_, which the learned author pronounces so "evident," these,
and all similar words, would constitute _iambic feet_; whereas it is plain,
that in English they are _trochees_; and in Latin,--where "_o_ final is
_common_,"--either _trochees_ or _spondees_. The word _ambo_, as every
accurate scholar knows, is always a _trochee_, whether it be the Latin
adjective for "_both_," or the English noun for "_a reading desk_, or
_pulpit_."

OBS. 4.--The names of our poetic feet are all of them derived, by change of
endings, from similar names used in Greek, and thence also in Latin; and,
of course, English words and Greek or Latin, so related, are presumed to
stand for things somewhat similar. This reasonable presumption is an
argument, too often disregarded by late grammarians, for considering our
poetic feet to be quantitative, as were the ancient,--not accentual only,
as some will have them,--nor separately both, as some others absurdly
teach. But, whatever may be the difference or the coincidence between
English verse and Greek or Latin, it is certain, that, in _our_ poetic
division of syllables, strength and length must always concur, and any
scheme which so contrasts accent with long quantity, as to confound the
different species of feet, or give contradictory names to the same foot,
must be radically and grossly defective. In the preceding section it has
been shown, that the principles of quantity adopted by Sheridan, Murray,
and others, being so erroneous as to be wholly nugatory, were as unfit to
be the basis of English verse, as are Walker's, which have just been spoken
of. But, the puzzled authors, instead of reforming these their elementary
principles, so as to adapt them to the quantities and rhythms actually
found in our English verse, have all chosen to assume, that our poetical
feet in general _differ radically_ from those which the ancients called by
the same names; and yet the _coincidence_ found--the "_exact sameness of
nature_" acknowledged--is sagely said by some of them _to duplicate each
foot into two distinct sorts for our especial advantage_; while the
_difference_, which they presume to exist, or which their false principles
of accent and quantity would create, between feet quantitative and feet
accentual, (both of which are allowed to us,) would _implicate different
names_, and convert foot into foot--iambs, trochees, spondees, pyrrhics,
each species into some other--till all were confusion!

OBS. 5.--In L