Dissertations on the English Language, with Notes, Historical and Critical; to Which is Added, by Way of Appendix, an Essay on a Reformed Mode of Spelling, With Dr — A Closer Reading
Edition facts
The catalog record for Dissertations on the English Language, with Notes, Historical and Critical; to Which is Added, by Way of Appendix, an Essay on a Reformed Mode of Spelling, With Dr — A Closer Reading provides practical reading context through 91,254 words, 6 hr 37 min estimated reading time, and 15 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 21.3 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “English language -- Early works to 1800,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
itain did not escape. The Saxons, a tribe of northern nations, which inhabited the country now called Denmark, or the shores of the Baltic, now within the Empire of Germany, invaded Britain, soon after the Roman legions had been called home to defend the Empire against other tribes of barbarians. It is said the Saxons were at first invited to assist the Britons against the inroads of the Picts or Scots, and that having defeated the invaders, they were tempted, by the fertility of the soil, to remain in the island, and afterwards took possession of it for themselves.
But whatever was the first cause of their leaving their native country, it is certain, that numerous bodies of adventurers, at different times, went over and seated themselves in the island. They did not cease till they had possessed themselves of all the fertile and cultivated parts of England. The universality of the conquest is demonstrated by the total change of language; there being no more affinity between the Saxon or English, and the ancient British, than between any two languages of Europe.
The British however was not lost. The brave inhabitants, who survived the liberty of their country, and could not brook the idea of living with their conquerors, retired to the countries within the mountains on the west of the island, now called _Wales_ and _Cornwall_, where they maintained their independence for many centuries, and where their language is still preserved. The Welsh and the Cornish therefore are the purest remains of the primitive Celtic language.
To these we may add the Armoric, or language of the Bas Breton, on the coast of France; the inhabitants of which are genuin descendants of the old Britons. The time and occasion of this settlement in France are not certain. Perhaps a body of Britons were driven thither by the Saxon conquest of England; or what is more probable, as it is a tradition among the people, the Armoricans are the posterity of some British soldiers, who had been in the Roman army when it was called to Italy to defend the empire, and on their return, being informed that the Saxons had taken possession of their native country, seated themselves on the opposite coast of France.[13]
But whatever was the cause of the settlement, the language of the people is the old British or Celtic; for altho they must have been separated from their countrymen about twelve or fourteen hundred years, yet there is such an affinity still between the Welsh and the Armoric, that the Welsh soldiers, who passed thro Brittany in a late war,[14] could converse familiarly with the inhabitants. If any other proof than this were necessary to convince the reader, we might mention the name of this province, _Brittany_, and produce a long catalogue of Armoric words, collated with the Welsh and Cornish.
One would think that the Irish, by reason of their vicinity to England, would have spoken the same language; yet it is found that the old Irish tongue has very little affinity with the Welsh. Sir William Temple asserts[15] that the Erse, or Caledonian language, and the old Irish, which are radically the same, and spoken also on the Isle of Man, have no affinity with any other language now spoken. But the celebrated Lluyd and others, who have been more critical in their investigations of this subject, maintain that the Irish has a real affinity with the Cambrian or British. They further show that many names of places in S. Britain, the meaning of which is lost in the Welsh, can be explained only by words now extant in the Irish and Erse. This is a sufficient proof of a common origin.[16]
But on this point historians are divided in opinion. Some suppose that the north of Ireland was first peopled by emigrations from Scotland, and the sameness of their language renders this opinion probable. But whence do the Scots derive their origin? The most probable account of the settlement of Scotland is, that it was peopled from Norway or some other northern country, by a tribe of those nations that went under the general denomination of _Scythians_; for _Scot_ and _Scythian_ are from the same root.
There are writers, however, who contend that Ireland must have been settled from Spain, for there are many Spanish words found in the language of the country. But the number of these is too inconsiderable to render the argument conclusive.
Noah Webster's Dissertations on the English Language (1789) opens with a dedication to Benjamin Franklin that is less a conventional tribute than a statement of method. Webster admires Franklin not for grand theories but for being “great in common things”—for collecting facts, pursuing practical truths, and writing in a style “plain and elegantly neat.” This preference for the concrete over the speculative shapes the entire work. The excerpts reveal a linguist who tests grammatical rules against actual usage, citing specific errors in published authors. The book is neither a dry grammar nor a mere polemic for spelling reform; it is a sustained argument that language, like Franklin’s philosophy, should be grounded in observable practice.
A Grammar of Actual Usage
The excerpts show Webster building his case from specific quotations. He faults Hugh Blair’s Lectures for using “will” where “shall” is required, arguing that Blair’s phrasing “substitute[s] a promise for an intended prediction.” He likewise corrects Oliver Goldsmith’s Survey of Experimental Philosophy and a political pamphlet on the Bank of North America. Webster’s method is empirical: he collects examples from reputable writers and judges them by the ear of a “correct English” speaker. He notes that errors in auxiliary verbs are “little known among the inhabitants of South Britain, and still less among their descendants in New England,” grounding his analysis in regional speech patterns. This approach treats grammar not as a set of abstract rules but as a living system whose norms emerge from careful observation of the best usage.
The Franklin Connection
Webster’s dedication to Franklin is more than a courtesy. He praises Franklin for not “perplex[ing] himself and confound[ing] his countrymen with ingenious theories” and for seeking “practical truths” through experiment. This aligns with Webster’s own linguistic project: the Dissertations are filled with concrete examples and avoid metaphysical speculation. The appendix on spelling reform, which includes “Dr. Franklin’s Arguments on that Subject,” extends this practical bent. Webster presents spelling reform as a matter of utility, not aesthetic preference. The excerpts do not reveal whether Webster fully endorses Franklin’s proposals, but the pairing of the two authors underscores a shared commitment to language as a tool for clear communication rather than an object of antiquarian reverence.
Evidence and Inference in the Excerpts
The excerpts cover only a portion of the work—chiefly the dedication and a section on auxiliary verbs. They do not show Webster’s treatment of spelling reform, his historical notes, or his broader grammatical system. What is visible is a writer deeply engaged with contemporary texts: Blair, Goldsmith, Hume, Warburton, and the Spectator are all cited. Webster’s tone is authoritative but not pedantic; he corrects errors without dismissing the authors’ overall value. The excerpts also hint at a nationalist dimension: Webster contrasts “unmixed English descendants in the eastern states” with Scots, Irish, and middle-state Americans, suggesting that linguistic purity is tied to regional identity. However, without the full text, the extent of this argument remains unclear.
Readers approaching the Dissertations should expect a work that combines grammatical prescription with cultural commentary. Webster’s reliance on cited authorities makes the book a kind of early usage guide, but his dedication to Franklin signals a broader philosophical allegiance to empiricism and practicality. The excerpts offer a focused sample of his method; the full text likely extends these principles to spelling, syntax, and historical development. Treat the work as a document of late eighteenth-century linguistic thought, not a comprehensive grammar.
I keep thinking about Webster’s fussy pages—how he argued with dead writers about will and shall, trying to pin language down like a pressed flower. But Gaelic lived on the tongue, shifting with weather and generations, impossible to cage. That wildness stayed with me after reading Elements of Gaelic Grammar — Story, Setting & Ideas, the way rules soften into music.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
What was your reading experience?
Capture what you thought, learned, and would like to remember.