through the press, has occupied the intervals of a laborious profession for the last two years: he is aware that in a task so uninviting and tedious, many errors must have escaped his correction; he trusts that they will not be found material, and he confidently leaves them to the candour and indulgence of the reader. Grammar School, Leeds, Nov. 15, 1824. CONTENTS. Page. Sect. I. Of the Noun, and particularly the Noun § 1. Of the Denominations of the Noun, parti- § 5. Of the Four Kinds of Conjugation, or Four Of the Periphrastic Conjugation CHAP. IV. Of the Significations of Words. PART II. Of the Construction of Words. III. Of the Combination of Nouns Adjective, Pro- nouns Adjective, and Participles with IV. Of the Use of the Nominative . § 1. Of the Subject or principal Nominative PRELIMINARY REMARKS. $ 1. LATIN Grammar is, an introduction to the Latin language: more accurately, an introduction to such an acquaintance with the words, that occur in the ancient Roman writers, particularly the writers of what is commonly called the golden age, which are principally read; both singly with regard to pronunciation, spelling, division, and signification, and especially in their construction, and connexion, that, assisted by the knowledge of things and an experienced judgment, we may not only understand these writers without difficulty, feel their beauties, faults, and peculiarities, and mark, what the Latin language has in common with other languages, and what peculiar, but also imitate them closely, both in prose and verse. This sort of knowledge is termed grammatical: therefore a philologist is the same with a grammarian or critic. Introductions of this kind are also generally called grammars: and since they are mostly scanty, imperfect, and chiefly occupied in minutiæ, the word grammar has acquired a contemptible signification. Grammar is, however, in some degree, the same as good sense, i. e. the true knowledge of the language, which a man uses. Note 1.) Since each word is a thought, it is obvious, that no one can learn to understand a language correctly, unless he also learn to think. Learning of languages is not a mere exercise of memory, unless it is inade so: and those who make it So, attain no great proficiency. In explaining the ancients, therefore, regard must always be paid to ideas, and expression. 2.) If all Latin writers thought, and expressed their thoughts in the same way, grammar would be easy. But Cicero, Livy, Cæsar, Virgil, Horace, &c., had all different modes of thought and expression. Cicero, moreover, expresses the same thought differently in different places, &c. 3.) We must not confound the knowledge of their language, with understanding the ancients. It is not, e. g. the same thing to read Cicero, Virgil, &c., and to learn Latin: otherwise it would be the same thing to read these authors and Corderius' colloquies in the same way, to read Shakespeare, Milton, &c. is not the same thing as to learn English. It is very true, that in reading those authors, we acquire Latin expressions and constructions, but the other things, which may be learnt from them, are still more important, and it is on this account, that they are read. We might otherwise be content with Corderius. A teacher therefore errs, who in Nepos, Cicero, &c., directs the scholar's attention, only to words and phrases, and consequently treats these like inferior works. We should acquire from them, ideas, history, expression, refinement, politeness, &c. 4.) Since words are the expression of thoughts, the Latin language cannot be better learnt, than from the explanation of the ancients, when it is properly directed. 1 5.) A grammar can propose only general notions, and is therefore always imperfect. We must not imagine that we know all, even if we have the whole grammar by heart. The grammar only affords assistance: the rest must be acquired from |