_Yea_ or _yes_ is derived from the imperative of a verb, _avoir_ to have, as the word is now spelt. It signifies therefore _have_, or _possess_, or _take_ what you ask. But does this explication assist us in using the word? And does not every countryman who labors in the field, understand and use the word with as much precision as the profoundest philosophers? The word _temper_ is derived from an old root, _tem_, which signified _water_. It was borrowed from the act of _cooling_, or moderating heat. Hence the meaning of _temperate_, _temperance_, and all the ramifications of the original stock. But does this help us to the modern current sense of these words? By no means. It leads us to understand the formation of languages, and in what manner an idea of a visible action gives rise to a correspondent abstract idea; or rather, how a word, from a literal and direct sense, may be applied to express a variety of figurative and collateral ideas. Yet the customary sense of the word is known by practice, and as well understood by an illiterate man of tolerable capacity, as by men of science. The word _always_ is compounded of _all_ and _ways_; it had originally no reference to time; and the etymology or composition of the word would only lead us into error. The true meaning of words is that which a nation in general annex to them. Etymology therefore is of no use but to the learned; and for them it will still be preserved, so far as it is now understood, in dictionaries and other books that treat of this particular subject. 4. "The distinction between words of different meanings and similar sound would be destroyed." "That distinction," to answer in the words of the great Franklin, "is already destroyed in pronunciation." Does not every man pronounce _all_ and _awl_ precisely alike? And does the sameness of sound ever lead a hearer into a mistake? Does not the construction render the distinction easy and intelligible, the moment the words of the sentence are heard? Is the word _knew_ ever mistaken for _new_, even in the rapidity of pronouncing an animated oration? Was _peace_ ever mistaken for _piece_; _pray_ for _prey_; _flour_ for _flower_? Never, I presume, is this similarity of sound the occasion of mistakes. If therefore an identity of _sound_, even in rapid speaking, produces no inconvenience, how much less would an identity of _spelling_, when the eye would have leisure to survey the construction? But experience, the criterion of truth, which has removed the objection in the first case, will also assist us in forming our opinion in the last.