I was Thou wast He was } written to.

We were Ye were They were }

I have been I had been I shall be } written to.

I may be I might be I could be }

If the state be imperfect, the participle in _ing_ must be

substituted; thus,

The house is building }

The house was building } Progressive.

The house shall be building }

The house is built }

The house was built } Perfect.

The house shall be built }

Neuter verbs, expressing neither action nor passion, admit, without

altering their signification, either phraseology; thus, _I have

arisen_, or _I am arisen_; _I was come_, or _I had come_.

I conclude this part of the subject with a few observations

concerning the subjunctive or potential mood.

Various disputes have arisen respecting the existence and the use

of this mood; nor is there, perhaps, any other point in grammar, on

which respectable authorities are so much divided.

That there is not in English, as in Latin, a potential mood properly

so called, appears to me unquestionable. _Amarem_ signifies ability

or liberty[67], involving the verbs _possum_ and _licet_, and may

therefore be termed a potential mood; but in English these accessary

circumstances are denoted by the preterites of the verbs _may_ and

_can_; as, _I might_ or _could love_.

That there is no subjunctive mood, we have, I conceive, equal

authority to assert. If I say in Latin, _cum cepisset_, “when he had

taken,” the verb is strictly in the subjunctive mood; for, were not

the verb subjoined to _cum_, it must have taken the indicative form;

but I hesitate not to assert, that no example can be produced in

English, where the indicative form is altered _merely_ because the

verb is preceded by some conjunctive particle. If we say, “though he

were rich, he would not despise the poor,” _was_ is not here turned

into _were_ because subjoined to _though_; for _though_ is joined

to the indicative mood, when the sentiment requires it; the verb

therefore is not in the subjunctive mood.

In respect to what has been denominated the conditional form of the

verb, I observe, that the existence of this form appears to me highly

questionable. My reasons are these:

1st. Several of our grammarians have not mentioned it; among these

are the celebrated Dr. Wallis, and the author of the British Grammar.

2dly. Those, who admit it, are not agreed concerning its extent.

Lowth and Johnson confine it to the present tense, while Priestley

extends it to the preterite.

3dly. The example which Priestley adduces of the conditional

preterite, _if thou drew_, with a few others which might be

mentioned, are acknowledged by himself to be so stiff and so harsh,

that I am inclined to regard them rather as anomalies, than as

constituting an authority for a general rule.

4thly. If then this form be, agreeably to the opinions of Lowth and

Johnson, confined to the present tense, I must say that I have not

been able to find a single example, in which the present conditional,

as it is termed, is anything but an ellipsis of the auxiliary verb.

5thly. Those who admit this mood make it nothing but the plural

number of the correspondent indicative tense without variation; as

_I love_, _thou love_, _he love_, &c. Now as this is, in fact, the

radical form of the verb, or what may be deemed the infinitive, as

following an auxiliary, it forms a presumption that it is truly an

infinitive mood, the auxiliary being suppressed.

The opinion here given will, I think, be confirmed by the following

examples.

“If he say so, it is well,” _i.e._ “if he shall say so.”

“Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him,” (_Bible_) _i.e._

“though he should slay.”

“Though thou detain me, I will not eat,” (_Ibid._) _i.e._ “shouldst

detain me.”

“If thy brother trespass against thee,” (_Ibid._) _i.e._ “should

trespass.”

“Though he fall, he shall not utterly be cast down,” (_Ibid._) _i.e._

“though he should fall.”

“Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day,” (_Ibid._) _i.e._

“thou shouldst keep.”

There are a few examples in the use of the auxiliaries _do_ and

_have_, in which, when the ellipsis is supplied, the expression

appears somewhat uncouth; but I am persuaded that a little attention

will show, that these examples form no exception to this theory.

“If now thou do prosper my way.”--_Bible._ It is here obvious, that

the event supposed was future; the appropriate term, therefore, to

express that idea, is either _shall_ or _will_. If the phrase were,

“if thou prosper my way,” it would be universally admitted that the

auxiliary is suppressed, thus, “if thou shalt or wilt prosper my

way.” Again, when we say, “if thou do it, I shall be displeased,”

it is equally evident that the auxiliary is understood, thus, “if

thou shalt do it.” Now, if these examples be duly considered,

and if the import of the verb _to do_, as formerly explained, be

remembered, I think it will appear that the expression is elliptical,

and truly proceeds thus, “if thou (shalt) do prosper my way.” The

same observations are applicable to Shakspeare’s phraseology, when

he says, “if thou do pardon, whosoever pray.” Again; when Hamlet

says, “if damned custom have not brazed it so,” it is obvious that

the auxiliary verb _may_ is understood; for, if the expression be

cleared of the negative, the insertion of the auxiliary creates no

uncouthness; thus, “if damned custom may have brazed it so.”

I am therefore inclined to think, that the conditional form, unless

in the verb _to be_[68], has no existence in our language.

Though this be not strictly the proper place, I would beg the

reader’s attention to a few additional observations.

Many writers of classic eminence express future and contingent events

by the present tense indicative. In colloquial language, or where

the other form would render the expression stiff and awkward, this

practice cannot justly be reprehended. But where this is not the

case, the proper form, in which the note of contingency or futurity

is either expressed or understood, is certainly preferable. Thus,

“If thou neglectest, or doest unwillingly, what I command thee, I

will rack thee with old cramps.”--_Shakspeare._ Better, I think, “if

thou shalt neglect or do.”

“If any member absents himself, he shall forfeit a penny for the use

of the club.”--_Spectator._ Better, “if any member absent, or shall

absent.”

“If the stage becomes a nursery of folly and impertinence, I shall

not be afraid to animadvert upon it.”--_Spectator._ Preferably thus,

“If the stage become, or shall become.”

I observe also, that there is something peculiar and deserving

attention in the use of the preterite tense[69]. To illustrate the

remark, I shall take the following case. A servant calls on me for a

book; if I am uncertain whether I have it or not, I answer, “if the

book _be_ in my library, or if I _have_ the book, your master shall

be welcome to it:” but if I am certain that I have not the book, I

say, “if the book _were_ in my library, or if I had the book, it

should be at your master’s service.” Here it is obvious that when we

use the present tense it implies uncertainty of the fact; and when we

use the preterite, it implies a negation of its existence. Thus also,

a person at night would say to his friend, “if it _rain_, you shall

not go,” being uncertain at the time whether it did or did not rain;

but if, on looking out, he perceived it did not rain, he would then

say, “if it _rained_, you should not go,” intimating that it did not

rain.

“Nay, and the villains march wide between the legs, as if they had

gyves on.”--_Shakspeare._ Where _as if they had_ implies that “they

had not.”

In the same manner, if I say, “I will go, if I can,” my ability is

expressed as uncertain, and its dependent event left undetermined.

But if I say, “I would go, if I could,” my inability is expressly

implied, and the dependent event excluded. Thus also, when it is

said, “if I may, I will accompany you to the theatre,” the liberty

is expressed as doubtful; but when it is said, “if I might, I would

accompany you,” the liberty is represented as not existing.

In thus expressing the negation of the attribute, the conjunction is

often omitted, and the order inverted; thus, “if I had the book,” or

“had I the book.” “Were I Alexander,” said Parmenio, “I would accept

this offer;” or, “if I were Alexander, I would accept.” _Were_ is

frequently used for _would be_, and _had_ for _would have_; as, “it

_were_ injustice to deny the execution of the law to any individual;”

that is, “it would be injustice.” “Many acts, which _had_ been

blameable in a peaceable government, were employed to detect

conspiracies;” where _had_ is put for _would have_[70].--_Hume’s

History of England._

Ambiguity is frequently created by confounding fact with hypothesis,

or making no distinction between dubitative and assertive

phraseologies. Thus, if we employ such expressions as these, “if

thou knewest,” “though he was learned,” not only to express the

certainty of a fact, but likewise to denote a mere hypothesis as

opposed to fact, we necessarily render the expression ambiguous.

It is by thus confounding things totally distinct, that writers

have been betrayed not into ambiguity only, but even into palpable

errors. In evidence of this, I give the following example: “Though he

were divinely inspired, and spoke therefore as the oracles of God,

with supreme authority; though he were endowed with supernatural

powers, and could, therefore, have confirmed the truth of what

he asserted by miracles; yet in compliance with the way in which

human nature and reasonable creatures are usually wrought upon, he

reasoned.”--_Atterbury’s Sermons._

Here the writer expresses the inspiration and the supernatural powers

of Jesus, not as properties or virtues which he really did possess,

but which, though not possessing them, he might be supposed to

possess. Now, as his intention was to ascribe these virtues to Jesus,

as truly belonging to him, he should have employed the indicative

form _was_, and not _were_, as in the following sentence: “though

he _was_ rich, yet for our sakes he became poor.” “Though he _were_

rich,” would imply the non-existence of the attribute; in other

words, “that he was _not_ rich.”

A very little attention would serve to prevent these ambiguities and

errors. If the attribute be conceived as unconditionally certain,

the indicative form without ellipsis must be employed, as, “I

teach,” “I had taught,” “I shall teach.” If futurity, hypothesis, or

uncertainty, be intended, with the concessive term, the auxiliary

may be either expressed or understood, as perspicuity may require,

and the taste and judgment of the writer may dictate; thus, “if any

man teach strange doctrines, he shall be severely rebuked.” In the

former clause the auxiliary verb _shall_ is unnecessary, and is

therefore, without impropriety, omitted. “Then hear thou in heaven,

and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, that

thou teach them the good way wherein they should walk.”--_Bible._

In this example the suppression of the auxiliary verb is somewhat

unfavourable to perspicuity, and renders the clause stiff and

awkward. It would be better, I think, “thou mayest teach them the

good way.” Harshness, indeed, and the appearance of affectation,

should be particularly avoided. Where there is no manifest danger

of misconception, the use of the assertive for the dubitative form

is far preferable to those starched and pedantic phraseologies

which some writers are fond of exhibiting. For this reason, such

expressions as the following appear to me highly offensive: “if thou

have determined, we must submit;” “unless he have consented, the

writing will be void;” “if this have been the seat of their original

formation;” “unless thou shall speak, we cannot determine.” The last

I consider as truly ungrammatical. In such cases, if the dubitative

phraseology should appear to be preferable, the stiffness and

affectation here reprehended may frequently be prevented by inserting

the note of doubt or contingency.

I observe farther, that the substitution of _as_ for _if_ when

the affirmation is unconditional, will often serve to prevent

ambiguity[71]. Thus, when the ant in the fable says to the

grasshopper who had trifled away the summer in singing, “if you sung

in summer, dance in winter;” as the first clause, taken by itself,

leaves the meaning somewhat ambiguous, “as you sung,” would be the

better expression.

IRREGULAR VERBS.

