Ecthe and all unhelthe,
Durh deth com on this midelard,
And other uniselthe.
Ne mai non herte hit ithenche,
Ne no tunge telle,
Hu muchele pinum and hu uele,
Bieth inne helle.
Louie God mid ure hierte,
And mid all ure mihte,
And ure emcristene swo us self,
Swo us lereth drihte."
ANON.: _Johnson's Hist. Eng. Lang._, p. 21.
IX. ANGLO-SAXON OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY, COMPARED WITH ENGLISH.
60. _Saxon,--11th Century_.[50]
LUCÆ, CAP. I.
"5. On Herodes dagum Iudea cynincges, wæs sum sacred on naman Zacharias, of
Abian tune: and his wif wæs of Aarones dohtrum, and hyre nama waas
Elizabeth.
6. Sothlice hig wæron butu rihtwise beforan Gode, gangende on eallum his
bebodum and rihtwisnessum, butan wrohte.
7. And hig næfdon nan bearn, fortham the Elizabeth wæs unberende; and hy on
hyra dagum butu forth-eodun.
8. Sothlice wæs geworden tha Zacharias hys sacerdhades breac on his
gewrixles endebyrdnesse beforan Gode,
9. Æfter gewunan thæs sacerdhades hlotes, he eode that he his offrunge
sette, tha he on Godes tempel eode.
10. Eall werod thæs folces wæs ute gebiddende on thære offrunge timan.
11. Tha ætywde him Drihtnes engel standende on thæs weofodes swithran
healfe.
12. Tha weard Zacharias gedrefed that geseonde, and him ege onhreas.
13. Tha cwæth se engel him to, Ne ondræd thu the Zacharias; fortham thin
ben is gehyred, and thin wif Elizabeth the sunu centh, and thu nemst hys
naman Johannes."--_Saxon Gospels_.
_English.--14th Century_.
LUK, CHAP. I.
"5. In the dayes of Eroude kyng of Judee ther was a prest Zacarye by name,
of the sort of Abia: and his wyf was of the doughtris of Aaron, and hir
name was Elizabeth.
6. And bothe weren juste bifore God, goynge in alle the maundementis and
justifyingis of the Lord, withouten playnt.
7. And thei hadden no child, for Elizabeth was bareyn; and bothe weren of
greet age in her dayes.
8. And it befel that whanne Zacarye schould do the office of presthod in
the ordir of his course to fore God,
9. Aftir the custom of the presthood, he wente forth by lot, and entride
into the temple to encensen.
10. And al the multitude of the puple was without forth and preyede in the
our of encensying.
11. And an aungel of the Lord apperide to him, and stood on the right half
of the auter of encense. 12. And Zacarye seyinge was afrayed, and drede fel
upon him.
13. And the aungel sayde to him, Zacarye, drede thou not; for thy preier is
herd, and Elizabeth thi wif schal bere to thee a sone, and his name schal
be clepid Jon."
_Wickliffe's Bible_, 1380.
_English.--17th Century_.
LUKE, CHAP. I.
"5. There was in the days of Herod the king of Judea, a certain priest
named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters
of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments
and ordinances of the Lord, blameless.
7. And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren; and they both
were now well stricken in years.
8. And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before
God in the order of his course,
9. According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn
incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time
of incense.
11. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord, standing on the right
side of the altar of incense.
12. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias; for thy prayer is
heard, and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shall call
his name John."
_Common Bible_, 1610.
See Dr. Johnson's History of the English Language, in his Quarto
Dictionary.
X. ANGLO-SAXON IN THE TIME OF KING ALFRED.
61. Alfred the Great, who was the youngest son of Ethelwolf, king of the
West Saxons, succeeded to the crown on the death of his brother Ethelred,
in the year 871, being then twenty-two years old. He had scarcely time to
attend the funeral of his brother, before he was called to the field to
defend his country against the Danes. After a reign of more than
twenty-eight years, rendered singularly glorious by great achievements
under difficult circumstances, he died universally lamented, on the 28th of
October, A. D. 900. By this prince the university of Oxford was founded,
and provided with able teachers from the continent. His own great
proficiency in learning, and his earnest efforts for its promotion, form a
striking contrast with the ignorance which prevailed before. "In the ninth
century, throughout the whole kingdom of the West Saxons, no man could be
found who was scholar enough to instruct the young king Alfred, then a
child, even in the first elements of reading: so that he was in his twelfth
year before he could name the letters of the alphabet. When that renowned
prince ascended the throne, he made it his study to draw his people out of
the sloth and stupidity in which they lay; and became, as much by his own
example as by the encouragement he gave to learned men, the great restorer
of arts in his dominions."--_Life of Bacon_.
62. The language of eulogy must often be taken with some abatement: it does
not usually present things in their due proportions. How far the foregoing
quotation is true, I will not pretend to say; but what is called "the
revival of learning," must not be supposed to have begun at so early a
period as that of Alfred. The following is a brief specimen of the language
in which that great man wrote; but, printed in Saxon characters, it would
appear still less like English.
"On thære tide the Gotan of Siththiu mægthe with Romana rice gewin
upahofon. and mith heora cyningum. Rædgota and Eallerica wæron hatne.
Romane burig abræcon. and eall Italia rice that is betwux tham muntum and
Sicilia tham ealonde in anwald gerehton. and tha ægter tham foresprecenan
cyningum Theodric feng to tham ilcan rice se Theodric wæs Amulinga. he wass
Cristen. theah he on tham Arrianiscan gedwolan durhwunode. He gehet Romanum
his freondscype. swa that hi mostan heora ealdrichta wyrthe beon."--KING
ALFRED: _Johnson's Hist. of E. L., 4to Dict._, p. 17.
CHAPTER VIII.
OF THE GRAMMATICAL STUDY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
"Grammatica quid est? ars rectè scribendi rectèque loquendi; poetarum
enarrationem continens; omnium Scientiarum fons uberrimus. * * * Nostra
ætas parum perita rerum veterum, nimis brevi gyro grammaticum sepsit; at
apud antiques olim tantum auctoritatis hic ordo habuit, ut censores essent
et judices scriptorum omnium soli grammatici; quos ob id etiam Criticos
vocabant."--DESPAUTER. _Præf. ad Synt_, fol. 1.
1. Such is the peculiar power of language, that there is scarcely any
subject so trifling, that it may not thereby be plausibly magnified into
something great; nor are there many things which cannot be ingeniously
disparaged till they shall seem contemptible. Cicero goes further: "Nihil
est tam incredibile quod non dicendo fiat probabile;"--"There is nothing so
incredible that it may not by the power of language be made probable." The
study of grammar has been often overrated, and still oftener injuriously
decried. I shall neither join with those who would lessen in the public
esteem that general system of doctrines, which from time immemorial has
been taught as grammar; nor attempt, either by magnifying its practical
results, or by decking it out with my own imaginings, to invest it with any
artificial or extraneous importance.
2. I shall not follow the footsteps of _Neef_, who avers that, "Grammar and
incongruity are identical things," and who, under pretence of reaching the
same end by better means, scornfully rejects as nonsense every thing that
others have taught under that name; because I am convinced, that, of all
methods of teaching, none goes farther than his, to prove the reproachful
assertion true. Nor shall I imitate the declamation of _Cardell_; who, at
the commencement of his Essay, recommends the general study of language on
earth, from the consideration that, "The faculty of speech is the medium of
social bliss for superior intelligences in an eternal world;" [51] and who,
when he has exhausted censure in condemning the practical instruction of
others, thus lavishes praise, in both his grammars, upon that formless,
void, and incomprehensible theory of his own: "This application of words,"
says he, "in their endless use, by one plain rule, to all things which
nouns can name, instead of being the fit subject of blind cavil, _is the
most sublime theme presented to the intellect on earth. It is the practical
intercourse of the soul at once with its God, and with all parts of his
works!_"--_Cardell's Gram._, 12mo, p. 87; _Gram._, 18mo, p. 49.
3. Here, indeed, a wide prospect opens before us; but he who traces
science, and teaches what is practically useful, must check imagination,
and be content with sober truth.
"For apt the mind or fancy is to rove
Uncheck'd, and of her roving is no end."--MILTON.
Restricted within its proper limits, and viewed in its true light, the
practical science of grammar has an intrinsic dignity and merit sufficient
to throw back upon any man who dares openly assail it, the lasting stigma
of folly and self-conceit. It is true, the judgements of men are fallible,
and many opinions are liable to be reversed by better knowledge: but what
has been long established by the unanimous concurrence of the learned, it
can hardly be the part of a wise instructor now to dispute. The literary
reformer who, with the last named gentleman, imagines "that the persons to
whom the civilized world have looked up to for instruction in language were
all wrong alike in the main points," [52] intends no middle course of
reformation, and must needs be a man either of great merit, or of little
modesty.
4. The English language may now be regarded as the common inheritance of
about fifty millions of people; who are at least as highly distinguished
for virtue, intelligence, and enterprise, as any other equal portion of the
earth's population. All these are more or less interested in the purity,
permanency, and right use of that language; inasmuch as it is to be, not
only the medium of mental intercourse with others for them and their
children, but the vehicle of all they value, in the reversion of ancestral
honour, or in the transmission of their own. It is even impertinent, to
tell a man of any respectability, that the study of this his native
language is an object of great importance and interest: if he does not,
from these most obvious considerations, feel it to be so, the suggestion
will be less likely to convince him, than to give offence, as conveying an
implicit censure.
5. Every person who has any ambition to appear respectable among people of
education, whether in conversation, in correspondence, in public speaking,
or in print, must be aware of the absolute necessity of a competent
knowledge of the language in which he attempts to express his thoughts.
Many a ludicrous anecdote is told, of persons venturing to use words of
which they did not know the proper application; many a ridiculous blunder
has been published to the lasting disgrace of the writer; and so intimately
does every man's reputation for sense depend upon his skill in the use of
language, that it is scarcely possible to acquire the one without the
other. Who can tell how much of his own good or ill success, how much of
the favour or disregard with which he himself has been treated, may have
depended upon that skill or deficiency in grammar, of which, as often as he
has either spoken or written, he must have afforded a certain and constant
evidence.[53]
6. I have before said, that to excel in grammar, is but to know better than
others wherein grammatical excellence consists; and, as this excellence,
whether in the thing itself, or in him that attains to it, is merely
comparative, there seems to be no fixed point of perfection beyond which
such learning may not be carried. In speaking or writing to different
persons, and on different subjects, it is necessary to vary one's style
with great nicety of address; and in nothing does true genius more
conspicuously appear, than in the facility with which it adopts the most
appropriate expressions, leaving the critic no fault to expose, no word to
amend. Such facility of course supposes an intimate knowledge of all words
in common use, and also of the principles on which they are to be combined.
7. With a language which we are daily in the practice of hearing, speaking,
reading, and writing, we may certainly acquire no inconsiderable
acquaintance, without the formal study of its rules. All the true
principles of grammar were presumed to be known to the learned, before they
were written for the aid of learners; nor have they acquired any
independent authority, by being recorded in a book, and denominated
grammar. The teaching of them, however, has tended in no small degree to
settle and establish the construction of the language, to improve the style
of our English writers, and to enable us to ascertain with more clearness
the true standard of grammatical purity. He who learns only by rote, may
speak the words or phrases which he has thus acquired; and he who has the
genius to discern intuitively what is regular and proper, may have further
aid from the analogies which he thus discovers; but he who would add to
such acquisitions the satisfaction of knowing what is right, must make the
principles of language his study.
8. To produce an able and elegant writer, may require something more than a
knowledge of grammar rules; yet it is argument enough in favour of those
rules, that without a knowledge of them no elegant and able writer is
produced. Who that considers the infinite number of phrases which words in
their various combinations may form, and the utter impossibility that they
should ever be recognized individually for the purposes of instruction and
criticism, but must see the absolute necessity of dividing words into
classes, and of showing, by general rules of formation and construction,
the laws to which custom commonly subjects them, or from which she allows
them in particular instances to deviate? Grammar, or the art of writing and
speaking, must continue to be learned by some persons; because it is of
indispensable use to society. And the only question is, whether children
and youth shall acquire it by a regular process of study and method of
instruction, or be left to glean it solely from their own occasional
observation of the manner in which other people speak and write.
9. The practical solution of this question belongs chiefly to parents and
guardians. The opinions of teachers, to whose discretion the decision will
sometimes be left, must have a certain degree of influence upon the public
mind; and the popular notions of the age, in respect to the relative value
of different studies, will doubtless bias many to the adoption or the
rejection of this. A consideration of the point seems to be appropriate
here, and I cannot forbear to commend the study to the favour of my
readers; leaving every one, of course, to choose how much he will be
influenced by my advice, example, or arguments. If past experience and the
history of education be taken for guides, the study of English grammar will
not be neglected; and the method of its inculcation will become an object
of particular inquiry and solicitude. The English language ought to be
learned at school or in colleges, as other languages usually are; by the
study of its grammar, accompanied with regular exercises of parsing,
correcting, pointing, and scanning; and by the perusal of some of its most
accurate writers, accompanied with stated exercises in composition and
elocution. In books of criticism, our language is already more abundant
than any other. Some of the best of these the student should peruse, as
soon as he can understand and relish them. Such a course, pursued with
regularity and diligence, will be found the most direct way of acquiring an
English style at once pure, correct, and elegant.
