INTRODUCTION. то ENGLISH GRAMMAR: WITH CRITICAL NOTES. A NEW EDITION, CORRECTED. Nam ipfum Latine loqui, eft illud quidem in magna laude po- PRINTED FOR WILLIAM OSBORNE, M.DCC.XC1. THE PREFACE. THE English Language hath been much cultivated during the last two hundred years. It hath becn confiderably polifhed 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 profe, upon all fubjects, and in every kind of ftyle: but, whatever other improvement's it may have received, it hath made no advances in Grammatical Accarracy. Hooker is one of the earliest writers, of confiderable note, within the period abovementioned: let his writings be compared with the best of those of more modern date; and, I believe, it will be found, that in correctness, propriety, and purity of English ftyle, he hath hardly been furpaffed, or even equalled, by any of his fucceffors. It is now about fifty years, fince Doctor Swift made ́ a public remonftrance, addressed to the Earl of Oxford, then Lord Treasurer, concerning the imperfect State of our Language; alledging 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 best, of our profe writers. Indeed the juftness of this complaint, as far as I can find, hath never been queftioned; and yet no effectual method hath hitherto been taken to redress the grievance, which was the objea of it. But let us confider, how, and in what extent, we are to understand this charge brought against the English 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 Spoken by the politeft 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. Or does it further im ply, that our Language is in its nature irregular and capricious; not hitherto subject, nor easily reducible, to a Syftem of rules? In this respect, I am perfuaded, the charge is wholly without foundation. The English Language is perhaps of all the prefent Furopean Languages by much the moft fimple in its form and conftruction. Of all the ancient Languages extant That is the most fimple, which is undoubtedly the most antient but even that Language itself does not equal the English in Simplicity. The The words of the English Language are perhaps fubject to fewer variations from their original form, than thofe of any other. Its fubftantives have but one variation of Cafe; nor have they any diftin&tion of Gender, befide that which nature hath made. Its Adjectives admit of no change at all, except that which expresses the degrees of comparison. All the pffible variations of the original form of the Verb are not above fix or seven z whereas in many Languages they amount to fome bundreds and almoft the whole business of Modes, Times, and Voices, is managed with great ease 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 fyftematical Syntax. The English Grammar, which hath been laft prefented to the public, and by the Perfon beft qualified to have given us a perfect one, comprifes the whole Syntax in ten lines: for this reafon, "becaufe aur Language has fo little inflection, that its conftruction neither requires nor admits many rules. In truth, the eafier any fubject is in its own nature, the harder is it to make it more eafy by explanation; and nothing is more unnecessary, and at the fame time commonly more difficult, than to give a demonftration in form of a propofition almoft felf-evident. It doth not then proceed from any peculiar irregu larity 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 A 3 the |