bewildered as Harris; but as usually happens in such cases, Mr. Horne Tooke never goes wrong but, Dr. Crombie is sure to go after him:-But to the subject.

"What then, (says Dr. Crombie,) is the difference between the and that?" Simply this-that is a contraction of the-the and therefore, as he justly remarks, that is more emphatic than the, for a word repeated or pronounced twice is intended to be more emphatic, or to excite more attention than when pronounced but once; just as a word pronounced slowly and with force, is more emphatic than when pronounced rapidly or slightly, and hence the sole difference between an and ane, or one.

Thou art

"In Latin, (continues the author,) ille frequently supplies the place of our definite article: the man.' Tu es ille (iste) homo."

"The le in French is clearly a derivative from ille, of which the former syllable il expresses he, and the latter denotes that unemphatically serving as the definite article. From the same source also proceed the Italian articles il, lo, la."

"This and that I have already considered. That they are not pronouns is evident, because the pronoun always stands by itself, (did it always stand by itself?) and supplies the place of a noun; these words, on the contrary, must be associated with some substantive, and cannot therefore be strictly pronouns. It is true, indeed, that they sometimes appear singly or unaccompanied with a noun; (just

as what are called pronouns appear singly or unaccompanied with a noun,) but in these cases it will be found invariably that the expression is elliptical, some substantive or other being understood."

The above is as favourable a specimen of the author's grammatical reasoning as could be selected, yet it is merely that idle kind of controversy and verbosity which only serves to fill up a book-giving the writer an appearance of profound learning and keeping the reader ignorant of the subject. It is im proper, it seems, to call this or that a pronoun: what then-what is a pronoun? It is a word supplying the place of a noun: very good-but how did it come to supply the place of a noun? Tell me that and be my Apollo for ever. This belongs to a class of questions, that Dr. Crombie like Mr. Horne Tooke never thought of putting, or if he put them to himself he prudently kept them by him in his closet as private companions. The author was actually stumbling over the truth, yet as is common in such cases was all the while overlooking it. As he found out that the expression is elliptical, some substantive or other being necessarily understood when that and this appear singly or unaccompanied with a noun, why could he not perceive that the same is the case with pronouns? They were originally called pronouns, not because they stood for but fore nouns; and they were originally as uniformly accompanied by nouns as this and that are.

No one can have carefully traced the pronouns in

any dialect, without perceiving that they are often, and were originally, always, accompanied by nouns. We have in our own language, especially in legal writing, sufficient relics of ancient usage to explain and prove the fact in question: thus the following modes of expression are according to original usage: I, James Gilchrist, differ from thee, Dr. Crombie; he, Mr. Horne Tooke or Mr. Horne Tooke, he (we have yet both modes in vulgar usage—a much better guide in philology than reputable and present usage), was an acute philologer, but he did not see to the bottom of his subject: he, Dr. Reid, was a true philosopher, though author of an untrue philosophy; but thou, Dugald Stewart, canst not see clearly or enter profoundly into true theories; ye Scotch metaphysicians, like your cousins they, them, these, or the (we have had all these and more spellings of the same word) German metaphysicians have discovered that the true theory of the soul is best defended in a mist or in the dark.

The truth is, all the articles, all the personal, relative and demonstrative pronouns in all the dialects are merely connectives; and what is more, they are merely varied spellings and pronunciations of the same word, applied for the same purpose. I am not speaking of the use, custom may have given to what are called pronouns ;-I am not denying that the diversity of spelling and pronunciation which gives to one word the effect of several, is a great conveniency-I am treating of the proper primary character

of words. I, thou, he, she, it, we, ye, they, who, or which, (one of these is superfluous) that, &c. are all useful words,-happy abbreviations (which have usually all the excellencies and defects of contractions or short-hand characters); but it does not follow that they are not primarily one and the same word, applied for one and the same purpose.

In Le Maitre Italien Par le Sieur De Veneroni, I find the following remark, which shows how near to the true idea of pronouns the author was, or those from whom he borrowed :-" Le pronoms conjonctifs ont beaucoup de rapport aux pronoms personels." The conjunctive pronouns are nearly related to personal pronouns. The terms relative and conjunctive seem to have originated in just conception.

PREPOSITIONS have been referred to, and the following are merely connective; with, formerly mith, mid, med, &c. (and the same as μɛra, μɛb, μɛv, men, ment,) of, to, by, be, (formerly ge,) ad, at, (a softened form of ath, eth, &c.) col, con, and some other forms of the same word. It is true, that some of these forms seem strange to our eyes and ears, when employed where we have been accustomed to others; but none save asses are led by the ears-none but fools adore custom or usage. Such great rhetoricians as Dr. Blair, have discovered nice distinctions among the prepositions, and published wonderful criticisms about, by a sword and with a sword: but with reverence be it spoken, by a sword is just by a sword, and with a sword is just the same as by a sword.

H

It is unworthy of Dr. Crombie's understanding to give into the silly, false doctrine of tradition concerning synonimes; or to remark that "the and that, though not strictly synonymous are words nearly of the same import." They are strictly synonymous— they are precisely of the same import. He may indeed try his dexterity at splitting hairs to make a difference where none exists, as he does with my and mine, thy and thine; but after all, there is not a shade or shadow (and fine thinkers deal much in shades and shadows of meaning), of difference between the one and the other. The opinion of Blair (and indeed of all the philological multitude), that there are hardly any two words in any one language strictly synonymous, is not only false and absurd, but the occasion of much vacuous, indefinite, false and absurd composition. Arbitrary distinctions among words only serve to encrease and perpetuate their imposture. Our language would be no loser but a great gainer, if only one connective were left in it out of the many which now exist under various names: but what would become of copiousness, variety, smoothness, harmony, and all the other idols of babbling mouths and foolish ears?