Quality, simply are, Well, ill, bravely, prudently, softly, with innumerable others formed from adjectives and participles. Certainty or Affirmation Contingence Negation Explaining Separation Conjunction Indication Interrogation Excess or Pre eminence Defect Equality Inequality Abatement or Gradation Verily, truly, undoubtedly, yea, yes, certainly. Perhaps, peradventure, perchance. Nay, no, not, nowise. Namely. Apart, separately, asunder. Together, generally, universally. Why, wherefore, when, how. Rather, chiefly, especially. }So, So, thus, as, equally. Else, otherwise. Piecemeal, scarcely, hardly. To or in a place Here, there, where. To a place, only, Hither, thither, whither. Towards a place Hitherward, thitherward, whither From a place Time present past ward. Hence, thence, whence. Now, to-day. Yesterday, before, heretofore, al ready, hitherto, lately. future Repetition of times indef. Definitely Order Quantity To-morrow, hereafter, presently, immediately, afterwards. Often, Often, seldom, frequently. Once, twice, thrice, again. On inquiring into the meaning and etymology of adverbs, it will appear, that most of them are abbreviations or contractions for two or more words. Thus, bravely, or "in a brave manner," is probably derived by abbreviation from brave-like, wisely from wise-like, happily from happy-like †. Mr. Tooke, indeed, has * Firstly is used by some writers. † Denominativa terminantur in lic vel lice, ut peplic, virilis, ælic legitimus, rœlic marinus piplic muliebris, &c. Hanc terminationem hodie mutavimus in like vel ly ut in godlike vel godly. Hickesii Thes. The correctness of this explanation has been controverted by Mr. Gilchrist, who contends that, though it may answer in some cases, it will fail " in nine times out of ten." In the expressions " weekly wages," " daily labour," " yearly income,” he observes, that the meaning cannot be, "wages like a week," " labour like a day," " income like a year." He rejects, therefore, this explanation, and considers the termination lic to be the same with lig in the Latin verb ligo, "to tie," or "join," and to have the same effect as other conjunctive particles, as, “a friendly part," "a friend's part," " yearly produce," "year's produce." Though a copious induction of examples justifies us in refusing our assent to Mr. Gilchrist's exaggerated statement, that the derivation proposed by Hickes will fail in nine cases out of ten, we candidly acknowledge; that in many instances it is inadmissible; and that Mr. Gilchrist's suggestion is ingenious, though it will be found, we apprehend, opposed by the same objection, as he urges against proved, as I conceive, incontrovertibly, that most of them are either corruptions of other words, or abbreviations of phrases or of sentences. One thing is certain, that the adverb is not an indispensable part of speech, as it serves merely to express in one word what perhaps would otherwise require two or more words. Thus, Where * denotes In what place To that place. Thither Hickes's explanation. Nor does it appear to us, that Mr. Gilchrist's argument subverts the doctrine generally received. The termination may have been originally what Hickes supposed, and the principle of analogy may, in time, have introduced similar compositions, when this meaning of the termination ceased to be regarded. Thus the term candidly, which we have just now used, was probably introduced, in conformity to analogy, with no reference whatever to the meaning of the termination. It may be here also observed, that the import of this term seems inexplicable, on the hypothesis that ly is a mere term of conjunction. * These three adverbs, denoting motion or rest in a place, are frequently employed by us, in imitation of the French, to denote motion to a place, in the same sense with the three following adverbs. It would be better, however, were the distinction observed. The French use ici for here and hither, là for there and thither, où for where and whither. CHAPTER VIII. OF PREPOSITIONS. A PREPOSITION has been defined to be "that part of speech which shows the relation that one thing bears to another." According to Mr. Harris, it is a part of speech, devoid itself of signification, but so formed, as to unite words that are significant, and that refuse to unite or associate of themselves. He has, therefore, compared them to pegs or pins, which serve to unite those parts of the building, which would not, by their own nature, incorporate or coalesce. When one considers the formidable objections, which present themselves to this theory, and that the ingenious author now quoted has, in defence of it, involved himself in palpable contradictions, it becomes matter of surprise, that it should have so long received from grammarians an almost universal and implicit assent. This furnishes one of many examples, how easily error may be imposed and propagated by the autho rity of a great name. But, though error may be repeatedly transmitted from age to age, unsuspected and unquestioned, it cannot be perpetuated. Mr. Horne Tooke has assailed this theory by irresistible arguments, and demonstrated, that in our language at least, prepositions are significant of ideas, and that, as far as import is concerned, they do not form a distinct species of words. It is not, indeed, easy to imagine, that men, in the formation of any language, would invent words insignificant, and to which, singly, they attached no determinate idea; especially when it is considered, that, in every stage of their existence, from rudeness to civilization, new words would perpetually be wanting to express new ideas. It is not, therefore, probable that, while they were under the necessity of framing new words, to answer the exigences of mental enlargement, and, while these demands on their invention were incessantly recurring, they would, in addition to this, encumber themselves with the idle and unnecessary task of forming new words to express nothing. | But, in truth, Harris himself yields the point, when he says, that prepositions, when compounded, transfuse something of their meaning into the compound; for they cannot transfuse what they do not contain, nor impart what they do not possess. They must, therefore, be themselves significant words. But it is not so much their meaning, with which the grammarian is concerned, as their syntactical character, their capacity of affecting other words, or being affected by them. In both these lights, however, I purpose to consider them. The name of preposition has been assigned to them, because they generally precede their regimen, or the word which they govern. What number of |