The Number Three, as the first Plural Number above the Dual, is the Head
and Type of Plurality in the grammatical discrimination, and stands
representatively for all Plurality.
_One_, _Two,_ and _Three_, are the Representative Numbers and Heads of
the whole Cardinal Series of Number.
_First_, _Second_, and _Third_ are the corresponding Representatives and
Heads of the Corresponding Ordinal Series of Number. These latter
numerals find _their_ representation, grammatically, in the next Grand
Grammatical Distribution of the Proper Nouns Substantive, namely,
PERSON, so called, or, specifically, the
1st PERSON,
2d PERSON, and
3d PERSON (of Proper Nouns).
This distribution represents properly the Rank or Degree of Persons in
the Hierarchy of Personality; the Ego ranking _naturally_ as 'Number
One.' Deference or Grace teaches us afterward to defer to the
personality of others, and _converts_ our primitive notions of rank into
opposites, in a way which is indicated by the _honorific_ use of _Thou_
in addressing the Supreme, etc.
This idea of Personal Rank, the Hierarchical Ascension of Individuality
or Personality in Society, abstracted from the particular Individuals,
and rendered purely official, becomes nominally a new Part of Speech,
and is the whole, substantially, of what we denominate the _Pronouns_.
The Pronoun, as a Part of Speech, is, therefore, the Analogue, within
the Lingual Domain, of The State or the Constitution, governmentally, of
Human Society, the ascending and descending rank of individuals in the
social organization, the Heraldic Schedule of Man.
Finally we arrive at the consideration of the _Casus_ or _Case_ of Nouns
Substantive.
The _Accidents_ of Life or Being, the occasional _states_ of Men or
Things, as acting or being acted upon, or simply as _related_ to each
other in Space, or otherwise, are here represented. It is this which is
meant by CASE, from the Latin _casus_, itself from the Latin
_cadere_, TO FALL, or to FALL OUT or HAPPEN.
In the old Grammars, the Cases of the Nouns are denominated _Accidents_.
Ac-_cid_-ent, is from _ad_, TO, and _cadere_ (cid), TO
FALL; and the same root with _ob_ (_oc_), gives us
OC-CAS-ion, OC-CAS-_ionally_, etc.
The Accidents of Being are a special kind of _Inherence_ to the
_Substance_ of Being; the _Relational_ kind _par excellence_, as
distinguished from the _Qualitative_ kind; which last is denoted by the
proper Adjectives. The Oblique Case of a Noun Substantive, whether
formed by an Inflexion or by a Preposition, is therefore nothing else
than a special kind of Adjective, destitute of the property of
Comparison, because it denotes the Accident instead of the Quality of
Being, and because Accidents or Relations between Things do not vary by
degrees of Intensity as Qualities do.
The above description of the Cases of Nouns applies especially to the
Oblique Cases; that is to say, to all except the Nominative Case.
The Nominative Case is itself susceptible of being regarded as an
Accident; but its more important office is that of the SUBJECT
of the Proposition, which takes it out of the minor category of an
accident, or at least subordinates this latter view of its character.
The Accidents of Being in the Universe at large are therefore the
analogues of the oblique cases of Nouns Substantive in the Domain of
Language; the Nominative Case representing, on the contrary, the central
figure in the particular member of discourse, and that which the
accidents or _falls_ (_casus_) are perceived to relate to or affect.
Substantives and Adjectives were both formerly included under the term
Nouns or Names; and we have still to distinguish, when they are under
special consideration, as they are here, Nouns Substantive, and Nouns
Adjective.
By regarding all the Oblique Cases of Nouns Substantive as a species or
variety of Nouns Adjective, and so classifying them along with the
Adjectives proper, _the Nominative Case_ alone remains to represent _the
Substantive_, in the higher and exclusive sense of the term. This is
then, at the same time, _The Subject_. The terms employed to designate
them sufficiently indicate this identity: _Substantive_, from _sub_,
UNDER, and _stans_, STANDING; and _Subject_, from _SUB_,
UNDER, and _jectus_, THROWN or CAST. These are,
therefore, nearly etymological equivalents.
Before passing to the consideration of the Subject and the Proposition,
let us finish with the Nouns Adjective, to which we have only given an
incidental attention.
