Encyclopaedia Britannica; or, A dictionary of arts and sciences, compiled upon a new plan … > Volume 2, C-L

HAN ( 863 ) LAN
fsfe the energy of this exprefljon into any language whofe
verbs are regularly infle&ed.
In the fame manner we might go through all the other
tenfea, and (hew that the fame fuperiority is to be found
in each —Thus in the perfett tenfe of the Latins, in-
ftead of the fimple amavi, we fay, I have loved;
and by the liberty we have of putting the emphafis upon
any of the words which compofe this phrafe, we can in
the moft accurate manner fix the precife idea which we
mean to excite: for if we fay 1 have loved, with the
emphafis upon the word I, it at once points out the per-
fori as the principal obje<5 in that phrafe, and makes us
naturally look for a contraft in fome other perfon, and
the other parts of the phrafe become fubordinate to
it ;•—“ he has /orerfthee much, but I have loved thee in¬
finitely more ”—The Latins too, as they were not pro¬
hibited from joining the pronoun with their verb, were
alfo acquainted with this excellence, which Virgil has
beautifully ufed in this verfe:
Nos patriam fuglmus ;
Tu, Tytere, lent is .in umbra, See.
But we are not only enabled thus to diftinguifh the
perfen in as powerful a manner as the Latins, but can alfo
with the fame facility point out any of the other circum-
ftances as principals ; for if we fay, with the emphafis up¬
on the word i/<w, “ I have loved,” it as naturally points
out the time as the principal objeft, and makes us look for
a contra6t in that peculiarity, /have: “ I have loved
indeed;—my imagination has been led aftray—my reafon
has been perverted:—but, now that time has opened my
eyes, I can fmile at thofe imaginary diftreffes which Once
perplexed me.”—In the fame manner we can put the em¬
phafis upon the other word of th6 phrafe loved,—“ I have
loved.”—Here the pafiion is exhibited as the principal
circiimftance; and as this can never be excited without
fomeobjeft, we naturally wi(h to know the objedt of that
pafion—“Who! what have you/ove/r”’ are the natural
quedions we would put in his cafe. ‘T have loved
Eliza.” In this manner we are, On all occafions,
enabled to exprefs, with the utmod precifion, that par¬
ticular idea which \ye would wi(h to excite, fo as to
give an energy and perfpicuity to the language, which
can never be attained by thofe languages whofe verbs are
conjugated by inflexion; and if to this we add theincon-
Convenience which all infledted languages are fubjedfed to,
by having too fmall a number of tenfes, fo as to be com¬
pelled to make one word on many occafions fupply the
place of two, three, or even four, the balance is turned dill
more in our favours.—Thus.inLatin, the fame word am a-
bo dands for Jhall or will love, fo that the reader is left
to guefs from the context which of the two meanings it
was molt likely the writer had in view.'—In the fame
manner, may or can love are exprefied by the fame word
Amem; as is alfo' might, could, would, or fhould love, by
the fingle word amarem, as we have already obferved ;
fo that the reader is left to guefs which of thefe fourmean-
ingsthe writer intended to exprefs; which occafions a per¬
plexity very different from that clear precifion which our
language allows of, by not only pointing out the different
words, but alfb by allowing us to put the emphafis upon
any of them we pleafe, which fuperadds energy and force
to the precifion it would have had without that of affid-
ance.
Upon the whole, therefore, after the mod canditf exa¬
mination, we mud conclude, that the method of conjuga¬
ting verbs by inflettion is inferior to that which is perform¬
ed by the \\z\y aiauxiliaries \—becaufeit does not afford
fuch a diverfity of founds,—nor allow fuch variety in the
arrangement of expreffion for the fame thought,—nor
give fo much didin&ion and precifion in the meaning
It is, however, attended with one confiderable advantage
above the other method: for as the words of which it is
formed are necelfarily of greater length, and more fono-
rous, than in the analogous languages, it admits of a more
flowing harmony of expreflion ; for the number of mono-
fyllables in this lad greatly checks that pompous dignity
which naturally refults from longer words. Whether
this fingle advantage is fufficient to counterbalance all the
other defeds with which it is attended, is left to the
judgment of the reader to determine :—but we may re¬
mark, before we quit the fubjed, that even this excel¬
lence is attended with fome peculiar inconveniences, which
fhall be more particularly pointed out in the fequel.
But perhaps it might dill be objeded, that the com-
parifon we have made above, although it may be fair,
and the conclufion jud with regard to the Latin and
Englifh languages; yet it does not appear clear, that
on that account the method of conjugating verbs by in¬
flexion is inferior to that by auxiliaries: for although it
be allowed, that the Latin language is defedive in
point of tenfes; yet if a language wrere formed which
had a fufficient number of infleded tenfes to anfwer every
purpofe; if it had, for indance, a word properly formed
for every variation of each tenfe; one for / love, an¬
other for I do love; one for / Jhall, another for /
will love; one for Insight, another for I could, and would,
and Jhouldlo'se; and fo on through all the other tenfes ;
that this lanouage would not be liable to the objedions
we have brought againd the infledion of verbs; and
that of courfe, the objedions we have brought are only
valid againd thofe languages which have followed that
mode and executed it imperfedly. We anfwer, that
although this would in fomemeafure remedy the-evil, yet
it would not remove it entirely. For in the fird place, un-
lefs every verb, or a very fmall. number of verbs, was
conjugated in one way, having the found of the words in
each tenfe, and divifions of tenfes, as we may fay, different
from all the other conjugations,—it would always occa-
fion a famenefs of founds which would in fome meafure
prevent that variety of founds fo proper for a language.
And even if this could be efFeded, it would not give fucb
a latitude to the exprelfion as auxiliaries allow : for al¬
though there (hould be two words, one for / might, and
another for I could love ; yet as thefe are (ingle words,
they cannot be varied ; whereas, by auxilaries, either of
thefe can be varied twenty-four different ways, as has
been (hewn above.—In the lad place, no fingle word
can ever exprefs all that variety of meaning which we
can do by the help of our auxilaries and the emphafis.
/ have lovid, if exprefled by any one word, could only
denote at all times one didind meaning ; fo that, to give
it