Page 297
PART. III. Concerning Natural Grammar. (Book 3)
CHAP. I. 1. Concerning the several kinds and Parts of Grammar. 2. Of Etymo∣logy, the general Scheme of Integralls and Particles. 3. Of Nouns in general. 4. Of Substantives Common, denoting either Things, Acti∣ons, or Persons. 5. Rules concerning Nouns of Action. 6. Of Sub∣stantive abstracts. 7. Of Adjectives according to the true Philosophi∣cal notion of them. 8. The true notion of a Verb. 9. Of derived Adverbs. 10. A general Scheme of the fore-mentioned Derivations.
HAving now dispatched the second thing proposed to be treated of, namely, the Scientifical part,* 1.1 containing a regular enumeration and description of such things and notions, as are to be known, and to which names are to be assigned, which may be stiled Vniversal Philosophy; I proceed in the next place to the Organical part, or an enquiry after such kind of necessary helps, whereby as by instruments we must be assisted in the forming these more simple notions into complex Pro∣positions and Discourses, which may be stiled Grammar, containing the Art of Words or Discourse.
Grammar may be distinguisht into two kinds; 1. Natural, and Ge∣neral; 2. Instituted and Particular.
1. Natural Grammar, (which may likewise be stiled Philosophi∣cal, Rational, and Universal) should contain all such Grounds and Rules, as do naturally and necessarily belong to the Philosophy of letters and speech in the General.
2. Instituted and Particular Grammar, doth deliver the rules which are proper and peculiar to any one Language in Particular; as about the Inflexion of words, and the Government of cases, &c. In the Latin, Greek,* 1.2 &c. and is defined by Scaliger to be scientia loquendi ex usu.
The first of these only is upon this occasion to be considered. It hath been treated of but by few, which makes our Learned Verulam put it among his Desiderata; I do not know any more that have pur∣posely written of it, but Scotus in his Grammatica speculativa, and Caramuel in his Grammatica Audax, and Campanella in his Grammatica Philosophica. (As for Schioppius his Grammar, of this title, that doth wholly concern the Latin tongue;) Besides which, something hath been occasionally spoken of it, by Scaliger in his book de causis linguae latinae; and by Vossius in his Aristarchus. But to me it seems, that all these Authors in some measure (though some more then others) were so far prejudiced by the common Theory of the languages they were acquainted with, that they did not sufficiently abstract their rules