The general rule for the formation of the preterite tense, and the

perfect participle, is to add to the present the syllable _ed_, if

the verb end with a consonant, or _d_, if it end with a vowel, as

Turn, Turned, Turned; Love, Loved, Loved.

Verbs, which depart from this rule, are called irregular, of which I

believe the subsequent enumeration to be nearly complete[72].

_Present._ _Preterite._ _Perfect Participle._

Abide Abode Abode

Am Was Been

Arise Arose Arisen

Awake Awoke R Awaked

Bake Baked Baken R

Bear, to bring forth Bore, or Bear Born[73]

Bear, to carry Bore, or Bear Borne

Beat Beat Beaten

Begin Began Begun

Become Became Become

Behold Beheld Beheld, or Beholden[74]

Bend Bent R Bent R

Bereave Bereft R Bereft R

Beseech Besought Besought

Bid Bade, or Bid Bidden

Bind Bound Bound

Bite Bit Bitten, Bit[75]

Bleed Bled Bled

Blow Blew Blown

Break Broke, or Brake Broken[76]

Breed Bred Bred

Bring Brought Brought

Build Built R Built[77] R

Burst Burst Burst

Buy Bought Bought

Can Could

Cast Cast Cast

Catch Caught R Caught R

Chide Chid[78] Chidden

Choose Chose Chosen

Cleave, to stick Clave R Cleaved

or adhere

Cleave, to split Clove, or Clave, Cloven,

or Cleft or Cleft

Cling Clung Clung

Climb Clomb[79] R Climbed

Clothe Clad[80] R Clad R

Come Came Come

Cost Cost Cost

Crow Crew R Crowed

Creep Crept Crept

Cut Cut Cut

Dare, to venture Durst R Dared

Dare, to challenge, is regular.

Deal Dealt R Dealt R

Dig Dug R Dug R

Do Did Done

Draw Drew Drawn

Drive Drove Driven

Drink Drank Drunk

Dwell Dwelt R Dwelt R

Eat Ate Eaten

Fall Fell Fallen

Feed Fed Fed

Feel Felt Felt

Fight Fought Fought

Find Found Found

Flee Fled Fled

Fly Flew Flown

Fling Flung Flung

Forget Forgot Forgotten

Forgo[81] Forgone

Forsake Forsook Forsaken

Freeze Froze Frozen

Freight Freighted Freighted, or Fraught[82]

Get Gat, or Got Gotten, or Got

Gild Gild R Gilt R

Gird Girt R Girt R

Give Gave Given

Go Went Gone

Grave Graved Graven R

Grind Ground Ground

Grow Grew Grown

Have Had Had

Hang[83] Hung R Hung R

Hear Heard Heard

Heave Hove[84] R Hoven R

Help Helped Holpen[85] R

Hew Hewed Hewn R

Hide Hid Hidden[86], or Hid

Hit Hit Hit

Hold Held Holden[87], or Held

Hurt Hurt Hurt

Keep Kept Kept

Kneel Knelt Knelt

Knit Knit, or Knitted Knit, or Knitted

Know Knew Known

Lade Laded Laden[88]

Lay Laid Laid[89]

Lead Led Led

Leave Left Left

Lend Lent Lent

Let Let Let

Lie, to lie down Lay Lien, or Lain[90]

Lift Lifted, or Lift Lifted, or Lift

Light Lighted, or Lit[91] Lighted, or Lit

Load Loaded Loaden, or Loaded

Lose Lost Lost

Make Made Made

May Might

Mean Meant R Meant R

Meet Met Met

Mow Mowed Mown[92] R

Must

Pay Paid Paid

Put Put Put

Quit Quit, or Quitted[93] Quit

Read Read Read

Rend Rent Rent

Ride Rode, or Rid Rid[94], or Ridden

Rid Rid Rid

Ring Rang, or Rung Rung

Rise Rose Risen

Rive Rived Riven

Roast Roasted Roasted, or Roast[95]

Rot Rotted Rotten R

Run Ran Run

Saw Sawed Sawn R

Say Said Said

See Saw Seen

Seek Sought Sought

Seethe Seethed, or Sod Sodden

Sell Sold Sold

Send Sent Sent

Set Set Set

Shake Shook Shaken[96]

Shall Should

Shape Shaped Shapen R

Shave Shaved Shaven R

Shear Shore Shorn

Shed Shed Shed

Shine Shone R Shone R

Shew Shewed Shewn

Show Showed Shown

Shoe Shod Shod

Shoot Shot Shot

Shrink Shrank[97], or Shrunk Shrunk

Shred Shred Shred

Shut Shut Shut

Sing Sang[98], or Sung Sung

Sink Sank, or Sunk Sunk

Sit Sat Sitten[99], or Sat

Slay Slew Slain

Sleep Slept Slept

Slide Slid Slidden

Sling Slang, or Slung Slung

Slink Slank, or Slunk Slunk

Slit Slit R Slit, or Slitted

Smite Smote Smitten

Sow Sowed Sown R

Speak Spoke, or Spake Spoken

Speed Sped Sped

Spend Spent Spent

Spill Spilt R Spilt R

Spin Spun, or Span Spun

Spit Spat, or Spit Spitten, or Spit

Split Split, or Splitted Split, Splitted

Spread Spread Spread

Spring Sprang, or Sprung Sprung

Stand Stood Stood

Steal Stole Stolen

Stick Stuck Stuck

Sting Stung Stung

Stink Stank, or Stunk Stunk

Stride Strode, or Strove Stridden

Strike Struck Struck, or Stricken

String Strung Strung

Strive Strove Striven

Strew, or Strewed, or } Strown

Strow Strowed }

Swear Swore, or Sware Sworn

Sweat Sweat Sweat

Sweep Swept Swept

Swell Swelled Swelled, or Swollen

Swim Swam, or Swum Swum

Swing Swang Swung

Take Took Taken

Teach Taught Taught

Tear Tore, or Tare Torn

Tell Told Told

Think Thought Thought

Thrive Throve[100] Thriven

Throw Through Thrown

Thrust Thrust Thrust

Tread Trod Trodden

Wax Waxed Waxen R

Wash Washed Washed[101]

Wear Wore Worn

Weave Wove Woven

Weep Wept Wept

Will Would

Win Won Won

Wind Wound[102] R Wound

Work Wrought R Wrought R

Wring Wrung R Wrung

Write Wrote Written[103]

Writhe Writhed Writhen.

DEFECTIVE VERBS.

These, as Lowth observes, are generally not only defective, but also

irregular, and are chiefly auxiliary verbs.

_Present._ _Preterite._ _Perfect Participle._

Must

May Might

Quoth Quoth

Can Could

Shall Should

Wit[104], or Wot Wot

Will[105] Would

Wis[106] Wist

Ought[107]

OF IMPERSONAL VERBS.

The distinctive character of impersonal verbs has been a subject of

endless dispute among grammarians. Some deny their existence in the

learned languages, and others as positively assert it. Some define

them to be verbs devoid of the two first persons; but this definition

is evidently incorrect: for, as Perizonius and Frischlinus observe,

this may be a reason for calling them defective, but not for naming

them impersonal verbs. Others have defined them to be verbs, to which

no certain person, as the subject, can be prefixed. But with the

discussion of this question, as it respects the learned languages,

the English grammarian has no concern. I proceed, therefore, to

observe, that impersonal verbs, as the name imports, are those which

do not admit a person as their nominative. Their real character

seems to be, that they assert the existence of some action or state,

but refer it to no particular subject. In English we have very few

impersonal verbs. To this denomination, however, may certainly be

referred, _it behoveth_, _it irketh_; equivalent to, _it is the

duty_, _it is painfully wearisome_. That the former of these verbs

was once used personally, we have sufficient evidence; and it is not

improbable that the latter also was so employed, though I have not

been able to find an example of its junction with a person. They are

now invariably used as impersonal verbs. We cannot say, _I behove_,

_thou behovest_, _he behoves_; _we irk_, _ye irk_, _they irk_.

There are one or two others, which have been considered as

impersonal verbs, in which the personal pronoun in the objective

case is prefixed to the third person singular of the verb, as

_methinks_, _methought_, _meseems_, _meseemed_; analogous to the

Latin expressions _me pœnitet_, _me pœnituit_. _You thinketh_, _him

liketh_, _him seemeth_, have long been entirely obsolete. _Meseems_

and _meseemed_ occur in Sidney, Spenser, and other contemporary

writers; but are now universally disused. Addison sometimes says

_methoughts_, contrary, I conceive, to all analogy.

CHAPTER VII.

OF ADVERBS.

An adverb is that part of speech which is joined to a verb,

adjective, or other adverb, to express some circumstance, quality,

degree, or manner of its signification; and hence adverbs have been

termed attributives of the second order.

“As the attributives hitherto mentioned,” says Mr. Harris, “viz.

adjective and verb, denote the attributes of substances, so there

is an inferior class of them, which denote the attributes only of

attributes. If I say, ‘Cicero was eloquent,’ I ascribe to him the

attribute of eloquence simply and absolutely; if I say, ‘he was

exceedingly eloquent,’ I affirm an eminent degree of eloquence,

the adverb _exceedingly_ denoting that degree. If I say, ‘he died,

fighting _bravely_ for his country,’ the word _bravely_ here added to

the verb denotes the manner of the action.” An adverb is, therefore,

a word joined to a verb, or any attributive, to denote some

modification, degree, or circumstance, of the expressed attribute.

Adverbs have been divided into a variety of classes, according to

their signification. Some of those which denote

_Quality_ simply, are, Well, ill, bravely, prudently, softly,

with innumerable others formed from

adjectives and participles.

_Certainty_ or { Verily, truly, undoubtedly, yea, yes,

_Affirmation_ { certainly.

_Contingence_ Perhaps, peradventure, perchance.

_Negation_ Nay, no, not, nowise.

_Explaining_ Namely.

_Separation_ Apart, separately, asunder.

_Conjunction_ Together, generally, universally.

_Indication_ Lo.

_Interrogation_ Why, wherefore, when, how.

_Excess_ or } Very, exceedingly, too, more, better,

_Preeminence_ } worse, best, worst.

_Defect_ Almost, nearly, less, least.

_Preference_ Rather, chiefly, especially.

_Likeness_ or } So, thus, as, equally.

_Equality_ }

_Unlikeness_ or } Else, otherwise.

_Inequality_ }

_Abatement_ or } Piecemeal, scarcely, hardly.

_Gradation_ }

_To_ or _in a place_ Here, there, where.

_To a place, only_ Hither, thither, whither.

_Towards a place_ Hitherward, thitherward, whitherward.

_From a place_ Hence, thence, whence.

_Time present_ Now, to-day.

_---- past_ { Yesterday, before, heretofore, already,

{ hitherto, lately.

