THE

PREFACE.

THE English, Language hath been much cultiva❤

ted during the last two hundred years. It hath been confiderably polished and refined; its bounds have been greatly enlarged; its energy, variety, richness, and elegance, have been abundantly proved, by numberless trials, in verfe and in prose, upon all subjects, and in every kind of style: but, whatever other improvements it may have received, it hath made no advances in Grammatical Accuracy. Hooker is one of the earlieft writers, of confiderable note, within the period above-mentioned: let his writings be compared with the best of thofe of more modern date; and, I believe, it will be found, that in corredness, propriety, and purity of English style, he bath hardly been furpassed, or even equalled, by any of his fucceffors.

It is now about fifty years, fince Doctor Swift made a public remonftrance, addreffed to the Earl of Oxford, then Lord Treasurer, concerning the imperfect

A 2

.66

imperfect State of our Language; alleging in particular, "that in many inftances it offended against every part of Grammar." Swift must be allowed to have been a good judge of this matter; to which he was himself very attentive, both in his own writings, and in his remarks upon those of his friends: he is one of the most correct, and perhaps the beft, of our profe writers. Indeed the jusiness of this complaint, as far as I can find, hath never been questioned; and yet no effectual method bath hitherto been taken to redress the grievance, which was the object of it.

But let us confider, how, and in what extent, we are to understand this charge brought against the Englifh Language: for the Author feems not to have explained himself with fufficient clearness and precision on this head. Does it mean, that the English Language, as it is fpoken by the politest part of the nation, and as it ftands in the writings of our most approved authors, often offends against every part of Grammar? Thus far, I am afraid, the charge is

true.

A

Or does it further imply, that our Languageis in its nature irregular and capricious; not hitherto fubject, nor easily reducible, to a System of rules? In this refpect, I am perfuaded, the charge is wholly without foundation.

The English Language is perhaps of all the preJent European Languages by much the moft fimple in. its form and conflruction. Of all the antient Lan

guages

guages extant That is the most fimple, which is undoubtedly the most antient; but even that Language itself does not equal the English in fimplicity.

The words of the English Language are perhaps fubject to fewer variations from their original form, than thofe of any other. Its Subftantives have but one variation of Cafe; nor have they any diftinction of Gender, befide that which nature bath made. Its Adjectives admit of no change at all, except that which expreffes the degrees of comparison. All the poffible variations of the original form of the Verb are not above fix or feven; whereas in many Languages they amount to fome hundreds and almost the whole business of Modes, Times, and Voices, is managed with great cafe by the affiftance of eight or nine commodious little Verbs, called from their ufe Auxiliaries. The Conftruction of this Language is fo eafy and obvious, that our Grammarians have thought it hardly worth while to give us any thing like a regular and systematical Syntax. The English Grammar, which hath been last prefented to the public, and by the Perfon best qualified to have given us a perfect one, comprises the whole Syntax in ten lines for this reafon; " because our "Language has fo little inflexion, that its conftruc"tion neither requires nor admits many rules." In truth, the easier any fubject is in its own nature, the harder is it to make it more eafy by explana tion; and nothing is more unnecessary, and at

the fame time commonly more difficult, than to give a formal demonstration of a propofition almost selfevident.

It doth not then proceed from any peculiar irregularity or difficulty of our Language, that the general practice both of speaking and writing it is chargeable with inaccuracy. It is not the Language, but the Practice, that is in fault." The truth is, Grammar is very much neglected among us: and it is not the difficulty of the Language, but on the contrary the fimplicity and facility of it, that occafions this neglect. Were the Language less easy and fimple, we should find ourselves under a neceffity of ftudying it with more care and attention. But as it is, we take it for granted, that we have a competent knowledge and skill, and are able to acquit ourselves properly, in our own native tongue a faculty, folely acquired by use, conducted by habit, and tried by the ear, carries us on without reflexion; we meet with no rubs or difficulties in our way, or we do not perceive them; we find ourfelves able to go on without rules, and we do not fo much as fufpect, that we stand in need of them.

A Grammatical Study of our own Language makes no part of the ordinary method of instruction, which "we pass through in our childhood; and it is very feldom that we apply ourselves to it afterward. Yet the want of it will not be effectually fupplied by any other ad"vantages whatsoever. Much practice in the polite qworld, and a general acquaintance with the best au

thors,

thors, are good helps; but alone will hardly be fuffi cient: we have writers, who have enjoyed thefe advantages in their full extent, and yet cannot be recom mended as models of an accurate ftyle. Much less then will what is commonly called Learning ferve the purpofe; that is, a critical knowledge of antient Languages, and much reading of antient authors: the greateft Critic and most able Grammarian of the last age, when he came to apply his Learning and his Griticifm to an English Author, was frequently at a lofs in matters of ordinary use and common conftruction in his own Vernacular Idiom.

But perhaps the Notes fubjoined to the following pages will furnish a more convincing argument, than any thing that can be faid here, both of the truth of the charge of Inaccuracy brought against our Language, as it fubfifts in Practice; and of the neceffity of inveftigating the Principles of it, and fludying it Grammatically, if we would attain to a due degree of skill in it. It is with reafon expected of every person of a liberal education, and it is indifpenfably required of every one who undertakes to inform or entertain the public, that he should be able to express himself with propriety and accuracy. It will evidently appear from thefe Notes, that our beft authors have committed grofs mistakes, for want of a due knowledge of English Grammar, or at least of a proper attention to the rules of it. The examples there given are fuch as occurred in reading, without any very curious or methodical

A 4.