Learn to unlearn what you have learned amiss.
What I forfeit for myself is a trifle; that my indiscretions should
reach my posterity, wounds me to the heart.
Lady Jane Gray fell a sacrifice to the wild ambition of the duke of
Northumberland.
King Missipsi charged his sons to consider the senate and people of Rome
as proprietors of the kingdom of Numidia.
Hazael smote the children of Israel in all their coasts; and from what
is left on record of his actions, he plainly appears to have proved,
what the prophet foresaw him to be, a man of violence, cruelty, and
blood.
Heaven hides from brutes what men, from men what spirits know.
He that formed the ear, can he not hear?
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
NOTE 1. _Learn_, in the first of the preceding examples, is a
transitive verb, because the action passes over from the nom. _you_
understood, to _the rest of the sentence_ for its object: RULE 24.
In the next example, _that my indiscretions should reach my
posterity_, is a part of a sentence put as the nominative to the
verb _wounds_, according to the same Rule.
2. The noun _sacrifice_, in the third example, is nom. after the
active-intransitive verb _fell_: RULE 22. The noun _proprietors_, in
the next sentence, is in the objective case, and put by apposition
with _senate_ and _people_: RULE 7, or governed by _consider_,
understood, according to RULE 35.
3. In the fifth example, _what_, following _proved_, is a compound
relative. _Thing_, the antecedent part, is in the nom. case after
_to be_, understood, and put by apposition with _he_, according to
RULE 21, and NOTE. _Which_, the relative part, is in the obj. case
after _to be_ expressed, and put by apposition with _him_, according
to the same RULE. _Man_ is in the obj. case, put by apposition with
_which_: RULE 7. The latter part of the sentence may be _literally_
rendered thus: He plainly appears to have proved _to be that base
character which_ the prophet foresaw him to be, viz. a _man_ of
violence, cruelty, and blood. The antecedent part of the first
_what_, in the next sentence, is governed by _hides_; and _which_,
the relative part, is governed by _know_ understood. The antecedent
part of the second _what_, is governed by _hides_ understood, and
the relative part is governed by _know_ expressed.
4. The first _he_, in the seventh example, is, in the opinion of
some, nom. to _can hear_ understood; but Mr. N.R. Smith, a
distinguished and acute grammarian, suggests the propriety of
rendering the sentence thus; "He that formed the ear, _formed it to
hear_; can he not hear?" The first _he_, in the last example, is
redundant; yet the construction is sometimes admissible, for the
expression is more forcible than it would be to say, "Let him hear
who hath ears to hear;" and if we adopt the ingenious method of Mr.
Smith, the sentence is grammatical, and may be rendered thus; "He
that hath ears, _hath ears_ to hear; let him hear."
EXERCISES IN PARSING.
_Idioms, anomalies, and intricacies_.
1. "The wall is three _feet_ high."
2. "His son is eight _years_ old."
3. "My knife is worth a _shilling_."
4. "She is worth _him_ and all his _connexions_."
5. "He has been there three _times_."
6. "The hat cost ten _dollars_."
7. "The load weighs a _tun_."
8. "The spar measures ninety _feet_."
REMARKS.--_Anomaly_ is derived from the Greek, _a_, without, and
_omales_, similar; that is, _without similarity_. Some give its
derivation thus; _anomaly_, from the Latin, _ab_, from, or out of, and
_norma_, a rule, or law, means an _outlaw_; a mode of expression that
departs from the rules, laws, or _general_ usages of the language; a
construction in language peculiar to itself. Thus, it is a general rule
of the language, that adjectives of one syllable are compared by adding
_r_, or _er_, and _st_, or _est_, to the positive degree; but good,
_better, best_; bad, _worse, worst_, are not compared according to the
general rule. They are, therefore, anomalies. The plural number of nouns
is generally formed by adding s to the singular: man, _men_; woman,
_women_; child, _children_; penny, _pence_, are anomalies. The use of
_news, means, alms_ and _amends_, in the singular, constitutes
anomalies. Anomalous constructions are correct according to custom; but,
as they are departures from general rules, by them they cannot be
analyzed.
An _idiom_, Latin _idioma_, a construction peculiar to a language, may
be an anomaly, or it may not. An idiomatical expression which is not an
anomaly, can be analyzed.
_Feet_ and _years_, in the 1st and 2d examples, are not in the
nominative after _is_, according to Rule 21, because they are not in
apposition with the respective nouns that precede the verb; but the
constructions are anomalous; and, therefore, no rule can be applied to
analyze them. The same ideas, however; can be conveyed by a legitimate
construction which can be analyzed; thus, "The _height_ of the wall is
three _feet_;" "The _age_ of my son is eight _years_."
An anomaly, when ascertained to be such, is easily disposed of; but
sometimes it is very difficult to decide whether a construction is
anomalous or not. The 3d, 4th, and 5th examples, are generally
considered anomalies; but if we supply, as we are, perhaps, warranted in
doing, the associated words which modern refinement has dropped, they
will cease to be anomalies; thus, "My knife is _of the_ worth _of_ a
shilling;" "--_of the_ worth _of_ him," &c. "He has been there _for_
three times;" as we say, "I was unwell _for_ three days, after I
arrived;" or, "I was unwell three days." Thus it appears, that by
tracing back, _for_ a few centuries, what the merely modern English
scholar supposes to be an anomaly, an ellipsis will frequently be
discovered, which, when supplied, destroys the anomaly.
On extreme points, and peculiar and varying constructions in a living
language, the most able philologists can never be agreed; because many
usages will always be unsettled and fluctuating, and will, consequently,
be disposed of according to the caprice of the grammarian. By some, a
sentence may be treated as an anomaly; by others who contend for, and
supply, an ellipsis, the same sentence may be analyzed according to the
ellipsis supplied; whilst others, who deny both the elliptical and
anomalous character of the sentence, construct a rule by which to
analyze it, which rule has for its foundation the principle contained in
that sentence only. This last mode of procedure, inasmuch as it requires
us to make a rule for every peculiar construction in the language,
appears to me to be the most exceptionable of the three. It appears to
be multiplying rules beyond the bounds of utility.
The verbs, _cost, weighs_, and _measures_, in the 6th, 7th, and 8th
examples, may be considered as transitive. See remarks on _resemble,
have, own_, &c., page 56.