_---- future_ { To-morrow, hereafter, presently,

{ immediately, afterwards.

_Repetition of } Often, seldom, frequently.

times indef._ }

_---- Definitely_ Once, twice, thrice, again.

_Order_ First[108], secondly, thirdly, &c.

_Quantity_ Much, little, enough, sufficiently.

On inquiring into the meaning and etymology of adverbs, it will

appear, that most of them are abbreviations or contractions for two

or more words. Thus, _bravely_, or “in a brave manner,” is probably

derived by abbreviation from _brave-like_, _wisely_ from _wise-like_,

_happily_ from _happy-like_[109]. Mr. Tooke, indeed, has proved, as

I conceive incontrovertibly, that most of them are either corruptions

of other words, or abbreviations of phrases or of sentences. One

thing is certain, that the adverb is not an indispensable part of

speech, as it serves merely to express in one word what perhaps would

otherwise require two or more words. Thus,

Where[110] denotes In what place

Here In this place

There In that place

Whither To what place

Hither To this place

Thither To that place.

CHAPTER VIII.

OF PREPOSITIONS.

A preposition has been defined to be “that part of speech which shows

the relation that one thing bears to another.” According to Mr.

Harris, it is a part of speech devoid itself of signification, but

so formed as to unite words that are significant, and that refuse to

unite or associate of themselves. He has, therefore, compared them to

pegs or pins, which serve to unite those parts of the building which

would not, by their own nature, incorporate or coalesce. When one

considers the formidable objections which present themselves to this

theory, and that the ingenious author now quoted has, in defence of

it, involved himself in palpable contradictions, it becomes matter

of surprise that it should have so long received from grammarians

an almost universal and implicit assent. This furnishes one of

many examples, how easily error may be imposed and propagated by

the authority of a great name. But, though error may be repeatedly

transmitted from age to age, unsuspected and unquestioned, it

cannot be perpetuated. Mr. Horne Tooke has assailed this theory by

irresistible arguments, and demonstrated that, in our language at

least, prepositions are significant of ideas, and that, as far as

import is concerned, they do not form a distinct species of words.

It is not, indeed, easy to imagine, that men, in the formation

of any language, would invent words insignificant, and to which,

singly, they attached no determinate idea; especially when it is

considered, that, in every stage of their existence, from rudeness

to civilization, new words would perpetually be wanting to express

new ideas. It is not, therefore, probable that, while they were

under the necessity of framing new words, to answer the exigences of

mental enlargement, and while these demands on their invention were

incessantly recurring, they would, in addition to this, encumber

themselves with the idle and unnecessary task of forming new words

to express nothing.

But, in truth, Harris himself yields the point, when he says, that

prepositions, when compounded, transfuse something of their meaning

into the compound; for they cannot transfuse what they do not

contain, nor impart what they do not possess. They must, therefore,

be themselves significant words.

But it is not so much their meaning with which the grammarian

is concerned, as their syntactical character, their capacity of

affecting other words, or being affected by them. In both these

lights, however, I propose to consider them.

The name of preposition has been assigned to them, because they

generally precede their regimen, or the word which they govern. What

number of these words ancient and modern languages contain, has been

much disputed; some grammarians determining a greater and some a less

number. This, indeed, of itself affords a conclusive proof that the

character of these words has not been clearly understood; for, in the

other parts of speech, noun, adjective, and verb, the discriminative

circumstances are so evident, that no doubt can arise concerning

their classification.

That most of our English prepositions have signification _per se_,

and form no distinct species of words, Mr. Tooke has produced

incontrovertible evidence: nor is it to be doubted, that a perfect

acquaintance with the Northern languages would convince us, that all

of them are abbreviations, corruptions, or combinations of other

words. A few of Mr. Tooke’s examples I shall now present to the

reader.

_Above_, from the Anglo-Saxon _ufa_, high; hence _bufan_, _on

bufan_, bove, above.

_With_, from _withan_, to join, of which _with_ is the imperative;

thus, “_a house with a party wall_,”--“a house, _join_ a party

wall;” or it is sometimes the imperative of _wyrthan_, “to be;”

hence, _by_ and _with_ are often synonymous, the former being

derived from _beon_, “to be.”

_Without_, from the Saxon preposition _withutan_, _extra_, _sine_,

which is properly the imperative of the verb _wyrthanutan_, “to

be out.” _Withutan_, _beutan_, “without,” “be out,” or “but.” The

Saxon preposition occurs frequently in the writings of Chaucer, and

is still used in Scottish poetry[111].

_From_[112], is simply the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic noun _frum_,

“beginning,” “source,” “origin;” thus, “Figs came _from_ Turkey;”

that is, Figs came; “the source,” or “beginning,” Turkey; to which

is opposed the word.

_To_, the same originally as _do_, signifying finishing or

completion; thus “Figs came _from_ Turkey _to_ England;” “the

beginning,” or “source,” Turkey; “the finishing,” or “end,” England.

_Beneath_, is the imperative _be_, compounded with the noun

_neath_, of the same import with _neden_ in Dutch, _ned_ in Danish,

_niedere_ in German, and _nedre_ or _neder_ in Swedish, signifying

the lower place; hence, the astronomical term _Nadir_, opposed to

_Zenith_. Hence also _nether_ and _nethermost_.

_Between_, “be twain,” “be two,” or “be separated.”[113]

_Before_, }

_Behind_, } Imperative _be_, and the nouns, _fore_, _hind_, _side_,

_Beside_, } _low_.

_Below_, }

_Under_, i.e. _on neder_.

_Beyond_, imperative _be_, and the participle past _goned_ of the

verb _gan_, “to go:” as, “beyond the place,” i.e. “be passed the

place.”

_Among_, from _gemong_, the preterperfect of the verb _mengan_, to

mix, used as a participle, and signifying “mixed.”

Many other examples might be produced from Tooke’s ingenious

illustration of his theory; but those which I have now offered

suffice to prove, that our prepositions, so far from being words

insignificant, belong to the class of nouns or verbs either single or

compounded.

Besides, if prepositions denote relations, as Harris admits, it

is surely absurd to suppose, that they have no meaning; for the

relation, whether of propinquity, contiguity, approach, or regress,

&c., may be expressed, and apprehended by the mind, though the

objects between which the relation subsists be not specified. If I

hear the word _with_, I naturally conceive the idea of conjunction;

the reverse takes place when I hear _without_. If it be said _a

soldier with_, I have the idea of a soldier associated with something

else, which association is denoted by _with_. What is conjoined to

him I know not, till the object be specified, as, “a soldier _with_ a

musquet;” but the mere association was before sufficiently expressed,

and clearly apprehended. Again, if a person say, “_he threw a glass

under_,” I have instantly an idea of a glass, and of inferiority

of place, conceiving a glass removed into a situation lower than

something else. To ascertain that _something_, I ask, _under what?_

and the answer may be, _under the table_. Now, if _under_ had no

meaning, this question would be insignificant, or rather impossible.

From the examples given, I trust the young reader sufficiently

understands the difference between the doctrine of Harris on this

subject, and that of Horne Tooke; nay, I think, he must perceive,

that the former is merely a theory, while the latter is supported by

reason and fact. The syntax of our prepositions will be afterwards

explained. I shall only observe at present, that the words which are

in English considered as prepositions, and joined to the objective

case are these:

Above Beneath Since

About Below Through }

After Beside Throughout }

Against By Till }

Among } Down Until }

Amongst } For To }

Amid } From Unto }

Amidst } In Toward }

Around } Into Towards }

Round } Near } Under }

At Nigh } Underneath }

Between } Of Up

Betwixt } Off With

Beyond Over Within

Before On } Without

Behind Upon }

Some of these, though they are commonly joined to an objective case,

and may therefore be deemed prepositions, are, notwithstanding, of

an equivocal character, resembling the Latin adverbs _procul_ and

_prope_, which govern a case by the ellipsis of a preposition. Thus

we say, “near the house” and “near _to_ the house,” “nigh the park,”

and “nigh _to_ the park,” “off the table,” and “off _from_ the table.”

Several are used as adverbs, and also as prepositions, no ellipsis

being involved, as, _till_, _until_, _after_, _before_.

There are certain particles, which are never found single

or uncompounded, and have therefore been termed inseparable

prepositions. Those purely English are, _a_, _be_, _fore_, _mis_,

_un_. The import of these, and of a few separable prepositions when

prefixed to other words, I proceed to explain.

_A_, signifies _on_ or _in_, as, _a foot_, _a shore_, that is, _on

foot_, _on shore_. Webster contends, that it was originally the

same with _one_.

_Be_, signifies _about_, as, _bestir_, _besprinkle_, that is, _stir

about_; also _for_ or _before_, as, _bespeak_, that is, _speak

for_, or _before_.

_For_, denies, or deprives, as, _bid, forbid_, _seek, forsake_,

i.e. _bid, bid not_; _seek, not seek_.

_Fore_, signifies _before_, as, _see, foresee_, that is, _see

beforehand_.

_Mis_, denotes defect or error, as, _take, mistake_, or _take

wrongly_; _deed, misdeed_, that is, _a wrong_ or _evil deed_.

_Over_, denotes eminence or superiority, as, _come, overcome_; also

excess, as, _hasty_, _over hasty_, or _too hasty_.

_Out_, signifies excess or superiority, as, _do, outdo_, _run,

outrun_, that is, “to surpass in running.”

_Un_, before an adjective, denotes negation, or privation, as,

_worthy, unworthy_, or “_not_ worthy.” Before verbs it denotes

the undoing or the destroying of the energy or act, expressed

by the verb, as, _say, unsay_, that is, “affirm,” retract the

“affirmation.”

_Up_, denotes motion upwards, as, _start, upstart_; rest in a

higher place, as, _hold, uphold_; sometimes subversion, as, _set,

upset_.

_With_, signifies _against_, as, _stand, withstand_, that is,

“stand against, or resist.”

The Latin prepositions used in the composition of English words are

these, _ab_ or _abs_, _ad_, _ante_, _con_, _circum_, _contra_, _de_,

_di_, _dis_, _e_ or _ex_, _extra_, _in_, _inter_, _intro_, _ob_,

_per_, _post_, _præ_, _pro_, _præter_, _re_, _retro_, _se_, _sub_,

_subter_, _super_, _trans_.

_A, ab, abs_, signify _from_ or _away_, as, _to abstract_, that is,

“to draw away.”

_Ad_, signifies _to_ or _at_, as, _to adhere_, that is, “to stick

to.”

_Ante_, means _before_, as, _antecedent_, that is, “going before.”

_Circum_, round, _about_, as, _circumnavigate_, or “sail round.”

_Con, com, co, col_, signify _together_, as, _convoke_, or “call

together,” _co-operate_, or “work together,” _colleague_, “joined

together.”

