18. We now proceed to those changes which are made in the form of nouns to express a change of signification ; and first we shall attend to number. In speak ing of the objects of thought, we have constant occasion to speak of one or more of a kind ; in every language therefore we may expect to find a variation in the form of adjuncts of nouns, to denote unity or plurality. To avoid the necessity of using such adjuncts, or rather in consequence of the coalescence of them with the nouns, owing to the frequent use of them ip con nection with the nouns, a change of form has taken place in most cultivated lan guages. The Hebrew plurals are gene.. rally formed by the addition of In, mew, to the noun, probably because n was the symbol of water, and denoted collection and pluralty ; and in that language the coalescence has actually taken place, and occasionally undergone some corruption. Among the Chimise the plural adjunct has not yet coalesced with the noun; and they generally denote the plural by the addi tion of min to the singular. Supposing the coalescence ofplural adjuncts to have been the origin of the changes on nouns to denote plurality of meaning, it does not necessarily follow that all plural changes were thus formed. The change of form produced by such coalescence in some cases might suggest a corresponding change in others, though the change might not be exactly similar. Hence, could we trace some of the plural changes to art, as their earliest origin, it would weigh little against the general principle. We shall, however, almost universally find, that the extension of old procedures, rather than the invention of new ones, has been the cause of almost all even of the artificial changes in language. rea son is obvious : besides the greater ease to the innovator, it would be much more intelligible to those who are to adopt his innovation. Even the philosopher judges it more proper to follow the analogies of his language, than to deviate from them, where he knows such deviation would be an improvement. Except as far as is dic tated by custom, and that convenience on which the custom has been founded, there is no reason why the same word unchang ed should not be applicable both where one and where more are meant : why, for instance, we should not say two man, as well as one man. The plural form may be applied to two, or two hundred, or any indefinite number ; now is there in the nature of the thing a more marked dis tinction between one and two, than be. tween two and two hundred ? In fact, were we always able to join to the noun a numeral, or some other adnoun denot ing number, a plural form would be un necessary ; but it is frequently desirable to denote plurality, where the number is Indeterminate or unnecessary to be spe cified. The Chinese drop their plural ad junct, when there is another word of plu rality attached to the noun. We do not go upon the same principle ; but there are cases in which we make no changes to denote plurality, as twenty pound of flour, thirty sail of ships, four thousand, &c. These instances, though contrary to the prevailing analogy of our language, cer tainly do not oppose the general princi ples oflanguage ; and though the neglect of the plural,termination in such cases is ungrammatical, it probably savours less of vulgarity to go thus far with the multitude, than of pedantry to quit the beaten track. There are other instances, however, in which the use of the same word, both in a singular and plural acceptation, is perfect ly legitimate ; we say one, or twenty, deer, sheep, or swine. If there must be a form for unity as distinguished from plurality, why net forms to denote two things, three things, &c. ? There is no reason, but in their inferior -utilit) some languages have a form for duality ; and by the Greeks this form was carried through their nouns, adnouns, pronouns, verbs, and participles. They had, however, no scruple in using the plural form for two things, and in making their duals agree with plurals. The fact is, the distinction between one and more than one is more useful than any farther distinction. The indefinite denotement of plurality is continually ser viceable ; and if we wish to specify the exact number, the addition of a numeral is a much more simple procedure, than the burdening of language with a number of distinctions, which would seldom be useful, and never necessary.
19. In every department ofknowledge we are concerned with individuals ; and though for the purposes of communica tion general terms are not only conve nient, but absolutely necessary, some con trivances are requisite to designate indi viduals, or less general classes of indivi duals. This is done by means of adnouns, or by stating some connection between what is denoted bythe noun andsome other substance or quality. The latter is ac complished by juxtaposition, by preposi tions, or by equivalent changes in the word connected. The last is called in flection, and the word so changed is call ed a case of the noun. In English we have only one inflection of the noun, and two of the pronoun. Persons who think that the procedures of every language must be accommodated to the grammar of the Greek and Latin, strenuously contend for ttl equal number of cases with theirs. If case mean a change in the word, to der note connection with other words, then the plan of our language cannot be ac commodated to that of the Latin : If of a man, to a man, &c. he considered as cases, there is certainly no reason why the same appellation should not be given to every noun to which a preposition is prefixed, and then we shall have above thirty cases.
