fix _ess_; as, heir_ess_,
instructr_ess. Ess_ is a contraction of the Hebrew noun _essa_, a
female. Of our verbs, the termination _est_ is a contraction of
_doest, eth_, of _doeth_, _s_ of _does_. We say, thou _dost_ or
_doest_ love; or thou _lovest_; i.e. _love-dost_, or _love-doest_.
Some believe these terminations to be contractions of _havest,
haveth, has_. We affix _ed_, a contraction of _dede_, to the present
tense of verbs to denote that the action named is _dede, did, doed_,
or _done_.

_To_ and _do_ from the Gothic noun _taui_, signifying _act_ or
_effect_, are, according to Horne Tooke, nearly alike in meaning and
force; and when the custom of affixing some more ancient verbalizing
adjunct, began to be dropped, its place and meaning were generally
supplied by prefixing one of these. When I say, "I am going _to
walk,"_ the verbal or affirmative force is conveyed by the use of
_to_, meaning the same as _do_; and _walk_ is employed merely as a
verbal name; that is, I assert that I shall _do_ the act which I
name by the word _walk_, or the act of _walking_.

Perhaps such speculations as these will prove to be more curious
than profitable. If it be made clearly to appear, that, on
scientific principles, whenever the verbal name is unaccompanied by
a verbalizing adjunct, it is in the _noun-state_, and does not
express affirmation, still this theory would be very inconvenient in
practice.

I shall resume this subject in Lecture XI.

* * * * *

QUESTIONS ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL NOTES.

What has usually been the object of philosophical investigations of
language? (page 32.)--Do the syntactical dependances and connexions of
words depend on their _original_ import?--Is the power of association
and custom efficient in changing the radical meaning of some
words?--Have words intrinsically a signification of their own; or is
their meaning _inferential_; i.e. such as _custom_ has assigned to them?
(page 38.)--On what _fact_ is based the true, philosophical principle of
classification?--Define philosophical grammar.--Which is supposed to be
the original part of speech?--How were the others formed from that?--How
many parts of speech may be recognised in a scientific development and
arrangement of the principles of our language?--Name them.--What
testimony have we that many things do not act? (p