_Contra_, _against_, as, _contradict_, or “speak against.”

_De_, signifies _down_, as, _deject_, or “throw down.”

_Di, dis_, _asunder_, as _distract_, or “draw asunder.”

_E_, _ex_, _out of_, as, _egress_, or “going out,” _eject_, or

“throw out,” _exclude_, or “shut out.”

_Extra_, _beyond_, as, _extraordinary_, or “beyond the ordinary or

usual course.”

_In_, before an adjective, like _un_, denotes privation, as,

_active_, _inactive_, or “not active;” before a verb, it has its

simple meaning.

_Inter_, _between_, as, _intervene_, or “come between,”

_interpose_, or “put between.”

_Intro_, _to within_, as, _introduce_, or “lead in.”

_Ob_, denotes opposition, as, _obstacle_, that is, “something

standing in opposition,” “an impediment.”

_Per_, _through_, or _thoroughly_, as, _perfect_, or “thoroughly

done,” to _perforate_, or “to bore through.”

_Post_, _after_, as, _postscript_, or “written after,” that is,

after the letter.

_Præ_, _before_, as, _prefix_, or “fix before.”

_Pro_, _forth_, or _forwards_, as, _promote_, or “move forwards.”

_Præter_, _past_, or _beyond_, as, _preternatural_, or “beyond the

course of nature.”

_Re_, _again_, or _back_, as, _retake_, or “take back.”

_Retro_, _backwards_, as, _retrograde_, or “going backwards.”

_Se_, _apart_, or _without_, as, _to secrete_, “to put aside,” or

“to hide,” _secure_, “without care or apprehension.”

_Subter_, _under_, as, _subterfluous_, or “flowing under.”

_Super_, _above_, or _over_, as, _superscribe_, or “write above, or

over.”

_Trans_, _over_, _from one place to another_, as, _transport_, that

is, “carry over.”

The Greek prepositions and particles compounded with English words

are, _a_, _amphi_, _anti_, _hyper_, _hypo_, _meta_, _peri_, _syn_.

_A_, signifies privation, as, _anonymous_, or “without a name.”

_Amphi_, _both_, or _the two_, as, _amphibious_, “having both

lives,” that is, “on land and on water.”

_Anti_, _against_, as, _anti-covenanter_, _anti-jacobin_, that is,

“an opponent of the covenanters,” “an enemy to the jacobins.”

_Hyper_, _over and above_, as, _hypercritical_, or “over,” that is,

“too critical.”

_Hypo_, _under_, implying concealment or disguise, as, _hypocrite_,

“one dissembling his real character.”

_Meta_, denotes change or transmutation, as, _to metamorphose_, or

“to change the shape.”

_Para_, denotes sometimes propinquity or similarity, and sometimes

contrariety. It is equivalent to the Latin terms _juxta_ and

_præter_, as, “to paraphrase,” παραφράζειν, _juxta alterius

orationem loqui_; “to speak the meaning of another.” _Paradox_,

“beyond,” or “contrary to, general opinion,” or “common belief.”

_Peri_, _round about_, as, _periphrasis_, that is, “circumlocution.”

_Syn_, _together_, as _synod_, “a meeting,” or “coming together,”

_sympathy_, or “feeling together.”

CHAPTER IX.

OF CONJUNCTIONS.

A conjunction has been defined to be “that part of speech which

connects words and sentences together.”

Mr. Ruddiman, and several other grammarians, have asserted, that

conjunctions never connect words, but sentences. This is evidently

a mistake; for if I say, “a man of wisdom and virtue is a perfect

character,” it implies not “that a man of wisdom is a perfect

character, and a man of virtue a perfect character,” but “a man who

combines wisdom and virtue.” The farther discussion of this question,

however, I shall at present postpone, as it will form a subject of

future inquiry.

Conjunctions have been distributed, according to their significations,

into different classes:

_Copulative_, And, also, but, (bot).

_Disjunctive_, Either, or.

_Concessive_, Though, although, albeit, yet.

_Adversative_, But, however.

_Exclusive_, Neither, nor.

_Causal_, For, that, because, since.

_Illative_, Therefore, wherefore, then.

_Conditional_, If.

_Exceptive_, Unless.

This distribution of the conjunctions I have given, in conformity

to general usage, that the reader may be acquainted with the common

terms by which conjunctions have been denominated, if these terms

should occur to him in the course of reading. In respect to the real

import, and genuine character of these words, I decidedly adopt the

theory of Mr. Tooke, which considers conjunctions as no distinct

species of words, but as belonging to the class of attributives, or

as abbreviations for two or more significant words.

Agreeably to his theory, _and_ is an abbreviation for _anad_, the

imperative of _ananad_, “to add,” or “to accumulate;” as, “two and

two make four;” that is, “two, add two, make four.” _Either_ is

evidently an adjective expressive of “one of two;” thus, “it is

either day or night,” that is, “one of the two, day or night.” It is

derived from the Saxon _ægther_, equivalent to _uterque_, “each.”[114]

_Or_ is a contraction for _other_, a Saxon and English adjective

equivalent to _alius_ or _alter_, and denotes diversity, either of

name or of subject. Hence _or_ is sometimes a perfect disjunctive,

as when it expresses contrariety or opposition of things; and

sometimes a subdisjunctive, when it denotes simply a diversity in

name. Thus, when we say, “It is either even or odd,” _or_ is a

perfect disjunctive, the two attributives being directly contrary,

and admitting no medium. If I say, “Paris or Alexander” (these being

names of the same individual); or if I say, “Gravity or weight,”

“Logic, or the art of reasoning;” _or_ in these examples is a

subdisjunctive or an explicative, as it serves to define the meaning

of the preceding term, or as it expresses the equivalence of two

terms. The Latins express the former by _aut_, _vel_, and the latter

by _seu_ or _sive_. In the following sentence both conjunctions are

exemplified: “Give me _either_ the black _or_ the white;” _i.e._

“Give me one of the two--the black--other, the white.”

To these are opposed _neither_, _nor_, as, “Give me _neither_ poverty

_nor_ riches;” _i.e._ “Give me not one of the two, poverty--nor,

_i.e._ not the other, riches.”

According to Mr. Tooke, the conjunction _if_ is the imperative of

the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic verb _gifan_, “to give.” Among others, he

quotes the following example. “How will the weather dispose of you

to-morrow? If fair, it will send me abroad; if foul, it will keep me

at home”--_i.e._ “Give,” or “grant it to be fair;” “give,” or “grant

it to be foul.”

_Though_ is the same as _thaf_, an imperative from _thafan_, to

allow, and is in some parts of the country pronounced _thof_; as,

“Though he should speak truth, I would not believe him;” _i.e._

“allow or grant, what? he should speak truth,” or “allow his speaking

truth, I would not believe him.”

_But_, from _beutan_, the imperative of _beon utan_, to _be out_, is

the same as _without_ or _unless_, there being no difference between

these in respect to meaning. Grammarians, however, in conformity

to the distinction between _nisi_ and _sine_, have called _but_ a

conjunction, and _without_ a preposition. _But_, therefore, being

a word signifying exception or exclusion, I have not termed it an

“adversative,” as most grammarians have, but an “exceptive.” In this

sense it is synonymous with _præter_, _præterquam_, or _nisi_; thus,

“I saw nobody but John,” _i.e._ “unless,” or “except John.”

_But_, from _bot_, the imperative of _botan_, to _boot_ or

_superadd_, has a very different meaning. This word was originally

written _bot_, and was thus distinguished from but[115]. They are

now written alike, which tends to create confusion. The meaning of

this word is, “add,” or, “moreover.” This interpretation is confirmed

by the probable derivation and meaning of synonymous words in other

languages. Thus, the French _mais_ (but) is from _majus_, or _magis_,

“more,” or “in addition;” the Italian _ma_, the Spanish _mas_, and

the Dutch _maar_, are from the same etymon, signifying “more.”

And it is not improbable, that _adsit_ (be it present, or be it

added) by contraction became _ast_ and _at_: thus, _adsit_, _adst_,

_ast_, _at_. In this sense _but_ is synonymous with _at_, _autem_,

_cæterum_, “moreover,” or “in addition.”

It is justly observed by Mr. Tooke, that _bot_ or _but_ allays or

mitigates a good or bad precedent, by the addition of something;

for _botan_ means “to superadd,” “to supply,” “to atone for,” “to

compensate,” “to add something more,” “to make amends,” or “make up

deficiency.” Thus,

“Once did I lay an ambush for your life,

A trespass, that doth vex my grieved soul:

But (bot), ere I last received the sacrament,

I did confess...”

_Richard II._

“Add (this) ere I last received.”

When _but_ means _be out_, or _without_, it should, says Mr. Tooke,

be preceded by a negative; thus, instead of saying, “I saw but John,”

which means, “I saw John be out,” we should say, “I saw none but

John,” _i.e._ “none, John be out,” or “had John been out,” or, “John

being excluded.” This, observes the ingenious author, is one of the

most faulty ellipses in our language, and could never have obtained,

but through the utter ignorance of the meaning of the word _but_

(bot).

_Yet_, from the imperative of _getan_, “to get.”

_Still_, from _stell_ or _steall_, the imperative of _stellan_,

_ponere_, “to suppose.”

Horne Tooke observing that these words, like _if_ and _an_[116],

are synonymous, accounts for their equivalence by supposing them to

be derived from verbs of the same import. His mode of derivation,

however, appears at first hearing to be incorrect: the meaning of

the conjunctions have little or no affinity to that of the verbs.

Mr. Tooke himself does not seem perfectly satisfied with its truth.

Both these conjunctions are synonymous with “notwithstanding,”

“nevertheless;” terms, the obvious meaning of which does not accord

with verbs denoting “to get,” or “to suppose.” I am inclined,

however, to think that Tooke’s conjecture is founded in truth. If

I say, “he was learned, yet modest,” it may be expressed, “he was

learned, notwithstanding this, or this being granted, even thus, or

_be it so_ (_licet ita esset_) he was modest;” where the general

incompatibility between learning and modesty is conceived, not

expressed, the expression denoting merely the combination of the

qualities in the individual mentioned. _Notwithstanding_ indirectly

marks the repugnance, by signifying that the one quality did not

prevent the co-existence of the other; _yet_ or _still_ supposes

the incompatibility to be sufficiently known. This derivation is

rendered the more probable, as the word _though_ (_thof_, _grant_)

may be substituted to express the same idea, as “_though_ (grant) he

was learned, he was modest;” which is equivalent to “he was learned,

yet (this granted) he was modest.” Hence many repeat the concessive

term, and say, “_though_ he was learned, _yet_ he was modest.”

