_Adnoun_ or _Adjective_, comes from the Latin, _ad_ and _jicio_, to
_add to_.
Adnouns are a class of words added to nouns to vary their
comprehension, or to determine their extension. Those which effect
the former object, are called _adjectives_, or _attributes;_ and
those which effect the latter, _restrictives_. It is not, in all
cases, easy to determine to which of these classes an adnoun should
be referred. Words which express simply the _qualities_ of nouns,
are adjectives; and such as denote their _situation_ or _number_,
are restrictives.
Adjectives were originally nouns or verbs.
Some consider the adjective, in its present application, _exactly_
equivalent to a noun connected to another noun by means of
juxtaposition, of a preposition, or of a corresponding flexion. "A
_golden_ cup," say they, "is the same as a _gold_ cup, or a cup _of
gold_." But this principle appears to be exceptionable. "A cup _of
gold_," may mean either a cup-_full_ of gold, or a cup _made_ of
gold. "An _oaken_ cask," signifies an _oak_ cask, or a cask _of
oak_; i.e. a cask _made_ of oak; but a _beer_ cask, and a cask _of
beer_, are two different things. A _virtuous_ son; a son _of
virtue_.
The distinguishing characteristic of the adjective, appears to
consist in its both _naming_ a quality, and _attributing_ that
quality to some object.
The terminations _en, ed_, and _ig_ (our modern _y_,) signifying
_give, add, join_, denote that the names of qualities to which they
are postfixed, are to be attributed to other nouns possessing such
qualities: wood-_en_, wood-_y_. See page 37.
_Left_ is the past participle of the verb _leave_. Horne Tooke
defines _right_ to be that which is _ordered_ or _directed_. The
_right_ hand is that which your parents and custom direct you to use
in preference to the other. And when you employ that in preference,
the other is the _leaved, leav'd_, or _left_ hand; i.e. the one
_leaved_ or _left_. "The one shall be taken, and the other _(leaved)
left_."
_Own_. Formerly a man's _own_ was what he _worked for, own_ being a
past participle of a verb signifying to _work_.
_Restrictive_. Some restrictives, in modern times, are applied only
to singular nouns; such as _a_ or _an, another, one, this, that,
each, every, either_. Others, only to plural nouns; as, _these,
those, two, three, few, several, all_. But most restrictives, like
adjectives, are applied to both singular and plural nouns: _first,
second, last, the, former, latter, any, such, same, some, which,
what_.
_Numerals_. All numeration was, doubtless, originally performed by
the fingers; for the number of the fingers is still the utmost
extent of its signification. _Ten_ is the past participle of
_tynan_, to close, to shut in. The hands _tyned, tened_, closed, or
shut in, signified _ten_; for there numeration _closed_. To denote a
number greater than ten, we must begin again, _ten_ and _one, ten_
and _two_, &c.
_Twain, twa-in, twa-ain, twa-ane_, is a compound of _two (twa, twae,
twee, twi, two_ or _dwo_ or _duo)_ and _one (ane, ain, an.)_ It
signifies _two_ units _joined, united, aned,_ or _oned. Twenty
(twa-ane-ten)_ signifies _two tens aned, oned_, or _united_. Things
_separated_ into parcels of twenty each, are called _scores. Score_
is the past participle of _shear_, to _separate_.
_The Ordinals_ are formed like abstract nouns in _eth. Fifth,
sixth_, or _tenth_ is the number which _fiv-eth, six-eth, ten-eth_,
or mak-_eth_ up the number _five, six_, or _ten_.
Philosophical writers who limit our acceptation of words to that in
which they were _originally_ employed, and suppose that all the
complicated, yet often definable, associations which the gradual
progress of language and intellect has connected with words, are to
be reduced to _the standard of our forefathers_; appear not to have
sufficiently attended to the _changes_ which this principle of
association actually produces. As language is transmitted from
generation to generation, many words become the representatives of
ideas with which they were not originally associated; and thus they
undergo a change, not only in the _mode_ of their application, but
also in their meaning. Words being the signs of things, their
meaning must necessarily change as much, _at least_, as things
themselves change; but this variation in their import more
frequently depends on accidental circumstances. Among the ideas
connected with a word that which was once of primary, becomes only
of secondary importance; and sometimes, by degrees, it loses
altogether its connexion with the word, giving place to others with
which, from some accidental causes, it has been associated.
Two or three instances will illustrate the truth of these remarks.
In an ancient English version of the New Testament, we find the
following language: "I, Paul, a _rascal_ of Jesus Christ, unto you
Gentiles," &c. But who, in the present acceptation of the word,
would dare to call "the great apostle of the Gentiles" a _rascal?
Rascal_ formerly meant a _servant:_ one devoted to the interest of
another; but now it is nearly synonymous with _villain. Villain_
once had none of the odium which is now associated with the term;
but it signified one who, under the feudal system, rented or held
lands of another. Thus, Henry the VIII. says to a vassal or tenant,
"As you are an accomplished _villain_, I order that you receive £700
out of the public treasury." The word _villain_, then, has given up
its original idea, and become the representative of a new one, the
word _tenant_ having supplanted it. To prove that the meaning of
words _changes_, a thousand examples could be adduced; but with the
intelligent reader, proof is unnecessary.
* * * * *