On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
our best modern Latin grammarians observes , " Novi , the preterite tense of this verb , ( noscere , ) denotes present knowledge , and past perception .- scire is to know any thing a ^ a matter of fact . " And again , " Noscere , strictly
refers to subjects as objects of perception , and metaphorically to any other object apprehended by the mind : scire is applied to facts , as known , or truths , as objects of con viction . " And he illustrates , and I think proves his positions , by ample and the best authorities .
Hence such Expressions as «• Grammatical scientia ; maximarum artium scientia , " Quintilian ; and ** Novi hominem , " Plautus and Terence ; and , "Si bene tenovi , " Horace ; " Non norunt , scio , " Plautus ; and , " Noram et scio , " Terence ; as produced by the
above writer , clearly mark the distinction and difference . And , though it should not be admitted that in every passage which might be produced from classical authors , this distinction is uniformly preserved , this would not affect
the general remark , which appears critically just ; and that Tertullian , therefore , in the plaee we have been considering , ought himself to have used sciant , or scirent , ( not norint , ) as he had used it before : ** Caeterum
Baptismum non temere cretlendum esse , sciant quorum officium est . " It might then have read , " Let them know how , or , they should , or ought to know how , properly to ask for salvation ; that vou may seem to for ( salvation ; mat you may seem to or
may in reality , which is perhaps Tertullian * s meaning ) give to him that asketh . " This word would have been better for the purpose of Tertulliau ; worse , perhaps , for your Correspondent ; who would not have had room for the display of so much critical
sagacity . —But your Correspondent informs us how it should , for certain , be translated , ' " let them know hpw , " &c . ** Let , " says one of our best English Gratnmars , " as demanding permission , always makes a part of the imperative mood , in the first and third
persons , as , let me read , let him speak , let them read . " * Your Correspondent means , I perceive , to iuform us , that n 5 rint is not an indicative mood , ( as he by mistake , A apprehend , supposed Mr . Robinson ^ Ari E , ssay towards an English Grammar , Anon . ; but by the late Rev . Mr . Fell , 1784 . ? OI ,, XIV . % K .
Untitled Article
took it for , ) but an imperative mood and thijs I take to be another mistake , and for this obvious reason 5 the defective form of this verb has no imperative . Our school grammars , indeed ,
do not expressly say so ; and therefore some gentlemen take nftrint , as it occurs in classical writers , for an imperative mood , and as such they construe it ; but it shall presently be shewn that it cannot be in that mood , that it never is , that the imperative form is
contrary to analogy . It is not meant to say that the verb , though of a potential pres . or preterperfect form , may not , like other wards * in particular relations , reach to an imperative in its import and signification ; but that I am persuaded by your
Correspondent ' s lucky distinctions and positive assertions , together with his charge of gross mistranslation , was not his meaning . Had it been , he would , no doubt in mercy , have said so , lest some young gentlemen , thinking -too highly of his authority , should get their knuckles rapped . Aware ,
therefore , that he is engaged in higher concerns , I will endeavour to fill up this little gap , persuaded that your more learned readers will perceive that the remarks bear on the present question ; and that your young gentlemen , seeing that they may prevent a little school discipline , will receive them kindly .
Sanctius and Ramus , the great fathers of Latin grammar , rejected all moods in verbs , substituting a division of the tenses into first and second : the former says ronndly , " fiiui finxere modos , ratione inodoq . carebant : " and , indeed , as it is certain
that there are no possibilities of speaking but for inquiring , informing and commanding , and therefore , strictly speaking , only three modal forms in the Latin language ; so is it , that there can be only three divisions of time ,
past , present and future ; and therefore , philosophically speaking , but three tenses in any language . This principle in strictness cannot be overturned , and will of itself shew why those which are deemed the most
ancient languages have the fewest of what are called tenses , and why the most ancient writers have much of what may be now called an ambiguity in the use of them : hence in Homer , * - 1 ir-i 1 r-riT ^ nn 1 - r m it ¦ i ¦ j r- \\\ t \ l \ y % m i _< i u _ mj . j i ¦ ¦ nu * .- » j l u w * fc »» ¦ n * lllady L , i . Sec Clarke .
Untitled Article
On Mr . Behham ' s *< Plea for Infmxt Baptism" 58 ?
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1819, page 237, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1771/page/25/
-