10. If any intelligent man will represent English grammar otherwise than as
one of the most useful branches of study, he may well be suspected of
having formed his conceptions of the science, not from what it really is in
itself, but from some of those miserable treatises which only caricature
the subject, and of which it is rather an advantage to be ignorant. But who
is so destitute of good sense as to deny, that a graceful and easy
conversation in the private circle, a fluent and agreeable delivery in
public speaking, a ready and natural utterance in reading, a pure and
elegant style in composition, are accomplishments of a very high order? And
yet of all these, the proper study of English grammar is the true
foundation. This would never be denied or doubted, if young people did not
find, under some other name, better models and more efficient instruction,
than what was practised on them for grammar in the school-room. No disciple
of an able grammarian can ever speak ill of grammar, unless he belong to
that class of knaves who vilify what they despair to reach.
11. By taking
proper advantage of the ductility of childhood, intelligent parents and
judicious teachers may exercise over the studies, opinions, and habits of
youth a strong and salutary control; and it will seldom be found in
experience, that those who have been early taught to consider grammatical
learning as worthy and manly, will change their opinion in after life. But
the study of grammar is not so enticing that it may be disparaged in the
hearing of the young, without injury. What would be the natural effect of
the following sentence, which I quote from a late well-written religious
homily? "The pedagogue and his dunce may exercise their wits correctly
enough, in the way of grammatical analysis, on some splendid argument, or
burst of eloquence, or thrilling descant, or poetic rapture, to the strain
and soul of which not a fibre in their nature would yield a
vibration."--_New-York Observer_, Vol. ix, p. 73.
12. Would not the bright boy who heard this from the lips of his reverend
minister, be apt the next day to grow weary of the parsing lesson required
by his schoolmaster? And yet what truth is there in the passage? One can no
more judge of the fitness of language, without regard to the meaning
conveyed by it, than of the fitness of a suit of clothes, without knowing
for whom they were intended. The grand clew to the proper application of
all syntactical rules, is _the sense_; and as any composition is faulty
which does not rightly deliver the author's meaning, so every solution of a
word or sentence is necessarily erroneous, in which that meaning is not
carefully noticed and literally preserved. To parse rightly and fully, is
nothing else than to understand rightly and explain fully; and whatsoever
is well expressed, it is a shame either to misunderstand or to
misinterpret.
13. This study, when properly conducted and liberally pursued, has an
obvious tendency to dignify the whole character. How can he be a man of
refined literary taste, who cannot speak and write his native language
grammatically? And who will deny that every degree of improvement in
literary taste tends to brighten and embellish the whole intellectual
nature? The several powers of the mind are not so many distinct and
separable agents, which are usually brought into exercise one by one; and
even if they were, there might be found, in a judicious prosecution of this
study, a healthful employment for them all. The _imagination_, indeed, has
nothing to do with the elements of grammar; but in the exercise of
composition, young fancy may spread her wings as soon as they are fledged;
and for this exercise the previous course of discipline will have furnished
both language and taste, as well as sentiment.
14. The regular grammatical study of our language is a thing of recent
origin. Fifty or sixty years ago, such an exercise was scarcely attempted
in any of the schools, either in this country or in England.[54] Of this
fact we have abundant evidence both from books, and from the testimony of
our venerable fathers yet living. How often have these presented this as an
apology for their own deficiencies, and endeavoured to excite us to greater
diligence, by contrasting our opportunities with theirs! Is there not
truth, is there not power, in the appeal? And are we not bound to avail
ourselves of the privileges which they have provided, to build upon the
foundations which their wisdom has laid, and to carry forward the work of
improvement? Institutions can do nothing for us, unless the love of
learning preside over and prevail in them. The discipline of our schools
can never approach perfection, till those who conduct, and those who
frequent them, are strongly actuated by that disposition of mind, which
generously aspires to all attainable excellence.
15. To rouse this laudable spirit in the minds of our youth, and to satisfy
its demands whenever it appears, ought to be the leading objects with those
to whom is committed the important business of instruction. A dull teacher,
wasting time in a school-room with a parcel of stupid or indolent boys,
knows nothing of the satisfaction either of doing his own duty, or of
exciting others to the performance of theirs. He settles down in a regular
routine of humdrum exercises, dreading as an inconvenience even such change
as proficiency in his pupils must bring on; and is well content to do
little good for little money, in a profession which he honours with his
services merely to escape starvation. He has, however, one merit: he
pleases his patrons, and is perhaps the only man that can; for they must
needs be of that class to whom moral restraint is tyranny, disobedience to
teachers, as often right as wrong; and who, dreading the expense, even of a
school-book, always judge those things to be cheapest, which cost the least
and last the longest. What such a man, or such a neighbourhood, may think
of English grammar, I shall not stop to ask.
16. To the following opinion from a writer of great merit, I am inclined to
afford room here, because it deserves refutation, and, I am persuaded, is
not so well founded as the generality of the doctrines with which it is
presented to the public. "Since human knowledge is so much more extensive
than the opportunity of individuals for acquiring it, it becomes of the
greatest importance so to economize the opportunity as to make it
subservient to the acquisition of as large and as valuable a portion as we
can. It is not enough to show that a given branch of education is useful:
you must show that it is the most useful that can be selected. Remembering
this, I think it would be expedient to dispense with the formal study of
English grammar,--a proposition which I doubt not many a teacher will hear
with wonder and disapprobation. We learn the grammar in order that we may
learn English; and we learn English whether we study grammars or not.
Especially we _shall_ acquire a competent knowledge of our own language, if
other departments of our education were improved."
17. "A boy learns more English grammar by joining in an hour's conversation
with educated people, than in poring for an hour over Murray or Horne
Tooke. If he is accustomed to such society and to the perusal of
well-written books, he will learn English grammar, though he never sees a
word about syntax; and if he is not accustomed to such society and such
reading, the 'grammar books' at a boarding-school will not teach it. Men
learn their own language by habit, and not by rules: and this is just what
we might expect; for the grammar of a language is itself formed from the
prevalent habits of speech and writing. A compiler of grammar first
observes these habits, and then makes his rules: but if a person is himself
familiar with the habits, why study the rules? I say nothing of grammar as
a general science; because, although the philosophy of language be a
valuable branch of human knowledge, it were idle to expect that school-boys
should understand it. The objection is, to the system of attempting to
teach children formally that which they will learn practically without
teaching."--JONATHAN DYMOND: _Essays on Morality_, p. 195.
18. This opinion, proceeding from a man who has written upon human affairs
with so much ability and practical good sense, is perhaps entitled to as
much respect as any that has ever been urged against the study in question.
And so far as the objection bears upon those defective methods of
instruction which experience has shown to be inefficient, or of little use,
I am in no wise concerned to remove it. The reader of this treatise will
find their faults not only admitted, but to a great extent purposely
exposed; while an attempt is here made, as well as in my earlier grammars,
to introduce a method which it is hoped will better reach the end proposed.
But it may easily be perceived that this author's proposition to dispense
with the formal study of English grammar is founded upon an untenable
assumption. Whatever may be the advantages of those purer habits of speech,
which the young naturally acquire from conversation with educated people,
it is not true, that, without instruction directed to this end, they will
of themselves become so well educated as to speak and write grammatically.
Their language may indeed be comparatively accurate and genteel, because
it is learned of those who have paid some attention to the study; but, as
they cannot always be preserved from hearing vulgar and improper
phraseology, or from seeing it in books, they cannot otherwise be guarded
from improprieties of diction, than by a knowledge of the rules of grammar.
One might easily back this position by the citation of some scores of
faulty sentences from the pen of this very able writer himself.
19. I imagine there can be no mistake in the opinion, that in exact
proportion as the rules of grammar are unknown or neglected in any country,
will corruptions and improprieties of language be there multiplied. The
"general science" of grammar, or "the philosophy of language," the author
seems to exempt, and in some sort to commend; and at the same time his
proposition of exclusion is applied not merely to the school-grammars, but
_a fortiori_ to this science, under the notion that it is unintelligible to
school-boys. But why should any principle of grammar be the less
intelligible on account of the extent of its application? Will a boy
pretend that he cannot understand a rule of English grammar, because he is
told that it holds good in all languages? Ancient etymologies, and other
facts in literary history, must be taken by the young upon the credit of
him who states them; but the doctrines of general grammar are to the
learner the easiest and the most important principles of the science. And I
know of nothing in the true philosophy of language, which, by proper
definitions and examples, may not be made as intelligible to a boy, as are
the principles of most other sciences. The difficulty of instructing youth
in any thing that pertains to language, lies not so much in the fact that
its philosophy is above their comprehension, as in our own ignorance of
certain parts of so vast an inquiry;--in the great multiplicity of verbal
signs; the frequent contrariety of practice; the inadequacy of memory; the
inveteracy of ill habits; and the little interest that is felt when we
speak merely of words.
20. The grammatical study of our language was early and strongly
recommended by Locke,[55] and other writers on education, whose character
gave additional weight to an opinion which they enforced by the clearest
arguments. But either for want of a good grammar, or for lack of teachers
skilled in the subject and sensible of its importance, the general neglect
so long complained of as a grievous imperfection in our methods of
education, has been but recently and partially obviated. "The attainment of
a correct and elegant style," says Dr. Blair, "is an object which demands
application and labour. If any imagine they can catch it merely by the ear,
or acquire it by the slight perusal of some of our good authors, they will
find themselves much disappointed. The many errors, even in point of
grammar, the many offences against purity of language, which are committed
by writers who are far from being contemptible, demonstrate, that a
_careful study_ of the language is previously requisite, in all who aim at
writing it properly."--_Blair's Rhetoric_, Lect. ix, p. 91.
21. "To think justly, to write well, to speak agreeably, are the three
great ends of academic instruction. The Universities will excuse me, if I
observe, that both are, in one respect or other, defective in these three
capital points of education. While in Cambridge the general application is
turned altogether on speculative knowledge, with little regard to polite
letters, taste, or style; in Oxford the whole attention is directed towards
classical correctness, without any sound foundation laid in severe
reasoning and philosophy. In Cambridge and in Oxford, the art of speaking
agreeably is so far from being taught, that it is hardly talked or thought
of. _These defects_ naturally produce dry unaffecting compositions in the
one; superficial taste and puerile elegance in the other; ungracious or
affected speech in both."--DR. BROWN, 1757: _Estimate_, Vol. ii, p. 44.
22. "A grammatical study of our own language makes no part of the ordinary
method of instruction, which we pass through in our childhood; and it is
very seldom we apply ourselves to it afterward. Yet the want of it will not
be effectually supplied by any other advantages whatsoever. Much practice
in the polite world, and a general acquaintance with the best authors, are
good helps; but alone [they] will hardly be sufficient: We have writers,
who have enjoyed these advantages in their full extent, and yet cannot be
recommended as models of an accurate style. Much less then will, what is
commonly called learning, serve the purpose; that is, a critical knowledge
of ancient languages, and much reading of ancient authors: The greatest
critic and most able grammarian of the last age, when he came to apply his
learning and criticism to an English author, was frequently at a loss in
matters of ordinary use and common construction in his own vernacular
idiom."--DR. LOWTH, 1763: _Pref. to Gram._, p. vi.
23. "To the pupils of our public schools the acquisition of their own
language, whenever it is undertaken, is an easy task. For he who is
acquainted with several grammars already, finds no difficulty in adding one
more to the number. And this, no doubt, is one of the reasons why English
engages so small a proportion of their time and attention. It is not
frequently read, and is still less frequently written. Its supposed
facility, however, or some other cause, seems to have drawn upon it such a
degree of neglect as certainly cannot be praised. The students in those
schools are often distinguished by their compositions in the learned
languages, before they can speak or write their own with correctness,
elegance, or fluency. A classical scholar too often has his English style
to form, when he should communicate his acquisitions to the world. In some
instances it is never formed with success; and the defects of his
expression either deter him from appearing before the public at all, or at
least counteract in a great degree the influence of his work, and bring
ridicule upon the author. Surely these evils might easily be prevented or
diminished."--DR. BARROW: _Essays on Education_, London, 1804; Philad.,
1825, p. 87.
24. "It is also said that those who know Latin and Greek generally express
themselves with more clearness than those who do not receive a liberal
education. It is indeed natural that those who cultivate their mental
powers, write with more clearness than the uncultivated individual. The
mental cultivation, however, may take place in the mother tongue as well as
in Latin or Greek. Yet the spirit of the ancient languages, further is
declared to be superior to that of the modern. I allow this to be the case;
but I do not find that the English style is improved by learning Greek. It
is known that literal translations are miserably bad, and yet young
scholars are taught to translate, word for word, faithful to their
dictionaries. Hence those who do not make a peculiar study of their own
language, will not improve in it by learning, in this manner, Greek and
Latin. Is it not a pity to hear, what I have been told by the managers of
one of the first institutions of Ireland, that it was easier to find ten
teachers for Latin and Greek, than one for the English language, though
they proposed double the salary to the latter? Who can assure us that the
Greek orators acquired their superiority by their acquaintance with foreign
languages; or, is it not obvious, on the other hand, that they learned
ideas and expressed them in their mother tongue?"--DR. SPURZHEIM: _Treatise
on Education_, 1832, p. 107.