These are the representatives of Incidence or Attribution; and
correspond to the entire adjectivity pertaining to the substantiality of
the real or concrete Universe; both Substance and Incidence falling as
parts of one domain within the larger domain of RELATION, which
in Language is the domain of Grammar proper, including Etymology and
Syntax.
It may now be shown that this Adjective World is so much a world by
itself that Kant's _namings_ for the _four_ groups of the Categories of
the Understanding, which we are here enlarging to be the Categories of
All Being, are precisely the most appropriate namings for the
subdivisions of the Adjective World. These are:
1. Adjectives of QUALITY.
2. Adjectives of RELATION.
3. Adjectives of QUANTITY.
4. Adjectives of MODE.
1. Adjectives of Quality are those which designate the qualities of
things as _good_ or _bad_, etc. They are susceptible of three Degrees of
Comparison; and are, without due consideration, usually regarded by
Grammarians as if they constituted the whole of the Adjective World.
2. Adjectives of Relation are, as we have seen, (chiefly) the Oblique
Cases of the Noun Substantive. They admit of no Degrees of Comparison.
These have not heretofore been regarded as Adjectives; but broadly and
philosophically considered, they are so.
3. Adjectives of Quantity are the Numerals, which always instinctively
find their way among the Adjectives in the Grammar Books, without their
presence there being duly accounted for, that part of speech having been
usually defined as relating exclusively to the _Quality_ of Things.
These numeral Adjectives subdivide into Ordinal Numerals and Cardinal
Numerals; and, like Adjectives of Relation, they are not susceptible of
being varied by the Degrees of Comparison.
4. Adjectives of Mode relate to the Conditions of Existence, as
_necessary_ and _unnecessary_, _important_ and _unimportant_, etc. They
are somewhat ambiguous as to their susceptibility to comparison. It is
over this class of Adjectives that the Grammarians dispute. If a thing
is _necessary_, then, it is said, it cannot be _more necessary_, or
_most necessary_, the Positive Case being itself Absolute or
Superlative. In some cases this rule is not so clear, and there is doubt
whether it is proper to apply the signs of Comparison or not. We may
correctly say _more important_ and _most important_; and on the whole
the Adjectives of Mode, or Modal Adjectives, are to be classed as
capable of Comparison.
These four classes of Adjectives again classify in respect to their
usual susceptibility to comparison, as follows:
Adjectives of Quality, }
Adjectives of Mode } Capable of Comparison.
Adjectives of Quantity, } Incapable of Comparison.
Adjectives of Relation, }
The _Principle_ of Comparison is itself _hierarchical_, or pertaining to
gradation or rank divinely ordained; or as the mere scientist might
prefer to say, naturally existent. It repeats, therefore, in an echo, or
correspondentially, THE PERSON (First, Second, Third) of Nouns
Substantive and Pronouns; and has relation to the Three Heads of the
Ordinal Series of Number, 1st, 2d, 3d; as THE NUMBER of Nouns
Substantive (Singular, Dual, and Plural) has relation to the Three Heads
of the Cardinal Series of Number, 1, 2, 3.
The Qualities, the Relations, the Numerical Character, and the Modal
Condition of Things, are conjointly an Adjunct World to the Real World
of Persons and Things, in the Universe at Large; and taken collectively,
it is that domain or aspect of the total Universe which is the
scientific echo to or analogue of the Part of Speech called Adjective in
the Grammar of Language. The Substantivity and the Adjectivity, taken
again collectively with each other, are the totality of the _Concrete_
Universe considered in a state of Rest. The _Movement_ of the Universe
is expressed by the verbal department of Language, and will receive our
subsequent attention. It is, therefore, from within this department that
our concrete analogues of the larger Abstractions of the Universe,
Nature, Science, and Art, namely, The World, Man, and the Product of
Man's labor, were taken. They belong to the Substantivity (Kant's
Substance) of the Universe, and their qualities, relations, number, and
mode of being belong to the Adjectivity of the Universe (Kant's
Inherence); and these two departments of Universal Being or of the
possible aspects of Universal Being are the Scientific Analogues, in the
Universe at large, of Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective, in the
Grammar Department of the total distribution of the little Universe of
Language; which is the point to be here specially illustrated and
insisted upon.