_Unless._ Mr. Horne Tooke is of opinion that this exceptive

conjunction is properly _onles_, the imperative of the verb

_onlesan_, to dismiss; thus, “you cannot be saved _unless_ you

believe;” _i.e._ “dismiss your believing, and you cannot be saved,”

or, “you cannot be saved, your believing being dismissed.”

_Lest_ is contracted for _lesed_, the participle of the same verb,

_onlesan_ or _lesan_, signifying “dismissed;” as, “Young men should

take care to avoid bad company, _lest_ their morals be corrupted, and

their reputation ruined;” that is, “Young men should take care to

avoid bad company, _lest_ (this being dismissed, or omitted) their

morals be corrupted,” &c.

_That_ is evidently in all cases an adjective, or, as some consider

it, a demonstrative pronoun; as, “They say _that_ the king is

arrived;” “They say that (thing) the king is arrived.”

_Whether_ is an adjective, denoting “which of two;” thus, “Whether he

live or die;” that is, “Which of the two things, he live or die.”

_As_ is the same with _es_, a German article, meaning _it_, _that_,

or _which_.

_So_ is _sa_ or _so_, a Gothic article of the same import.

_Than_, which Mr. Tooke does not seem to have noticed, is supposed to

be a compound of the definitive _tha_, and the additive termination,

_en_, thus, _tha en, thænne, then_, and now spelled _than_[117].

These few examples will serve to explain Mr. Tooke’s theory on this

subject; and I am persuaded, that the further we investigate the

etymology and real import of conjunctions, the more probable will it

appear that they are all nouns or attributives, some belonging to

kindred languages, and others compounds or abbreviations in our own.

I am persuaded, also, that from a general review of this subject, it

must be evident that adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions, form

no distinct species of words, and that they are all reducible to the

class either of nouns or attributives, if their original character

and real import be considered. But, as many of them are derived

from obsolete words in our own language, or from words in kindred

languages, the radical meanings of which are, therefore, either

obscure, or generally unknown--and as the syntactical use of several

of them has undergone a change--it can be no impropriety, nay, it is

even convenient, to regard them not in their original character, but

their present use. When the radical word still remains, the case is

different. Thus _except_ is by some considered as a preposition; but

as the verb _to except_ is still in use, _except_ may, and indeed

should, be considered as the imperative of the verb[118]. But in

parsing, to say that the word _unless_ is the imperative of the verb

_onlesan_, “to dismiss,” that verb belonging to a different language,

would serve only to perplex and to confound, were it even true

that the etymology is correct. For this reason, though I perfectly

concur with Mr. Tooke as to the proper and original character of

these words, I have distributed them under the customary head of

prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions.

CHAPTER X.

OF INTERJECTIONS.

An interjection has been defined to be, “that part of speech which

denotes some affection or emotion of the mind.” It is clearly not a

necessary part of speech; for, as Tooke observes, interjections are

not to be found in books of history, philosophy, or religion: they

occur in novels only, or dramatic compositions. Some of these are

entirely instinctive and mechanical, as, _ha! ha! ha!_ sounds common

to all men, when agitated with laughter. These physical emissions

of sound have no more claim to be called parts of speech than the

neighing of a horse, or the lowing of a cow. There are others which

seem arbitrary, and are expressive of some emotion, not simply by

the articulation, but by the accompanying voice or gesture. Grief,

for example, is expressed in English by the word _ah!_ or _oh!_ in

Latin by _oi_, _ei!_ and in Greek by οἶ, οἶ, αἶ, αἶ! Here the sounds

are not instinctive, or purely mechanical, as in laughing; but the

accompanying tone of voice, which is the same in all men, under the

influence of the same emotion, indicates clearly the feeling or

passion of the speaker. Others, which have been deemed interjections,

are, in truth, verbs or nouns, employed in the rapidity of thought

and expression, and under the influence of strong emotion, to denote,

what would otherwise require more words to express: as, _strange!_

for _it is strange_; _adieu!_ for _I recommend you to God_; _shame!_

for _it is shame_; _welcome!_ for _you are welcome_.

The words which have been considered by our English grammarians as

interjections, are the following, expressive of

1. _Joy_, as, Hey, Io.

2. _Grief_, Ah, alas, alack.

3. _Wonder_, Vah! hah! aha!

4. _Aversion_, Tush, pish, pshaw, foh, fie, pugh.

5. _Laughter_, Ha, ha, ha.

6. _Desire of attention_, Hark, lo, halloo, hem, hip.

7. _Languor_, Heigh ho.

8. _Desire of silence_, Hush, hist, mum.

9. _Deliberation_, Hum.

10. _Exultation_, Huzza.

11. _Pain_, Oh! ho!

12. _Taking leave_, Adieu.

13. _Greeting_, Welcome.

PART II.

SYNTAX.

Syntax is the arrangement of words in sentences or phrases, agreeably

to established usage, or to the received rules of concord and

government.

Sentences are either simple or complex.

A simple sentence consists of only one member, containing therefore

but one subject, and one finite verb, as, “Alexander the Great is

said to have wept.”

A complex sentence consists of two or more members, as, “Alexander,

when he had conquered the world, is said to have wept, because there

were not other worlds to subdue.”

Complex sentences are divided into members; and these, if complex,

are subdivided into clauses, as, “The ox knoweth his owner | and the

ass his master’s crib || but Israel doth not know | my people doth

not consider.” This complex sentence has two members, each of which

contains two clauses.

When a member of a complex sentence is simple, it is called

indifferently a member, or a clause; as, “I have called, but ye have

refused.” The two parts, into which this sentence divides itself, are

termed each either a member or a clause.

When a complex sentence is so framed, that the meaning is suspended

till the whole be finished, it is called a period; otherwise the

sentence is said to be loose. The following sentence is an example

of a period: “If Hannibal had not wintered at Capua, by which

circumstance his troops were enervated, but had, on the contrary,

after the battle of Cannæ, proceeded to Rome, it is not improbable

that the great city would have fallen.”

The criterion of a period is, that you cannot stop before you reach

the end of the sentence, otherwise the sentence is incomplete. The

following is an example of a loose sentence. “One party had given

their whole attention during several years, to the project of

enriching themselves, and impoverishing the rest of the nation; and,

by these and other means, of establishing their dominion, under the

government, and with the favour of a family, who were foreigners: and

therefore might believe, they were established on the throne, by the

good-will and strength of this party alone.” In this sentence you may

stop at the words _themselves_, _nation_, _dominion_, _government_,

or _foreigners_; and these pauses will severally complete the

construction, and conclude perfect sentences. Thus, in a period, the

dependence of the members is reciprocal; in a loose sentence, the

preceding are not necessarily dependent on the subsequent members;

whereas the following entirely depend on those which are antecedent.

The former possesses more strength, and greater majesty; hence it is

adapted to the graver subjects of history, philosophy, and religion.

The latter is less artificial, and approaches nearer to the style

of conversation; hence it is suited to the gayer and more familiar

subjects of tales, dialogues, and epistolary correspondence.

Concord is the agreement of one word with another, in case, gender,

number, or person; thus, “I love.” Here _I_ is the pronoun singular

of the first person, and the verb is likewise in the first person,

and singular number; they agree therefore in number and person.

Government is the power which one word hath over another in

determining its state; thus, “he wounded us.” In this sentence,

_wounded_ is an active transitive verb, and governs the pronoun in

the objective case.

CHAPTER I.

OF CONCORD.

RULE I.--A verb agrees with its nominative in number and person, as,

_We teach_

_He learns_

where _we_ and _teach_ are each plural, and of the first person; _he_

and _learns_ are each singular, and of the third person.

_Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such examples as these, “I

likes,” “thou loves,” “he need,” “you was.” In reference to the

last example, the reader should observe, that _you_ is plural,

whether it relate to only one individual or to more, and ought

therefore to be joined with a plural verb. It is no argument to

say, that when we address a single person, we should use a verb

singular; for were this plea admissible, we ought to say, “you

wast,” for _wast_ is the second person singular, and not “you was,”

for _was_ is the first or third. Besides, no one says, “you is,” or

“you art,” but “you are.”

_Note_ 2.--The nominative to a verb is known by putting the

question, Who? or What? to the verb, as, _I read_; Who reads? Ans.

_I_.

_Note_ 3.--The infinitive often supplies the place of a nominative

to a verb, thus, “To excel in every laudable pursuit should be the

aim of every one.” What should be the aim? Ans. “To excel.”

_Note_ 4.--_As_, considered now as a conjunction, but being, in its

primitive signification, equivalent to _it_, _that_, or _which_,

likewise supplies the place of a nominative, thus, “As far as

regards his interest, he will be sufficiently careful not to

offend.” Some grammarians suppose _it_ to be understood

_Note_ 5.--A verb is frequently construed with a whole clause as

its nominative, thus, “His being at enmity with Cæsar was the cause

of perpetual discord;” where, _his being at enmity_, the subject of

the affirmation, forms the nominative to the verb.

_Note_ 6.--The nominative, when the verb expresses command or

entreaty, is often suppressed, as, “speak,” for “speak thou,”

“honour the king,” for “honour ye the king.” It is also frequently

suppressed in poetry, as “Lives there, who loves his pain?”

_Milton_:--_i.e._ “Lives there a man?” “To whom the monarch;”

_replied_ being understood.

_Note_ 7.--A noun singular, used for a plural, is joined to a

plural verb, as, “Ten _sail_ of the line _were_ descried at

a distance.” It has been already observed, that the plural

termination is sometimes suppressed, as, “ten thousand,” “three

brace,” “four pair.”

_Note_ 8.--Priestley has said, that when the particle _there_ is

prefixed to a verb singular, a plural noun may follow, “without a

very sensible impropriety.” But, if there be an impropriety at all,

why should the phraseology be adopted? His example is this, “There

necessarily follows from thence these plain and unquestionable

consequences.” Nothing, we apprehend, can justify this violation

of analogy. It should be, “follow.” Would Dr. Priestley have said

“There _is_ men who never reason?”

_Note_ 9.--The nominative generally precedes the verb, and is, in

some examples, known by nothing but its place. This arrangement,

however, is sometimes altered, and the verb placed before the

nominative.

1st. Where the sentence is interrogative, as, “Does wealth make

men happy?” Here the nominative _wealth_ follows the auxiliary:

“wealth does” would denote affirmation. “Stands Scotland where

it did?” Here also the nominative follows the verb, to denote

interrogation[119].

2ndly. In expressing commands or request, as “go thou,” “read ye.”

3rdly. When a supposition is elliptically expressed, the

conditional particle _if_ being understood, as, “Were I Alexander,”

said Parmenio, “I would accept the offer,” where “were I,” is

equivalent to “if I were.”