25. "Dictionaries were compiled, which comprised all the words, together
with their several definitions, or the sense each one expresses and conveys
to the mind. These words were analyzed and classed according to their
essence, attributes, and functions. Grammar was made a rudiment leading to
the principles of all thoughts, and teaching by simple examples, the
general classification of words and their subdivisions in expressing the
various conceptions of the mind. Grammar is then the key to the perfect
understanding of languages; without which we are left to wander all our
lives in an intricate labyrinth, without being able to trace back again any
part of our way."--_Chazotte's Essay on the Teaching of Languages_, p. 45.
Again: "Had it not been for his dictionary and his grammar, which taught
him the essence of all languages, and the natural subdivision of their
component parts, he might have spent a life as long as Methuselah's, in
learning words, without being able to attain to a degree of perfection in
any of the languages."--_Ib._, p. 50. "Indeed, it is not easy to say, to
what degree, and in how many different ways, both memory and judgement may
be improved by an intimate acquaintance with grammar; which is therefore,
with good reason, made the first and fundamental part of literary
education. The greatest orators, the most elegant scholars, and the most
accomplished men of business, that have appeared in the world, of whom I
need only mention Cæsar and Cicero, were not only studious of grammar, but
most learned grammarians."--DR. BEATTIE: _Moral Science_, Vol. i, p. 107.
26. Here, as in many other parts of my work, I have chosen to be liberal of
quotations; not to show my reading, or to save the labour of composition,
but to give the reader the satisfaction of some other authority than my
own. In commending the study of English grammar, I do not mean to
discountenance that degree of attention which in this country is paid to
other languages; but merely to use my feeble influence to carry forward a
work of improvement, which, in my opinion, has been wisely begun, but not
sufficiently sustained. In consequence of this improvement, the study of
grammar, which was once prosecuted chiefly through the medium of the dead
languages, and was regarded as the proper business of those only who were
to be instructed in Latin and Greek, is now thought to be an appropriate
exercise for children in elementary schools. And the sentiment is now
generally admitted, that even those who are afterwards to learn other
languages, may best acquire a knowledge of the common principles of speech
from the grammar of their vernacular tongue. This opinion appears to be
confirmed by that experience which is at once the most satisfactory proof
of what is feasible, and the only proper test of what is useful.
27. It must, however, be confessed, that an acquaintance with ancient and
foreign literature is absolutely necessary for him who would become a
thorough philologist or an accomplished scholar; and that the Latin
language, the source of several of the modern tongues of Europe, being
remarkably regular in its inflections and systematic in its construction,
is in itself the most complete exemplar of the structure of speech, and the
best foundation for the study of grammar in general. But, as the general
principles of grammar are common to all languages, and as the only
successful method of learning them, is, to commit to memory the definitions
and rules which embrace them, it is reasonable to suppose that the language
most intelligible to the learner, is the most suitable for the commencement
of his grammatical studies. A competent knowledge of English grammar is
also in itself a valuable attainment, which is within the easy reach of
many young persons whose situation in life debars them from the pursuit of
general literature.
28. The attention which has lately been given to the culture of the English
language, by some who, in the character of critics or lexicographers, have
laboured purposely to improve it, and by many others who, in various
branches of knowledge, have tastefully adorned it with the works of their
genius, has in a great measure redeemed it from that contempt in which it
was formerly held in the halls of learning. But, as I have before
suggested, it does not yet appear to be sufficiently attended to in the
course of what is called a _liberal education_. Compared with, other
languages, the English exhibits both excellences and defects; but its
flexibility, or power of accommodation to the tastes of different writers,
is great; and when it is used with that mastership which belongs to
learning and genius, it must be acknowledged there are few, if any, to
which it ought on the whole to be considered inferior. But above all, it is
_our own_; and, whatever we may know or think of other tongues, it can
never be either patriotic or wise, for the learned men of the United States
or of England to pride themselves chiefly upon them.
29. Our language is worthy to be assiduously studied by all who reside
where it is spoken, and who have the means and the opportunity to become
critically acquainted with it. To every such student it is vastly more
important to be able to speak and write well in English, than to be
distinguished for proficiency in the learned languages and yet ignorant of
his own. It is certain that many from whom better things might be expected,
are found miserably deficient in this respect. And their neglect of so
desirable an accomplishment is the more remarkable and the more censurable
on account of the facility with which those who are acquainted with the
ancient languages may attain to excellence in their English style.
"Whatever the advantages or defects of the English language be, as it is
our own language, it deserves a high degree of our study and attention. * *
* Whatever knowledge may be acquired by the study of other languages, it
can never be communicated with advantage, unless by such as can write and
speak their own language well."--DR. BLAIR: _Rhetoric_, Lect. ix, p. 91.
30. I am not of opinion that it is expedient to press this study to much
extent, if at all, on those whom poverty or incapacity may have destined to
situations in which they will never hear or think of it afterwards. The
course of nature cannot be controlled; and fortune does not permit us to
prescribe the same course of discipline for all. To speak the language
which they have learned without study, and to read and write for the most
common purposes of life, may be education enough for those who can be
raised no higher. But it must be the desire of every benevolent and
intelligent man, to see the advantages of literary, as well as of moral
culture, extended as far as possible among the people. And it is manifest,
that in proportion as the precepts of the divine Redeemer are obeyed by the
nations that profess his name, will all distinctions arising merely from
the inequality of fortune be lessened or done away, and better
opportunities be offered for the children of indigence to adorn themselves
with the treasures of knowledge.
31. We may not be able to effect all that is desirable; but, favoured as
our country is, with great facilities for carrying forward the work of
improvement, in every thing which can contribute to national glory and
prosperity, I would, in conclusion of this topic, submit--that a critical
knowledge of our common language is a subject worthy of the particular
attention of all who have the genius and the opportunity to attain
it;--that on the purity and propriety with which American authors write
this language, the reputation of our national literature greatly
depends;--that in the preservation of it from all changes which ignorance
may admit or affectation invent, we ought to unite as having one common
interest;--that a fixed and settled orthography is of great importance, as
a means of preserving the etymology, history, and identity of words;--that
a grammar freed from errors and defects, and embracing a complete code of
definitions and illustrations, rules and exercises, is of primary
importance to every student and a great aid to teachers;--that as the vices
of speech as well as of manners are contagious, it becomes those who have
the care of youth, to be masters of the language in its purity and
elegance, and to avoid as much as possible every thing that is
reprehensible either in thought or expression.
CHAPTER IX.
OF THE BEST METHOD OF TEACHING GRAMMAR.
"Quomodo differunt grammaticus et grammatista? Grammaticus est qui
diligenter, acutè, scienterque possit aut dicere aut scribere, et poetas
enarrare: idem literatus dicitur. Grammatista est qui barbaris literis
obstrepit, cui abusus pro usu est; Græcis Latinam dat etymologiam, et totus
in nugis est: Latinè dicitur literator."--DESPAUTER. _Synt._, fol. 1.
1. It is hardly to be supposed that any person can have a very clear
conviction of the best method of doing a thing, who shall not at first have
acquired a pretty correct and adequate notion of the thing to be done. Arts
must be taught by artists; sciences, by learned men; and, if Grammar is the
science of words, the art of writing and speaking well, the best speakers
and writers will be the best teachers of it, if they choose to direct their
attention to so humble an employment. For, without disparagement of the
many worthy men whom choice or necessity has made schoolmasters, it may be
admitted that the low estimation in which school-keeping is commonly held,
does mostly exclude from it the first order of talents, and the highest
acquirements of scholarship. It is one strong proof of this, that we have
heretofore been content to receive our digests of English grammar, either
from men who had had no practical experience in the labours of a
school-room, or from miserable modifiers and abridgers, destitute alike of
learning and of industry, of judgement and of skill.
2. But, to have a correct and adequate notion of English grammar, and of
the best method of learning or teaching it, is no light attainment. The
critical knowledge of this subject lies in no narrow circle of observation;
nor are there any precise limits to possible improvement. The simple
definition in which the general idea of the art is embraced, "Grammar is
the art of writing and speaking correctly," however useful in order to fix
the learner's conception, can scarcely give him a better knowledge of the
thing itself, than he would have of the art of painting, when he had
learned from Dr. Webster, that it is "the art of representing to the eye,
by means of figures and colors, any object of sight, and sometimes emotions
of the mind." The first would no more enable him to write a sonnet, than
the second, to take his master's likeness. The force of this remark extends
to all the technical divisions, definitions, rules, and arrangements of
grammar; the learner may commit them all to memory, and know but very
little about the art.
3. This fact, too frequently illustrated in
practice, has been made the basis of the strongest argument ever raised
against the study of grammar; and has been particularly urged against the
ordinary technical method of teaching it, as if the whole of that laborious
process were useless. It has led some men, even of the highest talents, to
doubt the expediency of that method, under any circumstances, and either to
discountenance the whole matter, or invent other schemes by which they
hoped to be more successful. The utter futility of the old accidence has
been inferred from it, and urged, even in some well-written books, with all
the plausibility of a fair and legitimate deduction. The hardships of
children, compelled to learn what they did not understand, have been
bewailed in prefaces and reviews; incredible things boasted by literary
jugglers, have been believed by men of sense; and the sympathies of nature,
with accumulated prejudices, have been excited against that method of
teaching grammar, which after all will be found in experience to be at once
the easiest, the shortest, and the best. I mean, essentially, the ancient
positive method, which aims directly at the inculcation of principles.
4. It has been already admitted, that definitions and rules committed to
memory and not reduced to practice, will never enable any one to speak and
write correctly. But it does not follow, that to study grammar by learning
its principles, or to teach it technically by formal lessons, is of no real
utility. Surely not. For the same admission must be made with respect to
the definitions and rules of every practical science in the world; and the
technology of grammar is even more essential to a true knowledge of the
subject, than that of almost any other art. "To proceed upon principles at
first," says Dr. Barrow, "is the most compendious method of attaining every
branch of knowledge; and the truths impressed upon the mind in the years of
childhood, are ever afterwards the most firmly remembered, and the most
readily applied."--_Essays_, p. 84. Reading, as I have said, is a part of
grammar; and it is a part which must of course precede what is commonly
called in the schools the study of grammar. Any person who can read, can
learn from a book such simple facts as are within his comprehension; and we
have it on the authority of Dr. Adam, that, "The principles of grammar are
the first abstract truths which a young mind can comprehend."--_Pref. to
Lat. Gram._, p. 4.
5. It is manifest, that, with respect to this branch of knowledge, the
duties of the teacher will vary considerably, according to the age and
attainments of his pupils, or according to each student's ability or
inclination to profit by his printed guide. The business lies partly
between the master and his scholar, and partly between the boy and his
book. Among these it may be partitioned variously, and of course unwisely;
for no general rule can precisely determine for all occasions what may be
expected from each. The deficiencies of any one of the three must either be
supplied by the extraordinary readiness of an other, or the attainment of
the purpose be proportionably imperfect. What one fails to do, must either
be done by an other, or left undone. After much observation, it seems to
me, that the most proper mode of treating this science in schools, is, to
throw the labour of its acquisition almost entirely upon the students; to
require from them very accurate rehearsals as the only condition on which
they shall be listened to; and to refer them to their books for the
information which they need, and in general for the solution of all their
doubts. But then the teacher must see that he does not set them to grope
their way through a wilderness of absurdities. He must know that they have
a book, which not only contains the requisite information, but arranges it
so that every item of it may be readily found. That knowledge may
reasonably be required at their recitations, which culpable negligence
alone could have prevented them from obtaining.
6. Most grammars, and especially those which are designed for the senior
class of students, to whom a well-written book is a sufficient instructor,
contain a large proportion of matter which is merely to be read by the
learner. This is commonly distinguished in type from those more important
doctrines which constitute the frame of the edifice. It is expected that
the latter will receive a greater degree of attention. The only successful
method of teaching grammar, is, to cause the principal definitions and
rules to be committed thoroughly to memory, that they may ever afterwards
be readily applied. Oral instruction may smoothe the way, and facilitate
the labour of the learner; but the notion of communicating a competent
knowledge of grammar without imposing this task, is disproved by universal
experience. Nor will it avail any thing for the student to rehearse
definitions and rules of which he makes no practical application. In
etymology and syntax, he should be alternately exercised in learning small
portions of his book, and then applying them in parsing, till the whole is
rendered familiar. To a good reader, the achievement will be neither great
nor difficult; and the exercise is well calculated to improve the memory
and strengthen all the faculties of the mind.
