It was the opinion of Adam Smith that the elements of language consist of Nouns or Names of things. From this opinion, M. Du Ponceau dissents. Nor is this conclusion confirmed by an analysis of languages, which serves to show, on the contrary, that these elements or roots partake less of the character of Nouns or Names of Objects than of that of Verbs or terms descriptive of their actions and qualities. This result appears to be a necessary consequence of the imitative origin of language, for it is only their characteristic sounds or other salient qualities that admit of imitation, it is impossible to copy by the voice the objects themselves! The English word Cuc-koo furnishes an excellent example. This word is now used as a Noun or Name. But it is quite manifest that originally it was a mere imitation of the characteristic cry of the bird, in other words it was descriptive of a single quality or action! But though they partake of the character of Verbs rather than of that of Nouns, it will, I conceive, appear that the roots or elements of language do not in reality belong to any existing class of grammatical terms. In the Hebrew and the Sanscrit the “Root” is neither a Noun nor a Verb, but the common basis of both. Nor is the application of this maxim confined to ancient languages; it may be shown to apply extensively to modern languages also, as in the following examples, derived from the English: Root. Noun. Verb. Burst. Burst. I burst. Thrust. Thrust. I thrust. Crack. Crack. Crack-er. I crack. Wrench. Wrench. Hiss. Hiss. I hiss. Rumble. Rumbl-er. It rumbles. Break. Break. Break-er. I break, &c. Croak. Croak. Croak-er. I croak. The previous examples will serve to illustrate at once the proposition they are intended to support, and also the imitative character of the roots or elements of language. This character, it will be observed, does not occur exclusively in terms primarily descriptive of sounds, it is displayed in an equally unequivocal manner in terms descriptive of other physical qualities, as in “Thrust, Burst, Wrest,” &c. It is obvious that the human voice possesses the power of copying sounds more perfectly than other external impressions. But the _attempt_ at imitation is not more conspicuous than it is in other cases, in which the imitation is necessarily more imperfect. Thus Kōōm, used in Persia and Wales for “a hollow circular valley,” “Coop” (_English_), are attempts by means of the motion of the lips, &c. to imitate the _shapes_ of the subjects of description.