We pass now to the consideration of the Verb and Participle, related to
Movement. The Great Noun Class of Words, including the Nominative Noun
Substantive, not yet brought into action and made to functionate as
Subject or Agent, together with the whole Adjective Family of Words as
above defined, is _without Action_. These words, and
correspondentially, the Things and their Attributes which they represent
in the Universe at large, are _static_ or _immovable_. The Universe,
viewed in the light of them solely, is a Universe _at rest_, or, as it
were, _arrested_ in its progression through Time, and existing only in
Space; _for_ TIME _has relation to_ MOTION, _as_
SPACE _has relation to_ POSITION _or_ REST.
This aspect of the Universe or of Language may therefore be
appropriately denominated _Statoid_ (or Spaceoid). The relations between
the Parts of this Aspect, denoted by the Prepositions and Conjunctions,
are inert or _static_ relations, concerning predominantly Position in
Space, as _above_, _below_, etc.
When the Substantive proper (the Nominative Case) passes over and
becomes functionally a SUBJECT (we will consider, first, the
case where the Verb is Active Transitive, and the Subject therefore an
Agent), we pass from _Statism_ to _Motism_; or from Rest to Movement.
This is, at the same time, to pass from the Domain or Kingdom of _Space_
to the Kingdom or Domain of _Time_ (or Tense).
Noun-dom (in its largest extension, including Nouns Substantive and
Nouns Adjective, together with their Words of Relation, Prepositions and
Conjunctions) constitutes, therefore, the STATISMUS (or Domain
of the Principle of Rest) within the RELATIONISMUS (or Domain
of Parts and their Construction, or _Syntaxis_ into a whole) of the
larger Domain of Language, which might then be properly denominated the
Linguismus of the Universe. (Every new Science has to have its new
nomenclature. Let the reader not be repelled, therefore, by these
innovations upon the speech usages of our Language; their great
convenience, and their actual necessity even for the right discussion of
the subject, furnishing their sufficient apology.)
To determine what the limits of the corresponding Domain are in the
Universe at large, and its proper technical designation, it is only
necessary to go back upon the analogues already indicated. We have,
then, the Statismus of the Relationismus of the Universe; which is the
Structural Universe, viewed in respect to the relationship between the
parts and the whole, and as if arrested in Space, or, what is the same
thing, abstracted from Movement in Time.
In going over to the new Domain in Language,--the Grammar of the Verb
and Participle,--we pass then, technically speaking, to the
MOTISMUS of the RELATIONISMUS of Language; and in
going over to the corresponding Domain of the Universe at large, we pass
to the MOTISMUS of the RELATIONISMUS of the
_Universe_, in which action and the relations between actions are
concerned.
Since Motion and Action involve the idea of Force or Power, for which
the Greek word is _dynamis_, furnishing the English words _Dynamic_ and
_Dynamics_, our Philosophers have chosen the distinction _Static_ and
_Dynamic_, instead of _Static_ and _Motic_, the true distinction, and
have in that way obscured and disguised from themselves even the
fundamental and all-important relationship of these two great Aspects of
Being, with the two great negative Grounds or Containers of all Being;
_namely, with_ SPACE _and with_ TIME _respectively_.
It is here, in the Domain of Movement and Time, the Motismus of
Language, and especially of Grammar,--the Relationismus of
Language,--that the Grand Lingual Illustration or Type of the Second
Subdivision of Kant's Group of Relation occurs;--the subdivision which
he _should_ have denominated _Tempic_, as distinguished from the former
Subdivision (of Substance and Inherence), which _should_ then have been
called _Spacic_.
This Tempic Sub-Group of Relation again subdivides, as already stated,
into 1. CAUSE, and 2. DEPENDENCE.
The Subject of a Proposition, in the Active Voice, which is the Typical
or Direct Expression of Action, is the AGENT or _Actor_ in the
performance of the given Action. To be an agent is _to act_; and _to
act_ is to exhibit an effect, the _Cause_ of which resides in the Agent.
_Agent_ and _Cause_ are thus identified. In other words, the Nominative
Case, in the Active Transitive Locution, is the type and illustration of
the Sub-Category, _Cause_, in the Group of Relation, as conceived by the
great German metaphysician. His Correlative Sub-Category, _Dependence_,
is the Action itself, resulting from the Activity of the Agent, and
expressed by the Verb and _its_ dependencies.
_The Cause_ and _Dependence_ of Kant, as a Sub-Group of Relation, are
therefore, when translated into their typical expression in Language,
simply _The Nominative_ and _The Verb_; and belong to the Domain of
Movement, and hence to that of Time.
