It might, however, be objected to the whole reasoning here employed, that, if all sentences appear to be impe ratives, there is no meaning in supposing those words which are usually called imperatives of verbs to be the earliest parts of speech, and in deriving from that con sideration the brevity of their form. These particularities should at least imply that they differ from other impera tives. The nature and consequences of this difference re quire therefore to be pointed out. When we use the im perative of a verb of action, the name of the act expresses our Intimate wish, viz. the wish that the person addressed should perform it. Its name is originally contrived for this particular purpose. When we use it for other pur poses, these require to be stated; and even the mere ab sence of the imperative use is denoted by the additional signs which we have already mentioned as distinguishing the infinitive of the verb. When we direct a person to *hill!: of objects of other kinds, each object may admit of being expressed by a very brief sign. But, for the most part, various circumstances require to be specified. Our intentions respecting any object admit of considerable la titude, and are to be particularized on each occasion by the indication of a connection betwixt that object and some others, or betwixt it and some voluntary effort which we dictate to the individual addressed. These relations, being various, require signs to distinguish them ; and these signs, being generally in the form of terminations, give rise to the greater length of the words. But even in those instances in which the word used for an imperative suffers no change in its form when converted into a noun or any different part of speech, it cannot like an imperative, stand alone to form a sentence. Though not lengthened by the addition of a syllable, it requires to be accompanied by some other word.
We have maintained that every noun implies an impe rative act of demonstration, or a call for attention ; but it may be objected, that, as this is necessary to all language, and does not serve to distinguish one word from another, it cannot be said to be contained in the word, though im plied in the act of speaking. Speech may have an impera tive character, and yet it may not follow that its materials consist of imperatives alone. The names of surrounding objects may not be necessarily considered as expressive of different imperative acts, like the imperatives of different verbs. When we resolved the copula " is" into an impe rative, this, perhaps, appeared an excessive refinement, and ;strained attempt to give exclusive support to a par ticular system. It may appear sufficient for the mainte nance of our fundamental theory, to keep in mind that a note of attention is implied in the act of speaking. If these views seem to our scientific readers more just than those which have been here suggested, Nye shall not, on so ab struse and so nice a point, urge any farther argument, but leave the preceding observations to their deliberate reflections. We have endeavoured to make as near an
approach as possible to the formation of a general theory on the nature of sentences. But the views which we have given are not all essential to those that are to follow. The latter will, we hope, exhibit evidences of their own, in dependently of the consent of our readers to give to those contained in the present Chapter, a strict application in every particular to the parts of speech.
Language must be regarded by all as an instrument by which we direct the thoughts of one another. It has thus an undoubted imperative character, and this character re ceives subordinate variations, depending on the mutual re lations of the speaker and the person addressed, with re ference to the subject upon which it is employed. It in cludes four forms of influence, which have been already alluded to, and shall now be enumerated. 1st, We influ ence one another to exert the powers of voluntary motion. This gives rise to Imperatives in their acknowledged form. 2d, We direct the attention of one another to all the varie ties of objects already mutually known. This gives occa sion to the contrivance of Names to represent them. 3d, We influence one another's opinions and state of know ledge. This gives rise to the words which are particu larly subservient to Assertion. 4th, We influence one another to communicate specific information. This gives rise to Interrogatives.
Though we have already given some account of the dif ferences of words as subservient to these different uses, there are many varieties, as well as many analogies of form and use among them, which have not come under our consideration. The analysis of these will throw light on the general faculty of speech, and will furnish some rules for preserving us from mistakes in language, and from mistakes of greater importance regarding the diversified subjects to which language is applied. The remaining Chapters of this article will ne occupied in investigating the differences which are commonly considered as consti tuting the different parts of speech.
Of the Parts of Speech.
THESE have been variously enumerated. Grammarians These have been variously enumerated. Grammarians have not only differed in their arrangements, but in the number of parts of speech which they have allowed. The character of a particular language may, in some instances, determine the propriety of an arrangement in so far as con cerns itself alone. The Latin language has no word ex actly corresponding to the article O,`4, TO, in the Greek, and the in English. Those therefore who consider these words as the only definite articles in these two languages will consider the Latin language as possessing no such word ; the circumstance denoted by it in other languages being left to be inferred from the connection.