按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
letter which I had occasion to write to Mr。 Crofts （who sent you； I
believe； as well as myself； a copy of his treatise on the English and
German languages； as preliminary to an Etymological dictionary he
meditated） I went into explanations with him of an easy process for
simplifying the study of the Anglo…Saxon； and lessening the terrors；
and difficulties presented by it's rude Alphabet； and unformed
orthography。 But this is a subject beyond the bounds of a letter； as
it was beyond the bounds of a Report to the legislature。 Mr。 Crofts
died； I believe； before any progress was made in the work he had
projected。
The reviewer expresses doubt； rather than decision； on our
placing Military and Naval architecture in the department of Pure
Mathematics。 Military architecture embraces fortification and field
works； which with their bastions； curtains； hornworks； redoubts etc。
are based on a technical combination of lines and angles。 These are
adapted to offence and defence； with and against the effects of
bombs； balls； escalades etc。 But lines and angles make the sum of
elementary geometry； a branch of Pure Mathematics： and the direction
of the bombs； balls； and other projectiles； the necessary appendages
of military works； altho' no part of their architecture； belong to
the conic sections； a branch of transcendental geometry。 Diderot and
Dalembert therefore； in their Arbor scientiae； have placed military
architecture in the department of elementary geometry。 Naval
architecture teaches the best form and construction of vessels； for
which best form it has recourse to the question of the Solid of least
resistance； a problem of transcendental geometry。 And it's
appurtenant projectiles belong to the same branch； as in the
preceding case。 It is true that so far as respects the action of the
water on the rudder and oars； and of the wind on the sails； it may be
placed in the department of mechanics； as Diderot and Dalambert have
done： but belonging quite as much to geometry； and allied in it's
military character； to military architecture； it simplified our plan
to place both under the same head。 These views are so obvious that I
am sure they would have required but a second thought to reconcile
the reviewer to their _location_ under the head of Pure Mathematics。
For this word _Location_； see Bailey； Johnson； Sheridan； Walker etc。
But if Dictionaries are to be the Arbiters of language； in which of
them shall we find _neologism_。 No matter。 It is a good word； well
sounding； obvious； and expresses an idea which would otherwise
require circumlocution。 The Reviewer was justifiable therefore in
using it； altho' he noted at the same time； as unauthoritative；
_centrality_； _grade_； _sparse_； all which have been long used in
common speech and writing。 I am a friend to _neology_。 It is the
only way to give to a language copiousness and euphony。 Without it
we should still be held to the vocabulary of Alfred or of Ulphilas；
and held to their state of science also： for I am sure they had no
words which could have conveyed the ideas of Oxigen； cotyledons；
zoophytes； magnetism； electricity； hyaline； and thousands of others
expressing ideas not then existing； nor of possible communication in
the state of their language。 What a language has the French become
since the date of their revolution； by the free introduction of new
words！ The most copious and eloquent in the living world； and equal
to the Greek； had not that been regularly modifiable almost ad
infinitum。 Their rule was that whenever their language furnished or
adopted a root； all it's branches； in every part of speech were
legitimated by giving them their appropriate terminations。
｛adelphos｝ ＇〃brother〃＇； ｛adelphe｝ ＇〃sister〃＇； ｛adelphidion｝ ＇〃little
brother〃＇； ｛adelphotes｝ ＇〃brotherly affection〃＇； ｛adelphixis｝
＇〃brotherhood〃＇； ｛adelphidoys｝ ＇〃nephew〃＇； ｛adelphikos｝ ＇〃brotherly；〃
adj。＇； ｛adelphizo｝ ＇〃to adopt as a brother〃＇； ｛adelphikos｝
＇〃brotherly；〃 adv。＇。 And this should be the law of every language。
Thus； having adopted the adjective _fraternal_； it is a root； which
should legitimate fraternity； fraternation； fraternisation；
fraternism； to fraternate； fraternise； fraternally。 And give the
word neologism to our language； as a root； and it should give us it's
fellow substantives； neology； neologist； neologisation； it's
adjectives neologous； neological； neologistical； it's verb neologise；
and adverb neologically。 Dictionaries are but the depositories of
words already legitimated by usage。 Society is the work…shop in
which new ones are elaborated。 When an individual uses a new word；
if illformed it is rejected in society； if wellformed； adopted； and；
after due time； laid up in the depository of dictionaries。 And if；
in this process of sound neologisation； our transatlantic brethren
shall not choose to accompany us； we may furnish； after the Ionians；
a second example of a colonial dialect improving on it's primitive。
But enough of criticism： let me turn to your puzzling letter of
May 12。 on matter； spirit； motion etc。 It's croud of scepticisms
kept me from sleep。 I read it； and laid it down： read it； and laid
it down； again and again： and to give rest to my mind； I was obliged
to recur ultimately to my habitual anodyne； ‘I feel： therefore I
exist。' I feel bodies which are not myself： there are other
existencies then。 I call them _matter_。 I feel them changing place。
This gives me _motion_。 Where there is an absence of matter； I call
it _void_； or _nothing_； or _immaterial space_。 On the basis of
sensation； of matter and motion； we may erect the fabric of all the
certainties we can have or need。 I can concieve _thought_ to be an
action of a particular organisation of matter； formed for that
purpose by it's creator； as well as that _attraction_ in an action of
matter； or _magnetism_ of loadstone。 When he who denies to the
Creator the power of endowing matter with the mode of action called
_thinking_ shall shew how he could endow the Sun with the mode of
action called _attraction_； which reins the planets in the tract of
their orbits； or how an absence of matter can have a will； and； by
that will； put matter into motion； then the materialist may be
lawfully required to explain the process by which matter exercises
the faculty of thinking。 When once we quit the basis of sensation；
all is in the wind。 To talk of _immaterial_ existences is to talk of
_nothings_。 To say that the human soul； angels； god； are immaterial；
is to say they are _nothings_； or that there is no god； no angels； no
soul。 I cannot reason otherwise： but I believe I am supported in my
creed of materialism by Locke； Tracy； and Stewart。 At what age of
the Christian church this heresy of _immaterialism_； this masked
atheism； crept in； I do not know。 But a heresy it certainly is。
Jesus taught nothing of it。 He told us indeed that ‘God is a
spirit；' but he has not defined wh