Thomas Beddoes to the Editor of The Monthly Magazine, 26 June 1796
ETYMOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS.
SIR,
More active occupations have, I believe, finally diverted me from a design, which I long cherished, and to which, after Mr. Tooke’s labours, I fancied myself equal -- the design was such an analysis of our language as seems to me to constitute the essence of grammar. Those who have not made the trial, will be surprised how little difficulty there is in reducing our abstract words to a sensible or objective signification; I do not say, to their primary signification; for precedence may give rise to frivolous disputes here, as in other nice cases.
You will perhaps indulge me with room to exemplify my manner of proceeding. We have a remarkable class of noun substantives, as they are called by the grammarian; though, according to the metaphysician, they are mere attributes or qualities; that is, they cannot stand by themselves, but are supported by substances. The words I mean, are good-ness, great-ness, and their fellows. We have similar words, ending in –head. Onhed, in old English, is unity, (one-head). It will not, I presume, he denied that head (caput) is here used in composition. Now, in the other case, I suspect, that it is part of the head which is used; the nose, ness, nez , French. Both words have been indifferently employed to mark the points of land, that are or have been conspicuous. Will not this geographical analogy be admitted as a strong confirmation of my opinion? If ness be any part of the body, what part else can we imagine it to be, whether we regard sound or situation? There exists an etymological, as truly as a moral sense, and those who have acquired the former, will feel by how very natural a transition two such eminent members of the body natural, as the head and nose, came to denote abstract qualities. -- I conjecture, that thing or ding will prove to mean some striking object in one of its fixed corporeal senses.
2. This analysis, carried to its utmost extent, would constitute a reformed dictionary. Every person apprehends the metaphorical use of a term the better for knowing its original meaning; and how invariably have dictionary-makers dissevered the soul of a word from its body. Thus spite and spit (the culinary implement) are clearly the same word. To spite a person is to run a spit into his mind. The very metaphor, I think, occurs not infrequently in the poetry ascribed to king David; and Shakspeare makes Hamlet resolve to ‘speak daggers’.
To consolidate HEED (care, caution) with HEAD, may appear too bold an adventure, even in etymology. The difference, however, in spelling is of no account, the present orthography being modern. I think, both words are spelled alike by some old writers, hede. In use, there obtains sufficient similarity, at the present moment. I do not HEED (head) that. I do not MIND that. We say, he puts a thing to HEART; and, had it been stamped by usage, heart would have passed just as currently as head for one of our verbs. I DO NOT HEART that. Certain languages have it so, or very nearly, as every scholar knows.
3. The substantive verb, am (obs. eom) be (obs. bee) is, probably, some mode of motion or appearance; and, if traced higher, may turn out some animal, whose mode of motion is striking. To walk (incedo), to emerge (evado), to ecsist (stand out), are, in Latin, perpetually synonimous with to be. In Greek, to be is the self-same word as to go, though split by grammarians and lexicographers.
4. To alter is a good example of a word retaining an objective signification in one dialect of a language, and not in another. To alter, means in German, to grow old.
The booksellers, I think, might render an essential service to education and letters, by engaging some intelligent person to introduce, more and more, genealogies of signification into the common English dictionaries as new editions are printed. To complete the investigation of our words would take time; but, with a proper advertisement, an imperfect, would, on one account, be preferable to a perfect dictionary; it would induce some to observe and think for themselves.
I am, sir, your’s, &c.
THOMAS BEDDOES
Clifton, June 26, 1796
Published: The Monthly Magazine, 2 (1796), 441–42.