4thly. After the introductory word _there_, as “There was a man

sent by God, whose name was John.” “There are many who have

the wisdom to prefer virtue to every other acquirement.” This

arrangement is preferable to “a man was sent,” “many are,” &c.;

and, as a general rule, I observe, that this collocation is not

only proper but requisite, when a sentiment of importance is to be

introduced to the hearer’s particular attention.

5thly. When the speaker is under the influence of vehement emotion,

or when vivacity and force are to be imparted to the expression,

the nominative energetically follows the verb, as, “Great is Diana

of the Ephesians.” Alter the arrangement, saying, “Diana of the

Ephesians is great,” and you efface the signature of impetuosity,

and render the expression frigid and unaffecting. “Blessed is

he, that cometh in the name of the Lord.” “He is blessed” would

convert, as Campbell judiciously observes, a fervid exclamation

into a cold aphorism. “Fallen, fallen is Babylon, that great city.”

The energy of the last expression arises partly, I acknowledge,

from the _epijeuxis_ or reduplication[120].

6thly. The auxiliary verb is placed before the nominative, when the

sentence or member begins with _nor_ or _neither_, as, “Nor _did

we_ doubt that rectitude of conduct would eventually prove itself

the best policy.” Thus also is placed the principal verb, as, “Nor

left he in the city a soul alive.”

Besides the cases now enumerated, in which the verb should precede

the nominative, there are several others not easily reducible

to any precise rule. In general, however, it may be remarked,

that the place of the nominative depends, in some degree, on its

connexion with other parts of the sentence. “Hence appears the

impossibility, that this undertaking should be carried on in a

monarchy.” _Impossibility_ being here in sense closely connected

with the following words, this arrangement is preferable to that

in the original. Hume says, “Hence the impossibility appears, that

this undertaking should be carried on in a monarchy.”

Priestley has said, that nouns, whose form is plural, but

signification singular, require a singular verb, as, “Mathematics

is a useful study.” This observation, however, is not justified by

general usage, reputable writers being in this case much divided.

(See p. 19.)

RULE II.--Two or more substantives singular, denoting different

things, being equivalent to a plural, take a plural verb; or, when

two or more substantives singular are collectively subjects of

discourse, they require a plural verb, and plural representatives,

as, “Cato and Cicero _were_ learned men; and _they_ loved _their_

country.”

_Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such examples as this, “I do

not think, that leisure of life and tranquillity of mind, which

fortune and your own wisdom _has_ given you, could be better

employed.”--_Swift._

_Note_ 2.--It was customary with the writers of antiquity, when the

substantives were nearly synonymous, to employ a verb singular, as,

_mens, ratio, et consilium in senibus est_, “understanding, reason,

and prudence _is_ in old men.” In imitation of these, some English

authors have, in similar instances, employed a verb singular. I

concur, however, with L. Murray in disapproving this phraseology.

For either the terms are synonymous, or they are not. If their

equivalence be admitted, all but one are redundant, and there is

only one subject of discourse; only one term should therefore be

retained, and a verb singular be joined with it. If they be not

equivalent, there are as many distinct ideas as there are terms,

and a plurality of subjects requires a plural verb.

This observation, however, requires some limitation. It

occasionally happens that one subject is represented by two names,

neither of which singly would express it with sufficient strength.

In such cases, the two nouns _may_ take a verb singular; and if

the noun singular should be in juxta-position with the verb, the

singular number _should_ be used; as “Why _is_ dust and ashes

proud?”--_Ecclesiasticus_, chap. x.

_Note_ 3.--In such expressions as the following, it has been

doubted, whether the verb should be in the singular or in the

plural number: “Every officer and soldier claim a superiority

in regard to other individuals.”--_De Lolme on the British

Constitution._ Here, I conceive, the phraseology is correct. Such

an expression as “every officer and soldier claims” might signify

one individual under two different designations. Whether we should

say, “Every officer, and every soldier, claim,” is a point more

particularly questioned. We often hear correct speakers say, in

common conversation, “Every clergyman, and every physician, is by

education a gentleman;” and there seems to be more ease, as well as

more precision, in this, than in the other mode of expression. It

is unquestionably, however, more agreeable to analogy to say, “are

gentlemen.”

_Note_ 4.--It is not necessary, that the subjects of discourse

be connected, or associated by conjunctions: it is sufficient,

if the terms form a plurality of subjects to a common predicate,

whether with or without any connexive word, as “Honour, justice,

religion itself, were derided and blasphemed by these profligate

wretches.”[121] In this example the copulative is omitted. “The

king, with the lords and commons, constitute an excellent form of

government.” Here the connexive word is not a conjunction, but a

preposition; and though _the lords and commons_ be properly in

the objective case, and _the king_ therefore the only nominative

to the verb, yet as the three subjects collectively constitute

the government, the verb without impropriety is put in the plural

number. This phraseology, though not strictly consonant with the

rules of concord, frequently obtains both in ancient and modern

languages; in some cases, indeed, it seems preferable to the

syntactical form of expression.

_Note_ 5.--It is to be observed, that, when a pronominal adjective,

compounded with _self_, is joined to a verb, the simple pronoun,

which is the real nominative, is sometimes understood. “If there

be in me iniquity, slay me thyself:” (_Bible_:) _i.e._ “Do thou

thyself slay me.”

“To know but this, that thou art good,

And that myself am blind:”--_Pope._

that is, “that I myself am blind.”

_Note_ 6.--Where comparison is expressed or implied, and not

combination, the verb should be singular; thus, “Cæsar, as well as

Cicero, _was_ remarkable for eloquence.”

“As she laughed out, until her back,

As well as sides, _was_ like to crack.”--_Hudibras._

_Note_ 7.--When the nominatives are of different persons, the first

person is preferred to the second, and the second to the third. In

other words, _I and you_, _I and he_, are sylleptically the same

as _we_; _you and he_ the same as _ye_. This observation, however,

is scarcely necessary, as the verb plural admits no personal

inflexion: it can be useful only in determining what pronoun should

be the representative of the terms collectively, as, “he and I

shared it between _us_.”

_Note_ 8.--In the learned languages the pronoun of the first person

is deemed more worthy than that of the second, and the second than

that of the third; and hence arises the syllepsis of persons which

obtains in Greek and Latin. But, though we admit the figure in

English, we do not precisely adopt the arrangement of the Latins;

for though, like them, we place the pronoun of the second person

before that of the third, we modestly place the pronoun of the

first person after those of the second and third. Thus, where a

Roman would say, _Si tu et Tullia valetis, ego et Cicero valemus_,

we should say, “If you and Tullia are well, Cicero and I are well.”

RULE III.--When, of two or more substantives singular, one

exclusively is the subject of discourse, a verb singular is required,

as, “John, James, or Andrew, intends to accompany you;” that is, one

of the three, but not more than one.

_Note._--When the predicate is to be applied to the different

subjects, though they be disjoined by the conjunction, they may

be followed by a plural verb. “Neither you, nor I, are in fault.”

This is the usual form of expression. If we consider _neither_

in its proper character, as a pronoun, we should say, “neither

you nor I, is in fault:” _neither_ being the nominative to the

verb. The former, however, is the common phraseology, and is

analogous to the Latin idiom. “Quando nec gnatus, nec hic, mihi

quicquam obtemperant.”--_Ter. Hec._ “Id neque ego, neque tu,

fecimus.”--_Id._ “Num Lælius, aut qui duxit ab oppressa meritum

Carthagine nomen, ingenio offensi?”--_Hor._

RULE IV.--Nouns of number, or collective nouns, may have a singular

or plural verb, thus,

“My people _do_ not consider,”

“My people _does_ not consider.”

This licence, however, as Priestley observes, is not entirely

arbitrary. If the term immediately suggest the idea of number, the

verb is preferably made plural; but, if it suggest the idea of a

whole or unity, it should be singular. Thus it seems harsh and

unnatural to say, “In France the peasantry _goes_ barefoot, and

the middle sort _makes_ use of wooden shoes.” It would be better

to say, “the peasantry _go_”--“the middle sort _make_;” because

the idea is that of number. On the contrary, there is something

incongruous and unnatural in these expressions: “The court of Rome

_were_ not without solicitude--The house of commons _were_ of small

weight--Stephen’s party _were_ entirely broken up.”--_Hume._

RULE V.--The adjectives _this_ and _that_ agree with their

substantives in number, as,

_This man_ _These men_

_That woman_ _Those women_.

All other adjectives are inflexible, as,

_Good man_ _Good men_.

_Note_ 1.--This rule is violated in such expressions as these,

which too frequently occur, “_These_ kind of people.” “_Those_ sort

of goods.”

_Note_ 2.--The substantive, with which the adjective is connected,

is ascertained by putting the question, who, or what? to the

adjective, as, “a ripe apple.” What is ripe? Ans. “The apple.”

_Note_ 3.--The inflexibility of the English adjective sometimes

occasions ambiguity, rendering it doubtful to which of two or

more substantives the adjective refers. The defect is sometimes

supplied by the note termed _hyphen_. If, for example, we hear a

person designated “an old bookseller,” we may be at a loss to know,

whether the person intended be an old man who sells books, that

is, “an old book-seller,” or one who sells old books, that is, “an

old-book seller.” When we read the notice, “Lime, slate, and coal

wharf,” we are indebted to the exercise of common sense, and not

to the perspicuity of the diction, for understanding what is meant

by attaching the term wharf to all the preceding nouns, while in

strict grammatical construction the notice might bear a different

signification.

_Note_ 4.--Every adjective has a substantive, either expressed or

understood, as “the just shall live by faith,” _i.e._ “the just

man;” “few were present,” _i.e._ “few persons.”

_Note_ 5.--The adjective is generally placed immediately before the

substantive, as, “a learned man,” “a chaste woman.”

_Exc._ 1.--When the adjective is closely connected with some other

word, by which its meaning is modified or explained, as, “a man

loyal to his prince,” where the attributive _loyal_ is closely

connected with the following words.

_Exc._ 2.--When the verb _to be_ expresses simple affirmation, as,

“thou art good;” or when any other verb serves as a mere copula to

unite the predicate with its subject, as, “he seems courageous,”

“it looks strange.”

_Exc._ 3.--For the sake of harmony, as, “Hail! bard divine.”

_Exc._ 4.--When there are more adjectives than one connected with

the substantive, as, “a man wise, valiant, and good.”

_Exc._ 5.--Adjectives denoting extent, whether of space or of time,

are put after the clause expressing the measure, as, “a wall ten

feet high,” “a child three years old,” “a speech an hour long.”

_Note_ 6.--It has been doubted whether the cardinal should precede

or follow the ordinal numeral. Atterbury says, in one of his

letters to Pope, “Not but that the four first lines are good.” We

conceive the expression to be quite correct, though the other form,

namely, “the first four,” be often employed to denote the same

conception. There is no contrast intended between these four and

any other four, otherwise he should have said, “The first four.” If

we say, “the first seven years,” it implies a division into sevens,

as takes place, for example, in the terms of a lease; “the seven

first years” implies no such division. The Latins, as far as I have

observed, had only one mode of arrangement. “Itaque quinque primis

diebus.”--_Cæs._ _B. C._ i. 5. “Tribus primis diebus.”--_Ib._ i.

