The Theory of Moral Sentiments: Or, an Essay Towards an Analysis of the Principles by Which Men Naturally Judge Concerning the Conduct and Character, First of Their Neighbours, and Afterwards of Themselves. to Which Is Added, a Dissertation on the Origin of Languages.Smith, Adam
Philosophy
The Theory of Moral Sentiments: Or, an Essay Towards an Analysis of the Principles by Which Men Naturally Judge Concerning the Conduct and Character, First of Their Neighbours, and Afterwards of Themselves. to Which Is Added, a Dissertation on the Origin of Languages.
Smith, Adam
Ethics -- Early works to 1800; Language and languages -- Early works to 1800
It is, perhaps, worth while to observe that those prepositions, which in
modern languages hold the place of the ancient cases, are, of all
others, the most general, and abstract, and metaphysical; and of
consequence, would probably be the last invented. Ask any man of common
acuteness, What relation is expressed by the preposition _above_? He
will readily answer, that of _superiority_. By the preposition _below_?
He will as quickly reply, that of _inferiority_. But ask him, what
relation is expressed by the preposition _of_, and, if he has not
beforehand employed his thoughts a good deal upon these subjects, you
may safely allow him a week to consider of his answer. The prepositions
_above_ and _below_ do not denote any of the relations expressed by the
cases in the ancient languages. But the preposition _of_, denotes the
same relation, which is in them expressed by the genitive case; and
which, it is easy to observe, is of a very metaphysical nature. The
preposition of, denotes relation in general, considered in concrete with
the co-relative object. It marks that the noun substantive which goes
before it, is somehow or other related to that which comes after it, but
without in any respect ascertaining, as is done by the preposition
_above_, what is the peculiar nature of that relation. We often apply
it, therefore, to express the most opposite relations; because, the most
opposite relations agree so far that each of them comprehends in it the
general idea or nature of a relation. We say, _the father of the son_,
and _the son of the father_; _the fir-trees of the forest_, and the
_forest of the fir-trees_. The relation in which the father stands to
the son, is, it is evident, a quite opposite relation to that in which
the son stands to the father; that in which the parts stand to the
whole, is quite opposite to that in which the whole stands to the parts.
The word _of_, however, serves very well to denote all those relations,
because in itself it denotes no particular relation, but only relation
in general; and so far as any particular relation is collected from such
expressions, it is inferred by the mind, not from the preposition
itself, but from the nature and arrangement of the substantives, between
which the preposition is placed.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account