THE HE English Language hath been much cultivated during the last two hundred years. It bath 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 profe, 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 earliest writers, of confiderable note, within the period above-mentioned: let his writings be compared with the best of those of modern date; and, I believe, it will be found, that in correctness, A 2 pro propriety, and purity of English ftyle, he hath hardly been furpaffed, or even equaled, 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 State of our Language; alleging in particular," that in many 66 inftances it offended against every part of "Grammar." Swift must be allowed to have been a good judge of this matter; to which be 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 justness of this complaint, as far as I can find, bath never been questioned; and yet no effectual method bath hitherto been taken to redress the grievance, which was the abject of it. w But let us confider, bow, and in what extent, we are to understand this charge brought against the English Language: for the Author Seems not to have explained himself with fuf ficient ficient clearness and precision on this head. Does it mean, that the English Language, as it is fpoken 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 imply, that our Language is in its nature irregular and capricious; not hitherto fubje&t, nor easily reducible, to a System of rules? In this respect, I am perfuaded, the charge is wholly without foundation. The English Language is perhaps of all the prefent European Languages by much the most fimple in its form and conftruction. Of all the antient Languages extant That is the most Simple, which is undoubtedly the most antient; but even that Language itfelf does not equal the English in fimplicity. The words of the English Language are perhaps Jubject to fever variations from their original form, than thofe of any other. Its Subftantives have but one variation of Cafe; nor have they any distinction of Gender, beA 3 fide side that which nature hath 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 a in many Languages they amount to fome bundreds: and almost the whole business of Modes, Times, and Voices, is managed with great ease by the affiftance of eight or nine commodious little Kerbs, called from their ufe Auxiliaries. The Conftruction of this Language is so easy 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 last prefented to the public, and by the Person best qualified to have given us a perfect one, comprifes the whole Syntax in ten lines: for this reafon;" because our Language has fo little 1 inflexion, that its conftruction neither requires "nor admits many rules." In truth, the eafter any fubject is in its own nature, the barder is it to make it more eafy by explanation; and nothing is more unneceffary, and at. the |