It is only, however, when the Verb is Active that the Nominative is
Agent or Cause. In the Passive Locution or Voice, a Conversion into
Opposites occurs;--the Direct is exchanged for the Inverse Order of the
Action. The Nominative then names the Object which receives, suffers, or
endures the _force of the Action_, and the Agent is then thrown into the
Category of an Accident, and expressed in an Oblique Case; thus,
_Charles is struck by John_.
The term _Subject_, applied to the Nominative Case, is made, by a happy
_équivoque_, to cover both these aspects; that in which the Nominative
is Agent or Cause, and that in which it is not so. It is only in the
latter instance that it is really or literally a _subject_, that is to
say, subjected to, or made to suffer the force of the action of the
Verb; but _action_ is a _reaction_ from such invasion or infliction of
suffering or impression upon the person (or thing); and the term
_Subject_, changing its meaning, accompanies the person _nominated_ or
named by the Nominative Case over into this new positive relation to the
action. It is interesting to observe that precisely the same doubleness
of meaning arises, in the same way, in respect to the word _Passion_,
from Latin _patior_, to suffer. When we speak of the _passion_ of
Christ, we retain the primitive and etymological meaning of the word;
but, ordinarily, _passion_ means just the opposite; that violent
_reaction_ of the feeling side of the mind from _Impression_ (or passion
in the first sense), which is nearly allied to _Rage_.
Intermediate between the Active and the Passive Locutions is a compound
Active and Reactive state--the action put forth by the agent, and yet
terminating upon himself--which is expressed lingually by what is
appropriately called in Greek the Middle Voice (Sanscrit, _At mane
pada_), and in our modern Grammars, as the French, The Reflective Verb.
This last, the Reflective or Reciprocal Locution, is the grammatical
type and illustration of Kant's third subdivision of the Group of
Relation, that, namely, which he denominates RECIPROCAL ACTION.
The correspondences between Language and the Universe at large are here
too obvious to require to be enlarged or insisted upon. The Active Voice
in Grammar repeats the World of Direct Actions; the Passive Voice, the
World of Inverse Actions; and the Middle Voice the World of Reciprocal
Actions, in the Universe at large. The Nominative Case (in the first and
leading of these Locutions) is the Analogue of Cause, and the Verb, of
Dependence, or the Chain of Effects resulting from the Cause.
The I, the Me, the EGO, as Subject, in the domain of
Philosophy, is first Subject (-ed) under Impression from the world
without, and afterward becomes Cause (in Expression); and the term
Subject has here, therefore, precisely the same ambiguity as in Grammar,
and stands contrasted in the same way with the word Object; the
Accusative Case of the old Grammarians being now called the _Objective_
Case, and denoting that upon which the force of the (direct) action is
expended.
The Middle Voice becomes, by an elision, the Neuter Verb. I walk, means,
I walk _myself_. Neuter Verbs fall, then, into the Category of
Reciprocal Action.
The Typical Neuter Verb, the Typical Verb, in fine, of all verbs, is the
Substantive or Copula Verb TO BE, the Verb of Existence or
Being. _I am_, means, I am _myself_, or, I keep or hold myself in being.
In strictness, the verb _to be_ is the ONLY VERB. Every other
Verb is capable of Solution into this one, accompanied by a Participle;
thus, _I walk_, becomes, _I am_ WALKING, etc.
By this analysis, the Verb, as such, falls back among words of Relation,
or mere Connectives. It may then be classed with Prepositions and
Conjunctions; its office of Connection being still peculiar, however,
namely, to intervene between the Subject and the Predicate. Participles,
into which all other verbs than this _Copula_, are so resolved, then
fall back in like manner into the Class of Adjectives. The Tempic and
Motic Word-Kingdom is thus carried back to its dependence upon the
Spacic and Static Word-Kingdom, as basis; in the same manner as, in
Nature, Time and Motion have Space and Rest for their perpetual
background.
Reduced to this degree of simplicity, there are but three Parts of
Speech: 1. Substantives; 2. Attributes; and 3. Words of Relation; which
correspond with 1. Things; 2. Properties of Things; and 3. The
Interrelationship of Things, of Properties, and of Things and their
Properties, in the Universe at large.