It is fortunate for the speculator, that, in this and other instances, language will not bend to the contrivances of the tech nical grammarian : for his wish to reduce every process to an agreement with a standard, which prejudice only can deem perfect, would, if successful, materially increase the difficulties of grammatical in vestigation. The variation of our nouns is confined to the denotement of one re lation, that of property or possession; and it is therefore with great propriety called the possessive case. The appellation geni tive case is sometimes applied to it ; but, the force of the Greek and Latin genitive is to denote relation in general, though capable of specific application, and is ex actly equivalent to a noun preceded by of. The possessive case of a noun isnot equi valent to the noun preceded by of, except where the latter has the specific force of belonging to. It may in all cases be re presented by of, with the noun following; but the latter mode of expression cannot in many instances be represented by the possessive case. The French, Spanish, and Italian languages have no cases of nouns : the German has changes, to ex press what we denote by of and to; but these changes are not carried through all, the nouns. The Latin and Greek lan guages have still more variations, which they carry through all their variable parts of speech, except the verbs. The ar rangement of these variations is the work of art; and the appellations of case, or fall en, and declension, or bending from, appear to have gone upon this principle : the word from which the cases are formed was represented by a perpendicular and the cases by lines declining er falling from it. For the sake of convenience, the nominative and vocative are denominated cases; and from the above contrivance the nominative was termed the upright case, and the other cases were termed oblique. The uaminative is the name it self, The vocative, or case of calling, has its origin in those changes in the pronun ciation, which arise from the mode of ut terance in calling to a person: it is a corrup tion, or aft abbreviation of the nominative. We have already spoken of the force of the genitive; we shall only add here, that we have in English one procedure exact ly corresponding to it in force,though not so universally applied, viz. juxtaposition. This isa very simple and intelligible pro cedure. To connect the terms, is a satis factory expression of the connection of the things signified : and in this proce dure, as in the genitive, the kind of con nection is left to be inferred ; as in the expressions iron ore, iron chain, iron heat, China orange, house door, &c. The the oretical distinction between the dative and accusative does not appear to be clearly marked ; but the general force of the former is to denote acquisition, and of the latter to designate the word, as the object of the action of verbs and their deriva tives. As to the ablative, there is scarcely room for doubt that it is merely a varia tion of the dative form, where indeed it has a form distinct from it. Probably in consequence of the elipsis of a preposi tion, this form has by degrees become the denotement of the cause, manner, or in strument of an action ; and this is now the primary force of the case when unat tended by prepositions. The changes which are made to denote connection have been formed by prefixing or affixing letters to the words themselves; and they might have been arbitrary, or gradually produced by the coalescence of words or abbreviations of words. The latter hy pothesis is in every respect so very pro bable, that nothing seems requisite to prove it to have been the general proce dure of language, but to show that it has actually occurred in some instances. It has been for some time the prevailing opinion among philosophical philolo gists, and it has acquired great support from the discoveries of Mr. H. Tooke. He states it without any limit, in the fol lowing manner " All those common ter minations, in any language, of which all nouns or verbs in that language equally partake (under the notion of declension or conjugation) are themselves separate words, with distinct meanings ; which,are therefore added to the different nouns, or verbs, because those additional meanings are intended to be added occasionally to all those nouns or verbs. These termina tions are all explicable, and ought to be explained." In fact, the progress of the coalescence has been detected in some of the most refined instances of it ; and in many cases to which system has not reach ed, the coalescence is universally allow ed. In the two principal cases of the Greek noun, in some at least of its forms of inflection, the origin of the change has been traced ; and all the cases of the Ile brew noun are obviously formed by pre fixing (instead of affixi ng,as in the Greek) significant words. The grammarian does not indeed allow that the changes of the Hebrew noun are cases : but such arbi trary distinctions serve only to render ob scurity more obscure. In the French, an and du are indisputably abbreviations of a le and de le : we can trace their cor ruption, and we are not obliged to sup. pose greater corruptions in more disputa= ble instances. What is the origin of the possessive termination of our nouns is ve ry uncertain. It is obviously the corres ponding Anglo Saxon termination ; but what is the origin of that ? We may hope to receive light upon this point, when the third part of " Epee Pteroenta" is laid before the public.