18. That the adoption of one and the same collocation, in all

cases, would sometimes mislead the reader, is evident. If we take,

for example, seven objects, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and say “the

first, and the three last,” we clearly refer to A, and E, F, G; but

if we say “the first and the last three,” we may indicate A, B, C,

the first three, and E, F, G, the last three.

_Note_ 7.--_Each_ is employed to denote two things taken

separately, and is therefore used as singular[122]. _Either_ is

also singular, and implies only one of two; as, _take either_,

that is “the one or the other, but not both.” _Both_ is a plural

adjective, and denotes the two collectively.

_Note_ 8.--_Every_ is an adjective singular, applied to more than

two subjects taken individually, and comprehends them all. It is

sometimes joined to a plural noun, when the things are conceived

as forming one aggregate, as, _every twelve years_, _i.e._ “every

period of twelve years.”

_Note_ 9.--_All_ is an adjective either singular or plural,

denoting the whole, whether quantity or number, as, “All men are

mortal.” “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work.”

_Note_ 10.--_Much_ is an adjective of quantity, and of the singular

number, as, “much fruit.” _Many_ an adjective of number, and

therefore plural, as, “many men.” This word, however, is sometimes

construed with a noun singular, as,

“Many a poor man’s son would have lain still.”--_Shakspeare._

_Note_ 11.--_More_, as the comparative of _much_, is singular,

denoting a greater quantity; as the comparative of _many_, it is

plural, and signifies a greater number, as _more fruit_, or, “a

greater quantity;” _more men_, “or a greater number.”

_Note_ 12.--_Enough_ is an adjective singular, and denotes

quantity, as, “bread enough:” _enow_ denotes number, as “books

enow.”

_Note_ 13.--The correlative word to the adjective _such_, is _as_,

and not _who_. There is an impropriety in saying, with Mr. Addison,

“Such, who are lovers of mankind,” instead of “Such as,” or, “Those

who.”

_Note_ 14.--The superlative degree is followed by _of_, and also

the comparative, when selection is implied, as, “Hector was the

bravest of the Trojans.” “Africanus was the greater of the (two)

Scipios.” When opposition is signified, the comparative is followed

by _than_, as, “Wisdom is better than wealth.”

_Note_ 15.--There is an ambiguity in the adjective _no_, against

which it is necessary to guard, and which Priestley seems to think

that it is impossible to avoid in any language. Thus, if we say,

“No laws are better than the English,” it may mean either, that the

absence of all law is better than the English laws, or that no code

of jurisprudence is superior to the English. If the latter be the

meaning intended, the ambiguity is removed by saying, “There are no

laws better than the English.” If the former is the sentiment to be

expressed, we might say, “The absence of all law is preferable to

the English system.”

_Note_ 16.--Adjectives are sometimes improperly used for adverbs,

as _indifferent well_, _extreme bad_, for _indifferently well_,

_extremely bad_. An example of this error is also found in

the following sentence. “He was interrogated relative to that

circumstance.” _Relative_ is an adjective, and must have a

substantive expressed or understood; the question is then, what,

or who was relative? The answer, according to the rules of

construction, should be _he_. This, however, is not the meaning.

The word ought to be _relatively_.

I am somewhat, however, inclined to think that our grammarians have

been hypercritical, if not chargeable with error, in condemning

such expressions as these, _exceeding great_, _exceeding strong_.

This phraseology, I apprehend, has been reprobated, partly because

not conformable to the Latin idiom, and partly because such

expressions as these, _excessive good_, _extreme dear_, _excellent

well_, are justly repudiated. Neither of these, however, can be

deemed a sufficient reason for condemning this phraseology. For

when it is said, “His strength was exceeding great,” may not the

expression be considered as elliptical, the word _exceeding_ being

construed as a participle, thus, “his strength was exceeding,” or

“surpassing great strength,” that is, “his strength exceeded great

strength.”[123] So Shakspeare says, “it was passing strange.”

Though _exceedingly strong_, _exceedingly good_, are now considered

to be the preferable phraseologies, there can be no doubt, as

Webster has observed, that adjectives are sometimes used to modify

the sense of other adjectives; thus we say, “red hot,” “a closer

grained wood,” “a sharper edged sword.”

In connection with the preceding note, we would here observe, that

adjectives are used to modify the meaning of the verbs to which

they refer; thus we say, “Open thy hand wide.”--_Bible._ “Cry

shrill with thy voice.”--_Ib._ “He fought hard for his life.” The

use of the kindred adverbs, as will be afterwards shown, would in

many instances materially alter the meaning.

RULE VI.--The article _a_ or _an_ is joined to nouns of the singular

number only, or nouns denoting a plurality of things in one

aggregate, as,

_A man_ _An army_ _A thousand_ _A few_.

_Note_ 1.--To distinguish between the use of _a_ and _an_, it

is usually given as a general rule that _a_ be placed before

consonants and _h_ aspirated, and _an_ before vowels and _h_ not

aspirated, as _a table_, _a hat_, _an oak_, _an heir_. In respect

to _a_ before _h_ aspirated, it must be observed, that usage is

divided. It would appear that, when the Bible was translated, and

the Liturgy composed, _an_ was almost universally used before _h_,

whether the aspirate belonged to an emphatic or an unemphatic

syllable. A change has since taken place; and some give it as a

rule, to put _a_ before _h_, when the syllable is emphatic, and

_an_ when the syllable has not the emphasis. This rule, however,

is not universally observed; some writing “a history,” others “an

history;” some writing “a hypothesis,” others “an hypothesis.” As

far as easy pronunciation is concerned, or the practice of Greek

and Roman writers may furnish a precedent, there seems to be no

solid objection to either of these modes. The former is more common

in Scotch and Irish writers than it is in English authors, with

whom the aspiration is less forcible, and less common.

_An_ is used before a vowel; but from this rule two deviations are

admitted. Before the simple sound of _u_, followed by another vowel

sound, whether signified or not, _a_ and not _an_ is used. Thus

we say, “such _a_ one,” “such a woman.” If the sound of “one” be

analyzed, we shall find it resolvable into _oo-un_ or _won_, as

some orthoepists have expressed it; and _woman_ into _oo-umman_.

Again, before the diphthongal sound of _eu_, in whatsoever manner

that sound may be noted, _a_ may be, and frequently is, used. Thus

we say, “a youth,” “a yeoman,” “a eunuch,” “a unicorn.” Sheridan,

indeed, contends, that all words beginning with _u_, when it has

the diphthongal sound of _eu_, should be preceded by _a_ and not

_an_. And here I must remark, that it is with no common surprise, I

find Webster, in his introduction to his Dictionary, denying that

the vowel _u_ is anywhere equivalent to _eu_ or _e-oo_. Who those

public speakers are, whom, he says, he heard in England, and to

whose authority he appeals, we are utterly at a loss to conjecture.

But this we confidently affirm, that there is no orthoepist, no

public orator, nay, not an individual in any rank of society,

who does not distinguish between the sound of _u_ in _brute_,

_rude_, _intrude_, and in _cube_, _fume_, _cure_. His reference

to Johnson, who says that _u_ is long in _confusion_, and short

in _discussion_, is irrelevant and nugatory. Dr. Webster surely

has not to learn, that the vowel may be long, whether the sound be

monophthongal, or diphthongal. It is strange, too, that in the very

example which he quotes from Johnson, the _u_ has the diphthongal

sound, which he, notwithstanding, denies as anywhere existing.

_Note_ 2.--_A_ is employed to express one individual of a species

without determining who or which; _the_ denotes some particular

individual or individuals; thus, “a book” means any book, “the

book” some particular book; and when both articles are omitted

the whole class is signified, as, “Man is born unto trouble,”

_i.e._ “all men.” Hobbes errs against this rule when he says, “God

Almighty has given reason to _a_ man, to be a light to him.” The

article should be suppressed. Pope commits a similar error when he

writes,

“Who breaks a butterfly upon _a_ wheel.”

It is not any wheel that he meant to express, but a known

instrument of torture, or “the wheel.”

The article _a_ serves to distinguish between two subjects

compared with each other, and two subjects compared with a third.

“He is the author of two works of a different character.” If

the writer meant to say that he was the author of two works of

a different character from that of one previously mentioned,

the expression would be correct. But he intended to signify a

dissimilarity between the two productions. He should, therefore,

have omitted the article, and said, “of different character,” or

“of different characters.”

_Note_ 3.--The indefinite article, though generally placed before

the adjective, as, “a good man,” is put after the adjective _such_;

and where these words of comparison occur, _as_, _so_, _too_,

_how_, its place is between the adjective and substantive, thus,

“Such a gift is too small a reward for so great a service.” When

the order is inverted, this rule is not observed, as “a reward so

small,” “a service so great.” The definite article is likewise

placed before the adjective, as “the great king.” _All_ is the only

adjective which precedes the article. “All the servants,” “all the

money.”

_Note_ 4.--Pronouns and proper names do not admit the definite

article, themselves sufficiently determining the subject of

discourse; thus we cannot say, _the I_, _the Alexander_. If we

employ the definite article with a proper name, an ellipsis is

involved; thus, if I say, _he commands the Cæsar_, I mean, he

commands the ship called “Cæsar.”

_Note_ 5.--The definite article is used to distinguish the

explicative from the determinative sense. The omission of the

article, when the sense is restricted, creates ambiguity. For this

reason the following sentence is faulty: “All words, which are

signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.”--_Bolingbroke._

Here the clause, “which are signs of complex ideas,” is not

explicative, but restrictive; for all words are not signs of

complex ideas. It should, therefore, be “all the,” or “all those

words, which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.”

“In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of judges

is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute of Limitations, to

decide against incorporeal rights, which for many years have been

relinquished.”--_Erskine on the Rights of Juries._ This sentence

is chargeable at once with ambiguity and error. In the first

place, it is doubtful whether a regard to this analogy governs

the directions of the judge, or is to rule the decision of the

jury. 2ndly. By the omission of the definite article, or the word

_those_ before the antecedent, he has rendered the relative clause

explicative, instead of being restrictive; for, as all incorporeal

rights are not abolished, he should have said, “against those

incorporeal rights.”

There are certain cases, indeed, in which the antecedent clause

admits the definite article, though the relative clause be not

restrictive, thus,

“Blest are the pure, whose hearts are clean

From the defiling power of sin.”

