defect of our own antient language, from a paucity of Adjectives; you have been pleased (I know not on what foundation) to suppose that the want of an adjective termination was originally the case with all terms in the rude state of all languages. But this is only your supposition in order to support your own theory. Does there, from all antiquity, remain a single instance, or even the mention or suspicion of an instance, of any language altogether without Adjectives?

H.-Though nothing of the kind should remain, it will not in the least affect my explanation nor weaken my reasoning.

F.-But, if there were such an instance; or even any traditional mention made of such a circumstance; it would very much strengthen your argument in my opinion, and more readily induce my assent.

H.-I suppose you are not so obstinately attached to Antiquity, but that a modern instance would answer the purpose

as well.

F.--Any instance of the fact from sufficient authority.

H.—Then I believe I can suit you.-Doctor Jonathan Edwards, D.D., Pastor of a church in New-haven, in "Observations on the language of the MUHHEKANEEW Indians, communicated to the Connecticut Society of Arts and Sciences, published at the request of the Society, and printed by Josiah Meigs, 1788," gives us the following account.

"When I was but six years of age, my father removed with his family to Stockbridge, which at that time was inhabited by Indians almost solely. The Indians being the nearest neighbours, I constantly associated with them; their boys were my daily school-mates and play-fellows. Out of my father's house, I seldom heard any language spoken beside the Indian. By these means I acquired the knowledge of that language, and a great facility in speaking it it became more familiar to me than my mother-tongue. I knew the names of some things in Indian, which I did not know in English: even all my thoughts ran in Indian; and though the true pronunciation of the language is extremely difficult to all but themselves, they acknowledged that I had acquired it perfectly; which, as they said, never had been acquired before by any Anglo-American."

After this account of himself, he proceeds,

"The language which is now the subject of Observation, is that of the Muhhekaneew, or Stockbridge Indians. They, as well as the tribe at New London, are by the Anglo-Americans called Mohegans. This language is spoken by all the Indians throughout New England. Every tribe, as that of Stockbridge, of Farmington, of New London, &c., has a different dialect; but the language is radically the same. Mr. Elliot's translation of the Bible is in a particular dialect of this language. This language appears to be much more extensive than any other language in North America. The languages of the Delawares in Pennsylvania; of the Penobscots, bordering on Nova Scotia ; of the Indians of St. Francis, in Canada; of the Shawanese, on the Ohio; and of the Chippewaus, at the westward of Lake Huron; are all radically the same with the Mohegan. The same is said concerning the languages of the Ottowans, Nanticooks, Munsees, Menomonees, Messisaugas, Saukies, Ottagaumies, Killistinoes, Nipegons, Algonkins, Winnebagoes, &c. That the languages of the several tribes in New England, of the Delawares, and of Mr. Elliot's Bible, are radically the same with the Mohegan, I assert from my own knowledge."

་

Having thus given an account of himself, and of his knowledge of the language; of the extensiveness of this language; and of a translation of a Bible into this language; he proceeds (in page 10) to inform us, that

"The Mohegans have no Adjectives in all their language. Although it may at first seem not only singular and curious, but impossible, that a language should exist without Adjectives, yet it is an indubitable fact."

CHAPTER VII.

OF PARTICIPLES.

F-LET us proceed, if you please, to the PARTICIPLE; which, you know, is so named because-" partem capit a

Nomine, partem a Verbo.”—“ Ortum a Verbo," says Scaliger, "traxit secum tempora et significationem, adjunxitque generi et casibus."—" Ut igitur Mulus," says Vossius, "asini et equæ, unde generatur, participat indolem ; ita hujus classis omnia et nominis et verbi participant naturam: unde, et merito, Participia nominantur.”

I have a strong curiosity to know how you will dispose of this Mule, (this tertium quid,) in English; where the Participle has neither Cases nor Gender; and which (if I understood you rightly some time since) you have stripped also of Time. We certainly cannot say that it is, in English,—“ Pars orationis cum tempore et Casu :" or, " Vox variabilis per Casus, significans rem cum tempore." Indeed since, by your account, it takes nothing from the Verb, any more than from the Noun; its present name ought to be relinquished by us : for at all events it cannot be a PARTICIPLE in English. This however will not much trouble you for, though Scaliger declares the PARTICIPLE to exist in language "necessitate quadam ac vi naturæ ;" you, by denying it a place amongst the Parts of Speech, have decided that it is not a necessary word, and perhaps imagine that we may do as well without it.