The Adverb has not been mentioned. Analysis reduces it in every instance
to an Oblique Case of the Substantive, or, what is the same thing, to a
Substantive governed by a Preposition; and hence, by a second transfer,
as shown above, to the class of Adjectives of Relation: thus, _happily_
means _in a happy manner_; _now_ means _in the present time_, etc.
In the Grammatical Motismus the Three Tenses,--for there are but three
strictly, or in the first great natural Division of Time,--namely, the
Past, the Present, and the Future, correspond with the Grand Three-fold
Division of The Tempismus, the Universal Ongoing or Procession of
Events, the _Grandis Ordo Naturæ;_ namely, the Past, the Present, and
the Future, as the Three-fold Aspect of Time and of the Universe of _Res
Gestæ_, or Things Done, and Contained in Time, as distinguished from the
other equal Aspect of the total Universe, namely, the Static Expansion
of the Universe in Space.
Mode, which is subsequently developed in Music as a Distinct Grouping of
Categories, finds here, in the domain of Relation, a subordinate
development, in connection with the Verb.
Kant's Subdivision of Mode, as a group of Categories is, 1.
POSSIBILITY and IMPOSSIBILITY; 2. BEING and
NOT-BEING; and 3. NECESSITY and ACCIDENCE.
It is obvious that POSSIBILITY is that Category which is
expressed grammatically by the _Potential_ Mode (from _potentia_,
POWER, POSSIBILITY); otherwise called the Conditional Mode. _I
should do so and so if_--The Negative Form of this Mode expresses
IMPOSSIBILITY: _I should or could not do so and so unless_,
etc.
BEING and NOT-BEING, direct Assertion and Denial, find
their grammatical representation in the Indicative Mode: _I do_ or _I do
not_; and in an _Un-fin-it-ed_ or _In-defi-nite_ way, as a mere naming
of the idea, in The Infinitive Mode, _to do_, etc.
NECESSITY and ACCIDENCE are expressed in the
Imperative Mode for the former and in the Subjunctive Mode for the
latter. _Necessary_ and _Imperative_ are synonymes. To command
absolutely, is _to require_, and _The Required_ or _The Requisite_ is
again _The Necessary_.
_Accidence_ is that which is _under a condition, sub-joined,
Sub-junctive_; which may or may not happen, hence introduced by an _if_,
equal to _gif_, _give_, _grant_, _provided it so happen_.
ELEMENTALITY (Kant's QUALITY of Being) reappears in
this domain of Relation in Connection with the Verb:
AFFIRMATION, in the Affirmative Propositions, as, _I love_;
NEGATION, in Negative Propositions, as, _I do not Love_; and
Limitation, _wavering as between two_, in the Dubitative or Questioning
Forms of the Proposition, as, _Do I love? Do I not love?_ The Celtic
tongues have special modal forms to express these modifications of the
Verb.
NUMBER, the remaining one of Kant's Groups of the Categories,
finds also its minor representative in this domain in the Numbers,
Singular, Dual, and Plural, incorporated into the Conjugation of the
Verb. This leads us to the consideration of Grammatical Agreement and
Government; carries us over into Syntax, Prosody, Logic, and Rhetoric;
back to Lexicology, the domain of the Dictionary or mere Vocabulary in
Language; and thence upward to Music, and finally again to Song, the
culmination of Speech.
The subject grows upon us, and it is impossible to complete it in a
single paper.
The Portions of Language which we have been considering belong to the
two Departments: 1. ELEMENTISMUS (Kant's QUALITY), and
2. RELATION (Grammar more properly). The treatment of these is
not fully exhausted, and must be recurred to hereafter.
The two remaining ones of Kant's Groups of the Categories of the
Understanding (here extended to be the Categories of all Being) are, 3.
QUANTITY, and 4. MODE. The proper domain of these two
is Music. The mere mention of the musical terms Unison, Discord (duism,
diversity), the Spirit of One and the Spirit of Two; and of the Major
and the Minor Mode, suggest QUANTITY and MODALITY as
the reigning principles in that domain. The appearance of Number and
Mode in the domain of Relation (Grammar), is, as already stated, a
subordinate one, and has respect to the principle of
OVERLAPPING, already adverted to, by which all the domains of
Nature are _intricated_ or _con-creted_ with each other.
QUANTITY and MODE, in their own independent and
separate development, will, therefore, be the special subjects of a
subsequent treatment.