Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1826-11-02

thoughts good deal upon these subjects, you
NAV safely allow him a week to consider OF his
answer" He adds, "the proposition Of denotes
relation in general, considered in concrete with
the corrplatiye object 1t marks, that the noun
substantive which goes before il, is somehow or
other related to thar which comes after 1t, but
without in any respect asceraining, as is done
by the proposition aboue, what is the peculiar na-
tire of that relation. We often apply it, there
fore. to express the most opposite relatiens be-
cause the most opposite relations agree SO tar
that each Of them comprehends in it the gene
raj idea or nature Of relation. We say, the
Father of the Son, and the Son Of the Father; the
Gr trees of the forest, and the forest Of Inc r reeS
The relation'in which the Father stands to the
Son, is, evidently, a quite opposite relation 10
that in which the Son stands to the Father: that
| in which the parts stand to the Whole, IS quite
opposite to that in which the whoie stands TO the
parfs. The word OF, however, serves very wei.
to denote all those relations, because, in Itself,
il deno1es no particular relation, but only rela-
ton in general; and so far as any particular re-
| lation is collected from such expressions, 1t is
inferred by the mind, not from the proposition
itself. and alone, but from the nature and ar
rcngenaent of the substantives between which the
proposition is placed" Now, let us apply these
views of this proposition, to the sentences con-
| demned by Mr.. Brown. "Language is the
principal uehicle of thought" Here the "nature
and arrangement, Of the nouns require, that, OF,
be considered as expressing the relation OF pos
session. Language is the vehicle belonging. to
thought; and not " made om Of thought, as Mr..
Brown would infer. Again, "Christisnlty may
be defined the love and service Of God" Here,
also, the nature, and arrangement, oil the sub
s,ahlves demand the possessive character OF
the proposition. The proposition here sheWs
| the relation between love, sc. and man. ne
nature and arrangement Of the s0bstantlVeS, IN
this sentence require, that, God, the noun IN
the genitive, be taken in pass1Ue sense lhe
sacred writer says, the Fear Of God is the be-
ginning of wisdom" Would this sentence e.
YER suggest to the mind of any one, except the
author Of the American Grammar, that the Di-
vine Being is possessed of fear? But there is
vet ano,herpoin, of view in which this parti-
| Gle, Of may be regarded. Let US attend to
| thai uneqnalled master in philoogy, Horne
Tooke He, indeed, is no admlrer OF the me-
| .aphysical distractions, congratulations, and o.
Their iargon of the major part Of philosophers;
but, on the contrary, has laboured very plausl-
bly,, if not successfully, in endeavoring TO de-
monstrate, that it is to the misapprehenslons OF
philosophers, relative to the nature and use OF
language, mankind are indebted, for many OF
those errors and mischiefs, alike reproachtul to
philosophy, and injurious 10 the best interests
of society.
In whatever manner men, either acquire, or
EXPRESS, their notions ofrela,ons; whether they
consider relation abstracledly or as in concrete,
and whether they express it by varying the ter
| m ination of the names of things, or by words
now called propositions, yet, according to
Tooke, they did not, at any time, late or early,
institute propositions as peculiar species OF
general terms, to express relation, and nothing
but relation; otherwise every language would,
necessarily. have the same number Gf preposl-
tons; unless, indeed, both the natural relations
of things, and the operations OF the human IN
tellect, are different, in different regions OF the
world But, so far from It's being true, that nH
Joneuoees possess the same number of prepo-
stions no t,Uo of them are alike in this respect;
and. indeed no t,oo Wrters agree as 10 the num-
her Of propositions in any one language, except
the Greek; and, what may appear more aston
ishing is yet a fact, proved by very competent
authority, that, not many years since, there
existed in our own country, language which
was very extensively spoken, and which was
entirely destitute of propositions Bat, "re-
renons amos moutons:" Let us return to our sheep.
|, has already been stated, that Horne Iooke
has proved, that the proposition, OF, is OF
Saxon origin 1t may be added, that, II was
primarily, in the language ofthe Ango-Saxons,
noun signifying Offspring, follower, conse-
quence sc - 1t has the same ancient and hon
durable origin as the free spirit of English and
American Jurisprudence, the common law, and
the trial by jury: and as il is our high felicity
to retain these, notwithstanding the efforts OF
political tyrants and the violence OF civil revolu-
ionists, so, we have, here, an occasion to admire
the same tenacious and unconquered spirit OF
saxon independence, in the obstinate fidelity OF
this their ''oBspring" for this daughter Of Earth,
this saxon princess, Gas she may be called from
her fidelity, and important services to all who
speak English,) has, always, from the begin
ming, spoken the same invariable language not
wihstanding the mal,reatmeDt of ignorant
Grammarians. Of all the propositions in our
language, there is none so frequently used, as
Of i, is found in almost every sentence; and
in every place, and association OF words, It's
true to its primitive meaning, offspring;
which it always suggests, more or less distinct
w. according as i, is used, in its primitive Sig