H.-I fear you have mistaken me. I did not mean to deny the adsignification of Time to ALL the Participles; though I continue to withhold it from that which is called the Participle Present.

F-All the Participles! Why, we have but Two in our language-The Present and the Past.

H.-We had formerly but two. But so great is the convenience and importance of this useful Abbreviation; that our authors have borrowed from other languages, and incorporated with our own, Four other Participles of equal value. We are obliged to our old translators for these new Participles. I wish they had understood what they were doing at the time: and had been taught by their wants the nature of the advantages which the learned languages had over ours. They would then perhaps have adopted the contrivance itself into our own language, instead of contenting themselves with taking individually the terms which they found they could

not translate. But they proceeded in the same manner with these new Participles, as with the new Adjectives I before mentioned to you: they did not abbreviate their own language in imitation of the others; but took from other languages their abbreviations ready made. And thus again the foreigner, after having learned all our English verbs, must again have recourse to other languages in order to understand the meaning of many of our Participles.

I cannot however much blame my countrymen for the method they pursued, because the very nations who enjoyed these advantages over us, were not themselves aware of the nature of what they possessed at least so it appears by all the accounts which they have left us of the nature of Speech; and by their distribution and definitions of the parts of which it is composed and their posterity (the modern Greeks and the Italians) have been punished for the ignorance or carelessness of their ancestors, by the loss of great part of these advantages: which I suppose they would not have lost, had they known what they were.

As for the term PARTICIPLE, I should very willingly get rid of it for it never was the proper denomination of this sort of word. And this improper title, I believe, led the way to its faulty definition: and both together have caused the obstinate and still unsettled disputes concerning it; and have prevented the improvement of language, in this particular, generally through the world.

The elder Stoics called this word-" Modum Verbi casualem." And in my opinion they called it well: except only that, instead of Casualem, they should have said Adjectivum; for the circumstance of its having Cases was only a consequence of its Adjection. But this small error of theirs cannot be wondered at in them, who, judging from their own transposed language, had no notion of a Noun, much less of an Adjective of any kind, without Cases.

I desire therefore, instead of PARTICIPLE, to be permitted to call this word generally a Verb adjective. And I call it by this new name, because I think it will make more easily intelligible what I conceive to be its office and nature.

This kind of word, of which we now speak, is a very useful

Abbreviation for we have the same occasion to adjective the VERB as we have to adjective the NOUN. And, by means of a distinguishing termination, not only the simple Verb itself, but every Mood, and every Tense of the verb, may be made adjective, as well as the Noun. And accordingly some languages have adjectived more, and some languages have adjectived fewer of these Moods and Tenses.

And here I must observe that the Moods and Tenses themselves are merely Abbreviations: I mean that they are nothing more than the circumstances of Manner and Time, added to the Verb in some languages by distinguishing terminations.

When it is considered that our language has made but small progress, compared either with the Greek or with the Latin (or some other languages) even in this Modal and Temporal abbreviation: (for we are forced to perform the greatest part of it by what are called Auxiliaries, i. e. separate words signifying the added circumstances ;) when this is considered, it will not be wondered at, that the English, of itself, could not proceed to the next abbreviating step, viz. of adjectiving those first Abbreviations of Mood and Tense, which our language had not: and that it has therefore been obliged to borrow many of the advantages of this kind which it now enjoys, either mediately or immediately from those two first-mentioned languages. And when it is considered, that the nature of these advantages was never well understood, or at least not delivered down to us, even by those who enjoyed them; it will rather be matter of wonder that we have adopted into our language so many, than that we have not taken all.

This sort of word is therefore by no means the same with a Noun adjective (as Sanctius, Perizonius and others after them have asserted). But it is a Verb adjective. And yet what Perizonius says, is true-" Certe omnia quæ de Nomine adjectivo affirmantur, habet Participium." This is true. The Participle has all that the Noun adjective has and for the same reason, viz. for the purpose of Adjection. But it has likewise something more than the Noun adjective has: because the Verb has something more than the Noun. And that something more, is not (as Perizonius proceeds to assert) only the -adsignification of Time. For every Verb has a signification of