Ch. 6. not be applied to the predicate in fuch propofitions as the one I have mentioned.

But what fhall we fay of the propofition mentioned by Aristotle, ndorn tσTI Tò αyator? This propofition he fays is different from the following, don t άyator; so that, according to Aristotle, the addition of the article makes a difference of the fenfe, and therefore ὁ άνθρωπος ἐστι τὸ ζῶον is a different propofition from ὁ άνθρωπος ἐστι ζῶον. Thus much then is established by the authority of Aristotle. But what is the meaning of this propofition concerning pleasure? for Ariftotle has not told us, but has left us to guess. Philoponus his commentator, in the paffage above quoted *, *. thinks that it is a predication of the first kind above mentioned, by which the general is predicated of the particular under it; and he makes on to be the genus, and ayafor yatır the fpecies; fo that the propofition is, that good is a fpecies of pleasure, as man is a fpecies of animal. But by what rule does he fo determine? why may not żyɑfor be the genus, as well as orn? I think there is nothing either in the sense, or the expreffion, to make us determine otherwife.

Comm, in Analyt, prior. pag. 85.

But

But my opinion is, that it is not a propo- Ch. 6. fition of that kind; but that the meaning is, that the idea of pleasure, that is, the

orn, is the fame with the idea of good, or the τὸ ἀγαθον ; fo that they are only two names for the fame thing.

Befides thefe ufes of the article, there is another that I have already mentioned when I was treating of nouns, viz. that of making fubftantives of adjectives, and of certain parts of verbs. But of this it is needless to say more, as the only use of the article, in fuch cafes, is to mark, that the word to which it is joined is ufed as a noun, though it have not the form of a noun; fo that it is truly not an article, but an indication of a noun.

From what is here faid of the article, the following definition of it may be collected. "It is the prefix of a noun,

denoting fimply that the noun to which "it is prefixed, is the fame with that which was before mentioned, or is otherwife "well known *.

"

The

I rank it, as well as the pronoun, under the noun; because it cannot be without the noun, and is truly a certain modification of the noun, though it do not fland

VOL. II.

K

for

Ch. 6.

The great use of it appears from what has been faid. And the want of it must be acknowledged a great defect in the Latin tongue, especially in philofophical writing; for the Latin, by reafon of this want, cannot distinguish the unity of the fpecies, from the multitude of individuals under it, nor the fpecies itself from any undetermined individual of it.It cannot diftinguish among individuals, those that are indefinite and unknown, from thofe that are definite and known.-It cannot distinguish betwixt the subject and the predicate of a propofition.-It cannot fimply refer to any object, without fome particular emphafis. And laftiy, It cannot connect together the fubjects of the discourse, by re

for the noun, as the pronoun does. It expreffes also the
accident of relation; fo that it is of those words that have
a mixed fignification, and participate both of noun and
verb. I have faid prefixed to a noun; and this is always
the cafe, though the following noun be fometimes not
expreffed, but understood, as in this expreffion, 'Extop xai
Σαρπηδῶν ἀκηρέθησαν, ὁ μὲν ὑπ' Αχιλέως ο δε ύπο Πατροκλο, where
'ExTop is understood as following the first article, and Sar-
pedon the fecond. I have faid that it fimply refers to
what is previously known, because in that way it is dif
tinguifhed, as I have obferved, from certain pronouns
which refer alfo,, but with a particular indication, or μerà
Js, as the Greek grammarians exprefs it.

ferring

ferring them one to another, but leaves the Ch. 6. reader or hearer to guess, whether they be

the fame that were mentioned before or not.

Of the ufe of the article in French and Englifb.

'HE learned grammarian, if any fuch Ch.7;

THE

shall deign to read my work, may perhaps find fault that I should, in this inquiry into the nature of a language of art, fpend any time upon languages that have not been formed according to the rules of art, by grammarians and philofophers, as the Greek language undoubtedly was, but have grown out of vulgar ufe, being mongrel dialects, and the corrup tion of better languages, from which they derive any thing good that is in them. But we ought to confider, that fuch as they are, they are now almost the only languages in which even the learned write, fince the writing in Greek, which was never much practifed in the western world,

Ch. 7. is now entirely given over, and the writing in Latin very much difused, or fo ufed that it were better altogether laid afide likewife. In fuch circumstances, it is of importance that the feveral languages of Europe, now almost the only languages in which fcience is delivered, fhould be cultivated and improved, as much as their ftinted genius, and original faulty conftitution, will admit. And our Englifh is, among thofe dialects, one that I think more capable of improvement than any other. Befides, the perfection of fuch a language as the Greek, is never better feen than when contrafted by the defects of lefs perfect languages. Having faid thus much by way of apology for this chapter, I proceed.

The ufe of the article is, no doubt, a great advantage which both the French and English have over the Latin: An advantage which they derive from their northern ancestors; for the French, though it be for the greater part corrupted Latin, has a great mixture in it of the Teutonic and Celtic; and the English, we know, is a dialect of the Teutonic or German, the parent of which is the Gothic, a language,

as