any arbitrary authority to establish distinctions which have no utility, and which tend only to embarrass and enslave English composers.

This, indeed, is all so plain, that I shall leave the pronouns by showing first how they came to be so irregular, and secondly what they ought to be if rectified from all corruption and irregularity. It has been shown that I is a contraction of ick or ic, which is the same word as eek or eke, ge softened into be, me, &c. Mine is a corruption of meen; thine of thouen or theen; he, him, she, her, it (formerly hit), are all varied spellings of the same word, which like the, this, thir, (Saxon and Scotch) was originally Cr. or Gr. &c. His, is a contraction of he's; our, is a a contraction of weer; their, of theyer; your, of youer. It has been sufficiently shown that er. and en, were usual affixes before they were softened into es. or 's.

If our pronouns were according to the analogy of the language they would run thus:-I I's, or me me's; thou thou's, or thee thee's; he he's, or him him's; she she's, or her her's; it it's; we we's; you you's; they they's, or them them's; who who's, or which which's. Persons who consult their eyes and ears more than their understanding would smile at such modes of speech; and so would they at ores instead of oxen ; childs instead of children; mans instead of men, &c.; but instead of ridiculing foreigners and children, who in such instances follow the analogy of our language, they ought to blush at their own folly in pronouncing wrong right, and right wrong-consecrating corrup

tions and defects into excellencies, that they may be perpetuated for ever. The truth is, had ignorant grammaticlins let our language alone, it would have been, in all probability, pretty regular, but they must legislate and for our speech; and instead of freeing it from corruptions and irregularities, which is the proper office of special grammar, they have only endeavoured to render absurdity eternal.

The reader will perceive, that though the grammatical laws which perpetuate irregularities are arbitrary, the irregularities themselves are not arbitrary: they are merely relics of what were regular terminations; which relics were in the very act of passing away into a new regular form, when they were seized upon as suitable materials for the superstructure of an arbitrary system of grammar. All that is aimed at in these remarks is, to counteract absurd, despotic principles and rules: either let us have no grammatical laws, or let them be what all laws ought to be-reasonable and useful. It is manifest that all the rules given concerning the pronouns, are not only arbitrary but absurd; and instead of serving any important purpose, only perplex and enslave.

THE VERB CONSIDERED.

It is said, “ A verb is a word, which signifies to be, to do, or to suffer;" and that "to a verb belong number, person, mood and tense;" every syllable of which

is absurd.

What is called a verb is not one word, but two or more words conjoined, and this is the whole mystery of the matter. Of any two nouns you may form what is called a verb: as, men hand, men foot, men mouth, men eye; or by prefixing what are called pronouns: I hand, thou hand, he hand, we hand, you hand, they hand: I eye, thou eye, he eye, we eye, you eye, they eye, &c.

Observe, every word called a verb is primarily as truly a noun as the instance above given; but having been mummified or detached from the sensible object to which it belongs, by such variety of spelling and pronouncing as in hear, ear; mouth, meat, eat, &c. men in a kind of vacuo of perception have fancied and written wonderful metaphysical doctrines concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, and such other matters as come under the superintendence of the god of mystery; and such great philosophers as Dugald Stewart, have publicly rejoiced at the thought, that the etymology of many words is irrecoverably lost; intimating at the same time, that the true intellectual philosophy will never do any good till more words are mummified into elegant expletives, or reduced to their true, spiritual, disembodied character; when, separated from all sensible objects, they will be mere abstract notions, or true metaphysical ghosts.

It is always important to put down learned absurdity; and therefore before proceeding to the weightier considerations connected with the verb, I shall briefly notice the doctrine of Modes and Tenses, which though

false, is in itself of so little consideration as not to merit much attention. We cannot expect significant and intelligible terms from the common multitude of grammarians, and therefore we must either put up with technical inanity, or neglect all they say without examination. I could never be certain what they meant by modes: if they mean that I love—Í may love-love thou, &c. are different modes of expression, conveying different meanings, it is all very true; and withal so very evident, that every one who has eyes to see and ears to hear, ought to consider the putting of the information into a technical shape, as an insult not only to his sense but even to his senses and when such terms as indicative, subjunctive and imperative make their appearance, there is all the insolence of barefaced absurdity, in addition to the stupidity of sheer-nonsense. Is Indicative de

clarative? But do not all words and modes of expression declare? I may love, is, if put into another form-I have power to love, which our profound grammarians would gravely assert to be two verbs, the one in the indicative-the other in the infinitive mode! We may well say with Horne Tooke, "If this be learning, give us back our Tom Thumb again." But if indicative, subjunctive and infinitive, be not very intelligible or very sensible, has not imperative real meaning? Is not hand me a newspaper a real command? What then is to be said to "Give us this day our daily bread"? Does the suppliant command his Maker? This requires to be covered with metaphy

sical cobwebs or fine-spun nonsense. The plain truth is, that all such modes of expression are merely abbreviations. "Give us this day our daily bread," is, if the ellipsis be filled up-we pray that thou give— we beseech thee to give, &c.: hand me a chair, is, if the ellipsis be filled up-I command thee to hand— or, if the address be to a friend and equal-I request thee to hand me a chair.

Concerning Tenses, the tongues of grammarians have been divided like true Babel-builders. Wallis and others have denied that there are any English Tenses, but the past and the present; Horne Tooke denies that there is any present Tense; but such wonderful grammarians as Lindley Murray, who are too great and profound for simplicity, have said that "Tense being the distinction of time, might seem to admit only of the present, past and future; but to mark it more accurately, it is made to consist of six variations, viz. the Present, the Imperfect, the Perfect, the Pluperfect and the First and Second Future Tenses." The reader will observe, that all this superfluity of technical inanity is for the sake of marking more accurately; for our grammatical folks are men of wonderful accuracy: they think accurately and compose accurately; but the German grammaticlins can beat them out and out at marking time accurately, for they have four Future Tenses.

It has been sufficiently proved by Horne Tooke, and indeed by Sanctius before him, that there is no present tense: it has been sufficiently proved by Wal