7. The objection drawn from the alleged inefficiency of this method, lies
solely against the practice of those teachers who disjoin the principles
and the exercises of the art; and who, either through ignorance or
negligence, impose only such tasks as leave the pupil to suppose, that the
committing to memory of definitions and rules, constitutes the whole
business of grammar.[56] Such a method is no less absurd in itself, than
contrary to the practice of the best teachers from the very origin of the
study. The epistle prefixed to King Henry's Grammar almost three centuries
ago, and the very sensible preface to the old British Grammar, an octavo
reprinted at Boston in 1784, give evidence enough that a better method of
teaching has long been known. Nay, in my opinion, the very best method
cannot be essentially different from that which has been longest in use,
and is probably most known. But there is everywhere ample room for
improvement. Perfection was never attained by the most learned of our
ancestors, nor is it found in any of our schemes. English grammar can be
better taught than it is now, or ever has been. Better scholarship would
naturally produce this improvement, and it is easy to suppose a race of
teachers more erudite and more zealous, than either we or they.
8. Where invention and discovery are precluded, there is little room for
novelty. I have not laboured to introduce a system of grammar essentially
new, but to improve the old and free it from abuses. The mode of
instruction here recommended is the result of long and successful
experience. There is nothing in it, which any person of common abilities
will find it difficult to understand or adopt. It is the plain didactic
method of definition and example, rule and praxis; which no man who means
to teach grammar well, will ever desert, with the hope of finding an other
more rational or more easy. This book itself will make any one a
grammarian, who will take the trouble to observe and practise what it
teaches; and even if some instructors should not adopt the readiest means
of making their pupils familiar with its contents, they will not fail to
instruct by it as effectually as they can by any other. A hope is also
indulged, that this work will be particularly useful to many who have
passed the ordinary period allotted to education. Whoever is acquainted
with the grammar of our language, so as to have some tolerable skill in
teaching it, will here find almost every thing that is true in his own
instructions, clearly embraced under its proper head, so as to be easy of
reference. And perhaps there are few, however learned, who, on a perusal of
the volume, would not be furnished with some important rules and facts
which had not before occurred to their own observation.
9. The greatest peculiarity of the method is, that it requires the pupil to
speak or write a great deal, and the teacher very little. But both should
constantly remember that grammar is the art of speaking and writing well;
an art which can no more be acquired without practice, than that of dancing
or swimming. And each should ever be careful to perform his part
handsomely--without drawling, omitting, stopping, hesitating, faltering,
miscalling, reiterating, stuttering, hurrying, slurring, mouthing,
misquoting, mispronouncing, or any of the thousand faults which render
utterance disagreeable and inelegant. It is the learner's diction that is
to be improved; and the system will be found well calculated to effect
that object; because it demands of him, not only to answer questions on
grammar, but also to make a prompt and practical application of what he has
just learned. If the class be tolerable readers, and have learned the art
of attention, it will not be necessary for the teacher to say much; and in
general he ought not to take up the time by so doing. He should, however,
carefully superintend their rehearsals; give the word to the next when any
one errs; and order the exercise in such a manner that either his own
voice, or the example of his best scholars, may gradually correct the ill
habits of the awkward, till all learn to recite with clearness,
understanding well what they say, and making it intelligible to others.
10. Without oral instruction and oral exercises, a correct habit of
speaking our language can never be acquired; but written rules, and
exercises in writing, are perhaps quite as necessary, for the formation of
a good style. All these should therefore be combined in our course of
English grammar. And, in order to accomplish two objects at once, the
written doctrines, or the definitions and rules of grammar, should statedly
be made the subject of a critical exercise in utterance; so that the boy
who is parsing a word, or correcting a sentence, in the hearing of others,
may impressively realize, that he is then and there exhibiting his own
skill or deficiency in oral discourse. Perfect forms of parsing and
correcting should be given him as models, with the understanding that the
text before him is his only guide to their right application. It should be
shown, that in parsing any particular word, or part of speech, there are
just so many things to be said of it, and no more, and that these are to be
said in the best manner: so that whoever tells fewer, omits something
requisite; whoever says more, inserts something irrelevant; and whoever
proceeds otherwise, either blunders in point of fact, or impairs the beauty
of the expression. I rely not upon what are called "_Parsing Tables_" but
upon the precise forms of expression which are given in the book for the
parsing of the several sorts of words. Because the questions, or abstract
directions, which constitute the common parsing tables, are less
intelligible to the learner than a practical example; and more time must
needs be consumed on them, in order to impress upon his memory the number
and the sequence of the facts to be stated.
11. If a pupil happen to be naturally timid, there should certainly be no
austerity of manner to embarrass his diffidence; for no one can speak well,
who feels afraid. But a far more common impediment to the true use of
speech, is carelessness. He who speaks before a school, in an exercise of
this kind, should be made to feel that he is bound by every consideration
of respect for himself, or for those who hear him, to proceed with his
explanation or rehearsal, in a ready, clear, and intelligible manner. It
should be strongly impressed upon him, that the grand object of the whole
business, is his own practical improvement; that a habit of speaking
clearly and agreeably, is itself one half of the great art of grammar; that
to be slow and awkward in parsing, is unpardonable negligence, and a
culpable waste of time; that to commit blunders in rehearsing grammar, is
to speak badly about the art of speaking well; that his recitations must be
limited to such things as he perfectly knows; that he must apply himself to
his book, till he can proceed without mistake; finally, that he must watch
and imitate the utterance of those who speak well, ever taking that for the
best manner, in which there are the fewest things that could be
_mimicked_.[57]
12. The exercise of parsing should be commenced immediately after the first
lesson of etymology--the lesson in which are contained the definitions of
the ten parts of speech; and should be carried on progressively, till it
embraces all the doctrines which are applicable to it. If it be performed
according to the order prescribed in the following work, it will soon make
the student perfectly familiar with all the primary definitions and rules
of grammar. It asks no aid from a dictionary, if the performer knows the
meaning of the words he is parsing; and very little from the teacher, if
the forms in the grammar have received any tolerable share of attention. It
requires just enough of thought to keep the mind attentive to what the
lips are uttering; while it advances by such easy gradations and constant
repetitions as leave the pupil utterly without excuse, if he does not know
what to say. Being neither wholly extemporaneous nor wholly rehearsed by
rote, it has more dignity than a school-boy's conversation, and more ease
than a formal recitation, or declamation; and is therefore an exercise well
calculated to induce a habit of uniting correctness with fluency in
ordinary speech--a species of elocution as valuable as any other.[58]
13. Thus would I unite the practice with the theory of grammar;
endeavouring to express its principles with all possible perspicuity,
purity, and propriety of diction; retaining, as necessary parts of the
subject, those technicalities which the pupil must needs learn in order to
understand the disquisitions of grammarians in general; adopting every
important feature of that system of doctrines which appears to have been
longest and most generally taught; rejecting the multitudinous errors and
inconsistencies with which unskillful hands have disgraced the science and
perplexed the schools; remodelling every ancient definition and rule which
it is possible to amend, in respect to style, or grammatical correctness;
supplying the numerous and great deficiencies with which the most
comprehensive treatises published by earlier writers, are chargeable;
adapting the code of instruction to the present state of English
literature, without giving countenance to any innovation not sanctioned by
reputable use; labouring at once to extend and to facilitate the study,
without forgetting the proper limits of the science, or debasing its style
by puerilities.
14. These general views, it is hoped, will be found to have been steadily
adhered to throughout the following work. The author has not deviated much
from the principles adopted in the most approved grammars already in use;
nor has he acted the part of a servile copyist. It was not his design to
introduce novelties, but to form a practical digest of established rules.
He has not laboured to subvert the general system of grammar, received from
time immemorial; but to improve upon it, in its present application to our
tongue. That which is excellent, may not be perfect; and amendment may be
desirable, where subversion would be ruinous. Believing that no theory can
better explain the principles of our language, and no contrivance afford
greater facilities to the student, the writer has in general adopted those
doctrines which are already best known; and has contented himself with
attempting little more than to supply the deficiencies of the system, and
to free it from the reproach of being itself ungrammatical. This indeed was
task enough; for, to him, all the performances of his predecessors seemed
meagre and greatly deficient, compared with what he thought needful to be
done. The scope of his labours has been, to define, dispose, and exemplify
those doctrines anew; and, with a scrupulous regard to the best usage, to
offer, on that authority, some further contributions to the stock of
grammatical knowledge.
15. Having devoted many years to studies of this nature, and being
conversant with most of the grammatical treatises already published, the
author conceived that the objects above referred to, might be better
effected than they had been in any work within his knowledge. And he
persuades himself, that, however this work may yet fall short of possible
completeness, the improvements here offered are neither few nor
inconsiderable. He does not mean to conceal in any degree his obligations
to others, or to indulge in censure without discrimination. He has no
disposition to depreciate the labours, or to detract from the merits, of
those who have written ably upon this topic. He has studiously endeavoured
to avail himself of all the light they have thrown upon the subject. With a
view to further improvements in the science, he has also resorted to the
original sources of grammatical knowledge, and has not only critically
considered what he has seen or heard of our vernacular tongue, but has
sought with some diligence the analogies of speech in the structure of
several other languages. If, therefore, the work now furnished be thought
worthy of preference, as exhibiting the best method of teaching grammar; he
trusts it will be because it deviates least from sound doctrine, while, by
fair criticism upon others, it best supplies the means of choosing
judiciously.
16. Of all methods of teaching grammar, that which has come nearest to what
is recommended above, has doubtless been the most successful; and whatever
objections may have been raised against it, it will probably be found on
examination to be the most analogous to nature. It is analytic in respect
to the doctrines of grammar, synthetic in respect to the practice, and
logical in respect to both. It assumes the language as an object which the
learner is capable of conceiving to be one whole; begins with the
classification of all its words, according to certain grand differences
which make the several parts of speech; then proceeds to divide further,
according to specific differences and qualities, till all the classes,
properties, and relations, of the words in any intelligible sentence,
become obvious and determinate: and he to whom these things are known, so
that he can see at a glance what is the construction of each word, and
whether it is right or not, is a good grammarian. The disposition of the
human mind to generalize the objects of thought, and to follow broad
analogies in the use of words, discovers itself early, and seems to be an
inherent principle of our nature. Hence, in the language of children and
illiterate people, many words are regularly inflected even in opposition to
the most common usage.
17. It has unfortunately become fashionable to inveigh against the
necessary labour of learning by heart the essential principles of grammar,
as a useless and intolerable drudgery. And this notion, with the vain hope
of effecting the same purpose in an easier way, is giving countenance to
modes of teaching well calculated to make superficial scholars. When those
principles are properly defined, disposed, and exemplified, the labour of
learning them is far less than has been represented; and the habits of
application induced by such a method of studying grammar, are of the utmost
importance to the learner. Experience shows, that the task may be achieved
during the years of childhood; and that, by an early habit of study, the
memory is so improved, as to render those exercises easy and familiar,
which, at a later period, would be found very difficult and irksome. Upon
this plan, and perhaps upon every other, some words will be learned before
the ideas represented by them are fully comprehended, or the things spoken
of are fully understood. But this seems necessarily to arise from the order
of nature in the development of the mental faculties; and an acquisition
cannot be lightly esteemed, which has signally augmented and improved that
faculty on which the pupil's future progress in knowledge depends.
18. The memory, indeed, should never be cultivated at the expense of the
understanding; as is the case, when the former is tasked with ill-devised
lessons by which the latter is misled and bewildered. But truth, whether
fully comprehended or not, has no perplexing inconsistencies. And it is
manifest that that which does not in some respect surpass the
understanding, can never enlighten it--can never awaken the spirit of
inquiry or satisfy research. How often have men of observation profited by
the remembrance of words which, at the time they heard them, they did not
"_perfectly understand!_" We never study any thing of which we imagine our
knowledge to be perfect. To learn, and, to understand, are, with respect to
any science or art, one and the same thing. With respect to difficult or
unintelligible phraseology alone, are they different. He who by study has
once stored his memory with the sound and appropriate language of any
important doctrine, can never, without some folly or conceit akin to
madness, repent of the acquisition. Milton, in his academy, professed to
teach things rather than words; and many others have made plausible
profession of the same thing since. But it does not appear, that even in
the hands of Milton, the attempt was crowned with any remarkable success.
See _Dr. Barrow's Essays_, p. 85.
19. The vain pretensions of several
modern simplifiers, contrivers of machines, charts, tables, diagrams,
vincula, pictures, dialogues, familiar lectures, ocular analyses, tabular
compendiums, inductive exercises, productive systems, intellectual methods,
and various new theories, for the purpose of teaching grammar, may serve to
deceive the ignorant, to amuse the visionary, and to excite the admiration
of the credulous; but none of these things has any favourable relation to
that improvement which may justly be boasted as having taken place within
the memory of the present generation. The definitions and rules which
constitute the doctrines of grammar, may be variously expressed, arranged,
illustrated, and applied; and in the expression, arrangement, illustration,
and application of them, there may be room for some amendment; but no
contrivance can ever relieve the pupil from the necessity of committing
them thoroughly to memory. The experience of all antiquity is added to our
own, in confirmation of this; and the judicious teacher, though he will not
shut his eyes to a real improvement, will be cautious of renouncing the
practical lessons of hoary experience, for the futile notions of a vain
projector.
