achd, ichd, seems plain enough; but it is more plain when the following forms of the numeral one are taken into view: Eek (Pers. of which our ace seems a variety) ek (Hindoo) yek (Gipsey dialect) the first of these is literatim our verb and old conjunction eek. If our odd be what it seems a contraction of achd, then it is not only the same as ad, at, eth, (sometimes ot, oth) but the same as add contracted into and. The Saxon verb Anan about which Horne Tooke has flourished so much, as signifying to join (for he did not trouble himself with enquiring how it came to signify join) seems, to be merely ane ane, or one one, contracted into anan, just as our article an is a contraction of ane, now spelt one.

*The derivation which Horne Tooke assigns to odd is like many of his derivations, utterly unworthy of his usual acuteness. He considers it the past participle owed from owe!! One of our old writers says of God, "He is sovereign odd." Is that, he is sovereign owed ?

one ?

This last seems a probable account of the connectives; and perhaps such words as jungo, jug-um, yoke, &c. are resolvable into yek, one of the forms of the numeral above given. It may be enquired again-how did achd, eek, yek, &c. come to signify The question is fair enough, only the limits. of this work will not admit of my tracing every word up to its primitive etymon. It is sufficient to remark here that however changed, the name of the numeral one, in all the dialects, originated in the name of the head; and the reason of the name given to the head, I have repeatedly explained. This coincidence between the numeral and the augmentive (for both are resolvable into the same etymon) has occasioned all my perplexity in deciding whether connectives ought to be resolved into augmentives, or augmentives into connectives; for, as we shall presently see, they are closely connected.

AUGMENTIVES.

The augmentives are ard, est, er,some, ous, ful, ible, dom, ness, rick, ry, ship, scape, skip, head, hood, &c.

Ard is merely a different spelling of alt, signifying high, great, much, &c.: drunkard is literally much drunk, person being understood; so sluggard is much slow or very slow; braggart is much or great brag. Observe, all such words are properly adjectives put elliptically; which is all their abstraction. Est which

is called superlative, (as strongest) is merely a softened manner of ard, which was formerly spelt ord, erd, &c. and signified top, beginning, &c.; being resolvable into arch, which still signifies head, chief, &c.; as arch-angel, arch-apostate: er (as in stronger) is merely a contraction of ard, &c. Some, is spelt in Gerinan sam; in Latin sim, ssim, (what is called the superlative) summa: it is the same as sum, summit, ship, scape, skip, dom, signifying properly top, head; metaphorically great or much darksome is much dark, troublesome is much trouble. Some signifying great and some signifying little, are resolvable into the same origin, which would seem to justify the doctrine of the Stoics, that every word is equivocal; and would seem also to justify Dr. Johnson and his chaplain Dr. Todd, in giving the same word different and opposite meanings. No object in nature or member of the human body, except the hand, has originated so much metaphor, (in other words supplied so much language,) as the head: among many other uses, it denotes metaphorically high, great, &c.: its name as we have before intimated, is used to denote the numeral one; hence, in old Saxon some or sum denoted one, an which was used laxly and diminutively as we now use one, an, any, (aneig); thus he will come some time or other, is equivalent to he will come one time or other will heads of colleges give some encouragement to philological reform? is equivalent to-will heads of colleges give any encouragement to philological reform? It is true that we cannot

always, (as Dr. Crombie remarks, of my and mine,) according to present usage, put some instead of one, or one instead of some; but this is wholly an affair of the ears, in which the understanding has no concern. The termination ous is a different spelling of the Latin os, softened from ox, ax, or, contraction of arch, &c. Full is the same as the Hebrew cl. and our own whole, &c. it is corrupted into ible, (as forcible instead of forceful,) which as Horne Tooke justly remarks, is calculated to cause confusion of ideas or displace a very useful termination: changeable is properly that may be changed, though it is commonly used to denote changeful or frequent change.

The primary idea of dom is dome, cupola, top, caput; it is in fact, like top, merely a variety of cope, cape, cap-ut; and is affixed to words as an augmentive. Freedom, wisdom, thraldom, are literally much free, much wise, much thral; so that such words are properly adjectives put elliptically: all their abstraction consists in ellipsis. The Latin termination answering to dom, &c. is tas, tat, tud,; which we have in such words as liberty, rectitude: tat, tud, are merely varieties of tot-us, &c. which is the same word originally as tat, dad, tata. Our own ness has the same use and is a softened form of rick, resh, (Hebrew) signifying head; and is yet applied to capes or headlands on the sea-shore :-Blackness, is blackhead; Sheerness, is Shore-head. Like ard, dom, &c. ness is merely an augmentive: darkness, brightness, are properly much dark, much bright,

some other word being understood: drunkenness, for instance, is no more abstract than drunkard; both signifying merely much drunk. Drunkenness is injurious to health, is neither more nor less than-being much drunk is injurious to health. I am more particular with what are called abstract nouns, that the understanding of the reader may not get entangled among metaphysical cobwebs or lose itself in the Scotch mist and German darkness. Insignificant words may be very necessary to authors of true theories; but do not let them make a fool of you, by pretending to open your eyes while in the very act of blind-folding you with the old night-cap of the schoolmen: do not let them put the extinguisher on the true knowledge of words and ideas, and quackishly boast of new light and great discovery; or vail your understanding with fine-spun nonsense under the name of common sense.

Rick, which is contracted into ry, is the same as rex, rich, rank, origo, origin, arch, agx, rash, Hebrew. Affixed to words it is simply an augmentive: Bishoprick, is literally great bishop, though put elliptically to denote what belongs to him. As contracted into ry, the word seems merely augmentive; bravery, much brave; bribery, much bribing or great bribe. Observe, that as ry is augmentive, it is not usual to give it a plural form, (for the plural termination is in a certain sense augmentive,) being itself in many instances equivalent to the plural: imagery, is equivalent to images; yeomanry, to yeomen; cavalry, to