familiar phrases, I dare not answer for these that they will not in
time be looked upon as a part of our tongue. We see some of our
poets have been so indiscreet as to imitate Hudibras's doggrel
expressions in their serious compositions, by throwing out the signs
of our substantives which are essential to the English language.
Nay, this humour of shortening our language had once run so far,
that some of our celebrated authors, among whom we may reckon Sir
Roger L'Estrange in particular, began to prune their words of all
superfluous letters, as they termed them, in order to adjust the
spelling to the pronunciation; which would have confounded all our
etymologies, and have quite destroyed our tongue.

We may here likewise observe that our proper names, when
familiarised in English, generally dwindle to monosyllables, whereas
in other modern languages they receive a softer turn on this
occasion, by the addition of a new syllable.--Nick, in Italian, is
Nicolini; Jack, in French, Janot; and so of the rest.

There is another particular in our language which is a great
instance of our frugality in words, and that is the suppressing of
several particles which must be produced in other tongues to make a
sentence intelligible. This often perplexes the best writers, when
they find the relatives "whom," "which," or "they," at their mercy,
whether they may have admission or not; and will never be decided
till we have something like an academy, that by the best
authorities, and rules drawn from the analogy of languages, shall
settle all controversies between grammar and idiom.

I have only considered our language as it shows the genius and
natural temper of the English, which is modest, thoughtful, and