20. Some have been beguiled with the idea, that great proficiency in
grammar was to be made by means of a certain fanciful method of
_induction._ But if the scheme does not communicate to those who are
instructed by it, a better knowledge of grammar than the contrivers
themselves seem to have possessed, it will be found of little use.[59] By
the happy method of Bacon, to lead philosophy into the common walks of
life, into the ordinary business and language of men, is to improve the
condition of humanity; but, in teaching grammar, to desert the plain
didactic method of definition and example, rule and praxis, and pretend to
lead children by philosophic induction into a knowledge of words, is to
throw down the ladder of learning, that boys may imagine themselves to
ascend it, while they are merely stilting over the low level upon which its
fragments are cast.
21. The chief argument of these inductive grammarians is founded on the
principle, that children cannot be instructed by means of any words which
they do not perfectly understand. If this principle were strictly true,
children could never be instructed by words at all. For no child ever fully
understands a word the first time he hears or sees it; and it is rather by
frequent repetition and use, than by any other process, that the meaning of
words is commonly learned. Hence most people make use of many terms which
they cannot very accurately explain, just as they do of many _things_, the
real nature of which they do not comprehend. The first perception we have
of any word, or other thing, when presented to the ear or the eye, gives us
some knowledge of it. So, to the signs of thought, as older persons use
them, we soon attach some notion of what is meant; and the difference
between this knowledge, and that which we call an understanding of the word
or thing, is, for the most part, only in degree. Definitions and
explanations are doubtless highly useful, but induction is not definition,
and an understanding of words may be acquired without either; else no man
could ever have made a dictionary. But, granting the principle to be true,
it makes nothing for this puerile method of induction; because the regular
process by definitions and examples is both shorter and easier, as well as
more effectual. In a word, this whole scheme of inductive grammar is
nothing else than a series of _leading_ questions and _manufactured_
answers; the former being generally as unfair as the latter are silly. It
is a remarkable tissue of ill-laid premises and of forced illogical
sequences.
22. Of a similar character is a certain work, entitled, "English Grammar on
the _Productive System_: a method of instruction recently adopted in
Germany and Switzerland." It is a work which certainly will be
"_productive_" of no good to any body but the author and his publishers.
The book is as destitute of taste, as of method; of authority, as of
originality. It commences with "the _inductive_ process," and after forty
pages of such matter as is described above, becomes a "_productive_
system," by means of a misnamed "RECAPITULATION;" which jumbles together
the etymology and the syntax of the language, through seventy-six pages
more. It is then made still more "_productive_" by the appropriation of a
like space to a reprint of Murray's Syntax and Exercises, under the
inappropriate title, "GENERAL OBSERVATIONS." To Prosody, including
punctuation and the use of capitals, there are allotted six pages, at the
end; and to Orthography, four lines, in the middle of the volume! (See p.
41.) It is but just, to regard the _title_ of this book, as being at once a
libel and a lie; a libel upon the learning and good sense of
Woodbridge;[60] and a practical lie, as conveying a false notion of the
origin of what the volume contains.
23. What there is in Germany or Switzerland, that bears _any resemblance_
to this misnamed system of English Grammar, remains to be shown. It would
be prodigal of the reader's time, and inconsistent with the studied brevity
of this work, to expose the fallacy of what is pretended in regard to the
origin of this new method. Suffice it to say, that the anonymous and
questionable account of the "Productive System of Instruction," which the
author has borrowed from a "valuable periodical," to save himself the
trouble of writing a preface, and, as he says, to "_assist_ [the reader] in
forming an opinion of the comparative merits of _the system_" is not only
destitute of all authority, but is totally irrelevant, except to the
whimsical _name_ of his book. If every word of it be true, it is
insufficient to give us even the slightest reason to suppose, that any
thing analogous to his production ever had existence in either of those
countries; and yet it is set forth on purpose to convey the idea that such
a system "_now predominates_" in the schools of both. (See _Pref._, p. 5.)
The infidel _Neef_, whose new method of education has been tried in our
country, and with its promulgator forgot, was an accredited disciple of
this boasted "productive school;" a zealous coadjutor with Pestalozzi
himself, from whose halls he emanated to "teach the offspring of a free
people"--to teach them the nature of things sensible, and a contempt for
all the wisdom of _books_. And what similarity is there between his method
of teaching and that of _Roswell C. Smith_, except their pretence to a
common parentage, and that both are worthless?
24. The success of Smith's Inductive and Productive Grammars, and the fame
perhaps of a certain "Grammar in Familiar Lectures," produced in 1836 a
rival work from the hands of a gentleman in New Hampshire, entitled, "An
Analytical Grammar of the English Language, embracing the _Inductive and
Productive Methods of Teaching_, with _Familiar Explanations in the Lecture
Style_" &c. This is a fair-looking duodecimo volume of three hundred pages,
the character and pretensions of which, if they could be clearly stated,
would throw further light upon the two fallacious schemes of teaching
mentioned above. For the writer says, "This grammar professes _to combine_
both the _Inductive_ and _Productive_ methods of imparting instruction, of
which much has been said within a few years _past_"--_Preface_, p. iv. And
again: "The inductive and productive methods of instruction contain the
essence of modern improvements."--_Gram._, p. 139. In what these modern
improvements consist, he does not inform us; but, it will be seen, that he
himself claims the _copyright_ of _all_ the improvements which he allows to
_English grammar_ since the appearance of Murray in 1795. More than two
hundred pretenders to such improvements, appear however within the time;
nor is the grammarian of Holdgate the least positive of the claimants. This
new purveyor for the public taste, dislikes the catering of his
predecessor, who poached in the fields of Murray; and, with a tacit censure
upon _his productions_, has _honestly bought_ the rareties which he has
served up. In this he has the advantage. He is a better writer too than
some who make grammars; though no adept at composition, and a total
stranger to method. To call his work a "_system_" is a palpable misnomer;
to tell what it is, an impossibility. It is a grammatical chaos, bearing
such a resemblance to Smith's or Kirkham's as one mass of confusion
naturally bears to an other, yet differing from both in almost every thing
that looks like order in any of the three.
25. The claimant of the combination says, "this new system of English
grammar now offered to the public, embraces _the principles_ of a
'Systematic Introduction to English Grammar,' by John L. Parkhurst; and the
_present author_ is indebted to Mr. Parkhurst for a knowledge of _the
manner_ of applying the principles involved in _his peculiar method_ of
teaching grammatical science. He is also under obligations to Mr.
Parkhurst for many useful hints received several years since while under
his instruction.--The _copy right_ of Parkhurst's Grammar has been
purchased by the writer of this, who alone is responsible for the present
application of _its definitions._ Parkhurst's Systematic Introduction to
English Grammar has passed through two editions, and is _the first improved
system_ of English grammar that has appeared before the public _since the
first introduction_ of Lindley Murray's English Grammar."--_Sanborn's
Gram., Preface_, p. iii. What, then, is "THE PRODUCTIVE SYSTEM?" and with
whom did it originate? The thousands of gross blunders committed by its
professors, prove at least that it is no system of writing grammatically;
and, whether it originated with Parkhurst or with Pestalozzi, with Sanborn
or with Smith, as it is confessedly a method but "recently adopted," and,
so far as appears, never fairly tested, so is it a method that needs only
to be _known_, to be immediately and forever exploded.
26. The best instruction is that which ultimately gives the greatest
facility and skill in practice; and grammar is best taught by that process
which brings its doctrines most directly home to the habits as well as to
the thoughts of the pupil--which the most effectually conquers inattention,
and leaves the deepest impress of shame upon blundering ignorance. In the
language of some men, there is a vividness, an energy, a power of
expression, which penetrates even the soul of dullness, and leaves an
impression both of words unknown and of sentiments unfelt before. Such men
can teach; but he who kindly or indolently accommodates himself to
ignorance, shall never be greatly instrumental in removing it. "The
colloquial barbarisms of boys," says Dr. Barrow, "should never be suffered
to pass without notice and censure. Provincial tones and accents, and all
defects in articulation, should be corrected whenever they are heard; lest
they grow into established habits, unknown, from their familiarity, to him
who is guilty of them, and adopted by others, from the imitation of his
manner, or their respect for his authority."--_Barrow's Essays on
Education_, p. 88.
27. In the whole range of school exercises, there is none of greater
importance than that of parsing; and yet perhaps there is none which is, in
general, more defectively conducted. Scarcely less useful, as a means of
instruction, is the practice of correcting false syntax orally, by regular
and logical forms of argument; nor does this appear to have been more ably
directed towards the purposes of discipline. There is so much to be done,
in order to effect what is desirable in the management of these things; and
so little prospect that education will ever be generally raised to a just
appreciation of that study which, more than all others, forms the mind to
habits of correct thinking; that, in reflecting upon the state of the
science at the present time, and upon the means of its improvement, the
author cannot but sympathize, in some degree, with the sadness of the
learned Sanctius; who tells us, that he had "always lamented, and often
with tears, that while other branches of learning were excellently taught,
grammar, which is the foundation of all others, lay so much neglected, and
that for this neglect there seemed to be no adequate remedy."--_Pref. to
Minerva_. The grammatical use of language is in sweet alliance with the
moral; and a similar regret seems to have prompted the following
exclamation of the Christian poet:
"Sacred Interpreter of human thought,
How few respect or use thee as they ought!"--COWPER.
28. No directions, either oral or written, can ever enable the heedless and
the unthinking to speak or write well. That must indeed be an admirable
book, which can attract levity to sober reflection, teach thoughtlessness
the true meaning of words, raise vulgarity from its fondness for low
examples, awaken the spirit which attains to excellency of speech, and
cause grammatical exercises to be skillfully managed, where teachers
themselves are so often lamentably deficient in them. Yet something may be
effected by means of better books, if better can be introduced. And what
withstands?--Whatever there is of ignorance or error in relation to the
premises. And is it arrogant to say there is much? Alas! in regard to this,
as well as to many a weightier matter, one may too truly affirm, _Multa non
sunt sicut multis videntur_--Many things are not as they seem to many.
Common errors are apt to conceal themselves from the common mind; and the
appeal to reason and just authority is often frustrated, because a wrong
head defies both. But, apart from this, there are difficulties:
multiplicity perplexes choice; inconvenience attends change; improvement
requires effort; conflicting theories demand examination; the principles of
the science are unprofitably disputed; the end is often divorced from the
means; and much that belies the title, has been published under the name.
29. It is certain, that the printed formularies most commonly furnished for
the important exercises of parsing and correcting, are either so awkwardly
written or so negligently followed, as to make grammar, in the mouths of
our juvenile orators, little else than a crude and faltering jargon. Murray
evidently intended that his book of exercises should be constantly used
with his grammar; but he made the examples in the former so dull and
prolix, that few learners, if any, have ever gone through the series
agreeably to his direction. The publishing of them in a separate volume,
has probably given rise to the absurd practice of endeavouring to teach his
grammar without them. The forms of parsing and correcting which this author
furnishes, are also misplaced; and when found by the learner, are of little
use. They are so verbose, awkward, irregular, and deficient, that the pupil
must be either a dull boy or utterly ignorant of grammar, if he cannot
express the facts extemporaneously in better English. They are also very
meagre as a whole, and altogether inadequate to their purpose; many things
that frequently occur in the language, not being at all exemplified in
them, or even explained in the grammar itself. When we consider how
exceedingly important it is, that the business of a school should proceed
without loss of time, and that, in the oral exercises here spoken of, each
pupil should go through his part promptly, clearly, correctly, and fully,
we cannot think it a light objection that these forms, so often to be
repeated, are so badly written. Nor does the objection lie against this
writer only: "_Ab uno disce omnes_." But the reader may demand some
illustrations.[61]
30. First--from his etymological parsing: "O Virtue! how amiable thou art!"
Here his form for the word _Virtue_ is--"_Virtue_ is a _common substantive,
of_ the _neuter_ gender, _of the third_ person, _in the_ singular number,
_and the_ nominative case."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, Vol. ii, p. 2. It
should have been--"_Virtue_ is a common _noun_, personified _proper_, of
the _second_ person, singular number, _feminine_ gender, and nominative
case." And then the definitions of all these things should have followed in
regular numerical order. He gives the class of this noun wrong, for virtue
addressed becomes an individual; he gives the gender wrong, and in direct
contradiction to what he says of the word in his section on gender; he
gives the person wrong, as may be seen by the pronoun _thou_, which
represents it; he repeats the definite article three times unnecessarily,
and inserts two needless prepositions, making them different where the
relation is precisely the same: and all this, in a sentence of two lines,
to tell the properties of the noun _Virtue!_--But further: in etymological
parsing, the definitions explaining the properties of the parts of speech,
ought to be regularly and rapidly rehearsed by the pupil, till all of them
become perfectly familiar; and till he can discern, with the quickness of
thought, what alone will be true for the full description of any word in
any intelligible sentence. All these the author omits; and, on account of
this omission, his whole method of etymological parsing is, miserably
deficient.[62]
31. Secondly--from his syntactical parsing: "_Vice_ degrades us." Here his
form for the word _Vice_ is--"_Vice_ is a common substantive, _of_ the
third person, _in the_ singular number, _and the_ nominative
case."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, Vol. ii, p. 9. Now, when the learner is told
that this is the syntactical parsing of a noun, and the other the
etymological, he will of course conclude, that to advance from the
etymology to the syntax of this part of speech, is merely, _to omit the
gender_--this being the only difference between the two forms. But even
this difference had no other origin than the compiler's carelessness in
preparing his octavo book of exercises--the gender being inserted in the
duodecimo. And what then? Is the syntactical parsing of a noun to be
precisely the same as the etymological? Never. But Murray, and all who
admire and follow his work, are content to parse many words by
halves--making, or pretending to make, a necessary distinction, and yet
often omitting, in both parts of the exercise, every thing which
constitutes the difference. He should here have said--"_Vice_ is a common
noun, of the third person, singular number, neuter gender, and nominative
case: and is the subject of _degrades_; according to the rule which says,
'A noun or a pronoun which is the subject of a verb, must be in the
nominative case.' Because the meaning is--_vice degrades_." This is the
whole description of the word, with its construction; and to say less, is
to leave the matter unfinished.