Here the relative clause is merely explanatory, yet the antecedent

admits the article. Thus also, in the following sentence, “My

goodness extendeth not to thee, but to the saints, and the

excellent ones, in whom is all my delight.” The relative clause

is not intended to limit the meaning of the antecedent terms, and

yet they admit the definite article. In all examples, therefore,

like these, where the explanatory meaning admits the article, it is

necessary, for the sake of perspicuity, to mark the determinative

sense by the emphatic words _that_ or _those_. Thus, had the clause

been determinative in the latter of these examples, it would have

been necessary to say, “those saints, and those excellent ones, in

whom is my delight.”

_Note_ 6.--The definite article is likewise used to distinguish

between things which are individually different, but have one

generic name, and things which are, in truth, one and the same,

but are characterized by several qualities. For example, if I

should say, “the red and blue vestments were most admired,” it

may be doubtful whether I mean that the union of red and blue in

the same vestments was most admired, or that the red and the blue

vestments were both more admired than the rest. In strictness of

speech, the former is the only proper meaning of the words, though

the latter sentiment be often thus expressed. If the latter be

intended, we should say, “the red vestments and the blue,” or “the

red and the blue vestments,” where the article is repeated. If

I say, “the red and blue vestments,” it is obvious that only one

subject is expressed, namely, “vestments,” characterized by two

qualities, “redness,” and “blueness,” as combined in the subject.

Here the subject is one; its qualities are plural. If I say, “the

red vestments and the blue,” or “the red and the blue vestments,”

the subjects are plural, expressed, however, by one generic name,

_vestments_.

In the same manner, if we say, “the ecclesiastical and secular

powers concurred in this measure,” the expression is ambiguous,

as far as language can render it such. The reader’s knowledge,

as Dr. Campbell observes, may prevent his mistaking it; but, if

such modes of expression be admitted, where the sense is clear,

they may inadvertently be imitated in cases, where the meaning

would be obscure, if not entirely misunderstood. The error might

have been avoided, either by repeating the substantive, or by

subjoining the substantive to the first adjective, and prefixing

the articles to both adjectives; or by placing the substantives

after both adjectives, the article being prefixed in the same

manner; thus, “the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular powers,”

or better, “the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular,” or “the

ecclesiastical, and the secular powers.” The repetition of the

article shows, that the second adjective is not an additional

epithet to the same subject, but belongs to a subject totally

different, though expressed by the same generic name. “The lords

spiritual and temporal,” is a phraseology objectionable on the

same principle, though now so long sanctioned by usage, that we

dare hardly question its propriety. The subjects are different,

though they have but one generic name. It should therefore be, “the

spiritual and the temporal lords.”

On the contrary, when two or more adjectives belong as epithets to

one and the same thing, the other arrangement is to be preferred.

Thus, “the high and mighty states.” Here both epithets belong to

one subject. “The states high and mighty,” would convey the same

idea.

Where the article is not used, the place of the substantive

ought to show, whether both adjectives belong to the same thing,

or to different things having the same generic name. “Like an

householder, who bringeth out of his treasure things new and old.”

This arrangement is faulty; both epithets cannot belong to the same

subject. It should be, “new things and old.”

If both adjectives belong to one and the same subject, the

substantive ought either to precede both adjectives, or to follow

both, the article being uniformly omitted before the second

adjective, whether prefixed to the substantive before the first,

or suppressed. If, on the contrary, they belong to different

subjects, with the same name, the substantive ought to follow the

first adjective, and may be either repeated after the second, or

understood; or it should follow both adjectives, the article being

prefixed to each of them.

_Note_ 7.--The omission, or the insertion of the indefinite

article, in some instances, nearly reverses the meaning; thus,

“Ah, little think the gay, licentious proud.”--_Thomson._

Here _little_ is equivalent to “not much,” or rather by a common

trope it denotes _not at all_. Locke says, “I leave him to

reconcile these contradictions, which may be plentifully found in

him by any one, who reads with but a little attention.” Here, on

the contrary, where the indefinite article is inserted, “a little”

means “not none,” or “some.”

In like manner, when it is said, “Strait is the gate, and narrow

is the way, and few there be that find it;” _few_ is opposed to

_many_. Thus also, “_Many_ are called, but _few_ are chosen.”

But when it is said, “Tarry a few days, till thy brother’s fury

turn;” _a few_ is here equivalent to _some_, not as opposed to

_many_, but as opposed to _not none_. If we say, “_few_ accompanied

the prince,” we seem to diminish the number, and represent it

as inconsiderable, as if we said, “not many,” or “fewer than

expectation:” if we say, _a few_, we seem to amplify;--we represent

the number as not unworthy of attention, or as equal, at least, if

not superior to expectation. In short, if the article be inserted,

the clause is equivalent to a double negative, and thus it serves

to amplify; if the article be suppressed, the expression has either

a diminutive or a negative import.

_Note_ 8.--The indefinite article has, sometimes, the meaning of

_every_ or _each_; thus, “they cost five shillings a dozen,” that

is, “every dozen.”

“What makes all doctrines plain and clear?

About two hundred pounds a year.”--_Hudibras._

That is, “every year.”

_Note_ 9.--There is a particular use of this article, which merits

attention, as ambiguity may thus, in many cases, be avoided. In

denoting comparison, when the article is suppressed before the

second term, the latter, though it may be an appellative, assumes

the character of an attributive, and becomes the predicate of the

subject, or first term. If, on the contrary, the second term be

prefaced with the article, it continues an appellative, and forms

the other subject of comparison. In the former case, the subject,

as possessing different qualities in various degrees, is compared

with itself; in the latter, it is compared with something else.

Thus, if we say, “he is a better soldier than scholar,” the article

is suppressed before the second term, and the expression is

equivalent to, “he is more warlike than learned,” or “he possesses

the qualities, which form the soldier, in a greater degree than

those, which constitute the scholar.” If, we say, “he would make

a better soldier, than _a_ scholar,” here the article is prefixed

to the second term; this term, therefore, retains the character

of an appellative, and forms the second subject of comparison.

The meaning accordingly is, “he would make a better soldier, than

a scholar would make;” that is, “he has more of the constituent

qualities of a soldier, than are to be found in any literary man.”

Pope commits a similar error, when, in one of his letters to

Atterbury, he says, “You thought me not a worse man than a poet.”

This strictly means “a worse man than a poet is;” whereas he

intended to say, that his moral qualities were not inferior to his

poetical genius. He should have said, “a worse man than poet.”

These two phraseologies are frequently confounded, which seldom

fails to create ambiguity. Baker erroneously considers them as

equivalent, and prefers that, in which the article is omitted

before the second substantive. When there are two subjects with one

predicate, the article should be inserted; but when there is one

subject with two predicates, it should be omitted.

_Note_ 10.--Perspicuity in like manner requires, that, when an

additional epithet or description of the same subject is intended,

the definite article should not be employed. It is by an attention

to this rule, that we clearly distinguish between subject and

predicate. For this reason the following sentence appears to me

faulty: “The apostle James, the son of Zebedee, and the brother of

St. John, would be declared the apostle of the Britons.”--_Henry’s

History of Britain._ It should be rather, “and brother of St.

John.” When a diversity of persons, or a change of subject is

intended to be expressed, the definite article is necessarily

employed, as “Cincinnatus the dictator, and the master of horse,

marched against the Æqui.” The definite article before the latter

appellative marks the diversity of subject, and clearly shows that

two persons are designed. Were the article omitted, the expression

would imply, that the dictator, and the master of horse, were one

and the same individual.

RULE VII.--Substantives signifying the same thing agree in case,

thus, “I, George the Third, king of Great Britain, defender of

the faith.” The words _I_, _George_, _king_, _defender_, are all

considered as the nominative case. “The chief of the princes, _he_

who defied the bravest of the enemy, was assassinated by a dastardly

villain:” where the pronoun _he_ agrees in case with the preceding

term _chief_. This rule, however, may be deemed unnecessary, as all

such expressions are elliptical; thus, “the chief of the princes was

assassinated,” “he was assassinated.” “He was the son of the Rev.

Dr. West, perhaps _him_ who published Pindar at Oxford.”--_Johnson’s

Life of West._ That is, “the son of him.” Were the pronoun in the

nominative case, it would refer to the son, and not the father, and

thus convey a very different meaning.

_Note_ 1.--As proper names are, by the trope antonomasia,

frequently used for appellatives, as when we say, “the Socrates of

the present age,” where _Socrates_ is equivalent to “the wisest

man,” so also appellatives have frequently the meaning and force of

attributives. Thus, if we say, “he is a soldier,” it means either

that he is by profession a soldier, or that he possesses all the

qualities of a military man, whether professionally a soldier or

not. According to the former acceptation of the term, it is a

mere appellative; agreeably to the latter, it has the force of an

attributive.

_Note_ 2.--Two or more substantives in concordance, and forming

one complex name, or a name and title, have the plural termination

annexed to the last only, as, “_the two Miss Louisa Howards_,

_the two Miss Thomsons_.” Analogy, Dr. Priestley observes, would

plead in favour of another construction, and lead us to say, _the

two Misses Thomson_, _the two Misses Louisa Howard_; for if the

ellipsis were supplied, we should say, “the two young ladies of the

name of Thomson,” and this construction he adds, he has somewhere

met with.

The latter form of expression, it is true, occasionally occurs;

but, general usage, and, I am rather inclined to think, analogy

likewise, decide in favour of the former; for, with a few

exceptions, and these not parallel to the examples now given[124],

we almost uniformly, in complex names, confine the inflexion to

the last substantive. Some proofs of this we shall afterwards have

an opportunity of offering. I would also observe, in passing,

that ellipsis and analogy are different principles, and should be

carefully distinguished.

RULE VIII.--One substantive governs another, signifying a different

thing, in the genitive, as,

The tyrant’s rage. The apostle’s feet.

_Note_ 1.--This rule takes place when property, possession, or the

general relation, by which one thing appertains to another, is

implied.

_Note_ 2.--It may be considered as violated in such examples as

these, “Longinus his Treatise on the Sublime.”--_Addison._ “Christ

his sake.”--_Common Prayer._

_Note_ 3.--Substantives govern not only nouns, but likewise

pronouns, as, “its strength,” “his reward.”

_Note_ 4.--This case is generally resolvable into the objective

with the preposition _of_, as, “the king’s sceptre,” or “the

sceptre of the king;” “his head,” or “the head of him.” I have said

_generally_, for it is not _always_ thus resolvable. For example,

the Christian sabbath is sometimes named, “the Lord’s day;” but

“the day of the Lord” conveys a different idea, and denotes “the

day of judgment.”

_Note_ 5.--The latter or governing substantive is frequently

understood, as, “the king will come to St. James’s to-morrow,” that

is, “St. James’s palace.” “I found him at the stationer’s,” that

is, “the stationer’s shop,” or “the stationer’s house.”