An article is a word prefixed to nouns to limit their signification; as,
_a_ man, _the_ woman.
There are only two articles, _a_ or _an_, and _the. A_ or _an_ is called
the indefinite article. _The_ is called the definite article.
The _indefinite article_ limits the noun to one of a kind, but to no
particular one; as, _a_ house.
The _definite article_ generally limits the noun to a particular object,
or collection of objects; as, _the_ house, _the_ men.
The small claims of the article to a separate rank as a distinct part of
speech, ought not to be admitted in a scientific classification of
words. _A_ and _the, this_ and _that, ten, few_, and _fourth_, and many
other words, are used to restrict, vary, or define the signification of
the nouns to which they are joined. They might, therefore, with
propriety, be ranked under the general head of _Restrictives, Indexes_,
or _Defining Adjectives_. But, as there is a marked distinction in their
particular meaning and application, each class requires a separate
explanation. Hence, no practical advantage would be gained, by rejecting
their established classification, as articles, numerals, and
demonstratives, and by giving them _new_ names. The character and
application of _a_ and _the_ can be learned as soon when they are styled
_articles_, as when they are denominated _specifying_ or _defining
adjectives_.
The history of this part of speech is very brief. As there are but two
articles, _a_ or _an_ and _the_, you will know them wherever they occur.
A noun used without an article, or any other restrictive, is taken in
its _general_ sense; as, _"Fruit_ is abundant;" "_Gold_ is heavy;"
"_Man_ is born to trouble" Here we mean, fruit and gold _in general;_
and _all men_, or _mankind_.
When we wish to limit the meaning of the noun to _one_ object, but to no
_particular_ one, we employ _a_ or _an_. If I say, "Give me _a_ pen;"
"Bring me _an_ apple;" you are at liberty to fetch _any_ pen or _any_
apple you please. _A_ or _an_, then, is _indefinite_, because it leaves
the meaning of the noun to which it is applied, as far as regards the
person spoken to, _vague_, or _indeterminate_; that is, _not definite_.
But when reference is made to a _particular_ object, we employ _the_,
as, "Give me _the_ pen;" "Bring me _the_ apple, or _the_ apple." When
such a requisition is made, you are not at liberty to bring any pen or
apple you please, but you must fetch the _particular_ pen or apple to
which you know me to refer. _The_ is, therefore, called the _definite_
article.
"_A_ star appears." Here, the star referred to, may be known as a
_particular_ star, _definite_, and distinguished from all others, in the
mind of the _speaker_; but to the _hearer_, it is left, among the
thousands that bedeck the vault of heaven, _undistinguished_ and
_indefinite_. But when the star has previously been made the subject of
discourse, it becomes, in the minds of both speaker and hearer a
_definite_ object, and he says, "_The_ star appears;" that is, that
_particular_ star about which we were discoursing.
"Solomon built _a_ temple." Did he build _any_ temple, _undetermined
which?_ No; it was a _particular_ temple, pre-eminently distinguished
from all others. But _how_ does it become a definite object in the mind
of the _hearer_? Certainly, not by the phrase, "_a_ temple," which
indicates _any_ temple, leaving it altogether _undetermined_ which; but
supposing the person addressed was totally unacquainted with the fact
asserted, and it becomes to him, _in one respect only_, a definite and
particular temple, by means of the associated words, "Solomon built;"
that is, by the use of these words in connexion with the others, the
hearer gets the idea of a temple distinguished as _the one erected by
Solomon_. If the speaker were addressing one whom he supposed to be
unacquainted with the fact related, he might make the temple referred to
a still more definite object in the mind of the hearer by a farther
explanation of it; thus, "Solomon built _a_ temple _on mount Zion_; and
that was _the_ temple _to which the Jews resorted to worship_."
"_The_ lunatic, _the_ poet, and _the_ lover,
Are of imagination all compact."
"_The_ horse is a noble animal;" "_The_ dog is a faithful creature;"
"_The_ wind blows;" "_The_ wolves were howling in _the_ woods." In these
examples, we do not refer to any particular lunatics, poets, lovers,
horses, dogs, winds, wolves, and woods, but we refer to these
_particular classes_ of things, in contradistinction to other objects or
classes. The phrase, "Neither _the_ one nor _the_ other," is an idiom of
the language.
REMARKS.--This method of elucidating the articles, which is popular
with Blair, Priestley, Lowth, Johnson, Harris, Beattie, Coote,
Murray, and many other distinguished philologists, is discarded by
some of our modern writers. But, by proving that this theory is
exceptionable, they by no means make it appear, that it ought,
therefore, to be rejected.
Exceptionable or not, they have not been able to supply its place
with one that is more _convenient in practice_. Neither have they
adopted one _less_ exceptionable. The truth is, after all which can
be done to render the definitions and rules of grammar comprehensive
and accurate, they will still be found, when critically examined by
men of learning and science, more or less exceptionable. These
exceptions and imperfections are the unavoidable consequence of the
imperfections of the language. Language, as well as every thing else
of human invention, will always be _imperfect_. Consequently, a
_perfect_ system of grammatical principles, would not suit it. A
_perfect_ grammar will not be produced, until some _perfect_ being
writes it for a _perfect_ language; and a perfect language will not
be constructed, until some _super-human_ agency is employed in its
production. All grammatical principles and systems which are not
_perfect_, are _exceptionable_.