32. Thirdly--from his "Mode of verbally correcting erroneous sentences:"
Take his first example: "The man is prudent which speaks little." (How far
silence is prudence, depends upon circumstances: I waive that question.)
The learner is here taught to say, "This sentence is incorrect; because
_which_ is a pronoun _of the neuter gender, and does not agree in gender_
with its antecedent _man_, which is masculine. But a pronoun should agree
with its antecedent in gender, &c. according to the fifth rule of syntax.
_Which_ should _therefore_ be _who_, a relative pronoun, agreeing with its
antecedent _man_; and the sentence should stand thus: 'The man is prudent
_who_ speaks little.'"--_Murray's Octavo Gram._, Vol. ii, p. 18;
_Exercises_, 12mo, p. xii. Again: "'After I visited Europe, I returned to
America.' This sentence," says Murray, "_is not correct_; because the verb
_visited_ is in the imperfect tense, and yet used here to express an
action, not only past, but prior to the time referred to by the verb
_returned_, to which it relates. By the thirteenth rule of syntax, when
verbs are used that, in point of time, relate to each other, the order of
time should be observed. The imperfect tense _visited_ should therefore
have been _had visited_, in the pluperfect tense, representing the action
of _visiting_, not only as past, but also as prior to the time of
_returning_. _The sentence corrected would stand thus_: 'After I _had
visited_ Europe, I returned to America.'"--_Gr._, ii, p. 19; _and Ex._
12mo, p. xii. These are the first two examples of Murray's verbal
corrections, and the only ones retained by Alger, in his _improved,
recopy-righted edition_ of Murray's Exercises. Yet, in each of them, is the
argumentation palpably false! In the former, truly, _which_ should be
_who_; but not because _which_ is "of the _neuter gender_;" but because the
application of that relative to _persons_, is now nearly obsolete. Can any
grammarian forget that, in speaking of brute animals, male or female, we
commonly use _which_, and never _who_? But if _which_ must needs be
_neuter_, the world is wrong in this.--As for the latter example, it is
right as it stands; and the correction is, in some sort, tautological. The
conjunctive adverb _after_ makes one of the actions subsequent to the
other, and gives to the _visiting_ all the priority that is signified by
the pluperfect tense. "_After_ I _visited_ Europe," is equivalent to
"_When_ I _had visited_ Europe." The whole argument is therefore void.[63]
33. These few brief illustrations, out of thousands that might be adduced
in proof of the faultiness of the common manuals, the author has
reluctantly introduced, to show that even in the most popular books, with
all the pretended improvements of revisers, the grammar of our language has
never been treated with that care and ability which its importance demands.
It is hardly to be supposed that men unused to a teacher's duties, can be
qualified to compose such books as will most facilitate his labours.
Practice is a better pilot than theory. And while, in respect to grammar,
the consciousness of failure is constantly inducing changes from one system
to another, and almost daily giving birth to new expedients as constantly
to end in the same disappointment; perhaps the practical instructions of an
experienced teacher, long and assiduously devoted to the study, may
approve themselves to many, as seasonably supplying the aid and guidance
which they require.
34. From the doctrines of grammar, novelty is rigidly excluded. They
consist of details to which taste can lend no charm, and genius no
embellishment. A writer may express them with neatness and
perspicuity--their importance alone can commend them to notice. Yet, in
drawing his illustrations from the stores of literature, the grammarian may
select some gems of thought, which will fasten on the memory a worthy
sentiment, or relieve the dullness of minute instruction. Such examples
have been taken from various authors, and interspersed through the
following pages. The moral effect of early lessons being a point of the
utmost importance, it is especially incumbent on all those who are
endeavouring to confer the benefits of intellectual culture, to guard
against the admission or the inculcation of any principle which may have an
improper tendency, and be ultimately prejudicial to those whom they
instruct. In preparing this treatise for publication, the author has been
solicitous to avoid every thing that could be offensive to the most
delicate and scrupulous reader; and of the several thousands of quotations
introduced for the illustration or application of the principles of the
science, he trusts that the greater part will be considered valuable on
account of the sentiments they contain.
35. The nature of the subject almost entirely precludes invention. The
author has, however, aimed at that kind and degree of originality which are
to be commended in works of this sort. What these are, according to his
view, he has sufficiently explained in a preceding chapter. And, though he
has taken the liberty of a grammarian, to think for himself and write in a
style of his own, he trusts it will be evident that few have excelled him
in diligence of research, or have followed more implicitly the dictates of
that authority which gives law to language. In criticising the critics and
grammatists of the schools, he has taken them upon their own
ground--showing their errors, for the most part, in contrast with the
common principles which they themselves have taught; and has hoped to
escape censure, in his turn, not by sheltering himself under the name of a
popular master, but by a diligence which should secure to his writings at
least the humble merit of self-consistency. His progress in composing this
work has been slow, and not unattended with labour and difficulty. Amidst
the contrarieties of opinion, that appear in the various treatises already
before the public, and the perplexities inseparable from so complicated a
subject, he has, after deliberate consideration, adopted those views and
explanations which appeared to him the least liable to objection, and the
most compatible with his ultimate object--the production of a work which
should show, both extensively and accurately, what is, and what is not,
good English.
36. The great art of meritorious authorship lies chiefly in the
condensation of much valuable thought into few words. Although the author
has here allowed himself ampler room than before, he has still been no less
careful to store it with such information as he trusted would prevent the
ingenious reader from wishing its compass less. He has compressed into this
volume the most essential parts of a mass of materials in comparison with
which the book is still exceedingly small. The effort to do this, has
greatly multiplied his own labour and long delayed the promised
publication; but in proportion as this object has been reached, the time
and patience of the student must have been saved. Adequate compensation for
this long toil, has never been expected. Whether from this performance any
profit shall accrue to the author or not, is a matter of little
consequence; he has neither written for bread, nor on the credit of its
proceeds built castles in the air. His ambition was, to make an acceptable
book, by which the higher class of students might be thoroughly instructed,
and in which the eyes of the critical would find little to condemn. He is
too well versed in the history of his theme, too well aware of the
precarious fortune of authors, to indulge in any confident anticipations of
extraordinary success: yet he will not deny that his hopes are large, being
conscious of having cherished them with a liberality of feeling which
cannot fear disappointment. In this temper he would invite the reader to a
thorough perusal of these pages.
37. A grammar should speak for itself. In a work of this nature, every word
or tittle which does not recommend the performance to the understanding and
taste of the skillful, is, so far as it goes, a certificate against it. Yet
if some small errors shall have escaped detection, let it be recollected
that it is almost impossible to compose and print, with perfect accuracy, a
work of this size, in which so many little things should be observed,
remembered, and made exactly to correspond. There is no human vigilance
which multiplicity may not sometimes baffle, and minuteness sometimes
elude. To most persons grammar seems a dry and difficult subject; but there
is a disposition of mind, to which what is arduous, is for that very reason
alluring. "Quo difficilius, hoc præclarius," says Cicero; "The more
difficult, the more honourable." The merit of casting up a high-way in a
rugged land, is proportionate not merely to the utility of the achievement,
but to the magnitude of the obstacles to be overcome. The difficulties
encountered in boyhood from the use of a miserable epitome and the deep
impression of a few mortifying blunders made in public, first gave the
author a fondness for grammar; circumstances having since favoured this
turn of his genius, he has voluntarily pursued the study, with an assiduity
which no man will ever imitate for the sake of pecuniary recompense.
CHAPTER X.
OF GRAMMATICAL DEFINITIONS.
"Scientiam autem nusquam esse censebant, nisi in animi motionibus atque
rationibus: quâ de causâ _definitiones_ rerum probabant, et has ad omnia,
de quibus disceptabatur, adhibebant."--CICERONIS _Academica_, Lib. i, 9.
1. "The first and highest philosophy," says Puffendorf, "is that which
delivers the most accurate and comprehensive _definitions_ of things." Had
all the writers on English grammar been adepts in this philosophy, there
would have been much less complaint of the difficulty and uncertainty of
the study. "It is easy," says Murray, "to advance plausible objections
against almost every definition, rule, and arrangement of
grammar."--_Gram._, 8vo, p. 59. But, if this is true, as regards his, or
any other work, the reason, I am persuaded, is far less inherent in the
nature of the subject than many have supposed.[64] Objectionable
definitions and rules are but evidences of the ignorance and incapacity of
him who frames them. And if the science of grammar has been so unskillfully
treated that almost all its positions may be plausibly impugned, it is time
for some attempt at a reformation of the code. The language is before us,
and he who knows most about it, can best prescribe the rules which we ought
to observe in the use of it. But how can we expect children to deduce from
a few particulars an accurate notion of general principles and their
exceptions, where learned doctors have so often faltered? Let the abettors
of grammatical "_induction_" answer.
2. Nor let it be supposed a light
matter to prescribe with certainty the principles of grammar. For, what is
requisite to the performance? To know certainly, in the first place, what
is the _best usage_. Nor is this all. Sense and memory must be keen, and
tempered to retain their edge and hold, in spite of any difficulties which
the subject may present. To understand things exactly as they are; to
discern the differences by which they may be distinguished, and the
resemblances by which they ought to be classified; to know, through the
proper evidences of truth, that our ideas, or conceptions, are rightly
conformable to the nature, properties, and relations, of the objects of
which we think; to see how that which is complex may be resolved into its
elements, and that which is simple may enter into combination; to observe
how that which is consequent may be traced to its cause, and that which is
regular be taught by rule; to learn from the custom of speech the proper
connexion between words and ideas, so as to give to the former a just
application, to the latter an adequate expression, and to things a just
description; to have that penetration which discerns what terms, ideas, or
things, are definable, and therefore capable of being taught, and what must
be left to the teaching of nature: these are the essential qualifications
for him who would form good definitions; these are the elements of that
accuracy and comprehensiveness of thought, to which allusion has been made,
and which are characteristic of "the first and highest philosophy."
3. Again, with reference to the cultivation of the mind, I would add: To
observe accurately the appearances of things, and the significations of
words; to learn first principles first, and proceed onward in such a manner
that every new truth may help to enlighten and strengthen the
understanding; and thus to comprehend gradually, according to our capacity,
whatsoever may be brought within the scope of human intellect:--to do these
things, I say, is, to ascend by sure steps, so far as we may, from the
simplest elements of science--which, in fact, are our own, original,
undefinable notices of things--towards the very topmost height of human
wisdom and knowledge. The ancient saying, that truth lies hid, or in the
bottom of a well, must not be taken without qualification; for "the first
and highest philosophy" has many principles which even a child may
understand. These several suggestions, the first of which the Baron de
Puffendorf thought not unworthy to introduce his great work on the Law of
Nature and of Nations, the reader, if he please, may bear in mind, as he
peruses the following digest of the laws and usages of speech.
4. "Definitions," says Duncan, in his Elements of Logic, "are intended to
make known the meaning of words standing for _complex ideas_;[65] and were
we always careful to form those ideas exactly in our minds, and copy our
definitions from that appearance, much of the confusion and obscurity
complained of in languages might be prevented."--P. 70. Again he says: "The
writings of the mathematicians are a clear proof, how much the advancement
of human knowledge depends upon a right use of definitions."--P. 72.
Mathematical science has been supposed to be, in its own nature, that which
is best calculated to develop and strengthen the reasoning faculty; but, as
speech is emphatically _the discourse of reason_, I am persuaded, that had
the grammarians been equally clear and logical in their instructions, their
science would never have been accounted inferior in this respect. Grammar
is perhaps the most comprehensive of all studies; but it is chiefly owing
to the unskillfulness of instructors, and to the errors and defects of the
systems in use, that it is commonly regarded as the most dry and difficult.
5. "Poor Scaliger (who well knew what a definition should be) from his own
melancholy experience exclaimed--'_Nihil infelicius grammatico
definitore!_' Nothing is more unhappy than the grammatical
definer."--_Tooke's Diversions_, Vol. i, p. 238. Nor do our later teachers
appear to have been more fortunate in this matter. A majority of all the
definitions and rules contained in the great multitude of English grammars
which I have examined, are, in some respect or other, erroneous. The nature
of their multitudinous faults, I must in general leave to the discernment
of the reader, except the passages be such as may be suitably selected for
examples of false syntax. Enough, however, will be exhibited, in the course
of this volume, to make the foregoing allegation credible; and of the rest
a more accurate judgement may perhaps be formed, when they shall have been
compared with what this work will present as substitutes. The importance of
giving correct definitions to philological terms, and of stating with
perfect accuracy whatsoever is to be learned as doctrine, has never been
duly appreciated. The grand source of the disheartening difficulties
encountered by boys in the study of grammar, lies in their ignorance of the
meaning of words. This cause of embarrassment is not to be shunned and left
untouched; but, as far as possible, it ought to be removed. In teaching
grammar, or indeed any other science, we cannot avoid the use of many terms
to which young learners may have attached no ideas. Being little inclined
or accustomed to reflection, they often hear, read, or even rehearse from
memory, the plainest language that can be uttered, and yet have no very
distinct apprehension of what it means. What marvel then, that in a study
abounding with terms taken in a peculiar or technical sense, many of which,
in the common manuals, are either left undefined, or are explained but
loosely or erroneously, they should often be greatly puzzled, and sometimes
totally discouraged?
6. _Simple ideas_ are derived, not from teaching, but from sensation or
consciousness; but _complex ideas_, or the notions which we have of such
things as consist of various parts, or such as stand in any known
relations, are definable. A person can have no better definition of _heat_,
or of _motion_, than what he will naturally get by _moving_ towards a
_fire_. Not so of our complex or general ideas, which constitute science.
The proper objects of scientific instruction consist in those genuine
perceptions of pure mind, which form the true meaning of generic names, or
common nouns; and he who is properly qualified to teach, can for the most
part readily tell what should be understood by such words. But are not many
teachers too careless here? For instance: a boy commencing the process of
calculation, is first told, that, "Arithmetic is the art of computing by
numbers," which sentence he partly understands; but should he ask his
teacher, "What is a _number_, in arithmetic?" what answer will he get? Were
Goold Brown so asked, he would simply say, "_A number, in arithmetic, is an
expression that tells how many_;" for every expression that tells how many,
is a number in arithmetic, and nothing else is. But as no such definition
is contained in _the books_,[66] there are ten chances to one, that, simple
as the matter is, the readiest master you shall find, will give an
erroneous answer. Suppose the teacher should say, "That is a question which
I have not thought of; turn to your dictionary." The boy reads from Dr.
Webster: "NUMBER--the designation of a unit in reference to other units, or
in reckoning, counting, enumerating."--"Yes," replies the master, "that is
it; Dr. Webster is unrivalled in giving definitions." Now, has the boy been
instructed, or only puzzled? Can he conceive how the number _five_ can be a
_unit_? or how the word _five_, the figure 5, or the numeral letter V, is
"the designation of a _unit_?" He knows that each of these is a number, and
that the oral monosyllable _five_ is the same number, in an other form; but
is still as much at a loss for a proper answer to his question, as if he
had never seen either schoolmaster or dictionary. So is it with a vast
number of the simplest things in grammar.
7. Since what we denominate scientific terms, are seldom, if ever, such as
stand for ideas simple and undefinable; and since many of those which
represent general ideas, or classes of objects, may be made to stand for
more or fewer things, according to the author's notion of classification;
it is sufficiently manifest that the only process by which instruction can
effectually reach the understanding of the pupil and remove the
difficulties spoken of, is that of delivering accurate definitions. These
are requisite for the information and direction of the learner; and these
must be thoroughly impressed upon his mind, as the only means by which he
can know exactly how much and what he is to understand by our words. The
power which we possess, of making known all our complex or general ideas of
things by means of definitions, is a faculty wisely contrived in the nature
of language, for the increase and spread of science; and, in the hands of
the skillful, it is of vast avail to these ends. It is "the first and
highest philosophy," instructing mankind, to think clearly and speak
accurately; as well as to know definitely, in the unity and permanence of a
general nature, those things which never could be known or spoken of as the
individuals of an infinite and fleeting multitude.
8. And, without contradiction, the shortest and most successful way of
teaching the young mind to distinguish things according to their proper
differences, and to name or describe them aright, is, to tell in direct
terms what they severally are. Cicero intimates that all instruction
appealing to reason ought to proceed in this manner: "Omnis enim quse à
ratione suscipitur de re aliqua institutio, debet à _definitione_
proficisci, ut intelligatur quid sit id, de quo disputetur."--_Off_. Lib.
i, p. 4. Literally thus: "For all instruction which from reason is
undertaken concerning any thing, ought to proceed from a _definition_, that
it may be understood what the thing is, about which the speaker is
arguing." Little advantage, however, will be derived from any definition,
which is not, as Quintilian would have it, "Lucida et succincta rei
descriptio,"--"a clear and brief description of the thing."
9. Let it here be observed that scientific definitions are of _things_, and
not merely of _words_; or if equally of words _and_ things, they are rather
of nouns than of the other parts of speech. For a definition, in the proper
sense of the term, consists not in a mere change or explanation of the
verbal sign, but in a direct and true answer to the question, What is such
or such a thing? In respect to its extent, it must with equal exactness
include every thing which comes under the name, and exclude every thing
which does not come under the name: then will it perfectly serve the
purpose for which it is intended. To furnish such definitions, (as I have
suggested,) is work for those who are capable of great accuracy both of
thought and expression. Those who would qualify themselves for teaching any
particular branch of knowledge, should make it their first concern to
acquire clear and accurate ideas of all things that ought to be embraced in
their instructions. These ideas are to be gained, either by contemplation
upon the things themselves as they are presented naturally, or by the study
of those books in which they are rationally and clearly explained. Nor will
such study ever be irksome to him whose generous desire after knowledge, is
thus deservedly gratified.
10. But it must be understood, that although scientific definitions are
said to be _of things_, they are not copied immediately from the real
essence of the things, but are formed from the conceptions of the author's
mind concerning that essence. Hence, as Duncan justly remarks, "A mistaken
idea never fails to occasion a mistake also in the definition." Hence, too,
the common distinction of the logicians, between definitions of the _name_
and definitions of the _thing_, seems to have little or no foundation. The
former term they applied to those definitions which describe the objects of
pure intellection, such as triangles, and other geometrical figures; the
latter, to those which define objects actually existing in external nature.
The mathematical definitions, so noted for their certainty and
completeness, have been supposed to have some peculiar preëminence, as
belonging to the former class. But, in fact the idea of a triangle exists
as substantively in the mind, as that of a tree, if not indeed more so; and
if I define these two objects, my description will, in either case, be
equally a definition both of the name and of the thing; but in neither, is
it copied from any thing else than that notion which I have conceived, of
the common properties of all triangles or of all trees.
11. Infinitives, and some other terms not called nouns, may be taken
abstractly or substantively, so as to admit of what may be considered a
regular definition; thus the question, "What is it _to read?_" is nearly
the same as, "What is _reading?_" "What is it _to be wise?_" is little
different from, "What is _wisdom?_" and a true answer might be, in either
case, a true definition. Nor are those mere translations or explanations of
words, with which our dictionaries and vocabularies abound, to be dispensed
with in teaching: they prepare the student to read various authors with
facility, and furnish him with a better choice of terms, when he attempts
to write. And in making such choice, let him remember, that as affectation
of _hard_ words makes composition ridiculous, so the affectation of _easy_
and _common_ ones may make it unmanly. But not to digress. With respect to
grammar, we must sometimes content ourselves with such explications of its
customary terms, as cannot claim to be perfect definitions; for the most
common and familiar things are not always those which it is the most easy
to define. When Dr. Johnson was asked, "What is _poetry_?" he replied,
"Why, sir, it is easier to tell what it is not. We all know what _light_
is: but it is not easy _to tell what it is_."--_Boswell's Life of Johnson_,
Vol. iii, p. 402. This was thought by the biographer to have been well and
ingeniously said.
12. But whenever we encounter difficulties of this sort, it may be worth
while to seek for their _cause_. If we find it, the understanding is no
longer puzzled. Dr. Johnson seemed to his biographer, to show, by this
ready answer, the acuteness of his wit and discernment. But did not the wit
consist in adroitly excusing himself, by an illusory comparison? What
analogy is there between the things which he compares? Of the difficulty of
defining _poetry_, and the difficulty of defining _light_, the reasons are
as different as are the two things themselves, _poetry_ and _light_. The
former is something so various and complex that it is hard to distinguish
its essence from its accidents; the latter presents an idea so perfectly
simple and unique that all men conceive of it exactly in the same way,
while none can show wherein it essentially consists. But is it true, that,
"We all know _what light is_?" Is it not rather true, that we know nothing
at all about it, but what it is just as easy to tell as to think? We know
it is that reflexible medium which enables us to see; and this is
definition enough for all but the natively blind, to whom no definition
perhaps can ever convey an adequate notion of its use in respect to sight.
13. If a person cannot tell what a thing is, it is commonly considered to
be a fair inference, that he does not know. Will any grammarian say, "I
know well enough what the thing is, but I cannot tell?" Yet, taken upon
this common principle, the authors of our English grammars, (if in framing
their definitions they have not been grossly wanting to themselves in the
exercise of their own art,) may be charged, I think, with great ignorance,
or great indistinctness of apprehension; and that, too, in relation to many
things among the very simplest elements of their science. For example: Is
it not a disgrace to a man of letters, to be unable to tell accurately what
a letter is? Yet to say, with Lowth, Murray, Churchill, and a hundred
others of inferior name, that, "_A letter_ is _the first principle_ or
_least part_ of a word," is to utter what is neither good English nor true
doctrine. The two articles _a_ and _the_ are here inconsistent with each
other. "_A_ letter" is _one_ letter, _any_ letter; but "_the first
principle_ of a word" is, surely, not one or any principle taken
_indefinitely_. Equivocal as the phrase is, it must mean either _some
particular principle_, or some particular _first_ principle, of a word;
and, taken either way, the assertion is false. For it is manifest, that in
_no sense_ can we affirm of _each_ of the letters of a word, that it is
"_the first principle_" of that word. Take, for instance, the word _man_.
Is _m_ the first principle of this word? You may answer, "Yes; for it is
the first _letter_." Is _a_ the first principle? "No; it is the _second_."
But _n_ too is a letter; and is _n_ the first principle? "No; it is the
_last_!" This grammatical error might have been avoided by saying,
"_Letters_ are the first principles, or least parts, of words." But still
the definition would not be true, nor would it answer the question, What is
a letter? The true answer to which is: "A letter is an alphabetic
_character_, which commonly represents some elementary sound of human
articulation, or speech."
14. This true definition sufficiently
distinguishes letters from the marks used in punctuation, because the
latter are not alphabetic, and they represent silence, rather than sound;
and also from the Arabic figures used for numbers, because these are no
part of any alphabet, and they represent certain entire words, no one of
which consists only of one letter, or of a single element of articulation.
The same may be said of all the characters used for abbreviation; as, & for
_and_, $ for _dollars_, or the marks peculiar to mathematicians, to
astronomers, to druggists, &c. None of these are alphabetic, and they
represent significant words, and not single elementary sounds: it would be
great dullness, to assume that a word and an elementary sound are one and
the same thing. But the reader will observe that this definition embraces
_no idea_ contained in the faulty one to which I am objecting; neither
indeed could it, without a blunder. So wide from the mark is that notion of
a letter, which the popularity of Dr. Lowth and his copyists has made a
hundred-fold more common than any other![67] According to an other
erroneous definition given by these same gentlemen, "_Words_ are articulate
_sounds_, used by common consent, as signs of our ideas."--_Murray's
Gram._, p. 22; _Kirkham's_, 20; _Ingersoll's_, 7; _Alger's_, 12;
_Russell's_, 7; _Merchant's_, 9; _Fisk's_, 11; _Greenleaf's_, 20; and many
others. See _Lowth's Gram._, p. 6; from which almost all authors have taken
the notion, that words consist of "_sounds_" only. But letters are no
principles or parts of _sounds_ at all; unless you will either have visible
marks to be sounds, or the sign to be a principle or part of the thing
signified. Nor are they always principles or parts of _words_: we sometimes
write what is _not a word_; as when, by letters, we denote pronunciation
alone, or imitate brute voices. If words were formed of articulate sounds
only, they could not exist in books, or be in any wise known to the deaf
and dumb. These two primary definitions, then, are both false; and, taken
together, they involve the absurdity of dividing things acknowledged to be
indivisible. In utterance, we cannot divide consonants from their vowels;
on paper, we can. Hence letters are the least parts of written language
only; but the least parts of spoken words are syllables, and not letters.
Every definition of a consonant implies this.
15. They who cannot define a letter or a word, may be expected to err in
explaining other grammatical terms. In my opinion, nothing is well written,
that can possibly be misunderstood; and if any definition be likely to
_suggest_ a wrong idea, this alone is enough to condemn it: nor does it
justify the phraseology, to say, that a more reasonable construction can be
put upon it. By Murray and others, the young learner is told, that, "A
_vowel_ is an articulate _sound_, that can be perfectly _uttered by
itself_;" as if a vowel were nothing but a sound, and that a sort of echo,
which can _utter itself_; and next, that, "A _consonant_ is an articulate
_sound_, which cannot be perfectly uttered _without the help of_ a vowel."
Now, by their own showing, every letter is either a vowel or a consonant;
hence, according to these definitions, all the letters are articulate
_sounds_. And, if so, what is a "silent letter?" It is a _silent articulate
sound!_ Again: ask a boy, "What is a _triphthong?_" He answers in the words
of Murray, Weld, Pond, Smith, Adams, Kirkham, Merchant, Ingersoll, Bacon,
Alger, Worcester, and others: "A triphthong is the union of three vowels,
_pronounced in like manner_: as _eau_ in beau, _iew_ in view." He
accurately cites an entire paragraph from his grammar, but does he well
conceive how the three vowels in _beau_ or _view_ are "pronounced _in like
manner?_" Again: "A _syllable_ is a _sound_, either simple or _compound_,
pronounced by a single impulse of the voice."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p.
22. This definition resolves syllables into _sounds_; whereas their true
elements are _letters_. It also mistakes the participle _compounded_ for
the adjective _compound_; whereas the latter only is the true reverse of
_simple_. A _compound sound_ is a sound composed of others which may be
separated; a _sound compounded_ is properly that which is made an
ingredient with others, but which may itself be simple.
16. It is observable, that in their attempts to explain these prime
elements of grammar, Murray, and many others who have copied him, overlook
all _written_ language; whereas their very science itself took its origin,
name, and nature, from the invention of writing; and has consequently no
bearing upon any dialect which has not been written. Their definitions
absurdly resolve letters, vowels, consonants, syllables, and words, all
into _sounds_; as if none of these things had any existence on paper, or
any significance to those who read in silence. Hence, their explanations
of all these elements, as well as of many other things equally essential to
the study, are palpably erroneous. I attribute this to the carelessness
with which men have compiled or made up books of grammar; and that
carelessness to those various circumstances, already described, which have
left diligence in a grammarian no hope of praise or reward. Without
alluding here to my own books, no one being obliged to accuse himself, I
doubt whether we have any school grammar that is much less objectionable in
this respect, than Murray's; and yet I am greatly mistaken, if nine tenths
of all the definitions in Murray's system are not faulty. "It was this sort
of definitions, which made _Scaliger_ say, _'Nihil infelicius definitore
grammatico_.'"--See _Johnson's Gram. Com._, p. 351; also _Paragraph_ 5th,
above.
17. Nor can this objection be neutralized by saying, it is a mere matter of
opinion--a mere prejudice originating in rivalry. For, though we have ample
choice of terms, and may frequently assign to particular words a meaning
and an explanation which are in some degree arbitrary; yet whenever we
attempt to define things under the name which custom has positively fixed
upon them, we are no longer left to arbitrary explications; but are bound
to think and to say that only which shall commend itself to the
understanding of others, as being altogether true to nature. When a word is
well understood to denote a particular object or class of objects, the
definition of it ought to be in strict conformity to what is known of the
real being and properties of the thing or things contemplated. A definition
of this kind is a proposition susceptible of proof and illustration; and
therefore whatsoever is erroneously assumed to be the proper meaning of
such a term, may be refuted. But those persons who take every thing upon
trust, and choose both to learn and to teach mechanically, often become so
slavishly habituated to the peculiar phraseology of their text-books, that,
be the absurdity of a particular expression what it may, they can neither
discover nor suspect any inaccuracy in it. It is also very natural even for
minds more independent and acute, to regard with some reverence whatsoever
was gravely impressed upon them in childhood. Hence the necessity that all
school-books should proceed from skillful hands. Instruction should tell
things as they are, and never falter through negligence.
18. I have admitted that definitions are not the only means by which a
general knowledge of the import of language may be acquired; nor are they
the only means by which the acquisition of such knowledge may be aided. To
exhibit or point out _things_ and tell their names, constitutes a large
part of that instruction by which the meaning of words is conveyed to the
young mind; and, in many cases, a mere change or apposition of terms may
sufficiently explain our idea. But when we would guard against the
possibility of misapprehension, and show precisely what is meant by a word,
we must fairly define it. There are, however, in every language, many words
which do not admit of a formal definition. The import of all definitive and
connecting particles must be learned from usage, translation, or
derivation; and nature reserves to herself the power of explaining the
objects of our simple original perceptions. "All words standing for complex
ideas are definable; but those by which we denote simple ideas, are not.
For the perceptions of this latter class, having no other entrance into the
mind, than by sensation or reflection, can be acquired only by
experience."--_Duncan's Logic_, p. 63. "And thus we see, that as our simple
ideas are the materials and foundation of knowledge, so the names of simple
ideas may be considered as the elementary parts of language, beyond which
we cannot trace the meaning and signification of words. When we come to
them, we suppose the ideas for which they stand to be already known; or, if
they are not, experience alone must be consulted, and not definitions or
explications."--_Ibid._, p. 69.
19. But this is no apology for the defectiveness of any definition which
might be made correct, or for the effectiveness of our English grammars, in
the frequent omission of all explanation, and the more frequent adoption of
some indirect form of expression. It is often much easier to make some
loose observation upon what is meant by a given word or term in science,
than to frame a faultless definition of the thing; because it is easier to
refer to some of the relations, qualities, offices, or attributes of
things, than to discern wherein their essence consists, so as to be able to
tell directly and clearly what they are. The improvement of our grammatical
code in this respect, was one of the principal objects which I thought it
needful to attempt, when I first took up the pen as a grammarian. I cannot
pretend to have seen, of course, every definition and rule which has been
published on this subject; but, if I do not misjudge a service too humble
for boasting, I have myself framed a greater number of new or improved
ones, than all other English grammarians together. And not a few of them
have, since their first publication in 1823, been complimented to a place
in other grammars than my own. This is in good keeping with the authorship
which has been spoken of in an other chapter; but I am constrained to say,
it affords no proof that they were well written. If it did, the definitions
and rules in Murray's grammar must undoubtedly be thought the most correct
that ever have been given: they have been more frequently copied than any
others.
20. But I have ventured to suggest, that nine tenths of this author's
definitions are bad, or at least susceptible of some amendment. If this can
be shown to the satisfaction of the reader, will he hope to find an other
English grammar in which the eye of criticism may not detect errors and
deficiencies with the same ease? My object is, to enforce attention to the
proprieties of speech; and this is the very purpose of all grammar. To
exhibit here all Murray's definitions, with criticisms upon them, would
detain us too long. We must therefore be content to take a part of them as
a sample. And, not to be accused of fixing only upon the worst, we will
take a _series_. Let us then consider in their order his definitions of the
nine parts of speech;--for, calling the participle a verb, he reduces the
sorts of words to that number. And though not one of his nine definitions
now stands exactly as it did in his early editions, I think it may be said,
that not one of them is now, if it ever has been, expressed grammatically.
21. FIRST DEFINITION:--"An Article is a word _prefixed_ to substantives,
_to point them out_, and to show how far their[68] signification
extends."--_Murray, and others, from, Lowth's Gram._, p. 10. This is
obscure. In what manner, or in what respect, does an article point out
substantives? To point them out _as such_, or to show which words are
substantives, seems at first view to be the meaning intended; but it is
said soon after, "_A_ or _an_ is used in a vague sense, to _point out_ one
single _thing_ of the kind, in other respects _indeterminate_; as, 'Give me
_a_ book;' 'Bring me _an_ apple.'"--_Lowth_, p. 11; _Murray_, p. 31. And
again: "It is _of the nature_ of both the articles to determine or limit
_the thing_ spoken of."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 170. Now to point out
_nouns_ among the parts of speech, and to point out _things_ as individuals
of their class, are very different matters; and which of these is the
purpose for which articles are used, according to Lowth and Murray? Their
definition says the former, their explanations imply the latter; and I am
unable to determine which they really meant. The term _placed before_ would
have been better than "_prefixed_;" because the latter commonly implies
junction, as well as location. The word "_indeterminate_" is not a very
easy one for a boy; and, when he has found out what it means, he may
possibly not know to which of the four preceding nouns it ought to be
referred:--"in a vague _sense_, to point out one single _thing_ of the
_kind_, in other _respects_ indeterminate." What is this "vague sense?" and
what is it, that is "indeterminate?"
22. SECOND DEFINITION:--"A Substantive or Noun is the name of any thing
_that_ exists, or of _which_ we have any notion."--_Murray, and others_.
According to his own syntax, this sentence of Murray's is wrong; for he
himself suggests, that when two or more relative clauses refer to the same
antecedent, the same pronoun should be used in each. Of clauses connected
like these, this is true. He should therefore have said, "A Substantive, or
Noun, is the name of any thing _which_ exists, or of _which_ we have any
notion." His rule, however, though good against a text like this, is
utterly wrong in regard to many others, and not very accurate in taking
_two_ for a "_series_" thus: "Whatever relative is used, in one of a
_series_ of clauses relating to the same antecedent, the same relative
ought, generally to be used in _them all_. In the following sentence, _this
rule is violated_: 'It is remarkable, that Holland, against _which_ the war
was undertaken, and _that_, in the very beginning, was reduced to the
brink of destruction, lost nothing.' The clause ought to have been, 'and
_which_ in the very beginning.'"--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 155. But both
the rule and the example, badly as they correspond, were borrowed from
Priestley's Grammar, p. 102, where the text stands thus: "Whatever relative
_be_ used, in one of a _series_ of clauses, relating to the same
antecedent, the same ought to be used in _them all_. 'It is remarkable,
that Holland,'" &c.
23. THIRD DEFINITION:--"An Adjective is a word added to a substantive, to
express _its_ quality."--_Lowth, Murray, Bullions, Pond, and others_. Here
we have the choice of two meanings; but neither of them is according to
truth. It seems doubtful whether "_its_ quality" is the _adjective's_
quality, or the _substantive's_; but in either sense, the phrase is false;
for an adjective is added to a noun, not to express any quality either of
the adjective or of the noun, but to express some quality of the _thing
signified_ by the noun. But the definition is too much restricted; for
adjectives may be added to pronouns as well as to nouns, nor do they always
express _quality_.
24. FOURTH DEFINITION:--"A Pronoun is a word used instead of a noun, to
_avoid the too frequent_ repetition of _the same word_."--_Dr. Ash's
Gram._, p. 25; _Murray's_, 28 and 50; _Felton's_, 18; _Alger's_, 13;
_Bacon's_, 10; _and others_. The latter part of this sentence is needless,
and also contains several errors. 1. The verb _avoid_ is certainly very
ill-chosen; because it implies intelligent agency, and not that which is
merely instrumental. 2. The article _the_ is misemployed for _a_; for,
"_the_ too frequent repetition," should mean _some particular_ too frequent
repetition--an idea not intended here, and in itself not far from
absurdity. 3. The phrase, "_the same word_" may apply to the pronoun itself
as well as to the noun: in saying, "_I_ came, _I_ saw, _I_ conquered,"
there is as frequent a repetition of _the same word_, as in saying,
"_Cæsar_ came, _Cæsar_ saw, _Cæsar_ conquered." If, therefore, the latter
part of this definition must be retained, the whole should be written thus:
"A Pronoun is a word used _in stead_ of a noun, to _prevent_ too frequent
_a_ repetition of _it_."
25. FIFTH DEFINITION:--"A Verb is a word which signifies _to be, to do_, or
_to suffer_"--_Lowth, Murray, and others_. NOTE:--"A verb may generally be
distinguished by _its making sense_ with any of the personal pronouns, or
the word _to_ before it."--_Murray, and others_. It is confessedly
difficult to give a perfect definition of a _verb_; and if, with Murray, we
will have the participles to be verbs, there must be no small difficulty in
forming one that shall be tolerable. Against the foregoing old explanation,
it may be objected, that the phrase _to suffer_, being now understood in a
more limited sense than formerly, does not well express the nature or
import of a passive verb. I have said, "A Verb is a word that signifies _to
be, to act_, or _to be acted upon_." Children cannot readily understand,
how every thing that is in any way _acted upon_, may be said _to suffer_.
The participle, I think, should be taken as a distinct part of speech, and
have its own definition. The note added by Murray to his definition of a
verb, would prove the participle not to be included in this part of speech,
and thus practically contradict his scheme. It is also objectionable in
respect to construction. The phrase "_by its making sense_" is at least
very questionable English; for "_its making_" supposes _making_ to be a
noun, and "_making sense_" supposes it to be an active participle. But
Lowth says, "Let it be either the one or the other, and abide by its own
construction." Nay, the author himself, though he therein contradicts an
other note of his own, virtually condemns the phrase, by his caution to the
learner against treating words in _ing_, "as if they were of an _amphibious
species_, partly nouns and partly verbs."--_Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 193.